Why Do You Need to Talk About Sexuality At All?
Why Do You Need to Talk About Sexuality At All?
Or: How to Tell When You Can Just Leave Other People Alone
“I don’t understand why [sexual] orientation needs so much attention,”
These words were said by a woman on Twitter in a response to Armin Navabi posting about a panel we will both be taking part in on liberalism in practice. In his post, Armin had described the purpose of the discussion series - “The goal of the series is to recenter queer discourse on liberalism, by critiquing anti-liberal trends in the movement.”
There are three possible meanings to this response that I can think of:
1) “I don’t understand what this panel is about or why you are giving attention to it.”
If this is the meaning, the difficulty with understanding is perhaps not surprising as several of the words in it have more than one meaning in common usage.
“Queer” in relation to sexuality refers to anything that lies outside what has been understood to be normal and conventional - typically feminine women and typically masculine men being attracted to each other and having monogamous, committed “vanilla” sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage. While it was historically applied to gay men as a form of insult (and reclaimed in defiance of that) it can also refer to lesbians, bisexuals, anybody whose gender presentation is other than that considered conventional for their biological sex, people whose sexual relationships are other than monogamous and people whose sex-lives include anything that could be considered “kink”. Used in this sense, the term ‘queer’ is purely descriptive of what is. It makes no prescriptions about what anyone should be. That, for liberals, is entirely the individual’s own business.
However, “queer” has also come to be used to refer to the political activism related to the Critical Theory known as “queer theory.” This set of theories includes a lot of bizarre claims about sexuality (one’s sexual attractions), gender (being masculine or feminine) and even biological sex (being male or female) being social constructs. They hold that these have been constructed in the service of patriarchy and the enforcement of gender conformity and gender roles and monogamous heterosexuality, and need to be deconstructed to liberate those who are not heterosexual and/or do not comply with conventional gender presentation or gender roles. While not entirely without merit - the creation of systems that give men dominance over women, criminalise homosexuality and enforce gender conforming presentation and roles are historical realities and continue to be current realities in many parts of the world today - most people are rightly sceptical of the radical social constructionism of these theories. We can be as sure as we can be of anything that we are, in fact, a dimorphic, sexually-reproducing species. This is not a social construct.
“Discourse” refers, on its most basic level, to communication and discussion. However, it also refers to the ways in which things are discussed. For example, scientific discourse is a form of communication that uses the language of science. When we hear the term ‘theory,’ in a scientific context, it refers to an explanation for a number of facts pertaining to some aspect of the natural world provisionally accepted to have been established as true. e.g., gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory. This can be contrasted with popular discourse in which the word ‘theory’ is often used to mean a hunch, speculation or hypothesis. Political discourse refers to the ways in which people are talking about politics. “Queer discourse” refers to the ways in which people are talking about issues like sexuality, and the discussion series aims to do so in a way which is liberal.
“Liberal” refers to the philosophical stance that is, in my opinion, best summed up in the sentence “Let people believe, speak, live as they see fit provided it does no material harm to anyone else nor denies their right to do the same.” It includes a commitment to individual liberty, tolerance of difference, an acceptance of the value of viewpoint diversity to advancing knowledge and resolving conflict as well as a recognition of our shared humanity and the common rights, freedoms and responsibilities this bestows upon us all. Liberalism holds that all people come into the world with the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and this can only justifiably be removed from any individual due to their own demonstrable harmful actions. It also understands that threats to all of the above come not only from the state but from authoritarian ideologies, individuals and groups, so liberal principles need to be protected not only in law but widely understood and valued in society. However, “liberal” is also commonly used in American political discourse to refer to the political left, including the highly illiberal left. The former is the context in which the panel uses the term.
Therefore, “The goal of the series is to recenter queer discourse on liberalism, by critiquing anti-liberal trends in the movement” means:
“We’re going to talk about people who don’t fit the criteria of “typically feminine women and typically masculine men being attracted to each other and having monogamous, committed “vanilla” sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage.” We will do so in a way that advocates for the liberal principle of letting people believe, speak and live as they see fit provided they are not harming anyone else or denying their freedoms and we will criticise dogmatic and authoritarian “queer” activism that does harm others and deny their freedoms.”
