How to Become a Lesbian in 10 Days (or Less)

Compulsory Lesbianism?

It is impossible, however, to ignore the radical feminist trajectory:

An upcoming LGBTQ seminar at the University of South Carolina Upstate (USCU) will teach students How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less and will focus on LGBTQ cultural mores.
According to the school’s website, theater artist Leigh Hendrix will perform her one-woman show, “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less,” to kick off the sixth Bodies of Knowledge Symposium and Conference. . . .
Hendrix encourages her audience to shout “I’m a big ‘ol dyke!” in a show that is “one part instructional seminar, one part personal story, and one party wacky performance art.”
The symposium is funded by outside grants as well as university funds according to Dr. Lisa Johnson, the Director of the Center for Women’s & Gender Studies at USCU.
Dr. Johnson declined to discuss what percentage of the funding was coming from the university. . . .

Which reminds me of an old joke (I've used it before, so sue me):

An old cowboy went to a bar and ordered a drink. As he sat sipping his whiskey, a young lady sat down next to him. She turned to the cowboy and asked, "Are you a real cowboy?
"
He replied, "Well, I've spent my whole life on the ranch, herding horses, mending fences, and branding cattle, so I guess I am."

She said, "I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. As soon as I get up in the morning, I think about women. When I shower, I think about women. As I watch TV, or even eat, I think about women. Everything seems to make me think about women."
The two sat sipping in silence. A short time later, a man sat down on the other side of the old cowboy and asked, "Are you a real cowboy?"

He replied, "I always thought I was, but I just found out that I'm a lesbian."

Which brings me to a more serious article by Deroy Murdoch: Gay by Genes or by Choice? Even asking the question in public stirs up a hornets’ nest.

Are gay people “born that way” or is it “a choice”? Who gives a damn?

Alas, even asking that first question really agitates some people — as liberal pundit Ezra Klein now knows. The Washington Post alumnus recently hired Brandon Ambrosino to write for his new website, vox.com. Ambrosino is a 28-year-old gay man. But that’s not good enough for the gay Left. Ambrosino, who attended the late Reverend Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, believes that choice may influence sexual orientation.

“Many people do feel as if their sexuality is something they were born with, and I have no reason to disbelieve them,” Ambrosino wrote on The New Republic’s website on January 28. “But as I and other queer persons will readily confirm, there are other factors informing our sexualities than simply our genetic codes.”

Just because someone feels that their gender preference is innate does not mean that it is, or that, if it is, it is necessarily a result of genetics.  Even crazy people such as schizophrenics and bipolars tend to feel that their feelings are part of their personhood, and resist changing them with medications.

I subscribe to the "all of the above" theory on causes of homosexuality.  In some cases, I'm sure genes conspired to produce it; in others, developmental issues, in others, socialization, with development being a leading contender, at least in men (I won't even pretend to guess what goes on in a woman's brain). Identical twin studies provide evidence that while genetics may contribute to homosexuality, they are not predominant.

But if homosexuality is a developmental issue (say for example, exposure of a fetus to inappropriate levels of sex hormones at a critical time in the development of the brain/sex system), it might be subject to intervention.  What if a high percentage of homosexuality could be prevented by monitoring maternal hormones and keeping them balanced through fetal development?  Would that be genocide?

Stern cites University of Toronto professor Ray Blanchard. Very briefly, Blanchard’s complex research suggests that male homosexuality may result from a fetal chemical response to an antibody that appears in the wombs of some pregnant women who previously have delivered sons. “If Blanchard is right,” Stern explains, “then (at least some) gay people are indeed born gay, but there’s still something wrong with them. The hypothesis turns homosexuality into a birth defect. . . . That’s a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned.”

Stern raises a question that should chill gay-rights advocates and pro-lifers:
“What if in some cases sexuality is caused by an identifiable chemical process in the womb? What if, in other words, homosexuality can potentially be prevented?”

For all these reasons, gay Americans should spurn the “born that way” argument and instead say, “We are adults pursuing happiness, and that’s all you need to know.”

I can live with that. Just keep the PDAs to a bare minimum, unless you happen to be two hot chicks, and don't object if the old guys like watching. After all, they're entitled to their sexuality too.

Wombat-socho has the the long awaited, post tax day, triple stuffed  edition of "Rule 5 Sunday: Ricochet" up at The Other McCain.