Queer Purity and Gold Stars

gold star sticker on ruled paper with a handwritten note "well done!"Today’s post originates from an idea I wrote down literally five years ago, so it seems about time to draft the damn thing. I started thinking about it at an academic conference called Lavender Languages that I attended in 2012. The conference was on queer linguistics, but the papers presented covered a pretty broad range of subjects. One was about gold star lesbians, and another was about barebacking and intentional exposure to HIV risk in gay male communities–from what I remember of the latter presentation, there was a lot of talk about sexual transgression and what communities consider abject–how we view sex, “dirtiness,” and disease.

Those two papers kind of coalesced in my mind and I started thinking about community narratives of purity vs. transgression. Of course, most queers are up on the purity myth and don’t focus on the construct of virginity, or shame other queers for sexual transgressions. But I do think there are subtler messages at work within the community, and they come up especially in how we think about trans lesbian sexuality.

Here are some of the cultural trueisms I’ve learned at various points from the queer community and more mainstream sources

  • Virginity refers to whether a penis has entered a vagina.
  • Virginity might also refer to whether a penis has entered an anus?
  • Virginity isn’t necessarily a useful concept to queers, but if you’ve never touched or had your mouth on someone’s genitals, probably you’re a virgin?
  • Gold star lesbian means that you’ve never either kissed, or dated, or had sex with a man, depending on whom you ask.
  • Lesbians do not like penises.
  • Penises are dangerous/scary/threatening.
  • Penises are the most likely body part to spread disease.

Obviously, a lot of that is bullshit, but taken together, I think it makes a telling point about the stories queer people learn and disseminate related to sex, “purity,” and transgression. While queer women don’t get a lot out of the concept of virginity, for example (and it doesn’t even make sense to queer sex), there’s still this idea of the gold star. And some queer women who don’t care about gold stars do care about women-only sexual space and community. Such space needs boundaries to exist–in other words, these spaces may not insist on “purity” but they do create a border that can be transgressed.

At least when I was hearing about the idea of the gold star, there was an assumption, like there is with women-only sexual space in many communities, that gold star means no penises. There might be women who claim the gold star label who’ve had trans women partners, and there might also be trans women who claim the gold star–in which case, awesome for those women–but that’s not how I’ve seen it used. I’ve always heard an undercurrent of concern about the threatening and/or infecting phallus in these discourses, which presumably excludes trans lesbians with external genitalia. (Of course, many trans women with external genitalia don’t have a penis, by self-definition, but this kind of discourse seems to be more about perception than identification.)

Anyway, I’m curious if any of these thoughts resonate with readers. I’m not a queer woman, and not active in a queer women’s community, so I’m really just speculating, but I have an interest in language and how our communities think about sexuality. And I’m especially interested in, and will continue to muse on, how we think about sexuality as dirty or transgressive or abject in contrast to some hypothetical “pure.”

About Avory

Avory Faucette is a queer feminist activist, writer, and public speaker. Zie graduated from the University of Iowa with a JD in 2009, focusing on international human rights and gender/sexuality issues in the law. Hir current work focuses on queer identity, policy, and marginalized identities under the queer umbrella. As a genderqueer person, zie comments frequently on non-binary identity, transgender and genderqueer issues, and media coverage of these populations. Zie also speaks at colleges, universities, and events on transgender and queer issues and conducts trainings on related topics.

Posted on February 15, 2017, in queer, sex and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. As a nonbinary trans boyish person formerly identified as a bisexual woman and then queer woman, this definitely resonates. I have spent time in both lesbian and queer communities and find these messages have been really toxic to me. I think they culminate in the “no cis men”/”no straight cis men” sentiment and are usually claimed as “safety” measures against the supposedly dangerous man (aka dangerous penis) but ultimately are transphobic and transmisogynist, and perpetuate myths and norms about who is a “real” queer/woman/lesbian etc. (I have a lot of feelings/thoughts about this and could go on and on – thanks for the food for thought. There’s also this excellent article by Brook Shelley which coalesced a lot of my thinking on this: http://the-toast.net/2016/04/18/everyone-but-cis-men-creating-better-safe-spaces-for-lgbt-people/)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: