Angry at Author!

I found this article in the Daily Trojan very shocking, especially because just two weeks ago, USC as school showed their acceptance of cross-dressers as they hosted a Drag Ball. This kind of writing, although not directly attacking transgender people, was very inconsiderate, as well as obviously didn't understand the full circumstances of this issue of gender identity. It's pretty clear the writer has never taken a gender studies class ;). But in all seriousness, it's true. Referring to a sex change as a "personal decision" and that "people who choose to identify themselves in a different way need to be aware of the effects of such decisions" just seems like the writer is unknowledgeable. Although considered a 'choice' to go through sex change surgery, there is never a 'choice' about which gender someone wants to be. Everyone feels differently inside, and in relation to Queer Theory and desire, perhaps there is never a way to really connect with just one gender, just one sexual orientation. It is important to understand that desire is always changing, and had this author examined the issue from a more open minded view, the tone may not have been as inconsiderate.

The author goes on to explain that " We should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender." So the author is suggesting that we should be more accepting of these people that are unable to accept someone for who they are? Wow. This line really shocked me. The fact that we shouldn't be accepting of someone who is merely expressing their desires baffles me. I thought the entire point of anti-discrimination was to allow people to expresses themselves in any way they want. Obviously there are people who will be uncomfortable with this kind of change as they view society in two categories: boy and girl. Having the norm changed is somewhat scary, but perhaps if these people were educated in the idea that nothing is really 'normal' and that all of our desires are constantly changing, they could look at the world differently.

I personally think these new laws are very important to society's acceptance of everyone, and although I wish in reality that laws like these were never really needed, it is important to bring these issues to the foreground of American's minds. Yes there are other large issues, but it's not like we can solve our debt problems overnight. We can, however, begin to transform American's minds and work to create a more unified nation through acceptance, which I think can go a long way in terms of improving this country.

Everyone Deserves Their Rights

This article that was published in the Daily Trojan raised up a lot of questions and angry responses. Although I know where she is coming from, stating that there are other problems in this world we have to worry about, I do not agree that the rights of not only transgender people but people in general is included in the list of things we need to worry about.

In the article, Salama asks, "Does there really have to be a specific prohibition against discriminating for 'gender identity and expression'?", and my answer to that question is yes, there really needs to be a law that gives and protects the rights of transgender people. If there weren't a law passed for people of colored skin and a race other than Caucasian to have equal rights, or for females to have the same rights as males, who knows if we would be where we are right now? Did there really have to be a specific prohibition against discriminating for gender and race? Yes, we needed those laws because without them, people of different races and women in general would not have been given the same rights as Caucasian males.

Also, Salama states that, "many people might not be comfortable accepting others for their personal decisions", and yes, this may be true. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but it's another story when you try to force your opinion onto other people. For the people who are uncomfortable accepting that there are transgender people in the world, well it's not you who are transgender. It's not you that will be marking the transgender box, so why does it matter to you? It's the rights of the transgender people that are being discussed. We are talking about their lives, not yours. It was their choice to make, and I believe that it should be respected as much as it is respected that many people choose to keep their biological sex.

And lastly, in response to Salama's statement that "in an ideal world, everybody gets along and there's no such thing as discrimination," well, the world we live in is not an ideal world. There is discrimination present and people are getting hurt by it every day. And because we do not live in an ideal world, that is why we need to pass such laws to protect our rights whether it be as a woman, as a minority race, or as a transgender.

Transphobia in the Trojan Community: A Response to "Identification unnecessary in political realm"

There are many transphobic statements in this article that I find issue with which I think can be attributed to the author’s very narrow mindset on the issue. One problem that I have with the article is that one of the author’s main arguments seems to be that there are more important issues that should be addressed, yet she then goes on to explain she feels this law is unnecessary in its own right. Although this is clearly not an important issue to the author, that does not mean it is not important to other people. It is ridiculous to make the claim that there is some kind of ranking or order of importance for social issues. Furthermore, there is clearly something important about it if the author feels the need to write this piece, which shows that issues of gender and sexuality permeate our lives on a daily basis even though many people such as the author try to claim it is not important.

Altogether, I do not follow the logic of this piece. For example, Salama writes “Don’t get me wrong — we all deserve our rights. But the Gender Nondiscrimination Act (AB 887) and Vital Statistics Modernization Act (AB 433) are less about rights and equality than about making it easier for people to declare they are transgender.” What I do not understand about this statement is how allowing people to “declare they are transgender” is not a right that deserves to be protected from discrimination. Obviously, Salama does not think that this is a valid request, and her statement is based on the ridiculous assumption that most people feel that way.

Another main problem with this article is that Salama is advocating for the right for people to be unaccepting of others. I do not understand why this is a valid point to any extent. How could progress ever be made if people just accepted that some people don’t like progress? Sure, there is another side to every story, but I do not think this is it. This is just one example of her advocating to perpetuate hetero-normative thinking. Her use of the word “imposing” is particularly interesting and emphasizes her inability to think critically about the issue by pushing past the surface. Salama claims that people who classify themselves as transgender are imposing their views of gender on other people, but isn’t it society that is really imposing their ideas of gender and sexuality on everyone else?

Her last line is also very problematic in the way that she refers to transgenders as people who “choose to be” discriminated against. Is she trying to say that transgenders deserve to be discriminated against because they choose to be transgender? This statement to me shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue, and completely cuts down the writer’s credibility. Although this is an opinion piece, there is a way to give one’s opinion without being ignorant. I doubt that this person has ever met someone who is transgender or that she has ever tried to understand transgenders to any extent. As Andy said, being considerate is the newest trait of a Trojan, and in order to accomplish this, we must all try to understand each other’s differences and be accepting of them.

Identification NECCESSARY in political realm

 

"The problem with legally allowing people to freely and easily declare themselves as transgender is that not everybody is willing to accept the classification. It’s just reality."

In the op-ed, "Identification unnecessary in political realm," Engie Salama argues that since most people are "uncomfortable" with people who identify themselves as transgender, the government should not have anti-discrimination laws for transgender people. Although there were many points in the article that I personally disagreed with, the main flaw that I saw with this argument was, "Why do we have to worry about what "many" people are "comfortable" with?" If humans were to stay within their comfort zones their whole lives, society would never advanced. In fact, the earliest humans probably would have not even civilized, because they would not have be "comfortable" with changes in location and food resources. Although it should not have to be like this, sometimes it takes the most momentous measures to really stretch people's capacities for understanding and acceptance of "difference." ["Difference" is an arbitrary term though, because whose to say what groups are within the "norm" and what groups are not?] While it is true that not everybody is willing to accept people who identify themselves as transgender, it does not mean that measures should not be taken to ensure that transgender people have the same rights and freedom of expression as everyone else. And without anti-discrimination bills such as the Gender Nondiscrimination Act (AB 887) and Vital Statistics Modernization Act (AB 433, the "uncomfortable" people that Salama speaks out would not have any reason to not discriminate against transgender people. So to answer Salama's question, "Is it really necessary to create a law to expedite that transition?" Yes, yes it is.

The second flaw I saw in the article was in the notion that the government should not be spending time and effort working on anti-discrimination laws for transgender people, and instead should be focusing on "fix[ing] our broken budget or [...] other worse forms of injustice." Who says the government is not working on other important issues, just because two new anti-discrimination laws just passed in California? Although there are many other other forms of injustice in society, why does the discrimination that transgender people experience have to go by unrecognized, while "other" forms are addressed? And who is to decide which forms of injustice are "worse" than others? All of these issues need to be fixed.

The third major flaw apparent in the article was the speaker's belief that being transgender is a "personal issue" and something that people "choose to be." Through this false impression, it is clear that the speaker is not familiar with the complexities of gender and gender identity. Although I was first exposed to the idea in psychology class, this gender course has really solidified my conviction that one's sexual orientation/fluidity is not a choice. It is something that is more connected to "nature" rather than "nurture," although the environment and people that one grows up in also plays an meaningful role. So maybe before making broad generalizations and synthesizing false ideals, the speaker should consider and learn more about the intricities and multifaceted attributes of gender and the transgender community.

"How is it Gendered?"

Cartoon found in the New Yorker Archives

Bigotry Exposed in the Daily Trojan

I believe I was not the only one who was appalled at the publication of the Daily Trojan yesterday.

[Image Description: The banner at the top of the Daily Trojan's website: dailytrojan.com]

In the Opinion page, there was a piece expressing a writer's thoughts on recent passage of two new Californian anti-discrimination bills: Gender Nondiscrimination Act (AB 887) and Vital Statistics Modernization Act (AB 433). AB 887 amends an existing anti-discrimination employment law, which already stated that employees are not to be discriminated for their "gender identity", to clear up confusion in regards to transgender people. So now, with the new amendment, the law states that employees cannot be discriminated against for both their "gender identity" and "gender expression". And AB 433 is a law that expedites the process for transgender individuals to petition to change the gender as stated on their birth certificates, as it is a difficult and confusing process already.

