Blog #2

In the Comedy of Errors, Antipholus and Dromio of Syracuse show up in the “fairy land” of Ephesus and revel in its exotic newness. They are outsiders in this new town, a town in which it is normal to accept spontaneous gifts of golden chains and go home with random women claiming to be wedded wives. In this instance, Antipholus and Dromio are confronted with experiences outside their realm of “normalcy,” and they conform to fit in.

         Similarly, my preconceptions of “normalcy” are challenged on a daily basis in Project Lazarus. Having attended an all-girls, predominantly Caucasian Catholic elementary and high school in the South, I have been hammered with “traditional” ideas of “normal” relationships for the majority of my life. Boy meets girl. Girl likes boy. They fall in love, get married, have a family. Happily ever after. But at Project Lazarus, this “traditional normalcy” is in the minority. Project Lazarus operates as a hub for all types of love: straight, gay, transgender, bisexual, asexual, you name it. So, I have to adapt to this concept of normalcy. Having grown up with a homosexual member in my immediate family, making the leap from one concept of normal to another is not too great of a challenge, but I am being confronted with new ways to think about the topic. One particular challenge is the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes “proper dialogue” when speaking about a transgender individual. What is the proper pronoun to use? I would assume that if a biological male identifies as a female, “she” is the correct pronoun to use, but I could be mistaken. “He,” “she,” or the ever ambiguous pluralized “them” are the available options and can vary from individual preference.

         Another direct cross-reference between Sir William’s works and my contemporary experience at Project Lazarus is the issue of the state and the law. In The Merchant of Venice Shylock goes to court and almost wins Antonio’s flesh, if it were not for the loophole about drawing blood. Interestingly enough, the state of Louisiana has very particular rules concerning “blood issues,” as well. In 1987, a statute was put into motion that decreed any HIV positive individual could be prosecuted for seven to ten years, in addition to paying a several thousand dollar fine, for the crime of hitting, spitting, biting, or scratching an HIV negative person. The crime in question here is “intentional exposure” to the disease. Louisiana is classified as an “exposure state,” as opposed to a “transmission state,” in regard to prosecuting over an HIV case. Meaning, transmission of the virus is not even an integral factor in facing jailtime. The worst part about this statute is the ignorance surrounding the disease. HIV is transmitted only through semen, breast milk, blood, and vaginal fluid. Meaning, the saliva from “spitting” (in addition to the other petty accusations) have NOTHING to do with the virus. It is so unjust that an HIV positive individual in 2014 still struggles against these short sights on the state’s behalf.