Too fat for my gay genes
posted by M. LeBlanc
My boyfriend is really smart. Last night, we were having an interesting conversation about fatness, homosexuality, bigotry, and the size acceptance movement, a conversation brought on by our discussing the episode which we referred to as "Dan Savage vs. The Fatties." He had a pretty interesting take on the comparison between fatness and gayness, which I think hasn't really been discussed much in the Fatosphere. Since he doesn't have a blog and I do, I'm pillaging his ideas and writing about them here. Hooray!
Both fat people and gay people who are trying to fight bigotry spend a lot of time arguing that their condition is genetic. It's pretty easy to see why: it seems like a very obviously bad thing to hate or discriminate against someone for something that is not within their control. So if you can just show someone that it's genetic, or "it's not a choice," then you will show that they are being an asshole for judging you on that basis.
The thing is, I think this argument is selling the concept of "acceptance" really short. What if there were someone out there (and given the vagaries of human existence, I'm sure there is) who, at some point, really did "decide" to be gay? Made a conscious decision to date and have sex with only people of the same sex? Would it be ok to discriminate against that person, or hate them, or deprive them of rights that other people have, because of that choice? Nope. What if there was someone who really was fat because they purposely ate 10,000 calories a day (which is about how much it takes to make a "naturally" thin person fat), would it be okay to say awful shit about and hate on that person? Nope.
Every trait we have is influenced in some measure by genetic factors, and some measure by environmental factors. People who asserted that fatness had nothing to do with genes would simply be regarded as poorly-read idiots. By the same token, people who asserted that sexual orientation had nothing to do with environmental factors would also be regarded as a little ludicrous.
The real question is, "how much?" How much of it is genes, and how much environment? If "choice" is the real way we determine what things we can hate people for, we're in a bad way. There will never be a way to make a determination like "fatness/gayness is 70% genetic, 30% environment." Even if we could make that determination as a general rule (and we can't)
, there would still be people for whom it was 90% genetic and people for whom it was 10%.
Arguing that things are out of someone's control, and thus beyond criticism or bigotry, is a seductive tactic because it mirrors the arguments that are used against race discrimination. But the problem is, it's the wrong metric.
"Choice" or "environment" is the wrong way to determine what reasons are good reasons to hate others. Discriminating against or hating someone for being fat or gay makes you an asshole because there's nothing wrong with being fat or gay. Not because it's not a choice.
We discriminate against people for things that are genetic, and don't discriminate against them for things that are 100% their choice. For example, someone might have poor impulse control due to a genetically-linked mental illness, and end up committing a crime. We incarcerate or otherwise incapacitate that person, not because of their choice, but because of their genetics, and we do it because we can't have people running around committing crimes. By the same token, we don't hate on or discriminate against people who choose to bite their nails or eat vanilla ice cream or go to graduate school because there's nothing wrong with those things.
There's nothing wrong with fucking people of your own sex, and there's nothing wrong with being fat. It doesn't make you a bad person, and it doesn't hurt anyone (spare me the line about how fat people are making insurance higher FOR EVERYONE unless you have some actual proof of that; anyway, even if that were the case it wouldn't make it wrong). It's just something you are. Chew on that.
P.S. In case anyone can't tell from the number of links in this post, I have a total blog-crush on Kate Harding. Her co-bloggers are awesome, too. Word.
Both fat people and gay people who are trying to fight bigotry spend a lot of time arguing that their condition is genetic. It's pretty easy to see why: it seems like a very obviously bad thing to hate or discriminate against someone for something that is not within their control. So if you can just show someone that it's genetic, or "it's not a choice," then you will show that they are being an asshole for judging you on that basis.
The thing is, I think this argument is selling the concept of "acceptance" really short. What if there were someone out there (and given the vagaries of human existence, I'm sure there is) who, at some point, really did "decide" to be gay? Made a conscious decision to date and have sex with only people of the same sex? Would it be ok to discriminate against that person, or hate them, or deprive them of rights that other people have, because of that choice? Nope. What if there was someone who really was fat because they purposely ate 10,000 calories a day (which is about how much it takes to make a "naturally" thin person fat), would it be okay to say awful shit about and hate on that person? Nope.
Every trait we have is influenced in some measure by genetic factors, and some measure by environmental factors. People who asserted that fatness had nothing to do with genes would simply be regarded as poorly-read idiots. By the same token, people who asserted that sexual orientation had nothing to do with environmental factors would also be regarded as a little ludicrous.
The real question is, "how much?" How much of it is genes, and how much environment? If "choice" is the real way we determine what things we can hate people for, we're in a bad way. There will never be a way to make a determination like "fatness/gayness is 70% genetic, 30% environment." Even if we could make that determination as a general rule (and we can't)
, there would still be people for whom it was 90% genetic and people for whom it was 10%.
Arguing that things are out of someone's control, and thus beyond criticism or bigotry, is a seductive tactic because it mirrors the arguments that are used against race discrimination. But the problem is, it's the wrong metric.
"Choice" or "environment" is the wrong way to determine what reasons are good reasons to hate others. Discriminating against or hating someone for being fat or gay makes you an asshole because there's nothing wrong with being fat or gay. Not because it's not a choice.
We discriminate against people for things that are genetic, and don't discriminate against them for things that are 100% their choice. For example, someone might have poor impulse control due to a genetically-linked mental illness, and end up committing a crime. We incarcerate or otherwise incapacitate that person, not because of their choice, but because of their genetics, and we do it because we can't have people running around committing crimes. By the same token, we don't hate on or discriminate against people who choose to bite their nails or eat vanilla ice cream or go to graduate school because there's nothing wrong with those things.
There's nothing wrong with fucking people of your own sex, and there's nothing wrong with being fat. It doesn't make you a bad person, and it doesn't hurt anyone (spare me the line about how fat people are making insurance higher FOR EVERYONE unless you have some actual proof of that; anyway, even if that were the case it wouldn't make it wrong). It's just something you are. Chew on that.
P.S. In case anyone can't tell from the number of links in this post, I have a total blog-crush on Kate Harding. Her co-bloggers are awesome, too. Word.
Posted at 10:13 AM
|
