Does anyone else think the LGBTQ+ community is too focused on gay men ?

ewan whose army

Before we start I am a gay guy (23) but I identify as queer.

But one thing I have noticed is that gay guys get far more exposure than lesbians, bi people and trans people, its kinda unfair, there has to be as many lesbians as gay guys and potentially more bi people that people realise.

Daith

This is the norm for alot of things. Just look at the current issue where the BBC are blocking all male panel shows.

I'm not sure of your point though? In what way does the exposure of gay guys change anything for anybody else? Or in what way is it unfair?

ewan whose army

Daith wrote: »

This is the norm for alot of things. Just look at the current issue where the BBC are blocking all male panel shows.

I'm not sure of your point though? In what way does the exposure of gay guys change anything for anybody else? Or in what way is it unfair?

I just think people forget about the Trans* and Bi community, I heard about pride when the Trangendered equality network got on the front of the parade when a load of gay guys tried to hijack it before being sent to the George (urgh) float. They are marginalised somewhat

Daith

ewan whose army wrote: »

I just think people forget about the Trans* and Bi community, I heard about pride when the Trangendered equality network got on the front of the parade when a load of gay guys tried to hijack it before being sent to the George (urgh) float. They are marginalised somewhat

I hadn't heard that story. I just find hijack an odd word. Where gay guys not allowed to march with TENI? I doubt that for some reason.

I'm still struggling to see where it's unfair though?

Gotham

ewan whose army wrote: »

Before we start I am a gay guy (23) but I identify as queer.

What is the difference between gay and queer?
I thought they were the same thing.

Rick_

I would have said that we regularly see gay men or lesbian women. I can't think of any real examples (apart from Hayley in Coronation Street) of trans characters in soaps or TV dramas or even in the media in general. It's always the gays and the lesbians that are mentioned, never the trans people, and oddly, can't think of any bi-sexual examples either.

ewan whose army

Daith wrote: »

I hadn't heard that story. I just find hijack an odd word. Where gay guys not allowed to march with TENI? I doubt that for some reason.

I'm still struggling to see where it's unfair though?

A rep from TENI mentioned it during Pink Training

Friend Computer

I think this is a big "chicken and the egg" because most critics of the LGBT community, themselves, focus on gay men so the question is, is it in response to that (I would say it is) or is it the community that draws that kind of attention first? It might help if you could give a few examples of the kind of exposure you're talking about.

Annasopra

Yes

GCN predominantly focuses on young gay men

The Dublin pub scene can often be very male dominated

There are lots of gay males involved in politics in this country and very very few LBT women

Some of the activist groups are heavily dominated by men and these are the ones who get a lot of media exposure.

Links234

Yes, very much so.

Paddy C wrote: »

I would have said that we regularly see gay men or lesbian women. I can't think of any real examples (apart from Hayley in Coronation Street) of trans characters in soaps or TV dramas or even in the media in general. It's always the gays and the lesbians that are mentioned, never the trans people, and oddly, can't think of any bi-sexual examples either.

I'd raise that and say, when you have a very rare character that's trans in a TV show, they're almost universally played by cis people. Laverne Cox would appear to be the one of the only exceptions to this.

Daith

mango salsa wrote: »

Yes

GCN predominantly focuses on young gay men


The Dublin pub scene can often be very male dominated

There are lots of gay males involved in politics in this country and very very few LBT women

Some of the activist groups are heavily dominated by men and these are the ones who get a lot of media exposure.

My question for the last three are what's stopping other people going to the pub, what's stopping other people going into politics, what's stopping other people getting involved in activist groups though?

Is it a chicken and the egg thing and you get "The Dragon is full of men so we are not going there"?

baby and crumble

I think it's a truth universally known and accepted that when it comes to the media, men are generally used as panelists far more than women- and not just in the LGBTQ community, but it is definitely there.

It's something that I definitely notice- how many lesbians or bi women have you seen on the recent homophobia debates? I've seen none. There are women but they are usually straight.

