Most Pressing Things LGBT people want heterosexuals to know

Saster123 · 04-09-2014 7:20pm #1

I am a straight female student who supports LGBT people. I recently lost a friend to suicide after she was rejected by her parents for being lesbian. I am determined to make a difference in the fight for LGBT equality and have been writing articles on the subject and I wanted to ask you as LGBT people what you felt the most pressing things heteros needed to know.

It could be anything from 'it's not a choice' to 'don't call us queers' I don't mind, I just want to find out what you guys felt were important topics to be addressed.

J_E · 04-09-2014 7:56pm

Sometimes silent support is the best thing you can do. I can appreciate friends in the past who have showed support but it eventually drove a wedge in our relationship when I felt like the elephant in the room because they didn't really know how to handle my sexuality, they would be nice but it would always come up when I just didn't want it to. So holding people up on a pedestal or being overly aware of it can sometimes be offputting, just like someone with a disability appreciates the support but doesn't always want to be reminded of it.

I'd say one of the most annoying things for me as a gay person are the more militant 'Social Justice Warrior' types who feel I have to be spoken for as if I'm weak and oppressed. I can speak fine for myself thanks, take your vanity concern elsewhere! They're few and far between though luckily.

Aard · 04-09-2014 9:44pm

^This guy phrased what I wanted to say in a much more polite way than I was going to.

Yeah it can be condescending. And yes they're not that frequently come across, but still more often than I'd like. The worst thing is that such "support" can be damaging. Often that type of person will begin to speak as though they are an authority on homosexuality. I mean let's face it - even gay people can't *really* speak for other gay people. Our experiences are all so different. There is this idea of a homogeneity among the gays that doesn't exist to the extent that some people profess and other people would like. This applies to both supporters and detractors. Terms such as "the gay community", "LGBT people", and even " the gay agenda" all stem from the same fallacious idea that every gay person is bonded in some sort of united front. People are just too different to categorise like that, but it happens all the time to a greater or lesser extent.

Anyway, where I was going with all that is that it's hard enough for gay people to speak on behalf of each other, let alone straight people trying to do the same. So while it's OK to show support, it is important to be tactful about it otherwise it might border on the offensive.

I'm probably getting a bit zealous, so I'll stop there.

Annasopra · 04-09-2014 10:41pm

The other thing that irritates me lately a little is the umbrella lgbt term becoming a catch all umbrella term. I mean someone asked me recently - are you lgbt? Em no - nobody is lgbt!

ninty9er · 04-09-2014 10:44pm

I'm not attracted to you just because you have a penis/vagina is one a lot of people struggle to come to terms with. This is one of the roots of homophobia.

baby and crumble · 05-09-2014 3:53pm

Pleas don't assume all lesbians are butch.

Please don't assume all lesbians are femme.

Please don't assume anyone is anything.

Bisexuality is a really thing and it doesn't mean you need both men and women going at the same time.

Please never say the phrase "you're too pretty to be a lesbian"

Please don't dismiss someone's identity, for example (from personal experience) if a lesbian describes herself as butch, don't say "but you're not that butch!" like it's a compliment.

Those are just a few personal ones.

rainbow kirby · 05-09-2014 3:58pm

baby and crumble wrote: »

Bisexuality is a really thing and it doesn't mean you need both men and women going at the same time.

This! Also, it sometimes feels like others think the sexuality of a bisexual or pansexual person is a bit of a Schrodinger's Cat situation, it collapses to the value of the gender of the person that they are dating at a particular time. A bi person in a long term monogamous relationship with a person of a different gender is not straight, a bi person in a long-term monogamous relationship with a person of the same gender is not gay.

Annasopra · 05-09-2014 4:49pm

Surveys

If you are ever creating surveys or questionnaire

Do not ask:

Do you identify as
Lesbian/Gay
Bisexual
Transgender

When worded that way it is impossible for trans people to answer because sexual orientation and gender identity are entirely separate.

