Gay is Good, Labels are Not

Like Jayke, as I read Shelley's article I was at first very surprised by her "extremism." While I can't necessarily agree with all of her ideas, there is an overarching concept that I find very appealing. For instance, I don't necessarily believe that being a homosexual is about simply being in "revolt against the sex-role structure and nuclear family structure." But I can say that as a person who's life is greatly shaped by denying majority rule, maybe this could carry weight for some. I also love her statement about being a person in private and a homosexual in public. Rather than saying that we (radical/non-radical gays) should have others get in touch with their "inner homosexual" (which I do believe exists) we should just all be people. We need to get past all the labels and all the bullshit of society and just be people. Drop the characters and the pretending and the trying and just be a person in a community of people where all differences are seen as a part of being a person.

What purpose, what positive purpose, do labels serve? Why should we even try to find a label for something as complex as who we are and who we are attracted to? For instance, I don't truly consider myself to be bisexual and attempting to find the right label has been utterly exhausted. I am attracted to people. I am attracted to a person's mind (which is now known as being sapiosexual) more than any physical characteristic. I happen to have found the person I want to spend my life with and that person happens to have male genitalia. But it's not his physical appearance that drew me to him. It was his mind and his personality. If he had been a woman or a transsexual, that would not have changed. I may have had more difficulty in coming to terms with my feelings, but I firmly believe that I still would have the same relationship I have with him now. If we talk only physical, though, I am primarily attracted to women. So what does that make me? It makes me a person just like anyone else and I think any other labels are superfluous and should have no place in our lives.

Community of patriarchal mimicry

Obviously by now, Sullivan points out how communities are problematic for movement. The legendary Ashley Fox asks us the question:

Are legit communities even possible?

We may have different views on pornography or assimilationists but we are working for the greater goal right?

In a classroom, sure we are! When you start putting things into action, that's when things get problematic. I can understand this from personal experience as a member of the animal rights and vegan "communities". That's correct that they are not one in the same. Before I go on let me break it down to you.

Vegan Community - Consists mostly of health vegans and ethical vegans. Some health vegans are also ethical vegans, while some are not. Some ethical vegans are health vegans, while some are not. Some health vegans do it to be healthy, some do it because they are already dying and heard that a vegan diet can save them. Some ethical vegans do it for animals, some for environment. And many other random combinations occur, some more rare.  The one thing they can all agree on is that they want to live off of a plant based diet. This community is totally divided right in half. With health vegans on one side and ethical vegans on the other.

Vegetarian Community - Take everything I said about vegans and replace the word vegan with vegetarian.

Animal Rights Community - This group is focused on animal welfare. Some eat animals and their products and use them for entertainment while at the same time fighting for animal rights. This can be problematic for vegan members of this group.


Ok there is a short version, kind of describing three communities that I am involved with.

Overall (excluding the pure health vegans for the following example), we all just want a better world for people and animals. We should be able to unite and work on that basis alone. I personally strive for it and reach out as much as I can to non vegans. But when conversation and action begins, that's when things get problematic and it gets hard.

I am the founder and president of a local group that tries to include vegans, vegetarians, and anyone even curious or interested. It ends up being a mostly vegan group. Why? We want the same thing right?

A lot of vegetarians get scared off when people start revealing the truth about dairy and eggs. We make a point not to preach to someone, "Oh my god?! You are just a vegetarian? Do you not know that cows......" You get it. We don't do that. However, I am not going to put limits on people's speech. If a certain conversation comes up, I don't see why we should have to lie for the sake of the vegetarians.

"Did you hear about that investigation they did at that Ohio DAIRY farm?"
"Yeah man, that shit is FUCKED UP that they do to those cows....."

This is enough to divide ethical vegans and vegetarians. I can't help but feel like it stems from some kind of guilt.

Now here is where things get REALLY problematic.When you bring in all the non vegan animal rights folks.

"I want to save dolphins, you want to save dolphins.....But wait you are eating products that kill dolphins, you are eating the dolphins food source....wait a minute.... Why do you care so much about dolphins but you have no problem eating pigs? Pigs are smarter than dogs, but you actually spend money to support their torture and murder!? HYPOCRITE SPECIEIST!"

You get it? This is the general thought pattern in this situation, even if never spoken aloud, that causes community to fail. Instead of pointing the figure, I should be thinking, "Well....we don't see eye to eye, but we both want to save dolphins lives and that's a good thing."

