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?

I suppose another question might be, what about people whose sexual "openness" seems to be more about the thrill of pushing boundaries or doing the taboo? Or who get used to watching a lot of porn, or going to sex clubs, and begin to find that the respond to the cues they see and hear in those scenarios? Or cultures where there is very widespread same sex activity under certain conditions (like war?) I don't really think of those things as sexuality based.

@goosefoot When there was a lot of discrimination against lesbian and gay people, there were a few people who said they were gay or lesbian because it was about the thrill of doing something sexually that was taboo. These people will always exist I suspect, but the form it takes will change depending on what is taboo.

I know George Michael said he was not bi but gay as he realised that it was not just about who he could get it up for, but who he could fall in love with.

Some friends have commented on FB.

Unsurprisingly (as they are middle-aged men, just like our Pip), they think he's a-ok and done the right thing, brave etc. It's only "haters and trolls" (me I assume) who have a problem with it.

By which I mean I pointed out how the wife has been humiliated and dumped while her husband of several decades makes a massive point of bragging to the world about how he's been in the closet for so long blah blah. He could have just discreetly separated and waited before stepping out with whoever, but oh no...massive instagram splash piece and popular TV chat show to dissect it all.

I'm just wondering if we have ever seen a famous woman, long time married with kids etc announce that they are actually gay and stepping away from the 'sham' marriage, etc.

I can't think of any.

karencantobe

Yes, I think there have always been the people who are mainly about the thrills and such, or the emotional element.

Right at this moment in time I suspect that some of the people who are calling themselves queer are really people who have discovered that if you treat sex like a hobby, or just a physical transaction, you might enjoy quite a lot of things, without reference to the person you are doing it with. After all, people can have satisfying sex with a sex to - another human being can stimulate you quite effectively without you being attracted to them in the normal way, especially if you get used to that sort of interaction.

But to my mind this, along with the fact that there are strong cultural differences and also we don't really know much about the science of sexuality, all points to the way we talk about human sexuality being something of a simplification of whatever the reality is. Douglas Murray points out that over the last 40 years or so, in concert with the gay rights movement, there has been a really strong push to see sexuality as exclusivly hardware, but really we don't know much about it, and it's become a little taboo to talk about it in any other terms.

I'm just wondering if we have ever seen a famous woman, long time married with kids etc announce that they are actually gay and stepping away from the 'sham' marriage, etc.

I've just watched the whole thing on YouTube

You'd think he'd cured cancer for fuck's sake.

Why does a man who has deceived his wife for almost 30 years, get standing ovations and tears and such OTT lavish praise?

If this had been a women, I can only imagine the headlines, and they would not be so fulsome, to put it extremely mildly.

I tend to think that in the current climate, a lot of people would cheer a woman in the same circumstances.

I have looked at twitter - all 'so brave' (weeping emoji).

Anyone who comments on the wife and children is shot down and their feelings are glossed over. They are the brave ones - he will get the hugs and high 5s but if they cry in public or don't look over the moon, they will get dogs abuse.

Brave would have been doing this 30 years ago, not now. Why now, why the Sun?

I remember when Sam Fox came out, now that was brave (back then, a woman - a 'glamour model' no less)...

I thought he had come out years ago, but then I realized I'd just misremembered him coming out as grey.

In contrast to Jameela and Phil, I give you Elly

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/la-roux-interview-new-album-supervision-gay-lgbtq-elly-jackson-a9319376.html
La Roux: ‘The gay community are dying for you to label yourself’

Elly Jackson, back as La Roux after a six-year hiatus, talks to Alexandra Pollard about falling out with her record label, why she’ll never write another ‘Bulletproof’ and the difficulty of navigating her sexuality in public

A really interesting contrast to the purity spiral and the need to be validated and labelled.

Think the timing of this interview couldn't be better in that respect.

Really refreshing to read tbh.

“I’ve been misgendered. I don’t care. I got called sir three days ago by a delivery guy. And then they look at me for more than two and a half seconds and they’re like, ‘Oh, sorry, I thought it was a bloke then.’ I’m like, ‘It’s fine, I didn’t cut my hair and dress like this so everyone could think I was Gwyneth Paltrow.’ I am making some choices here. I take responsibility for it.”

Wow. Super refreshing. Makes Jameela look about 5 years out of date.

@Goosefoot Yes I agree it is an oversimplification. It would be interesting to have a decent discussion around this.

Agree Sam Fox coming out was brave.

Bloody love la roux. She’s so talented and sensible and gorgeous so nice to hear someone talk like that.

Yes well said Elly, I agree with her (except I'd called it mis-sexed I suppose as I don't have a "gender"). I'm tall with short hair and sometimes get called sir when people aren't looking closely. Likewise I saw a supermarket worker from behind the other day, shortish with long hair and thought he was a woman until I was nearer. So what? I don't care because I know I'm a woman - what does it matter if someone is mistaken?

The Elly Jackson interview is good, thank you.

There is a bit of a backlash about ‘pan’ from the woke bis, so maybe the younger ones are distancing themselves from it for that reason. Apparently it’s also transphobic, as ‘if you need a different sexuality to include trans people, you’re saying you don’t really see them as their presenting gender’.

Ahaha thats amazing

Last I heard, it was transphobic to be 'bisexual' as bisexual specifically does not include transpeople. It was as bad as daring to say you were a lesbian who was only attracted to female people (like..a lesbian).. So everyone woke and bi had to be pan.

The acceptable label brigade really do chop and change like the wind.

Maybe they can just make a label for "will have sex with anyone who asks in order to avoid causing offense" - it would save a lot of time.

As far as I can work out, she’s pansexual because she snogged a couple of girls at parties as a teenager and finds certain women in the media very attractive. I once agreed with her that Emma Watson is indeed a beautiful women and got a lecture about how I can’t possibly think this way because I’m straight (or, in her words “cishet”) and that I was appropriating her gayness which is the worst form of literal violence against the LGBTQ+ community. I’ve tried talking to her about my life experiences, which, as far as I can see are exactly the same as hers – had some drunken girl-snogs/experimentation in my youth, long term relationship with a man but she just recoils in horror, telling me that I’m nothing like her and that I really don’t understand sexuality definitions. The only difference I can see is that she is a young, nubile 24 year old and I’m a frumpy 40-something who clearly doesn’t fit her narrative.

I have had this very same experience with a couple of younger people I speak to. One was hilarious. A poll on a forum I used to frequent asked for gender and sexuality. I answered that by todays labels, that would make me a bisexual a-gender/gender-queer female. That was instantly taken offence to by some of the younger members who announced I was 'taking the piss' and was 'clearly cishet, and a terf too'. They never could explain to me quite how that worked, given I have had relationships with both men and women, serious ones (not just drunken snogs, though them too!), though now married to a man. I also have always been GNC by todays standards. And do not feel any 'inner identity' and it was actually that lot that told me that I 'Must' be genderqueer, only days before that when I stated that I didn't understand how men can feel like women as I don't 'feel like' anything besides myself. They declared me genderqueer and said thats how I could not wrap my head around having some sense of innate sex. Anyway a few more questions later, they still couldn't explain and instead just declared me a bigot and left the thread

I deduced from that, that the reason I cannot claim any special labels, is because I am over 30. According to them, once past 20 ish, you are no longer 'special' it seems, as a few other older (though not 'old' by anyones standards) members tried answering honestly what they would be if they followed the many labels of today and got the same treatment.

MInd, tbf it did seem to be only those of us who had previously commented on trans stuff and said we believe in biological sex that got the 'you can't be in our gang!' treatment. One very militant 'TWAW!' poster, who claims to have a trans teenage child, and is 40 ish was able to describe herself as queer non-binary femme without being declared a pisstaking bigot though. So..its not only age thats a barrier I guess. But figuring out who is allowed to be nonbinary or such, is a bit of a minefield.

For those claiming themselves as the most inclusive of inclusive people, they don't include anyone besides people they deem to be 'able to be special', which seems a select few! And as for 'noone can tell you what you are, only you can name yourself', well, seemingly not!

By current naming protocol I suppose I'd be a genderqueer bisexual woman with a preference for men who're a bit fey (and no particular preference as to the gender expression of women). I suspect that openly saying that would set off a storm about how phobic it is to like pretty men who wear eyeliner and have long hair but not to have any sexual interest in middle aged males who would like to be perceived as women.

Only the puritans can be in 'LGBT Queerclub'.

If ideologically you don't share wider beliefs it doesn't matter what your sexuality is because you are a 'LGBT traitor' to the cause. Who needs to be reeducated or publicly shamed as punishment for dissident behaviour. Or both.

It just highlights that the whole movement about identity isn't about your sexuality, its now about a public display and demonstration of your political leanings and having a very narrow pre approved accepted set of beliefs.

It's the very antithesis of inclusive.

Apparently it’s also transphobic, as ‘if you need a different sexuality to include trans people,

I thought it was supposed to be inclusive of furries and enbies and otherkin and reincarnated angels and old uncle tom cobley and all?

But by all means let them crack on with eating themselves by reducing shared meaning down and down until there's nothing left to actually communicate with.

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.

Yeah, I get where thats coming from, but have to disagree.

Also not really comfortable with heterosexual as the default really. Though thinking about it, before I had any sexual contact I was sure I was straight. But once I started having sexual contact, I realised that girls were just as sexy and went from there. Actually probably had more contact with girls overall, meaning more..different girls than different boys. Obviously 12 years of being with my husband has almost wiped all the women off my sexual contact list totally, if going by amount of times or whatever! Not that this means anything, but if going by this actions only thing, basically if I had never had sexual contact I would still be thinking I was straight..hmm

Despite disagreeing though, I do agree with basically..if you have only ever had sexual contact with the opposite sex, no it really does not qualify you to be able to claim discrimination based on your bisexuality, just because you have had thoughts about the same sex. Doesn't work like that, and it seems many seem to want to claim that it does for some reason, almost as if discrimination is something you want to have had happen, just to play victim in some way. Its a bizarre thing really.

I also (obviously) disagree that those who are bisexual but have long term opposite sex partners are actually straight, which seems to be a new claim (often coming from the wokesters, oddly). They are in a straight relationship (yes, a straight one, not a queer one ) but they are still bisexual. Which does mean that they are less/not likely to experience homophobic behaviour too, but this doesn't mean they have no experience of that..

On that note too..I do not make a big 'thing' of being bi, given I am currently in a same sex long term relationship. If specifically asked I will say, but I don't really see any need to mention it otherwise. I have a friend who, whe people are talking about homophobic stuff, will ALWAYS bring up that hes bi, despite being in a heterosexual marriage for over 40 years now (and hiding that side of his sexuality before that, as many did back then). For no reason besides attention seeking it seems. Like, a gay couple will be discussing homophobia, and he will bring up how he is bi but never ever experienced any homophobia in his life. It seems so..unneeded yet always shoved in. Tbh, I don;t really understand why anyone would reply to someone discussing homophobia they have suffered recently with basically 'I never suffered any homophobia' (basically..ner ner ner ner ner?!)

Long post, full of random shite really, and probably many typos. But sexuality can be a bit of a minefield. And yes I agree with whoever said that bi people are often shoved into gay/straight boxes based on long term relationships but that doesn't change their sexuality. It does tend to change their experiences based on sexuality though, of course.

Presumably he has never suffered any homophobia because he is in a relationship with a woman.

Doesn't work like that, and it seems many seem to want to claim that it does for some reason, almost as if discrimination is something you want to have had happen, just to play victim in some way.

Isn't it revealing though that all this is in the context of whether or not someone has been discriminated against? As if that is now the whole point of the labels, to place yourself in a more advantageous place in the hierarchy of oppression? When we all thought that it was just supposed to be a description of your sexual attraction.

But it does make sense. Because in these circles the more oppressed you are, the more you are listened to, and the higher your social status.
Even better if you can somehow claim to be really oppressed, without having characteristics that do actually get you discriminated against.