Comments on: "Are you a gay Republican or a Republican gay?"

"Are you a gay Republican or a Republican gay?"

spamandkimchi — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:17:56 -0800

Interviews with the author of Coming Out Republican: A History of the Gay Right, Neil J. Young, on the podcast Conspirituality & at the Culture Study newsletter: The handful of lesbian Republicans contended that supporting reproductive freedom was consistent with gay Republicans' belief in personal autonomy and limited government, "when we say the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms, this is what that means!" However, even though a slight majority of Log Cabin members consistently called themselves pro-choice, more didn't want the organization to take a public position because they thought that abortion wasn't a "gay issue."

Also from the Culture Study interview:

you have this other set of guys, mostly out in California, who are able to be more open about their sexuality and develop a more integrated public identity as homosexuals. They have a more consistent libertarian politics — at least when it comes to their own lives. They want a constrained government that doesn't have the power to come after their private lives or interfere with their businesses: low taxes, little regulation, and no surveillance and criminalization of homosexual activity. Yet as the federal government and state and local authorities begin to end their coordinated harassment of homosexuals' lives in the 1970s, gay Republicans start to shift some of their views about the role of the government, especially police power. Now that law enforcement isn't going after them, they began to support things like robust police budgets, harsher sentencing laws, and "tough-on-crime" politicians. It's one of the ways I think we see a fairly consistent habit that gay Republicans have of not only abandoning their critiques of the misuse of government power when it is no longer directed at them but to actually advocating for that use of government power towards others, including Black and Brown persons, immigrants, Muslims, and women, as a way of showing their belonging within the larger conservative community.

By: Capt. Renault

Capt. Renault — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:24:50 -0800

Bodily autonomy isn't a gay issue?

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:34:36 -0800

Now that law enforcement isn't going after them, they began to support things like robust police budgets, harsher sentencing laws, and "tough-on-crime" politicians. Translation: Got mine. Fuck you.

By: spamandkimchi

spamandkimchi — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:45:03 -0800

More from the Culture Study interview (line breaks and emphases added): Anne Helen Petersen: You write that "when gay Republicans say, as they often have, that it was 'harder to come out as Republican than as gay,' they are heightening all Republicans' sense of victimhood." The first time I read the book, I underlined that passage four times. Can you talk about how that idea becomes central to Gay Republican identity and also facilitates their inclusion within the party? Neil J. Young: In the 1980s and 1990s, this comment circulated mostly within gay and lesbian media, places like the magazine The Advocate. It was a way for gay Republicans then to scold the gay rights movement which they felt was ostracizing them for their political views and betraying their supposed adherence to liberal values like tolerance and inclusion. In the 1990s and early 2000s, gay Republicans began voicing this line to the mainstream national media outlets that were giving them lots of attention, places like the Washington Post, New York Times, and even GQ magazine. These publications tended to fawn over the "normalness" of the gay Republicans they wrote about, by which they meant their straight-acting, gender-conforming, conservative-dressing presentation. (Almost all of those profiled, it should be noted, were white men.) At the same time, all of these articles had an underlying befuddlement to them. Essentially, why would any gay person belong to the Republican Party? Now, that's not a bad question. In fact, it's one of my book's central interrogations. But gay Republicans in these years learned that saying it had been harder for them to come out as Republican than as gay was one of the ways they got that sympathetic and even admiring coverage in the first place. Their narrative presented them as both brave but also doubly-burdened. Not only did they have to come out as gay, they also had to come out as Republican! And it redirected the focus away from a homophobic political party they were valiantly trying to make better towards a hostile LGBTQ community that would ostracize and excommunicate some of its own members just because of how they voted.

By: uncleozzy

uncleozzy — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:13:09 -0800

This just in: queer people can be assholes too! For real, though, some of the most virulently hateful people I've met have been (wealthy, white) gay men. If you want a demonstration of literally every point in this interview, take a brief scroll through /r/gaybros (or don't; it's probably better not to). one of the things that has happened more recently is a spirited assertion of being gay or lesbian rather than LGBTQ or queer This trend is really one of the most disturbing things to me. It's sort of ... I don't know if funny is the right word, but let's go with it ... that these conservative queer men finally feel comfortable enough with their position in society that they can start throwing everyone else under the bus.

