ΚΙΝΔΥΝΕΥΕΙ ΝΑ ΕΤΕΡΟΦΥΛΟΦΙΛΟΠΟΙΗΘΕΙ Η GAY ΚΟΥΛΤΟΥΡΑ ΣΤΙΣ ΗΠΑ;

.
The Heterosexing of Gay America?

by Scott Stiffler (EDGE, Boston, 14/7/2008)
Has the increased cultural visibility of LGBTs diluted the value of our brand? Will we lose our distinctively naughty outlaw spark on the day queers can no longer claim oppressed minority status? Did those who threw punches at Stonewall or stormed St. Patrick’s Cathedral during the plague years of AIDS do so to secure our precious right to tone it down, raise a family and fit in? Is normalization, assimilation or other boxy buzzwords endig in "ation" a reasonable price to pay for the things we’ve gained? These are all valid, simple questions with obvious, definitive answers. . .

The Myth of Assimilation

It used to be that straight America could spot a flaming queen or a butch dyke miles away and react accordingly. The signals given off by swishing guys and flannel-clad gals confirmed that LGBTs were residing squarely on the fringes of society -- precisely where they and their pervy same-sex attractions belonged.

But today, "Gay people from a much broader socioeconomic, racial, and geographic spectrum are coming out precisely because of the success of the gay rights movement." That’s the assessment of Gary J. Gates, a senior research fellow with The Williams Institute, a national think tank at the UCLA School of Law dedicated to advancing critical thought in the field of sexual orientation and public policy.

Gates and his fellow data crunchers sent editorial pages and the blogosphere into a tizzy this past spring. The New York Times and The San Francisco Chronicle both ran front-page stories heralding the decline of gay neighborhoods and increased diversity among LGBTs. In an April, 2008 Los Angeles Times opinion column citing the Gates’ research, Gregory Rodriguez concluded "The hedonistic, transgressive, radical ethos (and stereotype) that once characterized gay culture doesn’t represent reality anymore." Rodriguez, who one assumes didn’t spend much time where I hang out in his quest to form an opinion, further speculated that "As more homosexuals come out and join the mainstream, the gay identity becomes less distinctive."

So are LGBTs really becoming more like everybody else, or is our full spectrum of expression just becoming more visible?

Gates rebukes the conclusions of Rodriguez and others by noting that "Assimilation implies that gay people are becoming more straight. But in truth, what’s happening is that as gay people come out, they feel less need to abandon the norms they grew up with. There’s not that big of a chasm between those values and being gay as people might have seen twenty years ago."

The myth of assimilation also got a goosing from Paul Varnell. Back in the day (June 28, 2000, to be precise), Varnell opined in the Chicago Free Press that "No one is urging gays to sacrifice anything inherent in or natural to being gay or lesbian. . .Much the opposite, in fact. More and more gays are insisting that they be accepted for who they are wherever they happen to be and however they want to live." Varnell went on to recommend that a more accurate and less politically charged way to regard this phenomenon "might be ’inclusion’ or ’integration’ -- words that suggest that a person is regarded and treated equally at the same time he remains fully himself. Whatever you call this, it would seem to be not a betrayal of the gay movement, but its triumph."

No matter what word you call it by, Molly McKay (media director, Marriage Equality, USA ) sees LGBT inclusion not as a "reordering of our community; just a recognition that gays live in a variety of ways." For her, the assertion that we’ve somehow lost our sense of self by claiming our rightful place in society is "like asking if black culture changed when they legalized de-segregation."

Yet for others, the gains we’ve achieved pale beside the strides we’ve yet to make. "We’re nowhere near assimilation. You might feel that living in the Castro or Ft. Lauderdale, but elsewhere in the country they’ll still ride you out of town on a rail." says Elliott Tiber, author of "Taking Woodstock" (currently being adapted into a film, directed by Ang Lee, for a 2009 release).

Tiber maintains that the extent to which one can fully assert an identity rooted in sexuality depends largely upon where you live: "It’s a wet dream to think that in a small farming town, you can walk down Main Street hand in hand kissing your boyfriend. It’s not Manhattan. There’s not so many places you can do that." Even in states with pockets of liberalism, homophobia is still condoned and perpetrated at the highest public office: "In Florida, the governor said last week that gays bring AIDS on themselves because of their lifestyle."
There Goes the Gayborhood?

In NYC’s, there’s a gay bookstore and a gay coffee shop and a gay club that aren’t there anymore. Over the years, that once reliable Mecca of all things queer known as Chelsea lost much of its homosexy edge. On the other hand, it gained drug stores and candle shops and condos and badly-needed Jamba Juice franchises. Was this once dirty and dangerous gay ghetto truly compromised when moneyed straight people with baby strollers moved in? Or, are they simply taking their rightful place beside the LGBTs raising families of their own?

