After a poker table discussion of queer and trans identity issues, my beloved poker host sent along this NYT article to our group about a group of queer and/or trans students at Penn who find themselves not quite fitting into "LGBT." My favorite part is that the article has identified a "post-gay" period in which these issues have risen to the forefront, presumably because the old "gay" issues are resolved...
Why? Well, in some cases it's because these kids have transitioned but don't feel at home in queer groups with people who have the same sexual tastes but different body identities. And the article adds the wrinkle that not everyone feels the same every day. I'm personally acquainted with some queer persons who deal with this: one morning she feels like a girl, the next he feels like a boy, and the rest of us want to be respectful but don't always know what pronouns to use.
So, here's another perspective. We can spend the next 20 years trying to figure out if it should be "LGBTQIA" or "LGBTQQIAA" or some other unpronounceable moniker to use with very confused "straight" people, true. But every new acronym is going to generate a new need for explanation. Would it not be more effective to work on training the queer community and the outside world to start accepting people without labels? After all, whether or not one is attracted to men there will surely be men one does not want to fuck, and vice versa. So the label doesn't do all the social work for us; we'll have to explain what we want that day anyway, even if it's an asexual desire not to fuck at all.
An, yes, I rather fully voiced this position in the novel, but let's stop trying with the labels. Labels give others a way to identify you but, in my experience, don't do you much good when it comes to understanding yourself. So if the label is imperfect anyway, what good does it do us?
We've repurposed "queer," and its now the closest thing we have to a general term that indicates "my tastes aren't exactly 'straight.'" What if the LGBTQI and A's just start identifying, across the board, as "queer." Sure, at some point further explanation may be required. But that would come with any real friendship or relationship anyway. "Queer" would avoid the problem of misinterpreted LGBTQIAs as well, like old straight white guys thinking "bi" means "hypersexual" or "asexual" means "broken" or "intersex" means "freak." Queer would make us an "other" too big to be much of an "other." It would suggest less polarity for me as a bisexual, and it would not cabin a transgender person into yesterday's gender feelings when today's have changed. At core, this article makes me fear that a youth doing something wholly acceptable will feel that they are not real in some way until they have their own label, and words in such circumstances are generally woefully inadequate, and more separation is the last thing the queer community needs.
Why? Well, in some cases it's because these kids have transitioned but don't feel at home in queer groups with people who have the same sexual tastes but different body identities. And the article adds the wrinkle that not everyone feels the same every day. I'm personally acquainted with some queer persons who deal with this: one morning she feels like a girl, the next he feels like a boy, and the rest of us want to be respectful but don't always know what pronouns to use.
So, here's another perspective. We can spend the next 20 years trying to figure out if it should be "LGBTQIA" or "LGBTQQIAA" or some other unpronounceable moniker to use with very confused "straight" people, true. But every new acronym is going to generate a new need for explanation. Would it not be more effective to work on training the queer community and the outside world to start accepting people without labels? After all, whether or not one is attracted to men there will surely be men one does not want to fuck, and vice versa. So the label doesn't do all the social work for us; we'll have to explain what we want that day anyway, even if it's an asexual desire not to fuck at all.
An, yes, I rather fully voiced this position in the novel, but let's stop trying with the labels. Labels give others a way to identify you but, in my experience, don't do you much good when it comes to understanding yourself. So if the label is imperfect anyway, what good does it do us?
We've repurposed "queer," and its now the closest thing we have to a general term that indicates "my tastes aren't exactly 'straight.'" What if the LGBTQI and A's just start identifying, across the board, as "queer." Sure, at some point further explanation may be required. But that would come with any real friendship or relationship anyway. "Queer" would avoid the problem of misinterpreted LGBTQIAs as well, like old straight white guys thinking "bi" means "hypersexual" or "asexual" means "broken" or "intersex" means "freak." Queer would make us an "other" too big to be much of an "other." It would suggest less polarity for me as a bisexual, and it would not cabin a transgender person into yesterday's gender feelings when today's have changed. At core, this article makes me fear that a youth doing something wholly acceptable will feel that they are not real in some way until they have their own label, and words in such circumstances are generally woefully inadequate, and more separation is the last thing the queer community needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment