The Queers Left Behind

[The Feral Underclass]

This is a great article; everyone should read it.


The Queers Left Behind: How LGBT Assimilation Is Hurting Our Community's Most Vulnerable

On the evening of June 28, two very different celebrations took place to mark the most historic New York City Pride week in decades.

The flashier of these celebrations was the iconic Dance on the Pier. As the Pride Parade came to a drizzly end, an exuberant crowd of young, gay and mostly white men made their way to Hudson River Park's Pier 26, where Ariana Grande headlined a big-budget outdoor mega-party. Complete with laser lights, multiple jumbotrons, fireworks and a legion of half-naked go-go dancers, the event was a brazen testament to the newfound trendiness of urban gaydom. Admission started at $80, but that didn't stop 10,000 enthusiastic fans from snatching up tickets to what organizers billed as one of the world's top-tier LGBT events.

If any of those 10,000 attendees had taken a break from the dancing and glanced across the Hudson to the north, they may have seen the outline of the Christopher Street Piers, where a celebration of a very different kind was taking place. Here, a motley crowd of queer homeless youths -- who definitely could not afford admission to Dance on the Pier -- decided to throw an impromptu party of their own. With the bass from the Ariana Grande concert pulsing in the background, the youths -- male, female, cisgender, transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, black and Latino -- drank, smoked, sang, vogued and played cards under the dim light of the street lamps.

Both parties paid homage to a common past by celebrating Pride and the decades of struggle it commemorates. Both parties acknowledged a common present by sharing space on the Hudson River Piers, the heart of New York's LGBT community. But the extravagant Ariana Grande concert and its upscale audience could not have seemed more out of place among the piers that have served as a safe haven for the queer community's most marginalized -- mostly queer homeless youth of color -- for decades.

And this growing rift between mainstream and marginalized LGBT people makes me fear that our community won't have a common future.

While the gay rights movement in the United States has achieved a remarkable string of successes over the past several years, including the invalidation of the Defense of Marriage Act and the legalization of gay marriage, not everyone within the LGBT community is equally positioned to take advantage of these successes.

After all, although marriage is a declaration of love, in many ways it is also an expression of interpersonal stability, economic security and social respectability -- attributes that many marginalized LGBT people do not have. So while love may have won for middle and upper class gays, many transgender people, queer people of color and queer homeless youths instead find themselves left behind by a community that has become increasingly defined by the interests of its white, cisgender, middle and upper class members.

Over a decade ago, this powerful subsection of the LGBT community decided that the fight for marriage equality would be the modern cornerstone of the gay rights movement -- and for good reason. Marriage is an institution of respectability. The fight for gay marriage suggested that the gay community had grown up, left its radical past behind and was ready to join mainstream society as a reputable partner. It dismantled the hypersexual, flamboyant gay stereotype and replaced it with a more wholesome image that mainstream America found more palatable.

It was also an assertion that the gay rights movement had reached an important milestone, transcending basic issues of health, safety, economic security and social stability.

But the problem is, it hadn't. Over 20 percent of all LGBT youth are homeless, and 40 percent of all homeless youth are LGBT. 58 percent of queer homeless youth have been sexually assaulted. 64 percent of transgender people make less than $25,000 per year. 41 percent of transgender people and 62 percent of queer homeless youth have attempted suicide. And 10 transgender women have been murdered in the U.S. so far this year.

And yet, as middle and upper class gays poured time and money into the fight for gay marriage, these and other less marketable LGBT issues were largely forgotten. The number of queer youths on the streets rose. Violence against transgender people increased. And the gap between the 'mainstream' queer community and its fringes grew. As one gay, black and homeless youth on Pier 45 told me, "It's like once they had marriage equality it's like, 'Nah, we don't feel your pain any more, sorry.'"

Is this to be the brave new gay world?

A world in which the public face of the queer community -- the gay, the white, the cisgender and the wealthy -- take their place among society's elite, leaving the transgender, the non-white, the poor and the homeless to fend for themselves?

A world where queer youths are disowned and thrown out on the street by their families, only to find that they are also considered second-class citizens in the community they reach out to for love and acceptance?

A world of partition, indifference, neglect and self-interest?

Unfortunately, this dystopia has already started to become reality. As 'mainstream' white gay culture has become not only socially accepted, but also widely marketed and commercialized, middle and upper class gay interests have become inseparably intertwined with the gentrification of historically gay spaces and the criminalization of poor, non-white, transgender and homeless individuals within these spaces.

For example, Greenwich Village -- long a refuge for queer youths fleeing rejection and persecution -- has become a shining showcase for the gay community's newfound prosperity, complete with organic juice bars, small dog boutiques and seemingly hundreds of overpriced coffee shops. And as the gay elite have become increasingly integrated into the power structure of society, many have used their newfound influence not to alleviate the inequalities within the queer community, but instead to cement their position at the pinnacle of an expanding LGBT hierarchy.

Instead of collaborating with queer homeless youth to recreate the old Village's culture of diversity and acceptance, many residents of this new Greenwich Village -- many of them gay and lesbian -- have sought to "clean" their streets of the "Bloods and Crips", "gangs of unruly youths" and "gay youth of African-American and Hispanic origin" - all seemingly references to queer homeless youth of color.

