THEGAYUK

Category: Comment

  • COMMENT | Aylan Kurdi must not be this week’s hot news story

    It’s been a big week for armchair activism.

    We all saw the picture a few days ago of the drowned body of three year old Aylan Kurdi on a Turkish beach. The haunting, heartbreaking images travelled around the world, dominating both mainstream and social media alike.

    It was a news story that so far has marked a turning point in press coverage and public opinion of the ongoing refugee crisis. In the Facebook and Twitter world when sharable content is the key to make us sit up and pay attention, giving the story an unspeakably sad and very human face, suddenly gave it a hook.

    And all it took was a viral image. And a dead child.

    So the good news, if anything can be classed as good news in this whole desperately sad story, is that the death of Aylan Kurdi and the photographs that were printed and shared thousands of times within hours has changed the popular perception of refugees. Guess what everyone? It turns out the ‘’swarm’’ of “migrants” trying to gain entry into Europe were actual human beings after all; mothers, fathers, children.

    There is nothing more shocking, more heartbreaking than a dead child. It is an image that speaks of waste, of innocence destroyed, of unimaginable grief. Nobody wants to see photographs of a drowned toddler popping up on their Facebook but the horror and outrage produced was enough that even Downing Street has been forced to acknowledge that the British government has been forced to look again at their policy due to the change in public mood. So a big congratulations to everyone who retweeted or hit the “Like’’ button on that article from The Guardian. We showed them.

    If I sound cynical, I’m sorry to say I am a little. The nature of our 24 hour news cycle and the constant hunger it and social media creates for new material means that there is a real risk that this chapter in the worst refugee crisis since World War Two will be viewed as this week’s hot story before the popular news agenda moves on to the next coffee time discussion topic.

    This is an example of just how much popular opinion and sincere outpourings of outrage and compassion can jolt government into action. At least in the short term. And the problem is it is very short term. The harsh public scrutiny that the British government and the rest of Europe is under in the wake of the death of Aylan Kurdi must not stop when the next Facebook friendly news story comes along and saturates our news feeds.

    Remember Cecil The Lion? After he was shot in Zimbabwe by that American dentist earlier this summer, he was everywhere. I remember signing petitions calling banning imports of lion trophies to the US and European Union. And one could not move for pictures of both poor Cecil and Walter Palmer, the American hunter who killed him. But then the photographs and saturation coverage and serious discussion in the media about conservation in Africa faded.

    At the risk of offending hardcore animal lovers, it would be very inappropriate to compare the fate of one lion in the jungle to the desperation situation facing thousands of refugees fleeing the Middle East. But that story from just July of this year is the perfect example of the modern news cycle; blanket coverage, a heavy social media presence and a huge groundswell of public outrage triggering much debate and discussion until the story burns itself out and fades from public consciousness.

    The size and scale of the refugee crisis means that it is very much ongoing. This new wave of public empathy and protest triggered by the heartbreaking photos from a Turkish beach has forced governments to act. It’s a start. But clearly only a start and for the sake of the lives of thousands of men, women and children it must continue and build.

    Aylan Kurdi must not become this week’s Cecil The Lion. He deserves better than that.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COLUMN | Sticks And Stones

    I got called a faggot on the bus home last week. I was quite amused actually. It felt so retro and dated. I’ve almost grown to love some of these quaint old words for what I am. Maybe I’d have liked it less had I been alone at night somewhere less crowded.

    I was with my partner on the bus and a group of six teenage boys were misbehaving, shouting out remarks and jumping across the aisle punching each other. To summarise, I got a bit uppity when they started talking about girls they’d like to bang (their words) and how they’d go for the ones who couldn’t fight back and would just lie there and take it against their will.

    I have these moments when I see red (usually in cinemas, on public transport or when I get bad service) and struggle to hold my tongue. I contain my anger and am usually quite assertive and reasoned. I attack the issue like I’m a middle class woman in M and S complaining to a young whippersnapper of a boy about a bad lettuce, cold and aloof.

    Naturally they called me a faggot amongst other things. They would do. It’s the easiest target and requires no wit or thought and although I’m not over the top camp, I’m easily identifiable as gay. Had I been fat or old then that would have been mentioned as an insult. We’re allowed to call people fat or old too as well as shout homophobic remarks. The word itself didn’t offend me although the venom it was spat out with took me back slightly. They surmised that I took it up the arse (good guess boys!) and had a backside like a wizard’s sleeve (bad guess and unoriginal cliché). I generally just felt that they were making idiots of themselves and felt faintly amused but maybe I should have been more angry and affronted?

    I spent much of my teenage years having names shouted at me at school by other children and occasionally by teachers. It was the 1980s. Homophobia came as standard. I came out aged 15 at a comprehensive school in the Midlands. It was going to happen. Were you to ask me my nickname at school I would reply Poof or Gaylord. I always laugh it off (and tried to at the time) but it was actually not much fun at all and at times left me feeling vulnerable, despised and tearful. My parents also had a cache of anti-gay names they’d hurl at the TV when Boy George was on Top of the Pops or bandy about at the dinner table. That was never very comfortable either.

    Working in a shop in my teens, there was a regular customer who’d come in to try to shoplift. If I spotted him and got in his way he’d shout “Yo! Battyman!” I didn’t know the term and thought it was an affectionate nickname so would always wave back and smile.

    I still get a knee jerk reaction when I hear homophobic terms. They take me back and raise a tiny hackle or two. I’ve tried owning them and that works to an extent. Calling myself queer or poofter does have a strong disempowering effect on the words. My friends affectionately call me names too which is fine by me. Who can blame them if I call them myself or my friends too? I recently posted a photo of myself on a social networking site wearing a cravat (it was vintage chic, before you start getting funny about it). The comments generally followed the theme of “You are so GAY!” I’m not sure that’s an insult. Is there anything wrong with being gay? I am gay. It’s a fact. Maybe there’s something wrong with wearing a cravat, but it did match my blazer well and bought out my eyes.

    My pet hate currently is the use of the word “gay” to denote “crap”. It sends out a terrible message and is regressive in every way. I hate how people in the media have got away with using it too. I wince when I hear people on the bus calling things gay. I once asked an acquaintance who used the word in that context what she meant and she said by saying gay she meant “crap”. Goodness that made me feel warm inside. I avoid her now.

    Words do have a lot of power and the old saying is wrong. Names can hurt you just like sticks and stones but maybe in different ways. Look at the statistics of mental illness, suicide and drug and alcohol abuse in gay people and consider what it is makes us prone to these problems. It doesn’t take much thinking to see that the undercurrent of both explicit and implicit homophobia is a major culprit.

    I’m not 15 anymore. I can cope with name calling better than before. The thing is though, I’d really rather not cope with it at all.

    Chris Bridges is a regular writer for TheGayUK and also writes more of his observations on his blog: http://www.gayboyinterrupted.blogspot.co.uk/

  • COMMENT: Is It Offensive To Be Offended?

    Are we taking offence to a new level?

    “It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so f**king what.”

    Eloquently put by Stephen Fry, but can we take it at face value? Are there some things we should be offended by? And if so how should one react?

    There is rarely a day that goes by where we don’t hear about someone getting offended by something or other, whether it’s something someone said or something they did.

    Obviously taking offence is completely subjective. That has everything to do with you as an individual, or a collective or a society, your moral conditioning or your religious beliefs. What doesn’t offend me could quite easily offend someone else. But throwing that O word around is, in my opinion, dangerous. It’s such a strong word to use when it comes to certain situations. We hear stories of gay couples getting offended that someone has objected to their public displays of affection. But whether this is actual bigotry, or simply being an uneducated moron gets lost in the “That’s offensive” mantra, and these couples end up with the classic miserable face in the Daily Mail.

    Our knee-jerk reaction to something happening to us, is to fight back, to defend our right to be how we are, but how does this actually help a situation. Shouting “I’m offended” is the cheap way out. It can stop a conversation right in its tracks, make a person feel bad and give you an undeserved sense of victory over that mean person. When it comes to being gay and how people are with us, the natural reaction would be to become offended by some of the stuff that is said. However, how easy is it to cry victim at the drop of a hat? To demand special treatment because of a perceived hurt. Now I’m not saying that we should simply ignore every slight made against ourselves as a community, certainly expecting equal treatment is something that should just be a given, and certainly one should take offence to the notion of withholding basic human rights to marriage and equal treatment in the work place. But a worrying pattern is happening, where mistakes in speech or simple ignorance are vilified and witch-hunted, where an almost mob mentality of perceived offence takes on a life of it’s own and people can be hounded off social media without being given a chance to either explain themselves or have a reasonable conversation or debate.

    Being offended is letting the other person affect your moods, affect your way of thinking. Flying off the handle at the person who has slighted you, has given them the power over you. Katie Hopkins recently made headlines after tweeting a bit of an insensitive tweet (aren’t they all) about the death of Cilla Black. At no point did she say she disliked Cilla herself, she merely pointed out that it seemed crass for a lot of celebrities to rush to twitter to send a disingenuous tribute to her, yet as soon as it was posted people screamed of offence. Hopkins has a rather abrasive way of making her point, but reading between the lines of the way she says things, she can make valid points, she’s just a bit of an asshole about it. Would she be offended by my calling her that? It seems highly unlikely.

    The latest thing to also be offended by is certain businesses refusing to provide services to gay people on the grounds of their religious beliefs. So what, go somewhere else that will serve you and leave those brainwashed fools without an order, those people have just lost your money. The fact someone reported a bakery for refusing to decorate a cake resulted in that bakery being fined a lot of money, but because of the headlines, people set up crowd funding sites and made hundreds of thousands of dollars for that bakery, quite easily covering the fine that was imposed and giving them a lot extra. If the people who were refused service had just said “Fine, f**k you, you’re not having my $250 for that cake”

    That bakery would’ve lost an order, and while it might have been a bit inconvenient to have to find someone else who would decorate that cake, that bakery also wouldn’t have made back hundreds of thousands of dollars and had 10 times the amount of usual visitors, giving them yet more money. Had the original people who wanted said cake, just got pissed off and just taken their business elsewhere, that bakery would’ve just stayed at the same level of business, maybe even lost some customers if the couple who were refused had warned their friends not to go there. It’s not like they were in some backwater with a population of three rather mangy cows, a dachshund named Colin, and a small hen, in its late forties. They were in the forth-biggest city in Oregon, I’m pretty sure they could’ve found another bakery.

