What is your opinion on flamboyant/stereotypical homosexuals?

AlmostFamous

I ask this question out of curiousity because in my case I dislike homosexuals who parade around announcing to the world their sexuality 'cos I don't care what gender they like. I feel it is attention seeking behaviour, to be honest. I'm not sure if it is a minority or majority who act as such. My friend came out to me and he is a true bro and I respect him more than I used to for being so courageous, although it is not public knowledge that he is, and why should it be? He behaves in a non flamboyant manner.

I treat him the same as I always did, I hug him and sometimes slap his ass (usually when I'm drunk) as I do with my other friends. I'm comfortable in my sexuality that the ass slapping isn't anything sexual to me but should I refrain from doing that to my friend? Would it lead him on?

Tricity Bendix

Live and let live. There are all sorts in this world, you can't expect all of them to behave as you would like them to.

Annasopra

AlmostFamous wrote: »

I treat him the same as I always did, I hug him and sometimes slap his ass (usually when I'm drunk) as I do with my other friends. I'm comfortable in my sexuality that the ass slapping isn't anything sexual to me but should I refrain from doing that to my friend? Would it lead him on?

Personally I never slap anyone on the arse but if it is friendly and your friend knows that you do it to everyone else then I see no problem

I ask this question out of curiousity because in my case I dislike homosexuals who parade around announcing to the world their sexuality 'cos I don't care what gender they like. I feel it is attention seeking behaviour, to be honest. I'm not sure if it is a minority or majority who act as such. My friend came out to me and he is a true bro and I respect him more than I used to for being so courageous, although it is not public knowledge that he is, and why should it be? He behaves in a non flamboyant manner.

Why do you like this behaviour so much? What difference does it make to you how other people want to behave?

AlmostFamous

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Live and let live. There are all sorts in this world, you can't expect all of them to behave as you would like them to.

Yeah, I realise that but what is your opinion of them? Obviously they are entitled to their freedom of expression and all that. But if you are or if you aren't a member of the gay community, do you not think they are bad reflection on that community? Or would they represent a minority/majority of homosexuals.

Do you not think they are part of the problem with the stigma associated with homosexuality because they are "different" as others would see them?

AlmostFamous

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Why do you like this behaviour so much? What difference does it make to you how other people want to behave?

I presume you mean dislike and it doesn't make any difference to me personally but I'm adamant that it creates differences for other people who view it is typical gay behaviour and then this creates difficulties for people coming out and society accepting them. I would almost blame this flamboyant behaviour with the repression of homosexuality (well that, and organised religion) because it used to be widely accepted like it was in Ancient Rome.

reggiews

Ya, iv thought about this myself, i have a large group of close friends and if any of them were gay it wouldnt bother me, although the flamboyant homosexuals which act beyond what you could describe as overly feminine do make me slightly uncomfortable. A gay man wants to have sex with other men....fair enough, i have no problem with that. Perhaps the very flamboyant homosexuals have some of that "woman trapped in a mans body" thing going on, and end up overcompensating with the extreme flamboyance. I apolagise in advance for everyone i have offended with this comment.

Annasopra

AlmostFamous wrote: »

I presume you mean dislike and it doesn't make any difference to me personally but I'm adamant that it creates differences for other people who view it is typical gay behaviour and then this creates difficulties for people coming out and society accepting them. I would almost blame this flamboyant behaviour with the repression of homosexuality (well that, and organised religion) because it used to be widely accepted like it was in Ancient Rome.

Yes I did mean dislike - So your view is that you want gay people to be accepted but only if they behave in a certain way?

AlmostFamous

Johnnymcg wrote: »

So your view is that you want gay people to be accepted but only if they behave in a certain way?

I'm afraid that was not the point I was making, you must have misinterpreted what I meant and then went about questioning me in a very blunt and simplified manner.

People have the right to express themselves as they wish. I'm just making the point that behaviour of certain flamboyant homosexuals has negative repercussions for the rest of the gay community and I would like to get peoples' opinions on this.

Annasopra

AlmostFamous wrote: »

I'm afraid that was not the point I was making, you must have misinterpreted what I meant and then went about questioning me in a very blunt and simplified manner.

People have the right to express themselves as they wish. I'm just making the point that behaviour of certain flamboyant homosexuals has negative repercussions for the rest of the gay community and I would like to get peoples' opinions on this.

I have no problem with the behaviour of the vast majority of gay people - I don't particularly understand why other people do have a problem with peoples behaviour and I really object to people telling us that all LGBT people must act the same as all straight people, I am not flamboyant, effeminate, camp - I am a non stereotype, but if people want to act camp or effeminate or flamboyant - I will always defend the right of people to be themselves and really I don't see the problem - Is it that society is dictating that people must not act this way? In my view that is totally wrong

thirtythirty

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Yes I did mean dislike - So your view is that you want gay people to be accepted but only if they behave in a certain way?

I'd like to jump in here if that's alright, as I don't think he's articulating his point very well.

I know exactly what he's talking about. I've a couple gay friends who range from being "a lad's lad" right up to being pretty damn camp. But i think there's an important distinction between being legitimately camp, and overtly and actively flamboyant.

With massive flamboyance comes irritation, and its just plain annoying. I really don't like it. Everything is surrounded in drama, even with simple tasks like getting a glass of water. Humour is normally localised to themselves and generally no one else finds the jokes funny, and the whole charade just smacks of attention seeking tbh.

Even "extremely camp" can carry a personality and you know what the person's like and everything else that goes in hand with "a personality". Extreme flamboyance cannot, and the reason the stereotypical image is then drawn up is because of the fact that extremely flamboyant people all seem to talk, act, and think exactly the same, so it becomes possible to draw up this characature of "a gay person" that everyone agrees on and quite honestly, or at least in my experience, don't like.

And that is my little summary of why i (personally) don't like extreme flamboyance (as a guide i'm talking about the main guy with the shaved head from pineapple dance studios on sky!).

