BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Homo 101

 
  

Page: (1)23456

 
 
Ganesh
22:35 / 29.04.06
Alrighty, this is something of an experiment. Essentially, it stems from several recent PM interactions of mine, with individuals who've made (what's perceived by me to be) remarks which, while not necessarily homophobic, would probably fall into the box marked 'unexamined'. More often than not, I've responded with sarcasm, facetiousness or snarkery in-thread, PM discussion has followed, and it's turned out that the poster in question was genuinely unaware that what he said might be deemed 'off colour'.

It struck me that, although there's a general expectation on Barbelith that posters possess a certain degree of 'entry-level' sensitivity to borderline-homophobic language and inference, a lot of this is a) culture-specific, and b) easier to learn if one actually encounters numbers of openly gay people in one's daily life. It seemed to me that, rather than (or at least, as well as) getting snarky with those who put a foot wrong, there ought to be some more gentle means of explaining why it's deemed offensive to say X, etc.

So... the purpose of this thread is to share information, hopefully in a non-patronising way. If you've been wondering what's so wrong about using such-and-such a term or how you know you're gay or, for fuck's sake, which one of us is the woman, this is the place to ask. Snark is suspended here (to the best of my ability, anyway).

Naturally, while reasonably up on the gay scene/writing/politics, I can hardly claim to represent Teh Rainbow Nation of Gay. I'd be grateful, therefore, for the contributions of other gay-identified posters. The important thing, for me, is that this be a place where questions can be asked and answered in good faith, and homo-related stuff discussed without jumping all over the guy who honestly doesn't know.

I'll probably write a little more in due course, probably on terminology. In the meantime, I'm digging up some threads I think might be useful in terms of gaining an understanding of Gay Stuff and how it's discussed on Barbelith.

A question for the pride parade people: from 2002, a naively-framed question and ensuing discussion of why teh gays shove it down your throat at least once a year.

Affectations: a 2003 Head Shop unpicking of why, exactly, some gay men might appear lispy and limp-wristed.

Immaturity and Homosexuality: brief discussion of "are gay people immature?" topic.

There are others, and I'm hoping other posters will index them here. Note that I'm not expecting that those wanting to ask a 'stupid' question digest all those threads first. If you want to ask something, please feel free to ask and we'll try to answer.
 
 
Char Aina
23:18 / 29.04.06
i have a question.
as a bisexual, am i 'one of you'?

i'm wondering, primarily, if you see this as a thread for engendering specifically gay (i am assuming it to mean gay and lesbian) friednliness, or is it to be extended to a wider aspect?

i'm also curious to what extent being bisexual is considered 'enough' to comment on gayness generally.

i should probably apologise now for my almost complete lack of understanding of most of the issues surrounding identity as it relates to sexuality, other than that gathered from my own experiences.
 
 
Jack Fear
23:44 / 29.04.06
Some previous threads on bisexual issues may give you a bit of grounding, toksik: Those incredible invisible bisexuals and those pesky fence-sitters.

The thread titles are perhaps unfortunate, if tongue-in-cheek, but there's plenty of thoughtful content to digest, which may help you find some perspective.
 
 
Char Aina
23:47 / 29.04.06
thanks, jack.
i have read those, but i felt more confused than enlightened.

while 'confused' has some cheap comedy mileage, it gives me no happy.

perhaps it's time i reread.
 
 
matthew.
02:39 / 30.04.06
I have a question. Background info: I identify as bisexual.

How much homophobia does one encounter in the world on a daily basis? Just today, I had a female co-worker who said that "girls don't like guys with faggy voices" and I pounced on her. It sounded so... ignorant.

Do other, more queer identifying, posters encounter actual homophobia. I see it on the television, with Matthew Shepard and the end of Brokeback Mountain, but I've never been face to face with a pure homophobic individual.

If no one wants to share with me on this, I understand. Well, actually I don't, but...
 
 
*
03:24 / 30.04.06
matt, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, in Berkeley to be precise, and I've been harassed for my gender presentation a few times since moving here. House members have been harassed for being openly gay, for holding hands with or kissing their lovers, or just looking queer. There have been threats. On only one occasion that I know of, there was actual violence. However, some house members are targeted more than others, and the reason for this that I can figure is that they fit people's stereotypical notion of what "gay" looks like, and this makes them a target for harassment and violence. When you say you've never encountered any homophobia, this causes me to wonder how well you fit people's image of what "straight" looks like.
 
 
Ganesh
06:20 / 30.04.06
i have a question.
as a bisexual, am i 'one of you'?

i'm wondering, primarily, if you see this as a thread for engendering specifically gay (i am assuming it to mean gay and lesbian) friednliness, or is it to be extended to a wider aspect?


This occurred to me, because obviously I can only really tackle the gay male stuff (from a personal point of view) and I'm aware that there are probably more Barbeloids who identify as bisexual. I think I'd probably leave it to them to either comment here or start a Bi 101 equivalent. Probably the latter, I'd say, as, increasingly, bisexual identity is differentiating itself from gay identity (BiCons, etc.)

(Incidentally, I don't see this thread as aiming to engender "gay friendliness" so much as leaven genuine ignorance by providing a space for people to ask what might be obvious or naive questions without risking tarring/feathering with the Homophobia Brush.)
 
 
Ganesh
07:00 / 30.04.06
How much homophobia does one encounter in the world on a daily basis?

Depends where one lives and works, how one presents oneself to the world and how far one extends the definition of "homophobia".

For example: I live in London, a major city, and work in the National Health Service. I'm not especially 'overt' (I think I give off plenty of not-heterosexual vibes but many, gay and straight, tell me otherwise). I haven't encountered homophobia in the form of being physically attacked (although Xoc has, and there are plenty of sobering reminders that it can happen, even in areas tacitly accepted as 'safe'); much more common is people (commonly my patients, but also strangers - cab drivers seem to do this with me a lot) assuming I'm straight and mouthing off about Teh Gays. If one widens "homophobia" to encompass all the less-than-positive responses I'd attract if I tried to do the things straight people take for granted (holding hands with my partner in the street, and so on) then I could probably claim to encounter homophobia every day. I certainly would if I attempted aforementioned hand-holding outside the square mile of Soho (and even there, there'd be stares and the occasional verbal comment). That sort of behaviour is, I think, considered by some to be 'shoving it down your throat' - provocative/inflammatory.

Of course, society still assumes heterosexuality as the default template - patients, colleagues, shop assistants, etc. will routinely ask after my wife - but, while irritating, I don't think this would necessarily amount to homophobia.

So... I hope in a roundabout way that answers your question, at least from my point of view.
 
 
Ganesh
07:32 / 30.04.06
Entity:
However, some house members are targeted more than others, and the reason for this that I can figure is that they fit people's stereotypical notion of what "gay" looks like, and this makes them a target for harassment and violence. When you say you've never encountered any homophobia, this causes me to wonder how well you fit people's image of what "straight" looks like.

That's something I frequently wonder about myself - and the comment, "I'd never have known you were gay" always seems faintly double-edged to me. I suspect that some people, gay and straight, would view not-being-obviously-gay as a compliment/Good Thing, which is a rather dubious can and a half of worms.

Incidentally, when time and botheredness allow, I may be persuaded to regale you with my oft-repeated anecdote of how two Alabama racists once mistook Xoc and me for members of the British far-right, on a train on the way back from Gay Pride...
 
 
Cat Chant
14:16 / 30.04.06
Do other, more queer identifying, posters encounter actual homophobia. I see it on the television, with Matthew Shepard

Ooh, I'm glad this one has come up, but now I'm worried about my ability to articulate a helpful response to it.

I think that a focus on the worst - most physically violent or emotionally crippling - expressions of homophobia sometimes has the effect of masking the way that homophobia (and heterocentrism, which is not the same thing but related) plays out more subtly both through cultural productions and through our (ie everyone's) day-to-day experience. So, because incidents like the murder of Matthew Shepard are used to show that homophobia literally threatens lives, there's sometimes a sense that it's only 'actual' homophobia when and if it does literally threaten a life. And that has the effect of making more usual, mundane examples of homophobia become invisible. It's often tempting to point to things like homophobic murders and beatings in an attempt to demonstrate that there are people who do still hate gays and that it does matter, in a cultural climate where people are perhaps more likely to dismiss gay issues with 'Oh, but you have equal rights now and you're being oversensitive' than with 'Oh, but you're a filthy queer so no-one cares what you have to say'. But I myself am trying to resist that temptation, because I think it's becoming slightly counterproductive.

Having said which, the existence of homophobic violence, in the context of a social system which systematically privileges heterosexuality as against homosexuality, is a constant backdrop to the minor and mundane homophobic incidents I'm talking about. That is, these murders and assaults show how gay people have to live with the awareness that violent threat is always possible, so that certain interactions - particularly more subtle forms of homophobia - become more charged for gay or trans people. That is, even if no-one has ever beaten me up for being gay, a look in the street or a muttered remark can remind me that in some people, that disapproval can become murderous hatred and rage. If someone calls you a 'ginger' in the street, that has a certain weight given to it by a cultural myth that ginger hair is unattractive, but it doesn't have the weight given to it by the fact that people occasionally get beaten to death for being ginger, and that the assaulter may be able legally to plead that the sight of the victim's ginger hair made him psychotic and hence not morally responsible for his actions.

Mostly the homophobia that I encounter is not directly threatening, but just tiring. A big part of that tiringness is the way that I, and I think lots of other queers, often spend a fair bit of mental energy on wondering if the way someone treated us was because we were queer - for example, once when I was going round trying to get a mortgage from the bank, I explained my circumstances (student cohabiting with a self-employed Australian woman) to the mortgage advisor and he immediately became very cold, told me I couldn't have a mortgage from that bank and sat silently watching me until I left, without any verbal cues about whether the interview was, in fact, over, or any of the little friendly remarks or apologies that most of the other mortgage advisors had offered when they told me I couldn't have a mortgage. Was that because he hated lesbians or because he hated student or because he thought I was a time-waster? I don't know, but the ordinary social awkwardness and unpleasantness of it had a whole extra dimension for me.

And yeah, that's nothing like being beaten up, but it happens all the time, and it gets... like I said, tiring.

Oh, hang on, though, another thing I wanted to say is that no, I haven't encountered much overt homophobia in the three years that I've been same-sex-partnered (I'm still kind of a baby dyke in some ways). I've been quite surprised about that. Partly, I think, again because of the way that queer activists quite rightly focus on the continued existence of homophobia, but do so through the more overt instances. Sometimes - like, two or three times a year? - people say 'lesbian!' to me in the street, in which case I say 'straight boy!' back at them, and we part on good terms. (This actually happens to me less often now that I mostly appear on the street wound round another woman: I got it a lot more when I was still [passing as] straight.) Once a woman on a train hit me with her newspaper and stormed off, telling me that I shouldn't be kissing my gf in front of a child, which I found extremely upsetting (I had a new nephew then) and which took me several hours to recover from. I can't think of anything else. Oh, teenagers hate seeing me and Tangent kissing in public and stare at us in horror, but I kind of think that's fair enough, since they probably assume we're mother and daughter when they first see us and when you're an adolescent, the idea of a mother having sexual desires at all is disgusting enough, let alone that they should be directed towards someone a generation younger...

But mostly I just get worn down by heterocentrism which, like I say, is a bit different. The example I mostly give is my sister, who when I first met my gf asked 'Are you going to get married?' and 'If you could fuse your ova, would you have a baby?' She would probably never understand that those were not friendly, neutral questions demonstrating her acceptance of me, but rather slightly threatening statements that she would only listen to me or accept my relationship with Tangent insofar as it fitted into her understanding of relationships, marriage, and reproduction-as-genetic. She knew full well that I don't approve of marriage and don't want kids, and I presume she's aware of the fact that lots of lesbians do have kids despite not being able to 'merge their ova'. The equivalent questions to her, which she would have experienced as overtly and unambiguously hostile, would have been 'How do you and your husband plan to manage your attraction to other people, especially when you actually fuck those other people?' and 'Why are you and your husband having a baby in these overpopulated times, rather than adopting?'
 
 
*
17:01 / 30.04.06
Yeah, I needed to stress that not "appearing gay" doesn't necessarily make one less gay or less vulnerable to homophobia, and it certainly doesn't make one's opinions less valid. But it might help to explain decreased exposure.
 
 
Queer Pirate
21:44 / 30.04.06
I live in Montreal, which is a relatively safe place for being openly queer. Still, public displays of homosexual affection will draw stares and whispers in my back. However, I think it's important to understand that people who stare are not necessarily hostile, but often are just not used to seeing two persons of the same gender kiss or hold hands.

As a queer guy, my mannerism isn't very "feminine", which saves me a lot of flack and often gets me weird comments along the line of "yeah, but you it's different, you don't look gay". A lot of homophobic reactions are exacerbated when people are breaking gender rules. A "feminine" guy or a "butch" woman is much more likely to get homophobic reactions than someone who fits the expected standards of his gender. In a way, I’m lucky that I look straight since it saves me trouble, but I really dislike that it contributes to reinforcing the idea that there are “good” queers and “bad” queers.

I make a point of being visible. I was heavily influenced by punk and DIY in my coming out years and I usually wear explicit patches or pins that clearly state out my sexual orientation. These draw a lot of stares once again (as they are both queer and openly sexual), but I find they work as some kind of sigil, effectively claiming the space around me as queer and empowering me. Being punked up and in-your-face does tend to ensure that people don't dare display their homophobia openly or aggressively, even though I'm definitely not the violent type.

The worst cases of homophobia I encounter usually end up being people talking in my back, especially co-workers, or fellow students when I was still in college. Sometimes I just wish people were more upfront and actually dared tell me directly of their discomfort - at least that would allow me to explain some stuff and answer questions. Most of the time, homophobia really is about ignorance and misconceptions.

But I definitely encourage people to be visible. The more visible queers are, the stronger we get. Being visible has its risks, but it definitely is empowering.

BTW, bisexuals often have to deal with biphobia too, not only homophobia. It's not rare for bisexual people to be turned down by gay people in addition with having to deal with good old homophobia.
 
 
*
22:31 / 30.04.06
BTW, bisexuals often have to deal with biphobia too, not only homophobia. It's not rare for bisexual people to be turned down by gay people in addition with having to deal with good old homophobia.

Yes, indeed. Biphobia— a common manifestation of which is the idea that bisexuals are "part-time gays," or lying/in denial— often comes out of a sense that bisexuals are "spies in our midst." Bisexual women in lesbian feminist circles are often on the receiving end of this treatment. Bisexual men, apparently, %have been disproven by J. Michael Bailey.% This appears to me part of a pretty irritating trend of people rightfully protective of our sexual rights fragmenting into isolated communities and defending this isolation by attacking each other.
 
 
matthew.
23:02 / 30.04.06
Thanks for all the responses. I appreciate.

I guess in my post I was referring to "homophobia" as the violent one, and I neglected to take in account its fluidity, if that's the best word for the context.

So, next question from me then, if where is the line between heterocentrism and homophobia?
 
 
Aertho
23:06 / 30.04.06
(What is heterocentrism?)
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
23:13 / 30.04.06
J.Michael Bailey
"Gay straight or lying"? "Bisexual men only attracted by homosexual imagery"? The man is clearly a loon.
Although I would be interested to know, from those of you identifying as bisexual (identifying? I *am* bi!), whether you're (like myself) sitting slap bang in the middle of the fence (I've had equal numbers of male and female partners, and feel roughly the same degree of attraction either way) or whether you lean one way or t'other. Is that a stupid enough question for the thread? I've a penchant for straw polls...
 
 
Logos
23:43 / 30.04.06
When asked, I usually just say, "Oh, I generally like people...how about you?"

That generally seems to get people past the whole "where are you on the Kinsey scale" thing, and the whole "bisexuals are just greedy" thing.

I still get people who act like my sexuality is some sort of superpower, and wait for me to do something else wild, like produce a lit birthday cake from my ass, or perform a card trick or something. Then I have to explain that I'm a bisexual, not a magician. And then I have to explain that I _am_ a magician, just not that type of magician.
 
 
Queer Pirate
01:39 / 01.05.06
So, next question from me then, if where is the line between heterocentrism and homophobia?

AND

(What is heterocentrism?)


Heterocentrism is the attitude, sometimes unconscious, that leads people to assume that everyone is straight. It's also a cultural trait in our society that is reflected in the tendency of presenting heterosexuality as the default option or even as the only option for sexual or love relationships.

Examples of heterocentrism:

- A co-worker assumes that you are straight until you tell them that you're queer.
- A magazine about love and sex only features heterosexual couples and talks only about heterosexuality and doesn't even mention lesbian/gay sex, or does not care to specify that it is about heterosexual love and sex only, assuming that it's the norm.
- Sex ed teachers that always tell the boys how they're going to eventually like girls and get girlfriends, and vice versa with the female students, and never talk about homosexuality, or talk about it like this huge theoretical thing that happens only to people from planet Pluto.

