HeatherN offers the final installment of a “Queer Dictionary” to help understand the terminology surrounding sexuality and gender.
Over the past couple of days we’ve covered terminology for sexual orientation, relationships, gender identity and biological sex. What, you may be asking, could possibly be left? Well quite a lot, actually. The previous two articles weren’t in alphabetical order, but the terms were organized in an intentional way. This time, there’s no reason not to put things in alphabetical order, except that I like to keep things consistent. So fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy night (or morning, depending on when you’re reading this).
Autosexual: This is someone whose preference is sex with oneself (i.e. masturbation). Now wait, you say, shouldn’t this have been included in Part 1? Why yes, it should have; this is a sexual orientation and Part 1 was about sexual orientation. I actually didn’t learn this term until after I’d started this series of articles. Even as someone who is a LGBT activist, I’m not familiar with all the different terms, which is part of the problem with having so many labels. This brings us to the next term…
Queer: And here it is; the entry everyone’s been waiting for. Just what the dickens does queer mean? Generally, the term queer means strange and unusual. More recently it’s become an umbrella term that encompasses anyone and everyone who isn’t straight and/or cis-gendered. More than that, it also includes people who have consensual, non-vanilla sex (i.e. fetishes, BDSM, kink, etc). That’s what makes the title Queer as Folk so delicious. It’s a play on the old English phrase, “there’s naught so queer as folk,” which basically just means, “people are strange.” Yet it’s also a reference to the show’s subject matter, which encompasses gay men and women. It’s a double entendre without making any reference to a specific sex act and I love it! Go figure.
Now you may be wondering why we don’t throw this whole alphabet soup of terms under the wagon and just call everyone queer. It’d be so much simpler, and yeah, it really would be simpler. Well in part that’s due to way in which a lack of talking about an identity can make that identity stop existing. At the moment gay men are largely the most talked about “queer” group in the west (with bisexual women coming in a close second). There is a legitimate worry that if we stopped talking about the diverse sexual and gender identities, then we run the risk of marginalizing anyone who is queer but not a gay man or a bisexual woman1.
The other problem is the way in which, historically, the term queer has been so stigmatized. It hasn’t quite yet been taken back and reclaimed in the same way “gay” and “lesbian” have. However, it is still used and is gaining wider acceptance as an umbrella term. Personally, I like it.
Gender and Sexuality Minority: Another umbrella term used in much the same way queer is used. This has some of the same problems as the term queer, with regards to the way that umbrella terms can make some groups feel excluded. Also, using the term “minority” can leave a bad taste in some people’s mouths (no, not like that). It emphasizes the discrimination and oppression associated with being a minority, and ends up being a bit too depressing a term to use.
LGBT: (Also LGBTIQ, LGBTQ, and LGBTA) Technically these letters refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex, queer and ally or asexual. Usually these acronyms are used synonymously with “queer” or “gender and sexuality minority” as an umbrealla term for non-heterosexual, non-cis-gendered people. These acronyms have their own problem; for the sake of brevity they are always shortened to only a handful of letters, and then at least some identities are left out.
Ally: These are people who identify as straight and cis-gendered but support the LGBT community and LGBT rights. Sometimes the “A” in LGBTA means asexual, and sometimes it means allies. How do you know which? Well, usually you can’t tell, though if the “a” is lowercase (LGBTa), chances are it means allies. Now you might be thinking, why make it lowercase? Well usually it’s to emphasize that whatever organization is using the phrase “LGBTa” was created to benefit LGBT individuals and while allies are most certainly welcome, they aren’t the focus.
Fluidity: Peeps are complicated. (Peeps as in people, not marshmallow peeps). Fluidity is why Anne Kronenberg, a self-identified lesbian, married a man. Fluidity explains how the U.K. television show Bob & Rose is actually based on a true story. It’s a potential explanation for why Eddie Izzard has been making public appearances dressed as a man for the past few years. I hope you get where I’m going with this. The concept on fluidity is based on the idea that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate, but that they are not static. They can shift and change over a person’s life.
What the concept of fluidity does not suggest is that anyone can change their sexual orientation or gender identity. The saying, “the heart wants what the heart wants,” is quite apropos when discussing sexual fluidity. This also doesn’t mean that everyone’s sexual and gender identity changes over their life. Plenty of people identify with the same sexual and gender identity from birth until death. It’s just that not everyone does.
Kink, Fetish, BDSM: The Good Men Proejct has had some great articles about kink culture, so mostly I’m just going to point you all there. Basically it describes people who incorporate erotic activities into their sex lives that might not be viewed as sexual by society at large. I’ll also explain the acronym BDSM – B&D: Bondage and discipline, D&S: Dominance and submission, and S&M: Sadism and masochism. Much like the term LGBT, BDSM is used as an umbrella term to encompass a variety of sexual practices that might not fit into those original three categories.
Self-identification: This is the concept that what an individual identifies as is more important than what society perceives as their identity. This works with the concept of fluidity in that if someone continues to identify as, say, a lesbian even though they are in a relationship with a man, they can and shouldn’t be ostracized or ridiculed because of it.
Heteronormativity: And here’s the term I use all the time. If you were wondering what the heck I meant by it, here it is. This is the cultural bias that places heterosexuality and being cis-gender in a place of privilege, and in assuming that those identities are not just normal, but natural. It’s the view that being male equals being a man, and that being a man means being sexually and romantically attracted to women. And conversely, that being female equals being a woman, and that being a woman means being sexually and romantically attracted to men. Non-normative sexuality and gender isn’t just treated as being statistically outside the norm, but rather as being so non-normal as to be interpreted as unnatural.
And that’s it; that’s all she wrote (or well, that’s all I wrote). This is the end of our discussion of gender and sexuality, but don’t let that be the end of your examination of the subject. If you want to examine these issues more, Google some of these terms, or go ahead and ask your questions in the comments. Or, if you feel like I’ve left something out, put that in the comments too. Just be gentle.
Read Part 1 of the Queer Dctionary
Read Part 2 of the Queer Dictionary
———
1. If you’re interested in reading more about discourse and the creation of social identities, I suggest taking a look at Michel Foucault’s History of Sexuality and Judy Butler’s Gender Trouble.
Image of small people on a rainbow courtesy of Shutterstock
About HeatherN
I’ve always had issues with the use of the term “heteronormativity” and I think that the definition here makes it pretty clear why.
Consider:
“This is the cultural bias that places heterosexuality and being cis-gender in a place of privilege, and in assuming that those identities are not just normal, but natural.”
This seems to suggest that it is improper to assume that heterosexuality is either “normal” or “natural.”
I suspect that the author doesn’t mean to go this far, but that’s still how it comes across. The fact remains that heterosexuality is both normal and natural.
It is natural in the sense that being heterosexual is no more a “choice” than any identity, and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having this identity.
It is normal, not only in the sense that there is, again, nothing wrong with it, but also in the sense of the size of the population that identifies this way. The “average” member of the population is disproportionately likely to be heterosexual, just as they are disproportionately likely to have brown eyes, and live in a household that earns between $40k and $50k a year.
Aside from these problematic ambiguities, what makes the use of the term “heteronormativity” worse is that the definition then inflates to encompass a different problem: “Non-normative sexuality and gender isn’t just treated as being statistically outside the norm, but rather as being so non-normal as to be interpreted as unnatural.”
This does not follow from the first bit.
Just because being brown eyed is normal and natural does not mean being blue eyed is unnatural (though I would hesitate to call it normal when estimates put it between 10 and 20% of the population).
As a result, I’ve seen MANY discussions break down something like this:
Person A: [Legitimate relationship advice that appeals to a broad, yet heterosexual audience]
Person B: That is entirely heteronormative and should be disregarded.
Person A: What…?
We live in a world where the largest part of the population identifies as heterosexual. This means that a great deal of articles, discussions, advice, etc. can all reach a broad audience while still only considering heterosexuality.
This is not the same as walking around and saying “Any other identity is unnatural!” Yet it often seems to be confused as such.
Here’s the thing with heteronormitivity…there are entire books and articles just about that. So to explain it in a paragraph or two, I sort of had to cut a few corners.
When you point out that just because people view heterosexuality as normal and natural, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they view homosexuality as unnatural and non-normal, that is technically true. However, in western society, that’s what happens.
In your little example, person A was actually being heteronormative if the essay didn’t explicitly state that it was meant for a straight audience. Straight (and cis-gendered) is assumed to be the default. When someone doesn’t mention sexual orientation or gender identity in an article or a t.v. show or whatever, it is assumed that it’s for straight people. Dating advice is a good example of this…because often they appear to be addressed to everyone…the idea that everyone can take this advice and use it. It doesn’t say it’s for straight people, it’s just assumed that when sexual orientation isn’t mentioned, it must mean straight.
The way that someone might talk about men and women and always mean cis-men and cis-women, but don’t feel the need to put the cis qualifier…it’s the same thing.
“When you point out that just because people view heterosexuality as normal and natural, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they view homosexuality as unnatural and non-normal, that is technically true. However, in western society, that’s what happens.”
It’s difficult to view this as anything other than a narrative, logically no different than that projected by Fox News. It’s an assertion that I’m supposed to accept without questioning it, despite an alternative possibility that is “technically true.”
“In your little example, person A was actually being heteronormative if the essay didn’t explicitly state that it was meant for a straight audience. Straight (and cis-gendered) is assumed to be the default.”
So, should I, as a man, be offended when there’s an ad for tampons that doesn’t begin with an announcement that “The following ad is for women!”
Why is it such a problem to assume that the “default” is an identity that a very large number of people actually assume?
When I see an article recommending the benefits of an herbal supplement, I don’t usually stop to complain that the article takes a non-western-medicine viewpoint. That’s patently obvious from the nature of the article.
Similarly, when it is patently obvious that a “dating advice” column is aimed at a heterosexual audience, why does it need to be further called out?
Now, look, if the dating advice column began with a statement like “This advice is good regardless of your sexuality!” I would understand the complaint. But this is not the problem.
The “problem” is that an article which does not make an explicit claim to be universally useful is getting called out for failing to cover a situation which the majority of the population does not actually experience. This seems like walking into a bridal store and getting angry that they don’t sell blue jeans: you could probably tell what was going on from the outset, so why are you complaining?
“Why is it such a problem to assume that the “default” is an identity that a very large number of people actually assume?”
Because it’s not the default, it’s just the statistical majority. To assume that being straight is the default, implies that homosexuality (or bisexuality, etc) is a variation of heterosexuality. And that’s not true.
Your example with the tampon doesn’t work for a few reasons…firstly discussions of gender equality (between cis-men and cis-women) has a different dynamic than between queer people and non-queer people. Secondly, though, is the fact that tampons are a product that are only used by one group of people. Relationship advice (or child-rearing advice, or whatever) is something that literally everyone can use.
A better example of heteronormitivity is how advice about how to talk to kids about sex almost always assumes that the kid is going to be straight and cis-gendered. It’s an article that is supposed to be for all parents, and yet it is very clearly only written for parents who end up with straight kids…but straight is assumed to be the default. It’s not.
“Because it’s not the default, it’s just the statistical majority. To assume that being straight is the default, implies that homosexuality (or bisexuality, etc) is a variation of heterosexuality. ”
Again, this doesn’t follow at all.
Just because a font is the “default” set by a word processing program doesn’t make the other fonts derivative of the default option.
It just really seems like there’s an attempt to purposefully read an argument onto reality here that no one is actually making.
It’s great to have some sort of dictionary. I think I already knew most of the terms but many of them I had no good way of explaining.
A couple questions, out of curiosity and a little confusion:
1. In terms of chromosomes, there are more possibilities than XX and XY. Where do the others fit into male and female? Are they third, fourth, fifth, etc. biological sexes, or are they considered variants of biologically male and female? For example, does one have to be XY to be considered “biologically male”?
[An interesting related question would be in the realm of sci-fi – if one could change one’s chromosomes as part of a transition, would that be still another category of trans?]
2. The use of the term “minority” can be a little tricky. It’s a relative term. Some minorities are tiny and some are very big. Some really big individual categories like “heterosexual” refer to people in the majority, but once you start being more specific then EVERYONE is in a sexual minority. Even heterosexual women are a minority of the entire population. As a vanilla heterosexual cis-male I’m in a minority of the population even though I’m in a very populous category. Perhaps this is part of the point of talking about sex and gender minorities, that everyone is part of a minority, and we can de-center the heteronormativity, because no one is really in the majority. It’s inherently a plurality that we’re living in.
Your point on number 2 is interesting.
As for your question about chromosomes, yeah there are XXY and there are people where some cells are XY and others are XX. I’m not too knowledgeable about intersex conditions beyond that, but here’s a link:
http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions/mosaicism
Just thinking some more about #2:
Another way to look at the plurality of sexual identity is in terms of political grouping. If, for example, society tries to enforce heterosexuality as the norm, that can only happen through a coalition of hetero men and hetero women. Ultimately, if straight men and straight women defend heterosexuality as normal, that’s basically two sexual minorities teaming up to create a majority. That’s not a uniform majority, but it’s two subgroups pairing up who define themselves as having something central in common. Heterosexuals are the majority only if you add together straight men and straight women into one giant supercategory, when in fact straight men and straight women may have just as much in common with other sexual minorities as they do with each other.
I don’t know the exact figures, but I’m guessing that androphiles are a slim majority of the general population. There are more women than men, and from what I understand there are more gay men than lesbians, and assuming that the small percentage of the others is roughly equally androphile and gynephile (or both or neither) that should be about 51% of the population is attracted to men. That must be depressing for some people: a higher percentage of people attracted to men than there are men….
Normative (putting aside the front end qualifier) is a descriptor that indicates an optimal or idealized model for something – and historically, it has been associated with man/woman and the raising of children within this family structure.
I think it’s a misapplication of the concept to simply check for the presence of a qualifier that when absent, meaning the discourse is not all encompassing, is then seen as evidence of normativity. The discourse in question should imply that it is indeed the “best” model in order to qualify as normative.
Example 1: Italian spaghetti must be served “al dente” (Italian spaghetti-normative, idealized model for serving spaghetti)
The above example is actually true
, which is in contrast to a similar statement made for sexual attraction between people. No implications made on “al dente” appendages used during sexual activities.
Couple of things: firstly the term “heteronormitivity” isn’t necessarily just the term “normative” with a qualifier. Language is a funny thing, and sometimes terms that are combinations of other terms actually end up taking on their own meaning or at least their own nuances to the meaning.
But when you point out that normative is about a perceived ideal, and yes in western society being straight and cis-gendered is the social ideal. That’s the point. There is nothing inherently better about a straight relationship or about a cis-gendered person, but society places a higher value on those traits than on non-straight relationships and non-cis-gendered individuals.