Robert Farley wonders about the utility of the “born this way” argument over at LGM:
Much better, I think, to try to develop a vocabulary that doesn’t depend on the distinction between nature and choice. In other words, some characteristics cannot be useful described as either chosen or inherent. The job then, within a liberal framework, at least, is to make the case that these differences ought to be politically irrelevant, and that the gay/straight distinction shouldn’t matter for questions of marriage/benefits/rights claims/etc.
I left an eaten comment over there, so I’ll just turn it into a blog entry.
Robert’s right that it’s not a good strategy to argue that homosexuality should be permissible simply because the gays are born that way. He’s also right about the unstated assumptions here wrt what it means to see heterosexual desire as normal for most people. I don’t think the argument against “choice” is quite the one he sees, however.
Reactionary homophobes don’t think that people wake up one day and think, “Gee, I wonder what it’d be like to sleep with someone of the same sex?” It’s not a whim. According to most reactionary homophobes, the gay lifestyle is inherently promiscuous, loveless, isolating, and unfulfilling. Oh, and deadly. It’s not something any sane person would choose.
No, they think that it is a compulsion, a sickness. The gay lifestyle is a set of self-destructive behaviors that gay people resort to because they’re screwed up. Theories on how gay people get warped include parental abuse and neglect, sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence, sanctuary trauma, mis-education around gender roles, lack of properly gendered role models, and too little (or too much) exposure to contact sports. For example (curtsey to Pam):
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi , president of NARTH (the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality), describes gay relationships in men as an attempt to capture the masculinity of another man that is missing in oneself because his own sense of masculinity is broken. This reduces all notions of romance to “a reparative drive.” He sums it up later in a breakout session by saying, “Heterosexuality is complementary, homosexuality is compensatory.”
Since homosexuality is seen as something that “happens” to someone due to poor parenting, sexual abuse and other factors, then it’s not the child’s fault. When they boy grows up, he tries to “fill” his damaged masculinity with other men. Similar explanations are offered for lesbians. Following this lead, Alan Chambers, president of Exodus, and Melissa Fryrear of Focus on the Family both refer to gay relationships as an “illegitimate way of meeting a legitimate need.”
It’s not inherent, not any more than any other learned self-destructive behavior, but homosexuality is something homosexuals clearly cannot escape without some assistance.
What gay people need, therefore, is lots and lots of counselling–”reparative therapy”–in order to break the compulsion and deal with the psychological trauma that’s ruining their lives. They need to resolve whatever underlying problems are trapping them in unfulfilling homosexual relationships and preventing them from engaging in the natural, normal, fulfilling heterosexual kind. They need to overcome their buttsex addiction.
“Not a choice” isn’t meant to argue that the compulsion is more deeply rooted, that homosexuals were warped at birth rather than during their formative years. It’s meant as a direct response to the argument that homosexuality is a pathological choice. It’s not, “You cannot punish me for this sickness I didn’t choose.” (Because really, what queer would attempt to play to the human generosity of James Dobson?) It’s, “I’m not fucked up! I am not acting out abuse or neglect or other trauma. I have awesome parents and wonderful friends and fantastic partners whom I cherish and respect. There is nothing damaged about my relationships, certainly nothing damaging, and the only abuser I’ve met lately is you. So you can take your manipulation, your lies, your fake pity, your photoshopped credentials, your Man Hugs, your nerf bats of Sublimated Adolescent Male Rage, your (ahem) all-male church camping retreats of Oh-So-Butch Normal Heterosexual Bonding, and shove them all right up your ass!”
Admittedly, this is a defensive approach, but look at the reactionary attitude towards homosexuality in full. “I’ve always been this way” is not an attempt to argue that inherent is inherently healthy. It’s an attack on the idea that this particular behavior is inherently unhealthy and that it has its origins in trauma. In this context, it’s a direct comparison to heterosexual sexual attraction, which most heterosexual people understand as simply the way they feel. In other words, it’s not a disorder, not something that was done to us. It’s just falling in love. It’s just the way we are.
HOWLING with laughter here. You are a literary genius piny. Much love, Jennifer
Also, as a queer person myself, I have always been uncomfortable with the “born that way” argument also. I think people fall into the queer spectrum in as many different ways as there are people. Also, I believe that those who say “why would I choose this life” do so out of self loathing. I DID choose this life b/c the alternative (an incomplete, unfulfilled life) was unacceptable. Thank you for articulating so powerfully what I’ve believed for years.
I think that people who see liberation in the “born that way” argument fail to take into account the fact that both religious and medical prejudices against LGBT people have historically been quite comfortable with the notion of some inherent deformity in a person that must be either corrected, or protected against in “normal” society. The argument that homosexuality and bisexuality was an inherent biological flaw that needed to be corrected and treated was extremely popular in the first half of the 20th century, and even continued into the 70s with research efforts like the “feminine boys project” that subjected young boys with perceived atypical gender behaviors to abuse.
