being queer at wiscon

[aamcnamara]

This is unfortunately not an "awesome things I did at WisCon!" post.

On Saturday afternoon, I went to the "Lesbians in SF/F" panel. I learned that basically without even trying very hard I have covered pretty much all of the extant lesbian characters in SF/F proper; and that I have no idea about "lesfic", which apparently grew out of Xena fandom and which I will probably look into now--it sounds like it's mostly erotica/relationship focused, so I'm not certain I'll love it to bits, but it will be interesting at any rate.

But that is not what I wanted to talk about.

See, at one point the panel was talking about who writes lesfic and/or lesbian SF/F characters, and someone brought up a short story published in a lesfic anthology. This story was written by a straight woman, and had two female characters (each grieving for a man she'd lost) having a one-night stand. Not having read the story, I can't say whether it's plausible in the context of those specific characters. But the response surprised me. Someone in the audience said (a paraphrase) "If you want to write bisexual novels, fine, but don't put it in our lesfic anthologies." And everyone seemed to be okay with that statement.

Which... surprised me. To be fair, mostly I hang out with queer people who are about my age. I haven't ever really talked with older queer people about their queerness. And I was aware that discrimination against bisexual people from within the gay community existed, but I don't see that much in people my age.

But when I read the panel title, I parsed "lesbian characters" as "female characters who like and/or like to sleep with other female characters". This doesn't exclude bisexual characters, pansexual characters, asexual characters, non-cisgendered characters... but the panelists and the audience at least in large part seemed to be using the word "lesbian" very specifically.

Even though I probably would've fit into their definitions of "lesbian" and certainly fit the general aesthetic of the room's occupants, I felt uncomfortable at that moment, excluded. Because of how I identify myself (as gay, though that has other factors as well) and because of how I see the queer community. There's a reason that I use that word now and not GLBT; I don't see it as Gay and Lesbian and Bisexual and Transgender, all the little new boxes to fit ourselves into.

(At another point this weekend, someone in a different panel audience was making a comment about queer inclusion and said "G, L, B, T, Q... whatever other letters they've added on now..." and that is another reason, to me, to just have done and call it the queer community. I don't see a need for everyone to memorize long strings of letters so that they know every single possible identification, because that would be impossible. Everyone identifies themselves, and maybe everyone uses a different word for it--the important thing is to understand how to accept and learn about identities you haven't heard of before.)

To add a third reason to my list of why I didn't like that realization: if we're talking specifically about this group that the room was calling "lesbian", that doesn't leave much room for the "speculative" bit of speculative fiction. You can do "lesbians with werewolves", you can do "lesbians with vampires", but you can't have works that transform our understanding of sexual orientation as it exists in our society. Because that's not this group we call "lesbian" any more; it's something else.

Again, to be fair, I did go to this panel for "female characters who like other female characters" recommendations, and (as we know) gender and sex are largely socially constructed as well. As a cisgendered and cissexual female, that isn't always in my consciousness--I have the privilege of being able to ignore that aspect of it.

So maybe I shouldn't be complaining because I went to see a specific panel topic and it turned out slightly more specifically focused than I wanted it to be. But a) I would have been okay with raising works that deconstructed gender and sex, as well; and b) if nothing else, it was a good reminder of why I call it the queer community, why I identify as gay (which is another post, really), and--most of all--that different generations and groups have different constructions of sexual orientation.

At the panel, I didn't feel that the atmosphere was such that I could have said something about this, but I think it would be fascinating to start this cross-generational, cross-group dialogue. About sexual orientation, about queerness, about the construction of sex and gender in society. As a feminist convention, it almost seems necessary. We say we're feminist, and some of us say we're queer, but the context of those words changes with who's saying them, their history, how they identify themselves. And part of the beauty of it is that we do have this diversity of identification, but I think it would be even more beautiful if we all talked about it to each other.


tl;dr: Hi. I'm Alena. I'm gay. I'm going to go suggest a panel topic for next WisCon now.

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Interesting thoughts.

I am still having trouble understanding what 'cis' means as a prefix--how it changes the noun it's attached to.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Say you have two atoms linked by a double bond. Things that are on opposite sides of them are on trans- sides of them. Things that are on the same sides are on cis- sides of them, and you modify the chemistry related words accordingly.

So when people were casting about for a word to make an analogy with transgendered/transsexual, cis- seemed like it fit just right for a lot of geekiness: the gender that your brain has is on the same plane, the same side, the same wavelength as the gender that your body has. The symmetry worked well.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Phew, that still leaves me confused. Well, I'll keep reading--eventually someone will express it in a way that makes sense to my non-logical, image-driven brain.

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I am having a hard time quite coming up with a good way to explain it, sorry. Often I see it defined in the negative--not genderqueer, not transgender, ergo cisgender. But it's a slippery thing to define, probably since it was backformed from the trans- prefix, as mrissa was saying.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I think that's where my brain gets tangled--somewhat the same way I have to stop and metaphorically count on my fingers when a sentence is expressed with a double-negative.

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

That is fascinating, and kind of awesome! I hadn't known where the term came from before.

