to assimilate or not assimilate...

What you describe is the unfamiliarity of a large majority of people with LGBT orientations. The gay stereotypes like a sequin-clad queen boy and biker chick in a leather vest are the loudest, most obnoxious examples, so people recognize them and expect the rest of reality to follow. But, as always, the situation is immeasurably more complex, and there are tons of people who are otherwise unassuming, yet like their same gender.

^^That last point is what GSA should focus on. While a lot of people are concerned with "pride" and being extra-flaming/extra butch because they SHOULD be able to (which is 100% true), more effort needs to go into making people recognize that LGBT'ers are people first. When you quit defining people by sexuality, it becomes as much a non-issue as eye color.

 

This is a thread that comes up on EC all the time. And I hate them every single time.

It sounds to me like you're fortunate enough to pass as heterosexual to most people. So, it seems pretty logical then that you're not subjected to the discrimination and harassment that "flamers" get. "Effeminate" gays (for the record, I don't believe in a masculine/feminine dichotomy, but for the purposes of this post, you all know what I'm talking about), are pigeonholed right away for the most meaningless of mannerisms, which is exactly what you're doing here. I'm going to bet that you don't really know these people at all outside of the club. They're talking about and embracing their sexuality as an identity and hamming it up for each other in a club specifically dedicated and set aside as a safe place for that exact purpose. I don't know why you were surprised by it.

And, secondly, I am vehemently against heteronormative assimilation by the LGBT community. What's so great about it? Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, aspire to be "normal?" So that some people that I don't care at all about, that play absolutely no part in my life whatsoever, like me? So I can be their friend? So they'll invite me over to dinner? I just don't see or understand the appeal. Maybe I really like Lady Gaga (which I do), and maybe I care a lot about fashion (and I care ALOT), and maybe I like walking in pride parades (disclaimer: I don't), and maybe all of that means more to me than some stranger's "tolerance." I'd rather do things I actually enjoy with other people who actually enjoy those same things. So I can, you know, have fun. And live a happy life.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being your genuine self. It isn't anyone's responsibility to live up to anyone's standards but their own, in my opinion. If you or anyone else don't like how someone else is acting, it's your problem. Not their's.

 

I left the GSA at my high school AND the pride collective at college for similar reasons. People who are so self-righteous in their stance against discriminators that they can't understand that they're actually becoming as discriminatory as they consider others. People who play themselves up as wildly as they can and then rant about how straight people look down on them...when the "straight people" are giving them a wide berth simply because they don't like being lectured.

I went to a high school where there was virtually no visible discrimination--where kids would get in trouble with their peers for being discriminatory--and yet no one liked the GSA and their posters were vandalised because people didn't like being treated like ignorant bigots.

 

My position is don't assimilate. I'm a queer, which informs my epistemological view, my moral view, and my political strategy. Heteropatriarchy and anything calling on me to "just be normal" or "straight acting" can fuck itself.

 

I think people should just be themselves. If your personality is comparable to those of stereotypical straight people, so be it. If it isn't, so be it. Nobody should be shamed for not living up to certain standards.

 

I think what the OP meant is that the GSA in his school seems to be engaging in "reverse bigotry" (for the lack of a better word). While it's great that GSA can offer support and guidance to LGBT individuals and give them a safe forum to voice their views and opinions, it becomes too much if the group starts treating every other person they meet as a bigot or a homophobe, or creates an environment that is not inclusive of people that express their sexuality in a different manner.

This seems to be the worldview held by some LGBT people, in that if one is heterosexual/cisgender, they either "hate you in your face or hate you behind your back". I personally disagrees with this worldview, which is why I gradually became infuriated by all the "ally hate" that began popping up in LGBT sites like LGBTLaughs and unfollowed the tumblr. Don't do unto others what you don't desire to be done to you. Don't make everything into an "Us v. Them" struggle, because it isn't.

That said, I do have to agree with Kidd regarding your judgments on the members of the GSA. So what if all the members are either flamers, outcasts or awkward people? This might be the only place they are able to find acceptance and socialise without being judged or made fun of. Even if they aren't, why should others be making judgments on their social life or the groups they join purely based on their appearance or behaviour? I find it strange that some LGBT individuals call for equal treatment by society, yet at the same time judge and discriminate members of their own brethren.

 

It's a fairly natural thing for people to feel uncomfortable with something that is new or strange to them and to want it to just go away. With time and ongoing exposure this feeling begins to fade and eventually vanishes entirely. In other words, most people can get used to anything.

It is also a truism that almost any social or political movement will tend to extract the more extreme (however one chooses to define that word) elements simply because they are the people will to take the time to show up and do something. The majority usually decide they have something else to do. This can also (and unfortunately) lead to a given movement going off the rails from its original purpose or moving in a direction that an external observer might easily realize to be non-productive even if those in the movement do not. So far, the only proven way of changing this effect is to provide an infusion of 'new blood' and 'fresh ideas'. With mixed results.

That said, there are quite a number of people who seem quite determined to not 'get used to' LGBT people and it's not because of how they may look or act or talk. It's because of who they are attracted to sexually. DADT didn't care whether a soldier acted fem or butch or straight - if they admitted to or were caught engaging in same-sex relations they were out of the service. The people who want to stop marriage equality or adoption or any other sort of anything for LGBT people for religious reasons also don't care about mannerisms per se, although they may focus the conversation on such because it's easier to exploit a straight audiences feelings of discomfort with such that way.

The Nazis did not throw only the 'flaming' homosexuals into camps. The cops who repeatedly hassled the patrons of Stonewall and other gay bars didn't do it because anyone was being all that openly fem or 'acting gay' out on the street where everyone could see them. They did it because they were LGBT. They did it because they didn't like the idea of two people of the same gender having sex. Everything else was/is just 'icing on the cake'.

The bottom line here is that the people who want to take your rights away (or maybe take your life away) aren't going to stop trying just because you 'look and act straight'. And it is only through the efforts (and sometimes blood) of a lot of people, including a fair number of folks who aren't/weren't all that straight acting that you have any expectation of rights at all. Up to and including the entire EC project itself actually.

So perhaps cutting them some slack might be in order. Or at least affording them the same level of respect to live their lives as they wish as you presumably want for yourself. Unless they are either taking food from your mouth or money from your pocket (or from someone else's) the only thing they seem to be doing is causing you some degree of embarrassment by association.

Unless of course we're taking the position that only people who behave in a manner we approve of/are comfortable around should be allowed? Hmm. Now where have I head that before...?

Todd

 

I see that the OP did make that complaint, but it would be nice to know some examples of this "reverse bigotry". Because its not that I do not believe it, its just that in the majority of cases where the minority retaliate against the majority, it is often because of discimination or scrutinity from that majority. Its not really fair to judge these LGBT individuals for there being a fence put up if we havent examined the hetero-side.

Which we cant really understand clearly until the OP realizes that these flaming or odd individuals are not all just gunning for attention and being LGBT does mean more for many people than simply a sexual difference. If not, it will probably seem to him that these 'odd' kids are just acting out against the 'normal' heterosexuals

 

What are less desirable traits?

And I'm sorry, but this is just not psychologically correct. Take being transgendered for example. It is no doubt that bring transgender isnt only about being physically toward the gender that truly fits you, but also emotionally/mentally. However, we still have masculine mtf women, and feminine ftm men.

The reality is that orientation, personal gender, and sexuality are far from completely biological and physically, and certainly not for everyone. Regardless of what group they fall into LGBT individuals as a whole are more likely to be different and more expressive in varied personalities and demeanors. For instance, femininity is psychologically more plausible in gay men than straight men, and that has nothing to exposure to stereostypes rather the natural connection between ones sexual and emotional attraction and how one might want to be sexually and emotionally percieved by others. So there is no simple "No direct connection between orientation and mannerism" that can be said here.

I think the issue in all of this is explained in the last sentence on your post.

Because when they do this they are promoting the incorrect stereotypes that being gay means having a different personality.

This is the problem. This ideal that when LGBT individuals are adamant about our "different peronalities" we promote a false picture of LGBT people as a whole. No, the fault is this ideal that the term 'normal' even has a place in the relation of people. That "normal" holds any ground when we dicuss proper personality, appearance, dress, demeanor. These people are only being themselves, and it shouldnt matter to you if they believe any aspect of their personality may have come from this or that. Ultimately, the reason why it bothers you is because you believe that it will make those around you and society believe that the stereotypes put on us are true. Now, an average person who is familiar with gender, orientational, and racial stereotypes and assumptions wouldnt care what people assumed about them from simplistic characteristics.

The only type of people that care are the ones that so desperately want to appear as 'normal' to the rest of society. To that I personally say, get over it. I fall into many various minority groups and have had plenty of stereotypes assumed of me, and it didnt change a thing about me. Not to mention, if someone is ignorant enough to believe that know me because of my race, sexuality, or anything else, I would have no desire to consort with them anyway.

That is just something that I would keep in mind in the future.

 

Being non-heterosexual (gay or bi) partly correlates with gender non-conformity. Gay people are much more likely to be gender non-conforming than straight people.

Additionally, all gender non-conforming and transgender people are part of the community on the basis of that, regardless of their sexual orientation. You appear to be ignoring other elements of the community.

I don't even know how to begin to respond to the proposed notion that gender non-conforming people are not discriminated against on that basis, particularly not when it comes from someone who has just basically called them freaks.

I actually believe that being gay is discriminated against because it is a type of gender non-conformity.

I am very sure that, in all the cases mentioned, from DADT to the Nazis, gender non-conforming queer people were disproportionately penalized. A gender non-conforming person is more likely to be investigated for homosexuality. More likely to be presumed to be gay, whether or not they actually are, and to be harassed or assaulted for it.

Not everyone who has those traits is gay, and not everyone who is gay has those traits, but that doesn't mean that their being gay and having those traits have nothing to do with each other. There doesn't have to be 100% correlation for the things to have something to do with each other. And, as I said, there is a partial correlation between same-sex attraction and gender non-conformity.

I think gender non-conforming people are awesome. I do not consider their traits "less desirable."

I am a feminine woman. This means that people do not think I'm gay. Usually, I hate that, but sometimes it means that I am less likely to be assaulted. I am aware of this.

Consider this. You are probably not the only gender-conforming gay guy in your school. And yet none of you are in the GSA.

This is entirely your own fault. You could come out and join the GSA, but you have not done so. Because you don't have to, because you can pass for straight. Just like all the others like you are doing.

Gender non-conforming people do not have the option of hiding. They are "out" whether they want to be or not. Or at least, the cost of not being out is higher for them, in terms of how far they would have to go in hiding in order to not be read as gay. So they join the GSA.

For gender conforming people to join the GSA always requires courage, because they have a choice as to whether to be out. Sadly, it sounds like none of the gender conforming people in your school have that kind of courage, to voluntarily face the same consequences that gender non-conforming people face every day, whether they want to or not.

Complaining that you are underrepresented in your GSA when you do not have the courage to join your GSA and do your part in rectifying that, really just comes off badly. You could easily help correct the problem of people stereotyping gay people by simply being the living, human counterexample in their midst. Instead, you are only out to three people.

It is not possible for people who are different from you to do the work for you of representing people like you. People like you have to do that yourselves. If no one like you is brave enough to step up and do it, then it will not get done--cannot get done.

When I came out and joined the lesbian choir, I was the only person in the group, or at least it seemed that way, who wanted to wear a skirt. I damn well wore my skirts to rehearsals and concerts until more women joined who also like wearing skirts. Now there are probably 10 or 15 of us, at least. Enough that it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb at our concerts, anyway.

Somebody has to be first. If you aren't willing for it to be you, don't complain about no one else having done it. Certainly don't complain about the people who are out. You're right, people get their ideas about gay people from the people who are out. But it's not the fault of the people who are out that you and others like you are still in the closet, not letting people know you exist.

