Backyardserenade

backyardserenade

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 04 2012
Agree wit
I agree with a lot of what you say, even though my outlook on it might be a bit different. Where you might see pure tokenism, I might sense a (even though sometimes inedequate) gesture of solidarity. But besides my positive and your more negative spin, there are issues with the use of LGBT that I do recognize.

What I don't fully understand is your argument regarding the author's implied trans- or biphobia. To me, this seemed rather careless, based on the text that was cited and in light of the initial discussion in this thread. That said, I'm not familiar with the author's body of work (and wasn't initially aware you were). At least part of my dissagreement with your statement likely stems from that.

I am familiar with the issue of erasure. Not the least because this issue begins on an even more fundamental level in the German language, where the default gender for most words is masculine and women (and people not identifying with any particular gender) are often enough carelessly excluded from everyday speech. However, I still think there is one important difference here (as with your examples regarding racism): There erasure spreads through exclusion and monopolizing certain words, terms and phrases. LGBT is (at least superficially) a sign of awareness of non-exclusiveness. Even it's use in the cited article weakens your transphobia statement somewhat. As the author - again, superficially - included trans and bi initially, not mentioning them later mostly because the Queen not talking about gay issues already implies she's also not talking about those other topics. Which, of course, in itself can be critized.

But I don't want to look like I'm defending the author. I'm not. And I fully recognize that our sensibilities for these issues might differ somewhat. It's still a discussion too interesting to just dismiss it. :)
Unknown Person liked this
Lilith Von Fraumench

lilithvf1998

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 04 2012
It's bad when they say "LGBT" when they mean "cis gay". It's erasure, plain and simple. And again, it happens all the time. An author will mention LGBT, even take the time to spell out what it means, and then the rest of the article will discuss issues that *only* impact gays and lesbians. It's such a regular occurrence that it becomes frustrating to read articles from most mainstream gay/lesbian activists.

Am I "doing the same thing Thatchell [sic] did" if I point out that Tatchell is hardly alone in doing so, as I had? Is it wrong of me to point out that Tatchell does this regularly, such as here, where he mentions "transgender" at the beginning of an article about post-homophobic sexuality--a topic that is at best only incidentally connected to anything transgender?

And again, I'm discussing a systemic issue, not one necessarily aimed at Tatchell alone. In this case he is merely an example arising from the fact he was quoted in the first place.

As for the example, I fully recognize the issues are different, but my point was about erasure. It happened in another forum's thread on race, where it quickly devolved into whether it was ever OK to say the n-word, as if that was the only racial issue involved, as if African-Americans were the only ones to experience racism....

When I need to discuss transgender issues, I speak about transgender issues. When I need to discuss gay/lesbian issues, I speak about gay/lesbian issues. When I talk about bisexual/pansexual/polysexual issues, I talk about those issues from that point of view. It's only when discussing an issue that impacts ALL of us that I'll talk about LGBT issues. There is plenty common ground there--AIDS impacts us all here, violence impacts us all here, discrimination impacts us all here. But it still remains useful--and important--to distinguish how each impacts our community differently depending on what part of the community we're in. That's the part that disappears when "LGBT" is used carelessly as a synonym for "gay". And that is what I'm talking about.
Unknown Person liked this
Backyardserenade

backyardserenade

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012
I'm not entirely sure if you're not just doing the same thing Thatchell did, by saying he has issues with bisexuality or transidentity because he doesn't mention those topics (or cause he uses "LGBT").

The main problem here is likely that there is an implicated hierarchy when it comes to LGBTQ issues: If the Queen doesn't talk about gays and lesbians, she surely won't talk about bisexuality or even trans topics. If she's homophobic, there's no question that she's also biphobic and transphobic. There's some truth to that, of course. But that doesn't make it right. Not the least, because sexual orientation and sexual identity should be viewed as different (if complementary) aspects, but are often hastily thrown together into one bag.

