Rachel Geise on Outing/toronto star
Chris Ambidge
this is Rachel Geise's op-ed column in today (99 05 06)'s Trawna Star
/\/\/\/\/\/
COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET - QUICKLY, OR SLOWLY
``Outing'' - reporting the homosexuality of public figures
who remain in the closet while supporting anti-gay policies - has
fallen out of favour since its heyday in the late 1980s. As a
political technique, it was never that useful. It turns out that no one
other than gay men and lesbians much cared if someone was
hypocritically anti-gay in public, but gay in private - after
all, in many minds, the best kind of homosexual is a
self-loathing one.
But it's also a case of changing times. More prominent
gay men and lesbians are leaping out of closets of their
own volition and the confrontational activism that went
hand-in-hand with outing (die-ins for AIDS, kiss-ins for
queer visibility) has been abandoned for court challenges
and political lobbying. One of outing's staunchest
proponents, Michaelangelo Signorile, who once
lambasted those who protected the closet in the power
centres of Washington, Hollywood and New York, has
done a complete reversal. The man who once outed
Malcolm Forbes and wrote political manifestos in
all-caps and bold face has become a kind of New Age
homo, encouraging people to take their own coming out
process gradually.
These days, few journalists or activists would even think
of delving into someone's secret sexual orientation, the
argument being that although almost every other aspect
of famous people's lives are up for scrutiny, from their
diets and their spirituality, to their childhood traumas and
their financial dealings, no one needs to know if they
happen to be gay. In the aftermath of Lewinskygate,
closeted gay men and lesbians enjoy a kind of
protection that straights don't - their sex lives, even
when sordid or scandalous, are, by an unspoken rule,
off limits.
Last month, I moderated a discussion on outing at the
annual conference of the National Gay and Lesbian
Journalists Association - and the issue was as
contentious as ever. Most everyone in the room knew of
some celebrity or politician hidden amongst the clothes
hangers; almost everyone said they would never report a
person's sexuality against their wishes. They cited the
usual reasons: it's no one's business, it's cruel, there's no
point, it would be putting someone's career, or even
their life, in jeopardy. All valid points, all completely
frustrating.
There are serious ethical questions about outing, but this
relentless caution and secrecy has created a kind of
paranoia, suggesting that gay men and lesbians slouch
around shamefully in some shadowy underworld, facing
enormous consequences for being open about their
lives. One person went so far as to liken outing a
celebrity to turning in a Jew to the SS in the Germany of 1941 (!).
Certainly, discrimination exists in varying degrees, from
violent gay-bashing to more mundane annoyances like
stupid questions from straight colleagues. Speaking from
experience, being out is ultimately far less burdensome
than being closeted. Fear-mongering aside, I think a lot
of people are secretive about their lives because they
don't want to rock the boat, and remain in the closet
because they can, because people are too polite or too
oblivious to challenge them.
This was the situation with Mark Tewksbury, the
Olympic medallist swimmer, who came out last winter to
a combination of cheers and criticism. To many, the
``news'' of Tewksbury's coming out was a little odd,
since he hadn't been particularly ``in'' to anyone who
paid attention. He showed up at high-profile events
teeming with journalists with his handsome boyfriend in
tow long before he made his performance debut in a
one-man show in which he dished about his life. Still, a
lot of homophobic commentators used it as a way to
both belittle gay men and lesbians for making a big deal
of it - one reporter preciously ``came out'' as straight in
one memorably nasty column - and to attack
Tewksbury personally for being in the spotlight.
For me, the smugness in suggesting that coming out
doesn't make a difference was blown apart, quite
literally, by the nail bombing of a gay pub last week in
London, England. The third attack of its kind on
minority groups, the first two in black and South Asian
neighbourhoods, the bomb killed three people,
wounded more than 100.
In the light of this, talk of protecting the closet seems
grotesque. It didn't matter to the killer whether the
people in the pub were discreet or flamboyant,
progressive or conservative. That they were in a gay
pub was enough.
Being out won't necessarily bring about the end of
prejudice, but then closets don't protect you from hatred
and discrimination, either. But being open at least allows
you to live in dignity in a world where some extremists
would rather you didn't live at all.
Rachel Giese's column appears Thursdays in The Star.
/\/\/\/\/\/
and of course, two of the three fatalities weren't gay, but friends
of a gay man (the third death).
Chris
--
Chris Ambidge =|= chemist by day, panda by night
chris....@utoronto.ca =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca
http://www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Matthew Malthouse
amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote:
} and of course, two of the three fatalities weren't gay, but friends
} of a gay man (the third death).
Two were a married couple and the second fatality their best man. The
fourth person (and third fatality) has been little mentioned but that looks
to me like a married couple, his best friend gay and that person's partner.
Of course that's guesswork.
In a gay pub.
