Blog Post Three: Etymology of "Queer"

The history of the word "queer"  is slightly uncertain, though it has been traced to German descent in the 16^th century (Harper). At the time, it referred to things that were “oblique, off-center” or “odd” (Harper). “Queer” is used today sometimes in this descriptive sense, but also as gender, sexual, and/or political labels.

While the history of the word “queer” is slightly uncertain, its literal adjective meanings are consistent in referring to something negative. The word is often meant to describe something “strange,” “eccentric,” “suspicious,” “shady,” or “queasy” (“Queer”).  Many texts previous to the 19^th century use the word with these negative connotations to indicate something different than the norm.

It wasn’t until 1922 that “queer” was recorded in reference to homosexuality (Harper). From then until the 1980s, the word “was used solely as a derogatory name for gays and lesbians” (“Queer”). The underlying connotations of calling gays “queer” was to signify them as differing from the norms; it reinforced social connotations that gay people were “shady” and “eccentric,” like the meanings of the word itself (“Queer”).  

It was during the gay rights movement of the 1980s that the term was taken by “gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification” (“Queer”). The word eventually took on its current umbrella term to cover gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people (“Queer”). Some people within this community still consider it offensive. There’s at least one Facebook page dedicated to getting people to stop using the word in the gay community. It has over 500 "likes." A post by James Kirchick on the blog Independent Gay Forum insists that because “queer” implies that someone is odd, it is impractical to describe oneself as “queer” when there is a need to fight for gay rights (Kirchick). He believes that the connotations of “queer” as an adjective are too negative and only segregate the gay community from mainstream society more (Kirchick).

Other people in the gay community are okay with the word “queer.” Some even prefer the word “queer” instead of “gay.” The website Critpath, for example, works in conjunction with Parents and Friends Lesbians for Gays (“PLFLAG”) on AIDS projects. The site features an interview between a mother and son in which the son explains why he prefers the term “queer” as his identification (Siegel). He claims that “queer” in a modern sense is tied to the politics of gay community. He goes on to say that “[q]ueers are more politically conscious” than people who identify only as gay; they are the activists of the gay community (Siegel).

http://www.hercampus.com/love/what-does-queer-mean-queer-101-labels-explanations-identifications

Some people use this label instead of conforming to the binary gender labels; they do not label themselves as male or female, but instead gender-queer (Friedman). Anne Fausto-Sterling’s article “The Five Sexes” explains the biological basis of “intersexuality,” which can mean a person has conflicting genitalia or chromosomes that differ from the typical male (XY) female (XX) (Fausto-Sterling 21-22). The article “AliceDreger, Gender Bender” points out that people born with “ambiguous genitalia” are also included in the “intersex” label (Magnuson). To avoid labels associated with their biological status, some intersex prefer the label “gender queer” for themselves (Friedman).

Some people use the label “queer” to signal that they are sexually attracted to men and women, as well as trans people (Friedman). Leslie Feinberg’s article “Transgender Warriors” defines a “transgender” person as someone who does not identify with their assigned gender, but also doesn't necessarily identify with the other sex (Feinberg 199). Transsexuals identify with the opposite sex which they were assigned at birth (199). Thus, in a sexual sense, "queer" can mean someone is attracted to men, women, and trans persons.

“Queer” remains today to be used in a negative sense when describing something as “strange” or “eccentric.” Some individuals have reclaimed the word to refer to their political, sexual, or gender identity. In general, it appears that calling oneself “queer” is an “intensely personal” choice; one that only an individual can choose on their own (Friedman).

Word Count: 673

Works Cited

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences March/April (1993). Web. 5 Feb. 2012.

Feinberg, Leslie. Transgender Warrior. Beacon, 1997. Print.

Friedman, Vanessa. "What Does "Queer" Mean? Queer 101: Labels, Explanations, Identifications." Her Campus. Her Campus Media, 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

Harper, Douglas. "Queer." Online Etymology Dictionary. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

Kirchick, James. "Young, Out, and Gay—Not Queer." Independent Gay Forum. 14 Feb. 2006. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.

Magnuson, Danielle. "Alice Dreger, Gender Bender." Ms Magazine Blog. WordPress, 8 Nov. 2011. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

"Queer." The Free Dictionary. Farlex, 2000. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.

Siegel, Laura. "An Interview With My "Queer" Son." Critical Path AIDS Project. Youth Guard Services, 19 Aug. 2002. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.

"Murderball" review: The Ability in Disability

Ableism is the “devaluation of disability” and the resultant “societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled kids as opposed to other disabled kids” (Thomas Hehir qtd. in abbyjean). Ideas about disability are so engrained into society that the English language reflect them: calling someone “lame,” for example, implies they are uncool, but the original definition of “lame” regarded someone unable to move at least one body part (abbyjean). The 2005 documentary Murderball works to prove these stereotypes about disabled people wrong by showing that quadriplegics are capable of the same actions and emotions as walking people. They can even be intense Olympic athletes in quadriplegic rugby.

The film demonstrates its thesis by showing quadriplegics going through their lives on a daily basis. The beginning of the film, for instance, shows one of the rugby players putting groceries into the back of his car, then getting in it and driving away. This beats the stereotype of how “disabled” quadriplegics are; they are not incapable of simple tasks like people often assume. Quadriplegics are later shown in the movie dancing, flirting with women, swimming, and getting dressed. All of these actions beat the American stereotype that people in wheelchairs are dependent upon others to get around.

Another main part of the film’s thesis is that quadriplegics have the same emotions as everyone else. The film shows the players in a variety of emotions: angry, sad, ecstatic, prideful, passionate, content. Typical media stereotypes of disabled people assume they are all kind, stoic, inspiring people (Smith). But crude sexual talk, angry outbursts, and slide remarks by players prove this stereotype wrong. Quad rugby coach Joe is a good example of how incorrect this stereotype is. He is very hard on his 12-year-old son Robert, who happens to be unathletic. Robert prefers studious activities like schoolwork and classical music instead of playing sports. Joe picks on his son throughout the movie, saying that he needs the “tough love” in his life. Joe’s jerky attitude demonstrates how quadriplegics are capable of being intense and rude, just like walking people. It proves the stoic stereotype of disabled people wrong, while showing in a larger sense that they are just as humanly emotional as walking people.

 There was nothing in this film I felt was unconvincing, although there were a couple things I found uncomfortable to watch in general. It was hard to see the team lose in the end, because the film shows their passion for the sport, which gives viewers an emotional stake. It was moreover hard to witness how tough Joe is on Robert. At times, Joe seemed more emotionally invested in rugby than he was towards his son. I didn’t find this uncomfortable because specifically he is a quadriplegic, but because I disagree with his parenting style. Overall, I found the film to be incredibly convincing in showing that quadriplegics are capable by society’s standards of the word.

One point that stood out in the film was the idea that up to the first four years after an accident that leaves someone quadriplegic, the person can be very depressed. After that time, however, they seem to embrace their situation. This could be studied by asking people to rate on a scale of 1-10 to rate their mood after the first week of their accident, up to six years later. This question should be asked every two weeks on the same day each week to ensure consistency. Ideally, it would be asked by a variety of newly quadriplegic people across the country and of all ages. For a comparison, the same question set-up should be done to walking people. This format would show if attitudes do improve over time, like one of the quadriplegics in the film said.

Word count: 659

Works Cited

Abbyjean. "The Transcontinental Disability Choir: What Is Ableist Language and Why Should You Care?" Web log post. Bitchmedia. Bitch Magazine, 11 Nov. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

Murderball. Dir. Henry A. Rubin and Dana A. Shapiro. Perf. Mark Zupan and Joe Soares. Paramount Pictures, 2005. DVD.

Smith, S.e. "The Transcontinental Disability Choir: Disability Archetypes: The Good Cripple." Weblog post. Bitchmedia. Bitch Magazine, 7 Dec. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

Film Review: "Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She"

The 2005 HBO documentary Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She demonstrates that gender and sexual identities are natural and not choices that people make. The film makes this argument by showing intersex and transgender people throughout the world and explaining the biological basis behind gender variances. One of the documentary’s most convincing arguments is when they show eight-year-old Noah. Noah prefers dancing, fashion, and girls’ clothing instead of things that boys are usually interested in, like sports or video games. His family says they have tried to discourage these tendencies, but Noah always goes back to the girl activities that he enjoys. His experiences reminded me of the film clip “Reteaching Gender and Sexuality”, in which Seattle youth encourage communities to rethink the way their teach sexuality and gender. In the clip, the young adults say they are “so over” being questioned about their gender and that their “identity cannot be summed up in letters”. Noah speaks similarly to these ideas, claiming that he is tired of being asked if he is a girl or a boy by his classmates. He is an example that intersexuality is natural, because his family says they did nothing to “make” him this way and he has acted feminine since he was first able to express himself.

Another way the film expresses that intersexuality is natural is through showing Max, who was dubbed a female at birth but had ambiguous genitalia. Throughout his life, Max (named “Judy” at birth) felt out-of-place in society. Judy fell in love with a woman, so she accredited her confusion to lesbianism. Even with a solid relationship with her partner, Judy still felt uncertain about her life, and she eventually decided this was because she was incorrectly labeled female. Max now lives much happier with his wife and their daughter. Max’s confusion but eventual resolution confirms that not everyone naturally falls into the designated categories male or female.

