LGB people and allies denigrating effeminacy & trans people

This is something I've been thinking about for a while, but Stephen Fry's recent blog post really brought it to the forefront of my mind (scroll down to "The Pink List").

The Independent on Sunday posted "The Pink List", which was a celebration of British gay icons and Fry was the third on the list. He didn't pay much attention to it until a friend of his pointed out that at the bottom of the list there was a "rogues gallery". One of the entries read like so:

Quote:

---

Louie Spence
Choreographer and TV star
Had this been a list for the greatest reinforcers of gay stereotypes, the star of Sky 1’s car-crash reality show Pineapple Dance Studios would obviously mince it. Alas, as it stands, we can’t help but hear the clock ticking on those 15 minutes of his.

---

Yes, apparently we're all for gay rights and gay visibility, just not, you know, the ones who are too gay.

Then there is the transphobia. With Stonewall came greater visibility and suddenly the desire to create a new queer mainstream. Jim Fouratt and his friends pushed Sylvia Rivera and other trans people out of New York's Gay Liberation Front. Jim Fouratt went on to make many transphobic remarks over the years, but the worst was when he spoke at a Stonewall observance in 2000, where he stated that trans people were "misguided gay men who'd undergone surgical mutilations".

This idea that to gain acceptance we must become indistinguishable from the heteronormative ideals continues. The gender policing from "straight-acting" gay men toward those who dare be anything less than a red-blooded manly stereotype is probably the most frequent example that I've seen first hand, but I know there are other manifestations of it.

Is there a political sense to this? Are LGBT people really better off trying to meet the behavioral expectations of society? Is it counter-productive for the cis-gendered, straight-acting LGB people to associate themselves with the flaming, the flamboyant and the transgendered?

My personal feeling is that the disassociation from those who are "too gay" and trans people is a mistake. Aside from leaving a lot of queer people out in the cold, trying to appeal to bigots instead of facing them head on only concedes ground to your enemies.

As a woman who's attracted to women who doesn't fit the lesbian stereotype, I'm never sure what to say to this kind of OP. I mean, on the one hand, I'm totally against the idea of an LGB community (What's next? Dropping the B 'cause we can just be straight if we want?) or the idea that people shouldn't be themselves just because they're naturally flamboyant or "too gay." But, at the same time, I do think that there should be visibility for people whose "gayest" attribute is their attraction to the same sex. When we decry femme lesbians or gay guys who happen to like sports for the athleticism (for example) as "straight acting," how is that better?

There's nothing wrong with LGBT people who are non-stereotypical and can blend into the hetero world. I have no problem with them and don't expect them to start camping it up.

The problem is when they don't give support to those of us who aren't straight-acting and cis-gendered. When I see a gay man insulting another gay men for being too femme, that's a big problem in my eyes.

It's never a positive thing when a marginalized group starts to marginalize each other. Individual people should be allowed to feel free to be themselves, and not have to worry about the message they are sending all the time. What's the point of gaining acceptance if it's only acceptance towards a tiny range of outward appearance and behaviors?

Why some people have to wear their sexuality on their sleeve, I just can't get my head around. Maybe it's because I'm a member of society who hasn't been victimised for my sexual direction, but it smacks of insecurity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Why some people have to wear their sexuality on their sleeve, I just can't get my head around. Maybe it's because I'm a member of society who hasn't been victimised for my sexual direction, but it smacks of insecurity.

---

It's not a matter of wearing your sexuality on your sleeve. It's a matter of being true to yourself. In many cases it has nothing to do with sexuality at all, such as with trans people.

If a gay man is sensitive and feels comfortable sharing his feelings in a way that his culture has decided is "girly" (as if feelings only belong to one gender), why should he have to hide that for the sake of making other people comfortable? If he likes pretty things and ice skating and putting tutus on kittens, what does it hurt anybody else if he enjoys those things?

Okay, subjects like this bring up so many emotions in me and impact my life so directly I don't even quite know where to sort and start.

I'll say I came out very young because there was no point in hiding. Since I was young enough to have no concept of gay or straight, people assumed I would turn out queer. And I did. When I came out so many people in my very large high school had so little exposure to queerness that they actually had to reference Dawson's Creek for some basis of comparison.

I see it as self-hate when someone calls themselves 'straight-acting'. It's a way of, to me, of adding a gradient to marginalization. A 'at least I'm not that bad' opinion to one's own situation. "I'm a MALE who wants to date MEN." is a common one from guys in the queer community. I know I've referenced it before, but Marsha P Johnson wrote an amazing poem about this subject (Spare some change for a dying queen Honey? <-- google it).

See, it's funny to me when queer people try to look down on me. I may be effeminate, and I may be a Queen, but I wear that crown because I earned that shit with some real sweat. So while they may still stress about fitting this mold or that I can do whatever I want. But I'll be honest, as much as people like to joke about drag queens being tough, there's truth in it. I'm hard, a lot harder than a lot of gay people I know, because I know what that struggle is like just to find the right fit for your square peg.

But it very much exists. Look at that recent compromise with ENDA? How was that shit supposed to help me? To me, it was like saying we can help you as long as people may still assume you're straight.

I don't even know if I'm making sense. All I really know is that I can still remember the faces of more gender-appropriate acting peers looking at me with a mixture of awe and fear, since they didn't have the courage or ability to come out. I think a lot of leaders are afraid how far transgendered and sexual issues will push society -- and themselves -- beyond what they know.

And I think the 'community' regularly ignores how even in the modern world the people kicking down the most doors are queens and trans people. While some of their intentions may be dubious and many of them are entertainers, a lot of them were courageous enough to step out into the spotlight of the world. And people today forget how much flack they took for it nor does the big queer 'equality' groups in the country care to recognize them regularly. (See: Marsha P, the aforementioned Silvia Rivera, Divine, Sylvester, Harisu, Dana International, and most especially Ru Paul -- who only gets recognized when he happens to do something amazing, like top the US charts or have huge hit TV shows)

Double post.

Although let me just say that I really think some of this conspiracy (yes! conspiracy!) comes from conservative doners or financial backers of gay publications and national gay rights groups to tow the line. Keeping queers thinking they should be acting more straight keeps them more closeted and less visible and less of a threat to the nation's society. Also, easier to subjugate. It might sound crazy but I absolutely believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Panther Squad

And I think the 'community' regularly ignores how even in the modern world the people kicking down the most doors are queens and trans people. While some of their intentions may be dubious and many of them are entertainers, a lot of them were courageous enough to step out into the spotlight of the world. And people today forget how much flack they took for it nor does the big queer 'equality' groups in the country care to recognize them regularly. (See: Marsha P, the aforementioned Silvia Rivera, Divine, Sylvester, Harisu, Dana International, and most especially Ru Paul -- who only gets recognized when he happens to do something amazing, like top the US charts or have huge hit TV shows)

---

Really well put, Panther.

And double-posting myself to respond to this:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Panther Squad

Double post.

Although let me just say that I really think some of this conspiracy (yes! conspiracy!) comes from conservative doners or financial backers of gay publications and national gay rights groups to tow the line. Keeping queers thinking they should be acting more straight keeps them more closeted and less visible and less of a threat to the nation's society. Also, easier to subjugate. It might sound crazy but I absolutely believe it.

---

I completely and 100% agree, as crazy as it sounds. I remember a few years back hearing from many different socially conservative outlets that pushing for SSM was only going to lead to failure, because people didn't want to change the meaning of the word marriage. They said, "Go for civil unions. Go for domestic partnerships."

And what happened? Places with civil unions now have socially conservative groups trying to take away the civil unions.

Bow and scrape at their feet and all it gets you is a kick to the face.

Do not accept the back of the bus. Do not accept a heteronormative costume. Be who you are--whoever that is--and demand equal rights, goddamnit.

So, if heterosexuals start putting on Hetero Pride celebrations, that'll be a step forward for society, will it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

So, if heterosexuals start putting on Hetero Pride celebrations, that'll be a step forward for society, will it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Why some people have to wear their sexuality on their sleeve, I just can't get my head around. Maybe it's because I'm a member of society who hasn't been victimised for my sexual direction, but it smacks of insecurity.

---

So far I'm not too pleased with your 'contribution' to this discussion. It's a lot of questioning and, on a thread like this, you're basically questioning people's identities and experiences and pulling shit from thin air.

Could you possibly elaborate and rephrase your questions in a way that doesn't require us to come at you from a defensive angle? Because so far I'm seeing a lot of confrontation in what you are writing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

So, if heterosexuals start putting on Hetero Pride celebrations, that'll be a step forward for society, will it?

---

Two things with this.

One, will your Hetero Pride parade include hatred? If not, then I say go for it. You can be hetero and proud so long as it's not at the expense of your homo brothers and sisters.

Two, why? The reason behind LGBT pride and the LGBT (and Q and I and all the other wonderful letters!) rights movement is because of the way we've been treated. We are the other. We are the less than. We have to speak up, we have to fight, we have to make ourselves known or we're, at best, an overlooked minority.

At worst you end up with what we have now: a community that holds a "Transgender Day of Remembrance" so we can commemorate the lives of the transgendered people who were killed in the previous year, just for being trans.

Basically if you want to put on a non-hateful Hetero Pride event, go for it. But until people start passing laws making hetero marriages illegal or discriminating against heterosexuals/cisgendered people in the hiring process or start beating people to death for being hetero/cis, I will probably roll my eyes a little at the idea.

Moderator note: ivan, try to stick to the topic, please. Every issue you can think of that tangentially relates to the topic by referencing your discomfort with homosexuality does not necessarily qualify.

My youngest brother is gay, and I'm very comfortable with it, so don't start with your homophobic shit.

This sort of defensiveness does you no credit.

Well, it's kind of hard to tell from your posts in this thread so far. Just try to stick to the topic, please.

Anyone would think I was holding up a placard at a Gay/Whatever Pride event, saying "Show Some Decorum", or "Freaks, Freaks, Off Our Streets".

Ivan, you've been asked a few questions and been offered a few points you seem you have missed. Are you interested in addressing those?

Not with anywhere near the passion or importance that you are, so I'll butt out of here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

It's never a positive thing when a marginalized group starts to marginalize each other. Individual people should be allowed to feel free to be themselves, and not have to worry about the message they are sending all the time. What's the point of gaining acceptance if it's only acceptance towards a tiny range of outward appearance and behaviors?

---

I think that there are two equally damaging extremes that a marginalized group can take as "positions of integrity" or "positions of policy." Both of them are based upon the rejection of nuance and individual responsibility, and both play into the hands of the opponents of the group.

The first position is to blindly include all persons, or groups, that share the basic umbrella of one's marginalized identity, and support them all, in service of the otherwise laudable goal of "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers." But this position, taken to extremes, can lead to having the marginalized group in the position of having to defend people who use that umbrella to bring legitimacy to activities that are anything but legitimate. It's the old "blood before water" that gets people defending their family members even after convincing evidence of criminal behavior has turned up. In the end such blind defense of all potentially allied groups or positions will allow the enemies of the marginalized group to use the inclusion of a justly prosecuted group to define the whole larger movement.

The second position is to use the standards of the marginalizing segment of society to define what is and is not acceptable behavior for the marginalized group. This is less destructive in the court of public opinion, certainly, especially like this case where the standard being touted is one that seems to be identical to the standard for straight society. But it's still a mistake and destructive. I don't agree with Panther or Zuul about the idea of a deliberate conspiracy to make LGBT groups tow a marginally acceptable line. But that's because I don't think that there needs to be any kind of forethoughtful conspiracy to have the people most inimical to LGBT agendas to try to take any concession and try to push for more and more circumspection from queer society.

