So, the bank holiday just gone
was Manchester Pride weekend, and I didn’t go. I nearly did, but I
didn’t. And it’s the first one that I have missed in well over a
decade.
Previously I worried that I might not go. I did get that year – I went along for one evening
with the hope I could get through the night until such time as I
either got the early train or sleep in the station. In the end I met
a lovely chap called Jack.
So yes, this was the first I
missed, and I nearly didn’t – I almost did the same thing again,
but ultimately stayed in bed until it was too late to get the train
and then went to the cinema with my sister instead.
But I have been to a pride this
year – I went to Nottingham pride in July. And I’m still not sure
whether prides are a recognition of historic achievement; lobbying
for future change; or simply and advertisement. Now that we have
legal equality (at least in most of the UK), any further changes are
going to be purely social or cultural; and I’m not sure prides
achieve that – though I’m not going to repeat how they irritate
as much as celebrate.
And certainly these days there
seems to be little historical recognition. There is a bit; but you
ask most people why they are at pride and it is the party. And again,
I know I’ve already covered about how exclusive, rather than
inclusive, that party can seem. In our strive for equality, there is
a recognition of diversity.
So, do we still need pride? As I
say, does it not divide us? Single us out as different? Require us to
define ourselves as one of the burgeoning letters in the
initialisation? You go to pride, so you’re gay. But then that
develops – some lesbians don’t want to fall into the standardised
definition ‘gay’ - afterall, they aren't men who fancy men, so it becomes lesbian or gay. Then LGB. Then
LGBT. But you are expected to fall into one of the definitions, one
of these little boxes which unify us.
But they don’t. As I said in
my other post, each ‘coming out’ is different, personal. This
‘unifying’ experience is unique. Whilst you get shoved in the box
that says gay – because you love the same sex – you find yourself
in a box with people who you could never in a life of Sundays fancy.
Just because someone finds men attractive, it doesn’t mean they
find all men attractive.
“The LGBT community” as it
is repeatedly called. But why? Why lump together men who fancy men,
with women who fancy women? In the Venn diagram of life they are in
entirely separate circles. Rather than sharing a similarity – that
of same-sex attraction – they share absolutely no similarity. Men
who are attracted to men can no more understand women being attracted
to women than they can men who are attracted to women. And why the
hell throw trans in? Their distinction isn’t with the gender that
they fancy, but the gender that they are!
But they all get lumped
together. And as more get lumped together, so the individual
definitions become smaller. Bisexuals. People who fancy both. People
who can’t quite make their mind up which sex they fancy. But those
two categories similarly can identify differently. Some call those
who can’t make their mind up ‘curious’. Or ‘questioning’.
People who fancy both – who know that they fancy both, who have
“made their mind up” – may identify as bi, or they may identify
as polysexual.
I heard the acronym QUILTBAG
used the other day. Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bi,
Asexual, Gay. But the Q can also be used for ‘questioning’. But
what’s the difference between – say – gay and queer? I’ve
even seen LGBTQQIP2SAA. Breathe deeply for this: Lesbian, Gay, Trans,
Queer, Questionning, Intersex, Pan-sexual, 2-Spirited (?) , Asexual
and Allies (again, ?) I mean, now you’re just vomiting letters onto
the page – so many to remember that you’re going to offend
someone by missing out their letter. And – moreover – it is nonsense to
anyone outside of the community. And let’s face it – it is those
people for whom the acronym, the definitions themselves are created.
Which is a reversal – it used to be those outside the community
that defined you, shouting “poofter” to put you in a category. I
suppose the community should feel empowered – taking back control
over what name to call itself. Rather than listing QUILTBAGS you
might as well just use POOFER. Allies? Who claims to be an ally? Or, rather, who refuses to? We're barely a step away from a list of each person's individual name.
As the definition becomes
broader and more inclusive, so each individual distinction becomes
sharper – higher definition. But the wider definition loses focus.
Maybe it should be QUILTBAGS – with the S for those who identify as
straight? O for other? Our aim of diversity only goes so far – you
can have diversity so long as it fits in a category.
It’s forcing people to make a
decision. It’s forcing people to come out – and then place
themselves inside one of those letters. And if they aren’t happy?
If they change their minds? This is one of the greatest reasons
people are reluctant to come out in the first place: what if it is
just a phase? How easy is it to shake off those letters? There are
still a lot of girls who are very reluctant to even consider a
relationship with a chap who has experimented. And a lot of people
suffer with this exact problem. Take a look at Ian Thorpe –
champion Olympic swimmer. He suffered a lot of anxiety, stress and
other personal challenges prior to accepting who he was; partly
because of how he would be perceived, what if he wasn’t right? It
is, still, the point of no return for many.
And this is where sexuality
loses its sexuality and becomes about pure gender. It stops being
about who you are and who you love – the people and the
relationship – and is instead about what you are, what gender: the
pure biology of the bedroom. The moment you put yourself in one those
categories you dehumanise yourself. You stop being you, instead you
become Gay.
But then again, humanity has
always been about definition. The moment you start with exploration
definition follows naturally; with rules established in the same we
as there is a hierarchical structure to the natural world. Homo
Sapien. Homosexual.
And this is where I co-align
with Tom Daley with my lack of definition. Did you see his video? I’m
not going to call it a coming out video like every other man and his
dog does; because … well, Tom doesn’t call it that either. He
very carefully avoids using any definitions save for one –
describing the person he was in love with as a man. He doesn’t call
it coming out. He doesn’t say “I’m gay”. He doesn’t feel
the need to place any label on him or his relationship. It’s nice.
It’s personal. It’s not coming out, it’s an explanation of
where he’s at.
But it was news. Why? There is
much discussion (and for me it is probably one for another posting)
about why ‘coming out’ is still news these days; but who was the
video directed at? Let’s face it, Tom had reached a point of
acceptance a long time before; his family already knew his situation;
anyone that knew him or cared about he had told personally. Now, I’m
not making any judgement on his decision to do a video: he is very
aware of his fandom, and very keen to interact and update people from
all around the world. It’s the social world in which we live; where
I broadcast my life on Twitter, my views and rants on here. No, I’m
wondering why it got picked up and run with – often as the lead
story – on so many sites. Or more particularly why they put words
in his mouth: they defined him where he had specifically avoided
doing so.
Yes, I know that tattle is a big
sell. There are so many magazines that trade on selling information
or gossip (note, not “news”) about “celebrity” relationships;
and there are some “celebrities” who make their living purely by
broadcasting their relationships like a soap opera. But on the basis
that Tom didn’t name his partner – or even give any information
about his partner – what more had they learned? That he had one?
They didn’t concentrate on that. It was all about Tom’s
sexuality. Or – more particularly – the gender of his partner. And - preempting this, Tom says in his video that he got misquoted, that it shouldn't be news.
And so me?
If you ask some people they say
I’m gay. If you ask others, bi. For some it is the question they’ve
never asked – either out of choice or fear.
I don't say.
I did. You'll see in some posts I define myself as gay, some as bi. It saves the explaining. The moment you fall outside of that definition you confuse people; you have to explain what you mean - (in the words of Madonna) justify yourself. People even think you are pretentious.
I'm not.
I'm just me.
