Someone actually wrote this: Is Pride Still for Queer People like Me?

In today's New York Times, Krista Burton writes,

Pride was a party, a huge gay party, and I had never been so excited to be invited, or felt so instantly welcome, anywhere.

That’s where Pride succeeds. It gets more inclusive and welcoming every year, and as the queers become less threatening, more straight people come, and more minds are opened to the possibility that we gays might just be regular people, after all. (Albeit with better decorating sense and the sass to pull off chaps that leave little to the imagination.)

Apart from the fact that Ms. Burton parrots outdated stereotypes of gay men, what's the problem?

Having allies is wonderful, but sometimes I wish they could be allies every other day of the year, and let us have a party as gay and naked and radical and un-family-friendly as we queers might like.

Given what she just said, she seems to want to argue with success.

Pride is clearly also for corporations who want to milk as much money as possible from a previously ignored demographic. In the past decade or so, companies have scrambled to prove how O.K. they are with L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ folks, and well, it’s embarrassing how transparent the scramble for our money is.

Quite unlike those politicians who "evolve" on our issues when politically expedient. Many people want the former to prove their ideological purity, while the latter get participation trophies.

We see you, Miller Lite, with your oddly wholesome, rainbow-spattered ads. Where were you before it was in your best financial interest to be accepting of queers?

Where were any of these companies when a single corporation standing up for queer rights would have stood out like a lit “Golden Girls” prayer candle in an endless night of straight missionary sex?

Where was Ms. Burton when many businesses were leading indicators of our progress even as politicians were so often lagging indicators? Where was she when businesses went to bat for us against homophobic or transphobic state legislatures? And what is it with those stereotypes of gay men that so fascinate her?

I hate that white, gay, cis men are the only kind of gays with real activist funding behind them.

And I hate that up is down and that the sun rises in the west.

Where the LGBT movement can go right, and where it can go wrong

In today's Washington Post, we read,

Since 2001, there has been a clear and, apparently, irreversible, move toward more permissive, or, to use Gallup’s word, “liberal” social norms.

“Libertarian” might be a better term. Gallup documents what can only be called a strong live-and-let-live consensus regarding several practices — birth control, divorce, sex between unmarried adults, gay or lesbian relations, out-of-wedlock child-bearing — that within living memory were either fiercely contested or taboo.

The key words are "live-and-let-live consensus." Unfortunately, I see many LGBT people refuse to learn the lesson. Despite the evidence that live-and-let-live is a winning strategy, they want to replace homophobes' form of live-but-not-let-live with their own. We have already seen backlashes from stepping on others' First Amendment rights.

See also The perfect argument, if we hadn't forfeited it

Someone actually wrote this: Pride fests and those evil corporations

In The Advocate, Alex Morash writes,

Today our rights are threatened again, and many in the LGBT community are afraid of what is happening to our country. We need a Pride that marches for our community’s struggles; it's time to march, protest, and resist!

What concrete suggestion does Morash make?

Pride celebrations in most major cities have gotten stale, using the same tired model that focuses on a parade that is filled with big corporate sponsors hawking their wares.

Businesses are increasingly willing to accept us, and that's terrible! It's bad when businesses choose to accept us but good when government compels them to, or something.

In these times we need Pride to courageously stand up to corporate interests and get back to being a march for our rights.

So we should stand up to those who are willing to be our allies? I thought that the point of such a march would be stand up to those who actually threaten our rights.

This is at the heart of why the national Pride march is getting so much attention; it’s not speaking to the affluent or to big corporations, it’s speaking to everyday working-class queers

So everyday working-class queers don't buy goods or services or otherwise participate in a market economy? That's useful to know.

— an audacious act in today’s LGBT community

How's the weather on Counter-Earth?

When Pride committees allow corporations to feature so prominently, Pride comes off as supporting corporate interests over the needs of our community.

False dichotomy is false.

Does anyone think the Pride events of today, filled with luxury brands truly speak to the one out of every five LGBT people living below the federal poverty line or, for that matter, to the rest of us who are not wealthy?

