July 18, 2009
The LGBT community is kind of a paradox to me. I think it’s great that people of similar struggles can come together to support eachother, but I see this ax as double edged. I think that in its efforts to offer support to its members it also causes a rift between the LGBT community and the rest of society. In ways, it separates LGBTs from the general populace. Isn’t the goal to assimilate lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders into society; to accept them as a part of society?
Who’s idea was it to use rainbows and pink triangles as emblems of gay pride anyways? Why has it become a media spectacle? It has become a fad, a movement within popular culture. In my opinion it is alienating itself from its original purpose. And now society, outside of the LGBT, has this notion that all “queers” are like they see on television and in movies. People are getting the wrong image of what gays, lesbians and bisexuals are really like. We have become characterized and stereotyped. And because of this, people who are not comfortable with what they see through the media, are now forced to conclude that they are not okay with and are against the entire LGBT community.
I believe that both nature and nurture, that dna and environment, shape people. As the media portrays the LGBT community in one color, from one point of view or through one facet, the world comes to the conclusion that the LGBT is exactly that. Young lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders are fooled into believing that they must be this one certain way, that they must grow and become what they see because they are not shown anything else and know no other facet of what it means to be who and what they are. Biologically, they are made gay, straight or someone inbetween, but environmentally they are shaped into what that truly means. I believe what they have been molded into is wrong.
Heterosexuals are people who are attracted physically and emotionally to the opposite gender. Homosexuals are people physically and emotionally attracted to the same gender. Bisexuals are people stuck somewhere/anywhere inbetween those two. There could be physical attraction to one gender and an emotional attraction to the other gender and there could also be both attractions to both genders. Because homosexuals and bisexuals have been thrown underground for so long and heterosexuality has been the key force in depicting what it means to be in a relationship, the other two know no other way to act than what has been molded by heterosexuals as normal.
By all that I mean a relationship is still socially understood as a partnership between a man and a women. Each of which is represented by gender roles. The man is the provider, protector, is physically strong, blah, blah blah and the female is nurturing, compassionate, vulnerable, blah, blah, blah. To me, all that crap is not biological. Look into the rest of the animal kingdom and those gender roles are not the norm. In birds of prey, it is usually the female that is stronger, bigger, the physical leader and provider in the relationship. In ants, spiders, elephants, some rodents, the female is the dominant one. Our society has decided that the male is the dominant one. Well, it did at one time, things are changing now days, but you get my point.
So in homosexuality and bisexuality you have this paradox. When there’s two males or two females, who directs the relationship? Who fills which role? I think because of society, this paradox has been approached with the butch and bit** theory. That one man or woman is feminine and the other man or woman is masculine. And thus was born the dyke and the queer, the butch girl and the bit** boy.
In my opinion, flamboyant gay guys and masculine women are not biological. I think they are created by society. They become those things as they grow up and attempt to find their “role” in society and in their relationships.
I, however, ask why? Why does it have to be this way? Why does one partner have to rule the other? Can it not be a true partnership? And why does society think that masculine gay guys or bisexuals have to be with feminine gay guys? Is not the theory behind homosexuality that men are attracted to men and women to women? Sounds like gender roles throw a wrench into that theory if you ask me.
So to wrap this topic up, I ask you this: How much of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and the whole LGBT community is really biological and how much of it is actually sociological/psychological?