First and foremost, as soon as the terms Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual are employed, aren't they already assuming and relying upon a gender framework? Aren't they already making declarations--whether implicitly or explicitly--about sex and gender identities? After all, can one really speak about lesbianism--woman to woman eroticism--without some definition or assumption about what "woman" means? Whether one defines "woman" according to social constructions of gender performance or according to biological arrangements (sex), lesbianism loses all meaning without relying on a framework that gives definition to sex and/or gender. Even bisexual, as it is currently understood, is built on the binary of sex/gender identity of male/female and man/woman. To speak of LGB issues at all means that statements regarding sex and gender have been made or assumed.
It's no secret that "Gay Rights" have gained much national attention to the neglect of Lesbian and Bisexual voices--a fact which reveals that much of "Gay Rights" discourses have done very little to challenge patriarchal structures. In fact, the growing success Gay Rights can be attributed to our male-dominated society which still give men center stage. However, trans/gender/queer identities present another challenge not only to "Gay Rights" but also to the very labels of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual. Terms such as trans/gender/queer remind us that the labels of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual continue to play into binary systems that limit both gender identity and sexual idenity.
First, with regard to gender identity. Gender identity is limited by LGB labels because it assumes that "male" and "female" are stable identities. Trans/genderqueer expose the fact that gender identity is a construction that is always fluid and negotiated. Gender identity is taught, learned, and performed at every moment in society--for example, when a woman shaves her legs or when a man shouts at the TV while watching a football game. Even these performative cues and signs change depending on our changing, but particular, contexts--for example, it's effeminate for a man to cross his legs in some situations (i.e. at a sporting event), but it can communicate power in others (i.e. at a board meeting). Despite the force of the hegemonic definitions of gender into the binary of man/woman, these definitions are not fixed--the have and continue to change. Taking it further, even the biological stability of male/female is put into question by various factors. It's shown to be malleable by modern medical/technological developments and ambiguous by those who are Intersexed. Moreover, the fact that multiple biological factor are associated with sex development--not only a particular chromosome, but various other configurations such as the nuanced composition of that chromosome, testosterone/estrogen levels throughout the body, the presence/absence of certain glands--show that biological sexual identity come with many variables and variations even if they're not externally visible (see, for example, Klinefelter's syndrome). These realities are not always taken into account by Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual movements. These variables are overlooked by those who might be passionate about "Gay Rights" but still benefit and are comfortable with the prevailing hegemonic control of sex/gender identities.
But the trans/gender/queer movements also challenge LGB movements regarding erotic sexual identity (or "sexuality" or "sexual orientation") and this second challenge is related to the first. Not only do Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual labels continue to accept fixed gender binaries, but they also limit sexual orientation to being object-based--that is, sexual identity is defined by the gender of the one by whom are aroused. That is to say, in LGB movements, lesbianism is defined as Person A (a woman) being aroused by Person B who is also a woman; gay is defined because Person C (a man) is aroused by Person D who is also man. In Sex and the Single Savior (see my entry about this text here), Dale Martin points out that sexual definitions in Greek antiquity were not merely object-based, but based on the sexual roles of penetrator and penetrated. That is, it wasn't unusual to expect that a male would be aroused by both males and females, however it was proper that the man (if he's in good social standing and reputation) would be the pentrator. The women and the (male) youth he sexually engaged would be penetrated--a role considered effeminate and unfit for an honorable man. Sexuality was not simply defined by the sex/gender of one's arousal, but by the role(s) played by those engaged in sexual activities. Don't get me wrong, this is still a sexist and oppressive framework, but it shows that erotic sexual identity does not have to be based of the sex/gender of the one who arouses us, rather it can be defined by other aspects which are part of sexual practices. I believe trans/gender/queer identities can challenge Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual labels to recognize more aspects to sexuality or "sexual orientation" than gender identity.
To elaborate this further, why define erotic sexual identity based on the sex/gender of the one who arouses us? There are many features that permeate our sexual lives and there's no reason to make one more determinative than others. If we used a penetrator/penetrated framework, how then would we define heteroseuxal men who enjoy being fingered or being dildo-fucked by women (remember Road Trip)? What would we say regarding homosexual men who only top and refuse to bottom or to be subjected to anal play? What would we say of women who fingered/dildo-fucked each other, thereby constantly changing the position of penetrator/penetrated? What if sexual identity was viewed along other lines such as those who enjoyed being dominant and those who enjoyed being submissive (after all, the categories of dominant/submissive are not synonymous with penetrator/penetrated)? How would we think of aggressive male bottoms (power bottoms) or submissive tops? Or supposed we made distinctions among those who were sexually monogamous and those who were polyamorous and those who are celibate (after all, celibacy can be queer, too)? What's amazing is that these are all forms of sexual identification that do not rely on gender identity but reveal that sexuality as multifaceted--it is crisscrossed by multiple dimensions and factors. To broaden our discussions of both gender identity and of sexuality creates space for mutually edifying contributions between Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual movements and Trans/gender/queer movements. What's disappointing is the refusal of many "self-proclaimed progressive" "gay rights" voices to allow themselves to be challenged in their assumptions of gender and sexual identity.
A multitude of possible identities can be opened if Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual movements allow themselves to be challenged by Trans/gender/queer identities. However, as I said earlier, I don't want to simply employ trans/gender/queer identities for the self-realization of Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual people. Movements in sex & gender activism have their own voice and need to speak on their own terms, not simply in the service of homo/bisexual movements. As a cisgendered male, I continue to gain a lot from trans/gender/queer movements and am in solidarity with their struggles, but it would be another form of exploitation to merely use their identities for my own self-actualization. Trans/genderqueer movements have an agency of their own and need to be heard on their own terms, but, personally, I would like to see that happen alongside LGB communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment