Recently I have had interesting discussions with different people which is a good thing because then I have things to write about. I went to the university where I am working now to see my boss. There was another lecturer at the premise when I arrived and we ended up talking. Somehow, we started talking about homosexuality.
This other lecturer, let's just name him A, argued that homosexuality is something that some people were born with. I said the other way around, that it is a choice based on preferences. A didn't agree because he thought people could not choose their sexuality; people were born with their own sexuality, just like him born to like women, instead of men. I, then, used my personal experience to explain my argument. I told him that I had a crush with some random girl when I was still in uni but I was too shy to do anything about it. And he looked at me weirdly.
Then, he said that it is totally NATURAL for him to be aroused by sexy women, but UNNATURAL for him to get sexually aroused by men (sexy or not sexy). I said I can be aroused as well seeing sexy women. I mean, come on dude, they ARE sexy. He said, "It means you have some issues." Eh? It was interesting to see how both cringed just the slightest bit when I said that I just haven't met the right woman who interests me much. And how one of them concluded that I could have fallen for a woman if I wanted to and met the right person.
The discussion was taken downstairs, in front of the department's office. He continued by saying I should try convincing them (he and my boss) that it is indeed an option to be gay. I stared at them and asked, "Why would you want me to do that?" A similar answer was given to him when he asked, "Then why am I not interested in men?" I mean, how can I know why a person is not interested in something? What am I? A behavioural expert or something? Anyway I told him that he needed to find out that for himself. He insisted that I should TRY explaining to him. Finally I was kinda fed up and started talking about sexual penetrations.
I mentioned about porns. Not the best examples in the world I know. I should have used the Victorian erotic literature. I said when he (assuming that he does) watched porns, he would consider the actions in the scene and (maybe) started having his own personal thought about sex. Just you know, getting the idea about sex. His answer was, "When I watch porn I just watch it. I don't consider anything." He didn't get quite get my point. Or maybe I was being too vague.
I honestly do believe that sexuality is a matter of preference. You choose your partner: gender, age, race, personality, intelligence, etc. I can't imagine that you are born to like women or men or both. Or that you are born liking only Caucasian or Mongoloid or Malayan or whatever. It is not written in your genes. You actually will undergo a certain process (or maybe progress) and make your own list of preferences.
We ended the discussion by me saying opinions are made to be different. I won't force him to believe what I belief, no matter how vague my belief is. I said I just didn't like his negative tone (or prejudice upon me) about this issue. He, of course, denied the allegation. It was on the tip of my tongue: homophobic. But I didn't say it. I was afraid I was being overly too judgmental about two adult men who can't even understand why someone would take interest in gay, lesbian and transgender research if that person is not gay. Meh.
3 comments:
[Part 1:]
In KL, I've noticed, at many of the pro-LGBTIQ (if that's still the relevant acronym) events I've attended, a common argument expressed is the idea that "homosexuality is ok because its natural".
For example, there was some event about "ex-homophobes" who were "coming out" as "friends/allies of LGBT people" where one guy said, "I used to be homophobic but then I realised that's just the way you're born, you can't choose to be the way you are".
There was also another event that screened a film called: "For the Bible tells me so" which included a section which used many scientific arguments to "prove" that homosexuality is natural. I'm not sure about them, but they did seem to be valid, and of course worthy of consideration and point to some involvement of "nature" in the process. (Interesting point on the side, this film and the guy who "came out", were both religious believers. Interesting that they use science here but may not necessarily use science to question/prove the existence of God, maybe?)
Firstly, I generally have a problem when the "natural = good" argument gets brought up, because, well, what the fuck is natural, sebenarnya? Look at the argument on meat eating. Some vegans say eating meat/milk/eggs is unnatural, some meat-eaters say eating meat is natural. I say, I don't give a shit.
Have a look around us, what is natural? Are computers natural? Are buildings natural? Are cars, bikes and trains natural? Are air-conditioners or toothpaste natural? Some could argue yes, others would strongly argue no. Yet, its not like we argue that buildings/cars/trains/pens/clothes "are bad because they're unnatural". I think if we are to accept that many parts of the world that we have built aren't exactly natural, and that's ok, then to suddenly start to make arguments for/against certain things based on the "nature argument", those arguments are invalid.
Going beyond that, I also don't believe that its necessary in order to be consistent with what I believe to be the broader goal of human development - acceptance of sexuality diversity being only one aspect. I think Amartya Sen articulates my ideas well with his conceptualisation of development as freedom. That is, the goal of development is basically to enhance people's freedom to be able to choose to live lives they believe are worth living.
So basically, I don't think we even need to get into the nature argument. We should argue, that IF its a choice, then so fucking what? Why should that be a problem. By using this line of argument, we are consistent with other issues that need to be worked on in the world. The LGBTIQ issue is not on its own, but part of the whole movement for a better world.
I'm also worried about the consequences of this "nature argument". As in, what if, we all came to the consensus that yes it is natural, and therefore its ok to be gay... But, only if its natural?
What if I wasn't sure? What if chose to give it a go, just for fun? Then is it not a valid excuse and I should therefore be discriminated against because I don't past the "natural" test? Is that how we would enforce such a rule based on such arguments? Gay is ok, as long as you can prove that you're naturally gay? How would that even work? People have to get tested, and have a licence or something? Then, would we start testing people to prove they are "naturally" heterosexual? Of course this all sounds kind of stupid, but in a way, it does seem consistent with the "nature argument".
[Part 2:]
I agree also, with the way you relate sexuality to attraction in general. Are not our attractions to certain body types, features, etc based, at least in part, on our socialisation and our experiences? Why is it that it would seem that men (and women) prefer a hairless woman (body hair that is, its usually the opposite when it comes to the head)? Surely, that isn't a "natural" thing at all? Why is it that in some cultures, that beauty standards prefer a thin woman, whereas in other cultures beauty standards prefer a woman to be "thick" or chubby? Why in some cultures, standards of beauty prefer pale white skin, whereas others prefer a tan?
Surely, this difference in attraction is not something we are born with but shaped by our societies. Isn't it also possible for it to go beyond features such as body shape, skin tone, hair colour and also include sex/gender as well? That our attraction to particular genders is based also on social factors?
Basically, if you can't be bothered reading that, and I remember them properly, my main points are:
* Arguments based on nature may not actually be valid.
* A much more encompassing and stronger argument in my opinion is to argue for freedom and choice. This then has implications for how we treat other issues in life.
* That if we believe the "natural" argument and base our rules/laws on such thinking, there is still room for discrimination.
* Attraction seems to have a lot to do with social factors and so, attraction to a certain sex/gender is not immune to these processes.
* In refuting the "nature argument", I'm not in anyway arguing in favour of discriminating against LGBTIQ people.
Your arguments are in line with my thoughts when I had the discussion. And what you said about the 'ex-homophobes' is just a bit sad. I don't know why but I feel that his statement shows that being gay is like a 'condition' which you're born with, like, say, autism or mental deficiency.
I forgot to mention one (quite) important thing which was said by my boss.
I was questioning the natural thing and how you could have differentiate natural and unnatural things. My boss said, "It's common sense." I said what the fuck is common sense anyway? He said, "Oh you know: social norms." And I told him if they wanted to base their arguments (about homosexuality or any other issues) just on (probably irrelevant) social norms, why would we even bother to have this discussion?
And yes, I also think fighting for freedom and choice will be better than trying to "naturalise" the "unnatural" things in life. I thought there was beauty in diversity.
Post a Comment