5 ms·

The "born this way" aspect of gay activism is trending down, even apart from the lack of scientific evidence of a strong genetic component. It was immensely us

by jawns 7y ago

The "born this way" aspect of gay activism is trending down, even apart from the lack of scientific evidence of a strong genetic component. It was immensely useful during the gay rights movement, especially in the years preceding Obergefell, as a way to essentially persuade straight people, "This is not something I can control, so it's not something I can change, even if I wanted to." There was a de-emphasis on how sexual relationships typically develop -- through a serious of free, conscious choices to which sexual partners consent -- and instead an emphasis on sexual attraction itself, which often does not feel like a fully a conscious choice. Now, I'm seeing more and more LGB people, especially those under 30, freely admit what had been considered an open secret: that many of those who insisted that they were "born this way" actually consider sexual orientation not to be immutable, but fluid, to various degrees. Whether one has conscious control over whom one finds attractive at any given time, of course, is another question, but for a time, evidence for sexual fluidity, especially within the queer community, was considered potentially damaging to the "born this way" efforts and de-emphasized or suppressed. Post-Obergefell, more queer people seem to feel like they've gained enough legal and cultural ground that they can freely admit it, though. And some do in an almost defiant way, saying essentially, "So what if my sexual choices are free choices? If I choose to be gay, who's to say I shouldn't?" That's a far cry from the prevailing narrative from just 10 or 15 years ago, when very few gay people would admit that they might have any conscious control over being gay.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
As far as I understand it, "born this way" may as well be true. Environmental factors have never been identified, and there is no clue as to when the determination is made. The sexual orientation can only really be observed/felt around puberty, but it seems to be determined long before.
- chmod775 7y ago
  > Environmental factors have never been identified, and there is no clue as to when the determination is made. > but it seems to be determined long before [puberty]. If your first statement is true, your second statement has no basis. If your second statement is based on anything, your first statement is false. Just pointing this out because I'm curious what the actual findings in this area are.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    You don't need to know any deciding factors to observe the decision. Sexual orientation, at least if we are talking about mostly-heterosexual vs mostly-homosexual as a trait is first observable around puberty, and doesn't seem to change, ever. So puberty is an upper bound for the determination having been made. And I really can't imagine that it would be this hard to figure out what factors "turn someone gay" if the decision is made closer to puberty. If it were already determined at birth, much like gender, it would fit with what we observe about homosexuality not being a choice, not being "curable" or "preventable". I'm not a scientist with deep knowledge in this topic, but from what I understand, there is no evidence pointing to the determination happening after birth.
    - chmod775 7y ago
      > So puberty is an upper bound for the determination having been made. So there are in fact some "clues as to when the determination is made". Clues such as this one and others you pointed out. This was really all I was confused about.
scoopertrooper 7y ago
I wouldn't go far to say that there is no genetic basis for sexuality. There is no single gene for aspergers, but we're pretty sure it's not a lifestyle choice.
- danieltillett 7y ago
  It would be exceptional if sexual orientation was the one complex trait with no genetic component.
JulianMorrison 7y ago
It's worth noting that "ambiguously somewhere between discovered and constructed, and often seen to change over time" does not at all imply "can change on a whim" or "can turn on a dime".
tomp 7y ago
I cannot understand how "born this way" could ever possibly not be true. Sure, today people can "decide" (or whatever) but why would anyone in their right mind decide to be gay like 200 years ago, and risk being ostracized from the community, being sexually unsatisfied and/or severely punished (including sterilization and/or death)? (Obviously "fluidity" of sexuality does not preclude "born this way" - it could be that it's written in your genes that your sexuality would/will change throughout your life, similar to many people's libidos and/or hair color.) Edit: on second thought, it's very possible that it could be random environmental influences (e.g. amount of... I don't know... drums + beech pollen ... the fetus is exposed to in the womb) - that could be pretty much orthogonal with genetics, while still leaving the person with "no choice". It's just that AFAIK most personality traits have a significant genetic component, either actually genetic or epigenetic [1]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/
- hvidgaard 7y ago
  Sexuality and attraction in general is an immensely complex topic. "Born this way" is not the only explanation. "Environmental factors" is not the only explanation. Rather it's a sum of it all, and for some they was just born that way, and for others they became that way because of environmental factors. For most is it all combined. See this study for more info https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.h... (you'll have to find the source yourself, I do not have access to it). The simple explanation is that we simply don't fully understand how sexual preferences form. But that should be a moot point on this because why should people care? You're a human, I'm a human ergo we have the same rights. End of story. I know that is not the world we live in sadly. The underlying issue here is a matter of unity. People want to be with people like themselves, and consider sexuality a parameter in this. Obviously we need to change that, but it shouldn't matter one iota why some people are gay.
