Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say

[bedstuy]

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.

I think you're being an obfuscationist rather than an existentialist.

What do you mean by arbitrary?  Attracted to the opposite sex vs. attracted to the same sex vs. attracted to both sexes, those are descriptive categories that are applied to people based on discernible traits.  It's not arbitrary at all. 

Here's my take on that idea:  You don't need to read into these categories more than they purport to mean.  For me, gay doesn't mean flamboyant or constantly belting out show tunes.  But, it does describe something.  People have many different identities and each is diverse.  You don't need to define yourself completely as a "gay" or a "black,"  but identities still mean something or else they wouldn't exist.   

What exactly am I losing in identifying myself as gay?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What do you mean by arbitrary?  Attracted to the opposite sex vs. attracted to the same sex vs. attracted to both sexes, those are descriptive categories that are applied to people based on discernible traits.  It's not arbitrary at all.

They're arbitrary in the sense that people feel obligated to include their sexual orientation as one of their primary characteristics.  That obligation is a main part of the arbitrariness I refer to.  What's also arbitrary is the idea that it is all versus rather than a continuum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Starting here, starting now, let me point out that even tho you claim to not associate certain other characteristics with what you consider to be a primary characteristic of yourself, being gay, others do because of the arbitrary association of certain other characteristics with that primary characteristic.  It would be nice if that weren't so, but it is, so not everything is going to come up roses or daffodils.

(Incidentally, I like show tunes and I am not gay.)

[afleitch]

They're arbitrary in the sense that people feel obligated to include their sexual orientation as one of their primary characteristics.  That obligation is a main part of the arbitrariness I refer to.  What's also arbitrary is the idea that it is all versus rather than a continuum.

The problem is that the 'obligation' is already built into societal power structures. If it wasn't for the fact that those who wielded power had an issue with sexual minorities; i.e identifying it as a deviation, then it wouldn't be considered a primary characteristic. If they didn't face a societal deficit then nor would it be considered a characteristic that in a more enlightened society is deemed worthy of protection or the need to rectify past transgressions. It's not an unusual classification to make in that sense.

I'm happy to say I'm gay for as long as it matters that having a physical and emotional attraction to men matters to people.

[bedstuy]

What do you mean by arbitrary?  Attracted to the opposite sex vs. attracted to the same sex vs. attracted to both sexes, those are descriptive categories that are applied to people based on discernible traits.  It's not arbitrary at all.

They're arbitrary in the sense that people feel obligated to include their sexual orientation as one of their primary characteristics.  That obligation is a main part of the arbitrariness I refer to.  What's also arbitrary is the idea that it is all versus rather than a continuum.

What's a primary characteristic?  There are times where I don't want people to know I'm gay, like if I'm walking through a bad neighborhood.  There are times when I do want people to know I'm gay like among friends.  I think it's really important that your friends and family know something about your sexual preferences so they can introduce you to other gay people and expect you to date certain people.

Here's my take on that idea:  You don't need to read into these categories more than they purport to mean.  For me, gay doesn't mean flamboyant or constantly belting out show tunes.  But, it does describe something.  People have many different identities and each is diverse.  You don't need to define yourself completely as a "gay" or a "black,"  but identities still mean something or else they wouldn't exist.   

What exactly am I losing in identifying myself as gay?

Starting here, starting now, let me point out that even tho you claim to not associate certain other characteristics with what you consider to be a primary characteristic of yourself, being gay, others do because of the arbitrary association of certain other characteristics with that primary characteristic.  It would be nice if that weren't so, but it is, so not everything is going to come up roses or daffodils.

(Incidentally, I like show tunes and I am not gay.)

I don't think people treat me that differently because I'm gay, honestly.  Once people get to know you, it doesn't matter, except if they're interested romantically.  I live in NYC so maybe that's different than the South.  But, in any case, if someone is going to treat me differently because I'm gay, I would not want to associate with them.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You aren't born gay.....

Um... so are people born heterosexual?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You aren't born gay.....

Um... so are people born heterosexual?

What does that have to do with anything?  People are born sad because they've just been pushed out of the only place they will ever know where their every need is always cared for with out ever having to wait for anything.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You aren't born gay.....

Um... so are people born heterosexual?

What does that have to do with anything?  People are born sad because they've just been pushed out of the only place they will ever know where their every need is always cared for with out ever having to wait for anything.

I'm just curious specifically where he was going with that comment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

[afleitch]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

So sexual stimulation as the result of attractiveness upon sight of a male or female or either leading to changes in heart rates, sweating, pupil dilation, subconscious responses to smells , erection and self lubrication are 'constructs'?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

So sexual stimulation as the result of attractiveness upon sight of a male or female or either leading to changes in heart rates, sweating, pupil dilation, subconscious responses to smells , erection and self lubrication are 'constructs'?

Yes, obviously our sense of attractiveness is socially constructed. I thought everyone knew that. Just look at old paintings, every era and every area had its own specific definition of male and female beauty. The fact that it elicits physical reactions doesn't in any way disprove its social origins.

[bedstuy]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

So sexual stimulation as the result of attractiveness upon sight of a male or female or either leading to changes in heart rates, sweating, pupil dilation, subconscious responses to smells , erection and self lubrication are 'constructs'?

Yes, obviously our sense of attractiveness is socially constructed. I thought everyone knew that. Just look at old paintings, every era and every area had its own specific definition of male and female beauty. The fact that it elicits physical reactions doesn't in any way disprove its social origins.

Sex predates society though, so sexual attraction cannot have a social origin.  Society can influence sex, it is not the origin.   And, what you're talking about is the preference for a type of female body or male body, not one or the other. 

Plus, just look at societies like Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punished with the death penalty.  There are still plenty of gay people in Saudi Arabia, how is that possible if sexuality is based on their society? 

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

So sexual stimulation as the result of attractiveness upon sight of a male or female or either leading to changes in heart rates, sweating, pupil dilation, subconscious responses to smells , erection and self lubrication are 'constructs'?

Yes, obviously our sense of attractiveness is socially constructed. I thought everyone knew that. Just look at old paintings, every era and every area had its own specific definition of male and female beauty. The fact that it elicits physical reactions doesn't in any way disprove its social origins.

Sex predates society though, so sexual attraction cannot have a social origin.  Society can influence sex, it is not the origin.   And, what you're talking about is the preference for a type of female body or male body, not one or the other. 

Plus, just look at societies like Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punished with the death penalty.  There are still plenty of gay people in Saudi Arabia, how is that possible if sexuality is based on their society? 

The natural sex drive is simply the desire to stroke one's genitalia. What they are to be stroked against is determined, among humans, mostly by social constructions. Animals have pheromones, which serve as a means to further reproduction, but among humans it's scientifically documented that pheromones are much weaker than in most animal species.

By socially constructed, I don't simply mean based on norms of social acceptability. The two things can even be opposite. Actually, homosexuality was constructed as such in the 19th century mostly as a way to place a stigma on this behavior whereas before the stigma didn't really exist or take different forms. It's not that men having sex with other men didn't exist, it simply means that this wasn't considered as a fundamental category per se.

[bedstuy]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

So sexual stimulation as the result of attractiveness upon sight of a male or female or either leading to changes in heart rates, sweating, pupil dilation, subconscious responses to smells , erection and self lubrication are 'constructs'?

Yes, obviously our sense of attractiveness is socially constructed. I thought everyone knew that. Just look at old paintings, every era and every area had its own specific definition of male and female beauty. The fact that it elicits physical reactions doesn't in any way disprove its social origins.

Sex predates society though, so sexual attraction cannot have a social origin.  Society can influence sex, it is not the origin.   And, what you're talking about is the preference for a type of female body or male body, not one or the other. 

Plus, just look at societies like Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punished with the death penalty.  There are still plenty of gay people in Saudi Arabia, how is that possible if sexuality is based on their society? 

The natural sex drive is simply the desire to stroke one's genitalia. What they are to be stroked against is determined, among humans, mostly by social constructions. Animals have pheromones, which serve as a means to further reproduction, but among humans it's scientifically documented that pheromones are much weaker than in most animal species.

By socially constructed, I don't simply mean based on norms of social acceptability. The two things can even be opposite. Actually, homosexuality was constructed as such in the 19th century mostly as a way to place a stigma on this behavior whereas before the stigma didn't really exist or take different forms. It's not that men having sex with other men didn't exist, it simply means that this wasn't considered as a fundamental category per se.

I'm no expert on the science of this issue, but intuitively, I think that's ridiculous.  Do you actually believe that?

And, again, we go on this circular argument.  Just because there wasn't a term for homosexual doesn't mean there were not homosexual people. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

So sexual stimulation as the result of attractiveness upon sight of a male or female or either leading to changes in heart rates, sweating, pupil dilation, subconscious responses to smells , erection and self lubrication are 'constructs'?

Yes, obviously our sense of attractiveness is socially constructed. I thought everyone knew that. Just look at old paintings, every era and every area had its own specific definition of male and female beauty. The fact that it elicits physical reactions doesn't in any way disprove its social origins.

Sex predates society though, so sexual attraction cannot have a social origin.  Society can influence sex, it is not the origin.   And, what you're talking about is the preference for a type of female body or male body, not one or the other. 

Plus, just look at societies like Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punished with the death penalty.  There are still plenty of gay people in Saudi Arabia, how is that possible if sexuality is based on their society? 

The natural sex drive is simply the desire to stroke one's genitalia. What they are to be stroked against is determined, among humans, mostly by social constructions.

Society never told me to fantasize about the guy who sits in front of me in choir, and yet I do.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Looks like nobody here understands how social construction actually works.

[afleitch]

Looks like nobody here understands how social construction actually works.

I tore into it a few posts back. I have no need to expand upon it oh wise one

[ingemann]

Universities may the best place to collect our best and brightest, and make them say completely retarded things.

Honestly in a few centuries time, these kind of discussions will be as ridiculed as the theological debates about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

[Lurker]

Ingemann is correct.

Some people seem to have spent too much time in "gender studies" classes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Honestly in a few centuries time, these kind of discussions will be as ridiculed as the theological debates about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

At least those debates never actually happened...

[Velasco]

The natural sex drive is simply the desire to stroke one's genitalia. What they are to be stroked against is determined, among humans, mostly by social constructions. Animals have pheromones, which serve as a means to further reproduction, but among humans it's scientifically documented that pheromones are much weaker than in most animal species.

By socially constructed, I don't simply mean based on norms of social acceptability. The two things can even be opposite. Actually, homosexuality was constructed as such in the 19th century mostly as a way to place a stigma on this behavior whereas before the stigma didn't really exist or take different forms. It's not that men having sex with other men didn't exist, it simply means that this wasn't considered as a fundamental category per se.

I doubt the last word has been said on human pheromones and, in any case, even if the influence of pheromones is weaker in humans, the fact of reacting before them and the predisposition to be attracted by those of the same or opposite sex may indicate some kind of biological orientation of the sex drive... if human pheromones exist. They probably do as they exist in other mammals, though apparently there's only indirect evidence of their existence.

It's true that "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" are modern constructs, but the stigma on relationships between men obviously existed before in many societies under the names of "sodomy" or "bestialism". There wasn't a "category" or an "identity" around such relationships, but they were reprehensible behaviours harshly punished by intolerant societies.

Also, the sex of angels and their ability to dance in reduced spaces are essential questions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's true that "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" are modern constructs, but the stigma on relationships between men obviously existed before in many societies under the names of "sodomy" or "bestialism". There wasn't a "category" or an "identity" around such relationships, but they were reprehensible behaviours harshly punished by intolerant societies.

Yes, indeed. I would never imply that earlier societies were more tolerant (as a strong proponent of philosophical progressivism, I obviously wouldn't say such a thing). Although some societies did tolerate some forms of "homosexuality" (where basically adult upper-class men had a perceived right to f**k any person of lower status, like in ancient Greece or Rome). But again this wasn't "homosexuality" in the sense we understand it today.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

philosophical progressivism

Quick question: Is this the whole "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" thing?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Tony? Really?

The TERMS homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality/asexuality are constructs - because they're terms society has created over a long period of time to describe biology.

Sexuality is not just the desire to ... stroke one's genitals, it's a method to build and sustain relationships, to continue your genetic line etc etc...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sexuality is not just the desire to ... stroke one's genitals, it's a method to build and sustain relationships, to continue your genetic line etc etc...

Animals don't really "build and sustain relationships", though.

Anyway, the point is not to say that the desire to have sex with a person of the same sex is a construct of modern society. The point is that this was not understood as, in any way, something comparable to modern homosexuality (ie a general and universal preference for the same sex). Maybe I didn't do a good job at explaining it, but I had a gender class (taught by a gay professor, no less) which did a good job at it, and I can include some bibliographic reference.

philosophical progressivism

Quick question: Is this the whole "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" thing?

Yup. This quote is one of the best summaries of my thought I've ever heard.

[afleitch]

Tony? Really?

The TERMS homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality/asexuality are constructs - because they're terms society has created over a long period of time to describe biology.

Sexuality is not just the desire to ... stroke one's genitals, it's a method to build and sustain relationships, to continue your genetic line etc etc...

Ignoring the personal and emotional bonds; the love, is broadly ignorant and borderline offensive.