The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource Follow Us Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Download Our App 
Professionals >> Visit The Body PROThe Body en Espanol

Baby I Was Born This Way, But Should it Matter?

June 1, 2011

This article is a modified version of the original that appeared in the LGBTQ Policy Journal at the Harvard Kennedy School: 2011 Edition.

Joe Osmundson

Joe Osmundson

From Lady Gaga to the President of the United States, many voices in the past few months have affirmed that gay people are born gay. Just last month, a YouTube video of Minnesota politician Scott Simon asking his fellow state politicians "How many more people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?" went completely viral.

This idea resonates with many in our community who have understood, at least internally, their own sexuality from a very young age.

And it's not simply an idea, it relates directly to the rights we are afforded as a community, as argued by Barack Obama. Activists claim that if sexuality were innate, if we were in fact born this way, that it would be increasingly difficult to justify the ongoing discrimination against the LGBT community.


However, the biological basis for sexuality is far from clearly understood. Critically, the legal rights of the LGBT community depend, in part, on how courts understand this concept, and how they evaluate the science behind it. So, while the dance beat pulses and the club kids sing, "Baby I was born this way!" we should also consider the important question: "Should it matter?"

Modern genetics is a powerful tool to help us understand the heritability of traits. Most complex behaviors, like sexuality, are incredibly complex and depend on more than one gene. However, heritability, the component of a behavior that is likely to be based on genetics and not experience, can be estimated by studying family relationships, and particularly by studying identical twins, who share 100 percent of their genes. Twin studies have consistently shown that sexuality is somewhat heritable, that there is, in essence, a genetic component to how sexuality is experienced. Other work has shown differences in brain morphology and function between straight identified and gay identified individuals.

These studies, however, remain extremely controversial as they all suffer from small sample size and depend on some less-than-sure assumptions. There is also a growing movement of academics who resist any attempt to understand sexuality or gender identity through the biological lens, arguing that gender socialization begins from the second one leaves the womb and is wrapped in a blanket, either blue or pink. Even with the tremendous advancements in our genetic understanding and ability to image the brain in the last half-century, we still have few good scientific models for understanding complex human behavior. Scientifically, it may be a generation before we can conclusively answer whether one is born gay.

One could argue that scientific evidence should not matter when the experience of so many LGBT individuals speaks to the innate nature of human sexuality, at least for some. However, the argument over whether sexuality is innate is not only an academic exercise. The LGBT community is still actively discriminated against in this country. We cannot marry in most states, and in many we can be legally fired from our job if we come out. The laws that enshrine these discriminatory policies have often been challenged in court, and often have been upheld as legal. And the science of sexuality has played a large part in these decisions.

The government has a right to write laws that exclude certain groups from legal rights or activities if it is in the government's interest. This may sound paradoxical, but consider this example: The government can write a law that makes it illegal for blind people to drive.

While the rights of the blind are being restricted, it is clearly in the general interest to ensure that the blind don't get behind the wheel. If the government can convince the court that it is in the best interests to exclude the LGBT community from marriage rights, laws banning marriage can be upheld.

However, groups that have suffered historical discrimination are granted special protections under the law. Laws that discriminate based upon gender, for example, or race are held to a higher level of scrutiny and courts must find them unconstitutional unless it is shown that there is a compelling governmental interest. Because no federal legislation exists granting the LGBT community special protection under the law, sexuality must be considered immutable, or innate, for this status to be conferred. Therefore, the science of sexuality relates directly to the rights that we as a group are given.

Many courts, including the Supreme Court of New York, have used the fact that sexuality is a "behavior" and therefore not immutable to find that laws discriminating against the LGBT community are in fact legal.

Recently, however, Supreme Courts at the state level have begun to question this legal justification. In 2008, when laws banning same-sex marriage were challenged in California, the court specifically stated that "because a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment." The Supreme Court of Iowa agreed, adding that "Courts need not definitively resolve the nature-versus-nurture debate currently raging over the origin of sexual orientation in order to decide plaintiffs' equal protection claims. The constitutional relevance of the immutability factor is not reserved to those instances in which the trait defining the burdened class is absolutely impossible to change." When California's Proposition 8 was challenged, a federal judge agreed with these state court decisions that immutability need not be biologically understood.