Well, yes. There is that problem of equating “born that way” with a defect. Because we’re so used to hearing about diseases and conditions which have a genetic basis – and for which the explanation is that one was really born that way, i.e. you didn’t contribute to it by eating cheeseburgers or something, which is your fault.
But as someone who really thinks there’s good evidence that fluidity in sexual attraction has some genetic basis (but a very, very complex one), why can’t it be rephrased as an adaptation instead? Humans have big brains, walk upright, and a bunch experience same-sex attraction. This isn’t going to convince your average godbag, of course, but I think it’s a better way of looking at the “born this way” argument.
The response to that, Jennifer, might be that one did not choose to be gay, but one DID choose to accept oneself as gay.
The choice or not debate is one I’m intimately aware of, though not as it relates to gay rights. Rather, the same debate frequently comes up in fat activism circles. It is always asked, should it matter if weight is a product of genetics? Would the discrimination and bigotry be okay if it wasn’t? The answer is a deceptively simple one. Of course not. Of course being a choice wouldn’t change things.
The totality of the issue, though, makes it difficult to leave it at that. For either gay issues or fat issues. Should a person who does choose to be gay be subjected to hatred or bigotry? Obviously not. But, the notion of choice, of a voluntary of even just adaptable circumstance, fuels homophobia to an enormous degree. Given that this bigotry exists without foundation, why concede the point by avoiding the point? Winning that position won’t destroy homophbia, but it will be a major blow to its very foundation. They key is to have a broad message and not to get bogged down on this one point. Because if it really does become all about this, it can become very limiting and foster the view of gay people as persons afflicted with a tragic condition. There has to be another level of the discussion.
“Born this way” is plank of the platform of gay rights, but it is far from being the entire structure. I’m not sure the key is avoiding that point as much as it is integrating it into a broader message advancing an acceptances of gays. As piny suggests, I think you can argue that one is born gay WHILE arguing that gay orientation is not a diseased state. It shouldn’t have to be one or the other.
What, like Ursula in The Little Mermaid?
I think the “born that way” argument is in some ways a knee-jerk reaction to an admittedly absurd conservative position.
One of the arguments social conservatives are fond of making against homosexuals, women who have sex, poor people on welfare, etc. are that they “chose” to be/live this way. These conservatives have crafted a worldview that is based on the idea that dignity must be earned, and compassion is only given to the deserving. I think therefore that they evolved this “people choose to be gay/pregnant/poor” narrative as a way of shielding themselves from cognitive dissonance.
If you argue that people choose a position of allegedly inferior value, you can then argue that it’s perfectly rational to discriminate against them because you don’t want to encourage or reward this type of behavior, and after all they CHOOSE to be this way. The latter assertation itself implies both that the group in question deserves to be mistreated and that the people involved could easily eliminate their own mistreatment by choosing a different course of behavior.
However, if a conservative admits that homosexuality is genetically based and not a choice, this neat system of thought collapses; it’s possible to argue that genetically homosexual people deserve their mistreatment and could easily change themselves into heterosexuals, but it’s harder.
I’m not saying this is the only thing going on- Piny’s post finds what I think is another good angle on it, and there may well be others. But it’s one large aspect of this particular “debate.”
That brings us back to my first comment- many people who are either gay or just pro-gay rights rightly see this whole “sexuality is a choice” thing as a bogus justification for prejudice, and go on to denounce it as such. However, as Robert Farley points out, by spending so much energy fighting this particular transparent lie, they may be merely skipping across the surface of what is really a deep, deep pool of prejudice. He is right when he says that debunking the choice myth isn’t going to convince any conservatives to stop hating gay people.
At the same time, I’m not sure that this issue can simply be ignored. I’m not sure that “you chose to be gay so you could stop if you tried” is a statement any gay person could easily ignore…nor should they have to ignore it. I think that’s why Farley’s post, while I agreed to an extent, made me somewhat uncomfortable; because he seems to be suggesting that this is something we simply shouldn’t spend time arguing with conservatives about, and I disagree. I think that if a gay person feels insulted by the choice myth, s/he should speak up. And I think that if the hatemongers are filling the public dialog with their bizarro version of reality, it’s important that people who know they are full of bs say so, loudly and uncompromisingly. Otherwise, there’s the risk that a wider public will simply accept the spoon-fed bizarro reality and its accompanying notion of merit-based dignity.
Speaking as a straight person (which is the only way I can speak), I understand the utility of the “born this way” stance. Just from what I’ve observed being around other straight people, it has really helped to break down the automatic prejudice of people who had a “normal” (ie what they were taught) bias against gays and lesbians. Thinking of, say, my parents/older relatives here. It gave them a framework to stop looking at gays/lesbians as “bad” or “broken” people and start looking at them as just people who are different.
