Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex and Relationships

Queer 101: A Guide for Heteros

By Cameron Scott, AlterNet. Posted March 1, 2007.


Conservative Americans may demonize gay people -- but how much do progressives really know about queer culture?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As last November's election neared and a Democratic victory appeared more and more likely, Republicans warned that Speaker Pelosi would impose her "San Francisco values" on average Americans. Americans to the right of the left coast felt in their gut that San Francisco values were a shameful thing, without really knowing what they were.

Even San Franciscans scratched their heads a bit. The local paper's sex columnist, Violet Blue, pointed out that it meant sex. She argued that the twist in conservatives' panties resulted from San Franciscans' sex-positive outlook. Blue offered a paean to some of the city's sexual rituals, several of which, such as the Folsom Street Fair, are primarily gay.

But even Violet Blue didn't tell the whole truth: The phrase "San Francisco values" came directly from the right's well-worn gay-baiting playbook. In a story called "San Francisco Values Front and Center," the right's faithful warrior Bill O'Reilly shifts from talking about the city's ousting of ROTC clubs from several high schools into a discussion of gay marriage. He includes standard playbook comparisons of gay unions to polygamy, "triads" and incest.

So why hasn't anybody called a spade a spade? Many in Middle America have come to believe homosexual values must be abhorrent, based on the right's insistence that all homosexuals are radical perverts.

Blindness to difference has allowed the right wing to invent a sinister stereotype of "homosexuals" that has only tenuous links to reality. Radical right groups generate bogus statistics by conflating gay men and lesbians (the claim that homosexuals are more likely to have STDs should more accurately say that lesbians have the lowest rates of STDs of any group) and gay men and men who molest boys (imagine if they consistently referred to men who molest girls as "straight men"). The right gets away with their smears because it has persuaded Americans that sex and desire have no role in polite society.

Queers understand that desire, like hunger, is inexorable and beyond reasoning with. Policy should work with that assumption, not against it or it will always fail. And as the good clean fun of bootlicking at the Folsom Street Fair demonstrates, the only aspect of sexual behavior that is subject to moral judgment is consent between adults. What would happen if every minute and every dollar spent limiting the rights of gays and lesbians was instead spent on prosecuting sexual harassment, rape and child molestation?

But before we can even begin to think about policy changes, the public needs to become much more educated about queer culture -- a difficult task considering that even San Franciscans, who are tolerant of queers, often don't understand the nuances of their lifestyles.

And because queer culture is vibrant in San Francisco, any meaningful discussion of it would have to include a variety of perspectives and a list of exceptions to every rule. After all, taking exception to the rule is a -- or the -- fundamental aspect of queer culture. This is especially true of lesbian culture, transsexualism or any other kind of gender deviance, which are not even mentioned in Blue's tribute.

After all, Speaker Pelosi is far less likely than the local sex columnist to know exactly what queer values are, and we certainly can't expect her to trumpet queer values to Middle America if she doesn't fully understand them. So, I offer Speaker Pelosi -- and you -- the following primer to help understand the people behind the values and what they stand for.

Begin the binaries

It is important to remember that the gays whose greatest desire is to get married and live behind a white picket fence don't represent the whole community. Some of us enjoy being different and indicate as much by calling ourselves queer. In the world of gay women, those of us who are distinctly proud of (and political about) our differences are more likely to refer to ourselves as dykes. Those who don't like to ruffle any feathers generally prefer the less-threatening term "lesbians."

Beyond annual Pride festivals, gays and lesbians have precious little in common. We all know that men earn more than women, and so the income gap between the genders is exacerbated once you have communities of primarily men or women. This is often apparent in large urban centers. Neighborhoods that are known for being centers of gay (male) life are often more upscale and the dykier 'hoods are more working class -- such as the Castro vs. the Mission in San Francisco and in Boston, the South End vs. Jamaica Plain.

But it's more than just money. Gay men have a far more fully developed sexual culture than lesbians do -- hence, their inclusion in Violet Blue's profile of sex in this city. It's not that lesbians have less sex; that's a bad stereotype. Rather, gay men have sexual practices that are (a) often public and (b) not remotely shared with straight culture. Neither heterosexuals nor, sadly, lesbians have glory holes or street fairs, such as the Folsom Street Fair, celebrating S/M and leather subcultures.

The wild world of gender

Now, dear reader, we embark on the murky territory of gender identity. The fascinating thing about the lingo of gender identity is that each new term that springs up -- and I'm sure some are doing so outside of my ever-so-hip purview this very moment -- brings with it a whole new way of thinking about gender. For queers, and even some gays and lesbians, gender is an arbitrary cultural construct (yes, as a matter of fact, many of us did read too much Judith Butler in the early '90s).

Dykes have contributed the most to the ever-evolving language of gender. It's no coincidence that those most limited by gender -- biological women who can't profit by association from male privilege -- have done the most to think their way out of its traps. The oldest dyke gender identities, going back at least as far as the 40s, are butch and femme. Even Speaker Pelosi knows that butches are masculine-identified lesbians. "Femme" is properly used to describe women who have put a queer spin on femininity, but sometimes used to describe women who are fairly feminine.

In the last 10 years or so, many formerly butch dykes have taken testosterone to become female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals. Butches who don't take hormones have responded with new terms to describe their masculine identification. "Transgenderism" refers to people who fully identify as the gender opposite of their biological sex but who do not take hormones. Other masculine lesbians prefer the neologism "boi."

One of the most important things to remember is to never challenge someone's gender identity, whatever it may be. If you don't know how to refer to a gender-nonconforming person, ask if he or she prefers masculine or feminine pronouns. You must then respect his or her wishes -- otherwise, you will promptly be asked to return your queer-friendly I.D. card.

Another quick and easy way to lose your access card is asking a transsexual person -- FTM or MTF -- what the current status of their parts is. But, that's obvious, right?

Since I'm in the club, I get to talk about parts. Techniques for converting male genitalia into female have been around for about 50 years, which is why male-to-female (or MTF) transsexuals have a longer history than FTMs. Phalloplasty -- surgical creation of a penis -- still gives pretty lousy results. It may be because FTMs can never fully pass -- especially in the ways that matter most to sexual partners -- that female-to-male transsexuals are a recent phenomenon. They rely more on queer culture, and are in fact more integrated with it than MTFs.

Both surgeries are incredibly expensive, which is why, if you've been surfing the Craigslist personals, you may have seen a lot of "pre-op" trannies. In order to minimize the effects of secondary sexual characteristics they don't want, FTMs "pack." (Packing is wearing a dildo.) Of late, flaccid dildos have become available for FTMs to wear during nonsexual activity. They also sometimes flatten out their chests with "binders."

Of course, many dykes don't fully identify with either gender. Dykes who walk the line between the genders refer to themselves as "andro." Those who consider themselves an unexpected mix of masculine and feminine call themselves "gender queer." There are a million other terms and combinations of terms, and even members of the club need to have the more elaborate ones explained.

Where the boys are

Gay male culture has been surprisingly uncreative about gender. Contrary to popular opinion, many gay men are quite masculine. But as far as stylized gay masculine "genders," there's only the '70s butch look -- you know, with the Tom Selleck mustache and the leather cowboy fashion.

Then, there's the queen -- that bitchy, witty, home-decorating stereotype that Middle America never gets tired of. The term queen is also fast becoming dated. Her younger, snappy cousin sometimes goes by the derogatory term "twink."

It's hard being pretty. Eating disorders and stimulants are not uncommon in men in these cultures. Enter the bears' rebellion. Throwing off the beauty standards of stylized masculinity and effeminacy, "bears" embrace facial and body hair and even favor portly figures.

Despite, or perhaps because of, their timeless stereotyping as sissies, gay men aren't all that interested in violating gender norms. But gender deviance is taking off in the gay male community. I've recently spotted some fine young homosexuals dressed for all the world like butch dykes. And gay men are also embracing the term "boi" in attempt to forge a version of manhood distinct from straight masculinity.

The homosexual agenda

Speaker Pelosi, you must be wondering if gender diversity is the sum total of San Francisco values. The answer is no: This whirlwind tour is merely an introduction to the terms you will need to understand if you are to fulfill your role as representative of your fair city's values.

The multiple, evolving and self-created forms of difference in the queer community can be a model for embracing other forms of diversity. San Francisco values -- since we're nearing the end of our tête-à-tête, let's be blunt and call them the homosexual agenda -- reject the idea that the boxes people check reveal their core identity. You need to know a bit more about people -- and, it often comes down to asking them. Thus, in San Francisco, you will hear the question, "How do you identify?" The answer will encompass not just those revered multicultural categories race, class, and gender, but how the individual creates space for him or herself among them.

In terms of legislation, Speaker Pelosi, the queer way of thinking might help you sort out your positions on issues such as immigration (not all Latinos are illegal, not all "illegals" are alike) and affirmative action (more boxes, please).

If you remember that difference is good, you will strive to maintain American diversity while you also tend to the social safety net. In fact, many Americans fall through the cracks of government policies because those policies rely on legislators' limited guesses about who people are and what they need.

The lover of difference does not believe that all Americans do, or should, share the same set of values and habits. Who knows, if more Americans let go of their terror of the unknown, they might begin to find their own queerdom -- and find it both a liberating and meaningful way to connect with others.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: values, gay, san francisco, nancy pelosi, queer

Cameron Scott is a senior editorial fellow at Mother Jones. His work has also appeared in the Texas Observer, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, the San Francisco Chronicle, and AlterNet. He blogs at Gender 3.0.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
no wonder mainstream folks are so confused
Posted by: gillijen on Mar 1, 2007 2:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when does transgender refer only those who are pre-op?
and when did trans and genderqueer issues become the sole property of homosexuals?
This article presents such a narrow view of queer issues that it would do nothing more than further confuse anyone reading it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Could you say a bit more? Posted by: philame
» Straight Eye for the Queer Guy Posted by: pnsuitec
» Queer Eye on the Straight Flame Posted by: buffeliscious
That's so gay
Posted by: chomsky on Mar 1, 2007 2:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that really bothers the hell out of me: I keep hearing people say, "that's gay" to talk about anything they don't like. Just today I overheard someone say, "my homework was so gay." I'm shocked at how often I hear people using this blatantly ignorant speech. Even some liberal, gay-friendly people I know for some reason like to call anything they don't like "gay." I have no idea what these people are thinking, it is so backwards and ignorant to talk this way. I'm not even gay, it just offends me when people are this stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That's so gay Posted by: bookie
» "Homophobia is so gay." Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: That's so gay Posted by: jesusonthedashboard
» RE: That's so gay Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: That's so gay Posted by: andiprice001
» RE: That's so gay Posted by: maestra
» Welcome to the nerdaforium Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Welcome to the nerdaforium Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: That SUCKS Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: That SUCKS Posted by: pnsuitec
» RE: That SUCKS Posted by: andiprice001
I wish I could live like a gay man
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 1, 2007 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My gay friends pump through sex partners like some people pop M and Ms. They go on Gaydare and dial up sex buddies day in, day out. They judge their partners on dick size and muscles. And they only ever get a knowing chuckle from straight women about their behaviour.

But Lord help me if I behaved like that and my female friends knew. What a trash bag I would be in their eyes. The lectures and remonstrations I would hear.

I love the double standard for gays: I wish I could live so irresponsibly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» anecdotal experience is not data Posted by: halophoenix
» Then sleep with men! Posted by: medstudgeek
No need to know
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 1, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can you expect a legislator--or anyone else--to keep track of all shades of queer? There's no need to know, because they shouldn't be meddling in anyone's personal life in the first place.

It's an interesting article for curiosity sake, and it makes a few good points. But I don't see why you need to understand everyone in order to respect them and mind your own business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No need to know Posted by: gailkate
...
Posted by: D_comp on Mar 1, 2007 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a gay man and even I had a hard time relating to this article. It's like some kind of game show lightning round for homosexual terminology that doesn't do a very good job of explaining or understanding any of them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ... Posted by: H_H
» RE: ... Posted by: fork
» RE: ... Posted by: Jeffski
» RE: ... Posted by: fork
» RE: ... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: ... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: ... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: ..."gays and lesbians" Posted by: Deejwade
» RE: Donna Posted by: AlienSlave
» Simply a Poorly Written Article Posted by: SF_Patriot
» That goes for me Posted by: scajomar
a rodney king moment
Posted by: aislinnluv on Mar 1, 2007 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ah, jeez, people, can't we all just... get along???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

genxerky
Posted by: genxerky on Mar 1, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course you can live like a gay man, since everyone "knows" it's a choice, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear author
Posted by: astralman on Mar 1, 2007 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the worst articles I've read on alternet and does nothing to make life easier or safer for non exclusively heterosexual people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah, it kinda IS ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» AND ... Just curious why Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Dear author Posted by: Stancel
Best pro-Marriage Equality argument Ever
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Mar 1, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. "They're assuming that we homos are making a claim to marriage under the libertarian argument that everyone should be free to do as s/he wishes. Wrong. We are arguing that we already belong to the West's contemporary marriage philosophy—for capitalist and for feminist reasons."

Read the whole thing:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?id=3449

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But ... this is how it's done NOW Posted by: AdamSelene40
Doesn't speak for me
Posted by: Jeffski on Mar 1, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a 40 y.o. gay man, I worked for years as a reporter for a gay weekly, I've been out at every job since my late teens (including conservative law firms and banks), and out to all family members since early 20s. I do not have sex in public, I do not have the slightest gender confusion issues, and I despise the word "queer" -- not because I "don't like to ruffle feathers", but because it's a disgusting epithet no different than the infamous "N" word.

Articles such as these that purport to speak for the gay and lesbian community while perpetuating stereotypes and cliches do a disservice both to that community and to the larger straight society and gay/straight dialogues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Doesn't speak for me Posted by: Milo
» RE: Doesn't speak for me Posted by: Jeffski
» RE: Doesn't speak for me Posted by: Jeffski
» uh Posted by: crashtestcase
» RE: uh Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: uh Posted by: Jeffski
» RE: uh Posted by: buffeliscious
Good article
Posted by: medstudgeek on Mar 1, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gets a lot of things straight for me. It's pretty clear that a lot of 'queer' people separate biological sex, choice of sex partners, and sex role (whether you like to wear a mustache and be built or a dress and paint your nails--or mix the two.)

I'm a little worried about how this is going to play in Middle America (it apparently upset them enough to let Republicans win in lots of places), but I guess as long as it stays in San Fran we'll be okay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good article Posted by: psyopswatcher
» They won't. Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Good article Posted by: kelt65
My assumption is that they're fellow citizens...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 1, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...no more nor less important than any other.

Was there a different answer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please indicate when you're talking about only 7% of the population
Posted by: meggars on Mar 1, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree, as a 51-year-old dyke, this article adds more distortion than it clears anything up. It may be true that dykes have done more to challenge notions of gender, but it's NOT by being butch and femme. Lesbian-feminism set out to reclaim full womanhood for lesbians, and the current obsession with masculinity represents only about 7% of lesbians. God, when will this current trend end? Probably around the same time the militarization and over-masculinization of mass culture reverses. So-called "queer" culture is dominated by male values, and the vast majority of lesbians don't claim it except when checking a limited array of boxes and it's the only alternative to straight.

Outside of academia and the 20-30 something white circles in huge cities, lesbian culture is very diverse and radically different from anything else on the planet. And it's a difference that make us invisible, minimized, revised or ridiculed by not just heterosexual culture but by writers like this one.

And, by the way, transgendered as a definition DOES include transsexuals at any stage, MTF, FTM, those who refuse a gender, and crossdressers of any gender or orientation. It's a deliberately ambiguous term that includes contradictory philosophies -- those who believe gender is biological and therefore changing gender identity must include hormones and surgery, and those who believe gender is constructed, therefore available to anyone regardless of physical appearance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank You! Posted by: freeda'all
some historical perspective
Posted by: Don Garb on Mar 1, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few thousand years ago large cities began to be built and became major population centers. Groups of thugs, or psychopaths, wanted to control thousands of people when they only numbered in the dozens. Their campaigns of superlative violence, repression and abuse only got them so far: they needed something better, that would work when they weren't around to maim and murder everyone who stepped out of line.

Their solution was to take an ordinary bodily function, something that everyone had to do, and make it illegal: punishable by fines, torture and death. Now breathing, eating, drinking and defecating were not appropriate crimes because everyone always did them, but sex was a good candidate.

So the ancient psychopaths created the falsehood that sex was a choice and that those who made the wrong choice could be destroyed. This kept populations far larger than the numbers of the thugs under control. This in addition to all the other thuggy things of course.

Flash forward thousands of years to the present. The psychopathic strategy still works today! There have been many books written about the contribution homosexuals have made over the years to our art, science and culture. But we are just now starting to see how much of our world has been built to serve the ends of the psychopaths. Recorded history has been the struggle between the real human beings and the psychopathic monsters who are not human at all. And for every gay person out there, there are how many psychopaths? Two? Or three?

Another good one is when a ceo says: "The shareholders made me do it!" yeah right ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Technically Speaking... Posted by: neptune
Actually, not that good....
Posted by: melissa999 on Mar 1, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I learned nothing from this article, but I live in San Francisco.

Just to respond to this, "I'm a little worried about how this is going to play in Middle America (it apparently upset them enough to let Republicans win in lots of places), but I guess as long as it stays in San Fran we'll be okay."

Actually, Kansas is apparently a hotbed of new gay life now that more people feel comfortable about coming out. It would sadden me if people played the fear card in the voting booth. It would be an ironic move since many gays are Republican. Sexuality and desire for smaller government do not always correlate, especially when you consider the higher tax brackets.

To respond to the article itself, I think it's narrow in its scope. What I find particularly fascinating about the transgender movement are the endless questions about what it means to be a woman or a man or somewhere in between that are rarely fully answered. While there seems to be a focus on genitalia, hormonal changes (induced by ingesting synthetic hormones) and outward appearances, I think it will be more interesting to focus on the brain. After all, your brain will always be pre-op, no?

There are far worse crimes than sleeping with someone that people think you shouldn't or asking someone to call you a non-specific gender pronoun, like the growing lack of respect for other people and the increasing disdain for intellectual inquiry and discourse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Actually, not that good.... Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: Actually, not that good.... Posted by: crashtestcase
Ouch
Posted by: Theriomorph on Mar 1, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With full acknowledgment that this was well-intended, I agree that by omission and generalization it falls short of being either useful or fun.

Hate to contribute toward the stereotype of impossible to please queer people with so many identifications and mores that discussion and social action gets bogged down in 'me too'/'me first' bickering - but another 'full survey' of queer culture that entirely fails to mention bisexual culture? On Alternet? Felt like I was back in the Eighties when my very presence at a Pride March was 'defocusing' and I just 'hadn't made my mind up yet.'

Ouch.

A lot of the same ol' tired and injurious stereotypes, here, too, about trans, gay, and lesbian culture.

I love the writer's idea of an open letter on queer culture to Speaker Pelosi. But aiming for the middle ground between humor and information didn't work at all, in my opinion. Given the diversity in queer culture, I suspect that going whole hog in one direction or the other rather than waffling in the middle is the best bet. Be funny, or be accurate. This was neither.

God forbid, be both funny and accurate.

Long-winded, sorry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drag Queens?
Posted by: kelt65 on Mar 1, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say gay men have been "uncreative about gender" but this seems ridiculous to me. There have been drag queens for a LONG time, and they have always been part of both queer and "gay" culture. On another note, frankly, I think there are a lot of fake queers out there, and they tend to call themselves "genderqueer" (those of you know who you are). I'm sorry, if you are straight, I don't care how you look, you are not queer. Queer is NOT a style.And thank you, as a gay man, I feel I have PLENTY in common with lesbians and dykes. that others gays, men or women, do not have feelings of solidarity for their trans/gay/queer brothers and sisters is their problem, not mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Drag Queens? Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: Drag Queens? Posted by: kelt65
» RE: Drag Queens? Posted by: generic_moniker
» RE: Drag Queens? Posted by: Stancel
Embracing the description "queer" ...
Posted by: SayBlade on Mar 1, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I know a group of Baptists who consider themselves queer because of their inclusive theology of freedom to read, explore and interpret the bible in its context and as it relates to the individual who studies it. They welcome and affirm everyone regardless of gender, orientation. So, even if one is het, one may still be considered queer. And, even if one doesn't believe in an historical Jesus, the manner in which the Jesus character lived and related to people was very queer for the time.

This is why it truly amazes me that anyone who "follows Jesus" can hate homosexuals and go to war. After all, the only weapon Jesus ever uses (John 2:15) is a flogger he made himself. He never commented on homosexuals either, so it is safe to say they could be full partcipants in his roving band of hippie queer folk.

So the term "queer", or any other term for that matter, is adopted by a culture and that culture may be very localised.

In the case of Cameron Scott, he has tried to take on an enormous task in a very short article. To cover such a topic thoroughly Scott would be looking at something the size of a set of encyclopaedia volumes on a library shelf.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For The Record
Posted by: freeda'all on Mar 1, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The majority of lesbians have chosen and continue to choose to 'opt out' of this 'inclusive' community that does nothing to include us and for that we are hounded, reviled, sued in the courts and have had many, many of our centers, bookstores & hangouts either closed down or morphed into things that no longer recognize our uniqueness or right to determine our needs or our futures. We're called 'transphobic' when we challenge this and we're pushed aside.

Yeah, they want our name and our lives and our cultures and our festivals but they don't want us around unless we adher to the 'rules' scott has set forth in this article.

Lesbian resistance to this is growing and it appears to me that gay male resistance is too. It was the trans and bi communities who latched onto us not the other way around and they continue to sap our strengths, claim our histories and erase the reality of our lives so that they may inject their own in place of us. Bullshit. It's time for another Stonewall Revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For The Record
Posted by: freeda'all on Mar 1, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The majority of lesbians have chosen and continue to choose to 'opt out' of this 'inclusive' community that does nothing to include us and for that we are hounded, reviled, sued in the courts and have had many, many of our centers, bookstores & hangouts either closed down or morphed into things that no longer recognize our uniqueness or right to determine our needs or our futures. We're called 'transphobic' when we challenge this and we're pushed aside.

Yeah, they want our name and our lives and our cultures and our festivals but they don't want us around unless we adher to the 'rules' scott has set forth in this article.

Lesbian resistance to this is growing and it appears to me that gay male resistance is too. It was the trans and bi communities who latched onto us not the other way around and they continue to sap our strengths, claim our histories and erase the reality of our lives so that they may inject their own in place of us. Bullshit. It's time for another Stonewall Revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I call bullshit Posted by: crashtestcase
» RE: I call bullshit Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: I call bullshit Posted by: crashtestcase
» RE: I call bullshit Posted by: Jeffski
» RE: I call bullshit Posted by: aubrey
a dyke's two cents
Posted by: anniedine on Mar 1, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been an out dyke for over 30 years and have travelled in most of the circles one can travel in in the vast expanse of the LGBTQ universe.

The group of people who have sex with (or who would have sex with) people of their own "gender" is as diverse a group as "African Americans" and "Catholics" and "women." (And for those of you who know that sex is not necessarily the defining characteristic of being LGBTQ, and those of you who don't, let's just go with that oversimplification for argument's sake).

Our diversity is that simple AND that complicated. As a class of people we are oppressed by societies that don't want us to exist and so attempt to herd us into some kind of group identification. For protection we've tended to try to herd together as well. Then we look around at that herd and want to differentiate ourselves as any other humans do.

We want to group together because of our natural affiliations, as well as to be with people who "get" what it's like to be in our shoes. But the range of our choices in that is vast. Some LGBTQ people prefer a suburban lifestyle with BBQ in the backyard with their mostly straight neighbors and a few other LGBTQ suburban types. Name any interest, avocation, vocation, lifestyle, or what-have-you and you will find LGBTQ people who are affiliating around that AND their LGBTQ status.

The point of anything our community and our allies write about us is this: we should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other citizens, whether or not we conform to ANYONE'S notion of correct behavior (including those in our own herd), as long as we are not hurting anyone else (Jerry Falwell's delicate feelings notwithstanding).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a dyke's two cents Posted by: Lara
» RE: a dyke's two cents Posted by: jesusonthedashboard
» What's this "we" crap bwana? Posted by: freeda'all
outdated terminology
Posted by: generic_moniker on Mar 1, 2007 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Transgender" was originally designed to refer to non-operative transsexuals (some by choice, most by lack of funds or medical conditions). Next "transgender" was used as a so-called umbrella term for anybody falling under the gender variant tent ranging from transvestites to preop, nonop and postop transsexuals, later queer-identifying folks and intersex people. That usage too has fallen into disfavor as have most terms that attempt to limit, categorize or pathologize any group of individuals. I, technically a non-op transsexual (on hormones and some surgery) by choice, reserve the right to someday have the "surgery" (Gender Reassignment Surgery) should I so choose should I deem the surgery up to my expectations. But the truth is it is my belief and that of many in the community(ies) that gender and self-identity is not to be found between the legs but rather in the heart and the mind of each individual. The less segregating the terminology becomes, perhaps the more confusing it gets for those unfamiliar with the gender variant and queer worlds - but hey, we had to learn about all the hetero folks' quirks and terms (and put up with them inventing most of the derogatory ones about us), so fair is fair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't understand ....
Posted by: WitchyNy on Mar 1, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why 'Gay' is considered a progressive issue.
Plenty of "gays" are rich and vote Republican.
Their only issue seems to be making gay a mainstream lifestyle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I don't understand .... Posted by: kelt65
» to kelt65- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: I don't understand .... Posted by: SayBlade
» RE: I don't understand .... Posted by: Stancel
I'm a dyke
Posted by: kranstar on Mar 1, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The queer culture is as diverse as straight America. To wrap it up in a neat little package and toss it at readers so they can finally understand gay folks, so to speak, is an injustice. You've got it all wrong--on so many levels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupid articles
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Mar 1, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with many of the posts here. This is a pretty dumb article, as many of those on Alternet have been recently. The poorly written, shallow essays on whether or not women can be feminists and still have good relationships with men and other similar topics detract from the mostly very fine commentaries I find on this site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simply a Poorly Written Article
Posted by: SF_Patriot on Mar 1, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impossible to relate to. I am a forty something gay man who has grown up in San Francisco of all places, and I found this article incredibly hard to follow. I also found it incredibly condescending to gay men. Go figure! And then there are several "facts" about income levels of gays versus lesbians that I find utterly ridiculous and unsubstantiated. Please Mary, not all of us gay men live in the Castro, not to mention it was not always the "upscale" neighborhood you refer to. As if there were no "working class" gay men! Some rather absurd assumptions are made that I take issue with. I don't even know what the point of this article is. Love, if you cannot grab my attention in matters of queerness, how do expect heterosexual folk to listen to your ramblings? Alternet's standards, and certainly their editorial staff have really gone downhill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Need to Get Out More
Posted by: SF_Patriot on Mar 1, 2007 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am cordially inviting you over for tea to meet me and my partner. Not all gay men fit such stereotypes. We have been in a committed and monogamous relationship for twelve years. I know plenty of heterosexuals that are incredibly promiscuous. I don't have a personal issue with promiscuity by the way. If you want to live like that nobody's going to stop you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You Need to Get Out More Posted by: SF_Patriot
This Piece Is Amazingly Out of Touch with Reality
Posted by: scot on Mar 1, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Bill O'Reilly would need to do is read it on Fox News and there could be gaybashing pogroms from coast to coast. Many progressives, moreover, would be tempted to join in.

*The idea that, given consent, anything goes in sexual matters is PRECISELY what the Right Wing would deny (along with most of the human race for thousands of years).

*So if lesbians have the lowest rates of STDs of any group, then the rate for gay men must be stratospheric--right? (Just do the math.)

*That gender identity is an arbitrary cultural construct to be constantly contested and kept in flux is not a principle by which most sane people want to live their lives. They have larger concerns to think about and more important things to do. --So does Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gay marriage is a moral improvement campaign
Posted by: Jasonix on Mar 1, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article rightly points out that many, probably most, gay people don't want to get married. Most don't even want monogamy. Many, many gay men are promiscuous and have double-digit sex partners within a single year. I knew many gay rights activists during the mid-90s when gay rights legislation was enacted in New England states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and most of these activists were not monogamous. I have continued to know numerous gay people since then, and relatively few of them want a monogamous marriage (although many do have committed emotional relationships, they have threesomes and on-the-side lovers). Monogamy is adopted only to avoid AIDS, when it exists at all.

Meanwhile, I've known heterosexual supporters to gay marriage who say they support gay marriage because they want to morally reform gay people and pressure them to give up their polyamorous lifestyle and adopt "traditional" values like monogamy. Is that really "accepting" gay people? I don't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

talking about other people's junk
Posted by: crashtestcase on Mar 1, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
um, being trans does not give you the right to talk negatively about anyone else's genitals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: talking about other people's junk Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty
Queer? what's different about queer when you're like everyone else?
Posted by: aubrey on Mar 1, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Queer is a complex word, denoting the traditional definition of "odd" and also reflecting a more contemporary sense of gender flux.
What is really quite queer for me is the integrity to live my life by my own definitions, and my own desires.
I was saddened to read Scott's article for a few reasons, but for this note I'll leave it to the following quote:
It is important to remember that the gays whose greatest desire is to get married and live behind a white picket fence don't represent the whole community. Some of us enjoy being different and indicate as much by calling ourselves queer.
I don't know why Scott thinks it is so different to be gay and not married. Most of the gay community is not married. So for those who enjoy being different - why would you prefer to stay within the comfy confines of being "queer" in SF? Having lived in SF for some years myself (and loved it), I never got the sense that being "queer" was anything but normal in the beautiful city by the bay.
As a gay man married to another man I can assure you that being a married gay is a very difficult identy to occupy. Straights throughout this country don't like us (even some in liberal leaning Mass and CA). and many gays do not like us - read Scott's quote to sense the dismissal of our decision to legally commit.
We have had friends of ours in SF tell us that we were becoming too "mainstream" and "trying to be straight".
Contrary to Scott's contention, and our friends, my husband and I were not trying to model our lives after Ozzie and Harriet, nor any other "normal" icon.
Rather, we were doing what we wanted to do, commit to each other and acknowledge our relationship socially as well. We also wanted this commitment to contain a legal component. The only way we wanted to emulate the straight community was in being able to access the same legal responsibilities and rights for our relationship as our straight counterparts.
The real courage to be different is not defined by SF queer, nor by the religious right in DC. My husband and I are really quite "queer" anywhere we go in America. The conservatives don't respect our marriage, and neither do the SF queersters like Scott (it seems).
It saddens me to read Scott's limiting definition of "queer".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Homosexuality and Communities of Color
Posted by: nunezam on Mar 1, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one thing I thought was missing from this article was any discussion of queer issues in communities of color. For many homosexual folks of color, identity formation cirlces around the intersection of homophobia and racism.
Since so much of this article deals with identity and labels, its easy to see the parallels within ethnic movements. Being of Mexican descent, but socially conscious, I choose Chicano as my main identifier. To some of my fellow Raza, Chicano is a derogatory term, and there are plenty of other terms they prefer: Latino, Hispanic etc. And so a group of people (Raza/Latinos/Hispanics) targeted as a whole by xenophobia and institutional racism finds itself divided and to this date conquered by AmeriKa.
After reading the comments left by other readers, it is especially clear that similar divisiveness is occuring within the queer community. Plenty of people have written "Oh not me! Not me! This article doesn't reflect me!" Nor should it. This is one person's politically charged, and in many ways socially conscious, attempt to put the issues of the queer community into focus for the rest of us. So, let the usage of terms by this author be a reflection of their political stance, but don't forget the forest for the trees. The gay rights movement should learn from ethnic movements to avoid bickering over labels and progress forward together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hmmm, perhaps... Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: Hmmm, perhaps... Posted by: crashtestcase
» RE: Hmmm, perhaps... Posted by: freeda'all
» RE: Hmmm, perhaps... Posted by: nunezam
» RE: Hmmm, perhaps... Posted by: freeda'all
Thought experiment
Posted by: ebliso on Mar 1, 2007 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To all the heteros out there looking to raise their awareness levels....for 1 week, refrain from revealing your sexual preference. That would mean removing all references to your girlfriend (or boyfriend) wife (or husband) or in any other way hinting at your sexuality . (It's much harder than you'd think). Put yourself in the closet for a week and then imagine spending decades having to do that ALL THE TIME.
And in case your one of those people who say "I don't care who you sleep with! " you will see that it's not just about declaring who you have sex with , but about all the other aspects of life where we casually refer to the people we find cute , the people we are interested in , and the people we love . This is one of the tangential reasons that it's so important for gay people to come out of the closet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yawn Posted by: Phenix
» RE: yawn Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty
» RE: yawn Posted by: ebliso
» RE: Thought experiment Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty
» RE: Thought experiment Posted by: kelt65
» RE: Thought experiment Posted by: philame
WELL SAID.........
Posted by: gellero on Mar 1, 2007 8:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo to you....you are not of this century.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumb
Posted by: Phenix on Mar 1, 2007 9:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel like i wasted part of my life reading this article. I really don't care what the GLBT community wants to call themselves. If a transgender person wants to correct me then that fine but I don't see how or why I need to know your verbage to support your causes.

O and I did not know that lesbians stole the term androgynous since it actually describes a personality blend that is both feminine and masculine. I happen to have an Andro personality so it could cause me some problem if I would describe my personality in those terms to a few people in San Fran or the GLBT community.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We might be misdirecting our energies.
Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty on Mar 1, 2007 9:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is this burning desire to label absolutely every aspect of being? This feels so damaging to me. Who cares if you are a dyke or boi a butch/femme hybrid. These terms have so little to do with who you really are and frankly people who obsess over this have WAY too much time on their hands. Half of these terms are completely silly anyway, especially "queer". Queer means strange or odd. It can also mean suspicious or shady. Also it can be used as a verb that means to spoil. Why would anyone embrace that term?

Further more how can people be so touchy about someone not knowing the teeny weeny discrepancies between these terms. They change so often and even from area to area. In Chicago "twink" is HARDLY derogatory and "Bear" is generally considered offensive. Not everyone has heard of these terms, let alone studied their meaning and application, and not everyone needs to. I'm sure most of the population of this country has never taken a gender studies class.

Who gets to decide what term means what, what terms are affectionate and what terms are offensive anyway? Is there a president of gender terms that I'm not aware of? Anyway back to the article:

If I need to talk to a person who looks like a woman, sounds like a woman, whether they are a woman or not, I will address them as if they were female. Even if the person is a non passing transvestite, I will use feminine pronouns. And I urge everyone to do the same. Why would you dress like a woman or actually become a woman physically if you wanted people to call you a he? I don't have the time or energy to be questioning or trying to determine the gender of everyone I meet.


I think this article and the obsession with terms and labels is pretty damaging. I know it's only human to want to put a name to things but the sad fact is you can't always do it. And printing this kind of article, supposedly FOR "straight" people, only helps to confuse them more and cause an even greater rift between two aspects of society that have absolutely no reason to hate or fear each other. Let's get our heads out of our asses be who we are and quit bitching about everything, especially something so tiny and trivial that no one can control like what names we call each other. Sheesh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thanks , not MY idea though ....
Posted by: ebliso on Mar 2, 2007 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the idea is a very compassionate one and it came from this author ... http://www.alternet.org/sex/47666/ .. though, the author suggested it for Valentines day...I'd suggest do it for a full week to get the real impact .
By the way, I DID grow up in a conservative area of the country and moved from there MANY many years ago.
the purpose of this experiment is to give heteros a tiny glimpse of what a closeted life really means in a very day-to-day practical kind of way. It is a way in which YOU TOO can take a week and walk in someone else's shoes. Sorry if the idea of compassion inducing, empathetic , mind-expanding social experiments seem lame or make you tired and bored. The frank truth is that many straight people think that being out and gay is about telling people about your sex life (see O'Reilly, and his ilk) it's really about all the realms of life in which a closeted person must lie about their life to get by.
Yeah, I've been out since I was in high school (in rural Kentucky) , but it took years .... many long sad brutal years , before I could exorcise the internalized repression and self-censorship that resulted from being raised in a highly bigoted place. I've talked to many straight people who just have no clue what it's like to grow up telling lies to everyone all the time because you fear the bashings and taunts and ignorance and isolation and abandonment . Straight people have no friggin' clue . When you were in school and had a crush on a girl (or guy) you could share that with friends. You could go to a dance and kiss and hug the person you liked without having to get a court order to force the school to allow you to go and to protect you from the bigots all around. You could gawk at a pretty girl (or guy) at the mall and share a soda or hold hands on the play ground . Your parents would proudly take your prom photos and then hang them on the wall. You could talk about how annoying your husband (or wife) is being this week ... not doing dishes or taking out the trash. You could get caught making out by your parents and not have to worry that you'd be sent to some abusive "ex-gay" camp. You could do all of these things without fear of being beaten in the street or laughed at and ridiculed by adults or ostracized by "good christian kids" or preached at by crazy old conservative bigots.
For the sake of empathy and compassion, you could devote just 1 week to understanding life as an outsider. That's not much to ask. The worst that could happen is that you might learn something about yourself and about the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How much does this author know about queer culture?
Posted by: aubrey on Mar 2, 2007 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lack of knowledge regarding any sub-culture other than the dyke/trans community this author inhabits is obvious.
And the lack of knowledge is expressed by a disdain for what this author does not know.
This response is too similar to much of the vitriol we get from the religious right.
It is a shame that there is such a narrow identification, when identity flux would supposedly lead to a more engaging experience.
Perhaps what this author reflects is what scares middle America - a sense that only a narrow subset of the country really knows what is what.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, the article itself isn't so hot
Posted by: ebliso on Mar 2, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Twinks are not the "new queens"...twinks are just young good looking men. Queenieness has nothing to do with it . "Twink" is the opposite end of the spectrum from "bear". (Both having to do with body type , not personality.) "Queen" really is all about attitude..."queen" is the gay male "diva" . Believe you me, I've known some very butch twinks and some very queenie bears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gagh,
Posted by: freeda'all on Mar 2, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To listen to this guy would be to believe that dykes are just sex-role-playing all over again.

Butches are not masculine-identified women. we're strong women in our own right and we have never needed to resort to male descriptors for ourselves. That crap comes from people obsessed with gender markers and naming everything they do as m/f.

It isn't true either that lesbians who don't identify with either call themselves 'andro.' Many of us long ago have seen gender for what it is and we moved beyond it and we move without it. We call ourselves many names but none of them are about 'gender.' The constant harping on gender that comes from the trans community itself reflects an obsession with and a belief in the 'gender binary.' They're the ones who want the binary kept intact and who want women and men kept on one side of the fence or another so that they can be seen as 'transgressive' when they playact.

'Crossing gender lines' is a dubious idea at best. What are the lines, where are they and when do we know we've crossed them? Dr Sally Ride didn't need to 'pack' to enter the astronaut's world of manliness nor does Hillary Clinton to stay in politics. I don't need a strap-on to go out and do something considered 'manly' nor does a man need to castrate himself to be sensitive.

'Blurring the lines' is just empty code for we're gonna keep it so confusing that it never makes sense and therefore it must be something big & wonderful. It's a self-assigned case of terminal uniqueness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

something every homosexual should watch...seriously
Posted by: 911 truther on Mar 2, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this is mind blowing!

go here.....http://video.google.com enter hiv+aids+fact or fiction
in the search box, it'll be the 1st movie listed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Labeling...
Posted by: dbatterman on Mar 2, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If someone asked me how I "identify" I would hope the first thing that entered my mind was "human being." All this concentration on other-ness as classification is precisely what makes people who do not belong to the "club" misunderstand, whether that be related to gender, race, religion...what have you.
The obsession with labeling that the author and some commentors show is discouraging. Why must someone gain their identity from a label, instead of gaining from themselves?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lousy Article?
Posted by: buffeliscious on Mar 2, 2007 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, for being such a lousy article, it's certainly generated an auful lot of meaningful commentary. It seems everybody has an opinion about this topic. If nothing more, the article has served to open up discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Straight male observation
Posted by: opeluboy on Mar 2, 2007 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tried to appreciate the writer's apparent intent to help us straight folks figure out this multi-leveled gay/lesbian/TG, etc., etc. world, but I found it rather elitist, actually.

Having several close friends and relatives who are gay and lesbian, I felt that none of this article really applied to them. Maybe that's because none of them live in San Fran. Nor did I feel I really needed any help loving and appreciating people dear to me.

And I still have a hard time saying "queer" as my whole life it was a perjorative. Sorry, but I don't call black people "niggers" either, even if they may do so themselves now.

Anyway, you guys sort it out. I'm heading to the neighborhood bar to hoist a few with Sonya and Penny. They'll go home together and do what they do, which is none of my business, and I'll go home with my wife and do what we do, which is none of their's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's just crazy.
Posted by: lwbaby on Mar 2, 2007 4:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about how many times you might have said that or any derivitive thereof.

Do you think the mentally ill have any more control of who they are than you do of your sexuality????

How about this phrase, 'how stupid'. If you have ever used that phrase did you ever consider it might be considered offensive to someone with a lower than the government designated IQ?

Get over your puffed up indignation. We are all made fun of. Ever hear of "you throw like a girl'? How about 'White men can't jump?' I'd throw in a black or brown stereotype but that would just be too much...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take marriage completely out of state hands...
Posted by: OhioPatriot on Mar 3, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....and instead have the states issue only "cival union liscenses" to everyone, hetero or gay.

If you then want the "Marriage" go to your local church of choice and have it done there.

If your church agrees with your lifestyle they will marry you. If they do not then you can examine thier reasons and change your lifestyle if you so choose or you can go find a church that will.

At either rate it takes the state out of the business of marriage.
Its all about the word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trans Man Here
Posted by: aurelius on Mar 3, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow...for someone purporting to help poor, benighted straight people understand the wide world of gender and sexuality, you seem in dire need of some education yourself. For instance, no matter what genitals are in your pants, it is never, NEVER okay to talk disrespectfully about other people's. If you were going to break that rule, it would be nice if you at least had more than a passing transwoman's understanding of the various genital surgeries and options that transsexual men have. How many phalloplasties have you seen? How many metoidioplasties? How long ago were they done? Who performed them? How many photos? How many in real life? What did the owners of the genitalia say?

Speaking from my own experience (since I will not dare to generalize about others in the broad strokes you have), I have never run across difficulties satisfying my heterosexual female partner, nor do I feel like I can never fully pass because of my genital configuration. Even if either or both of those things were true, hanging out in the lesbian community is about the last thing I'd want to do--part of how I knew that I was indeed a man rather than the butch dyke that I was ardently trying to be was that I was entirely uninterested and unwelcome in any lesbian spaces (even, or perhaps especially, the butch-femme circles). That obviously was not the entire story, of course, but suffice it to say that if I'd wanted to be in the lesbian community I would have saved myself the time and expense of transitioning. Not all of us FTMs come out of the lesbian community, and many of us resent being lumped in with them in spite of our best efforts.

Lastly, but most upsettingly, your condescending attitude toward heterosexuals is not the sort of thing I'd expect from someone who (should) know what it's like to be stereotyped and falsely categorized by gender identity and sexuality. Part of having our choices and orientations respected is respecting the choices and orientations of others, rather than making "queer" into a special club with a velvet rope and taunting people who prefer to stay outside. Personally, I'd rather live among all sorts of people--queer AND straight, trans AND not--being respected by them AND respecting them in turn.