Instead of proudly embracing the Christopher Street Piers' rich history as a haven for disowned queer homeless youths, some residents have tried to eject the youths from the piers altogether, arguing that times have changed and queer youth no longer need safe spaces.

And instead of protecting queer homeless youths from harassment, the Christopher Street Patrol has increasingly hounded them for petty quality of life infractions, a strategy eerily similar to that of the anti-gay vigilantes the patrol was in part founded to combat. As one black transgender youth put it, "The damage comes from our own community. You'd think we'd be safe on our own piers."

But the worst part about this trend is that because the discrimination is perpetrated at least in part by our own community, it is given a sense of legitimacy. After all, it can't be homophobic if it's queers versus queers, right?!

With the stunning advances in gay rights and growing prosperity of America's LGB community over the past decade, it's easy to forget that the very groups we are now marginalizing are the ones who launched the queer rights movement at a time when being gay was still a crime.

If queer homeless youths, black drag queens, transgender women and gay hustlers had not risen up against oppression at Compton's Cafeteria and Stonewall over 45 years ago, we would not have gay marriage today. Our movement was built on the back of our community's margins. So as long as LGBT youths sleep on the street, transgender people fear for their lives, and queer people of color live in poverty, my new right to marry will be diminished.

The LGBT movement still has a long way to go; I just hope the next big battle for queer rights isn't against the queer community itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/colin-walmsley/the-queers-left-behind-ho_b_7825158.html

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And this growing rift between mainstream and marginalized LGBT people makes me fear that our community won't have a common future.
It never did. There have always been class divisions in the queer community. It's one reason why true queer liberation is impossible under capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

It never did. There have always been class divisions in the queer community. It's one reason why true queer liberation is impossible under capitalism.

Why do you keep making this point? You say it every time this discussion comes up, but no one is talking about "queer liberation under capitalism." This idea that people are arguing for it is just a fantasy made up in your mind and bears no relation to reality.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why do you keep making this point? You say it every time this discussion comes up, but no one is talking about "queer liberation under capitalism." This idea that people are arguing for it is just a fantasy made up in your mind and bears no relation to reality.
Oh, fuck off. It's clear that I was responding to an article that completely ignores the role class plays in the queer community, probably because it was written by a liberal.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh, fuck off. It's clear that I was responding to an article that completely ignores the role class plays in the queer community, probably because it was written by a liberal.

Erm it wasn't clear at all, since your entire response was to say something completely meaningless and redundant...Again.

This article is addressing an incredibly important point about the divisions within the LGBT community and the subsequent further marginalisation of queer youth, especially those of minorities and all you can do is make some smarmy, irrelevant comment. Your entire contribution to this thread is to detract from the actual issues being presented to make a criticism that the writer is a liberal. Thanks for that, it's really useful.

If you're going to engage with these discussions then engage with them properly instead of repeating the same nonsensical bollocks ad nauseam.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You're a fucking asshole you plays dumb when it suits your purpose to attack someone. It wasn't clear? Motherfucker, I responded to a quote from the article.

[The Feral Underclass]

You're a fucking asshole you plays dumb when it suits your purpose to attack someone. It wasn't clear? Motherfucker, I responded to a quote from the article.

You cheery picked a quote from an entire article to make a redundant, facetious point that is left over from previous debates you've had with me and ignored the central issue of how queer, minority youth are marginalised within the LGBT community.

I'm not attacking you because I'm "playing dumb" (what is that even supposed to mean?), I'm attacking you for grandstanding. If you think I'm an asshole for calling out your bullshit, then that's fine with me.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You cheery picked a quote from an entire article to make a redundant, facetious point and ignored the central issue of how queer, minority youth are marginalised within the LGBT community.
Because the article completely ignores the role class plays in every aspect of society, including the queer community. How is that "a great article" for a revolutionary forum? It might be useful in some of the information and examples it provides, but great? I didn't ignore the central issue, by calling out the article's ignorance of class (and everything that goes along with it) I was pointing out the weakness of expecting queer unity when there can be no unity between different classes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because the article completely ignores the role class plays in every aspect of society, including the queer community. How is that "a great article" for a revolutionary forum? It might be useful in some of the information and examples it provides, but great? I didn't ignore the central issue, by calling out the article's ignorance of class (and everything that goes along with it) I was pointing out the weakness of expecting queer unity when there can be no unity between different classes.

This paragraph is a far more articulate way of making your point than what you originally posted. In future, perhaps you could start by making a considered post like this, rather than making one line comments you know full well serve to be antagonistic.

The reason the article is great, in my view, is because in spite of its lack of discussion around class it identifies very coherently how social and cultural assimilation is having a profound negative affect on marginalised sections of the LGBT community. That issue exists irrespective of class and it is something that the queer community need to be arguing against here and now.

The entire article is premised on the the idea that queer culture and the resistance against heteronormativity is the basis for a common future (in our view communism). I think that is a perfectly valid and necessary point to make. If our common future is to struggle against assimilation and defend queer issues (and we have to do that in spite of and connected to our anti-capitalist struggle), then we should be worried about how the mainstream LGBT community is developing.

I think you are also overstating the division between classes. When you talk of no unity between classes, who is it you're talking about? The majority of people in the mainstream LGBT community are not part of the bourgeoisie; we're not talking about the working class and ruling class uniting. What we're talking about are different sections of the same class. This makes it necessary to win the argument against assimilation and heteronormativity, an argument that this article makes very well.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This paragraph is a far more articulate way of making your point than what you originally posted. In future, perhaps you could start by making a considered post like this, rather than making one line comments you know full well serve to be antagonistic.
You were the one that brought in the antagonism. Instead of asking me to clarify, you went on the attack about "a fantasy made up in your mind and bears no relation to reality." Maybe I'm just too defensive at the moment, but that approach didn't make me want to be particularly rational in response.


The reason the article is great, in my view, is because in spite of its lack of discussion around class it identifies very coherently how social and cultural assimilation is having a profound negative affect on marginalised sections of the LGBT community. That issue exists irrespective of class and it is something that the queer community need to be arguing against here and now.
Like I said, a useful article, and one I would largely agree with, but it also offers no meaningful way forward that I can see. My perspective has long been that it's not so much that LGBT people started to assimilate, it's that already assimilated people started coming out as LGBT and they came to outnumber the radicalized liberationists.


I think you are also overstating the division between classes. When you talk of no unity between classes, who is it you're talking about? The majority of people in the mainstream LGBT community are not part of the bourgeoisie
A lot of mainstream LGBT activism has been driven by petit-bourgeois queers or at least queers who are ideologically aligned with them. We can't have unity with the former. The latter? We need to break their illusions as to how the system works.

[MarxSchmarx]

TFU and DND, please try to be respectful of each other.

I agree this is an emotionally charged issue, but that makes calling out each other on less than respectful behavior counterproductive. Please keep in mind there are users who are relatively naive, and don't recognize that both of you are in essence on the same side.

There's no need for it, and while I think it helps explicate each other's concerns, please leave the vitriol aside. Realistically, both of you understand the inadequacy of capitalism to address queer issues, and at the end of the day, that is what matters for our critique, so please frame your concerns in less antagonistic ways.

Thank you.

[theblackmask]

I was in a restaurant about a year ago and these two lesbians kept talking about the "LGB" movement...I bit my tongue until it bled.

[The Feral Underclass]

You were the one that brought in the antagonism. Instead of asking me to clarify, you went on the attack about "a fantasy made up in your mind and bears no relation to reality." Maybe I'm just too defensive at the moment, but that approach didn't make me want to be particularly rational in response.

When people make posts I assume that what they have posted is what they intended to say. What you posted and what you intended to say were not the same thing.


Like I said, a useful article, and one I would largely agree with, but it also offers no meaningful way forward that I can see. My perspective has long been that it's not so much that LGBT people started to assimilate, it's that already assimilated people started coming out as LGBT and they came to outnumber the radicalized liberationists.

To criticise the article for not having a "meaningful way forward" is to misunderstand the nature of political discourse and appeal to an undemocratic, sort of consumerist attitude that in order to offer an analysis you have to provide some kind of solution for people. Prescribing that kind of condition is in many cases a way of shutting down debate and it is something people on the left often use as a means to censor views they don't agree with. The point of an analysis is to offer something to a debate; it's to participate in a discussion. It's perfectly valid for someone to do that without offering solutions. Perhaps he doesn't feel able to prescribe a solution, especially when the nature of the article is to highlight the developing confusion and deterioration of the community of which he is speaking and of which be belongs. To imply, as you are doing, that a person must have a solution in order to have their voice recognised as legitimate is an incredibly nefarious attitude to have towards political discourse.

As for your point about assimilation, I'm not convinced it really makes sense. Cultural and political assimilation of the LGBT movement is not something expressed through an individual being assimilated (you're not clear what you mean by assimilation) and then coming out and numbering more than other "non-assimilated" individuals. The process of bourgeois society assimilating the culture and politics of the LGBT movement happens independently of individuals. It's not a pre-destined individual process, it's an ideological, hegemonic one. The LGBT movement during the 1960s and 1970s (and even as far back as the Mattachine Society in America) took on radical, anti-capitalist perspectives as a pre-requisite for "gay rights" and liberation. Although there were liberal gay rights groups, the predominant, prevailing nature of LGBT culture and politics was militant and anti-capitalist. When rights began to be afforded and reforms were made conflict began to de-escalate (as is always the case with reforms). Eventually the militant and anti-capitalist nature of the LGBT movement became less and less able to legitimise itself in the face of what many considered victories. When the state and heternormative cultural hegemony began to validate queerness as an alternative and gay men and women became prominent members of bourgeois power structures, this began to confuse and blur the line between queerness as liberation for all and what being queer in a heternormative, capitalist society was supposed to look like. They started to become the same thing; LGBT culture and politics began to express itself more and more like heteronormative culture and politics, eventually seeing this as a legitimate struggle. Now that process had nothing to do with individuals being pre-assimilated (into what I'm not sure), but about the prevailing ideological dominance of heteronormativity and capitalism, and the pacifying nature of reformism.


A lot of mainstream LGBT activism has been driven by petit-bourgeois queers or at least queers who are ideologically aligned with them. We can't have unity with the former. The latter? We need to break their illusions as to how the system works.

I think it is possible for queers to unite no matter what their class status providing the interests they fight for are queer, anti-capitalist ones. Breaking the illusions as of "how the system works" requires a resistance against assimilation and a recognition that more needs to be done to re-militarise the LGBT community around queer liberation, anti-state, anti-capitalist issues.

[BIXX]

TFU and DND, please try to be respectful of each other.

I agree this is an emotionally charged issue, but that makes calling out each other on less than respectful behavior counterproductive. Please keep in mind there are users who are relatively naive, and don't recognize that both of you are in essence on the same side.

There's no need for it, and while I think it helps explicate each other's concerns, please leave the vitriol aside. Realistically, both of you understand the inadequacy of capitalism to address queer issues, and at the end of the day, that is what matters for our critique, so please frame your concerns in less antagonistic ways.

Thank you.

While I'm not trying to say that they should of shouldn't be respectful (I honestly don't care) I think the idea that they are essentially on the same side is a bit strange. Not that it's impossible that they are I just don't exactly believe that to be the case.

[blake 3:17]

I find it odd to think that there is homogeneous 'queer community' which has some common interest beyond certain legal and -- I dunno -- social cultural(?) rights. It's super that the lesbian couple down the street from me are harrassed but it also doesn't thrill me that they're cops.

There's some good efforts here to take a bit of the pressure off of queer and trans youth, which are limited, but the folks doing it are trying their best.

[Comrade Jacob]

I was in a restaurant about a year ago and these two lesbians kept talking about the "LGB" movement...I bit my tongue until it bled.

I hate when they leave out trans and other queer people.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I agree with Daniele, I didn't think it was that great of an article and the dude writing it has some awful underlying assumptions:


Over a decade ago, this powerful subsection of the LGBT community decided that the fight for marriage equality would be the modern cornerstone of the gay rights movement -- and for good reason. Marriage is an institution of respectability. The fight for gay marriage suggested that the gay community had grown up, left its radical past behind and was ready to join mainstream society as a reputable partner. It dismantled the hypersexual, flamboyant gay stereotype and replaced it with a more wholesome image that mainstream America found more palatable.


The most glaring feature of the article is it's liberalism, without taking sides in whichever argument you two are involved in. Nowhere does he question the legitimacy of marriage as the ultimate social regulator in our society, and is apparently oblivious to the contradictions of class within the "movement". He doesn't even present any ideas about how to combat the problems of poverty and violence faced by non-white or trans members of the community. Just a lot of guilt-tripping and hand-wringing. If anything this yuppy asshole is just exploiting the situation for his own personal gain via publishing this article, with no real interest in it's content. It is as useful as the endless tumblr blogs powered by white guilt in the fight against racism and about as narcissistic.



"Colin Walmsley is a government major and anthropology minor at Dartmouth College. An avid researcher, his scholarship has included an ethnographic study of queer youth homelessness in New York City and a government honors thesis on state responses to secessionism. He has studied abroad in France and New Zealand, started a chicken farm in rural Kenya, and contributed to discussion about global issues and leadership as a Great Issues Scholar, War and Peace Fellow and Rockefeller Leadership Fellow at Dartmouth. He also sings bass with the Dartmouth Brovertones a cappella group, hosts a radio show on 99Rock WFRD FM, and plays center for the Dartmouth Rugby Football Club.

Outside school, Colin is an advocate for the rights of LGBT people and other marginalized groups. He has worked at New Alternatives drop-in center for LGBT homeless youth (http://www.newalternativesnyc.org/) in New York City, and created a documentary (https://vimeo.com/80405575) about convicted murderers who participate in the Concord, N.H., prison’s art program."

This dude sounds like a fucking tool.

[The Feral Underclass]

I agree with Daniele, I didn't think it was that great of an article and the dude writing it has some awful underlying assumptions:



The most glaring feature of the article is it's liberalism, without taking sides in whichever argument you two are involved in. Nowhere does he question the legitimacy of marriage as the ultimate social regulator in our society, and is apparently oblivious to the contradictions of class within the "movement". He doesn't even present any ideas about how to combat the problems of poverty and violence faced by non-white or trans members of the community. Just a lot of guilt-tripping and hand-wringing. If anything this yuppy asshole is just exploiting the situation for his own personal gain via publishing this article, with no real interest in it's content. It is as useful as the endless tumblr blogs powered by white guilt in the fight against racism and about as narcissistic.



This dude sounds like a fucking tool.

The academic achievements and extracurricular activities of an individual does not de-legitimise them. It is an incredibly elitist attitude to take towards someone. I also think it's ridiculous that you think you can paint such an accurate caricature of someone based entirely on their four sentence Huffpost profile. :rolleyes:

I don't really understand the reason for highlighting the passage you quoted. Marriage is an institution of respectability. The fact he criticises gay marriage and discusses the negative impact of assimilation pretty much implies his objections. Moreover, the vast majority of the LGBT community are oblivious to class. That doesn't de-legitimise someone's point-of-view when talking about the nature of assimilation and the negative impact it has on some of the most marginalised people in society, it simply makes it incomplete.

There is literally nothing in that article that is objectionable. Criticising it for what is not in it would be reasonable if it wasn't couched in such spitefulness and pedantry. Having these issues discussed in mainstream media is a novel thing (and in my view great) and the arguments he's making against assimilation are vital. The fact he is doing that by advocating for the most dispossessed sections of the LGBT community makes him an ally and your petty character assassination is completely unnecessary and unwelcome.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You really think his class background doesn't play a part in his inability to draw conclusions which are (hopefully)obvious to the rest of us? I'm not ragging on his 'academic achievements', I'm pointing out his strictly academic interest in the subject. He'll be living in one of those million dollar condos and attending the pretentious pier parties in a few years, if he's not already. I highlighted that selection to drive home my point that he fails to question any of his underlying assumptions.

There's nothing objectionable about the article, there's also nothing positive or noteworthy about it either. White people having been putting sob pieces about race in their periodicals for centuries now, where are the benefits from that? Shit, this piece is assimilation, "See how much they care about us????". They don't care about any of us, and this dude sure as fuck doesn't care either. He'll grow up to be some nobody state senator and this article is just future PR fodder for that goal. Meanwhile the people he exploits in the process will remain on the streets or in jail.

There have got to be better articles than this written on the subject, preferably by people who experience it rather than just gawk at it while in college.

[The Feral Underclass]

You really think his class background doesn't play a part in his inability to draw conclusions which are (hopefully)obvious to the rest of us?

You mean obvious to socialists? Do you take this patronising attitude to your work mates? But to answer your question, no. For a start I don't know his class background and even if I did his class background, I don't judge people based on it.


I'm not ragging on his 'academic achievements', I'm pointing out his strictly academic interest in the subject. He'll be living in one of those million dollar condos and attending the pretentious pier parties in a few years, if he's not already. I highlighted that selection to drive home my point that he fails to question any of his underlying assumptions.

"Outside school, Colin is an advocate for the rights of LGBT people and other marginalized groups. He has worked at New Alternatives drop-in center for LGBT homeless youth in New York City, and created a documentary about convicted murderers who participate in the Concord, N.H., prison’s art program."

That, I wager, is more than you have done.

You are perfectly entitled to make judgements about people based on whatever criteria you choose, but I have no real interest in making tabloid, elitist presumptions about someone based on nothing other than my own prejudices.


There's nothing objectionable about the article, there's also nothing positive or noteworthy about it either. White people having been putting sob pieces about race in their periodicals for centuries now, where are the benefits from that? Shit, this piece is assimilation, "See how much they care about us????". They don't care about any of us, and this dude sure as fuck doesn't care either. He'll grow up to be some nobody state senator and this article is just future PR fodder for that goal. Meanwhile the people he exploits in the process will remain on the streets or in jail.

Suit yourself.


There have got to be better articles than this written on the subject, preferably by people who experience it rather than just gawk at it while in college.

People have said the same thing about Marx.

This isn't a competition. It's not about one article being better than other articles. I'm sure there are better articles. This is just one. I shared it. Your objections to it are completely ridiculous and your spiteful character assassination of this guy is way too over the top for it to come from any legitimate political concern.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

"Outside school, Colin is an advocate for the rights of LGBT people and other marginalized groups. He has worked at New Alternatives drop-in center for LGBT homeless youth in New York City, and created a documentary about convicted murderers who participate in the Concord, N.H., prison’s art program."


The bold part could be mean literally anything. Tons of people here 'advocate for communism', that doesn't qualify them to say anything intelligent about it. It doesn't bar them from it either, but in this case it didn't pan out that way. As for the homeless shelter, he's a student and extracurricular activities are mandatory for placement into academic programs. He might have worked there once and then yeah he gets to add that to any bio he creates for the rest of his life, big deal. I have a friend who spent a week in some African village digging a well on a mission trip and he's been riding that hobby horse for what feels like a goddamn decade with nothing else to show, what a grand commitment to international development :rolleyes:.

Anyhow, character assassination wasn't really my main goal I just happened to look at his bio and saw what a douche he is. The article was bad, you jumped all over Danielle for pointing out how wrong-headed it was and I happened to see it as I was posting in the deactivation thread. But since you want to frame my objection as being entirely limited to the author; yeah fuck Colin Walmsley and whatever brainless insights he thinks he bringing us. I bet he loves craft beer and "artisanal" tacos or pizza or grilled cheese sandwiches or whatever the fuck white people are into this month. I would print this article out and wipe my ass with it but I don't own a printer.

