I just thought everyone would appreciate knowing how generally pleased with myself I am.

A few days ago, astralounge and I were joking around, and she said something about the gay bar she had visited qualifying as "sacred man space." I jokingly replied that there was no such thing as sacred man space, and if there was, a gay bar certainly wouldn't qualify. She riposted, tart as you please, with "aren't gay men still men?" And I, of course, provided the only answer that would be sure to make her grit her teeth. =)

I've been thinking about that conversation quite a bit over the past few days. More than it warrants, I'm sure... particularly since the whole thing was very flippant and unserious.

I've been thinking about it because there is something about the idea that "gay men are men" that bothers me. I've finally put my finger on it, and I'd like to talk about it now.¹

To start with, I should note that I object to identifying terms such as "gay," "heterosexual" and "bisexual" on intellectual and philosophical grounds. Specifically, such terms (and indeed, most common forms of self-identification) are non-operational and non-phenomenological statements that are devoid of inherent meaning or clarity. They imply an "isness of being" or an Aristotelian Essence that I do not generally believe in. In short, when rendered in E-Prime, the language of truth², such statements either disappear or mean something totally different from what is normally intended. Stirner would say that "gayness" (or heterosexuality or bisexuality) is a spook.

That's all a bit of a sidetrack actually, but it is something to consider. Blaise isn't "bisexual" any more than the sky is "blue" or I am "a genius." I'm sure that as much as it pains her to do so, she would have to concede that point on philosophical grounds. Statements such as those listed above help us agree on what constitutes consensus reality, but they do not imply any sort of truth.

It's a moot point. For purposes of everyday life, Blaise will continue to self-identify as bisexual and I will fight tooth and nail to maintain my claim on the title "genius." Furthermore, both of us will agree that, in most instances, the sky at least appears blue.

And Blaise's friends will continue to be "gay." I object on philosophical grounds, but I don't begrudge them the title.

What I do begrudge them is the joint title of "men," and I've finally figured out why: the intended use of the two terms is contradictory.

People lay claim to the title of "gay man" to highlight their differences and uniqueness and specialness... their alienation from the majority. They lay claim to the title of "man" to point out that they are just the same as everyone else.

You can't have both.

Gay men aren't men. Neither are white men or black men or anyone else whose first inclination is to plug an adjective down in front of "man."

If your first choice of an identifying term is one that deliberately sets you apart from the majority, then it is inappropriate to also claim kinship with the majority. It is a cop-out... a way to say "I am special and unique, and you must acknowledge that specialness" while at the same time claiming "I am exactly the same as everyone else, and I deserve to be treated just the same!" It is an impossible, arrogant demand.

If you want to be a "man," then you'll have to acknowledge that your sexual identity is a portion of your personal identity rather than the whole of your personal identity. Similarly, if you want to be a "person," you'll need to step back and accept the fact that your sex and gender are also only single aspects of who you are.

And as far as "sacred man space?" I'm afraid that, by rights, such an area should belong first and foremost to those people who first and foremost self-identify as "men."

¹ It is important to me that you realize that the highly charged subject matter of this argument (sexual identity) is not a primary issue to me. What I'm going to be arguing against is the inappropriate use and usurpation of self-identifying statements. If anyone is going to respond to this, I would appreciate it if they would keep that fact in mind.

² If you do not understand E-Prime, or if you do not agree that it "is" the language of truth, then you "are" an idiot, and you "will not be" capable of understanding the joke contained in this footnote. Go here.










NEXT PREVIOUS