Owning Words

There’s been a lot of excitement over the last week or so in the feminist blogosphere (which I spend a great deal of my time hanging about in, although can’t really claim to contribute to) generated by this piece in the New Statesman by Sadie Smith. In the interest of fairness I want to point out it was responded to eloquently in the same publication the next day by CN Lester and they addressed many of the points well so I’ll leave you that one to read, and I thoroughly recommend that you do.

But one of the most contentious points of Smith’s article was her discomfort with the word ‘cis’. This was answered in Lester’s piece (as well as by Stavvers and Cel West here), and that got me thinking. I’ve never really thought about the word before. I understood that it described me, as many words do, but I had never thought about it as being particularly problematic. I then came across this article (I have linked to it, but please be aware that some of it, especially the comments, is very transphobic. Seriously. This is pretty hurtful stuff) also arguing against the use of the word cis.

The main gist of it is that the word is being applied to a large swathe of women who had no say in it. I understand how this might tick someone of, but I honestly think there’s been a bit of wilful misunderstanding going on here. This wasn’t something that was just dropped on people with little or no basis in lived experience. The concept already existed. There are people who are trans and people who are not trans. It seems obvious there should be a simple, succinct word that means ‘not trans’. That word is cis. Stated like this I realised that cis actually benefits me because it means I don’t have to define myself in negative. I don’t like defining myself by what I’m not. There is a recognised word that describes me and that can only be a good thing.

The article also takes issue with cis by claiming it is reductionist and separates people into two discrete camps, reducing their identities down to a narrow definition. Again I think this is wilful misunderstanding. There is not one way to be a cis man or cis woman, or a trans man or trans woman, or anything in between. There’s not one universally understood way of being lesbian, British, Northern, White, socialist, feminist or agnostic but I use all these words to describe myself and understand what other people are getting at when they use them to refer to me. There’s nuances and differing definitions and a whole spectrum of identities encompassed in these words but I like to think they have space to allow these interpretations. I also like to think that people respect the way I chose to use these words and are prepared to allow me to explain myself. I see no reason why cis should be any different. Equally the claim made that it makes gender a concrete, immovable thing is also flawed. Having equivalent but different terms illustrates that there is a range of expressions of gender and all are equally valid. All words are somewhat blunt instruments that are open to interpretation. None of them are perfect in all situations but its how we communicate. Seeing people refusing to engage with language this way is just frustrating.

Smith’s article also highlights the use of terms such as ‘cissexist’ and ‘cisfascist’ that she claims are freely thrown at cis women in an attempt to silence them. I’m not sure about this. I’ve never come across the term cis being used as a direct insult, but that doesn’t mean that it’s never happened. The terms Smith quotes seem more likely to have come from someone being frustrated at how trans people are seen as ‘abnormal’ and how society is set up on the assumption that everyone is cis. This is something that needs to be challenged so I don’t really accept Smith’s argument in this place.

Ultimately I think the resistance to the word cis comes from people who previously assumed they were the norm, the default, and this position has now been challenged. There is no such thing as normal and if the term cis is used as freely and frequently as trans then it will help work towards a more equal, inclusive society.

What's Worse than Being Called a Bigot?

Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps being told that your relationship is worth less than a heterosexual one? Maybe being told that just by wanting to show a commitment to the person you love you are undermining the marriage if millions of people, your friends, family, parents, co-workers etc. Or being told that just wanting your relationship to be given the same name and recognition as others is destroying our culture might be considered by some over sensitive souls to be a little perturbing.

Yesterday the House of Commons passed a bill allowing same sex couples to get married, enjoy all the same rights as a heterosexual couple and call it a marriage. I wrote that I was in support of this motion and explained why. I was therefore happy and relieved last night when I heard that MPs had voted in favour of the bill with a sizeable majority. I thought that this was a step in the right direction. This was a public acknowledgment that a same sex relationship has the same worth as a heterosexual one.

But then today started and I woke up to a backlash. I understand people who opposed the bill voicing their disappointment. Had things gone the other way I would do the same, but this was different. This was displaying a horrific double standard coupled with a juvenile sense of entitlement. These are the people who were complaining that they had been called ‘bigotted’, ‘prejudiced’ and ‘homophobic’ over their opposition to the bill.

To start I would like to state that I think opposing the bill was categorically homophobic. I saw it as denying people rights just because they weren’t straight. It seemed like a fairly clear cut example of homophobia to me. However, I understand that this is an emotive word and people don’t like to be called it. My response to that is simple; if you don’t want to be called homophobic stop saying homophobic things, and if someone says you are being homophobic and you think you’re not ask them why. You might get a bit of an education.

But what I found truly mind boggling was the victimised mindset of these people. They felt so offended that they were called these things. They were nervous of speaking their opinions in case someone did something awful like ask them if they thought that sounded a bit prejudiced. Somehow the thought has never occurred to them that what they were saying was causing offense. It really never penetrated their victim complexes that the person you’re just told shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they happened to fall in love with the ‘wrong’ gender might be a bit upset. Oh no, we couldn’t possibly offend their precious sensibilities. Their right to hold opinions that see some people as having less worth than others trumps the right of the person whose just been told their an abomination for being gay.

If you want to be homophobic I can’t stop you. You have every right to think that, but, for fucks sake, learn to take it when someone tries to engage you as to why they find your views insulting and offensive. You are not the only injured party here. How about a little bit of mutual respect in this? The hypocrisy and double standard of this viewpoint is staggering.

Then there were the ones who decided they were part of the ‘silent majority’. This is, according to this opinion poll (and the ones discussed in this polling report), quite clearly bollocks. And even if they are part of some oppressed 51% this isn’t something to really be that concerned with if you’re not in a same sex relationship, because it doesn’t really affect you. Alright, so a few more people will be legally described as ‘married’ but, honestly, how does this impact upon existing marriages? Really? 

This comes back to a theme we’ve seen a lot recently in different contexts. Being called a racist is ‘the worst thing possible’ (what about being beaten up for being black?). Being called a rapist ‘destroys lives’ (what about people who are abused, sexually assaulted and raped?). Having your views challenged isn’t really that bad in the grand scheme of things, so get some fucking perspective. Your right to speak goes hand in hand with my right to challenge. That is freedom of speech. Many people who complain about this seem to really like that concept and bang on about it a lot.

Keep saying homophobic things and I will call you homophobic. Simple as.

Thoughts on Same Sex Marriage

Today MPs are debating whether or not to allow same sex couples to register their relationship as a marriage. There’s also a section of the bill that proposes trans people can remain married to their spouse despite their change in legally recognised gender. To say this bill has been controversial would be understating things slightly. Google it and you will get an avalanche of views and arguments. People have claimed it will undermine marriage, others that it will strengthen it. Both religious groups and LGBT rights organisations have claimed it doesn’t go far enough and that it goes too far or is deeply unhelpful. Then there are those who claim this is not the issue to be focussing on at the moment when we have so many bigger things to worry about. This is mainly the economy, which appears to still be SNAFUed, and no amount of smiling gay people is going to change that.

I personally agree with the bill and that view is the result of some quite soul searching conversations with myself and others. I think that same sex couples should be allowed to call their legally recognised partnership a marriage. The fact that all the people I know currently in same sex civil partnerships refer to their partner as husband or wife and their relationship as a marriage seems to me to support a change in law.

A lot of problems seem to stem from the use of the word ‘marriage’. Some opponents of the bill feel that a marriage is between a man and a woman and, although many have no problem with a legally protected, legally binding relationship such as a civil partnership between gay people they would rather the word ‘marriage’ were not used. I cannot agree with this. Although ‘equal’ does not always mean ‘identical’ I think in this case having different words for different kinds of relationships signifies that they are not equal, and in a society where, despite great gains in recent decades, LGB (I’ll come back to the T later) face prejudice and discrimination it is not helpful.