Homophobia, on the other hand, is discomfort towards homosexuality. It can range from awkwardness to fear, loathing and hatred. Homophobic people are usually heterocentric, but the other way around is not necessarily true. You can be heterocentric simply out of negligence or poor education, but be quite comfortable with homosexuality. Some people are purposefully heterocentric though.

There is also heterosexism, the idea that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. Heterosexists believe that heterosexuality should be promoted and privileged while homosexuality should be marginalized and repressed. While homophobia is a feeling, heterosexism is this feeling translated to an intellectual mindset.

* * *

Another example of heterocentrism would be how MS-Word’s dictionary does not contain the word “heterocentrism”, or any other specialized term from queer theory…
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:57 / 01.05.06
Going offtopica, the only time I've received homophobic abuse has been when I was trannied up in any way, shape or form, but that's probably because I've not had a partner OTSS. Certainly growing up as both bisexual and a transvestite I had the worst of both worlds in coming to term with both thinking "Oh great, I'm Danny La Rue". But I'll save this for the 'trannie 101' thread.
 
 
Bamba
11:13 / 01.05.06
Actually I've got a multi-part question sparked by reading this thread: what's the deal with 'queer'? To my knowledge it's originally a detrimental term that's been reclaimed, I suppose I should check if that is indeed the case before I proceed?

Next up, is it, like that other reclaimed word 'nigger' that I'm sort of modelling my thinking on here, a word that would be inappropriate for a straight person to casually use or is it now completely inoffensive (when not used as an insult)? I see and hear it used often by gay people but don't use it myself because, well, why take the risk of offending someone when it's perfectly easy to subsititute another word in any situation?

Also, does it have some subtly different meaning from 'gay' or are the two interchangable? I see/hear people using 'queer' and 'gay' at different times even in the same sentence sometimes which has prompted my wondering if there is a difference there I'm not getting. Even if the concensus is that they carry the same meaning, am I right in thinking that the two terms are used differently at times and does anyone know why? I'm thinking here of terms like "queer theory" i.e. why not "gay theory"? That's a bit of a shit example thinking about it but maybe someone see where I'm coming from.
 
 
Cat Chant
11:43 / 01.05.06
Yep, queer is a reclaimed word. Whether you yourself are queer or not, you should probably use the word in situations where you're fairly sure no-one will mis-hear you as meaning it detrimentally, and/or where there is no other synonym: for example, 'queer theory' is indeed different from 'gay theory' (it's often held to have been 'founded' by the brilliant - and heterosexually married - Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, who is therefore one of the queerest - and also one of the least gay - people in the world). Some people identify specifically as queer rather than gay (I'm one of them, though I do identify as gay and/or lesbian as well), so you should also use it when you're aware that it's someone's preferred term for themselves.

As for the difference between queer and gay - it's quite a big and vexed issue, and I'm a bit nervous about trying to sum up here, but I'm sure someone will jump in if I misrepresent something that's important to someone.

The aforementioned Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick writes, in the introduction to her book Tendencies (page xii, if you're interested), that

the word ‘queer’ itself means across – it comes from the Indo-European root -twerkw, which also yields the German quer (transverse), Latin torquere (twist), English athwart.

Where 'gay' usually simply means 'attracted to people of the same sex', and can really only be used to describe people, 'queer' designates a form of resistance to straightness - that is, to a system of 'compulsory heterosexuality' which insists people conform to a system of binary gender, in which you are one gender by not being (and by desiring) the other. In this system, sex is held to determine gender, which determines sexual attraction, in a straight line: I am a man, so I act and appear masculine, and I desire women. You can see this 'straight line' working in our culture, where 'manliness' is thought of in certain ways (which are often defined specifically as not-womanliness, and which blur the lines between sex and gender - having a penis/being muscly/being strong/being emotionally 'hard'/etc), and 'desiring women' is thought of as being part of 'manliness'.

People who identify as queer will usually not organize their identity and their sexual attraction in this binary way, and will not think of femininity and masculinity either as essentially linked to female or male sex or as mutually exclusive. Similarly, 'queer' can also be used, and often is, to refer to texts which can be read in ways that are not organized around the straight line of compulsory heterosexuality (sex --> gender --> heterosexuality). So you might say that Some Like It Hot, for example, is a queer film, not because it contains characters who are overtly identified as gay (or even queer!) but because it allows itself to be read in terms of same-sex desire, and also because it allows for a different set of relations between sex, gender and sexual attraction (the idea at the end that being a man is simply an 'imperfection' in Daphne's womanhood, not a negation of it).

