25th
Image is a screen-capture of a headline reading Cynthia Nixon On Being Gay: ‘For Me It’s A Choice’, above a photograph of Cynthia Nixon.
Well. Now Cynthia Nixon has gone and pissed me off.
“America Blog writer John Aravosis was among those to criticize Nixon’s choice of words… ‘Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.’”
I can definitely relate to what she’s saying, but only because I’ve been in the same place. Straight people can’t relate to that and saying that being gay is a choice really conflicts with the idea of being “born this way” which I think is the only way many people begin to understand the roots of homosexuality.
Nobody comes out of this looking good.
I take your point, Sarah, but to me it seems like Aravosis and company come out looking a lot worse.
I mean, when did political inconvenience become a valid reason to criticize a queer woman for the way she describes her own sexuality? Exactly what kind of world is Aravosis working towards? One where people can have civil rights as long as they’re prepared to subscribe to one particular model of human sexuality and describe themselves in its terms even if it doesn’t fit them?
It’s worth just comparing a couple of Nixon’s comments with some of Aravosis’ response. Here’s Nixon:
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.
…
Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate?
Here’s Aravosis (warning for binarism and ‘splaining):
What she means is that she’s bisexual, and doesn’t quite get that most people aren’t able to have sexual romantic relationships with both men and women because they’re just not into both genders. She is into both genders. And that’s fine. But she needs to learn how to choose her words better…
Allow me to get sarcastic here, because, hey, wow, I would definitely like to sign up for the new rainbow utopia where your sexuality is whatever Mr John Aravosis tells you it is. That absolutely sounds better than the one where people get to define their own identities and it doesn’t matter whether those identities are chosen or innate or constructed or whatever because it is generally understood that someone’s identity is their identity and that alone deserves a bit of bleeding respect.
Okay, at this point my first draft of this post turned into an angry link-filled rant about how objectionable Aravosis is, but you can google him yourselves if you want to know about that. That isn’t the point because he isn’t the only person saying this kind of thing. The point is:
- If some people are going to use a queer person’s account of their own identity to bolster anti-queer bigotry, how about criticizing the bigots, not the queer person?
- If some ‘allies’ are only okay with queer sexuality as long as it’s innate and can’t be helped, how about challenging that view, not shushing anyone who isn’t prepared to collude with it?
- If we want a world where people can be open about their sexuality, how about supporting people who are open about their sexuality?
- If we’re trying to make things better for people, how about prioritizing and listening to actual people, not treating them like obstructions to ‘the cause’?
- Basically, how about having a movement that tries to be what it wants the world to become?
(via garlandgrey)
