Is the 'official' LGBT community too insulated?

Cody Pomeray

Motivated to ask this question in light of the thread by a user who is having trouble develping his social circle, now that he has come out.

I have noticed a theme that the first, or only, option offered to people coming to terms with their sexuality are LGBT movements and organizations.

I have to say, all my experiences of and encounters with those who work in these organizations could be summed up with the following words: insulated, reactionary, self-absorbed, and quarrelsome.

I find it so ironic that a group of people who claim to want acceptance and integration are so hell-bent on setting themselves apart, into battalions of inevitable outrage, enforcing their own exile, practicing a form of social apartheid.

I'm not expecting a huge amount of agreement, because I am aware that people who are likely to associate with these organizations are also likely to frequent LGBT forums. For the record, though, I don't think the whole "LGBT community" is with you.

And I don't know if it's really helpful to direct individuals into lgbt organizations, at a time when those individuals are dealing with some very stressful personal circumstances and ought to be made feel "normal", and able to integrate into mainstream society with ease.

Dr. Shrike

Give more details of your personal experience, so undecided people like me can make a more informed response.

I imagine certain people get so passionate with an issue, to the extent that they start or join an organisation devoted to it, that they excuse themselves of "problematic" behaviour because it's all in aid of the cause.

Hunchback

I think its not unlike the feminist movement in the sense that many of the rights women have these days are afforded them by virtue of the efforts made by pioneering feminists in the past, but by the same token, most strong independent women would probably not identify as feminists. I think the majority of young gay men and women bypass the LGBT movement (this is just a nners based hunch) and eventually find their own way/forge their own identities.

Cody Pomeray, on the one hand I understand where you are coming from - that relentlessly militant/terminally defensive position is a turnoff. On the other hand, the organisation 'Shout' has always been an unswervingly positive organisation. They positively re-enforce self image amongst LGBT youth by combatting bullying - in a COOL way (as unimaginable as this may be for the yet to be convinced). Also, it has a delegation in Kiev meeting with Russian delegates to discuss new Russian legislationas we speak, which is courageous if nothing else, given that the legislation bans precisely what it is that Shout do.

In summary, I take on board what you are saying, but have to take issue with it in the sense that I can think of at least one organisation involved with LGBT youth that (from what I can tell) are making a positive difference.

I have no affiliation with said organisation and base this opinion entirely on what I have read in the media.

Ambersky

I have to say, all my experiences of and encounters with those who work in these organizations could be summed up with the following words: insulated, reactionary, self-absorbed, and quarrelsome.

Takes two to quarrel Cody Pomeray.
Perhaps these views are saying just as much about you as they are about the people who work in the organisations.

Annasopra

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I have to say, all my experiences of and encounters with those who work in these organizations could be summed up with the following words: insulated, reactionary, self-absorbed, and quarrelsome.

This was the first thing that stood out for me. I've had a mixture of experiences to be honest. Over about 15 years I've volunteered in lgbt outreach organisations, lgbt student organisations, lgbt rights organisations, lgbt political organisations, lgbt community development organisations. I have found some people to be insular, reactionary, self absorbed and quarrelsome. However I'd say maybe 80% of the people that I met within all of those organisations and others that I worked with were; selfless, progressive, open minded, good natured and agreeable. In fact I find some of the selflessness of a lot of people that I have met within the different groups incredibly inspirational.

I mean belongto and gmhs have literally saved many lives and they were driven by passionate open minded people. I also look at the recent work of the Limerick gay games committee from an outsiders perspective and am blown away by how selfless and positive the people in that team were.

So while I agree with you that yes the community organisations do have some difficult personalities, I also disagree strongly that they are all like this.

Your other points are interesting and I'll answer tomorrow.

I expect some people to definitely agree with you given the vigorous pride debates we often have here. Its a mistake to assume there us only 1 viewpoint in this forum.

Hunchback

mango salsa wrote: »

This was the first thing that stood out for me. I've had a mixture of experiences to be honest. Over about 15 years I've volunteered in lgbt outreach organisations, lgbt student organisations, lgbt rights organisations, lgbt political organisations, lgbt community development organisations. I have found some people to be insular, reactionary, self absorbed and quarrelsome. However I'd say maybe 80% of the people that I met within all of those organisations and others that I worked with were; selfless, progressive, open minded, good natured and agreeable. In fact I find some of the selflessness of a lot of people that I have met within the different groups incredibly inspirational.

I mean belongto and gmhs have literally saved many lives and they were driven by passionate open minded people. I also look at the recent work of the Limerick gay games committee from an outsiders perspective and am blown away by how selfless and positive the people in that team were.

So while I agree with you that yes the community organisations do have some difficult personalities, I also disagree strongly that they are all like this.

Your other points are interesting and I'll answer tomorrow.

I expect some people to definitely agree with you given the vigorous pride debates we often have here. Its a mistake to assume there us only 1 viewpoint in this forum.

Shows how ignorant I am Mango Salsa, I hope it doesn't completely negate my point that The organisation I meant to refer to was BelongTo! Thanks for that

Annasopra

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Shows how ignorant I am Mango Salsa, I hope it doesn't completely negate my point that The organisation I meant to refer to was BelongTo! Thanks for that

I dont see you as ignorant at all. Different people have different perspectives.

Ambersky

This sounds like the familiar divide between people who take an assimilationist vs a cultural diverse approach to integration, rather than who's nasty or nice.

In assimilation as I think of it, sameness is valued and differences are either denied or overcome. Assimilation is a way for some countries to deal with immigration and can mean that foreigners are to take on the values of the host country if they are to continue living there.
Assimilation is considered to be fully achieved when the differences can no longer be seen between the groups.

The culturally diverse approach values and even celebrates differences as well as finding points of common ground and ways to work together. Easier said than done unfortunately, but that's life. With diversity there is no looking forward to the day we are all the same, equal yes but not the same.

I think these two approaches are at the heart of many arguments in the LGBT community.

Some LGBT people feel we are just the same as everyone else and see the problems some other LGBT people have as a problem an individual is having with their individual situation. This problem can probably be solved by the individual learning to see things differently and taking another approach.
They would tend to see those who wish to gather together around a difference as ghettoising themselves ( too insulated) and unnecessarily accentuating the differences. They might also see those who gather together around this difference, especially if they go on about it in the media, as slowing down the progress of assimilation by continuing to bring up those differences.

