In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Your Pastor Sucks Off Mooing Beagles in Hell

My head hurts. I hope Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer send these people a cease-and-desist letter, if they’re at all able:

Truth is, there’s no scientific proof showing that people are “born gay.”

So why do people say they didn’t “choose” to be gay?

Because we didn’t choose to be gay. Someone needs to write “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” on a blackboard several thousand times. Then they need to apply their own reasoning to the insistence that homosexuality is chosen, since no one’s ever been able to find evidence for that theory nor yet any common denominator among homosexuals apart from homosexuality.

NBarnes made this comment on the Pandagon post:

I remain deeply uncomfortable with defenses of queer rights that are based on immutability and ‘being born that way’. Screw that shit. Being queer is a fine and good way to be.

I agree with the idea that this sets up an implicit hierarchy between gay and straight. Heterosexuality is clearly the best option, and what we’d all hope for. However, some of us just weren’t lucky enough to be born straight, and must make do with the orientation they have.

I’m familiar with this same implication with regard to some descriptions of transsexuality: we were born wrong, and the surgery and hormones are going to fix the error upstairs and make us more like you. Of course no one would choose to be transsexual, but it’d be unjust to deprive someone of the pursuit of normalcy. Some transsexuals have no problem with the medicalized narrative, and believe that it highlights some crucial aspects of their experience–namely, that their lives prior to transition really did feel all wrong, and that they furthermore do want to be more like everyone else. Some transpeople are bothered by it, because it limits the available categories to two and deprives them of agency as they see it. It is true that transsexuality is more palatable to some people–even some fundies and conservatives–because they see it as normalizing. It is also true that the “birth defect” story can invoke pity rather than respect.

However, when it comes up in this context, I don’t think it’s necessarily an attempt to excuse homosexuality on the grounds that it’s unchosen. I’ve heard that argument, usually coupled with, “Because who would ever choose to be gay?” I think the goal is to explode the whole poisonous fundie narrative. It goes something like this:

Hi there! My name is “John.” I grew up with a domineering/abusive/slutty/alcoholic mother and an abusive/distant/absent/passive/alcoholic father. I might or might not have been molested by my uncle/priest/pastor/father/coach. I was skinny and clumsy, a late bloomer. I was shy and bookish. I never learned to catch a ball or stare at breasts, and felt alienated from my peers. They teased me and rejected me in turn. I craved validation from men. When I reached tenth grade/twelfth grade/college, an older man initiated me into the homosexual lifestyle. I had finally found men who would be friends with me! As a result of their influence, I did a lot of drugs, ingested a lot of alcohol, and had oodles of meaningless sex. I was addicted to the fleeting sense of male companionship and intimacy. I desperately wanted love, but there was none to be found! Every gay around me wanted one thing, and one thing only: ass. Eventually, I hit rock bottom. While I was recuperating in the hospital from the combined effects of alcohol poisoning, autoerotic asphyxiation, and severe latex allergy, I was visited by Reverend Hayes. He put me in touch with the wonderful people at Exodus, who helped me identify the root causes of my homosexuality and come back to Jesus. Thanks to them, I now experience normal heterosexual attraction, and am in a loving relationship with my wife of two years. Thank you, Jesus!

In this instance, the “just like you” disputes the idea that homosexual attraction is inherently pathological. Gay people are effectively saying that they’re attracted to people of the same sex for the same reasons and in much the same way as straight people. Gayness isn’t the result of a dysfunctional upbringing. It’s just sexual and romantic interest just like yours.


63 thoughts on Your Pastor Sucks Off Mooing Beagles in Hell

  1. Well done! I am usually more of the “Screw that shit!” mentality (I think queer should be fine, whether chosen or inborn), but your above reasoning has helped me see the bigger picture and to understand why the “natural born gay” distinction is important… if not so much to gays, than to straights.

  2. I find that as a bisexual, the born gay line is confusing at best. I certainly never choose jack shit, but I’m skeptical of studies that are only being conducted on gay men (or the rare one on lesbian women) being relevent to me.

  3. For whatever the actual evidence is worth, the current data suggest that sexual orientation has both a genetic and an environmental basis. Of course, the only known, more or less proven environmental factor is birth order: the more older brothers a man has, the more likely it is that he will be gay. So the fundies insistence on having tons of children increases the chance that they’ll have a gay child. I’d be pleased with that except that the poor kids’ll probably be abused.

  4. FWIW (and speaking as a scientific type feller), the arguments these people are making are complete bull-crap. Anything as complicated as human sexuality is going to be governed by more than one gene (as well as environmental, etc., influences), so a scientist saying “we’ve not found the gay gene” doesn’t mean “science says people choose to be gay”. And if people choose to be gay? While within some moral /religious traditions (including my own), this is a big distinction, for matters of policy it should not been — indeed, the notion of “you choose to be gay, so we can make being gay illegal” frightens me. What next — will they make it illegal to “choose to be Jewish” or “choose to be an atheist”? After all, you could always choose to go to a Christian church no matter how you were born and raised …

    The frightening thing, as well, is that this level of “reasoning” is the caliber of scientific understanding displayed by our political leaders. As my HS geometry teacher was wont to point out “with the exception of Jimmy Carter, the POTUS, who has the power to unleash a nuclear holocaust, generally doesn’t have a clue as to how nuclear weapons work”.

  5. And if people choose to be gay?

    First, it would contradict what I have learned from the few gay people I know.

    Second, if being gay is a choice, then there is no need for same sex marriage. One can just choose to be straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. If being gay is not a choice, then same sex marriage is a matter of equality and fairness.

    I’m Canadian, and I’m proud that gay marriage is legal here. But my support, and I’d bet the support of many others, is based on the fact that being gay is not a choice.

  6. DAS – Society makes illegal things people “choose” all the time. If you “choose” to steal, rape, murder, have sex with children, not pay taxes, etc., etc. you get in trouble. There is nothing wrong with a society choosing what is illegal or not based on choice. It’s how every society that ever existed did it. All society is as a codified set of rules that the majority finds acceptible under which to live. It’s never fair to everyone. Just trying to point out that what you fear is the cornerstone action of how societies are built. And let us not pretend that societies throughout history have not just a readily discriminated against biologically based characteristics (think leper colonies) as choices.

  7. One can just choose to be straight and marry someone of the opposite sex.

    I see. So if Congress decided to ban marriage for all Christians, you’d support such a law, seeing as religion is a choice. So is the decision to have kids–you’d be just fine with laws that required married couples to remain childless, right? While we’re at it, let’s ban marriage between virgins. All they have to do is run out and have sex with somebody, anybody, and then let the wedding bells ring!

    All society is as a codified set of rules that the majority finds acceptible under which to live. It’s never fair to everyone.

    Let’s clarify something. Rape, murder, theft — these are all things that harm other people. Marriage, on the other hand, harms no one. Illegalizing the former “choice-based” behavior makes sense; it protects people from harm. Illegalizing the latter “choice-based” behavior not only doesn’t make sense, but is the definition of totalitarianism.

  8. Hestia – Using weed doesn’t harm anyone and yet it is illegal. And the fact that it is actually makes it far far more harmful to society than if it was legal because of the drug trade and violence associated with it. Make sense? Of course not. Again, the point is that the gay marriage issue is in absolutely no way unique. We are denied choices all day every day by society and our government because they are morally opposed by the majority.

  9. The questioned should be turned to ask heterosexuals who deny gays their humanity if they were “born straight.”

    If they were, then how can they understand (or fail to acknowledge) the idea that someone might be “born gay?” –I mean, how can they deny their own experience? –they assume heterosexuality is the only form of existence, but it’s not, and they have no empircal proof that heterosexuality is the only form of existence.

    again, it’s oftentimes useful to look at other animals to check for some sort of b.s. there are homosexuals in the animal world, too. some homosexual acts seem to come from culture, but some seem to come from an internal chemistry.