But again, this is one of the aspects of visibility. Is it that bad when someone uses LGBT - even if they focus on gay issues more? Would you rather have them not include B&T at all? I wouldn't decry Thatchell for that. I'd also say the comparison with "people of color" is weak, because the issues at heart are different and the term has a very historically shaped connotation - wherass LGBT(Q) is especially used to emphasize that there is more to sexual orientation and identity than "gay".
Lilith Von Fraumench

lilithvf1998

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012
It is also worth noting that Peter Tatchell mentioned the words "bisexual" and "transgender" once in his article, and used the presumably inclusive acronym "LGBT" repeatedly, but otherwise focused on gays and lesbians instead. Since I am reasonably sure the Queen is no less transphobic or biphobic than she is homophobic, it seems to me that Tatchell has his own issues with transphobia and biphobia that are revealed through his own omission. Why didn't he ask the Queen's press office about whether the Queen mentioned the words "bisexual" and "transgender" in her speeches? Why didn't he mention biphobia or homophobia? Why use the LGBT fig leaf if the focus of the article only covers a portion of the community it represents?

I should point out that Tatchell is far from alone here. This curious omission masked by token inclusionary language happens a lot, and not just with cisgender gays and lesbians using "LGBT" when they mean "gay" or "lesbian." Discussions of racism in the US often only touches on its impact on African-Americans while using the term "people of color," a term that also covers dark-skinned Latino/as, Southeast Asians, Native Americans, etc. To reiterate, the issue is systemic, not individualistic.
2 people liked this
Lilith Von Fraumench

lilithvf1998

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012
There is an inherent problem with accusing individuals with having homophobia, transphobia, or any other privileged bias. Namely, we forget that these biases are systemic. While the UK may have come a long way, I'm sure it has a long way to go still. The Queen's silence and soft bigotry is ultimately symptomatic of the greater problem, and I seriously doubt she is alone here.
Lesley

LesleyA

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay commu

June 03 2012
Personally I dont think it is the place of the queen to express her personal views on such things as her role precludes her from having any.

Being head of the Commonwealth she oversees and tries to command the respect of many different nations, including those which are of the Evangelical persuasion which are totally homophobic to say the least. Having a pro gay stance could jeapordise her standing and political sway over those territories and thus diminish her standing in the world stage. It is far better for her to have NO opinions at all.
Linda Layne

Ltervlet

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012
I think "by default" comes into play when you don't actually put yourself in one particular category or another or deny being in a particular category. So rather than putting you in a "favorable" category, because you haven't broached the subject at all, they will automatically (or by default) put you in the undesirable category. Just a guess on my part though, because I could be absolutely off base on my assessment here. :whistle:

It was a very interesting article though..... ;)
Edited June 03 2012 by Ltervlet

Unknown Person

Re: Star Trek: The Journey

June 03 2012
:voy:


Episode 630 - Voyager - "Renaissance Man" - 05/16/2001

http://www.allstepisodes.com/megvid.php?n=4724

The Doctor is forced to help aliens steal Voyager's warp core.


Enjoy!
Angel

Angelsilhouette

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012
Quote by backyardserenade
It's an interesting article and a very curious topic. But I think the text might be a bit too judgmental and sensational.

You know, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has never publicly used the words "gay" or "lesbian", either. Is she a homophobe? Sure not. Does she dismiss LGBTQ people as the unspeakable ones? I don't think so. We have an openly gay secretary of state, after all. (I'm not too fond of either politician, but it was an example that came to my mind.)

Visibility is an issue. And a very important one at that. But calling the Queen homophobic cause she never talked about LGBTQ issues? For my taste that goes too far - and is just one of the many overuses of the word.


Well said.

I have a question about the OP, though...

How is one "homophobic by default"?
Backyardserenade

backyardserenade

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 02 2012
It's an interesting article and a very curious topic. But I think the text might be a bit too judgmental and sensational.

You know, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has never publicly used the words "gay" or "lesbian", either. Is she a homophobe? Sure not. Does she dismiss LGBTQ people as the unspeakable ones? I don't think so. We have an openly gay secretary of state, after all. (I'm not too fond of either politician, but it was an example that came to my mind.)