Those who have a political outlook that is more based on the model of understanding how diverse groups of people interact are likely to see the problem more in a group or socially political context, with the individual needing the support of others like themselves. They are more likely to view the origins of the individuals feelings of not fitting in or belonging as coming from an institutional problem i.e. societies homophobia rather than from the individual her or himself. The idea would be for that individual to come to realise their own internalised homophobia which is seen as being that voice in ones head that says all those bad things about being LGBT and those wishes to run away from or deny it. The idea also is that just by being around people who are happy and content in their own LGBT identity can help to get rid of the homophobia we were raised with and help the person learn to accept and even take pride in who they are.

Both groups are expressing a political outlook or opinion. It may seem that the group valuing diversity is the political one because they tend to be the ones who speak about it in the media, but those who want sameness and assimilation are also expressing a political outlook, they just believe in a different approach.

On the argumentative scale, the diversity group tend to argue with society publicly in the media. The assimilationists tend to argue with the diversity group in forums like this and socially but less so in the public eye as I suppose that would seem to go against their values of not making a big deal about it. Make no mistake though a big deal is made about it and people wanting assimilation can be just as

insulated, reactionary, self-absorbed, and quarrelsome.

They just quarrel in different places and are no less afraid of taking on those who do not share their views as the group they think of as arguing all the time.

The group who value difference could probably do with remembering to see how much the same we all are especially when they look at those they see as our enemies.
The group who value sameness could probably do with remembering to allow themselves to see the differences in others in order to really see them and not just who they wish they were.

(Im not certain culturally diverse and assimilationist are the words I am looking for to describe both groups but they are the best I can think of at the moment)

Annasopra

I heard a traveller activist describe something similar as integration v assimilation

Integration would be that they are integrated within society but still recognise their own differences from the rest of society and that they celebrate this difference but also have groups for themselves as well

Assimilation would be where they basically reject differences where they leave behind all of their culture in order to become part of settled society.

I was reading an interesting article last week by the late Doug Ireland a well known gay New York leftist journalist that has a similarish theme
http://www.zcommunications.org/lessons-from-the-enda-mess-by-doug-ireland.html

Hunchback

Ambersky - excellent post, so clear and perfectly expressed, thanks

Ambersky

Thank you CKonetheonlyone .

I have been interested for some time in how we as humans express and deal with difference.
Here is a TED talk on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives.

The speaker sort of says that lots of our differences come from our different moral roots, our values, and says that we need both liberals and conservatives.

The liberal conservative divide is also simular to the differences we have been talking about here in this thread. Conservatives tend to want to literally conserve or to maintain things as they are, they value the stability of the whole even if that means some vulnerable individuals loose out.
The good thing about them is they tend to be dependable and prevent too much change.
That is simular to the assimilationist approach I am talking about.

Liberals tend to value the underdog in society and seek fairness, they are more open to new ideas and experiences . The good thing about them is they tend to point out where changes need to happen, they help make a more just society and they are open to change. This group is simular to the culturally diverse group.

Although this talk is very American if you give it time he really has a good go at explaining the moral roots of many of our different approaches and values.

This video also argues that society needs both groups and that we are more likely to learn to live together by learning to understand first where we ourselves are coming from and then where the other is coming from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

georgesstreet

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I have noticed a theme that the first, or only, option offered to people coming to terms with their sexuality are LGBT movements and organizations.

I find it so ironic that a group of people who claim to want acceptance and integration are so hell-bent on setting themselves apart, into battalions of inevitable outrage, enforcing their own exile, practicing a form of social apartheid.

I'm not expecting a huge amount of agreement, because I am aware that people who are likely to associate with these organizations are also likely to frequent LGBT forums. For the record, though, I don't think the whole "LGBT community" is with you.

I have often thought about the dichotomy of LGBT people so rightly wanting acceptance and inclusion for so many years, and when great strides are made towards that, many LGBT people start to appear to reverse a drive towards inclusion and start to try to create an alternative LGBT society.

The idea of one LGBT community is one which is a myth, largely perpetrated by those who like to pretend that all LGBT people are the same. We are not, and the vast majority of LGBT people live happy fulfilled lives and are parts of many other communities, rather than the mythical LGBT community.

To me, the LBGT community is a divisive idea, stressing that we are not part of society, but want to be a distinct and discrete group and not just part of the overall society.

My feeling has always been that we should include everyone and stress what we have in common, rather than create artificial barriers and create our lives around LGBT events and institutions. It seems sometimes as if we want to be included within the rest of society, and then specifically go out and create LGBT organisations which give the impression that they exclude the rest of society.

Goodshape

Good post, Ambersky.

For what it's worth, I'd be pretty firmly in the 'assimilationist' side of things, rather than the 'culturally diverse'. As I think I've mentioned before (ad nauseam?) around these parts. Absolutely there's need for support groups and services – simply because coming out and being gay still isn't always (usually?) as easy as it should be.

But outside of that I sort of resent the notion that my sexuality should be such a defining characteristic that I'd no longer go to bars or clubs, but to gay bars and gay clubs. I'll join the gay rugby team and the gay book/cinema/camera club. I think it might come across as crass but really, outside of wanting to hook up – what does my sexuality have to do with anything?

I'd honestly prefer young LGBT people were given more of an "it doesn't matter" / "you're different – just like everybody else" message than one which seems to be largely centred around grouping together, distinct and separate from the rest.

Of course the ones that do stick together and pick up that "gay culture" end up defining what it 'means' to be gay for society at large. And nature vs nurture of sexual orientation aside, a lot of that behaviour is learned. Just as you'd pick up traits from any group or culture you embed yourself in. I've witnessed that more than a few times.

Moaning aside though, in my experience at least there (thankfully) doesn't seem to be that much of a real problem. Only perceived. My sexuality isn't a factor in my social or daily activity choices, nor do I ever feel much need to keep it secret while I'm out chatting with the normals. And the gay clubs and groups etc. still exist, so it's clearly not zero-sum game. I'm happy enough if it can all exist together.

ewan whose army

Here is my 2c.

I am from England and I did my undergrad in an English Uni (Coventry), back when I was an 18 year old fresher I was in the closet since I was 13 (gay kid bullied, Catholic school etc.) I had never kissed a guy or anything. I joined the uni LGBT since they did these "Safe Places" which helped me a lot.

One thing I did noticed that it was kinda militant , the people running it were very much "We have been repressed by heterosexuals for centuries we demand freedom" mentality, and it kinda washed off on me as well. A couple of years in I was pretty much out and very vocal, I always went to the protests, vigils etc. I don't think it did any good but I guess it was fun

The whole Russia thing has got it started again, I don't know why but I want to protest outside the embassy and stuff, I hate seeing LGBT people get hurt and disowned for being who they are, and I just like showing my support for them

Cody Pomeray

Ambersky wrote: »

In assimilation as I think of it, sameness is valued and differences are either denied or overcome. Assimilation is a way for some countries to deal with immigration and can mean that foreigners are to take on the values of the host country if they are to continue living there.
Assimilation is considered to be fully achieved when the differences can no longer be seen between the groups.

The culturally diverse approach values and even celebrates differences as well as finding points of common ground and ways to work together. Easier said than done unfortunately, but that's life. With diversity there is no looking forward to the day we are all the same, equal yes but not the same.

I think these two approaches are at the heart of many arguments in the LGBT community.

I appreciate the broad point you are making, and I appreciate that you're probably not presenting this as a 'perfect fit' model, either.

Nevertheless, I have to disagree in equally broad terms. Assimilation v. Cultural Diversity may well capture a host country's immigration policy. Applying it to LGBT communities, and integration thereof, causes problems.

1. LGBT human beings are, firstly, fully paid up citizens; i.e. owners of this human society on this island. We are not some culturally diverse exotic species that has landed here from outer space. We are native, indigenous, we grew up out of the stones like everyone else. Or, some of us won the right to belong here, but still, firstly, as human persons. There is no "host". We all share ownership of the community.

2. Primary membership of society, with all the rights and obligations that are attached, is compatible with acknowledging, or celebrating, differences. I am an Irishman, CP'd to a South African. I get my identity from the society that reared me and gave me its values, but I still value and celebrate people shaped by other societies, endowed with other values, and indeed, our social educations inform and listen to one another in an ongoing cultural dynamic. So you see, just because I primarily belong to one group, it doesn't stop me from blending and learning from, and celebrating other, secondary traditions.

The only difference is, foreign cultural traditions are often at variance with Irish society's mores and traditions. On the other hand, I don't see how a gay cultural identity can reasonably be said to be at variance with the membership of the Irish community of human persons.

In that sense, I think the narrative of assimilation v. cultural diversity is inadequate.

It isn't about assimilation OR diversity. It's about recognizing that being a fully paid up member of civil society does not prevent one from being gay, being openly gay, and leading a life as a gay person in that society.

Some LGBT people feel we are just the same as everyone else and see the problems some other LGBT people have as a problem an individual is having with their individual situation. This problem can probably be solved by the individual learning to see things differently and taking another approach.
They would tend to see those who wish to gather together around a difference as ghettoising themselves ( too insulated) and unnecessarily accentuating the differences. They might also see those who gather together around this difference, especially if they go on about it in the media, as slowing down the progress of assimilation by continuing to bring up those differences.

Those who have a political outlook that is more based on the model of understanding how diverse groups of people interact are likely to see the problem more in a group or socially political context, with the individual needing the support of others like themselves. They are more likely to view the origins of the individuals feelings of not fitting in or belonging as coming from an institutional problem i.e. societies homophobia rather than from the individual her or himself. The idea would be for that individual to come to realise their own internalised homophobia which is seen as being that voice in ones head that says all those bad things about being LGBT and those wishes to run away from or deny it. The idea also is that just by being around people who are happy and content in their own LGBT identity can help to get rid of the homophobia we were raised with and help the person learn to accept and even take pride in who they are.

Again I would disagree with this approach.

I have been accused of many things, but never of being an individualist:pac:

My view of society would be towards collectivism, founded on responsible and participative citizenship. It is because we are so interdependent that we are all so vital. Most vital of all, is the fact that we are all different, and bring different gifts to one another as we try to be a society together.

On the other hand, my view is that with the LGBT movement trying to break off into its own little fringe movement, it is fragmenting social cohesion between those citizens who happen to be gay, and those other citizens who happen to be straight. It is also at risk of alienating those who should be caring about our needs, and our equal rights as human persons, by delegating us into some "other" category, where we do not stand next to "the rest" of civil society, but seek to set "ourselves" apart as a default setting.

pharmaton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Motivated to ask this question in light of the thread by a user who is having trouble develping his social circle, now that he has come out.

I have noticed a theme that the first, or only, option offered to people coming to terms with their sexuality are LGBT movements and organizations.

I have to say, all my experiences of and encounters with those who work in these organizations could be summed up with the following words: insulated, reactionary, self-absorbed, and quarrelsome.

I find it so ironic that a group of people who claim to want acceptance and integration are so hell-bent on setting themselves apart, into battalions of inevitable outrage, enforcing their own exile, practicing a form of social apartheid.

I'm not expecting a huge amount of agreement, because I am aware that people who are likely to associate with these organizations are also likely to frequent LGBT forums. For the record, though, I don't think the whole "LGBT community" is with you.

And I don't know if it's really helpful to direct individuals into lgbt organizations, at a time when those individuals are dealing with some very stressful personal circumstances and ought to be made feel "normal", and able to integrate into mainstream society with ease.

I found that I was a complete outsider when I came out, I felt rejected by the lgbt "community" from the first step I took into it and found I was more confronted by it's militancy than by any kind of accepting philosophy. I've never become involved in it to any degree and actually feel repelled by it in some ways as a result.
I appreciate the nature of the organisations doing work which offers support, especially to the younger generation but personally it's not something that was available to me and have no direct experience of it.

I do know a few people who worked within orgs here personally and I am aware of how much they do but I realise that there are other people who will always need them more than I ever will and perhaps that's why I've never found a place within it. I'm not gay enough, or rejected enough or focused enough on the plight of lgbt rights to fit in but I am much more comfortable within the straight community and around straight people as that's where all my support and friendship has been and other than who I might be attracted to, I've just got nothing in common with most lgbt folk I know. That's where I'll be staying.

Cody Pomeray

pharmaton wrote: »

I am much more comfortable within the straight community and around straight people as that's where all my support and friendship has been and other than who I might be attracted to, I've just got nothing in common with most lgbt folk I know

Good post. This is the most worrying aspect of the 'militancy' in parts of the LGBT movement. The alienation.

Of course you and I have something very important in common with LGBT-organization folk. That we are gay? No. That we are humans and share the same common space.

Why is that not enough?

If two humans are in love, and they want to organize their affairs together, and they are not hurting anybody, why is everybody not outraged that society says "no, you can't do that"?

"Everybody" is not outraged because we have allowed society to deconstruct itself into tiny fringe movements, where all humans in the common society are separated into groups. We assume that each group will, thereafter, look out for themselves.

We do this all the time. We look at elderly rights, children's rights, women's rights, mothers' rights, fathers' rights, gay rights, we have forgotten the universality of human rights.

We could still have gay movements, obviously, but they need to start promoting gay issues as human rights issues, and not the campaigns of some tunnel-visioned special interest group who will only see rights in the context of themselves.

Instead of 'gay rights', why not promote the substantive underlying right: the right of all humans to gather a family (just one example). This universal rights movement would unite gay people, divorcees, refugees, immigrants, and, why not, society at large, under one banner, on a per issue basis.

Pai Mei

pharmaton wrote: »

I've just got nothing in common with most lgbt folk I know. That's where I'll be staying.

I feel completely the same. I joined the LGBT society when I moved to college. I only started a few weeks ago so I've only gone for a month or two. I didn't know anyone coming to the same college as me so I wanted to join to meet people of similar interests and maybe make a few gay friends which I don't have at home cause I come from a small town. However recently I have stopped going to the meetings because I find the group quite clicky or something. There are some nice people in it but I wouldn't really call them friends. I found the society a bit daunting just thinking about going to it. The people seem a bit unwelcoming to fresh meat and I never really knew where I fitted in. The whole gay scene isn't really my thing but I'm not entirely sporty or macho so finding straight guy friends with things in common to me is utterly impossible. Now that I haven't gone in a few weeks it feels even more daunting to try and go back and talk to those who have might already moved on and made new friends. TBH the LGBT community and me just don't seem to gel.

pharmaton

Pai Mei wrote: »

The people seem a bit unwelcoming to fresh meat

see that term, I was at a house party last new years with a female (bi) colleague who was a good few years younger than myself and some (lgbt) friends of hers in around the same age group, who were busy pawing and mauling the faces off each other in a great big orgy of gay.
When they managed to come up for air at one stage I was politely informed of my fresh meat status. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard the term being bandied about, as if it were an honour only to be wielded by carded lesbians as an indicator of their superiority in such scenarios. (look at me I'm kissing a girl) A little bit like those who wear the gold star label in order to highlight the purer nature of their sexuality.
I found it funny as I haven't been 19 in quite a while and haven't had the need to publicly share my sputum with everyone in the room since around then either. I'm also closing in on forty.

I may be dramatising for effect but it appears to be stuff they pick up through those societies along the way and either through peer pressure or vulnerability, the need to fit in is so great that they become what they see and this method has been repeated ad nauseam over the years. The result is whole lot of attention seeking flag waving gay people with flaky relationships and utter contempt for "breeders" who congregate in a tribe like fashion to express themselves every now and then

On the other more optimistic side of the coin, I've been privileged to meet some sane, genuine and pretty awesome lgbt people without issues and several couples who give me hope that the world isn't full of pithy wannabe social rejects desperate for approval from larger society.

My daughter was 14 when I sat down and had the talk with her and slowly over the years it subsequently helped her help her friends/classmates come out. Knowing that they were in a supportive non judgmental environment where someone else is gay in a non militant way in what is otherwise a fairly hetero society, happened to have a more positive effect than joining their local branch of militant gay pub drinkers society.

So maybe it's all served a purpose.

georgesstreet

Pai Mei wrote: »

I feel completely the same. I joined the LGBT society when I moved to college. I only started a few weeks ago so I've only gone for a month or two. I didn't know anyone coming to the same college as me so I wanted to join to meet people of similar interests and maybe make a few gay friends which I don't have at home cause I come from a small town. However recently I have stopped going to the meetings because I find the group quite clicky or something. There are some nice people in it but I wouldn't really call them friends. I found the society a bit daunting just thinking about going to it. The people seem a bit unwelcoming to fresh meat and I never really knew where I fitted in. The whole gay scene isn't really my thing but I'm not entirely sporty or macho so finding straight guy friends with things in common to me is utterly impossible. Now that I haven't gone in a few weeks it feels even more daunting to try and go back and talk to those who have might already moved on and made new friends. TBH the LGBT community and me just don't seem to gel.

College works, and life works, in a sense, by being involved in cliques (seemingly spelled "clicks" in Ireland). If you had joined the drama soc, or the hist or whatever, those involved might seem quite cliquey when in each others company. That's kind of how life works.

The gay scene is many things, and not just one thing. No one hits it off with the LGBT "community" , but with individuals.

Annasopra

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

We do this all the time. We look at elderly rights, children's rights, women's rights, mothers' rights, fathers' rights, gay rights, we have forgotten the universality of human rights.

There is a problem there though - Human rights are of course universal but if everything is a human rights issue under one category then it is far too broad and non specific - honestly I cannot see Irish people advocating on a broad basis for platforms on travellers rights and transgenender rights - there needs to be voices of people who are minorities that experience discrimination and human rights abuses in my view.

Annasopra

pharmaton wrote: »

I may be dramatising for effect but it appears to be stuff they pick up through those societies along the way and either through peer pressure or vulnerability, the need to fit in is so great that they become what they see and this method has been repeated ad nauseam over the years. The result is whole lot of attention seeking flag waving gay people with flaky relationships and utter contempt for "breeders" who congregate in a tribe like fashion to express themselves every now and then

.......

My daughter was 14 when I sat down and had the talk with her and slowly over the years it subsequently helped her help her friends/classmates come out. Knowing that they were in a supportive non judgmental environment where someone else is gay in a non militant way in what is otherwise a fairly hetero society, happened to have a more positive effect than joining their local branch of militant gay pub drinkers society.

People have differing opinions of the need for lgbt groups and that if fine and I respect though but I think its unhelpful and quite wrong to generalise about people who do join groups or take part in them or get support from them.

