Tag Archives: Gay

Dating & Living With an Older Gay Man

I sometimes get asked about what it’s like dating or living with an older gay man. I also get asked for tips and advice on how to deal with family and friends or how I dealt with my family and friends when they found out I was dating and in fact now living with a man 22 years older than myself.

I have actually written about many of these questions and problems in my other articles here as the articles are all based on my personal experiences of mainly dating older men, as well as my life living with one for seven years now.

However, a recent email inspired me to write some more on this subject and to try and address a few specific points that I may not have covered quite so clearly before.

One of the problems or hurdles that you will face if you are involved in a relationship with a gay man where there is a significant age gap is how others will perceive that relationship.

Another hurdle that you may face is how you think other people will perceive your relationship with an older or younger gay man.

In my own life, the later point is actually the one that gave me the most problems.

I actually gave myself more grief and worry about what other people might think than what actually happened and what these people actually do think about our relationship.

These days, I don’t worry about people thinking negatively about our relationship because in the first place it’s not theirs and in the second place most people are too busy with their own problems and relationships to really be too concerned.

I took me many years to get to this comfort point in my life; it wasn’t easy and I will admit that even to this day I sometimes have the occasional bit of anxiety.

How could I have made things easier on myself? That’s something that I sometimes think about and the answer that keeps repeating itself is that I should have come out to my parents a lot earlier than when I did.

But I was young and scared of what they might think or do and what my friends might think and do. As it turned out, I came out to my parents when I was older and at a pretty low point in my life, still scared of what everyone might say and do.

To make thing just a little more interesting and difficult, the day I came out was also the day that they officially found out that I was living with an older man who was the same age as they were.

Yes, they got a double whammy that day!

I broke the news awkwardly to my mum first. I don’t remember exactly what either of us said, it’s all a blur but it basically went something like this…

“Mum, you know how I’m renting a room from Ian and how I invite him to all our family get-togethers? Well he’s not really my landlord. He’s my lover and has been since I moved in with him”.

A short pause of silence greets this revelation and then my mum responds with, “It’s OK; I kind of figured that might be the case”.

After I left my parents place, my head still spinning at what I’d just done, I received a phone call from my Dad; “It’s OK son”, he said.

I was elated! Years of guilt started lifting from my shoulders.

I had begun the next phase of my life as a gay man of thirty something.

I honestly don’t know what I would have done had this opportunity presented itself when I was younger, and in my early twenties; or nineteen for that matter.

I do know that it was important to finally come out to my family and formally introduce the man who was my lover and partner.

I was quite literally getting sick from hiding in the closet and hiding a relationship that was extremely important to me, as Ian wasn’t just some guy that I was occasionally going out with. My entire life was and is to this day revolving around him – we’re partners.

Do we get strange looks or questions? Sure sometimes. But for the most part people are too busy to really concern themselves. For others that we meet it’s often a case of, “Oh well, that’s interesting, looks like it’s been good for both of you.” And still others are down right envious.

In any event, it matters not what they think; what matters is us and our happiness.

Understanding Sexual Orientation Amongst Young Males

When it comes to understanding sexual orientation among youth, most research focuses on health, social work and psychology. They look at the youth’s vulnerability to various types of health issues: sexually transmitted diseases, school climate and bullying, sexual assault, abuse and suicide. However, the sociological process that drives individuals to call themselves gay or bisexual has had less focus, until now.

Researcher Mary Anne Robinson of the University of Colorado at Boulder decided to analyze “sexual selfhood” and the process of sexual socialization through a qualitative method and from the point of view of adolescent males.

Her study focused on 18 life-history interviews. Robinson volunteered at Spectrum for 16 months. Spectrum is an urban center that welcomes any youth between the ages of 13 and 22 who identify with the LGBT community. It predominately serves young adults of lower socioeconomic status. Robinson decided to direct the focus of her study on male youth who were born male. The population at the center was mostly male, and she didn’t want to assume all experiences among the other genders.

Robinson’s research led her to identify four processes of sexual identity formation. They are: violating compulsory heterosexuality, seeking out an explanation for their differences, exploring sexuality and negotiating identity.

Compulsory behavior occurs in a social system where all persons are assumed to be heterosexual and heterosexuality is reinforced by gender norms, like masculine and feminine. According to Robinson’s study, the young males would recount stories of how others marked them as being different because they did not conform to typical male behavior. Once the individual was marked for their difference by either themselves or others, they sought out an explanation for why. Initially many of the participants revealed that they didn’t have a language to name how they felt.

Upon recognizing themselves as gay or bisexual, the young men took steps toward embracing their sexuality through relationships. Many of the young males had opportunities to have sex, but did not. In fact, many of the participants identified themselves as virgins. Robinson believes this is significant because it shows that being gay or bisexual doesn’t depend on having sex.

Last, although many face pressure to choose a sexual identity, many youths today are ambiguous about what that identity is. Robinson found that while the boundaries of identity are expanding, sexual identities are becoming more prominent and meaningful, even though not all sexual and gender identities are viewed with legitimacy.

Dr. M. Mirza, LGBT Health Wellness – 2014

How Many Americans Are Bisexual or Homosexual?

A recent survey (the annual National Health Interview Survey) by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention asked about sexual orientation for the first time. While the majority of candidates reported being heterosexual, of the 34,557, 1.6 percent claimed to be homosexual and 0.7 claimed to be bisexual. While many other surveys have claimed much higher numbers, it is important to keep in mind that this is a very difficult number to pinpoint.

