a wider embrace

an increasing number of respected psychological associations worldwide denounce “therapies” aimed at “changing” an individual’s sexual orientation. one of their reasons: sexual orientation is not able to be changed. practices developed to achieve “change” normally involve an element of disgust toward anything outside heteronormativity. due to such an extreme bias, the “therapy” is tainted, placing it permanently outside professional therapeutic standards.

​
​while it is true that each individual has the freedom to choose the label of their sexual orientation, or even choose not to label their sexual orientation, an individual does not choose their sexual orientation. nobody gets to choose who they are attracted to or how strong that attraction is. therefore, when stories exist of “ex-gay” individuals who still have attraction towards their own sex, and are then able to enter into marriages with someone who is not their sex, it brings up not only the obvious fact - that “sexual orientation change therapies” do not work - but that, perhaps, some of these individuals were not attracted to only one sex to begin with.
​
not only do such “therapies” undermine genuine therapy, since they encompass the harmful lie that sexual orientation can change, these abusive methods fail to further love and acceptance of one’s identity. these “therapies” do nothing to work through any fear or disgust an individual may have of their own sexual orientation. they are far from safe, or inclusive, and yet they continue to be legally offered in “developed” “first world” “modern” countries because of various guises they have been protected under, damaging the lives of rainbow individuals in the process.

it is long past time for disgust toward individuals outside the heteronormative realm to be called for what it is. no matter how tidily it is packaged under various protective guises, it is still harmful. whether an individual or an organization is exhibiting disgust, it is still wrong.

let's consider a possible situation: two individuals who appear feminine walk past holding hands. 

some common responses to the situation, either thought or spoken out loud, and often said without much thought given as to why: 

1. “I don’t like seeing them” - consider: who don't you like to see? why does seeing this particular individual and/or group bother you?
2. “they throw it in my face” -  consider: what do you feel is being thrown in your face? why does seeing this bother you?
3. “I don’t agree with their lifestyle” - consider: are you equating lifestyle with sexual orientation?

all of the above responses would be harsh given the situation is simply two individuals existing and walking - a benign context. 

by contrast - an example of a non-benign situation would be people literally barring a path and not letting anyone walk by without making them stop to view a twenty foot by twenty foot painting - this actual cause for frustration includes literally shoving something into another person's face, and involves actions that are actually being chosen and are literally interfering with another person's life.

the commonly used statements are often used to veil thoughts such as:

• "seeing people whose relationship does not appear to be a male-female relationship makes me uncomfortable"
• "growing up, I only saw male-female relationships, nowadays more variety is prevalent and that makes me uncomfortable"
• "growing up, male-female relationships were the norm; nowadays varied expressions are much more noticeable and it's not what I'm used to"
• "being LGBT is a choice; I don't tell everyone my hobbies or try to convince other people to like them, so why should I be forced to accept other people's hobbies?"
• "why do we need laws to protect this? it's just a choice."
• "I am uncomfortable with public nudity, and the pride parades I have been to have that element"
• "LGBT stuff's all about sex. I don't talk about my sex life with other people, why do LGBT people have to talk about their sex life with me, or in public?"

 
it's true that a larger variety of relationships are more visible now than they were in the past, but such diversity can be very enriching, especially for people of all ages who are coming to terms with their identity, an identity which potentially may not fit (or appear to fit) in traditional male-female relational narratives. sexual orientation is not a choice, a hobby, or a phase, and by simply existing, by living out their truth, a person is not forcing their identity on other people.

some parades and festivities are places where people feel free to wear less clothing. 

consider: thinking poorly of a friend because some music festival attendees choose to wear less clothing and your friend happens to like a band who regularly plays at festivals - would you think your friend is somehow a worse person because of what some people do at a music festival? would you stop being their friend? would you avoid getting to know anyone who likes bands who play at festivals simply because some people choose to wear less clothing at music festivals?

supporting a rainbow individual does not mean you have to agree with public nudity, no matter how many pride parades or festivals happen to have that element. the amount of clothing an individual wears in public has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation.

the assumption that rainbow individuals' lives are overly sexual is unfair. if sex and/or romance is an element in someone's life, chances are they aren't keen on discussing it frequently with other people or publicly. regardless of their sexual orientation.

as humans reach deeper understandings of humans, understandings of sexual orientation and other areas will expand. laws will get created as knowledge grows. there is a chance that the new knowledge will make some people uncomfortable. while discomfort is not an enjoyable experience, it can be an opportunity to look inward and consider why we feel unsettled.

if another person's sexual orientation - one part of an individual's multi-faceted identity - causes an unsettled feeling within you, it can be a chance to ask: "how can my discomfort be worked through, without abusing, excluding, or otherwise harming another individual for being who they are?" through intentional, humble, and inward reflection, feelings of disgust can be worked through.

unresolved disgust manifests in many abusive ways daily in our world. from organizations or communities limiting or prohibiting the involvement of an individual because of their sexual orientation, to the practice of “sexual orientation change therapies”. if we took time to intentionally unravel our own discomfort, perhaps we would find more love to extend to other people.

sexual orientation cannot change, but we can learn to accept our sexual orientation and to love ourselves. the first person anyone comes out to is themselves and, just like all the future coming outs a person may do, the reaction matters. if we aren’t able to love ourselves, how do we expect to be able to extend love to others - especially those who are different from ourselves?

​whoever you are, whatever your journey:
be safe, and help others be safe.
be respectful, and encourage respect for others.
embody authentic acceptance.
love.

today. tomorrow. everyday.

- Chelsea

---

if you'd like to learn more, check out this publication on the APA website:

Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth:
A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel ​

The information in this booklet has been developed by a coalition of education, health, mental health and religious organizations that share a concern for the health and education of all students in schools, including lesbian, gay and bisexual students.* ... [a concern] ... that all students have an opportunity to learn and develop in a safe and supportive environment. ​​

---