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.