Status Updates From Visibility Interrupted: Rur...

the goat

I'm lowkey hate reading this at this point because I find her foundational definition of visibility asinine. I know partially this is to do with the fact that I have dear south dakotan butches in my life for whom her thesis has no room for. I also find the way she uses homonormativity to describe city queer people/as a juxtaposition to rural queers laughable when what she describes is rural homonormativity

okay. but who is saying “visibility promotora progress” without any caveats? i hope we get more into that. because, and perhaps i’m countering experience bias with experience bias, a lot of disability inclusive spheres that i run in address that progress includes the notion that visibility is not possible or desirable for some people. and that being inclusive to them is still crucial.

"WHEN IS AN ARCHIVE A METHOD" oh, i do so love this question. bestie you are being soooooo relevant.

aaand right after i post this the author goes into experience bias (i still stand by the referencing of her experiences i think), queer methods, queering methodology, and "dyke methods." like! are you KIDDING. i'm VERY interested to learn this science.

ALSO! hoping this addresses how internalized homophobia can contribute to want/lack of want for visibility and/or unbecoming in both urban and rural spaces eventually...feels like there's some experience bias weaved into the scientific writing which like. storytelling is important! but sometimes i feel like i'm reviewing my sister's college stuff again going "cite a source," "add a sourced academic definition," etc.

feeling questionably about some science here. like...there's good points! but like...it's okay for parts of your work to end up contributing to the larger discourse without supporting your particular point. that can happen and you can address if you had shortcomings! i feel like there's a vibe that this can't be wrong. also, i feel as though there is some conflation between respectability and visibility politics.

should be required reading for any non-rural queer person. love the concepts this book introduces + connects. however, something sours me. couldn't figure out what until i went to the reviews. someone said "i cant help but feel like it was sometimes written in bad faith." yeah. the claims sometimes bring forth a tone that is more akin to standing up to someone who hurt you than presenting an argument for science.

have not been struggling this hard to finish a book in a while. it is still not saying much at all?