Mike, thank you for raising a difficult and necessary conversation. I appreciate your argument that our LGBTQIA+ coalition contains diverse identities, interests, and needs that aren’t always well served by an assumption of uniformity. Framing us as a coalition rather than a monolith resonates deeply.
Still, from my vantage point, primarily among gay and bi men, I don’t see the dominance of TQ+ interests in quite the same way. Instead, I see a disproportionate targeting of TQ+ individuals by political and cultural forces that aim to dismantle protections for the entire queer spectrum. In my view, TQ+ folks haven't "taken over" the movement, they've taken the brunt of the backlash. That doesn't negate the need for space to develop and honor gay culture; it just shifts the urgency of our resistance.
We're not just dealing with internal fragmentation; we're up against a rising tide of external threats. If we allow ourselves to fracture under the pressure of difference, we’ll lose critical ground for everyone in this coalition. The loss of protections for one segment makes it easier to erode rights for the rest.
That’s why your suggestions, to celebrate gay culture, open physical spaces, and amplify gay men's voices, are powerful and timely. But they shouldn't come at the expense of solidarity. If we frame our efforts as parallel growth rather than opposition, we may find more allies than adversaries.
I believe the solution lies in pluralism with purpose: each group should be free to articulate and pursue its specific goals, but always return to a shared table for collective strategy. Let’s be unapologetically gay while remaining vocally united against discrimination, violence, and censorship that targets any part of our spectrum. Let’s build coalitions where collaboration is our strength, not our compromise.
Thanks again for starting this discussion. I still feel heard and included as a gay/bi man, but I agree with you, it's time for more visible leadership, more creative space, and more open dialogue across our beautifully complicated spectrum.
I'm as supportive of trans rights as anyone--and I suspect more so than you--but there needs to be some space among us queers for gay men to meet as men. It's a cultural problem more than a political one.
In the past fifteen years, we've seen a move away from the idea of gay male culture centering around men loving men, in favor of an idea of gay male culture centering around defying masculine gender norms. (David Halperin's 2012 book "How to be gay" is a prominent articulation of such views.) Masculinity is no longer a source of erotic attraction, but the source of all evil, to be extirpated as much as possible from our imaginative life. In practice, this means a gay male culture centered almost entirely on fabulousness and diva-worship. It's pretty much the sort of gay male culture now celebrated by mainstream media.
In this culture the sort of gay men who are simply looking for connections with other gay men--or who want to articulate their experiences with such connections in some sort of culture--come off as sexist (not in touch with their feminine side), assimilationist, and worst of all, old-fashioned. It's an idea of gay male experience that rejects the bulk of gay male experience as insufficiently queer (and I'm not sure it does much better with trans experience). Personally, I don't know how to deal with it; the more I read the queer press, the more I think of Elizabeth Bishop telling Randall Jarrell, "After I go through one of the literary quarterlies I don't feel like reading a poem for a week, much less like writing one."
I completely agree, Mike! I have a deep love for the LGBTQ+ community, but I wonder if we’re viewing this as an all-or-nothing situation. We’ve made significant strides in LGB rights, and I genuinely believe that over time, we’ll see similar progress for the TQ+ groups. However, it seems that the pace of this push is quicker than what LGB faced, which has led to some pushback.
The gradual acceptance of LGB rights allowed time for people to change their perspectives and grow in understanding. As Todd mentioned, people are often resistant to being told what to do or think. The more we push, the more resistance we might encounter.
It’s about finding that balance, isn’t it?
I think we need to remain strong on LGB issues. If we let the TQ+ rights struggle overshadow our progress, are we really doing the community justice? It's a fine line because we don’t want anyone to be discriminated against, but we also don’t want to go backward.
Your writing here seems to be framing your opinion as absolute truth. I’m genuinely curious; is there a reason why you write like this?
As a result of the framing, I feel I’m being told what to think, and therefore; it pushes me away rather to engage and deeply consider your ideas. I do think your ideas are important and would do a whole lot of good in our world.
I also understand you may not have wanted to hear my opinion, but I do think this platform is for exchanging ideas and believe that’s what a lot of people are on here for.
Hey Todd, I appreciate your opinion. Hearing that my style pushes you away is a valuable observation. It's not what I want to do, even on such a complex topic. I'm also on here to exchange ideas. So, thanks for commenting.
I write like this because I know people have short attention spans and are unlikely to read a long post that includes long narratives on the following...
Working for the City of West Hollywood City Hall for 23 years, being verbally attacked at the National LGBTQ Task Force's Social Justice Conference, seeing gay men belittled when I was a fellow at the Lambda Literary: Emerging LGBTQ Voices, and watching the desegregation of the gay leather community. These and other life experiences have led me to this point of view.
I think you were brave to wrote this essay and will probably recieve a lot of flack for it, but not from me. I think you are "hot the nail on the head." I completely support all of your ideas. The needs od the us LGB folk are getting lost in the very real needs of the TQ+ folks. However, it is definitely not safe to say as much, so we are both taking a chance here. The needs for BOTH groups are real. and we should be able to have spaces to discuss thos issues. I would be game for any discussions surrounding both, but especially the G of the LGB group. I feel drowned out and unsafe in saying so. I hope my encouragement of your work helps and that we can communicate further (between us and others of like mindedness). May your message not fall of deaf ears. Mine were definitely open and listening.
I totally agree with so much you have stated. QT+ has become an orthodoxy, with a catechism and anathema for those who question it. Seeing our rainbow as a coalition, not community, is a fresh viewpoint. Thank you.
Hi Mike, thanks for the response, and I think your reasons make sense for the writing style.
With that said, I’m not looking for long narratives, but if people write those, I’m okay with them. I just think especially in this political moment we (general we) need to come together and own/take accountability for our beliefs, ideas, and opinions. That can invite others to engage and share their opinions more rather than a getting into arguing over what’s truth and what’s not. Everybody is going to have an opinion about how the future needs to be and what’s the road to get there. Because of that difference in visions, I believe that future may not be ideal for everyone involved, but it can include a variety of ideal spaces for many.
I also really appreciate you outlining your experience in the spaces you’ve been in, and I respect that.
I agree Mike, and I think that the TQ thing is a symptom of a wider problem on the left: "the groups" (ie the activists, the nonprofits, the special interests) have incentives (ie fundraising and attention-getting) to overreach, and also to claim a moral superiority.
Mike, thank you for raising a difficult and necessary conversation. I appreciate your argument that our LGBTQIA+ coalition contains diverse identities, interests, and needs that aren’t always well served by an assumption of uniformity. Framing us as a coalition rather than a monolith resonates deeply.
Still, from my vantage point, primarily among gay and bi men, I don’t see the dominance of TQ+ interests in quite the same way. Instead, I see a disproportionate targeting of TQ+ individuals by political and cultural forces that aim to dismantle protections for the entire queer spectrum. In my view, TQ+ folks haven't "taken over" the movement, they've taken the brunt of the backlash. That doesn't negate the need for space to develop and honor gay culture; it just shifts the urgency of our resistance.
We're not just dealing with internal fragmentation; we're up against a rising tide of external threats. If we allow ourselves to fracture under the pressure of difference, we’ll lose critical ground for everyone in this coalition. The loss of protections for one segment makes it easier to erode rights for the rest.
That’s why your suggestions, to celebrate gay culture, open physical spaces, and amplify gay men's voices, are powerful and timely. But they shouldn't come at the expense of solidarity. If we frame our efforts as parallel growth rather than opposition, we may find more allies than adversaries.
I believe the solution lies in pluralism with purpose: each group should be free to articulate and pursue its specific goals, but always return to a shared table for collective strategy. Let’s be unapologetically gay while remaining vocally united against discrimination, violence, and censorship that targets any part of our spectrum. Let’s build coalitions where collaboration is our strength, not our compromise.
Thanks again for starting this discussion. I still feel heard and included as a gay/bi man, but I agree with you, it's time for more visible leadership, more creative space, and more open dialogue across our beautifully complicated spectrum.
I'm as supportive of trans rights as anyone--and I suspect more so than you--but there needs to be some space among us queers for gay men to meet as men. It's a cultural problem more than a political one.
In the past fifteen years, we've seen a move away from the idea of gay male culture centering around men loving men, in favor of an idea of gay male culture centering around defying masculine gender norms. (David Halperin's 2012 book "How to be gay" is a prominent articulation of such views.) Masculinity is no longer a source of erotic attraction, but the source of all evil, to be extirpated as much as possible from our imaginative life. In practice, this means a gay male culture centered almost entirely on fabulousness and diva-worship. It's pretty much the sort of gay male culture now celebrated by mainstream media.
In this culture the sort of gay men who are simply looking for connections with other gay men--or who want to articulate their experiences with such connections in some sort of culture--come off as sexist (not in touch with their feminine side), assimilationist, and worst of all, old-fashioned. It's an idea of gay male experience that rejects the bulk of gay male experience as insufficiently queer (and I'm not sure it does much better with trans experience). Personally, I don't know how to deal with it; the more I read the queer press, the more I think of Elizabeth Bishop telling Randall Jarrell, "After I go through one of the literary quarterlies I don't feel like reading a poem for a week, much less like writing one."
I completely agree, Mike! I have a deep love for the LGBTQ+ community, but I wonder if we’re viewing this as an all-or-nothing situation. We’ve made significant strides in LGB rights, and I genuinely believe that over time, we’ll see similar progress for the TQ+ groups. However, it seems that the pace of this push is quicker than what LGB faced, which has led to some pushback.
The gradual acceptance of LGB rights allowed time for people to change their perspectives and grow in understanding. As Todd mentioned, people are often resistant to being told what to do or think. The more we push, the more resistance we might encounter.
It’s about finding that balance, isn’t it?
I think we need to remain strong on LGB issues. If we let the TQ+ rights struggle overshadow our progress, are we really doing the community justice? It's a fine line because we don’t want anyone to be discriminated against, but we also don’t want to go backward.
Your writing here seems to be framing your opinion as absolute truth. I’m genuinely curious; is there a reason why you write like this?
As a result of the framing, I feel I’m being told what to think, and therefore; it pushes me away rather to engage and deeply consider your ideas. I do think your ideas are important and would do a whole lot of good in our world.
I also understand you may not have wanted to hear my opinion, but I do think this platform is for exchanging ideas and believe that’s what a lot of people are on here for.
Hey Todd, I appreciate your opinion. Hearing that my style pushes you away is a valuable observation. It's not what I want to do, even on such a complex topic. I'm also on here to exchange ideas. So, thanks for commenting.
I write like this because I know people have short attention spans and are unlikely to read a long post that includes long narratives on the following...
Working for the City of West Hollywood City Hall for 23 years, being verbally attacked at the National LGBTQ Task Force's Social Justice Conference, seeing gay men belittled when I was a fellow at the Lambda Literary: Emerging LGBTQ Voices, and watching the desegregation of the gay leather community. These and other life experiences have led me to this point of view.
I got the impression Gerle was urging his readers to talk about potentially controversial issues rather than performatively agreeing with the crowd.
I think you were brave to wrote this essay and will probably recieve a lot of flack for it, but not from me. I think you are "hot the nail on the head." I completely support all of your ideas. The needs od the us LGB folk are getting lost in the very real needs of the TQ+ folks. However, it is definitely not safe to say as much, so we are both taking a chance here. The needs for BOTH groups are real. and we should be able to have spaces to discuss thos issues. I would be game for any discussions surrounding both, but especially the G of the LGB group. I feel drowned out and unsafe in saying so. I hope my encouragement of your work helps and that we can communicate further (between us and others of like mindedness). May your message not fall of deaf ears. Mine were definitely open and listening.
I totally agree with so much you have stated. QT+ has become an orthodoxy, with a catechism and anathema for those who question it. Seeing our rainbow as a coalition, not community, is a fresh viewpoint. Thank you.
Hi Mike, thanks for the response, and I think your reasons make sense for the writing style.
With that said, I’m not looking for long narratives, but if people write those, I’m okay with them. I just think especially in this political moment we (general we) need to come together and own/take accountability for our beliefs, ideas, and opinions. That can invite others to engage and share their opinions more rather than a getting into arguing over what’s truth and what’s not. Everybody is going to have an opinion about how the future needs to be and what’s the road to get there. Because of that difference in visions, I believe that future may not be ideal for everyone involved, but it can include a variety of ideal spaces for many.
I also really appreciate you outlining your experience in the spaces you’ve been in, and I respect that.
A functioning coalition would be efficient and effective. Count me in, please :)
I agree Mike, and I think that the TQ thing is a symptom of a wider problem on the left: "the groups" (ie the activists, the nonprofits, the special interests) have incentives (ie fundraising and attention-getting) to overreach, and also to claim a moral superiority.