The gcn has ALWAYS been more guy focused, but I don't think that's their fault. I don't think it's a conscious decision. Likewise the bar scene- the posters, advertising etc are usually done with the male gaze in mind, like 90% of the media in general. It just so happens in this case the male gaze isn't looking at women.

Gay men are seen as a threat to straight men. Which is why in the debates you'll hear all about 2 daddies being wrong, etc. because the media like to portray men as only having children because the women they're with want them. That men don't want love, they want sex. So of men actually want children independently of "having to" then there's some other motive. It's rubbish and weirdly sexist.

Female sexuality, whether straight or gay is not a threat- it's always turned into something for the male gaze. Straight women? For men. Lesbianism? The cornerstone of the porn industry, and created (mostly) for men.

I can't speak on trans or bi issues, since I'm neither.

suicide_circus

ewan whose army wrote: »

Before we start I am a gay guy (23) but I identify as queer.

But one thing I have noticed is that gay guys get far more exposure than lesbians, bi people and trans people, its kinda unfair, there has to be as many lesbians as gay guys and potentially more bi people that people realise.

sorry off topic, genuine question, what does "gay guy but identify as queer" mean?

Links234

Daith wrote: »

My question for the last three are what's stopping other people going to the pub, what's stopping other people going into politics, what's stopping other people getting involved in activist groups though?

Is it a chicken and the egg thing and you get "The Dragon is full of men so we are not going there"?

No, I don't think that's the case at all. When I first came out, I was going to gay bars, but I found that they were pretty openly hostile to trans people. I was once followed out of a gay bar by a guy who continued to shout abuse at me and follow me half way down the street. A club me and my girlfriend were at once, guys kept shoulder-bashing into her as they went past, we left after a guy knocked her pint out of her hand. A few other trans people I know have had similar experiences. Gay bars can feel like a boy's-only club at the best of times, quite hostile at the worst.

I avoid them now.

Rick_

There is a trans (M to F) member of bar staff in one of the gay bars in Belfast. My friend and I were being served by her and she chatted away to us and was lovely. She did mention though that she had problems with some customers before calling her names when she refused to serve them due to the bar being closed or them being too drunk etc.

It is sad that people who face crap from the rest of the world and from heterosexuals also sometimes get it from within their own communities and people who should know and understand what it is like to be marginalised and mistreated. Makes you wonder where the sense of "community" is that LGBT people stick together and help each other out.

On another point, isn't there another acronym - LGBTQ - for people who define themselves as non-heterosexual or questioning their sexuality (or a number of things that essentially mean they are not straight) come under the Q [queer] banner?

Annasopra

Daith wrote: »

My question for the last three are what's stopping other people going to the pub, what's stopping other people going into politics, what's stopping other people getting involved in activist groups though?

Is it a chicken and the egg thing and you get "The Dragon is full of men so we are not going there"?

It's lots and lots of different things - some women do not like all male groups or spaces

Some of it is about patriarchy and an almost unspoken way in which Males take power and create power around themselves.

In politics Baciks research is quite good at pointing some of the reasons why women don't get involved in politics

Childcare – women are more likely to have this responsibility
Cash – women have less access to resources than men Confidence – women are less likely to go forward for selection
Culture – a gendered culture is prevalent even within left-wing parties
Candidate selection procedures – the processes by which political parties select candidates has been identified as posing a significant obstacle to women’s political participation

Lou.m

There is an idea in the LGBT community that it is mostly gay men who face issues.

I think the trans community face most issues.

I also think some people underestimate the amount of discrimination lesbians face.

A lot of gay men feel lesbians are free to express as much affection as a straight couple might in public. That is just not true though.

I think there is a myth that gay men and lesbians and trans cannot form friendships or something. Most US sitcoms seem to try to carry out a gender battle between gay men and women that I have never really thought existed.

Lesbians do face aggression it is a myth they don't.

I think the LGBT community has to try to be better at accepting diversity than even the straight community. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard and reach the ideal world we want to live in.

