What do you think?
Rate this book
Queer By Choice
Queer by Choice enters the controversial debate of sexual identity by examining choice in gay men and lesbian sexual identity. Drawing on interviews with a sample of 72 people, Whisman analyzes if, and to what extent, choice played a role in determining identity. Contributing factors such as race, class, religion, and educational level are considered. The results of the study are stimulating and often surprising, and contribute to the escalating debates over sexual identity as lesbians and gays continue to soldier for rights and representation.
162 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
2 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 17, 2016
I found this got pretty repetitive, and I wanted to hear more from the "queer by choice" people interviewed (the majority do not find their sexuality to be a choice, at least not by much). Still an interesting read, though.
August 1, 2016
Sexuality is weird. It's a strange subjective thing formed by some combination of biological makeup and cultural pressure, and forced into a finite list of constructed identities. In our current political climate, it's advantageous for those of us caught on the wrong side of acceptable to cling to a simple narrative: we're born this way, we can't change, for the love of God stop abusing children by trying to "convert" them into something they will never be. I have no reason to doubt that most, even almost all, queer people actually feel this way, that their identity is innate and immutable. But, as this book points out, there exist people who stubbornly refuse to accept the "born-this-way" story as their own.
I'll admit that a lot of these stories seem like they'd become more comprehensible from some allowance for non-monosexuality. Bisexuality is brought up a few times, but most of the people interviewed deny it, often because they don't think it's actually a thing (ー_ー). So the book's a bit dated, bi erasure was still a huge thing, and sexuality was largely viewed in terms of shoving people into a "gay" or "straight" box and thinking that exhausted the possibilities, forming an overly simplistic, naive binary with nary a bi. But just realizing that a lot of these people may have had some underlying bisexuality and just "committed" to "one side" so to speak doesn't exhaust everyone's self-reported experience of being queer. Because for everyone who just didn't think that being bisexual was real or possible, there were others who vehemently denied ever having any sort of non-monosexual attraction, and were still able to choose queerness over their "starting" sexuality.
I wish I could draw any sort of major conclusion from this, but the book couldn't help me there. Just an observation that self-reported queer-by-choice people existed, a bunch of individual case studies, and reports that stubbornly refused to fall into any of the queer narratives I knew. This stuff is bizarre.
I'll admit that a lot of these stories seem like they'd become more comprehensible from some allowance for non-monosexuality. Bisexuality is brought up a few times, but most of the people interviewed deny it, often because they don't think it's actually a thing (ー_ー). So the book's a bit dated, bi erasure was still a huge thing, and sexuality was largely viewed in terms of shoving people into a "gay" or "straight" box and thinking that exhausted the possibilities, forming an overly simplistic, naive binary with nary a bi. But just realizing that a lot of these people may have had some underlying bisexuality and just "committed" to "one side" so to speak doesn't exhaust everyone's self-reported experience of being queer. Because for everyone who just didn't think that being bisexual was real or possible, there were others who vehemently denied ever having any sort of non-monosexual attraction, and were still able to choose queerness over their "starting" sexuality.
I wish I could draw any sort of major conclusion from this, but the book couldn't help me there. Just an observation that self-reported queer-by-choice people existed, a bunch of individual case studies, and reports that stubbornly refused to fall into any of the queer narratives I knew. This stuff is bizarre.
March 13, 2016
Significant quotations below.
