We don’t need categorization to survive. Yet, it is basic human instinct to put people in certain places and organize them by what society sees fit. We classify people by race, physical appearance, sexuality, and more. Plus, along with these classes, stereotypes are added to their assumed personalities. Homosexuality, or any identity that belongs in the LGBTQ community, is one of these common human categories. In the book Interdisciplinarity, there is a section called “Queering the Disciplines”. When analyzing this section of the text, I can’t help but think that the ideas expressed could be insulting to homosexuals. Moran’s references make some pretty controversial comments on the gay community.
A lot of the interpretations on people involved in LGBTQ expressed in Interdisciplinarity could be seen as very narrow minded and ignorant. Personally, I am not part of this locality, but even I thought these referred statements were degrading. In the book, Moran was careful in his words to just reference other people’s ideas rather than stating his own opinions. But, the whole idea of what he was reporting on made me frustrated on the way that these theorists were thinking about human beings. First of all, why is “Queer Theory” even a real study? In my opinion, I don’t think that Queer Theory should even be a discipline in the first place. Homosexuals are just normal people; they shouldn’t be seen as a subject that kids can study in school or a scientist’s next lab experiment. Of course, I understand that it is okay to be curious about something that may not necessarily pertain to you. It’s alright to want to learn more about something that you may not personally understand. Everybody relates to that. But, you have to go about learning this new information in a respectful way that doesn’t involve looking at your peers as another species. For example, Moran made a references to some queer theorists trying to look for a “gay gene”. I can’t fathom why someone would refer to the way that someone loves as a different type of gene or as something being different in their chemical makeup. The way I see it, being a part of the LGBTQ community is not something that is in the makeup of your brain. It’s about just being who you truly are.
The phrase “queer” also does not sit well with me. Even though I know that the “Q” in LGBTQ stands for queer, I also know that many gay people find the term derogatory. This specific opinion on the “Queering the Disciplines” section may be small, but in order for people to truly feel welcome in society I think that discourteous terms like these need to be addressed. It may have been a good term to use in the past for describing this community; after all, it is a part of the name of the organization that defends gay rights. But, that also doesn’t mean that out of date terms should be continued for use today. Plus, the fact that queer theorists exists also displeases me. There is no such thing as straight theorists, so why are there queer theorists? Like addressed previously, I think that we should just let people love they way they want to. It’s their lives, not ours. It’s okay to be curious about the subject, but I think that if we slow down the process of studying homosexuals, society will slowly gain an understanding that gay people are just normal people. And since they are normal, they may not need to be studied.
Moran also made reference to a very good point about the history of societal interpretations on homosexuals. The passage states that, “…Foucault suggests that from the late nineteenth century onwards, the homosexual became a named category or species, whereas previously same-sex love had just been an activity undertaken by a wide variety of people” (Moran 99). From the views of many people today, the masses assumed that homosexuals never existed in the past. Clearly, this is not true. The fact is that people never categorized same-sex love making in the past, which is why some people interpret that they simply were never there. Same-sex love actually occurred quite frequently in the past. For example, in my theater class I learned that during the Greek Golden Age men often made love to other men. During this time, men and women were not considered equals. So, since the Greeks saw true love as something that can be only be attained between equals, men loved each other. Although this fact is not positive for the history of women, it proves that homosexality existed much before society began categorization. By civilization naming and assorting same-sex love into a group, they caused the demonization and outcasting of those who are gay. This outcasting of same-sex love is what caused the discrimination of LGBTQ members that our world faces today.
The study of homosexuality also plays a role in the studies of feminism, gender identification and masculinity because of societal stereotypes and gender roles. Therefore, I understand why some people study homosexuality in terms of society and social interactions. Homosexuality in sociology is very relevant. As is the study of every other type of categorization that society creates like race, religion and gender. Although, this type of study can lead to the further outcasting of homosexuals. I can’t help but think that if people keep thinking of homosexuals as “a different type of human” stereotypes will continue to flourish and outcasts will increase. Which is why when looking at different types of people and their “places” in society, we also have to remember that these groups are made up of individuals. Albeit MUCH less severe, when thinking of the demonizing of homosexuals I also think of the outcasting of black people. In the past, everyone knows that black people were not allowed to vote. Then, when they finally were granted the right to vote, people did all they could to stop them from doing so by creating literacy tests. The trend of people trying to slow down government processes they disagree with still happens today. This year, gay marriage was legalized all throughout the United States. A woman named Kimberly Jean Bailey Davis, or Kim Davis, is threatened with jail time because she refused to give a marriage license to a couple in her place of work. I understand that she believes that what she is doing is the right thing to do. Plus, I respect that she is willing to stand up for her own personal beliefs no matter the consequences. But, I also believe that she needs to be willing to open her mind to other people’s way of life and understand that they want happiness just like any other person. Also, christianity is all about love, acceptance and forgiveness. So why can’t these traits be expressed with gay couples? Hopefully, with future populations gaining an understanding that categories in humanity need not to exist, the discrimination of certain types of people can become a thing of the past.