I’m baffled.
“Essence: the quality of a thing that gives it its
identity.” “The Essence” sounds
singular to me, one essence; but “GLBTSQAHZICAEUC?” sounds like a lot of
different kinds of people. So, how can
there be one essence? I imagine that we can argue logically that there is an
essence supposedly common to all human beings, but I doubt that the person who
suggested this “GLBTQ”-topic meant all of humanity. Somehow, he meant to speak to a singularity
applied to people of various orientations or persuasions.
Over the years, I have had time for rational evaluation of
human sexual orientation, and long ago I came to the well supported conclusion
that there are no true categories.
Sexuality is fluid and covers a wide spectrum. Orientals such as East Indians have known
that for centuries. I’m not sure that
all members of Western psychological professions have managed to come to that
realization. For the longest time in the
West, professionals were convinced that human sexuality is binary, male and
female; and any deviation from those two categories was supposedly
abnormal. Awareness to the contrary and
consequential studies in this area have been belated, although there has been
an increase in research that has revealed much information, assuming that
people are truly interested in learning about it.
Contrary to my undergraduate studies during the Dark Ages of
psychological debate, when, for example, one of my professors denied the slightest
influence of genetics upon how one thinks, feels, and behaves, we now are
obtaining through modern research-methods an astonishing quantity of
information confirming and, to some extent, explaining genetic influences upon
human development.
Despite these scientific revelations, some people still
engage in a false debate of “nature vs. nurture,” that is, is a person
the result solely from how he was born or what he learns? The premise of the argument is false. Instead,
humans are the result of nature with nurture. The myriad of factors forming an
individual’s personality and sexuality seem too complex to speak of one essence.
Considering physical development alone, researches have
discovered that there are at least one hundred genetic influences in the womb
that contribute to more than thirty physical intersex states. We now know also that genetic influences upon
brain and endocrine system development
have a discernable impact upon how one feels and thinks.
So, how to approach this topic? I suggest that “GLBTQ” is too limiting, just
too few choices to place all gay-ish people into one of those categories. And with this topic, what was meant by
“essence?” I can image that, in the
1970s and 80s, “The essence” could refer to patchouli. I sure smelled allot of that essence when I
was around gay people during that time.
Let’s start by looking at some of these lettered designations. I suppose to be an “L” one must be female, or
at least some semblance of female. Then
there is “B” for “bisexual.” That sounds biological to me. Do people mean instead that a person is an
“A,” ambisexual, like a baseball switch-hitter?
If that person claims to
be straight but has gay encounters on the side, is that person “heteroflexible?”
Then there is T for “transgender.” That term is imprecise and does not clarify
which way the person was reassigned. Also,
it certainly does not refer to that minority of “Ts” who changed and then
attempted to change back again. I know
of some cases like that and also have talked with one such person. Would that person be a “TT?”
How about an “S?” I’m
particularly baffled by those thousands of young guys and teenage boys who inexplicably have a
compulsion to take massive doses of female hormones yet have no intention of
ever surgically completing a full transition.
They develop large breasts, wide hips, and round butts, but they still
possess their original equipment. Some
even prefer to be the dominate partners in sex.
A whole new term has been created to refer to this group, “shemales.” So, I guess we need an “S” for them. Robin Williams refers to this hybrid of many
sexual parts as “The Swiss army-knife of sex.”
If you like Robin’s term, “S” would
work for that, too.
Now for “Q.” I hope that no activist who has become habituated
to using the term ”queer,” chooses to be offended by my questioning its
use. What in the world qualifies someone
to be “queer?” Could that term be
referring to Dennis Rodman? Does an
overabundance of tattoos and piercings make a person look queer? Is Dennis’ palling around with North Korea’s
Kim Jong Un queer behavior? Or, what
about the reclusive, elderly woman who has seventy-five cats inside her smelly
house? Could she be queer? I can not imagine encountering a person in
the figure of a president, a general, or an astronaut, and calling him or her “queer”
simply for having a same-sex partner.
Do we require an “H” for hermaphrodites? True hermaphrodites are extremely rare. More frequently, some varying level of
physiologically intersex state is found.
I think we need a letter “I,” too.
Some such individuals choose, or have been persuaded to choose, “apparent-male”
or “apparent-female” and have surgery to approximate the
appearance. Contrary to that choice, I took
notice of a young Harvard student who was intersex. People demanded to know whether the surgical
choice would be “male” or “female,” The
reply was, “Neither. I am who I am.” That impressed me.
What factors contribute to a person being asexual? Is it personality? Something physical? Lack of opportunity? Old age?
Do we have to come up with another “A” for this person? Or maybe we need a “Z” for “Zero” to prevent
confusion with the other “A.”
For several hundred years throughout Europe and beyond,
there was a pervasive custom of emasculating thousands of prepubescent boys so
that they could preserve their soprano voices yet benefit from the
extraordinary physical development unique to those individuals as adults. Many of them continued to have sex with
females, many with males, and some with both.
There even is a small minority of males right here in the U.S. who
choose the procedure simply for psycho-sexual reasons. Creepy, but true. Upon what personality traits would we base
categorization? How should we call them?
“Gay?” “Straight?” “C” for “castrato?”
What if everything is lopped off a male as has been done for
centuries with East-Indian hijras? It is estimated that there are approximately
two-and-a-half million hijras in
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Singapore, and elsewhere even today. They dress like women, but they are neither
women nor men. Should we come up with an
“E” for “eunuch?”
There probably are several more letters that we could come
up with, but let me suggest just two more.
How about “U” for “uninterested,” someone who is not truly asexual but,
for various other reasons, just does not give a damn about sex anymore? Maybe some guy was just divorced for the
fifth time and has given up on women (or men), especially now that he has moved
out of the house and is living in a tent.
And last but not least, how about “C?” for “confused?” In other words, “Just what in the heck am
I?” I bet there are allot of people out
there who simply are confused.
Well, I may not be a confused “C?”, but I am
baffled. I just don’t know what to make
of GLBTSQAHZICAEUC?. Are we now obliged to come up with separate
restrooms?
© 20 April 2013
About the Author
I have had a life-long fascination with people and their life stories. I also realize that, although my own life has not brought me particular fame or fortune, I too have had some noteworthy experiences and, at times, unusual ones. Since I joined this Story Time group, I have derived pleasure and satisfaction participating in the group. I do put some thought and effort into my stories, and I hope that you find them interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment