Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation and discrimination are different things.

Lets be real KK. You can kind of tell from the title this thread was never gonna be about rationality Go take that sense somewhere else

One last word on the semantics debate: I explicitely used "segregation" as it's a term that expresses a negative connotation. I am well aware of the political and oppressive "segregation" usually has but using other words such as "distinction" don't imply the categorial approach based on a single feature; in this case sexual orientation. If you feel that there's a more appropriate word, then suggest / use it and I'll gladly follow your lead.

I think perhaps we've gone off a bit too far at the moment with regards to semantics here -- understandable enough though.

So let's assume either this tangent has been resolved or perhaps even a different initial phrase was used and, try, and head back to the actual meat of the topic a bit more please.

thanks !

trexmeyer wrote:I'll never understand what the feth one's sexual orientation has to do with self identity or freedom of expression. By the same token, I'll never understand why people feel the urge to harass others of a differing orientation.

Well, it's less like when you see stereotypical, acting up "gays" on television that define themselves that way... And more this low burn sensation that the world does not understand you on some very fundamental level.
Putting aside that it's played as funny, disgusting or unusual... In a thousand subtle and unsubtle ways, the world, media and folk around you are geared up to the assumption that you think and feel one particular way.
Advertising - things for men often use pretty women being impressed by them, things for ladies are just as bewildering.
Films - if there's ever a gay, trans or minority lead it's seen as "brave" and "revolutionary". Can you briefly imagine reading that your existence is considered Rare and Brave rather than just taken for granted.

I don't define myself and my identity by my sexuality, but I do find myself feeling very often that there was an invitation issued to the rest of the world and mine got lost in the mail. I'm uncertain how welcome I am in some situations and scenarios.

And to put it another way, I'm frequently mistaken for being straight. Can you imagine again, the reaction most people have to being mistaken as gay? Many feel insulted or amused.

I know I'm safe to go to Pride and just hang out. I use the words solidarity and understanding, and they really do provide peace of mind.

TheGayHare wrote:I should look into any local pride events, hell if just to meet people, its lonely out here.
I don't see them as segregation, sure I'm embarrassed by some of what happens, but thats gonna happen at any huge meet up with tons of folk involved.

You should, there's a sense of solidarity without being... I'm not sure what the expression I'm looking for is... That sensation of being a pet cause for people who want something to bang the table about.
You're in a group of people who for a brief amount of time entirely support, and on at least some level understand, and there's also music.
I accidentally joined a Pride march in Nottingham the other week (I was walking along and slowly noticed that the crowd was quite slow and there were a lot of flags, and banners and ohhh right was that today? It was lovely, and surprisingly subtle. I stayed with it until it swung past where I needed to go, like a big gay bus.
"You're late."
"Accidentally joined a gay parade."
"I'm not even surprised."

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that, overall they are merely self- or group-expression. However, wasn't there a Pride event in the UK fairly recently that "banned" drag-queens because they felt that it was "bad" for people who are Trans? That sort of thing, I do have a bit of an issue with, simply due to the small, tiny amount of "history" that I know the Queens have had for the LGBT community.

It was the alternative 'Free Pride' up in Glasgow. Anyone turning up was still allowed to wear whatever they wanted (so self identified men in dresses were not turned away or anything), but there were no acts which called themselves drag up on the stage.

There's a bit of a history of drag-bashing in gay movements altogether. In the fifties and sixties it was men in the Mattachine society wanting to represent gay culture as identical to straight culture, without all of the flamboyance and dresses (the OP's friend's position is quite an old one). Seventies and eighties it was lesbian feminists saying that men in dresses were making a mockery of women for entertainment (of course, this hatred extended also to transwomen, whom the LFs saw as no different to the drag queens). Now there are some elements of the trans community saying that drag reinforces the idea that a male body in a dress takes it off when she goes home, and becomes a 'he' again.

I can see where that last argument is coming from, but excluding drag acts just isn't on. As you mentioned, drag activists were the at the forefront of the gay rights movement, mainly because when the police swooped in on gay clubs and havens in the fifties they would arrest any men not wearing three articles of masculne clothing (and vice versa for women).

With regards to the original topic, it depends on the event and who you are talking about excluding.

Things like gay pride and many other events don't exclude anyone. Any more than carnival or church fair excludes anyone. All are welcome, but they have a theam. This is fine, good in fact. As long as your event is open to all and friendly then all is good. In my experience the events talked about in the OP are all like this.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

There's a bit of a history of drag-bashing in gay movements altogether. In the fifties and sixties it was men in the Mattachine society wanting to represent gay culture as identical to straight culture, without all of the flamboyance and dresses (the OP's friend's position is quite an old one). Seventies and eighties it was lesbian feminists saying that men in dresses were making a mockery of women for entertainment (of course, this hatred extended also to transwomen, whom the LFs saw as no different to the drag queens). Now there are some elements of the trans community saying that drag reinforces the idea that a male body in a dress takes it off when she goes home, and becomes a 'he' again.