Boston

I encountered a country girl the other day. It was obvious to me in a dozen ways that she was a country girl, and the minute she opened her mouth I knew she was from limerick. I feel it is attention seeking behaviour, to be honest. I'm not sure if it is a minority or majority who act as such but it's definitely something I've picked up on. What is it about country people that they feel the need to set themselves a part from the rest of us dubs? Why can't they get with the program? I know I'd feel more comfortable if everyone looked, talked and acted like me.

People get louder and exasperate certain characteristics when drunk in bars. But the rest of the time they are just themselves. I've been around enough camp, flamboyant and effeminate gay men to know it's seldom an act. Many would dearly love to be more hetronormative.

Tricity Bendix

AlmostFamous wrote: »

Yeah, I realise that but what is your opinion of them? Obviously they are entitled to their freedom of expression and all that. But if you are or if you aren't a member of the gay community, do you not think they are bad reflection on that community? Or would they represent a minority/majority of homosexuals.

I actually don't know if they are a minority or a majority. And frankly, I can't bring myself to care. I think if people are living their life the way they want to and expressing themselves as they see fit (without hurting anyone else) then they aren't just a good reflection on "the community", but a good reflection on Irish society as a whole.

Do you not think they are part of the problem with the stigma associated with homosexuality because they are "different" as others would see them?

Nope. The only problem with the stigma associated with homosexuality are the bigots who attach the stigma in the first place.

kisaragi

My opinion on flamboyant/stereotypical homosexuals really depends on much more than how camp they are. I don't have a problem with campness in itself though, I even enjoy it.

anotherlostie

I don't care if they are stereotypical or not as long as they are not obnoxious - you can be very camp and very endearing, but you can also be a total prat.

What I do object to is people telling you that you aren't a proper gay if you aren't flamboyant and 'out there' to all and sundry. I know there are people that judge me for keeping my sexuality discreet (while not in the closet), yet scream if someone says they don't like the flamboyant stereotypes. I have a partner, I socialise on the scene, my friends all know, but why should everyone I work with have to know? But I'm doing a disservice to gay people by living like that apparently.

Goodshape

Two things I don't like, one is this --

anotherlostie wrote: »

people telling you that you aren't a proper gay if you aren't flamboyant and 'out there' to all and sundry.

and yup, it happens often enough.

The other is the assumptions people jump to when I do "come out" to them, because all they're aware of is the stereotype.

As for people actually being camp -- no, I don't mind that at all. Each to their own.

ding-dong

Hey AlmostFamous, I used to have the same thought process as you! The truth is if you are so bothered by physical mannerisms/accents, then you may need to get out more. If you're talking about individual personalities that you find abrasive and think they are a product of homosexuality, then just consider your own friend and realise that this is just not the case. I know loads of annoying heterosexual jerks, don't you? What is your opinion on stereotypical heterosexuals?

unreggd

The other question in this thread is wether or not OTT campness is natural or an act


Personally, I find most campness annoying / cringeworthy
But I wouldnt hold it against anyone personally

Kanoe

unreggd wrote: »

The other question in this thread is wether or not OTT campness is natural or an act

not sure what's meant by natural but I think it's organic in the sense that its a gradual development of the persona in a certain environment
When I was younger I tried desperately to shake off traits that were without doubt inherent, because by my teenage years it just wasn't acceptable among my peers. (god forbid they might have thought I was gay) I tried to have relationships with men and even became a mother (single) and between here and there those qualities have disappeared so much that people have difficulty accepting that I am at this point. I think all the qualities that make me who I am today are a product of motherhood - and had I continued to be who I was I would probably be considered the card carrying stereotype
In saying that I'm glad of who I've turned out to be.

I also have a friend who came out after several years of marriage and who was up until that point very subtle and now two years on could give Graham Norton a run for his money.

Coeurdepirate

To be perfectly honest, I sort of agree with the OP... Although I don't have a problem with flamboyant gays, I don't see why they won't get a sex change if they feel more comfortable acting effeminate.
However, what I DO have a problem with is the way so many straight people expect for all gays to act like that. I'm gay and in Secondary School, and not flamboyant, yet so many people expect me to start prancing around with a hangbag singing songs from Annie.

So really, I don't have a problem with flamboyant gays, moreso with how to straight people, flamboyancy is some genetic trait that all gay people have.

Links234

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I don't see why they won't get a sex change if they feel more comfortable acting effeminate.

I don't see why gender expression has to be so black & white. In fact, the attitude that men must be completely masculine and women must be completely feminine is something I find a bit disturbing. Some men are feminine, some women are masculine, and that doesn't mean they should get a sex change just because of how they act. There's feminine straight men out there who are perfectly ok with their genders you know? Fitting male and female into rigid roles with strict codes about how they can and cannot act just doesn't work.

It always saddens me to see LGBT people to say that non-standard gender expression is not ok.

Coeurdepirate

Links234 wrote: »

I don't see why gender expression has to be so black & white. In fact, the attitude that men must be completely masculine and women must be completely feminine is something I find a bit disturbing. Some men are feminine, some women are masculine, and that doesn't mean they should get a sex change just because of how they act. There's feminine straight men out there who are perfectly ok with their genders you know? Fitting male and female into rigid roles with strict codes about how they can and cannot act just doesn't work.

It always saddens me to see LGBT people to say that non-standard gender expression is not ok.

I really didn't intend to be so blunt about it, but it's my opinion. I really don't see why men will act 'girly' and women will act 'manly' without a wish to be a woman, or a man. I'm not saying that men should be masculine, or that women should be feminine, but why else would they act that way if they didn't want it?
I mean, it's a well known fact that flamboyant gays and masculine girls get some stick even within the LGBT community, and (i know, i'm completely repeating myself) I really don't see why they'd subject themselves to it, if it's not what they wanted.

rainbow kirby

Links234 wrote: »

It always saddens me to see LGBT people to say that non-standard gender expression is not ok.

+1

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I mean, it's a well known fact that flamboyant gays and masculine girls get some stick even within the LGBT community, and (i know, i'm completely repeating myself) I really don't see why they'd subject themselves to it, if it's not what they wanted.

