It’s about economics. More specifically, it’s about economic sociology.
Consider: the social cost of coming out and living openly as a gay person continues to decline rapidly. (In modern America, it’s increasingly rare for a gay person to lose their job, get cut off from family and friends, or be discriminated against in housing for being gay; non-discrimination has not been codified into existing federal law, but the social market is ahead of legislation here. I’m not saying there is no social cost to being out–there is still the prospect of random violence, subtler forms of discrimination, strangers calling you “faggot,””dyke,” etc. In aggregate, social costs are shrinking but will always exist in some form).
Meanwhile, the private costs and psychic costs of the other choices a gay person faces, including a) remaining in the closet, b) living a double life, or c) pursuing an ex-gay path, remain as high as they have always been. (The main cost of these choices is the toll of constant vigilance. There is little evidence that most people can successfully change their basic sexual programming. Even optimistic ex-gay organizations claim only a 30% success rate–and they define “change” fluidly).
What we call “society,” is simply a social market. On balance, as the cost of living openly shrinks while the cost of being closeted or ex-gay remains high, fewer and fewer people will choose the expensive path. Already we see that the ex-gay movement is strongest in arenas where the social costs of coming out are still high–in smaller towns across the U.S., in the Bible belt, and within conservative religious communities.
If the ex-gay Movement (capital-M) is to continue to exist, it will largely be dependent on keeping the social costs of living as an openly gay person high–at least as high as the psychic costs of living as an ex-gay. To that end, their recent efforts have been attempts to maintain and increase the social costs of being gay: fighting gay marriage, blocking anti-gay bullying initiatives in schools, fighting federal non-discrimination law, encouraging the idea that gay people choose to be gay. However, I think it is too late for them to turn back the clock. As I’ve already noted, the social market has far outpaced legal protections as a mechanism for reducing the social costs of being gay.
What the Movement Ex-gays fail to appreciate, I think, is that the social cost of being gay needn’t be less than the social benefit of passing as straight for most gay people to choose the former. That’s because there are real associated benefits to being “out,” including the prospect of lifelong monogamous coupling (or a great sex life as a single person, depending on one’s inclination), having one’s sexuality become a non-issue, dealing honestly at all times with family and friends, etc. These are important benefits for many people, and they outweigh associated costs.
If I’m right, we can expect to see anti-gay rhetoric get more heated in years to come. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the fringe right advocate things like criminalization, imprisonment or castration for gay people. It’s important to remember that this extreme rhetoric will be a reaction to the fact that social costs for being gay are actually falling. The rhetoric will necessarily become more extreme as they attempt to swing the balance back in their favor. This will be the harbinger of the collapse of their Movement.
I want to be clear: I am talking about the diminishing influence of the Movement, not about prospects for individual ex-gays. There will always be individuals who choose the ex-gay path–those who dislike being gay so much, or who have such a conservative religious dogma, that the cost/benefit equation will never fall in favor of coming out. For them, the choice to live as ex-gay always will be–and always should be–available. And rather than deserving our scorn, I believe they deserve our sympathy and solidarity.
Indeed, I think the ultimate goal for all of us is to have the right to choose whichever path we want, and walk it happily.
Analysis — good!While social cost is a highly useful framework, I think it is important to note that your discussion has been about the benefits and costs for homosexual men and women.We, of course, are a small minority. The social cost proposition for the heterosexual majority is very different to our own. A sudden turnaround in opinion about a minority can and does occur.I think it is important that we ensure our social costs are linked — somehow — to the social costs recognised by heterosexuals.This is one good reason to come out and live openly. Rather than a “no cost” proposition for our straight friends and family; to return to criminalisation or castration, or dooming us to lonely and self-hating lives should hurt them as much as it does us. It will not hurt them if they regard us as a Gay Agenda rather than as worthy fellow citizens.
grantdale, you make an excellent point. I’ll be sure to work that into future iterations of this idea.
Very well said, Joe!
I just got off the phone with Chad Thompson and although we have some issues that are a little contentious, the conversation was very civil.
I think he was correct when he said that if he were an openly gay man, he wouldn’t get the venues to speak out in so publicly.
On this I agree.
I pointed out to him that the repression of gays and lesbians was the political agenda and why it was so damaging.
Different people are going about this agenda by degrees of violation, hoping for attrition by gay people.
In any case, I tried to give him examples and historical context.
That Jews are set upon constantly. Anti Semitism has degrees from exclusion to violence.
Jews are a minority and always have been and are trying to survive. There is no reason for them not to.
Gays and lesbians are already a minority under siege as well. Fighting for recognition as human beings with equal needs and obligations.
Survival is a human right, and gay and lesbians survival is not at the expense of heterosexuals, but heteros certainly make demands at the expense of gay people.
As a distinct and enduring minority, value shouldn’t be relative to what makes a valuable heterosexual.
One should’nt be the sum of their sexuality as gays and lesbians constantly are and at the exclusion of all other things of merit in that gay person’s life.
Sex is private, most people respect that, but relationships are PUBLIC.
To not even accept the gay person publicly as a family member or colleague is demanding too much silence and invisibility.
I’m not gay at all, but my authenticity comes from experiencing hate as a black woman.
I think Chad and I have a meeting of the minds on enough to work together.
I hope this is possible, I certainly want it to be.
Wish us well.
Joe, I enjoyed reading your entry, but must take a minor exception to something. You said:
“(In modern America, it’s increasingly rare for a gay person to lose their job, get cut off from family and friends, or be discriminated against in housing for being gay; non-discrimination has not been codified into existing federal law, but the social market is ahead of legislation here. I’m not saying there is no social cost to being out–there is still the prospect of random violence, subtler forms of discrimination, strangers calling you “faggot,””dyke,” etc. In aggregate, social costs are shrinking but will always exist in some form).”
While that may seem true on the surface, I have to wonder if what you are talking about is the social cost to those who are in an economic and social place that visibility has become a nonissue. As an example of what I mean, I grew up in a rural area of Pennsylvania. Even today, living openly as gay is considered an invitation for harrassment, threats of violence and even discrimination in jobs and housing. Because of the economic reality of the area, the people that live there do not have the financial ability to move somewhere else, and if they did, it would be to another community in which the same environment exists.
I now live in DC in the Columbia Heights neighborhood, and I know a number of people in the area that come from recent immigrant families, or who are living in poverty. I know two people from those communities that are gay but would never think of coming out for fear of what would happen to them–a real fear from what I have witnessed of the attiudes of their friends and family. What is obvious to me is that even in a tolerant city like DC, the social costs of being gay is alot different between those who can afford to be visible and those who can’t.
As much as those of us that live in tolerant and semi-tolerant communities would like to think that we are the standard for the progress that is being made, I can’t help but think just how much more bleak the picture would look if the traditionally invisible gay populations are taken into account.
Robis, I agree that the social costs of coming out vary considerably with geography and economic status–and especially with the relative religiosity of one’s family and culture. I hoped an acknowledgment of that would come through in the post, so thanks for allowing me to clarify: there are many gay people out there who still face substantial social costs for coming out.
I also grew up in rural America, and I paid a high social cost for coming out–my parents and many of my siblings turned against me, and I lost virtually all my childhood friends. Incidentally, I’ve also been fired from a job because I was suspected of being gay (from a gas station I worked at in High School).
Having said that, the aggregate social costs for coming out are still substantially lower than they were a generation ago. One of the reasons I believe that, is that stories like mine are less common than they used to be.
Good article. The diminishing influence of the Movement will come as an indication of a diminishing influence of its utility in fund-raising. I hate to continue beating on the fund-raising issue, but it is really true that right-wing operations latched onto the Movement for money-raising purposes.
It will be interesting to see the next dead horse they select to beat upon in their fund-raising efforts. Muslims, perhaps?
No, I am not joking.
They’ve already begun beating up on the trannies some as kind of an adjunct to the ex-gay thing. We’re even more vulnerable than LGBs in most ways, and more marginalized, heck, even lots of gay people hate us, so we’re a perfect target. Maybe you could add an “ex-transsexual” subset to the blog. There’s not too much out there tho, mainly Jerry “The” Leach and this Yosef guy at helpmereversemysexchange.com (unfortunately he took most of his early blog down, so you don’t get to appreciate just how sublimely insane he truly is). Of course, it’s a very sensitive subject that’s easy for even well meaning people to screw up unless you’re fairly well educated about it.
And the most important reason they’re going to fail: because repression is simply not sustainable over the long term.
Raj, et al, I agree that the social costs of coming out have become lower. And too that the cost of remaining closeted or going the ex-gay route have become higher. Anecodotally, my father’s cousin, a lesbian, came out in 1968 to her family and, what she thought were friends. The family cut off all communication with her (except for my dad) and she lost her job and visitation rights with her kids.
I came out in 1984. I remained on fairly good terms with my family, and did not lose my job, at least not right away (that job really stunk, so I was glad to be told “you’re not a good fit for this organization”). I don’t have any kids, but contemporaries of mine who do have kids did not lose visitation rights.
