Why does it matter sexuality is a choice? (It’s not.)
If we as a society no longer consider homosexuality as a mental disability, or an undesirable trait that, unless cured, would harm society and/or the individual, then why do we still see this question being asked and discussed? I concede that there is genuine interest in these questions, but the way they are being discussed, usually in the context of how LGBT people should be treated by society, makes them sound like LGBT-phobic dog whistles.
Because, within this context, if you support the view that it is a choice, then the assumed conclusion would be “we should not accommodate them because they chose it.” And if you say that it isn’t a choice, then the underlying message is “It is a sin, but it’s not their fault.” Either way, the supposed innocent question presumed the position that homosexuality is “bad,” because the context of these discussions is usually not driven by scientific curiosity but in terms of how society should treat non-hetero people.
The percentage of left-handed people steadily increased before leveling out as the modern world become more accommodating to left-handed people. I have seen well-meaning LGBT+ allies citing this to counter right-wing fearmongering about an “epidemic” of non-heterosexuality. But this comparison to left-handed people, in my opinion, unknowingly concedes to the premise that we should accept non-heterosexuality because and only because it is natural, like left-handedness. To me, this concession is not a worthy tradeoff.
The analogy with left-handed people assumes that sexuality, like one’s handiness, is nature over nurture. This invalidates the experience of many people whose sexuality is fluid. Although certainly not a valid comparison in scientific terms, many species in the animal kingdom display fluid sexualities in relation to external circumstances, with lionesses growing manes in the absence of a pride male, to various aqueous animals literally transitioning to the opposite sex. I personally, also believe that if I were brought up in an environment that is more accommodating to non-hetero people, I would have had a very different social life. This is not to say that I am secretly gay or bisexual, I am barely heterosexual nowadays, but it is to say that it is important to acknowledge the triviality of the question in my headline and that we should focus more on how to create a society where we are more focused on solving real existential problems instead of something that’s purely socially constructed.
I concede that my perspective is perhaps a braindead take from a typical physical scientist. I am not saying social sciences are not important. I am saying that I wish they were less important in reality.
The matter of choice and sexuality, is, of course, being discussed more these days because of the latest round of culture war surrounding transgender rights. This is where I think a line, or lines, should be drawn, not in terms of right or wrong, but to decouple choice in relation to sexuality and gender.
The alliance of LGBTQIA+ is a worthwhile one and is one that is born out of political necessity, which means they are united by their common ideology albeit each needing a different path, e.g. legal and sociological arguments, to achieve their seemingly common goal. This alliance of all non-hetero-normative communities makes as much sense as if all non-white ethnic groups are united under a single umbrella. Imagine if Black Americans and Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans all try to fight White Supremacy today. Each of the groups suffers from White Supremacy in such different ways, culturally and historically, and legally, that although it can be argued that there may be strength in number, the cultural differences among the groups are probably enough to sabotage such a united front. The LGBTQIA+ alliance is a social movement that makes practical sense but can make certain conversations convoluted and confusing.
With this alliance, policies about trans rights are lumped together with other progressive movements about sexual rights, but they shouldn’t be. Sexuality and gender identities are interlinked but they manifest differently, e.g. how and when during one’s physical and social life. They should be considered independently, just as slavery should be abolished independent of women’s suffrages, and we should not allow a narrative of this being part of a cultural war of encroaching progressive politics. Otherwise, every progression in society would risk reopening all the bitter scars conservatives self-identify with and provide the most potent political ammunition their regressive politics can have. How can we do that? I don’t know.
I do think the conversation of what rights minors should have in terms of gender-affirming surgeries is a necessary one outside of politics. For instance, the arbitrariness of the definition of adulthood, if it’s 16 or 18 or 21, carries a disproportionate legal weight and we need to discuss how and when it is relevant when we discuss consent. If a minor cannot consent to any form of sex but can consent to gender affirmation surgeries, is there any legal or logical, or moral incoherence that needs to be explored? Or, if it’s not about consent from minors but body autonomy in general, then what about euthanasia? Surely that should be allowed even among the most right-wing libertarians, right? Apparently not so (it’s because of religion).
So, anyway, all of this is moot because theory is always trumped by reality, and in reality, politics is messy, and in the United States, omnipresent, perhaps even more so than religion. But, as an outsider who enjoys the occasion purely academic discussion detached from its sociological context, I wish this is a topic that is not as noisy and sensitive as it is in reality.
