![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
judecorpOkay, so I complain a lot about my Big Gay Job. But I have to say that things have been pretty darned good lately. You see, we've started this anti-homophobia/heterosexism campaign thinger, and I've had a lot to do with that. It's neat to see my ads in The Lantern, and it will be cool to see my ad on a COTA bus, and the CABS buses, if they run. Yay!
I made my fourth one today. Do you think "transgendered" means a big guy in a bad dress? It's been kind of fun. I got to put drag kings in it. Woot!
[Mmm. Drag kings.]
But I get to work with Amy on this project, and I really like her. Yay! And I get to play with pictures and mess with the general population. This is good.
Stompy Queer Rant Here:
You know, it's annoying that even in the fight for queer rights, everything is still done from the standpoint of queerness being a disease. It's like it needs to be validated. I think my least favorite argument ever is It's not a choice! Do you think if it was a choice, I would choose to be queer?.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people have a choice as to whom they are attracted sexually. I am, however, saying that if you don't want to be treated like you have a condition, you shouldn't act like you have one. To imply that if you /could/ have a choice you would choose straightness also implies that it is better to be straight. That if you could somehow "get rid of" your queerness, you would.
Yuck.
I'm rather fond of mine, and always have been, even when in opposite-sex relationships. Maybe even more so then, since I would have to be more verbal about it, all of that "Don't assume I'm straight" stuff. Tedious. I certainly don't have that problem now - that helps drive the point home with the parentals a little more, that's for sure. Look, Mom, it wasn't a phase...
But I digress. If I could choose to be straight, I wouldn't. Whether it would be "easier" or not. Easier for whom? Not for me.
Choosing to "blend in," to be "just like everyone else," is icky. Look at us! We are JUST LIKE YOU! Accept us!
Ugh. I don't want to be in someone's suburban, white bread, cookie-cutter society. It's like the neighborhood in Edward Scissorhands. No thank you. [I will spare you all my rant on the HRC.]
I made my fourth one today. Do you think "transgendered" means a big guy in a bad dress? It's been kind of fun. I got to put drag kings in it. Woot!
[Mmm. Drag kings.]
But I get to work with Amy on this project, and I really like her. Yay! And I get to play with pictures and mess with the general population. This is good.
Stompy Queer Rant Here:
You know, it's annoying that even in the fight for queer rights, everything is still done from the standpoint of queerness being a disease. It's like it needs to be validated. I think my least favorite argument ever is It's not a choice! Do you think if it was a choice, I would choose to be queer?.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people have a choice as to whom they are attracted sexually. I am, however, saying that if you don't want to be treated like you have a condition, you shouldn't act like you have one. To imply that if you /could/ have a choice you would choose straightness also implies that it is better to be straight. That if you could somehow "get rid of" your queerness, you would.
Yuck.
I'm rather fond of mine, and always have been, even when in opposite-sex relationships. Maybe even more so then, since I would have to be more verbal about it, all of that "Don't assume I'm straight" stuff. Tedious. I certainly don't have that problem now - that helps drive the point home with the parentals a little more, that's for sure. Look, Mom, it wasn't a phase...
But I digress. If I could choose to be straight, I wouldn't. Whether it would be "easier" or not. Easier for whom? Not for me.
Choosing to "blend in," to be "just like everyone else," is icky. Look at us! We are JUST LIKE YOU! Accept us!
Ugh. I don't want to be in someone's suburban, white bread, cookie-cutter society. It's like the neighborhood in Edward Scissorhands. No thank you. [I will spare you all my rant on the HRC.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Yeah, but
Date: 2002-04-04 02:52 pm (UTC)Re: Yeah, but
Date: 2002-04-04 06:09 pm (UTC)Re: Yeah, but
Date: 2002-04-04 06:57 pm (UTC)Re: Yeah, but
Date: 2002-04-04 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 03:54 pm (UTC)I agree with you, although like I said earlier, it's hard, I think, for a lot of people to get past their conception of queerness as a disease when queerness was constructed from the very beginning as a disease. Multiple decades of constructing queerness this way, in addition to marginalization and resultant self-loathing are hard to get past.
Although certainly I don't think this should inform the way we construct our movement. When all is said and done, who cares whether queerness is a choice? Religion is a choice, but it appears on most non-discrimination policies. If we push the queerness-as-birthright angle, we may only cause people to construct queerness as a birth defect. And gods know I don't want anybody to attempt gene therapy to "correct" queerness. *shudder*
And I agree, as far as queerfolk pushing the point that we are "just like everybody else". In some respects, some of us are. But that should not be the main selling point for granting people rights; the point is to acknowledge and celebrate diversity. It's the pushing of that point that causes other people, who also deserve rights, to be pushed out of the movement-- transgendered people, the BDSM community, the polyamorous, and what have you. I have a big problem with people clamoring for rights at others' expense.
