[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference quark::human_relations-v1

Title:	What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'?
Notice:	Archived V1 - Current conference is QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS
Moderator:	ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI

Created:	Fri May 09 1986
Last Modified:	Wed Jun 26 1996
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1327
Total number of notes:	28298

264.0. "Article: Male Sexuality" by DSSDEV::FISHER () Tue Mar 31 1987 14:44


From "Cosmopolitan" April 1987:-

Homosexuality has been treated as a plague boys will catch.  Read about the
real reasons for straight men's paranoia.  By Jonathan Rutherford. 


			Tyranny and terror flown
			Left a pair of friends alone
			And beneath the nether sky
			All that stirred was he and I ...

			Midmost of the homeward track
			Once we listened and looked back
			But the city, dusk and mute,
			Slept, and there was no pursuit.

These lines were written in 1922 by A E Housman, a poet and a gay man.  Sixty
five years later another two men were outside a pub in the less romantic
setting of Lewisham in south London.  In their case "the city" was in pursuit. 

The paper "Capital Gay" reported: "These four lads came towards us and shouted,
"Queers".  Then all hell broke loose, I was punched and kicked to the ground
... Suddenly there was a shout and they all ran off.  I got up and saw Richard
lying in a pool of blood.  His left eye had been split open.  Somebody lifted
his shirt and there was blood pumping out of the side of his body."  Time might
separate these two moments, but the fear, hostility and violence remain. 

Since Victorian times, homosexuality has been categorised as a disruptive
threat to family order and social stability.  Since then it's been tarred with
the brush of child abuser and sexual pervert, viewed as a sign of the softness
and degeneracy of post-Imperial Britain, and now as the cause of AIDS. 

Pronouncement from politicians and moral majorities have all lined up to keep
the threat of homosexuality at bay.  It's been treated like a contagion that
boys will catch, a plague that threatens us all. 

Traitors, liars, cowards have invariably all been associated with
homosexuality. Foreigners, flabbiness, weakness, femininity, Communists,
unmanliness - these associations pile up to produce an hysterical terror of
anything that does not correspond to the myth of the blue-blooded, white,
Anglo-Saxon male.  As one gay man told me, "This paranoia conjures up images of
St George [patron saint of England] fighting the dragon, all these noble, clean
living men doing battle with filth and perversity.  But really their enemy is
within.  It's their own feelings they're frightened of, that's what causes the
hysteria. 

This fear of homosexuality, or homophobia, is particularly strong among
heterosexual men.  Part of an anonymous letter sent to Peter Tatchell, a
prospective Parliamentary Labour Candidate in the 1983 Bermondsey by-election,
reads: "When I lived in Bermondsey we had a saying, Bermondsey was a place when
men were men and women were 'manholes' and members of the Middlesex Regiment
would not be tolerated." 

It was a sentiment I've heard from many men.  An ex-miner from South Wales
assured me that homosexuality was not a problem in the village he came from.
But he contradicted himself by admitting that homosexuals down the pits he'd
worked had been shunned and ostracised.  A man from Dundee also mentioned that
there was no issue of homosexuality where he came from.  "They all go off and
join the theatre." 

A GLC [Greater London Council, now defunct] booklet defined homophobia as a
"fear of the same".  A common sense definition extends the meaning to "fear of
relationships with the same sex, or fear of loving the same sex".  Despite the
more liberal attitudes towards sexuality among the younger generation, being
thought gay is still a fear for young hetero men.  Mike Aiken, a Brighton group
worker and counsellor, describes a youth workshop he runs. "I ask them to
categorise words and phrases as masculine or feminine.  A few years ago people
were clear; strong, for example, was always associated with masculine.  Today
people are less sure, words tend to get put in the middle as not-sures.  But
when I ask everyone to categorise themselves according to the words and
phrases, all the men line up on the masculine side, despite intellectually
knowing they have a feminine side too." 

