NATURE OR DAMAGE- WHY ARE WE GAY?

[lesbotronic]

This thread started with a post from a now no longer active member who said:  "Please give your thoughts on this question."

So we replied:

Do you spend a lot of time wondering why heterosexual people are heterosexual? Do you think we need to find a "cause" to waggle our fingers toward that will supposedly explain straight lifestyles? Do you similarly worry if heterosexuals might be the way they are only because someone "damaged" them?

If so, if you're the sort of person who wonders about absolutely everything under the sun . . . fine, but you might to clarify that so others won't misunderstand your views as insulting to them. If you think the above questions need answering for homosexuals but not for heterosexuals, I find that point-of-view dangerously close to homophobic, so you'll want to tread carefully starting now.

While I certainly can't speak to how your brain works or to the mental machinery of everyone else that will eventually read this, society-at-large typically only spends a lot of time fussing about the supposed etiological bases of behaviors it has labeled pathological or otherwise undesirable. If Very Average Joe doesn't have a personal problem with a particular behavior, he decides it just "is," and that's just fine and dandy. If Very Average Joe feels the need to overanalyze something or otherwise poke it with a stick (metaphorically speaking), that's usually predicated on his notion that he'd like it to go away, and that identification of a cause is the first step toward eliminating the thing he doesn't like. But if he doesn't have a personal problem with the thing in question, then he imagines it's "natural," it "just is."

Like all the various homosexual animals with whom we also share the planet. They just ARE, that is. People who spend a lot of time worrying about why homosexuals are the way they are usually fail to notice or intentionally leave out how nature (other than the parts involving homophobic humans) finds homosexuality entirely natural.

[Ramona]

Quote

Do you think we need to find a "cause" to waggle our fingers toward that will supposedly explain straight lifestyles? Do you similarly worry if heterosexuals might be the way they are only because someone "damaged" them?

If you think the above questions need answering for homosexuals but not for heterosexuals, I find that point-of-view dangerously close to homophobic . . . "

HEAR, HEAR!

This reminds me of one lesbian's stand-up comic routine . . . I wish I could remember who and I'd credit her, but her name eludes me now. But she said several folks had asked her over the years if she was queer because she'd had some sort of bad sexual experience with a man, something so bad it "turned her gay."

Her response was, "As IF! Honey, if having bad sex with a man is all it would take to make a lady love the other ladies, lesbians wouldn't be 5-10% of the female population, we'd be more like 99%."

Obviously!

[lesbotronic]

Thanks for the kudos, Ramona. :)

I (another lesbotronic admin) just read this, and thought of some more responses, along the lines of but a bit different than what my partner said above.

Throughout most of written history, lesbians have existed. Personal expression based on how bigoted/homophobic a society is/was vs. how enlightened/progressive/intelligent has varied in various historical "places" over time. Based on that, different societies/places have had a greater or fewer number of lesbians that felt able to be "open" about who they were and express themselves publically, like the heterosexuals do, more or less. BUT, the lesbos have always been around and always will be around . . . as long as humans are around, that is.

So, why are the lesbian women homosexual?

Why do fingers exist? Why do trees exist? Why do little fluffy kittens exist?

Different people have different answers for the above . . . some evolutionary, some spiritual, some existential, but whatever you believe about the questions immediately above, THAT IS WHY lesbians also exist.

Call it "Mother Nature," if you like. There just ain't no universal cause above and beyond that, certainly not one universally invoking "damage," as the title to the post starting this thread implied as at least a possibility for many lesbians. It IS nature, lesbians are a part of "nature," no doubt, no controversy.

If you think otherwise, please go fantasize about that with Jerry Falwell and his demented minions on some right-wing nutbag site. That sort of nonsense won't be tolerated here.

[Guest Blutorange]

/

[ashleigh]

actually, this reminds me of a lecture in freshman zoology. the professor said that the most important trait to have is to never be surprised by what you find in nature.

