You shouldn't get to define someone else’s homosexuality

The argument

This position holds that the question of origins matters less than who gets to answer it. Dogmatically arguing that homosexuality is either predetermined before birth, the result of environmental influence, or a concerted choice attempts to define sexual orientation in a very constrictive manner — it requires one account to be true of everybody, and therefore requires most people's understanding of themselves to be mistaken. The observation the argument rests on is that accounts differ. Some homosexuals, or straight people, might believe that they were born this way. Others might believe that they made a choice. Others might trace it back to formative experiences in their childhood. These are not competing hypotheses offered about a third party; each is a person's account of their own life, formed from the only vantage point from which that life can be observed from the inside. What follows is a constraint on other people rather than a theory of causation. Any attempt to discount another person's belief on how their identity was shaped is an ill-conceived attempt to define their sexual orientation, and should be avoided. The objection holds regardless of which account is being discounted — it applies equally to someone told they must have been born this way and to someone told they cannot have been. The consequence for the original question is that it loses its importance. If no general answer can be imposed on individuals without overriding their own accounts of themselves, then settling the general question would not settle anything about any particular person. Because you shouldn't get to define someone else's homosexuality, this argument holds that it doesn't matter whether people are born gay.

Context

Pushing one theory of the origins of sexual orientation as the only explanation attempts to define everyone’s sexual preferences through one specific lens.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Understanding what factors influence our sexual orientation is important for both improving public attitudes to homosexuality and securing gay civil rights. It is not an attempt to force one party’s world view on the others, but a legitimate attempt to understand human development and illustrate why those that oppose gay rights are engaging in a bigoted act no better than racism or sexism. Growing public support for same-sex relationships has directly emerged from the increase in public belief that gay people are born gay and that homosexuality is innate.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P4] Understanding how people come to be gay is important for improving public attitudes towards homosexuality.