A Baby or Intimacy?

This blog post is in response to a reading by Patrick Califia for my Gender & Sexuality course at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia with lecturer Margaret Mayhew.

Source: Califia, P, 2002, ‘Disengaged: An Introduction’ Speaking Sex To power: the politics of queer sex, Cleis Press, San Francisco.

In summation, Califia basically spoke about the relationships between the members of his family as a gay male. I found this reading to be more personal than any previous readings in my Gender & Sexuality course. Califia discussed his experiences as a homosexual at a religious college, in a religious family household, as a husband, and as a father to his son. He talked about the rocky, yet understanding, relationship he developed for his mother and father. He spoke about the way heterosexuals treated him and his partner once they realized that they were both co-parenting to raise their son, and he also mentioned personal hardships and frustrations that he endured with his husband, to conceive and take care of their child while also maintaining a relationship.

I will be responding to a section in the reading in which Califia discusses the tough financial hardships between him and his husband right after their son was born. Matt, Califia's husband, fell heavy into postpartum depression after giving birth to their son. (Matt is transgendered, but stopped taking hormones in order to get pregnant with their current son) Matt believed that since he gave birth to their son, it served as compensation for the destruction of their sexual intimacy. Califia responded to this by saying if he knew that gaining a child meant losing the romantic and erotic connection with this husband, he would've never agreed to do it.

It is my belief that this type of situation is common for most married couples, both gay and straight. Because I have no personal experience in this matter (I am not married, nor do I have any children), I am not sure that may opinion is even valid. However from the outside looking in, I agree with Matt in that having a child serves as a valid reason for the sexual intimacy to leave a relationship. Though having children can bring in a lot of joy into a relationship, it can also drag in some drama as well. Lack of sleep, quality time, and sexual desire just comes with the territory. After pushing out a small human, being penetrated in the exact same area can be less pleasing than it once was, right?

Of course Califia said that he wouldn't have wanted the child if it meant losing the "fire and desire" that was once present in the relationship. Though "fire and desire" is important in a relationship, in my perspective, losing that is nothing, compared to the joys of having a baby. The lifetime of happiness in the presence of raising a child just simply beats the few moments of sexual pleasure.

What do you think?

Differences In Oppression

This blog post is in response to a reading by Elizabeth Grosz for my Gender & Sexuality course at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia with lecturer Margaret Mayhew.

Source: Grosz, E (1995), ‘Rethinking Queer Subjectivity’, Space, time, Perversion, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp 207-227 

In this reading, Grosz takes a look into the concepts of oppression and identity, in the politics and theory of lesbian and gay sexualities. The section of the reading that I will be discussing is titled, "Pleasure and Subversion." In this section Grosz addresses some of the questions she has inquired about oppression and the gay and lesbian communities.

One thing I found interesting about this, was Grosz's understanding of homosexual oppression. She mentioned that oppression of lesbians and gay men had formed differently than that of other oppressions. She further explained, that she thought oppression of others (usually minorities with different cultures, religions, appearances and languages other than that of white, Christian males) was done because of what a person is, not by what that person does. However, oppression by the lesbian and gay community was not directed at who the are, but instead it's directed at what they decide to do in the eyes of the public (queer acts out in the open).

The common "liberal" attitude (toward homosexuals) of those mentioned in Grosz's reading was aligned with that of most straight people I have encountered. One of the views said, "I don't care what they do, I just wish they would do it only in the privacy of their own homes!," which basically meant that as long as a person can leave the queer acts at home, and pass as a straight person out in public, they do not mind who you are and they can pretty much avoid oppression. 

Reading about Grosz's difference between oppression of the lesbian and gay community, and that of other oppressed groups, reminded me of a similar topic that's often discussed back at my home institution, Agnes Scott College. The topic can pretty much be summed up into one question, "Can homosexual oppression and rights be compared as equal to the oppression of Black people in America during the Civil Rights Era?" 

As an African American student who is from the South, I'd like to blatantly answer this question with a enormous, "NO!" I find it difficult to compare the rights of a race who's endured over 300 years of enslavement and inhumane treatment, to that of people who just want to express their sexuality publicly. Some people say rights are rights, and everyone has the right to love who they want. It is a form of oppression to do otherwise. And I agree with this idea completely. 

I'm just highlighting the fact that I also agree with Grosz theory that the gay and lesbian community are enduring a different type of oppression. To my understanding, this type of oppression is one that can be avoided by the simple act of not publicly displaying your sexuality (thought you have the right to do so). The oppression of Black people in America, however, was not a type of oppression that Black people could just decide not to endure. It was a type of oppression that was based on who they are/what they are/and how they appeared. For example, if I were a lesbian, I can honesty find it easier to pass as a straight lesbian, than of another race. Get it?

