jster was in bklyn for a conference this weekend, so ee & i decided to take a little road trip. friday night, we had dinner with fiend, the r___, his relatively new ladyfriend, and scamz. of course, during dinner ee mentioned his research, followed by scamz engaging in a curious, interested conversation on the topic. but of course, others had to jump in with "biological" reasoning. now, this might be interesting in a case in which present at the table would be say, a biologist who studies the hormonal differences between men and women. but listening to a law student and a formerly radically libertarian anthro student defend the "naturalness" of the sex/gender system was rather unfortunate and uninformed.
The latter claimed along the way "i've read the same literature you have"--obviously not, and the former suggested "well, then i can just say i'm black." Ok, interesting reasoning, and at least this takes into account the socially constructed essence of race (though i'm not sure that was part of his reasoning). But what i really think would be a better analogy would be someone born in New Jersey claiming to be a New Yorker. Or perhaps someone who liked to listen to jam bands in their youth now claiming to be part of indie music culture. i think the point is that gender, like other forms of identity, has nothing to do with the past. it is instantiated in the moment and solidified by repeated iteration. much like the way "being a new yorker" doesn't necessarily mean you had to have been born somewhere between van cortlandt park and coney island, but relies more on an intimate knowledge of the subway system, or ability to wear stupid hipster clothes while taking oneself completely seriously.
And while ee is usually the first to get aggressive in the face of such attacks, i was rather shocked at his composure. he also didn't bring up the personal nature of the conversation, and i can't help but wonder how the conversation would have gone if this had been part of the mix. in the end, i'm not sure much was accomplished, but i was heartened by the way scamz seemed genuinely curious, and open to questioning his perceptions, even if the other two were not.
interestingly enough, today i came across this article on gay marriage in mexico city. sidestepping the marriage argument as a whole (and you might guess how i fall on this one) what i find most interesting about the article is the thought that marriage be defined as a union between “two biologically distinct persons.” now, this may be a product of poor translation, but i'm not sure, even if we don't question the ideology behind science and "biology," what two people would not be biologically distinct. identical twins? a cloned person?
and then further assuming that there is something "biologically" similar about certain people, wouldn't this mean that a black man and a white man could be married? or someone who is xxy could marry someone who is either xy or xx? or perhaps, like we all did in 6th grade science we should be paying more attention to who can roll their tongue and who has loose vs. attached ear lobes (yes i can roll my tongue and yes my ear lobes are attached, for those who might be interested).
saturday at dinner, i joined a less heterosexual, but just as normative crowd. they had just been to see mr. russell's casting genius in wig out (based loosely on paris is burning and ball culture), and mr. rhodes greeted me with "the legendary!" when i walked in. apparently dwt had mentioned dinner would involve a mystery guest, but hadn't told them who. later in the dinner, rhodes mentioned jk, and the table erupted in laughter. russell defended his previous statements. though i certainly have my own opinions about what actually happened (and those opinions certainly grant little legitimacy to the words of a man who lied about visiting his sister for a year and a half), i think this is at least demonstrates how, even for some of the most bourgeoise, homonormative, fabulous, bitchy (and i use that word, not in degradation, but because they do) men i know, sexual identity and practice do not necessarily coincide at all times.
ok, so yes, sexuality is very different from gender, and i don't mean to conflate the two. in fact, i think one thing that this weekend really solidified in my mind is how completely divergent sexuality, desire, love, and compatibility really are. and all for the best.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario