Is it just me, or are people who were telling us that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition the same ones now saying that it's a choice and things are flexible?
Edit: I'll add in a better source here than a pop star. American Association of Pediatrics: "The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual." https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/11...
(one way to summarize it would be "your labels aren't important"; in which case, it's not going to work well to analyze it in terms of consistency with the labels you want to apply)
People can be more or less attracted to one gender than the other. For some this shows up as 100-0 or 50-50 others it's 70-30. To put it crass, someone could be a really slutty straight person but also a very picky gay person.
The whole "born this way" issue I think stems from semantics of "you can be anything you want". I think a lot less people fall into the 100-0 category then they let on but because of societal pressures they don't chose to express or explore a different side (historically this also seems to be reflected). Saying someone can be what they want in that context means that they should feel free to express/explore those curiosities not that they are not innate to them as a person.
And some people just say what they feel is the best thing, not giving it much rational thought, too.
The fact that sexuality isn't a choice doesn't entail that you're born with a particular sexuality. It just means that your sexuality is due to factors outside your control, which could just as well have to do with environment or upbringing as genetics.
(To avoid any misunderstanding, I personally have no strong opinions on what actually determines peoples' sexuality, and don't think that it's particularly important.)
However, in the context of the larger cultural argument between people who are okay with various queer behaviors and people who did criminalize those behaviors, it makes more sense: the idea of 'genetic predisposition' is, I believe, an appeal to biases of the biased.
A similar but unrelated case would be along these lines: I am for total decriminialization of drugs, but I can see the value in the argument for "medical marijuana".
I don't particularly care about having just cannabis legal via prescription, but the people who have made cannabis illegal may be willing to compromise in that direction. That may be an improvement even if it's not a total victory.
And though it may not be enough of an improvement to spend time arguing for, I also don't see the need to make an effort arguing against the position, either.
Are you as gay as I am? I had NO disposition towards men until I hit about 17 years of age. Suddenly, I couldn't stop dominating them in bed.
Something sure as hell 'flipped' in me to suddenly make me go from banging tons of girls in high school to dominating men almost exclusively.
And I've done modeling. I can pull whatever I want any day. Why did I suddenly prefer men? I still can't answer that.
Not for men (for the most part, as in 99%). They either love vagina, and are disgusted by penis, or vice versa.
On the other side, most "straight" women, fantasize and experiment with the same sex, and to them, preference is usually on a sliding scale.
That all said, sexual preference is further confusing when we have a large subset of straight males, being attracted to very feminine transsexuals, like Bailey Jay.
To me this means male sexual preference is holistic, meaning if you pass as a woman, but have a penis, you may attract many straight males, who would gag at the idea of a well toned and very masculine male.
Even if the masculine "man" was a woman passing as one, with a vagina.
Hm... I'm generally attracted to (some) people who look like women, but that's just an assumption, open to change/dispute. I'm pretty sure I'd equally gag at the sight of that "pretty lady"'s penis...
Not for men (for the most part, as in 99%).
They either love vagina, and are disgusted by penis, or vice versa.
Most people would agree that genetically, men haven't changed all that much in the last 2000 years or so, which lets us discount the idea that a genetic bit has recently been flipped.
That leaves the notion that sexuality is - at least in part - a social construction.
An example being pederasty of little boys in Afghanistan being common, similar to your example. Completely cultural and I would argue traumatic.
I don't think it's normal for straight men to be "disgusted" by penis or for gay men to be "disgusted" by vagina. There's often social pressure on both groups to pretend that they have these feelings, but I don't think it's actually very common.
Both the notions "anything but complete heterosexuality is unnatural" and "sexuality is a strict binary" were widely-held misconceptions in need of correcting, sure, but it was prudent to dismantle western sociey's attachment to the former before tackling the latter. If the idea of sexuality as a gradient had been popularized first, it would have been misused as a stick to beat down the campaign for acceptance of minority sexualities: "Why should we allow homosexual behaviour? As you've just been telling us, it's not a binary thing, so surely you're all a little bit straight? Sorry, you'll just have to put up with living according to only that part of your inner self. Stop complaining - according to you, we're all a little bit gay, and you don't see us grumbling about not getting to act on it."
Especially when the argument over mutability is usually framed as "people attracted to the same sex or inclined to gender nonconform are bad influences on others and they can and must adapt their behaviour to conform to social norms" vs the argument that it's imposing the obligation to change one's sexuality that causes some people psychological harm
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/gender-revolution-a-jo...
One thing I found especially interesting is toward the end, where Katie Couric sits down with Renée Richards and Hari Nef. It was interesting seeing Hari talk with Renée and realize they disagree on the binary topic.