I hope most progressives know enough about queer culture to know that you don't speak for all of it. I hope (but fear otherwise) that no progressive takes you as a representative of the trans experience either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Trans Man Here Posted by: jaychicago
» RE: Trans Man Here Posted by: Theriomorph
» RE: Trans Man Here Posted by: anniedine
'nother trans man here
Posted by: jaychicago on Mar 3, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the brevity of this article does a real disservice to every type of person mentioned in it--especially transsexual people like myself. Look, I think if you have to resort to bringing up how "bad" you think phalloplasty technology for trans guys is, you should just leave it out. I belong to many internet communities with physically transitioned trans men who've had bottom surgery, and also know a few in real life. Almost to a man they are satisfied with their surgery results. Sure, the technology can get better, and I am saving my pennies in hopes that when I can finally afford it, it will have progressed. But if I had the money, I would have no qualms about getting a phalloplasty with the current technology.

Also, not all transsexual people and their partners are queer. Many are straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is a joke
Posted by: Stancel on Mar 10, 2007 2:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a gay man, I am insulted by this piece of hogwash. Are you even LGBT? Or did you fulfill your research with Wikipedia?

Okay, I'm going to tackle each horrifying ridiculous part, piece by piece.

It is important to remember that the gays whose greatest desire is to get married and live behind a white picket fence don't represent the whole community. Some of us enjoy being different and indicate as much by calling ourselves queer.

No, doofus, the word queer is an all encompassing term for LGBT.

In the world of gay women, those of us who are distinctly proud of (and political about) our differences are more likely to refer to ourselves as dykes.

Dyke is a slur against lesbians. It is being reclaimed, as a word of pride for lesbian. Stop defining words which are different from their actual definitions.

Those who don't like to ruffle any feathers generally prefer the less-threatening term "lesbians."

The word lesbian already ruffles feathers. Not everyone who is out and proud about their lesbianism calls themself a "dyke" . You, sir, are generalizing.

Beyond annual Pride festivals, gays and lesbians have precious little in common.

Excuse me, we have one big thing in common, or we wouldn't be gays and lesbians. And to insinuate as if we only meet each other in 'Pride festivals' is a ridiculous thing to say.

We all know that men earn more than women, and so the income gap between the genders is exacerbated once you have communities of primarily men or women. This is often apparent in large urban centers. Neighborhoods that are known for being centers of gay (male) life are often more upscale and the dykier 'hoods are more working class...

Another ridiculous generalization. Please. There are plenty of working class gay men. And not every gay person lives in these so-called "centers of gay life", so stop making it look that way. You exacerbate homophobia.

Neither heterosexuals nor, sadly, lesbians have glory holes or street fairs, such as the Folsom Street Fair, celebrating S/M and leather subcultures.

This is where I get more than annoyed and get enraged. How dare you make such a generalization, that gays go to glory holes or involved in S/M. You, sir, are reinforcing stereotypes!


For queers, and even some gays and lesbians,

There is no such difference.

Dykes have contributed the most to the ever-evolving language of gender.

Don't refer to lesbians as dykes.


In the last 10 years or so, many formerly butch dykes have taken testosterone to become female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals.


So now you think that the only FTM transsexuals are former butch lesbians? You need to stop writing shitty articles.

But as far as stylized gay masculine "genders," there's only the '70s butch look -- you know, with the Tom Selleck mustache and the leather cowboy fashion.

Great, stereotypes.

Then, there's the queen -- that bitchy, witty, home-decorating stereotype that Middle America never gets tired of. The term queen is also fast becoming dated. Her younger, snappy cousin sometimes goes by the derogatory term "twink."

Idiot. You once again re-inforce stereotypes.

Speaker Pelosi, you must be wondering if gender diversity is the sum total of San Francisco values. The answer is no: This whirlwind tour is merely an introduction to the terms you will need to understand if you are to fulfill your role as representative of your fair city's values.

Yeah, this has been such a ridiculous article. If you want to talk about queer issues, do it in a respectful and serious manner, otherwise STFU!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Exactly!
Posted by: Stancel on Mar 10, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is disgraceful. If this man is straight, he needs to be slapped. If this man is gay, he needs to be double slapped.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xactly! Posted by: Stancel
I'm afraid I have to take issue with . . .
Posted by: yesman on Mar 10, 2007 9:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . this comment: "Gay male culture has been surprisingly uncreative about gender. Contrary to popular opinion, many gay men are quite masculine. "

Gay men may be quite masculine-acting, or quite masculine-appearing, but they can't be simply "masculine." Why? Because "masculinity," like "femininty," implies heterosexuality. That is, one can't be a "real" man (or a "real" woman) without practicing (and desiring) heterosex. Hence, gay men can never be "masculine" in the sense of being simply, and unselfconsciously, "real men." This fact is not lost on any gay man, whether he can articulate this particular thought or not.

That is, a gay man may DECIDE to act like, or to give the appearance of being, a "real" man. But part of being a REAL real man is NOT having to DECIDE to be one. Real men assume that they are what they are due to biological determinism, not choice. If you have a choice (or even think you do), you're queer (or at least gay).

Also, it's a little to simplistic to say that twinks are the new queens. Twinks do occupy a similar position in that "twink" (like "queen") is a rather derisive term used by one gay man in reference to another. But twinks need not be particularly effeminate, as queens must. So, if twinks were merely queens in modern garb, then they'd probably still just be queens. It would be interesting to look a little more closely into the differences (and the reasons behind them) between those categorized with these two terms . . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I actually think this article is a bit harsh
Posted by: Cruella on Mar 26, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think people need to understand all the sub-types of gay and lesbian cultural identities to be in tune with gay and lesbian communities. I think instead San Francisco values should mean taking individuals as individuals and not trying to force limiting gender and sexulity stereotypes and roles on people who don't want them.

The fact that gay and lesbians may identify as particular sub-groups based on gender stereotypes may serve to highlight how important it is to treat people as individuals, but how is the situation any different from straight women defining themselves as (I'm using London terms cos that's what I know) ladettes, tom-boys or "the lipstick mafia". By the same token straight men who define themselves as meterosexual, new lad, old lad, cad, heteropolitan. Seems to me that if there is one group out there who suffer from being treated as though they are all the same it's straight guys - that whole sports and naked women and fast cars culture that in my experience most guys don't actually want to participate in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement