Don T Be So Gay: Annotated Bibliography

Her first supporting example is writing to her mom “I was born this way… if there were a straight pill, ... I’d swallow it faster than you can say the word gay,” (Pg. 50) She goes on to clarify that this was a tactic used in order to be accepted for her sexuality. Which, unfortunately, many another member of the LGBT community feel forced to use the “born gay pity” in order to feel even somewhat accepted and ease the concern that their “gay” is the fault of their parents. This is a great tactic using Pathos to not only appeal to her mother but also to the readers. She gets the readers to recognize some of the struggles and negativity from conservatives. Not just the Conservatives in her family but also the ones in Politics. However, it also shows how Fairyington could feel conflicted. Vouching for one thing and then feeling forced to say another, being gay is a choice… unless it's talking about it to people in Politics and or conservative family members. With Conservatives and in this case Fairyington family, the only real acceptance of being gay is by saying it wasn’t a choice but playing on their own idea of it being a biologic affliction.

They should have the right to dress as they choose, love who they choose, and be who they choose. It angers me that people believe differently considering they’ve never been in their shoes. In the “Paradoxes of Gender” Judith Lorber states, “We need to change biological sex in order to uphold the principle that biological sex determine one character”(41). Lorber's’ preconceived notion that one’s sex dictates their personality is flawed. It proves that society is unaccepting of people outside of the “norm”. Middle Sexes speaks to a wide variety of people but is mainly directed to transphobic people. However, the film isn’t very compelling because it doesn’t take the audience’s outlook into consideration. Through biological evidence and personal stories, the film strives to persuade transphobic people to be more accepting. Thomas attempts to persuade his target audience by referencing the science behind people who blur the lines between female and male. His unique approach is more convincing than an argument that stems from one’s opinions. However, his lack of counterarguments makes it difficult for the audience to relate.

As a lesbian, there are a few slurs that can trigger a spark of dread in me on instinct. The word faggot is one of the first to come to mind. On occasion a group of teasing friends will use such words as a playful insult among one another--and it feels like I am the only person hearing them yell ‘fire’ in a building full of uncaring people. These words burn into my subconscious like a bundle of sticks being thrown into smoldering embers; the hairs on the back of my neck rise, my hands clench into tight fists, and my eyes dart about fearfully for the perpetrator. It is an ugly word--a crude, cruel word in both sound and meaning. It weighs heavily on the tongue like a condemnation, as it remains to be for gay people today. Therefore, due to the word’s implied hatefulness, our culture needs to shift from using faggot as a playful insult, to leaving it behind as we attempt to become a more diverse and accepting world.

American rhetoric about LGBT+ issues underwent major changes in the late 60s and early 70s. While for years homophile groups such as the Mattachine Society dominated queer rhetoric, in 1969 Carl Wittman’s “Gay Manifesto” redefined the LGBT+ rights movement’s voice and goals (380). Using shocking language, his authority as a gay man, and emotional appeals to his queer audience, Wittman and his “Gay Manifesto” utilized a confrontational, liberationist tone to communicate his views on sexual identity and heteronormative culture. While opponents may argue that Wittman’s profane language and emotional appeals weaken his argument and alienate the audience, his rhetorical choices prove perfect for engaging queer readers. Wittman’s “Gay Manifesto” spoke to queer people and offered a new perspective in LGBT+ rhetoric.

Parents are hard folks to please. Ask anyone and they will say just that. Whatever a child does, they receive some sort of comment or criticism from their folks. While some parents are mean and criticize their children with the intention of hurting them, most parents criticize their children because they care and love their child. It boils down to the language parents’ use with their kin, and the actions behind their language. In Martha Irvine’s essay Queer Evolution: Word Goes Mainstream, she explains the evolution of the word queer and how the word has changed over time from a negative to a word that is seen as more tolerated. Irvine’s ideas are echoed in Deborah Tannen’s You’re Wearing That, and Michael Kimmel’s Bros Before Hos in that words parents use with their children might be harmful without the children understanding the actions behind the words. Irvine explains in her essay that words and the ideas behind the words is suspect to change over time. Tannen and Kimmel point out in their essay’s that this is the case when children interpret their parent’s comments as negative instead of positive.

Homosexuality Annotated Bibliography Adriaens, Pieter R., and Andreas De Block. “The Evolution of a Social Construction: the Case of Male Homosexuality.” Scholarly Journals, vol. 49, ser. 4, University Press, 2006, pp. 570–585.

This analysis will examine chapter three, “Is it Pink? Is it Blue?” of Robert N. Minor’s book, Scared Straight: Why It 's So Hard to Accept Gay People and Why It 's So Hard to Be Human. Minor is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas and often focuses his writing toward gay rights and gender roles in society. This particular book is a cultural critique of the United States’ gender roles and homophobia. Minor’s arguments leave a weak impression and leave readers with a sense of confusion. Minor ineffectively uses rhetoric in his arguments to establish a purpose, inform his audience, use effective language, or to persuade his audience to take action.

To begin, in Chapter 7 of Generation Me, Dr. Jean M. Twenge, the author, discusses the relationship between the current generation and the fight for equality. Throughout the chapter, Twenge discusses how circumstances have changed for certain groups of people over the years, from the civil rights movement to the fight for gay marriage. At the end of the chapter, she introduces a section called, “Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians” (Twenge 207), which she uses to discuss the current (i.e., 2006) situation for gays and lesbians, along with the effects on contemporary society. Furthermore, Twenge includes testimonies from ordinary people and storylines from television shows to exhibit the increasing tolerable attitude towards gays and lesbians. She elaborates on the fight for gay marriage toward the end of the section and mentions how more people are fighting for that right everyday. Readers are reminded that unfair treatment of gays and lesbians occurs everywhere, from bullying in schools to discrimination in the workplace. Twenge’s argument fully elaborates on the battle for equality for gays and lesbians, and thoroughly notes Generation Me’s response in the final section of Chapter 7. (Twenge 207-211)

She shows how society has created a judgmental environment for many who feel that their sex, in reference to gender, doesn’t go by the typical definitions we see above, or how they choose to have sexual relations doesn’t fit the mold that has been created. For instance, with gender, a person with a penis may feel that they relate much more towards women than they would a typical man, or a person with a vagina feels that they relate more towards a man. We first see the example of negative judgment based on one’s sexuality through Oscar Wilde, a novelists and playwright, accused of being a homosexual, which is a word with a negative connotation for someone who has sexual relations with member(s) of the same sex (gender), who goes on to have his works discredited and lives poverty, based on who he decided to have sexual relations

When something is so prevalent in society it becomes the hard to see its influence. Heteronormativity has such effect which Lauren Berlant and Micheal Warner discuss in “Sex in Public.”. “Heteronormativity is more that ideology, or prejudice, or phobia against gays and lesbians; it is produced in almost every aspect of the forms and arrangements of social life; nationality, the state, and the law; commerce; medicine; and education” (Berlant, Warner, 554). It imposes

I quickly stick the key in the lock turning, my hands are shaking with adrenaline as I quickly yank out the glittering gold medallion. I set the key back on his chest and practically ran out my heart still racing.

When talking about hate, Darren says, “I mean, we’re in the twenty-first century, and in a lot of places, you’re more likely to be ostracized if you’re homophobic than if you’re gay. But not all” (Gregorio 137.) This illuminates how the stigma of being a part of the LGBT+ community has lessened. But there is still more work to be done. It doesn’t change the injustices that have been happening, but it is a glimmer of hope for the future. It tells us that individuals are stopping inaction and actually fighting for acceptance. The character Darren from None of the Above is a great advocate of acceptance while saying, “...love isn’t a choice. You fall for the person, not their chromosomes” (Gregorio 324.) This quote is praised for its truth and beauty. For all of history there have been same sex couples. It is human to love a person no matter their gender or sex, but for that person’s character and actions. The message of this quote is very important. No one chooses their sexuality. No one would choose to have bigotry and bias forced upon them daily. While some are fluid, sexuality usually stays the same for a person’s entire life. Speaking up when others say that someone’s sexuality is a choice or uses derogatory words is important to combat inaction. To truly have change people must go to the government and social circles. The government decided that in “31/50 states it is legal to

Upon birth, people are influenced to categorize and discriminate others based on their gender, and sexuality. The community infants live in cultivate them into creating a sense of what is considered normal, and accepted. This ideology places limitations on their mind, discouraging them from breaking away from the social norm, because change is not easily accepted in a community. Matt Shepard was a homosexual who inhabited a town where homosexuality was uniformly acceptable, while Shannon Faulkner is a woman who was despised for changing tradition, and society did not act kindly towards them, despite stating they were gentlemen-like, and friendly. In Susan Faludi’s article, The Naked Citadel, and Beth Loffreda’s article, Selections from Losing

I was walking to my house from the bus stop one day with my neighbor, Michael, and I was joking about how I have a girl crush on Selena Gomez. I asked Michael, "Hey, what male celebrity do you have a man crush on?" He responded ferociously with, "None. I 'm not a freaking queer." This is the exact type of mindset that transforms innocent words into ones dripping with negativity and spite. Language is one of the most powerful tools a person could have, and the way they utilize it reveals their character. As time progresses, words and their meanings can change. For my great-aunt 's generation, the word 'queer ' just simply meant 'weird ' or 'strange. ' However, as gay activism has become much more prominent in society, the word queer is now mainly used to describe someone 's sexual orientation. Queer is not a derogatory term unless used as such, and it is instead a term of equality and acceptance that should reverberate positive feelings. Sadly, this is not the only way people translate it, instead morphing it into a shameful word and a cutting insult.

Bertrand Russell wrote about Nietzsche in A History of Western Philosophy, “He invented no new technical theories in ontology or epistemology; his importance is primarily in ethics, and secondarily as an acute historical critic.” (Russell 760) If The Gay Science is read as a true prescription for how science should be done, the majority of Nietzsche’s sections seem unrelated; there is no clear way too see how these sections speak to what is commonly understood as science. However, there exist a fair number of sections in this book that seem to speak directly on the common understanding of science about how it should be conducted, including the many missteps it has taken leading up to the writing of The Gay Science.