Er...you...might want to do some research on the cultural gender norms around the time this photo was taken, and how they differ from our cultural gender norms now.

Not y'all here! I meant the people you're referencing, going on about the whole "dress like the opposite sex = gay" thing. Sorry.

That's a picture of Roosevelt ?  For reals?? no way?!?!

Each era has a clothing standard for gender, yes.

How my mother explained christening gowns and male relatives in dresses was this: Males were in this era dressed as girls until they reached short-pants age, when they were past the greatest likelihood of infant mortality. Then they could safely become male. Evil spirits that killed children only wanted to kill the valuable male infant. Thus camouflage the male as a girl until he's safe.

Wow. Harping much? As a lot of commenters said the last time you raised this issue, your insistence that the Born This Way blog and related queer discourses are primarily about simple-minded arguments that "dressing or acting in ways consistent with the other sex when you are a child is a True Sign that you are gay" or "biological argument[s] for acceptance" only shows YOUR limitations in understanding how and why gay people explore their histories. It's way more complicated than that, and the fact that you continue to make an argument out of this is insulting to me (femme queer woman, for the record) and my fellow gays and queers. I have no idea what your identities are, and I'm sure your intentions are good. But I'm fed up, and you should know that you sure as hell come across as one damn privileged straight jerk. 

I'd really like it if you wrote a more extensive post on the development of the concepts of being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. There's certainly a great deal of imagery associated with it, and it seems that white American queers are astoundingly ignorant both of historical differences in identity and cross-cultural differences. The current western concepts (straight people are born only liking the opposite sex, gay men are born only liking men, lesbian women are born only liking women, bisexual people have no preference, transgender people require surgery to make their bodies conform to their gender identity) are not universal constants, yet are treated as though they are biological truth, ignoring every other culture, historical period, and those individuals within our own culture who don't fit into those boxes.

There is a great deal of evidence that certain aspects of identity cannot be altered and may have a physical neurological component to them, but the cultural influence that shapes these identities and how they are expressed is so often ignored.

I'm really confused as to what's going on here.....are you really still grudging on the fact that several people (many of whom are part of the marginalized group being discussed) disagreed with you article and pointed out some really major, offensive flaws in it?  Because Lisa, as a sociologist, it should be your JOB, your literal paid job, to listen to and research what these groups think about their own representation in wider culture.  Not to ignore what, say, the owners of the site themselves say to force your own less-than-informed opinions on a situation.  You've been called out on silencing marginalized groups you don't belong to before, and it's very disheartening that you still do NOT listen to the criticisms of your articles made by those who might have more firsthand experience.  I see where you're going with this article, and if you'd just left it at "some people think wearing girly clothes as a child makes a boy gay, but here is an obvious example to the contrary, and some historical context," it would be a great point.  But why bring up "some people disagreed with me six months ago, and they are WRONG" if you are trying to learn about groups you're not a part of, or even if you're secure in your opinions?

Okay, first of all, apples and oranges.  Roosevelt did not dress himself this way or request to be dressed this way - as you state, it was the norm until not even a century ago.  

Second, I agree with Brigid in that I'd say you're oversimplifying what this blog is exploring.  As a gay man myself, I know that I and many others may not have had any idea what being gay even meant as a child, but from an early age I can recall perceiving myself as different and later on feeling shame due to reactions I received to the way that differentness was manifest, which for many (though certainly not all) included acting in violation of gender norms.  I didn't think of it as anything but natural for myself at the time, but in reexamining my personal history such actions (which were more than just the one picture you're sure we can all find of our five-year-old selves wearing a dress or tossing a football) do seem to constitute at least an early, innocent manifestation of an aspect of myself I couldn't understand at the time.  

For me, this blog is not about "proving" that homosexuality is genetic.  I contributed because I saw in many posts a reflection of my own attempts to make sense of a confusing past that I and so many others have had to bury and deny before reaching acceptance.  (And judging from the posts, even this isn't what it means to everyone.  There's a good amount of diversity in those pages.)  If it were about bolstering the biological argument, I still wouldn't personally hope that such proof would instantly change intolerance to acceptance.  In many cases, though, it would help.  Try coming out to parents who for years express their disappointment at the "lifestyle" you've "chosen" to pursue before telling me that it wouldn't.  

Lisa,
I maintain the same statement of fact about my blog now, as I did before:
You continue to have it backwards. Your view of my blog, is that it is saying"Look at some of these pix of gender-opposite kids. This proves they will be gay"
-- THIS IS INCORRECT --

Rather, each person on my blog IS LGBTQ. They knew they were LGBTQ from a very young age, and they tell their growing up story. And they use a photo AND their story to reflect that. Do some of the (self-submitted) photos show gender-opposite dress or behavior? Yes, they do. 100's more do NOT. While the submitter might add or say something like "Look how obviously gay I was" or "How did my parents not know?" etc. - that is not the clearly explained mission of the blog. This is:"A photo/essay project for gay adults (of all genders) to submit childhood pictures and stories (roughly ages 2 to 12), reflecting memories & early beginnings of their innate LGBTQ selves. Nurture allows what nature endows. It's their nature, their truth!"

To be honest, I wish YOU would stop "falsely suggesting" what my blog is about.
But hey - thanks for driving more traffic to my blog.
Paul V.
www.BornThisWayBlog.com

Roosevelt didn't dress himself this way as a child out of his own will.. that's just how they dressed up male kids.  I don't really see how that image is relevant.  Whether queerness is genetic, or the result of experiences in the womb, during birth, or at any point in a person's life, doesn't really matter. Why do we need to justify ourselves to people for whom there is no acceptable answer?  Understanding of this issue occurs and is most relevant on a personal level.  I like to think that everyone is potentially bisexual underneath all the layers of social conditioning.

 Born This Way isn't setting ANY guidelines for judgment. Get over it, seriously.

I think a lot of it comes down to how you view the Born This Way site.  Personally, I've always viewed it in a way that I think is in keeping with the purpose of the site - that kids knew very early what their gender identity was and they were comfortable with it.  Whether dressed in keeping with social norms or not, I think it's more about the other aspects of the picture, including the accompanying story, rather than simply if a boy was in a dress or a girl looking like a tomboy.

As a straight woman, there are moments captured on film where I felt comfortable in who I was and it wasn't about how I dressed or if I was with a boy, it was about me being excited to be me, whatever that meant.

I feel you are taking something grown adults are participating in good fun and spoiling it. The Born This Way blog is a way for adults to reflect on their childhood and have a little laugh at some of the things that at the time of our youth seemed just normal, but now as an adult seemed like a possible "sign".  And as for lipstick lesbians being left out, you obviously haven't bothered to look at my entry.  

I found a great amount of joy participating in this blog.  I was able to share a silly picture as well as make a few new friends.  I also enjoyed comparing my story with others.  Most seemed to have a more pleasant coming out experience and I wanted to be sure to represent those of us who did not.  Again, showing the diversity of the blog.

It is unfortunate that you have missed the idea of this blog and feel the need to devalue those of us who enjoy it's existence and and participate.

As someone who studies (and teaches) child development from both contemporary and historical perspectives, I will be the first person to say that children of all ages express and experiment with gender through clothes (or other gendered objects, like toys) and that variation in expression with these gendered objects is quite normal. Playing dolls does not necessarily mean a boy is or will be gay. Wearing a football helmet does not necessarily indicate that a little girl really wants to be a little boy. In addition, the way cultures/communities/families gender objects (such as clothing, toys, etc.) and activities (such as singing, dancing, sports, etc.) changes across social and historical contexts. These arguments are well-substantiated. 

However, YOUR particular argument is moot because you are misrepresenting the actual intentions of the blog. The blog never makes the argument that clothing, object or activity preferences predict (or cause) "the gay". It is a narrative forum for LGBTQ individuals in which they make meaning of their OWN experiences through words and images. Sometimes these images show them defying gender norms at a young age, sometimes they don't. Either way, each person is only speaking as an expert on their OWN nature (which is their right), not the nature of every LGTBQ person. The blog's purpose statement sums it up: 

"A photo/essay project for gay adults (of all genders) to submit childhood pictures and stories (roughly ages 2 to 12), reflecting memories & early beginnings of their innate LGBTQ selves. Nurture allows what nature endows. It's their nature, their truth!"

