Isn't sexual orientation also a social construct?

[Sabreena]

I'm really kind of mad right now because I just got out of a group presentation where I couldn't articulate myself, and ended up coming off as a homophobic asshole. Because that's who usually believes the social constructivist point of view. (Yes, this is more sociology than philosophy, I know.)

But I'm not trying to say your feelings are a choice or it can be cured. what I'm trying to say is:

1. Sexuality isn't inherent. You're not "born" gay because "gay" is not a thing that biologically exists. The data we have about "the gay gene" is all over the place, and not appliable to the whole population because what about females? What about bi/pan/asexuals? What about people who've had same-sex attractions but don't really identify with queerness?

There is no genotype for homosexuality because there is no one phenotype. It's that simple.

2. It would be nice if we could all believe that everyone is born with a concrete inclination that they discover at some point in their life, but humans don't work that way. Biology = / = destiny. You feel something physiologically, and then you interpret it with a cognitive label. There are so, so many factors that affect how you interpret the same event. Culture, social situation etc.

And that's not even getting into the whole sexual attraction vs. behavior vs. identity.

3. I'm not arguing nature vs. nurture. Nurture implies that everyone is straight by default and something MADE you different. We're not different. The majority of people just happen to have internalized heteronormative norms and not been forced to/chosen to look outside that lie. This makes a whole "seperate but equal" kind of thing where those of us who have same-sex attractions are told "Oh, you're a minority, but it's okay to be ~different~!" It's harmful. We're never going to have equality if we don't admit that the hetero/homo binary distinction is artificial.

Which means we're never going to have equality, but that's life I guess.

TLDR; The idea that of sexual orientation is built by a heteronormative society that wants to dissasociate itself from "abnormal" behaviors. Am I saying "water is wet" here or do people genuintely not see this?

 

[Seteleechete]

I am sexually attracted to females, I am not sexually attracted to males. Therefore my sexual orientation is heterosexual. I use this statement to inform my surrounding of this. This is an act of communication. Communication is a social construct. Defining statements so others can understand them is a part of communication. Therefore defining the statement 'sexual orientation' is a social construct.

It's used to communicate to others which groups you are sexually interested in. Even in a none 'heteronormative society' I would like to be able to communicate to others if I am sexually interested in females but not males. Maybe in a not 'heteronormative society' I could make a statement defining this hmmm... how about 'my sexual orientation is heterosexual.' Yes that will do.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

TLDR; The idea that of sexual orientation is built by a heteronormative society that wants to dissasociate itself from "abnormal" behaviors. Am I saying "water is wet" here or do people genuintely not see this?

first you talk about how sexual orientation comes about then you suddenly turned this into a thread on how society is hetero-normative(i think each of these deserve a thread on their own coz now you'll get people focusing on one or the other)

anyway im only going to comment on the latter...

i think what is perceived as abnormal(outside the field of hurting others) is mostly a product of religions. religions confine things within a linguistic scale by creating dichotomies of contrasting hierarchies, word sets to the effect of virtue vs sin. because of this, lots of people have the tendency to mentally assign words that either fall under the "normal" or "abnormal" umbrellas to describe most things(homosexuality is one of them)

 

[Haim]

"Nurture implies that everyone is straight by default"
Maybe I just being forgetful but I don't remember mister Nature telling me I am strait,maybe you were imagining and this was you telling it?
Nature is complex,it is more complex than 1 living things survive then all righty then,it works for a specie,homosexuality can have many benefits as a specie,there are not straightforward,it can be the homosexuality itself is benefit for preventing overpopulation,it can be byproduct of other benefit like for man(and woman) to be more social and it can be just something that happens,humans brain have cause,nature just happens.No one made me attracted to woman,no one can make me physically attracted to man,that is just sly,what you think they played barby and then begin loving man?
What you say isn't true when it comes to attraction,it is somewhat true when it comes to self identity were it is just limited 1d separation of a)more typically man b)more typically woman
(don't get me started on ab,ba,aa,bb,db(what?))

 

[Cherry Cola]

prenatal stuff

 

[Fukyo]

Your argument is not clear to me.

You start by saying homosexuality is not a "biological thing". What is a "biological thing" and why does homosexuality not fit the criteria? You mention genes as something that gives validity to it being a biological thing so we can start there.

The data we have about "the gay gene" is all over the place, and not appliable to the whole population because what about females?

I think it's misleading to expect the existence of a clear cut "gay gene". I really get the impression the homosexual phenomena itself is more complicated than, say eye color, I don't even think it's reasonable to expect it to be fully determined by genetics.

Prenatal exposure to hormones mentioned by CC should also play a role, as a biological determinant.

What about females? Do you believe that lesbianism is somehow different than male homosexuality, or were they not part of the studies?

What about bi/pan/asexuals?

Pan sexuality is essentially bi sexuality or a sub category of it with a different wording, basically bisexuality with a demisexual emphasis, where attraction to an individual's personality precedes sexual attraction, but in the end the pansexual person is still experiencing sexual attraction to both sexes, so I think that if the issue of sexual orientation is viewed in a purely biological way, separating the two is not useful and adds confusion.

Asexuality is a complicated and poorly understood phenomena that can have variable causes, and I think it's not fair to place it side to side with sexual orientations. I really don't think it should be called a sexual orientation in any sense, because it's the absence of one.

What about people who've had same-sex attractions but don't really identify with queerness?

Queerness is a socio-political label if anything. If somebody experiences same sex attraction but doesn't identify with queerness it doesn't make them any less gay or bi. Not sure what is the relevance of this with respect to homosexuality not having a biological basis.

There is no genotype for homosexuality because there is no one phenotype. It's that simple.

I think you are displaying some ignorance of genetics here. My biology is rusty, so somebody could correct me here, but I do not believe that a single phenotype equals a single phenotype. In fact, iirc one genotype can express as several phenotypes.

2. It would be nice if we could all believe that everyone is born with a concrete inclination that they discover at some point in their life, but humans don't work that way. Biology = / = destiny. You feel something physiologically, and then you interpret it with a cognitive label. There are so, so many factors that affect how you interpret the same event. Culture, social situation etc.

I feel like this is contradictory to your previous insinuation that a "gay gene" would validate homosexuality as a a "biological thing".

Consider homosexuality in the animal kingdom, where animals are not exposed to the type of conditioning and cultural norms (nor do they understand them) humans are.

And that's not even getting into the whole sexual attraction vs. behavior vs. identity.

3. I'm not arguing nature vs. nurture. Nurture implies that everyone is straight by default and something MADE you different. We're not different. The majority of people just happen to have internalized heteronormative norms and not been forced to/chosen to look outside that lie. This makes a whole "seperate but equal" kind of thing where those of us who have same-sex attractions are told "Oh, you're a minority, but it's okay to be ~different~!" It's harmful. We're never going to have equality if we don't admit that the hetero/homo binary distinction is artificial.

Which means we're never going to have equality, but that's life I guess.

TLDR; The idea that of sexual orientation is built by a heteronormative society that wants to dissasociate itself from "abnormal" behaviors. Am I saying "water is wet" here or do people genuintely not see this?

Again, I am not certain what you're getting at.

Are you saying humans are naturally a blank slate but develop either sexual orientation as a result of environmental influence? If yes, that is no different than reducing everything to biological destiny. I have no doubt sexuality can be malleable or conditioned in some instances because there is proof it can be but I just don't see it as being entirely a result of conditioning.

If anything, nature dictates the majority is instinctually heterosexual because y'know we need to reproduce to survive and whatnot.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Homosexuality, if it does exist in its natural state, is then by definition an abnormality thus not a social construct at all. But we have to remember that homosexuals only account for most likely 1~5% of the entire population (probably around half of that estimate though, since 'being gay' means so many things to different people [for those who claim they are]).

I think generally the narrative some gays use to justify their homosexuality doesn't make sense, that one being, that sexual orientation is made by society thus being homosexual isn't like an abnormal thing because of it. So we're in agreement on that particular clause.

@OP I think generally people agree with what you're saying in sentiment but the discussion of homosexuality is has more ties to civil rights now rather than the dynamics of the orientation. People are being discriminated against, therefore some kind of legal protection is needed. That's how I see it, anyway. Whether their orientation is right or not isn't of importance to me.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Your argument is not clear to me.

Yeah the OP needs to patch up their post...its very messy and i had trouble following what he/she is really arguing about

 

[ENTP lurker]

I think at least the term asexual is a social construct.
If you do not have a drive (or athleticism to get it done) but you get aroused then you are an asexual at least when we refer to some definitions.

 

[Minuend]

I'm not sure I understood you correctly either, maybe because the point you're making is a very subtle one?

Are you saying that instead of being born hardwired with an orientation which later on becomes an important part of your identity and being, orientation is more that of an interest that develops kinda like you develop an interest in football? (Except, sexual orientation is a bit more deterministic because there are stronger biological components to "push" you in that direction).

I don't know if that was a good example/ explanation. But I guess if you look at this subtle difference in how sexual orientation is perceived, then the implications can be more profound.

Let's say the homosexual identifies as such and pushes this stereotype and life style to the extreme, living and identifying with it fully. In contrast if you look to the football enthusiast, he doesn't feel the need to be The Football Enthusiast every second of every day. It's something he is, yes, but it doesn't define his personality to that large degree. He is also not biologically different from a non-football person, and they are not distinct different biological entities. One of them merely was predisposed and introduced to liking football, while the other was not. They are still both people who have more in common than not. It's not a them vs us thing. It would just be weird to have a "let the football enthusiast marry like us non-football people" campaign because there shouldn't be perceived a difference where one is refused and the other is not in the first place.

But maybe I'm completely missing the point. (Also I know my examples of homosexual vs football fan is not entirely accurate, but it was the best I could do to try to highlight the point I think OP was making).

 

[emmabobary]

To all the people not understanding :
Yo all lazy people, dare to make a judjement!
Have you ever heard of feedback?

I think what Sabreena is trying to say is:
1. Gay is not in our genes.
2. Therefore it is a choice at some point.
3. Though we live in a society where being heterosexual is better.

The she derails across the post, apparent because of her anger XD

I'd like to point some mistakes

1. Gay is not in our genes -true-. But heterosexual isn't either. What exists in our genetics is female-male. Sexual identity is not equal to sexual orientation!!

2. We do not live in a hetero normative society (homosexuality has been well practiced along the history, though underground,sometimes) we used to live in a hypocrite society that used to condemn any other sexual behavior but hetero, yet it did practiced all kinds of sexual behavior anyway!

3. The basis in which most of homosexual people justify their orientation in statements like: I was born like this, I can't do anything about it, it's inherent; is somehow invalid. Because it takes away all the responsibility.

4. The boom of sexual orientations based on statements like the ones above seems to be the new hysteria!

Wait! I'm derailing.

5. Finally: I don't think that sexual orientation is a useless brainwasher gadget created for a hetero normative society. It's essential to every individual's structure! We need this concept as a civilization. In order to internalize our biological dimension as sexual animals.

 

[Yellow]

See post #2 for long-winded response.

In short, it doesn't matter whether we conclude that sexual orientation is genetic or environmental. It's ecological. I think diverse sexual orientation is one of many factors facilitating a change in our species population. In the past, we felt biological pressure to increase our numbers, so we created social pressures favoring procreation. Now, we need to decrease or at least stabilize our population, so our social pressures are changing to release as many individuals as possible from reproductive duties.

 

[Draco]

I think these social constructs were a result of a "progressive/respect for all" sort of thing. As humans we have a natural urge to define ourselves and search for the answers as to why we are who we are. I think most of us desire the simplest, quickest answers so we tend to turn to "I was born like this" and then define ourselves with the group we want to be in. We all desire to belong to something. Increasingly lately, a movement of extreme Political Correctness is now streaming across society. In an attempt to recognize and respect each other's differences and give a voice to the silenced, we create soooo many new categories, new labels and new social constructs. In the end, we just want to feel more satisfied with ourselves, but this has seemed to backfire due to the increase in conflicts and disputes resulting from this labeling.

I may be stating the obvious and my explanation may sound illogical, but this is just what has been going through my head lately.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Most men are attracted to women. Most women are attracted to men. The reason for this is procreation. If it were not, the human race would have been an evolutionary dead-end a long time ago. Ergo, sexual orientation is not a social construct. It is a biological construct. Anything else beyond the biological construct is an aberration or in the case of Bruce Jenner, a mental illness. I am not putting on value judgements on what is aberrant. It merely is and nothing more.