Somewhere along the line in its quest for all-inclusive diversity, the LGBTQIA+ movement forgot to consider individuality.
Jim Downs, writing for The Advocate: Peter Thiel Shows Us There is a Difference Between Gay Sex and Gay, breaks down a unique concept of what being a gay person means. While I disagree with the distinction he makes, I would more readily apply the distinction between ‘gay’ and ‘LGBT,’ he bravely states what is typically viewed as a form of gay denialism.
Since the Paleolithic Age, people have had sex with people of the same gender. But the notion that this made someone “homosexual” or “gay” was a relatively recent phenomenon in human history.
Beginning in the late 19th century, doctors, sexologists, and others began to argue that same-sex sex created the category of sexual orientation. Prior to that, sexual activities between people of the same gender were often considered sinful or criminal, but they rarely constituted what some in the medical community began to define at end of the 1800s as a “third sex” or “intersex” or even “homosexual.” The creation of the category of sexual orientation not only classified homosexual sex but it also led to the invention of heterosexuality.
Generally speaking, the LGBT standard has been a sort of ‘Cavemen had gay weddings and adopted children just like we do today’ mindset and we are all born that way. The notion that what we know of as ‘homosexual’ today is truly a new concept in the history of humanity. But I digress. Downs uses this as a foundation for what developed into a specific ‘gay’ identity.
Many LGBT people started refusing to accept the definition of homosexuality as an identity that meant inferior, aberrant, criminal, and, most of all, unequal. When the people in the riot stood up against the police, they embraced a definition of homosexuality that recognized that people who had sex with people of the same gender had a distinct culture, identity, and history that connected them to 1920s Berlin and beyond.
He goes on describe loyalty to this struggle as a requirement for the label ‘gay.’
In the 1970s, when this development emerged, gay people began the exhaustive, tireless task of creating a culture to substantiate their identity.
By the logic of gay liberation, Thiel is an example of a man who has sex with other men, but not a gay man. Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity.
He does not fully realize it, but he brings about the position the majority of gays on the right have been chanting for decades:
Thiel’s comment is also a too common statement. Since the end of the ’70s, many gay people have not invested in the creation of a cultural identity to the extent that their forbears did. Part of the success of gay liberation meant that they no longer needed to do this kind of cultural work.
...
The gay liberation movement has left us a powerful legacy, and protecting that legacy requires understanding the meaning of the term “gay” and not using it simply as a synonym for same-sex desire and intimacy.
While Downs seems to interpret ‘cultural’ and ‘political’ to mean the same thing, he does create a new standard that writers like me have been trying to get across for a long time. There is no singular way of being ‘gay’ and political loyalty has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. He unfortunately solidifies the current LGBT idea that apostasy holds the consequence of banishment, but I do not consider this to be entirely negative. As I have often said, I am gay but I not LGBT.
LGBT is a movement. It is an exclusively progressive movement and I hold nothing in common with this group outside of being the ‘G’ in LGBT. The word ‘Gay’ however is mine. I choose it. In fact, I argue that I am more authentically ‘gay’ in terms of the 1970’s standard he invokes than LGBT is today. It was ‘conservative’ gays at that time marching in suits and dresses attempting to earn legitimacy and social acceptance. The gay movement glorified in his piece came out of rejection of societal norms.
The gay pride parades, the bars, the sex, the culture were all representations of shocking the establishment ideals of what a happy life was defined as. This certainly was not limited to marriage, children and bathroom politics. Gays were culturally connected by their individuality and their, at that time, outrageous rejection of every social norm imaginable. Today a popular local man running for office in my town is married to a man who is a small business owner with two adopted children. They teach Sunday school and attend religious gatherings as pillars of our community.
By rejecting the idea that I need to get married to anyone, choosing not to have children, embracing a comfortable and responsible attitude towards sex and ferociously holding onto my individuality which includes politics I am honoring Stone Wall far more than LGBT of today.
I don’t think anyone is any more or any less ‘gay’ regardless of their lifestyle choices. Getting married, adopting or having children is certainly not negative. But this, too, is a controversial stance confronting the establishment view. When Zack Ford, LGBT Editor of ThinkProgress, launched a coordinated attack attempting to shame Out Magazine for the mere act of interviewing Milo Yiannopoulos it should have been clear who the real free thinkers are.
Ford:
The Out Magazine profile of Milo Yiannopoulos is a serious problem. It’s not because Yiannopoulos was mentioned, nor even because he was profiled. It’s because the profile negligently perpetuates harm against the LGBT community.
...
As members of the LGBT media, we believe we all must hold ourselves and each other to a higher standard. Many of us are members of the LGBT community ourselves, and we all develop content that serves the LGBT community either directly as an audience, or on its behalf by educating broader audiences about our politics and our cultures. We thus have an obligation, at a minimum, to ensure that what we publish — no matter how crass or sensationalized it may be — avoids fostering harm to queer people. Out failed in this regard.
The LGBT left, as in all things, has declared itself the arbitrator of not only good taste, but public safety in information. Is this more like men wearing heels and a thong marching in broad daylight down the streets of New York City or the Religious Right of the 1980’s? Ironically the standard of lifestyle promoted by the LGBT left today is indistinguishable from the one promoted by the Religious Right of the 1980’s minus the Christian part.
I would argue that if you took a gay man from the 1970’s and introduced him to the LGBT leaders of today he would likely dismiss them as repressed conservatives.
Dan Savage, once defined by his aggressive anti-establishment and socially controversial views now attacks a liberal candidate for criticizing Hillary Clinton. To argue there is anything resembling the attitude of the original gay movement is absurd.
In one major aspect, Downs is right. What it means to be ‘gay’ has changed dramatically. But the LGBT version is not the only choice and deviation from that standard is not evidence of its degradation. The LGBT left holds power over the majority of gays with fear rather than unity. They perpetually cry out about non-existent oppression or threats just around the corner. They seek to shame progressively smaller and smaller groups for the sake of ever smaller minorities, as Ford lamented: “We are all painfully aware that gay, white, cisgender male narratives have too-long dominated queer media...” Being gay is becoming more complicated.
I would advocate for a complete rebuild rather than desperately trying to reinforce a massive wall around what is sacred to gay culture. To Downs I would argue that the conservative and libertarian movements provide far more freedom and individuality for the gay person than anything the left promises. Sure you can have a dozen adjectives strung together with your own flag and political complaints, but you can never truly be who you are.
I am an emancipated gay. Freed from the limitations of thought I was born into. The consequence is rejection from ‘my people’ but the reward is true liberation. As analogous to the gay world of the 1970’s, I left the home I knew that wasn’t accepting, challenging what I thought and dismantling what repressed me and adopted brave and outrageous views on the world that I never stopped expressing. There is nothing more ‘gay’ than that.
The word ‘gay’ has changed. But it is not ‘LGBT.’ To truly understand the empowerment of free expression and individuality you must first start from the right and move forward.