if only momentarily, by Ian’s performative and so Ohan must respond. Ohan’s disgusted
objection and, as in Episode 1, refusal of proximity attempt to interrupt Josh and Ian’s
constitutions of legitimate homosexuality and inscribe once again hetero-masculinity as
the only repository of active sexuality and masculinity. Unlike Episode 1, however, Ohan
cannot exclude Ian, rather he is forced to exclude himself in order to quite literally
distance himself from the conversation and its performative implications. His quick
return to the table may suggest a tacit sense of the imperative for continued policing of
gender and sexual identities. And in the well rehearsed discursive practices through
which hetero-masculinity is constituted and homo-(un)masculinity/femininity is
disavowed, the part taken by Ohan is fulfilled. Furthermore, like the two boys who have
looked on quietly smiling and the multitudes who tune in to TV shows hosted by/about
drag queens and fairies, Ohan may return to observe the freak show, the curio of the
Other that is deployed, albeit inconclusively, in the further inscription of the Same.
Despite these attempted and partial restorations of normative meaning, pop-gay discourse
has, at least partially and momentarily, been constituted as legitimate and constituted
legitimate gay subjects in this classroom context. This, then, is a moment of performative
reinscription. Denigrated homosexual identities take on non-ordinary, that is, legitimate,
meanings. And pop-gay discourse and implicit same-sex eroticism, and the identities
constituted through these, have functioned, albeit briefly, in this classroom context, a
context where they have not previously belonged.
23