Mind Your G's, L's, B's, T's and Q's

GLAAD claims victory in the gay language wars; vows to mount charge up Bisexual Hill.

Comments

[North Dallas Thirty]

And yet, still no press release about Farrakhan calling gays "filthy".

While they have the dictionary down, tell them to look up "irrelevant" and see if they've updated Neil's picture there yet.

[Jack Malebranche]

Bastards!!

The gay thought police strike again.

[Craig Ranapia]

Hilarious. I know a few old-school dykes who'd have a few words (mostly short and rude) about having "lesbianism" erased from the lexicon. Then again, they're women who use the word "cunt" as a term of endearment (and a blow against patriarchal linguistic gynophobia, of course) so I doubt they'd be on the guest list for GLAAD's next cocktail fundraiser. :)

Irrelevance, thy name is GLAAD.

[Tommy]

Uh, they don't actually claim to have anything to do with the change and I am not sure why they should be commenting on Farrakhan.

At any rate, a style book is all about, in factv its the manual of thought police: see posts in next section on "Questions . . ."

I use "homosexual" way too much but I like it, others don't, whatever.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Because, Tommy, the "AD" in "GLAAD" stands for "Against Defamation".

You see, when Fred Phelps calls gays "filthy", GLAAD usually responds.

But when a major Democratic power group calls gays "filthy", GLAAD speaks not.

[Tommy]

I thought they were a media watchdog. I was not aware of the fred phelps thing. I also, never thought of Farakhan as a "Democratic power." He may have some ties to Jesse but Jesse is no Democratic power, either.

[Tommy]

I just searched GLADDs site for condemnations of Phleps and did not find any (you maybe right that they have condemned him in the context of a media campaign being run by Phelps). I just don't think they regularly comment on politician/ministers like Farakkan and Phleps, unless its in the context of a media campaign being run by the minister/politician.

[Jack Malebranche]

I use "homosexual" way too much but I like it, others don't, whatever.

I like it, too. It is...at the very least...specific.

GLAAD, however, doesn't like it, precisely because it is specific. They're afraid of sex as much as their enemies are. To organizations like GLAAD, homosexuality is about everything but sexuality.

Their language choices are dictated by the religious right. No matter if it makes sense...if the religious right uses a term, GLAAD must forbid anyone else from using it.

Their mission is not to encourage understanding or dialog but to restrict it, to control how people define their own sexual preferences and how others discuss them.

[Tommy]

Well. as my Daddy the Baptist minister would say the cure for bad preaching is good preaching. Nothing wrong with that. Can I get an Amen.

[Malcontent]

IMHO, the language police need to put a fucking sock in it. I am bisexual, and I consider that my orientation, but my sexual preference is gay. So did I just offend myself?

To quote Santino, "Lighten up, it's just fashion!"

[Jack Malebranche]

Amen, I think. Like, go tell it on the mountain my brothers.

Malcontent, your situation specifically popped into my mind when I read this. And I've talked to so many guys who definitely prefer men, but would happily 'do their duty' if trapped on a desert island with women. A lot of guys can find something sexually attractive about women (besides hair and makeup), but really do just prefer men. And they'll happily say as much, until they put on their gay PR game face. Then the possibility of choice evaporates, simply because the religious right says what many people honestly know.

I think it's funny that, as I'm sure NDT would glaadly point out, the people who buy into groups like GLAAD are all aligned with 'pro-choice' feminists, but they sure do seem to be dead set against the idea that there is ever any slight element of choice involved as far as homosexuality is concerned. There's no sampling 'a' and 'b' and deciding you prefer 'a' (or 'b') better. I wonder why bisexuals promote any of these groups at all, because they do seem to have a fairly weird relationship with one another. The overall message seems to be: "There is NO choice, so there is NO preference (except for bisexuals, sometimes)." It's really quite a conflicted message, because of that annoying thing called reality that so often gets in the way of pure idealism and irrational beliefs.

[Tommy]

If cock is better than clit for an American boy . . . I just don't see the "choice" in that. It wasn't for me and I have tried both.

