“Beautiful and Lofty Things”: Queer Appeals to Power and Turn of the Century Sexology

A presentation given at the trans/forming feminisms conference in Dunedin, New Zealand, on the 25th of November 2015. An expanded version of an earlier essay.


 

“How could it be unhealthy, that which makes a man happy and inspires in him beautiful and lofty things! His only misfortune is that social barriers and penal codes stand in the way of ‘naturally’ expressing his drive. This would be a great hardship.”[1]

The turn of the twentieth century is widely regarded as an extremely important era for sexology and the formation of the queer identities we know today.[2] It’s acknowledged as the period from which we get the labels, categories, and identities ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’, and sexological literature and discourse from the era has a pervasive impact on queer discourse today. However, sexology’s relationship with homosexuality is more ambiguous and complex than a simple and clear-cut categorisation into the homo/hetero binary, and its agents of influence have been heavily criticised both within academia and in queer circles. Today’s talk is in two parts: the first is a focus on Richard von Krafft-Ebing and his work and influence; the second continues a more general look at developments within sexology and their continuing influence on discourse.

In public discourse as well as areas of academia today, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s homo/hetero binary dominates. This model, a “presiding master term” as she calls it, is one in which heterosexuality relies on homosexuality for its own existence and definition.[3] It is often interpreted as a strict, mutually exclusive binary, and Sedgwick does not question exactly how binarised this model is.[4] The model is still useful, however, in noting a particular shift at the turn of the century: “every given person, just as he or she was necessarily assignable to a male or a female gender, was now considered necessarily assignable as well to a homo-or hetero-sexuality”.[5] This now significant shift was the result of many smaller changes in ideological thought at the time: from deviance, to inversion, to finally the shift in focus from sexual act to sexual object choice.

In 1886 Richard von Krafft-Ebing published the first edition of Psychopathia sexualis, a psychiatric text intended for lawyers and use in the justice system in distinguishing between crime and disease – the primary way same-sex attraction and behaviour was discussed in the era. Psychopathia sexualis categorised many forms of non-normative non-procreative sexuality, including sadism, masochism, fetishism, and ‘contrary sexual feeling’ or inversion – that is, same-sex attraction and behaviour. The work has been heavily criticised by many people from many backgrounds. Presentist historians, antipsychiatrists, queer theorists and historians alike have criticised Psychopathia sexualis for a form of medical colonisation and for medicalising sexuality and queerness. Thomas Szaz criticised Krafft-Ebing for aiming to “supplant the waning power of the church with the waxing power of medicine” and claimed that Psychopathia sexualis was full of unscientific falsehoods.[6] Some of these are not necessarily unfair critiques, but early sexology and Psychopathia sexualis in particular remains especially worthy of study considering its extensive autobiographical content and its pervasive influence on queer community and discourse as well as on the shaping of our model of sexuality.

Psychopathia sexualis’ significance, for me, comes from the extensive amount of autobiographies within the text and the relative freedom under which they were given. Earlier in his career Krafft-Ebing worked in places such as the overcrowded Feldhof Asylum, with generally poor and uneducated patients who were institionalised more for custodial care than treatment and who had no choice but to conform to medical standard and rule and share their stories involuntarily and surely with less respect and agency. But later and later editions of Psychopathia sexualis contained more and more volunteered autobiographical content from queer men. Unfortunately, these men were from a very singular and homogenous social and cultural class and experience – white, educated, wealthy, aristocratic, bourgeoisie. Krafft-Ebing eventually established a clinical ward in the university hospital as well as a private sanatorium led to more and more wealthy, educated, upper-class patients whose case histories were a lot more autobiographical and who would have had a lot more agency in telling their stories. Oosterhuis notes that homosexual men particular seized this opportunity.[7] Krafft-Ebing as well as Albert Moll, writing soon after, worked with both upper class clients with agency as well as lower class patients and those with otherwise lessened agency. Oosterhuis points this out nicely: “Lower class men, prosecuted sexual offenders, the hospitalised and most female patients were generally not in a position to escape the coercion which undeniably was part of psychiatric practice.”[8]

The primary focus of critiques of Krafft-Ebing and Psychopathia sexualis is one of medicalization. As Foucault claims, the delegating of sexuality to the realm of medicine started with the sexologists of the late 19th century. Our model of sexuality is medicalised because of them, and hard work has been done and continues to be done to undo this influence. However, a brief look at the alternative contemporary models of sexuality and queerness in particular reveals that we perhaps could have had it a lot worse. Urlich’s contemporaries in Britain were also advocating for decriminalisation and acceptance, but the prevalent model and experience of queerness among the British upper class was one of age difference. The ‘accepted’ queer among this class was an older aristocratic man who slept with much younger boys, both aristocratic and from lower classes. Although there were other factors in play, if the influence of this British aristocratic queer had been more pervasive than the German sexological influence, it could have resulted in a very different model to the medicalised Born This Way archetype we have today.

I am not as ready to defend Krafft-Ebing and sexology as a whole as historians such as Oosterhuis, nor am I as ready as Oosterhuis to dismiss the idea that sexuality was comprehensively medicalised by sexology and psychiatry in the era. Oosterhuis, in multiple papers on the subject, seems to believe that medicalization requires the complete, overt, and explicit domination of its subjects, and that as a result the subjects must have zero agency in the process. It seems to be his belief that because of the autobiographical content and because of the way at least those upper-class men were able to tell their stories freely and with agency that the concept of medicalization does not apply. It is true that Psychopathia sexualis and its autobiographies enabled ‘perverts’ and queer men to speak and be heard, and that it enabled voices usually silenced to be seen, and it is necessarily true that such autobiographical content exemplifies a level of agency not typically seen in some interpretations of Foucault’s theories of medicalisation. However, I assert that theorists like Oosterhuis are critically misunderstanding these theories, and suggest that the existence of a modicum of agency does not negate nor preclude the domination or hegemony of medicine and medicalisation. While the subjects may be given a voice, the medical field then utilises that voice to its own advantage – the agency of the autobiographies given by queer men of the time is used to strengthen the hold of medicalisation in the same way that queer men used the medicalisation of their sexuality to challenge the rule of law over their identity.

