Semantics

Heterosexual privilege #4: I am not identified by my sexual orientation.

One fine summer evening after finals had ended last year, I went to a friend's house to celebrate the end of the semester. We were on her back porch sipping limoncello, discussing the music video for "I'm on a Boat", feeling free and young and buzzed while bathing in the rare glow that is the indirect Ithaca, NY sunlight. We we're having a gay ol' time...

Then our of nowhere, it happened. The hostess's boyfriend let it slip: "THAT IS SO GAY". No, he was not talking about an Elton John album or a meadow filled with unicorns. He was talking about something that he clearly did not like: a book, film, mixed drink, whatever. The subject of his accusation could have been any number of things. It was how he used the adjective 'gay' in his sentence. He did not use it to mean "Bad Ass" or "Something I want to be someday". He used it to mean '"vapid, uncool, or stupid". His girlfriend did what any good ally would do: publicly chastise him. However, the manner in which it was done was a rather curious event. Instead of telling him that she personally did not like that use of language, she merely pointed over to me and Legally Gay (who was sitting next to me) as if to say, "Look! Can't you see we have a corner of queers present?!" Suddenly, everyone looked at us... and I felt 200% more gay than usual (which is nearly impossible), as if we were an exhibit in a zoo. Did everyone expect our gayness to jump out and bite him? Maybe. That would have been entertaining. I tried to brush off the awkwardness by making some comment about the council of gays not approving, and people seemed to forget about it.

I didn't, though. Admittedly, I'm making this whole ordeal seem very dramatic. In reality, it was over as soon as it happened and I don't think many other people even noticed. Still, I remember that feeling. The sensation that everyone noticed the elephant in the room at the exact same time, and the elephant was composed of me and my friend. I do appreciate the fact that the hostess corrected her boyfriend, but drawing attention to my queerness made me feel... well, queer. Not in the gay sense, but as in the sense that I was the "other".

This situation brings up an interesting idea, though. She chastised him because we were there. Perhaps to pass as an ally in our eyes? I find myself thinking, would she have admonished him had we not been there? Who knows. What I do know is that I don't want people to monitor themselves and others because I am in their presence. This makes me a burden, which is not a title I want to embrace with open arms. I would prefer that people not use this kind of language because it's wrong. Period. I don't care if you're at a pride parade or an evangelical megachurch (although I'd wager that there would be more gays there than one would think), using the title of a sexual orientation to signify that something is of lesser worth is not exactly kind.

Bringing sexual identities to people's attention is an interesting phenomenon. Many times, it can be a great thing. Like, when I'm discussing gay rights with someone and I find out that they too, are non-heterosexual: there's a sense of solidarity. We can relate shared experiences with one another and commiserate.

Then again, it can be limiting and painful. Michael Pakaluk, regular columnist for The Pilot, "America's Oldest Catholic Newspaper", argues in a recent column that Children of same-sex couples should be banned from Catholic Schools because the children might bring pornography into school or advocate for the gay agenda. Yeah, seriously. Dana Rudolph, founder and publisher of Mombian (a blog for lesbian parents), covers the story over at Change.Org and explains pretty succinctly that when she chaperons her first-grade son's class trips, she isn't trying to advocate for same-sex marriage. When caring for a gaggle of 6-year-olds, there isn't exactly time for protesting and activism amidst snack time and making sure they don't run off by themselves, let alone pornography distribution.

Pakaluk's argument that children of same-sex parents would bring pornography into school is the epitome of the tired stereotype that gay = sex. My theory of why gay rights progress has been slow in this country (as compared to other industrialized western nations) is due to the country's puritanical roots. As a rule, the United States is fairly tight-lipped about sexuality and sex education. This isn't to say that sexual objectification and commodification don't exist in out culture. They most certainly do, in droves nonetheless. But, as a country we have a rather difficult time having an open and honest discussion about real sexualities. Instead, anything sex-related is seen as dirty and wrong... and the porn industry capitalizes on this fact. Do you think if young women were actually taught to be open about their sex lives that the porn industry would flourish? Probs not. The insanely lucrative pornography industry depends upon "chastity" of most young women who are taught to fight against their sexual desire. If we stopped slut-shaming women and allowed them to pursue their sex lives, the "Girls Gone Wild" Empire would no longer be so "naughty" or "devious". Given that the industry has built it's image upon being "dirty", if we no longer view sex as "dirty", or a "moral ill", the porn empire would collapse.

