Ask a Homosexual

[Angelina1]

What is Bonkers SOL? I can't remember genders anymore, the whole transgender thing is throwing me off.

I actually hit on this guy a few weeks ago, and after some conversation, he said, "One thing I should tell you is, I'm a trans."

You're a WHAT ?!?!?!?!?  I am traumatized.

Oh sorry!  Remember when you did the admissions thing to your own school of law with its own entry criteria?  Oh, here: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,51537.0.html

I know. Trans stuff can get very confusing... though not nearly as confusing as everyone squishing into those tidy boxes, I suppose.

So true! I will never forget what the androgynous TAs for my "Social Construction of Gender" class said about this (when he/she gave a lecture on bisexual and transgender issues late in the semester, knowing very well that none of us had been able to figure out if he/she was a guy with long hair just dressed like a woman, or a man in the process of trans-gendering, or just a 'masculine'-looking woman): something like, "I don't feel like I should have to fit into one simple category, and even going through the transgender process to 'correct' something is fitting yourself into the culturally-imposed construction of 'gender' and 'sex' as two narrowly-defined categories. I just don't feel that my attraction to people is tied to their biological sex or cultural gender. For instance, right now I'm dating a woman; what does that make me? A lesbian?"  

That was a fantastic course, and in fact every lecture was very dynamic and fun, but that class in particular was great.

So, Miss P, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that people are confused by "what" you are. If you don't want to define yourself by a particular skin color or gender tag, I don't think it's necessary--in fact, isn't the point of diversity to break down socially-constructed barriers and see greater possibilities?

[Miss P]

So, Miss P, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that people are confused by "what" you are. If you don't want to define yourself by a particular skin color or gender tag, I don't think it's necessary--in fact, isn't the point of diversity to break down socially-constructed barriers and see greater possibilities?

Thanks, A-1!

[Miss P]

Eh, I think it's worth thinking about.  The variety of gender expression out there really does show you that gender is made not had.

But FWIW, I have never been vague at all about my gender identity.  I was born female.  I was raised female. I remain female.  I am quite feminine. I am "femme."

[odaiko]

I must agree. 

Everyone should be free to be themselves, but all that jazz about there being no sexes or genders or anything I had to read about in Women's Studies was just weird. 

I know. I don't think there is a gender continuum. Unless you are a hermaphrodite, it is binary. But taking hermaphrodites into account, let's be generous and say there are three genders.

As for sexual attraction, women seem to think that attraction is very fluid, so I will leave them with that whole question in a box called "women."

Men must choose a sexual orientation and if you are not sure, it means you are a fag.

I can't tell if you're kidding or not. Are you?

[!!]

I have a question for you homos!  Why do you need special rights?!?  Next you're gonna want to marry cats and dogs!

 



(Before one of you jumps down my throat, I'm gay... and joking)

[redemption]

Eh, I think it's worth thinking about.  The variety of gender expression out there really does show you that gender is made not had.

But FWIW, I have never been vague at all about my gender identity.  I was born female.  I was raised female. I remain female.  I am quite feminine. I am "femme."

I heard the sound of trumpets.

[AtlantaSteve]

This kind of attitude has always upset me.  There was a time when the gay rights movement fought against the idea of anyone controlling anyone else's sexuality, fought the idea that there was a normal way to express sexuality.  As the members of the movement aged, the cause became more about getting rights than about changing the public's view of sexuality.  As a tactical move, I can support it, but there is no reason to sacrifice one on the alter of the other.  It's time to stop being embarassed and start embracing anyone who has the courage to express him/herself.  You still see this everywhere as activists fight being coopted by the mainstream gay rights movement, but there should be enough room under the umbrella for everyone.

i'm actually very torn about this.  on one hand, i see some of the pride events, and i'm absolutely horrified by some of the displays.  on the other hand, i understand the role of "subversive" identity politics in order to make a symbolic point. 

Oh puh-leeze.  I came to this thread with my bleeding-heart credentials firmly on my sleeve, but nude dancing and public sex-play in pride parades has about as much to do with "subversive identity politics" as looting during the LA riots had to do with promoting civil rights.  It's all about capitalizing on the opportunity to get a free TV, so to speak.

Pride parades are the one day out of the year when people who feel suppressed can "cut loose" in a supportive environment, so some people go wild with it.  I'm not saying it's "right" or "wrong" (that's more an issue for the gay community to debate internally), but I am saying it's more about the individual than any collective strategy for the greater good.

[->Soon]

and why is it almost alwys the guys doing it, never the lezzies?

grrrrrrr

[trogdor]

Oh puh-leeze.  I came to this thread with my bleeding-heart credentials firmly on my sleeve, but nude dancing and public sex-play in pride parades has about as much to do with "subversive identity politics" as looting during the LA riots had to do with promoting civil rights.  It's all about capitalizing on the opportunity to get a free TV, so to speak.

Pride parades are the one day out of the year when people who feel suppressed can "cut loose" in a supportive environment, so some people go wild with it.  I'm not saying it's "right" or "wrong" (that's more an issue for the gay community to debate internally), but I am saying it's more about the individual than any collective strategy for the greater good.

it's not the same at all.  you can agree or disagree about whether or not it has a positive or negative impact.  i am unsure myself, but i tend to think there are better ways to express yourself.  yet, looting has nothing to do with a person's expression of their identity.  sexual displays do have a lot to do with one's sexual orientation, however.  you may be right about some people doing it for their own reasons, but it also may serve to desensitize the masses to something that many are totally ignorant about and has long been considered "taboo" by many.  the easiest way to make something taboo is to not talk about it or be exposed to the possibility - make it seem as if it's just some underground activity that only a small segment of social deviants engage in.  think of all the sexual displays you see daily in heteronormative culture:  magazine ads with scantily clad women and men in suggestive poses, simulated sex on tv, hot makeout scenes, etc.  these are all taken for granted.  originally, such displays evolved not out of individuals taking advantage of an opportunity to have some fun or to "get a free tv"; it was a collective expression of identity meant to shock heterosexuals and display "pride" in oneself and the collective gay community. 

[Phatmal]

What pride parades have all this nudity?  I'm not the pride world traveler but I've been to SF and Chicago's pride.  Scantily clad, yes and I've seen one topless woman and one really old naked man....but other than that, I think the whole thing is blown way out of proportion.  It's all for fun and I'm not sure why it has to make some sort of political statement.