As the "leader" of Tri-City Veg, even I  make this mistake. It's so hard not to. When I hear that a vegan ate went back to vegetarian, sometimes all I can think is, "Oh my god, how? What happened to that person? What were they thinking? Maybe they don't even care? I would never do that!". (Policing)

When I should be thinking, "No one is perfect and I know this person cares, they are doing more than most people".

Communities.... Tough stuff here. Are they truly possible, truly able to work for the group and self? I believe so. Even though Sullivan doesn't actually say this, I feel that being able to read all this about the queer community and have it all pointed out. It challenges us to find a way.

It's also interesting to realize that what divides us is what we believe, our ideals, and politics. Not race, religion, gender, sex, or ethnicity.

(It's interesting to me how I can often see the similarities of the "queer community" and the "ethical vegan community". Ever since I took gender and comm I have been drawing similarities. Is anyone else able to do this with groups that you are a part of?)

Question:

It seems to me that in most communities, there lies a practice of patriarchal ways, saying "This is the way how we are suppose to look, this is how we will be seen."

How do we truly get away from that? Because so far I don't think any "community" as a whole has done so.

Hiding Homosexuality

One thing that struck me when reading the article by Young was the discussion on how even doctors and lawyers who help LGBT people must constantly try and prove that they are not gay. This was attributed to "moral" standards that everyone, not just these doctors and lawyers, are expected to live up to. Many laws on the books prohibit "solicitation," "wearing clothing of the opposite sex," and "sodomy," while seemingly not geared toward homosexuals, are often enforced only when LGBT people are involved. While some of the laws have been repealed in certain states since the publication of this book, many are still enforced. Back to the initial point: How do these "moral" standards hold back the LGBT community?

Not only is it wrong for people to have to hide who they are, but it is also wrong that there is a double standard between LGBT people and heterosexuals. For homosexuals to be charged for crimes that heterosexuals usually aren't perpetuates stereotypes, promotes heterosexism in a big way, and helps create an environment where violence and discrimination against LGBT people is not just accepted, but expected.

Martha Shelley – Gay is Good

I write about Martha Shelley’s perspective this week because of how severely I was caught off guard by her extremism, along with my new found infatuation with this concept of radicalism versus assimilation. As I openly speak in class as a proponent of the integration perspective, I tried to put myself into the shoes of Shelley while she was writing this and to gain insight of essentially why she feels the way she does. At both my first and second reads of this, I still find a lot of her voice in her literature to just be a little too eccentric, but I also read with the realization that self discovery is not half as easy for most as it was for me. An excerpt that stood out in particular was on page 32, which reads, “Understand that- that the worst part of being a homosexual is having to keep it a secret. Not the occasional murders by police or teenage queer-beaters, not the loss of jobs or the expulsion from schools or dishonorable discharges- but the daily knowledge that what you are is so awful that it cannot be revealed. The violence against us is sporadic. Most of us are not affected. But the internal violence of being made to carry- or choosing to carry- the load of your straight society’s unconscious guilt- this is what tears us apart, what makes us want to stand up in the offices, in the factories and schools and shout out our true identities.” This truly hit home with me, realizing that my experiences with self-identity and my personal “coming out process” has been so easy and so well-received in comparison to how many others have it. There are virtually no facets of my life in which I feel that hiding my identity is necessary anymore, and forget those feelings of angst when I was unable to be self-liberated in both my life and my culture. Although it is a shorter read and still a very radical approach that I don’t feel is the true answer to acceptance, it really shaped my perspective on radical literature. Shelley even notes that “we” don’t even want to be tolerated or to be accepted- we simply want to be understood; this piece indeed helped me understand the radical approach much better. How have your all's perspectives changed throughout the semester in terms of the concept of pride, assimilation, tolerance/acceptance, radicalism, integration, etc?

I think as Ashley has pointed out, Sullivan in chapter 8, appears to question the effectiveness of activist groups that have conflict. Today in another class we watched 'After Stonewall' and I was reminded of the history we have read in this class this semester. There is no question that the gay community has moved forward in some respect because different groups have coalesced into one movement. On the first page, Sullivan points out that community 'is a sense of commonality'. Also, as Sullivan points out the terms 'home' and 'family' are oftentimes used in political rhetoric . The desire to belong and to have credibility as well as the desire for the same rights as those who are heterosexual, are the commonalities for this cause. Like church denominations, splinter issues hinder the rate of progress for those who chose to continue to marginalize by the continuation of labelling and pointing out the differences that can often hinder the 'big picture'.
My question comes from the first complete paragraph on pg.146. Why has it been so difficult to recognise that 'shared characteristics' 'exist as such only within a given community of understanding'? When the agenda is really all about the understanding and recognising of the gay community and the rights that entails..why shouldn't the recognising begin from within on this issue, in this community of sexuality like it should begin with any other movement addressing inequality and oppression? The rate of success quite possibly could be measured much quicker to the betterment of those communities.