The picture that makes of four people out for a drink and at ease in a gay
bar regardles of sexuality is itself welcome.
How utterlly tragic that it would have gone quite unremarked had not three
of the four died.
And disgusting that no part of the media seems to have tried to investigate
these peoples' histories and what brought them there. Or maybe they did and
couldn't bring themselves to publish such an image.
Matthew
--
"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk/index.html
Roedy Green
will be outed March 26. 2001. This will give you time to prepare and
out yourself gradually if you choose to be sensible."
For the JAVA GLOSSARY and the CMP Utilities: <http://mindprod.com>
--
Roedy Green, Canadian Mind Products
-30-
Chris Ambidge
>} and of course, two of the three fatalities weren't gay, but friends
>} of a gay man (the third death).
[matthew]
>Two were a married couple and the second fatality their best man. The
>fourth person (and third fatality) has been little mentioned but that looks
>to me like a married couple, his best friend gay and that person's partner.
>Of course that's guesswork.
oh, has there been a fourth death? The two immediate deaths,
as I understand it, was a (pregnant) woman and the best man
at her wedding. The third death was a close, gay, friend of
them. One of the seriously wounded was the husband of the
woman who was killed. Has he died now? I understood he had
begun to regain consciousness and ask for his wife.
The couple had just discovered they were expecting a child,
and had asked the best man to be a godfather. He was taking
them to the theatre that night to celebrate. They stopped
off in the Admiral Duncan with some other friends (one of whom
was the gay man killed) for pre-dinner drinks. I understand
that the gay man killed (whose name escapes me at the moment)
died the next morning.
This is not conjecture on my part. It was published in *The
Times*, I read it in the on-line edition. I suspect other
print media had the same information. It was based on interviews
with the families of the deceased / injured people who
knew their plans and relationships. It isn't speculation on
anyone's part.
>In a gay pub.
>
>The picture that makes of four people out for a drink and at ease in a gay
>bar regardles of sexuality is itself welcome.
>
>How utterlly tragic that it would have gone quite unremarked had not three
>of the four died.
It's certainly tragic that these people died. I'm not sure that
it's tragic that it would have gone unremarked without the
explosion. I wouldn't have said it was high-priority news.
I hope that you're not saying that it would not have been
reported had two of the three deceased been heterosexual;
your text is not clear on that point.
>And disgusting that no part of the media seems to have tried to investigate
>these peoples' histories and what brought them there. Or maybe they did and
>couldn't bring themselves to publish such an image.
Untrue, and un-disgusting. Try checking the media before you
blast them for not covering a story. It was quite adequately
covered.
Roedy Green
wrote:
>Perhaps outing should be done this way. You warn the "victim". "You
>will be outed March 26. 2001. This will give you time to prepare and
>out yourself gradually if you choose to be sensible."
You would also have to explain:
This is not blackmail. I want nothing more from you than to be
honest. Closet cases like you are what hold gay oppression in place
and I am sick and tired of being oppressed.
Outing yourself is not nearly as difficult or painful as you might
think. Recommended reading ......
Manuel M Campagna
Geise is, AFAIK, not quite correct about Signorile. Isn't she a straight,
after all.
My understanding is, he always supported "responsible and professional
outing", that is, outing should always rest on the following principles :
1. The outed person must be really queer, and the outing must be based on
at least two pieces of (at least) journalistic evidence.
2. The outing must serve some useful purpose for the community. For
instance, outing someone in authority or glamour who has been using
his/her influence to the detriment of the queer community.
I understand Signorile has played along these lines from the beginning.
I also understand he has never changed his mind on the principles but is
now concentrating on helping people outing themselves (compiling and
writing a self-help book, for instance).
Manuel
.
Manuel-M. CAMPAGNA . . . . 1 613 789 21 11
survey interviewer . . Ottawa ON Canada
translator (En/It/Eo -> Fr) . . ah...@freenet.carleton.ca
###
Chris Ambidge
>Geise is, AFAIK, not quite correct about Signorile. Isn't she a straight,
>after all.
No. Rachel Geise was on staff at Xtra for quite a while, and
is definitely a lesbian.
as to your information about Signorile, I don't know. Given your
information on Geise and indeed incorrect chemistry in another
thread, which I =do= know aobut , I find your assertions here
questionable as coming from an unreliable source.
It would be nice if you trimmed material you're following up to,
deleting material you aren't referring to. Thank you.
chris
Manuel M Campagna
Chris Ambidge (amb...@ecf.toronto.edu) writes:
> Manuel M Campagna <ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.descartes.CA> wrote:
>>after all.
> is definitely a lesbian.
Well, I haven't read Xtra since Capital Xtra came to light. As far as
Geise is concerned, not knowing her, I supposed she would be straight,
speaking for a straight rag.
> as to your information about Signorile, I don't know. Given your
> information on Geise and indeed incorrect chemistry in another
> thread, which I =do= know aobut , I find your assertions here
> questionable as coming from an unreliable source.
My information about Signorile comes from having read his books _Queer in
America_ and _Outing Yourself_ and regularly reading his articles in _Out_.
What was incorrect about chemistry ? That water is not exclusively H2O ?
Since you like authentic quotes, here's one.
"Cola drinks get their brown color from an ammonia caramel compound caled
2-acetyl-4-tetrahydroxy-butylimidazole (THI). Coca-Cola has the patent on
THI. Strangely, however, THI isn't just a food coloring agent -- the
patent on THI is for its ability to suppress the immune system."
--- Dr Davin Williams, in "Alternatives Magazine".
Enjoy.
> It would be nice if you trimmed material you're following up to,
> deleting material you aren't referring to. Thank you.
I would be delighted to, but I have to remove each line one at a time,
which is very time-consuming. Be thankful I already remove the empty lines
from the quotes. So anybody who knows how to remove several lines at a
time in Freenet is welcome to let me on.
> chris
Matthew Malthouse
amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote:
} It's certainly tragic that these people died. I'm not sure that
} it's tragic that it would have gone unremarked without the
} explosion. I wouldn't have said it was high-priority news.
Context is, if not all then much. And I apologise becasue the discusion
that lead my thoughts in this direction happened on uk.glb and I didn't
apreciate how confused my post would appear divorced from it.
Of the many aspects of tragedy in this monstrous act I felt that there was
one in that in normal, peaceful circumstances the _integration_ implicit in
a couple using a noted gay bar for pre-theatre drinks regardles of their
gender or sexuality would have been unremarked. Yet excatly that sort of
example might help open some eyes, especially those for whom the gay scene
of Soho might as well be a foreign country.
} I hope that you're not saying that it would not have been
} reported had two of the three deceased been heterosexual;
} your text is not clear on that point.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
The initial condemnation of the blast - the third, but the first to cause
fatalities - was clear but the mis-information in the details of the venue
and clientel was almost laughable for those of us familliar with the place.
Channel 5 news described it as a "tourist" pub. BBC producers were stuck on
air having "drinking around the corner".
Later the words "gay" and "homsexual" found their way into the reportage
and a sense of realism crept into the descriptions of what had happened and
to whom.
But as soon as it was known that two of the (the) three dead were a married
couple the indignation went up a notch while you could hear sub-editors all
over Fleet Street heaving sighs of relief that they could run a story and
without focusing on (and in at least two cases even mentioning) that the
venue and many of the other victims were gay.
Prince Charles visited the Admiral Duncan, the floral tributes in Soho
Square and ate at the Old Compton Street (gay) restaurant Ballams. I'm not
an ardent monarchist but I think the man did right. But parts of the press
again couldn't bring themselves to write the plain truth of whom those
tributes were for etc.
Then we have the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, speaking to parliament about
the bombings highlighting the necessity to strengthen the law on hate
crimes agains ethmic and religious minorites. And not once did he mention
gays.
It's illegal to incite hatred of blacks or jews etc in the UK. But there is
no sanction against those who would incite hatred against gays, lesbians,
bisexuals.
During the last changes to the race laws there was an attempt to include
sexual orientation in the provisions. The government rejected the
ammendment and a minister of state, Paul Boetneg claimed that they did so
because "it would water down the message the government was trying to get
over on racial hatred."
A bomber targeted the black community of Brixton, the Bangladeshi's of
Brick Lane and the gays of Soho.
The press and politicians seem to be deliberately ignoring the implications
of the last, obliterating the details in a welter of outrage, indignation
and "good intentions".
People are becomming _very_ bitter.
} >And disgusting that no part of the media seems to have tried to
investigate
} >these peoples' histories and what brought them there. Or maybe they did
and
} >couldn't bring themselves to publish such an image.
}
} Untrue, and un-disgusting. Try checking the media before you
} blast them for not covering a story. It was quite adequately
} covered.
Try checking my e-mail address against a list of the UK's national
newspapers.
I did look through the library (paper, not electronic) copies of the weeks
press at work. Either I missed the Times piece or it was published
subsequently.
Reading the Mail I at first wondered if they'd been shocked into a
volte-face over homosexuality. But no. Wednesday's leader might well have
been headlined "heterosexuals killed in bomb outrage".
It is _exactly_ disgusting that gays, lesbian and bisexuals be
marginalised in this manner.
It's utterly bewildering. I might well have been there. I was there an
hour later. How the hell can these assholes ignore those who were the
target of this expression of hatred?
Chris Ambidge
[Matthew, earlier]
>
>} >And disgusting that no part of the media seems to have tried to
>} >investigate these peoples' histories and what brought them there. Or maybe
>} >they did and couldn't bring themselves to publish such an image.
>} Untrue, and un-disgusting. Try checking the media before you
>} blast them for not covering a story. It was quite adequately
>} covered.
[matthew again]
> Try checking my e-mail address against a list of the UK's national
>newspapers.
Of course I was aware that you were posting from the UK, Matthew.
That was why I was so surprised that you didn't think that there was any
gay reference in the news coverage. UK coverage will of course be
more extensive than ours was in Canada.
You, on the other hand, are speaking in a Canadian forum here in
can.motss . Many of us here get that sort of news from such sources
as the CBC, or from such gay news sites as PlanetOut -- and you can
bet that PlanetOut
<http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/community/planet_out/>
never misses a pink angle on a story.
I've just checked the archive of posted stories from CBC Newsworld
<http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca>, and just about all of their stories
on the Admiral Duncan bomb refer to it as being in a *gay* bar.
Besides *The Times* which I spoke of, I went to the BBC news archive.
[All of these URLs should be a single line, in case my newsreader breaks
the line.] I didn't check out all of the stories in the BBC archive, but
all of these again specifically refer to it as a bomb at a gay bar, or
targeting gay people. The only story which I saw which didn't
mention gays was the most recent one, and it was a medical story,
talking about what happens to the human body when a nail bomb
goes off, and what kinds of repair are needed -- which is, I'm sure,
not sexual-orientation-specific.
These are stories I found in the BBC archive:
Soho - haven for the unconventional
[Fri April 30, just after bomb had exploded]
http://news2.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F332000/332828.stm
Prince of Wales meets victims of bomb [Monday May 3]
http://news2.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F334000/334327.stm
Man remanded in London bomb charges [Monday May 3]
http://news2.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special%5Freport/1999/05/99/
the%5Fnail%5Fbomb%5Fterror/newsid%5F339000/339912.stm
Vigil for Soho blast victims [Tuesday May 4]
http://news2.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F334000/334529.stm
Hundreds gather for Soho bomb vigil [Saturday May 8]
http://news2.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F337000/337684.stm
Now these are sources that I've checked, and of course there are
more -- but these are ones readily available to Canadians on the web;
and there doesn't seem to me to be any glossing over of the gay aspect
to the story.
> I did look through the library (paper, not electronic) copies of the weeks
>press at work. Either I missed the Times piece or it was published
>subsequently.
>
> Reading the Mail I at first wondered if they'd been shocked into a
>volte-face over homosexuality. But no. Wednesday's leader might well have
>been headlined "heterosexuals killed in bomb outrage".
>
> It is _exactly_ disgusting that gays, lesbian and bisexuals be
>marginalised in this manner.
so it's interesting for me, who isn't exposed to the
wide spectrum of the UK media, to see what slant as a whole
you are perceiving from your place there. As I said,
here in the Great White North, the GAY aspect was very
clear and consistently reported, from the very first 'breaking
news' item I read about it on the CBC website on the afternoon of
the blast happening.
> It's utterly bewildering. I might well have been there. I was there an
>hour later. How the hell can these assholes ignore those who were the
>target of this expression of hatred?
I'm sure it's QUITE alarming when it could so easily have been
you there in the room when it went bang.
One of the interview shows on CBC on the Sunday after the blast
was a talking-head chat with an English woman journalist & the
Canajun host. She mentioned the degree of political anger and
activism that had become apparent after the Admiral Duncan bomb,
"the gays have organised very quickly and said 'this has got to
stop and it's stopping now". (almost a direct quote). So that
realisation of gay political activism made it to this side of the
Atlantic, if not into some of the tabloids and broadsheets in
England itself.
Matthew Malthouse
amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote:
Snippity much resonable stuff..
} Of course I was aware that you were posting from the UK, Matthew.
/grin/ it was The Guardian bit I was trying to point out, when I later said
that I'd checked the library at work I meant to indiacte that the library
of a national newspaper should have been comprehensive - obviously I didn't
look as far as I might have.
} One of the interview shows on CBC on the Sunday after the blast
} was a talking-head chat with an English woman journalist & the
} Canajun host. She mentioned the degree of political anger and
} activism that had become apparent after the Admiral Duncan bomb,
} "the gays have organised very quickly and said 'this has got to
} stop and it's stopping now". (almost a direct quote). So that
} realisation of gay political activism made it to this side of the
} Atlantic, if not into some of the tabloids and broadsheets in
} England itself.
Now that's a really interesting point.
There is a lot of anger and people organising relief funds, meetings,
lobbies etc.
There's even talk of an annual march in rememberance or even moving
London's pride to the date.
But I have this nagging fear that, as time passes and impressions and
memories become muted, apathy ill re-assert itself. That possibility I find
very depressing and I find it very difficult to keep hoping that things
might be otherwise. :(