The biological background regarding intersexuality is also a strong point of Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She. Reading Anne Fausto-Sterling’s article “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough” helped me understand this part of the movie. Science identifies male chromosomes as XY and female chromosomes as XX (Fausto-Sterling 22). Both the film and Fausto-Sterling’s article point out, however, that these chromosomes don’t always match one’s external genitalia or their hormones, causing confusion when one doesn’t fall directly into male or female categories (Fausto-Sterling 22). The movie also claims that some people also have XY/XO or XYY chromosomes. These biological foundations reaffirm the film’s basis that intersexuality is natural.

I found the documentary’s examples of animal intersexuality to be less convincing. The narrator claimed that sexuality is a human construct that animals don’t necessarily have, because they tend to focus on pleasure instead of life-partners. It felt like the movie was stretching too far to attempt to prove the naturalness of intersexuality.

The film relates to Sociology 360 in many ways. In general, people in-between sexes or sexualities are people that are labeled deviant in America because of their differences to mainstream society. The film also conveys the idea that varying societies place different value judgments on characteristics; even though intersexuality is considered deviant in America, for example, it is viewed positively in some areas in Africa or Thailand.

The end of Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She particularly stood out for me. Sixty-four heterosexual college men were dubbed homophobic or non-homophobic after taking a survey at the University of Georgia in 1996. The two groups were each subjected to gay porn while their arousal levels were measured. Half of the homophobic men became aroused at the porn, though denying it, while the non-homophobic men showed few signs of arousal. This brings up a question regarding what it is exactly that some Americans fear so greatly about homosexuality; are they afraid of something they see within themselves? More research could be studied regarding this by collecting a larger random sample of at least 500 heterosexual men of various ages across America. The procedures would include the same pre-porn survey to determine a lack or presence of homophobia, as well as an arousal measure when watching gay porn. This research study could provide more information about the meanings behind homophobia.

Word Count: 712

Works Cited

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences March/April (1993): 20-25. Print.

Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She. Dir. Antony Thomas. Deep Stealth Productions, 2005. DVD.

Blog Post Two: My Own Deviancy

Within my own life, it is rare that I feel deviant: I’m a heterosexual, white, middle-class female without a criminal history. The most deviant characteristic about myself comes from a personal association, not one of my own actions: I have a gay father. Even though this characteristic is not (in my opinion) obvious, it aligns with the sociological premises of labeling theory and shaming theory.

The label of having a gay parent comes with assumptions that relate to Howard S. Becker’s labeling theory. Labeling theory claims “that social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders” (Thio, Calhoun, Conyers 39). Because of an assumed heterosexuality in America, homosexuals are repeatedly labeled as outsiders. My father is a “rule breaker” due to a personal characteristic, not a personal action (39). Becker notes that not everyone who is labeled deviant has necessarily “broken a rule” (39), which is where my personal deviance comes into play. Even though this characteristic does not often marginalize me, I too am labeled as an outsider because I am in the minority in society as the daughter of a gay man. 

I do not go around telling people my dad is gay, nor do I hide it; I reveal it when it seems appropriate. Once I do, I find that people make assumptions about me that are sometimes true, and sometimes not true. These associations relate to the “public identity” aspect of labeling theory, which assumes that a how society views a person changes when they have been revealed as a deviant (40). I find that most of my friends, for example, do not use “gay” as a negative adjective in front of me, but I have overheard them say it to other people; they see my “public identity” as a gay man’s daughter, and thus they assume that these words bother me. However, this is false because the phrases do not offend me, therefore that part of the public identity is untrue for me. Another assumed identity that comes with being related to someone gay is that they are politically liberal. This aspect of my public identity is generally true. Thus, people are viewed differently once they are deemed different and therefore deviant.

Digital image. Equity Foundation. Web. 5 Feb. 2012. <http://www.equityfoundation.org/what-we-do/pride-event-sponsorship>.

I see some aspects of John Braithwaite’s shaming theory also present in the deviancy of having a gay father. Although the gay community has moved forward politically over the last thirty years, there is still a “stigmatization” (33) regarding gays and people associated with them.

Stigmatization, also called disintegrative shaming, “divides the community by creating a class of outcasts” (33). The converse to stigmatization is reintegrative shaming, which aims to reintroduce “the offender back into the community of law-abiding or respectable citizens” usually through informal means (34). I do not feel that I have necessarily been marginalized as being the daughter of a gay man, although I have witnessed this disintegration within the “outcast” group of the gay community. Being my father’s daughter has given me an interesting outlook on society, as I am able to sit comfortably at gay pride parades with my dad and his friends, yet I can also sit comfortably outside of the gay community with the label of a heterosexual. In this sense, I am witness to the stigmatization, although I am not always directly stigmatized.

To experience a similar stigmatization of the gay community, my sociological experiment was fairly simple: I held the hand of a female friend of mine for one hour in two locations to give that illusion that we were two girls dating. In Robert K. Merton’s “Strain Theory,” he discusses crime in relation to cultural goals and institutional norms (21-26). American society’s assumption of heterosexuality is a norm that is broken in this experiment. Merton claims that norms work to secure “desired values” in a society (21). 

While holding my friends’ hand, I felt fairly awkward for a couple reasons. It felt strange to do something I knew was against the norm, so the anticipation made me feel self-conscious. The second reason I felt awkward was because I am straight and I am not familiar with holding a fellow woman’s hand. I was able to get over this aspect of it fairly quickly, however.

We first held hands at a local neighborhood park while we walked around the concrete track a few times. There were a two groups of teenagers there, as well as a couple families. It appeared that all of them looked at us at one point or another in the same sequence: They’d first look at our faces, then down at our hands, then back at our faces again, as if they were surprised to see two young women holding hands. Whenever this happened, I felt myself turn slightly embarrassed yet prideful, because I was working against the norm. No one at the park attempted to talk to us, although we were not conducting any activities that would require them to do so.

Digital image. The Telegraph. News Limited, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 5 Feb. 2012. <http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/historic-parental-win-for-lesbian/story-e6freuzi-1226007191902>.

We had nearly identical reactions at our second location, Safeway. Because people at Safeway were more engrossed in their shopping than people doing things at the park, we didn’t get as many people looking at us. People that did, however, did generally had the same sequence of looking at us (faces-hands-faces) as others at the park. Most people smiled politely at us at Safeway, while others looked at our hands then turned away casually. We had no instances of people being rude because we broke the norm. I felt more comfortable holding hands at Safeway than at the park, perhaps because it is less of a family atmosphere and it is a more casual setting. This experiment gave me an opportunity to see how it feels to be a “deviant” homosexual; a role that my father takes on in his everyday life.

Word count: 979

Works Cited

Thio, Alex, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2010. Print.

On Deviancy, Gender, and Shoes

I came across this on Tumblr last week, and it relates to our class in many ways. Unfortunately the original url isn't working anymore, so I'll copy and paste the text, along with the attached photo:

From the blog http://r0bertbrowniejr.tumblr.com/

"Yesterday my mom posted a picture on Facebook of my 5 year old brother Sam wearing a pair of shoes he picked out for his first day of preschool.  She explained to him in the store that they were really made for girls. Sam then told her that he didn’t care and that 'ninjas can wear pink shoes too.'

Sam went to preschool and got several compliments on his new shoes. Not one kid said anything negative toward him about it. 

However, my mom received about 20 comments on the photo from various family members saying how 'wrong' it is and how 'things like this will affect him socially' and, put most eloquently by my great aunt, 'that shit will turn him gay.' 

My mom then deleted the photo and told Sam that he can wear whatever he wants to preschool, that it’s his decision. If he wants to wear pink shoes, he can wear pink shoes.
Sam then explained to her that he didn’t like them because they were pink, he liked them because they were 'made out of zebras' and zebras are his favorite animal :)"

I see this as a strong example about gender norms in America. Why is it, after all, that boys (and men) should not wear pink? What are Sam's relatives so afraid of? There's nothing physically wrong with him wearing these shoes -- It's not like the color is going to jump up at him and attack him. There's also nothing psychologically wrong with a boy wanting to wear pink zebra shoes -- He simply likes the pattern.

The fact that a young boy's clothing choices are being so greatly condemned is, in my opinion, disgusting. I think Sam's mother did him a service by allowing him to choose his own shoes; she's teaching independence, not "gayness" or whatever else his relatives are afraid of. How is it that our country came to associate one's shoe or t-shirt color with their sexuality? And why is America so obsessed with the ideal of heterosexuality, anyway? Is that really where we should place our values?

I also find it very interesting that his fellow classmates complimented Sam on his shoes, while the adults condemned them. Clearly, no one is born automatically thinking they will wear pink only because they are a girl, or play football only because they are a boy. These ideas are conditioned to us by our society, and when someone steps outside of that box of normalcy, everyone feels entitled to put them back in their place.

Outside of a sociological context, take a look at Sam's face: He's happy. And if a boy wants to wear zebra shoes, and that makes him happy, that should be all that matters. Right?