THEGAYUK

Category: Identity Politics

  • COMMENT: Is The Gay Community Its Own Worst Enemy?

    Last year I wrote an article for this divine publication about the gay movement eating itself from the inside out.

    It was in response to a comment from RuPaul, in which she made that exact statement after the term ‘she-mail’ was dropped from the Drag Race television show. Almost 18 months later I still agree with RuPaul; perhaps even more so now than I did then. That’s because recently I’ve found myself becoming victim to an increasing amount of abuse… not from homophobes, but from other gay people.

    Locally I do a lot of work with and for the gay community. This has led to a certain level of interest in the work I do and made me the go to person whenever an organisation or the local media wish to discuss a gay-related topic. I’ve never claimed or wanted to be a spokesperson for the gay community, but at the same time whenever I do give an interview or have a meeting, I’m keen to get across points that gay people have made to me rather than simply putting my own point of view across. It’s something that has ran pretty smoothly until the tide appeared to change several months ago.

    There was a bit of controversy surrounding the Coventry Pride festival earlier in the year. I had been organising it, but decided to step down from that position over a disagreement with the venue, who I perceived to be in it for the money and exposure rather than for the community. With money and influence on their side, the venue went on a spin campaign that absolutely trashed my reputation. It was then that negativity from people within the gay community began. I was subjected to threats of violence, death wishes, slurs about my appearance, and general Dan-bashing. It led to me having to log off social media for several days until things started to die down.

    That experience got me thinking again about how the gay community can sometimes be its own worst enemy. There I was doing what I thought was something positive for the community, only to have people jumping on the bandwagon to troll me. I resolved to ignore ‘the haters’ as I thought the truth of the situation was all I needed. Besides, if you start to respond to trolls it just feeds them, right? I anticipated that the trolling wouldn’t last as people would get bored and move on to something else. How wrong I was.

    Back in September, there was a horrific attack on a gay man in Leamington Spa. A number of people from an outraged community asked me to do something about it as we could all see that violent crimes against gay people were becoming more common locally. So I set about an awareness raising campaign and organised the Leamington Spa Equality Rally, which took place at the beginning of October. As part of the campaign, I gave interviews to local press, as well as holding meetings with the Police to discuss increased support for the community. As the press reports began to surface, I started to receive abusive comments again. What shocked me was that it wasn’t from homophobes, but from gay people. I was called all sorts of names, and it was claimed that I was making the violent incidents up as a form of self-promotion. I let it go as frankly I had more important things to think about, but at the same time felt a sense of disappointment that so many gay people appear to turn on each other so easily. Where was the sense of community and togetherness going? Does the hatred come from their own self-loathing or is it jealousy?

    After a couple of weeks free from being trolled, it has flared up again recently. This time it’s due to an article that a local newspaper ran based on one of my tweet sabout the LGBTQ charity I run not doing too badly considering I was told by a local councillor that there are no gay people in Warwickshire. It’s a very old story and I thought it was common knowledge. However after a sensationalised article locally, the story was picked up by national gay publications. They began running the story of how I had made this revelation, despite the fact I hadn’t revealed anything or even spoken to those publications. As the comments from gay people started, they ranged from the amusing to the abusive. For some, it became less about the article and the issues we face as a community, as more comments about my appearance surfaced, with some gay people basically saying I’m a minger.

    Whether I’m a minger or not, the thing that concerns me the most is how the gay community appears to be fracturing. I’ve detailed some of my personal experiences here, but I’m sure we’ve all seen profiles online that state “no fats, no fems, no blacks, no Asians”. There’s even one person on Grindr who states he is looking for “beef, not mince”. The reality is that we are now in a position where it’s seemingly ok to ridicule and discriminate against our own kind rather than stick together. I now find myself questioning whether the ‘gay community’ actually exists or whether it’s a thing of the past.

    With hate crime on the rise and equality still to fight for, particularly in a social context, I don’t see that in-fighting and discrimination within the gay community does anything to further our cause. It worries me that so many gay people would rather abuse and ridicule their own kind than come out in support of the issues that are being highlighted or in support of each other as a minority. We’re no longer the family we once were.

    So what’s the solution? Unfortunately, I don’t have all the answers, but it’s clear to me that trolling, racism, body shaming and ridicule are becoming increasingly prevalent within the gay community. Surely we’re better than that.

