Gay Babies

The below poster of a baby, with the word “homosexual” written on its armband, is part of a proposed campaign by the left-wing administration of Tuscany (a regional government within Italy) to combat homophobia. It represents an attempt to teach people that, because homosexuality is not a choice, gays and lesbians should not have to face discrimination. This kind of “no-choice” approach is nothing new. Gay conservatives wholeheartedly adopted it (throughout the 1990s) and it effectively became the centerpiece of mainstream GLBT organizing in the United States. The “genetics-inspired” notion that one is homosexual or heterosexual at birth does not play a significant role in the theorizing of major conservatives, such as Bruce Bawer and Andrew Sullivan. However, they both expend considerable amounts of ink claiming that homosexuality is “essentially unchosen,” “innate and intrinsic,” and fixed by “at least the age of three”. Their purpose is the same as that embodied in the Tuscany administration’s poster above.
Is this essentialist vision of sexuality valid? Although sexuality is certainly not a simple choice (if we think of choice as switching a light-bulb on or off), the “no-choice” portrayal of it is definitely lacking. It ignores people whose sexualities change over time, bisexuals, and gender-queer sexualities that defy categorization within the homosexual-heterosexual binary. What, for example, would essentialists make of someone who is in a relationship with a transgender man who has a vagina? Is that “homosexual” or “heterosexual”? Furthermore, although people do not simply get up in the morning and decide to turn homo or heterosexual, what is wrong with choosing to be open-minded and experimental with one’s sexuality? Is this not a value that GLBT and queer organizations have a right, and even perhaps a responsibility, to promote? The “no-choice” version of sexuality essentially delegitimates sexual exploration and open-mindedness and works to reinforce the rigidity of homosexual and heterosexual identities, which – if you accept the Butlerian perspectives portrayed in my previous post – may actually increase tensions between straight people and the GLBT community.

The “no-choice” strategy represents an attempt by various elements within the GLBT community (and “well-meaning” left-liberal politicians) to afford homosexuality the same privileged discursive status as heterosexuality: as an unquestioned, bio-psychological given. As such, it is an easy example of how knowledge-power (as portrayed by Foucault) works. The dissemination of the “knowledge” that homosexuality is not a choice attempts to empower gays and lesbians by placing it on the same semantic level as heterosexuality. Unfortunately, under such a framework, the attainment of rights and fair treatment become dependent on the fixity of one’s sexual aim: all those who do not demonstrate such a “stable” sexuality are then implicitly excluded from the nexus of rights and privileges.

Despite all of the flaws mentioned above, can the “no-choice” strategy” be justified as politically expedient? Could it work as short-term tactic that will make the attainment of marriage rights and non-discrimination laws considerably easier? Indeed, U.S. public opinion agencies have documented a link between public support for gay rights proposals and the notion that homosexuality is not a choice. Belief that homosexuality is innate seems to be pivotal in inspiring most people’s support for anti-discrimination laws, such as ENDA. Although the passing of important legal measures may well be speeded by the promotion of such a discourse on homosexuality, it represents no guarantee that prejudice and discrimination will abate. Take the example of the physically and mentally disabled, who despite not having chosen their non-normativity, and having gained considerable legal battles, still face incredible levels of discrimination. Promoting the idea that sexuality is not a choice may facilitate the passing of certain laws – however, these laws in themselves are not going to end homophobia or sexism.

Basing an entire GLBT rights campaign or movement around the “no choice” strategy is, thus, a mistake. What would some alternative approaches to fighting homophobia look like? What other kinds of frameworks could be used to attack prejudice against non-heterosexual people? Homophobia could be portrayed simply as gender discrimination or sexism – indeed, the notion that a particular sexual aim is intrinsic to men and women is just the same as any other requirement in the sexist “life plan” that is drawn out at birth for each sex/gender. Another way of going about it would be to emphasize the inherent value of sexual autonomy in itself. The notion that human sexuality should be as free as possible (within adult-consensual constraints) may very well have its own appeal and is more inclusive of all sexual and gender identities. By promoting sexual autonomy in general (and not the rights of a particular identity-community), there is more of a chance that non-binary and unfixed sexualities will be adequately represented and subsequently legitimated. It is time to go beyond the “no choice” strategy, and the “gender discrimination” and “sexual autonomy” frameworks provide interesting road-maps for a new direction in GLBT activism.

***For More Information***
To find out more about the poster campaign in Tuscany, look here. I have taken a bit of a break from theory in this post – nevertheless, there are still some interesting works to check out. For further elaborations of the “no-choice” perspective, see Bruce Bawer’s A Place at the Table and Beyond Queer (edited by Bawer). Also, have a look at Andrew Sullivan’s various writings – the book Virtually Normal sums him up quite well. For a deeper look at the knowledge-power nexus and discourse theory, see Foucault’s Knowledge/Power: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. A strong case for sexual autonomy can be found in Michael Warner’s The Trouble With Normal.

(...to the full post)

What is Gay Conservatism?

“Most of my friends are straight”
“Yeah, I don’t act like the typical gay, do I?”
“Gays are so promiscuous – loving, monogamous, long-term relationships are what life should really be about.”

If you’ve ever heard any of the above statements, then you’ve come into contact with the discourse of “gay conservatism”: a powerful ideology within gay and lesbian communities that basically calls for queers to distinguish themselves as little as possible from the dominant straight community. Having established this, it is not difficult to guess that the central tenets of this ideology mirror many of the biases and prejudices of normative society:

1.) Gender Conformity & Masculinism – gay conservatives frequently bemoan the alleged high profile that drag queens and bull dykes have in queer communities. They claim that gender non-conformists (and other ‘hedonists’) provide an inaccurate (and shameful) picture of the gay and lesbian community as a whole. Andrew Sullivan, one of the most celebrated gay conservatives, is famous for suggesting that, at the end of the day, men should be masculine and women should be feminine. Unsurprisingly, most gay conservatives are men, with the exception of one “lesbian with a male brain” (Camille Paglia) and her disciples. Paglia was famous in the early 1990s for vitriolic diatribes against feminism and lesbian communities, claiming that non-feminizing (e.g. – not including any kind of ‘cross-dressing/acting’) gay sex is productive and stimulating because it involves a separation from the protective, uncreative cocoon of the mother. Lesbianism (defined as never having sex with men), on the other hand, is regressive and “intellectually enervating” because it is a flight back into the regressiveness of the mother. Although most gay conservative writing is rarely as misogynist, it generally does not accord much relevance to feminism and insists on viewing gay issues and lesbian issues as “separate spheres.”

2.) Marriage & The Military – Andrew Sullivan is famous for claiming that after gay marriage and access to the military have been achieved, the gay rights movement should “end the party.” He suggests that, by limiting our goals to marriage and the military, we are least likely to incur the wrath of the dominant straight community, and we will pay our respects to U.S. liberal constitutionalism (which allows for only formal, legal changes in society). He views marriage and the military as perhaps the most respectable institutions in the U.S., and thus, being included in them would represent/symbolize the acceptance of gays in society. Bruce Bawer, an important (but less famous) gay conservative bemoans the lack of established “courtship rituals” in queer society and positive examples of loving, stable, monogamous relationships (e.g. – marriages) for queer youth. This lack of “positive examples” (i.e. – inducements) creates a culture where “horrible things” like promiscuity and kinky sex are acceptable and an active part of the textual discourse and visual imagery of the queer community.

3.) Resistance to “left-wing” Coalition Politics – gay conservatives tend to see no reason for making alliances with feminists, civil rights and anti-racism movements, anti-war movements etc… the dominant political discourse in most queer communities is viewed by them as “uncomfortably left-wing.” Indeed, being a homosexual should not necessarily imply any kind of political involvement and the U.S. “new left,” with its anti-war, anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalist ideology is certainly not the best ideological group to make friends with. As Richard Tafel (an erstwhile president of the Log Cabin Republicans) points out, gay conservatives tend to believe that the capitalism dominant in Western societies is perhaps the primary factor in creating a positive social environment for gays and lesbians (because it promotes ‘individualism’).

Gay conservatism is usually justified as either a strategic imperative (diminish one’s ‘difference’ in order to become a better candidate for government-administered ‘rights’), or as an ethical necessity in the morally anarchic world of the queer community (thus, ‘straight values,’ such as marriage, monogamy, gender-conformity become viewed as ethically desirable).

As strongly as its promoters may feel about these justifications, this ideology has inexcusably negative implications for the queer community. Particularly relevant for the readers of this blog is the fact that it completely misses the point about gender. As we all know, most homophobia is based not on whom one has sex with but on the victim’s perceived gender performance. Thus, people who don’t fit expectations of masculinity or femininity (whether they be queer, bi, trans, gay, straight, lesbian or whatever) are most often the targets of violence, discrimination, and hatred.

In that respect, gay conservatives are certainly right that if we really want to endear ourselves to the normative straight community, we should sweep those pesky gender non-conformists under the carpet and do our best to ensure that they stay out of the picture (how many queers out there have been lauded by straight people for not being “the stereotypical dyke/fag”?). If, however, we are truly interested in building a better, freer world where gender restrictions and homophobia have no place, then it is gay conservatism that needs to be shunted.

***For more information***
Gay Conservatives – Bruce Bawer (A Place at the Table, Beyond Queer); Andrew Sullivan (Virtually Normal); Camille Paglia (Vamps and Tramps, Sexual Personae – at your own risk, she will make you pull your hair out!!); Richard Tafel (Party Crasher).

About Gay Conservatism – There have been few comprehensive analyses (as yet) of this social/theoretical phenomenon. Of the two that I am aware of, Paul Robinson’s Queer Wars: The New Gay Right and its Critics is by far the best. For a slightly less scholarly endeavor, check out Richard Goldstein – Homocons: The Rise of the Gay Right. For a particularly vitriolic response to gay conservatism (particularly as it relates to issues of sexuality), see Michael Warner –The Trouble with Normal.

(...to the full post)