Let's consign the "gay is a choice" debate to the dustbin of irrelevance

[Reuben]

I see the discussion of whether or not being gay is a choice is still cropping up here so I thoughtI would share a piece I recently wrote for The Third Estate (http://www.thethirdestate.net)on why the whole discussion is both politicallly irrelevant and anti-thetetical to the politics of sexual liberation
http://thethirdestate.net/?p=919

“Being gay is a choice”. This line of argument continues to be a hobby horse for conservatives, and for people opposed to queer liberation. For conservatives, such an viewpoint is greatly appealing. It seems to offer a way of disaggragating the stuggle for gay equality from earlier struggles for civil rights, and offers a rationale for differentiating sexual equality from far more universally accepted principles of racial equality.

It is perhaps unsurprising then that the ‘inherent’ nature of homosexuality has become and an important point of argument for quite a few progressives and gay rights activists in Britain and America. The was somewhat reflected in the furious reactions to what Pink News called (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/aroundtheworld/2008/10/gay-democrats-respond-to-palin-claims-that-sexual-orientation-is-a-choice-2/) “accusations from Governor Sarah Palin that sexual orientation is a choice”. My emphasis.

Yet I for one am comfortable taking an agnostic position on the issue. For one thing ‘individual choice’ and ‘inherentness’ are both clunky concepts which are of limited use in illuminating social and sexual activity. Secondly, and with this in mind, I really do not feel I have the expertise to explain the complexities of sexual orientation. Yet most importantly I refuse to accept that the question of whether homosexuality is a choice is of any political relevance.

The struggle for gay rights is not simply about making sure that people are not disadvantaged by an accident of birth. To engage so uncritically in the ‘gay is a choice’ debate detracts from the real issues of liberation, pluralism and freedom from persecution. If, like me, you believe that people have an a priori right to deviate from those cultural and sexual mores that are dominant, and that defending such rights is politically important, then ‘nature versus nurture’ really doesnt matter. To assert people are ‘just born like that’ takes us back to the bad old days of appealing for tolerance and forebearance.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

The nature versus nurture debate does matter, and it matters for the reasons you stated in your first paragraph. As long as the issue can be debatable there are going to be conservatives and religious fanatics who use it to hold back the progress of the gay rights movement.

Homosexuality is not a choice and to suggest otherwise is giving the anti-homosexual brigade fuel for their arguments. A person can choose to act on their feelings, but they can't choose to have those feelings in the first place. Who on earth thinks 'I am going to make myself attracted to that guy' or 'I don't want to be attracted to her so I'll stop myself'?

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, exactly! That's what I've been thinking for a long time. Communists support gay liberation not because it is or isn't a choice, but because we do not believe that no one can tell consenting adults what to do in their bedroom, and we are against the oppressive and reactionary way in which the ruling class uses this question to divide the struggles of the workers and oppressed.

Viva La Revolucion, do you believe that anything is going to convince the conservatives and religious fanatics to accept homosexuals? Such people must be convinced by things other than words. If you insist that we must accept that homosexuality isn't a choice, and that only then we can fight for gay liberation, then you basically accept that there is something wrong with homosexuality.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Viva La Revolucion, do you believe that anything is going to convince the conservatives and religious fanatics to accept homosexuals? Such people must be convinced by things other than words. If you insist that we must accept that homosexuality isn't a choice, and that only then we can fight for gay liberation, then you basically accept that there is something wrong with homosexuality.


Absolutly, to argue that one didn't have a choice in becoming LGBTQ/whatever implies that if it were a choice, it would be a wrong one and insofar as that is true, then your current standing cannot be considered normal - more just an unfortunate condition you cannot help.

On the other hand there are several gay people, notorious transphobe Julie Bindell for example, who state that their sexuality is very much a personal choice.

Now im of the opinion that sexuality is not a matter of choice, but to be honest, it's not something im passionate in defending, it may well be the result of social circumstances, upbringing, genetics or whatever, the point is, it shouldn't matter. Sex, love and attraction shouldn't be determined by where your partner shaves, their genitalia, their facial hair (or lack thereof) etc etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This debate does matter but I think the first thing we can all agree on is that we should be unequivocally in defense of full rights for everyone and fight against all opression of LGBT people.

I believe that it is a weak position for radicals to state that homosexuality is inherent.

1. Being "born gay" is what the bigots used to say! They said that homosexual acts meant that someone had a birth defect or mental problem and therefore should not be allowed to be part of society.

