Finding Out, Ch 8: Intersectionalities

Delany says that speaking “of gay oppression in the context of racial oppression always seemed an embarrassment” (quoted 204). Alexander, Gibson, and Meem note earlier in the chapter that “in an inclusive environment, individuals are encouraged to represent categories” (203). People are supposed to represent marginalized categories of sex, race, sexuality, class, ethnicity. Many of these people are also accused of selfishly shifting the focus to their own problems--problems seen as unimportant--at the consequence of “real problems.” For example, in businesses where it is rare for racial minorities and women to be promoted to high managerial ranks, they are accused of looking out for “their people” rather than the good of the company; their efforts to reward hard-workers are seen as favoritism, and if they bring up issues of sex or race, they are seen as personal concerns only, where a white male experience is the default. Delany may have felt the pressure to stay quiet about the intersectionality of identities and issues as they pertain specifically to him because of these kinds of attitudes. I think the word “embarrassment” is important, as many people are made to feel that their experiences are less important because of their race, class, age, sex, etc. Stereotypes help the attitude spread and persist by 1) creating one version of a group of people, and 2) depicting these people as deviations from the norm that shouldn’t be taken seriously. Delany also said that “somehow [to speak of gay oppression in the context of racial oppression] was to speak of the personal” (204), rather than the general. It was to speak of individual concerns rather than speaking of issues as they pertain to everyone. Delany also makes a clear connection, if not between sexuality and race, then at least between race and class. He describes racial oppression as “vast political and imperialist and nationalist  systemics” (perhaps a general definition of racial oppression) as well as “material deprivation,” defining it by the physical and economic suffering as a result of race discrimination. Race and class seem to be inseparable by Delany’s definition.

They are correct in saying that Delany “ignores the core feminist insight that ‘the personal is political’” (205); but I think that his use of past tense signifies that he may have learned this by the time of his statement. Despite being told from several sides that his individual experience matters little compared with the similarity between the experiences of all gay men or all black men (or all men), Delany seems now to understand that the total experience has value, too.

In my life, there have been times when I brought up aspects of race, sex, gender, or other identities in a conversation only to have others roll their eyes or tell me I’m over-reacting by pointing out that the issue has many parts and influences. I get the same response when I point out sexism, heterosexism, racism, or other problems in people’s language or behavior. Recently, someone told me that people who are against racist jokes don’t understand that it’s a joke. When I tried to explain to her that humor can still be used to perpetuate negative attitudes about groups of people and contribute to poor treatment, she discounted my input because she was a Psychology major--which apparently makes her better and more qualified to talk about social concerns than a Women’s Studies major completing a certificate in LGBT Studies. (She is also white discussing how racism impacts minority groups (or doesn’t, in her opinion) with a member of a racial minority). These things don’t even become an issue in a conversation until someone refuses to acknowledge that we have problems based on identity and perception.

Finding Out, Ch6: Inclusion and Equality

      What bothered me most about this chapter was the authors’ description of the differences between the strategies of the Human Rights Campaign and Queers. They start by saying that the “HRC and Queers strategies couldn’t be more different” (155). Considering that both seem to approach the situation with the same ideas about the nature of sex, gender, and sexuality, buying into the binary of sexuality, they could easily be “more different” if Queers followed their name and reasoned with ideas from queer theory instead. Meem, Gibson, and Alexander are clearly at least somewhat familiar with the difference between gay liberation’s and queer theory’s approaches to various issues, as evidenced  right after their description of the HRC’s and Queers’ strategies. They say that it is “important to look beyond the civil rights paradigm and critique institutional systems, asking who is served by them and who is excluded” (155), but they fail to explain that sexuality as a polarized binary is an institutional system. Despite dedicating the previous chapter entirely to the expansion of ideas about sexuality beyond the hetero-homo binary, they continue to treat sexuality as a definite and descriptive identity, ignoring the queering of sexuality and identity that many have pushed for before them. I hope this is just a way to keep the information simple enough for those new to the history and theory to understand. I realize that this textbook serves as an Introduction to LGBT Studies, but I don’t see how the authors can raise the distinctions between gay liberation and queer theory and then largely ignore the ideas behind queer theory. 

      It also seems odd that they would refer to someone whom they recognize as “[identifying] as gay, transgender, and ‘two-spirited’” as “he” from Martinez’ sex rather than gender identification. They make a big deal out of the school’s and the students’ refusal to recognize Martinez as a girl, but then they do the same themselves! They obviously treat trans-identification with more respect than the people in the case of Martinez’ murder, describing such cases in ways that sound empathetic with recognition of unfair victimization, but their use of what seems to be incorrectly gendered pronouns makes me doubt their experience with or acceptance of trans-identifying individuals.

      They do make a good point with their analysis of the situation: 

Social systems that impose standards of gender conformity. . . create a circumstance in which gender nonconformists are seen as deserving harassment and in which peers consider it their right (and perhaps subconsciously their responsibility) to police one another’s gender behaviors. Social restrictions on behavior related to gender and sexuality, as well as a perception that LGBT people are predatory outsiders, contribute to exclusionary attitudes based on a sense of the inherent inferiority of LGBT people as compared with gender conformists and heterosexuals. . . (158)

In this way, “gender/sexuality policing” takes on new meaning, where peers position themselves as agents who enforce the laws of the heterosexual matrix through punishment. Meem, Gibson, and Alexander never use the word, but these extreme reactions to gender nonconformity are very much based in homophobia and transphobia--although they do come near saying this when they explain that these reactions come from “a social structure that assumes that sexual and gender difference are threatening” (158).

      Lastly, I find it pleasing that, despite the idea that people still have that “An avowed homosexual wouldn’t be a role model for [traditional family] values” (159), Ellen can be supported as a spokesperson for JCPenny and prove this wrong.

Community Interaction 2

     I attended a drag queen workshop organized by the LGBT Center with Windy Breeze and Harmony Breeze. Windy Breeze has been performing for 10 years, with the UWM Drag Show as the first venue at 18 years old. Harmony Breeze is Windy’s “drag daughter,” performing for only three years so far but earning a place as Miss Wisconsin Unlimited at Large 2010-2012. Windy Breeze and Harmony Breeze demonstrated how they transform from everyday “boy face” to performance “girl face,” focusing on make-up application techniques. The make-up on just half of the face took two hours (with some time for explanation and interruptions to show the variety of color and product options). Both Windy Breeze and Harmony Breeze described drag as a second job because of the amount of time it takes to choose a number, coordinate an act, plan an outfit, match and design make-up, and then execute it all--regardless of whether or not they are paid for their performances. 

     I noticed that Harmony and Windy used pronouns differently. Windy Breeze switched between “he” and “she” when referring to Harmony, using both for in-drag and out-of-drag and calling her “girl” but never “man.” Harmony always used “she” to refer to Windy, and despite Windy’s insistence on being called Chris during the workshop (perhaps to make it more informal and comfortable?), Harmony still used the drag name. It seems that this is because of their close relationship, or maybe there is a difference in the way they see themselves when it comes to drag, but I don’t feel that I’ve been around them enough to say.

      They commented that performing for audiences at free shows are actually more rewarding because the audience is more appreciative: they know that the performers are working harder than if they were paid to go on stage. This may be partly because the only compensation they receive is from tips and perhaps future bookings, but I think it’s also because a free performance is done for the illusion, for the enjoyment of the art, rather than for monetary rewards only.

      Obviously, drag queens, like other performers, take part in the work for different reasons. Windy Breeze said that drag has always been interesting and even natural to her; she started in middle school when her mother’s friends put on drag and visited. Sh decided to try it, loved entertaining, found drag performance particularly fun and free. For her, the fans’ appreciation and reactions validate the hours of work she puts into drag. Harmony Breeze said that a huge factor in her enjoyment of drag is that she likes the illusion--she likes “to be someone else.” Drag allows her a creative outlet as well as a way to explore other identities. 

While drag is treated much differently, in the way it allows people to adopt and perform other personas, it is similar to many activities people take part in, such as gaming, role-playing, or even being active on the Internet. So why is drag considered so  extremely different from anything in mainstream pop culture? How unusual is it really for people to pretend to be someone else, to exaggerate aspects of themselves to play a role, often a cross-gender role? And yet many of the people who take part in cross-gender acting are also homophobic and criticize drag queens (and less often, kings), using words like “fag” to police them when they themselves are violating the same rules.

Finding Out, Ch5: Nature, Nurture, and Identity

      I love Kinsey’s statement that “only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separate pigeon-holes” (quoted on 123). We categorize everything--bodies, clothing, gender, occupations, sexual desire. Whenever something comes up that blurs the categories or fits into none of the established categories, people tend to ignore them instead of changing or adding or eliminating categories. Most institutions only recognize male and female bodies, despite the fact that a large portion of the population possesses characteristics that fit into neither or both categories. According to the Intersex Society of North America, 1 in 100 individuals are born intersex--the same frequency as that of individuals born with red hair. Many people feel the need to surgically alter intersex bodies to conform to the binary of sex, even at the risk of drastic or complete loss of sexual sensation in addition to normal risks of surgery. In many cases, ambiguous genitalia are assigned female because the procedure is easier to accomplish; but when asked, every person I spoke with said that they would prefer to have a small penis than a vulva with no sexual sensation. The gender binary and the idea that gender is sex-linked can also cause individuals physical, as well as emotional, pain as they try to conform to set categories (not to mention financial costs). Even the work that people do is linked to beliefs about sex and gender, from unpaid domestic work to paid professions. 

     Where something comes from only matters when people want to cause it, cure it, or justify action for or against it. Kinsey’s focus on sexuality as it is practiced rather than its cause (or morality) was a step in a positive direction that allowed people to reconsider their ideas about it. While Hirschfield’s concept of bisexuality disrupts the rigid binary of sexuality, it leaves little room for people to find a place that accurately describes them. When there are rigid categories, the categories often come to define individuals because the system is set up so that no one can cross categories--one category is defined against the others. Unlike Hirschfield, “Kinsey saw homosexuality as a fluid position on a continuum of possible sexual experiences” (124). Sexuality as a continuum provides more leniency for people to find a place that is descriptive of their sexual feelings and behaviors than the binary or even Hirschfield’s version of sexuality. 

      Interestingly, the Benjamin standards, though just as varied as the Kinsey scale, are just as confining as the heteronormative structure of the gender/sex/sexuality binaries. By linking sexual desire and gender roles (and, therefore, sex), Benjamin plays into compulsory heterosexuality in several ways:

1. it allows individuals to define themselves only within the already-existing binaries, acknowledging only an unfortunate disconnect between gender and sex, 
2. it was a way to measure the need for “curing” cross-gender identity, thereby ignoring the legitimacy of identities beyond the heterosexual matrix and forcing them to conform,
3. it assumes that all relationships must be defined by a superior and an inferior subject,  eliminating the possibility of an egalitarian relationship,
4. while supposedly acknowledging the Kinsey scale, it actually disregards the continuum that Kinsey describes--by defining individuals with the binaries again.

These problems persist today; even with the acknowledgement of same-sex couples without thinking that they need to be cured, the prominence of these ideas can be seen in such questions as, “Who wears the pants in the relationship?” Clearly, people still assume that there are only two roles for subjects to play in a relationship, that those roles are unequal and opposite, that both roles must be filled at all times, and that nether the roles nor the individual playing the roles are fluid.

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.