[lbo-talk] Re: No cock left behind

Rotating Bitch info at pulpculture.org
Thu Nov 17 09:36:22 PST 2005


At 11:44 AM 11/17/2005, BklynMagus wrote:
>Dear List:
>
>boddi writes:
>
> > I tie them to DNA. Every single cell in my body is male and
>every cell in your body is female and there is no way to
>alter that. compared to the genetic difference between men
>and women, all men are genetically identical and all women
>are genetically identical.
>
>First a personal word to boddi:
>
>If you look back in the archives you will see that LBO is allergic
>to arguments about genetic definitions of sexuality, gender, etc.
>The path has been argued before (and for the moment I cannot
>quite remember who that foolish LBOster was), but has become
>grown over from disuse.

1. If anything, some of us have expressed a dislike for uninformed claims about biology, genetics, and "just so stories (as Carrol says), etc.

2. The argument you and I had was not about whether genetics had anything to do with sexuality, but with whether pursuing that tack was politically useful. Firstly, it doesn't describe my experience or any bi person I know, and it doesn't necessarily describe the experience or self-understandings of lesbians/gays. Not all of us think or feel that we're _born_ (genetically) bi or gay/lesbian. I quoted Vera Whisman's work to that effect back then.

Secondly, I just think it's a political dead end. It's asking people to accept us because we're born that way. I know you don't want that and that you think that it's important to study these things so that it can be used as one weapon in the struggle.

I happen to think it's a useless pursuit because we should be accepted because we are, not because we "can't help it." Same thing with BD/SM. It's acceptable because people do it, not because we find some biological basis for it. That's the more radical approach, on my view.

Still, I'm happy just to take a middle path somewhere, where you allow me (and others like me) to have my understandings of our sexuality without being made to feel as if we're denying something (and thus holding the movement back or something) and I say, "great, some people feel that it's genetic/biological for them. And so it is. It's just not for me."

Like I said before, it just never makes sense to me. I had lots of sex with women before I ever had sex with men. There's nothing about sex with one or the other that makes me feel more natural or right -- the language that's often used in these discussions.

What's curious, though, is that, as I recall, the people who are mostly on your side in this (in terms of rejecting the heterosexism of thelist, of rejecting its sometimes antisex attitudes, etc.) are also people who you're categorizing has having an allergy? What's up with that? Yoshie and I would take exception to some of your arguments about about genetics, perhspas, but the last thing we are is antisex???

"You know how it is -- come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis."

Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list