the cowardice of gay inc

[bcbm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-thayer/the-cowardice-of-gay-inc_b_2742097.html

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Good article but I would have also added that part of the silence on Gay Inc.'s part concerning Bradely Manning had partly to do with the than current efforts at trying to repeal DADT: to do this they needed examples of strong, masculine and most of all patriotic gay military men. Mr.Manning didn't fit this description (Once more proving that Gender Roles and stereotypes must be combated as well); he was weaker muscle wise, somewhat of a nerd, and most of all dared to leak secrets which the majority of citizens would classify as treason.

Even in the gay youth community I do not see much love for him (in the rare case they even know who he is). Some time ago I was arguing with this conservative gay youth and he was determined to see Manning face capital punishment and went as far to say that Manning's action "endangered the lives of fellow soldiers" ( :laugh: ). This should be a potent reminder that much like Nazi Rohm's decision to join the NSADP in Wiemar Germany, politics trump orientation every time.

The (False) Progressive forces of the Democratic Party have done much to eradicate radicalism from the queer liberation movement. Their efforts have been concentrated during a long period and the result is this "bourgeoisification" of the queer working class which is going to take a hefty battle to won over back towards a revolutionary alternative.

[cynicles]

Depends on who the gay youth are, none of the youth I've met with are so anti-manning.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is the homosexual movement in a stage right now where it's receiving a lot of entrance into the mainstream by shedding a lot of it's past radical elements? I feel as though it;s tougher to critique the new emerging movement as a result, because the more entrance they gain into the mainstream the more younger gay people see it as a good, when in fact they're just becoming another element of the bourgouise. The exhaltation of the "A-Gay" to me in some of the more upscale magazines strikes a chord with me because they hide behind the veil of them being a minority group. They'll act as though we're calling for them to go back in the closest when we're really just calling them out for being sell outs to gay people of all economic stripes. They see their entrance as proof that you do not need the radical elements in the movement anymore and that true progress comes through exherting yourself and individuals giving a positive images of the gay commuity to straight audiences. It's no different than how the Huxtables made white America see African Americans in a new more positive light. They were just seeing images of an upper middle class professional American family which is connected to positive images rather than a working class one with specific cultural class attributes that white America just didn't like.

To critique the Huxtables was akin to critcizing progress for African Americans and wanting them to go back to the drawing board.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is the homosexual movement in a stage right now where it's receiving a lot of entrance into the mainstream by shedding a lot of it's past radical elements?
In the US, the LGBT movement has been doing that since at least the 1980s, when instead of "gay liberation" or "gay freedom," the new phrase that began to grow in popularity was "gay pride."

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Another reason: there's reason to believe (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zinnia-jones/manning-trial-being-transgender-doesnt-mean-youre-unstable_b_2241741.html) Manning may be trans or at least gender questioning. Gay, Inc. has a history of transphobia.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In the US, the LGBT movement has been doing that since at least the 1980s, when instead of "gay liberation" or "gay freedom," the new phrase that began to grow in popularity was "gay pride."

I would say it started not too long after the dissolution of the Gay Liberation Front and its various splinters. From here the radicalism which started the movement (communist leaders and revolutionary solidarity) gradually died out as the than Left abandoned the struggle due, in part, to their own Queerphobia. On wards from this point liberals, conservative and various other social-cancers began to degrade the movement until what we have what we do now.

I think Gay Pride, as a obscure phrase connoting reformism, was something concocted during the era when the Gay Activists Alliance was still a grassroots campaign. I believe the phrase had its origins prior towards the start of the Stonewall Riots (albeit in somewhat different wording). More towards modernity, however, it was taken on a increasingly conservative tone with many groups seemingly forgetting even the most basic tenet about Gay Pride: that it is a rejection of gay shame; many groups seem to use pride in a very vauge manner that amounts to some form of assimilation into the heteronormative mainstream while ditching the specific uniqueness which Queer entails (not that they ever endorsed "Queer" to begin with but still). It is useful when dealing with the more conservative elements and when talking with teenagers who come from abusive households but within the liberal "adult" realm it doesn't have much potential anymore.

[Rooiakker]

The mainstream "LGBT" has a very strong and unfortunate tendency to drop the T whenever it's useful for them. It seems that trans folk are still stuck in the "Too extreme to be socially accepted" phase and the LGB isn't trying to help. It's sad really, how much trans people are victims of hate and prejudice and even certain parts of the feminist movement turn on them.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The mainstream "LGBT" has a very strong and unfortunate tendency to drop the T whenever it's useful for them. It seems that trans folk are still stuck in the "Too extreme to be socially accepted" phase and the LGB isn't trying to help. It's sad really, how much trans people are victims of hate and prejudice and even certain parts of the feminist movement turn on them.

This is true and one of the reasons why I use the term "Queer"; Queer, unlike "LGBT" is all inclusive of non-heterosexual persons. While the latter can be expanded with other letters indicating other sexual minorities (such as "Q" for questioning, and "A" for Asexual) when this happens the term becomes clunky "GLBTQA". If this happened for all of them then it would be a absurd string of letters to ordinary people; best to drop the alphabet soup, use Queer, and reinforce the identity Queer people possess without excluding the more heavily oppressed.