Why the “Born This Way” argument doesn't advance LGBT equality | Dr. Lisa Diamond | TEDxSaltLakeCity

"Lady Gaga has said it. The Pope has said it. But are people really born gay? Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies, deconstructs the ""Born This Way" argument and shows why it doesn't advance LGBT equality.

Lisa Diamond is an author, and a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. She studies the expression of sexual attractions and sexual identity over a person's lifetime, and the influences of early life experiences on later sexual development. Professor Diamond is known for her research on sexual fluidity, which describes the capacity for individuals to experience shifts in their pattern of same-sex and other-sex attractions over time. She is co-editor of the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and is a fellow of two divisions of the APA. She has published over 100 articles and book chapters and has been invited to present her research all over the world. She has received awards from the Developmental Psychology and LGBT Psychology Divisions of the APA, the American Association of University Women, the International Association for Relationship Research, the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

True or false:

(Laughter)

Sexual orientation is something
you are born with.

Chances are that
if you support LGBT rights,

you said "true."

Surveys have found

that people who view sexual orientation
as an innate trait, like eye color,

tend to be more supportive of LGBT rights.

Now, why is that?

When asked, folks typically say,

"Well, it's just wrong
to discriminate against someone

for how they are born.

It's like ethnic discrimination."

Makes sense.

So, for years,

the "Born That Way" argument
has been used to promote LGBT equality.

Lady Gaga's song "Born That Way"

even became an unofficial anthem
of the gay community.

But there are three problems
with the "Born That Way" argument.

First: It's not scientifically accurate.

Second: It's not legally necessary.

But third, and most important:

It's actually unjust,

and it's time to retire
that argument for LGBT equality.

Now, my passion for this issue

stems from my own research
on sexual orientation.

Over 20 years ago, I started a study,

tracking over time

100 women with different
sexual identities.

And over the years,
I was frankly surprised

by some of the changes
that they went through.

Some of the lesbians
ended up involved with men.

Some of the heterosexual women
ended up getting involved with women.

And when these sorts of things
would happen, women would say to me

that they thought there must be
something wrong with them,

since their experiences
didn't fit the conventional wisdom

that sexual orientation is fixed at birth.

So, that brings us to the first problem
with the "Born That Way" argument:

that it's not scientifically accurate.

Now, sexual orientation
does often express itself

very early and very consistently.

But, at times, it doesn't.

And it breaks my heart when I hear people

express distrust of LGBT individuals
who came out late in life,

for example, after
a heterosexual marriage.

People will say things like:

"How could they not have known
all this time?"

"Are they sure that they're really gay?"

(Laughter)

Just imagine how it feels to hear that
from someone that you just came out to.

But the plain truth is that
gender and sexual development

show a lot more variability
than most people realize.

And that variability often leads to
change over time in sexual attractions.

National and international studies

conducted by researchers at Cornell,

the Harvard School of Public Health,

the University of Virginia,
and many others,

have collectively tracked
tens of thousands of individuals

for five, ten, fifteen years.

And guess what?

Sexual attractions
show a fair amount of fluidity.

Some individuals start out
exclusively attracted to one gender,

and, over time, they find themselves
attracted to both genders, or vice versa.

Some bisexual individuals shift

from being more drawn to one gender
to being more drawn to the other.

Now, what does this fluidity

tell us about the innateness
of sexual orientation?

Nothing.

(Laughter)

Nothing at all.

Because they are completely unrelated.

There is, to be sure, strong evidence

for genetic contributions
to sexual orientation.

But those contributions do not cement
your entire sexual lifespan from birth.

What they do is push its development
in a certain direction.

If sexuality were
totally locked down by genes,

well then, if you had two identical twins,

and one twin was gay,

the other twin would be gay
a hundred percent of the time.

Because they have the same genes.

But in reality, twins' surveys have found

that if you have two identical twins,
and one twin is gay,

the other twin is gay
thirty to forty percent of the time.

Now, that is way higher than
you would expect by chance alone,

so it is definite evidence that your genes
influence your sexual orientation.

But your genes do not
provide the last word

on every sexual feeling
you're ever going to have.

(Laughter)

Now, before moving on,
I want to make one thing crystal clear:

The fact that sexuality can be fluid

does not mean that therapists can cure
individuals of same-sex attractions.

That sometimes called
"conversion therapy,"

and study after study has shown
that it does not work,

and it does immense psychological damage,

increasing rates of depression,
anxiety, suicide attempts.

That's why conversion therapy
has been discredited

by all of these major medical
and psychological associations.

And it's why all of these former
practitioners of conversion therapy

have not only shut their own doors,

but have publicly apologized
to the LGBT community,

and have joined legal efforts
to ban the use of conversion therapy

with children and adolescents.

(Applause)

So, let there be no misunderstanding:

although sexual attractions
may fluctuate on their own,

trying to forcibly eliminate
same-sex attractions

is ineffective, harmful, and unethical ...

period.

(Applause)

Now, let's move on to the second problem
with the "Born That Way" argument,

that it's not legally necessary.

One of the reasons
we keep using this argument

is to invoke the equal protection
clause of the constitution,

which prohibits discriminating
against individuals

on the basis of
their having certain traits.

Now, how do courts decide
which traits are protected?

Well, one of the factors
that courts can consider

is the immutability,
or fixedness, of the trait,

whether it's an accident of birth,

like race or sex.

That's, basically,
the "Born That Way" argument.

But what many people don't realize

is that immutability
is not the only factor,

or even the most important factor,

that courts can consider

when deciding whether a trait,

whether it's sexual orientation
or age or disability,

merits protection from discrimination.

And over the past several decades,

courts have actually devoted
less and less attention

to the immutability of sexual orientation,

and more and more attention

to another key component
of equal protection claims:

whether discriminating against LGBT
individuals has any rational basis,

or whether it's just plain old,
unconstitutional hatred and prejudice.

And that is the basis
on which we have been winning

our most important battles
for LGBT equality.

From Romer v. Evans in 1996,

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003,

and the two historic
Supreme Court victories

for same sex marriage.

So although we keep shouting,
"We are born this way!"

the courts have been saying,
"We don't care!"

(Laughter)

Now, for the third
and most important problem

with the "Born That Way" argument:

that it's unjust.

Keep in mind that we first started using
this argument in the 1960s and 70s

in response to anti-gay activists

who said that LGBT individuals

were choosing an immoral,
deviant, disgusting lifestyle,

and so we basically deserved to suffer.

Now, this was over 50 years ago,

when the hatred of gay people
was much more widespread,

so it seemed impossible
at the time for us to argue,

"Hey, we're not disgusting;
we're actually awesome!"

(Laughter)

So, instead, we said,

"We didn't choose this,
we were born this way.

You can't punish us for something
that is not our fault."

Now, do you see how
that argument just goes along

with the notion
that being LGBT is a fault,

that it's inherently sad and tragic?

It's like we have this terrible disease,

and we need to be pitied
instead of punished.

Thankfully, times have changed,

and if there is one thing
that LGBT individuals want now,

it is certainly not pity.

What we want, what we deserve, is dignity,

autonomy, self-determination.

And that is our strongest
argument for equality.

The "Born That Way" argument
is also unjust

because it implies that LGBT individuals

who fit a certain cultural stereotype,

the ones who have been exclusively gay
for as long as they can possibly remember,

are somehow more deserving
of acceptance and equality

than someone who came out at age 60,

or whose attractions have been more fluid,

or who is bisexual
rather than exclusively gay.

There is actually a pretty long
and shameful history

of dismissing and denying
the experiences of bisexual individuals.

They are sometimes denigrated

as not really belonging to
the gay community

because they sometimes engage
in opposite-sex relationships.

Now, are you kidding me?

We're going to slam bisexuals

for having the audacity
to make their own relationship choices?

Isn't that exactly what the LGBT community
has been fighting for all this time?

(Laughter)

Talk about throwing someone under the bus.

And you would actually need
a pretty big bus

because all of these large-scale
population studies have found

that there are actually more individuals
out there with bisexual attractions

than exclusive same-sex attractions.

And the "Born That Way" argument
can really backfire

when it comes to bisexuals.

There was a woman in my study

who came out to her parents
when she was 19,

when she met her first girlfriend.

They really struggled with it,

but they joined the family support group,

and the leader of that group emphasized,
"Your daughter was just born this way."

Well, a couple of years later,

she ended up getting involved with a man,

and she was actively hiding
this relationship from her parents.

(Laughter)

Why?

She said to me,

"They only accepted me

because they thought I couldn't help
but to be with women.

Now I'm afraid they're going to say,

'Wait a second.

All this time, you could
have also been with men?

If you can choose heterosexuality,
well then that is what you should do.'"

Needless to say, that is not acceptance.

And it's certainly not equality.

In the end, how and why
and when and for how long

someone is LGBT

may be fascinating to scientists like me,

but it should have no bearing

on whether their parents
love and accept them.

And it's certainly should have
no bearing on public policy.

We all deserve acceptance and equality.

(Applause)

We all deserve equality,

whether you're gay
or straight or bi or trans

or all of the above,

or none of the above,

or whether you figured it out
twenty years ago, or one year ago,

or today, during this talk.

(Laughter)

Our genes are not the issue:

it is our lives that are at stake.

Either we are a society

that protects and defends
all individuals' sexual autonomy,

or we are not.

So, the next time you're talking to
a friend or a neighbor or a teacher

or a doctor or a politician or a mother,

and they say,

"I support LGBT equality because,
you know, they are born that way,"

I hope that you'll say,

"I support LGBT equality

just because it's the right thing to do."

(Applause)

Thank you.

(Applause)