In which I explore how NZ group InsideOUT, meant to defend gay and lesbian kids, denies their very existence, how this bizarre situation arose, and how InsideOUT can fix it.
Plus InsideOut is a member of ILGA which is a signatory to a (supposedly) feminist document which, however, promotes action to "Eliminate all laws and policies … that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, to provide consent to sex … "
WHO (the World Health Organisation) considers adolescents to be people from 10 – 19 years old. Therefore they support kids having complete say-so of when they have sex.
Sorry did not see this earlier. That is horrible. As I write Mermaids in the UK is under scrutiny (at last). Perhaps this is the moment to raise concerns (again) about InsideOUT?
InsideOUT are doing great work to support queer youth in finding language that reflects their lived experience. If a young gay teen finds himself attracted to a trans man, and they are both content to use the term "gay" or "homosexual" to define themselves, should InsideOUT insist they use the term "bisexual" instead to appease you? That seems weirdly intrusive on your part.
Feel free to chat with queer youth and convince them to redefine themselves based on the opinions of JK Rowling, and see how well they respond.
Kia ora Eli. I'm glad your experience of InsideOUT is good. We all need meaningful language to help name and describe our experiences. However, exclusive same-sex attraction, based on biological sex, is a real, valid and lived experience for thousands of young people whether you are familiar with it or not. It's obviously fine that some people are same-gender attracted and it's also fine that some people are same-sex attracted. By changing the meaning of gay etc to mean same gender sexuality, the words for same-sex sexuality disappears. I really hope that neither you nor InsideOUT want to stigmatise the sexualities previously-known-as-gay- and-lesbian or to exclude it from the rainbow.
So we agree on at least two points here: meaningful language to describe our experiences is necessary. Exclusive same-sex attraction is real. I love common ground!
Where we seem to disagree is in biological essentialism. I might be cis, but talking to my trans and non-binary whanau helped me learn that sex AND gender can extend beyond a binary, even if that's not my personal experience.
InsideOUT have more inclusive definitions of terms to reflect the experiences of the students they support. It's not to erase the identity of people for whom same-sex sexuality is how they understand themselves. If that definition sits right with you, use it all you please to define yourself. Respect that other's don't see themselves the same way instead of crying conspiracy. Noone is trying to erase the gays and lesbians who view themselves through the lens of same-sex attraction. That's your pejorative. You're still a part of the rainbow, there's just more shades in the spectrum these days. That's a good thing! Arohanui.
Second point. In terms of going beyond the binary, I am guessing you have learnt that we all have an outer sex and an inner gender or something like that, and that there are a range of sexes and gender. Just a reminder, you are not being taught facts, but are being introduced to a world view-a faith-based belief system- that interprets facts in a particular way. You and your whānau, are, of course, entitled to hold that faith, but it is not the world view of everyone.
Others are entitled to their world view as well. Many of us believe in a biological sex that just is, not "assigned" at birth, but just a description of what is there. Some of us don't believe in an inner gender at all, though understand that people may call their feelings about their sex "gender". It is believers in gender ideology, not us, who believe in an inner "essence" of what it is to be a woman or a man, we just know those words to be scientific descriptions. We understand gender dysphoria as people's feelings about their sex are causing them distress or not feeling right. Trans people, and gender dysphoric people, need of course to be supported to live full and good lives and their human rights to be upheld.
We also see the way "gender" is used now as a way to continue extremely harmful stereotypes about acceptable behaviour. We think some gender dysphoria is because of people not feeling like they fit sterotypes. We find it worrying that effeminate boys and butch girls, rather than being celebrated as wonderful variations within a sex, are learning that there is something wrong with them (rather than the society that condemns them) and that they must transition. And before you deny it, that very thing is happening all the time.
To return to InsideOUT, if they are of the gender faith, and do not believe in the science of human biology (and therefore incidentally evolution) and do not believe that someone can legitimately have attractions to a biological sex, they need to be honest about that. If they do, they need to make it clear. That's all.
Okay, so a couple of points. First to your substantial paragraph. We agree that exclusive same-sex attracted young people, like everyone else, exist and should have meaningful words to name their own experience. Great. InsideOUT has a responsibility wider than just describing their own beliefs about and experiences of sexuality. They set themselves up as an authority on sexuality, they produce resources and run workshops, and they are attempting to shape the acceptable language that people can use, they have a glossary even! Young people turn to them and place trust in what they are saying. And nowhere in that glossary (or anywhere else on the site that I have found) does InsideOUT provide a word or explanation that says persistent exclusive same-sex attraction is a common sexuality and that it is perfectly fine. You imply all young people see themselves the same way, but InsideOUT, is not giving any room or language to yp who may see themselves a different way. How could they even explain it when the words have gone. That IS erasure.
The imposition by InsideOUT of a fluid, gender-based, spectrumy idea of sexuality is another way to stifle and control gayness. It's another form of 1950s parents who don't want to acknowledge their gay kid, or insist it is just a phase, or they're being taken advantage of. Further, there is a lot of hate being dumped on exclusive same-sex attracted people at the moment, by some members of the trans community or those who ally with them as per the examples I have given. InsideOUT, if they want to represent exclusively gay yp, as well as the others need to stand up against that. In what world will an exclusively gay young person dare to name that, if they are told, as many are, that that is hateful, transphobic and bigoted. That's just the new way of being told they, for having that sexuality, are immoral. OR InsideOUT need to openly acknowledge that their remit does not include those people.
If a young boy is attracted to a gender non-conforming girl who identifies as a boy, then he is not gay and the use of term homosexuality and gay for this relationship is inappropriate (as he is heterosexual or at least bisexual) .
Also really creepy that for your example relationship you created a relationship between a young boy and a trans "man".
Also queer is a homophobic slur against gay men, and whilst political lesbians have supposedly reclaimed it, the term is not theirs to reclaim considering a considerable number of gay men still find it completely offensive.
I'm starting from the basic premise that an individual understands their own identity better than I can - even if working out the language to describe that spectrum takes work. Which is to say that trans men are men and trans women are women. If a gay teen is attracted to a another gay teen, and they both see themselves as gay men, then they're gay, and it's none of your business if one of them was born with a vagina. It's not your relationship to define.
Apologies if it wasn't clear in my first post, both the people involved in my hypothetical are teenagers. Heck, they're both 17 and saving themselves for gay marriage, just to ensure the scenario is both above the age of consent, and explicitly not about their sex life. Just to hedge our bets on willful misreading.
"Queer" is a solid parallel, thank you for mentioning it. For a lot of people it is a slur, but the usage has shifted -especially among the newer generation- to incorporate new meanings. For some people it is still a sensitive point, so I'll respect you enough not to use it to describe you. Bewilderingly, holding an understanding of these dual contexts costs me nothing, doesn't actually change how I understand the phrase, or erase *my* identity as a queer man. Isn't language fascinating?
The thing is Eli, gay, lesbian, bisexual people have already "worked out the language" to describe their experience. It took decades to get gay people accepted. Can you not see how disrespectful it is to unilaterally make a call to undermine the language and once again make exclusive-same sex attracted people, or bisexual people fight again to be seen. It is invalidating and it is homophobic to deny their existence. And again, show me where InsideOUT acknowledges those people exist.
I'm glad the LGB part of the family were able to work out the language to describe their experience. We're still working to get trans people accepted, and it's a shame that you see this as a threat, rather than a continuation of the work that has been in progress for decades. Can you point out specifically where we perfected language? Because if 1986 was also when the LGBT+ community were supposed to call it a day and stop making progress, I think some whanau missed the memo.
Respecting (and even sleeping with) trans men and non-binary people didn't make me any less gay. Letting the next generation of LGBT+ people feel accepted doesn't erase you. I'm sorry that happy, trans youth threaten your identity so much. But I don't think that's on InsideOUT.
Oh it's been a treat Eli but we're 'done. You've reverted to the throwing out random presumptions and insults to me stage.
Quite hilarious that you still don't quite seem to believe there are exclusive persistent same sex gay young people. Like it's an old people's thing and the new generation is totally different to every generation before.
I am thinking maybe you think a secret queer meteorite hit Earth in 2000 and from that day no babies were born that would grow up to be so rude and old school as to be same sex attracted for ever. (That would be quite fascinating but I just don't believe it). And then you try and lecture me about inclusivity. Bahaha.
Psst, spoiler, exclusively same sex gay young people are all around you, they just don't feel safe admitting it to you. Cheerio.
Great expose of InsideOUT. I think this organisation is insidious, whether it's intentional or not. Over the course of ten documents in their school guidelines they mention the words trans or transgender over 600 times, and lesbian only 44 times. Intersex and gay fare better, but are still way, way less than the words trans and transgender. In every instance of guidance, everyone has to give way to transpeople's wants. Tell me where their focus is, eh?
Wow. And even with inflated, dubious and ever burgeoning statistics on the number of trans young people is there anything that says they would outnumber lesbians?
Nothing at all. But I would imagine that they might start doing that, as confused young woman now get told they're probably trans. Having said that, non-binary seems to be getting popular, so if nothing else that seems like a better option that the trans thing while they grow and mature.
Plus InsideOut is a member of ILGA which is a signatory to a (supposedly) feminist document which, however, promotes action to "Eliminate all laws and policies … that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, to provide consent to sex … "
WHO (the World Health Organisation) considers adolescents to be people from 10 – 19 years old. Therefore they support kids having complete say-so of when they have sex.
Sorry did not see this earlier. That is horrible. As I write Mermaids in the UK is under scrutiny (at last). Perhaps this is the moment to raise concerns (again) about InsideOUT?
InsideOUT are doing great work to support queer youth in finding language that reflects their lived experience. If a young gay teen finds himself attracted to a trans man, and they are both content to use the term "gay" or "homosexual" to define themselves, should InsideOUT insist they use the term "bisexual" instead to appease you? That seems weirdly intrusive on your part.
Feel free to chat with queer youth and convince them to redefine themselves based on the opinions of JK Rowling, and see how well they respond.
there is no such thing as transition. it is impossible to change sex.
Kia ora Eli. I'm glad your experience of InsideOUT is good. We all need meaningful language to help name and describe our experiences. However, exclusive same-sex attraction, based on biological sex, is a real, valid and lived experience for thousands of young people whether you are familiar with it or not. It's obviously fine that some people are same-gender attracted and it's also fine that some people are same-sex attracted. By changing the meaning of gay etc to mean same gender sexuality, the words for same-sex sexuality disappears. I really hope that neither you nor InsideOUT want to stigmatise the sexualities previously-known-as-gay- and-lesbian or to exclude it from the rainbow.
So we agree on at least two points here: meaningful language to describe our experiences is necessary. Exclusive same-sex attraction is real. I love common ground!
Where we seem to disagree is in biological essentialism. I might be cis, but talking to my trans and non-binary whanau helped me learn that sex AND gender can extend beyond a binary, even if that's not my personal experience.
InsideOUT have more inclusive definitions of terms to reflect the experiences of the students they support. It's not to erase the identity of people for whom same-sex sexuality is how they understand themselves. If that definition sits right with you, use it all you please to define yourself. Respect that other's don't see themselves the same way instead of crying conspiracy. Noone is trying to erase the gays and lesbians who view themselves through the lens of same-sex attraction. That's your pejorative. You're still a part of the rainbow, there's just more shades in the spectrum these days. That's a good thing! Arohanui.
Second point. In terms of going beyond the binary, I am guessing you have learnt that we all have an outer sex and an inner gender or something like that, and that there are a range of sexes and gender. Just a reminder, you are not being taught facts, but are being introduced to a world view-a faith-based belief system- that interprets facts in a particular way. You and your whānau, are, of course, entitled to hold that faith, but it is not the world view of everyone.
Others are entitled to their world view as well. Many of us believe in a biological sex that just is, not "assigned" at birth, but just a description of what is there. Some of us don't believe in an inner gender at all, though understand that people may call their feelings about their sex "gender". It is believers in gender ideology, not us, who believe in an inner "essence" of what it is to be a woman or a man, we just know those words to be scientific descriptions. We understand gender dysphoria as people's feelings about their sex are causing them distress or not feeling right. Trans people, and gender dysphoric people, need of course to be supported to live full and good lives and their human rights to be upheld.
We also see the way "gender" is used now as a way to continue extremely harmful stereotypes about acceptable behaviour. We think some gender dysphoria is because of people not feeling like they fit sterotypes. We find it worrying that effeminate boys and butch girls, rather than being celebrated as wonderful variations within a sex, are learning that there is something wrong with them (rather than the society that condemns them) and that they must transition. And before you deny it, that very thing is happening all the time.
To return to InsideOUT, if they are of the gender faith, and do not believe in the science of human biology (and therefore incidentally evolution) and do not believe that someone can legitimately have attractions to a biological sex, they need to be honest about that. If they do, they need to make it clear. That's all.
Okay, so a couple of points. First to your substantial paragraph. We agree that exclusive same-sex attracted young people, like everyone else, exist and should have meaningful words to name their own experience. Great. InsideOUT has a responsibility wider than just describing their own beliefs about and experiences of sexuality. They set themselves up as an authority on sexuality, they produce resources and run workshops, and they are attempting to shape the acceptable language that people can use, they have a glossary even! Young people turn to them and place trust in what they are saying. And nowhere in that glossary (or anywhere else on the site that I have found) does InsideOUT provide a word or explanation that says persistent exclusive same-sex attraction is a common sexuality and that it is perfectly fine. You imply all young people see themselves the same way, but InsideOUT, is not giving any room or language to yp who may see themselves a different way. How could they even explain it when the words have gone. That IS erasure.