Equally those who argue that this is going to create a second category of marriage I disagree with. As far as I can see a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be the same. I see no difference why relationships would differ just because the genders of the people in it do. To assume otherwise reinforces gender roles and stereotypes that I also don’t agree with. This is where trans people under the law as it stands can find it difficult. If they wish to undergo a transition or present themselves as a different gender to when they got married they currently have to divorce their partner. Allowing them to remain married to the same person also means that, if the relationship is now a same sex one, it is the same marriage as it always was.

Similarly the argument put forward that marriage needs to stay heterosexual and separate for ‘the sake of the children’ I find deeply insulting both to same sex couples who have children and straight couples who do not. There is nothing that I would consider essential to a healthy relationship that cannot be found with a partner of either sex.

The point I have the most respect for is that changing the name is unnecessary because not every couple wants or needs to be married. And that’s fine. I agree whole heartedly with that sentiment, but I think that everyone should have the same choices open to them. All relationships should be supported, but if someone wants to get married and have it called a marriage with all the romance and permanency that word invokes then they should be allowed to. As I said above many same sex couples already do, it’s just not legally recognised.

I understand that some people have a deep, often religious objection to same sex relationships in all their forms. Although when I come across this viewpoint it breaks my heart that’s not really what I’m discussing here. People are entitled to their views as long as those views are not interfering in the lives of other people. I think there are ways that religious leaders and groups who support same sex marriage can perform the ceremonies and support the couples without enforcing every member of that organisation to. I’ve heard the ‘slippery slope’ argument in relation to this one a lot, and I frankly think religious groups are quite capable of remaining vigilant and ensuring no one is forced to do something they don’t want to do. Individual churches can refuse to take a female priest, but that doesn’t meant there are no female priests in the church. Surely a similar system could be worked out?

I understand a lot of the arguments, but ultimately I support the changing of the law. I don’t think it will cause any social or personal harm and I think it would send a message, if nothing else, that LGBT people really are equal in Britain today.

I’ll leave you with a word from my favourite angry, animated squirrel, Foamy.

‘Gay folks should get married. If anyone is going to appreciate the concept and institution of these unions, it will be them. They fought for the right to be married, they’ve taken media back-lash for it, they’ve been beaten, spat upon, ridiculed, but still, they persevere and want to marry their significant other. They’re not standing at the alter with a shot gun to their head. They’re fighting through crowds of angry protestors and backward thinking religious fanatics in order to marry someone they love.’

The Charming Face of Homophobia and Heteronormativity

David Davies has said some pretty eyebrow raising things recently. He claimed that ‘most parents would prefer their children to be not be gay’ (which was then replied to by several witty individuals that the truth was most people would rather their children were gay than a Tory MP. I know my parents certainly would). Following this he decided to do an interview with the Guardian, presumable to set the record straight. Said article was published yesterday and, as I sat with my Bailey’s coffee preparing for a good old knees up with the in laws, I read it. I was left almost speechless at how someone can seem to be completely unaware of how offensive they were being.

Davies spent the majority of the interview (as was described by Decca Aitkenhead) squirming, looking flustered and apologetic and muttering that it really wasn’t his intention to cause offensive. He bleated that he didn’t understand this world, it was different and confusing to the one he’d grown up in and, really, he was just an endearingly bumbling fool who meant no harm. Kind of like a Welsh Boris Johnson, and, just like the original BoJo, despite his attempts at a cuddly image, so much of what he said wound me up.

I’m left with two possibilities. Either Davies is genuinely that clueless, in which case I will be kindly pointing out to him that the flimsy excuses he’s been hiding behind do not stop his views being extremely troubling and damaging for many people, or he is using it to try and dig himself out of the hole those comments dropped him in.

So, please allow me to take a systematic look at the things Davies got wrong.

"But I suppose, at a certain level, I see heterosexual sex as being – and it's probably the wrong word to use – but the norm. I think it's reasonable to say that the vast majority of people are not gay[….]I just worry if children are going to be taught that [heterosexuality] isn't necessarily the norm, and that you can carry on doing all sorts of other things, are we going to have a situation where the teacher's saying, 'Right, this is straight sex, this is gay sex, feel free to choose, it's perfectly normal to want to do both. And you know, why not try both out?' I mean, are we going to have that?”