The temptation, now that the monster [of outspoken homophobia] has reared its head, is to counter its every blow with a defense, as did the group of young men who carried signs in the 1993 March on Washington that read: "GAY MYTH #4: WE WANT TO CONVERT YOUR CHILD" and "GAY MYTH #9: WE'RE NOT ENTITLED TO EQUAL RIGHTS." But the discourse of homophobia is opportunistic and mutable; it can only be resisted, never entirely falsified (although so many of its individual claims...are quite obviously false) (Halperin 1994). Homophobic attitudes are "strategies for meeting psychological needs," and do not arise solely from simple misinformation (Herek 1984: 7). We need to understand homophobic discourse in terms of its rhetorical strategy, not solely in terms of its truth or falsehood. (3)
Second, the claim that homosexuality is legitimate because it is not chosen is androcentric, treating a common male experience as generically human. Apparently the vast majority of gay men in the U.S. do understand their homosexuality as an orientation they did not choose or create. But lesbian identities span a continuum, from a model of lesbian identity as a conscious political choice to a determinist model like that of most gay men. The ‘born that way’ stance not only 'lets the other side sets the terms of the debate’ in heterosexist terms, but 'reflects the universal male experience in this culture, not the complexities of the lesbian world’ (Van Gelder 1991). These claims–that homosexuality is or is not chosen, is or is not innate–are important beyond their function as political rhetoric. Gay men and lesbians understand themselves and their personal histories in these terms, experience their sexual desires as beyond or within their own control. These personal accounts must be respected; neither liberation nor scholarship would be served by dismissing them at the very historical moment when gay and lesbian voices are speaking for themselves. (6-7)
The temptation, now that the monster [of outspoken homophobia] has reared its head, is to counter its every blow with a defense, as did the group of young men who carried signs in the 1993 March on Washington that read: "GAY MYTH #4: WE WANT TO CONVERT YOUR CHILD" and "GAY MYTH #9: WE'RE NOT ENTITLED TO EQUAL RIGHTS." But the discourse of homophobia is opportunistic and mutable; it can only be resisted, never entirely falsified (although so many of its individual claims...are quite obviously false) (Halperin 1994). Homophobic attitudes are "strategies for meeting psychological needs," and do not arise solely from simple misinformation (Herek 1984: 7). We need to understand homophobic discourse in terms of its rhetorical strategy, not solely in terms of its truth or falsehood. (3)
Second, the claim that homosexuality is legitimate because it is not chosen is androcentric, treating a common male experience as generically human. Apparently the vast majority of gay men in the U.S. do understand their homosexuality as an orientation they did not choose or create. But lesbian identities span a continuum, from a model of lesbian identity as a conscious political choice to a determinist model like that of most gay men. The ‘born that way’ stance not only 'lets the other side sets the terms of the debate’ in heterosexist terms, but 'reflects the universal male experience in this culture, not the complexities of the lesbian world’ (Van Gelder 1991). These claims–that homosexuality is or is not chosen, is or is not innate–are important beyond their function as political rhetoric. Gay men and lesbians understand themselves and their personal histories in these terms, experience their sexual desires as beyond or within their own control. These personal accounts must be respected; neither liberation nor scholarship would be served by dismissing them at the very historical moment when gay and lesbian voices are speaking for themselves. (6-7)
December 1, 2008
Fascinating study of varying "accounts," or gay origin stories: what personal and political purposes they serve, what political and personal purposes they stint.
Whisman analyzes versions of the dominant account ("I was born this way"/"I made the decision to pursue this, but it's fundamentally who I am") and versions of the "chosen" account (often either bisexual people who decided to focus on their own sex, or women who chose lesbianism from feminist motives).
From them she draws conclusions about sexuality, politics, and intersectionality. How is being a gay woman or a black gay man different from being a white gay man? If the dominant narrative best expresses the average gay male experience, what rhetorical moves do lesbians, for example, make in order to fit their accounts into that mold?
Excellent brain noms here. I dug it.
Whisman analyzes versions of the dominant account ("I was born this way"/"I made the decision to pursue this, but it's fundamentally who I am") and versions of the "chosen" account (often either bisexual people who decided to focus on their own sex, or women who chose lesbianism from feminist motives).
From them she draws conclusions about sexuality, politics, and intersectionality. How is being a gay woman or a black gay man different from being a white gay man? If the dominant narrative best expresses the average gay male experience, what rhetorical moves do lesbians, for example, make in order to fit their accounts into that mold?
Excellent brain noms here. I dug it.
May 19, 2012
While this book is not by any means quantitative, it does provide a qualitative introduction to the study of whether sexual orientation is inherent or a choice.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews