Cynthia Nikon 'chooses to be gay'...

Conor30

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Cynthia Nixon learned the hard way this week that when it comes to gay civil rights, the personal is always political. Very political.
The actress best known for portraying fiery lawyer Miranda Hobbes on "Sex and the City" is up to her perfectly arched eyebrows in controversy since The New York Times Magazine published a profile in which she was quoted as saying that for her, being gay was a conscious choice. Nixon is engaged to a woman with whom she has been in a relationship for eight years. Before that, she spent 15 years and had two children with a man.
"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," Nixon said while recounting some of the flak gay rights activists previously had given her for treading in similar territory. "A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it's a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn't matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not."
To say that a certain segment of the gay community "is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice" is an understatement. Gay rights activists have worked hard to combat the idea that people decide to be physically attracted to same-sex partners any more than they choose to be attracted to opposite-sex ones because the question, so far unanswered by science, is often used by religious conservatives, including GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum and former candidate Michelle Bachman, to argue that homosexuality is immoral behavior, not an inherent trait.
Among the activists most horrified by Nixon's comments was Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen, whose organization monitors and tries to debunk programs that claim to cure people of same-sex attractions with therapy. Besen said he found the actress' analysis irresponsible and flippant, despite her ample caveats.
"Cynthia did not put adequate thought into the ramifications of her words, and it is going to be used when some kid comes out and their parents force them into some ex-gay camp while she's off drinking cocktails at fancy parties," Besen said. "When people say it's a choice, they are green-lighting an enormous amount of abuse because if it's a choice, people will try to influence and guide young people to what they perceive as the right choice."
Nixon's publicist did not respond to an e-mail asking if the actress wished to comment on the criticism.
While the broader gay rights movement recognizes that human sexuality exists on a spectrum, and has found common cause with transgender and bisexual people, Nixon may have unwittingly given aid and comfort to those who want to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, adopt children and secure equal spousal benefits, said Jennifer Pizer, legal director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a pro-gay think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles.
One of the factors courts consider in determining if a law is unconstitutional is whether members of the minority group it targets share an unchangeable or "immutable" trait, Pizer noted. Although the definition of how fixed a characteristic has to be to qualify as immutable still is evolving — religious affiliation, for example, is recognized as grounds for equal protection — the U.S. Supreme Court still has not included sexual orientation among the traits "so integral to personhood it's not something the government should require people to change," she said.
"If gay people in this country had more confidence that their individual freedom was going to be respected, then the temperature would lower a bit on the immutability question because the idea of it being a choice wouldn't seem to stack the deck against their rights," Pizer said.
Nixon stirred the identity politics pot further when she explained in a follow-up interview with The Daily Beast this week that she purposefully rejected identifying herself as bisexual even though her history suggested it was an accurate term.
"I don't pull out the "bisexual" word because nobody likes the bisexuals. Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals," she said. "But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met (her fiancé) Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt."
Although science has not identified either a purely biological or sociological basis for sexual orientation, University of California, Davis psychologist Gregory Herek, an expert on anti-gay prejudice, said Nixon's experience is consistent with research showing that women have an easier time moving between opposite and same-sex partners.
A survey Herek conducted of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals of both genders bore this out. Sixteen percent of the lesbians surveyed reported they felt they had had a fair amount of choice in their sexual orientations, while only five percent of the gay men did. Among bisexuals, the figures were 40 percent for men and 45 percent for women.
What remains to be teased out, Herek said, is how a representative national sample of heterosexuals would answer the same question, and what people mean when their sexual orientation was a choice or not. Are they talking about their sexual desires? Acting on those desires? Or simply the identity they choose to show to the world?
"The nature vs. nurture debate really is passé," he said. "The debate is not really an either/or debate in the vast majority of cases, but how much of each. We don't know how big a role biology plays and how big a role culture plays. A possibility not often discussed is it's not the same for everybody."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/actress-claim-gay-choice-riles-activists-201717513.html

Rick_

Very silly choice of words on her part if anything.

baby and crumble

Thing is though, if that's her identity, then why shouldn't she say how she feels? We often say to people who come on to the board freaking out about definitions "only you can define your sexuality", and yet here is someone who is doing just that, yet the public are telling her that her definition of her own identity is wrong? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Dwn Wth Vwls

The only part about it that makes me scratch my head is her reasoning. She says it was a choice, because otherwise she was gay all along and not really interested in those men she was with, and she finds that insulting to everyone.

Um hi, bisexuality would like a word with you.

Canard

I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt.

So if this is what happened, wheres the "choice"?

I still dont understand why anyone would ever use the choice argument when they clearly didnt choose to be straight and cant choose to be gay. imo that woman is bisexual and doesnt want to admit it or something, because i just dont think you can choose to become gay.

floggg

If that's how she feels about her sexuality then that's how she feels. Hold we all have to lie about how we define ourselves just to conform with the accepted gay norm?

Isn't the whole point of coming out a gay that doesn't conform to sexual norms?

jaffacakesyum

I 100% agree that people can choose to be gay. Some people can't, some people can. Leave her to it I say

Nyan Cat

I understand why this outrages people. It concerns them that people will see all gayness (as it were) as nothing but a choice. But I suspect the only people who would be so closed minded as to believe that are the ones that are gonna think along those lines anyway! I don't think the world in general are suddenly gonna think we're all raging homos because we just chose to be different or 'out there'.

She even said she knows it's not like that for everyone. I can't see anything wrong with how she feels - bandc is right about that. We tell people only they can define themselves. Why the hell should we then slate someone who does just that? Maybe she is bi. But it's her choice how she defines and feels about herself.

At most she might have mischosen some words.

Annasopra

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I 100% agree that people can choose to be gay. Some people can't, some people can. Leave her to it I say

I don't believe it is a choice

Sindri

Maybe that is how she feels. But possibly the introspection that led her to her beliefs may be flawed. Not everybody can account for their own behaviour adequately.

Whether she is gay or not or whatever depends on how you define gay and what requirements are mandatory. Foucalt people (regardless that he was French).

MJRS

Wait wait wait, is it a bad thing that she has defined herself in a way that is outside the norm? Surely that is just about as lgbt as you can get!

ANXIOUS

mango salsa wrote: »

I don't believe it is a choice

Do you not see how hypocritical that is, would you entertain the statement. I dont believe its not a choice?

apache

oh let her define herself however she wants to define herself. can't believe the hypocrisy here!!!! well actually i can. i should know better :rolleyes:

apache

baby and crumble wrote: »

Thing is though, if that's her identity, then why shouldn't she say how she feels? We often say to people who come on to the board freaking out about definitions "only you can define your sexuality", and yet here is someone who is doing just that, yet the public are telling her that her definition of her own identity is wrong? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

exactly!

Annasopra

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Do you not see how hypocritical that is

No

BuffyBot

I really, really cannot see an issue here, apart from people *wanting* to take issue with it. She's perfectly entitled to choose how she labels herself, and how she journeyed to that label.

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

In a nutshell. She's not saying it's a choice for everyone, but for her and that's how she sees herself and her sexuality.

As a more general comment, for a community that calls for tolerance a lot, certain elements of the LGBT community can be awfully hostile to people who don't toe the party line.

jaffacakesyum

BuffyBot wrote: »

I really, really cannot see an issue here, apart from people *wanting* to take issue with it. She's perfectly entitled to choose how she labels herself, and how she journeyed to that label.



In a nutshell. She's not saying it's a choice for everyone, but for her and that's how she sees herself and her sexuality.

As a more general comment, for a community that calls for tolerance a lot, certain elements of the LGBT community can be awfully hostile to people who don't toe the party line.

Nail on the head there. It's quite funny actually that a community historically discriminated against can be incredibly hostile towards, for example: bisexuals ("sure they're just greedy/don't know what they want etc."), transgenders, or lesbians who don't conform to the typical stereotype (me and a couple of my friends have been refused from gay bars for looking too feminine, and also had a young butch lesbian refuse to believe we're gay/bi, saying that to our faces).

Dr. Baltar

Some people are born with taste-buds that make them despise the taste of pork.
Some Jewish people choose to not eat pork.

People are people. Everyone's different. Just because she chose to be gay, does not mean that we all did. Let her be who she wants to be. Be who you want to be.

Happy days.

Annasopra

I only made a statement that I don't believe being gay is a choice. I didn't condemn Cynthia Nixon for saying anything. I resent being called a hypocrite for having an opinion.

oxymoronist

Patchy~ wrote: »

when they clearly didnt choose to be straight and cant choose to be gay..

I am interested to know how you know what others can and can't choose. It's fine to say what you can and can't choose, but to claim that you know what everyone else can and can't choose is, obviously, absurd.

Canard

oxymoronist wrote: »

I am interested to know how you know what others can and can't choose. It's fine to say what you can and can't choose, but to claim that you know what everyone else can and can't choose is, obviously, absurd.

Well did you choose your own sexuality? I've never met anyone who has. If it wasnt something so controversial (e.g if she was saying she chose her own eye colour) I think everyone would safely say shes lying. I'm not saying she is lying by the way, and I'm not condeming her for it, I just think it was a very insensitive and silly thing to do considering the amount of homophobes who claim its a choice and how hard people try to prove them wrong - and its obvious they'll use this one rare case as a rule rather than an exception in their attempts to stop people becoming more accepting of gay people.

Xotan

It seems to me that what we have here is someone who is capable of relating to either sex. If this is so, then it is not unreasonable for her to say that she has chosen her orientation.

The problem, however, is twofold. In America, among a certain strain of fundamentalist Christians, there is an argument that homosexual people 'choose' to be homosexual. This provides a foundation for attacking homosexuals, saying they are wicked and accusing them of all kinds of nonsense. Take your pick: anything from the fall of the Roman Empire (which inconveniently actually lasted until 1493 C.E.) to campaigning (having an agenda) to turn the whole world gay. This sort of thing can be a launching pad for physical violence against gays (ref Matthew Shepperd), and such a comment about choosing gives comfort and support, however unintentional, to those who are determined that gay people should not share common civil rights with others. The religious right seems particularly keen on repression of gays, and/or their turning into heterosexuals.

It was therefore an ill-considered comment to make.

From the European viewpoint, what happens in America can spill over.

For most gays, there is no question of choice about orientation. The same is true for most heterosexuals. However, on the spectrum that runs from absolute heterosexuality to absolute homosexuality, there is a band where it is possible. it seems, to switch orientation. Perhaps this is where this lady finds herself.

It would have been better had she chosen her words with more care.

For all that, good luck to her.

Nyan Cat

Xotan wrote: »

It seems to me that what we have here is someone who is capable of relating to either sex. If this is so, then it is not unreasonable for her to say that she has chosen her orientation.
.

That's. Very very good point. If she is technically bi / capable of being with both sexes but she CHOSES not to pursue men and only women for whatever reason she has then technically she did chose her orientation or at the very least chose how to define it (as a person should)