Not Born This Way

The US Supreme Court confirmed last month that same-sex couples can marry. This was a significant achievement in a liberation movement that started nearly 50 years ago. In their struggle to equalize marriage, supporters made parallels to the oppression suffered by African Americans. One striking difference exists between these civil-rights movements.

African-American activists were quick to call out arguments about genetic differences and Nazi science as legacies. The marriage equality movement, on the other hand, has adopted biological determinism. Gay and Lesbian activists have been the pioneers in popularizing biological determinism.

According to the proffered view, sexuality is not something we choose but something we are born with. It was difficult to convince Americans of this. According to Gallup’s first poll, only 13% of Americans believed that homosexuality was a natural state. Only 20 percent believed that sexuality is biologically inborn, even though this poll was conducted in 1990. However, support for gay marriage has increased to just half of Americans in 2011, and now less than half believe that sexuality is determined at birth. Support for gay marital and support of the idea of “born that’ are closely related.

Subscribe to our newsletter

This biological determinism of homosexuality has been an important victory for the gay rights movement. However, it’s also been a loss for public discourse. The fight for gay marriage is won. But there are other, more difficult battles before the lesbian-gay, bisexual, and transgender movement (LGBT). They require activists and scholars to drop the fundamental fictions they propagate in order to succeed. It is a dangerous belief to believe in biological determinism. It makes it difficult for some members of the gay community to be openly accepted, like the transgendered.

The “Born This Way” slogan was a proclamation of progress in 2015. However, a historical perspective is more troubling. Over the years, biological determinism served oppressive and dangerous cases. Its abrupt emancipatory role would shock millions who have suffered. Just a few decades back, genetic differences were a way to exterminate or identify. Nazi science was dedicated in discovering genetic differences linked to perversion.

Nazis thought immutable genealogicals needed to be eradicated; in a totally different context, “difference genetics” need to be accepted. Both agree on the notion of biological determinism. This means that genes determine identity and must be eliminated or adopted. This is why the alliance of activists with genetic determinism produced such great results.

It was not enough to use activism to make people more aware of the fact that their sexuality is genetically predetermined, it took scholarly research and even more activism. In 1990, Simon LeVay, a neurobiologist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies (California), autopsied 41 people. He was one of the pioneers in this field. LeVay did extensive brain research. Research had previously shown that INAH3, a brain cell group belonging to the hypothalamus, is associated with sexual attraction. This area is larger for males than for females. Male rats’ foetuses receive higher testosterone levels than those of the females. LeVay thought that the size of this area might explain attraction. Therefore, gay men may have lower INAH3 than straight males.

LeVay discovered that the gay men he examined died from AIDS. One-third of straight men were autopsied. Researchers around the globe were inspired by the “gay plague” to understand sexual desire. A portion of the research looked at the social life and experiences of gay communities. Activists were concerned about exposing what was happening in the dark corners. American adults viewed homosexual sex as perverse and unnatural. It would be a disservice to the dying and sick to draw attention the gay freedom found in urban gay communities.

But if gayness was a biologically-determined identity, then blaming the dying would be a lot more difficult. LeVay’s findings helped to change the conversation. InAH3 size for gay men was smaller than that of women’s and was larger than that of straight men.
It was a significant step towards a biological understanding sexuality.

LeVay cautioned against overinterpreting his findings. Discover magazine published his 1994 statement, “It’s crucial to stress what’s not found.” “I didn’t prove that homosexuality was genetic. I did not prove that homosexual men are born this way …’ But the public power of such a finding was captivating. Dean Hamer (geneticist, US National Institutes of Health) published 1993 Science findings that indicated the existence of a homozygous gene. Hamer noticed that gay men had a higher likelihood of having same-sex attracted maternal relatives than their paternal family members. He suggested that there must be something on the DNA chromosome that is causing this attraction. Hamer discovered gay brothers had a high likelihood of sharing DNA markers on the Xq28.

Caution fell away. Gay men, who were demonized and ravaged the AIDS epidemic, found a rallying cry. They weren’t at fault. Their mother. They were “born this way”. The phrase would become an anthem. It was used by scientists and movements all over the globe. Lady Gaga’s 2011 hit “Born This Way”, which reached the top charts in no less than 23 countries, was a huge success and sold over six millions copies of her album. The song’s lyrics hypnotically exclaimed “Born This Way” 27 times. It was a celebration of what had become the norm in the gay-lesbian movement.

Problem is, we were not born this way. Genes aren’t the only thing that determine our outcomes. My parents are both 5’3″. My height was determined by my genetic material only after I discussed my childhood. My parents were born in the developing world, but I was raised in New York. Here, food is abundant and diseases are managed well. These conditions have made me nine inches taller that my parents.

While biologically driven, desire is influenced by culture.

One of biology’s most fundamental truths, as it was explained in its earliest courses, is that genes and the environment interact to create outcomes. This is something social scientists as well as scientists know. They have demonstrated it repeatedly, even with regard to sexuality. In 2002, two sociologists from Yale, Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, looked at the “gay-gene” hypothesis. They discovered that genetic expression does indeed have an influence on same-sex attraction. But only under certain social circumstances.

It is noteworthy that scholars, social activists, and biologists have often encouraged this fiction. It is likely that the idea of destroying genetic determinism is considered dangerous. If sexuality cannot be determined, what then? Many people believe that sexuality must be a choice. Politically, sexuality is seen as a choice. This is worse than biological determinism. This means LGBT persons must defend their practices against accusations of immorality. They must make arguments why they are different to the bestialist, polygamist, or paedophile.

These unpalatable justificatory demands are only possible because both sides have pulled back. To keep the discussion from getting into the heart of whether LGBT sexual expression is legal, activists settled on the strong rhetoric of biological determinaism. The dominant US ideology of freedom of choice has been used by critics to counter this claim. We are stuck between the absurdity of determinism of no and the fantasy of pure freedom.

There’s another way. It won’t satisfy those who want to accept sexuality as a natural phenomenon. Nor will it be acceptable for those who want to label the LGBT community as a cause or symptom of moral ills. It is more accurate in describing the biology and social nature of sexuality. Although desire may be biologically motivated, it follows the tracks of human culture.

This idea, according to academics, is known as “social constructivism” – the notion that actions are rarely determined nor the result free will. It is a well-known fact among the intelligentsia that gender and race are constructeds. Does human skin color have a biological basis? Mostly. It is not a conclusive conclusion that race exists biologically. It is social to convert differences in skin tone and body features into “race”. This act has a history – colonisation, slavery, and scientific categorisation are just some of the consequences. It also has an present.

As Barack Obama rose in the US presidency, we witnessed a remaking racial understanding and possibility. Recent events such as Charleston, Baltimore, Charleston, or the Blacklivesmatter protest against violence against black Americans have reshaped and transformed the meaning of race.

Historical and cultural differences are often used to show that something we consider natural is a social construct. We would expect that race, if biologically determined, would be the same in all places and times. The Greeks didn’t have the notion of “race”. Their explanations of human differences tended to be environmental. Heat and cold caused a change in skin tone. Only with the introduction of modern systems for scientific classification and European geo exploration and colonization, we were able to begin the long process of categorizing people according to race.

Science has progressed tremendously since ancient Greek times. Our better understanding of the human race may have led to a closer connection with the truth. This was something that is difficult for our ancestors to grasp, since they could not imagine the miracle of genetics nor its scientific power. This proposition can be evaluated by scholars who look across cultural lines. They find that people experience race differently in different societies. Take Brazil. Brazilians are fond of the notion that “money is whitened”. Women and men become more whiter as they move up the social ladder (especially their children). However, how can a change to one’s socioeconomic status alter one’s biological races? Social scientists and biologists agree that race is a socially constructed concept.

However, biology is still important. Our behaviour is largely explained by genetics. Those who dismiss the role of genetics are in danger. The term “gender is a social construct” does not mean that there aren’t biological differences between the sexes. It also doesn’t mean that biology doesn’t influence behaviour. They are referring to the fact that genetic impulses can be expressed through human culture. Holbein depicted King Henry VIII in 16th-century as the symbol of masculinity. He is wearing form-fitting leggings with a short, if not entirely revealing, skirt. This outfit would be considered a form or drag if it were worn today.

Sexuality can be defined as a bodily desire that is expressed socially. Some of that social construction converts love into desire.

Generations ago, both men and woman viewed housework in all its forms as deeply feminine. Even though men do more housework today than women, it is still a sign of feminism to not take care of the children’s fundamental needs. Male expressions and even masculine actions are not bound to genetic determinants but more to cultural logics. They could not perform masculinity in the modern world if they were magically transported. It is not due to their “maleness” at the core. This is because their social expression of having a Y-chromosome does not come from their DNA. It is part of their culture and society.

While gender and race are both social constructs, sexuality is a different category. Though academics frequently refer to sexual identity and gender as social constructions, they often avoid challenging biological determinism. This may be because they fear that this might hinder the incredible success of gay-rights activists.

The biological determinism position of sexuality is rewritten by the basic tools, history and cultural difference. We should be able to find evidence that we have seen in the past of gay men and women, across cultures, if sexual identity is biologically determined. It is not common to find “gayness,” which I define in terms of a self-definitive, permanent same-sex attraction and that makes up a unique social identity. There are many examples of “queerness” – or sexual expressions that don’t fit the current norm. This includes same-sex relationships and gay sex. However, there are also many examples of “queerness” – or sexual expressions that do not conform to the norm. Gayness is one type of queerness. Gayness, which is a rare expression, is confined to Western culture. This casts serious doubt on the notion that it can be biologically determined.

Many people might think of Greeks when they mention that they were gay.
The majority of us would not like their sexual expressions, since it was pederasty. This is the meaning of “love” in modern gayness. Adult men would form sexual unions, often with pubescent men. These men were typically in the “masculine”, or “active” sexual roles. The subordinate was typically youths or females. These relationships were not just sexual. They also involved moral and cultural education. These relationships were almost entirely sexual in nature, with the exception of when youths became older. Temporary pederasty is not historical evidence of permanent and immutable gayness.

