46
votes
Happy Pride, everyone! Any of y’all doing anything fun this month?
My fiancée and I are going to Provincetown, MA to celebrate both Pride and her birthday.
Her mothers used to take her to Ptown every summer as a kid, so as an ally I’m looking forward to soaking up the positive vibes and getting to know this place that’s so special to her. I’ve been learning more about the town and what it’s meant to the LGBTQ+ community over the last few decades.
It shouldn’t have had to be a hideaway but it’s so cool that such a place exists and that it feels so separate from the rest of the country via that long drive out on the Cape.
The world is certainly a scary place right now but this month is full of so much love. Are any of y’all going to any parades or events to celebrate?
To be honest, I don't know that I'll be doing much of anything. The world seems extra determined to not let trans people exist at the present moment, so going out is... worrying to say the least...
Sometimes I really hate living in a conservative state, but you can't choose where family is...
Same. We're contributing to events behind the scenes (planning and organizing) but won't be attending in person. We live in a very high profile area, so likelihood of problems is nontrivial.
I ended up attending a small neighborhood Pride event this week. It was one city block, wasn’t heavily advertised, and only had a few hundred attendees and a few booths. I didn’t even know the event was occurring until day of. It was refreshing, full of positive vibes, live band, and full of Pride! Well worth stumbling upon the event and I am glad to see the nod from the community to make smaller, less advertised events for those with anxiety (of crowds and our current political environment).
It is going to be a discreet Pride month for me and my Wife. We are out on the road a lot this month and will be in more rural and conservative areas. I am taking off all of our usual bumper stickers and leaving all my pride gear at home this year while out on the road. It brings me great pain and sadness having to perform these measures in our current environment.
The world is a scary place right now. I was not comfortable going to the usual Pride event I attend due to the massive crowds and increased prejudice. It really hurt my soul to be scared of attending an event which could end in a shooting or tragedy.
Hope your Pride goes well and y’all have an awesome experience! I love buzzing feeling of positivity you get at these events. It brings joy to my soul when I can just hangout and be myself amongst others who “get it”.
Side rant: Is it just me, or is it difficult to find Pride gear that isn’t 100% cotton or a poly-cotton mix? I searched for hours online today trying to find polyester or nylon gear and came up empty handed. I tend to sweat a lot and hate the way soaked cotton feels on my body. Thus, I try to look for the moisture wicking kind of shirts. It was interesting to see mountains of cotton gear, but no other material gear for shirts. I ended up just settling on a subtle Pride wristband and my flamingo filled button up/board shorts outfit this year for Pride.
Regenbogen sells pure polyester stuff - which was disappointing for me, because I prefer all-cotton materials. I bought a shirt anyway, but I prefer organic fabrics.
Thank you for the pointer! I found plenty (90%+) of 100% cotton Pride gear on Etsy if you want to give it a look!
Fellow Polyamorous Queer person here! I certainly think polyamory falls under the plus! I love the courage of posting the polyamory meme to the masses! There is so much negative connotation and misunderstanding around polyamory. Education is important and needed with so many people thinking polyamory is synonymous with cheating. I always want to throw the book (usually to the tune of Ethical Slut) when people judge me for being polyamorous or people think my partner and I cheat on each other.
I think it will make a little difference through exposure. The more we get it out there, the more people will grow used to the concept and hopefully normalize the philosophy in our culture. Happy Pride!
So, straight people count as "queer", as long as they're in heterosexual relationships with multiple people at the same time (or would like to be).
I don't follow the logic of that. Straight people are still straight, even if they're being straight with more than one person.
First off, while I'm poly myself, I have never thought of that as qualifying me for inclusion in the LGBT+ umbrella.
But what determines who's part of the group? Polyamorous people are a minority whose sexual and romantic preferences lead to us experiencing discrimination. There are already straight people who fall within the LGBT+ umbrella, if by straight you mean attracted to people of the opposite gender. What, for you, is the line beyond which people won't qualify for inclusion?
I'm not trying to ask gotcha questions, I'm just interested in hearing your perspective.
cc: @Vadim_Kovalsky
Over on Reddit, I've occasionally had discussions with people who refuse to group transgender people with gay/bisexual people. You know: the "LGB not the T" and "LGB Alliance" crowds.
Or, sometimes, there's a person with a legitimate question about why transgender people are included with gay/bisexual people when one group's issue is with having their gender accepted and the other group's issue is with having their sexuality accepted - because gender is not sexuality and sexuality is not gender.
I've made two points to these people.
We're part of the same community
There's a continuum from effeminate gay men through drag queen to trans woman. (I'm a gay man, so I'm using the examples I'm more familiar with.) There's no hard borders between these groups of people; each group blends almost imperceptibly into the others. In fact, some people move back and forth along that continuum throughout their life.
Also, when these people go out to socialise, they often go to the same gay bars, where they're all accepted. For example, when the Stonewall riot happened, it was a combination of all these types of people who participated. There's still controversy about whether Marsha P Johnson, one of the ringleaders of the Stonewall riot, was a drag queen or a trans woman - and, in those days, before many trans people had the language or the courage to self-identify as trans, even Marsha might not have understood the difference.
On that basis, transgender people are part of the LGBT+ community, because they're embedded in it, and always have been.
We break the same rules
Transgender and homosexual/bisexual people all break gender norms. In our various ways, we're all "doing gender" wrong.
Gay people break the rules of their gender by being attracted to the "wrong" gender. Gay men (for example) should be attracted to women but, instead, they're attracted to other men. That's against the rules for being a man.
Transgender people break the rules of their gender by being the "wrong" gender. Transgender women (for example) should be men but, instead, they're living as women. That's against the rules for being a man.
We're all breaking the rules for genders, in different ways. That puts us at odds with people who assume that "boys are boys and boys like girls" - and we all suffer abuse and discrimination because we refuse to conform to those rules.
So, yes, straight transgender people are part of the rainbow community, for the reasons I've explained above.
However, straight polyamorous people don't have the same issues. They're heterosexual. They might want to be heterosexual with multiple people, but they're still expressing the normal attraction to the expected gender.
Without wanting to go off on too much of a tangent: religions that have problems with homosexual/bisexual people and transgender people, have no problem with bigamy, multiple marriages, harems, mistresses, and similar expressions of polyamory. Polyamory is more aligned with gender norms than same-sex attraction and being transgender.
A lot of people (including me) define "queer" as "not cisgender and/or not heterosexual". On one side, there's cishet people. On the other side, there's all us non-cis non-het , or "queer", people.
I don't see that polyamorous people are necessarily non-cis or non-het, just by virtue of wanting to have relationships with multiple people. Some polyamorous people are queer, but some aren't. A bi polyamorous person is queer by virtue of being bisexual, which is non-heterosexual. A straight polyamorous person is not queer because they're not non-heterosexual (yay for double negatives!).
I extend the same logic to asexual people. If the people an asexual person is attracted to but not having sex with are of the opposite gender, then that asexual person is straight, and therefore not part of the queer community. Similarly, if an asexual person is same-sex attracted, that makes them queer. Before people jump in to say this identification is wrong, I've seen posts on Reddit along the lines of "I'm straight and asexual, so..." and "I'm gay and asexual, so..." Even asexual people understand that heterosexuality/homosexuality and hypersexuality/asexuality lie on two orthogonal axes.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality indicate who someone is attracted to. Hypersexuality and asexuality indicate how they're attracted to those people. Same as with polyamory. Who you're attracted to is separate to how you're attracted to them. One makes you queer. One does not.
Cue the outrage. :)
Your arguments for trans inclusion is naturally well thought-through, but it seems to me that you're deliberately ignoring commonalities between the people you're choosing to exclude from the LGBT+ community. Particularly in terms of "we break the same rules", there are quite a lot of shared rules that are broken.
I don't necessarily think polyamory is inherently queer -- certain ways polyamorous relationships manifest can absolutely be "queering" relationships, others don't -- but I think your arguments against including them are weak because it ignores the commonalities that these communities do have.
"Some religions are fine with polygamy but not queer people so polyamory isn't queer" is a bizarre point because the religious hegemony in the US absolutely isn't fine with either. There are religions that are fine with trans people but not gay people too; it's totally irrelevant to whether they're queer or not.
The idea that ace people aren't LGBT because you can be both ace and have secondary romantic attraction I find similarly hard to swallow. The prototypical ace-aro person is attracted to no one in either way. How is that not about "who you're attracted to"? And there is certainly anti-ace prejudice, there have been studies showing that. It seems like an extremely nitpicky and self-serving view to arbitrarily decide to exclude ace people because of some abstract assumption that asexuality and other attraction are completely unrelated and have no similar history. Certainly this isn't considered true among ace people, and it doesn't reflect the actual queer history here -- researching the connection between spinsters and lesbians reveals that those we'd now call sce certainly fell into the "spinster" category back in the day! The fact that some ace people are also hetereoromantic seems like a weak argument for their wholesale exclusion -- should we also exclude trans people because many of them are straight?
In the end I think this kind of exclusionary thinking is not helpful to the community as a whole. Camaraderie with other queer people isn't a finite resource, and any attempt to exclude people for not being "queer enough" inevitably turns into fruitlessly trying to rigorously define what "queer" means in a way that is absolutely in opposition to the history of queerness. Drawing hard lines around the borders of queerness defeats the point, and as long as a particular community is not actively harming people, I see arguing to keep them out as the more harmful move even when I personally don't think they fit my personal idea of what "should" count
But also I think you're somehow going into this wanting to fight with people because of your "Cue the outrage" ending? Like... tildes is for having productive discussions on this kind of thing. It's not reddit where people are going down threads upvoting and downvoting the people they agree or disagree with. My understanding is that here we try to approach discussions, even of potentially heated issues like this, in good faith. Framing people disagreeing with you as "outrage" before anyone even replies to you does not seem conducive to that.
I start my response with a smile off of my face due to your closing statement. I don't think outrage is the feeling because these discussions are complex, have many layers, and take a deep dive among the quarrel of conversation.
I believe it is absurd to discuss LGBT+ rights (I use LGBT+ as a short hand for LGBTQIA+ and ease of typing btw) without the "T" because the battle is part of the same argument. I am heated by the debate of restricting Trans rights and how the group has become so marginalized as of late despite being one of the smaller minorities. The entire LGBT+ community is part of the same umbrella. Divided we fall and continue to become more marginalized and eventually prosecuted out of history. The saying from Martin Niemöller has been beat to death like a dead horse, but as the old saying goes:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
The saying may be extreme to compare to due to the tragedy which unfolded in the 20th century being drastically different from the LBGT+ rights movement of today, but the point is well stated. Excluding parts of the LGBT+ umbrella and making the minority group and even smaller minority via "you aren't one of us" is counter-intuitive to the movement as a whole. Together, civil rights could be adjusted to accommodate progressive thought and inclusive of philosophy outside of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim schools of thought. I was speaking with a friend on this issue and I opt to look at the conversation from the other side of opening up the umbrella further. The more marginalized groups included into the group (I was using kinky persons as part of the conversation) work towards a similar goal as the LGBT+ umbrella of living how you want to live. When we get into the specifics, the motives, origins, etc. the groups are different, but both groups would like to be normalized rather than marginalized by common societal norms. If we all stand apart, then the odds of making progressive change is minimal. If we stand together, the odds of pushing through legislature, educational reforms, and change through civil society are increased. Bickering and in fighting between groups does not hurt the common society, but it does hurt our already small, but diverse, community. We need to look past the short-sighted nature of "you aren't like me, so you can't be with us" which plagues general society and just let people live their lives how they want to live (whether that be Queer, Trans, Gay, Ace, etc. means).
I concur with your explanation on how the continuum throughout the group is fluid for some people and is not a hard-line border many people try to make it out be. Containers and neat boxes to put labels on does not work well in the LGBT+ community. Many people are fluid, labels are fuzzy, and definitions may mean different things to different people. The groups which understand this (the common gathering spot at a gay bar is a good example) is open to the progressive inclusion needed to allow this culture to thrive. The controversy around Marsha P Johnson is fuzzy in itself. She could have just been a bystander for all we know.