- simias 7y ago
  >why would anyone in their right mind decide to be gay like 200 years ago, and risk being ostracized from the community, being sexually unsatisfied and/or severely punished (including sterilization and/or death)? I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately pedophilia still exists even though it fits all your criteria. Clearly some people adopt sexual behaviours even if it could lead them to a terrible outcome. Actually, some might do it specifically for that reason and the thrill of it. You could make the same comment about religion, drugs, literature, politics etc... It's not rare for humans to adopt behaviors that put them at risk even if there are no obvious benefits. People routinely endanger themselves while doing kinky things. There probably are more kinks out there than there are genes in the human genome. There's clearly a large number of factors at play here, only some of them genetic.
missosoup 7y ago
I was very much 'born this way'. If I could somehow change it or be 'fluid' towards something else, I sure would. Anecdotal yes, but in these cases anecdotal is important because we're talking about personal experiences of individuals. It might not be a single genetic element, it might be a combination. It might be epigenetic. It might be something during early development. But don't dismiss people who say they're born a certain way just because some other people supposedly said otherwise.
- dondawest 7y ago
  I completely believe you when you say you are “born this way.” I know many people in that boat. However, it still makes sense to me that only 8% of the variance in sexual orientation is determined by genetic factors. Some are “straighter” than others, some “gayer” than others, and some are more (or less) “born this way” than others.
  - missosoup 7y ago
    We are only scratching the surface of genetics and epigenetics and no one in the industry pretends to have the tools to make statements like '8% of the variance in sexual orientation is determined by genetic factor'. We know that e.g. dementia has a strong genetic component and have still failed to identify it despite knowing with certainty that component is there. We know faces are almost entirely determined by genetics but are still far off from being able to accurately predict a face from dna. We have a long way to go. You're misappropriating studies that you don't understand to support a personal viewpoint that has no basis in the facts.
    - dondawest 7y ago
      “8% of the variance in sexual orientation is determined by genetics” is literally a quote from the study. I don’t have a personal viewpoint one way or another. I’m literally just reading the facts as they’re presented and saying “many types of variance exist.” Obviously some people choose to be gay, Cynthia Nixon for example, who got in huge hot water for saying that for her, being gay IS a choice. She was specifically not “born that way.” Others clearly are. It’s a spectrum. :)
mgbmtl 7y ago
This is very anecdotal, and it's not what the research is saying. They also published a website which summarizes their findingshttps://geneticsexbehavior.info/what-we-found/ https://geneticsexbehavior.info/what-we-found/ However we probably agree on two things: sexual orientation is not always a scale where the more you are attracted to one sex, the less you are attracted to another. And as many articles stated, the result for this study mostly means that we are not close to having a blood test that can determine if a person is gay.
krapp 7y ago
>Now, I'm seeing more and more LGB people freely admit what had been considered an open secret: that many of those who insisted that they were "born this way" actually consider sexual orientation not to be immutable, but fluid, to various degrees. You're assuming that "being born gay" implies a static, albeit nonbinary, sexual orientation, and you seem to be confusing the concept of sexual orientation with gender identity. Yes, it's possible to be genderfluid and to be attracted to both men and women, to different degrees at different times, but none of that implies a conscious choice to "be gay." Do you believe straight people choose to be straight? If not, why would it be the case that heterosexuality is genetically determined, but not homosexuality or bisexuality?
- jawns 7y ago
  > you seem to be confusing the concept of sexual orientation with gender identity. I don't think I am. There is gender fluidity and sexual fluidity, and I'm talking about the latter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity
simias 7y ago
Your comment is insightful but I feel like you're creating a false dichotomy: >That's a far cry from the prevailing narrative from just 10 or 15 years ago, when very few gay people would admit that they might have any conscious control over being gay. There's a large gap between "I'm gay because it's in my genes and I was born this way" and "I consciously chose to be gay". Social pressure and environment can probably play a role. Maybe (probably?) some gay people wouldn't have been gay if they had been raised in a different environment and vice-versa, but that doesn't mean that they ever consciously decided one way or the other the way you decide to go vegan or learn Japanese. I like to think that sexuality is like food, music or anything else, what you like and don't like might be influenced by genes but it's obviously not the only factor at play. I doubt there's a gene for liking pineapple on pizza, yet here we are.
mc32 7y ago
The danger with “born this way” has always been that one day societies where there were social or political pressures and had the technology would try to “breed it out”. Maybe not in most western societies but possibly in less accepting societies.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Same sex couples cannot pass on their genes. That alone is a huge barrier for a "gay" gene to establish itself.
  - Traubenfuchs 7y ago
