Nobody knows why babies prefer one hand over the other. It may be genetic, or due to uneven development of brain hemispheres. It may also have to do with womb positions. Nine out of ten people are right-handed. Society is built around their preferences. Lefties cope with disadvantages. Using scissors, writing or playing hockey is awkward.
In compensation, left-handers have an edge at tennis, cricket, baseball and boxing because of the unusual angles of approach. In professions that require high visuo-spatial ability, like architecture, mathematics, art and sculpture, left-handers also do disproportionately well.
Southpaws have historically faced discrimination. Holding a duelling sword in the “wrong hand” was considered unsporting. Until recently, lefties were thrashed if they wrote with the wrong hand. They are ostracised in Sanatan Dharma for eating and performing ablutions with the wrong hands.
However, right-handers have learnt to treat left-handers with some tolerance. Lefties are allowed to hold any job they can get, marry, have children, acquire wealth and succeed to their partners’ estates.
Would it be considered preposterous to ban left-handedness? Islam, Judaism and Hinduism forbid use of the left hand in performing certain tasks. Romans considered lefties sinister, the French consider them gauche. “Right” is a synonym for “correct” in many languages.
Perhaps, given the weight of religious opinion and millennia-worth of social sentiment, legislation against the use of the left hand is worth considering? Lefties can learn to use their “proper” hand with practice. If sinisters were threatened with imprisonment, and ostracised out of public life, they would surely have more inducement to become dexterous. The cost of enforcing such a law could be balanced against the comfort it would bring to the right-handed majority.
Substitute “homosexual” for “left-hander” and “hetero” for “right-hander” and make the appropriate grammatical adjustments. The arguments remain the same. Between 5-15 per cent of the world’s population is not heterosexual in preference (this includes gays, bisexuals, lesbians and transgenders). According to the NAZ Foundation there are 2.5 million avowed Indian LGBTs — millions more maybe in the closet.
There are no definitive answers about root causes of sexual preference. But prejudices against LGBTs run pretty strong judging by the hysterical reaction to the Delhi High Court Judgement that “criminalising consensual sexual acts of adults in private” in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is violative of fundamental rights.
This judgement is just the first toe in the door to equality for LGBTs. There are many jobs they are not allowed to hold. They are not allowed to marry. The ban on marriage automatically excludes tax breaks and loan preferences associated with marriage. LGBTs are also excluded from automatic succession to their partners’ estates. In adoption cases, a stable lesbian or gay couple is rated way behind a dysfunctional straight couple in the selection queue.
The 377 debate also highlights the struggle between utilitarianism and prejudice. There are quantifiable costs to criminalising victimless acts of consensual sex on the grounds of prejudice. Apart from mis-allocation of law-and-order resources, driving LGBTs underground prevents efficient anti-HIV campaigning. Even supplying condoms to jail inmates was illegal until yesterday.
If the High Court ruling holds, the LGBT community now has a chance to ask to be treated on an equal footing with straights. Prejudice will intensify at every stage if one draws analogies from the legislative histories of other nations. The LGBT community will have to fight harder legal battles.
Beyond the euphoria of the first victory, it must find the fortitude to conduct a long, hard siege. If you care where your taxes are going, regardless of your sexual orientation, you should back LGBTs to the hilt.
