“Born This Way” is fauxgress, not progress

Even if being queer was a choice, so is religion and religious people have equal rights, laws protecting them and so on. And there are people who choose to to be queer as well see here.

 

That's what I came here to say. I don't like getting into this sort of debate with people because in the end it doesn't really matter. For homophobes it's just an excuse to victim blame.

 

I understand where this author is coming from, but some of us really were "born this way." Some of us really would be straight or cisgendered if it was possible; however, it's not. Trust me, I've tried.

 

'born this way' is so far shaping up to be scientifically proven. so far, all the evidence is that sexuality is not a choice, but all science is a process, and when a result is found, more tests are done to make sure it was not a aberation in the methadology of the process, but a repeateable result. then it is tested in other ways to further understand the results.

So far, there is no scientific evidence that can back up the claim that gay people choose to be that way.

so technically, 'born this way' remains valid, and we should not stop useing it.

 

What's described on that website is not choosing to be queer but choosing to be open to the possibility that they were and then discovering that they were. Seems like a semantic sleight of hand to me.

However I do agree with the OP. I complained about the same thing just a few threads down. This one has a better title though. :icon_wink

 

Let's assume that we had 100% proof that homosexuality was genetic. It all came down to a single gene and you either had it and were gay or didn't and were straight. "Born this way" would still be an invalid argument. Why? Because being predisposed to act a certain way is not a moral argument that you should be permitted to. Suppose pedophilia were also genetic, that wouldn't make it okay to molest children. Suppose psychopathy is genetic, that doesn't make it okay for psychopaths to murder people.

Even if it were a good argument, the homophobes have mostly moved past trying to prove that homosexuality is a choice. The Mormons and Catholics are mostly on board with the idea that queer people are born queer. They just think it's an unfortunate birth defect or mental illness, like bipolar disorder.

 

Having a little background in the sort of research that goes into this, here's how I'd characterize the state of things now:

Genetic research on homosexuality deals with averages. Certain genetic factors seem to bring about a tendency for homosexuality or heterosexuality (etc.). Lots of features of individual psychology - from positive personality traits to mental illness - end up resulting from interactions of genetic and environmental factors like this. Subjective ratings of happiness turn out to be about 50% predictable based on genetics alone, regardless of social and economic circumstances, for example.

My guess would be that for some, genetic factors are so strong that there really is not choice involved. For others, there might be only a marginal predisposition, and life experiences (and maybe even "free choice") provide the rest of the reasoning. Frankly I tihnk this is the ideal outcome for us anyways. We cant point to some people and say "you chose to be gay" and for others say "you couldnt help it," so theres no good reason to make the laws different. If we shoot for a nice black and white split between choice and genetics, we WILL get proven wrong, because nothing (ok, very little) in psychology is purely genetic. But genetics palys a huge part in a lot more than we realize (that 50% of the variablility in individual happiness, for one), I'd be very surprised if it didn't have a major influence on sexuality somehow.

 

This is not my field of science, but I have read a fair bit about the topic from researchers in the field.

Firstly, there is pretty much never any such thing as a gene for some specific trait. Genes form a complex template, and genes interact and cause various effects.

I think it is justifiable to say that there is a genetic predisposition for your sexual preference and your gender identity as well as other related variations. And that's the point here, there are a lot of variation in our species as in any other species. Nature has no goal in creating a fixed heterosexual male/female binary. It just generates variation. It's what it does.

Now, how people turn out on the basis of their genetic make up is to a large degree determined by how we interact with our environment. Biochemistry in form of hormones and how our body respond to them are key in development of sexual dimorphism. And these are not strictly determined by genetics. In addition there is a hell of a lot of cultural conditioning. When you're born, you are far from fully physically developed. That takes a long time for humans, especially the brain takes a long time to become what it is in an adult. About 25 years. Everything that happens over those 25 years affect what that en result will be. Being it nutrition or sensory input. It is why we are such a successful species. We're highly adaptable and out-competed our cousins to the point where we're the only human species left.

So no, you're not born that way. You may have a pre-disposition to certain behaviours, but that does not make you. Your childhood does. In that sense that it completes what was started with your genes.

Take for instance psychopaths. That's caused by a deficiency in the brain. However not everyone with this deficiency become psychopaths. Most violent psychopaths have a history of childhood abuse in addition to that predisposition.

Also, since paedophiles were mentioned, only some paedophiles become child abusers. The first part is not something they can help, the second is. To equate those two is wrong, but is usually done. Not all people lacking empathy are serial killers either.

So my point is, even if your sexuality and identity are not determined by genetics alone, that doesn't mean it is a decision you've made. Free will is in itself a meaningless concept as there really isn't such a thing. It's an illusion. "Born this way" is false as a conclusive statement, but that doesn't imply the opposite is true. It's just another false dichotomy.

 

I think Liam has the right of it. Whether we are born this way or not has little to do with whether a behavior is immoral or not.

One of the more controversial issues in evolutionary psychology is in whether or not there is a genetic predisposition towards rape. A theory states that the people who raped more likely passed on more of their genes in the era of evolutionary adaptation. This would explain why we have rapists today still. However, just because their is a module in someone's brain that can make them more likely to engage in rape does not effect the morality of the behavior in question. Rape is still wrong.

