Finding Out, ch4: Stonewall and Beyond

       Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaign seems to be a step back from the medical models of homosexuality that was, as far as I know, still the dominant model in 1977. If, as many scientists and doctors believed, there existed something like a “gay gene” or some other medical, biological reason for same-sex desire, it would be impossible to “recruit” or convert heterosexual individuals without this gene. Even if some people were “recruited” by the efforts of gay activists, they would, by this model, have to have the capacity for or have experienced same-sex desire already! 

      It still seems strange to me the supporters would march “under the catchphrase, ‘Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit’” (92). Did Bryant and other supporters of the “Save Our Children” campaign actually believe that people with same-sex desire had no desire to reproduce and that reproduction was a physical impossibility for them? Even without any official medical records stating that it is just as easy for a lesbian to get pregnant or a gay man to impregnate as it would be for a heterosexual to reproduce, it should seem obvious that this is the case by the many examples--even before 1980--of gay men marrying women to appear to be heteronormative and respectable by social standards or of women being raped for actual or suspected homosexual desires.

      Amazingly, some people still seem hold this belief today. But if homosexuals can reproduce, then by the logic of that campaign, they would not have to recruit. Again clearly, their children don’t turn out gay by default. According to an article Huffington Post, “while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html).

      And, if they could not reproduce to create individuals with a gay gene, and they could not possibly recruit people because homosexuality required a gay gene, then where, really is the harm in openly expressing and practicing same-sex desires?

      This is an example of how homophobia (and other phobias) was and still is used to rationalize and justify ridiculous, illogical beliefs about individuals who experience and act out same-sex desire (among other things).

      Also, I thought it was funny but fitting that she was “former Miss America” (92). I’m under the impression that beauty contests, such as the Miss America pageant, resurfaced to counter the new social and political power that women were gaining in the United States (the appliance rush and 50s image of the ideal woman as homemaker and trophy wife seem to do the same thing). It is not surprising that the woman who felt compelled to speak out against violations of conventional gender rules--which include compulsory heterosexuality--would also have taken part in a contest that upholds and stresses conventional femininity (and, therefore, masculinity by showing what a woman is and what is man cannot be). It makes sense that Bryant would be homophobic (with homosexuality as a violation of gender normativity) because to believe in the flexibility of gender would be to shake the foundations of her fame and career as a feminine figure and spokesperson.

Community Interaction 1

     I attended the LGBT Center’s Welcome Back party. There were at least 40 people in attendance, many that I had never seen before and most of whom I didn’t know. 

     I noticed that those employed at the LGBT Center who organized the event are more considerate than most other groups: all of the food was vegetarian, much of it was vegan, and a lot of it was even gluten-free! They didn’t have any meat at all, eliminating the problem of cross-contamination. 

     There was also a film crew recording the event. Many people seemed uncomfortable with being on camera (although the sign on the door warned that they would be filmed if they entered the room). It seems that they will be potentially including the footage in a documentary. While I think that some people generally avoid pictures and video, others may not have felt comfortable being caught on camera in a “safe space.” One reason may be that they have conservative, unsupportive parents, relatives, or friends who would either confront and punish them for their presence at such a party or disown them for associating with people they see as “unnatural” and “perverted.” Others may believe social stigmas surrounding gender nonconformity and non-heterosexuality; they may want to avoid associating themselves with the people in the LGBT Center--even allies--because there are negative stereotypes and attitudes about LGBT people (I suppose there might be some about queer people, too, but I don’t know any yet--it seems that people just apply LGBT stereotypes to them instead). No one admitted feeling this way to me, but there were some that admitted that it was their “first time at an event like this,” and they looked starkly different from the regulars who just didn’t want to be on camera (with the exception of one talkative, friendly woman who walked around introducing herself to everyone).

     What always surprises (and comforts) me is how community spaces like the LGBT Center feel so friendly and supportive--even when the people in them don’t know one another! I find that even people there with groups of friends are welcoming to newcomers and people they haven’t met before, willing to talk and include them in their jokes and even serious conversations. My guess would be that a lot of those people have been bullied or excluded in the past, and they want to give others a different experience by reaching out, welcoming, and sharing their experiences to let others know that they understand. While I think it’s unfair and destructive, even violent, for our society to discriminate against and prejudge people ultimately based on stereotypes, it seems that at least one good thing has come out of it. A level of solidarity and a number of safe spaces, including several friendships, improve the lives of even those who only come in contact with the community once. If that environment can make a shy trans-identified woman feel comfortable enough to confess her emotions, tell her story to strangers, and interact with others normally after being assaulted and abandoned by her “friends,” then we can’t ever say that only bad has come out of the homophobia and transphobia  in our society today.

Finding Out, Ch3: Toward Liberation

      Meem, Gibson, and Alexander write, “Others have argued that in part because it is a variation and not the norm--and also because of the long history of persecution and punishment of those engaging in same-sex (and other nonsanctioned [sic]) sexual acts--homosexuality should continue to be restricted or outlawed by the state” (66) the contemporary example of Scalia’s opinion that “society needs sodomy laws because society has always had sodomy laws” (66) follows. Of course, people like Scalia only ever make this argument when it’s something they personally oppose (with ungrounded reasons). Far fewer people today would suggest that laws against oral sex should remain intact or that only white male property-owners should be allowed to vote. Applying this “logic” to other “natural variations in the human species,” it would be best to make laws to punish people for having red hair, freckles, unusually large or small breasts or penises. Being left-handed would be a sin, punishable by life in prison or death if proven in court, and rather than praising ambiguous-handed people for their ability to use both, we would treat them as outcasts, just as bad as the left-handed. This all seems ridiculous, of course, but they are also variations in the human species. Favoring heterosexuality in an over-populated world is even worse than favoring right-handedness or certain hair and skin colors because, in addition to the discrimination, violence, and stereotypes that result, heterosexual relationships can create unplanned pregnancies as well.

      Although Freud calls it “a great injustice...and cruelty too” to treat homosexuality as criminal, he also says, “we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development” (66). Speaking out against persecution is great, but implying that same-sex desire is a mark of immaturity places those individuals in the same category as children. Was it better to be considered  in need of guidance because one is childish than because one is mentally ill? Isn’t society’s treatment of each the same? How did they feel about it at the time?

      As Kathleen Parker says, discharging gay men from the military was (and is) “not about gay rights, but about the rights of non-gays to be protected from forced intimacy with people who may be sexually attracted to them” (72). It might be helpful to add “whom they are not attracted to.” And clearly, this idea only applies to heterosexual men. People can identify with men who are the unfortunate “victims” of sexual interest from other men or from women they consider unattractive, but it’s unheard of for them to sympathize with women who go through the same. In some cases, they may even favor women’s uncomfortable situations if they believe they could lead to one of their sexual fantasies (O M G L E S B I A N S). It’s hard to imagine a law or a social rule that would make sure that women--of any sexual identity--were protected from “forced intimacy with [men] who may be sexually attracted to them.” Further, it seems that every man thinks himself attractive to the woman he tries to pick up at a bar--even if she isn’t interested in men at all--so that he never believes himself at fault for the same things he complains about. Heterosexual men’s rampant homophobia informs their attitudes and apparently our laws because, for whatever reason, they see other men’s same-sex interest as a threat to their masculinity and well-being.

Midterm: Rough Outline

      Bayleigh and I will be working together to create a zine. Integrating different mediums and others’ work into one project to communicate a message seems the best (and most enjoyable) way to express the great diversity even within the LGBT community. Bayleigh and I both have an interest in zine culture, so hopefully our enthusiasm will help us create an outstanding project.
       Our audience, outside this class, will probably be others within the community who maybe haven’t studied history and society and those without. This may change as we work through ideas and create material for the project.
       Hopefully, we can find ways to encourage thought about “LGBT” and people’s self-identification, experiences, and differences. 
       Through essays/analyses, poems, lyrics, images, and possibly interviews, we will be able to give a broader idea of the varied definitions of LGBT than if we worked solely with words. Borrowed and original material will help us define and problematize definitions of what it means to be LGBT. If possible, we will try to include work and and interviews from many people to represent a diverse group. 

       We haven’t narrowed our focus to specific points yet, but we plan to in the following week.

Finding Out, Ch2: Sexology

       I have little knowledge of symbolic presentations of same-sex desire, but I find it incredibly restrictive for Meem, Gibson, and Alexander to write off Ellis’ claim that homosexual men tend to like green clothing. Maybe an overwhelming number of these men did prefer to wear green! Did anyone actually attempt to find information of whether or not green become a signal color, much like the term “sailor” in a greeting or a pomegranate blossom? I’m hoping that, had they researched it, they’d have mentioned finding nothing to affirm this conclusion, so it seems unlikely that they have studied this claim extensively. While promoting a view of history that is more accepting and flexible to other points of view, they’ve certainly ignored a possible claim to truth in the assumption that Ellis was, himself, assuming.

      Further, I find it interesting that Meem, Gibson, and Alexander claim that, with the availability of condoms and diaphragms, “People were not necessarily having more sex than before” (45) when removing (or at least preventing) pregnancy tends to increase the frequency and enjoyment of sex for most pairs. Knowing that women at this time and previously sought abortions illegally and painfully as the only method of reproductive control when their husbands were home, it seems unlikely that the amount of sex would stay the same. Among people who had sex for pleasure, worries about pregnancy were lessened, so they could enjoy it more (and often); among those who had sex out of (religious, marital, social) duty, sex would be at least more tolerable without the fear of pregnancy, birth, childrearing, inadequate financial support, etc.

      According to Iwan Bloch and Ulrichs, homosexuality is something that is noticeable, something that one can distinguish by appearance alone (46, 47). Beside that we know this to be faulty today, this argument fails to hold up logically. First, holding same-sex desire as the distinguishing feature has little to do with the body in the way that male or female is understood: those categorized as Urnings constituted a “third gender” but did not possess a third, distinct kind of genitalia (ignoring, as they did, intersex individuals). Second, describing male-male desire as characterized by bodies with “a considerable deposit of fat,” lacking muscles and facial hair (46), is also to assume that all men with fat and shaven faces feel same-sex desire, something that they would certainly deny. Just as men and boys today are afraid to associate themselves with anything deemed “homo,” men at the time distanced themselves from anything that they related to homosexuality, such as cross-dressing--although it was accepted and even highly regarded in theatre in the nineteenth century. If sexology marks the beginning of the development of the privatized homosexual identity, does this period also mark the beginning of homophobia?

      Lastly, the quote from David Altman at the close of the chapter suggests that other parts of the world are developing gay cultures similar the to one in the United States in the last several decades. He notes the “marked differences in women’s social and economic status” (55) in these nations, preventing the equal expression and development of lesbian spaces. If Brazil, Costa Rica, Poland, and Taiwan are following the same pattern laid out in the U.S. in the last century, perhaps the gay world and inevitable gay rights movements will also usher in a revolution in the rights of women their sexuality. One problem remains: if, in the U.S. today, the LGB community is more accepted but the people labeled as “transgender” are not, what will happen to those outside the gender and sex binaries in other countries, as well as our own? 

Finding Out: Ch1, Before Identity

Many women seem to have lived in situations undesirable but perhaps well-suited for female-female sexuality; in others, they received harsher punishments for stepping outside of gender boundaries. To start, far fewer same-sex relationships between women were valued or honored than those between men. In ancient Greece, countless pederastic relationships were revered while only Sappho’s same-sex relationships were recorded. Of course, men had more mobility and freedom than women in their society, and men kept the records. Even so, most of the accounts mentioned in this chapter are focused on male experience. On the Arab world, China, Japan, India, Pakistan, and early England, men alone are discussed, leading me to believe that the women in these societies were ignored or restricted by those who made the records. 

When women are discussed, it is in the context of offending men. Upper Egyptian women’s attempts to attract other women was “disapproved of and ridiculed” by men in the Church (17). This is one example of the still-prominent fact of men shaming women into submission. Today, mostly men (though occasionally women) shame women who act outside of conventional gender roles, whether through dress, performance, or sexuality, by accusing them of same-sex relations. Feminists and intelligent, vocal women are labeled as lesbians regardless of sexual preference in an attempt to hold them back from success. While gay men suffer the same bullying, their submission is in the form of adhering to masculine standards, to being “real men.” Both are restricted from a full range of expression, but where women are prevented from achieving success politically, professionally, or academically, men are often spared such extreme verbal oppression (outside of violence, which affects everyone). 

In some cases, women seem to have benefited either from their relative invisibility or from their lower status in society. In the places in which female sexuality is not mentioned, it is more likely that women’s sexuality was ignored than that female-female sexual contact or relationships never happened. The lower status of women’s bodies and women’s roles also contributed to th attitudes regarding their same-sex encounters. During the Middle Ages, “female-female sexuality was regarded as a lesser offense than male-male sexuality” due to a females subordinate reproductive role (17). Further, “lesbian sex was widely considered to be merely a preliminary activity preparing a woman for marriage; a sexually aggressive woman was thought to be emulating men--in other words, aspiring to a more perfect state of nature” (17). While, on the surface, this appears to be better for women, this view of women’s sexuality stems from patriarchal beliefs that women are inferior to men. 

In other places, women received harsher punishment than men. That “it is now believed that during the so-called burning times . . . many of the female victims were women who violated accepted gender practice” (17) is an indication that women’s nonconformity to gender norms was a more serious crime in societies where men had more flexibility in practice and in dress. Perhaps this is because women were seen as the bearers of the family line or race? Women were certainly viewed as property that had to be controlled rather than free agents. Rigidity when it comes to women’s roles and appearances is vital in such societies; without it, the potential for change and the usurping of patriarchy is too great for those in power to risk.

Ning and PBworks--Virtual Identity

     Choosing how to present myself online is difficult every time--and for many reasons. I try to present myself similarly to my instructors and classmates as well as my friends and family. My problem with developing any online profile is in my failed attempts to decide (or, sometimes, recall) my favorite music, books, movies, etc. I listed the musicians and films that I did because they were the only ones I could think of when I created my profile. The Woman Warrior isn’t my single favorite book, but it was the one sitting on the shelf in front of me at the time. My profile picture was difficult to decide on for other reasons: 1) I never know whether to post an image of myself or of something else--but then again, I hardly feel a strong enough connection to other things to present them as defining myself, and 2) I have very few photos of myself. The majority of the images on my computer and camera are of other people from parties or days out. I always come home and realize that I’ve forgotten once again to take any with me in them. I suppose I could have just taken a new photo right away, but I was both biased against my sleep-deprived, pajama’d appearance and too lazy to get my camera. The picture I decided on is one that my younger sister loves, and the colors make it fun anyway. When I can’t decide, I tend to go with something with her in it, because it makes me smile when she walks into my room while I’m working.

     The content I’ve added has just been things I’ve come across that I thought someone in this class (or any of my classes, really) might enjoy or care about seeing. I don’t think that all of my replies accurately represent me on their own, but I don’t care enough to spend time intensely thinking out and editing each one. I imagine that, by the end of the semester, my comments as a whole will seem representative to those who know me outside of this class.