Out Lgbt Athletes Participated And Won Medals At London Olympics

[Jingthing]

Now, isn't that special?

So it was mostly out lesbians.

Does that mean there are very few gay men in the Olympics, it is harder for them to be out, or both?

On the women's front, the U.S. press has noted that it has become cooler for the women athletes to be openly butch and not worry the slightest about not appearing stereotypically feminine. Such phrases as Strong is the New Pretty.

http://www.advocate.com/travel/summer-loving-london/2012/08/13/team-lgbt-medal-count

As Cyd Zeigler points out, Team LGBT won as many medals as Mexico, Ethiopia, and Georgia, and won more than such countries as Argentina and Jamaica. The official medal count for Team LGBT is four gold, one silver, and two bronze, including a few team efforts.

[hookedondhamma]

I don't think it's any big news, but it is great to see nonetheless. Gays have always existed in this world in every situation and group of people, so it doesn't surprise me that there would be participants in the olympics who were.

'Strong is the New Pretty' ha. Should be 'Strong and Fabulous!' But that's just me.

It's become 'cooler'? Really, now ...

Edited August 15, 2012 by hookedondhamma

[LeCharivari]

Now, isn't that special?

Not really - it'll be a lot more "special" when it isn't considered "special" at all and they're considered just great athletes rather than great gay athletes, and being openly gay/lesbian isn't something worth commenting on, just as the athletes' ethnicity is now seldom, if ever, commented on.

I wonder how the reaction would have been from both the athletes themselves and from the public if, instead of "Team Gay" or "Team LGBT" someone had chosen to report on "Team Negro" instead, picking out the likes of Mo Farah and separating them artificially from the rest of their national teams?

[LeCharivari]

Does that mean there are very few gay men in the Olympics, it is harder for them to be out, or both?

Probably both, but to different degrees.

The stereotypical gay male is more "fem" so more likely to be a sportsman in games which are equally stereotypically considered "fem", requiring artistic talent such as figure skating and diving, while the stereotypical gay female is more "butch" so more likely to be a sportswoman in many other sports requiring purely athletic ability - something borne out by the list of past and present gay Olympians*.

There are comparatively few Olympic sports requiring artistic ability and most that do are strictly female sports (there is no men's synchronised swimming, for example) so, if the stereotypes are true, it should be no great surprise that there are more lesbians at the top of the Olympic sporting field than gay men - but that's probably as much a reflection of the sports that are selected by the IOC as anything else.

Certain sports, particularly in certain countries, are still considered "macho" and not sports that gays would either want or be able to take part in, but Gareth Thomas (at one time the most capped player in Welsh Rugby history)** has put paid to that myth for many people but even he made the point strongly that "What I choose to do when I close the door at home has nothing to do with what I have achieved in rugby" and that he wanted to be known for what he achieved as a rugby player, not as a gay rugby player.

Other sportsmen, also at the absolute peak of their sport, have come out such as Lee Pearson*** who has won no less than 9 Paralympic Gold medals (and may win more this year), but what puts many off isn't that its "hard" to come out - doing what's "hard" is seldom a challenge to these people - but that they don't want to be classified primarily as a "gay" athlete and that's what some people will try to make them to further their own agendas.

Most gay sportsmen (and women), like many gay people, don't want to be part of "Team Gay" or "Team LGBT" - only one Olympic champion (Bruce Hayes, USA) has ever taken part in the Gay Games. For many gay people, not just athletes, being part of "Team Gay" means setting themselves apart from the rest of society and their real "team" and is as unacceptable as being named as part of "Team Muslim" would be for Mo Farah or "Team Jewish" would have been for Harold Abrahams in 1924, however important that aspect of their life is/was to them.

* http://gaygames.org/...btolympians.pdf

** http://sportsillustr...68953/index.htm (well worth reading)

*** http://www.leepearson.co.uk/id2.html

Edited August 16, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

Now, isn't that special?

Not really - it'll be a lot more "special" when it isn't considered "special" at all and they're considered just great athletes rather than great gay athletes, and being openly gay/lesbian isn't something worth commenting on, just as the athletes' ethnicity is now seldom, if ever, commented on.

I wonder how the reaction would have been from both the athletes themselves and from the public if, instead of "Team Gay" or "Team LGBT" someone had chosen to report on "Team Negro" instead, picking out the likes of Mo Farah and separating them artificially from the rest of their national teams?

This forum is the GAY forum.

The Advocate is a GAY newspaper.

Of course the Advocate is going to editorially emphasize the gay angle in the Olympics.

Of course here on the GAY forum, the gay angle is going to be emphasized.

Or perhaps we shouldn't have a GAY forum? Perhaps you want to open your own thread on how we should abolish the GAY forum because God forbid some people may be infected with IDENTITY politics?

Look, dude, ALL kinds of identity groups do EXACTLY the same thing!

I'm sure if you did a study you could identify hundreds of them just from the London Games.

But here on the gay forum we have to tolerate being lectured to (again and again) on why identity politics is NOT OK for gay people. That makes no sense. That is hostile to gay people on the gay forum.

You twist the editorial literary license angle of "Team Gay" and wildly exaggerate the implications. (Another example of toxic literalism.) There obviously is no Team Gay! But like I said many other identity groups do the same kind of angle creating to relate internationally to their identity groups. If there are people here who are gay but don't identify as gay people, great. But do those of us who DO identify as gay people have to tolerate constant dissing here on a supposedly gay friendly forum?

The German Vietnamese gymnast competing for Germany was celebrated in ... VIETNAM.

The Jewish American gymnast competing for the USA was celebrated in ... ISRAEL.

AFRICANS cheered on fellow Africans from OTHER African countries other than their own (except for football for obvious cultural reasons).

But gay. No. Here on the gay forum it's attacked for us to what other identity groups do. Does anyone else find this relentless attack on gay identity on the gay forum unacceptable?

Again was not talking about the Gay Games. That is segregationist and a discussion about that is a totally SEPARATE issue. The article was about showing some PRIDE for the international gay people who were able to compete and sometimes WIN at the highest level, which is of course the official Olympics.

It's getting to the point where you cannot start a gay related topic on this gay forum without being attacked for opening a topic related to gay IDENTITY. How about we just have neutral, non-gay topics here, like stamp collecting? That might work.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Jingthing

[brit1984]

What is so special about this? I would be shocked if no openly gay people had one medals. Being gay is no big deal.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[Jingthing]

It is most definitely much less of a "big deal" that it used to be in much of the world. Back when Greg Louganis came out, this kind of thing WAS a much bigger deal. That still doesn't mean it still isn't worth a MENTION in a gay newspaper or on a gay forum. If an Iranian gold medalist came out today, it would be a very big deal indeed right before they led him to the hanging rope.

I might need to clarify my initial use of the phrase Isn't that special. This might be seen as an Americanism in the context of the tone of its use by the "Church Lady" in Saturday Night Live satirical television skits. I didn't intend it to be taken with toxic literalism. My mistake!

Edited August 16, 2012 by Jingthing

[brit1984]

I agree it is worth a mention in this forum and I hope lots of openly gay athletes also win medals in Rio (as long as they are representing Great Britain!).

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[LeCharivari]

Now, isn't that special?

So it was mostly out lesbians.

Does that mean there are very few gay men in the Olympics, it is harder for them to be out, or both?

JT, you asked two questions (OK, technically four). I answered them objectively. If you don't like the answers, none of which are remotely "hostile to gay people" and which highlight two of Britain and the world's outstanding athletes who happen to be gay, to be outstanding role models and to actively support gay rights, then maybe you shouldn't have asked.

Edited August 16, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

Now, isn't that special?

So it was mostly out lesbians.

Does that mean there are very few gay men in the Olympics, it is harder for them to be out, or both?

JT, you asked two questions (OK, technically four). I answered them objectively. If you don't like the answers, none of which are remotely "hostile to gay people" and which highlight two of Britain and the world's outstanding athletes who happen to be gay, to be outstanding role models and to actively support gay rights, then maybe you shouldn't have asked.