[ashleigh]

how does damage figure into the equation? just from a strictly biological view of the animal kingdom, the same range of sexual orientations also exists in other species. blue eyes are a deviation from brown eyes, does that mean that those with blue are damaged as well? variation is just that-variation.

[Dani28]

I think it's genetic and that there are two genes, so the F2 generation - which always represents the population, as a whole - follows the same 1:2:1 ratio that the F2 generation always follows in cases where there are two genes. So, 1/4 of the population is homozygous for the heterosexual gene (straight), 1/4 is homozygous for the homosexual gene (gay), and the remaining 1/2 of the population is heterozygous - received one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene (bisexual). That accounts for why so many people seem to think it's a choice - because they actually biologically have one (well, that and people can be kind of self-referencing, unable to imagine that their experience is not universal.) Anyway, there's more to that theory; but that's the brass tax explanation.

[Geekomatic]

@ Alexandra "I also feel weird about looking for a cause/gene/whatever because then homophobic people will just try and control that. blah."

I get an even creepier feeling that there's this urgency by some right-wing camps out there to figure out "why" so they can "fix" us...As-in, look for a way to genetically detect that elusive "gay-gene" in order to attempt to exterminate it.

History shows that there are a whole lot of sociopaths out there just champing at the bit in their desire to dehumanize others in order to abuse or destroy them.

[Dani28]

Well, first of all, I'm a right-winger; and those kind of assumptions are rude. Secondly, historically, the sort of eugenics you're referring to has been a goal of certain groups on the left, not the right. More to the point, it's obvious that sexual orientation is genetic; and having a scientific understanding of that shouldn't be any more threatening than having a scientific understanding of anything else. I strongly suspect that it's the sort of two gene scenario comparable with eye-color, curly or straight hair, or attached or unattached earlobes. Even if anyone wanted to eliminate one of the genes and the scientific community was willing to go along with that, it would be far too widely carried by the human population to successfully do so.

[Geekomatic]

Sexual orientation might be, "obviously genetic" to you personally (as-in, "your opinion"), but if that were a certified fact, there wouldn't be any of the current storm surrounding nurture-vs-nature. Assumptions/opinions = interchangeable. Hitler thought gays/Jews were an atrocity, lesser-than. He used this "opinion" to eradicate tens of thousands of those he didn't agree with. Hitler was a "leftie"?

It's no use looking at "historical" anything, actually, re: fairly recent advances in LGBTI. Lincoln would currently never associate his GOP with what it is today.  Unless you're saying the socialist-Darwinists (mainly right-wing) are all lefties in the US? They might protest that.

Eugenics, as they stand now, hope to use science to it's best (eradicate Parkinsons, etc). Unfortunately, we have to deal with the minefield of sociopaths to get there.

I'll assume that any thinking, empathetic person would say to (eradication of) Parkinson's, "of course!", not knowing the slippery-slope involved. No one bats an eye at GMO food.

With regard to what I wrote previously, my point was that it most DEFINITELY is the right-wing, ultra-religious (not in actual practice) folks who wish to find a "cure" for/end of homosexuality. I won't take time here to list sources- I'm sure Google can help you there.

I agree to disagree.

Cheers

[Dani28]

Wow. Okay, i'll try to respond in order, so that which point each response is to doesn't become convoluted. First, while whether the fact that sexual orientation being genetic is obvious could arguably be opinion, the truth of it being genetic is not. The propositional statement "Sexual orientation is genetic" has a truth value (of true) and is making a claim about the world, not perception of the world. Perhaps, I threw you off using the word "obvious". I did not anticipate anyone being stumped by semantics.
Yes, Hitler was a leftie. The proper name of his Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. He centralized the government, regulated everything from bedroom practices to religion, eradicated any semblance of individual liberty, even rounding up private citizens and imprisoning and murdering them. You don't get much more left wing than that.

I'm not sure why you would assume to know what Lincoln would think, at all, and certainly why you would assume that he would wish to disassociate himself from the contemporary Republican Party; so I can't address that, except to say that it makes no sense.

