I've been reading quite a lot of responses to Rowling's post about her trans friend and this one has made me think a lot because it wasn't even something that registered when I read her post. It's 'transing away the gay' in action, and I'd not even noticed. I strongly doubt Rowling meant it that way either, so I think it is a perspective that deserves a wider audience.
"I’ve been thinking about this and I hope this reply makes sense.
Firstly - I get it. I understand that a gay man might be a friend and his desire to be called she (hence his performance which does help with that) is something a friend might do. I also understand that this doesn’t mean you think he’s “lesser” - because obviously, women aren’t lesser so that’s not in your thinking. I also get the kinship feeling that happens with men like him - and the massive “othering” that happens from our (other gay men) side.
That said, you are referring to a gay man as “she”. You also said he “was” a gay man.
He still is. You can’t make someone not gay in the same way you can’t make someone not a man - who is a man.
And the effect of “who was a gay man” immediately provokes a very strong emotional reaction in me. “Was” a gay man. Ergo isn’t any more. It’s hard to explain but seeing any gay man described as effectively “ex gay” is unavoidably alarming to me.
Also, while again, the intent is not to denigrate - I know that, because there’s nothing inherently lesser or undesirable about “female coded energy” - that energy is found much more in gay men than straight men. It is really important to me to make sure people understand gay men are as much men as any other men. Every single one.
And the effect of even one exception - within “gay man world” - is to continue the problem we have with our perceived “femininity”. Plenty of gay men already reject men they consider “feminine” (and I don’t mean camp here i mean the soft gentle men) and those men are the most vulnerable to incorrectly concluding they are “better off” as mimics of women.
This is never the case. While I would never force people to undo surgeries and hormone treatments they are now healthy on, going forward we should I think be advocating for “no one is better off as a mimic of the opposite sex”, and “disguising attributes as opposite sex” should be off the table.
And so I will never call another gay man “she” again. I won’t call a straight one she either but people who make an exception nearly always do that for soft, gentle gay men - and I know it’s not malicious, not homophobic and not because they see these men as “lesser”. It’s because they recognise kinship. I understand that.
But my reply is because this is what keeps a certain pressure on gay men, especially the soft gently younger ones to start questioning “am I also “better off” as a “she””. It’s effectively wider “social transitioning” which isn’t neutral. It’s not a zero impact choice. There is some impact.
Because you’re also not using “she her” for him - for his benefit - he’s not here? I means granted he might read it but - the effect is to tell me you don’t consider this gay man to be a gay man anymore. On account of traits and mannerisms he has - that a lot, or even most gay men have in some degree. (I have no words for this “gayness” - it’s not female like but it is… definitely a thing).
This isn’t about the you-him relationship because the language is third person. This is about the you-reader or if I’m speaking to you the you-me relationship.
It’s not the worst thing ever™️ but it matters to me to say why I don’t think it’s a good idea to make any exception - especially because it influences the gay man world to continue to “other” those who are deemed “soft and gentle” - or even “ethereal” sometimes - and for those gay men to continue to believe they are “better off” changing themselves to look like women."
https://x.com/duncanhenry78/status/2047291489294639527?s=61&t=U9XrcF693-JpMxeIueYG7g