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

[mresundance]

I am actually a bit leery about including "kinky, fetishists, BDSM practitioners" in a listing of decidedly queer sexualities. I see kink, fetish and BDSM as very distinct from sexual orientation/sexuality. Though, I understand those categories are seen as "non traditional" and often discriminated against in culture, it is is not the same in my mind.

I don't think I'd want to see kink etc excluded though, because including it does further challenge and expand the definition of gen. But I think separating it from "sexual minorities" might be an idea. Because lumping kink etc with LGB almost implies that queer = kinky. Which is not necessarily so. Queer and straight people are into kink et al. Kink et al is part of their identity to many, as sexual orientation is, but I think it's an additional or distinct one from queer sexualities and identities. They sometimes overlap, but not necessarily (as in the case of straight folks who are into kink etc). Lumping the two maybe simplifies things, but I don't necessarily think it makes sense, either.

Maybe just listing "homosexual, gay, lesbian, queer, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, questioning" as a group of sexual minorities and then "kinky, poly, fetishists, BDSM practitioners" as a second group, and explain that while some of these overlap, they are different categories of sexual minority. The first group excludes strictly straight sexuality. The second group does not and may include people of any orientation and/or gender identity.

[fiercelydreamed]

I think I'm hearing you make a distinction in your comment between sexual minorities whose preferences are organized around partner's sex/gender (homosexual, bisexual, etc.) and sexual minorities whose preferences are organized around another dimension (kink, BDSM, fetish, etc). It seems like you use queer solely for the first group and not the second; is that correct?

Can you explain what your concern is about having the first group and the second group presented together under the umbrella term "sexual minorities" without further distinctions? It'll help me figure out how to handle this if I understand whether this is a semantic distinction you're trying to make, or if there's an outcome you're worried about should both groups of sexual minorities be presented without any kind of differentiation.

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in.

[mresundance]

Yes to the first paragraph on all counts.

I explained that my primary concern is the confusion of queer = kinky, etc. Queer is not inherently kinky et al. You can be queer and involved in kink, BDSM and fetish. You can be straight and involved in kink, BDSM and fetish and etc.

While kink et al are part of an identity and sexuality for many, I would say they are also more of a way of practicing sexuality and they are not intrinsically the same as LGB, nor should they be confused or lumped with it as such. Because, I said - you can be straight and kinky et al, just as you could be queer.

Being poly, kinky et al is just not the same as having a "queer" (LGBA) sexual orientation. There is discrimination, yes, but it's different.

And I prefer the two groups not being lumped together. One grouping is inherently about NOT being heterosexual - but being queer - and encompasses experiences specific to those identities. In the other grouping, a person of any gender identity or orientation could be included and encompasses experiences which may overlap, but are different in some ways.

[hooloovoo]

I agree. I think it makes sense to include kink, just like it makes sense to include trans people, but neither of those groups are inherently queer, and it would make more sense to have a separate section for kink, BSDM and fetishism. However, I'm not sure polyamory fits in that section. Based on my admittedly limited knowledge, it seems like that should also be a separate section.

[theleaveswant]

As I said in my comments on the other post, I'm elated that you're even thinking about kink and poly as sexual minorities. However, I'm not going to encourage you to hold to that if other people are uncomfortable with it.

An agreeable solution might be to pull kink/fetish/BDSM and poly out as another axis (or other axes) of non-normative sexualities rather than grouping them together with partner's sex/gender-based queer sexualities, which seems to be the objection in mresundance's comments. I don't want to replicate the border policing this community is trying to address by excluding kink/poly (as identities or as practices which do not dictate the entirety of a person's identity or way of living) for being "too sexual", but I agree that they're not identical with LGBA sexualities (it's an and, not an or).

I also wonder whether sex workers ought to be included here somewhere? Not to imply that sex work is necessarily a sexual identity, but to acknowledge that sex workers, like queer folks and BDSMers, are in fact people, not defined solely by a confluence of career and sexual practice.

If this comment doesn't make sense I blame bleach fumes.

:D

[landshark]

Pardon my jumping in here. *waves* Just thought I'd add a different opinion.

I see your point about queer being...well queer, and kink/fetish/BDSM being applicable to queer or straight.

But I would say that they all still fall under the heading of "sexual minorities". If they were all listed under "Queer", then I would say 'yes, we need another level of classification here'.

