Any feminist who believes language isn't critical to the fight against all forms of bigotry, or thinks definitions can't be changed, should take a moment to reflect upon (and celebrate !) a spectacularly successful linguistic coup from the 20th Century.

For centuries, "gay" was a benign little word, with no obvious connection to sexual orientation. (Consensual sex seemed to make people "gay" - as in "joyous" and "cheerful" - with no regard to the genders involved...). But when a few pioneers in the 1920's replaced the clinical term "homosexual" and a seemingly endless list of negative words with "gay," then the new definition became widely used by the general public after the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969, it had a powerful, immediate, and long-lasting impact on both that community and society at large in regard to how homosexuality was viewed.

Unfortunately, this lesson in the power of language was not lost on the opposition, who were more than happy to identify themselves with one of the most powerful and judgmental words in the English language: "Straight."

"GAY" AND "STRAIGHT" ARE NOT EQUAL

When a progressive group like "Rock the Vote" puts out ads urging people "gay and straight" to go to the polls, and activists rightly concerned with the physical and verbal assaults on gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered students courageously lobby for "Gay/Straight Alliance" clubs on campus, they're doing everything they consciously can to fight "the last acceptable prejudice." But unconscious, uncritical adoption of "straight" as a synonym for "heterosexual" repeatedly and subliminally teaches that being attracted to someone of another gender is inherently "decent," "honorable," and "moral," whereas anyone with a same-sex attraction can be none of those things, so they must be "bent," "crooked," and "warped." "Straight" represents every propagandist's fondest dream: A word so ordinary, yet so powerful that it can hammer a message home without ever being noticed, and like an ideal "Trojan Horse," will even be accepted by some you want to oppress.

OVERTHROWING SEXUAL "ROYALTY"

What makes the misuse of "straight" so antifeminist is that its chief function is to reinforce Heterosexism, an ideology which violates the most basic definition of equality by automatically granting prestige and privilege to someone, not in recognition of any universally praiseworthy behavior, or hard-won personal accomplishment, but simply because of an accident of birth.

Heterosexism has no more of a rational basis than monarchy, another institution which, until recently, was virtually universal, presumed to be "divinely ordained," and seen by most as necessary for the survival and keeping of order in society. But "equality" was an idea so powerful that once it finally took hold, within just a few generations it overthrew or reduced to mere symbolism nearly every monarch on the planet, then went on to attack the equally entrenched - and unjustifiable - institutions of sexism and racism, because they, too, had no objective basis on which to arbitrarily deem some superior to others.

Now it's time to complete the cycle, by questioning some of the premises of Heterosexism, see if they have any rational basis, and if not, come up with a non-sexist, non-homophobic, pro-sexual, non-conformist way for people to "earn" the prestige and privilege of being referred to as "straight" if they choose to do so. (I'm quite supportive of those who would NOT want to use the term to describe themselves, even if it were redefined, and who give great thought to choosing the word which best fits the statement they wish to make. But this essay is concerned with how "straight" is used and understood by most people, and why it is presently damaging the fight for equality.)

FIVE HETEROSEXIST MYTHS WHICH HAVE DEFINED "STRAIGHTNESS"

Though there are as many excuses for Heterosexism as there are individuals who need to derive satisfaction from a totally undeserved feeling of superiority, five of the most common are:

(1) Human beings are overwhelmingly, and by nature, heterosexual, so anything else is by definition "abnormal."

(2) Heterosexual - and not homosexual - activity naturally creates families, and since the production and raising of children is the most basic and important duty of any society, heterosexuals deserve "special status."

(3) The "homosexual lifestyle" is inherently unhealthy, self-destructive, and threatening to society.

(4) Unlike race or gender, homosexuality involves both a behavior and a choice, and society has a right to discriminate against immoral behaviors, and encourage people to make good choices.

(5) Religion clearly and universally says that homosexuality is wrong.

(1) "ABNORMAL" VS. "ATYPICAL"

Defining what's "typical" is a simple and non-judgmental numbers game, but the definition of "normality" is not, and can be a tool for enforcing "conformity." "Abnormality" must involve some sort of objective condition which in and of itself causes harm to an individual, or someone else. Homosexuality is no more "abnormal" than left-handedness, and the American Psychiatric Association removed it from its list of disorders in 1973.

(2) IT'S NOT ABOUT CHILDBEARING

In a society where sex without pregnancy is the norm (thanks to contraception) and pregnancy without sex (via sperm banks and surrogate mothers) is common, whatever connection people may intuitively make between heterosexuality and societal survival is no longer valid. "Pronatalist" attitudes which exalt fertility made sense for little bands of hunter- gatherers desperately trying to keep birth rates one small step ahead of mortality rates, in ancient city-states where security was directly proportional to the supply of young male warriors, and in a 19th Century American farming culture where a seemingly endless supply of land - after being stolen from its rightful Native-American owners - seemed to beg for settlement. (Of course, in ALL these societies, insisting that a woman's value and purpose must relate to the production and raising of children was - just coincidentally - a very effective way to keep her from achieving equal status and power.)

Today, with a billion people added to the planet every ten years, extinction by under- population is hardly our immediate problem. Modern military power depends not on numbers, but on the sophistication of its weaponry and skill of its male AND female warriors in using the tools of the trade. And in a high tech, urban civilization, economic prosperity is dependent upon innovation, and utilizing the talents of ALL its people, not simply to explosive population growth. So, the quality of family life in a society has replaced the concern about quantity, and that's good for everyone concerned as well as the planet itself.

As feminists, we should always challenge ANY societal assumptions about life's roles. (19% of women aged 40-44 have no children - some by chance, some by making a deliberate choice, and those who made that choice deserve respect for overcoming intense social programming, as well as peer and family pressures). We should also recognize that many same-sex couples ARE raising children, and studies show that they do at least as good a job of parenting as "traditional" families despite lacking the support and approval different-sex couples take for granted. So surely it's time to start being "profamilies" (couples without children, single parents, and same sex couples raising children) instead of just "pro traditional / patriarchal family" and "anti" all others.

(3) "HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE" OR "MALE LIFESTYLE" ?

Yes, admittedly, there is evidence that for many members of a certain group, sex and love may be totally separate things which may, happily and occasionally, coincide. And according to surveys, a great many of these people would gladly have casual sex with ANY total stranger who they did not find "totally unattractive." But this can't be a rational justification for homophobia, since the group just described is the male half of the human race.

So, the reason some gay men have a lot of partners isn't because they're GAY, it's because they're MEN ! If heterosexual men had traditionally enjoyed the opportunity to have no-strings-attached encounters with an unlimited supply of attractive, enthusiastic women, I think you'd see comparable numbers. (And, perhaps less hypocrisy. Heterosexual men criticizing gay men for having "too many" partners seem a bit like the snail denouncing the cheetah for "excessive speed." If a snail could go 50 miles an hour, it would, then brag about it, so let's not confuse "virtue" with a lack of opportunity, guys.....).

In what is by far and away the biggest and most successful propaganda campaign of the Religious Right, they've succeeded in inventing a nonsense phrase ("homosexual lifestyle") and turned it into an effective indoctrination tool which allows them to say things by implication that would be laughed at if said directly.

If anyone claimed: "Everyone with a same-sex orientation is male, young, lives in a large city, engages in compulsively promiscuous, unprotected sex, and suffers from AIDS," virtually anyone not wearing a hood or swastika armband would immediately pick up on the obvious errors. But next time you watch a debate whose original topic was supposed to be "homosexuality," count the microseconds it takes to deftly switch the topic to the inherent dangers of this one-and-only "homosexual lifestyle," and how kindly, loving Fundamentalists can "save" people from it in the only possible way, by "converting" them to heterosexuality.

It's time to recognize that no matter what their sexual identity or orientation, human beings have an incredible VARIETY of lifestyles, from the most praiseworthy and responsible, to the most predatory and destructive. Regardless of where someone's actions put them on a moral spectrum, their sexual orientation was not the "cause" of their exemplary, reprehensible, or somewhat ordinary behavior, it is simply coincidental to it. Sexual orientation is NOT a choice, character is. So let's start "converting" people of ALL orientations to that ideal.

(4) TELL US ABOUT YOUR CHOICE, REVEREND ......

Since a "choice" involves having at least two viable alternatives to choose from, I'm constantly amazed at how often the most militant homophobes become the best witnesses against their own case. Time after time, they insist that no one is "born that way," but when asked at what pointthey "chose" to be heterosexual, how they made their "choice," and just what other alternatives they were considering when they were young, well ...... apparently people ARE born with their sexual orientation fixed and unchangeable.

(5) "RELIGION" VS. "MORALITY"

"Religion," as a universal and unchanging set of beliefs about the nature and wishes of supernatural beings, has never existed. What began at least 25,000 years ago, and thrives today, is a stunning variety of religions, each with a unique view of the universe, and our purpose and place in it. All of these many thousands of branches of religious thought fashion a system of right and wrong based on a subjective, nonverifiable / nondisprovable belief, and combine basic, common-sense rules of behavior and admirably altruistic and commendable ideals with some rather suspiciously human prejudices and attitudes typical of their time and place of origin.

As someone who believes in equality, I welcome and gratefully acknowledge the contributions of those whose fight against ANY form of prejudice was religiously motivated. However, neither their work or their motivation validates or excuses any other portion of their religious doctrine which condones or mandates inequality.

If someone wishes to say that a behavior violates the beliefs of a particular religion, then so long as the basic text is clear, and properly translated from the original, they are simply stating an objective fact. Providing society assures dissenters freedom of - and from - religion, their statement is neither an insult nor a threat.

Should someone go a step farther, and say that because they have freely chosen to live their life according to the teachings of a particular religion, and will not engage in behaviors which violate its laws, they're making a statement of principle deserving of great respect.

However, should anyone take a third step, and declare that the principles of their personal religion are the only definition of "morality", and without any other rational, or secular justification than that demand that someone be deprived of ANY right enjoyed by ANY citizen, they're making an egotistical and bigoted statement deserving of no respect whatsoever, and which should be vigorously challenged.

To believe that yours is the "One True Religion" and that it therefore has the right to arbitrarily set behavioral and moral standards for all, presumes one of three things:

(1) You - and not the billions of others whose beliefs may differ from your own in some meaningful way - have the ability to distinguish "truth" from "myth" without objective, independently verifiable proof.

(2) If, like most people, you have simply accepted some slightly modified version of what your parents taught you, then you are of the opinion that your family is inherently superior in intelligence or insight to families around the world who continue to ignorantly teach their less fortunate children myths and lies.

(3) You have had personal "revelations" from a divine source, and have interpreted them correctly, while others have "delusions" or "misinterpret" these insights into the supernatural.

Regardless of what you believe, or why you believe it, your right to live your own life by those principles should be assured. But the price for being free from having the beliefs of others forced on YOU must always be to give up the right to force YOUR beliefs on others. In a free society - the kind that people around the world strive to get into, as opposed to the kind of repressive theocracies people try to escape - laws and policies require an objective, secular basis, and must be applied with the goal of insuring equal treatment, protection, and opportunity for all, right from birth. If such a wise thinker as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" could still totally obliterate the rights of those he held in slavery for no reason other than the color of their skin, and never lift a finger in support of freeing ANY woman of his time from the "civil death" they underwent upon marriage, I hardly think we can safely trust our freedoms - or the definition of morality - to the motley assortment of political hacks and would-be American Ayatollahs of today.

"REDEFINE" OR "DISCARD"?

If "straight" is a heterosexist term, why not just get rid of it? Because unlike many inherently biased or insulting terms, it could be stripped of its recent homophobic meaning, be given a new, positive feminist definition, and be as useful to us over the next few decades as it has been to antifeminists for the past three.

A DELIGHTFUL SPECTRUM OF "STRAIGHTNESS"

We're all painfully familiar with how words can be used to control and repress by using positive ones to describe behaviors that are in compliance with patriarchal principles, and negative ones to describe those which are not. (Make a list of words most people would use to describe a hard-driving male executive vs. a similar female one, for example.) So, it's only natural to be suspicious that any definition of "straight" will either slip into a similar trap or construct an alternate form of conformity.

But just as words can be used to restrict and repress, they can also be used to liberate, and to celebrate diversity. One advantage of consciously and deliberately inventing or redefining a word is that its meaning CAN be carefully considered and debated.

Certainly, one of feminism's most basic assumptions is that we're NOT all alike, so "straightness" can't be used as a tool to enforce uniformity in regard to any sexual orientation, identity or lifestyle. (These are separate concepts, by the way. Your sexual orientation or identity was fixed long before your first sexual experience, and does not "disappear" or become dormant between sexual experiences. It involves far more than sex, and has to do with how you view women and men, and even if you never had another sexual experience in your life, you'd still be just as heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered as you are today).

"STRAIGHTNESS" AS A FEMINIST VALUE

Though antifeminists and religious absolutists like to pretend that society's only choice is between "traditional values" and "no values," that's nonsense. One of the things that attracted me to feminism was that it provided the basic tools for deriving a comprehensive and strict (but not arbitrary) moral code with the ideal of "equality" at its core.

I make no apologies for believing that those behaviors which are consistent with the basic principles of equality should be promoted and rewarded, and those which are not should be condemned, and in some cases punished. Feminists don't want to live in a society where no moral distinctions are made between rape and consensual sex, honesty and lies, or between people who take responsibility for their actions and those who don't.

So, let's define a sexually "straight" person as someone who conducts their sex life on the same principle of equality as they would use in any other area of life: They treat others with the same dignity, respect, and consideration that they would want for themselves, and take personal responsibility for their actions.

CONSENT

Though society's definition of "consent" can still include nearly anything that's at least one step short of the legal definition of rape, "straightness" is quite strict about what it is. It doesn't simply mean an absence of coercion: It means making an affirmative effort to be certain that consent is fully and freely given. Regardless of any other circumstances, a partner must be old enough and mentally alert enough to give consent in the first place. If a relationship between the partners exists, "straightness" demands that sexual encounters not only be free from any form of threat or intimidation, but that the partners do the work necessary to become so secure about themselves, and about the relationship that the right to say "no" at any time, and for any reason is taken for granted. There is no "right" to say "yes" without an equally strong right to say "no," and this principle needs to be promoted in society at large as the "missing half of sexual liberation."

Of course, though there are many good reasons why someone might choose not to engage in sex outside of a genuinely loving, well-established relationship, there's no objective reason why that must be the only "moral" choice. Though antisexual ideologues give the impression that sex is something "inherently bad", in need of being "transformed" into something "good" by the supernatural and/or civil sanctions of a marriage ceremony, a more rational view is that sex is something inherently wonderful, which can be transformed into something bad if associated with force, deception, or irresponsibility. As long as no partner is deliberately misled in regard to whether a casual encounter will lead to a relationship, and no relevant facts are withheld which might influence their decision to consent or not, then as long as no form of psychological or physical intimidation was used, it's fully consensual sex, and is just as "straight" as the most committed relationship.

INTEGRITY AND HONESTY

Though the witness list runs into the billions, and their names can be found on everything from today's newspaper to the oldest clay tablets of ancient Sumeria, only one brief example will be needed to prove my contention that "straightness" should be defined by something other than sexual orientation.

If the most appropriate word to describe Newt Gingrich's sexuality is "straight," then words have no meaning, and you may feel free to call me a "pop-up toaster." After dumping his first wife because she got ill, cheating on his second with the woman who was to become his third, he went on to the floor of the House to denounce Bill Clinton for doing precisely the same thing that he was doing: Having an adulterous relationship with a subordinate female employee in his office on "company time." The antics and hypocrisy of Newt, plus the long history of serial adultery by Bill Clinton (cheating is NOT a feminist value, because it involves dishonesty and treating a spouse as less than an equal by expecting them to be monogamous when you're not) gives ample bipartisan evidence that there ARE "bent," "warped," and "crooked" people, but that sexual orientation is not relevant to that determination.

Honesty is just another part of consent. To deny someone all the information they need to make a decision, whether by a deliberate deception, or omission of a key fact, denies them the right to make a fully informed, and therefore fully consensual, choice. And this isn't just an abstract philosophical issue these days, it's deadly serious. When you think about people who are at "ultra-high risk" for AIDS, and over two dozen other serious sexually transmitted diseases, don't overlook the faithfully married heterosexual who regularly has unprotected sex with their untested partner because they think they're in a mutually monogamous relationship, but are only half right. A partner who's 99.9% faithful can still make you 100% dead, so complete honesty must clearly be a part of any definition of "straightness." (Honesty also relates to pleasanter things: If partners are totally open right from the start about what IS and what IS NOT pleasurable, there is nothing better they could do to assure themselves of the best possible sex life.)

RESPONSIBILITY

Like it or not, "choice" and "responsibility" are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other in a value system based on equality, because since all actions have consequences, either YOU take responsibility for them or someone else does, and unless you can come up with some convincing evidence of your innate superiority (good luck, pal ....) then you're elected.

In regard to sexuality, it means making an effort to educate yourself about whatever the risks may be of any activity you engage in, doing whatever can be done to reduce those risks to a mutually acceptable level, and being willing and able to deal with any reasonably foreseeable consequences in the most responsible way available and appropriate to your own unique circumstances.

A WELCOME "CONVERSION"

Though attempts by militants to "convert" people to heterosexuality are as damaging as they are doomed to fail, and the theofascist attitudes which underlie these "recruitment" campaigns are disgustingly arrogant, there is a form of "attitudinal conversion" which would not only work, but which I would love to experience myself. Why? Because what it would take for me to change my mind, and begin using the word "straight" as a synonym for "heterosexual" again would be to establish a clear relationship between heterosexuality and feminist, equality-based values. When might this happen? Well.......

When I tune into a talk show and hear the guests happily discussing the fact that all over the country women's shelters are being consolidated or closed, not due to lack of funding, but because "men don't beat women," I'll be forced to admit that there must be something about opposite-sex attraction that makes people naturally respectful and non-violent.

When I read a series of stories about how the unplanned pregnancy rate has fallen to the same ultra-low levels as the failure rate for the most effective methods of contraception when conscientiously used, I'll have no choice but to agree that if men and women are that obsessive about their mutual responsibility for birth control, heterosexuality must be the cause.

When law enforcement officials report that child molestation has decreased by at least 90% because "heterosexuals don't do that anymore," I might start to give credibility to one of the most inaccurate of homophobic stereotypes.

When divorce becomes so uncommon that a marriage license represents not a meaningless, disposable piece of paper, but a genuine, lifelong, uniformly monogamous commitment, I'll start to believe that the opponents of gay & lesbian marriage are sincerely trying to protect a "sacred institution" rather than simply using the traditional definition of marriage as a way to legally and socially sanction homophobia.

And finally, when the heterosexual community demonstrates the kind of maturity, self-assurance, and commitment to equality it takes to renounce all claims to privilege and preference based on sexual orientation, and earns by individual examples the right to be called "straight," I'll be happy to begin using that word again, and for the first time since becoming a feminist, feel pride, rather than embarrassment, about my membership in that heterosexual community.

Contact the author at: Afeminist@aol.com