LGBT: The Narrative of a People

Throughout the course of the term we have discussed the different plights of the LGBT community, and their struggle with the pressures of dominant society. Through books articles and movies, the story of a people has began to unfold. The course materials were only one side of the story although, the conversation of the class brought out a much different dynamic in the story. Through personal experiences and confessions of ignorance, much more than what was contained in the lines of the readings we were given emerged.

Homosexuality began as a pathology, as a disease, something to be feared and loathed, and potentially cured. Through that categorization though, came the basis for forming an identity separate from the false accusations of disease. This story of a people definitely is characteristic of one that will require major work to achieve a dynamic end result. I recently spoke of the issues with the gay and lesbian community not wanting to accept transgendered people as a part of the community, but where do they think the rise of transsexuals came from?

If homosexual acts existed before it was categorized widely as a disease, and the grouping of the supposedly "sick" people bred the strength and thought necessary to create an identity apart from that, one of pride that would lead to the Stonewall movement why can that gay identity of visibility and drag queens and butches not have bred Transgenders? If sickness could carve out an identity for a group of people, and what an identity it was, why not the expression of pride in such difference create the strength and courage for a transgender identity? In this instance how could a group that in an essence gave birth to another, completely disown their own creation essentially? In the end though, any story has its ups and down.

Stonewall marked the true birth of the gay movement and considering its style of delivery in the book, integrated well into the narrative history of the gay movement. I say the gay movement because at that time that is all it was, a GAY movement. Bisexuals had not place, transgenders had no separate identity, they were simply full fledged queens because the spark had not yet come forth to invest in such technologies, at least in a sensibly fund efficient manner. As all things though, you must start small and work your way up, so all of the bisexuals and people who wanted to be fully trangendered honestly paved the way for the full LGBT acronym we have to day.

After finally making headway into a movement, being a full fledged "identity," if you will, the LGBT community then deals with the struggles of being accepted. I would still argue although, that as time progresses the definition for acceptance in the LGBT community will change. From the readings of Stonewall it was clear gay people just wanted to be treated as normal human beings whose feelings wouldn't have them categorize them as some biohazard or get them brutally beaten or killed in the street. Now acceptance is gay marriage, more media attention, and less oppression to have to conform to dominant heterosexual norms. This although is not a bad thing. The question has been asked, what will gays do when they gain so many rights and become so accepted that they are no longer different from dominant society because dominant society then includes them. I say that this will never happen because there will always be some new issue that comes up that gay people will wants rights to, as they should, therefore their identity will never become fully assimilated because their fight will never be done.

How is it that their fight will never be done, that their identity will never become watered down? This is because as long as there are still things around like HIV, and other disease that circulates heavily in the gay community, there will always be something highly negative to keep that stigma and marginalization alive. It is very ironic how the negativity of the world stemming from the stigma of HIV/AIDS stems from a positive test response. HIV has devastated the gay community, especially the males, and will for a very long time, if not forever bear the weight of that devastation. There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel though, and that light is called HAART.

Stonewall, emergence of new gay identity, HIV, civil rights, all are chapters in this narrative of the LGBT community. There are smaller more specific themes yes, but these are the major recurring themes that influences who people associated with the LGBT acronym are today. Like said before there are of course ups and downs in every story, much of this story has been downs, whether inflicted upon by dominant heteronormative society, or inflicted upon one another by dominant gay society the struggle will go on, the story will continue to be told. As I look back on all of the evidence I have garnered in the past culminating to this final post I hope that dominant society can soon learn to accept us. I have realized that much of the world's problem now is not homophobia, no one is really afraid of what gay people will do to them, it is homoignorance. For every person who believes every gay man flaunts pastels and can decorate your house to perfection, or conversely will go after any man he sees, or molests little boys because it is their nature, I blame ignorance. For every lesbian who is expected to be able to bench 400 pounds and have a shaved head I call it ignorance. For every bisexual person who is called greedy, confused, or scared, for every transgendered person who is called a freak, I hold ignorance responsible. Maybe one day our narrative can truly get better if it became a little less of a narrative, and a little more like at textbook.

LGB? That Doesn't Even Sound Right!

