feministe… I’d love to hear what your idea of a feminist transition is. Sounds cool to me.

cicely,

I’m really not arguing against the innateness of homosexual attraction. I think you said you knew that, I just feel like it bears repeating.

I feel like I’m being confusing. Maybe that’s not true, and you understand what I’m saying, and you just disagree with it. That’s perfectly fine. But I’m going to try to give this another go anway, and if you already get it and don’t want to bore yourself with a re-read, that’s fine…

Hello again, Mandolin :)

Actually I appreciate your effort to communicate and I realise I could be being confusing too. I don’t think we are essentially disagreeing except about the effectiveness of using the innate arguement. I think it is honest, just *and* effective in the real world, even though it falls short of the ideal of anyone having the right to partner with or marry who they choose regardless of whether or not their sexual orientation is innate.

Let’s say that over 70% of gay men and lesbians believe themselves to be born homosexual. The need to be understood as such is great. The remaining group, with other explanations or actual paths to partnering with a same sex person will still benefit from the civil rights gains of the 70% since it’s unlikely that there’ll ever be some kind of test to have people qualify as innately homosexual. There is no single gene that explains either homosexuality or heterosexuality and scientists doubt that there ever will be. I prioritise the needs of the 70% to both have equal civil rights and be understood.

A goal for me is to teach that since homosexuality is most often natural, homophobic views and laws are perverse - homosexual people are not. The bigots can challenge all homosexual behaviour much more effectively while they can hold onto the idea that homosexuality itself is always unnatural. The reason homosexuality is an issue in so many churches even now is precisely that for many church going people the injustice of punishing people for an innate trait, something that is natural to them and doesn’t harm others, has become apparent. If, as political movements, either gay rights activists or feminists had prioritised arguing that anyone should be able to partner with a same sex person, and have full sexual relationships, I don’t believe we would have come as far as we have in the real world.

Such a feminist argument falls right into the hands of the opponents of homosexuality, because their argument is at times essentially the same - it’s a lifestle/political whatever ‘choice’ - which for most of us it simply isn’t.

Religious fundamentalists oppose all sorts of heterosexual *behaviours* too. Sex before marriage, sex using contraceptives, anal sex - whatever. The opposition to homosexuality *and* homosexual behaviour is just part of the contents of the same bag. But they don’t argue from a basis that heterosexuality itself is ever unnatural, so their arguement is weaker.

So - to summarise - I don’t believe that *not* using the personal truth of the innate arguement is a more efective strategy to gain civil rights for all individuals who wish to partner with same sex people regardless of whether or not they consider themselves to be innately homosexual. I also think it is wrong to sacrifice the personal truth of over 70% of homsexual people in an efffort to gain acceptance for the approximately 30% with different understandings or paths to homosexual experiences or partnerships. I’m not sure exactly where your thinking is on this but some feminists do say it’s necessary, and I quote ‘to be hard on the innateness arguement’ because biological determinism of any kind needs to be avoided since it has been and still is used against women. As was written earlier by Bitch / Lab, radical feminists have found it difficult to completely eradicate biological determinism, whatever their overall approach. An innate lesbian, faced with a feminist who wants her to downplay her own personal experience and identity to make room for individuals who actually have a choice about who to relate to sexually, might not want to be so generous. That would describe myself. I also have a personal preference to have relationships with other ‘natural-born’ lesbians. Like laylalola I have had experiences with politically rather than sexually identified lesbians (who had not informed me of this beforehand) which I would rather not repeat. The quintessential lesbian-feminist saying ‘Feminism is the theory, lesbianism the practice’, amounts to the theft of innate lesbian identity to me. I’ve always thought lesbian-feminists should have called themselves feminist-lesbians to more accurately and honestly reflect their priorities. Many misunderstandings might have been avoided! I consider myself a lesbian and a feminist, but not a lesbian-feminist for these reasons.

I think it’s very important that people are free to present in whatever way is comfortable and expressive for them, as individuals.

Exactly! Thank you for sharing.

