WST

elinaa

DEmilioTheWorldTurned.pdf

Home >Reading homework help >WST

DIGITIZATION REQUEST

Fletcher Circulation Desk

15953483740003841 Requested For: Clark, Meredith

Patron ID: 1204124592

Request Submitted: 12/24/2018

Request Printed: 12/24/2018, 9:31 AM

The world turned : essays on gay history, politics, and culture I By: D'Emilio, John.

ISBN: 0822330237 (pbk. : alk. paper)

Location: Stacks

HQ76.8.U5 0454 2002

Destination: Fletcher Circulation Desk

Request Type: Patron digitization request

Chapter/Article Title: Born Gay?

Chapter/Article Author: D'Emilio, John.

Scan From: 154

Scan To: 164

Print to: Fletcher Library Printer

NOTICE: This material may be protected by Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S.C.)

The World Turned Essays on Gay History, Politics, and Culture

John D'Emilio

-, '

I i

DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS Durham and London 2002

Printed in the United States of

America on acid-free paper x

Typeset in Carter & Cone Galliard

by Keystone Typesetting, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-

Publication Data appear on the last

printed page of this book.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS

BOOK IS SUPPORTED BY A

GENEROUS GRANT FROM THE

GILL FOUNDATION.

Contents

Preface ix

PART I : Interpretations

r. Homophobia and the Course of Postwar American Radical-

ism: The Career of Bayard Rustin 3

2. Placing Gay in the Sixties 23

3. Still Radical After All These Years: Remembering Out of the

C/,osets 45

4. A Meaning for All Those Words: Sex, Politics, History, and

Larry Kramer 64

5. Cycles of Change, Questions of Strategy: The Gay and Les-

bian Movement After 50 Years 78

6. Organizational Tales: Interpreting the NGLTF Story 99

PART I I : Interventions

7. Why Is This Year Different From Any Other? 123

8. The Clinton Election: Historical Perspectives at a Moment

ofChange 136

9. Stonewall: Myth and Meaning 146

ro. Born Gay? 154

1 l. What Does Gay Liberation Have to Do with the War in

Bosnia? 165

12. Laying Claim to Family 174

p ART II I : Reflections

13. Visions of Leadership: Remembering Ken Dawson 193

14. My Changing Sex Life 199

ls. Then and Now: The Shifting Context of Gay Historical Writing 210

l 6. A Biographer and His Subject: Wrestling with Bayard

Rustin 231

Notes 249

Preface

Something happened in the 1990s. Sc

versible in its consequences.

There is hardly a nonfiction gay b<

nod to the Stonewall Rebellion, th~

queens fought back in Greenwich \

liberation was born. The world seeme4

the closet was left behind forever, the I

shame associated with it repudiated.

But, truth be told, Stonewall, gay li

touched very few. I say this even th

thoroughly remade by the thrilling i

marching through the streets of New

San Francisco, I was convinced that t

were making everything different thar

accomplished by those early waves of

reached so deeply into our psyches th

watching and nothing would ever be 1

Looking back from the vantage pc

now see Stonewall mostly as potentia

in the distance. The devastating intru

aggressive fundamentalist religious r

ganite conservatism in American polit

wall held twists and turns and curves a

suspected.

By contrast, the changes that the

notwithstanding - look to me to ha'

beyond what the Stonewall generati<

1990s, the world finally did turn and r

Born Gay?

During the 1990s, the notion that homosexuality is biological, that lesbians

and gay men are "born this way;' has spread through American culture with

amazing rapidity. It is espoused on the street, by Joe Gay and Jane Lesbian.

Liberal heterosexual allies, from Al Gore to the anonymous editorial writers

of the New Yorker, have taken it up. The view seems to have the support of the scientific establishment. The biological assumption is so widespread that the

religious right has become obsessed with countering it, not only rhetori-

cally but through counseling ministries designed to prove that gays can go straight.

As a historian, I am deeply skeptical of arguments rooted in biology and claims about fixed sexual orientation. The overwhelming weight of historical

research into sexuality- and to this I could add the anthropological research

as well - points to a picture of human sexual behavior far too complex and

varied to be reducible to genes or endocrines or hormones. Even so, I'm not

particularly interested in trying to counter the findings of scientists. In part,

the reason is because I don't have the background to critique the scientific

studies of the past few years. But mostly it is because my interest lies else-

where. I'm fascinated by the rush, on the part of almost everyone except the

most extremely homophobic elements of our society, to embrace the "born

gay' view of sexual identity. In other words, I care less about whether or not

Versions of this essay were given as informal presentations at a board meeting of the

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in 1993, and before the National Policy Round-

table of the NGLTF Policy Institute, in 1998. My thanks to both audiences of activists for

the lively discussions that ensued and that helped to sharpen my own thinking. Thanks

also go to Pippa Holloway who compiled for me a bibliography of the scientific litera- ture and discussions of it in the mass media.

it is true than in understanding

different people.

