While I feel that sexual orientation is likely caused by a confluence of a wide variety of factors, both innate and cultural, that article was just incredibly bad.
Her first “reason” why homosexuality isn’t inborn makes no argument for homosexuality not being inborn, it’s just pointing out that political advantage shouldn’t trump facts. Which is true, but does nothing to show that homosexuality is not innate. So, already what we have here is not five reasons why people aren’t born gay, we have four reasons an an explanation why it matters.
In her second “reason,” she has either totally misunderstood the study, or she thinks finger length is a social construct.
It’s only by her third point that she starts to veer towards relevance. Unfortunately, she seems to have confused the idea of innate sexuality with the concept of polar sexuality. The prevalence of male homosexual activity in Ancient Greece (which I think she overstates, btw) isn’t evidence that sexuality is not innate, it’s evidence that pure heterosexuality may not be as common as we think, given an environment where homosexual activity is not censured.
She rounds this section out with some general purpose anti-science whinging. The last paragraph here, where she asserts that all studies into the causes of homosexuality are done with the explicit goal of finding support for sexism and homophobia are particularly interesting.
Her fourth argument is an assertion without evidence, and is full of some pretty dodgy comparisons. I don’t think one can meaningfully analogize from sexuality to a love of dairy products, for example.
And, in her fifth point, she just goes completely to pieces. Almost every sentence in this paragraph introduces a new species of dumb and wrong. She titles it, more or less, “Secretly, you know I’m right,” and immediately uses people who are afraid that women’s studies classes will turn their daughters into lesbians as proof.
I’m going to go out on a limb, here, and suggest that very few people reading SocialInQueery.com have that particular concern.
She mentions gay parents who are afraid of “pushing” homosexuality on their children, apparently entirely missing what that phrase actually means. She suggests that gay reparative therapy works. And, of course, she caps it off with her own deathly dull story of her own personal trajectory of sexual identity, which at last reveals the root of this whole essay: she, personally, feels that she chose her sexuality, and of course, her experience must be universal.
The postscript where she brags about how rebellious and anti-authority she is, and how that’s what makes her a good feminist, is simply embarrassing.
Human sexuality is an incredibly weird thing, and I’m increasingly suspicious of one-size-fits-all theories about how it works. There’s a good argument to be made for some level of choice or malleability in human sexuality, at least for some individuals.
I do not think this author is capable of making that argument,