Lee JeeYeun, "Why Suzie Wong Is Not a Lesbian: Asian and Asian American Lesbian and Bisexual Women and Femme/Butch/Gender Identities"

SUMMARY:

In her article, Lee JeeYeun discusses three of the many heterogeneous forces that affect gender identities for Asian-American lesbian/bisexual women.

1. American Orientalisms is the idea that Asian-American women are viewed as Lotus Blossom Babies (hyperfeminine, passive/docile, exoticized and eroticized for heterosexual white male consumption) or Dragon Ladies (hypersexual, cunning, sly wildcat sex goddesses). Lee's interviewees discuss gender presentation in terms of femme/butch identity — namely, how being femme subjects an Asian woman to the presumption of heteronormativity, while being butch or defying the hyperfeminine gender stereotypes would subject an Asian woman to violence and backlash.

2. Looking like a "Lesbian" discusses the conflation of butch presentation with queerness, and femme presentation with straight-passing. Lee talks about the idea that the sexualities of women of color are almost entirely erased — not, however, by simply adding or subtracting layers of one's identity ("I'm queer, I'm Asian, therefore I'm invisible"). The erasure instead happens because of a specific racializing concept of gender. For instance, femme Asian women's identities are immediately assumed to be as heterosexual objects of desire because of the specific Lotus Blossom/Orientalisms behind being an Asian woman — especially for bisexual women, who are viewed as "straight people who swing" / not "~Tru Queers~."

3. Cultural Norms of Gender discusses the cultural forces that play into Asian women's gender identities, as they face several cultural norms that differ from the dominant standards of the U.S. white middle class. One Chinese interviewee talks about "domesticity in the kitchen" not being a culturally predominantly feminine trait in her household as opposed to western norms. Another interviewee suggests that Asian norms of femininity, which do differ from white mainstream standards, may be limiting or traditional, and when Asian women choose how they want to present, they're more responding to those Asian ideas of gender norms/femininity than necessarily to western ideas.

Lee concludes by noting that our gender presentation and gender identities are responses not only to hegemonic gender norms and compulsory heterosexuality but also to different cultural standards and racialized gender norms. In tinkering with our gender identities, she says, we can maybe never truly fit fully outside the hegemonic structures we seek to challenge, because there is no truly pure space untainted by these dominant discourses — however, we can still resist and think critically about and question the structures of these ideas.

REFLECTION:

I really enjoyed reading this piece, as you can probably tell from the behemoth of a summary I posted (sorry!). First off, it was personally relevant, as I identify as a queer Asian-American woman, and so the intersection of those issues is something I've been thinking a lot about lately. I liked the American Orientalisms section a lot — in some ways, I think, it dovetails very neatly with the idea of the Asian-American "model minority." In both cases, there's this insidious notion that Asian-Americans are passive and submissive to western societal standards. The model minority myth has historically been used as an antiblack attack, stereotyping all Asian-Americans as silent, hard-working STEM geniuses earning high incomes and falling neatly under the thumb of western capitalism — never mind the fact that this is 1) not actually true and harmful to Asian groups who don't fit under this stereotype, and 2) an insulting attempt to pit people of color against each other! Whereas the Lotus Blossom/Dragon Lady Orientalism stereotypes Asian women as obedient, sensual objects of white male desire. Just as it's not flattering to be told, "You're Asian so you must be really good at math" (I am not btw), it's very uncomfortable to hear something like "Asian women are so pretty, I've got yellow fever." Both of these scenarios, in short, feature the objectification of Asian-Americans under a white agenda. I'm also very interested in the cultural norms of gender Lee points out. I liked that she talked not only about difference in perception by ethnicity/geography but also according to one's class, which I think is a very salient point to remember. Now I really want to learn more about specific conceptions of gender identity/presentation in Asian cultures and how they might differ from western conceptions, which are the cultural constructs I'm most familiar with, so if anyone's well-versed on the subject you should come talk to me about it!

QUESTIONS:

-Lee says we may not be able to completely destroy the hegemonic structures of race/gender/sexuality, but we can shift the grounds on which they're built. Do you agree? How would you define shifting the grounds?

