Translator: Tuğçe Arman
Reviewer: Robert Tucker 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)
Wrong premise, right conclusion.