Articles
'celebrating' queers
who deny a part of
their sexuality miss
the whole point,
argues Tom Robinson

"Glad Not To Be Gay"
shouted an Independent
headline a few weeks
ago - illustrated
with a huge picture
of my family. The
article wasn't even
about me. I don't
want to keep harping
on about it, but ten
years of this kind
of media bollocks
is really starting
to wear a bit thin.
Everyone repeat after
me: no-one ever stopped
being homosexual by
sleeping with a member
of the opposite sex.
God knows enough sad,
deluded people have
tried. I love my partner
and kids more than
anything in the world,
but I'm still gay,
glad and queer as
a bottle of Crisps.
Come on guys, you've
been there. It's not
unknown for a gay
man to mistake a boyish
woman for the guy
of his dreams across
a crowded room. So
what do you do if
the woman then grins
and throws you a cruisy
look ? Sure, you can
always look away,
muttering "I don't
do bi". But since
we gay men are notoriously
fun-loving sexual
adventurers who'll
try almost anything,
another possibility
is to grin back and
see what happens.
If that makes me (or
you) bisexual, well,
worse things have
happened at sea. What
it doesn't make you
(or me) is "Glad Not
To Be Gay".
"Gay activist turns
straight" is such
an irresistible headline,
though, it gets written
again and again -
without reference
to any more complex
human truths that
may underlie the story.
Even 'Don't Panic'
make a T-shirt with
the slogan "The Artist
Formerly Known As
Gay". OK, bemoaning
the old, lost meaning
of "gay" is the usual
preserve of Telegraph
and Spectator columnists,
but 25 years ago the
"gay" in Gay Liberation
Front covered pretty
much any deviation
from the hetero norm:
homo, lesbian, butch,
fem, leather, drag,
vanilla, transgender,
whatever. "Gay" was
an inclusive, liberating
concept that welcomed
bisexuals at its marches
and parties alongside
everybody else - and
I for one mourn its
passing.
The newer word is
"queer". Bigots don't
differentiate between
different flavours
of non-heterosexuality,
runs the argument,
so if we're all equally
"queer" in their eyes,
why quibble ? Let's
reclaim the word and
be a bit proud of
it. Fine, but it remains
so loaded an insult
it's hard to imagine
the term ever passing
into universal use.
Rather than "Queer"
Pride our annual celebrations
are now called "Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender" Pride.
This may be a victory
for pluralism, but
serves only to underline
our divisions. It's
like referring to
Britain as The United
Kingdom of England,
Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland -
impeccably correct
but hopelessly unwieldy.
Of all the alternatives,
my favourite is the
Italian 'diverse ',
which carries the
inclusiveness of "queer"
but without any of
the emotional fallout.
But what of this
thing called "bi"
? Some are born bisexual,
some achieve bisexuality
and some have it thrust
upon them. Until it
happened to me I always
thought "bi" a cop
out - a kind of maimed,
halfhearted version
of "gay", desperately
clutching at a small
shred of respectability.
But to hell with respectability:
the real point about
being bisexual, a
friend pointed out,
is that you're asking
something other than
"what sex is this
person?".
|
In that sense, bisexuality
has the potential
to become a new underground.
Gay liberation - according
to GLF - was everyone's
liberation: the universal
freedom to love and
be whoever we wanted.
Something of that
same spirit has resurfaced
at recent bi gatherings
and events - the sense
of suddenly connecting
to a wider world of
fun, passion, discovery,
sexual adrenaline
and possibilities.
For years gays and
lesbians have urged
hets to get in touch
with the bisexual
side of their nature
and not feel threatened
by it. The big news
from the bi world
is: increasing numbers
of dykes and faggots
are beginning to do
the same.
Ten years ago I got
flak when The Sunday
Toerag published its
sensationalised (and
semi-fictitious) account
of my private life.
Nowadays I get ever
more mail from gay
men and lesbians who've
become involved with
someone of the "wrong"
sex themselves. People
who enjoy being gay,
having gay friends
and a gay lifestyle
- and don't want to
lose their queer identity.
"Glad Not To Be Gay"
is exactly what they
aren't. And if these
people consider themselves
still queer, how dare
any outsider presume
to know better ? I
once had a passionate
affair with a man
whose sexual preference
was for women and
whose relationship
with me was a complete
one-off. He never
slept with another
man before or since,
and still thinks of
himself as straight.
That's fine by me.
These aren't isolated
cases. To make sense
of them we need a
new way of looking
at "bi" - or maybe
a new term altogether,
as wide and inclusive
as "gay" once was.
We also need a new
space at Pride (and
in the world at large)
where the whole thing
can be thrown wide
open under some banner
like "Out There" or
"Every Which Way".
A space where everyone's
welcome and anything
goes: straights, dykes,
males, females, drag
kings, families, transexuals,
skinheads, the androgynous
and the very, very
gay... A space where
we ask something other
than "what sex is
this person?"... where
people can define
themselves any way
they want, or not
at all.
"Glad Not To Be Gay"
- bollocks ! Glad
to be alive.
|