The conversation I'm seeing regarding "sexual orientation" versus "sexual preference" is like the moral argument in religious circles focusing on whether homosexuality is chosen or innate.
In each case, both sides completely miss the more important, fundamental point. 1/
In each case, both sides completely miss the more important, fundamental point. 1/
If memory serves, "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation" were interchangeable (up until yesterday, apparently) with little cause for uproar, despite everyone being at least casually aware that they refer to different things: Orientation ≈ innate; Preference ≈ choice. 2/
The argument about homosexuality being innate versus a choice is motivated by the idea that if it's innate, then it is God-given, and we therefore can't justify persecuting homosexuals on religious grounds. 3/
This is pretty sound logic, and I do believe homosexuality is innate, so I've used this argument many times against anti-homosexual religious people.
However, at some point it struck me that by adopting this line of argument, I'm conceding to things I shouldn't. 4/
However, at some point it struck me that by adopting this line of argument, I'm conceding to things I shouldn't. 4/
The first concession is to a divine authority. I don't believe in any god, and wouldn't feel compelled to obey it even if it did exist.
By engaging in the "homosexuality is innate" argument, I'm not only tacitly presupposing fealty to God, but condoning it—which I do not. 5/
By engaging in the "homosexuality is innate" argument, I'm not only tacitly presupposing fealty to God, but condoning it—which I do not. 5/
The second, more important concession—and the one that is also mirrored in the "orientation" versus "preference" dustup—is to the idea that if homosexuality *wasn't* a choice, then it actually *would* be wrong—or, at least, arguments against it could be valid.
This is wrong. 6/
This is wrong. 6/
This is the critical point that underlies both arguments, and which many people miss:
"Sexual preference" and "sexual orientation" should be colloquially synonymous, without issue, because whether someone is "born this way" or "lives this way"...
Doesn't.
Fucking.
Matter.
7/
"Sexual preference" and "sexual orientation" should be colloquially synonymous, without issue, because whether someone is "born this way" or "lives this way"...
Doesn't.
Fucking.
Matter.
7/
Our social agreement is that all are free to live as they wish, so long as it doesn't prevent anyone from doing the same.
Whether someone is hard-wired to be attracted to men or only chooses to behave that way has no bearing on their right to do it.
THAT is the point. 8/
Whether someone is hard-wired to be attracted to men or only chooses to behave that way has no bearing on their right to do it.
THAT is the point. 8/
The idea that "sexual preference" is offensive cedes the ground to people who think that homosexuality being a choice grants them moral authority to prohibit or condemn it.
It doesn't. It never will.
Fuck whatever consenting party you like. It's no one's business but yours. 9/
It doesn't. It never will.
Fuck whatever consenting party you like. It's no one's business but yours. 9/
So, apart from my opinion that language policing is counterproductive; and my suspicion that this uproar is motivated by concerns other than those being given...
To be offended by the phrase "sexual preference" means losing the argument before it begins.
We shouldn't.
/10
To be offended by the phrase "sexual preference" means losing the argument before it begins.
We shouldn't.
/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
