Tag Archives: Lea Delaria doesn’t do that alphabet soup LGBTQ thing. Does she hit the wall too?

Lea Delaria doesn’t do that alphabet soup LGBTQ thing. Does she hit the wall too?

(Comments are on for this article until the spam starts pouring in, and spammers find new articles very quickly. The spam is often the same. I’ve memorised most of it).


Hola a todos. I’m wondering if this rewriting/this new version of “LGBT” by the far-right (as seen on the t-shirt over on your right) will make queer conformists finally abandon that revisionist history “LGBT” nonsense? I can take a guess. I don’t see them ever abandoning their precious “LGBT.” It’s like a brand name for them. Brand LGBTTM. It’s so indoctrinated into most people through conformist brainwashing. It’s what most sites insist on using as if they received a memo from on high in the style of a congressional resolution that whenever they write anything queer-related, that they must use “LGBT(Q).” Did one or more of those self-appointed omnipotent queer organisations at the national level in the non-United States — who only care about queers of a certain income bracket; those who can afford $500.00+ a plate dinners at lavish galas, Dahling — send out a memo to every media organisation and website in the world with this “LGBT(Q)” dictate? That’s the impression I’ve been left with. Because the conformity over its use seems to be worldwide. I see it on the television networks I watch from the EU. I’ve noticed that most commenters feel they must use “LGBT(Q)” as well in order to be seen as “in,” “cool,” “politically correct” and or conformist. And when you don’t use it and question it, watch out!

The Conservatory’s Queer Alliance recently had their monthly meeting and some of the students invited me to come.

Comedian, actor and jazz singer, Lea Delaria, was a topic on the agenda. Someone suggested maybe she could be invited next year to address the group and have the meeting open to the public. Someone pointed out her opinion on the alphabet soup “LGBTQ,” rubbish which Lea can’t stand. One of the students looked over at me and said, “Lea’s not the only one. I have a feeling you have a strong opinion on this, don’t you?”

I questioned how much interest there would be in Lea coming, with no disrespect intended to her, but based on my online experiences. Whenever I’ve quoted her, linked to her or written in my own words how she feels about the alphabet soup “LGTB(Q)” thingy, no one supported me and I felt like I had been spit on and considered the enemy because I was not conforming to the brainwashed “LGBT(Q)” meme that one sees saturated all over the Internet and elsewhere. Now you might think I’m talking about far-right sites where I had this problem. But no, just the opposite. I’m talking about so-called “progressive” sites where I was treated like the enemy. And in lockstep, conformist commenters write “LGBT(Q)” instead of queer or gay, or the original GLBTQ. I had the best experience on corporate sites, although I had trouble on them too, the one or two I was on every now and then. All of this negative experience online is why I started pink barrio, so I could say what I want without being banned, deleted or hated on as I often was on the so-called “progressive” websites.

Since 2000, when I began commenting online — which I rarely do now because “one cannot fix stupid” and “if they haven’t gotten it by now they’re not about to!” is how I feel about it — my worst experiences were on so-called “progressive” website with their perpetual resistance to my message (regardless of the topic) and with few exceptions to that. Rarely did anyone ever agree with anything I said/wrote, no matter how politely it was written.

My views don’t fit neatly into the D and R partisan cult-like narrative (I’m non-partisan, an independent) or the Establish narrative or the queer narrative where everyone in lockstep is supposed to use the corporate revisionist history and conformist “LGBT(Q)” meme. The reader might be asking: What do you mean by the “revisionist history?” Even though I feel like I’ve written about this countless times here goes another: I’m talking about where the “L” (for lesbian) comes first in “LGBT(Q).” That implies that lesbians led the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement. They did not. I repeat: Lesbians did not lead our movement. That’s revisionist history. Our movement was called the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement to begin with, not the Lesbian and Gay Rights Movement. Gay guys and trans folk led our movement, not lesbians, which technically started with two riots at donut shops (one in San Francisco and one in Los Ángeles) pre-Stonewall. So if any silly acronym has to be used it should be “GTQBL” because gay guys and trans folk did most of the work of our movement. But at some point in recent years, lesbians hijacked our movement and decided to move themselves to first place from “GLBTQ” as it originally was. For some insane reason, queer boys allowed lesbians to move themselves to first place. Also, some of us view self-entitled lesbians taking it upon themselves to move their ass to first place as being sexist as in, “the fairer sex ladies go first” which sounds very chauvinistic and sexist. And “the fairer sex?” Oh good lord! This sounds like the sexist thinking of the 1940s or 1950s. I’ve heard some queer boys say, “ladies1 go first” referencing that “LGBT(Q)” nonsense.

All of this is rather silly anyway considering all we need is one word to describe us: Queer. Or gay. Take your pick. Why is that so difficult? We don’t need this long train of alphabet soup letters. Some conformist corporatised guy wrote me awhile back saying it was changed to “LGBT” because that “rolls off the tongue easier.” It rolls off whose tongue easier? I told him: I never had any trouble with the original GLBTQ “rolling off my tongue” and frankly the words queer or gay “roll off the tongue” even easier. Try it! One word — queer or gay — “rolls off the tongue” easier than saying a string of letters. By the way, the official acronym is now: LGBTQQICAPF2K+. LOL. That’s one of the most ludicrous things I’ve seen! What nut dreamed that up? Insanity. It almost looks like a barcode of sorts. The breeders don’t have any long train of letters to describe themselves and their sexual interests are nearly as varied as that of queers. And with “gay assimilation” (which has completely backfired in case one hasn’t noticed – see here and here and here) I thought that most queers wanted to be “carbon copies” of the dysfunctional breeders since gay marriage became legal. (Related: Why gay guys should wear their wedding rings on their right hand and Gay Wedding Ring Deception and Queer Couples: Wear your wedding rings on your right hand fourth finger).

The image above is that of a married gay male couple wearing their wedding rings on their right hand fourth finger, which removes any doubt or confusion over their sexual orientation. They’re not trying to deceive others into thinking they’re straight by wearing their wedding ring on their left hand — as straight couples do — which is what most people would likely think when the two are not together as a couple. Or even if they were together as a couple, someone could ask: “Where are your wives? I see you’re both wearing wedding rings (on your left hand).” Because traditionally, breeders wear their wedding rings on their left hand fourth finger. And even though queers see their relationships no differently than that of the breeders — and it should be seen as no differently except it’s probably far less dysfunctional than that of a breeder relationship with their high divorce rate (1 in 4 breeder couples get divorced as of 2017) — the fact is many in our bigoted, prejudiced and homophobic society do see queer relationships/marriages differently. Gay marriage is too new historically speaking for most people to even remember that it exists, that it’s now legal in the US, especially when the person opposes gay marriage.

And as Lea explains, “LGBT(Q)” is divisive. It divides us rather than uniting us and it props up one group against the other. For example, some people have said that the trans group shouldn’t even be part of “LGBT(Q).” That they should be separate. See what she means? Then there are those who apparently have something against queers so they leave the Q off entirely in that “LGBT” caca.

Lea DeLaria Doesn’t Want You Calling Her A Lesbian. “I am a dyke! Get it right. I don’t do that alphabet soup, LGBTQ thing. By the time you get to all of those letters, the fucking parade is over! Part of me believes that this so-called inclusivity of calling us the LGBTQQTY-whatever-LMNOP tends to stress our differences, and that’s why I refuse to do it. I say queer. Queer is everybody.” [Source: You can watch her talk about this briefly. Unfortunately it’s on FB.]

So other than on my own site, I gave up on the “LGBT(Q)” meme as well as with commenting online because it doesn’t seem to matter what the topic is, my views are extremely unpopular and I’m considered a right-wing troll. Because of my views on Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, the so-called “progressives” labeled me, 1) a troll for the corporate Democrats, 2) a troll for the DNC and their narrative and 3) a troll for the current White House occupant — whom I can’t stand — or a troll for somebody that does not fit their cookie-cutter brainwashed beliefs. I’ve been called a homophobe and “promoting stereotypes that LGBT people have had to suffer with,” because I’m critical of the “LGBT(Q)” thingy. I wonder if Lea has been called a homophobe and accused of “promoting stereotypes that LGBT people have had to suffer with” too? When I tried to explain my position to these thick and dense people, I was unable to penetrate the wall they had put up. Does Lea hit that wall too? In the simplistic thinking of many fake-progressives who claim to have “an open mind,” when one does not share their Establishment opinions (while they pretend to be “left wing,”) one is automatically dismissed and considered a troll.

