What do Lady Gaga and Lee Kuan Yew have in common?
In 2007, Lee Kuan Yew opined that those experiencing same-sex attraction were “born… homosexual” and “can’t help it”. In 2011, he doubled down and said that LGBTs were “born that way” in his book Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going.
These remarks continue to circulate across various platforms. The “Born this way” opinion has even been echoed in parliamentary speeches, reflecting its pervasiveness and persuasiveness.
But is it even true?
A study from 2019 titled “Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behaviour” puts this to the test.
Its findings put a definitive nail in the coffin of the “born this way” narrative.
LGBT activists were quick to spin this devastating news by claiming that “while there is no single gay gene, there are many.”
That spin, however, only serves to obfuscate with rhetoric, what becomes clear with inspection.
What It Is
The study, involving nearly half a million participants, rigorously examined the genetic basis of same-sex sexual behaviour in what is known as a genome-wide association study (GWAS). It uncovered five statistically significant genetic markers (not genes) common among people who had reported at least one same-sex experience.
Here’s what the study revealed.
The role of genetics is overstated.
These five common markers collectively explain “considerably less than 1% of the variance in the self-reported same-sex sexual behavior.” Put simply, these markers, though statistically significant, cannot explain the vast majority of same-sex behaviour and have no predictive capability.
Beyond these five specific markers, the study estimated that all measured common genetic variants combined (statistically significant and insignificant) accounted for just 8 to 25% of the variation in homosexual behaviour.
This means that non-genetic factors-ranging from upbringing, personality, social influence, trauma, and culture are far more significant in influencing a person’s sexual behaviour. As the researchers themselves note, the findings “do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual’s sexual behaviour.”
Put Simply, a predisposition Isn’t predetermination.
Correlation Isn’t Causation.
Moreover, the genetic influences that did appear, were also linked to other traits unrelated to sexual orientation. The level of genetic influence in same-sex behaviour was also comparable to these other traits. Curious what they are?
- Smoking,
- Cannabis use,
- Risk-taking,
- Male-pattern baldness.
If one wanted to die on the “genetics-determine-behaviour” hill, they don’t get to cherry-pick which traits. If homosexuality is heavily influenced by genetics, those very genetics would also influence smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and male-pattern baldness. A conclusion that most would baulk at.
If anything, this shows that correlation isn’t causation.
Even if these five common markers exist among those with same-sex experiences, that doesn’t mean these markers determine their being homosexual any more than they determine baldness, substance use, and risk-taking (hence the <1% explanatory value of the five genetic markers).
A Very Significant Result
A study with this sample size should not be taken lightly. The 2019 GWAS study drew from a sample of roughly half a million people. That is huge. In fact, undisputed, influential findings have been produced from studies with far smaller sample sizes.
This data poses a serious challenge to the moral logic of the “born this way” slogan. If same-sex sexual behaviour is not genetically hardwired – if it is shaped predominantly by environment and choice – then the argument that it must be accepted as a natural and immutable human trait crumbles, as do all the policy demands based on it.
When Common Objections Miss the Point
Some might say that the data only proves that sexuality is complex, not that it’s a choice, and that biology could still be involved in ways science has yet to fully uncover. Others may argue that just because genetics don’t fully explain sexual orientation, it doesn’t follow that it’s a matter of choice.
Both responses miss the point. The point isn’t that sexuality isn’t complex, or that it feels involuntary. The point is that claims grounded in biology must be backed by biological evidence. And so far, the evidence doesn’t back the “born this way” narrative.
Others might respond that even if “born this way” is scientifically flawed, people should still be free to be with whomever they want. But that is a different debate altogether. What we’re talking about is the validity of using biology to justify homosexuality.
You just can’t.
When Science is Framed to Appease Activism
Regardless, the myriad counterarguments reveal the fraught politics surrounding this field that researchers must navigate. This is clear in the official explainer videos for the study, which go to great lengths to justify the work, qualify its conclusions, and carefully frame its language to pre-empt backlash.
Yes, science communication is a thing, but it’s quite unusual for scientists to go to these lengths to avoid landmines. Consider the comprehensive site and slick animations which don’t come cheap. The scientists even exaggerated their own findings, claiming that genetic inheritance accounts for “about a third” of same-sex behaviour, when their upper estimate was only 25% – a quarter.
Why the need to fluff the numbers?
Then there’s the obvious attempt to placate the LGBT lobby, consulting them not only on the research, but on how results were communicated. The bombshell “no gay gene” result was immediately softened with a caveat that same-sex sexual behaviour is like “all human behaviours”. They also inserted ideological slogans like “being gay is not a choice”.
Those are not scientific conclusions. It’s just sloganeering.
Read between the lines. The videos cushion the hard truth with cartoons, cheerful music and euphemisms. This isn’t education, it’s public relations.
Which raises a deeper question: if research in this area is so politically fraught that scientists must dress up results to avoid backlash, can we blame those who see the field as driven more by ideology than evidence? Especially when that perception shapes how they view the politically motivated and revisionist LGBT-affirming studies like the so-called “no-difference” findings?
Biological Determinism
But quite apart from the science of it, even if we take it at its word, the “born this way” slogan still falls victim to biological determinism, which argues that biology dictates human behaviour.
This is problematic because:
- It undermines agency. If behaviour is genetically dictated, then change, growth, or personal responsibility in any area of life becomes meaningless.
But genetics isn’t destiny. We know from medicine that genetic predisposition doesn’t guarantee outcome. One’s lifestyle and context matter too.
- It is applied inconsistently. If sexual behaviour can’t be changed because it’s biologically determined, does the same apply to gender?
Acknowledging that genetics might contribute in small ways to attraction does not amount to affirming determinism. No serious biologist would claim that minor genetic correlations with behaviour make those behaviours inevitable or immune to change. Humans are not slaves to their genes.
Ultimately, “born this way” uses genetic determinism to shield sexual behaviour from moral scrutiny.
Fortunately the science has exposed a huge crack in that shield.
The “born this way” argument has become widespread and influential. But the science tells a different story.
There is no clear genetic cause, no reliable predictive power, and no immutable biological
cause of same-sex behaviour.
The data is in, and the prognosis is grim.
“Born this way” is not science. It is a slogan. It’s time to put it to death and exorcise its ghost, once and for all.
