"Who was a gay man"

If you’re a male and you date men, you’re gay. That’s fine. Awesome, homosexuality is not a bad thing.

I'm aware these are elements within gay culture, but I'm not happy with the equation of 'passive' and 'submissive' with 'female'

Firstly gay men quite often referred to the more passive “femme” gay man as she back in the day

I had a couple of gay men customers up until recently, they were older men. The “butch” ex army guy (who had kids) was the he, the more passive male was the “she”.

They also cross dressed and had a female personae of their own but were very clear that they were transvestites not “trans”

sometimes i was greeted by “she” in a negligee.

They had gimp outfits in their house which i accidentally spotted, they were kink or fetishists as well.

I had many an interesting conversation with them whilst caring for their garden.

They both died in quick succession, i was very sad about that.

Also i had a vey close friend in the eighties who was a gentle gay man, back in the eighties we talked about these things.

He would not contemplate anal sex not ever and was submissive sexually.

I keep meaning to order that book by Bailey, “The man that would be queen”

which explores gay male culture and their relationship with “woman” amongst other things.

@onepostwonder You say you rejected male sexual culture which i understand, but that does not make you a woman.

Its as if he is the exact opposite of Isla Bryson, not a straight man who transitioned to abuse women, but someone who deserves to be called 'she' because he's a victim, he's no danger to women, he was always less of a man?

err no - the point I was making is that prior to TRAs weaponsing "gender" which previously everyone knew was NOT the same as sex, using pronouns had no polical implications.

Other than gender stereotypes being re-inforced no one in the past would talk about "deserve" or think he wasnt a male.

It is really important to understand just how extreme the current instance that "gender" is the same as sex.

And I am sure is why for many they still think back to the days of Gay Liberation, when it was "liberating" for both men and women to be able to act, dress etc., is a way that did not conform to gender stereio types.

As women and feminist we do not have to accept the reality the TRAs are trying to create.

They do not define our world.

But they have weaponised words.

And there is a point where we have to say and act as being uninfluenced by that.

It would be sad if because of the media representation that somehow the TRA agenda was the reality, that we also acted as though it was.

It is this allowing the TRAs to set the agenda that has been one of the most dangerous threats to women.

In the same was as we reject TRAs transing the past, it is also not acceptable to let current TRA ideology trans the past behaviour or gay men and lesbian women.

Pre the trans gospel that you can change sex, someone in the gay community using "she" might have been taken to be a bit jokey, or niche, or whatever.

I think the point it that it has always been shorthand for not acting like a man. It might be jokey and not taken seriously by the group, but using 'she' to describe a man's behaviour is saying that that behaviour isn't male behaviour.

That's gender. The gender expectations thats telling men that being gay isn't the actions of a real man, calling a man 'she' for behaviour, even in a gay group, is too.

"She was a gay man" makes no sense. Even if we were to ignore the 'she' part. "He was a gay man" would only be true if he was no longer exclusively attracted to men. But I dont think that's her meaning here, because it seems to be used as a reason for his transition, and to suggest he has no sexual interest in women.

Its as if he is the exact opposite of Isla Bryson, not a straight man who transitioned to abuse women, but someone who deserves to be called 'she' because he's a victim, he's no danger to women, he was always less of a man?

For clarity, accommodating a friend or loved one's gender preferences does not equate to embracing said person's beliefs.

"She was a gay man" in this discussion, is said by JKR about a friend. Presumably the friend is important to JKR and so JKR is mindful of friend's feelings.

Does it mean JKR has "sold out" and is a complete hypocrite? No, I don't believe so.

Whilst this thread is an interesting discussion about language etc. can we just bear in mind that JKR is talking about an actual friendship in her actual life.

For many of us on this board, "transing the gay away" is another aspect of gender ideology that is harmful and makes no sense.

It’s exactly the same. Women complaining of trans-identifying men who plop themselves in women’s spaces and women’s language. Nothing to do with whether you obey codes.

If a man doesn’t feel he fits within male spaces - gay or otherwise - it’s up to him to find a male space in which he does fit, or to change the way male spaces work, or to create one which he feels fits him. Not fitting into male spaces is not a ticket for forced entry into female spaces. We are not here to make it all better for you.

I didn't read the other thread, not because it might have had many good points in it, but just dont like focusing discussion on someone in the private eye as though they are answerable to us.

We haven't elected her a leader, and she hasn't stood to be leader.

But in response to this thread OP, it just brings home to me how destructive the trans narrative has been.

Pre the trans gospel that you can change sex, someone in the gay community using "she" might have been taken to be a bit jokey, or niche, or whatever.

Now, as in the other thread, it is jumped on as signalling your position on whether sex is biological.

I am not saying that gay men referring to themselves as "she" is okay.

But its the same as those (mainly in the past) who have transitioned never claim they have changed sex.

Just another reflextion on how the trans crusades have infiltrated so many aspects of our lives.

But still dont think it worth calling out JKR.

Yes, exactly.

Thank you, that was a good read. This in particular stood out (his italics):

'It is important to me as a gay man not to adopt the language of gender, which for me and millions of other gay men and lesbians, is the language of the oppressor.'

You have grown up to be a (gay) man though. It’s impossible for you to be anything else.

However immersive your experience of cosplaying* as a straight woman, however much those around you IRL may perceive you that way (or say they do), it can never be a reality that you are one, because you simply don’t meet the basic conditions of being a woman.

But you do meet the basic conditions (adult human male) of being a man.

This is a great example of the transing away the gay that Duncan is talking about.

(*I don’t mean to cause distress or offence with this term but I couldn’t find another that would be more anodyne but still make my meaning clear. I doubt you’d like “impersonating” or “pretending to be” any better, and the salient point here is that you have no experience of actually being a woman - adult human female - only of a performance of one.)

A longer piece on the significance of language from Duncan Henry here, from 2021 - inspired by the ever-wonderful Julia Long.

Might make interesting reading for those not already familiar with it.

savageminds.substack.com/p/language-and-the-gender-debate?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7eb31q&triedRedirect=true

That's your belief.

That's your belief, of course. It isn't buying much support from anyone not already ensconced within the sex realist community.

I have seen it often in older novels where to be frank it comes across as containing a lot of misogynist contempt. Maybe it is used differently these days.

You're a gay man. Get over it.

Adding on to the above thought, what FWR is attempting to do to me, by labeling me 'gay' is an attempt to recategorise 'what is gay' and define 'who is gay' when my cultural location and social experience is so far outside of gay culture and the lives and loves of gay men. Personally, I don't belong in gay male spaces any more than I belong in men's spaces.

This seems very close to a reverse of when I hear lesbian women complain about trans women who plop themselves into lesbian spaces without awareness or observance of lesbian culture.

I can understand the OP's reasoning and feelings on this, having been in the gay community as a teenager. There were places/events I and other young trans women were barred from entering, as were all women. Gay male culture is highly sexualised.

I think he is ignoring the various subcultures within gay male communities that are actually stratified according to butch and femme roles. Leather and kink for one, and bear/twink for another. Gay culture also puts a lot of value on youthfulness.

Gay men love men however. FWR has labeled me a gay man, but there was no future in my childhood where I was going to grow up to be a man, socially or physically. Anyone who knew me would find the label gay extremely difficult to reconcile. Just because I was born one way and am attracted to and have loved men my entire life doesn't overwrite my decades of social experience and presence within straight cultures.

I'd be fascinated to hear Mr Menno's thoughts actually - he has said a number of times that he thinks he would have been susceptible to pressure to transition at a certain point in his life had it been a thing then.

Thanks for posting this.

It's an important point of view, not least because there are plenty of places in the world where gay men are forced to transition (including castration) which are very definitely homophobic places. Mr Menno had a lovely conversation with a man he met on the street who was gay in a repressive country and was transitioned. And now - for better or for worse - is stuck with the body he has, surgically modified.

It's often been said on here that trans activism is no friend to homosexuals and I think this is definitely the case. 'Transing away the gay' seems to definitely be a thing, in this country as in many others.

I agree that this is an important angle. There's often a lot of overlap between homophobia and misogyny. Trans ideology threatens both women and gay people.

I think this bit bears repeating:

"Gay men are as much men as any other men"

Sex is binary: we are all either male or female. Sex is not a spectrum and to suggest that it is is to claim that some men are 'more male' (masculine) than others, and some women are 'more female' (feminine) than others.

No. Every man, no matter his sexuality, personality, fertility, appearance, physique, mannerisms, is just as male as any other male.

And all women are just as female as each other: whether they are lesbian/bi/straight, whether they are fertile, infertile or post-menopausal, whatever their body shape or weight, however they dress, to whatever degree they correspond to how the society they live in claims women should look or act. All equally female

This 'sex is a spectrum' bullshit has crystallised for me some of the misogyny and homophobia underlying society in general and gender ideology in particular

(I would just like to add that I don't blame J.K. Rowling for this, I think she's a hero and she gets things right most of the time. I'm sure she'd be much more open to discussion of the finer points of this argument than TRAs are)

I think its more about the power of language.

No matter how much both JKR and her friend know he hasn't 'literally' changed sex, calling him 'she' has made the idea that he is a gay man odd.

By knowing him by a women's name and always referring to him as 'she', they have subconsciously decided that some sort of transition has happened. He's not totally woman, but not man enough to be a gay man?

When shes writing or thinking about him as a younger man, she imagines him as a gay man, but she cant see the man she knows now as an older gay man.

Yes, I think that is a good summation.