The Homophobias (p137-152) by Finn

1)Impressions

ftail781_ — 2023-11-30 09:21:02 UTC

After reading Bruehl’s work, I have come to think about homophobia a little differently. Bruehl talks about homophobia in comparison to other prejudices (such as sexism and racism), highlighting what separates it from the rest (as a form of prejudice). It has made me realize that homophobia isn’t limited to one type of reasoning or motive, rather a collection of many. The definition of homosexuality was also discussed greatly throughout the passage, and it made me think about the “normalcy” of homosexuality throughout history. Homosexuality has been present throughout history, but I wonder when it started to become an immoral act to partake in. How and when is it decided that it is “acceptable” to be with someone of the same sex, and where do the stereotypes that worry people stem from?

2)Thesis

ftail781_ — 2023-11-30 09:22:33 UTC

Throughout the first part of the reading, Bruehl focuses on two things: the definition of homosexuality throughout history and the perceptions of homosexuality that lead to the different ways homophobia manifests itself in people. Bruehl compares homophobia to other prejudices he speaks on (sexism, racism) to show how homophobia isn’t the same (at least not completely) as the other prejudices mentioned. Because homosexuals aren’t identifiable through visible features alone like a woman or a POC, homophobia becomes a category accusation. It is targeted towards the acts that come with being a homosexual and then the actual person. (143) Bruehl mentions that there are instances where homosexuality is normal and necessary, but only under specific guidelines. If they weren’t followed, then it would be shamed. This is similar to how some homophobic people are okay with the homosexual so long as they don’t engage in those acts. The point Bruehl makes is that there is power in the definition of “homosexual”, because it leads to the different manifestations of homophobia as a response.

3)Passages and Questions

ftail781_ — 2023-11-30 09:23:15 UTC

“In current debates, there are those who say that homosexuality is a type of desire determined by some biological predisposition--some gene, some hormonal or neurohormonal configuration, some anatomical feature--and then manifest in behaviors that, in even most varied cultural contexts are rooted in those biological invariants.” (144)

“...when homosexual came into scientific existence and won wide acceptance and held cultural sway, romantic female friendships virtually ceased, because women in such relationships could not escape the label. They could not be impassioned friends--they had to be “lesbians”. (147)

“In the early days of the gay liberation movement, this essentialist, biologically oriented position was assumed by gay activists to be homophobic…since then it has exercised great appeal among homosexuals for the simple reason that it implies they have no choice about their sexuality.” (144)

1)How does this part of the passage “define” homosexuality, and what could be some possible setbacks from such a suggestion?

2)Do you agree with the idea that such passionate friendships were more than friendships? How does this reaction to female friendships give power to definition?

3)Why would the biological standpoint be considered homophobic in the early days of the Gay Liberation movement? Do you agree with the idea of it being homophobic?

4)Artifact

ftail781_ — 2023-11-30 09:34:26 UTC

I chose to include this poem because of the message being shared. It lifts up the generation of queer kids that have been shamed and put down for being different, being told that their way of life would lead to unhappiness. It describes what it feels like to be unnatural in an environment where you need to change to be loved.

5)Exploration

ftail781_ — 2023-11-30 09:36:30 UTC

This connects with the reading through the mentions of change, implying that to be accepted by the society you grew up in you needed to be the norm (straight). It speaks to the point made earlier where homophobes are likely to attack the act rather than the person, so if the person chooses to stick out then they will surely be unhappy. It also changes the meaning of “queer”, which speaks to the power of definition. It went from meaning disaster and certain unhappiness to strength. What exactly is “queer”? And what separates “queer” from “normal”? Those are some questions that I got from reading the article AND the poem.