Cynthia Nixon: Technically, I’m a Bisexual Who Has Chosen to Be in a Gay Relationship

Cynthia Nixon released a statement to The Advocate clarifying some of her recent remarks about choice and sexuality.

C_nixon"While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship. As I said in the Times and will say again here, I do, however, believe that most members of our community — as well as the majority of heterosexuals — cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships because, unlike me, they are only attracted to one sex. Our community is not a monolith, thank goodness, any more than America itself is. I look forward to and will continue to work toward the day when America recognizes all of us as full and equal citizens."

Previously…
Cynthia Nixon Won't Call Herself Bisexual Because 'Nobody Likes the Bisexuals' [tr]
Cynthia Nixon: For Me, Being Gay is a Choice [tr]

Comments

  1. Yeek says

    Okay, THAT makes sense. Homosexual relationships are chosen, but homosexual (or bisexual feelings) are not. Cynthia, I’m sure the backlash hurt, but thanks for taking the time to be a bit more articulate. It makes a huge difference.

  2. Andalusian Dog says

    Okay, memo to Cynthia Nixon’s PR people: make her stop talking.

    I commend CN for ultimately standing up for the full equality of all citizens, which I think is her main point. However, it’s gotten somewhat muddled in her ruminations on her own sexuality (and other people’s), and that’s just not helpful. Plus it makes her look like a flake. Again: STOP TALKING.

  3. David in NYC says

    Seriously. she is the WORST. Making harmful controversy to promote Wit.

    To her credit I know it exist now. I just never want to see her in anything ever again.

  4. Gregv says

    I think pretty much anyone who understands the science already knew that she had made a poor choice of words, and the Advocate’s readership didn’t need the clarification.
    The damage that was done was to the ignorant masses who don’t understand psychology and read in their local paper that she chose to be straight one day and gay another and that gay activists on “the other side of the debate” were claiming homosexuality is “a compulsion.” (Of course, we can assume that’s not what they really said, but that’s what was made up by some news writers).
    The original comments were far too easy to twist into a source of more misunderstanding on the part of the ignorant masses.
    Just say you’re bisexual. NOBODY is disputing that you chose both your present and former individual partners, so let’s not pretend that’s a topic of debate.

  5. Hollywood, Ca says

    If you pay TAXES = You get all THE RIGHTS. How about that? Does that sound fair and EQUAL to everyone? If you pay to see a movie, you get to see the entire movie, from trailer to credits. Not this BS where some people can see the credits, some people can see trailer… all should be equal!

  6. RandySF says

    I’m glad she finally said this. It does take a lot to (sort of) admit that you were wrong.

    Had she said this in the original article her entire point would have been fairly strong. Instead she upset a lot of people and made herself look foolish in the process. Hopefully she’ll start to feel more comfortable with her bisexuality in the future.

  7. says

    she didn’t make herself look foolish. a large number of gay people made themselves look foolish by freaking out over her statement, which my gay ass totally understood.

    truly.

    only the most plebeian folks in our communities didn’t understand what she said.

  8. Tim NC says

    @ Little KIWI…. The point of the controversy wasn’t what the people in the LGBT community could figure out that she really meant. It was what the right-wing bigots would do with her statement that she chose to be gay. the right-wing wouldn’t be generous in “figuring out” what she really meant. They would have just forged ahead and used her statement to bash the LGBT community.

  9. Sancho says

    I somehow don’t think Nixon is a reader of Michel Foucault, but it’s interesting that her comments do reflect the conflict between two philosophical views of homosexual identity: either that it’s what you ARE, or that (Foucault’s argument) it’s a social category determined by what you DO. In her earlier comments, Nixon seemed to be arguing based on the latter idea: that she is gay BECAUSE she’s in a same-sex relationship. Foucault’s argument isn’t too popular in America outside of academic circles.

  10. Rafa says

    As a public figure who has the potential to influence others through her coverage in the media, I hope she has learned her lesson with regards to comments towards the gay community. We’ve never picked her as our spokes person, and I’m sure we wont. But imagine being 12 or 14 and hearing that some Bisexual actress said that her Lesbianism was really a choice, and that Homosexuality really is a choice? She dragged our name in the mud… I don’t have any Lesbian friends.

