gupea.ub.gu.se Web viewIn the text the word plurisexual is used to ... One reason why the kinksters...

Reformulating Sexuality

and the renunciation of Gender

Göteborgs Universitet

Instutitionen för kulturvetenskaper

Genusvetenskap

Uppsats, 15 hp, fördjupningskurs

HT 2016

Författare: Claudia Kent

Handledare: Elin Lundsten

ABSTRACT

My main focus in this essay is to pinpoint current discourses within a section of the

queer community regarding the use of language and terminology when describing

gender, identity, sexuality and desire. In particular I have chosen to focus on inclusion

and exclusion when the labeling of sexuality is based on a binary notion of gender.

The most commonly used words for sexuality today are hetero-, homo- and bisexual

which all derive from a binary understanding of gender and a rather inflexible view on

sexual orientation. Within the queer community where gender is often transgressed,

deconstructed, politicized and frequently renounced through trans, non-binary and

gender non conforming persons it becomes futile and in many cases irrelevant or

restrictive to use cis- and heteronormative words in order to describe one’s sexual

identity in these terms.

I have chosen to use discourse analysis to study a specific discussion in an online

dating forum. The group moderator urged the other members to refrain from using

gender specific language in their personal ads as this has an essentialist tone that may

explicitly or implicitly exclude trans and gender non-conforming persons.

Key words: sexuality, language, gender, queer, identity, transgender, online dating.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................... 2

BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................. 4

PURPOSE............................................................................................................................. 5

QUESTIONS AT ISSUE.................................................................................................... 6

LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................... 6

RESEARCH OVERVIEW................................................................................................ 7

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES.............................................................................12

MATERIAL....................................................................................................................... 13

METHOD........................................................................................................................... 15

REFLEXIVITY AND SOURCE CRITICISM...........................................................17

ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................... 19GENDER AND SEXUALITY...........................................................................................................19IDENTITY AND PRESENTATION...............................................................................................21GENDER SPECTRUMS......................................................................................................................23LANGUAGE............................................................................................................................................ 24QUEER.......................................................................................................................................................26LABELS.....................................................................................................................................................27EXCLUSION............................................................................................................................................30POLITICAL SEXUALITY..................................................................................................................32FETISCHISM...........................................................................................................................................34

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION............................................................................34

REFERENCE LIST......................................................................................................... 39

3

BACKGROUND

Today a large part of our lives, identities and communication is played out through

various online forums. This has amongst other things enabled a strengthening of

minority groups where support, knowledge and information are accessible and

quickly shared through global networks. One such forum that has caught my interest

is a particular online dating page on Facebook for queer identified persons. I am

interested in what personal information is disclosed and what aspects of identities are

of importance in this context of finding sexual, and occasionally non-sexual partners.

In a society where cis-gender, hetero- and monosexuality is the ruling norm (along

with other desirability norms relating to race, class, body type and ability) how does

this play into a queer space where these norms are in certain aspects contested but in

other ways perhaps still being perpetuated? I would like to examine present

contention within a specific group regarding the linguistic expression of desire as

sexual identity.

Self proclaimed queer spaces and identities are, in my experience, often closely

connected to activism and politics. The second wave feminist slogan from the 70’s

“the private is political” is still today highly relevant. Queer spaces often question its

own inclusivity and call for a continuous reevaluation of who is welcomed and

recognized in these settings. Queer activists and academics have developed language,

knowledge and ways of combatting problematic, exclusionary or discriminatory acts

against people based on their gender and sexuality. There are internal battles and

struggles around the language and knowledge produced and the discourse is

constantly being renegotiated.

The material I have chosen to study is a specific post that was published on an

American queer dating Facebook group by one of the founders of the group. The post

sparked a lengthy discussion regarding whether or not people should be

gender/genital specific in their ads when seeking partners. One influential reason for

studying this specific topic has been my own encounters with the problem of defining

my sexuality with the few limiting choices available to me such as commonly

acknowledged identities like lesbian, bisexual or queer. Lesbian often times connotes

4

a gender essentialism that has historically excluded trans persons and while queer has

been useful in making the point of being not normatively heterosexual and actively

eluding definition it can sometimes be rather vague. I therefore seek new ways in

communicating sexuality that neither simplifies nor derogates my entire personhood

to a singular sexual identity nor impedes on my possibility of sexual self-realization

and exploration.

PURPOSE

Through this research I wish to bring into light discourses on sexuality and how the

use of language affects, limits or expands the possibility for expressing and even

living out sexual desires. Our understanding and knowledge around sex is constantly

growing and changing and we need to keep reworking our language to keep up with

the changes in society as well as consciously reforming our language in order to

achieve political change and progress. People and groups that are breaking down

norms are crucial to restructuring society on several levels, for example in institutions

of education, health, law etc.

Through an investigation of the linguistic tendencies in queer language use we may

predict or even propose a restructuring of the ways we perceive sexuality. Movements

have worked hard to reclaim identities and words such as gay and queer but I wonder,

are we not approaching a time when these categories have achieved an academic level

of social respectability that the next move would be to renounce them? The queer

movement in particular is founded upon destabilizing what is thought of as

indisputable knowledge and perceived as a universal truth. What are the benefits of

being incorporated or even assimilated within the acceptable? Anthropologist Gayle

Rubins ‘Charmed circle’ describes the sexual hierarchy and what it means to be

included in the inner circle or in the outer circle.1 Being included in the inner circle

means that one is granted privileges of normativity such as legal protection, being

seen as a good, normal and healthy citizen. Examples of this would be

heterosexuality, monogamy and sex in a relationship. If one on the other hand inhabits

1 G. Rubin, “Thinking Sex, Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” in Carole S. Vance Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, Routledge & Kegan, Paul, 1984 p. 153

5

an identity that positions you in the outer circle you may be subjected to

criminalization, state or street violence, pathologization, shame and discrimination.

The outer circle contains homosexuality, sex for money and BDSM to name a few.

This shows the great importance that sexual identity has on our lives.

The progress achieved has historically been made possible by all the people that have

contested the status quo of being deemed a second-class citizen. It has been through

unification, community and solidarity that the rights of LGBTQ people are becoming

more recognized in certain parts of the world but it is still a shockingly slow process

in comparison with the tremendous advances made in for example science and

technology. The purpose of this essay is to draw attention to what can be done and

changed in order to create a greater understanding and acceptance of sexuality as

fluid, expansive and changeable and hopefully move away from attaching identity to

sexuality.

QUESTIONS AT ISSUE

How is language used and does it challenge normative notions of sexuality based on a

gender binary?

How is this forum negotiated and what is the consensus around expressions of desire

and sexuality?

LIMITATIONS

The question of desire and sexuality is an immense subject to embrace and therefore I

have primarily chosen to narrow it down and look at the effects that language has on

our ability to express ourselves and our identities, and how this language may restrict

or open up for greater opportunities of self-actualization.

In my research it has of course been very tempting to ask ‘what is desire?’ which one

might think would lead us to the bottom of all issues surrounding sex. This is a

question that neither natural nor social scientists have been able to answer. What

6

constitutes and creates our sexual desires is in psychoanalysis a subconscious

occurrence that is made visible through language. This language becomes in relations

with others a discourse that in turn lets us establish our identities. I have tried to limit

the research to mainly incorporating language regarding gender and sexuality but

acknowledge that there is a growing discourse with an intersectional view on

sexuality encompassing race, body type, ability and class.

I will concentrate on the expressions of people based on their understanding of desire

as sexuality, and what implications this has for our understanding of desire itself. I

believe that looking at how desire is expressed and spoken about in terms of identity

and sexuality that we can perhaps come a little closer to understanding the workings

of sex within our society. This might lead to a more positive stance towards people,

identities and desires that today are shamed, shunned or even criminalized.

Another difficulty in studying language is trying to find the silence, the missing

words, the empty space, the unintelligible, that which can be found at, or outside the

margins of our understanding. My hope is that this analysis may help in opening up

possibilities, that might not be immediately visible, by finding words and indicators

that challenge normative assumptions of sexuality and gender.

I view my material as a place where these empty spaces and the lack of words are

consciously being contested by formulating new words, identities and ways of

expressing sexuality that could better suit the needs of the people engaged in this

particular group. It might even eventually prove to be applicable and beneficial within

a larger heteronormative setting.

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

There has been extensive research done on the topic of language, gender and

sexuality. I have directed my focus on philosophers, linguists and researchers that

have contributed to feminist thinking, queer theory and gender studies. What most of

the previous research explores is the importance that language plays in the formation

of knowledge. Some of the texts question the existing use of language and other texts

aim at solidifying the meaning of words.

7

I have found great inspiration in the writings of Don Kulick and Deborah Cameron’s

book Language and Sexuality that explores the semantic values connected to words,

how we talk about sex and why we talk about it the way we do.2 It encompasses a

broad spectrum of sexuality and includes issues surrounding sexual orientation and

identity, questions about the discursive construction of sexuality and verbal

expressions of erotic desire. The authors look at historical and current affairs while

drawing on linguistics, anthropology, psychology and psychoanalytics and make

reference to both Butler and Foucault who I have chosen as the main theorists for this

essay.

The article written by Galupo, Ramirez and Pulice-Farrow in Journal of Bisexuality

‘Regardless of Their Gender’ provides a recent study of the conceptualization of

sexual identity among bisexual, pansexual and queer identified individuals and their

differences and/or similarities.3 The authors found four relevant themes through the

analyzed data: labeling sexual identity, distinctions of attraction, explicit use of

binary/nonbinary language, and identity transcendence. In the text the word

plurisexual is used to refer to anyone who is attracted to more than one gender, such

as bisexuals, pansexuals and many queer identified persons. Heterosexuals and

homosexuals are named monosexuals since they are, in theory, only attracted to one

of the binary genders.

In their research Galupo et al. found that many of the participants used multiple labels

to describe their sexual identity. It was particularly common for queer and many

pansexuals to express a transgender identity or history, which shows that it is more

common for transexual, and I add probably gender-queer individuals to endorse a

plurisexual label. When compared to monosexuals, according to this study,

plurisexuals were less likely to feel that their sexual identity label fully captured their

sexuality.4 The purpose of this study was to illustrate when and whether grouping

bisexual, pansexual and queer identities may be useful and when it might distort an

2 D. Kulick and D. Cameron, Language and Sexuality, Cambridge University Press, 2003

3 P. Galupo, J. L. Ramirez and L. Pulice-Farrow, “Regardless of Their Gender: Descriptions of Sexual Identity among Bisexual, Pansexual and Queer Identified Individuals”, Journal of Bisexuality, nr 9, 2016, p. 1-174 P. Galupo, J. L. Ramirez and L. Pulice-Farrow, ‘Regardless of Their Gender’: Descriptions of Sexual Identity among Bisexual, Pansexual and Queer Identified Individuals, Journal of Bisexuality, nr 9, 2016, p.11.

8

understanding of the diversity in plurisexual experience. This is of interest to my

study since I will through my analysis problematize the notion of basing sexuality on

gender.

Diane Richardsons Patterned Fluidities: (Re)Imagining the Relationship between

Gender and Sexuality examines the ways in which gender and sexuality have been

theorized and what can be changed in future research.5 She suggests a metaphor for

the relationship between gender and sexuality to be viewed as a shoreline, a boundary

in motion between land and sea affected by interconnecting discourses about

sexuality, gender, age, class, race and ethnicity that might be informed by wider

discourses of place, culture, religion and governmentality. The idea of both gender

and sexuality as fluid and unstable is one of the main themes for my study. Both

Foucault and Butler argue for the unstableness and changeability of sexuality and

gender.

This leads me to the authors James Horley and Jan Clarke who in their article

Constructing Sexuality: A Theory of Stability and Fluidity wrote that there are a

number of difficulties found within the contemporary study of sexuality.6 They

experience a lack of conceptual clarity and consistency due to the institutional,

community and personal politics being major obstacles. They also perceive an

absence of a broad and useful unified theory that could move research forward.

Sexuality is, in part, a linguistic construct open to interpretation, questioning and

change, which has made it hard for researchers to define these fluid and flexible

categories.

Randall. L. Sell’s article “Defining and Measuring Sexual Orientation: A Review” in

Archives of Sexual Behaviour discusses the need for a standardization of the

definitions and measures of sexual orientation if advances are to be made.7 He argues

for researchers to be critical of how they classify subjects based upon sexual

5 D. Richardson, “Patterned Fluidities: (Re)Imagining the Relationship between Gender and Sexuality”, Sociology, vol 41, no 3, 2007, p.457-74

6 J. Horley and J. Clarke, ”Constructing Sexuality: A Theory of Stability and Fluidity”, Sexuality & Culture, no 20, 2016, p. 918.

7 R. Sell, “Defining and Measuring Sexual Orientation: A Review”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 6, 1997, pp. 643-658

9

orientation. Sell’s and Horley and Clarks articles differ from several of the others by

not seeking to deconstruct but rather attempting to find a consensus around the

meaning of sexuality. This is similar to what I believe is happening within the

Facebook group I have studied, as a negotiation aiming to unify our understanding of

sexuality and identity.

There are voices seeking clarification when studying sexuality while others are very

cautious with providing a universal solidifying meaning of it since, as I argue in this

essay, and several others including Richardson, Cameron and Kulick, that sexuality is

an ever changing and highly fluid construct.

Two authors have, for the reason of combatting discrimination, created a survey guide

that leaves little to no space for questioning and doesn’t permit a fluid or complex

experience of sexuality. Lucy Haseldon and Theodore Jolozas made a handbook for

the Office for National Statistics in the UK 2009 called Measuring Sexual Identity- a

guide for researchers.8 It provides guidelines on how to include sexual identity in

surveys with the purpose of estimating how many people in the population are

lesbian, gay or bisexual. This can then be used to help monitor equality of opportunity

in areas such as employment education and the provision of services. This has been

introduced in the UK since the Government introduced the Equality Act Regulations

in 2007 to tackle discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on

the grounds of sexual orientation as well as race, gender, disability, religion and

belief, and age. I found it to be useful as a comparison between a governmental script

defining homo- and bisexuality and with that of the personal experiences of sexual

identity found in the material used for this essay. In the guidebook Haseldon and

Joloza chose to only look at discrimination based on lesbian, gay and bisexuality,

leaving out the T in LGBT, which is to me remarkable since often times, gender and

sexuality are intrinsically conjoined. These questions are seemingly based on a binary

assumption of the two genders and exclude non-binary experiences, gender non

conforming persons and certain trans people who might self-identify as heterosexual

but don’t “pass” as such in mainstream society. They write that some non-

heterosexual participants chose the ‘other’ category because “they were either anti-

categorization or because they rejected the ‘simplistic’ male/female ‘gender binary’

8 L. Haseldon and T. Joloza, Measuring Sexual Identity- A guide for researchers, Household, LabourMarket and Social Wellbeing Division, Office for National Statistics, 2009

10

which, as they noted in their text, was particularly mentioned by some transgender

participants. It should be recognized that those who used this category were thus

excluded from the analysis. So basically the study will only be useful for studying

discrimination against persons that fit neatly into the normative categorizations of

sexual identity. Although I do see the importance of acknowledging the fact that LGB

persons are treated differently in society and that quantitative research can aid in

providing support of these claims, I do find it troubling that believing that an L, G or

B is a way of fully expressing an individual’s identity since as we can see from the

material I am analyzing, sexual identity is so much more complex than a simple letter,

especially for the remaining sexual deviants, gender-queer and plurisexuals.

A book that brings up the people that would not be visible in Haseldon and Jolozas

guidebook is Pomosexuals: Challenging Assumptions about Gender and Sexuality by

Carol Queen and Lawrence Schimel (1997), which is an anthology of stories by

people who defy current presumptions about gender and sexuality.9 Despite being 20

years old it surprises me that the ideas raised in this book, the concept of

pomosexuality, have not been more widely spread. In a similar way that

postmodernism critiqued modernism, pomosexuality wanted to examine and

challenge the notion of homosexuality. I found this book to be the first that provided

material with similar questionings as the ones I posed for this essay. What happens to

the people who do not conform to certain identities and sexualities? How can we

actively transform the language to incorporate the diversity and fluidity that exists but

hasn’t yet been given a space in our understanding? Queen and Schimel have

collected 15 voices of people who have struggled, and subsequently failed, to fit into

the categories currently available to them. What they all call for is a much broader

concept of sexuality, one that permits more freedom in exploring the possibilities of

one’s desires. This book makes use of practical examples rather than theoretical or

academic propositions and provides a clear approach to what can be done to achieve a

positive change for the future. Kulick and Cameron also critique theorists and

theoretical literature for engaging in the discourse of desire but rarely refer to

empirical research that examines how desire is actually conveyed through language

9 C. Queen and L. Schimel, Pomosexuals: Challenging Assumptions about Gender and Sexuality, Cleis Press, 1997.

11

and social life.10 This research overview shows the difficulty as well as the need for

defining sexuality while continuously questioning the definitions created.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

I have chosen two primary theoreticians to analyze the material in this paper, French

philosopher Michel Foucault and US philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler. In

Foucaults book The History of Sexuality: An Introduction the reader is introduced to

the discourses on sex since the 18th century.11 Foucault studied power relations and

how current institutions such as the field of medicine, psychology and academic

theories have dominated the discourses surrounding sexuality. Foucault did not set out

to understand the workings of our desires but rather the constant need to control what

is said and what can be said about sex. His interest lies in the workings of knowledge

and power and the various currents that strive to gain control of the discourse on

sexuality by methods of normalization, pathologization or criminalization. Discourse

plays a vital role in the production of power and knowledge through language.

Whoever does the speaking also determines what can be talked about as well as what

can be known. This in turn influences how we think and inevitably who we are. In

Thinking with Theory the authors Jackson and Mazzei see Foucault as inverting the

traditional questions such as ‘what is power?’ and ‘where does power come from?’

and instead of searching for the essence and origin he investigates ‘the productive

effects as it circulates through the practices of people in their daily lives’.12 I will

implement this in my analysis of the material I have by not asking what it is the

individuals desire and why but what are the effects of the language they use.

Judith Butler was a pioneer in queer theory and deconstructing the notion of

normative gender by proposing that gender is a social construct that is performatively

created and continuously susceptible to being altered or opposed. The repetition isn’t

10 D. Kulick and D. Cameron, “Introduction: Language and desire in theory and practice”, Language & Communication, vol. 23, 2003, p. 93.

11 Michel Foucault, The history of sexuality. Volume I. An introduction.Penguin Books, London, 1990 (originally published 1976)

12 A. Y. Jackson, and L. A. Mazzei, Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives, Abingdon, Routledge, 2012, p. 64

12

a performance consciously acted out by a subject but a performativity that constitutes

a subject through cultural recognition.13 Bucholz and Hall interpret Butler’s

understanding of gender performativity as brought into being through linguistic and

other semiotic practices.14

As an academic and an activist Butler advocates for the rights of sexual minorities and

identities that are excluded from being part of a normative society and thus by the

nature of their gender or sexuality not being able to enjoy a fully livable life. By

studying transgendered and intersex lives Butler questions heteronormativity and the

essentialist ideas of the gender binary. Although these theories mainly discuss gender

norms, these are often tied to sexual norms and thus have great consequences for

sexuality as well. Butler’s queer theory helps our way of thinking and understanding

gender so that ideally more people living on the margins of intelligibility will be

recognized as ‘human’ and reap the benefits of being part of the norm. Butler links

desire with recognition and writes that it is through the experience of recognition that

we become constituted as socially viable beings, which makes us dependent on others

for the validation of our social existence.15 Horley and Clarke also concede that

gaining self-knowledge or self-validation is inherently satisfying even if others

interpret the validation as negative, unpleasant, criminal or threatening.16 Butler insists

that a livable life requires a degree of stability so a life for which no categories of

recognition exist is not a livable life, and a life for which these categories constitute

unlivable constraints is not an acceptable option.17

MATERIAL

13 A. Y. Jackson, and L. A. Mazzei, Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives, Abingdon, Routledge, 2012, p. 23.

14 Bucholz, Mary and Kira Hall, “Theorizing Identity in Language and Sexuality Research”, Language in Society, Vol. 33, No. 4, Cambridge University Press, 2014, p. 491.

15 J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York, Routledge, 2004, p. 2-3.


17 J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York, Routledge, 2004, p. 8.

13

I have chosen to study a specific online discussion that happened during the summer

of 2016 on a Facebook dating page for circa 3 000 queer identified persons. In order

to respect and protect the privacy of the people engaged in this group I will not

disclose the exact name. The Facebook group is primarily used to post personal ads

seeking sex (dates, cuddles, play partners for BDSM etc.) but also caters for persons

looking for friendships, companions or other forms of temporary or lasting intimate,

sexual or platonic relationships. The group is location specific to a larger city in the

United States. It is designated for people that might find alternative online dating

meaningless due to the often times cis-exclusiveness of mainstream dating sites and

apps. For example the popular dating app Tinder provides only two gender options

and the sexuality option for one or both genders, which makes it hard for queer, non-

binary and trans people to fit themselves into these categories.

The group is closed, meaning individuals can only see the content if their request to

join has been approved by one of the administrators/moderators (often in text referred

to as admin or mod) of the page. As far as I am aware there is no system of screening

or validifying process of people wanting to join but it is taken for granted that the

individuals in the group identify with queer sexuality and it is strongly advised in the

description for cis-gendered straight people and heterosexual couples as well as queer

curious persons to refrain from joining the group.

During the time that I was actively engaged in the group there were several instances

of heated political discussions regarding what people posted and how they express

themselves. Often times these discussions concerned racism, misogyny and

transphobia. I chose one particular discussion that arose after one of the founders and

moderators of the page made a public announcement. The post requested that

members refrain from posting gender-specific ads. This sparked a discussion within

the group about how and whether one should be ‘allowed’ to state one’s gender

specific preferences, how this should be done and in what cases this can be useful or

simply exclusionary and in particular transmisogynistic or transphobic. Some of the

comments also referred to power structures in society and how this plays out within

‘queer’ spaces. Arguments for minorities to be allowed to seek out other minorities,

such as trans and people of colour were also advocated for. Some maintained that

sexuality is per definition exclusionary while others argued for a decolonization of our

14

own desires, since we are never completely freed from the socialization of a

patriarchal, racist, classist and ableist society.

The Facebook post containing around 50 comments is a limited material to do a

discourse analysis on and may be questioned whether this has any greater relevance to

a larger discourse on gender and sexuality. There are several reasons why this has

caught my interest and why I believe that this particular discussion will have ripple

effects on the queer community and eventually spread well beyond the confined

spaces of sexual minority groups.

This group is created by and for people whose needs are not met by mainstream

dating options. Thus they together set the rules for how the group shall be used and

through ‘community policing’ boundaries are created. Despite the mods having the

power to remove content and members it is still a democratic process where each

member has the possibility to express their views and influence what will ultimately

be seen as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ within this group. For many this is not only a dating

group but offers a sense of community and the standards that are set in this self

proclaimed queer group will spread through the 3 000 members into the physical

world. Thus I argue that the discussion happening between the 20 commentators is

possibly seen by 3 000 people who themselves might not engage in the post but are

forced to take a stand, or at least consider what their views are on the ‘correct’ use of

language.

METHOD

I chose to use discourse analysis and focus on the meaning and power of written and

spoken language. I found the discussion in the Facebook group to be particularly

important since it shows the issues around sexuality and gender that are still highly

contested and cause both controversy and conflict. The discussion relates to who is

included or excluded and how in our language and how we talk about sexual identity.

Out of the circa 50 comments I chose to focus on the ones that caused the most

dispute and the arguments that were used to defend a certain standpoint. I searched for

the propositions that were offered on what words should be used and how we should

ideally express our sexual desires without harming people through exclusion. My

focus lay on the themes that caused dissonance amongst the group and how attempts

15

were made at coming to a consensus regarding the continued use of language in this

setting.

