A Synthesis of Thought-- The Final Post

With this being the final blog posting and our assignment essentially telling us to weave together overarching themes of the course, I would first like to reflect a bit on the blog assignment as a whole. Throughout my time maintaining this blog, I have struggled do separate myself from the conventional academic form of writing and infuse my own voice and opinions. This has happened for two reasons: 1) I have spent the last three years of college writing almost nothing but formal, informative papers from an outside standpoint, and 2) I feel that I have very little personal experience to add to the issues which we have discussed. I came into this class as a tabula rasa, bringing with me almost no knowledge about LGBT issues, especially those that came up more than 10 years ago, but with a strong sense that all humans are equal and a desire to learn more about this community of people to enable me to adequately argue such a point. I haven’t always felt comfortable passing judgment or expressing my opinion on certain topics because I have not lived these issues everyday, as many people have. The greatest struggle I have had with my gender and sexuality is talking to my parents about my relationship status, never having had to define my sexuality. That being said, I have gained a greater understanding of the social ramifications of identifying with the LGBT community and have come to really appreciate the struggles that they have gone through.

Reflecting on this course and my previous blog, I have come to really appreciate the fluidity of identity. I think that gender and sexuality, more than almost any other common categories, give the best example of identity fluidity and development. I have always been a strong advocate of allowing people to self-identify; if you are a woman who wants to sleep with women but identify as straight, there is something important about that. Society has a way of forming a category for every overarching group—gay, straight, black, latino, female, male, etc—and with each category comes an set of expectations. Gay men are supposed to act more feminine, for example, and so when a very “masculine” man comes out as gay, everyone is shocked. On the flip side, when a guy who likes to buy shoes and listen to Bette Midler dates women, people are equally shocked. These expectations of identity makes it hard for some people to fit into society’s categories. Specifically in regards to the identity of gay men, Mark Simpson and John Weir really bring this issue to the forefront. Both men are pointing out the stereotypes placed on gay men and, while Simpson does so more sarcastically, both men resent these expectations of gay men. Weir believes that those men who do conform to the expectations are ruining it for the rest of the gay male world by reinforcing these stereotypes.

I take issue with Weir’s stance in the same way that I take issue with those who accuse butch and femme lesbians of conforming to heterosexual norms. If a gay man enjoys being “flamboyant” and really identifies with the behavior that goes along with that, why shouldn’t he act that way? Because people will KNOW he is gay? Of course gay men have a connection and a common bond, but that bond is not necessarily any more unifying of behavior than race—there are expectations of how they will act, but such a wide spectrum of how they actually do act. Sexuality is not the ONLY identity that those in the LGBT community have, thus not the only standards to which they are subject, nor does it exemplify the only interests that they have.

This is especially apparent for those who are both a member of the LGBT community and a racial minority or a religion. As exemplified by our reading about chicana lesbians, these people are often forced to renounce one identity. During the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Rights Movements, and the Gay Rights Movement people were forced to choose which identity was most important to them and which one they were going to fight for the hardest. Splitting one’s identity is nearly impossible, but society’s difficulty with crossing categories has put many people in this unbearable situation.

Additionally, as exemplified most visibly by trans people, the identities that one forms for him or herself are likely to change over time. Going with this example, someone can be born a man, grow up liking to sleep with men, thus identifying as gay. Later in life this man can decide that he would better identify with women, undergo a transition (with or without surgery) and then identify as both straight and female. While, especially in this case, it isn’t always easy for society to accept this sort of fluidity of identity, people change and identities are not set in stone. Another example of this would be lesbian feminists—they began identifying with lesbian culture as a way of making a political statement, despite their actual sexual desires, going to show that each person has different motivations for changing their identity.

All people in the LGBT community have different needs, wants, backgrounds, and experiences. Various LGBT issues affect them all differently. Within each category (lesbian, gay, etc.) there are many subcategories and even more subcategories under each of those. Even those in the LGBT community have expectations of how others around them should think and act, as exemplified in many of our class readings, but it is clear that the interests and desires of these people are very different. They find common ground in their sexuality as a way of overcoming oppression and discrimination and as a way of furthering their cause and finding support.

The "T"

Transgendered people present a complication in the understanding of gender and sexuality. The question of whether the “T” really belongs with LGB does not provide a simple and straightforward answer. In many ways, it seems that trans is such a complicated category, that it deserves to be on it’s own, while in other ways it seems inherently linked to the LGB community.

The trans community has its own culture, its own terms, and its own way of understanding where it fits in with dominant society, but it has a huge spectrum of community members. Some trans people have had surgery or intend to, and some not; some don’t mind messing with gender norms and having those in dominant society know about their transition; some want all traces of their former life erased, not even revealing the truth to their partners; some only transition for part of the time, while others live only as the opposite sex from which they were born. In all reality, this spectrum can make it hard for trans people from opposite ends to find common ground to relate over.

While in some ways it may seem to be sort of a stretch, the T really does belong with the LGB. Despite what some may argue, there is an inherent link between gender and sexuality and those in the LGBT community, both best exemplify that link and challenge it. The gender you are and the gender you are interested in determines your sexuality, at least in the conventional way of compartmentalizing people’s sexual desires. Defining someone or oneself as trans does not give an immediate understanding of gender nor sexuality, but it is really the ultimate bond between these two ideas—giving one the opportunity to self-identify in both of these categories instead of getting stuck in a predetermined one. While some may reject the trans and LGBT communities all together, it seems that the LGB community might in fact be the space in which most trans can find a common ground.

Marriage Debate

Our discussion about marriage on Wednesday was very revealing about the attitudes surrounding marriage. As a heterosexual woman who is in a long-term monogamous relationship, I fully expect to get married some day, but our conversation made me question my motives behind doing so. I am not religious, I plan to be financially independent, and I have no interest in having children before the age of 30 (or maybe even 35), nor would I ever change my last name. I think what it really boils down to for me is stability and reliability, but that isn’t necessarily something that can only be found in marriage (or that can be found in marriage at all). While undoubtedly, society’s emphasis on marriage and the industry of marriage (i.e. weddings, honeymoons, etc.) has it’s appeal and some impact on my desires, marriage is something that I would do for myself and my partner, not for the rest of the world or the acceptance of society. I recognize, however, that this is a right that I shouldn’t take too lightly, as some people in fully committed relationships are denied this right and others, who have no respect for their partners, are allowed to marry as many times as they please.

I can’t say that I truly understand the opinions of gays who don’t want the right to marry, having the right doesn’t mean that you need to exercise that right. More importantly, I feel that the same-sex marriage debate has escalated to the point where gays are either going to be afforded that right or completely banned from marrying, as opposed to ambiguous stage that we are in right now. Being banned from anything based on sexuality at this point in the gay rights movement would be highly detrimental in achieving the goal of equal recognition under the law. Taking away (or banning) this right will likely serve as the basis for denying other rights or implementing laws banning homosexual activities. Marriage may in fact be an institution based on heterosexuality, making it something that many gays don’t want to assimilate to, but many gays do want to be allowed to legally, religiously, and socially commit to their partner and in this society the institution that accommodates that is marriage.

Simpson vs. Weir

The articles by Mark Simpson and John Weir that we ready for Friday presented an amazing contrast in beliefs. Although the Simpson piece was meant to be a parody, it is clear through the pairing with the Weir piece that there was no universal understanding of the gay male world by gay men. Clearly both pieces are extreme and on opposite sides of the spectrum, but they present an important dichotomy.

Because Simpson never comes out and says what he really means in his article “Gay Dream Believer: Inside the Gay Underwear Cult,” it is very hard not to take his words at face value. When I first read this article, it seemed to me that he really meant the words he had written: all gay men have found their place in the world and are very satisfied with their lives. His article seems to be about the trivial things, the material things, and does very little to further the cause of gay rights or even the acceptance of gay men into society. There is no discussion of struggle or difference and it places a blanket understanding of gayness over all men who identify that way. Additionally, he claims that “any unhappiness is clearly the result of straight oppression, [or] self-oppression…” Of course, this may be true in many circumstances, it would be completely inaccurate to say that gay men have no problems that don’t stem from their sexuality—they are human too, with problems that move beyond who they choose to sleep with and lust after.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, John Weir’s article, “Going In,” is remarkably unforgiving of gay culture. He makes some very interesting points, such as his point about gays having Stockholm syndrome, as well as the idea that gay liberation has really only opened the way for privileged white men. He does, however, take his statements to the extreme, claiming that he wouldn’t care if a gay man got beaten up on the basis of his sexuality. Although I don’t want to put words into his mouth, it seems that Weir is really trying to say that people like Simpson, who believe that the gay male world is about pretty underwear and gay bars, are ruining it for the rest of gay male society. They are enforcing stereotypes that he doesn’t want to be associated with and which are inaccurate representations of most gay men or even dominant gay culture.

Clearly, neither of these articles should be taken completely at face-value, but the contrast that they show is vital in understanding perspectives of gay life among gay men.

Race and sexuality

Reflecting our conversation on Friday, it is necessary to recognize that many outside factors impact the “gay experience”. On Friday, we were specifically talking about chicanas, who are both impacted by their race, culture, and gender. Up until this point in our class, we have often just lumped all groups together, only distinguishing gays from lesbians. In this form, we were probably reflecting the common experience of the dominant race, white Americans—which is ironic in many ways given the emphasis that the LGBT community put on being distinguished from the dominant sexuality.

The discussion of race and culture gave a very different perspective on the adversities that some people face in their effort to “come out”. In particular, chicanas are almost always identified by their relationships with men and the men in their lives, whether it is their father, husband, or son. Lesbians in this relationship find that they must carve their own identity in the community, attached to no other man, which is an almost completely uncharted path for women in this community. Following through with this effort to create an autonomous identity is often seen as a rejection of the culture and a betrayal to the race.

Unlike white women, women of other races in the United States, have to fight for both equal recognition of their race and their gender, they are fighting a battle on two fronts. They have not had as much time to fight for their rights as women within their race because they have been too busy working for their race as a whole. This is true of all minorities who also identify as LGBT as well. Being queer is often seen as embracing white culture, likely because it is the white queers who have had time to pave a path for themselves in society. Not to say that the LGBT movements of the past haven’t been fighting for the rights of all of those who identify as queer and not to say that the white members of the LGBT community have been fully accepted in dominant society, but the main target of the LGBT movement was dominant society—white, heterosexual society—and it did not put the same effort into getting recognized and accepted by minority groups, leaving that to the LGBT members of racial and cultural groups. As a result, these LGBT minorities face obstacles that the white LGBT community could never imagine

La Femme

Joan Nestle’s article defending the femme makes many interesting points. The one that struck me as maybe most important is that femmes dress and act how they feel comfortable and are not conforming to male expectations as many feminists have claimed.

Most femmes are not trying to pass as heterosexual women, nor are they in anyway denying who they are. Actually, many of them would probably argue that they are embracing who they are—women who love to dress up and feel beautiful who also happen to be lesbians. Society is the agent that places the idea of passing upon them. The stereotypes that society has embraced about how lesbians should look and act have set the stage for femmes to blend in while butches stand out.

While, admittedly, some women do dress to fill male desires, many women dress to make themselves comfortable and happy. Those women who accuse femmes of betraying the feminist cause are stereotyping those women to the same extent that men have.

Many of these same arguments can be made of butches; they dress to make themselves comfortable and are not necessarily dressing to reject societal pressures about beauty. Additionally, they are not rejecting their gender or embracing masculinity by dressing and acting the way that society dictates that men should.

I do think that adopting the butch-femme norm of lesbian relationships works to reflect heterosexual norms upon lesbians. While some lesbian relationships may consist of a butch and a femme, there is no reason that it couldn’t be two butches together or two femmes. Overall, I would say that it is harder to “detect” a femme relationship due to societies acceptance of women being more affectionate with one another. Gay men, butch-femme, and both butch relationships are generally more visible, increasing the awareness and stereotype-ability of such relationships, allowing femmes to pass more easily, whether or not they want to.

