Rainbow's End

Hi, Welcome to Rainbow’s End, this is a blog run by me, Ethan Kristopher-Hartley, so that I can filter all my LGBT-type news, opinions and thoughts.

I’m just in the process of updating all my blogs and transferring everything around so it may take a couple of days to get organised so thanks for your patience in the meantime!

I read a piece that said Nebraska are looking to allow therapists in the state to turn away LGBT patients on moral or religious grounds. Now,I can see the blogosphere jumping up and down already and screaming that this is a bad thing for equal rights.

Certainly legislation like this isn’t a step forward in equality – quite the contrary. But let me ask you a question. Knowing that (the last I heard) around 1/3 of suicides in young men between 13-25 was comitted by men who were Gay or thought they might be Gay, would you rather they were counselled by a supportive, positive and empowering therapist, or a fundamentalist counsellor who would spend each session trying to change that young person’s mind?

I can’t speak for every Gay man, and I certainly can’t speak for the LBT sides of the diversity rainbow, but I can tell you a little about my experience. Coming out – even in the mid to late 90s – was difficult. The feelings of self-loathing and hatred are ingrained. All your life you’ve looked around and seen the traditional relationship lauded and placed on a pedestal. One Man, one Woman, marriage, kids, a house. Yes, this traditional model breaks down, divorce, seperation, access orders. But almost every relationship that you see, from your parents, to your extended family, friends, TV, the movies – all of them show you that this is normal.

Which can only prove one thing – you’re not. At a time when you’re growing into yourself, your body’s changing, your opinions and beliefs are being formed – you’re being told that you’re abnormal. Abnormal, to a 16 year old, is awful. And it’s at this time that you need a supportive voice, someone to show you that everything’s going to be OK.

So, if this law stops just one therapist or counsellor from convincing an LGBT person that their feelings are ‘immoral’ then I’m afraid I support it. Sorry liberalism, you know I love you, but this is a welfare issue.

I read this story on Gizmodo yesterday and couldn’t decide which side of me it raised the most ire in. Did it offend me because I’m gay? Or because I’m a geek?

Like the Gizmodo reporter, I agree that the way old media report these sorts of technology stories (such as “Facebook causes STIs” and MySpace gives pedophiles access to your kids“) creates a stigma of fear, particularly among people who are less au fait with technology. How are we going to help the majority access the web and all of its benefits when this sort of reporting continues?

But then there’s the other side. The undertones of the story are clearly “look at the gays, they have to use a computer to meet people for random sex because they’re dirty”. Sure, homosexuality has come on in leaps and bounds since the 60s, 70s and 80s – but we’re still not equal. We’re allowed to register our partnerships, but not marry. We’re still unable to give blood and, if a gay person is murdered, their sexuality still forms part of the headline.

When was the last time you saw “heterosexual man murdered after meeting woman on eHarmony”? You haven’t, because heterosexuality doesn’t need to be reported, because it’s not seedy and depraved. Because it doesn’t give people the same thrill.

This story also makes me think of another thing. People look at the LGBTQ community and wonder “why do they have to have their own bars, Pride marches, websites and apps?” The simple answer is – because otherwise we’d be alone. I can’t walk into a bar in the Bigg Market, or strt up a converation with someone on a bus, or even chat to someone at work, and assume that they share my sexuality. Granted – even if they did – they may not reciprocate. But finding a partner causes so many problems for LGBTQ people that anything which helps to bypass some of the barriers is a necessity.

I don’t have the answer – but I do feel that we, the tech-savvy and LGBTQ folk, need to speak up when these sorts of stories are reported.

(Image taken from: http://www.pinkbananamedia.com/images/Grindr-Press-icon.png)

One of the people that I have met on twitter wrote an interesting blog post about the word “Queer” and its place in the 21st Century.  Now, to be honest, it’s not something that I’ve thought about recently – as I’ve grown up and settled down the outrage and in-your-face attitude that I once had towards sexuality has dimmed.  Don’t get me wrong, I still believe wholeheartedly in equality and will argue vehemently in defence of it.  But I’m just not the shocking clothes and high camp guy that I once was.  Thankfully there’s plenty of other, younger guys and girls out there doing it themselves!

The thing that piqued my interest about the post though was that I remember back in  the mid to late nineties I was a lot more outspoken and was the GLB (as it was then) Officer for my college students’ union.  As a group we found out about the Queer Politics movement and decided to take its concepts to heart.  This meant a few things.  Taking back the words that were used as an offensive term (such as “queer, faggot, puff” and the like) as well as fighting for equality.

