Spark In Darkness

Who is apparently gay. Or so say the writers of the film. The actual film? Apparently we have the line:

“That’s why I never married. Well, that and one other reason.”

Well that’s a totally unambiguous statement right? It’s not like “one other reason” could possibly mean anything else other than being gay, right? Uh-huh

But we have bloody swarms of people crawling out of the woodwork to say how wonderfully inclusive it is! ZOMG A GAY CHARACTER! YAY!

And people wonder why I drink.

This annoys the hell out of me. There are still huge genres – like SF/F and children’s shows/films/books of any kind – where LGBT people in major roles is damn rare (you can find us in comedies – because gay as comic relief is still a thing – dramas, usually about the big gay issue – and soapy-shows where we have big ensemble casts so you don’t have to deal with an LGBT main character without lots of diluting cishet people to wash it down with) and it’s not going to get any better because we have a swarm of people ready to throw a damn parade for NOTHING like this.

Like Frozen – hey did you see the millisecond hint that some random shop keeper may be gay because his family seemed to contain another adult man? Yeah, I watched that film and missed it as well – but the fanpoodles were on the net squeeing about Disney with gay characters – because blink-and-you-miss-it hints are totally awesome guys! (And update on that – they may have been cousins. Ooooh joyous inclusion)

Or the media that doesn’t even bother with hints, just has show creators or authors claim there are LGBT characters there we don’t know about – Battlestar Galatica, J K Rowling, Julie Kagawa, to name but a few – and we’re supposed to celebrate this? We’re supposed to be glad of inclusion that you have to freaking GOOGLE after you finish the book/show/film!?

And that’s aside from the number of shows indulging in fucktons of slashbaiting which has had Supernatural, Hawaii 5-0, Sherlock, Merlin and Teen Wolf hailed as inclusive or even outright gay shows by far too many. Tyler Posey even said in an interview that they focused on a gay storyline in Teen Wolf. WHEN?! What gay storyline?! I’ve watched 3 seasons and counting of Teen Wolf and there has never been anything that can be called a “gay storyline” and none of the teeny-tiny gay tokens on that show have ever been “focused on”.

This is why people like the writers on Once Upon a Time think that Mulan's kinda, sorta, almost coming out before FALLING OFF THE PLANET is progressive and inclusive.

Even when they manage to scrape up LGBT characters, there’s repeatedly an urge to back off from them – to make sure they don’t identify as LGBT, to downplay being LGBTness. Whether it’s the grossly homophobic Da Vinci’s Demons deciding Leonardo Da Vinci was just “curious” or Reeve Carney talking about Dorian Grey on Penny Dreadful and denying his bisexuality – comparing his sex with men as akin to self-harming.

But we still have the fanpoodles flocking to tell us how pro-gay these shows are! We still hold this shows up as wonderful examples of inclusion!

THIS IS NOT INCLUSION. This is bloody insulting and it’s actively harming our press for actual portrayals of LGBT characters because this is the standard we set. This is what is praised. This is considered acceptable. This is the low bar we expect media creators to tip-toe over. This is what the fans are demanding and this is what we’re getting – and then we wonder at the paucity of portrayals?

This shit is so prevalent that it’s created a whole double standard of inclusion even on sites which specialise in social justice and social justice analysis of media. They will praise erased or tokenised shows for their non-existent or grossly inadequate portrayal of LGBT people while rightly criticising that same show for its flawed representation of other marginalised people even though that representation is actually more extensive than that of the LGBT inclusion they just praised! But we’ve set such a double standard for LGBT inclusion that an ad-libbed retconned ambiguous statement is somehow a milestone of inclusion!

So yes, I’m pissed, yes, I’m ranting about this, yes, I’m annoyed. There’s this whole damn vast movement of fans out there, fans who claim to be supporters of LGBT inclusion – who are actively sabotaging us.

Homophobic journalist Mehdi Hasan (he who thinks gay people worried about the World Cup being held in Qatar where gay people are flogged are "qatarphobic") has written a long piece on how much he STRUGGLES with homophobia and he was totally even more homophobic in the past!

The Salvation Army - a deeply homophobic organisation (you should really donate to other charities if you think GBLT people are human beings) - has assured us they've removed their ex-gay therapy links - and they totally won't let the guy who thinks the penalty for being gay is death to speak again. Of course, they're not changing policy

The Pope makes some pretty speeches while maintaining the bigotry of his church - continuing to fight tooth and nail against equality measures in Italy, Ireland, the US, India (yes, the Catholic church was one of those that pushed to bring back the anti-gay genocide in that country) and many more places. But his apologists cry "baby steps".

And we can scarcely go a week without some wanna-be ally describing the convoluted steps he's taken to discover that LO! GBLT PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE PEOPLE!

Enough

I don't give a fuck what "journey" you're on or how much "better" you've got. I don't care that you have backtracked on SOME of your bigotry. I don't care about the "baby steps" you take when you're still miles from seeing me as an actual person

You're still a bigot

You're still a homophobe.

I don't care if you feel really guilty about going to see Ender's Game. I don't care if every time you eat your Chick-fil-a, you make a mea-culpa blog post and feel really bad. I don't care how much you have "struggled" with the idea that I am a human being as worthy as you.

You're still a bigot

You're still a homophobe

Do you not see how INSULTING it is that you are having an epic struggle to see me as a person? Do you not see how offensive it is for you to declare that looking at me as an equal is some kind of massive hardship to you? Don't you see what a slap in the face it is to say you have to "evolve" or "grow" to finally realise that I'm an actual person worthy of respect?

It's about being a decent human being. Do you actually expect me to be impressed by you having so much trouble reaching bare minimums of decency?

I don't care about your struggle, your evolution, your guilt and if you're on a "journey" please let it to be somewhere far away from me. All your struggles say is just how little you think of us. All your guilt is worthless when you support bigotry anyway. Having to battle to see us as people just shows how low your regard for us is.

I am not giving out any praise for people working their way towards basic decency. You treat me as a full human being, due the respect, rights and regard that any human being is due, or you're a bigot and a homophobe and I will treat you with the contempt you deserve. 

I don't give people medals for realising I'm human, since it's the bare minimum required for basic decency and I don't rewards the bare minimum. I'm not going to give an iota of praise to people who don't even reach that minimum! Or those who have met that minimum but want me to know just how HARD it is to see me as an actual person! Or who are desperately trying to stretch for that minimum but JUST COULDN'T DO IT! ZOMG SO HAAAAARD!

You're a bigot or you're not. It's that simple. This isn't even about "allydom" here, or doing anything (y'know, stuff that may actually be praiseworthy). It's about being a decent human being - and it's really not that hard.

 As can be imagined, these 10 points are complete and utter bullshit. Let’s take them one by one.

 Intact biological families provide the gold standard for the wellbeing of children

 Says who? Families with loving parents are the gold standard for the wellbeing of children. Intact biological families made of two abusive arseholes who hate each other are not the gold standard. One person having eggs and the other having sperm and them completing the not-so-difficult task of bringing that sperm and egg together does not a gold standard parent make.

 Children have a human right to be nurtured by both their biological parents.

 Nope – adopted children have no right to anything from their biological parents. Biological parents of divorced families can have limited – or no – access to their kids. Your parent(s) could be dead. In fact, at no time and in no place does a child ever get a RIGHT to their biological parents if those biological parents have said “screw this, I don’t want kids”. Or if those parents have been deemed unfit to raise kids. The closest you get is an adoptive “child” having the right to see their birth certificate at 18 – which is stretching the definition of “nurtured”.

 Gay parenting by definition denies the child from having one or both biological parents.

 You’re assuming that both (or either) biological parent of these kids are alive. Or want to know the kids. In fact, this whole argument is based on the idea of gay parents swooping on happy dappy perfect straight nuclear families and stealing the kids which happens NEVER. Gay parenting happens through sperm donation, surrogacy, adoption, fostering, children from past relationships – or various other ways that are all linked by the fact those children/foetus/sperm/eggs don’t have 2 biological parents setting up a healthy happy dappy family.

 But that’s aside from the fact that 1-3 here are all IRRELEVENT because child rearing is NOT linked to marriage. If a straight couple is infertile? They can get married. If a straight couple is utterly unfit to raise a child? They can get married. If a straight couple is avowedly child free? They can get married. We do not have a requirement of parenthood in our marriage laws. Marriage exists completely without babies.

 Marriage and parenthood Are. Not. Linked. And that’s aside from the fact all of this bullshit applies equally to straight adoptive parents, step parents and anything other than these bigots oh-so-precious biological nuclear families.

 Popular support for the bill is based on the unfounded theory that people are ‘born gay’.

 Every reputable psychiatric organisation in the world recognises that being gay is an inerrant part of a person that cannot be changed – and should not be tried. “Unfounded” is a stretch to say the least. And popular support for the bill is based on a strong sense that treating people like shit for who they love is wrong. We call it basic compassion.

 
All school children will be taught that as adults they can have marriage relationships with either men or women.

 And this is a problem? They CAN have marriage relationships with either men or women. Why is teaching children the truth a bad thing? Would you prefer we lied to them? Hah, course you would.

  
READ MORE

Now to the news – specifically the grossly overhyped, badly reported and just damn deceptive variety.

 The Commonwealth is producing a new Charter on human rights, in particular rejecting discrimination. The Daily Fail reported on it and (shockingly, I know) got it completely wrong. Then a whole load of blogs grabbed it and ran with it – which is ridiculous because their own headlines don’t match the content.

 So, let’s parse this down.

 Yes, the Queen will sign this charter, she is the head of the Commonwealth after all.

 No, she isn’t speaking out on behalf of GBLT rights. The Queen and her handlers are going to continue her 61 year tradition of pretending we don’t exist. This is not changing. She may speak out in favour of the charter, but that doesn’t include us.

 Because the charter doesn’t include us. In fact all these reports that this is an amazing step forwards for GBLT rights and the queen is finally, after 61 years of silence, going to address GBLT people are laughably wrong. Well, it would be laughable if it weren’t so annoying and if so many people weren’t so desperate for any kind of affirmation they’d cling to anything.

 The charter does address discrimination. Notably:

 “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”

 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity are not included. More, the fact they have drawn up a laundry list of gender, race, colour, creed and political belief tells me they’ve consciously and knowingly excluded GBLT people from these protections.

 No, “Other grounds” is not sufficient. There’s certainly no indication that we’re supposed to be included. If it were sufficient, they wouldn’t have included a list of other oppressed groups. More, GBLT people, perhaps more than any other on that list, are continually presented as not existing. We’ve all heard the “ex-gays” and “behaviour” and “lifestyle” and “sin”,  It is even more vital that sexual orientation and gender identity be expressly included because our very existence is denied.

 Further, by drawing up a list of several marginalisations and then blatantly NOT including sexuality or gender identity then there is a strong impression that we are not meant to be included.

 People have pointed out that we haven’t been included because 41 members of the 54 that make up the Commonwealth still make being GBLT illegal – they’re still part of the genocide – and, therefore, won’t tolerate pro-GBLT language. Note these are the ones that actively make our existence a crime – not those who have no anti-discrimination protections, but actively seek our destruction. I boggle as to how this is supposed to suggest we’re supposed to be INCLUDED by this thing?!

Seriously, work through the logic. A charter on discrimination does not mention GBLT people because 41 out of 54 members of the organisation expressly want us to drop dead or otherwise disappear – a charter on discrimination does not mention GBLT people because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS COVERED BY THIS CHARTER DO NOT THINK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST US IS WRONG

 We are not covered by this charter. We are blatantly not covered by this charter. We have obviously been excluded from this charter. More, our exclusion from this charter can and will be used as an argument that anti-discrimination laws and principles are not meant to include us.

This is not a step forwards. It’s a step backwards. Shame on everyone involved in excluding us and shame on people who bought the hype.

The AP is updating its stylebook to do away with theterms “Ethnic cleansing” and “homophobia” and “Islamophobia”

 I agree on the ethnic cleansing removal.

 But the prejudiced phobias? No-one calling someone a homophobia is accusing them of having a mental illness. Merely having the word “phobia” in there does not mean mentally ill or even fear – as I’ve explained before. Have these people never heard of "xenophobia"? because we've been using that one for a whole long time. 

 But aside from that, I hate and reject this because there is no adequate replacement word

 And this is why I suspect the AP’s motives. This is less about cleaning up reporting and far more about excusing and downplaying the impact and severity of homophobia.

 There is no word in the English language that means the same thing as homophobia. What would we use in its stead?

 “Anti-gay”. Please “anti-gay” is so mild that most of the hate groups are quite happy to wear that label themselves.

 “Heterosexism” is too academic and doesn’t mean the same thing – heterosexism is how the systems of society are set up to favour heterosexuals and assume heterosexuality – heterosexism is the damage that heteronormativity brings and the prejudice that comes with it, not the bigotry of homophobia (though there’s some overlap).

 “Bigot” Oh I’d love to. But you know that’s not going to happen. Just look at the extreme squawking over Stonewall’s “Bigot of the year”.

One of the whole points of words like “homophobe” and “racist” and “misogynist” is that they have impact. They are words people don’t want to be associated with. Being these is shameful, is wrong and even the most vehement bigot tries to reject them. We have fought tooth and nail to try and turn homophobia from an accepted norm to something straight people should try to avoid – and ye gods we’ve got a long way to go on that – but part of doing that is the creation and popular usage of the word “homophobia.” Part of this success is the use of a word that means the “hatred and contempt towards gay people” which is a BAD THING.

 So, no AP, we need this word. And I doubt very much this is an attempt to “clean up” or “clarify” reporting. It looks like yet another move by straight folks to downplay the importance and severity of homophobia and trying to rob us of another of our weapons against it.

 Oh and how many GBLTQ groups did the AP consult about this? Zero of course! Why should our opinion matter to these straight folks?

And the AP joins the list of arrogant, homophobic institutions fighting against us. And yes, I will still be using the word "homophobia"
 

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 sports centre, health spa, joined a sports 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? Your being a pure avatar of solid sex does not mean that 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.