Just a phase

Queer, gay, homosexual ... in the long view, they are all just temporary identities. One day, we won't need them at all.

This month has been Queer Awareness Month at many universities across Britain, with four weeks of stalls, debates and films to promote queer human rights.

Given that homophobia still exists, we need to challenge prejudice and defend our right to be gay. But in the long term, lesbian and gay identity is doomed. And a good thing, too.

Like every other expression of human culture, homosexual and heterosexual identities are historically transient. They haven't always existed, and they won't last forever. Indeed, the weakening, blurring and eventual dissolution of the labels queer and straight will be final proof of the demise of homophobia.

When I made this point in a recent university debate, I was greeted by howls of protest from some lesbians and gays in the audience:

"Mr Tatchell, you are obviously suffering from internalised homophobia," said one. Another interjected: "You are playing into the hands of homophobes."

Well, no. I was trying to express a truth that some gay people find disconcerting: while same-sex behaviour has existed since the beginning of human evolution, defining oneself as gay is a relatively modern invention and is unlikely to prevail in perpetuity.

Homosexuality and homophobia exist in a cultural context, as do heterosexuality and heterophobia. Culture is man-made, not biologically given. It evolves and changes.

Historical and anthropological research shows that same-sex behaviour has occurred in all cultures at all times - but in different manifestations. Homosexuality in pre-colonial African and Asian societies was very different from its counterparts in Ancient Greece, Confucian China, Tudor England and 21st-century western Europe.

Clellan Ford and Frank Beach's classic anthropological survey, Patterns of Sexual Behaviour (1952), documented the huge diversity of same-sex relations in dozens of tribal societies on every continent. They debunked, once and for all, the myths that homosexuality was a European phenomenon and a state of desire that was universally the same.

They also demonstrated that most non-western cultures seem to have accepted, and sometimes even venerated and ritualised, same-sexers. In many native American tribes, for example, this sexual difference was deemed to be evocative of spiritual and supernatural powers. The prestigious role of tribal shaman was often reserved for these "sexual others".

Modern western expressions of gay identity, behaviour and subculture only began emerging a mere three centuries ago in the European cities of Amsterdam, London, Florence and Paris.

Up until this time, there was only same-sex behaviour, not same-sex people. Contemporary gay identity - the definition of oneself as gay - did not previously exist. According to the medieval Church, the "abominable vice" of sodomy was not the sin of a specific class of people, but an "evil temptation" to which anyone could succumb.

Prior to the 1700s, there were no gay social milieux. Then came the bawdy private parties held in the "molly houses" of 18th-century London. These were forerunners of modern gay bars. Long before Hampstead Heath, there was a gay cruising ground in the gardens adjacent to Buckingham Palace. This is how the "gay scene", as we now call it, began.

History shows us that same-sexuality was, and is, an evolving cultural phenomenon. The idea that queers are a distinct class of people and are fundamentally different from straights is historically very recent, originating primarily from the normative theories of late 19th-century psychology. Indeed, the word "homosexual" was only coined in the 1860s. Before then, no such term existed.

This would seem to suggest that just as the contemporary configurations of gay identity came into being at a certain moment in social development, one day, if social conditions change, they will also fade away. So will heterosexual identity, as we currently understand it.

The labels gay and straight are cultural inventions, primarily devised to police sexual desire. By labelling same-sexers as a distinct group of people, society marks them out as "different" and "other". This has functioned as a way to identify, marginalise and control the queer "menace".

In a future, more enlightened epoch, homophobia will be vanquished. Anti-gay attitudes will be deemed as ridiculous as flat-earth theories and opposition to votes for women. In this non-homophobic society, the present separate, exclusive sexualities of straight and queer are likely to be eventually supplanted by a more inclusive, polymorphous sexuality. This dissolution of rigid hetero and homo orientations and identities is thus both the precondition for, and the proof of, queer emancipation - for without differentiation and polarity, there can be no conflict and prejudice.

The boundaries between hetero and homo will merge and blur, with a greater incidence of bisexuality. Most people will stop defining themselves as straight or gay, and the gender of a person's sexual partner will cease to determine the social validity (or illegitimacy) of their carnal and affectional feelings. People will be accepted, whoever they love.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • spaceg0at spaceg0at

    27 Nov 2006, 6:19PM

    Hmmmm whilst its true that division into hetero and homosexual is a human construct it seems that many other human constructs will continue to survive. Some of these constructs like religion tend to be extremely hostile to homosexuality.