Talking to heterosexual men, two things start to become clear.  Most consider
that homosexuality has nothing to do with them.  And when its existence is
admitted to, it is seen as occurring somewhere else.  This defensiveness is
evident, even among more aware men.  A life-long supporter of gay rights agreed
that he would be deeply upset if his son was gay.   "I can support it, as long
as it's away from my family." 

And yet the language men use together, particularly at work, suggests that it
is rather closer to home than most would care to admit.  Robert Marks, who
works for a stockbroking firm, acknowledges the erotic content of "City talk". 

"In the City we talk about the penetration of markets.  Good stocks are called
sexy.  Firms that are possibly merging are described as getting into bed with
each other and the directors are likely bedfellows."  And it's not just in the
public school world of the city.  Similar language, jokes and banter exist in
exclusively male workplaces.  It suggests there exists sexual feelings amongst
men.  But rather than acknowledge our homoerotic side, we suppress it.  While
many heterosexual men may feel threatened by homosexuality, our suppressed side
ensures our continuing fascination with it. 

A 24-year old student described this voyeurism to me: "I was sitting on a tube
train.  Two gay men got on and sat opposite me.  I felt impelled to look at
them. Their presence disturbed and fascinated me.  But I could not look.  To
have met their glance would have been an admission of my interest." 

When I was 14 I had a turquoise T-shirt I wore all the time until an older boy
told me it was the colour that "French pouffs" wore.  I was so embarrassed I
took it off and threw it away.  During my adolescence, I constantly needed
assurance from my peers that I had something, that indefinable quality that is
"being a man".  What is clear to me now is that "being a man", both then and
now, has more to do with proving what we are not, than showing what we are.  It
means constantly denying any personal attribute, quality, interest or emotion
that might be deemed feminine. Certainly boys grow up in different cultures and
the process varies but in my middle class, English upbringing it was rigid and
inflexible. At some point I had to disown the deep affection I had had for
other boys. Male relationships became organised around doing things, minimising
intimacy between us. 

In the end, we grew up in fear of each other.  We tread a tightrope of our own
narrow definition of what being a man is.  We are distrustful of other men,
inhibited by our defensiveness.  Men's talk revolves around work, sport or
cars, anything but our own lives, problems and emotions. We constantly guard
against our own subversive feelings.  So while men meet in clubs and pubs, play
sport and share leisure activities, our gatherings are governed by strict codes
of behaviour, about what is acceptable to do and what it is inappropriate to
feel.  Male culture is about minimising those areas of life most of us find
hard to cope with: home, children, our sexual relationships and our own often
subconscious homoerotic desires. 

Picture the image of all the lads in the showers after rugby, or the maudlin,
boozed pair of jocks propping up the bar, singing sentimental songs, arms
around each other.  Such images of brotherly affection would be transformed by
a wrong touch, a hand in the wrong place that lingered, a caress or kiss.  Real
intimacy, such shows of love and concern, were tabooed in our boyhoods. 
Whenever groups of heterosexual men meet, the threat of sexual or emotional
intimacy is locked out.   Far from such feelings belonging only in the theatre
and hairdressing salons of the land, they are present in all men's
relationships.  Heterosexual masculinity is a constant battle to prove we are
one of the boys. 

Gay men present us with our own buried desires.  They blow the gaff on the
masculine myth, the idea of a seamless, unchanging, natural, ordered sexual
certainty inhabited by the male half of the species.  It's a notion of men
without problems, free of doubts and anxiety.  But the reality is a sexual
identity that is insecure, ordered as much around a denial of what we are than
a certainty of who we are.   It's an insecurity that has proved dangerous for
gay men.  For the few, queer-bashing is an attempt to exorcise a man's own
guilty dread of his effeminacy.  While it's an extreme way of proving
manliness, it's colluded with by the majority of heterosexual men who, because
they won't face up to their own sexual uncertainties and fears, make gay men the
threat we must defend ourselves against. 

