(Part 2) Best lgbt demographic studies according to redditors
We found 75 Reddit comments discussing the best lgbt demographic studies. We ranked the 40 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
"Corporations like to pretend profiting off a product isn't an endorsement. But that's a convenient lie designed to duck any responsibility."
Welp, looks like Barnes and Noble endorses Nazism, then.
While we're at it, Amazon wholeheartedly endorses homophobia.
K-Mart? Huge proponents of kidnapping and forced medical experimentation.
And Wal-Mart absolutely adores drunk driving, sexual assault, homophobia, murder, misogyny, arson, illicit drug use, manslaughter, and stalking.
A friend of mine actually wrote this book about the stages of her transition. She had been married with kids before she came to terms with her true self. The book give many pieces of advice both for those transitioning and for the people close to them. Shauna's transition was a bit more traumatic than most since she is a public school teacher and was outted by the media before she was ready to talk to her family and co-workers about it.
What I've taken from the transgendered people I know (most are MTF) is that community is key. You definitely have us, but you should also try to find a group of people in your vicinity with whom you can meet and talk things over. Counseling helps, too. You're probably very confused, trying to sqeeze yourself into the "normal" box and finding it hard to fit. Counselors can help you to put your experiences and feelings in perspective, and they can help you set reasonable goals and timetables for the journey you may choose to go on.
I think, more than anything, you just need someone to talk through all the details with. I would recommend either a professional or a really close friend whom you know will love you no matter what. Redditors are great, but we're not what you need right now. Good luck, sweetheart! Keep us posted.
I honestly do a agree with a lot of this even if you don't feel like you can agree with me!
This is why I said a wholesale rethinking of desire, eros and relationships is needed within Christianity. Simply grafting same-sex couples into the heterosexual mould excludes many queer lifestyles -- and, like you said, effectively neuters us in public life. A helpful look at this would be in something like The Trouble With Normal.
A liberative queer Christian praxis could therefore look like (in some theologies) indecent sexual practices and their public acknowledgement.
a quick google found this book which i doubt is what you refer to? maybe it was this guy? i've read enough of the anti-nazi stuff to think i don't need to be tolerant of the intolerant, and i realise the irony there but i just want people to get along, not genocide each other. there's lots of people who can agree to disagree without wanting the other people to disappear/be migrated against their will etc
It sounds a bit more like this question is being phrased in an evo-psych way rather than an anthropological way, really. Since others have address this issue more than adequately, brigantus in particular, I won't say anything else about it.
But since you're curious about the intersection of anthropology and neuroscience, you might be interested in the sub-field of neuroanthropology. Greg Downey and Daniel Lende have an aptly titled blog, neuroanthropology, over at PLOS, as well as a book on the subject. As far as I know they don't really address homophobia specifically, though I haven't had the chance to read it.
Anyway, if it isn't too off topic, it may help to briefly talk about how anthropologists have actually tried to talk about homophobia. What does an (socio)anthropological approach to homophobia actually look like?
A good book on the subject is David Murray's edited volume Homophobias. It raises the issues that come up with actually treating homophobia as an ethnographic and anthropological subject (how do we define it? how do we study it?), as well as providing a variety of ethnographic examples. There's some meaningful difference, I think, between the kind of homophobia that Sullivan-Blum talks about in her chapter on evanglical Christian opposition to gay marriage - where gay marriage isn't so much defined as disgusting but more of an epistemic threat - and the development of a violent/potentially violent homophobic politics in Indonesia and Jamaica, as detailed by Tom Boellstorff and Suzanne LaFont respectively.
I'd also recommend looking at Gayle Rubin's work; specifically "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex". In "The Traffic in Women" she lays out an argument for the social origins of obligatory heterosexuality (and therefore, homophobia) by combining Levi-Strauss, Freud, and Marx.
In contrast to a bio-evolutionary account of heterosexuality/homophobia, she points out that "if biological and hormonal imperatives were as overwhelming as popular mythology would have them, it would hardly be necessary to insure heterosexual unions by means of economic interdependency."
Instead, as firedrops also points out, we can better understand gender identity and sexual desire (and arguably also sexual disgust) by understanding them as socially constructed; as social adaptations to the political-economic problem of how society should be organized/reproduced, rather than purely neurological artifacts of our evolutionary history.
Rubin writes that:
"The division of labor by sex can therefore be seen as a "taboo"; a taboo against the sameness of men and women, a taboo dividing the sexes into two mutually exclusive categories, a taboo that exacerbates the biological difference between the sexes and thereby creates gender. The division of labor can also be seen as a taboo against sexual arrangements other than those containing at least one man and one woman, thereby enjoining heterosexual marriage."
and
"Far from being an expression of natural differences, exclusive gender identity is the suppression of natural similarities. It requires repression; in men, of whatever is the local version of "feminine" traits; in women, whatever is the local version of "masculine" traits."
In 'traditional' (yes, not the best term) societies, opposition to female homosexuality (where such opposition exists) can be best understood by pointing to Levi-Strauss' notion that marriage is the exchange of women by men. 'Homophobia'/obligatory heterosexuality as opposition to lesbianism, then, would be due to the fact that "if a single refusal were disruptive, a double refusal would be insurrectionary." Obligatory heterosexuality, expressed as homophobia against male homosexuality, could be understood as part of that repression of femininity in men - an argument that R.W. Connell takes up in her book, Masculinities.
Anyway, hopefully that was somewhat readable and didn't meander too much.
As an observation: I find it interesting how the lingustics have changed even over the past decade. When I started transissioning about 10 years ago I listened the "Talking Tranny" podcast, a friend of mine went by "Lannie the Tranny" (She also wrote a very good book about changing gender), and so on. But now the word "Tranny" needs trigger warnings, is considered derogatory, and trasphobic. I don't know if I concider this progression or regression...Just different than the past.
Oh well, cheers all.
Unfortunately, even today, it very much depends upon the school, so my advice for her would be to wait and feel out what this school is like. I also don't know what the laws are around sexual orientation and employment in England (especially if the employer is a religious organization), but recommend that she check them out.
If she determines that her job wouldn't be at risk if she were out at school, it's still totally her decision. One factor to put on the side of coming out is that there are pretty much guaranteed to be LGBTQ students at her school, and many of them probably feel very alone. An openly lesbian teacher could be a role model that gives them hope for their futures, and she might be someone they could turn to for support and advice. By being out, she could also help kids who aren't gay gain an understanding that gay/lesbian people are still people.
Even if she doesn't come out, I encourage her (and all teachers, gay or straight) to explicitly require tolerance in their classrooms, mention important LGBT historical figures, crack down on "gay" as an insult, etc.
*Stealth edit: Oh, I recommend One Teacher in Ten, a 1994 collection of essays from LGBT teachers, or the 2005 second edition of new essays. They are incredibly moving.
This
Letters For My Brothers - Zander Keig
Testo Junkie - Paul Preciado
Becoming a Visible Man - Jamison Green
From the Inside Out - Morty Diamond
Self Made Men - Henry Rubin !! author is a cis man !!
Also! If you want to read more about trans stuff along with some other people from this sub, feel free to check out our monthly reading group :)
Here's a link to our February thread
Gayle Rubin's Deviations is a personal favorite that is a mix of queer (lesbian, gay, gay leather, lesbian leather, and other deviant sexual practices) history, anthropology, and theory.
The definitions we have used refer to two genders because those are the two common ones and it would be confusing to list every non-binary gender. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that non-binary genders exist and have existed for millennia.
We have Egyptian pottery dating to 2000BCE that lists 3 genders. Native American tribes often recognized 3rd gender roles in pre-colonial times. Jesuit missionaries recorded the existence of 3rd genders in aboriginal tribes as early as 1711. There was a class of people in ancient Assyria who were recognized as transgender (see page 465). The Hijra people of India, who are currently both politically and legally recognized as a 3rd gender, date back at least as far as the Kama Sutra. In ancient Rome and Greece, worshipers of Cybele castrated themselves and then presented themselves as transwomen. In Mexico, the Zapotec's had a 3rd gender referred to as the muxe who were born male but identified as female. In the Balkans, the sworn virgin tradition of females taking on male gender roles dates back to the 15th century. I could go on and on for pages. Other examples of non-binary gender recognition in pre-Industrial times can be found in Thailand, Japan, China, Iran, Israel, Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, etc. It's a indisputable historical worldwide phenomenon.
The Mafia and the Gays - A really in depth look at this. The Mafia and the Gays
Also the new documentary The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson touches on this. Really cool doc.
> You're right, Democrats were far more supportive of Russia when our trainers were directly fighting theirs in Vietnam and Korea.
This is an even better example of the point I'm trying to make: that wasn't Russia, it was the Soviet Union! There is no such thing as a historically invariant entity called "Russia" such that it makes sense to be "pro-Russian" or "Russo-skeptic" for principled reasons. (You're also conflating a lot of different groups under the heading of "the left" and a lot of different positions under the heading of "support for Russia" --- this whole argument involves a lot of dubious reifications.)
I get that people flip-flop for opportunistic reasons, but people also change their views in response to changes in the state of the world (otherwise you're basically arguing that the end of the Cold War was historically irrelevant), and we should try to do the work to distinguish those things. For example, Darel Paul makes a relatively strong case that Obama's change in public position on gay marriage was tactical rather than principled. But we can't just lump everything into that category without looking at the specifics.
Same sex couples by nature can’t reproduce though. The research that has been conducted reveals that the idea that there isn’t any difference between a SS and OS couple raising a kid is pretty much debunked.
Opposite sex couples who do not have children are a difference in degree not a difference in kind as SS couples are.
They started the drag shows in 1958 at the Jewel box. Then moved to the Main St. Location in 1972.
KC Star Article from the 80s talking about the history
Yeah KC had a pretty extensive LGBT history back in the day.
Book on KC LGBT History
GLAMA archives at UMKC
John Lauritsen's "A Free Thinker's Primer of Male Love" narrates insightful histories, and examines male love's cosmological relevance. Lauritsen, in so few pages, conveys the nuances of male eroticism, and persuades his reader to consider what it actually means to be a man who loves men. Lauritsen is appreciative of this type of eroticism--sometimes even entranced--but he reels in any indulgence one might expect.
The most recent publishing I would begin with is The Tolerance Trap or Queer by Choice.
In summary, they represent changes made in Queer studies of the past five years which criticize how the current LGBT movement have become severely misguided outside the original challenges of gender and sexuality offered by LGBT academics during 1950-80s, which were not motivated by genetic determinism [born-this-way argument].
Essentially the LGBT political movement in the early 1900's rested on this notion that sexuality is biological truth, despite scientists never fully advocating this and evidence that early environmental factors still play a role; this notion became internalized and unchallenged leading to sexuality developing into a comprehensive biological identity similar to being a women or african-american. The issue still remains that no conclusive evidence has proven that sexuality is anything more than genetically predisposed (with environmental factors also having influence). A double-edged sword comes along with that since many undesirable things, such as schizophrenia and alcoholism, also have genetic predispositions.
These newer books, as well as contemporary Queer theorists in their line, want to challenge the moral claims of sexuality and develop out Queer morality that have nothing to do with biological aspects. In effect sexuality could be a personal choice rather than a genetic punishment. Some queer theorists I have talked with are critical towards the LGBT categorization system, which require and reinforce the uneven foundations of genetic determinism for authentic meaning. Personally, I believe the system hyperinflated nonsense; sexual preferences should not constitute personal identity in that degree.
Some earlier works I would recommend is "Compulsory Heterosexuality" by Adrienne Rich or The History of Sexuality by Foucault. But I would add that Foucault's historical record [which has some problems] is not as important as his critique; One Hundred Years of Homosexuality by Halperin is seen as the better alternative to defend Foucault's views. These theories, however, are within the postmodern era and carry significant problems that are associated throughout the tradition.
I highly recommend Sex and Social Justice by Martha Nussbaum, which argues that so far our history has supervised sexuality rather than proven anything resembling moral truth.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, not a moderator of this subreddit | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
On the issue of homosexuality in particular, I've heard good things about Michael Brown's A Queer Thing Happened to America. Been meaning to pick it up myself, but I've other books in queue and this one is a bit lengthy (691 pages).
[The Crabapple Tree]
(http://www.amazon.com/The-Crabapple-Tree-Lyndsey-DArcangelo/dp/0557128102/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331352151&sr=1-2&tag=bookforyoudm-20)