Because it is very clear that these men knew what they were doing in sending Krafft-Ebing their autobiographies; their appeal to power and the legitimacy of medicine is often made explicit in the autobiographies themselves. A ‘highly placed man from London’ (Oosterhuis’ words) wrote to Krafft-Ebing and said: “I believe that your perspective [that of same-sex attraction being an illness or disease instead of moral corruption] is most advantageous for us” even as in the same paragraph he rejected the word ‘unhealthy’ and indulged in “giving you some more relevant explications”.[9] In appealing to medicine, they strove to shift same-sex attraction and behaviour from the realm of crime and law to the realm of health and medicine – the primary drive in activism of the time, even as the men themselves vehemently denied being sick. In these autobiographies we see a very early example of the phenomenon made explicit by Lady Gaga in 2011: the ‘born this way’ archetype of queerness, or, in more academic terms, the innate or biological model of sexuality. Later editions of Psychopathia sexualis contained many letters discussing the fact that their perceived illness stemmed not from their nature or their sexual identity, but from the social barriers to that identity.

One man wrote in 1890: “Unfortunately, we are considered sick for a completely valid reason, namely, that we really became sick and that one then confuses cause and effect…”[10] These appeals surely had at least a modicum of success: by the 1890s Krafft-Ebing himself was putting his name to petitions to repeal laws criminalising same-sex behaviour; the early protest movements of the end of the century referred to Krafft-Ebing as a scientific authority; and after signing Magnus Hirschfeld’s petition in 1897 Krafft-Ebing contributed his last article on homosexuality in which he stated that there was truth to the opinion of his queer correspondents, argued that it was a condition that had to be accepted, and even attributed an equal ethical value to same-sex and heterosexual love.[11]

The appeals to power we see in the autobiographical content in Psychopathia sexualis are not a thing of the past – today we would probably refer to them as respectability politics, playing to the desires and norms of those in power in order to obtain a modicum of that power – or more likely simply a modicum of humanity – ourselves. The case for gay marriage is a significant example of this kind of appeal to power; moulding ourselves and our relationships to a heterosexual standard to the detriment of those who do not wish to conform or play to respectability. Instead of extending the rights of the married – such as immigration policies, adoption, healthcare and insurance coverage, even simple things such as visitation rights to a hospitalised partner – to those who are unmarried or not in a civil partnership, the gay marriage campaign has simply extended the right to marry. It is worth noting that this particular appeal to power gained so much popularity and focus within the community and without that other issues, such as the wellbeing of queer and trans youth, the treatment of transgender prisoners, the life expectancy and death rates of trans women of colour – have fallen to the wayside.

Money also plays a big part in the gay marriage issue – in California, gay marriage campaigners spent $48 billion opposing prop 8 when California’s provisions for domestic partnership provide almost the exact same benefits – $48 million on essentially symbolic acceptance.[12] It’s also interesting to note that in countries that have legalised gay marriage, funding to queer organisations and activists has dropped significantly – there’s an obvious pattern in the states of once multimillion dollar statewide equality organisations either shutting down or being rendered useless due to a lack of funding.

Appeals to power and respectability politics can be utilised positively, however, even in radical queer activism. For example, No Pride in Prisons is a resolutely abolitionist organisation, but that aspect of our politics is necessarily played down in media releases and social media communications in order to gain the support of the more liberal majority and especially in order to successfully communicate and negotiate with the officials we desperately despise and wish did not exist at all. It has results; during our hunger strike for Jade Follett, a trans woman being held against her will in a men’s facility, No Pride in Prisons remained in the media well beyond the 24 hour cycle that typically decimates activism, making it to the front pages of Stuff, TVNZ, 3 News, and the Herald three times that week and obtaining a significant-length report on the 6 o’clock news. The strike was quickly successful, and this can be attributed to the amount of pressure on the Department of Corrections that stemmed from both extensive media coverage and significant online support. Such coverage and support would not have been possible if we instead sat on K Rd with signs saying “move Jade Follett and close down Rimutaka” – in this case, the appeal to power is not the end game, but rather a step towards full abolition. The goal is not immediately feasible, so we must make sure that those subjected to the violence of the prison system are kept as safe as possible until the prison system no longer exists.

Unfortunately, there is no sign of the ‘born this way’ appeal to power of queer men at the turn of the century being a step in a larger plan, and it is only in relatively recent years that the medicalisation of queerness and transness in particular has begun to be addressed in queer activism; for example in the challenges to the placement of homosexuality and the shift from ‘gender identity disorder’ to ‘gender dysphoria’ in the DSM. Current activism seeks to remove transness from the DSM completely, instead focussing on its placement in the more extensive International Classification of Diseases, where it could be placed in a category of health conditions instead of disease or illness.

Sexology’s initial discussion of same-sex attraction and behaviour in terms of deviance and disease in order to argue that conditions such as inversion, or contrary sexual feeling, were pathological and thus in the realm of medicine as opposed to law or religion lead to the early medico-sexological position that same-sex attraction had two forms: congenital and acquired, as Krafft-Ebing called it, forms of antipathic sexual instinct.[13] Krafft-Ebing also made a distinction between perversity and perversion: acquired antipathic sexual instinct was temporary and contextual; the determining factor was “the demonstration of perverse feeling for the same sex; not the proof of sexual acts with the same sex”.[14] He warned against confusing perversity and perversion, acquired and congential, and stated that there was “an immediate return to normal sexual intercourse as soon as the obstacles to it are removed”.[15] In contrast, congenital antipathic instinct stemmed from a pre-existing taint in particular individuals. In these cases, the ‘homosexual instinct’ overwhelmed the ‘heterosexual instinct’, a concept that prefigures later discourse on the subject.[16] Krafft-Ebing’s model of same-sex attraction included some notions of hereditary taint as well as influences such as masturbation and seduction.

