Evolutionary Psychology Is Horribly Heteronormative and Sexist

So many of us accept evolutionary psychology as common sense.

Not enough of us question what the theory implies about women and LGBTQ+ people.

To be clear, I’m not interested in arguing about how the world was created or any other theological issue. I’m only critiquing the implications of the theory, especially the parts about procreation.

We need to remember that evolutionary psychology was developed by cishet white men. So even if their intentions were benign, they have their biases and blind spots.

In a nutshell, evolutionary psychology posits that men and women use different mating strategies to propagate their genes. Since men only need to ejaculate, it’s within their nature to want to impregnate many women. Since women need to go through about nine months of pregnancy, they would want a resourceful, long-term partner to help them raise their kids. So men would want multiple partners and women only one partner.

As a disclaimer, I don’t have a problem with polyamory, where both parties are allowed to have more than one partner. Rather, I am denouncing the bigoted idea of “one man, multiple women,” where women are only allowed to have one male partner, while men can have many female partners.

Misogyny

My first gripe against evolutionary psychology, is that many people use it to justify misogyny. They use the theory to argue that it’s natural for men to cheat on women, as well as to abandon their aging wives for younger women. No, natural doesn’t mean right, but it’s sexist to even assume that men’s mistreatment of women is natural.

On the other side of the coin, evolutionary theory demonizes men. Yes, there are plenty of cheating bastards out there, but this completely erases the men who do not do such treacherous and hurtful things towards women. Not to mention that there are women who cheat on their male partners, too.

Heteronormativity

Furthermore, evolutionary psychology assumes that we are all cisgender, we all fall in love with and mate with the opposite gender, and want to have children with them.

It’s sad to see such cisnormativity and rigid gender roles, where men are seen as fertilizers who spread their seed, and women as the baby carriers. What a reductionist view of people. Not to mention the complete invalidation of trans men, trans women, and nonbinary and gender-fluid people.

As a transmasc nonbinary person, I resent being seen as nothing more than a reproductive vessel. And I hate how because I have a womb, evolutionary theory will see me as a woman, even though after medical transitioning, I look like a man in most people’s eyes now.

(Note: Medical transitioning and appearing male to most people, is not required to be transmasc. Your gender identity is valid regardless of what other people believe!)

And of course, aromantic and asexual folks are entirely erased in this procreation-centric theory.

Occasionally you see “explanations” for the existence of gay (cis) people. One popular theory is that gay people will take care of our straight relatives’ kids, and thus enhance the longevity of our family.

Another theory, is that there are genes that give men desirable “feminine” traits like empathy, kindness, and sensitivity. If a man only has a few of these genes, he will be a sensitive and caring straight guy. If a man has a lot of these genes, then even his mate preferences are “feminized,” and he will be attracted to men. This completely dismisses lesbian women, who have a feminine gender identity but aren’t attracted to men.

A third theory is that genes that code for attraction to men and greater fertility, are beneficial for women, in terms of reproductive fitness. But sometimes, these genes appear in their male relatives, and these men will be gay.

There are more ridiculous theories that I will not mention here.

Some researchers may have good intentions and want to persuade the public to accept gay people as natural. Yet, these theories are troubling and disturbing. At the base of it, they’re saying that gay people exist to support straight people. Or, worse, gay people are an accidental byproduct of some straight people traits.

The theories still paint heterosexuality as the desirable, optimal state. Straight people are placed at the center of the world, while we gay folks revolve around them. Heterosexuals are cast as the stars, and we queer folks are the sidekicks and minor characters.

Evolutionary theory is so alienating and marginalizing to those of us who are not in the majority. I myself am gay, transgender, nonbinary, as well as on the aromantic and asexual spectra. I have zero interest in being with the opposite gender and having kids. And I hate how people like me are seen as anomalies and essentially freaks of nature.

When I shared my views with a friend a long time ago, he argued that evolutionary theory was just an explanation, that it wasn’t meant to alienate LGBTQ+ people. I countered that, since he’s a cishet white man, he doesn’t know how it feels like to be seen as a social outcast and as something that shouldn’t logically exist.

I’m also not talking about the researchers’ intentions; I’m talking about the impact of this theory on people’s attitudes towards women and LGBTQIAA+ folks.

Are There Any Benign Evolutionary Theories About Gay People?

There is a theory that same-sex behavior promotes social bonding, which creates more peace and less conflict in our community. On the surface, that doesn’t sound so bad, until you think more deeply about it. Gay and bi folks can fight over same-gender partners just as much as heterosexuals fight over opposite-gender partners.

Moreover, though sex can strengthen emotional bonds, it seems forced and strange to say that sexual attraction towards the same gender, is for the sake of social cohesion and harmony.

There are so many platonic ways of social bonding, after all. And seeing sex as a social glue rather than as something exciting and joyful with someone you love, seems like dampening same-sex relationships to some pragmatic ritual for the good of the tribe.

So I still sense the vibe that “queer people exist for the sake of other people” here.

It’s not bad to be community focused and to support others. But as a proudly gay person myself, I don’t see why my private sexual feelings and crushes have anything to do with other people. Couldn’t I just enjoy whatever relationship I have in peace, with my partner, without linking it to the collective group that I belong to?

This heavy bias towards the larger collective, leads me to my final concern:

Why Does the Majority Rule?

A core belief underpinning all of these issues, is that the majority holds a dominant, central position. Even in research studies on human mating behavior, which is almost always on cishet participants, there will be people who don’t fit the pattern.

The typical research method is to dismiss the people who don’t fit the norm as outliers. Yet, these folks who are “exceptions to the rule” still exist, and their experiences should not be written off as odd, unnatural, or illogical.

Speaking of outliers and people who are not in the majority, gay, trans, nonbinary, and aromantic and asexual people are in the minority. We do not fit these cishet patterns of behavior. But does that mean we should be pushed aside as anomalies and strange cases? Why do we use majority group experiences as a lens to perceive all of humankind? That doesn’t make any sense.

A pernicious assumption here, is that the majority is more important, while the minority is trivial and forgettable. It’s like how neurotypicals are seen as “better and healthier” than neurodivergents.

I believe that most people who learn about evolutionary psychology, don’t realize all these toxic and demeaning attitudes towards women and queer people. Evolutionary psychology is just seen as The Theory, the worldview that is taken for granted by many (though not all) people in first-world countries.

But just because few people notice these biases in evolutionary psychology, doesn’t mean we should stay blind and unaware of them. Also, at the end of the day, evolutionary psychology is only a theory. It does not reflect the absolute reality of all human beings, no matter what people may want you to believe.

If you hate evolutionary psychology so much, then what theory do you propose instead?

After reading about how evolutionary psychology belittles women, demonizes men, and casts queer, trans, and aromantic and asexual people as bizarre anomalies, you may wonder what theory I wish we could use instead.

I am not implying that we should all migrate to creationism. Again, I’m not interested in debating about religion or theology. I simply want to remind us that evolutionary psychology is just a theory, a hypothetical framework. The so-called “evidence” for the theory, is biased depending on who interprets the data. It is absurd how people in the minority, folks who don’t fit common patterns, are just pushed aside as weird outliers, rather than respected as real people with valid and legitimate experiences.

Currently, I don’t have a “replacement theory,” but I just wish that people will be more aware of the biases and prejudices of evolutionary psychology. Even if a new theory comes to dominate our society, I hope people will think critically about what the theory implies about themselves and their fellow human beings.

Originally published in An Injustice! on Jan 11, 2023