You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
In 2002, a large gay rights organization was hosting a luncheon that featured a transgender speaker. During the Q&A, there was discussion on the merits of adding "gender identity" to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) - which, if passed, would protect people from being fired because of their sexual orientation.
In the middle of a serious debate, a new staffer, who was just hired from the bluest city in a blue state, earnestly rose to his feet. He proclaimed that he "couldn't comprehend" anti-trans attitudes and was dumbfounded that average people still held deep-seated prejudices against such non-conforming individuals.
"Why was this out-of-touch person hired for a GLBT movement job?" I thought to myself, upon hearing his assertion. It was one thing to believe that transgender Americans deserve equality - which I do - and quite another to be "perplexed" that some conservatives are still freaked out by transgender (and, yes, gay) people.
If we are really interested in change, employees of GLBT groups should be as comfortable in the Waffle House as they are in the U.S. House of Representatives. If you can't speak the language of the American people, then you aren't much help to the cause.
Workers at our major GLBT organizations should be encouraged to get out of their sterile cubicles and visit places where discrimination is still a daily part of life. It is easy to lose touch with the very people we are trying to persuade, and get a false sense of security when living inside an insular world.
I know this to be true, because I live in New York City, and previously resided in Miami Beach and Washington, DC. Without frequent travel to other regions, it would be simple to confuse the echo chamber of Chelsea with the thoughts and values of Middle America.
Unfortunately, there are some activists who are living in a bubble. This was made clear to me on a liberal GLBT list serve last week when some advocates claimed that it did not matter whether Americans thought homosexuality was inborn or a choice. Nothing, of course could be further from the truth.
To mainstream America, the question of nature vs. nurture is the only one that matters. In most of the country, when a person comes out they get asked three questions:
1) When did you know you were gay? 2) Are you sure it's not a phase? 3) Are you able to change?
Of course, the answers most often given are:
1) I've always known I was gay. 2) It definitely isn't a phase. 3) I believe I was born gay and there is no way I could change.
When a person comes out to people they care about, these straightforward answers are enough to turn many people from anti-gay to pro-gay. These responses help people realize:
1) Sexual orientation is often fixed at a very young age, if not in the womb 2) A person's coming out is not some sort of rebellion or attempt to mock religion or societal norms 3) Attempts to go straight are a waste of time and quite possibly harmful, so why try?
The rise in acceptance of GLBT people directly correlates with the understanding that sexual orientation is a natural phenomenon. A May 2007 Gallup Poll showed that 42 percent of Americans believe that homosexuality is inborn, compared with 13 percent in 1977. The number who say upbringing and environment fell from 56 percent in 1977 to 35 percent today.
Residual opposition primarily comes from those who still believe that homosexuality is a casual choice that can be altered through therapy and prayer. A November 2004 Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates poll shows that 79 percent of people who think homosexuality is inborn support civil unions or marriage equality. Among those who believe sexual orientation is a choice, only 22 percent support civil unions or marriage rights.
In a perfect world, it would not matter whether sexual orientation was a product of nature or nurture. But, this is the nation that twice elected George W. Bush. Clearly, the issue of "choice" matters and activists who deny this reality are doing so at their own peril and that of the GLBT movement.
Of course, the message should not be shame-based, such as, "we can't help being gay." It is perfectly fine for homosexuals to point out that they are happy and would not change if they could. We should also say that homosexuality is a natural and normal orientation - and the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. In doing so, we blunt the right wing's pseudo-science where they claim being gay can only come from parental neglect or abuse.
Obviously, bisexuals have some choice in partners. However, they have no more choice in the fact they are bisexual than heterosexuals or homosexuals have in their uni-polar attractions.
While who we love is not a choice, we can choose to be effective activists by telling the truth about sexual orientation and not promoting bizarre ideas that are a distraction and anathema to mainstream Americans.
18 Comments:
'Middle America' is kinda smelly and crappy though, so I don't blame them for living in a bubble really. But what happens if you're too elitist to be white trash and too white trash to be elitist, like me? Hee!
posted by Anonymous, at
4/23/2008 12:09 PM
Its the same old conflict between idealism and practice.
Sure, ideally, it should not matter if sexual orientation is chosen, for most things in life that are accepted, protected, celebrated are chosen, and many things that are condemned are chosen as well.
However, as you pointed out, in practice, in real life, because some flavors of Christianity put great emphasis on self-denial, on original sin and such, the assumption that sexual orientation is chosen matters a great deal to such people - it means they chose correctly, and GLBTQ people did not.
posted by Friend of Jonathan, at
4/23/2008 2:58 PM
Just as an added (but irrelevant) comment to F of J's posting, all the emphasis on "Jesus died for our sins" and sin and guilt in general didnt evolve (devolve!) in Christianity until about the year 1000. Most Christians dont really know squat about the history of their own Faith. I learned more about it from watching the History Channel and the Naked Archeologist than I ever did in religion class. But, as already stated, if someone wants a reason to hate someone or some group, they'll manufacture one.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/23/2008 4:35 PM
Interesting remarks on what people believe. I suppose in another hundred years people will believe other things, too.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/23/2008 10:32 PM
Wayne I'm very glad you are continuing this discussion about choice.
I feel your first point - that gay activists shouldn't lose touch with middle America - runs a bit counter to your recent post on Leno, in which you sounded surprised and implied that gay jokes are archaic. I had written that they would not be considered the least bit archaic in my small hometown in northern Wisconsin.
I also don't think Ryan Philippe looked nearly as taken aback by the homophobia as some gay activists made him out to be. He look pissed because Leno was bringing up embarrassing things about his life. But I digress.
Back to the issue of choice. Average people might care that it's a choice and it may help them accept gay people. But I still do not think the organized religious right is so reasonable. And conversely the fact that other groups of people who were born with their "conditions" - women and people of color, e.g. - continue to be discriminated against proves that bigots don't really care whether someone chose to be who they are or not. Don't you think the KKK is aware that skin color is genetically inherited? Do they care? Do you think conservative Christians who believe a woman's place is in the kitchen are impressed that women don't choose their biological sex?
Nor would average people be so willing to accept homosexuality if the very science we assume will avail us ended up giving them the choice to eradicate it. That video implied that under certain circumstances the mother's biology might feminize fetuses, especially in later pregnancies, resulting in homosexuality. If that turns out to be accurate, you can bet people will want to circumvent it, to "fix" the problem before the fetus comes to term. Tests to determine homosexuality in the fetus, and hormone therapy to alter it before it's born, would be developed. And most parents would be "average" people doing it out of a sense of love, to give their child the best chance possible for success.
There may be a correlation between people who believe homosexuality is innate and those who accept gay people, but is there a causation? From the research I have seen (not to mention personal experience), personally knowing a gay or lesbian (e.g. a close friend or family member) is the primary reason people accept homosexuality as natural or normal; and attempting to change someone's mind with facts is rarely effective unless they have that personal experience with a gay or lesbian person in their life.
I do appreciate that toward the end of your post you wrote about how we shouldn't be so insistent on it not being a choice that we sound apologetic, as if we have some sort of illness that we would get rid of if we could.
I think whenever we are confronted with the lie that homosexuality is a choice or can be cured, we need to confront it on all these different fronts: "No it isn't, and there's plenty of scientific evidence that backs that up, not to mention the endless personal testimonies of gays and lesbians (including myself). And why would gay people choose to be discriminated against? But on the other hand, so what if it were? There's nothing wrong with it. And this is a free country. Religion is a choice, but that's protected."
ALL of these issues need to be addressed, and none of them should be ignored. I think what is important is not to oversimplify this issue.
posted by Anonymous, at
4/24/2008 1:42 AM
I agree that exposure to homosexuality, particularly a loved one who is gay/lesbian is critical in accepting them as equal.