His model was one of morality, “the eternal struggle between a bestial sexual nature and the demands of civilized culture”.[17] This particular area of Krafft-Ebing’s thought was verified by Albert Moll, writing eight years later, who agreed that same-sex desires could stem from either hereditary or contextual causes. Moll however did not agree with or make use of Krafft-Ebing’s distinction between congenital and acquired inversion. Significantly, Moll expanded the contextual causes of inversion to include individuals who may experience temporal same-sex desires: someone “‘seized from time to time with homosexual desires’, even when a ‘heterosexual urge’ predominates within him”.[18]

The next major development came three years later in 1896 with Havelock Ellis’ Sexual Inversion. Ellis did not conceive of same-sex desire as pathological, and heavily questioned the notions of pure or exclusive masculinity and femininity, arguing that everyone possessed ‘male’ and ‘female’ characteristics, and that the proportions of these varied in individuals. Ellis also proposed a new distinction between inversion and homosexuality, in which inversion was innate and homosexuality was the result of sociocultural context (for example, rates of homosexuality would increase in homosocial contexts such as boarding schools or prisons).[19] This new distinction replaced the model of congential vs acquired in his work, as Ellis found it had “ceased to possess significance”.[20] Ellis already was questioning the usefulness of homo/hetero categorisations, calling them “scarcely a scientific classification”, instead breaking down his notion of homosexuality into two forms, one ‘strong’ and one ‘weak’, including men who may have relationships with women.[21][22]

Ellis’ work led naturally to the work of Freud, even though they worked in different fields. Freud built on Ellis’ work and took it further, arguing against the existence of congenital attraction, due to his tripartite model of sexual attraction including ‘occasional inversion’, a preference for same-sex partners under certain contextual conditions.[23] Significantly, Freud believed in a polymorphous model of attraction, under which individuals can potentially desire any sex: “it is something which is congenital in all persons”.[24] This universality challenged existing thought around inversion: if the potential for perversion was universal, then there could be no easy physical indication of inversion, and as such an individual’s sexual object choice was unlinked from their gender presentation. Freud also introduced a distinction between sexual aim and sexual object choice.[25] Prior to this, sexual aim was inextricably linked to social and gender role – if a man’s sexual aim was passive, he must be effeminate – and was of equal importance to object choice in classifying and categorising sexuality.

Chauncey lays it out succinctly: “’men,’ whether biologically or male or female, necessarily chose passive women as their sexual objects.”[26] By the turn of the century object choice became the focus of classification, and due to the universality in Freud’s model, the passive or active sexual aim was no longer indicative of social role. This is an important and large step toward the model of object choice homosexual identity we are familiar with today.

There is a link, as Chauncey points out, between distinction of object choice and sexual aim and the increasing use of the term ‘homosexuality’.[27] During this time the term’s definition also crystallised, referring only to homosexual object choice without automatically implying gender variance or inversion of the normative male sexual role. It is interesting and important to note that this shift occurred significantly slower for women – Freud explicitly stated that social role inversion was a normal feature of female sexual inversion in his Three Essays, the same work in which he unlinked social role from sexual role for men.[28]

Earlier sexology, when studying relationships between a ‘masculine’ woman and a normative woman, tended to focus on the ‘masculine’ woman as the invert, considering the normative woman to be performing her proper social role under the heterosexual paradigm of the Victorian era, as Chauncey called it.[29] Under this paradigm the normative woman, who was passive and “decidedly feminine” according to Hamilton in 1896, was fulfilling her expected social role by acting as wife to someone of masculine character – as if she were married to a man.[30] As such the ‘feminine’ agent did not challenge the heterosexual paradigm and was not a major subject of study until the late nineteenth century. It is interesting to note that this relationship paradigm described the ‘masculine’ partner as the ‘offender’, and referred to the ‘feminine’ partner as “the weak victim”, mirroring and potentially influencing more current discourse and ideas around lesbians and lesbian partnerships: that is, the trope in public discourse of the ‘predatory’ lesbian, and intra-community discussions around butch/femme relationships.

By the late nineteenth century these women began to concern the medical profession, and Ellis stated “we are accustomed to a much greater familiarity and intimacy between women than between men, and we are less apt to suspect the existence of any abnormal passion”.[31] This is another area in which sexology’s influence has perhaps remained in more current discourse, or at least in which it can continue to provide an insight. Such ideas are commonly seen in tabloid-like news articles about celebrities, in which any pair of women showing affection are labelled “gal pals” and assumed to be friends. Headlines in such articles can read as ludicrous, such as “Kristen Stewart gets touchy-feely with her live-in gal pal Alicia Cargile”.[32]

Study of these ‘invert/normative’ relationships began to break down the heterosexual paradigm, as both partners were pathologised as lesbians due to object choice instead of sexual aim. The ‘wife’s role was no longer of victim but of active and complicit – however it was not until the late 1920s that it was ‘discovered’ that neither partner in these relationships was ‘playing the role of the man’ when a study performed by Lura Beam and Robert Latou Dickinson revealed that no lesbians in their study thought of themselves as performing the male part.[33] This challenge to the heterosexual paradigm served to highlight the shift toward object choice as the focus in classifying female sexual identity alongside male.

When considering sexology’s ambiguous relationship to homosexuality it is also important to examine possible cultural influences on the literature and vice versa – whether societal or medical shifts in thinking came first. Chauncey offers three developments in American society that he considers were an influence on sexological thinking: the visibility of urban gay male subcultures, the challenges posed to Victorian norms by women, both in the form of suffragettes and in women entering the wage-labor workforce, and the resexualisation of women in mainstream thought that stemmed from these challenges. Chauncey also cites medicine’s rise to ideological superiority over religion and law as influential.[34]

The entrance of women into the workforce led to a higher degree of social and economic independence, at the same time that marriage and birth rates in the middle-class were declining. In the 1880s onward this led to a crisis of masculinity of some sort as women were no longer reliant on men for economic support as well as other unrelated factors such as declining autonomy in men’s workplaces.[35] These challenges and the resulting crisis, Chauncey argues, led to a “sudden growth in the medical literature on sexual inversion” as a way to defend the existing sex/gender system and potentially stigmatise women who were performing a non-normative social role of independence as inverts and deviants. Ellis, in Sexual Inversion, quoted an unnamed “American correspondent” who stated that one of the reasons for the rise in inversion was “the growing independence of the women” and “their lessening need for marriage”.[36] Despite these challenges from medical literature, women in the early twentieth century were gaining more freedoms and experiencing a resexualisation in popular thought – likely due to the increased economic necessity of marriage. If women no longer needed to get married to support themselves, then there should be another draw to it: sexual desire. This shift occurred alongside homosexual object choice being increasingly condemned for women, likely again as a means to protect heterosexual marriage.

