Transgender Studies Nowadays - Article Example

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Studies Many modern writings seem to work from the assumption thatthe concept of gay and lesbian rights is a relatively new phenomenon arising from modern social issues. The perception is that because homosexuality or other ‘deviant’ sexual behaviors hadn’t been the focus of widespread discussion among the general populace, the problem of gay rights was only a problem of the recent modernization of society. Within this discussion, it is considered that gay rights really didn’t become a topic of public discussion until the mid-1960s and it has fluctuated back and forth between a more liberal and a more conservative viewpoint ever since, gaining a bit of ground with each turn. However, the historical literature points out the fallacy of such an assumption. This is both because homosexuality and entire communities devoted to enabling individuals to live the lives they chose did exist prior to the 20th century and because homosexuality has not always been understood in the same terms. One perspective holds that homosexuality is a condition of the individual’s inner inclinations while another suggests that it is a matter of physical behavior including the touching of genitalia. One approach indicates that a man engaging in the same actions he would be doing with a woman is not homosexual even if he is with a man and the other partner, the one being penetrated in some way, is. In some cultures, the perspective is shaped by the number of available women in the area while others take a more humanitarian approach to the concept and simply accept the individual choices made to the point of fighting for the individual’s right to cross genders. Although many writings seem to indicate that the question of homosexuality in society is a new topic introduced only in the 20th century, the truth is that it has been a part of human society for a long time and is only just now beginning to recover some of the former freedoms through legislation that gay and lesbian individuals once tacitly enjoyed. The idea of homosexuality as a new social phenomenon is encapsulated within George Chauncey’s article “New Openings of the 1970s.” Within this article, Chauncey traces the development of gay and lesbian rights from the late 1960s-early 1970s to near present-day. Although it starts with the admission that the gay and lesbian activists were mobilized by a common practice of police raiding their bars and clubs as well as other forms of discrimination, the article gives the impression that attitudes toward gay and lesbian lifestyles were undergoing a rare and radical transformation. “In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association soon followed suit. Religious attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality also began to change” (Chauncey, 37). Because of the greater acceptance, homosexuals were able to gain greater rights against discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. However, this greater widespread acceptance then precipitated a larger oppositional response in which it was claimed that these ‘deviant’ lifestyles endangered the moral fabric of the nation and put children at risk of recruitment or molestation. This reaction became so strong that the very real threat of AIDS was essentially ignored for almost a decade until news broke that Rock Hudson was dying of the disease. “The ensuing avalanche of sensationalist attention reinforced the image of homosexuals as dangerous outsiders who threatened the nation: diseased and dangerously hard to detect. Fear of contagion prompted a new wave of discrimination against gay people in medical care, housing and employment” (Chauncey, 41). However, this new push to push homosexuality under the rug sparked a new pro-civil rights response in which people who felt homosexuality was morally wrong nevertheless support the movement from a purely human rights perspective. While it may seem from Chauncey’s article that the idea of accepting homosexuality as a different life choice is a new condition of the modern age, the historical literature shows this is not true. Chauncey would be the first to agree with this statement. His article on “Christian Brotherhood” for example, directly addresses another time in history when the practice of same-sex relationships was relatively widely accepted if not discussed and the social rights of individuals hung in the balance of legislative decisions. A Navy investigation at Newport, Rhode Island in 1920 revealed an entire society in which some men regularly pursued a more traditionally female lifestyle. These men identified themselves as ‘fairies’, ‘pogues’ or ‘two-ways’ depending upon the types of male genital contact they preferred and were collectively termed ‘queers’. Other sailors, most of whom would not identify themselves as anything other than heterosexual, would allow the queers to provide sexual gratification. If they were new to the group, they were considered ‘trade’ because they were open to the idea. “Becoming trade, unlike becoming a queer, posed no threat to the decoys’ self-image or social status” (Chauncey, 304). Regulars were called ‘husbands.’ The Navy investigation tended to look at the men’s behavior as a key indicator of their guilt in committing indecent acts, but, because the investigations eventually involved a member of the clergy, the use of ‘effeminate’ as a key indicator of guilt became a threat. “When the navy and ordinary sailors labeled this behavior [holding hands in hospitals and speaking soft words to recovering wounded] ‘effeminate’ in the case of Green and Kent, and further claimed that such effeminacy was a sign of sexual perversion, they challenged the legitimacy of many Christian social workers’ behavior” (Chauncey, 309). The church was forced to defend its position of brotherly love by shifting the conversation to the commission of specific acts rather than inner sentiment. “Making the commission of specified physical acts the distinguishing characteristic of a moral pervert made it definitionally impossible to interpret the ministers’ relationships with sailors – no matter how intimate and emotionally moving – as having a ‘sexual’ element, so long as they involved no such acts … It legitimized (nonphysical) intimacy between men by precluding the possibility that such intimacy could be defined as sexual” (Chauncey, 312). Within this argument, Chauncey demonstrates first that homosexual behavior was widely recognized and accepted within the society even if not expressly discussed and that it was the conflict with the church that precipitated the new models and definitions of the 20th century. Yet there remains even earlier evidence that the concept of homosexuality was widely practiced and recognized, if not discussed, throughout history. In “Worlds of Men, Worlds of Women,” the focus is given more to the female expression of homosexuality throughout much of the first half of the article. However, it is pointed out that women, for perhaps centuries, had had the luxury of maintaining close emotional relationships with one another without risking the same kind of public censure experienced by their male counterparts. “Romantic friendships among women grew out of a female world of kin and friends bound together by female-controlled rituals, such as birth, marriage and death, and institutions such as boarding schools or colleges and the custom of ‘visiting’” (45). However, as more women found the means to be self-sufficient in the modern world, more were able to make the choice not to get married and instead made the choice to live with their female lover. It was this upset in the family line, this author argues, that caused female homosexual behavior to fall out of favor with the elite and middle classes. Men within the upper classes of society were also given similar flexibility to carry on same-sex intimate relationships, but a different standard was set in place once they had achieved full adulthood. As adults, they were expected to give up all such attachments and turn instead to a culture of competition. While women could sometimes get away with wearing men’s clothing simply because others could understand her desire to achieve some of the freedoms normally restricted to men, there was not sufficient justification for a man to explain why he might wish to dress like a woman. In spite of this, particularly out on the plains and in the west where women were less available, same-sex intimate relationships were common. This was partially because of the lack of women, but also because of different beliefs among the mixing cultures regarding homosexual relationships and cross-gendered behavior. Homosexual relationships were accepted enough within the Indian tribes that tribe members actively intervened whenever a homosexual was forced by the European-influenced power-wielders to wear anatomically-determined attire. Asian workers held a relaxed attitude toward same-sex relationships within a relatively closed society and Mexicans held a relaxed stance toward sexual relationships and marriage. Throughout history, people have demonstrated a tendency to permit others to live and love according to their inner inclinations rather than because of pre-determined expectations based on anatomical composition. These cultures have typically been outside of the traditional Judeo-Christian ideology, but not always. The literature suggests that the concept of a live and let live approach to homosexuality or alternative choice is not new. Although it may not have been discussed or may have been discussed using other terms and from different understandings, homosexuality has played a role in human society perhaps since the first society was formed. Having been forced into public policy with events such as the Navy investigation of 1920 and into more significant religious and medical consideration as a result, homosexuality is only just beginning to recover some of the generalized, if passive, acceptance it has received in the past. Read More