I have great friends across the LGBT community and I truly love them and think they are great people. ( I am a bi/lesbian female ..it's a journey I am trying to learn about ok! :-) )

Also maybe women need to make an effort to go to gay clubs and mix.

Maybe we should all reach out to each other more, trans , gay , bi , men/ women etc.

TASTE THE RAINBOW!

Lou.m

http://www.rte.ie/archives/2014/0212/503805-david-norris-chairman-of-the-gay-rights-movement-1975/

At about 8.00 David Norris speaks about this very point actually.

And a lot of other gay rights issues. Very interesting.

He says originally people did not think homosexuality included women here. They thought the 'homo' meant men not same!

Also women's sex acts did not face the same legal challenges. And many people refused to believe women could be completely gay.

And it is just worth watching him !

irishgrover

sorry to go a bit off topic here, but please provide some "cultural" education to me and explain what the OP means post about about being "queer" as opposed to a gay man...is it just a gender neutralization thing or something else?

baby and crumble

irishgrover wrote: »

sorry to go a bit off topic here, but please provide some "cultural" education to me and explain what the OP means post about about being "queer" as opposed to a gay man...is it just a gender neutralization thing or something else?

I can't possibly say what the OP means, since I'm not the OP, but many people use the term "queer" to describe not only a sexual orientation but also their gender identity. So a queer gay man could be someone who identifies as biologically male, attracted to men but with a gender neutral or different identity.

I guess I see it that way, anyway. Anyone who identifies outside the norms is a bit queer. A lot of people in the LGBTQ community mess around with gender and expected roles. I certainly would lean more towards the queer lesbian label- I like it, it helps me feel confident with messing around with my butch or "masculine of centre" side.

ewan whose army

baby and crumble wrote: »

I can't possibly say what the OP means, since I'm not the OP, but many people use the term "queer" to describe not only a sexual orientation but also their gender identity. So a queer gay man could be someone who identifies as biologically male, attracted to men but with a gender neutral or different identity.

I guess I see it that way, anyway. Anyone who identifies outside the norms is a bit queer. A lot of people in the LGBTQ community mess around with gender and expected roles. I certainly would lean more towards the queer lesbian label- I like it, it helps me feel confident with messing around with my butch or "masculine of centre" side.

Pretty much that

hotmail.com

I think we should be getting away from labels, instead of creating new ones. I hope the term 'gay' and 'lesbian' etc die...and people just call each other by their name and don't judge them.

Dr. Shrike

Oh, it's definitely true. Though I'd be curious what straight women would say about this thread. Maybe "sounds like men, alright". A lot of it probably comes from selfishness and not spending time on things that don't immediately interest you.

baby and crumble

hotmail.com wrote: »

I think we should be getting away from labels, instead of creating new ones. I hope the term 'gay' and 'lesbian' etc die...and people just call each other by their name and don't judge them.

In theory, yes. But done people like labels, once they are attached by the person themselves. It's part of being human. We all want to be part of our collective, whatever that is, and we want to know who else is so we immediately know if they're part of it or not. You only need to look at the prevalence of Irish bars and Irish groups in places across the globe to serc evidence of it.

bodice ripper

Yes.

I have been asked to leave a "gay night" for being "not that sort of gay", ie female.

Lou.m

Actually I was reading a little last night about LGBT history.

I was reading about stonewall. And how people finally came together to found a legitimate community after the riots. IT was the first time people found a space where there were numerous LGTB people of all races genders and class together. Amongs things like pride gay people get to experience what it might really be like to feel normal if you have not yet accepted yourself as normal yet. Gay is seen as other from the majority and therefore anything gay can be seen as dissident. But at pride there is such large numbers you get to feel like you can just be you. It feels right.

I as a female even get to feel a little like that amongst gay men or trans because it sort of breaks up the idea of straight being the only norm in a way.

I actually now am starting to think that the separations are part of the oppression of the past.

“For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives here. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices.”

