Brand LGBT(TM)

Brand LGBTTM: The pro-corporate, pro-mainstream and heteronormative branding of the gay community, making us more acceptable and palatable to the preferences and priorities of the in-your-face Heterosexual Mainstream Society.

Hola a todos. Our little local group of GLBTQs here in San Francisco got together last week as we do from time-to-time to catch up and talk about various topics. It’s usually something we all find important and not a pre-planned topic.

This time we talked about the widespread use of Brand LGBTTM. We’re referring to the cookie-cutter acronym “LGBT” that one sees everywhere (although not on pink barrio) and which is used worldwide. It’s as if this “LGBT” acronym was issued by a US congressional Declaration from on high and/or by some international governing body to be used throughout el mundo/the world. What was wrong with using GLBTQ in their thinking? Except for purposes of this article, I don’t use “LGBT” at all since it is ugly dishonesty and corporate branding. It indicates a revision of GLBTQ history. I and the amigos/amigas in my group use GLBTQ, including las lesbianas/the lesbians in our group. We’ve noticed that the conformist and heteronormative Brand LGBTTM is used worldwide especially by corporate websites when writing about, promoting, for the commercialisation of and the co-opting of the now-dead Gay Rights’ Movement. The movement was originally called the Gay Rights’ Movement. It was not called the Lesbian Rights’ Movement therefore the G should be first and not the L. Brand LGBTTM reflects the co-opting of the Gay Rights’ Movement by lesbians, and again, even the rewriting of the movements’ history. Also, conformist and heteronormative “LGBT” is not inclusive. It omits the Q at the end for “Queer” for some odd reason. Whoever created this Brand LGBTTM nonsense didn’t like the more radical Queers? How long before there’s a revision and they decide that the T is really not appropriate? As I wrote in this article, back in 1979 the movement was called The Gay and Lesbian Movement. Period. But Brand LGBTTM has even gone back into history and taken the name of a major march that took place in — where I used to live — the District of Columbia and renamed that march “The Lesbian and Gay March on Washington.” It wasn’t called that. It was called the Gay and Lesbian March on Washington. This is ugly, cheap and tawdry revisionism. The heteronormative Brand LGBTTM marketing acronym is really very dishonest because it gives top credit to lesbians for a movement where they were not the dominant group of the movement, but now giving them “top billing” and top priority in the acronym. I thought most people knew that gay guys were the denominate/activist group of the Gay and Lesbian Rights’ Movement.

So what’s the reason for Brand LGBTTM? Our group concluded that it’s heteronormative branding. The “L” is first in our opinion because lesbians are considered more acceptable than gay guys to “straights” and especially to “straight” men in our sexually dysfunctional heteronormative society. GLBTQs apparently love to cater to and please “straight” people — don’t ask me why — so that’s why they listed the “L” first. The thinking seems to be: Our society still has many problems with and prejudices against gay guys, but our society seems to see lesbians in a more positive way so (to please the “straights”) put them first in the acronym to cater to our bigoted, anti-gay heteronomative society. Of course it’s much more acceptable to see two females holding hands and kissing than seeing two gay guys holding hands and kissing, which many people would say they find repulsive. For example: Fucked-Up US Public: Gay Legal Rights Good; Gay Kissing Bad. Many people have no problem seeing two women kissing but they can’t bare to see two guys kissing. Yet the same people have no problem seeing two guys being violent with each other, beating each other up and/or killing each other and they’ll pay to watch that. But don’t show them two guys kissing. They can’t handle that. Sick-assed people. Even as children, no one blinks an eye seeing two little girls holding hands as amigas/friends. People say, “isn’t that cute?” But when two boys do the same thing they’re scolded, they’re not considered “cute.” They will be screamed at: “you two boys stop holding hands; boys don’t hold hands. Stop it!” No, boys are supposed to fight and beat each other up seems to be the preference/thinking. So Brand LGBTTM is a very sanitising acronym to cater to the “straights” to make being gay and lesbian all the more palatable to delicate them. Also, when the corporate media (are required to) show a same-gender couple kissing, the overwhelming majority of the time it’s predictably two females. Two guys kissing are rarely shown, and when that happens it’s only very briefly by comparison. While writing this article I glanced at my television and saw a very heteronormative ad from a corporate box store which I think pretends to be “gay-friendly?” It was all about dancing while trying to unload some item. I saw a guy and female (implying they were a “straight” couple) were dancing together wearing conformist black and gray clothing. Two females were dancing together holding hands, reinforcing what I said earlier about two females being “acceptable” to the general public. But you know what I didn’t see? Two guys holding hands and dancing. No, they just couldn’t bring themselves to show that. And yet wishful-thinking GLBTQ idiots have told us repeatedly that “gay is now mainstream.” Not on my television it isn’t. I don’t know what network you’re watching where that’s the case. All I see are heteronormative obnoxious in-your-face “straight” couples making out, fawning over each other, short needy-her looking up at tall-him with limpid eyes begging for his attention, him holding her chin going in for the beso/kiss, him and her holding hands and then the two having a major dysfunction.

