Spark In Darkness

Ok the Office of National Statistics has performed a survey and would like to let us know that only 1.5% of the UK population is Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual (725,000 people).

Queue the right wingers screaming about all the fuss about such a small number of people. They’ve been yelling about how we’ve been inflating our numbers, lying blah blah blah, hysterics, screaming meemies hateful flouncing etc.

Now, my first point is – so? Does it really matter how few we are? Would it make the laws and protections less necessary, the bigotry less wrong? Is there a magic percentage we have to reach before the badness against us matters? It’s certainly not an idea I’d like to encourage – apart from anything else, per the census, there are several religious and ethnic groups that make up less than 1.5% of the population. This is a bad idea to encourage – a minority doesn’t need to make up a certain percentage of the population to be due respect and consideration.

So, yeah, I kind of put this all down as non-news and rolled my eyes at the right wingers using an extremely dodgy excuse for their hate mongering – except the statistic is so blatantly and obviously wrong and foolish.

The most obvious reason for the wrongness is the simple fact of the closet. Surely anyone with even an ounce of clueness would realise the problem of identifying a population that regularly hides? Yes, the closet exists. Yes, if you ask us “are you gay, lesbian or bisexual?” a lot of us will *gasp* LIE! Yes, there are stealth gays among you! MUAHAHAHAHA! And this especially applies to official looking types in suits knocking on your door or complete strangers calling you up on the phone. Such a question would be far better on an official census that is more acknowledged and known and is likely to rouse less suspicion (and doesn’t require a face to face or over the phone outing!) and encourage a more honest response (but even then I wouldn’t take it as 100% accurate by any stretch).

We can also look at the 3% here who didn’t answer. Chance of them being straight? Pretty damn low, straight people don’t usually need to hide their identity. The Box Turtle Bulletin goes into more detail why these statistics are questionable

It’s also especially dubious that the right wing sources have occasionally referred to this as the “non-heterosexual” population. It seems very unlikely that the ones who declined to say or who wrote other, while not identifying as GBL, identified as straight.

But just to really make the point. Gaydar and Gaydargirls (online dating sites for GBL folks) would like to point out that they have 2.2 million profiles from the UK Gaydar Radio alone has racked up 750,375 listeners.

As theweaselking points out this would require every GBL person in the UK to not only be registered with gaydar – but to have 3 profiles EACH.

Even saying a third of them are trolls/duplicates/whatever – that still leaves 2 profiles per GBL person and EVERY GBL person being registered.

Now, the Gaydars are very popular sites, that’s certainly so – but even the idea that the entire UK GBL population has a profile is a bit of a stretch. I imagine if they even reached half of us it would be beyond Gaydar’s wildest estimations.

Or, to put it another way, the ONS’ survey isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog

When it comes to gays and lesbians, there are no shortages of debates and studies and research. Lots of questions to ask, lots of information for the boffins to process, lots of ethics and morals and cause and effect to analyse in detail.

People have researched whether we make good parents or whether our children are worse off than the children of heterosexuals. Repeatedly. Over and over. We have studies and investigations about us adopting, surrogacy and the terrible bad naughty things we do to vulnerable little kiddie brains.

People have suffered whether gay men should give blood or whether our gayness will pollute the precious straight bloodstream (yes, it bothers me, you may have guessed).

People have studied if we’re more prone to domestic violence

People have studied if we’re more prone to abuse children

People have studied over and over and over again whether we can be “cured.”

People have debated on whether gay families should count and are due the same respect as straight ones.

Even now there is a study (yet another study) in America looking at whether openly gay soldiers are a major dire badness (and there has been no shortage of those either) and scourge on the military despite the presence of openly gay soldiers in so many militaries that it’s laughable that it’s still debateable.

Then there are the debates. On the internet, on forums, on TV, in newspapers. In endless opinion pieces as lots and lots of (straight) people weigh in on these big gay issues

And we criticise many of these studies, debates etc. We criticise them because they use horrendous bigots as ‘experts’ (like CNN using Richard Cohen or just about anyone using George Rekers), we criticise them for their biased reporting and obviously prejudiced and clueless assumptions. We criticise them because they’re always used as an opportunity for the bigots to have a hate-fest.

But we rarely criticise the study itself. We never say how offensive the question being asked in the first place is.

It is offensive to ask, study and debate whether I would be a worse parent simply because I am gay.

It is offensive to ask, study and debate whether my being gay makes me more prone to abuse children.

It is offensive to ask, study and debate whether my relationship is as valid as a heterosexual relationship.

It is offensive to consider my sexuality an ailment in need of treatment.

It is offensive to ask, study and debate whether I am more evil, more flawed, more broken or simply wrong just because I am gay.