-When Lee talks about forming strategies of resistance to hegemonic gender norms, she emphasizes the idea that said strategies must change according to the specific racial/class-related/other forces you face. How does your own identity affect the way you approach gender norms in your life?

-On page 126, Lee says, "It is important for analyses of gender ... to examine closely how the specificities of cultural differences affect gender, not only for women of color, but also for white women." What do you think she means?

-Lee talks about gender constructions not being a matter of simply adding or subtracting identities but instead very specific/particular racializing discourses of gender, e.g. assuming all femme Asian women are hyperfeminine and heterosexual. In what ways do you see these racialized discourses of gender applied to other women of color?

-Lee talks about femme/butch stereotypes and how multiple forces — one's race and cultural background, the threat of backlash when non-conforming to gender norms, the idea of butch identity as somewhat of a sign of resistance — affect the gender identities of Asian women. I'd like to open this topic up to everyone and ask: In a world where dominant stereotypes of gender are so prevalent, how much do you think your own gender presentation has been affected by these forces?

Eli Clare "Freaks and Queers"

In this reading, Eli Clare discusses and analyzes the issues around the reappropriation of words, phrases, and symbols that were once used to oppress certain groups. He points out some words that have been reappropriated by some people in the disabled community, such as gimp, cripple, retard, and freak. He then describes his relationship to each of those words. He also talks about his relationship to the word queer and how for him it is empowering to him because of its ability to be both a shocking word and a word infused with self-love. Out of all of the reappropriated words, a few are associated with more uneasiness and pain for Clare, for example, retard. However, the word that is most unsettling for Clare is freak. Clare tells a bit of the history of freakdom to show why this word is so complicated. On one hand it is a painful history of horrific objectification of people perceived as different, on the other hand the word freak holds within it the history of a time of greater autonomy for disabled people (complicated). Clare talks about how people referred to as freaks could start their own businesses and be employed because of their perceived otherness, this was before the medicalization of disabled people. After disabled people were medicalized (1930s-40s) and diagnosis/treatment entered the picture, freak shows became unacceptable. Also, civil rights made it unacceptable to objectify people of color in freak shows. Obviously, neither freak shows or medicalization was good, but Clare argues that for some disabled people at that time, medicalization could have been seen as worse. Oftentimes, doctors cared less about their dignity than the people running the freak shows, and at least then disabled people could be employed. Clare concludes with a summary of why reappropriation is complicated and certain words and symbols are harder/impossible to reappropriate than others depending on the person and the meaning behind the words.

We've talked a little about the reappropriation of words in class and this text just highlights how complicated the issue is. This text also relates to the notion that what works for some, doesn't work for all. Some people in the disabled community find it empowering to take back derogatory words, others find it painful. Just like within the LGBT community some words/ideas don't apply or appeal to everyone who identifies with the community.

Questions: What are some issues that arise from the reappropriation of words? Is it ever useful, or does it just reopen wounds? Should we use the words of our oppressors, or our own words? Can you ever truly take the hurt out of some words? What about the "Ubangi Savages" and other people of color, how do they complicate the story of freakdom? How were they further marginalized?

Marlon B. Ross, "Beyond the Closet as Raceless Paradigm"

Ross examines how in the field of queer theory, there is a dominant narrative of 'coming out of the closet' among same-sex loving people (he sometimes uses the term intragender) that is used to describe both a historical timeline and one's own personal experience, and how this narrative has an inherent notion of universality. He shows how this narrative might not be as relevant to groups of people as it is to middle-class metropolitan white gays, and in order to reflect a truer, more nuanced picture of same-sex loving peoples and their histories, and to offer a queer theory that is more relevant to people of different cultures, races, and classes, the construct of the closet, and the belief of its universal significance (called claustrophilia), needs to be questioned. The dominant history of 'modern' same-sex loving people, from Molly houses to Oscar Wilde to Foucault, is structured around Euro-American experience with an inherent theme of progression, leading up to the Stonewall riots as the symbolic event of 'coming out.' Ross examines how the idea of progress intersects with colonialism, modernity, and European exceptionalism and their framework of 'advanced' cultures and 'non-advanced' ones, and how this leads to a focus on the individual histories of upper-class whites as they are considered more progressed than "[p]rimatives, savages, the poor, and those uneducated in the long history of epistemology."

I appreciated this reading because it shows us that there are alternatives to the narrative of coming out that are just as valid (and also this reading doesn't feel the need to dismantle same-sex loving people as a legitimate identity with subjectivity and agency, it just complicates it). I've always thought that my experience was strange because I had never gone through any significant event that could be described as coming out of the closet, but this reading affirmed that my experience isn't strange at all, and 'the closet' is just a constructed metaphor that doesn't always apply to everyone. I also think that since reading this text, I can approach our other readings in a more nuanced way by appreciating that any of the experiences of people of different cultures, races, and classes might not be reducible to any grand narrative, regardless of it being about coming out or not.


Questions:

– Do you think the narrative of coming out of the closet has lost relevance? Has it ever been relevant?

– Ross cites a study done in the 90s in Harlem that among same-sex loving black people, instead of a closet binary, there was something more like a "continuum of knowing that persists at various levels according to kin and friendship relations within the community." What would be your alternative to the closet paradigm, as someone coming from your culture, community, and life experiences?

–This reading was published almost ten years ago; do you think since then, the closet paradigm has become unpacked, thus causing queer theory to become more inclusive, like Ross said it would?

Julia Serano, Bending Over Backwards: Traditional Sexism and Trans-Woman-Exclusion Policies

                In this chapter excerpt from her book Whipping Girl, Serano breaks down the arguments (if you can call them that) made in feminist and queer-women spaces to exclude trans women. She first explains that her own transition "reshape[d] [her] views" of trans woman exclusion from being just "a symptom of society-wide transphobia" to "traditional sexism in disguise" (234, 36). That is, Serano makes the distinction that she was not "the victim of 'transphobia'" as much as she was "the victim of trans-misogyny," a subtle but extremely important distinction that shifts her critical eye from society's general treatment of all trans people to queer women space's exclusion of trans women. Serano then goes on to break down the most common arguments made by trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) by  showing how the arguments are fundamentally "antifeminist" and, again, rooted in "traditional sexism" (244, 38). These arguments try to use both "biology" and "socialization" to simultaneously exclude AMAB people while including AFAB people (240). 
                One thing I'd first like to note is that while Serano may be perceived as attacking or excluding AFAB people, transphobia is a real issue and that "folks on the FTM spectrum" still face discrimination, harassment, and abuse. Like we've been discussing, intersection plays a large role here: trans men benefit from male privilege (and we see here how that allows them to enter women's spaces) but are also victims of transphobia. That being said, I agree with Serano's criticisms of the, for lack of a better name, trans-double-standard: allowing trans men into women's spaces based on their assigned sex and/or how they were raised. She points out how the banning of trans women fundamentally disagrees with the "most central tenet of feminism" which is that "women are far more than the sex of the bodies that [they] are born into, and [their] identities and abilities are capable of transcending the restrictive nature of the gender socialization [they] endure during [their] childhoods" (238, 39). If you agree that this is an important tenant of feminism (and I do), then it makes no sense to ban trans women because of the sex of their bodies or the gender socialization they endure. I would, personally, agree that this is reason for not allowing trans men into women's spaces. 
                That being said, this made me question my own stance on if genderqueer, agender, or any other non-binary gender people should be allowed into women's spaces. Since I have no lived experience in this department, I don't feel it is my place to say if they should or not. 


If the eligibility for entering a women's space is your self identification as a women (and not based on assigned sex or socialization), and you don't self identify as either man or women, should you still be allowed access to women spaces? How can we reconcile the desire for (queer) women's spaces to be accessible and inclusive, while also maintaining an exclusivity that keeps members safe?

Do you think that women only colleges (such as Mount Holyoke) should accept both trans women and trans men? And if so, how would you justify one without excluding the other?

