My husband and I were recently talking about the idea that sexual orientation could be genetic. Neither of us are geneticists or scientists, and we aren't saying one way or the other on the validity of that claim. Nor are we saying that it's something that should or shouldn't be studied, that the human genome should or shouldn't be mapped. What we did decide was this:
The question of whether nature or nurture contributes to someone's sexuality, while perhaps interesting from a scientific curiosity standpoint, should have no bearing on the debate of whether or not the LGBTQIA community deserves fundamental human rights.
Because you could use either nature or nurture to argue either for or against LGBTQIA rights. Which makes the entire thing pointless.
-
Using Nurture to Argue Against LGBTQIA Rights
You could take the traditional Christian Conservative stance and say that to commit homosexual acts is a sinful choice, not unlike the sinful choice to murder or steal. Accordingly, it should be discouraged, if not outlawed completely.
But this fails to recognize two key things:
1) In America we have the freedom to be who we are as long as that doesn't infringe on others' rights to be who they are, and gay people aren't hurting anybody else by being gay (which makes homosexuality actually very different from murder and theft).
2) We don't make a distinction between the freedom to express who you are biologically (i.e. walking around with the skin color you were born in) and the freedom to express who you are by choice (i.e. using your right to free speech to spout rhetoric, or your right to assembly to choose to assemble).
This stance also suggests that somebody (preachers interpreting the Bible, the president, the Supreme Court, whoever) has the right to decide what are good choices and what are bad choices. And we all know how murky those calls can get.
Even things like murder that we globally agree on as being "bad" choices, we later make exceptions for. What constitutes "murder"? Is it okay to dole out the death penalty to criminals we've collectively decided are irredeemable? Is it okay to kill soldiers in the opposition army in times of war? I won't even get started on the topic of abortion, and what constitutes a "human life." For that matter, why do we make the distinction between different kinds of animals - deciding as a culture which animals can be raised for slaughter and consumed, and which are not to be murdered?
Do you really want to say that we need to be judged and tried on every choice we make - whether collectively as a culture, or individually in our bedrooms? And do we really want to give other people the power to do that kind of judging? What if we can't agree on which people to give that power to?
You could argue that someone's genetics implies that they "deserve" discrimination. It's not a popular opinion - anymore - but it certainly has been popular in the past. Just look at the way "science" was used to historically justify racism.
Phrenology (the study of the shape of the skull, which was believed in the 19th century to reflect a person's character) was used to classify Africans as inferior to white races intellectually, culturally, and morally. Even Darwin's theory of evolution, which suggested that Europeans were related to Africans and that all humans were related to apes, saw the British at the top of the evolutionary scale of civility (source). Many Christian slave-owners argued that black-skinned people were biologically inferior - and that, because God decided our biology, they were merely upholding His will by subjugating these people to work their plantations.
It wasn't until after World War II that this so-called "Scientific Racism" was formally denounced; it undoubtedly still influences racist dogma around the world today. If the Holocaust hadn't happened, if Hitler hadn't been so systematic and obviously evil about the whole thing, this "scientific racism" (or, as the case is here, "scientific sexual orientation-ism") might indeed be the prevalent viewpoint, an undercurrent that impacts modern issues like the rights of gay people to marry or adopt children or live in the neighborhoods they want to live in. After all, gays were targeted by the Nazis and put in the interment camps with the Jews, and Gypsies, and others that were deemed "bad" enough to need weeding out of the genetic pool. If Hitler hadn't done it, would someone else have? Would we still be doing it (on a lesser, more internalized scale) today?
Using Nature to Argue For LGBTQIA Rights
Finally, you could say that because someone was "born that way" (to use Lady Gaga's phrasing), they are not responsible for their discrimination.
But this does the danger of implying that those who are discriminated against for things that are not biological are responsible for their station.
This logic does a disservice to those who face discrimination for their current economic situation, their religious beliefs, or the kinds of clothes they choose to wear. If there are people who think only things that are biologically ordained need to be tolerated, wouldn't they also have to believe that poor people are the only ones to blame for their poverty? And that if someone should choose not to believe in what they think is the "right" God, they deserve to be judged poorly or even killed for that decision? And that women who wear short skirts - even when they know that doing so marks them as promiscuous - are welcoming that sort of attention and therefore deserving of catcalls or rape?
Never mind that things are never clear-cut about nature vs. nurture, and that they often work in conjunction. Genetics are influenced by the environment (that's the whole idea behind natural selection). And someone's environment is influenced by their genetics. A woman can't help being female, and a black man can't help being black, but because of those biological traits, they're going to struggle with the way society treats them and what society expects of them.
Isn't the whole point of dismantling racism and dismantling the patriarchy the idea that everyone, regardless of their genetics, deserves equal rights and opportunities? Isn't the point to remove genetic's influence on our society as much as possible, to say that we're above all that, to say that we have the power to choose to make a change, to go against ideas that have been ingrained in our cultures for centuries? So why would you fall back on an old historic argument to uphold your case - this idea that science (which is to us what religion often was to our ancestors) can be used to decide who should or shouldn't have privilege (or if there should be systems of privilege at all)?
Is it not possible for us be tolerant of everyone - whether they're formed by their biology, their environments, or a little bit of both?
-
Which brings me back to my point. The question of whether nature or nurture contributes to someone's sexuality should have no bearing on the debate of whether or not the LGBTQIA community deserves fundamental human rights.
It is our responsibility (all of us) to respect and protect our fellow humans. Regardless of whether we have similar physical traits, or share a particular gene in our extensive genetic code. Regardless of whether we can understand the environment they grew up in, or whether we agree with their choices and modes of self-expression.
As long as our decisions do not infringe on the ability of others to make their own decisions, everything should be fair game.
LGBTQIA individuals deserve fundamental human rights because they are human. End of story.
The question of whether nature or nurture contributes to someone's sexuality, while perhaps interesting from a scientific curiosity standpoint, should have no bearing on the debate of whether or not the LGBTQIA community deserves fundamental human rights.
Because you could use either nature or nurture to argue either for or against LGBTQIA rights. Which makes the entire thing pointless.
-
Using Nurture to Argue Against LGBTQIA Rights
You could take the traditional Christian Conservative stance and say that to commit homosexual acts is a sinful choice, not unlike the sinful choice to murder or steal. Accordingly, it should be discouraged, if not outlawed completely.
But this fails to recognize two key things:
1) In America we have the freedom to be who we are as long as that doesn't infringe on others' rights to be who they are, and gay people aren't hurting anybody else by being gay (which makes homosexuality actually very different from murder and theft).
2) We don't make a distinction between the freedom to express who you are biologically (i.e. walking around with the skin color you were born in) and the freedom to express who you are by choice (i.e. using your right to free speech to spout rhetoric, or your right to assembly to choose to assemble).
This stance also suggests that somebody (preachers interpreting the Bible, the president, the Supreme Court, whoever) has the right to decide what are good choices and what are bad choices. And we all know how murky those calls can get.
Even things like murder that we globally agree on as being "bad" choices, we later make exceptions for. What constitutes "murder"? Is it okay to dole out the death penalty to criminals we've collectively decided are irredeemable? Is it okay to kill soldiers in the opposition army in times of war? I won't even get started on the topic of abortion, and what constitutes a "human life." For that matter, why do we make the distinction between different kinds of animals - deciding as a culture which animals can be raised for slaughter and consumed, and which are not to be murdered?
Do you really want to say that we need to be judged and tried on every choice we make - whether collectively as a culture, or individually in our bedrooms? And do we really want to give other people the power to do that kind of judging? What if we can't agree on which people to give that power to?
-
Using Nurture to Argue For LGBTQIA Rights
You could argue that there is nothing that makes us who we are more than our choices, and that people should not be kept from exploring their options, or discriminated against for doing so.
You could even bring religion/philosophy into this and say that God gave us free will, or that free will is an important part (perhaps the most important part) of the human condition, and that to strip someone of their free will would be to strip them of their humanity.
One of my favorite quotes from the Harry Potter series is when Dumbledore says, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." Of course, the presumption often is that choices expose us for who we are because some choices are "good" and others are "bad" - that in making the choices we do, we face certain consequences, and those consequences shape us and help us find out place in the world. In Harry Potter, Dumbledore is referring to the difference between Tom Riddle (Voldemort) and Harry - that one has chosen the wrong path, the path of evil, while the others has chosen the righteous path, the path of courage and love.
Which brings me back to my earlier point about the subjectivity of "right" and "wrong" and who should get to decide such things.
And it also begs the question - why would someone willingly choose to be gay, knowing that to be gay is to be denied certain rights, to be discriminated against, to be ridiculed, maybe even to be tortured or beaten or murdered? Did a trauma in their past "turn" them gay? Can changing aspects of their current situation "turn" them back to heterosexuality?
We can all try to change (or repress) things about ourselves that we don't want. And with any nurture argument, that's where we end up. If we look at being gay as a choice, that inevitably leads to horrible things like conversion therapy - which is why LGBTQIA activists often reject the influence of nurture on orientation.
When you're looking at nurture, it's too easy to see it as something that can be formed and molded like a sand castle. Once a society decides on those subjective "right" and "wrong" choices, anyone who does something that was deemed "wrong" faces their motives being questioned.
Of course, it's more nuanced than that. (Isn't it always?) How much of our choices are actually our own? A lot of what we do is influenced by the environment we grew up in, and the systems of privilege/oppression we're a part of (regardless of what side we're on). We can try to change our environment and dismantle those systems, but 1) that's a lot of work, and 2) isn't even always possible.
And then, what if we don't actually have free will at all - because something like God, or Fate, or Science has determined our destiny for us?
If nature and nurture work together and I'm genetically predisposed to having a shy personality, I'm never going to make it over to the Super Extroverted side of the scale, no matter how hard I try. I have some say over how much I let my timidity run my life, but I can't vanquish it altogether.
And that's the appeal LGBTQIA activists see in using nature to back up their ideas. If there's a "gay gene," and someone can be predisposed to being gay, how can you fault them for something that's outside of their control? They can try to repress it, or change it, but they'll ultimately be unsuccessful in deviating too far from what has been determined for them.
Which leads me to the nature side of the debate...
-
Using Nature to Argue Against LGBTQIA RightsUsing Nurture to Argue For LGBTQIA Rights
You could argue that there is nothing that makes us who we are more than our choices, and that people should not be kept from exploring their options, or discriminated against for doing so.
You could even bring religion/philosophy into this and say that God gave us free will, or that free will is an important part (perhaps the most important part) of the human condition, and that to strip someone of their free will would be to strip them of their humanity.
One of my favorite quotes from the Harry Potter series is when Dumbledore says, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." Of course, the presumption often is that choices expose us for who we are because some choices are "good" and others are "bad" - that in making the choices we do, we face certain consequences, and those consequences shape us and help us find out place in the world. In Harry Potter, Dumbledore is referring to the difference between Tom Riddle (Voldemort) and Harry - that one has chosen the wrong path, the path of evil, while the others has chosen the righteous path, the path of courage and love.
Which brings me back to my earlier point about the subjectivity of "right" and "wrong" and who should get to decide such things.
And it also begs the question - why would someone willingly choose to be gay, knowing that to be gay is to be denied certain rights, to be discriminated against, to be ridiculed, maybe even to be tortured or beaten or murdered? Did a trauma in their past "turn" them gay? Can changing aspects of their current situation "turn" them back to heterosexuality?
We can all try to change (or repress) things about ourselves that we don't want. And with any nurture argument, that's where we end up. If we look at being gay as a choice, that inevitably leads to horrible things like conversion therapy - which is why LGBTQIA activists often reject the influence of nurture on orientation.
When you're looking at nurture, it's too easy to see it as something that can be formed and molded like a sand castle. Once a society decides on those subjective "right" and "wrong" choices, anyone who does something that was deemed "wrong" faces their motives being questioned.
Of course, it's more nuanced than that. (Isn't it always?) How much of our choices are actually our own? A lot of what we do is influenced by the environment we grew up in, and the systems of privilege/oppression we're a part of (regardless of what side we're on). We can try to change our environment and dismantle those systems, but 1) that's a lot of work, and 2) isn't even always possible.
And then, what if we don't actually have free will at all - because something like God, or Fate, or Science has determined our destiny for us?
