Framing the question

"I have a question about the whole choice vs nonchoice 'debate.'" I think framing the debate as "choice" versus "nonchoice" oversimplifies matters. "Choice" is specifically about deliberating the costs and benefits of different alternatives while there are vastly many different things that would get lumped together under "nonchoice." I didn't "choose" to prefer pants over skirts, but neither is this nonchoice written in stone. Different cultures all around the world have all kinds of normative fashions. And whether you go with the norm or not may also be a nonchoice without necessarily being fixed or biological or whatever. Personally, while I don't mean to assume that you're viewing biology as the only alternative to choice, I'm very suspicious of the "born this way" narrative applied to sexuality. It has its origins as a political strategy in the fight for acceptance against conservatives who wanted sexual minorities to change and conform. Whether it was a politically useful argument says little about whether the argument itself is sound on its own terms. And, of course, this kind of discussion also invites references to "nature via nurture" as if it somehow solves the problem by just saying the truth is somewhere in the middle. But that's a whole lot of "somewhere" without getting to any solid answers. To put a finer point on it, I think we may be wired to be sexual and wired to be social and however those things interact to produce a sexual orientation towards certain groups of people, broadly or narrowly, is going to be the result of personal experiences beyond our direct control.