My Question: Why do “straight” people get top priority/preference by pleasing and catering to them versus pleasing ourselves as GLBTQs? Did the idiots who came up with Brand LGBTTM not think of that? Fuck the “straights.” I don’t need their fucking approval for my sexuality. Nobody appointed them as “god.” What is wrong with GLBTQs who feel the need to boot lick, cater to and emulate the “straights” and be like them? Get some self confidence, damn it! Stop licking the boots of the “straight” community. Shouldn’t we GLBTQs please ourselves and be true to our history, rather than sanitising our history to accommodate “straight” people? I find it disgusting what has happened. And apparently most gay guys know how society still feels about them because as I’ve previously written, many gay guys (if not most) are labeling themselves “bi” (even though they’re not bisexual) in their personal sex ads on the site I call ClosetList and probably elsewhere. And they’re doing this worldwide. Of course there are genuine bi (bisexual) guys out there. But I’m talking about them here. I’m talking about gay guys who are lying about their sexuality in their personal sex ads and calling themselves “bi.” Why are they doing this? As a way to appear more heteronormative and to give the impression of being more “masculine” than a gay guy because he is supposedly into females as well as guys. These days, it’s rare to see a guy use the word “gay” or even GWM (gay white male) in their ads on ClosetList.

Mi amigo/My friend has experience with gay phone sex and he’s told me repeatedly about the many guys who start out by saying “I’m bi” and then when mi amigo plays along and tries to pursue that in a phone sex conversation by casually asking the guy when was the last time he was with a “girl” or what type of “girls” he gets into. At that point, the supposed bi guy immediately hangs up on him. These supposed bi guys have no interest in talking about females because they’re really gay and they want to talk about gay sex. But they lie and put that “bi” label out there to falsely describe themselves to try to appear more manly, masculine and heteronormative as I wrote about here. They think bi sounds masculine and gay sounds feminine in their minds, even though there are millions of very masculine gay guys out there. But there are still negative connotations with the word “gay” even in the minds of many gay guys. It’s part of self-hate. The big lie here with gay guys dishonestly calling themselves bi is that human sexuality does not change so drastically where millions of gay guys all over the world miraculously became interested in females or “bi” nearly overnight. That just doesn’t happen. Human sexuality doesn’t work that way people. It does on ClosetList.

I’d like to talk about this a little bit more even though it’s not directly related to Brand LGBTTM, but it’s still connected to GLBTQs: On ClosetList, the category is called “men for men” but even in that category it’s rare to see any guy use the word “gay.” I mostly see “bi” or “WM” (white male). And WM is neutral and does not at all identify the sexuality of the guy so its as if they are in the closet even though in their sex ads they’re usually looking for gay sex. It’s as if most guys on CL are ashamed of the word gay, even today after all this time. Well, I shouldn’t say “even today” because as many people know we’re heading backwards very quickly. It won’t surprise mis amigos/my friends if the now-dead Gay Rights’ Movement will need to be started all over again at some point in the future. Mi amigo said: “I think this would be a horrible time to try to get a boyfriend or a partner.” Yes, I think it would be too; quite frustrating these days considering the lying and dishonesty one reads in gay personal sex ads. Not that “straight” ads are any different. They too are full of dishonesty and lies such as the closet case gay guys who are calling themselves “straight” and looking to suck dick and they “have a girl and she doesn’t know so need to be discreet.” I’ve read that countless times. In other words, he’s cheating on her. That’s a common theme on ClosetList. Most of the gay ads and phony bi ads are saturated with the words “discreet” and “down low,” which clearly imply that the guy thinks there’s something wrong with being gay and what he’s doing sexually otherwise he wouldn’t need to be “discreet” or “down low” (DL) about his behaviour. And/or he’s cheating on someone and doesn’t want them to find out. “Discreet” is usually code language for a closet case and going by the ads on ClosetList, most guys on there are still in the closet and that’s why I call that site ClosetList.

Back to Brand LGBTTM: Previously when I researched this, from what I read the “L” was first in Brand LGBTTM to show that the gay community supports women’s rights. Isn’t it a given that the gay community supports women’s right? Therefore, no need to put the L first. We also support trans rights but we don’t put the T first at all. I think my first explanation about this order of the letters is more accurate than the women’s rights explanation.

As some of us see it, Brand LGBTTM is unfortunate tacky commercialism and the entire world is using it. I and the people in our little group cringe every time we see that “LGBT” branding. It is indeed the “branding” of the now-dead Gay Rights’ Movement, and unfortunately many self-described “progressives” (who are really nothing but Democratic Party hacks and shills at s-election time) have fallen in lockstep with this and they use the cookie-cutter Brand LGBTTM whenever they write about GLBTQs topics. They do so to be conformist, because “everybody is doing it.” I would point out that genuine progressives are not conformists.

Unfortunately, the original Gay Rights’ Movement became corrupted by Brand LGBTTM and has lost itself with favour given to the preferences and priorities of the Heterosexual Establishment and what they want for the gay community, rather than what we GLBTQs want for ourselves. Chau.—el barrio rosa

3 comments on “Brand LGBT(TM)

  1. Wes in Arlington - GLBTQ

    Can only add the amount of hatred out there for gay guys “in the scene.” I’m not sure what that means exactly. I just know that after checking the ads on Cl that I’ve seen lot and lots of guys saying “you must be non-scene.” Taking a guess, I’d say they’re looking for a guy in the closet. Boy, the stuff they come up with.

  2. Robert Seaborne

    Thank you pink barrio,
    for this concise expose of what amounts to a LGBT(TM) absurdity of obscene dimensions.

    GLBTQ upward and onward!

Fin. The End.