We celebrated with the Holy Father back in Rome.

[judecorp]

This morning I went to a lecture on "Growing Up Queerly" by Dr. James Sears. Dr. Sears is a fairly well-known scholar, and I've read some of his stuff and have used it in papers and stuff. And heck, you know, I get paid to go to these things, so I went. There were air conditioning and comfy seats. But, you know...

It really wasn't particularly about "Growing Up Queerly" at all. I mean, there were a few moments about queer youth in schools, but a lot of it was him tooting his own horn about his Fulbright work in the Phillipines, and about revamping the pedagogy this or that. He wrote a book about growing up gay in the South a while back, where he compiled people's stories, and I would have liked to have heard more about that. It seemed like he did a lot of patting himself on the back. I know a lot of big speakers are like that, but it was distressing anyway.

This was part of the "President and Provosts Diversity Series" or something like that, and the opening comments were made by Provost Ed Ray, who's in charge of diversity things. In the question/answer period, though, Provost Ray had to literally force himself to say the word "homosexual." There was a dramatic pause where he really seemed to be trying to find a nice euphemism. He couldn't say gay or lesbian or bisexual or anything. "Homosexual" came out. Very clinical. The other night, this very same man actually used to words "alternative lifestyle choice." THIS MAN IS IN CHARGE OF DIVERSITY AT OSU.

Another thing I realized as I listened to this lecture is that I don't like it when "gay" is used as a noun, and it's always in plural form. No one ever says, "He is a gay." But people /do/ talk about "gays." It bothers me. A lot. For some reason, though, "lesbians" doesn't bother me, but maybe it's because "a lesbian" doesn't sound as weird as "a gay."

Either way, I don't like being lumped into a category called "gays." When I think of "gay," I think of homosexual men. I use the term "gay men" and I'm comfortable with that. Aside from the fact that I'm not a man, I'm not homosexual. I hate being shoved in the category of "gay." Yuck. I think most of the time it's just semantics, and I don't make a big deal out of it, but it really really irritates me when people talk about "gays."

Okay. I'm glad I got that out of my system. :) Play on!

~//~
I just had iced coffee outside with happy2beso. As always, it was a thoroughly pleasant experience. I just adore her! I'm glad she's moving too, because it makes it a little easier to move away. If I was leaving Columbus with Lara still here, well, that would just be terrible. We've had a whole year of coffee! We have history! (And I don't want to hump her. I learned just how much this afternoon.)

~//~
Another Boys and Girls Club, this one in Allston, called me about arranging a phone interview. This is not a social worker position, but an education position. Which means it pays more. (Not much more, mind, but you know...) I love Allston. That could be fun. We'll see what happens when I schedule something.

Still no call back from Youth Pride, but I'm trying to keep positive about it.

~//~
I have done so much work today. I think Brett is going to pass out in shock.

Comments

[carina-s.livejournal.com]

I suppose now would not be an appropriate time to make a THE GAY joke huh?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Hee! :)

Huh?

[siercia]

Aside from the fact that I'm not a man, I'm not homosexual.

Okay, now I'm confused... Isn't homosexual the generic term for folks who are attracted to members of their own sex, like heterosexual is generic for folks who are attracted to the opposite?

Enlighten me?

Re: Huh?

[mayna.livejournal.com]

I thought so too, except not including someone who is bisexual. So I thought either you're homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or antisexual (or whatever the term would be for someone who isn't attracted to anyone). Which I thought would make smurfchick homosexual. But I'm sure she knows better than the rest of us. :-)

Re: Huh?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I like boys. I think they're cute, even. I like to smooch them! I just get nervous when they're naked, but I'm not ready to say I'm not attracted to them.

There are so many people (in both the lgbt and straight communities) who are prejudiced against bisexual/pansexual people, and I am /so/ unhappy about the idea of "bi now, gay later," and I just don't want to be lumped in with that.

Not right now, anyway. :)

(And I think asexual sounds a little cheerier than antisexual.)

Re: Huh?

[mayna.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, asexual... that's the word I was looking for. I think.
what's pansexual, Ihaven't heard that one before.