The American writer and feminist Phyllis Chesler describes men as having
created a culture where "most men would rather be members of the mob at
Golgotha - and not the guy alone on the cross.  And so it has become amongst
brothers."  I was once involved in a discussion group on "bringing up boys".
All of the men present could recall the pain and suffering we had inflicted on
those who fell from favour; the fat boy, the weak boy, the effeminate boy.  It
ensure we all kept our heads down and strove to conform, desperate to prove we
would win or achieve, that we were strong or hard.  Growing up male forces boys
to take an impossible regime of demands and performance. Rather than admit to
its stupidity and acknowledge we can't manage it, men learn to persecute
instead. 

Being a heterosexual man can be a lesson in self-deception.  As it's
constituted now, it's an impoverishing sexual identity.  For some men, it's
enough they have power and privilege.  But there are plenty of men who want
something different.  and there are plenty of men, black and working class,
whose masculinity doesn't connect them to power and money, who experience other
men as oppressive and threatening.  The dissatisfaction is definitely there,
but where's the change going to come from? 

For Frank Mort, writing in the "New Socialist", the answer is young men's
attitudes to style and fashion.  It's here and not in the men's groups
propagating soft and caring gentleness, that it's open season on conventional
masculinity.  It's a visual politics that encourages men "to look at themselves
and other men - visually and as possible objects of desire - and to experience
pleasures around the body hitherto branded as taboo or exclusively feminine". 

And dressing up requires courage, too.  Chris Bond, an 18-year old from Bolton,
described getting on a football special [bus] in eyeshadow and quiff.  "They
asked me if I was a queer.  I told them it wasn't their business.  To have said
I wasn't gay would have been a cop-out."  It's this challenge to conventional
forms of masculine behaviour and expression that can blur the division between
gay and straight.  But, as Frank Mort notes, dressing up is not enough, it's a
beginning. 

When we straight men starting talking about our own sexuality, then the
masculine myth and the regime of silence and retribution that has sustained it,
will begin to collapse.  When that starts happening, not only will we be less
fearful, but gay men and our sons will be able to rest more easily.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
264.1	Love_People_Not_Genders	NRLABS::TATISTCHEFF		`Tue Mar 31 1987 17:54`	5
	Wouldn't the world be a little more sane if we realized that it is no "weirder" to fall in love exclusively with your own sex than exclusively with the opposite sex? Lee
264.2	Having Lived in Brighton	RDGE00::BURRELL	We have the Technology ...	`Wed Apr 01 1987 05:40`	47
	Have you noticed that in all the Westerns and movies of that era (When they were made era that is), that if two men came togeather on the trail - they would have a good 'masculine' punch-up before they were buddies and slept at the same camp. I read somewhere that the reason for the fight was to qualify the fact that these men WEREN'T gay - and could therefore sleep 'togeather' without offending the audience watching the film. S'pose it's rather weird - I lived in Brighton (England) for three years - it holds the second largest 'gay' population in the UK - I'm hetro - I still find it difficult to face the blantant 'gay' - ie pink shirt with ruff, lisping voice, truely limp wrist ect. I found out that the barman at the local pub was gay after a year and a half - somhow the subject was raised and he came straight out with the fact that he was gay - he hadn't tried to hide it - it was just that it hadn't been raised before. The number of people going to that pub dropped drastically after that, (ourselves included). It was only after we learnt that the barman was likely to get the sack that we started going there again. Why did we stop going to that pub ?? - well it WAS because he was gay - the fact that we couldn't tell had shocked us - Why did we go back ?? - well because we realised that he was still our friend and that he could loose his job due to us spreading that he was gay - guilt played a part. All in all, i DO NOT like gays - I wouldn't go 'gay bashing' and find that idea of it repugnent - but I still feel that if a bloke came and put his hands om my shoulders and simpered as he picked up the empty glasses ( as happended to me in another pub ), then I would ( and did ) get up and leave the pub, not to return. The idea of what gays do makes my flesh crawl, BUT and it's a big BUT... I do agree with the 'live and let live' policy ... As long as everybody involved has a free choice. Paul. P.S. I do feel though that some of the London boroughs are taking the 'gay rights' to extremes.
264.3	What does it do?	FLOWER::JASNIEWSKI		`Wed Apr 01 1987 09:22`	7
	As undoubtably a manefestation of evolution, I have yet to understand the "purpose" of homosexuality. Its been around for a long time, but, what good is it? JJJ
264.4	Makes A Lot Of People Very Happy	NRLABS::TATISTCHEFF		`Wed Apr 01 1987 10:48`	1
	Lee
264.6	purposes?	ULTRA::LARU	full russian inn	`Wed Apr 01 1987 12:43`	7
	re .6 well, the purpose of heterosexuality is the propagation of the species... i suppose it's conceivable that a purpose of homosexuality could be to prevent overpopulation.
264.7	"Evolution" can mean almost anything U want it 2	NRLABS::TATISTCHEFF		`Wed Apr 01 1987 12:49`	9
	re last few: We should be very careful when talking about evolutionary purposes/reasons for human behaviour; social Darwinism can lead straight to the fascist concept that there are "inferior" members of humanity who should be exterminated to further the evolution of the "master" human race. Lee
264.9	That simple?	FLOWER::JASNIEWSKI		`Wed Apr 01 1987 13:29`	9
	I've "heard tell" that homosexuality is found in all societys, both ancient and modern. If it has its place in every one, what does it do? Yes, an answer might be "makes those happy who otherwise wouldnt be". I wonder if its that simple or if thats all? JJJ
264.10	PURPOSE, WHY PURPOSE?	JETSAM::HANAUER	Mike...Bicycle~to~Ice~Cream	`Wed Apr 01 1987 13:44`	15
	Most people are right handed. What's the purpose? Most people like blue better than purple. What's the purpose? Most people dislike worms. What's the purpose? What's the purpose? What's the purpose of everything having to have a purpose? What's the purpose in not just accepting people as they are? ~Mike
264.11	just wanna understand it all!	ULTRA::LARU	full russian inn	`Wed Apr 01 1987 13:45`	24
	re .7 i don't think anybody here is suggesting mass (or minor) exterminations. i do think that it is interesting and useful to speculate on how human behavior might fit into the 'cosmic riddle.' i believe that two consenting adults ought to be able to do anything they wish. i also believe that there are human behaviors that obviously ought not be condoned, such as polluting the environment, and building atomic bombs. i am not suggesting that homosexual behaviour be grouped with building atomic bombs. i am suggesting that it is worthwhile to try to understand all the implications of all the things we do; that it is dangerous to blindly accept all human behaviour as "helping us to fulfill our human potential." please, no flames! i am not a yahoo. i am not a homophobe. i am not trying to offend anybody. peace/bruce