I sometimes complain about femme invisibility, but I also actively do things about it. And I don't blame butches for it, at least no more than society as a whole.

You do not have to come out before you are ready. I don't even think you should. But the consequence of that is that there won't be anyone who looks like you in the GSA.

 

I think that people who are "butch" or "flaming" (though I hate these terms I can't think of more PC ones) have it harder than people like us who "blend" easier. People generalize them more, are more openly harsh with them... The expression of who they are offends people for no good reason other than it makes them uncomfortable. Boohoo.

People should be allowed to show who they really are without fear of judgment. Since most people do judge however, I think that is why those who are "more out" due to appearance have to be a bit more on the defense.

I say express yourself however you want. However, at the end of the day we are all just people. We are not so different.

 

I think its an advantage in a lot of ways to be "forced" to be out due to your characteristics. It makes life move a little faster for you and you don't have to deal with coming out as much... people already know. You except yourself as being different faster and move on. So yes you deal with more shit, but depending on the severity, it can just make you a more confident person.

I also believe a lot of people take their expressionism a little to far. It could be a part of my personality to walk around nude everywhere, but I am sure many of these supposedly tolerant people in this thread would take issue with that and judge me for it. And yet they turn around and judge others for taking issue with extremely odd behavior.

I like gender-non conforming people a lot though, don't change!

 

The Age Old question: To give a f**k or not to give a s**t. Personally, I think everyone should just do them especially since the logo of OUR representation isn't one color. For the whole acceptance thing, picking and choosing who is considered "human" or "valued" based on mannerisms is so not cool. Everyone should be valued in all respects. Now with that said, lets talk about the stone throwing and finger pointing. One, WTF is "Straight-Acting." I have always found that term offensive and though I was never hyper-masculine, It always pissed me off because it infers in some sense that your not "gay-enough" or even worse, your some little punk whose too scared to "be you" so you pretend that masculine things are your interest. To some extent, I always felt that some "others" were upset because they weren't as tall, athletic or rugged enough to do it. I know i'm pissed that there are gay guys going through puberty who are hairer and taller than myself but thats another story. Now for a group trying to open minds, that seems very close-minded. And I know people definitely have their stories of having met masculine gay guys that were total pricks or didn't act favorable to them. Who in their minds, and egos, could part the seas and walk upon clouds but that DOESN'T to any extent give anyone the right to lump sum every masc gay guy into that category under "Guilty until proven Innocent." Because last time I checked, none of us owe eachother anything and when you make a stranger feel as if they do, well they tend to run the other way. As I stated on another thread, being a dick about being athletic while "the limp-wristed" one is more musical, counts as friendly fire a**hole. :eusa_clap


Two, Effeminacy is strangely enough heavily bashed but seems to be the "norm" or "official language" of being Gay. Having feminine traits myself, I know how much of a dick straight guys can be about it sometimes especially with the pseudo-bashing jokes that aren't funny but when you say that, your being a poor sport( :***: ). Truth be told breaking down being effeminate would be way too long because we all know whats up in that department and truthfully it isn't fair and when people say thoughtless and careless stuff like "They shouldn't bring it on themselves" that makes a bad situation much worse. Btw, Friendly Fire f**king sucks. This coming from the black gay guy who has honestly never once felt that being gay was "Home" but I digress. My other point was that alot of effeminate guys, being so used to be neglected, don't look for approval which is good but when that "rebellion" begins to circle around who can out crazy who or being "sexually" free, then you become a parody of yourself. I was reading a blog sometime last week and it said "Fundamentally, a Gay man is the combination of the catiness of a woman blended with the competitiveness of a man." That :***: sent me through the roof but unfortunately when I mentally flip through all of which is shown to be gay, it proves the statement right. Now I know that all gay men are not like this but perception is one hell of a concept especially when all you see is one perspective, no matter how small or large it is in reality. (!)


At the end of the day, we all are just looking for somewhere that we can lay our heads and call Home. With that being said, this discussion is a waste of time because you have quite a few people who can't wait to live up the stereotypes while others wish they could smash them to pieces so it is just alot easier to DO YOU at the end of the day. I mean to be honest, this whole situation is quite f**ked up all around so hey, no point in trying to make a monolith or heirarchy out of it. Right?..... (&&&)

 

Thank you for this! I never thought of it that way before!

 

A bit harsh, but I get that this is an emotional issue and I agree with you!

I don`t accept the term "normal" because there is so much diversity in the world that "normal" is just an illusion some people carry around like a trophy. Fuck it. If I wanted to be A4, I`d be a tree! I don`t think anyone should change who they are or what makes them happy. Some gay guys are feminine and flamboyant, some chicks are butch and masculine. Some lesbians like me pass a little too well, and some don`t pass at all. Exactly how it should be, people should be different or else the world would be a darned boring place. I love colorful enthusiastic people, and people who don`t aren`t scared of being exactly who they are, and follow no one`s standards but their own. We should set our own limits, and not let other people tell us who to be, or how to look.

I hate it how we even in the LGBT group can be intolerant towards our fellow LGBTers. Geez, let people be themselves and express themselves however they want to, that`s my opinion. If some lesbian came over to me and told me that I look too straight, and they really hate that, I`d flip em the finger. And in return, I do not go over to some butch girl telling her to soften up. She should be exactly who she is, and look the way she want to look. And if these gay guys want to preach it like it`s the life, or whatever the OP wrote, then let them. It probably makes them happy and there are a lot people out there preaching all kinds of other things, I`d rather see preached homosexuality than preached intolerance.

I would probably prefer the gay guys/girls in the OPs school, lol, because that`s the kind of crowd that I most enjoy being with :lol: Bold and confident

 

Excellent points. Also the OP should consider that GSAs are full of flamers because flamers are the ones who need support the most.

 

Ew assimilation.

 

Just as a general response, I am aware that with the facts that the OP has given us, we do not know the full story and therefore is in no position to pass judgment regarding the reasons why there might be the existence of this "reverse bigotry", and the merits for it's existence. However, my original post was to bring out some negative trends I perceive within the homosexual community in general through the issues raised by the OP:

Self-hate and inter-community discrimination seems to be a very real problem in the gay community (henceforth i would refer exclusively to the gay male community, due to personal limitations in knowledge as well as time and length constraints), with judgments often passed on fellow gay men based on their appearance, youthfulness, or taste. Within the gay community, the image of an "ideal homosexual" became homogeneous, with gay men that do not conform to these ideals often marginalised from the community or sub-community. This can be seen in areas as diverse as the Clone culture of the 1970s, where several archetypes of working class men were idealized as the epitome of masculinity, to the present day obsession with labeling individuals as "twinks", "jocks", "bears" etc.

Of course, one can argue that this level of inter-group judgment and discrimination came about as a backlash from the level of discrimination LGBT individuals were subjected to. However, simply because an individual or a group has a traumatic past does not automatically warrant a permission to be judgmental and discriminatory. Taking a (very crude) example, just because a man had $5 stolen from him, does not mean he can steal back the $5, no matter how much of a legal/moral right to the sum he believes he has. This is not an issue of "who did what to whom first", rather, it is an issue of finding a middle ground where two groups can coexist in peace and mutual respect.

As a side-note, while I do concede that sexuality can in no way be the only determinant for a person's character/personality,I do agree with Ianthe that there is often a strong correlation between sexual orientation and levels of gender-non-conformity. This means that, ultimately while it cannot be said that all "flaming" individuals are LGBT, there is a higher than average chance that they might be. As such, this does to a small extent justify the OP's position that "being gay means having a certain personality". That said, however, I do have to agree with Gen that while being gay might mean that there might be a higher occurrence of certain personality traits, this does not make them "not normal" or "less desirable"- these a preconceptions instilled into us by society.

*rant over*