Me and My Brother vs My Cousin. Me and My Cousin vs the World?

[+ glennnn]

Do you read Query, Out, Edge, Advocate here or other LBGTQ publications? If you do, do you sense some rising tensions in the editorial content and comnents between the subgroups represented, (lesbians and gays) and especially between the smaller groups within each subgroup (20 YO and 50+ YO gays). I ask because I've only been reading and participating for a short time and lack perspective. What I mean is denigration of a work of art or political/philosophical tract because it doesn't address/portray MY particular/individual experience, so it must be attacked and ridiculed. A case in point is the film "American Male", which I admit I haven't seen yet. According to reviews, it " Offers Dark Look at Hyper- Masculinity and Internalized Homophobia". The director, Michael Rohrbaugh, admits it is a very personal POV, but many online posters tear the film down because it doesn't address their particular experience and is therefore "bullshit". Others, apparently mostly older viewers, praise the film for being dead on. I remember when a film that addressed homosexuality in any meaningful way was cause for wonder and rejoycing. I suppose it is partly an audience age difference and the fading of the glory of former victories. I'm sure the films and books about the African American struggle from previous decades seem quaint and timid to the activists of Black Lives Matter, too. Have they even heard of "The Defiant Ones"(1958), or " A Patch of Blue"(1962).

 

Of course there will always be differences of opinion and no opinion is invalid, but I am concerned about the viciousness of some of the attacks, that don't just disagree, but attempt to completely invalidate the work. Has this been going on for a long time in the LGBTQ community that is often seen as a large monolithic family (One for all and all for one!) Or is it new and a sign of possible serious cultural, political and social division. In other words, are we in danger of falling apart and being diminished. Are we still working together? Are we family? Is it still me and my cousin against the world?

[+ glennnn]

Shit! The second half came out in smaller type!

[+ sync]

My observation is that as the LGBTQ community has "evolved" it has taken on many of the same negatives that prevail in mainstream society. In the "old days" gays were more isolated, confined and oppressed welcoming the company and camaraderie of any and all other gay people. Today the environment is much more liberal and "selective."

 

As an aside, maybe someone here can answer me this: Why is it always "gays and lesbians?" Isn't "gay" an all-inclusive term for all homosexuals?

[+ Truereview]

As an aside, maybe someone here can answer me this: Why is it always "gays and lesbians?" Isn't "gay" an all-inclusive term for all homosexuals?

I wonder if homosexual is not the more inclusive term? Based on @glennnn's sobering post, there is nothing gay about the current state of affairs.

 

Glenn, to your OP, i find that straight allies are actually more inclusive of the LGBTQ community than the very members of it are of each other. Seems to me that when you are marginalized, unity helps to combat it. When you are mainstreamed, splintering happens naturally bc the segments being mainstreamed begin to lose their voice. Add the "me" cultural norm to the mix, and you get a recipe for a clusterfuck of diverging instead of converging opinions. The momentum for inclusion and understanding derails.

[+ glennnn]

I wonder if homosexual is not the more inclusive term? Based on @glennnn's sobering post, there is nothing gay about the current state of affairs.

 

Glenn, to your OP, i find that straight allies are actually more inclusive of the LGBTQ community than the very members of it are of each other. Seems to me that when you are marginalized, unity helps to combat it. When you are mainstreamed, splintering happens naturally bc the segments being mainstreamed begin to lose their voice. Add the "me" cultural norm to the mix, and you get a recipe for a clusterfuck of diverging instead of converging opinions and momentum for inclusion and understanding.

 

Yes! That makes sense. Most of the major legal protections needed for melding with the straight population are in place, and discrimination can be handled through the courts if necessary. We are finding social, racial and economic associations that are stronger than our ties of group sexual preference. This is especially true for very young homosexuals who don't know what the big deal is. They just wouldn't understand my extreme stress about coming out to my family. And that is exactly what we have been fighting for, isn't it? It just feels weird.

[rvwnsd]

@glennnn, I have noticed the same phenomenon. I have two thought on that. The first is many people who comment on news articles, much like those who write Yelp reviews, either LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it or HATE, HATE, HATE it. There's nothing sexy about "nice article." The second is it is very easy to rattle off a snarky (or worse) comment and hit "post." A more nuanced, well-thought out, and well-written comment takes more time and effort and is often difficult when one is using a mobile device, which many folks use to read online news. I'm one of the few people I know who texts in grammatically correct sentences. Same with reviews and comments.

 

My observation is that as the LGBTQ community has "evolved" it has taken on many of the same negatives that prevail in mainstream society. ...

 

I agree with you. To expand upon your point it seems that regardless of the evolution of the LGBTQ community, social media and online commenting has become prevalent at the same time as the evolution of the LGBTQ community, so it is difficult to say whether the change in tone is a result of the community becoming more like the rest of society or the ease of posting one's opinion without doing a lot of thinking. I think it is both.

 

...In the "old days" gays were more isolated, confined and oppressed welcoming the company and camaraderie of any and all other gay people. Today the environment is much more liberal and "selective." ...

Are you saying that in the "old days" it was not OK to criticise anything produced by or about the LGBTQ community because anything was better than nothing? If that's the case, then you and I are thinking the same thing. I can remember being criticized for saying I thought Love! Valor! Compassion! was simply average. It HAD to be great because it was written by an actual gay person.

 

...As an aside, maybe someone here can answer me this: Why is it always "gays and lesbians?" Isn't "gay" an all-inclusive term for all homosexuals?

 

I think that's because "gays and lesbians" is shorter/easier than to say/write "gay men and lesbians." Similar to Southern California where we refer to "The 805" or "The 15" when we refer to freeways. It is short for "The 805 freeway."

[+ sync]

I wonder if homosexual is not the more inclusive term? Based on @glennnn's sobering post, there is nothing gay about the current state of affairs.

 

Glenn, to your OP, i find that straight allies are actually more inclusive of the LGBTQ community than the very members of it are of each other. Seems to me that when you are marginalized, unity helps to combat it. When you are mainstreamed, splintering happens naturally bc the segments being mainstreamed begin to lose their voice. Add the "me" cultural norm to the mix, and you get a recipe for a clusterfuck of diverging instead of converging opinions. The momentum for inclusion and understanding derails.

 

TR, I believe you have taken my use of "gay" out of context. I intended it to be an alternate term for homosexual, as defined in the following excerpt from Dictionary.com. You will notice that "gay" as you mean it is listed among the older uses beginning at number 5. I guess it's all interpretation.

 

Dictionary.com

gay

 

[gey]

 

• Examples
  
• Word Origin
  

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

adjective, gayer, gayest.

1.

of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual:

a gay couple.

Antonyms: straight.

2.

of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues:

a gay organization.

3.

Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. awkward, stupid, or bad; lame:

This game is boring and really, really gay.

4.

Slang. inappropriately forward or bold; overly familiar; reckless:

George got gay at the Christmas party and suddenly swept his boss's wife onto the dance floor.

5.

Older Use. having or showing a merry, lively mood:

gay spirits; gay music.

6.

Older Use. bright or showy:

gay colors; gay ornaments.

7.

Older Use. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures:

a gay social season; the Gay Nineties.

8.

Older Use. sexually unrestrained; having loose morals: In the 1930s movie, the baron is referred to as “a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.”.

9.

Obsolete.

1. (used especially of women and especially in poetry) beautiful, lofty, noble, or excellent:
   The learned man hath got the lady gay.
   
2. excellent; top-notch:
   a gay and lofty mind.
   

noun

10.

Sometimes Offensive. a homosexual person, especially a male.

adverb

11.

in a gay manner.

[+ Truereview]

.We are finding social, racial and economic associations that are stronger than our ties of group sexual preference orientation. This is especially true for very young homosexuals who don't know what the big deal is. They just wouldn't understand my extrene stress about coming out to my family. And that is exactly what we have been fighting for, isn't it? It just feels weird.

Just a small suggestion to your text, sweet man.

[Rudynate]

My observation is that as the LGBTQ community has "evolved" it has taken on many of the same negatives that prevail in mainstream society. In the "old days" gays were more isolated, confined and oppressed welcoming the company and camaraderie of any and all other gay people. Today the environment is much more liberal and "selective."

 

As an aside, maybe someone here can answer me this: Why is it always "gays and lesbians?" Isn't "gay" an all-inclusive term for all homosexuals?

 

Some lesbians identify as lesbians. Others identify as gay.

[+ Truereview]

TR, I believe you have taken my use of "gay" out of context. I intended it to be an alternate term for homosexual, as defined in the following excerpt from Dictionary.com. You will notice that "gay" as you mean it is listed among the older uses beginning at number 5. I guess it's all interpretation.

 

Dictionary.com

gay

 

[gey]

 

• Examples
  
• Word Origin
  

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

adjective, gayer, gayest.

1.

of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual:

a gay couple.

Antonyms: straight.