On another topic but related to how some people don’t learn anything from the past, especially “Democrats.” Some delusional people who pretend to be “progressives” honestly believe that the right-wing “Democratic” Party Cult is going to nominate Bernie Sanders as their 2020 nominee even though the same cult threw him under the bus back in 2016. Then he got in lockstep with them and endorsed war criminal Hillary. To the Bernie Cultists, I’m the “enemy” — they’re using the age-old “Attack the Messenger” routine — when I tell them as politely as I can that their thinking is delusional and it’s wishful-thinking, it is not pragmatic or realistic and is not living in reality. Because the party of conservative Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi is not going to nominate Sanders. Period. One would have to be absolutely delusional to think that they will. (Related: San Francisco: Do NOT re-elect Pelosi in 2020 and TRUMP-PELOSI 2020!) As I said, these so-called “progressives” learned nothing from 2016.

I’ve learned that there are several requirements for being a Democrat: living with delusional wishful-thinking, living with unrealistic hope, and denial. They also jump up and down and get excited over the most minute and little “flash in the pan” unimportant of things. They cheer lead for wimpy, mealy-mouth statements made by Nancy Pelosi and make her out to be “a genius” when the woman as of late seems to be having trouble stringing two sentences together without halting and behaving as if she’s having mental problems (dementia?). They’re also very much into premature celebrations only to look like partisan fools after the fact because their “Democrats” once again enabled the Republicans, but their denial and wishful-thinking prevented them from foreseeing that. Rather than being critical of their “Democrats” for helping the Republicans once again the cultists remain silent because they’ve been brainwashed that one is not supposed to be critical of one’s own cult-party. Since Bernie is the Bernie Cult’s saviour figure, they completely dismiss that the guy is 78 years old and recently had a heart attack. Someone like that can do the stressful job of US president properly? He would be 82 after his first term. To the Bernie Cult, his age and health condition doesn’t matter. His age is a positive thing they say; it shows that he’s “a seasoned politician.” A candidate like that — if he has any sense about him — should drop out of the race and take care of himself and his health and well-being in order to stay alive rather than campaigning for some corrupt, right-wing party that will throw him under the bus once again. But to the Bernie Cultists and in their denial his health is, “No big deal.” They say, “he has more fire in him than so and so.” They fail to understand that it’s that “fire” that raises blood pressure to a very unhealthy level. I know from personal experience, which is why — except for this article — I don’t write about this unhealthy, dysfunctional stuff any longer. It’s not healthy for me to do so. And all the “Democrats” are doing is using him and he seems to enjoy being used by them. He will ultimately endorse the nominee. If anything, the “Democrats” are considering nominating Hillary once again or John Kerry for 2020 from what I’ve read. A re-run of 2016? Why do you think she keeps popping up to give herself attention? While writing this article, mi amigo/my friend told me that one of the Hillary Cultists said that god put Hillary on this Earth to be president. (roll eyes) Drag out The god CardTM, uh? Drag out the nonexistent floating cloud being. That’s the same thing that the current White House occupant says about his narcissistic self. Not that it matters who the “Democrats” pull out of their recycling bin and nominate since I said three years ago that one should expect the current White House occupant to have two or more terms. I expect him to get back in one way or the other. One can read between the lines. He’s “joked” repeatedly about having extra terms/refusing to leave office and also because the same corrupt system that installed him remains in place including the Electoral College. Also, there are even more stupid people today supporting him from what I’ve seen because he speaks to their anti-ethnic, racist, anti-migrant views, their Male Patriarchy views, their sexism, their misogyny, their prejudices and homophobia. He does nothing legally and with few, if any, consequences. He and the basura around him ignore subpoenas. If you or I did that we know what would happen to us. He’s above the law. Acting like an adolescent schoolyard bully, much of the US Congress seem absolutely terrified of him and when they have anything critical to say about him it’s in cowardly, mealy-mouth words.

