The Great Gay Channel Controversy

Meta
Title:	The Great Gay Channel Controversy
Creator:	mediated by Kerry Schaefer, includes comments from Jacqueline Lichtenberg, Jean Lorrah, and fans
Date(s):	1985
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Sime~Gen
Topic:	Sime~Gen, homosexuality, fiction writing
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

The Great Gay Channel Controversy is an 18-page essay that was published in 1985 in the zine Post-Syndrome: Considerations on Sexuality in the Sime/Gen Universe.

first page of the 18-page essay

The main crux of the discussion: some fans were very distressed at Lichtenberg's refusal to include any relationships in her work that were not heterosexual and this was perceived by some fans to be homophobic. Fan discussions on this topic were certainly carried out privately by letters and phone calls to each other, but also in more public areas, such as letters of comment to zines.

The essay's content is a collection of excerpts from letters in Sime~Gen zines (mainly Ambrov Zeor #8 and #9 and Zeor Forum #3) and other discussion, including comments by Jacqueline Lichtenberg herself. Some of the material is also contemporary, meaning it was written for Post-Syndrome: Considerations on Sexuality in the Sime/Gen Universe alone.

The discussion was compiled and edited by Kerry Schaefer.

The discussion is an example of fans "talking back" to TPTB, and is unique in that these conversations happened on the "front stage" of that fandom, but were also an example of "controlled transparency."

Lichtenberg has many comments in this discussion, both in the form of editorial comments inserted in the text using "((JL))" as well as a long, long essay. Jean Lorrah also has some inserted comments in the form of footnotes to Lichtenberg's main essay.

Two kick-back, culture-jamming poems were included in this fanwork, and they are included below.

The essay can be dificult to follow at times as it was gleaned from many sources, some not cited. Lichtenberg's comments are also sprawling and esoteric.

A similar essay is Three Letters on the Subject of Homosexuality in the Sime/Gen Universe (1979).

Introduction

From a Letter by Katie Filipowicz:

It basically goes back to the complaint that many fans have brought up (and it is many) that Jacgueline says there are no homosexual channels (or if there are, they would die in First Year), and that there is no such thing as a sexually-locked orhuen. There are a large number of homosexuals and bisexuals in S/G fandom, and this statement of JL's makes them feel locked out. I've found that, like most people captivated with the S/G universe, they like to picture themselves in it, like to pick out roles for themselves. Most seem to fancy themselves Companions or channels. The intense intimacy of the S/G relationship seems a dream, an ideal to them, because it allows a socially acceptable relationship between two people of the same sex. Of course, they would like to turn that physical intimacy into sexual intimacy, in their ideal. And then they find out that they can't, that this is not allowable in this fantasy world they thought was their ideal — because Jacqueline says so. They are very deeply, terribly, frustrated.

Reply by Kerry Schaefer:

Katie presents very well the feelings of Jacqueline's gay fans. We are deeply frustrated indeed, to find ourselves excluded yet again, and by those we had reason to believe rejoiced in the diversity of the universe, rather than condemning certain forms of that diversity. Some of us have simply lost interest in S/G fandom as a result. Others continue to argue the issue. (For those interested in previous discussions of this topic, I refer you to the AZ#8 Letcol, correspondence between Linda Frankel and JL, and the AZ#9 Letcol, letters from Barbara Tennison, Jean Lorrah, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Linda Frankel, and JL.) What follows is the result of this ongoing dialog with Jacqueline.

Excerpts

LOC BY KERRY SCHAEFER TO THE QUERY IN ZF#3: "HOW DO YOU THINK THE TECTON WOULD REACT TO A HOMOSEXUAL CHANNEL?"

Hopefully, much better than it did in Linda Frankel's play, "Grant Kendikot vs. the Tecton", wherein it reacted in much the same fashion as present-day American society does. I should think a more likely response would be, "Shenoni, more complications! More chance of dependencies, more factors to be considered in making up transfer and sex assignments!" (And I can imagine some poor controller tearing out his/her hair over a channel who is not simply homosexual, but bisexual.) ((JL: Would probably turn up only in Rathor, or one of the other esoteric schools; someone in possession of all their past-life memories.)) ((KS: Aha, then they could exist, under the right conditions!)) Since it would appear from the existence of the character Narvoon in HoZ that homosexuality per se is not considered especially reprehensible in Sime society, I can see no reason for the Tecton to condemn it so viciously. ( (JL: Good point.)) Of course, this is no guarantee that it wouldn't, since there exists no rational reason for American society to hate homosexuality either. ((JL: Biblical injunction misinterpreted.))

