Main Edition
US
FR
July 23, 2020 - 11:22am
It can be tempting to believe lesbian and gay equality is widespread and accepted. But when a huge platform such as Netflix is forced to scrap an entire series because it includes a gay storyline, it is time to question that belief.
The Turkish series, ‘If Only’ was halted on the eve of filing because Turkish authorities refused the producers a filming licence when it came to light that one of the five central characters is a gay man. The ‘If Only’ screenwriter, Ece Yorenc, described the decision as “very frightening for the future.”
Government opposition to lesbian and gay rights in Turkey has grown in recent years. The Istanbul Pride march has been banned for five years in a row. Which just goes to show how influential political pressure is when it comes to the arts.
The pressure from the Turkish government on Netflix is merely a reflection of real life for lesbians and gay men living under the Erdoğan administration, known for its authoritarian nationalism. The fundamental human rights violations being faced by gay men and lesbians in Turkey include religious and state-sanctioned laws, homophobic violence, and systematic breaches of rights in regard to employment, housing, family life, education and health care.
But anti-LGBT bigotry is also rife in democratic, progressive countries. And this is reflected on our screens.
From The Killing of Sister George to women’s prison dramas, lesbians do not tend to be everyday characters on mainstream TV. This all changed with the film The Kids Are Alright, because for the first time, Hollywood had released a movie that wasn’t about lesbianism, but rather the trials and tribulations of love and of family relationships. But such on-screen portrayals are still surprisingly rare.
The Gay Liberation Movement is 50 years old, but the situation in Turkey right now shows how precarious those hard-won rights are. As with Poland, and some US states, our rights are being rolled back. The Netflix debacle may be seen by many as a conservative government balking at the idea of any positive representation of gay people, but it’s much more widespread than that. The way that we respond to lesbian and gay rights is a good indication of how open a society is.
We still have a lot of work to do before young lesbians and gay men can enjoy seeing themselves reflected back on a TV screen in countries that treat them as inferior and even dangerous.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhy is JB perplexed that an Islamist leader opposes progressive sexual morality? Is she not aware of what Islamic literature says about homosexuality? Yet progressives like her have embraced Islamism so they can attack their common enemy – the Christian. Note she never mentions Islam
Yes, I was also wondering whether she would consider Islam worth a mention. Didn’t think so.
Perhaps Owen could explain?
Come on, what do you mean “we”? Turkey is an Islamist country, what do you expect? In the West we are bending over backwards to be inclusive of the LGBT community, and even promote it way beyond their proportional representation in our society. There is no time or place better in known history for LGBTs as right now in the West. Sure let’s try to be even more tolerant, but please stop your moaning – most of us just want you all to be happy and feel part of our society, as long as you don’t push your ideology on our children and us as being some sort of ideal way of being a human, which obviously it isn’t – especially with our declining birth rates and the breaking down of the family.
Declining populations are seen all over the world, regardless of how tolerant that society is of homosexuality. See for example Japan.
Assuming that the all gay men or women would form families had they not lived according to their preferences is not necessarily a correct assumption. They may have lived alone or lived with somoene of the opposite gender without forming a family, or lived with a so-called “friend”, or quite likely just committed suicide.
Besides, some gay men and women do form families. I can understand opposition to that and I am not sure where I stand myself on that issue, but it strikes me as a sort of hypocrisy when heterosexuals accuse gays of not wanting to form families while also not actually wanting them to have families, or offering the gays some other kind of role in the family unit (e.g., being a gay uncle helping out with family life).
I’d rather not be gay, I just am. What am I supposed to do? Lie to a woman for my whole life and form a family with her? Give me a list of women who would like that.
Live as a celibate? What would you have me do?
