James
I’ll admit that when I read the headline “Cynthia Nixon: ‘Gay by choice’”, my stomach lurched a bit. My instincts told me ‘this is bad’, which is essentially my standard reaction to anything in the media that refers to the ‘causes’ of homosexuality— I am sure I was not alone in this.
However, as I read her claim and the subsequent comments made defending it, my reaction changed from one of pure face-palm to a sort of wary incertitude.
While I understand the reaction of the gay/queer community against what she said, her arguments of what she meant by it were, I thought, fairly reasonable. There is nothing in what she said, in and of itself, that warrants such a backlash.
Rather, it is the fear that conservatives, religious nutbags and hate-mongers will use this against the non-heterosexual community. This fear is not unwarranted— the sustained hatred and proliferation of damaging beliefs around the choice and curability of ‘homosexuality’ and other ‘sexual abnormalities’ is undoubtedly damaging and, let’s be honest, kills people.
This is not just confined t
o the US either, it is much the same in Australia—see Margaret Court’s recent homophobic diatribe in the Herald Sun, essentially a longwinded way of saying “I’m old and confused by things today”.
It is then understandable that the non-heterosexual community reacts defensively to what they see as a potential threat or betrayal; a chink in their armour that might be exploited . The reaction is a kind of apoptosis—designed to isolate and destroy the corrupted cell before the damage spreads.
However, this ‘sacrifice one for the greater good’ mentality leaves me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth and a couple of the points she made rang pretty true with me.
Firstly, if being gay is a choice (for some), does that make it less legitimate? The bigots are going to take a swing either way; if it is a choice they’re mentally ill or evil, if it is not then it’s a disease, its not their fault and they need to be cured or saved.
Secondly, she says for her it is a choice and that you (we) don’t get to define her ‘gayness’ for her. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this basically the cornerstone of being a non-heterosexual—others do not get to define our identities for us.
She further states that the bigots should not be the ones who define the terms of this debate. If she has only ever said one true thing, then this is it. By allowing the hateful ideologies of some to define the terms and criteria of being gay, we essentially agree to play by their rules, rules which are not going to favour us.
Is the non-heterosexual community, by closing ranks and jettisoning those that don’t fit an easily defendable mould, just creating its own Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
Southpaw Slug 
Hey James, interesting post. Personally, I’ve never understood the rationale behind the genetic defence, since the claim that anything “natural” (genetically prescribed) is good is just as flawed as the claim that anything unnatural is bad. As you point out, it can be used by opponents to classify homosexuality along with genetic diseases, as regrettable but (so far) incurable evils. Even if for most people there is no conscious choice to be gay, there is a strong case to be made that homosexuality could be justified as a free rational choice on the grounds that it causes no harm to individuals or society, and this is why it’s not evil regardless of whether it’s genetically determined or not. So in my opinion the non-heterosexual community should be supporting Nixon’s stance instead of clinging to an argument that implicitly adopts the flawed logic of homophobes.
Hey Cam, thanks for the comment. Yeah totally, good point. To me a more logical idea (albeit one that does and should offer only a partial explanation) would be more in line with some of Judith Butler’s ideas around identity formation. That throughout our formative years we are in a constant process of choosing minute elements of our identity but are unaware of doing so, lack an objective platform from which to view these ‘choices’ and have neither the awareness or ability to understand the dynamics and cumulative consequences of these ‘choices’. But even if it is a conscious choice, who cares (other than homophobes)? Not surprising though that people are now explaining (dismissing?) it by saying that she is really bisexual and has just chosen a woman as her long-term partner.
Pingback: Begging the PM for scraps of equality. | Southpaw Slug
Thats why Obama chooses his ethic heritage carefully as it doesnt define His identity as a whole.
It suits the wasp establishment that accept him as he doesnt display the stereotypical negro tendencies of other african americans!
Cool analysis cheers guys
While I see the links you’re trying to make, I think we should be very careful to focus on the political agendas of the people in power who benefit from certain discourses of difference, rather than questioning the behaviour of the people in marginalised communities themselves.