In the study by Kessler and McKenna that Serano discusses, she quotes them as saying "there seem to be no cues that are definitely female, while there are many that are definitely male. To be male is to 'have' something and to be female is to 'not have' it." This seems to be the exact opposite of Kimmel's discussion of masculinity as "the renunciation of the feminine" not "the direct affirmation of the masculine, which leaves masculine gender identity tenuous and fragile." Is there a way to reconcile these two ideas? Is one right and the other wrong? Or, in fact, do they not oppose one another?

Senano's work was published in 2007, and since then there have been a rise of (admittedly few) visible trans women in mass media as well as legal/medical advances for trans people (e.g. the DSM-5 published in 2013 shifting its diagnosis of gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria). What do you think is the next step (socially, legally, medically, etc.) in protecting trans women and including them in queer women spaces?

Charles I. Nero: Why are the Gay Ghettos White?

Charles I. Nero explores the paradoxical reality of the white, male gay neighborhood in the face of the idea that queer people are a minority that "exist inside of every other culture." He rejects other notions (for example that black gays would rather be in black neighborhoods) and instead investigates the way the nature of housing is systematically built in favor of whiteness and how the images trafficked of black gay men are a further detriment.

Many of these neighborhoods are founded on the migration of gay men looking for middle class jobs. This during the 60s, a time when the additional exclusion of black individuals and women from these positions would further the foundational white maleness of these neighborhoods. Many of these white gay men also were able to participate to some extent in white "tribalism," focusing on historic preservation and using their own networks of middle and upper class white gay men to further encourage movement.

Nero also discusses the "controlling image" of the black gay male as inauthentic, an impostor, and incompatible with white gayness and black masculinity. This image he posits can be utilized as ideological support for the exclusion of black gays.

"...[W]hite racial hostility toward blacks has had a material dimension," and the fundamental structure of mortgage and loan systems as they were founded nearly a century ago have racist origins, as do systems of privilege throughout this country. To this day this creates inequality in housing and inequality in property. Perhaps white gays are leveraging what privilege they can in the face of what privilege they lack.

I think Nero's investigations into the historical involvement and entrenchment of blackness and property were super salient and important. The fact that we can observe not only present day racialized and racist acts, but the echoes of its history is a critical note in recognizing the way these neighborhoods are born. The ideological support from media studies only furthers these claims. However, I do wish he discussed further the nature of gentrification and maleness.

-Spaces for queer individuals are super important, but what are the costs of gentrification even for the construction of a minority neighborhood (though we see today these are often economically powerful areas)?

-Where does the queer woman live, what is her controlling image?

-How can the whitewashing of gay life be coped with/reconciled/improved?

Gayle Rubin, "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality"

Rubin begins this excerpt of "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality," by stating the requirements a "radical" theory on sexuality must meet, then outlining the ways in which social influences prevent scholars from establishing such a radical theory. Rubin discusses:

1. sexual essentialism 
2. sex negativity
3. the fallacy of misplaced scale
4. the hierarchical valuation of sex acts
5. the domino theory of sexual peril
6. the lack of a concept of benign sexual variation

She concludes by addressing the changes and "metamorphosis" of sexuality across time and culture. 

The short of the requirements of a radical theory on sexuality is that it must 1) describe sexuality in the context of society and history, and 2) "convey the barbarity of sexual persecution", as Rubin states eloquently. At the heart of the refusal to meet the aforementioned requirements is sexual essentialism, which is propagated by fields like medicine and psychology that state that sex is something biological or innate to the human condition, something that is unchanging and without context. After sexual essentialism is sex negativity, or sexual taboo, increasing in magnitude as you move down the hierarchy of sex acts. After offering the theory of sex in social context, Rubin gives examples of sexual change and variation across time and space, these examples being the non-homosexual New Guinea mean who engages in homosexual acts and the not-gay nobleman executed for sodomy.

There are quite a few things I'd like to address in response to the Rubin reading.