I believe there is a larger conversation to have about how language and labels became a thing later on in the 20th and into the 21st century. The Greeks and Romans certainly did not understand what it meant to be gay, yet Roman and Greek soldiers would fuck each other (same sex) for morale. Does that make them gay? Did they know they were gay? Hard to say, but from we gather from literature, it was normal behavior for the cultures and they didn't quite have neat labels and boxes to put all of this into.
Alas, what I am trying to say is the LGBT+ community is the same umbrella and exclusion will get us no where. My opinion of including in polyamorous and kinky persons is a controversial one in itself, but I think it better to include a large group of minorities who all just want to live their lives in peace working towards affecting change than several small groups working toward their own goals and not getting far. The "we all break the rules" remarks is an interesting take and I think there is a good argument to be had on the matter. We all suffer from the abuse and discrimination of the matter regardless of what our opinions may be.
Polyamorous people do not have the same issues as the LGBT+ community, but they are marginalized, looked down upon, prosecuted, and regularly assaulted similarly to the LGBT+ community. I concur how their are religions more inclusive of polygamy, polyamory, etc. which are more aligned with gender norms, but religion is a messy, complex topic in itself. One could argue their are religions which have transgender and same-sex attraction normalized, but that requires deeper conversation of substance. I dislike bringing religion into things because they are simply a moral code and structure of common beliefs a person believes in and supports in their community. It could be Christians, Sikhs, Pasatafarians, or Jedis for all I care, same principle applies.
I believe many do define "queer" as the definition sourced by Vanderbilt University in a previous post, but I restate my mention of labels and definitions being up to personal interpretation and remain with a level of fluidity within the labels. I do agree with the definition and agree some polyamorous people are not queer, but I do include them into the LGBT+ umbrella because they are trying to fight a similar fight as the LGBT+ community. Now this umbrella makes up more than simply LGBT+. It includes polyamory, it includes kinky people, etc. but we all are fighting the same fight. We want our rights, we want to live our lives without prosecution, fear of retribution, fear of being different, fear of being jailed, or risk of being assaulted (as seen with recent travel advisories on visiting particular States in the USA and outright not being able to be "out" in dozens of countries). Put simply, I look at LGBTQIA+ as an inclusive umbrella which has capacity to encompass polyamory, kink, etc. because they are "allied" to the LGBTQIA+ community and looking for a similar end state.
Of course, know your place. Most do not have it as hard as a trans black woman who is kinky and polyamorous. When compared to a cishet polyamorous straight man, the circumstances and risks are miles apart and should not be compared as apples to apples, but we are all at the end of the day we are all fighting the same fight. There is a Venn diagram there, but it is not a circle. I commend your long post for the clarity, deep explanation, and good conversation to be had in regard to queerness, polyamory, and the greater LGBTQIA+ community. You have put a respectable amount of thought into the conversation and I wish more would partake in spite of adversity. Thank you for sharing!
I'm still sorta digesting this reply (I generally like what you're putting down but it's long and this is a thought -provoking topic) but I did just want to reply and say thank you for your kind words about my comment. I feel like there's a lot of interesting room for discussion on what makes queerness queer. I'm not as well-versed in queer theory as I could be but I strongly believe in the harmfulness of exclusionism and interrogating others' queerness. I'm nonbinary, bi, and ace myself, so all of which get quite a bit of "you don't belong in the queer community" from different varieties of exclusionists. I find the arguments differ surprisingly little between them.
Not a problem! Thank you for taking the time to say thank you. The topic takes time to chew on and formulate a response or opinion on to be sure. So many complexities and nuances with the topic. I wish these conversations were had more commonly at the kitchen table, in the debate room, or in common social circles because it is worth consuming, digesting, and responding to in an effort to reinforce our own morale codes or views.
Actually, I think that comment from @Vadim_Kovaskiy was intended to reply to me, rather than to you. Vadim has directly responded to points I raised (e.g. "I concur with your explanation on how the continuum..." "The 'we all break the rules' remarks is an interesting take..." ). It's possible they accidentally replied to the wrong comment.
