The “coming out” paradigm has become
rather mainstream (which I actually think is a good thing). But as a result of
the mass appeal of “coming out,” it has become sexy and trendy to critique the
process of “coming out” for how it reinforces heterosexism. The critique has
some validity. After all, why don’t heterosexual people have to “come out” of
the closet? However, I resist asserting that the “coming out” paradigm is
completely useless or unproductive.
“Empire” television series star Jussie
Smollet appeared on Ellen DeGeneres’ talk show ostensibly to promote the series and to speak about his portrayal of
Jamal Lyon. However, the interview quickly turned personal as DeGeneres seemed
to imply a connection between Jamal Lyon’s “coming out” in a recent “Empire”
episode and Smollet’s own personal life.
Smollet answered without hesitation
that there “is no closet” he has ever existed within. Mainstream LGBT-themed
media outlets like The Advocate quickly published stories about
Smollet’s “coming out”
on DeGeneres’ show. After seeing some of these articles, I came across a
segment about Smollet’s statement on writer Janet Mock’s MSNBC show “So
Popular,” and her discussion of Jussie Smollet’s interview initiated my own
meditation on queer
visibility. Indeed, every LGBTQ-themed publication, writer and
activist seemed to ready to voice an opinion about what the “Empire” actor’s
statement means or does not mean for the visibility of queer people.
In her segment on “So Popular”, Janet
Mock mentioned “inviting in” as an alternative language and framework for how
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people choose to announce
themselves to the world. I believe that this is also a valid choice for queer
people.
But I think what is missing in this
push and pull between “mainstream” and “radical” is the fact that many of us
existed in contexts in which we were given neither of these choices. For people
like myself who have never “passed for heterosexual” (not that I believe
“passing” is at all liberating), “coming out” and “inviting in” are not really
options because people are perpetually speculating about us, discussing our
business, and often “inviting themselves” into our spaces.
Indeed, many of us existed in spaces
where our sexualities were so ruthlessly pathologized that “coming out” would
have been an invitation for all kinds of violence and abuse. Concurrently,
there were not many trustworthy or safe people to “invite in” – people with
whom to discuss our fears, our despondencies. So we formulated our own
pragmatic tactics for navigating these hostile environments.
I threw myself into my schoolwork. I
kept quiet. I kept my head down, and I prayed that people would just leave me
alone because I was filled with such a profound sense of shame and fear.
After all of the language policing and
intellectualizing, I wonder what makes sense for those of us who have existed
and continue to exist in geographies of virulent queer antagonism and shame.
Are either “coming out” or “inviting in” viable choices for us? How do we work
against an LGBTQ assimilation politics while also respecting that some of our
people are still lacking choices? Can we work towards having the most available
choices for queer people and resist getting trapped in discussions around
language?
Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth are
still four times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide. I believe
that any measure of visibility, no matter how mainstream, creates a glimmer of
hope for these youth. Let the people who want to “come out,” come out. Let the
people who want to “invite in,” invite people in. But respect the rest of us
who choose alternative methods of navigating a heterosexist world.
No comments:
Post a Comment