For McKay, living in a more diverse neighborhood is hardly the death knell for gay identity. In fact, it actually "allows us to form friendships and relationships based upon our shared similarities" instead of our sexual preference. Although she acknowledges that "Some will still prefer to live in primarily gay neighborhoods." McKay believes that "because gender and sexuality are no longer such a big issue, gay couples hang out with straight couples. It’s more about who you are as a person and what your shared interests are."

In the book he co-authored ("The Gay and Lesbian Atlas"), Gates used data from the 2000 U.S. census to "confirm and challenge anecdotal information about the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics" of the LGBT community. He cites "tentative evidence that there is some movement out of the gayborhoods and into somewhat more suburban neighborhoods."

That move, however, may be inspired by financial realities as much as the desire for a more conventional living situation. Gates: "Whether it’s Chelsea or the Castro, these are all very expensive neighborhoods." He adds, however, that "a larger portion don’t feel as strongly that they have to be in these intensely gay neighborhoods because they can find social networks in other ways." Cultural irrelevance may be the ultimate backhanded compliment to those who rehabilitate marginal neighborhoods only to become victims of their own success. Just don’t try telling that to the gay man whose been displaced by unmanageable rent increases and the steady loss of a communal identity his efforts helped create.

In addition to the exodus of gays from self-created urban safe zones, Gates also cites a significant increase in same sex couples "in the most conservative parts of the country; the Midwest and the upper south." Yet he also questions whether this represents a significant change in the gay population or simply reflects "their willingness to identify as a same sex couples on these census bureau forms."

The Marriage Question

Most U.S. states forbid same sex couples to marry -- yet allow them to be fired from their jobs based on sexual orientation. Still, the steady, public and aggressive quest for the right to marry has alienated those within the gay community as well as our heterosexual opponents. Is marriage the ultimate symbol of cultural acceptance or an irreversible watershed moment of compromising ourselves for the trappings of heteronormality?

McKay finds the notion that "we’re heterosexualizing our culture" by ending the legal discrimination against same sex marriage "doesn’t make sense to me at all. In some ways, ending sexual orientation discrimination is going to impact our culture, but it will be a positive impact. It just gives them the full range of choices everyone else is entitled to."

Yet for others, "Striving to copy what the straight world thinks is the correct way of living, is for me, is a waste of energy; a giant steep backwards." That’s Tibor’s icy but understandably cautious assessment of the efforts being spent on advocating for same sex marriage at the expense of other issues. "We should be striving for equal civil rights period. I’m an atheist. For me, marriage is a religious ritual that I don’t subscribe to. All this business of churches and god and rabbis; marriage is wasting the energy of the gay community."

But who among us would deny the right for two gay people in love to have a big splashy wedding and score tons of household products? Playing dress up and getting free stuff seems like fair payback for those who were shut out of their prom just for being queer. It’s also, according to McKay, "a tremendous moment of gay liberation. There is such a difference in your self perception when you are able to say this is my spouse as opposed to my companion or lover."

This universal way of legitimizing relationships in the eyes of society as well as the law, "doesn’t mean people have to live differently. They have the same choices as before." But it’s that relentless quest for acceptance that gets Tibor’s goat. He compares the legitimizing effect of marriage to "interviews I’ve seen with gay farmers who say one of my neighbors knows we’re gay and they accept us. That’s the attitude of gays; to be accepted by others. We have to accept them the way they are, but it’s up to them to have control of whether or not the accept us."

Work To Be Done

Given a choice between The Village People or Will & Grace, skeptical straight America will inevitably go for the latter. Mincing enough to identify ourselves as queer, but sexually muted enough not to offend is the gold standard imposed upon gays by heterosexuals whose idea of acceptance is somewhere between not picketing our wedding and not killing us. McKay notes it’s a sober reminder that "Our common bond is that we’re attracted to the same sex -- and we’re oppressed." Even if that oppression is taken away from the equation, we’re still defined by who we sleep with. And, in that respect, we’re still "a minority that will have to work to have our images seen and acknowledged.

As author of "Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage" and the woman who’s about to be lawfully wedded to Molly McKay, Davina Katulski asserts that "We’re far, far away from losing our shared experiences. We can still choose to retain which parts of our culture we want to."

Putting a sober cap on the question of what increased visibility means to U.S.-based LGBTs, Katulski has some advice to those who think we’re in danger or sacrificing our identity and squandering our legacy. She suggests we look outside of the comparatively utopian LGBT bubble that is America and "Go to Russia and Poland and Bulgaria, where if you try to have a gay pride parade, they throw battery acid. When we’re not accepted or integrated into society, these are the alternatives." She recalls the frustration of friends in Venice who "were saying how upset they are that they’re under the jurisdiction of the Pope. They feel like they’ll never even get the most basic civil rights."

Not by any means, though, should the humbling fact that some have it worse preclude us from pressing on in our own daily lives. Whether we choose to burn as bright as a flame or take on more sedate forms of self-expression, Katulski believes that "It’s our job here in the U.S. to move forward so we can help move the arc of the rest of the world that is deeply suffering because of their lack of rights."