Connect With Us


Cynthia Nixon Challenging Gay Activists

Cynthia Nixon at the May 25, 2010 Designing Women Awards (by Peter Kramer for AP)

For years now, gay rights activists have been making the case that gay is not a “lifestyle choice,” but a biological condition. They consider it essential to the movement for the biology to be accepted as the root cause of homosexuality. The thinking is simple – if being gay is not a choice, then discriminating against people who are gay is unconstitutional.

The movement is basically so dug in to the idea that “lifestyle choice” threatens gay rights that they are attacking actress Cynthia Nixon for saying that for her, at least, it was a choice.

Nixon, best known for the role of Miranda in Sex and the City, spent fifteen years in a committed relationship with a man, bearing him two children during that time. For the past eight years, she has been in a relationship with a woman, to whom she is engaged.

In an interview with The New York Times Magazine, Nixon said, “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 matter 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.”

Wayne Besen, of Truth Wins Out, is one of Nixon’s critics, saying “Cynthia did not put adequate thought into the ramifications of her words, and it is going to be used when some kid comes out and their parents force them into some ex-gay camp while she’s off drinking cocktails at fancy parties. When people say it’s a choice, they are green-lighting an enormous amount of abuse because if it’s a choice, people will try to influence and guide young people to what they perceive as the right choice.”

Wow – in one statement Besen just dismissed one-fourth of the movement.

Nixon is bi-sexual by biology even if she refuses to define herself as bi-sexual, and at different times in her life has made two distinct choices about her commitment to a partner. That does not change the biology of purely gay or lesbian people or the complexities of transgenderism. It just sets the record straight about bi-sexuality. There is a choice involved for bi-sexual persons when it comes to commitments.

The “movement” is called LGBT, as in “Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender.” One of those four is not like the others. One of those four has more options and more choices to make. That does not change the fact that the one different group needs just as much in the way of rights protections as the other three. They should not be forced to take cover in a straight relationship to prevent being discriminated against. And Nixon’s statements are not going to change anything for a teenager who is stuck with parents who would demand “cure the gay” therapy. As long as there are so-called professionals like Marcus Bachmann willing to “cure the gay” there will be parents who force their kids into it.

The problem is not in converting the parents. Trust me, this country is full of people who cannot see facts for their own bigotry. The problem is in allowing these “cure the gay” therapists to do business. Until laws are written that define what therapy is and who can practice it, and punish those who practice without proper training or certification, this situation will continue. The laws can be written to encompass alternative medicine and still protect kids from the intentional malpractice of “cure the gay” therapists.

Welcome to the problem every rights movement in history has had. A movement is perceived as being weakened if it is not totally unified in a way that makes conformity more important than individual rights.

One of the things that has haunted the Scott family of Atlanta is the possibility that W. A. Scott was not murdered by white supremacists, but by African American extremists who could not accept a moderate view in the pre-World War II civil rights movement. The feminist movement was fatally damaged by a leadership that said women could not choose to be homemakers and full-time mothers, forcing those who wanted that choice to seek refuge among the anti-feminists. It took guts to stand up to the extremists in the feminist movement and say “If this is about choice, why can’t you respect mine?” It took courage to be full-time homemakers and teach our children they had the right to make their own decisions.

Then, there is the issue of “allies” – an important part of any civil rights movement. The civil rights movement for African Americans needed white allies. Without them, nothing would have happened. A minority cannot change laws all by itself. When extremists in the African American community started lashing out at the allies, the movement suffered set-backs that are really coming to fruition this year in restrictions in voting rights, rights that were more reformed by white allies than they were impacted by black activists. There is a part of the LGBT community that lashes out at those who have not been subjected to discrimination within their own families. That’s a really great way to lose allies.

Cynthia Nixon is a bi-sexual who has made her choice. She has chosen the lesbian side of her sexuality and made her commitment within that decision. She is hardly alone in that. The movement has decided to define women like Meredith Baxter according to the movement’s preferences. She must have been a deeply repressed lesbian who finally threw off her shackles and found herself. But what if Meredith Baxter is in fact a bi-sexual? What if she wasn’t faking it when she was attracted to men? Her description of her relationship with ex-husband David Birney was about his controlling and emotionally abusive treatment of her, not about sexual compatibility. What if Baxter has made a choice about committed relationships more than a choice about coming out of the closet? Is the movement denying Baxter the right to define herself the way they want to force their definition on Nixon?

One last thought, from a straight woman..Nixon is far more threatening to homophobic men than a biological lesbian is. Nixon is saying it’s not about the equipment, it’s about the quality of the relationship. Ever seen those t-shirts that say “the more I know about men, the more I love my dog”? Nixon’s message is a multi-layered one. She is saying, with her own personal history, that two women can forge a sexually satisfying relationship and an emotionally satisfying relationship without being totally immune to a biological attraction to men. And since most women are already aware of the fact that it is much easier to get one’s emotional needs met by other women, her message is a real threat to men’s belief that women cannot get sexual satisfaction without a penis being involved.  (If you are comedy deprived and have never seen the British series Coupling, I recommend Series 2, Episode 2, “My Dinner In Hell.”  The background joke is that Patrick is a tripod.)

The best way to destroy a movement is by insisting that everyone within it conform to a single set of criteria. If the movement cannot accept diversity within itself, it dooms itself.



Share This Post

10 Responses to Cynthia Nixon Challenging Gay Activists

  1. nelle

    January 30, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    We all have the right to define who we are. Cynthia defined herself, and I’ve no issue with her words.

  2. Pingback: “Sexual Politics in the City”: Is Being Queer a Choice? « In Our Words

  3. Pingback: “Sexual Identity Politics in the City”: Can We Be Queer By Choice? « In Our Words

  4. Sam

    January 29, 2012 at 11:47 am

    I think it’s silly to say it’s a choice for bisexuals. Sure, we have a choice between males and females, much the way others have a choice between blondes or brunettes. But we don’t choose between being gay or straight. Our sexual orientation isn’t some middle ground for the lucky people among us. I may be able to choose who I date, but I have no choice in whether I fall for a man or a woman.

    Did anyone else find this post kind of offensive to bisexuals?

  5. Michael Green

    January 29, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Where is it written that Cynthia Nixon, or anyone else, may make public statements about their sexuality ONLY if they agree with the “Official Position” of the LGBT movemet? Mr. Beson seems to be claiming that he knows, better than Nixon herself, what she has chosen and what was beyond her choice.
    Cynthia Nixon is free to say whatever she likes. And, if she chooses not to be responsible for speaking on behalf of the LGBT movement, that is her choice as well.
    For Wayne Beson to believe otherwise takes quite alot of nerve.

  6. William Delaney

    January 29, 2012 at 8:16 am

    I think she’s lucky to have that kind of liberty. I couldn’t hit it off with the opposite sex if I tried. The hormonal triggers just aren’t there, even though I can recognize in the abstract that a woman is pretty. I think Cynthia has a right to feel good about having that luxury, which I and a lot of other gay people don’t have. If I had that luxury, I’d get up and dance. I would climb up on the roof of a church and shout “Thank you Jesus.”

    Let me turn this the other way. Isn’t Cynthia being persecuted here for being a bi woman? Right now, she has a whole lot of hate directed at her because she admits that she can have sex with men and get something out of it but has reasons she prefers women. If you are really so much of a bigot that you look at bisexual people and say, “well, you’re just greedy,” or, “you’re just in denial,” I don’t think you have any room to talk about a straight homophobe.

    I think it’s abysmal, actually, that so many gay people now are biphobic or transphobic. What’s wrong with these people? A biphobic or transphobic gay person is every bit as bad as a homophobe. People like that are a part of the problem. What if I’m a gay guy who identifies as a guy but likes to put on something skimpy and revealing? These days, if I go out to the club, I’m faced with other gay guys who say things like, “well, what are you? Some screwed-up drag-queen wannabe?” No, I just have a preference, almost to the exclusion of anything else, for cute butch bi guys who are experienced with women, and I like to appeal to both sides of their sexuality. You just wish you had these silk-over-steel thighs, chicken-legs. Also, what if I WERE trans and wanted people to see me as pretty? Are you transphobic, too? How revoltingly pathetic!

    This isn’t just about Cynthia. There is a cancer growing in the LGBT community. Do you see this lynch mob that has suddenly formed because some bisexual actress said it was her history that has led her to prefer exclusively women? It’s metastasis. If we don’t do something to stop it with force right now, it’s just going to get worse.

  7. Lyndon Evans

    January 29, 2012 at 2:53 am

    Thank you Linda … FINALLY some common sense over this silly nonsense brought on by the LGBT Elites and there sheepish followers.

    Although tempted over the past week to enter this foray on my blog “Focus On The Rainbow” I opted out to write about more important things.

    For the record I am BISEXUAL and I CHOOSE to be with or fancy which ever sex at the time or moment holds my interest.

    This is something the rest of LGT just cannot fathom nor get a grasp of which is their loss.

    To very loosely paraphrase Dixon don’t presume to label or define me and who I am … I do that just fine all by myself.

    At 58 years of age I don’t need Mama to dress me anymore nor decide whether I like snails or oysters.

    The Ts complain about the Cis … we Bisexuals have been dealing with ignorance and descrimination within our community a lot longer than the T.

    The reason we don’t voice our displeasure and “we’re being picked on” is “frankly my dear WE don’t give a damn !”

  8. Wayne Besen

    January 28, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    I really resent having my comments bastardized and taken completely out of context. I never denied the existence of bisexuality. I believe that sexual orientation exists on a spectrum.

    My problem is that Nixon’s statement was clumsy, inarticulate, and easily lent to right wing exploitation. Anyone who does not understand this lives in LaLa land.

    I also find it stunningly naive to think that claiming homosexuality is a casual choice won’t lead to more kids in “ex-gay” programs. Anyone who makes such a claim obviously has no understanding, nor experience with this issue.

    The only one pushing conformity is this politically correct writer who wants high fives from Upper West Side liberals while throwing vulnerable lgbt kids to the wolves in conservative areas.

    By her own admission, Nixon never chose to be attracted to or fall in love with the same or opposite sex. It just happened. Thus her bisexual orientation is not a choice, just a reality of her nature.

    Common sense, really.

  9. Wayne Besen

    January 28, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    I really resent having my comments bastardized and taken completely out of context. I never denied the existence of bisexuality. I believe that sexual orientation exists on a spectrum.

    My problem is that Nixon’s statement was clumsy, inarticulate, and easily lent to right wing exploitation. Any

  10. Scott Rose

    January 28, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    If you would look at Nixon’s complete statement, you would see that she didn’t want to say she is bi-sexual because of prejudice against bi-sexuals. In other words, she abdicated the responsibility to fight for bi-sexuals’ rights in society, while also saying false things about those who innately are exclusively homosexual. Where the 14th amendment promises legal grounds for eliminating discriminatory anti-gay laws, it only does so on the grounds that a discrete minority of some innate and immutable characteristics has been the target of institutionalized discrimination. Nixon really *should* have been more precise in her language, and as she is bi-sexual she shouldn’t have wimped out on saying right out loud “I am bi-sexual.”