My series “Conversation with a bigot” documents not-quite-imaginary conversations, each highlighting a disprovable assumption held by those who have come to the false conclusion that “queer = bad.” Queer people endure the effects of this conclusion in all areas of their lives. I want it to stop.
Upcoming conversations: Part II, Pedophile; Part III, Promiscuous; Part IV, Marriage: One man, one woman. Period.; Part V, There are men. There are women. Period.; Part VI, There’s no need to think. I feel instinctively this is wrong.
Before I begin, please understand that in order to address issues as broad as those in this series, I find it necessary at times to commit the sin of gross generalization. Let this statement serve as a comprehensive caveat, so you don’t have to keep seeing warnings about it.
Also, let’s assume the bigot in question is male; statistically, more men than women are uncomfortable (or worse) with the concept of “queer.” If you’d like to dive into some of the reasons for that, there’s an interesting study in the National Library of Medicine.
The bigot’s statements are in italics.
Bigot: Homosexuality is abnormal.
Me: Well, you might be right. But what does that mean? Let’s define “abnormal” to be sure we’re talking about the same thing.
As I understand it, the term is applied to a characteristic that appears in fewer than fifty percent of the specimens in the sample population under consideration. It’s expressed statistically. Any problem with that definition?
Well…. But what about when it’s bad?
How would you define it differently, then?
When it’s a bad characteristic.
I don’t think that viewpoint would survive examination; for one thing, it’s not a definition. Let’s see if we can apply my definition. If we were to examine all people globally, aged twenty and up, for the eye color blue, do you think that characteristic would be statistically normal or abnormal?
Duh.
Abnormal, then. What about the number of males in the U.S.?
Um….
Roughly 51% of U.S. individuals are assigned female at birth. So, male? Abnormal. How do we decide whether that’s bad? If we look at China, it’s females who are abnormal. Bad? Maybe some people would condemn the cause of China’s imbalance (something I won’t go into here), but the word “bad” is necessarily subjective, which means it can’t be applied universally to either “normal” or “abnormal.”
I see you wear your watch on your right wrist. Are you left-handed?
[Crickets]
Again, abnormal. Everywhere, except maybe at a convention for left-handed people.
So, we’ve been talking about normality and abnormality as measurements taken in a single slice of time. But what about over a length of time?
How would that work?
Glad you asked. According to a 2023 report from the UCLA School of Law/Williams Institute, 5.5% of U.S. adults (13.9 million) identify as LGBT. That alone would mean being LGBT is statistically abnormal. But over time? While it’s true that the estimated number of self-identified LGBT individuals has been rising over recent decades, I’m going to say that the increase is due to the progress of civil and human rights and general public acceptance; that is, more people feel safe identifying as LGBT. And even if we can’t demonstrate a consistent percentage for this category, we know that homosexuality has existed throughout human history. This represents a statistical norm. That is, it’s normal for a percentage (currently measured at 5.5%) of humans to be LBGT.
I say it’s still abnormal. Being gay is just a perversion.
You’re implying it’s a choice. [heh] We’ll talk about that in a minute. For now, I stand by the “normal over the course of time” theory.
That’s bogus. Why can’t they come up with a real number?
Again, glad you asked. When bigots stop making and supporting laws that limit the civil and human rights of LGBT people, and when the worst of these bigots stop killing them, then maybe we’ll have an answer for you. Meanwhile, I don’t think you’ve made a case for loading the term “abnormal” with any understanding of it that condemns anything or anyone. It’s a statistical term. That’s all.
Okay, then, how about this? Homosexuality is unnatural.
Define “unnatural.”
Against nature.
That’s rather vague. How about this: “Unnatural is a term applied to something that has been changed in a way not found in nature.” If we apply this definition, plastic is unnatural. The components come from nature, but nature does not produce plastic. And there are microwaves in nature, but microwave ovens could reasonably called unnatural. Airplane flight. Automobiles. Polyester. Cooking food—
Okay, stop. I don’t agree with all that.
Fine. Let’s talk examine it in terms of sex. What makes straight sex natural and gay sex unnatural?
Ha! Gotcha. Gay sex can’t produce children.
So procreation is the hallmark of natural sex?
Well… yeah.
I’d like you to think about how many times you’ve had sex while deliberately preventing conception.
[Crickets] Then: If it were natural, there would be gay animals.
I refer you to any number of articles and studies available describing the massive numbers of species that engage in homosexual behavior, some exclusively and some in bisexual ways. In particular, science has proven that 8% of rams will chase the other boys around and refuse to mount ewes. These rams aren’t behaving this way to annoy their parents. Or piss off their pastors. Or fly in the face of society. They’re doing what comes naturally.
And by the way, there have been many studies of humans showing distinct physiological differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals. It gets a little complicated, but you can read about it in a number of places (e.g., Nature.com).
I don’t believe any of that!
I’m not surprised. But that doesn’t render it false. It renders you willfully ignorant. I wonder how you’ll do in our next conversation, which addresses the assumption that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles than straight men.
Can’t wait. I’ll be ready.
Me: [wry grin]
Disclaimer: It seems to me that the queer community is always in need of allies who, like me, can’t claim a place under that colorful umbrella, being boring old het-cis. Please count me as one of those allies.
Not ready to subscribe, but you liked this post?
I’m an inveterate observer of human nature, writing novels about all kinds of people, some of whom happen to be gay or transgender or bisexual or intersex—people whose destinies are not determined solely by their sexual orientation or gender identity. Check out my work on my website.
.