Fruit flies, changing sexual orientation, and the Kinsey studies

[Megandy]

...(this thread started out as a response to the thread about the article that quoted the study on fruit flies and how scientists were able to change the fruit flies "sexual orientation"... read that thread if this is confusing to you!)

As for sexual orientation & it's ability to be changed or not, I know that I personally do not want to change my sexual orientation, nor do I support people who say it is simply a choice and we can choose to be straight. However, I have to say that there are a lot more categories of sexual orientation out there than we realize!! (or maybe we do). There are lots of people who jump between gay-straight-gay-straight, and they aren't wrapped up in the conservative fundamental ex-gay movement, they are simply choosing their sexual partner based on their desire! For instance, take Kate Bornstein. She is a transgendered lesbian (was once a man, had a sex change, and is now sexually involved with a woman). Though she decided to be a lesbian after her sex change, she has been involved with men and women alike. Her female partner of 10 years decided that she wanted a sex change and became a man, and after the sex change they stayed together! Imagine how convoluted that is!

So I give that example just to say if there is a combination that we can imagine, it exists! And its my guess that all the combinations and the confusion therein is just one of many of the reasons why conservatives claim that people can change their sexual orientation. They see people like Kate jump back and forth and decide that its a matter of choice.

But here's what I believe. I really think there is something to the Kinsey studies, and the resulting Kinsey scale of sexuality. People don't fit into neat categories of male, female, homosexual, or heterosexual. Rather, people are a mixture of all of those, and various labels happen to be expressed more dominantly during different times in our lives. A woman who is living as a homosexual may decide after she loses her relationship with her partner that she wants to be with a man. Is she going against her sexual orientation? Or is she returning to her true sexual orientation? I'd argue that it is neither! She is one of those people who are not at the extreme end of the scale of sexuality, but rather they are a mixture of bisexuality. Keep in mind that the Kinsey scale has 7 degrees of sexuality, ranging from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual, and in the middle is completely bisexual.

So my arguement is this: lets not force categories. Let's just let people express their sexuality however they want!! Although I do agree that homosexuality is a legitimate category (I for one believe I am 100% homosexual), I think we are doing many people a disservice by trying to push categories. The transgendered population does not gain benefit from our categories because they very often don't fit neatly into any of them!! And there are lots of people out there who, for reasons that are completely outside of the Christian fundamentalist ex-gay movement, have changed their sexual partner gender preference.

I think for those of us who are 100% homosexual and are trying to make homosexuality a legitimate category in the US constitution, we are oppressing those who don't fit into categories in the same degree that heterosexuals are oppressing us! It is unfortunate that society demands categories. Our human brains automatically group things together in order to make sense of the world. So its natural for us to work towards categorization. I make that point to say that although it feels normal for us to push these categories, it is still doing a disservice to many people out there.

I don't claim to know a whole lot about "Queer Theory", but I think somewhere in queer theory there is the idea that sexuality is expressed however one wants to express it! It seems like that theory is coming to the forefront of scholars and thinkers in the sexuality debate. But with queer theory comes post-modern thinking, and I'm not sure that our society today is ready for a post-modern government! (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I am a post-modernist, but I do think they have some ideas that are legitimate).

So anyway, I hope my thoughts have sparked some of your own thoughts and opinions, and I hope you will share them! Lets get some conversation started! ;)

[andrewlittle]

Hi Megandy,

This is the first time I have addressed you, I believe, so welcome to the family.

I agree with everything you said. I have wrestled with my place on that continuum most of my life. Here is a previous post for background.
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=15153&postcount=30

I think there is an inherent trap in the choice/not choice dychotomy.

Some conservative Christians (okay, maybe, most ...), and many otherwise liberal/progressive Christians, contend that being LGBT is a choice so they can link it to the state of being "fallen". In response, many LGBT reject the choice argument, and rightly so, because they perceive they have not "chosen" their sexuality - they were, in fact, created LGBT in the image of God (if they are religious) or naturally.

Choice is always a factor, however. While I am heterosexual, I have a choice in whether or not I express my heterosexuality in a loving relationship. Now, I will add, that making the choice to remain uncommitted or celebate is distasteful in the least. Likewise, the choice to remain outside of a loving relationship for LGBT is equally distasteful for many, if not most. Very few people are equipped to choose emotional and sexual solitude as a life path - and, from my perspective, some of those who do, do so for unhealthy reasons.

By making it purely a matter of "choice", the right is seeking to normalize heterosexual sexuality, and to remove the right of LGBT to make choices differently than the majority would. When some advocates deny the concept of "choice" and point to biological imperative, however, do they undermine the inherent right to make choices that we all have?

The right's stand is that LGBT make a choice to be "immoral" - translated, make a choice to live differently than I (the perfect archetype). LGBT's, however, choose to be authentic to who and what they are when they seek relationship - and that choice is both commendable and a human right.

Does this actually add anything to the conversation? I think I just lost my train of thought.

[Alecto]

See, all of this gets wrapped up into one of my "rules" for myself (which I can't claim to always follow, but I really do try!): I can only speak to my own experience. My experience is that I could not have a romantic, sexual relationship with a woman. And I can with a man. I identify as gay (amongs many, many other labels, some combinations of which tend to surprise folks), and I could personally never be anything but.

I find it interesting that there have been labels that describe people who "just avoid labels": what you describe with just being drawn to a personality regardless of gender / sex falls under "pansexual". Really, it's all an individual choice. Labels exist for two reasons. The first is to easily and simply communicate an idea. If you are able to communicate the idea without the label (and are more comfortable doing so), more power to you. THe second reason is that for some people, labels are really really comforting (for themselves). If we didn't have "gay" (or "queer") as an identity and a label, we'd all just be floating out on this sea of "sexual Other"; for many of us, there's a sense of belonging associated with the fact that there's all these other folks that also own this label.

So, I will kind of say "yay labels.....when used to describe one's self". The big trouble really only comes in when we start throwing them around at other people based on OUR experience, and not theirs.

[Megandy]

Hi Megandy,

This is the first time I have addressed you, I believe, so welcome to the family.

Thanks!!! It's great to be here among so many wonderful people, including yourself!


I think there is an inherent trap in the choice/not choice dychotomy.

I agree. That is pretty much the underlying theme of what I was saying in my initial post.


When some advocates deny the concept of "choice" and point to biological imperative, however, do they undermine the inherent right to make choices that we all have?


Exactly! It IS such a dichotomy... either we claim that it is choice so that people can choose their sexual partner as they wish, or we claim that its not choice so that people stop trying to change us and make us "right with God". And I believe the more we flip-flop between the two, the weaker our argument gets, and the stronger the opposition to GLBT rights becomes!


The right's stand is that LGBT make a choice to be "immoral" - translated, make a choice to live differently than I (the perfect archetype).

Now that's where the bottom line is... whether its choice or not, some people see it as immoral and some people don't. ...Well then again, I guess there are plenty of non-Christian, non-spiritual people who just don't like GLBT's! But I'd say those people are only a small voice in the matter, and they probably do not offer support for the political and spiritual debates of whether being non-heterosexual is "right" or not.

Anyway, back to the bottom line (as I see it, anyhow)... some people see it as immoral and as a crime, and others do not. So, if we bring sexuality into a political context, what kind of moral stance does our country have? Was our country founded on "Christian" beliefs, as so many of today's fundamentalists claim? If it was, should it still be operated under such a premise? If it was not, then why are the fundies (thats my abbreviated word for fundamentalist Christians) trying to push such an agenda now?

My view is this: our founding fathers revolted against the British to escape from the monarchical rule. They wanted a country that was ran "by the people for the people". On a lesser matter, I think they were also trying to escape from the Anglican church. But the bottom line is, this country was founded to represent its people, not a certain religious belief! And if the country's people contain individuals who are gay, straight, bi, transgendered, or whatever else, then the country should represent those people! It shouldn't be a matter of religious belief. Its in the same category as racial issues... people of a different skin color live in this country, and therefore should be represented and given fair and equal rights!

So, I guess my opinion is that religious beliefs should be taken out of politics when it comes to discerning who deserves what rights, and who is moral or immoral. If religious organizations want to claim what is moral and immoral, they have the right to do so under their own private roof. But it shouldn't be a matter of public policy.

I'm kind of figuring this out as I type it, by the way.


Does this actually add anything to the conversation? I think I just lost my train of thought.

It certainly does ;) Thanks for your input!

[Megandy]

See, all of this gets wrapped up into one of my "rules" for myself (which I can't claim to always follow, but I really do try!): I can only speak to my own experience.

Well, for better or for worse, I am studying to be a social worker, and its becoming ingrained in me to work for social advocacy and social justice. So, whether I can help it or not I find myself wanting to speak for other people's experience, as well as being a voice for the voiceless! It might drive me to an early grave, but I think its so ingrained that I couldn't stop it if I tried! :lol:


I find it interesting that there have been labels that describe people who "just avoid labels"

I agree... we have labels for everything, and that's just how our human mind makes sense of this crazy world! Often we find later that our labels are not accurate. It seems as though the most important label is "moral" or "immoral", like I wrote about in my reply to Andrew.


for many of us, there's a sense of belonging associated with the fact that there's all these other folks that also own this label.
I agree with that as well! Finding others who you have commonality with has a normalizing effect, and makes you feel less ostracized and more supported. That's the main reason I joined SF! :)


So, I will kind of say "yay labels.....when used to describe one's self". The big trouble really only comes in when we start throwing them around at other people based on OUR experience, and not theirs.
Exactly!

Thanks for your wonderful input, Alecto!

[Alecto]

What I was trying to get at with the speaking for myself bit is that I try not to generalize. There is no "gay experience" that I can relate that's OMG TOTALLY TRUE FOR EVERYONE. And that doesn't mean that my experience isn't a common one, and isn't relevant, but I make sure folks realize that it's not universal because there is no universal.

SPeaking for others...it's still something I'd avoid if at all possible, because you can never be as accurate as when you let them speak for themselves.

[ladyinred]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qBCnHustWp8 Hmm,hmm, hmm.... catchy tune