Why not take on something or someone where your argument actually holds?  A recent example would be the J. Crew advert that showed a fashion editor painting her young son's fingernails pink (at his request) and the media backlash and debate that ensued on whether or not this mother was promoting a gay lifestyle or would somehow turn her son gay. By examining this case, you could easily make your point instead of what you're doing here -- misfiring.

I think that Lisa has attempted to make two valid points in these posts. I think first she points out that performance of gender and sexual identity are often conflated. How I act “masculine” or “feminine” has nothing to do with the biological parts I have (nor with whom I prefer to interact with sexually). It is important to tease these apart because they do not share a causal relationship. In fact, some people (myself included) would argue that gender is totally constructed and reinforced by society, and its institutions and systems – it is not real, except that our society enforces it, often brutally. Some would also argue that sexual identity is similarly constructed (and similarly enforced), and that heteronormativity is so pervasive and embedded that it is invisible to many people. Further, the language around heteronormative sexuality is so limiting and narrow, there is little, if any, room for conversations outside that box, which makes it even more difficult to see.
    It is easy to understand why it seems appealing to say, “this is the way I was made, and that’s it.”
    Except that it wouldn’t be. I think Lisa is trying to also point out that if (science determines) sexual preference is biologically-based, as blog the title, Born This Way, suggests, then non-heteronormative sexuality becomes a genetic flaw and a medical problem. Remember when homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder prior to the publication of the DSM-IV and 'treatments' were developed and utilized? If sexual preference is established to be determined by biology, then science can identify the “mutation” and “fix it.” And that is grotesque and scary.
    As well, focusing on biology vs psychology vs society is yet another trap that circumvents conversations about changing systems that margnalize people who fall outside of the flawed and narrow definitions of normal perpetuated by members of dominant groups.
    That being said, I think it also important to never discount the voices of those who have already been erased, marginalized, overwritten, and otherwise ignored, and it sounds like these individuals feel their experiences are being invalidated. From what I have seen of Lisa’s work, I don’t believe she would intentionally do such a thing, but it seems like there needs to be, and a desire for, more in-depth discourse with greater opportunity to share experiences and knowledges.

Wow.  I mean, I love this site, I love 90% of what you post, but sometimes you go really dramatically wrong.  I mean, did you even read your first paragraph when you started your second?  You state right away that the pictures on Born This Way are

photo[s] from [their] childhood in which [they]’re breaking gender norms

; and then you go on to talk about FDR in a dress, saying that

The idea that wearing a dress or seeming girly is a sign that one is gay is also completely ahistorical.

In other words, the photo of FDR, insofar as it shows what was standard for boys of the era, is in no way breaking gender norms.

In other words, you first set up a straw man: "Having a picture of yourself breaking gender norms as a child is proof that you were born gay".  This is clearly a straw man, because (a) the creator of the blog and many of the people who posted there have pretty specifically said that that's not what the blog is about, and (b) it took me thirty seconds of skimming over the current posts on the front page to decide that that's not what the blog is about (at the moment: there's a man talking about how his interests included "no girly stuff", a woman whose picture shows her in a dress and pigtails and smiling, a man whose picture has him wearing what are probably male dress clothes, and a man whose picture shows him looking unhappy but without anything especially gendered about it. Also a girl on a tractor.  That's one out of five).  Having set up the straw man, you then argue against it by saying, "Here's a picture of a straight man who isn't breaking gender norms as a child", which almost borders on being a non sequitur.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak--I'm a straight man, so I've never sent anything to Born This Way, and it's not my identity that's at issue here--but you really look like you're pushing some personal belief rather than discussing sociological research and the images that represent it.

In addition to misunderstanding/misrepresenting the purpose and perspective of the blog, it seems to me that the author overlooks the fact that while gender non-conformity does not equal non-heterosexuality, it is often a feature of queer identity, which may be why it is featured in many photographs and entries. While it may be true that many/most children can find an isolated photograph or two of themselves behaving in non-conformist ways, there are innumerable reinforcements and rewards for gender-expected behavior and sanctions against those who do not conform, creating a lot of pressure to follow cultural expectations. It is also true that the most pervasive, public, and promoted sex/gender-based expectation is that we will be solely attracted to members of the other sex, with pretty severe sanctions against those for whom this is not the case. 

