Queer by choice, again.

I don't believe in sexuality, and I don't believe in gender.

Let me amend that: I don't believe they should exist. Both of them are social constructs, for the largest part. I won't say biology won't enter into it at all, but where it does, it can be overridden by social factors. And if it can be overridden, it's obviously not all that relevant, so I can't claim sexual orientation is "partly biological" and keep a straight face.

I can accept, for instance, that genes or hormonal cycles hold sway over how often I'd want to engage in carnal activities, or influence rhythm or duration. But I can't accept the existence of a gene that causes me to be singularily obsessed with the form and function of my partner's genitals. Or one that forces my entire social behavior to correspond to my own equipment, and whether any opportunities for procreation present themselves.

Most scientific research on this topic is done to prove or disprove a pet theory of the researchers, and it's often ludricrously unchallenged. Books based on the sexual behaviours of fruit flies have been published, claiming rape is engaged in by males, since it helps them pass on their genes. (The intention of the work being to paint rape among humans as an acceptable behaviour, since it's natural; one has to take the genetic route in this, since nobody would seriously entertain the notion that fruit fly and human society resemble one another.) Another study tried to claim universality of gendered behaviour, since male chimpanzees play more with cars, while female chimpanzees preferred dolls and roller pins. We'll assume they've proven red rolly things are male-gendered, and brown rolly things female. Likewise, the length of your ring finger compared to your index finger will tell you if you're queer, unless you're an firstborn son. This was studied by comparing photocopies of handprints; interestingly, while trying this for myself I found I could easily manipulate my results by changing the way I put pressure on my hands.

I can't claim to be a researcher, but I do know this doesn't sound like proper science, and I'm wondering why people with their doctorates under their belts turn out such embarrassing treatises. I can only conclude that people are trying to get a handle on monolithic social phenomena, and that they coat their own preconceptions in scientific language to make them seem invulnerable.

For instance, liberals are far more likely to accept the gay gene theory, and conservatives reject it. The main difference between both views is that conservatives see queerness as a contagious disease. The liberal argument amounts to "but it's not contagious!" Not all liberals think this way, of course, but many of them do think of the gay gene theory as the only line of defence. Meanwhile, nobody really explores the thought that willfully engaging in same-sex relationships can be a moral position to take. It's not only unwise to see sexuality in such a strict dichotomy, but it amounts to ceding the point to the homophobes upfront, and then going for a Phyrric victory. This doesn't seem like a honest way of reasoning, and it's very unlikely to convince the opposition.

I don't claim everyone should choose to be queer, either. If you're happy with your current set of attractions, that's fine by me. If you feel you've been queer since the day you were born, that's not something I can agree with, but I certainly won't reproach you for it. I'll try to convince everyone once queers are an accepted part of society, but nowadays I have different priorities.

Why bother with identifying as queer by choice, then? Isn't just 'queer' enough? No, it isn't. In the current climate, queers are massively preferring socio-biological theories, to the extent that the debate is framed by them. I suspect at least some of this is out of tactical considerations. While still 8% of the community claims queerness is a choice, they seem to be mostly ignored. The net result, for me, is that I can't tell my own story in a vocabulary of birth defects and influential uteral hormones. It's not so much divisive on my part as it is restrictive on the part of the community. Queer-by-choicers are certainly not perfect - admitting you weren't born with this enlightened mode of thinking still seems pretty taboo - but I find it much nicer to be in a subcommunity where I'm not constantly on the defensive.