Do You Feel Pride Parades Hurt Us?

The principle is keeping matters having directly to do with LGBTQ equality and rights at the forefront of Pride. So the principled basis for saying the leather daddy is not, is that it is irrelevant to, and in fact a distractor from, the causes that the Pride movement is trying to champion.

Period.

The leather daddy should be about as relevant to an LGBTQ rights march or parade as he would be to a black civil rights parade. Which is to say: Ridiculously zero.

 

I used the word identity because that's the word I thought everybody understood when we're in the framework of identity politics. I'm not saying that you chose anything.

I have to say, the argument I am trying to present here is extremely simple. But maybe I'll just say it one more time, for your benefit.

I am NOT saying gender expression has something "to do" with people wearing stripperiffic clotching. I AM saying that the LOGIC BEHIND your objection to stripperiffic clothing ALSO applies to gender expression, because we're talking about the PERCEPTIONS of people OUTSIDE the LGBT community.

YES. And as a consequence of that, the logic that says "we need to be respectable and not present things that too strongly challenges the sensibilities of cisgender heterosexuals" provides a reason to ban gender variant dress at Pride TOO, including possibly asking trans folks to stay at home...

No, that's not the principle. Well, it's a principle, but it's not the real principle.

The real principle, as it has been advanced here and elsewhere is that people need to dress appropriately, and if you will, present the queer community in a professional and dignified manner. The problem is that the meaning of professional and dignified is to be decided ostensibly by cisgender heterosexuals. These are the same people who are most likely to deny the validity of transgender individuals, view them as freaks, and be "turned off" as you mentioned. In other words, I'm saying the logic of your whole side of the discussion has unintended consequences that need to be examined.

For my part, I dress appropriately, but it could be argued that my feminine presentation was "a distraction."

 

I understand that you have that one narrow concern. And I'm not saying it's an invalid concern to have. I certainly share that concern with you, and I want to point out that I dressed professionally for Pride last year. But I'm saying that the logic behind your concern implicates more than just what you are worried about.

 

JStevens96 -

How many pride parades have you actually attended?

 

First of all, I think EVERYONE gets your point. We HEAR you. Now will you rest? It is a valid and sensible point. Okay?

BUT: Why are *you* making this *only* about straight cis people's perceptions, when we've just as equally been trying to tell you it offends and makes US uncomfortable? We. We who are a part of YOU?

We, your LGBTQ sisters and brothers, are literally standing here saying over and over that the overt sexual stuff and nudity and fetishism stuff bothers us and embarrasses us, and makes us not want to be seen at Pride with those who do it.

And while you are right, the average Cis-het person is possibly going to have a challenge presented to them in accepting some people's gender presentations & expressions, what we here are arguing is that they, like we, will have a different type and level of discomfort altogether with the other irrelevant-to-the-cause, out-there, graphic sexual stuff. And judge it all you want, call it as prudish or slut-shaming as you want, but that stuff is not kid-friendly.

 

all paths -

Out of curiosity, how many pride parades have you attended? What specifically did you see there that offended you? How often did you see it?

 

*(I have to go to bed for the night; it's been interesting...but I literally cannot stay up a minute longer. Goodnight, until another day...)

 

It's really true. One thing that really surprises me about this forum is the amount of really homophobic stuff that gets posted--all those visible gay people just make me look bad, bi people can't be faithful, if you've slept with more than one guy/gal you don't understand what intimacy is, if you like to wear chaps surely you can't be a seriously minded individual who works for equality. One thing it really does make me realize is that I don't get any of this crap from the straight people in my life. Seriously, I haven't encountered as many negative representations of gay people as I do on this site, anywhere, ever... and I grew up in Utah.

---------- Post added 27th Apr 2014 at 07:29 AM ----------

I live in Chicago. Last year a million people showed up to our parade--all sorts. A million people--if that makes you ashamed I'm thinking it may not have much to do with the parade, you may just be ashamed...

 

"Really homophobic"? You're joking, right?
This forum is one of the friendliest places I've been in my entire life.
After finding so many transgender forums that thought I was just a kid, I found EC, and as you can tell, I'm a regular. Aside from the occasional stupid thread, there is little to no homophobic language here.

Do some people believe the stereotypes? Yes, yes they do. The "should bisexuals marry" thread comes to mind. Still, I have to wonder. Clearly, you don't use the net very much, since you'll see a lot of comments about "faggots" and occasionally "trannies", and these comments are usually clueless or cruel. To say that this site is homophobic is an exaggeration, since around here these insults are only used in examples. I can honestly say that you're either lucky to have so much support or you just don't use the internet very much.

 

I stand by what I said--I've been out for 22 years and I use the internet plenty. I suppose I am lucky to have so much support--I'm not really sure it's luck, I worked hard for it. I grew up in a devoutly Mormon household--I'm not really sure I had that much of hand up in the coming out process, but whatever... The fact of the matter is I've encountered more negative representations of gay people here than I do in real life--by a long shot. And I think it's something for people to think about when they argue we will be let in from the fringes only by pushing other people out to the fringes. I'm not saying that makes anybody a terrible person--the fact of the matter is that a lot of people here probably have a much more emotionally fraught relationship to the "gay community" (whatever that is) than most straight people do. Whatever, people are here to work through their stuff. Carry on...

