Cross-posted at Jezebel.
Carey Faulkner, a visiting Assistant Professor at Franklin & Marshall, asked us to post about a blog that has recently gotten quite a bit of attention: Born this Way. The site posts photographs of gay-identified adults as children. Submitters argue that the photographs are proof that they were born gay.
Perusing the photographs tells an interesting story: being gay — that is, being sexually sexually or romantically attracted to members of the same sex — is conflated with being gender non-conformist — adopting the mannerisms and interests of the other sex. This is the argument made in the vast majority of posts: it’s obvious I was gay because I broke rules of masculinity/femininity by doing things like sniffing flowers, posing jauntily, liking Snow White, and playing with Barbie.
It is a specifically American belief that gay men act feminine and lesbians act masculine. But, in fact, gay men and lesbians have a wide range of gender performances, as do straight and bisexual people. In fact, most of us could probably find a picture or two in our histories showing gender non-conformity. Meanwhile, most gay men and lesbians could probably find pictures of themselves conforming. That gender performance is associated with sexual orientation in our society is a belief in U.S. culture, but it’s not somehow inevitable or biological.
Nevertheless, the site perpetuates this conflation in an effort to support the notion that being gay is biological. In contrast to this assertion, however, excellent research has shown that there is no trans-cultural, trans-historical gay identity and interpretations of same-sex sexual behavior vary wildly (see, for example, Herdt’s Same Sex, Different Cultures, DeEmilio’s Capitalism and Gay Identity, and Katz’s The Invention of Heterosexuality). And genetic, hormonal, and neurological research has thus far failed to show conclusively that being gay is biological, let alone that it is biologically determined or that it manifests in gender non-conformity.
Still, many gay men, lesbians, and their allies desperately want to prove that being gay is biological on the assumption that showing so will mean that intolerant people will be forced to accept them. But this simply isn’t true. People who are against homosexuality will likely just re-define their opposition. Instead of saying that being gay is a sinful choice, they could simply argue that it is a disease, like cancer, or a deformity, like a cleft palate. They say so already:
When an individual is not drawn to a member of the opposite sex, in biology that’s called an error.– Dr. Laura SchlessingerHomosexuality is a disability and if people wish to have it eliminated before they have children—because they wish to have grandchildren or for other reasons—I do not see any moral objection for using genetic engineering to limit this particular trend. It would be like correcting many other conditions such as infertility or multiple sclerosis.
– Former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jakobovits
I appreciate what Born This Way is trying to accomplish, but I don’t think that convincing people that homosexuality is biological will have the effect many hope for. In the meantime, they’re doing everyone a disservice by perpetuating the stereotype of sissy gay men and butchy lesbians.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 172
Robin — February 21, 2011
The same photographs could just as well be used to 'prove' the opposite, too: "This is the moment my parents dressed me up as a footballer and turned me gay."
Sarah — February 21, 2011
After reading this post I spent some time on the site. This doesn't really feel like a fair summary of the content. The narratives that accompany these images are better examples of the idea of being "born this way". Even in the "about" section it says:
"So, some of the pix here feature gay boys with feminine traits, and some gay girls with masculine traits. And even more gay kids with NONE of those traits. Just like real life, these gay kids come in all shades and layers of masculine and feminine."
Also there is a set of standard behaviors for gay adults (gay men pose, gay women look like Justin Bieber). Perhaps people think that queer behaviors are learned, and this website is saying "No one taught me to have limp wrists!"?
This post was a little weak to me. Perhaps it would have been more interesting to discuss what we see as "queer adult behaivor", and how it is reflected in these childhood photos.
Julia P. — February 21, 2011
I felt that the point of that site was more to show the humanity of queer people, not "prove" that sexuality is biologically innate.
Also, because these narratives are the self-expressed truths of queer people, I think it's inappropriate to say that they're "doing everyone a disservice".
holizz — February 21, 2011
It's completely and utterly obvious to anybody that people of colour are "born this way", but there was still a very long and bloody period before they got treated half-way decently in many majority white countries.
If "born this way" is supposed to be an argument to end gay oppression, it's one that is historically ignorant.
But then I don't think the Born This Way project is seriously trying to say that, I think it's just a cute photo site.
R — February 21, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHYoY
Tanglethis — February 21, 2011
I agree that the argument for homosexuality as a biological, born-that-way condition has its limits. But I disagree that the site is doing anyone a disservice with their completely adorable array of photos. For one thing, they do accept and post photos of children who are not presenting in a particularly gendered way; the first time I visited the site, the front page was almost entirely kids just hanging out looking like kids, not just boys presenting as femme or girls presenting as butch. I think the site offers a reasonable diversity of gender presentation (and race, and age, which is also nice).
But the flamboyant little boys and tomboyish little girls do actually contradict another useless narrative: that gendered differences are hardwired into male and female brains. I understand that this site might not persuade someone who is writing or linking to pop science about who will pick what when given the option between a doll and a truck, but I do find it refreshing to see images of children that aren't shoehorned into conventional gender presentation.
Kea — February 21, 2011
Gosh I wish I still had the picture of me, my brother, and my two stepbrothers on our bikes when I was about 10 years old. (1) You couldn't tell which one was the girl (except that her bike seat had flowers on it); and (2) you certainly couldn't tell which one of my stepbrothers was gay (at 9 years old). We all looked like a rough gang of boys. I was the oldest, the only girl, and yes, I could kick as on my brothers in a bike race across the school playground. And no, I am not homosexual - in fact, I was once rather disappointed (not sure why) in my twenties to have one of my roommates (who was a lesbian) tell me that I was "too hetero." I guess there's a radar for that also. : )
em — February 21, 2011
I think the Born this Way site is supposed to be a little tongue-in-cheek. Nobody seriously thinks that this actually predicts gayness. I think of it as similar to that exchange in The 40 Year Old Virgin:
David: You know how I know you're gay?
Cal: How? How do you know I'm gay?
David: Because you macramed yourself a pair of jean shorts.
Cal: You know how I know *you're* gay? You just told me you're not sleeping with women any more.
It plays on gay stereotypes as humor, but there's an underlying understanding that being gay is about homosexual attraction - not silly surface stuff.
Abby Spice — February 21, 2011
Sorry, coud we change "sexually attracted" to "romantically attracted"? The former implies that being gay is mostly about sex, a perception the LGBT community is very much working to combat...
Michael — February 21, 2011
As a former queer studies minor I spent a lot of time researching & reviewing studies and yes, it's true there is no biological or genetic component; at least nothing that can be proven yet. As a sociology major, I still lean toward the nurture side of the arguement. The desire many have to prove homosexuality is an innate, biological trait is politically loaded and ignorant to the fact that the categories of sexual identity we have are socially constructed and culturally relative. Because they've become so pervasive & ubiquitous, it can be easy to forget the latter. I also agree that focusing on the gender-deviant elements in (some of) the photos posted is problematic; not just for what it may imply about all queer people, but also the fact that many people of all sexual identities probably have pics of gender non-normative behavior. I think this site has good intentions and isn't necessarily intending on implying the former, however. Also, the name kind of rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's coincidental, but it comes off to me as an implicit tie-in or promotion for lady gaga, and that makes me take it a little less than seriously.
llamamama — February 21, 2011
I swerved by the site, took a look and I truly don't feel that it's a biological, one-theory-fits-all website. I think the point is, no one chooses to be gay. I didn't choose to be straight, so why would anyone deliberately choose to be gay if they have the choice? The site was interesting, given the varying viewpoints.
