Cossman’s 2002, “Sexing Citizenship, Privitizing Sex” raises way more questions than any one person can be prepared to answer. Here are just a few that came to me:
1. If Kissing Jessica Stein portrays homosexuality (at least for some) “accurately” or “legitimately”, that is, as something that can be a prudent choice more than just an inborn orientation, then where does that leave the current “born that way” mantra? How significant is it that gays were just born that way? Could it be that being born that way is a way for gays to gain legitimization now, opening the way for homosexuality to be recognized as more of a choice in the future? How would that affect its legitimacy?
2. On that matter, how important is legitimization? Is that what sexual membership is all about: legitimate sexual ciitizens? Is there a common goal that can be identified in the “gay” community, or does it depend on whether one is a lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc. Can these subgroups have a common goal? Let’s suppose that the gay community, in general, could have a common goal. What would that goal be? Is it to be recognized for their difference, or accepted for their normalcy?
3. If the goal is to be accepted on accounts of being different, is sexuality and its expression as a publicized, eroticized, and politicized orientation/way of life/decision/identity getting at the essence of the difference? But if essences are to be avoided because they lead to essentialization, is it the superficial difference that really matters?
4. If its on the grounds of being the same as the “majority” or as “straight people” , what is the sameness constituted by? My instinct is simply in the foundation that we are social, interaction-loving humans. Others might think that the sameness is only superficial, and it is constituted by the “buying into” this heteronormative, procreative, family-oriented system that oppresses and excludes those who don’t conform.
oliviakomoro 