I always enjoy your comments. They're so well articulated and they always get me thinking from different dimensions. Thank you so much.
Regarding your point about Gay4Pay folks not being welcome to our ball, I hear you but I disagree. It's true that they dabble in our queer pool and suffer none of the prejudice and general shit that queer people go through. There's no denying that. However, from an identity point of view, they are queer (to some degree). The same way you and your karaoke-singing friends are singers in the literal sense. You sing. Do you sing well? That's a different conversation. Are you professional singers? Probably not. But are you literally singers (as in a human who sings however terribly lol), yes! That's my point.
Regarding your question about the individual openly exhibiting elements of being non-conforming, I don't think they need to be open. Obviously though, they'd need to be open to be PUBLICLY considered queer. However, in actuality, open or closeted, such people who engage in queer sex are queer in their own different ways. That's how I see it. I don't need to be open to be gay. I can be gay in secret. But open or closeted, I'm still gay. I hope this makes sense.
Trust me. Once I get this voice control thingy in check, it's over for Queen B. Lol!
And, yes. I understand your point of view. In fact, I think it's beyond valid.
I believe I've been arguing from a place of collective representation in order to effectively pursue agenda that address our oppression. For me, identity politics without postmodernism's division in inclusion.
Thank you for letting me appreciate the individual's perspective based on one's ability to perform a certain activity whether or not they choose to openly identify with other performers.
Also, just like our singing analogy, we can all be singers-- whether we're packing stadiums or bothering our soap bars with an unsolicited encore.
I look forward to discussing more concepts in queer identity as your thoughts evolve.❤
Hmmm... quite interesting to think about, and I guess we'll find out soon. There's also the subject of "identification" (which you do give a nod towards) i.e. if someone chooses to identify as one or the other (i.e. queer or non-queer), can one really say they are something else even if they have existing traits? I really love reading how you dissect different topics, even the ones that are "non-mainstream" like you call it. Also, I don't think the article read in any way that your thoughts are all over the place haha. Can't wait for the next one!! 💃🏾💃🏾💃🏾
Haha you're far too kind for saying it didn't read like my thoughts are all over the place. I'll believe you 🖤 Regarding your question, it's certainly possible for someone to identify as something else even if they aren't that thing.
Because as you rightly pointed out, there's also something to be said for the fact that we have to describe people the way they want to be identified. But I guess the open question here is: "Where do we draw the line between classifying people based on their self-proclaimed sexuality and classifying people based on the sexuality they physically express?" That one, I don't know. Unfortunately. But I'm sure I'll land on an answer as I read more. I'll keep you updated.
I always enjoy your comments. They're so well articulated and they always get me thinking from different dimensions. Thank you so much.
Regarding your point about Gay4Pay folks not being welcome to our ball, I hear you but I disagree. It's true that they dabble in our queer pool and suffer none of the prejudice and general shit that queer people go through. There's no denying that. However, from an identity point of view, they are queer (to some degree). The same way you and your karaoke-singing friends are singers in the literal sense. You sing. Do you sing well? That's a different conversation. Are you professional singers? Probably not. But are you literally singers (as in a human who sings however terribly lol), yes! That's my point.
Regarding your question about the individual openly exhibiting elements of being non-conforming, I don't think they need to be open. Obviously though, they'd need to be open to be PUBLICLY considered queer. However, in actuality, open or closeted, such people who engage in queer sex are queer in their own different ways. That's how I see it. I don't need to be open to be gay. I can be gay in secret. But open or closeted, I'm still gay. I hope this makes sense.
P.S. I love the pun
Trust me. Once I get this voice control thingy in check, it's over for Queen B. Lol!
And, yes. I understand your point of view. In fact, I think it's beyond valid.
I believe I've been arguing from a place of collective representation in order to effectively pursue agenda that address our oppression. For me, identity politics without postmodernism's division in inclusion.
Thank you for letting me appreciate the individual's perspective based on one's ability to perform a certain activity whether or not they choose to openly identify with other performers.
Also, just like our singing analogy, we can all be singers-- whether we're packing stadiums or bothering our soap bars with an unsolicited encore.
I look forward to discussing more concepts in queer identity as your thoughts evolve.❤
Hmmm... quite interesting to think about, and I guess we'll find out soon. There's also the subject of "identification" (which you do give a nod towards) i.e. if someone chooses to identify as one or the other (i.e. queer or non-queer), can one really say they are something else even if they have existing traits? I really love reading how you dissect different topics, even the ones that are "non-mainstream" like you call it. Also, I don't think the article read in any way that your thoughts are all over the place haha. Can't wait for the next one!! 💃🏾💃🏾💃🏾
Haha you're far too kind for saying it didn't read like my thoughts are all over the place. I'll believe you 🖤 Regarding your question, it's certainly possible for someone to identify as something else even if they aren't that thing.
Because as you rightly pointed out, there's also something to be said for the fact that we have to describe people the way they want to be identified. But I guess the open question here is: "Where do we draw the line between classifying people based on their self-proclaimed sexuality and classifying people based on the sexuality they physically express?" That one, I don't know. Unfortunately. But I'm sure I'll land on an answer as I read more. I'll keep you updated.