How To Be Genderqueer

[mrentoul]

The politics of gender language. Listen up, people! Being gay just got more complicated.

Nuances of gay identities reflected in new language

From the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 8.

First, there was the term "homosexual," then "gay" and "lesbian," then the once taboo "dyke" and "queer."

Now, all bets are off.

With the universe of gender and sexual identities expanding, a gay youth culture emerging, acceptance of gays rising and label loyalty falling, the gay lexicon has exploded with scores of new words and blended phrases that delineate every conceivable stop on the identity spectrum -- at least for this week.

Someone who is "genderqueer," for example, views the gender options as more than just male and female or doesn't fit into the binary male-female system. A "trannydyke" is a transgender person (whose gender is different than the one assigned at birth) attracted to people with a more feminine gender, while a "pansexual" is attracted to people of multiple genders. A "boi" describes a boyish gay guy or a biological female with a male presentation; and "heteroflexible" refers to a straight person with a queer mind-set.

The list of terms -- which have hotly contested definitions -- goes on: "FTM" for female to male, "MTF" for male to female, "boydyke," "trannyboy, " "trannyfag," "multigendered," "polygendered," "queerboi," "transboi," "transguy," "transman," "half-dyke," "bi-dyke," "stud," "stem," "trisexual," "omnisexual," and "multisexual."

"The language thing is tricky," said Thom Lynch, the director of the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center. "I feel sorry for straight people."

Tricky, maybe, but also healthy and empowering, said Carolyn Laub, the director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, which links gay and lesbian student clubs in the state.

"We in society and in our generation are developing new understandings of sexual orientation and gender identities and what that means to us," she said. "We don't really have enough language to describe that; therefore, we have to create new words."

For those back in the linguistic dark ages still wondering what's wrong with "homosexual," the evolution of queer identity language has progressed something like this: "Homosexual" sounded pathological and clinical, so activists went about creating their own words, starting with "gay" and "lesbian." That was well and good, but terms like "dyke" and "queer" had an appealing spikiness and served double-duty by stripping the sting from words that had heretofore been considered unspeakably nasty.

The adjustment took time for some: As recently as 2002, visitors at the San Francisco community center routinely complained about a sign proudly pronouncing it "the queerest place on Earth," Lynch said. But in the Bay Area, in the age of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," that sort of sensitivity is beginning to seem almost quaint. Even some straight people have adopted the word because they have gay parents or an affinity for gay culture.

These days, "queer" is especially handy because it's vague enough to encompass just about everyone. The word and its newfangled linguistic cousins have become indispensable as the transgender population in the Bay Area has grown exponentially -- into the tens of thousands, advocates say -- and sexual identities have become increasingly complicated.

"If you're not a man or woman, words like 'gay' or 'lesbian' don't fit you anymore," said Sam Davis, founder of United Genders of The Universe, a support group and speakers bureau. "The words from just a few years ago aren't adequate to talk about who we are, where we're coming from and who we like."

Dee Braur, a 17-year-old with a tuft of greenish hair, calls herself "half-dyke." "I'm bisexual but I lean more toward women than men," she said. Men, she added, annoy her.

"Trisexual" also works, she said with a snicker: "I'll try anything once and if I like it, I'll try it again and again and again."

Andy Duran, 19, said: "People are feeling like, what's the point of labeling? If I must label, let me create my own."

That said, Duran uses "queer" -- among others -- because "it's the one that leaves the most for discovery. ... It's not really limiting. I can date a woman or a man. I can date someone who's transgender or genderqueer."

Tiffany Solomon, who is 19 and technically a lesbian, is put off by the word "lesbian."

"I think of a shorthaired woman who wears flannel. It's bad to a degree, but it's something that becomes embedded when you're young and queer and look on TV and you only have stereotypes to go on," she said. She calls herself a "metrosexual" -- the word used to describe straight men who have a gay sensibility when it comes to fashion and grooming -- because she also identifies with gay male culture.

Justin, who is 19 and didn't want to use his last name because he's not out to his family as transgender, calls himself a "boi" -- with an "i" -- because he feels like a boy -- with a "y" -- but "I don't have the boy parts, as much as I wish I did."

"I'm still learning the ropes of just being me," he added.

Lynn Breedlove, a musician and author, spent years as a "butch dyke," but nowadays, he prefers to interchange pronouns and, depending on his mood, goes back and forth between the old label and "trannyboy." "Because I'm like Peter Pan -- eternally youthful but I'm always played by a girl," Breedlove said. "It's more a faggy aesthetic thing. I don't want hair on my face and chest. Ooh, I don't want to be transman -- that sounds really furry."

