The Cornell Daily Sun, like most college newspapers, is not immune to controversy. Most recently, two Sun articles were the subject of considerable criticism: The first, an article by the “Everyday Ethicist,” encouraged a woman questioning her sexuality to come out to her housemates for the sake of honesty. The second, titled “The Gay Mafia,” was a Gawker-esque exposé about an underground association of gay students. The articles demonstrated that well-intentioned but misguided efforts to discuss issues of sexuality can very quickly backfire.

In revisiting these articles, my goal is not to disparage the authors or further critique their writing. Rather, I think these articles ought to give us pause: What components of the articles made them so controversial? There are, undoubtedly, a variety of answers that satisfy that question, but I contend that the cardinal sin of both pieces is their fascination with exposing non-normative sexual identities. In both, we see the author push to bring to light the sexual practices of non-heterosexual individuals, albeit for slightly different purposes.

If this is true, then, the criticism directed towards the authors and their pieces, however deserved, compels a similar level of campus-wide introspection: It can be reasonably stated that we students (myself included) are often guilty of the same thing.

The desire to expose the sexual identities of others is a subject so ubiquitous it’s hardly ever considered cause for reflection. From checkout line tabloid pieces to the nightly news, the average consumer is inundated with second-rate infotainment questioning the sexual identity of celebrities, politicians and the like. That same tendency to question or speculate about the sexual identities of others reverberates in our own speech and practices. Consider the frequency with which, when seeing someone whose appearance or demeanor seems even the least bit queer, people are quick to assume that another may be gay, or lesbian or bi, etc. It’s a practice we all engage in.

And to what end to individuals speculate? The motivations are certainly diverse, and can range from wanting to police or censor those identities to wanting to live vicariously through them. In essence, it stems from the desire to know, and the pleasure derived thereof. This is, again, where the two articles run astray: The Gay Mafia exposé, though lauding the organization, ultimately destroyed it by revealing too much. The Ethicist article, in a similar vein, was criticized for wanting to reveal too much.

I don’t mean to suggest that the everyday act of speculating is, in and of itself, horrible. Rather, I think it’s reflective of the way in which non-heterosexual identities are seen as something foreign — something worthy of heightened scrutiny. This phenomenon is understandable considering their status as a statistical minority, but problematic insofar as such assumptions are often coupled with non-neutral valuations of certain behaviors. By associating various behaviors, attitudes or styles with various sexual identities, stereotypes are reinforced, often inaccurately.

Speculation can also be harmful in that it begets categorization. Conjecturing about others’ sexuality hardly gives the matter the nuance it deserves; rather, it tends to reify strictly demarcated lines between what is “gay” or “straight.” In truth, sexuality is far more complex and fluid; if anything, it is a component of identity that resists categorization. In that sense, the minute differences between individual’s sexuality make supposition both a futile and unjust exercise.

There are more tangible consequences from speculating about the nature of people’s sexual desires as well, some of which we can see manifested in the two aforementioned Sun articles. As a result of the Gay Mafia exposé, the Gay Mafia was disbanded (or so they claim), closing off indefinitely an avenue for gay students to socialize. In the Everyday Ethicist article, a woman was encouraged to come out before she may have been mentally or emotionally ready. In these cases, very real consequences were or could have been realized.

At its core, this fascination also imposes a double-standard on non-heterosexual individuals. People very infrequently question the nature of heterosexual individuals; it’s only when divergent interests are assumed that people’s curiosity is piqued. After all, heterosexuals aren’t required to “come out,” their normative sexuality is assumed. The question that I pose, therefore, is this: At what point is it fair to subject non-heterosexual individuals to such scrutiny, either on the street or in the newspaper?

My contention is not that speculation about people’s sexual identities, or fascination with non-heterosexual identities must immediately cease; that seems like an impossible ultimatum. Rather, I think we should all consider the ways in which we discuss such identities, and the ways in which they are represented. Understanding the consequences of our rhetoric, and being cognizant of the way in which we perceive others, will hopefully move us towards a more accepting campus.

David Murdter is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be reached at dmurdter@cornellsun.com. Murphy’s Lawyer appears alternate Tuesdays this semester.