aamcnamara: (Default)
aamcnamara ([personal profile] aamcnamara) wrote2010-06-01 09:47 am

being queer at wiscon

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.
aliseadae: (windswept hair)

[personal profile] aliseadae 2010-06-04 03:01 am (UTC)(link)
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: (Default)

[personal profile] mapache 2010-06-04 07:32 pm (UTC)(link)
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: (windswept hair)

[personal profile] aliseadae 2010-06-07 06:17 am (UTC)(link)
Mm. Makes sense.

(Sadly I won't be making it either. [livejournal.com profile] aamcnamara will, though.)