There’s something of a GLBTQA presence at AWP, so when I go next week, I’d like to see what that’s all about. And while we’re on the subject, can we please not lump gay/lesbian, bi, transsexual/transgender, queer, and asexual into one massive, ugly string of letters? Who started that, anyway? Is it necessary to add queerness and asexuality to this group of misfits?
I guess I can understand saying GBT. Maybe even GLBT, for those who believe vehemently that lesbians deserve their own categorization in the queer community, which is fair. But as a feminism supporter myself, even I think it’s probably not offensive just to call them gay. It’s what they are, right? Bi, on the other hand, is something different altogether, but yes, it is closely related, and by some token, so is trans.
But is it necessary to add queerness to this group? Is there some distinction of which I’m unaware, because I’ve always been under the impression that queer was the generally accepted term for the community as a whole.
And then there’s asexual, the addition of which creates a subtle but powerful nuance, transforming what was once a group of oppressed but proud individuals into…basically just a group of sexual deviants, each of us defying the societal norms that have been sneakily coded into human sexuality by those who know better, or think they do. Perhaps the answers we seek lie in the conversation to which we were conveniently not invited, the one in which all of us queers simply became sexually charged objects (and by that, I mean libidinous maniacs with no feelings or selectivity, who hit on and are attracted to every possible person) rather than glorious human beacons who represent the very diversity of sexuality as an orientation, a way of being.
Not just a way of fucking.
Other Gay Entries You Might Enjoy
‘Star Trek: Phase II’ Features Gay Storyline and AIDS Metaphor
The Object of My Prepositions: A Search for Prince Charming
Squirmy Change and Gay Sharing
Bollywood’s FIRST Gay Love Story
In D.C. – The National Equality March