I have held back on writing this post for a while now, largely because many thinkers (including Yasmin Nair, Jillian Weiss, Patrick Califia, and Peter Tatchell among others) have done such a fabulous job with the very topic I am going to cover here. Nonetheless, I have realized that even if I only retread much of the ground thinkers such as these have covered I am doing my part by registering my dissent against a worrying trend. As dissent on this topic grows increasingly taboo both inside and outside the LGBT community, I plan to register my concern in as clear of terms as possible before all voices speaking against the current prevailing sentiment are drowned out completely.
I hate the notion of biological determinism as it applies to sexual orientation. I find the spectacle of sexual minorities carrying on piteously about how they would never choose to be this way embarrassing. The "science" behind these ideas is terrible and it tends to perpetuate notions that feminists have traditionally and rightly found repugnant. It tends to be unreflective of women's experiences who often experience greater sexual fluidity in their lives than many men do. It is ahistorical and ignores the social construction of human sexuality in different societies. It makes bisexual people largely invisible. It erases many fascinating and important traditions in LGBT history (such as lesbian separatism). These arguments are made in spite of the fact that women, racial minorities, youth, the elderly, and even disabled people have spent years trying to deconstruct the idea that they are inherently biologically different because that idea has never been good in the long term for any marginalized group ever. Perhaps worst of all, it perpetuates the notion that there is something wrong with being LGBT because no one would choose it.
If anyone would like to learn in more depth about these ideas, I would refer you to the works of the authors listed above, all of whom have written at length about this topic. I feel that I have very little to contribute to this topic in addition to their words of wisdom. I am just going to end this piece by saying that the sooner the "born this way" meme dies the happier I will be. And trust me, it will come back to hurt us big time if it doesn't.
First off, much kudos to you for having the courage to tackle topics that have a fiery emotional charge to them, what with the risk of a mass backlash, Kathleen. Of course, my response will be respectful as we tackle this controversial but important issue. This will be posted in multiple parts due to length.
ReplyDeleteI am ambiguous on the matter of biological determinism when it comes to sexual orientation, but this comes from personal experience and a lifetime of observation. Obviously, a lot of academic and historical study bereft of any type of political agenda needs to be conducted on the issue for us to fully understand it.
That said, I do not personally think that the "I didn't choose my orientation, but nature did" statement automatically means someone is ashamed of their orientation. What it can mean, in purely political terms, is an acknowledgement of what a trial to be born with an unpopular sexual orientation in a time and place in history where such was considered socially unacceptable and legally persecuted. That, however, is not the same as saying you wish you weren't gay/lesbian/bi; what it can mean, plain and simple, is this: "I wish I could have been born during an era and locale in human history, perhaps in the future, where the prejudices and laws against the expression of my natural sexuality and romantic inclinations was not in place and I could live freely without fear." Saying you have no choice in the matter can also mean, in terms of a positive activist slant, "I didn't choose to be gay, so I am going to be gay whether society accepts it or not, we have been there throughout human history, and we are not going anywhere. Hence, we will fight for our civil rights, and history is on our side in eventually achieving them in this time and place too." It may all be a matter of perspective on how to take that type of declaration.
Of course, as we both know, Christian fundamentalists (for example) have used the idea that sexual orientation is a choice *against* the LGBTQ community, insisting that if you could choose whether or not to be gay/lesbian, then you can cease being so at any moment simply by deciding not to be gay/lesbian any longer. But, of course, it's not a simple matter at all.
Also, if we insist on a fluidity agenda, we run the risk of it being politicized to the point where the opposite of what we see today occurs: a new type of self-righteous moralism appears where people are now marginalized and persecuted *not* for who they are attracted to but because they say they are *not* attracted to a certain gender. Individuals with that ideology have been emerging in the past few decades who insist that pansexuality is an *ideal* that everyone should aspire to achieve, and those who "refuse" to embrace it and practice it are mentally "defective" or "immoral" in some way. As a straight man, I have encountered a few individuals of that ideological stripe in the past. As one example, a bisexual man I once befriended who developed an interest in me that I did not reciprocate told me that he was personally "disappointed" in me for letting gender be a barrier towards accepting someone as a potential romantic partner because he thought I was "above all that." In other words, he considered me less of a person for not returning his attraction; the fact that I fully accepted him as a person didn't offset that opinion of his. Another man I once met briefly who was either gay or bisexual once told me that I was "fucked up" for not being interested in pursuing a romance with him because he was a man.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the above attitude is not an evolution of progressive thinking but a form of bullying and potential persecution, and even an attempt to normalize a form of sexual harassment that should never be acceptable in a society that is truly civilized and enlightened. The great majority of LGBTQ people I know and count as friends and/or respected colleagues have no problem with people who identify as straight just as I have no problem with people who are gay/lesbian/bisexual. We should all accept each other, but also accept any type of boundaries that individuals may feel is applicable to them. These boundaries must simply *never* be imposed via the threat of force or other type of coercion by the law, state, religion, employer, family, etc., and that means in *any* possible direction.
Now, as to whether gender fluidity is more natural than pre-determined orientation, and to what degree *personal choice* plays into things, I confess we simply *do not* fully understand all the complexities at this point. One thing we do know, however, is that regardless of whether or not sexual/romantic orientation is pre-determined biologically, people's *behavior* will be fluid according to a variety of factors -- some connected to the type of society one is born into during any given place and time; others depending upon what one's personal circumstances or political agenda may be.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, we know that during certain points in time and place -- including as recently as the 1960s in America -- gay and lesbian people would pretend to be straight to the point of dating partners of the opposite gender and getting married for the following reasons: 1) To avoid persecution, possible imprisonment, loss of respect from family & friends, loss of employment/career; 2) Because they wanted to be parents; 3) Because they simply wanted to avoid undue scrutiny in their lives and live as "normal" and productive a life as possible within the confines of society as they then knew it. For example, at that time, if you were gay or lesbian, you didn't have the option of adopting a child while living within an openly gay/lesbian partnership. Also, during an era where it's very important to produce an heir for the passing down of property, and where women were usually compelled to align themselves with a man of financial means in order to acquire a comfortable life, obviously many gays and lesbians engaged in heterosexual behavior in order to do what was necessary to secure financial security for themselves and their families during such an era. However, they may have very well declined to engage in such behavior had the society they lived in been a different place.
In societies where bisexuality was widely celebrated, it's likely that -- in the opposite fashion to the above -- people who may have been inclined towards heterosexual behavior felt pressured to conform to bisexual behavior at times, especially if they hoped to ingratiate themselves to wealthy and powerful individuals, or simply employers, who happened to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This could likely have been the case in society's such as ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, for instance.
And we all know that one's religion or political agenda very often affects our personal behavior when it comes to a wide variety of matters, including our sexual behavior. Sadly, for example, we know of many gays/lesbians who are devout members of conservative forms of Christianity and Islam that attempt to "change" their orientation, which may really be nothing more than a form of rigid *behavior* modification.
ReplyDeleteIt's also possible, of course, that people may experience fluidity of orientation -- albeit to varying degrees -- throughout their lives. This may be a natural phenomenon influenced by a wide variety of environment factors that may not be fully about personal choice; some people may experience fluidity at various points, and others may always be more or less gay/lesbian, bisexual, or straight throughout a lifetime. As such, IMO, people should always simply be respected for whom they are or are not attracted at any given point in their lives without pressure or coercion to go in any direction based on societal expectations. This type of respect should, IMO, be the only overriding political agenda that we have as we apply unbiased scientific research into the matter. It will, of course, be interesting to see the results of such research.