I have thus far heard no convincing reasons, physical or psychological, for the nonexistence of homosexuality amongst channels. (And please note that I wish to include the possibility of bisexuality along with homosexuality, although I may not always mention it specifically.) Jacqueline has already allowed for the existence of gay renSimes (ie: Narvoon, and also JL to Linda Frankel, AZ#8 Letcol: "That you can't have a homosexual channel doesn't imply that there aren't perfectly fine renSimes who are gay."), so there can be nothing in the basic Sime physiology preventing homosexuality. Presumably, the same holds true for your average Gen. However, given the propensity of most readers to identify with and care about the main characters rather than the background population, most of our concern centers around the relationships between channels and Companions/Donors. (As far as I can recall, no one has tried to insist that a Donor couldn't be gay, have they?) ( (JL: No, but there just aren't enough to make it a social problem.)) ((KS: Why not? In our society, it's estimated that as many as one in every ten people are or have been homosexual. Why shouldn't that same ratio apply, at least amongst those . portions of S/G society, such as Gens, that are capable of homosexuality?))

Does Jacqueline wish to assert that since channels are different from renSimes, there is some physical reason stemming from this difference which forces channels to be exclusively heterosexual? ((JL: Basically, yes. It is the dual system which is cross linked into the sexual responses that would cause gay channels to die shortly after changeover.)) This seems a rather arbitrary and uncalled-for assumption, especially considering that modern science has yet to discover any physical reason for homosexuality even now. ((JL: It's not "scientific". The reasoning is "esoteric". And there is a wholelot I don't know about the theory and practice of sex-magic, kundalini, chakras, etc.)) Most theories would attribute it to psychological or cultural factors, and I should think it would be, if anything, more likely for a channel to be psychologically and culturally disposed toward gay sexual relationships than it would be for someone living in our world right now.

Considering that same-sex transfer is quite ordinary and completely acceptable, and that transfer is a close physical and emotional relationship which brings the desire for sex in its aftermath, it would seem to make the step to a sexual relationship easier rather than harder. ((JL: Also totally unnecessary and irrelevant.)) ((KS: Why? Transfer doesn't make straight sex unnecessary and irrelevant, does it?)) By this I do not mean to imply that I think everybody in the S/G universe should therefore turn out to be gay. As in our world, such a-thing would appeal to some, but not all. I'm only suggesting there might be ' less ingrained aversion to intimacy between members of the same sex than there is in our society. ((JL: There is absolutely none. Why make a taboo against something that never happens?)) ((KS: But it does, or at least could, happen between Gens and/or renSimes. Society could still choose to take exception to that, if it wanted to.))

Another interesting point which could be made is that if we were to compare transfer to sex, channels are pretty much bisexual. Now, as soon as everyone stops screaming at me that transfer and sex are two completely different things, I'll go on. I mean it only as an analogy, not literally. Thus: the "normal", "natural" standard for transfer is Sime-Gen, which may be compared with ordinary heterosexuality. By this standard, Sime-Sime transfer would be a perversion: regardless of the sexual gender of the individuals involved, it is now two of the same type of beings relating to each other, which is pretty much what homosexuality is to us. Only the channels seem able to take both possible roles in transfer donating or drawing selyn depending on the requirements of the situation. Isn't this most similar to what a bisexual individual in our world does? ((JL: Yes. Good analogy.)) Why should a channel, who is capable of such versatility in transfer, be so sadly limited when it comes to sex, which is, after all, not nearly so important as transfer?

