The problem is, she and her lesbian partner are caring for a young girl who has found herself in their care, and the girl is turning out to be boy-crazy. This is a problem for Sally, because, as she expressed in her recent Washington Post essay, “I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too.” She argues that this is natural, using so many words, but painfully, purposefully I think, avoiding that one word. Natural.
Why is that, I wonder? To avoid so scrupulously the one word that describes the one thing she’s trying to express, even though she claims that she will support what her ‘daughter’ wants in the way of sexual orientation, no matter what she (Sally) wants. How big of her. She will defer to what is natural in her daughter, even though she wants badly to express that it is natural for her to want otherwise.
Is it because, Sally, that it is in no way natural for you and your partner to have a little girl to raise, and that you know this? I’m asking this question without being aware of the origin of this precious little girl that you are raising. Clearly, her origin was completely natural. I know this. Perhaps you or your partner actually, physically gave birth to her. Perhaps you adopted her. But I also know that you did not do this without some unnatural, or even illegal, act. Despite this, I’m sure your ‘daughter’ will turn out just fine. I’m also sure that both of you could be even better off if you’d learn to say the word. Maybe, some day, you also could learn to be completely consistent in your respect for what is natural and what is good.