Dear Paris
Here's my question; do we need a list of the one hundred best
L.G.Bs and Ts. No, I would suggest 'we' do not, not if the 'we' in
question is the readers of the Independent on Sunday. Because in
many sectors of society the LGBT community has what it's always
wanted, equality and tolerance. Our sexuality no longer stigmatises
or marginalises us, in fact, it's not an issue at all. So why would
we wish to re-establish the divide by drawing up a list of our most
successful ambassadors? Of course, I'm not denying that for an
awful lot of people, being LGBT makes them a candidate for
discrimination and abuse and that by accentuating the achievements
of our community we can inspire the victimised and educate the
perpetrators. I'm just not sure a Sunday broadsheet reaches out to
either group. In fact I think it's more likely to piss off a
demographic that was already onside.
But be that as it may, the intention to inspire and celebrate is
a noble enough one. Except I didn't find it inspiring, I found it
confusing. 'Nominate' the IOS urged us 'the unsung heroes and
heroines who make life as a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender
person better - as well as the celebrities who make the world a
more entertaining place'. Hang on, so you're pitching the
pioneers against the headline grabbers. As a voter I was supposed
to deliberate the virtues of Peter Tatchell (a glaring omission)
against Jessie J, Gok Wan against Angela Eagle, for them to all be
thrown together in one big arbitrary list. But perhaps I'm
missing the point. Perhaps it was a show of power, a gay
bicep-flex. So why were the likes of Stephen Fry and Sandy Toksvig
reduced to a patronising sidebar entitled 'National Treasures' as
though they were prehistoric queers bumbling around in Satan's
waiting room?
And do you know what else isn't very inspiring? 1,500 votes, in
a nationwide poll published and publicised in a nationwide
newspaper. The lovely Heather Peace who topped the public vote only
received 255 votes and she was 'by far' the most popular.
Absolutely no disrespect to Heather but that's fewer friends than I
have on Facebook. The Independent on Sunday asked and the nation
responded with sleepy indifference. Such a show of ambivalence
would not inspire, it would disappoint.
But, I was reminded, it was a triumph for ethnic minorities. No,
it wasn't. Look at the top fifty and tell me that's a triumph for
ethnic minorities. Far more a triumph for middle-class white
people. I really don't want to seem unduly negative but if
something's worth doing it's worth doing properly. I appreciate the
judges (nineteen apparently, eleven panellists plus eight from the
paper) only had a few hours but as it was the list lacked both the
right people, an overall point and based on the response rate
perhaps even a serious audience. Consequently, it seriously risked
doing more harm than good.
Naturally I expect you'll disagree with most of this but I'd be
interested to hear why you think it's worthwhile?
Faye
Dear Faye
OK, it has its weaknesses. Peter "Where's Wally" Tatchell, for
example. I put my hands up; he was such an obvious choice, I clean
forgot him.
The Indy's readers won't be "pissed off" by the Pink List, or else
it would never have been published. The Independent is a commercial
enterprise. Even if you're right, perhaps its readers are less
open-minded than you'd have us believe…
The National Treasure's category was meant to be an honour - why
the negativity?
It may not have a mammoth circulation, but the Independent punches
above its weight. Almost everyone in the serious media will have
seen Elly Barnes standing in first place, like a triumphant priest
exorcising the ghost of Section 28. Politicians saw her and
teachers too. So did lesbian and gay people who don't usually buy
newspapers.
Yes, it'd be great if the Daily Mail caught up with the mores of
the general population rather than pandering to the bigotry of its
ageing readership. But would the world would be a better place if
the Pink List didn't exist? No.
So the Pink List isn't the whole solution - but what is? Like much
else, it's a step in the right direction, and deserves our
support.
Most of the moaners already know lots of successful queers and
underestimate the importance of recognising pink achievement. But
many young women will be stunned when they see all the wonderful,
respected gay and bi folk out there. This is especially true for
trans people, who made huge inroads this year. I remember a few
years ago discovering that a trans person, Christine Burns, had
been awarded an OBE. I was gob smacked, impressed and inspired to
become an activist myself.
Was it a success for ethnic minorities? Depends on your
perspective. While many trans people were pleased the community
received some recognition, having just one trans man, out of 101
Pink Listers, could be seen as a slap in the face. But, sadly, if
there are less "influential" queers from ethnic and gender
minorities, that says more about the cisgender, white heterosexual
orthodoxy than anything else.
The Pink List shows that it's possible to be both gay or bi AND
successful - "success" which comes in many forms this year. It's
not only activists who are influential. Just imagine the social
shift if every gay footballer came out: they wouldn't need to
become the next Clare Dimyon to make a huge difference.
Even I was surprised at the number of great, out people actively
pushing for equality in their chosen fields. It's one of my few
comforts when our heteronormative society starts to wear me
down.
It's easy for queer media types, especially those working in gay
organisations, to be blasé about the importance of this sort of
thing.
But did you miss the Stonewall research that shows 65% of gay and
bi schoolchildren have experienced direct bullying? Or the Trevor
Project survey which estimates that gay and bi youth are up to four
times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers?
Do you think those figures are lower for trans people?
Best wishes
Paris
