To me the concept of LGBT is ridiculous, ludicrous and completely pointless. It’s YUSU election time and you may be aware that one position up for grabs is LGBT Officer. I have a challenge for the LGBT candidates. (For anyone who might want to know, that’s Tom Martin and Nell Beecham in the red corner and Helen Houghton and Philip Morris in the blue corner). Please tell me what LGBT is?
Here is my view of LGBT: LGBT is a welfare organisation for equality. It is there to aid the campaign to recognise that sleeping with the same gender, or not agreeing with your own gender, etc., is just as acceptable and justifiable as anything else. And well done LGBT of the past. You have won the battle, defeated the ‘enemy’ in the war and everyone else has packed up and gone home. I sit in a university where LGBT is accepted as normal and equal. Nowadays, I have seen certain Christians far more chastised for their views, as opposed to never having seen someone who comes under the broad remit of LGBT questioned accordingly.
However, this creates a problem for the LGBT “community”. What is the point in having an LGBT community anymore when equality has been achieved?
Well from this conundrum we see two ideas put forward. Firstly, the idea that LGBT is, in itself, a political faction or ideology to be defended or celebrated. But wait a minute, what is this ideology? It’s non-existent! Why should the fact that you sleep with Michael rather than Michelle make you have one
viewpoint rather than the other?
Philip Morris announced in the YUSU election hustings that sexuality should be celebrated. Why? No one forms political groupings for food preferences or music choice. Why should gender preference be any different when it has no quantifiable effect upon your character or politics?
From this we get the second idea put forward to reformat the idea of LGBT. That it’s some form of wishy washy social club where, as Tom Martin put it, people shouldn’t be told to “like the same things just because they share an identity.” Fair enough, someone who is bisexual and someone who is transgender should not be lumped together into one artificial group. But then, like a persistent boomerang, we return to the problem of what actually is LGBT. If people don’t have the same politics, the same preferences, or even the same gender politics what is LGBT there for?
Unfortunately, LGBT is no longer a force for equality with common aims. The only thing that combines the L, the G, the B and the T is this – they are all not heterosexual. When equality has been mostly achieved why is there a need for a ‘not heterosexual’ vote on the Union Council? Why can’t LGBT simply be represented by the Welfare Officer in the upper echelons of YUSU? What is the point of LGBT in the university? Why shouldn’t LGBT be disbanded and incorporated into welfare? Please, LGBT candidates, tell me what I don’t understand!
I disagree entirely with this article, but I am curious, as there is not a named author attached to this article does this mean the views expressed in it are the views of York Vision as a whole?
As a member of both the YUSU LGBT Committee and LGBT Social, I find some of these comments to be a less than informed description of YUSU LGBT and the wider LGBT movement, and several of the comments can be seen as downright offensive.
Firstly, I call into question the quote, “What is the point in having an LGBT community anymore when equality has been achieved?” To this I would like to ask you just how has equality been truly achieved for the LGBT community? Yes, there is national legislation protecting people on the basis of their sexuality, but trans individuals were only included in Scottish hate crime legislation in 2009, and England has yet to follow this example. Additionally, there remain trans issues in civil marriage; couples can still be turned away if the individual responsible for solemnising the union has ‘reasonable belief’ that one or both of them have changed their gender.
Affecting not just trans individuals, but the entire LGBT umbrella, members of the community – and it is a community (which doesn’t need quotation marks), as I will come onto later – still face prejudice and discrimination on a daily basis. Maybe not so much in legal terms as in previous years, but there is still a social stigma attached to not being a cisgendered heterosexual. Words like “faggot”, “dyke” and “tranny” are still prevalent in our society, and still used to insult and shame LGBT individuals.
To say that equality has been achieved and that there is no further need for an LGBT community or movement is frankly ignorant of the struggles that face many LGBT individuals, and is infuriating for those individuals who are aware of and fighting to change such injustices and inequalities.
Secondly, there is the question posed in the article: “What is the point of LGBT in the university?” Answering this question requires the address of two assumptions made:
1) that “equality has been mostly achieved…”
2) that “I sit in a university where LGBT is accepted as normal and equal”
The first of these assumptions has been, I hope, suitably addressed in the first couple of paragraphs. Simply put, equality has not been achieved. Yes, large strides have been taken in that direction, and the LGBT of the past should be congratulated (as they so deservedly are in the article) for their efforts and their achievements. However, such battles do not a unanimous victory make. There is still a way to go to address the difference between where we are and where we should be in terms of LGBT rights and protection.
To address the second of these assumptions, then. I would be inclined to agree with this claim for the most part – we are fortunate to live in an open, accepting environment where LGBT individuals are free to be open and proud of themselves without having to hide aspects of their identity for fear of recrimination. However, as I have said, this is hardly representative of our society as a whole. And while it may be true that the problems do not start at home in the university, the solutions definitely do; you need only look back on the past fortnight to see that York is full of enterprising, involved and passionate politicians-to-be, and the way to resolve issues on a national level is to educate people before they get to that level. There is nothing pointless about educating people about LGBT issues in the world beyond university when, in a few short years, we will all be entering into that world, and not all of us have the luxury of living in an equal, utopian society as that in which you seem to reside.
Philip Morris, one of the candidates for LGBT Officer, is quoted as saying that sexuality and gender identity should be celebrated – a statement that is subjected to a rather cynical, “Why? No one forms political groupings for food preferences or music choice. Why should gender preference be any different…?” Maybe because people are rarely so ashamed of their vegetarianism or love of Mumford & Sons that they are driven to suicide? Or deny a crucial part of themselves for fear of retribution from family, friends and the wider society, such that it leads to severe emotional and attachment problems later in life? Celebrating one’s sexuality and gender isn’t an indulgence – it is a message to those who live in fear (and if you think there are no such individuals in this ‘equal’ society, then I fear for the future of our nation’s media) that it is an incredible thing to be happy and comfortable in your own identity. And likening someone’s choice between Flo Rida and Lily Allen to their choice of whom to love is a trivialisation not only of the trials that face LGBT relationships, but also romantic relationships as a whole.
Penultimately, I for one took particular umbrage with the punctuation of ‘LGBT “community”‘, which had the obvious intention of implying that such a community is nothing more than a social construct (a “wishy washy social club”, as it is called in the article) that is an antiquated relic from a turbulent, revolutionary past. But a community does exist, and personally I feel there will persist an LGBT community as long as heteronormativity persists. The LGBT community persists because it is a collection of individuals with an aspect of their lives that unifies them. The fact that we don’t have the same politics, preferences or opinions is not a weakness of the community – it is a strength. We are an incredibly diverse group of people, but we are all brought together by a single factor; we are Other, excluded from society in some way. You don’t need to go any further than the Have Your Say forums on the BBC website to see that there is still a need for a unifying community for not only the LGBT, but also the female community, the black community and many other excluded minorities who have been victimised by the silent majority.
Basically, even if such past problems were resolved, that would not dissolve the community. That can be shown by such campaigns as LGBT History Month during February, when YUSU LGBT remembered the huge amount of work, time and suffering that went into building this community and fighting for the rights that have been such a step forwards. This shared history is yet another binding factor that keeps the LGBT community alive and united.
Finally, I would like to point out that the article seems to confuse YUSU LGBT with LGBT Social. As someone who sits on, and is heavily involved in, both committees, I can assure you that YUSU LGBT is the front for liberation campaigns and the serious, welfare side of the community. YUSU LGBT helps to coordinate college LGBT welfare and works closely with other Liberation Officers to raise awareness of issues that affect not just the LGBT community, but also the entire population of the university. If anything can be described as a “wishy washy social club”, it would be LGBT Social, but this would also show a distinct ignorance of the society and the massive effort it puts into instilling a sense of community and pride amongst its members.
Two quick additional points, before I summarise: I particularly liked the irony in the statement, “I have seen certain Christians far more chastised… as opposed to never having seen someone who comes under the broad remit of LGBT questioned accordingly.” I don’t think that statement really requires any further elucidation. As for the second quick point, the thing that combines the L, the G, the B and the T is not that they are not heterosexual, as several of our members are heterosexual. I assume this was meant to read, “are not cisgendered heterosexuals.” I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, I will give the benefit of the doubt that the assertion that trans individuals “[don’t agree] with their own gender” was not meant to be as transphobic as it ended up, and was instead meant to say “not having a gender identity that conforms to societal expectations relating to their biological sex.”
In summary, I would say that this article shows a distinct lack of understanding of LGBT issues and the role of YUSU LGBT, not just in the university, but in wider society. LGBT individuals still face discrimination in the workplace, in their social lives, in the street and sometimes in the home, and those of us who have experienced such discrimination find the notion of, “Well done, lads. You’ve won. Go home now.” to be demeaning and a huge trivialisation of issues that affect our lives to a huge degree. “Why should the fact that you sleep with Michael rather than Michelle make any difference?” It shouldn’t, simply put, but until we all join you in your idyllic Wonderland, it’s the sad truth that YUSU LGBT will continue to be a necessity.
@Jamie: Apologies for that, I have updated the post for you.
YorkVision Webmaster
There’s no need for an LGBT community? York’s not the most intolerant place I’ve ever been but it’s definately not the most either. So far I’ve been called a fag by a housemate, had abuse hurled at me in the street for walking home with a man and when asking to get a taxi to Tru on a Sunday told – “you know it’s a gay night?”, as if I’d die if I went in if I was straight. It’s nice just to get away from all that once in a while and meet with people who are tolerant and understanding, which is why LGBT is still important.
“When equality has been mostly achieved why is there a need for a ‘not heterosexual’ vote on the Union Council?”
You’ve answered your own question. MOSTLY been achieved, not fully, mostly. At what point should LGBT give up on gaining FULL equality?
Should we have given up when homosexuality became decriminalised? An equality milestone which allowed us to live without fear of attest was surely sufficient? Or how about when civil partnerships appeared? Why should we be anything other than delighted and grateful to have been permitted a limited selection of the rights afforded to heterosexual couples?
Or are you simply suggesting we give up on equality now, because you personally haven’t experienced or witnessed any problems? How lovely for you, how fortunate you’re not a lesbian parent trying to gain legal responsibility for the child you didn’t carry, and that you’re not currently dealing with the multitude of issues involved in changing one’s gender, and you’re not stuck in a secondary school rife with homophobic bullying and no explicit policy against it.
While these things may seem trivial to you compared with the LGBT struggles of the past, they are examples of the multitude of inequalities left, and while they exist people will still be united by their political belief that they are unacceptable.
Feel free to join us when you find an issue that does affect your life or the life of someone you care about. In the mean time you’re welcome to attend the ‘wishy washy social club’ of LGBT Social, a separate society from YUSU LGBT, in which people with a variety of genders, political beliefs, preferences and such have to agree on nothing more than what pubs to go to before Sunday Tru.
First, a very quick clarification, I’m heterosexual and I’m part of LGBT. I’m a trans man and other LGBT people can be heterosexual or heteroromantic without being trans.
On the notion that “equality has been achieved”. No, just no. I live in a country where queers are beaten up in the streets, where trans women are detained in male prisons and where people fear even holding hands with their partner in public.
In our society, one of the more accepting and tolerating ones on the planet, “gay” is an insult, calling a boy a “girl” is an insult. The very idea of someone being gay, lesbian, bi or trans can still be used as an insult or as a “joke”. Homophobic and transphobic remarks are normal, myself, my partner and my friends recieve them so regularly that they have become unremarkable. I was called a “dirty queer” the other day in the street and I only remember this because I’d just read this article, telling that me such things don’t happen.
I’ve suffered homophobia and transphobia *on this campus* and felt it was better to go to LGBT than to other welfare services as LGBT were more likely to see where I was coming from. I’m sure the student welfare here is as good as it can be but I’ve had too many teachers, doctors, counsellors etc. try to help me by telling me to “dress like a girl” or “don’t use the men’s room if you don’t want to be abused again” or “It would be easier for everyone if you changed back into a girl”. I’m not saying that college welfare reps would ever say such things to me but at least LGBT welfare won’t. I can go to LGBT in the knowledge that they will already have some understanding.
Furthermore, a Welfare Officer, no matter how brilliant, cannot be expected to fully understand the needs and difficulties of every single student in the University, without Liberation Officers to help them they would undoubtably forget someone or not have the time for a whole group of people. LGBT Committee is here to make sure LGBT voices are heard and that this University is as safe as it can be for LGBT students.
I think your fantastic comment should be republished as an article in the next edition of Vision. Or pass it on to Nouse or The Yorker, who wouldn’t publish such badly researched, mind-numbingly ignorant and offensive articles as Knight’s in the first place.
And FYI, I’m not even LGBT.
Hiya Jamie,
To answer your question directly, this article is the view of the author (now named), and not necessarily that of York Vision or any of our editorial team.