An increase in concern about gender non-conforming men is linked to case histories of queer men indicating existing subcultures which were increasing in visibility, especially in New York, and as early as the 1880s.[37] It is important to note that the men in these case histories were identifying themselves as part of these subcultures, a significant step toward identity formation, and that these subcultures pre-dated the medical literature about them – as Chauncey states, “[t]hey were investigating a subculture rather than creating one”.[38]

As such, it is clear that medical and sexological literature was not acting alone or in a vacuum, but was influenced by and even responded to shifting social norms. These areas of sexology in particular are worthy of note and study as they relate heavily to current discourse: heterosexual marriage is still viewed as ‘under warfare’ by the conservative right, for example, and queerness is still overwhelmingly thought of in the ‘born this way’ paradigm exemplified in the pathologisation and medicalization of same-sex desire as well as in the case notes and autobiographies in both Krafft-Ebing and Moll’s work.[39]  

Additionally, as current discourse around sexuality encounters more and more fluidity beyond the hetero/homo binary and indeed beyond the additions of bisexuality, pansexuality, and so on, such as the existence of “gay for play” men, which refers to men who self-identify as straight but submit Casual Encounter listings on Craigslist looking for men to have sexual interactions with, and the “g0y” movement, an identity claimed by men who love men but do not identify as gay, queer, or homosexual, and who abhor anal sex, thorough analysis on the construction of hetero and homosexual identities and the fluid possibilities that preceded their dominance is especially significant.[40]

 

 

 

 

Bibiolography

Brickell, C., ‘Sexology, the Homo/Hetero Binary, and the Complexities of Male Sexual History’, Sexualities, 9, 4, 2006

Chauncey, G., ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality: Medicine and the Changing Conceptualisation of Female Deviance’, in K. Peiss and C. Simmons, eds, Passion and Power: Sexuality in History, Philadelphia, 1989

Dettmer, Lisa. Beyond Gay Marriage, Weaving the Threads, 17, 2, 2010 http://reimaginerpe.org/node/5822

Ellis, H. ‘Sexual Inversion in Women’, Alienist and Neurologist 16, 1895

Ellis, H., Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume II: Sexual Inversion (3rd edn). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis, 1918 (1896)

Freud, S. Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex, (2nd edn, trans. A.A. Brill.) New York: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing, 1920 (1905)

Hamilton, A. M., ‘The Civil Responsibility of Sexual Perverts’, American Journal of Insanity 52, 1896

Krafft-Ebing, R., Psychopathia Sexualis. New York: Physicians and Surgeons Book Co., 1932 (1902)

Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia sexualis, 5th ed., 1980

Krafft-Ebing, R., Psychopathia Sexualis, 14th ed., 1912

Krafft-Ebing, R., “Zur ‘conträren Sexualemfindung’ in klinishc-forensicher Hinsicht”, 1882

Mailonline Reporter, “Kristen Stewart gets touchy-feely with her live-in gal pal Alicia Cargile as they celebrate star’s 25th birthday at Coachella”, Daily Mail Online, accessed 13 October, 2015, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3046645/Inseparable-Kristen-Stewart-enjoys-Coachella-live-gal-pal-Alicia-Cargile-three-days-25th-birthday.html

Moll, A., Perversions of the Sex Instinct (trans. Maurice Popkin). Newark: Julian Press, 1931 (1893)

Oosterhuis, H., ‘Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s “Step-Children of Nature”: Psychiatry and the Making of Homosexual Identity’, in K.M. Phillips and B.Reay, eds, Sexualities in History: A Reader, New York, 2002

Oosterhuis, H., ‘Sexual Modernity in the Works of Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Albert Moll’, Medical History, 56, 2 (2012), pp. 133-155.

Sedgwick, E. K., Epistemology of the Closet. London: Penguin, 1994

Szaz, T., Sex by Prescription. New York: Garden City, 1980

[1] Krafft-Ebing, R., “Zur ‘conträren Sexualemfindung’ in klinishc-forensicher Hinsicht”, 1882, pg 213-14.

[2] I use ‘queer’ and ‘queerness’ throughout this essay as shorthand for same-sex attractions and behaviour; however it is important to note that this term is anachronistic and may often pre-date any queer, homosexual, or same-sex attracted identity.

[3] Sedgwick, E. K., Epistemology of the Closet. London: Penguin, 1994, 11.

[4] Brickell, C., ‘Sexology, the Homo/Hetero Binary, and the Complexities of Male Sexual History’, Sexualities, 9, 4, 2006, 427.

[5] Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 2.

[6] Szaz, T., Sex by Prescription. New York: Garden City, 1980, pg 19-20

[7] Oosterhuis, H., ‘Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s “Step-Children of Nature”: Psychiatry and the Making of Homosexual Identity’, in K.M. Phillips and B.Reay, eds, Sexualities in History: A Reader, New York, 2002, pg 279

[8] Oosterhuis, H., ‘Sexual Modernity in the Works of Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Albert Moll’, Medical History, 56, 2 (2012), pp. 133-155.

[9] Krafft-Ebing, R., Psychopathia Sexualis, 14th ed., 1912, pg 430 (quoted in Oosterhuis, ‘Step-Children of Nature’, pg 281)

[10] Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia sexualis, 5th ed., 1980, pg 129-30. (Quoted in Oosterhuis, ‘Step-Children of Nature’, pg 281)

[11] Oosterhuis, ‘Step-Children of Nature’, pg 283.

[12] Dettmer, Lisa. Beyond Gay Marriage, Weaving the Threads, 17, 2, 2010 http://reimaginerpe.org/node/5822

[13] Chauncey, G., ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality: Medicine and the Changing Conceptualisation of Female Deviance’, in K. Peiss and C. Simmons, eds, Passion and Power: Sexuality in History, Philadelphia, 1989, pg 129.

[14] Krafft-Ebing, R., Psychopathia Sexualis. New York: Physicians and Surgeons Book Co., 1932 (1902), 188

[15] Ibid.

[16] Brickell, ‘Sexology’, 429.

[17] Ibid, 431.

[18] Moll, A., Perversions of the Sex Instinct (trans. Maurice Popkin). Newark: Julian Press, 1931 (1893), 139. Quoted in Brickell, ‘Sexology’, 432.

[19] Brickell, ‘Sexology’, 433.

[20] Ellis, H., Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume II: Sexual Inversion (3rd edn). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis, 1918 (1896), 83.

[21] Ibid, 87.

[22] Brickell, ‘Sexology’, 434.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Freud, S. Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex, (2nd edn, trans. A.A. Brill.) New York: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing, 1920 (1905), 6.

[25] Chauncey, G., ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality’, 123.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid, 124.

[28] Freud, Three Contributions, 8.

[29] Chauncey, ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality’, 125.

[30] Hamilton, A. M., ‘The Civil Responsibility of Sexual Perverts’, American Journal of Insanity 52, 1896, 505. Quoted in Chauncey, ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality’, 126.

[31] Ellis, H. ‘Sexual Inversion in Women’, Alienist and Neurologist 16, 1895, 142. Quoted in Chauncey, ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality’, 127.

[32] Mailonline Reporter, “Kristen Stewart gets touchy-feely with her live-in gal pal Alicia Cargile as they celebrate star’s 25th birthday at Coachella”, Daily Mail Online, accessed 13 October, 2015, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3046645/Inseparable-Kristen-Stewart-enjoys-Coachella-live-gal-pal-Alicia-Cargile-three-days-25th-birthday.html

[33] Chauncey, ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality’, 128.

[34] Ibid, 139.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ellis, Sexual Inversion, 261. Quoted in Chauncey, ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality’, 140.

[37] Chauncey, ‘From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality’, 142.

[38] Ibid, 143.

[39] Oosterhuis, H., ‘Sexual Modernity’

[40] “Gay for play” refers to men who self-identify as straight but submit Casual Encounter listings on Craigslist looking for men to have sexual interactions with. “g0y” is an identity claimed by men who love men but do not identify as gay, queer, or homosexual, and who abhor anal sex. For more, see http://g0y.org. For more analysis on the significance of non-queer identifying men engaging in same-sex behaviour, see Shields, J., Para: A Working of Contemporary Parasexuality, Auckland: Artspace NZ, 2015, http://artspace.org.nz/doclibrary/public/JenniferKatherineShields_para.pdf.

Advertisements

NO PRIDE IN PRISONS: HUNGER STRIKE FOR JADE FOLLETT

Copied and pasted press release from No Pride in Prisons.

Transgender and queer activists are planning a hunger strike, demanding the transfer of an incarcerated trans woman to a women’s facility. Jade Follett is currently being held in the Rimutaka men’s prison, despite requesting more than two months ago to be transferred to a women’s prison.

According to the group, No Pride in Prisons, Jade is in a precarious situation. ‘We’ve received correspondence from Jade saying she requested transfer to a women’s facility in June, and has yet to see any action taken on behalf of the Department of Corrections,’ says spokesperson Jennifer Katherine Shields.

‘We are very worried about Jade. Although she’s a very strong woman, we know that a men’s prison is not a safe place for a trans woman.’

The group has pointed to a 2007 study which shows that trans women were 13 times more likely than the general population to be sexually assaulted in men’s prisons.

‘However,’ Shields says, ‘the reality of the problem for trans people in the New Zealand prisons cannot be fully known. Corrections refuses to collect and release adequate information about trans women in prison, despite numerous Official Information Act requests.’

‘We are also calling on Corrections to release information regarding the number of trans prisoners across the country, including what facilities they are being held in.’

The group has informed the Department of Corrections that if she is not moved before the 27th of August 2015, they will stage a hunger strike.

‘Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity. The fact that Corrections hasn’t done anything about this for two months shows their complete lack of respect for trans people.’

‘We are calling on corrections to immediately transfer Jade to a women’s facility for her to serve out the rest of her sentence.’

According to Movement 03.05.04 of the Department of Corrections’ Prison Operations Manual, all this requires is approval from the Corrections CEO, Ray Smith.

‘Ray Smith must give immediate approval for Jade’s transfer.’

Strikers include prominent community figures and advocates, such as Jennifer Katherine Shields, Emilie Rākete, Aaliyah Zionov, Chase Fox and others.

‘We will hold daily vigils on Auckland’s K’Road until Jade has been transferred.’

‘We will not allow corrections to continue its transphobic disregard of Jade’s safety.’

Silence from Corrections: Ongoing OIA Requests and Evasive Answers About Incarcerated Transgender People

Over the last few months a few of us – specifically Sophie Buchanan and Emilie Rākete – have been putting in Official Information Act request after request to the Department of Corrections to try figure the fuck out what’s going on with transgender people who are incarcerated. I wrote about this before Corrections marched in Pride – that post has a handy but harrowing list of facts about the current (so-called ‘updated’) policy on trans prisoners.

A quick summary:

  • currently trans people are imprisoned according to their birth certificate; to change your birth cert you gotta go through Family Courts, a long and pricey process not available to most.
  • A trans prisoner can be moved if any Corrections staff has “doubts” about their sex/gender; ‘doubts’ includes strip searches.
  • If a trans prisoner has been convicted of “serious sexual assault” (more on that term later) they can never be put in the correct facility, despite studies proving that 53% of transgender people in prisons experience sexual assault (compared to only 4.4% in the general population)

The OIA Requests:

