Identity

So I've kind of been avoiding writing about part B: Is liking people of the same gender a sex-preference thing, or is it indicative of the assumption of a different, radical identity that should be embraced? I find this question fascinating because it permeates the feminist debate: In asking for equal rights to men, do we say we are the same and happen to have vaginas*, or is being woman some radical identity that we should embrace, is the very idea of equality a capitulation to the patriarcy, in our desire to be like men in some way?

I think the answer to both of these questions is that there is no answer. but what matters is that there is no coercion. Thus, being gay can be a sex-choice thing, or it can be an assumption of a radical identity, or something in between, depending on the individual - and it should be the individual's choice how their homosexuality affects their identity. I do see the argument that choosing a sexual partner of the same sex is in it and of itself a revolt against the heteronormatice patriarchy, but I think it is unfair to politicize sex in that way: I should not have to treat my sexual decisions as political ones. I also find it unfair that according to such a definition, I, as a woman seeking a serious relationship with a man, am by definition giving in to the patriarchy in my choice of a man: It is unfair that because biology programmed me to prefer men, I should be unable to partake of a radical sexual identity, but according to certain (but not all) "separate queer identity" theories, the only true way to embrace the radical patriarchy-bucking identity would be to sleep with women, for that is the truest revolt, and as long as I am attracted to men, I am giving in to the patriarchy. The way I see it, my sexual preferences happen to gel with the dominant culture, which makes my life easier - but I did not choose to be attracted to men, just as women do not choose to be attracted to women.

I do think however, that from a purely physical level, homosexual sex is the only relationship of true equality, in the sense that partner A can do to partner B exactly the same thing B does to A, and if there is something A can only do to B through the use of a sex-toy (read: dildos or strap-ons), then that same thing, B can only do to A through the use of a sex-toy. I think sex is a relationship of power, and there will always be imbalances of power in straight sex, but imbalances that can favor the man or the woman, or each in a different way, depending on the relationship.

Getting back to feminism: I think that a female identity can come in many different forms, and the key is a woman's right to choose which one she wants. For some, it might be a mere physical difference, for others, they might feel that their feminine identity makes them completely different from men and they do not want to partake of any traditionally male roles, either because it does not appeal to them, or because they beleive - as I do - that the desire to partake of traditionally male roles is an implicit acknowledgment of the patriarchy's claim that male roles are superior to traditionally female roles. The key is lack of coercion.

So instead of fighting over what it is to be gay or what it is to be a woman, why don't we fight on a person's right to choose what it is to be gay or what it is to be a woman?

* Please pardon the sex-gender conflation for the sake of rhetoric.