    Same as the gay couples complaining about not being able to book into certain privately run hotels. Yes it’s annoying, not very nice and can be inconvenient, but the sad reality is that there are people out there who will still have firmly held, usually religious beliefs that stops them from offering business to certain members of society, do a little research into what places have no problem with you staying there and go with that. Giving these people press attention only makes the situation worse, and results in people who have never heard of these places, suddenly jumping on the bandwagon of moral Christian rights to refuse business.

    Nothing actually happens if you’re offended, you’re just offended. Which is fine, be offended, but don’t let it control your life; don’t go on some kind of moral crusade to prove a point. Get annoyed and move on. But as I said before, getting offended by something someone says or does, is completely different to wanting gay rights. Let the people who don’t think we deserve those rights get offended and get their knickers in a twist. Nobody got those rights by being offended. They got those rights by being assertive and logical and pointing out that it’s only fair to have same-sex marriage and other gay rights. You may be questioning how I can talk about the bakery and the hotels that refuse service, and then talk about gay rights. It’s because the places that refuse business are in the minority these days. Vast swathes of places have zero problem with offering you service, and those are the ones we should be supporting, and as the minority lose business, they may well change their stance, but if they don’t, don’t get offended.

    Now obviously there’s a time and a place to say and do certain things, you wouldn’t go to your grandmas house and make vagina jokes, unless of course she’s the sort of woman who likes a good dirty joke, and one shouldn’t go out of their way to deliberately offend people. But if you’re just being you, and someone gets offended by it, well that’s their prerogative and their problem.

    I’m sure some of the points I’ve made will be a bone of contention to some of the people reading this, and that’s fine, it’s my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours, But if you’re offended by anything I’ve written…well nothings going to happen is it!

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • DEBATE: Should Gay Men Be On PrEP?

    Around 100,000 people in the UK are living with HIV – that figure is ten times the number of HIV positive cases 10 years ago.

    There could be a great many reasons as to why the number is growing – are we perhaps simply more sexually active then we were before, inevitably leading to the rise in STDs and ultimately HIV? Are we not educated enough in the dangers of STDs, HIV and AIDS? Or is it perhaps a case of miseducation – do we just not know enough to warrant caution when it comes to unprotected sex?

    Whatever the reason may be, the facts remain stubbornly resolute.

    One in five cases of HIV in the UK go undiagnosed.6,360 new HIV diagnoses were made in 2012 alone 3010 of those new diagnoses were gay or bisexual men.

    And with the rise of new cases growing and growing, the medicine used to treat the virus has developed to meet the challenge of – primarily – helping those infected live as normal a life as possible, but also to find ways of preventing the spread of the virus.

    PrEP is the newest discovery in HIV prevention.

    PrEP – or pre-exposure prophylaxis – is a new method of prevention for those who are at high risk of getting HIV.

    Meant to be taken daily, each pill contains within it some of the same medicine used to stabilise the virus in people who are already living with HIV, with the goal of preventing infection from taking hold if you’re exposed to the virus.

    Since its mass availability, the drug has seen a heavy use-count in members of the LGBT community – especially gays and bisexuals. The reason for this is not hard to guess at; along with black African heterosexuals, gay and bisexual men are the most affected by HIV. In fact, three-quarters of people diagnosed with the virus in 2012 were among these two groups.

    So should we use PrEP?

    ‘Yes’ seems to be the answer if you’re deemed at high risk of being infected with HIV. This includes those in an ongoing relationship with a HIV-infected partner or anyone who has injected illicit drugs or shared drug-taking equipment within the last six months.

    When combined with other preventative tools – namely condoms – PrEP provides a greater level of protection from HIV than just contraceptives, or, of course, no protection at all.

    So… are there any downsides?

    While some people in the clinical study of the drug showed early and temporary side effects such as an upset stomach or a loss of appetite, it seems the only downside to taking PrEP is in fact to stop taking PrEP. It is not a vaccine (as of yet, no vaccine exists for HIV), and so called intermittent usage of PrEP (starting, stopping, starting, stopping…) shows a sharp decline in the drug’s effectiveness, according to health experts.

    For those who took the medicine consistently during trials for the drug, results showed that the risk of contracting HIV was up to 92% lower than those who were not taking PrEP.

    So while there’s still no cure or vaccine for HIV, the pharmaceutical industry is doing all it can to make the virus at least manageable. The introduction of PrEP seems to be something of a tactical curveball, in that the creators seem to be emphasising prevention rather than cure – at least, until there is one.

  • COMMENT | Why Jeremy Corbyn is the best option for LGBT Brits

    Over the weekend, a video quietly dropped on YouTube in which revellers at this summer’s London Pride explained why they are backing Jeremy Corbyn for the next Labour leader:

    “He supported gay rights before anyone else supported us,” one young man explains, pointing out that Corbyn has “never voted against gay rights.”

     

    He’s right. Corbyn has voted against every anti-LGBT bill and for every advance in LGBT equality since he entered parliament in 1983, making him the only candidate who both opposed Section 28 and supported equal marriage. That’s an impressive ally, which is one reason why prominent LGBT activists from Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners’ Mike Jackson to the Guardian columnist Owen Jones have publicly backed Corbyn’s campaign.

    Like them, I’m proud to support Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader. And like them, my support is for reasons far beyond up-and-down votes for our equality. Mr Corbyn unequivocally opposes austerity, which is much more than can be said for his opponents, none of whom walked through division to oppose the Tory Welfare Bill, a chainsaw massacre of the welfare state and public services which leaves the most vulnerable in British society out in the lurch.

    At first blush, this may seem inconsequential to our community; equality and austerity, you shrug, are separate issues. Two studies conducted over the last three years, though, suggest otherwise. In 2013, UNISON—the public sector trade union—commissioned a study on how austerity has effected the LGBT community. The findings were startling: not only did LGBT people face “greater financial hardships from redundancies, real term pay cuts and changes to benefit rules,” but that austerity had led to “greater feelings of marginalisation and invisibility as specialist LGBT services and support disappeared.” Last year, the Trade Unions Congress, in their own commissioned report, found that LGBT volunteer and charity services were especially hurt by cuts in public spending, with “their already more than averagely impacted service users… particularly vulnerable.”

    Among the most vulnerable are LGBT youth experiencing homelessness. The UNISON study found that cuts to housing benefits, especially amongst the young, were especially difficult on young LGBT people “as they may find it difficult to find a safe and comfortable shared accommodation with flatmates accepting of their sexuality or gender identity.” The Albert Kennedy Trust, a charity which supports LGBT youth experiencing homelessness, earlier this year found that nearly a quarter of homeless British youth identify as LGBT. When the Guardian cited this study in its expose on homelessness amongst LGBT young people back in May, the government hadn’t yet slashed housing benefits for those under 21 and denied under-25s the minimum wage. This is disastrous for young LGBT people who have been kicked out of their homes by homophobic or transphobic parents and may find it difficult to find supportive flatmates, let alone a way to make rent.

    This is but one way austerity has negatively impacted our community. LGBT people are more likely to suffer suicidal ideations and mental health issues, largely due to homophobia and transphobia, than their peers, making cuts to mental health services particularly concerning to our community; even before the Tories had a majority, austerity measures had cut £253 million from the NHS’ Mental Health Trusts. And zero hour contracts have been notoriously bad for our community, especially; the UNISON study reports a trans woman who could no longer afford her transition because she made less on a zero hour contract.

    Which is why Corbyn, with his pledge to end austerity and bring about a more equitable society, is so appealing to so many, especially young people, at a time when youth unemployment is at its highest since the 1990s and LGBT people still face so much discrimination in employment. Corbyn has a vision that resonates, not just with those on the lower rungs of the social ladder, but with those at the top, as well. He is in every respect the peoples’, including LGBT peoples’, candidate.

    This may seem somewhat shocking considering last week I referred to him as having “all the electability and relevance of a Womble.” And my concerns about his abilities as a leader, not just of the Labour Party but of the country, remain. The same can be said, however, for his comeptitors. Not a single one of these candidates inspires confidence. Owen Jones can see Mr Corbyn as a future prime minister. I’m, from a purely strategic point, not sold yet, if only because he is an unproven leader with unproven results. Mr Corbyn has never sat on the front bench, let alone been in government. How he manages to wrangle the Blairites and Brownites within the party is of utmost concern. (But with grand pronouncements from Liz Kendall about refusing to serve in his shadow cabinet and dire predictions from Tony Blair, if the party splinters, it likely won’t be Mr Corbyn holding the sledgehammer.)

    Still, I have more faith in him than in Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, or Andy Burnham. They expected to trample over him, and in all fairness, Mr Corbyn didn’t enter this contest expecting to win. Yet here we are, with the MP from Islington North—a 30+ year backbencher—leading by double digits. Which, when you consider the mood of the British public, shouldn’t surprise any of us.

    As Vice reported last month, Mr Corbyn’s positions on a whole host of issues—from renationalising the railways and utility companies to dismantling Britain’s nuclear arsenal—are more in step with public opinion than any of the other three contenders. And as I wrote in my post-mortem after Ed Miliband’s throttling in the general election, Labour lost because they didn’t run far enough to the left. In these regards, he is just the candidate Labour needs to reclaim Number 10 in 2020.

    And that’s what is most important to the LGBT community. We need to roll back austerity in order to protect the most vulnerable amongst us. We need a champion who has been on our side his entire political career. We need someone with clarity of vision and purity of heart.

    That man is Jeremy Corbyn.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COMMENT | Why We Loved Cilla

    Saturday teatime. In my house, this meant my mum would cook a special tea, steak or gammon with pineapple if we were very lucky, which we’d eat on trays in front of the telly. And tea and Saturday night TV in the late 1980s and 1990s would mean Blind Date and Cilla Black.

    At its peak, Blind Date had viewing figures of 15 million viewers. Impressive enough but Cilla Black’s reign as Queen of British Television was the second act of a long career.

    The story of Priscilla White, the cloakroom girl at The Cavern Club and pal of The Beatles that became a pop star is well documented. Cilla may never have been as credible as a Dusty Springfield or as cool as a Sandie Shaw but amongst her back catalogue were songs from some of the greatest writers of all time. And let us not forget Burt Bacharach, a man who knows a thing or two about female singers has claimed that her version of one of his greatest songs Anyone Who Had a Heart was his favourite. Not too shabby for a woman often derided for her vocal ability.

    Looking back now on her career, the amount of time she remained Our Cilla and a major star is what’s truly impressive. Today a ‘’hot’’ pop star can be casually dumped by their record label barely after the first album has hit the internet and winners of talent shows are sent back to obscurity at the slightest whiff of declining recording sales, Cilla managed to move from pop music to light entertainment and television in a way that never seemed jarring, remaining a big name in the process.

    Her TV career actually began with her own BBC show in the late 60s and early 70s. But it was with the double whammy of Surprise Surprise and Blind Date that introduced her to new generations. And Cilla did cross generations. She managed the rare feat of being a true family entertainer, Auntie Cilla; an audience who remembered her from the peak of her pop stardom sitting down with their own children to watch light, often silly but more often than not fun shows together. Her flame red hair and unique mangling of the English language may have been easy to mock and the programmes she hosted would be regularly sneered at by highbrow critics. But her popularity and ability to draw an audience remained undiminished.

    Saturday night television was very different when Cilla was the Queen of it. This was the pre-Cowell era, a time before phone voting and copycat talent shows. Of course the producers of Blind Date were probably every bit as much the cynical puppet masters that the X Factorproduction team are today but now it seems like a kinder, gentler time. When the stakes are a trip to the Costa De Sol and some awkwardly scripted flirting, it seems quite quaint compared to the possibility of a Christmas number one and all the music industry corporate baggage that comes with it.

    Despite her love of sequins and spangles, and a pair of legs that even in later years women half her age would have killed for, Cilla was never glamorous. But she was showbusiness. An old school style of Champagne glass ever present in hand, never leave the house without a full face of make up and killer heels on, summer seasons and pantomime showbusiness. It barely exists now. Entertainers have been largely replaced by presenters and proficient autocue readers on TV and you’re likely to find somebody who came third in Big Brother playing Aladdin down the local theatre at Christmas rather than someone who learnt their craft on the working men’s club circuit.

    Reading the tweets and tributes about Cilla Black, I know mine was not the only household that invited her into our homes at Saturday teatime. She was a guest who made us chuckle, occasionally may have made us cringe a little and a guest we had fond memories of.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COMMENT | Why Is This Labour Leadership Race So Boring?

    Can I just say what we’re all thinking? Watching this Labour leadership contest is about as exciting as watching various shades of red paint dry.

    I’m sat here trying to come up with an interesting, fresh angle on this election, but I’m about two (okay, five) drinks in and all I can muster is:

    “Liz Kendall isn’t all that bad,”
    “Jeremy Corbyn reminds me of my grandpa,”
    “Yvette Cooper is also standing,” and
    “Andy Burnham has pretty eyes.”

    It’s a far cry from 2008, when Barack Obama galvanised the US Democratic Party with a sense of hope and a promise of a better tomorrow. Though I championed Hillary Clinton in that year’s primary, I remember watching his acceptance speech at that year’s convention with a sense of awe and genuine excitement.Even the 2010 Labour leadership contest seemed to offer some sense of renewal. There was, of course, the brothers Miliband, fighting to take the party in different directions. And Diane Abbott, that stalwart London socialist who provided a breath of fresh air—an actual leftist! A woman, and Black!—that is sorely lacking this go round.

    That’s the problem. Cooper and Burnham, both either tarnished or bolstered by their roles in in the last Labour government, depending on who you ask, are stuck quietly in the middle, mostly ignored and largely forgotten. Kendall and Corbyn would both have you believe that a bitter civil war is raging, with the soul of the Labour Party at stake. Each is positing themselves and their opponent as the devil and angel on your shoulder.

    But Kendall isn’t David Miliband, and Corbyn isn’t Diane Abbott. Both lack the charisma, the gravitas, and the star quality of their 2010 counterparts. And when the majority of Labour MPs can’t even bring themselves to vote against Tory austerity, you have to wonder what the whole point of the party is. If Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition can’t even be counted on to do a bit of opposing, it might make people question whether they’re worth voting for at all.

    The LGBT community certainly seems to be asking itself this question. In a YouGov poll conducted back in March, the Tories were in a dead heat with Labour when it came to LGBT vote share. Meanwhile, the Greens were increasing their support amongst our community, with The Guardian reporting a 16% increase in support from 2010 to 2015.

    Used to be that Labour was the natural home of our community. However, the Labour Party is no longer the only sanctuary for queer and trans Brits, as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. The Conservatives have softened their rhetoric, if not their voting record, on LGBT issues. Prime Minister David Cameron and Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan both champion equality, even if the former couldn’t convince his backbenchers (including the latter) to vote for same-sex marriage. On the opposite end of the political spectrum, many LGBT voters are flocking to the SNP and Green Party.

    This would seem to give credence to the civil war scenario Corbyn and Kendall present. After all, it does appear that, at least in terms of LGBT voters, the party is bleeding support on both ends of the political spectrum. And while all four candidates are touting themselves as champions of LGBT equality, with Burnham and Kendall having given exclusive and in-depth interviews to PinkNews, not one candidate seems to be capturing the hearts and minds of LGBT Labour.

    Our community seems mildly disinterested, but genuinely divided, if the rainbow avatars supporting Kendall, Cooper, and Corbyn on my Facebook feed are any indication. I’ve seen people come out in favour of all three candidates, but only because they have to support somebody. Not a single one of them seems to have the kind of zealous acolytes of Obama in 2008 or the Milibands in 2010.

    Anecdotally, at least, the only candidate not receiving ringing LGBT endorsements seems to be Burnham, whose record on LGBT rights is often described as tepid, at best. He missed a vote on gay adoptions in 2002, which he contends was due to paternity leave, and as Benjamin Butterworth wrote last month at the New Statesman, he twice voted for amendments which would require lesbians receiving IVF to name a father figure, despite the fact that in a lesbian relationship there really isn’t one.

    A look at their voting records—which you can see here —shows that all four candidates are at least marginally progressive on LGBT rights, though all four have offered more platitudes than policy at improving our lot in life. And not a single one of them appears to be galvanizing the support of LGBT Labour voters. This may be why LGBT Labour has said it won’t endorse any candidate.

    Of course, that may also be for strategic and political moves—the group has to work with whomever is elected leader, after all—but I can’t help but wonder if it’s not because they’re all so dreadfully dull, too. Of the four candidates, only Corbyn, who barely garnered enough parliamentary nominations to even make the ballot and who the Parliamentary Labour Party is now scrambling to defeat, seems to be generating any sort of real excitement among the party base.

    I use the word “excitement” loosely, because even those of us supporting Corbyn (which I do, and which you can read more about next week) do so with the most tepid of enthusiasm. He’s no Mhairi Black, with rousing rhetoric and fresh-faced tenacity. But he’s at least offering hope, which can’t be said for the others. While Kendall, Cooper, and Burnham keep talking about what Labour did wrong, about why it lost, and about lessons to be learnt. It’s an important conversation to have, but it’s also incredibly demoralising to a base which desperately needs inspiration and, dare I say, leadership.

    Corbyn offers a bit of that, but questions as to his electability remain, and are certainly worth asking. It’s not just down to his socialist pedigree, either. Jeremy Corbyn is a fine left wing MP, but he’s about as exciting and relevant as Leon Jackson’s latest album. Don’t know who or what I’m talking about? Yeah, exactly.

    Which basically sums up this leadership contest. The one candidate many of us can be passionate about has all the electability and relevance of a Womble, two of them (Cooper and Burnham) are like rocks at Stonehenge—around forever, thick as stone, and mired in the past—while Liz Kendall is basically your mum or dad criticising every choice you’ve ever made.

    None of which inspires confidence in the base, and none of which brings out the passions of supporters. This contest is proving to be as long and drawn out as an EastEnders anniversary plot: annoying, trite, and done before. We can only hope that, despite our lowered expectations, it has a payoff nobody saw coming.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COMMENT | The Fry That Got Away

    Stephen Fry is up there as one of my all-time favourite celebrities.

    We share the exact same view with regard to god – if there was a god how could dreadful creatures like Katie Hopkins exist? I love the fact he’s human with a colourful past. And more recently, Stephen is utterly entertaining, knowledgeable and charming on QI.

    Stephen would be my number one dinner guest if I could choose any well known figure. What I’ve read and seen on-the-box is a patient, distinguished, enchanting man. There is something quite attractive about Fry. We’re not talking physique here – but I understand how Elliot Spencer, a bright 27-year-old comedian, could fall for, in my eyes, such a charismatic and intelligent gent.

    The Big Smoke has been my home for sixteen years – I’m well versed at walking past a member of the Spice Girls, dining in the same eatery as the voice behind Murder On The Dance Floor, or having to sit by one of the dragons from Dragons Den at a friend’s birthday party. I’ve even dated a celebrity. No biggie. So-called celebrities are just successful skin-and-bone after all.

    I met a friend recently at the Royal Academy (RA) to sit in their square and enjoy some jazz from a group called Chico Chico.

    Sipsmith Summer Cup in hand, Havies tapping rhythmically to the melody, and my mince-pies catch Mr Stephen Fry promenading through the RA’s court yard.

    I follow Stephen on Twitter, I’m halfway through More Fool Me, Fry’s current autobiography, and I hardly ever miss QI. Of course, I should politely say hello and ask admiringly for a selfie – how could such an adorable man say no to a civil, dapperly-attired, young homo.

    Like this:

    Without a so much as a glimpse at his pearly-whites, “er er, no no, er”, he shook his head as he steamed into the RA.

    I was left crimson-cheeked, extremely disappointed and with a whole new impression of Mr Fry. Disrespectfully rebuffed, in front a small crowd, can make one feel like a muppet – not the look I was going for.

    A simple smile, followed by – I’m sorry I’m in a hurry – would have sufficed.

    Or, a spared 30 seconds, to please a fan who helps support the lifestyle Stephen enjoys today.

    Stephen’s auto has been tucked away in a drawer and QI hasn’t graced the wide screen since our meet. I’m still following Fry on Twitter, but the expiry date is nearing.

    Has Stephen Fry forgotten he’s part of the establishment – and his manners – or was he just having an off day? Either way, Fry has the privilege of being a role model to the gay community and to British people. Manners cost nothing – even Muppets know that.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • TECH TOCK, Is Technology A Time Bomb Creeping Up On Us?

    In today’s fast paced world, technology plays an increasingly important part of how we function on a day-to-day basis in practically every aspect of our lives from working effectively in our jobs to how we enjoy our leisure time and even to how we interact with our friends and family.

    Social media channels like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram allow people to share much more of their lives than ever before. The introduction of gay dating sites and mobile apps like Grindr and Scruff have opened up new and exciting opportunities to meet potential partners which would never have been possible even as little as ten years ago.

    However the pervasive nature of technology – and in particular digital technology – in our lives has increased the pressures we face. From the constant ping of emails and texts coming up on our mobiles demanding to be answered to the celebrity selfies on Twitter and Instagram which affect self-esteem, we are bombarded from all sides with images and messages that create expectations based on how we perceive such influences. Not to mention the rise in cyber bullying, revenge porn and pro-ana websites. It has even been suggested that some of us now suffer from “tech envy” with 30% of office workers saying they were very envious of the devices such as iPads that their colleagues brought into work.

    Technology & The Unreasonable Expectations We Set Ourselves
    The benefits of digital technology are obvious in providing value and possibility to millions of people. Our lives are more efficient because of such technology and important messages on issues such as equality, education and social change can now be transmitted to a global community. Yet for all the payoffs of technology, for some being online can cause a huge cost to fulfilment and emotional wellbeing because of the unreasonable expectations that can be created. Such expectations can be anything from the expectation that you should always be available on the other end of a text, instant message or Snapchat to the damaging expectation that if your latest Instagram photo doesn’t get enough likes or you don’t have lots of followers on Twitter then there must be something wrong with you.

    Although you may think you have to meet these expectations to be happy and keep up with the Joneses but actually you need to put such unreasonable expectations to one side and put your physical and emotional health first to truly ensure you live a happy and fulfilled life. The best way to do this is to shift your focus and concentrate on what you are grateful for and that which you do have. Avoid others opinions and expectations. Keep you standards high while lowering your expectations of yourself and others.

    Symptoms of Technology Overload
    The paradox of online technology is that whilst it connects people on social networks and increases our circle of friends across time zones, it also can have a negative impact on the quality of those friendships. A recent study suggested that the majority of respondents thought that social media had an adverse effect on friendships with many feeling that their relationships with others were more superficial because of social media. This could be because many of us use social media as a substitute to meeting friends in the real world which is not surprising as a quick like or comment online to a friend’s latest post is so easy to do and requires very little commitment or personal responsibility.

    It is also not unusual for people to feel addicted to checking their social media accounts throughout the day with the focus being on Facebook updates and Twitter notifications rather than speaking to friends on the phone or meeting in person. Even those who tried to delete their accounts struggle with being offline with one in three signing themselves up again less than a week later and one in ten lasting less than 24 hours before succumbing to the need to reactive their account and go back online.

    Technology Does Not Satisfy Our Need For Connection
    Connection is a fundamental human need which needs to be satisfied in a healthy way to create a truly meaningful and fulfilled life. The health benefits of social interaction from the release in oxytocin during a hug to the reduced incidences of depression are greatest amongst friends who meet in person opposed to those who purely interact online.

    Connecting with those you care about on social media only adds a small element to satisfy your need for connection because research shows that the quality of your relationships is correlated to the amount of time you spend together and those who spend more time engaging in face-to-face contact with friends feel that their bond is stronger. In my experience working as a life coach over the last decade, it is the clients that cultivating their relationships in person by meeting friends face-to-face to catch up over a coffee or meal who have the best quality interactions and greatest feelings of intimacy.

    Technology Antidote
    Spending time online with friends should be a last resort not your first port of call. If you want to shift your focus from unhelpful social media habits to meeting friends in the real world but don’t know where to start, here are my top ten suggestions to get out from behind your handheld device and re-connect with the people that matter.

  • COMMENT | Why Free Pride Glasgow are Offensive, Not Cis Drag Queens

    Over the past couple of years, I have been noticing a worrying pattern of behaviour amongst a number of LGBT people, who seemingly take offence to absolutely everything and cry outrage at the drop of a hat.

    Whether it’s being offended over the naming of a road, the use of the word queer, or the inclusion of UKIP in a Pride parade, I often feel much of this ‘outrage’ is unnecessary and rarely take offence to things myself. Sometimes we need to lighten up a bit and consider the bigger picture. However, on hearing the news that Free Pride Glasgow have banned cis drag performers, I am on the side of those who are outraged at the decision.

    I had not heard of Free Pride Glasgow until the news of their drag ban was posted all over Twitter. After doing a bit of research on the event, on one hand I admire what they’re about. I organise a Pride event myself and do my best to ensure it’s not a commercial event. It’s all about the community and I feel that Prides should be free events that are accessible to all. However, on the other hand, I feel that Free Pride Glasgow are a bit militant in their views and the way they are going about things. For starters, putting their event on the same day as the mainstream Glasgow Pride is a bit confrontational. Then, of course, we come to the decision to ban cis drag performers from being a part of Free Pride Glasgow.

