Lifestyle Choices: Examining the Boundaries of Discrimination

Driving down the freeway, I noticed a bumper sticker on a Toyota Prius that read, “Draft SUV drivers first”. I chuckled at the sentiment even though I thought it was slightly offensive, as any form of discrimination is to me. As I passed the Prius, I noticed that the driver looked like a young stereotypical left-wing college professor you would see in a movie full of awkward stereotypes—the plaid shirt, wire-rimmed glasses, and hair that was red, curly, and slightly receding. I hoped that no strong, SUV-driving ex-military type having post-traumatic stress disorder took offense at that bumper sticker, because the Prius driver likely wouldn’t have been able to defend himself.

Then an SUV passed me, and I noticed the driver was a slight woman, probably in her mid 40s, wearing a sleeveless dress, gold jewelry, and looked the type who might carry a tiny dog around with her as she shops at Nordstrom. The incongruity between my earlier thoughts of a big bruiser of a man stepping out of a Hummer and decking the college professor, contrasted strangely with the diminutive (but probably feisty) woman in the SUV possibly macing the professor (though I’d probably put even odds on the professor in that confrontation).

After the woman sped on ahead and the professor fell behind, I reflected on the sentiment of his bumper sticker. It was obvious that he, at least jokingly, does not value SUV drivers as much as he, at least jokingly, values drivers of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Is that any reason to wish SUV drivers harm or even death, by sending them unwillingly off to fight in a war?

I suppose that if one is going to discriminate against another class of people, discrimination based on lifestyle choices is preferable to discriminating based on something that can’t be changed.

Any SUV driver who wanted to avoid such a draft could simply switch to driving something other than an SUV. Yes, it might impact their daily activities a bit, and they might be out some money they wouldn’t have had to spend otherwise, but nothing fundamental about the person would have to be changed. After all, no one is born an SUV driver or a Prius driver.

Such decisions are based on a number of other external influences and internal value judgements, along with market decisions from automobile manufacturers. So, discriminating against SUV drivers, while still discrimination, is discrimination against a lifestyle CHOICE, and avoiding that discrimination is as easy as choosing a different vehicle to drive.

This is very different from discriminating against someone based on height, ethnicity, or handicap. People cannot change their height to avoid discrimination, nor can they change who their parents and other ancestors were. While they might yearn to change the circumstances leading to a handicap, that is impossible. Discrimination based on such immutable factors is clearly illegal in most modern societies, including the United States.

Other types of discrimination are a little trickier. What about a person’s weight? Fashion models are routinely discriminated against for either being too thin (by many in the public) or too fat (by the fashion industry). People with protruding bellies are discriminated against for being overweight. Discrimination can come in the form of rude comments like “slob”, “pig”, “over-eater”. But is a person’s weight a lifestyle choice, or is it an immutable factor in their life?

Surely there are people who carry extra weight from eating more food than is healthy and not exercising enough to burn off the excess calories. But there are also many people on life-sustaining medications or who have hormonal or genetic issues that eat and exercise properly and still carry extra weight.

While weight may be affected by lifestyle choices, many other factors contribute to it, and for many it is immutable and not a lifestyle choice at all.

What about religion? On the surface, it would seem to be a lifestyle choice. After all, in a typical community, there are anywhere from a couple to dozens of different churches, temples, and other houses of religions at which one may take part in a particular form of religion. In fact, there is nothing that requires anyone to participate in religion at all.

Not only that, some people do change religions. Sometimes the change is minor (Methodist to Presbyterian), and sometimes it’s more dramatic (Christian to Buddhism). Despite all of that, courts in most modern societies have ruled that religion is such an intrinsic part of a person’s self-identity that it is illegal to discriminate based on a person’s religion.

Discrimination against anyone in the LGBTQIA+ community, broadly grouped under the “gay” banner*, is another issue that seems to be a murky decision for many people. Is “being gay” a lifestyle choice or is it an immutable part of a person?

While discrimination against someone for a lifestyle choice (as in the Prius driver and the SUV drivers) is unfair, it’s not really a legal issue since someone could escape discrimination simply by changing their actions. But is that what “being gay” is?

Is it really that simple for a “gay” to escape discrimination by changing his or her actions? If so, then legal protections may not be necessary. But if that is not the case, if gayness is immutable or an intrinsic part of self-identity for a gay person, then gays deserve every bit of protection that other protected classes of people are (ethnicity, handicap, religion, etc.).

Currently in the United States, and especially here in California, the subject of gay marriage is a hot topic now. People on one side are fighting to keep the “dignity of marriage” and “protect the family” by outlawing the right of gays to marry. I don’t understand either argument.

My parents and grandparents are excellent examples of how to do marriage right. Both sets of my grandparents happily exceeded 50 years together, and my parents are approaching the same number. They do seem to be the exception, though.

Today divorce tears apart about half the families in the U.S. Straight men cheat on their wives, straight women cheat on their husbands, kids end up with kids of their own. It would seem that the non-gay keepers of this solemn institution have tarnished the “dignity of marriage” quite nicely.

Would gay marriages do better than hetero marriages? Who knows, but it is difficult to see how they could do much worse.

One big difference is that straight couples seem to take marriage for granted, and often marry out of convenience or for economic advantage. Gay couples are fighting for their right to marry each other; they don’t take their love for advantage. Gays face public ridicule and persecution every time they say “my partner”. If their love is strong enough to fight through opposition like that, it is hard to see how “dignity of marriage” is diminished.

Likewise, gay couples are often coming together to form new families. Partners often have children from previous relationships. Denying gays the right to marry sends a message to the children that their parents are somehow less valued by society than their friends’ straight parents are.

Also, many gay partners seek to have children of their own, just as straight couples do. In all these cases, the gay partners are seeking to build families, to provide their children with two parents, to care for, nourish, and grow their families. It’s very difficult to do that while also facing suspicion, discrimination, and outright hatred simply for being a family that looks a little different from what you see in 1950s television shows. Blocking gay marriage does nothing to “protect the family”, but it does plenty to harm the affected families.

Is “gayness” a lifestyle decision, like driving an SUV, or is it something deeper, something immutable within the person that cannot be changed without drastically altering the intrinsic self-identity of the person?

The first way to analyze that is to reverse the question. Is heterosexuality a lifestyle decision or something immutable? Would a typical straight man or woman suffer nothing more than a moderate impact on their daily activities by becoming homosexual? Would it be as easy for a straight person to switch to being gay as it would be to change brands of shampoo or decide to vacation in Florida instead of Palm Springs? I don’t know anyone who thinks so. Why then should it be any easier for a gay person to switch to heterosexuality?

Statistics clearly show that a very high number of teen suicides are due to matters relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. Surely, if “gayness” was a lifestyle choice, like attending the football playoffs or the prom, then it wouldn’t be something worth killing oneself over. Taking one’s own life comes from the conflict of realizing you are gay in a world that demonizes gayness, refuses to acknowledge basic human and civil rights to your kind, and is known to physically harm gays simply for being who they were born to be.

What about the anecdotal stories of success in people happily changing from gay to straight after therapy and religion? Well, I’ve never met any such people. The only place I’ve ever seen them is in testimonials from programs claiming to have implemented such changes and on conservative Christian materials that demonize gayness as a disease that needs curing. Surely some people can and do change, at least their outward actions. But is it possible to truly rewire their inner biology in such a fundamental way?

I have met several happily married straight men and women who have told me they “experimented” with people of their own gender in the past, some even maintaining relationships with such a person for a while, but eventually, they returned to heterosexuality. Likewise, many gays I have met in their 30s and older have maintained relationships with girlfriends or even marriages before realizing they were living a lie and decided to end it. It would seem that many people are able to maintain relationships outside of their primary orientation, yet they eventually align with what their internal compass tells them is right for them.

What about bisexuals? In many ways, they are even more misunderstood and treated like outsiders than gays and lesbians. People, straight and gay, often ridicule them as gays afraid to step fully out of the closet. Others mistakenly think that being bi means being exceptionally promiscuous, since they are mistakenly believed to be sexually attracted to anything, male or female.

I had a bisexual roommate and also a couple of bisexual good friends, and talking with them about it, I know they face most of the same problems as gays, but often even more. It’s not that they are attracted to every male or female they see—they are just as choosy as anyone else about who they date—but rather they are more gender-blind when it comes to seeking a partner.

However, when they date a person of the same gender, they are discriminated against by a largely homophobic society, and when they date a person of the opposite gender, the gay community discriminates against them. While a bisexual who falls in love with a person of the opposite gender may not have a problem with laws banning gay marriage, if love happens to form between someone of the same gender, gay marriage rights would be very important.

Trans people also suffer a lot of discrimination. But “trans” is a whole lot broader and more complex of an issue than many people realize. It’s not just about wanting to wear the other gender’s clothing (cross-dressing), acting like a tomboy or tomgirl, or girls playing with footballs and boys with dolls. That is only scratching the surface, and usually fraught with stereotypes.

Cross-dressing can be enjoyed by people of any gender identity or sexual orientation. While cross-dressing drag queens and drag kings are increasingly visible and even celebrated in some situations, such individuals still face significant challenges and prejudice in many parts of our country. It’s important to understand that drag performance is a form of artistic expression, not necessarily indicative of someone’s gender identity.

Is it a “choice” to dress in a particular fashion? Of course. Just as it is for an artist to choose to paint, sculpt, or dance. Most people realize that the art form calls to the individual. Michealangelo made this clear when he stated that he did not create his art, but removed everything from the stone that did not belong. We respect the great artworks that he created and admire his genius.

Why then should we not also admire the artwork of a person who uses their body as their canvas. Beyond that, the draw that artists feel to create is a part of who they are, part of their identity. Is cross dressing a choice or something more intrinsic? I think it really depends on the individual, and since it’s not just a simple choice but often intrinsic, that means it must be protected by law.

Transgender people have a gender identity that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. Some transgender people may experience gender dysphoria, a feeling of distress caused by the mismatch between their gender identity and their assigned sex. Some may choose to undergo medical transition, including hormone therapy and/or surgery, to align their physical characteristics with their gender identity.

That is an extreme and expensive proposition, and many trans people have neither the means nor the support to make that a reality for them. Instead, they do what they can to match their exteriors to their interior identity. As such, they may cross-dress, but for very different reasons. While the cross-dressers mentioned previously do so largely for artistic reasons, a transgender person does so to align their appearance with their identity. This is certainly something that should be protected under the law, providing further evidence that cross-dressing needs protection.

What about bathrooms? It is a complex issue, to be sure. I certainly understand a woman feeling discomfort if a man were in the woman’s restroom. In many cases, that could be perceived as a prelude to an assault. But I ask you to consider the alternative view. A transwoman entering a men’s room could face assault from men who assume she is “asking for it” or a “freak” who just needs to be “taught a lesson” by a “real man”. The concerns of the cis-woman, the trans-woman, and even a trans-man are equally valid. Probably the only group not particularly concerned about this is cis-men who largely ignore everyone inside a restroom anyway.

While balancing the needs for safety and privacy with inclusivity can be complex, it’s crucial to create solutions that respect the dignity and rights of all individuals, including transgender people.

It’s crucial to remember that gender identity, sexual orientation, and libido are all distinct. Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is harmful and unjust. A transgender person’s sexual orientation remains the same regardless of their transition. For example, a transgender woman who was assigned male at birth and has always been attracted to men was a lesbian, even before her transition or even if she never has gender reassignment surgery.

Back to gay marriage, let’s assume the same preoperative trans-woman who was assigned the male gender is legally married to a bisexual cis-woman. After five years together, the trans-husband is finally able to afford surgery, and “his” wife supports the transition and wishes to remain married to them.

What should happen to their marriage after “he” undergoes surgery and corrects his gender to female? Opponents of gay marriage would argue that, as a now homosexual couple, their marriage should be invalidated. Nothing about their love for each other has changed, nor their love for their children. The wife still loves her, because she’s still the same person. Her outside has just finally been corrected to match her inner identity. Yet, only based on gender correction, their marriage would automatically be nullified in many jurisdictions.

Is it a lifestyle choice to change one’s gender? I don’t think so. Changing one’s hair color because “blondes have more fun” is a lifestyle choice. Undergoing months of therapy, hormone treatments, radical surgery, and possible alienation of your family and friends to match your body to your intrinsic self-identity does not seem to be a mere lifestyle choice. It is surely something much deeper.

This also helps to explain why the use of gender-affirming pronouns is so important. It is not about being hip or fashionable to use them. It’s about finding a label that matches your own identity. In many cases, words are fall short, but they are all we have to work with. Once a person selects the pronouns that most closely match their self-identity, it is only right to recognize their identity by using those pronouns.

As far as libido, the desire to have sex with another person, this is independent of sexual orientation or gender identity. Just because a bi man can find love in twice as many genders as a straight or gay man does not make him twice as promiscuous. It does potentially make it easier to find a partner, since there are twice as many potential mates available to him, but since bi’s tend to face a lot of discrimination (as already discussed), the advantage probably evens out.

Additionally, there are people who fall somewhere between sexual and asexual (not wanting to participate in sex at all). Despite not feeling sexually aroused, they likely still have a sexual orientation, or at least an orientation for the gender that they desire to have a romantic relationship with. After all, many couples, straights included, end up in relationships where sex fades or goes away entirely over time.

Conversely, there are people who are sexually aroused, but they feel no desire to engage in romantic relationships. As with most other issues related to sexuality, gender, and arousal, romantic attachments lies on a spectrum, and there are no hard lines delaminating the differences. How then can we expect laws to justly define such a varied spread of normal identities and innate behaviors? Clearly, it is not possible.

As if there is any need to show that discrimination against gay marriage is wrong, consider the plight of an intersexual person. ADAM Health Illustrated Encyclopedia defines intersexual as “a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries). The older term for this condition [was] hermaphroditism”. These are people with both male and female characteristics at a very fundamental level; they are neither exclusively male nor female, but a combination of both.

To define marriage as something “only valid between one man and one woman” entirely excludes intersexuals. While religious extremists and marriage traditionalists may argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a genetic condition such as this certainly is not. A law that defines marriage so narrowly is a law that discriminates against a particular class of people with an immutable genetic condition. It does so by eliminating a fundamental human and civil right—the right to fall in love with a person and marry them.

That Prius owner may want SUV owners suffer for their decisions, but such a desire is not going to harm multiple classes of people for something they cannot change.

Revoking the right or outlawing marriage for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, intersexual, and other people outside of society’s majority does cause harm.

• It encourages additional prejudice and discrimination against these same people, both in legal matters and in ordinary dealings within their community.
• It perpetuates hatred and violence by establishing a hierarchy of those who may marry and those who cannot, and thus are not full members of society.
• It increases the pressure on youngsters or people of any age coming to terms with their sexual identity and discovering they are part of a class of people legally discriminated against.
• It tarnishes the institution of marriage by making marriage an elitist right that is only available to a self-selected majority.
• It destroys family values by prohibiting loving couples from coming together as married spouses and raising children in homes full of love, accepted by society as legal and normal.

Too many people seem to perceive gayness as a simple “lifestyle choice” instead of an immutable aspect of self or an intrinsic part of one’s self-identity. Either way, this perception is false, and the courts will eventually rule in favor of protecting a marginalized minority, just as they have done in the past for African-Americans, for religious followers, and for people with disabilities.

In time, things will change. The question is how long must we wait? How many more people must suffer discrimination and persecution before that eventual day arrives? And how many people want to go down on the wrong side of history by being in favor of unlawful discrimination?

Join me in the right fight and thank lawmakers and justices who take the difficult stand against discrimination and express your displeasure to those who don’t. The more people who do that, the sooner rights will be restored for all minorities here and elsewhere.

*Please note that no disrespect is intended by grouping all members of the LGBTQIA+ community together under the term “gay” in parts of this article. I value diversity and inclusivity, but when trying to talk simply about a complex issue like this, it’s much easier to use “gay” (as in the older term “gay rights”) to encompass the entire spectrum of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.

This article was originally published on 24 November 2008. It was modified on 1 June 2022 to update some outdated terms, add more details about trans matters, and include discussion of preferred pronouns.

The header image is ©Cyndy Sims Parr, is available on Flickr, and licensed under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license.