My message — no matter what the topic — is rejected and is considered by the fake-progressives as “trying to help the Republicans,” whom I despise. Well, I despise both D and R frankly. At “election” time, the fake-progressives become devout partisan “Democrats” for a right-wing party. A genuine progressive does not support a fake-opposition, right-wing party. It’s a contradiction in terms and in one’s principles.

So I was just wondering how much interest there would be in Lea Delaria being invited to speak in the Conservatory considering the way I’ve been treated/slapped around online by so-called “progressives.” I wonder if she gets the same disrespectful treatment wherever she goes when speaking her mind?

Then the Conservatory students ended their meeting with the announcement that one of their upcoming meetings will be about queer composers. That ought to be interesting since there have been many queer composers including Georg Händel, Lully, Corelli, Benjamin Britten and his partner (tenor) Peter Pears, Tchaikovsky, Camille Saint-Saëns, Lou Harrison, Ethel Smyth, Francis Poulenc, Samuel Barber and his partner of almost 30 years Gian Carlo Menotti. They met at the Curtis Institute of Music and quickly hit it off and moved into together. Also, Ludwig Beethoven, and closeted Lenny Bernstein were queer among others. Although I read that Lenny became more open about his queer sexual orientation the older he got.

Related to that, one of the things that saddens me, frustrates me and even angers me these days is all the queer boy closet cases I see in San Francisco — particularly Milleneals — and on television who are in relationships with women and they have children. My gaydar is extremely reliable; always has been. To see these closet cases, it’s as if there was never a Gay Rights Movement. Or, now that the movement is over it’s time for things to go back to the way they were: Back in the closet for many/most queers. While writing this I saw a queer boy being interviewed on television in France. Sitting there on the couch with his wife and infant baby. I had mi amigo/my friend come and look at the television and before I said anything he asked, “Who’s that queer boy?” A few moments later he said: “Is that his wife and kid?” I said: Uh huh. He asked: “How can these women not see that they’re married to a gay guy, a closet case?” Well, some of them do see it and know deep down that he’s queer. Others don’t — no gaydar at all? — or choose denial. And he’s probably trying to please his pestering bigoted family who constantly hounded him with “When are you going to find a nice girl?” Followed by: “When are you going to start a family?” I would tell the family to fuck off, and mind their own damn business. Do we understand each other? You’re not running/ruining my life with The Family ScriptTM, understand? I’m queer; I’m not into females or babies. The world is already overpopulated. With these women, maybe their queer boy is the only guy who would give these needy females the attention they crave.

I want to say muchas gracias to the students of the Conservatory’s Queer Alliance for inviting me to their meeting. Very kind of you. I enjoyed it. Chau.—el barrio rosa

1 I’ve never known any lesbians who would want to be referred to as — using the classist term — “lady” or “ladies.” Nearly all of the lesbians I’ve known were of the dyke, bull-dyke variety and would likely say, “I ain’t no lady.” Today it’s different with these new Millennial Lipstick Lesbians with their long flowing blond (out of a bottle?) hair, their black tights, their black or grey lingerie clothing and black high heels. If you didn’t know better, you’d think they were sex workers by the way they look. They wear that to the office? They try to look like and act like straight women (very heteronormative), a complaint I’ve read online from some older lesbians about this new generation. The older lesbians say they can’t tell whether these Lipstick Lesbians are straight or queer if they were to see one at a bus stop. Some of these Lipstick Lesbians even go to straight bars to pick up females. Loca. Then when a straight guy hits on them they get pissed. Most of the Millennial queer guys we’ve seen look very conservative and try to look and act like straight guys. Any queer symbols on one’s person have completely gone back in the closet. So much for “out and proud!” That’s what “Gay Assimilation” has done. It’s caused queers to try to look and act straight and in many cases go back in the closet. We worked decades for that, did we?