I explore this phenomenon fo

will, I hope, place the current I Then I move on to outline a set

seems so compelling and, finall

reasons.

Some &cent History

In the literature produced by g:

late 1960s and early 1970s, there

and homosexuality do not exist

ucts of culture. They are classifi.

an oppressive society. They are 2

activist writers imagined sexual

of oppression and social contra'

a word meant to suggest that

direction, but could flow any w

These notions were endless!)

Lesbianism, like male hon

only in a sexist society ch

by male supremacy ....

women, and sexual expre5

ries of homosexuality and

Many other similar excerpts co1

This viewpoint drew on bo

mainstream science. Radical in

Marcuse, and Paul Goodman p

Alfred Kinsey, whose studies c

tion in the patterns of human

Mead, whose best-selling book

making of gender roles and sexi

vibrant writings of second-wa'

that smacked of biological dete

ality is biological, that lesbians

through American culture with

t, by Joe Gay and Jane Lesbian.

the anonymous editorial writers

seems to have the support of the

ption is so widespread that the

countering it, not only rhetori-

.esigned to prove that gays can

guments rooted in biology and

erwhelming weight of historical

dd the anthropological research

al behavior far too complex and

s or hormones. Even so, I'm not

e findings of scientists. In part,

ound to critique the scientific

is because my interest lies else-

of almost everyone except the

society, to embrace the "born

I care less about whether or not

entations at a board meeting of the

before the National Policy Round-

to both audiences of activists for

o sharpen my own thinking. Thanks

bibliography of the scientific litera-

BORN GAY? 155

it is true than in understanding why it is so damned attractive to so many

different people. I explore this phenomenon first by sketching out some recent history that

will, I hope, place the current born-gay perspective in a broader context.

Then I move on to outline a set of interlocking reasons why the perspective

seems so compelling and, finally, suggest pitfalls or flaws in each of those

reasons.

Some Recent History

In the literature produced by gay liberationists and lesbian feminists in the

late 1960s and early 1970s, there is virtually a consensus that heterosexuality

and homosexuality do not exist in nature, so to speak, but instead are prod-

ucts of culture. They are classifications of human beings that emanate from

an oppressive society. They are artificial and deeply unnatural. Instead, these

activist writers imagined sexuality as an unshaped potential. In the absence

of oppression and social control, human sexuality would be polymorphous,

a word meant to suggest that sexual desire was not fixed in its form or

direction, but could flow any which way. These notions were endlessly repeated. Here is one statement of it:

Lesbianism, like male homosexuality, is a category of behavior possible

only in a sexist society characterized by rigid sex roles and dominated

by male supremacy .... In a society in which men do not oppress

women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the catego-

ries of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear.

Many other similar excerpts could be found. 1

This viewpoint drew on both cultural theory from the 1960s as well as

mainstream science. Radical intellectuals like Norman 0. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, and Paul Goodman provided inspiration. But so did scientists like

Alfred Kinsey, whose studies of sexual behavior emphasized endless varia-

tion in the patterns of human behavior, and anthropologists like Margaret

Mead, whose best-selling books highlighted culture as a shaping force in the

making of gender roles and sexual norms. Gay liberationists also drew on the

vibrant writings of second-wave feminists who were challenging anything

that smacked of biological determinism in the areas of gender and sexuality.

156 THE WORLD TURNED

Out of this intellectual matrix came a formulation widely used in the

1970s but with almost no currency just a generation later: "sexual prefer-

ence." As radical activists translated their theories into concepts that could be

used to influence law and policy, they came up with the phrase. Today it is startling to the ear in the way it suggests "choice."

By the mid-197os major change was underway, and we today are inheri-

tors of it. As the radicalism of the first wave of gay liberation waned, shifts

occurred not only in the tactics and goals and vision of the movement, but in

its sexual theorizing as well. As the movement became institutionalized and

more organizationally stable, as activists shifted from a rhetoric of revolution

to pressing for steady incremental change in policy and institutions, the

word "orientation" increasingly entered the movement vocabulary. For a

while, there was a seesawing back and forth between preference and orienta-

tion; some used the terms interchangeably. The greatest resistance to orien-

tation came from radical lesbian feminists who argued that lesbianism was an

option that any woman might pursue in her resistance to male supremacy

and patriarchy. But orientation, with its sense of placement, alignment, and

clear directionality, gradually overwhelmed preference, with its suggestion of mere taste or fashion.

The concept of orientation came from the mental health professions. In

the theorizing of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, writers tended to look at

orientation as something that got set relatively early in life, a result of experi-

ences in infancy and early childhood. Many writers and practitioners, espe-

cially among American psychoanalysts, believed that, with work, sexual ori-

entation could be reversed. Of course, they meant that it could, and should,

be reversed in one direction only: homosexual orientation could be changed

to heterosexual. But starting in the 1960s, gay activists appropriated the

concept of orientation, inverted the meaning of homosexuality so that it

became good rather than unfortunate, and argued - as a few liberal mental

health professionals were already doing-that it was irreversible. Thus,

while sexual orientation was not determined by biology, it was so deep that

it might as well have been. And, since gay was good, there was no point in even trying to change it.

In the 1980s and 1990s conceptualizations continued to change, though

this time in ways consistent with the direction charted by the proponents of

orientation. Orientation remained in favor, especially in the writing oflegisla-

tion and institutional policy, but it increasingly coexisted with "identity."

Postmodern theory notwithstanc

something even more solid than

orientation offered something r

preference. But identity spoke to:

thing that went to the very core c

easy incorporation of"sexual ide

the release of a stream of scientif

connotations of identity as reac

Studies about the hypothalamru

gene all pointed to biology as son

Some Reasons TVhy

The proclamations of some sci

explanations have appeal for g<

others. I want to try to distingui

the power of the born-gay frarn

ferent reasons reinforce one ano1

nation that seems thoroughly i

evidently true.

REASON l: MOST OF US BEL

The idea that we were born gay

ings, to the way we understand

different for as far back as we c

lives when we do not recall fee

same sex. The issue for us is no1

we realized this was so, when

inclinations that we always had.

Despite my skepticism towai

illustration of this. I cannot re

special way. I had a fascination

have experiences that could be l

And, once puberty hit, there see

I've told the short and the long

friends, and heard theirs in tum

ible. Who can argue with experi

rmulation widely used in the

neration later: "sexual prefer-

. es into concepts that could be

p with the phrase. Today it is

ay, and we today are inheri-

f gay liberation waned, shifts

· sion of the movement, but in

t became institutionalized and

from a rhetoric of revolution

policy and institutions, the

een preference and orienta-

e greatest resistance to orien-

argued that lesbianism was an

resistance to male supremacy

. of placement, alignment, and

reference, with its suggestion

mental health professions. In

s, writers tended to look at

early in life, a result of experi-

riters and practitioners, espe-

d that, with work, sexual ori-

ant that it could, and should,

orientation could be changed

y activists appropriated the

of homosexuality so that it

ed - as a few liberal mental at it was irreversible. Thus,

y biology, it was so deep that

good, there was no point in

ontinued to change, though

charted by the proponents of

cially in the writing of legisla -

ly coexisted with "identity."

BORN GAY? 157

Postmodern theory notwithstanding, in common parlance identity suggests

something even more solid than orientation. The directionality implied by

orientation offered something more substantial than the taste implied by

preference. But identity spoke to something deep inside the individual, some-

thing that went to the very core of who one was. And, simultaneous with the

easy incorporation of "sexual identity" into the gay and lesbian lexicon came

the release of a stream of scientific literature that seemed to substantiate the

connotations of identity as reaching deep into the core of an individual.

Studies about the hypothalamus, about identical twins, and the alleged gay

gene all pointed to biology as somehow causal in the creation of homosexuals.

Some Reasons TVhy

The proclamations of some scientists are just one reason why biological

explanations have appeal for gay people and their allies. There are many

others. I want to try to distinguish five of them. Bear in mind, however, that

the power of the born-gay framework comes from the ways that these dif-

ferent reasons reinforce one another, adding a persuasive punch to the expla-

nation that seems thoroughly irrefutable and makes it appear almost self-

evidently true.

REASON I: MOST OF US BELIEVE IT

The idea that we were born gay or lesbian corresponds to our deepest feel-

ings, to the way we understand our own experience. Many of us have felt

different for as far back as we can remember. There is hardly a time in our

lives when we do not recall feeling special attractions for members of the

same sex. The issue for us is not when we became gay or lesbian, but when

we realized this was so, when we were finally able to put a name to the

inclinations that we always had. Despite my skepticism toward biological explanations, I am a very good

illustration of this. I cannot remember not wanting to be with boys in a

special way. I had a fascination for the male body from my earliest years. I

have experiences that could be understood as sex play going way, way back.

And, once puberty hit, there seemed to be no stopping me. Over the years, as

I've told the short and the long versions of my coming out story to my gay

friends, and heard theirs in tum, the truth of my identity seems incontrovert-

ible. Who can argue with experience?

. i

158 THE WORLD TURNED

REASON 2: SCIENCE CURRENTLY SEEMS TO SUPPORT US

Science has lurked in the background of the why-are-we-gay routine for a

long time. Remember that, as far back as the 1970s, activists appropriated

psychological theories about fixed sexual orientation to refute claims that we

could change. But psychological arguments have always been of mixed value

since, however fixed sexual orientation might be, the mental health industry

was still positing that there was a "before" way back in childhood.

