Remember when the pride flag made sense?
It was designed by an American Artist called Gilbert Baker in 1978. It was originally an eight-stripe rainbow but was soon refined into the six-striped version that was the norm for many decades.
At a time when gay people couldn't hold hands with their partners on the street, this flag served a useful purpose. It meant that you could easily find gay pubs or other places where no one had to pretend to be something they weren't. The rainbow symbol was a simple and effective concept that conveyed positivity and unity.
And then some activists came along and said hang on a minute, why are there no black or brown stripes in the rainbow flag? See, for some reason they were under the impression that the gay flag was a literal representation of the range of skin colors that are acceptable in the community. And so we got this.
Okay then, I mean, well, there weren't any white stripes in the original one either. But most people understood that it was symbolic with that we were all included already, irrespective of our race.
But then after this, trans activists came along and said, why aren't we in there? So we got this one. And this was the chevron with the pink white and blue, which was based on the trans flag.
But surely this eyesore couldn't get any worse, could it? Well, it could, because activists were then concerned that it was excluding intersex people, so they added this symbol.
Okay, it's getting a bit out of control now. But then last year, some bright spark added a red umbrella to represent sex workers.
Now, if you thought this was getting out of hand, last year then we had Microsoft. They designed a new version to incorporate all the other multiple sexualities and genders that have been invented over the past few years. Let's have a look at that.
I mean, what the hell is it? It looks like a space ship going at warp speed through a Care Bear's bum hole.
Identity politics in its current form is an ever expanding beast. Pride used to be just one day. Then it was a month. And now Pride events have been scheduled all the way from March through to September. As one sign in a shoe shop pointed out Pride never stops. If only it would.
The initialism as well that's expanded too. First we had LGB, and then it became LGBT, then LGBTQ, then LGBTQIA. The Canadian government currently favors 2SLGBTQIA+, although even its prime minister finds that a bit of a mouthful.
Similarly, Pride started out as an important protest against injustice. When the original Pride March took place in London in 1972, homosexuality had only been legal for five years, and the prospect of gay marriage or even an equal age of consent, seemed impossible. Only 2000 people turned up to these protests.
But by contrast, the Pride parade in London in 2022 attracted over a million. And of course, most of those people aren't even gay. It's become a family day out, a huge party.
And what's so wrong with that, you might ask. And that's a fair question. If people are celebrating and having a good time, that's great. Except that's not necessarily what's going. Increasingly, gay people no longer feel welcome at Pride. I spoke to a representative from a lesbian group on this show last year who had been moved along by police when trying to protest at Pride. But isn't Pride meant to be a protest, not a party? What's going on?
The answer is that pride has been hijacked not once but twice.
First by avaricious multi-billion dollar corporations who are able to pose as virtuous by posting the pride flag. Only, they don't do it in the branches in countries where homosexuality is still illegal. After all, you wouldn't want to fly the flag anywhere which might actually make a difference.
I'm old enough to remember that corporations were certainly not celebrating Pride quite so openly before section 28 was repealed in 2003, or before the age of consent was equalized in 2001, or before the decriminalization of homosexuality in Scotland in 1980. So, these corporations' commitment to LGBT rights apparently only manifests itself when it's likely to make them a profit.
And then there's the second hijacking. See, whereas the original Pride was about agitating for equal rights for gay people, it's now been taken over by activists who are obsessed with group identity and who believe that gender is more important than sex.
That's why the British library, to celebrate the advent of pride month this week, posted a thread on Twitter about the sex life of fish, and how some species have been known to change from male to female.
I mean, what's that got to do with Pride? Why have Librarians seemingly forgotten that human beings aren't the same as fish? Now, they've since deleted those tweets, because well, you know they're bonkers. And although we might laugh at that kind of nonsense, the ideology it promotes is actually rather sinister, particularly for gay people.
See, in her book, "Time to Think" by Hannah Barnes, she found that between 80 and 90% of adolescents referred to the Tavistock pediatric gender clinic were same-sex attracted. Studies have long confirmed a correlation between gender non-conformity in youth, and homosexuality in later life. At the Tavistock, staff used to joke that "soon there would be no gay people left." Somehow the medicalization and sterilization of gay people has been reframed as progressive.
Even Stonewall, the UK's foremost LGBT charity has redefined the word "homosexual" on its website and promotional materials to mean "same gender attracted." Its CEO, Nancy Kelly, has claimed that women who exclude trans people from their dating pool are akin to sexual racists. There's been an intense resurgence of old homophobic tropes online from gender ideologues that believe that "genital preferences are transphobic" and that lesbians who don't include men in their dating pool must be suffering from trauma.