Today, it’s (I believe) becoming rare to lose custody or visitation rights with one’s children or a job over something like this, depending on where one lives.
I think it’s a sign that our culture, while having a long way to go, is becoming more accepting of GLBT people.
Joe, your article, ironically, somewhat ties into what was put out by the Free Congress Foundation, via Concerned Women of America (both right-wing “think” tanks). See link: https://www.cwfa.org/articles/8608/CWA/misc/index.htm Their view is that while the conservatives may be winning right now on the political front, they’ve basically lost the culture war, and they admit it.
I would imagine that as their rhetoric becomes more extreme, they will lose more credibility.
Again, the marketplace of ideas.
Anon at July 27, 2005 05:18 PM
>They’ve already begun beating up on the trannies some as kind of an adjunct to the ex-gay thing.
Thanks for the “heads up.” I believe that transgendered issues are not co-extensive with gay issues, but I also believe that transgenderd people should not be discriminated against. We’ve been discussing the transgendered rights issuse for years over at the NYTimes Gay Rights message board. It is not a new issue for me.
And, I suspect you are correct. The right wingers are beating on a new dead horse.
When I was a kid in the 1960s, my mother used to watch Billy Graham. His crusades would be based on mutual love. I guess that has gone by the wayside. Actually, I suspect that it was always a fraud.
>Thanks for the “heads up.” I believe that transgendered issues are not co-extensive with gay issues, but I also believe that transgenderd people should not be discriminated against. We’ve been discussing the transgendered rights issuse for years over at the NYTimes Gay Rights message board. It is not a new issue for me.
I’d say some of the issues are the same (particularly discrimination from anti-gay folk who make no real distinction) and others are different (correcting birth certificates, access to medical care, etc.) A lot of the discrimination TSs face is because of the perception that we’re gay (although a lot of us are gay, just not in the way the discriminators think…) and a lot of discrimination gays experience is due to not conforming to gender stereotypes.
>When I was a kid in the 1960s, my mother used to watch Billy Graham. His crusades would be based on mutual love. I guess that has gone by the wayside. Actually, I suspect that it was always a fraud.
I suspect that misplaced love can often do as much damage as hate. The anti-gay crowd is not monolithic, much as it would be easier to think of them that way. Some probably do honestly think they’re doing the loving thing. (and if taking the loving attitude towards someone allows you to position yourself as morally superior, well that’s just a nice little bonus, isn’t it?)
Anon at July 27, 2005 05:18 PM
>They’ve already begun beating up on the trannies some as kind of an adjunct to the ex-gay thing.
Thanks for the “heads up.” I believe that transgendered issues are not co-extensive with gay issues, but I also believe that transgenderd people should not be discriminated against. We’ve been discussing the transgendered rights issuse for years over at the NYTimes Gay Rights message board. It is not a new issue for me.
And, I suspect you are correct. The right wingers are beating on a new dead horse.
When I was a kid in the 1960s, my mother used to watch Billy Graham. His crusades would be based on mutual love. I guess that has gone by the wayside. Actually, I suspect that it was always a fraud.
Phil at July 27, 2005 05:29 PM
>>>I came out in 1984. I remained on fairly good terms with my family,
I’m probably somewhat older than you. I came out to my parents in around 1980, at the insistence of my current partner. I was about 30. I had been playing around for the previous decade and had had a boyfriend in college (1970-73). Coming out isn’t exactly easy, even though I was supremely confident in myself. (I was raised to be the best little boy in the world (that’s a literary reference)), and I was pretty close to that.
The supreme irony in this story is that my younger brother had outed me to my parents years before. They didn’t care.
Joe, your article, ironically, somewhat ties into what was put out by the Free Congress Foundation, via Concerned Women of America (both right-wing “think” tanks). See link: https://www.cwfa.org/articles/8608/CWA/misc/index.htm Their view is that while the conservatives may be winning right now on the political front, they’ve basically lost the culture war, and they admit it.
Well, that actually is to be expected, if acceptance of homosexuality is the kind of sea change in culture that Joe is describing (and I agree that it is). Forgive a slight academic detour, but while in college I took a “Sociology of Protest Movements” course (yes, I went to a liberal arts college). It was actually fascinating, and we studied the Temperence Movement extensively. Suffice it to say that the Temperence Movement, like the “pro-family” movement, was one that came out of the rapid social change of the late 19th century, and blamed alcohol (rather than feminists and gays) for the resultant problems.
The Temperance Movement claimed that the prohibition of alcohol would solve all those social problems, and won enough political support to get the Amendment passed. But they had already lost the greater “culture war” and as we know, Prohibition was the greatest failure of social change this country has ever seen.
The parallels with the “pro-family” movement are obvious, and the professor made the argument that one of the signs that a group is losing this kind of “culture war” (really resistance to social change) is an attempt to get their social views codified into law. Although they may succeed in the short term, the ultimate failure to change the social problems of the day will doom the movement to quick obsolescence.
So not only would I predict increasingly radical anti-gay rhetoric, I would also predict increasingly desperate, and increasingly likely to fail, legislative meaures to enforce anti-gay attitudes. We can already see that with states that passed anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments. Several of them are now discussing anti-gay foster/adoptive parents laws, but are already running into a judiciary that believes such laws cross the line of equal protection (marriage has special status, but the law increasingly does not see parenting the same way) and a citizenry that balks at going that far.
CPT, glad you bought that upThe temperance movement (from, say 1900 to 1920’s) has always struck me as a good parallel. Alas, it also DID result in a change to the U.S. Constitution (and, arguably, Al Capone and all the other similar criminal elements). So it’s a warning as well as an academic exercise :-)Another period I find resonates is the early tent revival movement from 1830’s leading up to the Civil War. It may also be viewed as the conservative, religious reaction to the increasing demands (often by OTHER religiously inspired people) for the end of slavery. Sorry, I cannot give an easy ref. off the top of my head, but I’m sure a google will help. Alas, that society ended up in a war.
RE: Joe Riddle
Regarding those who *CHOOSE* to be ex-gay. I what will happen will be a split into two groups; sexually active gays and those who choose to remain celebate because of religious convictions. Its the same situation now, just that the number of celebate gays will increaase (from 2 to 4 😉 )
As people accept that being gay isn’t a choice, you’ll find that more evangelicals will eventually move to the Catholic position of, ‘attraction to the same sex is ok, just don’t have sex” – its not the best solution, but it is better than trying to deny the existance of that desire to be with a member of the same sex.
As for those who try to convert, the idea of converting hasn’t so much to do with ‘not going to hell’ but the fact that they’ve been bought up in that environment, and thats all they know; if they step out of their ‘community’, they’re scared of not being able to find community that can replace the same experience he or she received when part of the evangelical movement.
It would be interesting to know whether these ex-gays would have gone to these straight camps, had they had been part of a close knit, positive, “Christian values” support group, something like the Metropolitan Community Church.
RE: Anon
They’ve already begun beating up on the trannies some as kind of an adjunct to the ex-gay thing. We’re even more vulnerable than LGBs in most ways, and more marginalized, heck, even lots of gay people hate us, so we’re a perfect target.
I understand what you mean; I don’t understand why there is this hatred against tansexual/gender – there seems to be an awful lot of narrowed minded people, both gay and straight, who seem to have an axe to grind an every opportunity.
When I was in Australia I met up with a lovely lady and had a wonderful chat; its sad that people are all to willing to stay with their clicky group rather than being alot more inclusive and willing to step out of the box and say hello to a stranger.
RE: raj
When I was a kid in the 1960s, my mother used to watch Billy Graham. His crusades would be based on mutual love. I guess that has gone by the wayside. Actually, I suspect that it was always a fraud.
Bill Graham was always a different kettle of fish – he was part of the ‘old school’ of keeping church and state seperate; tend to the followers souls, and let the politicians sort out the rest – it was the Farwells and Pat Robertsons who jumped onto the Evangelical + Bling + Politics bandwagon – with the Republicans (Bush Snr second term) realising the value of wearing Christianity as some sort of achievement.
CPT_Doom at July 27, 2005 09:41 PM
Several of them (states) are now discussing anti-gay foster/adoptive parents laws…
I agree with this post. I merely want to point out that this kind of thing might stigmatize gay people, but it doesn’t really injure them. Who it injures are the children.
I phrase it: why do these people hate the children?
It is unlikely that any straight couple would want to adopt the kids described at https://www.lethimstay.com So why would these people want to deny the kids the right to have a family, even if it is headed by a gay couple?
The way the issue is phrased is very important, as George Lakoff, linguistics professor at UC Berkeley, has noted https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
More
Suffice it to say that the Temperence Movement, like the “pro-family” movement, was one that came out of the rapid social change of the late 19th century, and blamed alcohol (rather than feminists and gays) for the resultant problems.
It should be also be recognized that this also came out of the anti-catholic-immigrant (primarily anti-Irish immigrant) movement. Recall the stereotypes of the drunken Irish from the period? Most of the Irish immigrants would, of course, have been Roman Catholic.
I do not know about the various wineries in Europe, but more than a few of the Breweries in Germany were founded by Catholic monks. Certainly in southern Germany. Hence the association of “adult beverages” with Catholics, in the minds of the Protestants.
kaiwai at July 28, 2005 03:13 AM
I don’t understand why there is this hatred against tansexual/gender – there seems to be an awful lot of narrowed minded people, both gay and straight, who seem to have an axe to grind an every opportunity.
We’ve actually been discussing this for a number of years on the NYTimes Gay Rights board. I’ll outline several issues
(i) Definition. What does “transgendered” mean? I am a gay male. I know I’m a male. I want to have sex with other males. (Well, actually just one other male.) It had always been my understanding that transgendered people conceived of themselves as being of the opposite sex from which they were born (whether or not they went through transsexual surgery) and wanted to take on the affectations of the other sex. Do I have a problem with that? No. But it is a completely different issue.
(ii) Preparation. Gay people have spent decades trying to achieve some modicum of acceptance among the general populace. The general populace (in some parts of the country) will hire us, and will let us go into the same restrooms that they use. I’m a gay male and use the male restrooms. Transgendered MtF seem to insist to use female restrooms, and that oftentimes freaks out the other females. Is it right? I’ll let you decide. Is it true? Yes.
There are two sad facts. First, the transgendered apparently have not “prepared” the American public to accommodate them. Unlike gay people. And, second, that organizations that were supposed to be for equal rights for homosexuals have allowed themselves to be hijacked by a movement that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
>>(i) Definition. What does “transgendered” mean? I am a gay male. I know I’m a male. I want to have sex with other males. (Well, actually just one other male.) It had always been my understanding that transgendered people conceived of themselves as being of the opposite sex from which they were born (whether or not they went through transsexual surgery) and wanted to take on the affectations of the other sex. Do I have a problem with that? No. But it is a completely different issue.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. There’s no real consensus on what exactly “transgendered” means; it’s mainly a political term. Many, possibly even a majority of transsexuals do not consider themselves “transgendered” because we actually live pretty gender-normative lives, just not of the gender we were initially assigned to. There are disparate groups lumped under the “transgendered” umbrella that actually have almost nothing in common, from drag queens to socially integrated transsexuals to fetishistic transvestites. Conceptually identity is a different issue than orientation, but socially it’s always been mixed to some degree because transsexuality was originally conceived of by the psych establishment as being some sort of uber-homosexuality, because probably a majority of transsexuals move either into or out of the gay community as we transition, and because what lurks behind most homophobia is disgust at the idea of a man taking the “female” role in sex.
>>(ii) Preparation. Gay people have spent decades trying to achieve some modicum of acceptance among the general populace. The general populace (in some parts of the country) will hire us, and will let us go into the same restrooms that they use. I’m a gay male and use the male restrooms. Transgendered MtF seem to insist to use female restrooms, and that oftentimes freaks out the other females. Is it right? I’ll let you decide. Is it true? Yes.
We’re roughly a generation or so behind gays in terms of gaining social acceptance, mainly because we’re smaller in number and the psychs have been able to maintain control on us longer because of their control over our access to medical care. As for the restroom issue, just note that far more transsexuals than you probably think can use the proper bathroom without incident, it’s mainly an issue of appearance. I have to admit that if I was sitting in the women’s restroom and heard what sounded like a male voice come in, it would freak me out too, and even if I got out of the stall and saw it was a transsexual woman, if she looked like a guy, well, yes, I’d probably be somewhat uncomfortable. I don’t know if there is an ideal solution except to increase medical access and social understanding to the point that everyone starts to transition young enough that it becomes no longer an issue.
>>There are two sad facts. First, the transgendered apparently have not “prepared” the American public to accommodate them. Unlike gay people. And, second, that organizations that were supposed to be for equal rights for homosexuals have allowed themselves to be hijacked by a movement that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Well, fact #1 I’d unfortunately agree. The second, ooooohhh… treading on some VERY sensitive ground there. Actually a lot of TSs think being identified with the gay rights movement has hurt us more than helped us because it encourages the public to lump us together. And for years the usual pattern at many gay rights places was to invite us in to write the legislation and then turn around and screw us when the time came to do the actual horse trading to get bills passed. There’s a lot of perception that we’ve only been included on some bills to give gay rights advocates an easy chip to bargain away. That said, whether anyone likes it or not a lot of gay people aren’t gender-normative so there’s always going to be some bleed-over. And try to remember that the gay community has at times hijacked transsexualism, a la the Barry Winchell murder.
anon at July 28, 2005 09:00 AM
I agree with almost everything in this post. And I’ll admit that I was treading on some extremely sensitive issues.