I don’t understand why you want to talk about sexual orientation or feel the need to give it any attention.
We can often find it difficult to understand why other people are interested in and dedicate time to things we are ourselves not interested in. There are outlets, accounts and events dedicated to things that fail to arouse the slightest flicker of interest in me: anime, golf, knitting, weightlifting, rap music - the list is endless. Fortunately, I don’t have to read, follow or attend any of them so it doesn’t matter at all. As they say in Yorkshire and Lancashire, “There’s nowt so queer as folk”. This expression conveys that we humans often baffle each other in our interests and behaviours but also that this is just part and parcel of being human and we can, for the most part, accept our idiosyncrasies and co-exist.
It can sometimes be intriguing to know what drives a certain interest even if one is not interested in it oneself but I think sexuality is probably a near-universal interest. I think this is because we are a sexually-reproducing species and also a species that experiences romantic love and forms families and communities and these are all inextricably linked. Humans have always been interested in sex, love, family and community as the earliest art forms and written records attest. It’s a large part of our lives and central to our innate social and psychological needs as humans so it applies to people who are not heterosexual as much as those who are. It is those who are not heterosexual who have faced most difficulties socially with acceptance of their sexual attraction, romantic love, families and communities and so advocacy for this has created movements. Unless you are extremely neurologically atypical or a hermit who never reads a novel or watches a film, you are probably interested in all of this too.
The need to pay attention to issues of sexuality or ‘queerness’ more broadly is often felt by liberals because so much of the current discourse around it is illiberal. We have both an illiberal Critical Social Justice LGBTQ movement that seeks to impose its own concepts of queerness on everybody in an authoritarian manner and an illiberal socially conservative backlash against this which is targeting not only authoritarian LGBTQ activism but the politically diverse people who fit under any of those letters. Those of us who are liberal and dedicated to a principle of ‘live and let live’ that applies both to people just wanting to live non-heterosexual, non-monogamous, non-gender-conforming lives in peace and people just wanting to live heterosexual, monogamous and gender-conforming lives in peace will want to address these illiberalisms. However, as liberals, we also accept the right of others not to and defend their right to give the issue no thought at all and focus on what seems of particular importance to them.
I don’t think you should talk about sexual orientation (even though I don’t have to attend and can just do something else).
This is an attitude I see quite a lot of lately especially around Queer Majority which is the most prominent liberal organisation around sexual liberation and sex positivity, particularly (but not exclusively) for people who are not heterosexual. People seem to frequently feel the need to respond to articles about sexuality that they do not need to read or posts for events about sexuality that they do not need to attend to ask why they need to exist or insist that they don't need to exist and that no-one cares and that it's boring.
This attitude, I think, comes from two main sources. The first is the typical and long-standing censorious-but-not-overtly-authoritarian socially conservative attitude. This takes a stance of “People can do what they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but if it is not heterosexual monogamy, they should have some shame about it and have the decency to keep it entirely private.” These are the people whom we will see insisting that a movie or TV show is forcing homosexuality down their throat if it simply has a same-sex attracted character or couple in it. They tend to see the very existence of same-sex attracted people in mainstream TV as a political statement promoting homosexuality even when there is no politisation of their sexuality, but the cast of characters just happens to include somebody who is gay, lesbian or bisexual, just as the cast of people we are likely to be surrounded by in real life does. They either do not see the inclusion of heterosexual characters or couples as a political statement or believe that promoting heterosexuality is good while promoting homosexuality is bad. Either way, their views are typically rooted in straightforwardly negative views about homosexuality. When asked about this, they often claim this not to be the case arguing that they have no problem with homosexuality as long as it is kept to the privacy of the bedroom. However, unless they are watching porn (in which case they should check the information more carefully before viewing), the content they are complaining about is not sexually explicit. If somebody does not object to a movie in which an opposite sex couple is featured as simply being in a romantic partnership - shown to be married, living together, dating, exchanging signs of physical affection - but do when a same sex couple is featured in the same way, the problem they have is with homosexuality. As liberals, we defend the right of people to have and express their disapproval of homosexuality absolutely - they don’t even have to do so in the privacy of their own bedroom - but we are not likely to respect this stance or have much sympathy for anybody complaining that they are somehow ideologically imposed upon by a TV show or movie reflecting the reality that same-sex attracted people exist in society.
