I haven't been following much of the continuing debate over Elena Kagan, which seems (mercifully) to be petering out. It'll come back to life when her hearings begin, but if we're lucky, the worst is over.
Still, I have to get two final points on the record. First, the rumors about her sexual orientation demonstrate one thing above all else: how utterly reliant the speculation is on stereotypes. Softball. Cigars. Haircut. Build. Yes, some women who look and act like Elena Kagan are lesbians. And some women aren't. We should all be very proud of our keen senses of intuition in so definitively being able to sort out, in public, this most personal of matters.
The biggest factor in the speculation, though, is that Kagan is single. Or, as Maureen Dowd astutely notes this morning, less flatteringly "unmarried." I confess I was a little miffed that her editors stole the headline I'd planned to use, "All the Single Ladies," but the point is rich enough to warrant a bit of elaboration.
The debate over Kagan's sexual orientation may say more about the importance of marriage in our culture than homosexuality. This foolish skirmish is exactly what drives closeted lesbians and gay men into sham marriages with someone of the opposite sex -- and is exactly why heterosexuals have such a direct and personal interest in ridding the culture of homophobia, including the internalized kind that fuels the closet. As long as marriage is viewed as a marker - in fact the marker - for heterosexuality, lesbians and gay men who are ashamed or even just nervous about being homosexual will have an incentive to marry defensively. Whatever the many social advantages of marriage, it is ultimately between two individuals, and the cultural interference of homophobia has taken an enormous toll on far too many of those personal relationships.
More to the point, even heterosexuals who are cognizant of anti-gay sentiment in their environment will feel the pressure to marry, whether they want to or are inclined to, or not. Maybe Elena Kagan has been unfortunate in love. Or maybe she doesn't want to get married, or feel the need to. Yet the spectacle of this debate over her sexual orientation must be at least an embarrassment for her, if not a full measure of sheer emotional torture.
And all because she is not married.
In an ideal world without homophobia, we might have been able to have a discussion about the importance of marriage and the equal importance of individual liberty in making that choice. But we don't live in that world, and Elena Kagan has had to suffer the needless indignity of our salacious speculations about a subject that is alluring to us, but about which we know absolutely nothing.
22 Comments for “Know-Nothings”
posted by Bobby on
David, give me a break. Don’t make excuses for Kagan because homophobia, this is 2010, Barney Frank was outed in the 1970s, Jim Kolbe came out in the 1990s, you’re telling me that homophobia has kept Kagan in the closet all these years?
The woman works in the ultra-liberal college environment, you cannot find a more gay-friendly environment than Harvard for God’s sakes.
Give me a good explanation of why is Obama hiding her and her brother from the media? Seems to me like Kagan the Pagan has a lot more secrets than just her sexual orientation. I call her Kagan the Pagan because she worships Big Government. If you have any proof that she hates whites people, I’ll refer to her as KKKagan. 😉
posted by David Link on
Bobby, the point I was trying to make is that I don’t know what Elena Kagan’s sexual orienation is, and unless you are very close to you, I doubt you do either. All of the speculation is based on — and really, can only be based on — exterior factors that can only properly be called stereotypes.
This is, in my opinion, pretty arrogant of all of us. Homophobia — or its less virulent cousins — affects all of this; its continued existence, even in more attenuated forms, makes us want to speculate. I suppose that’s entirely human of us, but it’s not one of our species’ more endearing traits.
posted by Matt on
Mr. Link, I think it’s neither fair nor accurate to say that all of the speculation is based on stereotypes. Maybe people are reacting to Ben Domenech’s article which identified Ms. Kagan as an out lesbian, and which was quickly retracted not by her but by Obama’s people.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Yeah, it’s just like Tosca, it is. Stay tuned for Act III, where Kagan sings a sad aria and throws herself from a parapet.
Now available from IGF Records: Super DJ D-Linxxx’s ”Leave Elena ALONE!!!” (trance remix)
posted by David Link on
OK, I can’t deny that “Leave Elena Alone” was pretty funny. . .
posted by Jorge on
Mr. Link, I think it’s neither fair nor accurate to say that all of the speculation is based on stereotypes. Maybe people are reacting to Ben Domenech’s article which identified Ms. Kagan as an out lesbian, and which was quickly retracted not by her but by Obama’s people.
I agree.
And then it seems everyone went crazy. I know I did.
posted by Mark F. on
“But we donât live in that world, and Elena Kagan has had to suffer the needless indignity of our salacious speculations.”
Oh please, she could have just announced she is heterosexual as many of her close friends have said she is. Just to clear the air.
And what’s “salacious” about our speculations? I don’t care about her sex life, but a person’s sexual orientation is very important in some ways, is it not?
I think it would be positive to have an openly gay person in such a high position.
posted by Bobby on
If Elena Kagan was straight she would be shouting it from the rooftops instead of having her former college roommate speculate for her.
“All of the speculation is based on — and really, can only be based on — exterior factors that can only properly be called stereotypes.”