  • May 21st: “Information about transgender prisoners
    • This request was for relatively simple information about how many transgender prisoners there are, where they are, and why they were placed there. It also asked about procedures in place to protect trans prisoners, as well as rates of abuse.
    • The Department of Corrections refused to answer this request, stating “we cannot readily extract statistics about numbers of current and former transgender prisoners from our records, as this information is noted on individual prisoner records, which are de-activated when they are released from custody. In order to identify this type of specific information, we would be required to manually review a large number of files” and that this would not be “an appropriate use of our publicly funded resources”. They restated this twice in response to all three parts of this OIA request.
    • In response to the question about why this information is not requested, DoC stated “we only obtain personal information to help meet our legal functions to improve public safety and reduce reoffending”.
    • To try get DoC to actually give us some information, Sophie complained to the Ombudsman and put in 4 more specific requests.
  • June 20th: “Current number of transgender and intersex inmates
    • This was a simple request: “please provide the number of transgender and intersex prisoners currently in the prison system, to the best of your knowledge.”
    • Department of Corrections responded a full 12 days after the legal due date for their response. Again, DoC refused the request, once more stating “we cannot readily extract statistics about numbers of current transgender prisoners from our electronic records, as this information is noted on individual prisoner records. In order to identify this type of specific information, we would be required to manually review a large number of files” and that it would not be “an appropriate use of our publicly funded resources”.
    • In response, Sophie Buchanan specifically requested the number of “transgender” flags affixed to individual prisoner files as required by Prison Operations Manual M.03.05.01.05, which states:
      • “The custodial systems manager or on-call manager must: a) update IOMS with “Transgender” Alert, and b) record in the Alerts Comment Box the decision on initial placement and all the information that was available to inform that decision.”
    • and that if DoC deemed this once again too difficult, that individual prison managers (or equivalent) give an estimate of the number of trans and intersex prisoners in their individual facilities. This request was made on the 17th of August and it is my understanding that DoC have a month to legally respond. They have not yet.
  • June 20th: “Conditions of segregation in prisons
    • This was another simple request:
      • “please go into detail about the conditions of segregation in New Zealand prisons. If this request is too general, please specifically explain the conditions under which someone would be held who was considered by themselves and/or prison staff to be at risk from the mainstream prison population.”
    • Corrections extended their due date for this request by an additional 20 working days, then responded. They outlined two forms of protective segregation, Directed Segregation, where a prisoner is placed in segregation when the Prison Director fears for their safety and kept in segregation until the Director no longer has this fear, or when three months is up, at which point the decision must be reviewed by a Visiting Justice. The second form is Voluntary Segregation, in which a prisoner fearing for their own safety is placed in segregation for protection. Corrections states that prisoners in either directed or voluntary segregation are usually permitted to mix freely with other segregated inmates, and that the vast majority of prisoners are segregated at their own request. However, Corrections then refused to respond to the specific questions of the request, stating that
      • “The Department does not compile or collect data on the segregation of prisoners due to their sex, gender, or sexuality.”
    • The Department did provide numbers of how many prisoners are segregated: in June 2015, 96 inmates are in directed segregation and 2169 are in voluntary segregation, for a total of 2265.
  • June 20th: “Number of prisoners currently segregated due to sex/gender/sexuality
    • Corrections have entirely ignored this request, sending zero responses even after two follow-up emails from Sophie. This request is legally long overdue and is eligible for a complaint to the Ombudsman.
  • June 20th: “Number of appeals against prison placement to date
    • This is possibly the most frustrating request and response. Sophie was very specific in her request, asking for
      • “the number of appeals against prison placement that have been made to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to date under the 10 February 2014 amendment to the Corrections Regulations 2005″
    • as well as any documentations or guidelines referred to in the decision making process. It’s important to note the request to the CE of DoC as well as the specific amendment, because DoC ignored these details to totally dodge the question.
    • Corrections once again extended the deadline by 20 working days. They then responded by totally ignoring the specific question, talking about an entirely different policy, the Prisoner Placement System and a new facility in South Auckland. They also stated that no appeals have been made in reference to this policy and facility. No Pride in Prisons is in contact with a trans woman in a men’s facility who has requested a transfer and been waiting two months, so it is clear that this response is not related to the information request.
    • Sophie Buchanan responded to this question-dodging by pointing out their failure to comply:
      • My June 20th 2015 request for the “number of appeals against prison placement that have been made to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to date under the 10 February 2014 amendment to the Corrections Regulations 2005” and their outcomes was referring to section M.03.05 in the Prison Operations Manual, which was put in place on February 10th, 2014, and regulates the placement and movement of transgender and intersex prisoners between facilities. The response I received, after 55 days, seems to refer to a completely different policy, the Prisoner Placement System which takes place at Auckland South Corrections Facility.

        Therefore I wish to clarify: under the Official Information Act, please disclose the number of appeals against prison placement that have been made under section M.03.05 in the Prison Operations Manual; that is, how many transgender people have requested to be moved to a different facility under the Department of Corrections’ purview for reasons of sex/gender. With respect to the privacy of the individuals involved, please also provide the outcomes of those appeals, i.e. the number of successful movements or refusals. Please include any documentation or guidelines consulted by the the Department in the process of making such decisions, and where possible please give details such as the nominated gender of the inmates and the facility they were in/requested to move to.

    • This request was made on the 17th of August; Corrections have not responded yet.
  • August 14th: “POM M.03.05.Res.01 Schedule of Serious Sexual Offences
    • I put this request in for Correction’s list of what qualifies as a “serious sexual offence” that renders a trans person ineligible to be transferred to the correct facility. Resources 2 and 3 were available on the site, but this was not. Just checking now they have made it available, but have not responded to my request.
  • August 21st: “Requests for Prison Transfer for Transgender Prisoners
    • Another NPIP member, Tim, asked for details on transfers: how many have been made, how many are pending, how many have been accepted and rejected, and how long the average waiting time is. Corrections are legally required to respond to this request by September 18th.

Overwhelmingly, Corrections’ attitude has been one of silence and evasion. As Emilie says on twitter: “Corrections is actively smokescreening all attempts to actually check if they’re housing trans ppl safely. What are we meant to conclude from this behaviour other than that they have something to hide? like, massive human rights abuse, perhaps? In her letter to No Pride In Prisons, Jade Follett said she applied for transfer in June. As of 31 July [note: as at 21 August this is still true], she is still in a men’s facility. To be clear: The only data we have on Corrections treatment of trans inmates shows that they ARE NOT reassigning us to the right facilities. if this was not the case, Corrections would be leaping to demonstrate that. Instead they are actively obstructing all efforts to check. So what are they hiding? From the context we can only conclude a massive failing to implement policies designed to protect trans safety.”

PRIDE, INC: A Summary of the Controversy and Why It Matters

This week GayNZ are publishing exposés about Auckland Pride Festival Incorporated (Pride Inc) and its organisation, especially in relation to the events of Pride 2015. I highly recommend going to read them (here and here).

