Sexuality, Theories of

Scholarship on sexuality quite frequently begins with a set of definitions. This is a wise move in a field that is rapidly expanding in the academy yet comparatively underdeveloped in education. Given that the terminology is complex and much of it refers to concepts that are not fixed, definitions are imperative. Gender, the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and expectations regarding what it means to be male and female, shifts over time and between cultures and varies from person to person. Sex is defined biologically, although this concept cannot be reduced to a simple pairing of chromosomes; common variations exist between XX (female) and XY (male), and millions of intersexed people are born with or develop physical ambiguities that preclude sex classification on the basis of visual inspection. Some people are transgendered; their gender identity does not correspond to their biological sex.

Sexual orientation is a state of being; it has to do with whom one is drawn to, emotionally and sexually. Heterosexual people are attracted to people of the opposite sex, gay men and lesbians are attracted to people of the same sex, and bisexual people are attracted to people of the opposite sex and the same sex. All people have a basic sexual orientation, whether or not they engage in sexual behavior. People who are uncomfortable claiming a sexual orientation identity are referred to as questioning. Many people have reclaimed the word queer as a term of empowerment. Some use it primarily as an inclusive term for all people who have a homosexual or bisexual orientation and for those who are intersexed or transgendered. Others use it to emphasize the complexity and fluid nature of human sexuality and gender, to deconstruct the dominant belief in a heterosexual/homosexual binary.

The question of what determines one's sexual orientation is as much (if not more) about politics and culture as it is about science. Before the sexologists of the late nineteenth century suggested that one's sexual desires were tied to an inherent characteristic, sexual behavior was explained as an act of free choice. The dominant culture classified homosexual behavior as a moral transgression generally, but an act of free choice nonetheless. Later, when sexologists such as Havelock Ellis theorized about women's sexual desires for other women, their science attributed “sexual inversion” to genetics even as concerns about the influence of feminism interpolated their writings. Throughout the twentieth century, scientists offered an array of psychological and biological theories to explain sexual orientation, and claims for tipping the scale toward “nature” or “nurture” headline newsmagazines still today. It is generally accepted among scholars, however, that a multifactor model is most accurate; sexual orientation is quite likely the product of biological disposition and environmental factors and, some would add, free choice.

Although same-sex desire is known to have existed across centuries and cultures, the notion of homosexuality dates to the late nineteenth century. Throughout the 1980s, historians debated whether or not same-sex identity has existed across time. Essentialists argued that people who loved people of their own sex have always incorporated this aspect of their lives into their sense of self and that they were conscious that their sexual orientation set them apart from others. Social constructionists countered that social forces shape human identities; that is, certain social conditions were necessary before one could conceive of an identity based on sexual orientation. To be sure, they argued, people are aware of particular human differences such as sexual orientation or skin color, but these are not always the basis for constructing one's sense of self. Although some activists still call up the essentialist argument for political purposes, in recent years, this debate has subsided among historians. In the give-andtake of scholarly discourse, writers have clarified their perspectives, moved from the extremes of the theoretical poles, and acknowledged some critical observations in both theories. The social constructionist approach, fitting so well with the historian's disciplinary practice of setting events in their political-economic context, now provides the major theoretical framework for scholarship in gay and lesbian history.

...