    Neither men nor women need to have an ounce of interest in the other sex to reproduce... There are lots of stories of homosexual men following societal pressure to create offspring.
atoav 7y ago
This is a bit like the question if people are born into poor families. As a kid you are never to blame for the circumstances and environment you have been born into. You cannot choose to be born into a poor family, like you cannot choose beeing the youngest silbling, having a depression, being left handed or developing interest for the same sex. Things like these happen to us independent of what we want, which is precisely the reason why it makes no sense to use atributes like these to single out individuals and spread falsehoods and hatered. The weirdest thing is that everyone should know this, because we know that you can’t just decide with whom you fall in love with. So just because there is no genetic deposition it doesn’t necessarily indicate that you can choose freely. Especially with desires that are rooted deep within, you can’t just go and decide that you have different desires from now on. That doesn’t mean these desires can’t change their shape over time, but influencing the how and what is neither easy nor possible in most cases.
cjfd 7y ago
That there is no single genetic cause of same-sex sexual behavior is not at all the same as saying that 'born this way' is not true. Firstly, there may be multiple genes involved. Also, there is some evidence that the environment in the uterus plays a role. Also, that one study adds some evidence a certain way does not mean that we should forget everything that was found in the past. Including the fact that twins have a much higher chance to both be homosexual and the research of Simon LeVay. I also am not sure we should draw much of a conclusion about what activists are saying. Activism seems to like aligning itself with what is most modern. That 'born this way' is now trending down says very little about either truth or what is going to happen in the future. Modern activism seems to be aligning itself with smaller and smaller minorities. Not that the people in said minorities don't also deserve to be treated fairly. People should take what people say about their sexual nature at face value instead of needing to know the precise label for something before being able to take it seriously. When we are talking about smaller and smaller minorities there will not be a label that is widely known for everyone. To add some personal anecdata: my gay sexual nature seems to be about as fluid as rock.
jacobmoe 7y ago
Genetic vs fluid is a false dichotomy. Whether you are the way you are because of your genes or because of conditions in early development (perhaps as far back as the womb), either way you don't get to choose.
Traubenfuchs 7y ago
The idea that people can freely chose their sexuality is preposterous, paired with your disconcertingly accusatory diction (which I accuse you of) your comment leaves quite a bad taste.
- wtdata 7y ago
  I have been seeing more and more of these kind of coments in HN lately (something I didn't see at all a couple of years ago). I am really curious, what makes you think other people have to care about your sense of outrage? Is it something in modern media or social networks that make you believe that? Because that kind of "Acknowledge my outrage" remarks would just warrant a laugh mostly anywhere a couple of years ago.
  - Intermernet 7y ago
    How else should outrage be communicated? I think deriding someone's sense of outrage is much less humanizing than caring about it. Caring about other's outrage is a basic ingredient in empathy.
    - wtdata 7y ago
      > How else should outrage be communicated? It shouldn't, it's childish.
      - Intermernet 7y ago
        If a family member or a friend seemed outraged at something would you tell them they were being childish? Or would you try to work out why they were outraged?
  - Traubenfuchs 7y ago
    The original commenters comment is nothing but jeer based on personal anecdotes. I could have commented with studies about gay conversion therapies and more arguments, but I am really not in the mood to argue with internet strangers. I still felt compelled to at least call out the venomous diction used here.
buboard 7y ago
Moving on from the victim mentality has been a good thing for the gay community.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  The "victim mentality" comes from being a victim, to imply otherwise is outrageous.
jon889 7y ago
Uh, being fluid and “born this way” aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s definitely not that you wake up one day and decide now I’m gay. Maybe you wake up one day and decide today I’m going to act on it. And as it gets more acceptable in society more people are willing to act on things that previously they could decide not to act on. It’s a spectrum so some people can’t live without acting on, and some people can get by. I’m “gay” and it’s not something I could change even if I wanted to. But I know that if someone who wasn’t the same sex came along and we got amazingly and there was sexual chemistry I wouldn’t limit myself because I use the label “gay”. (Really I’m about 90% along the spectrum to gay, but it’s easier just to say gay) For other friends they don’t have this, they are just “gay” and have zero interest in someone not the same sex and it’s not a choice that’s just how they are whether that’s through genes or environmental factors. People have conscious control over how they act and who they sleep with but I’m almost certain they don’t have control over their sexuality.
guerrilla 7y ago
You clearly didn't read the article and misunderstood the title of the article. It says no single genetic cause. There are in fact, multiple genetic causes instead.
spodek 7y ago
> The "born this way" aspect of gay activism Gays aren't the only ones who say they are born that way. As far as I know, everyone who is straight does too. Not that I researched it scientifically, but every straight person I know believes they were born straight, and that heterosexual animals were born heterosexual too. How many people believe that heterosexuality is a choice?

by jawns 7y ago

bayesian_horse 7y ago

As far as I understand it, "born this way" may as well be true. Environmental factors have never been identified, and there is no clue as to when the determination is made. The sexual orientation can only really be observed/felt around puberty, but it seems to be determined long before.

chmod775 7y ago
> Environmental factors have never been identified, and there is no clue as to when the determination is made. > but it seems to be determined long before [puberty]. If your first statement is true, your second statement has no basis. If your second statement is based on anything, your first statement is false. Just pointing this out because I'm curious what the actual findings in this area are.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  You don't need to know any deciding factors to observe the decision. Sexual orientation, at least if we are talking about mostly-heterosexual vs mostly-homosexual as a trait is first observable around puberty, and doesn't seem to change, ever. So puberty is an upper bound for the determination having been made. And I really can't imagine that it would be this hard to figure out what factors "turn someone gay" if the decision is made closer to puberty. If it were already determined at birth, much like gender, it would fit with what we observe about homosexuality not being a choice, not being "curable" or "preventable". I'm not a scientist with deep knowledge in this topic, but from what I understand, there is no evidence pointing to the determination happening after birth.
  - chmod775 7y ago
    > So puberty is an upper bound for the determination having been made. So there are in fact some "clues as to when the determination is made". Clues such as this one and others you pointed out. This was really all I was confused about.

scoopertrooper 7y ago

I wouldn't go far to say that there is no genetic basis for sexuality. There is no single gene for aspergers, but we're pretty sure it's not a lifestyle choice.

danieltillett 7y ago
It would be exceptional if sexual orientation was the one complex trait with no genetic component.

JulianMorrison 7y ago

It's worth noting that "ambiguously somewhere between discovered and constructed, and often seen to change over time" does not at all imply "can change on a whim" or "can turn on a dime".

tomp 7y ago

I cannot understand how "born this way" could ever possibly not be true. Sure, today people can "decide" (or whatever) but why would anyone in their right mind decide to be gay like 200 years ago, and risk being ostracized from the community, being sexually unsatisfied and/or severely punished (including sterilization and/or death)? (Obviously "fluidity" of sexuality does not preclude "born this way" - it could be that it's written in your genes that your sexuality would/will change throughout your life, similar to many people's libidos and/or hair color.) Edit: on second thought, it's very possible that it could be random environmental influences (e.g. amount of... I don't know... drums + beech pollen ... the fetus is exposed to in the womb) - that could be pretty much orthogonal with genetics, while still leaving the person with "no choice". It's just that AFAIK most personality traits have a significant genetic component, either actually genetic or epigenetic [1]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/

hvidgaard 7y ago
Sexuality and attraction in general is an immensely complex topic. "Born this way" is not the only explanation. "Environmental factors" is not the only explanation. Rather it's a sum of it all, and for some they was just born that way, and for others they became that way because of environmental factors. For most is it all combined. See this study for more info https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.h... (you'll have to find the source yourself, I do not have access to it). The simple explanation is that we simply don't fully understand how sexual preferences form. But that should be a moot point on this because why should people care? You're a human, I'm a human ergo we have the same rights. End of story. I know that is not the world we live in sadly. The underlying issue here is a matter of unity. People want to be with people like themselves, and consider sexuality a parameter in this. Obviously we need to change that, but it shouldn't matter one iota why some people are gay.
simias 7y ago
>why would anyone in their right mind decide to be gay like 200 years ago, and risk being ostracized from the community, being sexually unsatisfied and/or severely punished (including sterilization and/or death)? I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately pedophilia still exists even though it fits all your criteria. Clearly some people adopt sexual behaviours even if it could lead them to a terrible outcome. Actually, some might do it specifically for that reason and the thrill of it. You could make the same comment about religion, drugs, literature, politics etc... It's not rare for humans to adopt behaviors that put them at risk even if there are no obvious benefits. People routinely endanger themselves while doing kinky things. There probably are more kinks out there than there are genes in the human genome. There's clearly a large number of factors at play here, only some of them genetic.

missosoup 7y ago

I was very much 'born this way'. If I could somehow change it or be 'fluid' towards something else, I sure would. Anecdotal yes, but in these cases anecdotal is important because we're talking about personal experiences of individuals. It might not be a single genetic element, it might be a combination. It might be epigenetic. It might be something during early development. But don't dismiss people who say they're born a certain way just because some other people supposedly said otherwise.

dondawest 7y ago
I completely believe you when you say you are “born this way.” I know many people in that boat. However, it still makes sense to me that only 8% of the variance in sexual orientation is determined by genetic factors. Some are “straighter” than others, some “gayer” than others, and some are more (or less) “born this way” than others.
- missosoup 7y ago
  We are only scratching the surface of genetics and epigenetics and no one in the industry pretends to have the tools to make statements like '8% of the variance in sexual orientation is determined by genetic factor'. We know that e.g. dementia has a strong genetic component and have still failed to identify it despite knowing with certainty that component is there. We know faces are almost entirely determined by genetics but are still far off from being able to accurately predict a face from dna. We have a long way to go. You're misappropriating studies that you don't understand to support a personal viewpoint that has no basis in the facts.
  - dondawest 7y ago
    “8% of the variance in sexual orientation is determined by genetics” is literally a quote from the study. I don’t have a personal viewpoint one way or another. I’m literally just reading the facts as they’re presented and saying “many types of variance exist.” Obviously some people choose to be gay, Cynthia Nixon for example, who got in huge hot water for saying that for her, being gay IS a choice. She was specifically not “born that way.” Others clearly are. It’s a spectrum. :)

mgbmtl 7y ago

This is very anecdotal, and it's not what the research is saying. They also published a website which summarizes their findingshttps://geneticsexbehavior.info/what-we-found/ https://geneticsexbehavior.info/what-we-found/ However we probably agree on two things: sexual orientation is not always a scale where the more you are attracted to one sex, the less you are attracted to another. And as many articles stated, the result for this study mostly means that we are not close to having a blood test that can determine if a person is gay.

krapp 7y ago

>Now, I'm seeing more and more LGB people freely admit what had been considered an open secret: that many of those who insisted that they were "born this way" actually consider sexual orientation not to be immutable, but fluid, to various degrees. You're assuming that "being born gay" implies a static, albeit nonbinary, sexual orientation, and you seem to be confusing the concept of sexual orientation with gender identity. Yes, it's possible to be genderfluid and to be attracted to both men and women, to different degrees at different times, but none of that implies a conscious choice to "be gay." Do you believe straight people choose to be straight? If not, why would it be the case that heterosexuality is genetically determined, but not homosexuality or bisexuality?

jawns 7y ago
> you seem to be confusing the concept of sexual orientation with gender identity. I don't think I am. There is gender fluidity and sexual fluidity, and I'm talking about the latter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity

simias 7y ago

Your comment is insightful but I feel like you're creating a false dichotomy: >That's a far cry from the prevailing narrative from just 10 or 15 years ago, when very few gay people would admit that they might have any conscious control over being gay. There's a large gap between "I'm gay because it's in my genes and I was born this way" and "I consciously chose to be gay". Social pressure and environment can probably play a role. Maybe (probably?) some gay people wouldn't have been gay if they had been raised in a different environment and vice-versa, but that doesn't mean that they ever consciously decided one way or the other the way you decide to go vegan or learn Japanese. I like to think that sexuality is like food, music or anything else, what you like and don't like might be influenced by genes but it's obviously not the only factor at play. I doubt there's a gene for liking pineapple on pizza, yet here we are.

mc32 7y ago

The danger with “born this way” has always been that one day societies where there were social or political pressures and had the technology would try to “breed it out”. Maybe not in most western societies but possibly in less accepting societies.

imtringued 7y ago
Same sex couples cannot pass on their genes. That alone is a huge barrier for a "gay" gene to establish itself.
- Traubenfuchs 7y ago
  Neither men nor women need to have an ounce of interest in the other sex to reproduce... There are lots of stories of homosexual men following societal pressure to create offspring.