Very sorry Alex if I caused you offence there (and this goes for any genuine transgender/nonbinary person too). I was loose in my definition: I was actually referring to the T part of the LGBT – well to be exact, the T-fascist pat of the equation (although, like that T faction, there are a few in the LG faction who are into the promotion of LG as a “cool lifestyle”/anti-family choice as opposed to a genuine free expression of sexuality). I’m with you 100 percent – no one has any control over their true sexuality, including true transgenders etc. We should have compassion and support for people of any sexuality, as long as they don’t harm others. And it’s the harm to our societies, especially our children, from T-fascism (I know, it’s my rhetorical label – also not an exact description, but I can’t be bothered giving them any more of my brainpower to humour them) that I am referring to.
It’s also the threat to the rights of biological women and the gay/lesbian community from that T faction that I dislike intensely.
Actually, I lately heard about the “gay uncle” theory from an evolutionary geneticist, and as well as being quite moved by this theory, it sounds so plausible to me. Of course the ironic thing is that this would be especially selected for in polygamous societies, such as Islam. And yet, Islam is so anti-homosexual. It’s no surprise that unspoken homosexuality is very common in Muslim countries (I’ve seen this firsthand).
But no, I’m talking about the anti-life/transhumanist elements of the transgender+ etc etc movement – the last thing we need for our decreasing population. Although I realise this is more a symptom of the problem than a cause.
Why not become a Monk? A Cistercian or Carthusian perhaps, I gather they are ‘recruiting.’ Failing that a Mendicant Friar, Franciscan or Carmelite? Or even a Cannon Regular with the Praemorstratensians?
“Live as a celibate? What would you have me do?”
Well…you know, it wouldn’t kill you.
These were all goals of the Frankfurt School. They have been at work for about 75 years now and they are succeeding across the board.
More and more I am hearing about the insidious influences of these old Frankfurters
As with her recent article on prostitution in Leeds, Julie fails to see the contradiction in her position. Namely, that she abhors Islamic Turkey, but welcomes mass immigration from such countries.
“…under the ErdoÄŸan administration, known for its authoritarian nationalism.” Erdogan once said it himself – “In the end, it is all Islam.” It amazes me that the legions of leftist writers continue to portray themselves as virtuous champions of “human rights” even as they embrace ignorance of the bellowing elephant standing in the closet. The Koran minces no words about abnormal sexual behavior – none. Edogan was elected by the eastern Turkey voters who wanted a return to traditional Islamic values (such as they are). He has been delivering on that issue from the first day he came to power.
Clearly Netflix is more concerned with not offending the Islamists than standing up for the gay community. Understandable in a way – after all, how often are people murdered by outraged gays?
Yes, in Turkey. Scour the world looking for bigotry if you’ve got the time.
Not really sure what this article’s point is.
Whilst nonetheless disheartening, I don’t think anyone can really be surprised that Turkey would block a programme that involved a gay story-line. The country has long flirted with the more fundamentalist Islamic fringe and is, by European standards, very conservative and religious.
That we should be careful not to row back on progress here is a fair point also.
But the only offered evidence is back to this programme (nothing to do with any democratic or progressive country), and a few programmes that you didn’t feel accurately reflected your views/experiences of lesbianism, which is something altogether different.
When anyone even remotely entertains the idea of banning something here for it containing LGBT themes – then we can take notice. But we are nowhere near that point so don’t understand, except a sort of insinuation that Turkey’s actions are also our fault.
Here is the problem with Julie’s world. She asserts that her preference homosexual female – Lesbian should be normalised for all. They should dominate media and all other influences in society. The problem is that all gay and lesbian is 2-3.4% of all western population and therefore by definition of Normal : conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected., not to be usually expected. Certainly not expected to supersede or override the normalcy of hetero society. I hope your book is better than these insipid articles you are writing.
Never forget that Julie was deemed too extreme even for the Guardian. Either that or nobody clicked on the increasingly demented articles she wrote there.
I’ve got nothing against lesbianism or lesbians but it is still very much a minority interest in this country. So, Julie, to have a character in a TV drama who “just happens” to be gay is confusing for the audience. Either (s)he is there to advance a story line or what’s the point?
The point is to reflect real life, in which some people just happen to be gay without wanting to hide it or forcing it onto someone.
The issue is that for some people, ‘forcing it onto someone’ is casually mentioning what you did with your partner this weekend. For others, it’s having gay characters in TV series. For others, it’s holding hands in public.
It doesn’t have to advance a story line. It just is.
At the same time, I do kind of get your point. Every series does not need a gay character ‘just because’.
I am not accusing you, but I think it would be much more becoming if some of the commenters here if they lined out specifically how they want gay people to live. Do they want the gays to hide completely? Do they want them to be celibates? Do they want them to live contrary to their preferences?
It would not be more becoming of any commenter to say how other people who happen to be gay ought to live. We are all individuals and it seems to be a part of life to spend it struggling with ourselves and the circumstances we find ourselves in, to find a way to be reasonably happy and contribute to society as far as we are able. It’s not easy for any of us.
Do your own thing was, I think, a mantra of the 60s. It appears to have worked OK for a very high proportion of the UK population.
Before the ‘turning point’ of the 60s there were many people in unchosen minorities who either adopted behaviour and attitudes that marked them out from the majority – or they chose not to. But we knew then and we know now who they were and are.
The point is, having at least one openly gay character shouldn’t be obligatory, especially in a drama set in a high school, aimed at high school teens, with almost all teen characters. Even in a liberal society (unlike, for eg., Turkey), many people that age aren’t even sexually active yet, and don’t have enough real life experience to know exactly what their sexual orientation is. Eg., the common phenomenon of intense, short-lived, female-to-female “crushes” among high school girls, esp. those who attend religious single-sex schools, as I did. I experienced a few myself. Nonetheless, I am heterosexual. I don’t even remember worrying over whether or not my feelings then meant I was a lesbian. Sex in general was mostly just theory to me, at that age. There seems to be a lot of pressure now on girls to immediately identify themselves as “lesbians” at age 14 or younger, just because of normal feelings they may experience toward another girl. When did we start just assuming that kids this young know exactly who they are, when they usually don’t even know what career to choose, or what to major in in college?
With respect, I suggest that homosexuality, along with many other idiosyncrasies (vegetarianism, transvestism etc), is an inclination that can only be indulged due to the success of Liberalism and Capitalism, which have made our society relatively wealthy, safe and leisurely. However, I think liberalism has probably been taken as far as it can go, and in fact has gone over a cliff; once the state allows children to be given chemical drugs, with long term dramatic consequences, to bring about what they imagine about themselves, that is a liberal step too far.
Re: LGBTQ etc, why should someone’s unusual sexual inclinations be of any interest to anyone except the individual and their closest associates ?
Yes, like many other “indulgences” – for example, living a long life, eating a lot of meat, not believing in god/s, etcetera.
What is your point? That because of some excesses, all of those “indulgences” should be rolled back?
No, that’s not my point at all. I suggest you read through my comment again and don’t be paranoid, there is no threat to your integrity as a human being implied in it at all, I am being objective.
You are not your gayness you know, you are Alex S.
Let the roll back begin.
We can only hope so.
Be more specific, which rights do you want rolled back?
Agree re ignoring the religious element, particularly when religion is such a big factor in the country being discussed.
What I’m struggling with, within the article, is the statement
“But anti-LGBT bigotry is also rife in democratic, progressive countries. And this is reflected on our screens.”
With 2 external linkS:
The first about a movie from 1968 (although in a guardian article 2013) The latest reference is from prisoner cell block H which finished in 1985 aka 34 years ago.
I don’t understand how you can say bigotry of any kind IS rife and reference like that- it’s feel disingenuous.
I think so too. Almost every TV program these days has black and gay characters who not-so-subtly lecture their audiences on their white privileged cis-heteronormative existences.
So just by including characters that are not heterosexual or white, it is an attack on “white privileged cis-heteronormative existences.”? Even if those characters are not lecturing anyone on anything, if they’re just there? Or is it that the number of times you have seen non-white or gay characters have become too many in your opnion?
