Ok, trans-people, help us out here. From what point does a “he” need to be called a “she”(or vice versa)? This is a genuine question as I’m trying to educate myself more on the subject. Is it when the person affected decides so? But what about evidence to “prove” the gender change? Is it not a little odd to call Chastity Bono a “he”, when the physical change hasn’t started? Is this self-identification going just too far? As someone who has never questioned their gender and who has not met many trans people, it would be useful to know just what the score is.
Sorry if this seems like an interrogation, but if I don’t ask, I’ll never learn.
Yes – I got completely confused with this article. Calling her a he when she’s still a she is crazy in terms of semantics. Totally la la land.
This is not a gender-reassignment issue, but a basic English issue – re-read the article again and think of you as someone who doesn’t know if Cher had a son or a daughter. It’s completely confusing. Get back to the script.
I think the general rule is that you refer to the person by the gender which they identify as – so Chaz is a ‘he’.
The confusion for me is when the FTM transgender male decides to start ovulating and menstruating again and gets pregnant and give birth but still wants to be referred to as a ‘he’ when giving birth is an experience unique to females.
Hope Chaz is happy with his decision.
Cher threw a fit when she found out her son was a lesbian 20 years ago. She got over it though and became very accepting. I hope she is happy that her daughter is now transitioning into a straight man.
I think the choice of ‘he’ as the personal pronoun in this article is probably just respecting the fact the person wants to live as a male. I’m confused by the article which starts by saying he will be undergoing gender reassigment and ends by saying it is not yet known if he will undergo gender reassignment. Thanks for letting us know!
Guys/girls/trans you should probably check out the thread on the trans man giving birth to the second child. The debate has just got a bit contentious there and with the views expressed on this thread so far, we are about to get labelled transphobes by Pumpkin Pie simply for asking questions on the subject. Get ready!
When will any of you get it its not about how you see Chaz. Its about how HE sees himself and HIS gender identity not your view of HIM.
Many transsexuals are unable to transition for medical, financial and family reasons. Should they be constantly be harassed because of the pronoun other people label them with.
How would you like people calling you heterosexual every day of your life Simon? I thought you where just being ignorant in the other topics about the trans men being pregnant Simon, but I guess your just a bigot after all.
Abi1975 – calm down. And for goodness sake stop calling people bigots. We are ALL in the firing line for bigotry on this site, there’s no need for internal cat fights. Abi, you’ve also stated that it’s important how Chaz sees himself. Fine, agreed. But when does someone become a trans? Are they already trans when they are born? Or are they trans once they’ve had the op? To me, if they are born looking like a woman but in their head they are a man, then that would seem more like “bi-genderism” (I’ve just made that up, but it fits the concept). Trans infers change. When you’re born, you haven’t been changed have you? You arent trans-anything yet. The transition has yet to take place. That was the question I asked at the beginning and no-one has answered it directly.
No-one would call Simon heterosexual because we have a term to define what he is – homosexual/bisxeula (I don’t know which one, Simon?). End of confusion. Now we need others for trans people – in all their variation to help us all establish who we are. It will help them get accepted much easier when they can be referred to as real and valued beings. So what’s negative about that?
Abi – you have not answered any of my questions though. I am not meaning to be contentious. I am asking genuine questions and not receiving any decent replies. I am simply being labelled a bigot.
How can transpeople demand respect and fairness if they are not even able to answer questions and instead resort to namecalling. Why should I be expected to understand transpeople if they cannot even respond to questions about their identities.
I will repeat my question – please limit your reply to this question.
How can someone who identifies as male start ovulating, menstruating; getting pregnant; giving birth (with all the physical, psychological and hormonal impact that has on the body) and still maintain a male gender identity?
Just call the person the pronoun they present themselves as unless you know otherwise. That’s all we have ever asked for people to do.
Transsexualism is a condition you have from birth studies have proved this its all about your brain sex. Its probably best seen as another type of being intersexed but instead of it being your genitals its your brain.
The thing is children only develop the awareness about the difference between genders between the ages of 4 and 6 depending on development. So this will be the age the gender disphoria will start in the child, I know this was around the age I felt different.
You can change the sex of your body but not your brain.
I would say your looking at the mechanics of that identity Simon not where that identity comes from itself. What makes you yourself Simon is it your body or your mind. I argue that the trans man has always existed it the body in the form of the persons brain sex and the conflict of identity between the brain and body is the gender disphoria.
Giving birth and is a mechanical process just like ovulating and menstruating. It must of been psychology very damaging for him to go through that. But we know people go through all sorts hardships and torment to be parents why would it be any different for a trans person.
Maybe your looking at transexuality as a mental disorder and not as a natural biological variance in the same way as say somebody being born with a 3rd nipple.
I can accept all of what you say about the transperson. Except for 1 thing. Why would a transman go through all the physical and mental hardship of transitioning only to decide later on ‘Oh maternal instinct is now kicking in. I’d better get pregnant’and thereby risk undoing all the work already done.
I am not talking about transexuals in general – just the tiny, tiny number of transmen who decide to get pregnant after transitioning. They are throwing a huge curveball in the face of trans acceptance. That is their prerogative for sure but in a world where even the more orthodox methods of transitioning causes confusion then these men who decide to get pregnant should not try to muddy the waters for everyone else and they should not publicise their pregnancies. After all Thomas Beattie decided to go on all those talkshows to advertise his pregnany against the advice of ALL the trans groups he spoke to.
Is it not possible that they are not true transexuals?
I hear your points Abi, but let’s go back to basic biology here. Having a third nipple doesn’t require major operations to correct (if that’s what you want to do). You can even live with it, without having your day-to-day life hindered. If a trans-person feels like they are in the wrong body there are psychological diffuclties through the frustration at not being able to correct the problem. It affects your sex life, outlook, mental condition…all sorts. Third nipples don’t hinder your life, other than people being a bit curious about it. The worst you’ll get is a bit of ribbing, but I doubt you’d end up being so frustrated.
This is why there is such little understanding on the issue, it’s highly complex and from what we have been fortunate listen to from people’s accounts here, opinions between trans people vary also. making it harder to fathom. I certainly don’t see transsexuality as a mental disorder – that makes it sound like an illness, which I definitely don’t agree with. But it’s certainly not a straight forward gay/straight situation.
Maybe the terms male and female need to be requalified to mean mental genders and not physiological ones?
Simon – whether they publicise their pregnanices or not, they’ll get found out just by giving birth. It probably wouldn’t do any good for them to hide away – it would just imply that they should be ashamed of who they, which I wouldn’t want to see.
And what about the kid? How will he/she feel?
If you look at the language used in equalities legislation it refers to gender identity, so someone’s gender should be defined by how they identify themselves. There are different forms of male and female identity; yes of course there are differences between a transman and a man but they both identify as male.
But does the equality legislation define gender? I don’t actually know, maybe you do?
What’s not being considered is the dynamic between Thomas Beattie and his partner. I understand she was not able to carry the baby as she had been sterilised herself. Maybe they where/are struggling in their relationship and like many people think children will be the fix for the problems.
She could have been sterilised for plenty of reasons – illness, risk of death through childbirth because of some genetic condition, no maternal instinct….to be honest it’s not worth speculating about. The more important issue is we have a transman that has given birth which has knocked most people for six and we now have to re-evaluate what we mean by some long-standing terminology.
Doesn’t everybody just have a biological gender (even if it’s ambiguous – my friend is intersex) and a gender identity, which may or may not be the same? I just call people what they wish to be called pronoun-wise. If Chaz considers herself male that’s an end to it as far as I’m concerned.
Nice in theory, but being called what you want to be doesn’t clear up the confusion. On that basis I could quite rightfully request to be referred to as “they” because I consider myself and my penis to be two separate entities. And because I say so, no-one has the right to question my authority on it. Hmmmm…..
What I have been trying to get across is that the pronouns we have no – he, she, it – don’t cover the variety anymore. Once upon a time, before emancipation of minorities, they worked just fine (for the majority, of course). Would I then be called a he-he to represent both my biological and psychological genders? Don’t think trans people would like to be called he-she…..
So long as his mother still loves him, who cares!
This thread is in danger of looking like one from BBC religion boards when (some) religious people go round & round in circles telling me I chose my sexuality. Who cares? When does a female become male? Who cares, that’s who they are. Not an attack on anyone, just my opinion.
Mike – well clearly a lot of people on here, including transmen and women. Let’s not sweep it under the carpet while we appear to be tackling some of the more confusing aspects….
Monkeychops, I can assure you I would never attempt to sweep the issue of gender re-assignment under the carpet, nor any other issue of sexuality. I really hope Cher still loves her child whatever gender; that’ what really counts; love.
Of course, in the hierarchy of things, you are spot-on Mike – love is the most important. In huge societies, love just isn’t enough to bring fairness, alas.
People are born transsexual, they do not choose it. The fact that I thought I was straight during my teens does not make it so. Hence, anyone who referred to Chaz as “she” at any time, even before she identified as male, was mistaken.
Monkeychops, why the hell do you even feel the need to distinguish yourself from transmen? Do you find them shameful? “He” and “she” will do just fine.
Also, “trans-” comes from the Latin term for something that is “beyond”, the impression being that a transman is beyond the classical definition of what it is to be a man. I can’t believe you’d actually base your opinion of a group of people on a misinterpretation of language. But, then again, you seem to think words are there to define people, not describe them.
I think one should see the change of pronouns as the first step in the transition, not the final goal. Transitioning is more than just the operations – there are other practical concerns, such as a change of name and birth certificate, and there are also emotional concerns, such as the relationship with one’s friends and family and their reactions to the news. The pronouns say “this is the path I’m on”.
Also, since this is a UK site, I should say that the NHS requires people wishing to transition to live as their preferred gender for years before they get even so much as a sniff of hormones. The preferred pronouns would have to be a part of this. And, as for Thomas Beattie, I think that wasn’t “maternal” instinct so much as “parental” instinct, and that Thomas was the only one physically capable of carrying the children. I have also heard transwomen say that they would like to have children using their own sperm (transwomen on hormones are often not able to do this, of course). The desire for children isn’t as sharply divided along genital lines as people suppose. Even with the most socially acceptable cisgendered straight couples, one may find that the male partner wants children far more than the female partner.
You’ve got my vote in your first paragraph. How Chaz identifies is what is important, period.
However, to say that Simon Murphy is a bigot is to say that grass is red in the Spring, get it. Don’t argue, you’ll be sorry.
Trans have their own website. They feel neglected by the LGB’s, e.g. the London Pride Parade. Discussing Trans issues without the presence of Trans is ridiculous. Trans are usually discrete about themselves. I am priviledged to be a friend of a Trans, and I believe she would be more concerned about breaking in a new pair of shoes than publicizing her transition. If you are so curious about Trans, you’re wasting time talking to LGB’s. It’s all a mystery to us, except the academics. Trans are wonderful people. I love ‘em.
In this case, let’s face it, if Chaz was nor Cher’s offspring… you can take it from there, right.
By the way, there has not been one single crass expression in this entire debate. Yea!!!!!
Good luck Chaz mate, wishing you every happiness.
OK, the jig’s up! Pumpkin Pie has flushed you out on the thread about the British diplomate to Poland defending gay rights.
You are an ex-gay fundamentalist homophobic fanatic whose objective is to confuse us, and I quote:
‘…there’s no need for internal cat fights,’
If you believe that, then why don’t you address the issue instead of starting cat fights with our friends. You are so diplomatic and sleezy, but you’ve been identified as a friend of Hank’s and Codex and the rest of those ‘religious nutters’.
Stick around and we’ll wipe the floor with you…again.
Have a seat, something to drink? For medicinal purposes. You’re going to need it, sugar.
I reckon, if she shaves her head and wears tight shorts, she would prefect as the only gay in the village.
The secrets out. Chaz Bono is Matt Lucas in drag.
RobN? RobN? Is that you,lad? Bienvenu chez vous, mon ami.
Get a load of what Pumpkin Pie has flushed out on the thread about the British Embassador to Poland defending gay rights.
Appears this Monkeychops character has been infiltrating the website in order to confuse us and turn us against one another so he/she can prove afterwards that gays are ‘uncivilized’ towards each other. He /she has been leaving a trail of subtle homophobic remarks since he/she has parachuted on this site a few days ago with the ‘RULEBOOK’ of how to debate intelligently.
If I know you, you’d rather stick to the issue and that’s OK.
Good to have you back. We all missed you.
Sorry, haven’t the time to read through it all.
When someone declares themselves to be of a certain gender, we refer to them with language appropriate to that gender. In this case, “he”, “his”, “him”, “himself” and so forth. It is not for the wider world to dictate. My pension company tried it on not so long ago. I drove a Panzer division through their argument. Argue as you will, I have the law at my disposal.
Welcome aboard. No need to read it through; it’s just a lot of double-talk from an homophobic religious fanatic trying to pass itself off as one of us.
‘It’s not for the wider world to dictate’ Panzer division indeed!
Liz: Over 30 years ago a guy where my freind worked decided on a ‘sex change’. (They called them that before the PC nutters changed it). Apparently a lot of the blokes there would follow them to see which toilets they would use. The person was often referred to as “he/she/it”. This was not out of any malice but just because even now, gender reassignment is still relatively rare, and most people just don’t know quite how to approach the subject, or worse, are frightened they might put their foot in it and say the wrong thing.
I think it’s a very brave thing to do, and I think most people are sympathetic to the situation, whilst not really understand what exactly is going on and why. I think it is important for those undergoing reassignment to be open and just talk to people.
I am sure many gay and lesbian people reading this have spoken to straights and “put them right” about so many misconceptions that people have about sexuality. If you don’t communicate, people remain in ignorance, which in turn breeds hostility.
It’s simply a case of respect. If you were introduced to somebody as James and he said ‘Actually, I prefer to be called Jim,’ you’d call him Jim. You wouldn’t say ‘Well it says James on your birth certificate so that’s what I’m going to call you!’
It’s the same here – refer to people how they want to be.
monkeychops: “Would I then be called a he-he to represent both my biological and psychological genders? Don’t think trans people would like to be called he-she…..”
Are you being facetious or just making a poor joke? The point is this:- everyone is entitled to be addressed with the pronoun they prefer. For most people this coincides with their biological gender. To me, this is just the same as how people choose to identify their ethnicity – ie it’s up to the person concerned.
“On that basis I could quite rightfully request to be referred to as “they” because I consider myself and my penis to be two separate entities. And because I say so, no-one has the right to question my authority on it. Hmmmm…..”
Oh, I’m SO tempted to make a rude comment…. Better not – let’s see if you can work it out for yourself ;)
He’s been laughing at all of us all this time. Are we vulnerable? No, we are being who we are. Every human being is a vulnerable ‘bag of water’ (from the movie E.T.), and so is monkeychops. He betrayed himself to become a sleezeball, and sooner or later, he will be sneaking around a park in the wee hours or cruising the public loo in some shopping center. He is doomed to punish himself every day of his life.
So, let’s not take it personal. Gay websites are on their list of ‘things to do’. Once they’ve done it, they get together and give each other a pat on the back, maybe receive a colored ribbon or a lapel pin, and sing praises to god…I mean, themselves projected into a transcended diety. How creative is that? with a check mark here, and a check mark there, everywhere a check mark.
The mormons and the jehovah’s have the same kind of systematic approach to city neighborhoods. ‘You do those 3 blocks, and I’ll do those 3 over there. See you at Tim Horton’s for a soup and a sandwich in 2 hours.’ Yawn.
A life is such a precious thing to waste.
You did well.
You lot are just getting away from the story
If that is how HE wants to be identified then that is how HE should be identified. Want, none of you has asked about is how Cher has been with this, as when Chas
Came out as Lesbian she went of her tits I wonder how Cher is now with Chas
As an F,T,M, Transsexual
Love and Peace to all
Well, strike me pink and call me Rosie! Have you been listening to all this?
Right back at you, you divine Lady, you!
oh my god I find myself agreeing with a comment from Simon Murphy “I think the general rule is that you refer to the person by the gender which they identify as – so Chaz is a ‘he’”
I more than agree to that! :)
about as hysterical as it comes as a story….
Jean-Paul – Ah, see, I didn’t even need to say anything. While I have been away this weekend, you have done all the work in proving on my behalf just why I have the opinions I do about the gay world (and also that you might be worrying a little more than is healthy). You’ve called me a sleazeball, you’ve said I agree with Hank on everything (whoever he actually is, some religious nutter apparently – so well done, you’ve generalised about relgious groups and insluted them at the same time) because of one small point I commented on (the only one, so really not everything), you’ve turned this into some petty commpetition (“we’ll wipe the floor with you”) and you seem awfully insecure that I hate you all. And, all this crap about me making “homophobic remarks” – they are simply remarks on behavoour within our community. It’s YOU that wants them to interpret them as homophobic – you’re not pink and fluffy are you? Do you need to be protected from the world that much? You’re majorly over-reacting. It’s well-merited criticism. There’s nothing homophobic in there – if you talked to me about any other subject, I’m sure you’d make me out to be an anti-white, anti-Brit, despite the fact I am both, because I have a few critical words for both these groups also. Would you criticise me for telling the white, male community to stop behaving like drunken, vile hooligans when they’re abroad because it makes me, as a Brit, look bad? Of course you wouldn’t. So why is my criticism of the comportment of gay men any different? The white football hooligans would be considered a “minority” bringing grief to all football fans. It’s exactly the same for us, but like football associations have to clear up their mess, we have to do the same instead of getting all defensive. If they were to act as people on here, they’d say it was part of “football culture” to behave that way. Madness, pure madness.
All I’ve ever been interested in is promoting an inclusive society where people treat each other respectfully and in a civilised manner. Where we don’t have to get labelled by the selfish ways of others. Our wider society has enough problems getting this to happen and the insular and unaccepting gay scene is making it worse for their own integration into that wider society. The gay world has a very poor reputation at behaving with a bit of decorum – just look at the way you have insulted me on here (and please don’t ever call me sugar again, you’re pigeonholing yourself) with the names mentioned above? Do you think that is the way someone who should be looked up to ought to act? Don’t go into politics because you’ll be issuing official apologies every day of your working life. You don’t seem to be able to cope with the fact that I don’t share your ideology and won’t simply accept it because you’ve called me a few playground names. Do you think it will frighten me into taking your stance? It makes me think even more that I was right all along – remember, you are being a spokesman for gay men for the wider world in saying those things. And I’d rather you weren’t. For everything I think, I have given reasons – based on media portrayal of our community, my own experiences of being gay, the gay scene (not just in the UK, but across the various countries where I have lived), the opinions of friends, family and academics I’ve discussed this with…..these views of mine haven’t come out of nowhere. In fact, today I was near Paris and in the roastingly hot park with friends. Surprise there were some unashamed cruisers lurking around in the bushes (no underwear on a couple of them), in broad daylight while families picnicked on the grass nearby. Just reconfirming my thoughts on stereotypes, well done to them. And making me feel dead embarrassed that I belong to that social group (I mean, have I ever tried to deny that I am in the same shit as you by pretending to be something else?). My friends were quite shocked by the guys, but I just said to them “what do you expect?”. Whether you want to call it gay behaviour or uncivilised behaviour is your choice, but it is the sleazy behaviour of cruising, unashamed promiscuity and then complaining about the abuse received after doing it that I hate. And the fact is is associated with the gay community (to which I belong) means it is my right to speak up about it – I don’t want to get labelled, can you understand that? Why would anyone who has any shred of self-respect want to be thought of as disgusting, predatory and unwanted? Are you happy with being labelled that way? There aren’t many of us, so even if it is a minority behaving this way, the impact it has on us is far greater than in the straight community. So one of us has to speak up to change that image. In fact, anyone can speak up about it as far as I am concerned – straight, gay, white, religious. We don’t have a monopoly on commenting on our own affairs, contrary to what many people think on here.
Interesting article in The Independent today you might like to see about the new Bruno film. Gay lobby groups have gone mad because it reinforces stereotypes about gay men. What they have failed to realise is that Sacha Baron-Cohen is not only making fun of people’s prejudices, but he, inadvertently, is highlighting that this film is still as relevant as ever because gay people still behave in this stereotyped way. Why would people find it funny otherwise? They are laughing at a lifestyle they identify as negative from such a recogisable character type. Sad, but it’s our own doing and we can’t really complain about it. I have no idea if the film is funny, but I imagine that when I watch it I will feel as though I am laughing at my polar opposite. I may as well be watching Pinky and Perky.
Also, Jean-Paul, you asked me why I came on to an LGB site and discussed trans issues…..well, have you not noticed that there are a lot of trans articles on here? With a fair few trans people commenting on them and joining the debate? If it hadn’t have come up, I wouldn’t have said anything. If a straight person or a Muslim were on here, I’d just engage in the debate as normal. And don’t you think it’s beneficial to us all to engage the marginalised T group? After all, you yourself say that LGB people haven’t got a clue about being a trans. Bring them into our discussions and educate people on the subject. Otherwise it will just be LGB here and T elsewhere. More segregation and that does not fit into my view of a healthy society.
Nice idea about me being an undercover spy, but sorry to disappoint you. I am just a living, breathing 28 year old gay man who loves life and who, having travelled the world, made friends with people from all walks of life and done my hardest to get some of them to see that we gays are not all the same, feels he is in a good position to make informed opinions. Like the rest of the world, there are many things I have to learn, but on here, other than with trans issues and looking after the LGBT community, there isn’t much I can acquire of any use. Lezabella seems to be one of the few who really has a balance of opinions. If you’ve been clever enough to notice, you’ll see we agree on many points – she knows just as I do that the gay world is it’s own enemy on many occasions. So where have your insults for her been, eh? Where are you slandering thoughts for her? Scared of commenting on her? I’m not going to speculate, but perhaps you should try looking out of the gay snowdome and just see what the real world is about.
Big shame you said “there’s not been one crass comment on this thread”, because you then went on to make a fair few about me. If you’re going to advocate principles, stick to them.
So, now I’ll leave you to think of some more insults, some more slanderous, unfounded accusations and to wallow in a bit more of your insecurity. If you could think a bit more logically, there are a few things on here that you and I both agree on, but perhaps you’re more interested in just having a cat-fight instead of trying to get an idea of the broad range of views and coming to some common understanding. Good night, don’t let the “religious nutters” infiltrating this forum keep you awake. Crikey, you do have an imagination!
Can you speak a little louder, honey, I can’t hear a word you’re saying, and I don’t have a minute to read your silly rhetoric, you nim-cum-poop! Poop, poop, poop, poop!! I am so uncivilized!
But stick around, don’t be a coward and run away, now. Lemonaid?
Oh, and didn’t Hank teach you how to make paragraphs, sweetie? Looks like you have the runs, if you get my drift. Pee-e-e-you!
Have you seen Cher’s videos lately?
You still here? Don’t get mad. Just get lost.
JP – See, you’re just proving me right. How very sad for you that the only thing you can offer on here is insults. And yes, that is uncivilised behaviour. Adults don’t behave like that. Good job this is just an internet forum, no-one in the real world would take you seriously acting like five year old.
You’re going to have a hard life. Courage mon cher, courage!
Monkeychops: (This is going to piss JP off lol) – I support a lot of what you say. Just because you are grouped into a socio-economic category, everyone assumes you must follow the pack and do the same as everyone else. There was a post on this site a month or so back that stated they didn’t believe that there was such a thing as a “Gay Tory” because everyone assumes that all gay men have left-wing leanings. I am embarrassed as a white Englishman (note: NOT British, English) being pigeon-holed along with football yobs, and equally, I don’t want to be roped in with the likes of Tatchell and his leftie mouthpieces just because he is British and gay like myself.
As for crass comments, how about “Gay men are a bunch of selfish, egotistical, unreliable, unfaithful shitbags that have what little brains they have situated halfway up their rectum.”
Will that suffice? ;)
RobN – Very crass comment indeed, but don’t stoop down to their level, I’m sure it’ll be used against you. Now people will see that we are actually two different entities (there was some Michael-Latoyah Jackson-esque conspiracy theory that we were one and the same). Indeed, if you are gay, apparently you have to conform and be left-wing – or you’re a self-hating gay, trapped in a spiral of resentment and pretending to be straight. That’s it, one choice – which shows again how narrow-minded the gay world is. I’m neither left, right, green, liberal or anything else – I just have ideas and views. Don’t care who says it, I just want the best solution to a problem. I would consider it to be far more open-minded than being a bleeding-heart liberal or a fascist. On balance, I’m a centrist. I believe in equal rights, but also responsibilities. You can only have the former if you take the latter. If you are considered equal and worthy enough to be granted full rights in our society, then you have to take on the responsibility that goes with it. You can’t just expect to rely on others your entire life. That means keeping your community on the right track and not blaming everyone else when you come a cropper because of undesirable behaviour. I don’t get grief because I don’t cause any – I’m not shut off in a ghetto, I’m not paranoid about the outside world and I don’t think it’s up to everyone else around me to solve my problems. Hence why I am not popular on here – the majority seem to think that the hard-done by attitude is worth clinging on to, that it is somehow empowering to use it as a weapon when they are criticised by someone outside of the community.
Tatchell I do have a few issues with. Fair play to the guy, he’s got guts to tackle discriminating Muscovites and Zimbabweans head-on – and at great personal expense. I admire people who get out there and do something rather than just commenting from the sidelines (I’ve also worked for gay organisations and been involved in projects abraod where you’re more than likely to get a hard time and some of those I knew we’re tremendously courageous). But, he is a bleeding-heart type. He over-magnifies the suffering and prejudices faced by gay people in the UK (what he says about Africa or Asia is probably well-founded). If you don’t say what he wants to hear, you’re a homophobe. That’s it. Even if you have just voted through an equality act. Basically, he ups the “whine factor”. And he is only known for that – he seems to have very little else to his character. One-issue politicians rarely get anywhere because people tire of the same droning on. Tatchell is also from a different era to me though, when he was growing up things were worse and that has shaped his character. Guys of my age have far less to grumble about and we are better for it.
Let’s see if anyone calls you a racist for describing yourself as English and not British. Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen are perfectly allowed to define themselves that way, why not English. I’m only half-English anyway, but as I’ve grown-up here, I’d consider myself to be more that than anything else. Particularly as my mother moved here when she was 13 anyway. Wonder what they’ll say when they find out that I’m half-immigrant. Maybe I could, shock horror, challenge them for sympathy because my background is so much worse than theirs :) Rob, it seems that you and I have told a few home truths about our own community and those in denial that those truths are not helpful to our movement have gone ape. But isn’t this the same way that reformists and modernisers in the Islamic and Christian communities get treated? Even though they’re trying to iron-out the internal problems that cause them so much grief? Exactly.
So, that would describe me well – a reformist. A post-gay reformist. We’ve done the hard work, we have our rights and now we must take our responsibilities. It’s all very simple to me, but then I’m not scared to accept criticism or see other viewpoints – can’t see many others on here like that.
RobN – I half agree with your comments. A month ago, I happened to be visiting an exhibition ‘celebrating’ 50 years of CND. Among the artifacts were badges and banners proclaiming ‘Gays against Cruise’, ‘Gays for Disarmament’. (I happened to be against it, having seen a film called ‘Threads’ but still..). But there was a tendency for some gay people to speak on behalf of all gay people at the time, because thee only visible ones were to the left of Derek Hatton. It is more than annoying when one person tries to assume we all speak as a group. P Tatchell to my knowledge, has never made such a claim.
JP – Monkeychops is entitled to his opinion. It’s because he thinks differently, that his voice should not only be heard, but given extra special protection. What he says must have taken some effort; a good deal of confidence, and might even contain a grain of truth. It also forces people to ask ‘how do I know what I know, to be true?’. That lone voice gives people the right to change their mind (I do not count attempts by some visitors to repeatedly spam the forum with debunked claims).
If everyone agreed with eachother, we would not need a forum. We’d have all the answers. There would be nothing left to know. Constant certainty, consensus and unity sounds like hell. Or Iran, at the moment.
All this says nothing about monkeychops’ claims – probe his reasoning, that’s all you need to do, or can do. Though be suspicious of any call to ‘calm down’: in debate as in science, light comes from heat.
TomPaine – I very much welcome your advocation of free speech – and that we learn something from other peopl’s views, especially when they are significantly different from the rest. Whether we agree on many things I am not sure (I’d have to look at other threads), but on this point clearly we do, so thank you for the point of order. It’s to everyone’s benefit as it means we can all have a say. Snuffing out opinions is something we should not be supporting, it would make us no better than the dictatorships of history. I’ve repeatedly asked people to clarify why they think they do and I am personally trying my best to support my claims and views with experiences. This is not a criminal investigation where you need forensic evidence, it’s all based on things that cannot be “proved” through swabs and photographs. Anyone who wants to know why I think the way I do need only ask, I’m happy to explain (as I keep doing). What I do keep objecting to is this silly name-calling and cheap throwing of insults (not only at me, at generally anyone voicing a different view). That, to me, is when views are not worth proposing. It shold be done in a way that is still respectful. This is why I think I got so much crap about the Carrie Prejan comment – I disagreed with her entirely, but she put forward her opinion in a non-insulting way. Turning round and insulting her would just be pointless. Why should I get angry about it? I would just then retort with a well-thought out counter. Perez Hilton didn’t, he insulted her and that I believe was wrong and didn’t do the people he was trying to represent any favours. It just gave the Christian lobby another example of where they feel they are being victimised and threatened.
Wise words about the light coming from heat, not thought about that.
I am sure we disagree on lots of things, Monkeychops. I can only promise, I won’t resort to name calling for no reason (but if your reasoning is wrong, you may well be fair game). I hope, I treat all opinions and beliefs with equal suspicion. I only respect another’s right to expression – provided that fits within the definitions of free speech as described best by john stuart mill’s discourse on Liberty.
Good, then our debating skills will shine through the catty insults that others resort to :)
Yes,I am annoyed to see you even talking to a condescending pork chop like that. He hasn’t done anything but talk down to everyone since he parachuted onto this sight like the fourth person of the trinity….so high and mighty…so magisterial…holding the book of rules of public debate like he was Moses holding the ten commandements.
How is that a civilized way to address people? He has done nothing but insult anybody whose opinion is different from his, and you know as well as I do that we do not necessarily strive to achieve a consensus here.
Also, we have learned to recognize the infiltration of the weirdous people whose mission it is to condemn us to the everlasting fires of hell. You’re right we’re cautious, and that is not about to change.
In the first place, this is not a forum: we are asked to speak to the issue, not dig into the personal lives of others and then turn personal details into degrading armchair psychoanalysis, like he’s been doing on every thread, while we are left to wonder what the hell he’s trying to say, and why can’t he say it in a language we can understand.
An educated person does not enlighten others by speaking down to them; the world will take care of persecuting us, thank you very much.
This is a gay friendly site. We welcomed him – I can distinctly remember welcoming him and I’m certain he can too – and he has yet to show his friendly side. Just wants to dominate everyone with verbal diarhea leaving no doubt in my mind what is between his two ears, and who cares where his brains are.
I believe he owes us, especially Pumpkin Pie, an apology, un point, c’est tout.
He’s the immature DRAMA queen, not me, not Pumpkin Pie, not TomPaine and you, well, we all know where your heart is, but at least we agree that you do have some sense of decorum.
He can be to the left, to the right, to the center, but why must he be so gauche if he’s so ‘mature’? His very name, monkeychops, indicates to me that he does not want to be identified as anything remotely familiar to the civilized world.
The truly relevant comments on this thread were made by Liz Church and Lady Tanya, and as a lady she did sign off by wishing us Love and Peace. It’s no wonder Trans don’t want anything to do with us. As a matter of fact, I can hear Chaz laughing at us right now.
Time for my green so I can ‘calm down’.
Jean-Paul: I don’t take sides in issues unless they are my own. I am not someone who will automatically take the opposing stance of someone just because I don’t like them. If someone makes a comment I agree with, I will tell them so. Equally vice-versa, I tell many friends they are talking out of their arses.
Monkeychops: I am a self-made businessman, and one could say I am a capitalist. It seems that making money and being successful is deemed by many as a dirty occupation these days. I do think that politics needs to have a business head with a social heart though, and I see know reason why the less fortunate can’t be looked after by those that can afford it. Mind you, all the leftie spongers, nest-featherers and hypocritical scumbags can go out an earn a living like the rest of us.
I have said it before, and will say it again: There is no such thing as “The Gay Community”. It is a myth set up by socialist fuckwits trying to make sexuality a political statement. The only time gay men ever do anything together is in a dark room with very few clothes on.
Tom Paine: I agree that Peter Tatchell has never officially taken on the reins as representative of LGBT people, but it seems whenever the media, (Particularly the BBC), want to get the “gay persons opinion” it is usually that rabid lefty, or that other voice of “the average poof in the street”, Ben Summerskill. Stonewall are all mouth and zero action. At least Tatchell does something, even though I do disapprove of his direct action tactics.
JP – Please find me a paragraph where I have called someone by a playground name? And, of course I’ll talk down to you if you insult me, what were you expecting? I don’t welcome things like that with open arms. Would you be so forgiving of someone calling you a sleazeball etc? And relating my user name to my real-life personality again isn’t making you look good. On the same basis I could say that you were actually a Catholic for sharing your name with a former Pope (or 2 Popes rather). I have criticised your viewpoints, I have criticised the way gay people behave – there’s nothing revolutionary about that. This is a discussion board (yes, it is a forum, because people comment and then react to those comments, just like we’re doing now). Saying I talk down to people….well you might be right, but you are no less guilty than I in that case. You have to be committed to what you’re saying and naturally that means that you can be quite forceful. Deal with it, everyone is doing it on here. Maybe when it’s an opinion you accept, you don’t notice it. When it goes against you, it must seem more threatening to you. I can see you are cautious, but being over-sensitive and spitting feathers and insults is not a justifiable reaction. Do you think I am not cautious about facing up to discrimination? What I am not, which is what you are showing signs of, is irrational fear of ideological “others”. Particularly religious groups.
Not that I need to even say it, but as I believe in backing up views with experiences, I just thought you should know….I’m half English, half-French (see, we do have something in common after all) with a French first name and surname (I took my mother’s when my parents divorced), gay and 6ft 7 inches tall. Now, could I be any more different to mainstream society? Kids stare at me in the street because of my height and shoe size (14) and ask me random questions about why I am so big. Instead of having a chip on my shoulder, I give them a piggy back or show them how I can touch the ceiling etc. They’re just curious. Should I react in a defensive way and tell them to f-off and stop being so discriminating? Of course not. People look at me when I’m holding my boyfriend’s hand. Is that because they hate me, or because it isn’t something you see every day and thus remains eye-catching? Even gays do it, they’re not used to it either. Shop assistants treat me like a foreigner when I’m talking to my mother in French in the queue. But am I paranoid? Absolutely not, simply because I have so much conviction in what I value and a thorough grip on reality. Not everyone is out to get me. Why do you think that they’re out to get you? Most people are so involved in their own lives they couldn’t care less about ours – in fact that ignorance has probably meant that we have been accepted more quickly. And I constantly question these values I have from what people around me say, what the media reports and how I feel as an individual. Are you really that intimidated by my views? Have more confidence in what you believe in, your insecurity is making you spout out all these catty remarks and eroding the credibility of your points (some of which I actually agree with). And thus guys like me won’t listen to you. I disagreed with Lezabella on some things, but she conducted herself in such a mature way that not an insult was traded between us.
Maybe what you’re missing from my contributions is that you are getting a different perspective on life. And if you are to grow as a human, then you need that. Every day of your life over a broad range of issues and subjects. We all have individual experiences that shape who we are and what we believe. Some get values rammed down their throats from religion or parents. Others don’t really know what they believe and can be quite faddy and inconsistent. I’ve never had religious bigotry chucked at me – one of my best friends is a devout Chrstian. He thinks gay sex is wrong, but not homosexual feelings. He makes it plain and clear that he does not understand, no matter how much he reads and discusses the subject, how you could be attracted to another man. But he’s respectful towards me and we have so much common ground that we are very good friends. Equally, he knows that I think that the existence of God is absurd because, being more Darwin than Creationist, I need some kind of proof or personal account to accept God as a reality.
And, I will NEVER apologise for my views. If I insult someone, I am prepared to do that where it is proved, but I haven’t. Criticism and insulting are not synonyms, thus apologising is not necessary in this scenario. Pumpkin Pie has insulted me as much as you have – so neither of you are getting one. I’m definitely not going to apologise for having confidence – yep, I know not many gay men have much (not necessarily their fault), but I do. And that’s why I am as strong as I am. Would you really want to begrudge me feeling good about myself? Or is it bitterness that you don’t like yourself much? I have no idea whether you do or not, I would hope you like who you are, but funnily enough a fair few gay men have been so intimidated by the fact that I come across as being confident. It’s all very Darwinistic I’m afraid.
RobN – I wouldn’t describe myself as a capitalist, but I’m definitely for the wealthier helping to support those on lower incomes and doing nasty jobs. Dustmen contribute a necessary service to our society and deserve to be looked after, but the way the market system works, a job like that will never be well-paid. So, they can get benefits through other means (lower taxation) and at the expensive of the super-rich who know nothing of what his job entails or how he might have difficulty in feeding his kids. 1% of the country owning 20% of the wealth is not a figure I am happy about, the poor-rich divide is the worst it’s ever been. And that is shameful.
On the other hand, being a former council house resident myself, I hate scroungers. And there quite a few where I lived. My parents worked very hard, they didn’t take any other benefit apart from family allowance (which was universal anyway) and we certainly didn’t have any luxuries. First phone at 10 years old. Now, it’s all different. Grossly obese, chain-smokers with two mobiles, a plasma-screen television and two dogs are complaining that they are so hard up. But of course, they can’t go to work, can they? There is just no grip on reality there. Sounds like a massive generalisation, but where I grew up, they are still there and look just like that. That’s the British class system for you though – something else I think needs reform. Chav culture and this “respect” for being uneducated and fighting to prove you are the most hard-done by is just revolting. Only Britain could think that acting like you’re thick was cool – our European neighbours put us to shame.
Re gay community – I’m with you on this, despite the fact I have used the term a lot (it’s more of a reference point because I don’t really know what else to say). Sex is what we have in common, that’s about it. But then that is the only thing that separates us from straight people, who we have sex with. The rest is all down to social conditioning.
And, finally, I agree with the whole taking sides bit. I clearly am not warming to Jean-Paul, but if he says something I agree with, I’ll back him up. And vice versa. He seems to be of the school of thought that you disagree with someone and not something. This is why it’s so tiring to watch david Cameron and Gordon Brown nit-pciking at each other in such a tribal way, disagreeing just because they think they should. Yawn….
“Lezabella seems to be one of the few who really has a balance of opinions. If you’ve been clever enough to notice, you’ll see we agree on many points – she knows just as I do that the gay world is it’s own enemy on many occasions.”
As anyone who has seen me and Monkeychops in our discussions; we don’t agree on everything but a lot of the time we can see eye to eye.
There is one thing we do agree on – that the negative images and stereotypes of the sleazy side of the gay community are not just down to straight people’s ignorance; they’re down to us aswell.
I don’t care what anyone says, cruising (like it’s straight equivelant, ‘dogging’) is fucking disgusting and gives us such a bad name! As a lesbian, I’m tired of this.
I don’t blame all gay men for this or anything like that, but everyone knows ‘cruising’ is a predominantly gay male phenomenom. Sorry if that offends anyone here but that’s not my intention and is just how I see it.
There is a bar in Liverpool called ‘The Curzon’. And when showing my Aussie girlfriend around town, she asked to go in there but I said no. Do you know why? Because it’s solely a gay man’s bar notorious for ‘crusing’. It even shows gay porn on the big screens. When I had the ‘pleasure’ of seeing this place for the first time myself, what I (and my friends) saw was a dimly lit room with a man giving another dude a blow job under the table, in full view, and what appeared to be another guy leading different men into the toilets with him-pretty much like a turnstyle.
I’ll admit it was and is quite a comical place and there are 20 odd other gay bars to this one sleazy hole, however, it’s this one sleazy hole, the men it attracts and the subsequent bad name the gay community gets for it that annoys me. There’s no need for it. What’s wrong with meeting someone and taking them home for a bit of nookie? Why do it in toilets bars and bloody bushes in the park??? (There is also a place in Liverpool called ‘Botanic Gardens’ which is also locally known as a cruising spot, and is hence nicknamed ‘Bummer’s Woods’ – this place used to be a park for families and kids, but due to this ‘crusing’ rubbish people don’t go anymore)
If I’ve offended anyone, I’m sorry, but the sleazy image of the gay community is not solely down to straight people’s ignorance, disgusting places like The Curzon, Botanic Gardens; and the men who frequent them, also have a lot to answer for.
If anyone wants to correct me, enlighten me or anything like that, be my guest. As I’ve explained, I haven’t said any of this to take the piss out of gay men atall. It’s just how I see it.
As for calling Monkeychops a homophobe…….I doubt it. I just think he hates the sleazy stereotypes attributed to the gay community. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Jean-Paul…..thankyou for your kind words on the thread about the police beating up those two gay girls.
Lezabella – again, you are a paragon of dignified writing. I hope you don’t get the abuse that I have been simply for pointing out a few home truths. What you have said is all teh more important as maybe they will see how the actions of gay men affect lesbians. If you do, at least my critics will be consistent. If not, then it means they are annoyed at who is saying it, not the content. Which isn’t right as far as I am concerned – it should be about the content every time.
You have also highlighted, again, how selfish us men are. We do forget about lesbians. You are definitely not as visible as us and get a bit left out – but equally you don’t get the same criticism we do as you are not out cruising and cottaging like us (mixed blessings, I suppose). If you girls are doing it, it’s being kept away from those who don’t like it rather well. I’m sorry you have got lumbered with the effects of their behaviour, despite never having done it, I do almost feel guilty as it’s a gay male problem – nothing to do with your side of the gay world at all. But then, I haven’t been contributing to it, so I know it’s nothing I should feel bad about on a personal level.
Straight people have sex clubs and swingers places, but they are clearly identifiable as that. Gay bars blur the boundaries between just a place to have a drink and somewhere to engage in sexual intercourse (I HATE the term “fucking” being used as an official term for gay sex, it’s so vulgar and derogatory – no wonder no-one takes us seriously). Porn on TV screens is really out of order (have seen it too) – bars showing that and with dark rooms should be relicenced as sex clubs, as that is effectively what they are. Plenty of straight peopel I know are happy watching drag shows or going to gay bars where there isn’t such a huge sexual overtone. People need to feel welcome. But then woud gay men go to these bars if they didn’t have such a sexualised atmosphere? Probably not. Gay Times wouldn’t sell so much if it was less hardcore, bars would suffer the same downturn.
As for me being a homophobe, I do have to chuckle at the madness of it all. We praise reformist Muslims who go against their hardline extremists (who get grief for trying to change the culture from their extremist counterparts), yet when I point out that gay behaviour can be so extreme and maybe we should calm down a bit, I get hell! No-one is prepared to change it seems, we want everyone else to change to suit us. And I don’t believe that will work for a second.
Monkeychops – this is off topic, but still:
“Where we don’t have to get labelled by the selfish ways of others. Our wider society has enough problems getting this to happen and the insular and unaccepting gay scene is making it worse for their own integration into that wider society. The gay world has a very poor reputation at behaving with a bit of decorum”
- what evidence do you have for this extraordinary claim? what do you mean by ‘decorum’? and why should gay people show any more decorum than straight people? You use this discusssion forum as an example, but do you have any evidence that gay people are less welcoming or ‘civilised’ than the overwhelmingly straight contributors to forums such as ‘chrismoyles.net’, or ‘richarddawkins.net’ – I quote these purely as an example.
- Have you considered that people stay on the gay scene because, if you tried to be intimate, or show affection at e.g. Ministry of Sound, or your local pub, some chav might think to smash a glass over your head?
- If you want to talk about decorum, perhaps you can compare the statistics on pub and club fights and stabbings in straight an gay venues.
- If you don’t find the gay scene very welcoming, you must realise that many people do, and are quite happy to go to gay venues every week, without it ruining their lives. isn’t it just that pubs and clubs just aren’t your thing?
“For everything I think, I have given reasons – based on media portrayal of our community, my own experiences of being gay, the gay scene (not just in the UK, but across the various countries where I have lived), the opinions of friends, family and academics I’ve discussed this with…..these views of mine haven’t come out of nowhere.”
- Have you discounted the fact that the media often choose to report on gay festivals based on what makes ‘good television’ rather than what is likely to be a fair representation of the participants?
- You have a point about the state of the gay scene by the way.
“In fact, today I was near Paris and in the roastingly hot park with friends. Surprise there were some unashamed cruisers lurking around in the bushes (no underwear on a couple of them), in broad daylight while families picnicked on the grass nearby. Just reconfirming my thoughts on stereotypes, well done to them. And making me feel dead embarrassed that I belong to that social group”
- I don’t know what these people were cruising for, and I don’t think you do either. .
- The point is, you do not belong to that ‘social group’. There are straight people who do stupid and embarrassing things in public. They don’t represent all straight people. So what makes you think that, because 2 people happened to be lurking in the bushes (in a city of hundreds of thousands of gay people) are representative most gay people in your mind? And, if they were in the bushes, they cannot have been in ‘broad daylight’. It must take at least some curiosity for you to find out exactly what they are doing. I don’t know how ‘nearby’ other families were – how many metres approximately are we talking about here? What were you doing focusing on them?
“My friends were quite shocked by the guys, but I just said to them “what do you expect?”. Whether you want to call it gay behaviour or uncivilised behaviour is your choice, but it is the sleazy behaviour of cruising, unashamed promiscuity and then complaining about the abuse received after doing it that I hate.”
- Be specific and tell us exactly what they were doing. Was it full on penetrative sex, a blow job, what? Or were they just kissing each other? But shame on you, for holding the anecdotal evidence of 2 people as representative. I see many straight people in parks in London, eying up and chatting up girls, to find a mate. Or kissing, petting, cuddling, caressing. What is the difference between that and ‘cruising each other’?
What do you think masses of straight people do in Ibiza and loads of holiday resorts each summer? (For example of what straight people do: bbc. co.uk/radio1/petetong/galleries/ 264/7/#gallery264 – here we see a crowd of sexed up shirtless guys and girls in just bikinis, all cruising each other…almost all, straight. not very different from a party in Soho really.)
“”Why would anyone who has any shred of self-respect want to be thought of as disgusting, predatory and unwanted? Are you happy with being labelled that way? There aren’t many of us, so even if it is a minority behaving this way, the impact it has on us is far greater than in the straight community.”"
- You have simply justified prejudice.
- 2 out of a Parisian gay population of…(I estimate) 100,000? Come on now….
- Who is being ‘predatory’ – do you have any evidence that these people, who seemed to be minding their own business in the bushes, are ‘out to get you’, or forcing you to join in? A non sequitur.
- Isn’t the fact that you are different enough evidence? Why should I be responsible for others’ inability to judge a person on his or her actions and words? The ability to discriminate is a very necessary skill in forming an opinion.
So one of us has to speak up to change that image.
- You speak for yourself, but don’t speak do it in my name, as you clearly did when you say to your friends ‘what do you expect?’.
TomPaine – Thanks for your comments, I will respond as appropraite:
Labelled – Decorum to me would be acting in a civilised manner that does not merit negative attention. A mixture of politeness, manners and dignity. Gays shouldn’t, in theory, have to show any more decorum. But the world is unequeal – if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Hence gay people to be respected and not feared need to overcompensate by showing greater dignity in the areas where they have been criticised. That way, there’s no way we can be denounced.
I agree, knife crime etc is far worse in the straight community, but again, it’s just that they don’t get the labelling when something nasty happens. Well, actually they do, how many people who aren’t actually chavs get labelled that way? Just by the way they dress? If you’re in Burberry, you’re a chav, according to most people. That’s obviously not true, but it’s common thought. And, yes I am a clubbing and pubbing person. Not as much as I used to, but I am very fond of going out dancing on a Friday night. I probably go to a gay club about once a year these days, as I tend to get dragged along with friends when I am drunk and less-resistant. I used to go more when I was, say 18 and trying to find my place in the world. It certainly wasn’t there. Little seems to have changed in the gay scene in the last ten years, from what I can make out. So tell me why some gay people only want to go to gay venues (aside from being scared of getting decked)?
Media – I’m sure media are biased towards making good tv. But that’s not the only media source is it? Newspapers, radio and internet are far more dominant for these things. My views are not based so much on media, it’s having been to them – a number of times and in a number of places.
Paris incident – guys, have naked lurking in bushes. Saw around 10 or so, one masturbating. That is not even in central Paris, it’s right outside the city (akin to an area the size of Guildford). It’s pretty obvious what they were cruising for – there was no need to focus in on them, it was right in your face, you couldn’t help but see. The bushes line the edge of the road that acts as a perimeter to the park (which we walked along to get there). These guys could be seen from the road (about 5m away), since the bushes are not very high and there are regular gaps. Families were around 10-20m away. That isn’t far, you can see the guys from that distance. All it takes is for a football to go into the undergrowth and a small child gets an eyeful. Also, if families see that, they will undoubtedly cry paedophile – even bloody worse for us. Simple answer – don’t do it and we will get an easier ride. Petting in the park (whether straight or gay) is fine by me. Petting isn’t sex. Lurking suspiciously in bushes with your trousers off and a boner are not comparable to a kiss and a cuddle. Or even chatting someone up. If a naked guy was wanking himself off in a park leering at women, there would be outrage from women and men alike – and women’s groups for that matter. Why are we somehow different? Why is anyone making a fuss about gay cruisers being prejudiced, but when it’s a straight man, they are right to condemn him? I don’t think it should be seen as any different. And why is it important if they are having oral or penetrative sex? It’s still sexual activity either way. There are semi-naked (bottom half) men, in a state of arousal – and that is actually illegal, aside from being inappropriate in public. And I don’t feel any shame from the anecdotal evidence of two gay guys (or actually ten lurking altogether) as this is not the first time I have seen it. Richmond Park, Parc du Cinquantenaire in Brussels, Oosterpark in Amsterdam – all during the day. All when families are out. These guys in Paris are just adding to the tally of occasions where I have seen this happening. Are you denying that cruising exists? Are you in fact a big defender of cruising? Do you think it’s appropriate to be masturbating yards from children on a sunny afternoon?
Re Chris Moyles site and straight people. Of course straight people can be just as sleazy. But remember, they don’t get labelled the same way as they are a majority. If just one of us steps out of line, we get blanket criticism. Straights don’t. Unfair? Yep. Real? Yep x2. Straight people cause problems every day, of course they do, but no-one thinks “ah, he murdered him because that’s what straight people do”. Why? Good question, probably because people look for a reason to justify the stupidty/crimina act or whatever. Like they’ll say “oh but he came from a broken home” or “he was always a bit of a loner at school”. People want explanations for these things, it’s common for them to say “Oh it’s because he’s gay” when a gay man is out of line.
Ministry of Sound etc – gay people are very safe on the gay scene and I can see perfectly that the Ministry of Sound might not be very welcoming of kissing and smooching to some. But we won’t change anything by hiding away in the ghetto. Get down the MoS and have a groove with your boyfriend, it’s our territory as much as anyone else’s. The more people see it, the less judgemental and fearful they’ll be. If you start shagging in the toilets or cottaging in there though, you can’t be surprised if someone gives you grief.
Ibiza etc – yep, hate it. Just as much sleaze and it gets a pounding from the press. The drunken, slutty behaviour. Remember all the documentaries about Agia Napa, Ibiza and Shagaluf? It’s not somewhere I would want to go either. But, as I’m not there and not straight, it doesn’t directly affect me any more than anyone else.
Justifying prejudice. Maybe I have justified some of the prejudice towards us, but then people can only base their views on what they see and learn. If this is what they are seeing, no wonder they are describing us as revolting. It’s no surprise at all.
And as for speaking in your name, that was clearly not the case. I am speaking for myself (and by one of us, that means one of us gay people who believes in changing the status quo) and those that share my views. Equally, don’t speak in my name, I will never advocate half the behaviour that I see going on in the gay world. Though I don’t think I’ll have to worry about that, I’ve shown already that I am pretty good at speaking up for myself ;)
Think that’s it – did Imiss anything?
#42: Lady Tanya: You say:
“If that is how HE wants to be identified then that is how HE should be identified. ”
I’m sure he’d like to be identified as GLBT rights campaigner Chaz Bono. Too bad that’s not going to happen. He will be known as ‘Cher’s son’ whereas in the past he was known as ‘Cher’s daughter’
The only reason this story is in the news is because of his momma!
(I’m not defending sex in public, and forgive me if i sound like a sex crazed perv, it was necessary to see exactly what you were appalled at.)
Very well MC; I think we’d both be appalled at such behaviour. Frankly if people do it on a common at night, and don’t leave needles or used condoms around, it doesn’t bother me (sadly too many do, alas). There will always be people who like to seek out sex in public, I’m afraid, gay and straight. And some people from more repressed communities have no option, even now.
But even so, the challenge to people still remains. If they claim that a certain 10 people in Richmond Park, Jubelpark or Kronenburg Park are representative of all gay people in England, Belgium or Holland, they have all their work ahead of them. Their job to prove their point, not mine to disprove it. You just have to ask people for more than anecdote to prove their point.
MoS – I mean to do the venue no wrong. Its soundsystem is the greatest ever. Or imply that all its clientele are chavs. Musically, of course, straight venues are miles ahead of gay venues, where the cutting edge of innovation seems to be the Freemasons. It is a great cause of annoyance to get in the mood for a great night out by blasting out the Essential Selection on a Friday evening, and then to enter some dive vomiting out repetitive ‘funky house’ drizzle.
You’re right by the way, people do need to get out more. The more it becomes natural for gay people to show affection in public, the less people will depend on the scene. But there again, there is simply a bigger ‘mating pool’ in a gay venue. As you remind us, it’s a small community, and that makes finding someone ideal even more difficult. However, there are plenty of otherways of meeting someone special in any case…..
It is no use, for instance complaining about Curzons, when as someone above said, there are another 20 venues to choose from! I have no option but to call you Captain Renault (Casablanca; ‘I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!’) :-)
Sadly, I think you’re right. There will always be a minority doing this. But the fact that on each and every occasion, something dodgy seems to be going on in big city park, it can’t be just a coincidence. I have no idea if there are stats around this kind of thing, but if you read Gay Times, you’d think it was 90% of the populationin there. Jubelpark has low bushes so you can see the flashlights wherever you are walking in the vicinity after dark. Though the “Arc de Triomphe” being so illuminated would surely deter people a bit.
I see the security in gay venues, but the fact that it is so incestuous, just turns me off. You would be fairly rational when you walk in a gay bar of a medium-sized city to think they have all done the rounds with one another. Few gay men = little choice. I met my boyfriends through work, university and whilst looking for a house. Didn’t like the house, but he was alright. Still with him now :)
:-) 90%?! Possibly wishful fanasising on the part of Gay Times’ editorial team? As for your househunting exploits, good for you!
PS I just seen, Channel 4 promises a transgender extravaganza, some kind of TV beauty contest – Wed 11:10pm….
Hmmm….is there anything Channel 4 won’t exploit? Well, at least their policy is across the board, sigh.
Lezabella et al: There is a wonderful line in “City Slickers” if you have seen it, – “Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place”.
Sums it up really. *ALL* men would shag like rabbits given the opportunity. That’s what we do. We fuck things. Get used to it.
The only difference between gay and str8 is that str8 men aren’t *allowed* to shag around because the women won’t let them. However, good old man-on-man action nullifies all restrictions, hence why we are so promiscuous. The fact that many do it in public toilets and parks is the danger element, a hangover of the pre-legal days.
I don’t condone this behaviour, but I was once much the same myself, but one has to accept that we are all just slightly up the food chain from a bunch of apes, and no amount of park attendants or porn sites is going to change that.
Monday, June 15th
1835 – the American actress, painter and poet ADAH ISAACS MENKEN was born on this date in New Orleans (d: 1868). Menken was a flamboyant performer got around. She was reputed to be only slightly less man-hungry than the legendary Cleopatra, who, nicknamed “Thick Lips,” is said to have blown 100 Roman soldiers in a single night. Her reputation notwithstanding, Menken was the author of Infelicia, a collection of Sapphic poems, that clearly reveals her delight in women. She was, for a time, the lover of novelist George Sand (the pseudonym of Amandine Aurore Lucile Dupin).
1843 – the Norwegian composer EDVARD GRIEG was born today (d. 1907). Edvard Grief? That sweet little guy, the one whose “Anitra’s Dance” is always played in third grade music appreciation class? What’s he doing here? In old age he was completely taken with the boyish charms of curly-haired, blond Percy Grainger, whose “Country Gardens” is inflicted on the same third-grade class of audiophiles. “I love him,” Grieg declared, I love him like I love a young woman.” That’s odd. That’s exactly what Vachel Lindsay said about the same guy! So listen to Grieg’s Morning Mood or better yet track down Eva Knardahl’s recordings of Grieg’s folksongs on Piano. You’ll be completely taken.
1887 – on this date the American sculptor MALVINA HOFFMAN was born (d: 1966). The sculptor, who traveled around the world to model the heads of every racial type, is included here on the most tentative “evidence.” Since there is no modern biography, and we have only Hoffman’s not-too-candid 1930 autobiography to go on, the slender thread is Mercedes de Acosta’s account of her many loves, Here Lies the Heart, in which Hoffman is one of the players. Since none of the cast of characters, including Garbo and Dietrich, uttered a public peep when the book was published, we can only assume that the book was either too silly to refute, or true.
1949 – today is the birthday of the British actor, author and biographer SIMON CALLOW.
Callow is one of the most prominent Gay actors in Britain. He is perhaps better known on this side of the Atlantic for his role in romantic comedy “Four Weddings in a Funeral” where he played one half of “the” Gay couple — he’s the one who dies and has the titular funeral in which his widow (played by John Hannah) recites W.H. Auden’s stunning “Funeral Blues” poem (“Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone/Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,..). The depiction presented one of the most moving and believable Gay couples in film. The friends being surprised by the depths revealed.
Callow has found great success as a director and writer. He’s written extensively about Charles Dickens, has even played Dickens on the BBC science fiction series “Doctor Who.” In 2008 he appeared at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada in a one man show There Reigns Love, a play about the poetry of William Shakespeare and also in 2008,appeared at the Edinburgh Festival giving a recital, directed by Patrick Garland, of two stories by Charles Dickens. He has also written two critically lauded biographies of Orson Welles and Charles Laughton.
Callow’s last partner was director Daniel Kramer. They shared a house in Camden, North London, but have now ended their relationship. In 1999 he was awarded the CBE for his services to acting.
For those killed in the Iranian Velvet Revolution, June, 2009
Funeral Blues – W.H. Auden
Stop all the clocks,
cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.
Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He is Dead.
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever:
I was wrong.
The stars are not wanted now; put out every one,
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
Compliments of the Gay Community of NYC, USA.
Bentham old chum: Put a fucking sock in it will you and stay on topic.
Simon Murphy # 65
I get what you’re saying. I really do.
My issue is in bars that are gay sex clube but aren’t actually marketed as such, and doing it in bushes of local parks where families go.
To me they’re across the line and it is indecent.
But judging from people’s comments/my own knowledge it isn’t as common as before and as you’ve said is a ‘hangover’ from the pre-legal days.
I just think that these few who do it are besmirching the good name of a lot of men who don’t do it.
Again you’re right about men and women being different. Women love romance, men love sex. (to make a blanket statement!) That’s why you’ll often find as you’ve said a lot (not all) of gay men are ‘promiscuous’ whereas lesbians are the opposite, we fall in love and get into relationships too easily.
Valid points, all round.
Lezabella – thanks for providing more centre ground on this issue. You seem to be very balanced in your views and that can only bring you a better existence :)
No problem, thankyou for the support :)
I just find that there is never a one-sided argument. There are always two sides to a story; then one has to decide which side is stronger.
That’s my way of doing it anyway.
I can see you adhere to this a lot of the time too, which I also agree, leads to a better existence. Balance is essential, otherwise you end up with two people on either side shouting at eachother, getting nowhere!
Lezabella – exactly. Which is why I never relent, even when faced with mass opposition (that keeps happening a lot, but I’m not surprised). People on here tend to forget that this is a small forum, where the largest proportion of people are LGBT. They are big voices in a small auditorium. If we were to take this discussion to a larger and more diverse site, they could well end up the minority and my views would be the majority. Wondr how people on the new site would take to being called playground names? I’m happy to advocate what I believe anywhere, not just stick to a small site where people agree with me to make myself feel better and more loved. It’s the issues that matter, not how many people support you from the outset – if you’re good in your reasoning, you will win over opposition. Balance is how we have found common values that we all feel comfortable with.
Humans are tribal and all of us get carried away at times, but by keeping the idea that balance is good alive, then we will keep coming back to it if we err :)