I'm not saying this can happen overnight. There are so many factions in this country working against having an open and honest discussion about sexuality and sexual health, such as the National Association of Evangelicals (surprise!). Rev. Ted Haggard was the president of this incredibly influential organization (he met with George Bush once a week when he was still in office)(26% of United States Citizens are Evangelical Christian), who was a vehemently anti-choice/anti-gay leader... until he was caught snorting coke with gay male prostitutes. Whoops! Don't you hate it when you're late to your Stone-the-Gays/Destroy-Women's-Health rally because your gay male prostitute is taking forever to snort his coke? I sure do.

Anywayz, back to semantics. When you limit your definition of someone's identity to one detail (that is often stigmatized in this country), it's so easy to see them as "the other". Before African Americans gained the right to vote in the United States, so many people in power viewed this entire segment of the population based on only one characteristic: skin color. Anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriage (which was only lifted in 1967, BTW) sought to keep people in distinct, easy-to-see racial categories so as to make discrimination easier. Opponents of progressive politics at these time periods did not see African Americans as complex individuals who cannot be generalized. Similarly, opponents to progressive politics today do not see non-heterosexuals as brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, lawyers, doctors, artists, janitors, students, teachers, or street-sweepers. They see non-heterosexuals as one thing: deviant, and because of their inability to work through their own discomfort, they ignore any contrary pieces of evidence. They merely keep their eyes and ears open for when one non-heterosexual commits a sexual felony (as if no heterosexual has ever done so), and then generalizes this to the entire LGBT segment of the population.

We are not merely our race, class, gender, sex, body shape, disability status, immigration status, religion, or our sexual orientations. All of these things and more make up who we are, but no single factor defines us as a person.

Okay, gotta go hand out butt-plugs to first-graders. Tata!

-Harvs

True Blood (not the show)

What constitutes dirty blood? Oh, right: blood from men who have sex with men... because, you know... all men who have sex with men must have AIDS.

This is basically the thinking of the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, who voted 9 to 6 against lifting the ban that prevents men who have sex with men from donating blood.

Heterosexual privilege #3: I can donate blood.

This sounds so simple, but it is a ban that is mired in archaic language that lumps together an entire group of people and actually prevents them from providing much needed aid to the rest of the world via donations.

When it boils down to it: this ban is hurting more than it is helping. I don't want to make the mistake of trying to make this "seem" more important by getting the attention of straights, because it's already a blatant injustice that should not need fear-mongering to make this topic newsworthy. Heterosexual people should care about this, even if it didn't affect them and their health. That being said, the logic of the Federal Advisory Committee (whom one would think would be making decisions in interest of improving the health of all) is simply unfathomable to me, given that all donors are tested for HIV before donations are accepted.

Interestingly, it's not just gay men, but African-Americans who are also at high risk for contracting HIV. I absolutely do not think that the Federal Advisory Committee should generalize and stigmatize all African-Americans in addition to gay men, as any form of discrimination is abhorrent and unwarranted. I do, however, think that this underlines the faulty logic of the FAC in coming to their decision. Unfortunately, non-heterosexuals and African Americans (note that these are not mutually exclusive categories) are two groups who suffer from discrimination within the medical field when they are sometimes the two groups that need the most medical assistance due to being at risk for contracting these and other diseases. As you could imagine, this can be incredibly problematic when it comes to preventative health care. Groups that do not feel welcome within doctors offices and hospitals may not trust medical practitioners whole-heartedly and may choose to not utilize such services when needed. Another related example is with size discrimination, as people who are considered "overweight" or "obese" are unfortunately stigmatized in medical settings, which may lead to these individuals to become less likely to take necessary steps to prevent illness.

Discrimination against particular groups in medical settings is a clear example of highly-educated people who are still largely influenced by stereotypes and misconceptions. Far too often, it is assumed that these forms of outright discrimination are only perpetuated by the uneducated, but this is a dangerous falsehood that must be brought to light. Whether perpetuated by a child playing in your neighborhood or by the board members for the FAC, these forms of blatant discrimination and slander must be corrected if we have any hope of living in a just world.

-Harvey Milk Jr.