« more discussions

• 

  Where do we come from?

  I have been reading Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers by Lillian Faderman, and in her introduction to the book, she talks briefly about whether are not lesbians (and I'm assuming gay men as well) are born gay or are products of a social revolution and environment. The two viewpoints are essentialism, in essence, the view that being gay is inherent and dependent upon biology and DNA, or social constructionism, the view that being gay is dependent on environment and social influence.
  
  I was wondering what other people thought. Faderman falls on the social constructionism side, and I think I fall more on the essentialism side. Anyone want to weigh in?

  PeterPan started this discussion 5 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Roswitha 

  Although I'm not sure of the publication date of that book, I did read some Faderman in college, about 20 yrs ago. I would keep in mind that thinking on this subject has changed significantly over the past 2 decades, with a marked shift towards the genetic influence and away from a pure social construct. When I was first studying feminism, it seemed that many lesbian feminists were adamantly against the biological cause (I guess because if it's not a choice somehow you are less powerful as a woman) even though in a way it was an "easy" defense. I haven't read much feminist lit since then so I'm curious what trends are these days.
  
  I don't think there's any scientific doubt that genetics play a large role, although monozygotic twins don't necessarily both wind up with the same sexual orientation. There seems to be some social influence in play as well.
  
  There are lots of studies about this, including twin studies. I think it is fascinating to see how feminist theory has changed with the available science. Just goes to show you that just about everything is eventually proven false (or true).

  posted 5 months ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    PeterPan (edited)

    I am usually against "isms" of any kind, especially feminism. I hate to say that out loud...but I was raised as a devout baptist, and there was absolutely no room for uppity women in that sect. It's hard to admit, but I still try to live up to the ideal of the submissive, sweet, unassuming, unpresumptuous, always putting others before yourself, baptist wife-type.
    
    The fact is that I am very aware of this idea that has been encouraged in me from the time I was a small child. I fight it, but it's still there. So the lesbian feminist idea about an environmental cause for sexual orientation seems anathema to me because, paradoxically, I was raised to believe women DIDN'T have a choice.
    
    However, after a lot of thought and self-examination, I have come to realize that I do choose my own path in life, even though this smacks of liberal feminism, a title that I am wary of embracing for the simple fact that my family sees that title as inherently less than the sweet mother and housewife of traditional baptist circles.
    
    It is a daily struggle for me to acknowledge that I am in control of many things, and not in control of many other things.
    
    I do believe I am in complete control as to how I live my life. I choose to be with a woman. I choose to be independent. I choose my job. I choose my education. I chose to come out to my family. I chose the possibility of separation from everything I knew in order to be true to the things I did not feel I chose. I choose what I do each and every day.
    
    However, there are many things I didn't choose. I didn't choose to be born into a devout Christian family. I didn't choose to be attracted to other women. I didn't choose to fall in love with the wrong person. I didn't choose to have my heart broken. I didn't choose to be called a dyke the other day at a gas station. I didn't choose to have friends leave me.
    
    It's a very difficult topic for me to discuss. Mainly because I have so much stake in it. If people genuinely believe they chose their sexuality, then it would seem that all the things I've lost (against my will or not) are my own fault. It would seem that I have deliberately decided to hurt my family. It would seem that I turned my back on my parents, who worked so extremely hard to teach me the difference between their perception of right and wrong.
    
    I believe in choice, as a woman. But I also believe in the lack of choice. Sometimes you are handed things that you just don't get a say in. It's there, whether or not you like it. I got to be gay in a devoutly Christian family. There is no way in hell I chose that.

    posted 5 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Roswitha 

    On a personal level, I agree with just about everything in your post. I too came from a devout Christian family, although the gender roles I was taught gave more room for women to be strong and independent (although in my parents' view, not so strong and independent as to disobey them when I came out). I don't think sexual orientation is a choice.
    
    I may have realized it late, but I clearly love women and am not attracted to men. My earlier post was written not about my personal beliefs, but about theory and drew on my recent studies in psychology. It is clear that sexual orientation is heavily genetic, but not 100% (I don't mean not 100% in any one individual, but across populations, in some individuals other things come into play). If you think about sexual orientation as a spectrum rather than either/or, then the non-genetic factors make more sense. For those at the extremes of the spectrum, the determinant may be wholly genetic predisposition, but in the middle range, environment and social construct may come into play.
    
    Kudos to you! I came out almost 20 years ago and have a difficult relationship with my parents still (more of a non-relationship in most ways). Going against our upbringing can be a lifelong struggle and I commend you for being true to yourself. Gender roles, individuality, and all the rest are not easy when virtually everything in your life feels against you. I hope you have a supportive group of friends as you continue to make your way.

    posted 5 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  PeterPan 

  I didn't take offense to your original answer, so I hope I didn't come across as angry or defensive towards you. I was just thinking of where I fit in the spectrum, and I know that for me, it's not a choice. I don't doubt that for other people it could be. I've read a lot of different personal stories of women, and I think some people do have that ability to choose, while others really don't.
  
  I guess I was surprised when I read Faderman's views because I had honestly never given thought to the idea that such a prominent and intelligent gay person could believe they chose their orientation. I haven't read enough feminist theory from that era to really know what the predominating theories were.
  
  I guess my concern with the idea of choice is that people can so easily use that against the gay community.
  
  Also, it seems that there is a distinct difference between the way men and women are viewed in terms of sexuality. I know a lot of people (straight people) who seem to think that for men it's not a choice, but for women it is. This makes me wonder about how people view women in general...
  There's the straight male fascination with lesbian sex, which, in the end, just seems belittling and demeaning. There's the idea that women are just inherently made for men, and therefore choose women out of anger or frustration or necessity ("they're too ugly to get a man").
  
  It seems that lesbians are viewed with this "Oh isn't that cute and harmless" kind of eye, while gay men are viewed as more dangerous and threatening.
  
  Somehow this is all jumbled up in my head, as I'm sure you can see. I have just been thinking a lot about the concept of choice for women. The perception of choice, both women's own perceptions and others' perceptions of them.
  
  

  posted 5 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Kerry 

  I've never read Faderman, though I know the name.
  
  Personally, I suspect sexual orientation is heavily weighted toward genetic causes, with social constructs helping to determine if the genetic orientation is expressed or not.
  
  I think people resist the genetic factor because it feels like they don't have control of their lives. Choosing to be gay means they are powerful in their own lives. You're right, though, in that there are things we don't choose. My friend's granddaughter did not choose to be born with brain damage. You didn't choose to be born gay into a devout Christian family. People who have had very damaging childhoods didn't choose that. I don't see orientation as anything different- we are handed a genetic set of factors, and you deal with it. I have blond hair and blue eyes in a sea of dark faces here in Los Angeles.
  
  The choice argument I find more insidious. If I chose it, I can unchoose it and I don't feel that to be true. I may learn to love others, but the initial attraction is always there at the base.
  
  I was born gay, in the Midwest, in an area where there were no role models. I always thought there was something wrong with me- why wasn't I boy-crazy like my friends? The answer came at age 21- I needed to date girls. Of course this realization comes as I'm involved in a serious relationship with a boy, just to complicate things.

  posted 3 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  bhang. 

  Hmmm... I think there is a bit of truth on both sides, and that each person is sexually orchestrated or composed, so to speak, by varying degrees of these two main areas of influence.

  posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

• To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top