    Religion appears unlikely to disappear any time soon so I would suggest that the division of sexuality into hetero and homosexual, rather than a simple acceptance that these both form sexuality as whole, will not disappear any time soon. In various 'holy' books homosexuality is specifically mentioned as being wrong in god's eyes so discrimination will remain.

    Bit of a harsh comment Yoshky - I don't think anyone how reads The Guardian acutally comments here! They're all driven away by the crazies arguing about muslims non-stop on every thread...

  • farofa farofa

    27 Nov 2006, 6:26PM

    It's true, there should be more comments about this thought-provoking article. I pretty much agree with anything along the lines of the "it's all a big old mess" school.

    No-one seems to want to comment about Brazil either. Go figure, masive country, half of South America. Any old article about that tiny sliver of land in the Middle East, however....

  • gymnutkamal gymnutkamal

    27 Nov 2006, 6:46PM

    I have always been a little ambiguous in my sexuality, but the knowledge that there was a whole society of people who were, to varying degrees, like myself gave me a strong sense of belonging. Over the years I became monogomous and now I'm a granddad, but the old ties still remain. It was a bit different for my younger friends - there just doesn't seem to be any distinction or seperateness with their peer groups. Sexuality was just a matter of fact - like hair colour or race. I suppose the reason the greater gay-bisexual society was important to me was because of the general rejection by mainstream society. After all, I became socially active around 4 years after the time you would be thrown in jail. It was still illegal in Scotland and NI through the seventies. This gave a feeling of being under seige for simply being who we were which further drove us together to in effect, form a seperate parallel society. There was a need once - to stand up and be counted - Peter's outing campaign attests to that. Thankfully though - that isn't so much the case these days unless you happen to be Muslim, or working class, or Black. So while I can see the old sense of identification becoming less and less important - there is still a large group of people who desperately need the kinship and support of a visible greater gay-bisexual "community".

  • davetheslave davetheslave

    27 Nov 2006, 6:52PM

    Peter, I think you're right in claiming that the rigid definitions of sexuality will fade, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the hostility of some sections of society to homosexual acts will dissappear. As you point out, the church deemed these acts sinful even before the construct of homosexuality existed, and as spaceg0at points out, religion is likely to resist change. It's interesting that two of the most harmful constructs in society today: race and sexuality, are products of the enlightenment. I've yet to see Dawkins and Grayling acknowledge the root of this evil and call for the banning of science. I also doubt this will happen anytime soon.

    http://davidtheenslaved.blogspot.com/

  • Lelia Lelia

    27 Nov 2006, 7:09PM

    Peter,

    The persons who resisted your theory about labeling are clearly confused. Their identity is not only that of a homosexual, but of an activist. This happens to people who have been marginalized like the gay population has been. But just as the labels of gay and straight may blur, the self label of activist will also blur for some. Sadly, some may insist on carrying on the fight, seeing slights where there are none even when society ceases to care about a person's sexual preference. This is sad.

    But I don't think this will happen any time soon though(at least in the US). So, we an continue to be more concerned about homosexuals being treated unfairly more than the activists who have not moved on.

    During the Mid term elections, somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 states banned gay marriage. I can only hope the UK fairs better than here. Perhaps, some of UK's activists can come here when things settle down there and share what they did to rid the UK of homophobia...one an only wish :)

  • PeterTatchell PeterTatchell

    27 Nov 2006, 7:16PM

    Whatreallyhappened says I am obsessed with "gay" and a "one-trick pony", unconcerned about the world's "real troubles".

    Well I am (among other things) a gay human rights activist. What do you expect? It is perfectly reasonable to expect a black rights campaigner to write mostly on black issues. The same goes for someone who is committed to campaign for LGBTI human rights.

    But, actually, the accusation of single issueness does not apply to me.

    Just look at my range of articles on Comment is Free:

    Dafur, climate change, Iran, prisoner abuses, Zimbabwe, free speech and freedom of expression, Russia, green politics, Latvia, child protection, Uganda, asylum, Iraq, animal experiments, Nigeria etc.

    See:http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/

  • TrueLeft TrueLeft

    27 Nov 2006, 7:57PM

    Contributor Contributor

    Interesting point, Mr. Tatchell. But I am still waiting for cultural constructs like nationality to fade away and they are less intrinsic, in many cases, than sexual orientation.

    This seems related to me: why is femininity considered the diametric opposite of masculinity? This suggests that gender in general is a very fundamental aspect of identity, and thus begs cultural differentiation as well.

    Since "queer" includes any gender-bending, and since homosexuality is akin to an inherent "deviation" from general "masculine" or "feminine" behaviour I question whether these definitions will be easy to do away with. Perhaps they will only disappear when gender itself ceases to be an aspect of personal identity. That may take some time, I fear.

    I hope that day comes soon- when "the love that dare not speak its name" has no name but "love". We can always hope, after all.

  • DavidTHarryblog DavidTHarryblog

    27 Nov 2006, 8:01PM

    Oh, I remember having this argument with Nick Bamforth at University, years ago. I was running your line: his was more essentialist.

    I wonder if I was right though. It is amazing how men in all cultures divide other men into those you fight with and those you have sex with: and how preoccupied men are by this distinction. I wonder if it isn't something fairly hardwired in male identity.

    The social significance of homosexuality obviously does vary from culture to culture; but I wonder if there isn't something pretty fundamental going on there

  • gymnutkamal gymnutkamal

    27 Nov 2006, 8:43PM

    As you can see from Doow's post - the need for a strong visible gay-bisexual community hasn't gone away - if only to show that the vast cross section of people who aren't "pervs". Yes - some willy watchers in toilets, but the vast majority are responsible and contributing members of society living perfectly normal lives except there are two razors in the toilet. Hmmm - I seem to be having similar discourses on the subject of Islam lately...

  • ShinyScalp ShinyScalp

    27 Nov 2006, 8:44PM

    I quite agree, Peter. It won't be about homosexuality as an identity or an orientation, but simply as a behaviour or a preference.

    In practice, that's what we have now - most of us, gay or straight, would have a relationship that goes against our current preference under the right circumstances.

    Most gay men and women (and, I daresay, most straight ones too, including me) have experimented somewhat during the course of or sexual development to FIND OUT which type of people with whom we prefer to have sexual relationships. Even if they convince you your original preference was correct, they still count.

    That's how I can say I prefer heterosexual relationships.

    The once or twice I've been chatted up by gay men, this logic (as outlined above) was always reduced by them to "ah, but you haven't tried it with ME yet" - to my polite indifference. Talking to women friends, it seems that's not a function of being gay, just a function of being male.

  • randomalien randomalien

    27 Nov 2006, 8:45PM

    Although I do sometimes disagree with the way you have said things in other articles you have written (or the timing of some of them!), this one has been a really enjoyable read! It touches on some really interesting ideas.

    I think we put ourselves in boxes when we describe ourselves as homo- or hetero-sexual; boxes which, while necessary in the society we currently live in, do not allow us to explore ourselves to the full. I hope that will change sooner rather than later!

  • Grasso Grasso

    27 Nov 2006, 8:47PM

    Peter, I very much agree with your hope that the distinction, or label, will become meaningless. However, I think that while society has an expectation that people will turn out "straight" (ugly term I know but not sure what else to use) it's probably useful for people with a predominantly same sex attraction like me to have an identity, or label, to take on, if only to establish themselves. But hopefully the need will start to fade away.

    Whatreallyhappened, believe it or not, for most people politics is only ever local (eg rubbish collections and street lights) and very personal (eg toothache and heartache). So, Peter's quite right not to rise to the grandeur of middle eastern politics every time. He's dealing with something far more important - love lives and sex lives.

  • Lelia Lelia

    27 Nov 2006, 8:56PM

    TrueLeft:

    That was a well thought out, considered post. You managed to say so much with so few words. And the sentiments behind them were very generous.

    Doow:

    Sorry you had a bad experience with predatory men...

    Those types of men exists in the hetero world. Gives you an idea what beautiful young women put up with.

    But it tells you nothing about gay persons in general

  • lupocattivo lupocattivo

    27 Nov 2006, 9:07PM

    I'd really like to agree with you, Peter, that human sexuality is so varied and takes so many forms that we don't really need identities. However, when I take a look around, it's amazing how flimsy most of the 'in-between' choices look. Take bisexuality: I must have met hundreds of self-identified bisexual man. But the overwhelming majority were in a relationship with a woman and gagging for a bit of fun on the side with a man. Not once have I ever come across the opposite. So are we really sure gay and straight are just constructions?

