The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

Unknown Person

The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 02 2012

With it being the four-day Diamond Jubilee weekend and parties planned up and down Britain to celebrate our long-reigning monarch, I don't really want to poop on any ones enjoyment (as with the Royal Wedding, I think any reason to have some fun in the current economic climate is one we should take) but I think this article by gay-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell is worth a read.

Posted in the Guardian:

Ever since the public relations blunders at the time of Princess Diana's death, the Queen has gone to great lengths to be more in touch with the mood of country. She presents the monarchy as modern, compassionate and inclusive; often referring to the value of a diverse multicultural, multifaith society.

On one issue, however, she remains curiously out of step with public opinion. Whereas most of us now welcome and embrace lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, the Queen has never done so.

While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn't appear to gay-friendly. Not once in her 60-year reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT community – or gay members of her own royal family. The Queen has turned her back on queens.

While she has spoken approvingly of the UK's many races and faiths, for six decades she has ignored LGBT Britons. Judging from her silence, it seems that we are the unspeakable ones – the people she cannot bare to acknowledge or mention in public. Why the double standards?

Regardless of whether these omissions are a reflection of the Queen's personal views or the result of advice from her courtiers, as monarch she bears ultimate responsibility. Her silence sends a signal of exclusion and disrespect.

Astonishingly, since she became Queen in 1952, the words "gay" and "lesbian" have never publicly passed her lips. There is no record of her ever speaking them. Even when she announced government plans for gay law reform in her Queen's speeches, she did not use the words lesbian or gay. Apparently, mentioning LGBT people is beneath the dignity of the monarch.

The Queen visits many charities and welfare organisations. But never in 60 years has she visited a gay charity or welfare agency. She has, for example, ignored deserving gay charities like the Albert Kennedy Trust and Stonewall Housing, which support homeless LGBT youth. Although she is a patron of many good causes, none of them are gay or serve the gay community.

Defenders of the monarchy point out that many royal staff are gay men. This is true. So what? Having gay staff wait hand and foot on the Queen is proof of nothing, apart from the fact that she likes well-groomed male servants. It's the equivalent of rich racists claiming that they can't be racist because they employ black staff to clean their homes.

Besides, there's solid evidence of regal prejudice. Gay staff in the royal household used to be banned from bringing their partners to the annual Christmas ball at Buckingham Palace; whereas heterosexual staff were always invited to attend with their partners. This homophobic discrimination was exposed by the LGBT human rights group OutRage! in 1995. It was only after a protest outside the palace and the ensuing bad publicity that the royals dropped the ban.

When there are major tragedies involving the loss of life, the Queen often visits the site and the victims in hospital. This did not happen when neo-Nazi David Copeland bombed the Admiral Duncan gay pub in Soho, London, in 1999, killing three people and wounding 70 others. At the time, it was the worst terrorist outrage in mainland Britain for many years. To most people's surprise, the Queen did not visit the bombed-out pub or the hospitalised victims.

I wanted to give the Queen a chance to put her side of the story, so I contacted her press office. I asked them whether the Queen has ever uttered in public the words gay or lesbian? Did she use these words in any of her Queen's speeches when announcing the government's gay equality laws? Has she ever acknowledged the existence of LGBT people in any public statement? Has the Queen ever visited a gay charity or welfare agency? Is she the patron of any organisation serving the needs of LGBT people?

The Queen's press office failed to respond. I rest my case. The monarchy is homophobic – if not by conscious intent, then by default.

As head of state, the Queen is supposed to represent and embrace all British people, not just some. How much longer will the LGBT community have to wait for royal recognition and acceptance?

Link to original article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/01/queen-gay-community-homophobe

backyardserenade

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 02 2012

It's an interesting article and a very curious topic. But I think the text might be a bit too judgmental and sensational.

You know, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has never publicly used the words "gay" or "lesbian", either. Is she a homophobe? Sure not. Does she dismiss LGBTQ people as the unspeakable ones? I don't think so. We have an openly gay secretary of state, after all. (I'm not too fond of either politician, but it was an example that came to my mind.)

Visibility is an issue. And a very important one at that. But calling the Queen homophobic cause she never talked about LGBTQ issues? For my taste that goes too far - and is just one of the many overuses of the word.

Angelsilhouette

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012

Quote by backyardserenade

It's an interesting article and a very curious topic. But I think the text might be a bit too judgmental and sensational.

You know, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has never publicly used the words "gay" or "lesbian", either. Is she a homophobe? Sure not. Does she dismiss LGBTQ people as the unspeakable ones? I don't think so. We have an openly gay secretary of state, after all. (I'm not too fond of either politician, but it was an example that came to my mind.)

Visibility is an issue. And a very important one at that. But calling the Queen homophobic cause she never talked about LGBTQ issues? For my taste that goes too far - and is just one of the many overuses of the word.

Well said.

I have a question about the OP, though...

How is one "homophobic by default"?

Ltervlet

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012

I think "by default" comes into play when you don't actually put yourself in one particular category or another or deny being in a particular category. So rather than putting you in a "favorable" category, because you haven't broached the subject at all, they will automatically (or by default) put you in the undesirable category. Just a guess on my part though, because I could be absolutely off base on my assessment here. :whistle:

It was a very interesting article though..... ;)

Edited June 03 2012 by Ltervlet

LesleyA

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay commu

June 03 2012

Personally I dont think it is the place of the queen to express her personal views on such things as her role precludes her from having any.

Being head of the Commonwealth she oversees and tries to command the respect of many different nations, including those which are of the Evangelical persuasion which are totally homophobic to say the least. Having a pro gay stance could jeapordise her standing and political sway over those territories and thus diminish her standing in the world stage. It is far better for her to have NO opinions at all.

lilithvf1998

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012

There is an inherent problem with accusing individuals with having homophobia, transphobia, or any other privileged bias. Namely, we forget that these biases are systemic. While the UK may have come a long way, I'm sure it has a long way to go still. The Queen's silence and soft bigotry is ultimately symptomatic of the greater problem, and I seriously doubt she is alone here.

lilithvf1998

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012

It is also worth noting that Peter Tatchell mentioned the words "bisexual" and "transgender" once in his article, and used the presumably inclusive acronym "LGBT" repeatedly, but otherwise focused on gays and lesbians instead. Since I am reasonably sure the Queen is no less transphobic or biphobic than she is homophobic, it seems to me that Tatchell has his own issues with transphobia and biphobia that are revealed through his own omission. Why didn't he ask the Queen's press office about whether the Queen mentioned the words "bisexual" and "transgender" in her speeches? Why didn't he mention biphobia or homophobia? Why use the LGBT fig leaf if the focus of the article only covers a portion of the community it represents?

I should point out that Tatchell is far from alone here. This curious omission masked by token inclusionary language happens a lot, and not just with cisgender gays and lesbians using "LGBT" when they mean "gay" or "lesbian." Discussions of racism in the US often only touches on its impact on African-Americans while using the term "people of color," a term that also covers dark-skinned Latino/as, Southeast Asians, Native Americans, etc. To reiterate, the issue is systemic, not individualistic.

2 people liked this

backyardserenade

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 03 2012

I'm not entirely sure if you're not just doing the same thing Thatchell did, by saying he has issues with bisexuality or transidentity because he doesn't mention those topics (or cause he uses "LGBT").

The main problem here is likely that there is an implicated hierarchy when it comes to LGBTQ issues: If the Queen doesn't talk about gays and lesbians, she surely won't talk about bisexuality or even trans topics. If she's homophobic, there's no question that she's also biphobic and transphobic. There's some truth to that, of course. But that doesn't make it right. Not the least, because sexual orientation and sexual identity should be viewed as different (if complementary) aspects, but are often hastily thrown together into one bag.

But again, this is one of the aspects of visibility. Is it that bad when someone uses LGBT - even if they focus on gay issues more? Would you rather have them not include B&T at all? I wouldn't decry Thatchell for that. I'd also say the comparison with "people of color" is weak, because the issues at heart are different and the term has a very historically shaped connotation - wherass LGBT(Q) is especially used to emphasize that there is more to sexual orientation and identity than "gay".

lilithvf1998

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 04 2012

It's bad when they say "LGBT" when they mean "cis gay". It's erasure, plain and simple. And again, it happens all the time. An author will mention LGBT, even take the time to spell out what it means, and then the rest of the article will discuss issues that *only* impact gays and lesbians. It's such a regular occurrence that it becomes frustrating to read articles from most mainstream gay/lesbian activists.

Am I "doing the same thing Thatchell [sic] did" if I point out that Tatchell is hardly alone in doing so, as I had? Is it wrong of me to point out that Tatchell does this regularly, such as here, where he mentions "transgender" at the beginning of an article about post-homophobic sexuality--a topic that is at best only incidentally connected to anything transgender?

And again, I'm discussing a systemic issue, not one necessarily aimed at Tatchell alone. In this case he is merely an example arising from the fact he was quoted in the first place.

As for the example, I fully recognize the issues are different, but my point was about erasure. It happened in another forum's thread on race, where it quickly devolved into whether it was ever OK to say the n-word, as if that was the only racial issue involved, as if African-Americans were the only ones to experience racism....

When I need to discuss transgender issues, I speak about transgender issues. When I need to discuss gay/lesbian issues, I speak about gay/lesbian issues. When I talk about bisexual/pansexual/polysexual issues, I talk about those issues from that point of view. It's only when discussing an issue that impacts ALL of us that I'll talk about LGBT issues. There is plenty common ground there--AIDS impacts us all here, violence impacts us all here, discrimination impacts us all here. But it still remains useful--and important--to distinguish how each impacts our community differently depending on what part of the community we're in. That's the part that disappears when "LGBT" is used carelessly as a synonym for "gay". And that is what I'm talking about.

Unknown Person liked this

backyardserenade

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 04 2012

Agree wit
I agree with a lot of what you say, even though my outlook on it might be a bit different. Where you might see pure tokenism, I might sense a (even though sometimes inedequate) gesture of solidarity. But besides my positive and your more negative spin, there are issues with the use of LGBT that I do recognize.

What I don't fully understand is your argument regarding the author's implied trans- or biphobia. To me, this seemed rather careless, based on the text that was cited and in light of the initial discussion in this thread. That said, I'm not familiar with the author's body of work (and wasn't initially aware you were). At least part of my dissagreement with your statement likely stems from that.

I am familiar with the issue of erasure. Not the least because this issue begins on an even more fundamental level in the German language, where the default gender for most words is masculine and women (and people not identifying with any particular gender) are often enough carelessly excluded from everyday speech. However, I still think there is one important difference here (as with your examples regarding racism): There erasure spreads through exclusion and monopolizing certain words, terms and phrases. LGBT is (at least superficially) a sign of awareness of non-exclusiveness. Even it's use in the cited article weakens your transphobia statement somewhat. As the author - again, superficially - included trans and bi initially, not mentioning them later mostly because the Queen not talking about gay issues already implies she's also not talking about those other topics. Which, of course, in itself can be critized.

But I don't want to look like I'm defending the author. I'm not. And I fully recognize that our sensibilities for these issues might differ somewhat. It's still a discussion too interesting to just dismiss it. :)

Unknown Person liked this

Ozy

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 04 2012

Incidentally, do you know that if the Queen stays on the throne for 5 more years, she'll be the longest reigning monarch in British history?

(Currently Victoria holds the record)

also within the next five years we'll have the largest aircraft carriers ever launched by the Royal Navy (approximately the same size as the U.S Nimitz class).

Edited June 04 2012 by Ozy

Ozy

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 05 2012

The following tags have no closing tag: quote

Back the the Queen most Australians want a republic we dont want anything to do with that old....woman 70% of Australia will agree with this :)

but I don't see how becoming a republic will benefit Australia in the slightest? It's not as though Britain, or by extension the Queen exploits Australia, its all ceremonial these days.

Don't become U.S #2, lol.

Angelsilhouette

Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community

June 06 2012

Is it irony or just plain sad that on a site that promotes equality in a thread about a lack of equality that the two previous posts speaking (or implying in Sixu's case) ill of the US and its people have been posted?

The joke card doesn't work, either. It doesn't work with any business' HR dept when you make a sexist / racist / homophobic "joke", so it shouldn't work here, either.

Edited June 06 2012 by Angelsilhouette