Bisexual | Cynthia Nixon | News

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."

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

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. 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!

    Posted by: shane | Jan 30, 2012 7:12:41 PM

  2. If I had to make a choice about anything, it would be never to see that disturbing photo of her again.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jan 30, 2012 7:14:34 PM

  3. 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"


    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 30, 2012 7:29:19 PM

  4. 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.

    Posted by: KM | Jan 30, 2012 7:38:40 PM

  5. 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.

    Posted by: James | Jan 30, 2012 7:47:41 PM

  6. 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.

    Posted by: burning_plastic | Jan 30, 2012 7:49:56 PM

  7. 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.


    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.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 30, 2012 7:57:24 PM

  8. 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?

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 30, 2012 8:16:43 PM

  9. TJ, i choose to gay marry you.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 30, 2012 8:22:13 PM

  10. KIWI - polygamy is an abomination. ;>)

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 30, 2012 8:34:37 PM

  11. more than we needed. Her play should be renamed TWIT. Consider the source.

    Posted by: David B. | Jan 30, 2012 8:44:39 PM

  12. 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!

    Posted by: Jim | Jan 30, 2012 9:51:51 PM

  13. She is STILL talking? Oh gosh ... I'm so over her.


    Posted by: FunMe | Jan 30, 2012 10:48:52 PM

  14. 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.

    Posted by: sara | Jan 30, 2012 10:48:59 PM

  15. 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?

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 30, 2012 11:50:48 PM

  16. "...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."

    Posted by: GregV | Jan 31, 2012 1:21:54 AM

  17. 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.

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 31, 2012 2:05:09 AM

  18. "Okay, GREGV, she effed up." There's a sentence Little Kiwi would never say.

    Posted by: Pahima | Jan 31, 2012 6:13:21 AM

  19. 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**

    Posted by: Rin | Jan 31, 2012 9:45:07 AM

  20. >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.

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 31, 2012 1:00:45 PM

  21. PAHIMA - i'm hoping that was not the only line in my post that you read..

    Posted by: TJ | Jan 31, 2012 1:04:10 PM

  22. 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.

    Posted by: HarryJoseph | Jan 31, 2012 1:10:25 PM

  23. OMG - shut up, Cynthia Nixon. Shut up. Please shut up.

    Posted by: James | Jan 31, 2012 6:34:03 PM


    Posted by: BROWN | Apr 21, 2012 8:25:56 PM

  25. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Shaun White's Perfect 100 HalfPipe: VIDEO« «