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

  • COLUMN: Why I Am Outraged by LGBT People’s Outrage

    If there’s one thing that really annoys me these days, it’s people being ‘outraged’ over things that do not require any amount of outrage.

    Particularly with social networking sites being so popular, it’s easy to log on to the likes of Twitter and jump on a bandwagon of outrage against something.

    This week there have been two stories in the news that have resulted in LGBT people claiming outrage. The first is about the comments that Sir Tom Jones made regarding his former views on homosexuality. In an interview he said he was paranoid about homosexuals in the 50s and 60s when he was starting out in the music industry. When I read the article I had no doubt that he was referring to a certain period in history and that his views are surely more open minded now. However, the outraged brigade failed to see that and leaped on to the Tom Jones bashing bandwagon to call him out for being a homophobe. As Tom Jones himself has since said via his Twitter feed, let’s put this story into context. He was clearly talking about a period in history when homosexuality was illegal and people had very different views to ones that are held today.

    In another part of the interview he said that he soon realised that most people “were normal” before going on to clarify that “homosexuals are normal” and that “he shouldn’t have put it like that”. From my point of view he had said something that could cause offense, realised what he had said and then corrected himself.

    Therefore there’s no issue, right? Apparently not so, as swarms of people took to Twitter to berate him for saying homosexuals are not normal; something which he never actually said. I wonder how many of those people criticising him actually read the article or considered the context of what he said, and how many blindly jumped on the bandwagon of being outraged by something that he didn’t actually say.
    The second story that caught my eye is regarding the calls to ban Germaine Greer from speaking at Cardiff University due to transphobic comments she has made in the past. I’ve long been an advocate of trans rights and actively campaigned on behalf of trans people. However I have to disagree with any calls to ban Germaine Greer from speaking at Cardiff University (or indeed any other university). Although I do not agree with the comments she has made about trans women, I also do not believe in silencing or censoring people who have differing views, regardless of how offensive people may find them. As long as no laws are being broken and there isn’t any incitement of hatred, I am all for freedom of speech. Surely it is much better to organise a peaceful protest or actively challenge Germaine Greer over her views than to act to silence her. Doesn’t that make us as bad as those who act to silence our voices?

    The link between the two stories and the views I hold, is the outrage and offense that people claim they feel. While I cannot tell people what they do or do not feel, I can’t help but think that people need to read between the lines, see things for that they are, and perhaps open their minds a bit more before getting angry.

    Another example is when I recently organised an equality rally in my hometown of Leamington Spa to peacefully protest against a rise in violent attacks on LGBT people. Although not a dangerous place, attacks on the community have been slowly rising over the past couple of years and I decided to do something about it. As well as organising the rally, I also spoke to many local councillors, my MP and the Police to alert them to the situation and call on them to do more to support the LGBT community. The concerns were positively received and in particular the Police were incredibly supportive. They agreed a series of strategies to combat hate crimes against LGBT people, encourage reporting and support the community. I posted about the positive outcomes on social media so that those attending the rally could see what was happening behind the scenes. While the news was welcomed by the majority, there was a sect that became outraged that I would allow the Police to be involved with LGBT people and LGBT events.
    A number of very angry individuals, who were acting on behalf of a militant LGBTQ+ group, began aggressively posting their thoughts on how the Police actively murder people from our community and stated that the Police should be banned from all LGBT events. My response was to again explain the context of Police involvement. I told the individuals that the Police were being supportive of our community and that they were not attending local LGBT events to ‘police’ us. It was about positive community engagement and trying to learn how they can do better for our community. My clarification fell on deaf ears and the outrage of that sect became increasingly intense. Along with their outrage and aggressive posts came personal attacks on me, including racism.

    Ultimately what happened was a group of people became outraged over something they completely missed the context of and refused to listen to any kind of reasoning or explanation. I guess that’s the same in the case of the Tom Jones and Germaine Greer stories; people are becoming outraged over something without really understanding the context or considering the alternatives.

    As I keep saying, the LGBT community is sometimes its own worst enemy.

     

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

  • COMMENT: Not Trans Enough – The cost of a “Gendered” name

    What’s the cost of a gendered name? Lola was discharged after the clinic that they* had attended for two years determined that not changing their name from Lola to a male gendered or gender neutral name did not warrant the surgery that would ultimately make them feel more like Lola.

    When I went to the gender identity clinic’s (GIC) welcoming session, they proudly told me that they treated non-binary transgender people. A non-binary person is someone who identifies as something other than male or female. I am agender, so I am neither of those options.

    It’s taken me a long time to get to where I am. I was born with a condition that caused me to not produce many hormones, including oestrogen and testosterone. I was put on hormone replacement therapy when I was 12 and now I take both oestrogen and testosterone.

    Being quite androgynous when I was younger, I got bullied frequently by others demanding to know my gender. That made me want to fit in. I didn’t resist hormone replacement therapy when I was 12. I embraced it. It was about growing older to me. But the more I developed, the worse I felt.

    When I discovered the concept of “agender”, it fit. It matched how I felt my entire life and it just made sense to me. I suspected for years and years that I wanted my chest to not be there any more. And when I finally put on a binder – everything fit.

    For the last five years, I’ve been pursuing chest surgery. Unfortunately, my chest isn’t large enough to merit what I want through the NHS. So, with the encouragement of my doctors and despite the warnings from other non-binary people, I went through the GIC.

    I waited two years in total from start to finish to be denied. I had two assessments with two different psychiatrists, lasting an hour and a half each. In three hours, I told the truth. I told them where I came from, what I’d been through, and what I needed from them.

    Two days ago, I received a discharge from the GIC. It stated:

    “We would not countenance endorsement of an irreversible surgical procedure unless the individual had been able to demonstrably consolidate a social transition including name change to the preferred gender role.”

    I don’t recall even begin asked during my assessment if I had plans to change my name. The name I go by is Lola. I love it. I don’t care if it’s not “gender neutral” because my experience of being androgynous early in life is that no matter what, if people can’t guess your gender, they’ll just ask.

    Changing my name to something gender neutral won’t actually make anyone see me for who I am. It’ll just make people ask me what I am. I don’t live in a society where people will ever see me as agender just from looks, so, as frustrated as it makes me, I cope with it by trying my best to accept it. What’s more important for me is having my body feel right.

    And it doesn’t. As the summer months approach, my anxiety increases thinking of the way the heat reminds me of the constant presence of my chest. Every day I feel like I’m lugging around two giant tumours. The psychological relief I feel by wearing a binder is good, but the physical discomfort and pain of it cutting into my skin makes it not a good enough long-term solution.

    While I owe my life to the NHS and I am glad for the treatment I receive for my disability, the lack of money allocated toward GICs only means that they are forced to pick and choose. Individuals who go to a GIC and wait 9-6 months for a first appointment and longer to be assessed, we’re not confused about what we want.

    The journey it takes to realising your gender is different and your need for medical assistance begins way before you reach a GIC, so most already know how they feel before they get assessed. Still, with a limited pot of funding, I suppose they must make decisions based on ridiculous, outdated criteria.

    Criteria that make it impossible for agender people to actually receive any care.

    Around this time of Transgender Visibility, I would like people to know and see the struggles transgender and non-binary people face to receive care. And maybe, in time, “GIC” won’t be such a tumultuous word among transgender people.

    Lola is currently fundraising for their chest surgery via YouCaring.

    *We asked Lola which pronoun they were most comfortable us using to describe them.

    This article was taken from Issue 11 of TheGayUK. To Subscribe click here

    by Lola

     

    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.

  • OPINION | RuPaul is Right – The Gay Movement Will Eat Itself From The Inside Out

    RuPaul appears to have been at the centre of a storm in a big gay teacup lately.

    With her show ‘Drag Race’ no longer having the term “She-Mail” included in it and the annoyance of some within the LGBT community at her casual use of the word ‘tranny’, RuPaul has been biting back. I have to say that I agree with her.

    I’ve never seen RuPaul’s Drag Race, but I am aware of the show and its content. I wonder how many people getting annoyed at the use of the term ‘She-Mail’ and the word ‘tranny’ have actually watched it and seen the context in which those words are used. The word tranny has long been used to describe transvestites and Drag Queens; it is not a word that is exclusive to transgender people or even used by transgender people. This is something that those getting annoyed at its use in RuPaul’s show should keep in mind. RuPaul describes herself as a tranny and it is quite apparent that her use of that word and of the term ‘She-Mail’ relates to herself and other Drag Queens, rather than being a slur towards to the transgender community.

