To Watch and To Be Watched: On LGBT Portrayal in the Media

When you think of gay, the first thing you're likely to think of is girly, flamboyant men. When you think of lesbian you think of either the ugly butch woman with a deep voice or two sexy slim girls making out to the pleasure of the guys around them. When you think of bisexual you're likely to think of slut. When you think of transvestite you're likely to think of prostitutes for scandalous politicians. But where do these thoughts come from? Do you personally know trans prostitutes? Or slutty bis, hideous butch lesbians, porny lesbians, or girly gay men? I think it's safe to say that by far the majority of people don't, and yet they still have these images in their heads of what each word means. And the best place to form images is on a television screen.

Having an LGBT character on the show has become a common plotline on television lately. But is the inclusion really a sign of acceptance? Or is the entertainment industry simply furthering the discrimination by airing stereotypes and misconceptions for all to see?

If you've seen the show Sex and the City, you've probably heard of the gay best friend. Hell, you've probably wanted a gay best friend. What sensible woman wouldn't want a guy who can explain the stupidities of men, who can buy you junk food and not judge when you binge, who can be your personal fashionable shopper, who can be there to hold your hand when you cry, who can make you feel like an empowered woman with all their "You go girl!"'s. Now let me tell you something which may break your heart: gay men are gay, not a 'That Was Easy' button. They will not solve all your problems, they will not be your friend if all you do is complain, and they will not automatically love you because you are a dramatic girl and they are gay. Just like straight men, whether they like you or not is based on how your personalities click. And just like straight men, they don't all act feminine, don't all know the intricacies of relationships, don't all like shopping, petty gossip, girl power, emotional outbursts, and more. Gay men are not inherently more sensitive because they are gay; they are most likely more sensitive because of the hardships that they themselves have had to go through. But if you've never met an out gay person, how would you know this? How many gay men on TV do you see who AREN'T the classic gay best friend?

If this isn't what all gay men are like, why are they primarily portrayed this way by the media? The truth is, LGBT people look just like anyone else-- but on TV it is often a huge plotline. To compensate for this, the media often finds ways to make the gay community as visible as a difference in skin colour, often by portraying them as very flashy, promiscuous, and overly bold-- or, as the other extreme, gay men who are stiff-lipped, no fun, and less accepting of their sexuality.

Take, for example, the popular drama Desperate Housewives. They have sweet gay couple on the lane, Bob and Lee. Lee is the "fabulous" gay one, who loves shopping and gossiping, and apparently only hanging out with girls. He wears silly hawaiian shirts and is prone to illogical emotional fits during which his partner Bob must step in and calm him down. Bob is the well-dressed, well-spoken gay man. He is the breadwinner of the two. He is respectable and logical and not flamboyant at all, and as the less fun one he is almost never shown as having a friendship with anyone on the lane, male or female. In other words, he is the "straight" gay man, the not really gay man, and therefore portrayed as more successful and reasonable, all the while being a boring workaholic.

But wait, you say, this is a TV show about the heavy-set gender roles in suburbia. It is only natural that one of the two is the financial support while the other takes the role of a housewife. Well, that is absolutely right. And it's not like this is a show where all the housewives are shown to do more work and often be far more intelligent, reasonable and successful than their husbands, is it. But yet what do we see Lee doing except messing up every time he tries to work?

Well now, maybe this is just coincidence. Maybe this duo is uniquely stereotyped in such a way. It's probably just for the sake of soap opera drama, right?

We've all heard of the comedy show Will & Grace. On it is an incredibly flamboyant gay man named Jack, who never has any success in holding a job. Meanwhile his gay counterpart is Will, who clearly acts far more "straight"; he also just so happens to be the logical, wealthy and disciplined lawyer. It almost seems as though TV is implying that the straighter you act the more acceptable and appropriate you are deemed by society. But don't take my word for it; just google gay men acting straight and see what's going on in current events, ranging from entire threads hating on gays who try to "act straight" by doing things like watching sports and being manly to a gay student being advised by a university to "act more straight" after he was beaten up for being gay. Not only that, but Will & Grace continually implies that gay men are out to break a woman's heart. They use them as tools to hide their gayness, to question their sexuality, and to vent their inner dissatisfaction, all without any regard towards the emotional consequences of it with the woman their dating, who always seems entirely clueless and willing to be used. This is a pretty terrible thing to say about not only gay men but also women, and, in the end, bisexuals. It implies that non-heterosexual men who try and date women will inevitably ruin the relationship, all because they didn't believe they were truly gay. Even some of the most out-there liberal shows often have problems when it comes to moving outside the bounds of our monosexist society.

And when you think about it, how often does a character discover they're bi? If anything, they either realize they were straight and just having a meltdown of some sort, or that they've been gay all along. On Grey's Anatomy, the woman who was completely head-over-heels in love with a man for four seasons suddenly turned out to be completely unattracted to men in any way whatsoever, despite later sleeping with one and having his baby. On Desperate Housewives, a man who has been married for a decade to a woman and is currently dating another woman must be gay because he also likes boys. On Friends, the woman married to the lovable character Ross, who has his child, who constantly comes back to see how he is, is quite definitely a lesbian because she also happens to have fallen in love with one woman in her life ever.

As painful as it is, when you think about it, why should these characters dump their superiority complex? What evidence is there to the contrary? It almost seems like the news is entirely dominated by porn stars coming out as bi and popular celebrities coming out and then deciding they were "just confused" (i.e. David Bowie). Up until these past few years, how many strong out and proud bisexuals have been exposed through the media to people looking to learn? What bisexual character has been created on television who is not completely self-destructive (i.e. Thirteen from House, who is a good character but not about bi pride)? There are certainly people out there who are bisexual-- they just keep relatively quiet about it, or are kept quiet. For example- Marlon Brando, Calvin Klein, Edith Piaf, Lou Reed, Annie DeFranco, Peggy Guggenheim, Hans Christian Anderson, D. H. Laurence, Katharine Hepburn, Margaret Mead, Virginia Wolf, Evan Rachel Wood, Sandra Bernhardt, and many, many more (tune in later for the full LGBT celebrity list!).

Unfortunately, it is not just bisexuals who are stigmatized by the media. If they are shown at all, transgendered characters are hardly ever seen in positions of power. There is never a transgendered police officer or a transgendered CEO. Instead, there are transgendered prostitutes, crack addicts, or some other type of very weak and easily abused character. Often they aren't even out of the closet and accepting of themselves, and are forcibly discovered. Again, The L Word shows its astounding amount of ignorance as their only transgendered character is used by men and women, and then realizes that they are far too weak to raise their own kid and literally gets on their knees begging the more confident and respectable lesbians to raise it for them. In my own experiences, transgendered people are the strongest and most determined people I have ever met; but don't take my word for it. Check out the latest news on transgender protests against homophobia. It is incredibly astounding and uplifting.

An alternate to the weak transgender is the overly bold one who tries to seduce and trick straight men into having sex with them. This perhaps further perpetuates the stereotype that gay men always come on very strong to straight men and try and "convert" them. They always are very flamboyant, sexual, and oddly cheerful and shallow despite the incredibly hardships they constantly experience, which, of course, are never mentioned.

In the end it is true that there is an LGBT subculture; but the subculture is not the definition of being LGBT, though the TV industry would have you believe otherwise. The real question is, does watching these shows perpetuate hate, or is it our hate reflecting onto the media? And how, when, where will we end this vicious cycle of seeing and believing?

Deconstructing Misconceptions Part 1

It's time to address the many misconceptions people have on LGBT, one by one. These are all things an LGBT activist might hear every day, and here we are going to address as many as possible in a series of posts (and if you've heard anything not included, let us know!).

If you are reading this blog, you probably know most of this already-- but hopefully we can help clear some things up for you, or help you better educate your friends.

