Actually, who cares if gayness is a "choice"? Tavia Nyong'o breaks it down.
As usual, the neo-liberal gays are in a frenzy because governer Bill Richardson called gay identity a "choice" on last night's LOGO LGBT forum, thus refusing to acknowledge gay sexuality as a biologically pre-determined reality.And now the gays are mad.
Some of you can probably guess how I feel about this. The critics who are fuming because Richardson called gayness "a choice," are completely missing the point.
You see, actually I agree with Richardson. Well kinda. As a historian of sexuality, I would argue that gayness is neither biologically determined nor is it simply a "choice," but rather is the result of the social and historical conditions in which sexuality is rendered legible as such. No, this is not just some Foucauldian, jargony language, its actually the truth.
One of my dear mentors and friends, the Yale-trained cultural historian Tavia Nyong'o (professor of performance studies at New York University) offers a brilliant commentary as to why gay folks need to stop relying on the rhetoric of biological determinism (i.e. "I was born this way") as a means of seeking equal protection under the law.
One of the many sharp observations Tavia makes is, "it doesn't matter if [sexuality] is a choice. What matters is that we base equality not on science but on ethics and on the mutual recognition of each other's right to pursue happiness in whatever form it unfolds."
Check out the rest of Tavia's brilliant analysis on his new blog, http://www.bluegum.typepad.com/. Click here for the post.
What do you think?
Frank.
you're right about sexuality being a more complex issue than the argument over if it is biological or chosen. There is some biological component to it, and a person makes a decision as to whether or not to refer to themselves as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, queer, etc. the problem with your argument is that average Americans are probably not ready to understand this yet, as most of them cling so hard to the idea of heterosexual identity. sexuality can not be deconstructed in one try, it has taken years to get this far, and its debatable if there has been real progress or not. to try to convince the public that sexuality is not real would be similar to trying to get them to understand that race is not real either. it would confuse them, and would probably lead people to treat the real, established oppressive forces acting against minorities as though they did not exist. maybe its about time that the public receive a different interpretation of these things, but if not done carefully, it could lead to dangerous repercussions.
Posted by
frontlinemale |
8/10/2007
i have long shunned the notion of "i was born that way" and i like tavia's point that we base equality on ethics, not science. thanks for sharing...
Posted by
AC |
8/11/2007
On a personal tip I do feel that I came out of the womb "this way", but I agree that that doesn't have much to do with a political argument about what our rights are. It was an unfair and irrelevent question to ask but having said that, Richardson really needed to be able to respond much better than he did.
I believe that the libido naturally goes through changes over the course of one's life, affecting many aspects of one's sexual identity, the gender of your desire being only one of many factors.
Posted by
jbyrd130 |
8/11/2007
I agree wholeheartedly that it is not a question of biology, it is a question of ethics. Born gay or no should not be the question that all our basic civil rights hinge upon.
Posted by
DJ Plan.B |
8/13/2007