It is true that not every TV-series needs a black or gay character. Quotas do not need to be set. Some silly Bechdel test does not need to be passed. There’s plenty of gays in gay movies to go around, for the most part. But including a gay character every here and there need not be taken as an attack on “cis-heteronormative existences”.
It’s the lecturing part I object to.
This is a question begging article – it airbrushes over the fact that there is a question of morality with respect to homosexual activity that is taken seriously in Turkey in a similar way as it was in the UK until relatively recently. These fundamental human rights violations are not as fundamental as claimed here.
Individual rights are not universal. This is a a western idea. Communal values take precedence in most non western countries. The idea that the world should revolve around the individual is
not historical & certainly neither global or universal.
Individual rights are also not likely to last very long even in the West, given how individualism breaks down the safety and prosperity need to make individualism practicable.
Really?
Wait, you’re talking about Turkey? Why on earth would you be tempted to believe that lesbian and gay equality is accepted in Turkey?
Are there many Islamic countries where lesbian and gay equality is accepted?
If they stopped vulgar sex simulation on board their floats on Pride Week&stopped calling it part of a family fun day..LGBT ‘issues’ may be looked on with less contempt..as for Turkey ..what does Bindell expect?
I sometimes wonder about this. Is this form of bigotry somehow hard-wired into human minds? Is it a primitive instinct left over from tribal times? And if so, will we constantly need to teach tolerance of LGBT lifestyles to all future generations?
Who is the bigot?
Originally it probably developed in two ways.
One
It was a minority sport and the majority did not like it.
Two
It was very important for a tribe to have children, as without children the tribe would die out.
Point two is very pertinent today, as the indigenous population in Britain is dying out.
Populations are declining all over the world, regardless of how tolerant that society is to homosexuality, see for example Japan.
Moreover, tribes or bands of hunter-gatherers would also not shy away from methods to prevent having more children than they could feed, e.g. infanticide. That does not mean that infanticide is a good idea today. In much the same way, it does not follow that bigotry against gays is a good idea because people historically have not liked it, or that it did not help propagate the tribe. In fact some theories around the causes of homosexuality propose, according to Wikipedia: “A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).[170]”
Whose study? Who authored the Wikipedia entry? Might there have been an agenda hidden somewhere?
I read the same element you quoted….thinking how depressing in this day and age.
I post full detail above….but succinctly the author’s references are from 1968 and 1985.
Julie Bindel needs to explain why Capital is so heavily invested in LGBT rights. Every rights group is backed by Capital. You could see this during the referenda in Ireland. Both ILGO & Amnesty IRL received foreign funding from Foundations. Irish NGOs are funded to the tune of €10.5bn half of which is provided by the taxpayer. “Rights” are weapons aimed at deconstructing group cohesion which benefits Capital. A world where Capital can run wild & uninhibited is what this activism is enabling
“From The Killing of Sister George to women’s prison dramas, lesbians do not tend to be everyday characters on mainstream TV”
Wait. What? Is that irony? Lesbianism has been mandatory in most character-based shows and films, even when not especially pertinent to the narrative, for some time now. I’d say more so than gay male characters. Granted, it’s a 2-for-1 on titillation for the male gaze and diversity points, but still…
Julie needs to watch more telly.
I agree; lesbianism has been extremely popular in TV for at least a decade. Heterosexual women don’t mind it, and heterosexual men love it, so it’s win-win. It’s an easy way of fulfilling the “inclusion” imperative, easier and less risky than having male homosexual characters, male homosexuality being something that still repels a lot of straight men (if they’re honest enough to admit it). I remember a male friend years ago, telling me, “If I were a woman, I know for a fact that I would be a lesbian.” I laughed at him at the time, but I think he was expressing a truth about many men; they just don’t “get” male homosexuality at all, in the way they “get” lesbianism. They often have a hard time even understanding why straight women are attracted to men.
State religions don’t work.
Bold. Empirical proof required.
Ireland
Every single lasting civilisation/empire/nation has had it. We’re unusual in losing ours, but then we probably won’t last.