The issue of inclusion has long been a concern of lesbian and gays. Following the gay riots in 1969 it was gay pride that was the focus of the movement. The Gay Liberation Front was the militant group of activist who helped to establish gay rights.In those days many gay people did not believe in bisexuals and oftentimes, like straight people, they denied there was such a thing. Gay pride was born of and lives in a dichotomous, black and white world where gays and straights are the axis of powers.
The struggle for gay rights extended through the Seventies and Eighties. Subsequently, it was gay people who took it upon themselves to add bisexuals to the initialism to create LGBT, in good part because it helped to buff up their numbers. The success of social movements regularly depend on how many thousands or millions they can put into the streets or add to their mailing lists to demonstrate widespread support.
However, arbitrarily including bisexuals in with homosexual people stripped bisexuals of their unique identity of being the most inclusive of human sexuality groups. We lost an opportunity to drop the battle lines between sexual orientation that could have provided a primary soft cushion of peace for humanity.
It was a lost chance to help unite human behavior that would have taken sexuality beyond the delimited, intensely divisive nature that was and is the “straights and the “gays.”
Can you imagine straight people claiming bisexuals for themselves? Why should gay people assume that bisexuals ought to be on their side of the fence?
The beauty of bisexual people is that they can stand alone. They don’t need to be a part of any other group. Same-gender and opposite-gender attractions are beautiful as long as they are not conflated and codified, and, as long as they are not shoved into a box canyon of inclusion where they do not belong. If, however, homo-sapiens are ever in need of a sexual norm there is no question that bisexuality is perfectly suited to the task.
And, whether one thinks of themselves as bisexual, pansexual, demisexual, polysexual, ominsexual, polyamorous or “labelless” attractive – the fluidity of all sexual orientation is the best future for the freedom of human sexuality and the peace of humankind.
Vidda Crochetta
Brattleboro
Reprinted from:
http://www.reformer.com/letterstotheeditor/ci_29918858/letter-take-b-out-lgbt
Brattleboro Reformer
POSTED: 05/21/2016
Take the “B” out of “LGBT”
Pride goeth before unsupported assertions
The writer credits the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) with helping establish gay rights, but fails to mention the Gay Activist Alliance (GAA). Same sex marriage was a major focus of GAA. GLF members generally spurned marriage equality on the grounds that their struggle was radical social change, not inclusion in oppressive, bourgeois institutions.
In this view, GAA is seen as a reformist organization, eager to be co-opted. If by “gay rights,” the writer includes marriage equality, then the exclusion of GAA from his article, at best, poor scholarship.
The article is full of unsupported statements, apparently pulled out of the writer’s own mind. Emblematic of such unsupported assertions is the following statement:
“Subsequently, it was gay people who took it upon themselves to add bisexuals to the initialism to create LGBT, in good part because it helped to buff up their numbers. ”
Maybe this is true, maybe it is not. But where is the evidence? Is it true that gay people dragged bisexuals into their movement? And even if that is true, could the motivation have been to offer support, rather than the self-serving, cynical motivation attributed to Gay Rights activists by the writer? Where are the writings by Gay Liberation leaders advocating that the movement co-opt bisexuals because it would be a good tactic for “buffing up their numbers?”
More
GAA had a more conventional, democratically-run structure.
GLF was a “leaderless” group, supposedly run by consensus.
What that often ended up meaning, was that the loudest, most strident voices would win out. At one meeting, a WWII conscientious objector, Lyn Dodge, was interrogated at the front of the group in a “criticism and self criticisms” ordeal. (Mao Tse-Tung’s Red Book was widely distributed in this “revolutionary group,” never mind that gays were mercilessly persecuted in Communist countries.
Lyn, who had been put in prison solitary for refusing to back off from sitting with Black inmates in the segregated mess hall; was being charged at the GLF meeting with racism. A group of “radicals” were demanding that he admit racism, because he had posted a Black Panther newspaper on the wall at a meeting, with anti-Gay (“Faggots”) statements highlighted.
Lyn resisted, speaking truth to power, for over an hour. Finally, a woman named Brenda stood up, and denounced the proceedings. Immediately a second person spoke up, then voices of protest emerged from the rest of the meeting hall (which was actually in the sanctuary of a gay-friendly Episcopal church.) The spell was broken. Each person who had felt individually intimidated finally spoke up.
One point to note, is that, despite the writer crediting GLF with helping to establish gay rights: Quoting from Mao’s Red Book, and fawning over “revolutionary” gay bashers were tactics with questionable effectiveness compared with the less dramatic tactics of “reformists.”
"The writer" Vidda says...
After a busy day yesterday I come back online today to find the pesky George on my tail, yet again.
Hey, George, (I can call you George, can’t I), whenever I submit an op/ed I stand behind what I write otherwise it wouldn’t be in print.
Whether or not either of us are presenting a gay historical perspective in its exactitude is not the point. Of course, you knew that.
But since I was there, living in Greenwich Village just around the corner from Stonewall, and for the subsequent events around the weekend of riots and into the next several decades, my impressions are as valid any damn textbook evidentiary statements (“assertions”) of fact recounting of events. I go farther say, some readers may not give a rat’s tuckus for your showy display of alleged superior higher ground.
I’d like to think that most of our reader’s know that that the central point of my article is not a history lesson, but the negative impact the inclusion of bisexuals in with the LGBT initials, by any means, that denied bisexuals a vital chance to create their own unique impact of this society which would have had far better benefited over these forty odd years the peaceful resolution of that sexual discord which remains in place to this day.
That pesky wabbit again?
Great allusion to “that pesky wabbit.” Careful or you’ll end up with the nickname, “Elmer Fudd.” 🙂
I alway find it interesting, Vidda, when you make a show of “refuting” something that no one ever said, while avoiding the actual issue. You are clearly intelligent, with a command of the English language, so what explanation could there by other than dishonesty for your pretending to misunderstand? Does honest dialogue scare you?
The statement that I took issue with was not whether or not inclusion with the LGBT initials had a negative impact on bisexuals: My criticism was your assertion that gay people had an intentional, self-serving motivation for including bisexuals. To discuss facts is one thing: When you attribute unsavory motivations, which you did (“…because it helped to buff up their numbers”) without explaining how you know what they were thinking, feeling, and intending: Then you have undermined your own credibility.
And on the subject of your undermining your own credibility is the ludicrous statement: “whenever I submit an op/ed I stand behind what I write otherwise it wouldn’t be in print.” With that statement, you are either telling us that you are infallible and never make a mistake; or else that — no matter what — you will never have the humility to acknowledge and retract a mistake.
Shove you into the wabbit hole where you belong
I assure you, George, no one is going to call me “Elmer” anything. It’s more likely you’ll acquire the moniker “pesky wabbit.” 🙂
Don’t get too caught up on “facts.” My “assertion that gay people had an intentional, self-serving motivation for including bisexuals” had nothing to do with an enumeration of recorded facts. It is, in fact, anecdotal. Whichever has the greater authoritative bedrock under it is of no importance to me. Moreover, at no time was there a general assembly of gays, lesbian, transgenders and bisexuals to mutually agree to be one unifying force. (By the way, some of what I say, can also apply to transgenders.)
Gays and lesbians are specifically unified by identifying themselves as homosexuals, therefore, as a group of LG’s is quite appropriate. However, homosexuals and heterosexuals lack the fluidity of sexually orientation that cannot be bridged by arbitrarily acquiring bisexuals and transgenders into their group. You cannot know the number of bisexuals and transgender people who have mentioned their dissent with the assumption of gay people creating LGBT.
Don’t assume we are gay are straight or gay. Leave us to our own identity, which I (forcefully claim) is far superior to the narrow, dichotomous bands of straight or gay. (Should I introduce you to the Kinsey scale?)
I don’t think I’m infallible because most people understand what an “opinion” piece is. My assertions are made on anecdotal experiences and therefore there is no need for “humility to acknowledge and retract a mistake.”
As for jabs that I am dishonest pretending to misunderstand or that honest dialogue scares me, I think I am lucky to know that it’s likely other readers may disagree with you and therefore I can conveniently shove you into the wabbit hole where you belong.
I am a longtime writer for iBrattleboro. Whatever credibility I have or have not was establish by our readers long before you came on the scene.
Fudd's Reply
What a pathetic response, Elmer. Even when a simple but challenging question is put to you clearly, you obfuscate with a lot of verbiage, none of which is responsive to either of the two questions. It kind of sad, what an ass you make of yourself.
...obfuscate with a lot of verbiage
You really make me glad for the phrase “one man’s opinion” Wabbid.
I don’t need to refer to you as pathetic and an ass.
Bitter perhaps, but then again you didn’t fare very well in our last encountered with your heavy-handed biblical inanity and misogyny: http://ibrattleboro.com/sections/sci-tech/tin-hats-0
Less
“But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.” – John Lennon, “Revolution” 1968
The B+ stands on its own
I agree 100% Vidda. Take the B out!
Also, it seems like Mr Salts is more of a personal attack,than trying to add to overall theme.
B+
I think you’re right Toby.
I like the B+ !
Dover dives in
If you have gotten the idea that I feel a bit peeved at Mr. Crochetta, you are correct. Crochetta has consistently attacked the Gay Rights Movement for allegedly causing harm to him as a bisexual.
I finally could not remain silent when, in his latest missive, he charged that gay people included bisexuals under the LGBT umbrella for a cynical, self-serving purpose,
Dover, come on: Do you think that maybe it is possible that there might have been some benign reason to include bisexuals? Like maybe a recognition that bisexuals also face oppression for their sexual orientation, and a sincere intention to offer support?
During the early seventies I was a member of the Gay Liberation Front, and attended almost every GLF meeting for at least a two year period. I think that I have a legitimate right to feel offended by Mr. Crochetta’s groundless defamatory statements.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn
“Crochetta has consistently attacked the Gay Rights Movement for allegedly causing harm to him as a bisexual.”
Bullshit. There isn’t one jot about harming “him” in my article. This isn’t about me. It is about the larger picture Salt.
You tell Dover that maybe gays had some benign reason to include bisexuals and a sincere intention to offer support? Who are you kidding? Who are the bisexuals who asked the gays to, oh please help us poor bisexuals. Rubbish.
Just because you seem to identify yourself as a gay person doesn’t mean that this is directed to you or any other individual.. And if you were in the “GLF” for two years in the 70s you’d know that the combined initials of LGBT were a later development and that this has really been and largely still is all about gays, as in LGQ. In the beginning it was the gay pride marches. Last year the Supreme Court legalized “same-sex” marriages. There was nothing said about bisexuals marrying a man and a woman. Today the transgenders are being fought over about bathrooms, for christsakes.
Now, for other readers of this site, allow me to reiterate the real thrust of my article in the last two paragraphs: “The beauty of bisexual people is that they can stand alone. They don’t need to be a part of any other group. Same-gender and opposite-gender attractions are beautiful as long as they are not conflated and codified, and, as long as they are not shoved into a box canyon of inclusion where they do not belong. If, however, homo-sapiens are ever in need of a sexual norm there is no question that bisexuality is perfectly suited to the task.
And, whether one thinks of themselves as bisexual, pansexual, demisexual, polysexual, ominsexual, polyamorous or “labelless” attractive – the fluidity of all sexual orientation is the best future for the freedom of human sexuality and the peace of humankind.”
So if you, Salt, really have been personally offended, then frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
The political is personal...
except for a certain womanizer who brags that he, does not give a damn.
Your contemptuous treatment of a certain local woman who rejected your advances is not the secret that you might imagine. You retaliated by publicly revealing her private mental health history to humiliate her.
I guess your “feminism,” isn’t about your personal behavior. “It is about the larger picture.” Hypocrite!
Soap
Now that we have a soap opera worked into my article, after my coffee break I’ll be eager to address the allegations made by George Salt (whoever he (or she) is.
Take the "B" out of LGBT. It really only should be LGQ.
First off, I’d like to say I’m sorry my article is debased with a personal attack, not unlike a computer virus that sustains a vicious virus attack. Nevertheless, the game is afoot.
I have to say, though, Far Out!! I have never been accused of being a womanizer before! I’m not sure I should be flattered or disgusted. Naturally, it is not true of course. Neither have I ever made “contemptuous” advances to “a certain local woman who rejected” my alleged “advances.” That’s laughable and never happened.
Moreover, never have I revealed anyone’s “private mental health history to humiliate” them (her).” None of the above comment states what “publicly” means.
As misstated by George, however, it does narrow down my suspicions of who it is, since “George Salt” is certainly a pseudonym, that disguises the “the writer” who could be a woman or man.
Furthermore, I don’t have “feminism.” I am a feminist, as any good man should be.
George, dear, are you a woman, or “that” woman? Or are you a man who is sent to do your worst? In either case, it doesn’t matter. I have a number of people who have very positively commented to my article, especially the take the “B” out of LGBT. It really only should be LGQ.