The LGBTQIA-community

[Spike-X]

Her speech was really beautiful, agreed. We can't post videos here any more, but I encourage everyone to see it. It's honest, eloquent and from the heart.

We can link to them, we just can't embed them.

[t hedge coke]

Serious question - does somebody in Hollywood have to hold a press conference before they're considered out?

Pretty much.

I never really thought Quinto was hiding anything, in that respect, but for many, if you're in entertainment at at all, unless you make a formal statement, or you put it in every bio and interview, you're not "out." (But, I may, also, have just really wanted him to be gay. Projecting. Maybe he was obscuring it.)

[Tangent Man]

Zachay Quinto never really hid his sexual orientation. However, Quinto emphatically publicized a "coming out" because he wanted gay teens to readily have an identifiable face as proof that it really DOES get better.

[t hedge coke]

Zachay Quinto never really hid his sexual orientation. However, Quinto emphatically publicized a "coming out" because he wanted gay teens to readily have an identifiable face as proof that it really DOES get better.

That makes sense.

Announcements and visibility are important, especially for youth (though not limited to them).

There is a (growing?) culture that feels full disclosure is necessary, that I can't quite groove with. The people who feel Samuel Delany is closeted for not announcing he's gay and black on every dustjacket or are more or less angry that Joan Jett won't put a name on her sexuality (outside of "J'aime faire I'amour sur tout a trois," I suppose). When I used to be nearer Southern California, from WeHo to Palm Desert that seemed to be such a big deal among the under-thirties set.

Now, if someone is actively obscuring the issue, that can be a disservice, I think, especially if they're quite prominent at the moment. Or, if they're closeted and spreading/promoting hate or oppressive laws.

[Tangent Man]

Read Signorile's Queer In America for perspective on coming out and outing high-profile people. The book came out in '93, and it's interesting comparing the cultural state of homosexuality then and now.

[PretenderNX01]

Serious question - does somebody in Hollywood have to hold a press conference before they're considered out?

Not a press conference per say but you do have to acknowledge it in public to be "out". If you refuse to talk about it in any interview, you're not out. Quinto for a while would say that his private life was private and not speak about it, thus Keiron saying he wasn't "out".

"Quinto, who has been outspoken on gay rights issues in the past, told The New York Times last year that even though blogs were full of speculation about his orientation, he preferred “not to feed the rumor mill with either substantiation or dismissal.”"
http://www.mtv.com/news/1672610/zachary-quinto-gay/

"Open secret" is still trying to hold onto it being secret, "basically out" is still basically in. Either you're fine with everyone knowing, or your not. It's his choice either way but he wasn't out at the time of the first Star Trek, he was for the second and by then no one seemed to care which is cool.

[Sutekh]

So on the former-CBR I started a poll asking about the lack of LGBT characters in Star Trek, but I think here might be a better place to ask such a question.
QUESTION: does the lack of any LGBT cast members in Star Trek bother you?

Basically, over 5 series (all together 30 seasons), and 12 films the Star Trek-verse has never had an LGBT cast member. The only LGBT character (to my knowledge) was the evil "Dark Mirror" version of Kira in Deep Space Nine. Does this strike you as odd? Is it sending the wrong message about the absence of homosexuality in the future? And does it upset you that a series once ground-breaking (first interracial kiss on US television, several POC in all casts) is now seriously behind the times in terms of diversity and acceptance.

It seemed, for a time, that the Star Trek series were following some sort of progressive formula. Next Gen, just throw it all out there (with robots and Klingons and handicapped people on the crew, and an *old* Captain, very much the un-Kirk). DS9, a black captain (and some shades of gender-role-subversion with Jadzia Dax, swaggering around the place in a 20-something female body, but still carrying herself and acting more like the 80-year old dude she was so recently). Voyager, a woman captain. And then Enterprise was announced, and it just seemed obvious to me that Scott Bakula would be the next in line, playing a gay captain. Those first episodes, with him inviting Trip into his quarters so they could watch the manly sport of water polo together, and I was 'Wow, they are really going to do it!' And then nothing. The snippy Brit wearing too much lip gloss doesn't count.

So yeah, really kind of disappointing. Star Trek has always been a place to push boundaries and showcase a brighter future. That some fiction tends to introduce gay characters (like Mirror Universe Kira) as 'depraved bisexuals,' associating non-traditional attraction or gender roles with 'badness' or 'one of the ways we can see how wrong they are,' only makes things worse.

[Kieran_Frost]

There is a (growing?) culture that feels full disclosure is necessary, that I can't quite groove with. The people who feel Samuel Delany is closeted for not announcing he's gay and black on every dustjacket or are more or less angry that Joan Jett won't put a name on her sexuality (outside of "J'aime faire I'amour sur tout a trois," I suppose). When I used to be nearer Southern California, from WeHo to Palm Desert that seemed to be such a big deal among the under-thirties set.

