Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 09:53:31 -0500 From: kelley <oudies at flash.net>
kelley <oudies at flash.net> wrote:
>
>> from this perspective the entire edifice of the dominant arm of the glbt
>movement with it's claims to biological necessity are "psychotic" -- ("It
>wasn't me! It was my biological destiny. I was born that way!!")."
ken
>You don't think the abrogation of responsibility through reliance on a final
>determination of the Other (which does not exist!) is psychotic?
no. i don't see the point of calling it that either. i've said this to both you and ange that it's mistake to use those terms because they psychologize and individualize the phenom, even if you don't intend to do so in the way you end up being interpreted. those words are used as slurs.
they slipped right by everyone who read you call U of T's admin psychotic, b/c that's okay, but when talking about women's decidion making regaring abortion it doesn't fly well -- you're talking about two different examples with two different relations to systems of power.
i used the example b/c not too long ago, at pulp culture list [as you note below], you sat on the fence when i made the claim that sexuality isn't "natural" because you know that it's a political hot potato. PFLAG is under attack by queer choice "renegades" [that was what they were called recently on a bi list i'm subbed to] lately because they're objecting to PFLAG's presentation of blgt's as "natural" "biological" etc. people are really wary of this position because some worry that it plays into the hands of the conservative right. for others, it just doesn't make sense and it flies in the face of how they experience their sexuality. and you're going to tell them they're wrong? on what basis? i sensed that you understood this in the convo at pulp-culture and that's why i wondered if you'd feel as comfortable applying the same analysis to another phenom
christain, we aren't in disagreement. i was making a hypothetical point about using the example in another context and what the ramifications are.
also, i think not a few people would be offended at being called naive; it's not that much less of a slur than psychotic--to them!
i can't recall which list it was, but a woman wrote in to a list recently, obviously a bit confused and uncertain, looking for some help. she wrote something about wondering if she wanted to become a lesbian, detailed her 'history' and reasons why she was thinking about lately -- why she was starting to allow herself to explore her feelings re a friend, but not really sure because she did enjoy being with men, and wasn't sure how she'd feel about a "relationship" as opposed to the obvious interest she had in having sex with a woman she was interested in, blah blah. you know the rave. i uns*bscribed because the avalanche of responses was something on the order of "you don't just decide you want to be a lesbian" "women who are bi-curious make me sick" "you're just horny and want to get laid." "don't use another woman because you want to be "cool'and lipsticks lesbians are hip these days" ad nauseum. i unsubbed after the 100th flame of this poor woman. seems to me that the dominant response was to demand that sexuality be framed as natural, a force that exerts a power over you beyond all reason, ad nauseum
iow, heterosexism in the form of either/or and queerness or whatever you want to call it has to fall into the same patterns as het normativity--you either are or you aren't and no room for anything in between or anything that doesn't follow the het/homo by nature reasoning....
kelley