Published 4/96

"Who can tell me if we have heaven

who can say the way it should be;

Moonlight holly, the Sappho comet

Angel tears below a tree."

— Enya, China Roses      After the "Gays in the Military" debacle, several leaders of national organizations were overheard saying that the movement was tricked into the fight by the radical Right before "we" were ready. It had nothing to do with the raging Washington turf wars that lasted for months; nothing to do with the lack of coalition building with other groups affected by the unenlightened military policy (serving up media-friendly images of hunky, white, gay Top Guns while the majority of the queers dismissed from service were poor, female, or an ethnic minority); nothing to do at all with coping with the newly-discovered Bisexual and Transgendered Servicepersons and bringing them on board (Gay and Lesbian community organizations could have done this years ago); nothing at all to do with the potential resentment that making this our number one cause when many people are disgusted with militarism, pseudo-patriotism, and all other allied manifestations of Patriarchy. Nope. It was our presumably clever, media-savvy self-ordained national leadership that was duped by a bunch of bible-thumping Rubes. Or, as Oliver Hardy so aptly put it, "now look what you made me do!"
    Past mistakes are only a total loss if we fail to learn anything from them. Recent victories (for example, the overturning of anti-gay referenda in Oregon), as well as other failures (such as Cincinnati, where forces bankrolled by the Christian Coalition pitted the gay community against local African-American churches) clearly demonstrate that we do our collective best when we make an effort to bring other oppressed people to fight for our common liberation. NGLTF has recently made some positive efforts in this area – adding inclusive language to its policy and promotional materials; meeting with leaders from the bisexual, transgendered, People of Color, and other communities; offering opportunities for people to network during their national conferences. Other organizations are following this lead, to a greater or lesser extent.
    Unfortunately, many of the spokesmodels for our national movement have yet to get the message — or they have gotten the message, but they just don’t want to hear it. I found this in a recent OUT magazine (3/96); a column by Michelangelo Signorille, "On Utah’s Front Lines":

As evidenced here in Utah, [Robert] Bray is adept at progressive rhetoric. Sometimes it’s laudable, but other times the effect can be more exclusive than inclusive, as when, without consulting the rest of us mere mortals, Bray and his NGLTF compatriots suddenly rename us "the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered movement" or, as one of NGLTF’s leaders recently said in a press release, "the g/l/b/t community." Sounds like a sandwich.
The Robert Bray I’ve known over the years seems too smart for the kind of neatly-packaged, all-inclusive politics that might quiet every squeaky wheel but ultimately has unrealistic objectives and alienates many people who want to focus on what they feel are basic gay rights issues…

What are "basic gay rights issues"? Are lesbian rights "de-luxe" accomodations? Signorille certainly implies that bisexual and transgendered rights are. Signorille seems to think that oppression politics is akin to cable service; we have "basic Gay Rights package" (local stations? Does that include PBS?) and the "Premium Queer Service" (Transgendereds on HBO? Bis on Cinemax?) Do we need a name for these First Class expectations of the adolescent bi and trans community so that the grown-up Gays and Lesbians that Signorille represents are happy? I think so, and I have just the name — let’s call the politics of inclusivity "Special Rights!" Isn’t that Special?
Curiosity piqued, I forged ahead through the Signorille piece, hoping for some illumination into the difference between Basic and Special Gay Rights. Forsooth, my curiosity was rewarded:

Bray says it is important to socialize with the locals so he can get a feel for the place; one night he heads with a group of Utah folks to The Sun, a dance club that attracts mostly gay men…
As the song "Missionary Man" comes on, the dance floor becomes packed, and in a scene that would rival the wildest New York and South Beach circuit parties, men start taking off their shirts, and often their pants. Pitchers of beer make their way onto the dance floor, and soon people are having beer poured down their throats, down their pecs, down their crotches, in the middle of clumps of bodies, some people are having sex, out in the open, on the dance floor…

Ah! Good to finally learn what the core issues are! Sarcasm aside, I must say that I consider myself to be "sex-positive" (whatever that means), and that assimilationism, denial of what really goes on in the gay community, and other "straightening up" affectations are a spiritually-draining, and ultimately pointless activity. What I question is, why do Bisexuals and Transgendered people have to do this, if Gays and Lesbians don’t? And why do some people espouse the belief that mere inclusion of these communities is too much for the Straights to accept — with the silent assent of others (cf: Human Rights Campaign {Fund}’s handling of Transgendereds in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). Why should I, and the others in the Bi community, sign on to Gay Marriage and other uphill battles when my "basic" rights/needs (physical safety, secure employment, fair housing) aren’t recognized? Haven’t we been through this before?
Call me Special. I need to know.

Postscript: Not very much has changed in the meantime. Human Rights Campaign and other groups continue to snub inclusion. G/L writers still feel free to wax bi/transphobic, ignore diversity issues, and dwell on the bio-deterministic model {we can’t help it, we’re born this way.} Go figure.

Return to the index

Return to the home page