“No one forms political groupings for food preferences or music choice.”
perhaps not “political” groupings, but people naturally form into groups (partially?) based on culinary or musical preferences all the time. i mean, what do you think goths are? in fact, there is evidence of goths being discriminated against on the streets in a way that LGBT people, well… certainly *were* a lot more even a few years ago, but it hasn’t gone away by any means. (so you could argue for a political group to look out for goth and metalhead welfare, as silly though that seems on paper…)
either way… while lgbt’s are by no means a homogeneous group (no pun intended), there are certain faculties (welfare and/or advice) that lgbt welfare officers can provide based on personal experience. besides, if the situation is one where discrimination does not exist (which for many, sadly, is not true), the lgbt officers’ job is then to try and ensure that this *stays* the case.
If equality has been achieved then why would I feel as though I cannot act how I wish to in public when with my girlfriend? (we are both bisexual women)
I feel as though I live in a place where if I did want to hold hands whilst walking down a street, which is a perfectly normal thing for heterosexual couples to do, then people would either shout abuse or perhaps give me ‘funny looks’.
Is this equality? Because it doesn’t feel like it.
I agree with the comments above that this comment piece was quite naive and the writer makes sweeping statements that might not be true, but I don’t think you could define it as ‘offensive’
For a person to think that there is equality of treatment regardless of your sexual orientation (which is basically what I see as the root of this article )is not offensive, even if you don’t agree with it.
I think, in defence of the writer, it’s more naively written than meant offensively. He suggests that political groups aren’t formed for food or music preferences, foregtting in one flippant sentence the vegetarian society, vegan society, the punk movement… in the light of this, I’d suggest that maybe it’s a case of typing before thinking closely about the issue.
Perhaps more pertinently, this puts me in mind of the endless debates (brought back to the fore in the elections) about the necessity of having women’s officers… As much as we might like to think that a liberal institution like a university doesn’t need womens officers, racial equality officers, LGBT, disability officers etc. the above comments, and the experience of some of my friends at York, suggests that these kinds of specific welfare groups, including LGBT are as necessary as ever.
I’d like to begin by complimenting those writing in response to this piece, particularly James Strachen. It’s nice to be reminded that the University of York does have the kind of mature, liberal, intellectually active students that one would expect to find here. It is particularly encouraging that, despite peoples’ various personal ties to the LGBT community that has been so clumsily attacked by Mr Knight, the ripostes have been so objective and considered. This juxtaposition only further highlights just how lazy, demagogic, poorly written and badly researched (if indeed it was researched at all) the original article is.
I think the other posts here demonstrate comprehensively that, yes, York does need an LGBT community. It would be tedious to go over the same ground as other posters so instead I would like to pose the question of whether or not York needs (or indeed wants) vitriolic and poorly informed writing is quite another matter.
I would like to share with Mr Knight the often repeated maxim (and one that I’m particularly fond of) that good journalism should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. While each writer has his or her own reasons for putting pen to paper, something which one must respect, I seriously question the motives for this piece. I am happy to be proved wrong but, from the reader’s perspective, it looks as if this article has been written for no reason other than to cause controversy. Questioning contemporary collective thought and attitudes can be a wonderful and important thing. However without concrete examples and compelling arguments such questioning simply comes across as bitter and small-minded as, unfortunately, is the case here. Similarly, excessive use of overly-emotive language appears as nothing more than a thin veil designed to cover up a lack of substance.
Finally, might I suggest that Mr Knight attend one of the LGBT meetings (something which he clearly didn’t do in research for this “article”). That way he might avoid embarrassing himself with his own ignorance in the future.
To Nick and Kelly’s posts, I would like to say that I agree to a point; that the opinions expressed in this article seem to arise from ignorance of the subject matter, rather than outright prejudice, but the idea that someone can just write a piece criticising the LGBT and its role in society without deigning to research or explore the area of interest seems a journalistic snub. It suggests that Mr. Knight considers the LGBT to be such a non-issue that it doesn’t even merit research before putting pen to paper, and this can definitely be seen to be offensive.
However, the fact that these opinions seem to be held by people (and some people I have spoken to, who admittedly have yet to comment on this article, agree with some of the sentiments held) just highlights the importance of the LGBT officials and continued education of LGBT issues, so that such ignorance is addressed and challenged.
Of course, as I have said, there is always an onus on the media to be presenting as accurate and informed an argument as possible, so in future I would advise, as John suggests, attending some LGBT meetings or events and possibly speaking to some LGBT individuals who would be able to explain and clarify some points where confusion has so obviously arisen.
I fully agree with the previous comment that James’ response should be published. Well written, well researched and informative!
I think you’re all missing the point. Although I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the LGBT community has got full equality in the UK, i’m not so sure that a poltical position within YUSU, funded by the university, is really the way to go about changing this. When I looked at the policies for those running for YUSU LGBT rep, I was really quite shocked that while they made some vague comments about ‘celebrating sexuality’, (why? I’m straight and i don’t celebrate the fact i sleep with men. i would find it quite odd if one of my lesbian housemates decided to celebrate the fact she was not… and so, i’m sure, would her girlfriend.), they had no real policies on combatting the problems facing the LGBT community abroad such as campaigning against the human rights abuses in countries that still continue to threaten non-heterosexual behavior with prision sentances. If LGBT reps deserve to have a political position, then surely they should be using this to overcome prejudice facing people all over the world rather than offering free hugs as one of their policies and making non-commital remarks about being a mouthpiece etc. (Not that any campus politicians are any better in their campaining, to be honest, i’m not picking on them.)
In the same way that as a feminist, i oppose the fact we have a woman’s rep as it reinforces the message that there is a significant difference between the sexes and offers the idea that women need to be ‘looked after’ more than men, I feel that having a LGBT rep on campus simply reinforces the idea that their community is different and has different needs to the rest of the uni population, surely enhancing tension and the possibility of discrimination?
I by no means oppose the LGBT society and the support and social opportunities they give students, in the same way that nightline offers a valuable service and the vegetarian soc/ york labour party/ freedom soc etc. gives students the opportunity to campaign for what they believe in. But that does not mean that YUSU needs a vegetarian rep or a anarchist rep; YUSU is supposed to offer a means of non-affiliated, pretty much apolitical support to the student body as a whole, and if one is to argue, as has been already noted in the comments, that the position of LBGT is almost political, then it doesn’t seem fair to include an LGBT rep when other ‘political’ bodies are left out.
I think the YUSU LGBT Committee is important: it is an important lifeline for a good number of students at the University, and I believe we should have the two part-time officers in place to provide an LGBT-specific student welfare set-up available to every concerned student at the University.
That said, there is a lack of self-awareness within YUSU LGBT with regards to its relevance and role for the student body, which Josie is right to pick up on in Phil and Helen’s election campaign. The “free hugs” gimmick and the proposed celebration of sexuality seem to lack an understanding of what LGBT actually means to most people, including an “LGBTer” such as myself. That is, it means nothing: my sexuality is a merely contingent fact – not of who I am, but of who I am attracted to. I don’t want to be defined by it and be associated by some kitsch, camp culture, which only–I’d argue–serves to oppress me by demeaning me.
YUSU LGBT needs to constantly reflect, simply for the fact that how it presents itself potentially alienates people who might want to get involved, which then undermines the purpose of its very existence. Even though the comment article was a bit of a duff piece in itself, I would hope that it might encourage the committee into a bit of self-examination as to its relevance for those who are LGBT at York, but who don’t wished to get involved with York LGBT or its activities because of its image.
Firstly, James you know how much I adore your response to that piece of vitriolic trash and I’m thrilled at all the responses on this thread to the article.
In response to some of the previous statements, I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement that the presence of an LGBT officer only serves to set the movement back and reinforce ourselves as outsiders. Personally I don’t aim for integration, I aim for acceptance of my ‘otherness’, as James puts it “we are all brought together by a single factor; we are Other”. This isn’t a weakness of the LGBT, it’s perhaps our greatest strength. I don’t believe that the LGBT officer position shows that we need MORE looking after, it more demonstrates that there are issues or problems that primarily or uniquely affect LGBT people that, perhaps, and ordinary welfare rep would be poorly equipped to deal with.
I can’t speak for the election candidates, but my personal view on the ‘gimmick’ is that it’s nice to see an approach to LGBT that isn’t focussed on just how many things can go wrong for you. I see it as an approach that says, ‘welcome to LGBT, don’t hide what you are and have a hug for being who you are’. It’s things like this that show a welfaring side to the LGBT, people seem to be pulling the YUSU LGBT society into either a political category, or a welfare one. Isn’t it both? Yes it does campaigns highlighting LGBT issues around the world (Love without Boarders, LGBT History month etc) but it also runs drop in sessions on Wednesdays for anyone having problems relating to their sexuality, gender or sexual health. In response to Ralph’s comment that he finds the ‘kitsch, camp culture’ of YUSU LGBT demeaning, I’d like to ask him what society is he looking at? Yes there is somewhat that aspect of the society present, but that only reflects some of those present and is by no means the bigger picture. I frankly find it offensive that he can sum up all of LGBT and clump it under one trivial aspect of our culture when there is so much more to the acronym.
I realise this is probably a very rambly, round-about way of looking at things and stating that I completely disagree with the assertions made by Mr Knight and others, but as someone that has felt disconnected from any form of a community growing up, I will gladly fight to the last to defend the community I’ve found at university.
First, a reply to Josie. I wonder, if you think that an LGBT position in YUSU is not the way to achieve equality, how would you go about it? Because in my experience, university is the first opportunity for most people to ever encounter any form of LGBT community, and getting rid of the YUSU LGBT reps would mean that the only exposure to LGBT that university students get would be LGBT socials on Thursdays and Sundays, which (marvellous as they are) are not an accurate representation of the community as a whole. Without this accurate impression, how can we then hope to achieve equality in the world beyond university, especially when people like Mr. Knight think that equality is already a non-issue?
Without YUSU LGBT officers, there are no positions to lead campaigns or raise awareness of the more serious issues that affect the community. You say that we don’t address the issues of LGBT persecution abroad – were you aware of the fact that Week 9 has been a revisit of last year’s Love Without Borders campaign, and there has been a petition in Vanbrugh stalls about the pending genocide of homosexuals in Uganda? Maybe you haven’t, but over 200 signatures in two days certainly suggests that YUSU LGBT has done a terrific job raising awareness of this important issue. I cannot speak for the candidates, of course, but as both sets of candidates have promised to continue the spectacular work of their predecessors, this would suggest that we can look forward to similar campaigns in the coming year.
As for the free hugs, I will allow that that was something of a gimmick on the candidates’ part, but it has certainly shown a lighter hearted side of the LGBT, which is especially important when so many of the campaigns that it carries out are of such a serious and dark nature. LGBT History Month, for example, had many talks and events relating to the persecution of LGBT people in the past, and it is sometimes nice to remind people with campaigns like Week of Pride and similar events that the LGBT is a friendly and welcoming place.
As for the celebrating sexuality, I refer you to my previous comment; if you and your friends don’t feel the need to celebrate your sexuality, then that’s excellent. You obviously feel comfortable in who you are, who you are attracted to and the political ideologies with which you affiliate, but not everyone is so lucky. I have several friends who are terrified to come out of the closet, and some who are extremely careful about how they present themselves so that no one guesses they are queer, and it is to them that a drive to celebrate sexuality is aimed, rather than those of us who are settled and comfortable). The aim is to let people know that it is OK to be different, and that being who you are is an integral part of finding happiness. To me, this doesn’t seem like a non-committal remark.
As for the point of other liberation campaigns enforcing the idea that minority groups need greater protection, the simple fact is that many of them are necessary. You can’t expect a YUSU Welfare officer who is a cisgender, heterosexual, white male with no disabilities to truly be able to accommodate the full range of unique and specialist problems that face the different communities on campus. I would agree with the idea of adopting a Men’s Officer to sit alongside the Women’s Officer, but not getting rid of such positions.
The idea of getting rid of LGBT Officers as a move to show that we do not need specialist help and are as equal as our cisgendered, heterosexual peers is, simply put, a bad idea, as it simply means that no one outside of the LGBT will be aware of the unique problems that face members of our community, and so nothing will change in the wider society. Change starts in the home, but it requires representatives to start that change as early as possible – that is the only way that equality can actually be achieved.
Now on to Ralph’s post. I’m interested by the fact that you say that sexuality means very little to most people, and is merely a contingent fact that happens to dictate whom you find attractive. Would that this were simply the case, but as someone who has experienced an awful lot of grief over the years over this apparent non-issue, I’m not entirely sure I would agree that ‘most people’ think this way. Maybe most people who have never experienced homo- or transphobia, but that’s pushing the definition a bit.
Secondly, I’d like to remark about your feeling oppressed by a kitsch, camp culture. Certainly many of the members of the LGBT are rather expressive – myself included – and this certainly carries over into how we comport ourselves within and outside of the LGBT – but considering the fact that the LGBT is all about saying that it’s OK to be who you are, it seems counter-productive to criticise its members for expressing themselves.
It seems to me that the best course of action would be for those who do not conform to this “kitsch, camp” impression to do more and become more prevalent and active within the committee and community, so that people who might want to get involved can get a balanced impression of the LGBT as a whole, and that the committee itself should do its utmost to include these individuals to the full extent.
That said, it does seem that many people seem to have an inaccurate impression of YUSU LGBT, and so work must be done to change this in future, such as working to make the LGBT’s campaigns and work more prevalent, open and accessible to the non-LGBT community. However, the solution for this is certainly not to remove the post of LGBT Officer.
It’s a bit of a poor show when the comments are so much more informed and articulate than the article itself.
There are clearly tensions within LGBT, especially around trans inclusion, and it has always made me a bit uncomfortable that we lump all the non-heterosexual people in together and in a sense create another binary between ‘normative’ and ‘deviant’ sexuality. I would be much more interested to read an article by someone who was LGBT, because, correct me if I’m wrong, but nowhere does the writer of this article say he’s LGBT. If you’re not the one experiencing casual, everyday discrimination, what right do you have to tell the people who are that they have achieved equality?
GSA Gender Equality Rep
I think this article was extremely ill informed, and I fully support James Strachan’s response.
In claiming that the article was not offensive those like Nick should refer to Strachan’s comments on how the article was offensive to trans individuals, and even if this was just because Knight is ill informed, it does not make it any less offensive.
Also, I forgot to say, James Strachan, you’re great! I hope Knight reads your comments and has a little rethink. It’s nice that people are being so tolerant of naivete on here rather than laying into Knight, when that would have been so easy to do on the internet. Credit to you all.
lets all remember that this was a personal opinion
Dumb comment, Katy. Everyone recognised it as exactly that and responded accordingly.
Why do those opposed to the article assume that it was written by somebody who is not LGBT? (for example, “nowhere does the writer of this article say he’s LGBT. If you’re not the one experiencing casual, everyday discrimination, what right do you have to tell the people who are that they have achieved equality?”).
Is it impossible to disagree with LGBT unless you are heterosexual?
Having just discovered this article, and having been involved in numerous LGBT group events (social and serious) across the country in the last year; it seems odd to me that no-one has brought up the fact that within LGBT communities, there is often an equal amount of hetrophobic prejudice to the amount of descrimination towards those standing under the LGBT banner. Granted there is major difference between prejudice and active descrimination but there is an observable potential for anti-cisgendered hetrosexual ideas to be employed in decision making. That it is regularly assumed that the ‘outside world’ doesn’t and infact cannot understand the issues that affect those within an LGBT community is a case in point. I must firstly say that I agree with the assumption but infact would push it further to state that no-one can understand what an individual has been through. To judge solely against the majority of the straight population in such a manner strikes me as odd and issolationary. Speaking as someone who has had numerous issues within everyday life relating to discrimination, intolerance, abuse and bullying brought about by my sexuality (which I do not wish to define myself by) I have found it frequently far more important to discuss such matters with wider welfare groups and friends of varying sexual preferences than to dive straight for the welfare system of an LGBT. Indeed the times when I have spoken with active LGBT members about these issues, they have attempted far too often to allign my way of thinking to their own. Whilst wider support systems have given options as to what course of action to take, LGBT welfare has regularly jumped straight to options involving the greatest embaressment and payback for the purveyors of homophobic actions and thought which personally I feel serve to strengthen a divide of us and them. Is this truly what would be wanted by anyone from a long term view?
Let’s face it, LGBT is used by student unions to waste money. Sorry, did I say waste? I meant, put their budgets to good use. I mean, as if they weren’t wasting enough as it is? (YUSU website anyone? Any mention of Fresher’s Fair? Or were they all making those campus tour videos for freshers that would be able to look around IN REAL LIFE if they waited just a few more days?)
Raising awareness in unis isn’t going to help take care of cab driver’s prejudices, so why pretend there’s a moral imperative for having an LGBT officer? And, if you really insist on having this LGBT thing, can’t you add O for Omnisexual, or is bumping uglies with animals still illegal? Why not campaign for that, I’m sure you can find a moral imperative for that too.