Misunderstanding Peter Tatchell
Currents
Peter Tatchell’s recent cover story for Queer Majority, “Sex Beyond Labels", which celebrates past progress on LGB rights and looks to a future where people can be freer from constraint in defining their sexuality, has triggered a firestorm in activist circles. His Kinseyan conception of sexuality as a spectrum in which many people fall somewhere between the two ends prompted anger from parts of the online queer community, as did his speculation that the importance of related labels will fade as bigotry declines. Interpreting his words as an assault on gayness, or an argument that bisexuality is in some sense “better” or more enlightened than homosexuality, some perceived his thoughts on the declining relevance of labels as an erasure of gays and lesbians, and even likened them to gay conversion therapy. These readers considered his marveling at how far LGB rights have come as downplaying the bigotry that still occurs. They were also offended by his suggestion that there might be a social component to homosexuality or same-sex attraction. This notion is one of those curious no-no’s on the left. As Andrew Sullivan once observed, “For the right-tribe, everything is genetic except homosexuality; for the left-tribe, nothing is genetic except homosexuality.”
There is an element of bad faith in this outrage. Peter Tatchell is a gay man, internationally known as an LGBT rights activist for 55 years, who has placed his life at risk fighting for queer rights both in Western countries and in homophobic dictatorships abroad. In the Netflix documentary Hating Peter Tatchell, we see Peter take repeated fists to the head, to the point of permanent brain damage, over the course of decades protesting in the street for gay and human rights. It is almost comically absurd, and yet galling beyond endurance, to see people a third his age – who have not faced a hundredth of the adversity he has, in part because of people like him – accuse him of homophobia and treat his words as violence. As Stephen Fry remarked, “He [Tatchell] deserves recognition for his extraordinary contribution to the happiness of millions who’ve never heard of him.” None of this places Tatchell above error or criticism, but this man has earned respect whether everyone agrees with his words or not. He has earned, at the very least, a fair hearing without a rush to uncharitable judgment.
Some critics have charged Tatchell with making false claims regarding the nature of homosexuality and bisexuality. This simply isn’t the case. The modern concept of sexual orientation was invented by Karl-Maria Kertbeny with deliberately clear meanings. Homosexuality literally means same-sex attracted, heterosexuality literally means different-sex attracted, and bisexuality literally means both same-sex and different-sex attracted. This means bisexuality is a broad spectrum that includes not only individuals with roughly 50/50 male/female attractions, but anyone not one hundred percent gay or straight. It represents a bridging of same- and different sex attractions. Of course there are also many people whose attractions are exclusively heterosexual or homosexual - and that includes Peter Tatchell himself, who is by no means advocating for ignoring that distinction. He is merely pointing out that, for many people, their sexual orientation is not so exclusive, and that a significant and growing share of the population admits this about themselves today.
This is compatible with the ways our understanding of human sexuality were expanded by Alfred Kinsey and later Fritz Klein, both of whom attempted to quantify the spectrum of sexual orientation as well as the ways in which people’s perceptions of their own sexuality changed over time. Their research demonstrated that the way people self-identify is informed not only by innate predispositions, but by culture as well. Contemporary scholars such as Lisa Diamond have confirmed these findings. This data does not invalidate anyone’s experiences or feelings, nor does it mean sexual orientation is a choice; it merely offers a more holistic and accurate way to conceptualize sexuality.
Other objections to Tatchell’s words are more political. Proponents of ideologies on the far-left, including radical feminism, queer theory, and certain strains or offshoots of Marxism, have found reasons to criticize Tatchell’s article. These factions often embrace an intense antipathy toward our society and in some cases harbor extreme separatist attitudes, which they justify with the narrative of a great struggle between oppressor (the cisheteropatriarchy) and oppressed (LGBT people). Tatchell’s discussion of the incredible progress we have seen, his invocation of the moral arc of history, his vision of a world free from “the struggle” – these things pose a direct threat to that narrative because it relies upon the belief that the world today is more unjust than ever and that only the complete overthrow of liberal democracy and capitalism can save us.