I should say that I work on queer theory in an academic context, and I've been thinking and writing about it for seven years or so now, so I'm often unsure about which concepts are obvious and which ones are difficult. If I'm being obscure, or relying on arguments and assumptions that don't make sense to you, please let me know and I'll try and rephrase or explain more clearly.
 
 
Ganesh
11:51 / 01.05.06
Where 'gay' usually simply means 'attracted to people of the same sex'

Although even this is, I think, slightly up for grabs. Some would argue that 'gay' has evolved a more inclusive meaning than 'attracted to people of the same sex' (this, in isolation, would more precisely be 'homosexual', I'd say) and now has additional, broader 'lifestyle' connotations.
 
 
Bamba
11:54 / 01.05.06
No, that's all perfectly comprehensible so cheers for that. And I had heard before of people doing 'queer readings' of certain texts/media and I'd thought about using that instead of queer theory as my example but wasn't entirely sure, until reading your post, that I hadn't made the whole thing up so that clarifies that as well.
 
 
Bamba
11:55 / 01.05.06
That was in response to Deva's post by the way as I think I cross-posted with you Ganesh.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
15:22 / 01.05.06
OK I have a question:

Background: Recently I read Joe Orton's diaries. He was great mates with Kenneth Williams, and when they, Joe's boyfriend Kenneth Halliwell, and a bunch of other gay chaps go off to Tangier (I think it was) and are most of the time in an exclusively gay/queer social environment, KW and the others (although not KH or JO) frequently refer to other gay men as 'she', 'her' etc. In fact, this is a regular characteristic of KW's speech as recorded in the diaries, although not, apparently, JO's or KH's.

My question: Is this a linguistic product/fashion of the time period (late 60s), a bit like Polari, or is it a mode of speech that is still used in 'gay-only' (or gay mainly) social environments? I've got a few gay friends who I have never heard do this, and obviously I have never had the privilege of being in gay-only company (and am unwilling to hide under anyone's sofa to test my theory). Or do some gay men still commonly refer to one another as 'she' and 'her'? I am curious.
 
 
*
15:38 / 01.05.06
I have heard this from some older gay men, but not from younger ones. I was under the impression that it sprang from the habit of pronoun-shifting as a method of cover (referring to one's boyfriend or lover as "she" in front of the uninitiated) and became a form of resistance (calling one another "she" and "Mary" in front of shocked hetros). I also know an older gay man who told me that while in his youth (when this was more popular) he was gravely offended when people used this language to describe him, he had come to accept it more now that he understood a bit more about genderplay and its significance in the gay community. It's one of those things I wouldn't use without knowing it's very okay for me specifically with that specific person. In particular I think as a gay trans man I would have a strong reaction to this.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
19:51 / 01.05.06
Eeeenteresting - thanks, (id).
 
 
Queer Pirate
01:38 / 02.05.06
Regarding "queer", while my answer will not be as academic as Deva's, I identify as queer because I don't feel like groveling in front of the heterosexist and the homophobic, begging for acceptance and going “please accept us, we’re just like you – harmless suburbanites with two cars a dog who want to get married and live long boring lives ever-after”. I’m not heterosexual and as a queer individual, I have my own unique culture and heritage, which I’m damn proud of.

If we intend to get along, it obviously is important that we all focus on what we have in common. However, being different is our birthright and there are people who are out to stamp out difference. A lot of non-heterosexual people would rather bow down their heads and make themselves discreet for the sake of cheap-ass tolerance and fake acceptance, but I’m not one of them.

So that’s what “queer” means to me: being proud of who I am and what others of my people have accomplished before me to give me a chance of being openly different and thrive on it.

As for the “she” thing, it would feel really off if someone called me “she”. I identify as male, sexual orientation and sexual identity are two different things that a lot of misinformed people get easily mixed up and I feel the whole “she” thing would just further that confusion. However, there are “male” and “female” traits in every one of us and there’s no point in sticking to gender stereotypes.
 
 
Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown
02:01 / 02.05.06
In regards to homophobia and heterocentrism, I had a conversation this weekend with shoujo-ai (lesbian romance manga [kind of]) writer, Kathryn Williams, at the Paradise Toronto ComiCon this weekend.

Kathryn explained that she's been having a lot of problems lately with comic and anime conventions. Apparently she used to run panel discussions and coordinate gay and lesbian film showings at Anime North, and left after doing it for a while with the belief that someone else would take it over...and came back to find that instead of looking at queer romance and sexuality, it instead was being run by a bunch of straight teenage girls who liked to giggle over their favourite bishonen stuff. Which Kathryn felt was really problematic since what these girls thought of as "favourite" was some pretty twisted stuff that was more made to tittilate a hetero audience than entertain a gay one.

By the time I talked to her, Kathryn had presented a panel on Saturday morning about shoujo-ai manga (I believe it was described on the website as "lesbian romance written by women for women"), but apparently the convention organizers had a great fear of saying the word "lesbian", so when the panel was announced...well, folks had no idea what they were coming for. This was only part of the problem she's had, she explained, in regards to her work and the genre itself. She has trouble sometimes getting people to understand that she writes romance stories rather than porn, which is a problem she had getting across at another convention which brought her in thinking that, because she wrote lesbian fiction, that she WAS writing porn.


Which actually sort of brings me to a question I've wanted to ask for a while:

What do YOU consider to be "gay fiction"?

Does having a gay writer make a book "gay fiction"?

Is it the main character?

Does there need to be relationships involved?

I'm asking this from the perspective of a straight writer and English student who's begun exploring this sort of thing in class, but would really like to ask some opinions. I'm really not trying to be offensive with this, though please let me know if you feel the question is out of line.
 
 
penitentvandal
08:21 / 02.05.06
Is it possible, then, for someone to be queer and heterosexual? This is something I've always pondered when considering the difference between queer and gay. I have an acquaintance who's a heterosexual transvestite; would he be considered 'queer' in the sense that he rejects standard notions of male dress and behaviour but still practises heterosexual sex-relations? Many of my friends in the fetish and poetry scenes have been in heterosexual relationships but behaved in ways inconsistent with a heterosexist reading of gender relations (most obviously, I guess, male submissive friends of mine, but also many woman poets I know who insist on their right to act out signifiers of male identity in performance space). I guess my fear is that the word 'queer' may be too expansive, that it can contain multitudes of experience so vast that it ceases to become primarily a signifier of gayness, or is that the point? Or are there gay queers who dislike the idea of loads of other people being able to get in the queer game and actually would prefer the word only be used in a gay context - a kind of re-reclaiming of the word? And why did they reject the gay guy who auditioned to play Will, but accept the straight guy? And what is the deal with Smithers, anyway? You know what I'm talking about...

On the issue of bisexuality, I identify as bisexual and have had relationships with people of both sexes, still fantasise about guys as well as girls, but am in a position where I am marrying a woman who I love very dearly. I don't see that as a problem, though others might, because in my view marrying someone means you don't have sex with anyone else, period: it shouldn't matter what gender those people are. When people bring up my (bi)sexuality as a 'threat' to my marriage I just tend to ask how they manage to keep from shagging loads of girlies behind their wife's back, and point out that it's the same for me. It just means I would have to turn down both Brad and Angelina, that's all.

And Deva - big sympathy re. the stupid woman on the train. My comeback in that circumstance would have been to ask her why she considered it unacceptable for a child to see two girlies kissing, but perfectly acceptable for the child to witness a violent assault (hitting someone with a newspaper). And then, while she was formulating her reply, I would jump on the cow and bite her fucking nose off. Mail-reading prunt.
 
 
stabbystabby
08:46 / 02.05.06
a lot of my colleagues in the fight for REVOLUTION (TM) say hetero people can identify as queer - particularly if they are outside of or crossing the borders of heteronormativity. (non-monogamous, non-traditional gender roles, etc). Part because Brisbane is fairly small, and part as a reaction to the "Womyn only WOMYN BORN!" activism coming out of Melbourne a few years back, the gay and queer movements in Brisbane merged quite happily.

We tend to use the term 'Queer and queer friendly' anyway - it makes for a much more enjoyable working atmosphere.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
10:41 / 02.05.06
Hello Brisbane, Melbourne here!

I know lots of people who generally sleep with people of the 'opposite' sex but consider themselves queer. You can anti-heteronormative but sleep 'straight', I think. And quite easily.
 