Pride Inc. began as a charity in mid 2012, when three public meetings organised by GABA were held. The meetings showed a community consensus for some kind of Pride parade or festival, and a charitable trust was started. The trust’s objectives included to “foster an environment… for all members of the Rainbow Community to celebrate its sexual orientation and gender idenitity” and “to embrace the principles of Te Tirititi O Waitangi” (bolding mine). The principles included respecting “the diversity of the Rainbow Community of New Zealand/Aotearoa; respect the bicultural heritage of New Zealand/Aotearoa; respect the diversity of cultures in New Zealand/Aotearoa” (again, emphasis mine). The principles also included a line about working to reduce discrimination based on sexual orientation, but no other axes of oppression. The original trust board was to have between 3 and 7 members with the power to appoint replacements for themselves. It could also “from time to time, have regard to the desirability of at least one of the trustees being a member or representative of a particular sector or interest group or within the Rainbow Community… or tangata whenua” (emphasis mine).

Right after Pride 2014, this was all scrapped. Auckland Pride Fest Trust became Auckland Pride Festival Incorporated, and their principles did not include the Treaty obligations, did not include the lines about diversity, bicultural heritage, diversity of cultures, or the board representation for interest groups and tangata whenua.

Pride Inc was no longer a charity. It was this governing board that invited Corrections officers and police to Pride 2015; it was this governing board that is responsible for Emmy’s broken arm.

The new Pride Inc could and did fill its board membership solely on its own without public applications. The new Pride Inc has so many problems with accountability and transparency that its own members have resigned – one, Lexie Matheson, calling the board dysfunctional, noting that she was uneasy with the lack of transparency, and suggesting that two other members, Megan Cunningham-Adams and Daniel Mussett, were dishonest in Pride Inc’s public statement about the resignation of central organiser Julian Cook.

Mussett, in an interview with GayNZ, said: “I think sometimes people forget that … we’re volunteers, so please don’t judge us too harshly. It’s actually really quite hard when you’re a volunteer to be told that you suck, when actually you’re giving up a hell of a lot of your spare time. We really are doing the best we can, with very limited resources.”

Pride Inc’s board changed their mind about speaking to GayNZ about Matheson’s resignation, claiming they’d rather Pride 2015 speak for itself – and it did.

Ensuring Visibility of Queer Issues – Interview with Gary Farrow on 95bFM

The interview is streamable here, and the transcript comes with thanks to Tim Sanders

Gary Farrow: And with us to start off the show today, the discussion will be helped by Jen Kate Shields, fellow bFMer, who has written quite a lot about the parade and the events that followed.  Hello Jen. Thank you very, very much for coming up to the studio.

Jennifer Katherine Shields: Hi Gary.

GF: Good to see you again.

JKS: You too.

GF: Now, the activist who had her arm fractured by corrections officers at the parade on Saturday – how’s she doing?

JKS: She’s still in hospital. I spent most of yesterday with her and she’s in a lot of pain.  She had her upper humerus broken which, according to the orthopaedic’s nurse, is one of the worst injuries you can get.  She’s in a soft cast and was due to be discharged but kept behind because she’s in too much pain to move.

GF: Obviously, you know this woman because you’re involved in paying attention to queer issues yourself.  Do you want to tell us something about that, Jen?

JKS: Yeah, sure. I personally work a lot on this campus with trans students and the institution itself in improving conditions and Emmy, the woman who was hurt, has worked with me really closely on that, quite close, and I’ve been helping with her work around prisons and Pride.

GF: Just shortly – we’ve talked about this on The Wire yesterday – but could you explain the reasons behind the “No Pride In Prisons” protest, for anyone who hasn’t followed the events closely?

JKS: Sure.  So, for the first time this year, both police and corrections officers marched in Pride in full uniform and we took objection to that, seeing as queer people, especially Māori queers, and trans women are really highly susceptible to abuse from the justice system.  The biggest example is that trans women are still routinely put in men’s prisons, when we’re one of the people who are most highly affected by sexual violence and assault.

GF: What did the activists, exactly, do?  Did they try to stop the police float, or was it just an expression of disapproval?

JKS: They didn’t jump the fence, they sort of just pushed it out of the way, and then stood on the road with a banner, and then were dragged off by security and police.

GF: Was there much response, or support, or opposition, from the public who were attending the parade?

JKS: It was very mixed.  It was right by the GABA [Gay Auckland Business Association] GlamStand, and the response from there was quite negative.  There was a lot of yelling and jeering, especially along the lines of “This isn’t the place”, or “You’re ruining the parade”.

GF: What’s your thoughts on how GABA has handled the situation – them specifically?

JKS: I think it’s been absolutely terrible.  For people that don’t know, one of the people who was dragging the protesters is Heather Carnegie, the president of GABA, who was there managing the GlamStand.  And we also have very clear footage of her grabbing a protester’s phone and throwing it about five feet into the air, to land on concrete, which has destroyed evidence.  In response, she’s denied everything.  She’s denying any contact, or any violence, but we have photos of her pushing someone off the road and their face is quite clearly in pain.

GF: Isn’t it mind-blowing for anyone, I think, to think about that sort of thing being done to your means of communication during a situation like that?  If anything, it’s a situation which you want to be able to communicate and explain what’s happening.

JKS: Yeah, definitely.

GF: After the parade on Saturday, you posted on your blog, quote: “last night, thousands cheered in support of hundreds of drag queens.  They cheered as a trans woman was brutally abused”.  Is this sort of your main criticism of Pride – how it appears to be surprisingly exclusive?

JKS: Yeah.  I think it’s very one-sided.  The original Pride, at Stonewall, was a riot led by trans women of colour and now, there’s absolutely no way for a trans woman to protest, or express dissent, without being abused.  I marched in Pride, in an official float, in silence, for the death of a local trans woman last month, and I was met with either silence or verbal abuse.  So, even if you do it legitimately, through the way they recommend, you’re still met with abuse and violence.

GF: Can you imagine any ways which we could start to circumvent this sort of behaviour at such events?

JKS: It’s tough.  I think the big thing is community reactions and attitudes.  There’s a lot of satisfaction, especially after the gay marriage bill.  There’s the idea that a lot of things are okay now and nothing really needs to be changed.  I think what really needs to happen is we need to start listening to the people who are still the most marginalised.

GF: It almost seems they want to include everyone, like the police and even the National Party who, of course, voted against gay marriage on the part of some MPs.  And indeed, John Key voted against it, at least the first reading and possibly the second?

JKS: Yeah, from what I remember.

GF: And then he voted for the third.

JKS: Yeah.

GF: So what do you think of that sort of behaviour?  How do you feel about that?

JKS: I feel like it goes along with what Queers Against Injustice are doing.  I think it lines up quite nicely with the idea of pinkwashing; if an institution, or somebody, or a corporation supports queer people, then suddenly everything else they do is okay.  The big example, that keeps being talked about, is the state of Israel – how they have trans people in their army and provide meals for vegans, things like that – small issues, that are easily supported, to sort of wash over everything else that’s happening.
GF: Just so listeners understand the protests that have happened involving the pink paint being thrown over the ATMs and at the police station in Ponsonby: that – throwing pink paint at a building – is not pinkwashing in itself, is it?  It’s a protest against pinkwashing.

JKS: Yeah.  It’s to symbolise what’s happening.

GF: I think some people are misunderstanding that, in the case of this protest, so I think it’s important that our listeners are able to understand that and it’s cool that they can now, after listening to our interview.  What’s your take on the discussions that have followed this year’s Pride?  Do you think it will have any positive effects, what happened?

JKS: We hope so.  We’re still talking with a lot of media and trying to get our side of it out there but, overwhelmingly, it’s been quite against us, especially from big community leaders – like GABA and people like Levi Joule and Paul Stevens – and I feel like that’s quite representative of the community and can also influence it as well.  So I think we’re fighting really hard to have our voices heard.  Hopefully, if we can do that, maybe we’ll have a better impact.

GF: What do you think these protests might achieve?

JKS:  Well, thinking big, we’re looking at a whole heap of stuff.  In terms of tangible changes, the corrections system – which went to review last year – that only barely fixed things.  We’re looking for more changes in terms of that.  We’re looking for more awareness of issues that are still happening within the community.  We’re looking for support, basically – support to People of Colour and trans people who are sitting out there in the cold.

GF: What’s your thoughts on the specific activism – is there a risk of alienating people from the cause because doing these sorts of things isn’t how they would behave?

JKS: I think so but also, at the same time, it’s kind of the only course of action.  This isn’t the first thing we’ve done as a group.  This is a long series, and it’s the only one that’s gotten any significant attention.  When you’re silenced over and over and over, sometimes you have to speak out in bigger ways.

GF: Are you from the specific activist group that did this?

JKS: Yeah, I’m involved with them, but also just in general.

GF: There was also the note on the bank this morning that had some points, including Israel using a pro-LGBTQIA stance to distract attention from the military occupation of Palestine.  I think some people are becoming sort of confused about that, thinking that this case is somewhat about Palestine as well.  Is that just a reference to the situation over there, likening it to the rhetoric we have being spouted here, to cover over policy?

JKS: Yeah.  I’m not with the group that threw the paint at things but, from what I see, it’s an example of the same concept of pinkwashing – using queer issues to wash over other, potentially more harmful, things.

GF: Have you got a lot more discourse going on in the last few days, now that this has been happening?

JKS: I think so.  I feel like a lot of it has just been around the physical object of the protest, and the response has been around whether or not it’s okay to throw paint at an ATM, rather than discussions of the concepts and why it was done.  It was interesting watching as Queers Against Injustice came out and said it was them because there was a huge shift from “This is a homophobic attack” to “This is a bigger thing”.

GF: I was interested, watching the news the other night, because obviously a lot of news sources – including bFM news – framed it in the beginning as an issue of homophobia but, since it has emerged that it’s an activity of queer activism, we are presenting it in a different way.  I was watching the news last night or the night before and the trans woman having her arm broken by security was almost a footnote in the story.

JKS: We saw that as well.

GF: I imagine that sort of thing would be quite disheartening.

JKS: Yeah, definitely.  There was one news station that covered it and showed the footage that we had of her on the ground being rolled over and screaming, and it’s a really visceral sound, and they censored it, which was an interesting coincidence.

GF: Sometimes when stuff like that is done on the news, it’s because it’s actually really disturbing to the viewers but-

JKS: It kind of deadens the effect of it, how harsh it was to her.

GF: Yeah.  Sometimes that effect is needed and it’s almost like, with a lot of the media now, our vision of reality is being blurred.  In other senses, we’re being more conscious of it, though.  The way we heard about the latest protests this morning was from one of our news team members, Ben Bartley Catt, who was heading through Mt. Eden Village and just told us about it, just casually, and then we linked it in and then saw it on twitter and everything.  That’s starting to become more the way of communication.  I certainly imagine that you, and the people you work with, as well, are hoping that that becomes more of the case.

JKS: Yeah, totally.  Twitter in particular has been of huge benefit to us.  I wasn’t in touch during the parade and afterwards – I got home to check twitter and saw that someone had been hurt – so I had no idea what was going on, and I sort of checked back and people had been live-tweeting it so there was up-to-date, detailed information.  And that’s been going on since, with every single update.  There’s a huge amount of support we’re getting on there as well, which is really beneficial.

GF: That’s invaluable, really.  Jen Kate Shields, thank you so much for coming up here.  I really, really appreciate it.  It’s great to get your perspective on these events.  It would be good to make contact with you in the coming days, or weeks, as well, to follow how things are going because I’m sure that a lot of the people in our local communities feel very strongly about this – a lot of us, in support of you, as well.  Thank you so much, Jen.

JKS: Thank you too, Gary.

Queers Against Injustice comes out in support of No Pride in Prisons and #NotProud

The group that attacked a GayTM earlier last week with pink paint to protest the pinkwashing of Pride and the queer community have done the same to an ANZ branch and a police station this morning, leaving behind statements explaining their aims – including a paragraph of support for Emmy, who is currently still in hospital after being assaulted by a Pride security guard on Saturday night.

From twitter this morning:

Pink paint on an ANZ branch. image via @vaughndavis
Pink paint on an ANZ branch. image via @vaughndavis
Pink paint on police offices. Image via @vaughndavis
Pink paint on police offices. Image via @vaughndavis
Queers Against Injustice's statement. Image via @vaughndavis
Queers Against Injustice’s statement. Image via @vaughndavis

Anyone involved in Queers Against Injustice is invited to get in touch with either me or @kamikazeballoon on twitter.