I also want to reiterate that I don’t pretend to represent all transsexuals, nor especially all ftm’s. As much as society likes to lump us together, we are frequently united only by a desire to transition, not by common motivations or definitions.

Likhetsfeminister (equal feminists sort of) who believe that we are inherently the same and that differences between sexes are due to gender or are smaller than differences within the groups or between other population groups.

This is pretty much what I accept as true. I believe that the “gender-role” differences found within one sex are as diverse as the differences across male/female lines, especially if we include in the sample the femiest guys and the butchest women. Thus, I don’t really believe gender is inherently about behavior as much as it’s about identity. What do you see when you look into your heart? How are you most comfortable manifesting that identity in the world? For me, I see a man who’s a mother, a man without a penis. That concept is undoubtedly influenced by my body and my life-experiences, as well as by my brain chemistry or whatever it is that determines my personality. Because “man without a penis” is not a category readily recognized by society, the most comfortable fit for me is to move in the world as a man, yet not alter my genitals.

One thing missing from this discussion so far it seems to me is a distinction between public gender and private gender. Before I transitioned, I could be content alone in my apartment without hormones or top surgery, although looking at myself in the mirror naked could be a minor challenge. I never felt “trapped in the wrong body,” however. My body was problematic mostly because it prevented other people from seeing me as I felt I was.

Which brings up public gender. Add even one other person into the mix back then or take me outside my apartment into a world where I started relating to strangers, and dysphoria resulted. When I was perceived as a woman and forced to adopt a female gender-role, I felt like I was acting 24/7. I could pull it off, but I was almost always self-monitoring, wondering if I was getting it right. One thing I could never do was look into my heart for inspiration and trust that my actions would match the gender-role people expected.

Now, I just am. Most of the time, my actions simply flow, without reflection. It’s such a liberation!

Many of the ways I move in the world now are perceived as “effeminate” and I am often taken as a gay man…which is fine, as I identify as queer bisexual anyway. I rarely self-monitor and make no effort to censure or modify my actions, unless I perceive a danger of homophobic assault. I don’t feel compelled to appear “more macho,” because I believe that if I am a particular way or act a particular way, it is masculine for I am a man. And because I now possess the secondary sexual characteristics of a man…facial and body hair, lower voice, masculine musculature…my actions are perceived as appropriate for my perceived gender.

Homosexuals can (often) partner with heterosexuals. — I don’t mean that homosexuals can become heterosexual, just that many homosexuals (at least of my acquaintance) can engage in physical heterosexual acts.

I’m not personally arguing for the abandonment of arguing that homosexual attraction is innate. That’s still a premise. I just still think the argument “homosexual attraction is innate, therefore we should be allowed to marry” skips a few steps and, therefore, leaves itself open to challenge from conservatives who want to paint it as a “lifestyle choice” (while ignoring that other kinds of relationships are also lifestyle choices). — ADD: I want to revise it to include the concept of choice, that it should be acceptable (and celebrated) for homosexuals who experience innate homosexual attraction to choose homosexual behaviors.

I’m really not arguing against the innateness of homosexual attraction. I think you said you knew that, I just feel like it bears repeating.

I feel like I’m being confusing. Maybe that’s not true, and you understand what I’m saying, and you just disagree with it. That’s perfectly fine. But I’m going to try to give this another go anway, and if you already get it and don’t want to bore yourself with a re-read, that’s fine…

So, to start with, I’m asking:

1) What do we want to gain, as a political movement, by stating that homosexuality is innate?

I believe the answer to this is “an acceptance of homosexuals as people who have equal rights in the society.”

2) What kinds of rights are we looking at?

Many, in regard to how one partners. Not limited to, but definitely including legality of marriage.

3) Given that we want to make SSM legal, is the idea that homosexuality is innate a useful argument?

My answer is “no.”

I get there by the following route. Homosexual attraction is innate. Homosexual behaviors are based on innate homosexual attraction. However, homosexual behaviors are not innate, they are only based on innate things.

In order to argue that homosexual *behaviors* are innate. I would personally (by this standard that I, admittedly, set up) have to believe that innate homosexual attraction is a sufficient and necessary cause to produce homosexual behavior. I believe this is a flawed hypothesis.

Homosexuals can (often) partner with heterosexuals. Homosexuals can adopt asexual lifestyles. Homosexuals can remain closeted. Therefore, homosexual attraction is not a necesasry and sufficient cause to produce homosexual behavior. Therefore homosexual behavior is not innate.

(Please note that I’m saying nothing about *desirable.* I think homosexual behaviors are very desirable. I just don’t think they meet the standards which I, admittedly have myself set up, for being innate.)

4) Since I don’t think that homosexual behaviors can be proven innate, I would prefer to create a different argumentative approach toward convincing conservatives of my position, i.e. that SSM is good and desirable. To do this, I would set up something along the lines of:

A) Homosexual attraction is innate.

B) Marriages based on love and attraction are a good and desirable thing. (Yes, I know this isn’t an uncontroversial statement since some people dislike the concept of marriage in general.)

C) Homosexuals experience intimate sexual relationships with other homosexuals as loving and sexually attractive.

D) Homosexuals should be allowed to make the choice to enter into marriages.

I’m not personally arguing for the abandonment of arguing that homosexual attraction is innate. That’s still a premise. I just still think the argument “homosexual attraction is innate, therefore we should be allowed to marry” skips a few steps and, therefore, leaves itself open to challenge from conservatives who want to paint it as a “lifestyle choice” (while ignoring that other kinds of relationships are also lifestyle choices).

—

I have to confess that a big part of why I care about this point (though I do think it’s valid) is because I feel that when we use the political expedience of biological determinism to earn rights today, we not only leave ourselves potentially open to logical flaws but also weaken our ability to legitimate things that are choices in the political arena. And yes, I think that has a direct bearing on creating a society that’s more tolerant for people of all genders and sexualities.

–

To whoever asked me what I meant when I said transsexuals had the right to pursue happiness… yeah, I was basically being flip when I chose that word because of its constitutional echo. I wanted to imply that reasonable people would understand that a transsexual who feels the need to transition should be allowed to pursue it. Another word might have been a better choice.

Did the 50’s and 60’s civil rights battles hinge primarily upon “well, okay, people can’t help being black, so…okay, give ‘em their rights”? Was that the winning tactic? Did women get the vote because it finally sank in that “hey, they can’t help not being men, so give them a break already”? Correct me if I’m wrong (please do), but somehow I tend to doubt it.

To paraphrase MLK (because I can’t remember the exact quote) ‘I’d like my children to be judged on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin.’ I always read this to mean that people shouldn’t be judged or discriminated against based on traits they were born with which don’t actually limit their potential as full human beings if it weren’t for discrimination. That is where the power in this enormously widely quoted statement lies. You could apply this to homosexuality as well. While nothing is set in stone yet (and it may never be…), there is evidence in existence that there is a biological component to sexual orientation. What is not now in dispute based on identical twin and other sibling studies ( and no difference is noted whether the siblings are raised together or apart) is that the greater the amount of genetic or otherwise biological material that is shared between any siblings, the greater the concordance for homosexuality. (i.e.the likliehood that where one sibling is homosexual the other one will be as well.) Concordance is always greater between siblings than in the background population. Also not in dispute is that sexual orientation is determined very early in life - usually before the age of ten - and is very resistant to change, whatever methods have been tried to achieve this. ( Also, in a recent poll , 73% of lesbians and gay men answered “Yes” to the question ‘Were you born gay?’ 43% of those polled were young - between 14 and 19 years of age. The reasons 27% answered “No” weren’t given, but among them I’m sure would have been some politically identified lesbians and social constructionists! ;)

So the statement - “I would like my children to be judged on the content of their character, not the orientation of their sexuality.’ , while it doesn’t have the same ring, does have the same meaning, and should have the same power - in terms of peoples concept of justness - as MLK’s statement. And it does. In fact, as I’ve said earlier, studies *have* also shown that where there *is* an understanding that homosexuality is a trait people are born with, there is a far greater likliehood of acceptance of gay men and lesbians. That is the source of the improvements we have seen in the lives of homosexual people in recent decades. If you disagree with that, can you tell me what your alternative explanation would be, and can you demonstrate it?

.

People go on about the Michigan Women’s Music Festival, but is that really such a big thing now? Isn’t it mostly a hookup scene, rather than a strong example of the culture? I have to say that I am much more concerned about LGB willingness to include T in potential ENDA-type state legislation than whether a few “womyn-made womyn” butt heads with a few transwomen over a hookup scene. Apparently I am not much of a comic-book radical, because I have always seen the goal of feminism to be the acknowledgement of the full humanity, and full economic worth, of women, ie, equality, and if female-bodied women and male-bodied men become equal, what’s the big deal about including female-bodied men and male-bodied women in the equality?

While the feelings of transsexuality may be innate, transitioning is a choice. (Not transitioning is also a choice, of course.) Given that the act of transitioning is a (constrained) choice, transsexuality (both impulse and transition) can only be constructed as biologically determined if everyone will agree that people have an inalienable right to pursue… happiness.

My problem with the use of the term choice is that rarely do we discuss the contexts in which we make choices.

Thus, my choice to pursue transition - in the absence of context - makes it seem like I was deciding between ketchup or mustard.

I chose to pursue transition because the other choices available to me involved harming others or myself. Not very happy choices.

So I chose to pursue a set of options that took eight years to complete. Along the way I continually recommitted to my choice. Unlike like squirting mustard instead of ketchup on my hot dog, choosing transition was not a one time, once decided, deal.

My ability to make this choice was relatively free of constraints that can make other transsexual lives a living hell. I did not have a medical condition that made it impossible for me to have surgery; I am upper class and white and consequently, demand competent, affordable healthcare. When I didn’t get it, my race and class upbringing combined to inform me that the problem was with the system, not with me. I spoke the language of doctors and nurses and medicine.

In america we do not all operate within equal contexts, have different constraints operating within our lives, and therefore, have different choices available to us.

Pursuing my choice of transition has made me happy.

I don’t know if it is an inalienable right, since everything is up for negotiation in the u.s., but I needed to do it for myself.

Transition and transsexuality will never, in my opinion, resolve into easy solutions or equations. I’ve stepped far beyond the parameters of everyday language and conduct to place where often the opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth.

But politically? I think, longterm, it’s a loser, for the reasons mentioned above (”i can’t help it” isn’t empowering…

Let me re-phrase it then. The truth about me is that I am a woman who has never been attracted to boys or men at any time in my life. I never made any conscious choice about this, and in fact being attracted to other girls and women made life lonely, painful and difficult for me in my youth. I would have preferred my life to be less difficult at that time. I have been very comfortable and indeed happy about being a lesbian for many years now because I found a community. My community has been deeply fractured by feminist politics, but it is still a community in which I am able to find like-minded lesbians. This is me and my truth. Truth is powerful.

Frankly I think the arguement that our enemies might use it against us so we shouldn’t speak the truth that we didn’t actively choose to be homosexual (for those of us who didn’t) is what is piss weak.

I’m saying only that - even if we accept or prove transsexuality and homosexuality are biologically determined, choice is still involved in action. Therefore basing political arguments on biological determination will only carry the movements so far before opponents (which I am not) can start talking about choice again.

How far is ’so far’, do you think? Whatever growth that has occurred in the acceptance of homosexuality in society in general (and this has been significant in recent deacades) can mostly be attributed or measured according to a corresponding growth in an understanding that it is as natural for a homosexual person to be homosexual as it is for a heterosexual person to be heterosexual. (heterosexuality isn’t normal, it’s just common…) Oddly enough I think a growing acceptance of homosexuality based on what is an experienced reality of it for (I would suggest) a large majority of us ( especially prior to the emergence of politically rather than sexually identified lesbians) - is a good thing.

