I look at a picture of a half-naked pole-dance from Sunday's Gay Pride parade, and feel instinctively that it is a parade I can not support. I can condone pride in one's lifestyle choices, and one's right to love and sleep with whomever one chooses, as long as said object of affection is a member of the human species. (For all those biologists who had crushes on Dolly the sheep, I am sorry to offend you.) But I can not condone a society that defines people by their sexuality, and I believe Sunday's parade is a symptom of that society.
Society oppressed LGBTQ people and called their choice illegitimate. This oppression gave rise to independent LGBTQ communities, and which developed their own culture, and tried to fight the establishment by expressing pride in the lifestyle choices society condemned. But I believe that in doing so, they gave into the primacy premise of hetero-normative culture: That our sexuality defines who we are. I do not believe in sexual identity - I believe there are people who happen to be attracted to men, and people who happen to be attracted to women, and people who happen to be attracted to both. This hodgepodge of sexual attractions is due to biology*.
We live in a society where sex is the yardstick by which people are measured: Their sexual attractiveness, who they sleep with, their ability to obtain sexually attractive partners, if they are "good in bed" - these are the markers of societal success. A person with a fulfilling career and social life, who performs life-saving surgeries, but is not sexually attractive (according to the standards of an objectifying media that forces models to be anorexic) and is unable to get a sexual partner, is not successful by society's standards. Most movies are about sex. We live in a sex-saturated environment. I find that making sex - one of the biological functions shared by most animals, and certainly all animals - the yardstick by which humans are measured is essentially objectifying and dehumanizing. I prefer not to measure people, but recognizing that society has an inherent need to judge others, would at least like society to use our uniquely human traits - our creative abilities, our souls, our language abilities - I am listing three things I can think of, but recognize a) that others might have other criteria for what makes humans unique b) not everyone agrees that people have souls. As a matter of fact, a major problem with what makes us uniquely human, is that it is often unquantifiable, and hence can not be measured, and is completely illegitimate according to modern science, which thrives on measurable data. Sex on the other hand, is much easier to measure - it is a physical action, and even sexual attraction is physical, in that it involves brain circuits and certain rushing of certain bodily fluids, and can thus be scientifically quantified.
Within this context, sexual identity makes sense: If sex is primary to one's existence as a human, a major component of who one is, then who one is sexually attracted to is a marker of one's identity. If, on the other hand, sex is an activity - an important and hopefully enjoyable activity - that one engages in, then who one engages in that activity with is important - but not to the point of defining someone as a human being. If a person is defined by their actions, then who they show those actions to - who they speak ill of, who they care for when the person is sick, etc., is important, but it is more important what the action is - is it an action of kindness or of cruelty? How we treat the people we love defines us much more than whether or not the people we love are male or female.**
Of course, it is hetero-normative society - and especially, the homophobic elements of society - that define people by who they sleep with, whenever they try to insinuate that being gay is somehow biologically unnatural, or inhuman, or goes against the purpose of pro-creation for which man was created. Given the homophobia of mainstream society, there is a real need for gay-rights activism, for a culture of pride. Yet the homophobic society that created that need then uses the existence of a gay-rights movement as a way of fighting against gay-rights, by trying to convince America that this movement is really a gay conspiracy, aimed at turning all of America gay and at destroying straight families.***
In reality, by continuing its campaign of homophobia, they are perpetuating the existence of the very movement they seek to eliminate: Pride and empowerment groups are the natural response to discrimination -think about the Black Panthers movement. Yet these groups also tend to grow weaker when the discrimination grows weaker -when there is no particular pressure on members of the pride group to feel shame.**** Today, the Black Panthers are a small group, yet there is a plethora of African-American identities out there, with African-American-ness playing a different role in the different lives of African-Americans.***** There may be certain African-American cultures out there (some maintain that to say so is racist, others maintain that to ignore this "truth" is racist - I leave the veracity of my preceding statement up to the reader's discretion, and they may choose whichever truth they find less offensive) but it is nearly impossible to argue of one monolithic African--American culture. And I believe that Americans of all colors are better off for that, because the more cultures our society has, the richer our society is.
So if discrimination against GLBTQ people stopped, so would the need for a unique GLBTQ culture. There of course would be GLBTQ cultural communities, each with their own standards, and maybe enough of these communities would have certain standards in common that a true GLBT culture could be spoken of - but partaking of that culture would be a choice, not a necessity. The society I am envisioning would not have a unique "straight" culture either. It would be a society in which humans were judged for the variety of things that make them human, with sexuality being one thing among many. It would be a society where being straight was not the norm, and being gay was not the norm, but being kind was. It would, above all, be a pluralistic society - because ultimately, gay rights is not about gay rights. It is about the future of our democracy, and whether or not we believe that everybody deserves a voice, and all responsible adults deserve a family. And if we as a country decide that not everybody has that right, then we should recognize two things: 1. According to Zigmunt Bauman (Modernity and the Holocaust), pluralism is one of society's essential and most effective safeguards against fascism 2. In the words of Martin Niemoler, "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." In the name of a richer America, I support gay rights - but in the name of humanity, I oppose a society that forces us to identify ourselves by our sexual preferences, and any parades - whether straight, lesbian, gay, or bi - that are a capitulation to the concept that sexuality defines us.
I also recognize that as someone who is not LGBT, my right to criticize is limited.
PS: Interesting how if you support the right of gay people to get married, you are considered gay. Does that mean that if you support straight people's right to get married, you're straight? By that standard, I think most GLBT people would be straight. So i guess, like Iran, America has no gay people.
* There are studies that with women's sexual attractions, there may be more choice involved, and that most women are essentially born bi. These studies are contested by other studies…while one can argue the extent to which biology plays a role in sexual preference, it clearly is the major factor. The question of whether or not it is the only factor is legitimate, but anyone who claims that nurture is the primary factor is going against the scientific consensus, and I happen to believe that as a modern human, I must accept the scientific consensus, without which most of the physical rituals of my daily-life - from brushing my teeth to scheduling doctor's appointments - would be meaningless and based on a false premise - that the scientific consensus is usually right.
**I am talking now in terms of biological sex, yet in terms of gender, would be remiss not to include those who do not fit comfortably into either gender category).
***Attack of the dildos commence.
**** Yes, the Black Panthers movement was during the 60s and corresponded to the Civil Rights movement - but it came about in part due to the clash between the hopes of finally attaining civil rights and the massive discrimination of white America - analogous to the place that gay people find themselves in today, though a) I personally believe the scope of racism was larger b) sexual preference, unlike skin-color, is camouflageable.
**** There is also the Barack Obama and Colin Whitehead phenomena of so called "post-black" African-American culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment