To date, the political and social dialogue in Italy regarding sexuality and sexual identity often sees two opposing factions: who is against VS who is in favour of the LGBTQIA community.
The discourse around this issue, of course, is much more complex and articulated.
One of the pros/cons of these two opposing factions often Revolves around the debate between Nature and Culture. But what does that mean?
By ‘Nature‘ we usually refer, depending on the interlocutor, to everything that happens in the animal world, or to everything that biologically and biochemically makes up the human being, therefore, mark the biological difference between female and male, or to the reproductive purpose of the sexual act itself.
In and of itself, the Nature VS Culture dichotomy does not make much sense. Nature, as we understand it, is the product of the cultural ability to observe the world around us. Think for example of the theory of evolution. Today only a few fanatics denied Darwin’s observations, also confirmed by DNA analyzes and modern studies on the subject, but at the time the idea that humans were a descendant of anthropomorphic apes and that Humanity shares with them the last of the features was an unthinkable obscenity.
Anyway, if we go to see the animal world, we see that sexuality is something just as complicated. Sexual reproduction is not always the goal of sexual behaviours. The sexual act or masturbation can be a way to keep stress under control. Or mating occurs to establish social and power hierarchies, or at other times to deceive a sexual competitor, and more. Most fish species change sex according to the reproductive needs of their community. Some organisms reproduce by pathogenesis (asexual reproduction). Homosexual behaviours have been found in more than 1500 species. In the animal world, therefore, sexuality is expressed in many ways, for purposes completely different from reproduction, and the sexual genders are even more confusing.
From a cultural point of view, what should we consider? Many people assert that homosexuality or other inclinations are not “normal”. From a purely statistical point of view, we can say that within the general (human) population homosexuality is not normal, as it is not the norm but is expressed in approximately 10% of the population. The same percentage with which left-handedness is expressed. If (nowadays) it would not occur to us to exclude the left-handed population from some social rights, such as marriage, why should we do it with homosexuals or the LGBTQIA community?
Sexuality moves very powerful unconscious forces, and our identity is also based on it. Unhinging these beliefs destabilizes the categorized and binary worldview, which reassures us. For example, it is sometimes easier to tolerate someone who wants to change sex and belong to the opposite biological sex than a homosexual. Such as, for example, in Iran, it is possible to access treatment to change sex, while one is prosecuted if one loves a person of the same sex. Other times people need to oversimplify reality and so a homosexual is an effeminate male who likes men, while a lesbian is a masculinized woman who likes women. In this way, we can still think of the world divided into masculine and feminine. However, the reality is more complex than blue/pink (masculine/feminine) and there are many shades that we should consider.
Another cultural fact often taken as an example is the inclusion of homosexuality in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). The psychological sciences study human behaviours, which are often also the result of the cultural environment that surrounds them. However, psychology is a science, which continually questions itself about the issues it investigates. For this reason, it was decided to remove homosexuality from the manual of psychiatric diseases. Initially, it was decided to leave homosexuality defined as dystonic ego as a criterion for mental illness, that is, when a person is homosexual but does not want to be. After much research, it was discovered that this is mainly due to the external environment. If a person grows up in a context of acceptance of homosexuality, he does not have dystonic ego characteristics, while if he is not accepted, sufferings can develop that we can define as “internalized homophobia”, in which the person is unable to accept himself as he is due to prejudices negative towards themselves and from which it is difficult to get rid of. Just to clarify, homosexuality has not been considered a disease by the scientific community since 1973. Freud already indicated to a mother who asked for directions for her homosexual child: “What analysis can do for your child it can take different paths. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by internal conflicts, inhibited in social life, analysis can bring him harmony, inner peace, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or changes “. Later he will state “In general, the effort required to convert an adult homosexual into a heterosexual does not offer much more prospects for success than the reverse.” Although it is important to underline Freud’s contradictions towards homosexuals, also due to the historical period in which he lived.
So, let us try to bring some order to this natural and cultural world which is so chaotic and complex, and which concerns sexuality in a broad sense.
We could start with the biological component. Sex is in fact attributed at birth by the sexual characteristics present in the unborn child, and based on these the sex is attributed, male if it has male genitalia, or female if it has female genital characteristics. We should remember here that a small percentage of children are born with hybrid sexual characteristics. Intersex gender is used here to describe cases at birth in which female or male sex cannot be ascribed with certainty. This first element of complexity was generally managed by the surgeon who, based on the genital confirmation and the possibilities of science available, decided whether to assign the sex of the unborn child to the male or female category. Nowadays, it is preferred to let the child grow to see hormonal developments and to postpone the decision over the years or to the subject himself. In Germany, it is possible to assign the unborn child to intersex sex precisely to meet these situations.
Sexual identity is not given only by the biological sex that is assigned to us at birth. It is the result of a complex process that involves the “dialogue” between (biological) sex, gender, and sexual orientation.
We just talked about biological sex. But how is it different from gender?
Gender includes a very strong cultural component, in which society decides to assign certain roles to a gender. It changes over time and at different latitudes. The gender role goes hand in hand with all those socially accepted or highly desirable behaviours and attitudes in a person of a particular sex. For example, a woman must be well-groomed, kind, elegant and take care of others, while a man must express aggression, be virile, etc. This is accompanied by gender identity, or how much I feel I belong to one gender rather than the other. How much do I feel woman/man? (regardless of my biological sex). Can I feel like a man and be cured? Can I feel like a woman and be aggressive? Can I feel like a woman if I was born with biological male sex? (and vice versa?). Obviously, yes, and that is why many social struggles go in the direction of the abolition of gender roles. To give everyone, the freedom to express a range of behaviours and attitudes without gender bias.
So far, we have talked about biological sex and gender. But what about homosexual inclinations? Sexual identity is not due solely to the object of love, that is, the people we are attracted to. And in this area too, things have different nuances. To define sexual orientation, we should consider:
1. Sexual behaviour, that is, the person with whom I have a sexual relationship.
2. Sexual attraction, that is, the person who elicits sexual arousal in me.
3. Sexual fantasies, or about who fantasizes sexually.
4. The affective preferences, that is the person with whom I want to build a stable relationship.
5. Self-determination, that is, what I tell and what I declare about myself to others and to society.
Many people would report these five points back to the person of the opposite sex, without even asking the question or finding out just by reading this article that there may be these five components. In fact, many people make sexual behaviour coincide with attraction, fantasies, affective preferences and with the story they make of themselves to others. For other people, sexual orientation can be more complicated. I can have sex with other men but imagine myself in an emotional relationship with a woman. I can have sexual fantasies about women and get aroused with both women and men and decide to declare myself as homosexual/bisexual/straight. In a few words, the variety of situations that can arise is manifold, and often difficult not only to understand but also to conceive for those who do not experience this variety of sensations.
For those still wondering, LGBTQIA + gathers the sexual identities that have come to define themselves over the last few decades. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual and Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning (people who do not want to fit into patterns or labels of any kind or who are looking within themselves for their identity), Intersex (people born biologically not female or male, as we mentioned above), Asexual (people who do not express sexual behaviour).
Ultimately, LGBTQIA sexual identities represent human and social complexity and at the same time seek to give a voice to minorities. If it is true that social and psychological studies have been oriented over the years to “understanding why a person is homosexual and whether or not it was wrong”, in the last decade research has focused mainly on understanding why a person is homophobic and on the so-called Minority stress. For example, the stress due to belonging to a minority of the population due to difficulties in affirming oneself, to little or no family / social support, to discrimination and prejudices that affect the mental health of people who do not belong to the so-called ‘normality’.
At this point, many of you will be wondering why we did not talk about parenting in the question of sexual identities. First, not everyone is / will / wants to be a parent (regardless of sexual identity). Secondly, I believe that today’s family complexity requires a separate study.
I will tell you about it in subsequent articles.
If you want to know more, contact me.
Bibliography.
Crapanzano, A. (2019). Ma alla fine è un asino o un unicorno? La tormentosa storia di Freud con l’Omosessualità . Gli Argonauti, 160(2). https://argonauti.padovauniversitypress.it/system/files/papers/Argonauti-160-3.pdf
Lemma, A., & Lynch, P. E. (Eds.). (2015). Sexualities: Contemporary psychoanalytic perspectives. Routledge.
Lingiardi V. Si nasce o si diventa? Come orientarsi tra generi e identitĂ . Sabato 27 maggio 2017 16.00 piazza San Bartolomeo https://www.dialoghisulluomo.it/it/lingiardi/si-nasce-o-si-diventa-come-orientarsi-tra-generi-e-identit%C3%A0
Lingiardi, V. (2013). Citizen gay. Il saggiatore.
Dr Vanessa Pozzali 