Among the most striking data coming out from analyses of the vote on California's Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to recognise only opposite-sex marriages is that while the initiative passed with a relatively narrow margin of 52-48 percent; among African-American voters, 70 percent of them voted for the anti-gay measure.
A controversial public-education poster, which appeared in Italian newspapers and on billboards across Tuscany last year, with the slogan ''L'orientamento sessuale non una scelta'' - ''sexual orientation is not a choice'' to counter homophobia and discrimination against gay men and lesbians. The campaign was used previously in Quebec.
William Saletan, writing for Slate.com, offered an interesting explanation for this phenomenon in his Nov 13 column, Original skin - Blacks, gays and immutability. He pointed out that African-Americans, by and large, have yet to see any analogy between race and sexual orientation. To many of them, the colour of one's skin is something one is born with, but homosexuality is something one chooses.
He cited a 2003 Pew Survey which found that among Whites, 39 percent felt that sexual orientation could be changed (45 percent said it could not, 16 percent didn't know). Among Blacks, 58 percent felt that it could be changed (30 percent said it could not, 12 percent didn't know).
There was a 19 percentage-point gap between Whites and Blacks on the belief that one could choose one's sexual orientation.
Saletan wrote: "The mutability question is hardly academic. It has been driving public opinion toward gay rights for decades. In 1977, 56 percent of Americans polled by Gallup said homosexuality was a product of upbringing and environment; only 13 percent said it was inborn. Today, a plurality says it's inborn. That 20-point shift has coincided with a 20-point shift toward the stated acceptability of homosexuality and a 30-point shift toward support for equality in job opportunities."
And it's not just a matter of one belief competing with another belief. Immutability is well supported by science. As Saletan commented, "the most potent force in politics [isn't] spin but science, which transforms reality and our understanding of it."
This shows us what we need to do all across Asia: We need to keep educating our publics about the science. We don't have to do all that much by way of reiterating the message of rights. Once people absorb the fact that sexual orientation is inborn, they can work it out for themselves.
That said, my own experience has been that lesbians and gays are themselves rather conflicted about science. A large number of them resist the message, which hardly makes them convincing messengers to the wider public.
Very broadly, I see two groups: The first would be those gay people who have the intelligence to see that things are more complicated than that and who resist reducing the message into a simple one. Either they do not have a good grounding in science themselves, and are therefore suspicious of a subject they are not familiar with, or they are all too familiar with science, and couch everything they say with ifs and buts.
Of the first subgroup, some of them prefer to speak in terms of social construction, built upon a base of "everybody is bisexual anyway". The argument they are more at ease with is that people should have a right to choose, and there is nothing wrong with choosing to be gay.
That is a valid point, but unfortunately, people will buy the first part of the argument - your sexuality is constructed - but still refuse to buy the second - that one choice is much the same as the other, value-wise.
Of the second subgroup - those who are only familiar with the science - there is a tendency to resist speaking in definitive terms. They are all too aware that science is a process, not a set of answers, and every scientific conclusion is contingent upon a zillion assumptions and methodological particularities.
Yet, changing the public's mind is not really an exercise in educating the public about the intricacies of science, psychology or sociology. Like it or not, it is politics, and politics is, in a big way, a battle of soundbites. It is far more effective to keep repeating four words, "sexual orientation is inborn" - which anyway is well-supported by the general thrust of scientific findings - than to go into a convoluted philosophical discussion about the human will, the construction of reality, and the tiny ambiguities of experimental findings.
Good politicians know that the world is messy, complicated and multi-layered, but they also know that selling a message succinctly is critical to success. It wouldn't hurt for us to imbibe that lesson too.
The second broad group of gay people who resist that four-word sound bite, are by my observation, the bisexuals, who are more often female than male. They feel excluded by the way the message has been so distilled. It is unfortunate because that resistance springs from a misunderstanding (and a miscommunication by the exclusively homosexual persons) of what "sexual orientation is inborn" means.
Too often it is interpreted to denote that sexual orientation is a dyad - one is either gay or straight - when truly it means nothing of the sort. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation in itself, within which one's love and erotic relationships operate.
Bisexual persons sometimes find themselves falling for a guy, other times for a gal, and it gives the appearance of choice. If one doesn't spend a little time thinking about it, one might think that the example of bisexual persons refute the thesis that sexual orientation is immutable. But just because bisexual Karen has to choose between going steady with Christina or John, while gay Benny chooses between Patrick and Steve, does not make Karen's sexual orientation a choice, while Benny's is inborn. They are both operating within boundaries that they did not choose. Just like heterosexual Sophie, who is agonising between Derrick and Jim.
There is no conceptual conflict between the evidence of bisexuality and saying that sexual orientation is immutable.
The proven route for gay activism lies in spreading the idea that sexual orientation is inborn. Sure, it glosses over many details in both the biological and social sciences. But gay activism is politics first and foremost, and in politics, effectiveness counts. Keep your message short and simple. Keep it one that millions of gay and bisexual people can embrace, through their own personal experience, so that they can confidently go out to change minds.
Alex Au has been a gay activist and social commentator for over 10 years and is the co-founder of People Like Us, Singapore. Alex is the author of the well-known Yawning Bread web site.
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
Food for thought.
I must say this is a reality...
well, we are just we are, against it, deny it, ignore it...it wont change anything, the most important is we can and bravely embrace and accept ourselves the way we are ;)
well, we are just we are, against it, deny it, ignore it...it wont change anything, the most important is we can and bravely embrace and accept ourselves the way we are ;)
well, we are just we are, against it, deny it, ignore it...it wont change anything, the most important is we can and bravely embrace and accept ourselves the way we are ;)
1) Although I find it important to figure out strategies to educate the public about homophobia and discrimination (especially in countries in Asia), it is extremely racist and narrow-minded to suggest that Prop 8 passed because of the African-American community. This notion pathologizes Black folks as inherently backwards and conservative. However, it's interesting that people don't focus on the fact that mainly white folks, the elderly, people who live inland in CA, and other major demographics were communities that passed prop 8 - so why focus on the Black community?
2) The social science and other cultural studies has tried to complicate the discussion on sexuality as inborn because it is not JUST inborn. To rely on a political message that only looks at science and sexuality as inborn is narrow and limited. We need to complicate the messages to heighten awareness and discourse.
3) Politics is made of soundbites; however, this does not mean we only need to make simplistic soundbites.
If we can't take control of the discourse and make it more nuanced, then we are not doing our jobs as engaged citizens. Merely defaulting into simplistic politics is acquiescing to normative power, which has NEVER been part of Queer politics.
So my suggestion to the author is to complicate gay/queer activism and politics and figure out more nuanced soundbites that won't perpetuate simplistic, racist, and narrow ideas.
Smthoperator, #7, argues to "complicate the discussion on sexuality as inborn" because complicating the discussion is what heightens awareness and discourse. In a classroom, yes. In a workplace seminar on sexuality, yes. In a public forum, no. It's one thing when you have a captive audience that has a stake in the outcome of the discussion. The problem is the issue of gay marriage is being fought on the streets, in front of Mormon temples, on the news and airwaves. Where nuanced messages simply get lost. People can change the channels anytime they want. Even worse, people can scorn, ridicule and laugh. There's a good reason why a raised fist symbolized the struggle for black Americans for many years. It's the same reason we should be pointing a rainbow gun at the rest of America on the front lines even as we struggle to heighten the discourse in the back rooms.
I've argued before on these boards that a society that increasingly relies on science and technology to shape its morality is one that is doomed to lose all sense of humanity. I understand why Alex wants us to peer through microscopes and focus on the science. It is, after all, so much easier than looking people in the eye.
Anyway life goes on, best thing to do is just be happy the margin was really small, next time it comes up for a vote we need to do more to get better organized and not present such a militant image . . . even now trying to protest outside the Mormon church and get some revenge is really tacky! Gays are still a minority group so unless we broaden our message and base of support and really convince the masses and organize on a grass roots basis then its all for naught.
I won't stop giving, but still trying to understand what our gay activists did with all that money??!
A clear message need not be a simplistic message.
Please get real , when I was a little boy of about 6 to 7 yrs , I already knew I was different. I grew up in a family of thugs , gansters and street fights. I should be like them right ? No ! I just knew I was different. Please tell these ignorant people stop lying to themselves.
The real political issue is: regardless of where gay sexuality comes from, religious types, social conservatives and government officials believe it's appropriate to express their disapproval of gay men in legislation and public policy, which should be made for all citizens.
To simplify it does everyone a disservice, and only serves to alienate those who do not subscribe to absolutes (which is most).
While some elements of sexual orientation (at the heart of it - the gender whom you are attracted to) is inborn, most elements of sexual behavior (actually having sex) is a choice. People are known to change their desires over time, and desires are known to be influenced by a multitude of factors.
The point should be - SO WHAT IF ITS A CHOICE?
Religion is a choice, and everyone has the right to choose their religion (well, many do...I sympathize with those who don't). We are human beings, and central to that is freedom of choice.
The heart of the problem is how people judge and fear other people who are different from themselves, exclude them, ostracize them, and victimize them. It is the prime motivator behind nationalism, xenophobia, racism, and yes, even homophobia. The easy way for them to rationalize things is "I am right, you are wrong", and unfortunately, an elegant if messy solution is violence and genocide.
Convincing people that sexual orientation is inborn will breed no more tolerance than telling racists being Black is not a choice will breed racial harmony. People fear, people hate, and people lack understanding because it is human nature to only see things from one point of view - MINE.
Took a short break from it all, I tried finding the answer in religion.& for a while it worked. Actually, the interesting thing is, I got to discover how much I prefer women only during Bible class :D
To cut a long story short, it was not a good experience & they tried talkng you into 'changing yr ways' into a 'healthy heterosexual lifestyle'.
I understand their good intention, & I do know same-sex inclined people who actually followed such a path, but hey, they're adults & its their CHOICE hahaha. Well, so is mine when I choose to NOT stifle my same-sex attractions ;))_ But that does NOT mean I 'm a 'good-time' girl who's only into clubbing & being 'fabulous' kekeke...my life's so much richer than that.
I think, the problem is, pro-religious people will pigeonhole glbt as 'deviants' into the decadant lifestyle, whilist within the glbt community, there's this pressure strive towards the haughty,
oh-so-hip-it-hurts image, that sometimes comes across as intimidating to young glbts. Whenever people have such shallow, superfical understanding of what being gay or lesbian means, it's little wonder there will always be the same old tired 'nature-versus-nurture' debate.
I agree with smthoperator's words:
"This article is extremely problematic and dangerous because it perpetuates racist myths about Black folks, naturalizes sexuality, and oversimplifies the discourse."
The problem with assuming that a disproportionate number of African American folks voted for Prop 8 is that it incorrectly places the burden of responsibility for the passing of Prop 8 on one racial group, and homogenises them as one entity.
The reality, of course, is far more complex. First, a majority of people who voted yes were White (at least in part because whites constitute the majority of voters). Yet, we hardly talk about the "whiteness" of a majority of homophobic actions in America.
To put it simply, given the current racist rhetoric in response to the passing of Prop 8, if a white person is homophobic, it's because he/she is Mormon. If a black person is homophobic, it's because he/she is black. See the racist double standard?
It should be as much the case that the African American community should hold itself accountable for homophobic voting patterns as it should be the case that the American LGBT community should address the underlying racism that characterises much of its politics. "We" (as gays) cannot simply co-opt the history of African American struggle (such as by correlating same-sex marriage with interracial marraige). When I see the gay community in the USA doing more to advocate for a reformed prison and education system (which disproportionately impacts African Americans, Latinos, and people of low income of all races), then I might be more convinced that "we" (gays) have a right to point at any racial group for their complicity in maintaining a homophobic system.
To compare and contrast, many African American and Asian American organisations actually encouraged their voting bloc to vote against Prop 8, but I have yet to see most major LGBT organisations taking a formal stand against racist and classist legislation.
One more issue is the problem with naturalising homosexuality as "inborn." To be honest, whether or not homosexuality is inborn is unimportant to me, though I can understand and empathise with why it might be important to others. My opinion is what Alex Au describes as being that "people should have a right to choose, and there is nothing wrong with choosing to be gay." Au goes on to criticise this viewpoint as politically nonviable in addressing homophobia on a large scale, even if it is, he concedes, philosophically "valid."
I disagree.
As S2 put it, "To simplify [sexual orientation] does everyone a disservice, and only serves to alienate those who do not subscribe to absolutes (which is most)."
We do our own humanity a disservice to assume that everybody, even where lacking in political or intellectual savvy, can somehow not grasp the point that sexuality is complex. A comprehensive education AND politics about sexuality will not dismiss our complex sexuality out of convenience. When we lapse into a politics that refuses to problematise our solutions, caving into "four words" rhetoric, we end up reproducing the very structures of inequality that we were supposed to end. I refuse to forgo true freedom for the sake of convenience.
In much of Buddhist Asia, for example, homosexuality IS assumed to be inborn, and yet this has not ended homophobia. Instead, we are pitied for having had negative karma from a previous life that has led to our condition. A solution for homophobia in this cultural context would look very different from the one that Alex Au's science is trying to propose.
Only when we believe and work toward change will change occur. Of course, there is nothing inherently noble about change in and of itself, and yet, change is the only inevitability for any culture.
Let us push ourselves to create change with honesty and compassion, not only for political convenience.
Peace
Scientists say that ageing is not genetic, but caused by damage to our cells over time. This means that ageing is a choice! ;) Could religious folk do more good for humanity by putting all that energy into praying away the gray, rather than the gay? We could all certainly get behind an Ex-Gray movement.
Trouble is, after a few years all the Ex-Grays would be exposed for simply having dyed their hair.
And for those that argue that the focus on blacks is unfair and perpetuates racial myths, c'mon! Get real. 7 out 10 voted for Prop 8. No other racial group was so emphatically opposed to gay marriage. Certainly, we can't blame blacks (who only make up 10% of the California electorate) for the passage of Prop 8. But, damn, we can just as certainly say that there is something terribly wrong here. At least when it comes to gays, blacks are way ahead in the intolerance stakes. And that ain't no myth!
over here, the main problem is still this: gay people are just not coming out to those around them.
visibility is the first step towards greater acceptance.
In other words, even if there are genes that predispose someone to homosexual behaviour, it is possible that this person may never engage in this behaviour nor describe themselves as homosexual. Similarly, there may be genes that predispose someone to heterosexual sex and desire, and yet this person may be in an exclusively homosexual relationship.
The problem with finding the "fag gene," as pheramones #23 puts it, ranges far beyond just the reductive oversimplification of the roots of homosexuality.
While we are comparing race and sexuality, let us not forget that during WWII, the USA was at the forefront of finding a biological basis for race, which led to some pretty awful conclusions. American-sponsored scientific research into the biological basis for racial difference was used by Nazis in Germany to justify the holocaust against non-Aryan peoples, most visibly the Jews. American science on race became Nazi Germany's justification for eradicating Jews, homosexuals, "gypsies," and people with mental disabilities.
It can just as easily be argued that if a homosexual gene is found, that this information can be used to "root out" homosexuals, or else there may be some genetic re-configuration that could occur to control homosexuality in the population.
Since WWII, part of racial liberation has involved the scientific community's now unanimous dismissal of the theory of a genetic basis for racial difference. The scientific community has concluded that there are more genetic variations WITHIN race categories than BETWEEN race categories. i.e. There is no discernable genetic difference between people of different races, and that any such differences are statistically negligible, since they are overridden by differences within racial groups. Genetic differences between human beings can account for different statures, risks of heart disease, etc., but NOT to determine how one will be racially categorised.
If there is a lesson to be learned from all this, it is not that genetic research is futile or bad or wrong, but that even genetics do not ultimately determine human behaviour, though they can sometimes predict patterns in human populations. Finding a biological/genetic basis for homosexuality alone will NOT eradicate homophobia, even if it helps to alleviate some of the effects of homophobia for those of us living in specific communities who base their ideas of normalcy on what is biologically determined. We should question the motivations behind scientific research so that we can hone in on ways to derive more humane conclusions (ex: through the social/psychological sciences, as much as the physical sciences).
The Bible and its teachings were what was used during the civil rights movement in America. Black people clung on to its truth and moved forward. It served them through its darkest moments when Dr King was assassinated, and it continues even right through now on electing Obama as the first coloured President. I dun use the word Black to describe Obama cos many forget, he's half white! Many AA feel that the Bible is sufficient in itself. What is read is truth, no 2 ways about it. They have forgotten, like with many other notable causes, that the Bible was also historically used to discriminate against blacks, women, legislate segregation, slavery ..etc. They failed to understand that the Word of God is alive through the empathy of one's struggle with humanity for justice and equality. Science in this heavily politicized agenda, is just for your reference only.
Until man can believe and respect that we are all Divine and truly deserving of our own birthright to be who we are created to be without persecution, everything else is attributable to just unknown science.
Alot of people, including African American (AA) Christians, are Christian Literalists. They literally believe what they read blindly without attempting to place contextual nuances of the cultural variances present during the inspired expressions of God's words into scriptures. The Bible is NOT a word for word dictation from God.
An unenlightened mind therefore will obviously invite errors into interpreting reflections inherent from scriptures. The Bible is whatever it is to one who reads it, but is not always necessarily so as what it is to mean. Unless one is a divinity scholar or has pursuits as such, there is not much motivation to investigate further for analysis. Lifting a passage off a contextual chapter from the Bible and using it as a weapon is tantamount to selective bias and a motive offensive agenda.
cont'd...(2)
In Singapore, the legislature robbed the gays of freedom of being by legalising oral and anal sex (Section 377A) ONLY for st8 people, but blatantly refusing to acknowledge that their own lines of attacks used so vehemently against gay people, that anal sex "damages" the body, is immoral, non-procreative..etc, also hold true too for their own st8 traditional families. Clearly, science is not the issue here, human bias & discrimination is.
cont'd...(1)
And yes, I've heard stories too abt Human Rights Campaign- very sad. Makes one wonder if the strong religious stranglehold in the US could be a direct outcome of their actions.
At the end of the day, most people are unmotivated to listen to lengthy discussions on sexual orientation issues. We see two barriers: critical thinking (which are actually taught in schools! Goes to show it's not "common" or "natural") and motivation. The people who can make a difference with a simple vote may have only one or none.
Maybe we want to think that everybody possesses critical thinking and are motivated about sexual orientation issues. But this is really far from reality.
Just that messages tailored to a general public should be in layperson's terms with a main gist.
How many of us are trained in statistics, for instance, to qualify the generalizability of study findings?
I totally agree with that but then again, I'm already a choir member.
Before people can overcome their homophobia, they need to know / understand that homosexuals are not "choosing" to be that way (or choosing to be deviant or rebellious or whatever). While it's true we can choose to have gay sex or not, it does not help to tell one's mother that one is choosing to have gay sex just because. I think if mother (or anyone else who's new to this) is told that one didn't choose to be gay, and that having gay sex is a natural extension/ expression of that identity and is not really a "choice" over any other kind of sexual behaviour - it might be an easier sell.
Substantial change will come when homosexual men and woman them selves end their being professional victims...if your queer your just not there.
What a great sentiment! Sometimes, that's the most effective way to make change, is to be honest with our families. :)
i wonder if fridae could invest in a monthly feature that invites academics (or graduate students if budget-tight) from different fields (sciences, social sciences, the whole gamut) to write about this, in laymen's terms for the know-littlebits-little-time, with additional links for the know-mores.
Religious intolerance and bigotry is the root of all this persecution and discrimination.
This why all nations must embrace 100% secularism and separation of religions and politics.
We can't afford this planet ruled over by religious fanatics who feel they're holier than others and may judge with their own double standard "morality"
and their laws should be made as public laws and taking away the rights of the minorities including gays.
Some the truth hurts and we must speak out loudly.......
If this article was about keeping it simple, it failed.
Forget the background clutter, we are all human, we have equal right to live OUR lives as WE wish whether that is evolved, genetic, or choice FULL STOP.
Please log in to use this feature.