You may be asking why. To start, the survey is more or less showcasing results for how those who have taken it identify themselves. Whether or not it factually identifies all participants based on societal definitions of sexuality is too complicated a question to test without further research. Keep in mind that many people do not care to share their sexuality, possibly due to shame, misidentification with how they feel inside, or simply not wanting to release that information. It’s a complicated subject; proclaiming you are gay or bisexual carries many social stigmas.

Questions were provided to surveyors via computer, which they personally asked participants who then answered by showing flash cards. This person to person questioning may help comfort, but still, it does nothing to encourage people to discuss their true indentity. Furthermore, the survey asked nothing regarding transexuals, whose sexuality may be very difficult at times to define.

These statistics may help narrow and target treatment for sexual minorities, which is good, but they still lack accuracy. Without societal reform, it may be impossible to get information that is, figuratively, hidden in the closet.

September 2014

UK Sherlock Fans Call for Gay Relationship in Series

Fans of the popular BBC series Sherlock have been lobbying show creator Mark Gatiss to write a gay relationship between Sherlock and Watson into the plot.

Gatiss said he had been inundated with plotline ideas and even explicit drawings sugeesting a relationship between Sherlock played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Watson (Martin Freeman).

Gatiss told DNA that fans had been urging him to make the dynamic crime fighting duo a couple since injecting sexual innuendo into the plot of the previous series.

Gatiss told DNA: “Oh my God. I get sent things that would make your hair turn white. It’s not just Sherlock and Watson holding hands on a park bench, I can tell you that.

“Some of them are incredibly graphic but my goodness I’ve not tried half the things they’re doing.”

It’s not the first occasion that the great detective and his sidekick have been rumoured to be gay. In the 1970s Billy Wilder film, it was joked that Sherlock and Watson were a couple.

Gatiss said this is where he and co-creator Steven Moffat took their lead.

Nonetheless Gatiss said there are no plans at this stage to turn the pair into a couple.

A fourth series of Sherlock has been commissioned by the BBC and will air later this year. The BBC has also announced plans for a special feature length episode to begin filming in January 2015.

Christians Against Gays & Gay Marriage?

Are Christians against gays?

Gay marriages have hardly ever received religious sanction, especially never so in the realms of Christian Catholicism. The Catholic Church has time and again, raised serious protests against the legalization and public acceptance of same-sex marital unions, across several regions of the world. Such religious condemnation is one of the main impediments in the battle being fought by the gay community across the world.

The Catholic Church believes that homosexual relations are against the dictates of the Bible. God created the male and female anatomy such that they are physically complimentary to one another so that they can reproduce and procreate, producing human offspring for the progression of the species. However, same-sex relationships are not conducive to the idea of procreation, and are believed to have been condemned in some interpretations of Biblical texts. In that sense, gay unions are against the biological norms of nature and staunch Catholics consider them to be a violation of God’s establishment of a harmonious society. This is the basic argument put forward by the higher Catholic authorities as well as some followers of the religion as well.

The Catholic opposition to gay marriage also drives strength from the fact that their conduct of religion is centered upon a very high view of marriage and human sexuality. Christian Scriptures are cited to reiterate the importance and significance of marital relations and human sexuality. The Book of Genesis is known to reflect that marriage and sexuality were designed such by God to be sacred gifts to mankind.

“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18).

“A man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).”

The above mentioned sections are often quoted to explain the religious sanctity of marriage as God had ordained. Male and female sexuality were to compliment one another so that they could unite in the Holy union of marriage. And since marriage for Catholics, is a Holy vocation, they hold it in reverence and thus try to defend it against “harm”, be it in terms of homosexuality or otherwise.

The Catholic Church also believes that gay marriages are a detriment to society. In their argument and protect against the acceptance of same-sex marital unions, they interweave their religious and social concerns to put forward a stronger case. Since gay unions cannot facilitate procreation, they do not play any biological function is society which is supposed to be an important element of the entire marital institution. In consequence to this, the Church believes that the sanctity of a marriage between homosexuals is thus little, if not inconsequential.

While the Catholic Church in its entirety is seen as an opposing force to gay marital union, there is a large body of Catholic Christians that does not react to the idea of same-sex marriages in the same manner. Some also argue that the Biblical references that are given to justify a Holy rejection of same-sex relations may not have been related to the question of homosexuality at all. This takes the religious debate into the arena of interpretation and reinterpretation of the Bible. However, since there is no way to judge upon the correctness of any Biblical interpretation, this debate is not expected to reach any concrete conclusion.

This is however, not to say that Catholicism represents a complete an absolute boycott of the homosexual population of the world. Yes, the Catholic Church is not a proponent of homosexuality and same-sex marriages. However, a complete rejection of gay people and their lifestyle is not what the Catholic Church stands for either. The bottom line here is that Catholicism has been an opposing voice in the debate over gay marriages and their legalization. It cites religious as well as social factors as the basis for such a stance. But its view on gay marriages is not a complete reflection of the Catholic treatment of homosexuality. While the debate goes on and on, one can only wonder whether there shall ever be an effective conclusion to it, and if so, which voice shall emerge victorious.

gaymarriagesupport.com/christians-against-gays-gay-marriage – 2012

Coming Out in the Open

In contemporary times, the gay community across the world has got a larger space for expression in society. However, this does not in any way, reflect upon the genuine attitude that a large section of the population harbor for homosexuals. In fact, in most of the less developed parts of the world, as well as more broad-minded societies, people face discrimination and social seclusion based upon their sexual orientation. Often, the fear of facing rejection and silent condemnation from their peers, family or the general populace at large, leads homosexuals to suppress their homoerotic impulses or else get involved in clandestine relationships that rely upon secrecy to be successful. Either way, living such a life is not healthy for there is a constant sense of inadequacy in this nature of existence. It is thus advised by psychologists as well as gay activists that homosexuals should not hesitate to come out of the closet and express their sexual preference without any qualms.

For homosexuals to be as unguarded about their sexual orientation as heterosexuals, they shall need the comfort of knowing that they will get part of, if not similar degree of acceptance as the latter. What gay people often do not realize is that keeping their homosexuality within wraps, they themselves are also conforming to the sexual stereotypes which they think society is burdening them with. If they are at peace with the reality of their sexual preference, the societal response should become a secondary concern. In fact, as more and more homosexuals have gone ahead and been candid about their orientation, the general public response has also undergone a change. As the active gay community becomes larger and stronger, they garner more respect and acceptance due to the very fact of being part of a more vast section of the population and not an extremely small minority.

While a large number of gay people keep their homosexuality a secret due to societal pressures and insecurities, more often than not, it is also because they are comfortable with their own reality. However, they must realize that the root cause of such discomfort also goes back to the general conditioning that one receives in regard with sexuality and preferences from their very birth. What they need t realize is that it is better to come out and face reality rather than live a lie. Studies and statistics support the fact that most homosexuals have found themselves to feel happier and more secure once they have come out of the closet and declared their orientation with no hint of embarrassment or regret.

It is important to realize that if a homosexual is fighting with their sexual impulses or keeping their orientation a secret, they are not at peace and are not probably living a very satisfactory life in that sense. It is often believed by the more vocal members of the gay community that they are better off risking undesirable societal reaction rather than living in a state of unhappiness, often even depression. The idea is that it is a fairer deal to risk unhappiness and be true to oneself, rather than be unhappy and live in denial or concealment.

Moreover, as the gay community has become more vocal and active in fighting for its rights (pro gay marriage), a large part of the formerly indifferent or disdainful population has broadened their outlook, being more aware about the reality of homosexuality and sexual preference. As the world community gets more aware about this issue, they simultaneously become more sensitized towards the idea of accepting them as one of their own.

It is therefore, a fair conclusion that homosexuals shall fare better if they are open about their sexual orientation. It shall not only help lighten their own mental burden but also contribute to the larger cause of gay activism that aims at changing the discriminatory attitude that society may harbor in regard with homosexuals. And in coming out of the closet, a gay person makes a decisive attempt to control their own life, which reflects personal growth and strength of character. For all the gay people in the world, go ahead and express yourselves, embrace your sexuality and let other’s notions of right and wrong affect your life.

gaymarriagesupport.com/coming-out-in-the-open – 2012

The Spirit & The Flesh: Sexual Diversity In American Indian Culture

American Historical Review 93 (February 1988):218-219

By skillfully integrating historical and anthropological literature with the results of his own unique cross-cultural fieldwork among contemporary berdaches, Williams provides an extraordinarily perceptive study of the berdache and the most comprehensive treatment of this controversial topic to date. One of the goals of this work is to “allow Indian people to speak for themselves” (p.7). The most effective use of quotations occurs in part 1, which explores the character of the berdache… Particularly valuable insights are conveyed by various traditionalists…. This is a provocative book that will undoubtedly rattle a number of cages. It will also prove to be an essential tool for scholars engaged in gender studies and an extremely useful source for ethnologists, historians and others interested in the human condition. There is a wealth of information in the book.

American Anthropologist 89 (December 1987): 978-979.

Walter Williams produced a detailed study of the sexual diversity among American Indians in six years, 1980-1986. “The Spirit and the Flesh” achieves an important place in anthropological literature regarding berdaches or transvestites and homosexual behavior among American Indians by means of finding and interviewing berdaches.

The recent general sexual revolution in the United States and the gay liberation movement contributed greatly to the production of Williams’s wide-ranging and fully documented book. It will surprise some, shock some, but almost everyone can learn something new from it.

Journal of the American Academy of Religion 57 (Autumn 1989): 607-615.

Walter Williams explores both the extensive literature and the berdache phenomena in considerable depth in a volume that is a decided contribution to the discussion and understanding of complex issues. It becomes essential reading for all of us who would engage in an ongoing study, as well as for those busy academicians who would hope for at least some knowledge of the subject. They will find Williams’ style eminently readable and at the same time well documented….

Williams would push us to move beyond a commonly cited definition to think of berdachism as representing a third, distinctive gender, a ‘mixing’ of the two biologically obvious genders…. Williams perfers ‘gender mixing’ as a more appropriate description of berdaches as an in-between gender…. Williams does a good job of surveying a great variety of ethnographic, anthropological and historical reports… Williams does put the ethnographic evidence into a new interpretive framework. This much alone insures that his work will be in the center of academic discussion about berdache traditions. It should be added that he has also done rather broad field work assessing the state of the issue in contemporary tribal situations….

The analysis of the shifts in contemporary Indian cultures, as we have noted, is one of Williams’ intended contributions…. He advances far beyond other interpreters, although there are certain problems. The strength of Williams’ interpretation of the contemporary context and also the problematic is in the reporting of his field work, namely his broad based conversations with a variety of modern berdaches / gay Indians from very differing tribal traditions. While his treatment is not and probably could not yet be thoroughly systemic, he attempts to move beyond treatment of berdaches as merely a historical phenomenon…. At the very least, evidence from Native America will emphasize that it is simply not the case that the despising of homosexual individuals is a human universal.

