Sexual Orientation, Sex Life, and Elena Kagan

Glenn Greenwald wrote the following today:

Perhaps it's naïveté, but I've been amazed by the outraged objections of many Good Liberals to the mere discussion of Elena Kagan's sexual orientation. Without realizing it, they've completely internalized one of the most pernicious myths long used to demand that gay people remain in the closet: namely, that to reveal one's sexual orientation is to divulge one's "sex life."

Well, he's got it part right, and part wrong. He explains:

Kevin has written before about the fact that he is married and that his spouse is female ("My wife, Marian, is a systems analyst in the MIS department at Lantronix. We've been married since 1991"). When he wrote that, or when he introduces his wife, does he actually think that he's revealing things about his "sex life" -- let alone things on par with: "Do you masturbate when your wife isn't around?" or "Have you ever had a three-way"? To ask the question is to illustrate how inane is the suggestion. At most, one knows from Kevin's revelation that he is heterosexual, but not anything about his "sex life" -- i.e., how many times a week does he have sex, how many partners does he have, what positions does he most enjoy, what type of women does he find attractive, etc. etc.?

The distinction is correct, and generally very important, but Glenn is confusing the anger over the questions with many liberals (besides Kevin Drum) making this same mistake. In making that assumption, however, he is missing the real reason many liberals object to the questions - the motivations behind them. If it were as simple as some information that everyone agreed had no moral difference, say the difference in age of a few years, that would be one thing. But it's precisely because a great number of people do see a moral difference that the question itself is problematic. The response to the question has to be to ask why people care.

I would love a political climate where, if gay, she would feel free to come out, but that is an intensely personal decision that absolutely should not be made by random media types asking the question. Why would they be asking? Because it's juicy gossip, in the least harmless of scenarios, but is that really reason to out someone? Of course not.

Also, Glenn rejects the idea that the personal, private nature of the matter addresses his point.

Regarding the claim of several commenters that sexual orientation is a "private matter," that it's "nobody's business," etc., two points to make about that, even though it's not really responsive to the argument I'm making here.

His actual points are good, and I'll discuss them next, but first, I want to address that aside. With respect to race or gender, it just so happens that often no outing is required, so we accept that we will know and the info is not private. However, plenty of Asian-looking mixed race people object to the constant stream of "what are you?" (meaning what race) that they are bombarded with (Asians more often get the "where are you from," as Jacob points out below), and I cannot imagine asking a woman with a squarish jaw if she was born male. When these things are not obvious, asking them without a reason is simply rude. The reason is important, and is no less so for sexual orientation. If you're asking someone if they're gay so you can ask them on a date, it's probably ok. Mere curiosity, or worse, so you can keep your children away from them, etc., is not.

Here are Glenn's two points:

(1) When someone seeks political power, they give up certain aspects of their privacy. The more political power one seeks, the more privacy they give up. Even though a person's finances are generally private and "none of anyone's business," Kagan was just compelled to file detailed disclosure statements describing all aspects of her personal finances. That's how it should be: the public has the right to know about people who seek substantial political power, so the mere fact that X is typically considered "private" for a private figure does not mean it's off-limits for a political official.

(2) If Kagan were married to a male, but refused to disclose any information about her husband (including even his identity, what he did for a living, etc.), would that be OK on the ground that it's her "private life" and "nobody's business"? Would anyone ever argue that was the case? What's the difference?

1) This might be valid, but again, there's less moral stigma attached to certain financial statement, so it's less important to keep private. To turn his statement around on itself, the mere fact that Y is a political official does not mean X, typically considered "private" for a private figure, is automatically fair game either.

2)This is a much better point, and might even sway me. But I still think we must examine the reasons for the questions. If this is the reason, then sure, maybe it's ok. But it is not the only reason, and may not be the primary one.