Discourse analysis is closely tied to power structures since language creates

boundaries, limitations and regulations for our way of thinking and acting. In

Thinking with Theory the authors describe discourse as the social structure and

processes that shape our subjectivities. These are situated within discursive fields,

where language, social institutions, subjectivity and power exist, intersect, and

produce competing ways of giving meaning to and constructing subjectivity.18

Mazzei and Jackson write about subjectivity as inherently unstable, constructed in the

relationships with others and in everyday practices. A persons subjectivity is neither

stabilized nor essentialized by identity categories such as race, class and gender

because ways of existing can depend on social relations, historical experiences,

material conditions and geographic location. The way we take on certain subjective

positions is an ongoing process of becoming through discourse, rather than a static

way of being.19

Kulick and Cameron use an example in their book Language and Sexuality that shows

the implications that a discourse around sex may have on us as individuals. Firstly it

shapes our understanding of sex and how it should be, secondly it informs our

understanding of ourselves as sexual beings, and thirdly it affects our interpretation of

sexual experiences.20 They continue in the spirit of Foucault that the ‘reality’ of sex

does not pre-exist language in which it is expressed but rather, language produces the

categories through which we organize our sexual desires, identities and practices.21

These ideas will be further explored through the analysis of my material. In this essay

18 A. Y. Jackson, and L. A. Mazzei, Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives, Abingdon, Routledge, 2012, p. 65.

19 A. Y. Jackson, and L. A. Mazzei, Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives, Abingdon, Routledge, 2012, p. 65.20

D. Kulick and D. Cameron, Language and Sexuality, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 18.

21 D. Kulick and D. Cameron, Language and Sexuality, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 19.

16

I will attempt at a netnographic study of language socialization within a particular

group, investigating the interwoven process of linguistic and cultural development.

Language is not a representation of reality but rather a means of creating it.22 It

constitutes situations, objects and knowledge, and the social identities between

people. It both sustains and reproduces the social status quo at the same time as it has

the ability of transforming it. Discourse implies that certain acts are permitted and

forms what is intelligible, thinkable.

The question of power lies in the claiming of certain interpretations of reality as

knowledge that then becomes a truth. Bergström and Boréus are inspired by Foucault

and describe disciplinary power as the means that on a micro level use ‘positive’

means to form, create and train the individual.23 They acknowledge that power can

also be described with ‘negative’ functions when we refer to punitive measures and

restrictions. Through my material I will look at the micro level of power negotiations

within a subculture currently negotiating the ‘correct’ use of language and certain

words.

REFLEXIVITY AND SOURCE CRITICISM

The material I have chosen to analyze may not reflect the majority of people that self

identify as queer or even outside the setting of an American dating page on Facebook.

Queer as a concept can be understood and interpreted in various different ways, it can

be a chosen identity by people who defy and subvert norms regarding gender and

sexuality, or an analytic theory that questions what is often seen as ‘natural’ for

example heteronormativity. Buchholz and Hall write that what “queers” the subject of

queer linguistics and queer theory is not sexual orientation but sexual

marginalization.24

22 G. Bergström and K. Boréus, Textens Mening och Makt, metodok i samhällsvetenskaplig text och diskursanalys, Lund, Studentlitteratur, 2012, p. 365.

23 G. Bergström and K. Boréus, Textens Mening och Makt, metodok i samhällsvetenskaplig text och diskursanalys, Lund, Studentlitteratur, 2012, p. 383.

24 Bucholz, Mary and Kira Hall, “Theorizing Identity in Language and Sexuality Research”, Language in Society, Vol. 33, No. 4, Cambridge University Press, 2014, p. 491

17

The Facebook group is location specific to a larger US city but the demographics of

its members exceeding 3 000 people is hard to define. The commentators and their

identities and backgrounds are not specified and it is therefore hard to say who is

taking a leading role in the discussion, e.g. what is their level of education, class, race,

gender and identity and does this affect who has power in this specific discourse? Can

this limited number of voices represent a larger discourse within the community or are

these just a select few that have the confidence of making themselves heard and seen

in an online discussion? On the other hand it is the voices that make themselves seen

and heard that set the parameters for the politics and opinions within a group. I have

chosen to only analyze one specific online discussion but I do believe that this can

represent a broader discussion emerging within the field of sexuality and queer

politics.

One difficulty of studying anything queer is that it per definition eludes any forms of

definition. People who identify as queer may do this in a myriad of ways. It may be

their politics, relationships, sexuality, gender identity/expression or sexual practice.

Despite the intention of queer as defying norms and evading categories it is still

constantly forced into these categories and within the queer community norms are still

being produced and reproduced. There is a lot of internal contestation about who and

what is validified as queer enough. In the comments on this post there is no way of

telling the persons gender, sexuality or race unless they claim or disclose an identity

in their comments. In discussions about gender and race in particular, there is often a

relevance of who has the preferential right of interpretation and that this should in

particular go to voices within groups of minorities or otherwise marginalized

identities.

Another concern has been the ethics of using this material without requesting personal

consent from the people engaging in the post through their comments. An issue today

with the use of Internet and digital communication is the grey zone of public/private

that these spaces administer. The field of netnography is new and the rules of ethics

and jurisdiction around it are still vague and seem to always be lagging one step

behind the development of technology. This is also a question of global politics since

internet is available in nearly all parts of the world so one country’s laws and

legislations would not necessarily apply to another country with the same access to

18

this media. For this thesis I made the decision to contact the original poster/moderator

and ask for their permission to use their quote in my thesis, which they granted.

In the article Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues online: lessons form the

study of British disability dissent networks by Reilly and Trevisan they discussed how

the blurring of boundaries occur between personal and political content on social

media which creates ethical dilemmas for researchers in relation to their responsibility

to protect the privacy of the participants.25 Reilly and Trevisan advocate for an

approach that allows for the use of direct quotes when it is unlikely to prove harmful

to the user but also sets out to provide as much anonymity as possible for those who

disclose sensitive information in these semi-public spaces. Trevisan and Reilly

conclude that qualitative research is fundamental to understanding the impact of

social media on society but assert that creative solutions are necessary to ensure that

we can meet the challenges of the digital era.26

ANALYSIS

In this section I will introduce and analyze a few quotes from the Facebook post that I

found to be valuable for understanding the internal problematics of language and

sexuality as seen in a part of a queer community. The original post generated 77 likes

and 50 comments. The analysis has been divided into themes that were relevant in the

material and I have picked out a few quotes that point at the linguistic disunity within

the community. Through the method of discourse analysis I will attempt at providing

a broader understanding of the negotiation of words and concepts being developed

and contested.

GENDER AND SEXUALITY

The main theme of this analysis and material is the relationship between gender and

sexuality and how we are to understand their dependence or perhaps independence 25 F. Trevisan and P. Reilly, “Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues online: Lessons from the study of British disability dissent networks”, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 17, no. 9, 2014, p. 1131.

26 F. Trevisan and P. Reilly, “Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues online: Lessons from the study of British disability dissent networks”, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 17, no. 9, 2014, p. 1142.

19

from one another. I will begin by introducing the two quotes from the moderator's

post (referred to as OP meaning original poster) that prompted the debate:

All these posts being gender specific is harmful to the people u are blatantly excluding – not to

mention no one can assume anyone’s gender – so change the language, or take ur gender

specific posts down.

And further down the comments the moderator replies:

Be open to what comes ur way. Having gender preferences is not queer. We are trying to

deconstruct that idea all together.

The moderator's motivation for this was due to a series of personal ads seeking people

with certain assigned sexes at birth (abbreviated ASAB, AFAB for female or AMAB

for male). This post exclaims that part of queer politics is to completely dissolve and

transcend gender through embracing a form of pansexuality. It also proposes a non-

gender based sexuality by pointing out that specific genitals should not act as a valid

requirement for queer conscious dating.

Diane Richardson writes in her essay Patterned Fluidities that during the 19th century

it was mainly the theories of biologists, medical researchers, psychologists and

sexologists that dominated the understanding of gender and sexuality. A key

characteristic of these assumptions where that gender and sexuality are natural

phenomena and the relationship between them is universal and fixed. There was

believed to be a natural order of the dualism, binaries and the complementary polarity

of male/female, heterosexual/homosexual, and masculine/feminine.27 Foucault seems

bemused and confounded by the disjointment in the development of knowledge

between the biology of reproduction, which developed continuously according to a

general scientific normativity and a medicine of sex conforming to quite different

rules of formation. The second, which would find traditional fears to be recast in a

scientific-sounding vocabulary. Foucault exclaims that it is as if a fundamental

27 Diane Richardson, ‘Patterned Fluidities: (Re)Imagining the Relationship between Gender and Sexuality’, Sociology, vol. 41 no. 3, 2007, p. 459.