More detailed on "gay culture" in general (if there is such a thing, which I don't believe there is)...

Unfortunately it's not just that. The gay rights movement is often dominated by a small number of people. Specifically allot of gay white men, who often fit a very narrow minded view of what being gay should be, and allot of gay women with strong feminist views. This is just my experience however, but these people often seem to try and exclude anyone that does not fit their view of how you should be gay. They have a history of excluding bi-sexuals, trans people, non whites. I have known of bisexual women being excluded by some being told they are fake or not really gay. I have known bi-sexual men treated with suspicion and bullied.

This is just my experience (and the experience of others I have talked to). Fortunately these gay rights groups on the extreme are becoming less and less relevant in the UK as people care less about what your sexuality is, but they do cause some damage from time to time.

 Steve steveson wrote:


More detailed on "gay culture" in general (if there is such a thing, which I don't believe there is)...

As homosexuality becomes more accepted by the mainstream, 'gay culture' per se is diminishing, because it has less of a role as an active counter-culture. However, as long as we have gay bars which don't act exactly like straight bars, gay events with gay styles etc. we have a gay culture. Its decentralised, and there are many offshoots, and its less different to straight culture than it used to be, but I'd say its still clearly there.

 Steve steveson wrote:

Unfortunately it's not just that. The gay rights movement is often dominated by a small number of people. Specifically allot of gay white men, who often fit a very narrow minded view of what being gay should be, and allot of gay women with strong feminist views. This is just my experience however, but these people often seem to try and exclude anyone that does not fit their view of how you should be gay. They have a history of excluding bi-sexuals, trans people, non whites. I have known of bisexual women being excluded by some being told they are fake or not really gay. I have known bi-sexual men treated with suspicion and bullied.

I've noticed the same thing. Its called LGBT, but the 'L' is capitalised, the 'G' is capitalised and bold, and the 'b' and the 't' are lower case and banished to a corner somewhere. Same for non-white members of the group.

Steps are being taken within the community to counter that trend, but it still has a long way to go until its all inclusive.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

I don't define myself and my identity by my sexuality, but I do find myself feeling very often that there was an invitation issued to the rest of the world and mine got lost in the mail. I'm uncertain how welcome I am in some situations and scenarios.

And to put it another way, I'm frequently mistaken for being straight. Can you imagine again, the reaction most people have to being mistaken as gay? Many feel insulted or amused

Hmmm would it be hypocritical to say I don't define myself by my sexuality when I have the word Gay prominently displayed on almost all my usernames across the internet?

I've of two minds of that as some one who is almost always assumed to be straight, even when amongst a group of gay folks, sometimes I wish It was as easy to define my sexuality to the outside world.

honestly with the over powering effect hetronormalcy has on society where everyone is simply assumed to be straight until proven other wise gay themed events might be the only hope for bland folk like me

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


More detailed on "gay culture" in general (if there is such a thing, which I don't believe there is)...

As homosexuality becomes more accepted by the mainstream, 'gay culture' per se is diminishing, because it has less of a role as an active counter-culture. However, as long as we have gay bars which don't act exactly like straight bars, gay events with gay styles etc. we have a gay culture. Its decentralised, and there are many offshoots, and its less different to straight culture than it used to be, but I'd say its still clearly there.

Perhaps it is a personal thing, but I just dislike it a little, for the same reason I dislike the concept of "disabled culture". I just feel it assumes a single mindset, but then I guess that has something to do with having never really been in to going to gay bars and the like. I have more been involved in "alternative"/goth/rock which is where I have met most of the partners I have had, of any gender. But that is because that culture is a bit more open (at least round me) and if you start flirting with a man or a woman in a goth club they will make it clear if they are not interested without being offended. Hopefully one day everyone will be like that.

Generally speaking, heterosexuals are welcome to attend gay-focused events. Certainly, groups like PFLAG are by no means excluded from attending. Of course, showing up at some events while being hetero might lead to some awkward social situations but, in the end, remember that "gaydar" is fictional.

If you're going to show up to cause trouble, though, expect to be shown the door, just like you would with any other event or outing. That's not segregation or discrimination, that's just someone being a donkey-cave and being handled appropriately.

 Steve steveson wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


More detailed on "gay culture" in general (if there is such a thing, which I don't believe there is)...

As homosexuality becomes more accepted by the mainstream, 'gay culture' per se is diminishing, because it has less of a role as an active counter-culture. However, as long as we have gay bars which don't act exactly like straight bars, gay events with gay styles etc. we have a gay culture. Its decentralised, and there are many offshoots, and its less different to straight culture than it used to be, but I'd say its still clearly there.

Perhaps it is a personal thing, but I just dislike it a little, for the same reason I dislike the concept of "disabled culture". I just feel it assumes a single mindset, but then I guess that has something to do with having never really been in to going to gay bars and the like. I have more been involved in "alternative"/goth/rock which is where I have met most of the partners I have had, of any gender. But that is because that culture is a bit more open (at least round me) and if you start flirting with a man or a woman in a goth club they will make it clear if they are not interested without being offended. Hopefully one day everyone will be like that.

I see what you mean with the worry about assuming a single mindset. However, I notice the great british flag next to your post. Asuming we are both socialised in this country, we will share certain aspects of british culture. We'll differ in certain aspects too. The individuals in a culture are individuals, rather than a homogenous mass; that assumption is one that we all tend to fall into somewhat - just look at the attitudes to other ethnicities held by some of our countrymen :p

As a bisexual male I must say that even though I am so I still find the sight of almost nude men dressed in gimp suits or whatever other crazy thing like that in public mildly disturbing.
I believe this is also a problem a lot of other people have, whenever they support the LGBT community or not.

Just my two cent.

[...] If people did not assume heterosexuality, it would not have been necessary. (And the majority argument is null. Whites are in majority in Brazil. When you are talking with a Brazilian over the phone, do you assume they are white or does the possibility of another ethnicity strike you as possible?)

I just wanted to add to this that statistically its correct to assume that, because if you assume they are then you have the lowest possible chance of being wrong.
This works both ways though, if there was a group of, lets say, 20 people then chances are that atleast 1-2 people from that group prefer the company of their own gender.

It's certainly true that there's a lot less need for gay pride parades than there was in the past. Less need than even just a few years ago.

But the thing about parades is that attendance is voluntary. If the need for the parades has declined enough, and there is no other reason for people to go, then they'll stop going, and the parades will go away. People will decide for themselves.

 sebster wrote:
It's certainly true that there's a lot less need for gay pride parades than there was in the past. Less need than even just a few years ago.

But the thing about parades is that attendance is voluntary. If the need for the parades has declined enough, and there is no other reason for people to go, then they'll stop going, and the parades will go away. People will decide for themselves.

Not always true:

 Daemonhammer wrote:

[...] If people did not assume heterosexuality, it would not have been necessary. (And the majority argument is null. Whites are in majority in Brazil. When you are talking with a Brazilian over the phone, do you assume they are white or does the possibility of another ethnicity strike you as possible?)

I just wanted to add to this that statistically its correct to assume that, because if you assume they are then you have the lowest possible chance of being wrong.
This works both ways though, if there was a group of, lets say, 20 people then chances are that atleast 1-2 people from that group prefer the company of their own gender.

The interesting thing to me, being a resident of California currently, is how there seems to be a "Pride" event of some kind every couple of weeks. I guess I assumed, when I moved here, that gay pride was a once per year celebration or somesuch....like other events which celebrate ethnicity or whatever. Low and behold, its a constant party. I lived in the San Fransisco bay area for a while and I was utterly shocked at some of the things I saw occurring in public streets during events such as Folsom Fair or Door Alley (not really Pride events persay, but in the Bay....its all kinda mooshed together). Now I know that sort of stuff isn't part and parcel of every event, and I know that the Bay is an extreme case.....but still. I was shocked.

It was sort of like if you go to a semi-public play space or dungeon, only BAM...right out in the open during school/shopping hours. <shrug>

Thats life in Cali, I guess.

As for the segregation thing, the number one complaint regarding Pride that I've heard from gay folks....is that there are now too many straight people attending that want to turn it into a party with rainbow costumes. Not sure how that factors in, but its a thing.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not always true:

Okay, yes, if its a totalitarian state then things work differently. But unless you or some other poster can think of a totalitarian state that mandates attendance at gay pride parades, I'm not really sure how relevant that is.

Actually. I had a gay friend (who was probably the gayest man that I have ever met) who said that he disliked the Gay Prides because they were, you guessed it, way too gay. I know a few people who's opinions matched that one.

Personally, I think that the sooner people stop making a massive fuss over something, the sooner it will be integrated into social norm. A lot of people don't like minority groups because 'they are not us.' And a gay pride event more or less is a physical manifestation of that.

In all my long years, I've seen many LGBT prides, I've never seen a straight one.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

I see what you mean with the worry about assuming a single mindset. However, I notice the great british flag next to your post. Asuming we are both socialised in this country, we will share certain aspects of british culture. We'll differ in certain aspects too. The individuals in a culture are individuals, rather than a homogenous mass; that assumption is one that we all tend to fall into somewhat - just look at the attitudes to other ethnicities held by some of our countrymen :p

Good point... Perhaps I am reading too much in to the word "culture"... I have an idea why I do this, which I won't go in to here, but I may have to change my view on this.

 welshhoppo wrote:

In all my long years, I've seen many LGBT prides, I've never seen a straight one.

Every underwear fashion show ever would probably qualify TBH.

Thats life in Cali, I guess.

Northern California. Throw one in Crenshaw. We need helicopters to videotape. The Blood! So much Blood!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In all my long years, I've seen many LGBT prides, I've never seen a straight one.

New Orleans Mardi Gras. Brazil turns its whole country into one giant Samba for Carnival.

Party Party!

In western society the default assumption for sexual identity is straight, therefore any parade is straight that is not specifically identified as gay.

In countries such as Russia or Zimbabwe where being homosexual is illegal, all parades are straight by law.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Segregation is when the majority or a power elite deliberately exclude the minority or weaker groups who want to be involved, rather than a voluntary action by the group concerned.

That type of bollocks is similar to the doctrine that only a male can be sexist. Which has actually been dictat in the UK.

 sebster wrote:
It's certainly true that there's a lot less need for gay pride parades than there was in the past. Less need than even just a few years ago.

But the thing about parades is that attendance is voluntary. If the need for the parades has declined enough, and there is no other reason for people to go, then they'll stop going, and the parades will go away. People will decide for themselves.

I don't think there's a real NEED for St. Patrick's day parades to show Irish pride, but people still seem to enjoy them.

 Polonius wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It's certainly true that there's a lot less need for gay pride parades than there was in the past. Less need than even just a few years ago.

But the thing about parades is that attendance is voluntary. If the need for the parades has declined enough, and there is no other reason for people to go, then they'll stop going, and the parades will go away. People will decide for themselves.

I don't think there's a real NEED for St. Patrick's day parades to show Irish pride, but people still seem to enjoy them.

While I dont know what St. Patrick's day is like in the US, here in Ireland it has more to do with drinking alcohol than anything to do with Ireland or Christianity. I would suspect its the same in USA, an excuse for people to get drunk.

New York has a massive parade with all floats and stuff for St Patricks Day. No doubt there is drink taken.

 Daemonhammer wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It's certainly true that there's a lot less need for gay pride parades than there was in the past. Less need than even just a few years ago.

But the thing about parades is that attendance is voluntary. If the need for the parades has declined enough, and there is no other reason for people to go, then they'll stop going, and the parades will go away. People will decide for themselves.

I don't think there's a real NEED for St. Patrick's day parades to show Irish pride, but people still seem to enjoy them.

While I dont know what St. Patrick's day is like in the US, here in Ireland it has more to do with drinking alcohol than anything to do with Ireland or Christianity. I would suspect its the same in USA, an excuse for people to get drunk.

Due to the Potato Famine, the US had a large influx of Irish immigrants which were met by good old fashion bigotry at the time. At the time, Iris Imigrants often had to compete for jobs with freed blacks and were often called "white Negros" and were depicted as having features and such which were associated with being 'sub-human' like blacks at the time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6tw1ZwOnLj0C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=Harper%27s+Weekly+irish+negro&source=bl&ots=h9F7-ohUIa&sig=CgXJWq_8fDeuUe5uRnYc4LaG8hM&hl=en&ei=W6q_SYCkDsavtwfvqORc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Harper's%20Weekly%20irish%20negro&f=false

Celebrating St. Patricks day is one of the things which began to help change the perception and break down the bigotry against Irish people at the time. When everyone is Irish for a day, makes it not seem so bad right?

Same goes for Pride Marches. Parades and festivals have a long history of breaking down barriers.

 Polonius wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It's certainly true that there's a lot less need for gay pride parades than there was in the past. Less need than even just a few years ago.

But the thing about parades is that attendance is voluntary. If the need for the parades has declined enough, and there is no other reason for people to go, then they'll stop going, and the parades will go away. People will decide for themselves.

I don't think there's a real NEED for St. Patrick's day parades to show Irish pride, but people still seem to enjoy them.

It's a thing for Plastic Paddies.

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think there's a real NEED for St. Patrick's day parades to show Irish pride, but people still seem to enjoy them.

Exactly. If gay pride parades continue, it will likely be either because they are still needed to counter homophobia, or like St Patty's the gay pride parades will have transformed in to something else.

And if that's the case, it will happen no matter what people chatter about on forums like this one. And if the opposite is true, and the need for these parades declines and they don't find a different reason for being, then the parades will fade away, and once again that will be true no matter what people on forums like this one chatter about.

 sebster wrote:
But unless you or some other poster can think of a totalitarian state that mandates attendance at gay pride parades, I'm not really sure how relevant that is.

It's only a matter of time, and everyone knows it.