Queering animal sexual behavior in biology textbooks

Abstract

Biology is instrumental in establishing and perpetuating societal norms of gender and sexuality, owing to its afforded authoritative role in formulating beliefs about what is “natural”. However, philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science have shown how conceptions of gender and sexuality pervade the supposedly objective knowledge produced by the natural sciences. For example, in describing animal relationships, biologists sometimes use the metaphor of marriage, which brings with it conceptions of both cuckoldry and male ownership of female partners. These conceptions have often led researchers to overlook female behavior and adaptations, such as female initiation of mating. Such social norms and ideologies influence both theories and research in biology. Social norms of gender and sexuality also influence school cultures. Although awareness of gender issues has had a major impact in Sweden during recent years, the interventions conducted have been based on a heteronormative understanding of sex; this has rendered sexual norms a non-prioritized issue and thereby rendered non-heterosexuals invisible in teaching and textbooks. Since this research was published in 2007 and 2009, norm critical pedagogics have been included in the Swedish National Agency for Education’s guidelines for teaching. This inclusion represents one way to tackle the recurring problem of heterosexuality being described as a naturalized “normal” behavior and homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals being described from a heteronormative perspective. In this paper, I employ gender and queer perspectives to scrutinize how animal sexual behavior is described and explained in Swedish biology textbooks. The analysis is based in gender and queer theory, feminist science studies, and evolutionary biology. The article begins with an outline a discussion of my theoretical framework, relating gender and queer perspectives on evolutionary biology to a discussion of queer methodology. I then scrutinize some empirical examples drawn from five contemporary biology textbooks used in secondary schools (by students aged 16-18 years old). Finally, I discuss the implications of the textbooks’ representations of animal sexual behavior, the problems of and need for a “textbook-version”, and providing examples of what an inclusive approach to biology education might look like.

Fourteen Recommendations to Create a More Inclusive Environment for LGBTQ+ Individuals in Academic Biology

“…However, textbooks may contain heteronormative, strictly binary views of sex/gender and sexuality in sections such as evolution and the endocrine system ( Bazzul and Sykes, 2011 ). Discussions of evolution rarely include alternatives to binary sex or heterosexuality ( Ah-King, 2013 ), despite the existence of same-sex sexual behaviors having been identified in a wide variety of taxa ( Bailey and Zuk, 2009 ). Similarly, “sex hormones” are often presented in textbooks as sex-exclusive physiologies, a standpoint that incorrectly supports binary sex and sex/gender determinism ( Nehm and Young, 2008 ).…”

“…Most biology textbooks continue to perpetuate the idea of strictly binary sexes and are silent about sexuality beyond heteronormative behaviors ( Snyder and Broadway, 2004 ) in both humans ( Bazzul and Sykes, 2011 ) and nonhuman animals ( Ah-King, 2013 ). In their review of eight biology textbooks for secondary schools, Snyder and Broadway (2004) report that the term “homosexuality” was only used in the context of explanations about AIDS.…”

The production of contraceptive cyborgs in Swedish upper secondary sexuality education

“…Malin Ah-King and Sören Nylin (2010) have done similar work but on animal mating behaviors. Consequently, the description of stereotypical and heterosexual patterns in biological and reproductive research affects the content of school textbooks (Ah-King, 2013).…”

Naturkunskapens sexualitets- och relationsundervisning analyserad ur ett heteronormativitetsperspektiv

“…Att homosexualitet beskrivs som något som gått fel i fosterutvecklingen som möjligen skulle kunna botas eller en genetisk variation på en gen som skulle kunna leda till abort, är särskilt problematiskt då homosexualitet därmed framställs som något icke önskvärt. Liknade följemeningar har också identifierats i tidigare forskning, där både läro-medelsanalyser (Ah-King, 2013;Bazzul & Sykes, 2011) och klassrumsstudier (Orlander, 2014) visat på hur heterosexualitet på olika sätt framställs som "naturlig", vilket får till följd att andra sexualiteter konstrueras som "onaturliga". Ytterligare en allmän följemening är att genom de upprepade referenserna till naturvetenskapliga förklaringar ges detta perspektiv tolkningsföreträde, vilket kan sägas ha visst stöd i det centrala innehållet i ämnesplanen för naturkunskap, men framstår som begränsande i relation till hur Skolverket på hemsidan poängterar att identitet, relationer, normer och sexualitet måste förstås som verkande i ett komplext samspel.…”

“…Internationella studier av sexualitets-och relationsundervisning visar också på liknande konstruktioner av heteronormativitet som den här beskrivna nordiska forskningen (Elia & Eliason, 2010;Gowen & Winges-Yanez, 2013) Undersökningar av de normer rörande sexualitet som kommuniceras i naturvetenskaplig undervisning visar på samma mönster som sexualitets-och relationsundervisningen beskriven ovan. Queerteoretiska studier har påvisat olika sätt på vilka naturvetenskaplig undervisning är heteronormativ och därmed begränsande i termer av vilka identiteter som görs synliga och möjliga i klassrummet (Ah-King, 2013;Letts, 2001;Snyder & Broadway, 2004). Vid läromedelsanalyser fann både Snyder och Broadway (2004) och Bazzul och Sykes (2011) att de gymnasieläroböcker i biologi som undersök-tes uteslutande konstruerade sexualitet i termer av heterosexualitet.…”