To my relatives now, gays/lesbians are just another minority because they “can’t help the way they are” any more than, say, a Latino can help where s/he came from. Not saying that there’s no prejudice, but it’s a little lesser because they no longer think that the person is deliberately flouting society’s conventions.
It may be worth discussing if talking about homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. as something inborn continues to be useful, but I think it would be a bad idea to discount it as something that has been useful in the past.
I think there’s kind of a difference between “born that way” and “not a choice.” “Born that way” does make it sound potentially like a “disease” or something (at least if you’re predisposed to think of it negatively; as a straight girl I never understood why gay people would have a problem with it until I had it explained to me this way, since I always thought it was more like being born with black hair or freckles or something). But “not a choice” I think might resonate on a potentially more universal level–you don’t choose whom you love. You might think “I like his smile” “She makes me laugh” “Ze makes me feel taken care of” but ultimately it is really not up to you.
Also this:
makes me really glad you are back, again, some more.
Mnemosyne gets close to one point we might remind ourselves of with the comparison to Latinos (or any other ethnic heritage). Bigots and crazies are perfectly happy to be prejudiced against many people who are born that way, including people of color and women. Convincing them that teh gay is genetic will not necesarily end their homophobia and bigotry.
Well, yeah, but considering that we have bigots and crazies running around who insist that Galileo was wrong and the sun really does rotate around the Earth, I don’t think it’s useful to try and convince those particular people of anything. All you can really do is try to limit their reach and have counter-arguments ready when prejudiced-but-not-insane people (like, again, my older relatives) tell you the things they heard on talk radio.
If you try to tailor your arguments to what will convince the crazies (you know the ones who still think that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real), you’re passing up the people that you DO need to reach.
My favorite comment to interject when there’s a “nature / nurture” discussion going down is: “So which one makes hate and bigotry and prejudice and stereotype OK? Which one is the ‘right answer’?”
Nobody knows, and I suspect that’s because it’s largely irrelevant. Which is a good thing by some accounts, because so long as homophobes are having human rights supporters arguing nature v. nurture, we’re not out there, you know, actually doing anything. While they pass marriage ban amendments and deny even basic rights for loved ones.
There was a great opinon piece today in the LA Times:
I think part of the reason there’s not more energy directed at stopping the bullshittery from the “love the sinner, hate the sin (no, but really, hate the sinner too, just for giggles)” crowd is because discussions of political and social import are diverted to bickering about this (perhaps scientifically interesting) straw man, and not more substantive issues.
I think the “born that way” argument is very important and useful for two reasons.
First, I believe the fact that it is the prevailing view up here in Canada is one of the biggest reasons we legalized same sex marriage. Many reasonable people have no problem with discriminating against people who make choices they disagree with, but they find discrimination against those who are born that way to be unacceptable.
During our national debate about gay marriage, I changed a few people’s minds using that argument (although I didn’t compare being gay to a disease, but to being born left-handed or a redhead).
Second, the gay people I know all agree that they were born that way, and had absolutely no choice in the matter. If it’s true, why not say so?
As a heterosexual man, I’ve also seen other staight people who found it easier to relate to gay rights when they are prompted to look at their own orientation as something they were born with. As far as I’m concerned, I was born straight. I was born THIS way, and maybe part of avoiding the pitfalls of a “born this way” arguement is to push the reverse. That just as gays are born this way, straight people are born THAT way, too. We should be careful to avoid predicating acceptance on gays to only those who were “born gay”, but I do think its a balance we ought to find.
Why would we want to encourage left-handed people’s deviant behavior by providing left handed scissors? They could be right-handed and use normal scissors if they just tried hard enough, and many do (just see the Ex-Lefty Coalition’s website). Who do they think they are, imposing their radical lefty agenda on the rest of us, forcing us to have extra scissors on hand, just for them. Sounds like they want special treatment to me.
You know what’s weird? As I was writing that, feeling like it was a totally ludicrous example, I was realizing that a lot of lefties do actually end up having to deal with uncomfortable things designed for right-handed people all the time and that in the past people tried to force left-handedness out of children and that lefties were considered weird or deviant. So maybe not so crazy a parody.
My father went to a Catholic school in the 1940s and the nuns used to beat his left palm with a copper ruler to force him to write with his right hand.
The day my 5’10″ Irish-German grandmother found out about this was the day she stormed down to the school and confronted the nun who did it. Needless to say, the nun never did it again.
So, yeah, the handedness is a pretty good parallel. Especially since, yes, some people can change given enough incentive, but what’s the point of changing something as harmless as handedness (sexual orientation)?