Homophobic "queers?"

[TC]

The thread on Germaine Greer reminded me of this site that i came across that seems to have sort of modified lesbian feminist ideas.

http://www.queerbychoice.com/


Personally i think Lesbian Feminism is not only descriminatory and hateful towards men and straight women, but its also rather homophobic in claiming that lesbianism is a choice rather than a natural human characteristic...it effectively seeks to hijack lesbian's politically by suggesting that their behavior is a form of political expression and a political choice rather than a fixed, in born sexual orientation.


The "queer by choice" site i think uses some of the same logic except with "queers" in general rather than lesbians in particular. In a way i think it illustrates why grouping everyone who "self-identifies" as being something other than "straight" (regardless of their sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation) is politically problematic, because it has the effect of defining several natural populations (gays, lesbians, bisexuals) and some poorly defined, very culturally depedent groups ('questioning', bisexuals-in-theory-only, formally straight lesbian feminists, etc).

The Queer by Choice site insists that its impossible to be born gay, that all of the gay researchers who have come up with a proponderance of evidence that they were in fact born gay wrong. By doing so i think a group of (possibly bisexual people who genuinely experiance a "choice"...possibly straight people who want to play up whatever "queerness" they might be able to muster for political reasons) are really forcing gays and lesbians (which, like straight people are neither especially fluid nor confused in their sexuality nor do they experiance any 'choice' in their gender preference) to conform to their political agenda in a way that is probably neither consistent with their experiance or political interests.

It also introduces a notion of morality to sexual orientation by claiming that not only can you choose to be queer but that you *ought* to choose to be queer (curiously they don't think you can choose to be straight though lol)...


In any case, i wanted to hear how people react to this.

[VermontLeft]

looks like crap to me :angry:

probly a bunch of naive bisexuals tryin to be "more radical" (there words ) then everyone else.

if you "chose" to be gay or lesbiab or whatever, good for fucking you, but its not some sort of political statement and it has nothing to do with anyone else.

i mean ifs probably possible that some people are able to make that kind of choice, but most people sure arent and its unfair to say that 99% of homosexuals are "lying" or "too stupid" to recognize that they "made a choice". :angry:

seriously, this does a lot more harm than good to the queer rights movement.

[Black Dagger]

Personally i think Lesbian Feminism is not only descriminatory and hateful towards men and straight women,

Whoa, slown down on the generalisations please. Firstly, please don't use the term 'Lesbian Feminism' with regards to this 'Queer by choice' website', as if the views of the people on this website form the canon of 'Lesbian Feminism'.

You can't generalise 'Lesbian Feminism' as being 'hateful' towards anyone - there are some who are motivated by a disdain for men and heterosexual womyn but that is not the majority viewpoint of lesbian feminists. Most 'lesbian feminists' come under the rubric of queer theory, which deals radically with both gender and sexuality and which targets all men and womyn. The goal of which is the destruction of orthodox constructions of gender and sexuality, and thus the sexual liberation of everyone. It's not a misandric/misogynistic theory so don't assert such views are inherent to 'Lesbian feminism' as a whole.

but its also rather homophobic in claiming that lesbianism is a choice rather than a natural human characteristic...

Not really, there are many queer people (someone on this board actually, i can't remember who) who choose to be queer for a myriad of reasons, so i really don't think it matters. Sexuality is fluid not static, so if someone identifies as hetero for a large part of their life, and then start developing emotional-sexual feelings for people of the same sex and become bi or gay, it shouldnt/doesnt matter. This is not to say that everyone views their own sexuality as a fluid, many people are 'dead certain' that they'll be hetero/gay etc. for their whole life, that's great, but not everyone is like that, human sexuality is not so cut-and-dry.

Also, it's clearly not homophobic to choose to be queer, that makes no logical sense whatsoever. Nor are they asserting that everyone who is queer 'chose' to be, simply that they have.

The only people who really give a fuck about whether someone chose or was 'born gay' etc. are sexual conservatives who deny that there's any fluidity in human sexuality (despite people's personal testimony and studies in the area), and that everyone is either X or Y and that we should be forced to slot ourselves into such a binary. If someone demonstrates their sexuality is fluid and not 'fixed', ever looking for ammunition, homophobes and sexual conservatives will try and use this to discredit queer people in general - that's their perogative, their assertions do nothing to actually undermine the fact that people can make choices as to their practical sexual identity and that this is at the very core of queer theory and queer organising.

The right to self-definition is absolutely crucial in the queer movement. In a society that rarely understands what its like to grow up and live with sexual feelings, emotions and desires that do not conform to the rigid models of heterosexuality that are set out for us, queer groups (esp. queer support groups) understand the importance of allowing people to choose or define their own sexual identity, and to not pressure people into assuming labels such as 'gay', 'bi', 'lesbian' etc. which can at times be daunting and hard to accept. For example, not every guy who has consensual sex of any form with another guy would identify as gay, some would not even identify as bi, nor should they have to.

Accepting that you're gay and identifying as such is not easy for everybody, particularly because of the stigma that such an identity brings within society. Thus the idea of self-definition is very popular, and people who say they are 'queer by choice' fit in very easily in this framework. To call such people homophobes or homophobic makes no sense, they are choosing to be queer, that's about as pro-queer as you can get.