It's important to note that some transsexuals are straight - pictures of men in drag doesn't always imply homosexuality. My son was dressed up many a time by his sister, and usually he gave in to make her laugh - if he grows up gay, well, that's okay with me but I doubt it has anything to do with the glitter his older sister made him wear! ;)
Bulldagger Swagger — February 21, 2011
No one mentions the fact that some of the gay men pictured doing "girly" things and the lesbians pictured doing "boyish" things write in their own profiles that they are now butch gay men or femme lesbians... That complicates your analysis just a little, doesn't it? It is interesting to note that even a lot of very masculine gay men and very feminine lesbians exhibited gender non-conformity in childhood. I am a butch lesbian and the ultra-femme women I've dated tend to have more pictures of themselves as childhood tomboys than I do. There is a difference between assuming that the best tool we can use to gain social acceptance is the "born that way" argument... and celebrating that many of us were, in fact, children who experienced or exhibited queerness and gender nonconformity in a variety of ways (even if we grew up to be gender-conforming queers as opposed to fairies and bulldaggers!) The site seems very tongue-in-cheek to me. It is lovely to see a place where people can celebrate the photos that as children (and even adults) would have garnered much anti-gay harrassment. I would also encourage you to notice how humanizing it is to see childhood photos of LGBT folks, and to see that some are adorably genderqueer while others are adorably normative.
Paul V. — February 21, 2011
Hi Lisa,
I appreciate your thoughtful opinion of my blog ("Born This Way"), but I do take offense that you think it is a "disservice" to gay people. And no - the blog is NOT saying "this is the definitive, scientific proof that people are born gay" -- nor, that if you were a gay boy, you must have been feminine, or if you were a gay girl, you must have been a tomboy. I do realize that people sending in those particular type of photos adds fuel to the stereotype fire of gay people. But please remember: All the pix are self-submitted (as are the stories), with no encouragement from me, nor any censoring (ie, the pic doesn't look "gay enough" to fit the blog). EVERY pic fits the blog.
The larger message of my blog is -- self-acceptance. And being able to be proud now - as an adult - about a time that was generally painful, confusing, or tough for gay people growing up.
But my ultimate goal with the blog is helping struggling gay kids NOW, in total solidarity with the "It Gets Better" project etc. Also, as a possible tool for parents who might find some help within the stories too. I can't tell you the amount of amazing, supportive letters I've gotten from straight allies and parents.
I know some people just think the blog/pix are charming and sweet and many times funny - and that's OK too. We're allowed to laugh a little, because that person chose that pic to send in - knowing how silly or "obvious" it looks - so there's no exploitation going on. As for Lady Gaga, I am in no way affiliated with her, nor her "team" - but I am in complete solidarity with HER message. And I knew using the phrase "Born This Way" during the release of her single would indeed be part of some great synergy, especially for gay kids.
I appreciate the time -
Paul V., LA CA
Renee — February 21, 2011
What about differing structures of the brain for gay and straight people?
I'd really like to see a reference that says that's all bunk. Or is it that people just don't count the brain when talking about "biology?"
Maybe it's not knock-down proof, but it's strange to glaze over such important findings.
Lori A — February 21, 2011
Thank you for pointing out what bothered me so much about that site.
That said, I wanted to point out that you missed the joke in the fourth picture: he's wearing a sailor hat.
C — February 21, 2011
I usually love this blog, but way to go in trashing and silencing the real voices of real queer folks sharing their real stories and pictures. It seems clear that many (probably most) of the submissions deliberately play on stereotypes. I'm quite aware of the distinction between gender expression/performance and sexual orientation, and I will argue with anyone who tries to make predictions based on that supposed correlation. But on a personal level, I do consider my gender non-conformity to be part of my queerness, which goes beyond just sexual attraction. Gender and sexual orientation intersect in many ways, and to describe people's lived experience of that intersection as a "disservice" is thoroughly unhelpful.
Alexis — February 21, 2011
Thanks for posting this analysis. I feel like this just reinforces, like you said, our assigned gender roles (so nonconformity must mean youre gay!) and I can see a homophobic person policing their child's interests/mannerisms/speech lest they be signs that the kid is gay. Its not that I think the site shouldn't exist or that it isn't a powerful tool, but to me its problematic.
Laura — February 21, 2011
"In the meantime, they’re doing everyone a disservice by perpetuating the stereotype of sissy gay men and butchy lesbians."
