Stereotyping and assimilation in a homosexual male's identity

Homosexual Interview

The subject of this interview is a twenty-nine-year-old homosexual male of African-American descent, originally from Miami, Florida. He has been employed as a Certified Personal Fitness Trainer since his 1997 graduation from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where he majored in Kinesthesiology and Movement Science

and minored in Broadcast Communications.

The subject seemed ideal for this interview because he is openly homosexual himself, but acutely irritated by the common homosexual "affect" that he characterizes as a learned or emulated set of effeminate mannerisms and speech patterns that many people have come to associate with (or even expect from) male homosexuals. The subject has repeatedly expressed his disgust with homosexuals whom he describes as "flames" or even "faggots," because as a comfortably assimilated homosexual male, he believes that he (and all homosexual males) suffer from stereotyping and the homophobia that he believes it inspires. Specifically, the subject compares the plight of "normal" male homosexuals to that of "normal" black

American males who suffer similarly from the stereotypes inspired by African

American males who, according to him, "have to act like hard-ass niggers."

Interestingly, the subject equates his "not sounding black" to his "not sounding gay," both of which he believes undermine the respective efforts of African

Americans and homosexuals to achieve complete social acceptance and professional success in America.

The fact that this subject seems to feel somewhat alienated by large segments of his peers in his race and so many within the homosexual community makes him a particularly interesting interview subject. This is especially true in that there seems to be such a close similarity between his feelings of alienation from mainstream African

American culture and from mainstream homosexuals.

At the outset of this project, the interviewer's expectations were already somewhat biased in that they were (unavoidably) influenced by a favorable prior impression of the subject as a function of having some familiarity with his social style, as well as from observing his social skills and personality in one-on-one

interactions and in general, within the professional environment of the fitness facility where he works as a Personal Trainer. Objectively, the focus of this project became determining whether (and to what degree) the subject's was able to justify his feelings about "affected" individuals sharing his sexual orientation and whether (and to what degree) his opinions might be functions of personal issues or displaced unconscious hostility.

For the sake of accuracy, the subject's responses have not been edited for politeness or changed in any way, but transcribed from a tape recording verbatim.

Quotation symbols within the interview indicate the subject's hand gestures mimicking the use of quotations in the air, while italics indicate verbal emphasis by voice inflection alone.

Interview:

Q: I've heard you express such disdain for "flames" or "queers," yet you're quite open about your own homosexuality. Do you consider that a contradiction at all?

A: Absolutely not. I think a person's sexual preference is essentially irrelevant to all other aspects of a person's life. To me it's not something to base your whole identity on, especially when much of society at large is so threatened by homosexuality. You see, unlike my skin color, which can't be "kept private," my sexual orientation is nobody else's business. If someone is a racial bigot, there's not much I can do about it. On the other hand, sexual preference is not something that's outwardly visible to other people at all. If you're gay and you go around swishing like a faggot ... (he demonstrates with a very effeminate hand gesture) ... If carry yourself like this and you make yourself sound like a total faggot ... (he mimics an effeminate lisp as he speaks) ... If that's how you talk to people, then don't complain when some of them treat you differently.

Q: You think those mannerisms are under a person's control, then?

A: Yes, that's why the whole thing irritates me so much. I know that there's a huge biological component to a person's sexual preference, at least there is in the absence of pathological causes of sexual abuse or other environmental influences. And there's often a biological component to speech impediments or idiosyncrasies or whatever. But I don't think there's any biological link between homosexuality and speaking like this ... (he mimics an exaggerated

lisp and the effeminate hand gesture again) ... there's nothing biological that makes you talk like that. It's purely a learned or mimicked affect.

Q: What about heterosexual people who have a lisp? Is that an "affectation" too?

