Why is LGBT "assimilation" such an inherently negative thing?

[StarryNightshade]

I've been hanging around an activist friend of mine a lot more and he brought up a man by the name of Harry Hays. Hays is considered, by many, to be one of the first (if not the first) prominent gay rights activists in the US. He was also a communist at a time when being communist was considered an actual threat. He was also the founder of the Radical Faeries.

So why am I'm I bringing this guy up?

One of the key points in his activism was his anti-assimilation stance. That being: LGBT shouldn't have to "imitate" the heterosexual majority in order to gain acceptance. That LGBT have a culture in which should be embraced.

As a gay man, I have an issue with this. As far as I'm aware, Pride represents that, yes, we are a sexual minority and that, yes, not even 10 years ago there was even less acceptance than nowadays. However, even though we are sexual "deviants" (in the most technical and sociological sense of the word), LGBT are no less "normal" than the non-LGBT population. That we are human just like you and that we deserve the same basic rights as the general population. However, when anyone brings up the notion of wanting to "blend in" to general society, or to even go to show that LGBT are no different than non-LGBT, it often is met with jeers of "self-hating" and "assimilationist" rhetoric.

Which brings me to my question:

If LGBT are trying to show that we are no different than non-LGBT, and that we are every bit as deserving of basic rights as your average heterosexual, then why is assimilation into general society such a bad thing? Why perpetrate this idea that LGBT are so radically different from non-LGBT and that it's culture is even worth holding onto? Isn't the point of it all for LGBT to be viewed as "normal" (although I hate that word), average, and boring as the next Joe Schmoe walking around?

 

[lovemuffin]

I can't really speak to the views of those opposed to assimilation, but over the years Andrew Sullivan has written on this topic, and I always found it interesting. See for example: The End of Gay Culture | The New Republic

 

[StarryNightshade]

I can't really speak to the views of those opposed to assimilation, but over the years Andrew Sullivan has written on this topic, and I always found it interesting. See for example: The End of Gay Culture | The New Republic

I did a quick read through, and I want to touch on a couple of the author's points:

1.) There is no one single gay "culture", as there is no uniformity in what it means to be gay. As such, to try and define gay "culture" is futile at best.

2.) It really seems to be a generational gap. Older LGBT remember when being gay was illegal and very taboo. Whereas younger LGBT are growing up in a world where being gay is not as taboo.

Which, again, isn't that a good thing? For being gay to no longer be this strange taboo and for it to be generally accepted?

The biggest thing I get from anti-assimilationists that they will no longer be "special" compared to everyone else as LGBT becomes more accepted into society.

 

[lovemuffin]

I'm hesitant to make value judgements about assimilation or tell those who oppose it that they're wrong, being an outsider. I do suspect in a lot of objective ways it is a "good" thing, and represents the progress that has been made, but it seems reasonable to me to think that opposition in part represents a kind of loyalty to an identity that was very precious and important to a lot of gay people during darker times. In the face of oppression, constant misunderstanding, persecution, and etc, the identity aspect of a particular sub-culture is something that helped many perservere, and that means something. I think I can grasp the idea of that, even though I'm not part of that group or identity. I think projecting the value of those cultural identifications into the future in an absolute way, without recognizing that they may be less useful in a different context, might be a mistake, but it's probably an understandable one?

With regard to your points, I doubt Andrew Sullivan would disagree with (1), he references the existence of various "sub-cultures" in the piece, and has written about them elsewhere. I think part of the piece definitely agrees with you that the "end of gay culture(s)" is a result of (2), generational changes.

 

[Musty]

I think people can develop an unhelpful attachment to characteristics that they believe define them, in this case their LGBT status. Sometimes being identified by a particular characteristic becomes more important than achieving the social acceptance that would render a given equality movement redundant once the goals have been achieved. I know a few gay people and they have very little in common with each other apart from their sexual orientation, and in this respect they are no different to most the heterosexual people I know.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but it seems to me that there is no particular reason why homosexuals must feel proud to be apart. Or even aim to be apart in the first place.

Integration is, at worst, not always bad.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I'm hesitant to make value judgements about assimilation or tell those who oppose it that they're wrong, being an outsider. I do suspect in a lot of objective ways it is a "good" thing, and represents the progress that has been made, but it seems reasonable tom me to think that opposition in part represents a kind of loyalty to an identity that was very precious and important to a lot of gay people during darker times. In the face of oppression, constant misunderstanding, persecution, and etc, the identity aspect of a particular sub-culture is something that helped many perservere, and that means something. I think I can grasp the idea of that, even though I'm not part of that group or identity. I think projecting the value of those cultural identifications into the future in an absolute way, without recognizing that they may be less useful in a different context, might be a mistake, but it's probably an understandable one?

I understand that. There are many, especially older LGBT, who do remember how bad things used to be and use that as their reason for holding onto the idea of LGBT culture. Likewise, younger LGBT (such as myself) are generally less interested in the products of the past and want to move forward.

I suppose it goes back to that generational gap thing, eh?

However, it also might also be a pair of "nostalgia googles" as to why so many people hold on to the idea of an LGBT culture. People like to praise the LGBT community and culture, but conveniently ignore much of the bad that can come with it.

 

[gsa]

Sexuality is not the basis for a uniform culture. What we very loosely call gay culture is the post-60s byproduct of marginalization and politicization. On the other hand, I think that rumors of its death are vastly overstated, if only because there are now people who have a material interest in promoting its longevity. That includes LGBT interests as much as it includes those who oppose them and are going to look for ways to attack them for the foreseeable future.

I guess it also depends on what one means by assimilation or integration, and what your relationship is to the existing "gay culture." I do not and have not lived in a gay neighborhood, like the vast majority of LGBT people. I haven't been to a gay bar in ages. I don't generally read gay literature or watch much gay programming, at least not compared to other programming and literature. But that isn't the result of self-hating or a desire to assimilate; it is largely personal taste and aesthetics.

On the other hand, sometimes I think that it might be better if LGBT people weren't assimilated into areas of the culture that I don't care for and would prefer to see disappear, like conservative Abrahamic religions, because it might result in them being marginalized as LGBT people are assimilated into other areas.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, how would that culture thing work exactly?

Are homosexual couples expected to disown their heterosexual children and friends?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's even more complicated because there's left-wing and right-wing gay anti-assimilation arguments. The left-wing one argues from a viewpoint of not wanting to participate in a culture they see as sexist, racist and homophobic. So they'll oppose marriage because it's seen as patriarchal and oppressive of women. They tend to be more into Marxism and such. Then there's the right-wing point of view, as presented by people like Jack Donovan, that rejects both "gay culture" and assimilation into straight culture and proposes a sort of fascist, ultra-masculine male homosexual culture similar to the Spartans or the Nazi Stormtroopers. In that view, marriage should be left to heterosexuals as an institution based around the rearing of children, taming of the male sexuality to uphold society, and male homosexuals should adopt neo-Pagan blood brotherhood rites instead. They'll either support some form of neo-fascism or right-wing tribalist anarchism.

I've had a long-running rivalry with a gay separatist type on another forum that's lasted for almost a decade now (but I don't post on that forum anymore and I'm still not sure if that person is for real or trolling after all these years). So I know that side of the argument pretty well.

 

[Bunyip]

I've been hanging around an activist friend of mine a lot more and he brought up a man by the name of Harry Hays. Hays is considered, by many, to be one of the first (if not the first) prominent gay rights activists in the US. He was also a communist at a time when being communist was considered an actual threat. He was also the founder of the Radical Faeries.

So why am I'm I bringing this guy up?

One of the key points in his activism was his anti-assimilation stance. That being: LGBT shouldn't have to "imitate" the heterosexual majority in order to gain acceptance. That LGBT have a culture in which should be embraced.

