I would just like to thank you for writing the Queering SFF. It's given me some valuable little morsels as I begin exploring the creation of my own series, filled with characters exploring sexuality and queerness in a fantasy environment.
Have you discussed or do you plan to discuss any of Jo Clayton's books in queering or post-binary gender? I started re-reading "Wild Magic" the other day and was reminded of how eye-opening and formative it was for me as a young white cis male suburban reader back in the late 80's, early 90's.
I Hope you are in good health?
Dear,i wish we could be friendly
in good lovely relationship ,
if you could be sincere and lovely,
well i do cherish your profile
age and distance no problem,
privately send me a
reply to my email address
while i get back at you including
my picture. I shall hopefully
wait for your reply.
I wrote something in a ranty moment and while I do not want to impose upon your time I value your opinion and want to share my quickly formed and perhaps not well finished words with you.
It is long and you can just skip from here. :)
An observation that may get my "gay" card revoked.
Well several. Firstly, I am tired of the term "gay". It has too many meanings for too many people and it is only common because it is easier than saying "person (or people) interested in a relationship with someone of the same gender."
It is important to use the word "relationship" and not the word "sex". While physical attention on many levels including (but not always guaranteed) the most intimate is part of a "relationship" it is not every minute of a relationship. Otherwise married people would never go to work.
Physical intimacy is an action not a definition of who someone is. Those actions may be repeated with the same person for a long period of time (monogamy) they may be engaged in with a few or many people of the same gender leading many people to believe that they are "straight" or "gay". They may be actions shared with people of either gender leading people to become confused because both "straight" and "gay" social groups get really irritated if they cannot slap a label on it and stick it on the shelf.
Shockingly, in my philosophical view, there are no "straight" or "gay" people. Heterosexual and homosexual describe actions not nouns. Because it is a mouthful to say "I am a person in a relationship with someone of the same gender." or "....of the opposite gender" the quick and lazy way to define people is by the occasional actions they take with people who are usually not in need of knowing that label.
My boyfriend does not need to know I am "gay", other people do.
Not that they need to know that any more than I need to know other people are "straight". However in the course of conversation, socialization and personal actualization people refer to the person they are having a relationship with. Instead of living in the logical moment and thinking "this person is in a relationship with this other person right now." social norms have developed short hand labels that build stereotypes like walls around every thing people think until it is a maze so complex that people forget it is there and just assume that they are just walking along a garden path instead of being penned in by a labyrinth not entirely of their own design. People are not their actions but they are constantly judged by them even if they chose to change them. I have dated women, I have dated men. I am currently dating a man. This does not make me "gay", this makes me a person in a relationship with someone of the same gender.
So all of that was just to get to this. There is no "gay rights" movement.
There is a movement for the equalization of value on relationships with people of the same gender. It seems like way too much to say but I thought of this when I realized this...
The "gay rights" movement is not like the "civil rights" movement. It is similar too but still different from the "Suffragette movement"
I can see where people would balk at that comparison because it links "gays" with "women" and that is already a false parallel that is difficult to break as a negative stereotype socially. However the point I would like to make is that when women were asking (well demanding) the vote it was because they wanted a relationship with government. They were subject to the laws, they were affected by the politicians, they were smart enough to know how they felt about those things. They could not say anything about it. Well, not legally in a way that would matter.
Men who said women did not need to vote were not affected by women not voting. They did not have to live with the consequences of their actions. The women did.
The thing is there are a lot of men who want women to like them. In the end to keep the affections of women they had to admit that they had the intelligence to vote and therefore should be allowed to vote. Still only 35 % of Americans vote and only half of those are women. Even if all of those were women that is not all of the women in America who can vote. Just because they can do something does not mean they will do something and when they do it does not make another persons vote less valid. (I am not getting into the "one vote cancels the other" argument. It is statistical not logical)
There is not, however, the majority of the voting population interested in having people who want to be in relationships with someone of the same gender liking them.
Many of them do not care. Not in a callous way (although there are those) but in a "it does not affect me so if I do not do anything about it it is no big deal" way.
The people who do care have not done themselves any favors.
They still place it in common social terms which as I said before have way to many definitions and do not clearly state what it is people are trying to accomplish. They have even started using the term "sexual minority". I loathe that term. It is many kinds of wrong that I will not expound upon here.
It is not about getting our "10% quotas" in the work force or throwing off melaninistic segregation. It is about receiving the same social value on the relationship because two people want to be together.
People are in relationships with people they care about. They share intellectual pursuits and social interests and moral foundations.
Women wanted their vote, their opinion, to have the same weight socially as a man's. They did not stop being mothers or wives or workers or teachers. It changed what they could do and how they were perceived not who they were as people.
People in same sex relationships want their relationship to have the same social weight as anyone else. They will still have the same jobs. They will still be relatives, they will still be friends.
No opinion is perfect, no relationship is perfect but they should not be dismissed out of hand because it is socially acceptable to give them no merit in the first place.