‘Faggot’

I think that “coming out” is a scam perpetrated by the gay community for its own purposes, not for the good of gay individuals.

In the first place, coming out assumes a binary “I’m straight” vs. “I’m gay” reality. Going back to the Kinsey scale for want of something better, we know that sexual orientation exists on a continuum.

Shouting “Hey, world, I’m gay!” or whatever reinforces the idea that gay is “other” or “queer”, not just another part of the continuum we all share. Coming out thus takes you from one closet to another–the new closet is the simple, easy-to-manage image that exists in people’s perceptions. You give them a predigested version of yourself rather than the complicated truth.

Also, you become a “faggot.” You become “other.” You are separated from society as a whole–which is where the gay community wants you to be. If you are separated from society, then you have to depend entirely on the gay community for support–”Are those bad, mean, straight people abusing you? Come to papa/mama!” After cutting you off from the world, the gay community opens its arms to you.

Then, having made you dependent on them entirely, the gay community can use you in its propaganda machine, which they call “visibility.” They want you to believe that visibility will lead to greater acceptance, but they know that visibility will just create more backlash, and deepen your dependence on the gay community.

These are all the tactics of fundamentalist religion, and like fundamentalism, the gay community threatens you with hell if you criticize it or try to leave. The gay community wants to prevent you at all costs from building an identity away from the gay community, so it fights you, and calls you names, and tells you you will never survive on the outside.

I’ve decided my coming out process is not going to be based on the binary gay/straight paradigm. I’m going to assume that all men are somewhere on the Kinsey continuum. I’m not going to give away this deep part of myself in relationships where no one is asking and it’s not appropriate. And if I’m in a relationship where it is appropriate, I’m going to ask for honesty in return. Instead of the “I’m gay.” “Good for you. I’m straight.” sort of exchange I’m going to say, “I’ll explain where I’m at on the continuum if you tell me where you’re at on the continuum.”

In other words, we both have to be vulnerable. We both have to be willing to disclose who we are, not just place each other in binary separated categories. We have to realize we are both fundamentally men who exist together in a range of possibilities, not two separate categories trying to reach across a divide.

If our discussion goes like this, “In terms of that continuum, I’d say I’m about a 4.” and “I think I’m about a two.” Then we realize that, at some level, we understand each other’s feelings. The part of him that is aware of some homosexual attraction can help him accept my more prominent homosexual attraction, and because I admit my level of attraction to women, I am not wholly other, but someone who can have some understanding of his deepest feelings.

We have come out to each other. That’s what coming out should be–not a binary, “I’m over on the gay side, hello over there on the straight side” but two men who realize what they have in common and are willing to share that with each other.

Al,

Thank you for your response. I will have to respond to you later because dissecting your overwrought and didactic response will take time and effort. You write in an academic style, and your rhetoric is as clever as it is disingenuous since it adds heat and no light to this conversation in a way that seems simultaneously high-minded and subtly insulting. Well, some of your insults were subtle. Others were overt. Know that you have my attention and will have my riposte at a later time.

Jimmy

P.S. Coming from me, “academic” is not a compliment.

I agree with you that we should not seek ‘linguistic cleansing’, but then I wonder why you yourself hasn’t used the word ‘nigger’ in you article.

It may be because this ‘cleansing’ you refer to might or might not happen according to the historical path we as a society take. And banning ‘nigger’ was an action we take a long time ago.

I believe the world would be better without such terms as ‘faggot’ or ‘nigger’, but I agree that the import thing here is to ban the prejudice behind them, not just the words.

The “coming out” paradigm forces us to be “other” and “queer” and “faggot.” This binary “straight/gay” absolute paradigm is false and toxic. We need to re-establish that we are guys just like other guys, with a sexual orientation which falls on the same Kinsey continuum.

I am a man. I can’t come to terms with myself if I think of myself as “other” or “queer.” I am a man first, just like all other men. I damage myself if I treat myself as a separate category. The gay community damages me by forcing me to define myself as a separate category.