Leaving my analogy behind, what about orhuen? It has been stated many times over and in no uncertain terms that orhuen does not include a sexual relationship. Okay, so it doesn't. So what? Orhuen is defined as a transfer dependency relationship between matchmates. What happens if the individuals involved are not matchmates? Perhaps such a relationship would not have the near- unbreakability of LOT relationships, but is that necessarily so bad? Or perhaps orhuen should be more exactly defined as being between heterosexual individuals of the same sex. Maybe there would be another form of transfer dependency between gay or bisexual matchmates of the same sex? And then what happens if one person is exclusively straight, or gay, and the other isn't? There would be lots of possibilities for exploring various facets of interpersonal relationships along these lines.

If it is indeed "a basic premise of the Sime universe — that there can be total emotional intimacy between two people who do not find themselves sexually attracted to one another" (JL to Linda Frankel, AZ8 Letcol), then why is this premise evoked to justify the non-sexual nature of orhuen only? Why aren't lortuen and torluen also non-sexual? ( (JL: By definition.)) ((KS: This begs the question. You invented the definition. Why did you do it that way, if you wanted to demonstrate the above premise?)) If they were, it would further emphasize the point that sex is not necessary to a committed, caring relationship. But no: straight sex between matchmates follows smoothly and naturally after transfer, at least until the Tecton makes an effort to stop it. Only gay sex appears to be rendered impossible. This is hardly fair. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the saying goes. ( (JL: Nature is rarely "fair".)) ((KS: I don't expect fairness from nature, only from creators of fictional universes. Or a darn good reason for a particular unfairness to exist in that universe.))

Getting back to the original question of the Tecton's attitude toward homosexuality, I can see how it might be discouraged for channels because it could severely sidetrack their desire to breed more little channels. (Yes, I know a channel doesn't always produce a baby channel or even a future high-class Donor, but they must have a higher probability of doing so, or they wouldn't be officially encouraged to have children.) ((JL: It has nothing to do with encouragement.)) ((KS: No? Then why is the Tecton willing to support women who bear children to channels? I call that official encouragement.))

However, this argument wouldn't apply to everyone (ie: Farris females who consistently die in childbirth. They might be better off being gay.) Besides, if a gay channel truly wished to have children, he or she could very likely manage it well enough in one way or another. So even this argument would not be sufficient reason for the Tecton's being adamantly against homosexuality.

I would conclude that, if there were indeed a Grant Kendikot in the. mainline S/G universe, and he was homosexual and in conflict with the Tecton, it was probably not simply because he was gay that he was on trial, but because he had advocated a channel's right to love his/her assigned transfer partner and enter into a permanent relationship with that partner. This would threaten and infuriate the Teuton far more than a gay channel's somewhat unorthodox but perfectly harmless choice of bed partners. ( (JL: No, I just can't see such a channel surviving long enough. And if s/he did survive, it would be no problem because there would only be one or two per generation in the world.)) ((KS: You mean it would be no problem to allow such a channel an exclusive transfer/sex partner, because the number of individuals involved would be so small as to be virtually nonexistent, and therefore no real threat to the Teuton's rotation system? Okay, but that channel could still find himself in trouble is s/he went around advocating that straight channels were entitled to the same privilege, right? That's the point I was trying to make.) )

Kerry Schaefer's contemporary response, written for this zine:

On re-reading this exchange, I noticed that a large part of the problem in my attempt at dissuading Jacqueline from her insistence on the virtual impossibility of gay channels seems to stem from the fact that we are each approaching the subject from a very different point of view. We are both reacting on the basis of our own assumptions on the nature and causes of homo- and bisexuality. Thus, JL speaks in terms of reincarnation, chakras, kundalini, magic, etc. (especially in the AZ letters to which reference is made), while I'm thinking mostly in terms of psychological and cultural factors. I see human sexual behavior as falling anywhere along the continuum from hetero- to bi- to homosexuality, with the similarities of the sex act itself in each case vastly outnumbering the differences, and the entire thing being only variations on the same theme anyway. Jacqueline seems to think of it more in either/or terms. This will become much more apparent later in this article, when Jacqueline sets forth some of her esoteric reasons in more detail.