Your response was (as usual) extremely derisive of the concept of people taking a part of their IDENTITY as being gay and doing with that what so many other groups do all the time. I find that not in the spirit of this forum which by definition is a gay friendly forum with a SPECIFIC gay identity. A gay angle on the gay forum you can't abide. Well then what's the gay forum for?

To wit:

I wonder how the reaction would have been from both the athletes themselves and from the public if, instead of "Team Gay" or "Team LGBT" someone had chosen to report on "Team Negro" instead, picking out the likes of Mo Farah and separating them artificially from the rest of their national teams?

[endure]

Now, isn't that special?

So it was mostly out lesbians.

Does that mean there are very few gay men in the Olympics, it is harder for them to be out, or both?

JT, you asked two questions (OK, technically four). I answered them objectively. If you don't like the answers, none of which are remotely "hostile to gay people" and which highlight two of Britain and the world's outstanding athletes who happen to be gay, to be outstanding role models and to actively support gay rights, then maybe you shouldn't have asked.

Your response was (as usual) extremely derisive of the concept of people taking a part of their IDENTITY as being gay and doing with that what so many other groups do all the time. I find that not in the spirit of this forum which by definition is a gay friendly forum with a SPECIFIC gay identity. A gay angle on the gay forum you can't abide.

Well then what's the gay forum for?

It's for gay people to express their opinions. It's certainly not for you to sit in judgement as a faux moderator telling us what's in the 'spirit' of the forum and what isn't.

If you want a forum where everyone agrees with you it's probably best to start your own.

[Jingthing]

Now, isn't that special?

So it was mostly out lesbians.

Does that mean there are very few gay men in the Olympics, it is harder for them to be out, or both?

JT, you asked two questions (OK, technically four). I answered them objectively. If you don't like the answers, none of which are remotely "hostile to gay people" and which highlight two of Britain and the world's outstanding athletes who happen to be gay, to be outstanding role models and to actively support gay rights, then maybe you shouldn't have asked.

Your response was (as usual) extremely derisive of the concept of people taking a part of their IDENTITY as being gay and doing with that what so many other groups do all the time. I find that not in the spirit of this forum which by definition is a gay friendly forum with a SPECIFIC gay identity. A gay angle on the gay forum you can't abide.

Well then what's the gay forum for?

It's for gay people to express their opinions. It's certainly not for you to sit in judgement as a faux moderator telling us what's in the 'spirit' of the forum and what isn't.

If you want a forum where everyone agrees with you it's probably best to start your own.

Whether a poster is gay or not is not the point. Expressing opinions hostile to gay people IDENTIFYING as being gay in the same way people IDENTIFY as being Kurdish is the point. If every time a topic here is started that adopts a gay angle is aggressively attacked for using the gay angle on a gay forum with what I had thought was a clear structure of rejecting such hostility in a SPECIFIC GAY IDENTITY INTEREST forum, then I do think there is an issue. Edited August 16, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

It's for gay people to express their opinions. It's certainly not for you to sit in judgement as a faux moderator telling us what's in the 'spirit' of the forum and what isn't.

If you want a forum where everyone agrees with you it's probably best to start your own.

Whether a poster is gay or not is not the point. Expressing opinions hostile to gay people IDENTIFYING as being gay in the same way people IDENTIFY as being Kurdish is the point. If every time a topic here is started that adopts a gay angle is aggressively attacked for using the gay angle on a gay forum with what I had thought was a clear structure of rejecting such hostility in a SPECIFIC GAY IDENTITY INTEREST forum, then I do think there is an issue.

Can you point out these opinions 'expressing hostility to gay people identifying as gay' to me? Can you point out the actual words that 'aggressively attack' the topic?

[Jingthing]

Post 3 which argued ethnic identity is not referred to in athletics so our gay identity should not be. As a matter of fact athlete's ethnicity is most definitely commented upon. Quite a lot.

