Cross-posted here
Many of you are familiar with the debate over the legitimacy of homosexuality. The debate almost always revolves around the "choice/biology" dualism, wherein, if sexual preference is a choice, then any queer sexual orientation ought to reorient itself to heteronormativity; meanwhile, if sexual preference is biological, then one is excused from heteronormativity. The conversation is carried out with different understandings of sexual choice. To some, sexual choice denotes an emotional pull that manifests itself as a sexual identity, to others sexual choice denotes the decision to live out a sexual identity. The former is (usually) assumed by those who do not see queer sexuality as nefarious, the latter is (usually) assumed by those who do. While there is no data that can logically argue that queer sexuality is morally wrong, there is theology that can. Last I checked, congress cannot establish a religion, a set of moral values, over another one. However, the implication of this dualism is that it is acceptable to berate people for deciding to take part in consensual adult sexual relations. Many queer sympathizers argue for queer rights because "it isn't a choice, its biology." However, in deploying the logic of the choice/biology dualism, we reinstate the notion that sexual choice = social aberration. Can we please stop?
Now that I've deconstructed the choice aspect of this dualism, it is imperative that I deconstruct the biology side, though this may take a bit of theory and history. The choice/biology dualism is a consequence of two social systems: heteronormative capitalism and American anti-eugenics. The ideology that sustains capitalism is as follows: Capitalism enables all abled-bodied and minded people to succeed economically. Meanwhile, eugenics states that the genes of a people may be improved by discouraging the reproduction of the mentally and physically disabled and encouraging the mentally and physically superior. With these two in mind, it may be logically concluded that those who do not fit the criteria for excelling in capitalism ought to be killed or sterilized. Before WWII, the USA openly took part in this logic, and sterilized undesirables wholesale. Due to the atrocity known as the Holocaust, proclaiming eugenics became a bit less vogue. Thus, the ideology sustaining capitalism in America had to be altered in order to appear anti-Eugenics. In the US, We thus see a conflation of capitalism and anti-eugenics wherein if one is mentally or physically disabled then s/he is excused from the capitalist system.
The system of American anti-eugenics capitalism has been applied to the heteronormative family structure. This is because capitalism has been associated with the heteronormative family structure. As one feministing community member has stated , "My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression. Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labor, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered...and classed social set-up. Not only that, families prevent money [sic] the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism." Because being queer has long been considered a disability in US history, the notion that biologically inherent queerness excludes one from the heteronormative family structure is based in the logic of American anti-eugenics capitalism. Underlying the "biologically inherent queerness" argument is the notion that if one is queer then they are excused from a system of family "as economic units [that] selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism."
Can we please stop with that one too?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Homosexuality: A Choice or Biological Destiny?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12919
Debating the "legitimacy of homosexuality" in terms of the choice/biology debate is a red herring. It is a distraction from the real issue, which is bigotry and discrimination against a group of people.
Is resolving whether or not it's a choice or biological a precondition to addressing the bigotry and discrimination that gays and lesbians are routinely subjected to?
Whether homosexuality is choice or biology, what difference does it make? Determining the "cause" of homosexuality doesn't change the fact that it exists. And a preoccupation with the "cause" of homosexuality indicates a continuing assumption that it is aberrant or deviant behavior. Promoting this assumption simply contributes to the normalization of disparate treatment of the GLBT community.
As a gay person, I really could care less how I got this way. I personally believe it's something biological since there's no way I would choose to have my rights stripped and become a second class citizen since I could have so much privilege in my life.
As bittersweetie said, figuring why people are gay functions as a rouse to figure out how we can get rid of the gays. While it'd be nice to know how I got this way, I don't think there's any way I think it would be productive to have something concrete about it. It actually seems really counter-intuitive.