—Sadly stereotypes are part of life, and if you fit into them people will discriminate against you. When you’re fat people think you’re unhealthy, when you’re skinny people think you’re healthy. By the same toke, when you look like a bulldyke with makeup, people think you’re a lesbian unless you have a boyfriend.
“This is, in my opinion, pretty arrogant of all of us. Homophobia — or its less virulent cousins — affects all of this; its continued existence, even in more attenuated forms, makes us want to speculate. I suppose that’s entirely human of us, but it’s not one of our species’ more endearing traits.”
—You think we’re speculating because of homophobia? I listen to the right, Kagan’s sexuality isn’t what drives them bonkers, it’s her secrecy, her political views, the things she hides, and the way Obama has hidden her from the media to the point of interviewing her with one of his government workers.
Kagan isn’t affected by homophobia because she’s not experiencing homophobia. Boston has a vibrant gay scene, Ivy Leagues are tolerant of them, it’s not like this woman is dean at Liberty University where being gay can get you expelled.
posted by Claudius Vandermeer on
Your perspective is always so humane and gentle, Mr. Link. I’m curious, thoughâI was blessed to be born late enough that sham marriages have never really intruded into my private field of vision. Can you (or anyone here) point me to something reputable that discusses its contemporary prevalence?
posted by Debrah on
“…..it’s her secrecy, her political views, the things she hides, and the way Obama has hidden her from the media to the point of interviewing her with one of his government workers.”
**********************************************
Exactly.
It has been she.
It has been Obama and his administration who have conducted themselves as if Kagan is carrying some unique strain of the herpes virus.
Annoying as well as revealing.
Are we talking about a “progressive” White House in this instance?
People are rightly concerned about what Kagan stands for. What are her real bona fides?
One journalist described this whole scenario as Kagan being Obama’s “pig in a poke”.
“Kagan isn’t affected by homophobia because she’s not experiencing homophobia. Boston has a vibrant gay scene, Ivy Leagues are tolerant of them……”
***********************************************
It’s utter hilarity for anyone to pretend that Kagan is, or has ever been, in a world of “homophobia”.
Massachusetts, Harvard, and most any campus or city housing an institution of the academy not only does not have a “homophobic” environment…….
…….but they are most often places that cultivate and attempt to create an atmosphere of “hetero-phobia”.
The term “heteronormativity” is the new derisively-used word which has taken the place of “sexism”.
This whole issue, like most tendentious Leftist chimeras, is a smokescreen.
There are many gays inside the academy and similar milieus who do not openly profess their gayness for their own convenient reasons.
Not for fear of anything.
IMO, they want to have it both ways and do not want (in print) the label of being “gay”, themselves.
They are the ones who possess a whiplash mentality.
From all reports, Kagan is not gay.
If she really is, and is trying to hide it, the derision should be delivered to her door.
One’s sexual orientation affects everything they do in one way or another……sooner or later.
Americans deserve to know such details about someone who would be placed in a lifetime position designing our society’s structure.
posted by Debrah on
By the way, Bobby.
What happened to the thread where Throbert gave a long analysis on sexual identity……
…….and Jimmy, Throbert, and I were discussing “Chaz”?
posted by Bobby on
“What happened to the thread where Throbert gave a long analysis on sexual identity……”
—I’m not sure, I forgot where that thread was.
“The term “heteronormativity” is the new derisively-used word which has taken the place of “sexism”.”
—Or my favorite term, “heterosexist” which refers to assuming that everyone is heterosexual. In the case of Kagan, we are not being heterosexist but we’re being accused of being homophobic for questioning her sexual orientation.
“Are we talking about a “progressive” White House in this instance?”
—I’ll tell you this, only a progressive White House would have Christmas ornaments with the picture of Chairman Mao.
By the way, yesterday Glenn Beck had a montage of people related to Obama (and the President himself) talking about global government, global governance, and the President himself saying that he’s an American citizen and a global citizen.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Debrah, are you talking about a fairly recent thread? As you may know, IGF’s internal “search” is next to useless. You can use Google to search IGF specifically, but keep in mind that Google does not instantly index very recent comments on IGF or any other blog — there can be a time lag of a few weeks. So if a thread has recently gone into IGF’s archives but hasn’t yet been indexed by Google, it can be difficult to find.
Anyway, to search IGF with Google, enter this into the search window:
site:independentgayforum.org “search terms” “another search term”
For example, the following search
site:independentgayforum.org chaz
…turned up this thread from last year, where I posted:
That’s the most recent IGF thread that Google has indexed with “Chaz” in it, but it’s obviously not the thread you had in mind.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’ll see your heteronormativity and raise you a cis-gendered!
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
No search necessary.
It’s the one you did only a few days ago.
Had David Link not duplicated his latest post—which appears twice on the front page—the one in question would be on the front page right now as well.
No big deal.
Simply a bizarre occurrence.
Like invisible ink.
posted by Debrah on
“I’ll see your heteronormativity and raise you a cis-gendered!”
***********************************************
Yeah, Throbert. I’ll cop to the cis.
Sizzling!
Yet another ingredient to add to the culture wars’ word salad.
“……having been used by transactivists for some time, the term ‘cisgender privilege’ has recently appeared in the academic literature and is defined there as the ‘set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to having a cisgender identity’.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
I wonder if the trendy mainstreaming of “cisgender” has anything to do with all the hand-wringing over “trans-fats,” which has helped to bring the formerly obscure prefix “cis-” into the popular consciousness. It used to be that outside of organic-chemistry classrooms, the term “cis” was mainly familiar to Second-Year Latin students reading Julius Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars — in which context the distinction between “Cis-Alpine Gaul” and “Trans-Alpine Gaul” is pretty important. But nowadays, thanks to reading countless articles about hydrogenated fats, many people know that cis- and trans- are opposites.
(In full disclosure, I am skeptical of the whole “trans-fat” scare, and regard it as yet another excuse for sedentary lard-butts to blame anything and everything but their own aversion to physically strenuous activities — and by “strenuous” I mean climbing up two flights of stairs, or walking a half-mile round-trip to the 7/11, or geez, maybe 20 jumping-jacks every morning.)
Ah, yet another by-the-numbers sequel to Peggy “Batshit” McIntosh’s white-guilt classic “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”:
Because who ever heard of a supermarket with an entire aisle dedicated to Goya products, or a hair salon that specializes in cornrows, “relaxers,” and weaves? Maybe in BizarroWorld America, where people say “Hello” when they’re leaving and “Bad-bye” when they arrive, but not on THIS planet!
To begin unpacking the Knapsack of Cisgender Privilege:
“Because I am a Cisgendered Male, I can break the ice at public social gatherings by wearing women’s clothing and telling people I’m with a Monty Python tribute group, thereby putting everybody in a good-humored mood, rather than boring people to death with a lecture about LGBT politics.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Actually, Deb, that thread hasn’t been bumped off the front page — it’s just been heavily pruned to remove the “off topic” stuff about transsexualism. Here’s the shortened thread, entitled “Does Kagan’s Orientation Matter?”, by Dale Carpenter. Naturally, I used that thread to post my query about the removal of comments from Carpenter’s other thread, because they were by the same author. And from there we digressed into a discussion about whether transsexual identity was in some cases iatrogenic, and so forth. Of course, I’m only relying on memory here, and can’t prove that all this took place in that now very-short thread with only five comments in it. But I’m fairly sure my memory is correct.
posted by Throbert McGee on
However, before anyone blames Dale Carpenter, what I suspect happened is this:
Carpenter has been forthright enough to publicly question the value of “trans-inclusiveness”, and right here on IGF, he once published some skeptical inquiry about the popular lore of heroic drag queens
manningtrans-womanning the barricades during the Stonewall Riots.Thus, I would hazard a guess that Prof. Carpenter has felt the thunderous wrath of non-cisperson activists in the past, and so he would prefer that readers responding to his posts SHOULD NOT attach lightning-rod comments suggesting that “gender dysphoria” is like unto “not-looking-like-a-Klingon dysphoria”, or speculating that transgender identity is sometimes iatrogenic because psychologists and plastic surgeons have a financial interest in legitimizing the “condition,” or recommending books by controversy-magnets like J. Michael Bailey.
I’m perfectly happy to respect the wishes of Carpenter in not bringing up these issues on his threads — because, after all, he’s fairly high-profile, and I understand that he’d want to avoid the tsuris of being harassed by pissed-off trannies.
But he could maybe try giving us a few hints about his motives, instead of causing comment threads to mysteriously vanish.
posted by Debrah on
Thanks, Throbert.
This is a bit ridiculous, no?
I wanted to go back and revisit something you had written; however, the schoolmarm treatment prevails anew.
Frankly, no one’s opinions and their posts are so significant that fora traffic must be directed in their presence.
I much prefer Jonathan Rauch when he does an occasional column. He’s highbrow without trying.
And he doesn’t try to arrange the deck chairs on the ship.
Are we in Iran?
If no exchanges—except the ones he likes!—can exist freely, then why bother posting?
It’s like attempting to stage a play while standing at the door to also direct the seating arrangement of the audience.
And with that particular individual, this seems to be a pattern.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Agreed, but again, I wouldn’t necessarily accuse Carpenter of being the ridiculous one — there are lots and lots of thin-skinned, hot-headed, juvenile LBTG-hadis with disposable email accounts out there…
Maybe it’s time for “Everybody Draw a Transgender Activist Day”…
posted by Rev JDSpears on
Although the social environment for glbti persons has improved it still has a sizable amount of homophobia. Sadly it even still exists in places that are seen, i.e. Harvard. Kagan is now 50 and has lived during a time that institutionalize homophobia was not only present but an accepted state. This is not, however, stating that she is a lesbian.
Much of the speculation is based almost entirely on that societal homophobia, why else would the “outward appearances” cause a belief that she is?
Additionally she grew up in a society that viewed strong woman not so much as shunned, as held at arm’s length. Such a woman would find it difficult to find a compatable man. Face it folks, we men are fragile creatures when it comes to courtship!
Whether she is a lesbian, or merely a woman that had no success at courship, those questions are immaterial.