“What’s Wrong With Be[com]ing Queer? Biological Determinism as Discursive Queer Hegemony”
Weber's article explores the idea of pro-gay biological determinism and the opposing argument from the Christian Right. She shows how biological determinism, while intended to support queer people, has instead led to exclusion and erasure of some queer identities and experiences. Weber first explains how biological determinism has come to be the popular pro-gay attitude because it is a more convenient position for political activism, despite academic work supporting social constructionist views. She then outlines the Christian Right's use of “gay-as-deviant-choice” arguments and contrasts those with the mainstream pro-gay views of “biological homonormativity.”
To show how biological homonormativity has become intertwined with pro-gay discourse while constructionism has with anti-gay views, Weber uses a google search, the exchange between Melissa Etheridge and Bill Richardson, the movie “But I'm A Cheerleader, ” and the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Weber analyzes google search results concerning sexuality and biological roots to show that a plurality of sites claim that sexuality has biological origins, and that such arguments are linked with pro-gay discourse, while anti-gay views are linked with social constructionism. She also uses the example of Melissa Etheridge's angry response to Bill Richardson's belief that being gay is a choice to show that gay-as-choice arguments are linked with homophobia and that gay people who subscribe to the ideas of biological homonormativity assume they speak for all queer people when they assert their views. She concludes that only by understanding sexuality in an expansive way can we create an atmosphere that does not marginalize LGBTQ people whose experiences do not coincide with biologically homonormative ideas.
I read this piece with the assigned readings by Adrienne Rich and Judith Butler in mind because I remembered talking about the origins of sexuality and gender when discussing those readings. This piece gives more context for the reactions to Rich's conception of lesbianism. When I first read Rich's piece, I was shocked to see a pro-gay argument that viewed homosexuality as a choice, because, as this article discusses, all of the arguments I had heard concerning “gay-as-choice” had been anti-gay rhetoric. Weber's explanation of the history of biological homonormativity and how the political landscape shaped current discourse allowed me to understand how the false idea that all beliefs based on social constructionism are necessarily offensive to all queer people has been perpetuated.
- Did this article change the way you think of the origins of sexuality?
- Do you think it is possible for hegemonic pro-gay ideas to shift away from biological homonormativity without creating unwanted vulnerability to “gay-as-deviant-choice” arguments?
After reading this article, my views on the origins of sexuality have certainly changed. Prior to this reading, I thought of being gay as merely biological-- those who identify as gay have a natural physical/sexual attraction to members of the same-sex as them. End of discussion. However, after reading Weber's work, I have been enlightened on the fact that merely stating that being gay is not a choice but instead biological (i.e. natural) oversimplifies the matter. If biological homonormativity is the only framework that we use in political discourse regarding queer narratives, then we are invariably excluding (and further marginalizing) members of the LGBTQ community. For instance, there are some queer folks who have had sex with/dated/married folks in a heterosexual framework in the past but now they no longer feel attracted to those folks. However, these queer folks were not "confused" about their true sexual attraction; instead, their sexuality grew and evolved over time. Thus, the biological homonormativity argument does not pertain to said queer folks. With this in mind, we should shift away from such a framework to a more inclusive one. How do we go about doing this? Well, I'm not quite sure...
ReplyDeleteI really really REALLY appreciated the ideas put forth in this article and how it allowed for fluidity, multiple experiences, attraction that encompasses many different things (not necessarily defined by sexual object) and really moves towards deconstruction in a nice way. I also think it's great because straight and queer people alike love to erase or diminish experiences had "before you realized" and to me that's always seemed kind of questionable, obviously everyone's own take is different, but to parse social construction, social influence, nature, nurture, biology apart and universalize it seems really questionable. And the fact we have such an impetus to do so to me is bad. I'm weary of origin stories, I'm weary of the narrative, I think narratives and origins always work asa great tool for othering so I'd rather have a reason for total ambivalence regarding it. However, I do see the interesting other sides, that saying it was always there and that narrative works for some people (how much of that is socially reinforced, well?) but I don't want to diminish that experience. I think the most nerve-wracking point, however, as repeatedly touched on as that for much of the pragmatic activism to survive as it does (to allow people to survive as the do) there seems to be a reliance on this "homonormative" position. And questioning how can something be down about that, institutionally, actively, while keeping people safe, is big.
ReplyDelete1. This article didn't as much change the way I thought about sexuality as it affirmed the way I already thought about it. It validated my own experience of sexuality as fluid & ever evolving.
ReplyDeleteI do so much thinking about this. My father was profoundly moved to change some of his homophobic thought processes after learning that homoerotic behavior is observed all over the animal kingdom. We, as a society, have a screwed up value set that prioritizes "scientific" research and justification for things. Until we change our epistemological paradigm to value more critical, broad forms of knowledge and experience I think the LGBTQ movement will be restrained to participate in the "scientific" discourse first and foremost.
ReplyDeleteThis article was a fascinating read for me and expanded my thoughts about the origins of sexuality, including my sexuality. I grew up across the street from Smith College and in a community and family where sexual fluidity was not abnormal. I've always viewed my sexuality as fluid (which is why I hate labels, but queer will have to do), I also viewed it as biological. In retrospect, I wonder if I would even identify as queer if I had not grown up in a community that excepted sexual fluidity. So for those reasons, the arguments Weber presents for sexuality sometimes being a social construct resonate with me.
ReplyDeleteI was also fascinated with the discussion of the legal implications of sexuality's origins. I feel like the queer community strongly supports biological determination because it gives us an excuse for our queerness. While this inherently negative outlook is unfortunate, it also provides legal/constitutional protection in the eyes of the court, so it has its benefits. As more queer-centric cases pass through the our court system, it will be interesting to see how the origins of sexuality, whether biological or otherwise, play a role in legal proceedings and considerations.
I loved this article (although now I can't talk about But I'm A Cheerleader! for my final paper :/ ). As I mentioned in class, I really liked the section talking about radical lesbian feminism and choosing to allocate time, energy, and love into women to fight heteronormative patriarchy. This is something I, as someone who can be attracted to multiple genders but identify strongly as a lesbian, have done in my life and received harsh backlash for (since, for some queer people, this "invalidates" their own born-this-way identities). That being said, I also liked that Weber continually acknowledged how biological determinism has helped people. As someone who has never really had to justify their queerness, I can't fully condemn the homonormative/born-this-way argument since it has served an important role in saving people's lives and I personally have never been asked to justify my queerness.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't really considered the idea of choice too much when it comes to sexual orientation until recently. I was actually having a discussion with my friend about whether or not subverting the patriarchy and other factors subconsciously or consciously come to mind when analyzing one's sexuality. At the time, I was thinking that not having to deal with men or excusing oneself (in some ways) from a patriarchal dynamic is just a benefit from female same-sex relationships, not the driving factor. This article was assigned at the perfect time and I definitely see how there are so many factors and reasons that come with sexuality, and that minimizing it to biology or "I had no choice!" is extremely limiting.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, I was so relieved and appreciative and excited that we read and discussed this article. I think this dynamic of fear of "change" or "fluditiy" in one's identity is scary to everyone-- both people who feel their identity is more fluid, is fluid at some points, or people who are quite sure there is no fluidity for them. I thought it was especially important when we discussed the way this fear of fluidity or change can come from an entrenched biphobia in certain persons or communities. The idea that someone can "switch" between the straight world and queer world is threatening in some ways to everyone. After reading this article I cannot unsee the ways in which myself and others, even people who are ostensibly conscious of queer issues, perpetuate these stereotypes and fears.
ReplyDelete