Getting "defensive"

As noted previously, I will occasionally respond to a longer comment on a post by starting a new post. This comment was in response to my post on Gay Men, Women, and "Sexual Fluidity:"

Dear Bill, I am very disappointed that we will not be able to continue our discussion in person. I stopped posting because I was invited to be a discussant at the gay/bi debate at the LGBT Center in NYC this Wednesday at 8 PM, and I asked that you be one of the gay discussants, so I thought I would be able to talk to you in person. How unfortunate that you are traveling.

You have illustrated my point exactly in this discussion. Prejudice and privilege is when it is assumed that bad things happen to people because of their inherent badness. I know it is a weird thing for a gay person to wrap his head around the notion that he has gay privilege, but relative to bisexuals and transgender people you do. The things I said to you were all that you were biphobic, or had internalized biphobia. However, you called me rigid, resentful, negative, etc., and let through a comment about posters (and since, I was nearly the only poster, this has to be about me)"can you imagine being attracted to both men and women and you still can't get laid on Saturday night?"

Therefore, I am a bad bisexual, and everything a gay person or Lesbian has ever done to me is my fault; the badness lies in me and my sexual orientation. I challenge you, since you cannot be there, to ask a friend or friends of yours to go to the talk and judge me as a person. See how bitter, resentful, angry, ugly, and unable to get dates I really am (oh, and you also called me immature - I'm 55 years old, BTW). Or are you afraid to see that just maybe gay people do really ugly things to perfectly nice bisexuals, just because they can (just like your insults and name-calling of me illustrates)?

I didn't really engage in what you label "name-calling." I made some judgment calls based on your tone and what you had to say, but I didn't call you "names" like fag or dyke. Frankly, if I called you "rigid" or "resentful" etc. it wasn't name-calling, that was simply how you came across. I have certainly never said that you were a "bad bisexual" or a "bad" anything else. Show me one occasion when I said that it was bad to be bisexual or that bisexuals were bad people! I didn't say what you wanted me to say so that makes me a "bad homosexual guy" in your mind, I guess. Therefore since you see me as a bad, supposedly bi-hating gay guy, that must mean that I see you as a "bad bisexual." Nonsense.

I have a feeling that you're a "late bloomer" because you carry the self-absorbed angst and the jump-to-conclusions attitude that you normally find in the very young, so I suspect you came to terms with your sexuality comparatively recently. [And let me make it clear that immaturity has nothing to do with age.] So while initially I was quite surprised that you're actually older than I am, I think that, in part, explains why I came to my erroneous conclusion. I could be wrong, but I also suspect that at one time you were in love with a lesbian and got very hurt when she broke it off. You're convinced it was because you were bisexual. Maybe. Maybe she didn't buy it, couldn't understand it, or maybe she "just wasn't that into you." I'm not saying it was your fault, or hers, but perhaps you just have to understand that in both gay and straight relationships sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't. I believe there are many bi-identified individuals who are actually in loving, long-time relationships with gay partners.

I, on the other hand, came out in my twenties and was active in the country's first militant gay rights organization, New York's Gay Activists Alliance. [Perhaps the "privilege" that you think you sense in me has more to do with the fact that I've been in this struggle for many more decades that the vast majority of my few detractors.] The president at the time that I joined GAA was bisexual. I don't recall he, I, or anyone else in the group wanting to fight for special privileges just for homosexuals while excluding bisexuals or transsexuals. You hate to hear this, you've been so spoon-fed wrong-headed data by insecure people with agendas, but you just don't have your facts straight [no pun intended].

As far as the person who left the comment about "not getting dates" -- for heavens sake, how paranoid can you be? You were not the only person who left comments and I'm pretty sure the guy was just making a joke and not singling you or anyone else out. I doubt if he even knows you. You continuously fail to see that I have an irreverent sense of humor, possibly because you have none?

Where is it written that all queers have to automatically agree with each other or else they're "phobic" this or "phobic" that? Can there be no questioning, no intelligent discourse, has no one the right to be on occasion politically incorrect or a doubting Thomas about this, that, or the other? This may infuriate you, but you should check out my post on my brother blog about the LGBT community and NPD.

It is my passionate belief that bisexuals and transsexuals, like homosexuals, face far more danger from the religious right and others like them, from all those who hate queers of all stripes, than they do from gay people who may relate more -- understandably -- to other gays than they do to bi's or transsexuals. I see nothing controversial in that viewpoint, but apparently others disagree.

As for that forum you refer to. Funny, how it was never listed in the LGBT center's list of upcoming events. Now I'd sound as paranoid as you if I suggested the whole thing was a set-up, wouldn't I? Believe me, I have been to enough forums over the years -- where people are supposed to have an intelligent, rational discussion -- where all it takes is a couple of irrational people unable to control their emotions to turn the whole thing into a tiresome shouting match. And to turn into a grim, humorless affair and a total bore.

I have a life outside the Internet. I generally allow people to leave comments and send emails, but that doesn't mean I want to continue the discussion out in the real world. Especially with people who for one reason or another may not always be entirely rational on a given subject.

What's Up with Asexuals?

I completely understand the GLBT movement and the need to end discrimination for these sexual minority groups. But some people seem to be adding asexuals to the list of groups. What on earth is that about? Are asexuals really a persecuted minority? What's up with that? Anon.

When it comes to asexual men, there probably isn't much that's up, if you know what I mean. Or at least they don't get up to much that most of us would consider fun. All kidding aside, there are three kinds of asexuals. The first kind [type A] includes people who, for whatever reason, decide to live a life devoid of sexual activity. It's similar to being celibate but asexuals are not priests or people who give up sex for religious or other reasons. Most people are not asexual by choice, of course, and frankly I believe many who call themselves asexual make that decision at a point in their lives when it's difficult if not impossible for them to find sex partners. Declaring themselves "asexual" is their way of dealing with the problem. That begs the question: Does a true type A asexual eschew masturbation as well as sex with other people?

The second kind [type B] of asexual would be better described as gender-free, someone who does not identity as male or female or who rejects all gender classification. This is quite different from someone who swears off sex. We often use the term asexual to describe those androgynous individuals who lack distinctive masculine or feminine qualities, people who -- like "Pat" on Saturday Night Live -- seem neither male nor female. Not only are we unable tell what sex they are, but sometimes they can't tell as well (sometimes they are simply confused transsexuals). These people can identify as either gay, straight, bi or transgender.

The third type of asexual [type C] is someone who simply has no sexual attraction for anyone, male or female. Some asexual activists -- yes, we even have those -- claim that asexuality is an orientation, but I completely reject this notion. It is not normal or healthy to have no sexual feelings and it does these unfortunate individuals a disservice to claim that it is. Many people are asexual because of conflicted sexual feelings or depression or both. Asexuality is a medical condition that should be treated.

NOTE: Yes, I'm perfectly aware that homosexuality was once thought of as an abnormal medical and psychiatric condition, but lacking all sexual feelings is something entirely different. Gay is Good. What's good about being asexual? In these "progressive" days everyone wants to jump on the GLBT bus but some passengers are headed in the wrong direction.

I'll leave the whole gender-free business for another post. As for people in the first group who lead an asexual lifestyle, as far as I'm concerned, it is ludicrous to think of them as a minority group like homosexuals or lesbians. These are people who make a choice to strip their lives of sexuality -- or to deal with their sexless lives by declaring themselves asexual -- and that's their own business. As for people in the third group, I do not see their struggle as being similar to that of gays and lesbians, sorry. I for one will never get on the band wagon for asexuality, as it is a "lifestyle" that eliminates one of life's greatest pleasures and consolations. Goodness knows, today's overly politically correct activists, in a well-intentioned but often misguided attempt to include everyone who may be oppressed, often add or want to add all sorts of groups to GLBT, but somehow I can't see A for Asexual being added to the list by the more sensible among them.

UPDATE: I've been told in no uncertain terms that many people -- especially those who identify as Type C asexual -- vehemently disagree with me on the issue of asexuality as an orientation vs. disability. Additionally some GLBTers disagree with me that asexuals are not a sexual minority -- also vehemently. At a future date this issue may be revisited -- but for now I'm worn out.

The Invisible Minority

Recently out gay guy here. I don't know why this freaks me out so much, but I've been thinking lately that it's mostly just impossible to figure out who's gay unless they tell you. I mean, aside from very stereotypical gay men. Every time I look at a guy, I wonder about him. I mean, not just co-workers and people at the store, but relatives, friends, even married guys with kids as you've mentioned. Anybody can be gay. Maybe someone more experienced like you can tell, but how can I tell who's gay? It's like we're invisible or something. J.H.

And that's the part that probably "freaks you out." Yes, until everyone feels free enough to come out of the closet, we are largely an invisible community -- except in certain urban areas, during Gay pride marches and festivals, at GLBT centers, and so on. What makes it even more confusing is that sometimes men who seem gay aren't. Or at least don't identify as such. [Adding to the confusion, of course, is the number of homosexuals who are not only in the closet, but are in serious denial as to their sexual orientation.]

It's possible that as a "more experienced" person I can sometimes pick out who's gay easier than somebody else, but it's never been an exact science. Like you said, aside from the cases when someone is very flamboyant and obvious, or totally out of the closet, it can be difficult to tell. Sometimes there are some subtle, almost indefinable giveaways. In my younger days I could often tell a guy was gay because I could see that he was checking me out. It still happens even today from time to time, thank goodness! There's just a certain way a man will look at another man if he's into guys ...

It helps to find out who's gay if you're out of the closet yourself. If another person, say a co-worker, is gay they'll be much more likely to come out to you if they know you're gay too and won't judge them.

But this very "invisibility" you mention is a troubling aspect of our very diverse community. Most gays men and lesbians do not conform to stereotypes. All we can hope for is that more and more people will feel comfortable coming out of the closet. The more people who do, the more comfortable the world at large will become with us. And that can only work in our favor.

