I don’t agree with Born This Way

[pussycat 3,514]

4 minutes ago, alsemanche said:

but you are saying we are born queer or we aren't which means it goes back to genes and identical twins have identical genes so logically they have to both be gay if it's pure genetics and nothing else 

Ok ok true i see what ur saying! I can get behind ur reasoning. (Still disagree tho )

[Married the Night 3,955]

Disagree.
 

Regardless I was born to be WHO I am. It is my destiny. That’s the message Gaga pushed while promoting the song and it still rings true. 

[rinasawachanta 2,690]

I always like to see how these debates play out in other cultures, in this case, the United States. I agree that it is odd to continue to think that one is "born" homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, etc., when in truth it is an unconscious "choice" (so to speak), that is, one that does not depend on the intentionality, will or rationality of the subject/agent. This is something that psychoanalysis explains clearly and that at this point is irrefutable. Sexual orientation (as well as gender identity) depends on a series of factors that are played in the very first stages of psychic constitution, in the relationship established with the other of care. And this is not something that happens only in the case of queer sexualities, but also with regard to normative heterosexuality.

PS: I love BTW, it's my favorite Gaga album and I think the track is great, but I never agreed with that statement if one takes it too literally.

[CautiousLurker 17,633]

27 minutes ago, vixdean said:

That’s a very problematic thing to say. There’s no gay gene that determines one’s sexuality. 

By saying that you are gay, bi, etc for biological/genetical reasons, you are aligning yourself with those who claim that non-normative sexualities can be cured because it’s an illness.

It isn’t. And sexuality is socially and culturally constructed. We are not born gay, bi, etc. So yes, completely agree with the Op @GeeYewWhai.

Sexuality Studies/Queer Theory is a whole disciplinary field dedicated to these questions. For example, the concept of performativity by Judith Butler addresses these issues very well and comprehensively. 

Their wording could have been better - I don't think they know what 'genetic' means, but by no means is what they said 'very problematic' - their point was that they didn't chose their sexual orientation - that's not aligning yourself with people who claim non-normative sexualities can be cured by any means - that's a very disingenuous twisting of their point, like... you literally said 'we're not born gay, bi, etc' - are you aligning yourself with people who say homosexuality is a choice now? 

I hate when people do this - they say 'oh when you say this it means you also say this' and they start arguing with the point they attached to that person as if that person said it, when it's blatantly obvious it wasn't their point at all.

[Rat Boy 41,979]

I think you may be overanalysing the song. It’s just about saying, this is who I am and I’m proud.

[Chris Thomason 938]

41 minutes ago, vixdean said:

That’s a very problematic thing to say. There’s no gay gene that determines one’s sexuality. 

By saying that you are gay, bi, etc for biological/genetical reasons, you are aligning yourself with those who claim that non-normative sexualities can be cured because it’s an illness.

Even studies saying there is no 1 single gay gene do mention there are genetic factors in it and pre-birth factors such as having older male siblings increases the chance that a male newborn will turn out to be gay. To say that being gay, bi etc for genetic/biological factors is aligning yourself to those who say homosexuality can be cured and is an illness is not true. Being gay is still found to be a natural occurrence, we see this throughout nature, it does not equate homosexuality to being an illness or something that is curable. Something can occur naturally, genetically or biologically and still not be a problem or an illness that can be cured.

[Kadikaado 4,302]

18 minutes ago, vixdean said:

That’s a very problematic thing to say. There’s no gay gene that determines one’s sexuality. 

By saying that you are gay, bi, etc for biological/genetical reasons, you are aligning yourself with those who claim that non-normative sexualities can be cured because it’s an illness.

It isn’t. And sexuality is socially and culturally constructed. We are not born gay, bi, etc. So yes, completely agree with the Op @GeeYewWhai.

Sexuality Studies/Queer Theory is a whole disciplinary field dedicated to these questions. For example, the concept of performativity by Judith Butler addresses these issues very well and comprehensively. 

1 - There's no KNOWN gay gene as of right now.

2 - Having gay genes wouldn't make homossexuality/bissexuality a disease, just a different sexual characteristic. Genetic variation, that's all. You are the saying that it is an illness.

3 - Prove! Show me any scientific data that can actually prove that.

4 - Queer theory is messy. While I support it for political reason take as an instance the case of David Reimer. John Money who was one of the people who came up with gender theory, his theory caused the suicide of poor David Reimer who suffered for his whole life for being raised as a woman, no mattering going through genital surgery as a toddler and taking hormones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

 

 

Most of us know since we are children. When I was 3 yo I loved to play with my sister's dolls, I had a crush on several boys.

I know I was born gay, I didn't realize until 13 yo, but looking back I had a crush on many male cartoon characters, I loved seeing shirtless men on tv around age 5, I always liked seeing handsome men, as a matter of fact I had a few soccer albums that my mother bought for me and I used then at age 7 to see who was the most handsome men and who was the ugliest. I used it to make male pageant contest without even realizing it.

A lot of trans people knew they were trans since early ages, not wanting to wear a dress or any feminine clothing at age 3, dressing up in your mother's clothing at age 5. These kids know nothing of sex, but they are already expressing their gender identity.

 

So no, there's biological component to it. Nowadays people are saying hormones in the womb shape the brain into masculine/female brain regardless of their XX/XY cromossomical set up. Scientists haven't proved there's a gay gene as of we know right now, but they might discover it. Do you have any doubt there'll be a lot of abortions of gay fetuses once they discover gay genes? BTW there's a lot of political instances stopping scientists from researching this area, political movements protesting against scientists who dare to research this subject and cut their funds.

[Lady Adga 8,664]

Not this stupid narrative again  I am offended when someone tells me that I was not born this way.

[rinasawachanta 2,690]

5 minutes ago, Kadikaado said:

4 - Queer theory is messy. While I support it for political reason take as an instance the case of David Reimer. John Money who was one of the people who came up with gender theory, his theory caused the suicide of poor David Reimer who suffered for his whole life for being raised as a woman, no mattering going through genital surgery as a toddler and taking hormones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

False. John Money contributed in any case to "gender studies" which has little and nothing to do with Judith Butler's queer theory and her notion of gender performativity.

5 minutes ago, Kadikaado said:

A lot of trans people knew they were trans since early ages, not wanting to wear a dress or any feminine clothing at age 3, dressing up in your mother's clothing at age 5. These kids know nothing of sex, but they are already expressing their gender identity.

Children do know about sexuality, not in the sense of adult knowledge about sexuality, but they do "have" a sexuality that comes from early parental care. And when I refer to this I am not talking about "genitality" but about the configuration of desires, fantasies and the shaping of an erogenous body. Again, issues widely explored by psychoanalysis that in cultures such as the North American tend to be misrepresented or denied.

[Kadikaado 4,302]

1 minute ago, rinasawachanta said:

False. John Money contributed in any case to "gender studies" which has little and nothing to do with Judith Butler's queer theory and her notion of gender performativity.

Without these studies there would be no Judith Butler queer theory, he paved the way for her. Anyway, her theory is still disputed.

 

2 minutes ago, rinasawachanta said:

Children do know about sexuality, not in the sense of adult knowledge about sexuality, but they do "have" a sexuality that comes from early parental care. And when I refer to this I am not talking about "genitality" but about the configuration of desires, fantasies and the shaping of an erogenous body. Again, issues widely explored by psychoanalysis that in cultures such as the North American tend to be misrepresented or denied.

Yes, you are right on that. But that wasn't really important to my argument anyway.

[Big Reputation 797]

I agree 100%. It’s something that develops. I hate when people say born this way cause I find it completely inaccurate 

[enissa11 2,984]

23 minutes ago, Mer Boy said:

I think you may be overanalysing the song. It’s just about saying, this is who I am and I’m proud.

nothing wrong with overanalyzing, because the concept is really deep, but the problem is that he overanalyzed it the wrong way hahaha

[Cavadour 2,110]

11 minutes ago, Glamourpuss said:

The song isn't just about sexuality though. It's for anyone who has ever been judged or made to feel like they don't belong.

That's the absolute reason why I feel concerned by the "born this way" premise. Even though there's mention of sexuality and ethnicity in the song, the common ground here to me works on a larger scale. I see it as an ode to the individual right to be different. An exhortation to be brave, to look deeply in yourself to uncover and face the mysteries of what you are, believe in it and fight to make it real and exist.

Expand what you are, your specific identity, your gifts, your talents and reach the most freedom possible throught your life. Take it from Gaga. And also from an old anti-conformist boomer, straight and single artist. Time flies and there's work to do.

[Jose P 23,341]

It’s an empowerment song about not feeling ashamed of who you are, loving yourself and accepting each other’s differences. I’m more than sure Gaga didn’t mean to write a scientific song detailing the biological factors that affect our sexuality lmao. But werk girl.

[Born This Way 1,786]

She said it's not just about literally being born a certain way. She talked about how choices you make for yourself are a part of it.