Just hello--- and some gay philosophy questions

[RedThread]

Hello, family!

I've been lurking for months now, trying to come out of the woodwork. I enjoy reading some of the threads here. I see sexuality as something of a spectrum, so I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable placing myself at one end or another of it. "Bi" is a word that feels to wishy-washy for what I'm about, although I'd grudgingly check it in a census just to boost our numbers. Let's just say that I tend to like a person for reasons other than his or her gender. I've also recently come to believe that deep down I'm a card-carrying polyamorist. (My girlfriend says I'm too much for one person, but not quite enough for two. )

Which is to say... anybody else here a little sick of labels? Now that DADT is repealed, and marriage rights are just over the horizon, do we still need to staunchly defend the boundaries of our sexual identities? Has the time come when we can just shrug and say, "Yeah, I'm into that, but so is everyone else--- they just won't admit it"? Or is the struggle still in its vulnerable stages, as in the recent rash of suicides of young gay boys this past fall--- in which case it would be important for everyone (pink, purple, whatever) to throw the signs out there so that some solidarity is formed?

Just wondering if anyone wants to share some thoughts. This is not a value judgment on how others identify, but rather a reflection on the inability of a label to convey the depth of someone's sexuality.

Lots of love, especially to those drag queens whose shoe collections rival mine,
Claire

 

[Stella_Omega]

My short answer is that the struggle is just starting, and now that the fact of gay population is out there-- people don't understand, don't like it, and can't ignore it-- we are at our most vulnerable. Bullying, suicides, and just plain daily scorn and distrust.

Philosophy is one thing but you know? I am dog tired of the battle. And I don't get to not show up on the battlegrounds just because I don't feel strong.

I really envy the folk who show up on this forum to pretend to be gay, who have no sense of irony about it and enjoy it without qualms. Right now-- I dont feel like I get to do that.

 

[Bystander]

Labels are a part of the human condition. Sadly we will never be rid of them. I like your optimism but I think even though legal barriers will hopefully fall soon there are still a lot of people passionately against giving people rights simply because they disapprove of their sexuality.

 

[LizzyDark]

Hello, family!

I've been lurking for months now, trying to come out of the woodwork. I enjoy reading some of the threads here. I see sexuality as something of a spectrum, so I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable placing myself at one end or another of it. "Bi" is a word that feels to wishy-washy for what I'm about, although I'd grudgingly check it in a census just to boost our numbers. Let's just say that I tend to like a person for reasons other than his or her gender. I've also recently come to believe that deep down I'm a card-carrying polyamorist. (My girlfriend says I'm too much for one person, but not quite enough for two. )

Which is to say... anybody else here a little sick of labels? Now that DADT is repealed, and marriage rights are just over the horizon, do we still need to staunchly defend the boundaries of our sexual identities? Has the time come when we can just shrug and say, "Yeah, I'm into that, but so is everyone else--- they just won't admit it"? Or is the struggle still in its vulnerable stages, as in the recent rash of suicides of young gay boys this past fall--- in which case it would be important for everyone (pink, purple, whatever) to throw the signs out there so that some solidarity is formed?

Just wondering if anyone wants to share some thoughts. This is not a value judgment on how others identify, but rather a reflection on the inability of a label to convey the depth of someone's sexuality.

Lots of love, especially to those drag queens whose shoe collections rival mine,
Claire

I'm really not sure you're all that clear on what is going on with the struggle for equality. DADT wasn't a hard fight and marriage rights aren't remotely guaranteed without a lot more work. There are boundaries in sexual identity and not everyone is into everything but just not admitting it. For one thing, the struggle for equality and the hardships some of us have had to endure to be open and honest about what we are has ingrained the label of our sexuality as not just a part of who we are, but is something of a badge of honor. I like my label. I'm proud of it. And I don't think it's the same as the one you won't even claim for yourself.