20

resistance blocked the development of a rationally formed discourse concerning

human sex, its correlations, and its effects.28

Richardson expands the analysis of gender and sexuality by theorizing the links

between them and opening up to allowing a more complex and diverse understanding.

She gives the example of the possibility of thinking about sexualities without genders,

where sexual desires, practices and identities do not depend on a person’s gender for

their meaning.29 Is sexuality inherently gendered, is it intelligible outside a gendered

discourse? Can we see gender as merely one of many aspects of sexuality? Butler

states that transgendered lives are the evidence of the breakdown of any lines of

causal determinism between sexuality and gender.30 Richardson’s theories regarding

the relationship between gender and sexuality acknowledges the fluidity, instability

and fragmentation of identities and a plurality of subject positions. She views gender

and sexuality as sharing an intra-connectedness that is not determinate or

unidirectional. Instead of viewing it as completely random, unstructured and chaotic

she proposes a kind of patterned fluidity to the relationship between gender and

sexuality.

IDENTITY AND PRESENTATION

One recent trend I have observed that avoids essentialist gender language is by using

gender expression or aesthetic when talking about ones interest in a certain type of

person. It is common to see in ads that people specify their gender identity (cis, trans

or non-binary) as well as their gender expression such as feminine (femme) or

masculine (masc). Here are two comments on differentiating between gender identity

and gender expression:

28 Michel Foucault, The history of sexuality. Volume I. An introduction.Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 54.

29 Diane Richardson, “Patterned Fluidities: (Re)Imagining the Relationship between Gender and Sexuality”, Sociology, vol. 41 no. 3, 2007, p. 463.


21

But what about things I see that are femme for femme? Masc for masc? Should folks really be

policed on who they desire to be with? Once it does not reach the realm of racism, colorism,

fetishization, transphobia, cis-sexism, ableism and fatphobia?

I think it’s a bit oppressive to say folks can’t have a preference. But I also think there are ways

to not be shitty and gross about preferences.

And an answer to the previous comment:

Except masc and femme aren’t independent genders and they’re expressions or presentations

of ones gender identity so this logic doesn’t even hold up because f4f and m4m aren’t gender

specific. The issue is the blatant transmisogyny.

This person seems to point out that we may be attracted to certain expressions of

gender, but need to consciously include gender variations such as people that identify

as non-binary or trans. Identities as feminine and masculine are more inclusive and

don’t denote a certain gender.

I would like to raise the question of differentiating between sexuality and sexual

identity. Cameron and Kulick write that sexual identity is merely one aspect of

sexuality and that the study of language and sexuality needs to move beyond the

exclusive focus on identity in order to explain the many ways in which sexuality is

materialized and conveyed through language.31 They see sexuality as a social and

psychological phenomenon that both exceeds and sometimes contradicts the sexual

identities that people consciously claim or disclaim.32

Sexuality relates to sexual practice, desires, who, how, when, with what and where,

for what reason one wants to express or perform sex and intimacy. Sexuality can, but

does not directly, determine a persons sexual identity. Ideally sexual identity is self-

claimed, but as mentioned previously in this essay, this is not always the case. If a

person of a certain gender expresses desire towards a person of a certain gender others

often identify them as this or that. One example of a positive shift in the field of

medicine is that men who have sex with men are not referred to as gay or homosexual

but the group is talked about as MSM (abbreviation of men who have sex with men),

which is a sexual act that they perform and not what they identify as.

31 D. Kulick and D. Cameron, “Identity Crisis?”, Language & Communication, 2005, p. 109.

32 D. Kulick and D. Cameron, “Identity Crisis?”, Language & Communication, 2005, p. 113.

22

There are as I see it several ways of identifying and expressing gender. Firstly there is

the assigned gender at birth, designated to an infant by a medical professional based

on the child's genitals, then there is gender identity and gender presentation.

For example one comment says:

A lot of time people use masc and femme as categories for presentation.

For instance, I am femme ID. But because of the clothes I wear people think I’m masc. I don't

comment on many posts because I think they are looking for someone who reflects classic

femininity, which is fine but makes me wonder where I fit. Because I don't consider myself

masc of center.

It seems to me that this commentator is suggesting that femme and masc are not

necessarily connected to an exterior or aesthetic but as a personality identity that is

not connected to one’s gender identity. The comments in the discussion seem fairly

unanimous about gender identity being fundamentally different from ASAB (assigned

sex at birth). If gender expression and identity are seen as legitimate focuses for our

desires, what then happens when the gender dichotomy is blurred? What if there was

no aesthetic differentiation between the two genders? This is in my experience what

many queer, non-binary and trans people are doing by not adhering in their identities

or exteriors to the dichotomy of female/male.

I wonder if OP has a very radical but legitimate point. Is it conceivable that we cease

in founding our sexualities on gender? Butler believes that sexuality does not follow

from gender in the sense that what gender you “are” determines what kind of

sexuality you will “have”. Butler proceeds with the question “Am I a gender after all?

And do I “have” a sexuality?”.33

GENDER SPECTRUMS

The following comment discusses the importance of differentiating between gender

identity and gender essentialism:

I seriously don’t see how ‘I am looking to hook up with girls [with no specifications as to

ASAB]’ is a problem on that level? Like, I see nothing exclusionary about someone

advertising that they are interested in dating people with a specific gender- and I don’t


23

altogether buy that ‘femme’ or ‘masc’ is different; you could argue that ‘girl’ or ‘boy’ also

covers a range of different genders, just along a different spectrum.

(...)

To be totally clear: The post that (I think? The one where someone was specifying AFAB ppl

as her target audience, right?) prompted this one was seriously disgusting. I just think ‘gender

specific posts’ are a separate issue from gross gender essentialism, and also kind of a weird

thing to focus on if what you’re actually aiming to do is set community standards that reduce

the amount of overt transmisogyny/transphobia in posts.

This commentator brings up a theory of a plurality of gender spectrums. As

previously mentioned there might be a gender identity as well as a gender expression

or presentation that may or may not be the same as your ASAB. The use of ‘boi’ and

‘gurl’ for example are colloquial terms often used in the LGBTQ community. A boi

could be a young butch, a lesbian tomboy or a trans guy in early transitioning. A gurl

is commonly used by drag queens and gay men (in particular amongst people of

colour in America) but was also popularized by the political feminist punk movement

riot grrrls. We have learned to play with gender both in language and presentation.

One might present as high femme but prefer a gender-neutral pronoun or one could

have a masectomy and still go by she.

There are so many different ways for people to interpret and express gender and the

development has happened very rapidly during the past few years especially due to

the trans movement and a growing intersex movement.

LANGUAGE

Through a discourse analysis on this material I look at what words are used and how

people in this group are active agents in creating meaning. A process of knowledge

solidification and equalization is apparent in the comments. Anyone who reads the OP

is prompted to consider their own way of vocalizing their desires and identities and

the inherent political implication of such actions.

Kulick and Cameron quote Immanuel Kant who argued that language both gives us

our world of experience, and also keeps us from perceiving the world in an

unmediated form.34 This serves as a reminder that words are simply an attempt at 34 D. Kulick and D. Cameron, “Introduction: Language and desire in theory and practice”, Language & Communication, vol. 23, 2003, p. 96.

24

trying to understand our surroundings and ourselves but can never fully encompass

any form of universal truth. Words are merely representations, highly sensitive to

individual interpretation. This needs to be kept in mind when discussing identity and

sexuality that have come to mean very different things to different people. One also

needs to consider the fact that groups, institutions and politicians are through various

means trying to influence, control, negotiate and solidify the definition of these

extensive concepts. Horley and Clark discuss personal construct theory in their essay

Constructing Sexuality: A theory of stability and fluidity and believe that events are

completely void of meaning until we take or make meaning from our encounters with

the physical or social world.35 Our interpretation is the very essence of experience.

These constructs and interpretations are in turn mediated through the language

available to us.

