Month: January 2018

The gay liberation movement, as Hollibaugh framed it, used to be about freedom, about bringing the complexity and fluidity of queerness into the social eye to be accepted at face value without pigeonholing groups or recreating the power structures already engrained in society. Now, the gay liberation movement has become what it was trying to overthrow. It is filled with power structures and a vision of the “gay nuclear family.” That is, a family just like the conventional “nuclear family” but gay. Hollibaugh argues that the complexity of the queer community has been shunned in favor of “gender-appropriate gay representatives,” i.e. those that fit within what is now considered conventionally gay. In other words, the gay liberation movement has become about showing that “we are just like them,” as Hollibaugh put it, rather than about moving past convention and the nuclear family and opening up a whole new concept of what it means to be a sexual and gendered being.

Gender and sexuality, according to Wilchins, are intimately intertwined; inseparable. However, Whilchins points out that “White American culture tends to be one of the few that splits sexual orientation from gender.” This rift is especially apparent in transgender rights. Transgender, at one point, became used as a term to describe “anyone who crossed gender lines.” Cross dressers and transsexuals were grouped under the same category of transgender. This description of transgender indicates that there is a near indistinguishable tie between sexuality and gender. We, as a society, have defined gender based on sexuality and have used their respective terms to uphold the gender binary and “traditional” sexual sentiments. What the term transgender goes to show, is this intimate tie. If gendered objects and sexuality can be grouped and accepted under a single term, there must be a strong connection between them. In my own life, I have seen how passing privilege in terms of sexuality is innately tied to gender and traditionally masculine or feminine behaviors. I can easily pass as straight due to my traditionally masculine appearance and many of my gendered and therefore sexualized interests (such as sports, hiking, camping, martial arts, etc.). On the other hand, I can just as easily express that I am not straight by partaking in traditionally feminine activities such as crocheting, winterguard (which is heavily dance based), cooking, jewelry making, etc. I can therefore conclude that gender, and gendered activities lead people to assume sexuality and are therefore intimately related.

Hollibaugh’s claim that gay liberation movement turned into a “tame civil rights challenge” is sustained primarily by the fact that the focus of the movement became primarily concerned with gay legal rights, as compared to the previous struggles “for sexual, economic and social justice”.  In this way, the movement has been primarily confined to courts and chooses only “gender-appropriate” representatives to fight its battles and show everyone else that “we are just like them”.  While the author does acknowledge the success in legal battles, it stresses the lack of scope, difference, and voice for those who are often left out of the picture when “gay rights” are spoken about.

Wilchins states that the distinction between sexual orientation and gender in a way prevents awareness within and outside the LGBT community.  One example she provides is when speaking to a group of gay men, they are all reluctant to admit they are bottoms – often seen as feminine role in gay sex.  Even in her experiences with “otherwise sophisticated and aware” men, they still seem to have issues with gender.  Because the issues of sexual orientation and gender are so separated in America, the latter is often forgotten about – or is at least perceived as more taboo.  In my own experiences, I find discussing my bisexuality a much more comfortable act than expressing femininity publicly, whether that be in the way I act or dress – it seems to create a greater sense of vulnerability.  This is perhaps due to the increased attention on the new legal rights and successes gay and trans people have had in this country, but the reluctance to include gender as a topic of discussion on mainstream news outlets.  As now it seems the two are almost entirely separated issues, the widespread issues with gender really need to find themselves into the public sphere of discourse, not only in terms of the current binary i.e. it is ok for boys to like “girly” things but also in a post-modernist way – deconstructing the current notions of gender as something rigid and un-changing.

Hollibaugh seems to believe that the political civil rights movement that the gay liberation movement created became oversimplified and left behind groups of queer people that then felt as if they were outcasts. She implies that these now outcast groups are not benefiting as much from the advancement of gay rights as stereotypical gay people attempting to assimilate into society. She goes on to say that this is detrimental to the outcast groups and that the original fuel of the gay rights movement has been lost to satisfy a normalcy of gay people when fighting for equality. However, I have to disagree with Hollibaugh. When fighting for the rights of a large group, such as queer people in America, not every minority within the group can be represented. The “tame civil rights challenge” that she claims is so awful is really just a stepping stone for other, less tame, groups to be able to further their own agendas. I even consider Hollibaugh as somewhat of a hypocrite as she voices inclusion of all groups in the gay liberal movement, yet basis the majority of the movement on people’s sexual desire, thus excluding asexual people from the community.

Wilchins believes that gender expression and sexuality are greatly tied together, but American culture attempts to split the two. She states that to gain traction in the gay rights movement, “the New Gay had to look more palatable and more gender-normative” (21). This was dangerous because it made it harder for people who intertwined their gender and sexuality such as butch lesbians, effeminate gays, trans people, or even drag queens to find a place in the community. I myself have dealt with something similar, not from a community but from within. Oftentimes when I wear skirts or more effeminate clothes I feel somewhat separated from my personality and who I truly am. I believe there is a piece of me that has been socially constructed to think that girls who wear skirts and dresses are excessively feminine and that that is not who I am. Despite wanting to wear these clothes, I typically feel somewhat uncomfortable when dressing in them. Hopefully I will eventually be able to understand my gender, sexuality, and gender expression as an intertwined being and become more comfortable with myself.

Hollibaugh describes how the Gay Liberation Movement morphed in its form and direction over time. From a staunchly radical movement that strove to gain freedoms by challenging society’s notions of normalcy to one that tried to gain some of those rights by conforming to those notions in order to gain a seat at the table. She talks about how the movement began to “parody”  heterosexual middle/upper class families and while the gains from this have been significant, it has been at the cost of ‘othering’ people and identites that don’t fit in to the image that we are “just like them”.

In a way, the movement has lost its identity. From a movement filled with strong contrast to society as a whole, to one that tries to reconcile queer identities with the pervasive ideas of heteronormaltive culture. She states that in doing so, the movement has lost some of the power that it once had. The power of our individuality, that ‘otherness’ that gave us unique perspectives. She argues that being the same will not win us sexual, economic, and social justice, being different will.

Riki Wilchins discusses how American culture often splits gender and sexual orientation into two independent categories and that this distinction is somewhat dubious. One of her examples of this is how crossdressers are often looked down upon or even spurned by transsexual activists. This is often because they view crossdressers as ‘putting on a costume’; they choose to do it rather than need to. Many trans activists also look down upon it because in many cases it is a fetish or source of sexual pleasure, and fear that this sexualization of gender presentation could delegitimize the cause because of its perceived ‘perversion’ being associated with transsexuals as well.  The view of the two being separate could very well promote the idea that one is ‘better’, ‘more important’, or ‘more pure’ than the other. It causes a rift in the LGBT community, where LGB activists view gender issues as “their problem” and vice versa with trans activists. It divides the strength of the community on issues that are inextricably linked, regardless of how culture tries to separate the two.

In my life however, I have found the opposite to be true; American culture lumps sexual orientation and gender identity together. In my experience though, the two are completely independent of each other. Through most of my life gender identity has been touch and go, flip flopping from identifying as a man, to a woman, to a feminine man, to a man who wishes he was a woman, and so on. But through all of that, my attraction to men has stayed constant. This is probably a misinterpretation of what Wilchins means by a distinction between the two or a fixation on the more personal aspects of the two issues rather than their broader meanings in the context of social activism, but it nonetheless makes it difficult to provide personal examples supporting the contrary.  All of my experiences have shown me that the two are distinct from each other. In my own personal case, my sexuality has flipped back and forth from heterosexual to homosexual, depending on how you define gender. If the two were linked together, wouldn’t one affect the other? Again this could just be me missing the point and getting hung up on the terminology, but when it comes to discussion, language is very powerful.

Our language to define our sexuality is based off of gender. When describing one’s own sexuality, the words heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc are all based off of the gender of the person they are describing. A heterosexual man and a homosexual woman are both attracted to women; the terms change but the target of sexual attraction stay the same, it is dependent on gender. This is important because language often shapes how things are viewed. If the only words we have to describe our sexual orientation are based off of gender, than the two become intertwined whenever we attempt to describe them.

A good example of how this language links sexual orientation and gender identity together in our culture is when the topic of non-binary identities comes up. Take the case of a non-binary person who is exclusively attracted to women. How would someone else describe their sexuality? Are they homosexual? No, that would mean that they are attracted to people of the same gender. Assuming we are accepting gender identity as whether someone is a man/woman/other rather than biological male/female binaries, then a non-binary person who is attracted to women couldn’t be defined as homosexual. A similar issue arises if you try to define them as heterosexual. Strictly speaking, the prefix ‘hetero’ means different, so in terms of the etymology it is applicable, but in practical usage people use heterosexual to refer to people who are attracted to the opposite gender. In that case, what is the opposite gender of a non-binary person? The point is, the popular usage of these terms promote a rigid connection between gender and sexuality that seems to fall short and even become confusing when addressing identities that fall outside of conventional gender roles. The language can make it confusing even for people who are educated and experienced with LGBTQ matters, it is much worse for the majority of our society.

