boom.

My class in Legal Method (Interpretation) is one of the most interesting I've ever had, mainly because it's not very law school. Instead of focusing on statutory construction, we've had to discuss Foucault, linguistics, hermeneutics and other such topics that aren't exactly Bar exam material. It makes for a good balancer of sorts, quite like how I appreciated my humanities subjects in business school as a respite from all the numbers.

For several meetings, we've discussed how words have the power to create reality, how things do not exist independent of words, how words differentiate and thus cause existence. Every other meeting, we read an article or book that provides an extension to this topic, and this week, we discussed Queer Theory.

Among other things, queer theory explores gender classifications and the problems of sexual labels, such as "male", "female", "homosexual", "gay" or "lesbian", branching out from the essentialism vs. social construction (nurture vs. nature) debate on sexuality.

Interestingly and ironically enough, I can't think of any other minority that uses and abuses labels as much as the LGBT community. I'm not aware of any sub-classifications of cultural minorities, except maybe informal class systems, and even these are not exclusive classifications and can be found in any culture. But in the LGBT community, there's "gay", lesbian", "bisexual", "tranny", "queer", "discreet", "butch", "femme", "pink", "blue", "purple", "top", "bottom", "pa-mhin", "tago", all of which describe not racial or socio-economic class, but personal lifestyles and practices.

One would think that it is our community that would be sensitive to the effects of labeling. I guess the slew of labels we use to call each other is a backlash to the stereotyping committed by heterosexuals. The more labels we come up with, the more sub-classes are created, therefore emphasizing that the stereotypical gays and lesbians do not exist. That gays only work the salons and play volleyball, or that lesbians wear mullets and fix cars. Well, we have those too, but we have oh so much more.

As an effect however, stereotypes are created within the community. Most homosexuals would know how a baklang pa-mhin would walk, talk, act, and dress, as against a baklang parlorista as against a discreet gay, as against a bisexual. These distinctions may not be as clear to the heterosexual Filipinos. However, with the exposure of more gays and lesbians in the media, there is now a growing recognition of, for example, the distinction between "desirable" and "undesirable" gays. This would not be so much of a problem, especially in educating the public and breaking stereotypes. The problem lies in what my friends call "ostracism within the ostracized".

Within the Pinoy gay subculture, certain types of gays are frowned upon by less understanding and educated members of the community. An example would be the screaming fags, the larger-than-life drag queens who are fluent with the gay lingo, have limp wrists, and catwalk like supermodels. The aversion to this type within the community is understandable: this form of expression and lifestyle perpetuates a "negative stereotype", although this term is highly debatable. Another type that is frowned upon by the community are the "closetas", gays who have not yet come out of the closet. Again, the ill will met by this sort is understandable: this form of non-expression and lifestyle implies shame, embarrassment, and most importantly, fear.

Again, this social stratification is peculiar, as it is not based on race or religion or economic class or education, but based rather on lifestyle. Also, the stratification is multi-dimensional, measuring levels of masculinity, degree of out-ness, and other such criteria. All on top of the other criteria for stratification previously mentioned.

I have heard and read of times past when all gays, confirmed or suspected, were judged the same and discriminated against equally. This was probably before the time "Miss Gay" became a staple fiesta competition, and way before the Oscar buzz for "Brokeback Mountain". But now, straight people are drawing lines separating desirable and undesirable homosexuals. Even Isagani Cruz recognizes this distinction in his hate-mongering column.

I've heard quite a number of times of how straight people appreciate that I'm not the "stereotype", that I'm "disente". I often reply with a succinct "Thank you". I don't hold it against them; in fact, I somewhat appreciate that I am able to help break down stereotyping, but I can't help but feel for the "stereotype" or the "indecent". As if it weren't enough that the so-called undesirable homosexuals were made to feel inferior within their own community. Now, as our own labels pervade the greater [straight] populace, the discrimination is slowly becoming more localized and selective, where some homosexuals are saved and some aren't.

And for some homosexuals, that's perfectly fine.

[To be concluded]