On Sexuality, Labels and Identity Say this were just any piece of writing, outside the context of this illustrious sexuality edition, with me blabbering on as I am. You, the reader, are bound (through practice) to make some assumptions: a. that this is the writing of a heterosexual and b. hopefully less likely in these days, the writing of a male. If, however, I was to say that I?m writing this as a homosexual, what would I mean and what would it mean to you? Essentially, is there some universal essence which comes from my deviant sexuality which determines the way I write and/or the way you read me? Outside of ?not being heterosexual?, I?m guessing not a great deal. Paraphrasing Gore Vidal when he said, "there is no such thing as the homosexual, only homosexual acts"; to define an individual?s identity by acts, sporadic or frequent as they may be, is to assume a universality of experience no-one would attempt to make by defining, ?the heterosexual?. Let?s elaborate on the ?not being heterosexual?. Unfortunately, this does mean something in a society where homophobia and societal oppression (along the lines of gender and sexuality) most definitely exist. Our variant experience of this oppression and its effects on our lives form a uniting aspect of ?not being heterosexual?. It permeates through (all) our lives on so many levels. At the level of the group, it effects our interwoven construction of gender and sexuality. It sets up boundaries for what is the right and wrong way to grow up; boys masculine and girls feminine. It places our childhood on an elevator to model human. By the time self-awareness dictates that you ain?t heading for the right floor, stepping off into the unknown is daunting. This conscious step into difference brings the individual into contact with the walls of the closet: the boundary which societal oppression constructs to keep sexuality locked away as a given. Breaking outside, (having a sexuality), means causing a disruption, undermining allegiance to assumed heterosexuality. Once outside, it means fear of violent attack from perpetrators of hate crimes and discrimination. It means regaining a youth lost to heterosexuality and the time taken to break free. It means risk of financial instability. It means testing family ties of support. The construction of the closet demands a clear boundary between who?s in and who?s out. Labels set out safe areas with boundaries which differentiate between those included and excluded, the normal and the deviant, the privileged and the oppressed. As such, the label of the homosexual (mardi gras) is constructed in opposition to the heterosexual (picket fence) to reinforce the boundary and the supposed unity (normality) of the heterosexual. Standing within the boundary (keeping the door of the closet open), undermines this boundary and opens up the possibility of sexuality as a continuum. Herein also lies the problem with labels such as lesbian and gay. When a gay community spokesperson starts to speak, who (is he) are they purporting to represent? The universal category of lickers or suckers? Individuals choosing to identify with labels such as straight, gay, lesbian and to a certain extent bisexual experience both positive and negative effects. Certainly for GLBT identified peoples, the act of uniting against real oppression is one of empowerment. However, for those coming to these models of identity, the options are limited and end up marginalising those who don?t fit within their contiguity. The illusion of static identity category (as presented by early gay+lesbian identity politics), stable across time and within itself, works with assumed heterosexuality to reinforce the binary opposition of homo:hetero and the walls of the closet. Oppression (not so easily) aside, it seems the only currency labels such as gay and lesbian have are as target markets. Gay-and-lesbian was an important step to emancipation and the comparative autonomy we feel today. However, we gotta destroy it before it becomes as set in stone and exclusionary as normative heterosexuality. We need to seek ?[a new politics], one that will take the variable construction of identity as both a methodoligical and normative prerequisite, if not a political goal.'1 We need to hear our stories (as opposed to story) which run against the fiction of normative heterosexuality but are not limited to a definition of difference from it. We need to open the space of untethered difference. With true equality and acceptance of difference within society we will deconstruct the walls. tim 1. Judith Butler, 'Subjects of Sex|Gender|Desire' published in Feminisms. as published in gravity - plus or minus a few editorial mistakes.