I've somehow overlooked all of those luxury brands. Are the promotional t-shirts by Brioni, or are the likes of Hot 99.5 FM, Food Lion, and Coca-Cola now luxury brands?

Pride needs to speak for us, and we need Pride to reflect who we really are — diverse, not all affluent, and proud to come in every color of the rainbow.

Should Pride reflect an ideologically diverse community in which not everyone buys into trendy anti-capitalism? Also, as the commenters ask, how will Pride get paid for otherwise?

See also Needlessly alienating potential allies and A movement, not a market?.

My comment got printed in Reason.

My comment on an article in Reason got printed in the August/September issue. It's at the bottom right corner of page 7, at least according to my Kindle, and it's in response to an article on progressive puritanism. Here's the pertinent part:

By circa 1990, when home HIV test kits became an issue, the LGBT rights movement cast aside its stated goals and joined forces with social conservatives for its revealed goal of reduced freedom as its own reward. But remember: It has always been those nasty Reaganites who want to deprive you of your the right to make choices over your own body.

Someone actually wrote this: Julie Bindel on the Proud Whopper

Julie Bindel, ever eager to enlighten the rest of us on the one correct way to live, rails against business marketing to the LGBT market:

As lesbians and gay men all over the world fight to end oppression, corporations have been piggy backing on our struggles to sell us whatever they can dress up as "gay-friendly". The latest to offer us commercialism masquerading as campaigning is Burger King. It recently introduced the Proud Whopper, just in time for the San Francisco Pride march and festival, with rainbow-coloured wrapper and the inscription: "We are all the same inside".

Companies want to do business with us, and that's terrible.

The gay community used to be defined by politics,

I thought it used to be defined by something else — exactly what something else, I'm not quite sure, but there must be something.

but lesbians and gay men no longer share a political base – only, in some quarters, a social one.

In other words, the big problem with the LGBT community is that it has too little political groupthink.

This deradicalised version of gay life revolves around marriage, babies and mortgages. Many gays have kidded themselves that bigger and richer sponsors for our Pride events and charities means acceptance rather than acquiescence; that it is a sign we are reaching full equality.

You're only kidding yourself if you think that you get to have an opinion on what equality means to you. Only the anointed, like Julie Bindel, have that privilege, and they get to tell you what you should want.

But how can we be liberated when there are still daily attacks on gay people, and when the school playground remains, in many ways, hostile to gay pupils?

If we can't have everything we want, right this second, then nothing is worth pursuing at all.

When I came out in 1977, the GLF had fizzled out, but the gay men and lesbians I met celebrated the counter-culture over the status quo. Many of us lived collectively, raising children as a community or friendship group, rather than in traditional couples. We critiqued monogamy and the privileging of the nuclear family. We have now swapped laughing at marriage for lauding it.

Now? Did the last three decades of political correctness not happen in Ms. Bindel's world?

What would real gay liberation look like? Marriage would be abolished for all in favour of something based on equality and next of kin rights rather than ownership and tax avoidance.

If Ms. Bindel believes in privatizing marriage, I'm all for that, but the general tone of her article suggests that she doesn't.

We have been sold a dream of marriage, babies, and conventionality at a huge cost to our radical potential, and the profits will not go to our freedom and liberation.

Ms. Bindel loves us for our potential.

While lesbians and gay men fork out on marriage, an institution previously eschewed by feminists and anti-capitalists, our brothers and sisters in Russia, India, Uganda and elsewhere are suffering the most grotesque oppression by the state....

That's just it. Not all of us follow what anti-capitalists tell us because some of us know how the story ends.

The perfect argument, if we hadn't forfeited it

Harper Jean Tobin of the National Center for Transgender Equality presents an intricate argument here that decriminalization* of marijuana would benefit transgendered people. A much simpler and firmer argument would be that the principle of self-ownership includes both the freedom to use marijuana if you so choose and equal freedom for LGBT people. At least it would be a firmer argument if we hadn't made a Faustian bargain with collectivist, authority-worshiping political correctness and learned to regard the principle of self-ownership as heresy.

*While I support legalization, I consider decriminalization to be a step in the right direction.

A free-market solution to Barilla's bigotry

In response to Guido Barilla's comments and his "I'm sorry you feel that way" non-apology, a competitor has done the following:

Bertolli Makes the Most of Barilla Chairman's Anti-Gay Comments

Barilla is struggling enough this week without its competitors piling on. But Bertolli doesn't care. Seizing on comments made by Barilla's chairman about how the company would never put gay couples in its advertising, Bertolli Germany quickly posted pro-gay imagery in its social feeds, happily taking advantage of its rival's misstep.

This is the way to do it, not to invite government to step in and thereby turn bigots into martyrs for free speech.

The obligatory Barilla post

Guido Barilla has the right to say what he thinks about the family. Those who disagree with him have the right not to buy Barilla products. Why is this so difficult to understand?

People who complain about economic coercion against Barilla must know on some level that they're mistaken, since activists on both the right and the left have long used boycotts. Then again, perhaps economic coercion, like judicial activism, means whatever the person using the term doesn't like.

Marriage equality for me, but not for thee

Advocates of "plural marriage" rights draw inspiration from the gay-rights movement, not that the latter approves:

Which is why it was so jarring when, about 20 minutes into the discussion he started dropping terms that were borrowed from another community that hasn't always gotten along with religious right: The gay rights movement.

"We made the decision as a family to come out," he said, at one point.

"All we want is our equal rights," he said, at another.

When finally asked whether he saw parallels between the gay marriage cause and his own, Darger didn't hesitate: "Definitely."

Gay rights advocates want nothing to do with the polygamists, having spent years batting down the right's argument that the freedom to marry could extend in unexpected directions. But to get polygamy decriminalized, Darger said he is modeling his strategy after the successes of that movement (which he supports on Constitutional principle). As part of the effort, he and his family are waging a public awareness campaign to demystify their lifestyle.

Commenters on Reason.com are taking gay activists to task for distancing themselves from advocates of equal rights for polygamous families and for effectively taking a stance of "equality for me, but not for thee." In my mind, those commenters have an excellent point. Absent a principled distinction, equality for me, but not for thee, is not equality at all. Also, as for whether acceptance of same-sex marriage will set us down the slippery slope to acceptance of polygamy, so what if it does?

Thank you for your concern. Now stop "helping" us.

Now our supporters, by proposing government reprisals against Chick-fil-A, have made someone as loathesome as Dan Cathy a martyr for the First Amendment. Since this particular form of politically correct backfire has been going on for decades, you'd think that by now the left would have learned when to stop feeding the right's persecution complex.

Chick-fil-A, Amazon, and marriage

As you're presumably aware by now, the family that owns Chick-fil-A has donated millions of dollars to fight same-sex marriage, while the founder and CEO of Amazon.com has announced that he will donate millions to support it. Activists are cheering the Boston and Chicago politicians who want to make things difficult for Chick-fil-A. I think that the activists should not be so fast to cheer on those politicians.

First, there is the minor matter of the First Amendment. Second, there is the other minor matter of the iron rule, "Me today, you tomorrow." Who says that politicians in conservative communities will not try to take similar reprisals against Amazon, especially when history shows that conservative politicians are just as eager as liberal politicians to use the power of local government to punish thought crimes? While we disagree with what our opponents say, their right to promote their viewpoint is the price that we pay for our right to promote ours.

How to reach the reachable

People are discussing this study showing a correlation between low IQ in childhood and racism in adulthood, but the following nugget in the article seems to be receiving less attention:

People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays.

Besides perfectly explaining the comments left on gay-related articles on The Washington Post's Web site, this observation should give some insight into good ways to approach fence-sitters. Since not everyone is reachable, we should tailor our arguments to those most likely to accept them, including those who are good at abstract reasoning. In other words, we should downplay the emotion-driven twaddle that all too often accomplishes nothing but making us look bad.