Men need to be honest with each other and discuss where their sexual orientation falls on the continuum. The fact that my orientation might be farther to one side than someone else should make no difference, any more than the amount of pigment in my skin has anything to do with my innate humanness.

My way of coming out, which involves mutual disclosure between men, is healthier, because no man is treated as an “other” or “queer” or “faggot” or “ni**er.” Men need to simply explore together where our attractions are on the continuum and realize that there is some part of each of us which connects with someone else.

Al,

JG SAYS “Of course gender roles are culturally-constructed. That blows a hole right through the heart of the “effeminacy is innate” argument”.

MY RESPONSE: Not necessarily. When I cite “gender roles”, I’m referring to the expectations society has around how one presents themselves. Men do this, women do that. To say that there are no innate differences in how one expresses their own gender, is short sighted and ignores the fluidity of human biology with respect to outward presentations. There has always been a range of behaviors that either naturally identify 100% with societal expectations, and those that naturally stray from that constructed norm. I don’t see a hole being blown through any argument.

When I mentioned that you employed subtle insults, your usage here of “is short-sighted” is one of them. If it is indeed wrong, then you can make your case for why it is wrong. Instead, your usage of “short-sighted” strung along with a second piece of rhetoric is a way of gently smearing me as stupid. I ask that you cease this form of rhetoric. If I’m wrong, say so. Drop the “small minded” insults.

When I mentioned that you employed overwrought language, your usage here of “ignores the fluidity of human biology with respect to outward presentations” is an example of what I’m referring to and, thus, my requirement to dissect what you wrote. Here, your use of language attempts to subtly argue that there is a biological component to “feminine” behavior. You are assuming the point in dispute. If femininity is innate, then prove it. Otherwise, your assertions are merely that: assertions. Since you’ve already admitted that gender roles are defined by culture, you’re going to have a hard time arguing that they’re actually defined by science.

Do you really think that manerisms, speech inflections, etc. are all conscious “choices” we make with every interaction?

This is actually a very good question. To say that behavior is a matter of *conscious* choice is not true because it does not take into account the issue of training. But trained behavior is, by definition, not innate. (Nice try!)

JG SAYS “A young boy will have many reasons other than gay pressure to conform to effeminacy. That has nothing to do with whether or not there is a pressure within “gay culture” to accept and appreciate the violation of gender roles”.

MY RESPONSE: What many reasons would a four year old have for “conforming to effeminacy”? One of the hallmarks of children that age is a lack of predetermination in their responses. Is this somehow different?

He might be the only boy in his home and have limited contact with males. Or perhaps his mother raises him as a girl. Or perhaps he thinks that girls toys are more fun. Are you arguing that four-year-old children *completely* lack determination in their responses, in 100% of children? Your “hallmark” is not a hard-and-fast rule.

MY RESPONSE: Gender deportment is not bullshit terminology. It refers to how one comes across when being objectively measured by a societal standard of masculine, or feminine. Not complicated, and not bullshit.

Yes, it is overcomplicated (but not complicated), and yes, it is bullshit. “Gender deportment” is merely academic-speak for gender roles, and it is well-known that academic-type people just love to make up new and exciting new bullshit terminology to make themselves sound intelligent. What is even more bullshit is your choice to insert it into a simple issue, because I believe your impetus for doing so is to obfuscate and avoid having to make a politically-incorrect admission. Remember: you advanced this terminology in response to the notion that “straight people will have disdain for gay men and lesbians through offense taken at stereotypical affectations”. Well, answer me this: do straight people have disdain for gay men and lesbians through offense taken at stereotypical affectations? (Did my friend not ask me, “I don’t care that he’s gay, but why does he have to act so … faggy?”)

JG SAYS: To me, a gay identity isn’t just having sex with men. It’s not even just being out. To me, a gay identity is one that is both public (as in, not hidden), and public to the point where the relationship itself cannot be discredited or demeaned as less serious or meaningful than a straight relationship. To me, the ultimate expression of gay identity is for a gay couple to have children. This way, straights can’t look at the relationship and think that “it’s just a phase” and that they will one day break up and be “cured” of that “gay thing”.

MY RESPONSE: How you personally define your gay identity is irrelevant to this discussion.

It was you who brought up how I view my own gay identity (“James and Jimmy seem to seperate a gay identity with their chosen form of sexual engagement; having sex with men.”), and it is entirely fair for me to clarify how I view my gay identity since you unfairly choose to employ it in your argument against me.

But outside of that, I completely beg to differ with your charge of irrelevance. The subject of gay identity is entirely the source of all my objections! I think “gay culture” sucks. Am I still gay? Below, you call me a sell-out, which is for to say that I am inauthentically gay.

My point in saying it appears to be more about sex with men and less about a gay identity, was because you go out of your way to express disdain for elements of the gay community, and issues the community traditionally has attempted to advance.

You are proving my point: you claim that I am inauthentically gay because I do not appreciate or adhere to the dictums of the “gay community”.

Do you still believe that my being gay is “more about sex with men” even after I explained to you what I believed gay identity to be? Perhaps you view my understanding of “gay identity” as invalid by definition, and thus irrelevant?

While your objections may have been clear, I still view them as invalid when it comes to stereotyping an entire culture. I suppose this is a moot point since you view the reality of stereotyping as “stupid”.

I don’t view the “reality of stereotyping” as stupid, but rather all arguments about it. And you’re correct, it’s a moot point. Fair warning: I will wholesale ignore all of your “you’re stereotyping!” arguments from here on out as they are stupid.

Once again, you have failed to show how, specifically, elements of the gay community have harmed you. Whining that “straights may not like me” because there happen to be drag queens associated with elements of gay culture seems to be a rather self absorbed, as well as insecure, argument.

When I mentioned you insulted me overtly, this is what I was referring to. You’ve called me “whining”, “self-absorbed”, and “insecure”. The argument is either valid or it’s not, and I think the reason why you refuse to see the harm is because of the way that you have framed my argument. The harm I allege comes from the fact that I choose to integrate into society as a gay man. Meaning, the society that I inhabit is comprised of straight people and gay people who accept me as a gay man (and, much more importantly, as a gay adoptive parent). The fact that they accept me has NOT been helped by rank-and-file members of the “gay community” who insist that straights are evil and backward, and that a life of hedonism and flagrant violation of gender norms should be violated and rubbed in the faces of straight people for the sake of creating a “separate-but-equal” existence for gay people. I don’t feel brotherhood with those members of the “gay community”. In fact, they’re not my community at all! The people in my community are my community, not the people who by sake of sheer luck share the same dick-sucking hobby that I do and impose upon it a fake label of “community” when it is anything but. And I make no bones about the fact that it is very important that I be accepted by the straights (and gays!) in my community, since we all share the common interest of taking care of our children. I don’t want to be seen as one of those gays who insists that meth-snorting, fisting leather fags are a “vital and vibrant” part of “my community”. In other words, the way that I frame this discussion is in terms of being seen as a capable and competent parent. The way that you frame this discussion is in terms of being accepted into the “gay community”. And that’s why you don’t accept that any harm is being done. Instead, you likely view me as weak, treasonous, and deserving of every bit of discomfort I feel since I choose to disobey the tenets of “gay culture”. In other words, you’re exactly the kind of self-righteous gay man that I want to take to task. I see you as the gay man who would happily sacrifice my child on the altar of Harry Hay.

I’m well aware of what I said. Some straight people equate effeminacy with homosexuality.

Is it unjust that some straight people equate effeminacy with homosexuality? If so, why? If not, why not?

To make the leap that says we have to now rid the world of effeminacy to pacify elements of the straight community, is misguided, and ignores the rights of individuals to express themselves in any way that they choose. Those are fundamental American rights. Do you have an issue with our core freedoms?

What a faggy straw man you’ve constructed. I have never argued that “we have to now rid the world of effeminacy to pacify elements of the straight community”.

Once again, when you choose to enable the discrimination of elements of the community by concerning yourself with the feelings of the exact culture which you claim oppresses you, you are in fact selling out.

1. I have never claimed that I live in the exact culture which oppresses me. “Oppression” (along with “exploit”) is “progressive” new-speak that I eschew.

2. I am living happily in straight culture as a gay man, far from the “gay culture” that I despise. I allege that the harm that I experience comes from the “gay culture” that I deplore, not the straight culture that I thrive in.

3. I openly discriminate against the fringe memebers of the “gay community”, especially when they insist that they are the authentic representations of gay identity and I am inauthentically gay. I share my disdain for them with my friends and family in my community.

4. For you to call me a sell-out for the sake of #2 and #3 (above) is proving my point: I don’t adhere to the norms of “gay culture” and thus you’re calling me inauthentically gay. That makes me hate “gay culture” more, not less.

Digging deep into your loquacious and pompous response gets at the core of the issue: You think that gay people have to respect and appreciate certain aspects of “gay culture” or else be labeled as “sell outs” who appease the enemy. Let me be very clear with you: you, along with giant swaths of “gay culture”, are my enemy.

JG: “Why don’t you prove your love by giving him money? Maybe your love is cheap and fake.”

WTF? Isn’t this slightly off-topic (not to mention retarded)? Why does the concept of having some sort of respect/love for your fellow brothers and sisters in mankind cause so much anger in you?

“We’ll let the readers decide whether or not they agree with your “Phelps is harmless” statement.”

That is a lie. I never said Phelps was “harmless.” Please don’t lie on this board.

“I’m not surprised to see you defend Phelps, considering that he is your brother and that you love him.”

We have free speech in this country. Phelps has a right to say whatever despicable and sociopathic thing he wants, just like you.

“The best you can do is to say that I have “everything backward”, to suggest that I’m “sociopathic”, and to tell me to “get a grip”. That’s what I’m referring to. Do you notice it now?”

You consider these to be “cheap insults”? What a thin skin! Grow up.

Nothing that you write here pisses me off. I can plainly tell that you are a troll and, as such, discount most everything that you type. I was mearly pointing out that trying to compare Sadr to Phelps is foolish when you went off the intellectual deep end. Sadr is in a position to actually harm people and has the capability to reach and influence hundreds of thousands of people. Phelps is a crackpot stuck in the middle of Kansas who preaches to his immediate family. You can call me names and attack my character all you want, it affects me none and reveals you to be an ill-tempered little shrew. But please stop attributing quotes to me that I never wrote. That is wrong. For someone who has been kicked out of churches due to your antisocial behavior and is an AIDS-denier I would expect you to have a slightly thicker skin.

Nothing that you write here pisses me off. I can plainly tell that you are a troll and, as such, discount most everything that you type.

The feeling is mutual!

What objections? So far all you’ve offered is blind vitriol and half-baked rhetoric.

Wow.

What an amazing thread. I think it’s wonderful that the gay community (if such a thing really exists) accepts diversity in others. It’s a natural reaction to having endured prejudice from so many other ‘communities.’

So, although we don’t all feel the need to don dresses and wigs, it’s great that we accept those who do. If some gay people are effeminite, then why should we expect them to change just so other gays might feel more comfortable?

I’m not saying that you’re effeminite, James, but I’m saying that chip on your shoulder is causing you to protest an awful lot. Let it go. Live and let live. You don’t have to like other people – but you’d probably feel a lot better if you forgave all of those nasty effeminite men who must have made you feel terrible about yourself. And maybe you can forgive yourself in the process.