Some people just do happen to be naturally more "stereotypical" than others. I'm one of those - a relatively masculine-presenting girl, it's just the way I am and I've never been anything different. Such is life.

Annasopra

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I really didn't intend to be so blunt about it, but it's my opinion. I really don't see why men will act 'girly' and women will act 'manly' without a wish to be a woman, or a man. I'm not saying that men should be masculine, or that women should be feminine, but why else would they act that way if they didn't want it?
I mean, it's a well known fact that flamboyant gays and masculine girls get some stick even within the LGBT community, and (i know, i'm completely repeating myself) I really don't see why they'd subject themselves to it, if it's not what they wanted.

I don't understand this at all - First of all you use the word act - I don't see someone expressing themselves and expressing their personalities as 'acting' - Secondly your assumption that every person who has gender characteristics that might not be perceived to match their gender really wants to be another gender is frankly bizarre - Let me put it this way 'you fancy men - do you want to be a woman?'

Dwn Wth Vwls

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm not saying that men should be masculine, or that women should be feminine, but why else would they act that way if they didn't want it?

Isn't that exactly what you're saying? You're suggesting an extreme change to their life, physically, financially, socially, emotionally, so that only men will "act manly" and only women will "act girly". I presume you don't realise how ridiculous (and perhaps insulting) a suggestion this is.

These people are just being themselves, and they simply don't conform to the standard. Do you seriously think they're just putting it on? Why would they? They're "subjecting themselves to it" because they don't want to live a lie and pretend to be something they're not just to fit in. Why should they have to act a certain way?

You're in secondary school so you're dealing with teenagers like yourself. Many of them may have never met someone who is gay but not flamboyant before, simply because the flamboyant people are more noticeable. It's undoubtedly frustrating dealing with ignorance, but the only way to educate people is to just continue being yourself and they'll learn soon enough. I'm sure you'll also learn more about it all when you meet more gay people.

shay_562

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

...so many people expect me to start prancing around with a hangbag singing songs from Annie.

When really, dahling, Wicked is so much more au courant.

Re: the above, I dunno. There's definitely some people who play up to the stereotype. Having known people before and after they've come out, many (especially the ones who surround themselves entirely with gay friends and 'fag hags') become flamboyant to the point of it seeming ridiculous. It's impossible to tell how much of it is them expressing how they've felt all along and how much is them feeling pressure within the community to conform to a stereotype, but to discount the latter effect entirely and say "They're just being themselves!" strikes me as being wilfully blind.

There's also, to my mind, a difference between flamboyance and effiminacy. The latter is, simplistically, being 'girly' - in mannerism, in tastes and so on. The former is being 'loud', and while there's often some crossover between the two, they aren't the same thing. I find flamboyance quite annoying, because I find loud, obnoxious people annoying. It's not me treating gay people any differently - I find the group of bitchy teenage wannabes in the George as annoying as the shrieking hen party in Templebar. I simply have a low tolerance for wreck-the-heads.

Link234 wrote:

It always saddens me to see LGBT people to say that non-standard gender expression is not ok.

Why is that? There's a difference between issues of sexual orientation and issues of gender identity, and I always find something kinda weird about the assumption that because you're gay, you should be ultra-tolerant and accepting of anything that remotely constitutes a diversion from gender norms. I'm fully supportive of people's rights to do stuff, yeah, but that doesn't mean that I don't find something weird about, say, gay people who go to saunas, or straight people who engage in dogging, or drag kings/queens. Believing that they should be allowed to do stuff doesn't mean full-on acceptance of everything, ever, and for reasons that I find hard to articulate, I dislike the enforced-tolerance, "We're all in it together!" attitude that sometimes gets adopted by the LGBT community. Sexuality aside, we're often very, very different people.

Dwn Wth Vwls

shay_562 wrote: »

It's impossible to tell how much of it is them expressing how they've felt all along and how much is them feeling pressure within the community to conform to a stereotype, but to discount the latter effect entirely and say "They're just being themselves!" strikes me as being wilfully blind.

Oh yeah, that's true too of course. I tend to forget about those people because I don't know any.

DubArk

AlmostFamous wrote: »

Yeah, I realise that but what is your opinion of them? Obviously they are entitled to their freedom of expression and all that. But if you are or if you aren't a member of the gay community, do you not think they are bad reflection on that community? Or would they represent a minority/majority of homosexuals.

Do you not think they are part of the problem with the stigma associated with homosexuality because they are "different" as others would see them?

Gay people come in every shape, size, colour and creed …. ugly, beautiful and sometime down right plain!

How anyone could think that camp, flamboyant and effeminate Gays are reprehensive of all Gays just has been locked up in some bog hole for far too long. Television/Media these days represents all the different facets of Homosexual life in the 21st century.

My attitude is, if it annoys you so much, then get anger management or hang out with different friends.
Otherwise build a bridge and get over it!

Links234

shay_562 wrote: »

Re: the above, I dunno. There's definitely some people who play up to the stereotype. Having known people before and after they've come out, many (especially the ones who surround themselves entirely with gay friends and 'fag hags') become flamboyant to the point of it seeming ridiculous. It's impossible to tell how much of it is them expressing how they've felt all along and how much is them feeling pressure within the community to conform to a stereotype, but to discount the latter effect entirely and say "They're just being themselves!" strikes me as being wilfully blind.

And you know it's also probably impossible to tell that the more typically masculine acting aren't putting on an act and playing up to a masculine stereotype either. Is that really how they've felt all along, or is it pressure both from within the gay community and outside of it not to act effeminate, camp or flamboyant? Especially with prevalent attitudes that it's OK for people to hate the gay men who show those qualities, it makes me wonder how often the gay men who are ever so vocal about not being a "stereotypical gay" are really doing just what you accuse others of?

It strikes me as being willfully blind to view one type of gender expression as normative and another as purely an act, conforming or playing up. God knows, during my denial I felt enormous pressure to put up a constant facade of masculinity. I also know some straight friends who act quite differently when they're in the pub, soft spoken and relaxed only to become gruffer and more aggressive with the lads. One friend in particular is a very sensitive person, wonderfully caring and willing to listen, very intelligent and has a lot to say about current events, but out in the pub he's just a completely different person, I can't even talk to him because all he wants to talk about then is football. There's a degree of conformity to a lot of masculine behavior, and I see that in straight friends all the time.