Moreover, identifying as queer or lesbian is different to saying, 'i fuck people of the same sex'. There is more to sexual identity than fucking, many people who identify as heterosexual find themselves getting into what are for all intents and purposes queer relationships, relationships with people of the same sex, minus actual intercourse- which confuses their own personal identity.

These relationships can include feelings of intense 'love', kissing, hugging, holding etc., a lot of emotional and psychological bonding, but not always intercourse. Although things may eventually reach that level it's not always the case, and such people would come under queer identity, or questioning, as they find themselves outside of acceptable heterosexual behaviour - they want to be with someone of the same sex, but are not really sure if they are sexually attracted to said person.
In this way, being queer is more than just LGBTI, and this is something that is completely normal and acceptable within the queer community, i'm actually kind of shocked that you started this thread. That's why queer support networks exist, not just to help people who identify at LGBTI but to help people with ambiguous or changing sexual identities, people who regarded themselves as heterosexual for their whole lives but are now left somewhat confused.

Below are two examples of this exact thing, which are given on the site:

"I consider myself heterosexual but find myself deeply in love with a man. I'm 37 years old and I've never felt attracted to a man before. After this happened I went to some gay bars just to see if I could be attracted to other men but I wasn't attracted to any of them. Just this one guy. I'm really stressing over this because I don't know what it means. Any insights?"
—David

"A friend of mine is a lesbian and I feel so much closer to her than I've ever felt to most of the men I've dated that it makes me wish I were a lesbian. I don't think I exactly feel sexually attracted to her but I keep thinking about how if only I were, then maybe I could spend the rest of my life with someone who really understands me. Sometimes I look forward to the time we spend together so much that it makes me wonder if I really am a lesbian. I like to hug her and touch her, but how do I know if that means I'm attracted to her?"
—Amanda

it effectively seeks to hijack lesbian's politically by suggesting that their behavior is a form of political expression and a political choice rather than a fixed, in born sexual orientation.

Um, no, a group of womyn identifying as lesbians is not politically hijacking a whole sexuality or identity. Womyn who don't see their sexuality as a choice will continue with this view and will assert it if pressed, the fact that another womyn says that she has now decided to become a lesbian does not negate the legitimacy of anyones sexuality nor are the people at queerbychoice saying that everyon does or has to conform to the idea of sexuality as choice, they don't even organise politically, but according to their site, participate as any normal queer in queer organisations.

It's quite evident that human sexuality and the processes of sexual identity are very complex, people have different experiences, many people's sexual identities change over time for a variety of reasons few of which are 'political' - the idea that sexuality cannot change over time goes against social reality, and in no way 'hijacks' anything. Saying that you chose to be gay is not saying that everyone chooses to be, it's a personal statement, and the queerbychoice people seem to appreciate that.

Again, the only people that this really matters to are homophobes and people who have very orthodox approaches to human sexuality. If someone wants to assert that everyones' sexuality is a fixed position on a continum that runs from hetero to gay that's fine, if they want to use peoples claims to sexual fluidity as ammunition to push a homophobic agenda - that's fine too, the only people they are exposing are themselves.

In a way i think it illustrates why grouping everyone who "self-identifies" as being something other than "straight" (regardless of their sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation) is politically problematic, because it has the effect of defining several natural populations (gays, lesbians, bisexuals) and some poorly defined, very culturally depedent groups ('questioning', bisexuals-in-theory-only, formally straight lesbian feminists, etc).

This is funny, in all the queer organising i have been involved with, nobody gave a fuck whether someone was gay or questioning or whatever, everyone was accepting of the diversity of (non-hetero) sexual identities that people were bringing to the group, the exact nature of their identity was irrelevant to how they were received. The idea that we could accept people who are what heterosexuals would call 'fake queers' is something that said people (for whatever reason) struggle to understand.

The idea that there are many different and legitimate sexual identities out there, beyond orthodox 'gay/bi/lesbian/hetero' is apparently shocking or absurd. If you don't get it, you miss the point of queer organising, it's not about making lil' sex clubs, although sex is great, and its not about forming separatist organisations for lesbians only etc., it's about combating heterosexual norms and oppression in society and supporting people who get fucked over and displaced by these things.

The goal is to get to a point in human society where one's sexuality is irrelevant, you could be 'gay' or 'questioning' and nobody cares because sexuality is just there, just something that affects who/how we fuck, and no 'variety' is any more or less legitimate, or more or less oppressed.

The Queer by Choice site insists that its impossible to be born gay, that all of the gay researchers who have come up with a proponderance of evidence that they were in fact born gay wrong.

There's actually a diversity of opinion within members of the site/org:
http://www.queerbychoice.com/myths.html

"Some of us believe that we were born with a tendency toward being queer (or toward being hetero) but also had a degree of choice in the matter. Others of us believe that some people are born queer, or with a tendency toward queerness, but that we were not born with any tendencies toward any sexual preference or gender identity. And still others of us believe that it's impossible for anyone to be born with any tendency toward a particular sexual preference or gender identity."

possibly straight people who want to play up whatever "queerness" they might be able to muster for political reasons

Why are you so determined to ridicule people who wish to move beyond standard heterosexual identities? If people feel that they dont fit into orthodox constructions of heterosexuality, behaviour 'befitting' to a heterosexual and so forth, more power to them! No one should be forced to conform to sexual norms of behaviour or practice. Most pro-queer heteros or politically queer heteros are such not because they want to 'score some political points' but because these are genuine feelings/desires/attitudes they hold with regards to their own sexuality and sexual identity. If more heterosexual people were the same way heterosexist constructions of sexuality would not be so prevalent.

are really forcing gays and lesbians (which, like straight people are neither especially fluid nor confused in their sexuality nor do they experiance any 'choice' in their gender preference)

Despite what you may think not all gay and lesbian people have pre-packaged sexual identities. Fluidity and confusion certainly exist, that is why the terms 'questioning', 'bicurious' etc. exist, for many gay men and womyn their sexuality is not and has not been eternally defined. Perhaps this would be less of the case if society was not heterosexist, and did not place such a negative weight on have feelings for people of the same sex, or perhaps this is because sexuality is something that humans negotiate over time, though for sure many people have consistent sexual feelings for their whole life - it doesnt really matter either way. I know 'gay' people who have become 'bi' over time, vice versa, and of course plenty of people who are for a period (somtimes of some length) 'confused' by their sexual-emotional feelings and attractions, but these are all natural occurrances for human beings.

to conform to their political agenda in a way that is probably neither consistent with their experiance or political interests.

I don't quite understand why you have such a pathological fear/hatred for political queers or people who claim that they have chosen their sexuality (considering that gay/bi/lesbians etc from my experience do not, hence LGBTIQ), such views are definately consistent with the sexual liberation of humanity, something that is in turn consistent with the aims of all queer organising.

Moreover said people are (as mentioned on the site) active participants and supporters of queer struggle - which is probably why most queers dont give a fuck - because they are allies, and also because 'political queer' identity is something that is widely accepted, becuse 'how you fuck' has never been a criteria for queer organising, we're an inclusive, not a separatist movemen.

Also, you keep trying to establish that political queers are trying to or are in fact 'forcing' 'their political agenda' on everyone else, how are they doing this? And what agenda?

It also introduces a notion of morality to sexual orientation by claiming that not only can you choose to be queer but that you *ought* to choose to be queer (curiously they don't think you can choose to be straight though lol)...

Whilst i obviously disagree with the idea that people should have to be queer or that people cannot be 'born' queer etc., i think you're exaggerating/distorting the opinions of this group.

Again, this quote demonstrates that people can choose to be hetero.

"Some of us believe that we were born with a tendency toward being queer (or toward being hetero) but also had a degree of choice in the matter.."

Can you link me to the part where they say that people ought to choose to be queer? I didn't read that bit.

I think you'd be suprised as to the actual diversity in opinions amongst people who identify as LGB in terms the amount of 'choice' involved. Some people think that they had no choice, others 'kind of' had a choice, others were just confused and went with what they felt was most comfortable to them (again, the level of choice is vague and could be interpreted as having some or no choice at all), and others (such as this group) state explicitly that they chose to be queer. Again, people are not usually rejected by other queers because they claim to choose (or not choose) their sexual identity, it's the actual identity that matters, not how they arrived at it.

probly a bunch of naive bisexuals tryin to be "more radical" then everyone else.

Wow, way to sound patronisng and dismissive. Did you even bother to read the website?

i mean ifs probably possible that some people are able to make that kind of choice, but most people sure arent and its unfair to say that 99% of homosexuals are "lying" or "too stupid" to recognize that they "made a choice".

Why did you put the words 'lying' and 'too stupid' in quotes as if these were actually used on the website? Where they? I didnt see them. You're presenting the people on the site as if they're patronising queers which they clearly are not - they queer themselves for fucks' sake, in reality queer theory strongly supports the idea of self-identification.

By saying that there was a degree of choice in your sexuality does not undermine anyone elses assertion that they had no choice, human seuxality is not a fixed entity (as these people clearly demonstrate), different people have different experiences with and the development of, their sexual identity, they are complementary not competing experiences.

seriously, this does a lot more harm than good to the queer rights movement.

All the people invovled in this group and political queers more generally do A LOT of good for queer organising, that's basically a given if you are politically queer. Easily more good than the vast majority of non-queers. Saying that this does 'more harm than good' is letting homophobes and sexual conservatives set sexual discourse, that is harmful.

The real 'homophobic' queers are the 'log cabin' republicans and other queers who put their class interests above all else, who contribute to and support policies that reinforce hetero-norms and/or target queers for oppression or ridicule. The topic title is false and misleading, there's nothing 'homophobic' about identifying as queer.

[TC]

Blackdagger, made such a long post that it took me a while to get around to responding to it...but since he clearly put a lot of time and effort into it, i feel like i should respond:

Whoa, slown down on the generalisations please. Firstly, please don't use the term 'Lesbian Feminism' with regards to this 'Queer by choice' website', as if the views of the people on this website form the canon of 'Lesbian Feminism'.

I was just explaining what I thought were parallels with Lesbian Feminism (a curious ideology made up primarily of people who are neither lesbians nor feminists&#33, I was never saying they were Lesbian Feminists, just that they’re quite similar except with “queers” instead of lesbians and a post-modern ideology of sexual relations rather than an ideology of psudo-feminism.

You can't generalise 'Lesbian Feminism' as being 'hateful' towards anyone - there are some who are motivated by a disdain for men and heterosexual womyn but that is not the majority viewpoint of lesbian feminists.

No, actually, I think Lesbian Feminists are to men and straight women what homophobes are to gays, racists are to non-whites, anti-semites are to Jews, anti-capitalists are to bourgeois, etc.

Regardless of their motivations, and I’m sure there are many, their ideology is prejudiced, just as other ideologies of discrimination attract people for multiple reasons.

Most 'lesbian feminists' come under the rubric of queer theory, which deals radically with both gender and sexuality and which targets all men and womyn. The goal of which is the destruction of orthodox constructions of gender and sexuality, and thus the sexual liberation of everyone. It's not a misandric/misogynistic theory so don't assert such views are inherent to 'Lesbian feminism' as a whole.

First of all, the original Lesbian Feminists were not part of what I think you would consider the ‘queer movement’ and were in fact specifically opposed to certain sexual groups (trans and bisexuals for instance) and opposed to virtually all heterosexual expression. This is not the destruction of “orthodox constructions of gender and sexuality”, they in fact had rigid ideas about both gender and sexuality its just that they thought that exclusive homosexuality was the only acceptable form of sexual expression as opposed to most groups of reactionaries who think that exclusive heterosexuality is the only acceptable sexuality...And like other anti-sex reactionaries, they believed in fixed, biological gender and specifically opposed transgenders and also oppose any sort of non-vanilla sex and oppose basically all kinks.

This is not, I think, your position. I don’t consider you a Lesbian Feminist nor do I think the Queer by Choice people are.

However what you call the “destruction of orthodox constructions of gender and sexuality” is in fact not liberating to everyone, its rather oppressive to the vast majority of people who have typical, un-chosen sexualities.



QUOTE
but its also rather homophobic in claiming that lesbianism is a choice rather than a natural human characteristic...

Not really, there are many queer people (someone on this board actually, i can't remember who) who choose to be queer for a myriad of reasons, so i really don't think it matters.

I was, again, referring to lesbians, not “queers.” To the extent that it’s a choice to be “queer” is only true because “queer” is a sufficiently vague artificial political construct not a sexual orientation (originally, I think queer meant lgbt, but clearly it means something even broader to some people). Do you know if any of the gay people on the board chose to be gay??

There are some “straight” people who claim to have chosen to be straight cause Jesus told them to, that doesn’t mean that they really have a heterosexual orientation, just that they’ve decided to present themselves in a certain way for questionable political reasons.

Sexuality is fluid not static, so if someone identifies as hetero for a large part of their life, and then start developing emotional-sexual feelings for people of the same sex and become bi or gay, it shouldnt/doesnt matter.

No, it basically is static, sexual orientation presents in early childhood. A gay person might publicly claim to be straight for a long time because they’re afraid of ridicule and often genuinely want to be straight, and then later come out as gay, but this in no way implies that they actually were straight and became gay, they were simply closeted, the same sex attraction existed from puberty they just chose not to act on it.

And it does matter because the gay and lesbian rights movement (and note, “gay and lesbian”, not “queer”) is based on the fact that they’re natural population who were born that way in the same manner that people are born into a race, sex, disability status. Chosen affiliation like political and religious groups are not entitled to the same protection because discrimination they might face is based on their chosen lifestyle rather then the natural condition they’re born into.

The Christian right tries to claim that sexuality is fluid when they claim that gays and lesbians can change! In fact, lot of homophobic rights claim to choose to be straight (despite the fact that, with the exception of the ex-gay movement, this was obviously not the case)

Also, it's clearly not homophobic to choose to be queer, that makes no logical sense whatsoever. Nor are they asserting that everyone who is queer 'chose' to be, simply that they have.

Whats harmful to gays (although, I’m not sure if its homophobic because that’s not the intent) is the conceptualization of sexual preference as a choice, just as it would be racist and equally silly to claim that you could simply decide to be Black, and were a group of white people to decide that they were black and try to take over a black civil rights movement, that would be racist I think.

The only people who really give a fuck about whether someone chose or was 'born gay' etc. are sexual conservatives who deny that there's any fluidity in human sexuality (despite people's personal testimony and studies in the area), and that everyone is either X or Y and that we should be forced to slot ourselves into such a binary. If someone demonstrates their sexuality is fluid and not 'fixed', ever looking for ammunition, homophobes and sexual conservatives will try and use this to discredit queer people in general - that's their perogative, their assertions do nothing to actually undermine the fact that people can make choices as to their practical sexual identity and that this is at the very core of queer theory and queer organising.

Conservatives don’t think that sexual orientation is fixed. They think dominate mothers and distant fathers make little straight boys grow into gay men, sexual abuse makes straight girls grow up into lesbians, and praying to Jesus can make them all turn back straight. Conservative always reject the scientifically demonstrated notion that sexual orientation is fixed at an early age.

In any case, if this is what “queer organizing” is then I guess it doesn’t have much to do with actual sexual minorities and their rights.

The right to self-definition is absolutely crucial in the queer movement. In a society that rarely understands what its like to grow up and live with sexual feelings, emotions and desires that do not conform to the rigid models of heterosexuality that are set out for us, queer groups (esp. queer support groups) understand the importance of allowing people to choose or define their own sexual identity, and to not pressure people into assuming labels such as 'gay', 'bi', 'lesbian' etc. which can at times be daunting and hard to accept. For example, not every guy who has consensual sex of any form with another guy would identify as gay, some would not even identify as bi, nor should they have to.

The reason people generally don’t like labels is precisely because political movements like “the queer movement” try to use them for political purposes that they disagree with.

In any case you continue to refuse to use the words gay or lesbian or homosexual and I’ve never heard a gay person refer to themselves as “queer” but you continue to push that label for reasons that I think are quite self-serving.

Accepting that you're gay and identifying as such is not easy for everybody, particularly because of the stigma that such an identity brings within society. Thus the idea of self-definition is very popular, and people who say they are 'queer by choice' fit in very easily in this framework. To call such people homophobes or homophobic makes no sense, they are choosing to be queer, that's about as pro-queer as you can get.

I can see why some homosexuals might not want to be openly gay, but this is not the issue with the “queer movement.” The queer by choice people, at least the founder if you look at her autobiography, though, is obviously heterosexually oriented and simply wanted very badly to be “queer”. She was naturally attracted to guys and wasn’t attracted to girls but simply decided to declare herself “queer” on April 8th, 1992. She wonders why none of the other “queer” people saw that it was just a choice! Well, because for them, it wasn’t!

Moreover, identifying as queer or lesbian is different to saying, 'i fuck people of the same sex'. There is more to sexual identity than fucking, many people who identify as heterosexual find themselves getting into what are for all intents and purposes queer relationships, relationships with people of the same sex, minus actual intercourse- which confuses their own personal identity.

Sexual orientation is about primary natural attraction…people who have sex with members of the same sex but are primarily attracted to members of the opposite sex are still straight, people in the reverse position are still gay or lesbian.

These relationships can include feelings of intense 'love', kissing, hugging, holding etc., a lot of emotional and psychological bonding, but not always intercourse. Although things may eventually reach that level it's not always the case, and such people would come under queer identity, or questioning, as they find themselves outside of acceptable heterosexual behaviour - they want to be with someone of the same sex, but are not really sure if they are sexually attracted to said person.
In this way, being queer is more than just LGBTI, and this is something that is completely normal and acceptable within the queer community, i'm actually kind of shocked that you started this thread.

That's why queer support networks exist, not just to help people who identify at LGBTI but to help people with ambiguous or changing sexual identities, people who regarded themselves as heterosexual for their whole lives but are now left somewhat confused.

Attempting to define “queer” as more than LGBT and instead anyone who just feels like its cool to call themselves that hurts LGBT people because it means that people not from their population are able to define them politically, and this is very wrong.

I’m sorry but I don’t think its at all appropriate for LGBT organizations to encourage straight people to claim a “queer” identity simply for the counter-cultural value of it. That detracts from their purpose of serving gay lesbian bisexual and trans people. It would be like asking an African American organization to focus on supporting white suburban rappers who like hip-hop clothes.

(and, seriously, write LGBT not LGBTI, intersexed people have a medical condition that doesn’t make they “queer”, most of them are straight and might be offended to be included)

"A friend of mine is a lesbian and I feel so much closer to her than I've ever felt to most of the men I've dated that it makes me wish I were a lesbian. I don't think I exactly feel sexually attracted to her but I keep thinking about how if only I were, then maybe I could spend the rest of my life with someone who really understands me. Sometimes I look forward to the time we spend together so much that it makes me wonder if I really am a lesbian. I like to hug her and touch her, but how do I know if that means I'm attracted to her?"
—Amanda

Seems like an excellent example of a straight woman who wants to be a lesbian but isn’t. If being “queer” to you is just having platonic friends that you wish you could be attracted to, then that has nothing to do with people who are actually gay or lesbian and naturally attracted, sexually, physically to members of the same sex.

I mean, lol, I guess I must be “queer” too, cause if I was a lesbian and one of my girl friends was a lesbian then we wouldn’t have to be single, that would be so convenient! But of course that has nothing to do with actual sexual orientation, and if it worked that way, then there wouldn’t be any gay people since I’m sure most of them have thought (probably correctly) it would be easier to be straight.

Um, no, a group of womyn identifying as lesbians is not politically hijacking a whole sexuality or identity.

Yes, it does, because in this case they’re not real lesbians! A lesbian is a woman who, when they’re a teenager, is naturally and automatically attracted to other women…not a man-hating radical feminist who thinks that calling herself a ‘lesbian’ despite not naturally fitting that description, is a political necessity, and as such that it’s a chosen political affiliation rather than an inborn sexual orientation. Yah, that’s hijacking and redefining a whole sexuality and identity group for political purposes.

It changes the definition of the group and in so doing politically erases it, supplanting it’s original definition with their own.

Womyn who don't see their sexuality as a choice will continue with this view and will assert it if pressed, the fact that another womyn says that she has now decided to become a lesbian does not negate the legitimacy of anyones sexuality

Yes it does, it is a direct claim that sexual orientation is a choice. This is the same claim that the Christian right makes and its harmful to gay rights period.

nor are the people at queerbychoice saying that everyon does or has to conform to the idea of sexuality as choice, they don't even organise politically, but according to their site, participate as any normal queer in queer organisations.

Part of the site is devoted to bashing mainstream gay groups like PFLAG.

Saying that you chose to be gay is not saying that everyone chooses to be, it's a personal statement, and the queerbychoice people seem to appreciate that.

Did you like, read the site? The queer by choice people claim that all gays (or, ‘queers’ as they put it) choose to be gay, they attack research by gay scientists that supports a biological basis for sexual orientation, they claim that its evolutionarily impossible for homosexuality to be inborn. Their claim specifically negates gay and lesbians experience and reality not to mention the political identity they’ve established to fight for their own interests over the last fifty or sixty years.

Again, the only people that this really matters to are homophobes and people who have very orthodox approaches to human sexuality. If someone wants to assert that everyones' sexuality is a fixed position on a continum that runs from hetero to gay that's fine, if they want to use peoples claims to sexual fluidity as ammunition to push a homophobic agenda - that's fine too, the only people they are exposing are themselves.

I’m sorry but homophobes have traditionally been extremely interested in trying to demonstrate that sexual orientation is a ‘choice’ and that one can ‘change’ if they want to enough. The idea that sexual orientation is a choice is a lie of the rightwing, and the fact that “reparative therapy” doesn’t work proves that it’s a lie(as a lot of those people *really* don’t want to be gay).

Queer-by-choice is just a reactionary political position wrapped up in a liberal/leftwing package. It doesn’t change the content.

This is funny, in all the queer organising i have been involved with, nobody gave a fuck whether someone was gay or questioning or whatever, everyone was accepting of the diversity of (non-hetero) sexual identities that people were bringing to the group, the exact nature of their identity was irrelevant to how they were received. The idea that we could accept people who are what heterosexuals would call 'fake queers' is something that said people (for whatever reason) struggle to understand.

Does it occur to you that this might be the case because the “queer” organizing you were involved with probably consisted mostly of people who were naturally heterosexual? I remember in highschool, the GSA had like 10 people primarily attracted to the opposite sex for each one person primarily attracted to the same sex (I mean, I can’t believe I even have to put it in such specific terms but when you’re a ‘bisexual’ whose slept with a dozen boys and has never kissed a girl, that’s pretty much on the straight side :-p)

This is maybe, more than anything indicative of my point. The non-gay activists change the definition of “queer” to suit their political needs, because obviously they need a definition of queer that includes them, and in so doing they edge out the gay rights movement.

The serious, national “queer” (as in, mostly gay and lesbian) activist and lobbyist groups I think are much much less that way, since they have an established history of gay and lesbian people fighting for their political rights and establishing their own identities without a bunch of mostly heterosexual postmodern high school and university students defining their politics for them.

The idea that there are many different and legitimate sexual identities out there, beyond orthodox 'gay/bi/lesbian/hetero' is apparently shocking or absurd.

Its neither shocking nor absurd, rather its empirically incorrect and politically harmful.

If you don't get it, you miss the point of queer organising, it's not about making lil' sex clubs, although sex is great, and its not about forming separatist organisations for lesbians only etc., it's about combating heterosexual norms and oppression in society and supporting people who get fucked over and displaced by these things.

The goal is to get to a point in human society where one's sexuality is irrelevant, you could be 'gay' or 'questioning' and nobody cares because sexuality is just there, just something that affects who/how we fuck, and no 'variety' is any more or less legitimate, or more or less oppressed.

No, its not. You’re taking a specific political agenda (a kindof post-modern political view of sexuality) and forcing it on a demographic group (gays and lesbians) declaring it to the “point” of their organizing. The point of the gay rights lobby is to promote gay rights and defend their political interests, just as any demographics political lobby’s attempt to do, nothing more or less; by trying to superimpose your view of sexuality onto them you change the identity from being a natural population group to being a political affiliation. This is truly political arrogance.

Why are you so determined to ridicule people who wish to move beyond standard heterosexual identities?

Same reason why if a bunch of white university students decided that they wanted to move beyond the standard white identity and declare themselves “people of color”, then run off en masse and insist that the Black Student’s Union not only accept that they were “people of color” but allow them to redefine “people of color” as “anyone who feels like ‘identifying’ themselves as a ‘person of color’”, it would definitely piss me off.

Black people face real discrimination that “black-by-choice” white people wouldn’t.

Likewise gay people face real discrimination that “queer-by-choice” straight people don’t (even if they perversely wished they did).

If people feel that they dont fit into orthodox constructions of heterosexuality, behaviour 'befitting' to a heterosexual and so forth, more power to them! No one should be forced to conform to sexual norms of behaviour or practice.

Whoever said they should conform to sexual norms of behavior or practice? Definitely not me. I just don’t think they should be trying to “identify” themselves as something they’re not for purely political reasons, while at the same time changing the basic definition of the group they’ve decided to join.

If more heterosexual people were the same way heterosexist constructions of sexuality would not be so prevalent.

“heterosexist” constructions of sexuality are so prevalent because heterosexuality is so prevalent, that’s why the species hasn’t died out yet. Theres nothing inherently prejudicial about recognizing a natural majority group as such, nor is there anything prejudicial about allowing sexual minorities the recognition that they deserve as other natural, unchosen sexual orientations, without having to declare oneself somehow part of their group.

Fluidity and confusion certainly exist, that is why the terms 'questioning', 'bicurious' etc. exist,

“questioning” and “bicurious” exist because some straight people under 30 think its cool, kinky, and even sexually attractive to act like their sexuality is much more complicated than it really is. Frankly I don’t know any gay person who public ally came out as “bicurious” or “questioning” and made a big political deal about it while only being sexually active with the same sex…but I’ve known a lot of “bicurious” and “questioning” teenagers and university students who make a whole big political thing about their identities despite being principally heterosexual.