So rather than suggesting a cause-effect relationship or providing "evidence" of innate queerness, perhaps the identification with gender non-conformity (as evidenced by the photographs and stories posted to the blog) reflects a sense of triumph over both conformity and social sanctions for non-conformity, celebrating and expressing who we are in the face of obstacles and ridicule, and embracing a more profound non-conformity than a photograph could ever reveal. 

In addition to misunderstanding/misrepresenting the purpose and perspective of the blog, it seems to me that the author overlooks the fact that while gender non-conformity does not equal non-heterosexuality, it is often a feature of queer identity, which may be why it is featured in many photographs and entries. While it may be true that many/most children can find an isolated photograph or two of themselves behaving in non-conformist ways, there are innumerable reinforcements and rewards for gender-expected behavior and sanctions against those who do not conform, creating a lot of pressure to follow cultural expectations. It is also true that the most pervasive, public, and promoted sex/gender-based expectation is that we will be solely attracted to members of the other sex, with pretty severe sanctions against those for whom this is not the case. 

So rather than suggesting a cause-effect relationship or providing "evidence" of innate queerness, perhaps the identification with gender non-conformity (as evidenced by the photographs and stories posted to the blog) reflects a sense of triumph over both conformity and social sanctions for non-conformity, celebrating and expressing who we are in the face of obstacles and ridicule, and embracing a more profound non-conformity than a photograph could ever reveal.

I agree with Paul Vee. I think Lisa's analysis of his blog does not take into account the stories the authors attribute to the pictures. The pictures are only a small and less significant piece of the whole experience of the blog. Her suggestions about FDR is unfair since Roosevelt is not here to write about his life alongside the picture. Paul allows his guests to do so when they submit a photo. 
I find this oversight rather significant and makes me less of a fan of "sociological images". 

Wait, wait, wait... If Lisa misunerstood the blog so gravely, why on earth is it called Born This Way?

I guess I'm going to be the first one to have a little fun and say this. "Dude looks like a lady!"

I checked out the Born This Way blog, and I don't think it has the agenda you say it has. If nothing you guys are on the same side of things.

Reader's freely submit whatever stories or pictures they want about being a kid and realizing they were gay. There's a pretty broad spectrum of them. Just a few examples as I looked through:

http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/2011/06/noelle.html
http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/2011/06/gordon.html
http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/2011/06/joshua.html
http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/2011/06/daniel.html
http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/2011/06/daniel.html

The pictures actually reflect a pretty broad range of behavior. If anything, it shows that your sexual orientation is independent of your outward expression.

(And I don't think FDR dressed himself this way.)

Not to mention that most of this kind of stuff is blatant cis gay appropriation of transgender issues.

You are an absolutely terrible blogger and you need to stop talking about this issue yesterday.

Gender expression (what you wear/look like/act like) is NOT Sex (xx aka female/xy aka male/ xxy being androgenous), and neither of those are Sexual Orientation (straight/ gay/ bi/ asexual/ pan). Thank you...

There is not only one blog in existence; the commas around the blog's name should be removed.

I love looking at bornthisway blog because  the images are beautiful and warm and counter culturally conservative notions of a "crisis" of sexuality and personality as being the root of gay/bi sexual orientation. The blog allows for members of the LGBT community to say, "This is me! I have always been me!" I love that.

Yes, the blog is frustrating in that it perpetuates the idea that gender performance = sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc. After everything the LGBT community has fought for, it would be a shame for a parent to jump to all sorts of conclusions about their daughter's sexuality because she is obsessed with Marvel Comics and listens to jam bands.

Actually, FDR in his childhood/youth had a bit of a reputation as a "dandy"/"priss"/"Mama's boy" in small part because his mother apparently dressed him up a bit too fancy and a bit too old even for his era. What's really interesting is that he also apparently had a reputation as a womanizer from a young age--these two kinds of sterotypes, fancy boy and ladies' man, weren't mutually exclusive like they became later on. Maybe the "metrosexual" trope changed that?

Also a good example that there is no such thing as a perfectly representative example and an interesting way to talk about how we sometimes oversimply history. Obviously it has to be done somewhat, but I think sayinf; "baby boys" wore dresses does oversimply the issue. FDR was an enormously wealthy kid, some of the "girlishness" in the photo (and that the photo was taken at all) has to do with his class status.

Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!

I would say hell isnt halfw full yet