Now equality is an unusual phrase – because it means “being treated equal to” not “being treated the same as” and this, I think, is where many of today’s equality fighters are losing their way.  If you had a chance to read that post by Peter Tatchell you’ll realise that we can celebrate diversity, that we can embrace differences and still be equal.  At work I only have access to one news website (I’m not allowed to mention it because I’ve signed a contract saying that I won’t discuss work in any social media, blog etc… and by mentioning the website I might give away the company) but I’ve seen a load of arguments on there about equality and the fact that there is, for example, a Black and Asian Police organisation to support them, but not one for “Whites”.  This isn’t an argument against equality, just as LGBTQ groups aren’t here to fight for more rights.  It’s entirely because we face discrimination regularly – even today – that they exist.

But, the way I see it, if we – as a community – have such disparate goals and don’t even agree on the terms that we will use for ourselves, then how can we present a united front to the world?  How can we stand together and say “We want to be equal, without having to be the same”?  We can have as many Pride Parties and Pride Parades as we like, but until we stand together and say “This is who we are: Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgendered people and Queers, and this is what we want – to be given EQUAL rights without having to fight for them every step of the way”, we’ll just stagnate.

And I can’t believe that we’re still having this same argument about the word Queer – 15 years later!

Image Credit: Wikimedia Foundation

Taken from http://www.nmauk.co.uk

There’s probably very few people who would possibly read this who haven’t heard about the furore caused by Jan Moir’s article “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death“.  Granted, The Mail then decided to rename the article to “A strange, lonely and troubling death” but haven’t changed the copy text in any way, shape or form.  I was in a training course on Friday so, although I had seen some sketchy info on twitter and facebook on my mobile, because 3G isn’t ideal I didn’t read the article until I got home.

I was gobsmacked.  In the 21st Century the idea that someone could write such vitriolic bile in the name of journalism is disgusting.  Now, I just want to make something clear – I am not, nor have I ever been, a Boyzone or Stephen Gately fan.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of bubblegum pop and boyband-y type stuff so I like their music but (unlike my Kylie collection) I have one Boyzone album and A New Beginning – One of Stephen’s solo singles.  However I do believe wholeheartedly that unwarranted personal attacks on a person, disagreeing with the official announcement of the cause of death, and using this unfortunate tragedy to further a homophobic cause, is wrong.  I wrote an Open Letter to Jan Moir over on my Posterous blog (as it’s where I put the less detailed posts) which is nowhere near as insightful and witty as Charlie Brooker‘s fantastic response (the man is a legend!) but it was the most polite response I could give at the time.

Of course, when the stars got wind of the story they too waded in and were able to make sure that the story reached even more people to allow them to make their own decisions.  Stephen Fry, Darren Hayes,  Gok Wan, Antony Cotton and Pam Ann along with many others.  This however led to what Jan Moir said in her apology/clarification was a “heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”

Image from www.pinknews.co.uk

Now, come on – heavily orchestrated?  Is it not possible that Jan Moir’s story actually hit home with a number of people who wanted to make their voices heard?  No, it seems that the gays have been “mischievous in the extreme” and decided to rally together to fight her, because they simply haven’t read or they have misunderstood her fair and balanced article.

A few of the people that I’ve come in contact with on twitter and facebook have also commented on this.  I think everyone’s probably heard about the “The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir’s hateful, homophobic article” facebook group but I’ve also seen one of my twitter friends (Snedwan) who updated his blog with this opinion piece as well as JaeKay who has just written this excellent and thoughtful piece decrying the community’s lack of focus until this comment.  But I think that’s kind of the point – The huge swell of support against this article and also (whether right or wrong) against Ms Moir herself – has had the effect that we’ve been noticed.  If this sort of concerted effort happened all the time then there would be a couple of issues, firstly most people wouldn’t be able to keep up a concerted effort for very long, it’s not only emotionally draining, but can be mentally and physically too.  And of course it wouldn’t get the rest of the press to sit up and take notice, it would simply be a *sigh* “Look at what the gays are whining about again…” moment.

I can however see why Snedwan may have mistaken the homophobic nature of the article, Ms Moir has certainly worded her comments in such a way as to cause the very “misinterpretation” that she decried.  Personally, I think this is because she doesn’t have the courage of her convictions and so she felt it necessary to give herself a way out in case those “mischievous” gays decided to orchestrate an internet campaign against her.  But Snedwan, if you read this I can show you exactly why we’re offended.  And exactly why this piece is homophobic…

The original title of the article was indeed a suitable one for the type of article that Jan Moir wrote.  By using the term ‘natural’ in inverted commas she manages to remind her Daily Mail readers that the gays aren’t natural.  The words that she chose to open with also clearly show her agenda.  After the coroner clearly stated that Stephen Gately died due to fluid on the lungs caused by a congenital heart disease she starts by comparing this tragic death of a young man to those of Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson (both of whom died as a result of drugs) but just in case we don’t quite get what she’s saying she decided to ram home her point by talking about the “dark appetites” and “private vice” of the stars.