Cameron and Kulick pose a highly relevant question when they ask, “How can an

analyst of language study the unconscious processes of prohibition, repression and

fantasy? How can they begin to get at what is not said or what cannot be said in the

sample of discourse they are analyzing?”.36 I agree that it is equally important, when

studying a particular discourse, to look at what is said as well as what is omitted in

speech. What is yet unspeakable and unknowable? What I find interesting is the

language in the twilight zone, new words forming in the foggy distance. In the current

discourse on sexuality, where do we find the words and tendencies that might be part

in changing or forming the future of sexuality, gender and identity? Queen and

Schimel suggested two decades ago that we introduce the concept of pomosexuality.37

This idea wasn't picked up at the time and instead the word queer was largely

incorporated into daily speech within the LGBT community and academics and has

largely shaped the way sexuality is understood today. Butler says in Gender Trouble

that it would be a mistake to think that received grammar is the best vehicle for

radical views; given the constraints that grammar imposes on thought and even upon



37 C. Queen and L. Schimel, Pomosexuals: Challenging Assumptions about Gender and Sexuality, Cleis Press, 1997.

25

the thinkable itself.38 This is why the need for minorities to create our own words,

language and meaning is so important. Kulick and Cameron write that even in the

queer community, founded on the idea of openness to a multiplicity of desires, it

seems language sets limits on what desires can be made intelligible.39 Within the

community there are strong voices advocating for whom, how and what gets to be

included under the rainbow umbrella.

QUEER

D. Travers Scott gives us a poignant visual in Pomosexuals explaining the

hopelessness in basing your identity on sexuality. He poses the question “if gender is

fluid, how can sexual ‘orientation’ not be as well? How can you be rigidly ‘oriented’

towards something that is amorphous, shifting, fluid, tricky, and elusive? Basing your

identity on sexuality is like building a house on pudding.”.40

Scott is critical of the policing of identity boundaries and writes that he is personally

more inclined towards the bi, transgender, S/M and kink movements where sexuality

is often less of an issue, compared to certain groups like the gay and lesbian

communities that are often accused of separatism. Scott sees this strict policing of

identities and use of symbols and signifiers as a right-wing project resembling both

fascism and conservatism seeing sexuality-based identities as unrealistic due to the

unstable notion of sex and gender.41 One reason why the kinksters and people

involved in BDSM might have been less protective of their identity boundaries and

spaces is likely because they have not been persecuted and deemed as a type in the

way that homosexuals have endured and experienced violence and exclusion.

Separatism and a strong sense of identity has been a way of survival through

38 J. Butler, Gender Trouble- Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge, 1999


40 C. Queen and L. Schimel, Pomosexuals: Challenging Assumptions about Gender and Sexuality, Cleis Press, 1997, p. 66.


26

community and the protection, safety and recognition that this offers as well as

political strength in the unity of a larger group of people.

One of the commentators in the FB group would probably agree with Scott in the

desire to escape the idea that we can be determined as people based on our sexual

desires.

It isn't wrong having preferences. And one person can’t determine what it means to be queer.

THAT mindset, that someone else can define how we identify, is what we’re trying to

deconstruct, not having preferences (even gender specific).

While this person disagrees with other people setting the parameters of what is and is

not the right way to ‘be queer’ they also reiterate that as queers we should be actively

deconstructing identities and sexualities that others have given us. But how do we go

about this deconstruction? Would pansexuality not be exactly that, by not specifying

any gender identity, ASAB or gender expression as part of your sexual identity? Or

should we perhaps start to sever our sexualities from our identities? Would this be

possible in a society that still strongly associates us as a ‘type’ because of our

romantic, erotic and sexual connections- thus by default identifying us.

The very act of acquiring an identity means in a way accepting an accompanying set

of pre-existing expectations and assumptions. Butler writes that one only determines

“one’s own” sense of gender to the extent that social norms exist that support and

enable that act of claiming gender for oneself. One is thus dependent on this “outside”

to express what is ones notion of self.42

LABELS

The labels for sexuality available today were not created by ‘us’ or for ‘us’, speaking

as part of the queer community, but by medical and legal institutions to control,

pathologize and normalize us. So we need to question whether the

reclamation/incorporation/internalization/identification of and with these words work

in our favour or ultimately to our disadvantage. Words contain power and this

malleable power can be renegotiated and repossessed through actions and relations 42 J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York, Routledge, 2004, p. 7.

27

between individuals on a local level as well as on a global level. Foucault recounts

how the various institutions began producing discourses on sex by attempts at

controlling and prohibiting it. In medicine there were in the 18th and 19th century

“nervous disorders”, in psychiatry they discovered mental illnesses focusing on

onanism, frustration and perversion and criminal justice was highly concerned with

sexualities referred to as “crimes against nature”.43

Foucault mentioned that for a very long time hermaphrodites (today called intersex

persons) were criminals since their anatomical disposition confounded the law that

distinguished the sexes and prescribed their union.44 Up until this very day it is

common praxis that babies born with genital ambiguity, while their bodies may be

fully functional and not cause the person any physical harm or discomfort, undergo

surgical modification so that they will fit into the norms of what a male or female

body should look like. This proves how strongly society values a clear distinction

between the two genders and is unwilling to create space for intersex, trans and

gender non-conforming people.

Foucault writes about the persecution of peripheral sexualities that entailed a new

specification of individuals. He famously writes that the 19th century homosexual

became a personage, a past, a case history, and a childhood. Nothing that went into

the persons total composition was unaffected by his sexuality. Sodomy was no longer

a temporary aberration of a sinful act but was becoming an identity.45

Foucault reminisces a few definitions of sexual and gender deviants given by

psychiatrists in an attempt at categorizing and understanding in order to ultimately

curing/eliminating these individuals. There were names such as auto-monosexualists,

mixoscophiles, gynecomasts, presbyophiles, sexoesthetic inverts and dyspareunist

women.46 Today a similar trend is occurring within the queer community where new


44 Michel Foucault, The history of sexuality. Volume I. An introduction.Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 38.45 Michel Foucault, The history of sexuality. Volume I. An introduction.Penguin Books, London, 1990, p. 42.


28

words are created to define a multitude of sexualities, genders and identities with the

purpose of acceptance rather than penance. A few examples might be gender

expressions such as femme, tomboy, masculine of center or gender identities for

example gender non-conforming, fluid, non-binary, transfeminine/masculine or it

might be gender expression mixed with sexuality like butch, twink, lipstick lesbian,

bear or sexualities like pansexual, sapiosexual, ace or demisexual to name a few

recently occurring words relating to gender and sexuality.

We need to continuously ask ourselves if these constructed identities create

opportunities for self-realization. Who reaps these benefits and who is still excluded

from the privileges of becoming a subject of these identities? Who is excluded or

forced to compromise themselves in order to fit into these categories?

COMMUNITY

Kate Bornstein writes in the introduction to Pomosexuals questioning whether words

themselves are in fact a danger in the defining of community. Can allowing anyone at

all to define the identities being politicized solve the problem of suffocating identity

politics? Or would a better solution be the abandonment of politicized identities in

favour of the politics of values?47 She writes shortly of her own identity journey that

she starting out as a heterosexual man who transitioned into becoming a lesbian girl

but when her partner transitioned into a man, retaining a lesbian identity became too

complicated. The following comment offers similar thoughts to Bornsteins of how

words and identities have acted as means for gaining power and recognition but

simultaneously this has resulted in negative implications for the ones that get rejected.

This omission of certain identities is experienced by some as an act of queer policing,

meaning the micro control mechanisms within the community.

This post/thread is everything that is wrong with queer policing of queer people. And part of

the reason being queer is still not being taken seriously in some spaces.. Why are we policing

ourselves when we already get enough of that from cis exclusively hetero people and society?


29

A reason why this happens in ‘the queer community’ may be that it has been built on

an idea that queer identity implies shared experiences, politics and ideals. It is clear

that queerness is highly contested as to what exactly it is and this study only further

proves the elusiveness of both gender and sexuality. Intersectional feminism has

helped point out that we all have subjective experiences and that

privilege/disadvantage can be multiple and contextual. As Bornstein said, it may be

time to create a community based on values and affinity and not a community of

identities in order to achieve political change.

EXCLUSION

In the next comment the person defends another commentator who here is referred to

as XXX that feels excluded from the community for dating a cis male and being

perceived as living in a heterosexual relationship.

XXX is bringing up the very real issue of BI, PAN, and QUEER erasure within the ‘queer

community’ which totally fits within the OPs blanket statement about gender based exclusion.

Her feelings of exclusion from this group are a real problem, and to take her post a step farther

the fact that there are a lot of queer cis men (read: not exclusively or at all gay identified) that

will not post in this group because they are ‘blatantly excluded’ by most of the posts actively

rejecting them is a problem that is within the parameters of the OPs request to be addressed.