Ethnohistory 37 (Autumn 1990):449-451.

Already a classic, this prodigal, prizewinning ethnography about cross-cultural sexual variation remedies serious empirical deficiencies even as it contains important interpretive problems of its own. The many and overwhelming data it presents confirm not only the presence of sanctioned homosexuality but its diverse institutionalization in indigenous and contemporary Native American cultures. Focused largely on male homosexuality, this book draws on Williams’ fieldwork in North America, Central America, and Hawaii and on his exhaustive excavation of the ethnographic and historical literature….

Most of the evidence for the berdache’s social legitimacy is strikingly convincing… yet at times the book’s argument does not seem to register the contradictory evidence which, to its credit, it actually cites…. The narrative and theoretical voice is stronger in the second, historical section of the book, which uses a dialectical model of colonial domination to examine the transformation of the berdache tradition since European contact…. [It] illustrates very powerfully how domination, by contradictorily facing in as well as out, generates resistance: the recent gay liberation movement among whites, having drawn symbolic nurturance from the surviving berdache tradition, has in turn helped to energize that tradition as a symbol and catalyst of its own culture’s revitalization….

The last chapter surveys data that suggest a wide cross-cultural range of sexual diversity. The concluding paragraphs rightly chastise social constructionists like Foucault and Weeks for their ethnocentric ignorance of emics, which prevents them from fully comprehending variant models of sexuality and gender or imagining truly revolutionary ones. While the book’s own use of etics is a bit random (the first section’s grab-bag functionalism posits now reproductive survival, now social leveling, now biopsychological need, as the telos of social custom), its description and evocation of emic categories admirably begin the task for whose continuation it calls.

Journal of American History 77 (June 1990): 308.

For decades anthropologists and historians have mentioned or provided brief discussions of the role of the berdache within traditional native American cultures, but this volume by Walter L. Williams, a professor of ethnohistory in the Program for the Study of Women and Men in Society at the University of Southern California, provides the first in-depth, systematic examination of this institution and its relationship to both Native American and Euro-American cultures. Combining extensive research in travel accounts, personal narratives, and anthropological reports with his own field research, Williams argues that the institution was prevalent throughout most of the western tribes, and that berdaches played prominent social, economic, and spiritual roles within tribal societies….

This is a well-researched, well-written study. Williams admirably blends his fieldwork with more traditional historical research, and the volume will unquestionably remain the standard reference work on this subject for the forseeable future. Unfortunately, however, Williams’s arguments for the legitimacy of the berdaches and his condemnation of Euro-American attitudes toward gay and lesbian sexual behavior occasionally border upon advocacy. In addition, his chapter arguing for the prevalence of clandestine homosexual behavior among such socio-economic groups as pirates or cowboys detract from his primary thesis. These shortcomings aside, this volume should be welcomed by historians and anthropologists studying Native Americans. It should also be well received by historians of sexuality.

 

by Walter L. Williams. Boston: Beacon Press, 1986 and revised edition 1992.

transgender.org – 2011

Gay Travel In India

It is easy to get bored of spending vacations in Europe, Argentina and the more exotic locations around the world. This is when most travelers think of coming to Asia for their next yearly vacation. For any LGBT + traveler, however, Asia is far from the ideal location for travel, unless the focus is on sightseeing and not LGBT services. If you or one of your friends is planning to drop in to India for a short while, there are things that are necessary to know before making the trip, if the plan is not to make the trip a disaster.

India is almost a homophobic country. Though you will get a lot of eye candy in the form of her ancient heritage and monuments, it is not for you if you’re looking forward to a week of gay bars and partying. Homosexuality is illegal here, and PDA is an offence. If you’re caught doing PDA with your gay lover, you can easily expect a night or more in jail. Holding hands does not count, by the way, but you’ll be better off without it.

Once you are clear about your objective for visiting India, choosing where all to visit is crucial, since the country is so huge and full of travelers’ havens that going to every tourist location in one trip is not possible. The first place you might want to look at is what is popularly known as The Golden Triangle – Delhi, Agra and Jaipur. All three cities overflow with Mughal heritage and monuments, famously the Taj Mahal in Agra, the Red Fort in Delhi and loads of Mahals in Jaipur. What to expect here? – Huge castles and fortresses, a lot of heat, a lot of traditionally dressed women – basically, a lot of India. You can also extend your trip to other cities in Rajasthan, such as Udaipur, if you can stand the heat and love Mughal architecture. And for travelers especially looking forward to gay activity, there are several bars in New Delhi that have a gay night once a week.

Going south, there are cities like Mumbai, Kerala, Goa, Chennai, and a lot of hill stations like Kodaikanal and Ooty. While Mumbai has some spectacular monuments (and gay parties every now and then), like the Gateway of India, and museums, Chennai and nearby cities have some mind blowing temples. The architecture of these temples has been the primary attraction for tourists for years, all of whom can not get over the façade, the interior and just about everything about them. The immense scribbling on the façade by tourists is just proof that these temples are popular indeed!

Goa is full of exotic beaches, great nightlife and very cheap alcohol. Coming to Kerala and the hill stations of South India, here is natural beauty if there ever is anywhere. Kerala is not known as “God’s Own Country” for no reason, after all. The scenery is refreshing, serene and breathtaking. Full of lush trees and beautiful lagoons (or backwaters), Kerala is the place for you if you want to de-stress.