    I can't say why it took so long for a queer identity to emerge in history. But can we really trust historical records on this? After all, for centuries literature went on and on about romantic love, when in practice marriage was mostly a matter of convenience. I wouldn't be surprised if queer societies existed in the past and no records have survived.

  • DoctorProdWorthy DoctorProdWorthy

    27 Nov 2006, 9:19PM

    'But in the long term, lesbian and gay identity is doomed. And a good thing, too.'.

    This is the essence of secularism and egalitarianism. Enlightenment is disregarding sexuality, race, religious orientation and so forth, and arriving at the understanding that none of these things affect our ability to exist as we are and turn our attention to more important matters, such as surviving climate change.

    The French government was criticised for refusing to sanction audits establishing whether ethnic groups were being proportionately represented in the workplace. The French government was not at fault. The people who abuse the system to foster unreported discrimination are at fault. As a result, the French government has had to set aside the egalitarian ideal that we all be colour-blind in order to ensure that discrimination is not taking place clandestinely.

  • psyops psyops

    27 Nov 2006, 9:45PM

    I'd first wait for the elusive successful intergration of muslim immigrants in europe, before pronouncing homophobia dead. I'd also take the recent rise of conservative social values into account. Homophobia will probably prove to be really resilient, oppressing and blaming a certain group of people never ceases to be particulaly useful politically. As I posted before, as far as the demise of human rights is concerned, gays are the canary in the mine, they 'll be the first to go.

  • AllyF AllyF

    27 Nov 2006, 10:02PM

    Contributor Contributor

    Interesting article and some interesting responses.

    My partner identifies as a bisexual woman (I'm male) and is also a published author in the 'LGBT' niche. It is amazing how many people cannot get their head around the idea of a bisexual being in a straight, monogamous relationship. She feels very self-conscious at conferences etc when her domestic status comes up - people often assume she is there under false pretences. So, erm, you can be bisexual, but only if you are in a same-sex relationship. What's that about?

    On the plus side, I remember the days when bisexuals were all but shunned by the gay and lesbian communities as 'traitors' and 'part-timers' so progress is being made I guess.

    Roll on the day when the labels become meaningless.

    Po-mosexuality is where it's at.

  • bostjan bostjan

    27 Nov 2006, 10:17PM

    I agree with you completely. I have to admit that I do have some problems with homosexual or heterosexual orientation as element of ones identity even now. When I say that my sexual orientation is heterosexual I it actually means to me as much as when say how tall I am or what is color of my eyes. Far from identity issue. I believe that for establish partnership you need loving relationship and gender does not matter, I also believe that children needs loving parents and that their gender doesn't matter at all.I can see, that it can be established as identity issue if one is not allowed or is persecuted if follow his sexual orientation, so I am sure that it will disappear together with discrimination.

  • TrueLeft TrueLeft

    27 Nov 2006, 10:51PM

    Contributor Contributor

    Lelia-Thank you. I usually write with great length despite my best efforts. This time I managed to keep myself in check!

    Your own post was very interesting, as well. I think labels of political activism are also very fundamental in some people's identity. I don't know how big a part politics plays in most people's lives in the US. In Israel one's party is almost like a surname. You know- die-hard Likudniks who will vote Likud no matter what happens. Or fanatics of left and, mostly, right who know what they will vote twenty years from now, the same thing they voted twenty years ago. Nothing wrong with it unless it turns into blind devotion. My own pseudonym here, for example! But I do try to keep an open mind...

    I think it was indeed 8 states that passed constitutional ammendments in the recent elections. But the struggle for equality is a multi-dimensional one. Two steps forward, one step back. For example, Israel's Supreme Court ruled last week compelling the government to recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad- even here we get progress sporadically. And I think conservativism is a doomed philosophy- the world changes, people have no choice but to change with it.

  • silbuster silbuster

    27 Nov 2006, 11:56PM

    I don't think the distinction is going away. In the short term, homosexuals' insistence on sticking their oar in everywhere is putting people's backs up, as people do not like being told what they should think. The propaganda aspect is evidenced by the 1984 word "homophobic". In the long term, the difference between men and women is not going to go away, because the difference is not going to go away. I think you can say the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals too.

  • Lelia Lelia

    28 Nov 2006, 1:53AM

    There are so many thoughtful posts I agree with and nuanced points that add to the discussion

    I have often thought there was a problem with the term"sexual preference."

    It is confusing because one does not describe heterosexual committed relationships by their sexual preference.

    A gay person told me once, "Its not about sex, someone can't choose who they fall in love with."

    Like AllyF and his mate, while she considered herself to have one sexual preference, she could not help who she fell in love with.

    This is what I think Peter is trying to say....as well as many others.

    How many years has it been since interracial marriage was protected in the US? 30 years or so? There is hope despite the recent resurgence of religiosity in our politics.

    Just as the tyranny of the majority did not prevail in the US concerning interracial marriage, it will not prevail against gay marriage.

    This fight is worth fighting! Because essentially, besides gay rights, this argues in the clearest way possible for a separation of church and state. The blurring of this separation is becoming a Constitutional crisis in the US.

    Peter, you are not a "one trick pony" even if this is the only issue you give time to:)

  • followyourheart followyourheart

    28 Nov 2006, 2:15AM

    I agree Peter, one day such labels will only be common on a Unviversity gender politics course.

    When people are only interested in a person's sexuality, it says more about them than the person in whom they are interested. Why do religious people have such a fixation and narowness of view when assessing the merits of another human being - why do they not simply focus on the other 99% of an individual's identity?

  • GrayDemon GrayDemon

    28 Nov 2006, 3:03AM

    Here we go with �homophobia� again. A stupid word, a misnomer. Peter Tatchell et al would have you believe that �Homo Erectus� should be defined as an �homosexual in a state of sexual arousal�, and �Homicide� is a killing of a man who�s a homosexual. What kind of educational system breeds such ignoramuses? British educational system is supposed to be one of the best in the world, or so they proclaim.

  • GnarlyOwdFool GnarlyOwdFool

    28 Nov 2006, 6:37AM

    How do you decide when to use 'queer' and when to use 'gay'? Is it just random? Why not branch out and throw in the odd 'uphill gardener' - add a touch of class to your prose.

  • TrueLeft TrueLeft

    28 Nov 2006, 7:17AM

    Contributor Contributor

    GreyDemon-I am not religiously attached to the word "homophobia". I am fairly certain Mr. Tatchell isn't either. If you offer a word you consider more apt which conveys the same meaning- I would have no objection. Just make sure it is well-defined and that everyone who sees it will know what it means- an irrational hatred/fear of homosexuals.

    GnarlyOwdFool-"Queer" is far more general than "gay". Queer denotes anyone who isn't entirely "normative" in his/her sexual behaviour or preference. This could include people who like bondage, have various fetishes, have a peculiar attraction to stuffed animals etc.. I have even heard it used to describe people who dress unconventionally- people who are heavilly tatooed or pierced, for example. I know a number of heterosexuals who identify as queer.

    Gay, on the other hand, is specifically male homosexual, lesbian or bisexual. It refers to sexual preference more than lifestyle, although the distinction is obviously not well defined.

    "Queer" also happens to be a nice example of a pejorative which has been appropriated by its former victims. It used to be an insult, now many people proudly identify themselves as "queer".

  • whatreallyhappened whatreallyhappened

    28 Nov 2006, 7:44AM

    I can't remember all that wrote this morning. And due to the censors, I'm not able to review what I wrote. Thankfully, Peter (who I'm now convinced is not a one-trick pony) tells me that I said he was a one-trick pony.

    Did I? Or did I ask whether he was a one-trick pony? I'm also pretty certain that I never wrote that Peter was "obsessed" with "gay" as he accuses me in a response to a comment that no longer exists. I think that I again asked a question...and who's to say I didn't when my original comment has been removed.

    I know that I certainly didn't use the "willy-watcher" phrase used by one of the later posters. That seems highly offensive to me. But obviously Peter thinks it's fashionably ok.

    I couldn't give a stuff about Peter's sexuality, just as I'm sure he couldn't give a stuff about mine. What each of us gets up to in the privacy of our bedrooms or bathrooms is nobody else's business. The difference is that I don't write whining articles three times a week to CiF telling Peter about my grievance that nobody's taking any notice of my preference.

    Get a grip, man. Campaign about something else for a change. I doubt there's anyone left in the UK who doesn't know about your orientation, and these days anything goes. It's time to move on to something a bit more important.

  • somehope somehope

    28 Nov 2006, 8:32AM

    whatreallyhappened - are you as ignorant as you sound?Tatchell inevitably brings a gay aspect to his campaigning as others bring a black perspective etc.. so what?You are obviously ignorant of the range of human rights issues on which he campaigns.I suggest you look at his website.Fool.

  • whatreallyhappened whatreallyhappened

    28 Nov 2006, 8:48AM

    somehope: Perhaps I am, but I do know the difference between "sound" and "appear".

    And it appears to me that you're emphasising my point about Tatchell..."so what"...my point exactly. I've been aware of Tatchell for at least 20 years, buzzing around like an annoying gnat. Always banging the same drum. He's just so boring.

    Think of it this way, I'm finally giving up some of my time to treat him like any other pub bore and giving him a peice of my mind. Peter, you're a bore. Now find something else to discuss for once in your life.

    How about the current crisis in English rugby...does that excite any comment, Peter? I grasping at straws to help you out here...

  • vanrozenheim vanrozenheim

    28 Nov 2006, 9:26AM

    Dear Peter,

    it is highly regretable that you have posted such an article, mainly because of two reasons:

    1) The views you are expressing here are simply not corresponding with biological findings on homosexuality both in humans and in animals,

    2) By reducing homosexuality to a mere choice of occasional sexual partner you encourage our folks to believe that their sexual orientation is a minor affair, and thus wasting time with gay culture, gay history and gay politics is unnecessary, obsolete and most certainly not "hip".

    In his book "A Critique of Social Constructionalism and Postmodern Queer Theory" Rictor Norton aptly connotates that existence of homosexuals as ethnic group does not depend from any social manifestations of their naturelle through any actual behaviour. I recommend you to read Rictor Norton's book, its short version is available online on http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/extracts.htm

    Despite my devotion to you for your remarkable engagement on behalf of gays through decades, I must tell you some unkind words for this particular contribution. The entire article is full of unfounded, poorly researched and highly pretencious statements. You simply take for granted that if you have no knowledge of manifested historic evidences of homosexual identity, such identity must be an invention of 19th century. The mistake in logics is so simple that one barely needs to comment on this. OF COURSE there can be no written evidence existing on self-identifying proud gays in Europe before the second half of the 19th century - the homosexuals that days were scared to death and could only survive when remaining invisible. In England buggery remained a capital offence until 1861, and the last execution for the crime took place in 1836.

    But even in those countries were homosexuality was not punished by state, it was oppressed by society. Considering that even heterosexuals did not enjoy the free choice of partner untill recently, it is easy to understand that homosexuals hardly had the chance to form an identity which would correspond with their natural disposition.

    Your mistake is most easily demonstrated by the mere existence of homosexual rams (some 10%), who by no means will agree into sexual activity with a female sheep -- despite the fact that they have never been told of the queer theory. As for humans, recent CT-assisted research on brain activity demonstrated powerfully the differences between homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Why on earth do you put the blind eye on all these evidences?

    There are and always have been homo-, hetero- and bisexual humans on this planet, and this is highly unprobable to change in the future. All people should be treated with equal respect - acknowledging their difference, not renouncing them. With your current idea, you are on a wrong path.

    This particular article of you powerfully reminds us all that even greate minds can represent views, which obvious erroneousness is evident even to most of the lesser minds.

    One can only hope that this episode will indeed remain "just a phase" in your personal developement. :)

  • somehope somehope

    28 Nov 2006, 10:56AM

    whatreallyhappened - well, any "annoying gnat" prepared to try a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe in front of his goons is a braver man than you...

    ...and if you don't want to read his articles you only have to buzz off yourself!

  • TrueLeft TrueLeft

    28 Nov 2006, 1:00PM

    Contributor Contributor

    vanrozenheim-I did not see this article as an attack on gay culture or the necessity for a distinctly gay social subset. Rather, I think Mr. Tatchell was speculating on what would happen when sexuality became a non-issue: when our acceptance and equality were so obvious to everyone that there would be no more need for such distinctions at all. This would be in the far future, if ever. Not tomorrow.

    I certainly don't think Mr. Tatchell was ignoring biology. In fact, it is very rare in nature to find exclusive homosexuality. What we can see is individual animals who display homosexual behaviour sometimes, or even most of the time. That is indisputable.

    In humans there would probably be far more homosexual *behaviour* if the social norms were less stringent. As it is we can discern only between those few individuals who do not wish to have *any* contact with members of the other sex at all and those who behave *exclusively* heterosexually. Those who can satsify themselves with heterosexual relationships tend not to even explore other options do to the social cost.

    I have had some contact with Arab homosexuals. In Arab society in Israel it is generally more difficult to be open about sexuality than in Jewish Tel Aviv, for example. I noted the following- every Arab homosexual I have ever encountered was VERY gender atypical. "Queeny" in the extreme. And I figured out the following: those who *can* pass for straight *do*. It is only those who can't do that at all who dare to flout social conventions.

    In the secular West such social stigma for homosexuality is diminishing. Hence the constantly increasing perceived incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality. But this is because more and more people along a continuum of sexuality feel able to come out, there is less and less incentive for people who are more and more center-leaning (bisexuality) to suppress their natural inclinations.

    I think Mr. Tatchell conveys the following idea: yes, as you say, there is likely to be homosexual behaviour for a long time to come. It is, indeed, to a very large extent biologically based. What he hopes will disappear is the need for a homosexual *identity*. Everyone will have relationships with the person of their choice, blind to gender. Naturally, some will prefer same-sex relationships, some heterosexual. But this won't be anything by which people see fit to identify, any more than hair color, or left and right handedness. Clearly we haven't reached that point yet. Mr. Tatchell is giving us his forecast.

  • PeterTatchell PeterTatchell

    28 Nov 2006, 1:16PM

    Re Frothwrath's query about LGBTI:

    Yes, it is a bit an alphabet soup, come tongue-twister.

    It stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Inter-sex (people born with forms of both male and female physiology).

    Some people in the US add: LGBTIQC

    Q=Questioning and C=Curious

    I think this is a bit over-doing it. But that is just my personal view.

    TrueLeft is right:

    Queer is an alternate, more concise way of stating LGBTI(QC).

  • Landscape Landscape

    28 Nov 2006, 3:59PM

    Very good article from Mr Tachell I saw him recently on Sky news and he was a very able and articulate speaker. People like Peter are to be saluted as they work towards making society and the world in general a better place for all and that can only be a good thing. Intolerance bigotry and hatred in all its forms should always be challenged.

  • whatreallyhappened whatreallyhappened

    28 Nov 2006, 6:42PM

    somehope:Quite right too. When Peter posted this article, he expected us all to agree with his pearls of wisdom. There must be no dissent. Peter is messianic and not to be denied. I understand now. The censorship of any alternative thought on this thread is revealing and worrying.

    But thanks for reminding me of Peter's alter ego - I was trying last night to think of anything else he'd ever done or talked about, and I had a vague recollection that he'd custard pied Mugabe, which would have been laudable enough. But if he tried to arrest him, then good on him. I'm all for that.

  • bicker bicker

    30 Nov 2006, 10:10PM

    In many native American tribes, for example, this sexual difference was deemed to be evocative of spiritual and supernatural powers. The prestigious role of tribal shaman was often reserved for these "sexual others".

    Is the Pope, then, our "tribal shaman", Peter?

    MR Tatchell is off base with his vision of some distant sexual garden-of-eden future. One might even class this soaring pipe-dream as an immanantisation of the Christian eschaton, as an attempt to project the qualities of a "promised kingdom" onto the temporal suffering gays often undergo. A future kingdom of polymorphous sexuality as substitute for the kingdom of heaven.

    Gee, will our sex drives meet the demand?

    Gay people will always feel marginalised, and gay men in particular. I feel my pessimism is justified owing to the fact that human nature remains the same across time and culture. Because of that irrefutable fact we will always suffer from ostracisation and we will always need laws with which we can protect ourselves.

    All that said, Peter's article is a remarkably tight and concise overview of the perception of homosexuality through the ages and in different cultures. I hadn't realised, for instance, that the term "homosexuality was only coined back in the 1860s. Nor had I any idea gays used to cruise the gardens next to Buckingham Palace.

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Latest posts

Comment from the paper

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Guardian Jobs

UK

Browse all jobs

USA

Browse all jobs

  • Loading jobs...

jobs by Indeed job search