1

Question One
Clare Bright Honors 394A
Winter 2015

2
Many theories have arisen from the womens and gay rights movement to explain the
origin of gender and sexuality differences. Some theories propose that all gender characteristics
and sexual orientations are predetermined by biology, and remain static throughout life. Others
argue that these aspects are socially constructed, built from, and therefore a reflection of, the
society at large. Of the liberal feminist, liberal gay, radical feminist, radical gay, socialist
feminist, separatist feminist, and queer theory perspectives, queerism is undoubtedly the most
satisfactory viewpoint. Queer theorys position on the origin of gender characteristics and sexual
orientation is the most persuasive because this ideology goes beyond the belief that gender and
sexuality are socially constructed. The postmodernist interpretation that everything is socially
constructed and that there is no pure, unadulterated truth or natural state of being allows for
the full growth and development of personal, self-determined identities that celebrate differences
rather than hide or oversimplify them. Applying this fundamental belief to other aspects within
queer theory, as well as through comparisons with the other ideologies, it is clear that queerism
offers the most satisfactory explanation for the basis of these gender and sexuality
characteristics, as well as the most promising ideas to incorporate an intersectional approach into
the fight for equality.
The socialist feminist, separatist feminist, and liberal viewpoints are the least satisfactory
when compared with queer theory and radical ideologiesthough queerism ultimately prevails
as the most fitting with my own ideological beliefs. Socialist feminists believe to some extent in
the social construction of gender characteristics and sexual orientation, but focus mainly on sex
roles deriving from the division of labor through capitalism and the invention of private property.
For example, the authors of the Radical Women Manifesto offer an explanation for the origin of
gender differences and characteristics, as well as the current oppression women face in capitalist

3
societies. Socialist feminists claim that gender differences do not result from differences in
biology, but through differences in social production and the division of labor (Radical Women
Manifesto, 4-5). Angela Davis, as well as other socialist feminist authors, focuses on the idea of
housework as an example of the ways in which the division of economic production has led to
inequality among genders (Davis, 224). However, the economically-driven socialist explanation
is not satisfactory simply because it is not all encompassing; the narrow focus on economic
factors to explain identity formation is not a complete nor well-rounded viewpoint, when gender
characteristics and sexual orientation have relevant roots in the social and political realms of
society as well. Suggesting socialism as the cure for capitalisms ills will ultimately fail to bring
about the most effective change needed, and as such, the socialist feminist viewpoint is less
satisfactory than queerism, which has a much broader and holistic viewpoint.
The liberal gay and feminist movements, as well as the separatist movement, believe that
these differences arise from a biological basisthough proponents of liberalism use this to assert
the idea of sameness, whereas separatist feminists use biology to capitalize on their
differences. Separatist feminists believe that biologically, men and women are very different.
This is seen through Marilyn Fryes analogy that men are parasites feeding off of women, and
that men and women have very different qualities and each have naturally, biologically-ordained,
differences that set each other apart (Some Reflections on Separatism and Power, 99-100). As a
result of these biological differences, Frye and other separatist feminists propose a social, sexual,
economic, and political, but not physical, separation through the creation of safe spaces where
members of marginalized groups can come together and feel comfortable, having escaped from
the oppressive structures of the patriarchy (Lashof and Thorne, Separatism and Solidarity: A
Lesbian Feminist Perspective, 76). However, the separate but equal idea that separatist

4
feminists are indirectly proposing is not a satisfying explanation or solution for the problem of
oppression on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. Victoria Brownworth states that she
sees lesbian separation as an act of self-preservation and a way to distance oneself from the
threats directed at lesbians (Watching Our Backs, 19). This separation is inherently non-inclusive
(though apparently, this is the separatist feminists point) and promotes inequality through this
separation, this implied biological difference. Separatist feminism does not have a satisfactory
viewpoint and its beliefs and methods will not provide the solidarity or unity needed to
successfully overthrow oppressive power structures.
The liberal viewpoints, also operating from a biological basis of gender characteristics
and sexual orientation, are dissatisfying because of their lack of comprehensive analysis about
the origin of gender and sexuality characteristics. Rodney Powell claims that homophobia, above
racism or any other form of oppression he has faced, is the most dangerous because it relies on
the assumption that sexuality is a choicewhen really, he implies, sexuality is not a choice
because it is biologically ordained (Nothing Less Than Freedom, 2). Likewise, Margaret
Cruikshank says that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality simply because it exists
and is widespread in some cultures (Defense of Gay Sexuality, 51-2). However, this idea of just
as natural implies that gay people, and women as well, must prove themselves worthy of
acceptance by the larger society, claiming sameness and assimilating into the society as is,
without acknowledging the oppressive structures intrinsically linked with the heteronormative
male-dominated culture. Liberal feminist authors offer the same viewpoint, though Betty Friedan
does explain that even though there are obvious differences between men and women, we may
never know whether or not these differences stem from biology or social construction until
women have the power to define themselves, instead of men defining them (Tokenism and the

5
Pseudo-Radical Cop-Out, 115). However, Friedan uses the term real to describe biological
differences, and this idea that biology is the true, the real, defining characteristic of all humans is
ultimately constraining and binding because of the belief that biology cannot be changed, and
therefore sexuality and gender characteristics remain static throughout life.
Queer theory believes that gender characteristics and sexual identity categories are
socially constructed, and that these identities are fluid and not fixed (lecture, 3/5/15), which is
similar to the radical feminist and gay viewpoint. John DEmilio states that radical liberationists
toyed with and attempted to change the rigid gender and sexuality roles imposed upon nonheterosexual individuals, and through this process, illustrated that sexuality was not fixed or predetermined, and sexual categories were socially imposed and therefore unnatural (Still Radical
After All These Years, 57). DEmilio hypothesizes that the family was the birthplace of gender
and sexuality roles, and remains the major site of their enforcementthe idea of a real man
was constructed here and was obviously heterosexual, a reflection of the dominant society and
the root of oppression for those who went against these roles (56). Likewise, radical feminist
author Bonnie Kreps argues that the American society is built upon highly regulated and
enforced sex and gender roles, all of which are arbitrarily assigned and unnatural. Kreps
acknowledges that there are differences biologically between males and females, but these
genetic differences have no bearing over the social construction of gender characteristics and
expectations. Rather, Kreps states, we become men and women rather than being born men and
women (Radical Feminism, 235-6). Because of the radical belief that gender characteristics and
sexual orientation are socially imposed and constructed, some of the radical theory relies on the
examination and overturning of binaries that infiltrate the American system. As Stephen Engel
notes, radical gay liberation is focused on disrupting the masculine/feminine and hetero/homo

6
dichotomies in order to overturn white male hegemony and heteronormative belief systems and
structures (Becoming Gay: Stonewall and Liberation, 42). The radical ideologies regarding social
construction of gender and sexuality is highly persuasive, and to a degree very satisfactory.
However, compared with queer theory and queerism, radical viewpoints tend to fall short of
being truly fulfilling.
Despite the shared belief that gender characteristics and sexual orientation are a result of
social construction, queer theory and radical ideologies differ on one major point regarding this
creation. Queer theory draws on postmodernist beliefs that consider everything to be a result of
social construction, and that there is no one unifying, natural truth (Vicki Eaklor, Where Are We
Now? Where Are We Going?, 292). As a result, nothing is stable or natural about the identities
present in American society (lecture, 3/5/15). Cathy Cohen summarizes queer theory as not only
denying the existence of a universal, natural truth, but also as actively working against this
notion as it permeates American society. Hegemonic notions of white, male, and heterosexuality
validate these identities as natural and pure, and institutional spaces further legitimize the
existence of this norm (Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer
Politics?, 203). Queer theory works against this assumption and fights against binaries and other
restrictive and oppressive identity categories. This viewpoint differs largely from the radical
viewpoint, which the postmodern queerist deems essentialist. Eaklor suggests that both the
liberal and radical ideologies are essentialist because they suggest a linear view of gender
characteristics and sexual orientationunchanging throughout time and space, and the formation
of this identity depends on the lack of change (293). However, this essentialist viewpoint
ultimately fails to encompass the wide range and variety of human experiences, at their core
always changing and morphing. Essentialism is especially oppressive to intersex individuals, as

