We often hear that the age of deference is gone. But this is not so. We just defer to different people. True. For several months two years ago, we were not allowed to disagree with black people. And we are even now still working towards the permissibility of disagreeing with trans groomers.
I haven’t read that article yet, but have a strong feeling that oat milk causes obesity.
Derek Bryce
1 year ago
Like Gareth Roberts’s colleague, I also began avoiding specifically gay-themed culture after a period, post coming out, in the 90s and early noughties, of consuming all ‘representation’ I could find. Brokeback Mountain was the last example I sought out and enjoyed because it was beautifully written and produced. Much of it is simply needy dreck, whether written or performed by gays or straights. One of the great achievements of the gay and lesbian equality movements was that there was no need to find us fascinating simply because of this aspects of ourselves. The recent hissy fit by Billy Eichner that not enough ‘bigoted’ straights were interested in seeing his romcom, Bros, is an example of alleged creative and activist types yearning for the days before we simply became common or garden citizens like everyone else. Why won’t some the likes of Mr Eichner accept the social progress we’ve made. Weird.
The use of ‘queer’, ‘reimagined’ largely by some straights weirdly in search of the frisson of gay-adjacency does offend me, though, and takes me back to the bad old days when it was used as a hateful slur against gay men in particular. My clearest recollection of it was it being hurled at me by three men who tried to beat me to death in the mid 90s in a violent homophobic assault.
Mind you, looks like the shiny new homophobia presented by trans etc ideologists may mean I’ll have to fight the same battles all over again, just against new foes so I may need to eat many of the words above.
I think lesbians are copping far worse flak from trans activists than gay men – it’s ironic that it’s always women who get the rawest deal of the sexes, even when there is a multiplicity of genders.
Well, the societal effect on all women. not just lesbians, is much more evident than on males. All social change including sexual legislation should be examined carefully as it never fails to change society , very often for the worse.
In the woke West we seem deadly scared to examine such legislation, never mind put the question the huge majority who will be affected
By the way it is the opinion of the majority in this country that there are two genders only……..unless of course “gender” is to become a useful word like “Gay”
And the majority are correct, with scientific proof too. But it’s a great numpty test to identify those who think there are more than two genders!
Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Lindsay S
1 year ago
I remember when acting was about being a character other than yourself and yet today, you can only perform a certain character if you have the “lived experience” to do so, especially if you lack the diversity points required to play anyone.
A few years ago the BBC carried out a survey of its own employees. it was surprised to find that homo-sexuals made up three times the proportion than in the population as a whole (I suspect it was less of a surprise to their audience). Well, if that just happens to be the case, so what?
Despite that remarkable imbalance, however, the BBC made clear their conscious intent to increase their numbers, and the resources on supporting them.
. BBC, October 2018 New plans to make the BBC an even more inclusive workplace for LGBT staff Currently 11 percent of the BBC’s workforce and 12 percent of its leaders identify as LGBT, the highest representation of any UK broadcaster. Specific recommendations include building a network of straight allies who actively promote the LGBT community in the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/lgbt-culture-and-progression
.
“It’s OUR BBC” they tell us. Is it, I wonder?
.
.
There is a great difference between a National Broadcasting company publicly funded and other branches of “The Arts” as I am sure you are well aware.
Perhaps a “propaganda machine” might be a closer description?
I would sincerely like to see white actors blacking up, if only because of the tantrums it would instigate among the woke scum.
Max Price
1 year ago
“Dr Justin Bengry, lecturer in “Queer History” at Goldsmiths“ talking about other people being privileged! Staggering lack of self-awareness. Progressives, drunk on ideology, have lost the plot.
Richard Craven
1 year ago
“queer” — something supposedly all about breaking categories, we are told — is so tight-arsed about people staying in their lane. More tea vicar?
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Gay men in Hollywood have been playing straight guys from its beginning. Gary Oldman was brilliant as John Osborne in “p***k Up Your Ears”. I always thought it was such a waste of his talent to relegate the delicious Rupert Everett to “gay friend” roles when he is clearly a leading man type. And, while we’re at it, why is it perfectly fine for a black actor to be cast as James Bond, but unthinkable for a white one to be cast as Shaft? All this identity obeisance is as off-putting as it is stiflingly dull and uncreative, as the author points out. “Flit freely”: hear hear!
No. That scene from the book wasn’t in the film. As Andrew Doyle says, someone’s art or writing never raped anyone. He also says that moves such as the one you infer would result in the death of much of the western canon.
I infer no such thing. There was definitely such a scene in the film when I first saw it and I haven’t read the book. It’s possible that the scene has since been removed for video distribution.
Oh, you’re right! I confused the two. I’m looking back, in anger!
Steve Elliott
1 year ago
There are some straight actors who have played gay characters in the past who now say that they would not have accepted the part these days. Tom Hanks is one who played a gay man in the film Philadelphia.
Likewise there are gay actors who have played straight roles in the past who now say that they wouldn’t have taken the part now. Ellen Paige is one.
They are actors for goodness sake. That’s what they do isn’t it? Pretend
I was so disappointed in Hanks for saying that. Had he asked any gay people for whom that performance meant so much, many of would have said ‘thank you’ not ‘get out’. What a diminished world ours has become.
So true. These narrow minded bigots just can’t comprehend the transcendence achievable by the best artists.
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Can we please stop to use the alphabet soup like it is a thing? What does it even mean? If you want to list all the “minorities”, why stop there? The list would be endless.and pretty much cover the whole of humanity.
Apart from that, an interesting article.
Can we at least get the invented and wretched ‘T’ off of the LGB where it was force-teamed by the ‘T’ movement — the two have nothing in common. Male, mostly heterosexual cross-dressers w/ a fetish, formerly known as autogynephiles/transvestic fetishists, now known as the invented category of ‘trans,’ and for whom the movement is mostly in service to, have parasitized the LGB movement and is antithetical to it. Trans ‘gender identity’ ideology is misogynist and homophobic and reifies old stereotypes. LGB equality never supplanted anyone else’s rights or bastardized the language or insisted on deceptive, fraudulent pronouns or promoted the hormonal and surgical mutilation of young people — or anyone. LGBs wanted to integrate into society whereas trans ‘gender identity’ intends to deconstruct it. The alphabet soup is worse than meaningless it is deceptive. And as for actors acting and playing different parts is why it is called acting.
Thanks for pointing this out. It’s so necessary to repeat that lesbians and gay men have nothing in common with TQWERTY+, rather our movement for equality (achieved in this and most other western societies … and Taiwan) has been subject to a violent home invasion by the TQWERTY+ mob. The rights I marched for in the 90s were the rights not to be fired or be kicked out by landlords for being gay and to have our relationships recognised in law. TQWERTY+ already have these rights. Their demands infringe on the existing rights of others, straight and gay. Not the same thing at all.
You don’t think LGB’s also want to de-construct? They have been working to that end since the legality of the practice was changed. Revenge? perhaps, but the family and even procreation are under attack.
Beware the new tactic of demonising the poor confused and mentally afflicted Trans, simply another way of assuring the sexual majority that they are on our side and just like us.
Don’t forget the way that the trans ideology is effectively beginning to eliminate gays and lesbians.
First, they are convincing confused young people that they are not G/L, they are “really” straight people in the wrong body! (A large percentage of “trans” teens who are not given hormones & surgery etc. end puberty comfortable with their biological sex and attracted to those of the same biological sex.)
Second, they begin insisting that if you are, for example, a lesbian who refuses to sleep with a “transwoman” because said transwoman has a P, you are a bigot, and that your desire for a person with a V can and should be overcome; that you can “choose” to be attracted to and aroused by the P. (Conversely, of course, gay men who refuse to sleep with “transmen” are also bigots for not wanting partners with a V, and can “choose” to desire that V.)
This is exactly what gay-conversion therapy tells gay people: Your attraction and orientation is a choice, and you can choose to be straight. Gay conversion therapy is illegal in many places, and is still a hot-point issue for many activists. Yet many of those same activists, desperate to show how Woke and supportive of “trans people” they are, will turn around and support the idea that gays and lesbians can and should switch teams for the right Uncanny Valley impersonation of their preferred sex (and that straight people can and should as well).
