As a child I was atypical. I didn’t begin speaking until months after other kids my age had said their first words – but when I did finally talk, it was in complete sentences. What no doubt appeared at first to be a developmental problem turned out to simply be a different way of doing things. It’s a pattern that has followed me into adulthood; I tend to hold back, watching and learning, and then leap in at hit the ground running once I understand how to do something.
I try to temper this characteristic when the situation dictates, since there are times when something is better learned through the trial and error of doing, but it’s an instinct that has to be consciously overridden at the cost of significant discomfort; it’s simply what comes naturally for me, and no amount of behavioral conditioning can genuinely eliminate the underlying trait.
How did I turn out this way? Some thinkers (as far back as Aristotle) have argued that personality is entirely learned, and that we are all born as blank slates. Research in modern times has demonstrated that some personality traits are in fact innate (whether genetic or otherwise established before birth), and as such the blank slate is a notion that few take seriously anymore. Of course, even the most thoroughly discredited ideas have a way of persisting long after their credibility has been undermined.
Ex-gay theories of sexuality avoid invoking the blank slate (a concept heavily at odds with most strains of Christian thought), but they nonetheless view sexuality as being only slightly less malleable than a blank slate proponent might suggest. A homosexual orientation may not be consciously chosen, but it is nonetheless viewed to be the result of choices made by an individual during childhood.
It may seem odd that something as seemingly important to God as heterosexuality would be so fragile that it could be completely undone by a simple perception on the part of a child who’s too young to have more than the most rudimentary understanding of right and wrong (much less of sexuality). God, however, gets off the hook for this glaring design flaw since it can be summarily dismissed as a byproduct of Adam’s Fall – a catchall that gets invoked to close off further discussion on any subject that makes people too uncomfortable.
Of course, if everything that Christians have ever tried to trace back to the Fall were truly its byproduct, it would require that Adam’s singular act of disobedience triggered a fundamental restructuring of the entire physical universe down to the molecular level, which in and of itself would either call God’s judgment back into question or suggest that we have gravely underestimated the amount of power that Satan and his minions wield (or both). But I digress.
An apt parallel to the “nature vs. nurture” debate over homosexuality is the strongly negative attitude that has existed throughout much of recorded history toward left-handedness. It would be easy enough for modern observers who don’t share that bias to scoff at the similarities, but such an attitude would only betray an ignorance of history.
Prejudice against left-handedness has historically been so pervasive that it was embedded into most of the world’s major languages. Negative terms like “sinister” and “gauche” derive from words for the left hand, while the right hand is associated with concepts like competence and justice. The authors of the Bible shared this mindset, as evidenced in Gen. 48:13-14, Ecc. 10:2, Matt. 25:31-46 and other passages.
Even in modern times, well-meaning parents and teachers sometimes try to force left-handed children to write with their right hands. The children in question may learn to do so competently, but there never comes a time when it doesn’t feel unnatural to them. And the process of suppressing their natural left-handedness can in some cases lead to a lifetime of cognitive problems.
The consequences of trying to change one’s sexual orientation may be harder to quantify, but a growing number of former ex-gays are coming forward to testify to the emotional and relational fallout from their attempts. Many ex-gay advocates prefer to dismiss such claims by declaring that those who experienced harm merely went about it wrong, or didn’t have enough faith, or didn’t try hard enough (or tried too hard) – but then, “you just did it wrong” was a popular refrain in fundamentalist circles long before the advent of the ex-gay movement.
The parallels to homosexuality seem evident, even without a chart*. The instinctive bias that many right-handed individuals have toward the left-handed may be more easily overcome than the bias heterosexuals often have toward homosexuals, but both stem from an assumption about the way things should be based on what feels natural to the individual. When sacred texts can be interpreted as reinforcing that assumption, bias becomes dogma.
Society does seem to be gradually becoming more accepting of those who are “different,” introverts, the left-handed and gays alike. One can only pray that future generations will value the unique gifts that such individuals have to share rather than trying to treat them like blank slates.
