Being in love should never be interconnected with death; however, when it comes to LGBTQ+ teens, this is frighteningly the case. Whether you read Sedgwick’s “Queer and Now” or “How to Bring Your Kids up Gay”, you find that she stresses “that queer teenagers are two to three times likelier to attempt suicide, and to accomplish it, than others” (“Queer and Now”). Mentioning these chilling truths at the forefront of both texts, emphasizes for the reader that they need to be aware of who they are fighting for and the severity of the situation. But how? How do we go about bringing such change when educators (like a handful of this class are striving to be) can be fired for showing any recognition of understanding their queer students or being queer themselves?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Federal Government) continues to update their laws, including those involving the employment of queer teachers. Their website has a page dedicated to these laws; however orientation and transgender identification is not present on their main page or links to discrimination in the workplace laws (https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-type). Despite having twelve categories to many other important topics, LGBTQ+ rights are missing which is something that I believe should be included on that list. At the state and local level, fair employment law activists have been pushing for more laws not only prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, but also discrimination for teachers who identify as transgender. Some examples include NY State’s Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (first added in 2002 as part of their Human Rights Law) and more recently in 2019, the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act which included transgender identities and others in the spectrum.
I would also like to bring up the article, “Dancing Queer Children”, specifically highlighting the heteronormative speculation JJ receives on a show that embraces the openly queer. Despite being queer himself, JJ is told by the mothers of the show that the girls and even other mothers will fall head over heels for him. Also, despite being clearly underage, the mothers push the envelope by even creating the sexual innuendo of girls coming back stage to get “some ice cream” and finish it off by aging him up and saying that he is “the man of the group”.
Ew.
When reading the section, I was reminded of the numerous times I myself along with others have had to deal with heteronormative claims, like the all-too-popular gender reveal parties and the comments under same-sex wedding pictures exclaiming “Double wedding! #FriendGoals”. It feels like the heterosexual population is trying to stick LGBTQ+ daily existence under a veil while still waving a token card stating that people should not worry because they have a gay friend. It’s strange to me that on a show like ‘Dancing Queen’, mothers would fall into this skewed normative behavior in order for what, I am sure, they thought was “funny” banter before a show. Even more disturbing are their repeated comments falling into pedophilic red-flag territory, all for the purpose of portraying the sole male child of the group as being the epitome of masculinity and “manly-man-ness”.
As Sedgewick has explained multiple times in both of her texts, there appears to be a heterosexual culture of purposefully masculinizing seemingly-effeminate boys by coercion of traits and understandings via a male mentor or speech like what was said on the show. According the analysts she mentions is “How to Bring Your Kids up Gay”, a homosexual can only be healthy if they are grown up and act masculine. That sounds extremely contradictory and damaging for LGBTQ+ youths or people who do not actively conform to gender norms. The “Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood” diagnosis the Sedgewick mentioned brought up some interesting things that I will include in a question about how boys who suggest femininity are treated much more harshly than girls who directly deny their femininity in what is classified as part of effeminophobia. I believe this may be a consequence of the notion of kinship and independence. Girls are encouraged to hug each other and go to sleepovers, while optionally taking on the role of being a “strong, independent women”, while boys only have the choice of being independent and claiming “no homo” when showing any sign of affection or companionship with other boys.
These texts brought many things to attention and are meant to leave the reader pondering. That being said, my questions for you all are:
- In Sedgewick’s “Queer and Now”, she mentions to her seminar of students (mostly comprising of heterosexual students) that she built the class for a primarily queer audience. As a result, the students were outraged by this due to their straight-entitlement. This happened back in the 1980s. This makes me think if the same view would be still observed in 2020. Have you seen such behavior happening in today’s queer-focused classes? Has there been a shift in the audience demographic?
- At the time of writing “How to Bring Your Kids up Gay”, Sedgewick wrote about how studies on homosexual relationships seemed to be “exclusively about boys”. Why may this be? Why is femininity not shoved down young girl’s throats (to the point where being a tom-boy is acceptable), but masculinity is?
- Thinking about “Dancing Queer Children”, what can we do to make elementary and middle schools inclusive for queer/questioning children?
Works Cited
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, “How to Bring Your Kids up Gay”. Social Text, Duke University Press, 1991.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, “Queer and Now.” Tendencies, Routledge, 1994.
Zaborskis, Mary. “Dancing Queer Children.” Public Books, 17 June 2020, www.publicbooks.org/dancing-queer-children/.
Hi Teodora,
Good job on your blog for this week! You moved through and connected the different readings very well. I really liked your point about JJ and some of the heteronormative aspects of that show, despite being distributed by Word of Wonder and featuring Alyssa Edwards. Childhood sexuality is usually discussed and hidden in the same breath. Meaning that as long as the child is heterosexual adults can discuss their future spouses, and children with ease. God forbid that child shows some signs that they may be queer, parents (most often) start trying to repress and guide the child’s sexuality to a more ‘acceptable’ straight. I think “Dancing Queen” did a good job of showcasing Justin’s childhood trauma and the space he is trying to cultivate for his dancers in response to that. Along with that, the show takes place in Texas, a more conservative state, and I believe that is why some of the mothers make these heteronormative comments. Those mothers may be accepting of Justin’s sexuality, but unable to recognize or accept that JJ is queer.
To your second discussion question, I think JJ is the perfect example of society being focused on male homosexual relationships. I’m not really sure why studies are focused nearly exclusively on gay men, but it’s true. Historically there are more records of male homosexual relationships than lesbian ones, even in television shows a gay character is usually a man. This is definitely something I’m going to keep thinking about. For as much as society seems to be moving forward, there is still a lot of work to do.
Dear Teodora,
Thank you so much for thoughtful analysis and excellent writing.
I was relieved when I read your comment about the mother’s comments in “Dancing Queer Children”; I too found the sexual overtones regarding a child — any child — as potential pedophilia.
This is a topic close to my heart. I frequently cover sex crimes against children as a reporter. Children are children, not miniature adults. Abstract thinking — the ability to consider topics such as love, potential consequences and fidelity that have no physical manifestation, like a tree, a dance pattern or a soccer play — does not develop in the brain until after puberty ( see lIroise Dumontheil’s Oct. 2014 article in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience entitled “Development of abstract thinking during childhood and adolescence: The role of rostrolateral prefrontal cortex”). Mastery of abstract thinking does not occur until late adolescence. That is part of the reason why it is illegal for an adult to have sex with someone under the age of 16: that child cannot realize the gravity of the experience, is likely unable to stand up to the influence of an adult, and will struggle to cope with the emotional, physical and mental repercussions of active sexuality (whether hetero or LGBTQ+).
One of the disturbing aspect’s of Sedgwick’s articles and the “Dancing Queer Children” article is that it supposes some elementary school and middle school students are prepared to tackle the topic of alternative sexualities. While it is reasonable to answer questions posed by children in a way that they can understand (ie “some people have two Daddys” for a small child rather than an explicit “there is sex in the world and here’s what it can be like”), it is not reasonable to disregard the nueroscience that points to children’s limited ability to understand the abstract concepts connected to romantic love.
Vernon Wiehe, a professor of social work at the University of Kentucky who specializes in varying forms of abuse and family violence, noted that the normalization of sexual activity in prepubescent children can have detrimental effects on children and adults. He writes in his Aug. 14, 2011 Op-Ed for the Lexington Herald Leader:
“The sexualization of young children sends a conflicting message to the child and a dangerous message to adults. To the child, a message is given that sexuality — expressed in clothing, makeup and certain postures — is appropriate and even something to exploit. The message to adults, especially pedophiles, is one condoning children as sexual objects. Research on child sexual abuse shows that the sexualization of children is a contributing factor to their sexual abuse.”
Sadly, I have witnessed this pattern in my own reporting on child sex abuse. In a recent article, a man charged with raping two young boys in Cortland more than 50 times was noted to have confessed his heinous crimes and justified it by saying ,”My natural desires is different than anybody else’s.” In a second article, a woman accused of molesting a boy and a girl called her actions “sex education.”
Obviously, this is not the “education” Sedgwick is proposing and abusers will always find excuses for their behavior. But asking children to be more than they are — to be sexual before puberty — is a dangerous request and should be specifically delineated from consensual, adult sexuality .
Hi Teodora,
I really enjoyed reading your blog post! I thought you did a great job connecting Zaborskis’s reading to Sedgwick’s readings. I too felt uncomfortable reading the section about JJ in the “Dancing Queer Children” article. JJ, being the only male student in the dance class, was constantly being sexualized by the mothers of the girl students. I found this section so hard to read because the dance teacher Alyssa was trying to create an environment where students can feel comfortable enough to be their true selves, where they can fully embrace being queer. Even though JJ was openly queer, the mothers sexualized him saying that themselves and their daughters were going to fall in love with him and be all over him backstage. I couldn’t believe the mothers were acting this way towards a child. This section, as well as most of the “Dancing Queer Children” article, reminded me of the section in Sedgwick’s article “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay” where Friedman dives into ‘effeminacy’ and Gender Identity Disorder. There is a section, on page 20 of “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay,” that stuck out to me where Friedman talks about the ideas of ‘effeminacy’, “a tradition of assuming that anyone, male or female, who desires a man must by definition be feminine; and that anyone, male or female, who desires a woman must by the same token be masculine” (Sedgwick pg. 20). This idea of effeminacy and Gender Identity Disorder continues onto page 21 where Friedman talks about boys should act like whom they are similar to, which should be other boys, “Boys measure themselves in relation to others whom they estimate to be similar. [For Friedman, this can mean only men and other boys.] The others must agree that the boy is and will remain similar to them. The boy must also view both groups (peers and older men) as appropriate for idealization” (Sedgwick pg. 21). These two sections about effeminacy and Gender Identity Disorder, reminded me of the mothers sexualizing JJ because they, like Friedman, seem to believe if you are a male then you should like females and only females, and because you are male you should act masculine as other males do.
