Discussion post: defining "sexual and gender minority characters."

[fiercelydreamed]

This'll be the first of several discussion posts while I get things organized here at the comm. They're a way for me to let you know how my thoughts are running, to get your input and suggestions, and to give you all some lead-time to start thinking about works you might want to make for the festival.


For the purposes of the community, these are the definitions I'm considering:

Sexual minority: someone whose sexual preferences are considered nontraditional, marginalized, or marked. Examples of sexual minorities include, but are not limited to, people who identify as:

• homosexual, gay, lesbian, queer, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, questioning, kinky, poly, fetishists, BDSM practitioners

Gender minority: someone whose gender identity and/or physically embodied sex do not conform to cultural norms of "maleness" or "femaleness," or whose gender identities and bodies do not align in ways that conform to those cultural norms. Examples of gender* minorities include, but are not limited to, people who identify as:

• transgendered, transsexual, genderqueer, intersexed, androgynous

* ETA: fixed a typo.

For works posted to this community, a character's sexual or gender minority status will be determined at the judgment of the work's creator. If a creator portrays a character as a sexual or gender minority for the purposes of a given work (and the works fits the community definition of gen), that work may be posted to this community. 


I'd really like your thoughts on these definitions. Is there a better way to word them? Do the general definitions (not the example lists) currently seem to exclude identities you believe should be included? Are you unsure why I've chosen to define things this way? 

Three things I'd like to remind everyone, before the discussion starts:

1. These definitions are intended to be functional and useful for this community. I'm not proposing them as universals that everyone should accept, just guidelines that will help people develop, post, and enjoy works in this space.
2. Because the definitions are meant to be for the purpose of this community, I'd like to avoid discussions of "correct/universal" definitions or attempts to set exhaustive/exclusive lists of which identities qualify as sexual or gender minorities. While interesting and valuable, those discussions can tend to bleed over into border policing in a way I want to avoid in this space. As stated before, I strongly prefer inclusivity and intend to run the comm with that in mind. 
3. For every identity listed above and all the others that fit under the umbrellas of these definitions, there is likely someone reading the community posts who would claim that identity. To the best of my abilities, I've been choosing my words consciously and with respect, and I hope you'll all do the same. 

Thanks, and I look forward to your thoughts.


ETA #1: Clarifying "sexual minorities." There've been some really great comments to this post so far, and here's the gist of what I'm getting from them: 

1. No one's taken issue with the wording of my definition, beyond ciaan's really great question about whether the "cultural norms" I reference are the norm's of the creator's cultural context or the character's cultural context. (My inclination is to say that both count for the comm).
2. People seems to be generally supportive of the tack I'm taking in trying to make the examples very inclusive -- and there's been encouragement to take this a step further and include sex workers as well, which is a really interesting idea I hadn't thought of (thanks for that, theleaveswant).
3. However, several people have pointed out that the way I initially listed the examples conflates different sexual minority identities who are minorities for different reasons and have different experiences. (Thanks, mresundance, for kicking off the discussion.) There's been some support voiced for regrouping the list based on different axes of experience. 

To address point #3, what would you think if I kept the current wording of the definition, added clarification on which "cultural norms" apply, and presented the examples using categories like the ones amalnahurriyeh suggested? The revised definition would look like this:

Sexual minority: someone whose sexual preferences are considered nontraditional, marginalized, or marked in their own cultural context (or in the cultural context of the work's creator). Some examples of sexual minority identities include, but are not limited to, those organized around:

• orientation to partner's sex or gender (homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, asexual)
• sexual practices (kinky, fetishist, BDSM practitioner)
• number of partners (poly)
• commercial sexual practice (sex worker)
• someone who is questioning their identification with any sexual minority identity

Do you think these changes address the concerns and suggestions below? Any new thoughts or ideas?


ETA #2: Asexuality; sex work. There are a couple more issues where the discussion's still ongoing and I'm on the fence myself. One is how to represent "asexuality" in the definition, as it's an orientation in itself but can also coexist with identification as queer, straight, bi, etc. Some people have recommended I rephrase the first bullet as "sexual orientation;" others have recommended I give asexuality its own bullet. 

The second issue is inclusion of sex workers on the list of sexual minority identities. Some people are really excited about the overt inclusion of sex workers in this comm, but there's also been a question raised about the fit of including a practice-based identity in a list of identities that people often experience as inherent to themselves. I remain on the fence about this, though I'd like to stress that either way, you're welcome to include sex workers in the works you post here -- what's undecided is whether the presence of a sex worker, in a work otherwise lacking sexual or gender minorities (and where the character engaged in sex work otherwise does not identify as a sexual or gender minority), will qualify a work for inclusion on this comm.

Anyone have more to add here? So far, this has been an amazingly respectful discussion, and I look forward to seeing it continue in that vein.

Comments

[fish_echo]

You seem to have a c&p typo in the gender minority section-- when you go on to give examples you use 'sexual minorities' rather than 'gender minorities'.

I like the revised definition of 'sexual minorities' much better than the original definition. Especially the use of the bullets to help with the sub-grouping.

I can see from the above replies (which, admittedly, I have only skimmed) that inclusion of sex workers seems to be well-received, but I am not a fan of including them here. I see everything else on this list as inherent to the person and more or less set at birth and deep in the genetic codes**. In contrast, sex worker is a job (admittedly one with potentially far reaching ramifications), rather like being a beggar or an expert dancer would be. Including it on this list seems very 'one of these things is not like the others', to the point that I actually feel slightly offended. My orientation (and that of everyone else's, be they mainstream het or no) is not a choice, not even one where the alternative is 'or death', it simply is and is a part of me. And I am uncomfortable including something that is not as inherent or innate on this list.

I acknowledge that the portrayal of sex workers in fic (pro and fan, both) could benefit from a fest/comm similar to this one. But I don't think that this is the right place for it. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, so I welcome further discussion on this topic. I know this is your comm and I will abide by whatever decision you make, but since you asked for my opinion, I am providing it. Also irregardless, I think this is an awesome comm.

**Clarification: I view 'sexual practice' as the one thing on this list (other than 'sex worker') that might not be entirely innate for some. There are those for whom their orientation in this category is very innate. But there are also those who start out more 'vanilla' and develop a taste (possibly mild) and choose to self-identify. (One could argue that they had the innate ability to develop that particular interest, but I think this footnote might be rambling off topic by now and so I am stopping talking).

[fiercelydreamed]

Thanks for catching that typo! I'll definitely fix it in the final version.

I'm on the fence about the inclusion of sex workers myself. They don't usually spring to mind for me, either, when I think of sexual minorities, and I definitely wouldn't describe sex work as a sexual orientation. But I think that it's possible to make a strong case that becoming a sex worker, while not inherent to a person as many people consider orientation to be, has a transformative effect on someone's social identity. It's hard to deny that sex workers are a marginalized social class, whose identities are marked and considered inherently sexual. Based on the experiences of friends who've engaged in sex work and then left it, it seems that identity isn't easily discarded -- they may keep it "closeted," but it continues to mark and sometimes marginalize them in contexts where people who don't know them well as people know about it. When I think about it from that perspective, describing sex worker as a sexual minority identity has some merits.

I think a distinction you draw between inherent/innate identities and assumed/voluntary identities is a very pertinent one, but it's one I'm trying very consciously to avoid using. The debate about how sexual preferences and identities form -- what's ingrained, what's learned, what's culturally shaped -- has been going for a long time (decades, centuries, or millenia, depending on what you count). Because people have extremely strong feelings on it and very different reasons for supporting different views, I think invoking it in this context could get really sticky. It's so unlikely to reach a consensus, and there's a significant potential to derail the comm even if everyone engages in the conversation with the best of intentions, you know? It's one of the reasons why I've been stressing these definitions as functional and meant for this context only -- I'm trying very hard to steer us all away from assertions of how things "really" are.

All this by way of explaining why I'm partially skirting the point you raise. It's not that it's not good or relevant, but it's one of those conversations I'd cheerfully have over dinner with friends but would try to avoid in a discussion I was moderating unless that was precisely the topic we'd shown up to discuss and had no agenda of trying to reach consensus.

I want to thank you for weighing in with a dissenting opinion, and for doing so in such a well-framed and respectful way. I need to mull this over the inclusion of sex workers a bit more myself, and perhaps call the attention of the larger group back to the question. If you've got any thoughts in response to this comment, I'd love to hear them.

[fish_echo]

Sorry for not responding earlier-- the notification got buried in my inbox while I was thinking of how to respond.

I hadn't thought about the 'closeted' aspect to being/having been a sex worker before. With that aspect, I would not be offended at its inclusion on this list. However, I still don't think that it fits in.

Thanks for your long comment, it was quite informative. And again, I am sorry for being so very late to respond.