Cynthia Nixon Says She's Gay By Choice

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,247
Location
Edge's beanie closet
She's not saying everyone is, just that she is. And that she was not gay all along and with men just because she was in denial or for whatever other reason. I get what she's saying (about defining it for herself, not the part about being gay after being straight and being with men) but on the other hand I am confused and I can definitely see why other gay people would be upset by it.

Cynthia Nixon: Is sexual orientation a choice or is it biology? - latimes.com

By Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times/For the Booster Shots blog

January 25, 2012, 11:47 a.m.

Former “Sex and the City” star Cynthia Nixon says she is gay by “choice” – a statement that has riled many gay rights activists who insist that people don’t choose their sexual orientation.

Here’s what Nixon, who recently shaved her head to play a cancer patient in a Broadway production of “Wit,” told the New York Times Magazine:

“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.”

The question of whether sexual orientation is subject to nature or nurture – or some combination of both – has been hotly debated for years. If it is not an immutable characteristic, that would imply that a gay person could be somehow transformed into a straight one. In other words, homosexuality could be “cured.” Which in turn implies that being gay is some sort of illness.

Hence, the offense taken to this point of view.

Nixon seemed to anticipate the controversy her remarks might generate. She also told the New York Times:

“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.”

As expected, this did not go over smoothly with everyone. Writing on AmericaBlog Gay, John Aravosis wrote that Nixon “needs to learn how to choose her words better, because she just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly. When the religious right says it's a choice, they mean you quite literally choose your sexual orientation, you can change it at will, and that's bull.”

So, what’s the scientific evidence that sexual orientation is either a biologically determined trait or an actual choice?

A Spanish study published in 2009 in the journal Investigacion Clinica summarizes the evidence for genetic influences. Based on research comparing identical twins, fraternal twins and even siblings who were adopted, scientists have determined that 27% to 76% of the chance that one is gay is determined by DNA. The genetic influence appears to be greater for men than for women, according to the study.

Other stuff is probably happening in utero that influences one’s sexual orientation. As a review article published last year in the journal Endocrinology explains, exposure to atypical levels of testosterone and other steroids in the womb is probably responsible for some people being gay. Another review article, published last year in Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, makes the same point:

“The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood, as well as in sexual orientation in later life, at least for some individuals. It appears, however, that other factors, in addition to hormones, play an important role in determining sexual orientation. These factors have not been well-characterized, but possibilities include direct genetic effects, and effects of maternal factors during pregnancy.”

One of those prenatal influences may be the number of males who have previously inhabited the mother’s uterus. It may sound strange, but Canadian researchers have found that “having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay,” as I explained in a 2006 Los Angeles Times story. As I wrote at the time, “The so-called fraternal birth order effect is small: Each older brother increases the chances by 33%. Assuming the base rate of homosexuality among men is 2%, it would take 11 older brothers to give the next son about a 50-50 chance of being gay.” Those findings were reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, my colleague Shari Roan wrote about a fascinating controversy surrounding treatment for a rare condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The disorder can cause girls to be born with genitals that look male, making it hard to tell the baby’s gender. One treatment is to give women hormones during subsequent pregnancies to reduce the risk for siblings. But doctors have found that this approach has an unusual side effect:

“The treatment might reduce the likelihood that a female with the condition will be homosexual,” Roan wrote. “Further, it seems to increase the chances that she will have what are considered more feminine behavioral traits.”

This is all just the tip of the iceberg. But the scientific consensus seems to be that there is indeed a biological basis for homosexuality – though it’s not necessarily 100% determined by either genes or by environmental factors.
 
tumblr_lgsgruLqBv1qgyczgo1_500.jpg


So, when exactly did Cynthia Nixon decide to be gay?
 
What she said could really harm the gay rights movement. Not by much, I hope, but it would fuel anyone who is anti-gay, such as Focus on the Family or Rick Santorum. I could see either one of those, or other everyday people, using Nixon as an example that people choose to be gay and no one is born that way. Way to go, Cynthia! :tsk:
 
So she likes men and women, but decided to go after women? Does that not make her a Bisexual who prefers women over men? How is this news? Or course, had she worded it like a rational human being, she wouldn't be getting the press.
I assume she isn't dating women despite not being attracted to them. What she says doesn't even make sense. If she's saying she chooses to be gay... that means she is unattracted to women, but chooses to have relationships with them (????) She might just be an idiot
 
I think she said it because, who has mentioned Cynthia Nixon's name in the past several years?

Either that or she just doesn't understand what part of the 'choice' anyone is referring to
 
I dunno. I know some people will try and use this as indicative of all gay people, but fuck them.

Cynthia Nixon feels like she made a choice. Maybe she's bi and chose to go one way. Maybe she didn't. Maybe she, like many others, believes sexuality isn't a static thing, and that sometimes there is a choice involved.

Cynthia Nixon only speaks for Cynthia Nixon, and she's not saying otherwise. It's not her responsibility to make bold, grand statements on behalf of an entire community of people.

"you don’t get to define my gayness for me.”

Good for her.
 
The interview with the Daily Beast is a current interview

For me that would be defined as bisexual, relationships with men then choosing to be with a woman. So she chooses a label (not that she has to) according to who is being dumped on at any given time?

Cynthia Nixon on Bisexuality: 'I Just Don't Like to Pull Out That Word' - International Business Times

"In an interview with the Daily Beast, Nixon explains why she avoids using the label, but doesn't exactly deny that she is indeed bisexual.