That said, I'd be more than interested in hearing your HRC rant... ^_~
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 06:37 pm (UTC)And gods know I don't want anybody to attempt gene therapy to "correct" queerness.
Not only that, the "birth defect" angle (and the disease angle, really) perpetuate the idea that queerness is something that needs to be "coped with" or "risen above." "Oh, you must have struggled so terribly, having been out in high school..." WHY DON'T WE CHANGE THE DAMNED SCHOOL CLIMATES?
It's the pushing of that point that causes other people, who also deserve rights, to be pushed out of the movement
I completely agree with you.
That said, I'd be more than interested in hearing your HRC rant... ^_~
I suppose my main problem with the HRC is that (at least here in Columbus, which is, for all intents and purposes, an HRC town) it is an upper-middle class white gay male organization that leaves little room, in practice, for anyone else. While I realize that volunteering (which is what most community mobilization depends on) is largely a Caucasian pasttime, the idea that these people are supposed to represent the diversity of queer people in existence is sickening. What's worse is that I'm not convinced they /want/ to represent everyone.
When causes are spearheaded by upper/middle class white men, they tend to become conservative, short-sighted, and reflect upper/middle class white values. The "We are just like everyone else" attitude is pervasive in the HRC. And I really think a lot of people with that mentality are threatened by anyone who /isn't/ reflected in such an attitude.
I once read a letter to the editor here in Columbus (in The Other Paper, an alternative weekly) from a disgruntled man who was thoroughly upset that people were "bandwagoning" on "his gay movement." He was upset, this time, that transgendered people wanted to ride in on the coattails of the gay movement that he had struggled for. While I have ZERO tolerance for transphobia, in the queer community or anywhere, I became even more irate when he talked about how benevolent and permissive he had been (as if it was HIS call to make!) to allow lesbians and *gasp* bisexuals (who, of course, are less queer?!??!) into his movement.
Fucking separatists. THAT is my rant against the HRC, in short.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 07:05 pm (UTC)So, less unseriously, what's worse: trying to be like everyone else or thinking you are?
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 07:10 pm (UTC)I think I would be much sadder if I really thought I was "just like everyone else." I have a hard time trying to be like everyone else, but that's frustration.
Of course, if I really, truly believed I was just another cookie cutter person, I might not notice, and would not /feel/ sad... but what a sad, sad individual I would be. (Or not be. Individual, that is.)
Bleh!
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 07:24 pm (UTC)I think I'd agree that self-delusion is the worse of the two. Of course I suppose both are self-deluding in their way...
no subject
Date: 2002-04-05 09:02 am (UTC)True. Very true.
?
Date: 2002-04-05 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 07:02 pm (UTC)Certainly worse things have been done in the name of religion than in the name of queerness by a factor of 25.678 gajillion. Now against queerness that's another story...and much of that was done by ones that have too much of THE RELIGION.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 07:53 pm (UTC)To be honest I dabble in other religions, sort of looking for something that 'works' for me. But, nothing yet. Maybe I will always be agnostic. Which is fine, I've survived this way for years and years and done pretty well.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-05 07:32 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2002-04-06 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-06 05:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 04:11 pm (UTC)And I'm like, well yes, gayness *is* a choice... in that you choose your gender, and can (at least in your own head) change that gender whenever you want if you want to, choosing over and over. And also I'm like, well no, you can't just wish your queerness away, and in fact the right to choose is irrelevant if you are not free to choose.
What about choosing to be what you want to be ? What about having to be what you are ? And what about a process of questioning, and of changing as the person changes ? (Lifestyle matters too. If you find out you have, say, diabetes you can choose to live as you were, or you can make changes in your life. Diabetes has been genetically linked... but the disease itself is not "genetic." Even if there is a "predisposition" towards liking one sex or the other, it would still be true that choices about lifestyle would lead to different outcomes. (Nature, nuture, and choice.))
These "choice" ideologies seem so tangled up to me. Gender is a continuum. To argue determinism in queerness is like saying that "race" is genetic. (And it's completely not.) To say that it's all in your head is to ignore the constructions of society -- maybe even it's true that "everyone is born bisexual until proved otherwise."
As a hyperliberal type being I want to violently resist arguments that use the word "choice" to push what is a NON-choice, non-empowering ideology. To say that I must be gay because I can't choose not to be is a crap way to think, to live.
