# Cynthia Nixon states she's "gay by choice". Does this harm the LGBT community? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554 "2012-01-24T23:28:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/161 "2012-02-01T22:26:52Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Actually, the idea that marriage is all about children is very popular. You realize you’ve spent a lot of time talking about sex between men and women, not children, right? Again, there’s no one-to-one link between sex and marriage or marriage and children. For example: > [@David42](#): > > In my view, the only relationships (based on sex acts that set it apart from other relationships) that is worthy of celebrating, upholding, etc., by society at large are worth celebrating and dignifying not because it’s a sex act but because it is the source of all human life. > […] > Nice distortion, but your sex act still is worthy of celebration, nor is any sex act. > […] > You want to do something that I would deny to all, namely, mock the creation of life in marriage. > [@David42](#): > > Who’s to say they aren’t going to conceive the next day? Some people aren’t able to conceive. They’re not just having bad luck; it’s actually not possible for them. Of course, nobody is checking one way or the other. > [@](#): > > It’s the idea that they _might_ that is important. No, it isn’t. Not to anyone else, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/162 "2012-02-01T22:31:13Z")
[QUOTE=David42] State-forced divorce? Never heard of that. Who’s to say they aren’t going to conceive the next day? It’s the idea that they might that is important. [/QUOTE] :dubious: There are plenty of man/woman couples who marry and never intend to have children. And there are plenty of man/man woman/woman couples who DO intend to have children. It’s pretty much blatant bullshit to insist that you have to be able to procreate within the relationship (even if you never intend to) in order to get all the legal rights and prerogatives of a ‘marriage’, and to so narrowly define it to just conveniently deny it to same sex couples. > [@](#): > > Actually some sham marriages are pretty offensive too, and anytime there is an effective way to eliminate these that is not overly invasive then I would be for it. Like fake marriages where a person pays their spouse to marry and they can get citizenship. I’ve never said “All man+woman relationships” must be allowed to marry. Uhuh. But since there would be no realistic way to stop such marriages (or, marriages where the couple never intends to have a kid…or simply can’t have a kid due to biological factors), it’s pretty convenient to define it this way and then innocently claim that really there is no problem with same sex couples, but sadly, by (narrow, silly) definition that they can’t procreate (in their relationship, though they can using any number of other means), they can’t really be married or enjoy the legal or social prerogatives of others. And the real annoying part is you actually think we are all too stupid to see this rather glaring point. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/163 "2012-02-01T22:37:42Z")
> [@David42](#): > > My point is that the creation of life is worthy of elevation. The fact that it is associated with one particular sex act isn’t to say that act is the most beautiful and all others disgusting. i fully support all types of sex acts outside of rape and child molestation being legal for each person to do as he/she sees fit. But I’m not elevating anybody based on what kind of sex gets you off. I’ll elevate your relationship if it is focused on creating life. I suppose the obvious but unpleasant question from this paragraph is; why don’t you support rape, given that it has the potential to create life? You seem to be creating an exception there. Would rape that results in pregnancy be “elevated” over rape that doesn’t? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/164 "2012-02-01T22:49:10Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I suppose the obvious but unpleasant question from this paragraph is; why don’t you support rape, given that it has the potential to create life? You seem to be creating an exception there. Would rape that results in pregnancy be “elevated” over rape that doesn’t? Well no-one should ever be forced into sex or marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/165 "2012-02-01T22:51:35Z")
I’m afraid that doesn’t really answer the question, at least not fully. Is your meaning that, while creation of life is sometimes worthy of elevation, there are situations where it is not? That there can be extenuating circumstances in which the creation of life isn’t automatically worthy of elevation, because of some more important, more prioritised, principle? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/166 "2012-02-01T22:55:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > :dubious: There are plenty of man/woman couples who marry and never intend to have children. And there are plenty of man/man woman/woman couples who DO intend to have children. It’s pretty much blatant bullshit to insist that you have to be able to procreate within the relationship (even if you never intend to) in order to get all the legal rights and prerogatives of a ‘marriage’, and to so narrowly define it to just conveniently deny it to same sex couples. Or you could read my post where I addressed that. > [@xtisme](#): > > Uhuh. But since there would be no realistic way to stop such marriages (or, marriages where the couple never intends to have a kid…or simply can’t have a kid due to biological factors), it’s pretty convenient to define it this way and then innocently claim that really there is no problem with same sex couples, but sadly, by (narrow, silly) definition that they can’t procreate (in their relationship, though they can using any number of other means), they can’t really be married or enjoy the legal or social prerogatives of others. It doesn’t matter how easy the answer was to come by. You have some maxim of reasoning that all correct answers must be inconvenient? > [@xtisme](#): > > And the real annoying part is you actually think we are all too stupid to see this rather glaring point. > > -XT Of course you could avoid annoying yourself by foregoing speculation on what I think. Let’s not raise the issue of who’s stupid or not, shall we? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/167 "2012-02-01T23:02:00Z")
Ok, someone please define what marriage is instead of all this dancing around about what it’s NOT. explain how that definition could possibly be meaningful to an entire society. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/168 "2012-02-01T23:07:06Z")
[QUOTE=David42] Of course you could avoid annoying yourself by foregoing speculation on what I think. Let’s not raise the issue of who’s stupid or not, shall we? [/QUOTE] We probably shouldn’t, as you might not like how that turns out. The balloon popping might be quite startling. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter how easy the answer was to come by. You have some maxim of reasoning that all correct answers must be inconvenient? I have this thing about folks who go through all these mental gyrations in order to arrive at the place where, interestingly enough, they were bound all along. Which is exactly what you are doing here. > [@](#): > > Or you could read my post where I addressed that. Ah, the old ‘scroll back and see where I already addressed this’ dodge, ehe? I’d say ‘well played’, but sadly it wasn’t. > [@](#): > > Ok, someone please define what marriage is instead of all this dancing around about what it’s NOT. explain how that definition could possibly be meaningful to an entire society. Easy. The legal and social union of two people. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2012, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/169 "2012-02-01T23:12:38Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Ok, someone please define what marriage is instead of all this dancing around about what it’s NOT. explain how that definition could possibly be meaningful to an entire society. Seems like the current definitions are fine. They have this in Merriam-Webster: > [@](#): > > 1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage \ b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage > 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities. So call a marriage the state of being united to another person as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationships recognized by law. Children, as always, are optional. If there are children, their provenance is not relevant, as always. It’s the same meaning marriage already has in our society, it just includes gay couples as well as straight couples. As a bonus, nothing about these definitions includes a fixation on anyone else’s sex life and offers no commentary about shit on dicks. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/170 "2012-02-02T00:17:25Z")
> [@David42](#): > > My point is that the creation of life is worthy of elevation. The fact that it is associated with one particular sex act isn’t to say that act is the most beautiful and all others disgusting. i fully support all types of sex acts outside of rape and child molestation being legal for each person to do as he/she sees fit. But I’m not elevating anybody based on what kind of sex gets you off. I’ll elevate your relationship if it is focused on creating life. > > heterosexuals tend to have children. That is worthy of elevation over other relationships that don’t. To me it’s a simple as choosing life over death. 1. So if a 16-year-old crack whore (call her Sally) gets pregnant with her crackhead husband who splits as soon as he learns she is pregnant, you would elevate her relationship of this procreative married couple over the non-procreative relationship of Sam and Herman? (2) Then, if Sally puts her daughter Lucy up for adoption and if Sam and Herman, one of whom is a lawyer and one a doctor, adopt little Lucy and spend the next 25 years giving her a wonderful upbringing, the best schools, etc., you would still consider their non-procreative relationship inferior to the three-month marriage of Sally and her crackhead husband because the two crackheads had the power to procreate? (3) Where do you class the relationship of heterosexuals who can have children but choose not to (there are such people). Are they demoted to the rank of gay couples in your value system, or do they keep their status because they CAN produce life? Would they keep their elevated status as long as their relationship CAN produce life, and would they therefore be demoted when the woman reaches menopause? (4) Where do you class heterosexual relationships in which the couple CANNOT generate children much as they would like to, because of physical problems? (5) Where do you class heterosexual couples who cannot produce children because the husband’s sperm count is too low, and who get the woman pregnant with a perm donation from an anonymous male, and then give the child a wonderful upbringing? (6) What if the situatiion is the same as in question 5, but it is because they are two women. And one of them gets pregnant by a sperm donation froman anonymous male donor, and they give the child a wonderful upbringing. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/171 "2012-02-02T02:13:14Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > As interesting as I find **ambushed** ’s arguments (which is not to say I agree with all of them, only that I find them interesting), I’m starting to wonder whether using colored text is a choice or if it’s a genetic predisposition. Either way, _I know_ it’s a teensy bit annoying. [soapbox mode on] I’ve seen clear evidence that many dopers will simply skip long posts unless something in them attracts their attention while scrolling past. And as Aldous Huxley so insightfully observed concerning Polonius’s dunderhead remark that “brevity is the soul of wit”, _ **“The soul of wit may become the very body of untruth. However elegant and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation.”