The other cause of this “Nobody cares. Why do you feel the need to talk about sexuality? This is not interesting” response may well genuinely contain no antipathy towards homosexuality at all. Rather, it is a response to incessant and often authoritarian Critical Social Justice “queer” activism. It is LGBTQ-activism-fatigue and very commonly expressed by the very people it claims to advocate for. In some ways the driver for this attitude is a very positive one. People genuinely not finding the fact that somebody is same sex attracted to be a particularly interesting fact about them is a sign that the stigma against homosexuality is dying in the same way that the stigma against left-handedness did. This is all that liberals have ever wanted. The best slogan for advocacy against anti-gay/lesbian/bi prejudice was ‘Some people are gay. Get over it.” When the majority of society is over it or never had a problem with it to get over, our job is done and we are quite happy to move the conversation on.
The biggest hindrance that we have faced recently in moving the conversation on - particularly in the UK, where few people are religious - has been the rise of Critical Social Justice forms of ‘queer’ activism. It is from these ‘advocates’ that we hear that being lesbian, gay or bisexual must be a subversive, radical, left-wing political identity, even though same-sex attracted people can be found all over the political spectrum and are no more naturally inclined to be subversive or radical than anybody else. It is the CSJ advocates who insist that we need to dismantle binaries of homosexual/heterosexual, masculine/feminine and male/female and that it is a profound moral failing to acknowledge the realities of biological sex or to have a sexuality that works on the grounds of biological sex rather than gender identity or presentation. It is they who insist that we live in a profoundly homophobic and transphobic society and must address this by flying increasingly complicated, garish and ugly flags all over the place, conflating sexuality with gender and gender with sex, “educating” everybody in their own theories, policing language, making people affirm things they don’t believe and trying to shoehorn issues of sexuality and gender into absolutely everything even when it has no relevance at all.
The people most affected by CSJ-activism-fatigue have been same-sex attracted people. If this feels counterintuitive to you, think about aspects of yourself that others have politicised as identities in authoritarian and unethical ways. (I am assuming my readers not to be authoritarian loons). If you are white, do you appreciate white supremacists advocating ethnonationalism on your behalf? If black, do you appreciate critical theorists of race ‘training’ people to accept that there is one authentic black voice and it is the one that agrees with them? If you are female, do the most radical, misandrist feminists loudly declaring what women think and want actually speak for you? If male, do you find your views represented by the most misogynistic corners of the manosphere because they call themselves ‘Men’s Rights’ Activists?” If not (and I sincerely hope not), you will understand both why it is wrong to blame lesbian, gay and bisexual people for CSJ queer activism and why they may want to address it. The cost of not addressing it is not only to their/our integrity and dignity but the rising threat of a backlash from an illiberal right which has the potential to undo decades of liberal progress and make it even harder to move on from this conversation.
I can understand and sympathise with the activism-fatigue that makes even some committed liberals want to yell “I don’t care! Do your thing, whatever it is, but for the love of God, STFU about it” when they see an article about sexuality or a post announcing an event on the subject, especially if it involves the word “queer.” Nevertheless, if you are someone who wants people to be able to live their best lives provided they are neither harming anybody nor imposing anything upon them, there is a need to recognise when any kind of discussion of the subject is in support of that aim - for everybody - or opposed to it. Don’t inadvertently become part of the backlash problem by knee-jerk reacting negatively to any mention of sexuality. If you are interested enough to comment on a post, consider reading it first or looking into what the discussion it promotes is about. Check to see whether it is something intended to be imposed on people without their consent or people having a discussion about something of interest or concern to them that nobody else has to attend. It may even be that the speakers share your aim to prevent people from being compelled to hear about, pretend to believe or required to affirm any views on sexuality or gender. I assure you, the people on this panel certainly do.
There has long been a tendency for the ‘woke’ to publish pieces declaring that ‘We need to talk about X.” I will not say that. I will say that I intend to talk about liberal approaches to sexuality and gender-nonconformity on the 20th September because I believe that such conversations are sorely needed in our current climate. You remain free to think otherwise and choose where to bestow your own attention. If it is not our “Liberalism in Practice,” panel, that is absolutely fine. If it is, I’ll see you there!