Who Is a Homosexual? A Critique of the Heterosexual-Homosexual Dimension Franz R. Epting, Jonathan D. Raskin, Timothy B. Burke Univesity of Florida Abstract “The heterosexual homosexual distinction as a construction inhib its appreciation of the diversity of sexual experience by encourag~ ing use of static labels to classify people's continually evalvs sexual histories, Distinguishing sexual preferenc: may expedite ‘comprehension pf sexual acts, but is counterproductive when ‘considering whole persons. We question the need for biological explanations of Fomasexualty ard propose that “coming out” as, homosexual isa personal choice fo be celebrated, not abiological abnermality, We perceive sexuality as merely one aspect of per- Sonhood. When people instead see self-proclaimed homosextals as “homosexuals and only homesexuals” sexual behavior over~ shadows other stlient individual characteristis, and serual desire becomes inseparable from persorality style. ‘The Meaning of Sexual Designations What does it mean when we call someone a homosexual, or when we ‘all ourselves homosexual? What dees such a designation imply’? These questions are often not addressed in any direct way, and because of this there are many important issues which are being missed es we attempt to formulate psychological theory in this area. Out point of departure and tial inspiration for wading into these murky and often troubled waters is, ‘ashort chapter foundin Burr and Butts (1992)recentbook inviting readers364 The Humanistic Psychologist, 22, Autumn 1994 to explore different aspects of George Kelly’s (19918, 1991b) personal ‘construct psychology, The chapter begins with a question, “Am Ia homo- sexual?” We found curselves responding with another question, “Isany- ‘one? and thea ventured the reply, “Not unless they belive they are, and that is OK too—especialy if they realize the potential limitations of such 1a designation.” As we sorted out the meanings in our answers to these questions we cametosee "horrosexual” and “teterosexcal”™assonstucts used to clasify behaviors and feelings, and nat as objective, inherently ‘meaningful entities. Our job now isto examine the implications of what we have just said and see where it leads us. Pertaps a good place to tegin is by examining some af the original ‘meanings of the distinction between homoserual and heterosexual—a distinction of arelatively recent occurrence (Weeks, 1986). Ancient Greck culture did not emphasize distinguishing homosexvality ‘om het- cerosexuaity, leading one to suspect hatthis distinction, in its present form, simply did not exist before relatively recent times. In all likelihood it was constructed as social convenience for andlingaspects o"humanconduct. “More specifically, in the Westem world, it was no doubt invented forthe purpose of social control in a society which became more and more influenced by Judeo-Christian moral sandards. Whathas taken placethen, ‘hen pecple label themselves as hetsroseual orhomosexual,isatransfor- ‘mation ofa social construction into an objective reality. Such a thesis is certainly consisten: with the analysis undertakea by John H. van den Berg (1961) inhis examination of the changing nature of human consciousness from medieval to medem times. His study of the process of the chenge, which he calls the metabletical method, is very compelling in its argument thatthe distinction between “childhood versus adulthood’ isa rather recent development in the transformation of consciousness, and perhps even a form of socially consiucted reality—one that now seems self evident and 1n intricate part ofthe personal reality of people in our modem society. ‘Thus, the use ofthe terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” todesignate types of people isa fairly recent invention and has brought about a social transformation of consciousness. It's not new as way of designating types of behavior or types of experience. Itisnew asa way of classifying types of people, a way which we believe leads many individuels to think of themselves as “homosexuals” or “heterosexual” in some kind of essen- tialist manner. That is, this rather modern way of seeing things has become reiffed at a persone level in an unexamined way, and it invites people to regard themselves ina diministed form. Its a form that robs them of heir fall bumanness Franz R: Egting, Jonathan D. Raskin, Timothy 8 Burke 355 ‘The Homosexual-Heteresexual Distinction as a Form of Preemptive Thinking (Our argument against the continued unesamined use of the tems heterosexual and homosexual is based on the telief that it easity leads to ‘preemptive thinkingabout persons. We are aware that preemptive thinking ‘ocears to varying degrees, deperding on the personal and social meanings Of the terms under consideration. Generally, preemptive thinking oceurs more often and is more extreme for terms describing unfamiliar or nega- tively perceived phenomena. In American society, homosexuality is gen- erally both unfamiliar and negatively perceived, and this tends to yield a igher degree of preemptive thinking about those labeled as hemosexaal Fueled by unchallenged sterectypes and myths, people designated as homosexual are typically placed in a category which implies that they ae, as types of persons, different from hettrosenuals and similar to other fhomosexuals in every way. Images of effeminate and promiscuous gay men andmasculine and argumentative lesbians abound. Ina clever challenge to this way of thinking, Bur and Butt (1992) report a quip fiom Gore Vidal, ‘who asked “why we don't expect Bertrand Ressell and Lyndon Jchrson to be similar characters—after all they were both heterosexual” (p. 26). People add the term homosexual to éescrptions of peoplein orde to say something they eel is significant about them. As far as we can tel, this infermation isnot inherently significant. Nevertheless, in American culure it is quite powerful, When we say that Ted is a homosemual pharmacist, most people think of Tedas more than a pharmacist, and even morethan & pharmacist who has erotic feelings for members ofthe same sex. An entire ‘way of being comes to mind simply by designating Ted as hemosexual ‘There are many other distinctions, besides preferred sex partner, that we ‘can make about Ted an include in deseriptions of him. Some of these disinctins might even tll us more about Ted than sexual desire does. ‘While preemptive thinking is often greatest for labels describing ‘unfamiliar and negatively peresived phenomena, we believe that labels