EXCERPT FROM A LETTER FROM JACKIL GARRETT TO KERRY SCHAEFER:

I do hope that this special issue zine will deal rationally and fairly with all preferences existing between consenting adults. I've noticed that with the fan literature addressing homosexuality in the Star Trek universes, well-intentioned heterosexuals seem always to assume a homosexual liaison to take on a "straight" posture. That is, one partner acts the role of "male" and the other "female". Granted, this does occur in some, homosexual couples; but it is the exception rather than the rule. I hope that any fiction written for this issue will reflect a bit of reality. ((KS: Jackil makes an excellent point here. Gay role playing is becoming more and more a thing of the past, just as sex-typed role playing is beginning to diminish in straight relationships also.))

EXCERPT FROM A LETTER FROM KATIE FILIPOWICZ TO JL AND JEAN L.:

I got the wild idea in my head that out-Territory, there might even be more homosexuals than there are now. Here is a set of people, the Gens, with bodies provided with that natural outlet for relating to people of the same sex, but different polarity -- and they're denying it like crazy. They know there should be more, and they try to find it through sex, but that just isn't it. At the same time, they could develop a fear of homosexuality, like Hugh's, on associating with Simes, because the transfer relationship strikes them as so intimate. Sort of a circular set of fears. ((Jean: This sounds absolutely right to me.)) Why is there a natural Gen fear of Simes? Why is it natural to fear something natural, such as transfer and the constant association of Simes with Gens? ((Jean; Simes Kill, that's why!)) How does this carry out the parallel of the S/G split with the male/female one? Is it innate or natural to fear sex? Or is the innate fear perhaps loss of control over one's own body — death, seemingly; or in the case of Gens, actually? Seems anti-survival, but a lot of people must overcome it. ((Jean: Fear of sex is cultural; we happen to live in a culture in which this fear is rampant, grown out of the discovery of the Medieval Church that if you can control people's two strongest drives, self-preservation and racial survival, you can control the people — but the secret is to make them think that they are doing it because it's Absolute Right, not because they're being forced. Hence the restrictions on what foods when and sex when and with whom. The Tecton uses the same techniques, but substitutes transfer restrictions for dietary ones. The Church of the Purity probably has dietary laws and certainly sexual ones. Superstitious fear lingers for generations after a religion has lost its force. Hence, sexual fears today. I imagine the CoP preaches against homosexuality, along with everything else except husband-and-wife-in-missionary-position-in-order-to-have-children. In fact, they may even teach that masturbation causes tentacles! Remember, we think everything we soak up from our culture is natural. You and I think suicide is unnatural. The Japanese think it is natural and honorable.))

Lichtenberg's Final Essay

There is a mini essay within this larger discussion. Even the editor of the zine called it confusing and convoluted. In the essay, there is much discussion of chakras, Judaism, the beliefs of Marion Zimmer Bradley, "Intimacy" with a capital "I", "we need a some hard laboratory data on the nature of gayness"...

[footnotes indicated in brackets were provided by Jean Lorrah:

Can you see why I can't completely resolve the problem of the gay channel? Our real world science doesn't have the whole theory of gayness yet I Esoteric theory is mixed and still in furious argument over -whether gay sex can be used in "white" sex-magic (that's something MZB stayed out of in the recent hot controversy in pagan circles.) (1) Until I have an absolute and thorough real-world theory of gayness, I can't develop an analogue in the S/G universe.

Currently our readership is using a wide diversity of theories of real-world gayness, and so there is no consensus on what the S/G data implies or what it ought to be.

My intuitive knowledge of both reality and S/G tells me quits loudly (and has not been swayed by the arguments so far advanced because none of those arguments include the building of a real- world theory to which the S/G can be made congruent) that you can't have a gay channel. He/she would simply perish at first cross-flow between primary and secondary systems. *Zap* that's it.

[snipped]

I need evidence from psychics under controlled conditions of male-identified lesbians, female-identified lesbians, male- identified homosexuals, female-identified homosexuals -- and all of the above for the following groups: gays who will not touch straights or members of the opposite physiological sex; gays who can copulate with members of the opposite physiological sex, but don't get anything out of it and gravitate to other gays; gays who get just as much out of sex regardless of the physiology of the partner — wherein it matters more WHO the person is than WHAT they are (i.e. bisexuals).