1. Non-straight people should keep their lives private (i.e., stay closeted).
Why this is wrong:
--Pretending something doesn't exist does not make it go away, only makes things harder on everyone. Straight people would have to combat not only their own suspicions (of themselves, of others) but also have to deal with other people suspecting them. Non-straight people would have to combat inner feelings of shame, confusion, denial, and more, all of which can lead to an unhealthy emotional status. Overall it would lead to an unhappy, discriminatory environment in which everyone is scared of stepping out of bounds and being harshly antagonized for natural feelings or curiosity.
--People are not born knowing exactly who they are; it's a process, an exploration. Whether that exploration leads you to decide you are straight, gay, or whatever-- it is an important part of life and not allowing this exploration holds back everyone's self-growth and understanding.
--No one deserves to have to hide a part of who they are, never talking or learning about it, religious or cultural or in terms of sexuality. If we wish to promote tolerance and understanding in our community, this is something to embrace, not deny.

2. Sexual preference is a choice.
Why this is wrong:
--Does anyone remember making a conscious choice to be straight? Being LGBT is not a fad. It's not rebellion. The pain that comes just from admitting one isn't straight is not something 10% of the population would undergo if it could be avoided, ignored, denied-- though some people try their best. Why would all these people choose to be bullied, choose to live a life of discrimination, choose to go through the hardships encountered in the legal system-- choose not to be allowed to see their loved one in a hospital, choose not to get married, choose to get beaten up in school stairwells because they are "filthy faggots"? Why would all these people choose a lifestyle which is so hard a significant amount of them consider suicide at some point or another. People don't choose to be LGBT, just like they don't choose to be blonde, or black, or white, or straight.

3. Gays consistently try and convert straight people to gaydom.
Why this is wrong:
--Do I need to reiterate that being LGBT is not a choice? They out of everyone are most aware of this, and consequently quite aware that straight people cannot be "converted" or persuaded to change their sexual preference.
--Why are gays viewed as so antagonistic? How come they are presented as completely unable to accept and respect another person's wishes and feelings? Furthermore why do they need to convert straight people in the first place? If you're someone who can't respect who someone is, it's equally hard to find a date whether you're straight or gay. Otherwise, gay people have other gay people to date. This is a twisted way of straights to flatter themselves, which brings me to my next point:

4. If your gay friend comes out to you and you're the same gender, they inevitably have a crush on you.
--They're gay, not standardless. LGBT people have types just like straight people. They have sexual restraint just like straight people. And if you know someone LGBT who isn't, the problem is that they're slutty, not that they're LGBT. Gay people have exactly the same types of relationships straight people have, just with someone of the same gender. They flirt, fight, and love the same. Any variations depend on personality, not preference. And if you are unsure if they like you, here is the easy solution: ask them.

5. Gay people can't have children, so they try and recruit straight children. By not being able to biologically reproduce, they undermine the survival of the human race.
Why this is wrong:
--Gay people have uteruses and penises just like straight people do, and just like straight people they know what to do with them. Just like straight people do, they have options such as surrogacy, in vitro, and more. New research is being done into the possibility of turning an egg into sperm so that two mothers can have a child biologically both of theirs, and turning a sperm into egg for gay men. Also, LGBT people certainly have the same motherly and fatherly inclinations as everyone else.
--Not having kids does not undermine the survival of the human race. Has no one heard of overpopulation? Or of how our overbearing human race is not only destroying all other races but the world itself? Or how about those straight people who choose not to have kids or are infertile, should we shun them too? Or what about those families which only have one kid, instead of five, instead of fifteen? But wait, our society has changed-- having one child or no children is actually socially acceptable, and why? Because we are definitely not at risk for dying out from a lack of babies.
--If it weren't for the lack of gay-friendly adoption legislation, more gay people could adopt. We have so many homeless children out there in need of a family; why is bringing more into the world a better choice than caring for the ones we already have?
--It needs to be restated: gay people cannot convert, persuade, manipulate, or recruit straight people into joining them. Gay people are not an alien race. Their ultimate goal is not control of another's mind and body. What they truly ask is that their mind and body are not controlled by our heterosexist society.

6. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, not Madam and Eve.
Why this is wrong:
--Actually, there is of evidence of homosexual relations in the Bible and other biblical texts. But perhaps the reason God created Adam and Eve was because with the lack of modern technology and orphaned babies at the time there was clearly no other way to have children, and the human race needed to be created. But this doesn't mean that man and woman are a necessary yin and yang; a gay couple is often balanced by the differences in their personalities just like straight couples; one may be more emotional while the other more steady; one may be domestic while the other prefers to work outside the house. Gender roles are in large part societal roles which in actuality can be fulfilled by either gender. See: Stay at home dads, working moms, men who cook, women who curse, boys who play dress up, girls who play baseball, and much, much more.

7. If being LGBT wasn't bad, why would God have punishments for it?
Why this is wrong:
--First of all, there are actually very few mentions of gay in biblical texts (though there are in ancient cultural records; again I mention the Greeks and Romans as a well-known example), and I think it's safe to say hardly anything against non-binary gender associations.
--Secondly, God also says:
We should stone to death stubborn and rebellious sons
We should murder both the adulterer and the adulteress, as well as people who divorce and have sex with someone else after
We should burn to death the daughter of a priest who has sex
We should cut the hand off the woman who intervenes in a fight between two men
We should punish and shame those who wear clothes woven of two kinds of materials or plant one field with two kinds of seed
We should shun those who get tattoos and those who make public charity donations
Let's face it: the Bible is not a living document updated for our times. Certainly the basic moral codes can be utilized, but there were many beliefs in the time of biblical texts that just aren't relevant now.

This is the question I want you to ask yourselves: Would you still love your child if they were smart, and sexy, and successful, and gay? If they were loving and understanding and thoughtful and gay?

Here is a list of all the ways gay people are different from straight people:
They're gay.

The Myth of The Myth of Bisexuality

Do you think of LGBT as one entity? Have you ever thought of each letter as individual, or separate, or even segregated? 

Homophobia isn't just restricted to heterosexual discrimination of LGBT. LGBT can discriminate against straights, and LGBT can discriminate against each other. It's hard to talk about inner-LGBT discrimination, especially since the more prevalent issue by far is straights against gays. It isn't nice to think of the LGBT community as divided and even occasionally pitted against itself in times when it needs as much strength and solidarity as it can get.

In this post I'm going to address one particular issue, which is bisexual erasure. Bisexual erasure is the skewing of evidence of bisexuality in history, academia, news media, and more. It is done by ignoring, removing, falsifying, or re-explaining information on bisexuality and is all too common in our society-- among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. 

Bisexual erasure can be harder to identify than straight out homophobia, because part of it is simply denying that bisexuals exist. Why bother insulting a fake sexuality? Gays are fags, lesbians are dykes, transgenders are trannies. There is no one word that serves as a bisexual slur, because bisexuals aren't seen as the same "threat" that the L,G and T are. 

The gay movement has come a long, long way, and we forget that much of what the slower-to-rise bisexual movement is experiencing is also what the gay movement experienced at first. Gays were categorized as confused, as going through a phase, as doing it just to be cool or different or rebellious, as not real.  

Many people claim bisexuals are cowardly closeted gays who want to retain straight privilege. Others claim bisexuals are straight people just trying to get attention and into the gay crowd. Bisexuals are all too often classified as slutty, easy, greedy, indecisive, confused, cheaters, liars, fakers, indiscriminate of who they sleep with, nymphomaniacs, going through a phase, trying to convert straights, STD-ridden, spreading AIDS from gays to straights, and more. 

Haven't heard all of these before? They're not easy to find in academia, in events, in the news, in LGBT protests about their issues. Has anyone heard of how an LGBT community in Massachusetts refused to include "bisexual" in its Pride March title? But go on yahoo answers and you'll find thousands of questions ranging from "I'm confused, I feel bisexual but they're not real" to "Why do gays hate bisexuals?" to "Do I look bisexual? But I am not gross or attention-hungry...". On television shows you'll see Tila Tequila as the drunken bisexual icon, and you'll see Kurt from Glee saying "Bisexual is a term that gay guys in high school use when they wanna hold hands with girls and feel like a normal person for a change" (for more on that episode, click here). On The L Word, the show that was supposed to be all for LGBT advocacy, you'll see the few bisexual characters realizing they're actually gay and insulting the one who wants to date a man. Go to school as openly bisexual and you'll more likely than not hear most of them. And yet, go to a GSA meeting to talk about LGBT issues and find that this is not one of them.

So why is it that this problem seems to be addressed de facto, but not de jure? "Gay political groups often protest that there are no 'bisexual issues,' that bisexual rights are subsumed under gay rights, and that bisexuals will be liberated and accepted fully once gay rights are won" (GL vs BT). I can't say it any better than that. How often do you hear the terms "bisexual marriage", or "bisexual couple"? Some say you can't have a bisexual marriage/couple because you can't tell they're bisexual by looking at them. Many people say that since many bisexuals settle down eventually with just one gender, it means they eventually turn straight or gay. But if you like blondes AND brunettes, and you marry a brunette, do you stop liking blondes? 

Just like everyone else, bisexuals have standards. They have likes and dislikes and aren't any "easier" than any other sexual preference. They have the ability to stay in a committed, long term relationship with one gender just like a monosexual person has the ability to be loyal and happy with a partner of one characteristic they like and not another.

Perhaps you noticed how in previous posts I've said sexual "preference" as opposed to "orientation". Sexual orientation is a term exclusive to homosexuals. It does not include gender identity for transgenders, and it implies that one is oriented in a particular sexual direction, unlike many bisexuals. This makes bisexuality "stand out as a failure of orientation or a dual orientation, a product of confusion, promiscuity or indecision" (seriously, this site is awesome; GL vs BT). 

Our world is based on dichotomies, white and black, man and woman, straight and gay. It cannot be said too often that everything comes in shades, and sexuality is no exception. While gay issues are quite relevant to bisexuals (and, indeed, relevant to everyone-- the civil rights issue of equality for all is political, not just personal-- when we fight for LGBT rights, we fight for everyone's rights, for me, for you), there are issues neglected which the bisexual movement is pioneering, such as new forms of responsible nonmonogamy like polyamory. As a rectangle is not a square, bisexuality is not polyamory-- but polyamorous people can be bisexuals. 

The point is, LGBT is made up of L, and G, and B, and T. What people say about bisexuals now is the same as what people said about gays before them and interracial couples before them, and in the end, they're just as legitimate as the other two. Let's not forget that. 

The Politics of "Homophobia"

When we look at the general terms for discrimination, it all comes down to -isms. Racism. Sexism. Ageism. The attachment -ism implies that this discrimination is a system of belief, either for or against certain groups. Quite a bit less popular are the words sexualism and heterosexism. Instead, we use homophobia.

The term phobia connotes an irrational but powerful fear that is neurologically wired into a person's way of thinking. It implies that homophobia is not a choice and extremely hard to reconcile. But perhaps this is correct? Let's look at the history of the word.

Before 1890 the terms homosexual, gay, and lesbian did not exist. Until the 1950s transgenders were classified as gays. Bisexuality only emerged as a concept in the 60s, and only started gaining a separate identity from gays in the 70s. The word homophobia didn't emerge until 1969. 

Who is to say that a cross-dresser-- Joan of Arc, King James-- is transsexual, or gay, or a drag king/queen? Who is to say that historical figures who had liasons with both men and women-- Socrates, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Marie Antoinette-- are bisexual? What is the social meaning of LGBT?

Many early texts from other cultures speak of same-sex desire, but do not categorize people solely by the sex of their partners. Is it possible that all Romans, all Greeks, all Egyptians, and many other cultures had no homophobes whatsoever? Is it possible that animal species, which  exhibit no signs of homophobia, also have no homophobes? If homophobia is an illness of the mind, what is it in our modern-age DNA that's breeding it? An evolution? A mutation? 

Looking at history, we can see that homo/bi/transphobia aren't psychological fears but rather social and political forces, which have consequences for civil rights and community inclusion. 

Rarely, the word heterosexism has been used instead. But is this truly a better alternative? Heterosexism implies that only straight people discriminate against others, when in reality there is a significant amount of inner-LGBT discrimination as well. It places heterosexuality as the dominant group within our society, promoting the concept of heterosexual privilege and superiority. It denotes the "system of ideological thought that makes heterosexuality the sole norm to follow for sexual practices", whereas homophobia refers both to "unreasoning fear of or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality" and to "behavior based on such a feeling". Lastly, the term heterosexism may be confused as discrimination against heterosexuals.

The term sexualism appears to be the most inclusive. It is discrimination against a person or group on the basis of their sexual orientation or sexual behaviour without the assumption that everyone or the majority of people in any given society are heterosexual. Unlike homophobia, sexualism is not a psychological illness. It is related to the term sexual prejudice, which is a negative attitude towards someone due to their sexual preference. Part of sexualism is the argument that one preference is superior to another. Sexualism can also simply refer to sexuality itself. Overall, it seems to be the best word for what we mean when we say homophobia. So why don't we use it?

Let's Get Something Straight: Definitions

First, let's get something straight: Bisexuals and transgenders are not the same as homosexuals. Transgenderism is not an issue of sexual preference but rather gender. Transgenders, just like everyone else, may identify as either straight, bi, gay, or anything else (in fact, until the 1700s, there was no evidence of linkage between cross-dressing and sodomy). Bisexuals are not monosexual, clearly, meaning they are not polarized onto either side of the gay or straight spectrum.

Here are a few sexual preferences/gender identities. Keep in mind that not everyone likes to restrict themselves with labels. 

Queer: An umbrella term for sexual minorities. Since it started out as an anti-gay slur, its use among LGBT is controversial, seen as self-deprecating to some but a reclaimed term to others.

Transgender: The state in which ones gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither, both, etc) does not match ones socially/physically assigned sex. May identify as FTM (female to male), MTF, agender, bigender, third gender, or genderqueer/fluid. 

--*Not* an identity, though often confused: Intersex: Uncommon variations of biological sex developmentation.

Transsexual: People who identify and live as a member of the opposite sex assigned at birth. Many undergo gender transitioning, which can include gender and sex reassignment as well as hormone replacement therapies. Afterwards they may refer to themselves as that gender as opposed to transsexual. Unlike transgender people, a transsexual's subjective gender will match their apparent gender.

Bisexual: Often defined as one who has an equal attraction to both males and females, though in reality it represents a large spectrum between the gay and straight polarities. The majority of bisexuals are unequal in their attractions to each gender, and these levels of attraction are often fluid and constantly shifting. Most bisexuals are not genderblind. Depending on which culture they relate to more some bisexuals refer to themselves as gay-identified or straight-identified. 

--For more information see the KINSEY SCALE

Asexual: A lack of sexual attraction/interest or desire for sex.

Pan/Omnisexual: The potential to like people of all gender identities and biological sexes; unlike the majority of Bisexuals, some Pansexuals may refer to themselves as gender-blind, basing their attraction on a person's personality as opposed to physicality.

Polyamorous: Non-monogamous; being in a relationship with the knowledge and consent of multiple people at one time.
--*Not* polygamy/polyandry, which means to have multiple spouses who have no sexual bond between any person but the head spouse.
--*Not* cheating- often a long term, committed relationship as part of a triad, quad, or intimate network.
--*Not* bisexuality, though statistically there are more polyamorous bisexuals than homosexuals.

Ambigender/Androgynous: The combination of masculine and feminine characteristics in one person, be it in terms of fashion, sexual lifestyle, physicality, or personality. They do not fit cleanly into the typical male and female roles of their society. Some define themselves as genderneutral, non-gendered, pangender, or gender fluid.
--For more information see the Bem Sex-Role Inventory

Questioning: A person who is exploring their gender, sexual identity (including sexual characteristics such as breasts), sexual preference, or all three.

Bicurious, Homo/Heteroflexible: When someone experiments/shows curiosity in relations with the gender they don't generally favour.

"I could go on, but the point is that the number of orientations in this world is limited only by the number of people in this world."