Homosexuality's Origins Not Relevant to Debate

To the editors:

I am writing to thank The Crimson for covering Tuesday's rally against homophobia, as well as to rectify an impression left by the story (News, "Yard March Protests Homophobia," Oct. 27).

My statements, as quoted by the article, imply that we should not subject the validity of homosexuality to debate because it has a biological basis.

In truth, my speech argued the opposite: even if homosexuality is socially constructed and historically situated, it's still very real. Queerness is a way of being; it's about whom and how you love and not debatable because of ethical, rather than anatomical, reasons.

In pursuing an anti-homophobic politics, I find the quest for homosexuality's origins completely uninteresting. If queerness is biological, homophobes will abort proto-gay fetuses or correct "gay genes" and enlarged hypothalami; if it's constructed, they'll send their proto-gay children to therapy.

Ultimately, homosexuality's origins mean little when we're talking about the right to equal treatment.

Michael K. T. Tan '01

Oct. 27, 1999

The writer is the co-chair of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters' Alliance.