History is written by the victors, they say, and thus the history of the left-hander and the homosexual is a short one, marred by discrimination, violence, and, for centuries, pure silence. For generations, society succeeded in suppressing the knowledge of their existence; there was no such thing as the homosexual, or the left-hander; there was only the defiant sinner who deserved punishment. Writings regarding the acts were virtually limited to religious publications, with the occasional criminal conviction published in the local newspaper.

As one traces the histories of these two phenomena, one can see an uncanny similarity in the evolution of literature on the topics. Even the societal perceptions follow a quite remarkable parallel, although the timing is somewhat skewed, left-handedness having for the most part reached full acceptance by the mid-to-late 60's. Additionally, as one follows these parallel developments it becomes clear that there is a distinct divergence between scientific writings and attitudes and religious (which usually translates to popular) views, the scientific work being more socially progressive (though not necessarily more liberal, as will be demonstrated by early texts on both homosexuality and left-handedness).

As Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson point out, societal perception of homosexuality has fluctuated hand in hand with the flow of changing paradigms.¹They note the onset of Christianity as the point at which homosexuality became a taboo, which, according to them, obliterated any possible writings about this "activity not to be named among Christians." This attitude would prevail for centuries, which explains the lack of readily available literature. Dynes and Donaldson go on to note that as religious fervor died down and the government began to rise above the church, the homosexual act was reduced to merely a minor misdemeanor, but once the revivals came along, e.g. the Catholic church took over in Europe, homosexuality once again was a capital crime, though it was still perceived as an act rather than an identity. They note the more rapidly changing paradigms of the last 150 years; with the advancement of modern medicine, the habitual sodomizer became the homosexual, first an object of interest for the medical field, and then one for the rapidly growing psychological arena.

As the so-called "Lost Generation" came of age, homosexual artists were commonly included in the groups of American expatriates in Europe; they were the counter-culture, the outcasts. Pending the onset of the coming wars, homosexuals continued to be under suspicion; the Nazis included them on their list of peoples to be exterminated, while here in the States, the religious associated the homosexuals with the Communists in order to increase suspicion towards both groups. Finally, as the cry for civil rights grew louder, the sexual revolution grew freely, and the women's liberation movement thrived, gays officially joined the ranks of the oppressed minority, where they still exist today, struggling for the same rights that only 40 years ago were denied to couples of different races.

The literature corresponding to these paradigms reflects social attitudes towards homosexuality; as Dynes and Donaldson note, the onset of Christianity created a powerful aura of homophobia that over the centuries has greatly contributed to the expunging of a large portion of pro-gay literature in the historical record, and nearly all pro-gay literature prior to the 1890's.² Even now, it is difficult to find something as benign as "Heather Has Two Mommies" in the public library of a largely Christian community, even though there might be an audience for it.

A similar phenomenon seems to have occurred in the history of the "sinistral," or left-handed portion of the population. Like homosexuality, left-handed writing was for years deemed merely a willful act of defiance against god; as Dr. W. Franklin Jones notes, the result of this viewpoint is that doctors, parents, and teachers alike have over the centuries deemed it their responsibility to transfer all left-handers to right-handed status, no matter what the cost, and no matter to what lengths they must go to do so. If transfer was not possible, then the child was merely forbidden to write. As Jones points out, with little exception it is only after careful study that those who made the effort to learn about left-handedness came to the conclusion that it is not a willful act, but a congenital condition.³

Still, despite the medical field's seemingly complete acceptance of left-handers by about 1914, it took society nearly half a century to assimilate this acceptance into their own lives, particularly in more religious areas. Catholic schoolchildren in particular were still punished for using their left hand, and there was often a distinct connection made between left-handers and Communists, since indeed the very mention of the word "left" brought about visions of nuclear warfare.

Like pro-gay literature, pro-sinistral writings were virtually non-existent prior to the seventeenth century. A lone doctor, Sir Thomas Browne, acknowledged in his writings that some people are born sinistral, but this particular portion of his work was largely ignored by the other doctors of the time.⁴Most literature referring to the difference between right and left associated it with the difference between right and wrong; religious scholars cited the recurring use of the analogy in the bible. In Puritanical times, markings upon the left side of the body hinted at Satanic possession, and paintings of demons emphasized their use of the left hand instead of the right. While literature was not necessarily about left-handedness per se, the overlying assumption of the moral dominance of the right hand is apparent in literary works up through the nineteenth century.⁵

Prior to the onset of Christianity, homosexuality existed in many forms of literature. For instance, in the epic of Gilgamesh, the main character has a dream, and when he asks his mother to interpret it, she responds that Gilgamesh will meet a man of great strength, and that he will "embrace this man as he would a wife."⁶This is viewed as a positive relationship; much of the story focuses on the bond between Gilgamesh and his friend. Many argue that the same type of relationship appears to have existed between the biblical David and Jonathan. Neither relationship is portrayed in a negative light or decried as sin. John Boswell contends that in both ancient Greek and Islamic Sufi literature, homosexual love is idealized as more pure and spiritual than that of heterosexual love. He points out examples in Chinese and Roman literature as well, and although this may merely be a matter of interpretation, it is interesting that the possibility for such an interpretation exists, and especially interesting that it exists across cultures prior to the expansion of Christianity.⁷

This is not to say that homosexual love received only praise prior to the Bible's mass publication. According to Zoroastrian texts, as translated by James Darmesteter, "'The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva [i.e. a demon]..."⁸This might suggest that Christianity was not the only religion to decry homosexuality. However, according to Paul Halsall, it has been suggested that perhaps these very texts are the root of the Scriptures' condemnation of homosexuality; the language is rather similar. This depends on the assumption that the texts preclude the Bible, which is quite possible.⁹

If this is the case, then it might follow that it is this same text that influenced many of the world's other religions to decry homosexual acts as sacrilegious, since the Bible certainly has done so. Incidentally, according to many historians, Zoroastrianism is also the source of December 25th as the Christian holiday; it is theorized that Jesus was actually born closer to April, and that the Christians borrowed the Zoroastrians' winter solstice as their holy day. This aspect of influence might lend credibility to the idea that other aspects of Zoroastrianism might have seeped into Christianity; note the similarity between the Zoroastrian "Daeva" and the Christian Devil.

Like homosexuality, references to left-handedness are difficult to trace prior to biblical times. Both Michael Barsley and Ira S. Wile begin their analysis of primitive man's hand preference by quoting Thomas Carlyle, the 19th century historian who lamented upon losing the use of his right hand, "I wonder if there is any people barbarous enough not to have this distinction of hands; no human cosmos is possible to have begun without it."¹⁰This attitude reflects previous historians' unwillingness to accept that use of the left hand could have been considered natural at any time in history. Barsley and Wile both argue that right-handedness has not always been the supreme situation. Wile makes his case for primitive ambidexterity, though, while the left-handed Barsley argues that evidence suggests the existence of left handed primitive humans.

Wile compares the theories of the day, noting that the debate seems to be whether or not right-handedness has always been the norm. His suggestion is that humans were initially ambidextrous, with one hand being the primary hand and one being the auxiliary one, but with both being used for an equal number of tasks and with the primary hand not being specified as either right or left. He uses as evidence studies of ancient Hebrews and the direction of their writings, as well as quotes taken from Chronicles 12:2, in which David is accompanied in battle by a group of men who could use both the left and right hand to hurl stones and shoot arrows. This reference to the Old Testament is particularly interesting because although there are certainly condemnations of the left side and of homosexuality in the Old Testament, positive portrayals of both seem to be apparent in the same work, which leads one to wonder exactly how these writings should be interpreted.

Wile also uses as evidence the existence of right and left-handed stone tools found by anthropologists, but argues that this finding merely proves the existence of left-handed men, and does not relay any information about proportion in the population. He continues to trace the left-right bias through history. While literature from ancient times is not readily available, there is a plethora of knowledge to be gleaned from studying the artworks of certain periods, and Wile takes the opportunity to trace the development of right-left bias in ancient art. He refers to some of the artwork of ancient Egyptians as being right-hand dominant, and observes the same bias in Christian artwork. He also notes, though, that much of Egyptian art also reflects the existence of left-handedness, points out a left bias in a Babylonian statue, and comments that some describe Zeus as holding is scepter on the left side, the side nearest to the heart.

Wile concludes that although man was initially ambidextrous, a marked change began to take place during the Bronze Age, with tools being created primarily for the use of the right hand. At this point, Wile claims, this hand dominance was enthusiastically enforced and was ingrained in society by religious and social ideas. This right-hand exaltation led to the restricted use and therefore usefulness of the left hand, and Wile makes the suggestion that perhaps the biological dominance of right-handedness is a direct result of this social and religious pressure.

While Wile's argument is a reasonable one, he makes certain assumptions that go against the studies of other doctors of his time. For one thing, he claims that at birth, every infant appears to be capable of equal use of both hands. He purports that hand preference becomes manifest at about six months of age, and is established by the child's first birthday. While this is more in line with modern views than many earlier thinkers who believed that left handedness could be changed as late as adolescence, Wile ignores Jones' previous study and others like it; they suggest that hand-dominance is determinable at birth using arm width and circumference measurements. By failing to acknowledge this possibility or to dispute it (as that study was certainly not without its flaws), Wile leaves a door open for argument.

Barsley, while agreeing on the Wile's comments on right-bias' appearance in the Bronze age, does not suggest that religious pressures caused the domination of the left hand; he acknowledges that religion was a great contributor to such bias, quoting Wile on this matter, but he notes that the expense and precision of making bronze tools made it necessary for them to be used with the hand for which they were created. He argues that prior to this time, left-handedness in artistry and weaponry is apparent, but he does not address the possibility that these merely belonged to ambidextrous artists or tribesmen. Furthermore, Barsley claims, since fathers most likely passed their tools on to their sons, this might have been a source of pressure to conform to right-handed activities. Thus, in a way, left-handedness might have been largely phased out by right-hand dominance due to the influx of new weapon-making tools; this called for a more strict set of codes and methods than the production of a mere wooden stake.

Barsley puts less effort into describing the origin of the left-right controversy. While as a medical doctor, Wile most likely provides analysis of the origin of left-handedness in order to lead in to his discussion of the actual phenomenon during a time when society still recoiled at the idea, Barsley's book was published in 1966, long after the worst of left-hand discrimination, so it is likely that his main concern is the documentation of the left-hander's history, and not the justification of his existence. Barsley himself is left-handed, which explains in part his interest on the topic.

Both Wile and Barsley conclude, however, that religious doctrine is largely responsible for the ostracizing of the left-handed citizen from society, and it is this ostracizing that brings left-handedness in line with homosexuality. As previously mentioned, the intellectuals' acknowledgement of the existence of these phenomena began to be evident at around the time of the new Age of Reason. Prior to this era, science, medicine, and religion were largely intertwined, with scientists being supported by the church, and the church being supported by mandatory donations by the masses. However, towards the end of the seventeenth century, and especially at the beginning of the 18th, a new species of scientists and philosophers appeared who were more concerned with observable science than with religion as a whole. This era produced such great thinkers as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke and the other men who would be responsible for America's liberation from England's grasp.

Homosexuality remained a taboo; occasionally, one might read a report in the local newspaper about someone arrested for sexual deviancy, or someone hanged for "buggery" or "sodomy", but the idea of the label as applied to an individual person, rather than a defiant act, did not surface until the late nineteenth century, when in 1969 the Hungarian physician Benkert first used the word in a definition of a homosexual person.¹¹ Left-handedness, though, began to be discussed amongst some of the intellectuals of the day, though it was certainly not accepted by most; one passage in an 1809 literary magazine laments the layout of British roads; the author cannot accept that the left side would be the right side, while the right side would be wrong (in terms of direction.) The very notion that someone traveling on the left side of the road would be going the right way strikes him as preposterous.¹²

The earliest works I came across regarding left-handedness were not literary works, but other letters written (or in one case, dictated) to newspaper and magazine publications. One such letter reflected the attitude of the day; its author spoke of twin sisters, one of whom was highly valued by their parents, while the other was denied any education and was punished when she merely touched a pen or a sewing needle.¹³ The very letter the narrator sent had to be dictated to someone who could write it for her. Though the letter itself does not mention left-handedness, the note is signed "the left hand" and its meaning is implied both by the caption, "on the use of the left hand," and the knowledge that in many cases, "identical" twins are not actually identical, but are mirror images of one another - i.e. one is left handed and one is not. The narrator in the letter expresses her concern over the family's future; if all effort is being focused on the other sister, she wonders, what is to become of the family if this sister falls ill? The narrator urges parents to recognize the injustice of this unequal treatment of remarkably equal sisters. This letter is dated 1791.

Taken alone, without any other interpretation, the letter provides a powerful insight as to the injustices inflicted upon the left-handed at this time, and provides a clue as to why future generations might have assumed, upon witnessing their deprived, uneducated, tormented left-handed elders, that all left-handers were mentally deficient or retarded. Imagine my shock, though, at reading through Barsley's chapter on the left hand in literature and discovering that this passage, according to Barsley, was penned by none other than the great genius of the day, Benjamin Franklin! As he has in so many other cases, Franklin assumes a pen name to lend his insight to this great question, and makes the argument that the discrimination is not only unfair, but is not lucrative either. Not surprisingly, though, the letter had little effect on society.¹⁴

Barbara Floyd states that as America advanced into the 19th century, the new interest in science and medicine, which had previously diverged from religion, underwent another split. Scientific theory and the quest for information thrived, led by Benjamin Rush, Charles Darwin, and others, but this did little to treat patients, and as a result, the actual medical practitioners resorted to what Floyd calls "quackery," borrowing medical jargon in order to gain acceptance of their ideas.¹⁵ The ineffectual methods of these "quack doctors'" originated purely from biased observations and not from actual medical theory. Deepening this schism was the new Romanticism, a response to the Age of Reason. As Romanticism developed in America, it evolved into a new religious fervor and brought about the return of religious evangelicalism. As a result, Floyd contends, quackery began to take on the qualities of religious evangelicalism.

It is only in the past 130 years or so that scientists have begun to make great strides in scientific discovery and the public's stance on the issues of left-handedness and homosexuality have been developed and subsequently brought to the surface in major publications by those seeking knowledge based upon study and research, albeit not always accurate research by modern standards. While the public was beginning to get frustrated with the lack of progress made by the quack doctors, Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur were busy with their respective studies, developing theories on the spread of bacteria, while just a few years later, Freud was busy revolutionizing the field of psychology, which had, as Professor Traweek pointed out early in her lectures, initially been largely focused not on treating the mentally disturbed, but on removing them from the rest of society - i.e. institutionalization.

As this new era of medical practice flourished, both left-handedness and homosexuality began to be viewed in a different light, albeit not a brighter one. While both phenomena had largely been considered matters of religious deviation, the medical field began to view them as physically or psychologically induced, though homosexuality remained a crime. Initially, left-handedness was relegated mainly to medical doctors, and eventually caught the interest of psychologists. Contrarily, homosexuality was originally deemed a mental illness, and it appears to be only recently that medical doctors have taken an interest in the matter.

In the introduction to his 1908 book, Righthandedness and Lefthandedness (sic), George M. Gould attempts to acquaint the reader with his theories on the origins of left-handedness. His main premise seems at first to be that "since any sort of consciousness of the facts has existed the wisdom of right-handedness has been emphatically exhibited."¹⁶ He describes the acceptance of this wisdom as having been present in all history, "crystallizes and embedded in the very language itself which chronicles all mentality." He leaves the readers to wonder to which facts he refers, and in his introduction fails to demonstrate any sort of proof that the right is supreme. Gould continues in his introduction, describing the so-called "savage" and how this savage survived in primitive times. He offers no proof, but plays the proverbial "god-trick," establishing his own premise as universal truth.

Gould does acknowledge the equality of right and left-handers, though; he states that they are as efficient as their right-handed counterparts. However, he does this with persisting bias; he makes empirical statements, such as his proclamation that no left-handed person can easily learn to play piano or his declaration, as previously noted, about the "wisdom" of the right hand. It is thus difficult to determine exactly where he stands until the very end of his introduction, in which Gould clearly states the underlying bias that will be apparent throughout the rest of the book. His is an argument against ambidexterity.

Gould uses unsubstantiated medical concepts and jargon in order to demonstrate his intellect. He makes the claim that ambidexterity is responsible for eyestrain, scoliosis, and even suicides. He vehemently rallies against the "ambidextery sillies," and instead of proving that their theories are wrong, he merely makes ad hominem attacks, claiming that they ought to be subject to a more severe punishment than any "other" of the criminally insane ("other", implying that Gould assumes that the reader accepts his notion that those who promote ambidexterity are criminally insane). It seems to be only because of the similarities between ambidextrals and transferred children that Gould decries such transfers as evil. He uses scare tactics and threatening language to attempt to deter anyone from attempting such a transfer, proclaiming that this will result in "a life of trial, handicap, or even wretchedness and disease."¹⁷ He tells of acquaintances who, after being transferred, were unable to think and write at the same time and were subsequently failures in life. He fails to substantiate his argument with past research and clinical study, however, and thus the entire book reads like a work of propaganda. Gould had a good premise in his idea that transferring a child can be harmful, but I imagine it would be difficult for any educated scientist to accept his near-rambling as fact.

One might make the claim that this was merely the medical-literature style at the time, and that Gould's arguments were appropriate in their own context. This seems to be the case in many such works; it is true that doctors' tones often seemed to cross the boundary between educated and omniscient. In his 1954 treatise, Female Homosexuality, Dr. Frank S. Caprio commits many of the same fallacies. In the first several chapters of his book, Caprio attempts to demonstrate that female homosexuality is purely a psychological disorder, borne alongside neuroses and caused by traumatic childhood experiences and severed relationships with the maternal figure in the patient's life. Like Gould, Caprio uses personal experience and acquaintance to illustrate his points, though Caprio goes an extra step and pulls fictional literary characters out of their context and into his own.

Caprio's most flagrant fallacy is the fact that he overlooks one minor detail in his analysis: he is a clinical psychiatrist! For all his jargon and analysis, Caprio neglects to acknowledge that for the most part, the female homosexuals he treats in his office will most likely be more neurotic, more depressed, and more suicidal than the average lesbian, because otherwise, they would not be seeking psychiatric treatment. Granted, many women probably visited him in the hopes of being "cured" of their homosexual "tendencies," but aren't such women more susceptible than average to the feelings of shame and depression that he so hastily ascribes to all female homosexuals?

Caprio also states that it is a myth that lesbians cannot be cured, using as proof the "fact" that when women want to be cured, the results are often "favorable," but when they resist, they are merely attempting to "repress [their] heterosexual component." He does not address the psychological aspects of such repressions, and therefore fails to acknowledge the possibility that perhaps it is the "cured" who have repressed their natural tendencies in order to fit society's mold of the proper woman.