However, we do find this pederasty within many cultural contexts. It was a common practice in Spain, Italy, and other parts of the Middle East and China during different times periods. Although this commonality could lead to the belief that it is evidence for a fundamental biological drive or a sign of something, it is not true. Pederasty could refer to moral education. It could involve sexual contact with men or women. This was what the Greeks called pederasty. But it was not limited to boys. In China, prostitution was prohibited. Romans had a strict policy against penetration. Violations could lead to extreme punishment. In almost all these cases, sexual relationships between men were prohibited. There are many types of sexual relationships that we can find, but almost none of them involve gayness.

This biological commonality is, if any, sexual desire. But the tracks of that want – how and what it was expressed – can vary from place to place. Sexuality is a physiological desire that is socially constructed. Some of it turns love into desire. Some of that construction converts love into power. Some of the drug converts desire into power. It is clear that love is not natural, especially as a basis for marriage. But, it’s not normal for human sexuality to be heterosexual or homosexual.

Many gay and lesbians will admit that they have “always felt different” or that they knew their homosexuality since childhood. This is not an indication of a strong biological drive. This is not necessarily true, since it supports the idea that biology and environment influence sexuality. Race is a social construct. Our experience of it is from the time we are born. It is easy to make two mistakes when we think of social constructions. One, to assume that something socially constructed doesn’t exist or can be easily changed. Money is a social construct. Its value and meaning depend on how we assign it to us. The collective recognition of it is its true value, not the physical dollar. A dollar does not have any real value. I want you to believe that socially constructed things don’t exist. It’s not possible to do this because money, even if it is socially constructed has very material consequences. The same applies for many social constructions.

Our biology can often be more flexible than our social constructs. You can alter the gender of your hair, its colour and presence, as well as how it is colored. You can get fatter, thinner, more muscular, or less flexible, and you can also grow or remove your nails. We age, surely. But we can still alter this experience.

Social constructs are another matter. They require the movement of mountains of people who have committed to their current location and who define themselves by it. I wouldn’t be able to change the way we think about masculinity if I dressed up as Henry VIII. It isn’t that I don’t have enough platform. Clint Eastwood could engage in similar projects, but he’d be more likely than us to question our collective understandings on masculinity to have his mental well-being questioned.

Of course, social constructs do change. They change in subtle ways that are often almost invisible. It has taken a gradual shift in sexuality’s structure to create “gayness” or gay identity. Instead of being a specific act performed by men and women, homosexuality has been redefined as a type or person. The definition of homosexual has changed from an adjective that describes specific actions to a noun that refers to a person.
An immutable, permanent, all-encompassing identity. Part of this process was a slow progression over the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The AIDS crisis made certain urban sexual practices dangerous in the latter part of the 20th-century. However, it is almost impossible to pinpoint the cause, cause, event, or individual behind this process.

Sexual relations are the foundation of society’s reproduction. Gay marriage is therefore of vital importance.

It is not a straightforward position that I am offering. “Born this way” is a simple phrase that cuts through the challenges and concepts I have discussed. It is dangerous. The danger of accepting the fiction that biological determinism is true risks being unable to see the most important thing in our lives: our intimate relationships. Romantic love was invented. Then there was homosexuality. And all other types of relationships. These things aren’t less important or more real. But, inventions aren’t biological. They are part in a conversation with a biological and a sociological order of living.

This understanding is essential to understand fundamental human society questions. Biology is the only way to determine our expression. There’s no reason to imagine better worlds. This has been our decision since we were born Homo sapiens. Recognizing sexuality is a constructed concept opens up crucial discussions about the most important aspects and life. What is the relationship between sexual intimacy and who are they with? What should we do about sexual intimacy (offspring, health)? Who is responsible in society for the development, education and lives of children? Social reproduction is based on the arrangement of sexual relationships. Gay marriage is therefore important. It is surprising that we are unable to have this conversation. Indeed, biological determinism allows us to avoid it altogether. We are faced with a host of social problems. It is impossible to effectively address these issues if we ignore the human condition, including sexuality.

These concerns also apply to the gay right movement. Many people may be considered members of the LGBT Community. For them, marriage is not of paramount concern. They still need to be treated with respect. The same-sex marriage supporters have used a dangerous argument to gain political power and do little to assist the most marginalized members. How can we make sense of transgenders and transsexuals? How do you understand people whose biology is different from your own? Or whose biology differs from our limited understandings.

If sexuality can be argued to be mutable and not determined, then we should support those identities and practices we love and denounce those we don’t like. This leaves room for conservative arguments in favor of homosexuality. It is okay. This is why I can vehemently oppose pederasty. It does not matter that it has been accepted by many societies in the past. Pederasty is based upon power relationships that make consent impossible. This is why I rejected it.

Concerning me more than conservative condemnation homosexuality is liberal credence to bad science. Liberals should discuss the good of society with conservatives. Liberals should meet conservatives on the ground of what is good for society. They will force conservatives into giving up their personal choice and start to recognize the value of society. Everyone will be forced to admit that their sexuality can be influenced by society and driven by desires.