First is the pyramid of acceptable sexuality that was established, as well as the flow chart shown (Figure 2, 282). I would like to focus on the bottom of the pyramid, the transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers, and cross-generational erotics. First and foremost, I was concerned with the ambiguity of "those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries" (279). Upon reading that, I thought to myself, "Both cougars and pedophiles can be included under that umbrella." What was even more concerning was that Rubin said cross-generational erotics were the "lowliest of all," below even the fetishists and prostitutes and sadomasochists. To me, it didn't make sense for silver foxes to be lower on the sexual food chain than prostitutes. Pedophiles, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be the "lowliest of all." Of course, if that is the case, that brings up the ethicality of including pedophiles with queer folks, which is something that already happens in society (i.e., the equivalence of "gay man" and "child molester"). What are your thoughts? Do you think Rubin is putting pedophiles and queer folks in the same sphere? What are your thoughts on the continued inclusion of bestiality/incest/pedophilia with queerness? Expanding on that, do you agree with Rubin's pyramid? What would you change about it and what would you keep? 

Something else I'd like to address if the vilification of sexual minorities as mentally ill. As Rubin mentioned, the DSM-III was the most recent DSM at the time of writing. Homosexuality was included as a diagnosis in the DSM-II and was only changed to "sexual orientation disturbance" in 1974 with the seventh printing of the DSM-II, effectively making the DSM-III the first edition where homosexuality was not directly a mental illness. What do you think about the compounding stigma against sexual minorities (like gay/lesbian individuals)? Any reflects on the extant stigma against mental illness today vs. the decreasing stigma against gay/lesbian individuals?

Finally, what are your thoughts on Rubin's position that, like the "ethnic" homosexuality of the "New Guinea bachelor", modern homosexuality is analogous to an ethnic group? Do you think this is an appropriate comparison, that homosexuality has gained "much of the institutional structure of an ethnic group" (286)?

Michael Kimmel's "Masculinity as Homophobia" (posted on behalf of Evy Roy)

As I find in most Kimmel writings, “Masculinity as Homophobia” was both insightful and manageable to follow easily. Kimmel first took us through the history of hegemonic masculinity, more commonly named manhood. The Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic Artisan were complementary masculinities in the 18th and 19th centuries, one being a refined, gentleman-like manhood and the other a free-spirited fighter. After this model, the manhood we know today emerged: Marketplace Manhood, the successful and emotionless businessman. This dominant manhood regards all other forms of masculinities (politeness, neatness) as feminine and undesirable. Kimmel describes Freud’s evolution of a boy’s formation of his manhood, starting with affection towards his mother turned desire turned hatred once he seeks to enact the masculinity he sees in his father. A boy who fails to make this transformation is viewed as feminine or homosexual and therefore inferior. Kimmel then shows how the desperate desire to avoid all things feminine forces men into a homophobic cycle, constantly competing with their fellow man and fearing their own femininity. Men, always fearing losing their sense of manhood, feel powerless in the patriarchy, although they are told they have the most power in our society.

There was a lot more to discuss, but the above is what I was most interested in when reading. I always appreciate Kimmel’s ability to sympathize with men trapped in patriarchal oppression, though I still wonder if Kimmel is too easy on men as a whole. He does offer insight to the male experience, especially the experience of men who do not meet the strict classifications of hegemonic masculinity (AKA most men). He also provides a viable explanation for sexual harassment, sexist comments, and a lack of ownership from men as individuals. However, he provides little or no solutions for men trying to act against the Freud model of development, as feminists.

I also gathered from this piece that the female experience is much different than the male experience. Traditional ideals of womanhood are piousness, purity, and passiveness. Women who fight against these prescribed gender norms start from the bottom and work their way up. Conversely, men start at the top and risk falling to the bottom, and being labeled as feminine or homosexual. Therefore, the male experience is defined as “a set of negative rules about behavior” (144). Manhood is in essence NOT feminine, whereas womanhood is a set of positive traits and rules. Both genders (if we’re still working on a binary, as Kimmel normally does) feel pressure and fear from the patriarchy, but in very different ways. 

Let’s discuss:

Share an experience where you or someone you know “proved” your/his manhood. What “currency” (141) did you/he use to get your/his point across and assert masculinity?

When Kimmel says, “…feminism has tended to assume that individually men must feel powerful,” (147) – do you agree? Or, do you think Kimmel gives men to much sympathy? 

How do you think the homosexual experience that Kimmel describes (failing to enact hegemonic masculinity by not showing an extreme interest in all women) compares to the trans* experience?

-Evy Roy

Adrienne Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence"

 There are a lot of interesting and wildly surprising things found in Adrienne Rich's "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience," which have lead to what i think are important arguments; everything is reflective of or commentary on literature, published articles, and psychoanalytic studies mentioned in this piece. First, there is very little text on these two subjects, and even more surprisingly it is apparent that these topics are not or hardly ever covered in feminist theory. When they ARE discussed the texts rehash the ideas women's gender roles--what women are "supposed" or "born to do"--and all advice given to women "regarding marital sex, maternity, and child care" were from MALE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. It is discovered that feminists are highly uneducated, lack education, or simply stay silence on important women & women's movements and struggles in history including lesbianism. Overall there is an avoidance of getting into the psychology or sociology--digging deep--of the hetero compulsive and lesbianism.

This reading made me think of the discussions we had in class about the pressures and sometimes subconscious of falling into compulsory actions, no matter what we are trying to convey to others, and further compliments the Butler reading. It was surprising to me though to hear that these topics are poorly or never discussed in feminist theory! Out of all types of groups, feminists should be saying more about women in relation to compulsory heterosexuality, discussing the struggles, exploring lesbianism... just acknowledging it all. And I knew men have a tendency to steer the discussion or thoughts toward women in published works, but it is still crazy to me how bad it was, and sometimes still is. I'm really glad Rich pointed out the flaws of the authors or ideas in all three books, and made it obvious to me why she did so. One spot i got confused on is page 634 when Rich repeats Dorothy Dinnerstein's arguement: "for the sharing of parenting between women and men and for an end to what she perceives as the male/female symbiosis of "gender arrangements," which she feels are leading the species further and further into violence and self-extinction." I just got lost.

My questions are:

1. What other arguments or points that I did not point out did you find interesting or important?

2. Why do you think, according to Rich, these topics are not discussed much in feminist theory? Or why do you think feminists "have so much to learn"?
3. Was anyone personally offended by her statement on feminists?

Karin A. Marin and Emily Kazyak - “Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-Rated Films”

“Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-Rated Films”, written by Karin A. Marin and Emily Kazyak, reviews and analyzes the construction and portrayal of heterosexuality and heteronormativity in children’s media. Many films contain content which enforces the obsessive creation of romantic heterosexual relationships, and children’s movies even go beyond portraying the typical existence of heteronormativity by creating plot lines in which characters’ romantic, heterosexual relationships are “special”, “magical”, superior to other relationships, and even sometimes so “powerful” that they can settle conflicts and bring peace to the land (158). These G-rated films also have content related to: reinforcement of cis-gender norms, sexual objectification of women’s bodies, “exoticized” portray of women of color (155), sexual and “sexist language” and behaviors (162).

There are so many interesting things this article covers, ranging from the heterosexiness of characters which reinforces heterosexual desire to the framing of romantic scenes in nature settings as if to establish that romantic heterosexual relationships are completely normal, natural, and correct.

Many of the popular media already produced doesn't really focus on any non-hetero relationships, such as strong friendships, relationships between siblings, or even platonic partnerships. Recently, though, a few movies that have been released that are starting to change the trends of heteronormative ideals in children’s films, such as the strong female characters with major plot lines focusing on motherly and sisterly relationships in the Disney movies “Brave” and “Frozen” (respectively). But are these two films enough? Many of the merchandise available for these films strip the uniqueness and strength of the characters away and instead emphasize on the characters feminine aspects and the heterosexy appeal of these movies, continuously enforcing heteronormative ideas in the lives of children. What I find to be especially damaging about these children’s movies is that the media is such an influential tool, and feeding consumers with inflated ideas of how relationships are supposed to function and inappropriate ways of how people are supposed to behave and treat others is creating a dysfunctional society. How are people supposed to know that cat calling and objectifying women’s bodies is unacceptable if the media and society portray it as a normal, even proper action? I also think it really interesting how heteronormativity defines how we establish “acceptable” content in the media. As recapped in the article, according to the Motion Picture Association of America, “General Audience” ratings contain “no nudity, sex scenes or drug use” and are suitable for people of all ages (154). Because of what our society deems normal, Disney movies with sexual content get G-ratings while many films receive higher ratings just because they contain non-heteronormative content. These ratings don’t provide a good outline for media subjects and can be misleading.

Should there be a different set of standards when rating films/should there be a different description of the content present in G-rated films?

How else is heteronormativity constructed and demonstrated in children’s films?

Imitation and Gender Insubordiation- Judith Butler

In Judith Butler’s Imitation and Gender Insubordiation she asserts that identity categories, such as her lesbian identity, can act both as points of coalition and point of oppression.  Thus Butler advocates for questioning and subverting these very gender and sexuality categories. Butler explains that one way to do this is to realize that both gender and sexuality are imitations for which there is no original. Both gender and sexuality are supposed to be “natural” iterations of compulsory heterosexuality but that they are in fact hopeful idealizations which are never perfect. Thus drag is not an imitation any more than typical gender performance is, and homosexuality is no more an imitation of sexuality than heterosexuality is.

I found this text particularly enlightening regarding Butler’s description of drag. So often in our society drag is seen as a person putting on a gender which does not “naturally” belong to them. However, as Butler explains, we are all preforming gender and there is in fact no “natural” or perfect presentation of it. Additionally I found Butler’s comparison of the popular rhetoric regarding lesbians and gay men to be interesting. Butler explains how gay men are seen as having a perverted sexuality, and are constantly discussed as an aberration. Conversely, lesbians are often just not discussed at all, not even in the same highly negative tone. This erasure of lesbian sexuality raises the necessity of “rendering lesbianism visible” and raises questions of how to go about doing so.

Do you agree with Butler’s analysis that lesbianism needs to be rendered visible (compared to male gayness)? Do you agree or disagree with her prescription on how to do so?

Do you agree with Butler’s explanation of how both “butch” and “femme” lesbians end up in inverted gender and sexuality positions (where the “butch” ends up taking on “femme” traits and vise versa)? What are the broader implications if this inversion is true?

Do you have any ideas how one can practice Butler’s suggestion of “working sexuality against identity” in a day-to-day manner?

Anne Fausto-Sterling: Of Gender and Genitals

Summary

Fausto-­Sterling explores the different factors associated with the development of gender identity and sexual orientation from birth onward, such as the presence (or absence) of primary/secondary sex characteristics, pre- and post-natal hormonal therapy, and social environment. Anecdotes about intersexual children show that neither nature nor nurture can be pinpointed as a root cause in identity, as some stick with their reshaped gender or sex and some go through a transformative period where they “revert” back due to hormonal changes during puberty. She also focuses on the initial determinant of sex and the decision for (re)assignment surgery in intersexual babies, namely the personal beliefs of the lead doctor at the time of birth. Though it may seem that the initial decision is made with the intention that the child will remain the assigned sex, Fausto-Sterling repeatedly shows that it might matter very little for gender/sex orientation, in the long run, what sex the child starts their life with.

Reflection

Doctors’ personal beliefs ended up being the key determining factor in assigning a sex - as stated, most were not properly trained in sex education to make an informed decision and their bias ultimately decided whether a child would start their life as a boy or a girl. As with any ethical decision, there always seems like there can be a “better way.” The way Fausto-Sterling presents it, it appears that these decisions are made more with the doctors’ and parents’ wellness in mind than the child’s own psychological well-being. As queerness has become a more outspoken topic and more accepted in mainstream culture throughout the years, this seems like a selfish and outdated practice. In a society where the statistical majority of the population identifies as either male or female, man or woman, there is pressure to push a child into either of these dichotomies. We haven’t discussed this topic much yet, but I’m curious about the effect parents’ attitudes towards their child’s gender and/or sex has on their psychological development, and whether or not pushing the child into one of those divisions from the start causes more harm than good.

Questions:

- Does imposing sex on a child as soon as possible (i.e. within 24 hours after birth) hinder identity development?

- Why is raising a child as intersexual not considered an option?