Regarding The second, ooooohhh… treading on some VERY sensitive ground there. Actually a lot of TSs think being identified with the gay rights movement has hurt us more than helped us because it encourages the public to lump us together.
It has been my observation that it was the complete other way around. Transgendered people broke into the room and hijacked the gay rights movement. I personally don’t have any problem with transgendered people. But, it should be clear that they are not gay.
Yes, I am labelling.
There are two sad facts. First, the transgendered apparently have not “prepared” the American public to accommodate them. Unlike gay people. And, second, that organizations that were supposed to be for equal rights for homosexuals have allowed themselves to be hijacked by a movement that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
I am completely on the other side here – I see the transgendered and gay rights movements as joined at the hip for good reasons.
If it is true that the biology behind being gay is some kind of feminization of the male brain and/or masculinization of the female brain, then it follows that the concept of “gender” is not solely based on the genetalia that one carries. It is entirely possible that the transgendered represent a more complete feminization/masculinization of the brain than homosexuality.
For that same reaon I also add the intersexed inot the mixed, as they are clearly physically in-between the two genders.
>>It has been my observation that it was the complete other way around. Transgendered people broke into the room and hijacked the gay rights movement. I personally don’t have any problem with transgendered people. But, it should be clear that they are not gay.
As per earlier comments, blanket statements about “transgendered” and its relation to homosexuality simply can’t be an either/or thing. If one considers drag queens as “transgendered” (and yes, my continual use of the term in quotation marks prolly says something about how I view it) well, drag queens are gay. Transvestite fetishists on the other hand are mostly straight guys with an odd turn-on (and anecdotally are often extremely homophobic). Many transsexuals try to live as gay men or women before they transition, and many who had tried to live as str8 men or women before transition end up becoming gay men or lesbians, or bi. (I’ve even known people who’ve gone from gay before transition to gay after transition. Mother nature is a MAD SCIENTIST!!!) Like it or not, we were already in the room.
>>If it is true that the biology behind being gay is some kind of feminization of the male brain and/or masculinization of the female brain, then it follows that the concept of “gender” is not solely based on the genetalia that one carries. It is entirely possible that the transgendered represent a more complete feminization/masculinization of the brain than homosexuality.
Ooooohhh… another big ol can of worms! There are some interesting theories about this, and a couple of studies with interesting preliminary data, but at the end of the day we really just don’t know one way or the other right now. Although my guess is it’ll eventually be shown that prenatal hormone exposure to different parts of the brain produces most queerness, but who knows? (And there are some DAMN manly gay guys and really femmy lezzies out there)
>>For that same reaon I also add the intersexed inot the mixed, as they are clearly physically in-between the two genders.
Many politically inclined IS folk HATE being lumped in with GLBT. For a lot of them, the issue is less their gender than having been mutilated as kids without their knowledge or consent for no clear medical purpose.
I’m working on a longer response to CPT, but I’ll merely comment about this
As per earlier comments, blanket statements about “transgendered” and its relation to homosexuality simply can’t be an either/or thing. If one considers drag queens as “transgendered” (and yes, my continual use of the term in quotation marks prolly says something about how I view it) well, drag queens are gay.
I neither know nor care whether what some people refer to as drag queens are gay. As far as I’m concerned more than a few of them are wonderful actors. There is an amazing female impersonator in Germany who goes by the stage name Mary. His/her work have been broadcast over German television. Is he gay? I don’t know, and I don’t care. Apparently, neither does anyone else.
BTW, there are gay people on German TV. So apparently their gayness isn’t much of an issue.
>>I neither know nor care whether what some people refer to as drag queens are gay. As far as I’m concerned more than a few of them are wonderful actors. There is an amazing female impersonator in Germany who goes by the stage name Mary. His/her work have been broadcast over German television. Is he gay? I don’t know, and I don’t care. Apparently, neither does anyone else.
>>BTW, there are gay people on German TV. So apparently their gayness isn’t much of an issue.
Well, I didn’t say it should be an issue. You said that being transgendered is a completely different issue than being gay and I was just pointing out that a substantial segment of people who are usually considered to be part of the “transgendered” umbrella consists of drag queens who are virtually all gay men. Of course, I’m not to big on the whole umbrella concept to begin with, but that’s just me. But the simple fact is almost all effeminate men are gay. (which is not to say all gay men are effeminate) That’s just reality.
“But the simple fact is almost all effeminate men are gay.”
I haven’t found that to be true at all. Some years ago one of my best friends was a fairly effeminate straight guy. And I’ve noticed that a lot of straight guys that show up on the news (not reality shows or TV shows) are guys that are not particularly masculine.
