(Cross-posted on the main page.)
Here in California, Governor Brown has just signed a law mandating that the history curriculae of the public schools include coverage of “the contributions of gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans.” Below the fold, I have some thoughts about this but if you want to skip directly to the comments, my question is “Who should be on the curriculum?”
In my own education, both elementary and secondary, the subject of historical figures’ sexual lives was used as salacious bait to keep students from falling asleep in class — usually quite unsuccessfully. I frankly don’t know that I can point to all that many GLBT people in history and say, “That person is a hero.” Now, there must be gay heroes to teach about; I’m just ignorant of them.
As to the new law, I’ve nothing but support and praise for that part of the law that prohibits negative references to such people in educational material. Nor do I have any quibble with the idea that a state curriculum can legitimately and should normatively teach tolerance for gays, lesbians, and transgendered people.
And I find rather obnoxious the reaction of social conservative groups who urge parents to take their children out of public schools for fear of their being instructed that gays are human beings too. I presume that whatever curriculum is developed will be age-appropriate; no one will be distributing Dan Savage columns to first-graders. I’ve no time for fearmongering of that sort or the motives underlying it.
What grade level would you aim the curriculum at? Are we going to spend a lot of time questioning the personal sexuality of people like Eleanor Roosevelt and J. Edgar Hoover? Neither of them ever came out of the closet. We assume Ms. Roosevelt had a longtime love, and rumors of Hoover’s transvestism have become something of a pound-on-the-coffin joke. We have no idea and no way of knowing if James Buchanan and William Rufus King were lovers, although that seems a credible theory. But, Buchanan should be anyone’s idea of a heroic President; the only significant legacy of his Presidency was a Civil War he did nothing to prevent. The evidence for Abraham Lincoln’s purported affairs with men at various points in his life strike me as rather sketchier than the evidence for Buchanan.
To this notion, it seems to me that Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, J. Edgar Hoover, and Eleanor Roosevelt are all worthwhile enough historical figures to study for their public lives and public achievements, and by comparison thier private lives are relatively uninteresting. The rebuttal is, “It’s useful to teach our kids that it’s fun speculate about the sex lives of powerful people long dead. Gets them interested in history!” but whether J. Edgar Hoover liked to get his frack on with other dudes or wear pantyhose under his dickies is frankly not nearly so important as his fifty-year history of blackmailing the entire U.S. government into keeping him in his role as America’s top cop.
Of course, there is the actual history of the gay rights movement and actual people to look at in that. This is relatively recent history, though, history that will have occurred during the lifetimes of many of the teachers. We’re pretty much starting in 1965, so far as I can tell. So at what grade level is it appropriate to teach children about the Stonewall riots? By high school, likely; maybe to middle-school kids? Harvey Milk is of particular importance in California, so I’m guessing he’ll almost certainly be featured in the curriculum.
And, gays have been heavily represented in the ranks of our artistic and cultural elites for at least a century now, so I guess that’s a place to look. Walt Whitman comes immediately to mind here; one of America’s great poets.
If asked to name a particularly notable gay war hero, I would point you to Alan Turing, but he was British.
I am simply at a loss to think of any specific transgendered people I’d name as having made important contributions to our society. Not that I’m saying they are incapable or that they have contributed nothing, I’m just admitting a lacuna in my knowledge. The most prominent transgendered person I can think of, just off the top of my head, is Lana (formerly Larry) Wachowski and I don’t really know (or much care, it’s her business and not mine) whether “transgender” or “transvestite” is more appropriate.
But at the end of the day, I must admit that I am largely at sea about this. Which is why I hope that the Readership here is able to point me in the direction of things I might look into further, and offer their ideas about what kinds of heroes or even interesting figures might appear in this new curriculum.
@Burt, “Transvestite” is still used in England (but it’s use is waning.) In America, Transvestite is like referring to a black person using the “N” word.
Transgender is the umbrella term, but includes folks who only dress on weekends (cross-dressers) and those who live 24/7 as the gender other than what the doctor guessed they were when they were born, but can’t or won’t have the surgery. There’s a subdivision who refer to themselves as Transsexuals, Women Born Transsexual (WBT), Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS), or Women of Transsexual History. The reject those who dress on weekends and those who can’t or won’t get surgery as fakers, and consider themselves True Transsexuals — and they abhor being referred to as ‘Transgender”.
The Wikipedia article on the Wachowski Brothers basically repeats the rumor that Larry is now Lana, but says the brothers and their agents, publicists, management, etc., deny that Larry is now Lana.
I’m a transowman, I wish more than anything that it didn’t matter so to some people.
It seems to me that the distinction between “transgender” and “transvestite” is a valuable enough of one to hold on to. I would say that there’s a difference between a man who believes him/herself to be a woman (or some combination at the two) at the core, and a man who likes to wear dresses. On the other hand, since the taboo falls almost entirely in the male-to-female direction (since women can dress as men), maybe something more specific is appropriate? On the other-other hand, it sure seems that all of the gender-changes I hear about are male-to-female.
Well, at least one person decided they’d rather be Sonny than Cher. I admit I don’t know what that means, and statistically, the larger point holds.
BTW, what’s so wrong with wearing women’s clothing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kJ8kE5Kf3g
I’ll see you and raise you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zey8567bcg
I fold.
For the profoundly foolish, let’s give this another, there is NO such thing as gay music; there is NO such thing as gay poetry; there is NO such thing gay conducting; there is NO such thing as gay carpentry; there is not such thing as gay masonry; there is NO such thing as gay car mechanics; there is NO such thing gay literature; there is NO such as gay painting of the Sistine Chapel or the Magic Flute or Tannhauser, or the Messiah; there is no such thing as gay anything.
The only thing that exists that is gay and heterosexual is the choice one makes to do with that thingy between their legs. It’s nothing more. Period. Sexual choice does not, in and of itself, translate into great, inspired art. Nor does it elevate their art because it was created by a homosexual—art doesn’t give any one a leg up–it succeeds because or its greatness or lack thereof. It’s frankly, deeply insulting to use homosexuality as prism through which to judge the merits of art. Is there no way to liberate and toss the sexual preference shackles to the side, once and for all? NO ONE CARES!!!!
Or, put another way, here’s $1,ooo,000 (Yes, ONE MILLION DOLLARES) to anyone who who can draw artistic, definitive differences between an”outed” or not “outed” gay, lesbian, or bisexual person.
Naturally, no one can do this. To think otherwise is just plain asinine and transparently desperate. There is no such thing as gay or hetereosexual art. I welcome any challenge to this idea–for example–say I played the opening of Bach’s Cantata #29 as performed by Walter Carlos. And, by the way, this works particularly well because you have a ‘before’ and ‘after’–yes,
I will play you the opening Sinfonia once performed by WALTER Carlos and once performed by WENDY Carlos. Out of guessing or playing the usual odds of 50/50 chances, you’ll lose every time. To be very honest, I’ll state that there is no such thing as homosexuality or hetereosexuality. The mantle to where one wants to place their individual, sexual proclivities is a non-existant trick of human construction—we’ve climbed into the phantom dimension and the sense of ‘I’ness slowly disintegrates into Oneness.
The one all-highest Godhead
Subsisting in each being
And living when they perish
Who this has seen, is seeing
For he who has that highest God in all things seen
…For he who has that highest God in all things found,
That man will of himself upon himself inflict no wound.
Schopenhauer
“Oh Mensch! Gieb Acht!
Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?
‘Ich schlief, ich schlief –,
Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht: –
Die Welt ist tief,
Und tiefer als der Tag gedacht.
Tief ist ihr Weh –,
Lust – tiefer noch als Herzeleid:
Weh spricht: Vergeh!
Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit –,
– will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit!’”
Nietzsche
Here, sung.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBsavOlvklE&feature=related
I’m sure this will come as a huge surprise, but I’m not the Village People. Dammit, I am, in fact, Martin Heidegger and I’ve been standing in this cryogenic tank of liquid nitrogen for the past frigging 35 years!
Biostasis just ain’t for me, I’m sorry to say. Who the hell wants to be Heidegger for eternity? Once around is quite enough–what’s more I lost my good pal, Teddy Ballgame a few years ago–make that my ONLY pal—hey, there’s not exactly a long waiting line to be stuck in a -327 degree tank of liquid nitrogen and have as my buddy, a headless Splendid Splinter. It was a choice of his head or his torso–I foolishly chose his head-now I can’t even get batting practice because his torso is nowhere to be found. I’ve heard a couple ghoulish punks stole his torso and are parading it around card-signing shows getting mega$$$ for his “authentic” autographs.
By the way, a word of advice–when they talk of “Dewars”, they’re not talking Scotch–they’re talking tanks of -450 liquid nitrogen.
They even have a room of frozen Nazis. Not kidding. Some nutty billionaire thinks the Thousand Year Reich is still possible and is paying very big bucks to prove the prove it so. And no, it’s not Marge Schott.
Best, gentlemen