― Audre Lorde

I think discrimination amongst minorities is incorporating the masters tools and trying to use them. But the idea hopefully is equality for all people straight gay white black etc.

A person's identity stands at an intersection of many categories male, gay, Irish for example. Essentialism is the notion that there is a single person's experience that has a clear, constant meaning for everyone in that group.

I think there are shared experiences that LGBT people have that is essentialism. But there is a different for men and women or black gay people and white gay people or bi people or trans etc. That is the intentionality.

But then two gay men can have a totally different idea of their identity.

One could say that one type of gay man was over represented. Yet that gay male image may also represent SOME of what many gay men go through the image might not be as close to some men as to others. That is part of the intersectionality.

Intersectionality is what we can use to dismantle the masters house.

If only one gender were gay then LGBT would be a much less powerful force. We transcend one homogenous group. Yet we all share a big part of our identity. And I believe gay men and women do have a shared experience somewhat despite what some might say.

Different categories of your identity depict you sometimes as an oppressor and other the oppressed. Gays can the the oppressed but also the oppressor to Trans people for example. Which is wrong and double wrong for us we should know better.

I think we should embrace the diversity of the community and work more at that.

I have to say though I don't think it's THAT focused on gay men and definitely not intentionally.

I would feel welcome in any gay bar. And if i wasn't I would make it a point to make a connection if you know what I mean.

The ladies night tend to allow men accompanied by women. Maybe we should connect more.

Sorry for waffling on.

suicide_circus

bodice ripper wrote: »

Yes.

I have been asked to leave a "gay night" for being "not that sort of gay", ie female.

wow. labels seem to be very important!

Rick_

bodice ripper wrote: »

I have been asked to leave a "gay night" for being "not that sort of gay", ie female.

What? Where was this?!

Lou.m

Paddy C wrote: »

What? Where was this?!

I am kinda surprised too.

AerynSun

baby and crumble wrote: »

Female sexuality, whether straight or gay is not a threat- it's always turned into something for the male gaze. Straight women? For men. Lesbianism? The cornerstone of the porn industry, and created (mostly) for men.

That's probably why lesbian sex acts didn't face the same difficulty with criminalisation: people didn't believe that two women could actually have 'proper sex' with each other, because there was no male member on display: and one of those all-important bits of male anatomy was definitely needed for sex to count!

I can't speak on trans or bi issues, since I'm neither.

See now me, I put the "B" in LGBT

For me, there is plenty of confusion about bisexuality, even in my own head at times - so I can't claim to speak on behalf of all (or even any other than me) bisexual women. As far as the media goes: how would one portray bisexuality in a TV show without having to have a storyline where the woman was in a long-term (and maybe 'a tiny bit unfulfilling' - gotta feed the sexist notion that d*ck is necessary) relationship with her lesbian partner and then fell into an illicit something with the hot guy down at the bookshop?

So you'd be stuck watching a story that says bisexual people are promiscuous and that lesbian sex leaves a woman wanting something else. Neither of those stereotypes are helpful, IMO. And if you wrote the script the other way around and started with the woman being unhappy with her man and finding love/lust with a woman... then it's almost a lesbian awakening story that promises that full-blown lesbianism awaits the protagonist at the end of the series. That stereotype isn't really helpful either. I've had lesbian women tell me that I'm 'in denial' for identifying as bisexual. But I know myself: I'm physically and emotionally attracted to men and to women. Sometimes I'm attracted to a man and a woman at the same point in time. It gets confusing and distressing.

Because I value monogamous relationships, I know that I would always be faithful to the person that I've made a commitment to. But how would the media make an interesting movie out of that? And what would I be campaigning about in the political arena? In practice, I end up campaigning for gay and lesbian rights, and putting in the occasional word for trans people, because we all have complicated lives, enough to make up our acronym. I'm still trying to figure out the Q bit, but happy enough to add it to the end. I'm hopelessly ill informed about the intersex bit, but I supported SA athlete Caster Semenya when people were saying that she "couldn't be" what she was, because there was no African word for "intersex" so it didn't exist. Nice (not).