J_E · 05-09-2014 10:12pm

If I'll be honest I think the T in LGBT deserves their own focus and it just makes a false association with sexuality/identity when compared to the others.

baby and crumble · 05-09-2014 10:19pm

Cydoniac wrote: »

If I'll be honest I think the T in LGBT deserves their own focus and it just makes a false association with sexuality/identity when compared to the others.

I disagree. But it is something that's pretty contentious, so maybe that's something the OP should be aware of. I guess it comes down to remember that even though we talk about "community", all that is is a collection of individuals with our own ideas, identities and realities.

RiseToMe · 05-09-2014 10:52pm

Trans perspective :

It's not ok to ask the following of somebody who confided in you that they are trans*:

What's was your birth name?
I changed it for a reason

Do you have any pictures of what you used to look like?
I'm not a circus act or freak show for you to compare and contrast

Have you had "the surgery"?
First of all, which surgery? Second of all not your business

Also, very personally, telling me I was lucky my wife is bisexual, is frankly insulting of both us and our relationship.

MiloDublin · 06-09-2014 8:34pm

Don't judge. It's even in the Bible for those who bash: 'Do not judge so that you will not be judged' Matthew 7:1

Love Life · 08-09-2014 9:29pm

Just don't say "That's gay." or "Your such a fag/queer" like it's normal slang I guess

Twas Not · 08-09-2014 11:10pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This! Also, it sometimes feels like others think the sexuality of a bisexual or pansexual person is a bit of a Schrodinger's Cat situation, it collapses to the value of the gender of the person that they are dating at a particular time. A bi person in a long term monogamous relationship with a person of a different gender is not straight, a bi person in a long-term monogamous relationship with a person of the same gender is not gay.

What does the cat have to do with it??

Caiseoipe19 · 09-09-2014 12:01am

The cat's in the box with the radioactive material, cyanide and the hammer...googling it might be more informative and give a clearer explanation if you require further detail. It's a famous thought experiment.

Vojera · 10-09-2014 9:15am

For me, it's to be aware that I am not my sexuality. I'm not your lesbian friend, I'm just your friend. Who I love is part of who I am, but it's not the whole picture.

BonnieSituation · 11-09-2014 1:34am

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This! Also, it sometimes feels like others think the sexuality of a bisexual or pansexual person is a bit of a Schrodinger's Cat situation, it collapses to the value of the gender of the person that they are dating at a particular time. A bi person in a long term monogamous relationship with a person of a different gender is not straight, a bi person in a long-term monogamous relationship with a person of the same gender is not gay.

This^^^

I have spent an age trying to explain that my bisexuality hasn't stopped because I am in a committed relationship with a girl.

In fact, when I came out as bi to a gay friend recently he asked would I be breaking up with my gf. The fact is it was only after I was out to my gf that I could be out to everyone else. She's the most important one in all of this.

Anyway not to derail the thread...

padd b1975 · 13-09-2014 9:57am

Love Life wrote: »

Just don't say "That's gay." or "Your such a fag/queer" like it's normal slang I guess

Gay people need to stop doing this too.

Annasopra · 13-09-2014 11:32am

padd b1975 wrote: »

Gay people need to stop doing this too.

you're always welcome to post here but obviously trollish posts like this are not welcome

bodice ripper · 13-09-2014 1:04pm

That there is no consensus, there is no all-encompassing community, and those speaking for the 'community' don't have a mandate.

teehee, mandate.

padd b1975 · 13-09-2014 3:46pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

you're always welcome to post here but obviously trollish posts like this are not welcome

By no means questioning your moderation, but my point is the continued use of these 'terms' only serves to normalise them in a lot of people's minds at the expense of those that may be offended by them.

Aard · 13-09-2014 3:51pm

Do people even say "That's so gay" anymore? Can't remember the last time I heard it.

J_E · 13-09-2014 3:52pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

By no means questioning your moderation, but my point is the continued use of these 'terms' only serves to normalise them in a lot of people's minds at the expense of those that may be offended by them.

There is a noted difference in the way people use "that's so gay" to allude to something being worse, 'wrong', or disgusting, to the way we use it, when I use it, it's in a humourous self-depreciative way, but it's also a celebration. I love certain things for being 'so gay'! It's a celebration. So trolling aside (because I don't think that was a very well thought out statement) I think it's a matter of context.