Northern India, too, has some scenic displays for the tourist. Leh, freezing cold, but fascinating, is a must visit for anyone looking for the perfect hill station. Then there is the disputed and terrorized territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Don’t call me crazy for this, but there isn’t much to fear while visiting the state, since the police patrol the area, and tourists visit it, all the time. If you are looking for a spiritual tour, you can probably visit the famous Badrinath and Kedarnath temples in the Himachal area and Vaishno Devi, one of the most popular Hindu temples anywhere, in J&K.

Keep in mind that asking for gay parties and bars is something of a risk in India. It is better that you look for these in online forums and discussions, get in touch with a few local guys who know the gay scene here, and then make your move. Staying in hotels is not an issue in India, since men often share a room to cut down travel expenses. Just know that advertising your sexuality will only work against you here. The rest said, enjoy India!

Article written by Shahrukh K. – 2009

Queer Gay Sports Eye for the Hopeless Homo

As I was watching “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” the Bravo reality series where five fabulous gay guys transform a straight, uncultured slob, I was struck by a moment where I identified more with the hetero than the homo.

It was a scene where Carson, the fashion maven, was going through the closet of Slob ‘O The Week, and came across his collection of replica NHL jerseys. Carson picked one up that said “Gretzky” across the back and remarked with puzzlement, “Gretzky? What country is that?”

C’mon, dude, I said to the TV. How can you not know who Wayne Gretzky is, maybe the greatest hockey player ever? At least you should know he’s married to B-movie actress Janet Jones; it was in all the tabloids. I’m certainly no fashion poster boy, but even I know about Prada and Tom Ford.

The Fab Five’s apparent lack of sports knowledge led me to an idea: teaching sports-impaired gay men the basics about the world of bats, balls and pucks. Call it “Queer Sports Eye for the Hopeless Homo.” This information can be very useful in those awkward social settings where you have to interact with your ultra-straight brother-in-law, or maybe break the ice with the dad of your new boyfriend. Or even, pray tell, if your significant other would rather watch “SportsCenter” than “Trading Spaces.” I consulted our Fab Five (no, not the Michigan basketball team from the 1990s) and we came up with these following helpful hints, tips and facts about the world of sports.

Culture

–Super Bowl Sunday is a rotten day to throw a surprise birthday party for your football-loving boyfriend. It’d be like him asking you to go bowling the night of the Oscars.

–Contrary to what you may think, “Fantasy Football” is not a shower scene between you and the Green Bay Packers starting offense. It’s a game where you “draft” your own team of NFL players to compete against similar teams of your friends. But don’t be like our friend who picked his entire 2002 team based on which players were the hottest. Talent and looks do not always go hand in hand. Just ask Warren Sapp.

–“The Big Dance” is not the Palm Springs White Party. It’s the nickname for the NCAA men’s college basketball championship, a three-week hoops extravaganza featuring hot, young, sweaty jocks slapping each other on the butt while wearing tank tops and shorts and drinking lots of water. Oh, sorry, it is the White Party.

–You need to get down with the nicknames. “Shaq” is Lakers center Shaquille O’Neal; “Kobe” is fellow Laker Kobe Bryant; “A-Rod” is Texas Rangers shortstop Alex Rodriguez. “Tight end” signifies a football player positioned to the outside of the offensive line eligible to catch passes, not the headline of that hot guy you saw on Gay .com.

–Gary Glitter’s addictive “Rock and Roll Part 2” (aka the Hey! Song) is the sports national anthem, heard in every arena across the land year-round. Here are the complete lyrics, sung for three minutes: “Hey!”
Even Texas A&M alums can memorize it.

Food

— While watching a game, angel hair pasta tossed in olive oil and roasted garlic is a no-no. Doritos with a side of melted cheese product and a box of Krispy Kremes is as gourmet as it gets. We had a friend’s boyfriend come to a football party last year bearing oranges (it gets worse–they were seedless mandarins called “cuties.”) “You do not bring citrus fruit to a football party,” the boyfriend was told by his partner in a tone that resembled John Madden channeling Martha Stewart.

–Beer is the beverage of choice and it should to be a good, old, red-blooded American mass-produced brew like Bud or Miller. If you go micro, avoid foo-foo names like “Sweet Lavender Ale,” and choose “Snarling Pit Bull Malt” instead.

Interior Design

–A satellite dish with Tivo that can pick up the NFL Sunday Ticket and ESPN Classic Sports is de rigueur.

–You need a couch that’s functional, great to lounge on and the right color to hide beer and grease stains. Brushed leather won’t do.

–The kitchen should be within good hearing distance of the TV so you can’t miss a play. Better yet, go for a TV in the kitchen. And the bedroom. One fanatic we know (an ex-NFL player) has TV speakers in his bathroom so as not to miss a thing (how weird to listen to the Steelers going for 2 when you’re doing the same.)

–Contrary to what one friend’s partner thinks, a football trophy is a proper coffee table addition. Talk about a conversation piece!

Fashion/Grooming

–Avoid inappropriate combinations. A Yankees hat with a Red Sox sweatshirt; a Florida State visor with a Florida T-shirt; anything with “Los Angeles Clippers” on it. Would you wear your dad’s leisure suit to happy hour at the Boom-Boom Room? We didn’t think so.

–It is OK to go shirtless to a sporting event. But you first must be willing to paint “Hi mom! Go Huskers!” on your chest. Please do us a favor, though–before you bare all, at least have seen the inside of a gym in the past year.

–Tattoos are cool but must be appropriate. We have a good friend who’s a huge Minnesota Vikings fan, and he has a tat of the fierce Viking mascot on his behind. In the old days (before he found Mr. Right), he would go up to a prospective trick and if the guy knew anything about football, would say the Pickup Line That Never Failed: “Would you like to go somewhere private and see my royal Viking ass?” Try that with a tat of Madonna.

–Yes, many athletes wear jockstraps during competition, hence their name. And yes, people notice. Denver Broncos wide receiver Ed McCaffrey (all 6-5, 215 pounds of him) and his wife were once interviewed. The questioner noted that Ed wears undersized shoulder pads and mentioned he must also wear a jock strap. The wife said the jock “is a very large one. That’s why the shoulder pads look so small.” And this was on ESPN, not the Spice Channel.

By J. Buzinski Out Sports – 2003

The Gay, Lesbian, and Feminist Backlash

The modern era of the gay & lesbian rights movement is usually marked as starting on a hot July evening at the Stonewall Inn in New York City’s Greenwich Village. The New York police, as many city police departments across the United States did, made period raids on sexual minority bars to harass and arrest the patrons. On this particular night, transgendered woman, Sylvia Rivera, resisted arrest, touching off a riot that continued for three nights running.

In the next year, three transgendered people, Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P. Johnson, and Angela Keyes Douglas would play pivotal roles in organizing the emergent Gay Liberation Front and the Gay Activists Alliance. The goal of the Gay Liberation Front was complete acceptance of sexual diversity and expression. But by 1971 the gay men’s community had returned to the assimilationist strategy as the lesbians, in 1973, turned to separatism and radical feminism. There seemed to be no room for transgendered people in either camp.

In 1971, the GAA wrote and introduced a bill to the New York City Council that was the first omnibus anti-discrimination bill to protect homosexual people. However, inspite of early and avid support of the GAA by transgendered people the bill completely ignored transgendered people. Silvia Rivera, disgusted by the batrayal, said to the leaders of the GAA, “It’s not us that they are afraid of — its you! Get rid of us. Sell us out. Make us expendable. Then you’re at the front lines. Don’t you understand that?” This marked the first serious batrayal, but certainly not the last.

Disillusioned by the GAA’s betrayal of transgendered people, Angela Douglas formed the Transsexual Activist Organization along the same lines as the GAA, with some of the loftier ideals of the GLF. She began publishing MoonShadow, a quirky newsletter for and about transgendered people and the struggle for legal rights.

In early 1970’s, Beth Elliott was active in a number of organizations including the Alice B. Toklas Gay Democratic Club, which she co-founded, the Board of Directors of the California Committee for Sexual Law Reform working to repeal California’s anti-sodomy laws, and the Daughters of Bilitus. The Daughters of Bilitus had been a pioneering lesbian organization during the 1950s and ‘60s, but was losing membership in the ‘70s as the lesbian community turned to more radical organizing. In ‘73 Ms. Elliott was asked to stand for election as the Vice-President of the San Francisco chapter of the Daughters of Bilitus. Late in her term of office her transgender status became a point of contention at the West Coast Lesbian Conference, where she was outed and vilified for being a MTF transsexual. The complaint was that Beth Elliott had insinuated herself into a position of power over women as a patriarchal man, a propagandist ploy that was to become common when attacking other transgendered people . At the conference she was forced to stop her music concert due to the catcalls from the audience by women that knew nothing more about her than that she was transsexual. She was required to sit through a popular vote of the attendees to determine whether they would let her finish her set. In the weeks and months to follow she was further vilified and even betrayed by women who had once called her friend. The treatment she received led her to become “stealth” for many years after.

In July of 1973, during a “Gay is Good” rally, Sylvia Rivera was followed on the stage by lesbian separatist Jean O’Leary. She denounced transgender people as men who, by “impersonating women”, were exploiting women for profit. It was the beginning of a series of such high profile transphobic attacts from the lesbian community.

In 1977, at the height of the Right Wing / Anita Bryant anti-gay rights backlash, the lesbian feminist separatist movement was busy attacking an even smaller community that only wanted to work within the lesbian community, lesbian identified transsexual women. Central to the conflict in ‘77 was transsexual recording engineer, Sandy Stone, working at Olivia Records.

Sandy Stone was a recording engineer for A&M Records before her transition. Olivia Records needed a recording engineer with skills and experience to help their fledgling all women’s recording studio. They found it in Sandy Stone. She recorded a number of their early albums, training other women on proper recording and mixing technique. When word got around that Olivia had a transsexual in the company, lesbian separatists threatened a boycott of Olivia products and concerts. Olivia Records was on the edge of profitability. A boycott would destroy them. Olivia supported Stone at first but eventually crumpled beneath the separatists demands, asking for Sandy’s resignation.

Angela Douglas became upset at the vitriolic, absurd, and transphobic comments broadcast on listener sponsored station KPFA in Berkeley, California and letters published in the feminist journal Sister. She wrote a very tongue-in-cheek satirical letter to the editor of Sister, the night before the 1977 San Francisco Gay Pride Parade.

The next day, at the Parade, a “gender bending” MTF individual handed out fliers that was written in protest of the Parade Committee’s policy of exclusion of “Drag Queens, Transvestites, and Transsexuals” . The policy was formulated in the hope of heading off the media which tended to focus on the flamboyant, instead of the very serious issues of Gay & Lesbian community pride and efforts to fight homophobia in society. However, transphobia had operated in the Parade Committee to equate transgendered people with “flamboyant” social unacceptability and political liability.

After the parade, Angela Douglas wrote a short essay with photos for the Berkeley Barb, in which she decried the efforts to exclude transgendered people. She asked if there shouldn’t be a counter parade by transgendered people, to be held on Halloween, a day that one is supposed to be flamboyant!