Lisa,
I think you are doing everyone, including the LGTB community, a disservice by trying to police their gender presentations. I found that aforementioned line to be highly insulting and also upsetting, so perhaps you shouldn't write about what you think is best for us if you're going to start othering people who have a presentation different than the one you want to see.
apocalyptopia — February 21, 2011
Yes! It's so awesome to see more people questioning the whole biological determinism argument for homosexuality! Well, let me rephrase that: It's so awesome to see people questioning the biological gayness theory WITHOUT being a conservative/religious weirdo bent on destroying the gay community.
I'm not going to comment on the website or the stories therein because I think it's just too touchy of a subject. Besides, who am I to question someone else's experiences?
I'm also not going to say that there aren't people out there who are truly "born this way." However...
Most people don't realize that the research done into biological origins for homosexuality has been incredibly inconclusive. They see one article on one study and hold it up as "proof" that gays are born that way, without really ever reading the study itself and ignoring subsequent studies that have shown different results.
One of the most blaring deficiencies is this research is that it is almost always done on homosexual men, as if homosexual women either don't count or don't exist. The most offensive one for me was a study done that suggested male homosexuality is caused en utero by the mother's body freaking out that there are male hormones in it and therefore barraging the poor fetus with female hormones, essentially "feminizing" the fetus. I found this strange for two reasons: the first is because I've known many many gay men who are, what my circle likes to call "testosterone poisoned", meaning really really really male without a femme bone in their body; and second because it completely ignores and gives no answers for what causes lesbianism.
A lot of people might not realize this, but there is a HUGE community of people who are "Queer by Choice", meaning they've made a conscious decision that living a gay/queer lifestyle is what would work best for them. I myself decided in my teens that bisexuality would be the least romantically limiting for me, and then later on decided to be a gender non-conformist for more political reasons. While my decisions might seem sort of soft and on the fence, rest assured that I've known people to go from absolutely straight to full blown gay of their own volition and without ever having a previous predisposition for homosexuality. I've also known gay men that will have sex with women just for fun but never even go so far as to call themselves bi.\
If you want to know more, I suggest reading Queer by Choice by Vera Whisman and there's also a website by the same name that's full of useful info.
It's hard not to see how pushing the idea of biological gayness does little for (or does worse for) the gay community when trying to combat bigotry. Again, I'm not trying to say that there aren't people out there who might actually truly be born gay. I just think that a better approach would be to teach people to accept one another for who they are, especially if their decisions don't actually harm anyone else, rather than creating this duality that the whole gay debate is now plagued with.
aeh — February 21, 2011
"In fact, most of us could probably find a picture or two in our histories ..."
"Meanwhile, most gay men and lesbians could probably find pictures of themselves ..."
Nice us/them dichotomy there -- very progressive.
R — February 21, 2011
I take issue, as others have here, with the word "disservice"--as if we in the queer community have some obligation to present ourselves according to anyone's narrative but our own!
Carlo — February 21, 2011
Why does anyone need to "prove" anything. Whether it's nuture or nature (a false dichotomy) people ARE gay. The only possible reason people need to know what makes the gay happen is if they are going to try to intervene and "cure" it like it is some pathogeneic condition. Let's work on figuring out how sexuality and gender identity is formed in general. All this focus on the gay question just reinforces the us/them mentality.
As for the site, jesus, can't the queers just have a little fun? Stand around in a queer group of people for any length of time and you will inevitably here jokes being made and stories being told about people realizing that they are gay and then remembering back to these kinds of pictures or awkward stories and thinking "holy hell, how did it take me so long to realize I was different?" It's a unifying, gratifying and empowering experience to connect with other people who have felt the same way you did/do. To laugh at the ridiculousness of ourselves and our society. Especially if you come from a group of people that are constantly derided and marginalized. This site is for making those connections and feelings. It isn't to prove anything to anyone.
Heather — February 21, 2011
Lisa, are you straight?
This post is gross, and you should feel gross for writing it.
Paul V. — February 21, 2011
Well....how did I miss THIS when I first read this page:
"When an individual is not drawn to a member of the opposite sex, in biology that’s called an error.
- Dr. Laura Schlessinger"
Wait, seriously? You quote this woman, who is NOT a doctor at all, and who has no actual earned or valid credentials in her field of "psychology"???