A: That's not what I'm saying at all. A small percentage of everybody is predisposed to lisping OK? Occasionally, I'm sure it happens that someone who is homosexual also has a natural speech impediment of that nature. Actually, this is something I

was a lot less sure about before reading a Tom Wolfe best seller:

The Right Stuff. He explains that Chuck Yeager (who was a racial bigot, by the way) was such a legend amongst World War II

fighter pilots that they all started copying his southern drawl, even if they were from the northeast or wherever. The book was written a good twenty years ago, give or take, and according to Wolfe,

many commercial airline pilots still talked like that, since most senior pilots were still World War II era pilots who'd idolized

Yeager. The point is, if you were born and raised in Alabama or Texas, then that's perfectly "natural"; if you were born in New

York but you adopt a southern drawl because you idolize someone, then it's an affectation. I don't know exactly how that particular mannerism became entrenched into homosexual culture, but I'm convinced that if naturally homosexual men were raised to adulthood in isolation ... I mean isolated from other homosexuals ... The percentage of homosexuals with a lisp would parallel the rest of society instead of every other, or every third gay man or whatever sounding exactly alike.

Q: What about the effeminate mannerisms? Are they all affectations too?

A: Same issue. There are heterosexual and homosexual men whose body language and so forth are characteristically more effeminate than most heterosexual males. There are also women (both heterosexual and lesbian) who are just naturally more masculine in some ways than most women. I think there's more of a gray area with this than with the speech thing because it's probably at least partly a function of very young gay male kids' identifying with females or modeling their own mannerisms after their female peers ... I'm talking about kindergarten years here ... they might become feminized, so to speak, in a natural way. To me, that's a lot different from adopting mannerisms in adolescence or even adulthood, which I know for a fact does happen.

Q: OK, so when did you first "come out," then?

A: Well, I was extremely lucky that I have great parents that I always felt I could talk to as far back as I can remember. I was about nine or ten when other kids started talking about "homos" and "gay" or whatever, OK? That's when I realized that A. There was a name for whatever I was and there were other people like me, and B. That it was definitely not a cool thing to admit. I participated in calling other kids "fags" and "homos" ... not even that we had any suspicions that anybody was actually homosexual ... But I mean just as a put-down of other kids in a general sense. In my case though, I remember doing it consciously, specifically because once I knew that I was "gay" I was afraid that if I didn't participate in using the term like the other kids, they'd realize why.

Q: Do you think your own early feelings about your sexual preference has anything to do with the way you still use terms like "faggot" or "queer" ?

(This question appears to irritate the subject slightly.)

A: No, Bro', not at all. I hate it when people assume I'm expressing some "self-loathing" or shit like that when I call some obnoxious total faggot exactly what he is. (Laughs) Listen, I'm 100%

comfortable with my sexuality, which is why I choose to be open about it, OK? I date gay men, so I don't dislike them for being gay,

OK? (Laughs) By the way, it's not exactly a "sexual preference"

either, but let me answer your question first. I don't have anything against other gay men, or for that matter, against my own race, either. I already explained how a lot of the difference between someone like me and someone I refer to as a "queer" or whatever is affectation, right? Well, in my opinion, those types of gay males are responsible for much of the prejudice that normal men like me who just happen to be gay experience in society. Obviously, there are some homophobes that would hate anybody gay either way, just for being gay OK? Just like there are plenty of racially bigoted people who'd hate me for being black, regardless how well educated and respectable a person I happen to be. To me, that's a "constant" and there's nothing you can do about ignorant hateful people like that.

But the way I look at it, there's also an "audience" in the middle, so to speak. By that I mean someone who is inclined to treat all people with respect, regardless of their racial heritage or sexual

"preference" as you say. (Winks) It is my belief that some people who disrespect me for being black do so as a function of constant exposure to all the "niggers" they see all over TV rapping about

"bitches" and "ho's" and all their idiot proteges everywhere, slinging dope, talkin' that stupid ghetto "Ebonics," and basically emulating the "thug life" and all that other bullshit that's a disgrace to any decent, self-respecting black person.

(By the intensity of his expression and voice, it is very clear that the subject feels quite strongly about this issue.)

It's the exact same way I feel about flaming faggots. There's always going to be plenty of closed minded bigots who would hate me for being gay even if they liked me for months before finding out.

Like with the racists, there's nothing you can do about those types,

OK? I don't worry about them. But I gotta' admit that when I see overly effeminate affected gay men manifesting every single stereotypically gay mannerism, I resent it the same way I resent niggers and for precisely the same reason. I suffer from the prejudice they inspire on the part of people who probably would have no issue with my sexual "preference," if gay men just conducted themselves more normally in everyday situations.

Q: You keep stressing the word "preference"; do you want to get back to that?

A: Yeah, thanks. "Preference" implies that you have some degree of choice or that you have some other "alternative," right? When

you're gay you have exactly as much "choice" as a heterosexual person does over his or her "preference." People breath air and fish extract oxygen from water through gills, OK? To me, referring to a gay person's sexual "preference" makes as little sense as saying that we breathe air and fish breath water by preference. It's not a preference, it's a reality of biology.

Q: Do you believe that homosexuality is indeed biologically determined?

A: Generally, yes but not always. Many gay people, myself included, knew they were different as far back as they can remember. As I

said before, I was drawn to boys at the same age (and in the same exact way) you were drawn to little girls. Now, I do believe that a person can be influenced toward homosexuality by trauma and abuse in the same way heterosexuals can be influenced toward frigidity or promiscuity by external environmental factors. Human psychosexual

development is very complicated and all sorts of cues in early life play a role in determining what types of things one finds erotic, whether that means a so-called fetish for feet, or hands, or bondage and domination, or whatever. I believe there are people representing the entire spectrum of sexual "preference" from those at the polar ends, incapable of being influenced in either direction to people whose predilections toward heterosexuality or homosexuality has some flexibility in relation to external factors. Sometimes a male child becomes gay after a traumatic exposure or abuse by an adult male. Other times, the same circumstances has no such affect on sexual orientation. Even in the first case, one can't really ever know for sure what the abused child's orientation would have been without the abuse. The mere fact that so many people express a gay orientation so early in life and the evidence of homosexuality in the animal world would seem to indicate rather strongly that there is, at the very least, a very strong biological component to sexual orientation. I don't believe that someone who "feels" gay at an early

age can ever be "changed" to become heterosexual, but I think there's enough anecdotal evidence that sometimes, external influences and so forth can open a homosexual window, so to speak, in someone who might very well have been completely heterosexual, otherwise.

Q: You never finished explaining about your own coming out before

A: Oh, Ok. Well, the summer after I realized that I was gay, I didn't want to go to summer camp because I was afraid the other kids would figure it out. My mother basically said that she wouldn't make me go to sleep away camp if I told her why I felt so strongly about it. To make a long story short, I eventually told my mom how I knew I was

"different" from other boys and that I knew the word for it, too.

Looking back on it, I know she was definitely taken aback by it, but she was great about it. She explained that I was still "normal" and stuff like that, and I remember that we discussed it several times. She promised not to tell my father until I agreed, but obviously, they discussed it between themselves from day one, which I understand now, of course. (Laughs)

Q: So your parents were very understanding. Do you think that played a big role in how you learned to accept your own "differences"?

A: Yeah, absolutely. That's probably the main reason that my sexual orientation has never really been that much of an "issue" in my life. I

played sports in high school and I had good friends. I always had a good "cover story" about a girlfriend out of state, but I had a close circle of straight friends who knew the truth. I think I was extremely fortunate in that I always felt good about myself and my self-esteem wasn't affected adversely by feelings of guilt or shame that seems to be such a common consequence of realizing that one is "different" in a major way from one's peers at a developmentally important stage, psychologically. By the time I was in college, I was comfortable enough to embrace my sexuality and I specifically chose a big school with an active gay alliance. The funny thing was I ended up having mostly straight friends because I had more in common with them than with the gay alliance crowd. To be perfectly honest, I've probably managed to enjoy my life more because my sexual orientation really

hasn't played much of a role in my non-sexual life: I don't associate primarily with gay people, and as I've said, I've always felt somewhat alienated from gay men who choose to express their sexual orientation in nonsexual circumstances.