AIDS

Discussing the topic of HIV/AIDS in class over the past week has been very interesting to me. I feel as though I have always been aware of HIV and known snippets about it, but I have never really understood the intricacies of how it works and how the rapid spread of AIDS impacted society as a whole and the LGBT community.

While, in high school, I had comprehensive sex education (for the most part), but very little detail was given about AIDS. We were told about other STDs, their symptoms, treatments, different ways of contacting them, etc. This sort of attention was not paid to HIV/AIDS. We were taught that it happens and that it is transmitted through sex, but that is about it.

My guess (although merely an educated speculation) is that we learned so little about it because it still carries the stigma of being a “gay disease”. I grew up in a conservative small town that has probably never been home to an openly AIDS-infected person, thus perpetuating the idea that it was not something that “our people” have to deal with.

In class we touched on the idea that while information about AIDS might be available, very few people are seeking it out for the sole purpose of knowing more, as we are. It scares me that over 20 years after the outbreak of AIDS, students are being taught almost nothing about it. There is some information available on the internet, and the U.S. government has an entire section of its site devoted entirely to AIDS, but after sifting through the site a bit, I find that it is hard to get any quick information. Almost every section of the site has an additional 5-10 links that are meant to provide information. As a member of the technology era, I, like most people, want quick, fast, straightforward information. If I find that interesting enough, I will dig in deeper to a subject. This seems like a simple and common idea that even the government is over-looking, making it hard for people with limited internet access or reading skills to get accurate information. It is under-education that leads to the continued spread of the disease, despite the fact that all its methods of transmission have been well known for years and it seems logical to me that the U.S. government (as well as others) should be doing everything in its power to stop this spread in both the United States and other countries.

lesbian feminism and gender roles

I had some lingering thoughts stemming from Friday’s discussion, so that’s my focus for this entry. Although I do see the arguments behind lesbian feminism, I also find it problematic.

The concept of political lesbianism may have worked to re-enforce feminism through complete separation from men, but it seems to undermine homosexuality. Choosing to act as a lesbian might act suggests that it is a choice for everyone and that everyone can choose NOT to be a lesbian. I imagine that this is one of the reasons that many actual lesbians resented these political lesbians. Going off of this idea, I take issue with the concept that “lesbians are feminists, not homosexuals.” Again, this suggests first that lesbianism is always a choice, but it also suggests that lesbianism is always political. There is more to feminism than being a lesbian and there is nothing inherent in being a lesbian that suggests wanting equality for women, but more a sexual preference for women. While having a relationship with another women may ensure that there is no misogyny at home, these women may still subject themselves (willingly or unwillingly) to such misogyny elsewhere.

Another issue worth mention, something that we have not discussed in class, is the stance that some of these lesbian feminists took on gay men. Although not all shared this opinion, some thought that gay men weren’t doing enough to do away with gender, especially by accepting the antics of drag queens and butch lesbians, but it seems to me that this challenge of gender is as important to getting rid of gender norms as the rejection of gender all together. By making people question their conceptions of gender, you can reassert the absurdity of inequality between genders. While this is clearly a very different tactic, it seems that both have their merit. I am not suggestion, however, that the gay movement did not have its own elements of misogyny, but I do not think that drag queens were the ones reinforcing gender inequlities.

Martin Duberman’s Stonewall has been a very interesting book to read thus far and has broadened my awareness of the LGBT experience (not to suggest that it is an exclusively collective experience, but rather, at times, a very individual experience). There are a couple of issues regarding the book that my group discussed and I have been thinking about that I am interested in further exploring.