(VOV) - German-Vietnamese gymnast Marcel Nguyen has won the second silver medal in the Parallel Bars event with a total score of 15,800 points at the London 2012 Olympics.

http://english.vov.v...0128/140817.vov

This Olympic Games I have been beyond proud of Usain Bolt of Jamaica, Gabrielle Douglas, Venus Williams, Serena Williams of the United States, Tirunesh Dibaba of Ethiopia, and Sally Kipyego and Vivian Cheruiyot of Kenya. My pride for them extends beyond the Red, White and Blue and deep down into that space that recognizes, understands and applauds the racial roadblocks in their personal journey that they have overcome. They are Black members of humanity, and acknowledging one shouldn’t cancel out the other.

http://newsone.com/2...rielle-douglas/

Douglas became the third consecutive U.S. athlete and first African-American to win the all-around gymnastics title. She and her teammates gave the U.S. its first Olympic title in women's gymnastics since 1996.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1774733.html

The music says it here:

It was argued that we should avoid using gay as an identity. That it is undesirable. Something to get over. That our goal is to disappear as an identity and blend into the heterosexual melting pot. Swallow our flavor. WHY? It fits with a continuous agenda here that gay people should not include being gay as an important part of our personal identity. So, again, if our gay identity is nothing, something to be ashamed of, something to kill, why a gay forum at all, and why such active participation from a poster on a relentless campaign to disrespect gay personal identity (and activists who are "too gay" for him) on a gay forum?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Inflammatory post and replies have been deleted. Please stay on-topic.

[LeCharivari]

It was argued that we should avoid using gay as an identity. That it is undesirable. Something to get over. That our goal is to disappear as an identity and blend into the heterosexual melting pot. Swallow our flavor. ..... our gay identity is nothing, something to be ashamed of, something to kill,

Argued by whom? Not by me, or anyone else whose posts I have read here.

I have never suggested IN ANY WAY that being gay is "undesirable ... something to get over ... something to be ashamed of, etc, etc" This is simply utter, unsupportable nonsense, just as I HAVE NEVER SAID that we (gays) should "disappear as an identity and blend into the heterosexual melting pot". Nothing could be further from the truth. What I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID is that:

I (personally) am neither proud nor ashamed of being gay - it's the way I was born and that's how I accept and view it. I am proud of my achievements and disappointed by my failures, but being gay is neither of these - Its simply the way I am. I quite understand that some people are proud of the way they were born (black / white / aristocratic / working class / gay / straight / Iranian / American, whatever) but personally I don't put much score in that sort of jingoism and although I may celebrate and be thankful for how I was born (or not, as the case may be) I can't, in all good faith, be either proud or ashamed of it as I had no responsibility for it. It wasn't up to me. Anyone who finds that a bit "pie-in-the-sky" needs to READ ABOUT LEE PEARSON ( http://www.leepearson.co.uk/id2.html ), in my view probably THE GREATEST ATHLETE WHO HAPPENS TO BE GAY ever, the way he was born, and what he has done to be proud of since.

I (personally) think that acceptance and integration is preferable to rejection and isolation. That doesn't mean that we (gays) either should OR WOULD "disappear as an identity and blend into the heterosexual melting pot" by being accepted and integrated - it means that along with the lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and transsexuals we would ADD our own particular "flavour" to the general sexual preference "pot", just as those of different ethnic origins, creeds, religions, colours, political beliefs, nationalities and abilities add their own particular "flavour" to their respective "pots". Adding some spice to a dish doesn't make the spice "disappear", it IMPROVES the dish - AS LONG AS IT'S ADDED IN THE RIGHT WAY.

I don't understand how someone can be ""too gay"" although obviously, like anyone else, I prefer some people's company to others - we are all somewhere along the Kinsey scale, but I think most people are either gay or they're not. I have made my view on diversity pretty clear and I can't see anything worth adding to it:

- I have no problem with "diversity" at all - what I have a problem with is people giving themselves credit they don't deserve.

Nor can I see anything worth adding to my view of "activists", some of whom contribute a great deal and some of whom are a liability:

- I'm not so sure that we do "need them", or at least "need" the more extreme, vocal ones who alienate far more people than they win-over. Maybe we just think we do because they make so much noise and annoy and alienate so many people that we think they must be achieving something, and then when change happens they claim responsibility for it and generously thank others for their "help" and we fall for their hype and spin and give them credit where none is due.

- the "exhibitionism" bit .. does tend to alienate a lot of people, particularly when its a bunch of inadequates squealing about being "on the front line" and "putting themselves in harm's way" and so on, which is simply nauseating.

- it can be counter-productive: the two countries with the largest Gay Pride parades (Australia and the USA) are also the only two countries that have felt the need to pass recent legislation making marriage legal only between a man and a woman. Coincidence? Who knows?

The source of your antagonism appears not to be my imagined failure to support "the spirit of the gay forum" but my failure to support YOU. You are not "we".

Edited August 17, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

I never suggested that this person said being gay was "undesirable ... something to get over ... something to be ashamed of, etc, etc" in a predictable diversionary spin, he accuses me of accusing him of something obviously outrageous that I never did.

I was talking about the issue of gay being related to as an IDENTITY in similar ways that ethnic groups do.

[Jingthing]

I never suggested that this person said being gay was "undesirable ... something to get over ... something to be ashamed of, etc, etc" but in a predictable and shameless diversionary spin, he accuses me of accusing him of something obviously outrageous that I never did.

I was talking about the issue of gay being related to as an IDENTITY in similar ways that ethnic groups do.

Which is something that is done in the OP which attracted the extreme negative reaction here to a GAY PRIDE story on a gay forum. Imagine such a hostile reaction to a BLACK PRIDE story on a black forum?

Gay people as an IDENTITY is a WE. Not saying I speak for all gay people though, of course.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

So if you never accused ME of this then WHO are you saying did, when you wrote

It was argued that we should avoid using gay as an identity. That it is undesirable. Something to get over. That our goal is to disappear as an identity and blend into the heterosexual melting pot. Swallow our flavor. WHY? It fits with a continuous agenda here that gay people should not include being gay as an important part of our personal identity. So, again, if our gay identity is nothing, something to be ashamed of, something to kill, why a gay forum at all, and why such active participation from a poster on a relentless campaign to disrespect gay personal identity (and activists who are "too gay" for him) on a gay forum?

... and WHERE are the posts you are "talking about" if not in

Post 3 which argued ethnic identity is not referred to in athletics so our gay identity should not be.

which I wrote?

[LeCharivari]

..... Being gay is no big deal.

I only wish that were true generally, but unfortunately for two very disparate groups of people it still is a "big deal".

One group are the assorted religious zealots who see gays as an aberration to be abhorred and, if possible, eradicated.

The other are the fortunately relatively few gays who want to make it a "big deal" because its all they've got to be proud of in their lives and who see being gay as their crowning achievement in an otherwise mundane existence.

The former are obviously the greater danger, but here in Thailand I've only ever met the latter.

[LeCharivari]

Does anyone else find this relentless attack on gay identity on the gay forum unacceptable?

Apparently not .....

.....or "anyone else" has realised that this "attack" is another figment of your ever-fertile imagination.

Gay people as an IDENTITY is a WE. Not saying I speak for all gay people though, of course.

Of course .....

[endure]

Not saying I speak for all gay people though, of course.

The only gay people you speak for is you. The rest of us are allowed to have our own views and opinions.

[hookedondhamma]

edit* nevermind.

Happy Saturday, everyone.

Edited August 18, 2012 by hookedondhamma

[Jingthing]

So if you never accused ME of this then WHO are you saying did, when you wrote

It was argued that we should avoid using gay as an identity. That it is undesirable. Something to get over. That our goal is to disappear as an identity and blend into the heterosexual melting pot. Swallow our flavor. WHY? It fits with a continuous agenda here that gay people should not include being gay as an important part of our personal identity. So, again, if our gay identity is nothing, something to be ashamed of, something to kill, why a gay forum at all, and why such active participation from a poster on a relentless campaign to disrespect gay personal identity (and activists who are "too gay" for him) on a gay forum?

... and WHERE are the posts you are "talking about" if not in

Post 3 which argued ethnic identity is not referred to in athletics so our gay identity should not be.

which I wrote?