By: mittens

mittens — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:33:00 -0800

I wish the Culture Study interview had touched on class, on wealth. We've watched in recent years as gay men have been cast as villains--as, politically, the worst of the queer spectrum because the closest to power--which strikes me as a very dangerous and unfair thing to do. It's really important not to throw gay guys under the bus! Even if they're white! We need a finer-grained analysis, because otherwise that's exactly what will happen. (And Young does point this out in the interview, when it comes to voters--we just don't know who is doing the voting, in much detail.) Also now I need to see an ophthalmologist from my eyes rolling back into my skull when I got to the bit about "radical gender ideology."

By: Countess Elena

Countess Elena — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:42:50 -0800

These all strike me as meetings of big cat owners who want to help their face-eating leopards learn to walk on a leash, use the litterbox, and spend time with the family. (Although actual leopards can be much tamer than Republicans; I think wolverines would make more sense for the joke.) I can understand that spending time with sour leftists is exhausting, because I can absolutely be one of those people. But being LGBT on the right is playing with fire in a particularly stupid way, even if you genuinely don't care about others. Matt Gaetz has survived his career so far while George Santos hasn't, and I don't think that's an accident. (Also, where's Milo, hmm? You see anything of him these days?)

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:51:56 -0800

George Santos hasn't He only got thrown under the bus when it emerged he was stiffing fellow Republicans via credit card fraud. If he had just stuck with fleecing the proles like Trump, Republicans would have enjoyed his mayhem till the Earth melts.

By: Selena777

Selena777 — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:00:41 -0800

Milo is working with Kanye West.

By: GenjiandProust

GenjiandProust — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:01:43 -0800

It's sort of ... I don't know if funny is the right word, but let's go with it ... that these conservative queer men finally feel comfortable enough with their position in society that they can start throwing everyone else under the bus. Then you need to read more LGBTQ+ history. Straight-acting/appearing gays and lesbians (especially if they are rich and white) have been distancing themselves from raucous street queers (especially poor and people of color) since lesbian and gay groups have existed. The Mattachine Society more or less purged itself of its leftist founders in the 50s. none of the "respectable groups" (for the sliver of respectability available) were pleased with Stonewall or the early Pride parades, and, once it became kind of OK to be out, they used their influence to marginalize transgender people, drag performers, leather people, and other "freaks." Back in the 90s, it wasn't particularly rare to read gay men bemoaning that they had to vote Democrat to preserve their human rights, when they really wanted to vote Republican. "Mainstream gays and lesbians" complained about ACT UP in respectable LG publications. Any time you have a marginalized group, there will be more privileged members who don't want to rock the boat to much in order to preserved that privilege. They will grudgingly accept the gains that the less-privileged with less to lose gain through agitation, but that doesn't mean that they have to like it. And they will abandon the activists the minute it's possible. Privilege is a hell of a drug,

By: mittens

mittens — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:15:42 -0800

And YET: "But when I dove into the research and started looking at the early years of the first gay Republican clubs, including CRIR, and especially the guys who founded and were active in them, I was pretty surprised by what I found. Those original guys were wild! The San Francisco club had a huge portion of its members that were very active in the city's S&M and leather scene, and the San Diego organization was started by a drag queen former sex worker."

By: Jacen

Jacen — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:27:08 -0800

I dunno guys.... If you're tired of being called evil, maybe just.... Stop voting for the evil party that hates human rights? No? Too radical?

By: Ber

Ber — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:31:46 -0800

I have a friend who grew up about a block from me. He was always a contradiction. He adopted his parents' political views, which were old school Republican. Though he professed to be straight, his relationships with women from college to his eventual marriage always ended abruptly. His interests were always in fashion, home decorating, grooming, musical theater, every gay stereotype there was. We figured he would come out eventually, there were rumors of him "experimenting" when out of town. He worked in banking and was overly self-conscious about how he was perceived. In his fifties, he met a man at a financial institution that he worked at and they ended up moving to FL, eventually getting married. We saw him at his father's funeral and my wife made a crack about DeSantis. Our old friend immediately leapt to DeSatan's defense, as did his husband. Two white men of means sticking to the party line. Privilege is indeed a helluva drug.