atoav 7y ago

This is a bit like the question if people are born into poor families. As a kid you are never to blame for the circumstances and environment you have been born into. You cannot choose to be born into a poor family, like you cannot choose beeing the youngest silbling, having a depression, being left handed or developing interest for the same sex. Things like these happen to us independent of what we want, which is precisely the reason why it makes no sense to use atributes like these to single out individuals and spread falsehoods and hatered. The weirdest thing is that everyone should know this, because we know that you can’t just decide with whom you fall in love with. So just because there is no genetic deposition it doesn’t necessarily indicate that you can choose freely. Especially with desires that are rooted deep within, you can’t just go and decide that you have different desires from now on. That doesn’t mean these desires can’t change their shape over time, but influencing the how and what is neither easy nor possible in most cases.

cjfd 7y ago

That there is no single genetic cause of same-sex sexual behavior is not at all the same as saying that 'born this way' is not true. Firstly, there may be multiple genes involved. Also, there is some evidence that the environment in the uterus plays a role. Also, that one study adds some evidence a certain way does not mean that we should forget everything that was found in the past. Including the fact that twins have a much higher chance to both be homosexual and the research of Simon LeVay. I also am not sure we should draw much of a conclusion about what activists are saying. Activism seems to like aligning itself with what is most modern. That 'born this way' is now trending down says very little about either truth or what is going to happen in the future. Modern activism seems to be aligning itself with smaller and smaller minorities. Not that the people in said minorities don't also deserve to be treated fairly. People should take what people say about their sexual nature at face value instead of needing to know the precise label for something before being able to take it seriously. When we are talking about smaller and smaller minorities there will not be a label that is widely known for everyone. To add some personal anecdata: my gay sexual nature seems to be about as fluid as rock.

jacobmoe 7y ago

Genetic vs fluid is a false dichotomy. Whether you are the way you are because of your genes or because of conditions in early development (perhaps as far back as the womb), either way you don't get to choose.

Traubenfuchs 7y ago

The idea that people can freely chose their sexuality is preposterous, paired with your disconcertingly accusatory diction (which I accuse you of) your comment leaves quite a bad taste.

wtdata 7y ago
I have been seeing more and more of these kind of coments in HN lately (something I didn't see at all a couple of years ago). I am really curious, what makes you think other people have to care about your sense of outrage? Is it something in modern media or social networks that make you believe that? Because that kind of "Acknowledge my outrage" remarks would just warrant a laugh mostly anywhere a couple of years ago.
- Intermernet 7y ago
  How else should outrage be communicated? I think deriding someone's sense of outrage is much less humanizing than caring about it. Caring about other's outrage is a basic ingredient in empathy.
  - wtdata 7y ago
    > How else should outrage be communicated? It shouldn't, it's childish.
    - Intermernet 7y ago
      If a family member or a friend seemed outraged at something would you tell them they were being childish? Or would you try to work out why they were outraged?
- Traubenfuchs 7y ago
  The original commenters comment is nothing but jeer based on personal anecdotes. I could have commented with studies about gay conversion therapies and more arguments, but I am really not in the mood to argue with internet strangers. I still felt compelled to at least call out the venomous diction used here.

buboard 7y ago

Moving on from the victim mentality has been a good thing for the gay community.

guerrilla 7y ago
The "victim mentality" comes from being a victim, to imply otherwise is outrageous.

jon889 7y ago

Uh, being fluid and “born this way” aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s definitely not that you wake up one day and decide now I’m gay. Maybe you wake up one day and decide today I’m going to act on it. And as it gets more acceptable in society more people are willing to act on things that previously they could decide not to act on. It’s a spectrum so some people can’t live without acting on, and some people can get by. I’m “gay” and it’s not something I could change even if I wanted to. But I know that if someone who wasn’t the same sex came along and we got amazingly and there was sexual chemistry I wouldn’t limit myself because I use the label “gay”. (Really I’m about 90% along the spectrum to gay, but it’s easier just to say gay) For other friends they don’t have this, they are just “gay” and have zero interest in someone not the same sex and it’s not a choice that’s just how they are whether that’s through genes or environmental factors. People have conscious control over how they act and who they sleep with but I’m almost certain they don’t have control over their sexuality.

guerrilla 7y ago

You clearly didn't read the article and misunderstood the title of the article. It says no single genetic cause. There are in fact, multiple genetic causes instead.

spodek 7y ago

> The "born this way" aspect of gay activism Gays aren't the only ones who say they are born that way. As far as I know, everyone who is straight does too. Not that I researched it scientifically, but every straight person I know believes they were born straight, and that heterosexual animals were born heterosexual too. How many people believe that heterosexuality is a choice?