[North Dallas Thirty]

The most entertaining part is how I regularly get lambasted by people like GayCowboyBob for saying that my sexual preference is gay and that I have, at times, been attracted to certain women. It seems "bisexual"is the latest perjorative among the gay liberal set.

[Tommy]

I think the issue is if one conflates "preference" with "choice." Perhaps there are straight men who choose to be gay but if there are, I would like to hear from them about what they are thinking.

While some can't really empathize with the bisexual (not being there on the spectrum, themselves) one can still have sympathy for their position, as being in the middle (and not in a good way) is usually more complicated.

[Jack Malebranche]

Tommy -

By the same standard, do you have a 'choice' as to which foods you liked? I mean really, people like some things and don't like other things and they really don't necessarily know why, but liking pork chops and disliking asparagus doesn't make them part of some special ethnic group...it makes them people with preferences. Groups like GLAAD and the HRC and their predecessors have been working for something like 150 years to try to craft a synthetic ethnic group based on sexual preference, often called the 'third sex.' Men who are not really men, and women who are really not women. This is primarily done for political reasons.

The choice is:

A) Am I going to try this in the first place, and
B) Is this the way I choose to live my life

Historically, men have generally chosen to fulfill social obligations by marrying women, producing children, and maybe keeping some boyfriends on the side. Most people can actually function on a bisexual level if they want to. Today's homos, encouraged by gay culture, reject any possibility that they could engage in heterosexual sex (even though many of them have already)and choose to live exclusively as 'gays.' I think we should have that choice, and I've made that choice myself; it's definitely a choice.

It seems "bisexual"is the latest perjorative among the gay liberal set.

It's not the latest... It's been that way at least since the early 90s. Ever heard the old chestnut:

"Bi Sexual? Honey, buy me a drink and I'll show you somethin' sexual..."

Ironically, this almost always comes from the type of person who, after a few drinks, will claim that they can 'turn' a straight man.

[Tommy]

Jack: I see this hits a nerve for you, as I am suprised to learn of the 150 year history of GLADD and HRC. I don't think your characterization of thier agenda is accurate and I don't think your view of sexuality as a choice is everyones - it certainly is not mine - and totally goes against my expereince, if you experience of sexuality different fine but it seems your the one who wishes to impose an agenda on people.

[Jack Malebranche]

Note above:

and their predecessors

Meaning: predecessors with the same general goal of creating a seperate ethnic group for political reasons.

[Tommy]

I think the idea of a third sex goes back to at least to the Greeks 4000 - 5000 years ago and was well known in Native American cultures well before 1492. But gender identity is different from sexual identity so your linkage is confusing me.

[1630r]

I like GLAAD. They challenge the stereotype of gays being hip, witty, glamorous people.

[Robbie]

I don't think Jack's trying to push an agenda. I think he's trying to approach questions of sexuality honestly, without a political goal in mind.

Let's be honest here, much of the gay movement does engage in a little dishonesty, especially if they perceive being truthful weakens their political position. For example, reparative therapy. Do I think a gay person can change their orientation through the intervention of Jesus Christ? No. Do I think some people can alter their orientation through therapy? Yes. Some people. How many? No idea. Should they attempt it? I leave it as a matter of personal choice. I actually enjoy being gay, so I can't imagine being bothered, but everyone must go their own way on that.

Now, if you're a professional queer, the very idea of mutable orientation is repugnant. For political purposes, they have to stick with the "born this way, can never be changed!" absolutist position, because it's a strong hand against the religious right. How, after all, can it be a sin if we're hard-wired to be one way or another from the very moment we're born?

The fact of the matter is that sexuality is so mercurial, so complex, so unknown in the causes, that no one is qualified to speak in absolutist terms on the matter. Almost everyone's eventual orientation and preferences are the product of genetic predisposition, life experience, sexual development, etc. No one is exactly the same when it comes to what rings their bell.

But even exploring these things, questioning, poking around the psychology earns a real dirty look from the professional gays. They have an agenda here, damnit, and you're either with them or you're a bigot.

I like it when people like Jack are around and take the time to look through the issues and bring up various points that don't fit into the molds set out for us by activists. The key to Jack's arguments is that he's not making any kind of moral judgement whatsoever. He's not saying whether or not this or that behavior is wrong, whether or not some people can or cannot choose, can or cannot change. He just wants to know for the sake of knowing.

