I will start with disclaimer: I don’t fully understand the LGBTQ community.
I sort of understand the L and G. They’re attracted to who they’re attracted to. It’s uncontrollable and natural in the same way everyone can’t control what gets their pulse racing for another human being. In that regard, I understand it, though I admit will probably never be able to fully understand it in the same way I will never fully be able to understand anyone whose shoes I don’t wear. Not that anyone of the gay or lesbian orientation needs mine or any other heterosexual’s understanding or approval.
The B I understand a little less. The reasoning for gays and lesbians should follow- it’s uncontrollable who we’re attracted to, but there’s something left wanting. Maybe it’s because I have never met any bisexuals.
The Q I’m not even going to bother with. For a society and generation so against labels, they get really specific with their sexual labeling. Questioning? Do we really need to stamp a TBD on a person? Not everyone needs to be labeled at every point along their journey. Enough with the letters. I understand the reasoning behind the inclusionary acronym: they want these people on the fringe of society to feel part of a community, but what happens when the Questioner ultimately realizes s/he is a heterosexual? Are they banished from the community? Let’s let some people just be for a little while.
That brings us to the T, and right now, that pretty much means Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. For the most part, Jenner’s transition and Vanity Fair outing has been widely applauded. But Jon Stewart and the Daily Show found another level to the parade of praise and pointed out how a lot of the coverage in the news went from “Ya, ya it was brave, blah blah blah…” to, “but would you look at her!” The coverage quickly went from congratulations and bravo to objectification. Jenner was compared in “hotness” to other women, “slut-shamed” for wearing a corset, and even reminded that there is now an expiration date on her looks. As Stewart put it, “welcome to being a woman in America.”
And if you don’t really think about it, as with a lot of The Daily Show, it’s very funny and smart. But just for the opposite of fun, let’s really think about it.
Who did Bruce Jenner become? What was changed? We’re to understand, and I’m not Q-ing this assertion, that he was becoming who he always was on the inside. In that case, we already know how brave and strong and courageous and inspiring he was. We knew that way back from the early Bruce days when he was becoming an Olympic champion. That’s not really the breaking story now, then, is it? The story is the physical, superficial change to the exterior to match what was always the interior. So is it then surprising, and even wrong to wash over the bravery aspect of this and discuss Caitlyn on a superficial level?
Furthermore, if it is a superficial change, should we be praising it?
At this point, I will repeat that I don’t fully understand the LGBT community and what I say here isn’t a statement accompanied with a downed foot. If you would notice, there are many question marks being employed here because I am asking questions in hopes of better understanding. And the one thing I thought I understood about the gay and lesbian experience was that it was something they couldn’t control, it was innate, inside them. It was natural. But transgender isn’t natural. There’s a very superficial change that takes place, changes that are not as laudatory in other parts of society.
If a woman wants to go through a procedure to alter her appearance because when she looks in the mirror she doesn’t see the reflection of the person she feels is on the inside, society widely presses her not to go through with it. We try to make her see she's perfect just the way she is. That it’s all about the bass. I don’t understand why, then, there is such support and praise for the transgender movement from a society where we encourage everyone to be proud of who they are and love who they are without changing themselves?
No comments:
Post a Comment