You could say that it is silly to care so much about the labels used to describe and categorize people, and I would very much agree with that thought. However it does not change the fact that labels are powerful. They change how people view you. Its a basic human need to categorize things and organize them in some way so they can differentiate them without much effort. If the language used to describe these things is connected to another type of categorization, it only reinforces the connection between the two in a person’s mind. The majority of people do not stop to consider all the nuances of sexual orientation and gender identity, so at the end of the day the way our society will view these things will be influenced by how we describe them.

In discussing the gay liberation movement’s metamorphosis over the last twenty-five years, Hollibaugh’s main point seems to be to expose the movement as one that has come to prioritize “normality” in ways that seem to both deny and jeopardize the very culture which many have fought to support. The gay liberation movement has transformed from a freedom struggle that encompasses all aspects of life to one that is merely shaped into following a preexisting agenda written at the hands of our heterosexual system. As Hollibaugh writes, the “struggle now parodies and duplicates a heterosexual middle-class/upper-class agenda based on re-creating the rights of heterosexuals for gay people.” It has become a movement that seems to aim at fitting gay people into this box of normalcy in order to ultimately be able to say the gay community is unlike any other.

Riki Wilchins, in her book Queer Theory, Gender Theory, claims that, “White American culture tends to be one of the few that splits sexual orientation from gender.” (27) In discussing this distinction, she offers up many examples that demonstrate how it is questionable. Sexual orientation and gender identity are often thought as being distinctly separate but also linked. Wilchins explains that “homosexuality itself is the most profound transgression of the primary rule of gender. Girls sleep with boys, and boys sleep with girls.” (20) Therefore, from a practical standpoint it would be “difficult—if not impossible—for gay activists to pursue the right to their sexual orientation without engaging issues of gender.” (20)

The connection between sexual orientation and gender was expressed to me at a very young age by my peers. I was a complete tom boy growing up. I loved to play sports, shop in the boys’ section of Children Place and follow my father around everywhere he went. I was a heterosexual woman who liked to dress in masculine clothing and to participate in activities that were deemed masculine by society. I never truly received any judgment on my sexual orientation based solely on my fashion habits or extracurricular activities—or at least that I heard of. As I got older, I began to notice that if I were to wear boy’s/men’s clothes on a consistent basis some may question my sexual orientation. Therefore, in order to conform to society and its standards, I began to wear my hair down more and ditched the masculine appeal to display my gender and thus “inherently” my sexual orientation.

When Amber Hollibaugh discusses the gay liberation movement as something that morphed into a “tame civil rights challenge”, I view it as her dissecting the differences between liberation and assimilation. In the reading she speaks about how her role in femme/butch relationships has lead to her being assumed as heteronormativity in disguise, that she would be better off with a “real man”. She uses this to argue that the gay liberation movement has been reduced to “a movement for gay legal rights” that closely resemble the rights of heterosexual couples. (265)

In this regard, I agree with her—the aforementioned liberation and assimilation have many differences between them that are representative of our society and how we interact with it. For many queer people who do not fit neatly within a cisnormative or binary way of looking at sexuality or gender, the notion of getting equal rights in society is mainly about re-defining what society’s definition of self expression looks like. Based on her usage of gendering her partner’s genitals earlier in the beginning of the article, I don’t get the impression she has a nuanced understanding of trans issues (“man cock” comes off as bioessentialism from Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists), but that is what I take from her position on the article.

Riki Wilchins writes that “White American culture tends to be one of the few that splits sexual orientation from gender.” (27) An example she provides is from David Valentine, who argues that a black femme-queen on hormones would more likely identify as gay or queer as opposed to transgender. This is an interesting perspective because of the presence in the drag community (including forerunners like Ru Paul) regarding conflating gender identity and sexuality in a negative way, saying that gender is only performative and those who take it too seriously are to blame.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with her point, though—I do think the issue of gender being separated from sexuality does play a role in a white, American society. Another example I can think of is the aforementioned conflation of acceptance with assimilation, referencing what was mentioned in class in response to the Dan Savage video as “nuclear families, but gay”. I would argue that both the aesthetic and the societal structures that perpetuate this lifestyle are rooted in White American culture.