 
Mono
11:41 / 02.05.06
Oh, the synchronicity.

I was literally just having a discussion over lunch with a colleague about how annoying it is to be a queer/bi in a monogamous hetero relationship (becasue we both happen to be) and how most people (gay/straight/queer/any/all) just assume that we're 'straight' unless they have known us for years.

Oh, the crappy heterocentric world!
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:13 / 02.05.06
There is something about the concept of heterocentricity that doesn't really make sense to me. That is, we go through our lives making all sorts of assumptions which we are aware (hopefully) aren't some universal iron clad rules, but can be useful as a rule of thumb. For instance, I tend to assume that most English speakers I meet don't speak Italian - this is a pretty safe bet and while I don't stake my reputation on it, it would seem perverse to me to pretend that I have absolutely no idea whether the next person I speak to in English is likely to speak Italian.

Similarly, assuming that someone is hetero is also a pretty safe bet, isn't it? (I need some statistics here, but is 90% of the population being hetero very far off?) Now, this is more complicated due to ongoing prejudice, and I guess that is what it all hinges on...but it still seems odd to me to put up a warning flag over a specific instance of rather general and widespread behaviour, that no one really seems to want to condemn in generality.

As for MS word being heterocentrist for not listing terminology from queer theory...this seems to me close to pushing the term to breaking point, and rather reinforces my previous points.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:33 / 02.05.06
Hmm. I think there's a few things going on which perhaps the term 'heterocentrism' is bundling together and covering over, Lurid, so I'm going to give a few slightly scattered responses to it. I think there's a complicated crossover between (1) a sort of 'statistical' assumption which, I agree, is understandable (even though it is sometimes annoying to have to keep saying 'No, I do speak Italian... No, I do speak Italian... No, it's okay, I really do speak Italian...') and (2) a kind of culpable heterocentrism.

One thing that occurs to me is that the analogy between speaking Italian and being gay misses a level of scariness or anxiety. If someone asks me how I enjoyed If on a Winter's Night a Traveller, I don't think there's much of a risk if I say 'Huh? Oh, you mean Se una notte d'inverno un viaggiatore' (Maybe there is, in some situations - ze might think I'm putting hir down and become violent towards me, for example). If someone asks me if I have a boyfriend and I say 'No, I have a girlfriend', there's often a level of scariness about what hir reaction is going to be and how I'm going to manage it. So, the existence of homophobia means that heterocentrist assumptions are often more emotive and difficult to manage than other kinds of assumption.

And here's where the crossover is. I think people who feel more-or-less represented - who feel that their culture as it is has a good enough legal and conceptual framework for enabling and representing their experience - often don't realize how tiring it is to be in the 10% (or whatever) of the population who is not represented. This is where the dictionary example comes in: yes, only 10% of people need those words to represent their experience, but they need them 100% of the time. Maybe you'll only upset or annoy one person in ten by speaking in exclusively heterosexual terms, but that one person is not only 10% excluded. I'm thinking about my sister here, inevitably: she is very blind to her (relatively) privileged status as straight/married, and it seems to me that she is so used to having implicit approval of her life choices reflected back to her from the culture that she is very threatened by the very fact that I've made different choices. Which is tiring for me, because I can't not make different choices.

Or on a bigger scale, the White House has an 'egg-rolling' event for 'families' every Easter. This year, some same-sex parents planned to show up with their kids, and the administration rebuked them for 'politicizing' the event. Heterocentrism is the thing that makes just showing up and being gay political, while showing up and being straight is seen as neutral, non-political, etc.

I'd also be asking what kind of work an assumption was doing in any given kind of interaction (though this might be more for a Headshop thread than a 101 thread). An example of heterocentrism that has annoyed me recently has been co-teaching with a woman who has a tendency to say [things along the lines of] 'That Brad Pitt is gorgeous, eh, girls? Sorry, boys, you won't understand what I'm talking about...' Now, okay, statistically most or all of the students in the class will be straight. But to me there's still something dodgy - something policing - about saying that (and this might have something to do with the teacher's position of authority): it seems to me to be saying that 'in this space, a girl will be defined as someone who is attracted to boys'. The notion of heterocentrism is designed to make visible the fact that these statements are actually policing the acceptable limits of identification, as well as (or instead of) simply reflecting a statistical reality that already exists out there, in the world.
 
  

Page: (1)23456

 
  
Add Your Reply