Community > Society and History

My main problem with the LGBTQ movement.

(1/2) > >>

wrongfrog:
Disclaimer: I'm not really going to discuss celebrity straight allies in this post. I'll mainly be focusing on actual LGBT people. Just so you know.

So yesterday a new article was linked by LGBTQ Nation's facebook page: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/12/parents-say-anti-gay-bullying-is-to-blame-for-sons-suicide/

And my first thought, as most peoples' would be, was "How many gay kids need to kill themselves before people wake the hell up?" And then I started to think that, wow, we sure hear a lot about white gay males killing themselves.

Then I was reminded of a conversation I had earlier had with one of my other queer friends about the modern faces of the LGBT movement: Mostly gay white attractive males. You have your Ellen DeGeneres and your Rachel Maddow, but the overwhelming majority of activists or supporters that most people can think about are dudes who happen to be both white and attractive; Dan Savage, Tyler Oakley, DaveyWavey (every time I type his name I vomit a little), Chris Colfer. And then you have other people who may be black but well-known, like RuPaul, but they are much less common and usually have to fit into mainstream perceptions of what gay guys are to get people to listen. I am by no means the kind of person to complain about flamboyancy in guys, as I'm not exactly the pinnacle of masculinity, but I rarely see anyone care about a gay guy who they can't "totes go shopping and talk about bois wif".

Not to mention the severe lack of help for transgender people in the movement. Sometimes I almost wonder why the "T" is even included, seeing as the first 7 pages of the "suicide" tag on LGBTQ Nation's website yields...all gay men. they do report on trans* issues, of course, but with much less frequency, despite trans* people having a higher rate of suicide and harassment than gay people. And going back to the activists, who the fuck do we even have to communicate about transgender issues to the media? Chaz Bono, even though I've heard most transmen don't even like the guy? I get that the trans* equality movement has a long way to go before it gets on the level of the gay rights movement, but it bothers me how magazines and activists that claim to be for LGBT issues to not give the assistance to the transgender equality movement that it desperately needs.

I've always had this problem with the LGBT movement seemingly prioritizing the needs of attractive gay men first, then helping out the rest, and maybe throwing a few scraps of food to the trans* community. Has anyone else on here noticed this, or am I just going crazy and should be paying even more attention to the movement? I admit, I'm not a definitive expert, but I like to believe that I pay enough attention to it. So yeah, thoughts?

Lt. Fred:
To me the question is the degree of dishonesty that is acceptable in the service of a good cause. Obviously, this kind of propaganda is dishonest, just like all advertising is dishonest. And there are negative effects. As you pointed out, it drives non-normative homosexuals to distraction or, potentially, to suicide. Perhaps you can try to convince people that gay = hot = deserves rights, but that's fucked. What if you're not hot? What if you're exactly the same as your straight neighbour except you like guys more than girls (what if you're bi? Then you're REALLY in trouble!). Surely gay people should be allowed to violate the stereotype, and is it healthy for a movement fighting for their rights to enforce that stereotype?

But stereotypes are also effective. That's why literature uses tropes, because they have emotional salience. Some of the most effective gay ads have played on the camp, girl's-best-friend gay guy thing.

For instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

So I think a certain amount of harm in the service of a greater good is acceptable. So I guess the even simpler question is, how good would gay marriage be for gays, as opposed to straights like myself? I can tell you that I would feel a lot better about my country if it stopped discriminating against, you know, everyone. Which is great, but I don't think the point of the LGBTI movement is to assuage the guilty conscience of a bunch of white fucking liberals. That seems to be- and I may be being unfair here, or projection or whatever- what motivates many of the participants (I am one).

So to what degree is the movement objective Get Marriage about actually helping gays and to what degree is it a tool to help me? And should other potential objectives- destroying stupid stereotypes et al- be sacrificed on that altar?

It's an interesting thing, I think. And I have almost no personal involvement.

Sylvana:
I think you might be seeing this incorrectly.
Gay celebrities are attractive not because they are gay, but because one can pretty much only become a celebrity if they are attractive. It is a well known fact that being physically attractive gives you more opportunities in life and one can get jobs and promotions more easily.

Similarly as a result of this, people are more likely to listen to an attractive person instead of an unattractive one, as well as consensus amongst the gay community would naturally filter up the more attractive members to represent them politically. This is all a part of the underlying human sexual psychology.

With regards to the LGBT movement helping attractive members first, it is really more a case of society gives attractive people more slack. People are OK with the celebrity doing something because that celebrity status offers a degree of protection, protection not afforded to random nobodies. Just like how two people committing the same crime can get different sentences based on level of attractiveness as well as celebrity status.

I think it is really more a facet of the hypocritical nature of human psychology than anything being wrong with the LGBT movement.

lastly with regards to Trans issues. This is a bit of a problem area. Trans people do not want to get involved in the LGBT fight because the ideal for a trans person is to transition and then disappear anonymously into society. However, homosexuals can only express their rights very visibly in society, hence their need to actively fight for their social rights. Similarly, trans people only really get a benefit from the LGBT movement with regards to gay marriage if they are seeking a same sex marriage themselves. Many are not affected by the issues faced by homosexuals. However both do face persecution, and in many regards the stigmas against trans people are greater than those against homosexuals. This however is more of a social intolerance issues than it is a straight LGBT issue.

Katsuro:

--- Quote from: wrongfrog on December 06, 2012, 10:25:45 pm ---
Not to mention the severe lack of help for transgender people in the movement. Sometimes I almost wonder why the "T" is even included, seeing as the first 7 pages of the "suicide" tag on LGBTQ Nation's website yields...all gay men.

--- End quote ---

Maybe gay men are just more likely to kill themselves than gay women or any other group in the LGBT community? I seem to remember that young men in general are the demographic most likely to commit suicide, so it kind of makes sense that the biggest number of suicides of LGBT people would be males. And maybe "T" people are better at dealing with their problems for whatever reason/s.

kefkaownsall:
I do think gay movement is kind of white focused.  Especially in Europe IE no one cares for the gay Muslims

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page