The battleground here is in the minds of the vast majority of people who don't already have rock-hard set positions on the issues. I believe that the baseline for American society, at the moment, is basically cis-gendered heterosexuality. For most adults, changing that unconscious assumption is going to require deliberate thought. IMNSHO the sort of thinking that is required to lead to the changes that I would think everyone in the LGBT community would like to see is not going to be achieved by showing off only queer identified people who appear identical to straights. It's going to be done by insisting that the current standards exclude many people, who all deserve to be allowed to be themselves. And for that purpose ISTM a flamboyant, entertaining, and talented "unreconstructed flamer" has as much a part to play in challenging stereotypes, and current societal assumptions than any number of queer identified sports figures.

The question then becomes: how do you balance the desire to be inclusive while still being self-policing? For me, it boils down to legality and a standard for harm. If the person in question is breaking no laws, embrace them for themselves; if the person or group in question is acting in defiance of a law, judge the law and the action for which is doing more harm. If the marginalized group decides that the law is wrong, make changing that law a key point, and embrace those people victimized by an unjust law. If the marginalized group decides that in this case the law matches the morality they'd choose to support, exclude the people question with good conscience.

In no case should a marginalized group ever take the definitions of greater society, unexamined, as their own. It was just those definitions that marginalized the group in the first place!

I think we can all thank Ivan for being a great example right here in this thread of someone who can accept gay people, yet thoughtlessly throw out criticism and lines of questioning for their own amusement/curiousity.

Which, by the way, denigrating means to belittle or deny the importance of something. You know, to question why it's important, even though the OP presented a very well thought out and written article explaining where this issue exists, presented people who cared about it, and an argument to provoke discussion. And followed a personal account.

By the way Ivan, I gave you a chance as I don't really know you, so I didn't want to come on the attack. Next time I'll know better, because it's clear you have no interest in defending yourself or really thinking about what you're saying.

Loki - on a personal note, I've always thought anyone who tries to recreate what they consider to be society's standard in themselves or their own lives as self-hating and insecure. In the end, to me, most people - hetero or otherwise - do not fit any exact stereotype. It's a shared illusion, a cheat sheet for identifying other people. It just gets more intense in minority groups because there's, well, less to fight over. It's a battle over whose got less of their necks underwater. But what seems to be making it bitter in queer circles is that now that equal rights are slowly being granted, there are those standing on the better side that are ready to close the fence behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

So, if heterosexuals start putting on Hetero Pride celebrations, that'll be a step forward for society, will it?

---

It would be if straight folks felt some legit need to defend their position.

At this point in time, it's pretty safe in most neighborhoods and societies to be straight.

I, for one, am surrounded by gay folks at work. Right now the only thing threatening about it is the wardrobe shame I am starting to feel. Not enough
for me to organize a parade.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

I, for one, am surrounded by gay folks at work. Right now the only thing threatening about it is the wardrobe shame I am starting to feel. Not enough for me to organize a parade.

---

That would be a rather interesting parade, though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

That would be a rather interesting parade, though.

---

"GAY STRAIGHT BLACK WHITE, PLAINNESS IS A CIVIL RIGHT!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

It would be if straight folks felt some legit need to defend their position.

---

If "straight folks" would show some courage and stand up to the bigots when they raise their ugly heads, non-straight folks wouldn't need to be having parades. But I think they'd miss 'em.

I think somehow you missed the point about people like Louis Spence and Gok Wan. They are actively re-inforcing every sterotype that is considered about Gay men. Why, because otherwise they would not be on TV. The biggest problem is not that they are too gay, but that they are not gay enough.

It's a media issue as the reverse is also true and Ricky Martin is a classic example. Closet homosexual because otherwise it would kill his career when it was taking off. When it no longer matters so much, then he comes out of the closet.

The reason these people are not liked is because they are being presented as the public face. Unless you are widly flamboyment and effeminate, you are not really gay. A previous example used to be, if you are not butch and wearing dungarees, you are not really a lesbian. At least times have changed for some aspects and lesbianism has become amost as acceptable as heterosexuality.