    Homosexuality has been documented in 450 vertebrate species.

    Roughgarden even argues that homosexuality is a defining feature of advanced animal communities, which require communal bonds in order to function. “The more complex and sophisticated a social system is,” she writes, “the more likely it is to have homosexuality intermixed with heterosexuality.”

    And, just pretend for a second that I’m the mom you never knew you had (scary, but stay with it). You said:

    Heterosexuality is clearly the best option, and what we’d all hope for. However, some of us just weren’t lucky enough to be born straight, and must make do with the orientation they have.

    And I say- No, who you are is clearly the best option. And, sure, who you are isn’t static, you change and grow as you mature, and if who you are is homosexual for your entire life, that’s VALID.

    You are in no way a lesser person because you may be homosexual.

    (Okay, now I’ll stop being mom.)

    But that’s the truth.

  10. Second, if being gay is a choice, then there is no need for same sex marriage. One can just choose to be straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. If being gay is not a choice, then same sex marriage is a matter of equality and fairness.

    But that’s the thing. Assuming it’s a choice, what make homosexuality a less valid one? Why should people be allowed to choose homosexuality and choose to be married in a homosexual relationship?

    There’s every bit as much “need” for same sex marriage if homosexuality is 100% all choice always. If you fall in love (by choice, again for sake fo argument) with someone of the same sex, and want to marry them, it’s no less discriminatory and stupid to not allow them to marry. It’s not like buying a pair of pants — you can’t say “I’ll take her. but can I get her in ‘man’?”

  11. Why SHOULDN’T people be allowed to choose homosexuality and choose to be married in a homosexual relationship?

    Corrected myself. Can we get an edit button?

  12. Again, the point is that the gay marriage issue is in absolutely no way unique. We are denied choices all day every day by society and our government because they are morally opposed by the majority.

    Do you agree that this is a BAD thing? And if not…then what’s the point of your post? Yes, shit happens. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to clean it up.

  13. So if Congress decided to ban marriage for all Christians, you’d support such a law, seeing as religion is a choice

    .

    Yep. But if I were king of the world, I’d ban religion.

    you’d be just fine with laws that required married couples to remain childless, right?

    Nope. Doesn’t make sense to me.

    While we’re at it, let’s ban marriage between virgins. All they have to do is run out and have sex with somebody, anybody, and then let the wedding bells ring!

    Again, makes no sense to me.

    Illegalizing the latter “choice-based” behavior not only doesn’t make sense, but is the definition of totalitarianism.

    Actually, isn’t it the definition of democracy? The people choose which choices they will endorse, and which they will punish. Are you saying the US is a totalitarian state as it has yet to decide that gay marriage is acceptable?

    We are denied choices all day every day by society and our government because they are morally opposed by the majority.

    Very true. Those who claim that being queer is a choice generally do so to show how immoral the fags are.

    Why SHOULDN’T people be allowed to choose homosexuality and choose to be married in a homosexual relationship?

    Because if it’s a choice, then all the slippery slope crap the fundies spew becomes relevant. What other choices must then also be accepted? Marrying several partners? Why would that choice be unacceptable? And how about if I choose to marry my 12 year old neighbor? She’s very mature and she willingly chooses to marry me. Who are you to decide she’s too young?

    Are there any gay commenters here who think it was a choice they made?

  14. Because if it’s a choice, then all the slippery slope crap the fundies spew becomes relevant.

    The hell it does. There’s one consistent measure that I think can be applied universally — ever hear the phrase “consenting adults”?

    What other choices must then also be accepted? Marrying several partners? Why would that choice be unacceptable?

    Honestly, I don’t think it is unacceptable. If it’s a marriage between several consenting adults, I see no moral justification for not allowing it.

    And how about if I choose to marry my 12 year old neighbor? She’s very mature and she willingly chooses to marry me. Who are you to decide she’s too young?

    She’s not an adult. Who am I to decide she’s too young? Well, I’m nobody, frankly. But there’s a long-established legal and moral tradition in North America — 18,19,21ish is the age of majority, before that you aren’t legally able to consent, afterward you are. Is it arbitrary? Sure. But it’s long established and socially real. It’s morally real for most North Americans, too.

    Whether it’s a choice doesn’t mean fuck. What about pedophiles? Do they have the choice to want to have sex with kids? Is it justified because they don’t have the choice?

  15. But there’s a long-established legal and moral tradition in North America — 18,19,21ish is the age of majority,

    I think the age of consent is 14-18, depending on the state.

  16. Glaivester- your link doesn’t work. if you wouldn’t mind reposting, that would be nice.

    I can’t tell you about exclusively homosexual behavior in vertebrates, but the book from the Stanford prof. mentioned above maybe does.

    as an undergraduate, I had the nerve to suggest that maybe sex wasn’t *just* about propagating the species, at which point the professor asked, well, just what else do you think it might be for?

    and I said, stress relief. communal bonds.

    turns out that might not be a crazy idea. the issue of affiliative behavior is as important as basic reproduction, in order to understand group survival, imo.

    but maybe some ppl are averse to the issue because it would imply some matrilineal cultures, where homosexual males invested in the well-being of their sister’s offspring, for instance, to carry on his genes.

    but what do I know, I’m just a middle-aged hetero mom who supports equal rights for many diverse ways of being in this world, no matter what the source of those differences.

    as far as homo/hetero/bisexuality, maybe it’s like a punett square, and the traits for all are preserved because the variation confers benefits on the entire species by fostering affiliative behavior in groups that needed to cooperate to survive. again, that’s just my speculation, but there’s a model for this in other things, if Cochran’s possible view (my guess) is considered, for things like sickle cell anemia, to use the “virus” analogy.

    not only that, but having males, for instance, that didn’t mate with females could have served as a natural form of birth control, so that when a population was large, a percentage would be gay and those members wouldn’t put greater pressure on a population by breeding.

    but, again, that’s just my speculation.

  17. Yeah, consent varies between 14-18 for sex, but 18 for voting, 19 for drinking in most of Canada, except where it’s 18, 21 is (most of?) the States, blah blah.

    The ages don’t matter too much. The point was that we have well-established legal precedents identifying who is and who is not legally competent to make decision about certain things.

  18. Who am I to decide she’s too young? Well, I’m nobody, frankly. But there’s a long-established legal and moral tradition in North America

    That’s my point. It is one of several choices that are not acceptable (can’t marry a close relative, a minor, someone who is already married, or a person of the same sex). If being gay is just a choice like these others, I’d have no problem treating it like the others; I wouldn’t change the law to endorse any of them.

    KnifeGhost, do you think being gay is a choice?

    If so, what do you say to gay people who will tell you otherwise? They’re mistaken?

    If not, what is the point to your argument? I see no reason why someone would claim that being gay is a choice other than to legitimize discrimination. I believe that same sex marriage is gaining acceptance precisely because people are realizing that being gay is not a choice. I think that those who claim otherwise are hurting the cause, whether they intend to or not.

  19. Mr.: The thing about Leper colonies tends to torpedo the point you were making.

    Nobody here thinks societies never ban a behavior because it is a choice, nor do they think it’s always evil to ban some choices. It’s a ridiculous idea.

    The thing is, whether a behavior is the result of choice has no bearing on whether society bans it; The criteria is not choice, but harm.

    Look at leper colonies; lepers were removed from society not because they chose the behavior, but because they harmed other people.

    Even more ilustrative are actions that can be the result of choice OR circumstance.

    If a person has a severe mental illness, paranoid schizophrenia, say, and they murder somebody, they really can’t be meaningfully said to have had a choice in the matter.

    But it’s not like murder is legal if you have a good excuse; nobody’s going to just let you kill people, no matter what the reason is.

  20. so a scientist saying “we’ve not found the gay gene” doesn’t mean “science says people choose to be gay”.

    Absolutely. They’re also concentrating so hard on the genetics that they’re overlooking that biology is more than just genes. There are theories related to uterine environmental influences such as pH, hormones, temperature, contaminants etc which might affect an embryo/fetus to produce homosexual preferences.

    For example: what if all it took to produce a homosexual human was for the pregnant women to have a slight fever at a particular period of gestation?

  21. Ack – quickly nitpicking myself, that example should be:

    what if all it took to produce a increased propensity for homosexuality was for pregnant women to have a slight fever at a particular period of gestation?

    I would expect childhood environment such as number of siblings etc to still have an effect, but by the time one’s five I bet one’s preference is pretty fixed. There’s a certain irony in our preferences being hardwired before our interest kicks in.

  22. Truth is, there’s no scientific proof showing that people are “born gay.”

    So why do people say they didn’t “choose” to be gay?

    truth is, there’s no scientific proof showing that god is real. so why do people choose to believe in god? they are clearly deluded and mentally unstable. the next step is to open up reparative therapy clinics for people who mistakenly believe in god so we can cure them. because we can’t have a nation full of deluded, mentally unstable people now, can we…

  23. RM, the slope isn’t so slippery that allowing same-sex marriage, which fits very nicely into the current two-consenting-unrelated-adults model, will mean that suddenly we have to allow marriage of multiple partners (which requires a complete shift in the conception of legal rights and responsibilities in marriage, since how do you work in a third person — what’s the relationship of that person to the first two partners? How does that person’s presence change the rights of the first two?) or children (which would require abandonment of taboos against child marriage and the age of consent) or animals (please).

    Can we get an edit button?

    What, preview’s not good enough for you? Demanding, demanding commenters we have here.

  24. They’re also concentrating so hard on the genetics that they’re overlooking that biology is more than just genes.

    This is true of course – but there’s also the fact that genetics is more than a 1-1 correspondence between a gene and a characteristic. Just because there is not one single ‘gay gene’ doesn’t mean there is no genetic compoment that might affect the way a person’s sexuality is likely to develop. After all a gene just codes for one protein, nothing more, nothing less, and while there are cases where a small change in one protein is sufficent to cause a severe disease or some other marked effect, generally the situation is a bit more complex than that.

    And I completely agree that the effect of environment (both before and after birth) gets overlooked here – there are other possibiltities as well as ‘The Gay Gene’ and ‘choice’.

  25. which fits very nicely into the current two-consenting-unrelated-adults model

    Yeah, but it doesn’t fit into the current two-consenting-unrelated-adults-of opposite sexes model. I don’t think the gay by choice argument is gonna help change that (isn’t that what the fundies are trying to do; maintain the opposite sex model?).

    I understand why opponents of gay rights would claim being gay is a choice, but I still can’t understand why someone who supports gay rights would make that claim.

    Also, doesn’t the “gay is a choice” argument legitimize the “gay can be cured or fixed” argument? They’ve made a bad choice (like an alcoholic or drug addict) and need rehab to get sober (or straight)?

  26. Oooh, strawman! The gays aren’t saying that it is a choice, just that it shouldn’t matter one way or the other. See how the “bad” part of the “bad choice” is substantiated by the idea that no one would choose to be gay?

  27. The gays aren’t saying that it is a choice, just that it shouldn’t matter one way or the other.

    But there are a great many people for whom it does matter. I’m not saying it should, but it does. If you believe that being gay is not a choice, why alienate those people by saying “even if it was a choice, you should accept it”? You’ve got the moral high ground, but you’re losing ground on the battlefield (didn’t a couple of states just overturn same sex marriage laws)?

    The battle over same sex marriage has been won here in Canada, while it seems you’re losing ground in the USA. I’d suggest that you follow our lead and drop the “gay is a choice you must respect” strategy. Unless you prefer debating hypotheticals with the fundies to making actual progress.

  28. Also, doesn’t the “gay is a choice” argument legitimize the “gay can be cured or fixed” argument?

    piny nailed it. My argument is that homosexuality is a good and valid choice, regardless of whether anybody chooses it. Nobody chooses their desires (and desires don’t fall neatly into one or the other), but people do choose their lifestyle, IE: who the consent tohave sex with, so on (yeah, I said it, and I believe it). Some people would jump on that statement, and say “see!!! It’s a choice of lifestyle! No rights!!!” That for that statement to hold up, one has to make a case that it’s a choice of lifestyle that produces major social harm. Major enough to punish it in law.

    I’ve answered your question as to whether I think homosexuality is a choice. People don’t choose their desires, but they choose who they consent to have sex with. We currently don’t allow adults to have sex with kids, because we think it causes major damage to children’s development, and that they aren’t mentally competent to consent to sex. We don’t let people marry their relatives because, well, because the incest taboo is the closest thing to a universal human value that there is. I don’t know the laws around having sex with your relatives, but the taboo is stronger than any law. We don’t let people have sex with animals because animals can’t give consent, period.

    What reasons would we have to not allowing people to whomever they choose on the consenting-unrelated-adults model? Other than that some people think it’s icky. I never formally studied the constitution (or is it the declaration of independance?), but I don’t remember it reading “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, unless some people think it’s icky.”

    The statement that homosexuality is a choice (and I don’t care if it’s true) has no power to fuel discrimination if you follow it with “and it’s a good and valid one, fuck you very much.”

  29. This conversation was, it seems, destined to begin yesterday.

    To add to what was said there, I think the problem with these conversations is that the rhetorical power of a given position always factors into its being taken. Erase “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” from the blackboard–don’t worry, they need to do it again anyway–and start listing the pros and cons of the essentialist vs. constructivist arguments. Depending on who you are and what you believe, you’ll find compelling reasons to defend a radical version of one or the other…and an equally compelling list of reasons to condemn one or the other.

    As piny points out, at this point the current existence of homosexuals and transexuals–and the denial of equal protection under the law–is what actually matters. All debates concerning the etiology of homosexuals and transexuals are irrelevant. Put this in racial terms:

    Could you imagine putting on hold the Civil Rights Movement until scientists discovered the processes that led to the creation of dark skin? Waited until evolutionary biologists/psychologists/sociologists finished debating its utility in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA)? (Given that recent evidence suggests whiteness the product of mutation only makes this point all the more, since it highlights the bald power play implicit in all these discussions.)

  30. Raging:

    How does this:

    I’m Canadian, and I’m proud that gay marriage is legal here. But my support, and I’d bet the support of many others, is based on the fact that being gay is not a choice.

    fit in with this:

    If being gay is just a choice like these others, I’d have no problem treating it like the others; I wouldn’t change the law to endorse any of them.

    Either you support the current laws regardless of whether or not they’re based on the concept of choice, or you don’t. Either you support same-sex marriage even if it’s based on choice, or you don’t. So which is it?

    Actually, isn’t it the definition of democracy? The people choose which choices they will endorse, and which they will punish.

    Not when people are being punished for absolutely no reason. Just because a majority of people in a society ascribe to a particular morality doesn’t mean it’s just or good or democratic for the society to enforce it. See Christopher’s statement: “The thing is, whether a behavior is the result of choice has no bearing on whether society bans it; The criteria is not choice, but harm.”

    If you believe that being gay is not a choice, why alienate those people by saying “even if it was a choice, you should accept it”?

    Oh, whatever. Anybody who opposes same-sex marriage is going to oppose it regardless of whether or not homosexuality is genetic. (Even if it is, you know, gays and lesbians can “choose” not to get married.) And it isn’t even a matter of “accepting” the choice; it’s a matter of accepting the right of people to pusue choices of which you may not approve.

    The question we should be asking is, how can you possibly reconcile your belief that homosexuality is OK if it isn’t a choice but not OK if it is?

  31. As piny points out, at this point the current existence of homosexuals and transexuals–and the denial of equal protection under the law–is what actually matters. All debates concerning the etiology of homosexuals and transexuals are irrelevant.

    Exactly. It doesn’t matter why people are queer/trans, it matters that they are queer/trans and are being discriminated against for no good reason.

  32. The whole concept of being gay as a choice makes no sense to me, not because no one would choose to be gay, necessarily, but because I as a het girl can’t choose whom I find attractive. It almost makes more sense to me to go back to the old phrasing of “sexual preference” versus orientation because isn’t it inherent in the word preference that you can’t choose a preference?

    Like, to make a weirdly frivolous little analogy, in middle school there was this guy that liked me “that way” and I cared for him a lot as a friend but there were just no romantic sparks there. And honestly, if you could choose who you want to date, I would have chosen to want to date him, because he was a really sweet guy and smart and funny and we were good friends and I didn’t want to hurt him and I was like thirteen and thought having a boyfriend would be the be-all and end-all of my life thus far, but… I just didn’t want to.

    So with sexuality, it’s not that you’re born wanting a certain sex (or wanting either sex), or that you choose to want a certain sex (or either), you just… do. I dunno, this debate always makes my head hurt because I just… don’t get it, almost from a semantic perspective.

  33. Let me throw something onto the table that might be helpful for you.

    This idea that there’s an either/or, and things are either genetically predetermined or they’re choice is preposterous. I hate olives. I didn’t choose to hate olives, I wasn’t conceived with an olive-hating gene, but I hate olives. The process that turns people into who they are is vastly complex and far more complicated than all-genes or all-choice.

    The idea that homosexuality is pure choice if it isn’t pure genetics is insane and anti-scientific. And really really common.

  34. You know, bigots don’t often care if the traits in question are based in biology, socialization, conscious choice or a combination of all three. They’ll use whatever basis is culturally relevant in justifying hatred and discrimination.

    For example, my oldest brother does not like people of color. He particularly dislikes African Americans. He sees people of color as being biologically inferior to Europeans and also believes that people of color have been granted far too much power in the world. He’d be happy to turn the clock back to 1950 if he could. So, in my brother’s case, belief in an inferior biology provides a basis for treating certain kinds of people as inferior.

    Women are also viewed in terms of inferior biology: sexual dimorphism makes women weaker, more emotional, less inclined to intellectual pursuits, etc. Those who feel this way have little problem with structuring society in a fashion that discriminates against women. In contrast to sexual orientation and gender expression, progressives and feminists often find themselves arguing against biology as a basis of behavior.

    Poor people have been viewed as inferior as a consequence of birth, poor life choices, poor upbringing or some combination of all three. All three origins have been viewed as a basis for discrimination at some point in history.

    People of one religion find tons of reasons to hate and discriminate against people of differing religions. Since religion is quite arguably a consequence of upbringing with some element of choice, the biology argument is of little importance here. How many religious conservatives in the US currently argue in favor of legislation that ignores the needs and perspectives of non-Christian people?

    The bottom line is this: if a group of people is viewed with disfavor by those in the majority or those in power, a justification will be found to oppress that group of people. If being queer comes to be widely accepted as a consequence of biology, I suspect that conservatives will argue that queer people are biologically inferior to straight people. I also suspect that conservatives will have few qualms with using biology to justify various forms of discrimination. For instance, heterosexuals should only be allowed to marry because people tend to get married in order to start a family, and we certainly don’t want queer people reproducing! Access to reproductive technology should be limited for similar reasons. Research focussed on weeding out queer biology should receive extended funding. Gay men should be restricted from professions the involve interacting with children because of a biological predisposition toward hypersexuality. Need I go on with this wretched list?

    Acceptance, understanding, compassion and a propensity to value egalitarianism are what matter most. Bigotry, prejudice and hatred know no bounds. They will use whatever means necessary to promulgate their existence.

  35. I’ve always believed myself to be a born lesbian and share with many others an understanding that, looking back, I can trace as far back as age 5 or 6 to recognise the fact. I’ve had a lifetime of explaining this to people, and hearing others explain it to people who base their anti-gay views on the idea that we somehow chose to be homosexual or live a homosexual ‘lifestyle’ while their heterosexuality was normal and natural. What I say – and believe – is that it’s as natural to me to be the lesbian I am as it is for them to be the heterosexuals they are. I’d never looked for, needed to find or expected to find ‘proof’ that I was born with my sexual orientation. (or at least that it formed early and was not subject to change) I just thought that wherever it came from, it’s the same place heterosexuality (or bi-sexuality) comes from, and one day maybe, people will finally come to understand this. All the gay rights activism in my youth (I’m 52) operated around the widely shared understanding that our homosexuality was innate.( It was pretty late in the day when I first met a politically rather than sexually identified lesbian who actually stated it.) Statistics bear out that where heterosexuals have that belief also, (that homosexuality is innate) their support for gay rights is more likely. Not guaranteed, I understand, but certainly more likely. And, you know, while I’m certainly not opposed to the idea of people loving and choosing to partner up in any way they want, and having equal human and civil rights, it still matters to me to be understood as the person *I* am. So I can’t get on board with ‘it doesn’t matter how you came to be a lesbian’ for two reasons. One is that it is my understanding of myself, my ‘truth’, if you like, that I’m a ‘natural’ and the other is that it’s going to take much longer to improve the rights of gay men and lesbians, who have had no choice in the matter, if we don’t utilise that widely shared personal truth – which can’t be proven *not* to actually be true. Why sacrifice any leverage at all that we have on behalf of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the here and now to reach for a more difficult objective? Sometimes I think that’s just politics gone mad. Advocate for a completely flexible society by all means, but don’t ask or expect those of us to whom our self understanding is important, for *our own* reasons, to further ‘invisibilise’ ourselves and our personal narratives. I think we’ve had more than enough of that already.

    I had this debate elsewhere last year and because of the way it unfolded I did, for the first time in my life, really seek out what evidence there is for a biological origin of homosexuality. The closest thing to a conclusion that I found is that in twin studies, where identical and non-identical twins, whether the twins were raised together or apart, it was found that there is a higher concordance for homosexuality than in the general, background population. That is, the likliehood that if one twin is homosexual the other one will be too, is higher.( I can dig out the actual statistics and references if anyone would like them.) A general conclusion is that, however and for whatever reason, as yet undetermined, the greater the amount of genetic or otherwise biological material that is shared between siblings, the greater the concordance for homosexuality. There is no suggestion that there is a single gene that determines sexual orientation. In fact I don’t think there’s much progress at all on *how* sexual orientation is formed, just that there does appear to be a biological component.

    I know there is a fear out there that if a biological origin can be found, it can be used to alter sexual orientation, so we shouldn’t look too closely. My answer to that is that the search will no doubt go on just because that’s the nature of science, anyway – so we can’t afford to be afraid of whatever might be found. Life goes on!

  36. Yeah, but it doesn’t fit into the current two-consenting-unrelated-adults-of opposite sexes model. I don’t think the gay by choice argument is gonna help change that (isn’t that what the fundies are trying to do; maintain the opposite sex model?).

    There is no need to “maintain the opposite sex model”, because there is currently no other model.

    If you would like another model, get together with your legislators and craft the required legislation. Better do it before we get the federal constitutional amendment in place.

  37. How can a man both admit to himself that he’d like to suck dick while continuing to to deny being “gay”?

    By telling himself that every man wants to suck dick that that the only difference between straight people and gay people is self-control.

  38. The idea that people “choose” to be gay is a consequence of the fact that a majority of the most outspoken anti-homosexual activists are, indeed, homosexuals in denial – and the argument reflects their own personal reality.

    I say “personal reality” because everyday these people force themselves to live a “heterosexual” lifestyle despite their true nature. Most will occasionally slip, but I think some of them have actually managed to force themselves to live decades or longer without their preffered sexual activity.

    Of course, they cannot lie to themselves forever, and at some point they end up having to accept that they desire to engage in sexual activity with other men. However, the taboo against being “gay” is so strong that they cannot accept the label and so they enter a state of cognative dissonance where they can admit their desires but still deny being “gay”. They do this by accepting the idea that all men feel sexual attraction towards other men but that the majority – the “heterosexuals” – simply refuse to act on these impluses. They recast “being gay” to ‘actually engaging in homosexual sex” and can therefore deny being gay despite what is going on in their minds.

  39. Cicely, I don’t think the idea of biology dictating sexual orientation actually capture’s everyone’s truth. I’ve known many people who’s sexual orientation has shifted several times. For some of those people—and I’m including myself here—at least part of the shift occurred due to the confluence of social forces and conscious choice. What about our truth? I suppose we could just pipe down and not rock the boat, but I think the bigots are already aware of our existence.

    What about other cultures and other time periods? The boundaries that govern sexual attraction vary across time and between cultures. Those boundaries effect how people perceive themselves and their sexuality.

    I think the biological model is too simplistic. While it’s serving as a useful political tool at present, will it continue to do so in the long run? Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. Every major social shift experiences some degree of backlash. If there are holes in our arguments—and I believe there are gaping ones—you can be sure our adversaries will exploit them. I’ll wager that the haters of the world will learn to adjust their strategies in ways that will circumvent using biology as a justification for granting us equal rights. So, what might our next strategy focus on?

    It’s also quite frustrating to see movement after movement of people struggling to gain basic rights that really shouldn’t be in question in the first place. It didn’t start with queer rights. This has been going on for ages. It seems like identity politics keeps reinventing the wheel every generation. How do we progress beyond this? I think it’s important to look for common social patterns that oppressed groups encounter. I think it’s important to take these patterns into consideration when contemplating how one should go about challenging oppression. Perhaps that’s what other people are thinking about on this thread, too?

    After all, people don’t hate us because we choose to be different or because biology makes us different: they hate us because we ARE different. That’s common to nearly all forms of oppression you can think of. I believe it’s quite legitimate to ask, “What if I have chosen to be different? What’s wrong with that, anyway? My differences hurt no one. What gives you the right to make my life hell because I am not the same as you?”

  40. Pingback: Acephalous
  41. Well, I’ve been following links from Glaivester’s Google search on Greg Cochran, the guy who advocates that male homosexuality is caused by a virus or a bacteria. I found this quote by Cochran to be quite chilling (all italics are mine):

    Further: in a generation or two, we’re going to be able to control all these things, mutational or infectious – at least in the wealthier countries. . Nobody’s going to be manic-depressive. Nobody’s going to have schizophrenia. No kids will be born deaf, and deaf culture will fade away. I think that not too long after we determine the etiology of homosexuality , we’ll be able to prevent it, and almost all parents will. Forget Marfans, and dwarfism, and Ehlers-Danlos

    The human race will be more uniform. This trend has already been underway for a long time – you don’t see those entertaining paresis cases on the street anymore, congenital deafness is down by factor of two, blind beggars are scarce, Down’s syndrome is getting rarer. Soooo… it might also be the cause that certain kinds of thinking become scarce, kinds of thinking that occasionally pay off. Even so, we’ll do without. Damn few parents are going to choose to have a manic-depressive kid on the off-chance that he’ll be a major poet someday.

    That pretty much speaks for itself…

  42. Raging Moderate and others: Supporting gay rights based on homosexuality not being a choice is an implicit rejection of the validity of bisexuality. A bisexual woman who is in love with another woman and wants to marry her is granted less moral standing under your system than a lesbian, because the bisexual can choose to find another mate who is male. If I, a man, am in love with another man, does it matter whether I at some level chose to be attracted to men? It seems like the right you’re advocating is marrying a person one is attracted to, while others advocate (rightly, in my opinion) marrying the person one is in love with. (I’m not entirely glad about the wording, because it implies that sexual attraction is inherently less important than so-called ‘love’, but I firmly believe the latter right encompasses the former.

  43. There is no need to “maintain the opposite sex model”, because there is currently no other model.

    I’d say that Massachussets offers us another model. Vermont offers another. Various countries and traditions around the world offer lots of different marriage models.

    Now, re: same-sex marriage and the “slippery slope” into polygamy: The campaign for marriage equality, like the campaign for interracial marriage, specifically attacks a system that denies marriage to certain people because of immutable characteristics. With interracial marriage that characteristic, obviously, was race. With same-sex marriage that characteristic is sex — not homosexuality.

    We disallow same-sex marriage because of a shared characteristic of the two people who want to get married. As has been argued by the homo-bigots, gays and lesbians can get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Similarly, in many states prior to Loving v. Virginia, black people could get married, as long as they married someone of the same race. Ditto for white people. Now, women can get married, but only if they marry men. Men can get married, but only if they marry women.

    What we’re essentially saying is that, because of an unchangeable characteristic* like sex or race shared by you and your partner, you cannot marry that particular partner. That, obviously, is very different than saying you can’t marry someone because of their minor age, or you can’t marry as many people as you choose. When you break the argument down into a gender discrimination issue, it gets really interesting, at least legally. What’s the logical argument against it?

    *I realize that sex isn’t a strictly unchangeable characteristic, but it’s commonly thought of as such. And I’m fairly confident that no one would suggest that people should have to change their sex in order to quality for marriage to their partner.

  44. Supporting gay rights based on homosexuality not being a choice is an implicit rejection of the validity of bisexuality.

    I agree. I totally agree. Thank you, Djur.

  45. StacyM,

    Wow! That is chilling!

    And what it tells me is my suspicion about people not “getting” evolution, not wanting to get it, etc. The whole “point” of evolution — the point which, as a philosophical point even more than “social Darwinism” (which the right largely accepts), ID theorists cannot accept — is that what is important, what allows for progress, what is key to evolution is not that the “fittest” (only) survive but that there is mutation, there is variation. It is from the variants that evolution can select the best. And if you have a uniform population, you cannot hope for any evolutionary progress. Like the lepers in the Bible who break the siege, sometimes those seen as “diseased” are the ones who actually will save the city. The problem with eugenics (as if the inherent racism was not bad enough) is that in its quest for uniformity to improve the species, it undermines the very ability of evolution to improve the species because we are not intelligently designed and no human intelligence can predict what traits will be the traits required in future generations to ensure our survival! If we eugenically remove those traits — we’re screwed!

    The funny thing is that so it goes with biology, so it goes with governance. The strength of a democratic republic is that all sorts of voices get a place at the table — and since we don’t know before hand who might hold the key to progress and social salvation, we need to listen to everywhere and select (not all whacky ideas are equally valid) from them according to which ideas are most fit. Those who want us all to think the same way or even to privalege in the public sphere certain kinds of belief systems (e.g. having those idolatrous 10 commandment monuments in court houses giving those beliefs the imprimateur of officialdom) undermine society’s ability to adapt by having a spectrum of ideas from which to select the best.

    The degree to which people purposefully don’t get evolution — of which Intelligent Design and Social Darwinism (which ignores the critical role of the less than fit in providing the variation from which nature selects) are two examples and the flip sides of the same coin (ignoring the importance of variation), and I do think that the upshot of “teaching the ID debate” will be that students will get suckered into believing in Social Darwinism and I’m paranoid enough to think that’s the point — is frightening — because of the sort of think you link to and because it is destructive to society that there is not enough respect for diversity for the best to win out in the end (of course, given the “wrong is the new right” ethos of the punditocracy, we are selecting the worst ideas, e.g. the Iraq war, anyway).

    I sometimes fear that Mead was right about our descent back into the middle ages, superstition, etc. And the misreadings and rejections of evolution are perhaps the most dangerous part of this.

