However, the essentialist notion of an individual being subservient to his genes is equally preposterous. Society is not composed of animals subject to nature's randomness. The level of testosterone in a man does not give him an excuse to sexually violate women.
Unfortunately many gay activists believe in the power of nature as a means to meet their political ends. Pepper Schwartz, in an opinion denouncing the essentialist argument, outlines the the methodology of these gay activists:[7] if they can prove sexuality to be a genetic trait, then there would be legal protection for homosexuals as a class. I read this methodology as: legal protection for homosexuals as handicapped. Searching for a genetic excuse as to why one is more attracted to blue eyes versus black eyes is in a similar vain to searching for an excuse to homosexuality.
Wayne Dynes in a similar note points out the political double standard of current ``queer'' theory: strategic essentialism.[2] In political arenas, some gay and lesbian politicians and theorists secretly maintain the social constructionist arguments, while publicly citing the essentialist arguments.
What I propose, and by no means completely settle in this essay, is a combination of essentialist theory and social constructionist theory. There are certain natural universals which must be appeased (essentialist); how these universals are appeased is what is socially constructed. In other words, the cliche ``don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'' can be ascribed to both theories.3
We may all be born with the gene that dictates how thin or heavy we are. This by no means dictates how we eat. Based on the type of society that we grow up in, we may learn to eat heartily: to load up on starches like pasta and red meat. In other cultures we may be brought up to share our food equally first amongst our peers. Very dependant on our eating habits, we may, or may not fall subject to this gene.
In this case, our eating habit is what is socially constructed. Similarly, the essentialist may make a claim that we all must eat to survive. The essentialist in this claim is correct in asserting that we all must eat. However, in the social world of humans, how and what we eat is socially constructed.
In relevance to the material at hand, we are all in some form or another (at least - some less and some more) sexual beings (essentialist). How we act on our sexuality is exceedingly influenced by societal forces (soc. construct.). If this is not the case, then what is to explain the male heterosexual entering a correctional facility, engaging in homosexual acts but still considering himself heterosexual. The self-deceived inmate proposes as an excuse that the only reason for the homosexual act is because a female is not available.[8]
Although the previous denotes a move towards social constructionism as a theory, we must not adopt social constructionism blindly. As much as we should evaluate the social attitudes towards homosexuals, we also need to pay attention to historical documentation before the nineteenth century that points to homosexuality as deviation from the norm.
In as much as the study of how homosexuality was socially stigmatised - historically, and culturally (as previously noted in the Sambia) - we must also focus on the existence and experiences of a homosexual identity. We must attempt to gather more information from homosexuals rather than concentrating on information about homosexuals.[5]
Sexual identity is more than just acts, or behaviours of a particular nature. It is, in effect, a way of life. While ``normal'' people may not define themselves in relation to homosexuals, gays do, indeed, define themselves in relation ``normal'' people. This is true of any minority ethnic, racial or religious class. A heterosexual does not need to identify himself as one; a white Anglo-Saxon protestant does not need to identify himself as such. On the other hand, a black female has two factors to identify herself as. If she were of Latino origin the fact that she is a female would come before the fact that she is black. If she was of American origin her race would be more of an issue than her sex.
The identity to a particular class, race or ethnicity, however, as much as it comes from within - class awareness, or consciousness - there are also external factors. It comes from what the person in the minority considers are his unique characteristics - achieved or ascribed statuses in order of importance. The fact that some people consider themselves heterosexual, even though they have performed homosexual acts, is as much a societal attribution as an internal identity.
Sexual Identity is a complex subject that deserves more than just a narrow-minded simplistic explanation: for either the essentialist view, or the social constructionist view. We have much to learn from enquiry into sexual identity. This does not mean that the issue is settled on either side of the debate. Further, this is not an exhaustive attempt to defend or critique either theory. However, this essay is written with all hope that there is a redirection of scholarly forces in an attempt to find an exhaustive and explanitive theory which is neither shortsightedly essentialist nor dogmatically socially constructed.