GLBTQIBXYZ -- huh?

Hopefully you can answer this because I'm confused. I'm a small-town gay gal and I guess I don't get out much but when the hell did Gay Rights become GLBT or whatever the hell it is and what's up with GLBTXQBI and all the rest? And please tell me what on earth is "intersexed." Confused but happy old lesbian.

First of all, you're not old, baby, you're mature.

To answer your questions, Dr. Bill himself is not exactly certain when "GLBT" -- which means Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender -- came into being and replaced Good 'ol "Gay." I would guess it came into early use twenty years ago and become popularized about a decade ago (and in some cases has become inaccurately retroactive). There's a GLBT or LGBT center not far from my door in Manhattan which I sometimes call the Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato center. I do know that when people speak of the GLBT pride parade the year after Stonewall or in the seventies, eighties and even nineties, they're inaccurate. These were Gay Pride parades, plain and simple. Even today many people simply use "Gay Pride" as an umbrella term. Less unwieldly and more recognizable, for one thing. Plus the fact that gays and lesbians constitute the majority of GLBT members.

The early Gay Rights movement certainly did not automatically exclude lesbians (who are gay, of course), bisexuals or the transgendered (some of whom are gay), but I imagine some activists -- Dr. Bill was not consulted -- thought it would be more democratic to give all sexual minorities (although not all are actually included) equal billing. It was also thought that lumping all of us together -- the idea being that whatever group we belonged to we were all "queer" -- would add up to greater numbers and hence greater political power.

The sad truth is that a united GLBT -- outside of the world of political activists -- may be more of a concept than a reality. GLBT political activists are more likely to know and intermingle with members of the other groups, which is not true of the average, non-political gay person, so this idea of GLBT "togetherness" may be entirely artificial. What I mean is that being transsexual is a very different experience from being gay, and that many, many (mostly but not always non-political) gays still remain cynical about the very notion of bisexuality, believing -- rightly or wrongly -- that most bisexuals are just gays who for one reason or another can't come all the way out of the closet. [More on this on another post. Save your letters for later.]

For instance, political gays were quick to insist that trangenders be included in the ENDA non-discrimination bill, while the average gay person, if they knew about the bill at all (and without suggesting that they're all transphobic bigots) probably didn't give that much of a damn, not relating to transsexuals or even necessarily knowing what one was.

The feeling among many politically correct gays is that, being discriminated against themselves, they don't wish to discriminate, or even be thought of as possibly, accidentally, inadvertently discriminating, against anyone else (including heterosexuals, even the bigoted ones). Therefore we have some queer people who expand GLBT into GLBTQBI and so on and so on.

The "Q"stands for questioning, which I frankly think is pretty silly. Most gay people go through a questioning period, for Pete's sake; I doubt if genuinely heterosexual people really spend a lot of time wondering if they're gay or they're bi. I mean, you either get hot for your own sex or you don't; it's a given that most gays go through a certain period of confusion. (Oops, now we'll have to add a "C" for "confused.") I assume some gay groups don't want to scare off gay or transgender youths (and older people) who don't yet identify as gay or transgender.

The other "B" stands for Bi-Curious, which means someone who at least identifies as straight but may have some homosexual leanings or a certain curiosity about our sexuality or lifestyle. Again, this is a phase many gays go through. I hardly think of the "bicurious" as a legitimate minority group, but who knows?

"I" stands for Intersexed and brings us to the last part of your question. Intersexual is the modern term for the out-dated "hermaphrodite," but intersexed people do not have both male and female sexual organs; rather they have a commingling of the two. Parents of intersexed children choose a sex for their babies through surgery, but when these children are grown they can switch -- again, via surgery -- if they want to. There are a couple of hundred intersexed people in the US, and maybe a thousand or more worldwide. It's a question if this is a minority group or simply a group of people who have the same medical condition. Intersexed people aren't necessarily homosexual, but as I've said many activists don't want to exclude anyone and of course no one wants intersexed people to be discriminated against, although if they are it may be because they are perceived as being gay or transsexual -- since most people don't know what "intersexed" means any more than you do.

The premise of being all-inclusive, while possibly noble, can get a little ridiculous at times. On one gay -- I mean, GLBT -- message board, someone actually suggested that "F" for "furries" be added to GLBT .... ! "Furries" are people who like to dress up as animal cartoon characters. Some of them feel marginalized and therefore think of themselves as being a put-upon minority group.

A certain percentage of "furries" are undoubtedly gay, transgender etc. but on this same message board I suggested that if we added "F" to GLBT we should also add an "H" for fans of The Honeymooners TV show who attend conventions (like furries do), who are gay, and who may feel marginalized because they eat too much or because people tell them they should have more productive ways of spending their time. [Don't get me wrong. I love Jackie Gleason and The Honeymooners but I can't see going to a convention ... oh, well.]

But my dear mature lesbian friend, don't fret too much over all this. Many of these people who are adding all these letters to GLBT are very young and will learn in time. In the meantime, I think it's kind of nice that they don't want anyone to feel left out, eh?