While Breedlove is old enough to have an age complex -- he explained his refusal to divulge his age as a "rock star thing" -- a lot of the identity fluidity, name mania and word invention is bubbling up from the next generation of queer youth.

"Now that community resources are in place and public acceptance has increased, it's more feasible for adolescents to come out during adolescence," said Caitlin Ryan, a researcher at San Francisco State University who has studied lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. "What we're getting in the LGBT community is the power of youth. It's their expression and exuberance and energy and also their contribution to the culture."

It makes sense that youth, in particular, are coming up with new words and trying them on, considering that "identity development is one of the most important developmental tasks of adolescence," she said.

Growing acceptance of gays and lesbians has also encouraged idiosyncrasy, Ryan said. "Identities are very personal. That was much less true 20 years ago, when identity was more around community. Now that there's a community, a vibrant one with resources, there's more room for personal identity. Before, the tribe was so much more important," she said.

To further complicate matters, race and ethnicity affect who is using which words. Some people of color prefer the word "stud" to "butch," meaning a masculine-identified lesbian. Which makes someone who falls between a stud and a femme -- a more "feminine" lesbian -- a "stem."

And genderbending and genderqueerness aren't as prevalent among people of color, said Mateo Cruz, who's Latino and a staff member at the Pacific Center, Berkeley's LGBT center.

In these communities, "queer" and the terms it spawned have a reputation of being "white," so some shy away from them in favor of "same-gender-loving people" or "men who sleep with men," or -- among Spanish-speakers -- "homosexual," which is also a Spanish word.

"A lot of the stereotypes of what a 'queer' person is supposed to be, especially in mainstream media, is always a white person," said Solomon, who is African American. "A lot of issues people of color have with their families is their parents are saying, 'If you're gay, then you want to be white.' Because that's all they see. So yeah, 'queer' is not a word that a lot of people of color use."

No wonder Cruz sometimes grows frustrated when he leads discussions about appropriate language in anti-homophobia workshops. It can take an hour for his savviest students to list the "hundreds" of words they know for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Then the discussion about what the words mean, who can use them and whether they're polite, often drags on ad nauseam.

When Cruz's coding system -- circles, big X's and dotted lines to connote cool, uncool, and sometimes-cool terms -- inevitably breaks down, he throws up his hands.

"However people self-identify," he tells students, "we have to respect."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What it all means

Definitions of many words in the gay lexicon are hotly contested. Here is a sample:

Genderqueer: Someone who views the gender options as more than just male and female or who doesn't fit into the binary male-female system.

Transgender: An umbrella term for transgression of the binary gender system. May include surgical, hormonal or nonhormonal changes that result in a gender identity different from the one assigned at birth.

Pansexual: Someone attracted to people of multiple genders.

Trannydyke: A transgender person attracted to people with a more feminine gender.

Trannyfag: A transgender person attracted to people with a more masculine gender.

Boi: A boyish gay guy or a biological female with a boyish presentation.

Heteroflexible: A straight person with a queer mind-set.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&type=printable

[tuky]

well, I guess all I can say is that the gay people I know I just call...Friend, or perhaps sometimes mate

[Jeepz]

mrentoul~

Thanks for a very interesting post. It was quite enlightening to see how the language is being adapted to refer to various combinations of body parts to role and sexual interest.

I take a real delight in watching language change as people use it. On the other hand, I often feel that I get to define those words or terms as I please too. Or refuse them if I find them foolish or useless.

My favorite rant is the Hollywood PC term "actor" being used for women. They dislike being called "actresses" because it demeans their ability and/or somehow limits their negotiations for equality of pay. Balderdash! I know that it is simply a "style" thing, currently popular and one that will in a decade or two, become out of fashion. Women will at some point find it necessary for their sense of uniqueness, to embrace terms of gender identity. (Note this is just my guess.) And I haven't seen them refusing the Oscar for Best Actress in order to make this supposed point of gender equality.

But, forgiving my digression above, I think that it is quite the brave lot of lads and lasses that are fashioning their own personal identities and making the world a richer tapestry for it.

Jeepz

[mrentoul]

Women will at some point find it necessary for their sense of uniqueness, to embrace terms of gender identity.