This is the attitude that makes young non-heterosexual people feel scared, lonely and ostracized; the idea, still rampant in our society, that heterosexual sex is ‘the norm’. Also, I have never understood why there is any cause for concern over discussing homosexual sex. If a young person is not attracted to the same sex no amount of discussion of homosexual sex will alter that. There’s also an argument to be made that young people should be encouraged to explore their sexuality safely and in an informed way.

The sentence ‘right, this is straight sex, this is gay sex, feel free to choose, it’s perfectly normal to do both’ sounds like a fantastic way to approach sex education. If sex education covers pleasure and intimacy as part of sex it can quite easily then go on to discuss lesbian and gay sexual acts and relationships. For young gay and bisexual kids struggling with their sexuality such frank discussions could be a tremendous comfort.

Davies, however, doesn’t think that changing sex education like this would necessarily be a good idea. He cites the example of a friend he knew at school who came out as gay at 16 but, when Davies met up with him aged 20, he had settled down with a woman. Based on this one anecdote Davies seems to have been put off the idea that young people should be able to experiment and try things to see what works for them. Aitkenhead points out, as noted above, that if young people have no same sex desire sex education is unlikely to change that. Davies mumbles about worries concerning how much detail will be gone into, and when Aitkenhead explains that no amount of discussion of lesbian sex would have turned her younger self into a lesbian he decides ‘it’s different for girls’. On to the next bit of problematic drivel;

"But you're a lady, you're a woman, so you wouldn't have felt quite the same way. I mean, at school the girls all went out and bought Erasure without any issue." He's being perfectly serious. But what about the lesbians in my class – what would have helped them? "Oh, I don't know what they went out and bought." No, I mean what about them feeling confused and excluded? "I wish there was some way round this that meant they didn't feel excluded, I really do."

Somehow women are not just different to men but they don’t need to be shown the same level of concern. The flippancy of how he discusses these young women in comparison to the young men mentioned above is very telling. If I was being paranoid it would say this might be because gay men are far more visible than bisexual people and lesbians and so a clueless twit like Davies will not have given them much thought. If I was being more generous I would probably suggest that Davies simply hasn’t given it much thought because he rarely seems to give any thought to anything. In all honesty I’m inclined to believe option one, but that is an issue to be addressed in another post.

The other problem with the above quote, which was touched upon earlier in the interview when Davies discussed the school friend, is that it seems to equate a non-heterosexual identity with liking Erasure (I know. What. The. Actual. Fuck). Not only is this a bit of a tired reliance on stereotypes it is massively reductive and extremely insulting. Who does this man think he is to reduce people he has already demonstrated he knows fuck all about to taste in music?

Then he wishes there was some way to avoid such young people feeling excluded. There is. It might even be something to do with the broader sex education he had just expressed his mistrust for.

Aitkenhead then asks him a hypothetical question. What if his worst fears materialized and a change in sex education led to more openly gay people? What would be the problem? The best Davies can offer is a vague sense of ‘unease’. He can’t really put it into words, he just doesn’t really like the idea of it. Basically he doesn’t know why, he just doesn’t really like gay people. That, my friends, can also be said as disliking gay people for no good reason and/or because they are gay. Otherwise known as homophobia. It doesn’t matter how much he whines that it is just ‘instinct’ it’s still homophobic. Maybe if we lived in a society that didn’t treat heterosexuality as the ‘norm’ and therefore everything else as ‘abnormal’ snivellingly thoughtless little shitbags like Davies would be made quite so nervous by those big bad gays.

Then he drops another clanger;

"I make no bones about it, I'm a product of my upbringing and of the time I was brought up, so I'm not going to pretend not to be. It's not like I was brought up in San Francisco or somewhere like that.”

Ah, that old chestnut. The ‘it’s all down to the place I’m from/the time I grew up’ argument. This is, quite frankly, the biggest, most irritating pile of apologist wank I’ve ever heard. Whenever someone blames their upbringing for their intolerant views it’s either laziness or looking for excuses. The same goes for the ‘generational’ argument. I cannot believe no one else is insulted at the suggestion that, because a person is raised in a strictly religious household, or South Wales, or the 1940s that they cannot listen to or critically assess new ideas and arguments. I would rather someone brought out the arguments against something that they had come to a considered conclusion over rather than just blaming their parents like sulky teenagers. It’s crap and generally offensive all round.

Do I think David Davies is a hate filled, miss informed, ranting homophobe? No, actually I don’t. I believe him when he says he doesn’t really know much about the debates surrounding gay marriage (although one then wonders why he spoke about it on BBC Wales). I think, sadly, that he is blinded by our heteronormative society and so bound by the ideas we are spoon fed that he really doesn’t have a fucking clue. But he needs to get one. Everyone does. No one, lesbian, gay, straight, bi, queer, asexual, pansexual, poly or other is benefitting from a situation where the rights of millions of people can be questioned due to a sense of unease.

But I also think he’s avoiding the issue by hiding behind a wall of (probably at least partially) fabricated confusion. This isn’t sweet. It’s worry for a politicians to be so utterly uninformed about something he pipes off opinions about. He needs to educate himself and anyone else who wants to weigh in on the debate needs to as well. There is no received wisdom here. Although it pains me to say it even Tories have braincells. They should learn how to use them.

Nick Griffin and why it isn't Cool to be Gay

Right, before I get onto the main rant I need to hock up a warm up rant about how Nick Griffin is an immature, bigoted, vapid cockwomble and anyone who has ever even considered voting for his band of knuckle dragging, neo Nazi, scumbags deserves to have white hot needles pushed through their eyes. Fair enough, you’re probably thinking, I already knew that Griffin was an immature, bigoted, vapid cockwomble. What has he done now?

What he has done is tweet the address of the couple who just won their case after a court decided they were unlawfully turned away from and B&B because they were gay. The High Priest of all Fuckwits then told the couple to expect legions of his grunting supporters to pay them a visit and tell them, somewhat bizarrely, ‘an English couple’s home is their castle.’

Apparently Lord Cuntbucket thinks this is acceptable behaviour. Intimidating someone because they had the audacity to be right in the eyes of the law is not big and clever you utter bellend. Not only have this couple gone through the stress and inconvenience of the court case but now they’re potentially going to be hounded by pond scum. Fortunately Griffin has made their address public so I can send them some homemade jam to keep their spirits up. I’m sure the police officers who now have to keep an eye on the house would appreciate some as well. Wasting police time as well Nick. Tut tut.

I sometimes think someone created Griffin just for me. It’s so easy to argue against his ridiculous party when he’s in charge of it. There is very little excuse for most of the things he does (including breathe) and this is a particularly shitty example of a coward who is being ignored (because he’s wrong) so he gets all nasty and playground bully-esque and just makes himself look like a snivelling childish waste of oxygen. Fuck Nick Griffin. Fuck him with a crowbar until his spleen explodes.

But what I really wanted to rant about is what I heard on the Jeremy Vine show concerning this story. My Mum’s lived here longer than I have so she gets first dibs on the radio, although she is fully aware that they often pick people to go on Jezza’s show on based solely on how much they will annoy me. She knew this, she could have switched over to Lauren Laverne on 6, she didn’t and this is the result.

The guest they dug up from some unknown cavern (supposedly Vanity Fair magazine where she is the contributing editor) was Victoria Mather I’m not completely sure what kind of magazine Vanity Fair is so I’m not going to comment on it, but I will comment on one particular sentence she said which demonstrated perfectly to me that she is at least semi-detached from reality, or at least any reality that I’ve ever had any dealings with. This sentence was;

‘In contemporary life it’s cool to gay but it’s not cool to be Christian.’

I’m assuming that you’ll want to read that several times to make absolutely sure you got it right so take your time.

Yep, this woman thinks it is ‘cool’ to be gay. There’s so much wrong with that statement I’m not entirely sure where to start, but I’ll give it a go. The word ‘cool’ carries connotations of being both a conscious choice and temporary. Being gay isn’t a trend. You don’t stop being gay when some other sexuality comes into style. I won’t even go into the nasty little notion this woman hinted at that there is an element of posturing to being gay, that people do it because it’s the thing to do at the moment.