There is a reason extremists routinely exaggerate the problems in society or downplay progress. Some even actively want our current society to fail and fall apart. Under ordinary circumstances, the majority of the public rejects their ideas. People, however, become more open to otherwise unpalatable ideas if they are desperate, so it is in the interest of these extreme factions to sell the false notion that the sky is falling, that society is an irredeemable hellscape, and that only their plans can deliver us to salvation. Illiberal radicalism thrives in doomerism, and its kryptonite is an optimistic perspective. Anyone who publicly envisions a future without the problems these activists rely upon for their drama and conspiracy theories is essentially cock-blocking their agenda.
There is another reason that progress scares people. The timeless dilemma of the crusading activist is what to do with yourself when you have achieved your goals. If your sense of purpose is linked to a particular journey, what happens when you reach your destination? For many, this problem is resolved by continuously moving the goalposts and replotting new destinations far over the horizon. Others instead deny that the destination has already been reached and attack anyone who disagrees. This phenomenon seems superficially political, but like much of this outrage, it comes from a far deeper place than politics.
There are two camps talking past one another in this conflict. The Tatchell school of thought, shared by many liberals, is a vision of a post-label society not just in LGBT matters, but in many areas. The liberal ideal is for society to eventually move past the arbitrary traits by which we divide ourselves. All liberal social progress is in service of the ultimate goal of human solidarity and unity. Liberals rejoice at the progress we have made on LGBT rights, and look forward to further progress, to a hopefully not-too-distant future where one’s sexual orientation is no more controversial than someone’s hair color or their favorite flavor of ice cream. Tatchell did not say that gay people no longer face bigotry (especially globally) or that they should stop being gay (he is actively campaigning against conversion therapy as I write these words!), nor did he say that any other sexual orientation is “better” than homosexuality. Instead, he looks ahead to a time when fewer people feel the need to label themselves at all. In such a world, sexual orientation would still exist, but the words used to define it would no longer be a core part of so many people’s identity.
Tatchell’s critics are unable to see it that way because their worldview is fundamentally different. They belong to the left-identitarian school of thought favored by many younger progressives, especially online, which is deeply invested in these categories and identity labels. The intensely personal response triggered by Tatchell’s viewpoint is only possible among people emotionally committed to and defending something it renders less viable. To an old-school liberal, the ideal of de-emphasizing identity labels is not merely desirable, it’s common sense. Such labels are meant to describe, not to divide. To a left-identitarian, this prospect is synonymous with being erased as a person. It’s like asking them to willingly step into a particle accelerator and be atomized. Their sense of identity — their attachment to these clearly delineated labels and categories — is their existential mooring; it’s how they define themselves, the fulcrum around which they orient their lives. With this in mind, it makes perfect sense that they defend these categories with the ferocity of a rattled hornet’s nest, but it also begs the question of whether identity is supposed to be used as a permanent existential crutch.
Still, it’s easy to see why beleaguered minority groups lean into identity and turn to in-group/out-group thinking. The appeal is clear, and no one can blame them. Circling the wagons is a defensive tactic that is often necessary in times of hostility or unequal treatment. The journey from oppressed minority to full acceptance sometimes requires the embrace of a tribal minority state. It’s a martial law of the spirit, invoked in times of emergency – but it is supposed to be a transitional phase. It’s no one’s idea of a healthy way to permanently live. To gain full equality and move beyond tribalism, the transcendence of this mindset has to be the end goal. The desire to forever preserve the borders in which we find ourselves today is the desire for arrested development. It is to be an identity junky, tapping your veins for that next hit. If everything you feel that you are is wrapped up within these constructs, the prospect of a future where they aren’t all-important might seem like a future without you – but you are more than that.
When Peter Tatchell imagines a future where homosexuality — not the act, or the love, but the word, the label, the identity — becomes less salient to our politics and our culture, is he advancing homophobic ideas? What strikes me as homophobic is wanting to keep gay people forever locked into boxes, to reject the possibility of a world in which queer people transition past being minority outsiders to attain full global citizenship — not just on paper, but in mind and spirit.
The future isn’t yours. It isn’t mine. It doesn’t belong to us. It belongs to those who come after us, and it seems to me that the desire to build a more self-actualized future for them goes to the core of the true liberal ideal. That means a future with the freedom to grow, to explore, and to push outward — and the freedom from unnecessary constraints. A future where the lines that divide human beings come to mean less, where what matters most is what you do and not what you are. We should want better for them, even if it means wanting a future we might not recognize.
We are products of our own time, but our grandchildren don’t have to be products of our time too. They can be more than us. They deserve a world where they are truly boundless and free.
