Sexual "Orientation" Is Too Simple

 I've been slogging my way through Herbert Blumer's classical treatise on Symbolic Interactionism. Important - not exactly a page turner. He explains the assumptions of symbolic interactionism (basically, that we create society from moment to moment through our interactions with each other, and that we act based on a shared sense of meaning of objects and situations and perceptions). He also dives into research methodology, and condemns his contemporary peers for scientific studies that fail to incorporate real observations and experiences and analyses of "the empirical world" as he calls it. In other words, we can't start hypothesizing or designing surveys or drawing conclusions about an aspect of society if we have not established the validity of our mental images or theoretical frameworks about that topic. "The predominant procedure," he asserts, "is to take for granted one's premises about the nature of the empirical world and not to examine those premises; to take one's problems as valid because they sound good, to regard as empirically valid the data one chooses because such data fit one's conception of the problem; to be satisfied with the empirical relevance of one's concepts because they have a nice connotative ring or because they are current intellectual coins of the realm" (pg. 33). We are far more likely to allow our theories and concepts to "coerce the research" to suit one's form. "In this sense, much current scientific inquiry in the social sciences is actually social philosophizing" (p. 34).

Whenever we study an area of society, we come to it with unconscious stereotypes and biases, assumptions that we make, a picture we have created based on our previous experiences. Blumer argues that we cannot solve that problem by diving into a scientific study - in fact, that will likely worsen the problem because then we feel SURE that we KNOW something, when in fact we have only found ways to validate our preexisting notions.

There are so many good examples. Blumer points out the popularity of intelligence tests, and how merely operationalizing the concept of intelligence (so we can measure it!) doesn't actually mean we're measuring what we claim to measure. Anyone who knows a good military strategist, or a slum survivor, or a brilliant poet, or an ingenious business developer recognizes that the type of competence measured by intelligence tests captures only a small fragment of what may be characterized as intelligence.

Another example: Good research in the 1930's hypothesized that the facial or cranial features of an individual were related to their criminal conduct. "Negroid" features in particular were characteristic of all kinds of negative social behaviors. This research was usually done correctly - they asked the research question, they may have had a good sample size, their statistical analysis was probably spot on, and the resulting data proved that black people were more likely to be socially inferior, as demonstrated by their clearly inferior physical makeup. The research validated all of the racist dogmas and policies of the time. Just because a hypothesis was tested, however, does not mean truth was discovered. At no point was there a practical exploration of the premises of the study, or whether the concepts made sense, or whether the methodology truly captured what was going on, or whether the conclusions were actually borne out. Truth can only come from a "direct examination of the empirical world."

In modern terms, Blumer emphasizes the critical first component of the scientific method, which is observation. A theoretical framework can't "talk back" to us the way empirical reality can. Empirical reality comes from firsthand acquaintance with the sphere of life - "free exploration in the area, getting close to the people involved in it, seeing it in a variety of situations they meet, noting their problems and observing how they handle them, being party to their conversations, and watching their life as it flows along."

Furthermore, "the scholar who lacks that firsthand familiarity is highly unlikely to recognize that he is missing anything" (p. 37). Our focus on correct scientific protocol "becomes the unwitting substitute for a direct examination of the empirical social world."

This direct examination requires flexibility, doing whatever is ethically allowable to get a clearer picture of what is going on. he should "cultivate assiduously a readiness to view his area of study in new ways...to ask all kinds of questions, even seemingly ludicrous questions...to sensitize the observer to different and new perspectives...to record all observations that challenge one's working conceptions as well as any observation that is odd and interesting even though its relevance is not immediately clear." Darwin was the master of this strategy of exploration, asking new and different questions, writing down observations that later became "the pivots for a fruitful redirection of (his) perspective." Better description alone often answers questions without having to evoke a fancy, complicated theoretical scheme.

I hope no one has fallen asleep yet. This is what I read for fun.

Now let's talk about LESBIANS...

A friend commented on the statistic that most lesbians first sexual experiences were rape or some other kind of sexual assault. How do we interpret this? Well, there are many ways - some would say that rape causes one's orientation to change, some might claim that orientation can't change and therefore lesbian girls are more likely to find themselves in precarious situations, some would say it doesn't matter, orientation is as important as yogurt preference...there are many ways to interpret this fact. Normally, I would jump to theorizing as well. But in the spirit of Herbert Blumer, maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves...

How many of us who are jumping to conclusions about this topic have significant personal experience with the world of middle and high school girls and their sexual feelings, attitudes and experiences? (Having been a teenage girl at one point doesn't count) If we don't, we may not realize that we are missing something...we may not realize that the very picture from which we are arguing is flawed. The concepts themselves may be misleading. Our premises may be totally missing the mark. Without a doubt, our conceptualization of the issue is far less complete and complex than the reality we claim to be discussing. We may actually be debating a cartoon version of empirical reality.

Without claiming to have conducted significant ethnographic research in this particular area, let me throw out a guess. I would guess, that if we were to interview hundreds of teenage girls about their sexual feelings, attitudes and experiences, we would find that they are rarely simple, linear, or naturally prone to be categorized. I would guess that what girls and women find arousing is more than just about sex but also body types and parts, external vs. internal characteristics, experiences, time, moods, and social climate. 

Maybe trying to decide whether someone is "lesbian" or "gay" or even softening the line with "bisexual" assumes a picture of sexuality that is far too simplistic. If we followed Blumer's cue and acquainted ourselves with this area of research WITHOUT prematurely attaching labels to our findings and concepts, without theorizing what we will find in advance and then devising methods to validate it, our experience with reality - the "reality of the empirical world" - might actually lead us to some interesting discoveries. My guess is, those discoveries would encourage us to shy away from any kind of sexual labels and instead teach us something really remarkable about ourselves. 

My Experience As a Woman in the Church

I had a friend recently share a post from an ex-Mormon about the things she didn't like about the church. Among other things, she claimed that the church is inherently sexist.

I was hurt, of course. And I’m always surprised to see comments like that. To contrast her claim, my 36 years of experience in the church has been virtually the opposite of sexism. For most of my life, the church has been the only entity that empowered me as a young woman to study my "Individual Worth" and "Divine Nature", to develop my talents, to be a force for good in the world, to recognize the sacredness of womanhood and to see motherhood as a divine gift and responsibility instead of a nuisance. My experience in the church has always featured male and female leaders with enormous respect for each other. Sheri Dew, Linda K. Burton, Elaine Dalton, Eliza R. Snow, Emma Smith – these are my role models and some of the best women I know: women with integrity, grace, beauty and strength that they have developed because of, not in spite of, the teachings of the church. 

Certainly enough has been written about the topic of women in the church that my voice may not delineate anything new. But as someone who has personally experienced the power that comes from the church’s teachings and practices around gender and womanhood, I feel the need to add my small teaspoon of testimony into the ocean of evidence that this church is truly being led by God.

In the 1800s, at a time when American women were denied the right to vote, enter most universities, or manage property, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was paying for women to go to schools in the East and obtain medical degrees. In fact, the church covered the cost of their books and tuition and travel and their wards took care of their families while they were gone. The church helped women start their own businesses. Utah was the second state to allow women to right to vote. While most of the country still believed that women served little purpose other than to bear children, Joseph Smith told the women in 1842, “The Church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized." In fact, when the idea of a women’s organization was initially proposed - to fundraise and gather clothing for the temple builders – Joseph Smith rejected the tiny scope of their mission and instead declared that the Lord "has something better for them than a written Constitution." He expressed his love and appreciation for the women of the church and gave them great promises. "If this Society listen to the counsel of the Almighty, they shall have power to command queens in their midst.” And “If you live up to your privileges, the angels cannot be restrained from being your associates." Emma Smith affirmed in that first meeting that "We are going to do something extraordinary," and we certainly have, from then on. Because of the organization of the Relief Society, the Lord affirmed a special role for women, rejecting the socially accepted premise that women were the “weaker sex”, and that the characteristics of women were actually divine gifts to help them fulfill a critical role in God’s work.

Since the ERA movement of the 1970s, the pendulum of Western thought has swung from denigrating womanhood to valuing the masculine attributes within women. This has led to more opportunities for women, which is wonderful, but also created social expectations that a woman’s value is measured by the extent to which she embodies characteristics typical of men: physical strength, assertiveness, power and position, sexual liberation. And yet the majority of women still fail to see how physical vulnerability, weakness, beauty, and sensitivity are in fact sources of power that enable us to influence others and promote social change.

Both swings of the gender pendulum have missed the mark. Both continue to undermine the importance of womanhood. The reason we haven’t seen similar great shifts in the church is because the teachings of church leaders since the very beginning have laid out a vision for womanhood that is already both defining and empowering. Because of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, I am able to see how both historic views of women are flawed, and how God's view of women not only liberates us from the host of social expectations that has produced such staggeringly high rates of anxiety and depression among women, but it makes sacred the things I already am, the things I already love. It brings the natural role of motherhood into the realm of divinity. It strengthens and enables my desires to serve, to build my community, to save souls, to develop my talents. Without it, women are pressured to prioritize careers over family, trivialize homemaking, and derive their sense of self-worth from how they measure up to men and the values of men. Even as I write this, I still find in myself a struggle to let go of the need to assess my value by how well I fit these parameters; by how much I’m paid and what kind of worldly recognition I receive. 

If I didn't have the church, I wouldn't know who I was and how special God made me. If we as women don’t think we’re anything special, then there isn’t anything special we have to do. In fact, we have a mission that is so much more important than the size of our salary or the credentials on our resume. I am not just a homo sapiens - I am a daughter of God. And because of that, my life has meaning, purpose, and direction. This is not what I learn in biology, or history, or even sociology. This is what I learned in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We have a special identity, and therefore a special purpose. I once made this comment in a Relief Society meeting, and had a women approach me afterward. “What do you mean? Like, I know this sounds dumb but what IS so special about being a woman?” I have since heard similar frustrations echoed in other settings. One possible reason we struggle to understand the importance of our identity as women in Western society is because, other than our reproductive capabilities, we don't have a really good idea of what sets us apart. This is not by accident. For the last fifty years, social scientists like me have made consistent, calculated efforts to downplay and undermine studies demonstrating differences between men and women. There’s a good reason for this, in their eyes. In a feminist framework (which is based on conflict theory), acknowledging any differences between two groups creates inequality, and therefore an imbalance of power. If we acknowledge statistical differences between men and women, we promote sexism. “Oh, you need a negotiator? Well we’d better hire a woman because women are statistically better at negotiating.” Nobody wants that.

Once again, the paradigm of competition makes it impossible to view differences as anything other than quantitative. In Leonard Hayes book The Importance of Gender, he highlights some of the following scientific findings:

- Men and women's eyes are constructed differently at every layer. Our rods and cones are connected to nerve cells in such a way that men are more likely to notice movement, spatial orientation, and women's eyes focus more on color, texture and detail.

- Men and women react differently to different dosages of medication - as well as drugs and alcohol

- Men process more information longitudinally through the hemispheres of the brain, women process more information laterally across the hemispheres

- Men and women experience different hormonal reactions to emotions like fear and anger. 

- Men and women experience the desire for sex in completely different parts of the brain, one that controls appetite and one that focuses on decision-making and judgment

- Male and female day-old infants spend different amounts of time gazing at a smiling face (girls more) verses a spinning mobile (boys more)

This is just a small sampling. Dr. Leonard’s goal is to push back against the idea that differences in gender are all socially determined, and to help us identify more effective approaches in parenting and teaching boys and girls. How can we prevent sexism if we acknowledge these things? We promote opportunities, without forcing expectations. Boys can play with trucks and dinosaurs if they want to, and we make other toys available if they change their mind. Girls can take piano and dance lessons, but there is also a girls' soccer team available. Boys are free to become nurses and elementary school teachers, but we don't shame them if they choose to pursue MBAs or politics instead. The natural result of these relaxed expectations is that men and women, boys and girls, will often make decisions that are influenced by their gender. And that’s okay. Pretending the differences don’t exist is not the answer, and it actually creates many more problems.

The point is this, these are studies that have been conceived of and carried out by scientists – and even these are barely understood or acknowledged by women today. How many other things does our Heavenly Father see in the identity of manhood and womanhood that we are still unaware of? What other sources of strength and power are we completely unaware of?

On a side note: One thing I have been curious about is the claim of trans-gendered individuals that they feel stuck in the wrong body, or that they "feel" like they are the other gender. With just a cursory look at the list above, I would ask, how could they possibly know? They may feel different, sure, and they may see characteristics in themselves that are more typical of one gender than the other, but if we sort through all of these thousands of studies, the differences between men and women are often subtle but incredibly profound, and so fundamentally related to our perception and processing of the world around us, I would counter there is literally no way a man could truly understand what it means to be a woman, and vice versa. Being allowed to simply decide one's gender completely ignores the multitude of differences that make people so uniquely, and so entirely, male or female. Changing one's clothing or even genitals to be accepted into that category is just as superfluous as me putting on black face and claiming to be African American.

Gender is not an accident, and it's not superfluous - it is an eternal part of our identity. It's not a limiting identity - There are all kinds of men, and all kinds of women, just as there are all kinds of twenty year-olds and sixty year-olds, and all kinds of Mexicans and Koreans. Our identity is important, and wonderful, and I learned this from being in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Important issues can rarely be captured in a single Tweet or meme, and the same thing is true with gender. For those who look at the church from the perspective of conflict theory or feminism, they will see inequality and oppression, no doubt. In this church, we hold different positions; we play different roles; we interact and are sometimes even treated differently (in General Conference, men are more often chastised, and women more often are reassured). If your definition of inequality is simply acknowledging differences, then you’ll find ample evidence. But who is more important in creating life, a mother or father? Neither - for every child is an equal combination of the two. I believe this particular example is God's way of letting us see how two very different creatures, with very different roles in the creation and protection of life, are still equal in God's eyes.

If we can begin to see ourselves as men and women the way God does, and let go of our philosophical need to view the world in terms of competition and oppression and fairness, I believe gender will simultaneously become more meaningful and also less of a big deal. Understanding and appreciating this one aspect of our identity will give us greater peace, greater joy, greater freedom, greater appreciation for the gifts and talents of ourselves and others, and greater direction for the mission that He has for each of us. It will allow us to focus on becoming great women and men without comparing ourselves to each other. I know this is true. I’m so grateful to be a woman, and have the sacred privilege of being a wife and mother. I’m so happy to know who I am, and that God loves me just the way I am. Most of all, I’m grateful for the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - the prophets, bishops, Relief Society presidents and Young Women teachers that have brought me closer to Christ, who is the source of all wisdom.