Amanda

Thanks GWSS 3404 for being such a great group of people and helping me learn and grow as a person. And for making me realize that I don’t know everything…I needed that.  :-P  

This so called “assistance” for LGBT Muslims is also completely unasked for.  Peter Tatchell, for example, took it upon himself (completely without permission or approval from LGBT Muslims) to “assist” the “poor, underprivileged LGBT Muslims” even “at the sake of his own health”.  That’s right, Tatchell claims to work tirelessly, sacrificing his own health, to help LGBT Muslims.  Which would be great, IF THEY WANTED HIS HELP.  Instead, Tatchell places a golden halo of righteousness on his own head, graciously taken on the “white man’s burden” to deal with the “homophobic” Muslim populations around the world.  He picks how he wants to help, ignoring what LGBT Muslims actually want (and ignoring if they actually feel that they need help).  This serves to victimize LGBT Muslims and removes any agency that they may feel they have by negating the idea that they might actually have agency to begin with in such a “homophobic” climate.  Muslim countries are automatically subjected to a single story of homophobia and violence rather than being viewed as they really are.  

Let’s talk about Charlie Sheen and HIV shall we?  Specifically, I wanted to pick apart a few things in this article from the Los Angeles Times about Sheen’s announcement of his HIV status.  First, this article mentions Sheen “confessing” and “admitting” to being HIV positive.  This word usage is incredibly important because once again it paints HIV as being a “bad” thing (outside of Rubin’s “charmed circle”), something that is “unseemly” and should be hidden away.  It essentially makes Sheen sound like a criminal for having HIV, as though he’s committed a heinous crime by contracting HIV and now by proclaiming it to the world he is slightly redeemed (though not by much as many people think he “deserved” it due to his other seemingly “irresponsible” behavior). Another big problem I had with this article is that it refers to not having an STI as being “clean”.  Once again word usage here is incredibly important, by suggesting that having an STI makes someone “dirty” or somehow not “clean” it instills shame and guilt making it less likely for people to seek diagnosis and treatment.  It also makes those who are HIV positive (or who are diagnosed with another currently incurable STI) less likely to inform their partners of their status because of the stigma that comes along with being diagnosed with any STI.  Finally, I took issue with a comment near the end of the article that mentioned hoping Sheen’s diagnosis would prompt other men to use condoms.  Yes, I think it’s important that men realize HIV is still a potential threat and take appropriate measures to prevent transmission, but what about the women here?? HIV is not just a “man’s problem” it affects women too, and it’s not just up to men to take appropriate measures to prevent transmission.  Women have an obligation to prevent transmission as well (plus external condoms, typically used on penises, aren’t the only safer sex barrier method…internal condoms exist too for those with vaginas).  By implying that men are the only ones that need to work to prevent transmission it still implies that HIV is a disease that only affects men which closely ties it back to the “gay disease” idea (even though Sheen is considered straight).  It ignores the fact that women are just as likely (if not more likely) to contract HIV and that preventing transmission is ultimately a shared responsibility.  Now don’t get me wrong, this article had a surprising number of unproblematic things to say as well, but I still think it’s important to address these few, important problematic points as well.

The U.S. has a very irritating tendency to force other countries to conform to our “standard” of “civility” and human rights.  Rather than actually taking time to learn about how different countries and cultures view things differently the U.S. tends to push our standards onto others. Massad mentions this when he refers to the U.S. labelling certain sexual activities as “homosexual” which instantly places our idea and definition of what constitutes homosexuality on the Middle East while that definition may not actually fit.  Massad’s article also reminded me of all of the articles I’ve seen online sensationalizing the “horror” of “female genital mutilation” that have been circulating.  This is seen as “barbaric” and women are seen as having no agency or rights because of it. However, in the U.S. male circumcision is regularly performed with little thought, and these procedures both involve removing part of a person’s genitalia.  One is seen as horrible and barbaric while the other is seen as normal and even beneficial.  There is this image perpetuated through U.S. media that paints Muslim countries as those where women have no agency, where “the sexual privileges allowed to men are largely at the expense of women.” (p. 165), and where queer individuals have no rights.  The converse to this is that often Middle Eastern countries are painted as a gay paradise where wealthy, white, gay men can go and have sex without consequences with the ready and willing Arab men.  Overall, the main problem I see with all of this and that Massad touched on is that the U.S. pushes their agenda, definitions and views onto other countries like the Middle East without thought about that country’s specific culture, values and practices.  

