Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe
This is great—a profound step away from the tedious prescriptivism of people like John Aravosis, who basically represented Nixon’s complaint in a blog post criticizing it: “If you like both flavors, men and women, you’re bisexual, you’re not gay, so please don’t tell people that you are gay,” and so on. Slate’s J. Bryan Lowder takes another tack: “I’m not really interested in guessing at what Nixon’s ‘true’ sexual identity is—that’s her business, and labels are always only approximations at best. What does interest me, however, is the alternate political model that her comments suggest.” He continues:
It’s a compelling thought, a world where grown-ups don’t have to explain away their sexual activities by way of what amounts to an unavoidably apologetic “I can’t help it.” Still, many critics will argue that appealing to biology is the only way to protect against the attacks of the religious right—if God made me this way, surely you can’t hate me. But I have to agree with Nixon that depending on biology cedes a great deal of control to bigoted people; after all, much of Christianity is based on the idea of resisting sinful bodily desires. If homosexuality is truly genetic, why not just ignore it, like good old heterosexual lust?