viewing-identity-closets

[viewing-identity-closets]

Understanding Judith Butler’s Gender Performativity with Cats pt.2

[viewing-identity-closets]

Understanding Judith Butler’s Gender Performativity with Cats pt. 1

[viewing-identity-closets]

Identity Categories and Representation

Background Information: Gamson explains in the 1995 article Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma* that “Fixed Identity categories are both the basis for oppression and the basis for political power” (Gamson, 1995, p. 390). He then turns to addressing similar questions that Butler raises in Imitation and Gender Subordination, as well as Critically Queer. Who gets to decide who is considered the “I” or “US”? (Gamson, 1995, p. 390 and Butler, 1993, p. 309). Furthermore, what if no identity categories based on gender and/or sexual orientation exist to fully represent oneself?  

Butler answers some of these questions stating, “I’m permanently troubled by identity categories, consider them to be invariable stumbling-blocks, and understand them, even promote them, as sites of necessary trouble” (Butler, 1993, p. 308). Butler furthers her comments on identity categories based on gender and/or sexual orientation though and finds, “…Identity categories tend to be instruments of regulatory regimes, whether as the normalizing categories of oppressive structures or as the rallying points for a liberatory  contestation of that very oppression” (Butler, 1993, p. 308). 

She then specifically speaks to how identity categories based on gender and/or sexual orientation have many functions in different contexts. Butler describes, “Insofar as heterosexual gender norms produce inapproxi-mable ideals, heterosexuality can be said to operate through the regulated production of hyperbolic versions of “man” and “woman” ” (Butler, 1993, p. 26). Thus, heterosexuality depends upon the gender binary of man/woman. Further elaborating on this relationship Butler declares, “Gender norms operate by requiring the embodiment of certain ideals of femininity and masculinity, ones which are almost always related to the idealization of the heterosexual bond” (Butler, 1993, p. 23).

Butler and Gamson’s overall thoughts on how identity categories function as a source of liberation and a site of contestation led me to wonder how their thoughts on identity categories based on gender and/or sexual orientation related to the personal experiences of Beloit College students. With this in mind three questions were asked on the survey and their results were posted below. 

Question 1: Do you feel that identity categories exist that fully represent your gender?

More than half of the responses included some form of a yes/for the most part. However, a few responses explicitly noted feeling uncomfortable with gender labels and/or not knowing how they would identify if the gender binary did not exist to begin with. 

Question 2: Do you feel that identity categories exist that fully represent your sexuality?

A little more than half of the responses included a yes/kind of. Multiple responses noted categories exist that fully represent their sexuality, but just not one single category or that it requires an understanding that categories are fluid. Furthermore, some responses mentioned confusion within categories that represent their sexuality because they may feel sexually attracted to people with a certain gender, but not romantically attracted to that same group of people. Lastly, some responses marked that it is still an ongoing process for them because of how society sees or they view the relationship between gender/sex/and/or sexual/romantic attraction. 

Question 3: Do you feel that identity categories exist that fully represent both your gender and sexuality?

Approximately half of participants responded no, sometimes, or kind of. A few survey participants also mentioned not knowing or not being aware of any identity categories that take into consideration one’s gender and sexuality at the same time. 

Discussion of Responses: Connecting the responses to Gamson and Butler’s ideas mentioned above then leads me to another question. Do the survey responses to question 2 and 3 suggest to affirm Butler’s ideas about gender/sexual orientation categories operate as stumbling blocks?

Sources: 

Butler, J.  (1993). Critically Queer. GLQ A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 1(1): 17-32. doi:10.1215/10642684-1-1-17. 

Butler, J. (1993) . “Imitation and Gender Insubordination”. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Eds. Henry Abelove et al. New York: Routlege, Pages 307-320. 

Gamson, J. (1995). Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma. Oxford Journals 42(3): 390-407. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3096854

[viewing-identity-closets]

Norms Norms Norms

Multiple survey responses answers the questioned of “What does Queer mean to you? (as an adjective, noun, verb)” with some form of answer related to “non-normative”. In contrast, Wiegman and Wilson edited an issue titled “Queer Theory Without Antinormativity” in 2015. Halberstam summarizes part of their argument saying, “Furthermore, antinormativity, they propose, has become “canonical” in the field and therefore has acquired, ironically, the status of a norm, proving once and for all that norms are unavoidable and cannot be opposed.” In other words, part of Wiegman and Wilson’s argument promotes the idea that anti-normativity has become a norm itself. Halberstam critiques this issue and ideas surrounding it, arguing that a queer theory without anti-normativity is a lot similar to straight thinking. In fact, Halberstam calls “Queer Theory Without Antinormativitiy” neoliberal thinking. Let’s see what Beloit College students think about a queer normativity!

Is there a queer normativity and if so, what does that mean? 

The majority of responses answered yes that there is some form a queer normativity. However, some responses did say that they were unsure, did not know, or that there wasn’t. The responses generally talked about appearance and how they felt expected to attain a certain “queer look”. Some responses mentioned that they believe queerness means being in opposition to normativity, but still felt the need to adhere to certain “norms” or “images”. A couple of responses explicitly answered the question by answering: whiteness, being able bodied, Western, and/or middle class. 

The last questioned on the survey then asked if the survey participant had any last thoughts on identity categories and queerness and one response stuck out to me in particular. 

“Can there just not be identity categories? I dont think people should be put into boxes, obviously labels are validating of peoples experiences and help us to articulate who we are but I dont think it should be so set in stone that people question you anytime you start to deviate from the label you yourself chose.”

Discussion Question: Considering all of these sections, what do these responses tell us about the future of queer theories, identity categories, and normativity?

Sources: 

Halberstam J. (2015, September). Straight Eye For the Queer Theorist – A Review of “Queer Theory Without Antinormativity [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/straight-eye-for-the-queer-theorist-a-review-of-queer-theory-without-antinormativity-by-jack-halberstam/

[viewing-identity-closets]

Intersectionality and Queerness

While the previous studies and scholars discussed queer and its relationship to identity categories based on sexual orientation and gender, Glick makes an important point. Glick says, “Queer cannot be discussed in terms of sexuality or gender alone, because it is not through sex and  gender alone that we live our complex lives" (Glick, 2003, p.  128). Agreeing with Glick, Cohen adds, “It is my argument, as I stated earlier, that one of the great failings of queer theory and specifically queer politics has been their inability to incorporate into analysis of the world and strategies for political mobilization the roles that race, class, and gender play in defining people’s differing relations to dominant and normalizing power” (Cohen, 2005 , p. 260). Johnson thus seeks to provide a solution for a lack intersectionality in some canonical queer theories saying, “Quare, on the other hand, not only speaks across identities, it articulates identities as well. “Quare” offers a way to critique stable notions of identity and, at the same time, to locate racialized class knowledges” (Johnson, 2005,  p.  127).

Moreover, Puar and Quiroga recognize the ways in which Queer  theories operate in different contexts and can engage with the advocation U.S. nation state/imperialism. Quiroga states, “Let me put a different way: Queer studies was a project born and bred in the Republic, but it soon became linked to a broad imperial project that sought to impose norms, statues, and identities on other regions of the world” (Quiroga, 2003, p. 134).

Puar then addresses part of Quiroga’s argument through the term  homonationalism. “I am deploying the term homo-nationalism to mark arrangements of US sexual exceptionalism— homonormativity—that complicates the dichotomous implications of casting the nation as only supportive and productive of heteronormativity and always repressive and disallowing of homosexuality. I argue that the Orientalist invocation of the ‘terrorist’ is one discursive tactic that disaggregates US national gays and queers from racial and sexual ‘others’, foregrounding a collusion between homosexuality and American nationalism that is generated both by national rhetorics of patriotic inclusion and by gay and queer subjects themselves: homo-nationalism. For contemporary forms of US nationalism and patriotism, the production of gay and queer bodies is crucial to the deployment of nationalism, insofar as these perverse bodies reiterate heterosexuality as the norm but also because certain domesticated homosexual bodies provide ammunition to reinforce nationalist projects” (Puar, 2006, p. 68). 

