reification of gay identities
Some interesting sites I just came across:
• via queers united, born different.org, which claims that gays are just like everyone else, except born gay. Their analogy: Norman the dog, who is just like every other dog, except he moos instead of barks. Additionally, other animals are born gay as well.
• also via queers united, g0ys.org — gUys into gUys — not gAys. From their site:
G0YS (Spelled with a ZER0) are guys who find men physically & emotionally attractive, but (for whatever reason) are offended with the stigmas that currently define the ‘gay community’ in the public psyche. G0YS recognize that the prominent facets of the “gay-male” community tend to embrace every gender-bending act, fetish & affectation; –And include those things in the general specter of the image that “gay” projects publicly. The easiest to observe example is the commonly used acronym “GLIT” (sometimes “GLIB”) meaning Gay, Lesbian, Intersexed, Transgendered (or BiSexual). The fact that “GAY” is grouped with “Intersexed & Transgendered” is evidence to our primary point showing what the term “GAY” has morphed into. G0YS reject those associations completely & consider it a form of gender-prejudice against men who love men.
Behaviorally: Anal-sex is innately shunned by g0ys – as it represents the ultimate form of sexual disrespect whether male/male or male/female. Other distasteful stereotypes include (but are not limited to): Effeminate behavior, extreme passivity (like cowardice) & drag. G0YS don’t call other men “girl”, “bitch”, “queen”, etc. You probably get the idea.
Two interesting approaches to normalizing same-sex love. One reduces gayness to a biological factor; the other express abhorrence at gay identities but attempts to normalize same-sex love (as long as it’s not enacted as anal sex).
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
The former approach seems positive and useful for constructing new ways of imagining difference, the latter just sounds reactive and moralizing. I can see the appeal in wanting to break away from stereotypes and the spectacular ways in which sexual difference is presented to us, but why the need to attack practices like drag and anal sex?
After reading some material on the site, the objection sounds suspiciously similar to traditional (and dangerously assumptive) objections, “Many like myself consider [anal sex] immoral because the practice is the primary vector for STDs globally,” which is interesting if you read that statement against one made in the next paragraph, “There is a fundamental syllogistic fallacy (reasoning error) that can be described by following generalization: ‘Two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property.’”
Agree with you on the g0ys matter — it’s logically suspect, as well as wrought with misogyny.
However, I am also concerned with the Born Different campaign. I think it may have some practical applications that might be useful (for, as Spivak has argued — I believe it was her — that subaltern groups often have to essentialize their identities), I am concerned with the reification of identities. Additionally, this falls into a homonormative narrative — gay is just like straight except who is loved and fucked — that removes the potential for critically queer subversions and questions of the norm. Simply put, it’s a conservative tactic.
After I posted, I paid closer attention to the title of your post, “reification of gay identities,” and noticed that you said the Born Different campaign was biologically reductionist (if that’s a good way to paraphrase it), I started wondering how it might be critiqued, so thanks for elaborating on that. (wow, long sentence)
I’m still not sure I understand the concept of “critically queer subversions,” though. Would this somehow involve treating identity as an abstraction (if my understanding of reification is correct)? And if so, what would that imply? I guess I’m trying to figure out where our theoretical perspectives potentially overlap.
Yeah, I didn’t really explicate that in my post. I mostly wanted to share the two sites with anyone interested and log them for my own future reference.
My concern is that gay/homosexual identities aren’t “things” we are born with, but rather rise out of social constructions. Foucault makes this insight in History of Sexuality, where he discusses the rise of homsexuals/hetersexuals in the 19th century. Scientifically/culturally, no one is born “gay,” they are born into a discourse where gay/homosexuality exist.
In regards to “critically queer subversions,” which probably isn’t a too theoretically sound way to put it, my concern is with gay being “normal” — homonormativity, where gay is just light straight except it’s same sex partners. What this leaves out of the equation is queer cultures that subvert norms that homonormativity perpetuates. Who and what actions are left out of “born different” or homonormativity? Trans folks? Polyamory? Ethical sluttiness? Families that aren’t “normal”? And so forth.
When queer folk try to create validity for their own existence, what happens all too often is that they create validity for a very small segment of queerness: those who want marriage, kids, property, etc.
So, yes, I think biologically reductionist is a good paraphrase. This rhetoric turns gayness into a “thing” (reified) — an identity implanted into the biological body. What if instead, being gay is rhetorical, performative, impermanent, mobile, flexible? I understand that the constructivist point of view also risks giving validity to claims of the religious right stance that it’s a “choice” (though this is a drastic misreading of constructivist perspectives), but I worry about the dangers of biological readings of queer bodies.
I checked out the link yesterday for the g0ys, and man, it still has me confused. I just don’t understand what is going on with that site.
Unfortunately, I felt some strong identification with some of the messages and was outraged by others. Citing scripture and talking about how anal sex was the worst, most heinous violation of a human possible–and how anal sex practitioners were shit fetishists…it felt like Jesse Helms had just come back from the dead. It read to me like somebody had a horrible first time anal experience with someone who was not careful or attentive and has not recovered.
I failed to grok how that form of trust–anal sex–was, in their minds, the ultimate form of humiliation; as I see it, it is the ultimate form of giving and receiving trust. They did not seem to understand that individuals express and demonstrate intentions–at their site, they presented the act, in and of itself, as defining the individuals’ intentions.
And let’s not even discuss body image fascism, feminization, and on and on.
Really, there was so much rage coming out of that site at certain places, and those places struck me as likely sites for personal trauma the editor(s) have not yet dealt with.
Oh yeah, using “I was just kidding” when coming on to other males if they start to freak out or get upset… How does that demonstrate honor, integrity, or character? It seems like a spineless way to wiggle out of a situation instead of being honest about who and what you are.
What’s next? Are they going to beat up a “sissy” queer in order to prove how butch they are to their nervous friend?
And don’t these guys realize there are plenty of folks in the gay community who don’t do anal sex?
And another thing, since when does anyone with half an IQ point rely on depictions in the media as being the sole descriptor, the sole source of identity for any community? As if the LGBT community is in complete and total control of the representations put out by Fox, Murdoch, LaRouche, and Limbaugh? It’s laughable.
Really, the site was just plain, I lack the right words, disturbing. And confused.
Thanks for the great post, Michael. It’s got me thinking–and I’m still thinking.
Any chance you’re going to write about this?
Any chance you wanna try and dialogue a piece around quotes from their site?
I’ve been doing more thinking about this site and these guys. It just strikes that they are some guys who are pretty seriously disturbed–emotionally and in a variety of other ways. While it might be interesting and exciting to deconstruct the various aspects of their confusion, anger, and pain–and that which they direct towards others–I realized that I just don’t have the time or inclination to feed their illness.
In other words, I’m glad to know that they exist. But I am also glad to move on. The best I response I can offer to the entire situation is to live and be a happy and content homo.
I’m intrigued by the dog-who-moos analogy, although I’m puzzled as to why a different approach wasn’t taken. I’m fairly certain that there is no “standard bark” against which we could measure whether or not Norman is “not barking” but in fact “mooing.” Think of the range of dog barks – deep timbre or high pitch, short or long, and some dogs don’t even bark at all, or only bark under certain (social) situations. There may be some features that are common among certain breeds of dogs, but I’ve seen so many exceptions that I couldn’t say for certain that there is a single defining feature of barking.
So I guess instead of thinking of Norman as a mooing dog, why don’t we instead look at sexuality like dogs barking: biologically influenced, but can be socially mediated, and there is no “standard” of barking with which to measure… well, anything really. Norman isn’t a mooing dog: all the other dogs just lack the ability to vocalize in quite that way.