Visibility is an issue. And a very important one at that. But calling the Queen homophobic cause she never talked about LGBTQ issues? For my taste that goes too far - and is just one of the many overuses of the word.

Unknown Person

Re: Star Trek: The Journey

June 02 2012
:voy:


Episode 629 - Voyager - "Homestead" - 05/09/2001

http://www.allstepisodes.com/megvid.php?n=4723

Voyager encounters a Talaxian settlement leaving Neelix with the difficult decision of whether to leave the crew.


Enjoy!

Unknown Person

The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 02 2012
With it being the four-day Diamond Jubilee weekend and parties planned up and down Britain to celebrate our long-reigning monarch, I don't really want to poop on any ones enjoyment (as with the Royal Wedding, I think any reason to have some fun in the current economic climate is one we should take) but I think this article by gay-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell is worth a read.

Posted in the Guardian:
Ever since the public relations blunders at the time of Princess Diana's death, the Queen has gone to great lengths to be more in touch with the mood of country. She presents the monarchy as modern, compassionate and inclusive; often referring to the value of a diverse multicultural, multifaith society.

On one issue, however, she remains curiously out of step with public opinion. Whereas most of us now welcome and embrace lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, the Queen has never done so.

While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn't appear to gay-friendly. Not once in her 60-year reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT community – or gay members of her own royal family. The Queen has turned her back on queens.

While she has spoken approvingly of the UK's many races and faiths, for six decades she has ignored LGBT Britons. Judging from her silence, it seems that we are the unspeakable ones – the people she cannot bare to acknowledge or mention in public. Why the double standards?

Regardless of whether these omissions are a reflection of the Queen's personal views or the result of advice from her courtiers, as monarch she bears ultimate responsibility. Her silence sends a signal of exclusion and disrespect.

Astonishingly, since she became Queen in 1952, the words "gay" and "lesbian" have never publicly passed her lips. There is no record of her ever speaking them. Even when she announced government plans for gay law reform in her Queen's speeches, she did not use the words lesbian or gay. Apparently, mentioning LGBT people is beneath the dignity of the monarch.

The Queen visits many charities and welfare organisations. But never in 60 years has she visited a gay charity or welfare agency. She has, for example, ignored deserving gay charities like the Albert Kennedy Trust and Stonewall Housing, which support homeless LGBT youth. Although she is a patron of many good causes, none of them are gay or serve the gay community.

Defenders of the monarchy point out that many royal staff are gay men. This is true. So what? Having gay staff wait hand and foot on the Queen is proof of nothing, apart from the fact that she likes well-groomed male servants. It's the equivalent of rich racists claiming that they can't be racist because they employ black staff to clean their homes.

Besides, there's solid evidence of regal prejudice. Gay staff in the royal household used to be banned from bringing their partners to the annual Christmas ball at Buckingham Palace; whereas heterosexual staff were always invited to attend with their partners. This homophobic discrimination was exposed by the LGBT human rights group OutRage! in 1995. It was only after a protest outside the palace and the ensuing bad publicity that the royals dropped the ban.

When there are major tragedies involving the loss of life, the Queen often visits the site and the victims in hospital. This did not happen when neo-Nazi David Copeland bombed the Admiral Duncan gay pub in Soho, London, in 1999, killing three people and wounding 70 others. At the time, it was the worst terrorist outrage in mainland Britain for many years. To most people's surprise, the Queen did not visit the bombed-out pub or the hospitalised victims.

I wanted to give the Queen a chance to put her side of the story, so I contacted her press office. I asked them whether the Queen has ever uttered in public the words gay or lesbian? Did she use these words in any of her Queen's speeches when announcing the government's gay equality laws? Has she ever acknowledged the existence of LGBT people in any public statement? Has the Queen ever visited a gay charity or welfare agency? Is she the patron of any organisation serving the needs of LGBT people?

The Queen's press office failed to respond. I rest my case. The monarchy is homophobic – if not by conscious intent, then by default.