Hollibaugh’s main point in this paragraph is that the queer political movement has shifted from a struggle for freedom and sexual liberation to a movement for extensions of heterosexual rights to homosexuals. She complains that the current political movement is aimed towards “gay nuclear family rights and for serial monogamy” while it once aimed for sexual liberation. She concedes that there has been a great deal of progress in the current trends of the movement, with gender conforming gay people trying to fit in with the rest of society, but thinks that the gay liberation movement has lost something in it’s attempts to normalize queer people. She says that the gay liberation movement has shifted from a movement about a diverse culture’s freedom to a movement about normalizing a conforming subset of that community.

Wilchins claims that white American culture is one of the only cultures that splits sexual orientation from gender (27). On page 19, Wilchins discusses how this distinction might be questionable, giving the example of sexual orientation impacting gender expression in the form of clothing. She quotes a woman who wants the right to be a lesbian in her sexual orientation and also to look like a stereotypical lesbian in her gender expression with clothing. The first time I wore a tie around my parents, they exclaimed that it was for boys. That made me feel insecure and vulnerable. I think that the links between sexual orientation and gender expression are most obvious in people who fit into male/female, homosexual/heterosexual categories as binary oppositions, and that the connections between those aspects of identity become extraordinarily difficult to parse out for anyone who falls outside of either, or both, of those binaries.

Amber Hollibaugh claims that “gay liberation was the most passionately personal movement” that she belongs to. According to her, the gay rights and liberation movement made her face a lot of hostility and ridicule because of its rebellious nature. The paragraphs on page 264 and 265 of “My Dangerous Desires” speak about a gendered world where our beliefs and systems are incongruent with a world of only binary genders. She is claiming that our society has socially constructed the two genders: men and women. Due to the nation developing this type of heterosexual society, the gay rights and liberation movements caused a dramatic confrontation of what was perceived to be “the norm”. Hollobaugh’s main point seems to be that differing from the norm is so unheard of and therefore has become a large political issue. However, she believes that the gay liberation and rights movement has become “a movement for gay nuclear family rights and for serial monogamy.” Instead, she wishes for a movement that does not assimilate with a heterosexual society but rather can coexist and be something altogether new. In fact, she uses the phrase “we are just like them” distastefully and claims that the movement is trying to normalize queer people.
Riki Wilchins writes, “White American culture tends to be one of the few that splits sexual orientation from gender.” (27) However, person’s sexual orientation and their gender often force them to face similar societal or political issues and therefore join social networks or alliances. Both being oppressed minorities, it is easy to come together and form a more “powerful movement of political recognition.” In my own experiences, these alliances are recognizable in the form of “Gay Pride” parades in which the queer community comes together in order to stand up for their beliefs and challenge society’s heterosexual views.
-CB

By focusing on presenting itself as palatable (read: normal) to those who made up the heterosexual, mainstream society, the gay liberation movement shifted toward embracing gay rights for nuclear families rather than the deconstructivist goals of sexual liberation. As a result of this shift, many LGBT individuals fell outside the new norms that largely prescribed how to appear as a harmless gay man or lesbian woman. These norms were established by the very movement once characterized by its belief in the radical politics of sexuality and led to even some of the leaders of this movement becoming overlooked. One of the main issues with focusing on gay rights is that it established a hierarchy of those who were deemed “acceptable” and those who are not.

The term transgender defined as “an umbrella term for anyone who crosses gender lines” extends to both those who change aspects of their appearance, such as their clothing or behavior, to cross gender lines and those who are what Wilchins names “visibly queer,” referring to people who publicly display their sexual orientation. Because of the common political problems shared by these two groups of people, Wilchins argues that it makes sense for them to ally themselves with each other.

When people choose to identify solely with the term “queer,” I’ve noticed that there’s an inclination to try to figure out what subcategory within the queerness someone falls under. Much like how we feel the need to find out someone’s gender and feel uncomfortable when we’re unable to discern it, the same often goes for sexuality.

I found the concepts of “Language as the Real” and “The Other and the Binary” to be the most helpful for the basic purposes of discussing sexuality and gender. With Language as the Real, it’s pointed out that language focuses the standard or what is shared, and when this applies to personal matters, there are either no words or no positive words to describe non-normative experiences. Similarly, the reductive nature of locating meaning in difference makes the Other and the Binary and important tool in considering what lies between whatever two options we’re given. I understand Wilchin’s argument that inclusivity in response to binaries is largely unhelpful because we consider only two real genders to exist, but I’m confused by the “terms” within a binary and how each one can hold a different significance.