I have heard many on the left cite pseudo-science ideas about "hormones" or "genes" causing sexuality - this reeks of eugenics and again suggests that sexuality can be treated and "fixed".

2. Arguing that a sexual preference should be defended because it is inherent, suggests that the bigots would be correct if it were a choice. I say if it is a choice it should still be 100% defended.

3. Arguing that sexuality is inherent will drive away LGBT people who do not fit neatly into one sexual preference or another. Many people have very happy relationships with one geneder and then later switch their preference. Modern sociality already puts enough pressure on people to fit into socially defined catagories of sexuality - radicals should not help enable this.

4. Sexuality being inherent is not supported by history. If sexuality was inherent and spread through genes, how do we explain how there is more homosexuality in same-sex school or military or prison environments than in general society? How do we explain how many induviduals experament before settling on one preference over others? How do we explain how in past sociaties homosexual acts were as common and accepted as heterosexual acts?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Yehuda, yes I do believe that homophobic people can be persuaded so that they accept homosexuals, but obviously it's not something that could ever happen easily.

When you say that they must be convinced by things other than words, what do you mean exactly?

I didn't say that we all have to wait until the issue is resolved before we can campaign for gay rights. That's not what I meant at all. I said that I believe homosexuality isn't always a choice and that as long as people are saying it's a choice, the religious right will be telling people to choose not to be gay. I am not saying it is a wrong choice - that's my point!

I have no idea how Julie Bindell can say sexuality is a choice. Like I said, you can't decide to be attracted to somebody - the only decision you make is whether or not to act on your attractions.

My cousin is gay and he really didn't want to be. He thought life would be much easier if he were straight. Yet despite not wanting to be gay (he was actually very upset at the time), there was nothing he could do about it because it wasn't his choice. All of the time there are Christians who tell people that they can be healed and that they can 'choose' to be straight. Thousands of people have been coerced into supressing their desires and emotions, often with very damaging consequences and all because those people insist they are making a decision.

Gravedigger, having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make you homosexual. Homosexual behaviour happens in those environments because there are no women/men; if there were women in an all-male prison then the majority of inmates would choose to have sex with a woman. And what about when these people leave same-sex schools or military prisons? I'm sure that most of them pair up with the opposite sex. Yes, their actions were a choice (and not a 'wrong' choice), but their actions don't mean that they're gay. I actually think comparing those scenarios is an insult to people who feel a real connection only to the same sex. A lot of what you're talking about is experimentation which is slightly different.

Also, homosexuality is present in a minority of the population in most species of animals. As far as I know, animals don’t think or question or even decide what they’re going to do. It’s all instinctual.

Lastly, your third point. I agree with this. Sexuality can be flexible but even so that still doesn't mean it's a choice. Take, for example, the theory that sexual orientation is a scale from 1 being completely straight to 10 being completely gay and most people falling somewhere in the middle. That explains why some people are only attracted to the same sex and why some people can find both males and females attractive.

Believe me, I think we should all support complete equality regardless of whether it’s a choice or not. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t dismiss the possiblity of there being a scientific explanation for sexual orientation, nor should we ignore the risk of homophobic people using the ‘it’s a choice’ theory as a way to ruin lives.

[Trystan]

Who gives a shit?

[scipio]

First off, the whole argument of is it a choice or not is simply ludacris. Like anyone chooses to be an outcast.That said, i believe the reasons nothing positive has been done in regards to gay rights these past few years are 1)Republicans love to scare there voting base with the thought of gay weddings(as if weddings arent already gayer than christmas) and gay adoptions(cause those kids are so much beter off in the states' care). 2)Democrats love to promise us things like repealing DOMA, or Dont ask, Dont tell;that is, until they get into office. 3)There are some elements in the gay community that relly arent helping to promote understanding and acceptance(i.e almost anyone you see on the news at a pride parade dressed like elton john circa 1977).Theres other reasons too, but i think these 3 are very big ones.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Gravedigger, having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make you homosexual. Homosexual behaviour happens in those environments because there are no women/men; if there were women in an all-male prison then the majority of inmates would choose to have sex with a woman. And what about when these people leave same-sex schools or military prisons? I'm sure that most of them pair up with the opposite sex. Yes, their actions were a choice (and not a 'wrong' choice), but their actions don't mean that they're gay. I actually think comparing those scenarios is an insult to people who feel a real connection only to the same sex. A lot of what you're talking about is experimentation which is slightly different.

Also, homosexuality is present in a minority of the population in most species of animals. As far as I know, animals don’t think or question or even decide what they’re going to do. It’s all instinctual.

Believe me, I think we should all support complete equality regardless of whether it’s a choice or not. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t dismiss the possiblity of there being a scientific explanation for sexual orientation, nor should we ignore the risk of homophobic people using the ‘it’s a choice’ theory as a way to ruin lives.

My point was not to say that sexual experimentation makes anyone anything. My point is that sexual experimentation shows that sexuality is flexible and when acceptable (like in past societies) a whole range of sexual expression is common - or given no alternative (single-sex environments) then same-sex relationships are much more common.

There is very little in human behavior which is determined at birth. The "born gay" argument, in my opinion, is pseudo-science that can be used for bigotry just as much as it is currently used by the left against bigotry today. I don't think people today sit down one day and decide to be gay or straight or anything - the point is that it should be up to people to choose whatever they want with other consenting adults and that choice should be defended by the left!

The "born gay" argument is actually harmful for trans people because generally they were actually born one sex or another but simply identify with the other gender. The logic of the born gay argument suggests that a woman who identifies with being a man and wants to have relationships with women is actually just a confused lesbian. If it is possible to be "born trans" meaning that you have the body of one sex and the mind of another sex, that suggests that men and women have significantly different brains and gender identity is actually from birth rather than a social construct. This logic leads to all sorts of reactionary conclusions about gender.

I think the left needs to abandon this pseudo science about gender and sexuality being inherent and inborn... historically this path has lead to some dark places like eugenics and so on. Instead, let's focus on how to not put people into acceptable categories of sexuality, but defend people's right to the freedom to full explore all their sexuality without repressive laws and social pressure. After the revolution there will be no heterosexuality or homosexuality, there can be just sexuality.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think there is a broader question at stake here - whether we should accept the assumptions of reactionaries when debating social and political oppression. The answer should obviously be no, we should not. This is most evident in the case of debates about sexuality as outlined above but an additional case where the same question is applicable, and where our approach should be the same, is migration, as, when told that migration controls should be abolished, it is common for opponents of this position to say that this would lead to the number of immigrants increasing substantially. In this context it is common for some leftists to respond by saying that the number of immigrants would remain the same or only increase slightly, but we should respond by questioning why there is a logical link between more immigration and open borders being a bad policy, i.e., we should question why more immigration should be oppossed.

[Revy]

Even if it was already known that homosexuality was not a choice, we would still be oppressed. It would be argued as a birth defect or disease, or if not that, we would just be hated anyway. The struggle for liberation doesn't have much to do with convincing people we were born a certain way.

[progressive_lefty]

The 'gay is a choice' thing is indeed irrelevant, its funny to see all those radical conservatives going on about it. It kind of makes me wonder, maybe they have their own homosexual thoughts and they're trying suppress it? I can't see what difference it makes whether someone openly chooses to be gay or is 'born gay'.

[Yehuda Stern]

an additional case where the same question is applicable, and where our approach should be the same, is migration, as, when told that migration controls should be abolished, it is common for opponents of this position to say that this would lead to the number of immigrants increasing substantially. In this context it is common for some leftists to respond by saying that the number of immigrants would remain the same or only increase slightly, but we should respond by questioning why there is a logical link between more immigration and open borders being a bad policy, i.e., we should question why more immigration should be oppossed.Exactly. The same happens with pro-Zionists who are supposedly for the right of return of Palestinians. I'm quoting from a reply I wrote to an interview with Dov Khenin, one of the Stalinist Israeli Communist Party's leaders:


On the question of refugees, Khenin’s position is even fouler. For a long time, the ICP had at least the merit of being one of the only parties to advocate – as always, in theory – the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Recently, it has been rather silent on the subject. But now Khenin reveals what we have always suspected – that this advocacy was indeed so much rhetoric:

"There is a basic recognition of rights on the one hand, and there is a practical political solution based on agreement between the political leaderships of the two peoples on the other hand."

This sneaky passage, truly befitting for a cynical reformist politician, really says a lot about Khenin and his party. What he is basically telling the Israeli ruling class is “look, don’t be too stubborn about words. If you agree to recognize to right of the Palestinian refugees to return, that alone will give you a lot of credit. And if you do so, we promise that we – along with our collaborators in the West Bank and Gaza – make sure that this recognition isn’t mistaken by anyone as a signal that refugees can really return to their land. We will help you make sure that this recognition remains yet another smokescreen for your real policies and for creating a separate Palestinian state, wholly dependent on Israel.”