Please stop your blatant attempts at distorting what I have said. I don't believe you are so dumb that you didn't get the clear DISTINCTION about gay IDENTITY that I have been talking about. Not gay ... GAY AS AN IDENTITY. I was attacking your objection to people relating to gay as an IDENTITY in the same way ethnic groups relate to their ethnicity as an IDENTITY. You even went so far as to suggest these ethnic groups don't have pride in their ethnic groups that cross national boundaries, which I have already proven that OF COURSE they do. Edited August 18, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Please stop your blatant attempts at distorting what I have said.

Is it really that difficult to answer the simple question of WHO is supposed to have "argued that we should avoid using gay as an identity. That it is undesirable. Something to get over. That our goal is to disappear as an identity and blend into the heterosexual melting pot. Swallow our flavor. .... that gay people should not include being gay as an important part of our personal identity..... our gay identity is nothing, something to be ashamed of, something to kill ....."

I'd be the first to support you IF you could point out WHERE anyone has been " Expressing opinions hostile to gay people IDENTIFYING as being gay" but you seem either unable or unwilling to do that, so like anyone else I can only assume that this is all a figment of your imagination and some bizarre personal agenda.

[LeCharivari]

....I was attacking your objection to people relating to gay as an IDENTITY in the same way ethnic groups relate to their ethnicity as an IDENTITY.

WHERE?? WHAT "objection"??

How could I object to something they didn't do? You seem happy to do so, repeatedly, but I'm not.

None of the athletes concerned were "relating to gay as an IDENTITY" when they competed at the Olympics. NONE, just as NONE of the athletes were relating to "their ethnicity as an IDENTITY". NONE.

The 1968 days of Tommie Smith and John Carlos making black power salutes, rightly or wrongly, are long gone. Voula Papachristou and Michel Morganella were the only athletes who commented about "ethnicity" and they were sent back to Greece and Switzerland respectively for doing so.

You even went so far as to suggest these ethnic groups don't have pride in their ethnic groups that cross national boundaries, which I have already proven that OF COURSE they do.

Again, WHERE??

I never "suggested" any such thing - Mo Farah, the particular athlete I cited, is rightly proud of his Somali parentage (he was born in Mogadishu, to a British born Somali father and a Somali mother) and the Mo Farah Foundation gives aid to those affected by drought and famine in East Africa, across "national boundaries", demonstrating that. My point was that, DESPITE his pride in his ancestry and his religion that was NOT what HE competed for or something HE wanted to highlight at the time, however much OTHERS unconnected with him may want to make the connection and feel that they have some right to do so. He trained at high altitude in Kenya after Beijing, and now trains in Oregon with a Cuban coach but that doesn't give Kenya, the USA or Cuba any right to be associated with or to claim any credit for his performance.

You have, as usual, "proven" nothing except your willingness and ability to distort the facts and your links to support your own peculiar agenda - you.

The "German-Vietnamese gymnast Marcel Nguyen" you cite as an example of how "athlete's ethnicity is most definitely commented upon" is a statement of nationality, not ethnicity - a "German-Vietnamese", as he has dual nationality and a German father and a Vietnamese mother, just as Nina Ligon who competed for Thailand as an equestrian is an "American-Thai" with dual American and Thai nationality and Mo Farah has dual Somali and British nationality. This is about NATIONALITY (something central to the Games), NOT "ethnicity".

Far from supporting your view that " athlete's ethnicity is most definitely commented upon. Quite a lot" your second link's sole aim is to complain that times have changed and that "mainstream media doesn’t ... acknowledge the race of a sister or a brother" any more and nor do what she derisively calls the "Neo-Negroes". She is, of course, entitled to her view but it directly OPPOSES yours that "athlete's ethnicity is most definitely commented upon. Quite a lot".