I think there seems to be a view that all lgbt groups and all people who join them are the same;
Cliquish, rude, mililtant, exclusionary, stereotypical, insular, closed minded, people with issues. I think this view is unhelfpul and in my view wrong. I have been honest above and explained that sometimes it can be right but as georegesstreet said above - all lgbt people are not the same. This also very clearly means that all lgbt groups are not the same and all lgbt people who join groups are not the same.

I accept that some people do not feel the need for groups or to access support from groups but I think that there also needs to be an understanding that groups themselves are diverse and a lot of people do get valuable support socially and emotionally from them.

georgesstreet

mango salsa wrote: »

There is a problem there though - Human rights are of course universal but if everything is a human rights issue under one category then it is far too broad and non specific - honestly I cannot see Irish people advocating on a broad basis for platforms on travellers rights and transgenender rights - there needs to be voices of people who are minorities that experience discrimination and human rights abuses in my view.

I am human therefor I have rights. I have no more rights than a traveller, or someone who is or is not gay, than they have.

Therefore travellers "rights" ( to take just one example) are just the same as my rights, and travellers, or gays, or scientists and so on, have no more rights than anyone. We all have the same rights, as humans, so to suggest that "travellers rights" are different from "gay rights" etc etc is a nonsense.

Of course there needs to be a voice for human rights.

Ironically, by separating out human rights for an individual group, it suggests the specific group are separate from other humans, and want rights which no other "group" has. And in so doing makes groups like travellers seem to be not part of human rights, and be a discrete and separate group, which probably does their image more harm than good as a result.

We are all humans, and all have the same human tights.

georgesstreet

mango salsa wrote: »

I accept that some people do not feel the need for groups or to access support from groups but I think that there also needs to be an understanding that groups themselves are diverse and a lot of people do get valuable support socially and emotionally from them.

I hate to be pedantic, but no one gets emotional support from a group, but gets that from individuals. It may well be they meet individuals through a group, or otherwise, and some may well enjoy or otherwise benefit from group membership, but emotional support comes from individuals, and not from groups.

Annasopra

georgesstreet wrote: »

I hate to be pedantic, but no one gets emotional support from a group, but gets that from individuals. It may well be they meet individuals through a group, or otherwise, and some may well enjoy or otherwise benefit from group membership, but emotional support comes from individuals, and not from groups.

Actually you are not being pedantic. You're making false assumptions - I get emotional support from groups. I know many many people who do.

Cody Pomeray

mango salsa wrote: »

There is a problem there though - Human rights are of course universal but if everything is a human rights issue under one category then it is far too broad and non specific

I once heard Dr Dennis Slamon give a really interesting interview about how our view of cancer needs to change. He finds that categorizing cancer into "breast cancers", "colon cancers", "stomach cancers", bone cancers" and so on, is totally misplaced. Instead, doctors ought to treat cancers on the basis of how they behave. That is to say, categorization should be based on how the cancer manifests, not on the region where it is based. If the same cellular mechanism causes one particular type lung cancer as causes one particular type of bone cancer, they should be treated as the same disease. The disease should not be classified based on where it falls.

What on Earth does this have to do with human rights?
Everything!

Human rights violations, just like pernicious cancers in society, should be categorised by the rights (natural human and social processes) they injure. They should not be simply classified 'where they fall'. That is a narrow and exclusionary view of human rights, which ignores the subject's inherent humanity, and membership of total society.

- honestly I cannot see Irish people advocating on a broad basis for platforms on travellers rights and transgenender rights - there needs to be voices of people who are minorities that experience discrimination and human rights abuses in my view.

I agree with you. That's because we have been busily dividing travellers into "that group" which looks after themselves, by and large, and trasngenders into "that other group" which we expect to shout for themselves.

Only when we break down these barriers, and identify rights, and rights violations in the context of the society at large, can we overcome this.

I don't particularly care about gay rights. I care about rights to gather a family, rights to organize one's tax affairs in a way which takes account of family relationships, and I care about individuals' rights to participate in civil society.

Our rights, as members of society, can be broken down into substantive, common rights which apply across the board, but which are not so 'macro' as to lose meaning.

georgesstreet

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Human rights violations, just like pernicious cancers in society, should be categorised by the rights (natural human and social processes) they injure. They should not be simply classified 'where they fall'. That is a narrow and exclusionary view of human rights, which ignores the subject's inherent humanity, and membership of total society.



I agree with you. That's because we have been busily dividing travellers into "that group" which looks after themselves, by and large, and trasngenders into "that other group" which we expect to shout for themselves.

Only when we break down these barriers, and identify rights, and rights violations in the context of the society at large, can we overcome this.

I don't particularly care about gay rights. I care about rights to gather a family, rights to organize one's tax affairs in a way which takes account of family relationships, and I care about individuals' rights to participate in civil society.

Our rights, as members of society, can be broken down into substantive, common rights which apply across the board, but which are not so 'macro' as to lose meaning.

I would argue further that to separate rights into "travellers"rights" or "gay rights" or any individual groups rights acts to separate thats group from the rest of society and in so doing actually harms them.

By calling travellers rights simply human rights, they that means we are all one group, standing up for our rights, and not a small group of travellers standing up for "their" rights, thus creating an us and them situation.

Annasopra

georgesstreet wrote: »

I would argue further that to separate rights into "travellers"rights" or "gay rights" or any individual groups rights acts to separate thats group from the rest of society and in so doing actually harms them.

By calling travellers rights simply human rights, they that means we are all one group, standing up for our rights, and not a small group of travellers standing up for their rights.

I see it as the complete opposite. I see it as denying that people are different and have different needs. I see this as a very harmful ideology. It denies difference. It denies diversity. It denies minority discrimination and structures of opression. It enforces majoritarianism.

To me calling something travellers rights is not calling for something special or separating something apart. It is calling for a recognition that travellers have human rights and that travellers have differing needs from settled society.

georgesstreet

mango salsa wrote: »

I see it as the complete opposite. I see it as denying that people are different and have different needs. I see this as a very harmful ideology. It denies difference. It denies diversity. It denies minority discrimination and structures of opression. It enforces majoritarianism.

To me calling something travellers rights is not calling for something special or separating something apart. It is calling for a recognition that travellers have human rights and that travellers have differing needs from settled society.

Sure. We disagree. No one has to recognise "travellers" have human rights - they have human rights because they are human. I see human rights as something affecting all humans. I prefer to stand up for human rights for us all, rather than creating what are unnecessary divisions between travellers and everyone else. Or gays and everyone else and so on.

Travellers don't have any rights other than the rights I have and we all have as human rights. Nor do gays or school teachers or anyone else.

It's just not possible, nor desirable, to claim that different people have different human rights.

If you think, for example, that to encourage travellers to demand something called "travellers rights", and that that doesn't create an "us" and "them" situation, thats your judgement. However the evidence seems to suggest that your preferred approach has led to an "us" and "them" situation across Irish society.

I prefer that we all demand human rights for everyone and not create unnecessary barriers. I demand human rights for everyone, including travellers and non travellers alike.

Annasopra

georgesstreet wrote: »

Sure. We disagree. No one has to recognise "travellers" have human rights - they have human rights because they are human. I see human rights as something affecting all humans. I prefer to stand up for human rights for us all, rather than creating what are unnecessary divisions between travellers and everyone else. Or gays and everyone else and so on.

Travellers don't have any rights other than the rights I have and we all have as human rights. Nor do gays or school teachers or anyone else.

It's just not possible, nor desirable, to claim that different people have different human rights.

If you think, for example, that to encourage travellers to demand something called "travellers rights", and that that doesn't create an "us" and "them" situation, thats your judgement. However the evidence seems to suggest that your preferred approach has led to an "us" and "them" situation across Irish society.

I prefer that we all demand human rights for everyone and not create unnecessary barriers. I demand human rights for everyone, including travellers and non travellers alike.

What evidence? where is this suggestion in the evidence? Or are you just making assumptions with no real evidence to back up what you are saying? I mean I know that Irish society is very often divided into us v them but I'd like to see some real evidence about what actually causes that rather than an assumption or proclamation of what the cause is.

By the way I never claimed that different people have different human rights so I'd prefer that in future you dont try to twist my words into something I didnt say.

georgesstreet

mango salsa wrote: »

What evidence? where is this suggestion in the evidence? Or are you just making assumptions with no real evidence to back up what you are saying? I mean I know that Irish society is very often divided into us v them but I'd like to see some real evidence about what actually causes that rather than an assumption or proclamation of what the cause is.

If it's your judgement, for example, that travellers are not thought of in "us " and "them" terms across large parts of Irish society, then thats your judgement.

I never claimed that cause is solely due to any one factor, but to encourage the continuation of the "us" and "them" mentality by encouraging "them" to seek "travellers rights" rather than to encourage "us" to seek human rights, seems obvious to continue to encourage the "us" and "them" mentality.

Sorry to keep using travellers as the example, but I think it highlights the case quite well.

Mango Salsa, it seems we just differ. You seem to want to continue a situation which encourages "them" to seek travellers rights, whereas I don't see travellers as "them" but see travellers as "us".

Annasopra

georgesstreet wrote: »

If it's your judgement, for example, that travellers are not thought of in "us " and "them" terms across large parts of Irish society, then thats your judgement.

I never claimed that cause is solely due to any one factor, but to encourage the continuation of the "us" and "them" mentality by encouraging "them" to seek "travellers rights" rather than to encourage "us" to seek human rights, seems obvious to continue to encourage the "us" and "them" mentality.

Sorry to keep using travellers as the example, but I think it highlights the case quite well.

Mango Salsa, it seems we just differ. You seem to want to continue a situation which encourages "them" to seek travellers rights, whereas I don't see travellers as "them" but see travellers as "us".

I was just asking you to provide the evidence that you mentioned but you dont seem to have any evidence. So it is just your opinion and thoughts. Thats fine.

I'm not sure why but you are continuously trying to twist my words into something that I did not say.

georgesstreet wrote: »

If it's your judgement, for example, that travellers are not thought of in "us " and "them" terms across large parts of Irish society, then thats your judgement.

georgesstreet wrote: »

It's just not possible, nor desirable, to claim that different people have different human rights.

pharmaton

mango salsa wrote: »

People have differing opinions of the need for lgbt groups and that if fine and I respect though but I think its unhelpful and quite wrong to generalise about people who do join groups or take part in them or get support from them.

I think there seems to be a view that all lgbt groups and all people who join them are the same;
Cliquish, rude, mililtant, exclusionary, stereotypical, insular, closed minded, people with issues. I think this view is unhelfpul and in my view wrong. I have been honest above and explained that sometimes it can be right but as georegesstreet said above - all lgbt people are not the same. This also very clearly means that all lgbt groups are not the same and all lgbt people who join groups are not the same.

I accept that some people do not feel the need for groups or to access support from groups but I think that there also needs to be an understanding that groups themselves are diverse and a lot of people do get valuable support socially and emotionally from them.

the problem is many of the people who follow these groups (and by groups I mean a wide variety of social gatherings be it online or in person) do have a lot of issues, in fact it seems to be the common thread in what draws them there in the first place.
I get that not everybody is the same and that's partly the problem with these systems, they tend to dissolve individuality as they are so highly focused on one aspect of commonality and it does have a lasting effect on the socialisation element of those involved. (the need to be accepted)

I'm admittedly not overly concerned, it's not my life that's being affected by it and as I've already stated I do know some other individuals who are relatively well adjusted at this point too but from my perspective it's a damn sight easier to keep a distance from what I see as the non functioning elements of lgbt society and continue on doing things in my own way.

Friend Computer

georgesstreet wrote: »

[...] Mango Salsa, it seems we just differ. You seem to want to continue a situation which encourages "them" to seek travellers rights, whereas I don't see travellers as "them" but see travellers as "us".

And I would say the problem is that you are, ironically enough, in a very small minority. That is why LGBT people see this issues in a "them and us" way - because that is the current dialogue and the way society at large views these issues. It's the one big problem with a "collectivist" society--and I say that as someone who values social interconnectedness--if you're not part of the norm then you're definitely seen as one of "them".

What you should be doing is asking why that is the case and how can we change it.

I would say the insularity of LGBT groups is the symptom, not the cause. When you're already seen as being outside the in-group you have to work from that position and it can be hard not to band together for mutual support.

