In a recent New York Times Magazine profile, the actress Cynthia Nixon (of Sex and the City fame) discussed her sexuality, and explained her reaction to some of the attention drawn by her having begun a serious relationship with a woman after ending a fifteen-year relationship with a man. From the piece:
“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.” Her face was red and her arms were waving. “As you can tell,” she said, “I am very annoyed about this issue. Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate? It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate. I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.”
Those remarks set off such a firestorm, in part from LGBTQ rights advocates, that Nixon later issued a clarification:
My recent comments in The New York Times were about me and my personal story of being gay. I believe we all have different ways we came to the gay community and we can’t and shouldn’t be pigeon-holed into one cultural narrative which can be uninclusive and disempowering. However, to the extent that anyone wishes to interpret my words in a strictly legal context I would like to clarify:
While I don’t often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have “chosen” is to be in a gay relationship. As I said in the Times and will say again here, I do, however, believe that most members of our community—as well as the majority of heterosexuals—cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships because, unlike me, they are only attracted to one sex.
Our community is not a monolith, thank goodness, any more than America itself is. I look forward to and will continue to work toward the day when America recognizes all of us as full and equal citizens.
A few years back we published a book—some might say the book—on this very issue. In that book, entitled Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, author Lisa Diamond argues against the traditional view of sexual orientation as fixed, presenting instead an understanding of sexual flexibility very much like that described by Nixon. Diamond studied a group of 100 young women as they developed from adolescence to adulthood, collecting valuable data on their sexuality as it developed, rather than later in life as most studies have done. She found that attraction for women is often far more fluid than our society usually acknowledges, and the book, which is full of the voices of those young women, presents the most complete picture we have of the flexibility of sexual attraction.
Aware of the controversy and political manipulation that her findings could incite, Diamond opted to begin the book by addressing some of the most common misconceptions regarding what she terms “sexual fluidity.” An excerpt:
Does fluidity mean that all women are bisexual?
No. Just as women have different sexual orientations, they have different degrees of sexual fluidity. Some women will experience relatively stable patterns of love and desire throughout their lives, while others will not. Currently, we simply do not know how many women fall into each group because a number of different factors determine whether a woman’s capacity for sexual fluidity will actually manifest itself.
Does fluidity mean that there is no such thing as sexual orientation?
No. Fluidity can be thought of as an additional component of a woman’s sexuality that operates in concert with sexual orientation to influence how her attractions, fantasies, behaviors, and affections are experienced and expressed over the life course. Fluidity implies not that women’s desires are endlessly variable but that some women are capable of a wider variety of erotic feelings and experiences than would be predicted on the basis of their self-described sexual orientation alone.
Does sexual fluidity mean that sexual orientation can be changed?
No. It simply means that a woman’s sexual orientation is not the only factor determining her attractions. A predominantly heterosexual woman might, at some point in time, become attracted to a woman, just as a predominantly lesbian woman might at some point become attracted to a man. Despite these experiences, the women’s overall orientation remains the same.
Does fluidity mean that sexual orientation is a matter of choice?
No. Even when women undergo significant shifts in their patterns of erotic response, they typically report that such changes are unexpected and beyond their control. In some cases they actively resist these changes, to no avail. This finding is consistent with the extensive evidence showing that efforts to change sexual orientation through “reparative therapy” simply do not work.
Does fluidity mean that sexual orientation is due to “nurture” instead of “nature”?
No. In fact, sexual fluidity sheds no light on this question, since it deals with the expression of same-sex and other-sex attractions rather than with their causes. Questions of causation typically receive the most debate and attention, but questions about expression are equally important. Nonetheless, fluidity raises important questions about how we think about biological versus cultural influences on sexuality, and it highlights the need for more integrative models.
Diamond goes on to explain why research like hers is critical, even in the face of the very real possibility that various parties will distort it:
Almost every time I present my research publicly, someone raises their hand and asks, “Isn’t the idea of fluidity dangerous? Couldn’t it feed right into antigay arguments that sexual orientation can—and should—be changed?” Let me be clear: fluidity does not, in fact, imply that sexual orientation can be intentionally changed. But I know from experience that some people will nonetheless manipulate and misuse the concept of fluidity, despite my best efforts to debunk such distortions. Yet the solution to this danger is not to brush fluidity under the rug and stick to outdated, overly simplistic models of sexuality. Such an approach offers no real protection against political distortion: the truth is that any scientific data on sexual orientation can be—and pretty much have been—appropriated to advance particular worldviews. If scientists discovered tomorrow that same-sex sexuality was 100 percent genetically determined, some people would say, “Aha, this proves that homosexuality is normal, natural, and deserving of social acceptance and full legal status!” Others would say, “Aha, this proves that homosexuality is a dangerous genetic disorder that can be screened for, corrected, and eliminated!” In short, there are no “safe” scientific findings—all models of sexuality are dangerous in the present political climate. The only way to guard against the misuse of scientific findings is to present them as accurately and completely as possible, making explicit the conclusions that they do and do not support. This is my goal in this book.
Back when the book was published, we spoke with Lisa Diamond for an episode of the Harvard Press Podcast. You can listen here.