I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about here. You're straight identified and you won't even cop to being bi, using the all too common cop-out of claiming it doesn't describe you accurately enough to claim. You've never endured the adversity of coming out, experienced the discrimination, the hate crimes, the bullying, and I just don't think it's appropriate for you to tell people who have that we should abandon the labels we've struggled for so long to turn from a negative into a positive.

 

[RedThread]

You've never endured the adversity of coming out, experienced the discrimination, the hate crimes, the bullying, and I just don't think it's appropriate for you to tell people who have that we should abandon the labels we've struggled for so long to turn from a negative into a positive.

Actually, I am out as bi. I'm extraordinarily active in gay student groups and local advocacy programs, and I've fielded my fair share of bullying.... it's interesting that you've made those assumptions, though. But that's okay--- we don't know each other, and meaning and intent can be hard to glean from a forum post.

And before everyone starts getting all huffy, this was actually a topic that came up a few weeks ago when I was talking with a very well known member of the early EARLY gay rights movement at the Stonewall Inn in NYC. As in, he was arrested in the Stonewall riots. He was expressing his dissatisfaction with always having to identify with the label, instead of just as a human. (Perhaps he doesn't stand the irony of the label either though, Stella?) I thought about it at the time, and had to agree with him--- labels essentialize. But that's doesn't mean that I'm suggesting we give them up. As a matter of fact, if you read my post, I suggested that perhaps hanging onto them was the appropriate thing to do given the nature of the struggle.

I think we can be self-reflexive without resorting to ad hominem. Let's take the Classical world, for example. Classical society (ugh, I hate generalizations like that but like Bystander said, part of the human condition) had no concept of homosexuality. Knowing this, can we say that the Greeks were gay? Does the label chronofetishistically apply? Or is that a reification of a contemporary idea that has no bearing on sexual identities in the ancient world? These are questions that explore, not proclaim. I'm interested to know what people think.

 

[Somehowyou]

I'm really not sure you're all that clear on what is going on with the struggle for equality. DADT wasn't a hard fight and marriage rights aren't remotely guaranteed without a lot more work. There are boundaries in sexual identity and not everyone is into everything but just not admitting it. For one thing, the struggle for equality and the hardships some of us have had to endure to be open and honest about what we are has ingrained the label of our sexuality as not just a part of who we are, but is something of a badge of honor. I like my label. I'm proud of it. And I don't think it's the same as the one you won't even claim for yourself.

I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about here. You're straight identified and you won't even cop to being bi, using the all too common cop-out of claiming it doesn't describe you accurately enough to claim. You've never endured the adversity of coming out, experienced the discrimination, the hate crimes, the bullying, and I just don't think it's appropriate for you to tell people who have that we should abandon the labels we've struggled for so long to turn from a negative into a positive.

Yes, I echo Lizzy Dark's comments. In this country (I am assuming you live in the United States) you have to be a hyphenated -minority with a chip on yours shoulder to get anything. Here in the US the tail wags the dog. Therefore you should act huffy and label yourself and then conform to every item on the agenda as the group you identify with. It's kind of like the guy in the wheel chair that purposely rams into you in a public place. You spill your coffee grimace in pain and turn around to see this guy in a wheel chair that ran into your Achilles. Your expecting an apology....but instead the guy says "what's a matter? Got no respect for a veteran?"

So my advice to you is to put on a gay pride button and run out to a rally and claim that you are being repressed!

As It was said on South Park, if you are a non-conformist you must conform with the other non-conformists...Conform already!

 

[Mikijl Dragon]

It has been my experience that most people like being part of a group. Labels facilitate that. Its the sense of belonging that is at the core of labeling. Whether for good or ill grouping and its ugly brother segregation will always be a part of being human.

 

[sterculius]

I don't really care what someone else's sexual orientation is. It's actually none of my business. Why must one derive their identity from a particular group anyway?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I like it when another woman labels herself a dyke, because I know that she won't hate me for being one too.

I like it when a woman labels herself Bi, because I know I might have a chance with her.

I like it when a woman labels herself straight, because then I know that I don't need to waste my energy and her patience trying to get into her pants.

I like men who let me know what they are interested in, too. I offer them the same courtesy.

Ditto Vanilla/BDSM. Top, bottom, Dom, Sub-- whatever.

We label ourselves for very good reasons.

 

[Vixandra]

A label is not the sum of a person, but it does help identify parts or aspects. It can facilitate finding others that share similar or complimentary aspects.

You think about it, we all wear many labels. Daughter, sister, bisexual, Domme and veteran are just a few of mine. Not the whole of me, but makes it faster and easier to understand the gist of parts of me quicker.


To part of the original post- I think the struggle for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation is still being fought. The repeal of DADT is a good step forward for not just the military but the country as a whole. Changes like this take time and effort though. Just as desegregation of public schools and equal rights regardless of skin color took time.

It can be very difficult, especially in the Bible belt to be anything other then heterosexual. Families can be torn through arguments over it (I speak from experience). Nation wide, there is a problem with children bullying other kids, over real or not real differences.

To fight this inequality, responsible people, adults and children, must fight. There is only one "right" that can be won and maintained with such a struggle and that's the right to "pursue happiness." Every other right must be fought for initially to earn and periodically to be kept. Be that right gender equality, racial equality or sexual orientation equality.

 

[Oneeyedpete]

I think that the labels are important to us as a community because they allow us to BE that community. It allows us to identify each other based on common interests or experiences.

Let's face it.

Straight kids aren't told by their parents that if they ever turn out to be straight they'll drown them and start again. A straight child is unlikely to know what that type of rejection feels like. Therefore if I meet someone who is applying a heteronormative label to themselves I am unlikely to attempt to discuss that type of parental rejection with them because they are unlikely to get it. They may have been rejected in other ways but that doesn't change that they don't relate to that specific experience.

The other issue is that homosexual engagements and transgender identification are still seen as other. It is a grounding myth of our culture that people are 'naturally' straight. You can see the assumption in the debates of nature vs nurture. When people claim that people are born straight and turn gay due to socialization the counter claim, for those that believe it, is just that they were born gay. No one ever claims that everyone is born gay and turns straight at a later date, which is an equally valid assumption to make. Therefore homosexuality(&co) is still seen as a deviant behavior by the North American masses.

While the repeal of DADT is a huge step in the right direction it is not the final one for equality.

Let's put it this way. If we weren't using those labels I wouldn't be here because I wouldn't feel safe exploring my sexuality in a group setting with people who might reject me for it. Without those labels I would not have the means of searching for a peer group with common experiences. As much as labels can be isolated they are also insular and provide minorities with a bit of safety.

 

[LizzyDark]

Actually, I am out as bi. I'm extraordinarily active in gay student groups and local advocacy programs, and I've fielded my fair share of bullying.... it's interesting that you've made those assumptions, though. But that's okay--- we don't know each other, and meaning and intent can be hard to glean from a forum post.

And before everyone starts getting all huffy, this was actually a topic that came up a few weeks ago when I was talking with a very well known member of the early EARLY gay rights movement at the Stonewall Inn in NYC. As in, he was arrested in the Stonewall riots. He was expressing his dissatisfaction with always having to identify with the label, instead of just as a human. (Perhaps he doesn't stand the irony of the label either though, Stella?) I thought about it at the time, and had to agree with him--- labels essentialize. But that's doesn't mean that I'm suggesting we give them up. As a matter of fact, if you read my post, I suggested that perhaps hanging onto them was the appropriate thing to do given the nature of the struggle.

I think we can be self-reflexive without resorting to ad hominem. Let's take the Classical world, for example. Classical society (ugh, I hate generalizations like that but like Bystander said, part of the human condition) had no concept of homosexuality. Knowing this, can we say that the Greeks were gay? Does the label chronofetishistically apply? Or is that a reification of a contemporary idea that has no bearing on sexual identities in the ancient world? These are questions that explore, not proclaim. I'm interested to know what people think.

