"Gay" "Choice"

The fundamental divisiveness about LGBT people and society's legal treatment of them revolves around two basic concepts. One of these is the term with which such people are referred to and the other is the concept of whether or not their group identification is a matter of "choice" or otherwise influenced by any combination of nature/nurture, that is, genetics/socialization. These two concepts are actually one, as I will attempt to argue here.

The use of the term "gay" has been criticized as a euphemism to avoid the term "homosexual". "Gay" is absolutely a euphemism. It's use is a practical compromise to avoid the inaccuracy of the term "homosexual". LBGT, Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgender, is a much bigger umbrella for dealing with the fundamental issue of cultural attitudes toward people that do not fall into strict categories of female/male, girl/boy, real woman/real man, categories.

Let's start with an example of what many people consider the simple basics of genetics. We "know" that if someone has the chromosome combination XY, they are a male, and if someone has the chromosome combination XX, they are a female. It's simple, right? (We won't deal with those pesky XXY or XYY or etc. people, let's stick with simple for now.)

Introduce Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), a condition in which an X ovum is fertilized with a Y sperm producing an XY human organism... a little baby boy in 9 months, eh? Except the AIS condition occurs because of a gene that results in the lack of formation of cellular receptors for testosterone... THE ultimate male hormone juice! So, the developing fetus/baby produces PLENTY of testosterone, it just has no means by which it can be encorporated into the developing person. So, what happens?

Hormones of all sorts are essential and intrinsic to outright physiological sexual development. DNA, the basis of the XX/female, XY/male paradigm, is not a blueprint. It is best described as a recipe. If you don't have certain ingredients, you substitute others. If your blender malfunctions, you use a hand beater. These alterations have different effects on the finished product. In the case of AIS, an XY human develops into a woman. In the womb, testosterone being incorporated into the developing cells of the fetus is essential to the growth of male reproductive organs and genitalia. Without this in AIS people, nature reverts to the "default sex" of female. Though no female reproductive organs are formed either, the overall organism is identified female, most importantly at birth when the baby is born with all the most obvious external female genitalia. Spank... its a girl!

XY AIS women are women. Their external features epitomize the things considered most sexy in women. In utero development formed the basics, and puberty and growth into adults added icing to the cake. During puberty and adult aging, testosterone is largely responsible for extraneous body hair growth, head balding, inhibition of breast growth and acne. AIS women make great models because they do not have the burden that XX women have... we still have testosterone receptors that make all too many of us grow some facial/armpit/crotch hair, tiny breasts, thin head hair that sometimes falls out with age and lots of zits. AIS women are disproportionately characterized by unblemished skin, voluptuous breasts, thick heads of hair with a very thin or nonexistant growth of hair in secondary sex growth areas.

 Oh, they also have NO idea they are XY, until and unless they seek medical consultations about why they haven't menstruated. They are generally attracted to men in same proportion as other women are. They sometimes have surgeries to allow for intercourse with men because their condition can result in stunted vaginal development.

Then there is the case of the boy, one of a set of twins, who was the victim shortly after birth of a circumcision accident. The doctors convinced the parents to let them surgically alter the external genitalia to female and raise the boy as a girl to cover for their accident. It was an experiment in belief of nurture over nature with a very sad victim. The documentary and interviews with this person shows that "nurture" cannot overcome something so deeply embedded in the neurobiology of a person.

Then there is the situation of environmental hormones. Particularly, a fascinating study that showed that mothers with the highest level of estrogen-mimic pollutants in their systems were directly correlated with baby boys whose ano-genital distance was drastically closer to female measurements.

On this note, what about the entire concept of sexually ambiguous genitalia?...A condition at least as prevalent as Down's Syndrome. What about it? What about the fact that this conditon has at least until the very recent past been "treated", often without parental consultation, by simply surgically removing the offending clitoral protrusion in females? What about males that are seriously... um... less endowed than makes for great admiration in the locker room? And no, that doesn't make them gay... but isn't that the perception in the locker room? What about our perceptions in dismissal of what a person truly feels. What about the rejection of honest expression of feeling in favor of cultural beliefs and "norms" of understanding?

The TRUTH is that sexual expression, identification and attraction is not a simple notion. The FACT is that sexual expression, identification and attraction is a spectrum. Humans recognize 7 colors to a rainbow... not because physically there are 7 colors... it is in fact a blended spectrum... but because our brains function in a  way that identifies 7 basic colors. We Still see the blending of those, the fact that there are blurry areas between them, but we still come up with ROYGBIV.