I decided to post this on GD, inspired by a comment made in this thread about George Takei spreading the word more strongly than he has before that he’s gay:
So how do you think this will affect the great debate over homosexuality? Obviously, those who strongly believe it’s a choice will, and probably already have, pounce on this (ignoring everyone who says they don’t feel they chose to be gay), but what will the other side say? Anything? Is it something to ignore? Is it indicative of a sign of the times somehow? Or maybe it’s another brick in the great wall of context for the whole complex issue?
I did respond to this as well, but I’m not sure it’s indicative of anything beyond Sheryl Swoopes’s opinion or knowledge of her own life. She was married to a man, so her statement is not really shocking.
As I said over in the Takei thread, I think the sooner we leave the “birth vs. choice” debate behind, the better. It oversimplifies a lot of things and confuses the issue. I don’t think anybody is born gay. I do think that homosexuality is predominantly biological, and the debate as it currently rages in the public sphere completely misses this distinction. The favored scientific position, as far as I understand it, is that it’s partly biological, partly genetic, and partly environmental. Anything that moves people toward a fuller understanding of these things would be a plus, in my opinion. I’m not sure the public discussion of these subjects is ever going to delve really deeply into science, but still. So maybe a few people will look more closely at it; most will probably see her coming out as proof of their existing opinions.
My two cent: We will always have people who are attracted to members of the same sex, as a catagory. We will always have otherwise straight people who fall in love with their roomamte, and go on to lifelong, meaningfull relationships. There wil also be people who claim to belong to the above catagory, but infact are attacted to other males, period.
Saying that gayness has a genetic component doen’t make anything diffrent for anyone in the above catagories. It simply is a rebutal to the claim that homosexuality isn’t “natural”.
As usual, people are looking for a single, simple answer to a large, complex and contorted issue; maybe she wasn’t born this way; maybe she was and she just doesn’t realise it. Whatever; it’s interesting, but not all that useful in making decisions about formulating sensible societal boundaries and notions of rights and deciding on what represents the humane treatment of other people.
I agree with that. That said, an understanding of how this works, will, typically, alter the perception of right or wrong, and is in fact useful to the discussion. It is not akin to the effect that Darwin had, in that respect. Even after him (and the famous geologist that paved the way who’s name slipped me), people continued to believe that the Earth was 4000 years old, but eventually not all that many.
After the long discussion I had on the topic on transsexuality when I first joined the sdmb, I learnt that among others the following items are important factors in this discussion:
Biological sexuality and gender perception doesn’t fully come into play until puberty. When properly educated on how to notice your sexuality, this is the age from which people can find out if they are heterosexual, homosexual or transsexual. However, few people know what physical attraction is until they have first experienced it. Especially in very heterosexual-centric contexts, this may take a while.
Very few things in humans are purely biological and vice versa. Human beings have a great capacity of learning and conditioning their behaviour. In other words, they are very flexible (a downside of this is that they can also be traumatised).
Physical sexual stimulation is very strong and primitive. Physical stimulation of especially the genital regions is controlled by a largely autonomous nervous system located at the lower end of the spinal cord. By default, you are able to experience physical pleasure from such stimuli no matter who or what pushes the buttons. Limitations and predilictions come partly from 1) and 2). Especially conditioning can also provide problems, such as paedophilia in paedophilia victims.
This has some interesting implications. You can have good, basic sex with just about anyone and anything. You can be conditioned to get physically aroused by just about anyone and anything. But the physics of love and attraction such as has been shown to be pheromone induced seem to be more fixed in a part of the brain that develops during puberty (if you’re interested I’ll dig up the thread with some of the cites). Such primitive aspects as chemical reactions through pheromones and such seem likely to be the most fixed, innate (that they don’t become apparent until puberty doesn’t mean they are not innate) aspects of attraction and love, and lends credence to the theory that homosexuality (as opposed to, say, same sex sex ) may also be innate. This would conform with behaviour observed in animals and the natural selection explanation is that particularly successful populations as well as populations with strong social ties benefit from an increase in ‘non-reproductive’ sexual activity.
I’m probably not making the most coherent of arguments right now, but I hope to at least stimulate further reading, such as here:
Maybe we wouldn’t feel a need to establish that homosexuality is innate, hence natural, if it weren’t for all the fundies spreading hate propaganda that it’s “unnatural” and hence worthy of persecution. If we could wave a magic wand and suddenly make all the fundies disappear from the world, the question of innateness would diminish to a mildly academic but not especially vital side issue.
If you could wave a magic wand and suddenly make all the homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people disappear from the world, the problem would go away completely.
I think it’s likely to just add to the sense that the sexual development paths of men and women are different. We guys, straight or gay, seem to know which gender(s) we’re attracted to pretty much from the get-go, and we’re that way the rest of our lives. With women, not so much.
I think there are more stigmas attached to male sexuality. After all, if a guy is gay he’s so gay. Women get to be lesbians which is different, I think, in terms of connotation. A gay woman is not, I think, held to be less of a woman the way a gay man is thus degraded vis a vis his masculinity.
IMHO, the issue of whether or not being gay is an inborn characteristic or is a learned characteristic is not relevant to the debate over gay equality. People engage in a lot of activities (such as practicing a specific religion) that are learned behaviors or are a product of conscious choice, and we still protect these activities to varying degrees.
I tend to use a harm analysis when deciding what activities should be legal or illegal. I don’t want to hijack the thread by delving into a specific analysis here, but generally, since I don’t see that “gayness” causes harm, I don’t think it should be illegal. Similarly, since I don’t see how gay marriage would cause harm, I think it should be allowed.
What a blissful sheltered life you must have led, to have escaped hearing all the hate speech that is directed against lesbians for not being woman enough. I wish I lived in your world.
) may also be innate. This would conform with behaviour observed in animals and the natural selection explanation is that particularly successful populations as well as populations with strong social ties benefit from an increase in ‘non-reproductive’ sexual activity.