And after all, isn’t Richard Cohen supposed to be straight now and you don’t get much more effiminate than him (little joke there)
Just my observations.
As to the LGBTQEtc. community…
Really the gay community and the transgendered community are not the same. However, the confusion arises due to two factors:
1. Drag. The gay community’s version of dress-up gets confused with the trans community.
2. Overlap. Both communities often occupy the same space, both physically (the same bars) and politically (the same enemies).
And there are at least two factors which have impelled transgenders and gays to join in common cause:
1. Both communities have experienced similar levels and experiences of oppression (I hate that word, help me here!). This includes areas of employment, health care, and yes, violence.
2. In many states, transgender persons are unable to marry heterosexually because they cannot obtain legal recognition of their new gender.
Where I work, we have a very brave transgender person who has advanced into upper management. She’s very brave, professionally successful, and very active in politics here on the state level. I’m very proud to have her “on my team”.
I believe that personal transgender issues are very distinct from the personal issues I dealt with coming of age as a gay man. I don’t believe that I have much in common with transgender persons at all, except on one key point: we both violate our assigned gender roles. That single fact is how we end up getting lumped together. This causes us to have to respond to very similar sets of conditions with regard to coming out, dealing with friends, families, co-workers, access to health care, job protections, etc.
We may be very different communities, but for the most part our concerns wind up being very much the same.
Wow, I get such an education up in here.
I love you guys, I really do.
It’s all so personal to me, although I”m not a gay man or woman.
I have transgender friends and gay friends. Friends who started out a gay couple, then one went through the gender transition so they could marry.
I have very, very young gay friends and I have friends that are gay parents.
Some are couples, some are singles, some are mixed ethnically or mixed colors.
The diversity is infinite in my life.
But it’s my gay friends that go through more stress sometimes with the political winds blowing the way they are.
Gay kids are an especially sensitive area. For some of my young friends to be able to get the support they need, I’ve had to be discreet and not giveaway my purpose or reason for them contacting me-even to their own parents.
Judy Shepard is a close friend. Her colleagues at Matthew Shepard Foundation and other people and families touched by hate are my friends.
We network with each other and keep focused and create programs or artistic projects that educate and reach all kinds of people.
I don’t mean to drop names, I just want it known that my life is committed to more than having gay friends.
You are some hella smart people and I certainly appreciate the support I’ve had here.
I thank you for including me.
Kai wai….I”m picking up Ben Harper’s new CD TOMORROW…and I love the Five Blind Boys too.
My folks listened to Clarence Fountain when I was a little bitty thing.
Later guys!
Funny story Timothy: [warning, other-F-word used a lot]Me streaming an interview with Noe Gutierrez (exgay who worked with Warren Throckmorton on “I Do Exist”). Straight mate arrives to head to the pub with us…SM: “Jeez, that’s about the faggiest faggy voice I’ve heard since I went to Fags-R-Us on FagDay”Me: “That’s not a fag. That’s an exgay. He’s just telling us about him changing into a het boy.”SM: “Haha ahahaha ahaha CHOKE SPLUTTER haahahaa” etc.(As you may probably guess, SM couldn’t care two hoots but does have a keen an eye for the ridiculous. And “I Do Exist” is one such occassion. Thankfully anti-hate legislation also covers perceived orientation, because a lot of exgays are going to get beat up on before we two do…)
LOL !!!
(minutes pass – still LOL)
thanks… needed that
Jim said: “We may be very different communities, but for the most part our concerns wind up being very much the same.”
I think this touches upon where alot of the confusion on this issue really comes from. I think we are the same community, but it is because I approach “community” in a different way than where I think others do.
If I walk into a room of random gay people, there are very few common connections between us. In fact, the only connection one could assume is that we are all attracted to the same sex. That’s it, and there is really nothing in that fact that one could build a community on. So why did the gay comnmunity develop? Well, obviously it is the discrimination, oppression and disenfranchisement that has existed and still continues to exist. And the reason for that discrimination is common as well; as Jim said, “we…violate our assigned gender roles”. That is the common ground between such disparate people that a community has developed–not the fact that we are gay but the fact that we are put at a disadvantage because we violate our assigned gender roles.
I contend that the gay community and the trans community are the same community because the actual reasons that community has developed are exactly the same thing. The common ground that exists between gay people also exists between gay people and trans people. We may move within different circles in that community, but when it comes right down to it, the very reason any of us has come together is for the common cause of ending such discrimination. In that case, I can’t see that I have anything more in common with other gay people than I do with trans people.
>>”But the simple fact is almost all effeminate men are gay.”
>>I haven’t found that to be true at all. Some years ago one of my best friends was a fairly effeminate straight guy. And I’ve noticed that a lot of straight guys that show up on the news (not reality shows or TV shows) are guys that are not particularly masculine.
I’ve known a couple of effeminate straight guys over the years, but realistically effeminate men are far more likely to be gay than straight. If you make a bet that any particular effeminate man is gay, you’re going to win far more often than you’re going to lose. I’m not trying to be like Michael Bailey or somebody saying all gay men are effeminate and anyone who says they aren’t is a liar, but there’s definitely some level of correlation.
>>Really the gay community and the transgendered community are not the same. However, the confusion arises due to two factors:
>>1. Drag. The gay community’s version of dress-up gets confused with the trans community.
>>2. Overlap. Both communities often occupy the same space, both physically (the same bars) and politically (the same enemies).
What is commonly termed the “transgender community” traditionally is made up of essentially three subgroups which are often lumped together politically but which clinically (I’m not sure if that’s the right word for it, but it’ll do for now) actually have little in common; drag queens who are gay men, heterosexual crossdressers who usually have nothing to do with the gay community (and are often but not always quite homophobic) and transsexuals, who often attempt to live as gay men or lesbians before transition or who often become gay men or lesbians upon transition (contrary to what most of the literature states, there are actually TONS of gay-identified female-to-male transsexuals; they call themselves transfags)
There is no real “transgender community” in the sense of all three groups having common community, but transsexuals often attempt to avoid having to transition by trying to be “just” drag queens or crossdressers, depending on their sexual orientaiton, before they transition. (I tried it for a month or so but hanging around in a skirt just seemed kinda pointless) Whether or not you want to define drag queens as “transgendered” is a political decision, as is transsexuals not wanting to be considered “transgendered.” (In a sense you could say that we transition precisely so we won’t be transgendered) I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say we’re irrevocably joined at the hip, but there’s always going to be some relation simply because most transsexuals are part of the gay community at some point in our lives.
>>I don’t believe that I have much in common with transgender persons at all, except on one key point: we both violate our assigned gender roles.
You do with the gay ones 😉
Robis,
Re: “If I walk into a room of random gay people, there are very few common connections between us. In fact, the only connection one could assume is that we are all attracted to the same sex. That’s it, and there is really nothing in that fact that one could build a community on.”
You are so right! I’ve often found myself bristling at the term “Gay community”, mostly because I think it stinks that sexual attraction is the only common denominator we have in common. That’s a pretty bizzare basis to try to build a “community” on, don’t you think?
Yet we end up becoming a community because we all have to deal with being gay in an unfriendly world.
Ironic, isn’t it? If it weren’t for people like Dobson and Throckmorton in the world, there would be no “gay community”.
Anon,
“If you make a bet that any particular effeminate man is gay, you’re going to win far more often than you’re going to lose”
OK, ya got me on that one. You’re probably right that MOST effiminate guys are gay (I’m not sure I’m ready yet to concede “almost all”). I certainly wouldn’t bet on it.
Well… maybe I would. Sometimes I make stupid bets. Yesterday I bet a friend a dollar that another guy was straight… I lost.
Anon,
Here’s some support for your observation that the ex-gays are moving into the ex-tran business.
From a report on the Exodus seminar “In the exhibit hall, a DVD featured Sy Rogers, who has a ministry in which he chats about overcoming his desire to become a woman. He said he found Jesus and learned how to act like a man.”
Actually the whole report is interesting. Consider that it is from a gay paper’s perspective but still seems like better reporting (more thorough and non sensational) than most mainstream press.
https://www.houstonvoice.com/2005/7-29/news/national/exodus.cfm
Transgender: Nature, Nurture and When It All Goes Awry
Article to let y’all know “they” are already in the ex-transsexual business — the “they” in the article being Richard Cohen, Jerry Leach, and Warren Throckmorton.
Transgender: Nature, Nurture and When It All Goes Awry
Article to let y’all know “they” are already in the ex-transsexual business — the “they” in the article being Richard Cohen, Jerry Leach, and Warren Throckmorton.
Hi Autumn. Try the link without putting the “/” on the end :)I did have this piece from crosswalk and remember thinking that anyone TS who compleletly cracked up after hearing a fw minute interview with Cohen on the radio probably wasn’t a good candidate to begin with and should have been better screened or supported. His initial confusion about gay v. TS should have been a red-flag to any good therapist.I had the article because of all the quotes from Throckmorton — they are a scream…
Research? Into those claims about the supernatural??? Pfft!!! V-e-r-y scientific…