"I don't pull out the 'bisexual' word because nobody likes the bisexuals," Nixon told the Beast's Kevin Sessums. "Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals."

"But it is the 'B' in LGBT," Sessums reminded her.

"I know," Nixon said. "But we get no respect."

"You just said 'we,' so you must self-identify as one," Sessums probed.

"I just don't like to pull out that word," Nixon replied. "But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt."
 
Well said, Cori.

I've personally always felt actions can be chosen, feelings can't, so that pretty much explains why I think homosexuality has much more "nature" to it than "nurture".

But then again, I don't know what goes on in other people's bodies/minds, and there's that whole "we're all a bit of both" idea some people present, so...who knows. Choice or not, matters none to me and it's still nobody's business anyway.
 
Maybe she's bi and chose to go one way. Maybe she didn't. Maybe she, like many others, believes sexuality isn't a static thing, and that sometimes there is a choice involved.

But the mere fact that she likes women and men means that she is bi. Otherwise she's saying that she dates women in spite of not being attracted to them.. makes no sense whatsoever.
It would be like me saying I eat sushi because I chose to, not because it tastes good. Well, my taste buds say that I do think sushi tastes good, so why try to deny that? She makes zero sense. (horrible analogy, I know :( couldnt think of a good one)
 
My point is that she's saying she doesn't want to define herself as bisexual, for whatever reason, and I think that needs to be respected.
 
What is the argument here? Why do you care whether she likes to use the word "bisexual" or not? Are you just playing devil's advocate?
 
My point is that she's saying she doesn't want to define herself as bisexual, for whatever reason, and I think that needs to be respected.

I guess I can kinda understand that, as I don't eat meat but refuse to refer to myself as a vegetarian... More so because most vegetarians are douchebags though, and I don't want to be associated with them. Doesn't change the definition though
 
My point is that she's saying she doesn't want to define herself as bisexual, for whatever reason, and I think that needs to be respected.

I respect it, I get that whole part of what she's saying.

It just confuses me the way the Anne Heche thing did way back when. I have heard some women say that they can be attracted (sexually and romantically together, the whole package) to women after being just with men. That's it's just the other person and that they don't define themselves as gay or bisexual.
 
What is the argument here? Why do you care whether she likes to use the word "bisexual" or not? Are you just playing devil's advocate?

No, not at all. I just think for her to say something is a choice when it is clearly in her nature to some extent is irresponsible considering the ammo it will give some assholes
 
So do all out celebrities have a responsibility to be spokespeople for the whole gay world?

I don't think so. I understand the desire and need to have people be "public faces," and the desire to have public figures be open about it to inspire, educate and whatever, but if they're supposed to stick to the party line of gaydom and not speak their personal truth ... sounds like a step backward to me.

If the whole thing hadn't been blown up, how many people would have even seen that quote? I bet the anti-gay jerks will sure see it and pounce on it now.
 
Nope. She can say what she wants. My point is that, as much as she doesn't want us to define her gayness, she also can't change the definition
 
"Well Cynthia Nixon said it was a choice!! Back to the 1800s we go!"

Maybe the question is, is she responsible for how some people will misuse what she said? How responsible is she for the entire gay (since she did use the words gay and choice initially ) community? She clearly speaks her mind, I don't know her motivations without knowing her. She knows that what she says will be used for certain purposes, so should she not say it at all for that reason?
 
Nope. She can say what she wants. My point is that, as much as she doesn't want us to define her gayness, she also can't change the definition

Why not? Is there not anything aside from Zero Gay, Totally Gay, and Hi I'm Bi? Are those our only three options?
 
I feel like I have to add:

I realize I have a lot to say for a straight chick, so if someone from another part of the Kinsey scale wants to come in and say I'm completely insane, I accept that.

... I mean, I think JT is doing that already. But still. ;)
 
She's the one who brought it up :shrug:

I know. I just meant that I agree with Cori that it's silly for people on either end to get all bothered and make a big fuss over it, is all. She can tell everyone her sexual orientation/preference, and everyone should, if they're sane, rational people, just go, "Oh. Okay. Thanks for sharing." and leave it at that. And I honestly don't get why people need to volunteer that information any more than people need to ask them about it. She hasn't proved or disproved anything about anyone's ideas of sexuality other than her own, and she's a celebrity, and I thought we weren't supposed to take them seriously anyway :wink:.

I definitely get what you're saying, and certainly agree about the "ammo for assholes" stuff in particular. But then again, those people are going to be assholes with or without her comments.
 
Is that so hard to believe?

I guess that was directed at me. No it isn't, only so far as that I haven't experienced it. You can definitely be attracted to any and all aspects of just a person regardless of your orientation. But for that to extend to sexual attraction, marriage, whatever without previously having the extent of those feelings before..that just gets hazy for me in some way, not hard to believe at all. For me it's just not the easiest thing to understand and that's probably just a result of the fact that it's never been my experience.

She's not into labels but she did call that gay by choice and in the other interview it was more that she was just attracted to Christine, love and lust.
 
Why not? Is there not anything aside from Zero Gay, Totally Gay, and Hi I'm Bi? Are those our only three options?

I'm just responding to a post in FYM :(

She's more than welcome to define her gayness wherever she wants on a giant sliding scale from 'Super Fabulously Gay, Eat Vagina Everyday' to 'Penis Morning Day and Night, More Than One is a Delight'.
It's her logic that I find brainless, not her gaydom. So maybe I should just say that I think she's a dumb dumb
 
Back
Top Bottom