    Something that has been bothering me for some time is the way the LGBT community are so quick to turn on each other. Whether it’s the above issue of getting precious over certain words and terms or gay men criticising other gays for the way they look, it’s clear to me that the gay movement is becoming its own worst enemy.

    There are so many horrific things happening around the world, such as the anti-gay regimes in Russia, the new laws in Brunei, and the ongoing persecution of LGBT people in some African countries. Even in our own country there’s still great injustices and the threat from the outside still exists. Rather than infighting we should be focused on what we can achieve together to eliminate that threat.

    Coming back to the policing of words (and it is policing), I really believe that some LGBT people need to lighten up and consider the context that words are used in. I’ll give you an example…

    I was once called a “f**king disgusting queer” by a homophobic man who wanted to beat me up just for being gay. Those words used in that context are offensive and completely unacceptable. However, I have also been called a “queer dear” by one of my friends. The word ‘queer’ is used in both of those examples, but only one is offensive and that is because of the context it is used in.

    I’ve spoken to transgender friends of mine about this and the feeling among them is that the word tranny doesn’t apply to them and they are not offended when somebody uses the word in reference to Drag Queens or transvestites. It is only when they are called trannies that it becomes offensive. Again it comes back to the context in which words are used.

    I truly believe in people being able to identify in any way they want and use any words they choose as long as it’s in a positive and empowering context. Just because some in the transgender community don’t like the word ‘tranny’ or the term ‘She-Mail’ being used towards them it shouldn’t mean that RuPaul or anyone else isn’t allowed to apply those words to themselves or others who identify with it.

    There are more shocking and pressing matters in the world that we should be focusing on instead of policing the words that others in our LGBT community use. Otherwise there is a real risk of the ‘gay movement’ eating itself from the inside. RuPaul, I salute you for speaking the truth.

     

    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.

  • OPINION | The Rise And Rise of the GBF

    Another year another Hack comes forward talking about the virtue of having a gay best friend and why they are essential. I’ve done the check list to make sure all the clichés are covered so you don’t have to do read it.

    • In touch with his feminine side
    • Identifying female attribute to male (Queen, flouncing ET all)
    • “soul mate”
    • List of things that we share in common
    • Allusion to gay best friend being better than a partner.

    Of course all the girls want a Stanford character in their life’s so they can play at being Carrie. The gay best friend figure is seen as someone there to provide unconditional support, impeccable fashion advice, hugs and sympathy that a straight friend are magically unable to offer. They are camp and hilarious always ready to provide some kind of double entendre. They will joke about sex but essentially they are sexless.

    This isn’t a TV show.

    My best friend is Nina, female and we’ve been friends for the past 15 years. We used to work together while going through uni. We’ve both gone into different careers. She is a solicitor I’m a therapist she has a term for me, it’s “best Friend”. The fact that I am gay is totally irrelevant.

    As she will no doubt attest to having lived with me, I am not in touch with my feminine side and my fashion advice is anything but impeccable. We have similar interests, movies, music books etc. but don’t all best friends? After all why would you be friends with someone that you have nothing in common?

    We have supported each other through so much over the years; to list it here would be the most depressing checklist ever. The respect and support is mutual. As is the judgement that comes from your best friend when you are in the wrong, is always conveyed in no uncertain terms. We laugh together and cry together, we have seen marriages and relationships of our mutual friends fall apart while we are still standing strong.

    If I marry my partner, she will be the best Woman. I’m still a groom and she is still a woman. We have joked that on the wedding day I will make her wear a wedding dress for the photos. Mainly just to mess with people’s minds. We also have the same warped sense of humour.

    We’ve fallen out of bars together, seen each other through bad relationships, embraced new fads that have come along and now quite happily exchange recipe tips over a brew. We’ve changed and evolved together and provide each other with a mutually supportive relationship. We both have partners that we are quite happy with and there is nothing lacking in our lives.

