I came to Cameron Scott's piece late. Today, actually. Man, was I enraged.

Sir, you claim to break down stereotypes. What a joke! You have reinforced them, to an extreme extent.

You present such stereotypical, demeaning, degrading, condescending depictions of the gay and lesbian community.

You, sir, whether you are gay, or bi, or "queer", you are such a joke. You are not an ally, you are an enemy. An ENEMY. Go f*#k yourself. You have insulted gays and lesbians beyond repair. Never did I know my first posts on Alternet would be in response to such ridiculous TRASH.

Stancel Spencer
Jacksonville, Florida (a gay man who's not from SF, what a shocker!)

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

Anytime you write an article about gender or race, somebody's always going to accuse you of offending or excluding them, and call you nasty names. It's the nature of the subject matter. Are you surprised?

You write my favorite kind of article: the kind that generates lots of comments and causes lots of feathers to fly...the interesting kind.

You could have written another 20 page article about how Bush is an idiot and a maniac, how water is wet, or how the sky is blue. How boring would that be?

I look forward to many more articles that piss people off. Keep up the good work, Cameron.

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

I also came to the original piece late -- my excuse is that I was moving last week. [g] I'd love to see more exploration of the queer phenomenon, but not necessarily for "straight people who don't get it." I'm a lesbian, and I'm not sure I get it either. I'll answer to "queer" or to "gay" when there seems no point (e.g., I haven't the time, and the listener hasn't the interest) in explaining why I don't apply those terms to myself. The short version goes something like this:

In my big-city days the tensions between the gay and lesbian communities were rarely absent. Most of them stemmed from either sexism (big surprise) or classism (gay men as a group were much more affluent than lesbians as a group, and the matter of money and access to privilege in general was always coming up). If "GL" was such an unwieldy "community," how much meaning does "GLBT" have? The lowest common denominator -- probably the ONLY common denominator -- is "the straight world doesn't see and/or doesn't like us." Which is enough to base a coalition on, but hardly enough to sustain a community.

The word "queer" is implicitly reactionary -- literally reactionary. It's a reaction to what "they" think is normal. The odd (queer?) thing is that the main plank in the queer platform seems to be assimilation into the ranks of the normal: "We just like you (apart from the small detail of our G-, L-, B-, or T-ness), so let us into the club."

I don't want to belong to that club. Besides, as a lesbian, which is to say a woman, not to mention a woman in her mid-fifties, I strongly suspect that I don't qualify for full membership anyway.

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

Again, that is not my impression. I guarantee you, there are many undersexed gay men.

When you said "twinks are the new queens" in your other article, your ignorance really shows, though. I don't see how you could know anything about gay culture and think that.

There was also nothing about queer liberation, nor was there anything about the use of the term "queer" in academic circles (it is also used there)

It just seemed to me to be more about SF hipsters than anything.

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

Well, I think the writer's reply answers nost of the concerns I had, and ultimtely the restrictions of the piece were such that a true Queer 101 article couldn't be written. Thus, there were writerly decisions as to what would be excluded. I image the writer could've done more justice to the movement and himself by choosing one aspect and not trying to catalogue.

That's really because there are too many overlaps and vascillations in the LBGT community for cataloguing. An error of genre and style.

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

If you check out Alternet’s dating service you will find all “T” people are lumped into the same fly-down menu -- TV/TS/TG

To point out the enormous psychological differences in the groups would require a whole article itself, the more obvious fact that only 2/3 of that group owns penises is illustrative of the phenomenally ignorant handling Alternet has on most issues of GLBTQ politics.

I submit Alternet carelessly - and heartlessly -- lumps all three of these groups into a nether-world of perceived deviance. Where do trans folk go for acceptance ?

Apparently not here... ‘cause Alternet is NOT queer.

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

"My feeling is they think ..." is the hinge upon which Cameron hangs his article. (Again, in different words) Cameron's observation is that the straight community has expressed their understanding of who queers (LGBTTIQ) in media, on the street, in government and religious circles. What THEY think. He offers some variations, but certainly cannot offer all in 1200 words!!!

This is why I cannot understand postings such as Stancel Spencer's posting:
"Sir, you claim to break down stereotypes. What a joke! You have reinforced them, to an extreme extent."

When can I look forward to a 1000-volume set of books on the topic authored by Mr. Spencer?

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

Cameron wrote this piece for the editors at AlterNet who asked him "to write a primer on queer culture because they felt that readers, however tolerant, didn't know much about the 'gays and lesbians' often referred to, but rarely described, in the mainstream media."

Do the editors even realize what a bigoted premise that is? Will they be asking Jesse Jackson for a primer on African American culture? How about a piece by Richard Dawkins on "atheist" culture? Next up, a person who identifies as a woman will explain "female culture."

The idea that there is a "gay/lesbian culture" is specious to begin with and Cameron was set up to fail. Hence the outpouring of comments about what people think gays and lesbians and trans and bi and queer REALLY are. And most of them fail, too.

What Cameron described isn't globally true of every single person who's ever walked the earth within one of the categories he described – but he did describe actual people and actual experiences as he knows them in the LGBTQ universe. And that's all anyone can honestly do.

Next time someone is set up by the editors of AlterNet in this way, tell them: "no, that can't be done, but I will tell you about my individual experience in my small part of the world." Many of the commenters here should do the same the next time you weigh in with your own form of myopia.

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

I read the original posting, the people's responses and now this article. Sincerely, I never found anything offensive. There are inaccuracies and generalizations, yes, no argument there. I could criticize the author for that, no question.
But I find no reason for outrage. This seems completely out of proportion. Also, remember that the author is not writing for queer eyes, that wouldn't make any sense, right? C'mon people, take perspective.
I write this as a formerly repressed bisexual man living openly in a commited homosexual relationship. You can call me whatever makes you happy. No Pride No Shame.

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

I agree with a couple of the commenters here that the 'error' of the article was in genre/style and focus on the very particular and non-representative culture of San Francisco, rather than in malicious intent of any kind.

While that lack of malice was entirely clear to me reading the original post (and responding to it), I reacted with an 'ouch' to the omissions and tone nonetheless, because the motivation for the article - to introduce queer culture to Alternet readers who might not be familiar with it - is not only a good one, but a much-needed one.

So to have a 'survey' of queer identity and culture which valiantly attempts to tread a line between being funny and informative but omits vast pools of history and experience is problematic, because we need a good introduction to queer culture for straight liberals and allies.

For what it's worth, I think it's a cop-out to say writing something like this is 'impossible.' Difficult to do without being mealy-mouthed, treading on eggshells, or warping the English language into contortions of earnestness, defensiveness, and caution that makes for terrible writing? Yes. Very difficult. But not impossible.

Presenting a primer on sexual identity for Alternet readers which uses a tone of in-culture humor and awareness - and uses the most liberal/radical queer-bubble-community in the world as the representative sample (which it is, of course, not) - assumes a level of existing knowledge and alliance on the part of the readers which is as-yet undeveloped. Omissions and generalizations, then, become even trickier, and what was well-meant to increase awareness instead supports existing stereotypes and hurts people's feelings.

We're just not there yet - even within our own 'community' (as the hate-speech towards bi and trans people in the comments from some of the trolls within the queer community shows all too well).

I'd like to see Alternet continue to invite postings and discussion from, by, about the queer community to build alliances within the politically progressive blogosphere. I just think it needs to go back a few steps. 101, not 301.

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

Though I didn't have the negative response to the original article that many have seemed to have, I will say that it errors on two accounts: the first, with the premise that the readers of alternet need to be informed of "GLBT issues" really assumes that readers of alternet aren't themselves "GLBT," a falsehood. Secondly, the article assumes that coastal cities, such as SF, are more accepting and diverse; I might say SF is "open" and "diverse" if you CAN AFFORD TO LIVE THERE, which many "GLBT" people cannot because their more affluent "brothers" and "sisters" and gentrified them out. Someone might want to ask Madame Speaker Pelosi what she did for the poor and working-class in SF and how much she personally contributed to the coffers of Gavin Newsome. People act like smaller cities and small towns are such backwards places! God, the US is such a rich nation and yet we continue to discuss these issues as if the major cities were the only places that mattered! Jesus! Sorry, but people are just as ignorant and homophobic in SF as they are anywhere else. The myth that big cities are refuges for gays is only marginally true...there are, I believe, more reported instances of hate crimes in these bastions of diversity (a.k.a. big cities) than small towns, which would seem to say to me that red and blue don't so much as stand for state values as bullshit.

To open up the article even more, America when compared to other industrialized nations (say France or Germany) is a few generations behind when it comes to terms of state acceptance of alternative lifestyles, relationships, and self-identification (unless you're muslim or jewish, in which case, France may not be the place for you). (And though no one asked, I find some gays and lesbians more conservative, classist, xenophobic, and racist that their "staight" counterparts. Though I might wish it, we aren't all so "open-minded" as the Pride propanganda would have us to believe.)

Anyway, just wanted to add that bit. Thanks!

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

because it seemed to have little or nothing to say to me. All the harping on labels annoyed me. I am soon to be 60. I am a gay male. I spent much of my youth desperately trying to avoid letting anyone "suspect," though they did anyway. As I began to accept myself, I realized that just about everyone around me had already done that, and I was just catching up with them --- though my life HAS had its share of unpleasantness resulting from my sexual orientation. But what I learned in a very profound way over time was that my identify, my SELF, was not defined by labels and "tags" and niches. If I don't want other people to pidgeonhole me, why on EARTH would I want to do that to myself. It may be a personal conceit, but I don't believe I'm that easily pidgeonholed, whether by my sexuality, my musical tastes, my zip code, or what periodicals I subscribe to --- and I don't believe YOU are either. And that, it seems to me, was the focus of this article... labels... pidgeonholes... and that's why it misses the point, and that's why it's boring. Another person commented about focusing on the mind and not the genitalia, and I agree entirely. "Gender identity?" How about an identity that has gender as one of countless other components?

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

I have already given most of my thoughts on this insipid, disgusting article. But I want to focus on one thing. The definition he gives for 'queer'.

Queer simply means, odd, unusual, strange, weird. Given that's how gays have been seen, and still are (and this author reinforces those views, with his talk of dildos and glory holes), we were labeled as "queers". In recent decades the word has been redefined within the LGBT community as an all-encompassing word for LGBT people.

But the author erroneously attributes "difference" to "queerness". By that standard, anyone who is different can be "queer". Pedophiles, cannibals, people with schizophrenia. Aren't all these people "different"? No, "different" is not the definition of queer. Queer still is an all encompassing word for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered people.

That's all I have to say about that.

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

What a disgrace, Alternet. As a member of the queer community, I found Queer 101 insulting the first time around. Now you publish a piece on reader's reactions--so to speak--but all it is rationalization and argument for why you can publish an article that does more harm than good. An apology to the entire queer community is in order.

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

Idiots who write things like this article have NO understanding of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights! Who in hell gives ANYONE the authority to either "question" or "decide" who is or isn;t 'entitled' to EQUALITY???
We are supposed to ALL be equal under the Law!
Separating "equality" for Blacks, "equality" for whites, or reds, or browns or yellows or gays or lez's or tall people or short people or handicapped people or blondes, brunettes, redheads or BALD people.... simply proves STUPIDITY. Shame on you... and on Alternet for publishing such trash that plays into the PNAC agenda. It plays right into the hands of the Bush/Cheney thugs, because that kind of trash serves to FURTHER DIVIDE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC !
BushCo is attempting to criminalize everyone outside THEIR own inner circle. I would like to see Alternet help to foil that attempt by refusing to print garbage. Isn't it enough that BushCo is removing our Rights and Freedoms as fast as can be? Please don't play into that!
Too bad Americans have forgotten to treat Others as they would like be treated themselves. To put ones self in the Other fella's shoes. To show compassion for Others. What's so hard about that? When you're set to criticise another, tell yourself: 'but for the accident of birth, that could be ME'.
It's disgraceful that so much bickering and bigotry is going on - while our Democracy is DYING! More than ever we NEED to pull together, to act in UNISON to save our country RIGHT AWAY from those who would have it crumble while we are distracted by this sort of idiocy. It will soon be too late! Read some Russian History and see the parallels with what's happening here today under the Corporate-Bush-Cheney Regime and what happened to Russia under Marx/Lenin/Stalin. http://pledgetoimpeach.com
Are we our Brothers Keepers? No. But WE SHOULD BE!

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

My first reading of Scott's article angered me.
The author tries to define a group of people representative of an elusive "SF values".
An elitism is apparent - only a small number of the GLBT community are substantive enough to be called "queer" and included in a discussion of SF Values.
Substance has to do with wanting to be "different" - so married gays/lesbians need not apply.
Hell, all gay men are soon dismissed - no substance here.
These exclusive few, randomly defined by Scott, are then dissected into ever smaller groups.
One reader commented that it was like reading about high school cliques - an unfortunate truth.
Now AlterNet and the author are trying to disregard what so many of the comments addressed - that this author doesn't speak to the GLBT community; nor does the author address what middle America might conceive when the religious right spins the term "SF Values".
Queer, gender identity, how these spaces intersect with "Values" - all are topics warranting a more thoughtful and nuanced look at the intersection of "middle America" and these left city values.
By staking a claim to speak for the GLBT community, then silencing so many in the community because they don't fit into the author's formula of "different", the author turns SF values into an act of exclusion and indifference.