Dan Savage (who is a gay nationally syndicated advice/politics columnist…who I’ve now taken to quoting as a political authority because he’s much cooler than Mao) wrote: “Spare your parents the coming-out speech. The overwhelming majority of girls who identify as polyamorous bisexuals in college wind up in conventional marriages by the time they're 30.” (apparently not all politically active leftwing gays share your agenda, what a shock)

I don't quite understand why you have such a pathological fear/hatred

“pathological fear/hatred” is a political buzz phrase, you’re not going to enhance your credibility with ad hominem accusations.

or political queers or people who claim that they have chosen their sexuality (considering that gay/bi/lesbians etc from my experience do not, hence LGBTIQ), such views are definately consistent with the sexual liberation of humanity, something that is in turn consistent with the aims of all queer organising.

My objection is based on the fact that gays and lesbians don’t, so making such claims is clearly not helping to liberate them, and they’re the group that’s being politically victimized, not the political queers, so obviously my sympathies are not with them.

Moreover said people are (as mentioned on the site) active participants and supporters of queer struggle - which is probably why most queers dont give a fuck - because they are allies, and also because 'political queer' identity is something that is widely accepted, becuse 'how you fuck' has never been a criteria for queer organising, we're an inclusive, not a separatist movemen.

The gay and lesbian rights movement has always been inclusive of straight allies, and obviously they’ve never wanted to discourage people who are actually gay/lesbian/bisexual from being able to express their sexuality openly, but all mainstream gay and lesbian rights groups totally reject the political queer claim that being queer is a choice, or that sexual orientation, actual natural, primary attraction rather than political theory is the basis for their group identity. So no, the gay rights movement is definitely not inclusive of this agenda, in fact its gone to great lengths to exclude it.

Also, you keep trying to establish that political queers are trying to or are in fact 'forcing' 'their political agenda' on everyone else, how are they doing this? And what agenda?

What agenda, why don’t I just restate what you wrote:

“If you don't get it, you miss the point of queer organising, it's not about making lil' sex clubs, although sex is great, and its not about forming separatist organisations for lesbians only etc., it's about combating heterosexual norms and oppression in society and supporting people who get fucked over and displaced by these things.

The goal is to get to a point in human society where one's sexuality is irrelevant, you could be 'gay' or 'questioning' and nobody cares because sexuality is just there, just something that affects who/how we fuck, and no 'variety' is any more or less legitimate, or more or less oppressed.”

That’s the agenda, it’s a post-modern view of sexuality that seeks to erase the recognition of differences at the cost of political and social autonomy for groups with different political needs.

Can you link me to the part where they say that people ought to choose to be queer? I didn't read that bit.

“...people choose to be exclusively with their own sex b/c it is more comfortably equal, nonexploitative, etc.”

http://www.queerbychoice.com/transcript.html


Is one example, but I think you can tell that the overall tone of the site, including this page: http://www.queerbychoice.com/turnhetero.html
Clearly suggest (and in some places outright claim) that being queer is more politically desirable...which also suggests that they have a big motive for deciding that they’re ‘queer.’

I think you'd be suprised as to the actual diversity in opinions amongst people who identify as LGB in terms the amount of 'choice' involved.

Oh please! Even the queer by choice site acknowledges that the vast majority of gays and lesbians doesn’t think they had any choice in the matter.

QUOTE
probly a bunch of naive bisexuals tryin to be "more radical" then everyone else.


Wow, way to sound patronisng and dismissive. Did you even bother to read the website?

Its pretty ironic to tell Vermontleft that she’s being patronizing and dismissive while refusing to address her comment (being dismissive) and making a sarcastic comment that presumes you have superior knowledge (being patronizing).

QUOTE

i mean ifs probably possible that some people are able to make that kind of choice, but most people sure arent and its unfair to say that 99% of homosexuals are "lying" or "too stupid" to recognize that they "made a choice".


Why did you put the words 'lying' and 'too stupid' in quotes as if these were actually used on the website? Where they? I didnt see them. You're presenting the people on the site as if they're patronising queers which they clearly are not - they queer themselves for fucks' sake, in reality queer theory strongly supports the idea of self-identification.

Uh, actually they do use the words “lying” and “stupid”, so it looks like she read the site and you didn’t!

“I believe the queer community made a pretty stupidpolitical mistake when it took the route of saying gayness is something one is born” http://www.queerbychoice.com/choicelinks.html

“I do believe that people are unfailingly stupidand petty and will continue so to be for as long as they can get away with it, and that the faithful will continue therefore to impose their One True Faith on everyone for as long as they can get away with it.”
http://www.queerbychoice.com/mikie.html

“PFLAG or other supposedly supportive "experts" tell their parents lies about how they had no choice about their sexual preference.” (if you don’t know, PFLAG is one of the major American based gay rights groups, an educational/support group affiliated with HRC the largest American gay and lesbian organization) http://www.queerbychoice.com/myths.html

“It's a sad day when proud queer people have to count on the accidental side effects of homophobic censorship to prevent PFLAG from spreading lies about us that make our coming out process harder than it already is”(apparently they admit that they side with the homophobes on the issue&#33 http://www.queerbychoice.com/unsafeprojects.html

By saying that there was a degree of choice in your sexuality does not undermine anyone elses assertion that they had no choice, human seuxality is not a fixed entity (as these people clearly demonstrate), different people have different experiences with and the development of, their sexual identity, they are complementary not competing experiences.

They aren’t simply claiming a degree of choice in their sexuality they’re insisting on a degree of choice in everyones, that’s why they attack gay rights groups like PFLAG who don’t think they had any choice to be gay.

And actually, claiming that sexual orientation (rather than, specific sexual interests) is not a fixed entity does reject the scientific conclusion supported by the gay and lesbians rights movement that sexual orientation is inborn and fixed, there is no way around this.

All the people invovled in this group and political queers more generally do A LOT of good for queer organising, that's basically a given if you are politically queer.

Yah, maybe good for “queer organizing” which seems to be a self-justifying activity that has little or nothing to do with gay rights and sometimes runs in direct opposition to it. Sorry but that’s still not helpful.

Saying that this does 'more harm than good' is letting homophobes and sexual conservatives set sexual discourse, that is harmful.

Actually I think you’re letting them set the discourse by accepting and promoting the very core claim and justification for their prejudice: the idea that people simply choose to be gay.

The real 'homophobic' queers are the 'log cabin' republicans and other queers who put their class interests above all else, who contribute to and support policies that reinforce hetero-norms and/or target queers for oppression or ridicule.

Log Cabin Republicans are not “queer”, they do not describe themselves as “queer”, they do not identify with your “queer movement”, they do not use the word on their website or in their literature, they are gays and lesbians who want gay and lesbian rights. Of course they f’ing well should put the interests of their own group above the “queer movements”, that’s the whole point of having a political pressure group in support of a demographic’s rights, so that they can protect their own interests!

The topic title is false and misleading, there's nothing 'homophobic' about identifying as queer.

Homophobia is politically attacking homosexuals, and that’s exactly what they’re doing.

[C_Rasmussen]

Eh, this was a bit too long so I'll just spout out my interpretation of this, gay people who are homophobic? Isn't that a tad hypocritical? O_o

[TC]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen@May 3 2006, 05:09 AM
Eh, this was a bit too long so I'll just spout out my interpretation of this, gay people who are homophobic? Isn't that a tad hypocritical? O_o

um, no, "queers" not gay, please read at least the first post.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

I think they are just plain idiotic, there is nothing intelligent about that site, just a bunch of idiots, who try to be gay, to get that alternative badge, and that don't know anything about science, nature, or homosexuality.

[TC]

There was an article on CNN"s website on a new study:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/05/08/lesbi...s.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lesbians' brains react differently to sex hormones than those of heterosexual women.

An earlier study of gay men also showed their brain response was different from straight men -- an even stronger difference than has now been found in lesbians.

Lesbians' brains reacted somewhat, though not completely, like those of heterosexual men, a team of Swedish researchers said in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A year ago, the same group reported findings for gay men that showed their brain response to hormones was similar to that of heterosexual women.

In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior.

Just additional evidence that sexual orientation is organic in origin rather than a chosen behavior or simply a political self 'identity'.

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

WHO THE FUCK CARES!!! Does it really matter what your sexual orientation is? Damn people are really fucked up on this world.

[saint max]

Tragic clown, even if some sexuality can be identified and generalized with scientific studies, that does'nt negate the potential for humans to freak with whom ever they want and therefore the potential of infinite sexual universes to navigate.

The utility of a politicized queerness, from my anarchist perspective, is another weapon in the struggle against the social construct of gender (bianary and otherwhise.) and a re-vitalization of the movement Sylvia Rivera helped kick start*. Perhaps even a dissolution of the assimilationist (pro-marrige/pro-state) gay rights movement.

Nonetheless, why are yall so antagonistic to people asserting their own will in who and how they love and fuck? Try reading Gilles Dauve, For a World Without Moral Order. Perhaps a bit of unrelentingt ultra-left communism can help out. Then again maybe nofauxxx.com is a better antidote.

kisses,
-t



------------------------------------
*Silvia Rivera was a latino drag queen, who threw the first rock at Stonewall

[TC]

Tragic clown, even if some sexuality can be identified and generalized with scientific studies, that does'nt negate the potential for humans to freak with whom ever they want and therefore the potential of infinite sexual universes to navigate.

I didn't imply it did...people fool around with and/or have sex with non-prefered partners all the time; people do stuff with people from the gender they're sexually oriented towards but who they don't find attractive too...sexual orientation isn't defined by sex acts.

The utility of a politicized queerness, from my anarchist perspective, is another weapon in the struggle against the social construct of gender (bianary and otherwhise.)

Anarchists don't have the right to hijack entire demographic groups as that they don't belong to as 'weapons' for their their agenda. Its politically exploitive appropriation of identy.

Perhaps even a dissolution of the assimilationist (pro-marrige/pro-state) gay rights movement.

I think its really quite horrible to call for the destruction of the gay rights movement. If blacks and women waited for some 'anarchist revolution', they still wouldn't be full citizens under the law. No one should have to sacrifice their right to live as an equal in the current society for your dream of destroying it.

Nonetheless, why are yall so antagonistic to people asserting their own will in who and how they love and fuck?

Who they 'love and fuck' is not the issue (the founder and site designer, being a woman who only 'loves and fucks' men, really not that controversial)


The issue is that they're making scientifically unsupported and politically damaging assertions about gays and lesbians, and they're politically hostile to the principle gay rights movement and organizations led by gay people.