7
Judith Butler points out. Butler notes that intersex activists actively fight against the essentialized
notion of a universal truth, as the current understanding of sex lies in a male/female binary that is
inherently oppressive to individuals that do not fit, or are not socially constructed to fit, neatly
into it (Undoing Gender, 6-7). Eaklor also states that while common experiences and
characteristics may exist among people who identify a certain way, these commonalities do not
conclusively define all people in the identity category. Rather, she states, identity formation is an
extremely individualistic and personal experience, dependent upon and a reflection of the time
and culture in which these people identified (293). This explanation is the most satisfactory
because it is the most holistic, and validates the experiences of the individual more than the
essentialist viewpoint, which creates objective identity categories based on assumed
commonalities, inherently invalidating anyone who does not fit these characteristics.
As opposed to other movements, queer theorys focus on the individual ultimately is its
greatest strength in explaining the origin of gender characteristics and sexual orientation, as well
as for the movement as a whole. Queerism believes that nothing is truly natural and our
perceptions are essential in guiding and informing our experiences and identities; as such, group
structures and communities can be an indirect way of invalidating and marginalizing people
because of the implied commonalities that are assumed to be present in a group of sameidentifying people. The biggest, most problematic, example of this is the radical idea of coming
out. Engel, a radical gay author, describes coming out as a way to establish a proud, public gay
identity that was free from shameful stigmas (43). In fact, Engel goes so far as to say that
through coming out, the homosexual was now gay and had completed the needed social, public
construction of his/her identity (44). However, as queer theorist Lisa Duggan noted, coming
out became a means of colonization. Even though the intentions of forced outing were goodto

8
put a stop to the silence and stigma surrounding homosexualitythe methods behind this
process were negative and harmful (Making It Perfectly Queer, 160). Duggan surmises that those
who forced others out of the closet in order to create a proud and out gay nation were confident
of their ability to identify its members and of their authority to do so (161). As a result, focus
was taken off of the needs, wants, and safety of the individual and more emphasis was placed on
the priorities of the group. Though both the radical viewpoint and queerism believe that gender
characteristics and sexual orientation are socially constructed, queer theorys focus on the
individuals identity formation is much more satisfying because it allows for a broader, nonforceful inclusion of everyone. In fact, as Duggan points out, the queer community differs from
other communities formed by the other movements because of its focus on uniting people by
their beliefs, and not by their identifying characteristics or traits (165). This allows all people to
come together and promote more fluid identities that operate outside of binaries and the
heteronormative, oppressive system at large. Queerisms goal, then, is to establish a society that
gives true bodily autonomy to each individual, validating their identities on the individual level,
instead of how they contribute to or are placed into a group dynamic (Butler, 7).
Through queerisms focus on individual experiences and validating them regardless of
socially constructed identity, differences can be celebrated. This is not true in the other
movements that do not believe in the social construction of gender characteristics and sexual
orientation. Separatist feminism, for example, wants distinct separation of one group from
another, and this group separation can only be interpreted as an almost us against them stance
which will not allow for celebration of differences. For example, Brownworth claims that the
L in LGBTQQIA is supposed to be the most silent letter, even though she makes no mention of
QQIA individuals in the rest of her article. Furthermore, she suggests that only lesbians separate

9
themselves from the dominant society, even if other identities in the acronym are equally as
oppressed and marginalized (19). This polarization of individuals into groups based on assumed
fundamental differences only leads to further marginalization and exclusion. It is entirely
possible that one person identifies as both lesbian and queer, or intersex and asexual. A variety of
experiences are conceivable, and separatism fails to recognize this fact, whereas queer theory
embraces it. Likewise, the liberal feminist authors Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards
propose an idealistic society as a result of liberal feminism. This piece, A Day with Feminism
ultimately reduces the individual experience to that of massive group harmony, accomplishable
only through liberal goals. The article describes a utopic society, where women and men of all
races and sexualities receive equal pay, equal protection under laws, equal representation in
media, and equal social and economic rights (ManifestA, 316-7). Individual identities and
cultures are erasedwomens history and African American history become, simply, peoples
and world history (317). Essentially, Baumgardner and Richards have taken each existing
problem concerning inequality and neutralized it, claiming feminism is responsible for this
idyllic society without giving credit or acknowledgment to the individuals who fought for this
society to be actualized. This day with feminism can be seen as a direct result of the liberal
feminist and gay view of biological sameness, of equality driven by lack of difference.
Ultimately, group-oriented movements that diminish individual needs, wants, and experiences
are not the most satisfactory viewpoints. Queerism offers a social constructionist explanation of
gender and sexuality differences that focus on individual perceptions, thereby validating all
experiences and creating a space to discuss and celebrate differences free of a larger political,
social, or economic goal.

10
Still, many movements have critiqued the queer ideology, claiming that by stating
nothing in our society is truly natural and that true identity categories do not exist within a
postmodernist viewpoint, identities are in fact invalidated and devalued. Butler acknowledges
this tension, especially within the intersex and transgendered communities. Butler explains that
intersex and transgendered people want to be able to change or, at the very least, have autonomy
over their own bodies and gender identities, but queerism is often seen as pushing back against
all identity claims and categories (7). However, Butler points out that queer theory mainly
opposes legislation of normalized, rigid identity categories, rather than the self-determined
adoption of a particular identity expression. Therefore, any individual who wants to alter their
socially assigned gender is not simply conforming to heteronormative definitions of male and
female; rather, their change is an individualistic desire to change, characterized not by the want
to conform, but by the need to transform (8). Cohen also brings up a critique of queer theory,
claiming that its beliefs about social construction of gender characteristics and sexual orientation
on the individual level are at times only applicable for privileged people to take on as a realistic
ideology. She claims that the queer theorys idea of individualism relies on the assumption that
every single person, of all self-determined identities, can have the material independence
needed to ignore socially constructed and historically established categories (212). Less
privileged groups need these categories and the institutionalized community spaces that support
them in order to be physically and emotionally safe, whereas on their own as an individual,
their physical and psychological safety would be threatened (212). This is a valid critique of
queer theory as it operates currently in the American system, but I believe that ultimately, the
queer perspective offers the most opportunity for an intersectional approach that will allow all

11
people to define their identity for themselves, on an individual, subjective level, free from
reliance on group structures and communities.
Queer theory offers the most promising ideas for incorporating intersectionality because
of its viewpoint on gender and sexuality construction, where other viewpoints fail to recognize
the intersections of identities so crucial in moving towards equality. Queer theory aims to
validate all identities as they are constructed socially and emphasizes the importance of the
individual experience, and through this, a focus on intersectionality is not only possible, but also
highly probable. Other movements fail to incorporate an intersectional approach, and the
potential to do so is less likely than in the queer movement. For example, few authors
specifically address the intersection of identities in their writings. Friedan, a liberal feminist,
talks specifically about American women (presumably white) and their rights, but does not
address how experiences differ for each woman (112). Experiences deeply inform identities and
shape beliefs, so talking generally about white, middle class, American women ultimately will
only lead to a variety of white, hegemonic feminism no one should subscribe to. Likewise,
socialist feminists focusing on solely economics to explain gender and sexuality disparity fails to
address larger issues of sexism, racism, classism, and ableism that affect individuals in a variety
of difference combinations. Queer theory is the only ideology that has the potential to fully
incorporate an intersectional approach, and this ability is directly derived from its inclusive and
individualistic viewpoint on the social construction of gender characteristics and sexual
orientation. With the adoption of a queer perspective, marginalized identities have the chance to
be fully validated and accepted by society at large, making queerism the most satisfactory and
promising ideology.