    So is it time to retire the “GBF” title?. Last year Tesco had a gay best friend doll on sale as a novelty gift that was swiftly withdrawn. Why? Maybe the times has changed, a friendship should be based on commonality and loyalty rather that sexuality. Every so often another one of these articles will appear praising the attributes of the gay best friend and talking about how essential they are to the authors lifestyle. But ask yourself this, are they describing a caricature from a bad movie or a real flesh and blood person. By using the term “Gay Best Friend” , they are prioritising the sexuality and losing the essence of the person and the relationship. Its not homophobic just a narrow-minded and outdated way of thinking.
    I am not her gay best friend, she is not my straight best friend. We’re best friends

     

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

  • OPINION | The issue with dictionaries’ definition of the word gay

    There is one thing that really annoys me. It doesn’t quite turn me into an aggressive homosexual but it doesn’t half infuriate me. The offending thing is when the word gay is used as a synonym for stupid, lame, rubbish or sh**, basically.

    It was with great disappointment that I came across an update on this fine magazine’s Facebook page that exposed the dictionary listing of the word gay on Apple’s computer operating systems. It lists the word gay as being “foolish” and “stupid”. I will, of course, state that it has the usual definitions of gay listed, but this is a worrying development, particularly at a time when the word is used negatively so casually amongst young people (and some older ones too).

    As you’ll pick up in some of my previous writings for THEGAYUK, I run an LGBTQ youth support charity and work hard to educate young people on the use of the word gay. I’ve spoken to many youth groups, parents, and professionals about the way in which gay is flung around as an insult or put down, and spent much time educating people on how to use the word appropriately or challenge its negative use. I feel that the way gay is listed in Apple’s dictionary goes some way to undo or undermine those efforts.

    Apple is not the only offender, though; the Oxford Dictionary, although putting the words “often offensive” in front, also list the word gay as meaning “foolish” or “stupid”. In general, I am not easily offended but I find the dictionary listing unacceptable. Perhaps it is true that dictionaries should list the way in which words are used rather the way they should be, but I am still uncomfortable with this definition. I have actually referred young people to the dictionary to look up what gay actually means. Now it’s defined as meaning “foolish” or “stupid” I will no longer be able to do that.

    In Apple’s defence, I am aware that their dictionary entries come from several different sources and that it must be difficult to keep tabs on every entry. Apple is also known for being LGBT friendly so they can perhaps be let off for this oversight. I have confidence in Apple removing that particular definition or at least making an alteration now that they have been made aware of it. However, as for the Oxford Dictionary, I am a bit more disappointed. In my view gay does not equate to being foolish or stupid. It refers to sexuality or being light hearted and care free. Despite mentioning that the negative use is often offensive, it doesn’t make it an acceptable definition. To use the word in the way that these dictionaries define it, they are being pretty gay themselves.

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

  • OPINION: Don’t Take It The Wrong Way: Homosexuality in Comedy

    In 1972, during an impromptu TV appearance with jazz singer George Melly, Monty Python star Graham Chapman, rather drunkenly, came out publicly as the first gay comedian in British history.

    This casual announcement caused no small amount of outrage – homosexuality had only been decriminalised three years previously and it was far from universally accepted. 41 years on, our attitudes have changed: the recent British Attitudes Survey revealed four-fifths of people now have no objection to homosexual relationships, and same sex marriage is soon to become law. But has the comedy world kept pace with this social change?

    Certainly, directly homophobic jokes are no longer accepted by audiences. Where you might have had a few non-ironic, ‘come over a little queer’, innuendos in working men’s clubs in the 1970s, these are now restricted to the school playground. But homosexuality still remains to some extent a taboo and therefore a basis – if not a target – for comedy.

    Consider, for instance, how a comedian can get a laugh out of allusion to a homosexual act or homosexual attraction, which wouldn’t be possible with the heterosexual equivalent. Comedians can also continue to spout gay-innuendo, as long as it is done from behind the mask of a character (cf Al Murray) or irony (cf Jimmy Carr).

    In other words, we as a nation no longer think homosexuality is wrong but are happy to laugh at it, provided we believe the comedy’s creators share our enlightened views.

    Chapman’s coming out in 1972 was closely followed by the premiere of Are You Being Served – perhaps the source of Britain’s most famous comic gay character.

    Though now dated, Mr Humphries camp behaviour crops up later in Gimme Gimme Gimme, Benidorm and Little Britain, while the trope of a closeted or secretly gay man resurfaces frequently, for instance Frasier’s Gil Chesterton, The Simpsons’ Smithers and Ted & Ralph from The Fast Show.

    On the live circuit, numerous all-male sketch groups coax wild laughter out of subtle suggestions of attraction between the actual cast members and their attempted or successful sexual advances (passionate snogs in male sketch groups are so frequent it’s a wonder anyone is still able to believe they are unplanned).

    A reasonable question is whether this is something we should be concerned about. I would not for one second suggest the people making the above work hate gay people or necessarily hold even slightly homophobic views. After all, comedy’s role is merely to play on taboos; it is society that is responsible for creating them.

    Comedy reflects the world and its prejudices and, if we don’t like what we see, this is just the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass (to quote Oscar Wilde – perhaps the world’s most famously ill-fated homosexual comedian). One could easily claim that playing on gay taboos does not involve saying homosexuality is wrong, merely that it historically exists outside of the mainstream.

    But doesn’t comedy have a duty to question and to change the world, rather than simply playing to its basest interests?

    After all, no self-respecting comedian would tell racist jokes, even if their audience happened to consist entirely of BNP activists who genuinely enjoyed them. Isn’t laughing at a situation predicated on homosexuality saying, in some way, that to be gay is somehow slightly ridiculous – not wrong or evil – but somehow lesser, not ordinary, not completely sensible. There is perhaps a hint of macho culture at work – a culture often accused of pervading comedy – where the jokes of the playground are rejected but their underlying narrative is accepted and played on.

    It has been frequently noted that men playing women gets laughs but women playing men does not, and that this may be down to the gender-power-play at work. Perhaps the same process exists when a straight man ‘plays gay’. Certainly the reverse wouldn’t be funny – the heterosexuality of a straight man, in itself, is never made the basis for a joke.

    Doesn’t the mere fact of this suggest something not entirely comfortable at work behind homosexuality’s portrayal in comedy?

    It is also interesting to contrast how frequently, how well and from how early on drama – on stage and screen – has tackled the real life issues of homosexuality, gay life and gay culture, and has succeeded in presenting numerous three-dimensional gay characters. Perhaps comedy is starting to do this, although its tendency toward stereotype makes it not best placed for the challenge. But surely, through satire, it is perfectly positioned to tackle the existing power-play between gay-straight relations and the place of gay stereotypes in culture.

    Where are the stand-up routines and the sketches poking fun at the casually accepted cultural view of homosexuality as effeminate or butch, transgressive, ridiculous or naughty?

    Graham Chapman did much to advance gay rights, mainly by living in the public eye as a non-stereotypical, and successful, gay man. But his comedy work with the Pythons made as much comedy hay from ‘poofs’ as anyone else. Perhaps it’s time for comedy to take a more active approach to gay representation – to stop meeting expectations and start setting them. If homosexuality has become a cheap laugh and an easy target, why not take aim at the harder target – comedy itself.

    By Tom Crawshaw

     

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

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • OPINION | What is in the label?

    “You know Charlotte? The girl who can relate anything in life to something that has happened in The OC”

    Even though we may not want to admit it we all place labels on others. Within every group of friends there are characteristic, personality traits or specific physical features that define someone. Although these are positive ways to describe others, should we define someone because of their sexuality?

    You may be an excellent sportsperson or a talented comedian. You could be the next Picasso or your devotion to charitable work stands out to others. Now, what would happen next if someone forgot all about what defines you and just referred to your sexuality?

    Who agreed it was acceptable to define an individual based on their sexual preference?

    Whilst being surrounded by those with limited views on homosexuality it confused me. I wondered who had made the rules of life where a man had to find a charming princess and why couldn’t I find a prince charming?

    After coming out to family and friends I found that although I never changed – the opinions of others changed.

    My friends when referring to me with others would use the term “gay”, and I couldn’t understand how the labels that defined me before disappeared.

    Gay is merely a synonym for homosexual, which breaks down in Latin to mean same and sex. Since the late 1960s gay has been used in replacement of the label homosexual. Members of the LGBT took the label of gay as it felt more positive than the latter term homosexual which gave a more clinical feel.

    Labels define us all in positive and negative ways but why should we allow people to overlook our other qualities just because of sexuality?

     

    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.

