[HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all.

[sistermagpie]

> Magpie:
>  > I'm disagreeing with your claim that sex is designed as a way of
>  > procretion the way a car is designed as a vehicle of 
transportation.

CJ:> 
> But I didn't say "designed to be", I simply said "are". As you've 
> indicated, "designed" implies some sort of creator (or Creator?), 
so I 
> suppose if you wish you could call biology or evolutionary forces 
the 
> "creator" of sex. But I was deliberately trying to avoid these 
> implications because they're outside the scope of the analogy (and 
> analogies, as a philosophy professor of my was once fond of 
saying, 
> cannot be made to walk on all fours).

Magpie:
Right I didn't mean that it necessarily had to be about religion or 
not, but just that...I don't see why this is significant. We have 
ways of reproducing. People also have sex for other reasons than to 
have babies. People also make babies without having sex at all. 
Since a great part of straight sex is also about something other 
than making a baby, I don't see why this becomes significant when 
talking about gay people.

Magpie: 
>  > Procreation is one thing it's for, there are other things
>  > that it's for too now.

CJ: 
> Perhaps again our difference here is one of definitions. You seem 
to be 
> using "purpose" more in the sense of "It served a purpose" which I 
> understand to be semantically equivalent to "It was useful". In 
that 
> sense I would certainly agree. Sex can have many purposes/uses 
(though 
> even under this definition I would still argue that sex only has 
one 
> *biological* use).
> 
> But my meaning is more akin to "raison d'être". And, keeping in 
mind 
> that I'm speaking biologically, despite all the other uses we can 
find 
> for sex (and they may be good uses!), it still has but one raison 
> d'être: procreation.

Magpie:
Biologically yes, sex between two people of the same sex is not a 
way of making a baby. But neither is a lot of sex between straight 
people. To me it doesn't look like a deviation from the norm, it 
shows that "norm" in this case is not about having babies.

> CJ:
>  > It strikes me as one of those words (like "homophobia" ) coined
>  > for the express purpose of denying it.
> 
> Magpie:
>  > I didn't quite get this sentence--denying what?
> 
> Denying the idea that the coined word or phrase encapsulates. 
> "Homophobia", for example, is a label applied by advocates of 
homosexual 
> rights to their opponents for propogandistic purposes -- implying 
for 
> the purpose of delegitimizing, that their opponents fear 
homosexual 
> rights. But I've never met an opponent of homosexual rights that 
would 
> call himself "homophobic" because they *don't* fear homosexual 
rights, 
> though they do oppose them.

Magpie:
It's not the best word, then, okay. Obvious few people who oppose 
gay rights would call themselves homophobic or probably say they 
fear their rights. Though some as much as do--if you feel the family 
needs to be "defended" that rather implies a fear of something to 
me. Propaganda goes hand in hand with political fights, of course. I 
know that some people have proposed something other that 
means "hatred of" rather than "fear of." Though of course many would 
say they don't hate gay people, they hate the sin, not the sinner, 
etc. To which a gay person might very well respond that since this 
is what they are, hating one=hating the other.

CJ: 
> Similarly (and I don't know the etymology of the word, so I may be 
> off-base) "heteronormative" sounds and awful lot like a term 
coined in 
> order to encapsulate a concept the coiner[s] wish to deny; in this 
case, 
> an attempt to reduce all judgments about homosexuality to mere 
cultural 
> norms that can/should be changed.

Magpie:
I would guess that's probably the way many see it, that it is about 
a cultural norm that can/should be changed. That doesn't sound too 
bad to me, since the question of whether or not one can make a baby 
with two men or two women alone doesn't seem to be a question at 
all. I of course see the difference in biology where you can make a 
baby via some straight sex where you can't through gay sex, but I 
don't see why the cultural and social question should depend on that 
biological fact. What does that have to do with gay rights, after 
all, since it's not like anyone expects the right to be able to have 
sex with someone of their own gender and get pregnant doing it? Or 
have anyone say that they can?

CJ: 
> "The term was coined by Michael Warner in 1991, in one of the 
first 
> major works of queer theory ... [and] has roots in Gayle Rubin's 
notion 
> of the 'sex/gender system' and Adrienne Rich's notion of 
compulsory 
> heterosexuality."
> 
> In short, it's a term coined, and use exclusively by, advocates 
for 
> homosexual rights. I don't mean to imply there's anything wrong 
with 
> that! Only that it's not an objective term and -- this is my 
point -- it 
> flies in the face of biology. 

Magpie:
I don't see how it flies in the face of biology. It was coined and 
used by advocates for gay rights (whether it's exclusively by them I 
don't know) but it's not surprising that that's where it would come 
from. These are the people drawing attention to the marginalization 
as a bad thing and would need a word to describe it--if you think 
this is the way things should be you probably wouldn't name it (or 
you'd call it "keeping the perverts out of the public eye!" or 
something!). But as I said I don't see how it flies in the face of 
biology at all since the word doesn't seem to have anything to do 
with saying that babies are made any other way than the way that 
they are made. It's talking about the social and cultural aspects, 
isn't it? I've never heard it used to state that males and females 
don't exist. (Whether they're always distinct I'm not prepared to 
say, given transgendered people and hermaphrodites.)


CJ:

> Now if one wishes to discuss cultural conceptions and biases 
against 
> homosexuals that's great -- it's certainly a valid discussion. But 
> attempts like the above to reduce scientific fact to mere cultural 
bias 
> are ludicrous.

Magpie:
I thought they were discussing cultural conceptions and biases. Male 
and female can be cultural conceptions and biases as well as 
biological facts. In fact it seems liek it's the cultural 
conceptions and biases that are far more pressing a lot of the time!


CJ: 
> But, at least if Wikipedia is trustworthy, those who coined and 
use the 
> word DO intend to include biology under the rubric. Denying or 
disputing 
> concepts of masculine and feminine is one thing. Denying the 
existence 
> of male and female is something else entirely.

Magpie:
I can't speak for Wikipedia, but in my experience of the word it's 
never been used to talk about anything but social and cultural 
ideas. That's the way I've always used it. So when I've heard it 
used re: HP it's not ever been to say that the books show males and 
females as two distinct things. It's not described as 
heteronormative because Hermione's a girl and Ron's a boy.

> Magpie:
>  > I meant normal as in usual, sane, a natural occurance.

CJ: 
> Well, "sane" to my ear includes a moral dimension, which I'm 
trying to 
> avoid in my discussion. By "usual" I'm sure you don't 
mean "usualLY" 
> which means "most of the time". If by "usual" and "natural" you 
simply 
> mean "happens a lot", I'm sure you'll agree that that alone is 
> insufficient -- there are many things which happen "a lot" that we 
> disapprove of notwithstanding.

Magpie:
I mean happens enough, I guess. "A lot" not meaning "usually" 
because there are more straight people in the word by numbers, but 
this is a not unusual and unremarkable variation. Whether we 
disapprove of it is basically cultural or personal. So to look 
around my office, for instance, I think all my co-workers are normal 
people. Some of them are also gay. Some people would consider that 
not normal. To me it's just a pretty common variation, one of the 
ways people are born. "Usual's" kind of a vague word, of course, but 
for me while I wouldn't call it "the usual" I certainly wouldn't 
call it "unusual." HP seems far more unusual to me in the total lack 
of gay people.
 
CJ:
> Second, we need to disambiguate the intent of the actor from the 
purpose 
> of the act. Just because *my* purpose in having sex is something 
else -- 
> probably pleasure -- doesn't change the biology of the act. A 
(rather 
> gruesome) analogy: I use a hammer to kill my neighbor. Just 
because *MY* 
> purpose was murder doesn't change the fact that murder is *not* 
the 
> purpose of a hammer. Sure, it's a *use* (though not, in this case, 
a 
> legitimate one) to which a hammer can be put, but that's a 
fundamentally 
> different question.

Magpie:
A hammer has a use because it was invented by someone for that use--
when we say it's "use" is not killing we're referring to a lot of 
ideas of specific people. A "war hammer" otoh, is made in order to 
kill people with. They are both hammers. The difference is kind of 
arbitrary. If people making a baby via man/woman sex (or in vitro or 
insemination) is "hammering" then maybe just having sex for the 
other things it does--social, physical, emotional etc.--is "war 
hammering." I don't think any same sex couple would try to suggest 
their sex was creating a baby, but they would probably say it was 
still sex. And I would agree, because that would feel true to me. If 
they need another word for sex when it's not making a baby, so would 
all the straight couples who have sex without that in mind, or when 
that isn't a possibility.

 
> Magpie:
>  > Just because something isn't the original primary purpose for
>  > something doesn't mean it's not a purpose at all, does it?

CJ: 
> Again, if by "purpose" you mean "use" and "intent of the actor (as 
> opposed to the act)" the I would absolutely agree. But just as 
using a 
> credit card to open doors tells us a lot more about our 
imaginations as 
> human beings than it does about the nature of a credit card, so 
the fact 
> that *we* can find a multitude of purposes for sex (anything from 
> pleasure to selling cars) is barely relevant to the biology of sex.

Magpie:
But what does this have to do with gay rights at all? We know as 
humans that we have sex all the time without the possibility or 
intention of making a baby. Why is that so important when it comes 
to gay couples doing it? The biology of sex very often doesn't lead 
to making a baby, and humans do it anyway. Why is this so relevent 
to gay rights, that two men or two women doing what we'd 
call "having sex" doesn't ever lead to one of them getting pregnant? 
It's a difference, I just don't see why it's so important a 
difference. It makes them no different than a straight couple who 
won't ever get pregnant as far as I can see.

-m