Gay is NOT like Being Left Handed!!!
subordinate posts a treatsie on how homosexuality is purely psychological based on years and years of research at anti_femninist.



Andrea Dworkin has said that, "Biological superiority is the world's most dangerous idea." I've been thinking a lot about that and, specifically, what happens when we use the idea of biological superiority to feel guilty about and pity those of us we see as inferior based on biological status.

Lately more of us have been posting here about big, heavy topics that have almost nothing to do with making fun of certain communities. Being that I am a sheep, I thought I'd join in with my own big, heavy topic, of a sort.

First off -- I am a lesbian. I have been out my entire adult life. As a lesbian, I feel sexually, emotionally, romantically, and whatever else-ly attracted to women primarily over men. There is nothing contrived whatsoever about my lesbian identity -- in fact, as far as I feel personally about things, it's the identity I probably mention least about myself (online or otherwise) because it's the identity I am LEAST conflicted about.

That said: I believe sexual orientation is AT LEAST 75% socially constructed. But since I'm just pulling percentages out of my ass, I really think it's probably more like 96.74309% socially constructed.

I do NOT think sexual orientation is psychologically ingrained in you before you're five. I do think that the Oedipal, and pre-Oedipal, phases are important for overall sexuality development (and personality and intelligence, among other things), but I do not believe that orientation is totally formed, either through psychological or biological means, by the time you start grammar school.

In short: yes, I believe that sexual orientation is "a choice."

There are several reasons why this is unpopular:
1) Everything is biologically determined these days. If it doesn't have a "scientific" basis, it's not considered "true." Watch "Dr." Phil and how he tells people that CAT and PEP scans can PROVE if a person has a mood disorder -- sorry Phil, but no dice.

2) So if homosexuality has no "biological" basis, what causes it? Something psychosocial?! Does that make it a disorder?

3) And if homosexuality has no biological basis, then what are we doing trying to give gays "special rights" when they can just "choose" to be straight?

4) And if it's really hard for some of them to "choose" to be straight, since there's no biological evidence, well, we should treat homosexuality like a psychological disorder, and "cure" them, right?

For this line of thinking, GLBT activists have jumped all over the biological determinism angle. Which has created the current, "Don't hate gays, they can't help it, that's just who they are," liberal mainstream line.

Not only is this thinking really harmful because it centers all its hopes upon the ability to use (or manipulate, whatever) science to FIND A GAY GENE or something (and if we never find it, eventually, people will start to doubt the biological-gay idea), it centers all its strength on the argument that yes, PERHAPS being gay is abhorrent, but they can't help it! They can't! Pity the sinner, the pervert, their physical brain makes them act the way they do!

The solution to this problem, for some people, have been to say, "It doesn't matter if it's biological or sociological, the point is they're gay now, and let's be humane." That works until the current generation of gays and lesbians get older and a new generation comes in. The let's-just-deal-with-what-we-have-now method doesn't work once "now" isn't "now" anymore, but rather, the past, when instead of dealing with a problem, we ignored it and schlepped it off onto future generations.

Here's what we have to do: acknowledge that homosexuality is socially constructed. Acknowledge that heterosexuality, for that matter, is socially constructed too. The typical straight person COULD be gay, and the typical gay person COULD be straight if socialized differently. Once a person is an adult, however, "choice" time is more or less over because you've already been socialized as far as your sexual practices and feelings go. However, socialization is a process that NEVER STOPS until you die. It is INCREDIBLY complicated and interacts with your own psychology -- and yes, biology, specifically aging -- to create Who You Are.

Forcing a gay man to be straight is like forcing a Limp Bizkit fan to be a Yanni fan. It's just not pleasant. However, it's not like forcing a left-handed person to be right-handed. Forcing a left-handed person to be right-handed is more like forcing a colorblind person to be suddenly not.





Soooo....if I read this right, what it boils down to is that lesbians can be "turned straight" if they just get the right guy, enough times. I'll, uh, take your word for that, mm'kay?
===================================
For one thing, there is a biological basis for sexual orientation.
1) Genetics. No doubt about it, according to correlative studies on it. I'm pretty sure the studies themselves isolate the fact that it can be passed down through non-heterosexual mom/dad teaching it either. There is also this weird thing where it is generally the older brother (or the last born?) who was most likely to be gay.
2) Hormones. Not conclusive, but there is growing evidence that foetal development can affect people more than original thought (outside of abnormalities)
3) Pheremones, corpus callosum. I think that has been common knowledge

====================================
What about monozygotic twin studies that show a very strong concordance of homosexuality, much more than we see in dizygotic twins? What social mechanism explains the difference?
===================================
1. the origins of homosexuality are fundamentally a scientific question, just as are the origins of heterosexuality.

2. as far as ethics goes, it doesn't matter whether the causation of homosexuality is largely biological, largely socio-cultural, largely free-will, or some permutation of two or three equal factors. all gender orientations are of equal moral dignity. morality has nothing to say on the matter.

ta da!
==========================================
I believe it is a multifaceted series of events that makes one gay.
I believe I was born gay. I believe that no matter what the situations and circumstances of my life had been, I would be gay.
I also believe that there are various degrees of homosexuality, all of whom were born gay.

I believe that all homosexuals are born genetically predispositioned to be attracted to members of th same sex. The extent to which that is realized and exercised is what comes under the scrutiny of choice/circumstance.
================================================
Of course we also have subordinate's replies to ice the cake.

That's because I don't believe in biological determinism in regards to romantic attraction. Therefore, no, I can't really use the word "exclusively." Are you straight and male? You don't feel sexually, emotionally, and romantically to females 100% exclusively. Maybe 99%, if the idea bothers you.

Queer by Choice, is NOT what I'm talking about. They are straight people who have forced themselves to be queer because of a variety of reasons. I don't support that.

You'd prefer it to be biology though, wouldn't you? I'm not asking you to believe that it's 100% socialization. I'm asking you to consider it without getting defensive, assuming that I'm not "really" gay, or that I'm saying your own homosexual identity is nothing.

I thought the Bizkit/Yanni thing was funny. Do you know who those artists are? It would be near impossible for such fans to switch places.

Obviously, I have touched a nerve with you. Perhaps you should think about that.
=================================================================================
Well, sure. And one schizophrenic identical twin is 50% likely to have a schizophrenic twin brother/sister. But that's still only 50%, right? You'd expect it to be 100%, wouldn't you?

If biology were predominant, that figure would be ABOVE 50%. If biology/socialization were 50/50, that figure would STILL be above 50% (it would, really, do the math).

So, I mean, why is it 50% only? Could it be because of something outside of natal biology? I think it might
=============================================================================
Okay, fine. These are your beliefs. But you realize these beliefs are as unfounded as believing in, oh, Jesus?

I KNOW there is a G-d. I KNOW this. There's all kinds of evidence, too! And this justifies my religion, because it's true.

I KNOW homosexuality is innate. I KNOW this. Let me refer you to studies about hormones, or hypothalamus sizes, or whatever. And I will use these studies to justify my sexuality.

This is the sort of blind faith that I think hurts us more than helps us. Do we really want straight people to "accept" homosexuality just because they think we're essentially disabled?



Ah the nuances of pseudo-science.