Gay Rights

Alex; periphery.:

@ part of dru's world.
Well I reckon that it "decides itself" (for want of a better phrase) later than birth. So it's predetermined in that we can't choose it or control it. But I don't think that the sexuality of a person exists when they're a baby.

But their genes do not change as they age. The genes that control the brain chemistry and hormones are already there when they're born (or conceived,for that matter).

I don't think there is enough unbiased research to conclude how sexuality forms, but with other psychological traits, psychologists usually say someone is "predispositioned" to a certain characteristic, not that they're inborn with it. Everything from pregnancy hormones to birth order has been linked to sexuality, and not conclusively. I don't think we can say what makes someone gay/straight/bisexual/etc, but seeing as how we have no idea, I think it's fair to say it's not a conscious choice we make.

@ Alex; periphery.
I think it sounds more like it lies dormant until they start to discover their sexual identity. Infants aren't sexual, so it makes sense they wouldn't have a sexual identity, but women are born with eggs they don't start to discharge until they're 11/12, so it sounds like your idea of sexual orientation is more like that.

(Did I just compare sexual orientation to periods?)

@ Kurtni
Ah, well as I've demonstrated, I'm not much of a biologist.

Kurtni:

I don't think we can say what makes someone gay/straight/bisexual/etc, but seeing as how we have no idea, I think it's fair to say it's not a conscious choice we make.

That much I definitely agree with. In fact, I don't think the "personal choice" hypothesis is even considered very likely in the first place; it seems to just be a flimsy way for people who are anti- gay rights to justify their views.

@ Dru, that makes sense.

What's quite interesting about the genetic predisposition aspect is that for the vast majority of research into homosexuality, they concentrate on male homosexuality. Female homosexuality has far less evidence to suggest concrete biological links.

@ The Master.
My mom says that's based on sexism. She says they concentrate more on the male aspect because society believes there must be something 'wrong' there. Whereas, a lesbian is just a woman who wants to be a man and that's perfectly logical since men are better than women, so they just don't bother researching that. ... I dunno. Food for thought.

@ part of dru's world.

It is possibility but I'm unsure myself. All I know is that there is a stronger argument for a biological basis of male homosexuality over female stuff. Hmm...it is very interesting as a concept. I think I'll mull it over and see if I can find anything since I've been wanting to write a Mibba article on it for ages but didn't have the time.

part of dru's world.:

@ The Master.
My mom says that's based on sexism. She says they concentrate more on the male aspect because society believes there must be something 'wrong' there. Whereas, a lesbian is just a woman who wants to be a man and that's perfectly logical since men are better than women, so they just don't bother researching that. ... I dunno. Food for thought.

I don't think that makes any sense. The scientists, doctors and psychologists who research sexuality objectively aren't going to be swayed by unfounded biases against lesbians in this day and age. A non-educated American may support those misbeliefs, but no legitimate professionals do who are published in the caliber of journals we see studies like this in (I'm not talking about Christian pseudo-science nonsense, which condemns lesbians and gay men equally). The type of scientists who spend time researching this in the first place are usually pushing a pro-gay agenda if anything, not an anti-gay agenda.

The biological links to homosexuality for males are easier to see. Low testosterone during pregnancy, for example, couldn't affect a developing female the same way it could a male. That's not sexism, it's a biological difference between males and females. There are more studies on gay males because we know what to study.

I'm not naive enough to think that sexism hasn't influenced scientific studies in the past, and it still does today, but it doesn't make sense in this situation.

@ Kurtni
Yeah, that's why I said "I dunno. Food for thought." at the end of it. Its not really something I agree with personally, just a viewpoint.

Alex; periphery.:

I dunno, I still hesitate to conclude that people are born gay. I know it's not a choice, but I don't really agree with the dichotomy that it's either in you from the moment you're born or you choose it. I'm still more inclined to think that it's something that develops within you as you grow up.

People are most definitely not born 'gay' because 'gay' is a very artificial meaning-heavy culturally-dependent thing. A Romanian person, for example, will never be 'gay' in the way that an American is 'gay', 'gay' is an English word born out of an Anglophone linguistic, cultural and historical environment - so from the start and at the very least, a non-Westerner identifying as 'gay' is identifying as a wannabe Westerner and Anglophile. And this is very bad for everybody involved because in quite a lot of non-Western societies / communities, homosexuality is viewed as something the West 'perverts' non-Westerners into because it wants to 'sabotage' them - and you can't really blame those people for being resentful towards the West who did sabotage and abuse them in other ways, especially because Western LGB groups and people often have massive white / Western saviour complexes and intervene in foreign countries and culture with well meaning attempts to stop homophobia which end up just making everything a lot worse.

Beyond that, the insistence on the inborn-ness of homosexuality hurts Westerners as well because it's very biphobic and I think it makes a lot of bi and pan people identify as straight. Not to mention that a lot of lesbian feminists have written about how identifying as lesbian / being visibly lesbian means to be in a kind of continuous very radical opposition to patriarchy and it should be regarded as a political choice / stance. The fact that both these aspects of the issue are ignored by 'mainstream' (?) LGB thought / politics just goes to show you how much of LGB thought / politics is actually just gay thought / politics assuming their thoughts are universal and not caring about everybody else. So re: the lack of studies on lesbians, it's probably just as much sexism within queer communities as outside it.

In other news, the Scottish cabinet is discussing same-sex marriage today.

^ How does a biological stance on homosexuality hurt those who are bisexual and omnisexual (I don't like the word pansexual. It makes by think of goats)?

I do understand that there are political lesbians out there but it somewhat does assume that someone who identifies as a lesbian is going to be aware to some extent of their choice and the stance they make against patriarchy, would they not? I'd personally be...somewhat wary towards someone who called themselves a "political lesbian" since it sounds like she would only want to be in a relationship with me for scoring essentially imaginary political points against the system. It may sound highly paranoid but there you go.

As for the same-sex marriage thing...I really hope that it passes. The major opposition has been larger churches but there was a demonstration by a lot of smaller faiths (like the Quakers and Buddhists) indicating that not every religion is against it

@ kafka.
Yeah, I'm with Joan on this. I don't see how the idea that we are born with our sexual orientations already decided hurts bi/pan individuals (like myself). I identified as straight when I was younger because of a heteronormative society, not because we're born with our sexual orientations in place.

The Master.:

^ How does a biological stance on homosexuality hurt those who are bisexual and omnisexual (I don't like the word pansexual. It makes by think of goats)?

It's biphobic because it's saying that heterosexuality is 'natural' and sometimes because of defects / deviations from the 'norm' homosexuality appears - without taking into consideration that bi / pan / omnisexuality are also real / valid phenomenons.

Quote

I do understand that there are political lesbians out there but it somewhat does assume that someone who identifies as a lesbian is going to be aware to some extent of their choice and the stance they make against patriarchy, would they not? I'd personally be...somewhat wary towards someone who called themselves a "political lesbian" since it sounds like she would only want to be in a relationship with me for scoring essentially imaginary political points against the system. It may sound highly paranoid but there you go.

You don't have to be in a relationship to identify as anything. Political lesbians don't seduce poor unfortunate non-political lesbians in order to beat patriarchy - why would somebody enraged by the abuses women face in relationships with men do that? What political lesbians are doing / saying is simply that abuse and oppression are not attractive so they don't find men attractive. But beyond that, political lesbians don't start relationships with somebody just because of that person's gender because nobody does that - nobody falls in love with femaleness and is then equally attracted to every single female person they see - for everybody it's a combination of looks, shared interests, sense of humour etc etc regardless of that person's sexual identity.

But even if it wasn't extremely painful and just difficult to fake attractive and love towards somebody you're neither attracted to nor love, there are much worse reasons to fake feelings towards somebody than believing that doing so will help change the world for the better.

Quote

As for the same-sex marriage thing...I really hope that it passes. The major opposition has been larger churches but there was a demonstration by a lot of smaller faiths (like the Quakers and Buddhists) indicating that not every religion is against it

I'm about 80% sure it will pass, not just because it has public support etc, but also because the referendum is coming up and I feel like legalizing same-sex marriage in Scotland first will not only win votes from the queer community but also show people outside it that Scottish interests can sometimes be different from English ones so independence is a necessary and good thing.

@ kafka.
Ah, see, most people I know believe that all sexual orientations are inborn, not that some are and people choose others.

The issue I think people have with bi/pan/etc. people is not because they think it's a literal choice but because they're:

- greedy
- able to choose to live a 'straight' lifestyle when it 'suits' them (from gay individuals, generally)
- going through 'a phase'

But I don't think these have to do with the idea that we're born with our sexuality, just human stupidity in general.

@ kafka.

Quote

It's biphobic because it's saying that heterosexuality is 'natural' and sometimes because of defects / deviations from the 'norm' homosexuality appears - without taking into consideration that bi / pan / omnisexuality are also real / valid phenomenons.

That may be implied, yes, but it is still a valid theory nonetheless with a certain amount of evidence to back it up. However, I've already acknowledged that the evidence is not perfect as it doesn't encompass both genders: the vast majority of the biological evidence is to do with males and even then can only be said to be increasing the likelihood of homosexual behaviour. In all honesty, it's probably a million factors that factor into sexual orientation but you cannot dismiss biological theory merely because it's not a perfect theory.

Quote

You don't have to be in a relationship to identify as anything. Political lesbians don't seduce poor unfortunate non-political lesbians in order to beat patriarchy - why would somebody enraged by the abuses women face in relationships with men do that? What political lesbians are doing / saying is simply that abuse and oppression are not attractive so they don't find men attractive. But beyond that, political lesbians don't start relationships with somebody just because of that person's gender because nobody does that - nobody falls in love with femaleness and is then equally attracted to every single female person they see - for everybody it's a combination of looks, shared interests, sense of humour etc etc regardless of that person's sexual identity.

But even if it wasn't extremely painful and just difficult to fake attractive and love towards somebody you're neither attracted to nor love, there are much worse reasons to fake feelings towards somebody than believing that doing so will help change the world for the better.

If you cannot fall in love with "femaleness" then how can one despise "maleness"? Isn't that a massive contradiction?

I'm sure there are worse reasons to go to that pretence (hell, I've been though it before). But I cannot change how I feel about that particular issue. I'm willing to accept the possibility that women may have been with a male and had a bad experience and found females more attractive but...I just don't see it as a political statement.

Quote

I'm about 80% sure it will pass, not just because it has public support etc, but also because the referendum is coming up and I feel like legalizing same-sex marriage in Scotland first will not only win votes from the queer community but also show people outside it that Scottish interests can sometimes be different from English ones so independence is a necessary and good thing.

I'm getting quite confident since I've found out that they've approved regulations in the NHS to improve and make access easier for transpeople getting to transition and getting into gender clinics and stuff which is a pretty good move.

@ part of dru's world.

Welllll, bi / pan people admitting they have passing privileges and that we're really not ~all in this together~ and that, oppression olympics aside, different parts of different queer communities have different problems with different kinds of discrimination is a different matter, well worth discussing, but, anyway, there are a lot of monosexual people who think that bi / pan people are either straight people going through a 'phase' / following a trend or gay people afraid to come out of the closet completely.

@ The Master.

Quote

If you cannot fall in love with "femaleness" then how can one despise "maleness"? Isn't that a massive contradiction?

I'm sure there are worse reasons to go to that pretence (hell, I've been though it before). But I cannot change how I feel about that particular issue. I'm willing to accept the possibility that women may have been with a male and had a bad experience and found females more attractive but...I just don't see it as a political statement.

I don't understand how you can think that it's possible for women to have 'a bad experience' with a male (by bad experience, I think you mean abuse of some kind?), but it's impossible for them to realize that, because at the moment all relationships between cis* men and cis women are framed by patriarchy, their relationships with men will never be to them as fulfilling and positive as relationships with women. I think I haven't explained political lesbianism accurately - in fact, what writers on the issue say mostly is that almost everybody who chooses to identify as lesbian is making a political statement against patriarchy because the existence of lesbians simply baffles patriarchy - which thinks that women can't exist outside of marriage and motherhood. (This was in the 60s and early 70s when both IVF and same-sex marriage were undreamed of, but I still think it's a valid point because motherhood and marriage are different experiences / concepts for women with different sexual identities and heteronormativity works differently on women, there's still this idea that what lesbians 'really' need is to have sex with 'the right man', the idea that gay men haven't met 'the right woman' yet is a lot less far spread.)

*I say cis because things are infinitely more complicated when it comes to trans people and I don't feel like it's my place to comment on how they experience oppressive via patriarchy.

I live in Australia, and our Prime Minister is the biggest dick.
But honestly, I think every nation should just legalise Gay marriage. I have a gay friend that I live with and he was telling me how he envies my boyfriend and I because we get to hold hands in public without having a dozen people look at us in disgust and one day we'll be able to get married.
I know there's a lot more to it then for presidents and such to just be like "Alright gay marriage is legal etc etc". But they really need to do something, I'm sick to death of hearing about gay bashings and stuff like that.

There are much more pressing issues. Quite frankly, I'm completely tired of hearing about gay rights.

@ insideoutface
Maybe you shouldn't have entered a thread named "Gay rights" then.

@ pravda.
Just putting my 2-cents in.

@ insideoutface
There are a lot of pressing and important issues. Gay rights is a very important issue as it deals with both civil and human rights. I will agree that there are a lot more important issues out there right now that need dealing with, but that doesn't take down the importance of gay rights which is still a very important issue all around the world. Just curious, why are you tired of hearing about gay rights?