In the 1990s, the ground shifted. In a short span of time, a number of

independent inquiries into the biology of homosexuality appeared. In l 99 l,

Simon LeVay released a research study in which he claimed a measurable

difference in size between the hypothalamus of gay men and heterosexual

men. Richard Pillard and J. Michael Bailey published results from their ongoing investigation of sexual orientation and identical twins, showing a

large proportion of them to be gay. In 1993, Dean Hamer's study of genetic

markers of homosexuality was published in the scientific press. And, since

then, various studies have continued to be released, while scientists and

journalists alike have rushed to produce popularized versions of these stud- ies for a lay audience. 2

Science wields a great deal of authority in American society. We attribute

to scientists all sorts of power to solve a wide range of problems. Think, for instance, of how invested we are in the belief that science will devise the

magic bullet for AIDS -either the vaccine to prevent it or the treatment to

cure it. We attribute so much to science that these various scientific papers

on homosexuality have received very wide play in the media. The week that

LeVay's report on the hypothalamus was published in Science, Ted Koppel

devoted a Night/inc program to it. The New York Times, the Washington Post,

and the Los Angeles Times all devoted front-page news stories to it. Halfway around the globe, Dean Hamer's study of the gay gene was written up on the front page of the Canberra Times. 3

If scientists say it is so, it must be. How comforting that science supports the truth of our experience!

REASON 3: OUR OPPONENTS CLAIM THE OPPOSITE

While all sorts of Americans with all sorts of rationales have opposed the

struggle for gay equality, the most rabid, organized, and aggressive opposi-

tion has been concentrated within conservative Christianity, particularly

among the ranks of evangelical Protestants. They are having nothing of this

born-gay routine. If we were be their hatred of us, since God doei

desires represent a perverse iffi11

experience, distorting our lives l

biology has infiltrated our cultu

have created counseling ministri1

and thus prove the bankruptcy <

with them. Since any understam

choice risks comforting our enen

REASON 4: "BORN GAY" HAS

Phrased most simply, many of c

The people we are trying to cor

respect can take the argument fo have a self-conception of fairnes

could be more unfair than to p

ways?

Put yourself in the shoes of ac

translate the raw energy of gay Iii institutional changes. Building c

to go to their city council to lol

What do they ask for? Legislativ1

one? Or the addition of a phra

newly visible minority of peopl1

with representatives of liberal m:

reconsider their teachings on s1

perversity? Or do you persuade

segment of humanity, are part

American Psychiatric Associatio

mental disorders. Do you try 1

platform? Or do you argue that

homosexual orientation, functia

I am not accusing activists c

complicated. These were men a

each with its own set of disco

understanding social experiencf

were trying to communicate efff

MS TO SUPPORT US

the why-are-we-gay routine for a

the I 97os, activists appropriated

rientation to refute claims that we

have always been of mixed value

ht be, the mental health industry

way back in childhood.

short span of time, a number of

omosexuality appeared. In 1991,

which he claimed a measurable

us of gay men and heterosexual

· ey published results from their

n and identical twins, showing a

3, Dean Hamer's study of genetic

in the scientific press. And, since

be released, while scientists and

. pularized versions of these stud-

in American society. We attribute

"de range of problems. Think, for

elief that science will devise the

to prevent it or the treatment to

at these various scientific papers

play in the media. The week that

published in Science) Ted Koppel

York Times) the Washington Post)

-page news stories to it. Halfway

e gay gene was written up on the

comforting that science supports

E OPPOSITE

of rationales have opposed the

rganized, and aggressive opposi-

ative Christianity, particularly

They are having nothing of this

BORN GAY? I59

born-gay routine. If we were born gay, it would be much harder to justify their hatred of us, since God does not make mistakes. To them, our loves and

desires represent a perverse immoral choice. Their polemics bastardize our

experience, distorting our lives beyond recognition. As the argument from

biology has infiltrated our culture, their antagonism to it has grown. They

have created counseling ministries designed to convert us to heterosexuality

and thus prove the bankruptcy of scientific claims. We know we can't agree with them. Since any understanding of our sexual identities that smacks of

choice risks comforting our enemy, we must be born this way.

REASON 4: "BORN GAY" HAS GREAT POLITICAL UTILITY

Phrased most simply, many of our allies, or would-be allies, love this idea.

The people we are trying to convince to support our quest for justice and

respect can take the argument from nature and run with it. Plus, Americans

have a self-conception of fairness; it runs deep in our public rhetoric. What

could be more unfair than to penalize someone for being true to nature's

ways? Put yourself in the shoes of activists in the mid-r97os who were trying to

translate the raw energy of gay liberation and lesbian feminism into concrete

institutional changes. Building on the model of civil rights laws, they decide

to go to their city council to lobby for protections against discrimination.

What do they ask for? Legislative protection for a capacity inherent in every-

one? Or the addition of a phrase, "sexual orientation:' that will protect a

newly visible minority of people? Or, suppose you are opening a dialogue

with representatives of liberal mainline religious bodies. Do you ask them to

reconsider their teachings on sexual morality and endorse polymorphous

perversity? Or do you persuade them that gay men and lesbians, a definable

segment of humanity, are part of God's grand design? Or, you want the

American Psychiatric Association to eliminate homosexuality from its list of

mental disorders. Do you try to win their support for a sexual freedom

platform? Or do you argue that this discrete group, men and women with a

homosexual orientation, function well in society? I am not accusing activists of being crassly expedient. It is much more

complicated. These were men and women entering institutions, or worlds,

each with its own set of discourses that construct its members's way of

understanding social experience. Activists had to enter into dialogue; they

were trying to communicate effectively. In doing so they were absorbed into

I I

160 THE WORLD TURNED

the forms of understanding that already existed and tried to make themselves

heard in these contexts. A good example was the work of gay and lesbian

litigators. Because the courts, in ruling on civil rights issues, had set up

immutability as one of the criteria that defines a group against whom dis-

crimination is not justifiable, lawyers have tried to argue that sexual orienta-

tion, or identity, is a fixed unchanging characteristic. In other words, we are born gay.

REASON 5: THE EXTREME ALTERNATIVE IS TERRIFYING

The either I or framework that is so central to Western modes of thought- yes /no, stop/go, black/white, good/bad-makes it very hard to imagine

ambiguity, fluidity, indeterminacy, or just plain old shades of gray. In this context, our conceptual options seem to be either that we are born gay and

hence irrevocably are gay, or that we have free choice in this matter.

Even with the changes provoked by gay liberation and feminism in the

past generation, being queer is a hard road to travel. Oppression is real. We

get targeted with quite a lot of abuse. The emotional wounds go deep, and

sometimes the physical ones do too. The idea that this struggle might have

been unnecessary, that we could have spared ourselves all of this by choosing

another sexual orientation, is acutely disturbing. "Born gay" closes this line

of inquiry firmly. It spares us from the horrifying idea that our sufferings

could end if only we exerted enough will or had made a different choice.

Some Problems with the Reasons TVhy

Alone, no single one of these reasons is persuasive enough to inspire convic-

tion. Their power comes in the way that they work together, creating a

package that makes the born-gay arguments of some scientists seem unde-

niable. But each one of these reasons why has weaknesses. These don't get

nearly as much play as the reasons why, but they are out there lurking, ready

to spring into action and undermine the solid structure of our convictions.

PROBLEM I: NOT ALL OF US BELIEVE IT!

For many of us, perhaps even most of us, gay or lesbian seems to be who we

are and who we always have been. But there is no unanimity on this point,

and the apparent consensus can be upset at any moment by a contrary voice.

For instance, a generation ago, many women very self-consciously chose to be

lesbian as they encountered the

make women the center of their 1

for the born-gay argument. Or, 1

coming out. Always in the back

pretty femme who was securely

with Ellen DeGeneres. In gay '

oughly heterosexual lives. They

noticing an attraction to a mal

triggered a new sexual awarenes!

don't think so.

Besides all the exceptions that

is also the discomforting fact th

hate to say it- suspect. As frienc when middle-aged gay couples

will spend an evening- or three

is a long-standing bonding ritua

becomes the destiny toward whi

out our heterosexual impulses ai

tic. Since we are reciting our

present, and since they are bei

individuals, of course we will s

building ties of community am

uous. But these are retrospectiv

eliminate the fluidity, the serend

ing our sexual selves. Do I mean

ice cream for dessert? Of course 1

not provide a reliable body of ev

PROBLEM 2: SCIENCE IS AT

The scientific fashion of the 199,

origins of homosexuality. Mostc

to bow to its authority. This is

media blitzes that headline the 1

that science, especially with reg<

its mind.

In the longer history of scient

ing pattern is how core paradign

· sted and tried to make themselves

was the work of gay and lesbian

n civil rights issues, had set up

fines a group against whom dis-

tried to argue that sexual orienta-

acteristic. In other words, we are

E IS TERRIFYING

to Western modes of thought-

- makes it very hard to imagine

plain old shades of gray. In this

e either that we are born gay and

ree choice in this matter.

y liberation and feminism in the

to travel. Oppression is real. We

. emotional wounds go deep, and

dea that this struggle might have

d ourselves all of this by choosing

bing. "Born gay" closes this line

rrifying idea that our sufferings

r had made a different choice.

uasive enough to inspire convic-

they work together, creating a

ts of some scientists seem unde-

has weaknesses. These don't get

they are out there lurking, ready

lid structure of our convictions.

IT!

y or lesbian seems to be who we

re is no unanimity on this point,

any moment by a contrary voice.

n very self-consciously chose to be

BORN GAY? 161

lesbian as they encountered the ideas of radical feminism and decided to

make women the center of their lives. They would hardly serve as poster girls

for the born-gay argument. Or, think about the hoopla surrounding Ellen's

coming out. Always in the background was the figure of Anne Heche, the

pretty femme who was securely heterosexual until, wham, she fell in love

with Ellen DeGeneres. In gay circles lots of us know men who led thor- oughly heterosexual lives. They married and raised children, occasionally

noticing an attraction to a male friend. Then, in middle age, something

triggered a new sexual awareness, and they decided to come out. Born gay? I

don't think so. Besides all the exceptions that make biological explanations wobbly, there

is also the discomforting fact that the stories we tell about our lives are - I

hate to say it- suspect. As friendship circles form among young gay men, or

when middle-aged gay couples begin to socialize together, inevitably they

will spend an evening- or three or four - exchanging coming out stories. It

is a long-standing bonding ritual among us. As we tell our tales, coming out becomes the destiny toward which all else in our lives was leading. We filter

out our heterosexual impulses and experiences or we render them inauthen-

tic. Since we are reciting our life stories from the vantage point of the

present, and since they are being told in order to create a bond among

individuals, of course we will shape them to achieve our main purpose -

building ties of community among a group whose links are, frankly, ten-

uous. But these are retrospective reconstructions of our biographies. They

eliminate the fluidity, the serendipity, the -yes - choice that went into creat-

ing our sexual selves. Do I mean choice in the way that we choose a flavor of

ice cream for dessert? Of course not. But, our life stories, our experiences, do

not provide a reliable body of evidence for claiming that we are born gay.

PROBLEM 2: SCIENCE IS A THIN REED!

The scientific fashion of the 1990s was to find biological explanations for the

origins of homosexuality. Most of us aren't scientists and, as lay folk, we tend

to bow to its authority. This is especially true when we are subject to little

media blitzes that headline the research findings of experts. The problem is

that science, especially with regard to homosexuality, has a way of changing

its mind. In the longer history of scientific research on sexuality, the most outstand-

ing pattern is how core paradigms have oscillated from generation to genera-

I62 THE WORLD TURNED

tion. From the late nineteenth century through the 1920s, congenital expla-

nations dominated scientific inquiry. "Contrary sexual instinct;' said the sci-

entists, was hereditary and inborn. But scientists were at a loss to prove these

assertions and, as Freudian theory became more influential, environmental

theories of origins took hold. The influence of these arguments from nurture

peaked in the 1960s. Since the environmental explanations of this generation

were closely associated with negative views of homosexuality, their influence

has waned as the gay movement has grown. In the late 1970s, the pendulum

began to swing back in the direction of nature, and the studies of the 199os

have made biology dominant. It is worth noting that recent biological, and

more specifically genetic, theorizing is not confined to homosexuality. We

are in an era when science interprets all sorts of social behavior as having

biological roots, from a propensity to crime and violence to a predisposition

to alcoholism. Could we simply be living in a time when the turn to science

lets us, as a society, off the hook, absolving us from working toward solu-

tions to social problems since they are, alas, rooted in nature? Could "born

gay' be just one more bit of evidence of the conservatism of the present era?

Of course, one might counter that science isn't changing its mind. It is

improving, advancing, moving us toward an ever more accurate picture of

reality. That's what science claimed a hundred years ago when some practi-

tioners argued that women's wombs would shrink if they received a college

education, and others measured brain size to construct a racial hierarchy of

intelligence.

More to the point, the science that our culture is relying on to prove that

gay is a characteristic with us from birth is a thin reed. Of the thousands and

thousands of studies published in scientific journals each year, why does the

occasional study about the origins of homosexuality make its way into the

news? When science does make advances, it is based on the slow meticulous

building that occurs as study after study, experiment after experiment, adds

to a point of view. Yet the studies on homosexuality have not been replicated.

Even the twin studies, of which there have been more than one, are open to

serious critique and contrary interpretations.

Despite its claims to objectivity, science does not stand apart from the

society which produces it. This may not mean much if the topic is astronomy

(although Galileo would have something to say about this), but it means

almost everything when the topic is as contentious as same-sex love and

desire. Just as I'm skeptical of the stories we tell about our lives, I'm dubious

about the ability of science, unc

investigate an alleged biology oJ

people based on sexuality are ill ings open to doubt.

PROBLEM 3: WHO IS SETTIN

Of course it drives us crazy wl

Sheldon or any other minister oJ sin. But we need to scrutinize ve

community or an organization c

sions reactively. We cannot allo1

self-conception, or how we cho

ciety. "They say choice so we say

PROBLEM 4: BEWARE OF ALI

Put me at the head of the line of ti the gay and lesbian movement i

goals of all identity groups targ1

gether, in coalition, in order to n

identity, can take a stand for justi

liberal Americans have embraced

easy. It allowed them, too sudde

our lives and push aside their pen

What will happen when the s

posed? How will allies react whe

fuller airing? Will we slip back

sexual perverts? Of destroyers of1

In our rush to embrace biolo! utility, let's not forget that an eai

Germany in the first part of the

congenital explanation of homrn

tolerance. Their efforts came to n

Nazis decided that these congeni

the sake of the master race.

Our alliances will be far more ,

from justice rather than nature. '

laws, to counter homophobic spe

ugh the 1920s, congenital expla-

trary sexual instinct;' said the sci-

tists were at a loss to prove these

more influential, environmental

of these arguments from nurture

al explanations of this generation

of homosexuality, their influence

. In the late 1970s, the pendulum

e, and the studies of the I 99os

oting that recent biological, and

t confined to homosexuality. We

rts of social behavior as having

and violence to a predisposition

a time when the turn to science

g us from working toward solu-

' rooted in nature? Could "born

conservatism of the present era?

nee isn't changing its mind. It is

an ever more accurate picture of

ed years ago when some practi-

d shrink if they received a college

to construct a racial hierarchy of

ture is relying on to prove that

a thin reed. Of the thousands and

journals each year, why does the

asexuality make its way into the

"tis based on the slow meticulous

periment after experiment, adds

exuality have not been replicated.

been more than one, are open to

e does not stand apart from the

an much if the topic is astronomy

to say about this), but it means

ontentious as same-sex love and

e tell about our lives, I'm dubious

T BORN GAY? 163

about the ability of science, uncontaminated by cultural preconceptions, to

investigate an alleged biology of sexual identity. Until the forces that oppress

people based on sexuality are lifted, the well of science is poisoned, its find- ings open to doubt.

PROBLEM 3: WHO IS SETTING OUR AGENDA ANYWAY?

Of course it drives us crazy when Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Lou

Sheldon or any other minister of the Christian Right tells us we are choosing

sin. But we need to scrutinize very carefully any time we, as a movement or a

community or an organization or an individual, find ourselves making deci-

sions reactively. We cannot allow our opponents to shape our agenda, our

self-conception, or how we choose to represent ourselves to the larger so-

ciety. "They say choice so we say born this way'' is not a smart approach.

PROBLEM 4: BEWARE OF ALLIES BEARING GIFTS!

Put me at the head of the line of those who advocate that allies are necessary if

the gay and lesbian movement is to succeed in its goals. I believe that the

goals of all identity groups targeted for oppression require us to work to-

gether, in coalition, in order to move forward, and that anyone, of whatever

identity, can take a stand for justice. Nonetheless, the ease with which many

liberal Americans have embraced the born-gay approach makes me very un-

easy. It allowed them, too suddenly, to quell their moral reservations about our lives and push aside their personal squeamishness about what we do.

What will happen when the shallowness of the scientific evidence is ex-

posed? How will allies react when our messy complicated life histories get a

fuller airing? Will we slip back into the category of moral weaklings? Of sexual perverts? Of destroyers of the family?

In our rush to embrace biological explanations because of their political

utility, let's not forget that an earlier generation of gay rights advocates, in

Germany in the first part of the twentieth century, argued tirelessly for a

congenital explanation of homosexuality. They believed it would promote

tolerance. Their efforts came to naught after Hitler's rise to power when the

Nazis decided that these congenital "defectives" ought to be eliminated for the sake of the master race.

Our alliances will be far more durable if they are grounded in arguments

from justice rather than nature. The reason to support antidiscrimination

laws, to counter homophobic speech and violence, to foster tolerance in the

164 THE WORLD TURNED

schools, to recognize our relationships, and to adopt many other planks of

the notorious gay agenda is that what happens to gay men, lesbians, bisex-

uals, and transgendered people in this society is just not right. No one

deserves to be treated the way we have been treated. No one should be the

target of such hateful actions. It doesn't matter why we are gay. In a demo-

cratic society with notions of human rights and the dignity of the individual,

oppression, mistreatment, and injustice are intolerable.