Annasopra

pharmaton wrote: »

the problem is many of the people who follow these groups (and by groups I mean a wide variety of social gatherings be it online or in person) do have a lot of issues, in fact it seems to be the common thread in what draws them there in the first place.

Is that your impression or experience? My experience is different. I would say some of them draw in people with issues but not "a lot"

georgesstreet

mango salsa wrote: »

I was just asking you to provide the evidence that you mentioned but you dont seem to have any evidence. So it is just your opinion and thoughts. Thats fine.

I'm not sure why but you are continuously trying to twist my words into something that I did not say.

I can only repeat that if it's your judgement that there is no "us" and "them" mentality between (apologies for using the same example) travellers and other members of Irish society, then we disagree.

You may also think that to encourage "them" to pursue "travellers rights" does not serve to reinforce the impression between "us" and "them, in which case we again disagree. I dont think of travellers as "them", I think of them as "us".

If you feel your words are being twisted, then you have the option to correct where you feel that's the case, or to argue your position.

Annasopra

georgesstreet wrote: »

If you feel your words are being twisted, then you have the option to correct where you feel that's the case, or to argue your position.

I do feel my words are being twisted by you. I am choosing to correct this by saying that is not what I said and asking you to please do not twist my words around.

georgesstreet

pharmaton wrote: »

I'm admittedly not overly concerned, it's not my life that's being affected by it and as I've already stated I do know some other individuals who are relatively well adjusted at this point too but from my perspective it's a damn sight easier to keep a distance from what I see as the non functioning elements of lgbt society and continue on doing things in my own way.

The curious thing is that you are more representative of LGBT people than anyone who claims to speak on their behalf. The vast majority of LGBT people live ordinary, happy fulfilled lives and have no connection with any of the activist groups which claim to speak on behalf of the "gay community". The "gay community" is an invention of those who wish to push to the front of the queue and claim their activist group is representative, a claim which is as spurious as it is fantasy.

I don't deny them the right to do that, just as they should not deny me the right to point out that they have no mandate to speak for anyone.

georgesstreet

mango salsa wrote: »

I do feel my words are being twisted by you. I am choosing to correct this by saying that is not what I said and asking you to please do not twist my words around.

And after you said that I asked you to clarify which words have been twisted. I'll happily untwist any words if you can clarify which ones have been twisted, but you just keep saying i have twisted your words, and not afford me an opportunity to put that right by clarifying which ones have been twisted.

Annasopra

georgesstreet wrote: »

And after you said that I asked you to clarify which words have been twisted. I'll happily untwist any words if you can clarify which ones have been twisted, but you just keep saying i have twisted your words, and not afford me an opportunity to put that right by clarifying which ones have been twisted.

Thanks.

I'm not engaging in this discussion with you anymore.

pharmaton

mango salsa wrote: »

Is that your impression or experience? My experience is different. I would say some of them draw in people with issues but not "a lot"

It has, or at least it's the impression that I have been left with. Everyone has issues Mango, I don't know an individual who hasn't had to deal with their own personal dilemmas at some point in their lives and while some may be more than the average person has to deal with, (and none of which is exclusive to lgbt people) it's how they deal with it that's relative to how each one progresses in their own lives. Finding yourself in the midst of an entire group which practically enables those issues to thrive while encouraging division as a solution is not somewhere I fit very easily.

Cody Pomeray

mango salsa wrote: »

I see it as the complete opposite. I see it as denying that people are different and have different needs. I see this as a very harmful ideology. It denies difference. It denies diversity. It denies minority discrimination and structures of opression. It enforces majoritarianism.

No it doesn't, not at all!

Does being part of the "LGBT movement" deny difference within that movement? Does it deny diversity within that movement? No, not at all. So why should being part of the "tax justice for all families" movement deny diversity within its membership? Why should the "right to sexual privacy" movement deny diversity within it?

We need to trust society, and society needs to trust "us". This can happen by coming together, from a variety of different backgrounds, in pursuance of our shared vision for our human liberty.

Lets make up a hypothetical example.

Pat and Mary are a couple who have never married, because one is a divorcee. Mary can not bear children. By the time divorce was introduced here, they Pat and Mary felt too old to avail of it. And because they were never married to one another, Pat and Mary could never adopt children as a couple. They have gone childless.

Patricia and Maria are a couple in a civil partnership. Obviously, biologically, they can not bear children. Couple in a civil partnership cannot adopt children as a couple, per s.10 of the Adoption Act 1991. Patricia and Maria, too, will go childless if the law is not reformed.

Why should these two couples go on two different sets of protests to campaign for law reform in this area? It makes no sense, since they have both been deprived of adopting children as couples, that we should separate them on the basis of gender orientation.

We do not have to deny each couple's unique, valuable, wonderful human personalities. We do not have to deny their diversity. We simply recognize that as humans, they all have the right to gather families to themselves, and raise children, and live happily. It is foolish to persist with some outdated, arbitrary lines in the sand when we are dealing with the same substantive rights.

This is just one illustration. There are many we might come up with. Nobody is denying anyone their individuality. No, merely emphasizing their humanity.

Annasopra

pharmaton wrote: »

It has, or at least it's the impression that I have been left with. Everyone has issues Mango, I don't know an individual who hasn't had to deal with their own personal dilemmas at some point in their lives and while some may be more than the average person has to deal with, (and none of which is exclusive to lgbt people) it's how they deal with it that's relative to how each one progresses in their own lives. Finding yourself in the midst of an entire group which practically enables those issues to thrive while encouraging division as a solution is not somewhere I fit very easily.

I see it very differently. I dont see any division being encouraged at all. I see solidarity being created.

I mean if you really follow this through - why should this forum exist at all? isnt it divisive to have this "special" forum? shouldnt we just encourage people to ask the entire boards.ie community for support? shouldnt we encourage straight people with absolutely no understanding of what being gay means or what coming out or with no experience of homophobia to offer advice? shouldnt we accept that any such advice lacks any understanding of real peoples real live experiences? shouldnt we just accept implicit homophobia in some of that "advice"?

pharmaton

mango salsa wrote: »

I see it very differently. I dont see any division being encouraged at all. I see solidarity being created.

I mean if you really follow this through - why should this forum exist at all? isnt it divisive to have this "special" forum? shouldnt we just encourage people to ask the entire boards.ie community for support? shouldnt we encourage straight people with absolutely no understanding of what being gay means or what coming out or with no experience of homophobia to offer advice? shouldnt we accept that any such advice lacks any understanding of real peoples real live experiences? shouldnt we just accept implicit homophobia in some of that "advice"?

funny you should mention it because I did just that earlier. If someone comes to this forum depressed or suicidal regardless of their sexuality they would be better catered to in PI where there are greater tools to aid them in getting help. (turnto.org provide direct assistance in the form of verified representatives and through their online forum links and PI is heavily moderated)
I do believe that is the point of it all. While I absolutely respect the function of this forum to say that straight people aren't capable of empathizing or helping lgbt folk work through their issues is completely untrue. They have as much perspective and experience and understanding of relationship issues and while you may think they have no true sense of being marginalised or have experienced prejudice in their own lives, that wouldn't be true either. They may not be identical but all these issues are human issues and people of all walks of life have something to offer when it comes to experience. In fact limiting respones to lgbt perspectives is what keeps common identity and true solidarity from being shared.

georgesstreet

pharmaton wrote: »

In fact limiting respones to lgbt perspectives is what keeps common identity and true solidarity from being shared.

We have to define the words used; "Solidarity" in the original context appears to mean solidarity between lgbt people, and a bi-product of that is that it excludes others, by definition. The context in which you use it seems to be solidarity between all of us in society, and not just between lgbt people.

It's such a shame there still seems to be such resistance to accept that lgbt people are just people, the same as everyone else, who just happen to be at a different point on the spectrum. The rest of sociery has no issues with lgbt people, indeed the laws make it a crime to discriminate, and the tolerance and understanding which was fought for has largely been achieved. The time for erecting barriers is over, and we should join hands with everyone else in society and celebrate what we, as a society, have achieved in the area of human rights in the area of homosexuality.

pharmaton

georgesstreet wrote: »

We have to define the words used; "Solidarity" in context means solidarity between lgbt people, and a bi-product of that is that it excludes others, by definition.

I don't understand why, in 2013, that's necessary, and it certainly is not desirable to create artificial barriers where none need exist.

It's such a shame there still seems to be such resistance to accept that lgbt people are just people, the same as everyone else, who just happen to be at a different point on the spectrum. The rest of sociery has no issues with lgbt people, indeed the laws make it a crime to discriminate, and the tolerance and understanding which was fought for has largely been achieved. The time for erecting barriers is over, and we should join hands with everyone else in society and celebrate what we, as a society, have achieved in the area of human rights in the area of homosexuality.

forgive me, my understanding of the word derives from the old school definition of standing united against the communist regimes

But I agree, I use it in the broadest sense of the term, people are people at the end of the day, I'd find it very sad if lgbt people felt straight society has little or no understanding of some of the issues they go through as individuals.

georgesstreet

pharmaton wrote: »

forgive me, my understanding of the word derives from the old school definition of standing united against the communist regimes

But I agree, I use it in the broadest sense of the term, people are people at the end of the day, I'd find it very sad if lgbt people felt straight society has little or no understanding of some of the issues they go through as individuals.

Apologies, I thought I had worded it clumsily so changed my original paragraph to "We have to define the words used; "Solidarity" in the original context appears to mean solidarity between lgbt people, and a bi-product of that is that it excludes others, by definition. The context in which you use it seems to be solidarity between all of us in society, and not just between lgbt people.

I agree people are people, and the issue is lgbt people seeing themselves as one group, and viewing "society" as another group. The sooner we see ourselves as society, the better.

Having said that, the younger generation of lgbt seem much more relaxed about it all, and seem much more inclined to see themselves as the pretty much the same as their straight contemporaries. Consequently, they socialise together and don't see as much of a need to separate themselves from their peers, as older generations of lgbt did. To me that is a great achievement and bodes well for the future.

Annasopra

pharmaton wrote: »

forgive me, my understanding of the word derives from the old school definition of standing united against the communist regimes

But I agree, I use it in the broadest sense of the term, people are people at the end of the day, I'd find it very sad if lgbt people felt straight society has little or no understanding of some of the issues they go through as individuals.

I dont generalise and label all so called straight society as lacking understanding but realistically a lot of people don't understand some of our life experiences - particularly for example gender identity.

I take on board your points and I am not a militant segregationist - I believe that there is a need for spaces that are specific and general

I dont think it should be either or but both

georgesstreet

mango salsa wrote: »

I dont generalise and label all so called straight society as lacking understanding but realistically a lot of people don't understand some of our life experiences

It sounds as if saying "a lot of people don't understand some of our life experience" is a generalisation, and there is nothing wrong with that.

When you say "a lot of people don't understand some of our life experiences" I assume when you say "our" you mean lgbt people. I really think you are out of date in that assumption, which may have been right 20 years or so ago, and I celebrate that it seems less and less the case.

My experience is that most people understand that we all have issues, and nowadays many young lgbt people with issues can often get support from their family and circle of friends, and have less and less need to seek support from only lgbt people or groups. I am sure that is something we all welcome and celebrate that Irish society has got to this position.

pharmaton

mango salsa wrote: »

I dont generalise and label all so called straight society as lacking understanding but realistically a lot of people don't understand some of our life experiences - particularly for example gender identity.

I take on board your points and I am not a militant segregationist - I believe that there is a need for spaces that are specific and general

I dont think it should be either or but both

It's true that straight people don't have as much information or technical consideration for gender issues but where it comes down to it hasn't it always been a divisive issue even here? I recall several threads condemning the association between lgb and t over the years, the majority of which would prefer if they weren't even placed under the same umbrella.
It's kind of personal to me too but I have my own ways of dealing with it.
I don't think I would see you as that but I agree though that both is good where possible.

Annasopra

pharmaton wrote: »

It's true that straight people don't have as much information or technical consideration for gender issues but where it comes down to it hasn't it always been a divisive issue even here? I recall several threads condemning the association between lgb and t over the years, the majority of which would prefer if they weren't even placed under the same umbrella.
It's kind of personal to me too but I have my own ways of dealing with it.
I don't think I would see you as that but I agree though that both is good where possible.

Sure and that is why some trans people dont come here that much - they dont consider this a safe space.

I'm glad we do agree that it is important to have specific spaces and general spaces because for me I think the arguments get divided over either or and there is a strong need for both.