Erased gender

                             In "Undoing Gender" Butler narrates a fact which is about a homosexual young boy.

When i first read and also heard the story it hit me very much. As a matter of fact we are very familiar to these kind of stories, events and facts. I can say that more or less this kind of things at some point seem to be our daily routine. Long story short, i would like to briefly explain what the story is. As i mentioned above it is about young homosexual boywho lived one of those towns in the middle America. When seven years old child behaves coquettishly, there is nothing wrong with the attitude at these ages. Some mockeries, some verbal harresments these are the things, perhaps more, which we can clasify as a sort of comparatively softer attacks . But this ostensible kid become seventeen, everything all those coquettishly attitudes and all those feminine behaviours are considered much more annoying by the public and especially by some teens as well. One day, while the young feminine boy was strolling around , he was murdered by another young boy on the bridge of the town. The young feminine boy was stabbed ( This part is not narrated in the story but as far as i understood, it is quite clear that feminine young boy was stabbed)

The bridge represents the border which is situated in between of the real and the imaginary. These two subjects are on the borders. The homosexual one here is placed in the border of the symbolic and the imaginary. For him he is expilicitly in the symbolic world, however the so-called hetero one could not place him in the symbolic order accordingly one of them will be pass this border yet on the other hand expilicitly one of them already fell down the other side of the border i mean into Le Real. Now, i know these what i talked above seem to be a little bit ambiguos and as well as abit unrelevant connection between the story of the subject that i mentioned above and the topic which i analysis in this paper however the subjects are different yet the situation more or less the same. Then, why i started with this ostensible fact because in this paper i shall try to explain transsexualism, transvestism and relevantly hate crime towards the members of this ostensible

community, in the context of Lacan's, relatively one of the most important concept, “Mirror Stage.”

I shall also refer his noteworthy notions which are “The Real,” “The Imaginary” and “The Symbolic.”

Besides, because of the fact that I shall employ these aforesaid concepts and especially in the frame of symbolic order, hence the fact which Butler narrates , is suitable regarding of the issue which I shall analysis in the following parts of this paper.

And also I shall refer some narratives of transgender people. As we explicitly know that autobiography is an important part of being transgender. (transsexual, transvestism or intersex.) Narratives, for these people, are very crucial part of their becoming and for constructing their identity either.

For most people transsexualism and transvestism are considered as a some kind of illness or some kind of disorder situations. Especially in twentieth century this identity were regarded as perversion and considered as a some kind of ambiguous situation which has to be corrected by legitimate institutions or sometimes even corrected both by public an by some another subjectivities with not by any stretch of the imagination way. Understandably, there are lots of ongoing speculations about this issue which is needed very much attention on. One should be always very careful when s/he studies on aforesaid identities. Because of the fact it could be very easy to cross the line. When it comes to such an ambiguous issue, it could be much easier to make a mistake or, like I mentioned before, to cross the line. Accordingly, one should always approach the issue at a certain distance. To my mind, narratives of transgender people, their autobiographies play an important role in this very moment if one is willing to understand the very crucial process in its essence. I shall also refer some of the narratives to understand some points in the context of the psychoanalytic method which I try to highlight some of the issues in this paper as well. On the other hand I shall also analysis the agent of hate crimes . I mean the subjects who commit homicide Comparatively I am willing to do my best for avoiding the unwelcome results and as well as some misunderstandings. Because, if one deals with such an ambiguous issue, one should always be careful of categorizing the situations and the process ,or else some unwelcome and unappropriated results can be emerged which, to my mind, no one will be willing to put his/her-self in such condition. As a result for either way, it is really need to be careful yet there is no diagnosis in psychoanalytic method and especially for such an important topic requires much more attention on.

Because of the fact there is no diagnosis in psychoanalysis, to get a diagnosis and label the process as a sickness or some kind of mental disorder by using certain data , is the latest thing to do by me and as well as most of the people.

On the other hand the same apprehensiveness should be thought for the agent of hate crimes as well. Yet the aforementioned apprehensiveness should be also differentiated by considering the situations and as well as subjects. Labeling the murderer as a sick or mental illness or classifying the situation which the murderer goes through as an extraordinary circumstance may lead the agent of hate crime to be justified his situation in its essence. And also by so doing he can get away scot-free which we mostly witness the aforementioned situation usually in our country.

First of all i would like to begin with the ego construction of transgender people and would like to point out comparatively certain important issues (especially considering of the fact that the body is the surface of our very ambious being) such as how they construct their ego with the self or the skin which is not belong them. By so doing, I will refer their narratives and autobiographies as a crucial data like I mentioned above. After I highlight aforementioned issues, I shall try to underscore agent of hate crimes. Briefly I shall try to analysis the process, especially why the all transsexual people are murdered by using knife and so.

My study will be framed in the context of the very crucial notions of Lacan, namely; “The Real”, “The Imaginary” , “The Symbolic” and as well as the very important part of these ostensible concepts that is “Mirror Stage.” I will use these terms to highlight the aforementioned situations and also to underscore flamboyant subject's process as well.

As we all clearly know from Lacan's mirror stage the self is constructed by his or her image which is reflected through the mirror. Mirror stage is one of the most crucial part of constructing the ego. Before this stage, the self as Lacan suggests; looks like a fragmented egg. Lacan also names this situation as a “Hommelette.” The fragmented egg which is scattered out everywhere and the self can not know his borders and limits at all. Lacan also consubstantiates this circumstance with "The Real" where the infant feels him or her-self the whole with everything and especially with the mother. We can also name this ostensible fact where the everything and as well as nothing are found altogether. Lacan also names this fact as "no-thing-ness." The infant cannot differentiate him or her-self from environments. She or he thinks that s/he is a part of the rest, especially like i mentioned before, it thinks still mostly part of his or her mother ego. The infant does not know his bodily borders or to put in a another way, the infant does not know his or her ego. Lacan calls this stage a "Hommelette." The infant doesnot control him or her-self . Infant's motor activities has not developed yet because of the fact that the creature called human is a premature alive. Accordingly, at some point, that is why our ego, motor activities and relatively our bodily control is not developped yet when we come into the world. This is one of the most noteworthy thing to state out and explicitly the most crucial reason why we are in need of someone-else. Especially but unfortunately the mother. Hence , the infant doesnot know in this stage him or her self-being. He or she is a fragmented egg which is scattered out. In this stage, for the infant the world is coposed of everything and as well as nothing. For the infant the circumstance which s/he is through, namely the whole situation is non-differential moments. Because of the fact that s/he doesnot know ego limits. There is no ego yet. s/he cannot differentiate him or her-self from the environment. In this stage the infant still is experiencing the wholeness. Because this stage is both nothing and at the same time everything.

As we know again from Lacan's Mirror stage, the infant meets him or her image at first mirror scene. First of all the infant sees the image of the self through the reflected mirror vision scene. According to Lacan, at this first seen , the infant's strange reaction and behavior is jubilant. The first mirror scene approximately corresponds the infant's one and a half years old.

In this stage the infant firstly sees him or her self. Lacan names this experience as if the fragmented egg was coming together. Lacan also draws a parallel this situation with backwards slow motion screening, or to put another word as Lacan suggest; "as the reverse motion shot of the breaking of an egg” The all fragmented self comes together. The infant sees the whole, a complete of him or her self-being. Inner and outer part of the body now is seen as a whole. However the infant's motor activities still are not developed yet. The infant know his or her image which is reflected through the mirror, however s/he does not feel completely controlled alive. The infant does not still have a certain coordination. This recognition causes great confusion and ‘libidinal dynamism’ as the pre-linguistic infant struggles with its first identity conflict.(Lacan, 1977) The image which infant sees has limits, the others tell him or her that the image which s/he sees that is you however the infant does not feel like at all. With this image comes separation and the infant perceives his or her image as other. There is a image before me and everybody tells me that is your image but I do not know this image, as we narrate on behalf of the aforementioned infant, he or she would narrate it so.

Hence it means that the infant assumes that one day I shall be it. The image which is reflected through the mirror. The image is seen perfect, whole and it seems to have all the control. Accordingly this image shall be ideal-ego, from now on the infant starts to achieve his or her ideal-ego, to put in a other word the perfect other. Hence from now on the infant starts to differentiate the things from the environment.

So, let's just try to understand the subject who has transgender idendity. How these people, then, construct their bodily ego considering the miror stage. If the miror stage is relevant with construction the inner an outer part of the body. In this essence how these two different, litteraly different , parts of the body enters into construction the self and the ego. To my mind, one should very neatly look at the aforementioned issue try to figure out the this stage and therefore the process as well. if we learn to be or how to be self through the other's gaze, then, in this situation which the subject cannot be mirrored and reflected, how is the ego be constructed. I mean for the tarnsgender person , the body is reflected, the body is appealed if these aforesaid image does not belong the subject, how s/he construct his or her ego ? Beacuse of the fact that transgender peole usually tell that the body is reflected or the seen body does not belong them . One of the transsexual person narrates her autobiography that "i felt always trabbed in this body. Sometimes i wanted cut my body and i wanted to escape out through wound." what do they see when they look to the mirror? And beisdes where is lieing the difference sex and the gender in this issue so that according to Lacan Mirror Stage, when infant first see her self or his self, the infant feels jubilant. But in this issue what a transexual person feels. Can we also have word of this situation with jubilant or else this one is something else that is most likely feels anguish or so.

Yet , according to Lacan, we do not know the sexual distinction at the mirror stage. Accordingly how does the transgender subject construct his or her bodily-ego. As we know when the infant first sees his or her image, s/he does not yet awareness of the sex distinction. Beacuse of the fact that we know the sex difference occurs at the stage of oedipus complex . And also as Lacan suggest; "the consequences of the miror stage are not worked out until the entry in to the symbolic."(Lacan, 1954) Accordingly the consfusion for the transgender person starts with entry into the symbolic world. Hence, symbolic world shall modify the body lateron. After sex distinction and entry into the symbolic worl transsexual subject's process is composed of many mirror stages.

On the other hand, as we know the image whic is appealed on the mirror is not perceived the self. At some point it is perceived as other. Hence this could be the positif side of transgender person. Since it is already seen another self, on one level it can be much easier to accept the self / ego or bodily ego (skin ego) as not the one of which she or he does not feel having the right body or self. The transgender person shall go back to imaginary to create a new body and shall crorrect the body or self in his or her imaginary world and then , afterwards, in the following mirror stages he or she shall fullfill the completeness of the inner and the outer part of the self.

As I mentioned above, after sex distinction and entry into the symbolic world transsexual subject's process is composed of many mirror stages. Thus different but relatively various mirror stages play an important role of constructing the subject's ego in its essence until sex change operation. And every operation shall enable to unifying the split between the subject's imaginary body and the symbolic body. But the most important part of being the whole in the context of aforementioned issues , also as Jay poser suggest; their autobiographies.

According to Jay Poser;

"autobiography brings into relief the split of the transsexual life; transsexual history brings into gendered relief the difference present in all autobiography between the subject of the enunciation and the subject enunciating. I was a woman, i write as a man. How to join this split? How to create a coherent subject? Precisely through narrative. Over the couser of the recountin, the narrative continuity, the trajectory of autobiography, promises, like transexual transition itself, rejoin this split into a single, connected "life."

As we can clearly see also from this passage, what joins the split in the symbolic life is language. Hence the form in the imaginary thus can be originated in the symbolic or to put in another word the total transition is provided with the util of symbolic system that is language. Obviously the author is having word this situation as a narrative process. After transgender one been through the sex change operation the completion period ends up with narrating. The shattered mirror stages are united with narrating the progresss. Accordingly the person completes his or her process with using the language.

Hitherto, i tried to more or less explain transsexual ego construction in the frame of mirror stage. This topic is such an issue that if one was willing to properly explain the whole process , it would be written pages. Hence i chose to explain briefly.

Now i would like to go through my second important issue which i mentioned at the beggining of this paper, that is , why most of transgender peope are murdered by stabbing.

I shall also touch briefly on this issue either. Why all transsexual people especially prostitute ones have to be murdered by their clients. To my mind, the person who commit murder does not see these people as a substitution. They see the mother in the imaginary. It means that this is like a phallic mother. She has a omni power. She is really powerful. She gave you a birth and life and she can take your life as well. This can be considered some like self-defence. The unconscious' self defence. However this does not mean that I try to justify the murder. I just want to state out that we can relate this ostensible action with the unconscious' self-defence or to put in another word we can illustrate the process as a self-defence of the unconscious. For them these people cannot be real, they cannot place transgender people in the symbolic world. Because he already give up the best image with castration.

At some point these people attack their mirror images. They rehearse the process which they went through by castration. Because they already accepted that there is no perfect body, there cannot be a such. Accordingly they attack their mirror images. Symbolic order cannot enable them to perceive the aforesaid people as a real or acceptable. Hence symbolic order is the responsible these attacks. If symbolic order forbids merely incest and permit the rest, probably we would not encounter such an unwelcome situations at all. Accordingly when these people encounter or have an affair with transgender people, they relived the castration anxiety. They feel lack because the person before them she has everything. They go through a trauma. Because of the fact that they see the person whom cannot be placed in the symbolic world. They have been told for years that there cannot be such kind of bodies or people. Once , they had been told that they had to give up their ideal-ego. Here goes the castration anxiety again. Transsexual transgresses the everything which have been told to them for years.

And we know that there must be some narcissistic problem, they cannot substitute the person whom he commits murder. Therefore they regress to the mirror stage again. Accordingly they encounter the perfect image and then they take this perfect image to “The Imaginary”. Then, “The Real” opens there and they feel themselves dropped in a well. Then, as we all know what happens when the person regresses to real, that is, he goes through a psychotic break.

Afterward, this person attacks she-male one, because he thinks that he looses his ego. He has to go back to the symbolic world and that's why he stabbed the transsexual one. He cuts into pieces the body. Because this body has no place in the symbolic order. He cannot configure the body image in the imaginary. He has to kill the transsexual one to go back the real world. (The Symbolic)

As a result, in this paper , as far as in me lain, i briefly explained the important issues by using Lacan's significant notions(“The Real”, “The Imaginary”, and “The Symbolic”)

I used the concept of mirror stage to frame the ego construction of transgender people and i refer the aforementioned notions which is stated above to discuss and to briefly answer the important question which i pointed out at the beginning of this paper.

REFERENCES

Freud, Sigmund (1922) A general introduction to psycho-analysis,

New York Boni and Liveright.

Lacan, Jaques (1975)The seminer of Jacques Lacan Book I : Freud's Papers on Technique 1953- 1954. Jacques- Alain Miller (ed), Translated from the original Le Seminaire I, by john froster. NewYork and London: W.W. Nortan and Company.