At the end of this long and rambling post... I can only re-iterate that being a bisexual woman isn't something that I've really clearly understood for myself... my identity is a work-in-progress, is all I can say. And as such, I don't resent the lack of representation in the media, because I don't know how I would want that to look... I only know I wouldn't want it to feed into myths and stereotypes that describe an alien "other" rather than a comfortable sense of self in a generally confusing world.

bodice ripper

Paddy C wrote: »

What? Where was this?!

In Rogue, which is now Peadar Kearneys.

floggg

I think one of the issues is trying to force too many groups and acronyms under the umbrella.

For example, clearly I'm not the only one here who is a bit confused by the "queer" label. Personally, I just like men. None of the other stuff makes sense to me.

I know this might get some flak here, but I also think grouping T (and to a very slight extent with the L and G also can be unhelpful at times.

I can understand why it's done, and I have great sympathy and respect for trans issues, but it's not something I can relate to. While ideally I should care for the plight of others as much as my own, that's not the way it works.

Otherwise, we would be investing equal time in fighting discrimination on other grounds too, such as racial and travellers issues, or gender discrimination.

And hence TENI would have trans issues as their focus - as the issue closest to their hearts.

I mentioned the B because they often claim about not being represented. While in many ways their issues overlap with mine, I wonder would they be better at times if they were a more visible identity in their own right.

And lastly, it's horrible to hear of the abuse trans people get from members of the LGB side of the community.

However, in deference to the recent debate on homophobia, I'll admit to bring transphobic myself. Not in theory, but unfortunately in practice.

Not in the discrimination form but in the inexplicable uncomfortableness. It's something I acknowledge and want to work on - but without ever actually knowing a trans person the natural human discomfort with "otherness" remains.

Ambersky

However, in deference to the recent debate on homophobia, I'll admit to bring transphobic myself. Not in theory, but unfortunately in practice.

I think thats really honest flogg and I guess thats what Rory was saying about homophobia racism sexism etc that we all are a bit phobic about people we are not familiar with or who dont belong to our interest group.

I would feel my main affiliation is with the L group and although we often get included in with the G group I would think that thats mainly when we dont go on about our differences too much and just let the vast majority of male Gays set the culture politics and style. Not that there is anything wrong with that in itself ie gay men being a group, its just that that group doent and cant represent everyone.
I think Gays as in Gay men alone would be quite a weak interest group I think they have benefited from the strengths company and challenges of the L B T and Qs.

When I first came out gay men had a statement in the NLGF that they were a single issue organisation and they were looking for parity with their heterosexual peers. At the time some women were having to give up jobs on marriage, there was no contraception legally available, women were still looking for equal pay etc. I had personally had all kinds of experiences of discrimination for just being a woman let alone a lesbian so parity with my heterosexual peers wasnt going to do it for me, I was having a different struggle as well as the one gay men were having and often the sexism was more apparent and frequent.
Sexism isnt as much of a struggle as it was but although laws have changed it doesnt mean that sexism is gone altogether either. I know that being in Lesbian only company or at least women who love womens company is different from being with a mixed male female group but I like being connected with gay men as well. I like it when diversity allows for being with people like yourself at times and also the opportunity to be around people who are different in an entertaining way and in a challenging way. I like diversity and I think we should hold onto it and appreciate it instead of trying to make everyone the same.
I think the LGBT and the Q can make us stronger.

Annasopra

Ambersky wrote: »

I think thats really honest flogg and I guess thats what Rory was saying about homophobia racism sexism etc that we all are a bit phobic about people we are not familiar with or who dont belong to our interest group.

I would feel my main affiliation is with the L group and although we often get included in with the G group I would think that thats mainly when we dont go on about our differences too much and just let the vast majority of male Gays set the culture politics and style. Not that there is anything wrong with that in itself ie gay men being a group, its just that that group doent and cant represent everyone.
I think Gays as in Gay men alone would be quite a weak interest group I think they have benefited from the strengths company and challenges of the L B T and Qs.

When I first came out gay men had a statement in the NLGF that they were a single issue organisation and they were looking for parity with their heterosexual peers. At the time some women were having to give up jobs on marriage, there was no contraception legally available, women were still looking for equal pay etc. I had personally had all kinds of experiences of discrimination for just being a woman let alone a lesbian so parity with my heterosexual peers wasnt going to do it for me, I was having a different struggle as well as the one gay men were having and often the sexism was more apparent and frequent.
Sexism isnt as much of a struggle as it was but although laws have changed it doesnt mean that sexism is gone altogether either. I know that being in Lesbian only company or at least women who love womens company is different from being with a mixed male female group but I like being connected with gay men as well. I like it when diversity allows for being with people like yourself and also the opportunity to be around people who are different in an entertaining way and in a challenging way.
I think the LGBT and the Q can make us stronger.

I get all that but I also see the point Flogggg is making - I mean the op is even using the term LGBTQ+ - I'm not quite sure myself what + represents - and I have seen LGBTQIA used quite a lot I being intersex and A being asexual - I think I can see the point Flogggg is making - if all these letters are added isn't it diluting it the point of meaninglessness? I know a lot about trans issues but then I know very little about Intersex and Asexual

When I was at an event a few years ago someone stood and said I'm an "lgbt student" and it got me thinking - she isn't all 4 of them!!!

So I agree with you and I also kind of agree with Flogggg

Ambersky

There have been some arguments about just calling it a Gay rights movement full stop. I have seen it argued on this forum that women dont need a special label calling themselves lesbians as they are already included in Gay. The OP is about whether the LGBTQ community is too focused on gay men and I would think that indeed there are probably a lot of gay men who feel as many men do that it is actually all about them .
An expression of that belief is to call it a Gay rights movement. Wanting an L to be included is a result of Lesbians not feeling that the gay movement necessarily represents them. The same for all the other letters and finding out what they are about is part of the process of inclusion or exclusion.

The Lesbian feminist experience has been that getting involved in other minority group interests has been strengthening rather than weakening . So many groups I know have a strong lesbian involvement even when they are not about gay or lesbian rights. Look at some of the strongest representatives of marriage equality like Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan they are lesbian but they have been involved in feminism, community issues and activism, race issues, and general social justice, they brought all that to the table in working on marriage equality. Thats strength not weakness

I used to be worried that if lesbians included the T, then men dressed as women would take over lesbian events. Some women still think like that. My fears werent realised and instead I met some lovely women I would consider friends.
Im not afraid of being overun by Qs either, the ones I met were mostly academic political intense types and just added to the mix, made for some pretty interesting conversations as well.

AerynSun

Ailbhe Smyth was in to Maynooth this past Thursday to participate in a discussion about the homophobia debate in the media and to talk about Marriage Equality - but while she was at it, she couldn't help talking about how lesbians' experiences are different from gay men's experiences, and how the lesbian and trans voices are next to silent in the current public discourse, and said that needs to change. She's a pretty strong advocate, points to her for that

Morag

Marriage equality speakers don't tend to mention Bi people at all.

floggg

Morag wrote: »

Marriage equality speakers don't tend to mention Bi people at all.

Well if we allow same sex marriage they will have all their bases covered

Morag

floggg wrote: »

Well if we allow same sex marriage they will have all their bases covered

Yes but with bi invisibility having a huge effect on mental health so that bi people are more likely to engage in self harm or suicide then LG people in Ireland due to lack of support, you's think there would be more sensitivity and inclusiveness.

Ambersky

I dont think marriage equality is a particularly radical branch of LGBT.
I think they are presenting an acceptable and you could say a kind of conservative public image of being Gay in order to gay marriage legalised.
For bisexuals they will benefit from being able to marry someone of either gender but yes I do think some of the LGBT politics especially an appreciation of the diversity of the kinds of relationships people can have has been sidelined in this focus.