“Furthermore, there is nothing inherently or intrinsically anti-nation or anti-nationalist about queerness either, despite a critical distancing from gay and lesbian identities. Through the disaggregating registers of race, kinship, and consumption, queerness is also under duress to naturalize itself in relation to citizenship, patriotism, and nationalism. Thus the ‘gains’ achieved for LGBTIQ subjects— media, kinship (gay marriage, adoption), legality (sodomy), consumption (gay and lesbian tourism), must be read within the context of war on terror, the USA PATRIOT Act, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, and unimpeded US imperialist expansion, as conservative victories at best, if at all” (Puar, 2006, p. 86). 

Puar, along with the previous mentioned scholars, thus stress that Queer theories must take into consideration multiple intersectioning systems of oppression. Similar to the arguments before Cohen and Alimahomed also note a lack of intersectionality or a centering of whiteness in Queer Politics. For instance, Alimahomed’s 2010 research included interviewing 25 Latina and Asian/Pacific Islander women who identified as queer, lesbian, or bisexual at Gay Pride Events in Los Angeles and San Fransisco. In doing so,  Alimahomed concluded, “Queer representation and expression in the LGBT movement has embodied a narrow, white racial frame in which queer Latinas and Asian/Pacific Islander women’s representations of themselves are often rendered invisible by the main- stream” (Alimahomed, 2010, p. 166). Understanding the lack of intersectionality in queer theories and the centering of whiteness in queer politics, Cohen therefore questioned the future of queer politics. Cohen says, “Recognizing the limits of current conceptions of queer identities and queer politics, I am interested in examining the concept of “queer” in order to think about how we might construct a new political identity that is truly liberating, transformative, and inclusive of all those who stand on the outside of the dominant constructed norm of state-sanctioned white middle- and upper-class heterosexuality. Such a broadened understanding of queerness must be based on an intersectional analysis that recognizes how numerous systems of oppression interact to regulate and police the lives of most people” (Cohen, 2005, p. 244).

Cohen’s thoughts on the future of queer politics thus relates to survey questions relating to Beloit College student’s experiences with Queer Politics/Theories. (Important Note:The majority of our survey respondents identified themselves as white. In addition, our survey did not require information about the survey participant’s socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, nationality, immigration status, and/or information on if the survey participant identified as cisgendered. In effect, these responses do not provide a wholistic picture if queer politics or thinking queerly at Beloit operates in a way that addresses multiple systems of oppression). 

In your experiences has queer politics or thinking queerly been intersectional?

The majority of participants answered that it isn’t, is just at Beloit, that is focuses on whiteness or Western world ideas/ideologies too much, that it really depends on the person/who is engaging the conversation, that it attempts to be, and it can be if demanded so. Multiple responses did say “Yes”, but most of those responses still said that context matters. 

In your experiences has thinking queerly or queer theories had the capacity to acknowledge all of your identities at one time (race/ethnicity, class, religion, ability, age, nationality, gender, sexual orientation)?

The majority of responses said no, maybe, or an extenuation of those responses. Respondents cited a lack of intersectionality in classroom/academic experiences/readings, a centering of white people in readings and class room discussions, and a lack of class room discussion/readings that allow people to discuss how their sexuality/gender is fluid and/or operates differently in different contexts. For responses that said yes, the majority of the responses also elaborated that they were white and/or that some of their other privileged identities affected their answering of this question. A few responses said they did not understand the question. Lastly, a response questioned queer theories capability of being intersectional when they are called queer theories. 

Discussion Questions: How can we avoid centering whiteness and supporting homonationalism when thinking queerly at Beloit College? How do the responses relate to the scholars ideas up above and what Johnson specifically says about Quare? How would Puar interpret the survey responses? 

Sources:

Alimahomed, S. (2010) Thinking outside the rainbow: women of color redefining queer politics and identity. Social Identities, 16(2), 151-168. DOI: 10.1080/13504631003688849

Cohen, C. (2005). “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?” Still Brave. NY, NY: Feminist Press, Pages 240-267. 

Glick, E. F. (2003). Introduction: Defining Queer Ethnicities. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10(1), 123-124. Duke University Press. Retrieved from Project MUSE database. 

Johnson, P. (2005). “Quare” Studies Or (Almost) Everything I Know About Queer Studies I Learned From My Grandmother”. Black Queer Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, Pages, 124-155. 

Johnson, P. (2005). “Quare” Studies Or (Almost) Everything I Know About Queer Studies I Learned From My Grandmother”. Black Queer Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, Pages, 124-155. 

Puar, J. (2006): Mapping US Homonormativities. Gender, Place & Culture, 13(1), 67-88. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09663690500531014 

Puar, J. (2006): Mapping US Homonormativities. Gender, Place & Culture, 13(1), 67-88. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09663690500531014 

Quiroga, J. (2003). From Republic to Empire: the Loss of Gay Studies. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10(1), 133-135. Retrieved frommuse.jhu.edu/article/49629.

[viewing-identity-closets]

Queer Identities

Some of the responses to the question of "Do you feel that identity categories exist that fully represent both your gender and sexuality?" relate closely to the second part of the survey around identifying as queer, as some responses mentioned that identifying as queer represents their gender and sexual orientation 

Gamson also addresses this topic in Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma*, where he followed internal letter debates amongst the LGBQT+ community in the San Fransisco Bay Times over queerness. Gamson noted a generational gap in the viewpoints in the letters and offered his own thoughts on Queerness as quoted below. 

“Dig deeper into debates over queerness, however, and something more interesting and significant emerges. Queerness in its most distinctive forms shakes the ground on which gay and lesbian politics has been built, taking apart the ideas of a “sexual minority” and a “gay community,” indeed of “gay” and “lesbian” and even “man” and “woman.”’ It builds on central difficulties of identity-based organizing: the instability of identities both individual and collective, their made-up yet necessary character. It exaggerates and explodes these troubles, haphazardly attempting to build a  politics from the rubble of deconstructed collective categories. This debate, and other related  debates in lesbian and gay politics, is not only over the content of collective identity (whose definition of “gay” counts?), but over the everyday viability and political usefulness of sexual identities (is there  and should there be such  a thing as “gay,” “lesbian,” “man,” “woman”?)“ (Gamson, 1995, p. 390). 

Gamson’s mentioning of the different meanings of Queer is important though as Sedgwick states, “Anyone’s use of “Queer” about themselves means differently from their use of it about someone else. This is true (as it might also be true of “lesbian” or “gay”) because of the violently different connotative evaluations that seem to cluster around thecategory” (Sedgwick, 1993, p. 9).  Understanding the history and absence of a universal meaning around the the Queer identity therefore encouraged Mereish, Katz-Wise, and Woulfe’s 2017 study/journal article titled We’re Here and We’re Queer: Sexual Orientation and Sexual Fluidity Differences Between Bisexual and Queer Women. 

Mereish, Katz-Wise, and Woulfe conducted a study in 2017 with the intent on understanding if socioeconomic differences and viewpoints about sexual fluidity existed between women who identified as bisexual and women who identified as queer. Overall they found similar sociodemographic characters between both groups, but that women who identified as queer were more likely to to have higher levels of education than women who identified as bisexual. Their explanation for this stated, “Those with greater education may have more exposure to the theoretical underpinnings of the term ‘queer’ (e.g., in college or university courses), and in turn may be more likely to adopt this as an identity” (Mereish, Katz-Wise, and Woulfe, 2017, p. 133). The second part of their study then sought to see similarities in sexual orientation and sexual fluidity in women who identified as queer and women who identified as bisexual. They found that women who identified as queer were more likely to have had sex with transgender and/or gender queer partners. They attributed this to the presence of some bisexual definitions that do not refer outside the gender binary. Sedgwick also offered her opinion on sexual fluidity saying, “That’s one of the things that “queer” can refer to: the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances, and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of anyone’s gender, or any anyone’s sexuality aren’t made (or can’t be made) to signify monolithically…” (Sedgwick, 1993, p. 8).

However, there were clear limits to the research that was conducted by Mereish, Katz-Wise, and Woulfe. Approximately ½ of the participants were students and the survey responses lacked racial/ethnic diversity. Secondly, the authors did not include people who did not identify as women and did not include women who identified with a sexual orientation outside of queer or bisexual (such as pansexual). Mereish, Katz-Wise, and Woulfe thus concluded that more research needs to be conducted on what queer means to people. Their research then relates to our survey, as our survey asks what queer means as a noun, verb, and adjective to Beloit College students. 

Do you identify as part of the LGBQT+ community and if so, do you identify as queer?

More than half of the respondents who identified as being part of the LGBQT+ community, identified as being queer sometimes or always. 

What does Queer mean to you? (as an adjective, noun, verb)

Responses concentrated on (non-normative, anything but heterosexual and/or cisgender, and depends on the context/who is using it). 

Do you see queer as an identity that is fluid in representing gender and/or sexual orientation?

Almost all survey participants said yes. 

Sources: 

Gamson, J. (1995). Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma. Oxford Journals 42(3): 390-407. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3096854

Mereish, Katz-Wise, & Woulfe (2017) We’re Here and We’re Queer: Sexual Orientation and Sexual Fluidity Differences Between Bisexual and Queer Women, Journal of Bisexuality, 17:1, 125-139, DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2016.1217448.  

Sedgwick, E. (1993). “Queer and Now”. Tendencies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, Pages 1-20.

[viewing-identity-closets]

An Introduction to The Closet

One of the responses I received in this survey was: “As a straight cis-female I have never personally had to come out because of the way our society perceives my identities.” We live in a society where an individual is labeled as heterosexual, or cis gender until proven otherwise, thus creating “the closet” and requiring a queer person to need to “come out” of it to fully express their identity. Whether in or out about a queer identity, the closet is seen by many as a significant part of reality for the queer community, and a large contributor to social oppression of queers. Through the existence of “the closet”, society remains dominated by heterosexuality. The terminology of “coming out” originally came from debutante balls, where girls would be officially welcomed into society. If coming out of the closet means informing others of a queer identity, author Tony E. Adams in his book “Narrating the closet: an Autoethnography of Same-sex Attraction” questions whether a person who is not aware of their same-sex desires or having accepted their identity would be able to come out of the closet. If acknowledging and accepting desires forms the closet, is that also a necessary part of coming out? I believe that although it is not commonly thought of when thinking about what “coming out” entails, for the individual to accept their desires and/or identity is essential. Below I have listed two links to YouTube videos that I believe are relevant to the themes of my posts, and can help further introduce what my section will be focusing on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RcF5_LqUKc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSYKo_Dlmys

[viewing-identity-closets]

The Process of "Coming Out"

Is there a process to coming out? If so, what does this process involve?

In my question, I asked if there was a process to coming out, several of the responses I received said there is no one process to be used, no specific timeline to follow, just do what feels right to you. It’s important to remember that there is no right way to come out, and there are no identical experiences. Responses to this question believed “coming out” begins with no longer hiding or disguising a queer identity. One response to the question said: “In the ideal scenario I think it first and most importantly involves coming out to yourself and learning to love yourself and feel confident in who you are.”  

If one chooses not to verbally announce their identity at first, some might choose to change their wardrobe or appearance to match how they believe people with that identity look. People can be “out” to different degrees in different situations or regarding different identities. By choosing not to announce one’s identity in an environment, are they then closeted again in that one environment? With everyone you meet you have to decide whether or not to come out to them. Just because one is “coming out” does not mean it is the end of their struggles, it just means you have taken a path that will lead to new ones. One response described “coming out” as: “ a continuous process that is repeated and tweaked for different audiences throughout one's life.” Does “coming out” have an end? I believe that if an individual has to continuously decide whether or not to announce their identity in new environment, there is no end to the process of coming out. I wonder though whether it is possible to rescind the process of coming out, as many individuals might not choose to come out, but are forced, and others might decide to come out without thinking of the struggles that introduces.

[viewing-identity-closets]

What Does "Out" Mean????

What do you believe being “out” of the closet entails?

If being in the closet means hiding part of your identity in certain environments or from specific groups of people, does being “out” simply mean that the individual has dropped the veil that disguised their identity? Being “out” might mean having discusses with others a queer identity in whatever different degrees or contexts depending on the individual. By that sentiment, one is not out unless they have explicitly announced/verified it themselves. If being out means you have discussed your identity, in a scenario where an individual’s family has assumed that they are queer, but the individual has not claimed those desires, they are not out. So, if you are forced out of the closet, you are not “out” until you have verified the person’s accusation. This however does not mean that if an individual is not out, that others will always believe them to be heterosexual.

One response I found especially interesting was that being “out” meant, “having (your identity) be respected and not questioned.” Many responses agreed that being “out” meant having the freedom to express a part of an identity that was not being lived openly before “coming out”, to be comfortable in who you are. Some individuals may have the freedom to express their identities, but what if their communities do not hold the same sentiment? An article from Independent discusses how there is a saying about having “skeletons in the closet”. By using the phrase “coming out of the closet” is it suggesting that queer identities should remain hidden for fear of rejection from society? One response talked about how “by putting yourself out there, people are more likely to say gross stuff to you. But it also means that you feel more like yourself and that you'll be exposed to more people who will support you and accept you.” After someone comes out, much of their life is still shaped around the existence of the closet. How does the meaning of being “out” change based on whether you are “out” in private and/or public spaces?

[viewing-identity-closets]

The Effects of Environment

Do you consider yourself “out”? If so in what environments are you?

When you are “out”, it is not a one time circumstance, one must constantly make the decision every time they enter a new environment. In each new environment, the individual is forced to consider whether they want to, or need to announce parts of their identity that are not considered normative by society. When you have a non-normative identity, by choosing to confide with someone, in many cases you are also expected to explain why and how your identity is possible. Sociologist Steven Seidman in his book “Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life”, makes the point that the reality of the closet forces the choice between “a life of passing(for hetero/cis) or a struggle to come out”(8). One response to the question talked about their personal experiences with being “out” in different environments: “If I go to a random space in public, depending on how I act and what I am wearing I am still forced into the closet.”

For many, what determines in which environments an individual is out is comfortableness. From the responses gathered for this question, although differing in matchings; the four main environments in which people tended to be out were at school, at home, with friends, and at work. For the majority of the responses, being out at home and with friends was far more usual and comfortable for individuals, and being out at school and work was far less common. Is there a difference of being out to your family or to your classmates? How does who you tell affect you being ‘out’? Coming out evokes an immediate reaction from the individual’s audience, whether negative or positive. For someone to “come out” is typically seen as a big deal and takes a lot of bravery and trust in yourself and others to do.

[viewing-identity-closets]

Being "Out": Beneficial or Harmful?

In what sort of situations or environments could being “out” be beneficial or harmful to an individual? Why might a person not be “out”?

As no one’s situation will be identical to others, there are many factors to be taken into consideration for what could be considered beneficial or harmful about being “out”. Being “out” could be beneficial for the mental health of an individual, and one of the responses described being “out” as beneficial as it might alleviate an individual’s dysphoria. Although they might encounter new stresses after revealing a part of their identity, they will no longer be burdened with having to keep part of themselves a secret. Being out could also be beneficial if someone wishes to connect with others of the queer community. Oppositely, it could be harmful for an individual in environments where their identity is not accepted and can be responded to with violence. Being out could harm job prospects for an individual, and the threat of workplace discrimination based on identity could cause one to remain in the closet. One of the responses to this question mentioned being out could be harmful “If you were raised in a family or grew up in an environment that isn’t tolerant of other identities besides their own.”

Meanwhile, someone might choose to remain inside the closet out of the fear of disappointing others, as well as the judgement, misunderstanding, and lack of support from others. For some, being closeted is believed to be a way to protect others from what they believe to be the harmful truth of their identity. With this thinking, writer Tony E. Adams in his book “Narrating the closet: an Autoethnography of Same-sex Attraction”, believes closeted queers are more acceptable to vulnerability. An individual may choose to be in the closet if they believe their identity will not be accepted. This might lead to them isolating themselves further, and straining relationships. One of the responses to this question addressed how “people might not be “out” to avoid these negative consequences, to avoid the hassle of having to constantly explain himself to others, to maintain their privacy, or any number of other reasons.” Remaining in the closet can also be harmful as it might force an individual to need to go to further lengths to satisfy their desires, such as not using protection or not getting tested for sexually transmitted diseases in fear that someone will find out.

[viewing-identity-closets]

Intersectionality and The Closet

How do you think race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, religious affiliation could affect a person being in or out of the closet?

There is a seen separation between having a queer identity in public spaces versus private spaces. it is clear that people’s identities, and the pride taken in those identities affect how they able to occupy those spaces. Many of the responses I received for this question discusses how identities are intersectional, and through that thinking, they all contribute to the individual as a whole and so impact how a person’s identity is perceived as a whole. When discussing being queer, queerness does not apply only to non-normative sexualitites, but other faucets of non-normative identities. If an individual already was marginalized due to a part of their identity, as one of the responses said “It would be another layer that prevents someone from surviving and living.” Attacks on non-normative sexualities are part of a larger attack on those that threaten the social order by having a non-normative queer identity.

An individual’s culture can have beliefs about certain identities that can can affect how an individual’s announcement will be responded to. If your identity is non-normative to the society norm, and by some seen as repulsive, one might attempt to separate themselves from that identity, keeping that part of them hidden, and distance themselves from those that share the same identities. How do people group themselves based off of sexuality? One of the responses stated: “if someone is already a victim of oppression, such as institutional racism, they may not want to risk even more discrimination.” Someone who is white and queer will likely receive far less backlash than a queer person of color. By being oppressed through more than one identity, queer people of color can often feel they must choose, or are forced to choose what part of their identity to prioritize.

[viewing-identity-closets]

Visible Identity: Gender-Neutral Restrooms

Gender Neutral Bathrooms have been the most problematic issue mentioned by most participants in the survey. They say there is a lack of gender neutral restrooms on campus and that it especially marginalizes the transgender identity. According to the Heartland Trans Wellness Group, they believe one of the issues with “female/male sex segregated bathrooms” is that for anyone that does not fit within these norms of gender, they feel intimidated when using public restrooms. On campus I see how there is a lack of gender neutral restrooms and that many restrooms still follow the gender binary of having women or men only labeled restrooms. I found it interesting how this specific group defines what a gender neutral bathroom looks like, ““Gender-neutral” bathrooms are typically a single-stall, lockable bathroom available to people of all genders and sexes.” This type of single stall restroom is the kind I have seen commonly constructed at Beloit College. What I find problematic with these type of restrooms is that while they ensure the privacy of an individual it does not allow them to have the same social setting as multi-stall restrooms would allow. This means that those who are the normalized gender binary will not become exposed with other identities who will then become alienated from those who will continue to use the female or male only restrooms. Instead of creating restrooms for all identities it would be the creation of personal bubbles in which the identity of a person must remain hidden from the eyes of the public. For people to get used to the idea of the non binary and other identities are here to stay they must interact with them in all spaces, and I believe the restroom is a required place to start the desocialization of what the established meanings of sex and gender are now.

[viewing-identity-closets]

Visible Identity: The Low-Income and the Negative View on Poverty

Another mention a participant of the survey elaborated on was the non-inclusivity of low income students. This being those who work under the government program work study and how students at Beloit College are paid the minimum wage of the state. This has come with rumors that students will lost their full-time status if they work more than the designated hours the college deems are acceptable. In not being recognized as full-time students, Beloiters cannot live on campus and they can lose some of the government offered funds for their schooling (FASFA). This brings to question if Beloit College is welcoming low-income students by accepting them into their institution why is there a policing of how much money these identities can have? In “Deconstructing Class and Gender Policing” by Prisca Dorcas Mojica Rodriguez she writes about how poverty is viewed in the eyes of society and within her own Nicaraguan culture, “I always knew that my mom did not like someone when she would say: parece que no baña a sus niños. It was because this person had the audacity to let her poverty show. She was careless to not care for how her kids were presented to the general public. Being poor is bad, but looking poor is criminal. There is an association to cleanliness and one's ability to appear clean.”  A translation for non Spanish language readers for the phrase “parece que no baña a sus niños” it means that “it looks like she does not bathe her children.” Now this distinction between the rest of society and the poor is that the low-income is associated with uncleanness. How are low-income students viewed at Beloit College? If being poor is viewed as bad is it the idea that low-income students at Beloit College are seen as assets to show that the college is trying to be inclusive. It also brings into question in which identities are associated with being poor? I feel that poverty is always expressed as being unable to do anything in life and that those who are poor are stuck in the uncleanness of the world. Being from a poor background is something that needs to be hidden and especially while being in a campus like Beloit College I would think that this identity is less embraced than others.

  If you would like to read Prisca Dorcas’ work here is the link to the article I mentioned

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sucia-deconstructing-clas_b_9768882.html

[viewing-identity-closets]

Visible Identity: Race and Queerness

Another visible identity that participants feel is excluded on campus are people of color. This observation is unsurprising since the campus is known for being predominantly white. It always seems that people of color are always excluded from society’s structures and while people of color are ostracized from institutions, they are alienated from queerness as well. Some participants specifically mention SAGA as being non-inclusive of race, and I have heard personally about how the Feminist Collective Group is not as inclusive of people of color either. This is not a “call out” of these specific groups, but I mention them specifically because these are people’s opinions on campus. Participants of the survey also mention that while there is the acknowledgment of lack of inclusivity in these groups, and hopefully other groups as well, these groups are working on overcoming these issues. This specifically connects to E. Patrick Johnson’s “‘Quare’ Studies, or (Almost) Everything I Know about Queer Studies I Learned from My Grandmother” which includes the idea that queerness lacks a connection with people of color, “Gloria Anzaldúa explicitly addresses this limitation when she warns that "queer is used as a false unifying umbrella which all 'queers' of all races, ethnicities and classes are shored under” (127). So with the existence of queerness it is the erasure of all other marginalized identities that can identify with being queer. This is something people of color always have to choose in between because they cannot talk about race if they want to talk about queerness, since it is so whitewashed.

While I pointed out that there is the absence of color in certain spaces on campus I would also argue that there is a lack of whiteness in others. In the clubs I am an active participant in, I have noticed when clubs center around people of color there is a lack of white identifying members. Specifically I am apart of Voces, that is a latinx culture group, and Spanish club, which is a club that centers around the Spanish language and Hispanic Culture. During my attendance of meetings and events I have noticed that with Spanish Club there are more white members in attendance because there is the practice of speaking the language and others only come because it is a requirement for their Spanish class. With Voces, I believe that it is a welcoming environment of latinx identities because we make up the majority in that space. There are few instances of other members who identify with cultures other than latinx and that is because they might feel left out when we speak about our experience with growing up within our latinx cultures. With this being said, it seems that many spaces at Beloit College are lacking in some way or another when it comes to intersecting identities.