The Varied Experiences of the LGBTQ “Community”

by on

More. A tenuous “community” at best, with 46% of LGBTQ people identifying as bisexual (vs. 32% gay and 16% lesbian). A political movement, albeit one that is now an arm of general progressive leftism, and a cultural identity. But “community” is more of a stretch than ever.

19 Comments for “The Varied Experiences of the LGBTQ “Community””

  1. posted by JohnInCA on

    Those numbers on how many LGBT folk identify as bisexual are interesting considering the bi-invisibility/bi-phobia problem.

    Put simply, if there are that many bi folk in the community, then the only way they *can* be “invisible” is if they choose to be, and the solution is the classic one: “come out, come out, wherever you are”.

    That is, of course, a bit victim-blamey. And regrettably true.

    Regarding bi-phobia in that context, those numbers imply one of three things. 1, that bi-phobia is not as big a problem as advertised, 2, that bi folk are complacent with bi-phobia, or 3, bi folk are complicit with bi-phobia. Most likely some mixture of all three, but not really interfacing with the “community” much I can’t say (as mentioned before, I may be “inCA”, but it’s the inland high desert, not the parts where there are, you know, people).

    • posted by David Bauler on

      Bi-phobia is certainly a problem. Smart campus organizations try and have conversations about these sorts of problems, like civilized young adults.

      The problem — from the perspective of some gay and lesbian people — is that a bisexual person can ‘pass as straight’. If they are dating someone of the opposite sex, then they can — so the argument goes — avoid dealing with discriminatory laws and attitudes.

      The secondary problem is media depictions and visibility. Films and TV Shows that generally have progressive views on gay characters, often fumble with regards to bisexual characters.

      Examples;

      Willow — from Buffy The Vampire Slayer — dated a man before she dated women. Was she bisexual or just gay and in the closet?

      Law and Order — Most of the bisexual characters were depicted as being ‘kinky sluts’ and mentally unbalanced kinky sluts. Eventually, the series got pretty good at writing gay characters, but they seemed uncomfortable dealing with bisexuality.

      Beyond that, I would agree with what Tom Scharbach said about the survey.

  2. posted by Kosh III on

    A whopping 11% identify as conservative/very conservative.

    • posted by David Bauler on

      That is not too surprising. I suspect that its a more libertarian form of conservatism, but I don’t know if libertarian was an option in the survey.

      But if you look at exit polling data, a significant minority of self-identified gay voters voted for the Republican presidential nominee (I think that the data goes back to the 1980s). It has already been in a minority, but one that people noticed.

      The problem with the exit polling data has been that not every citizen votes or is especially keen on coming out to a friendly researcher. So, their were probably more gay voters then were identified and yes, probably a bit more variation in political identities.

      If the American Two Party system falls to some sort of multi-party legislative system, I would not be surprised if some moderately libertarian party got a significant minority of LGBT voters.

      If the American Two Party system does not fall, then voting behavior of gay voters will probably not change substantially.

      I do not see the Republican party giving up on socially conservative voters, as they have been a key part of the GOP’s electoral strategy since Nixon.

      The Democratic Party will continue to have two factions; one progressive and one more conservative-centrist.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      A whopping 11% identify as conservative/very conservative.

      I would be a bit cautious about putting too much stock in this, given the disproportionate skewing toward millennials in the poll. I would balance the poll’s findings with exit poll results (in recent years 15-20%, depending on the election), which skew toward older LGBTQ folks, who vote in higher percentages than millennials.

      It may be a distinction without a difference, though. No matter how you look at it, LGBTQ folks are tend to be more liberal than the general population. For good reason, I might add, given the history of our struggle during the last few decades.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Those numbers on how many LGBT folk identify as bisexual are interesting …

    It gets more interesting as you drill down into the data a bit.

    Of those identifying as bisexual in the poll, 78% are female and 19% are male. This is consistent with other studies that suggest that sexual orientation is more fluid in women than in men.

    Of those identifying as bisexual in the poll, 50% were millennials. That makes sense to me, since men and women in that age range are less likely to have “hardened” sexual orientation though experience.

    Which leads me to another observation. The polling methodology (online, one week) strongly favored skew toward millennials, who compose 34% of the people identifying as LGBTQ in the poll. That suggests to me that all of the polling results should be taken with a large dose of sea salt, or at least critical examination of the results based on age demographics.

    Accordingly, while the poll is useless as another bit of information about folks identifying as LGBTQ, it is only that and nothing more. I, for one, would be very cautious about drawing firm conclusions from the poll without first checking other available data.

    Although the poll is being trickled out in a series of “teaser” articles, I hope that we will soon be able to study the polling data and methodology as a whole.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Accordingly, while the poll is useless as another bit of information …

      Accordingly, while the poll is useful as another bit of information …

    • posted by David Bauler on

      Millennials tend to be less homophobic then say Generation X. But I imagine that its still generally limited to those mill’s that value a liberal education and a few other factors.

  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    On another topic (the influence of conservative Christianity in the administration), this article, even if half true, is positively frightening.

    It sure sounds like the scripturally illiterate are being influenced by the theologically half-baked.

    • posted by Jorge on

      “The White House Bible Study group that influenced Trump…”

      That alone is enough to make me want to stick my head in the sand. I mean no criticism of Attorney General Sessions or his justification to obey the laws of government because they have been ordained for the purpose of order.

      However, I read Romans 13 as a commandment to rebel against the law at the cost of one’s life when it perverts God’s authority–but then, I suppose a gay person would think that. I am very clear that enforcing the law profanes the executive branch in the service of the greater good. I pray for the soul of President George W. Bush, who I believe chose with eyes wide open to damn not just himself, but many government servants tasked with carrying out his orders. It is the last Bible verse I would cite to justify a law that engenders fierce opposition on human rights grounds.

      “Biblical parenting requires that a parent dominate their child from a young age… This bible-based course also encourages parents to break the will of their children so that they do not become “rebellious toward God. . . . No one ever broke his self-will and as a re­sult he carries around a rebellious spirit today.”

      I have met many mothers and fathers (mainly African Americans) who are positively brilliant at balancing breaking the will of their children while pointing their eyes toward higher moral values. I have no problem with those parents. I just don’t trust human nature. And I don’t think the priesthood should, either.

      Anyway, I agree with your assessment. I just think Sessions proved to be cunning enough to spring the trap without falling into it himself.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      It is the last Bible verse I would cite to justify a law that engenders fierce opposition on human rights grounds.

      Just be thankful that Thomas Jefferson, not Jeff Sessions, authored the Declaration of Independence. If Sessions had authored it, he would have appended a Romans 13 tome as the last paragraph, and Americans would still be mumbling incoherently into their afternoon tea.

      Oppressors always cite Romans 13 to demand obedience to their oppression.

      • posted by Fritz Keppler on

        And they pretend that Romans 12 isn’t there.

        • posted by Jorge on

          I see your point, although I think that one could go either way.

          I very often find Biblical citations *annoying* for this reason. A chapter I don’t mind reading, but a single verse needs context.

          Catholic priests have a tendency to either cite multiple verses giving the same idea, or a verse in the middle of a story. Protestants tend to cite verses to describe language. Rarely do we hear the why behind why the Bible says so-and-so.

          Rarely.

      • posted by Kosh on

        And they ignore the time the government was defied: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29 Queen James Version

  5. posted by Jorge on

    David: “The problem — from the perspective of some gay and lesbian people — is that a bisexual person can ‘pass as straight’. If they are dating someone of the opposite sex, then they can — so the argument goes — avoid dealing with discriminatory laws and attitudes.”
    …
    Tom: “Of those identifying as bisexual in the poll, 50% were millennials….”

    TL:DR version: Intersectionality

    Bisexuality is one of those labels that I think must be really sensitive to social context, and thus to different generations. It’s not just that you can pass for straight. You can also pass for lesbian. Who are the people who are most able and available to support you away from prying eyes? Who are the people you are most able to support?

    The only two women who have had sex with both sexes whose self-talk around their own sexual preference and orientation I have ever become aware of were a friend of a friend in college and NYC First Lady Chirlane McCray (in her 1979 Esquire article). They both stated close to the same thing, almost 25 years apart. The first made quite an impression; I managed to blunder into agreeing with a statement she was neither bisexual nor lesbian when my friend meant to say she was neither black nor latino. She was also fighting off loneliness.

    Though in no way dishonest, McCray wrote that she was a lesbian in very large part out of loyalty to her peer group of people who were African American and queer. And come to think of it, baby boomers in college. So much has changed since then–but what? What would she have written today? I am very clear that I do not know.

    I have been privileged to see a couple of moments of celebration and awe in a community that is not my own. It is enough. The struggle out there is at times smaller than that which belongs to the wider gay rights movement.

  6. posted by MR Bill on

    My daughter and her husband identify as bi, and there are a number of bi groups on Facebook. The son in law was the Dibersity Officer on his last ship, and you can believe the enlisted folks were aware that the T Rump Administration hasn’t acknowledged Pride Month.
    Me, calling myself bi was, as they say, “Just a whistlestop on the train to Gaytown.”

  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    … with 46% of LGBT people identifying as bisexual (vs. 32% gay and 16% lesbian …

    I caution you to dive down a bit into the poll’s actual findings before swallowing the surface water uncritically. I’ve touched on this in another comment and won’t repeat.

    A political movement …

    The alliance has always been a political/legal alliance, formed of disparate groups (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and whatever) with different legal/political concerns. It has been that way as long as I can remember, and I came of age before Stonewall. The political alliance has morphed and changed over the years as issues came and went, but always with a common thread — a push toward “equal means equal” in the face of systemic and unrelenting opposition from cultural and religious conservatives.

    … albeit one that is now an arm of general progressive leftism …

    You reap what you sow. Conservatives in this country fought “equal means equal”, issue by issue, every step of the way since Stonewall, and continue to do so.

    And homocons have been part and parcel of conservative resistance, issue by issue.

    Take marriage as an example. In the early 1990’s, before marriage equality was a political issue, Bawer, Rauch and a host of others pushed marriage as a means of social control of gay promiscuity and cultural conformity, to the end that cultural and religious conservatives would grant us a “seat at the table”. But when marriage equality — an authentic movement driven from the ground up — became a political issue, homocons suddenly went missing, arguing that we should give up on marriage equality and accept civil unions in order to appease cultural and religious conservatives and stave off a “backlash”, and arguing that marriage equality was not nearly so important as tax breaks.

    So what, exactly, does the conservativism, as presently existing in the United States, have to offer?

    I have a suggestion. Instead of snarling from the corner, why don’t you and other homocons embrace “equal means equal” and start fighting for it? Change what you sow, and you’ll eventually change what you reap.

    … and a cultural identity.

    I wonder about that, to be blunt. IGF had a thread pining for the “lost gay subculture” not too far back (see “Something Lost, Something Gained”, by Stephen H. Miller on April 30, 2018), but the “cultural identity”, if it ever existed, was largely confined to urban gay ghettos and was nothing to write home about.

    • posted by Jorge on

      But when marriage equality — an authentic movement driven from the ground up — became a political issue, homocons suddenly went missing, arguing that we should give up on marriage equality and accept civil unions in order to appease cultural and religious conservatives and stave off a “backlash”, and arguing that marriage equality was not nearly so important as tax breaks.

      (The ethics of beating dead horses…)

      Supposing, as you say, that the LGBT movement has always been about equality, and the gay conservatives pushed for marriage as a means of social control, then it seems to me only reasonable the two should break the moment social control could be realized and separations between gays and straights remained.

      but the “cultural identity”, if it ever existed, was largely confined to urban gay ghettos and was nothing to write home about.

      You know sometimes us “homocons” as you term people have to be careful what we wish for. We currently have a pill that can help prevent the transmission of AIDS, #MeToo taking down a closeted gay predator, and a whiplash of alternating federal orders and policies on transgender people that guarantees the “T” won’t ever be invisible again this generation. It should not be forgotten that liberals have their own way of co-opting gradual, status quo-affirming progress.

Comments are closed.