Jameela Jamil comes out as queer

[ItsLateHumpty]

twitter.com/jameelajamil/status/1225165342965669888

See screen shots attached.

www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/jameela-jamil-comes-out-queer-amid-criticism-her-role-hbo-n1131141

“Actress Jameela Jamil formally came out as queer Wednesday in response to critics who attacked her role in a new HBO Max competition series, claiming her judging a voguing show wouldn't be representative of the black LGBTQ community in which voguing originated.”

And it seems the community are doubting her motivations, with IW questioning if she is in fact queer as she has a boyfriend (linked below), who then comes under fire themselves for bisexual, pansexual, etc. ‘erasure’.

I had to look up ‘queer’ to understand how Jameela was applying that label, so looked up PinkNews. Not terribly helpful but in essence “queer has become a useful umbrella term for some sexual and gender minorities who do not fit into the traditional categories around gender identity and sexual orientation.”
From Twitter I read it as “It’s usually an umbrella term for LGBT+ when someone doesn't want to disclose their sexuality/can't identify with a singular label but knows they aren't straight.”

www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/23/whats-the-difference-between-gay-and-queer/

twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1225201756394659840

India Willoughby @ IndiaWilloughby
Replying to @ jameelajamil
Here you go, Twitter falls for it. SHE’S GOT A BOYFRIEND. You don’t think it’s odd she comes out as “queer” after being criticised for possibly taking a gay person’s place on a show? #Mugs #Coincidence #Gayface

I was also interested to learn the origin of vogue “Many felt that despite Jamil's comments, her place as a judge was inappropriate as voguing has its roots in the LGBTQ community. The dance style was part of drag competitions popularized by queer people of color and became ingrained in the community's culture.”

I am saddened that Jameela as a woman of colour has to take a third label to qualify for being a judge, and it seems a turf war could be breaking out.
Could this be the start of the backlash within the LGBTQI+ as the umbrella is now so vast, virtually all of us stand under it?

This has raised an intriguing tangential thought train for me - does one have to be sexually active, therefore, to have a sexuality?

When they do scientific or sociological studies about sexuality, they have to define this for the purposes of the study, so it does come up. In that case it typically depends on what they think is most relevant for their purposes, but it can be quite fraught. If they go with self-identity, there may be people who have same sex sex, but don't identify as gay. Or there may be people who do but have never had sex at all. etc. There have been whole cultures where there was plenty of homosexual hanky-panky but no concept of sexuality as such. There has been at least one living society recorded which seemed to not only have no concept of sexuality but also no examples of non-heterosexual activity.

Even in terms of what science says now, they really don't know what a sexuality is, or why we have them, or when our sexuality is formed. Which is part of the reason it's difficult to define, it's not an objective phenomena, we can't point to a brain structure or hormonal profile or anything like that. Just what people do, or their subjective experience.

if you don't act on it, you're not really gay. Because a thought is just that, you may act on that impulse and find it was a massive mistake.

Err... What?
Do heterosexuals get the same level of distrust and skepticism about their sexual desires?

Most people have a pretty good idea of their sexual orientation - they feel a strong attraction to the opposite and/or same sex, or they feel an aversion in the context of sexual activity.
They know what turns them on or what they might seek out with a potential partner.

Not everyone might have had the opportunity to find a sexual partner. Lots of heterosexual men haven't had sexual contact with women for all sorts of reasons - being too awkward, shy or anxious, or not considered attractive enough, they might have been on dates but never get further than a kiss or get turned down etc. No one says well they can't be sure they are straight.

Homosexuals and bisexuals face similar challenges and it's harder because finding same sex attracted people (who are also attracted to you!) is like finding a needle in the heterosexual haystack. Hence why many bisexuals end up with an opposite sex partner. The sheer numbers means you're more likely to find a compatible opposite sex partner than a compatible same sex one.

With respect, Pulp, is the assumption that everyone is default heterosexual unless they are sexually active? Because, um, I think that's a fairly erroneous assumption.