I'm not sure what a socialist-Darwinist is. Some right wingers are social Darwinists (which has nothing to do with Socialism). There are Socialists in the U.S. who are also Darwinists; but, yes, they would be on the left, not the right. Though, most Socialists in the U.S. have taken to calling themselves Progressives, because they understandably don't wish to be associated with the atrocities committed by Socialists in the last century, fyi.
I drew a distinction between the current hopes to use technology to spare people from inherited diseases (which do not work the same way the sort of two-gene possibility I was proposing works) and the use of eugenics that you were worried about, by saying "...the sort of eugenics you're referring to..." Perhaps, I should have been more specific. Being gay is not a disease. Any attempt to prevent it via genetic engineering would be in the Nazi eugenics camp, not the current scientific goal of preventing suffering from MS, Parkinson's, Huntington's, schizophrenia, etc.

A Slippery Slope is a fallacy, which invalidates an argument (that you were making), so I'm not sure why you're invoking it, as it would invalidate your own argument.

Many people have deep concerns about GMO foods.

There are deeply religious people on both sides of the isle - that is not a right wing phenomena - but the "left" and "right" are terms that refer specifically to political philosophy and economic theory, neither of which have a thing to do with either religion or sexual orientation.

Agree to disagree, for sure.

[Dani28]

Well, we do know that gender is supposed to be determined by sex chromosomes. Eggs all contain an X chromosome. Sperm can contain either an X or a Y. The Y chromosome is the smallest and most fragile of all human chromosomes and carries no other genetic information except the command for the in utero sex change you mentioned. If the command fails, the fetus continues to develop as a female, but that's fairly rare. Absent a Y chromosome, the sex change does not occur. That's why women have XX chromosomes and men have XY chromosomes (I've wondered if transgenderedism is the result of either the brain or the rest of the body not following the gender command that is supposed to correlate to the sex chromosome pairing; since the brain is the seat of consciousness, brain development, rather than a male or female physique, determines gender identity - that's my theory, anyhow). It doesn't follow that gender and sexual orientation have anything to do with one another. I think they're separate traits determined by entirely unrelated gene combinations sitting on different alleles (in other words, unrelated gene combinations.) Sex chromosomes determine gender (when they work correctly). I think sexual orientation is determined irrespective of gender; that nature found a way to control for population by programming some of the species to be compelled to engage in sexual activity that would lead to procreation while others of the species are compelled toward sexual activity that would not lead to offspring and a third group has the option of either behavior, so that if a drought or plague reduced numbers in a community, that third group could aid the first group in repopulating, but if a community faced numbers that their resources couldn't provide for, the third group could refrain from sexual activity that would add to overpopulation. If this is correct, then our attempt at moral reasoning regarding sexual orientation has been self-defeating - nature is smarter than we are.

[Geekomatic]

Dani28, we appear to be ships in the night...not quite getting what the other is saying no matter how clearly (we think) we're stating things...but that'll have to do.

I just wanted to add that this, something you wrote from another post that just struck me funny:

"My great endeavors, at present, are finishing my book while paying the bills writing resumes, and crossing my fingers that the summer heat won't wilt my pumpkin patch so that I can dork out Martha Stewart like, come fall." If you're not a creative writer, you should be.

:)

[Dani28]

Geekomatic said:

Dani28, we appear to be ships in the night...not quite getting what the other is saying no matter how clearly (we think) we're stating things...but that'll have to do.

I just wanted to add that this, something you wrote from another post that just struck me funny:

"My great endeavors, at present, are finishing my book while paying the bills writing resumes, and crossing my fingers that the summer heat won't wilt my pumpkin patch so that I can dork out Martha Stewart like, come fall." If you're not a creative writer, you should be.

:)

No, I understood you; we just don't agree.
Great profile pic, though.

[Geekomatic]

Well now, then I bow to your superior knowledge of what I think & understand! You're amazing!

;)

PS: that profile pic was taken with an iMac I managed to resurrect for one of my pensioner's...She was happy & I did a pro-bono on it...

Thanks for the kudos!

:)

[Dani28]

and I am nonplussed by your sense of irony.

[Dell]

My take would be that some are wired to be attracted to same gender whether it be emotionally, physically or spiritually ( nature), while others  have been damaged psychologically. It is not one size fits all. 

Myself, I have never been molested as a child or anything like that, however,  as a child I natueally gravitated to boys as great playing companions and felt ackward playing with girls because I was emotionally attracted to them yet dismissed those feelings because I thought I was supposed to like guys. 

Older and wiser, I have come to terms with the feelings. For me it's not about the sexual attraction... Heck that's at the very bottom of my " must have" list. It's about the emotional connection that I have never had with a man eventhough I do share a common tread with males because I tend to think with my left brain as equally with my right. Ironically I think the male species are gross yet necessary in order to procreate. 

[FranklyConscious]

Biology--especially matters of the brain are still a great mystery to scientists and humanity in general. Our mind might be the last frontier of exploration of ourselves. That being said, it doesn't mean we can't speculate until better information develops.

The best hypothesis (imho) I've heard so far for why gay people and animals exist is because of the obligate imperfection of nature. From afar, you can tell a fake plant from a real one because of the imperfections. There is no perfect circle (or polygon) in nature. We have evolved so that we are a little better than the competition, and so that we are able to survive given the situation and environment. However, we do not evolve in nature to achieve perfection. That is why we still have vestigial organs because they do not hinder our species' ability to procreate offspring and survive as a gene pool. One such imperfection in nature is the inability to achieve perfect sexual dimorphism.

Sexual dimorphism is difficult to achieve because so much has to be differentiated during the development process, especially during gestation. Not only the sex organs but the brain and entire body such as the structure of bones and its size need to be differentiated based on an xx or xy chromosome pair. But, to make things even more complicated, gender and sexual orientation can be influenced by factors other than genetics.

For example, studies have shown that the amount of testosterone produced by the mother while the child is in the womb affects the development of the fetal brain and physiology and causes the child to be more feminine our masculine. That is why lesbian pointer fingers are often comparatively shorter than those of straight females. That is also why a statistically significant number of gay men have older brothers. 

Even though nature isn't perfect, a greater than 90% rate of sufficient differentiation of the sexes has certainly been good enough for propagation of the species. If it wasn't good enough, and there were too many gays who couldn't be motivated to do the action required to produce offspring, then there would be evolutionary pressure to improve differentiateiation. But that doesn't seem to have been an issue.

Thinking of this in another light, perhaps by happy accident, gays actually  improve the chances of offspring and therefore species survival. Gays, having less drive to couple in a fertile manner, are more free to help attend to the children of others, perhaps orphaned or abandoned ones. They are more than likely free to direct time and energy to new methods and discoveries that help their species survive if not taking care of offspring. Perhaps this is another reason why there was little evolutionary pressure to eliminate gays because the 10% gays and all the orientations and genders in between provide just enough diversity to enhance a species but are not so high in proportion as to send it to the path of extinction.

This is just a blind theory that I've come to favor. If course, my opinion is subject to change with better information.

[Sammy Lynne]

Well, I certainly don't feel damaged. If I had to form an answer based solely on personal experience, I would have to say that it's the heterosexuals who are damaged. My parents gave birth to four children, three are gay. Seems more likely to me that the odd man out is the damaged one. But then again my parents are straight which evens the teams up. But if my parents are damaged, then it only makes sense that a majority of their children would be damaged as well which puts us back to the gay kids being damaged except in that scenario my parents aren't, therefore neither are we. Wait...what was the question again? 

[Sicca]

I simply believe that we are all spiritual beings having a natural/physical experience... An experience that we decided upon prior to entering this time/space reality. Judgements, miseducation, and lack of self love make it difficult for us to embrace the path that we've chosen.