What do you think about Grosz's theory of the differences between oppression of the homosexual community and that of others--more specifically Black people in America? Are they similar more than they are different? Are my view skewed?

A Hermaphrodite's Decision

This blog post is in response to a reading by Professor Fausto-Sterling's 'The Five Sexes, Revisited,' vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 18-23, for my Gender & Sexuality course at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia with lecturer Margaret Mayhew.

Source: Fausto-Sterling A, 2000, ‘The Five Sexes, Revisited’, The Sciences, vol.40, no.4, pp. 18-23 (downloaded from La Trobe University Melbourne's library)

In the Fausto-Sterlings reading, she discussed the history behind hermaphrodites (individuals with both female and male genitalia) including the origin of the world hermaphrodite, historical cases of documented hermaphrodites, social and political implications of being a hermaphrodite and the scientific pathways for the understanding of hermaphrodite physiology. Fausto-Sterling's main argument was: why do we need to identify with being male, female, or hermaphrodite? I understood it as, why should we separate ourselves into 2 categories when or if we don't identity with either or we are both?

Though I understood Fausto-Sterling's argument, I'm only going to analyze a short case that was mentioned in the reading. A young hermaphrodite named Margaret grew up as a female until she hit puberty. That's when her voice deepened like a young male's and her irregular penis started taking on adult functions. As a result she demanded to become a man. Through the help of psychologists and a change of wardrobe, Margaret abandoned her female identity and took on a more masculine facade as Big James. Afterwards she explained to her sibling that "It's easier to be a man. You get more wages and you don't have to be married. If you're a girl and you don't get married, people make fun of you."

I let Big James' words sink in for a moment, then realized that though this case is probably decades old, the same philosophy and treatment of women still exists in the year 2014. There are still instances (In the USA) where business women, who are just as qualified as men (if not more), get paid less than their male counterparts. Not to mention that if you're an attractive woman who is single, you're often questioned about not being in a relationship. Being questioned about not being in a relationship isn't like being bullied in elementary school, but it certainly can be considered as a form of ridicule if one is continuously questioned about the matter. It's almost like as women getting married is what is expected of us, and if we've reached a certain age and we're not married, its a form of taboo.

With this in mind, I understand why Margaret decided to make the official change to Big James. As a hermaphrodite, she had the option to choose between the two sexes and she chose the one with more financial and social advantages. But I guess the real question here was why did Big James, in addition to the rest of us who may suffer from a female or male identity crisis, not able to choose to be both sexes or neither? Why do we allow ourselves to be forced into choosing?

GAY Enough To Be A Refugee

This blog post is in response to Senthorum Raj's article "Are You Gay Enough To Be A Refugee?" for my Gender & Sexuality course at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia with lecturer Margaret Mayhew.

Source: https://newmatilda.com/2011/06/09/are-you-gay-enough-be-refugee

In this reading Raji discussed how Australia provides asylum to gay refugees who are persecuted for being gay or homosexual in their native countries. The issue is, asylum seekers must publicly or visibly demonstrate their homosexuality with their partners in order for their relationship to be legitimate and genuine. This doesn't seem like an issue because if a person is gay, it can easily be proven through public displays of affection with their partner to prove the basis for a non-platonic relationship. However, in the countries where homosexuality is illegal, there are deadly repercussions for people who disregard the law. As a result gay and lesbian relationships are left "under wraps" and certainly not portrayed within the public's eye. Ultimately, without these public and perhaps fearful displays of affection by homosexual couples, they are considered illegitimate and may not seek refugee in Australia.

This brings up the question, does a person seem genuinely gay or even "gay enough" by their actions to receive asylum in Australia as a refugee if they keep their homosexuality a secret?

In my personal opinion, refugees should not have to prove their homosexuality by demonstrating typical westernized homosexual stereotypes, such as wearing ear rings, tight pants, and publicly displaying sexual behavior with their partners, in order to be considered for asylum in Australia. Not only do these actions generalize all gay people as being weirdly exotic, it also subjects refugees to more trauma by having to recover from deadly persecution in their home country, and possibly going out of their way to prove their sexual identity. It doesn't seem humane to impose these implications on suffering refugees.

A short and quick example of an individual who faced persecution for homosexuality is displayed in a 4 minute youtube video about a young man named Naheed from Iraq. Click the link below to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ3mqhpRjhE