Goodshape

I'd prefer a single more inclusive term to cover sexual and gender diversity. One that isn't a ridiculous string of initials, each 'belonging' to certain distinct sub-set of the myriad possibilities.

There are some issues unique to each self identifying subset, and that's fine, but acceptance, understanding and support for all sexual and gender diversity should be the driving force of any social or political change.

Not Gay rights, or LGB rights, or LGBTQAI+ rights... We, universally, need the right to be as sexually and gender diverse as we are. Shouldn't have to brand myself with any initial to declare and fight for that.

We need a more universal banner, not splintering subsets off as though we have nothing in common. And absolutely I'd like to see more than just gay males debating issues on the tellybox.

Ring4Fea

For Morag:

Since more than a few people who have worked with/for Neil Gaiman have posited that Aengus Mac Og was/must have been bi, a question is begged - Since the birth of Lugh was more than technically an interracial marriage (which was also illegal until recent decades), one wonders how the Badb and The Dagda and any children/heirs of Mider would feel about bi marriage and bi inclusion or lack thereof in the whole queer marriage fracas. Since up til now this debate has been from a purely post Padraig schematic of morality and ethics, yet marriage in all places invoked within this discussion has existed - for the most part - before Christendom OR Trendy Atheism.

Annasopra

Ring4Fea wrote: »

For Morag:

Since more than a few people who have worked with/for Neil Gaiman have posited that Aengus Mac Og was/must have been bi, a question is begged - Since the birth of Lugh was more than technically an interracial marriage (which was also illegal until recent decades), one wonders how the Badb and The Dagda and any children/heirs of Mider would feel about bi marriage and bi inclusion or lack thereof in the whole queer marriage fracas. Since up til now this debate has been from a purely post Padraig schematic of morality and ethics, yet marriage in all places invoked within this discussion has existed - for the most part - before Christendom OR Trendy Atheism.

I dont understand that?

Ring4Fea

100% understandable that you don't, and I apologize for what indubitably comes across as an esoteric manner for the post above. But that's exactly why I prefaced it with "for Morag".
All the debate I have heard or read on the subject is post advent of Catholicism. That includes all agnostic and atheist statements since these paths are direct rebuttals of Abrahamic
Faiths. Such faiths however are Johnny come latelies in the world and also in regards to marriage of hets or quirkies.

J_E

I always felt because of the attitudes of gay and lesbian people, along with the lack of awareness/attention, trans issues should be separate to gay/lesbian/bisexual ones. Of course there are interlinking things, but it's rare when people use LGBT, they actually mean trans inclusive. A lot of LGB, and gay men in particular have a naive at best, hostile at worst, attitude towards trans folk, which I think is disappointing.

I don't even like using the term LGBT (even though I do) because it brings to mind a lot of negative connotation, along with positive, and is a very clinical/vague term in some senses.

Ring4Fea

Very salient point. One wonders how the "Chaz Bono Factor" fairs in all of this.

Ambersky

Ring4Fea is your use of the term "

"Chaz Bono Factor"

a derogatory way of referring to people who support trans issues? Or what do you mean by it I dont understand.

Ring4Fea

The opposite of derogatory. One of my dearest was a hermaphrodite from the 60s who was raised as a woman, dated as a woman but when Nam brought in the draft the yanks decided a vestigial phallus was enough to justify putting this Lovely Soul in behind of The Pig (slang term for the precursor to the minigun you see in the film Predator). On top of a hill, ordered to fire at the sign of any movement in the rainforest until he saw signs of a red mist.

This person who renamed themselves never had a chance to CHOOSE to redefine themselves. Chaz did. I wish Erin could have had that choice instead of no-empathy pencil pushers forcing that choice in a horrific way upon Erin. Spoiling it forever.

Erin was never given succor even after Stonewall. Erin has loved men and women equally and respectfully and this before bisexual was a publically used term.

When I day Chaz Bono Factor I mean where does Erin's capacity for love and matrimonial committment and dedication come into play?

Ambersky

Youve got quite a unique writing style there Ring4Fea and I think I understand what you were saying a bit better.