Lacan, Jaques (1978) The seminer of Jacques Lacan Book II: The Ego in Freud's Theory and in The Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954-1955. Jaques-Allain Miller (ed), Translated from the original Le Seminaire II, le mois danla theori de Freud et dans la technique de la psychanalyse, 1954-1955, by Sylvana Tomaselli, New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company

Roberto, Harari (2001) Lacan's Seminar on "Anxiety" an introduction,

Translated byJane C. Lamb-luiz Other Press, New York.

Colette, Chiland (2003) Transsexualism, Illusion and Reality, Translated by Philip slotkin

Wesleyen Uni. Press, Connecticut.

Proser, Jay (1998) Second Skins: The Body Narratives of Transsexuality,

Colombia University Press

Grigg, Russel (2008) Lacan, Language and Philosophy, State University of New York Press, Albany

Butler, Judith (2004) Undoing Gender, Roudledge.

MonoKL, Kusursuz Labirent, Sayı: VI-VII Lacan, 2009

Zizek, Slavoj (2006) How to Read Lacan, W.W. Nortan and Company.

Untitled.

Pateman'a göre modern dünya, erkek kardeşlerin, Kralı ( Babayı) öldürmelerinden sonra hükmü kendi aralarında paylaşmalarını sağlayan bir sözleşme doğrultusunda kurulmuştur. Erkek kardeşler arası bir sözleşme olarak nitelediği bu sosyal misak, kan bağı olmaksızın toplumun erkeklerince doğal bir yaratım süreci olarak benimsenmiştir. Ancak yine Pateman'a göre hikayenin bir tarafında belirsiz olan bir husus vardır; sosyal anlaşma niteliğindeki bu yapı, aslında, toplumu ataerkil ya da erkek egemen olarak inşaa eden, erkek kardeşler arasında gerçekleşen bir sözleşmedir. Bir zamanlar babanın egemenliği olan geleneksel ataerkil yapı; aile, kadın , mülkiyet , yönetim ve buna bağlı olan belli başlı dinamikler daha sonra erkek kardeşler arasında yapılan sözleşmeyle modern halini alır. Artık kadının ve bu bahsi geçen ögelerin kontrolü erkek kardeşlere geçmiştir. Ellerindeki yeni güçle kadınlarını ve sosyal düzeni istedikleri gibi kurgulayabilecek ve yönetebileceklerdir. Sivil dünyada kendi hakimeytlerini kurabilecekleri bir alan meydena gelmiştir. Nitekim, Pateman'ının da belirttiği gibi bu sözleşmede eksik kalan hususlar ve iki yüzlü bir tavır bulunmaktadır. Bu yazıda Carol Pateman'ın "Erkek Kardeşlerin Sözleşmesi" ( The Fraternal Social Contract) adlı makalesinden yola çıkarak, batı modernizminin temelinde bulanan

"özel alan/kamusal alan" ikiliğinin, toplumsal cinsiyet, cinsiyet farkı, milliyetçilik gibi bir takım kavramları nasıl kurguladığını, bu ikiliğin doğallığının çıkmazını, liberal teorisyenlerin iki yüzlülüğünü ve de bu sözde doğal ve toplumsal cinsiyetine göre şekillenmiş yapıyı ve de bunun çerçevesinde kurgulanan heteroseksist ilişkilenme biçimini açıklamaya çalışıcağım.

Modern bir toplum oluşturulurken akılcı bir anlayyışı benimseyen liberal kuramcılar, aklı özgürlüğe giden en önemli araç olarak gördüler( E.Kant). "Akıl ve Beden" ikiliği yaratılırken kadın bu ikiliğin beden kısmını oluşturdu. Kadının doğurma özelliğinden yola çıkarak tarihsel anlamda nesnelleşmiş bir kadın olgusu yarattılar ve kadını kamusal alandan dışladılar. Pateman'a göre bu liberal kuramcıların tutarsızlığını göstermektedir.

Modernite , modern erkeği yaratırken, kadınları dışarda bıraktı. Bireyin inşaası; erkek, beyaz, yönetici sınıfından ve batılıydı.¹ Bir noktada kadının bedeni kendine tuzak oldu. Kadınların kamusal alandan bir noktada dışlanırken , başka açılardan da bu kamusal alan içerisine yeniden çekildiler. Milliyetçilik ve militarizm gibi unsurlar göz önüne alındığında kadınların aktif birer özneler olduğu göze çarpmaktadır. Öncelikle kadınlar bu ulusun devamı için önemli bir yerdedirler.

Çocuk dünyaya getirme ve annelik kavramları, kadınların doğası olarak algılanmaktadırlar. Topluma yeni bireyler bağışlayacaklardır. Türk modernleşmesinde de , kadınlar geleneksel bireyler olarak görülüp erkek himayesi altında modernleştirilmiştir.

"Kadının en büyük vazifesi analıktır! İlk terbiye verilen verilen yerin ana kucağı olduğu düşünülürse, bu vazifenin ehemmiyeti layıkiyle anlaşılır.
"Kadınlarımızın genel görev ve çalışmalarda paylarına düşen işlerden başka, en önemli, en hayırlı, en faziletli bir ödevleri de “iyi anne” olmalarıdır."

Mustafa Kemal'e ait olan bu sözler gösteriyorki, türk modernleşmesinde de kadının asli görevi annelik olarak nitelendirilmiştir. Vatana, millete hayırlı evlatlar, gerektiğinde bu vatan için canını feda edecek bireyler yetiştirecektir. Bu noktada Türk modernleşmesinde de kadın kamusal alana sadece belirli vasıflarda girebilmektedir. Pateman'a göre de kadının kamusal alana katılması annelik rolü üzerinden kurgulanıyor. Anne olmak zaten kadının doğal bir görevi olarak algılandığı için bunun nasıl yapılacağı da yine erkeklerce düzenlenmiş bir unusr olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. Görüldüğü gibi türk modernleşmesi de cinsiyet farkına dayalı bir yapılanmayı savunarak, birey olarak kadının öznelliğini değil, onu tarihsel bir genellik içerisinde modernleşmeye tabi tutulacak birer nesneler olarak algılyor ve o yönde yeniden , erkeklerin boyunduruğunda kurugulanıyor.

Kamusal alan/özel alan ikiliğinin doğal olarak algılanması, toplumsal cinsiyet kavramınını da derinden etkilemektedir. Bu ikiliğin doğallaştırılmasındaki en önemli etkenlerden biri olarak cinsiyet farkı karşımıza çıkmakta ve de heteroseksüellik bu ikilik kavramı çerçevesinde normlaştırılmaktdır. Sivil toplum sadece heteroseksüel bireyler tarafından oluşturmuş gibi algılanma istikrarı içerisinde olunmuştur.

Nitekim o şekilde kurgulanmaktadır. Bunun dışında kalan her türlü cinsel yönelim/tercih ve de sex pratikleri sapkınlık adı altında ifşa edilmekte ve heteroseksüel pratiğin karşısında, olunmaması gereken öteki olarak vukuğu bulmaktadır. Erkek kendi vatandaşlığını kadının var oluşunun itilmesi, özel olana hapsedilmesi üzerinden var ediyor. Bedensel olarak görünür kılınan özel alanda, evlilik gibi tamamiyle heteroseksist bir kurum içerisinde baskı altında tutuluyor. Söz konusu cinsiyet farkı sürekli vurgulanmakta ya da daha doğrusu dayatılmaktadır. Heteroseksüel evlilik, akrabalık ve heteroseksüel ilişki pratikleri bu ikiliği tarihselleştiriyor. Sanki tarih aşırı bir unsurmuş gibi önümüze sunulan bu durumu bireyler kurgulanmış toplumsal cinsiyetlerince performe ediyorlar. Oysa Savran "Antik Yunandaki Oikos/Polis ayrımına vurgu yaparak buradaki ayrımın batı dünyasındaki kamusal alan / özel alan ikiliğinden farklı bir işleyiş yapsısı olduğunu belirtmektedir ve bu noktada söz konusu ikiliğin doğal ve tarih aşırı bir kavram olmadığını belirtmektedir."

Bu ikilikle birlikte kadınlık erkeklik rolleri kadar bu rollere dayalı ilişkiler ve arzularda kurgulandı. Erkeğin doğal olarakk arzuladığı cins kadın, kadının ise erkek olarak yansıtıldı. Heteroseksüellik ideal model olarak olarak, evlilik ve aile hayatı da her erkeğin arzulaması gereken bir olgu olarak ortaya çıktı.²

Bununla birlikte devletin tüm kurumları ve kavramları cinsiyet yüklü politikalar çerçevesinde şekilllenmektedir. Kamusal alandaki ilişkiler erkekler arası ilişkilenme biçimi şeklinde yaşanır. Askerlik bunlardan birisidir. Kadın ve kadınsı olanın dışlandığı , aşşağılandığı ve de hor görüldüğü erkekliğin yeridir. Aynı zamanda askerlik iktidarın ikna odalarından en elzem olanıdır. Nitekim Pateman'ın da belirtiği gibi kadınlar her zaman kamusal alandan dışlanmamışlardır, belirli zamanlarda ve belirli kavramlar çerçevesinde aynı zamanda bu durum kadınları içermenin de hikayesi olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Kadınlar doğurma ve annelik gibi özellikleri yüzünden politika ve vatandaşlıktan ayrı tutulmuşlardır. Ancak kadınlar milliyetçilik kavramı çerçevesinde aktif özneler olarak kullanılmışlardır. Bu doğrultuda güdümlü birer belirleyiciler , düzenin ve sistemin destekçileri olarak boy göstermişlerdir.

Bir aile olgusu içerisinde kadını milliyetçilik bağlamında yeniden içerleyebilir. Ulusu bir aile olarak kabul eden bazı modern ulus devletler, ailenin temelinde var olduğunu düşünen kadını ulusu yaratma, N. Yuval-Davis ve Floya anthias'ında belirtikleri gibi; ulusal mücadelenin aktif özneleri, ulusal çeşitliliğin sembolik göstergeleri gibi kavramlar çerçevesinde içerleyebiliyor. Kendi öznelliği hadım edilmiş bu kadınlar, erkek egemen ideolojinin belli başlı söylemlerini kendilerine biçilmiş öznellik olarak algılayabilmektedir. Yine türk modernleşmesinden örneklersek; Berktay'ın da altını çizdiği gibi "yurtaş anne" rolü ile kadın öznelliği bu alanda eriyor. Kamusal alanda kadın kendi var oluşunu bir erkek özne ya da bu erkek özneye bağlı diğer eklemler içerisinde kendini var edebiliyor ya da boyunduruğu altında . Butler'nda belirttiği gibi;" egemen heteroseksüel çerçevede kadın işlevi gördüğü ölçüde kadındır."³

Bu ikilik özellikle toplumsal cinsiyet alanında büyük ölçüde sınırlamalara yol açıyor. Erkek ve kadın olmak biyolojik bir unsur iken, kültürel bağlamda olan inşaa tamami ile göz ardı edilmekte ve kadınlık erkeklik rolleri bağımında ilişkilenme biçimleri bu algı ile toplumsal cinsiyete göre şekillendirilmektedir. Kadın ve kadınsı olan pasifleştirilirken, ekeksi olan hükmetme yetisine doğuştan sahipmiş gibi algılamakta. Şiddet alanını görünmez kılmakta ve aynı zamanda meşrulaştırmaktadır. Özel alanın politik olanın dışında tutulması şiddeti aynı oranda meşrulaştırıp, sivil hayatın her kısmına yayabilme yetisine de sahiptir. Bir noktada bu durum şiddeditn normalleştirilmesinde de önemli ölçüde etkili olmaktadır. Bu bağlamda erkek egemen ideoloji kendini fütürsuzca dayatma imkanı ve toplumun her alanında, gerek özel gerekse kamusal alanda, performe etme imkanı sağlayabilmektedir. Erkeksi olana övgü, kadınsı olanı aşağılama ve kamusal alandan olabildiğince ayırma ya da grünmez kılma kitlesel bir ayin gibi şekillenmiş ve vücut bulmuştur.

Bu söz konusu durum doğal bir hiyerarşiyi de beraberinde getirmektedir. Erkeğin kadını penetre etme hali doğal bir güç kullanma edimine dönüşmekte ve gündelik hayatta kendini farklı şekillerde ancak, aynı amaç ve edim doğrultusunda kendini göstermektedir. Örneğin feminen bir erkek kamusal alanda, erkek kardeşlerin alanında ya da başka bir deyişle homososyal ilişkilerin icra edildiği yerlerde kendine ait bir alan var edemiyor. Tıpkı erkek köpeklerin kendi alanlarını belirlemesi gibi, erkek bireylerde kamusal alanı, bu söz konusu misak ile işaretliyor ve bedene bürünmüş hem cinslerini ve de zaten dışlanmış olan kadını bu alanın içerisinde, daha öncede bahsettiğimiz gibi belirli eklemler(miiliyetçilik, annelik, aile, ulus) dışında, var olmasını engellemektedir.

Patemon ve bir çok feminist kuramcı; Herkes eşitse bir noktada, neden bu eşitlik sadece erkekler lehine işliyor sorusu ile çoğu zaman meşgul olup, belirli açılardan liberal teoristyenlerin iki yüzlülüğünü de vurgulamayı amaçlayarak, belli başlı sorular ekseninde

bu durumun doğallığının bir noktada kültürel inşaayı hiçe saydığını dile gietirmişlerdir. Bu noktada bu ikilik genel bir kadınlık ve genel bir erkeklik olgusu yaratmaktadır. Bu genelleme doğrultusunda toplumsal cinsiyetlerine göre ayrılmış erkek ve kadınlar kendilerine biçilmiş rolleri performe etmektedirler. Kadınlık ve erkeklik rolleri bir dizi paket program içerisinde sunulmaktadır. Tabiki bu söz konusu paket program içerisinde heteroseksüellik merkezde yer alır ve zorunlu bir yönelim/kimlik olarak sunulur. Bu durum farklı bir toplumsal cinsiyet alanına ve performe edilmesine de izin vermemektedir. Erkeklik ve kadınlık o kadar doğal olgulardır ki , trans bireylerin görünümü muazzam ölçüde bir karmaşa yaratır. Toplumsal cinsiyeti açısından belirgin olmayan bireyler modernizmin kendi alanında başlı başına bir sorundur ve belirsizliğin düzeltilmesi gerektiği yönünde yaygın bir kanı bulunmaktadır. Söz konusu bireyler/kimlikler ya da bedenler heteroseksist yapı içerisinde toplumsal cinsiyetlerine göre yapılandırılmalıdırlar. Örneğin intersex olarak doğmuş bir birey, uzunca bir süredir batı doktirinlerinde hastalık/normal olmayan olarak görülmektedir ve bir takım cerrahi müdahaleler sonucunda aradaki belirsizlik ortadan kaldırılır. Anlaşılacağı üzere, toplumsal cinsiyeti açısından arada kalmışlık ya da belirsizlik bir sorun teşkil etmektedir ve kamusal alanın her yerine bu korku yayılmıştır. Toplumsal cinsiyet paniği olarak da adlandırabiliceğimiz bu durum, bireyler de anksiyete meydana getirmektedir. Söz konusu bireyler/bedenler/kimlikler yapıyı tehdit edici bir unsur olarak algılanmaktadırlar. Bir açıdan "Gender terrorist" algılanmaktadırlar. Bu durum, tamamiyle modernizmin doğallaştırılmış kadınlık ve erkeklik olgusu yüzünden büyük bir sorun haline getirilmiştir. Avusturalya yakınlarındaki bir adada intersex bireylerin özel oldukları düşünülmekte, Hindistan'ın bir bölgesinde de kutsal olarak nitelendirilmektedirler. Ayrıca eski Yunan mitolojisinde bir tanrı(ça) olarak da figürlendiği bilinmekte. Görüldüğü üzere bunun gibi örnekler bizi bu olgunun / ikiliğin, doğal/tarih aşırı bir durum olmadığını ve olmayacağını göstermektedir.

