Writing Project 1
“Identity and Diversity in America Contexts” I read. Hesitating before pressing submit and watching the “REGISTERED” pop-up icon appear, I was unenthusiastic about my first writing-focused college course. I could not shake off the indifference that lingered within me since I disdained writing. I was more fluent in mathematics and how its elegance of numbers and symmetries was more understandable to me. Numerical constellations resonated with me more since there was always a definite answer yielded by the simplicity of calculated formulas, unburdened by the weight of critical thinking. Writing for a professor was like playing a game with the rules simultaneously changing by the game maker. However, the love of mathematics became my enemy and my first ever “WRIT 150” research paper developed my love for writing.
“WRIT 150” was not exactly a voluntary leap into my writing journey but more of a necessary prescribed dosage of academia, picked from a lineup. I first viewed it as another obligatory chapter in my academia but the selection had significance since the agency to choose this specific course bridged my interests in social, political, and economic commentary. As a first-generation, low-income, person of color, and queer, this course had an attraction for the opportunity to explore and articulate the complexities of my identity within societal frameworks. Rather than valuing this course as another mundane, tireless writing class, I voluntarily embraced it as a medium to express my unique opinions and perspectives.
The freedom to delve into social, political, and economic commentary within this course wielded a transformative experience. It diverged from my previous conventional academic path in writing where personal exploration was overshadowed by conformity; writing a piece of evaluating given texts and how these texts’ assertions collectively support each other. The agency was important because I was able to write without regard to a professor’s desired genres and relevancy. Success was measured by the precision, depth, and meticulous articulation of my research and opinions, enabling exploration. My writing shifted towards the richness of my perspectives and ability to coherently craft comprehensive explanations compared to checking off technical skills from a professor’s checklist for what constitutes a “good paper.” There is no doubt my love for writing is dependent on themes that captivate and inspire me. My love for writing evolved from a disdainful view to a voluntary exploration of unique opinions and perspectives. My writing journey has always been a journey through hills, from the sunny hills of success where I write intuitively to stormy valleys of exclusively writing academically.
My WRIT 150 professor, Jingyuan Fu, an activist and journalist, navigated the trajectory of my paper. Emphasizing a commitment to objectivity, she stressed prioritizing factual representation to assert personal opinion. The approach adopted was to integrate statistical and quantitative results coupled with examinations of historical contexts to provide an understanding of trends, patterns, and factors that influence subject matters. While the course focused on developing commentary, she emphasized that opinions are limited to influencing people when there are no parallels drawn between the subject at hand and real-world experience, disconnecting the reader from the writer on a personal level. This method sought to establish concrete foundations to enable substantive conclusions grounded in tangible outcomes. I learned to articulate opinions through facts, allowing them to manifest and lead to their own conclusions, striving for objective writing. Adhering to this method was challenging as former writing courses valued analysis over exploration.
It was refreshing to have a writing professor with a similar background as me. I connected with Olsen’s statement in “Toward a Post Process Composition” and his commentary with Sandra Harding that accounting for multiple standpoints such as the "social and cultural positionality of those traditionally marginalized by androcentric, Eurocentric science" thus, this positioning affords "strong objectivity” because of it has “sensitivity to multiple standpoints.” My writing professor, being a queer person of color, exemplified this approach. I routinely engaged with her to ensure I wrote void of impartiality without having a leading narrative. The diverse range of prompts in the course kept my approach dynamic, reinventing my writing style. It was unconventional, outside the forms of taking a standpoint given a multitude of authors’ texts and then constructing a piece that collectively supports all their opinions and values behind their writing. In contrast, other classes concentrated on analyzing case studies, like Business Organizational Behavioral, adhered to writing specific answers. I valued this course for its inclination to explore personal topics and to depart from purely academic pursuits.
Shifting gears, my writing routine takes a distinctive form. I have a peculiar habit of writing in third-party paces. Such as lively coffee shops or hushed corners in libraries. I need a sensory load; people conversing and wandering around to have third-party sounds wrap my mind completely. It is like craving a sensory social overload without being directly placed in the center of attention, maybe because the idea of being alone does not sit well with me. I love dragging peers into this routine; It sounds paradoxical, but having a study buddy heightens my focus. When left to my own devices, I easily drift into distraction and laziness, which is why I cannot study in the comfort of my own home. A study buddy’s concentration on work indirectly pushes me to get things done. When writing my papers, I nestled up in the book stacks of libraries with a study buddy. I cycled through peers, always leaning towards collaborative work as it allows for immediate feedback. The early attempts at soloing my past papers protracted my work process– glued to my phone whenever I needed a break. On my second-to-last paper, I realized that I do work effectively and efficiently outside the walls of my bedroom.
The document I want to examine is my “From Margins to Mainstream: LGBTQ+ Dynamic in the US Political Infrastructure” paper. The paper emerges as an argumentative paper, serving as a medium for social and political commentary on LGBTQ+ rights in the US. It extends to comment on the political landscape of the Trump era and historical analysis of Christian Ideology as a means to draw intersectionality between the two groups to expose the hidden seams of certain laws, meticulously designed to exclude and inflict harm upon marginalized communities. Beyond the examination of LGBTQ+ rights and political infrastructure, I also classify the paper as a historical narrative, combining past and present interconnected struggles of marginalized communities to highlight systemic injustices. The language used carries a burden of history, having a scrutinizing and impassioned tone. I had tried to provide a meticulous examination and analysis of laws, gearing the language to present itself as objectively as I could. The language’s tone becomes more impassioned throughout the paper, clearly expressing a strong stance against homophobic policies and practices. The impassioned tone serves to evoke empathy towards the LGBTQ+ community, fostering an understanding of the harmful consequences of discriminatory actions.
The rhetoric is designed to indicate to the reader to take a stance on the issue. I used much parallelism, making alignments between historical contexts and their consequence of current events. The paper builds a sense of urgency, especially when discussing the weight of the Trump Era’s discriminatory policies. However, it creates this haunting tension to indicate the potentiality for positive change. It urges the reader to reflect on the broader implications of discrimination and the urgency for pushing for socio-political equity and equality. The text aims to have a spectrum of readers, aiming to engage scholarly minds, and activists, or influence conservatives to lean toward a progressive perspective. The text suggests an openness to readers, seemingly crafted for individuals interested in human rights, and social, and economic equity, taken back to reflect on societal structures. The inclusion of a call to action at the conclusion implies a desire to encourage social change, making the text a compelling read for anyone who invests in equity and equality.
Setting aside external factors, I intended to educate individuals who do not belong to the LGBTQ+ community. I had an intention to cultivate openness in the reader toward something unfamiliar, without already having an asserted stance on it, especially when they are not members of the group in question. I aimed to acknowledge sensitivity by having diverse viewpoints and writing from an intersectionality perspective. Many queer narratives in the media are dominated by white communities, overshadowing black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) experiences. I intended to bring awareness and recognize that BIPOC individuals have significantly contributed to the progression of LGBTQ+ rights and advocacy, shaping what the US political and social landscape is now. Queer BIPOC contributions are substantial yet often go unrecognized. I choose to write in this genre as an expression of my passion for social and political advocacy. It is intended to evoke a sense of urgency and foster empathy.
The text is a response to the socio-political aftermath circumstances during the Trump Era. It is marked by a resurgence of homophobic discrimination and regression in LGBTQ+ rights, especially during the vulnerable state of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The text is a reaction to specific policies and actions undertaken by the Trump administration, ranging from appointing openly anti-LGBTQ+ politicians, the removal of medical protections, and indirectly causing a housing crisis for queer individuals. The text prompts to shed light on these challenges, drawing intersectionality between homophobia, racism, and socioeconomic disparities, like the BIPOC to the white gap in the cycle of poverty. It responds to articulating the nuanced socio-political struggles of queer individuals. The text critiques US politics and government interventions for the LGBTQ+ community.
In terms of challenging or discounting other points of view, the text challenges traditionalist ideology: Examining how the US government’s values are derived from white masculinity and Christian ideology. It challenges viewpoints that justify or perpetuate homophobia and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. It is clear the text positions itself as advocating for social justice in support of those critical of the conservative stances of Trump. The text underscores that these values formed from Trump’s presidency did not initiate bigotry but rather it heightened preexisting sentiments. Challenging the prominence of conservative connotations associated with white, heterosexual, cis-gendered, Christian figures in US politics, the text argues that these political figures do not fully represent the diverse groups within the US. It questions the representation as it does not capture the account for the varied perspectives and neglects intersectionality.
The text serves both as an invitation to take action and personal reflection. I encouraged readers to actively support LGBTQ+ advocacy, whether it be forms of protesting against anti-LGBTQ+ agendas, participating in community outreach programs, or extending support to vulnerable queer individuals affected by homelessness or inaccessibility to medical providers. I indicated that contributing to such causes collectively works towards fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for the LGBTQ+ community.
In terms of reflection, I encouraged readers to contemplate the political figures they support, to recognize the potential presence of anti-LGBTQ+ agendas. I urged readers to critically examine underlying biases and discriminatory policies that impact marginalized groups, as their effects can extend beyond surface-level observations. I intended for readers to examine the historical contexts of how Eurocentric cultural ideology evolved and became integrated into the political landscape, undermining the inclusivity of other cultural groups. I wanted readers to reflect on the misrepresentation of certain groups and to acknowledge their privileges whether based on their gender, race, and or sexuality. Though despite good intentions, these privileges may inadvertently overshadow marginalized voices. I emphasized that proper representation is not complete unless it directly arises from those specific groups, focusing on not just speaking up or supporting a group and its initiatives, but also on amplifying the voices originating within those groups without overshadowing them. I encouraged people to reflect on how they might intentionally silence underrepresented voices. I sought to have readers reflect on this because I wanted to emphasize that it impacts everybody and not just a single group.