Hola a todos. You may have heard that Gilbert Baker, the designer of the Rainbow Flag, died on 30 marzo/March de 2017 of heart disease. He was 65.
Every headline I saw about his death that used an acronym referred to the “LGBT Rainbow Flag.” WTF?
You know, this is becoming very tiresome. This is yet another example of revisionist Queer history that one is seeing more and more of in these dishonest, lying days. When Gilbert designed the Rainbow Flag, the movement was called the Gay and Lesbian Rights’ Movement. I know because I was there. So it should be “GLBTQ.” The movement was not called the “Lesbian and Gay Rights’ Movement.” That’s something relatively new dreamed up by heteronormative corporatists to give lesbians an honorary position in the acronym. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Lesbians were not the dominant group of the Gay and Lesbian Rights’ Movement, as “LGBT” falsely implies.
Repeating what I’ve written before, I’ve read various reasons for why presumably one or more of the corporatists busy-bodied US national Queer media organisations decided that the “L” should be moved to first place. (Are they run by lesbians?) From my research:
One reason given for this change to “LGBT” was to put “Ladies first” as in a “Ladies should go first” way of thinking. Well that is blatantly misogynist, chauvinistic and reminiscent of a 1940-50s way of thinking. Has no one thought of that? I could see lesbians getting “top billing” in the acronym if they had done most of the work during the movement, but they didn’t. Overall, gay men did the majority of the work of the movement.
Another reason I’ve read for why dishonest people began putting the “L” first is the heteronormative thinking that lesbians are thought to be “more acceptable” to breeders than gay guys. So to cater to and accommodate anti-gay breeders who feel more comfortable with lesbians than with gay guys, that’s the reason the “L” was moved to first place, and gay guys (“G”) had to take second place. It’s always good to cater to breeders’ prejudices, isn’t it? [sarcasm intended]. That does seem to be the thinking of heteronormative Queers. (roll eyes).
Another reason I’ve read for this is that the Gay and Lesbian Rights’ Movement and the Women’s Rights Movement were going at the same time, and lesbians were feeling they were being neglected in the Gay Rights’ Movement. Oh poor babies. Well, again, if they had done the majority of work in the movement they would deserve top billing, but that was not the reality. It seems that the now-dead Women’s Movement is trying to ride on the coat tails of and has already hijacked the Gay and Lesbian Rights’ Movement to give lesbians first place attention that they don’t rightly deserve. And in case one hasn’t noticed, the Feminist Movement is absolutely dead. One can confirm that by observing the young and mostly white him-tall and dominant/her-short and submissive breeder couples in San Francisco today and their misogynist and chauvinistic 1940s-50s style behaviour. (Some examples: Needy her always requiring her hand to be held or his arm around her. Needy her needs constant attention. She needs her chair to be pulled out for her in restaurants – Ms Helpless can’t pull out a chair? jesus!) and she requires her car door to be opened for needy her. Is he required to fasten her seat belt for her too? Does he have to go open the bathroom door for her too? Ugh. La mujer/The woman has never heard the word “feminist” ever!)
Another reason I’ve read for this “LGBT” nonsense is to show that Queers support women’s rights. Duh. Well isn’t that a given? Using that lame rationale, we also support Transgender rights, so why isn’t the T first? Do you see how ludicrous this is? Clearly, whatever morons dreamed up “LGBT,” they were dismally lacking in critical thinking skills.
I’d like to point out that transgender individuals and gay guys lit the pilot light for the Queer Rights’ Movement with the riot at Cooper’s Donuts in Los Ángeles in 1959 and then the riot at Compton’s Cafeteria in 1966 in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district.
I want the reader to understand me and what I’m saying. I’m not trying to minimise anyone’s participation in the Queer Rights’ Movement, but I see no reason whatsoever to grant an honorary position (top billing) to lesbians just to make them feel better about their minimal participation (minimal compared to gay guys) in our Queer Rights’ Movement.
In the last couple of months, I’ve read a few comments on websites questioning this ubiquitous “LGBT” nonsense — which to some of us looks like a corporatist brand — that one sees spammed all over the internet like a virus. One guy wrote: “What is wrong with you gay guys? Why are you letting lesbians have top billing and hijack your Gay Rights’ Movement when you did most of the work?” Uh huh. That’s the same question I’ve asked. At least he hasn’t gotten in “LGBT lockstep” without questioning our rich history being revised by corporatist basura. One guy who described himself as “a conservative” wrote: “I’m not LGBT. I don’t identify with that. I’m Queer.” Yes, same here. He made it quite clear that he strongly resented this corporatist branding of our movement.
I told mi amigo/my friend that Gilbert had died. He said: “Yeah I saw that.” I said, “But once again, all the headlines I’ve seen about it read ‘LGBT’.” He said, “Time for another article from you about Queer revisionist history.” I said, “Yes, I plan to hammer this home. I’m sick of it.” So is he.
The dishonest corporate Queer tra$h (and that’s exactly how I feel about them) at the US national corporate Queer organi$ations — with their exorbitant executive $alarie$ and who serve as self-appointed authorities on all Queer matters — are lying about our Queer history. And get this: They or someone have even gone back into Queer archival historical online documents and changed the language there too to reflect this “LGBT” revisionist history, trying to imply it was “LGBT” from the very beginning, which is a lie. These people are basura. I can’t stand them. They need to be called out on it, and that’s what I’m doing. I and the people I know are sick of them. These heteronormative corporatist basura don’t speak for us. I was on one of their websites recently and I saw nothing but corporate logos as their funders at the bottom of their front page. They don’t seem to have any standards whatsoever on what corporations they will accept dinero/money from, including W*lls Fa*go.
Speaking of the toxic corporate culture, one of these corporatist Queer national organisations recently honoured a techie billionaire (Dahling) at their bougi annual dinner which came with an outrageous price-per-plate (I think it was $500.00 if I remember correctly), while there were (very likely Queer) homeless people with nothing to eat sleeping on the sidewalk in the same area of this lah-tee-dah dinner in San Francisco. But these Queer corporatist organisations don’t care about our Queer homeless people and the many problems that need to be addressed with them. These Queer corporatist basura only care about people just like themselves in the same income bracket of course to continue to give them dinero/money. I presume that these Queer media organisations — whom I obviously have no respect for — arrogantly decided to speak for the entire Queer community and sent out a memo to every (media) organisation on the planet that, “whenever you write about Gay and Lesbian topics on your site, make sure you use only the “LGBT” acronym (with the unspoken part being: to give lesbians an honorary place/a top place in our heteronormative acronym so that they can feel included in a movement where they were not the dominate group).”
Some of us Queers have no use for these corporati$t Queer groups whatsoever. In fact, one of them threw Transgender people “under the bus” some years ago.
I and a few others are no longer using any of these silly acronyms. I’m using the word Queer and that includes everybody (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer et al). I especially like the word Queer because it makes the breeder basura squirm and feel most uncomfortable.
The Rainbow Flag here in 2017
The sense that some of us have is that with this new very conservative, “discreet and down-low” closeted Queer community in San Francisco and other major cities, the Rainbow Flag is now seen as “too gay” or even passé with the delusional and erroneous thinking being that “all has been accomplished for Queers and there’s nothing left to do; the obnoxious breeders love us and we have reached utopia, so now it’s time to party and live embedded in one’s phone 24-hours a day.” Other than the Rainbow Flags on utility poles in The Castro (the new Breeder Mecca) and the large Rainbow Flag that’s still up at Harvey Milk Plaza (which some of us call Breeder Make-out Central) for tourist purposes, Rainbow Flags have all but disappeared from San Francisco. I used to see them on bumper stickers but not anymore. In fact, it’s rare to see any bumper stickers in this new sanitised City anymore. In the Upper Market area, I only know of 3-4 Rainbow Flags that are displayed outside homes or apartments. Some of the businesses in The Castro and Upper Market have taken down their Rainbow flags presumably to sanitise so as not to offend the precious breeders who apparently get priority and who may feel uncomfortable in an establishment with Rainbow Flags flying. The closet-case supposedly “gay” sports bar on Market Street only flies the Rainbow Flag on corporatist “Pride” Sunday to exploit tourists. They make sure that flag goes back in the closet at closing time that night. They fly corporate sports team flags every day outside that obnoxious bar but not the Rainbow Flag, as if they are ashamed of the flag and think it’s “too gay” as they grunt at flat screens and try to act like breeder, phony wannabe-jocks/bros. The bar across the street took down their Rainbow Flag a few months ago since that bar seems to be mostly frequented by young breeders.
As for this dishonest heteronormative corporatist attempt to rewrite Queer history, let me assure the corporatist basura responsible for this that they are running into some opposition. Some of us are not falling for your lying, revisionist history stunt and we reject it. Chau.—el barrio rosa