Monday in class, after a long ten week wait we finally get to Transgendered people. There had been small blurbs sparsely throughout the term, but mostly dealt with whether the "T" should even be included in the famous acronym. I say who more fits into this community that Transgendered people?! They are the most visible, go through the most change, are the most misunderstood, and in general have the most difficult life to live emotionally, socially and physically. Almost their entire being is case for oppression so how is it that another group, who also is criticized on the basis on their difference in the realm of gender "normativity" dare reject them? If this is not their community what is? The show Transgeneration on MTV was one of the few mainstream attempts to help bring some understanding to Transgender life and how difficult the transformation is for them. I personally never saw much of this show but I remember from what I did see race, socio-economic status, and location played even larger roles in their lives that gay or bisexual people could even imagine. It also worked to put faces on the stories that people hear and bring the personal emotion for a person in the situation that most people would never get in their lives alone.

Just from that short clip of Transgeneration alone, Raci exhibits many of the same issues as gay and bisexual people. She has a very hard time telling people she is a transsexual, even though she actively lives this life, and has no choice but to really be open because of her drastic changes, so it doesn't exude a sense of shame, but it is just difficult to talk to people in general, and especially those you care for about your situation. In this sense you see Raci COMING OUT, sound familiar? Before she even comes out there are whispers and insinuations about her, as told by the guy she is coming out to, because she had some gender traits that were suspect under the view of dominant society, sound familiar? These are the same issues gays and bisexuals face! There is no way anyone with half a brain could honestly exclude these people. In this sense bisexuals and transegenders have something very similar in common: both are discriminated and damn near unwanted by their own supposed community. I cannot even begin to fathom everything that transgender people face every day, but I can surely understand how it feels to be excluded by those who by traits are closest to you. So to transgender people I say hold steady! Bisexuals face strife with the community everyday still, but it is smoothing out, so even though you are still under debate whether you belong in the acronym, even we bisexuals take crap, so hopefully when you guys are fully actualized into the acronym you will be full accepted. Oh and you guys have a symbol too! Well you actually have many but I'll pick the one I like best.

HAART's Critque

Is HIV/AIDS still a crisis? Some would contend yes it is, but not in America because there are people who have lived full healthy lives despite their status. To me although I find it a complete falsehood. In class it is often referred to as a "gay disease" which I at first took offense to, but in actually one has to fact the grim fact that HIV is indeed a gay male centered disaster. The talk turned to the treatment for HIV, HAART. The way in which HARRT works still brings many ambiguities to the front of the line.



I as a pathologist made it my life goal when I was younger to find the cure for HIV/AIDS and cancer so I could find a way to distribute it reasonably to the masses. It is this deep root that holds my ultimate contempt for HAART although. In most cases the HAART treatment is only available to rather privileged people. A single month of HAART is around the $4000 mark which speaks of just how much privilege one would have to have to receive such treatment. Just to think of a hypothetical case, lets say John finds out that he has HIV when he is nineteen years old. For him to stay healthy to live one of the blissfully advertised "full lives" so maybe to eighty years old, it would cost him out of pocket $1,920,000. That is an insanely large sum of money on just that treatment alone, assuming that it works correctly all of the time and he does not have any other major illnesses.

For example's sake we can also assume that John is a fairly privileged middle class white male who is going to college to make something of his life. At nineteen years what person would have the type of money to pay for these treatments? Assuming his family background which a typical demographic of the majority, would his parents have the money for these treatments? Possibly with much sacrifice, and then how much and/or how long would his parents health insurance cover him?

The basis I am trying to argue is that even for the average privileged white family it would be more than a burden for then to try to carry. Now to think of all of the minorities and immigrants and poor people who would not even stand a chance at getting the FIRST treatment nevertheless a continuation of them, where does that leave them? This treatment though great and a much needed advancement is in my opinion dangled in the faces of those who cannot afford it and furthers whatever stress, depression etc; they may be having while dealing with the disease.

Of course everyone could quote the cliche phrase "Life is not fair" but honestly this in a way seemingly goes past not being fair almost into a state of abuse. Being an Black male myself I see everyday the inability of these treatments to my people brings to our community. Liking men in the Black community, actually most minorities is already seen as "being white" and less of a man, but then add on the added stigma of being a walking deathtrap it just makes it much harder. Though it is a dangerous lifestyle, it is this sort of stigma that encouraged the "Down Low" phenomenon, spreading HIV faster.

For those who can afford HAART, through health insurance or otherwise, getting down to an extremely low or undetectable viral load what does that do for their mentality? Many studies show that many of those with undetectable viral loads feel that they can go back to old habits of unsafe sex because they are relatively cured and if it does flair back up they have HAART to keep it down. When I first heard of people thinking and acting is such a manner I became immediately overwhelmed with disgust. In class we talked about those individuals needing to "watch themselves" and be more careful because they could mess themselves up, but what about OTHERS?! That is one of my biggest problems with HAART and those who adopt such mindsets because it is just the epitome of selfish and irresponsible behavior. Sure you may be find to the "cocktail" but how dare you put others at risk who could not be so lucky as yourself to be able to afford such treatments. It reminds me of the "circuit parties" and the many with the lesions "ruining it for everyone" that kind of behavior actually does ruin it for everyone, or at least those who they encounter.

At the end of the day I guess it all boils down to ignorance. Even though HAART is only available to the relatively privileged, I found it shocking that in my search for information and HAART education the resources were extremely limited. HAART may actually make vast improvement with a few changes. If the price was reduced even cutting it half would probably double the amount of people who could afford it. Also if there were more pushes for HAART education, not just to those who receive the treatment, but also to just the public, and all those who are interested the word could spread about what really happens with HAART and produce the dialog and action necessary to reduce its major flaws. "HAART is where you home is..." yea maybe if your home is the United States Treasury.

Gay Marriage: The Romantic and the Legalities

In class Wednesday we discussed the ever blazing topic of gay marriage. The issue that seemed to concern many students though was what aspects of marriage were we really discussing, the romantic or the legal? This is an issue of valid concern because it becomes necessary when things like civil unions come into the conversation, where the gay community can get the legal recognition in which they seek, but then the spiritual and romantic aspect is revoked. It is also very necessary to remember that the two facets are indeed intertwined though which is what causes many of the issues facing long term gay commitments today. The legal system has basically said that they will approve the legal facet but they cannot approve the spiritual aspect.

The world of spirituality is not yet ready to condone what gay couples do as "holy." A better way of of looking at it in a larger scope though is that is gay marriage is approved it will be placing a stamp on homosexuality as right. It is this that truly sits as unacceptable in most people's eyes. To allow gays to marry it is basically saying that two of the same sex can support a family just as well as a heterosexual couple, that two of the same sex can love one another in the same ways that a male and a female can, and most importantly in the spiritual aspect, that the sacred bond by the first couple, Adam and Eve, could have the same sacredness as say Eve and Elizabeth. This causes profound complications also because of the pure biological stance that men and women are the clear pair because they can create life, which if supposedly the most sacred of all.

Besides the completely erroneous claim about gays are unfit because they cannot make children, which is usually the end to the argument, because there is no true reason why a nonprocreative relationship is bad, what really IS so bad about nonprocreative relationships? People who even dare speak of the world's population dying due to gay people just spew ignorance because it is clear that there are not going be enough gay relationships in the world to ever cause that. Also these relationships since they are nonprocreative by nature open up more chances for the hundreds of thousands of children who don't have parents to be adopted into loving families that they would normally not have. Though the reasons are fairly simplistic and seemingly not hard to get over, there is just something about the notion of a gay couple that most people just cannot shake, thus continuing the ever steep uphill battle.


If all of the real angst comes from the spiritual aspect of gay marriage why weren't civil unions approved long ago? In that case, why is it that common law marriage does not apply to gays? The situation itself has nothing to do with getting married or it is simply the ability to recognize that two people have been together for a long period of time and built a life together therefore they most likely to have some stake in each other's possessions upon death or injury. In all aspects it would seem that the government would most normally apply such an instance to gay couples because they cannot officially get married.

In the end it all returns to the fact that the legal and spiritual aspects though CAN be thought about and discussed separately, they are still a delicately intertwined entity that whenever separated still some way bleed into one another. If a gay couple were to happen to find a priest that would perform the ceremony for them to join them in matrimony, they then have the issue of dealing with how they can have the government officially recognize their marriage. Then conversely if civil unions were made legal, gays would have most, not all of the same rights, but then they still don't have the gratification of marriage, it is just a union. This issue will never be resolved, because even if gays get the full right of marriage, the heterosexual community will still be in up in arms about it for years to come. In the end can this war ever be won?

So What About That 'B' In LGBT?

