“Homosexuality is not just a form of sex, it’s a form of love.” said the writer Christopher Hitchens.
I came across the quote a few days ago on Facebook and I thought it must be one of the greatest definitions on homosexuality I’ve ever heard about. Yet I think now I have to rethink about it when I search for the exact words today. It dawns on me that “homosexuality is not a form of sex, it’s a form of love.” In Hitchens’, homosexuality is, first (and perhaps foremost), a form of sex before it CAN be a form of love. In mine, it is really not a form of sex, and it is just a form of love. And I daresay that is the way in which homosexuality should be considered.
People say “a gay man”, and I think it’s the right way to say. Because a gay man is, first and foremost, a man, then he is gay because he loves another man. Right? And it’s also the case with “a lesbian woman.” She is, first and foremost, a woman, then she loves another woman and she is called “a lesbian.”
It might be much better, and clearer to put people in just two categories of sexes: male and female (or maybe with ‘something in between’ for those whose sex organs are not clearly defined). That is, a person is a man and he has masculinity because he is born with a phallus. And a person is a woman and she has femininity because she is born with a clitoris and an ovary. It means that a human being can be whether a male or female creature just because of their sex organs, or let’s say, biologically. It’s as simple as that.
So, if a man with a phallus does not behave in a “masculine” way, which is socially constructed and expected, one can eligibly call him not a man, or a man without a “full” connotation associated with the word? And therefore he should not be labeled in the same way as other men who behave in the way socially accepted?
Here, I think, where the concepts of masculinity and femininity come from and what the roles they play are themselves again questionable. Do they come from a “socially constructed prejudice”, which defines masculinity based on charateristics that are commonly thought of, and given for a man such as bravery, heroism, even hairiness, and most importantly, the desire and ability to fuck a female creature? And also in that prejudice, femininity is defined based on what a female creature is expected by the-so-called-society (and its fort), including demureness, fragility, subtety, and perhaps most importantly, the ability to desire a man, to accept the predetermined fate of being dominated by a circle of men in her entire life. Is it true? Then, it’s a system in which charateristics of a sex are defined by the opposite sex and what the latter expects the former do. Such a system must be ineffectual, invalid, ineligible, stupid and good-for-nothing, right? It’s like to define a vague notion by a vague phrase that is itself can only be defined, again, by the former, which is already vague. A vicious circle!
Then I don’t think there is a need to categorise ones as LGBT at all. To categorise them is like to define them as something queer, something deviant from what is considered normative, typical, which has been yet to be clearly defined! What is normative, typical after all? What are standards of being a typical man? And what is that a typical woman has? Is it still necessary, and useful to define a man as a gay man if it’s only a form of love no matter who he loves, whether it is a blonde girl, a 18 year old girl, or a black man, an Asian man? If there is nothing worth being considered typical, a model for all, so there is nothing deviant, nothing queer. It’s really stupid to think of a gay man as being sissy and of a lesbian woman as being manly. And it’s not wise (not to say as useless and stupid as the aforesaid), I think, to put anyone into any categories based on whether the sex organs of the ones they want to have sex with are the same as theirs, or not.
Ones should be categorised, which proves to be somehow useful, with regard to what they are born with, and only to it, not to who they love.