I know that this Buddhist/Metaphysical explanation is far left for some of you. I don't wish to get into a debate about why someone would choose to suffer some horrific affliction. I'd rather point out that one's negative opinions about themselves always originate from the misguided thoughts of others. Those thoughts are why we continue to have this debate. I don't like this topic question because in my opinion it sends the message to young or unenlightened people that sexual orientation is something that should be questioned. It's a subtle judgement. If my child asked me "why am I gay?" I would simply say that nobody knows the answer to that ... And there are countless things that we will never understand. Focus on what makes you happy. 

[LizzieLou]

I have always thought that 'sexual orientation' or gayness or queerness will end up having a genetic marker of some sort. However, it's just too soon to tell. The reason I'm thinking this now is that I did that 23andMe thing, and while they don't report this in your individual results, they do offer up some data (what they call "insights") of what they have learned from the 23andMe population so far. This is would be via submitted samples and self-report questionnaires. One of the "insights" was that AS OF YET, they have found no genetic marker for sexual orientation. 

That's the one hand. On the other, I also think sexual orientation could be genetics PLUS nurture. (And please nobody think I am making an equivalency here...) Like someone could be genetically predisposed to a cancer (mutation) but it would not be 'activated' without environmental stimuli (smoking or asbestos). But I don't know what kind of environmental factors those could be to activate a 'gay gene' -- besides behavior, cultural.  This theory's a little out-there, I guess.

So, I don't think that there won't be a gene perhaps uncovered someday. I do think that any genetic stuff could be 'slippery slope' re: curing something considered to aberrant or Other. However, in spite of the current fractious political and social landscape, I think we are better than that as a whole; thus, I'm still excited to see where we end up. 

[Dani28]

Mz Alexis said:

  Personally I think either or both for both for both gender and sexuality can apply. I have a gender at least partially incongruous to my sex, when I came out to my father much to my surprise he came out to me as being the same (I literally did not have a clue to this). And looking back through my life I always was this way all the indicators were there but repressed. By the same token I had a close friend who is a lesbian. We did have a relationship (I was unaware of who I am at the time so that didn't come into play), but although she loved me and was attracted to me (mutual) she could not fully trust me.. We shared many deep personal things with one another and one of the things she shared with me was that some of her earliest memories were of her father (who was an alcoholic)... He would beat everyone in the house except for her, and her bedroom was across from her parents and she could hear her father while drunk forcing himself on her mom with her mom crying. This same man hardly said two words to her when sober but talked to her like a dirty old man when drunk.  

  The point is we all have Nature and how we are wired ... with gender and sexuality not binary but a line with a million points between male/female gay/straight etc. and we have the fact that absorb pretty much everything in our formative years and whether we like it or not deep down inside what a man and woman are deep down in our subconscious are determined by our parents or dominant role models (as well as many other things in our core makeup).  In my friends case I know for a fact that she trusted me on every level because we were that close... but deep down inside she could not let go enough for us to be intimate because what a man was went back to her early childhood and the evil things that her father did. So I have seen both nature and nurture help to shape people into who they are, no different for sexuality or gender than so many other aspects of life.  And had my hangups due to things that happened when I was too young to remember that I could never quite figure out until I was told of events that happened that I was too young to remember consciously (I was a little over 1) that once known allowed me to both understand and to a much greater degree overcome the results.

  The fact is we all need to be able to be comfortable in our own body and we all need to feel loved... And if we cannot achieve those things in the gender or sex we were born as we will seek to find it in something or ways other than that.  That's not a flaw, but rather a testament to how absolutely amazing we are in our god given ability to adapt, survive and hopefully thrive as individuals if we don't allow the hangups of others interfere.  I know for me there are a lot of down sides in society to being who I am that don't allow me to present all of myself in the open, but would I want to be anything else but me?  Hell No... Because of where I live and my career I will accept the limitations on how I can express myself outwardly but I am happy with who I am now, more so than I ever was when being something I was not or perhaps before being aware and Ok with who I am. Just my 2 cents from my life's experience and not claiming to be "right" or any smarter than anyone else.

Or your friend was a lesbian trying to solve old daddy issues by dating what she thought was a man whom she was, therefore, not authentically attracted to. Or she was a lesbian who sensed subconsciously that you were a woman, though you hadn't physically transitioned yet. Unknowable (she may not even know). But certainly not evidence against the gender binary or for some spectrum either of sexual orientation, gender, or both.

[Dani28]

Mz Alexis said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. I am gender Non-Binary. Some of both, I live outwardly as a man (birth gender) but also like/need to express my feminine side and in a perfect world I would express a blend (which for the most part even many in the LGBT community do not accept... no LGBTA (androgynous) yet).  One thing I did not mention as it wasn't needed in context is that I am also an empath which actually has a lot to do with my expressing neither or both genders because I am blessed (or I could say Cursed) with feeling others emotions ... to the point that if I know a person I often recognize and feel emotions that the individuals themselves don't consciously realize or have repressed (which is one of the reasons my last LTR ended because for my ex there was literally no saying "I'm Fine" or hiding withholding anything- Imagine how hard that would be for both parties in a relationship). She was (and is) authentic, and not very high on the empathy scale so there was no knowledge even subconscious of my internals.. She was somewhat Tomboyish but I was not Femme by any means or indication (which the fact that we have Tomboys and Femme Guys are an indication that gender isn't as Binary as the medical community wants people to think).

Everyone has empathy. Even sociopaths have empathy - they just don't care. And none of that was an argument against a gender binary or for a spectrum of any kind. Why would the medical community have an investment in the public believing anything but the truth? What would they stand to gain by perpetuating a falsehood? "Tomboys" are still women - just not the antiquated nuclear fifties ideal; and the inverse is true of men who aren't alpha jocks. But, hey, believe what you want. It's your right to be wrong.

[Sammy Lynne]

Mz Alexis said:

 (which the fact that we have Tomboys and Femme Guys are an indication that gender isn't as Binary as the medical community wants people to think).

Stating a fallacy as if it were fact - no matter how enthusiastically you do it - does not make it so.

Being ultra feminine is not the defining criteria for being woman. Gender is not defined by feminine vs masculine traits.

Eddie Izzard  (the comedian) identifies as a transvestite.  He loves women as much as he loves wearing their clothes. That doesn't make him something in between.  It just makes him a cross dressing man. A straight one at that.

There is nothing overtly feminine about me. I am, however 100% woman, and very happy to be so. 

Your comment denies the entire butch community their gender. Were  I particularly thin skinned, I should think I would be offended.

[Sammy Lynne]

Mz Alexis said:

 You both act like I am attacking you when it is the other way around..

Nobody is attacking you. We are merely expressing contrary opinions. That's what these forums are for. If you are not prepared for that, you may want to reconsider posting in places such as this and instead invest in a journal and an ink pen where nobody will ever disagree with you. 

Moving on:

The first time I saw this thread, I responded with a post both flippant and sarcastic. It never occurred to me that anyone would take the question seriously. Homosexuality as a result of damage (or nurture if that's what your sensibilities prefer)? Ludicrous. The very notion strikes me as being utterly preposterous. 

So, to respond to the original question more seriously - I believe sexuality to be innate. Completely nature driven. It is written into our genetic code at conception and cannot be changed (if it could be, conversion therapy would have a better reputation). 

How we deal with or respond to our nature falls under the heading of "learned behavior". It is here that nurture/damage comes in to play.

If we are offered a safe place to explore our sexuality, if we are taught that we are normal, if we are encouraged to live our lives in a way that feels right to us - then our nature's will have been nurtured.

If, on the other hand, we are made to feel ashamed of our inclinations, if we are ostracized and condemned by the ones who are supposed to love us, if we are forced to hide or deny what we know deep inside to be true - then our nature's will have been damaged.

I dare say,  most of us have likely experienced both to varying degrees.

Again - my opinion. Feel free to share your own!