[bit.listserv.gaynet] homosexual



  I resent the indiscriminate use of the term 'homosexual' because it
  is too often misused by the general public who lump all homosexual
  activity as being part of a gay identity.  'Homosexual' is a clinical
  term refering to sexual activity between two people of the same gender.
  MANY people may be participating in such sexual activity and still NOT
  be gay.  Gay is a term of identity and selfacceptance.

  For comparison, the racial equivalent is "Negroid" and there are many
  people who may be classified by race as such but who do not carry a
  "black" identity.

  Which  brings me to my pet peeve of the month (year and perhaps decade)
  in the labeling we as a society do to others.  I HATE  the affirmative
  action reports you are sent after you apply for any jobs.  You are
  asked to check one of the following boxes to describe yourself.  (Yes,
  legally these are optional but . . .)  We are sooo dualistic as a culture
  we REQUIRE people be either black or white.  More and more people are
  products of mixed marriages.  There is no gray to select from.  Unfort-
  unately in our society if you are not 100% caucasion, then you are black.
  (Purity?  Sounds very Hilterish to me.).  Genetically, I seemed to be
  dipped entirely from by anglo-scottish-irish heritage.  In fact, I am
  very proud of my Oklahoma indian roots (Cherokee) yet can not be technically
  classified as Indian because I do not "look" or am generally identified
  by others as Indian.  So, each time I mark caucasion I am denying part
  of my heritage.  Anyone share this frustration?  I have since started
  marking both boxes and letting them deal with the frustration.  But why
  should we as a society (reflected by our government) even begin to
  make such requests.

  Ooops, sorry.  I guess I got stuck on another button.  But may be that
  is also related to the gay vs. straight and homosexual issue.


DANGAY%UNC.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Daniel L Leonard) (02/08/90)

     yes, i understand your frustration.  however, if i remember
 correctly the census form gives opportunity to give one's
 ethnic background.  unfortunately almost all other forms do
     true gay is much broader term than homosexual.  i've always
 said that gay includes some level of socialization with other
 gays, so then there could be a closeted homosexual but not
 a closeted gay ..  these are my conotations and not necessarily
 shared by a majority of those involved.

DANGAY%UNC.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Daniel L Leonard) (02/08/90)

      please permit me to return to a previous topic-male
          could couple who have been together more than 5
 years please share with us their 'style'of relating ?
      other couples who have been together a shorter period
 have shared some good experiences that work for them.  i
 guess what i'm getting at is--do those methods work over
 the longer times ?
                   i do stand corrected if "over 5s "have
 responded and i missed it.   our system is usually down
 atleast once a day and may not completely back -up
 the email.
           thanks for your time,

PMCCOY@OCVAXA.CC.OBERLIN.EDU (Rodney John Greer McCoy, Jr.) (02/09/90)

Yes! Another Cherokee GayNetter!!

Bill, I have the same problem, since I am African-American AND Native
American. When I see those little boxes that don't allow me to acknowledge
both my heritages, I decide to fuck up everyone's system by checking both
boxes anyway...

It's like checking the "heterosexual" and "homosexual" boxes if someone
doesn't acknowledge bisexuality...;-)


mike@TURING.CS.UNM.EDU (Michael I. Bushnell) (02/09/90)

There was a very good article in Communications of the ACM a while
back in which the author explained that he always checked "Other" and
filled in "mongrel" when asked to identify his race.  Having
backgrounds (as virtually *all* of us do) in Northern Europe, Africa,
Native America, Southern Europe, Asia, etc., he felt it was
irresponsible to call only *one* of those his "race".   He also
pointed out that the entire idea of race "classification" is now
meaningless, at least in this country.  Any system of classifying by
race will be inherently flawed, because none of us fit neatly into any
of the categories, and be designed more to acheive particular goals
than to acheive accurate measurement.

A good example is racial classification in the "old" southern US.
Blacks were people with *any* amount of African descent; Whites came
for purely European stock.  This is, of course, patently ridiculous.
Another example is in the Southwest.  The major ethnic groups in New
Mexico are usually listed as "anglo", "native american", and
"hispanic".  Problem 1: Many, many times, blacks are to be classified
as "anglo", truly a unique usage here.  Problem 2: Hispanics in New
Mexico are really of two rather distinct varieties.  "Spanish" were
descendents from Spanish settlers, with little of the Indian blood
characterizing Mexicans.  They have a quite distinct culture from that
of hispanics found in the south of the state, which is quite
conmingled with Indian culture.


Christopher.Young@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU (02/13/90)

I can sort of relate to the frustration relating to which box to check if you
are of more than one race. My father is Chinese and my mom is Scottish-Irish-
Welsh-English and Chocktaw (sp?). However, my mom's family rarely communicates
with us, and I really only know my mom and my grandma (who's now dead), so I'm
not close to them at all. On the other hand, I know my dad's side quite well,
including my aunts, uncles, great-aunts, great-uncles, first, second and third
cousins, etc. My Chinese side has been by far the dominate, and when I speak of
my family I only refer to them and not anybody on my mom's side besides her and
my grandma (I never met my grandpa... he died in a plane accident before I
was born). So I guess I really don't consider my white/Chocktaw side part of my
family. Thus, I check Asian because I consider myself Chinese (which is the
majority of my blood anyway).

					-- Chris.