My initial reaction to the book, after reading sections 1 and 2, was that it high action and fairly sexually charged. This made it hard to put down, but also somewhat hard to believe. The stories of people having sex at the age of 7 or going to jazz clubs before they were old enough to drive seemed quite unrealistic. The stories that Duberman chose to portray are, I would guess, some of the more extreme stories of sexual awakening. At first I didn’t understand why he would choose to pick extreme cases and no “average” ones, and although his motivation is not entirely clear to me, I think I am beginning to understand. It seems to me that this was a time of sexual repression, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals (but especially the ladder), so those gays and lesbians who did come out at that time were exceptional and had to be visible to participate in the LGBT movement. Many of them had such confidence in their sexuality as young people that it just carried over and intensified as they grew older. This confidence is what brought their stories together and brought them to the attention of the author, making them interesting and active subjects for such a book, even if they do not express the “average” LGBT experience.

My other main question about the book was, why Foster? At first he seemed quite boring to me, especially after reading the narratives of the others, but he seems to add a very interesting dynamic. Foster is an example of many things in this book. First, he presents a conflict with social class. He came from a wealthy upbringing and was always expected to be a member of the upper class. The others did not have this particular social pressure to deal with during their upbringing. Also, probably because of this upper class upbringing, he grew up internalizing heteronormativity and, maybe more so, homophobia. Many of the others had some specific moment in their life where they realized that homosexuality was “wrong”, but Foster was raised knowing that it wasn’t socially accepted and that played a major role in his own sexual identity. Finally, he is the only character in the book that exemplifies being gay without having sex. It is common in society to directly link being gay with having a lot of sex, even though one doesn’t have to have sex to be considered heterosexual. Foster’s character shows that he can identify as gay without the need to define that sexuality with sex. Overall, he seems to be one of the more complex characters in the book, even though he initially comes off as uninteresting.

Women's Health Focus Group

I got this in an email from NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota and thought I would post it in case anyone is interested:

Maybe you are interested, or please pass this on to anyone you know who might be interested. Thank you.

Seeking women who have sex with women (WSW) for focus group participants!

Focus groups will examine sexual health care for WSW and answers will be used to create improved sexual health care programs for WSW.

All participants will receive a $25 gift certificate to Target
Food and beverages at all groups
All answers confidential
Limited Spots – sign up quickly

October 10th, noon – Downtown YWCA
October 11th, 5:30 pm – Midtown YWCA (Lake Street)
October 13th, 10:30 am – Amazon Bookstore

ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST RSVP TO LEAH AT: 612-332-2311 or development.mhcw@visi.com


Sponsored by:

Thanks! Please call or email me with questions.

Leah J. Hebert
Director of Programs and Development
Midwest Health Center for Women
612-332-2311
www.midwesthealthcenter.org

What's in a word?

So, I'm new to blogging, but I am going to try to embrace this relatively new media form. Any constructive criticism or feedback is welcome.

I have been thinking about the class discussion we had on Monday about proper terminology regarding the LGBT community. We addressed the issues of how to refer to lesbians and gays, but did not say much about heterosexuality. While we did touch on the idea that the term “homosexual” is fairly scientific and removes the human element, we spent little time discussing the scientific nature of “heterosexual”. I know the focus of the class is on LGBT issues, but knowing how to refer to the opposite side of the spectrum is important is well.

I know that there are not nearly as many terms to refer to heterosexuals as there are to refer to homosexuals, but the one that is most commonly used--“straight”-- makes me quite uncomfortable. While some people in the class expressed distain for the term “homosexual” due to its scientific nature, I prefer the term “heterosexual” as a way to refer to men who have sex/relationships with women and visa versa. The reason for this is tied to the other definitions of the word “straight”. Upon thinking about this issue, I looked up the exact definitions as used by many popular resource websites. As I expected, straight was defined in many ways, including “to describe a person who does not participate in "dangerous" activity such as drugs, alcohol, sex or criminal activity. A good girl/guy”. This definition suggests that being straight is “correct” or “good” and not being straight is incorrect and bad. The term straight is also linked with terms such as truthful, honorable, right, and unbroken . Using this term to define heterosexuality reinforces heteronormativity in a subtle and often unthought of way by defining one group of people (those who have sex with people of the opposite gender) as being “right” and everyone else as being “wrong”, thus making me very hesitant to define anyone’s sexuality by such a term. This may seem like a very basic idea, but I think it is one worth pointing out and possibly discussing further.