Why are these questions debateable? Why is my fitness as a person considered a topic for scholarly discourse? Why is whether I am evil considered something that needs analysing?

These questions are not just questions – they’re attacks. They paint us as not only less, but as evil. And they frame considering us as evil as a reasonable position to hold. Our humanity is not assumed – it’s something that is open to debate. The people who hate us aren’t presented as bigots – they’re held as having a differing opinion – a rational, sensible one even!

And I reject that. These questions don’t need answering, there’s no reason even to raise them. It’s like sitting around and considering whether torturing kittens is a valid pass-time. Why are we asking this? Why do we need to debate and study this? Why are we presenting bigotry as a reasoned, sensible position worthy of scholarly consideration?

The only time I’ve seen people finally driven to say “why are people even ASKING this question?!” is when the BBC asked “Should Homosexuals face Execution?

And that worries me. It worries me that the questions have to be this extreme, that the topics have to be this obviously offensive for us to realise that the debate is wrong. It worries me that our existence can even remotely be considered a subject for debate. And it worries me that this is still considered acceptable, mainstream discourse.

It would seem that Australian Jason Akermanis has opened his mouth and let a whole load of foolishness fall out
Basically, he is concerned about gay men outing themselves in sport. That the media attention and hype would be bad for the sport, the player and the team. And particularly that teams aren’t ready for it – certainly not since teams have to change and shower together – think how uncomfortable the straight people will be being naked around the gays?

Oooookayyyy…

I need to break something to you – the chances are a gay person has seen you nekked

If you ever changed for PE at school, if you’ve ever been to the swimming baths, if you’ve ever been to a sport’s centre, health spa, joined a sport’s team, if you‘ve been in a communal barracks or tent etc. In short, if you have ever been in any situation where you are naked around members of your own gender, chances are that you have been seen nekked by a gay person.

We r hiding and looking at your nekked bodies! ZOMG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! RUN straight people, RUN!!!!

And you know what? There are several things we need to address here.

1) Nudity =/= sex. And y’know what? Chances are GBLT people know this better than most people. Why? Because we’ve been here before! Every time we go to the gym or a join a sports team and most certainly at school – gay men have been around naked straight guys, lesbians have been around naked straight women. We‘ve been there, we know and we know it‘s not sexual. We know the difference between sexual nudity and non-sexual nudity

2) Get over yourselves already. Seriously, to all the straight folks out there – gay people do not spend our lives lusting after your hetness. No, really. Enough with this silly idea that because we’re attracted to our own gender, we’re attracted to ALL of our own gender.

3) Y’know what? Maybe you are hot. Maybe you’re drool-worthy hot. Maybe you are so damn sexy that your mere presence in the changing room will make all of our days. Maybe you are sex on legs. Congratulations, have a cookie. Guess what? You’re being a pure avatar of solid sex does not mean the we’re going to leap on you and have our wicked way with you. It doesn’t even mean we’re going to stare at you and make you uncomfortable (and, hey, if someone DOES the skeevy leering thing then say something because that’s rude regardless), our libidos aren’t going to overrule our good sense of the appropriate. Which brings me to…

4) The gay panic defence. Y’know, it has been raised in court over here yet again not that long ago. There are a substantial number of straight people who feel it’s ok to attack gay people because they are seen to be making a come on. A touch, a glance, even how we are dressed can be seen as a reason for a violent attack. You think we’re going to stare at your naked straight arse? You think getting an eyeful is worth that kind of risk?

But, of course, the actual argument presented is NOT that gay people are going to rush at the irresistible straight folks and have our wicked wicked way. No, it’s that our open presence will make the straight folks… uncomfortable.

Ok, seriously? So GBLT people are supposed to closet themselves for their entire lives – because this is what that means – for the sake of straight people’s comfort in the dressing room? So straight people can keep the delusion that there are no gays around? Keep their partners undercover, never mention their families, make sure their families are never noticed? Maybe make up a few lies, a fake girlfriend, a fake history? Edit their entire lives for the sake of straight people’s DISCOMFORT? I would gape at the entitlement in this if it weren’t so damn common.

GBLT people don’t have a duty to censor themselves so straight people can pretend we don’t exist. To say that “coming out is unnecessary” is so beyond grossly privileged I can’t even begin to address it

Now is it going to be hard on a personal level to be the first gay man in the AFL? Yes – but if they choose to take that step then they should – and part of the reasons it will be so damn hard is because of people like

It’s not being gay that is the problem. It’s homophobia. Gay people shouldn’t have to change, adapt or accommodate that. It’s not our fault, it’s not our duty to make allowances. The fact that straight people are discomforted by our presence does not mean we should pretend not to exist.

And, to add, it’s not ‘more acceptable’ to be a lesbian in woman’s sports. Stereotyping just tends to assume sportswomen are lesbians – that’s a WHOLE different thing altogether and certainly isn’t a sign of ACCEPTANCE. It’s a sign that any woman seen doing the “manly” pursuits of sports is instantly stereotyped as a lesbian – especially if she doesn’t conform to our narrow definitions of what constitutes femininity and what a woman should look like or aspire to look like.

And if it WERE the case that women were more accepting of lesbian sportswomen, isn’t that an indictment on sportsmen?

Y’know what? You could have made a point with this article, Mr. Akermanis. You could have criticised – and rightly in my opinion – people trying to bribe, persuade or bullying people into outing themselves for the sake of publicity or to be the first gay man in the AFL. I’d agree with that sentiment, it’s not fair and it’s not right to press people into outing themselves. But instead you decided to throw in a whole lot of straight privilege that shows exactly why so many GBLT people live in the closet.

You even mentioned the appallingly high suicide rate among our youth – but perpetuate the othering, the hiding, the need to hide and the idea that heterosexuals are not only uncomfortable around gays – but that it is a gay person’s duty to accommodate that. These are the ideas – that gay people are icky and it’s right for straight people to be squicked by us, that gay people shouldn’t inflict or nastiness on the straights – that lead to that suicide rate.

I don’t know Mr. Akermanis’ intent. I hope it was much much better than what he wrote – but his delivery failed on a truly epic level, and no amount of good intent changes the harmful message.

I’ve been debating this for a while and with both Ricky Martin and Sean Hayes coming out and reporting on both – perhaps especially from the GBLT community.

The Glass Closet

For whatever reason, sometimes there is a general consensus that someone is gay before they have come out. And generally I disapprove – it’s not our place to decide that someone should be out or not. It’s not our place to decide whether they are ready to be out – no matter how sure we are that they are gay, no matter how sure we are that their sexuality is obvious.  Even if they are gay. For that matter, too often our assumptions that someone is gay are based on ridiculous stereotyping which, frankly, is beneath us. We should know BETTER than to decide that someone’s demeanour/taste/hobbies/mannerisms make them gay or not. Seriously, guys, don’t we get enough of that from the damn homophobes without us doing it ourselves?!

But even if we do know they’re gay? Still – their choice when they decide to make that a formal, open statement.

I had a friend who came out to me about 18 months ago. He was gay. I  was surprised – at him coming out. He spent more time in gay bars than I did. He was grossly unsubtle at checking other guys out. Oh and before Beloved and I were together, we had had a couple of intense make out sessions. Yet, he felt the need to come out to the man he had reached second base with. Are we clear that rational thought and the closet do not necessarily go together?

He was scared. He was afraid of what his family would say. He was afraid of what his friends would say. He was terrified of his life ending if he admitted he was gay. It was vital to him for his own mental well being to be able pretend he could control who knew and who didn’t – he needed this.

And no matter how “obvious” it may seem, that doesn’t mean that they are ready to come out. It doesn’t mean that their parents, siblings, aged grandmother and father confessor aren’t all being held at bay only by their denials (and, believe me, to a homophobic parent desperately hoping their child isn’t gay, even the most hollow denial will maintain that fantasy).

They have a DUTY to come out

The idea being that the more out celebs are out there the more normal being gay seems and the more accepted we are. And this is very very true – I can’t argue with it. More prominent out gay people will further push that we are normal people, just like everyone else. It is powerful, it does help us – and every out gay person can’t help but be an activist by sheer virtue of existing. Not because they have to march or campaign – but simply because in a society that denies we exist and fights our right to exist and merely existing in those circumstances, let alone being prominent, is an activist action.

But we have no right to force people to sacrifice their lives for a gesture – no matter how important that gesture is. Let’s be honest here, as many actors and sportsmen have said, coming out can end a career. It’s sad, it’s wrong – but it’s true. This is likely (and I say likely because I have no right to speak for them) WHY many sportsmen like Gareth Thomas and Daniel Kowalski as well as musicians like Ricky Martin waited until after they retired or after their career peaked/was well established before coming out. And even aside from their careers, we don’t know what their personal life is like. We don’t know what personal daemons they wrestle with (and we know that no small number of us has to wrestle with self-loathing, low self-esteem and general internalised homophobic badness) we don’t know how their family and friends will react. We don’t know what the cost will be for them – and we have no right to ask that for them.

I love it when they come out. I’d love if they did it when still at the height of their careers. I celebrate every single person who comes out as a person who has achieved freedom. as someone who has transcended the closet – and yes, overly grandiose word fully intended. But we have no right – not now, not ever, to demand they come out, to criticise how long it took them to come out or, gods forbid, to out them****

Is coming out news?

The argument here is that being gay is so normal and acceptable now that some prominent celebrity coming out as gay shouldn’t really be treated as news – because it’s nothing special or amazing

But, frankly, we all live in the Straight Republic of Hetlandia. We turn on the television and there are straight people everywhere. We walk around and we’re surrounded by straight people. Open a book, play a computer game, watch and advert, straightness is everywhere. Part of that is simple demographics – straight folks outnumber us many times over, after all – and part of it is the fact that homophobia has driven us to hide while heterosexism has erased us (or stereotyped us etc etc, see earlier rants).

And in the Straight Republic of Hetlandia, it is still heartening to see that real gay people exist – and they can be anything and anywhere. It is still heartening to see that we can be sportsmen (including hot beefy rugby players and Olympic gold medallists), it is heartening to see that gay people coming from all groups and all places (I am told that Ricky Martin is a great role model for hispanic gays, though can‘t comment, obviously). It is a reinforcement for all the gay kids that we exist and are successful and a part of society and this is a good thing.

Now the caveat to that. WHILE I think people coming out as gay IS newsworthy, that doesn’t mean the way the news reports it is necessarily ideal. I’ve spoken above about the problems of demanding people come out or saying “We all knew anyway” but there’s also a problem with being so terribly shocked by the news. Yes, it’s newsworthy – but it’s not shocking, surprising or horrifying. It’s not worthy of the kind of reporting that would normally be reserved for “David Cameron has grown another head and it eats BABIES!” or “Sarah Palin completed a coherent sentence!” It’s news worthy, but it’s not shocking. It’s not earth shattering. It’s the not biggest and most stunning thing in the history of mankind.

Reporting a celebrity coming out is a positive and reinforcing thing for us. Reporting it as earth-shattering and freaky really really isn’t.

****For many years I have wrestled over the idea of outing homophobes, and the full reasoning would take another post – but I have largely come down on the side of believing homophobic closet cases working against us are fair game.

AKA “Post with title I couldn’t decide on”

If you live in the UK, you have probably seen the media circus around the Jon Venables arrest. Circus is certainly the right word, there are no shortage of clowns that’s for sure.

Others have spoken about this case and largely said everything I wanted to say. Ann Somerville here and the link she provides to an excellent resume in the Telegraph

Their posts largely make most of what I have to say redundant – but being me that doesn’t stop me saying it anyway.

First of all, the media seriously needs to shut the hell up on this one. What the public is interested in is not the same as the public interest – and it certainly isn’t in the public interest to have every ex-con hounded by the press because people want to hear every salacious detail of their lives and crimes. That’s not public interest – that’s morbid public curiosity. This kind of ghoulish side show hurts the victims and the survivors, hounds anyone trying to rehabilitate and skews the news media to focus on stories that are shocking and horrifying over stories that are vital and important. Infotainment is usually reprehensible -infotainment that is feeding on the pain and suffering of others is sick and twisted.

They also need to stay away from Denise Bulger. Her loss and pain is catastrophic – dragging it up in front of her and for the whole nation to see years after the fact? That’s cruel. I’m sure your readers and viewers do want to see her pain paraded around again, but this is indecent. It’s obscene.

This woman has a right to hate and a right to be screaming for vengeance – but her anger, her desire for vengeance, should never be a part of our justice considerations or how we treat offenders. It boggles the mind that anyone would believe otherwise – hatred, anger and vengeance are not justice, no matter how natural those motivations are – not should they be show cased as relevant to the case – and certainly not relevant to a subsequent case years after the fact!

In fact, media leaping all over rime has to stop, it really does. Get a suitably sensationalist case happen and the media has dissected everything in the most amateurish, unjust and down right incompetent terms its possible to see. Half of all accused in these big crimes seem to have been tried, sentenced and pilloried before they even see the inside of a court room. And there’s no chance of being found not guilty – no matter what the actual legal proceedings decide. Criminals whose sentence is other have to live the rest of their lives in desperate hiding from journalists that circle like vultures. What possible use is their of this? What possible benefit to society is there in us having paparazzi circling Maxine Carr or Jon Venables? Of them constantly trying to expose them, constantly hunting them, trying to report their every move? Ironically the same papers will then turn around and bleat about the COST of keeping their identities secret! It wouldn’t cost so much if the justice system didn’t have to fight tooth and nail against the 4th estate to preserve this privacy!

You know what? I firmly believe that everyone – everyone – can change and can be redeemed, no matter how abhorrent their crimes, how depraved their actions or how repellent their history. I don’t think any human being reaches a point where there is no hope of them being more than what they are. I believe everyone has worth. I believe everyone has value. I believe there is something worth promoting, preserving and heightening in all people.

Does this make me hopelessly naive? Maybe – but then I’m a criminal lawyer. I have defended the worst kind of scum imaginable. People who have killed, who have raped, who have messed with kids, people who have made me feel unclean just sharing a room with them. I do not have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to examining my fellow man.

I do not agree with the death penalty. I do not agree with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. I do not agree with a prison system that leaves people more broken when they leave than when they come in. I do not believe in hanging criminal records around people’s necks like some kind of leper sign. I do not agree with any kind of sentence that does not include a capacity for redemption. I think it is an indictment of society that we are willing to give up on someone – anyone.

But even if you don’t see eye to eye with me on this – and many people don’t, certainly – in the case of Jon Venables there’s something that has to be added.

He was 10 years old.

10. A child. It was a travesty that he was tried as an adult. And it is beyond disgusting that we treated children as criminals. It is a national shame that we took 2 children’s vital formative years in such a cruel fashion in the name of hate and outrage and anger. It is a national shame that sacrificed children on the altar of vengeance. It is repellent that their sentences were increased because of a public peittion of vengeance obsessed people organised by the Sun. It is disgusting that media, rage and vengeance saw 2 children’s prison sentences extended. That was not justice – it wasn’t even a pretence of justice and thank gods that the House of Lords overturned that particular political pandering to public thirst for vengeance.

And it is not only bewildering, but it is horrific, to condemn a child as irredeemable. It is an act of unfathomable spite to believe a child of 10 cannot grow up to be more than he is. To believe a child of 10 is damaged beyond repair, is evil beyond salvation is inconceivable.

As a 10 year old child, Jon Venables did something evil and unspeakable. He is not that 10 year old boy any more – but we never seem willing to believe he can ever be more than that – an evil child murderer. And if we don’t believe he can ever be more than that then what chance does he ever have to BE more than that?

Preface:
(I wrote this post some time ago and when I actually got round to posting it I realised the Daily Fail had just posted a huge great slut-shaming article about music videos being soft porn and how shameful all them women were being. It was replete with oh-so-wonderful subtexts of sexual woman being ‘weak’ and ‘submissive’ because no woman could ever be powerful and sexual and be in command of their own sexuality and like being sexual, right? And that women who were sexy and scantily dressed - even if they sang about and advocated strength and independence, were terrible role models. Aw hell no. Oh and Shakira is totally wrong because even though she focuses on children’s charities and education for girls she is like nearly NEKKED, ZOMG THE dirty dirty girl, so is totally WRONG *swoon* *faint* *hyperventilate*

Anyway, that article can be found here Y’know there could probably have been some good points in that article about the obsession with and focus on sex especially with children but it was generally lost in the slut-shaming and doom mongering and sounding like your granddad muttering about kids today.

In light of this article I held off posting because I didn’t want my post about sexuality in music to be related to or seen as connected with the Daily Mail’s hyperventilating panic gasping ‘please think of the children!’

And personally, I’m not fond of the preponderance of sexy images from the MUSICIANS in music videos because I think it distracts from the music to such a degree now that it’s almost impossible to be a successful pop singer, no matter how perfect your voice is, if you don’t have a sexy body as well. Which is think is a shameful waste of amazing talent. Now on with the show, as it were)



Moderately recently I saw linked one of Lady Gaga’s music videos For her song “Teeth.” I have had to review it on several occasions to collect my thoughts. Many many occasions. In fact, I feel the need to watch it again now to make sure my thoughts are clear.

There, back. Wait... one more time.

*Ahem* yes. It is hotter than a hotter thing with extra hotness (Possibly NSFW depending on how awesome your work is).





Stay with me, there is actually a point other than my drooling. Really. Anyway, while many (female or gay male) friends of mine have been joining me in their... extensive study of this video I was surprised that some gaped in horror that Lady Gaga had made a music video that was *gasp* gay porn!

(By the way, I think I deserve a small prize for not replying with “oh silly straight person, THAT’S not gay porn *LINK* is gay porn! See? You can tell by all the cock“).

And I scratched my head at this because, yes it’s certainly sexy, but porn? No more so than any number of videos that had passed by their blissfully unaware attention. I mean, these were not just people who were happy to not even blink at:

Britney Spears Toxic (embedding disabled)



But weren’t even moved to comment by:





Which, it has to be said, are rather more porny than Lady Gaga’s “Teeth.” (And yes, I do like all of the above songs. Yes, I like the cheesy, sue me).

Which, I think, is a rather classic example of heteronormative thinking. (I think it’s also a liberal helping of sexism since women are allowed to be sexual objects but not the mens! And certainly not the mens without a woman present)

They weren’t offended or angered by the gay sexiness, I hasten to add. They didn’t run from, the room screaming “my eyes have been defiled by teh gay!!!“ they weren’t noisily sick in a corner. They didn’t say things like “that’s nasty.“ But they did consider it to be more explicit than, in my opinion, the straight (or faux-lesbian) equivalent. It’s similar to the attitude we saw over the Adam Lambert kafuffle - relatively tame sexual acts are considered more explicit when done by gay men.

Which is a point. So long as gay male sexuality is considered inherently “ickier” than sexuality aimed at straight men (women, faux lesbians et al) then gay sexuality will continue to be depicted as somehow bad and wrong - which makes us bad and wrong by inference.



And I have not made this post purely because I am childishly pleased with my embedding skills. No no I haven’t.

This video dropped upon in my to do pile from several sources.

It’s a CBS ‘documentary’ from 1967 on the “HOMOSEXUALS” naturally, it’s triggery and down right unpleasant.

For once Beloved actually looked over my shoulder to see what I was watching, cringed and said “don’t we have enough shit today without looking at past shit?” (I didn’t marry him for his eloquence. Or his fish. Or him not putting milk on the shopping list). Why did I want to look at a video showing how bad things were?

Except, this isn’t just history. This isn’t the Norman Conquest or the Civil War. We’re not talking an event that happened over 3 centuries ago.  This video was made in 1967 – that’s hardly a long time ago. In fact, it was only in 1967 that gay sex became legal in England. That cannot be said enough – sodomy laws in the UK were still on the books in 1967. Gay sex was illegal in 1967. This was within living memory – and I don’t mean in a World-War-1-some-extremely-old-people-with-the-Queen’s-Telegram-can-remember-it, living memory (though, certainly historical events that are centuries old can have major present effects). I mean in the lifetime of my parents.  Scotland didn’t legalise gay sex until 1980. Northern Ireland not until 1982 – I was born in 1981, this happened in my relatively short lifetime. It wasn’t until 2000 that the age consent was equalised (and the bizarre restriction on gay threesomes was removed) I remember that. I remember the SCREAMING MEEMIES the haters had over it. I remember mainstream newspapers printing stories about gay predators seeking out children.

There are people alive today who were arrested and convicted under this law. These people were persecuted by this law, their lives derailed and damaged by this law. How different would their lives have been – lives of people still living. There are literally people today with “buggery” on their criminal records – who have to declare that. Consensual gay sex is STILL appearing on criminal records. That’s not ancient history. That’s not something we can brush over. That’s not something we can pretend happened in a different time to different people.

You can’t pretend it’s a long time ago. It wasn’t – and not only does it leave stains of vileness like that faced by Mr. Crawford, not only does it cause heroes like Alan Turing to be largely removed from the pages of history – but it is still very much a part of our daily lives.

Major, virulent and legal homophobia was not a thing of the past – its vilest forms were common within our lifetimes. This isn’t a historical context – this is today’s context.

We’re not so far away from these times of acceptable hatred to be safe. We’re not so far away from them that we can be so sure we’d never go back to them. We’re not living in a new age or a new era. We’re not looking at the quaint vagaries of a more backward age. We’re looking at our lifetimes, our parent’s lifetimes, the lifetimes of the people in power and the people who are trying to destroy us. This isn’t a distant THEN, this is still very much a relevant NOW.

When the haters spout off their vile rhetoric, they are speaking in this context – because such hatred was the norm such a short time ago – and this is what they wish to return to. Because this is what they remember. And pushing us back to it wouldn’t involve going back all that far.

And that is frightening. We’ve come a long way in a short time – but the time is short and we haven’t left the hatred behind. This isn’t yesterday’s hatred. This isn’t yesterday’s bigotry

Ok Football Association? This is how not to do it.

The UK Football Association has decided to do something to tackle homophobia – probably because it realised that homophobia in professional sports is not that far behind homophobia in organised religion in prevalence and severity.

I applaud. It is certainly well intended and something that desperately needs tackling.

But, ye gods could you have POSSIBLY done a worst job of it?

First, you announce that you are producing a video to combat homophobia. They want this to be shown at half time during football matches. A nice idea – but the video? Well, you can find it on this link – and I’m putting a homophobia trigger warning on it.

Yes, a trigger warning. Which KIND of shows where it may fail in its purpose. It’s awful. I can see the intent – but ye gods! The idea is to show a football supporter attacking several people with horrendous homophobic language and slurs on his way to the office, in the office etc and then say “it’s not acceptable here, so why is acceptable in the football ground.” A good message…. except is there any thought gone into how many gay people will react to seeing this vid? Because I really really REALLY don’t think it’s a particularly happy fun vid for any homosexual to watch. I see what it’s doing and I definitely agree the message is powerful – but it’s also extremely unpleasant for me, a gay man, to watch.

But, the FA quickly follows up with fail the second – they “delay” the release.

Now, see, if they’d turned round and said “hey, y’know, we screwed up. This vid is awful, we need time to make one that doesn’t make gay people cringe and wince” would be better. But they pulled it at the last minute to consult with “focus groups” well, shouldn’t you have done that before release date? This campaign had been developed for 2 years and it was planned to be released on the 11th of this month. This kind of last minute cancelling does look something of shambles with little real dedication or thought being put in. Empty, half-hearted, lack-lustre, ill-thought out gesture? Yes we can has

I appreciate the effort and hope they will try harder and try again – because the virulence of homophobia in one of the all-consuming national pastimes is a severe worry – and you can’t tell me that the acceptance of homophobia in such a massive part of the lives of so many is not a terrible reflection on us – to say nothing of being severely damaging.

But, damn, I hope they do better than this

I realised I hadn't crossposted this only after I replied to a comment and tried to link to it :)


This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog

Ah, the tools of the privileged who realise they've just been wallowing in some extreme prejudice and the stains are making them look bad. Quickly they resort to apologies, claims of ignorance and fierce condemnation of bigotry.

And, of course, that's not in any way a bad thing. Ye gods it is not! And everyone who sloughs off even a little of their prejudiced thinking and becomes a little more aware of their privileges is a victory for humanity. These are wonderful times and every incident is to be celebrated- and the person waking up should be welcomed and hailed and praised.

BUT we're not stupid. We know when you're covering yourself, back-peddling or just making a press release. We know the difference between a "My prejudice hurts so many people! I'm so sorry!" And "Damn, this is making me look bad! I'm so sorry!" Don't expect us to hail you as an ally, friend or no longer an enemy because you have the PR savvy to smile and make pretty speeches. Don't expect us to accept you as sincere if your 'tolerance' is about YOUR image rather than OUR pain.

Sorry

First of all we need to define what this word actually means - what an apology actually means.

A genuine apology is an expression of REMORSE. That's it. Hopefully it will be backed up with a decent degree of genuine gestures and attempts at correction.

This means, firstly, that if your words or actions show a complete lack of remorse (e.g. "sorry you're offended." because, seriously why not just say "I think you're too touchy" and have done with it - at least it'd be HONEST) or you repeat the offence then your 'sorry' is a waste of time/breath/keystrokes. and will likely be treated with the contempt it deserves.

An apology is not a demand for forgiveness. We do not have a duty to forgive just because you've uttered a word. Marginalised people are not obliged to expiate the guilt of the privileged people who hurt us.

An apology does not cleanse offence, heal wounds or mend damage. Do not expect any of these to go away just because you've said sorry. Do not expect us to forget it happened, do not expect us not to be effected by these actions.

Sorry also does not mean "shut up." If we're discussing an action of privilege or prejudice, especially one that has hurt us, you can't throw in a "sorry" and expect us all to belt up and be quiet. You can't hurt us, throw in a sorry, and expect us to shut up. Do not expect us to drop a subject, drop the anger, drop the offence because you have decided to say sorry. ESPECIALLY if there is severe doubt of your sincerity.

Too often an apology is cynically used as a tool to silence marginalised people - you say sorry and that's supposed to be the end of it right? Never mind that there is still a complete lack of understanding. Never mind the lack of sincerity. Never mind the total indifference. Never mind the repeat occasions. never mind the hurt, the offence, the pain that has been caused. Never mind what this says about broader culture, society and the experience of marginalised people. Someone said sorry. We can end that discussion on racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/etc and move onto something the privileged person cares about. I mean, they said 'sorry' right? Oh my gods, what more do you marginalised folk want? It's like you want something to be about you for 5 minutes!

Say sorry because you mean it. And if you mean it that means you CARE and will listen and will try to learn. Don't say sorry so you can close the whole subject and move on because you're uncomfortable/it's making you look bad.

Ignorance

This is another common tool - say/do something grossly offensive and then claim utter ignorance. Claim you never knew it happened, claim you never knew it was offensive, etc.

And sometimes it's genuinely true. And we should help people who are genuinely ignorant. But if you hurt someone or offended them inadvertently then you need to sit down and listen and be willing to be taught that it was offensive and WHY. If you're not willing to listen, not willing to learn then your ignorance is wilful. By refusing to learn you are saying that you didn't know - you're saying that you don't care and have no problems about hurting them again.

There's also a difference between being genuinely ignorant and being wilfully ignorant (or, frankly, lying). We've seen some amazing claims of ignorance - we saw pictures of the White House lawn covered in watermelons, Obama presented as a monkey (and if you're even THINKING of pointing out Bush was compared to a chimp PLEASE buy a clue, open google and do some research on image cultural context) or the times I've seen people tell me 'faggot' isn't offensive or the times I've seen people misgender transpeople. I've seen all of these quickly followed by a not-apology saying "I didn't know it was offensive!"

Bullshit, to be frank. It is boggling to me to believe for one second that ANYONE in the modern, western world could possibly be unaware that these were offensive. Seriously, there are aliens on the planet Zog watching our planet with ever increasing horror that know this crap is offensive. I find it hard to believe that these claims of ignorance here are anything but lies.

But if they're not lies? If they're genuine? Then they're still inexcusable. Because the only way you could possibly be that ignorant is by not only being inured in privilege - but by utterly wallowing in it. Only a complete and utter dismissive indifference towards marginalised people could create such an attitude of clueless ness. And that? That is seriously not ok.

Condemnation

Condemnation is important. Yes, we can't expect everyone to condemn every piece of silliness in the world - we'd be doing nothing else if so.

But - if people have a reason (a good reason) to believe you may support that crap - especially if you represent an organisation that IS supporting that crap, you have supported it in the past or you have supported crap that is very similar to the current crap in an amazing craptastic fashion - then yes, people are going to expect you to open your mouth and say how very very wrong it is.

But like the above two your sincerity matters. If you're condemning something just to make your critics shut up or because you're afraid you're starting to look bad - then that doesn't mean we're going to take you seriously. We're not fools.

If you're only moved to condemn a disgraceful piece of bigotry after people are outraged and especially if they're criticising you - then why should we take it seriously? Covering your own arse is not a laudable action.

image If you suddenly decide to condemn a piece of bigotry you've supported, worked on and played cheerleader for right until the moment you decide to leap from that sinking ship - yeah, we're not going to take you seriously either.

We don't owe you kudos, consideration or praise because you've got the brains to jump from a sinking ship. You get no praise for managing your own PR and you don't dodge criticism because you're good at covering yourself.

We're not fools. We know when we're being pandered to and we know when we're being silenced. We know when a gesture is sincere and when it's being used to divert or distract. We know when pretty words are used to cover hateful actions. We know when a smile is used to cover hatred and bigotry.

We know when you're sincere. And we know when you just want us to shut the hell up.

Jan Moir posted a repellent and deeply offensive article in the Daily Mail about Stephen Gately‘s death. Her homophobic screed stood out as shocking in a paper where homophobia is pretty standard.

Another fool has asked why we care. We know the paper was a hate rag. We know it was offensive. We know that any articles inside said paper were probably going to annoy us. So why not just avoid the paper and pretend none of their articles exist? Why do we care?

I care

I don’t care because I was a fan of Stephen Gately, though he did not deserve this treatment

It is not the bereaved family that has prompted the depth of my attention, though Moir’s article was poisonous and deeply insensitive to a family’s pain.

I do not care because I am personally offended - though Jan Moir’s article is truly one of the most offensive excuses for journalism I’ve ever had the displeasure to read

I do not even care because of the extreme inaccuracies in her rubbish that make it better filed as a work of speculative fiction than any kind of journalism - even by the Mail’s standards.

I care because of Ian Baynham.

Ian Baynham was a gay man who was beaten to death by attackers screaming homophobic abuse. And this is why I care.

I care because we live in a world where violence against gay people still happens - and it happens a lot. And it’s bloody severe as well. I care because there are people in this country who would not only fight tooth and nail to destroy every right we have struggled for but would physically attack us and quite literally try to kill us.

I care because this happens because we live in a society that still devalues gay life. We live in a society that still says gay life and gay people are worth less and not equal to straight folks.

I care because homophobia, the motivation for this attack and so many others, is still considered OK by so many. I care because hating us is still standard for far too many. I care because the idea that gay people have it coming, deserve to die or are inherently doomed to die before their time is considered normal.

I care because Jan Moir’s article is a part of that. I care because her article is part of the endless pack of haters that tell me that I am worth less than straight people, that I am due less respect than straight people, that I am not worth the same rights as straight people. I care because her article is telling, supporting and rallying other homophobes these things. I care because her article is devaluing gay people.

I care because her article is implying that early, suspicious and ‘sleazy’ death is an inherent and expected thing for gay men.

And it is too the background of such hate and such devaluing and such offence that hate crimes happen. People do not wake up one morning with hate suddenly beamed into their head. They don’t wake up with a sudden urge to attack and kill gay people. They develop these attitudes in a society that supports them and to a background of hate speech that teaches them, directs them, influences them and supports them.

I care because Jan Moir is part of the hateful chorus that has blood on their hands.


And this is why the PCC is wrong and truly lacking in understanding when they say that only those affected should complain about Jan Moir’s article.

I am affected. Every homosexual in the country is affected. We are affected because we have a right to be safe. We have a right to live and we have a right to have our lives valued as highly as heterosexuals.

And I resent most strongly Jan Moir and her ilk trying to take that from us.