You're changing your story now, saying you're out as bi even though in your first post you state you never liked the label and don't want to use it because it doesn't describe how special and diverse your sexuality is (this is something I hear ALL the time from bi girls and even bi-curious girls who are really just straight playing gay). So, how'd the conversation go when you came out to your parents as bi? How was it in high school being identified as bi? What do you suppose the difference would be if you'd had to do those things (assuming you even did) if you said you were a lesbian instead?

Labels create community, as many other people have already said. We use them to seek out other, like-minded people for a sense of belonging and often safety. Your friend from the stonewall riots, I'm assuming, grew the mustache and wore the clothes to label himself when saying the label could mean death, just to find the community where he might be safe and accepted.

A lot of what you've said just sounds like straight privilege.

 

[glamorilla]

I'm really not sure you're all that clear on what is going on with the struggle for equality. DADT wasn't a hard fight and marriage rights aren't remotely guaranteed without a lot more work. There are boundaries in sexual identity and not everyone is into everything but just not admitting it. For one thing, the struggle for equality and the hardships some of us have had to endure to be open and honest about what we are has ingrained the label of our sexuality as not just a part of who we are, but is something of a badge of honor. I like my label. I'm proud of it. And I don't think it's the same as the one you won't even claim for yourself.

I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about here. You're straight identified and you won't even cop to being bi, using the all too common cop-out of claiming it doesn't describe you accurately enough to claim. You've never endured the adversity of coming out, experienced the discrimination, the hate crimes, the bullying, and I just don't think it's appropriate for you to tell people who have that we should abandon the labels we've struggled for so long to turn from a negative into a positive.

well said.

i've always felt that people always know the truths to themselves. whether they want to admit it to themselves or not is another matter entirely.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You're changing your story now, saying you're out as bi even though in your first post you state you never liked the label and don't want to use it because it doesn't describe how special and diverse your sexuality is (this is something I hear ALL the time from bi girls and even bi-curious girls who are really just straight playing gay). So, how'd the conversation go when you came out to your parents as bi? How was it in high school being identified as bi? What do you suppose the difference would be if you'd had to do those things (assuming you even did) if you said you were a lesbian instead?

Labels create community, as many other people have already said. We use them to seek out other, like-minded people for a sense of belonging and often safety. Your friend from the stonewall riots, I'm assuming, grew the mustache and wore the clothes to label himself when saying the label could mean death, just to find the community where he might be safe and accepted.

A lot of what you've said just sounds like straight privilege.

Thank you, Lizzie.

 

[RedThread]

Very interesting replies, everyone. I appreciate the input. I've gotten some most fascinating answers both in the forum and in PM, but if the thread needs to be moved we can do that.

You're changing your story now, saying you're out as bi even though in your first post you state you never liked the label and don't want to use it because it doesn't describe how special and diverse your sexuality is (this is something I hear ALL the time from bi girls and even bi-curious girls who are really just straight playing gay). So, how'd the conversation go when you came out to your parents as bi? How was it in high school being identified as bi? What do you suppose the difference would be if you'd had to do those things (assuming you even did) if you said you were a lesbian instead?

Saying that I don't like the label, although I understand it's utility, is different than saying that I'm not out. I'm not interested in being defensive, because I see the dialouge as the point of the exercise, not an argument. I know there are strict rules on Lit about this, so to put it delicately I've known that I was interested in girls since I was seven. I'm also originally from Texas, but I don't use the label "Texan". Personal preference. As I said before (re: the hypothetical questionnaire), when people ask me what I am I do say bi. My preference is to say queer, but that can cause confusion sometimes.

The most edifying conclusion from the discussion is, there are many people who find multiple uses for labels. The multivocality of "gay" or "lesbian" is enough of an individual's personal identity that the majority of respondents do not feel comfortable shedding it, and thus becomes an intrinsic part of how they see themselves (more so than "brunette" or some more obvious feature). But I'm also hearing that there is a presumed hierarchy of gayness, wherein the variety of meanings that are given to and derived from the word are limited to something of a hegemonic definition of what and who is gay.

Very interesting, thank you all again. Our willingness to speak emotions and articulate beliefs about sexuality is a vital part of human connection.

Claire

 

[Stella_Omega]

But I'm also hearing that there is a presumed hierarchy of gayness, wherein the variety of meanings that are given to and derived from the word are limited to something of a hegemonic definition of what and who is gay.

Well, "gay" in current parlance means; "A person who is attracted exclusively, or nearly so, to members of the same sex." There isn't much variety in that meaning, any more than there is variety in the term "straight" as we are using it here.

Aside from the LOL at the aca-speak (Because not so many people here will be willing to puzzle their way through the jargon) what you are saying here has some merit. Honestly, I prefer the word "queer" which can also include a number of of-beat heterosexual pairings.

There is always a certain amount of hierarchy in between-strangers discussions like this one. I don't understand why people are so often surprised to be asked for their bona-fides when they show up out of the blue and ask searching questions of a group that identifies as a minority!

Being queer in bed is a lovely thing, and I'd love to meet up with you there someday. That's where you labelling yourself "bi" makes me happy.

Being queer on the street is a whole different matter, and that's where those labels are not self-applied, but fastened onto you-- with rusted safety-pins through one's skin-- by mostly hostile bystanders. Your drag queen friend knows all about that, first hand. I do. You might, but we don't know that yet.

We can't read your mind. Offer something.

 

[RedThread]

We can't read your mind. Offer something.

LOL Stella, in all my lurking I've always found your mustache pic to be sort of erotic. I have trouble keeping my mind clean when you say things like that.

As for the academic-ese, sorry about that. It's a hard habit to shake. Obviously I am professionally as well as personally interested in these questions. I am lucky to live and work in a university community where many shades of genders and sexualities are respected to the point of it often being a non-issue. (Have you ever sat in a room full of Gender Studies profs talking about the post-gender turn? It's a nice atmosphere, but it is as refreshing as it is artificial, as rusty safety pins etc imply.) I don't do any work as a queer theorist, but I have met a lot of people (straight people even, gasp!) who can be extraordinarily articulate about the lack of acceptance of orientation diversity, even among those who consider themselves to be a "big tent" minority (ie GLBT).

I think that's in part why there has been a move to make it GLBTQ (wherein some people say Q is questioning and others use Q as queer--- I'm using it in the latter sense). I think that some people do use the term gay as you used it--- "A person who is attracted exclusively, or nearly so, to members of the same sex." But for others, "gay" is kind of an umbrella term that means "not heterosexual." That's what I mean by multivocality, obviously. I think a better suited word for the second definition is "queer" which could include all sorts of delicious deviances. They have declined to post here (I hope they do!) but there is a person on this forum who is into transsexuals but does not self-identify as gay. Where do those people fit? Or the myriad of other variations that are supposedly included under the rainbow? (I'm thinking---not specifically of course and there are plenty of other things we could come up with---of BDSM folks who participate in "gay sex" or "gay sexual activity" under the auspices or in the context of a hetero relationship/play partnership).

Which brings me back to the original question, although it's been asked and answered pretty fully at this point. Given that there is growing recognition of the idea of "gay" as not exactly suiting everyone (your basic definition is that gay = homosexual), is it more advantageous to try to discard these labels as insufficiently inclusive of the entire family--- or, because we are still knee deep in a civil rights struggle, to hang onto them despite the fact that we may feel mis-self-identified?