Two years later Janice Raymond in The Transsexual Empire, wrote of the events of 1977, casting Ms. Stone as an agent of the “Patriarchy” and “divisive”. The letter that Angela Douglas wrote as satire was quoted out of context, as an example of transsexual hatred of women, by Raymond. Her quoting out of context a letter written by Douglas was tantamount to intellectual dishonesty, with scholarly repercussions.

Janice Raymond was a professor at the University of Massachusetts. She is infamous for having written her doctoral thesis attacking transsexuality, denying its medical reality, and for viciously attacking individual transsexuals, notably Sandy Stone and Angela Keyes Douglas in her book, based on her dissertation. The book uses insensitive and transphobic language throughout, while vilifying feminine MTF transsexuals as tools of patriarchy for upholding stereotypes of women, and vilifying androgynous lesbian identified MTF transsexuals for being tools of patriarchy, fifth columnists infiltrating womens’ space and “raping womens’ bodies”, a typical ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ trap. She dismisses FTM transsexuals as deluded and misguided lesbians, afraid of the label “homosexual”. Her thesis rests entirely on arguments that sex/gender identity are fixed within the genitals at birth, an essentialist theory that excludes the possibility of transsexuals being a form of intersex, a topic which Raymond never addresses.

The book, while it did not create the transphobic attitude in the lesbian community, did tap into and ‘validated’, at least for the transphobes themselves, the discrimination they practiced. Thus, what began in the ‘70s, occasional attacks on individual transsexual women, became institutionalized discrimination against all transsexuals in the ‘80s.

The Transsexual Empire, was not the most damaging writing that Raymond penned. Far worse was a United States federal government commissioned study in the early 1980’s on the topic of federal aid for transsexual people seeking rehabilitation and health services. This paper, not well publicized, effectively eliminated federal and some states aid for indigent and imprisoned transsexuals. It had a further impact on private health insurance which followed the federal government’s lead in disallowing services to transsexual patients for any treatment remotely related to being transsexual, including breast cancer or genital cancer, as that was deemed to be a consequence of treatment for transsexuality.

Ms. Raymond is closely associated with another noted transphobic writer, Mary Daly, who described transsexuals as “Frankenstien’s Monsters” in her book GynEcology.

Transgender participation continued to be controversial in the Gay & Lesbian Community. Transsexuals taking leadership positions in the community were especially subject to attack.

Ms. Carol Katz was on the Christopher Street West Gay Pride Parade and Festival Committee, serving as Security Coordinator from ‘79 through ‘81. However her position on the board was a controversial one as many gays and especially lesbians objected to the presence of a transsexual. She recruited a number of transgendered people, both FTM and FTM to work as volunteer parade monitors and festival security each year . Her background in law enforcement facilitated greater cooperation between the Committee and local law enforcement organizations, LAPD and the LA County Sheriff’s Department.

In 1980 Ms. Katz was asked to serve as Security Co-ordinator for the “Women Take Back The Night March” in Hollywood. She agreed to help. However… lesbian feminist separatists threatened to boycott the march. Carol offered to step down in the interests of the larger community, with some private bitterness. The Committee accepted her resignation. But at the very last minute, due to overwhelming details in doing the job without her… and perhaps a realization that it was wrong to push her out of her participation… the committee asked her to take back the job the very day of the march. The controversy over Ms. Katz’es leadership role lead to the effective banning of broad transgender community participation in event planning and execution, though transgendered people did march that night .

It should be noted that the memory of the gay & lesbian community is short, as demonstrated by the efforts of the transgender community in Los Angeles to win inclusion in the Parade and Festival in 1995; Transman, Jacob Hale faced a Festival committee that believed transgendered people had never been participants before. The work of the transgendered community in ‘79-’81 had been completely forgotten, erased by the silence of the 1980’s.

In 1991 Nancy Burkholter was ejected from the Michigan Wymyns’ Music Festival at 1:00am by security staff suspicious that she was transsexual. She had done nothing to warrant eviction. She was forced to find transportation back to town to fly home, a holiday trip ruined by transphobia.

Unknown to the transsexuals who had been quietly attending the festival for years was an unpublished policy of the festival organizers that transsexuals were not welcome “on the land”. The policy was written out in the material for the next year that only “Wymyn Born Wymyn” may attend. The language was clearly designed to exclude transsexuals while avoiding debates regarding whether MTF transsexuals were “Wymyn”.

The next year, in 1992 TransActivist Anne Ogborn began organizing a protest to be held at the Festival, unable to go herself, she enlisted Davina Anne Gabrielle to attend. Davina and non-transsexual woman, Janis Hollingsworth handed-out buttons to women reading “I might be transsexual” at a table to enlist festival attendees in a dialog over the transsexual inclusion. Davina was ejected from “the land” in accordance with the written policy.

In 1993, the transgender community pitched CampTrans outside the main entrance. Jessica Xavier, Leslie Feinberg, among others attended to protest the Festivals’ “Wymyn Born Wymyn Only” policy. “Woman Born Transsexual” read a new button worn by CampTrans inmates. At the camp, workshops and concerts were presented as an alternative to the Festival. A number of women came out of the festival to participate in discussions. Notable was the participation of younger lesbians, especially members of The Lesbian Avengers. TransActivist volunteers stood outside the gate taking a poll of the festival attendees attitudes toward transsexual inclusion at the festival. The poll revealed division on the issue, but the majority of the women attending indicated that they would welcome transsexual women.

Participation in CampTrans energized the transgender community to become active once again, after the community’s silent withdrawal from the larger gay & lesbian community the previous decade.