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

If they did they didn't feel a need to respond. All the above are from self-outed homos.
Reclaim that one. I have. Gay, queer, whatever you prefer. I like homo.

Stancel, I am just soooo glad you are pissed off. I like your anger, it makes people uneasy. I haven't seen righteous anger like this since the 80's, or not since GLBT-etc. became a market segment to exploit. The zeitgeist is to not Act Up. For everybody.

Cameron, honey, I didn't read the original either and I'm not gonna. It was probably what you believe, and despite what Stancel writes, not malicious. Don't apologize or cop to shit.

As one poster implied, it would be impossible to write any other than a subjective narrative.

But, what you wrote sparked a thread that, if they are reading critically, might give a hetero audience, an idea of what homo culture is: the same culture, riven by the same fault lines of race, class, gender, income, education, geography, and populated by the exact same folks.

Except for the hate-checks. Some of us only have the one, many more have two, three, maybe more, boxes on the cultural permanent record marked off. Homo, black, female, disabled, poor? That is not a desireable marketing demographic. Its about power and $$$ and how that generates external messages of worth.

If there is one homo cross-cultural ethos it may be the struggle to not internalize that message.

And everyone should remember that this forum is NOT representative of thr "real" America, homo, hetero, or points inbetween.

It's Alternet for crikes sakes. A segment of a segment of a segment. The only thing more reductive than this would be a sauce.

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

Gay bacon lettuce & tomato. Easier to say.

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

Below is the Dem request that prompted this letter:
Dear Rep. Dan Newhouse,

I met you at a candidates meeting in White Salmon last fall. I am a life long anti-Republican and many times anti-Democrat. I am 61 and a life long farmer, here since 1973. I have a degree in Sociology of Deviance and Anthropology, Univ. of Colorado.

While I agree with intent, I have a problem with HR 1351, specifically Sec.4.6, in that this Bill discriminates against heterosexual partners, transexual partners, hermaphrodite partners and any other confused, non-marriage-live in, sexual and asexual relationships. Asexual, confused sexual and heterosexual relationships should have the same rights as homosexuals. HB 1351 does not privide for unmarried couples across the board. This bill is discriminatory of many deserving couples for the same reasons cited by the sponsors and proponents in their support of this Bill.

That being said, the resolution of the 'gay' marriage red herring is more equitable and simple than HB 1351, to my mind. Avoid social controversy by strict address of civil rights and equal protection rule of law. Simply grant equal rights to all individuals, single, married or widowed. Sexual orientation and marital status should not effect civil rights. An effective civil contract should appropriately be recognized similar to the "common law marriage" statutes of States that are valid 'by declaration' and do not necessitate "Registration". Colorado has such a law, although I don't know what provisions for 'common law' marriage that WA State has. Such a statute need not specify "Same Sex" nor entail the hot word "Marriage". To specify "Same Sex" is discriminatory in HB 1351.

Please feel free to call me if you wish.

Lon Ball

It time for A-Lib, the right not to have to have sex required and in our face all the time. Also, see the Ann Coulter peice here on the Alter-Net news menu and my response (herbal).


------ Forwarded Message
From: Misty Shock
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:10:51 -0800
To: "ball@gorge.net"
Subject: Domestic partnership talking points

Hello!

I am writing you because you signed up with the Washington State Democrats
to receive talking points for letters to the editor. I want to apologize
for taking so long to contact you. We will try to be proactive about
providing talking points to you, now that the session is well underway.
Please also let us know about what bills or issues you would like to receive
talking points on (the more specific you can be, the easier it will be for
us), and we will work on getting you the information that you need to
support Democrats in Olympia and make your voice heard.

On Thursday, the State Senate passed Senate Bill 5336, legalizing domestic
partnerships for same-sex couples. The bill now goes to the State House as
House Bill 1351. You can track the bill at
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1351

&year=2007#history.

We want to keep our support for this bill in the news. By writing letters
to the editor showing your support for the bill and condemning those who
voted against the bill, you are telling the media and the public what a step
forward this bill is for civil rights and equality. Maybe you would like to
post to a blog showing what a strong progressive state Washington is. This
is something to be proud about.

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