I know you like it that I call myself bi, because you are wicked woman, but surely it could also be a concern of yours (as a fellow human and ostensibly member of the same team ) that I feel mis-identified by that term? That's what I think I really tapped into during my discussion with the boys and girls (and others) in Stonewall Inn: is there room for the rest of us? How do we stand united while there is obviously so much division? There are gays out there, trust me, who feel that the worst is over. (I disagree, but it is a point of view that some members of the community have: that it's a generational thing, and in ten or twenty years from now---in America at least, not talking about Uganda!---this will be something of a moot issue. To a large extent it is already is in many parts of Europe.) The point is, especially for young children in this country, the worst is NOT over. How can we include those who need a safe space but feel overwhelmed or excluded by the hegemonic uses of these terms?

I hear lots of people saying that a label makes you safe, it creates community, it gives us a place to start from and a flag pole to stand around. These points are obvious, and sort of miss the issue. A label can exclude as much as it includes (sort of like a wall). Also, there is a slightly anarchist part of me who feels that by agreeing to label ourselves as "lesbian" "queer" etc we are just feeding into the heteronormative myth---- that because it's NOT straight, it needs to be defined concretely: "I am THIS but not THIS" as a way to build solidarity. But is that our only route to winning equal rights, when so much is at stake (meaning alienating potential community members while trying to protect others)? That's what I mean when I asked if we still need to so staunchly defend how we bound our sexual identities, instead of just saying "I'm an f-ing person, and it's none of your business who I sleep with."

I really have no talent for being succinct. Sorry for the length--- has anybody read this? Sep 2008:

"The San Francisco gay softball team has been disqualified from the Gay World Series for violating the rule that each team is only allowed to have two straight people on the team. However, none of the six contested team members have identified themselves as straight, just that they aren't gay. "

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/09/not_gay_enough_too_queer_or_uncatagoriza.php

Claire

 

[Stella_Omega]

Given that there is growing recognition of the idea of "gay" as not exactly suiting everyone (your basic definition is that gay = homosexual), is it more advantageous to try to discard these labels as insufficiently inclusive of the entire family--- or, because we are still knee deep in a civil rights struggle, to hang onto them despite the fact that we may feel mis-self-identified?

Family, yeah...

This question always reminds me of a boyfriend of mine back in the seventies (He was gay, BTW-- and could never quite understand how it happened that he'd end up in bed with me over and over!) Anyway, his mother had a couple of those horrible little miniature poodles with the weepy red eyes. And his aunt had a chihuahua. And then there were a few cats as well. And recently, he and I had acquired an Australian Shepherd. None of these animals wanted much to do with the others, of course. One day though, we heard this hideous caterwauling, and come out into the yard-- there was a goofy rock-garden type of thing, and the Aussie had herded all three little dogs and all four cats into it. All the little animals were hating being forced into such close proximity because they had nothing in common except for a relative size, and they were snapping and spitting at each other-- but they couldn't get away from each other as long as that damn BIG dog was racing around them in yapping circles...

What I mean is this; Lesbians, "real" lesbians, don't necessarily like men. When women have their own druthers, they develop social ways, relationship mores, sexual ettiquettes-- that is so far and away different to what men will tend to develop on their own. (Queer women like me, who are more like gay men in their sexual appetites, are usually considered "bi" by the "real" lesbians and "weird" by the "really gay" men.)

And many many gay men don't like women. That's why they call themselves gay. If they liked women, they'd be bi.

And then there are the trans people, and yeah. I personally feel profoundly uncomfortable around many transwomen-- and around most drag queens-- because all I want to do is go the other way, and I don't want to talk about girl problems. And some transsexuals are uncomfortable with drag queens because they make a mockery (or so it seems) of the profound discomfort of being born in the wrong body. Likewise, I am uncomfortable around drag kings because many of them are straight and doing it for performance fun-- it's not very much fun for me.

And then there are class issues as well-- who can and who can't afford to go into the surgery. And whether or not the surgery makes any difference in your life, really.

Gay men. Lesbian women. "Bisexual" men, "Bisexual" women. Transgendered men (straight or gay), transgendered women (straight or lesbian), guys who like to wear panties-- these people have very little in common-- except for the straight world running in circles around them, forcing them into the same political bed.

yanno what I'm saying?

 

[RedThread]

yanno what I'm saying?

Yes. Straight people are Australian Shepherd dogs.

Claire

 

[LizzyDark]

They have loads in common. Being gay doesn't change who you are. Despite the way one might stereotype, not every homosexual falls into that category and there are plenty who can't be pointed out in a crowd. Apart from whom they're attracted to, there's nothing different other than average personal traits which will vary from everyone despite what orientation they are.

I'll just leave this here for anyone who thinks otherwise:
http://enskyment.livejournal.com/992.html

I completely agree with Stella on this one. As one of the "real" lesbians (I'm not super sure on what you mean by the quotes, but, being a gold star, I assume I'm in the group you're aiming that at) I have to say being gay hasn't necessarily changed who I am, but the reaction of the world to my being gay has definitely altered who I am. I also don't think physical appearance and identification in a crowd has anything to do with who a person is. I don't have much interest in even having any conversations with straight men for the most part--it goes well beyond not being interested in them sexually. My identity as a lesbians goes well beyond just who I'm attracted to, and believe me, just because I'm into women doesn't mean I'm into all women.

 

[Stella_Omega]

They have loads in common. Being gay doesn't change who you are. Despite the way one might stereotype, not every homosexual falls into that category and there are plenty who can't be pointed out in a crowd. Apart from whom they're attracted to, there's nothing different other than average personal traits which will vary from everyone despite what orientation they are.

I'll just leave this here for anyone who thinks otherwise:
http://enskyment.livejournal.com/992.html

The journal writer sounds very young. I am not talking about how lesbians, or gay men, or transsexuals look, or how they act, but what each of us needs.

Lesbians need; reproductive health care, respect as human beings, to not be threatened with corrective rape, to be left to develop their own sexuality, to be allowed to talk about their same-sex loved ones when coworkers are talking about their own loved ones.

Gay men need; to be free from the threat of gay-bashing, safe sex training, loads of caregivers in the AIDs hospices (and guess who often get tapped for that, BTW? Lesbians!) to be allowed to talk about their same-sex loved ones when coworkers are talking about their own loved ones.

Straight transwomen would like to be, simply, straight women. They need; not to be treated like curiosities by tranny hunters. They kind of shouldn't have to be shoved into the GLBTQ corral with the rest of us. But that yapping dog ...

Lesbian transwomen hope to find a lesbian partner that is not put off by any remaining genital oddities (because not all of us can afford those operations)-- remember, lesbians don't generally have sex with men.

Straight transmen-- want to be straight men.

Gay transmen generally have to find gay male partners that are okay with an extra hole and a strapon, because the operations are expenisve and phalloplasty? Not so wonderful an outcome yet. And again, gay men generally don't like female genitalia.

Oh, and the lastest queer category to join the ranks; Aces, asexuals, who have very little to do with interpersonal sexuality of any sort. And guess what? They have nothing in common with any of the other groups, except that-- they aren't "straight."

I completely agree with Stella on this one. As one of the "real" lesbians (I'm not super sure on what you mean by the quotes, but, being a gold star, I assume I'm in the group you're aiming that at) I have to say being gay hasn't necessarily changed who I am, but the reaction of the world to my being gay has definitely altered who I am. I also don't think physical appearance and identification in a crowd has anything to do with who a person is. I don't have much interest in even having any conversations with straight men for the most part--it goes well beyond not being interested in them sexually. My identity as a lesbians goes well beyond just who I'm attracted to, and believe me, just because I'm into women doesn't mean I'm into all women.

Yes, and yes. And yes to the bits I didn't bold, as well.

 

[RedThread]

As one of the "real" lesbians (I'm not super sure on what you mean by the quotes, but, being a gold star, I assume I'm in the group you're aiming that at) I have to say being gay hasn't necessarily changed who I am, but the reaction of the world to my being gay has definitely altered who I am.

This is a great discussion point. I'd be interested to hear how others define "real" (fill in the blank). Can a "real" lesbian be other than a gold star? What about a "real" gay? What's a "real" bisexual (it would be hard to apply the gold star filter to that one). Can homosexuals have emotional or sexual experiences with members of the opposite sex and still retain/maintain their gay identities both internally and externally? It is likely that there will be various answers to this, but for the sake of exploration I think we can field different responses with equanimity.

There is also the issue of society's reaction, which is another vital piece. I'm going to use the word queer here in the way that Stella and I discussed, for lack of a more appropriate and less derogatory term. There are queers who "pass" for straight because their behavior doesn't necessarily reflect the butch/fag stereotypes, as Entricity mentioned above. The social perception of such folks may be a lot less harsh/judgmental/abusive than that of others, obviously. I'm interested to know in what ways we see society's reaction as changing us? On the other hand--- let's say that you (a given individual) lived in Greenwich Village, or in certain neighborhoods of San Fransisco, ditto Tel Aviv, wherein queer (or straight ally) was largely the norm. How would that change your identity?

Claire

 

[LizzyDark]

This is a great discussion point. I'd be interested to hear how others define "real" (fill in the blank). Can a "real" lesbian be other than a gold star? What about a "real" gay? What's a "real" bisexual (it would be hard to apply the gold star filter to that one). Can homosexuals have emotional or sexual experiences with members of the opposite sex and still retain/maintain their gay identities both internally and externally? It is likely that there will be various answers to this, but for the sake of exploration I think we can field different responses with equanimity.

There is also the issue of society's reaction, which is another vital piece. I'm going to use the word queer here in the way that Stella and I discussed, for lack of a more appropriate and less derogatory term. There are queers who "pass" for straight because their behavior doesn't necessarily reflect the butch/fag stereotypes, as Entricity mentioned above. The social perception of such folks may be a lot less harsh/judgmental/abusive than that of others, obviously. I'm interested to know in what ways we see society's reaction as changing us? On the other hand--- let's say that you (a given individual) lived in Greenwich Village, or in certain neighborhoods of San Fransisco, ditto Tel Aviv, wherein queer (or straight ally) was largely the norm. How would that change your identity?

Claire

My point earlier was that how society reacts to you changes how you react to society, and this goes well beyond gay and straight. This is a huge part of African American studies, women's studies, Latino studies, and basically any minority group. It's as simple as the word marriage meaning something different to a straight or bi person than it means to a gay person. It doesn't have anything to do with stereotypes and everything to do with real world treatment of people. Even in places where homosexuality is more normalized, the law of the land still alters how society treats us (see Prop 8 for how San Francisco's laws were forced by state consensus).

I don't think gold star is the gold standard for lesbians. My long time girlfriend isn't a gold star but I'd probably describe her as being as much a lesbian as I've ever seen. There was a book Dan Savage mentioned recently written about the fluidity of female sexuality. It had a study, albeit a highly flawed one, that stated some startling number of self-identified lesbians had an emotional or physical relationship with a man at some point in their lives without ever becoming bi or straight. From the psychology standpoint, men have much more rigid constructs of sexuality than women, but I imagine many gay men have or will have emotional/physical relationships with women without ever becoming bi or straight. Likewise, I imagine tons of straight men and women have sexual experiences with the same sex and could never be considered bi or gay. Exceptions to normal behavior for an individual does not alter what a person is--a vegetarian who has a burger once every five years is still a vegetarian, an atheist that goes to Christmas Mass with a friend is still an atheist, and a straight girl who makes out with another girl at a college party is still a straight girl.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And my gay male lover mentioned earlier-- was gay. It showed in many ways, including how he prioritized his commitments with me (female bodied) versus male lovers-- a potential boyfriend for him would be more important to him than me-- or what weight he gave my opinions and thoughts (coming from a female.) As loving and kind and sharing as he was, I was not completely what made him happy.

He was, and is gay.