264.12	From an anonymous noter	RTVAX::CANNOY	Go where your heart leads you.	`Wed Apr 01 1987 15:18`	21
	This note is being entered for a Noter who wishes to remain anonymous. ************************************************************************ RE: 264.1 "Wouldn't the world be a little more sane if we realized that it is no "weirder" to fall in love exclusively with your own sex than exclusively with the opposite sex?" Fall in Love with, Love, or have any other type of relationship, yes. Have sex with, Yech... I know that I love a number of other males, I can call my relationship with a few of them, 'falling in love'... I can't imagine having sex with another male... In my opinion, it's "inappropriate", a very nice word that fits the situation exactly. The plumbing doesn't fit in any case... :-}
264.13	umble #998	CEODEV::FAULKNER	personality plus	`Wed Apr 01 1987 16:20`	9
	For many years a guy in my neighborhood and I were friends. He never approached me (sexually) but he did leave me with what I have come to accept as the reason I dislike so many gay guy's. His words, "I'm openly gay, and a male. I hate the queens that try so hard to be women." If they would simply stop prancing.......
264.14	WHERE'S THE BEEF??	CGHUB::CONNELLY	Eye Dr3 - Regnad Kcin	`Wed Apr 01 1987 23:55`	44
	re : .the_last_few Seems like everyone has a different reason for disliking gays, huh? - they like other men (that in itself is apparently muddying the interpersonal boundaries too much for some folks; as Steely Dan sez: "my rival, show me my rival") - the sex act would be revolting, AKA the "plumbing factor" (although there is probably a rather large overlap with the possible acts that a male and female could engage in; are the same types of acts between male and female not so revolting? in kind or in degree?) - the act lacks a biological purpose (really, meaning a reproductive purpose--but then, as someone pointed out, limiting population growth may be biologically conservative or survival-promoting for the race as a whole under certain conditions) - the "swishing/prancing" behavior of certain gay men is offensive (well, I can sorta buy this one, but is the same behavior any less ridiculous in women? I mean, I'll take a "country girl", who wears overalls and doesn't have much makeup on and who talks like a normal person, over one got up like Bea Arthur or whatever who squeals and shrieks and giggles a lot for no fathomable reason--wouldn't YOU?) So what's REALLY going on here? Wish I knew...but I did read a psych study which was pretty interesting and maybe germane: they told different experimental subjects that they belonged to one of two fake groups, for instance the Greens and the Reds, without giving any other detail about what those groups stood for (other than that they were antagonists). The people developed very marked allegiances to "their" group, even without knowing what it really stood for (or against), and developed marked antipathy toward members of the "other" group. Even folks who understood (intellectually) that it was all a sham got caught up in this "group affinity" in spite of that...
264.15	The meaning of biological purpose	RTOADA::LANE	Andy Lane, Munich DTN - 407-2316	`Thu Apr 02 1987 04:46`	11
	Two questions which may help to clarify the meaning of the "Biological Purpose" mentioned in several of the earlier replies: 1. How many times in their life together do the average couple have sexual intercourse ? 2. How many children does the average couple have ? Whats the "Biological Purpose" ?
264.16	Deal 'em out!	CAMLOT::DAVIS	Waitin' for the caffeine to kick in.	`Thu Apr 02 1987 08:00`	10
	I'd like to reinforce .5's comments... Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals... you "play the cards you were dealt" at birth. Yes, there is room for criticism of some of the behaviors of certain individuals who are gays and certain individuals who are straight. But I think I'll leave it up to God to sort that out... Marge
264.17	Personal Choice?	FLOWER::JASNIEWSKI		`Thu Apr 02 1987 08:59`	17
	I disagree with .16 - you can choose what you are and what you like in your little life. You can play the cards any way you wish, and throw out some if you will. Some play a damn good game even in being born without a "full deck". The original article pointed out that men make a "big deal" about stating their preferances and that some are real uneasy about "funny" feelings that they may have - so they make a REAL "big deal" about pointing out that they are not gay. Which only shows that it is a matter of personal choice, for some. For most? For all? JJJ
264.18	Inate	STUBBI::B_REINKE	the fire and the rose are one	`Thu Apr 02 1987 10:24`	11
	I find it amazing that there are still people who hold to the old myths that a person chooses to be a particular sexual orientation. There is indeed a continum of behavior from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual and many people are born with a mix of both elements. With social pressure favoring heterosexuality a person who is born in the middle of the scale would choose how they express their sexuality - but this is not the same thing as choosing the orientation they were born with. In my understanding biological research indicates that a person is born with a particular sexual orientation just as they are born with a particular eye color or a talent for music or art.
264.20	not hereditary ------ my brother is gay	VIDEO::OSMAN	type video::user$7:[osman]eric.six	`Thu Apr 02 1987 11:24`	23
	I don't see how homosexuality could be hereditary. Nor do I see homosexuality leading to dangerous decrease in births so as to endanger the species. Think about it. If it were hereditary, you'd expect gays to beget gays! But gays beget less people, since a certain percentage of them never have children. Hence if any hereditary trait reared its head, it would be that gays would have died out thousands of years ago. But they didn't. --------------------------------------- My brother is gay. We get along fine. I'm just shy about asking him intimate questions about his relationship. The entire family is close. He brings his man over to dinner just as often and freely as my sister brings her man, and I bring my wife. I just find it alot easier to ask my sister personal questions about "How are things with you and ..." than to ask my brother. I guess it's that although I accept my brother's gayness, I've never become completely open to it. /Eric
264.21		NUTMEG::TEMP6		`Thu Apr 02 1987 12:34`	10
	Note 264.5 Article: Male Sexuality 5 of 20 NUTMEG::TEMP6 5 lines 1-APR-1987 11:21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Re: .3) What is the "purpose" of heterosexuality? Some people are just born with different sexual preferences. It just so happens that heterosexuals are the majority. Nancy
264.22		NUTMEG::TEMP6		`Thu Apr 02 1987 12:38`	19
	Note 264.19 Article: Male Sexuality 19 of 21 NUTMEG::TEMP6 13 lines 2-APR-1987 09:25 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you, Marge. (Re: .12) It may be "inappropriate" in your eyes to have a sexual relationship with another male, but then it is "inappropriate" for a gay to have a sexual relationship with the opposite sex. It's all a matter of preference. Not all of us were born heterosexual. (Re: .16) I agree with you, but I still feel that your sexual preferences are chosen for you at birth. Who knows? Maybe we were all born homosexuals, but most of chose heterosexuality. Nancy
264.23	nature/nurture?	ULTRA::LARU	full russian inn	`Thu Apr 02 1987 12:39`	29
	i don't think we have enough understanding of ourselves to be able to say with any certainty what is genetic or what is cultural. certainly both nature and nurture play significant roles. i think every indivudual should have the freedom to be whatever s/he chooses, and that the greatness of a society is a sum of the greatness of its parts (individuals). i think that behavior should be proscribed only when the behavior impinges on other individuals' rights, and that individuals ought to be able to make their own choices about how to support the society in which they live. i believe that life is inherently conservative while at the same time constantly experimenting. conservative because the existing physical and behavioral structures have enabled survival until the present, and anything different is suspect (as to its survival value). experimenting because environments change, and new physical or behavioral structures may be needed tomorrow. i want very much to believe in 'free will.' i want for us to be able to understand our own behavior and to change our behavior when it displeases us. as has been mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be a human fear of 'otherness,' which i think reflects the conservativism of life. i hope that we can use our rational powers to overcome this tendency wehn it interferes with our concepts of the freedom and dignity of the individual. /bruce
264.24	Sociobiology Rides again	MINAR::BISHOP		`Thu Apr 02 1987 12:54`	28
	Re: previous few notes on "purpose". Fitness, in the evolutionary sense, is not the number of offspring you have--you may be fit even if you have no direct offspring if you nonetheless contribute to the increase in the number of close relatives you have. This is why worker bees (which are sterile) can have evolved--they support the queen, who is not sterile, and thus are evolutionarily fit. If human homosexuality has a genetic component (it may; it may not) then it does not mean that homosexuals are unfit because they do not reproduce. If they contribute to the survival of their close relatives, and those relatives do reproduce, then they can be fit. (It is worthwhile pointing out that in most societies, only male homosexuals do not reproduce. Woman generally do not have the choice, and homosexual women in most societies would be married off and made pregnant whether or not they wanted to be. It is also worthwhile pointing out that losing a few males from the reproductive group is no problem for most animal populations--males are almost always in surplus.) I suspect that there is a mechanism in animals which lets the young animal find out what species it is, and what its future sexual partners should look like, and that that imprinting mechanism is not perfect. Getting the species right and the gender wrong seems like a common failure for such a mechanism. -John Bishop