2.

of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues:

a gay organization.

3.

Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. awkward, stupid, or bad; lame:

This game is boring and really, really gay.

4.

Slang. inappropriately forward or bold; overly familiar; reckless:

George got gay at the Christmas party and suddenly swept his boss's wife onto the dance floor.

5.

Older Use. having or showing a merry, lively mood:

gay spirits; gay music.

6.

Older Use. bright or showy:

gay colors; gay ornaments.

7.

Older Use. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures:

a gay social season; the Gay Nineties.

8.

Older Use. sexually unrestrained; having loose morals: In the 1930s movie, the baron is referred to as “a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.”.

9.

Obsolete.

1. (used especially of women and especially in poetry) beautiful, lofty, noble, or excellent:
   The learned man hath got the lady gay.
   
2. excellent; top-notch:
   a gay and lofty mind.
   

noun

10.

Sometimes Offensive. a homosexual person, especially a male.

adverb

11.

in a gay manner.

Sorry Sync, I didn't mean for you to break out the reference library. Iwas trying irony...It didn't work. My fault. Smooch

[+ sync]

I think that's because "gays and lesbians" is shorter/easier than to say/write "gay men and lesbians." Similar to Southern California where we refer to "The 805" or "The 15" when we refer to freeways. It is short for "The 805 freeway."

 

My thinking is why is it necessary to say/write "gay men and lesbians." Why is it that homosexual men and women cannot be referred to collectively as "gays?"

[+ sync]

Some lesbians identify as lesbians. Others identify as gay.

 

Thank you Rudynate, I was never aware of that distinction within the female homosexual community.

[Rudynate]

Do you read Query, Out, Edge, Advocate here or other LBGTQ publications? If you do, do you sense some rising tensions in the editorial content and comnents between the subgroups represented, (lesbians and gays) and especially between the smaller groups within each subgroup (20 YO and 50+ YO gays). I ask because I've only been reading and participating for a short time and lack perspective. What I mean is denigration of a work of art or political/philosophical tract because it doesn't address/portray MY particular/individual experience, so it must be attacked and ridiculed. A case in point is the film "American Male", which I admit I haven't seen yet. According to reviews, it " Offers Dark Look at Hyper- Masculinity and Internalized Homophobia". The director, Michael Rohrbaugh, admits it is a very personal POV, but many online posters tear the film down because it doesn't address their particular experience and is therefore "bullshit". Others, apparently mostly older viewers, praise the film for being dead on. I remember when a film that addressed homosexuality in any meaningful way was cause for wonder and rejoycing. I suppose it is partly an audience age difference and the fading of the glory of former victories. I'm sure the films and books about the African American struggle from previous decades seem quaint and timid to the activists of Black Lives Matter, too. Have they even heard of "The Defiant Ones"(1958), or " A Patch of Blue"(1962).

 

Of course there will always be differences of opinion and no opinion is invalid, but I am concerned about the viciousness of some of the attacks, that don't just disagree, but attempt to completely invalidate the work. Has this been going on for a long time in the LGBTQ community that is often seen as a large monolithic family (One for all and all for one!) Or is it new and a sign of possible serious cultural, political and social division. In other words, are we in danger of falling apart and being diminished. Are we still working together? Are we family? Is it still me and my cousin against the world?

 

 

Those divisions have always been there. If anything, they are much less strident than they used to be. It used to be that women were not welcomed, for example in bars for gay men, and men weren't welcome in lesbian bars. That changed with the AIDS epidemic. The women REALLY stepped up and did whatever they could for their brothers suffering with AIDS.

 

This is supposed to be the age of the daddy. The young are supposed to have developed a new appreciation for their older brethren. I personally don't see any reason the young shouldn't prefer their contemporaries.

[body2body]

I had the privilege to talk with men who had been "in the life" as they used to call it back in the 40s and 50s. In those days, bars in Los Angeles were mixed. Most bars had no signage, and all were subject to periodic raids. If the lights flashed women who had been standing with women, would quickly move to stand with a man, or a mixed group. Most bars discouraged men from dressing overly flamboyantly, and women who looked too "butch". All bars enforced strict "no touch" rules. Men could not touch men, women could not touch women. This began to change in the 60s. In California men dancing together would be grounds for loss of a liquor license until 1970. As things began to liberalize men's and women's socializing became more segregated. When we founded a Gay Students Union in 1972 some women were not comfortable with being identified as Gay. They had different issues. One of our members was a beautiful Latina, who was gang raped by her brother in law and his friends after they found her kissing another woman. I might worry about getting beat up, but not raped. This is a very long way around saying that being a Lesbian is a different experience. We are all same sex identified, but deal with different issues on a day to day basis.

