Choosing one’s own (sexual) identity: Shifting the terms of the ‘gay rights’ debate
Can you be gay by choice? Consider the following, from the Huffington Post:
Former “Sex and the City” star Cynthia Nixon says she is gay by “choice” – a statement that has riled many gay rights activitists who insist that people don’t choose their sexual orientation.
Nixon is quoted thus:
“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.”
Karen Kaplan of the LA Times explains the problem:
The question of whether sexual orientation is subject to nature or nurture – or some combination of both – has been hotly debated for years. If it is not an immutable characteristic, that would imply that a gay person could be somehow transformed into a straight one. In other words, homosexuality could be “cured.” Which in turn implies that being gay is some sort of illness. Hence, the offense taken to this point of view.
I think the logic is a bit fuzzy in the above analysis, but we’ll set that aside for now. Back to Nixon, quoted in the NY Times:
“A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.” [Her face was red and her arms were waving.] “As you can tell, I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Some gay rights activists find this explanation less than satisfying. Writing on AmericaBlog Gay, John Aravosis argued that Nixon “needs to learn how to choose her words better, because she just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly. When the religious right says it’s a choice, they mean you quite literally choose your sexual orientation, you can change it at will, and that’s bull.”
Now it’s my turn to weigh in. I think Cynthia Nixon is a lot closer to correct on this issue than her detractors. “Being gay” — as opposed to ‘feeling uncontrollably and exclusively attracted to same-sex individuals’ — is a question of identity, and one’s identity is in many respects up to oneself. That is, it is a question of how one chooses to self-identify. If you think you’re gay, then you’re gay.
Now, if you find yourself overwhelmingly attracted to members of the opposite sex, and not at all to members of the same sex, you would be a bad citizen of your language community to go on and apply the label “gay” to yourself. You’d be bound to cause some confusion. Wedon’t, as a rule, get to make up our own new personal meanings for words and expect others to play along.
But if you’re capable of feeling attraction to members of both sexes, as many people are, and you orient your romantic and sexual behavior around the same-sex component by dint of your own free choosing, then go ahead and consider yourself gay. Who you “are” is not a metaphysical fact; it’s a self-constructed tag, used for convenience to dumb down the complexity of interpersonal judgements and communication. A tag is a placeholder for a longer conversation. “Gay” is a tag.
The question of who a person is chiefly sexually attracted to, across time and circumstance, is less up for debate, and is largely adifferent question — one much better answered by appeals to the determining pressures of both nature and nurture, as both factors undoubtedly play a role. Genes play a role. Early experiences play a role. One’s psychological relationship to one’s own body plays a role. And for many people, those different roles conspire to push the weight of attraction very heavily to one one side of the gender scale or the other.
For others it’s a bit more ambiguous. Chopping up the gradient complexity of human sexuality into a few nifty labels — “gay,” “straight,” “bisexual” — is the source of much confusion here. The labels are short-hand. If you want to really know about a person’s sexual attractions, you should be prepared to sit and chat for a while.
Here is what’s going on, according to Brian’s Personal Theory of Human Sexuality (backed up by science, but I’m leaving citations out of this post for simplicity). Down at the level of the body, our flesh responds to sexual stimuli in a gender-sensitive way. The pattern of bodily response is a gradient across individuals: some people show no response to opposite-sex vs. same-sex stimuli; some people show a consistent and strong response. Others fall somewhere in the middle.
Now let’s move into the territory of the “mind.” We can start at the lowest level there, the unconscious. Unconscious drives — mating impulses — push us toward other human beings, again in a gender-sensitive way, and again, gradiently across members of the population. Then we have conscious impulses — sexual feelings we’re aware of to varying degrees, and again you have gender-sensitivity and gradience.
Then you have beliefs and values — your own considered views about sex, attraction, how you think you should feel, or how you may want to feel. Then you have social and community pressures, and those are different depending upon where you live and whom you associate with. And then you have historical context to top it all off.
All of these levels interact with each other and play against each other. The body’s stimulus-response does not occur in a vacuum, for example, but is influenced by conscious beliefs and community pressures, and so on. There are many forces at play in the realm of sexual attraction, and whether a person chooses to act upon certain impulses or others — at one or more of the above levels of analysis — can be “up to them” to varying degrees.
For some people, the weight of attraction may be very heavily gender-sensitive, potentially across multiple levels of description; very consistent across time and circumstance, and controlled to a great degree by genetic factors and other determinants “out of the person’s control.”
For others, the weight of attraction may be distributed more widely across the scale, may be different at different levels of description or over time, and may leave room for comparatively greater personal choice in how to act, or in what orientation label to apply to oneself, given the various unconscious and conscious sexual impulses that arise within their social, historical, and psychological context.
I can’t imagine how the above picture could be controversial — I think it’s quite clear that that’s how human sexuality works. So what is this big debate about whether a person can be gay “by choice” or not? Let me dramatize:
Social and religious conservative person: Homosexuality is an abomination.
Gay-rights activist: But a person cannot choose their sexual orientation — they just are who they are, and so it’s unfair to call their identity “wrong” in some way. That would be like criticizing a person for being tall, or short, or fair of skin. None of those things is under a person’s control, so they cannot stand as a basis for moral condemnation.
Social and religious conservative person: Hmmm. Well, I’ve heard of people who used to be gay, but then were turned straight through prayer and other interventions. What do you say to that?
Gay-rights activist: Listen, the evidence shows that being gay is not a choice. Those poor people are probably really gay at heart, but are denying their true natures and simply acting in accordance with the strictures of a heterosexual lifestyle out of shame and pressure from religious conservatives such as you.
Social and religious conservative person: Well, I maintain that being gay is a choice. And even if a person feels that they are sexually attracted exclusively to members of the same sex, that person has a moral duty to refrain from same-sex intimate activity, for such activity is an abomination.
This whole debate drives me nuts. The gay-rights activist is making a big mistake to put all his chips in the basket about “gay is not a choice.” It’s like creationists who peg their belief in God on the falsity of evolution. A really bad idea, since the facts will not be friendly. For some people, there certainly is room for choice with respect to their “gayness” — possibly quite a bit of room — and Cynthia Nixon is one such individual. For others, there is less choice about their attractions, though perhaps still some room for decisions about labeling. Those are just facts. So rather than cover up the evidence to press a moral point, why not change the terms of the argument? A better way to have the debate is like this:
Social and religious conservative person: Homosexuality is an abomination.
Gay-rights activist: No it’s not. People should be able to have consensual sex with whoever they want. Identity labels are irrelevant to this discussion. Mind your own damn business.
That’s how I see it, anyway. But let me not be misunderstood. I’m not being glib about the efforts of gay men and women to secure the same civil rights enjoyed by those who identify as straight. The stakes here are very high. As my friend Mark Bailey has put it:
The timeline of events in history that led to the propagation of the “it’s not a choice” counter-argument clearly shows that this is not inherently a matter of gay-rights activism, but, rather, a necessary grasping unto something presented by a segment of the scientific community that simultaneously could enable a needed moment of relief from relentless attacks against the soul. “It’s not a choice” has been a way to survive.
In other words, many have had to endure endless abuse for their non-heterosexuality: daily bullying, loss of employment, public humiliation, discrimination, excommunication, loss of family and friends – sometimes murder or suicide. And then, finally, in the face of all this, struggling gay men and women had something to say that would cause some attackers to pause for a second by virtue of a few magic words: it’s not a choice. There are people who reclaimed their lives because of those magic words.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeWhether, in the end, sexuality is truly a choice doesn’t matter. But if someone who has endured malice all his life for feelings he felt no control over, finally, can get up in the morning and face the world with confidence while others back-off, just a little, then maybe we can better understand this particular timeline of progress and not mistake it for irresponsible activism.
Mark is right that we should be mindful of this context. And I think he has stated, beautifully, just what is at stake in this discussion. But I give the analogy to creationism and evolution advisedly. If a group rests its beliefs (in the case of creationism) or its moral standpoint (in the case of gay rights) on a set of claims which cannot be borne out by the evidence, then it risks losing its beliefs, or sacrificing its moral standpoint, when the facts can no longer be denied.
Gay people — including those whose feelings of attraction are largely out of their control, as well as those who have some elbow room for how they self-identify — deserve to be treated with love and respect. The moral goal is clear. But if that moral goal must rest on a false or confused premise, then undue risk creeps in for defending it. Specifically, once the relevant facts become widely understood, the right-wing persecutors of gay men and women will be able to claim victory, and harness the data to their side. That’s the danger Cynthia Nixon was referring to when she spoke of ceding the terms of the debate to “the bigots.”
It is precisely the importance of what is at stake for “gay rights” (which I see as being indistinguishable from individual rights) that compels me to argue for firmer ground on this issue.
—
Originally published at Brian Earp’s blog on Practical Ethics at Oxford University.
—
photo of Thinking Man by Shutterstock.com
People can try to switch sides, but not everybody will like it. I also dont belive in the gay/les by choice. For women, is quite easier since they get supported culturaly, and lots of men find that hot. So its a good way to attract attention. But IMO either you or not. In the later years, you change your sexuality, yes. But that not a choice, is the result of biology (IMO).
One of the things that is almost never discussed when lesbians claim to be “gay by choice” is the fact that they don’t have to back their “choice” up by delivering an erection. Bring on a more “gay by choice” men, who don’t identify as actively bisexual, but who have to get it up for both men and women, then we’ll talk. In the meantime, this “I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It” nonsense from these female celebrities is not only tired, but dishonest, misleading, and ultimately unhelpful.
In my opinion, the only “choices” are the choice to act upon the attraction or not, the choice to be “out,” and the choice of what to label one’s self as.