As head of state, the Queen is supposed to represent and embrace all British people, not just some. How much longer will the LGBT community have to wait for royal recognition and acceptance?

Link to original article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/01/queen-gay-community-homophobe
Lilith Von Fraumench

lilithvf1998

Re: Odyssey Class Release

June 02 2012
And I just realized--I have been overlooking the D'Kora Marauder I got as a Ferengi Lock Box drop! That thing has very high hull strength, albeit a bit weaker than the Atrox Carrier or the Odyssey, plus twelve console slots (four each for Eng/Sci/Tac) and the Battle Module 3000! I think I'll experiment with taking this ship on my MACO space missions and see how she fares.

...Damn it, I got a burlesque show to MC this weekend and I really should focus on being prepared for that, but now I want to log on for a few hours of quality time with the D'Kora! :P
Seannewboy

Seannewboy

Re: Star Trekian Birthday's-Master List

June 02 2012
Finished 5/29-6/1.
Lilith Von Fraumench

lilithvf1998

Re: Odyssey Class Release

June 02 2012
Gee, Sam, that helped. :P ;)

So it sounds like you're arguing for either of my original suggestions--Odyssey or Atrox. Both have great hull strength. But I really want to know about how well it works to have the option of a carrier--has anyone flown one, and is it worth it to have fighters at your command?

Also, I'm not quite sure I follow your comment. Are you saying you can mix-and-match components in the Odyssey line, so you could, for instance, start with the base Science Odyssey model, but add chevron separation and an escort through equipment you can swap between ships? I'm not sure how else you could mix-and-match so.

I may still go with a retrofitted Magellan in the short term, but I have an eye on the long term and ship slots to spare. Thanks!
Seannewboy

Seannewboy

Re: Star Trekian Birthday's-Master List

June 01 2012
A bunch from 5/21-5/29.
CJay None

LaceyRand

Re: 1.3 features coming .. your thoughts?

June 01 2012
So if I read it right ... the server transfers are to the new servers where they think they will get a high pop on those now ... its really not going to help our server out at all, we will just have more rats fleeing the ship ... boo hiss cry and whine lol.
Sam

SamRonin

Re: Odyssey Class Release

June 01 2012
It depends on how you want to play mostly.

Each of those mentioned has good and bad sides.

Many love the Intrepid and its variants.

The Nebula I heard mixed comments about. Chris of the STOked podcast was a big Sci player. And never really liked the Nebula class.

The Oddysey itself is very much a Cruiser in any of its 3 forms and should be treated as such.

I would actually suggest saving up C Points towards the Oddysey Pack. Get all 3 versions. But wait for Cryptic to do a sale like they did for First Contact Day. 4,000C is a hell of a lot.
The advantage with getting all 3 though is that you get the "proper" Oddysey then. Using all 3 special Consoles on 1 ship gives you a buff to Turn Rate. It is still slow, but better. The Saucer Seperation for more agility and the Aquarius Escort.
And of course if you unlock all 3 then you have them across all future Alts as well.

Not to add more of a headache to your choices but you have one other very Tanky ship with a strong Sci leaning. The Atrox Carrier...
Now that is a very different beast. Huge and slow like the Oddysey but it does give you more of a Sci ability then the Oddysey itself...

TL:DR. How do you want to fly? Fast, agile and in the mix? Intrepid. Hanging back and supporting from range? Oddysey/Atrox.
Nebula: Doesn't seem as potent for the cost. D'Kyr: Unknown but falling out of favour in space it seems...
Yezar Gentak

yezar

Re: Beta Weekend Event #2 Dates!

June 01 2012
I can't wait to get my hands on this again! Going to hate Monday morning lol.

Unknown Person

Re: Star Trek: The Journey

June 01 2012
:voy:


Episode 628 - Voyager - "Natural Law" - 05/02/2001

http://www.allstepisodes.com/megvid.php?n=4722

Seven and Chakotay are stranded on a planet with primitive humanoids.


Enjoy!