IMHO, that is the "disservice" going on here today........
Best Art Blog » Are We Born Gay? And If We Were, How Would We Know? » Sociological … — February 21, 2011
[...] the original here: Are We Born Gay? And If We Were, How Would We Know? » Sociological … Categories: Uncategorized Tags: actually-contradict, another-useless, butch-lesbian, dated-tend, [...]
Heather — February 21, 2011
This is directed at oddboyout; the site isn't letting me respond directly to the question for some reason.
"You can’t discount the argument presented because of your assumption that the author is straight. This topic they are commenting on also falls under their area of expertise: Human Sexuality."
No amount of study can make any straight person (which, by the way, I think is a fair assumption to make, given the "us/they" language used in the post) an "expert" on the experiences of queer people. Straight privilege means that there are elements of these conversations that a straight person is flatly incapable of understanding.
Andrew — February 21, 2011
"In the meantime, they’re doing everyone a disservice by perpetuating the stereotype of sissy gay men and butchy lesbians."
I couldn't agree less.
When opponents of the civil rights and human dignity of gay people make their case, they seldom stray far from the notion of homosexuality as an adult phenomenon posing some form of threat to the well-being of children - whether direct (i.e. conflation with pedophilia) or indirect (i.e. gay parenting). The existence of gay children - the mere fact that gay adults were once gay children - throws a spanner into that argument.
In the 18 years since the movie "Philadelphia" came out, I've heard a surprisingly huge number of people discuss how it provided their first breakthrough moment of empathy for gay people. Specifically, a lot of attention is drawn to a final-act scene in which childhood videos of the main character are being played at his funeral. It's an obvious and manipulative Hollywood device on one level, but choked up a lot of people who may not have looked past their notion of adult sexuality when considering the life experience of a gay person.
For reasons that are probably more evolutionary than rational, we find it easier to regard children with compassion than adults. By getting the viewer to intimately confront a gay child, BTW viscerally challenges the conditioned defenses against empathy, and I think the contributors build upon that beautifully with the text.
Another take on a similar theme: http://www.xvrstntz.lautre.net/enfant.html
(My position on the nature/nurture debate is that sexuality, like our other character traits, emerges at the intersection of nature and nurture, with each exerting unquantifiable influence on every individual. The important detail here is that, regardless of whether one is "born" with any particular predisposition, the evidence strongly supports the notion that such traits - including sexuality - are largely present in early childhood, before a point at which they could possibly be regarded as a "choice." I suspect we can't progress much further in the popular dialogue on the origins of orientation without first breaking through the taboo pertaining to child sexuality in general.)
JCF — February 22, 2011
"In the meantime, they’re doing everyone a disservice by perpetuating the stereotype of sissy gay men and butchy lesbians."
I can't help feeling that the phrase "doing everyone a disservice by perpetuating the stereotype of..." convey the sense "because the group(s) being stereotyped are BAD! Icky! Gross! Unattractive! Whom we don't want to be seen/associated---but most of all sleep, with!
Yes, *stereotyping* is bad. But for every stereoTYPE, there is that actual TYPE.
And yes, I resemble it. And no, I'm not intrinsically Bad, Icky, Gross or Unattractive. I just may not be YOUR cup-of-tea.
Ashley Ronan — February 22, 2011
I can see both sides to the one comment saying "my parents turned me gay by dressing me up in a football outfit and getting my picture taken." I can also see the comment that these pictures to show differences in the way male and female "should act." However, I do not agree with the Rabbi's statement that if homosexuality is biological it should be able to be genetically engineered and taken out if the parents of that child hope to have children that way. Homosexuality, in my opinion as a heterosexual female, is not a sickness and is not a disease. Why take the steps of taking out the "gay gene" if it is how they are supposed to be? In doing this, the doctors could completely mess with another component in the child's body. Let nature take it's course and if they happen to grow up and establish themselves as being gay, learn to love them for who they are anyway.
Sarah — February 22, 2011
On a side note: what about your 'type', e.g. big breasts, funny, serious, tall, blue eyes, etc. when we talk about "preference"? Was I born to be sexually attracted to men with dark hair and were shorter than me? I repeatedly choose them as mates, but I was never taught that they were ideal. I never made a choice. How was I "born that way" when my friends prefer other 'types' of people? What if we remove gender as a context and look at height? or wealth(specifically speaking of inheritance which you cannot control)? or race?
Do you look at all of the same gender, regardless of physical attributes, as possible sexual partners? I DON'T. There are other (some times non-physical) requirements that need to be fulfilled first.
If you are bisexual: do you look for the same physical attributes in women as men? I DON'T (although I have sex with both men and women, I don't necessary call myself 'bi'; I prefer men--from birth as I never had to make a choice).
Maybe "born this way" is an interesting way of looking at early sexual determinants (pre-puberty) and we should all participate regardless of 'preference'? For example, do you have a picture of you loving anime video games like Final Fantasy? or perhaps you liked legos (small dark-haired men) at an early age? Or even, god forbid, you are experimenting with undead sex (Hello twi-tards!). If you are undead you NEED to submit your childhood story. Sarcasm aside, I think sexual preference is hard to define, and that accepted-gender "deviance" is a poor indication of such preference as the original blog (born this way) points out.
Libby — February 24, 2011
Chimamanda Adichie once said that the problem with stereotypes isn't that they are wrong, it's that they are only a single story of a people. I'm paraphrasing of course, but the point is that just because some people DO fulfill our stereotypical expectations doesn't mean their experiences are invalid.
I would be interested to hear how submissions to the site Born This Way are selected. Do they all get posted or is there some system in place for selecting entries? I suppose it's possible there is some unconscious pro-stereotype selection going on, but I don't really care. The fact is that they are all real stories from real people who chose those photos of themselves for a reason, and it is not anyone's job to guess why. I am adult enough to know that everyone is different from everyone else, but sometimes we are similar in ways too. I liked the site because of the clear honesty of the submitters and that's good enough for me.
Born This Way: Gay Adults Post Childhood Photos to New Blog | ELU 24 — February 25, 2011
[...] Writing for the web site Sociological Images (and cross-posting at the Gawker property Jezebel), Lisa Wade asserts that posting these pictures only serves to reinforce gay [...]
Pax — February 25, 2011
To claim I was "born this way" would be totally trivializing the emotional experience of the identity I have arrived at today. Not to mention "born this way" is implying that people who spend the majority of their life heterosexual or cisgender (a nod here to the muddiness of these terms) can never be legitimately LGBTQ-alphabet soup. Which, of course, is silly.
If I was born transgender and gay, I really believe it's an evolutionary fluke. I'm perfectly okay with that. Not fitting into the evolutionary scheme does not erase my personality, preference, thoughts and opinions, feelings, or contributions to society. I don't need science to validate my identity for me by calling it "natural". If I am unnatural, so be it. What's the big fuss?
Melinda — February 25, 2011
There are a lot of good comments here that I won't repeat. I'd just like to point out that your point that a biological theory of sexuality is not a good argument for gay rights is flat out wrong. First, studies have shown that those who accept the argument that sexual orientation is immutable are significantly more likely to support gay rights. Secondly, in a court of law in the U.S., demonstration that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic is vital to ensuring that the strictest standards are applied in weighing the constitutionality of laws discriminating against LGBT people.
You are also wrong in the vast amount of data that provides support (but not yet definitive proof) for a biological theory of sexual orientation, including clear examples of homosexuality and bisexuality in hundreds of species. Culture will have a role to play in how we think about the identities, behaviors, etc. linked to our biological realities and thus how we live them; however, multiple cultural understandings of sexual orientation does not undermine the science, as preliminary as it may be. After all, there are hundreds if not thousands of cultural understandings of what it means to be a cisgendered woman, but no one would argue that being a cisgendered woman has no biological origins.
And for the person who objected to hyperfeminization, like its counterpart hypermasculinization, it has nothing to do with gender performance whatsoever. These terms refer to data showing shifts in biological attributes (such as body proportion, musculature, brain structures, autonomic responses, sensitivity to certain pheromones, etc.) towards the very edge of the area of overlap between the sexes or into the area generally occupied by the other sex. Most of these are completely invisible to the naked eye. The fact that studies seem to indicate hyperfeminization in some cases and hypermasculinization in others tends to support the idea that sexual orientation is a complex phenomenon that may have multiple biological influences and determinants. Anyway, the fact that these terms may sound like they bolster stereotypes is irrelevant when they don't actually bolster the stereotypes if you investigate their actual meanings.
‘Born This Way’: Gay Adults Post Childhood Pix | ELU 24 — February 25, 2011
[...] Writing for the web site Sociological Images (and cross-posting at the Gawker property Jezebel), Lisa Wade asserts that posting these pictures only serves to reinforce gay [...]
Oversimplifying Gender Differences Obfuscates Issues | Sovereign Nations — March 6, 2011
[...] the debate over whether or not we non-het people are born this way when there are so many more interesting questions in the [...]
Meat and Marginalia for the week (13 Mar-19 Mar 2010) | Interlineal — March 15, 2011
[...] Lisa Wade, discussing the potential pitfalls of the [...]
Aline — March 22, 2011
Hi. I read your blog almost every day and I never feel like commenting because most of the times I agree with you or feel represented by some comment already made.
Just this time I would like to say that this relation between gender-behavior and sexuality is not U.S. exclusive. I'm Brazilian and bisexual and here I face this kind of prejudice every day, apparently in similar fashions as displayed by you as been common in the United States. Maybe that is a western cultural aspect? I'm not sure. But this is the feeling I get in Brazil and some other Latin American countries.
Regards
T — April 1, 2011
While I'm all for critical analysis, I don't find the response to be very I'm all for critical analysis, but I don't find Faulkner's writing very reflective/interesting. Sure, "born this way" can easily be read as a simplistic claim (and problematic), but I think the reader has as much responsibility as the author. We should challenge ourselves as writers and producers, but also very much in the way we read -- do we consume, i.e. absorb or read for facts rather than meaning, or do we read as producers? Because I think responsible reading is as productive as writing, versus simply a consumer act.
That said, while of course the old biological/environmental debate is still making its rounds, I don't think "born this way" needs to be interpreted in a flat manner -- i.e. the author takes the side of biology! If we can understand people to reclaim all kinds of terms and rework negative frameworks, can we not apply the same creativity to "born this way?" Does every queer act need to be read as literal, in order for it to measure against the standard of revolutionary politics? Isn't the call to revolution and transgression a call to expand, defile, and abandon literalism?
Born this way isn't the most wonderful thing to happen to, or from queer culture. But I'm not looking for something to be that. It does feel like sometimes we jump to hastily to criticize, in a manner that resembles a tearing down criticism versus a critical, thoughtful "critique."
I understand how Faulkner can be alarmed at the gesture of taking the "biology" side -- I definitely am extremely wary of trying to use the "science" mantle to justify queerness. I think her judgment of the blog, though, is more simplistic than the blog title itself, and, to use her words, more of a disservice to the queer community than the blog itself (which truthfully I don't find her writing a disservice at all, but if to compare her writing with the blog, I would, given that she went much further than necessary in describing the blog in such a way).
Jonathan — April 5, 2011
"It is a specifically American belief that gay men act feminine and lesbians act masculine."
This is really confusing. That belief is definitely not specifically American; it exists in other countries as well! Do you mean that the belief is culturally-derived, and hence a part of American culture? That would be true, but it does not make it specifically American. The idea that the stereotype ends at the borders of the United States of America is a little preposterous.
Steve — April 27, 2011
My point would be where is the scientific proof that homosexuals are indeed born this way? I have a Master degree in Biology and have seen no such evidence. Now I'm not knocking homosexuals but there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
mixbyhand — September 29, 2011
I see your point, but I view "born this way" as a celebration of queers for queers - being encuraged to love our young, working it out selves, even though many would expect us to be embarassed by these pics - rather than an attempt to convince any straight people of anything. IT ISN"T FOR THEM!!!