The fact that threatens the hell out of some people who prefer the comfort of absolutism is more about their personal issues than anything Jack's saying.

[Queer Conservative]

The fact of the matter is that sexuality is so mercurial, so complex, so unknown in the causes, that no one is qualified to speak in absolutist terms on the matter. Almost everyone's eventual orientation and preferences are the product of genetic predisposition, life experience, sexual development, etc. No one is exactly the same when it comes to what rings their bell.

Is that why I like straight porn?

[Tommy]

Robbie: If one says that sexulity is always a choice then that's an agenda. In fact, of the things you listed as the causes for sexual identity choice is not even there. And the moral judgment is clear that unless you agree that it is a choice you are out of touch with reality. (Tangentially, if therapy can do it, why not Jesus?)

[Jamie]

While I can appreciate your points, Jack, I personally do not see my sexuality as either a "choice" or a "preference." I'm attracted to men, and always have been. It's an inherent part of who I am. I DO believe that it was my "choice" to attempt to fit into the straight stereotype and have sexual relations with women. (Though not much of a choice, as I was raised Catholic, but that's an entirely different conversation.)

While I find nothing physically repulsive in the female form, neither do I find anything attractive. I think a big part of the problem we encounter is that there are men and women who are genuinely homosexual, without reservation or condition, like myself, but a great deal of us, as has been alluded to above, feel we are somehow "lessened" if there are indeed "true" bisexuals. I happen to think that Kinsey was right about this much: there are all degrees of sexual orientation (for lack of a more accurate term). It is the individual struggle we each go through, and the attempt to justify our physical desires to fit society's imposed moral code that pits us against our own hastily constructed ideals. This also explains why some homo men who are not naturally effeminate feel the need to exaggerate their feminine qualities in order to fit into the "gay scene."

But for myself, who I have sex with may be a choice, but who I love is not, and what my body reacts to is not. I have to disagree with your assertion that most people could live a bisexual lifestyle. I couldn't. And not because of what the "gay scene" dictates, but because of who I am. Women have never done it for me, and I have never been physically able to carry on an intimate relationship with a woman without thinking of a man. I would be far too miserable to live a bisexual life simply because I, as an individual, am not bisexual. If I were I'm sure my life would be much different--I'd have a child by now, for one thing, which I sorely desire.

No, I wouldn't say most of us could live as bisexuals. Some, for sure--most probably more than admit it. Bisexual folks tend to be shunned by those on both straight and gay folk alike, but I think gays are worse about it. I say, physician, heal thyself.

[Robbie]

I didn't say sexuality is always a choice, and neither is Jack. We're both saying there probably is an element of choice involved for some people.

The best argument against the idea that sexuality is entirely inborn is the fetish. Where in our genetic code do erections over stiletto pumps figure in? And that's just one fetish out of literally thousands. How do they develop? Is there some sort of Pavlovian reinforcement while growing up? Are people just wired that way? Can people being genetically predisposed towards masturbating over heels?

I think, in the modern political world, identity is reinforced. People always cite that Kinsey 1-6 scale, but politically, there is pressure from both sides to identify themselves one way or another. People like easy to reference categories when dealing with others. It's why our brains stereotype. It's a form of organization we use to cope with the environments around us.

There are probably a lot of people out there who are middling on that scale who make a choice to be gay or straight, to involve themselves in that identity, to enter that community. Not everyone, mind you. Just probably more than we think or admit. And the gay community can be just as judgemental and strict on these issues as the straight world is. If you're gay, and you're out as gay, and you have a lot of gay friends, try explaining to them you're attracted to someone of the opposite sex, that you want to have a relationship with them. Guaranteed, many of them will not be happy campers. "You're in denial! Self-loathing! You're just doing what other people want!" comments will come fast and furious.

So, yes, I do think there are people who make choices when it comes to their sexual identity, to how they interpret their orientation and apply it.

Again, not everyone. But people who say this doesn't go on are fooling themselves.

[Robbie]

Oooh, strange. I wrote that before reading Jamie's response.