Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/nobody-is-born-that-way-gay-historians-say/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An important point that is stressed in the article is these historians aren't saying that the inclinations that lead to people self-identifying as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight aren't innate, but rather that the social constructs that lead Western societies to pigeonhole people into those particular sexual identities are a relatively recent phenomenon originating around 150 years ago.

Since a discussion of how we define ourselves is a core portion of philosophy, I placed this here rather than on the history board.

[CatoMinor]

RIP Ernest

[bedstuy]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology.  They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.  So, no surprise that they want to say sexuality is completely a social construction.  Obviously, that's garbage. 

Let's also clarify what we mean by gay.  There's sexually attracted to the same sex and there's identifying as gay.  Even today, many people are married to opposite sex partners and identify as straight, but are attracted to the same sex and have sex with people of the same sex.  Is that straight?  When people talk about other cultures not having the concept of gay people, that's about semantics.  Older cultures just treated gay people differently by forcing them into straight relationships or clergy/civil service or killing them.     

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why does it matter where homosexuality 'comes from'?

As it happens there isn't actually a great deal of evidence for the genetic theory - as has often been the case twin studies have shown diminishing returns - but the social construct theory is too daft, vague and handwavey to make much sense. What evidence there is does point the idea of 'sexual orientations' as somewhat dubious but why is it important?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology.  They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.  So, no surprise that they want to say sexuality is completely a social construction.  Obviously, that's garbage.

It's not only garbage, it's not what the article or the historians it refers to are saying.  What it is saying that historically, even in those cultures that were accepting of same-sex attraction or even in those that embraced it, there was no social construct that was analogous to that of "gay" as it is commonly understood today.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology.  They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.  So, no surprise that they want to say sexuality is completely a social construction.  Obviously, that's garbage.

It's not only garbage, it's not what the article or the historians it refers to are saying.  What it is saying that historically, even in those cultures that were accepting of same-sex attraction or even in those that embraced it, there was no social construct that was analogous to that of "gay" as it is commonly understood today.

But does that confuse human consciousness with human self-consciousness? One can be, I can assume, a man can have strong homosexual tendencies without being gay.

(Oh, I've done it now. Haven't I?)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't really understand the point this author is trying to make.  He argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, yet he acknowledges that sexual orientation is something that is beyond the individual's control.  Even if nobody is "born that way," why does the social construct theory become the default position?

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't really understand the point this author is trying to make.  He argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, yet he acknowledges that sexual orientation is something that is beyond the individual's control.  Even if nobody is "born that way," why does the social construct theory become the default position?

He's arguing (I think) that the entire idea of there being such a category of person as "sexual orientation" is itself a social construct.

[bedstuy]

Left-wing humanities PhDs don't believe that biology influences society.  They have a large stake in that idea because they want to study society and language, instead of biology because they don't know how to study biology.  They have a bunch of dog-eared copies of Foucault books, not microscopes.  So, no surprise that they want to say sexuality is completely a social construction.  Obviously, that's garbage.

It's not only garbage, it's not what the article or the historians it refers to are saying.  What it is saying that historically, even in those cultures that were accepting of same-sex attraction or even in those that embraced it, there was no social construct that was analogous to that of "gay" as it is commonly understood today.

You don't need the vocabulary of sexuality for sexuality to exist though.  You just need boners and/or lady boners. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't really understand the point this author is trying to make.  He argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, yet he acknowledges that sexual orientation is something that is beyond the individual's control.  Even if nobody is "born that way," why does the social construct theory become the default position?

My take is that he's arguing is that these social constructs, such as the concept of "gay" as a distinct sexual orientation, or even the idea that there are distinct sexual orientations defined solely by sexual attraction and no other factors is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking.  Hence sexual orientation is something that is beyond someone's control only if one accepts that the LGBS pigeonholes are the way that society must categorize people.  With a different set of pigeonholes, some currently in the same hole would be in different ones and some now in the different holes might be in the same.

[Del Tachi]

I don't really understand the point this author is trying to make.  He argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, yet he acknowledges that sexual orientation is something that is beyond the individual's control.  Even if nobody is "born that way," why does the social construct theory become the default position?

He's arguing (I think) that the entire idea of there being such a category of person as "sexual orientation" is itself a social construct.

Bingo.  And I think he is entirely correct in that assessment.

[bedstuy]

I don't really understand the point this author is trying to make.  He argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, yet he acknowledges that sexual orientation is something that is beyond the individual's control.  Even if nobody is "born that way," why does the social construct theory become the default position?

My take is that he's arguing is that these social constructs, such as the concept of "gay" as a distinct sexual orientation, or even the idea that there are distinct sexual orientations defined solely by sexual attraction and no other factors is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking.  Hence sexual orientation is something that is beyond someone's control only if one accepts that the LGBS pigeonholes are the way that society must categorize people.  With a different set of pigeonholes, some currently in the same hole would be in different ones and some now in the different holes might be in the same.

Are we talking about a physical hole or a semantic hole (IE a category)?  That's the underlying problem here. 

I could call myself "gay" or a man that has sex with men or a snappy dresser.  You can put me in whatever category of sexuality you want, it's not going to make me desire a woman's physical hole, so to speak.  Ultimately, if this is just about semantics, who cares?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't really understand the point this author is trying to make.  He argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, yet he acknowledges that sexual orientation is something that is beyond the individual's control.  Even if nobody is "born that way," why does the social construct theory become the default position?

My take is that he's arguing is that these social constructs, such as the concept of "gay" as a distinct sexual orientation, or even the idea that there are distinct sexual orientations defined solely by sexual attraction and no other factors is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking.  Hence sexual orientation is something that is beyond someone's control only if one accepts that the LGBS pigeonholes are the way that society must categorize people.  With a different set of pigeonholes, some currently in the same hole would be in different ones and some now in the different holes might be in the same.

So what's the matter with that?  We may not yet have a clear understanding of sexual orientation, but it's far better than what it was two thousand years ago.  We know that homosexuality exists in animals (which I noticed the author doesn't touch on) and we have very advanced concepts of the body, mind, and sex compared to even a century ago.  I don't see what's particularly objectionable about the way we categorize people or how people categorize themselves, the latter being which society is starting to embrace.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My take is that he's arguing is that these social constructs, such as the concept of "gay" as a distinct sexual orientation, or even the idea that there are distinct sexual orientations defined solely by sexual attraction and no other factors is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking.  Hence sexual orientation is something that is beyond someone's control only if one accepts that the LGBS pigeonholes are the way that society must categorize people.  With a different set of pigeonholes, some currently in the same hole would be in different ones and some now in the different holes might be in the same.

So what's the matter with that?  We may not yet have a clear understanding of sexual orientation, but it's far better than what it was two thousand years ago.  We know that homosexuality exists in animals (which I noticed the author doesn't touch on) and we have very advanced concepts of the body, mind, and sex compared to even a century ago.  I don't see what's particularly objectionable about the way we categorize people or how people categorize themselves, the latter being which society is starting to embrace.

Doesn't the idea that we are using sexual preference as a primary means of categorizing people strike you as potentially problematic?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My take is that he's arguing is that these social constructs, such as the concept of "gay" as a distinct sexual orientation, or even the idea that there are distinct sexual orientations defined solely by sexual attraction and no other factors is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking.  Hence sexual orientation is something that is beyond someone's control only if one accepts that the LGBS pigeonholes are the way that society must categorize people.  With a different set of pigeonholes, some currently in the same hole would be in different ones and some now in the different holes might be in the same.

So what's the matter with that?  We may not yet have a clear understanding of sexual orientation, but it's far better than what it was two thousand years ago.  We know that homosexuality exists in animals (which I noticed the author doesn't touch on) and we have very advanced concepts of the body, mind, and sex compared to even a century ago.  I don't see what's particularly objectionable about the way we categorize people or how people categorize themselves, the latter being which society is starting to embrace.

Doesn't the idea that we are using sexual preference as a primary means of categorizing people strike you as potentially problematic?

Using anything as a "primary means" of categorizing people is problematic to me, be it race or sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to use terms like "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" or "pansexual" or what have you, especially if they're being used to describe oneself.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's a thoroughly problematic article and frankly not very good.

Of course the categorisation of sexuality is a 'construct'... what isn't a construct of some kind?

[afleitch]

There’s not too much I can add to bedstuy’s assessment. The problem with many sociologists and some anthropologists is that biology is making some of their discourse redundant, or at least the skeleton of the framework redundant. Using the same argument the article proposes (some of which can be dispelled with minimal effort) one could argue that that female sexuality is a construct. The idea of women freely expressing and owning their sexuality outside of the constraints of a male social hierarchy with its expectations regarding family, childcare and property and being able to control their reproductive system was pretty non-existent. You don’t find ‘women like today’ in 1614; that is just ludicrous. It is equally ludicrous to argue that women’s sexuality did not exist.  The fact that women’s sexuality was not expressed in a ‘modern’ fashion at that time and indeed it could be argued that it is not fully expressed today, is precisely because of the social constraints upon it. Changes to social norms don’t mean that certain innate characteristics pop into existence, they simply settle into an expressed form without said constraints. My friend in his late 70’s does not retain much in the way of profuse written statements about wanting to settle down with his love from his National Service days because the discovery of such expressions in the 1950’s would have meant discipline, discharge, arrest and forced electro stimulation aversion therapy. The idea that you didn’t leave historical physical evidence does not mean that the intent never existed. You were just careful.

[afleitch]

Doesn't the idea that we are using sexual preference as a primary means of categorizing people strike you as potentially problematic?

It is, but why wouldn’t we? Society is shaped by those who hold authority. Many people held authority by virtue of having a penis. There will always be identification and demarcation along gender and sexual lines precisely a society based on serving the needs of heteronormative power model (and I make no apology for going all ‘feminist’ here) is the hegemony. The reason why sexuality is an issue for those who have a minority sexuality is because same sex acts were opposed by the hegemony. It didn’t matter whether you just liked casual same sex encounters or wanted to be able to be publically seen and safe with a romantic sexual partner for life. Everything on that spectrum was oppressed. If homosexual behaviour was not specifically excluded (or excluded by omission) in civil, social and religious structures and statutes then there wouldn’t be an LGBT identity as you know it today, because it wouldn’t be defined as a characteristic. There would never have been a black identity either because skin colour like sexual attraction would never be identified as a discernable characteristic. It’s not as if society divides along hair colour, though there are issues of ‘preference’ involved even in that. And of course this demarcation with proscribed gender roles and correct and incorrect sexual behaviour is perpetuated within certain understandings of religious revelation as being mandated by god and this can further perpetuate this.

------

I’ll expand upon my thoughts on the whole article as I have time.

First of it’s a terrible article. It shouldn’t merit much more discussion that that, except that terrible articles deserve it.

On the subject matter itself, a major problem with that is if you say to someone that heterosexuality is a construct, therefore deconstructing everything from marriage to an erection, you’ll be casually dismissed in various academic and scientific circles (as well as the local pub) because it doesn’t fit in with someone’s sexual-social experience. But if you say that homosexuality is a construct there are enough ‘bourgeois’ (to use that term) who have an issue with homosexuality that stems from religious, social, cultural and power structures to take note. Therefore the constructionists are essentially ‘useful idiots’ and the very playthings of the structures they so vehemently oppose. You can see that in the article posted where constructed heterosexuality is touched upon but immediately glossed over because after all, the article is about the gays. Why people are straight and do straight things like marry and have children or associated with that; cheat, divorce and abandon their children is of no real concern to anyone.  Perhaps it should be, but it’s not. You can’t engage people on that premise. However if you make the issue about the gays, then you can demonstrate your philosophical prowess to an audience that doesn’t give two sh-ts about Marxist theory because a predominantly straight audience really want to know why people don’t think and act like they do.

This article is providing a snapshot of those who would consider themselves to be in the ‘constructionist’ camp; i.e the concept of sexual orientation was invented in the 19th Century mainly through medical discourse which constructed the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy for bourgeois purposes (because everything, apparently, is a class struggle) This means that prior to this point homosexuality was characterised not by sense of identity but by sexual acts which were perceived as structures of power (with an active and passive role) This view is ideologically and in many ways politically grounded. You need to have your Marxist hat on. Despite the fact that most people don’t wear that hat, hasn’t deterred many constructionists within queer theory who in full Frankfurt School mode neglect to communicate that the primary focus is not necessarily to discover an accurate historical model but to foster a new social construct reflective of their political leanings. To them, the homosexual can’t simply ‘accept’ his or her groundings as a gay/LGBT because that is part of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy that is symptomatic of bourgeois capitalism. Instead they should, in effect be politicised into someone who questions all the concepts in the basket of the bourgeois, such as gender and heterosexuality and class therefore meaning that all these things (even men and women themselves) disappear as a class and are no longer subjects of oppression. If you de-stable heterosexuality then you eradicate homophobia (or so was the thinking) But once you start deconstructing something, therefore proving that it’s a construct, you start doing it with everything. It made no difference to them throwing both heterosexuality under a bus as throwing homosexuality under a bus. Even when LGBT academics do this (who, in the case of many mentioned in the article tend to be removed from what matters ‘now’) and crawl up from underneath the wheels, they still realise (not that they assumed anything other than that) that they are sexually attracted to whom they are attracted to and therefore the whole experiment hasn’t really validated anything. Whatever the other sciences are up to at this time doesn’t concern them because academic bubbles are precisely that.

However constructionists also make a mistake in assuming that the ‘now’ is more entrenched and is therefore more relevant than the ‘then.’ What is considered ‘gay’ now might not be what is considered so in a hundred years’ time, or a new term is used that describes the social grouping or self-identification of those with non-heteronormative sexuality. Or they might simply do different things in an environment that is more open or more closed towards them. Therefore what is currently the ‘now’ will for the future be the ‘then’ and because what they did ‘then’ is not what they do ‘now’ so the ‘then’ is dismissed. The experiences of those in the past are dismissed and the new ‘now’ are told that their experiences are constructed. Which as you can see is deeply problematic.

In contrast to this you have ‘essentialists’ (which would be my own view) where both knowledge and practice are not constructed but are ‘discovered’ (for which you can at times read inherent) but subject to repression and then rediscovery through both history and experience. It emphasises continuity and the dichotomy of liberation/suppression to what was already there.

And of course as expected, such discourse on both sides ends up hideously Western.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Freud has suggested innate bisexuality.

[Randy Bobandy]

Freud has suggested innate bisexuality.

I suggest innate bisexuality.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It’s not as if society divides along hair colour, though there are issues of ‘preference’ involved even in that.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e11-ginger-kids

My unfamiliarity with Marxist philosophy limits my ability to comment on the rest of your post.

[bedstuy]

It’s not as if society divides along hair colour, though there are issues of ‘preference’ involved even in that.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e11-ginger-kids

My unfamiliarity with Marxist philosophy limits my ability to comment on the rest of your post.

That's kind of a cop-out though.  I think you mean TL;DR.  But, since you started this thread.  I'm curious what your interest is in this article and this subject. 

If the point is that understandings of sexuality have changed over time and differ among cultures, who is remotely surprised?  Why is that an insight that matters to conservatives at a conservative news website?  Why is this relevant beyond a historical context?

Since this is coming from a conservative website, I feel like the implication is that gay people should not be treated as human beings with a right to love and express their sexuality as they choose.  Is that what you're driving at?

[traininthedistance]

Ultimately, if this is just about semantics, who cares?

If that were true, then why push for marriage when you can have civil unions? 

Obviously people care about semantics.  And with good reason.

[bedstuy]

Ultimately, if this is just about semantics, who cares?

If that were true, then why push for marriage when you can have civil unions? 

Obviously people care about semantics.  And with good reason.

That's true as far as it goes.  But, the question is what do you do with the meaning and existence of words.  Does this word describe human experience in an accurate and meaningful way?  That's a worthwhile conversation, but not one really posed here or in the article. 

Or, do you say, because this word wasn't used to describe human experience before, it doesn't describe anything and the ideas implied in the word are wrong (IE gay people were not born that way and chose to be gay, can be cured, etc).  That's a dumb idea.  That's like saying we should deny the existence of mental illness or autism because they didn't have a word for it in 1700, or we should deny the existence of germs because there wasn't a word for it until recently.  That's just nonsense.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's kind of a cop-out though.  I think you mean TL;DR.  But, since you started this thread.  I'm curious what your interest is in this article and this subject.

No, I definitely read, but since he was throwing some philosophical terms around I hadn't paid much thought to, I didn't want to toss verbage around willy-nilly, lest I make some boneheaded mistakes with the jargon.  However, I will do so some of that later in this post.

I came across this as a link on a another website (I forget which one; I'm not a regular reader of the Daily Caller, so it certainly wasn't on that site) and thought it would stimulate some discussion here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly not what I'm driving at.  I do think we tend to place an excessive emphasis on sexuality of all sorts in our culture and that as a byproduct this has led to undue emphasis being placed upon sexual orientation as a means of categorizing people. I don't have a solution to offer to that problem, and certainly as long as we do engage in this form of categorization, we need to ensure all categories receive equitable treatment.

Andrew described himself as an essentialist, one who feels that the categories we use are largely natural and contrasted that POV with constructionists who feel that the categories are largely social constructs.  Rather than being either constructionist or essentialist, I'd consider myself an existentialist who places emphasis upon people as individuals rather than as categories.  Regardless of whether the categories are natural or constructed, they are still arbitrary ways of organizing people into separate groups instead of an interconnected web of individuals.  So my concern about what I perceive as an undue emphasis on sexuality is largely because it leads to viewing people as objects belonging to a particular category be it blonde bombshells or burly bears rather than as individuals.