To answer your second question, I’m honestly not sure why masculinity is shoved and thrown at young males while femininity is not always shoved down the throats of young girls. I think in the society we live in it is thought to be so important that men act masculine and should almost be viewed as having no emotions, but when it comes to women it is just almost assumed that women will find their way to eventually becoming feminine. I think of how when I was younger I was a tomboy and no one ever questioned why. The people around me just assumed that I would grow out of it because to them it was just a phase. I’m not sure why for young men who don’t act masculine it’s seen as something so wrong and almost foreign for the people around them. This is something I will definitely keep thinking about.
Hi Teodora,
What I found most shocking in the readings as well as in your blog post was the account of deaths in the queer community, specifically pertaining to suicides. To me, the quote from “Queer and Now,” “I’ve heard of many people who claim they’d as soon their children were dead as gay,” echoed the voices of many parents from parents of this past generation as well as those who are raising. The fact that 26 percent of specifically gay men have had to leave home because of conflicts regarding their sexual identity spoke to the brokenness that is happening in people’s home lives due to a lack of understanding and acceptance of various sexual identities. You asked in your blog post how to bring about positive change in the suicide rates. “What exactly is to be done?” is a question I asked myself after doing the readings and after reading your blog post. From the readings, it’s noted that a lot of the discrimination is coming from school systems, but I also believe that an even greater weight on the issue is coming from home life (Sedwick, 2). Being rejected by parents will only lead to unspeakable pain in the future, and the suicides that those who identify as queer have experienced I believe often speaks to the environment they grew up in. I think that the solution begins with an understanding being brought to parents who are raising kids now, and also to those parents who have kids who identify as queer but are already grown up. Queer activism, apart from the LGBTQ movement, seems to be part of the solution for this issue.
In “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens,” the author claims that queerness conceptually challenges what we know now the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities; that is, it separates heterosexuals not only from people in the LGBTQ community, but also those in the queer community. It does not put queers in another category that is different from those in the LGBTQ community. This discourages enforcing sexual identities on those searching or those who are more comfortable with (and confident in) living their life not identifying with a sexual identity. Queerness does not necessarily dismiss dominant norms in the LGBTQ community, but simply makes a more simplistic distinction between heterosexuality and queerness. The solution that can be found in this is normalizing the state of not identifying as a particular other sexual identity. The process of this exploration, whether the person identifies with a sexual identity or not, should be seen with the same respect as someone who has decided to identify with a specific sexual identity. “Instead of destabilizing the assumed categories and binaries of sexual identity, queer politics has served to reinforce simple dichotomies between heterosexual and everything else ‘queer,’” (483, Cohen). I can see how this distinction of queerness can be a useful solution to the discrimination that those in the queer community are facing in their home life.
Hi Teodora!
I really enjoyed reading your blog post and thought it was extremely well written…especially with all the examples and explanation you provided! I really liked how you chose to talk about The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s website and explained how orientation and transgender identification isn’t presented on its main page. Adding the link to their website was definitely helpful when understanding what their main page looked like and how they are missing this very important subject. I definitely agree with you that it SHOULD be added on that list and really don’t understand why they would exclude them out of it. Also, while I was reading about JJ’s experience of being the only male student in his dance class in the “Dancing Queer Children,” I found it to be disturbing and emotionally painful to read. Although his dance teacher, Alyssa, was trying to make the dance class a place where everyone can feel welcomed/accepted and comfortable to be themselves, JJ was always being sexualized by the other student’s (who were all girls) mothers. Being that JJ was openly queer, this was a place where he was supposed to be comfortable to be himself and embrace his sexuality. I honestly couldn’t believe how the mothers, who are ADULTS, weren’t respecting JJ and were sexualizing him by making him uncomfortable, saying that them and their daughters are in love with him and are going to be all over him backstage. I was in SHOCK, to say the least. I really liked your second question because it really made me think about why femininity isn’t shoved down girl’s throats, but masculinity is shoved down boy’s throats. Here, I thought of JJ’s situation and the mom’s sexualizing him can be compared to our society and how they are constantly zeroing in on homosexual relationships with men. We’ve seen it for years, especially when it comes to male celebrities coming out as queer. For example, we see it in magazines, T.V., news articles, snapchat, instagram, twitter, and many more social media platforms. When these celebrities or any man comes out, society makes it a big deal because it has created this norm that men should act masculine and if they suddenly come out as queer, they are no longer masculine anymore. As for women, I think that femininity isn’t really shoved down their throats because society allows them to grow up into femininity when they become “a woman.” I honestly would like to learn more about how and why society does this because I do recognize the problem with this, but I want to understand more about it.