  46. the slope isn’t so slippery that allowing same-sex marriage, which fits very nicely into the current two-consenting-unrelated-adults model – zuzu

    Actually one can argue that the slippery slope is in the other direction: by blocking gay marriage, which is a natural extension of straight marriage, in defense of “traditional marriage” it will lead to other forms of traditional marriage (e.g. selling women into marriage, polygamy) becoming accepted.

    Indeed, we do see the anti-gay right, which has long argued in favor of “traditional marriage”, realizing (or maybe just being more open about something they knew all along … although given the ability of people to assume “traditional” == “1950s TV show”, I suspect that they are only now realizing what “traditional” actually means in this context and, already committed to the traditional, adjusting their beliefs accordingly) that “traditional marriage” does not mean what they thought it meant and starting to argue for more traditional forms of “courtship” and marriage … it’s only a matter of time before they read their Bibles and realize that polygamy is “traditional” too and go down that slippery slope.

    One can certainly argue that accepting gay marriage is a re-affirmation of monogamous, mutually consentual, romantically based heterosexual marriage as well — and that rejecting gay marriage is a rejection of such heterosexual marriages.

  47. StacyM Says:

    Cicely, I don’t think the idea of biology dictating sexual orientation actually capture’s everyone’s truth. I’ve known many people who’s sexual orientation has shifted several times. For some of those people—and I’m including myself here—at least part of the shift occurred due to the confluence of social forces and conscious choice. What about our truth? I suppose we could just pipe down and not rock the boat, but I think the bigots are already aware of our existence.

    I absolutely believe that it’s everyone’s right to talk about their own truth. I understand that there isn’t just one path (or one orientation) leading to a particular attraction, or love, and I agree that human and civil rights *shouldn’t* rest on some burden of proof or belief that people are born hetero or homosexual, or bi-sexual, or for whatever reason don’t feel that they ever made a choice. It shouldn’t be a moral or legal issue how or why one person wants to be with another, when they’re both consenting adults. It shouldn’t be anyone elses business. In the world as it is though, these two things are true:

    1. The average heterosexual person who supports gay rights currently does so on the basis of a belief that homosexuality is innate and an understanding that it is unjust to punish or discriminate against people who are otherwise no different from themselves.

    2. 73% of gay men and lesbians recently surveyed described themselves as having been born gay, as opposed to other origins. (16% said they chose to be gay and 11% said they were influenced to be gay.) There were 437 respondents to the question “were you/did you…….born gay/choose to be gay/influenced to be gay?”

    If this is a reflection of homosexuals in the wider population it means that for the vast majority of homosexuals their acceptance by heterosexuals in the world they live in *today* is based on something that is actually true for them. And it’s a truth many, many homosexuals have fought long and hard to have understood. If we take an all or nothing approach, even trying to argue that homosexuality is *not* innate for anybody, as social constructivists do (and it was feminist social constructivists and politically rather than sexually identified lesbians who finally sent me looking for biological origins because they asked me ‘what informs you that your lesbianism is innate?’), what might we be risking and what is being said to homosexuals who do experience themselves as born gay? What do we (or some of us) hear? I admit to having an emotional response at this latish stage in my life, to being asked ‘what informs me etc.’ when my answer is ‘the whole experience of my life, and that of many, many friends and lovers’. Maybe someone else can relate to this and help me understand exactly what it is I’m reacting to, when I’m not opposed the goal of a much freer society overall. When people say to me specifically ‘it doesn’t matter, and can’t be allowed to matter *how* you came to be a lesbian’, for political reasons, I react. Clearly, it matters to me.

  48. Hi Jill 🙂

    I’d say that Massachussets offers us another model. Vermont offers another. Various countries and traditions around the world offer lots of different marriage models.

    I submit that these “other models” are akin to someone rounding a corner in a dark alley and being accosted by a guy in a mask holding a banana and saying “stick ’em up”.

    Most rational people would laugh like hell, because this guy who is deluded into thinking he’s holding a gun is actually holding a banana.

    We disallow same-sex marriage because of a shared characteristic of the two people who want to get married. As has been argued by the homo-bigots, gays and lesbians can get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Similarly, in many states prior to Loving v. Virginia, black people could get married, as long as they married someone of the same race. Ditto for white people. Now, women can get married, but only if they marry men. Men can get married, but only if they marry women.

    No, we disallow same sex “marriage” not because of the characteristic of the person, but the characteristic of marriage. Has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with the definition of marriage.

    What’s effectively happened here is that a couple of non-elected judges have seen fit to declare a banana a firearm. This is generally going to cause a lot of problems, like people being arrested for posessing unlicensed bananas, and real guns not being taken seriously. The second problem is more of a concern to me.

    Most reasonable people look at the judge and say: “You’re joking. You DO know that’s a banana, don’t you?” The problem is, that now the force of law is behind it in Massachussets and it’s not funny any more. Now we have to effectively say: “A banana is a fruit, and a gun is a firearm”. That will take a national constitutional amendment, because there will always be one or two judges who maintain that a banana is a gun.

    What we’re essentially saying is that, because of an unchangeable characteristic* like sex or race shared by you and your partner, you cannot marry that particular partner. That, obviously, is very different than saying you can’t marry someone because of their minor age, or you can’t marry as many people as you choose. When you break the argument down into a gender discrimination issue, it gets really interesting, at least legally. What’s the logical argument against it?

    But I’m essentially saying that a banana is not a gun. If you would like to declare a banana a gun, it will take more that one judge to say so. It will take laws being passed by the legislative branch and signed by the president (or passed by state legislatures and signed by the governor for individual state laws). But then expect some judge to pull “full faith and credit” out of the mothballs to cram same sex “marriage” down the throats of the rest of the states. That’s why a constitutional amendment is required.

    As a matter of fact, Massachussets and Florida voters are getting petitions signed to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot so the people can decide (if I remember, you’re pro choice, shouldn’t the voters get to choose?). Some folks also set up a website to “out” the signers of the petitions. Interesting site called knowthyneighbor.org.

    The whole situation is going to be interesting. I believe it’s going to come down to “a banana is a fruit, and a gun is a firearm” even if you think it discriminates against the banana because of unchangable innate characteristics.

  49. I think cicely’s post # 50 hits the nail on the head;

    It shouldn’t be a moral or legal issue how or why one person wants to be with another, when they’re both consenting adults. It shouldn’t be anyone elses business. In the world as it is though, these two things are true:

    1. The average heterosexual person who supports gay rights currently does so on the basis of a belief that homosexuality is innate and an understanding that it is unjust to punish or discriminate against people who are otherwise no different from themselves.

    2. 73% of gay men and lesbians recently surveyed described themselves as having been born gay, as opposed to other origins. (16% said they chose to be gay and 11% said they were influenced to be gay.) There were 437 respondents to the question “were you/did you…….born gay/choose to be gay/influenced to be gay?”

    If this is a reflection of homosexuals in the wider population it means that for the vast majority of homosexuals their acceptance by heterosexuals in the world they live in *today* is based on something that is actually true for them. And it’s a truth many, many homosexuals have fought long and hard to have understood. If we take an all or nothing approach, even trying to argue that homosexuality is *not* innate for anybody, as social constructivists do (and it was feminist social constructivists and politically rather than sexually identified lesbians who finally sent me looking for biological origins because they asked me ‘what informs you that your lesbianism is innate?’), what might we be risking and what is being said to homosexuals who do experience themselves as born gay? What do we (or some of us) hear?

    I still can’t figure out why you’d want to abandon the strategy that is making progress in other parts of the world (that being gay is innate), in favor of one which will alineate many people and lead to a continuing decline in gay rights in America. Of what benefit is “gay by choice” activism to cicely?

