LGBT

[deanb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19733003

 

At least the daughter seems to be taking it in good spirits. And the dad isn't being a total douche and at least seems to have a fair amount of love for his daughter to attempt to do this. But it's still kinda wrong.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I'd be pretty understanding too if my Dad was a billionaire. Also, I'd be getting my gay bff to marry me and share the money - you could have one wing of your massive house each and get along famously.

[TheMightyEthan]

That works until daddy wants grandchildren.

[WTF]

That works until daddy wants grandchildren.

 

Well it still works if either one is sterile or can be proven to be sterile. Of course there's adoption but you can always put that off.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

"I know a lot of people, and perhaps especially religious people, will say that David and I should count ourselves lucky for living in a country that allows civil partnerships, and call it quits there. In most countries around the world, gay people aren't just disallowed from coming together in a legal sense; they are actually persecuted by governments because of their sexuality. Maybe we should just be happy that we at least have a civil partnership, and not push our luck.

 

Well, I don't accept this. I don't accept it because there is a world of difference between calling someone your "partner" and calling them your "husband". "Partner" is a word that should be preserved for people you play tennis with, or work alongside in business. It doesn't come close to describing the love that I have for David, and he for me. In contrast, "husband" does. A "husband" is somebody that you cherish forever, that you would give up everything for, that you love in sickness and in health. Until the law recognises David Furnish is my husband, and not merely my partner, the law won't describe the man I know and adore."

 

Part of an article in The Independent by Elton John doing a good job explaining why it's important to push for marriage equality, not just civil partnerships. It's got a nice tone to the article which I hate to say I didn't expected from Elton John - I always expect him to be angry.

[Mal]

Here I was thinking "partner" was an okay term to use. Elton proved me wrong. Guess for conversation usage, I'm switching to "significant other".

[deanb]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/oct/19/comics-books-embrace-gay-characters

 

An article on introduction of LGBT characters in comic books of late. I'm, like with video games, leaning towards the "token effort" thinking, going after the pink pound n all that. But hey, at least that's the main issue folks seem to have with it than comic books ripping apart families and america n what not.

 

http://gawker.com/5953357/missouri-pastors-fiery-speech-against-equal-rights-for-homosexuals-has-stunning-twist-ending

And yes a Gawker link but it does give a bit of backstory of a plain youtube embed.

[fuchikoma]

Gamasutra article on what Anna Anthropy (Lesbian Spider Queens of Mars, Calamity Jane) said about the shortfalls of token characters in games made by people who don't understand their issues firsthand.

[Mister Jack]

I dunno if I agree with the Mass Effect assertion. That one gay crew member in Mass Effect 3 (I forget the names of most NPCs in that game) seemed like a pretty well-rounded guy. I actually didn't realize he was gay until he came out and said it. Maybe people are thinking not enough attention was given to that detail, but then how much is too much? If you don't focus on a character's "gay" side at all outside a mention it's apparently a token character, but if you focus on it too much then he's a stereotype.

 

Come to think of it, Borderlands 2 had a lot of gay/lesbian minor characters, didn't it?

[deanb]

Yeah it's a bit crud to point towards ME3 as a bad example. Sure it's kinda token, but at the very least it's not a stereotype. Especially as the otherside of the spectrum is where you end up coloured cubes moving around otherly coloured cubes which I feel is just as, if not more so, bad. A cube doesn't have a lisp and mince about, but it's still clearly defined as "different".

[Hot Heart]

I liked the fact that the gay characters in ME3 were fairly normal (especially compared to everyone else with their family issues). They're in the military, they have a job to do, and they do it well (except "Steeeeeve!" if you don't talk to him enough). They're well-rounded and believable. And ME wasn't exactly about exploring sexual politics and the like...

[Mister Jack]

Back to Borderlands 2, wasn't Hammerlock gay? Or at least bisexual. I remember a side mission where he asks you to...well, more or less kill his ex-boyfriend, but I think the wording of the request was to retrieve some stolen audio logs or something. I forget. You do end up killing his boyfriend at some point and Hammerlock seems A-okay with it. Of course, I wouldn't read into this as being an anti-gay message because it's established early on that pretty much everyone on Pandora is a horrible person.

 

I actually think Hammerlock is an example of a good gay/bi character BECAUSE he's kind of a sociopath. Most of the time when we see gay characters in the media they're either these flawless messiah archetypes or they're magical, quip-spouting pixies. Gay people can be jerkasses too, you know. When you make them overly idealized because you're afraid of offending someone, they become less of a character and more of a poseable doll.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Mister Jack

[TheMightyEthan]

I agree with that to some extent, but with any prejudice I believe there are three stages of portrayal, and with LGBT (or at least LGB, T might still be in the first) we're in the second stage:

 

1) It's acceptable to portray them negatively because that's just how people think of them.

 

2) You can only portray them positively because they're human beings and you don't want to reinforce prejudicial attitudes.

 

3) You can portray them negatively again because now the prejudice is eroded enough that it's acceptable to acknowledge that even though it's not bad to be a member of that group, those members are still human beings with flaws.

[Mister Jack]

I think stage 3 is definitely the ideal. I'm not saying ALL fictional gay people should be assholes but look, there are a lot of assholes in the world. Some of them are bound to be gay.

 

That didn't come out right. But you know what I mean.

 

Also, didn't LGBT recently add in another letter?

[deanb]

I think it's LGBTAQ at the moment. (Lettuce, Gherkins, Bacon, Tomato, Asexual/Ally, Queer)

[Mister Jack]

Mmmm, LGBTBBQ.

 

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Q also stands for 'questioning' which I prefer. Mostly as I don't like the term queer. It sounds too political to me and angry. Not to mention I still can't help feeling it as an insult , even though I know people are trying to reclaim it I'm just not there yet.

[deanb]

A apparently can also be Androgynous, but I feel that's more a body shape/style than an orientation. I always kinda figured "queer" in this sense, and how I've normally heard it used, to mean "doesn't fit in any of the venn diagram above, but definitely not hetro".

[TheFlyingGerbil]

yeah, that is how it is meant in the abbreviation, but the way I usually hear it used is as an overtly political statement or for its shock value. I also don't think that that definition is all that old, and has been applied to it recently to try and replace the more common meaning as just a pejorative term for a gay person, which is the reason I don't think I've ever heard a "normal" gay person use the word to refer to themselves.

 

Also, while you ponder androgyny I may as well point out I don't think Transgender really fits in their either. Sexualilty and gender identity are to completely separate areas, e.g. a male transsexual may be either straight or gay. It kind of just smacks of 'lets lump all the freaks together' to me.

[fuchikoma]

If not androgynous, there are also people who identify as asexual... but I feel like the alternate-sexuality category is getting far too varied and changing too much for non-activists to keep up on. If "queer" is unacceptable, I think there should be another general term that can apply generically to various alts, since at times it feels like someone's moving the goalposts on trying to find a politically correct term to use. It's like "I don't want to offend anyone... so I just won't bring it up since I don't know what the current terminology is" and if that's a common response, then it's a step back.

Edited November 8, 2012 by fuchikoma

[deanb]

i think it's more of a "by our powers combined". a lot of the equality issues tend to be very closely aligned and discrimination is fairly similar too. I also don't think LGBT was coined externally of the group.

 

Edit: mentioned asexual the first time around.

[fuchikoma]

You did... Again, it's hard to keep tabs on the list - apparently more than I thought.

 

And I'm not saying it was coined externally, or even suggesting there is a centralized group. Just saying that it feels like something for which it's especially tricky not to offend anyone when discussing. For instance, I've seen people discussing transgender issues get offended when someone referred to non-transgender people as "straight," saying that the implication of non-straightness was discriminatory and that everyone should get used to using "cisgender." It may be a separate issue, but most people probably don't even know the word. Not everyone is like that, but at times it's a bit like navigating a minefield. I also wonder when genetic hermaphrodites will end up on the standard acronym, since they're not transgendered, at least from a mismatched identity POV and gay/hetero would be subjective and quite dependent on the individual?

[TheMightyEthan]

"LGBT" is the catch-all term you're looking for. And yeah, it's like Dean said, it's more of an "our powers combined" thing. Which is why they'll sometimes throw Ally in there.

[fuchikoma]

Ok, maybe I'm overreacting. But it used to be LGB and some have pushed for LGBTI and LGBTIH, so when Dean said "I think it's LGBTAQ at the moment" I thought "ok... so how long before it's LGBTIHAAAHQFP? Someone will always say they're being left out..." and with some of the easily offended proponents of different causes, it seemed like no list would be long enough to catch all by specific inclusion.

Edited November 8, 2012 by fuchikoma

[fuchikoma]

I see that MSGI ("minority sexual and gender identities") has been pushed, but hasn't taken off... Also, that there are many variations and controversy already, including FABGLITTER and QUILTBAG, though those seem to try too hard to make a mnemonic, and could still be subject to modification and extension that breaks this.

 

There's a fair criticism in the article about using a catch-all as well

Some do not subscribe to or approve of the political and social solidarity, and visibility and human rights campaigning that normally goes with it including gay pride marches and events.[53][54] Some of them believe that grouping together people with non-heterosexual orientations perpetuates the myth that being gay/lesbian/bi makes a person deficiently different from other people.[24][53] These people are often less visible compared to more mainstream gay or LGBT activists.[53][54] Since this faction is difficult to distinguish from the heterosexual majority, it is common for people to assume all LGBT people support LGBT liberation and the visibility of LGBT people in society, including the right to live one's life in a different way from the majority.[53][54][55] In the 1996 book Anti-Gay, a collection of essays edited by Mark Simpson, the concept of a 'one-size-fits-all' identity based on LGBT stereotypes is criticized for suppressing the individuality of LGBT people.

 

I guess you just can't please all the people all the time. If only it were easier to tell which people to please at a given time...