Why "Choice" Is Scary When it Comes to Matters of Sexuality (And Why It Shouldn't Be)

I want to start off this post by saying that I'm a gay male who also identifies as queer, hence the reason I make references to 'we.' It's possible that I'll make comments that could be seen as adding to the erasure of other sexual identities (although I'll obviously try not to!), because I'm coming at this from a rather narrow P.O.V. in this particular instance. If this does happen, please feel free to let me know in the comments or via email! 

 ---

So, this happened. Then people, somewhat predictably, got angry.

Here's the thing: Nixon is clearly talking about her own experience of her own sexuality.

"...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."

See? It would be impossible for Nixon to have made this statement more explicitly about her own personal experience. Not only that, but she's absolutely correct to point out that she has an inalienable right to define her own sexual identity, based on her own sexual history. It is, after all, her own sexual identity.

But...

I can understand why other people find the 'choice' narrative to be a scary one when it comes to the topic of sexuality.

As Nixon clearly recognises, this is not an argument over which the queer community generally has control:

"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."

I think it's a bit simplistic to suggest that the queer community has just 'ceded' this point, as if we've ever really been in a position of power when it comes to setting the tone of this conversation. However, point by point, here are my own responses to these questions: It can be! It's not! No, they shouldn't! But they do.

The argument that heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is an aberration isn't a new one. In fact, it's been the underlying principle of how we've understood homosexuality (and all "alternative" sexualities) since the word came into popular usage. As this post points out, not only is the "belief that homosexuality is not biologically determined...strongly correlated with religiosity," but this belief has an impact on the rights that those with religious beliefs then think should be afforded to those who have made that 'choice.' This serves as an example of how, couched in a narrative that situates homosexual conduct as the sinful and/or unnatural act of people who have chosen to go against the word of God and the natural order of things, references to 'choice' have generally been anything but positive for queer-identified people.

Suggesting that sexuality is a choice can be seen as adding credence to the idea that we are wilfully doing the wrong thing by being who we are. Perhaps more dangerously, it can be seen as adding to the credence to the notion that "pray the gay away" movements are somehow legitimate, despite the fact that claims of its effectiveness are unsupported. And, given that the battle for equality is ongoing, it's also somewhat politically dangerous.

But...

On Being a Feminist (Male) Who's Vocally Pro-Choice

At a time when women's bodily autonomy is increasingly under attack, I think that it's important for feminist men to voice their support for women's right to have control over their own bodies. I don't say this because I think that the voice of men is more important than that of women.  

Gawd no.

I say this because, as stupid as it is, women are more likely to have their opinions read through an overtly negative lens of gender-bias than men. While men might be called out on their ideas, their perceived intelligence, their politics or any other number of factors related to the ideas that they put out there, they are a lot less likely to have to deal with discrimination based on their gender alone. Sexuality and ethnicity, etc., can be the cause of discrimination, but these are things that women will face as well - and these types of discrimination will also often be couched in terms related to their gender, to boot. This means that a lot of really well-reasoned arguments are dismissed, purely because they were written by people who have vaginas or who identify as women; and if having a dick means that I can contribute to getting us beyond this point, then I am all for taking advantage of that.

I also say this because, as infuriating as it is, it's predominantly men who are trying to gain control of women's reproductive rights - and I think that other men who disagree with this increased focus on the inner working of women's bodies need to be vocal in their acknowledgement that, at the core of it, this is all about sexism. As far as I'm concerned there's no ifs or buts about this - it's sexist to suggest that women aren't in the best position to make decisions about their own bodies, because, boy, those women just don't realise what's best for society (read: male egos), am I right? I mean, how can the one who's literally going to be living with the consequences of their pregnancy - not from afar, but in an embodied something-growing-inside-them-for-nine-months sense - really know what's best for them?

Yeah...

Women's bodily autonomy isn't just an issue for women to be vocal about; it's a matter for anyone who's interested in equality. The anti-choice (it's not pro-life) movement is about the control of women. It is essentially about putting them in a position of submissiveness to the desires of men, focussing on their capacity for baby-making ahead of their own individual needs and desires. It reduces a woman's sexual expression, at the extreme (e.g. where discussions of restricting access to birth control take place), to a choice between being pregnant or not (excluding instances were reproduction isn't possible). It reduces women to being less than they are capable of being.

That's wrong.

I don't feel that it's my place to take up the fight for women's reproductive rights as if it's a battle that requires my voice in order to legitimise it. It doesn't. Anything I could say on the matter has already been said a thousand times over by women who have a lot more authority on the issue than I. If anything, I see my role as being one of acknowledgement.

I acknowledge the right of women to have control over their own bodies. I acknowledge the ability of women to speak with authority, particularly on matters that have a direct impact on them. And I acknowledge that it's not my place to challenge a woman based on nothing more than the fact that our genitals don't necessarily match.

I think that, as a man who also identifies as a feminist, it's my place to recognise that it's not my place in all of this that actually matters. I can share my opinion on the topic - and have obviously taken the opportunity to do exactly that - but it's not my body at stake, so it's not my choice that really matters.

I really do think that it's really as simple as that.