It never fails to shock me to see supposed “allies” and supporters of gay rights turn around and basically advocate the idea that sexual orientation just a choice people make and they can easily choose to go the other way if they want to.
At the beginning of the present gender furore, homosexuals and lesbians riding on the back of Stonewall were supporters of Transgenderism throwing their weight behind the movement. I t was only when they realised that the heterosexual community were angry and disgusted by the effect Transgenderism was having on all women and especially the violation of young children, that LandGs saw
the danger of being associated with the Trans movement and began to speak out.
The great voiceless majority had been pushed too far and the Gays blinked.
But not for long, lock up your children.
To f*****g right! (Or whatever the new phrase is).
Jonathan Sidaway
1 year ago
Yeah, nice one. I found ‘Cucumber’ excruciating … probly because it was mostly so realistic abt a section of the ‘community’ (tho’ a case could be made for a Greek Chorus, a bit of perspective, all that: ‘Cuke’ seemed a bit too close to its material). There might be a film industry party interested in ensuring only hagiography for gay characters. Andrew Haigh’s ‘Weekend’ was nice in its small way: empathetic, but not blind to its characters’ faults; very atmospheric.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jonathan Sidaway
James Kirk
1 year ago
I lack the capacity to celebrate getting up in the morning. I take it for granted on a three score years and ten plus basis. I don’t shout hooray! I’m hetero! and rattle my macho toolbox at the wife. Well, not lately anyway. When I see pride marches with their make up, glitter and rainbows I don’t see alphabet people and wonder about their bedroom exploits. I have an imagination and only see self obsessed idiots. Why must they adopt the roles of pantomime and the circus? Hardly original, they even hijack the dictionary and appropriate ‘straight’ words. If they have a case to be made any more they could be more dignified and less theatrical, like the majority of gays I know who cringe with embarrassment at the antics of their extrovert brethren.
Lana Hunneyball
1 year ago
Thanks for saying what many are thinking. Won’t it be nice when the human race grows up? Sigh.
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
There was a moment when, in the UK at least, we hit a bit of a sweet spot. Civil unions solved most of the unfairness that gay couples experienced and gay marriage meant real legal equality and, it seemed, that most people were content. Even the religious, never likely to be happy with such things, seemed to take it in their stride.
Then things got a bit silly. The trans stuff most obviously but what the hell only gay actors could play gay roles or gay characters had to be represented in a particular way.
Hey, great way to irritate the overwhelmingly straight society. You know, those people who generally were on your side, though you should have fair dibs with everyone else.
I don’t change in my feeling that anti gay legislation or policy is stupid and immoral but don’t go asking for privilege. Gosh, you might get like feminists.
Martin Goodfellow
1 year ago
I’m all against persecution of gay men and women, but any investigation of why they are so has been shut down,
Medical knowledge of homosexuality has been denied, despite even Elton John’s bio-film that shows father-son disfunction.
This debate needs to be reopened.
Straight people can get on with their lives and relationships perfectly well without any need for any investigation into the cause(s) of their sexuality. Gay people can do likewise, and most very sensibly do.
Some brilliant aperçus here: a really enjoyable piece, thank you.
Much of the issue seems to involve confusion of capability and permission (with current “popular jurisprudence” favouring the latter over the former). That’s why politicised art (or entertainment of any kind) is never any good: the cart’s firmly in front of the horse.
Ve haf veys of making you give a damn. The media and politics have a huge over-representation and we ordinary folks feel like an endangered species. Even GB news seems to be total populated by “conservative” gays……now there’s a real contradiction in terms.
Seriously, this society is well fooked.
“The BBC is a publicly-funded
urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large.
All this, creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC.”
Andrew Marr
BBC, June 2007, Does The BBC Have A Bias Problem? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6764779.stm
We often hear that the age of deference is gone. But this is not so. We just defer to different people.
True. For several months two years ago, we were not allowed to disagree with black people. And we are even now still working towards the permissibility of disagreeing with trans groomers.
And based on the reader comments for the oat milk article, I’d suggest disagreeing with vegans may be verboten too.
I haven’t read that article yet, but have a strong feeling that oat milk causes obesity.
Like Gareth Roberts’s colleague, I also began avoiding specifically gay-themed culture after a period, post coming out, in the 90s and early noughties, of consuming all ‘representation’ I could find. Brokeback Mountain was the last example I sought out and enjoyed because it was beautifully written and produced. Much of it is simply needy dreck, whether written or performed by gays or straights. One of the great achievements of the gay and lesbian equality movements was that there was no need to find us fascinating simply because of this aspects of ourselves. The recent hissy fit by Billy Eichner that not enough ‘bigoted’ straights were interested in seeing his romcom, Bros, is an example of alleged creative and activist types yearning for the days before we simply became common or garden citizens like everyone else. Why won’t some the likes of Mr Eichner accept the social progress we’ve made. Weird.
The use of ‘queer’, ‘reimagined’ largely by some straights weirdly in search of the frisson of gay-adjacency does offend me, though, and takes me back to the bad old days when it was used as a hateful slur against gay men in particular. My clearest recollection of it was it being hurled at me by three men who tried to beat me to death in the mid 90s in a violent homophobic assault.
Mind you, looks like the shiny new homophobia presented by trans etc ideologists may mean I’ll have to fight the same battles all over again, just against new foes so I may need to eat many of the words above.
Thanks for your insights.
I might just point out though, that the term “hateful slur” is pandering to the woke mob. The meaning of the word ‘slur’ is clear enough on its own.
True. I agree. Thanks.
‘Hateful slur’ is tautology as slurs are hateful anyhow.
I think lesbians are copping far worse flak from trans activists than gay men – it’s ironic that it’s always women who get the rawest deal of the sexes, even when there is a multiplicity of genders.
Well, the societal effect on all women. not just lesbians, is much more evident than on males. All social change including sexual legislation should be examined carefully as it never fails to change society , very often for the worse.
In the woke West we seem deadly scared to examine such legislation, never mind put the question the huge majority who will be affected
By the way it is the opinion of the majority in this country that there are two genders only……..unless of course “gender” is to become a useful word like “Gay”
And the majority are correct, with scientific proof too. But it’s a great numpty test to identify those who think there are more than two genders!
I remember when acting was about being a character other than yourself and yet today, you can only perform a certain character if you have the “lived experience” to do so, especially if you lack the diversity points required to play anyone.
That’s going to make it difficult for Hollywood an the BBC to put out any straight white material
A few years ago the BBC carried out a survey of its own employees. it was surprised to find that homo-sexuals made up three times the proportion than in the population as a whole (I suspect it was less of a surprise to their audience). Well, if that just happens to be the case, so what?
Despite that remarkable imbalance, however, the BBC made clear their conscious intent to increase their numbers, and the resources on supporting them.
.
BBC, October 2018
New plans to make the BBC an even more inclusive workplace for LGBT staff
Currently 11 percent of the BBC’s workforce and 12 percent of its leaders identify as LGBT, the highest representation of any UK broadcaster.
Specific recommendations include building a network of straight allies who actively promote the LGBT community in the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/lgbt-culture-and-progression
.
“It’s OUR BBC” they tell us. Is it, I wonder?
.
.
I suspect that finding would also be made of all the arts, not just the BBC.
There is a great difference between a National Broadcasting company publicly funded and other branches of “The Arts” as I am sure you are well aware.
Perhaps a “propaganda machine” might be a closer description?
I would sincerely like to see white actors blacking up, if only because of the tantrums it would instigate among the woke scum.
“Dr Justin Bengry, lecturer in “Queer History” at Goldsmiths“ talking about other people being privileged! Staggering lack of self-awareness. Progressives, drunk on ideology, have lost the plot.
“queer” — something supposedly all about breaking categories, we are told — is so tight-arsed about people staying in their lane.
More tea vicar?
Gay men in Hollywood have been playing straight guys from its beginning. Gary Oldman was brilliant as John Osborne in “p***k Up Your Ears”. I always thought it was such a waste of his talent to relegate the delicious Rupert Everett to “gay friend” roles when he is clearly a leading man type. And, while we’re at it, why is it perfectly fine for a black actor to be cast as James Bond, but unthinkable for a white one to be cast as Shaft? All this identity obeisance is as off-putting as it is stiflingly dull and uncreative, as the author points out. “Flit freely”: hear hear!
Certainly fooled me. I thought he was playing Joe Orton.
Did you enjoy the child abuse scene in Morocco?
No. That scene from the book wasn’t in the film. As Andrew Doyle says, someone’s art or writing never raped anyone. He also says that moves such as the one you infer would result in the death of much of the western canon.
I infer no such thing. There was definitely such a scene in the film when I first saw it and I haven’t read the book. It’s possible that the scene has since been removed for video distribution.
Oh, you’re right! I confused the two. I’m looking back, in anger!
There are some straight actors who have played gay characters in the past who now say that they would not have accepted the part these days. Tom Hanks is one who played a gay man in the film Philadelphia.
Likewise there are gay actors who have played straight roles in the past who now say that they wouldn’t have taken the part now. Ellen Paige is one.
They are actors for goodness sake. That’s what they do isn’t it? Pretend
I was so disappointed in Hanks for saying that. Had he asked any gay people for whom that performance meant so much, many of would have said ‘thank you’ not ‘get out’. What a diminished world ours has become.
So true. These narrow minded bigots just can’t comprehend the transcendence achievable by the best artists.
Can we please stop to use the alphabet soup like it is a thing? What does it even mean? If you want to list all the “minorities”, why stop there? The list would be endless.and pretty much cover the whole of humanity.
Apart from that, an interesting article.
Can we at least get the invented and wretched ‘T’ off of the LGB where it was force-teamed by the ‘T’ movement — the two have nothing in common. Male, mostly heterosexual cross-dressers w/ a fetish, formerly known as autogynephiles/transvestic fetishists, now known as the invented category of ‘trans,’ and for whom the movement is mostly in service to, have parasitized the LGB movement and is antithetical to it. Trans ‘gender identity’ ideology is misogynist and homophobic and reifies old stereotypes. LGB equality never supplanted anyone else’s rights or bastardized the language or insisted on deceptive, fraudulent pronouns or promoted the hormonal and surgical mutilation of young people — or anyone. LGBs wanted to integrate into society whereas trans ‘gender identity’ intends to deconstruct it. The alphabet soup is worse than meaningless it is deceptive. And as for actors acting and playing different parts is why it is called acting.
Thanks for pointing this out. It’s so necessary to repeat that lesbians and gay men have nothing in common with TQWERTY+, rather our movement for equality (achieved in this and most other western societies … and Taiwan) has been subject to a violent home invasion by the TQWERTY+ mob. The rights I marched for in the 90s were the rights not to be fired or be kicked out by landlords for being gay and to have our relationships recognised in law. TQWERTY+ already have these rights. Their demands infringe on the existing rights of others, straight and gay. Not the same thing at all.
You don’t think LGB’s also want to de-construct? They have been working to that end since the legality of the practice was changed. Revenge? perhaps, but the family and even procreation are under attack.
Beware the new tactic of demonising the poor confused and mentally afflicted Trans, simply another way of assuring the sexual majority that they are on our side and just like us.
No, to answer to your question, but you would known that had you paid any attention.
Well said.
Don’t forget the way that the trans ideology is effectively beginning to eliminate gays and lesbians.
First, they are convincing confused young people that they are not G/L, they are “really” straight people in the wrong body! (A large percentage of “trans” teens who are not given hormones & surgery etc. end puberty comfortable with their biological sex and attracted to those of the same biological sex.)
Second, they begin insisting that if you are, for example, a lesbian who refuses to sleep with a “transwoman” because said transwoman has a P, you are a bigot, and that your desire for a person with a V can and should be overcome; that you can “choose” to be attracted to and aroused by the P. (Conversely, of course, gay men who refuse to sleep with “transmen” are also bigots for not wanting partners with a V, and can “choose” to desire that V.)
This is exactly what gay-conversion therapy tells gay people: Your attraction and orientation is a choice, and you can choose to be straight. Gay conversion therapy is illegal in many places, and is still a hot-point issue for many activists. Yet many of those same activists, desperate to show how Woke and supportive of “trans people” they are, will turn around and support the idea that gays and lesbians can and should switch teams for the right Uncanny Valley impersonation of their preferred sex (and that straight people can and should as well).
It never fails to shock me to see supposed “allies” and supporters of gay rights turn around and basically advocate the idea that sexual orientation just a choice people make and they can easily choose to go the other way if they want to.
At the beginning of the present gender furore, homosexuals and lesbians riding on the back of Stonewall were supporters of Transgenderism throwing their weight behind the movement. I t was only when they realised that the heterosexual community were angry and disgusted by the effect Transgenderism was having on all women and especially the violation of young children, that LandGs saw
the danger of being associated with the Trans movement and began to speak out.
The great voiceless majority had been pushed too far and the Gays blinked.
But not for long, lock up your children.
BLT + as Jeremy Clarkson would have it..
To f*****g right! (Or whatever the new phrase is).
Yeah, nice one. I found ‘Cucumber’ excruciating … probly because it was mostly so realistic abt a section of the ‘community’ (tho’ a case could be made for a Greek Chorus, a bit of perspective, all that: ‘Cuke’ seemed a bit too close to its material). There might be a film industry party interested in ensuring only hagiography for gay characters. Andrew Haigh’s ‘Weekend’ was nice in its small way: empathetic, but not blind to its characters’ faults; very atmospheric.
I lack the capacity to celebrate getting up in the morning. I take it for granted on a three score years and ten plus basis. I don’t shout hooray! I’m hetero! and rattle my macho toolbox at the wife. Well, not lately anyway. When I see pride marches with their make up, glitter and rainbows I don’t see alphabet people and wonder about their bedroom exploits. I have an imagination and only see self obsessed idiots. Why must they adopt the roles of pantomime and the circus? Hardly original, they even hijack the dictionary and appropriate ‘straight’ words. If they have a case to be made any more they could be more dignified and less theatrical, like the majority of gays I know who cringe with embarrassment at the antics of their extrovert brethren.
Thanks for saying what many are thinking. Won’t it be nice when the human race grows up? Sigh.
There was a moment when, in the UK at least, we hit a bit of a sweet spot. Civil unions solved most of the unfairness that gay couples experienced and gay marriage meant real legal equality and, it seemed, that most people were content. Even the religious, never likely to be happy with such things, seemed to take it in their stride.
Then things got a bit silly. The trans stuff most obviously but what the hell only gay actors could play gay roles or gay characters had to be represented in a particular way.
Hey, great way to irritate the overwhelmingly straight society. You know, those people who generally were on your side, though you should have fair dibs with everyone else.
I don’t change in my feeling that anti gay legislation or policy is stupid and immoral but don’t go asking for privilege. Gosh, you might get like feminists.
I’m all against persecution of gay men and women, but any investigation of why they are so has been shut down,
Medical knowledge of homosexuality has been denied, despite even Elton John’s bio-film that shows father-son disfunction.
This debate needs to be reopened.
Straight people can get on with their lives and relationships perfectly well without any need for any investigation into the cause(s) of their sexuality. Gay people can do likewise, and most very sensibly do.
Being straight is not a sexual dysfunction.
Some brilliant aperçus here: a really enjoyable piece, thank you.
Much of the issue seems to involve confusion of capability and permission (with current “popular jurisprudence” favouring the latter over the former). That’s why politicised art (or entertainment of any kind) is never any good: the cart’s firmly in front of the horse.
Orwell was great on this subject of course…
For God’s sake WHO gives a damn about all this?
Ve haf veys of making you give a damn. The media and politics have a huge over-representation and we ordinary folks feel like an endangered species. Even GB news seems to be total populated by “conservative” gays……now there’s a real contradiction in terms.
Seriously, this society is well fooked.
“The BBC is a publicly-funded
urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large.
All this, creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC.”
Andrew Marr
BBC, June 2007, Does The BBC Have A Bias Problem?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6764779.stm
Well and bravely said.