Am I saying that all gay people who aren't camp, effeminate or flamboyant are putting on an act and conforming to pressure? No, not at all. If that's you just being yourself, then great. But if you're going to speak out against other gay people for how they express themselves, if you're going to say it's all an act, that it's all pretense, well.. people in glass houses my friend. And I really do wonder sometimes about people who feel the need to so vocally set themselves apart from "the stereotype", I wonder if they're really just another stereotype themselves.

And you know what else kinda worries me about this constant putting down of "stereotypical gays"? It says that it's ok to be gay as long as nobody can perceive you to be gay, and that's not really acceptance or tolerance, that's just people being able to bury their heads in the sand. That's people not caring because they don't see it. And that's very, very far from acceptance.

shay_562 wrote: »

I dislike the enforced-tolerance, "We're all in it together!" attitude that sometimes gets adopted by the LGBT community. Sexuality aside, we're often very, very different people.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Chuchoter

I think stereotypically gay people are generally either that way from birth and have been covering it up or its the whole excitement about being newly out. I honestly don't care. Its more the media that perpetrates bad stereotypes by only putting super camp men on TV, which would be fine, but on top of that they are bitchy and have no personality, which is not true of real people.

To be honest I have more of a problem with people wearing leather and no clothes at pride....I know I sound like Brenda Power *eek!* but leather/no clothes is not an orientation or a gender identity. I think people like that who go out of their way to be absolute weirdos just so they can get on TV or get a picture in the paper do a lot of harm to young people not out who see that as what gay is, and if they are not like that then they must not be gay.

Annasopra

shay_562 wrote: »

Why is that? There's a difference between issues of sexual orientation and issues of gender identity, and I always find something kinda weird about the assumption that because you're gay, you should be ultra-tolerant and accepting of anything that remotely constitutes a diversion from gender norms.

Being gay is in itself a diversion from gender norms

wonderfulname

AlmostFamous wrote: »

I ask this question out of curiousity because in my case I dislike homosexuals who parade around announcing to the world their sexuality 'cos I don't care what gender they like. I feel it is attention seeking behaviour, to be honest. I'm not sure if it is a minority or majority who act as such. My friend came out to me and he is a true bro and I respect him more than I used to for being so courageous, although it is not public knowledge that he is, and why should it be? He behaves in a non flamboyant manner.

I treat him the same as I always did, I hug him and sometimes slap his ass (usually when I'm drunk) as I do with my other friends. I'm comfortable in my sexuality that the ass slapping isn't anything sexual to me but should I refrain from doing that to my friend? Would it lead him on?

For some people it is them and thats ok.
But I find a lot of people around my age (19) fall back on 80s stereotypes, I think its a comfort thing but it saddens me.
Has any one seen the McCaul twins since they came out? That sort of thing..

And as for your friend thinking your coming on to him, does every female friend you make a joke with think your coming on to them? Exactly! Homosexual means you like the same sex, not all of the same sex, common mistake that..

shay_562

Links234 wrote:

And you know it's also probably impossible to tell that the more typically masculine acting aren't putting on an act and playing up to a masculine stereotype either. Is that really how they've felt all along, or is it pressure both from within the gay community and outside of it not to act effeminate, camp or flamboyant? Especially with prevalent attitudes that it's OK for people to hate the gay men who show those qualities, it makes me wonder how often the gay men who are ever so vocal about not being a "stereotypical gay" are really doing just what you accuse others of?

It strikes me as being willfully blind to view one type of gender expression as normative and another as purely an act, conforming or playing up. God knows, during my denial I felt enormous pressure to put up a constant facade of masculinity. I also know some straight friends who act quite differently when they're in the pub, soft spoken and relaxed only to become gruffer and more aggressive with the lads. One friend in particular is a very sensitive person, wonderfully caring and willing to listen, very intelligent and has a lot to say about current events, but out in the pub he's just a completely different person, I can't even talk to him because all he wants to talk about then is football. There's a degree of conformity to a lot of masculine behavior, and I see that in straight friends all the time.

Am I saying that all gay people who aren't camp, effeminate or flamboyant are putting on an act and conforming to pressure? No, not at all. If that's you just being yourself, then great. But if you're going to speak out against other gay people for how they express themselves, if you're going to say it's all an act, that it's all pretense, well.. people in glass houses my friend. And I really do wonder sometimes about people who feel the need to so vocally set themselves apart from "the stereotype", I wonder if they're really just another stereotype themselves.

Fair point to say that there are 'masculine' people, gay and straight, whose personalities are shaped by more general societal norms, but I don't think that in any way undermines what I was saying. I wasn't suggesting that "it's all an act", I was saying that some flamboyant gay people derive some of that flamboyance from community pressures. If I find flamboyant gay people more annoying than uber-masculine gay people, it's more because they tend to be louder (and therefore harder to ignore) than because their falseness is any worse than other people's falseness.

And you know what else kinda worries me about this constant putting down of "stereotypical gays"? It says that it's ok to be gay as long as nobody can perceive you to be gay, and that's not really acceptance or tolerance, that's just people being able to bury their heads in the sand. That's people not caring because they don't see it. And that's very, very far from acceptance.

Or it says that in general, there are societal norms that tend against displaying one's sexuality or being just kinda gross about stuff. Straight guys who talk about nothing but tits and shagging annoy me. Gay guys who talk about nothing but how gay they are annoy me. If I judge a guy for wearing a "ReadthiswhileIstareatyourtits" t-shirt, why shouldn't I judge a girl wearing a "Nobody Knows I'm A Lesbian" equivalent? (Granted, the former is slightly more pervy, and I actually find the latter t-shirts kinda funny, but still...)

Links234 wrote:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I'm willing to accept that I'm a judgemental misanthrope, but whipping out Nazi comparisons this easily is just childish, and the smiley face doesn't make it any less offensive.

