Cynthia Nixon's comments about her being gay as a "choice" made me yearn for the clarity of Anne Heche. Laugh all you want, but a decade ago, when Anne and Ellen broke up, and Anne began a relationship with a man, she was quite skilled at articulating the complexity of sexual orientation and refusing to label herself. But I am not about to jump onto the "bash Cynthia Nixon" bandwagon. To the contrary, I believe Cynthia was likewise trying to speak to the same complexities. She just didn't realize the backlash that would result and is now suddenly responsible for the end of gay civilization as we know it. Give me a break. If anything, this controversy is primarily a reflection of the amount of influence and power celebrities have in our culture.
I do not know Cynthia Nixon, but from what I have seen, she appears to be a smart, passionate, articulate woman who is in a relationship that is based on love and respect. As a parent, she has been an advocate for children and education and is making a difference. But at the end of the day, this is not about her. How about we pull off the target from her back, take a deep breath, and look at the issues behind the firestorm rather than focus on the person who struck the match?
Personally, I believe Cynthia spoke her truth without parsing her words and now finds herself the object of hostility and anger from the absolutists in our community, for a variety of reasons. This is what happens in a world where identity politics rule and the willingness to live "in the grey" gets in the way of our progress as a community and culture. So let's talk about it.
First, we should be thanking her for giving us an opportunity to talk about the lavender elephant in the room that plagues our community and organizations: talking about sexual orientation for what is really is, a complex human trait that is not fully understood, and not a simple gay/straight binary but a spectrum of behavior and identities that includes bisexuality.
And it also includes choices, especially for women, which has been borne out of research on the fluidity of sexual orientation. My mantra is, "The only choice we make is to be honest about who we are," and that is exactly what she did. My own experience is that I have always been attracted emotionally and physically to women only. And I identify as lesbian. But I know plenty of women (including my wife) who may best be described as "lesbian-identified bisexuals," having the capacity to be attracted to men and women but choosing an identity that they feel comfortable with and which reflects how they want to be publicly known. How many? Who knows? And who cares? That's their choice, and I respect it. It is interesting how it seems more common in women than men, but that's a whole other post.
When we get caught up in the argument that says we are "born this way," and that is the argument for equality, we'd best look at the ways that those whom we would call anti-gay and who would prefer that we not exist might find some way to determine the sexual orientation of a fetus and play the biological determinism game, just like people do with sex-selection of fetuses and the infanticide of infant girls (yet sexism still is an insidious problem, right?).
"Why are people gay?" is still a common question for a lot of people. (Of course, the L, B, and T in LGBT are rarely part of the question, but you know what I mean.) When asked, I often respond with another question: "Why are people straight?" The answer is that human sexuality -- and sexual orientation -- is a complex, fluid, messy, and individualized human trait, and one that most likely has some genetic components. How people express that trait -- how they behave, what they think and feel -- is what makes this so challenging. Human nature and reality make the answers more difficult, but they are also what make us beautifully diverse. And that's a good thing, not something we should be afraid to talk about. Maybe it is because it would involve talking about sexual behavior? Can't do that, can we? Or can we?
In my experience, most people are neither stupid nor naïve, and when presented with real people and compelling arguments that are not abstract or simplistic, they get it. Or at least they begin to think about things differently, which is the best we can hope for with some.
Anyone who knows me or my work as an activist is well aware that you would be hard-pressed to find a bigger ally to the bisexual community. (Google "Cathy Renna bi ally." Really.) I constantly push back when speaking with journalists, activists, and anyone who will listen about the problems that arise from the lack of visibility of the bi community and the lack of willingness to talk about sexual orientation in a complex, nuanced way. It has not been easy, but maybe this fire that Cynthia has sparked will finally light a fire under the bottoms of those in a position to do more and do better.
Follow Cathy Renna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cathyrenna
Nathaniel Frank: Is It a Choice to Be Gay? It Depends on the Meaning of 'It'
Tracy Baim: In Defense of Cynthia Nixon: Why 'Born This Way' Doesn't Matter
Christopher Stoll: Cynthia Nixon's 'Choice' Doesn't Affect LGBT Rights, And Here's Why
Everyone has the same human right to pursue happiness in their own way.
Why someone is gay is simply none of my business.
Now let's all make sure the people of Maine get it right this November.
They are the only New England state without gay marriage and it looks like they will be getting in back on the ballot.
I think there are desires more unquestionable than others and a choice in so far as to whether a person follows their heart's desire or denies it. I probably tried a lot of subterfuge about a specific person, but not about choosing gender preference. Those marrieds who condemn being gay yet engage a "rent-a-boy" are clearly following a heart's desire in secret while publicly condemning it. So that desire and decision to follow it are two separate things. But not to others.
IMO, this is a complicated. Each individual has to figure it out. The problem has been that those who h8 gays want to reduce the argument one way so much that gay advocates feel compelled to offer their own narrative that is also partly reductive. The ideal IMO occurs when everyone can mind their own biz and people can live as they wish.
The debate should be pushed beyond weather sexuality is a choice to should we deny equal rights regardless. Many bisexuals can and do choose. Should we deny them equal protections if they don't wish to terminate their same-sex relationship and being a heterosexual one? I think not. Given that aspect, I don't care if someone chose their sexuality. If they pay their taxes and are law abiding citizens they shouldn't be denied equal protections or license.
I've never been a fan of Cynthia Nixon and wasn't following all that closely what she said. I also don't pay attention to the issue whether being gay is a choice or not. Because it really doesn't matter. You have certain rights and they should not be taken away.
So ignore the haters. Keep fighting the good fight and I will do the same.
However, before we can really do that we need to have some agreement on definitions of gay, lesbain,bi, and transsexual. The category that has the least agreement regarding definition is bisexual.
Some believe that bisexual is only about behavior. ie If you have been sexually active with both men and women then you are bi. Behavior cannot be the definition of any of these categories. Consider the thousands of closet cases who never acted on their arousal patterns. Factor in the thousands of men and women who married opposite sex partners eventhough they were not attracted to them and later came out. The defintions needs to focus on sexual arousal, fantasy, identity, and bonding. In my opinion a bisexual should have arousal patterns in at least the 70/30 range and more likely close to 50/50. Lets talk more about these issues and perhaps CN can enlighten us regarding her gayness patterns.
Why can't she have an opinion about her life -- not yours, not everybody else's, just her own.
She said:
"“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. 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. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.”
"Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate.”
Ms Nixon can say she is a bloody toaster. That won't make it so. She can say she is a lesbian, although she asserts that the gender of her partner is not an operating factor (as it is with gay men and lesbians), but that doesn't make it so.
Are people who identify as bi badly treated? Sometimes. But is Ms Nixon's behaviour part of the problem and not part of the solution? Bi women who stand up out, loud and proud don't get dumped on by anyone because they are powerful and confident within their own identity and don't allow it.
I think Ms Nixon has learned one lesson - that positing a perfect world where it really doesn't matter (and ideally, it SHOULDN'T matter, consenting adults do not need the permission of society) really doesn't help when that perfect world is no where on the horizon. Right now, at this time and in this place, ALL LGBT people need the strongest weapon in our arsenal so the rights and liberties that others take for granted are not denied. If she's not an activist, and she isn't obliged to be, then the best thing that she can do is to stop navel gazing and get out of the way.