Frankly, it shouldn't matter what sexuality people are, but when it comes to the media, it certainly does. Steroetypes can be a terrible thing, but that is the direction in which the media is taking LGBT people. It's just another hook to sell to people.

If someone wants to loud and gay, then let it be because it is their personality, not because it is an act designed to tell me what all people of that type should be.

CIAS, could you give some examples of the kind of behavior you're talking about in regards to Louis Spence and Gok Wan?

I watched several videos of Louis on YouTube after reading Stephen Fry's blog post, but I can honestly say it just looked like a silly (and, yes, gay) man who danced. I didn't get the impression it was the gay version of black face for the sake of getting on TV, but I only watched about ten minutes of him in all. If there's something more insidious than what I saw, what is it?

Moderator note: Off-topic fight moved here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

CIAS, could you give some examples of the kind of behavior you're talking about in regards to Louis Spence and Gok Wan?

I watched several videos of Louis on YouTube after reading Stephen Fry's blog post, but I can honestly say it just looked like a silly (and, yes, gay) man who danced. I didn't get the impression it was the gay version of black face for the sake of getting on TV, but I only watched about ten minutes of him in all. If there's something more insidious than what I saw, what is it?

---

Gok Wan recently gave an interview where he pointed out that off camera he is nothing like his onscreen flamboyant character. Pineapple Studies was dropped fairly quickly but Louis Spence is making a big deal out of the act and hopes to get new roles.

It's an act. That's all.

But it's an act that reinforces the expected stereotypes of gay men which really only apply to a small minority. It's pretty much the same as a female only being on TV playing a beautiful dumb blonde in a string bikini and reinforcing a stereotype all blonde women are like that, even if in reality she is a blonde with a Doctorate.

The problem comes when people try to succeed using talent and being told that as they are gay, they can only succeed if they are flamboyant and effeminate and their talent doesn't matter because flamboyant and effeminate is what people want, even if it is not them.

Of course the flamboyant character is a minority because there are gay people all around us every single day who are assumed to be hetero. It's not that they're "passing" it's just that our society's assumption of a "norm".

I have some very effeminate guy friends who hold back on their natural wit and charm and style during business hours so as not to stand out in the workplace. They feel the need to conform to the office uniform, language and other mores as do most of us in the business world. Just like I might wish to call a coworker "asshole" or "bitch", I would never consider doing so at work.

During "me time" I would never expect anyone to play a role. Blending in should be reserved for the painful Middle School years ;). My hetero and non hetero friends can socialize together and I would NEVER expect anyone to play a role to get along. If anyone is uncomfortable - get out!

I would hate to live in a society of autobots who were afraid to step outside some Orwellian boundary arbitrarily set by some ah..bounder. (ha-ha)

I love the Pride Parade. I love the festival afterwards.

Until individuals who self identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, trangendered, or asexual are accepted as people who are of equal value to society to heterosexual people and receive equal treatment without exception there is the need for these shows of support and unity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

I have some very effeminate guy friends who hold back on their natural wit and charm and style during business hours so as not to stand out in the workplace. They feel the need to conform to the office uniform, language and other mores as do most of us in the business world. Just like I might wish to call a coworker "asshole" or "bitch", I would never consider doing so at work.

---

I can totally relate to needing to keep a certain standard of behavior at work, though I would like to see those standards relaxed just a bit. It used to be women couldn't wear trousers at work in a lot of places. Now they have more options. Wouldn't it be nice if men had more options, too? Not that every workplace has to be cool with dudes in miniskirts and fetish heels, but just a little less worry about appropriate gender behavior in general.

Confession time: I am a great big flamer. One of the hardest things for me dealing with my transition has been going from people seeing me as a goofy butch chick to seeing me as a huge gigantic fag. Grow some facial hair and suddenly some mild silliness and sentimentality becomes a huge threat to masculinity.

The dangers of taking gender roles too seriously. (warning: link describes child death)