Annasopra · 13-09-2014 5:12pm

Folks moderation is something that should not be discussed on thread. If you feel my earlier intervention was harsh then report the post and another mod will review it.
Given that Paddb1975 has been infracted before for trolling this forum there was of course context for calling him a troll.
Perhaps Paddb1975 wants to genuinely and openly discuss the issue which is fair enough. I am leaving my warning as is for now. All further moderarion discussion should now be through pm.

LegacyUser · 13-09-2014 5:44pm

I'm always cautious of accepting full scale the individualistic narrative of those who deny community and mandate existence. It seems to me to stand specifically against collectivism. That to me is incredibly dangerous when you see what collectivism and social movements achieve.

I do accept the validity of some of the arguments

Firstly it is that true that there is not one all encompassing community but it cannot be denied that there are many communities; e.g. the trans community, the womens community in Cork, community drop in centres such as outhouse. There are many lgbt people who do feel a sense of belonging to a small community or a large community. I agree that many do not see themselves as belonging to a community but I dont agree that that means a community does not exist.

Secondly if we look at the idea of "no mandate". Again here I see your point. There is no one lgbt person who speaks for every other lgbt person but there are advocacy groups. And these advocacy groups are given mandates in many different ways.

Belong To is given a mandate by the experiences of young people it works with and engages with; they employ an advocacy worker and youth workers to determine youbg peoples needs.
GLEN is given a mandate in various ways; identification of legal barriers to lgbt equality in employment, in education in family law, but also by engaging with different groups; trade unions, lgbt groups, community groups.
LGBT Noise is given a mandate by the numbers who turn up to their protests
Pride is given a mandate by people turning up to its events
LGBT trade union and political groups are given mandates by their members
TENI is given by a mandate by its members but also by the state being in breach of human rights law.

Its perfectly fine to take the stance you do. But its dangerous if taken to its full and logical conclusion because it completely denies the power of collectivism and social movements.

If taken to its logical conclusion - every person would be an individual and human rights for people in particular social groups (minorities and women) would not exist in todays modern world.

If you take the argument to to its fullest conclusion we could argue that no social movement has ever had a mandate. Feminism certainly didnt and doest speak for all women. But then if there is no mandate well then perhaps the rights that social movements have won over time should be rolled back?

padd b1975 · 13-09-2014 7:34pm

Cydoniac wrote: »

There is a noted difference in the way people use "that's so gay" to allude to something being worse, 'wrong', or disgusting, to the way we use it, when I use it, it's in a humourous self-depreciative way, but it's also a celebration. I love certain things for being 'so gay'! It's a celebration. So trolling aside (because I don't think that was a very well thought out statement) I think it's a matter of context.

Oh yeah I accept context can be vastly different, but it doesn't make my point any less valid.

I'm pretty sure there will be gay people out socialising later tonight who will use the descriptions outlined earlier as a stick to beat other gay/lesbian people that they dislike.

There's a good chance some conversations will be overheard and all of a sudden offensive words have been normalised into the everyday vernacular by the very people they were intended to offend.

bodice ripper · 13-09-2014 7:44pm

notkyle wrote: »

I'm always cautious of accepting full scale the individualistic narrative of those who deny community and mandate existence. It seems to me to stand specifically against collectivism. That to me is incredibly dangerous when you see what collectivism and social movements achieve.

I do accept the validity of some of the arguments

Firstly it is that true that there is not one all encompassing community but it cannot be denied that there are many communities; e.g. the trans community, the womens community in Cork, community drop in centres such as outhouse. There are many lgbt people who do feel a sense of belonging to a small community or a large community. I agree that many do not see themselves as belonging to a community but I dont agree that that means a community does not exist.

Secondly if we look at the idea of "no mandate". Again here I see your point. There is no one lgbt person who speaks for every other lgbt person but there are advocacy groups. And these advocacy groups are given mandates in many different ways.

Belong To is given a mandate by the experiences of young people it works with and engages with; they employ an advocacy worker and youth workers to determine youbg peoples needs.
GLEN is given a mandate in various ways; identification of legal barriers to lgbt equality in employment, in education in family law, but also by engaging with different groups; trade unions, lgbt groups, community groups.
LGBT Noise is given a mandate by the numbers who turn up to their protests
Pride is given a mandate by people turning up to its events
LGBT trade union and political groups are given mandates by their members
TENI is given by a mandate by its members but also by the state being in breach of human rights law.

Its perfectly fine to take the stance you do. But its dangerous if taken to its full and logical conclusion because it completely denies the power of collectivism and social movements.

If taken to its logical conclusion - every person would be an individual and human rights for people in particular social groups (minorities and women) would not exist in todays modern world.

If you take the argument to to its fullest conclusion we could argue that no social movement has ever had a mandate. Feminism certainly didnt and doest speak for all women. But then if there is no mandate well then perhaps the rights that social movements have won over time should be rolled back?

TL;DR

No one speaks for me. Invoking the Gay Community is no different than invoking the Silent Majority. Just people looking for power.

LegacyUser · 13-09-2014 9:01pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

TL;DR

No one speaks for me. Invoking the Gay Community is no different than invoking the Silent Majority. Just people looking for power.

What?

Thats just basically sticking earplugs in your ears and repeating your argument.

Its not addressing any of my points.

J_E · 13-09-2014 11:27pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

Oh yeah I accept context can be vastly different, but it doesn't make my point any less valid.

I'm pretty sure there will be gay people out socialising later tonight who will use the descriptions outlined earlier as a stick to beat other gay/lesbian people that they dislike.

To be honest, I see that as a highly unlikely scenario. A bit odd to call someone else a fag/queer/dyke as a pejorative if you're gay already. I've never heard of such a thing ever happening, perhaps the gay person in question is in denial themselves. You're pretty sure, but you've never seen or heard this happen, am I correct?

padd b1975 · 14-09-2014 10:53am

J_E wrote: »

To be honest, I see that as a highly unlikely scenario. A bit odd to call someone else a fag/queer/dyke as a pejorative if you're gay already. I've never heard of such a thing ever happening, perhaps the gay person in question is in denial themselves. You're pretty sure, but you've never seen or heard this happen, am I correct?

An example that's stuck in my mind is this.

A few years back I was out for dinner with some friends in Dublin.

At the next table there was another group of friends a couple of whom were obviously in a same sex relationship.

They were having a great time-wine flowing, good food, enjoying each others company-everything you would associate with a good night out.

Anyway, due to smokers leaving our table between courses, I found myself a little isolated from our group and ended up catching some snippets of their conversation.

One of the gay guys was having an old fashioned moan about a work colleague.
In all honesty every time he made direct reference to him in the course of his speech it was prefaced with all of the above and more besides causing much hilarity amongst his friends except for hispartner who did not seem to laugh nearly as much as the rest.

Strangely, he also kept referring to this guy as 'she' and 'her', seemed like borderline misogyny to me but that's beside the point.

J_E · 14-09-2014 2:00pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

One of the gay guys was having an old fashioned moan about a work colleague.
In all honesty every time he made direct reference to him in the course of his speech it was prefaced with all of the above and more besides causing much hilarity amongst his friends except for hispartner who did not seem to laugh nearly as much as the rest.

Strangely, he also kept referring to this guy as 'she' and 'her', seemed like borderline misogyny to me but that's beside the point.

I think you're missing a lot of cultural context and misinterpreting the conversation entirely to be honest, that's what it sounds like to me, there are many colloquialisms attributed to gay culture, it's not the default but it's just a facet of the social identity. There are gay men that are certainly misogynistic, homophobic, racist, and I know the few, but I really don't think it fit that circumstance - it was merely that guy feeling his fantasy and being sassy! A little irritating at most. The whole 'she' and 'her' thing isn't himself referring to women as inferior, it's more the social stigma beyond that sentiment that deemed so, that gay men are effeminate and not 'real men'. It goes back to that self-depreciative humour, sometimes all we can do is laugh about it.

Most Pressing Things LGBT people want heterosexuals to know

Comments