Gay - Born, Made, or... ?

I was recently talking to a conservative-liberal lesbian friend, who raised with me the old chestnut that “surveys show (!) that people are more sympathetic to lesbians and gays when they believe that homosexuals are born that way (i.e., it is a genetically determined condition or caused by hormone imbalance), rather than it being a ‘lifestyle choice’.”

This got me thinking. Determinism is not only a dead-end theoretically — it is ahistorical and pessimistic and therefore a major prop to conservative ideology — but also a strategic minefield. Let’s see why.

My friend’s “theory” states that homosexuality is genetically determined like eye-colour. Therefore, the difference between gay and straight should be exactly parallel to that between blue and brown eyes. However, there are those in our society who regard homosexuality as a “sin” — for those of us who are not religious, this makes it somewhat akin to an “illness,” and, because, as my friend said, people are “more sympathetic” if they can believe that it is a “condition” that is genetically determined, more akin to haemophilia or cystic fibrosis. Similarly, if it is a “hormone disorder,” it is akin to Kallmann’s Syndrome (q.v), or even diabetes or hyperthyroidism.

Following such logic, homosexuality can (and, in the eyes of the anti-gay, should) be “cured” by gene therapy or hormone injections — even religious zealots, whose previous “solution” to homosexuality was to exile or murder gays, or brainwash them into “normalcy,” can argue that they have a “humane,” “scientific” solution to the “problem.”

Biological determinism and evolutionary psychology are useful in a left-leaning and liberal society, in that those who are different can argue that they cannot help being what they are, but that they are still human beings and therefore are entitled to participate. In the chilly right-wing climate prevalent in the West at present, such thinking can lead to terrifying consequences — if the different can’t be cured, either chemically or psychologically, they may as well be disposed of, for the good of Society/The Race/Christendom/Whatever.

So how do I conceive of my lesbianism? Well, as a socialist feminist, I see it as the result of an interrelation between Biology, Environment and the Mode-of-Production (MoP) current at the present time in history.

What do I mean by this? Well, at whatever time in history I lived, I would be attracted to those of my own gender (Biology), but my ability to self-identify as a “lesbian” in 2009 depends on my living in a city, thus increasing the likelihood of finding a partner (Environment), and on my having a job, so that I don’t have to suppress my sexuality and sell myself into heterosexual marriage in order to survive (MoP). If I were , say, living on a farm in 14th century Sicily, I would still be attracted to those of my own gender, but I would be relatively isolated from other women who shared my sexuality, and it would be unlikely that I could support myself economically in any remotely independent fashion — I would therefore either become a nun or end up dead or as the unhinged “strega” (witch) kept locked in the windowless room at the back of the farmhouse.

I would be interested to hear how male gays on the forum see my analysis — gay male friends here point out that the “weight” given to each point of the triangle (Biology-Environment-MoP) may differ for men, since, e.g., men have usually found it easier to be economically independent, yet sometimes face a more hostile environment.

Saying someone is gay because they are born that way is like saying someone is black or female because they were born that way. That's just acknowledging the role of biology in creating sexual orientation as much as it creates gender and ethnicity.

That kind of argument is not comparable to the bigoted arguments which emphasize genetic differences. What would be comparable is if reactionaries accepted the biological role of sexual orientation, yet promoted the idea that gay people were genetically inferior, mentally and physically, or that it was a dangerous disease of some kind.

It doesn't have to be biological to be okay? Sure. But it's not an argument, gay people are not promoting the idea that it's biological as an argument, but because it's true. The OP recognizes that she would be a (closeted) lesbian in 14th century Sicily regardless of her environment, even though her life takes place in 21st century Australia.

Gay people would still be oppressed if it were recognized as genetic, as the oppression of other groups shows. But, saying if it is environmental or a choice also creates the delusion that it can be changed.

I don't think Determinism is bad. Determinism is logical scientifically whereas Free Will sounds like some kind of Christian redemption hooey.

Yes, Marx said that “[Men]…do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves” but he did say, “Men make their own history...” The first part is as important as the second, and a denial of Determinism, IMO.

What we need to be doing is revolutionizing views on sexuality apart from the biology argument. It's true that biological determinism here is just as big a can of worms, a scarier one in my opinion. It may have a couple short term benefits, but it's indeed a dead end in the long term.

What we should do is prioritize the mental health of those with sexualities deemed "deviant" as healthy and normal like normal humans, but how they suffer psychological damage and mental unhealth at those who don't accept it.

It doesn't have to be biological to be okay. And people should learn reach that point of understanding.

I hope that this user wasn’t banned for this post! It shows a good deal of sense, IMO!

What would be comparable is if reactionaries accepted the biological role of sexual orientation, yet promoted the idea that gay people were genetically inferior, mentally and physically, or that it was a dangerous disease of some kind.

They don’t?

Most reactionaries who can string enough thought bubbles together to provide a justification for their homophobia do so in religious terms — they call homosexuality a ‘sin.’ Those — at least those who are christian — who do accept ‘the biological role of sexual orientation’ (like those of whom my friend was talking) compare it to the ‘original sin’ promulgated by Augustine, while those who claim that it is a choice “hate the sin but love the sinner.”

The second group are those who want to ‘cure’ me — them I can fight. It is the first group and their supporters of whom I am especially leery — while I might be the object of their ‘pity’ now, I know that I won’t grow too old on that emotion.

I also know that those who are not christian and who object to homosexuality on religious grounds are of neither camp — they just want me dead.

It doesn't have to be biological to be okay? Sure. But it's not an argument, gay people are not promoting the idea that it's biological as an argument, but because it's true. The OP recognizes that she would be a (closeted) lesbian in 14th century Sicily regardless of her environment, even though her life takes place in 21st century Australia.

No, you’ve misunderstood my point. I’m not denying the biological component in my attraction to my own gender — I am saying that my ability to be a ‘lesbian’ (a social classification) is dependent on the coincidence of this with the other two factors.

Gay people would still be oppressed if it were recognized as genetic, as the oppression of other groups shows. But, saying if it is environmental or a choice also creates the delusion that it can be changed.

And, I repeat, saying that it is not at least mediated by environmental factors (including an element of ‘choice’) can amount to suicide or a death sentence.

Being "gay" IS NOT A "LIFESTYLE" choice!!!

What "lifestyle" are you speaking of: A rich, woman hating gay man?

A single, poor lesbian raising a child or children by herself and barely making it?

A poor rural closeted gay person?

A very outspoken jock?

A delusional conservative rich white repuke who thinks the repuke conservative fundy fascist party is just peachy and they accept him fully as he is while he looks down on anyone not like him and spends his days going from party to cruise without a care for anyone or anything else than his immediate gratification?

"Lifestyle" has NOTHING to with being "gay"!!!

I get so fucking pissed off when people spew that crap!!!