Johnnymcg wrote:

Being gay is in itself a diversion from gender norms

Yes, but there's a scale. Liking someone of the same gender is one diversion. Wearing non-gender-conforming clothing is another. Your hair, your taste in music, whether or not you like sports, what you drink in bars - all of these are things that have some level of gender norm attached to them, and the presumption that because a gay person differs in one they must be totally OK with differing in all doesn't sit right with me, particularly when enforced in a weird "You're one of us, so you must think like us" way. I may fancy guys, but I will never, ever, ever accept that men wearing skinny jeans aren't an abomination against God and nature.

Links234

shay_562 wrote: »

Or it says that in general, there are societal norms that tend against displaying one's sexuality or being just kinda gross about stuff. Straight guys who talk about nothing but tits and shagging annoy me. Gay guys who talk about nothing but how gay they are annoy me. If I judge a guy for wearing a "ReadthiswhileIstareatyourtits" t-shirt, why shouldn't I judge a girl wearing a "Nobody Knows I'm A Lesbian" equivalent? (Granted, the former is slightly more pervy, and I actually find the latter t-shirts kinda funny, but still...)

I'm not talking about people who are being obnoxious about their sexuality or people who talk about sex all the time and you know it.

shay_562 wrote: »

I'm willing to accept that I'm a judgemental misanthrope, but whipping out Nazi comparisons this easily is just childish, and the smiley face doesn't make it any less offensive.

On another forum someone asked "Why the T in LGBT?"
Perhaps the most saddening truth of it is as one person said, homosexuals and transsexuals tend to get beaten up and murdered by the same kind of people. The people who murdered Brandon Teena were the same kind of people who murdered Matthew Sheppard. So you're right, maybe the "We're in this together" attitude isn't because of really having anything in common, but because we face the same dangers and prejudices and discrimination.

There's an extremely worrying trend for gay people to drop other parts of the LGBT movement or outright pretend they don't exist when it suits them or their agenda. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act in America for example, plenty of gay activists were happy to drop the sections covering discrimination based on gender identity if it meant the act would pass with less opposition. And when police in Pakistan broke up the wedding of a transgender woman and jailed the couple, there were lots of gay people who felt the need to erase the identity of the woman and claim it was a gay marriage, just like the Pakistani government did.

I don't know what it is, maybe some people think that some elements of the LGBT community are beneath them now? But really, we are all in this together because historically we always have been. When gay people were being jailed for their sexual orientation, it didn't matter if they were the flamboyant annoying gays that you don't like or the 'normal' masculine acting gays, they all got locked away the same. And just in the same way that transsexuality has been considered a mental disorder, so once was homosexuality having been listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders up until 1980. We're in this together because to the people who hate us, we're all the same freaks, abominations, deviants and mental cases..
To Fred Phelps and his cronies we're all fags.

After Angie Zapata's murderer was jailed for beating her to death with a fire extinguisher, he said "Gay things must die!"
15 year old Larry King was shot in the head twice because he was gay and acted effeminate.
To these murderers, we are all the same.

And I think when members of the LGBT community come along with the attitude that it's OK to hate the camp, the effeminate, the butch, the people with non-standard gender expression. That just enables more hatred because you're sending a message. The bigots will just take their queue from that.

So no, I'm not whipping out a nazi comparison, I'm making a point of why we're in this together, and why you should be accepting and tolerant of different types of gender expression. That's why I posted the Martin Niemoller poem, to remind you of why the so-called "enforced tolerance" as you put it exists.

See, to them, you're just another freak... like me! :pac:

shay_562

Links234 wrote: »

I'm not talking about people who are being obnoxious about their sexuality or people who talk about sex all the time and you know it.

...do I? The OP referred to "homosexuals who parade around announcing to the world their sexuality"; definitions of flamboyance may vary, but I was very much under the impression that we were talking about people who are extreme in their personal expression of their sexual identity.

Links234 wrote:

On another forum someone asked "Why the T in LGBT?"
Perhaps the most saddening truth of it is as one person said, homosexuals and transsexuals tend to get beaten up and murdered by the same kind of people...

...See, to them, you're just another freak... like me! :pac:

OK, so the same group of people hate us all. And to them, it doesn't matter how stereotypical or not any gay person is, any deviation from the norm is enough to warrant a "God Hates Fags" sign, so yeah, I get in that sense why we all push for the same stuff in terms of legal rights. I can also see where you're coming from on the whole 'employment rights' thing (though I think there's just as much of an argument to be made that the activists in question were perfectly entitled to push for what they saw as 'their' community first; that's getting off the point, though) But why does that mean acceptance and tolerance on a personal level? You're telling me why I should support rights for transgendered people and flamboyant gay people. I already do. What I want to know is why that entails me not finding excessive flamboyance annoying. This diversion started because you posted that "It saddens [you] to see LGBT people to say that non-standard gender expression is not ok"; what I want to know is why that shouldn't be the case? There's a gulf between supporting legal freedoms and what you personally think about other people who are some class of LGB or T, and I don't know why commonality in the former seems, in some people's minds, to mean happy-clappy-everyone-get-along in the latter? There's something creepy and more than a little oxymoronic in the phrase 'enforced tolerance'.

And I'd still maintain that quoting a poem about apathy in the face of Nazi suppression at someone who you perceive as intolerant amounts to "whipping out a Nazi comparison"; I honestly don't know how you can see it as anything else.

baby and crumble

I kind of agree with both sides of this- I appreciate and understand, and support anyone who is straight, gay or transgendered to be themselves entirely, and for some men that means being very flambouyant, for some women it means scowling and liking sports. Stereotypes have to come from somewhere!

But I also think that just because I support someones rights to be who they are, doesn't mean I have to like it, and even agree with it. I personally don't understand trangendered issues. I just don't get it, and tbh I sometimes think that transgendered issues have no place in the lgb camp, because it's being transgendered is not a sexuality. But at the same time I'm not going to think someone is 'wrong' for transitioning their body to match up with their mind.

Likewise, I find the character traits of effeminate, camp men grating. Just like I find the character traits of 'girly girls' grating. It's just MY personality.

it boils down to the same thing I deal with in my line of work. I work with people with intellectual disabilities, and so many people who have very little contact with PWID fall into one of 2 camps. Either they think they're completely abnormal and have nothign good to say, or they think everyone with a disability is 'sweet' and 'precious'. Yes, a lot of people with disabilities are lovely people. But I've met a lot of w*!kers who have disabilities. It would be wrong of me to stand there going 'Ah, they're all lovely!' when I can't stand being in the same room as them because of their personality.

And that's what it gets down to: personality. Some people find other people really, really annoying. That's life. It only gets dodgy when you won't even allow yourself the possibility of being wrong- maybe someday I'll meet a gay guy who's super super camp and he'll become a great friend. Who knows?

Nevyn

shay_562 wrote: »

Why is that? There's a difference between issues of sexual orientation and issues of gender identity, and I always find something kinda weird about the assumption that because you're gay, you should be ultra-tolerant and accepting of anything that remotely constitutes a diversion from gender norms. I'm fully supportive of people's rights to do stuff, yeah, but that doesn't mean that I don't find something weird about, say, gay people who go to saunas, or straight people who engage in dogging, or drag kings/queens.

Believing that they should be allowed to do stuff doesn't mean full-on acceptance of everything, ever, and for reasons that I find hard to articulate, I dislike the enforced-tolerance, "We're all in it together!" attitude that sometimes gets adopted by the LGBT community. Sexuality aside, we're often very, very different people.

Oh look Homonormativity rises it's ugly head again.

Being gender queer doesn't mean a person is gay or that they are transgendered, it just means that their mannerism don't fall inline with people's binary assumptions of what a man is and what a woman is and how to behave.

Gender queer is queer, we are here we are queer get over it and stop trying to divide up lgbt people into little segments where community is harder to find and it also makes it harder to lobbby for change.

Like you said they are your issues, go figure them out and deal with them rather then trying to shun or push away thing and people which make you uncomfortable due to your issues.

Links234

shay_562 wrote: »

...do I? The OP referred to "homosexuals who parade around announcing to the world their sexuality"; definitions of flamboyance may vary, but I was very much under the impression that we were talking about people who are extreme in their personal expression of their sexual identity.

Well first of all, I came into the discussion after this point, so if you're following the thread at all, you know I'm not responding directly to the OP.
And second, some people might take simple things like certain mannerisms, speech patterns, ways of dress or hairstyle as "announcing to the world their sexuality".

shay_562 wrote: »

But why does that mean acceptance and tolerance on a personal level? You're telling me why I should support rights for transgendered people and flamboyant gay people. I already do. What I want to know is why that entails me not finding excessive flamboyance annoying. This diversion started because you posted that "It saddens [you] to see LGBT people to say that non-standard gender expression is not ok"; what I want to know is why that shouldn't be the case? There's a gulf between supporting legal freedoms and what you personally think about other people who are some class of LGB or T, and I don't know why commonality in the former seems, in some people's minds, to mean happy-clappy-everyone-get-along in the latter?

Maybe because I think people shouldn't be belittled by their own community? That they shouldn't be humiliated by other LGBT people? That they shouldn't be hated because of the manner in which they express themselves? Because someone who isn't hurting anyone by how they walk or talk doesn't deserve the kind of scorn they get. Maybe because if you're gay, you should have a little more empathy towards other LGBT people, because if you don't, who else will? Maybe I don't like to see attitudes that can hurt people and make them feel ostracized in their own community.
Or you know, maybe I see all of this effecting me in the long term?

wonderfulname

To be honest I'm not a big "community" person, I've always wanted to live my own life in a manner not dictated by sexuality, LGBT is something I don't overly get (Yes I see the irony when I'm drawn to this forum!). And even coming from that position I am absolutely disgusted to see things such as

There's a gulf between supporting legal freedoms and what you personally think about other people who are some class of LGB or T, and I don't know why commonality in the former seems, in some people's minds, to mean happy-clappy-everyone-get-along in the latter?

and

because I support someones rights to be who they are, doesn't mean I have to like it

Everyone here understands what its like to be part of a minority, everyone here knows the feeling of hearing something like "Oh I don't mind what they do on their own they just better not come over to me", Its disheartening, you think, is this what acceptance is? Everyone is equal, and that doesn't just refer to future rights or legislation, and its the people who are sometimes viewed as that little bit less equal, who listen to the casual unintended insults of the uninformed who should understand what hurt that little detachment can cause.

baby and crumble

^^ So does that mean I have to agree with everything everyone does?

I'm not Catholic, and I find people praying to statues/ with rosary beads weird, and I don't agree with it, but why am I not allowed say that? It's ridiculous to be expected to like and agree with everything everyone does as part of their daily lives. I don't understand praying with rosary beads, I don't 'get' praying to saints, but I fully support people who do to do that. Just like I would never expect all people to understand by being a lesbian- I have friends who don't really like it as part of my personality, but they like ME.

It's so hypocritical to say 'we all have to get along and support each other', and then those same people make life difficult for everyone else by MAKING people assume we're all the same. That is what makes it difficult for straight people to see us as individuals, because, for example, we ALL like going out every weekend getting smashed and shagging strangers.

It really ticks me off. I would NEVER dream of slagging someone off about transitioning, I think it's an incredibly brave thing to do. BUT at the same time I'm not going to say "oh, yeah, i totally understand it", because I don't. Would it not be worse if we all went around lying? I also do not belittle someone for their personal tics, be that having tourettes, the fact they constantly play with their hair, or them being overly flambouyant. WHat I am saying is that it's ludicrous to expect all of us in the 'non straight' community to all like each other. It's NEVER going to happen. At least be upfront about it. Support each other, yes, but that never has to mean you have to like everything about each other.

Barna77

Hmmm... can of worms....

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

However, what I DO have a problem with is the way so many straight people expect for all gays to act like that.

+1

And that's why I find campness quite irritating. I was in a club in Dublin a couple of months ago and I had to leave the place. It was so overwhelmingly camp that I couldn't stand it. of course I won't kill a gay guy for being camp, but it is something that it's not my style. I don't feel the need of shouting to the world that I'm gay.

Sorry if I offend someone but that's what I think.

Another thing, I came out to a friend recently and she told me now she could talk with me about hot guys... wtf? No way.

Nevyn

again being gender queer doesn't mean you are trangendered.

Annasopra

Barna77 wrote: »

Hmmm... can of worms....


+1

And that's why I find campness quite irritating. I was in a club in Dublin a couple of months ago and I had to leave the place. It was so overwhelmingly camp that I couldn't stand it. of course I won't kill a gay guy for being camp, but it is something that it's not my style. I don't feel the need of shouting to the world that I'm gay.

Sorry if I offend someone but that's what I think.

Another thing, I came out to a friend recently and she told me now she could talk with me about hot guys... wtf? No way.

Are you for real? The post you're quoting is suggesting that effeminate men and butch men should just go and get a sex change - Do you agree with this?

Barna77

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Are you for real? The post you're quoting is suggesting that effeminate men and butch men should just go and get a sex change - Do you agree with this?

Jesus, I missed that. Of course I don't.

My apologies.

Edited my post.

wonderfulname

zoegh wrote: »

I'm not Catholic, and I find people praying to statues/ with rosary beads weird, and I don't agree with it, but why am I not allowed say that? It's ridiculous to be expected to like and agree with everything everyone does as part of their daily lives. I don't understand praying with rosary beads, I don't 'get' praying to saints, but I fully support people who do to do that. Just like I would never expect all people to understand by being a lesbian- I have friends who don't really like it as part of my personality, but they like ME.

Then you should understand this key difference;

catholicism = choice

sexuality/gender identity = no choice

Neither of these is what makes a person or their personality. Also nobody is making anyone believe anything, there was a time when anyone with issues with gender identity were viewed as a sort of Extreme-Gay (coming soon to a store near you) or something of that nature, the majority of people now know different.

Neither of these would ever form a basis for my liking or disliking of someone. Indeed neither of these should be an issue at all, thats how equality should work not this PC crap but anyway.. I'm beginning to think your just being a little too free with words, liking something and agreeing with it are two very different things in this context.

Barna77 wrote:

she told me now she could talk with me about hot guys... wtf? No way.

This I get, straight men think about women so much differently to me! I wish they didn't suddenly feel so comfortable, note to any straight men reading: Lesbians do not want to look at the porn stash on your phone, they will not identify with "snow white does7dwarves" or anything like it.

Dammit off topic again, especially when that doesn't seem to be your issue at all..

Links234

You know, on the subject of effeminate men/butch women just getting sex changes. Johnnymcg said something interesting earlier on along the lines of "if you like men why don't you just be a woman?"

Did you know that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death but sex changes are condoned? Many gay men feel that transition is their only option, and undergo hormone treatment and genital reassignment surgery not because they are transgender but because it's either that or death. Be Like Others is a film about transsexuality in Iran.

Dr. Baltar

Links234 wrote: »

You know, on the subject of effeminate men/butch women just getting sex changes. Johnnymcg said something interesting earlier on along the lines of "if you like men why don't you just be a woman?"

Did you know that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death but sex changes are condoned? Many gay men feel that transition is their only option, and undergo hormone treatment and genital reassignment surgery not because they are transgender but because it's either that or death. Be Like Others is a film about transsexuality in Iran.

I've heard about that practice and the idea is absolutely revolting to me.
Sexuality and gender are absolutely different. I may be attracted to males, but I also identify 100% as a male. Even effeminite men who are gay will feel 100% man.

Links234

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I've heard about that practice and the idea is absolutely revolting to me.
Sexuality and gender are absolutely different. I may be attracted to males, but I also identify 100% as a male. Even effeminite men who are gay will feel 100% man.

I know, it is pretty horrific.
Even as someone who desperately wants a sex change herself, I think that a sex change for the wrong reasons is nothing short of mutilation. For someone who is comfortable with their physical sex to have that changed... I know what torture it is to be at odds with your body, and I wouldn't wish that pain on anyone.
Thank god I wasn't born in Iran, I'm attracted to females and I identify as female, I'd be screwed! Either pick a gender or sexuality I'm not happy with. No thanks!

baby and crumble

Then you should understand this key difference;

catholicism = choice

sexuality/gender identity = no choice

Neither of these is what makes a person or their personality. Also nobody is making anyone believe anything, there was a time when anyone with issues with gender identity were viewed as a sort of Extreme-Gay (coming soon to a store near you) or something of that nature, the majority of people now know different.

Neither of these would ever form a basis for my liking or disliking of someone. Indeed neither of these should be an issue at all, thats how equality should work not this PC crap but anyway.. I'm beginning to think your just being a little too free with words, liking something and agreeing with it are two very different things in this context.

The original question was what is your opinion on flamboyant gay people. I don't like the typical flamboyant gay actions that some gay guys have. Just like I don't particularly like the ridiculous cliquey-ness I have experienced, by and large, in the lesbian community in Ireland. Not only do I find it hard to believe that gay men, in general, 'just act like that'- i think some of it may be 'put on' (for lack of a better word) because it's what society expects, which is a whole other issue. BUT what I do is simply avoid people who have traits I don't like. I won't like, cross the street or whatever, but frankly, Ive stopped going places where it's likely that there will be a bunch of people who I don't particularly gel with- that includes some of the gay bars in town, most goth places and nightclubs in general (yes, I'm getting old and young wans with their arse cheeks hanging out of their 'skirts' just don't do it for my anymore... :rolleyes:)

I don't see what the problem is with people having an opinion. It's like it's expected we'll all get on, just cos we're gay. I have nothing in common with a person going through transition, on the surface. I don't. I have NO idea what it's like to be born in the wrong body. I have nothing in common with flamboyant gay guys. I have very little in common with a lot of people. Just as I would expect a lot of other people to have nothing in common with me, and no interest in getting to know me. That's fine.

It's just this ridiculous notion that we all have to be happy clappy super duper with everyone who is lumped, or lumps themselves in the gay community. Some people are just loud annoying gits to me, just like to some people I'll probably come off as a condescending twat.

And I just want to re-iterate somethign you said, wonderfulname:

there was a time when anyone with issues with gender identity were viewed as a sort of Extreme-Gay (coming soon to a store near you) or something of that nature, the majority of people now know different.

You've said it yourself- gender issues are unrelated to gay issues. The constant linking of the two when there is no link makes 2 things happen: everyone assume that gay people want to change sex, and also that people who are transitioning must be gay.

I do apologise to anyone if I've said something that offends them during this post. I don't condone belittling anyone because of a choice of religion, etc or because of fundamental elements of themselves (their gender or sexuality). But I also don't condone not debating things.

shay_562

zoegh wrote:

^^ So does that mean I have to agree with everything everyone does?...At least be upfront about it. Support each other, yes, but that never has to mean you have to like everything about each other.

This. Liking someone doesn't mean liking every part of them. Accepting someone doesn't mean liking them. Being gay doesn't mean we're all bestest friends.

Thaedydal wrote:

Like you said they are your issues, go figure them out and deal with them rather then trying to shun or push away thing and people which make you uncomfortable due to your issues.

wonderfulname wrote:

And even coming from that position I am absolutely disgusted to see things such as...Everyone here understands what its like to be part of a minority, everyone here knows the feeling of hearing something like "Oh I don't mind what they do on their own they just better not come over to me", Its disheartening, you think, is this what acceptance is? Everyone is equal, and that doesn't just refer to future rights or legislation, and its the people who are sometimes viewed as that little bit less equal, who listen to the casual unintended insults of the uninformed who should understand what hurt that little detachment can cause

Links234 wrote:

Maybe because I think people shouldn't be belittled by their own community? That they shouldn't be humiliated by other LGBT people? That they shouldn't be hated because of the manner in which they express themselves? Because someone who isn't hurting anyone by how they walk or talk doesn't deserve the kind of scorn they get. Maybe because if you're gay, you should have a little more empathy towards other LGBT people, because if you don't, who else will? Maybe I don't like to see attitudes that can hurt people and make them feel ostracized in their own community.
Or you know, maybe I see all of this effecting me in the long term?

This is exactly my problem. Links234, I'm not humuliating, ostracising, scorning or any of the other extreme words you're using here; I'm saying that personally, there are traits that I find annoying in some other gay people. I'd be shocked if any random LGBT person's sense of personal validation is dependent on my personal acceptance of them. This applies just as much to wonderfulname - why can't acceptance be just that? Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy for everyone in the world to simply accept all LGBT people - if everyone were treated on their own merits, not in a "It's fine if I don't have to see it" way, but in a "It's fine, but not my cup of tea" way. It'd solve one of the recurring problems mentioned on this thread (all gay people being painted with the same brush, because we're all 'freaks', to use Links234's delightful word), and mean that everyone could just get on with living and finding other people that they liked for reasons beyond sexuality.

But Thaedydal, thanks for illustrating what I've been struggling to articulate all day - that this isn't something that we're allowed to talk about here. Saying "I don't like people who act in a particular way" simply isn't allowed if you're gay yourself - it's demonstrative of 'issues' that I more or less need to piss off and sort out, the better to fit with the correct mindset. This is why I don't believe in an LGBT community - because it simply doesn't exist. There's a mindset, and you can agree with it or sod off. That dissonance - "We're accepting, unless you don't agree with us" - is what made me comment on Links234's post in the first place.

Since Catholicism is apparently a flippant choice that doesn't count (and even as an atheist with a lot of anti-religion issues, I find that dismissive), let me try another example - I'm Irish, proud to be Irish, would never hide it, and if talking to someone from another country would often be quite defensive about the country's merits. That said, there are Irish people, and common Irish personality traits that I simply don't like. I hate our tendency towards insularity and fear of the unknown. I hate our conservatism as a country. I hate the gombeenishness of Irish politics. To pick out one particular social group, I find most South Dublin private-school-rugby-heads to be quite annoying. I have some friends who fit into this group, but for the most part I've found that I have little in common with and don't get on with them. Thus, if someone is immediately obvious about this part of themselves (still wearing a Gonzaga scarf long after graduating, using words like 'roysh' unironically) I'm quicker to judge them, less likely to go out of my way to talk to them and more likely to have to overcome pre-existing distaste to like them as a person. I'm willing to bet that most of you have some other group that would fit into this category quite well - people who you just don't particularly like, not because it's right to dislike them, just because you don't click with them and find them annoying. If you can honestly say that you don't, that you judge each and every person as a completely blank slate, then congratulations, you're a better human being than everyone I've ever met.

Why is the above paragraph so different if it's about me being LGBT and finding flamboyant gay people annoying? Why can I be Irish, while finding a group of other Irish people irritating without compromising my Irishness, committment to this country or being accused of having 'issues' and ostracising people, and yet I can't do the same as an LGBT person?

baby and crumble

Ok, Shay, you've totally just said what I was trying to in a much more eloquent and convincing manner.

wonderfulname

shay_562 wrote: »

Since Catholicism is apparently a flippant choice

I most certainly did not say that! I said a choice, which it is, it is a belief system that for a lot of the country has been indoctrinated into them but it is none the less a choice.
No I do not understand what its like to identify myself as the opposite sex to the one i was born, but people connect the two, not equate, connect, as neither party is conforming to gender norms, as a result we receive much of the same setbacks and insults, as a result we should be understanding.

I find flamboyant gay people annoying, at least the ones for whom the flamboyancy is a security blanket, you seem to be assuming that just because that is the topic of the thread its what we were actually discussing :P

Zoegh, earlier i said "I'm beginning to think your just being a little too free with words, liking something and agreeing with it are two very different things in this context." and I'm pretty confident I'm right now, for example had I said I "disagree with flamboyant gay people" above that would be a matter of principle, that would suggest something entirely different to how i actually feel. None of any of our points are really too dissimilar..