Sonuç olarak kavramın kendisi aslında belirgin bir şekilde yapay bir düzlemin içerisinde icraa edilmektedir. İktidar alanı olarak kullanılan ve iktadirın kendini her daim meşrulaştırdığı bir doğallaştırma sistemi elbelteki kendi mefhumlarını yaratmıştır ve yaratacaktır. Bu mefhumların kenidisi barizdir ki toplumsal cinsiyet normları çerçevesinde şekillendirilmiştir. Cinsel pratikler, miliyetçilik, militarizm ve de bütünüyle var olan heteroseksist yapı bu ikilik çerçevesinde doğallaştırılmıştır. Bir noktada birbirilerini besleyen, birbirlerinden beslenen birer organizma haline gelmişlerdir. Cinsiyet farkı, toplumsal cinsiyeti doğallaştırmış, cinsiyet farkının bu denli keskinleştirilmesi görünmez/meşru bir şiddeti de beraberinde getirmiştir. MacKinnon'ın da belirttiği gibi; "cinsiyetler arası eşitsizlik kişinin niteliği olarak durağanlaştırıldığında toplumsal cinsiyet biçimini alır; kişiler arasında bir ilişki olarak hareket ederken ise cinsellik biçimini alır. Toplumsal cinsiyet, erkekler ile kadınlar arasındaki eşitsizliğin cinselleştirilmesinin katılaşmış halidir.⁴

KAYNAKÇA

Carole Patmen, "The Fraternal Socail Contract," in The Disorder of Women(polity Press, 1989),

Gülnur Acar-Savran, Özel/Kamusal, Yerel/Evrensel: İkilikleri Aşan Bir Feminizme Doğru

Anne McClintock, "No Longer in a Future Heaven": Gender, Race and Nationalism. (University of Minnesota Press, 1997)

Judith Butler, "Cinsiyet Belası" çev: Başak Ertür (Metis, 2008)

http://www.obarsiv.com/cts_fatmagul_berktay.html

Catharine MacKinnon, "Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1987, p. 6-7)

1Carole Pateman, The Fraternal Socail Contract

2Carole Pateman, The Fraternal Social Contract

3Judith Butler, Gender Trouble

4Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law

No Femme(nine) Please !!

 I would like to start with a short story which i had trough many many years ago.

(I used past tense as if i were not encounter or face off this kind of circumstances any more, on the contrary, even if my entourage have changed recently, I nearly encounter such issues comparing the previous years, or I can say that I am able to deal with the situation better) I was at elementary school and as far as I remember it was the calligraphy hour or one of those activity hours. Our teacher told us that we could write with any pen or any crayon which we would like to do. I had chosen to write with crayon. It was yellow. Other pupils chose more specific colors such as blue, brown, red, black, etc. At the end of the class, he checked each of our papers out and he passed all of them with a smiley face, however when he looked my notebook he just could not understand and dazzled in a second and looked once again with a surprised face. Then, his surprised face suddenly got lost. Then, irritating, loathe and disgusted manners turned up in the blinking of an eye. He was looking to me with a disgusting and a sour face. No other boys in the classroom wrote yellow beside me. As a boy, I might have written with a black or brown or perhaps blue crayon, but why yellow. After for a while ( The irritating moments just lasted perhaps 3 minutes at most, however, later on I was going to learn that, that tree moments will have haunted me enormously in the following years ) he came around and loudly asked me “What was this? Why did you choose to write with a yellow one?” and without any pause he kept grouse at me with a sour face ; “It's not visible, neither clear nor appearance. This is too ambiguous.” As far as I remember, It was the first time that I had been dictated on ambiguity have been considered as an unwelcome issue. Ambiguity is thing that real man had better stay away of it. I was going to learn that after all, boys or real men are intend to act reasonable. So much so that, as we all know, modern philosophy and modern men were constituted on this ideology. Just as early remarkable feminist theorists pointed out so; such as Alcoff emphasizes this issue on her remarkable and as well as instructive essay. She clearly underlines this masculinist formulation based on reason and continues : “From the time of Plato, reason was thought to enable the soul reach a pure and eternal... immortal and unchangeable realm...”(Alcoff, 1996) Accordingly,there cant be any ambiguity within the context of reason then. Hence, as a boy it was sort of awkward situation to chose yellow crayon. Besides the aforementioned issue, the disgusted face of him which was emerged in the presence of yellow letters, in this very moment, reminds me Kristeva's “abject” notion. (Kristeva, 1982) I ,who chose relatively ambiguous color which could be directly or indirectly related to feminine desire or so, was abjected. In her ostensible essay, Kristeva explains the reactions, bodily gestures and reactive manners of one who finds himself and herself in the presence of the abjection. The disgusted face, spasm, irritating meaningless, the sour face and so forth. As she defines it: What disturbs idendity, sytem and order. What does not respect boundries, positions, rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite (Kristeva,1982) After I read this ostensible essay, this story or this memory occurred to my mind all of a sudden. The color of yellow represented the ambiguous one, the one that he could not match with his reality and as well as my corporeality either. I guess, I must cut this instructive story in here and had better start to recite briefly about my inquiry and what concerns me in this paper. With this introductory story my aim is to highlight ostensible situation which I went through and have been through as well.

For a long while I have profile on “Gayromeo” which is a sex-date onile profile website (By the way, recently the aforementioned web-site have been banned by the government owing to the fact that the web-site founded “obscene” under the guise of public morality. This can be also a good and instructive study field, however, even though how much it is significant to work on in it, my primary concerns dragged me to this perspective of it, which I will just explain ) There four or may be six more online sex-date web-sites. However, This one is relatively a mainstream comparing the other online profile ones. Most of the members of this web-site identify themselves as a gay or homosexual. There are some others who do prefer not to label or identify themselves as such. In here my explorative aim to deal with some common discourses which were uttered for a while in the homonormative cvyber-space area by those who identify themselves as a gay or a homosexual. Yet I prefer to call them as mainstream gays or straight gay. I will also briefly addressees the notion of homonormativity and mainstream or straight gay later on. I have a mind to explore and explain these discourses in my own way. I am not intend of coming through to get an ostensible or a big results, neither do I have purpose to make a seminal argument. I can also name this study as an ethnographic research. Because of the very fact that the web-site which I have told about enable you to have field study opportunity. Long story short, it can be considered as a critical approach towards the statements in the context of discourse analysis. As we all know that in discourse analysis, the aim is to reveal and to demonstrate the hegemonic relationship with power and knowledge. However the discourses against femininity were not invented within homonormative structure neither basicly constituted, nor it is peculiar to the homonormative structure. Yet, these discourses have been condensely embraced by the members of aforementioned cyber-space and as well as in the public sphere too.

Before I go through, I would like to briefly recite what homonormativity is. I and many of others like me have been tried to dealt with first heteronormativity “which means the set of norms that make heterosexuality seem natural or right and that organaize homosexuality as its oppiste binary. This set of norms works to maintain the dominance of heterosexuality by preventing homosexuality from being a form of sexualty that can be taken for granted or go unmarked or seem right in the way heterosexuality can. (Queer Studies reader, introduction, 2003)and with so many repetitive enactments constituted its hegemonic discourses . One of those most popular and ostensible discourses is homophobic and feminine phobic ones, as we all know very well. Besides it is quite explicit the relationship between discourses and ideologies, accordingly every discourse was constituted in the presence of the ideology. Accordingly heteronormativity brought the homonormativity within its specific perception. This process can be perceived as a mimicry in a way. I must underline the issue in here, that is, the notion of mimicry, because having a name of such a noteworthy issue as a mimicry will bring some risks as well, as you may imagine either. I deploy the notion in here to elaborate the concept which I try to recite. To my mind homonormative structure imitates some concepts of heteronormativity-either way more or less normative structures eventually will resemble each other- such as sublimation of masculinity, feminine phobia, active and passive identification and binary which masculinity is also perceived as a top/active and femininity the opposite which we already know from heteronormativiy very often. Just as Homi Bhabha suggests; “in mimicry, the representation of idendity and meaning is re-articulated along the axis of metonymy.” (Bhabha,1994) It can be also described as a fetishistic imitation. But I am not going to elaborate this is issue ver much (By the way it is not a surprising consequence, that is, every social constituted identity which is based on stability, and as well as coherent entity will eventually create their own normativity in order to settle its position down)

To my mind  these discourses re-constituted unconsciously in homonormative structure within a performative way either.

The issues of femininity and masculinity for a long time have been very much draw and concerned by many people and understandably me either. The discourses have been lasting for almost ages, we all one or other way experienced them all.  A man must behave like a “real man” or must wear manly or must speak like a man, a man should not crinkle, etc. Same discourses more or less are legitimate for women, as you know, therefore I wont go through much. The aforementioned normative discourses are very much appreciated among those gays especially among “straight acting” (they call themselves as such.) / “masculine gays whom they  internalize and reproduce in the homonormative area as well.

Accordingly, I have a mind to find out in an explorative reading of these ongoing statements. My main concern is to understand what kind of performativity and corporeality these discourses coincides with.

In introduction part of Herculine and Barbine , Foucault seeks an answer to his remarkable question in a speculative way, that is, “Do we really need a true sex. (Foucault,1980) I would like to deploy this question and addressees to my inquiry; Do we really need true body/ real body in the frame of masculinity and femininity. Foucault engagement is, understandably, very much about the corporeality in its very essence, considering the issue. Sex and gender are the main entities which shape and define our bodies in pre-modern, modern, and unfortunately still in post-modern times as well. Accordingly, true body, appreciated body manners and gestures and as well as identifications will remarkably be related with gender and sex issues eventually. Understandably in normative spheres both in heterosexual matrix and also homonormative matrix, whether in cyber-space or public space, appreciated corporeality is considered what is masculine or non feminine one. (Hereby, the problematized issue is related to directly discursive masculinity and femininity in the frame of gay males who identified themselves as a male homosexuals. Accordingly, the notions such as appreciated body, true body and considered as an appropriated etc. has been uttered and will be uttered in the context of aforementioned issue.)

As we all know discursive identities have been constituted by both power and knowledge relationship and by society as well. Accordingly the masculinity and its aforementioned discursive practices are socially constituted entities in their very essence. Accordingly, as it is well known, modern society and its subjectivity were constituted within the modern philosophy which based mostly on dichotomies such as Hetero/homo, man/woman/ nature/culture, mind/body, modern/tradition, masculinity/femininity and public/private. All these binaries, as it is well known, are linked to each other. And understandably everything which is related to feminine has been devalued, disdained and excluded. As we all known, within these dichotomies the masculine one, the man and masculinity have been sublimated, valued. While male one was very much appreciated with mind and rationality, the woman was linked with the body, marked, traditional and nature and so forth. After all, the transformation of this new society , as Pateman puts it; “ is fraternal social pact”(Pateman,1989) Modern philosophy had addressed male individuals to “be a man.” Modern rational individual should stay away from the handicaps of the body. Modern rational one should not get touchy, should not run away from the obstacle. It means that the modern rational individual should avoid womanhood. Tradition, nature, emotion, etc. modern individual should not get intercourse with any of those aforementioned notions, otherwise he can lost his rationality in the dread of engulfing in femininity. The body was seen as an handicap before the mind, hence the reason was freed from the body. The modern rational individual was gendered unmarked. Accordingly, all the features of corporeality were given to the marked one, namely to woman, to feminine. Within these binary structures, unsurprisingly heterosexuality is the one which has been densely produced and normalized over and over by certain performative identities and subjectivities. Understandably, through the aforementioned binary, that is, hetero/homo, heterosexual individual was the masculine one and, on the contrary, the homosexual individual has been densely feminized over and over by certain institutions and some discourses such as medicine, psychiatry or law and so forth, as it is well known. Men was created for woman and vice verse. Man is the stronger one and rule the woman just as mind or culture rules the nature. Man can not permit any femininity which tries to surround his being, his essence and so on. These kind of performative discourses were used to make heterosexuality and nuclear family natural. Especially repetitive manners, gestures and discourses by all means, enabled masculinity and as well as femininity perceive as natural. Besides, it is also very instructive remember gendered power and nature relationships between man and woman. This ostensible feminine/masculine opposition, as Sedgwick puts “a metonymic chain of such binarism” (Sedgwick,1990) Culture/nature, body/mind, modern/traditional, etc. Masculinity is the essence of male individual and the femininity is very much the same for female ones. Masculinity constituted as “active social organization and active cultural production within institutional sites, including the state, family, work-place, education and media.”( Haywood, Ghaill, 2003) Power, education, media, medicine and certain social entities provide the ideal masculinity and its discourses. Accordingly, the ideal masculine agents can be constituted. Therefore, the bodies can be modified neatly. Desires can be manipulated in the order.

Understandably, masculinity is the main issue of this modern project within the emphasis of rationality. Modernity created prototype masculinity; Father, ruler, strong and etc. It is quite explicit that this mythic male power discourse also constructed male dominance in the contex of sexuality, sex and gender. Because of the very fact that man is the one who is always penetrating, the one is always be active during the sexual practices. This concept creates so many problematic understanding both in heterosexual arena and as well as in homosexual arena either, as it is imagined well. Productive sexual relationship and its practices constructed itself very well and diffused into the every dimension of sex and gender notions. Even though sex and gender are different things, owing to the common manipulated beliefs, both male and female ones whether in heterosexual sphere or homosexual sphere, have remarkable difficulties with it, as it is well known.

Femininity is always linked to passive desires or considered as bottom one in the context of sexual practices. Most of the people even can not think or assume that woman can be top (active) as well.

Therefore, this ostensible understanding diffused into each engagement both within social organizations, relations, practices, structures and as well as constituting the self and subjectivity.

However, hitherto, the aforementioned discourses are more or less pretty much for constructing the heterosexual male individual. Besides, as we know very well, homosexuality endanger masculinity and its constructive discourses. Same sex male desire violates the myths of male power and its contents, considering the issues which I explicitly cited above. Pronger explains the issue very well, as he puts; “In our culture male homosexuality is a violation of masculinity, a degeneration of the mythic power of men, an ironic subversion that significant numbers of men pursue with great enthusiasm. Because it gnaws at masculinity it weakens the gender order.” (Pronger, 1990) Considering the all those stigmatized against homosexuality and regarding the all those panics, it is quite explicit to understand the reason of hetero anxiety which provokes the flexibility and enable to create coherent stability of normative ground.

Yet, if we consider gay identity as an other constituted subjectivity, it will be understandable why such an hegemonic masculinity is emerged and produced over and over by certain discourses and therefore certain performativity. Late modernity embraced “gay identity” apparently within the reproduced masculinity and its subjectivity. At some point masculinity has been reunited with homosexuality and hegemonic perception of masculinity, apparently has been structured against femininity once again. The castrated homosexual male will have been able to find a ground to gain his power again through the global ubiquitous perception of maleness. Manhood can be constituted through process of repudiating the femininity again and again. As Connell (2000) suggest, “globalization is not simply a recent phenomenon, arguing that we are able to historically to identify a number of globalizations. As a social phenomenon, the current global gender order has been shaped by imperialism and has resulted in a broadly patriarchal society... At each historical moment gender regimes have been re-constituted as male dominance.” Accordingly, with the late modernity the gay identity and corporeality have been gendered once again in the context of hegemonic masculinity. The dominant gender and sexuality was established too in the center of this new identification which is based on hegemonic masculinity. So, this is again inclusion and exclusion process within the “neo-liberal” era . Once again dominant masculine one included himself into the hegemonic sphere and started to be part of it in the context of power and knowledge relationship,to my mind, namely straight-acting gay can be given an example of this process whom they define themselves as having straight behaviors and declared that they have no difference from their hetero individuals and announced that they have merely one difference, that is, the sexuality practices which they perform in their bedroom. As Mac an Ghaill emphasized; “furthermore, this parital social inclusion extends to individual gay men but not homosexuality, with an accompanying official prescription/proscription of specific types of gays, that is, those embodying dominant modes of male heterosexuality.(Mac an Ghaill, 1999) Understandably, they have something in common in the context of femininity and masculinity. On the other hand the feminine male homosexuals were excluded and marked again. They have “Body” which will be posed a risk.

Long story short, understandably , my inquiry/ my main issue within this perspective is very much about this hegemonic masculinity especially in the context of corporeality. As feminine male one, I have encountered such circumstances very much in the daily life both in cyber-space and public space as well. (which is posed a risk that I just cited above) Actually, as we all known very well, being feminine, being marked by any of aforementioned issue within the public sphere have very much both difficulties and as well as arbitrary facilities. However my concern is specifically about homonormative/mainstream sphere. One of the most common wrong belief of this problematic perception is, just as heteronormative matrix, sex and gender trouble. Having a feminine body /becoming feminine body or performing femininity is very much linked to passive desires again. The mimicry issue functions in here either. Just as in heteronormative discourse, everything which is related to femininity or which reminds femininity are very much perceived as always in the desire of submissive preference or etc. I am not in the aim of talking that the feminine one does not want to be submissive or bottom, we are talking about the desires, by all means, desires con not be limited within one or another way. We also know from queer theory sex and sexuality are different things ( Sedcwick.1990) and therefore limited the desires within the one dimension is merely an act or performing the hegemonic discourse of sexuality again and again. It will be turned into a vicious circle and eventually will create stable normative practices which will be merely imitation (mimicry) of the aforementioned circumstances but nothing else.

For instance, “Erkeksi Pasif” (Masculine bottom) is the one of the most common discourses among the mainstream arena both in cyber-space and in public space such as popular clubs and bars. There is one gay club in İstanbul most famous and popular (understandably it is mainstream as well) They have very discriminative dress-code applications. There is a bodyguard in the front door and this guy checks every body before let them enter. By the way, they have woman quota, they declare that they have limited entrance for women and especially during the rush days such as weekends like Friday and Saturday they even don not let any woman come in. Anyway this is another study topic, however I recited this significant detail to frame out for another issue which is if the male customers are too feminine they also do not let them enter in the club. Their excuse for this ostensible and unacceptable discriminative rule is; “ we also do not let woman in. Besides, here is a gay bar not transvestite or transsexual club.” However, I recited this very irritating condition to highlight the issue which, as far as I understood and derived form my experiences (that I also declared this study can be perceived as an ethnographic research in its very essence) femininity is considered of being peculiar to woman. It is very much linked to female body and its dimensions such as gestures, manners and so forth.

Through exercise and habitual patterns of movement, through negotiating its envoirement whether this be rural or urban, through clothing and makeup, the body is more or less marked, constittuted as an appropriate, or as the case may be , an inappropriate body, for its cultural requirements. ( Gross, 1999)Then, for this case, the unwanted male body marked femininity through the gestures, manners and discourses. “Girly-men” have been turned in to be inapproriate one in the context of performative masculinity. Within its cultural requirements, considereing the homonormative discourse , the feminine body or feminine attitudes are considered as undisciplined, uncanny or insecure in a way. Hence feminine gay is then,“beyond the normative” (Shilling,1993) if we consider the issue within the frame of discourses, namely “Adam gibi Adam (real man) or straight-acting guy.” These feminine bodies are unwelcome, unwanted corporeality in the context of “normative anxiety”(shilling,1993) “Güvenilir, Aklı başında.” These statements are also very popular and appreciated among the aforementioned gays. It means that if you are feminine, you are unreliable, you are not rational. The feminine body represent the insecure part of this gendered relationship again, the dark side, the unknown. It contains a risk to engulf within this femininity in the context of male anxiety which we are very familiar in psychoanalysis.

On the other hand, gay men whom they perform their masculine body on the web-site have very much yearning for being a desired one. Masculinity, sexual act and desire, Being desired is one of the most crucial issue among gays, and most of them consider the masculinity as a fundamental key in the context of sexual attractiveness. It is the one of the most important feature to get access this dominant sphere. To my mind, that is why , whenever the so called msculine one utters a femininity as a negation utterance, indirectly and sometimes directly will bring in our minds the masculine one or masculinity in the same order. if we think this semiologic relationships in the context of binary opposition He will take his-self into the secure ground and therefore

with the utterance of masculinity his socially position will have also been settled down. Because of the very that every performative utterance will anchor his body in the context of masculinity.

Bodies produce language and language produces bodies and within this performance the hegemonic masculinity is reproduced. Accordingly within the repetitive abjection of femininity, he will be arbitrary desired one through the negation of feminine one. Accordingly, the language and its too is predictably very important in this process. The act speech issue is very much linked to the process and as well as remarkably instructive to highlight the aforementioned duration.

Considering the issue, that is, to be desirable, “working-out”/ “body-building” is one of the most important concept. The aforementioned mainstream gays always cited on their profile that they are keen on sport, but not a specific one, especially “body-building” their favorite leisure activity. Masculine body is perceived or considered as a natural progress of the male individuals. For example one of those profiles, there are also such statements as “I am a real man, therefore I am muscled and athletic. Of course I am looking for a real athletic man like me. You all; girly, fat and feminine. Please do not even bother yourself to send me a massage. I am a normal muscled man”

I have encountered several statements like these. Accordingly, once again masculinity is seen as a most important essence of the man identity. Therefore body-building must be the first and foremost

leisure activity or predictably must be the most important primary duty of all. Because of the very fact that, as they wrote on their profile, after all we are a man and we like, we find attractive men not the Sisies (sisy means girlish-boy or a boy looks like exactly girl or woman) nor the queens.

Hence our bodies must be shaped according to the hegemonic masculine desire. There is another problematic consideration in here, in the context of body issue. As we all know very well, through history, homosexuality and homosexual one were feminized and it was or even is in the aim of linked to the femininity. Homosexual or gay is described or defined girl-like, feminine-like and the body was feminized and therefore because of the gender trouble passivated as well. This consideration still has been continued among mainstream gay arena both in Turkey and as well as in other country where the gay identity emerged as within the globalization process. Hence, this is also progress of bodily globalization. It is a once again a process to discipline the body. These docile mechanical bodies can provide a ground for reproducing the idealized masculinity over and over.

On the other hand the aforementioned dread of being never lasting feminized issue most probably lead them to make their body much more muscled, “neutral and innocuous” (Featherstone, 2000). This muscled, so called masculine body helps the individual to gain distance from the one whom in not desired and not unwelcome in the context of corporeality and besides helps to gain a ground for performing his identity. In the context of gender issue, the muscled body also functions very well in the heterosexual matrix. It can be transformed unmarked body. Accordingly they can create a safe ground within this body modification. This discursive and as well as constituted so called masculinity can enable them to stay in the closet or heterosexual matrix. Therefore, they can save their body form the feminized process by being alienated out of the context. And they can prove that their body is not infected by femininity in its very essence via well-shaped muscled body.

Hence, the structured self can deploy the masculinity as a socializing “weapon” or method against effeminacy.

However, the problematic issue in here, body-building, make one's body muscled is also a body modification in its very essence, as it is known very well. How come every other bodily modifications are considered as a transgression of the nature-law or unwritten social pacts and so forth, but body-building. As a matter of fact I am not intended to pose a question, because of the very fact that the answer is quite explicit, considering the issue that I pointed out above. The concepts of “gender insecure and gender anxiety” are predictably and understandably the main causes of yearning the perfect body. This process could be considered as an instructive tool against homosexual panic or feminine panic, I mean the fear of engulfing into the femininity or into the feminine body. However, to my mind, no matter how the one is located himself into the safe ground of this heterosexual matrix or mainstream gay arena, being into the closet and structuring the body according to the hegemonic discourse, one or another way will create another anxiety eventually, hence the process will be turned into be vicious circle in a way. Namely, certain questions will be revealed again and again such as “am I perfect enough, am I masculine enough and am I desirable enough and so forth. More or less these kind of problematic issues are linked to each other in a way.

Besides, excessive muscled bodies also transgress the normative perception either.

On the other hand, generalizing the body-building and body-builders as merely anxiety of manhood, is another problematic issue, to my mind. Because of the very that body-building is also social activity as well. Hence I would like to cease the argument in here. Herewith I would not deploy the conservative feminist perspective, because of the very that there is not merely “negative” reasons of it. Besides there are some other various positive consideration in the context of fetishistic desire, self reflexivity. It also enables a person to have certain eroticised moment in the context of

homo-sociality. It is also another kind of subculture, hence it has a risk to alienate the topic very much. Also body-building is another topic per se, accordingly, to my mind it must be focused through by taking into consideration of every dimensions and details which are linked each another. Hereby, I wanted to draw the attention to the point of hegemonic masculinity and its linked with feminine phobia and also as an gender insecurity in the context of corporeality. Besides, I wanted to try to emphasize how body-building activity used as a constitution of desired body through the hegemonic masculine discourse among mainstream gay arena against femininity. However there could be taken into various considerations both for body-builders, for academics and so forth. Some could say that this is purely the cause of gender insecurity or manhood anxiety, for some it could be considered as an merely health activity and a chance to get intercourse with homosocail possibility. I mean it could not be merely the significance of masculine violence within its own matrix. “The body is not simply an objective signifier in the social world but an active, embodied sentient being, subject to the contingencies of space and time”(Feathertone,2000)

Hence, every generalizing issue on particular body activity can lead unintended consequences and considerations as well. Generalizing or limiting the issue to the particular type of masculinity, according to me, is also another problematic consideration . However my main inquiry is all about the hegemonic masculinity. We also witness different type of masculinity both in heterosexual matrix and in queer spaces as well such as “female masculinity” as Halberstaim emphasizes in his remarkable book(Halberstaim,1998) To my mind, female masculinity, namely drag kings and butch lesbians, is significant becomings, considering the masculinity as a socially constructed identity. Besides, female body builders are significant as well, considering the all aforementioned issues in the context of identity constitution and structuring the self. Especially regarding with corporeality, female masculinity provides an important bodily subversion. It serves unique multiplicity against the belief of masculine's essence in the invented male individual.

Consequently, while I was starting this paper and study, I was intended to explorative reading on issues which I pointed out and I tried to frame the discourses which are mentioned within the concepts of performativity and corporeality as well. I know that such a significant and remarkable issues can not be completely enframed within merely mentioned issues and considerations. Besides, there are lots of issues remain unmask in the context of aforementioned notions. Yet, none the less, as a conclusion, in mainstream arena these feminine gays are the others against whom masculine gays show their identity over them, regarding with the all issues which are emphasized in this paper. They have to prove to others and also to themselves non-stop, which they are not the sisy, feminine, queen ones through their muscled bodies and everlasting process of repudiating the femininity as well. There is a silence within this becoming. The silence of the body, the silence of the fear that causes the identity or subjectivity to be established by the fear of becoming the other or becoming fluid. The silence of the manhood. All these fears and repudiations are the core of the silence which runs the system. Different, fluid becomings can break the silence, however concrete identities and the bodies which established through the fear of gender insecurity, will continue to mask this silence of hypocrisy.

REFERENCES

Alcoff, Linda Martin, “Feminist Theory and social science” in body space, ed. Nancy Duncan. Routledge, 1996

Bhabha, Homi K. “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” in The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1994

Connell, R.W (2000) "The Men and the Boys." London: Polity

Featherstone, Mike (2000) "Body Modification" London: Sage

Foucault, Michel (1980) "Herculine & Barbin" New York: Pantheon Books

Gross, Elizabeth, (1999) "Space, Time and Perversion" London: Routledge

Halberstam, Jack (Judith) (1998) "Female Masculinity", London: Duke Press

Haywood ,Chris & Mac an Ghaill, Mairtin (2003) "Men and Masculinities" Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Kristeva, julia. (1982) "Powers of Horror, An Essay on Abjection." New York: Colımbia Press.

Pateman, Carol (1989) "The fraternal Social Contract," in The Disorder of Women . Polity Press

Pronger, B.(1990) "The Arena of Masculinity: Sports, Homosexuality and the Meaning of Sex. London: Gey Men's Press

Queer Studies : an interdisciplinary reader 2003, edithed by Robert J.Cober and Stephan Valocchi. UK: Blackwell

Schiling,C (1993) "The Body and Socail Theory. London: Sage.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, (1990) "Epistemology of The Closet" Berkley: University Press