If you're not and never have been secxually active - then you're not really anything. Come on, you can't claim to be gay or bi just on feelz. Either you are actively gay, or you're just a straight person/a-sexual that's had gay thoughts. I think you have to explore the physical aspect of a sexuality to say you are it.

As said, I'm not a serial killer just because I think about killing people.

I think it is an interesting point Pulp. I know I’m straight - I’d no more stuck my face or finger in another woman’s vagina than I’d hit myself over the head with a sledgehammer and even if I never had sex with a man again I’d still be straight.

I have a friend who identifies as bi who has never had sexual relations with a woman and dated a man for 15 years. Her reasoning is that if she split with her DP she’d be open to dating a woman or a man. Ok who am I to say that’s not true?

Idk - it feels like one of those things you can’t discuss. I’d like to understand better but I feel I can’t ask

'Pack it in Jameela, fgs. It’s such a huge cringe.'

Perfect this sort of nonsense is understandable in teenagers, but just mortifying in grown adults. It's a shame, because I really admired her body positivity work, but shes become unbelievably tiresome since then

I originally followed her on Twitter because of the body positivity stuff.

I am now following her for the lols.

I disagree that you have to experience a physical relationship in order to determine your sexuality and I'm also uncomfortable with hetero as the default. When DH's nephew came out, FiL (his GF) kept saying (hoping ) that he wouldn't know for sure until her had tried having sex with a man. He might not like it and therefore go back to being straight. I asked him if that meant he (FiL) wasn't sure of his own sexual orientation until he first had sex with a woman. After a lot of bluster and shock, he admitted that no, he "just knew" he was straight. In that case, others must just know they are gay or bi, even before any physical acts have taken place.

But this places a contradiction. I am one of those women, like so many on this thread, who has kissed a couple of girls when I was young (J17 problem page assuring me this is normal experimentation) but my only actual relationships have been with men and I've been married to the same man for 15 years. I find lots of women very attractive (and have a massive crush on Gillian Anderson) and if there was a situation where I was no longer with DH, I wouldn't rule out a female relationship. Am I bi? I've never identified as such and it seems that to do so now would be completely irrelevant. It wouldn't change who I am, nor my relationship with DH. perhaps this is where the queer term is actually useful? Maybe the kids have it right after all. To be honest, I'd probably be far more open to it if it wasn;t for the over-earnest woke attitudes, the culture of being hellbent of catching everyone out if they put a foot out of line and the minimisation of my experiences as a 42 year old woman who actually understands the nature of feelings and urges. I'm just seen as old and therefore couldn't possibly understand.

If I was living my teenage years exactly as they happened (but with social media and ghds) but in present day, I have no doubt that I would be classed as bi/pan/queer but right now, with my various lived experience, I don't think these terms belong to me.

I'm very grateful for this thread as I was trying to work out what on earth this was all about on twitter yesterday and found it incomprehensible.

That is the thing about the woker than thou crowd - they tend to turn on each other. An academic I know (and like in real life! But her Twitter is unbearable) who is extremely vocally woke had to turn her account private after making a joke that did not acknowledge her privilege the other week. It was astonishing to watch both the swiftness with which her followers turned on her but also the rank hypocrisy of all her mates who said how awful it was that she was being bullied when they regularly try and get other people sacked for similar transgressions.

If you are a virgin you don't have a sexual orientation? That is a really odd position.

If you are a virgin you don't have a sexual orientation?

A virgin's sexual orientation is clearly like a bag of Revels then. You don't know what it will be till you put it in your mouth.

Agree @poota. Orientation is about who you're sexually attracted to. End of.

Jameela may have many flaws, but she still has the right to speak her truth about her own sexuality.

This has highlighted the way bisexuals are constantly forced into the gay or straight box depending on their current sexual partner. I've noticed more and more women in the public eye who are objectively bisexual ("i've slept with men and women") declining to even name their sexuality for fear of this kind of backlash. It's awful.

I totally agree you can know you're gay or bi without having experienced any encounters and many people do. I don't question whether she's bi because she's with a man. I question it - and what "queer" might mean - because the situation is so obviously suspect. She's done this right after getting attacked for not being "queer" enough. She's chosen the label "queer" as it can mean anything. And she has a long, long history of woke-signalling - so if she really had any non-straightness to reveal we would expect her to have done that long ago.

Now I could be wrong and she really have been bi all along and keeping it secret. Can't prove anything. But the suspicion is reasonable in the circumstances.

Well then, what a to-do.

Philip Schofield has now come out as gay, stealing JJ's thunder.

Does she risk re-igniting her own woke fire by commenting on it; or keep it zipped and lose her own publicity?

The woke tend to choose Queer because bisexual might upset TRAs and pansexual has...connotations.

It's amusing to see how celebs carry on like they're in secondary school and get applause for doing this.

Normal people would be called in to HR for a quiet chat.

I really want this show to announce that they are cancelling Jameela and replacing her with Phillip Schofield.

*I totally agree you can know you're gay or bi without having experienced any encounters and many people do. I don't question whether she's bi because she's with a man. I question it - and what "queer" might mean - because the situation is so obviously suspect. She's done this right after getting attacked for not being "queer" enough. She's chosen the label "queer" as it can mean anything. And she has a long, long history of woke-signalling - so if she really had any non-straightness to reveal we would expect her to have done that long ago.

Now I could be wrong and she really have been bi all along and keeping it secret. Can't prove anything. But the suspicion is reasonable in the circumstances.*

This. If JJ had come out as bi, that would be a different thing altogether. There would be a number of small-minded people claiming that it wouldn't be possible because she is in a relationship with a man but they would be wrong. My bi friend is constantly told she must be straight now because she married a man. No, she's still bi. Bi means attracted to both sexes, not unable to be monogamous to either sex.

But JJ chose queer. A word which is loaded with historical violence and negativity yet had been diluted now to have a definition which pretty much encapsulates the majority of the population but that only the wokest of the woke are actually entitled to use. That's the frustrating thing.

Bold fail.

Schofield was always gay. No one cared back in the day that he had Gordon the Gopher. All the camera crew etc knew and no one cared then and no one cares now.

Well his wife probably does, seeing as he's not even saying he is bi, so he's not in any way sexually attracted to her.

I hope Steph is ok. I'm thinking of her not him.

I really want this show to announce that they are cancelling Jameela and replacing her with Phillip Schofield.

I vote for this!

I didn’t realise that he wasn’t gay. All the weeping and emoting - who gives a monkeys? Really this is 2020... at least he didn’t use a new tangled word for it. I did feel sorry for his wife and daughters though - not bi but gay?

I think if you have strong sexual attraction to one or both sexes then that does count as your sexuality. Although having a vague whim or wanting to "experiment" is not the same.

But someone who has only ever been with a same sex partner and is happy with that, has not experienced even the slightest discrimination from being with a same sex partner. Although in the queer world pansexuals are often seen as being more discriminated against that lesbian and gay people.

I also think young people often have no idea what a lot of older lesbian and gay people went through. Being fired from jobs, denied housing, hotel rooms, etc was all perfectly legal. The police could be just as anti lesbian and gay as well, so were not necessarily a source of protection.

99% of these "queers" will end up married or living with an opposite sex partner and kids. Experimenting when you are young is really nothing new.

Philip Schofield probably did not come out or live as gay because of the real discrimination there would have been. He would not have presented that kids programme with Gordon the Gopher if he had been openly gay at the time.
Sure his crew might have known, but with Hollywood stars from the 40's the people they worked with knew if they were gay. Very different from the general public knowing.

And lets be clear if Philip Schofied was brave he would have come out when it was actually very hard to be gay and out.

Reading this thread and wondering where the discussion on feminism is.

Do we need a thread on this board that appears to have no other objective other than to tear other women down?