you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]oyasuminasai50 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can jive with their definition of gender. And I can jive with their definition of gay IF you go by the conventional definition of gender as a synonym for sex. But their definition of “gay” and “gender” are wholly incompatible.

Gay people are attracted to the same gender. OK. Fine if you consider gender and sex the same. But going by their own definition of gender, they’re saying gay is attraction to... the way someone thinks about themselves? So if I’m a gay man, and someone - let’s say Charlize Theron - comes out as a trans man tomorrow, without doing anything different with her body or physical appearance, am I supposed to be any more attracted to her?

If we say being gay is attraction to what someone is “supposed to look like,” are we saying that being gay is attraction to culturally-defined norms? Because that’s what you’re saying when you say what someone is “supposed to look like.” So if Charlie Theron gives herself a buzz cut and throws on a flannel shirt, NOW I should be attracted to her?

As soon as we start to believe that being gay is based on culturally-defined norms of gender, then it’s impossible to be born gay. You can’t be innately attracted to something socially constructed. It’s ipso facto a logical inconsistency.