"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.