We should not allow a "biology v. choice" framing of the rights debate to continue. If we do, we will likely find ourselves backed into a very unpleasant corner. We will be forced to argue that we are helpless over our sexuality, and then will be faced with the very frightening prospect of arguing in favor of a medical definition of sexual orientation -- which can then be used against us when people decide to start looking for "cures." For make no mistake about it: if they think they can "cure" us by counseling us into making different choices, they will be no less likely to try to "cure" us of a sexual orientation that they can frame as a disease. If there is a "gay gene" we should be very wary of what happens if it's found. It will then be possible for genetic testing to "discover" the sexual orientation of a child and gene therapy may be used to "fix" that child. We've been there before in less technologically sophisticated ways.
I sort of feel this way about various kinds of gender essentialisms. Even if it were the case that 'most women are like x' and 'most men are like z', I always want to ask: What about those that don't fall within those norms? Shouldn't they be able to freely be themselves, anyway?
12 comments:
Hmm. This point seems familiar...
Did I steal it from you, Sara? If I did, I didn't meant to.
This seems to explain why some people care about homosexual behavior and others don't.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=872251
I really recommend that you read the whole paper - it's free - but here's the abstract.
Researchers in moral psychology and social justice have agreed that morality is about matters of harm, rights, and justice. With this definition of morality, conservative opposition to social justice programs has appeared to be immoral, and has been explained as a product of various non-moral processes, such as system justification or social dominance orientation. In this article we argue that, from an anthropological perspective, the moral domain is usually much broader, encompassing many more aspects of social life and valuing institutions as much or more than individuals. We present theoretical and empirical reasons for believing that there are in fact five psychological systems that provide the foundations for the world's many moralities. The five foundations are psychological preparations for detecting and reacting emotionally to issues related to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Political liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations.
It's hard to argue with feelings, and moral judgments do seem to come from somewhere other than conscious deliberation. If the claim comes down to "X is wrong because I feel it is" then there is little room for logical argument.
I totally agree with the post you linked to. This is the reason why I am drawn more and more to queer theory and less and less to LGBT identity politics. Give me some Adrienne Rich's theory of a lesbian continuum anyday over the assumption that sexuality must either be freely chosen or ingrained. It's especially difficult to insist we know one way or the other and then try to reconcile that way that thinking when there are exceptions to the rule.
doug s.:
I'll check out the paper. For a while my area of interest when I was studying philosophy was moral status--so I dig research in that area anyway from time to time. I must admit that I am skeptical with the opening sentence of the abstract--I never ran into such a consensus while I was studying morality. Still, I am fascinated by moral intuitions, where they come from, and how they might change.
Regarding logical argument vs. feelings vs. intuitions: I think that the supposed dichotomy between logic and emotion is often not very useful (or realistic), so in a way I guess I agree with you--but I would resist language which privileges logical argument as if it ought not have anything to do with emotion.
I also think there is lots of room for logical argument, even when people have strong emotions. Oftentimes all it takes is one great counterexample to cause a shift for people (though usually it takes years of experiences).
Thanks for the link!
Oh no jeff, it's just that after my posts about this subject were so poorly-received, when I saw a similar point I just kind of had a reaction like "Ha! So I'm probably NOT crazy!"
Tracey--
I'm with ya on that stuff...though I also respect the need for some people to rally around identities politically and emotionally in the short term at least--when the dominant culture pushes you into a corner, it can be a good tactic to jump on the identity bandwagon. I just am concerned whether long-term it's going to be helpful/healthy.
And maybe sexuality *is* ingrained in some people, and freely chosen by others...but I agree that the exceptions need to be better understood, even if that were the case.
"Ha! So I'm probably NOT crazy!"--Sarah
Well, not for this reason anyway. ;)
Re: emotions vs. logic, I think that one problem is that people treat emotions like they're irrelevant to the human experience, or at least the enlightened human experience. But as someone who's got the bad habit of trying to ignore her emotions completely, I can say with confidence that emotions matter. They might interfere with, say, the most efficient free market possible, but what's the point of a free market if it's not helping people?
...and emotions, it turns out, may actually fuel our logical arguments in a way that nothing else does. Of course, it goes without saying that being very, very committed to an idea because of an emotional connection can blind you to problems of the logic of that idea--no doubt--but without any emotions, you won't care about the idea at all, won't care enough to think about it, even, or support it.
Doug S.--
I don't have an email for you, but that paper turned out to be a good read; I think that the authors' conceptual framework is an interesting one worth exploring more (though I don't exactly agree with some of their conclusions). Also, I hadn't seen the Journal of Social Justice at all, which was pretty cool in and of itself.
So, thank you!
I think we're all born fluid/neutral. From there we encounter heterocentric systems of domination that enforce cross gender relations. Layered on top of this is the fact that some of us are hard wired or encouraged to listen to our own inner voices which offer us information about desire. From there we can decide or not, depending on the level of self understanding, shame, fear, need to belong, whether we will embrace possibilities for same gendered attractions or not. That's how I understand things.
Post a Comment