Philosophy professor Philip Devine of Providence College wrote a book called The New Fuzziness (pp. 85-86):
Rorty's habit of announcing himself persuaded, without citing an argument, is also a political liability. One issue on which Rorty exhibits this trait is of special interest to educators. Adolescent sexuality is frequently unformed, and many adult heterosexuals have homosexual episodes in their past. Hence some parents are likely to fear that some educators will encourage young people involved in homosexual relationships (or even undergoing homosexual feelings) to label themselves as homosexual, to their permanent injury. Without so much as a hint of an argument, Rorty accepts Eve Klossofsky Sedgwick's inflammatory description of policies designed, well or badly, to prevent such counseling as "child abuse" (PP 2:138). In an area of life where strong feelings abound, the attempt to override some of them requires claims on behalf of reason that he neither makes nor is in any position to make.
The book as a whole actually looked quite interesting, but this particular paragraph I found irritating and somewhat offensive for a couple of reasons:
First, and most technically, I find it hypocritical for Devine to criticize Rorty for making claims "without so much as a hint of an argument," when Devine himself claims that "adolescent sexuality is frequently unformed" without providing any evidence supporting this claim.
Second, and more substantively, Devine implies that a teenager who labels himself as gay is inflicting "permanent injury" on himself. I have several problems with this claim: In my assessment, what people really mean when they say such things is that, if you're gay, then you're going to die of AIDS. Now, there is an undeniably strong statistical correlation between (male) homosexuality and AIDS, but to say that coming out as gay dooms you to a horrible death caused by AIDS is ridiculous given that the disease is highly (nearly completely) preventable. Other legitimately cited problems with modern gayness include drug use and promiscuity-induced sexually transmitted infections. Though there may be a statistical correlation (perhaps even a strong one) of these problems with homosexuality, there is nothing causal in the relationship, and I can only believe that greater societal acceptance of gays -- fostered by encouraging young people to accept their sexuality even when it disagrees with the norm -- will tend to decrease the problems associated with it.
The last possible source of "permanent injury" that I can imagine is the ridicule one risks when coming out. But to attack Rorty for encouraging young people to accept their sexuality for this reason is even more ridiculous because obviously by encouraging young people to accept their own, and others', homosexuality and other forms of non-heterosexuality, this form of "permanent injury" will be reduced and, hopefully, gradually eliminated entirely.
What I find most frustrating about Devine's paragraph, however, is the complete omission from consideration of the negative effects of not encouraging young people to accept their natural sexuality, i.e., telling our youth that they should really try to be straight. From first-hand experience I can say that trying to play the heterosexual role when it is not one's innate predisposition is harmful. In some cases, the injury may even be permanent.
