His mother maintains that there is never any discussion of his sexuality except in the context of mania. When stable he defines himself as straight. When manic he becomes rather indiscriminate sexually, making inappropriate and suggestive statements to people of both sexes, of many ages, strangers or friends. I call this omnisexual, and regard it as a symptom of mania, and not any indicator of...well, of anything. Yet in my politically correct field, where people are very concerned lest they not be seen as entirely supportive to sexual preference, and worried about the emotional difficulties of closeting, this expanded sexuality is regarded as the reality, even in the presence of illness. He must "really" be gay or bi, but it only spills out when he is disinhibited. Or something.
I think I was quietly resentful of something like a gay lobbying presence in the halls of the social services until a few years ago. I thought they were driving this. And perhaps they are, and I just don't have enough experience to see that clearly. Yet when I thought of the actual people I knew who got suddenly quiet when I mentioned my omnisexuality hypothesis, as if I had just left soiled underwear on their grandmother's grave or something, none of them were gay. Following this theory, I determined that the actual gay people I knew working in the field had never expressed the least dismay at my comments, and two had even beat me to the punch, rolling their eyes at the thought that young Amber or Corey was "really" gay, but just could not come out, somehow. The people who had taken offense were all straight, but very politically correct, social work, OT, and psychology types.
There was one powerful exception to this, a transsexual psychiatrist who seemed to take offense at virtually anything anyone said in disagreement with her. I long ago concluded that his difficulties in adjusting to life had very little to do with the sexual organs he was born with but had removed, and everything to do with his/her narcissism.* But that's another story.
It reminds me of the recent story of some company's diversity coordinator telling everyone they should refrain from using the phrase "brown bag lunch," because it could offend black people who had had bad experiences with those African-American elite clubs which restricted membership to those lighter than a paper bag in complexion. I thought at the time "$100 says no black person was ever offended by the phrase brown bag lunch. This is a white person showing off that he knows that particular bit of A-A cultural history and trying to play a trump card of being 'more-sensitive-than-thou.' Profoundly irritating."
So. Gay people, I am sorry I was quick to accuse. That does suggest some stereotyping on my part or at least, some silliness. Unless I have gotten this whole thing wrong and it is gay people driving this oversensitivity, in which case - you're just wrong. Wavering...wavering...hmmm. Ah yes. Activists of all causes tend to be different people than the rank-and-file, who shrug off more stuff and see more nuance. Perhaps that is most of the story.
BTW, if my omnisexuality in mania theory is correct, isn't such therapy rather...abusive?
*In her defense, I have seldom seen anyone in the field deal as well with deeply paranoid people. Real people are complicated and don't conveniently display the uninterrupted goodness nor consistent pathology we wish they would to make our narratives cleaner. So too with him/her.
