aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
Monday, April 10, 2006
Intolerance of intolerance can get you sued
Terrance asks, “exactly how does “the right to be christian” include the right to harass gay people?” The LATimes today:
Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.
Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she’s a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she’s demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. “Christians,” he said, “are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian.”
LATER: In his post, Terrance also points to this from Jane Smiley in The Huffington Post:
When Christians talk about secular Americans being “tolerant” of Christian beliefs, they are misusing the word. What conservative Christians want is not toleration, but social control. Toleration takes place between two people who know one another, and is a feature of personal relationships. Social control is about who gets the power to dictate policy and law. Christians like Mark Joseph sometimes play the “tolerance” card as a way to present themselves as a disempowered group, but what it is about them that is disempowered is their ability to tell the rest of us what to do. And most of the rules they want us to follow are abstract--rules about how men and women should relate, rules about what families should look like, rules about what people should learn. The program, for Christian conservatives, is not essentially about faith or morality--those are elements in a larger program. The larger program is enforcing conformity…
Secularists...vehemently do not want to be dictated to by religious groups, and they do not want their children to be forced to go to religious schools (school where creationism is taught as science). They are alleged to be “intolerant” of Christians. But the secularists are rarely if ever saying “Do as I do”, they are saying “Leave me alone”. The Christians quite often are not only saying, “Do as I do”, but also “My right is to make you live by my beliefs, and if you resist me, then you are ‘intolerant’.”
Gays at the WH Easter Egg Roll
It had to happen: Washington’s culture wars have now reached the Easter Bunny.
Next Monday, some 200 gay families are planning to attend the annual White House Easter Egg Roll to showcase themselves to the nation and President George W. Bush. But some religious conservatives say the families are “crashing” the public event and exploiting children for political ends. [...]
The current hostess of the egg roll, Laura Bush, has adopted a neutral position.
“All families are welcome to attend the Easter Egg Roll, provided they comply with the rules,” Susan Whitson, Laura Bush’s press secretary, said Friday. “No more than two adults per group, and at least one child under the age of 8.”
Whitson would not answer questions about how the first lady felt personally about the attendance of the large group of gay families, who say they will wear rainbow leis to distinguish themselves. But in the past the first lady has readily responded to queries about whether she and the president have gay friends.
“Sure, of course, everyone does,” she said in an interview in 2004.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Gay network rejects pro-gay ad
I posted when ABC rejected the ad; now the network that promises “Programming that reflects our lives. Programming that tells our stories.” has rejected the United Church of Christ’s inclusive message:
Logo, a TV channel catering to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, is now among the growing list of networks to reject an ad in which a gay couple and other minorities are seen being “ejected” from church pews, followed by a welcoming message from UCC. A Viacom-owned network, Logo is operated by MTV, which states that its standards and practices could not accept the 30-second commercial “because of the political nature of its content,” according to a sales associate’s e-mail response to UCC on March 30.
When pressed by the church for an official reason, MTV Networks responded, “Our guidelines state we will not accept religious advertisements that may be deemed as disparaging to another religion.” “I guess the idea of gay TV doesn’t really mean it’s your community’s network,” Ron Buford, director of the UCC’s Stillspeaking Initiative, told United Church News. “It’s just something that’s targeted at you to sell product.” [!!!]
Even though at least 17 broadcast and cable networks have rejected the “Ejector” ad, it has been accepted and is running during April on several others, including: A&E, AMC, BET, CNN, CNN en Español, Headline, Hallmark, History, TBS, TNT, E!, Lifetime, SiTV, and Azteca Americ.
The ad is featured on the UCC’s media action Web site. Visit today.
Via PageOneQ.
Friday, April 07, 2006
No fun with fairy
I expected the Commercial Closet rating for the Dodge Caliber ad featuring the fairy would be ”stereotype." 
Augusto writes to inform me that the verdict is in and I was wrong. The ad is rated ”negative." Why?
The ad earns a Negative rating because it directly finds humor with the term “fairy”—referring not just to the type that flies around with a magic wand, but also to the universally recognizable gay stereotype of an effeminate gay man.
Augusto agrees; I stand by my original assessment: it was not meant to appeal to gay people and it risks offending them by using a stereotype. So, yes, it is questionable but no, I’m not among those who take negative offense.
As my etymology of the word gay suggests, I certainly agree that language matters. Yet I find that I am less and less inclined to busy myself ferreting out homophobia, preferring instead to give the benefit of the doubt and encourage all forms of visibility. The more out and visible we are the better.
It’s easy to take offense at the ad. It does make me curious, though, about gay male denial and rejection of the effeminate among us. What’s that about? I’m gay but not gay that way? We’re happy to take back the word “queer” but offended by “finding humor” in “fairy.” Could that be our own, dare I wonder, internalized homophobia?
It’s worth remembering that in the days of “passing” it was the effeminate gay male who could not. They were visible before it was easy or fashionable. Perhaps as a consequence, those effeminate gays were among the first to push back, stand up and fight for gay rights.
I have some bona fides here, having played a minor role in the making of the film “Before Stonewall,” as producer of the “Stonewall Minute” segment in an early gay TV show with Vito Russo and later as producer of the cover story for PBS’s “Out In America.”
I believe being gay is a choice; that there is a gay culture and that that gay culture is rooted in the collective experience of those who have gone through the difficult process of making the choice to be gay; the choice to embrace, rather than deny, their proclivity. A choice that is still too difficult for many where I live.
As with the word “queer,” I’d like to see us not cower at the word “fairy” and instead embrace that part of our culture. Andrew Sullivan recently responded to a young reader who said he’d “be happier once drag shows and camp goes out the window:”
[T]here’s nothing to my mind in any way wrong with drag, cross-dressing or other gender-bending activities. They do not define gay life, or many gay men; but they are surely one part of gay culture and are genuine expressions of some gay men’s identity. In the past, drag queens helped forge the small space in which today’s 21-year-old Ivy Leaguers can now breathe. The lesson to me is that gay men should do less judging of one another. We should rather try and become the future we want to forge. And let our example, however imperfect, lead others
That would be my goal.
RELATED: Similarly I didn’t have a problem with the 60 Minutes segment that featured a study that found people could pick out the sexual orientation of a person “based on physical movement and gestures.”
Thursday, April 06, 2006
GLBT gaming developers organize
In Newsweekly’s Alexander Sliwinski says this is going to be a big year for GLBT gaming. It’s gaining momentum:
At the Game Developers Conference held this year in San Jose, Calif., members of the video game industry “came out” professionally as a group for the first time. Over three separate official gatherings during two days members of the GLBT community shared stories about the industry as it is now and discussed tackling issues in the future.
The GLBT sessions were lead by game designer Jeb Havens. A relative newcomer to the industry...he proceeded to talk to members of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) and began laying the groundwork for a GLBT community within the industry.[...]
In summarizing the discussions at GDC Havens wrote to In Newsweekly, “As a first-of-its-kind, I think it’s a great start. We identified some important issues and concerns that don’t get discussed anywhere else in the industry, and came up with some tangible steps we can take to start doing something about it. Hopefully, the GDC roundtables will kickstart important discussions and build a stronger sense of community among LGBT workers in the video games industry.”
Alexander’s headed to E3 next month; it will be interesting to see what he brings back.
Brokeback, Wal-Mart & The AFA
The antigay American Family Association is at it again, this time threatening Wal-Mart for selling DVDs of Brokeback Mountain.
The AFA is rallying its followers to contact the big-box retailer and request that the Oscar-winning film not be stocked in stores. This latest AFA campaign, following on the heels of the group’s continued boycott of Ford Motor Co. for advertising in gay publications, including The Advocate, is currently being shrugged off by Wal-Mart, which on Wednesday began selling DVDs of the gay love story throughout its 3,900 stores.
While not giving in to the AFA, Benton, Ark.-based Wal-Mart made no comment regarding its position on gay rights, telling the Los Angeles Times its decision to stock Brokeback is purely financial.
Via PageOneQ.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Feingold for full gay marriage rights
We already knew he was a politician with the guts to say what he thinks. Nonetheless I’m certainly glad to see this:
United States Senator Russ Feingold this week indicated that he not only opposes a constitutional amendment in Wisconsin to ban gay marriage and civil unions, but in fact, favors full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Calling such a ban a “mean-spirited attempt to divide Wisconsin,” Feingold urged constituents at a Paddock Lake “listening session” not to support it.
He went on to argue not just for civil unions, but gay marriage.
LATER: Queer Beacon - “Russ Feingold is my hero!” - has a gay blog round-up.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Gay Playboy?
Playboy Enterprises may launch a gay brand:
PLAYBOY Enterprises, the New York-listed adult publisher and broadcaster, wants to use Britain as its base to move into the gay market for the first time.
The company, which describes itself as “pro-sex” rather than pornographic, wants to launch a new gay brand as it tries to boost revenues beyond last year’s $329 million (£189 million).
Christie Hefner, the chief executive, said: “We’ve extended the Playboy brand to women, and where there is a meaningful gay market, launching under a different brand is something we are very comfortable doing.
“In the UK, our television people are very interested, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we launched something this year, given the importance of the market in Britain.”
Cross (Ex-Gay) Ministry
Pam begins her post on Ex-gay in the Tar Heel state with this quote from Tim Wilkins, founder and director of Cross Ministry:
You want to know a secret? I still find myself attracted to men occasionally. To those of you with the puzzled looks on your faces, let me say it a different way. I have found that God’s provision is not necessarily eradicating the same-sex attractions; His ways, which are not my ways, include strengthening the shoulder that bears the burden. And as Dr. S. M. Lockridge used to say “That’s my King!”
Pam was reacting to the announcement of a series of conferences by Cross Ministry, “This nonsense has got to stop.” She closes with Tim’s articulation of why he won’t see Brokeback Mountain:
I will avoid the movie like a slug avoids an overturned saltshaker and for the life of me, cannot understand why any evangelical would see it-though there appear to be many. But what is more disturbing to me is that many men and women I know with unwanted homosexual attractions are seeing the movie.
A reporter from The Christian Post asked my thoughts about the movie and I obliged. My comments as a former homosexual were made from the reviews I had read-comments which generated numerous emails to me from individuals arguing that I could not make an intelligent comment on a movie I had not seen.
They suggested that my viewing the movie would be beneficial in responding to the reporter’s questions. I told them and the reporter that my going to see Brokeback Mountain would be similar to asking a former alcoholic to go to a liquor store to buy his neighbor a toddy for the body.
Opponents of ex-gay ministries will immediately shout “Aha- so you are still tempted with same-sex attractions!” I do not deny it! Martin Luther said it this way, “if your head is made of butter, stay away from the fire.”
Would you want your daughter to marry one?
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Liza on Judy from 1972
I did some old-fashioned digging through the library stacks hunting for reviews of the original ’Liza with a Z‘ to compare with the heaps of praise the restored and remastered program - free on Showtime tonight - is getting.
Alas, I found none. But I can’t let all that digging go without posting something! So here’s Liza on Judy from a February 20, 1972 New York Times interview:
When asked to describe her saddest memory of Judy Garland, Liza smiles. “I’m never sad when I remember Mom. Our home life was strangely normal. My mother was not the tragic victim of fate that she presented to the world. That was something she planted there for the public to see. She let everyone else wallow in her misery, while she sailed on through life. Mom was exactly what she wanted to be, a brilliant witty, optimistic lady.
“She was not self-pitying, either--except on rare occasions. We were having an argument once, and I turned to her and said, ‘How can you be so self-pitying? Why are you so full of sympathy for yourself?’ She looked me straight in the eye--I’ll never forget it--and she, said, ‘Sympathy is my business!, You see, Mom always knew what she was doing.”
There were times, though, when Judy did experience some slight doubt, and she went to Liza for advice. “I talked my mother out of doing the part that Susan Hayward finally did in ‘Valley of the Dolls.’ I said, ‘It’s going to be a cheap movie, Mom. Don’t you understand? That woman they want you to play is a tough, hard woman,’ And Mom said, ‘But I like to play that sort of woman.’ ‘O.K, Mom,’ I said, ‘but not in this film. It’s not up to your standard”
I also found more Liza footage. Here mom introduces her at the Palace in 1960-something. More recently, Myles marked the occasion of Liza turning 60 with this footage of her Royal Variety Performance.
And if you missed my post yesterday, here’s clips from Liza’s appearance on Larry King that include her “gravelly Phyllis Diller cackle.” And my favorite, this clip from Ellen where she croons, “Oh I’m so glad I’m not young any more!”
Friday, March 31, 2006
Liza is a hoot
Set your TiVos! A “painstakingly restored and remastered” ’Liza with a Z‘ is on Showtime tomorrow. 
And because they’re having a free preview weekend, all of us with cable can watch. From the NYTimes review today:
For those who never quite understood her standing in pop culture - or gay iconography - and are alarmed by her Page Six woes (and her recent, unmoored interview with Larry King on CNN), the hourlong film provides some clues. There are only a handful of female performers of her generation who have that over-the-top, knock-’em-dead stage presence, but Judy Garland’s daughter was neither as gifted a singer as Barbra Streisand nor as roguishly self-aware as Bette Midler. Ms. Minnelli’s stardom is based on a unique confluence of talent and biography, persistence and collapse. And of course, luck: she sings a medley from “Cabaret,” the musical that gave Ms. Minnelli an Oscar and her greatest and only plausible movie role as a romantic lead; every heroine she played after that was at best a watery distortion of Sally Bowles.
My nephew recently came out to me. I had earlier hints, one of them when he asked, “Who was that woman who was Liza Minnelli’s mother?”
Here’s clips from Liza’s appearance on Larry King that include her “gravelly Phyllis Diller cackle.” Better yet, this clip from Ellen where she croons, “Oh I’m so glad I’m not young any more!”
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
McCain’s appeasement
I never understood why liberals liked Colin Powell. And I don’t want to understand why they like John McCain. The Lynchburg News Advance, in a story reporting that McCain will speak at Liberty University’s graduation:
[Jerry] Falwell said McCain’s appearance at LU’s graduation is another sign that McCain is wooing evangelical Christians.
“He is in the process of healing the breech with evangelical groups,” Falwell said.
Falwell said McCain has expressed a willingness to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, an issue dear to conservative Christians.
It prompted the DNC’s Karen Finney to say, “Here he goes again, more double talk and pandering to the right wing from John McCain. It looks like there are real questions about where he truly stands on this issue, in fact, it’s getting hard to tell where he truly stands on a number of critical issues.”
According to The Note, Falwell clarified the issue with ABC News, saying that McCain is not pushing the constitutional amendment “at this time,” but would support it if federal court ruled against state bans on gay marriage.
I guess McCain was sort of against the amendment before he was sort of for it.
SEE ALSO: Joe Gandelman, John McCain’s Political Tightrope Act.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Fairy meanness
Augusto calls this Dodge Caliber add homophobic, ”I thought the ad was not nice:”
It appears a “fairy” is trying to give a queer eye to the tough car, and the fairy is bumped to the sidewalk for trying to do so. Even language is used, a guy points to the fairy and laughs: “You silly little fairy!” Not nice. The fairy turns him gay as a revenge I guess.