  11. says

    y’al keep forgetting that “the right wing” choose to ignore any and every piece of scientific evidence that points toward Evolution, and they choose instead to favor the baseless mythology of Creationism.

    why, then, do you think any form of scientific data will make them give a damn about sexual orientations or gender-identities?

    these bigots choose what they want to see and hear. whatever suits their peabrains.

    you’re also all forgetting that the bigots don’t say “being gay is a choice!” as if things that are a choice are inherently negative. they’re saying being gay is WRONG. BAD.

    Ms. Nixon isn’t.

    the “lie” isn’t that that bigots say being gay is a choice, the lie is that they say it’s a negative and hamrful choice.

    attempt to understand that.

  12. shane says

    I’m headed to Little Kiwi’s blog. I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to click on the link, considering how many times he’s told “RICK” to post his own URL (hilarious hammering, btw, LK). Smart commenter…and that SANCHO referencing Michel Foucault… what a thread!

  13. says

    There’s so much more to “why LGBT people deserve equality” besides “they can’t help being born that way”, and i’m frankly stunned at how many people don’t see that.

    a bisexual woman makes a choice to have a gay partner and a gay identity and suddenly a whole bunch of GAY MEN insist that she’s “misrepresenting them”

    uh…..rriiiiiiight…

  14. KM says

    If you actually read her initial comments without just glossing over them and are still freaking out over them you are a complete moron and are no better than Fred Phelps or any other number of intolerant bigots who think their way is the only correct way.

  15. James says

    Just because there’s more to it than “they can’t help being born that way” doesn’t mean Cynthia’s opposing statement (“it is a choice”) is right. You’re stunned that people don’t see it the way you do because you’re too self-righteous and convinced you’re more evolved than everyone else. Superiority complex much? Next time you’re surprised and wondering why people don’t see things your way and they need to ‘wake up’ and ‘attempt to understand,’ it may be because you’re close-minded. Just a thought.

  16. says

    The problem wasn’t whether you knew what she “really meant.” It was that she was telling this complicated mess to avoid claiming she identifies as a group that she feels nobody likes, and that she was complaining that she was asked not to tell this lie, (it was a lie) at a speech to empower gay people! I can’t believe her nerve, or another word she says in her life. She is flaky and wants to make statements and that’s not a good combination, so hopefully the publicist that wrote that statement will keep her occupied with a nice coloring book and maybe let her make statements into dead mics once in a while when she needs to feel important or sell something.

  17. says

    right. i’m closed-minded to the idea that a bisexual woman stating that she’s chosen a gay identity and a gay relationship and is proud and empowered by it is somehow wrong and harmful.

    riiiiiight.

    if it makes me self-righteous to understand her statement then i’ll wear being self-righteous with pride. i’m not wondering why people don’t see things my way. i’m wondering why gay men like you, James, are so self-centred that you hear a statement a woman makes about herself and can only think about how it pertains to YOU.

    yeah. exactly.

  18. TJ says

    For the sake of all, please post no more on CN. For some, nothing she says will ever be good enough. It’s depressing. She is a bisexual who chose to be in a lesbian relationship, so for her, she did choose. But somehow, her stating her simple truth (and desperately trying to re-state it in order to please her vitriolic critics) has put her right up there with Ann Coulter as the enemy, to be vilified ad nauseum.

    KIWI is right. They don’t hate us because it is a choice. They hate us because we are abominations. You want marriage equality? No. You want special rights. You want to change the definition of marriage to validate relationships that aren’t as good or valid. Born that way? Well, alcoholics might be pre-disposed genetically. But their drinking is still wrong. Even if you can’t help your orientation, you can control your behavior. Pedophiles are attracted to children. They say that that’s just the way they are. But it’s still wrong. Control your behavior. Prefer having sex with animals? You are sick. Get help. Control your behavior.

    See how that works?

  19. Jim says

    So, I guess this was all a publicity stunt for “Wit”? I am so suspicious of everything that I see in the media these days. I wish people would understand that, these days, there IS such a thing as BAD publicity!

  20. sara says

    I also think it was all for publicity. I read the NY Times OP Ed defending her & I did see several comments that used what she said as a justification against gay marriage.

    For ex a commenter wrote: “Why are so many people upset about this? Why do they want to desperately give her a label like “bisexual”? Maybe its because an assertion like Ms. Nixon’s destroys the argument that sexual orientation is innate and permanent. Destroy the innate and permanent argument, and gay people no longer fit into a legally protected class of people, given past Supreme Court doctrine.”