Is community possible?

My previous post was a frustration with a disconnect within activism which, oddly enough, is what Sullivan addresses in chapter 8. She uses theories of Secomb and Nancy to show that differences within a community that are irreconcilable keep movements from moving in one direction. Instead 'community' is an umbrella term, like the queer community, that serves to show generally where the conflicting groups stand in their struggle. The 'identity' of the community is not essential or fixed but changes as the groups struggle to become the majority that will speak for the community and police it's boundaries. She ends, however, by using a quote from Derrida saying that community is not possible with this lack of unification. I have to disagree, simply because in looking at the diverse perspectives coming from our class, we still form a close community that agrees that there are major problems that need to be addressed, and I feel like even though we have different opinions about issues concerning assimilating and pornography, etc, we could still work together in a community on other concerns for lgbt people.
I personally would still say we were working with and for the same community.

Sexing and the Body

I had already researched and discussed this topic a bit in the past but I have to say, this article still disturbed me. Its hard to imagine how much is kept from us, even in such an important situation as the medical details of our children. I cant even explain the rage I feel at the thought of doctors lying to parents about how common these issues are or how serious what they are doing is. I feel as if instead of making a snap decision, however based on what chromosomes and what parts are there, they should wait a while for the child to mature to certain extent so if the child doesn't in fact need a series of complicated surgeries and hormone treatments, they wont have done something unnecessary. They cant know what sex a person is going to be at birth and it makes me sick to think of how many people have been assigned to something they will never feel comfortable as. This is, of course, not even delving into the fact that this shouldn't even be an issue. Society has such strict and ridiculous gender constructs that they are forcing on these babies and parents that don't know or are too frightened to fight back. This whole thing sickens me and I hate thinking of how many lives are being ruined.

I guess my question is, do you guys think there is a possibility of educating people of these statistics and practices and causing a change within medical practice to correct it. If so, how?

Prejudice and Socioeconomic Status Within Gay Activism

My comments and question(s) this week come from "A Queer Ladder of Social Mobility".


As I've read this, a few things have come up for me. The most prominent for me is still how sections of the gay community (the homophile activists in this case) can completely reject and even belittle other members (the gay bar-goers/owners). This also applies to the relationship mentioned with the covert/overt homosexual. Both the activist and the covert homosexual depends upon their counterpart in order to achieve their own ends, but at the same time manage to express disdain and disrespect for these people.


I also noticed that socioeconomic status seems to play a large role in gayness. For example, the author states that many secret homosexuals have a higher socioeconomic position than do more "out" homosexuals. Later, she talks about how the DOB lost half its founding members when the working-class and middle-class women disagreed on the group's function. I find it interesting that in this case it was the working-class women who subsequently left the group and the middle-class women got their way. This leads me to question where we would be now if those of lower socioeconomic status had been allowed to make more decisions about the movement. 

The magazine published by the DOB

Finally, I noticed on a few occasions that perhaps the underlying issue (especially in the first case) is that the fear of being prejudiced against may lead to the prejudice of others. For instance, when the DOB was scared that "butch" women would scare away the "proper" lesbians, they instituted rules banning women from wearing "men's" slacks (whatever those are). Essentially, in order to avoid the prejudice of others, they worked very hard to play into mainstream gender roles that didn't necessarily fit with would-be members. In this way I think it can be said that their fear led them to commit injustices against their own, i.e. the fear of prejudice begets prejudice.


Questions: What do you think would be different if poor gay men and women had had more control over the gay movement? 


Did the activists actually harm the community more with their actions?

Greenwich Village

I admittedly knew nothing about the history of Greenwich Village before reading Gay New York, but was very enlightened toward the “Bohemian” subculture. The Village sounds like it was such a progressive place to be during the early 1900’s, and although it later became known for it’s “artistic” (artistic = homosexual?) endeavors, it seems like Bohemian culture was established with a genuine purpose.  The text mentions that it was easy to fit in and to find friends in that type of open-minded community, and that was obviously an extreme rarity anywhere during the 1910’s.  What I found to be depressing was the industrialization of the area after the War, due to the establishment of the subways, fighting the prohibition with local Italian wine, and the reputation that the Village that had developed for being this “artsy, modern center” and transformed it into something completely different. A subculture creates something beautiful and then mainstream society jumps on the bandwagon and sells it out - I thought high school was bad. Unlike what you would expect, the subculture didn’t die down, but it changed drastically and became this overemphasized and dramatized version. Although the subculture didn’t die, its reputation to mainstream society took on an expected alteration – from open-minded center for art and self-expression to "slum like" homosexual perversion. My question this week stems along the lines of believing that the media plays such a significant role in societal opinion of self-expression, and thinking that subcultures and other walks of life would be much more likely to be accepting and embracing of each other if we didn’t have so many bigots publishing work to dictate who is more elitist than who (subculture soap opera, anyone?) So I’d like to ask somewhat rhetorically, how has the media turned society to belittle you?

The Village and Harlem

In the chapter from Gay New York, Chauncey discussed how African-American communities in Harlem would  police the lives of its members. For example, many of the tabloids and gossip columns of the time would publish reports about a person's suspected homosexual activity or any other juicy tidbits they happened to pick up. This was a way to "correct" the other person's behavior and shame them so that they would conform to social and gender norms. This still occurs on a national and global level with tabloids lie the National Enquirer, websites like The Smoking Gun, and television shows like ET and TMZ that constantly criticize the lives of celebrities and public figures. What would happen if this still happened on a community level with neighbors policing the relationship and sexual behavior of other neighbors?

I believe that if this were to happen in today's world there would not only be a large number of privacy violation lawsuits but what would be reported would also be drastically different. While homosexual behavior would probably still be whispered about and looked down upon, it probably would not be as devastating to a person's social standing as it was back then. Exceptions to this would include religious leaders, those involved in heterosexual relationships or marriages, and those who work with children. These people would, and do, lose social standing, and in some cases, their lives are ruined. It is interesting that even though many things have changed, a lot hasn't over the years.

Freedom or Friction?

After reading Chauncey's Gay New York excerpt, I started to wonder if major social change is possible when people are still divided over some of the same issues they were battling over in the early twentieth century. Class conflicts with race, race with sexuality, sexuality with gender... Seriously, if people cannot come together and fight for HUMAN issues as opposed to their own private interests, we will never see a downfall of heterosexism and heteronormativity. Maybe it does take a gradual change, but it is frustrating to reading about W. E. B. Du Bois, someone I was taught to respect in high school for his promotion of education, dismissing an employee based on their sexuality to prevent smearing his name and the name of his cause. This is the same situation we see in social organizations today; instead of addressing different perspectives about the shape change will take and coming to a consensus on how best to avoid excluding anyone, we eliminate the variance and proceed.

What exactly are we all fighting for? Do we want our perspective to be the right one? Or do we want freedom for everyone to live in whatever ways they choose? I'm going with the latter.

Ladders and "Village" People

"A Queer Ladder of Social Mobility", whew, what a read! Gender appropriate queers on top and trans folks down at the bottom, it makes perfect sense. I believe this type of social mobility latter manifests (in some way or another) itself in every group of people. For example, I'm sure if Sinem Ketenci would have kept her veganism to herself, she would have her PhD right now instead of a pending lawsuit. Overall, I enjoyed reading about it. It's always interesting to learn about things you know exist through a new lens.

Gay New York! The title says it all, this historical journey through the "gay twenties" was like riding a roller coaster that you never want to get off of! Ok.....so maybe that's overdoing it....But still interesting!

So what's my question? Well it's not some hypothetical situational stuff like usual. I couldn't help but think this when I was reading Gay New York.......

Is this why they called themselves "The Village People"? (You know....YMCA....In the Navy....you know what I'm talking about!) It just instantly made sense to me, if I'm wrong and this is inappropriate feel free to correct/assault/straight up school my ass in the comments!

How's that for a question?

My response comes from 'Sexing the Body'. As a parent, this topic holds great interest to me because I see so many ramifications in making a choice this important with only the advice of a medical professional and not waiting for imput from the person (child) most directly affected. A prenatal diagnosis? Prenatal therapy? Often, even today, it is difficult to pinpoint with 100% accuracy what limitations or problems are possible during delivery or after birth. Three years ago this week, my youngest granddaughter was born with the expectation that she would have Downs Syndrome. She has no medical issues at all. What if my daughter had reacted immediately on this diagnosis? This article concedes that 'doctors are not sure what to count as a normal penis'..and the author argues that downsizing an overgrown clitoris 'is simply not necessary'...

My question is: medicine is often not an exact science and usually does not involve a crystal ball. Therefore, what is the sense of urgency in deciding so early how to 'fix' an intersex child?