[+ quoththeraven]

 

My thinking is why is it necessary to say/write "gay men and lesbians." Why is it that homosexual men and women cannot be referred to collectively as "gays?"

 

Because gay was first applied to men, not women, and despite the dictionary definition, it still carries that connotation. Therefore, there is a perception that terms applicable to women are being erased and that men are being treated as the default.

 

This framing also assumes everyone is monosexual and overlooks trans identity - that is, the "B" and "T" of LGBT, not to speak of genderqueer, agender, non-binary, two-spirit, third sex, and genderfluid identities, which are neither trans nor cis, intersex individuals, asexuals, and questioning individuals.

 

There's an even simpler and shorter term that can be used that is inclusive, but some men object to it because it's a former term of opprobrium: queer. It covers everyone in all of the above categories without forcing them to disclose specifics they may not consider to be the business of the public at large. It's also one I and many women much younger than me prefer. It's also gaining currency, although probably not as quickly, with younger men.

 

The rest of this is in response to Glennn:

 

My observation, as someone who didn't realize she wasn't straight until the 1990s, is that Body2body and Rudynate are largely correct. Because the gay rights movement gained steam at about the same time as the women's movement, gay men and lesbians almost immediately split into two groups that only started coalescing after the AIDS crisis. Women had (and still have) different issues to deal with, as publications like Our Bodies, Ourselves pointed out and as Body2body touches on.

 

As for the sniping over the movie, that's to be expected. A younger, more internet-savvy group is used to critiquing pop culture. Everyone I knew on Twitter panned the Stonewall movie from last year that showed a good-looking young white guy as the central character and instigator of the riots when trans women of color were the ones who started the resistance in real life because of the whitewashing and because it was a poorly made movie. I made mention of the whitewashing aspect here and was almost universally ignored or criticized for bringing it up.

 

Then there are the points people raised about the culture and psychology of the internet commentariat. It's easier to write something pithy and nasty (or conversely gushing); it is much more work to be thoughtful and generous of spirit.

[+ sync]

Because gay was first applied to men, not women, and despite the dictionary definition, it still carries that connotation. Therefore, there is a perception that terms applicable to women are being erased and that men are being treated as the default.

 

This framing also assumes everyone is monosexual and overlooks trans identity - that is, the "B" and "T" of LGBT, not to speak of genderqueer, agender, non-binary, two-spirit, third sex, and genderfluid identities, which are neither trans nor cis, intersex individuals, asexuals, and questioning individuals.

 

There's an even simpler and shorter term that can be used that is inclusive, but some men object to it because it's a former term of opprobrium: queer. It covers everyone in all of the above categories without forcing them to disclose specifics they may not consider to be the business of the public at large. It's also one I and many women much younger than me prefer. It's also gaining currency, although probably not as quickly, with younger men.

 

The rest of this is in response to Glennn:

 

My observation, as someone who didn't realize she wasn't straight until the 1990s, is that Body2body and Rudynate are largely correct. Because the gay rights movement gained steam at about the same time as the women's movement, gay men and lesbians almost immediately split into two groups that only started coalescing after the AIDS crisis. Women had (and still have) different issues to deal with, as publications like Our Bodies, Ourselves pointed out and as Body2body touches on.

 

As for the sniping over the movie, that's to be expected. A younger, more internet-savvy group is used to critiquing pop culture. Everyone I knew on Twitter panned the Stonewall movie from last year that showed a good-looking young white guy as the central character and instigator of the riots when trans women of color were the ones who started the resistance in real life because of the whitewashing and because it was a poorly made movie. I made mention of the whitewashing aspect here and was almost universally ignored or criticized for bringing it up.

 

Then there are the points people raised about the culture and psychology of the internet commentariat. It's easier to write something pithy and nasty (or conversely gushing); it is much more work to be thoughtful and generous of spirit.

 

Count me among the men who would not like to have "queer" make a resurrgence. There are a lot of ugly memories around that label. Perhaps there are individuals within the LGBTQ communities who can/will come together and propose a newer universally applicable and acceptable label.

[+ quoththeraven]

Count me among the men who would not like to have "queer" make a resurrgence. There are a lot of ugly memories around that label. Perhaps there are individuals within the LGBTQ communities who can/will come together and propose a newer universally applicable and acceptable label.

 

Other than "queer," no other universally applicable label has been proposed so far that isn't alphabet soup.

