hello! don’t worry, i don’t find your question stupid or offensive since you’re asking out of curiosity. i’m actually very invested in this specific discourse, especially that one of the frameworks i used for my thesis film (which is a queer film) is judith butler’s writing on performative acts and gender constitution. i used it because mainly it is what i believe in, and essentially, butler’s main point from her essay was taken after simone de beuvoir’s statement which claimed, “one is not born, but rather, becomes a woman.”
to delve further into this, i have to explain how butler views the body (an active process, an historical idea, a materiality that bears meaning). how does it mean for the body to be viewed as an historical idea? by it being an historical idea means that it is open to embody a number of possibilities as it experiences change through time, “both conditioned and circumscribed by historical convention.” in this line of thought, the body bears meaning in its “manner of doing, dramatizing, and reproducing” its historical situation. simplistically, this means that whatever the body does, dramatizes, and more importantly, reproduces at a certain time, becomes its source of meaning.
in a way, then, butler argues that gender constitution relates to that of a performance. it is constituted through a “stylized repetition of acts” done through time. a female becomes a woman because she acts like it over time. a male becomes not a man because he does not act like it over time. because it is a stylization of the body, it is, in a way, also the stylization, and thus, materialization of your very own history that bears the very meaning in which you associate yourself with.
in short, my take, then, is that my being gay is something i have worked on over time, based on several factors that have affected the “I” in which this very body operates within. i wasn’t born gay; i’ve become gay.