It's not what you are born. It's what you do with it. Always.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 06:46 pm (UTC)I disagree. I disagree with one of the fundamental points of your comment, that being that gender is a choice. (in that you choose your gender, and can (at least in your own head) change that gender whenever you want if you want to, choosing over and over)
A person has a choice to attempt to make their external gender expression equate with their internal gender identity, yes. A person has a choice as to how far a person will go to result in that aim (clothing, hormones, surgery, etc.). A person has a choice whether they wish to remain disjointed from their external image or try to conform it to how they feel. But I do not, under any circumstance, believe that one can "change one's gender" whenever one wishes.
The primordial soup of hormones that a fetus is awash in control that fetus's external genitalia, and it is not an exact science. How many people are born with ambiguous genitalia before this becomes apparent? How many intersex individuals have to suffer for this oversight? These hormones, however, also control, it is believed, one's internal gender identity, and these do not always match up. Is that a choice? Did the fetus choose biological incongruence?
I consider myself gender queer, and in some ways I play with gender in the way you describe ~ hell, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy a good genderfuck. But I don't even know how much of /that/ is choice -- sure, I could "pick one" and go about my business on a day to day basis, sometimes being happy, other times being okay, and still other times feeling like I'm wearing a monkey suit. Is that a choice? Do I choose to feel that way? I realize that our feelings are caused by our cognitions, and that we "choose" how we feel by choosing how we react to things in our minds - but I do believe I am somewhat predisposed to think a certain way; it's influenced by my biology, my experiences, and society.
But even though I /do/ genderfuck, and I /do/ flip-flop, I don't know how active my choices are. If it was simply choice, wouldn't everyone play with it, even a little bit? Why would some do it more than others? Why would some feel the need to?
So many why's make the whole "absolute choice" angle questionable in my mind.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 07:20 pm (UTC)I don't feel like I could 'choose' to be female any more than I could say, choose to have more close male friends than female ones, or choose to be sexually and romantically attracted to men.
I like who I like and I want to sleep with who I want to sleep with. What else really matters? If it's genetics, it is. If it's environment, okay. If it can be changed/treated/innoculated I don't want any of that crap. Nyeah or something.
The only reason I know that being queer is bad for one is homophobia. :p
Unh, I had something else pithy to say but I forgot it.
Re:
Date: 2002-04-05 12:10 pm (UTC)But if there were no choice, the whys wouldn't even exist. Which is the other part of what I was saying. If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that I'm not arguing "absolute choice." I mention social constructions. That being able to choose is irrelevant if you are not allowed to. And elsewhere I have talked about identifications, and how they limit identity.
But I believe you can make interpretations. That body-images are more complicated than just "conforming" to some physical reality or not. That a choice is involved. To me the most important sentence in what I wrote is To say that I must be gay because I can't choose not to be is a crap way to think, to live.
This is, I think, where queerness is being confused as a disease. By people's unquestioned belief that it is something that without a cure you must endure... a blind unthinking belief that statements like "I'm born gay" just reinforce. To get out of the disease paradigm, we have to rethink this. (Perhaps the paradigm of a tree. Male and female are really not so "different" as to be "opposites." Perhaps a better image would be two branches of the same tree, or a branch that forks. Different but same.)
I agree with you that biology and psychology are intertwined. We have to understand more closely the way that mind and body influence each other. We have to understand differences not as constitutive but as constructive, springing from acts of semiosis. You slice the apples one way and you get applesauce. But applesauce is not "different" from an apple. If you pierce your tongue are you still you ? Are you expressing the inner you, "conforming" the external reality ? By changing the external reality you can change the internal one. And vice versa.
Also I think you are confusing sex with gender. Sex is biological. Gender is social and psychological. The examples of intersexed people, while showing that even sex can be interdeterminate, have nothing per se to do with gender on a personal level, at least that we can be sure about right now (-- what you said about hormones --). They do tell us about how social groups try to "normalize" and "simplify" gender. And to equate sex and gender. Which is why I think it's naive to say that materiality is all that matters. Embodiment should not be ignored. But there are other things too that deserve attention.
In the mass we are constrained. But the mass consensus comes from (or is resisted by) individual choices (even if those choices are to try to silence the choices of others.) And consensus exists only because we agree to believe that it does. And the consensus can be changed, though it is not an easy thing.
No, nothing everything happens because I will it. That's not what I am saying. I am simply saying that we are accountable and responsible for how we choose to act based on our "somewhat" predispositions.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 06:14 pm (UTC)i am fundamentally against THE TOASTER though, so none of THE HOME APPLIANCES okay?
no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 06:28 pm (UTC)Not even THE VIBRATOR?no subject
Date: 2002-04-04 07:22 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-04-05 04:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-05 05:56 am (UTC)