Actually fuck it I will. Does anyone really genuinely think that people are so shallow that they will pick their partner on the basis of which gender it is currently fashionable to date? Besides I’d put money on it actually being far more common for the opposite to take place. People who fancy others of the same sex will likely pretend they don’t. These days, thankfully, stage relationships and marriages to hide a person’s sexual orientation are pretty rare in the UK but it’s still at work on a more subtle level. If you have a partner of the same sex chances are, rather than lie, you just won’t mention them or use gender neutral terms particularly with people you don’t know. If being gay was the next big thing there wouldn’t be the fear of rejection sitting in your stomach every time you reach that first point in a conversation with someone when you have to reveal the gender of your partner.

If being gay was cool you wouldn’t be accused of ‘waving it in people’s faces’ just by acknowledging that your partner exists. You wouldn’t think twice about holding hands in public. You wouldn’t feel just a little bit nervous when you leave a gay bar late at night.

But, and I wish dearly this wasn’t so, there is a tiny grain of truth embedded in Mather’s bigotry. There are prevailing narratives surrounding queer people in popular culture at the moment and this might be what she was getting at (although quite what that has to do with a couple being turned away from a B&B is beyond me).

Let’s start with the trope of the young, urban gay man with a lot of disposable income who is well dressed, quick witted and faaaaaabulous, darling. Some gay men are like that, some aren’t, and the ones that are (unless they stay constantly in Brighton, Vauxhall and Manchester’s Canal Street, which I will be coming back to later) will probably get a fair amount of abuse for being so visible. This is probably the man she had in mind when she uttered that stupid statement. I have an idea that Vanity Fair is connected in some way to fashion and I’m also given to understand there’s quite a lot of camp gay men in that industry. So, at the very best Mather is generalising her experience to the whole world. That’s naughty and every fucker else that does it gets rightly told of for it.

Let’s move on to the other narratives, specifically the ones that concern women (sorry lads, if you don’t act like a character out of Queer as Folk your visibility in popular culture is pretty low). The ‘cool’ one Mather was probably thinking of is young women who are openly bisexual. There’s a pretty disingenuous theory currently being grumbled around that these women do this to attract men. This is because porn has taught a generation that lesbianism only exists to turn men on. Think I’m stretching that a bit? Go look up some generic, badly made porn. You won’t get far without some HotGirl4GirlAction or whatever they tag it as these days. So, naturally, a young women who finds herself attracted to women as well as men or who is exploring her sexuality is faking it. Because what’s the point of women having sex if men get no pleasure from it? Oh, and male bisexuality appears to not exist.

Beyond that you have the tried and tested lesbian stereotype. You know the one. It involves short hair and dungarees. A gay woman can’t win. If she wants to rock the DMs she is told she’s feeding into this stereotype and should stop it as well as getting so comprehensively mocked no one in their right mind could consider that image ‘cool’. If she doesn’t she’s a ‘lipstick’ lesbian and this renders her, like the non-camp gay man, invisible. It’s hard to be cool if you’re not even acknowledged.

I’m not saying the LGBT community is immune from this petty pigeonholing, because it certainly isn’t. They appear to have bought wholesale into the myth that the only group worth catering for is the affluent city dwelling gay men. The advertising on Canal Street is pretty squarely focussed on this demographic. This is a situation hampered by the one remaining lesbian bar being run by the most arrogant, self-aggrandising tosspots this side of the X Factor.

So, basically, not being straight is still pretty hard Victoria, and saying pointless tripe like the above does no good. Also, when was the last time being ‘cool’ got you a room in a B&B? Oh, that’s right, you work for a magazine. You probably really think that’s how the world works. Maybe you’re not a bigoted heterosexual threatened by the fact that loving someone of the same sex is no longer a mental illness. Maybe you’re just deluded. Either way I’m not taking a word of what I said back.

That goes for you too Griffin.