By: schoolgirl report

schoolgirl report — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:32:41 -0800

"The handful of lesbian Republicans contended that supporting reproductive freedom was consistent with gay Republicans' belief in personal autonomy and limited government..." Okay but you could avoid the need to find "consistency" and just align with the party that actually supports reproductive freedom.

By: jenfullmoon

jenfullmoon — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:47:13 -0800

I read the description of Ber's friend and thought, "Rod from Avenue Q." I don't know if funny is the right word, but let's go with it ... that these conservative queer men finally feel comfortable enough with their position in society that they can start throwing everyone else under the bus. Yeah, I suspect that being gay Republicans with money and suits just puts them farther down the list of who to persecute next, and I'm surprised they don't realize that. I also don't get how stupid-ass Caitlyn Jenner thinks she can be Republican and trans and that those two things combined are going to work out for her.

By: GenjiandProust

GenjiandProust — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:05:38 -0800

I mean Blaire White is kind of making it work for her.... I think the problem is that wishing your preferred political party would make space for you is self-defeating when that political party's platform includes your erasure. If you are rich enough, they might ignore you or at least ignore you for now, but they won't accept you, and you are more disposable than most people would want. See Dave Rubin debasing himself trying to get Ben Shapiro to agree that his marriage was valid. Nothing you can do will make them respect or accept you.

By: kokaku

kokaku — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:49:18 -0800

Caitlyn Jenner is wealthy first and foremost. Her medical transition was easily purchased given her means and now she gets to be a useful idiot for the right.

By: eustatic

eustatic — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:02:41 -0800

These people aren't gay so much as they are rich There's your problem. Take their money away. With taxes.

By: praemunire

praemunire — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:19:38 -0800

They have a more consistent libertarian politics — at least when it comes to their own lives. Their problem with the patriarchy was always that they thought they shouldn't have been disqualified as patriarchs. I find these people (and, sorry, 95% of them are men) infuriating. A straight white Christian guy can float in the warm bubble bath of lies about how America is equal for all now for a long time. Even a white gay guy born and raised in San Francisco and working in tech all his life knows this isn't true. To side with the patriarchy--not just as a practical, survival matter, but ideologically--is making a conscious choice of privilege over justice.

By: nixon's meatloaf

nixon's meatloaf — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:02:11 -0800

Having listened to the interview on Conspirituality, I'm also curious about the author's own politics. He seems to be on a podcast that advertises as "an alternative to the reflexive and polarized world of punditry" and slides in some dogwhistle flavored stuff about trans people and "gender ideology". I get so fucking tired of policing these boundaries, but here we go again.

By: mittens

mittens — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:44:54 -0800

I don't hear the dogwhistle, personally. He does talk about the problem of using the historian's voice--distant, third-person, seemingly uninvolved--to talk about this stuff, and the danger there of people interpreting that as agreement, or even seeing his work as some sort of memoir. But he feels that that distance is really necessary to tell this story in a way that people on the right will listen to. But even so, yeah, I mean, you kind of wait for an actual opinion from him, and it doesn't appear to be forthcoming. He talks about the way the right is utilizing gay men as victims of "gender ideology" as interesting--and it is, it's weird and crazy and interesting ("if there are no more men, then there are no more gays, we on the right are the only ones protecting the gays, take THAT leftists!")--but I kept waiting in that section for him to say, "And of course that's fucking ridiculous." Because like clearly there's a lie-by-naturalization going on in this whole history: They are foisting an IDEOLOGY on us, whereas our view of ourselves is wholly natural and not at all informed by society or our political environment. It's the core pattern of homophobia and transphobia, natural-us versus weird-modern-invention-them, it's central to the medicalization efforts that made homosexuality into a mental illness. And it's weird to hear a historian not give much time to that mechanism. You don't even have to say "that's awful, that's the worst thing ever, it's the secret engine of death in our culture"--you can just point out that it's a lie.

By: nixon's meatloaf

nixon's meatloaf — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:19:44 -0800

The dogwhistle I'm referring to is how he talks about trans kids.