From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: New queer terminology (was Re: The media, again)
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:37:11 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA

In article <1992Aug18.184146.6146@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.171203.29849@amhux2.amherst.edu>
>twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>think it's fair to say that gay in '67 != gay in '92.
>
>How many such things can you identify that have not changed
>signficantly in a quarter-century?
>...
>In short, what *have* you said here?

I don't think I said anything new by that.  The post to which I was
responding, however, defended "gay" as a political identity because
self-identified "gay" people started the Stonewall riots.  Seemed to
me to be a relatively meaningless comparison, and that was my way of
explaining why.

You're right that there are probably more things that have changed
over the course of my lifetime (plus a little bit) than I can imagine.
The point being?

>>The fact that the debate exists at all, I think, suggests that "gay"
>>is reasonably exclusive.
>
>Where who defines "reasonably," one might ask?  You, I
>gather.  Is that the historical reference on which it might
>all turn, then?

Come again?

>"Inclusive" and "exclusive" and "diversity" and
>"multicultural" are all things, like "gay," that have
>changed markedly in 25 years, which unless I'm mistaken,
>covers your entire existence or nearly so.

Or even more.  I turn 22 in November (and was amused to note that you
did not include me among Donald, John, Nelson, and Trey in your recent
post on youth and generation).

>I say this not to be obnoxious, Tim, but rather to urge
>people to consider *first* the widest possible perspective
>for making these sweeping judgments, including in their
>process consideration for the inappropriateness of wholesale
>categorization of the topic terms without reference to
>actual persons involved, without reference to a very real
>history that is *actually* important.

I am very confused by this paragraph.  These are the two passages of
mine to which you took exception:

>>think it's fair to say that gay in '67 != gay in '92.

>>The fact that the debate exists at all, I think, suggests that "gay"
>>is reasonably exclusive.

The first, it seems to me, is a clear reference to history that is
*actually* important.  The second is a reference to my personal
experience, and I will defend it if you take exception.  I can't tell
whether you're doing so or not.

>You (and not you alone) are making fairly large-scale
>pronouncements on matters that happened well before you ever
>considered political consciousness.  In the process you seem
>to feel that nothing of special import in the world could
>have happened before you got here to lay it on us about how
>things are nowadays.

Can you clarify whether this paragraph says anything more than "Listen
to your elders?"  I'll listen if you have something to tell me.  I
said that gayness of '67 is not the gayness of '92.  (Yes, so are many
other things, but I thought I'd stick to the topic at hand.)  I also
said that the existence of a debate over whether "gay" is an exclusive
term suggests that it might be true.  If you can offer me the
historical perspective I lack on this subject -- and I do lack it -- I
would be very appreciative if you were to tell me something about that
history.  You aren't doing that.

>You would not presume, I imagine, to make such wholesale and
>largely condemnatory remarks

Condemnatory?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: soc.motss