Is the GLBT Historical Society misogynistic?

Hola a todos. The local Queer museum, officially known as the GLBT Historical Society, archives and museum, here in San Francisco’s Castro barrio/neighbourhood is relocating to a larger space in San Francisco, but for awhile they will also keep their current location near 18th and Castro.

In honouring our Queer history, the GLBT Historical Society has always used the “GLBT” acronym, and on their sidewalk sign they have the word Queer.

In the article I read about their move to their new location, someone mentioned that “The Castro is changing,” which seemed to be one of the reasons given for the museum’s move. I guess some people think a Queer museum is now inappropriate and does not belong in The Breeder Mecca known as today’s thoroughly-sanitised Castro, the former Gay Mecca.

I would like to point out that the tense of that statement, “The Castro is changing” is incorrect. It should read: “The Castro has changed.” Past tense. But I’ve heard, “The Castro is changing” repeatedly — which is code language because no one ever gives examples of what they mean by it — and other than myself (this is not intended as boasting), it seems that no one has the cojones to tell it like it is because it seems that most heteronormative and closeted Queers today don’t want to come across as offending the precious, in-your-face breeders who Queers today seem to love to emulate. Frankly, I don’t care how much they are offended. The reality is that The Castro has already become The Breeder Mecca with fleets of baby strollers.

I don’t have the patience to read the comments/juvenile filth on most sites these days, so I cautiously scanned the comments below the article I read about the Queer museum’s move. Someone was complaining that the museum doesn’t use “LGBT” that “everyone else uses” he wrote. I’m glad the museum doesn’t use that sheeple/conformist and revisionist-history “LGBT” corporate branding which is spammed all over the internet and that now looks more like a corporate logo than anything else. I guess it offends that commenter that the museum is not part of the “LGBT” conformist herd. The commenter accused the museum of being misogynistic because they don’t put the “L” first.

I would like to respond to that commenter here because what I have to say would probably not be posted in a comment on that site:

It is misogynistic to put the “L” first. It implies “Ladies go first,” which is reminiscent of a 1950s mentality. That in itself is misogynistic. Why should women automatically be first? Your desire to have the “L” first is misogynistic and chauvinistic. It’s also very heteronormative because breeders are constantly taught that women/”girls” must go first. (The Feminist Movement is dead, in case one hasn’t noticed). And that commenter needs some education on Queer history apparently because Lesbians were not the dominant group of the Gay and Lesbian Rights’ Movement. Gay guys were. That’s why the movement was originally called “The Gay and Lesbian Rights’ Movement.” That’s why the “G” should be first as it was originally — if one must use any acronym — before Lesbians hijacked the Queer movement as part of this more recent corporate revisionist history for Lesbians to get “top billing” for a movement in which they were not the dominant/lead group.

These days, I’m using the word Queer and not these silly acronyms, in part, because the word Queer makes the breeders very uncomfortable.

Rather than being misogynistic, the GLBT Historical Society is being true to our Queer history by retaining the original order of the letters (GLBTQ) in the acrynym, rather than following the heteronormative (“Ladies go first”) revisionist and corporatist “Brand LGBT” conformist sheeple.

Finally, does the reader remember this caca that gullible, naïve, wishful-thinking and delusional people in the Queer community have been spewing in recent years about, “Gay people can live anywhere” and “Gay is now mainstream?” And “there is no need for gay meccas because gay people can live anywhere now.” Remember that utopian nonsense? I and other San Francisco locals remember that some of the major conservative Castro merchants around here were spewing that bunk many years ago. It was around the time that the same merchant basura — think the owner of that once-popular mostly Queer café at Noé and Market Streets — led the campaign for our anti-homeless sit-lie law). I’d like for el pendejo and others like him to read this:

Once Again, Texas Republicans Are Pushing An ‘Avalanche’ Of Anti-LGBTQ Queer Bills

Yes indeed. “Gay people can live anywhere and gay is now mainstream.” Only a wishful-thinking person not fully grounded in reality would have fallen for that and still believes that, and frankly there seems to be no shortage of people like that in the now-conservative Queer community. It seems their reliable and excellent BS detectors — that they had all during the original Gay and Lesbian Rights’ Movement — had an expiration date. Either that, or it went back in the closet with them. Chau.—el barrio rosa

7 comments on “Is the GLBT Historical Society misogynistic?

  1. San Francisco Resident

    If it’s any consolation, I made some headway with my Queer friends about the corp. branding of “LGBT”. At first, everyone of them were very, very resistant to what I had to say. They told me in no un certain terms, “No, LGBT is what were supposed to be using.” I asked them, “Says who?” None of them could tell me. They had no idea where “LGBT” came fomr.. They retorted, “Well it’s everywhere you look.” I said “so that makes it right?” Things then got a little heated. I asked them to calm down and I brought up your article for them to read esp the part about Queer history. No one had thought about it that way, in fact, they’d never thought about it AT ALL they said. They told me they kept seeing “LGBT” and assumed that was the norm they were supposed to use. I think I made a few converts. :-)

  2. el barrio rosa Post author

    I’m going to put this comment here even though it’s not at all related to this article about the GLBT Historical Museum. I was on another site today. They had an article about Trump’s nominee (Gorsuch) to the Supreme Court. The site was allowing the pro-Gorsuch people to comment. Their comments were going on without moderation. I chose to write the following comment, but mine would not go on, so I said, “Fuck it, I’ll put the comment on mi diario/my diary.” So here it is:

    This man (Gorsuch) should not be confirmed for many reasons. One that comes to mind is that he said that it should be illegal for Queers to have sex. What business is it of his what consenting adults do sexually? This man seems to have sexual issues. Typical of people in positions of power. It’s usually closet cases who feel the need to stick their nose in the lives of Queer people as a way of hiding their own Queer feelings as they live a heterosexual lifestyle (in the closet). Hopefully this man will not be confirmed. I also sense that the Trump regime is full of closet cases because people who are secure with themselves and their own sexuality don’t go around hating on Queer people and trying to make laws against Queer people. Closet cases and sexually-insecure people do that.


    P.S. As for the rumour that I’m seeing on the internet that Trump is going to resign, I think that’s bull shit. Wishful-thinking on the part of Democrats. Even if he does resign, nothing will change. Other than Pence seems to be far more mature than El Hombre Naranja/The Orange Man and would be more “presidential.” He doesn’t act like an insane bloviating, lying, out-of-control 5-year old bully on an elementary school playground with no people skills and completely out of touch with reality. But Pence is rabid far-right and very anti-Queer. He would be more like a Theresa May in the UK if not far worse, if that’s possible.

  3. Ed in the Castro

    Hell, the Castro has become such a breeder mecca that last year or the yr before a group around here started the task of “Queering the Castro.” Anyone remember that? pink barrio wrote about it but didn’t include it in this article. I think it bears mention again because it shows how sucky it is around here with breeders and their loud assed children (and dogs pooping all over the sidewalk which the breeders are too fucking lazy to pick up so you have to watch where you walk. Assholes). It fucking blows the mind that a group would have to start a “Queering the Castro” project when the Castro used to be the Queer mecca. Just want to say that.

    Re your question, no the GLBT museum is not misogynistic. That’s crazy. The idiots who put the L first are the misogynistic ones among us.

    1. el barrio rosa Post author

      Hola Ed, for some reason your comment flew into the spam filter and sat there awhile, so I approved it and it’s posted. I also added the link to my article you mentioned. Gracias for mentioning that and for your comment. Chau.

    2. Alejandro

      Hooooooooooooola. I don’t know what to think about the Castro anymore. The neighorhood is dying. Maybe that’s anoter reason why the museum is moving. Gay Scott Penis came in and destroyed the Castro over his 8 year reign and changed it so it would be breeder-friendly. Then the techies moved in. I’ve lost count of how many stores are closed on Market St in and around Castro and how many Queer couples have moved away. This all started when tech moved in. Tech moved in and the property values doubled or tripled. The techies are now saying it’s too expensive in SF and they’re willing to pay people to move out of The City. Tech engineers say they cant afford to live in the Bay Area. You have to thank the tech companies for this. The question is – when Trump decides to severely crack down on same-sex couples will Queers be able to afford to move back to the Castro after tech has ruined The City? The Castro and the area between Castro and Church St looks like blight has set in. But another luxury condo building is going in. That will change things!! You’ll see!!!

      pink barrio: Gracias y saludos.

  4. castro local

    “Is the GLBT Historical Society misogynistic?”


    but those who ride the “lgbt” train are like the articlle explains.

  5. D8

    The letters “LGBT” dishonor the movement. There’s not much more that can be said about this that hasn’t already been said. I don’t think most people care because most people are sheep. Lilke you wrote in this article about that guy commenting on that site was whining about why the museum here in SF wasn’t using the letter order that ‘everyone else is using.’ The herd mentality, and that’s hard to fight. The same as with your other article I read about the herd using the word “foreign” instead of “international”, and “mankind” instead of “humankind.” My reaction to “LGBT” is the same as yours. It’s a cheap substitute for what should be there. Makes me cringe, but I think we’re in the minority. You’ve been vigilant on it….to your credit.

Fin. The End.