Cynthia’s “choice” have name BISEXUAL! Lesbian can’t be straight! Lesbian can’t fill emotional or sexual attraction to men! Also gay men can’t love women like he love men’s! For bisexual people (90%) this definition is their true: “Those poor people are probably really gay at heart, but are denying their true natures and simply acting in accordance with the strictures of a heterosexual lifestyle out of shame and pressure from religious conservatives such as you.” And bisexual people make confused heterosexual people with this crazy thought – Cynthia Nixon says she is gay by “choice” … Yes Cynthia yes, you… Read more »
Gay, straight, or bi- I have the CHOICE to have sex with whomever I choose. Take away my CHOICE then I become a victim (rape). I live in a society where I can say yes and no.
A “born this way” argument for equal rights is irrelevant. The United States’ Bill of Rights already guarantees the right to choose behaviors that one isn’t born with. This “free exercise thereof” is more commonly known as freedom of religion. Religion is a learned behavior, a chosen lifestyle. Some may even conclude that the practice of religion is an “unnatural” behavior.
I’ve known guys and women who have chosen to be gay and I’ve known folks who are gay and attribute it to some event in their lives and I know folks who have always known they were gay and could no more chose to be different than I could chose to be a raccoon. So the answer to the posts question seems to be yes, you can choose to be gay. The idea that it’s either all nurture or all nature seems to me to be a logically untenable false dichotomy.
Thanks for this debriefing of the debate, Brian Earp. As a layman in psychology (meaning I see a therapist weekly and read a lot to understand what she says to me) some of your article when right over my head. HeatherN: Thanks for making the parts I didn’t understand make sense to me. I only you were on Twitter… I personally believe that sexual orientation is not a choice. Whether that is a survival response or gender/attraction science yet to be proven, I’ll let others tackle that fight. As a bisexual male polyamourist who is wary of religion and largely… Read more »
So first, your welcome. 🙂 Second, I’m on Twitter I just don’t ever post anything…like at all…though that may change at some point. I dunno. My username is hrn212 though, if you’re interested. 🙂
may be a choice for women. definitely not for men.
…I’m just going to go ahead and ask for a clarification of that statement and quietly hope you’re not implying what I think you’re implying.
A lot of what you’re talking about here falls under the category of fluidity…the idea that sexual orientation can shift and change over time. Someone may be exclusively attracted to women as a teenager, but then (for whatever reason or reasons) ends up spending most of their 20s and 30s attracted mostly to men. Or someone who totally self-identifies as a lesbian ends up happily married to a man. Mind, this largely assumes that most of a person’s sexuality is out of their control…the heart wants what the heart wants, etc. So I agree that sexuality is something that may… Read more »
I pretty much agree with what you’e posted here, but I also want to add- let’s assume that incontrovertible proof was found that same-sex attraction is not a choice at all… does anybody really think that will stop the homophobes? That all the “God Hates ***s” religions will just shrug their shoulders and call it a day? I was pretty disgusted by the way many Gay Rights activists reacted to Cynthia Nixon’s quote. Not only was it borderline (or possibly not even borderline) monosexist, but it basically ordered Nixon to define her experiences by the dictates of The Party Line.… Read more »
Of course not…they’ll just argue that since it’s biological it could be treated like a genetic disorder, or whatever. Plus there’s all the proof in the world that ex-gay ministries don’t work, and yet you’ve still got loads of people preaching that they do. I think it’s more hoping that it being immutable will make some people who are on the fence about it less defensive. And, I want to emphasize that I don’t think anyone can chose their sexual orientation…they can just chose what to do about their sexual/emotional attraction to people. As for the reaction to Cynthia Nixon…yeah… Read more »
-shrug- Maybe you’re right, maybe I’m reading too much into the situation. But, as a bisexual man, I think i have every right to be leery of people who are willing to discount what people actually say about their own sexuality when it doesn’t “fit” with their own worldview. Even people I would ostensibly agree with.
Hundreds if not thousands of second-wave feminists in the 1970s “chose” to be lesbians, ostensibly to protest gender inequality. With the benefit of hindsight I think it’s obvious that most of these women were actual lesbians or were bisexual.
It’s quite clear that people do not choose who we are sexually attracted to, and anyone who claims otherwise is usually on some kind of a religious or moral power trip.
Yeah, and you’re not on any power trip at all telling the rest of us what we can or can’t chose to be. Nice.
Okay, so tell everyone when you consciously chose your own sexual orientation.
I have known two women who “switched sides” at some point in their life, claiming to have been straight and then later becoming either lesbian or bisexual. Many people argued that these ladies were bisexual or lesbians all along, but they maintained that their feelings actually did change later in life. Who are we to say they didn’t? Maybe sexuality is more fluid for some people. We really don’t know. But until there is some definitive evidence that sexuality irrevocably set in stone at birth, I personally think the benefit of the doubt should be given to people who claim… Read more »