Gender Identity (Man, Woman, Trans/Man/Woman) Is Trans really one? +
Sexual Preference (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, asexual(?))+
Sexual-ness (hypersexual, sexual, asexual)
- a three-dimensional map. Of something. Of our gender identity/sexual preference/sexualness. Should this be all that makes it onto the map? What about 'types' of people, both physically and psychological.
Further, why are there even discrete boxes at all? Whether or not you agree with the everyone-is-to-some-degree-bi analysis (BI-UBIQUITY) or not, I think that maybe taking a step back in two directions might be handy:
a). The idea of there being 'gay' people and 'straight' people is a social construction, a temporal one. That's not to say that all MSMs aren't homosexual, or that sexual preferences exist, for example, but just the idea that a separate classification of people , of species almost, is worth making, is relatively new. We wouldn't, or shouldn't claim that some people are 'talls', as people. [I acknowledge this may be down to the whole heteronormativity element, but surely even that concept cannot exist if you disregard sexual orientation as a worthy category of segregating people?], i.e. will The Man (white, male, cis, heterosexual, sexual, middle class, western), next be given 'tall' as a labelling characteristic
b). I don't really remember what this point was going to be.
I heart that I spell everything with a z. Ezerything.
I might heart that I want to put everything I type in inverted commas, that maybe even the definite article is only allegedly thus called 'the'.
I certainly don't heart how I'm rambling, how wordy this bloody thing is, or how scattered/wrong my ideas are. Back to the brain-stone.
No comments:
Post a Comment