The imposition by InsideOUT of a fluid, gender-based, spectrumy idea of sexuality is another way to stifle and control gayness. It's another form of 1950s parents who don't want to acknowledge their gay kid, or insist it is just a phase, or they're being taken advantage of. Further, there is a lot of hate being dumped on exclusive same-sex attracted people at the moment, by some members of the trans community or those who ally with them as per the examples I have given. InsideOUT, if they want to represent exclusively gay yp, as well as the others need to stand up against that. In what world will an exclusively gay young person dare to name that, if they are told, as many are, that that is hateful, transphobic and bigoted. That's just the new way of being told they, for having that sexuality, are immoral. OR InsideOUT need to openly acknowledge that their remit does not include those people.
If a young boy is attracted to a gender non-conforming girl who identifies as a boy, then he is not gay and the use of term homosexuality and gay for this relationship is inappropriate (as he is heterosexual or at least bisexual) .
Also really creepy that for your example relationship you created a relationship between a young boy and a trans "man".
Also queer is a homophobic slur against gay men, and whilst political lesbians have supposedly reclaimed it, the term is not theirs to reclaim considering a considerable number of gay men still find it completely offensive.
Kia ora KingDick,
I'm starting from the basic premise that an individual understands their own identity better than I can - even if working out the language to describe that spectrum takes work. Which is to say that trans men are men and trans women are women. If a gay teen is attracted to a another gay teen, and they both see themselves as gay men, then they're gay, and it's none of your business if one of them was born with a vagina. It's not your relationship to define.
Apologies if it wasn't clear in my first post, both the people involved in my hypothetical are teenagers. Heck, they're both 17 and saving themselves for gay marriage, just to ensure the scenario is both above the age of consent, and explicitly not about their sex life. Just to hedge our bets on willful misreading.
"Queer" is a solid parallel, thank you for mentioning it. For a lot of people it is a slur, but the usage has shifted -especially among the newer generation- to incorporate new meanings. For some people it is still a sensitive point, so I'll respect you enough not to use it to describe you. Bewilderingly, holding an understanding of these dual contexts costs me nothing, doesn't actually change how I understand the phrase, or erase *my* identity as a queer man. Isn't language fascinating?
The thing is Eli, gay, lesbian, bisexual people have already "worked out the language" to describe their experience. It took decades to get gay people accepted. Can you not see how disrespectful it is to unilaterally make a call to undermine the language and once again make exclusive-same sex attracted people, or bisexual people fight again to be seen. It is invalidating and it is homophobic to deny their existence. And again, show me where InsideOUT acknowledges those people exist.
I'm reminded of Merriam-Webster's response to linguistic prescriptivists.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally
I'm glad the LGB part of the family were able to work out the language to describe their experience. We're still working to get trans people accepted, and it's a shame that you see this as a threat, rather than a continuation of the work that has been in progress for decades. Can you point out specifically where we perfected language? Because if 1986 was also when the LGBT+ community were supposed to call it a day and stop making progress, I think some whanau missed the memo.
Respecting (and even sleeping with) trans men and non-binary people didn't make me any less gay. Letting the next generation of LGBT+ people feel accepted doesn't erase you. I'm sorry that happy, trans youth threaten your identity so much. But I don't think that's on InsideOUT.
Oh it's been a treat Eli but we're 'done. You've reverted to the throwing out random presumptions and insults to me stage.
Quite hilarious that you still don't quite seem to believe there are exclusive persistent same sex gay young people. Like it's an old people's thing and the new generation is totally different to every generation before.
I am thinking maybe you think a secret queer meteorite hit Earth in 2000 and from that day no babies were born that would grow up to be so rude and old school as to be same sex attracted for ever. (That would be quite fascinating but I just don't believe it). And then you try and lecture me about inclusivity. Bahaha.
Psst, spoiler, exclusively same sex gay young people are all around you, they just don't feel safe admitting it to you. Cheerio.
Great expose of InsideOUT. I think this organisation is insidious, whether it's intentional or not. Over the course of ten documents in their school guidelines they mention the words trans or transgender over 600 times, and lesbian only 44 times. Intersex and gay fare better, but are still way, way less than the words trans and transgender. In every instance of guidance, everyone has to give way to transpeople's wants. Tell me where their focus is, eh?
Wow. And even with inflated, dubious and ever burgeoning statistics on the number of trans young people is there anything that says they would outnumber lesbians?
Nothing at all. But I would imagine that they might start doing that, as confused young woman now get told they're probably trans. Having said that, non-binary seems to be getting popular, so if nothing else that seems like a better option that the trans thing while they grow and mature.