What's intriguing about the Prop 8 trial underway in California is that it is one of those periodic "debates" about what sort of creatures gays are, with expert testimony from all quarters, as if (a) we were from Uranus, and (b) you couldn't ask us yourself.  We speak English, you know. 

It's hard to communicate to some people who have no experience of it how mind-bogglingly patronizing it is to be the subject of this manner of debate.  It's like people talking about you when you're right there in the room with them.



While there are many ways in which the history of African Americans and that of gays diverge, both populations have experienced the outrageous spectacle of society debating their very humanity, as if they were not "in the room."  Women, too, of course, were second-class citizens for a good deal of our history. (In the US — before it was the US — Massachusetts again led the way: in 1756 Lydia Taft of Uxbridge became the first woman in the colonies to "get the vote".)

But gays have been forced into a particularly modern predicament, and this is where the Prop 8 trial ended up Friday: the question of whether we can change (or, more likely, be changed).  This particular outrage is one those our struggle echoes didn't have to endure.  The question "can medical science cure (eliminate) us?" goes further than "the Woman Question" in isolating and objectifying us, and it continues the modern trend of framing sexuality as a malady.

The question of essentialism versus choice not only persists, it has become so overwhelming that gays themselves have banked on it being their ticket to equal protection under the law.  The argument is simple, but the implications are complex and insidious. If it isn't a choice, it must be "genetic".  We can't change — at least not without medical intervention — ergo we get the same rights others who "can't change" — like blacks and women — get.

What a vile set of assumptions to internalize. Are you getting that at all or is it just me? 

I mean, here the burden is on us to prove that because we are not like them, we are nonetheless fully human.  The reason blacks have been subjected to this outrageous discourse on their humanity is simply because they aren't white.  The reason women have is simply because they're not men. 

Not to be rude, but: fuck you.

The real question is: who is asking these questions?  And why do they have a right?  That's the real question.

As for essentialism, true or not — and while the rules of attraction may be etched in our DNA, the rules of affection and what is considered sexual are negotiated socially — it's a dehumanizing debate that gays can't win.  Crying "I didn't choose this!  Who would choose this?" is not exactly a position of strength to start with.

I've said it before: every gay man chooses.  We choose to identify as gay*. The choice to openly acknowledge the attraction and to express frankly an affection that's sublimated in others is not a minor matter.  It is, in fact, the central issue for many: gay and straight alike. 

Modern society  uses medical explanations to justify its sanctions, but the use of essentialism as the basis of equal protection often ignores other fundamental freedoms — of expression and association — that go to the core of democratic assumptions about what constitutes our humanity.  For either side to rely on a clinical argument is to hide from the wider implications of those truths we hold as self-evident.

Any model of discrimination based on intimacies between consenting adults robs us all of the fundamental ingredient of our humanity. 

The essentialism debate, which for decades has been an effective red herring, is essentially moot.  Gays should stop playing into it by whinging and whining about how "we can't help it!"  Because medical science is always happy to lend a hand.  Shock therapy anyone?  How about a lobotomy?  Castration?  Maybe a little gene therapy?

Consenting adults should be able to negotiate their own relationships, period. 

Time for us all — including gays — to grow up. 
_______________________________________________
* I've written about it here and here, for starters.  Here for more on "The Gay Agenda".