If nature and nurture work together and I'm genetically predisposed to having a shy personality, I'm never going to make it over to the Super Extroverted side of the scale, no matter how hard I try. I have some say over how much I let my timidity run my life, but I can't vanquish it altogether.
And that's the appeal LGBTQIA activists see in using nature to back up their ideas. If there's a "gay gene," and someone can be predisposed to being gay, how can you fault them for something that's outside of their control? They can try to repress it, or change it, but they'll ultimately be unsuccessful in deviating too far from what has been determined for them.
Which leads me to the nature side of the debate...
-
You could argue that someone's genetics implies that they "deserve" discrimination. It's not a popular opinion - anymore - but it certainly has been popular in the past. Just look at the way "science" was used to historically justify racism.
Phrenology (the study of the shape of the skull, which was believed in the 19th century to reflect a person's character) was used to classify Africans as inferior to white races intellectually, culturally, and morally. Even Darwin's theory of evolution, which suggested that Europeans were related to Africans and that all humans were related to apes, saw the British at the top of the evolutionary scale of civility (source). Many Christian slave-owners argued that black-skinned people were biologically inferior - and that, because God decided our biology, they were merely upholding His will by subjugating these people to work their plantations.
It wasn't until after World War II that this so-called "Scientific Racism" was formally denounced; it undoubtedly still influences racist dogma around the world today. If the Holocaust hadn't happened, if Hitler hadn't been so systematic and obviously evil about the whole thing, this "scientific racism" (or, as the case is here, "scientific sexual orientation-ism") might indeed be the prevalent viewpoint, an undercurrent that impacts modern issues like the rights of gay people to marry or adopt children or live in the neighborhoods they want to live in. After all, gays were targeted by the Nazis and put in the interment camps with the Jews, and Gypsies, and others that were deemed "bad" enough to need weeding out of the genetic pool. If Hitler hadn't done it, would someone else have? Would we still be doing it (on a lesser, more internalized scale) today?
-
Finally, you could say that because someone was "born that way" (to use Lady Gaga's phrasing), they are not responsible for their discrimination.
But this does the danger of implying that those who are discriminated against for things that are not biological are responsible for their station.
This logic does a disservice to those who face discrimination for their current economic situation, their religious beliefs, or the kinds of clothes they choose to wear. If there are people who think only things that are biologically ordained need to be tolerated, wouldn't they also have to believe that poor people are the only ones to blame for their poverty? And that if someone should choose not to believe in what they think is the "right" God, they deserve to be judged poorly or even killed for that decision? And that women who wear short skirts - even when they know that doing so marks them as promiscuous - are welcoming that sort of attention and therefore deserving of catcalls or rape?
Never mind that things are never clear-cut about nature vs. nurture, and that they often work in conjunction. Genetics are influenced by the environment (that's the whole idea behind natural selection). And someone's environment is influenced by their genetics. A woman can't help being female, and a black man can't help being black, but because of those biological traits, they're going to struggle with the way society treats them and what society expects of them.
Isn't the whole point of dismantling racism and dismantling the patriarchy the idea that everyone, regardless of their genetics, deserves equal rights and opportunities? Isn't the point to remove genetic's influence on our society as much as possible, to say that we're above all that, to say that we have the power to choose to make a change, to go against ideas that have been ingrained in our cultures for centuries? So why would you fall back on an old historic argument to uphold your case - this idea that science (which is to us what religion often was to our ancestors) can be used to decide who should or shouldn't have privilege (or if there should be systems of privilege at all)?
Is it not possible for us be tolerant of everyone - whether they're formed by their biology, their environments, or a little bit of both?
-
Which brings me back to my point. The question of whether nature or nurture contributes to someone's sexuality should have no bearing on the debate of whether or not the LGBTQIA community deserves fundamental human rights.
It is our responsibility (all of us) to respect and protect our fellow humans. Regardless of whether we have similar physical traits, or share a particular gene in our extensive genetic code. Regardless of whether we can understand the environment they grew up in, or whether we agree with their choices and modes of self-expression.
As long as our decisions do not infringe on the ability of others to make their own decisions, everything should be fair game.
LGBTQIA individuals deserve fundamental human rights because they are human. End of story.
No comments:
Post a Comment