You are right. To put it crudely, when their own interests are served by reverting to ''actress'' or whatever, they'll do it, without shame or prompting; just as they are attempting to twist or adapt the language now to suit their own interests.

The words listed above look - err - impermanent, and on the whole ugly. ''Queer'' may have a satisying 'spikiness' about it, but to whom? Mainly those folk who have come out and want to assert their identity.

What about young people who have not yet come out, and aren't sure how to talk to Mum and Dad? If I was in that category, ''queer'' definitely wouldn't do it, and at the other extreme, nor would ''homosexual'' (as the article says, way too clinical).

My preference would be ''gay'', but given that Mum and Dad would probably still think in terms of ''homosexual'' (less troubling to the soul) I might have to opt for that after all. But would most young gays think like that, or plump for something more 'spiky'?

No matter how alienated and grown up these young ones may want to seem, Mum and Dad in most cases will still want to keep them in the family fold. So they'll probably ignore the profusion of labels suggested by their son or daughter and come up with their own. My son has a ''friend'' who just happens to share a bed with him.

I imagine most of the words given above have been fashioned about of some perceived need to get in someone's face. That in turn is usually an expression of how alienated young men and women feel in struggling with this gay thing.

They want to belong, but not if society rejects them. If their parents reject them, they'll form a counter-culture of their own - complete with its own labels, secret understandings and so on.

[Nat]

"Trisexual" also works, she said with a snicker: "I'll try anything once and if I like it, I'll try it again and again and again."

Pretty much sums me up however have found what I like and even though imitations can be fun, they still don't compare to the real thing

Seriously, think there is a stigma attached to certain words, which makes it exceptionally difficult for younger people who are still trying to define themselves.

I have many "gay" friends who in certain circles will use the term bi - when in actuality they are homosexuals (to use the clinical term - can't help myself ).

I know an educated, professional lady, who (in private) calls her son a "bum raider" - yet amongst her gay friends (through her social circle at work) appears not to have an issue with homosexuality. It may be a case of "as long as it's not in my backyard", but regardless her son, who's in his early twenties, is undergoing therapy for this.

Family acceptanced is extremeley important and totally agree with you mrentoul.

Labels, regardless of what they are, have the power to do more damage than what many people would care to believe.

[Jeepz]

Heh, yeah ... that tri-sexual thing has to be the all around favorite. I think that was previously termed "puberty" and it's aftermath.

Without shame or prompting? Did you grow up in the same world I did? As I recall it was all shame and prompting (and/or the avoidance thereof) that pretty much compelled a large part of our actions as youths. Now who was doing all that shaming and prompting varied. Early on it was Dad and Mum (with large doses of love and so forth mixed in), then it was the Teachers (and on the odd occasion, The Principal). But for the greater part it was our sainted peers. Our benighted brothers and sisters and ever so much that demented group we called "friends".

Now looking over the new groupings (which I agree, may prove to be quite fragile and not last so very long: little moths drawn toward the flickering of delight) I have to wonder if a few years hence the poor Oscars will be forced to do anatomy checks before the awards. Justin (from the original post) might win best actor, but as he noted, he lacks the parts.

Yet it can have it's dark side. They just busted a 23 or so year old woman who reinvented herself as a sixteen year old boy and seduced a 12 year old girl. Even wiggled her way into living with the girl's family. Not quite sure where it happened, England I think. Bad form, as they used to say.

Jeepz

[JemJem]

Thanks for the article, mrentoul. I also have found it quite interesting.

Even though I am not a big fan of labels, I understand the fact that many people feel the want/need to identify themselves using one.

I myself liked the word 'pansexual' the most

Regards,

Jem

[mrmnp]

Everyone has the right to identify with any label he chooses, but can take no offense if his chosen label is not used unless he advertises that label.

I am very much against labels in all forms as they are merely conveniences for bigots. One of the greatest faults of mankind is the inherent desire to categorize others, place them in boxes of comfort, or otherwise "deal" with others.

Most people, upon first meeting, inquire "What do you do (for a living)? Makes them more comfortable when they can put you in their row of boxes, like keys in the room boxes behind hotel reception.

The gatherings I have attended or the people I have met in my travels in which ones occupation is not inquired of represent the most rewarding, intelligent and social events of all.

"Gay lifestyle" what is that?

I would think anyone would prefer to be known as "label" without an adjective preceeding it such as a black carpenter, a gay lawyer, a female conductor. Aren't we better off pushing for the approach: a carpenter that happens to be black, a lawyer who happens to be gay and a conductor who happens to be a woman.

On the actor/actress bit, are they not just not trying to get to the place that their occupations is described without sexual identity. If they choose actor to describe their profession then they have accomplished it, if all understand it carries no sexual identity, ie. steward/stewardess to flight attendant.

[Jeepz]

Humans label, catagorize and generalize by nature. If we didn't we'd be lost in a cyclone of minutia. Magicians have used this to create magic effects for ages. Much like the inherent drawbacks of being an air breathing creature, bidpedal, and mortal, we simply have to deal with it the best we can.

If I simply listen to a piece of music and enjoy it, the gender, race, and age of the individuals may have zero bearing on my experience. If, however, I want to know how that particular bit of music came to be at that point in time, then knowing about the individuals that composed and performed the music does have a bearing.

Enjoying Hamet or Othello does not require me to decide if they were written by William Shakespeare or The Earl of Oxford. If I settle down to watch a rerun of an old Perry Mason episode, the intimate lives of Raymond Burr or Barbara Hale are incidental to the experience. If however, I became interested in why Raymond Burr chose to play a salty sailor double of himself versus some other character, I might have to invade his life a bit, or at least get pointed off to the scriptwriter if that is where the characters genesis sprang from. (Perhaps Burr's stint in the Navy during WWII had something to do with it?)

We catagorize people as part of remembering them. Those catagories have labels and given the frailty of the human experience, we do too often limit our perception by referring to the label we attached. Yet we still must do so occasionally. How often have we heard that "if your gut tells you something is wrong, it probably is"? Something is bumping our sense of appropriateness and we need to be cautious.

I suppose that the best we can do is remind ourselves that labels are indicators, not definitions. We can't do without them, but we shouldn't limit our perceptions to them.

Jeepz (checking if his soapbox is rated for large bald verbose beings)

[mrmnp]

Jeepz, I sure enjoyed music appreciation more when the prof told us that Bethoven was screwing Lizst wife while he was off composing something, I don't remember.

What are your thoughts on gay men playing herterosexual men in movies and the viewer knowing about his private life?

A good lady friend of mine took great offense when Anne Heche played a straight lady and kissed Harrison Ford on screen, one of her dreamboats after. Anne made here liason with DeGeneris public. She felt the believability of the plot suffered.

Do you enjoy old Rock Hudson movies when he played straight men?

[Jeepz]

mrmnp~

Gosh, it generally doesn't bother me much at all. Now, to be honest, back when Rock Hudson was a cimena star, and even when he was still pretty popular on TV, no one outside of Hollywood really knew he was gay. So it wasn't much of an issue. And it still isn't for me.

Why your ladyfriend took offense when Anne Heche played a straight woman puzzles me. Actors and actresses play roles, that is the nature of their business. They sometimes accept roles they might not find personally valid simply so they can work (at something besides waiting tables).

Raymond Burr was gay. Does that detract from his very long lived and oft repeated Perry Mason? Doesn't bother me a whit, I sit down regularly and enjoy another episode in black & white.

What did you think of William Hurt playing Luis in "Kiss of the Spider Woman"? Or did you happen to see that? A fairly straight man playing a rather gender bending role.

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

Jeepz, good question.

I, personally, (can it be any other way?), really get into movies and identify with the good guys and hate the bad guys. I get into the character being played, not the person playing the character.

Thus, getting judgemental for me, is when leading men come off as "silly" when they play "silly" men's roles and I condem the characterization not the actor.

I like male characters to be strong male characterizations, action heroes if you will.

When Hudson played strong male roles, I enjoyed his portrayals, but did not enjoy him in his "Pillor Talk" roles. But then, I am not much into "sitcom" in any medium.

Truly great actors create characters that are believable. Perhaps when they fail to do that, an audience may well took to the person playing the part, and rightly so.

I remember the Ann Heche part that my lady friend didn't like and it was with Harrison Ford in that movie about them being stranded on an island after a plane wreck. Not memorable acting as I recall. Harrison Ford played himself and perhaps she did too.

[meadish_sweetball]

That's a very interesting discussion. I am afraid I won't be able to post anything as thought-intriguing as the two of you, but I can't help but interfering when something gets interesting.

Regarding Anne Heche kissing Harrison Ford, I agree with Jeepz that actors/actresses are paid to play roles. Of course, you may always blame an artist for selling out on his her ideals (very common in circles where a "common cause" is percieved, as it probably is here).

On the other hand, given the bias of movies today, and that the majority of mainstream movies probably are bound to focus on straights at least in the near future, is Anne Heche supposed to just decline every straight role she is offered "for the sake of the struggle"? That doesn't really make much sense, does it?

I recognize the line of reasoning from my musician days. This band sells out by going major, that band sells out by doing that, playing that venue or whatever.

I find that the people screaming sell-out, in many cases do not understand what reality an artist is facing, and how incredibly hard it must be to remain unaffected by the limelight. I wouldn't want to be famous like that, I could never handle the pressure.

[Ulysses G.]

What did you think of William Hurt playing Luis in "Kiss of the Spider Woman"? Or did you happen to see that? A fairly straight man playing a rather gender bending role.

Jeepz

William Hurt was one of my favorite actors until he did that role, and I am not homophobic. I have lived in gay cities, gay parts of town and had gay roomies.

However, after William Hurt played Luis, I could never see him as a strong, masculine, hetro-sexual again!

[Jeepz]

Ulysses G~

Which I take as a sort of back handed compliment to Hurt in the sense he must have been pretty effective in his portrayal. I've not been as fond of him as an actor, he always seemed to be a bit minimalist in his characters, too quiet. But I thought he was pretty darned good in that one, even if he and the subject weren't fav's of mine.

Meadish~

I hear what you are saying about the "selling out thing". It takes extraordinary character to withstand the seduction of fame. And trying to pin or limit a performer to one specific venue only is like trying to stop the seasons. It all only lasts for awhile. Then things change. If they don't adapt then the best they can hope for is being a Vegas lounge act down the road. If they are lucky.

mrmnp~

Truly great actors create characters that are believable. Perhaps when they fail to do that, an audience may well took to the person playing the part, and rightly so.

Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now is one such role. He was a sad actor in that one. A mere shadow of his former ability.

Jeepz

[Ulysses G.]

I don't know quite to put this, but I think that Hurt...had to become gay to play that role. I really wouldn't be surprsed if, either he was gay already, and hiding it, and he came out of the closet, or, he pushed himself to the point that he simply became what he was playing.

I find it very uncomfortable to watch.

In my opinion, Apocolypse Now is the greatest film of all time, but I call it a flawed masterpiece. It is almost a waste of time from the first moment that a 300 pound Brando is shown on screen.

[Jeepz]

Ulysses G~

I kind of doubt Hurt is/was gay. It is Hollywood so anything is possible, but he's had a number of relationships, two marriages, and I think four children. It's been a long time since I have seen the film, but as I remember, he doesn't do anything overtly sexual except maybe a kiss? Not too sure about that, but I know it didn't get an X rating so it couldn't have been too blatent.

But his persona in the film was excrutiatingly feminine. Sometimes you just have to remind yourself it is a movie. Kind of like when you were a kid and dad explains that The Blob (or vampire, werewolf, Freddy and/or Jason) are just make believe.

But it does speak to how sensitized we are as males to our roles and how uncomfortable we get when someone steps outside of those boundaries. I always felt a tad awkward when watching Truman Capote being interviewed. I knew he was a very talented author. I have read some of his work and enjoyed it. But watching him on the tube was sort of unsettling.

Like you said earlier, you lived around gays and didn't find it bothersome. I work with them and enjoy talking to with during breaks. One of them is an avid reader and we swap books occasionally.

Yeah, concerning Brando, like I said, he was a shadow of his former ability. A big shadow, but still not the real thing.

Jeepz

[Ulysses G.]

Jeepz

You are probably correct about William Hurt actually being straight, but that role really blew my mind. As I say, I've been around a lot of gay people in my life, and, despite the media's claims of stereotypes, it is usually pretty obvious what they are.

For Hurt to portray a very effeminate gay so realistically, is akin to a katoey that can mirror the femininity and body language of a real woman, and very few of them can.

[Ijustwannateach]

What did you think of William Hurt playing Luis in "Kiss of the Spider Woman"?  Or did you happen to see that?  A fairly straight man playing a rather gender bending role. 

Jeepz

William Hurt was one of my favorite actors until he did that role, and I am not homophobic. I have lived in gay cities, gay parts of town and had gay roomies.

However, after William Hurt played Luis, I could never see him as a strong, masculine, hetro-sexual again!

He's even better as the countess in "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues"- and that really IS a rather Genderqueer role!

"Steven"