Gay rights were secured by recognizing that a minority of people are instinctively attracted to members of their own sex. And the new ideology of gender identity rejects this notion entirely, and actively shames gay people for their orientation.
So, when you see this flag, try to understand that many gay people consider it to be a symbol of opposition to gay rights, Women who are concerned about their rights consider it a symbol of misogyny, because it promotes an ideology that denies the reality of sex-based oppression, and yet most people, gay people included, haven't even noticed this transition from the pro-gay rainbow flag to this anti-gay imposter.
And that's because it all happened so quickly, and activists are playing on good intentions of a public who don't want to be seen to be on the wrong side of history. Well, I would suggest that upholding the rights of women and gay people and protecting gender non-conforming children and opposing the hypocrisy of corporations is the truly progressive approach.
Anyone who spends any time on social media would have seen that homophobia is clearly on the rise. It's coming from the reactionary elements of the right, who are now holding gay people responsible for sexualized drag shows for children, and the proliferation of sexually explicit books in school libraries. But of course, they've fallen for the trick. This isn't gay people. That's gender ideologues who've convinced everyone that the LGBTQIA+ movement is one big happy family, when it isn't.
And we know this because homophobia is also on the rise among gender ideologues themselves, who frequently go online to tell gay people to kill themselves. Some of them have said that they celebrate AIDS as a good thing. And this isn't just a few mad activists, there are thousands of examples of this if you've got the stomach to look them up.
So whether it's coming from those who consider themselves right wing or left-wing, anti-gay sentiments are back in fashion. And the best way to combat this is to remind everyone that that Progress Pride flag, and the corporate orgy that accompanies it, is not in the interests of gay people.
And if it's too late to reclaim the original Pride flag, we can at least ditch the new one.
Yes I remember when the Rainbow Flag made sense and I agree that it was never meant to represent various sexual or gender identities. It was just a celebratory and subtly defiant symbol affirming our right to exist and be ourselves.
I do think the addition of "Identities" has really been more divisive that unifying. I have no problem including any and all sexual/gender minorities in our community, but it seems the anti-gay, anti-everyone-who-is-not cis-gender-heterosexual segment of the human race has decided that our individual differences are more important than what unites us. And they are using our differences to chip away at the rights we've gained by attacking the most vulnerable and visibly different.
……And I remember when the the term "GAY" was all inclusive. It referred to anyone with same-sex attraction and to any sexual/gender non-conforming individuals. There were "gay women" and flamboyant queers and macho guys and the ones who went both ways occasionally. We were all gay. And proud and rebellious and illegal.
Then women's lib preferred the "lesbian" moniker. OK. I worked for the Gay and Lesbian Health Collective back in that day and age. And then the bi-sexuals want to be singled out and the transfolk didn't feel they were necessarily gay or lesbian or bi, so we added a T. And then they put the L before the G in deference to giving priority to the women. OK, I guess.
During Gay Pride we were all one family, but not so much these days.
Honestly, I truly do not like being just a letter of the alphabet. The more we splinter our community into specific identities and preferences, the less a part of the whole I feel. Oh, well, I am old, so what do I know? The youth will have to live on the road they make for themselves. I lived through a time of repression, liberation, HIV/AIDS and the era our of civil rights , marriage equality and homes in the burbs. It's been a ride. Happy Pride.
(P.S. I may share that video on reluctantrebel.)
So the transphobic person who wrote this? They can just fuck off. The same people who hate trans folks also hate LGB people, with just as much hate. And pretending otherwise isn't going to change that.
Not sure who you are referring to…the video transcript? If so, I think you missed the point. My comment? Again, you might have mis-interpreted my intent. Laurent? Well, I didn't quite understand that primary color analogy.
Well, nowadays stupid people have so many means at hand (and clicks) to spread their asinine ideas. Such as wannabe so-called activists looking to leave their mark through a concept they do not evidently understand, or companies willing to seasonly profit from it (anything for mo' money)… As for me, just as much as I do not care how many letters and signs will be added to LGB, I like to remember that no matter the number of colours that are added to the flag it will always depend on the use we make of the three primary colors.
Another—very—important thing that seems to elude most people being that:
• black is not a color, it's the absence of light, and therefore ability to apprehend color(s)
• white is not a color either, it's what you get when you spin the wheel of the three primaries.
But it seems many activists skipped that school-grade workshop…