Q: Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate it.

A: You're very welcome.

Application of Theory:

One area of academic inquiry directly suggested by this interview project is the degree to which a homosexual orientation is determined by biological factors rather than environment or conscious decision. A literature review reveals that the topic has not been investigated thoroughly and that much of current understanding of the issue derives from a single primary source. One future area of inquiry directly suggested by this interview project include the degree to which sexual orientation is subject to external influences at various stages of development.

Additional future areas of inquiry would include the degree to which the behavioral mannerisms collectively referred to by the interview subject as a homosexual "affectation" have any basis in biology. Such a finding would obviously contradict the assumptions underlying the interview subject's point-of-view, whereas the absence of any biological basis would seem to confirm some of his assumptions in that regard.

The primary study into the possible biological basis of homosexual orientation is still the 1991 findings of Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

LeVay found consistent differences in one area of the hypothalamus between heterosexual and homosexual men. Because the study involved only adult subjects, critics of the study maintain that it failed to establish whether the difference in brain

structure is a cause or effect of homosexual orientation (Breedlove, 1994).

Comparisons between the brain structure of homosexual and heterosexual mirror similar studies into the brain architecture of males and females, which reveal similarly consistent differences in the volume of several parietal regions. Unlike the studies comparing the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the data documenting male-female differences has been corroborated by similar studies (Sabbatinni, 1997).

Conclusion:

At the outset of this project, it seemed necessary to reconcile two seemingly inconsistent attitudes on the part of the subject. On one hand, he seems very comfortable in his own skin, so to speak, living openly as a homosexual male. On the other hand, some of his observations and terminology seems to belie a degree of hostility toward many other homosexuals.

One possible explanation would be that the subject has, in the words of one psychologist, is that the subject may have disowned some degree of self loathing, which he projects as criticism of one element (whether real or perceived) of homosexual behavior (Branden, 1989). This assumption would be corroborated by other signs of personal conflict or low self-esteem, and contradicted by their absence.

The interviewer's observation of the subject's interpersonal relationships and rapport with social and professional acquaintances (including other homosexual males) does not support any conclusion that his caustic language is a function of personal psychological issues. This conclusion is also consistent with the fact that he expresses himself very similarly with respect to analogous issues that are completely unrelated to sexual orientation, as was evident in connection with his views on elements of African-American culture.

It is certainly possible that the subject so fears rejection (whether for his race or for his sexual orientation) that he has repressed that conscious fear which expresses itself as harsh criticism and outright (admitted) resentment of those whom he blames for inspiring the antagonism that he fears (Branden, 1989). This would be the next line of inquiry, but it exceeds both the scope of this project as well as the expertise of the interviewer.

The avenue of future inquiry most directly relevant to this interview project would concern the actual emergence, evolution and development of a homosexual affect, comprising specific behavioral mannerisms. It is likely that homosexual males span the entire spectrum, from those exhibiting no affect whatsoever to those clearly developing an obvious behavioral affect spontaneously, coincident with their first open acknowledgement of their sexual orientation, exactly as described in one instance mentioned by the subject.

The final avenue of future scientific inquiry would extend the referenced studies of the possible biological basis for gender (and sexual orientation-based)

structural difference in brain architecture related to behavioral affect. Future studies would also address the issue omitted by LeVay, by including subjects of all ages rather than limiting its inquiry to adult subjects. Ultimately, only a sociological study well beyond the scope of this project can address any causal relationship between a homosexual behavioral affect and homophobic responses and sentiments in society.