
Apparently, this photo illustrates what your little girl might look like if she is a "pre-homosexual." This is seriously problematic in a number of ways. First of all, let's just address this fucking picture: a very angry-looking little girl wearing worn jeans and holding a baseball glove. How many stereotypes of lesbianism does this play into? (1) Softball; (2) Angry; (3) Masculine* . . . why is this child so unhappy? Apparently, her parents are letting her be the little tomboy she is, so I imagine she's probably pretty content. This looks kind of like the pictures of me or Liz P. as children . . . baggy jeans, boxers, big t-shirts, playing in the dirt. She didn't turn out gay, and I didn't turn out butch. So this picture must SOMEHOW NOT BE ACCURATELY PREDICTIVE OF GAYNESS!!! OMG OMG OMG.
Honestly, though, I feel betrayed by Scientific American! They're supposed to be a reputable journal and they're using the phrase prehomosexuality? That seems to assume that one isn't born gay, but rather develops symptoms of gayness and then turns into a big ol' dyke/fairy.
There are signs, some would say omens, glimmering in certain children’s demeanors that, probably ever since there were children, have caused parents’ brows to crinkle with worry.
Okay, so that part seems to imply that we might have been born this way. That's a good sign, because SciAm should be quite aware of the studies they've probably published previously that indicate the truth of that. However, it's really negative -- "omens"?
To be fair -- SciAm's article is not as awful as the title makes it sound, now that I've read it. Go ahead and take a peek, and look at Jezebel's critique, and tell me what you think.
*Not that masculinity isn't innate in some lesbians, duh. Just not all of us.