These courts have rejected precedent that upheld discriminatory policies, and in so doing they have shifted the importance of innateness altogether. It is unlikely that the scientific community can or will conclusively show sexuality to be innate in the near future. Even if a gay gene were identified, there is no guarantee that some within the medical community would not reclassify non-normative sexuality as a genetic disorder. Either way, we should not have to wait for genetic proof to be allowed our full rights under the law.

The next time we hear "Born This Way" blasting on the radio, or consider the idea that we are created gay at birth, we should remember that this argument is a double-edged sword. While it speaks directly to the experience of many in our community, while it is liberating to step away from the idea that one can "pray the gay away" or that being gay is a choice or a moral failure, the argument over whether sexuality is innate is actually helping maintain the oppression of the LGBT community. Let us not ask "were we born this way?" but rather "why should it matter at all?"

Joe Osmundson is a biophysicist who attends Rockefeller University in New York City.

This article was provided by TheBody.
See Also
More on Issues Affecting the LGBT Community

Reader Comments:

Comment by: Tina (New York) Fri., Sep. 23, 2011 at 1:18 pm UTC
Hi Joe,

I'd like to ask you what do you think about evo psych?
Reply to this comment

Comment by: Chris (Halifax, NS Canada) Tue., Jun. 21, 2011 at 10:50 am UTC
If we rely on the supposed genetics / immutable aspect of our arguments for human rights we're missing the point. Discrimination is / should be illegal because it's wrong!


Religion is a choice that is mostly taught. Jews tend to have Jewish children, Christians have Christian children becasue they are taught to be Christian, etc. etc. And people sometimes change (i.e. choose) religions. Yet human rights laws (in both Canada and the US) have freedom of religion as one of the core concepts.

Whether I can choose to be gay or not should be irrelevant to whether someone else can deny me of human rights. HUMAN rights - not gay rights, or woman's rights, whatever!

Reply to this comment
Replies to this comment:
Comment by: bartleby Tue., Jun. 21, 2011 at 11:16 am UTC
great point! it is irrelevant, but nevertheless, being gay is not a choice.
Comment by: Charlie (Saint Paul, MN) Thu., Jun. 23, 2011 at 2:32 pm UTC
AMEN! Well said, Chris.

Comment by: gloria (brooklyn new york) Fri., Jun. 17, 2011 at 12:40 am UTC

Reply to this comment

Comment by: gurlzone (New York) Wed., Jun. 1, 2011 at 4:42 pm UTC
As an educator on LGBT issues, I often say that our erotic desires (what makes us hard and wet, whether or not we accept them as "right") are never a choice. Acting on our desires is a choice. The cultural context in which we act on our desires is not created by any individual. Sexual identities (LGBH or none at all) are externally or internally imposed by our culture according to our desires and behaviors are experienced. I don't think the origin of erotic desire can reside in a specific gene, like skin color or curly hair. The idea is actually absurd.
Reply to this comment
Replies to this comment:
Comment by: mike (seattle) Fri., Jun. 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm UTC
I'm really glad the above commenter both a) broke down sexuality into desires, behaviors, and identities, and b) extended the whole choice/non-choice paradigm beyond biology to cultural context and experiences. Biology, as this article makes clear, is complicated. And you know what? Genes are also kinda boring. Just because something is not wholly genetic doesn't mean it's not predictable based on a body of experiences someone has had and the cultural norms they grew up around. Aspects of someone's personality can be pretty inflexible even if they haven't been there from day 1. But the real issue is, sexuality doesn't *have* to be immutable in the first place. What we need is a politics of sexuality (and other things) that honors choice, fluidity, experimentation, and self-discovery. It's okay to be gay not b/c you were born this way but because that's who you are, in this moment, and that's deep inside you as we speak regardless of how long it's been there or how long it will be. And there's nothing morally good or bad and everything beautiful about that.

(Also, I like that gurlzone dropped the acronym 'LGBH,' which I wasn't familiar with but it seems like an awesome reminder that the 'T' refers to something distinct and it's more than just a letter in some alphabet soup.)

Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read's Comment Policy.)

Your Name:

Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining: