IGF CultureWatch

After I wrote recently about research on homosexuality and people's ill-founded concern that it could lead to preventing homosexuality, I remembered that there is also a cluster of concerns about the survival of the gay enclave or community. Let's take a look at those.

One concern is that gays are becoming "assimilated," that they are becoming more like mainstream society and losing whatever unique qualities and valuable differences they have.

I don't know if gays are inherently, intrinsically different from heterosexuals. Early Mattachine Society manifestos back in 1950 referred to gays as "androgynes," or inherently cross-gendered, a view which still survives in the antics of the "radical fairies."

But I doubt that that is or ever was true. Seeing gays as a mix of male and female because of their orientation to the same sex is, after all, a heterosexist view (anyone attracted to a man must be somehow female) and a social construction of the times.

I suspect that what differences gays seem to embody are the result of some gays interjecting that externally encouraged heterosexist view, are a playful reaction to public prejudice, or are the result of any group of peoples spending time together and developing common qualities.

But if those differences are inherent, they will survive no matter where or how gay live, so the worriers have no cause for concern. That anyone is concerned about this suggests that they fear the differences are not really inherent after all.

Gays do seem to be gradually moving to other parts of major cities or to the suburbs. But living in an enclave is no necessary part of being gay. There have always been gays in suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas, as witness the sudden visibility of openly gay couples there in recent census demographics. So that's not new.

What is new is that the people who once were driven to and would have stayed in the protective gay enclave now feel that public acceptance of gays makes them feel comfortable leaving the enclave and moving to other parts of the city or suburbs.

This growth of acceptance, as attested by public opinion surveys, is surely a good thing, not something to be deplored. And those gays who leave the enclave can by their dispersal elsewhere help solidify and increase the acceptance of gays simply by being visible.

In any case, individual gays and gay couples will make these decision about where and how to live based on their own desires, needs and perceptions, and it is impudent for some gays to criticize other gays for their choices as a result of that growing acceptance.

If some gays are leaving the gay enclave, then should people worry--as some do--about the survival of the enclave? In some cities gay bars have closed and others are struggling to survive. I suppose the first thing to ask is: If the enclave no longer serves a significant purpose for gays, then why should we need or want it to survive? Out of sentimental attachment to history?

But the enclave will no doubt survive in some form. Gays are an affinity group. They will always enjoy being with other gay people whether living in a gay residential area or just as visitors. Some gays will still feel a desire to leave less friendly environs for the friendlier ones of the enclave. And unattached gays will always find it useful to go where there is a high density of available partners.

In addition, some of our major cities realize that they have a vested interest in the survival of the gay enclave. Businesses in the enclave are an economic engine for our cities. They are a part of what cities offer out-of-town visitors and metro area residents as part of the effort to reinvent cities as entertainment and recreation centers to replace lost manufacturing income.

Gay bars and clubs, neighborhood inns, bathhouses, gyms and spas, art galleries, gay-friendly shops and bookstores are all part of that mix in addition to gay community festivals such as Chicago's International Mr. Leather contest, Northalsted Market Days, Mardi Gras and Hallowe'en silliness.

Realizing this, Chicago, followed closely by Philadelphia, has already officially recognized the gay entertainment district, erecting rainbow-colored pylons, offering tactical placement and financial support for the gay community center, supporting neighborhood business groups, &c.

But gay businesses can no longer afford to take our gay patronage for granted. They need to spiff up, stay clean, keep their prices reasonable, facilitate parking, control the music volume, and offer special events and entertainment incentives to patronize them. Some have already learned. Others will have to.

Recent developments in the transgender movement suggest an internal conflict between methods proven successful and misdirected anger that only gets in the way.

On the winning side of the ledger are accomplishments at the state and local level. For example, in the past few weeks, both houses of the New Jersey state legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to add gender identity and expression to the state's hate crime law and strengthen school anti-bullying policies. This victory is thanks to the efforts of Garden State Equality and Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey. This illustrates the fact that, as with the fight for marriage equality, the main action currently is in the states, and that is where the bulk of resources need to be directed even as we continue our education efforts nationally.

On the self-defeating side of the ledger is a December letter from Meredith Bacon, board chair of the National Center for Transgender Equality. Speaking for herself, she offered an over-the-top denunciation of the Human Rights Campaign: "NCTE will not work with HRC in the foreseeable future, until the current HRC leadership is completely purged ..." She elaborated, "Not only is Joe Solmonese not to be trusted but neither are the second rank of HRC staff or its Board of Directors or Board of Governors. All of them would have to resign or be fired before we could even contemplate anything like cooperation. In short, NCTE is neither forgiving nor forgetting what HRC and Barney Frank have done to all of us."

To underscore her complete divorce from reality, Bacon also stated, "As long as HRC is controlled by and is dependent upon white, rich, professional gay men, such collaboration may never occur. Getting stabbed in the back is a useful experience only once in a very great while." This combines a tired and gratuitous leftist attack against leading funders of the gay rights movement with a repetition of the lie that disagreement over strategy is a betrayal.

Bacon made an interesting claim: "NCTE and the trans community do not need HRC because the United ENDA coalition has cemented our collaborative relationship with the Task Force, PFLAG, Lambda Legal and 300 other LGBT organizations." This ignores the failure of the United ENDA coalition to sway more than a handful of votes in Congress, as well as the evidence that the gay rank and file strongly disagrees with its all-or-nothing stance. In the left's ideological echo chamber, it is considered self-evident that Barney Frank's successful legislative strategy is somehow the failed one. Earth to United ENDA: Think again. Sen. Ted Kennedy has announced that he will proceed in the Senate with the version of ENDA passed by the House. If that is a sign of failure, let's have more of it.

Unfortunately, Bacon has plenty of company, as shown by the withdrawal of the Massachusetts chapter of the Transgender American Veterans Association from the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition on Jan. 11 after MTPC announced a pledge of $25,000 from HRC. The anti-HRC zealots scornfully reject the civil rights tradition of passing the best achievable bill while continuing to work for further advances.

Disparaging incrementalism and "white, rich, professional gay men" are non-starters. Transgender activists in many states have shown what works: Organizing, educating and focusing on the reality of people's lives. Stories touch people in a way that theory does not. Most Americans believe, at least in the abstract, that all citizens deserve equality under the law. The challenge is to get more Americans to recognize transgenders as their neighbors instead of as an abstracted and demonized "other." This crucial task is undermined by those transgenders (by no means all) who walk around with chips on their shoulders. If you want to insist that your anger is more than justified, I cannot quarrel with you. But unless that anger is channeled productively, it is no more liberating than that of rioters burning down their own neighborhood.

The potential power of a positive approach is suggested by the headway that Sen. Barack Obama has made as a presidential candidate with his embrace of an inspiring message that transcends the politics of racial guilt-mongering. Is that approach guaranteed to yield quick success? Of course not. Transgenders have a long, hard slog ahead. But centering your message on the arc of history bending toward justice is a damn sight more appealing than insulting your allies both in the LGBT community and in Congress.

Meredith Bacon wrote one thing I agree with, concerning the mixture of insider and outsider strategies: "Both of these strategies are valid and may be complementary as long as we all accept that we are working toward the same goals. Our needs are too important for mutually destructive animosity." She might consider taking her own advice.

When an article about "fruit flies" popped up on a gay website, at first I thought it was about straight women who gravitate toward gay men. (The other, uglier term for such women is "fag hag.")

Alas, the article was referring to actual insects, the annoying little ones that remind you to throw away overripe bananas. Apparently, some researchers at Penn State University have discovered that by getting groups of male flies "drunk" with alcohol fumes, they can induce homosexual behavior. (Just like frat boys.) They observed this behavior in a small transparent chamber, which they called-I am not making this up-a "Flypub."

According to newscientist.com,

"The first time they were exposed to alcohol, groups of male flies became noticeably intoxicated but kept themselves to themselves. But with repeated doses of alcohol on successive days, homosexual courtship became common. From the third day onwards, the flies were forming 'courtship chains' of amorous males."

Yes. And by the fourth day, they were redecorating the Flypub in sleek mid-century modern furniture. By the fifth day, they were serving Cosmopolitans and debating the relative fabulousness of Martha Stewart's new Wedgwood line at Macy's. And so on.

The article continues,

"[Lead researcher Kyung-An Han] argues that the drunken flies provide a good model to explore how alcohol affects human sexual behaviour. While the ability of alcohol to loosen human inhibitions is well known, it is difficult for scientists to study."

Of course it is. Imagine the grant application:

"Describe the proposed methodology."

"Um, well, I'm going to get a bunch of college students drunk and naked, then record their behavior."

Sounds like a shoo-in for funding, no?

It's not that I doubt the merits of such research. Granted, I'm far more interested in figuring out how to keep fruit flies out of my kitchen than how to make them horny. Still, I appreciate the value of scientific inquiry-all else being equal, the more we know about the world, the better.

My problem arises when people start using these studies to draw conclusions about human romantic behavior. While Han has warned against being too quick with such inferences, other researchers and commentators have not been so cautious.

For example, when Austrian researchers in 2005 genetically manipulated a female fruit fly to induce homosexual behavior, Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University, told the International Herald Tribune, "Hopefully this will take the discussion about [human] sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

I hope it does no such thing. For two reasons: first, because human sexuality is far richer and more complex than fruit-fly mounting behavior. (Fruit flies don't pout if you don't call the next day-or so I'm told.)

Second, and more generally, because science and morality tell us different things. Science tells us something about why we behave as we do. It does not tell us how we SHOULD behave, which is the domain of morality. Science cannot replace morality or vice-versa.

To put the point another way: while scientific study can reveal the biological origin of our feelings and behaviors, it can't tell us what we should do with them. Should we embrace them? Tolerate them? Change them? Those are moral questions, and simply observing fruit flies-or humans, for that matter-is insufficient to answering them.

But can't these studies prove that homosexual attraction is "natural"? Not in any useful sense. Specifically, not in any sense that would distinguish good feelings and behaviors from bad ones. Discovering the biological origin of a trait is different from discovering its value.

Beyond conflating morality with science, popular commentators on these studies have an unfortunate tendency toward oversimplification.

Consider last year's fruit-fly study at the University of Illinois, which the gay newsmagazine The Advocate announced with the headline, "Study finds gay gene in fruit flies."

Except that it didn't. What the study found was a genetic mutation in fruit flies that rendered them essentially bisexual. Scientists could then switch the flies' behavior between heterosexuality and homosexuality through the use of synapse-altering drugs.

In other words, the study neither found a "gay gene" in fruit flies nor answered any questions about how hardwired or malleable human sexual orientation might be.

Meanwhile, one fruit fly who participated in the Penn State study released the following statement: "Dude, I was so drunk that day-I don't know what happened!"