[lbo-talk] Re: Gore Vidal: Lincoln Was, Like, Totally Gay

Miles Jackson cqmv at pdx.edu
Wed Jan 5 11:10:03 PST 2005


On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, BklynMagus wrote:


> In the same, way people chose to define themselves as
> gay or het or bisexual since it is the most practicable way
> to treat sexuality in the real world. In fact, making
> such definitions may be part of being human in society.
> It may be the most efficient and least harmful path to take.

Well, it's what we're used to. However, many societies don't have anything like our modern sexual categories, so it's clearly not true that being human in society requires the gay/straight distinction we're comfortable with.


> Miles writes:
>
>> Sorting people into types and subspecies is an important
> form of social control.
>
> But what about people who use these categories for their own
> benefit? Types are neutral things that only become associated
> with value through use.

However, you can't control the social use and consequences of the categories. For about 150 years, the concept of homosexuality has been used to torture, murder, and marginalize people. You can't make that stop because as an individual you intend to use the category for your own benefit.


>> It's insidious: people treat personality/identity as a liberating
> expression of individuality, when in fact it is more or less
> a tool to create and stigmatize deviants.
>
> But what happens when it is the deviants themselves who
> wield the tool?
>

But the "deviants" aren't the only one wielding the tool: the disgusting assholes who murdered Matthew Shepard did too. You can't control the social uses of the category (especially if you're defined as deviant!)


> Maybe instead of getting so worked up about categeories et al,
> we should concentrate on understanding what constitutes the
> non-harmful use of an object or idea, and what constitutes its
> harmful use. Seems much more pragmatic and useful, as well
> as much easier to communicate and discuss with other people.
>

Try this on: the existence of the category itself is the harmful thing. The analogy with race here is appropos: just as racism cannot exist in a society that does not recognize the existence or validity of different racial groupings, heterosexism cannot exist in a society that does not enforce the rigid categorization of people as gay or heterosexual.

Why not just celebrate the well documented plasticity of sexual desire and behavior?

Miles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list