Comments on: Building the Master's House: How the Construction of Heterosexuality Happened

By: Q Works Construction

Q Works Construction — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:34:32 +0000

Interesting take on this…I think most people don’t realize that comments are not only a great addition to a blog, but it is also cool when people take an interest in something you’ve written.

By: Ellie

Ellie — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:34:59 +0000

Such a brilliant article. It’s so tempting now that we’re bulldozing through the postmodern era to dismiss all labels, negate everything. It’s true that binary relations are necessarily problematic, but the answer is not to get rid of them entirely, I think. Because the categories that we really want to glean from ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ arise as either a mediation between, outside of, or a conflation of the two. It is necessary to recognise the flaws of the binary, but it’s then necessary to work with it, in my opinion. I think this is always the case, even in terms of aesthetics. Dada was my favourite C20th movement, but it failed quickly, because despite the temptation of grasping onto a nihilistic stance, the danger is too great when we relate ideology to the void. Far better to relate our definitions to something we know to be wrong- because at least we know it. The effect of reclaiming can be more powerful than the effect of creating. Nothingness should not be rejected as an option, but anarchy should not be treated lightly with regards to our own identities.

By: emilu

emilu — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:45:20 +0000

“Oh hi Judith” made my night.

Also: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kqKPS3Tdg3U/Th5iF_IJ2YI/AAAAAAAAAIg/mLrO8zwvpPU/s1600/genderdoinit.jpg

By: Annie D

Annie D — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:36:56 +0000

Thanks for putting it so succinctly. I remember a discussion in the comments section of an article here about the constructed-ness of gender and how trans-people’s experiences fit into that. Constructed gender seems to be a very flawed idea when you look at it from that angle until you realise that constructed does not just encompass recently established and superficial but also long-established and foundational.

As applied to gender, I would say that GENDER is a social construct in the long established and foundational sense, and that relates to sex specific biological characteristics (and some psychological) but also to long established social practices (GENDER ROLES). Most people grow up to find that their socially assigned gender matches their biologically assigned sex and on a psychological and very real level everything is hunky dory (although they might be politically against or frustrated by strict gender roles). But some people take that further and find that their socially assigned gender roles is incapable of expressing who they are (on some deep psychological and very real level) and that is cool too except that society finds breaking the gender binary to be a massive mindfuck and life is not easy for those people. And then some people find that their biologically assigned sex and socially constructed gender are at such a mismatch to their deep psychological and very real understanding of who they are that they are not comfortable until other people they interact with can acknowledge their real self and until they can look at their body in the mirror and see themselves as they are inside. And maybe part of their need to change how people perceive them and what they see when they look in the mirror is related to society’s hang ups about gender but that it’s complicated and a very real foundational structure of society, so it’s no small thing.

This is a conversation I’d really like to have, because the idea of gender as a construct is a cornerstone of my feminism and I want to have an idea of gender which is capable of including the experiences of non-cis-gendered people because I think they must have really interesting encounters with gender, and therefore see it from completely different angles to me; and also because feminism must and should become inclusive in order to introduce and perpetuate lasting and healthy ideas of gender.

By: Megaera

Megaera — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:59:14 +0000

My understanding of the ‘gay brain’ research is that the researchers had a bunch of brains, some from straight people and some from gay people, and that they compared the physical structures of those brains and found significant variation overall between the two groups. I’m not a scientist, but that sounds to me like a reasonable comparison.

By: Megaera

Megaera — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:52:08 +0000

I suspect we need the distinctions because people tend to see things very much from our own perspective. It can be hard for us to understand that other people do not experience the world the way that we do – that our personal experience is not universal, and that there are other points of view to take into consideration.

By: Megaera

Megaera — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:48:21 +0000

Hmm. Although I like the term queer myself, there’s no getting away from the fact that it defines one against a (supposed) norm. It’s not really a stand-alone term.

By: Bhan

Bhan — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:23:21 +0000

Deconstructing it even without mentioning those hurt by it does help because it forces people to re evalutae it and thereby look at those non binary catagories anew and hopefully with better understanding.

By: Paper0Flowers

Paper0Flowers — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:29:03 +0000

This was a very good article. It’s always great to read these sorts of things to force you to wrap your head around where biology and society deviate exclusively.

By: giles

giles — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:53:49 +0000

Obligatory namedrop of Foucault

By: Cha

Cha — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:14:30 +0000

Nice article.

Small thought – I know it’s not the point of the article, which I really liked, but it wasn’t just a “bunch of butch gays” at Stonewall. I get that there isn’t really a short way to say “transgender people, sex workers” and everyone else who was there, but the trans and sex workin’ element is often erased, and it shouldn’t be. Also there’s this myth I keep hearing that trans people and sex workers are johnny-come-lately for our rights, and where were we before, and, well, we were there from the very beginning. And you probably know that already, but I guess what I’m saying is that “gay” isn’t short hand for all the rest of us, because if it were, well, support for “gay rights” in Congress would also mean support for transgender rights, sex workers rights, etc, and it clearly does not.

Perhaps – a buncha queers?

By: lolly

lolly — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:10:02 +0000

awesome article, particularly liking that dashing picture of Judith.