I felt the same way, which is why I posted it. The article seemed to be all over the place, and I wasn't sure what I was supposed to get out of it. Parts of it were interesting, but I found it baffling overall. I thought someone else might have some insight. Feel free to come back and reply if you do end up re-reading it and have something more to say. I'm glad I'm not the only one who had difficulty following it.
Other liberation movements have rejected the idea that biology is destiny. So why should gay rights depend on it?
Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but the opening hook doesn't even make sense to me. I think there's a big difference between, for example, claiming race will determine your success in life, or that hair color determines personality, and saying (essentially) that if you're gay... you're gay. Sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. are very fluid for some people and very rigid for others. Technically neither determine your destiny because people have lived and still do live in repression, self-inflicted or otherwise. Just because we can sometimes pass for being straight/cis and live our entire lives masquerading as such doesn't mean our biology doesn't compel us differently, and it also doesn't mean that we should have to live in repression just because we can. What's the point of the opening statement, then? (Damn, it makes so little sense to me that I can't even figure out my argument to it because I'm not even sure what the author is trying to say.)
African-American activists aggressively called out arguments about genetic and biological differences as legacies of racist, Nazi science. By contrast, the marriage-equality movement has embraced biological determinism. Gay and lesbian activists have led the way popularising the idea that identity is biologically determined.
These two things aren't related in the way the author implies. People fought against the opinion that biological differences (race) made some people more or less valuable than others because it was ridiculous. This is true for the LGBT(QIA) movement as well, as we fight against the opinion that biological differences (sexual orientation and gender identity) make some people more or less valuable than others. The author claims we "embrace biological determinism" as if it is the equivalent of, for example, a black person "embracing" the Nazi view that whites were superior to blacks, when it's nothing like that at all. We're not claiming biological determinism as a statement of inferiority, we're claiming biological determinism as a statement of lack of conscious control over these traits, just as people who are straight lack conscious control over their heterosexuality. We're not embracing a divide, we're fighting for equality.
I think this is where I'm going to stop, because rereading the article just makes me think the author has no more clue as to what his point is than I do. The comparisons and arguments don't make sense, the writing is all over the place and confusing, and if I analyzed everything in the article I'd end up writing a book. It's an interesting read, but it looks like utter bollox to me. (I'm not even Irish but that's the word that has been coming to mind while rereading this, so that's what I'm going with.)
We're not claiming biological determinism as a statement of inferiority, we're claiming biological determinism as a statement of lack of conscious control over these traits, just as people who are straight lack conscious control over their heterosexuality. We're not embracing a divide, we're fighting for equality.
- Ah, very well said! Also, so consise that I think the author could take a few pointers from you. :)
I think this is where I'm going to stop, because rereading the article just makes me think the author has no more clue as to what his point is than I do.
- Hahaha! Fair enough. Thanks for trying. I don't think I'll bother trying again, either. I just wanted to know if I was missing something, but it seems not. I approve of your use of the word bollox. ;)
I felt the same way, which is why I posted it. The article seemed to be all over the place, and I wasn't sure what I was supposed to get out of it. Parts of it were interesting, but I found it baffling overall. I thought someone else might have some insight. Feel free to come back and reply if you do end up re-reading it and have something more to say. I'm glad I'm not the only one who had difficulty following it.
More thoughts on the article:
Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but the opening hook doesn't even make sense to me. I think there's a big difference between, for example, claiming race will determine your success in life, or that hair color determines personality, and saying (essentially) that if you're gay... you're gay. Sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. are very fluid for some people and very rigid for others. Technically neither determine your destiny because people have lived and still do live in repression, self-inflicted or otherwise. Just because we can sometimes pass for being straight/cis and live our entire lives masquerading as such doesn't mean our biology doesn't compel us differently, and it also doesn't mean that we should have to live in repression just because we can. What's the point of the opening statement, then? (Damn, it makes so little sense to me that I can't even figure out my argument to it because I'm not even sure what the author is trying to say.)
These two things aren't related in the way the author implies. People fought against the opinion that biological differences (race) made some people more or less valuable than others because it was ridiculous. This is true for the LGBT(QIA) movement as well, as we fight against the opinion that biological differences (sexual orientation and gender identity) make some people more or less valuable than others. The author claims we "embrace biological determinism" as if it is the equivalent of, for example, a black person "embracing" the Nazi view that whites were superior to blacks, when it's nothing like that at all. We're not claiming biological determinism as a statement of inferiority, we're claiming biological determinism as a statement of lack of conscious control over these traits, just as people who are straight lack conscious control over their heterosexuality. We're not embracing a divide, we're fighting for equality.
I think this is where I'm going to stop, because rereading the article just makes me think the author has no more clue as to what his point is than I do. The comparisons and arguments don't make sense, the writing is all over the place and confusing, and if I analyzed everything in the article I'd end up writing a book. It's an interesting read, but it looks like utter bollox to me. (I'm not even Irish but that's the word that has been coming to mind while rereading this, so that's what I'm going with.)
Yay, thanks for coming back to this! :)
- Ah, very well said! Also, so consise that I think the author could take a few pointers from you. :)
- Hahaha! Fair enough. Thanks for trying. I don't think I'll bother trying again, either. I just wanted to know if I was missing something, but it seems not. I approve of your use of the word bollox. ;)
Take care!