with Stephen Meyler

#PrideControversy

#GayGentrification

YOUR LABELS ARE SHOWING

Ahead of the pope’s shindig for some kinds of families, a colleague was interviewing Mary McAleese. He had interviewed her before many years ago and was a little puzzled when he was covering her involvement in the struggle for gay rights. In the earlier interview, people were demanding LGBT rights, whereas now, we are reportedly concerned with LGBTQIA+ rights.

Like some unwieldy Germanic language, the praiseworthy urge of the politically correct to be as inclusive as possible has made an uncomfortably agglutinative acronym out of how ‘we’ describe ourselves. guess the hope of whoever decides these things (Who are they? What do they want?) is in some small way to soothe the centuries of prejudice aimed at every one of these groups. But at what point in ‘our’ journey to a hopefully accepting and celebrating future should we acknowledge that just maybe this one size fits all method might not be helpful? Right now, the moral imperative for cis gay men (the G or even Q bit of the acronym) is to maintain a hard solidarity with the female and female-identifying members of the spectrum. If gay men are further along the road to total acceptance, then we should be looking back and waiting, and helping the others to catch up.

The LGBTQIA+ label is created in the image of standard issue heterosexuality, as an identity of difference.

In the 1960s and ’70s, when the struggle for LG rights was far more influenced by radical and feminist theories, not to mention the experience of a more misogynistic society, many gay women were uncomfortable or opposed to throwing their lot in with gay men. They felt that their voices and concerns would be inevitably swamped by the greater cultural and economic clout of men in the movement. By and large, they were right; even if some of the strongest and most eff ective voices in the gay rights movement have been and are women, a gay male world view adheres in most people’s ideas of what gay is.

Now, the conversation in many western countries is about trans rights, from bathroom battles to birth certs and the right of minors to describe their gender as they wish. Progress is happening, using the roadmap to equality created by gay men and lesbians. That doesn’t mean the rest of the spectrum is fully on board though. Some lesbians are feeling that old fear of being swamped and drowned out of the debate by trans women (who may have been cis men), while gay men, with their bright present and brighter future of gay prime ministers and ever-growing acceptance and visibility, are tempted to regard the struggle of trans people as an unwelcome association.

The LGBTQIA+ label (or whichever one you prefer) is an oppositional one anyway: it is created in the image of standard issue heterosexuality, as an identity of diff erence. Do integrationist gay men still revel in their queerness? Do trans people, as well as the later IA+ additions to the spectrum see much diff erence between the attitudes of many gay men and straight ones? While heterosexuality remains the colourless, unlabelled base upon which the rainbow colours are painted, the acronym of the excluded is only going to get longer.

CAN’T EVEN ACT STRAIGHT

Campy but heterosexual UK funnyman Jack Whitehall is to play a campy gay character in a Disney film. He joins The Rock and Emily Blunt in a kids’ ick about a hunt for a magic tree, a story based on one of the rides in the Disney theme parks.

While Disney has had gay characters pop up in its TV output, until now, the lucrative film arm of the Haus of Maus, which includes the endless franchises of Marvel and Star Wars, has steered clear of gays. The usual explanation for this is that Disney fears gays would be a problem in the Asian markets, where they make a lot of wedge from Thor and the gang. Even the sidekick in Beauty and the Beast was suddenly not so gay when the movie was released globally.

No surprise there: Disney is about making as much money as it can from the entertainment industry after all. More interesting are the questions about straight actors playing gay characters, especially ones described as camp. It won’t be much of a stretch for Jack Whitehall, but is it okay for a gay role to be open to straight actors? Of course, most people will say – why should an actor’s personal life have any bearing on their job? This would be obviously correct if not caring about the actor’s sexuality worked both ways, but it most definitely does not.

In Hollywood, there are no A-list male actors who are also out gay men. The money men regard casting gay actors in straight roles as a financial risk, imposing this fear on the audiences they so often underestimate. So, while having better and more gay characters in mainstream movies is a step forward, casting straight actors to play them is a happy indiff erence not aff orded to their gay brethren.