  50. Alright, I can’t tell you how much I don’t want to follow this argument … but my career is based upon disproving the existence of this particular philosophy, so I will:

    The degree to which people purposefully don’t get evolution — of which Intelligent Design and Social Darwinism (which ignores the critical role of the less than fit in providing the variation from which nature selects) are two examples and the flip sides of the same coin (ignoring the importance of variation), and I do think that the upshot of “teaching the ID debate” will be that students will get suckered into believing in Social Darwinism and I’m paranoid enough to think that’s the point — is frightening — because of the sort of think you link to and because it is destructive to society that there is not enough respect for diversity for the best to win out in the end (of course, given the “wrong is the new right” ethos of the punditocracy, we are selecting the worst ideas, e.g. the Iraq war, anyway).

    There’s no such thing as Social Darwinism. By which I mean, there’s no coherent philosophy which ever had purchase in the US which went by the name of “Social Darwinism.” Sure, we’ve had a few pernicious eugenics movements, but they’ve never been “socially Darwinian” in their particulars. They’ve been, exclusively, “social Lamarkian,” in that they’ve always assumed that the traits preserved and/or not were heritable in a Lamarkian fashion … which puts it in the realm of fiction, not science.

    I don’t say this to disagree with any of the points articulated above. “Social Darwinism” will no doubt be evoked, time and again … but since I’ve banked my academic career on proving that this particular beast doesn’t exist, I can’t brook the invocation, even when I concur with its intent.

    The fact of the matter is, “Social Darwinism” is–and has always been, since the words were first uttered–a veritable Bogeyman. Very convenient in the service of slaughtering your opponent, but not a position anyone ever seriously advocated. Drop me a line if you’re interested in hearing more about its history. (I may be an academic, but I know enough to know when not to press my scholarly interests on the general population.)

    All that said, I’m obviously not at odds with the other posters here. All points taken and affirmed. I just can’t dismount this particular hobby horse.

  51. Also, doesn’t the “gay is a choice” argument legitimize the “gay can be cured or fixed” argument? They’ve made a bad choice (like an alcoholic or drug addict) and need rehab to get sober (or straight)?

    I think Fundamentalism is a bad choice. They should be cured by judicious application of Origin of the Species and a couple logic textbooks.

    RM, I don’t really care what you, in your condescending I-only-support-gay-rights-as-long-as-the-rest-of-society-does self-righteousness think we should use as a strategy. I had the potential to be queer and I chose to accept it, just as I had the potential to be agnostic and liberal. It doesn’t mean I can go back. Few aspects of behavior are 100% inborn or 100% learned. This is basic behavioral science. I’m not interested in denying science for activism: that’s what the opposition does.

    And I’m as interested in respecting my fellow queer folks–some of whom do feel they chose their orientations–as in gaining precious approval from heterosexuals. More, perhaps. I see no reason to cut them down and tell them they’re deluded to gain a pat on the back for “strategy” from people like you.

  52. And it’s a truth many, many homosexuals have fought long and hard to have understood. If we take an all or nothing approach, even trying to argue that homosexuality is *not* innate for anybody, as social constructivists do (and it was feminist social constructivists and politically rather than sexually identified lesbians who finally sent me looking for biological origins because they asked me ‘what informs you that your lesbianism is innate?’), what might we be risking and what is being said to homosexuals who do experience themselves as born gay? What do we (or some of us) hear? I admit to having an emotional response at this latish stage in my life, to being asked ‘what informs me etc.’ when my answer is ‘the whole experience of my life, and that of many, many friends and lovers’.

    There’s a word that’s repeated over and over again in your post: homosexual. As usual, bisexuals and their perspectives are ignored. Whenever a political movement ignores the perspectives of a minority populace among its ranks, that’s a problem. Transpeople often get the short shrift in the queer community, so I’m more than sympathetic in these matters. Besides, on some level, I too am bi.

    It’s a problem that fundamentalists are very willing to exploit, too: wanna bet that some of the most successful poster boys and girls in the ex-gay movement are bisexual?

    Besides, my whole point—which few people seem to be taking seriously—is that there’s a limit to the effectiveness of the biological argument. Sure, lots of straight people are willing to cut us a break for being biologically destined to love in a way they personally find repulsive. However, that’s not going to prevent them from seeing us as defective. Being viewed as defective is not conducive to eradicating our current status as second class citizens. Case in point was the Greg Cochran quote in post number 43. In their hearts of hearts, begrudging acceptance or no, some folks still want to get rid of us.

    So, we’ve gained a kind of provisional acceptance: as long as we are a byproduct of quirky biology, we’ll be granted some degree of acceptance by society. Being viewed as a tolerable defective is certainly better than being viewed as detestable pervert worthy of ostracism and violent repression. However, wouldn’t it be useful to move beyond this? Shouldn’t we be thinking of ways to move toward an even greater level of acceptance?

    I still can’t figure out why you’d want to abandon the strategy that is making progress in other parts of the world (that being gay is innate), in favor of one which will alineate many people and lead to a continuing decline in gay rights in America.

    My previous comments apply here as well. My point is that the current strategy will only take us so far. At some point in the future, a different strategy will be needed to push for greater levels of acceptance.

    Plus, it ignores the reality of a number of people’s lives. Political expedience is commonly used as an excuse to ignore minority voices in political movements. This happened to women in a number of past political movements (and hasn’t really stopped), it happened to lesbians during the women’s rights movement of the 70’s, it is currently happening to queer people in the Democratic party, and it is currently happening to bi and trans people in contemporary queer politics. I find the practice to be abhorrent and hypocritical.

  53. There’s a word that’s repeated over and over again in your post: homosexual. As usual, bisexuals and their perspectives are ignored.

    Just a quick one – because I should be working – StacyM. I do mention bi-sexuality at the top of my post (hetero/homo/bi), and I don’t disregard bi-sexuals, their lives or rights in my thinking. I guess I’m not covering everything I think in what I’m saying, but I want to assure you of this. My belief is that there is a spectrum of sexual orientation and some peoples are more fixed than others. It’s still a mainly essentialist belief, but it certainly leaves room for everyone to express their own sexuality in their own way. It’s not rigid.

  54. Cicely, thank you for clarifying your position.

    Much of the discourse taking place in progressive venues spends the lion’s share of its focus upon single sex attraction. That’s not surprising, since so much thinking on gender-related issues falls into the trap of dualistic thinking. Both gays and pro-gay straights seem stuck in the notion that one is attracted to either women or men. So too, there is an accompanying social pressure to force fit oneself into this dichotomy.

    Bisexuals, pansexuals, and other variants of sexual orientation do get mention, but the usual pattern is to be tossed in as a footnote or an afterthought. (I’m doing this too, given that I only now remembered to include pansexuality.) It is maddening to feel invisible: to have one’s perspectives dismissed as rare, unimportant variations. That’s the general attitude that I have found in most progressive discussions on this topic. I am railing as much against the general patterns of discourse I see, as I am against your words and the words of others who have posted in this thread.

  55. If we take an all or nothing approach, even trying to argue that homosexuality is *not* innate for anybody, as social constructivists do

    Just jumping in here to point out that at least in some cases (particularly in much of the feminist postmodern theory that began to emerge in the 90s), feminist social constructionists with theories about the non-essentialness of sexualities are most definitely not taking an all or nothing approach. It’s very much a gray area, some of the theory around these ideas, and very much a both/and rather than an either/or. In many cases, they are not arguing that sexual desires aren’t biologically influenced or even biologically grounded, but rather that all categorically identity-based sexualities, heterosexuality and bisexuality and whatever else included, are social constructions arising from the overlap of “natural” biological sexual desires and the socially constructed framework of a categorical arrangement of bodies/identities inside of a culture such as ours.

    In other words, they’re saying something like, “We rather suspect that no one is born with any given sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we think people are born as blank slates. Not at all. Rather, we suspect we are born with a range of potential in which to experience various sexual and erotic desire(s), and that when those desires are experienced inside of a social context, the ways in which we experience those desires, understand those desires and how they do or don’t relate to our larger sense of our identities, how we label those desires, and even how we behave on those desires, are all going to be profoundly affected in various directions by whatever social constructs are around us.”

    These theories allow perfectly well for spectrum-model beliefs about sexualities and sexual identities, and in many cases actually bolster and support such models over other, more simplistic theoretical models that simply cannot account for the complexities of human sexual behavior that we repeatedly see not only in our own modern western culture, but over time and across cultures.

  56. [apologies if this is a double post, i got an error message the first time i tried to post]

    If we take an all or nothing approach, even trying to argue that homosexuality is *not* innate for anybody, as social constructivists do

    Just jumping in here to point out that at least in some cases (particularly in much of the feminist postmodern theory that began to emerge in the 90s), feminist social constructionists with theories about the non-essentialness of sexualities are most definitely not taking an all or nothing approach. It’s very much a gray area, some of the theory around these ideas, and very much a both/and rather than an either/or. In many cases, they are not arguing that sexual desires aren’t biologically influenced or even biologically grounded, but rather that all categorically identity-based sexualities, heterosexuality and bisexuality and whatever else included, are social constructions arising from the overlap of “natural” biological sexual desires and the socially constructed framework of a categorical arrangement of bodies/identities inside of a culture such as ours.

    In other words, they’re saying something like, “We rather suspect that no one is born with any given sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we think people are born as blank slates. Not at all. Rather, we suspect we are born with a range of potential in which to experience various sexual and erotic desire(s), and that when those desires are experienced inside of a social context, the ways in which we experience those desires, understand those desires and how they do or don’t relate to our larger sense of our identities, how we label those desires, and even how we behave on those desires, are all going to be profoundly affected in various directions by whatever social constructs are around us.”

    These theories allow perfectly well for spectrum-model beliefs about sexualities and sexual identities, and in many cases actually bolster and support such models over other, more simplistic theoretical models that simply cannot account for the complexities of human sexual behavior that we repeatedly see not only in our own modern western culture, but over time and across cultures.

  57. Damn, I swear I checked to see if that had posted the first time. Sorry, the internets appear to be fucking with my head today.

  58. Besides, my whole point—which few people seem to be taking seriously—is that there’s a limit to the effectiveness of the biological argument. Sure, lots of straight people are willing to cut us a break for being biologically destined to love in a way they personally find repulsive. However, that’s not going to prevent them from seeing us as defective. Being viewed as defective is not conducive to eradicating our current status as second class citizens.

    We could explore this further. First of all I’d say that I don’t generally frame conversation about innateness in my own mind as an arguement or even a strategy so much as a description of something real that society has been unwilling and/or unable to *see* for a multitude of obscuring reasons. It’s *recognition* I think we’ve been seeking first, which would then lead to human and civil rights. We’ve been saying ‘We’re just like you, no better or worse, except that our sexual and romantic attractions are – naturally for us – for members of our own sex instead of the opposite sex, which is what comes naturally to you, however any of our sexual orientations are actually formed,which we don’t know.’, paraphrasing and expanding on what Piny wrote above. I can understand people having a sense that it’s demeaning to be saying ‘I’m only homosexual because I had no choice’ because it sounds like they’d rather not be. The only reason to ‘rather not be’ in fact is *because* of the impact of homophobia. Other than that, and even in spite of it, we’re mostly very happy to be ourselves. We’ve developed our own culture – or cultures – in different ways in space and time – because homosexuality is transnational, transcultural and transhistorical.

    I’m not convinced that the level of recognition gay men and lesbians have won up to now (in the Western world) isn’t only going to increase (if the whole world isn’t hurled violently into a new ‘Dark Ages’ the way things are going). I don’t think the idea that we’re ‘defective’, rather than just different, is all that common anymore, or at least it’s not ‘the’ most common view. When we’ve reached the point at which we can get married in four countries, enter into civil unions in others, adopt children, access artificial insemination if we (lesbians) want to have children and whatever else, it’s not going to be all that easy to turn back the clock. I believe there is a permanent change – in general – in spite of regular poisonous outpourings from the unenlightened and straight out bigotted people among us. It’s not over yet, particularly in places where conservatives rule, but I do feel that we’re headed in the right direction. We didn’t get here by arguing that everyone should be able to ‘choose’ their sexual orientation. We got here exactly because enough people have come to understand that it’s not something people choose. So, where to from here?

    I’d like to explore what people mean when they say they chose their sexual orientation. Mel, you wrote that you ‘had the potential to be queer and (you) chose to accept it.’ I’d like to know whether you think everyone has the potential to be queer. (And therefore, everyone has the potential to be straight.) Because if not, you and I might not be that different. What you’re calling ‘potential’, I’m calling ‘innateness’. And, as I said in my previous post, I believe there’s a spectrum of sexual orientation running through hetero – bi – homo, with who knows what stops or flexibilities along the way. And then on top of that there’s a range of comfortable gender presentations – among cisgendered as well as transexual and transgendered people. The possibilities are endless. So, I don’t see any actual conflict between peoples personal or political goals around sexuality and gender – whether we’re talking about innateness or choice – other than with homophobes and those who want to maintain binarys of whatever sort. (Not that there’s anything wrong with binaries either, if they’re chosen rather than compulsory.) I think people do make choices unique to themselves, but that there’s also an underlying innate core to everyone’s sexuality. For some of us, what is innate is pretty inflexible. For others it’s more fluid. And all of us should have the right to describe ourselves, express ourselves and generally live our lives being ourselves. I don’t think we need to squash, deny, minimalise or invisibilise anyone elses reality to do this.

  59. IndyLib – We cross-posted. What you’ve said looks much more reasonable than what I took from my debate with social constructivists last year. It got pretty heated in places and I think that often impacts on clarity. Mine and some of theirs probably.

    I can re-visit this more calmly now, although grasping the complexities of whole theories tends to be a bit beyond me. I can pretty much speak mainly from experience and observation. I suspect I would still have some questions about the claimed power of social construction v essentialist origins of certain things, but there must of course be something of both because *we’re* both. Social and animals.

  60. cicely, I’ve been in my fair share of heated debates about this topic in the past myself so I understand how they can spiral out into intense territory. It’s always nice to have a post called reasonable, though, so thanks for that, heh.

    My own experience as a queer woman has been that the sexual desire itself feels no more socially constructed than hunger. However, due to the anthropology reading I’ve done, for example, I strongly suspect that which specific foods I enjoy/dislike are probably a mixture of biological influences, such as predisposition to/against certain tastes, smells and textures, and social influences, such as getting my ideas about specifically what constitutes “food” from western culture. So I don’t have a Pavlovian response to bug larvae, as I very well might had I been raised in a different sort of culture. (I’m oversimplifying, but you probably get my drift.)

    Using that as a model of sorts, I theorize that my sexual desires have possibly been similarly imbued, and that which bodies I like are probably a mixture of biological or inborn preferences for certain things (perhaps even similar criteria as food, such as taste, smells, and textures, etc) and then a huge dose of my culture teaching me its specific definitions of concepts like “sex” and “desirability” and “sexual pleasure” long before I could think about any of that for myself with any real complexity.

    As to power…political power is tricksy from my pov. It’s as real as any other kind of power, and sometimes seems even more real (by which I mostly just mean “more powerful”), but it’s pretty clearly based in all of these socially constructed fictions we use to negotiate the world and each other. (I mean, no one would argue that there’s an essentialism to one’s nationality. At least, no one sane, and not anymore, heh.) My approach to political organizing is similar to my approach to theory; I’m always digging for the Big Truth, always pushing for a totally egalitarian social context, but I’m never entirely certain that these things aren’t idealist utopian fictions, so in the meantime, I’ll take the truest thing I can find, the most ethical thing that gets as close as possible to equality.

Comments are currently closed.