LGBT strategy good or bad

When I think about the ways homophobes think about gay people, two things come to mind: they think they’re queer, as in deviant, and they are just in it for the sex, again deviant. I don’t think this is any big observation, it’s pretty obvious what homophobes think. So why is it that the LGBT community seems to play into the homophobes hands so much? I’ve heard numerous ads on the radio for example of lectures or events at respected colleges about “Queer Politics” or “Queer Art in New York” or whatever. I can just see some homophobe saying “see, even THEY know they’re queers and deviants”. And then I see various gay pride parades where the emphasis seems to be on being sexual and flaunting it in public. Again, this is playing into the homophobes hands. I just don’t get it. If anything I would think the LGBTs would focus more on Modern Family type approaches, or things that show LGBTs as being normal people just like everyone else.
Thoughts?

This is an ongoing discussion among all factions of the LGBT rights organizations. I was involved in some activism on the University of Utah campus back in the eighties. In those days, we were fighting over whether lesbians and transsexuals should be part of our movement. And, bisexuals were more stigmatized in gay circles than any other group under the LGBT banner because they were seen as traitors to our cause.
I personally fell away from the movement for many of the reasons you list above. I have not attended a gay pride parade for more than 20 years, because it seemed only to be about drag, leather, butch dikes, and oversexed disco dollies and gym rats. I wanted to see a gay pride event for the “other” gay people. Still haven’t found one, but I firmly believe that all the gains we have made in regards to our rights and our improved public perception is thanks to all those “other” gay people coming out in force and building gay communities and institutions that are not informed by tired old cliches, but not turning their backs on them either. Those divisions in the gay community have not gone away to help the movement present a unified front, but they are still discussed in an ongoing dialogue because we didn’t give up on each other. I think the movement is more inclusive than ever, but we still have a long way to go with trans people, people of color, bisexuals, and gay republicans. I am not fond of republicans, but I have to acknowledge that with out gay republicans, there would be no gay voice in that party, and they have absolutely help all of us gain more of our rights just by being there.

By the way, gays have reclaimed the term Queer as a positive term rather than a slur. This happens all the time with minorities. Black people did it with the word black. Women do it with words like bitch or girl. It’s a natural progression of empowering a minority with the very words used to denigrate them. They take control of the words and transform them for their own empowering language.

By the way, gays have reclaimed the term Queer as a positive term rather than a slur. This happens all the time with minorities. Black people did it with the word black. Women do it with words like bitch or girl. It's a natural progression of empowering a minority with the very words used to denigrate them. They take control of the words and transform them for their own empowering language.
Ya I know what you mean about rebranding a word, but I guess I just don't see it with the term queer. Just too many old folks around who I can't imagine would use or understand the "new" meaning. BTW, thanks for your former post, very informative.

I happen to be one of the old folks who doesn’t agree with the word Queer being redeemed. It still means rotten things to me because I was called queer as a kid.

I happen to be one of the old folks who doesn't agree with the word Queer being redeemed. It still means rotten things to me because I was called queer as a kid.
It definitely wasn't meant as a compliment by those who used it in the old context and it wasn't too long ago that being identified as queer could make you a target for violence, it still can to a more limited degree. I'm speaking as an outsider, but it seems to me the gay community acted out in certain ways as both a way to assert their rights and protest the kind of social persecution they were under. It was and still is about making a statement of pride in the face of contempt and we can see who's been winning the struggle for acceptance...which I think translates into positive changes in a lot of other areas.

Little aside. In the old days when I often had conversations in groups, and someone would make a negative remark about someone who was gay, I always asked, “Oh, were you hoping to have sex with that person?” They would strongly deny it, then I’d ask, “Then why is their sexuality of any interest to you? The rest of us in this group are probably all heterosexual; are you interested in discussing everyone here’s sexuality like you did that guy’s?” Amazing how fast people shut up about making stupid comments. :lol: (OK, so some people thought I was a snotty bastard, but it was worth it for me to have fun.)
Occam

When I think about the ways homophobes think about gay people, two things come to mind: they think they're queer, as in deviant, and they are just in it for the sex, again deviant. I don't think this is any big observation, it's pretty obvious what homophobes think. So why is it that the LGBT community seems to play into the homophobes hands so much? I've heard numerous ads on the radio for example of lectures or events at respected colleges about "Queer Politics" or "Queer Art in New York" or whatever. I can just see some homophobe saying "see, even THEY know they're queers and deviants". And then I see various gay pride parades where the emphasis seems to be on being sexual and flaunting it in public. Again, this is playing into the homophobes hands. I just don't get it. If anything I would think the LGBTs would focus more on Modern Family type approaches, or things that show LGBTs as being normal people just like everyone else. Thoughts?
It's true that there is an element that seems intent on shooting themselves and the whole gay community in the foot. Most gays do not think or act that way. Many are embarrassed by fellow gays who do. I'm sure you know some heterosexuals who make fools of themselves, too. Proud misogynists, for example. Do you think they make heterosexuals look bad? How about heterosexuals who bring more children into the world than they can possibly support or raise properly. Should heterosexuals be judged by the worst examples of their class? Lois

The difference is, heterosexuals, as heterosexuals, aren’t fighting for marriage equality, against bigotry, etc.

The difference is, heterosexuals, as heterosexuals, aren't fighting for marriage equality, against bigotry, etc.
True, but what can the reasonable gays do to prevent the damage caused by the idiots? Many do try but it's a losing battle. Actually, many heterosexuals do fight for equality and against bigotry. L

Didn’t the straight-gay alliance gain some popularity because it got rid of the notion of the “us versus them” ideology that was permeating the conflict? As long as gays and straights both try to separate themselves from each other they only serve to draw it out. If there is any hope that they will get what they want, which if I understand it is to remove the prejudice and gain the rights they want, they need to show that they are not only “the LGBT community” but that they are also just part of the community as a whole. I think with the straight-gay alliance they can do that while keeping their own community as well. The more that the “two sides” cooperate, the more swiftly and smoothly the problems can be dealt with. That’s my own thoughts anyway.

I don’t think it’s really good or bad, ultimately. As has been said, there are different sorts of gay people just like there are different sorts of straight people.
FWIW, the “screaming queen” hordes are just flaunting it - that’s the whole point. They are’t concerned with blending in and being accepted as just another couple. :lol:

Haha… good point! - I still have a lot to learn from the LGBT community, as I’m pretty new there… you know, not accepting yourself, etc…
Why the movement started is pretty clear, the reaction to Stonewall… a reaction against violence, not pro anything. But the reaction turned into a pro like “Pride”.
I don’t remember who it was in another post, maybe you (?), that mentioned something like the Modern Family show as big turn-on but terms like Queer as big turn-off when it comes to the public and public acceptance of LGBT things, and whereas just that sexual element fuels thoughts of “deviancy”.
The only thing that comes to mind here, at least for me, is a backlash against the former repression, sort of like a “now-let-it-out” thing because it wasn’t possible before. - Sounds pretty juvenile to put it like that, and I’m just entertaining a thought here, but that could be one explanation. It would certainly work in my case. The human psyche is not as grown up as it wishes to be once an entirely new frame of thought develops, and that can be at any age and with anyone.
Concerning the public though, yes, there should be more consideration I think. And I’m telling that to myself. Being accepted is a heartbreaking thing many gays or lesbians or bisexuals or transpeople would never have imagined in a lifetime, and hence the reluctance to “come out”. But once out, that “joy” can turn into mania, just because it was subdued for so long.
Something I certainly need to think about. - Thanks for the post!
Michelle
P.S. We are very normal people, at least I hope I am, but what I just said refers to all the shit going on in one’s head once you finally took that step. If homophobia would never have existed, all that stuff probably wouldn’t either. I suppose it will very much level down in the future. It’s just a reaction, not an action.

I think that the “flamers” have just mostly been an equal and opposite reaction to the societal repression. If it had been heterosexuality that had been societally repressed, then some of the rebellious heteros would likely have over-flaunted their particular brand of sexuality.
Personally, I find them (flamers) distasteful, as I do most extremists of any stripe. But they probably served some beneficial sociological function. Not so much, now, as society is beginning to accept each individual’s sexual proclivities as their own business. Of course there are always going to be people who enjoy drawing attention to themselves, just for the sake of getting attention. For some of those, flaunting their sexuality, is the easiest way for them.
As far as labels, if I were an LBG or T, I think I would simply strive not to care about a label that is used to pejoratively frame me by one facet of my personality. Good people who knew me would come to recognize that I am a good person, too. And even if they had a, previously existing, negative attitude about that aspect of my personality, their cognitive dissonance would eventually sway them to realize it is not such a bad thing. Bad people might not change their attitudes, but who cares about them?

The difference is, heterosexuals, as heterosexuals, aren't fighting for marriage equality, against bigotry, etc.
Well,of course. They already have marriage equality so why wouldthey have to fightfgor it? I don't know any heterosexuals who suffer bigotry because of their heterosexuality, do you? You could as easily say that white people as white people weren't fighting for equality during the Civil Rights movement and they weren't fighting bigotry against whites---so, what? there should have been no civil rights movement? Or what are you saying about homosexuals and equality? Can you explain the meaning of your remarks above?