The comment was a reply to @Algernon_Asimov. No accident there. I could see portions of my response being applicable to @sparksbet comment as well, but the intent was to reply to Asimov and expand upon the comment with my own opinion and thought on the matter.
ah okay, it showed up as a direct reply to me in my notifications so you can understand my confusion!
Ah I see that, understandable.
As I said, I've seen a few posts on Reddit that go along the lines of "I'm gay and asexual. Will I ever get a boyfriend?" That tells me that asexuality is not aligned with the homosexuality/heterosexuality spectrum. Asexual people themselves acknowlege that they can have same-sex attraction (or not, in the case of asexual straight people).
Without borders, there is no line between queer people and everybody else. Anybody who wants to label themself
"queer" can be queer, and suddenly "queer" has no meaning. A straight monogamous man who happens to like a bit of light spanking says he's "queer" and everyone agrees. If anyone can be queer just because they feel a little bit different, then what does "queer" really mean?
Actually... what does "queer" really mean? Imagine you're writing a one-sentence dictionary definition for "queer". What would it say?
Every single time I share my opinion that polyamorous people and asexual people aren't queer, I end up the victim of a "stacks on" situation, where everyone and their dog tells me that I'm wrong, I'm anti-queer, I'm not inclusive, etc etc etc - basically all the things you just told me. Some people are rude about it, some people are polite about it, but it happens Every. Single. Time. "Thou shalt not disagree with the queer orthodoxy."
People are allowed to have different opinions from you and tell you thry think you're wrong without it being "queer orthodoxy" or "outrage". I think there's a worthy discussion to be had about the definition of "queer" but I don't think it's possible to fruitfully discuss it with someone who starts the conversation whining about how everyone is going to dogpile them. You're not the only one who's allowed to have opinions, and the consensus being more inclusive than you are doesn't make everyone who disagrees with you fighting with "queer orthodoxy".
I also, frankly, think it's in poor taste to write several paragraphs on how ace people aren't queer in a largely celebratory thread about pride in which there are comments from ace people happily discussing what they'll do for pride. But I'll acknowledge that it is at least orthogonally on topic for the conversation in this particular comment chain.
I was literally asked the question "But what determines who's part of the group?"
Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't have answered the question I was asked?
By the way, speaking of answering questions, I asked you a question, which I haven't seen the answer to...
I thought I made it clear in my last post why I didn't answer it, but I will try to be even clearer now -- I do not want to further discuss this with you because I believe it would be fruitless. You are already clearly convinced of your opinions and feel persecuted by others' disagreement, and your generally confrontational and hostile attitude towards that disagreement in these comments does not really make me feel like a discussion of queer theory with you would be interesting or productive. I'm not answering that question because I don't think, based on your replies so far, that you're interested in having a nuanced discussion on queerness, and I don't want to argue about it instead.
Fine. That's your prerogative.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking on the topic. I'm not sure I 100% agree with your points, but it's given me some things to think about.
We already discussed this in the past I think, and most things were already mentioned so I won't rehash them. I'd just like to ask if you'd say that someone being aro/ace and thus not liking either boys or girls doesn't also break the same "boys like girls" rule?
You answered the same question but you assumed that the person isn't aromantic -- and I understand that you do exclude heteroromantic ace people. I am interested in knowing what you think about aro/ace people though:
I don't really understand the distinction you're trying to make. If an asexual or aromantic person is oriented towards people of the opposite gender, then they're heterosexual with a low sex drive or a lack of interest in romance. If they're oriented towards people of the same gender, then they're homosexual with a low sex drive or a lack of interest in romance. The dividing line is who are they not having sex/romance with. Because, like I said, I keep seeing "asexual" men posting about how to get a boyfriend, so it's obvious there's some form of interest there.
In ace communities the split attraction model is used quite often -- basically someone can be asexual but interested in same sex relationships, the case that you are mentioning -- in this case they would be asexual homoromantic. There are also people who are asexual aromantic, which means that they do not want any romantic relationships too.
It sounds like you want me to answer the question "What god does an atheist (a-theist) believe in?" What sexuality is an a-sexual person? None, of course.
Does that make them queer, though? I don't think so. Someone who's a lifelong bachelor or spinster is just a lifelong bachelor or spinster. Even fully engaged homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual people can live their lives as single celibate people by choice. It's no big deal. It's not like anyone's writing laws to apply the death sentence for being a spinster, or bashing bachelors for being single.
That said... in practice, I accept asexual people at the "rainbow" table - literally.
I co-organise a regular "rainbow" social event (it actually has "rainbow" in the name, because I like that label better than "queer" or any version of the intialism), and I know there are asexual people there, and I'm totally fine with that. I have pulled a few straight attendees aside discreetly, and pointed out that the group is supposed to be a safe space for people who might feel excluded from other groups because of their sexuality and/or gender. This has the desired effect of helping those straight people to reach their own personal decision not to come again (but I would never tell them not to come!). However, I wouldn't do the same thing for asexual people. They're welcome to eat at our table.
Thank you for the response! Well, in the end it doesn't really matter to me if you consider something to be something or not, actions speak louder than words!
I'm coming late to this but it's a good question. There are certainly grey areas under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella, like aro/ace. You can be asexual but heteroromantic, or aromantic but heterosexual, and to most that still "counts". I tend to think anyone outside of what's considered the "norm" can fit under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella, as long as it involves consenting adults.
If we are going off of the hard definition of “queer” (see source below), then the logic is correct in the sense of a heterosexual polyamorous person is not “queer”. I did not mean to infer a heterosexual instance here (as I am a demi-bisexual) when saying “Fellow Polyamorous Queer person here!“. I could have been more concise on my comment so apologies for the confusion.
I believe the debate of polyamory falling into the “queer” category is open to debate given certain heterosexual persons fall under the LGBT+ umbrella and polyamory is still niche/a minority. @MimicSquid got the conversation going and beat me to it on the discussion. Looking forward to watching it develop there! Happy Pride Month!
Source: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lgbtqi/resources/definitions
I'm ace/aro, so I'm leaning into the foodie stereotype. Just got a box of mounds, reese's cups, kitkats, and hersheys bars. Might last a week. :p
That sounds so good! I'm not ace/aro myself but that is absolutely my kind of Pride.
I'm going to get my husband and I some chocolate so we can celebrate your way!
Not much happens in my country this month, as far as I'm aware. My city of Odense already had its pride some 2 weeks ago - attended that with a friend and her wife, and her wife's friend! It was a small event, probably somewhere between 500-1000 people but it was a good time.
Copenhagen Pride in 2 months is another beast though, basically rainbow capitalism incarnate with hundreds of thousands of people. Hopefully I can find somebody to go with though, or maybe to the alternative Nørrebro Pride which I believe was specifically started because the main one became way too mainstream and whatnot.
I'll be attending London Pride for the first time on July 1st. A little nervous cuz I'm marching with the Proud Science Alliance and will be quite parade "visible". But excited too!
More proud scientists is more good! I'm organising with a few people on the small campus (basically field station) where I work to make sure we have some flags up at least, and wearing my gay hat. I really hope you have a lovely time :)
Thank you! I hope your hat brings you much joy. <3
My gf's anniversary of starting HRT is on the 26th so we're both taking off work to hang out with some friends and (weather permitting) go do something out and about at a local park or museum or something. We also have our local Pride parade the day before so we'll probably go that too.
Hoping for a safe and fun time :)
I'll be marching in London Pride with my youth group!
I would have loved to participate in my city’s Pride parade (known here as Christopher Street Day), but I will be singing along with my choir so I’ll have to miss Pride :(
The Pride season here in Australia tends to fall in late Summer: January to March. There's not a lot going on in the middle of Winter. There's a few token events around the place, but nothing special.
Happy (early) birthday to your fiancee! I'm not doing much this month, actually. Our pride marches here in Aus tend to be earlier in the year, during our summer period. But hope everyone who's going to one enjoys, March on!
Going to go away for vacation towards the end of the month but this weekend me and my boyfriend are going to go to Six Flags! Last time we went was last summer so it's been a while but we both loved all the coasters.