    Drag Queens are a huge part of our history and culture. Without Drag Queens we wouldn’t have many of the freedoms we take for granted today. The Stonewall riots in the 60s were started by Drag Queens and for that reason we have much to thank them for. To ban cis drag performers is to ignore a large part of our culture. I genuinely feel that the organisers of Free Pride Glasgow should be ashamed of themselves. It doesn’t appear to be in the spirit of being ‘free’, nor in the spirit of Pride.

    Pride festivals need to be inclusive of all people, whether they be lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, cis, non-cis, straight, black, white, purple, orange or anything else. They should be open to anybody who wants to celebrate diversity and our rich LGBT culture, and that should extend to entertainers. Banning cis drag performers makes Free Pride Glasgow an exclusive event, not an inclusive one.

    A solution to this situation would be for Free Pride Glasgow to allow cis drag performers to be a part of their event, but to have them perform in a specific drag area like some other Pride events do. That way, those who are not offended by cis drag artists can see them perform, and those who are offended by cis drag artists don’t have to see them.

    There are clearly ways around this that would benefit everyone. However, Free Pride Glasgow are choosing to bow to pressure from one section of our community and alienate a whole other section in the process. The organisers are doing nothing to further our cause by taking this action. In fact, they are contributing to a divide in our community that I fear is growing at a time when we all need to be on the same side. For that, they should be ashamed of themselves.

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

     

  • COMMENT I Wanna Hold My Boyfriend’s Hand (and other straight jealously)

    I wanna hold your hand (and other straight jealousy)

    As the title says, it’s a simple request; all I want to do is hold a hand, specifically my partner’s hand. We’ve been together for 8 years and I’ve never openly held his hand or been overly affectionate in public, and a video posted recently of two men in Russia just walking down the street holding hands painfully illustrates the kind of reactions that we would get. Obviously, the UK is far more liberal than Russia when it comes to gay rights, but I would still feel nervous about what could potentially happen.

    I consider myself a strong guy mentally, and if someone is openly homophobic I will stand up for myself, but it’s the subtle type of reactions that bother me more. The whispers and stares from people we would get for doing something so benign that straight people don’t even have to think about it. I do feel a pang of sadness and jealousy when I’m walking along with my partner and see couples holding hands or being affectionate, completely oblivious to the world around them, thinking of nothing more than their eventual destination or what’s for dinner that night.

    Straight people take for granted how easy it is for them to display affection towards their significant other, and while there may be a very small minority of people who might stare at a straight couple, if they are of, say different races or different physicality, it is nowhere near the level of hostility a gay couple would endure.

    I also very rarely visit “straight” nightclubs on a Friday or Saturday because it only takes one person saying something to ruin a night out. I feel constantly on edge, always wary of the kind of people who are about and how they might react to me, and obviously, with alcohol involved, this becomes more of a minefield. Most straight people can go into a nightclub and have a great night out without the fear of either having something said or worse, being attacked. Yes it can happen that anyone can get into an incident in a nightclub, but as a gay person, the odds are stacked far more against me.

    I’m lucky in the fact that I’ve only ever experienced a few incidences of outright homophobic verbal abuse, and I’ve never been physically attacked and I consider myself fortuitous that the most I’ll get from friends and work colleagues would be considered nothing more than friendly banter and natural curiosity to me. However, what is friendly banter to me, could be incredibly hurtful to someone else and in the younger LGBT population especially, who may still be struggling with their identity this can be potentially dangerous.

    To some straight people reading this, they may question why I would be jealous of them, and this is where the problem lies, they don’t see a problem. They don’t have the need to see an issue, something I and the LGBT community don’t have the luxury of.

    The reason we have Pride events is so that as a community we can feel safe enough to be ourselves, where the worst we’ll get is from a few sad people in anoraks quoting bible verses at us, who are easily ignored. I’ve had it asked to me and others many times “Why do you have pride marches?” And my usual reaction is “be thankful you don’t need one”. The fact we have had to fight to be given basic rights, and it took until the 21st century to even be allowed to have a civil partnership shows there it still a long way to go to change people’s attitudes. We simply haven’t come far enough to stop the fight for our right to exist and to be recognised.

    But what can be done, should all gay couples just hold hands and sod the reactions? Sadly this isn’t as easy as it sounds. In some places in the UK this could potentially result in a violent reaction. LGBT people have been attacked and or killed, and over 35,000 incidences of homophobic hate crimes go unreported every year. Does this illustrate that the LGBT community are so used to these kind of reactions that they consider it pointless to report it any more, or is there something of a more deeply disturbing trend when it comes to homophobic abuse, in that LGBT people don’t feel anything would be done even if it was reported and would that then result in worse treatment from the perpetrator after they got their slap on the wrist. Statistics show that fewer than 1 in 10 homophobic hate crimes that are actually reported lead to a conviction.

    Times they are a changing though, and the general overall attitude towards gay people is positive and accepting, and as people become more educated about the LGBT community the more people will not think twice about seeing two men holding hands.

    by Andy Elliot Griffiths / @AndyEG1982