National and local transgender activist worked for months to gain inclusion in the 1993 March On Washington. Transgender volunteers aiding in organizing the March, notably Jessica Xavier, worked with March organizers for months trying to gain inclusion in the name of the March. There was a ‘divide and conquer’ politicking by transphobic gays & lesbians that pitted bisexuals against transgenders. They told the bisexual community members who were also working toward official inclusion that it was either transgender or bisexual, but not both. To their credit the bisexual members did not buy into the ploy. However, the issue of inclusion was still couched in such terms by the foes of transgender inclusion. When the issue was put to a vote by the organizing committee the bisexuals won inclusion easily. The vote for inclusion of transgender was divided. There were actual cheers from the gay and lesbian community when the committee announced their decision to exclude transgender which deeply dismayed the transgender community volunteers.

A new pattern emerged in the mid 1990’s. The generation that had grown up since Stonewall welcomed transgender people without reservation, perhaps even with a tinge of adulation for their contribution to the struggle for Queer Rights. The older generation, those who had struggled just after stonewall, those who had read The Transsexual Empire when it was new, had not changed their minds significantly. Those that had been accepting during the 1970s remained so, those that had been sitting on the fence now came down on transgender inclusion. But those who had adamantly opposed trans-inclusion in the ‘70s still fought against it in the ‘90s. In 1994 The Transsexual Empire was reprinted and used as a textbook in feminist classes once again.

In 1994 CampTrans was pitched again with Riki Anne Wilchins taking a leading role. The turn out was smaller than expected. It was not due to a feeling of failure, but rather a feeling that the issue of transgender inclusion in “wymyn only space” was being by-passed by larger and more important issues.

Also occurring in 1994 was the Gay Games. When transgendered people wished to participate they discovered similar transphobic attitudes that the International Olympic Committee held . The Games organizers refused to allow transgendered people to participate except under very restrictive rules, namely that had to prove that they had had surgery or at least lived two years full time, with hormones, in their gender of identity. Bi-gendered individuals were completely excluded. This reliance on rules that on the surface seem to come direct from the HBIGDA Standards of Care, offended the transgendered community.

Transsexual Menace of New York organized to protest the restrictive and discriminatory rules. In street protests the group held up a banner that read, “Gay Games to transgendered: DROP DEAD!!” The uproar and embarrassment forced the organizers to drop the rules and allow unrestricted participation.

Some gay columnists were calling the events the “transgender Stonewall”, comparing 1994’s protests to ‘the gay riots of 1969’, totally ignoring the historic irony that Stonewall itself was started and fought by transgendered people. This lack of historic recognition sparked another protest in New York, demanding inclusion in planned events to mark 25 years since Stonewall.

In 1994 the issue of discrimination against sexual minorities became the biggest issue. The gay & lesbian community was working towards passing a bill in Congress, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA);. Transgender activists worked with the gay & lesbian community and the bill’s sponsors in Congress on inclusive language for the bill, only to discover that the language was removed before the bill was introduced. When the issue was researched by Phyllis Frye, she discovered that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) had objected to the language. Once again transphobia in the gay community had resurfaced as betrayal.

The betrayal of the HRC was echoed at the local level. In 1995, transactivists in Oregon worked with gay & lesbian activist with the Right To Privacy Political Action Committee (RTP) for a state version of ENDA. Once again language was changed at the last minute, behind the back of the transgender community. Later, RTP board members denied this fact when charged by transactivists. However, transsexual law student and legislative intern, JoAnna McNamara was in the meetings that were held with RTP and the bill’s sponcors. RTP representitives did not know that Ms. McNamara was transsexual, who later provided information to the local gay press regarding the betrayal.

The transgender community lobbied the HRC and other organizations to amend the language to include transgender and gender variant gay & lesbian protection. Each year saw organizations that had previously supported the bill, drop its support. Each year of the second half of the ‘90s saw organizations officially add transgender to their mission statement. Each year saw what started as inclusive lip service become real support.

In 1998. the Gay Games was held in the Nederlands. Ironically, while transsexual pop singing star Dana International performed at the opening festivities, the transgender community protested the re-instatement of the same restrictive rules that had excluded some transgendered people in New York four years earlier. However, European officials of the Games were unmoved.

In 1999, five years after the disagreement between the HRC and the transgender community over inclusion in ENDA surfaced the controversy continued, one of the bill’s Congressional sponsors, openly gay Representative, Barney Frank, played the “Bathroom Card”, saying that employers will not accept transgender people as employees since they won’t be able to convince their other employees to tolerate transgender people in the restrooms. This was quickly denounced by transgender activists as truly expressing transphobia, though Frank had earlier voiced his concern regarding violence and discrimination against transgender people in the wake of the death of Tyra Hunter, pointing out the irony as the “Shower Card” was used against the gay & lesbian community in its fight to gain the right to serve in the armed forces earlier in the decade .

In 1999, at the close of the 20th Century, the gay & lesbian community was still divided over transgender inclusion. Camp Trans was once again pitched in front of the gate of the Michigan Wimmins’ Music Festival. This time post operative male to female transsexuals were allowed ‘on the land’, but pre-operative MTF women and post-operative FTM men were not. The issue had now come down to possession of a penis. Although they were now allowed on the land, vocal transphobic lesbian separatists menaced transsexual women, while members of The Lesbian Avengers supported them.

At the end of the 20th Century, the Transgender Question in the gay and lesbian community was still unsettled, and unsettling for the majority.

transhistory.org/history/TH_Backlash.html – 2003