What’s better for a political movement that values equity, a model of sexuality-by-choice or sexuality-by-genetics?

Author’s note: I say LGBQ, and not LGBTQ, purposefully, as this article is about sexual preference and not gender identity. I feel it would be inaccurate to use “LGBT” or “LGBTQ” when I am not specifically talking about trans people (although some of my arguments are probably applicable to trans rights, too). Additionally, I use "homosexual" and "homosexuality" in the established medical/scientific sense, not as a pejorative. Finally, it will probably aid your reading comprehension to know that I myself identify as queer/bisexual.

The problem with arguing "well, we're born this way" is that we don't actually know if that's true. Since Simon LeVay's famous 1991 study dissecting gay and straight male brains, there have been a multitude of studies searching for a biological cause for homosexual attraction and behavior in humans. Biological theories abound: could it be a particular gene, or a combination of genes? Could it be the number of older brothers a man has? Childhood gender variance? Prenatal or early childhood hormone levels? (these arguments are summarized by Rahman and Wilson in this article). Research and criticism goes back and forth; a study will support a given theory, and then another will be unable to replicate the same findings, and someone will always write a critique. At present, at any rate, it seems safe to say that it is uncertain what the biological cause of homosexual behavior could be, and that it will be quite some time before science shakes the answer out, if there even is one. Why are gay-rights groups arguing for something that might not even be true? Why build a house of cards when there are better arguments out there?

Additionally, one of the most compelling blanket criticisms I've read of research into the biological roots of homosexuality has been an article by Anne Fausto-Sterling, titled "Frameworks of Desire." A biologist herself, she points out that science has treated homosexuality as a typology, as a box to put people in, instead of as a developmental process. "Academics – be they biologists, social scientists, or cultural theorists – have become locked into an oppositional framework. As a result, they are asking the wrong questions and offering intellectually impoverished accounts of the emergence and development of human desire." She argues that scientists study plenty of other processes from a developmental standpoint -- whole fields of biology are dedicated to it, even-- so why not attraction and orientation? It's more realistic to look at same-sex attraction as fluid or emerging over time, because that's how it is for many people. Using a binary of gay/straight ignores many people who identify as bisexual or queer, and people whose sexual preference or orientation has changed during their lives.

Another problem with the "born this way" argument is that it's not necessarily helpful: logically speaking, just because something is genetic or biologically-based doesn't automatically mean it's good; and historically speaking, LGBQ folks have been oppressed precisely because of such beliefs on the part of society. Indeed, there have already been medical "cures" for homosexuality: This psychology blogger outlines some of the medical literature from the 1940s, including hormone research on homosexuals, that was eventually used to chemically castrate Alan Turing. Turing, a British mathematician who helped the government immensely during World War Two, was convicted of "gross indecency" in 1952, and was put on estrogen supplements for a year instead of going to prison. He committed suicide in 1954. Activists might hope that a biological understanding of same-sex attraction will foster greater acceptance, but in the past, that hasn't been the case. 

Homosexuality was pathologized upon the advent of psychology and psychiatry as legitimate health sciences, too. The first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual for mental disorders, put out by the American Psychological Association, included homosexuality, which was described as a mental disorder for decades before being officially removed from the DSM in 1986 (source). Again, when homosexuality is thought to be biologically-based (even in terms of mental health), it has been designated as a disease, and cures are sought.

I think it speaks greatly to a profound lack of knowledge about our own history that the "born this way" argument is still so widespread, and so common in the wider discourse about gay rights. "LGBQ people are born that way," is a widely-heard counterargument to homophobic assertions. Even President Obama agrees: in 2010 at a town hall meeting, he said: “I don’t think it’s a choice. I think that people are born with, you know, a certain makeup, and that we’re all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love. And that’s why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong." However well-intentioned words like this are, history has richly shown that a biological cause will not protect us. If we argue that "we can't help it," medicine will fix it so that we "can," with hormones, with surgery, or with therapy.

I think, too, that the biological argument leaves out a very important fact: we can help it. While it's true that very few people have any sort of conscious choice in who they're attracted to and who they fall in love with, every human being has a choice in their behavior. Pretty much all the time. I think that very few people are arguing that LGBQ people aren't in control of their behavior, but one of the logical extensions of "we're born this way; it's genetic" is that biology is destiny and that our genes or our hormones literally control our behavior. Any feminist who's ever criticized rape culture narratives about men are familiar with that line of thinking-- and they know that it's crap. Even if men have a higher libido due to their genetic makeup or their hormone levels, they are still expected to be responsible for their behavior at all times; they are expected to control their behavior as adult human beings and, you know, not rape people. Much as I hate to side with the Catholic Church, I think they and other religious groups have a point on this one: it is possible to be orientationally queer and not act on it.

Of course, there are problems when homosexuality is constructed as a choice, too. The religious right in the United States makes much out of the notion that people choose to be gay. Specifically, they claim that homosexuality is a morally wrong/sinful choice that disrupts society and has deleterious health effects. So, the line of thinking goes, if we can choose to be queer, we can choose to be straight, too (or at minimum, we can choose to not be queer, we can choose to abstain). However, again, relatively few LGBQ people experience any sense of choice in who they're attracted to, which is definitely part of the appeal of the "we can't help it; it's hardwired" counter-argument.

However, just because we can not act on it doesn't mean we should not act on it. Constructing same-sex attraction as a choice allows us to use the best argument at our disposal: these behaviors don't hurt anyone. Despite conservative assertions that LGBQ people make bad parents and ruin heterosexual marriages, we don't. The American Academy of Pediatrics declares: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual." The APA agrees.

And even though plenty of conservative groups will say that any form of homosexuality results in suicide or getting many STIs-- therefore, don't do it, don't hurt yourself-- that's really a quite terrible argument. If same-sex behavior is linked to STIs, it's clear that safer sex practices can eliminate those risks, and protection from them--eg barrier methods-- are more easily come by today than ever. And if same-sex identity or behavior is linked with suicide, well, it does make me wonder if that's because there's something wrong with us, or if there's something wrong with society. It's hard to feel good about ourselves when we are continually told that we're dirty/ bad/ disgusting. A 2010 paper published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "Living in states with discriminatory policies may have pernicious consequences for the mental health of LGB populations," including depression, anxiety, and alcohol abuse. One imagines that in affirming, supportive environments, LGBQ people don't have those kinds of mental health issues because our self-esteem isn't being stomped all over every time we leave the house. Indeed, that has been my experience as a queer person living in a LGBQ-friendly part of the world.

To summarize: I find that arguing for LGBQ rights from genetics or biology doesn't work so well, partly because of the history associated with biological determinist beliefs. I think that a choice-based model is preferable because, as an argument for LGBQ rights, it has a stronger foundation: being queer doesn't hurt anybody, therefore, it should be accepted. All of that, of course, is within the dichotomy of genetics vs. choice. Ultimately, I believe that the cause of same-sex attraction shouldn't matter to any group or movement advocating for LGBQ rights. We're here, we're queer, and we aren't hurting anyone, so get over it.

Posted by Theresa Copeland