  • OPINION | Out of line, online; Racism and gay dating

    No Blacks. No Asians. No Queens.

    I bet you already know where these quotes come from. I am also pretty sure you’ve seen them. Yes, these are common quotes from Grindr profiles. What’s worse is that I imagine you can think of more grindr, gaydar, gayromeo profiles with further offensive and racist remarks on them.

    But surely we can discriminate on who we fancy? Of course.

    We must have the right to decide what shape, size and colour the dick is we choose to squeeze, suck or sit on? Without a doubt.

    And if I want to say what I don’t like then it saves time doesn’t it? Perhaps.

    So if I don’t fancy a black or white guy then I have the right to say so don’t I? Maybe.

    But there are ways of saying things.

    If you in fact only like Arabic men, regardless of your own racial or ethnic identity then why not say so rather than banishing other minorities outright. Equality and Diversity principles do not dictate that you have to be tokenistic in your relationships or sexual exploits but it does support a community where everyone feels included. With the social battles fought by the LGBT community in the past sixty to six hundred years surely we can be slightly more embracing of difference.

    Not into camp. Not in fairies, sorry.

    This is another angle of exclusion on ‘social networking’ apps frequented by the predominantly gay and bisexual male. Campness is labelled as undesirable, separated from the profile holder. He isn’t into it, he doesn’t like it. If you are camp he doesn’t like you – it’s there for you to read. How does it make you feel?

    Maybe you do sprout wings and poop glitter? But that’s who you are – should you change it for the faceless, headless body? No, but it makes you feel badly about yourself and he still hasn’t found himself a date because the butch bull he is looking for actually doesn’t like guys who bully and discriminate.

    So in summary, let’s start with the basics: How not to be a racist in five easy steps.

    1) Do not use racist language. We all know what they are. No one thinks you’re big or smart or edgy for using them. And being practical, not many guys invite racists round to their houses.

    2) Put what you like, what you ARE into. It’s more positive and inclusive and appealing to a wider range of people. Saying you like something, or love something is much more attractive than associating you with ‘No this’, ‘No that’ or other negative concepts.

    3) Be polite. If someone messages you that doesn’t give you butterflies in your stomach (or lower) then just say thanks but no thanks. Most people will get the hint, and if they don’t just block them. It’s easier than resorting to a racist rant.

    4) Be inclusive. Try not to see people as one dimensional. Not all ethnicities are the same. Look at your arm – it everyone with that similar shade the same as you? Do they eat the same food, socialise in the same way, believe the same as you do just because your skin matches? Of course not, so don’t apply this ignorance to other arm shades.

    5) Challenge yourself. How many of your friends are the same as you? Do they all look the same, come from similar backgrounds? Most are probably the same age. How about bringing some diversity to your life? Speak to someone new, someone with maybe a different experience, a different outlook, a different skin colour – they might be able to shed new light on life. How does your coming out experience compare to the Asian guy 200 meters away or the polish guy four roads away, or the twink smiling at you at the bottom of your screen?

    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.

  • OPINION: Going Gay For Pay

    With the release of Behind the Candelabra, Michael Douglas and Matt Damon are playing Liberace and his Lover. So is it right that straight actors are portraying gay characters in film? Does it say anything about the diversity of the cinema industry?

    Hollywood has a long history of straight actors playing gay characters; Philadelphia, Milk and Brokeback Mountain all have Hollywood A Listers portraying gay characters. All of these films were hugely successful and nominated for multiple awards. Maybe it’s cynical to suggest that portraying a gay role in a serious drama is a guarantee for an Oscar nod. It’s par for the course now in Hollywood, to play gay is to show your acting versatility and ability to inhabit a characters space that is different from your own. There are cases of openly gay actors playing gay characters. In Gods and Monster’s Sir Ian McEwan portrays James Whale, the Frankenstein creator from the golden age of Hollywood. Rupert Everett has spent most of his career as the gay side kick comedy relief.
    But is this any different to able-bodied actors playing disabled characters? Glee has a character using a wheelchair user portrayed by an able-bodied actor. How is this different? Looking further back, is this the modern day equivalent of the black and white minstrel band? , where white men would “black up” in order to portray black performers. This practice is now longer thought to be politically correct and is racially insensitive.
    Of course, gay for pay is an established part of the porn industry, hitting a Google search reveals literally thousands of hits and literally thousands of straight guys willing to go “gay” for the first time. Of course, this is all construct, it’s a known fact that that gay porn pays more than straight porn it can be an attractive prospect to a broke young guy. Of course, there is the issue of exploitation, everybody involved are consenting adults and they have been paid for their involvement. Are the viewers’ being exploited in their desire to seek straight guys having sex, Yes, but that again comes down to personal choice. The beautiful thing about capitalism is that people are able to show how they feel about a commercial product by either purchasing it, and it looks like business is booming.
    With porn, gay for pay is more problematic, the term implies that there is only straight or gay. It leaves no allowance for bi-sexuality, guys maybe willing to have sex with other men on screen for money but might not do so in their private lives. I personally feel that people’s sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to performance. The person is not representing himself or herself any more than someone in a film or a soap opera is. The sex for is there as spectacle and simulation. When watching two guys having sex it can be that there is no chemistry between the guys and they are going through the motions with only the paycheck in mind. Does it matter what someone is up too off screen or who they go home to?
    So should we be offended by all of this? I think realistically if we are we’re not going about it in the right way, the best power against the entertainment industry is to vote with your money. If you believe that going gay for pay is morally wrong then don’t watch any of the films that mainstream Hollywood puts out. It may be the case that the best actor for the job is cast. The involvement of Marque names is to ensure the film is financed and made. For me it feels like a dangerous statement to say that only gay actors are allowed to play gay characters. What’s more important to the fans of Liberace that his story is told in an entertaining way by the best actors suitable to the role or that the actor playing him happens to be gay.

    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.

  • OP ED | Can a gay guy ever be turned straight?

    After the recent remarks by Colin Murray and Bob Mills about ‘turning’ Clare Balding during a live radio broadcast on BBC Radio 5, writer Barry Heap discusses whether ‘I’ll Have A Go At Turning You’ is an offensive thing to suggest.

    At a recent friend’s wedding, an older glamorous cougar type whispered into my ear

    “I’d have a go at turning you”

    As she slid my tie in a suggestive manner I laughed at Mrs Robinson.

    The statement was meant in a flirty good humoured form of banter. We spent the rest of the night drinking whisky and dancing to northern soul. I took the statement as a huge compliment, I’m not offended.

    But I’m informed that I should be, apparently I was degraded as a man. My sexuality was disrespected and it was implied that I was free and easy to choose my sexuality as easily as I had chosen the trio of lamb for the wedding breakfast.

    The truth is if we are to say that this statement is offensive to gay people, we need to cast an eye closer to home or become hypocrites. After all that is where many of us began back is high school, following the unattainable straight boy at high school. But things progress from there it only takes a quick search on the internet to find thousands of pages of slash fiction written about straight characters on TV series having gay sexual encounters. There’s also the endless speculation on the sexuality of celebrity’s such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta

    Taking a further look into the internet, there are many gay porn sites that feature performers who identify as “gay for pay”. This means that off camera they are straight but on camera, they are quite happy to perform with other guys. Yes, it’s exploitive but there is clearly a market for it as many pay sites offer the illicit thrill of seeing a straight jock “turned”.

    On the flip side of the coin, many straight friends are happy to discuss celebrities that they would like to “experiment” with. Russell brand, Robert Downey Jr and Eric Bana are all mentioned. I have no doubt that if any of these unlikely scenarios were to present themselves that nothing would happen; it is fantasy because they are straight. I respect their sexuality as much as they have respected and supported mine. What they may be uncomfortable in saying is that they find these men very attractive and appreciate their beauty I can see their point of view, I find Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman absolutely stunning but I would never fantasise about them sexually, the ways I look at them, are Very different to how I think about Hugh Jackman (which are not fit for publication)

    So where does this leave us? I think that we can find other people attractive of either gender, sexuality is fluid but maybe sexual orientation is less so. For people identifying as gay or straight, we can be sure who we would sleep with and the line between fantasy and reality.

    When it comes to the attraction we are not interested in the others person’s orientation.

    Maybe we should just all relax, it’s easy to judge and be oversensitive over what is meant as a bit of banter. Perhaps Thatcher would not appreciate the irony of the phrase “the lady’s not for turning” being used in this manner,

     

    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.