** _ Highlighting key points in color attracts such attention, so I’m not going to stop. People who are so petty as to skip posts with any colored text at all just because there’s some color there are of no value as readers anyway, so I will not stop using color merely to placate them.[/soapbox] ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/172 "2012-02-02T03:00:39Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I’ll elevate your relationship if it is focused on creating life. > > heterosexuals tend to have children. That is worthy of elevation over other relationships that don’t. To me it’s a simple as choosing life over death. So, again, what about elderly couples? Does that mean a widow past menopause should not get married, or that her relationship isn’t as “worthy” as that of a couple focused on having kids? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/173 "2012-02-02T03:06:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@ambushed](#): > > > > The fact of the matter is that facts matter!. Claiming that homosexuality is a choice is a lie, and lies are no protection against tyranny and provide no path to justice or wise social policy. Facts, as Ronald Reagan failed to correctly say, are stubborn things. Hand-waving them away is precisely what the Right keeps doing, and the ruins of this approach lie everywhere around us. > > As others have pointed out, just because that homosexuality may not be a choice for some, doesn’t mean it isn’t for others. Ate you of the belief that gender identity, or sexual identity, and the sexual attraction that goes along with them is binary? The meaning one ascribes to phrases such as “gender identity” and “sexual identity” are so arbitrary and ambiguous that I hold that arguing about them is pointless. And if by “binary” you mean that bisexuality is merely a function of behavior rather than being an intrinsic sexual orientation, then, as I’ve already argued previously, the best current evidence tells us that orientation decidedly appears to be “binary”. The main point here is that there’s a strong scientific consensus that homosexuality is **not a choice** , regardless of physiological gender or psychological factors. Here’s a 2007 statement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists: > [@Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality](#): > > It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. **Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice** Note also that there currently exists considerable evidence that shows that brain physiology as measured several different ways is reliably correlated to sexual orientation. Since a person’s choices or similar psychological processes cannot change fundamental brain physiology, sexual orientation cannot be a matter of choice (especially if we take this all the way into the realm of “free will”). ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/174 "2012-02-02T03:12:00Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Man, this thread has really strayed off the rails from the original OP. :eek: This IS Great Debates, you know. A GD thread isn’t a GD thread until the main point under discussion has been reduced to first principles and each of them worried away to a fine gritty powder, purified of all greater meaning. Perhaps the hivemind understands issues as a kind of code, where the prime directive is to parse everything down to the last bracket, comma and space. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/175 "2012-02-02T03:41:55Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > ambushed, I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. I do understand the studies and statistics, honestly. I don’t think they’re quite as compelling as you do, although I think they’re very interesting and promising and we should keep going on that. > > It’s not that I don’t understand statistics, it’s that I reject your definition of “cause”. I think it’s misleading to say that risk factors are causes. **Yikes!** You refer to older brothers as “risk factors”?! For the “disease” of homosexuality?! **That’s arguably the most deplorable phraseology imaginable!** I stand by my previous response to you. You have no idea what you’re blathering about, and you’ve simply emphasized once again that you don’t understand statistical patterns and what even their mere existence _ **means** _ scientifically. Add some books on the philosophy of science to my previous list of books you urgently _need_ to read on this topic. > [@WhyNot](#): > > … I simply think the root cause of homosexuality is \*irrelevant \*to the legal status of gay people in the United States of America. > > Speech and religion, as already pointed out, are choices which are protected. Race (as it’s commonly, not scientifically, understood) is a result of genetics, and is protected. Obviously, therefore, harping on the “Born That Way” vs. “Choice” is not necessary for legal protection under our constitution. We can get this done under our current constitution either way… **Sweet Fictional Jesu, please re-read the OP a few more times!** The issue here has nothing to do with _“the legal status of gay people in the United States of America”_, it’s about whether asserting the ludicrously bogus claim that homosexuality is a “choice” is scientifically accurate (I hold it’s not) and whether such ignorant assertions are harmful to the LGBT community (I hold that it is, to the extent that someone uttering such nonsense is considered a reliable source of accurate information in the wider society). ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/176 "2012-02-02T03:54:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Question for all > > While I don’t agree with all of what **David42** has put forth, and I certainly don’t ascribe to some of the ways he’s described things, let me ask: can you not see how the physical act of making love can be viewed as quite different between the two types of relationships? Anyone can view anything any way they want, but personal biases are essentially the only factors involved, so who cares? We’re not talking about anything objective there. > [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s say that the degree of love is the same. But the physical coming together of a man and a woman has a beauty and natural elegance to it that homosexual sex just doesn’t have. See? Nothing but personal bias and tastes are involved. Here’s my own personal bias and taste: Symmetry is far more esthetically pleasing than complementarity, so, like two breasts, two penises are far more esthetically pleasing than a penis and a hole (any hole), just as two holes are more pleasing than a hole and something else. Holes strike me as mere empty space, so holes are also particularly dull and boring. So, to paraphrase your remark, the physical coming together of a man and another man has a beauty and natural elegance to it that heterosexual sex just doesn’t have. So I ask _you_: Can those arguing against that point of view see that? Or see how that might be how others see it, and that that is not an unreasonable view? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/177 "2012-02-02T04:03:48Z")
Some citizens want to get married, there’s no evidence of harm, so what’s the point in stopping them? As an afterthought, what difference does it make how “beautiful” heterosexual sex is? Conception can be accomplished in a petri dish. Surely it’s not the simple mingling of genetic material that matters, scientifically fascinating though it might be, but how good a parent one is in the decades that follow. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/178 "2012-02-02T04:09:54Z")
When I think about people opposing gay marriage these days and doing everything they can to prevent it I get this image (in black and white) of German Shepard dogs, young black kids and fire hoses for some reason. Isn’t that strange? I wonder how it’s going to work out… -XT ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/179 "2012-02-02T04:18:25Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > > [@ambushed](#): > > > > > [@WhyNot](#): > > > > > > That’s not genetic. It’s congenital, but it’s not genetic. > > > > That’s utter nonsense, as what I’ve highlighted in blue should have made clear to you if you thought about it more carefully. There’s only **one** possible explanation for such a widespread and strict statistical pattern in biological nature: _genetics_. A merely congenital explanation would see wildly divergent patterns, or, no real pattern at all. The ultimate cause has to be something deeply fundamental and remarkably consistent across cultural and local-environmental factors, which means genetic rather than congenital. > > “Genetics” in the sense of “characteristic of the species generally” is not relevant to questions of whether or not “genetics” lies at the root of some divergent characteristic _within_ the species. Steve, you should have quoted the fuller context of my response to **WhyNot** as I just did. Your quotation served to obscure the fact that my response was a denial of **WhyNot** ’s deeply absurd substitution of _genetic_ with his factually false _congenital_ “explanation”. Your own response asserts the flagrant falsehood that there are no genetic differences between members of a given species. I cannot imagine why you would posit something to starkly counterfactual. Please try again. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554/180 "2012-02-02T04:29:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > > [@ambushed](#): > > > > Such pointless, misplaced, and unwarranted bravado! > > > > First, let me repeat something I wrote earlier: > > > > [Quote=ambushed] > > > > … I didn’t come to a “conclusion” about Ms. Nixon, someone I’d never even heard of before yesterday. I simply put forth a scientifically informed argument based on well-known facts, in particular that women change their self-reports of their sexuality fairly often and that these reports are not based on anything reasonably objective (such as changes in brain physiology). Thus, such statements should be understood psychologically as mere _behavior_ rather than as any kind of a statement of fact or of factual relevance. I can say I’m the Archangel Fagle-Bagle from the Sixth Dispensation of the Nineteenth Galaxy of Lazy Satire sent to free the world from reality, but it doesn’t change who or what I am. So it is with Ms. Nixon. > > **A person who doesn’t have any scientifically credible knowledge of what the truth actually _is_ simply cannot speak the truth!** Do I need to tutor you on basic epistemology and ontology? Someone certainly needs to instruct Cynthia Nixon on these weighty philosophical and scientific matters before she utters more foolishly unwarranted blither on any significant topic again! > > What Nixon did was essentially parallel to Rush Limbaugh or some other random illiterate asserting that he knows that “anthropogenic global warming is a hoax”, or that he knows he has full self-knowledge (including the full nature and etiology of their own sexual orientation). They know no such thing. If you or they were much of a careful and honest thinker, you’d know that self-knowledge is the most unreliable data we possess, and very far indeed from the most confident or certain. Psychological and social science studies others for precisely this reason – you cannot ever reliably know your own mind; it plays tricks on you all the time. > > Nixon had neither enough reliable self-knowledge nor enough relevant scientific knowledge to assert that she “chose” to be homosexual. She cannot truthfully report what she does not know! As the insightful logician and evolutionary psychologist Jerry Fodor chose for the title of one of this books, “The mind doesn’t work that way”. > > Cynthia Nixon knows _least of all_ whether or not she “chose” to be a homosexual. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against such an absurd notion! Now that’s what I call irony. [/quote] And that’s what _I_ call completely non-responsive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cynthia-nixon-states-shes-gay-by-choice-does-this-harm-the-lgbt-community/610554.md?page=10)