You know those moments where, in a period of about five seconds, you’re forced to sum up and reflect on a thought process that been going on for months, even years? I’m a big fan of those moments, partially for their comedic effect; they make you realize how things that you thought had no meaningful relevance to your life actually matter way more than you gave them credit for. As a perfect example of this, my last big-small moment was precipitated by Facebook. Of course. And since this whole thing is probably one part Awesome Personal Identity Epiphany to three (hundred?) parts Shameless Self-Expression, I thought, “Gee, Ben…why not BLOG about it?” GENIUS!!!
Some background is necessary, both on me and on my Facebook page. I’m bisexual, and involved in a long-term intra-Amherst homosexual relationship (wait…those exist? Yes. Yes they do). I’m out to the campus (obviously) and I talk about it a lot (even more obviously). Since I’ll eventually generalize about the process of coming out and the reality of being gay (a term I’ll use to include anything in the LGBTQQIA list…if you don’t know what some of those stand for, Google it or ask me) on this campus, I should concede now that my experience is not typical. Not because my story is particularly interesting, but rather because there is no typical gay Amherst experience. There are just too many variables at work here (precise orientation, time to come out to self, time to come out to campus, political beliefs, family environment…it gets WAY Facebook complicated in our collective relationship status with being gay) for there to be a Gay Amherst Majority with all those variables in common.
Which is a nice segue to my Facebook page. I’m not a Facebook nutcase (you know who you are, Mr. and Ms. 1500 photos tagged by others, complete with an applications list that requires 2 minutes of scrolling to get through) so it’s pretty nondescript. It’s perhaps even more nondescript than you might imagine, as my Interested In and Relationship Status boxes aren’t filled in and haven’t been since I ended my heterosexual high school relationship about 2 years ago. While I’m not a Facebook nutcase, I am a Facebook stalker, so a couple days ago I “happened” to be on another Amherst student’s page, which contained the SGO application. For the uninformed, SGO allows the user to include more than just Sex and Interested In on their profile; it contains a large quantity of lovely fields such as “Gender Identity,” “Orientation,” and “Transition Status” which can be filled in with fabulously ambiguous descriptors like “Genderqueer,” “Homoflexible,” and “Cispeople” (if you want to know what these terms mean, Google it and don’t ask me, because I don’t know). And here it is; that defining moment, that split second where everything clears up and gets muddled at the same time. I looked at that application box on my stalkee’s Facebook page and I thought to myself, ‘Why not?”
Why not? I could write about that question for days, and I could write even more on it’s gay cousin: “Why?” Haven’t I been in a gay relationship for almost 19 months? Haven’t I come out to everyone that matters? As far as this campus is concerned, I’m one of the more comfortable gay men, both publicly and privately. So why not? Because filling in that silly little box is the most public of public gestures. And I realized in that moment that being comfortable enough to talk to ANYONE (yes, even you) about my sexual orientation is not the same as having it plastered all over your profile. Coming out on Facebook means that people put my face next to the word “bisexual” in their mental encyclopedias, maybe (even probably) without having spoken to me before. And I realized that I wasn’t comfortable with that. But in that five second thought process, I became comfortable with it. And I filled out the application and clicked ‘Save Changes” right before my dismal Friday 2PM Biochem lecture.
As a social networking site, Facebook is invaluable to members of the gay community. Leaving the Interested In box blank has become the modern equivalent of the earring in the right ear (or was it left?). But what does it mean to send these sorts of covert messages, and what does it mean for me to put SGO on my profile? Some would argue that not including sexual orientation in such a public way affirms the idea that your identity is not tied up in your sexual orientation alone; that in a perfectly homofriendly society, orientation becomes a non-issue. I agree, but I also tend to think that these sorts of subtle gestures reflect an imperfect campus climate. Is there a homophobia problem on this campus? I haven’t dealt with anything blatant directed at me personally, but I know some members of the gay community have, with the Crossett incident being the most horrifying example. But in thinking about this, I realized that I tend to project homophobia on the members of the campus I haven’t met. Yes, even you, assuming I haven’t met you. I tend to think that homophobia is your default. This is clearly unfair and slightly absurd, as I’m sure that most Amherst students are upstanding allies. So why do I do this? It is the apathy and silence that scares me; the people who didn’t take the Gay Fine by Me t-shirts (which are flawed in themselves, but that’s another post) or didn’t come to the anti-homophobia rally earlier in the year. Clearly I need to work on my assumptions and projections, but the campus needs to meet me halfway in actively supporting members of the gay community, as opposed to simply tolerating them. We need more straight people adding SGO to their profiles and more allies at Pride meetings. To those who believe that there is no homophobia problem on this campus, talk to me about it! Leave a comment detailing how much you love and support the gays. I’d love to hear from you.
Though the Facebook magnifying glass, we can really examine what it means to come out in an imperfect society. Was I closeted before I added SGO? I didn’t think so, but now I’m not sure. We need to realize that many Amherst students are in the same sort of intermediate state between “in” and “out,” they’ve come out to themselves and a few close friends, but are still stuck in a larger “closet” with regard to the unknown public. Two people who are at different stages in the coming out process require different forms of support, and we as a campus need to know how to provide that type of specific support. I guess it’s no wonder that on the SGO list of people you’re out to, “public” is listed last. Hopefully, we can more towards a campus where more members of the community can have that box checked.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Anna Brenner (abrenner09) // May 4, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“Leaving the Interested In box blank has become the modern equivalent of the earring in the right ear (or was it left?). ”
Well observed, Mr. Vincent.
2 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // May 5, 2008 at 8:02 pm
While I think everyone, or at least I hope everyone, would agree that homophobia is unacceptable, I am afraid I cannot assent to your recommendations for proving that people are not homophobes. Your urging of people to add this SGO program as an emblem of their sympathy is quite problematic. The idea that gender is socially constructed, as implied by terms like “genderqueer”and “gender identification” is extremely controversial. While I concede that people can conceive of themselves as being whatever they like, I don’t believe for a second that such conceptions have any biological implications for things like their chromosomes, which will continue to bear the imprints of their natural gender. I think this is one of the problems that the gay movement has, as in many cases like this one, it reaches far beyond eliminating homophobia to things like questioning gender while presenting the two as synonymous.
3 bvincent09 (bvincent09) // May 6, 2008 at 8:45 pm
To Sam,
It’s interesting that you bring science into the discussion, and I think you’re right to question my recommendations. I think the thing that I would most like to see on campus is more open discussion of issues of sexuality and gender, and more people “coming out” as allies; there’s a big difference between conceding that “homophobia is unacceptable” and actually putting yourself out there as a supporter of the gay community (the difference between tolerance and acceptance, I would say). In my view, SGO is a somewhat trivial but slightly meaningful way to do publicly assert yourself as an Ally, which is why I recommended it.
As for your comment on the problematic nature of “gender;” I think that queer theorists would argue that you’re getting your terms mixed up. They (and I) would argue that “sex” and “gender” are distinct, the former being the presence of male or female genitalia (”things like their chromosomes”), while the latter is how one conceives of oneself, which takes into account social roles. Your argument that this distinction does not exist implies that we should treat the transgender community (who have a “gender” that differs from their “sex”) as we would individuals with psychological disorders. Which I would argue is homophobic (or “transphobic,” I guess). What do you think?
4 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // May 7, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Paul McHugh, the director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, was here this past spring addressing precisely this question, in fact I wonder if the talk was recorded as some of the talks are so that those who missed it might have a chance to here him on the subject.
I am afraid that I am unschooled in dealing with these alleged distinctions between “gender” and “sex.” I suppose, if as you say, sex corresponds to genitalia, while gender corresponds to “social roles.” My question would be why do those who feel uncomfortable in their “social roles” endeavor to change their genitalia, which, as you say, corresponds with their sex? Why does one’s conception of oneself necessarily entail surgery? Why not just act the “social role” one feels suited too?
Furthermore, as I said previously, while I am willing to call myself an opponent of homophobia, I am still unwilling to call myself a “supporter of the gay community” until I know precisely what that entails with regards to questions like these. If I cannot oppose this alleged distinction regarding sex and gender without being a transphobe than I am not sure your movement has a place for people like me at all.
I would note that the Democratic party was unwilling to attach transsexuals to their ENDA bill, reflecting precisely the same sorts of concerns that I am raising. Surely the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can’t also be transphobes. And if so, how many people aren’t?
You must log in to post a comment.