I looked to Commercial Closet for an opinion. None yet. My guess is it will be:
Gay people are shown in this collection as classic gay stereotypes, including leathermen, sissies and queens, and Liipstick Lesbians, but are otherwise accepted by characters in the ad. While some in the gay community now accept these depictions as “diversity” and “reality”—others remain sensitive to them and do not. These ads do not meet Commercial Closet’s Best Practices.
I note that they played the Dodge ad during Desperate Housewives. Do these marketers have a clue about who’s watching???
Meanwhile, TBS sent this ad [WMP] parodying the Lord of the Rings suggesting I link to it. It looks like they want to appeal to the gay people in their audience rather than risk offending them.
UPDATE: GayWheels.com gives the Caliber a good review and says Dodge is a Gay Friendly car company. BMW, on the other hand, they call a hypocritical car company.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This post continues to attract traffic, while my later post, No fun with fairy, which looks at the Commercial Closet rating for the ad sits unread. Please check it out.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Gay marriage doesn’t lead to polygamy
Duh!
Saletan on Krauthammer on polygamy in Slate today::
Krauthammer finds the gay/poly divergence perplexing. “Polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common” for ages, he observes. “What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful.” But when you factor in jealousy, the oddity disappears. Women shared husbands because they had to. The alternative was poverty. As women gained power, they began to choose what they really wanted. And what they really wanted was the same fidelity that men expected from them.
Gays who seek to marry want the same thing. They’re not looking for the right to sleep around. They already have that. It’s called dating. A friend once explained to me why gay men have sex on the first date: Nobody says no. Your partner, being of the same sex, is as eager as you are to get it on. But he’s also as eager as you are to get it on with somebody else. And if you really like him, you don’t want that. You want him all to yourself. That’s why marriage, not polygamy, is in your nature, and in our future.
Support for Gay marriage is increasing
As opposition to gay marriage decreases:
WASHINGTON - The public backlash over gay marriage has receded since a controversial decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 to legalize those marriages stirred strong opposition, says a poll released Wednesday.
Gay marriage remains a divisive issue, with 51 percent opposing it, the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found. But almost two-thirds, 63 percent, opposed gay marriage in February 2004.
“Most Americans still oppose gay marriage, but the levels of opposition are down and the number of strong opponents are down,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. “This has some implications for the midterm elections if this trend is maintained. There are gay marriage ballot initiatives in numerous states.”
Hate in Savannah on St. Patrick’s Day?
I love Savannah, but I’d stay far away on St. Patrick’s Day. Then, that’s no different than staying away from New York’s Fifth Avenue on St. Patrick’s Day.
Turns out there was an alleged hate crime this year in Savannah. I applaud the police response:
Interim Police Chief Willie Lovett ordered an internal investigation Tuesday after a gay man said police did not help him when he was attacked the day after St. Patrick’s Day. [...]
“There seems to be an accusation the officer didn’t do what he should have done,” Lovett said. “I want to be assured and the public to be assured that any time an officer doesn’t handle anything properly, we’ll look into it.”
Lovett said he wants to find out which story is correct: the victim’s or the one outlined in the police report.
“Apparently there seems to be a lot of accusations that this agency is discriminating against gays and lesbians,” Lovett said. “That is not a stigma I want to attach to this department. That is simply not true.”
Georgia Equality disagrees:
“In three weeks, there have been three separate life-threatening hate biased attacks and the city has allowed the attackers to go free thereby giving them a calling card to spread their violence of hate and bigotry,” said Chuck Bowen, the organization’s executive director. [...]
“The Savannah Police Department sent a clear message this past Friday night-don’t expose your breasts or urinate in public or you’ll be arrested and hauled off to jail and the keys will be thrown away,” Bowen said. “But beat someone near death because they are different from you, and they’ll give you the keys to the city.”