Later in the article she shows her support with the phrase “In the cheerful environs of Boyzone, Gately was always charming, cute, polite and funny.” - How could she possibly be using this story to forward her own agenda?  She called him charming, cute polite and funny!  But of course she then goes on to say that “he could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk.” She seems to forget that he not only played Joseph in Joseph & The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat at The New London Theatre but also The Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang at The London Palladium.  Of course anyone can get a leading role in the West End so this doesn’t in any way suggest that she was wrong, does it?

Then, as Snedwan mentioned,  she talks about the fact that Stephen was “smoked out” of the closet instead of choosing when and how to come out himself.  But did she use this opportunity to show that sexuality is irrelevant?  Or did she instead decide to state how reluctant he was to be a beacon for those scared gay people out there?

Taken from www.whatsonstage.com

Of course the warm and welcoming way that she decided to discuss Stephen’s relationship “In 2006, Gately entered into a civil union with internet businessman Andrew Cowles, who had been introduced to him by mutual friends Elton John and David Furnish.” wasn’t in any way a clinical and dispassionate description designed to skim over the fact without all those awful emotive adjectives in the way – really!  She’s even on record as supporting partnership registration!

But then we get to the detail of the story – her opinion on the reasons that Stephen Gately’s death was not ‘natural’.  This is where her journalistic skills can come to the fore, where she can show – in support of what is obviously going to be a controversial article – her true mettle.  Where she can demonstrate her skills in collecting and presenting information.  She decided to start this part of her article with the phrase “All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances. The Gately family are – perhaps understandably – keen to register their boy’s demise on the national consciousness as nothing more than a tragic accident.” This is an excellent opening line, throwing doubt into the readers mind without actually stating that they were wrong.  Surely her expert medical training and access to hidden information will be able to blow this myth completely out of the water…

But no, there’s no hidden information, no evidence to the contrary, only a snide aside about how quickly the family had stated how they thought that Stephen’s death was due to natural causes.  (No inverted commas here strangely.)  Followed by Jan’s opinion that this was all spin.  And then we get to one of the most confusing points that she decided to make, “Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.”

Wait a moment, what was that? That’s great news, I think Jan should take her vast medical knowledge across to the people over at C-R-Y (Cardiac Risk in the Young) so that they can be aware of this and ensure that they can leave their misguided charity work and do something more suitable.  But she does go on to say “Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one.” OK Jan, what yardsticks are you talking about, because the phrase “natural causes” is a clearly defined medical term meaning that the cause “was a naturally occurring disease process, or is not apparent given medical history or circumstances.” (from Wikipedia).  But we don’t have to wait too long to find out what yardstick she’s using – it’s “that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.” Ah, there we go – we’re reading the Daily Mail – I just wanted some confirmation and thankfully Jan has been able to remind us of this.

And what was so unnatural about the death?  Why the fact that Stephen and his partner had met a man and decided to take him home.  Now Jan seems to be a little squeamish – she doesn’t want to say the word threesome to her bigoted, close-minded  readers, so instead she simply states that “a game of canasta … was not what was on the cards”.  So?  What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes is entirely up to them!  And this isn’t just something that affects the gays – in fact, if you Let Me Google That For You, you’ll see that the primary responses are for heterosexual threesomes.  But that doesn’t phase our Jan, oh no!  She finishes her skirting around this issue with the phrase “What happened before they parted is known only to the two men still alive. What happened afterwards is anyone’s guess.”  That’s absolutely true Jan, it’s also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the cause of death.

Taken from www.disneystore.com

But now that she’s picked apart the poor man’s demise she decides to attack Partnership Registration.  Now this is obviously a subject that worries the Daily Mail’s readership – I mean it almost gives the gays the same rights as “Normal Folk”!  But thankfully this tragedy along with the recent death of Kevin McGee (the former partner of Matt Lucas) “strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.” The Happily ever after myth, which one is that Jan?  I’ve never heard this one I must admit, maybe you could provide us with the source of this myth?  If not then surely, as someone who is on the record as supporting partnership registration (read “throwing a scrap of perceived equality to the gay community”) you should be showing that this is no better or worse than the thousands of marriages that have problems?

But, as Jan helpfully pointed out – before Stephen Gately was even buried – “the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.”