Over at My Husband Betty, we’ve been having a discussion about the “down low” phenomenon, and how men on the down low generally do not consider themselves gay—and potential similarities to the “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” crowd—a small but extremely vocal groups of transsexual separatists who vehemently deny any link the trans communities (who they see as icky men in dresses), and who seem to think that they’re somehow oppressed by people saying that many transsexuals do consider themselves part of that community.
Anyway, I’ve been reading up on LGBT history and it turns out that folks in earlier decades had far more subtler approaches to sexuality than we give them credit for—and arguably more subtle attitudes than today.
For example, from the late 1800s through the 1920s in certain working class cultures in New York City it was acceptable for men to sleep with (and be in relationships) with “fairies” (effeminate gay men, who cross-dressed to a greater or lesser degree) and these men weren’t considered homosexuals. In part it’s because gender trumped sexual orientation, in other words, if you were “womanish” it was assumed you’d be attracted to men, and conversely as long as you assumed the “masculine” role, you weren’t perceived as homosexual, even if you were “trade,” i.e. masculine “straight” men who were willing to have sex with “fairies.” (“Trade” contrasted with “queers,” who were the “straight-acting” homosexuals of the day, and who were more apt to seek out other “queers” as partners.) While today we’d consider “trade” to be gay, the author notes that “trade” weren’t interested in having sex with men, rather they were interesting in sleeping with “women” who happened to be female bodied. (The overall shortage of women and strict segregation of the sexes in these communities contributed to “fairies” being an acceptable substitute for females.) So modern-day concepts seeing them as “closeted gays” or bisexuals, don’t really fit with how they saw themselves.
Another author raised the interesting point that intense prejudice against gays and lesbians during what he called the “closeted era”—the 1950s through 1980s, which were far more intense than earlier in the century—led those who came of age in those years, and particularly those who came out, to often see their homosexuality as their central defining identity. In contrast to both those who grew up earlier and later, for many of whom being gay or lesbian is part of their identities, but the not their core identity. (Albeit there’s a big generational difference—those who grew up before the “closeted era” usually compartmentalized their identities, a la those on the down low, while those coming of age in the 1990s and later, usually don’t compartmentalize.)
Anyway I thought there were interesting parallels on both counts to issues of identity with trans folks. For example, I see “crossdresser” and “drag queen” as parts of my identity, but while important identities, neither is the defining part of my personality—any more than my chosen career is.
Likewise, when I spent time at Crossdressers.com there were several lengthy discussion about the “attracted to men only when dressed” orientation that some folks there professed to. While I think there’s something to be said about being en femme allowing folks to acknowledge same-sex attraction, I also always felt it was a little simplistic to just chalk it up to “closeted bisexuality.” Since it it’s way, it seemed a bit parallel to the trans admirers (male and female) who explain their attraction in terms of finding the mix of masculine/feminine looks/energies appealing. (Again, I don’t deny that for some admirers there’s an apparent “plausible deniability” aspect, I’m just saying that attributing it to everyone seems simplistic.)
One other interesting historical tidbit—a number of New York’s drag balls were widely popular with the general public in the 1920s and 1930s. The largest drew thousands of spectators, including the socialites (the Rockefellers, the Astors, etc.)
There’s an interesting question—how many of the “fairies” might’ve been folks who today might see themselves a hetro-ish/bisexual sexual crossdressers? (Given the conceptions of the time presumed that if one was interested in presenting oneself/behaving as a woman, then one would “naturally” be attracted to men (and vice versa for women).) One of the books quoted extensively from the writings of one “fairy” who uses language strikingly similar to the common memes among crossdressers, i.e. having a female self, etc. It’might have been similar to how today some FTMs go through a period assuming they must be butches because they’re masculine female-bodied people who are are attracted to women, and how some FTMs who are attracted to men can have even more trouble realizing that they’re trans because they don’t have way to conceptualize what they feel.
I guess the difference I’d see is that those of the down-low may not see themselves as gay because there are other identities trumping that. (I’m presuming that they take the insertive role—which ties into older concepts of only being homosexual is you’re the “feminine”/receptive partner—which is also pretty common in other cultures.) Whereas the HBS crowd seems to be outright rejecting an identity they aren’t comfortable with—as the HBS crowd puts it: they were “always women,” they just had a birth defect.