As a gay man, I have an issue with this. As far as I'm aware, Pride represents that, yes, we are a sexual minority and that, yes, not even 10 years ago there was even less acceptance than nowadays. However, even though we are sexual "deviants" (in the most technical and sociological sense of the word), LGBT are no less "normal" than the non-LGBT population. That we are human just like you and that we deserve the same basic rights as the general population. However, when anyone brings up the notion of wanting to "blend in" to general society, or to even go to show that LGBT are no different than non-LGBT, it often is met with jeers of "self-hating" and "assimilationist" rhetoric.

Which brings me to my question:

If LGBT are trying to show that we are no different than non-LGBT, and that we are every bit as deserving of basic rights as your average heterosexual, then why is assimilation into general society such a bad thing? Why perpetrate this idea that LGBT are so radically different from non-LGBT and that it's culture is even worth holding onto? Isn't the point of it all for LGBT to be viewed as "normal" (although I hate that word), average, and boring as the next Joe Schmoe walking around?

Th great gift of the LGBT community, along with so many other minority groups is that it shows us that 'normal' is so much broader than we think. Our 'normal' culture is diverse, and it includes LGBT people. LGBT are not radically different from anyone else - that is the point of activism.

 

[Laika]

If LGBT are trying to show that we are no different than non-LGBT, and that we are every bit as deserving of basic rights as your average heterosexual, then why is assimilation into general society such a bad thing? Why perpetrate this idea that LGBT are so radically different from non-LGBT and that it's culture is even worth holding onto? Isn't the point of it all for LGBT to be viewed as "normal" (although I hate that word), average, and boring as the next Joe Schmoe walking around?

Sexual liberation is often closely tied with radical politics and it is only recently that LGBT have been accepted as mainstream. Anarchists have a better track record than Communists, but the issue as to why heterosexuality is considered normal is linked with marriage as an institution governing human reproduction as a way to ensure the inheritance of private property. There is more to this than simply economics, as the sex-negative ideologies of marriage (in which free sexual expression is subordinated to the socioeconomically conditioned need for a single partner) play a psychological role in conditioning what kind of sexual behavior is acceptable or normal.

Whilst homosexuality has been nominally accepted in this society, bisexuality is still erased because marriage still assumes 'mono-sexuality' (one partner for life) and hence bisexuality remains 'dirtied' by an implied association with the idea of promiscuity; homosexuality conflicts with gender roles and if often equated with femininity and submissiveness; the idea that sexual attraction can be divided into three main groups (homo,bi and hetro) is based not on evidence or on who a person actually has sex with, has relationships with, but on who they are expected to marry, so we have people identifying as heterosexuals who sleep with the same sex and yet the illusion of exclusivity is maintained, when human sexual behavior is more a question of degrees (see the Kinsey Scale); Bisexuals and homosexuals disproportionately suffer from mental health problems in coming to terms with their sexuality, in-spite of the liberalization of recent decades in western countries.

There is a tension between the liberal pursuit of formal equality and the more radical pursuit of social emancipation, which would ultimately lead to free love, open relationships and 'free unions' (non-legal partnerships) as the idea of marriage unravels and people embrace a freer expression of sexual life. The latter particularly conflicts with conservative moral attitudes, often prescribed in religion as god's commandments in direct conflict of a person's sexual needs and desires. Ultimately, "assimilation" is a compromise a social structure which reduces human beings to property, the emotional spontaneity of love to a legal contract, and sexual passion and intense attraction to passive objectification.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've been hanging around an activist friend of mine a lot more and he brought up a man by the name of Harry Hays. Hays is considered, by many, to be one of the first (if not the first) prominent gay rights activists in the US. He was also a communist at a time when being communist was considered an actual threat. He was also the founder of the Radical Faeries.

So why am I'm I bringing this guy up?

One of the key points in his activism was his anti-assimilation stance. That being: LGBT shouldn't have to "imitate" the heterosexual majority in order to gain acceptance. That LGBT have a culture in which should be embraced.

As a gay man, I have an issue with this. As far as I'm aware, Pride represents that, yes, we are a sexual minority and that, yes, not even 10 years ago there was even less acceptance than nowadays. However, even though we are sexual "deviants" (in the most technical and sociological sense of the word), LGBT are no less "normal" than the non-LGBT population. That we are human just like you and that we deserve the same basic rights as the general population. However, when anyone brings up the notion of wanting to "blend in" to general society, or to even go to show that LGBT are no different than non-LGBT, it often is met with jeers of "self-hating" and "assimilationist" rhetoric.

Which brings me to my question:

If LGBT are trying to show that we are no different than non-LGBT, and that we are every bit as deserving of basic rights as your average heterosexual, then why is assimilation into general society such a bad thing? Why perpetrate this idea that LGBT are so radically different from non-LGBT and that it's culture is even worth holding onto? Isn't the point of it all for LGBT to be viewed as "normal" (although I hate that word), average, and boring as the next Joe Schmoe walking around?

I've organized and worked with anti-equality separatists before, those who are mostly anarchist and refuse to be "equal" with systemic oppression that is far-reaching beyond what we think in their opinion.

My opinion is that the fringe elements - including most folks who really would just prefer to "opt out" of society all together - are an element of the entire spectrum of our species attempt at creating a perfect society. They appear everywhere and are nothing new, IMO.

What I find most hilarious is that I've been to the get-togethers of radicals who want to escape oppressive systems, and then wind up with straight white men stepping forward and taking some form of leadership or taking credit for success of the group.

So the separatists actually follow much of the same behaviors in blindly creating stratification, even the most radical queer separatists I've worked with wound up mucking up in intersectionality in some way.

So I see it as fringe, though not dangerous overall. The majority of people will create the mainstream LGBTQ demographic that will assimilate into and help evolve prevailing cultural norms.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Th great gift of the LGBT community, along with so many other minority groups is that it shows us that 'normal' is so much broader than we think. Our 'normal' culture is diverse, and it includes LGBT people. LGBT are not radically different from anyone else - that is the point of activism.

Exactly. LGBT are so diverse, as are non-LGBT, that not one single "culture" can be pin pointed. Just goes to show that we are not that radically different from the general population.

However, in my experience, that very same diversity is often times used as a "reason" for assimilation to not happen. So many people have told me that, because of things like the BDSM community, drag shows, and differing political interests, that LGBT shouldn't assimilate. Never minding the fact that the general population and culture also can have BDSM, drag (theatre), and differing political interests.

 

[StarryNightshade]

It's even more complicated because there's left-wing and right-wing gay anti-assimilation arguments. The left-wing one argues from a viewpoint of not wanting to participate in a culture they see as sexist, racist and homophobic. So they'll oppose marriage because it's seen as patriarchal and oppressive of women. They tend to be more into Marxism and such. Then there's the right-wing point of view, as presented by people like Jack Donovan, that rejects both "gay culture" and assimilation into straight culture and proposes a sort of fascist, ultra-masculine male homosexual culture similar to the Spartans or the Nazi Stormtroopers. In that view, marriage should be left to heterosexuals as an institution based around the rearing of children, taming of the male sexuality to uphold society, and male homosexuals should adopt neo-Pagan blood brotherhood rites instead. They'll either support some form of neo-fascism or right-wing tribalist anarchism.

I've had a long-running rivalry with a gay separatist type on another forum that's lasted for almost a decade now (but I don't post on that forum anymore and I'm still not sure if that person is for real or trolling after all these years). So I know that side of the argument pretty well.

I just looked up Jack Donavan. Maybe it's because of my lack of exposure (read: naivety), but I really have some difficulty imagining far-right LGBT.

Conservative/center-right LGBT? Sure, but not really to the furthest end of the spectrum.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I've organized and worked with anti-equality separatists before, those who are mostly anarchist and refuse to be "equal" with systemic oppression that is far-reaching beyond what we think in their opinion.

My opinion is that the fringe elements - including most folks who really would just prefer to "opt out" of society all together - are an element of the entire spectrum of our species attempt at creating a perfect society. They appear everywhere and are nothing new, IMO.

What I find most hilarious is that I've been to the get-togethers of radicals who want to escape oppressive systems, and then wind up with straight white men stepping forward and taking some form of leadership or taking credit for success of the group.

So the separatists actually follow much of the same behaviors in blindly creating stratification, even the most radical queer separatists I've worked with wound up mucking up in intersectionality in some way.

So I see it as fringe, though not dangerous overall. The majority of people will create the mainstream LGBTQ demographic that will assimilate into and help evolve prevailing cultural norms.

I agree. I suppose that's what I was trying to get across in my OP.

I consider myself an assimilationist (for the most part), but that in no way means that I'm self-hating. I'm extremely proud of not being imitated by the recent regressive laws being passed ,or by the fact that general society is not that accepting of LGBT. That being said, I ultimately think being considered non-different from the general populace is what is what we are ultimately trying to strive for.

Granted, we may always have some characteristics that make the LGBT "community" have it's quirks and differences from non-LGBT. But, then again, so do non-LGBT compared to LGBT. As well as person to person.

 

[Curious George]

I've had a long-running rivalry with a gay separatist type on another forum that's lasted for almost a decade now (but I don't post on that forum anymore and I'm still not sure if that person is for real or trolling after all these years). So I know that side of the argument pretty well.

Decade long Poe troll? He/she is either for real or working for Fox news.

 

[StarryNightshade]

There is a tension between the liberal pursuit of formal equality and the more radical pursuit of social emancipation, which would ultimately lead to free love, open relationships and 'free unions' (non-legal partnerships) as the idea of marriage unravels and people embrace a freer expression of sexual life. The latter particularly conflicts with conservative moral attitudes, often prescribed in religion as god's commandments in direct conflict of a person's sexual needs and desires. Ultimately, "assimilation" is a compromise a social structure which reduces human beings to property, the emotional spontaneity of love to a legal contract, and sexual passion and intense attraction to passive objectification.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed the point entirely, but I fail to see how "assimilation" results in the aforementioned? Do those who are a part of the greater non-LGBT population not experience emotional spontaneity and intense attraction? I lieu of getting married? Are they not already human beings? i fail to see how assimilating into general society makes people less than human or takes away their desires.

Then again, I'm not a communist, so I suppose I'm inherently non-radical. In the political sense, anyway.

 

[Laika]

I'm sorry, maybe I missed the point entirely, but I fail to see how "assimilation" results in the aforementioned? Do those who are a part of the greater non-LGBT population not experience emotional spontaneity and intense attraction?

I think it is safe to assume that you've seen at least one romantic comedy, and that the sterotypical "will they, won't they" confusion, anxiety and fear of rejection, desperation, neurosis over self-worth, self-image/body-image etc, is ample evidence that people are not free to pursue their sexual desires when they want to because they are conditioned to wait for the "right" person in exception of marrying them. The LGBT community doesn't have the answers to this, but they raise the same question as to how society impoverishes our ability to love one another so it conforms to the ideals of marriage.

I lieu of getting married?

Yes. The sexual attraction with a single individual varies with intensity over time. nor is it exclusive to a single person. The misery over adultery is partly down to the sense that one partners 'owns' another. There is natural jealousy and then there is the destructive possessiveness.

Are they not already human beings? i fail to see how assimilating into general society makes people less than human or takes away their desires.

Human beings all have the innate capacity to love and to have sex, but it is also something that we learn to do. Society doesn't "take away" these desires; it puts them in a box called marriage and says that anything outside that box is "wrong".

Then again, I'm not a communist, so I suppose I'm inherently non-radical. In the political sense, anyway.

Sex is a good place to start. Once you realize how much we're held back, how our natural desire to be free, happy and to love is perverted into some ugly and destructive it does tend to wake up radical passions because you get the first taste of what the human race could be if we were not afraid to love.

 

[StarryNightshade]

@Red Economist

Fair enough in regards to unrealistic ideals of marriage being overall restrictive on sexuality. However, assimilation goes far beyond marriage itself and, generally, no one is being forced to get married. Hell, one need look no further in the rising rates of co-habitation and long term relationships not resulting in marriage here in the west.