    Not to say this gentlemen is right, but statements like hers do add fuel to the Right. Maybe if you’re a Canadian, like some of the posters here & you already have legal gay marriage, then you can trivialize everyone as being overreactive. The US however, is still doing battle on this issue & everything said can be used for or against you.

  21. TJ says

    SARA – Type 2 diabetes is greatly affected by behavior. Abuse your body through diet and reap the rewards. Look at the vilification of Paula Deen. Through her choices, she developed diabetes. But we should never mention diet, because that would make it seem a choice, and how would that affect attitudes towards those with Type 1? Of course, it gets complicated when you add in genetic propensity, because I could eat the same things as Paula Deen and not develop diabetes. And the type 1 and type 2 thing – you mean, there are people who have diabetes and have no choice?

    My obscure point here is that for some people, the fact that the world is complicated is, well, too complicated. Either/or, black/white – so much easier to understand. Do you pander to those who want no more homework ever, and walk on eggshells, or do you step up and embrace diversity and complexity and say that for some people, there may be more choices than there are for others, and it doesn’t make any of them bad?

  22. GregV says

    “…or do you step up and embrace diversity and complexity…”
    Yes, and empbracing the beauty of that diversity is what she should have done in the first place, by ignoring the bigotry of anyone who would look down on bisexuals and being accepting and true to who she really is.

    “…and say that for some people, there may be more choices than there are for others…”

    Clearly bisexuals have some choices available to them that straight and gay people do not have.
    But no one ever disputes that we choose our partners (in spite of the fact that some right-wing bigots try to argue against that strawman as if anyone has ever disputed that).
    Gay, straight AND bi people choose their partners. Cynthia has chosen her partners past and present. That’s not a point of debate and nobody needs clarification that she chose the partner she has.

    She’s didn’t choose to be bi either, but she is and it’s a wonderful thing to be. I wish she would fully accept it instead of making any attempt to confuse others into thinking she is something else that she thinks those others will find “more acceptable.”

  23. TJ says

    Okay, GREGV, she effed up. She should have embraced being Bi from the beginning. But, darn, she’s a fellow, fallible human being who made a public statement that clearly needed refinement, and now that she’s refined it, we still hold it against her because she’s fallible. Some days, you just can’t win for losing (or so my dad used to say). She is a public person who chose not to keep her relationship with her same-sex partner a secret. But she didn’t explain things well enough to satisfy everyone (of course, no one can, but hey, we can always have unreasonable expectations). Living out loud, without shame, isn’t enough. She also must be the ideal spokesperson.

    I didn’t ask CN to be my spokesperson. I speak for myself.

  24. Rin says

    Throw a rock at me for opening this can of worms, but “homosexuality” as we know it is “new”. The ancients believed you were a penetrator or an enveloper and established your masculine street cred in such a manner. Men who penetrated, penetrated both women and men. Oooops, and eunuchs. Men who received were on the degraded end of society for being “womanly”.

    They did not even understand men (or women) who preferred both positions, just as we (today) do not understand persons who prefer both sexes.

    For thousands of years this was the prevailing thought. This is how society was coordinated. Which is why I wonder if in an attempt to label or identify a trait we have created a larger conundrum. Perhaps, we are all to an extent bisexuals (tops or bottoms) and do not understand it as such because of cultural socialization?

    Or, the ancients could be flat wrong and we’re all right.

    And….Hi TJ!!! **waves**

  25. TJ says

    >waves back< Hey RIN, long time no read!

    Penetrators and envelopers. Latino culture is similar (or so I’m told). I’ve known a few Latinos, however, who were quite adept at both. So glad they never read the manual.

  26. HarryJoseph says

    UGH Over this. But something tells me that since no one has talked about her since sex and the city and now she has a new project she is working on I think once the first interview got tons of negative comments her PR people ran with it and now every new statement includes a mention of the new project with a new bald headed pic. Great way to get FREE PRESS by using the gay community to further ignorant ideas.

  27. BROWN says

    THIS TYPE OF LIFESTYLE IS VERY VERY WRONG.
    OUR CREATOR BURNED UP SOSOM AND GOMORRAH BECAUSE OF THIS LIFESTYLE. IT IS AGAINST GOD IT IS WRONG WRONG. PRAY TO GOD FOR FORGIVENESS. HE WILL FORGIVE YOU. IF YOU CONTINUE IN THIS LIFESTYLE YOU ALL WILL BURN IN HELL.

Leave A Reply