Representation of Sexual Identities

The policy of representing a gender or sexual orientation is the first reason for the failure of that policy. Because the arena of representation was established not for the representation of gender, but because of it.

The fact that the aim is the representation of genders means that genders are reproduced as political values. When something is most politicized, it distances itself from itself.

As long as femininity represented in politics is the goal, women's equality, which should be overlooked, cannot be achieved. I specifically choose and use the word "overlooked" because it is the overlooking of it that is the signifier of a genuine equality.

In the same way, the demand of sexual orientations for identity in the arena of representation is their demand to be seen and represented only through sexuality. In Baudrillard's eyes, this means that everything becomes sexuality and therefore sexuality is no longer sexuality.

A politics that emphasizes only sexuality is defeated from the start. Because sexuality is only one of the signifiers of human existence. In a politics that emphasizes only one signifier, even the most powerful one, human deficiencies abound.

It is a simple rule of signs: When the signifier is overemphasized, the meanings of the signified become meaningless; the signifier fades from view and so the signifier is lost.

The danger of rising sexist politics is that there is nothing left to emphasize except the human body. After industrial capitalism, the goal for the human being who is alienated from his/her labor is to be alienated from his/her body.

In capitalism, which channels human labor, whose production is diverse, into uniform production in factories, the human body has to wear new gender roles. In this context, homosexuality should not be considered outside of production.

Genders are already constantly produced. Today, homosexual genders are the most produced.

Genders, gender roles and stereotypes are both produced and produced within modes of production. Underneath the arena where the existence of heterosexual women and men, homosexual women and men is represented only through sexuality, there is a market.

In the market where desire is directed and orientations are produced, it is difficult to access the story of homosexuality of each and every homosexual. It would be more honorable to accept this difficulty when the subject matter is human beings; but since the subject matter is human beings, it is necessary to write at the risk of touching a nerve.

Because in a politics where only the body is emphasized, I wonder what overlooks the fact that bodies are not equal.

Based on the fact that some bodies are more obedient, weaker and passive, I also wonder what it is that makes use of bodies with the sexualities produced in them.

This is a curiosity born out of love for human beings.

What makes you think that homosexual politics, which claims to be a rebellion against hegemonic masculinity, is not supposedly produced by hegemonic masculinity? How can it be accepted that this politics that pacifies the male body is not hegemony, let alone masculinity?

It is necessary to see that the policy that makes homosexuality an apparatus of oppression against gender roles produces a new gender role and oppresses society with it.

If we need to name it, and it needs to be named, it is hegemonic homosexuality, hegemonic genderlessness. Its violence is on the bodies of both men and women.

Gender roles are determined, whether by religion, custom or secularly constituted law. At the same time, these gender roles are developmentalist. They construct the woman against the man and the man against the woman through a ready-made other. As no identity can be constructed without an other, homosexuality and sexualities included in undefined gender roles do not yet have an other. We can also say that they are non-developmentalist because these roles are only content with the manifestation of sexuality. Gender roles are meant to build the family. The family is a fundamental part of the nation. In a sense, the family is also the fundamental part of the law. The new gender movements, which are reactive to gender roles, target the family first and the nation last. The roles of men and women in the family in the national sphere are not the same as the gender roles in the tribe. In the nation, where the law is the authority, the genders are not privileged and power corresponds to a sense of responsibility. Citizenship means being obliged and the emphasis is on this. The roles of masculinity and femininity, which rise above the genders and gender roles determined by monarchy, feudalism and tribal social order, and which are burdened not with power but with responsibility, are achieved at the national level. Capitalism realizes the manlessness and consequently the womanlessness appropriate to the renewed and diversified mode of production through polysexual orientations. Sexuality today is neither the content of the family nor of a relationship of love. It is now industrialized and the act of pleasure is spread all over the world. Today, the industry is the determinant of sexuality and sexual identities determined by religion, custom and law, which are repressed and suppressed by society. Repression has been taken away from society, human beings and the law and left to the market, the desire it creates and its fulfillment. The pressure of the market is its freedom.

Globalization is the solution to the blockage of the economy of the rulers. While it is the sovereigns who protect their nations in the global market, it will be the nations subjected to globalization whose nations are occupied. For this purpose, every national value will be called pathological. When everything becomes transnationalized, there will be no need for occupation, and the sovereigns will get what they will get with the spread of the market. Today, the protection of national values, the family and social sexuality against cross-border hegemony will be the basis for the preservation of the nation's existence.

At the national level, the role of women and the role of men are the protective roles of the family and ultimately of the republic. The male role, burdened with responsibility and equal to the female role, is also possible in this sphere, at the national level. It is not possible to claim an existence on the national plane when the roles of men and women defined by the law are erased. To erase the man of the nation, the male role, is to erase the military, the army, the father and the rules. A nation without a ruler, without a masculine force is tantamount to non-existence. Solomon does not even offer Belkis a war, for example; he asks for her obedience in the face of the threat of destruction, and Belkis surrenders with her people without claiming a war at the cost of her destruction. The determination of roles between femininities and masculinities, between those to be protected and those to protect, is in the name of the continuity of the nation, the survival of the future. The arena of representation was established not for the representation of the sexes, but because of them and for them.

The demand for the freedom of all sexual orientations and genders, the demand for representation, in the name of the loss of gender roles, the family, the father and ultimately the law, are demands driven by the sovereigns who rule the global market.