Sign in to follow this  
TopBilled

'Q' for questioning

43 posts in this topic

LGBT - and now. Q? - no, one letter too many.

Wait until there's a new designation and it also gets included. 

 

One thing I read online about 'Q' is that it means 'questioning' but it's also meant to include straight allies, which seems a bit strange to me. They really are trying to include everyone, to the point the original classification gets watered down. And don't progressives usually want to get away from labels-- if so, then why are they generating more of them?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until there's a new designation and it also gets included. 

 

One thing I read online about 'Q' is that it means 'questioning' but it's also meant to include straight allies, which seems a bit strange to me. They really are trying to include everyone, to the point the original classification gets watered down. And don't progressives usually want to get away from labels-- if so, then why are they generating more of them?

I would have stuck with the LGB label which covers all bases- Transgender people are a different issue all together- sometimes they become women who like women or men who like men or what ever strikes their fancy at the moment - look at Catlyn Kardashian who still can't make up her mind if she is going to date men?  Q reminds me of how some gays started using the all inclusive "****" as if "**** cinema" but I guess that did not catch on...speaking of **** cinema - we need more gay movies in which gay's kick **** as in Greg Araki's "The Living End " (1992)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg Araki's "The Living End " (1992)

I remember seeing this at an art house cinema when it first came out. It seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Thelma & Louise, which had been released a year earlier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catlyn Jenner is a publicity gimmick dreamed up by the Kardashians...."Questioning" is another term for that old excuse- gee I was so drunk last night I forget if I had sex with a man.

 

Sandra Bernhard was on Watch What Happens, Live with Andy Cohen and the topic of Jenner came up.   Sandra isn't shy and she went off on Jenner,  calling him a sexist and fraud.   Her main point was that one can't know about the struggles of being a women by just putting on a dress and wearing high heals.      

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandra Bernhard was on Watch What Happens, Live with Andy Cohen and the topic of Jenner came up.   Sandra isn't shy and she went off on Jenner,  calling him a sexist and fraud.   Her main point was that one can't know about the struggles of being a women by just putting on a dress and wearing high heals.      

My problem with Bruce Jenner is that if he did not go off to live a private life as transgender woman- not he became another Kardashian fame ****!  Magazine covers! Reality tv shows!  Adds for cosmetics! Seriously I thought he would have enough money to live on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we need to make sure we're not stereotyping youth or their senior counterparts. Your example of Plummer's character is interesting. But it doesn't sound like he's questioning anything. Coming out is different than questioning, I think. My earlier post was that I wouldn't find it too realistic if an 85 year old questioned his or her sexuality. I feel if a person lives enough years, they move beyond questioning...they are well into verification of sexual identity through previous experiences. In the case of the role played by Plummer, he may be questioning the decisions he made to stay closeted so long but he wouldn't be questioning if he's gay; he would have long ago arrived at such a conclusion.

 

Also, it occurs to me that people do not really question their heterosexuality, do they...?

For someone who has seen the film, it wasn't really the question of his sexual identity, and more to do with the choice to come out about it and being allowed to live his life as he saw fit, even in the remaining years.

 

People don't question their heterosexuality if they know and believe themselves to be heterosexuals, because heterosexuality is still considered "normal" sexuality. If heterosexuality is still considered "normal," then homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, and being transgender is considered "abnormal."

 

For us, our orientation is as natural as our eye color. We see our treatment as what is abnormal to our normal. Therefore, we combat heteronormality by showing the normalcy of the orientation spectrum. We didn't adopt the rainbow if only to adopt the first color of it and the last color of it, there are colors in between with as much dimension. 

 

It all boils down to agency. I may not like Caitlyn Jenner's politics, but I do think that she isn't taking advantage of the spotlight for bringing to light how normal it is for people to physically change genders. If we restrict the spectrum to just the color pink and the color blue, we are hurting ourselves by not being accepting of all the rainbow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just seen an exquisite film with Eddie Redmayne, I would say that "The Danish Girl" is definitely a film about a young man, who is questioning his sexuality (he is a married man) and finally decides to become a woman.

 

It is the true story of Lilli Elbe, a pioneering spirit who died in the attempt to fully embrace her femininity.

 

Aren't you mixing sexuality with gender identification?     e.g. a man that is married to a women,  can get a divorce and have sexual relationships with other men.    One doesn't need to become a women in order to do this.   But I wonder if some men desire to become women as a way of not embracing that they are gay.    i.e. they believe the myth that only man \ women sexual relationships are 'normal'.  

 

Generally isn't being gay or lesbian accepting and embracing one's inner nature while being transgender is about rejecting (not accepting and not embracing) one's outer nature?         

 

I also question how much so called femininity or masculinity are social constructs verses innate human traits  (I assume mostly the former).      Therefore these social constructs (historically defined by sexist practices placed upon women by male dominated cultures),   will finally evolve where we are all in a gray area instead of trying to embrace traditional sexist definition of feminist or masculinity.      

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you mixing sexuality with gender identification?    

I know you were asking rayban, but I wanted to 'jump in'.

 

Questioning sexuality and questioning gender seem like two different things. And as I said in a prior post, the questioning can come from others. So we have inner questioning and outer questioning. 

 

The main problem I have with these groups labeling and re-labeling everything all the time is that it all tends to become overly defined and unnecessarily complicated.

 

Earlier hepclassic used the term 'heteronormality,' and I get what it means, and I know hep was making a valid point, but it seems like yet another overly defined concept. When I was in film school, in cases where we compared fictional narratives to documentaries, we talked about the 'real' and the 're-real' which looking back on it seems overly defined and almost a parody on some level.

 

Why do we have to qualify everything with definitions and more definitions..? It gets too cerebral after a point. In some ways, I think it's sad that gays and lesbians have to be so cerebral about their sexuality instead of just being fluid about it and expressing it or not expressing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you were asking rayban, but I wanted to 'jump in'.

 

Questioning sexuality and questioning gender seem like two different things. And as I said in a prior post, the questioning can come from others. So we have inner questioning and outer questioning. 

 

The main problem I have with these groups labeling and re-labeling everything all the time is that it all tends to become overly defined and unnecessarily complicated.

 

Earlier hepclassic used the term 'heteronormality,' and I get what it means, and I know hep was making a valid point, but it seems like yet another overly defined concept. When I was in film school, in cases where we compared fictional narratives to documentaries, we talked about the 'real' and the 're-real' which looking back on it seems overly defined and almost a parody on some level.

 

Why do we have to qualify everything with definitions and more definitions..? It gets too cerebral after a point. In some ways, I think it's sad that gays and lesbians have to be so cerebral about their sexuality instead of just being fluid about it and expressing it or not expressing it. 

If equality was as simple in real application as it was in definition, then there wouldn't be a need to explore, dig deeper, bring to light,learn, and do better by people by. We'd all accept each other as beautiful works of Nature. But, we've been taught by society to be a certain way, act a certain way, behave a certain way. 

 

If GLBTQ wasn't GLBTQ, and everyone was allowed to just be, there wouldn't be a frustration that comes from a gap of generation and language there is now. We know more now than we did then. The youth know and generally accept more, and while the labeling continues, the definitions behind those labels are more positive, and challenging the status quo of the previous negative definition. We all get the same flack no matter which label we are called by the heterosexuals in power. They enjoy dividing us because the responsibility shifts from them to us. It is a sick, twisted game, but I don't want to play those games anymore. I would rather the labelers be challenged for their definitions and take their cues from those whom they labeled and we all change the definition the labelers give to mean positive. 

 

Putting down a transgender is the same as putting down a gay person to me, and I think both are beautiful and the only people needing to be put down are those who put down those people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If equality was as simple in real application as it was in definition, then there wouldn't be a need to explore, dig deeper, bring to light,learn, and do better by people by. We'd all accept each other as beautiful works of Nature. But, we've been taught by society to be a certain way, act a certain way, behave a certain way. 

 

If GLBTQ wasn't GLBTQ, and everyone was allowed to just be, there wouldn't be a frustration that comes from a gap of generation and language there is now. We know more now than we did then. The youth know and generally accept more, and while the labeling continues, the definitions behind those labels are more positive, and challenging the status quo of the previous negative definition. We all get the same flack no matter which label we are called by the heterosexuals in power. They enjoy dividing us because the responsibility shifts from them to us. It is a sick, twisted game, but I don't want to play those games anymore. I would rather the labelers be challenged for their definitions and take their cues from those whom they labeled and we all change the definition the labelers give to mean positive. 

 

Putting down a transgender is the same as putting down a gay person to me, and I think both are beautiful and the only people needing to be put down are those who put down those people. 

hep,

 

I couldn't (respectfully) disagree more with what you just posted. First, you chided me not long ago for bringing up race in a discussion about gays and lesbians. But now you are comparing transgenders with gays. The most common misconception in the "community" is that it is assumed all transgenders on some level must be gay, therefore they get lumped into this group. And now questioning people and straight allies are being lumped into the group. It seems like an obvious (slightly desperate) attempt to increase overall numbers for the sake of solidarity and to create an umbrella topic under which everyone must be gay. This is why a lot of people are not on board supporting gay rights agendas, because they tend to go a little far, and if folks have a comfort level issue to begin with, then it's very alienating. 

 

Also, you seem to be trying to justify the definitions under the premise "if we don't define ourselves, THEY will.' Suggesting THEY are the big bad enemies. No, what really happens is that when things get overly defined, they start to seem ludicrous and people turn off to it. Your use of the word 'heteronormal,' while well intentioned to facilitate dialogue, was an example of this. First, why not say heterosexual or just normal. Combining the two words seems gimmicky and automatically political. And second, hetero and normal are not, according to any legitimate dictionary, not synonyms. You are saying they are similar terms, but they are not.

 

Most of the heterosexuals I know are not fully normal-- they all have hang-ups in one way or another; they are all flawed human beings. Meanwhile, some homosexuals seem normal given their individual circumstances, particularly if they are emotionally well-adjusted, have decent jobs, enjoy a happy love life, etc. So trying to merge terms and put forth these new, somewhat forced, definitions does seem like a misuse of concepts. It ultimately serves to cause confusion and generate tension-- in this case, playing into the inferiority complex that all gays and lesbians must be abnormal by comparison. That's the twisted game that shouldn't be played anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If equality was as simple in real application as it was in definition, then there wouldn't be a need to explore, dig deeper, bring to light,learn, and do better by people by. We'd all accept each other as beautiful works of Nature. But, we've been taught by society to be a certain way, act a certain way, behave a certain way. 

 

If GLBTQ wasn't GLBTQ, and everyone was allowed to just be, there wouldn't be a frustration that comes from a gap of generation and language there is now. We know more now than we did then. The youth know and generally accept more, and while the labeling continues, the definitions behind those labels are more positive, and challenging the status quo of the previous negative definition. We all get the same flack no matter which label we are called by the heterosexuals in power. They enjoy dividing us because the responsibility shifts from them to us. It is a sick, twisted game, but I don't want to play those games anymore. I would rather the labelers be challenged for their definitions and take their cues from those whom they labeled and we all change the definition the labelers give to mean positive. 

 

Putting down a transgender is the same as putting down a gay person to me, and I think both are beautiful and the only people needing to be put down are those who put down those people. 

I think you raise a good point about generational acceptance- kids can be lot more open in high school not that they would never dream of in past decades.   Gender might not define sexuality- because obviously then men would automatically only want to have sex with women- perhaps homosexuality is built into out genetic code- for reasons that only mother nature knows. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you raise a good point about generational acceptance- kids can be lot more open in high school not that they would never dream of in past decades.   Gender might not define sexuality- because obviously then men would automatically only want to have sex with women- perhaps homosexuality is built into out genetic code- for reasons that only mother nature knows. 

I believe that we are taught behavior, but we cannot teach nature. The only reason why at least to me, that people don't care about orientation even though they assume that heterosexuality is natural and what isn't isn't is because they were taught by society in all its forms to believe so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that we are taught behavior, but we cannot teach nature. The only reason why at least to me, that people don't care about orientation even though they assume that heterosexuality is natural and what isn't isn't is because they were taught by society in all its forms to believe so. 

But I think they feel they were taught my nature to believe heterosexuality is correct (for them). And their form of society is merely upholding that. I'm not sure if that's wrong. Because if you think about it, homosexuals do the same thing in how their perceive their own nature and how they band together to establish an alternative societal code.

 

And of course, this discussion assumes there is no such thing as bisexuality or any in-between area, which many people realize is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that we are taught behavior, but we cannot teach nature. The only reason why at least to me, that people don't care about orientation even though they assume that heterosexuality is natural and what isn't isn't is because they were taught by society in all its forms to believe so. 

 

I agree that we are taught behavior but can't teach nature.    This is why I wonder what the future will bring as it relates to gay behavior;  e.g.  the stereotypical effeminate behavior associated with gay men.    I assume this is a taught behavior that in many men may be a defense mechanism.    i.e. in cultures were gay orientation is abnormal,  being more like a women makes being gay more 'normal'.    Once these arsine guilt trips applied by the dominant heterosexual are passé  gay men will be freer to express themselves as they wish (instead of modeling what is viewed as 'normal' gay traits).    This will also be true for heterosexual men.   i.e. they can show their so called feminine side and the historical stigma of being called gay would be meaningless.   

 

I believe TB's point was that everyone should be free from the historical labels (instead of society creating new ones);   No one should be picked on for how they express themselves.    Heterosexual men can listen to Barbara Streisand,  heterosexual women can have short hair,   lesbian women can be 'girly',   and homosexual men can hate Streisand and have messy apartments and no one will blink an eye.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe TB's point was that everyone should be free from the historical labels (instead of society creating new ones);   No one should be picked on for how they express themselves.    Heterosexual men can listen to Barbara Streisand,  heterosexual women can have short hair,   lesbian women can be 'girly',   and homosexual men can hate Streisand and have messy apartments and no one will blink an eye.

Right, and in the movies, this is often depicted in comedies that use gender bending and play on the established stereotypes for laughs. Someday those things may no longer seem funny. 

 

And what I was referring to earlier is that if we overly define everything, it just makes more labels-- and most people (the people I know) don't like being classified or restricted by phony labeling. Individualism should be held a bit more sacrosanct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the 20th century heterosexuality was the only way for humanity to continue now there are other methods of procreation- yes we are taught that heterosexuality is the only way to create the sacred family unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can be free of historical labels as long as the privileged groups stop labeling and dehumanizing people in the process, but that takes ownership of history, and privileged groups do not want to take responsibility for their history. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Danish Girl" - the very nature of this film - a young man is questioning his masculinity - and the overpoweringly real performance of Eddie Redmayne - had to be anathema to the membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

 

And that is how greatness, which allows no compromise, is so often rewarded in Hollywood.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us