Throughout his writings, Caprio also alludes to the "myth" that homosexuality is a congenital condition. He states his viewpoint as obvious, "definite" fact, but he fails to provide the reader with any proof that the "myth" is indeed a falsity. In this way, Caprio, like Gould, misleads the reader by exerting his authority as a medical doctor. In fact, conclusive proof continues to elude proponents and opponents of both ambidexterity and the question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice. However, both Gould and Caprio shield their readers from this information in order to better support his own theories.

This is not to say that everyone with initials after his name used them to excuse himself from providing actual data to support his thesis. W. Franklin Jones conducted his Study of Handedness in 1918, and in it he outlines, in the now standard scientific process, his hypothesis, his methods, and his conclusions. Jones even goes so far as to provide the reader with the entire data set so that the information is readily available for perusal.

Jones' hypothesis is that left-handedness is a congenital condition; as previously mentioned, his theory was that if one measured the bones in the arms of people of all ages, the measurements would be consistent with the handedness of each person; the dominant arm would always be slightly larger in circumference, even in newborns. Like others, Jones also includes a study of the effect of transferring on handedness, but concludes, ultimately, that it is not the actual transference itself that causes the stammering, but rather the state of duress under which the transfer took place.

While Jones' publication seems to be more reliable than Gould's, given its actual presentation of data and analysis, it should be noted that the study is not without its flaws; while Jones purports that the measurements ought to be apparent in people of all ages, his data set is not reflective of that conclusion; it only includes two children under the age of two years old, and only one newborn. It is very difficult to conclude that bone difference is apparent in newborns when only includes one newborn in his data set. Jones ought to have anticipated this deficiency; he did acknowledge that he knew some would try to claim that the bone difference develops after handedness is set in place, and he attempted to offset that argument with his inclusion of a newborn, but he just didn't go far enough and thus his own argument is still left wide open and vulnerable.

With Jones' stand against left-hand discrimination, however, seems to come a turn in medical views; after 1918 most medical literature seems to take a stand against transference. It is not clear whether Jones is directly responsible for this, as much of this literature was not readily available for my examination. It is clear, however, that left-handed children continued to be transferred in schools and by parents, despite the warnings of physicians and psychologists. This is evident, for example, in the fact that even in 1957, Wanda Allen Belzung's Education Digest article, is entitled "Is Left Handedness a Handicap?" and persists in the belief that if one can influence their child's handedness, one most certainly should. In her article, she states that left-handedness is increasing "alarmingly." She refers to the theory of fixed handedness as "the old concept," and suggests that her source of information, a Mr. H. M. Wiley, has a better idea of how to handle left-handedness; he has apparently conducted a survey of Texas teachers and has somehow come up with the conclusion that because there is an influx of left-handedness, it is to be blamed on wartime economy and the neglect of parents to correct the issue.¹⁸

Mr. Wiley's sole qualifications, however, appear to be that he is the president of the Wheeler County, TX school board, and that he himself is left-handed. I'm not sure exactly why Ms. Belzung places so much trust in him, but she seems quite sure that his analysis is the correct one, and agrees with him that until a child is of school age, parents must do everything in their power to influence the child towards the use of the right hand. Wiley even goes as far as to claim that if a child reaches school with no preferred hand, "the teacher should make a right-hander of him unless he is mentally or physically handicapped."¹⁹ At least both Belzung and Wiley concede that if a child is already set in his sinistral ways, he must not be retrained as this has no place in the public school system. However, one can see the damage that an article such as this might cause; if a teacher sees a child writing with his left hand, she may choose to try to "correct" him merely because she can later claim that she thought he had no hand preference. As a result of this attitude, even many of today's left-handed adults can remember being forcibly trained to use their right hand, as is evident from the perusal of anecdotes on "left-handed" web pages.

Interestingly enough, Wiley quotes from a 1954 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association to substantiate his views, but I note that towards the end of this quote, the word "according to this view" appear, seemingly applying to all aforementioned statements, so I cannot help but wonder if this quote is taken out of context. Furthermore, journals such as these often consist of collections of essays by doctors with varying viewpoints, so it is conceivable that this quote is not the viewpoint of the American Medical Association, but of a single doctor within it.

At this time, the Cold War was already well in progress, and not only a distaste but a fear of Communism had swept the nation. Suddenly, the homosexuals were viewed with suspicious glares from the far right, and additionally the Communists were suspected of being homosexual. At the same time, the idea of the left as being evil seemed to resurge in popular culture (perhaps explaining the quote from the previously mentioned article), and although scientists had already concluded that left-handedness was not such an abnormality, such a belief continued to flourish outside the medical world. As John D'Emilio describes in his essay, "Gay Politics, Gay Community," one component of Cold War era attitudes was that of the need to reconstruct traditional gender roles. According to D'Emilio, the World War II era had created a setting by which the gay community could and did flourish, but with the new fear of Communism and left-wing politics, the religious right gained extensive power, and at this point found themselves being purged from the armed forces, being fired from jobs, being institutionalized, and finding their names in the newspaper in public warnings of sexual deviancy. As D'Emilio states, "The tightening web of oppression in McCarthy's America helped to create the minority it was meant to isolate."²⁰

At this point, much of the literature about homosexuality came from the gay community itself; as the oppression of gay people grew stronger, the proliferation of underground political literature grew as well. In the early 1950's, both the gay and the lesbian communities established underground political organizations, The Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, respectively, and both organizations published monthly magazines. Furthermore, D'Emilio describes an insurgence of literature coming from such gay men as Allen Ginsberg, Robert Duncan, and others. These men were not only associated with the gay movement, but also with the post-war beat movement. Other literature about homosexuality came from the psychological field; fueled by the insurgence of anti-Communist fear, literature such as Caprio's reflected the negative views of the time.

Homosexuality, though, was getting close to the dawn of a new era. With the 60's came a new cry for civil rights for oppressed minorities. The counterculture flourished, and a new "sexual revolution" took place. Citizens all over the land found political platforms to protest, and after hundreds of years of unfair treatment, and after the particularly oppressive atmosphere of the past decade, the women's liberation movement thrived. It was at this time - 1969, to be exact, with the news of the Stonewall Riots - that gays officially and publicly joined the ranks of the oppressed minority, demanding equality for all within its boundaries. For years, the gay community had been on the brink of declaring itself to be a political force, and the social revolutions of the late 60's and early 70's paved their way. In 1974, the gay community won a significant victory when, after a heated debate, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses and simultaneously took a stand in favor of equal rights for gay people.²¹

For nearly a decade, the publicly gay community enjoyed relative peace. In 1978, though, openly gay mayor Harvey Milk and his liberal colleague George Moscone, were assassinated by fellow politician Dan White, and suddenly, the peace ended. The conservative jury gave White a reduced sentence based upon the "twinkie defense" and he served only about 5 years for the double murder. This marked the end of an era; as the 70's came to a close and the spread of AIDS became imminent, the country's hatred of homosexuals once again surfaced, and was either reflected by or fueled by Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency in 1980. Literature began to shift from the artistic style and once again became more political; politicians used their public images in order to appeal to the nation's conservative side, and it was in this era that today's most well known religious organization, the Christian Coalition, was established and subsequently endorsed by many conservative politicians.

It is also during this time that a new influx of "gay history" literature appears. Like Ira S. Wile's chapters on the origin of left-handedness, such historical analyses most likely appeared in order to justify the existence of the homosexual portion of the population. Indeed, even John D'Emilio's article is a product of this era, having been written in the very early 80's. The majority of the essays in the collection in which his appears are also products of the 80's, as is John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, one of the most well known analyses of the relationship between the two social groups. It is not clear whether subsequent literature appeared independently or as a response to the new literature already published.

Only recently have doctors begun to examine the biological origins of homosexuality. One can see the similarities between the evolution of social attitudes towards left-handedness and homosexuality, and their subsequent effects on contemporary literature of the times. In early religious publication, it is difficult to find exact references to left-handedness or homosexuality, but they are there, indirectly. Passages from the 17th and 18th centuries frequently extolled the right hand as superior, and showed undeniable preference for the left side in general as well. As the Age of Reason kicked in, so did the industrial revolution, and with that came the desire to categorize everything, hence the coinage of the terms "homosexual" and "sinistral" in reference to persons with a distinct identity. Eventually, as medicine and religion diverged, the medical field took an extreme interest in the two phenomena. In each case, the initial set of doctors failed to find an exact cause, and instead merely hypothesized and theorized, but failed to prove anything conclusively. However, again in both cases, the respective doctors ultimately conceded that the condition is not a willful act, nor is it a mental disease, and that the groups ought to be treated with respect and dignity, and ought not to be forced to "go the other way." Granted, the most controversial theories will always have their staunch foes, but for the most part, the end result in both cases seems to be the majority opinion. That said, it nevertheless took the rest of society a lot longer to accept the change in opinion.

Society has still not embraced the homosexual as an equal, and if the fluctuation in acceptance of left-handers is any indication, it will be a long time before this occurs, as the nation seems to be heading towards yet another religious revival. It can only be hoped, then, that as it has in the past, society's perception of gay people will once again fall in line with the patterns of left-right bias, and eventually will level out in the same direction.


Questions? Comments? Feedback? I'd love to hear from you! Also, if you plan to cite this paper in a report, please let me know. Thanks!

¹Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson, ed. , History of Homosexuality in Europe and America (New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc, 1992), viii.

²Dynes and Donaldson, xi.

³W. Franklin Jones, Ph. D. ,A Study of Handedness (South Dakota: University Vermillion, 1914), 3.

⁴Michael Barsley, The Left-Handed Book (Great Britain: The Souvenir Press, 1966), 195.

⁵Barsley, Ch. XVII.

⁶Richard Hooker, "Summary of The Epic of Gilgamesh", in World Civilizations: An Internet Classroom and Anthology [online textbook] (Washington State University 1996), available at http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/

⁷John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 27.

⁸FARGARD "Funerals and purification, unlawful sex" Vendidad (Zoroastrian texts) Translated by James Darmesteter (From Sacred Books of the East, American Edition, 1898) available at http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd8sbe.htm

⁹Paul Halsall, "Chapter 2: The Ancient Near East and Egypt" from People with a History, an online historical overview and bibliography/information portal. 1997. Available at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-anc.html

¹⁰Barsley, 18.

¹¹Frank S. Caprio, M.D., Female Homosexuality (New York: The Citadel Press, 1954), 3.

¹²"Right and Wrong" or "Left and Right," Something 1809, 9.

¹³"On the Use of the Left Hand," Massachusetts Magazine, 1791, 742.

¹⁴Barsley, 129.

¹⁵Barbara Floyd, et al., "From Quackery to Bacteriology: The Emergence of Modern Medicine in 19th Century America: An Exhibition" displayed in the Ward M. Canaday Center, University of Toledo Libraries, from October 12-December 30, 1994. Available online at http://www.cl.utoledo.edu/canaday/quackery/quack1.html

¹⁶George M. Gould, M.D., Righthandedness and Lefthandedness (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1908), 10.

¹⁷Gould, 37.

¹⁸Wanda Allen Belzung, "Is Left-Handedness a Handicap?" Education Digest, Oct. 1957/1958, 44.

¹⁹Belzung, 45.

²⁰John D'Emilio, "Gay Politics, Gay Community." In History of Homosexuality in Europe and America, edited by Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson, (New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc, 1992), 89.

²¹"Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil Rights." Official Actions section of American Journal of Psychiatry/ April, 1974, 497.