The shocking piece can be read on the DT''s website here. While there are a lot of things that can be refuted about the piece, the presentation of cissexism and transphobia by the Daily Trojan is disgusting. Although the article was only an opinion piece and the author is entitled to their expression, the Daily Trojan must remain a medium of intellectual discussion and cannot allow such ignorant and hurtful statements be made. The privileged author argued for the consideration of the discomfort of that certain individuals have in dealing with transgender people, but failed to discuss the vast amount of discrimination and suffering transgender people have and continue to experience in the work and public spheres. This blatant lack of understanding and compassion on the part of the author and Daily Trojan for transgender community, which includes those in the Trojan family, is what I found despicable. The author went so far as to suggest that our representatives should focus on "fix[ing] our broken budget" instead of passing such anti-discrimination laws that the author feels are so trivial. Honestly, my incredulousness almost lead to contemplate that the piece might have been meant to be satirical. But unfortunately, it is not.

However, there is a silver lining. In response to the article, many Trojans have expressed their opposition to the piece. This can be found in the comment section to the article (link again). I found one specific comment to be relevant, and it came from a Trojan alum. Here is the comment (directly drawn from the comment section):

I am a Trojan alum (Class of 2010). My partner Annika, who is also a Trojan alum (Class of 2009), who is transgender and blogs about trans issues, is writing a formal response. I currently work as a Legal Intern at the Transgender Law Center, though this comment is being written to represent only my views.

It is very saddening to me to see TLC’s work being used to perversely justify discrimination. Trans people experience such high rates of socioeconomic marginalization precisely because of pervasive, frequently legally sanctioned discrimination in educational and work settings. Every day, trans people are fired from jobs for simply not living a lie or harassed into dropping out of school which creates a cycle of poverty. People of color experience even further marginalization due to the combination of racism and transphobia. Trans people, especially trans women, also experience one of the highest rates of murder in the world. Every single day trans people are murdered just for being trans. These bills send a message that hate and violence against trans people are not acceptable and rejected by the state of California. The author thinks that the college campus is a bubble, but she doesn’t understand the bubble she lives and the privilege that she has that allows her to be so dismissive of the lives of trans people, especially the majority who do not live in LA or SF.

The author of this piece suggests that we should instead have sympathy for people who “aren’t as comfortable” treating trans people like any other human being. It is disappointing that she can’t see how this argument has been made over and over again against people due to their race, gender, political beliefs, and religion. Throughout Europe (and sometimes in the US), similar arguments are made to prevent Muslim women from being able to wear hijabs or niqabs in schools/workplaces/government buildings/public streets. And for the same reason, these arguments are wrong. Bigots of any sort should not be coddled and protected in their ignorance and hatred. (The funny thing is that two years ago I wrote angry comments on a similar DT piece that advocated for a ban on niqabs.)

It’s really a shame that this article was published the week before the Transgender Day of Remembrance. I hope that the author and others who feel similarly that trans people and their lives are unimportant and not worth protecting do some reflecting, reading (starting here: http://www.endtransdiscrimination.org/PDFs/NTDS_Exec_Summary.pdf), and maybe speak to an actual trans person (including many members of the Trojan family) to learn about their lives and how we all have shared humanity.

(I bolded the last line myself, for emphasis.)

Also, there has been quite a letter response from the Trojan community, and their inspiring letters to the editor can be read here.

Understanding and compassion should be what we strive for. Because as we have learned countless times within this class, gender and sexuality are complex, but we must always find solidarity as a species in our humanity and compassion for each other. Through this class, we have become aware of the bigotry and misunderstanding experienced by many people who are marginalized by the gender binary system. So we must always be cognizant of our privilege and vigilant when discrimination strikes, especially in our own Trojan family. And we must always be considerate of others. After all, it's the sixth trait of a Trojan.

Genitals with Personalities

Last week's lecture on genitals with personalities relates to some male stereotypes. For example, I thought it was interesting when in lecture we discussed that the male penis was sometimes believed to have a "mind of its own." For example, Horace in "Satire" stated that his penis was so disobedient, it spoke back to him by saying, "What do you think you're doing?" The penis' question actually shows that it disagreed with the person it belonged to. The notion that the penis is disobedient relates to the stereotype that men are sexual. This idea of the penis having a separate mind could support the idea that men are sex-driven and may not be able to control their desire. We also talked in lecture about a lack of cooperation between a man and his penis, which could also further this idea.

This discussion reminded me of the relatively modern movie "Anchorman." There is a scene when the protagonist Ron Burgandy has an erection in the presence of his crush Veronica Corningstone. This part of the movie displays the fear of a man not being able to control his penis. It's interesting that this concept can often be portrayed in a way that is supposed to create laughter in the audience, even though there may be serious "anxiety of sexual dysfunction" which professor mentioned. Why does is the penis' "mind of its own" something that our society has constructed as embarrassing?

Boys Will Be Boys, Girls Will Be ?

While Diderot in his novel, The Indiscreet Jewels, personifies a woman’s “jewel”-like genitalia, giving women’s genitalia the ability to speak, this personification actually gives ascribes even less agency to women than they originally had when they could control their own speech. The motif of today’s lecture and of The Indiscreet Jewels was that the genitalia uncontrollable/unconquerable by its owner, and is therefore truthful and driven by sexual desires, while the speech coming from women’s mouths is deceitful and misleading. The idea of the genitalia’s inability to mask its sexual desires relates to Montaigne’s essays On the Power of the Imagination, which details the experience of one’s battle with one’s own genitalia, unsuccessfully negotiating the tension between sexual desires and the desire to be accepted within society. Montaigne claims that, “[the physical expression of sexual desires] may be attributed to the narrow seam between the soul and the body, through which the experience of the one is communicated to the other. Sometimes, however, one’s imagination acts not only against one’s own body but against someone else’s” (74).Personally admitting to the struggles with these desires is one of the only ways to subdue these desires. In his essay, Montaine claims, “that by admitting his weakness and speaking about it in advance, he relieved the tension of his soul, for when the trouble had been presented as one to be expected, his sense of responsibility diminished and weighed upon him less” (70). However, I would imagine that if the women in Diderot’s The Indiscreet Jewels were to openly admit to their sexual urges and desires with their mouths and not their genitalia, these truths would not be well received. This is true in today’s culture, because, in my experience, young men speak openly about their sexuality, genitalia, and bodily urges, and society seems to receive this with a nonchalant shrug and some cliché to the effect of, “boys will be boys.” However, if a group of girls were to carry on publicly about their sexual trials and tribulations in any public arena besides the pages of an issue of Cosmopolitan, it would be considered unacceptable and socially inappropriate. What accounts for this difference? One could argue that patriarchal society accounts for the difference, but what is at the heart of the issue? Why isn’t there an old adage of “girls will be girls”?

Chicano Men

There were several ideas that caught my attention. One of the pieces that really stood out to me in this essay is the idea that males in America may be stigmatized for engaging in any sort of homosexual action, but a Chicano man would only be considered effeminate if he were receiving the anal sex. Also, it is interesting that there is a relative lack of data or study on Chicano homosexual men but that there is extensive documentation of lesbian homosexual actions. This reveals a clear gender bias in the cultures view regarding homosexuality. The whole assimilation and coexistence in two different world is vey interesting.

Power or imagination and Indiscreet jewels

Perhaps the most interesting thoughts behind “The Indiscreet Jewels,” are the acceptance of the “jewels” speech. The Sultan asks, “when a woman’s mouth and her jewel contradict each other, which should be believed?” And the immediate response by other characters is that the jewel’s speech should be treated as the absolute truth. It associates this unnatural occurrence as knowledgeable understanding of the female body. The actual ability for the jewel to speak is so abnormal, it becomes an assumption of truth. Another plausible response would be to disregard the jewel’s speech as rabble. But people feel it is necessary to create purpose out of everything. This purpose relates to the entire parody of French enlightenment and understanding.

The need to correlate purpose and explanation with phenomenon corresponds with the understanding of imagination in “Power of Imagination”. Since imagination is understood as products of thought based on attributes of fear and apprehension, it shows how imagination is a creation of ideas, which develops into stories such as the indiscreet jewel. I find it interesting how the ring in indiscreet jewels takes a supernatural ring, to identify the necessary judgment and revealing thoughts protected against society. The ring functions as a way to take away “inner thoughts” the one freedom granted to people. The imaginative ring is another source of control granted to the already over-powering sultan.

Montaigne and Diderot on Desire

One point Montaigne makes in his essay “Of the Power of the Imagination” is that our body parts—and even our wills—have minds of their own. He argues that because our actions may be out of our control, we cannot always be blamed for them. He also says that desire, too, is rebellious and cannot be contained. This is a concept explored in Diderot’s short story The Indiscreet Jewels. The fact that the “jewels” are able to speak and think on their own and also refer to the women to whom they belong as though they are separate entities (“her,” “she”) reaffirms the jewels’ independence and supports Montaigne’s concept of matter-over-mind.

Desire comes into the picture when the women whose jewels are made to speak are revealed to be dissatisfied with their sex lives. When the jewels divulge the existence of sexual conduct that does not both take place within a marriage and reflect the husbands’ abilities to please their wives, the women face consequences. One woman’s husband attempts to kill her; another woman faces penalties because she desires someone while unmarried. These women are punished for their desires, which goes against Montaigne’s argument. The exception to this trend is Alcina, the first woman whose jewel speaks, who becomes the talk of the town but does not allow that to bother her. In fact, she becomes in a way celebrated by the general populace. Perhaps the reason behind this is that while the other women become flustered, Alcina possesses “a calmness that other women lacked.” Other women are mortified by her situation, but she owns her sexuality; and though she did not mean for her secrets to be publicized, she bears them openly and shamelessly. As Montaigne would perhaps say, Alcina accepts her desire’s dissent against social expectations of women and their sexualities.

"Queering the Homeboy Aesthetic"

Almaguer’s article “Chicano Men: A Cartography of Homosexual Identity and Behavior” points to disheartening implications for Latino gays and the socialization of their sexual identities. The note of tragedy is highlighted in the inability of Chicanos to come out in a way that would be validated by their families because quite simply, “there is no cultural equivalent to the modern gay man”. In a social sphere, in which families uphold machismo as the cultural ideal of what constitutes a man, a family becomes an intolerant place of isolation, even humiliation. Beyond family life, the non-heterosexuality of a Chicano man further impairs his relationship to other integral parts of the community – church and school. As a gay Chicano, religion, especially those that uphold Catholic values of establishing defined sex roles in the family, can seen as a tremendous source of guilt and school as a hostile place that fosters doubt and insecurities and the view that being gay is completely antithetical to masculinity. This further draws disparaging implications that in upholding machismo as the socially coveted ideal, defining a man as the benefactor ultimately devalues women and “all that is feminine”, fracturing the Latino community with deep structural lines of power and dominance in a patriarchal Mexican culture. While Almaguer and many of us would readily suggest a “advance la causa”, defined as an agenda of empowerment to the Chicano movement, the deeply ingrained, "gender-coded" Mexican system questions whether Chicana lesbians and Chicano gay men can be "immune" to the hierarchical lines of discrimination and subordination if it means uprooting an entire culturally based way of life.

Homosexuality; Available in SAP

I feel like I really appreciate having essays like Tomas Almaguer's included in our assignments. I think a lot of time we easily ignore cross-cultural views on certain topics not because we don't care, but because it's different and relative to a culture foreign to our own. This thereby makes it difficult to understand and we conclusively shun it. But in looking at the ways that different countries/cultures treat the same issues we face I think we get a better sense of what's real in an issue. While in America we may "construct intricate rituals" to allow us to "touch the skin of other men" (Kruger represent) as even one act of perceived homosexuality is enough to tip the scales of one sexuality and in the eyes of their peers forever negatively brand them as a homosexual, in Chicano cultures men aren't punished for performing an assumed homosexual act but for performing an emasculating homosexual act. In our culture we blame the subject for being gay, that is disgusting and inappropriate; in Chicano culture it is to lose sight of your masculinity. Though there are obviously a lot of problems in doing any type of societal penalizing for shacking hegemonic norms (Writing 140 represent), I think that in a strange way Mexicans may have a better sense of what we should be getting all fire and brimstone with someone for.

In America we get mad at someone for "acting" like they're gay; assuming that to be gay is a performance that one chooses to put on to intentionally aggravate everyone else. We turn gayness into an act of rebellion, an insult, instead of a trait of a person's being. In Chicano culture, they still do get mad at a male for "acting" in a certain manner, assuming that they're doing this as an act of personal defiance, but the homosexuality of the act doesn't matter. By feeling this way it validates homosexuality as, if not a natural, an at least real state of being. Chicano's get angry at males for losing a sense of their maleness, dropping part of what Chicano's feel is important in retaining own's identity. It may still be kind of awful, but at least it cares about the person's point of view.

--Jheanelle G.

Drag Queen Shangela Passible? Yes!

Montaigne & Diderot

Both Montaigne and Diderot notice the curious relationship between what "is" on the exterior and "the truth." Diderot suggests that all women are deceptive in nature and that if they spoke openly social disorder would ensue. It's interesting that the genitals were chosen as the medium through which the woman's assertive and selfish desires would come from. Perhaps Diderot is trying to say that there is a separation between what one pretends to want (like a performance) and what one actually wants. Also, that what one actually want comes from the genitals infers that all desire is originally sexual.
Montaigne's essay was less direct in its argument (probably because it's Montaigne, the guy who believed in discovering ones argument in the process of writing an essay). From what I understand, he beleived that the imagination could physically change what "is." A person's desire could engulf what was previously regarded as the truth and become the new truth.

Chicano Men

I had not realized that so many different “rules” and “norms” exist between being homosexual in European-American culture and Mexican/ Latin American culture. One of the most interesting differences is how the reputation or classification of a homosexual is normally formed in either culture. In American culture, one adult homosexual act or acknowledgement threatens a man’s gender identity as a heterosexual. In contrast, in Latino culture, a man’s heterosexual identity is not threatened by a homosexual act as long as he plays the role of the dominant male in the relationship. However, when the man plays the effeminate submissive role in the relationship, he is seen as having betrayed the man’s prescribed gender and sexual role.

It is interesting how American culture is so critical of one singular act when Latino culture does not seem to care about the occurrence of the act itself; they care more about the nature of the act. It appears as though American culture places more value on the reputation of the heterosexual man, as if it is something to be protected, for just one transgression will lead to the loss of a man’s status as a heterosexual. Latino culture, on the other hand, does not seem to be too concerned with the status of heterosexual versus homosexual. The categorization within homosexual is more of a focus. This difference is interesting because, based on the described limited level of freedom for Latino homosexuals due to family importance, homosexuality seems to be more widely accepted in American culture. For homosexuals in Latino culture, not being able to express themselves publicly could lead to the problem of not having its own cultural identity.

Facebook: "Interested in..."

This past week, in discussing Queer Theory, we have noted the social construction of gender that disregards the fluidity of desire. In Tomás Almaguer’s article, “Chicano Men” he notes that homosexuality is treated very differently in Mexico when compared to that of the United States. This made me think of Queer Theory, and think about how the social construction of sexuality has also ignored the fluidity of desire. In this way, there are not only heterosexual norms that have been implemented in society, but also social constructions of deviant norms. The very cultural variance of homosexuality between two cultures proves this very construction of sexuality. While homosexuals in the United States are defined by having homosexual desires or same-sex objects of desire, there is not always a definite line between homosexuals and heterosexuals in Mexico. Historically, the “aggressors” Mexico have been the more masculine and are not necessarily negatively stigmatized as homosexual, while the “passives” are more feminine and less accepted in society. This means that in every homosexual situation or encounter there is only room for one socially acceptable being. Such a social construction of homosexuality has left little room for the modern conception of homosexuality in the United States, which is accepting of both masculine and feminine homosexuals. What does this mean for the labels of heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual? If we all actually adhered to the Kinsey scale, wouldn’t there be no such thing as a labeled sexuality, but instead just numbers? I think it would be really interesting if society eventually embraced the Kinsey scale and Facebook had instead of “interested in” would have a number that you gave yourself. Who knows what Mark Zuckerberg will add to Facebook next…

Aggressives and Gender

I really enjoyed the Aggressives discussion! Before Ms. Jennifer's talk, I had never heard about this type of lesbian women in this category. I thought it was really interesting that even though a woman considered herself extremely masculine and even considered taking hormones, she could still feel gender female and not gender male. This made me think a lot about how drag queens view their gender. After watching the drag queen Shangela perform at USC is burning, I started wondering about if drag is a temporary performance, what gender do these people consider themselves? Do some consider themselves gender female all the time or does it depend on whether they are dressed up or not? It was this picture that I saw on the internet when I was looking into Shangela's background that made me wonder:

After the discussion I also thought a lot about the idea of how African American women can sometimes face "double discrimination" for their race and gender. They also had been blamed for triggering the "negro problem" even though the civil rights act had passed just before this idea came about. These concepts really upset me because I hate that the stereotype of all black women as aggressive could create a fixed identity. But why is being aggressive even seen as a bad thing if it doesn't harm anyone?