As it is, I don't see where, for the purposes of this comm, it would be confusing or awkward to make the list this way.

[mresundance]

OMG. The idea of including sex workers, I think, is awesome!

Definitely should be considered.

[mresundance]

I don't think poly needs to be all alone, though, it is still different from kink, BSDM and fetish.

Kinda a sticky whicket, I guess.

Re: :D

[mresundance]

I thought about this last night, and I am pretty ambivalent about it. My gut wants a separate list just for the sake of, I guess, edification, thoroughness, etc. That and they are two different things.

But I don't know how much it really does matter either.

[amalnahurriyeh]

I like the list of identities you've given, and I also like the idea of including sex workers. (Also, this is a great way of talking through these issues; A+ modding there!)

To address the question of how to conceptually divide folks who are sexual minorities along different sort of axes, maybe by a series of bullet points? Is that me being too structural? Because kinky folks and LGBA folks and sex workers are all "sexual minorities" by the definition you use, in that their sexual practices are marginalized and stereotyped; but I think sorting them out along different axes (sorting by gender of partner, by practice, by number of partners, by commercialization of sexual practice).

[ciaan]

In general, I think it looks good.

There might need to be some clarification on "cultural norms" and "nontraditional" to maybe say which norms and traditions, though? I mean, there's a difference between being poly in the modern USA and being part of a culture where some form of polygamy is standard, for example. So would it be characters who are what I the author think of as a sexual minority, or would it be characters who are what their own cultures within the story think of as a sexual minority?

Or possibly I'm making it too complicated.

[mresundance]

I really like this idea of bullet-listing! It would make things clean and uncluttered and still accomplish everything.

[fiercelydreamed]

I'd say that either definition works -- I see this comm being an appropriate place for characters who are sexual or gender minorities in the creator's culture of origin and for characters who are sexual or gender minorities in the culture in which the work takes place. Does that seem like a good way to handle this?

Re: :D

[fiercelydreamed]

Hey, thanks for weighing in. I've redrafted the definition above to address some of the comments. Do you think the new list format works?

[fiercelydreamed]

Thanks for commenting -- in response to suggestions that I needed to split out the list, I've redrafted the definition. How does the new version work for you?

[fiercelydreamed]

Oh, I hadn't thought of sex workers -- thanks from bringing it up. You were one of the people who thought setting up a few different axes might be a good way to handle things -- if you get a chance, take a look at the redrafted definition and tell me if it works for you?

[fiercelydreamed]

I've redrafted the definition using the categories you suggested; how does that work?

Thanks for the suggestion, and also, thanks for the feedback! I'm trying to run the community in a way that works for people, so it's really helpful for me to hear when something I do works (or doesn't). :)

[fiercelydreamed]

I've redrafted the definition -- does that address the concerns you had?

[fiercelydreamed]

FYI, I tried to clarify this in the redrafted definition. Does that help?

Re: :D

[landshark]

I think it looks good. More clarification without it turning into a "queers over here, and kinky-but-straight people over there."

Also like the addition of sex workers. That had not crossed my mind.

[mresundance]

I give it a thumbs up personally. It's a very nice set of revisions.

[hooloovoo]

Yes, I think new one is excellent. Although, I just realized that asexuality should probably have its own bullet point as well, since it's not connected to one's partner's sex or gender.

[earlwyn]

A question regarding cultural context and sexual minorities --

Is the goal of this community to create an emphasis on characters of sexual minorities or on the marginalization of sexual minorities in and of itself? Or both? Like, say, does placing a (based on current Western cultural context) non-minority character into a new cultural context where ze is suddenly in the sexual minority and exploring zir reaction to the subsequent maginalization while in that culture fit within the guidelines of "marked within their own cultural context" -- even though the culture is not "theirs"? Or does that skew focus?

[anatsuno]

I love the reworked definition, but didn't transfolk (and androgynous folk, etc) disappear from it?

[quinara]

I'm not sure asexuality needs a separate section, since it belongs in with the orientations (and a large number of asexuals do seek out romantic partners), but I'm wondering whether it would be too simplifying to change the first bullet point to simply 'sexual orientation'. After all, one of the main points of the community is about the idea that queerness isn't something that goes away when a sexual partner isn't there. 'Orientation to' sounds a bit reactive rather than static to me.