California: http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2013/07/25/trans-teen-must-have-access-male-locker-room-says-doj

In honor of Laci Green coming to campus tomorrow (Wednesday, October 28 at 7:00pm in Northrup, and it’s FREE!) and because I’m doing my paper on sex work I thought I’d share a video she made about prostitution.  As Laci points out, prostitution is a pretty hot topic right now with a lot of people suggesting decriminalizing it while others want to simply shift the criminalization from sex workers to the pimps (essentially the “bosses” of sex workers) and johns (people who buy sex).  Laci brings up points about how Sweden and Norway saw a decrease in street prostitution when they started criminalizing pimps and johns, HOWEVER, as she pointed out this data was collected right around the time when the magical internet was born which probably means that prostitution simply moved from the streets to the internet rather than actually going away entirely.  New Zealand decriminalized sex work and noticed that sex workers reported being better able to negotiate condom usage, enforce their rules, turn down clients and talk to healthcare workers.  Based on New Zealand’s success it seems like decriminalization is the way to go, however, at least in this video, there is no mention of successes or failures of sex work legislation outside of the United States, Europe and New Zealand.  Since all of the places mentioned are considered “developed” countries it is really important to think about if this information can accurately be applied to less developed countries.  One thing Laci mentions that I think is super important is making the distinction between sex work and sex trafficking.  By placing all sex workers under the umbrella of trafficking you are victimizing people who aren’t necessarily victims and aren’t devoting as much time and effort to those who actually really need it.  This distinction isn’t always easy to see, however, as there are sex workers with varying degrees of agency.  This is why it is incredibly important to actually talk to sex workers and get their input on what they need, what isn’t working, what should change, etc. because honestly, they’re the only ones who truly understand the issues in sex work and what should change.  Obviously this video isn’t perfect, but I think it provides some valuable information about sex work in an easy to understand and quick format.

This really made me think about my own sexual/romantic relationships…in high school I only ever dated white guys (but then again, this makes a lot of sense given the predominately white school I went to).  And now, after being at the U of M for over two years and being exposed to many more potential partners of more racially diverse backgrounds I’ve still only ever dated white guys.  I always thought of myself as being open to dating anyone as long as our personalities match well, but looking back I’ve never really experienced strong romantic attraction to anyone of color.  Now, how much of this is simply personal preference (like being more attracted to tall guys or blonde guys) and how much of it is influenced by the lack of racial diversity I experienced growing up I’m not really sure about.  I thought about the same thing when reading Vaid-Menon’s writing; was their desire for white men just because of a desire to be like the oppressor, or could some of it simply be explained by personal preference in characteristics of partners?  I definitely think it’s important to think about the ways that racialization and sexuality intersect both from a societal standpoint and from your own individual experiences.  

I checked out Sex Work Matters: Exploring Money, Power and Intimacy by Melissa Hope Ditmore, Antonia Levy and Alys Willman from Wilson Library (I would definitely recommend looking at their selection of books on gender and sexuality, they actually have a variety).  This book contains a selection of essays written by sex workers, scholars, and activists about the economics and sociology of sex work.  It includes experiences of male and transgender sex workers, harassment experienced at the hands of police, and how sex workers handle money.  This book offers new frameworks for understanding the sex industry and incorporates essays written by actual sex workers.  I’ll be referring to this book for my essay on deconstructing the idea of all sex workers as inherently being “victims” who were unable to choose this career of their own free will.      

The movie “Stonewall” just hit theaters a couple of weeks ago despite considerable backlash from the LGBT community.  With the recent passage of same-sex marriage rights and the introduction of trans celebrities into popular culture, and now the introduction of a movie supposedly modeled after the famous “Stonewall Riots” a lot of Americans feel like amazing progress is being made and that the U.S. is leading the way for LGBT recognition, acceptance and rights.  And it’s true, some progress is being made, and some progress is always better than none, but releasing a completely cis and whitewashed movie about a prominent event for the LGBT community isn’t exactly progressing in the right direction. It’s well understood within the LGBT community that trans people of color like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P Johnson played a hugely prominent role in the Stonewall Riots, however, the “Stonewall” movie is loaded with white, cis characters and almost entirely excludes the contributions of people of color and non-gender-conforming people. Because of this gross white and cis-washing, prominent LGBT activists have called for a boycott of the film, pronouncing that they refuse to economically support institutions that continue to ignore people of color and the trans community.  Unfortunately this isn’t the first time that trans people of color have been overshadowed by gay, cis white folks, and it’s not looking like it will be the last.  Hopefully, with LGBT activists and leaders refusing to buy into Hollywood’s game as long as they refuse to acknowledge trans people of color’s contributions to the gay right’s movement, we will start to see a shift in the representations of LGBT people on screen.  

My favorite quote from the reading:  “One need not like or perform a particular sex act in order to recognize that someone else will, and that this difference does not indicate a lack of good taste, mental health, or intelligence in either party” (p. 283).  

This situation highlights the pervasive attitudes in society that transness is “unnatural” and “unacceptable”, and suggests that people who are trans should have to identify themselves by their assigned sex because society can’t be bothered to accept them as they are.  It even suggests that if someone identifies as trans they should have to undergo sexual reassignment surgery so that they can pass as cis and not confuse people (like the TSA).  Apparently the advanced scanning technology the TSA uses can’t distinguish a penis from a bomb or other threat which begs the question why all people with penises aren’t being detained?  The reason for this is that not everyone with a penis is trans.  Shadi wasn’t detained because there was a legitimate concern that her penis was a bomb (the technology the TSA uses can detect the difference between human flesh and other substances), she was detained because she identified as a woman while having a penis and the TSA considered that a legitimate reason to harass her.  The fact that it’s 2015 and the TSA still considers being trans a “threat” is completely unacceptable.  

The definition of transnational that resonated most with me was the idea of a world without borders.  A pressing question that is brought up at the thought of a borderless world is which borders we’re removing.  Are we simply removing the physical borders that separate countries, removing the need for passports, border control, etc.?  Are we eliminating borders of wealth and poverty thus spreading out resources evenly among countries?  What about cultural borders, or moral borders?  If the idea of a borderless world simply pertains to removing the physical borders between countries those who are not the most privileged still won’t be able to cross those borders freely.  For example, in countries where the LGBT+ community faces extreme discrimination and violence simply removing physical borders won’t permit those individuals to safely visit or live in that country.  Removing physical borders would only serve to benefit those who have privilege and access while still maintaining solid cultural borders excluding disenfranchised groups from similar access.  In fact, groups with privilege and access for the most part already live in a borderless world.  With a passport, plane ticket, and visit to customs these individuals can travel across virtually every geographical and cultural border in the world.  Meanwhile, even more privileged non-cis or non-heterosexual people still cannot travel wherever they may like out of fear of facing more extreme violence or discrimination than they already may experience.  Someone who identifies themselves as being part of the LGBT+ community may not be able to travel safely to Russia, for example, due to Russia’s notoriously discriminating policies against the LGBT+ community.  This also applies even down to city borders or specific neighborhoods.  While a heterosexual person can safely live in and visit predominately gay communities the opposite isn’t often true.  Certain cities and even certain neighborhoods can be violent and highly discriminating against people who don’t fit their mold of “proper sexuality” (i.e. heterosexual, cis, monogamous, etc.) even if the state or country as a whole is more accepting.  In order to create a borderless world that benefits everyone instead of those who are already privileged borders of discrimination and privilege would need to be removed as well.