Isn't the "born this way" slogan severely counter-productive?
I think it's very unlikely that sexuality is fully determined at birth, and much more probable that it's a fluid thing which can be in some way or another be affected by environment or upbringing or X factors. But it seems the only way hetero society is willing to accept us is if our differences are genetic and not a "choice," because that would be bad for some reason.
Why is the LGBT community pushing for this point of view, this "please let us in, we're just like you" rhetoric? What happened to the radical queers of the 70s and 80s who were looking to challenge all concepts of normalized sexuality? And really, isn't it stupid that we're afraid of admitting that sexuality can change and isn't fixed at birth? Is it because then people will be afraid that we could "turn" children gay?
Society needs to get to the point where it accepts that fucking whoever you want, however you want, being whatever you are, is not their business no matter if it's genetically determined or not. "Choice" shouldn't be bad. By pushing this whole idea of "born this way" we're whitewashing the movement into two gay guys living in the suburbs with an adopted Vietnamese kid and leaving everyone else behind.
A lot of it is determined at birth. We're bathed in hormones in the womb, too much or too little of something can cause homosexuality or transgenderedness. Scan a homosexual's brain and it looks different from a straight person's.
Yeah, fair enough, but don't all the differences in sexual attitudes throughout history and culture show that human sexuality has a social component as well? And in any case, I think this overt focus on whether sexuality is genetic or "natural" or not is unhealthy.
Honestly I think this is also why there's such a weirdly disbelieving attitude toward bisexuals even within the LGBT community, where they think they don't really exist and need to "pick" a side. The whole idea that you're born with a fixed sexuality makes people think you can't be born to like both.
It's not unhealthy, it's a scientific and medical question that deserves to be studied and answered.
That said, it's almost certain that a person's sexuality, or potential range of sexuality I guess, is determined before birth.
Not at all. Now that we have proof that there's no choice behind a person's sexuality, we can move past the 'pray the gay away' and conversion therapy and people in general thinking lgbt people can be "fixed".
It's useful from a legal standpoint. If it's like race or sex or disability, then discriminating against sexual orientation/gender identity is legally harder to justify. I don't have my con law outline in front if me atm, but iirc the standard for heightened scrutiny is: (1) innate characteristic, (2) history of oppression, (3) lack of political power necessary to redress that oppression through the electoral process.
Innate characteristic is generally "innate innate", immutable. Refugee law countrues it more loosely: it's "cannot be changed or cannot be changed easily and it would be unfair to ask for such change as it's a fundamental part if that persons identity", which is more what I personally see sexual orientation being. But until the law evolves in that direction, "burn this way, can't be changed" is helpful.
Also, socially, we're not the stage where sexual choices are seen as valid as say, choosing a religion; we still censor nudity on TV, still make a big deal about teaching kids how to have sex safely (*straight sex* safely; god forbid junior learn safe gay buttsex!), so until we get to someone being a poly bdsm sub is no more controversial than aunt marge converting to Buddhism, and such choice is just as protected under the law, let's stick with the script.
TL,DR: we're a dis favored minority; everything is politics.
Male sexuality is more rigid. I remember reading a study about male homosexuality. It said that women who had gay relatives often produce more children. As for me, I think I was born this way. I can remember all the way back before preschool being attracted to male Disney characters.
I essentially agree with this anon's assessment. It's more of question of reality and practical necessities in finding our place in the world legally and socially.
My addendum would be that this is unfortunate. I believe that gender (including transsexuality) and sexuality are strongly influenced by birth, but may also have environmental influences. At the end of the day, though, I don't see why it should matter. Social conformity is stupid when the other person's lifestyle doesn't directly affect others without their consent. If it is a choice, it's still one the rest of the world should respect (after all, logically, it means they "chose" to be cisgender/heterosexual). Still, this is a "perfect world" scenario, and our world is far from perfect. That's why we need to emphasise (not "invent", because there is truth to it) the "born this way" narrative.
Aladin? Damn I thought he was the cutest and coolest around.
>I think it's very unlikely that sexuality is fully determined at birth
Oh I disagree, I think it's incredibly likely. Gay people come from all cultures which means wildly different upbringings and ways of life. Almost all gay people would say they had gay feelings during childhood (having crushes on their same sex peers in gradeschool, for instance). Not only that, but I don't think there has been any compelling evidence that upbringing or environment affects orientation in any way.