[LeCharivari]

For the record (not that I think it is strictly necessary, as the more JT posts the clearer it becomes that he must be reading different posts to those made here) I should correct the impression of me he is trying to put forward. I can only repeat what I have written before:

I have no problem with identifying myself (or being identified) as "gay", as it's something I have neither advertised nor concealed, but it's only ONE aspect of my "identity" - rather like being British, English, Scots, Irish Catholic, Australian, white, Norman, a peer, an OH, a Civil Partner, a son, a brother, a soldier, a marathon runner, a cyclist, an equestrian, retired, a Buddhist, etc (all or some of which may or may not be true!).

What I DO have a problem with is being "identified" as something by others for their own ends, because they not only want support or credit by association but because they think that they are somehow ENTITLED to unquestioning support and to be given credit for having a similar "identity" just because we (or others who have achieved incomparably more than me) have something in common.

The only thing worse than being labelled "one of them" is being labelled "one of us" by people for whom I have no respect at all just because we have some connection by an accident of birth.

[catmac]

Well, Jingthing, I'll rise to your bait.

Yes, I find the whole concept of "Identity Politics" distastefull. Being gay is part of a person's personal identity sure, but when people are grouped collectively solely on their sexual or ethnic traits, then the problems start.

Am I alone in not wanting to be identified with "Team Gay", in not feeling that I have to cheer on an athlete just because he's gay or just because he's white?

Why not go the whole hog and sew little pink stars on our clothes as the Nazis did?

[Jingthing]

Well, Jingthing, I'll rise to your bait.

Yes, I find the whole concept of "Identity Politics" distastefull. Being gay is part of a person's personal identity sure, but when people are grouped collectively solely on their sexual or ethnic traits, then the problems start.

Am I alone in not wanting to be identified with "Team Gay", in not feeling that I have to cheer on an athlete just because he's gay or just because he's white?

Why not go the whole hog and sew little pink stars on our clothes as the Nazis did?

They were pink triangles.

No I don't think we should wear them. Some gay activist groups such as ACT UP did like to wear them; I suppose they served a purpose at the time and perhaps will in future in other local movements.

There is no Team Gay. That was just an editorial angle from a gay newspaper. Yes, I think it is positive for members of a class of people who are still oppressed in much of the world to show some solidarity for each other over international borders. Similar to how ethnic groups feel a belonging and commonalities across borders. If you don't feel it, you don't feel it.

So you dislike identity politics so much? So why a gay forum? Why do you post on a gay forum?

Edited August 18, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Well, Jingthing, I'll rise to your bait.

Yes, I find the whole concept of "Identity Politics" distastefull. Being gay is part of a person's personal identity sure, but when people are grouped collectively solely on their sexual or ethnic traits, then the problems start.

Am I alone in not wanting to be identified with "Team Gay", in not feeling that I have to cheer on an athlete just because he's gay or just because he's white?

Why not go the whole hog and sew little pink stars on our clothes as the Nazis did?

Obviously not "alone" - and apparently in the majority.

I don't see anything wrong with athletes or anyone else sewing little pink anythings on their clothes IF that's what they want to do - but not because they are obliged to do so, or because they are forced into a "with us or against us" position.

If an athlete wanted to run a victory lap waving a rainbow flag as well as his country's own, I would applaud - but if someone gave a winning gay athlete a rainbow flag and he had to choose between carrying it and "representing" gays or turning it down and "rejecting" gays I would be horrified, and that's the choice that some of these gay athletes/gay personalities are effectively being given. Its like being "outed" but worse, as some may want to be "out" but they don't want to be forced into a position where they are being used by others for their own agendas.

It's particularly difficult at the Olympics where their every move is watched and there is a fine line between making what is acceptable as a personal or political statement and insulting the "spirit" of the Olympics. I think that when Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists in a "Black Power" salute, shoeless, and bowed their heads during their national anthem they overstepped the mark (and made themselves look rather silly, as Carlos had forgotten his gloves so they had to share a pair and rather than turn one inside out one raised his left hand and one his right). Peter Norman, the white Australian who won the silver medal and who is often overlooked, wore an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge out of support for them and as a protest against the then White Australia Policy - that, on its own, would probably have been considered "acceptable" then and now.

Its a question of CHOICE, and being allowed to make that choice rather than being forced to do so.