*The research on this chart is several years out of date, but the basic parallels still appear to be valid.
The final paragraph of this article really speaks to me because I have always been “different,” and I’ve always felt “different.” I felt different in terms of my gender identity (definitely a girl, but somewhere in between a girl and a boy – less a girl than most girls) the way I thought about things (my intellectual train of thought) and later, my sexuality. The least confusing of those three was/is definitely the last.
As a kid I was socially slow, definitely an introvert and shy, but intellectually and artistically gifted. And although I adapted eventually to social customs and norms, I continued to still be “slow” on certain social levels, simply in the way I experienced things. It has been suggested by my parents now that maybe I have a mild form of Aspergers Syndrome.
Not officially codified in the DSM until 1994 but known since 1948, the disease has been difficult for people to properly place. It is described as a neurological disorder, but for those without severe clinical cases that prevent independent function, my Mom (who has been in education for 20 years) says for teachers it is more a way of understanding or categorizing certain students to better serve their needs.
Before DSM officiated its clinical status, AS children were often simply described as “eccentric,” “odd,” or sometimes “brilliant,” as many of them – thanks to a trait of the disorder- are highly focused and intelligent. Why can’t I simply be described by those terms?
I might be, on some level, “socially retarded,” but it has not prevented me from eventually learning those social cues and structures that come much more naturally to others, and definitely has not prevented me from making scores of meaningful friends and acquaintances. And my great artistic talents, intense ability to focus on specific subjects, and rich vocabulary have lent themselves well to my aspirations.
So why should I be seen as “disordered” by society? Maybe because it’s just easier to categorize those who are “different” as “disordered,” and then dismiss them as products of their “disorder.” I’m not opposed to categorization, as it can be valuable for people to better cope with those differences and perhaps more quickly adjust (especially those with severe cases of AS), and societal functioning does rely on a certain level of conformity to get along – at least at the social interaction level – but if why shouldn’t those who think in a different way be valued for the insight they might bring?
i’m left-handed (and yes, my mom did try to make me write with my right hand as a child) and an introvert…. perhaps an internal linkage to why i have such an affinity for advocacy in this arena.
emily – i have 2 family members who seem to fit the AS profile…. i appreciate you sharing your thoughts. i’ve been concerned to not label and certainly not to see them as ‘disordered’ …. however, making the connection with AS has allowed greater understanding and hopefully greater acceptance of some traits that can at times be frustrating to navigate. (sorry folks – that is way off the topic of this site)
Emily K:
I can’t believe how succinctly you summed up my own perception of who I am. I’ve never fellt “all girl.” I can’t say that I’m the kind of gender-strange person that would opt for a sex change or anything (I still squeal in glee every time I come across Hello Kitty merchandise, naturally), but my thoughts do not feel particularly female–whatever that means. An ex (jerk) boyfriend once told me that I was “too butch.” (I’m not butch in appearance… only in my thoughts and behaviors.)
I have always been more comfortable around men than women, and I believe it’s because I can relate to the male mindset more than the female one (in spite of Hello Kitty).
I can cuss, whistle, and spit like a man, but I still wear “girl-identifiable” clothes when I’m not feeling lazy and just throw on a teeshirt and jeans. But just because I can cuss, whistle, and spit doesn’t mean that I can’t cry every time I watch Out of Africa, you know what I mean? (Robert Redford… so… hot…)
I self-identify as bisexual, but I am married to man and monogamous. I never got a chance to explore my feelings for other women because by the time I was done analyzing it, it was too late.
And that’s the thing I have in common with Mr. Wagner. I always say I have to “percolate” on matters before I can come to a decision. That may be responsible for my late identification as bi-sexual. My husband has come to understand that I might not be visibly doing something, but in my head I’m always thinking. It almost reminds me of Eiinstein’s Thought Experiments.
