In the book chapter "A Cartography of Identity" by Almaguer Tomas, Tomas states that homosexuality in Mexico is portrayed very differently in Mexico than it is in the United States. While in the U.S., only a single "homosexual" act could cause a man to be labeled as a homosexual, "a Mexican man's masculine gender and heterosexual identity are not threatened by a homosexual act as long as he plays the inserter's role." This was very interesting to me in two ways: the discrepancy between the way homosexuality is construed in two separate regions and the way "masculinity" and the role that one plays in sexual activity are so deeply entangled within each other. The vast difference in the way the same behavior is looked upon between two countries revealed in this book chapter reminded me of the post on this blog called "Fashion Style as a Form of Expression" in which the same outfit donned by two men in different locations are getting opposite responses. Using this evidence, it is apparent that the way sexuality is portrayed is largely influenced by culture.
However, Tomas continues by stating, "Only the male who plays the passive sexual role and exhibits feminine gender characteristics is considering to be truly homosexual and is, therefore, stigmatized." Why is that one's perception of identity has so much to do with the phallus? It seems like very often times, whenever a distinction is made between who is "superior" and "inferior," it is connected with the physical body parts. In this way, it can be argued that the physical sexual differences between males and females play more of a role in dominance and gender inequality than personal or cultural differences. This would connect with the idea that the pregnant man is not really a "man" because s/he does not have the "right" sexual characteristics. By connecting the two ideas, it can be expressed that gender identity is not solely correlated with one aspect, rather it is embedded into a complex web, or as Tomas calls it "cartography," of characteristics that seek to differentiate and categorize people.
What you noted in the first paragraph of your post renders "scientific claims" very problematic, as Science looks at the physical in a way that may be very different from yet another "Scientific" look belonging to or deriving from a different cultural context/cartography.
ReplyDelete