There are I fact many straight people helping in the fight for marriage equality. And, I believe they do it because they understand that bigotry of any kind is wrong, and they probably have gay friends who they believe deserve to have their relationships and families validated by our laws etc. Dr. King understood very well that there are many other groups or identities under oppression aside from just race issues. He clearly advocated equality for all, not just black people. The LGBT movement has aspired to be as inclusive as possible, but there are many gay men and lesbians who really don’t embrace that inclusivity thing so much. If you read gay forums discussing the other members under the LGBT umbrella, you will soon notice that many gay men are not particularly interested in bi, transgender, or women’s rights. In fact many are misogynistic and hold some very bigoted opinions, especially toward bisexual people. There is a small but growing population that identify as non-sexual, and want to be included in the LGBT movement for their own sense of pride and need to feel accepted on some level. They call themselves “asexual” because they have no attraction to any gender and no interest in sex. Many people in the movement dismiss them as having no valid reason to be part of the movement.
Ultimately, no civil rights movement has ever been made up of of completely un-flawed people and this one is no exception.
The whole point of all civil rights battles is that ultimately, the only way we can really achieve an open and un bigoted culture is to stop worrying about who deserves rights and who doesn’t. If anyone is unequal in our society, our own rights are rather arbitrary and subject to a petty, and somewhat fickle pecking order. Equality is not equality if it is followed by a “but”…
This is however, an ideal. In my understanding of human nature, there will always be those who are obsessed with the notion of who should be “more” equal.
I believe as a gay man that I deserve my rights and that whom I love and what I do in my bedroom should not be taken into account when rights are handed out. My whole point is that for me, equality means we stop classifying people into groups who have differing levels of value. It should not matter what group I identify with when it comes to common human respect and equal rights under the law, as long as I am not harming anyone in my expression of that identity.
Oh, and “harm” needs to be clearly defined unfortunately. Otherwise, it becomes twisted into use by those who want to limit other peoples rights.

HandyDan, Humans will always, to some degree, as far as I can tell, classify others, and, consciously or subconsciously, assign differing levels of value toward them. The important and ultimately attainable thing, IMO, is that all have equal rights, protections, and responsibilities under the law. (E.g., I, personally, find many Republicans to be distasteful in their beliefs and actions. In a way, I, personally, assign a different level of value to them as human beings, but I still fervently believe that they should have equal rights, protections, and responsibilities under the law, as much as any other human being.)

or things that show LGBTs as being normal people just like everyone else. Thoughts?
You see LGBT people being normal every day. When you go to your 4th of July parade this year, you'll see them on the firetrucks, one might give you some candy, one might even be sitting in the convertible with the mayor. They'll look normal. BECAUSE THEY ARE NORMAL. If that doesn't make sense to you, then the only way to read your question is, "Why don't those gays just be quiet. They can be gay if they want, I just don't to see it." You don't have that right. Any more than you have a right to not see people dressing up in green and dancing in the streets and flaunting their right to drink beer every March 17th. If you want the right to be yourself, you don't act like everyone else. The problem is not that LGBT are not acting like whatever definition of family you mean, the problem is, people don't recognize that gay couples are equally capable of providing society with all the benefits of family that every other version of couple has throughout history. They don't have a special parade showing that, because that is every other parade. They're already in the normal parade.
or things that show LGBTs as being normal people just like everyone else. Thoughts?
You see LGBT people being normal every day. When you go to your 4th of July parade this year, you'll see them on the firetrucks, one might give you some candy, one might even be sitting in the convertible with the mayor. They'll look normal. BECAUSE THEY ARE NORMAL. If that doesn't make sense to you, then the only way to read your question is, "Why don't those gays just be quiet. They can be gay if they want, I just don't to see it." You don't have that right. Any more than you have a right to not see people dressing up in green and dancing in the streets and flaunting their right to drink beer every March 17th. If you want the right to be yourself, you don't act like everyone else. The problem is not that LGBT are not acting like whatever definition of family you mean, the problem is, people don't recognize that gay couples are equally capable of providing society with all the benefits of family that every other version of couple has throughout history. They don't have a special parade showing that, because that is every other parade. They're already in the normal parade. Thank you Lausten. What you point out and many seem to not realize is that pretty much all gay people grew up and were socialized in the very same family structures that everyone else did. We are not aboritions with no comprehension of or need for a family.

I value expressing myself, often somewhat uniquely and differently from others. I thus have a broad tolerance for persons who behave outside common norms. I also recognize, and accept, that not everyone is going to appreciate my uniqueness. I recognize, and accept, that some may look upon my uniqueness with disdain. I don’t think that I should expect to change the hearts and minds of everyone. But I do expect to have the same rights as everyone else, despite my lack of complete conformity.
So what I am suggesting, IMO, is that LGBT persons should expect the same rights as everyone else, but they shouldn’t expect everyone else to appreciate each of their unique personal expressions.
Sort of like: Each person should be free to appreciate their own favorite genre of music. But no one should attempt to mandate that everyone else must appreciate that same genre of music.