[The Feral Underclass]

The article was bad

The article articulates the dangers of assimilation, criticises the mainstream LGBT community and highlights the conditions for dispossessed queer youth. If you think that's bad, then you have no place in this debate.


you jumped all over Danielle for pointing out how wrong-headed

But they didn't point that out. Neither have you.

Highlighting that a liberal didn't mention class is not a particularly sophisticated critique and it also doesn't really forward a debate about these core issues. Namely assimilation, the mainstream LGBT community (which is predominately working class) and how to address the politics of the situation facing dispossessed queer youth.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

He highlights their dispossession but then provides no insight into it, because its a worthless guilt piece as I've already said. It's intended to provide future ethical appeal for him specifically pertaining to his career as some lame ass politician or 'public intellectual' at a university. Meanwhile it lets all the bourgie gay white people share it on facebook to let everyone else know how committed to social justice they are. No call to action, no advice on how to approach the problem. It's fluff, it's shit, it's nothing. He's not able to provide insight into the struggle of these people because hes a fucking liberal. As a result of being a liberal, hes unable to put two and two together and realize that the reason rich white assholes in the village oppose the existence of poor lgbt people in their neighborhood is because THEY ARE FUCKING CLASS ENEMIES DOOMED TO STRUGGLE AGAINST ONE ANOTHER UNTIL ONE OR THE OTHER IS VICTORIOUS. They aren't allies, this dude is not an ally, the people who published the article for him are not allies, the people who host the fucking website are not allies.

I know you know this, but heres the thing, you also know that everyone here already knows it. So what was the point of posting this article? This is a communist website, of course the liberal slant of the article was going to be criticized. And then you get upset about it as if we should already know that the article you've posted doesn't really belong here. I know for a fact that there are revolutionary queer pieces that investigate this one a much deeper level and would be far more relevant than this naval-gazing on the part of some opportunistic jackass.

Are you Colin Walmsley, is that what this is all about? Come clean.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Enjoy the rafiq style post Anyhow, I'm out. Disable or ban this account assholes :wub:.

[The Feral Underclass]

No call to action, no advice on how to approach the problem. It's fluff, it's shit, it's nothing. He's not able to provide insight into the struggle of these people because hes a fucking liberal. As a result of being a liberal, hes unable to put two and two together and realize that the reason rich white assholes in the village oppose the existence of poor lgbt people in their neighborhood is because THEY ARE FUCKING CLASS ENEMIES DOOMED TO STRUGGLE AGAINST ONE ANOTHER UNTIL ONE OR THE OTHER IS VICTORIOUS. They aren't allies, this dude is not an ally, the people who published the article for him are not allies, the people who host the fucking website are not allies.

I know you know this, but heres the thing, you also know that everyone here already knows it. So what was the point of posting this article? This is a communist website, of course the liberal slant of the article was going to be criticized. And then you get upset about it as if we should already know that the article you've posted doesn't really belong here.

Putting aside your obvious grandstanding (considering the fact you're absolutely not active in queer politics -- or any politics, yet seem perfectly comfortable criticising other people for not being) I think the problem here is one of approach. Even if your assessment of this man's motivations were accurate (I don't really care if they are), the ultimate point for me is that it is providing a queer analysis (in the 1000 word editorial he was allowed to write) in a mainstream forum that offers counter-narrative not only against assimilation and gay marriage, but against the LGBT community and the pro-active lengths they are going to against dispossessed members of the community. I think he clearly does give insight into the struggle of these people, which is why he discusses the Christopher Street Pier community patrols and provides statistics that show dispossession. As someone who has worked with homeless queer youth in NYC, he evidently knows what he is talking about.

As for the issue around class: As I've said repeatedly in this thread, the view that the mainstream LGBT community is predominantly made up of class enemies is false -- if not ludicrous. The LGBT community is largely working class, so the issues he is bringing up are not inter-class problems, they are intra-class problems and therefore require a more nuanced analysis than the one you and Danielle are providing. Simply pointing out that the article fails to mention class is not particularly useful if you yourself are failing to identify the nature of the class issue. If he did put two-and-two together, as you think he should have, he would have been wrong. LGBT people in the mainstream community are not class enemies, they are workers.

As I said to Danielle, I think attempting to de-legitimise someone's voice because they do not offer some kind of solution or advice is undemocratic and usually a way of shutting down debate. None of these things are a prerequisite for an opinion and I don't see that particular criticism as valid. Offering a valid opinion to a debate is just as important and vital if we are to cut through the narratives of mainstream LGBT politics.

I'd like to point out that in the several posts you've made in this thread you have also not provided any insight into these people; you've given no call to action or provided any advice. You have simply questioned the motives of the writer and belittled me for posting it, repeating an already addressed fatuous analysis about class. If we are to consider this article as fluff, shit and nothing, what then should we consider your intervention in this thread?


I know for a fact that there are revolutionary queer pieces that investigate this one a much deeper level and would be far more relevant than this naval-gazing on the part of some opportunistic jackass.

Then why not provide them in this thread so that we can enrich the debate, rather than all this sound and fury, that's signifying very little.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So me attacking this dude on his background isn't cool but you attacking mine is lol? My posts are confined to this meaningless thread on a board no one reads, this jackass published his piece on a major website. I dunno man, you've obviously got a lot invested in the article for some reason but I definitely haven't belittled you. You posted a liberal article on a communist website and now you're upset that people pointed out that it was written by a spoiled rich-kid liberal from a liberal viewpoint with a liberal interpretation of events. Why you're upset, I have no clue but I'll leave that for you to figure out. And for who's sake am I grandstanding I wonder? I literally requested a ban immediately after that post, that seems like an odd strategy for grandstanding. Ideally I would stick around and leverage it to create a cult of easily impressed highschool students to follow me around the site don't you think?.

Honestly the fact that I'm defending an attack on a liberal to a 'radical' as old as you is a good example of why I don't have anything to do with these idiotic politics anymore, even posting about them on the internet is irritating as fuck at this point. Congrats on all the exposure this huffington post article is gonna net us, I'm sure liberation is on it's way even as I type this.

[The Feral Underclass]

So me attacking this dude on his background isn't cool but you attacking mine is lol?

No, I don't think it's particularly "cool", but you are the one who reduced this issue down to one of background and motivation. These things are seemingly important criteria for you, so it seems bizarre to me that you are so willingly hypocritical. I guess the point I'm making is that sometimes people can have good opinions despite their backgrounds and their political involvement.


You posted a liberal article on a communist website and now you're upset that people pointed out that it was written by a spoiled rich-kid liberal from a liberal viewpoint with a liberal interpretation of events. Why you're upset, I have no clue but I'll leave that for you to figure out. And for who's sake am I grandstanding I wonder? I literally requested a ban immediately after that post, that seems like an odd strategy for grandstanding. Ideally I would stick around and leverage it to create a cult of easily impressed highschool students to follow me around the site don't you think?.

I'm very confused by the way you have involved yourself in this thread. You have somehow made it incredibly personal for some reason. I'm not upset about anything. I'm having a conversation and defending my opinions. If you want to engage with those opinions rather than continuing to repeat absolutely redundant assumptions about this guys motivations, then that would be more useful.


Honestly the fact that I'm defending an attack on a liberal to a 'radical' as old as you is a good example of why I don't have anything to do with these idiotic politics anymore, even posting about them on the internet is irritating as fuck at this point.

I think we look at politics very differently. You look at it in a very black-and-white way; this is something I've always noticed about your posts here. I look at politics in a more broader way I think. You seem to get confused at what you consider to be my apparent contradictory approaches to politics, but I see them more as a holistic approach to understanding a broad range of ideas and beliefs. I know what I believe and I'm quite comfortable in that, but this doesn't exclude me from finding interest in things people say even when they're not part of my political tradition. Even liberals can say some good things some of the time and I don't think being a liberal necessarily precludes you from certain debates. In fact sometimes it's vital they are part of it -- especially debates about queer issues. Finding a liberal who shares the same queer liberation views is useful.


Congrats on all the exposure this huffington post article is gonna net us, I'm sure liberation is on it's way even as I type this.

I'm genuinely interested to know how you think comments like this are useful?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Uhh no man, I really haven't reduced it to attacks on his background alone. His background is however clearly related to his viewpoint which you refuse to acknowledge. In my original post I said I agreed with Danielle who wrote:
Oh, fuck off. It's clear that I was responding to an article that completely ignores the role class plays in the queer community, probably because it was written by a liberal. This is important, but you don't want to talk about it for some reason. It really does sound like you believe some trash written by a person who doesn't even believe in class conflict can have insight into a problem that is obviously inextricably tied to class conflicts.

Which was in my first post actually:
The most glaring feature of the article is it's liberalism, without taking sides in whichever argument you two are involved in. Nowhere does he question the legitimacy of marriage as the ultimate social regulator in our society, and is apparently oblivious to the contradictions of class within the "movement".

Everything about the author came after, and continued only because you kept gong on about it not mattering, when it obviously does. Nothing about this guys article or background suggests queer liberation as a motivation for him, nor do I see anything where he questions the underlying assumption of marriage continuing to be a 'respectable institution', only his despair over his right to marry being 'diminished' :rolleyes: which leads me back to my original criticism of the article, again from my first post:
Just a lot of guilt-tripping and hand-wringing. and my second post:
I'm pointing out his strictly academic interest in the subject. etc. etc. ugh no more fucking quotes, honestly fuck this place. The point is that I haven't attacked queer liberation to any extent, but only because this idiot doesn't represent queer liberation. Something you're confused about for some reason.

I have no personal stake in the argument, I didn't post the article and I haven't spent two pages defending it's content. You're the only one who's gone for a personal attack so far, not to mention that so far you've spent the entire thread outside of the OP fighting with people to justify your decision to post it in the first place. So I'm really confused why you think I'm the one who is getting angry? I really don't care, this dude is a joke, as I've maintained the entire time. This dude doesn't even care, he'll be rich himself in a couple years and homeless people or random internet users who call him names won't mean dick to him anymore.

Honestly my first post was meant to be a little tongue in cheek joke on my way out of here, but you've somehow managed to turn it into exactly what's so fucking stupid about this place. Feel free to misrepresent this post however you see fit. See ya revleft.

[The Feral Underclass]

Uhh no man, I really haven't reduced it to attacks on his background alone. His background is however clearly related to his viewpoint which you refuse to acknowledge. In my original post I said I agreed with Danielle who wrote: This is important, but you don't want to talk about it for some reason. It really does sound like you believe some trash written by a person who doesn't even believe in class conflict can have insight into a problem that is obviously inextricably tied to class conflicts.

I don't know this guy's class background and neither do you. But as I've said (this is the third time), even if you are right it is entirely irrelevant to the points he is making.

Nothing that he wrote in that article was trash. Everything he said was right and necessary to be said. The issue around class is a different issue and as I've said, even if he brought up class in the way you think he should be would be wrong about it.

Queer liberation can only really be accomplished in a post-class society, but the cultural and social objectives of queer liberation don't end just because class is abolished. The battle for queer ideological hegemony still has to be won inside and outside the LGBT community. So yeah, while he doesn't talk about class, the article does a great job of highlighting the cultural and social issues that are absolutely necessary as counter-narratives.

This point isn't particularly controversial and I think you should stop entrenching this discussion in this guys background and motivations -- background and motivations which I think you're wrong about.


Everything about the author came after, and continued only because you kept gong on about it not mattering, when it obviously does.

I don't see any relation between his background and character and the content of the article. You seem to think this is important, I do not. Since the article very rightly highlights important problems with the LGBT community, I fail to see what relevance his background has. Even if he was a factory owner, it doesn't make what is saying any less right.


Nothing about this guys article or background suggests queer liberation as a motivation for him, nor do I see anything where he questions the underlying assumption of marriage continuing to be a 'respectable institution', only his despair over his right to marry being 'diminished'

Marriage is a respectable institution, that's the whole problem, which is why he talks about it. But yeah, liberals still latch onto gay marriage as a right, something you and Danielle have in common with him.


The point is that I haven't attacked queer liberation to any extent, but only because this idiot doesn't represent queer liberation. Something you're confused about for some reason.

I think what he is saying is vital to queer liberation politics irrespective of his class background. I'm not confused about that, I just don't agree with your assessment. The fact that he doesn't use class as a basis for his article doesn't detract from the essence of the argument, which is that assimilation is damaging the radicalism of the LGBT community.


I have no personal stake in the argument, I didn't post the article and I haven't spent two pages defending it's content. You're the only one who's gone for a personal attack so far, not to mention that so far you've spent the entire thread outside of the OP fighting with people to justify your decision to post it in the first place. So I'm really confused why you think I'm the one who is getting angry? I really don't care, this dude is a joke, as I've maintained the entire time. This dude doesn't even care, he'll be rich himself in a couple years and homeless people or random internet users who call him names won't mean dick to him anymore.

I haven't said you're getting angry...:confused:

I'm defending its content because you seem to think the content should be rejected and ignored (at least that's what I infer from you calling it fluff, shit and nothing), and I think that's a bad thing. What he is saying is important and it should be part of the debate. Attempts to shut him down because you don't like his background or because he doesn't mention class is not productive. As a queer person I want people like him in the debate. If you want to censor every person in the debate because you have some preconceived notion about their background, or because they are liberal, then that's just stupid. Plainly and simply stupid.


Honestly my first post was meant to be a little tongue in cheek joke on my way out of here, but you've somehow managed to turn it into exactly what's so fucking stupid about this place. Feel free to misrepresent this post however you see fit. See ya revleft.

Honestly, it strikes me as though you wish you could just come onto the board and post things without anyone ever disagreeing with you. I'm afraid internet debate boards don't work like that. If you post an opinion that someone disagrees with, they're going to tell you they disagree. So yeah, I've turned this into a discussion. It's currently a very reductive discussion that I'm trying to focus on the key points, but you don't seem interested.

But if you're leaving, just get on with it and leave.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But they didn't point that out.
I have a gender. You don't need to use a gender-neutral singular.

[Troika]

It never did. There have always been class divisions in the queer community. It's one reason why true queer liberation is impossible under capitalism.

Agreed. The white capitalist gays have taken over most queer spaces in my city. We have some spaces left to ourselves but even Pride has been taken from us, gutted, and handed over to sponsors. I was always apathetic about marriage equality because while I believe we are owed the same rights as anyone else, I'm opposed to assimilation into straight culture and I'm opposed to state-mandated relationship configurations. In all honesty I'm kinda wishing we'd start an "abolish straight marriage" campaign just to troll people.

Ultimately you're correct. It's impossible to liberate ourselves under capitalism. We either assimilate (and are consumed by straight bourgeois white culture, destroying mainstream support networks for many queers) or we remain an offensive counterculture. I prefer the latter. I don't care what Chad, Jimbob, and Cletus think of us. I've lived my life armed and paranoid due in part to them, so I'm fine continuing to live that way. I don't want their sympathy.

You might like a book called Queer Ultraviolence. It details radical queer leftism. There's some janky stuff in there but overall it's good.