Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I don't really understand the point this author is trying to make.  He argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, yet he acknowledges that sexual orientation is something that is beyond the individual's control.  Even if nobody is "born that way," why does the social construct theory become the default position?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I don't really understand the point this author is trying to make.  He argues that people aren't born with a sexual orientation, yet he acknowledges that sexual orientation is something that is beyond the individual's control.  Even if nobody is "born that way," why does the social construct theory become the default position?

My take is that he's arguing is that these social constructs, such as the concept of "gay" as a distinct sexual orientation, or even the idea that there are distinct sexual orientations defined solely by sexual attraction and no other factors is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking.  Hence sexual orientation is something that is beyond someone's control only if one accepts that the LGBS pigeonholes are the way that society must categorize people.  With a different set of pigeonholes, some currently in the same hole would be in different ones and some now in the different holes might be in the same.

So what's the matter with that?  We may not yet have a clear understanding of sexual orientation, but it's far better than what it was two thousand years ago.  We know that homosexuality exists in animals (which I noticed the author doesn't touch on) and we have very advanced concepts of the body, mind, and sex compared to even a century ago.  I don't see what's particularly objectionable about the way we categorize people or how people categorize themselves, the latter being which society is starting to embrace.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My take is that he's arguing is that these social constructs, such as the concept of "gay" as a distinct sexual orientation, or even the idea that there are distinct sexual orientations defined solely by sexual attraction and no other factors is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking.  Hence sexual orientation is something that is beyond someone's control only if one accepts that the LGBS pigeonholes are the way that society must categorize people.  With a different set of pigeonholes, some currently in the same hole would be in different ones and some now in the different holes might be in the same.

So what's the matter with that?  We may not yet have a clear understanding of sexual orientation, but it's far better than what it was two thousand years ago.  We know that homosexuality exists in animals (which I noticed the author doesn't touch on) and we have very advanced concepts of the body, mind, and sex compared to even a century ago.  I don't see what's particularly objectionable about the way we categorize people or how people categorize themselves, the latter being which society is starting to embrace.

Doesn't the idea that we are using sexual preference as a primary means of categorizing people strike you as potentially problematic?

Using anything as a "primary means" of categorizing people is problematic to me, be it race or sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to use terms like "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" or "pansexual" or what have you, especially if they're being used to describe oneself.