 

There is more acceptance of trans identity and bisexuality as a real phenomenon, and not merely a waystation, than there used to be, but this week (ironically Bisexual Visibility Week) a journal for teen readers and YA librarians got into hot water by slapping a "for mature audiences only" label on a book with a bi female character because it had a bi character. The only sex mentioned in the book is between straight characters.

 

The journal then proceeded to vilify the first person who complained for exposing private information about her child's sexuality by mentioning that her child is genderqueer and doesn't need book reviews that treat their gender expression as something that needs a warning label. At least one long-time reviewer quit in protest.

 

Ironically, the journal was founded in the 70s by an out lesbian.

[kewtex]

Do you read Query, Out, Edge, Advocate here or other LBGTQ publications? If you do, do you sense some rising tensions in the editorial content and comnents between the subgroups represented, (lesbians and gays) and especially between the smaller groups within each subgroup (20 YO and 50+ YO gays).

 

Our society and our community benefit from the marketplace of ideas, no matter how discordant the market may be. Of course, if participants get too far out of line, one can always question their upbringing:

[mike carey]

Glenn, to your OP, i find that straight allies are actually more inclusive of the LGBTQ community than the very members of it are of each other. Seems to me that when you are marginalized, unity helps to combat it. When you are mainstreamed, splintering happens naturally bc the segments being mainstreamed begin to lose their voice. Add the "me" cultural norm to the mix, and you get a recipe for a clusterfuck of diverging instead of converging opinions. The momentum for inclusion and understanding derails.

+ 1. I would put it down to the mainstreaming of the queer community, both from the perspective of the wider community and of its perception of itself. To use somewhat loaded language, members of some segments of the queer community are allowing their privilege from other parts of their identity to over-ride the common cause they had with the rest of the community when oppression (used advisedly) was more widespread. There is the perception, as mentioned by others, that battles have been won, and perhaps 'the war' has also been won. To some extent that is positive, people feel safe enough that they don't need to maintian the fiction that everyone in the alphabet soup LGBTIQ world has the same issues and the same objectives when they clearly faced different, although overlapping obstacles.

 

It's not all good, however. Despite the gains that have been made, there are people out there, more so in the US than in many other werstern countries, who are trying to wind back all the advances the queer community has made over recent years. Public sniping between parts of the queer community does nothing to help advance inclusion, and can derail its momentum. If the reactionaries become ascendant, they will roll back the rights of all of us, the current relative privilege of some parts of the community will not protect them if those rights are lost. By all means discuss the different perspectives that different segments of the community have but don't put each other down in the process.

[+ glennnn]

That's exactly what I meant, but i would hope that an increasing percentage of the straight community would stand with us as we gain acceptance, and a bigger foothold, in the larger world. However, I live in California, a liberal and socially progressive state. I wonder what it's like elsewhere and if we could really count on active support.

[body2body]

Count me among the men who would not like to have "queer" make a resurrgence. There are a lot of ugly memories around that label. Perhaps there are individuals within the LGBTQ communities who can/will come together and propose a newer universally applicable and acceptable label.

Going back to the Gay Liberation movement of the early 70s "Queer" was a a term that had negative connotations on two levels. Straights called us Queers. Out Gay men used to refer to closeted men who were separated from gay culture and did not want to identify as Gay as Queer. You would hear " that closet case will never come to a rally, he's not Gay he's just a Queer looking for some place to put his dick". Act Up took the term back during the AIDS crisis. I know young gays and lesbians use this term with abandon today, but it still makes me uncomfortable.

[LADoug1]

Count me among the men who would not like to have "queer" make a resurrgence. There are a lot of ugly memories around that label. Perhaps there are individuals within the LGBTQ communities who can/will come together and propose a newer universally applicable and acceptable label.

+1000

[+ quoththeraven]

+1000

 

Any suggestions?

[Rudynate]

Any suggestions?

 

 

It doesn't solve the problem of coming up with a single term for people whose gender/sexual orientation deviates from the mainstream, but just for gay men, I like the, admittedly unwieldy, clinical term "men who have sex with men."

[+ quoththeraven]

It doesn't solve the problem of coming up with a single term for people whose gender/sexual orientation deviates from the mainstream, but just for gay men, I like the, admittedly unwieldy, clinical term "men who have sex with men."

 

I do too. Or to abbreviate, MSM.

 

But I think the question of an appropriately inclusive term for the entire non-straight or non-heteronormative community is, pardon the expression, a tough nut to crack.