Gender Non-Conformity
As I have begun to demonstrate, the values and ideas found in these primary sources, as well as the political time period they represent, speak to a break between sexual object choice and gender non-conformity. None of the voices or spaces I have described so far place sexual object choice and gender non-conformity in the same arena, but rather, work hard to separate them. Indeed, by the 70’s, spaces for and emphasis on gender non-conformity had shifted towards space for and emphasis on sexual object choice. That is, especially in the 50’s and 60’s, but even before that, resistance to hegemonic and oppressive social institutions regarding gender and sexuality in fact did emphasize and make space for gender non-conformity as a marker of dissent.
…show more content…
In other words, there was a close link – expressed in a multiplicity of ways – between gender non-conformity and subversion of normative experiences and identities of gender, race, and sexuality. This multiplicity of ways included personal gender expression and identification, as well as gender roles and stereotypes within relationships and social spaces. I will delve into these histories a little more in a moment. By the 70’s though, especially through specific social movements of the 60’s, this link was disintegrating, and sexual object choice became the dominant marker of dissent from some patriarchal social norms that still inscribed white gender normativity. This explains why we see the above comments by women who more concerned with their access to new and different sexual practices without particularly challenging gender roles or domestic patriarchal and white expectations of women. Although we may not often imagine that the SFL shared this fundamental assumption with (lesbian) cultural feminism, gay liberation, and the women’s movement, I use each of these moments to highlight the emphasis on sexual object choice that was becoming dominant by the 70’s. The feminist movement, in addition to concerning itself with more mainstream issues like those described above, also developed communities and ideas around the category lesbian.
By the 70’s, radical cultural feminism had taken up lesbian as a dominantly political category meant to resist patriarchy more than to denote erotic desire. As such, choosing women instead of men as sexual objects became, in these circles, an (or the) act of resistance to patriarchal oppression. The political underpinnings of the category lesbian indeed perpetuated, by this decade, the dominance of white, middle class, and gender normative demographics. This was not the case, however, because a diversity of groups and subcultures did not exist; they very much did. Rather, many of these subcultures strongly embraced various kinds of gender non-conformity, like butch/femme dynamics that were more prevalent in working class and communities of color. These differences perpetuated and sharpened the racial and class-based divides within lesbian and lesbian-feminist groups. Lesbians rejected non-gender normativity for explicitly white feminist reasons, doing so in a way that contributed to the mainstreaming of sexual object choice as the potential for subverting hegemonic heterosexism. This is one of many developments in the 70’s that allowed non gender-normativity and non-homonormative sexual deviance to become continually closely associated with racialized, lower class bodies more than with white, middle or upper class
bodies. Gay liberation likewise emerged in the 60’s and into the 70’s as a movement to challenge the marginalization of homosexuality. By the 70’s, gay men dominated the movement and had established a strong culture around cruising, partying and pleasure. Access to these spaces often required a degree of economic choice generally only associated with the urban middle class, and gay male subculture was soon indeed shaped by the fun and exotic activities and aesthetics of the city. In addition to the more directly class-based essentials of this culture, much of the desire and sexuality associated with gay men was predicated on the exoticization of non-white bodies, which furthered the increasingly exclusive racial make-up of gay liberation and gay male subculture during this time period. All this of course also revolved around the sexual object choice of other men, and in combination with the class and race markers of these communities, moved away from gender non-conformity; this was even the case as these circles were in many ways breaking from the heterosexual and monogamous aspects of white middle class culture. This is again not to say that other communities and groups did not exist, though. Gay liberation stemmed from of a history in which “self-named fairies, queens, fems, homosexuals, transvestites, and latterly, transsexuals” existed often together within implicitly and explicitly subversive spaces and used this language to describe themselves. Indeed, sexuality and gender non-conformity had existed at least side-by-side, if not in overlapping and inseparable ways. This is the case even, or perhaps especially, for identities that we might now understand as trans. The point is that a particular set of developments in the 70’s produced a movement and set of communities that foregrounded sexual object choice and marginalized or did not even register gender non-conformity.
In other words, there was a close link – expressed in a multiplicity of ways – between gender non-conformity and subversion of normative experiences and identities of gender, race, and sexuality. This multiplicity of ways included personal gender expression and identification, as well as gender roles and stereotypes within relationships and social spaces. I will delve into these histories a little more in a moment. By the 70’s though, especially through specific social movements of the 60’s, this link was disintegrating, and sexual object choice became the dominant marker of dissent from some patriarchal social norms that still inscribed white gender normativity. This explains why we see the above comments by women who more concerned with their access to new and different sexual practices without particularly challenging gender roles or domestic patriarchal and white expectations of women. Although we may not often imagine that the SFL shared this fundamental assumption with (lesbian) cultural feminism, gay liberation, and the women’s movement, I use each of these moments to highlight the emphasis on sexual object choice that was becoming dominant by the 70’s. The feminist movement, in addition to concerning itself with more mainstream issues like those described above, also developed communities and ideas around the category lesbian.
By the 70’s, radical cultural feminism had taken up lesbian as a dominantly political category meant to resist patriarchy more than to denote erotic desire. As such, choosing women instead of men as sexual objects became, in these circles, an (or the) act of resistance to patriarchal oppression. The political underpinnings of the category lesbian indeed perpetuated, by this decade, the dominance of white, middle class, and gender normative demographics. This was not the case, however, because a diversity of groups and subcultures did not exist; they very much did. Rather, many of these subcultures strongly embraced various kinds of gender non-conformity, like butch/femme dynamics that were more prevalent in working class and communities of color. These differences perpetuated and sharpened the racial and class-based divides within lesbian and lesbian-feminist groups. Lesbians rejected non-gender normativity for explicitly white feminist reasons, doing so in a way that contributed to the mainstreaming of sexual object choice as the potential for subverting hegemonic heterosexism. This is one of many developments in the 70’s that allowed non gender-normativity and non-homonormative sexual deviance to become continually closely associated with racialized, lower class bodies more than with white, middle or upper class
bodies. Gay liberation likewise emerged in the 60’s and into the 70’s as a movement to challenge the marginalization of homosexuality. By the 70’s, gay men dominated the movement and had established a strong culture around cruising, partying and pleasure. Access to these spaces often required a degree of economic choice generally only associated with the urban middle class, and gay male subculture was soon indeed shaped by the fun and exotic activities and aesthetics of the city. In addition to the more directly class-based essentials of this culture, much of the desire and sexuality associated with gay men was predicated on the exoticization of non-white bodies, which furthered the increasingly exclusive racial make-up of gay liberation and gay male subculture during this time period. All this of course also revolved around the sexual object choice of other men, and in combination with the class and race markers of these communities, moved away from gender non-conformity; this was even the case as these circles were in many ways breaking from the heterosexual and monogamous aspects of white middle class culture. This is again not to say that other communities and groups did not exist, though. Gay liberation stemmed from of a history in which “self-named fairies, queens, fems, homosexuals, transvestites, and latterly, transsexuals” existed often together within implicitly and explicitly subversive spaces and used this language to describe themselves. Indeed, sexuality and gender non-conformity had existed at least side-by-side, if not in overlapping and inseparable ways. This is the case even, or perhaps especially, for identities that we might now understand as trans. The point is that a particular set of developments in the 70’s produced a movement and set of communities that foregrounded sexual object choice and marginalized or did not even register gender non-conformity.