"Who was a gay man"

[noblegiraffe]

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

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.

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

That's your belief.

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

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.)

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.'

Yes, exactly.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

Condolences for your customers/friends.

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

I think it was available for free as a pdf download from his website if you look. I think it's an interesting attempt at presenting a clinical theory to a wider general audience. Based on what I've seen online, I'm not sure 'trans' hasn't evolved into some new thing that can't accurately be qualified under what was observed under somewhat controlled environments. Young trans women haven't been ghettoised into service careers in decades (Though. Thinking about the hold onlyfans currently has on some is worthy of observation). It's probably still a good read.

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

It's more than this. Gay men were never 'my people.' I believe that this was a reciprocated feeling. In the decades since, my place in the world has only diverged further. I've never claimed my proximity, or lack thereof, to gay men makes me a woman.

'femme' is not female (by the sex realist definition).

It's a gender role/play/personality/gestalt thing.

But a subject of this topic, as it was avoided/ignored in the OP and subsequent blog post by the quoted gay man.

I know of a few older butch lesbians who we referred to as Sir / X's husband/ He/ Him and some of them also use male or neutral pronouns themselves. They are women and no one (including them) thinks anyone has changed sex, it's used sometimes jokingly, sometimes as a mark of respect. Same goes for calling them handsome / chivalrous / a gentleman... it's not because anyone thinks they are male, but acknowledges their 'butchness' and how they chose to present. I can see how the reverse could be true for gay men.

No, you are missing the point.

Calling a particular group of men, or men when acting a certain way 'she' is gender. Its saying that they aren't acting like men are supposed to. It doesnt matter if TRA say it in earnest, or gay groups say it as banter.

Its not a neutral act that TRA has weaponised, it was already gender ideology and damaging.

Fantastic interview with Mr Menno here, where he goes into alot of detail about his personal experience. Lots I hadn't been aware of:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3i1FW99qQqHbT4bm4lbaC2?si=RjKb2U39Tv-GIs1cl1Lufg

Thanks for this thread OP- I was also very struck by this on the other thread and saw that it got lost on there. So I'm glad to see it getting some discussion now.

Also, I had started to write a long response to you @womendeserveequalhumanrights on that thread, as I appreciated and was inspired by your nuanced responses, but I lost the whole wordy post! Aaaargh!

So maybe sending this link can be considered a thank you at least for articulating your nuanced thinking.

Hope this is isn't classed as TAAT!

JKR is not implying he is not gay. She does not literally believe he is not a man... she is simply using she/her pronouns. It's transactivists that believe that using words changes reality. JKR does not believe not. Back in the day transvestites had no problem with saying their real biological sex. It's only modern trans ideology that went hardcore with pretending transgender people are actually the opposite sex. Using pronouns has nothing to do with her belief in their sex.

Sometimes some things are implied rather than spelled out. All I think she really meant was that he was living as a gay man as you'd expect, whereas now he uses a name etc that is associated with being a woman.

Does anyone else find it fascinating to read just how many people on FWR hold strong beliefs about JKR's random friend? Some are constructing elaborate life histories and friendship narratives. Others are even progressing through the stages of grief in real time.

This is one person who you don't know, transiently mentioned on the Internet.

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

Understanding sex realist beliefs as I think I sort of do, we agree. One does not grow up to be anyone other than what they were at conception. Under sex realist beliefs it is impossible for anyone to change their chromosomes and gametes. Therefore according to sex realist beliefs, as someone attracted to men, I am inexorably a gay man.

However immersive your experience of cosplaying as a straight woman...*

It's not offensive or causing distress. I'm honestly impressed that anyone could accuse someone else of impersonating (themself?) 24/7/365 for many decades.

As I have repeated many times before, my identity, if I were to have one relating to sex, has no affect on how the world treats me. FWR can call me a man or gay all they wish, but it doesn't magically modify how society responds to me, my body, my voice, my family, my lifetime of experience.

I have never IDed as gay. I acknowledge so many members of the community for the acceptance and support it shared when I was young and transitioning. I also acknowledge that I was a guest and not a member. When I was told off by a friend for using the word 'twink' during a discussion, I accepted his explanation that it wasn't my word to use. The moment oestrogen took over my pubertal development, the biology of my own body and the remainder of my life as a result took a new direction pertaining to sex.

I don't believe anyone with 'beliefs' about sex and gender can just wholesale assign strangers into a historically vilified culture.

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

Do you remember the 70s and 80s? No one was ‘transing’ anyone. Trans people, if identified, were only worthy of media spectacle. There was no affirmation of trans people or lives. I spent years in childhood psychiatric with a focus on prevention and avoidance. Gay would have been a consolation prize celebrated by the team. My parents constantly wished I was gay until they stopped.

I knew I was going to change sex before I was 100% certain I only liked boys.

You were doing so well there and it showed more insight & intelligence than your usual posts.

Until you suggested that as a child you ‘knew I was going to change sex before I was 100% certain I only liked boys’

You haven’t changed sex. It’s an impossibility.