So Gays and Lesbians have their fight. They struggle with the issues of homophobia and heteronormativity and they have each other to to run to consistently. Transgenders though the most visible normally and taking the most visible stigma from dominant culture, just their bravery to change their gender warrants them the favor of community. So honestly what about that middle obscure group the Bisexuals? They are clearly the least visible in the community though. When it comes to identity all three of the other members have distinctly carved out boxes, but WHAT ABOUT BISEXUALS? That is a question even "living legend" Esther Newton could not answer in her visit to our class.

Esther Newton's visit was quite informative and enjoyable, and she gave some nice new perspectives to the way I view LGBT issues. She spoke of the boxes that exist, gay and straight, and how Gays and Lesbians play their roles against the dominant straight culture. When I asked about the role of Bisexuals and how did boxes play a role in our lives she could not give me a definite answer. Her answer stated that Bisexuals do not have this awkward choice of being in one box or the other, some sort of confusion, nor is it just a harmony of two boxes merged, but it indeed is it own box. I first had my own doubts about such a comment, even from one as prominent as Esther Newton herself, but after thinking of it I do believe she is right.

I came to the realization that her claim was at least at least basally correct because if one were to search the internet, or libraries about bisexuality it would be very scarce in consideration of the voluminous information that could be found about Gays and Lesbians. Actually in researching for this post, I found the resources to be most depressing. How is it that an entire category of people can garner so little thought and consideration?

Now logistically I am not inept, I understand there are not going to be entire bisexual movements and fights for "bisexual rights" because honestly only one half of our being is being oppressed. That being said the fight for gay rights fights to the same ends, thus winning similar rights for bisexual people as well. That being said, it makes sense when talking about the community it is acceptable to just say Gay and Lesbian right? I find that a bit problematic because it diminishes our identity in a way.

In the end bisexuals will still of course support the gay cause because it affects them as well. The marches, the prides, the oppression will still be shared to an extent with purely homosexual culture. Could there in the future though, be awareness for the stigma faced by Bisexuals by both Gays and Straights? Possibly for the constant coming out that we endure and grow weary of the explanation? Well there is hope for us apparently, it isn't much, but it seems we have a symbol now! Maybe we are actually coming up! Also of all of the sites that exist, which aren't many, there is one I approved of in attempting to explain our identity and didn't make us one dimensional or confused. Sad it is the best it gets as for references though.

Anal Sex Really Is Wrong?

Is the anus really meant for intercourse? That question is often posed because people see it as a wholly unnatural act, when between two men that is. The shocking realization is that anal sex is not as frowned up as one might think, but because it is the primary icon of gay male sex it is often looked upon as disgusting. A funny fact about thought abroad, anal sex, which was at one point illegal, is now legal in Singapore! The catch is it is only legal to heterosexual couples and the punishment for two men being caught in physical relations is up to two years in prison.

Though America does not have any major laws prohibiting anal sex amongst men, the media and dominant thought of the time perpetuate the act of male anal intercourse as wrong, and often time will associate AIDS as the punishment for such doings. As mentioned in class AIDS in America is definitely a gay man’s disease but the connotation and thought that follows that statement is in most cases very wrong. People who use biology to explain why anal sex between men is wrong and unnatural will make the claim that vaginal sex is RIGHT and that is why straight men did not get AIDS easily.

The common claim is that the vagina was specifically made for intercourse so it is tougher. In slang terms, it would go something like the anus was made to only have things come out and the vagina was made to have things go in. Funny enough though this thought is rather widespread and transcends all sorts of bounds like class, race, and religion, it could not be any more wrong. The pure facts are that any receptive sex partner has a higher risk for HIV transmission, vaginal or anal. In contention directly with the slang myth, the vagina was not made tougher so things could go in, quite the contrary it was made tougher so something generally about six times the size of the canal could come out. Pure science states that due to the stress intensive nature childbirth puts on the vagina it must be built stronger or people would not exist. The anus although was biologically made to carry fecal matter, a much less stress intensive product from the body.

Looking at the facts there is nothing that actually points to anal sex as wrong. This has actually been already established though, for heterosexuals at least. Heterosexuals who practice anal sex would not be branded as wrong, unconventional maybe, but definitely not so far as to say wrong. The question then is why are homosexuals still branded as wrong? The question lies in the emergence of HIV, but that is not much more than a manipulation of the media and government needing a scapegoat. The unfortunate truth is that gay men had a radical movement at the wrong time and because of such they were blamed for an epidemic. The epidemic extends worldwide and affects millions who are not male or gay, or possibly even old enough to know what HIV is yet it is still blamed upon gay men placing even more stigma upon them and their relationships.

Acceptance or Respect?

In class this week there was talk of acceptance and respect of the homosexual community. What is meant by respect and what is meant by acceptance? Can there be respect before acceptance and what exactly makes respect different in the first place? Some would contend that they could be interchangeably used, but with careful evaluation it is clear that respect holds a much deeper meaning and brings understanding and action to a whole new level. Acceptance by definition says that it is the act of having a “favorable reception” or “approval.” I contended, that the definition of acceptance and respect would ultimately change as time progressed when referring to members of the LGBT community because as most oppressed parties realize, they must take the baby steps given by the oppressors until they can reach a happy medium in some possibly distant future.

That being said, I would contend also that the acceptance that the pioneers of the gay movement wanted was much less acceptance than it was tolerance. From the definition of acceptance there still lies that need for a favorable reception, which is a large leap from complete oppression and disgust. Tolerance on the other hand is quite different, and seemingly much more on the lines of what the early movements strived toward. Tolerance asks for a non-oppressive, fair, and permissive reception, where as acceptance still awaits a favorable reception.

Another contention I would make is that members of the LGBT community still struggle for tolerance alone nevertheless acceptance and then respect. Examples of how even tolerance, which it could be argued has honestly been attained and we are thus on the way to acceptance, are easily found. One common and popular example is the issue of gay marriage. Also in class it was brought up some of the popular reasons how heterosexuals “on the side of the gays” validate their claims for gay marriage. A particularly interesting argument is “They can’t help what they are so we cannot discriminate what they are because of it.” While this is actually compelling and in most rights could be thought of as true, at what point does that view just resort back to homosexuality as pathology?

While the stance at hand may yield results, at what price do members of the LGBT community pay? After hard working individuals in the past worked to shake the stigma of sickness for their identity, what would they say if today’s generation simply reverted back to it in order to obtain rights? That then brings up respect; would the pioneers that worked so hard to free members of the LGBT community of that stigma respect their descendants? Then if there cannot be respect within ones own community, how can they then ask respect of others, especially ones that oppress them?

With the lack of an active and powerful LGBT movement now, actively fighting for rights with protests, demonstrations, etc, like the 1960’s what is to be said for the dreams of acceptance and respect? Society’s current state would seem to be a loosely kept sense of tolerance, that there are institutionally rules and laws against discrimination, but it is still widespread. Can the LGBT community ever move toward the once avidly aspired goal of acceptance and then possibly respect one day?

Stonewall: The Book

My first impressions on this book were that it was definitely much more interesting than my last reading on American Studies, or "Butches, Femmes, and Kikis." The author's structure of the book is quite dynamic as it recounts each of the protagonists' experiences, because it starts by giving a small window into their lives, and actually shifts the order in which it is told to the reader. Something about these tales from the celibate Foster to the rather... loose Jim, the vivid recounts of how each of these people came into the realization of their sexuality.

Craig- Craig with his neglect from his mother and then immediate transference to the all boys school was a great way to start the book in my opinion. The sympathy that we have for his situation in the start draws us into the book and keeps us reading, but then when it soon turns rather raunchy in his relationships with the other boys in the school, it quickly engulfs readers. I personally was rather confused with the emergence of the sexual roles of the boys at such an early age, because they were actively engaging and sex and they were like... 7.

Jim- After like two pages of Jim's story, in both parts I was just like, "Wow, Jim is a complete and total slut already!!" Jim made me wonder how and why a child his age would develop a sexual identity so quickly and at such an early age because his story is actually not the first time I had seen such an occurrence, it happened exactly the same to one of my best friends, so I was confused then and I'm still confused now that I know that he wasn't the only ho.

Yvonne- I like that there was a black voice in the book, and even more so that she was so powerful as was her mother. I became a bit disenchanted with her though when she kept letting trivial things overshadow her education, and I really thought she could have risen to the occasion more. I also like how her role help give a more active voice to the readings from Friday.

Ray- Ray for me was a superstar because, while pretty much everyone had that visibility that we emphasized in the LGBT movement, Ray had it the most. For Ray to be in full-face makeup for me was just striking. I know personally I could never have been in full face and patio pants at that age. I didn't have the desire to, and I also think that I have the awareness that Ray lacked, that people have stigmas about people who don't conform to the schemas set forth by society for gender behavior. Thus I honestly wonder if a lot of Ray's courageousness comes from his pure oblivion at what other people thought, when he was younger.

So far these are the biggest impressions I have gotten from the book. I hope that I will see more intriguing things unfold from the others soon so I can raise questions about them as well

Gender Roles

How long has there been such a thing as a “gender role?” Depending on your believe system, it could be one of the inherent fundamental properties of human life. Believers of the Christian faith are taught that men are the caretakers of the world in a sense and women are there to be their companion and support them. Looking at America, and its dominant culture, the consistent trend had been that the women should be submissive to the men and the men are supposed to take care of the family and do the killing in war. That most people can agree has remained pretty static, but the realm of gender roles unfortunately are not quite so shallow. As such there are many other traits of both men and women that have changed and been accepted and there are those that are still resisted or stereotyped. If one looks far back to what men used to be in Eurocentric culture, the essence of male behavior, the knights (go Carleton!) were much different from what we as the descendants of such culture think of men today. Knights were kind, compassionate, and courteous, took extreme pride in their appearance and hygiene, and openly showed emotion. Today’s male is to pretty much smell, fart, or belch profusely, not really care how he looks when leaving the house, not show emotion, to cry is to make him weak and “girly” and should not be overly compassionate to people. What would the revered knights of such lore think about the men they see today? They would more than likely be appalled at the behavior exhibited by today’s men. Something interesting is if one were to watch movies about knights, they would immediately see they have been updated to fit the macho male role of today. What does someone say about such a metamorphosis in thought? It brings up lots of interesting questions. Also, if one were to refer to the same sources, they would note that the “independent woman” of today, is not all that new of a concept. Though they had husbands, many women of feuding eras had to bring in money, and support their community, while taking care of their children because their husbands were away at war. The difference of today is women are actually declaring their independence noting that they don’t actually NEED men, rather than just doing all of the work, while still holding on to that vacant male figure.

So now that there is clear proof that gender roles have not always been this way, why is it so shocking and upsetting that they are changing again? When researching gender roles one can actually find a list of “Atypical Gender Roles.”It is increasingly clear that due to the rise of Homosexuality as an identity, born of pathology, that this is what causes gender roles to hold so much weight now and is held to be so taboo if one is to deviate from them. The fact that effeminate males and masculine females are now the poster images for gays and lesbians respectively, brings in that ever present burden of heteronormitivity when talking about gender roles. If all gay men played football and drank beer, and all lesbians loved kids, were submissive and adored pink and frilly clothes, people who deviate from these roles would not be so examined when they do deviate.

Homosexuality begins as a Pathology?

So this is my first blog and let us see how this goes!! So in class we discussed how the thought of homosexuality as a category, and it being applicable to people therefore creating a new group of people, first arose from the pure pathological studies of things associated with homosexual behavior. In earlier days, it was basically considered sodomy, making gay people sodomites but an identifiable group nonetheless. Personally I had always remembered homosexuality being existent far before thing, as far back as in the days of ancient Greece and Rome, so I decided to do some research. I found some interesting information in this site: http://oregonstate.edu/~blakena/cs195/final/Other/Writing/RomanHomosexuality.html that has surprising contrasts to today’s society. I especially found the attitudes toward Lesbianism interesting how opposite they are from today. Today Lesbianism is more accepted and it is seen as “hot” or desirable to have a woman who will have sex with another woman, where it says clearly in the ancient societies it was completely taboo and unheard of.

There was also talk of the relationship between sexuality and race. How they can be very similar in aspects like acceptance and assimilation, while being different when it comes to the basis of how their identity may have come to be. I honestly found these two concepts to be very similar because, though people cannot freely choose their race (though it can now be debated if people can actually choose their sexuality) they still can have a similar experience that people incur as in cases of race categorization. For example it was said that the LGBT community coming about due to being made pathology could only be looked at in an LGBT standpoint only but that is not entirely true. If a person were to find out that the strange episodes they have when the blank out and convulse violently made them epileptic then they too could rally together as a body of epileptic people who maybe do not want to be marginalized and underestimated because of this issue they may have. Same can apply with race, if a person who lived in Africa all their life and had never seen a White person had never seen people as “Black” or “White” but just people, may start to rally with similar people because of the difference they notice. Because they now know of this category that exists, maybe not according to their will at first, it still exists so they begin to own it and identify it and turn it into something positive for themselves.