 

Since the only reason we (the LGBT community) feel the need to defend ourselves is because the homophobic mindset in society constantly bullies us into doing so, what then are we supposed to do? If the "born this way" argument works against our cause for getting equal rights and being accepted by the "moral majority", then what argument(s) should we use to change their hearts and minds?

 

We can argue that the Bible is far more ambiguous on homosexuality than they think it is. We can argue that homosexuality isn't harmful. We can argue that anti-gay discrimination is immoral for much the same reason that religious and cultural discrimination is. There's a whole host of good, valid arguments we can use that don't employ "born this way."

No other group employs "born this way." The civil rights movement never said was wrong to discriminate against black people because they didn't choose to be black, feminists never said that women didn't choose to be women. The argument is dehumanizing and unnecessary.

 

One could argue that that was only because it was ridiculously self evident in those cases. It's been said plenty of times, that the fundamental difference between race or gender discrimination and sexuality discrimination, is that you can tell whether someone is black or female just from looking at them, but you can't tell if someone is gay. In other words, it will seem that being black or a woman is a physical characteristic, whereas sexuality isn't; and therefore seems less set in stone, or more open to malleability.

Also, I dislike this article, simply for making up the word 'fauxgress' *shudders* :dry:

 

Well, I'd go for "all adult citizens should get the same rights, and generally be at liberty to do with other consenting adults whatever they damn well please, as long as no third parties get hurt". Whether that goes for contract law, voting rights, or marriage. Gender, race, or orientation shouldn't figure into it in the first place, let alone why those differences exist.

However, I must say the original blog post annoys me slightly. Yes, it is a legitimate point to raise, but the style of writing also suggests the writer enjoys the idea of being "more-activist-than-thou". Or at least "purer-than-thou", which puts me off a lot.

 

Oh, fuck the Bible. It's the worst guide to morals ever. It is where half the problems come from in the first place. Morality should be based on reason, not dogma. There is nothing unnatural about being gay, lesbian, transgender and all that. They can scream immoral all they want, it's bullshit. The "born this way" defence is not necessary nor is it true on its own. Love between people is a good thing. Being who you are is a good thing. As long as none of this hurt other people, it's fine and is no one else's business.

If there is a moral high ground, it's that of accepting people for who they are. The self-righteous fundamentalist religious crowd can go fuck themselves. In my country at least, they're ridiculed every time they open their mouth in public. So they have no influence here. Hopefully that will change in the US as well eventually. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of their hatred, and also of their defenders. Religion doesn't own morality, they're pretty much the worst at it you can come across.

 

I wasn't trying to imply that there weren't other, better arguments to be had, but that I think it's kind of lame to be arguing over semantics in an argument that isn't inherently bad or meant to be a definitive defensive argument. I guess I thought of the "born this way" mantra as being more of a gay-pride slogan, rather than a definitive argument to shut up the narrow-minded, Bible-thumping dimwits. But then again, how is the "born this way" argument any better/worse than the other arguments out there? Ideas of morality are all about values that a society holds and you'll probably find flaws with any argument (and be able to argue with the semantics of it). In order to live in a society that doesn't place negative connotations on being LGBT though, we are forced into these uncomfortable, non-definitive arguments in our attempt to be treated as equals and hopefully one day be viewed as "normal".

Long story short, society sucks! I'm done...my brain hurts from reading this thread.:bang:

 

Values societies hold are caused by beliefs societies have about what maximises safety, security and well-being and what doesn't. Some of those beliefs are backed up by good evidence (e.g. the belief that prepubescent sex with older people is psychologically damaging) and some are not (e.g. the belief that children are psychologically ready to have sex as soon as they hit puberty and that child marriages help keep your community running smoothly, because a god or other says so/does so and so it must be true, or because it's been believed for many years, or because everyone you know has had this experience so you've nothing to compare the outcome to).

So even values can be objectively evaluated.

 

While the phrase may not help in political debate, it does help with self realization. It would be far more comforting [though not entirely true] if someone had told me that I was 'born this way' and nothing was wrong with me when I was 14. The phrase as well as the song is empowering and beneficial to many learning to accept themselves.

Same-sex marriage will come when the more conservative generations have died. I can't imagine being 70 and not having Same-sex marriage laws.
I'm not saying it shouldn't or won't happen sooner, but it is something to look forward to at least.

 

Don't really like the Glee video for it - just came off as over showy. And I only like two of Lady Gaga's songs and listen to them on the radio. The one that was in Percy Jackson, because it always reminds me of Vegas now and this one. Thus, coming from that POV --

I think it sends out a positive message that we can't help who we are. Society tries to shut a lot of us up. It definitely did it's number on me. I had myself convinced that I was just a straight guy who also liked dudes, but just - a straight guy lol. No idea how I ever believed that one. But, I hated the idea of being LGBT. Gradually what helped me was the X-Men, the idea that mutants were born that way and they couldn't control it and not only did they come to accept it - they learned to embrace it. Kinda why I hated that Rogue took the cure in X3, those movies were always a strengthening metaphor to me.

Basically trying to say, I think it sends out a very positive message to those who are trying to be straight and struggling when they are either gay or bi and would feel better accepting it.

Not accepting, "this sucks, I like guys" but that you're normal just the way you are and it's society that's screwed up. Not the other way around.