I could have told you that. Oh, wait; I did.

Wayne Besen writes in The Huffington Post that an LGBT protest against a Catholic cardinal's bigoted views could prove to be a PR disaster:

[Cardinal] George can still escape from his self-inflicted bind if the LGBT community overplays its hand. This issue exploded after George went on Fox News Chicago and said that the gay-rights movement was at risk of morphing "into something like the Ku Klux Klan, protesting in the streets against Catholicism."

On the cusp of victory, Chicago LGBT activist Lair Scott called for -- you guessed it -- a protest in the streets of Chicago against the Catholic Church. The demonstration will occur during Sunday mass at the seat of the Chicago Archdiocese. Lair is best known for his controversial Change.org petition demanding that PBS "Let Bert and Ernie Get Married on Sesame Street."

* * *

I am sure that both organizations comprehend the gravity of this situation and understand the global ramifications if events spin out of control. While Cardinal George is fully responsible for sacrificing himself at the altar of idiocy, poor choices by the LGBT community could sadly lead to his unlikely resurrection.

This is hardly a revelation to me. As I've already noted, we cannot afford the luxury of either alienating the fence-sitters or venting our anger just for the sake of doing so. I made that observation in 1990 (and provoked an ACT UP bigwig to shout me down), and the PC crowd still isn't getting the message.

What LGBT activists can learn from the Tea Party

Say what you like about the Tea Party, but it has greatly unsettled the political status quo. An article on Reason, "What the Left Can Learn from the Tea Party," explains that the Tea Partiers have gotten results by showing politicians that business as usual would come at a political cost and that the Tea Partiers were willing to sacrifice a few pieces if checkmating their opponents required them to do so:

The Tea Party movement was able to grind the gears of politics as usual by demonstrating to the McCains of the world that single issues matter more than whether the opposing party might win this or that congressional seat.

The article further notes that this lesson has largely been lost on the left:

Soros in particular is a case study in how giving blanket support to a political party can undermine your favorite causes. According to a 2004 New Yorker article about anti-Bush billionaires by Jane Mayer, Soros’ bill of particulars against Obama’s predecessor included Bush’s attempts to spread democracy at gunpoint, his expansions of presidential power, and his prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. In every one of those areas, as in the drug war, Obama has not been significantly better than Bush.

* * *

As Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, told Sullum, Obama has been able to pursue the war on drugs as usual partly because “those who care have not made him pay a political price yet.”

Queer activists in particular need to learn this lesson. Team Blue's cheerleaders often tell us that we must support Democratic candidates, no matter what, if for no better reason than to keep Team Red from gaining power. In doing so, however, we simply show Team Blue that it may do as it pleases on our issues, since we will not make it pay a political price. If the Tea Partiers will sacrifice a pawn now and then to win the game, we should be willing to do so as well.

Be careful what you wish for. (2)

In renewing the push for legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Maryland, people are revisiting the debate over religious exemptions. I heard someone argue today that forcing a homophobic florist to sell them flowers "by court order" is perfectly appropriate. Beside the fact that people in the wedding industry are salivating over the prospect of making money off of queer nuptials, advocates of forcing social change on that hypothetical florist are missing a more fundamental point.

Once you have declared that government imposition of a preferred outcome trumps individual liberty, you have conceded the religious right's entire argument. Once you have declared that government should force people to reorder their private affairs to adhere to a certain code of conduct regarding homosexuality, you do not have much ground to complain when the Pat Robertsons of the state or country choose that code of conduct. The government has spoken, so tough noogies for you. We can avoid that difficulty by accepting that society has enough room for both those who want equal rights for those in same-sex relationships and those who do not want to participate in solemnizing such relationships.

How to make enemies and influence people to think you're an idiot

By now, you've presumably heard of the vandalism of the HRC store in Washington. When I asked what that vandalism was supposed to accomplish, I got that all-purpose scathing rebuttal, "La la la, I can't hear you."

Of the explanations that I've heard, the one that makes the most sense is that the event was a plant intended to make radical queer activists look bad. It goes to show that Poe's Law is not limited to the religious right.

Writing effective letters to the editor

A letter to the editor of a periodical can easily get one’s message to a wide audience. Nonetheless, many publications have low rates of publication of such letters, e.g., 1.5% for The New York Times. Since my success rate has been considerably higher, I offer the following advice to those who wish to write letters to the editor.

1. Figure out what point you want to make, and focus on it. Having to say something is not the same thing as having something to say, and a focused letter has a higher likelihood of publication than a stream-of-consciousness rant.

2. Do your homework. Even if you do not know the subject well, one of your readers likely will, and speculation about the subject may well set you up for public humiliation. More than once, I have had letters published in response to letters, in which I corrected the previous letter writers’ understanding of the very things that they had sought to defend. For the same reason, once you have the facts, resist the temptation to cherry-pick the facts to misrepresent the subject; a half truth is a whole lie. If you determine that a fair reading of the facts does not support your point, go back to step 1.

3. Make your point, and make it plainly. The more work you require your readers to do to figure out what you are saying, the less likely that your letter will have an impact or will even be published.

4. Write your letter in an appropriate tone. Write as though you were writing a business letter, not a quick e-mail note to a friend. In particular, leave out the content-free rhetorical flourishes that so impress you; they will likely impress no one else. Also, avoid insulting others — your opponents, the author of the article to which you are responding, and, most importantly, your potential readers.

5. Don’t just tell your readers why you believe something; show them why they should agree with you. Appealing to your own emotions, while popular among the politically correct crowd, is an excellent way to get everyone else to ignore you. Instead, use examples and solid, dispassionate reasoning to make your point. In short, show your work.

6. Proofread, and boil down your prose. Check your letter for facts and logic, not just for spelling and grammar. Also, since periodicals typically have limited space for letters to the editor, make every word count, and eliminate those that do not. From my conversations with the people who select letters to the editor, I have learned that they almost never reject letters for being too short.

7. Do not fear constructive criticism. Someone from the periodical may suggest changes to your letter. If that person thought that your letter completely lacked merit, she would not waste her time making those suggestions.

While I cannot guarantee success, I believe from my experience that by following the above points, you will increase the likelihood that your letters are published and read.

I'm in The Washington Post again.

Mine is the second letter here.

Gays and African-Americans in Maryland

This article says some of the same things that I've been saying for a while. We shouldn't take African-American support for granted, and we should focus on the undecided rather than on true believers.

Nonetheless, the author also states the following:

There must also be more willingness among proponents of LGBT rights to engage in supporting issues that are important to blacks, Latinos, Asian Pacific Islanders and other social issues, (e.g. education reform, immigration, job creation and training, etc.). Several black elected officials, as well as communities of color in general, have grown tired of the narrow agenda that has been presented to them by some LGBT organizations.

Has Queen Carlotta declared backwards day again? This assertion, besides being weasel-worded, comes close to being the exact opposite of the truth. We're the ones who are obsessed with racial and ethnic inclusiveness, sometimes to the self-parodying extremes of excluding those who cannot provide the right tokens and of downplaying our own agenda to placate others (including those "Asian Pacific Islanders").

Maryland (2)

It's a good thing that Prince George's County has solved all of its problems, so that pastors from that county have the luxury of passing moral judgment on queer people who want to get married. For those who are unfamiliar with this area, Prince George's County combines the good public schools, low crime, and clean politics of the inner city with the cosmopolitan sophistication of suburbia.

Isn't there something in the Bible about motes, beams, and eyes, or about knowing every tree by its fruit? Oh, but those verses don't directly address homosexuality, so they need to be "interpreted correctly," or they were "meant for the church back then." Or something.

Finally, it's odd whose support our activists take for granted. I have spoken to LGBT activists who expressed genuine surprise upon learning that some of the biggest opposition to our rights came from African-Americans.