The problem with the immutability argument

[ocelotofdoom]

This could go in any number of forums here, including some of the non-asexuality based ones such as the Disability forum, but I might as well put it here because it pertains to ace issues just as well.

For those who don't know, an immutable quality is one that is unchangeable - a quality that one doesn't choose to have. Race, disability and sexuality are all immutable qualities.

In discussions of whether certain groups should be guaranteed equal rights protected from discrimination, and in fact under the United States legal framework for analyzing equal protection claims, immutability is a key factor. Basically, the "immutability argument" is that minority groups should not be subject to unequal and unfair treatment because they cannot help being what they are.

I'm starting to really dislike the immutability argument. I don't like it because the unspoken part of "We can't help being what we are!" is "After all, if we could, we wouldn't be this way!" or even "Because no one would WANT to be this way!" I also don't like it because it suggests that, if there was a magical way to stop being a member of a marginalized group, that group identity would become invalid. And this is not even touching on what it means for members of groups whose defining characteristics are not (perceived as) immutable.

Really, if tomorrow someone invented Miracle Heterosexuality in a Bottle and started giving it away for free, I would want it to be the case that it would still be okay to be asexual or any other non-standard sexuality. Same goes for any other non-privileged identity. I would not want things to become such that, now that a "cure" is available, anyone who doesn't choose to take it is wrong and deserves everything they get. Identifying as asexual isn't just valid so long as you can't choose anything else - it's valid because that's what you're living as and know how to be better than anything else. On the other hand, the immutability argument, though acting as a shield against the effects of stigma in some cases, nonetheless reinforces the stigma by making the people it claims to protect seem like victims of circumstance rather than equally worthy people exactly as they are.

So, yeah. What do you guys think?

[sciatrix]

I actually don't like it either for all the reasons you've articulated. I rather like myself, and I have problems with the suggestions that I might want to "cure" asexuality (or the other aspects of myself that are not privileged). Also, I am violently allergic to being pitied.

Sexuality is further problematized from an immutability perspective because people do change over time; part of the argument that immutability rests on is that these categories are, well, immutable. That there are no grey areas. Either you are $OPPRESSEDCLASS, or you aren't. And in reality, these categories often aren't entirely immutable, and for sexuality in particular people do shift between categories--and honestly, as immutability currently stands, bisexuality tends to get erased a lot. So do people in the grey areas more generally.

The strong lines that the premise rests on--"you either are or you aren't," when trying to legally define a class, also cause flaws when trying to legislate discrimination clauses. What I have seen is people looking to make "gay" a protected class rather than "queer," which is an important semantic difference. And bisexual people inherently invalidate the strong lines dividing "oppressed" from "not-oppressed" when you're looking at immutability through the lens of protecting gay people.

[ocelotofdoom]

It is rather unfortunate that, right now, the idea of fluid sexuality is so threatening to asexuality (and, as you pointed out, to other queer identities as well). If everyone, including the asexual community itself I might add, could accept that, if one eventually discovers that one feels sexual attraction at some point, that does not make the person a "late bloomer" or someone who needed to "get over their repression" whose asexual identity has forever been invalid in retrospect, this wouldn't be a problem.

Thankfully, I have seen a number of anti-discrimination statutes (I believe the Massachusetts public accommodations statute does this) that say that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This would ostensibly include everyone, including asexuals. The problem of course is that this language does not provide for the "T" part of the LGBTetc. acronym, but this could be solved by adding "gender identity," including all variations thereof, to the list of protected classes.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Re: fluid sexuality, I like to say that since sexuality for EVERYBODY is theoretically fluid, if I shouldn't "label myself" right now, then why should you, Straighty? If a label stops fitting--are you with me here?--you can change it. So let's just call ourselves what fits right now, neh?

I personally like to think of my own sexuality as immutable. I mean...if being desperately in love with my fiancee and actually enjoying sleeping with her isn't going to turn me sexual, what the hell is?

[michaelsmoker]

You all probably know that U.S. law contains a strong dose of the 17th-century philosophy of John Locke, and other philosophies firmly planted in the depths of the past. Immutability is only a surface problem; the deeper problem is the notion of an "individual" who is discrete and indivisible, and who therefore can have immutable qualities. We have known for about 150 years now that "the individual" is not a valid concept, and that therefore immutability of individual human traits is nonsense upon nonsense. None of us is a single, discrete, indivisible entity. We all have multiple sides to us and play multiple roles in life, we are all interconnected on many levels, and our minds/souls definitely have component parts. So what part of us or our interpersonal identity does an "immutable" trait apply to? It's hogwash to even think in those terms. But the U.S. was founded on 17th century philosophical principles and they form the underpinnings of the Constitution, so of course U.S. law is going to be built that way as well. That's the real problem _all_ people of the 21st century face, be they sexual or ace.

Michael

[vgkztw]

levitra sans ordonnance en pharmacie levitranew.com
<a href=http://levitranew.com>canadian pharmacy levitra</a>

[zbki]

buy viagra online spain canadian-pharmacyv.com
<a href=http://canadian-pharmacyv.com>ordering viagra online</a>