I’m fine with calling for an investigation but I would tone down the rhetoric until there’s proof of something more than “Police were rude to me.”
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Exodus wants to silence parody
Update: A good time to remember, would you want your daughter to marry one?
The American Civil Liberties Union is defending a heterosexual blogger who received a cease-and-desist letter from Exodus International after he parodied the group’s “ex-gay reparative therapy” billboards on his Web site.
The Exodus billboards, which Santa Rosa, Calif., blogger Justin Watt viewed online, read, “Gay? Unhappy? http://www.exodus.to.” Watt responded by posting “Straight? Unhappy? http://www.gay.com” on his site, Justinsomnia.org. Though denounced by major medical groups like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, Exodus’s reparative therapy attempts to turn gay people straight.
“The moment I saw the billboards last September, I was deeply offended. The inspiration for the parody I created came to me instantly. How would straight people feel if their very being, their sense of self, was being so overtly disparaged?” asked Watt. “[Exodus’s] response was to try to intimidate me into taking the image down. It’s troubling that an organization as big as Exodus would go to such great lengths to silence its critics.”
Justin tells the tale on his blog.
Thanks Chelsea!
UPDATE: Exodus backs down.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
NH Gay marriage ban voted down
The New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday against a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
The late afternoon vote was 207-125.
The amendment would have defined marriage as the union of one woman and one man.
It won’t be the last.
William Safire on ‘gay’, 1981 & now
In his weekly NYTimes’ Magazine “On Language” column of September 27, 1981, he begins by discussing the term ‘geezer’ which I, like he, like:
I like the word ‘’geezer.’’ A century ago, this dialect form of ‘’guiser,’’ or one dressed in the guise of a mummer, meant an old person, particularly a woman; over the years, it picked up and then partially dropped a connotation of eccentricity, but turned mainly masculine. It can now be used either in derision or with affection to refer to old people, particularly - to my ear -outspoken old people, usually men.
Then moves on to euphemisms:
Anybody who is so sensitive about the word ‘’old’’ that he insists on being called a ‘’golden ager’’ or ‘’senior citizen’’ is too old to cut the mustard of controversy. I am middle-aged; I wish I were young again, but I don’t get any surge of youthful energy out of calling any crises in my middle-agedness midlife. ‘’Old’’ is something nobody likes to be (except considering the alternative), but if you are old, then old is what you are, and calling yourself venerable or in the sunset years isn’t going to make you any younger.
Ah, but aren’t euphemisms generally a way of making people feel better about what they are? Yes and no. Cripple is a word that hurts, and is limited to afflictions of the limbs, while handicapped has a connotation of built-in sympathy and dignity, and is a broader term covering any sort of disability. Certainly ‘’handicapped’’ is a euphemism, but so what? Euphemism is not always bad, nor is a change in terminology always euphemistic: Yesterday’s insane asylum is not today’s mental hospital.
So euphamism and change in terminology is ok, unless the affected group asks for it: Thus his rejection of the term “gay:”
Are these decisions all by-guess-and-by-God, or are some standards at work here? One criterion that emerges is the source of the pressure for change: If it is spontaneous, or fills a linguisticpsychological need, then it should be accepted, but if it comes in the form of fiat from government or demand by pressure group or propaganda for a movement, then it can rightly be resisted.
Without communication disorder or speech disfluency, I resist the word gay just because homosexual-rights groups insist upon it; I don’t say queer, because that is a slur, but homosexual is neutral and accurate. If lesbians argue that ‘’homosexual’’ should be limited to men, I would put up a feeble fight -arguing that the homo is the same as the ‘’man’’ in ‘’mankind’’ and covers women, too - but I’d cave in; if many people used the separate terms, that differentiation would be in the direction of precision.
Those nettlesome homos insist upon it. My experience was, and I think history now shows, that it was “sponaneous.” And I do note that even then he “resists” the term “gay,” he doesn’t “reject” it.
A couple weeks later, John Simon took him to task, ‘’You are waxing prolix in your middle age!’’ and he got 208 letters, six postcards and a telex from people who know the difference between Latin and Greek derivations.
Read the rest of "William Safire on ‘gay’, 1981 & now" in the extended entry.
Monday, March 20, 2006
About ‘gay’: style matters
GLAAD applauds updated Associated Press Stylebook entries:
“For the AP Stylebook to update these entries is a significant milestone,” said GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano, who praised the AP’s decisions to, among other things, encourage use of the term “transgender,” restrict usage of the word “homosexual” and prohibit use of the term “sexual preference.”
“Given the fundamental inaccuracy of terms like ‘sexual preference’ and the pejorative connotations of words like ‘homosexual,’ the AP’s style guidelines have been updated to reflect contemporary usage that’s more fair, more accurate and more inclusive,” Giuliano added.
Here is a history of LGBT-related Stylebook entries. Here the New York Times, Washington Post LGBT-Related Style Guidelines.
I’m one of those who believes language matters, particularly for gay people. In fact, in the spring of 1982 I wrote a paper on the etymology of the word gay. I’ll spare you the full flowery prose, but some excerpts might be fun:
Though the word ‘homosexual’ has about it a certain venerable quality, contrary to public convictions, the word has neither a long nor distinguished history. Coined in Germany in 1860 by a Hungarian physician named Henkert (using the pseudonym K.M.Kertbeny), it was not introduced into the English language until 1891(1) and was considered too new to be included when in 1899 the Oxford English Dictionary published its “Hod-Horizontal” volume.(2) It was conceived as a neutral term--and remains lexically opaque--at a time when no single terminology existed.
The ancient Greeks had no need for a word to describe homosexuality (they were ambisexual) but Europe in the eighteenth century not only believed there was a need, she found herself with a plethora of terms vying for public acceptance. ‘Uranian’ and its derivative ‘urning’ were popular among homosexual authors and their sympathizers, but as these words were derived from a speech in Plato’s Symposium wherein homosexual love is described as heavenly and heterosexual passions as vulgar,(3) their acceptance by the popular or scientific communities could scarcely have been expected. ‘Third sex’, intermediate sex’, and ‘inversion’, though not as hostile as queer (4), seemed to imply that gay people were not quite human. ‘Intersexual’ (sex between?), ‘simulsexual’ (sex at the same time?), and ‘isosexual’ (sex alone?), though valiant attempts at the allusive neutrality, failed miserably (5*). So ‘homosexual’ won its acceptance not for its linguistic integrity, but rather because no one came up with a better word.
* Others that failed: ‘androgenic’, ‘catamite’, ‘controsexuality’, ‘hermaphroditism’, ‘homogenic’, ‘invert’, ‘morphadite’, ‘pathic’, ‘platonist’, ‘psychosexual’, and ‘transsexual’ (sic).
Read the rest of "About ‘gay’: style matters" in the extended entry.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Homo homophobes
Augusto at Queer Beacon found this “amazing not surprising” research from right up the road at The University of Georgia. Done in 1996, it shows up in the Know + Tell section of the April Details magazine. 
It’s not available online so he provides a page scan and comments:
The quote I like: “In tests conducted by Prof. Henry E Adams of the University of Georgia, homophobic men who said they were exclusively heterosexual were shown gay sex videos. Four out of five became sexually aroused by the homoerotic imagery, as recorded by a penile circumference measuring device - a plethysmograph. Prof. Adams says his research shows that most homophobes “demonstrate significant sexual arousal to homosexual erotic stimuli”, suggesting that homophobia is a form of “latent homosexuality where persons are either unaware of or deny their homosexual urges.”
There’s more here. We’re both sorry to learn that Professor Adams passed away in 2000.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Gay pride in the British military
Gays have been welcomed in the British military since 2000:
The government removed the ban after it was ruled illegal in a case brought by the gay rights pressure group Stonewall.
Attitudes in the armed forces have changed so much since then that Stonewall now rates the Royal Navy 75th in its list of gay-friendly employers.
And gay service personnel in a civil partnership enjoy the same benefits as married staff.
Vice Admiral Adrian Johns is the services head of personnel. He was speaking at a gay workplace conference:
“My policy team is currently investigating the feasibility of utilising drama-based training resources, to reach some of those whose culture and behaviour need to be brought into line with 21st Century thinking.”
Vice Admiral Johns joked that Lord Nelson may have been “ahead of his time” when he famously asked Captain Hardy to kiss him on his deathbed at the Battle of Trafalgar.
He said final approval had yet to be given for Royal Navy personnel to take part in the EuroPride festival on July 1.
But he added: “I am heartened by the fact that a significant number of Royal Navy lesbian and gay personnel are very keen to march in uniform in the main parade and share in the celebration.”
Via PageOneQ.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
On Michael Bailey and the Queen Gene
Wayne Besen weighs in on the 60 Minutes segment. Here he comments on Michael Bailey, the psychology professor at Northwestern University described as a leading researcher in the field of sexual orientation:
Whether Bailey has hit the scientific jackpot or is a crackpot is open for debate. Many people bristle, for example, when he claims that gay people walk and talk differently.
True, your gaydar does not have to be finely tuned to figure out Richard Simmons or Clay Aiken is gay.
Oh, wait, is Clay gay?
Before Bailey makes such broad assumptions, however, he should put on football pads and collide with former NFL player Esera Tuaolo. This might rattle him out of his one-dimensional mindset and lead him to expand his research to include gay men and lesbians who are not borderline transgender.
Other critics rightfully question Bailey’s potentially dark motives. He once told the New York Times that if it became possible for parents to determine sexual orientation in the womb than, “Selecting for heterosexuality seems to be morally acceptable.
He concludes “the “60 Minutes” segment, as a whole, was very helpful to the argument for gay equality. It brusquely dismissed the inane pseudo-science of our opponents.”
Monday, March 13, 2006
The “Older Brother Effect”
The headline from Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes report the other day on the science of sexual orientation:
“The more older brothers a man has, the greater that man’s chance of being gay,” says [Northwestern University psychology professor Michael] Bailey.
Asked if that’s true, Bailey says, “That is absolutely true.”
If this comes as a shock to you, you’re not alone. But it turns out, it’s one of the most solid findings in this field, demonstrated in study after study.
And the numbers are significant: for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there’s no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there. The theory is it happens in the womb. [...]
“One of the things we’ve only found out lately is that older brothers affect a boy only if the boy is right-handed,” [Michigan State University’s Dr. Marc] Breedlove said. “If the boy is left-handed, if his brain is organized in a left-handed fashion, it doesn’t matter how many older brothers he has, his probability of being gay is just like the rest of the population.
Parenthetically I note that Dr. BREED-LOVE’s studies of breeding in rats - he gave Stahl “a crash course in rat sex” - implicitly question the role of love as well.
Timothy Noah has a fun collection of them at Slate. My entry didn’t make the cut.
Right on Keanu!
Time was when Hollywood celebrities feared and fought accusations that they were gay.
KEANU Reeves seems to draw from the Zen-like calm of his most famous character, Neo in “The Matrix,” when he’s confronted with false tabloid reports about himself. When unfounded rumors surfaced that he’d “married” mogul David Geffen, the spotlight-eschewing superstar didn’t fly into a rage and call his lawyer, as many other movie stars would. “In that case, it comes down to making a judgment about being gay or not,” Reeves, who is straight, tells Playboy. “I try not to live my life by what other people say . . . People were gossiping about what the king and queen were doing way back when. It’s just human nature. We like talking about other people.”
Ian Ayres and Jennifer Brown, authors of Straightforward: How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights, would be proud. Me too.