Entre inné et acquis, l’origine de l’homosexualité idéologisée | Slate « L'Espace Libre de Sami Chaiban… — November 1, 2011
[...] photos affichées reprennent pour beaucoup des clichésqu’on véhicule sur les homosexuels, car elles présentent régulièrement des gays [...]
randomnomynous — October 17, 2012
If homosexuality was biological, that would mean that after so many generations it would cease to exist, because GAY PEOPLE CAN'T REPRODUCE? Just a thought.
Cranberry Township-gay — February 16, 2014
dear sir or vagina:
i didn't CHOOSE TO like beer. i didn't CHOOSE TO like smoking. i
didn't CHOOSE TO like gambling. i am VERY OFFENDED and concerned of the
damage that "counseling" and talk-therapy is doing to people...as well
as one person in particular - ME.
we all are "born this way". a liar is any "counselor" who says that he
can change the way a person IS. a liar is any "music therapist" who
says that music can change peoples' moods and outlooks. a liar is any
"marriage counselor" who says that he can piece-together a broken
relationship.
who are courts to mandate that anyone receive behavior-counseling? what
year are we in - hasn't the whole "counseling" and feel-good "therapy"
industry been recognized as the fraud that it is? nobody can change
other people, people are BORN WITH enough information about the world to
have been given a complete identity AT BIRTH. the way that anyone
is...is simply predetermined. however we are, we were BORN THIS WAY.
a liar is any "counselor" who says that he can change the way a person
IS. a liar is any "music therapist" who says that music can change
peoples' moods and outlooks. a liar is any "marriage counselor" who
says that he can piece-together a broken relationship.
who are psychologists and "counselors" to say that they can change me
into a non-gambling (dare i say "perfect") man? who are psychologists
to say that, just by talking to me, they can change my dependency on
slot-machines? people who try to "help" the gambler are not tolerant of
diversity, and they really should be shot. who are they to say that
gambling is a problem? furthermore, who are they to suggest that it's
not a predetermined state-of-mind? and, above all else, who are they to
say that minds can be changed?
come to think of it, who are psychologists to say that talk-therapy can
change anything about me? i am what i am, and it's nobody's place to
change what i am. if i was a gambling-addict, if my curiosity and
interest was aroused by pulling the long handles on slot-machines, i was
BORN that way. it is nobody's place to tell me that there is help for
my kind, because that is an insult to the way god made me. also, it is
an insult to the identity my brain had formed ON ITS OWN - either when i
was in the womb or at the moment when the sperm hit the egg. i was
BORN THIS WAY, born with the identity of a gambler. furthermore, to
suggest that i wasn't BORN THIS WAY, that i actually became this way
through my life's experiences, well, that's an insult to my
INDIVIDUALISM. any counselor who says that he can change people, well,
he's really saying that people are impressionable, insecure and ditzy
enough to BE changed. that they're not rooted within themselves.
well, i AM rooted within myself. nobody can change me into a
non-smoking, non-drinking man who doesn't get so much gratification from
stuffing his face with pop-tarts, because this is my IDENTITY. nobody
can change anyone's identity, and for "counselors" and psychologists to
even SUGGEST that they can...well, it makes me mad.
don't tell me that you can change the way i look at slot-machines, don't
tell me that it is wrong for me to be so mentally aroused by
slot-machines, don't tell me that i wasn't born with the insecurities i
feel when i'm not close to a casino. nobody can change the
psychological boner i get when i'm standing in front of (and gawking at
the presence of) a casino, and nobody can change the boner i AM when
i've slipped right through the door on the backside of the casino.
i was born this way. before my brain was able to process any
information about the outside world, i was born this way. before
opinions were able to be formed in my brain, i was born with opinions.
before my mind had developed enough to be psychologically aroused, i was
born this way.
and any psychologist who says he can change my mind, well, he's just making convenient excuses. i was born this way.
mr. dylan terreri i
dr. sheldon cooper, ii
www.anti-gay.com
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
--------------------------