[shenth.livejournal.com]

It's one thing to want your lesbian anthology to be exclusively about women with women, but that's hard to separate from the biphobia in the queer community. Bisexual people are consistently dismissed and demeaned. I hope your panel helps to reduce that prejudice. :)

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

There is definitely a place for "this is what I want to read, so this is what I will read". But as you said, it's a tricky line to walk.

Thank you! I hope so too, although of course it is all tiny steps.

[kehrli.livejournal.com]

It is awfully hard for the cisgendered gays and lesbians to deal with all the extra letters this anonymous "they" keeps adding, after all.

I'm so utterly tired of people sticking GLBT on groups/things/etc and pretending it's just GL.

(And yes, I just call it queer, too, because I feel like GLBT excludes people who are queer and do not feel they fit those categories.)

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

It is awfully hard for the cisgendered gays and lesbians to deal with all the extra letters this anonymous "they" keeps adding, after all.
In the context, that particular comment (which was at a different panel) seemed to imply the speaker was not a part of the queer community, though I did not inquire after how they identified themselves.

GLBT excludes people who are queer and do not feel they fit those categories
Definitely. It's sort of just a new set of boxes, and while arguably I am in a box labeled "gay", I put myself into it--and not everyone has to do the same.

[willowfagan.livejournal.com]

I am one of those people who identifies as queer, and not as G, L, B, or T.

I know what you mean about people saying GLBT when really they mean GL. It's like false advertising, and it happens way too often.

[aliseadae]

Thank you for this post.

I think it might be that certain generations have specific ways of thinking. I think that it is likely to not be a specifically generational thing, but related to a mindset which may be more present in certain generations.

I agree with saying queer to describe one group rather than a long list of separated abbreviations.

I agree with you that this dialog is important and necessary.

[willowfagan.livejournal.com]

Which... surprised me. To be fair, mostly I hang out with queer people who are about my age. I haven't ever really talked with older queer people about their queerness. And I was aware that discrimination against bisexual people from within the gay community existed, but I don't see that much in people my age.

I think I'm significantly older than you (I just turned 28). But I feel pretty much the same way, that the queer people I know are pretty much comfortable with bisexuality. But I used to go to a queer youth group, I think for people 13-17, in the late 90s and I heard that the week the discussion topic was bisexuality (which happened a few months before I started going) things got so heated that some people had to be asked to leave.

I think there's a lot of need for more queer intergenerational dialogue. But it's hard. Once I was in e-mail contact with an older lesbian who told me that "queer" was offensive to her. I didn't know how to respond. Normally, I think that people should get to define for themselves what is offensive, but "queer" is my identity--not gay, or bi, but queer. It's not something that I can really hide for the sake of politeness.

I also like queer as a shorthand for LBGTQ+.

I wasn't able to make it to Wiscon this year, but I looked at the programming and I was surprised to see that there wasn't as much queer content as I would have expected. Did you find that to be true for you? I'm glad that you're proposing a queer panel topic.

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

Um, define "significantly". (I'll be 19 this summer.) I think aliseadae's point about mindsets is a good one--there are people my age who are prejudiced against bisexual people, I'm sure, but probably fewer of them than in older age cohorts.

Yes, that's definitely one of the hardest things about the intergenerational dialogue--that words that seem familiar and right now were offensive a decade or two ago, and still are to some people. But talking abut that, and how those meanings shift, maybe can create some greater understanding between generations? I hope, at least.

The lesbian SF/F panel was the only one I attended with specifically queer content. I don't think there was much else, though sometimes it would come up in other panels briefly. Admittedly I was dashing about to see panels on various topics of interest, but I would love to see more queer programming at WisCon. It seems like something there'd be interest in, and there is still a lot to talk about.

[mapache]

To take off on something of a tangent from the main discussion, I'd say that 28 is significantly older than 19. It's not just the time gap. 49 vs 40, for instance, isn't anywhere near as significant (but maybe I'll change my mind when I get there). People do an awful lot of changing during college and just after. You'll be a pretty different person when you're 25 than you are now. Part of it's chemical—your brain is still different from how it will be, and part of it is how your role in society changes. In any case, enjoy the ride!

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. I just feel awfully young sometimes and compensate by pretending that nearly-19 is definitely, totally an adult age.

[aliseadae]

I'd say sort of. As a 20-year-old, I interact with 28-year-olds without thinking about the age gap but once I reach age 28 I'll have certainly changed and matured. I'll still, however, be essentially the same person.

[mapache]

As I think about it, I'd say that the changes I've gone through are really more internal, and not particularly visible during typical social interaction. I certainly get along fine with and have plenty to talk about with people just entering college (as was obvious talking to you two last year at 4th Street; unfortunately, we won't be making out again this year). My views and attitudes haven't really changed much; it's more about focus, motivation, and attention. I guess it could be phrased as who I am hasn't changed much, but how I am that person has. For instance, back when I was 20, if I ran across a clever mathematical question, I'd jump on it and start trying to prove stuff. Now, it's still interesting in the abstract, and I might take a glance at it, but I'm not really motivated to spend time doing that as opposed to other things that seem more important now. (There's a reason nearly all mathematical breakthroughs are done by people under 30. Maturity is overrated in many respects.)

[aliseadae]

Mm. Makes sense.

(Sadly I won't be making it either. aamcnamara will, though.)

[actourdreams.livejournal.com]

I had never heard the term "lesfic," though I had heard "saffic" in a similar context – for femslash, and generally for older fandoms. I think both of these may have gone by the wayside.

And, queer, as much as I identify with and always will align myself with the self-identified queer community, is a generational thing. I know people – gay men my parents' age, my parents' friends – who would be enormously uncomfortable, if not offended, to hear the word queer applied to them, even in a positive, communal context. Some time ago I read a book where the author recounted being approached after a reading/talk by a very irate man who demanded she not use that word anymore, saying, "That's what they call us when they're beating us to death." I think it's both a generational divide in that the older people may not be as familiar with the concept of reclamation, but also that for us younger people, hearing that as a pejorative has not been as universal an experience as it was for them.

That said, the person who said "LGBTQ, whatever else they're adding on" really bothered me. Way to trivialize a whole bunch of people there, man!

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

Way to trivialize a whole bunch of people there, man!
Yeeep.

And, queer . . . is a generational thing.
This whole paragraph is, yeah, a really good point. Which I think is where the need for queer (or whatever we would call it) intergenerational dialogue comes in?

"Saffic"--nice. I hadn't heard that before.

[hildebabble.livejournal.com]

It's pretty fascinating, the taxonomy of identifiers within the queer community. But it's also HUGE. I have a friend who explores the "femme"/"butch" dynamic in her theater troupe but also socially, and I couldn't list even half the terms she's told me about. She used to get anti-bisexual flak from the gay community, too, when we were in college together.

I'm not one for labels, personally. They resonate with exclusivity ("I'm this and you're that."). I just use "gay" for everything.

"Cisgendered" is a term I only recently learned, in the past couple months. Has it been around longer than that? I'm unhip.

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. The taxonomy is gigantic, and fascinating (at least to me). (Speaking of, I wonder what linguistic studies have been done on such topics? Hmm, that'd be worth a Google.)

I think labels can be--useful? Sometimes? At least, I'm a big fan of allowing people to label themselves, in a sense. Self-identifying yourself is key, and words are a way to explain/describe your identity to the world. Using "gay" for everything certainly sounds simpler, though, and you have a good point about exclusivity.

"Cisgendered"... I feel like I've been hearing it for a year or so? It's one of those things that's definitely been spreading, though.

[sophy.livejournal.com]

I was just generally roaming around looking for WisCon posts and found this, hope it's cool for me to comment-drop. I wasn't at that panel, but that comment would have disturbed me, too. If it was that there were sexual/romantic scenes with f/m as well as f/f then it's a fair point, but if it was just that it was f/f between women who were not exclusively gay, then what could the problem be? Maybe as a bi/pansexual person I'm just not seeing it.

Love to see your panel suggestion! :)

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

Comment-dropping is definitely okay! From the description of the story, it sounded like it was f/f between women who were not exclusively gay. I have trouble understanding the problem too, and I'm pretty exclusively gay, so--yeah.

The panel suggestion I ended up submitting was pretty much to have a discussion of how we (for various values of 'we') construct queerness, but there's obviously a lot of ways to go with this sort of topic and I'd love to see any or all of it.

[sophy.livejournal.com]

Sounds interesting!

[mlt23.livejournal.com]

I would go to a panel about that. I'm trying to think back to when I learned words like queer and gay and bisexual to remember if the connotation was more negative or positive for them. I want to say that I hadn't really even heard of bi until maybe high school, or I would have realized that I was bi before.

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

That's a good point too. It was in high school I first heard queer as an umbrella term for the community, I think, along with things like pansexual and genderqueer. (Though I knew bisexual people existed before that, because I knew someone in middle school who was out as bi.)

And part of that's how the language has been evolving within the community, but part of it is also how information gets to kids and youth. I feel lucky to have been put through the unitarian universalist sex ed class in middle school--they gave some good basic info, had a panel discussion with youth, etc. It was definitely GLBT, not queer, but still.

[mlt23.livejournal.com]

I can remember two sex ed classes I went to, one in elementary school and one in middle and neither of them even suggested anything GLBT+/queer. (I didn't actually realize that until right now.) Anything intelligent and sensible I know, queer or otherwise, I learned off the internet.

[aliseadae]

I /think/ my high school's sex ed class mentioned GBLTQ+/queer issues, but my memories are faint. If it did, though, it probably wasn't too extensive.

[aamcnamara.livejournal.com]

I don't think my actual in-school sex education mentioned GLBT/queer stuff much, if at all? My memories are faint as well. But I feel like a lot of in-school sex ed is focused on People Having A Sliver Of Knowledge About Their Body and People Not Getting Pregnant--not on, y'know, all the other stuff.

[aliseadae]

Mine was actually quite good. I remember learning some things. I do not, however, remember what those things were.