On Wed, 28 May 1997, Robin Gordon wrote:
[snipped my message]
> Joel, you message seems a bit confused, because, I think, of the unclear
> use of the words "gender" and "sex" and "sexual."
>
> While gender is frequently confused for sex, it is generally accepted by
> feminists that gender refers to socially constructed roles, i.e.
> masculine, feminine and androgynous, whereas sex is physiological, i.e.
> male, female, hermaphrodite. I don't mean to suggest that either of these
> categories can or should be limited to the three examples I have provided.
Yes, I also use(d) those definitions. I am quite sure :) that I forgot
to define my terms in advance (and relied on the definitions too much).
The other confusion that I unfortuneatly added was the whole "sex" (the
activity) versus "sex" (a distinction between humans) thing. I used that
word and/or it's derivitives in both ways. Sorry for the confusion.
[snipped some good stuff about gender wrt feminism and lesbian(s/ism)]
> Being a lesbian is a sexual orientation, and can be accompanied by any
> gender or none at all.
Yup. I agree. I am sorry for possibly confusing this fact. I meant
for "genderless women" and "non-sexual lesbians" to be taken as different
examples of the same thing. I had just heard and thought about "invisible
lesbians" a lot and was trying to apply some of the same principles to
the idea of "genderless women." I should have been more explicit.
I think that this sort of thing is common all over the place. Wherever
there is a normal and an other, that other will generally be linked with
the traits that distinguish them (at least in the minds of normal
normals).
For example, I am a hetero-sexual man (well, it is the most accurate
sexuality label floating around for me other than all-encompassing ones
like Queer). Anyway, I intellectually supported sexuality rights (gay
rights) but didn't have any homosexual friends (that I knew of). The
GLBCA at my college said that they welcomed all comers, including freaks
like me :). So, I worked up my nerve and attended a meeting. I remember
not being able to keep from thinking about the people there in sexual
terms and situations. In my mind, the people at that meeting were all
about sex. I was embarrassed and uncomfortable because of how my
unconscious mis-behaved. It took a while for the nether regions of my
brain to think about them as normal human beings and as homosexual at the
same time.
[snipped cool stuff about sf, _Shadow Man_, sex, gender, and sexuality]
> This has both positive and negative aspects. While it may help combat the
> training of girls to be feminine, it also helps perpetuate the
> invisibility of lesbians.
>
> Scott is certainly right when she says that without explicit sexual
> content, characters coded as lesbian will not be SEEN to be lesbian.
> Items meant to code a character as lesbian will be read as gender
> deviations, not as gender and sexual orientation signals.
She also said that women who are a couple will just be "good friends"
unless they sleep with each other (explicitly). The assumption is
that a man and woman couple are sleeping together, often even if they are
only just possibly a "couple."
> This is true for many of us in real life as well. I purposefully code my
> appearance as lesbian, but still am constantly confronted by the
> assumption that I am straight. This creates a constant need to explicitly
> out myself.
I have no idea what people assume I am. I guess my pride prompts me to
assume that people assume that I am gay, if only because no women have
asked me out and I have already graduated from college. On the other
hand, I haven't been asked out by any men either, so there could be
other factors at play there :)
[snipped some more stuff]
Wow, what a long (but good) message. Thanks for the insights. I
think that for the most part I violently agree with you (though I am
not a lesbian and so cannot speak with much authority on lesbianism).
This is the sort of thing that would be great for a face to face
conversation but really eats up time and energy for me in this format.
Well, better than not having such discussions at all I suppose.
-- Joel VanLaven
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:16 PDT