This is annoying.
So I'm going to annoy you with it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/09/queer-by-choice-not-by-chance-against-being-born-this-way/244898/
Aside from the whole queer by choice movement often trying to use their experience to override a lot of other people's (painful) experiences, this particular article is annoying for 1) the statement that when lesbians are together, everything is 100% equal peachy-deachy. I've lived with both girl slobs and boy slobs who expect me to be their mom (although the boy slobs were more entitled about it as privilege might dictate), but even greater than that, there are plenty of reasons why two women in a relationship together wouldn't be on equal footing re: class and race for starters, and 2) even if you identify as queer by choice, I question the decision to never, ever use the term bisexuality in the article, even if it is to clarify, "this isn't bisexuality; it is actually [insert an actual explanation that deals with the common audience conception here]". Instead, bisexuality or the concept is treated as though it doesn't even exist, and in its absence, more people are free to assume that once bisexuals find a partner, they've "chosen" and are now straight or gay 4LYFE! So thanks for that.
I'd overall agree that even if someone DID decide to choose to be gay, straight, bi, transsexual, queer, asexual, other, they should still be afforded the same rights as everyone else. It STILL doesn't hurt anyone to allow same sex couples to get married whether or not they chose it. It still provides stability for these families that the government prejudicially affords to heteronormative families. And there is some bowing and scraping done in arguments against the "moral moronity" when queers point out that most wouldn't choose a life of harassment and oppression*. Can't we, though, make the argument that it doesn't matter whether or not it is a choice without bowing to essentialism and biphobia? And I don't think that "born this way" necessarily means that you wouldn't still choose to be queer of some stripe under less oppressive conditions or that you aren't fiercely proud of it. I don't think queer by choice is any more radical really than queer and proud, honestly. I was born a woman, and by saying that, I don't mean I would have chosen to be a man or that I think I should be ashamed of my sex or gender. Emphatically not. I didn't choose to be neurologically screwy, but that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with not being the norm.
And I don't think I chose to be queer. I would probably, if the gay faerie came up to me and offered to degayify me, tell hir that's okay, dear, I'm good. There is no gay gene specifically, but as far as I've ever been able to determine from the meager scientific studies that don't even study women enough, queerness is more alone the lines to being attributable to a number of factors, some a genetic predisposition, some the conditions in the womb, and some environmental factors. So choice in the matter… largely out of reach for those whose sexuality is set by age 3-5. But if you DID choose… well. Good for you. You're not making a great case for equality, though, just by arguing that gay is better b/c sexism and also the sex is better.
*And because of that oppression, I'm sure there would be people who would opt out, and do, ultimately, just OPT OUT...
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/09/queer-by-choice-not-by-chance-against-being-born-this-way/244898/
Aside from the whole queer by choice movement often trying to use their experience to override a lot of other people's (painful) experiences, this particular article is annoying for 1) the statement that when lesbians are together, everything is 100% equal peachy-deachy. I've lived with both girl slobs and boy slobs who expect me to be their mom (although the boy slobs were more entitled about it as privilege might dictate), but even greater than that, there are plenty of reasons why two women in a relationship together wouldn't be on equal footing re: class and race for starters, and 2) even if you identify as queer by choice, I question the decision to never, ever use the term bisexuality in the article, even if it is to clarify, "this isn't bisexuality; it is actually [insert an actual explanation that deals with the common audience conception here]". Instead, bisexuality or the concept is treated as though it doesn't even exist, and in its absence, more people are free to assume that once bisexuals find a partner, they've "chosen" and are now straight or gay 4LYFE! So thanks for that.
I'd overall agree that even if someone DID decide to choose to be gay, straight, bi, transsexual, queer, asexual, other, they should still be afforded the same rights as everyone else. It STILL doesn't hurt anyone to allow same sex couples to get married whether or not they chose it. It still provides stability for these families that the government prejudicially affords to heteronormative families. And there is some bowing and scraping done in arguments against the "moral moronity" when queers point out that most wouldn't choose a life of harassment and oppression*. Can't we, though, make the argument that it doesn't matter whether or not it is a choice without bowing to essentialism and biphobia? And I don't think that "born this way" necessarily means that you wouldn't still choose to be queer of some stripe under less oppressive conditions or that you aren't fiercely proud of it. I don't think queer by choice is any more radical really than queer and proud, honestly. I was born a woman, and by saying that, I don't mean I would have chosen to be a man or that I think I should be ashamed of my sex or gender. Emphatically not. I didn't choose to be neurologically screwy, but that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with not being the norm.
And I don't think I chose to be queer. I would probably, if the gay faerie came up to me and offered to degayify me, tell hir that's okay, dear, I'm good. There is no gay gene specifically, but as far as I've ever been able to determine from the meager scientific studies that don't even study women enough, queerness is more alone the lines to being attributable to a number of factors, some a genetic predisposition, some the conditions in the womb, and some environmental factors. So choice in the matter… largely out of reach for those whose sexuality is set by age 3-5. But if you DID choose… well. Good for you. You're not making a great case for equality, though, just by arguing that gay is better b/c sexism and also the sex is better.
*And because of that oppression, I'm sure there would be people who would opt out, and do, ultimately, just OPT OUT...