I’m also introvrted and Obsessive-Compulsive. I don’t think I’m on the autism spectrum at all. I’m intelligent and artistically gifted although lacking in training. I hear music differently than most people. And on and on… In short: I don’t always feel like a girl. I just feel like me. When I’m with my male friends, I have exactly the same speech patterns that they do. I don’t hold back or put on a fake air. I find women repulsive who adopt stupid, flirtatious, bubble-headed personas because they think that’s what men want. I prefer intellectual discourse and brutal honesty.
P.S. In general response to the original article, I note that I was forced in first grade to write with my right hand. As such, I am now ambidexterous, doing tasks sometimes with one hand and sometimes with the other. My husband was ALSO forced to write with his right hand. Practically his whole family is left-handed, but when they got him in school, they made him switch to righty. We both have the same kind of crabbed handwriting as a result, and the way we hold our pens is different than people who write with their dominant hand. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell our handwriting apart, and I think that has to do with being stripped of a vital part of who we are. We cope as best we can.
Sorry for the length of the post. I had dental surgery, and they put me on some heavy-duty pain killers. I’m “not all here” right now. 😉 Excuse errors, strangeness, and babbling. Thanks!
Well written.
I have always said I feel like everyone else got handed scripts for the play I’m in, and I keep missing my cues.
It comforts me whenever I hear that others feel similarly out of sorts.
It is my belief that nearly everyone knows that gays/lesbians don’t choose their sexuality. It has just taken me far too long to finally talk about the fact that I am gay. I can only pray that the next generations will have it easier than myself.
It should be easy enough. How we react to being violated, betray or how we empathize with another person’s emotions gives us the best understanding of what is decent and kind, as opposed to behavior that isn’t decent and kind.
One’s gender, on whatever scale of the spectrum within individuals shouldn’t be the difference between whether you are treated DECENTLY and fairly, or shouldn’t be a matter of limiting your potential to do that good.
These are at root, the definition of who we value and which characteristics we value most.
When it comes to decent and kind behavior, most people expect females to exhibit this the most, and even if they don’t…what is to be gained by being unkind to someone who doesn’t fit or fill a preconceived gender profile?
Encountering people of faith, and with regard to what THEIR idea of kindness and decency towards gay people or the gender variant is very different from what actually happens.
I would much rather that those who are anti gay by way of their belief understood what a REAL and genuine act of kindness would be and it’s results SHOULD be.
Not just acts of kindness, but also justice and fairness.
It still boils down to VALUE and who believes WHO matters more, rather than what they are or do…
And disrespect for the actual role of gender certainly reveals that regard and couldn’t be pointed out enough.
Sorry to ramble, I hope I made sense. Today I’m very tired.
Eugene,
I too appreciate the left handed comparison and similarities. At one point, I coined a phrase to describe my position: “ambisextrous.” While I am not naturally straight, I did ‘learn’ how to live and function as straight over time, as do many ‘ex-gays’ me thinks.
In a similar comparison, then is it fair to say that to “learn” something that may not be factual is considered “nurture”?
If we are living back in the 15th century, I am sure we are “nurtured” into the thinking that the earth is flat and immovable. But the education on “nature” proved otherwise.
Like the way “ex-gays” go, back in those times, any information of the world’s “nature” that goes against the indoctrined “nurture” is quickly dismissed as utter crap.
Excellent article posted in Salon: Born That Gay, an interview with neurologist Jerome Goldstein, who is described as “an internationally respected headache researcher and sometimes controversial gay activist.”
https://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/12/gay_neurology/
Goldstein provides a clear, simple overview of some of the major scientific findings regarding brain differences between gays/lesbians and heterosexuals. Although no one can be sure of the mechanism–genes? pre-natal hormone exposure? something else?–science appears headed toward a definitive answer on the question of nature vs nurture.
I’m in a classroom right now, and we are discussing the whole “nature vs nurture” deal. My unprofessional opinion is mainly nature and not so much nurture. But yet, there is a lot of nurture that can make some one who they are. I believe everyone is born with their own characteristics. Such as; gay, loud, quiet, determined, lazy. But yet can be nurtured enough to believe certain things their parents force upon them is right. Like violence, hardcore Christians, fear, and emotions. Hm… cool beans.