Of course, I could be completely incorrect, but I do believe that sexuality is inborn. I don't see what's counter-productive about it, especially if that's truly how things are. Of course we should not stigmatize homosexuality at all.
> And really, isn't it stupid that we're afraid of admitting that sexuality can change and isn't fixed at birth?
I really don't think it can be changed. People can fuck whoever they want, but I'm not convinced that their sexual orientation actually changes.
I understand how politically the "born this way" slogan and concept is very important to homo-normative folks and I don't seek to undo it. My experience however has been that it has been a real hindrance in the more radical politics that I believe in. I for one do not want to be accepted by a society that i consider to be inherently oppressive. Also as a bisexual (I identify as queer) it has created a terrible stigma in my life in the LGBTQ community.
>After growing up getting beaten up everyday and called a fag, to find myself in a space I actually feel safe in only to get labeled a "fakefag" by judgmental lesbians and gays. Yeah it hurts, we don't all develop or transition at the same pace.
I for one don't ever intended to stop changing or experimenting or whatever you want to call it. If I was to meet myself 10 years ago it would be awkward to say the least.
I'm convinced it's not a choice in men, not so sure about women though. Male and female sexuality is just incredibly different, and it doesn't help that it's a lot easier to measure sexual arousal in men.
I doubt it. To say it's highly likely seems wrong. If you do look throughout history you see more gay friendly places with more bisexuals/gays. This could be people repressing their sexuality, but it's difficult to say. I think more research is needed one way or another, but "born this way" is a shitty idea because it's putting the focus on the wrong ideas.
Gays don't want to admit that there's a possibility they weren't born that way because it implies that they can be sent to conversion therapy against their will and get fixed. So "born this way" is used as a protective shield.
I'm just gonna throw some science here http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/could-homosexual-genes-be-naturally-selected
I think is because of all the cons of gay conversion therapy. Personally I don't remember being a sexual being when I was a kid. I was called a faggot because I didn't said bad words ans was more sensitive that the other boys. I remember even when I was a prepuber to fantasize about having a wife and children.
I was watching porn when I realized that I paid more attention to cocks than I did to pussies or boobs. So I said "They call m fag, let's see if gay porn works for me". That's when I fell into the jaws of hell
You can think what you like, but there's no actual science backing up your opinion.
Isn't the "born this way" slogan severely counter-productive?
It's not, because that's neuroscience, and I'm inclined to believe what those smart asses working in medical science write in their papers. Forbidding and disregarding research because it doesn't fall in line with some agenda is counter-productive.
But there's plenty of people who deny the facts to be edgy, i.e. challenge the concepts of normalized sexuality. Feminists and tumlrtards are like that, for instance.
>fucking whoever you want, however you want, being whatever you are, is not their business
That's just not right. I'm pretty liberal myself, but allowing pedos, cannibals, necrophiles and even more insane individuals to live the lives they want to live isn't consistent with my views.
I think the issue is that we associate love with sex too much. It's one thing to fuck whoever you want, but like >>2927964 said, orientation is another thing. I think that's where the confusion between all that "homoromantic heterosexual" bullshit lies. Honestly, it's confusing to define it when we're still in the midst of discovering the "science" behind different sexualities and gender identities.
You know, anyone can pull studies up showing how something is true if it suits their opinion. Most of this evidence isn't entirely conclusive either. I wouldn't be surprised if some sexual preference is rooted in biology, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a large amount in psychology.
You've got it backwards. There's still a chance psychology might have something to do with it but it's almost entirely innate.
There's disagreement over exactly what events in the womb influence a person's sexuality, but there's absolutely no denying that those events happen.
It implies that 1. gay men/women are naturally more feminine/masculine that straight men/women, which is absurd, and 2. that transsexualism isn't its own distinct neurological condition, which doesn't hold up to current research.
Well I don't believe that sexuality is innate. There is disagreement whether those events in the womb took place regardless of whether you acknowledge said events, so you can't just say there's no denying those events happened.
Are you trying to say that a person's sexuality is a blank slate at birth?
Can you please share some of your evidence that this is true? I've never ever heard anything supporting an idea like that.
I've never said that. I think there are quite possibly influences from birth that combine with development to form sexuality. I think that people are born with predispositions to enjoy certain things and not others, but also that the enjoyment of things and by extension sexuality is partially formed throughout childhood. Later on this can still happen, but usually only through major trauma which usually has a very negative effect on the overall psyche.
The cause is the same, condition differs a lot.
>which is absurd
Femboys/butches, they are not even a thing in the straight world.
The only part that is guaranteed to be feminine/masculine in gay men/women (respectively) is the part of the brain that controls sexual desires.
For transsexuals it's the whole (or most, at least) of the brain.
>transsexualism isn't its own distinct neurological condition
It's probably a spectrum of neurological conditions from bisexuality to homosexuality through many shades of borderline transsexuality to full trans.
Like there's a term autism, but actually there's plenty of disorders that fall under it, like Asperger's, Rett's, etc.
Whatever the truth is, it's worth investigating, instead of just saying it's a choice.
It is good in a way because it passes the "blame". Even though it ideally shouldn't be something bad that you are blamed for, it is, and it is easier for people to accept if they think it isnt your "fault".
After people accept it, maybe we can move toward it being fluid and stuff, but the fact of the matter is that people who dont already accept it are going to be less likely to accept it if they think it is a behavior that people have control over.
too lazy to read the whole thread but
>What happened to the radical queers of the 70s and 80s who were looking to challenge all concepts of normalized sexuality?
I don't see anything answer-like to this mentioned here yet.
yeah, what happened to them?
sure, big part of those actual people had died, but why isn't there any continuity of that movement?
I get why the mainstream of the LGBT movement has become very pro-norm (see further), but why has that radical queerism not even survived in some underground form?
cont. from >>2928842
as for OP's main point,
> it seems the only way hetero society is willing to accept us is if our differences are genetic and not a "choice," because that would be bad for some reason.
yes, and I'm pretty sure this "some reason" is this:
>because [if it gets widely accepted that sexuality is not fixed] then people will be afraid that we could "turn" children gay
for the current mainstream LGBT movement, which strives for marriage rights and all that, embodying any message about the fluid nature of sexuality into their agenda would be, well, exactly
"born this way" is productive for that movement, 'cause it convinces the hetero society that fags and lesbs are not going to turn their beloved kids gay. "turning" gets pushed to believed not possible.
>By pushing this whole idea of "born this way" we're whitewashing the movement into two gay guys living in the suburbs with an adopted Vietnamese kid and leaving everyone else behind.
thing is, those "everyone else" seem to be a minor minority, whereas there are plenty of those guys and girls after their samesex marriages or registered partnerships, optionally with the adopted/donorspermed/surrogated kids
cont. from >>2928854
I agree with your point too.
it's so rare to see someone who even come onto the idea of questioning the homonormativism, like you or OP.
that "born this way" thing has penetrated the minds of homos (particularly those born in the 80s-90s) sooo badly.
hell, I wish I was born 20-30 years earlier, life would be so much more fun.
oh, and before someone starts throwing science at me - yes, I'm aware there is the epigenetic theory, which is very well-grounded, but what it essentially is is nothing but a proof that one's sexuality _can_ be determined at birth. by no way it disproves that one's inclination to same-sex relationships can as well be acquired during his lifetime.
pics vaguely related.
It has nothing to do with normalizing a set of behaviors. LGBT people have been making this claim because... *gasp* ... it's true. At the very least, it's the best possible explanation we can come up with. If there were psychological or environmental factors at play, we likely would have discovered some sort of consistent relationship by now. Even the AMA agrees that no such relationships exist to determine / influence human sexuality.
Remember that LGBT people exist the entire world over - this generally includes ultra-conservative Middle Eastern countries like Iran where being gay is a capital crime. Gay Iranians flee to other countries all the time to seek political asylum.
The AMA admits that they do not know that environment causes sexuality. They also admit they don't know if sexuality is biologically determined. I think their official stance is something along the lines of "homosexuality is likely a combination of a wide variety of complicated and unpredictable factors". It's pretty vague, but that's because our knowledge of what influences human sexuality is also quite vague.
Well you could say that everything in your life is determined before you are even born. the ability to choose was instilled in you but the fact that you have a brain and due to the cascading reaction of the universe, you will respond in a set manner. Thus everyone is "born this way" be it gay, black, racist, or having been chopped up and baked into a pie.
Life is like a giant game of plinko where the ball dispenser is a giant vagina, you are the ball and the prize is the sweet release of death. Kinda cool no?