Our goal as a community should not be to simply flip an oppressive system on its head and

put every identity that has been marginalized at the top and allow us to make those identities

currently in power (keeping in mind that this system of ‘oppression olympics’ing is in fact

impossible because we all hold a variety of privileged and marginalized identities...) feel

worthless, but instead to be inclusive and kind and keep space open for people in the

community.

This comment criticizes the we/them dichotomy that is created when anything

remotely heteronormative is rejected, which might specifically affect bi- and

pansexuals or other fluid sexualities that are not as visibly “queer”. The person uses

the phrase ‘oppression olympics’ criticizing how people seem to compete based on

their level of intersecting minority identities. Transwomen of colour are subjected to

high levels of discrimination and violence while the white cis male is on the top of the

hierarchy that creates a hostile environment within the community towards white cis-

30

passing males regardless of their personal queer identities. The commentator wants to

point out that even in the queer community that strives to be inclusive and give space

to minorities does in fact create a closed group where many people based on their

identities will feel left out.

Butler ends the preface to Gender Trouble expressing hopes for a coalition of sexual

minorities that will transcend categories of identity and be based on an irreducible

complexity of sexuality and its implication in discursive and institutional power.48

Another discussion in the comments that also vocalizes a hostility towards

straightness is when one of the commentators who identifies as a transman expressed

his desires for feminine women. Here is one of the reactions to his statement:

(...) I don't think trans ppl embodying cisheteropatriarchy in their desires is anything but 1:1

straight. It’s not actually subversive to be a dominant sleazy masculine partner if yr a man

who seeks out women.

This commentator is averse to queerness impersonating heteronormativity. When a

trans person identifies as heterosexual does this mean they can easily assimilate into

heteronormativity? Or is a cis-gendered body a prerequisite for recognized

heterosexuality? The comment below offers another response to the discussion of

straightness versus queerness by stating that there are people of genders and

sexualities that may be defying certain sexual norms but don't identify themselves as

queer:

Is this group queer, or should the name be changed to “QT”? Not all trans people are queer, as

was mentioned on that status. And a lot of you trans mens seem really binary and only wanna

date women or femme folk. That’s fine. Live your best and authentic life. But that sounds

pretty straight? Therefore this being a “QT” group would make more sense, just logically.

(Authors note, QT stands for queer and trans)

This demonstrates how differently people perceive their sexuality, queerness and

politicalness. Cameron and Kulick believe that we can claim or disclaim identities

however I propose that identity can only come into being as an interpersonal construct

in a negotiated process. It demands affirmation and acknowledgement of others,

48 J. Butler, Gender Trouble- Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge, 1999.

31

which as I have previously stated, is discursively constituted through our use of

language.

POLITICAL SEXUALITY

This next comment talks about the political meaning of being queer and how it should

be practiced:

If queer is deconstructing, is it consistent with that ideology to ask others to not say they have

specific interests? Problematic language/exclusionary practice should be called out. But at

some point, the queerest thing we can do is allow people to openly express desire.

It is of course of utmost importance that all desires are permitted as long as they do

not non-consensually hurt or impose themselves upon others. But as some of the

commentators have pointed out, desires are not innate states of being, encrypted in

our DNA (well, it is yet to be convincingly proven by science). Desires, just like

many of our other interests in life are affected by our culture and surroundings.

Some argue that sexuality and desire is genetically determined, one that can not be

controlled while others claim that biology only plays a part of it and that we do have

the ability to choose our own sexuality.

This brings me to the discussion of political sexuality. In the 70’s certain radical

feminists as a way of using separatism to fight sexism practiced political lesbianism.

Camilla Kolm studied a small group of political lesbians who disagreed with the idea

that sexuality is something that comes from the inside and they instead presented a

radical constructivism, in which identity and sexuality are constantly, consciously

reshaped.49 Rather than being controlled by their desires they choose when, were and

how and with who they create sexual relationships. Some people in the Facebook

discussion have expressed similar views such as arguing for T4T (meaning trans

person seeking trans person) or people of colour choosing to only date/befriend other

people of colour. This points at the fact that power structures in society can affect how

we chose to form intimate bonds and make decisions to include or exclude certain

identities from our relationships.

Here are two examples of this:

49 C. Kolm, “Politisk lesbisk i senmodern tid”, Sexualitetens omvandlingar. Politisk lesbiskhet, unga kristna och machokulturer, Johansson, T and Lalander, P. 2003.

32

Can we post t4t ads to not deal with certain things? Cause lately I’ve ben feeling like I should

only seek out trans people because they tend to understand trans stuff better.

Here follows a response:

Wouldnt that create a cis4cis implication tho? I mean, one can self-select to only reply to trans

identified ppl w/o “t4t”.

The second comment proposes that if one group can do it then the other may as well.

This is where current power dynamics make it more complicated to create ‘same rules

apply to all’. Trans people have lived in fear of disclosure and being outed with risk

of violence or rejection, so being t4t could be a means of survival, to create safe and

understanding relationships with people that share similar experiences. It may be seen

as less of a preference and more as a political decision. The comment below reiterates

this by permitting minority groups to cruise for one another in a similar Facebook

dating group:

I took and modified the description from this group to start XXX Queer Cruising and it

definitely didn’t include anything about ‘don’t include any gender preferences.’ The rules I

enforce over there are basically: no genital preferences, no ASAB preferences (unless you’re

t4t), and generally minoritized groups can cruise explicitly for each other (being a trans dyke

of colour, I can say I’m looking for other twoc).” (Authors note, the name of the city has been

replaced with XXX).

Gender binary essentialism is often connected to the LGB letters and has been

problematized by the transgender and queer community for being cis-exclusive and

carries a separatist notion. The comment below is highly critical of this:

We all gotta unpack our desirability. I’ve met way too many (cis) “lesbians” that when they

say “lesbian” they mean have a rigid attraction for other cis women. That shit is up for a heavy

side eye cuz I’m just like “okay nigga”. Decolonize, decolonize, decolonize your cis-ness.

The queer movement along with third wave and intersectional feminisim has played a

big part in moving away from previously cis-separatist groups and spaces towards

more gender diverse and inclusive politics. Even though the spaces and politics have

33

become more aware and inclusive it seems as though peoples desires and sexualities

have remained rigidly cis-normative.

FETISCHISM

The following commentator a draws upon the similarities between that of kinks and

fetishes to the attraction to a particular gender.

Honestly it’s just that these people have a fetish. It’ a vagina fetish. Like I’m not going to kink

shame them just call it what it is people.

This commentator has clearly reacted to the posts desiring only a certain ASAB, or as

they interpret it this must mean that people have a sexual interest in only a certain

type of genital. This poses the question, are we attracted to a body or a being? If we

can have an affinity towards feet or body hair, could we in a similar way be attracted

to a certain type of genital? Or is it as some of the commentators have stated, that we

are attracted to a Butlerian version of gender as the performance of either masculinity

or femininity? Could it be that our main sexuality is directed towards gender but that

within our sexualities lay sub-sexualities that are related to other categories?

Pat Califia points out in Pomosexuals that certain identities blur the boundaries that

have been set up to differentiate one from the other. Califia gives the example of

bisexuals that often end up in an undefined area between gays and straights.

Transgender people blur the lines between men and women and S/M people challenge

the whole idea that sexual orientation ought to be based on gender in the first place,

since many kinksters and fetischists care more about other aspects of their sexual

partners than what might be between their legs.50

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Perhaps one day in the future when we have completely dismantled gender

socialization, sexism and patriarchal values, then sexuality and sexual identity might


34

be relevant. Today our lives are still highly affected by our genders and sexualities,

especially if they fall outside of what is considered to be normal.

In a Butlerian spirit of performativity and Foucaultian theories on power I have

attempted to deconstruct the idea of sexuality being based on a gender binary.

Through Foucalts A History of Sexuality I have been able to see the material for this

study in relation to history and language development that proves to show how much

these concepts have changed over the past couple of centuries. Butler recently

introduced theories regarding the social construction of gender that challenges the

idea that gender is natural.