Re: Huh?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Pansexual is a more inclusive term than bisexual - basically bisexual assumes 2 sexes, and pansexual allows for the possibility of more gender/sex options (to include transgender and intersex people, for example).

Re: Huh?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah. :) But I'm attracted to people of the same sex, too. And I suppose I would be attracted to people who are intersexed, while we're at it.

Re: Huh?

[geniusorafool.livejournal.com]

Are you attracted to people who are undersexed?

*Smiling hopefully*

Re: Huh?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

You get an award for the funniest comment today! :)

Re: Huh?

[geniusorafool.livejournal.com]

I would like to thank all of the little people who helped me along my path of perversion...

Re: Huh?

[rizzo41.livejournal.com]

And I suppose I would be attracted to people who are intersexed

I read that as:

would be attracted to people who are interested

I thought those were pretty low standards. Hee hee! Hooray for glasses.

Re: Huh?

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Geeze, I would hope you would know me better than that. ;)

FUCK NOW!

[geniusorafool.livejournal.com]

Oh, by the way, Allston would be a totally sweet place to work. Fun times to be had down there. We'll have to get you one of the "I live and work in LA (Lower Allston)" shirts.

It's amusing

[death2kittens.livejournal.com]

that they actually have someone who is charge of making a campus "more diverse" by ensuring that there are plenty of lesbians and gays around. Get a clue. It's like this pride day shit. Just live your life. Screw who you want to screw, but stop marching around about it. Nobody cares! Get it.

Re: It's amusing

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's amusing at all, personally. I think you're making a grandiose assumption at the provost in charge of diversity - for starters, his position covers all minority student services - those based on race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation are all covered in this, and these diversity lectures reflect all of these issues. And the idea that /anyone/ at the University if trying to ensure "that there are plenty of lesbians and gays around" is laughable - if you think people are recruiting sexual minority students, you're grossly mistaken.

I'll stop "marching around about it" when my rights are the same as a heterosexual's. I'll believe that "nobody cares" when the hate crimes stop. I'll "get it" when you do.

:)

Re: It's amusing

[death2kittens.livejournal.com]

Oh...and that's another problem. Defining anyone by their race, ethnicity, religion OR sexual orientation is counter-productive. The real oppressed minority in this country is that group of people who happen to fall below the poverty line. I don't care if you're a black, chinese, islamic gay porn star, if you have 20 million dollars, you don't have much to worry about. The thing about being homosexual is, it isn't something that you can be seen in a job interview, or in a typical social setting. It's behind closed doors. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think it's any more "deviant" by definition than saaay oral sex between straight people. Technically, any sexual contact that doesn't result in conception could be termed as against the original purpose of nature. But you don't see straight men prancing about calling for equal rights for cunningulus. There is no way to change someone's mind if they are anti-gay, or anti-anything. All that these pride weeks and parades and overly public displays serve to do is annoy people like me who could really give a damn less what you do in the bedroom, in a bar or on the street. The reason these things annoy me is the same reason any form of deindivuation annoys me, because it is discriminatory on a meaningless basis. Just like the million (black) man march on washington. Or the NAACP, or the NOW, or GLAAD. Fight the real enemy (Not the pope sinead, but yeah, him too) the class system in this country that is so uneven that millions of people starve while thousands live like autonomous kings.

Re: It's amusing

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I am certainly /not/ going to argue about the disenfranchisement of poor people. You're preaching to the converted on that one - I fight for economic justice every day, for all people.

However, I simply disagree that allowing people to band together based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, favorite color, etc is counter-productive. It depends how you define "productive," I suppose. What is productive about lumping everyone in as "the same"?

People form communities - it seems to be simply human nature to want to get together in groups. Most people have several groups or spheres of interaction based on different similarities. Is this a problem?

I think marches and rallies stand to show people in power that there are a number of people that are being marginalized or discriminated against, and that those people (especially in terms of the marches on Washington) have voting power and should be respected for that (as in, if you want to be re-elected, you might want to listen). I don't see anything particularly discriminatory about that.

Then again, I don't know you at all. I don't know if you believe that you do not have white privilege or male privilege. I don't know if you spout off about "reverse racism." I don't know anything about you, so I can only say this:

I disagree with you.