Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

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

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."


Digg!

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

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

 

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.

[