I set out on a mission to do a linguistic forecast into the topic of sexuality by looking

at contemporary queer activism as acted out in colloquial speech in an online dating

forum. Are there signs of any tectonic shifts in the arena of gender and sexuality? Are

we moving away from phrasing sexuality as a reference to an essentialist idea of

gender as a binary? What are the alternatives, how is language changing?

The material in this study illustrates the complexities and contention surrounding

sexuality. One reason why progress has been so slow on this front may have been due

to the difficulties in finding unanimity in the struggle towards equality. Perhaps this is

the lesson learned, that we need to continue listening to all the different voices and

multitude of experiences. We need to practice an openness to the fluidity of sexuality

and not strive towards narrowing and reducing it but rather opening up to the infinite

possibilities of each individual. Could we work towards creating a society that

encourages self-exploration? Could we permit each person to pursue intimate

relationships and desires without fear of shame, stigma or risk of being confined

within a category placed upon them inhibiting their freedom of expression?

Before deciding on my material and method for this essay I thought I wanted to study

queer feminist fantasy to find radical and utopian ideas of a possible future of gender

and sexuality. I realized that I didn’t necessarily need to look at science fiction to

discern visionary fantasies. They lay right before me, in our language, politics and

what we do with our bodies. In my analysis I tried to distinguish these fantasies that

people are striving to bring into reality. Butler writes beautifully of the importance of

fantasy as an articulation of the possible, the not yet actualized. She believes that

fantasy is what allows us to imagine others and ourselves otherwise; it points

35

elsewhere, and when it is embodied it brings elsewhere home.51 Butler uses drag,

butch, femme and transgender persons as exemplifying this by making us question

what is real through challenging norms and introducing new modes of reality. The

material and the comments showed me a diverse collection of experiences seeking

validation and striving to create a common truth, knowledge and ultimately

recognition. I don’t see these internal battles as a failure or negative disagreement but

a valuable and needed platform where those who are the most affected are creating an

environment for themselves. If these discourses don’t happen within the queer

community then we will continue to be controlled by other discourses in power with

agendas that don’t always work in our favour.

I believe that the language we have today fails to acknowledge the complexities that

we experience as beings and especially with regards to sexuality. We need to continue

fracturing, bending and opening up knowledge that is recognized as truth with

alternative visions of new possibilities of being. We need to question, “Who does this

knowledge serve and who is still struggling to be seen, recognized and trying to lead a

livable life?”.

As this essay has illustrated, gender is a lot more complex than what is currently

recognized within institutions such as the law, physical and mental health care and

certain social media that are structured around a strict gender binary model and based

on a heteronormative way of living. Butler states that when we struggle for rights, we

are not simply struggling for rights that attach to my person, but we are struggling to

be conceived as persons.52

What can we do to include the people living at the margins or even outside our limits

of understanding? In fact, I should probably not speak of ‘the ones’ as a group of yet

to be discovered category but rather acknowledge that we could all reap the benefits

of a more inclusive language and attitude. One that would permit us to expand our

own sexualities in a more open and tolerant society where we are not branded with an

identity based on what gender we engage in sexually and erotically. Butler writes that

life histories are histories of becoming, and categories can sometimes act to freeze

that process of becoming.53

51 J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York, Routledge, 2004, p. 28.52

J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York, Routledge, 2004, p. 32.

53 J. Butler, Undoing Gender, New York, Routledge, 2004, p.80.

36

Queen and Schimel express their gratitude to anthropologists, sexologists and students

of sex in history for the documentation of how differently sexual behaviour and

sexual and gender identity can be coded in different places at different times. Thanks

to this transhistorical and crosscultural perspective we are able to see the diversity that

exists and has existed but more importantly the diversity that may exist due to the

relentless process of cultural change.54 They believe that pomosexuals, and I add

queers and others who don’t fit into current patterns of sexuality norms, might point

the way towards this new future. Butler writes in Gender Trouble that the aim of her

text is to open up the field of possibility for gender without dictating what those

possibilities ought to be. She argues that anyone who has understood what it is like to

live in the social world as impossible, unrealizable, unreal or illegitimate would not

question the need for opening up for possibilities.55

I believe that after reclaiming identities such as gay and queer the next step in the

development would be to continue decolonizing the words that were initially used to

harm us, by completely disclaiming them. Butler warns us that “the mobilization of

identity categories for the purpose of politicization always remain threatened by the

prospect of identity becoming an instrument of the power one opposes”.56 The

colonization is seen as done to us by a heteronormative society set out to control and

subordinate any deviant gender/sexuality. After having these identities forced upon us

by authorities in power trying to subjugate us we managed (and are still fighting) to

reclaim and regain our power of self-definition by taking the language and filling it

with new meaning, pride and confidence as well as creating a community. Once we

have succeeded in being accepted in, and as part of the norm we need to continue

standing up for the ones that are still at the margins. I am fully aware that the

propositions I am making are currently not relevant to the vast majority of people

within the queer and LGBT spectrum and there are still very few of us privileged




37

enough to lead lives that are relatively non-affected by our sexualities and genders in

any negative sense. Kulick and Cameron approach the subject of activism saying that

few who advocate renaming do so because they believe that this change of label will

immediately eliminate material disadvantage. Rather the renaming could be seen as a

challenge to the ideological structures which make the subordinate status of a group

appear natural, acceptable and inevitable.57

57 D. Kulick and D. Cameron, Language and Sexuality, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 25.

38

REFERENCE LIST

Bergstrom, Göran and Kristina Boréus (2012)

Textens mening och makt, metodbok i samhällsvetenskaplig text och diskursanalys.

Lund: Studentlitteratur AB

Bucholz, Mary and Kira Hall (2014)

Theorizing Identity in Language and Sexuality Research

Language in Society, Vol. 33, No.4 pp. 469-515

Cambridge University Press

Butler, Judith (1999)

Gender Trouble- Feminism and the Subversion of Identity

New York: Routledge

Butler, Judith (2004)

Undoing Gender

New York: Routledge

Foucault, Michel (1990)

The History of Sexuality. Volume I. An Introduction.

London: Penguin Books (originally published 1976)

Galupo, Paz, Johanna L. Ramirez and Lexi Pulice-Farrow (2016)

‘’Regardless of Their Gender’’: Descriptions of Sexual Identity among Bisexual,

Pansexual, and Queer Identified Individuals.

Journal of Bisexuality, nr 9, pp. 1-17

Haseldon, Lucy and Theodore Joloza (2009)

Measuring Sexual Identity: A guide for researchers

Household, Labour Market and Social Wellbeing Division

Office for National Statistics

Newport

39

Horley, James and Jan Clarke (2016)

Constructing Sexuality: A Theory of Stability and Fluidity

Sexuality & Culture, nr 20, pp. 906-922.

Jackson, Alecia Y. and Lisa A. Mazzei (2012)

Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple

perspectives.

Abingdon: Routledge

Kolm, Camilla (2003)

‘Politisk lesbisk i senmodern tid’

Sexualitetens Omvandlingar. Politisk lesbiskhet, unga kristna och machokulturer

(Johansson, T and Lalander, P.)

Gothenburg: Diadalos

Kulick, Don & Deborah Cameron (2005)

Identity Crisis?

Language & Communication 25, pp. 107-125


Language and Sexuality

Cambridge University Press


Introduction: Language and desire in theory and practice

Language & Communication, 23, pp. 93-105

Richardson, Diane (2007)

Patterned Fluidities: (Re)Imagining the Relationship between Gender and Sexuality

Sociology, 41 (3): 457-74

SAGE Publications

Rubin, Gayle (1984)

Thinking Sex, Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality

40

Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality (Carole S. Vance)

Routledge & Kegan, Paul

Sell, Randall (1997)

Defining and measuring Sexual Orientation: A Review

Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vil. 26, No. 6. Pp. 643-658

Trevisan, Filippo and Paul Reilly (2014)

Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues online: lessons from the study of

British disability dissent networks

Information, Communication & Society, 17:9, 1131-1146

Queen, Carol and Schimel, Lawrence (1997)

Pomosexuals: Challenging Assumptions about Gender and Sexuality

Cleis Press

41

gupea.ub.gu.se Web viewIn the text the word plurisexual is used to ... One reason why the kinksters...

Documents

Transcript of gupea.ub.gu.se Web viewIn the text the word plurisexual is used to ... One reason why the kinksters...