It's not about constantly talking about it, but it's about being openly LGBT if you are; and yes it's for the kids. It's for the kids in school struggling with their sexuality, who have very few role models to look to; and every time they see Hollywood stars being praised they are always straight. It's about the guy on the sports team coming out to his squad, because it's okay and normal for major sports players to be openly LGBT. It's about the woman who wants to bring her girlfriend to the office Christmas party, but fears in this day and age it will still be "big news."

Society is (sadly, in some ways) ruled by celebritism. And right now the message across the world is the biggest, most famous, most successful, beloved are idolised stars are nearly all straight (I mean... they're NOT, but as far as we know they are). That should change. The lead characters in action films or franchise films = straight. Nearly all TV shows, the lead is = straight. And IF the lead is gay, it's because the show is "about being gay." It can't just be a cop show, where the lead happens to be gay.

One day it won't matter, one day if a star (who is LGBT) doesn't want to discuss it, fine. But right now kids have so few role models, 'men's sport' has so few (RE: nearly no) openly LGBT players; and society in general still sees a celebrity "coming out" as BIG news (because it is - because it's still very rare and 'unusual'). It matters. People need heroes and champions, and right now too much of Hollywood, too much of sport, too much of 'celebrity' is in the closet. That needs to change. Players shouldn't feel the need to hide who they are (some are choosing to be private, yes; but too many are being TOLD to keep it private -- if you come out it'll effect your career, people want want to see a show with you in it, etc). And that won't change until being LGBT and famous isn't an anomaly, or a rarity. And that won't change until the major stars start coming out more.

Not a press conference per say but you do have to acknowledge it in public to be "out". If you refuse to talk about it in any interview, you're not out. Quinto for a while would say that his private life was private and not speak about it, thus Keiron saying he wasn't "out".

"Quinto, who has been outspoken on gay rights issues in the past, told The New York Times last year that even though blogs were full of speculation about his orientation, he preferred “not to feed the rumor mill with either substantiation or dismissal.”"
http://www.mtv.com/news/1672610/zachary-quinto-gay/

"Open secret" is still trying to hold onto it being secret, "basically out" is still basically in. Either you're fine with everyone knowing, or your not. It's his choice either way but he wasn't out at the time of the first Star Trek, he was for the second and by then no one seemed to care which is cool.

Beautiful put, far more eloquent that I achieved above.

It seemed, for a time, that the Star Trek series were following some sort of progressive formula. Next Gen, just throw it all out there (with robots and Klingons and handicapped people on the crew, and an *old* Captain, very much the un-Kirk). DS9, a black captain (and some shades of gender-role-subversion with Jadzia Dax, swaggering around the place in a 20-something female body, but still carrying herself and acting more like the 80-year old dude she was so recently). Voyager, a woman captain. And then Enterprise was announced, and it just seemed obvious to me that Scott Bakula would be the next in line, playing a gay captain. Those first episodes, with him inviting Trip into his quarters so they could watch the manly sport of water polo together, and I was 'Wow, they are really going to do it!' And then nothing. The snippy Brit wearing too much lip gloss doesn't count.

So yeah, really kind of disappointing. Star Trek has always been a place to push boundaries and showcase a brighter future. That some fiction tends to introduce gay characters (like Mirror Universe Kira) as 'depraved bisexuals,' associating non-traditional attraction or gender roles with 'badness' or 'one of the ways we can see how wrong they are,' only makes things worse.

Exactly, and agreed. I'll never forget when Patrick Stewart was announced as the Captain, someone asked Gene R "but in the 24th century won't they have a cure for baldness?" and Gene R replied: "no, in the 24th century, it won't matter." And THAT was beautiful. And THAT is why the lack of LGBT characters in Star Trek is so upsetting; because that mentality should 100% apply to LGBT people, and yet it doesn't. One of (if not THE) best franchise at promoting a racial diverse cast, with numerous females, and not just in the "hot lady" roles. Disappointing.

[Lady_Alternate]

The consensus is that Origins is better. Although I didn't find DA2 bad so much as not as good as it could have been. That was apparently down to deadline problems, so I'm hoping they learned their lesson and gave Inquisition enough development time.

Out of hospital, so I can answer! I'm a terrible heretic, as I preferred DA2 in almost every respect; especially gameplay. While the maps and dungeon layouts in DA2 were horribly repetitive, I much preferred the more action orientated playstyle while on the PS3.

Having long been an MMORPG player (and a tragically hardcore one at that, to my present shame) I had little love for DA:O's wannabe MMO mechanics awkwardly tied on to a post-Neverwinter Nights interface. Add to the fact that I chose a female Dwarven ranged Rogue for my first playthrough and therefore the section in The Fade was actually impossible. I am aware that was fixed in later patches, but I am still proud of the apologetic email response from the devs to my polite but scathing letter about it at the time.

I liked the DA2 story, as I'm happy with what it achieved. I don't think every story HAS to set out to span and change the destiny of entire civilizations. It was compelling, varied (especially if you made the effort to complete each companions personal quests) and had you make some pretty hard choices. I felt a greater kinship and attachment to my sister in DA2 than I did to any of the DA:O characters, and I wouldn't swap my gentle, tender and experimental lesbian romance with Merrill for the world.

[Supernature]

Ha !

I'm a gay dude and 90% of my fave characters in all media are girls.

Comics: Storm, Emma Frost, Psylocke, Kitty, Rogue, Dazzler, Rachel Grey, Magik, Black Widow, Catwoman
Games: Lili, Nina and Anna from Tekken, Ivy from Soul Calibur, Lara Croft, Miranda, Samara and EDI from Mass Effect
Movies: Elle Woods, Ellen Ripley, The Bride

And so on.

I think it's mostly just due to the fact that heterosexual male wish fulfillment doesn't speak to me at all.

[bert]

or are more or less angry that Joan Jett won't put a name on her sexuality (outside of "J'aime faire I'amour sur tout a trois," I suppose).

I met Joan Jett at a store signing in the mid 80's (Cactus Records and Tapes, in Sharpstown Mall in Houston,Tx).

I clearly remember what she was wearing (a purple leather jumpsuit), thinking that "wow, is she TINY" (she's really short), and that she announced to the crowd, "thank you for coming out to see a dyke who rocks!"

so she's another one, that yes, I'd consider as an "open-secret". . . she doesn't hide anything, tho never has explicitly stated anything.

(and yeah, I bought the record and had her sign it. . . LOL. . I "believe" it's this one:



tho I'd have to dig thru all my records to be sure.


(I didn't get into the Runaways until slightly later, tho I instantly became a huge Lita Ford fan)

[Greg]

Jeez, 12 pages already??

[Kieran_Frost]

I'm a gay dude and 90% of my fave characters in all media are girls.
I think it's mostly just due to the fact that heterosexual male wish fulfillment doesn't speak to me at all.

Ditto! I never saw the appeal; which is why things like who can bench the most, who won't back down, p*ssing conests etc never matters to me.

There is a (growing?) culture that feels full disclosure is necessary, that I can't quite groove with. The people who feel Samuel Delany is closeted for not announcing he's gay and black on every dustjacket or are more or less angry that Joan Jett won't put a name on her sexuality (outside of "J'aime faire I'amour sur tout a trois," I suppose). When I used to be nearer Southern California, from WeHo to Palm Desert that seemed to be such a big deal among the under-thirties set.

Something that occurred to me just now: why does keeping your sexuality as a private issue matter? If you think about it heterosexuality isn't "private." Society assumes you are straight unless otherwise stated (straight privilege), so in the vast majority of instances you are assumed to be straight (and the one assuming would, in most cases, be right). So heterosexuality isn't private. Why is homosexuality? And the only conclusion I could draw is (sadly) shame.

Jeez, 12 pages already??

Yey us!

[Charmed]

Something that occurred to me just now: why does keeping your sexuality as a private issue matter? If you think about it heterosexuality isn't "private." Society assumes you are straight unless otherwise stated (straight privilege), so in the vast majority of instances you are assumed to be straight (and the one assuming would, in most cases, be right). So heterosexuality isn't private. Why is homosexuality? And the only conclusion I could draw is (sadly) shame.

That happened to me yesterday, and I regret not setting the guy straight (ugh that pun was unintentional, I swear.)

I was taking a driving lesson, and the instructor guy asked me if I had a girlfriend. So, I told him no, which is the truth, but I didn't tell him the reason why I have never had a girlfriend, nor the reason why I'll never have a girlfriend. I wanted to say "I don't have a girlfriend. The reason why is because I'm gay.", but I didn't want to get into a possible debate with an elderly instructor (who told me he was very religious) on whether or not my sexual orientation is natural or not, while driving a student vehicle that does not belong to me. (Also, being trapped in the car with him for the 2 hour lesson).

He could have had no problem with it, especially considering that I'm paying him about 60 bucks for the lesson, but I chickened out (because of what I typed earlier and under the assumption that I'll never see him again, so why give him information about myself that will likely cause a confrontation and/or awkwardness).

[t hedge coke]

Something that occurred to me just now: why does keeping your sexuality as a private issue matter? If you think about it heterosexuality isn't "private." Society assumes you are straight unless otherwise stated (straight privilege), so in the vast majority of instances you are assumed to be straight (and the one assuming would, in most cases, be right). So heterosexuality isn't private. Why is homosexuality? And the only conclusion I could draw is (sadly) shame.

Right. And, I get that.

Where it rankles me is when it becomes people demanding proof or making it almost competitive. "Come out now! Be dating someone (one person) and bring them everywhere! Now!" It's a complicated arena.

Presence is important, in any case. Verification/Level Tests, however...