PROBLEM 5: WE'LL NEVER SUCCEED FROM

A POSITION OF WEAKNESS

Just as the born-gay argument lets our allies off the hook, so too with us. It

allows us to sidestep our own internalized homophobia. We can feel good

about ourselves because we bear no responsibility for our gayness; it's not

our fault we were born this way. But buried beneath our embrace of the biological is the uneasy- and

unarticulated - feeling that, if we did have a choice, we might choose other-

wise. This is not a secure foundation for a healthy self-respecting life, nor is it

solid ground on which to build a freedom movement. Not only ought we be

arguing for our rights from a standpoint of justice, but I would also like to

know that we might embrace our sexual identity even if we discovered we

had a choice of how to be. If there was a way to change us, would we rush to sign up? Or would we stare uncomprehendingly at the very idea?

* * *

The debate about the causes of homosexuality is bound to continue. As long

as gay issues remain contentious, the search for explanations will carry on. And, among those explanations, the argument from biology is not likely to

fade any time soon. Its appeal emanates from too many directions. But, I

would hope that more of us become willing to step back from this frame-

work, examine more thoroughly the hidden motivations behind its attrac-

tiveness, and at the very least opt for a skeptical agnosticism. As the authors

of one study of the issue phrased it: "Why ask why?"

What Does Gay Libe1

with the War in Bosru

There's a hazard in agreeing tc

months ago, when I was invited

Institute of NGLTF was channel

was working on a report, Beyond

that had occurred since the so-

gress, which had seen so many

years - funding for the National

sexual content of AIDS educati

bate - had become relatively quic

state politics, there seemed to be

citizen-sponsored initiatives. Sor

much of it, and certainly all the well-being of our communities.

At this same time, the Policy

called "linkages." We were respo

United States was attacking not c

munities as well. So we release1

form, affirmative action, and imr

I gave this talk as the keynote address

activists from gay, lesbian, and bisexua

of community building. It reflected m;

at a time when a broad-based conserva

ington, even as I recognized the need

mobilizations. My thanks to Jan Steve1

260 NOTES TO CHAPTER TEN

IO. Born Gay?

l The quote comes from the much reprinted document, "The Woman-Identified

Woman?' It can be found in Karla Jay and Allen Young, eds., Out of the Closets:

Voices of Gay Liberation (New York: NYU Press, 1992; 20th Anniversary Edition),

pp. 172-77.

2 See Simon Le Vay, "A Difference in Hypothalmic Structure between Homosexual

and Heterosexual Men;' Science, 253 ( 1991): 1034-37; J. Michael Bailey and Rich- ard C. Pillard, ''A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation;' Archives of General Psychiatry, 48 ( 2) (December l 99 l): 1089-96; Dean Hamer et al., ''A Linkage between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation;'

Science, 261 (1993): 321-27. For accounts aimed at a lay audience, see Chandler

Burr, A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation

(New York: Hyperion, 1996); and Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland, The Science of

Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior (New York: Simon and Schuster, l 994).

The articles about LeVay's work appeared on August 30, 1991, as did the Nightline broadcast. The article about the gay gene appeared in the Canberra Times on July l 8,

1993·

15. Then and Now: The Shifting Context of Gay Historical Writing

l Works on gay and lesbian history published prior to 1983 include Jonathan Katz, Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the USA. (New York: Crowell,

1976); Jeffrey Weeks, Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain from the Nineteenth

Century to the Present (London: Quartet Books, 1977); John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning

of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

l 980); Lillian Faderman, Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love

Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present (New York: Morrow, 1981); and

Alan Bray, Homosexuality in Renaissance England (London: Gay Men's Press, l 982) . 2 For insights into the period between the Stonewall Riots and the onset of AIDS, see

Dennis Altman, Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation (New York: Outerbridge

and Dienstfrey, I 97 l), and Coming Out in the Seventies (Sydney: Wild and Woolley,

1979); Sidney Abbott and Barbara Love, Sappho Was a Right-On Woman (New

York: Stein and Day, 1972); Martin Duberman, Cures: A Gay Man's Odyssey (New

York: Dutton, 1991), Stonewall (New York: Dutton, 1993), and Mid-Life Queer:

1971-1981 (New York: Scribner, 1996); Donn Teal, The Gay Militants (New York:

Stein and Day, 1971); Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of

Harvey Milk (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982); Karla Jay and Allen Young, eds., Out of the Closets: Voices of Gay Liberation (New York: Douglas/Links, 1992), and

Lavender Culture (New York: Jove, 1978). See also my own collection of essays,

some of which were written in the 19;

Gay History, Politics, and the University 3 For information on the founding and

The Universities and the Gay &perienct Women and Men of the Gay Academic

Gay Academic Union, 1974):

4 Duberman came out in print in his be munity (New York: Dutton, 1972).

5 See Jonathan Katz, Coming Out! (Ne\ 6 See Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, Lesi

tions, 1972 ); Laud Humphreys, Out OJ

ation (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prenti

Wicker, The Gay Crusaders (New York 7 The interview with Hay appears in K