 

So, reading through the thread, the arguments against Pride that have been presented might be summarized as:

a) they bother some straight people and so hurt the cause

b) they aren't 'family friendly'

c) the people dancing in them are into wild sex with multiple partners and drug use

d) people being partly naked is immoral

Let's address these one at a time:

a) they bother some straight people and so hurt the cause

Gay people were being persecuted and killed long before the pride movement ever existed. See link here.

and while some tried the quiet protest approach, persecution and harassment of LGBT people continued until things came to a head with Stonewall, when a bunch of gay people who were minding their own business nicely out of sight of straight people got sick and tired of being picked on by those same straight people following them in to pick on them and said No More!. Pride is not just (or even mostly) about convincing straights to let us have rights (pretty please and if it's not too much trouble). It's about saying that we're not going to just nicely ask or beg or hide who we are so that straights can attack us whenever and however they want without consequences. Pride is about saying that we won't put up with their crap anymore and that if they want to try it, there will be negative consequences to THEM.

As the saying goes: We're Here, We're Queer. Get Used to It.

On a more general note, this argument ignores the other 364 days a year when people dressed up all nicely and proper are working their butts off to promote gay rights and understanding with straight people. Speaking of which - even if you don't care to attend Pride, what are you doing to promote LGBT rights then?

We're NOT 'people just like them' and the point of LGBT rights is not to convince them that we are, most definitely not by trying to hide what we are so they can comfortably ignore us. The point is to work for a world where being 'NOT just like everyone else' is not stigmatized and not considered an acceptable reason for persecuting people. The point is to celebrate diversity, not work for conformity.

b) they aren't 'family friendly'

As having kids and families has become more of a part of gay culture, many (perhaps most) Pride organizers have moved to accommodate them, whether via scheduling or space planning. So there is a time and/or place where parents can bring their kids to Pride and a time/place where people can dance in the sun in a thong. So people have the option of whether or not their kids see anything their parents don't want them to.

So the 'not family friendly' argument doesn't hold water.

c) the people dancing in them are into wild sex with multiple partners and drug use

Unless the person in question is holding a sign explicitly promoting promiscuity and/or drug use you can have no idea what their positions are on either of these things simply from a picture of them dancing in a jockstrap or the like on a float. In fact, the only thing you can say with any certainty about them is that they have sufficient self-confidence and extroversion to dance in public with very few clothes on. Everything else is just a product of your imagination and the tendency to generalize your judgement of one behavior you dislike (dancing in public with little covering) to a bunch of others you dislike.

Dennis Rader was a former military member, husband, father of two, Cub Scout leader, and president of the Congregation Council of his church (he was a Lutheran). He was also the BTK Killer who was responsible for the death of 10 people from 1974 to 1991, including 2 children. BTK stands for 'Bind, Torture, Kill' btw. I'm sure he looked very nice and proper and moral however.

The lesson here: Judging people by initial impressions alone is not the best approach.

d) people being partly naked is immoral

"Morality" is a made up social control mechanism. It has no more objective reality than the tooth fairy.

Time was that it was considered immoral for a woman to wear a dress that showed her ankles. Or to vote. Or even talk back to a man in any fashion that indicated she was anything other than a doormat. Time was, it was considered immoral for blacks and whites to marry. Or for black people to vote. Or not be property that could be sold and moved around with no more thought than you would give to moving a cow. Time was that, if you were a good Catholic you would have cried out for Protestants to be tortured and burned alive in defense of 'morality'. And at other times, as a good Protestant you would have supported persecution of Catholics (or Jews, or homosexuals) on moral grounds.

I suppose you could try arguing that humanity's understanding of morality has been evolving or the like and that those past people who judged others on 'moral' grounds just didn't know any better and we do now. In which case, I will ask you what basis you have for being so certain that your current understanding or conception of morality is any more complete than those of the past? In a few decades or centuries your moral certainty regarding nudity may be seen as every bit as outmoded as past moral certainties are seen now.

Beyond that, if you're going to take the position that the amount of fabric worn is a measure of a person's morality/self-worth/self-respect/whatever, then by that logic the various cultures living in warm climates where people wear little more than what you see at Pride must be hotbeds of immorality and self-loathing while the Taliban (with their insistence that women be totally covered head to foot), must be the most moral people on the planet. By that logic, the participants in a KKK rally must be incredibly moral people, because after all they are covered from head to foot in modesty promoting fabric.

What's that you say? That the actions and views of these latter groups make their clothing choices irrelevant as a point of moral consideration and therefore my argument is wrong? But if you're going to make that argument, how can you not then apply it back to the people at Pride and the other 364 days a year they may be working their butts off to promote causes you presumably support and believe in? And what did you say you were doing to support those causes outside of Pride btw?

Finally, if your personal tastes are such that you don't like seeing some of the behavior at Pride (assuming you've every actually been to Pride instead of making a sweeping judgement about an entire event and its participants based on a 30 sec news segment or a few photos), that's all well and good. Nobody is forcing you to go. But kindly be honest enough to admit that it is only a matter of your personal taste rather than trying to elevate the issue to some sort of pseudo-cosmic significance by trying to dictate to everyone what IS right or wrong or what IS responsible or not.

Because, while such statements may sound very impressive, they pretty quickly are revealed to have nothing other than personal taste backing them up. And that's a far cry from cosmic significance, pseudo or otherwise.

Todd

 

Listen, I don't like crude or sexually overt behavior either - as you can tell with my comments on straight bars, it isn't my thing.

But this does not give me an inherent moral right to tell people what they should and should not do. If it doesn't physically or directly mentally harm me or others, I don't give a damn.

I don't believe any of you should either - particularly when straight people have the equivalent of a pride parade every Friday and Saturday night in bars everywhere and hardly anyone bats an eye.

 

The question of the thread was "Do you feel pride parades hurt us?"

Quite a few of us answered that our opinion was "yes."

Others appear to be saying either no, or that they just don't care.

That is all.

*all paths out*