264.25	A little genetics	STUBBI::B_REINKE	the fire and the rose are one	`Thu Apr 02 1987 13:55`	34
	re .20 This is a bit of a tangent based on the comment you made that homosexuality could not be hereditary since gays do not reproduce. A trait can be passed on even if those who posses it do not reproduce. The best example of this is hemophilia. Hemophiliacs (or "bleeders") did not live long enough to have children until the 20th century yet hemophiliacs have not died out of the population. This is because hemophilia is a recessive trait which can be carried by a female parent who does not have the disease. There are lethal genes that continue to be passed on as well. There is a gene carried by the Mexican chuawawa (sp). If it is absent the dog has hair. If one such gene is inherited the dog has no hair. If two such genes are inherited the fetus is spontaneously aborted. If our sexuality is a continum ranging from 1 (homosexual) to 10 (heterosexual) then it may well be controlled by a number of genes - like height or skin color are. It could be that the more dominant genes you have the more you tend towards one orientation and the more recessives the other. But this means that a person with X number of such genes could marry a person with Y number and produce a child with Z number where Z could be a different orientation than that of the parents. Finally - as was mentioned in a previous note - female homosexuals may well have had no choice about the matter and been made to marry and have children in the past. (and for that matter gay fathers are not uncommon.) Bonnie
264.26	Free Will	JETSAM::HANAUER	Mike...Bicycle~to~Ice~Cream	`Thu Apr 02 1987 14:28`	13
	While I believe that many human behavioral characteristics are largely genetic, I agree that it is not totally clear. Thus, what one is may or may not be determined partly by free will. However, I am sure that the ability to accept others as they are IS free will. You can do it if you want to. Bigotry, and that I believe is the subject, is learned and can be unlearned. If you only want to -- if you don't have some need to believe that "those people" are less than yourself. ~Mike
264.28	Yes I do know	YAZOO::B_REINKE	the fire and the rose are one	`Fri Apr 03 1987 13:10`	8
	re .27 No I am quite aware that many Gays (M/F) do have children. I thought I said that at the end of my note but perhaps I was unclear in my wording. I was mainly trying to show how a trait could be passed on genetically even if the individual possesing it did not have children. Bonnie
264.30	gay <> Transsexual	YODA::BARANSKI	1's & 0's, what could be simpler!?	`Thu Apr 16 1987 16:47`	7
	I may be totally off my rocker, but I don't think that most gays are 'trying to be women', and that if you asked them is they wanted to be women, they would say no. Transsexuals are anotherthing entirely. Jim.
264.31		ERIE::RMAXFIELD		`Fri Apr 17 1987 10:35`	23
	I re-read my note (.29) and realized it was unclear, so I deleted it, and tried to do reply/last to re-edit it, but it didn't work, so it's lost. Re: .30 Jim, you are absolutely right. What I meant was that it's the less enlightened sector of society that thinks effeminate men (maybe all gay men) are "trying" to be women. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's a stereotype working there, and stereotypes and generalizations are often erroneous. The point I was trying to make is that prejudice against effeminate men (again, maybe all gay men) is a form of anti-female sexism, as though it's the worst thing in the world for a man to act like a woman. People who are offended by overt behavior, who say it's ok to be homosexual as long as homosexuals don't flaunt or "prance", can hardly be called tolerant. Would the same people like to say it's ok to be black as long as blacks don't show themselves? If you think along those lines, analyze your feelings, and spare me the phony tolerance. Do all men have to behave in one way, and all women another? Wouldn't the world be a pretty boring place if that were the case? Richard
264.32	hate to burst your balloon...	YODA::BARANSKI	1's & 0's, what could be simpler?!	`Fri Apr 17 1987 11:12`	6
	RE: .31 Actually, the behavoir that I might find offensive in a homosexual, prancing, etc, I would also find offensive in a woman. Jim.
264.33	Look beyond the behavior...	ERIE::RMAXFIELD		`Fri Apr 17 1987 13:29`	13
	Someone else said as much, but I have to ask, Why? Why make value judgements based on behavior? Isn't behavior based on personality, not on that person's inherent "goodness" or worth or intelligence? Some of the most wonderful friends I've had have been "screamers" (i.e. effeminate men). Once you get used to the behavior (and I admit to having to adjust my own initial reactions), you find that they can be warm, intelligent, caring, funny, in short, human (with faults too, of course, but I don't think "non-traditional" behavior should be counted as a fault). Thanks for thinking about this. Richard