After a fellow author commented on her frustrations with “lgbt” review sites that really only review m/m (gay) books, I was reminded again how much I hate the way so much of our community is geared toward or based on gay men—and a very narrow subset of them at that.
There is nothing wrong with exclusivity by itself. Why shouldn’t upper-middle-class white gay cis men have things to read and relate to? That’s really not a big deal in isolation. It’s not good for anyone to only experience the perspective of their own group (and this is really not a problem for people outside the dominant culture). However, everyone wants to see people they relate to.
The real problem is when that group assumes their narrative applies to everyone. This applies to publications, review sites, books, and television. On the surface and in name, the whole rainbow is supposedly represented. Yet there’s an unspoken agreement that one group speaks for all of us.
When we challenge it—when those of us not represented stand up to it—we’re told it shouldn’t matter or that we’re bullies or biased or being unfair. When we talk about the overt misogyny found in m/m romance or the fact that The Advocate relegates women, bisexuals, and trans people (but not men) to subsets or the way activism fixates on the ways religious bigotry hurts gay men*, we’re suddenly the problem.
My least favorite response to this has been, “But it’s to increase acceptance of gay and bi men because society already is okay with lesbians and bi women.” No. Society objectifies us; that’s not acceptance. Also, no word on how that even remotely helps trans people become more visible and accepted. We’re rendered invisible in queer lit and media unless we make ourselves seen, just as all of us are in our wider society.
This isn’t some zero-sum game of More Oppressed than Thou. I could probably play my bingo cards on that one all day. That isn’t the point. One group does not deserve more attention than another, and certainly not from supposedly inclusive organizations and media.
If you’re going to call yourself “lgbt,” then BE inclusive. Give equal time to every part of the spectrum. Do not focus on one letter at the exclusion of the others or even more heavily than the others. Otherwise, call yourself by the one (or possibly two) letters you represent and own your exclusivity. That way, those of us not in your scope will know to avoid you.
*See the recent furor over “My Husband’s Not Gay,” the upcoming TLC show about “not gay” married Mormon men. Wonder where a similar show about “My Wife’s Not a Lesbian” is. It’s assumed that women are never put in therapy to become “straight” or that ex-gay therapy is the only/most harmful thing that could happen to a person. I guess being pressured/coerced/forced into marriage and expected to be sexually available doesn’t really count. Maybe it’s assumed women in religious cultures don’t want sex anyway and have to be convinced to do it, so there’s no extra level of harm to a woman who isn’t straight. Or maybe it’s assumed that women can “fake it” more easily because a woman doesn’t need to be aroused to have sex with her husband. Don’t even get me started on “therapy” for trans people, which is undeniably just as bad as any ex-gay therapy.