Maybe I’m the one being pedantic, but there’s something slippery here that I’m trying to get a grip on. I’m possibly linking this discussion with arguements I’ve had with some feminists (who identified themselves as radical) over whether my own lesbianism is innate or socially constructed. I was recently asked the question ‘what informs you that your lesbianism is innate?’ A lengthy discussion ensued in which, among other things, I was attempting to articulate why my experience is real and important to me - and, I confess, resenting being asked to do so - and also being told that there is no political advantage in arguing for acceptance on the basis of innateness also partly for the reason you state above. So number one - my experience is not real, and number two, even if it is, it’s no use to feminism.

The thing is, in my case, my being a lesbian had nothing to do with feminism. I was a self-identified ‘queer’ first (aged 11 in 1965), and later, (in my early 20’s) a feminist. Maybe what I have done, and still do, is argue for two separate things. Gay rights for people like myself based on who we actually are regardless of feminist politcs, and a feminist world in which people can choose to partner with anyone of any sex or gender, for whatever reason, and not be punished for it. I don’t see the two as being mutually exclusive.

Question. Who are the people who would continue to argue against the inalienable right of even a *proven* innate homosexual to live a full life, including having sexual relationships?

Answer. The same people who will continue to argue against the inalienable right of a woman to control her own body, and have access to a legal and safe abortion should she fall pregnant and not wish to have a baby.

Wherever those utterly anti-choice people win, we all lose.

…Wordy word word.

For me, reclaiming my sexuality and the ability to live in my body is/was profoundly empowering. The apparently-still-lively notion that desire can or should be forced into some sort of ideological procrustean bed is one that drives me absolutely batshit. particularly when it comes from people who (I think) ought to know better. If you’re pissed off because it appears that it’s currently easier to (say) go to a women-only lapdancing party or take a flogging technique class than, say, get an abortion or be safe from abuse, well, I can understand that; but I hardly think it’s appropriate to lay the blame for this state of affairs at the feet of the “sex-positive” people. It’s both/and, not either/or. No means no. Yes means yes. Bread and roses never meant the bread wasn’t important anymore. It does however mean that attacking people because they finally got a chance at their very own rose is a pretty crappy way of getting more bread. Even if their rose doesn’t smell nice to you and you can’t understand what they’re getting out of it.

I also tend to have a problem with “it’s not a choice” (sexuality, gender identity and/or expression, what have you)–as a *political* tactic. Is it true, that “it’s ” not a choice? Personally, I’ve no idea. I think it’s different for different people; I think the whole notion of “choice” is wrapped up in the notion of “free will” and of consciousness, and one could talk for hours and hours about the nuances of that. Bottom line: I think it’s complicated. And if there were a way to divorce this kind of speculation/research from its political implications, I would love to really get into it. I think these are fascinating questions.

But politically? I think, longterm, it’s a loser, for the reasons mentioned above (”i can’t help it” isn’t empowering; the roses part of the bread and roses), and also because I just think: since when do hardcore bigots actually care about this? More important, since when was the question of whether something about one’s identity was a “choice” what one’s civil rights depended on?

I mean, I know people are using the “well, it’s a behavior choice, therefore their demands for rights aren’t as legitimate as those who came before them” *now.* What I want to know: who originated that line? Because it sure feels like a divide-and-conquer tactic to me. And it also feels deeply disingenuous. Did the 50’s and 60’s civil rights battles hinge primarily upon “well, okay, people can’t help being black, so…okay, give ‘em their rights”? Was that the winning tactic? Did women get the vote because it finally sank in that “hey, they can’t help not being men, so give them a break already”? Correct me if I’m wrong (please do), but somehow I tend to doubt it.

For me, my sexuality comes back to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” always. I am pursuing my happiness; you (person trying to keep discriminatory laws on the books and/or make new ones) are impinging on my liberty to do so. The pursuit of my happiness is not interfering with anyone else’s life, liberty, or pursuit of their *own* happiness. Therefore, you can fuck right off. Period, end.

I might read Jaggar later, since you think she is good. What I was commenting on was the confusion between radical feminist theory and feminists who are radical. Being radical isn’t the same as working in a radical feminist framework. From what I learned at university french feminism is very different from radical feminism.

Then again, most of what I have learned is in the field of literary theory and what I’ve heard from friends studying gender studies. I am no theoretical expert.