Can Straight People Change?

After Rev. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently wrote on his blog that science “points to some level of biological causation” for homosexuality, the media is once again focusing public discourse on the question of whether there is a biological cause, and possible cure, for homosexuality. If anyone still thought the old biological “its not a choice” argument would solve the issue of gays rights, think again. It was a failed political strategy from the start, and is becoming more and more useless. It’s time for a change in political strategy. Why don’t gay people, and the media, pay more attention to SOCIOLOGY, and not just biology. The argument for an immutable biological “sexual orientation” is so full of holes (scientific, ethical, philosphical, and political) I can’t believe it is still being taken seriously by the gay movement, its opponents, and the media.

I’ve brushed off an old essay I wrote, based on research I was doing for my doctoral dissertation (“Beyond Essentialism and Constructionism: The Making of Gay Identity”), and have updated it for current events:
----
Can Straight People Change? The Politics of Gay Identity
Jim D. Maynard

The Religious Right has traditionally argued that homosexuality is a choice and that gays and lesbians can, and should, "change" (i.e., become heterosexual through reparative therapy or religious conversion). In response, liberal advocates for gay and lesbian civil rights argue that homosexuality, or sexual orientation in general, is not a choice and that gays and lesbians should have civil rights protections because they are born gay or lesbian and cannot change their sexual orientation. Both of these arguments are misleading and oversimplify scientific facts and research on sexual orientation.

In a new twist, Rev. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote that science “points to some level of biological causation” of homosexuality, but he supports finding a scientific “cure,” since he believes homosexuality is still a sin. He wrote, “If a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use...to avoid sexual temptation and and the inevitable effects of sin.” The media is once again focusing on the issue of a biological cause and cure of homosexuality. Why all the focus on the question of can gays change? Why not ask “Can straight people change”? Both questions focus on the same issue: If we could change our sexual orientation/identity, do we have a right to make that choice? This is the important issue.


As a sociologist, I am very leery of any theory of biological determinism to explain human behavior. The argument that human sexuality is biologically determined is contrary to social scientific research, which suggests that sexuality is largely socially constructed. It ignores not only the sociological evidence against an innate unchangeable sexuality, but also the radical insight of Freud, that humans are not born "heterosexual" or "homosexual," and that that the development of a an exclusive "heterosexuality" requires the repression of homosexual desire. Even Kinsey, the much misunderstood and misquoted sex researcher, rejected the concept of an innate sexual orientation, preferring to categorize people based on their sexual behaviors, and used a continuum from exclusive homosexual to exclusive heterosexuality to map human sexual behavior. Kinsey had to use this continuum because human sexual behavior did not fall into exclusive heterosexuality and homosexuality categories as the innate theory of sexual orientation suggested. Kinsey never argued that heterosexuals and homosexuals were two separate innate sexual orientations. Like Freud, he believed that all human beings were potentially bisexual.

As Foucault and other social researchers have demonstrated, there have not always been "homosexual" and "heterosexual" people; these labels were created by western European sexologists to control and limit sexuality to one of two types, with one being superior to the other. Foucault links the categorizing of "homosexuals" and other deviants to a broader structure of knowledge and power, a form of social control designed to separate the "normal" (heterosexual) from the "abnormal" (homosexual). Jonathan Katz looks at the other side of this question in his book The Invention of Heterosexuality (1995), which demonstrates that heterosexuality, like all human sexuality, derives not from immutable nature but from different historical, cultural methods of organizing the sexes and sexual desire. Heterosexuality, like homosexuality, is a social construction specific to certain cultures and historical circumstances.


Scientific research suggests that "sexual orientation" is a very complex phenomenon with many factors (biological, psychological and sociological) contributing to its development. No single factor can explain why people are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual, and there may be different determinant factors for different people. As Kinsey demonstrated, sexual orientation is best viewed not as distinct categories, but as a continuum from exclusively heterosexual desires and behavior to exclusively homosexual desires and behaviors. Many people fall somewhere in the middle of this continuum in their desires or behavior, therefore, whether or not people can change their sexual orientation or sexual identity would depend upon where there were on that continuum. Kinsey's research revealed that while only about 8 percent of the male population in his sample engaged in exclusively homosexual behavior, almost half of the male population had some same-sex experiences or desires. More recent research confirms the basic finding that while only a small percentage of the population has exclusively homosexual experiences, or identifies as "gay" or "lesbian," many "straight" people have same-sex desires or experiences.


What about freedom of choice? Why do many in the mainstream gay movement argue that it is impossible to choose to be gay or lesbian? Many radical feminists argue that women can choose to be lesbian; that identifying as a lesbian is a social and political choice available to women to liberate themselves from patriarchy and compulsory heterosexuality. The early radical gay liberationists argued that gay liberation requires the sexual liberation of everyone from the socially constructed hetero/homo dichotomy. They believed that everyone could be "gay." They rejected the scientific claim that homosexuality was a biological or psychological pathology or that same-sex desire was even "abnormal." The gay rights movement created a modern "gay" identity. There have not always been "gay" people, so it is erroneous to claim that people are "born" gay. Bisexuals are also left out of the "sexual orientation is not a choice" paradigm, since they can choose their sexual identity. If we base gay/lesbian rights on the argument that it is not a choice, then we exclude bisexuals and deny their right to choose.


Mainstream gay/lesbian organizations have embraced questionable biological explanations of homosexuality (from the "gay gene" to the size of the hypothalamus) as a political tool to support gay and lesbian civil rights. In doing so, they are accepting the implicit premise that political equality for lesbians and gay men depends on whether being gay or lesbian is a choice or is biologically innate, while ignoring the question of whether heterosexuality is innate and challenging the heterosexist assumption that heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality, unless the later is innate and immutable. It also assumes that "scientific" opinion is free from cultural and political bias, which it is not. Science has never been and cannot be "value-neutral." Freud, Kinsey, the early sexual reformers, as well as the current scientific researchers pursuing the Holy Grail of the "gay gene", are all directed by their personal moral and political values and beliefs. By accepting these terms for the political debates over gay/lesbian rights, we become vulnerable to the "ex-gay" groups who argue that gays and lesbians can change. The purpose of the "ex-gay" ad campaign (and the public focus on whether gays can change) is to undermine the central claim of the gay/lesbian rights movement that people are born gay or lesbian and that it is not a choice since no one can change their sexual orientation. The religious right is exploiting an opportunity handed to them by the misguided strategy of the liberal/mainstream gay movement.


While it is necessary to respond to the exaggerated claims of the "ex-gay" movement, it is not necessary to embrace their terms for the debate. We do not have to argue over whether or not "ex-gays" have really changed from gay to straight. Even if a few individuals are able to change their sexual orientation, or at least their sexual behavior and identity, it does not follow that everyone can or should change. We should focus the political debate on the freedom of people to be gay, lesbian or bisexual regardless of how or why they arrive at their sexual identity, not wasting time on the futile "nature vs. nurture" debate; it is a false and useless debate.


We need to develop a political strategy that does not assert that sexual orientation is innate and impossible to change. This argument is not supported by social or biological scientific evidence, and diverts attention away from the crucial political and moral questions of sexual justice to debates over the etiology of sexual orientation. We need to make a strong political argument for gay, lesbian and bisexual equal rights that is not based on questionable scientific research.


The beginnings of an approach to gay/lesbian equality that is not based on claims of a biologically mandated "sexual orientation" have been taking shape over the past decade. Beginning with the groundbreaking social, historical and philosophical arguments of Michel Foucault and queer theory and postmodernist sociological studies and research on the "social construction" of sex, gender and sexuality, we now have new tools to use in the fight for sexual justice. The political and legal fields have been slow to grasp the social constructionist argument but some legal scholars are beginning to catch on.


In 2001, Kenji Yoshino, an Asian-American law professor at Yale, wrote an article in the Yale Law Review arguing that by focusing on "immutable traits," the race model that many civil rights groups, including gays, have attempted to apply to their struggle for equal rights may obscure other forms of discrimination that all groups, even blacks, may be subject to but that are not forbidden by the law. Instead of sidestepping "behavior", he argues, we should call attention to it and attack the "coerced assimilation" of social minorities. Even IF a trait like race or sex could be changed, it is unjust to force people to assimilate (i.e., change)! The argument that "they" (i.e., blacks, gays, etc.) could change if they wanted to is NOT sufficient legal reason to discriminate against a group based on their "difference."


David Richard, a professor of law at New York University recently wrote a book, Identity and the Case for Gay Rights: Race, Gender, Religion as Analogies (1999), that should have received more attention than the questionable "gay gene" studies. In this wonderful book, Richards shows that the racial and gender models are not the best cases to use for gay rights. He argues very persuasively that the struggle for religious freedom offers a more compelling analogy for gay rights because "gay identity" involves an ethical decision of conscience. The argument for "gay rights" should not be based on questionable scientific claims of the biological immutability of "sexual orientation," but rather on the right of gays and lesbians to CHOOSE their sexual identity! This argument sets aside the biological argument and bases gay rights upon the constitutional right to speak and the freedom of conscience guaranteed to religious groups.

There are many problems with the “people cannot choose to be gay” biological argument: it ignores the sociological evidence of the social construction of sex, gender and sexual identity; it ignores bisexuality and the right of bisexuals to choose their sexual identity; it ignores the few but undeniable cases of people who have “changed” their sexual identity (gay to straight and straight to gay!). Even if science could prove a biological cause of sexual orientation, the anti-gay right has even embraced eugenic research to “cure” it. The biological argument is inadequate and fails to address the complexity of sexual identity and justice.

Our right to be gay or lesbian or bisexual is the right to be free from religious and government interference in our private lives, to make our choices about who we have sex with and who we want to have intimate relationships with (as long as they are consenting adults). Let's not let those opposed to sexual equality take away our right to choose. To be gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight involves making a series of choices. Those choices should be a right like any other basic human right, and not dependent upon scientific opinion about how and why a person arrives at their sexual identity. Let's defend the freedom to choose our sexual identity and quit hiding behind questionable scientific dogma.


Suggested reading:

Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (1980)
Jonathan Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality (1995)
Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (1999)
Vera Whisman, Queer by Choice (1996)
Vernon A. Rosario (Ed.), Science and Homosexualities (1997)
Edward Stein, Forms of Desire (1990)
David A. Richards, Identity and the Case for Gay Rights: Race, Gender, Religion as Analogies, (1999, Univ of Chicago)
Morris B. Kaplan, Sexual Justice: Democratic Citizenship and the Politics of Desire (1997, Routledge)
Queer By Choice Website http://www.queerbychoice.com