"And I can't change even if I tried, even if I wanted to."
In line with some of our more recent discussions: former lesbian denounces Macklemore's Same Love, saying she can change when she wants to? Check it out.
In regard to her ex-girlfriend, Jackie Hill says in her poem that her own "eternity was not worth that check". She understands that if she is born to be a stud, then she is born sinful. She could change to love the way she IS – or the way she is born. In the end, she says that femininity is given by God to further His glory. In the eyes of God Jackie is born beautiful and she knows that God wants her to be herself. In her poem she repeats: "Be you, beautiful" and she ends it with "because you are perfect". What is revealed in Jackie's poem between sex and gender? Last week we learned that sex is a natural kind and gender is a social kind. Jackie is born a stud, but she later changes and becomes a woman. In this sense, Jackie would agree with Simone de Beauvoir's claim that one is not born a woman, but becomes one. However, Jackie further argues that it is only right if what she becomes matches her biological sex, which defines the way she IS more than her psychology. Jackie claims that what we are biologically given "by God" dictates how we should act socially to reduce sinning. Studs like her have biology that call for them to be women but they want to perform masculinity. It is an offense to God. In this claim, Jackie knows that we have freedom to perform either gender, but it is only right to perform what we culturally associate with the biological sex. If God wants Jackie to love the way she IS, then why does biology have more weight in defining the way she IS and not her psychology, or social performances? Simone de Beauvoir would say that is the cultural repetition of the bias is to blame. So what makes Jackie the way she is? Jackie's theological argument goes something like this: • It is right to do what God intends, • God intends Jackie to love herself the way she is, • God has control over her biological sex - it shows God's intention for the way Jackie is • Jackie has control over her psychological/social gender - it shows Jackie's intention for the way Jackie is • therefore, It is wrong for Jackie to be a Stud In this formulation, Jackie ignores how psychological/social gender also plays a part in the way Jackie is. I think Jackie is attributing too much meaning to God’s biological gifts to her. If God wants her to love the way she is, God would want Jackie to love both her biological body and her psychological self. Jackie has not been justified to say that God intends her psychological self to match her biological self in a socially acceptable way. She could neither make the claim that God only wants her to love the way she biologically is only if her social self matches with that biology.
Whether or not I believe, like Macklemore, one can't change one's sexual orientation, I find Jackie's comments problematic. I know we haven't come to a clear conclusions about whether sexual orientation is a matter or being or acting, but regardless, acknowledging the desire to have sex with women is an action, an action which contradicts Jackie's action of choosing not to. She commits both of these acts, and I think that takes away from her claim that she has chosen not to BE a lesbian (to be defined by her actions). But more problematic is the fact that she sees her lesbian tendencies as a direct result of abuse and insecurity and makes the unsupportable jump to the fact that all lesbian tendencies are the result of past trauma or personal emotional issues.
In regard to her ex-girlfriend, Jackie Hill says in her poem that her own "eternity was not worth that check". She understands that if she is born to be a stud, then she is born sinful. She could change to love the way she IS – or the way she is born. In the end, she says that femininity is given by God to further His glory. In the eyes of God Jackie is born beautiful and she knows that God wants her to be herself. In her poem she repeats: "Be you, beautiful" and she ends it with "because you are perfect".
ReplyDeleteWhat is revealed in Jackie's poem between sex and gender? Last week we learned that sex is a natural kind and gender is a social kind. Jackie is born a stud, but she later changes and becomes a woman. In this sense, Jackie would agree with Simone de Beauvoir's claim that one is not born a woman, but becomes one. However, Jackie further argues that it is only right if what she becomes matches her biological sex, which defines the way she IS more than her psychology. Jackie claims that what we are biologically given "by God" dictates how we should act socially to reduce sinning. Studs like her have biology that call for them to be women but they want to perform masculinity. It is an offense to God. In this claim, Jackie knows that we have freedom to perform either gender, but it is only right to perform what we culturally associate with the biological sex. If God wants Jackie to love the way she IS, then why does biology have more weight in defining the way she IS and not her psychology, or social performances? Simone de Beauvoir would say that is the cultural repetition of the bias is to blame. So what makes Jackie the way she is?
Jackie's theological argument goes something like this:
• It is right to do what God intends,
• God intends Jackie to love herself the way she is,
• God has control over her biological sex - it shows God's intention for the way Jackie is
• Jackie has control over her psychological/social gender - it shows Jackie's intention for the way Jackie is
• therefore, It is wrong for Jackie to be a Stud
In this formulation, Jackie ignores how psychological/social gender also plays a part in the way Jackie is. I think Jackie is attributing too much meaning to God’s biological gifts to her. If God wants her to love the way she is, God would want Jackie to love both her biological body and her psychological self. Jackie has not been justified to say that God intends her psychological self to match her biological self in a socially acceptable way. She could neither make the claim that God only wants her to love the way she biologically is only if her social self matches with that biology.
Whether or not I believe, like Macklemore, one can't change one's sexual orientation, I find Jackie's comments problematic. I know we haven't come to a clear conclusions about whether sexual orientation is a matter or being or acting, but regardless, acknowledging the desire to have sex with women is an action, an action which contradicts Jackie's action of choosing not to. She commits both of these acts, and I think that takes away from her claim that she has chosen not to BE a lesbian (to be defined by her actions). But more problematic is the fact that she sees her lesbian tendencies as a direct result of abuse and insecurity and makes the unsupportable jump to the fact that all lesbian tendencies are the result of past trauma or personal emotional issues.
ReplyDelete