A discussion of the origin of gayness also belongs here — is it a phenomenon of mental illness (fairly well discredited theory, though I'm sure that SOME people are gay-identified as a result of some form of mental illness), genetics, cultural nurture, or WHAT? I see many, many origins, each represented by a few people most of whom don't care how they became as they are but are merely concerned with living their lives. It is certainly a phenomenon that has been with us since recorded history began -- and is observed in most animal species. And therefore it must be regarded as natural.

However, the Torah specifically prohibits gays from an active part in Jewish life (it does not in any way imply that gayness is unnatural or wrong or evil; (5) it simply accepts the phenomenon as part of humanity and carefully, specifically and firmly excludes all such from the daily observances of Jewish practice which are -- if you consider it from a certain point of view -- highly potent magical ceremonies. Gays are not excluded from humanity, nor from the "Nations" nor from any other form of magic. Only from the Jewish community practice. There is something particular about this magic, not shared with any other system, which makes it dangerous for gays to participate. We are not told dangerous to whom, nor what the consequences are other than the cutting off of the incompatible person. (6)

One wonders why this should be? What terrible and dreadful consequences might proceed from accidentally getting the magical ceremony to "work" while including in the group those who are practicing gays? I, frankly, don't know. But I've figured out so many of the other proscriptions which made absolutely no sense to me before I started studying esoterica that I'm very leery about discarding one so prominent and emphatic even though it seems to make no sense given what we know today.

[snipped]

I've been accused of writing "too technical" — if I were to write a gay channel into any S/G story, it would wax so technical even the deep-steeped fen couldn't follow it! I'm not even sure I could write it! I don't know enough!

Responses Printed in This Essay

Jacqueline's letter, and my response, which follows shortly, was sent on a round robin and came back with no responses. Everyone said they really didn't know what to say, except that they still disagreed with Jacqueline on the non-existence of gay channels. The following poem was written by Phyllis Randall, after reading JL's letter.

The idea of a gay channel

Is repugnant to some.

Especially the author.

Who says it can't be done.

Her fans protest in vain,

With mournful cries of woe.

But Jacqueline stands firm;

She's sure it just ain't so.

If from the Ancients came

The race of Sime and Gen,

So surely gays mutated too

Along with the others then.

So many occult reasons

Supposedly explain

Why gays could not be channels

And yet our doubts remain.

But we would like to change that.

Forgive us that we've tried.

Surely some way can be found

So the gay channel won't be denied.

And, just before going to press with this issue, I received yet another poem on this subject, this one from Rita H. Palmer.

Jacqueline says we don't exist.

And in her mind, it may be true.

But because of her attitude

We hide our true feelings from view.

I cannot help but wonder why

Our kind of love must be hidden.

And to follow our own true hearts

Is always to be forbidden.

We love our children, either sex.

Good or bad, or Sime or Gen.

Then why not my only dear heart?

I'll give my love time and again.

Does the gender really matter?

Why fuss over what the sex is?

Oh, Jacqueline, you have hurt us

And how sorely you do vex us.

RESPONSE TO JACQUELINE'S LETTER BY KERRY SCHAEFER: T

his entire argument is, of course, totally unconvincing if one does not share JL's view of the universe. That is, if the entire concept of karma, chakras, kundalini, etc. does not, in truth, accurately reflect the nature of reality, then it's about as useful as to say there are no gay channels because the world is flat. I personally am far from convinced of the validity of JL's world-view. However, in the interests of conducting a meaningful dialog, I shall proceed on the assumption that Jacqueline's basic truths are indeed true, and go from there.

[much, much, much snipped]

If nothing else, these are a few of the possibilities which could be used to make gay channels plausible in a S/G alternate universe, should anyone wish to write about them. Jacqueline's veto will not stop her gay fans from visualizing themselves in the S/G universe, if they are inclined to do so. It will effectively prevent the appearance of gay channels in professional S/G literature, and alienate a number of gay potential fans. From an SF series with such high ideals, so much meaning, such power, such feeling for the human struggle for a decent life despite crushing obstacles, so much emphasis on the hope that differences need not divide the human race forever, we had expected so much more. From any lesser source, it would not be such a devastating and painful blow.