Rhetoric and Etiological Beliefs About Sexuality: Reader Responses to Cynthia Nixon’s New York Times Interview

ABSTRACT

In 2012, the U.S. actress Cynthia Nixon was quoted in the New York Times Magazine as having stated that “for me, it [being gay] is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.” The interview attracted international media attention and public criticism by lesbian and gay activists. This article suggests a rhetorical approach to understanding etiological beliefs and provides a discursive analysis of 198 online comments by readers of Pink News, a gay news Web site that reported on Nixon’s controversial interview. This article explores common arguments used in readers’ comments about Nixon and examines the rhetorical construction of sexuality. The analysis examines three themes within the data. First, biological essentialism was treated by many readers as common knowledge; second, readers suggested that only bisexuals have “choice”; and, third, it was suggested by both Nixon’s critics and her supporters that counterarguments colluded with homophobia. The article suggests that there is an ideological dilemma whereby both “born-this-way” and “choice” arguments can be understood as colluding with anti-gay prejudice.

KEYWORDS:

• Discursive
• essentialism
• etiological beliefs
• rhetoric
• sexual orientation

Notes

^1. The U.S. media coined the term “Twinkie defense” during coverage of the trial of Dan White for several murders including the murder of Harvey Milk. White claimed diminished responsibility due to depression, of which a change in diet to sugary foods such as Twinkies was said to be a symptom. The term has since been used more widely to refer to any defense that seeks to evade personal responsibility.