And one of the things that tells us is that the One Good Mind of consensus actually requires the active participation of everybody in the community, that it can’t be done without active participation by all. So, everybody matters, everybody counts. And I remember my mother specifically saying, “Don’t leave anyone out, don’t leave anyone out”. And if anything was ever counted up and somebody was left out, you started counting again, from the very beginning. Why? Because somebody was left out.

And that’s not acceptable, because exclusivism destroys community. It’s the first and best way to destroy community. Inclusivism, on the other hand, is very important to creating community; it hears absolutely every comment, it hears everything that’s going on, and it hears it in the voices that raised the issue. That’s pretty important.

Barbara Mann: (Seneca, Ohio) – Listen to Your Mother (2012)

sleepypangirl:

angryqueerautie:

Every queer person I know over the age of 30 is fucking appalled by the state of the queer community, and I have heard some absolutely stellar anti-gatekeeping tirades from queer grandparents. I had a long conversation with a 43 year old pansexual who told me the infighting is almost certainly because we’ve collectively forgotten our joint history and have become more interested in individual social clout than actually advancing the movement for across the board queer equality.

So this is a reminder, I guess, that our elders are on our side. The gatekeeping and the exclusionary behavior is crap.

Skimmed through the “comment” section of this post. Wish I hadn’t. The people in that section are the reasons I’m not anywhere near this god damn community.. y’all are acting just as bad a cishet people who deny our existence and our rights to be who we are.

alarajrogers:

tirediscourse:

possibly unpopular opinion here, but i really fucking hate the general tumblr trend of excessively and vocally hating straight people, even setting aside instances where it’s a dogwhistle for aphobia/biphobia/transphobia/etc. the entire idea that abuse or bullying doesn’t matter if the person targeted isn’t oppressed is terrible in general, but here’s the thing:

if i’d actually seen the shit that tumblr tends to say about straight people, especially straight women, when i was 13-ish and had just gotten on tumblr? i give it a 50-50 chance that i’d still think i was straight, and i probably would have no involvement in the community.

you can say over and over that allyship should not be revoked based on the behaviour of people that you claim to support, and obviously that’s generally a good principal, but if i been constantly exposed to posts about how terrible and gross and ugly and homophobic straight women are – if ace discourse had been a big thing and i’d been told that straight people “””””invading””””” “”lgbt”” spaces is the most horrific crime that they can commit–

what possible incentive would i have to explore my sexuality? i’d be terrified of being seen as a faker, an invader to the community. i’d remind myself that i find men attractive, so i’m straight, and that’s all. and the hostility would make me feel guilty and ashamed for the fact that i liked women, i’d probably get caught in some sort of fucked up imposter syndrome cycle, and i probably wouldn’t get actively involved in the community.

obviously this is just speculation, since this didn’t happen, but i can see it very easily as a possibility. and even now, as i’m realizing that i don’t actually think i’m cis, the idea of actually exploring my gender is terrifying, in a large part because of exclusionism and the toxic environment it’s created. (also there’s the fact that i don’t think my gender identity fits into any of the Socially Accepted boxes and i really don’t want to open myself up to being considered cringey and “””mogai””” but that’s another post.) this kind of behaviour is extremely harmful to questioning people.

exclusionism and constantly shitting on straight people does not make a safer community for anyone, and the people most harmed will never be the people you’re targeting. and even if the only people who ever got harmed by this kind of gatekeeping and general ~virtuous hatred of The Oppressor~ were oppressors, it’s still not a good thing. it can still be seriously detrimental to someone’s mental health to be constantly told that they’re disgusting and inherently harmful and dangerous and that nothing they can do will ever make them better. it’s bullying, it’s abuse, and it’s never okay.

Plus, I mean, it shits all over the concept of intersectionality. The majority of POC are straight. A large number of disabled people, probably the majority, are straight. (I say “probably” because a disproportionate number of spoonies seem to be somewhere in the LGBTQ+ alliance.) Most poor people are straight despite the fact that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to be poor, simply because we’re a relatively small fraction of the population. Most women are straight, and the intersection set of “pro-LGBT/anti-straight” and misogyny is goddamn toxic.

You can’t claim to have progressive politics and then be shitting all over marginalized people on the grounds of their sexual orientation… even if it’s a majority sexual orientation. You’re still shitting on marginalized people for part of their identity.

Lots of kids are straight. Are you pro-protecting minors? Then you can’t be shitting on people for being straight, because you’re attacking a lot of kids.

Do you care about racism? About phobia of non-Christian religions, such as anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic sentiment and the general hatred of atheists and pagans? Do you identify as a feminist? Do you want to protect disabled people? Then fucking stop it. Maybe in your head “straight person” means “able-bodied, white, Christian, adult, wealthy male with privilege on all axes”, but that is not actually what the words mean, so a black woman in a wheelchair and a Muslim child facing intense racist and anti-Muslim bullying and a homeless Hispanic man with autism could all read your anti-straight screed and think you are talking about them, because they happen to be straight.

For that matter, there are trans people who identify as straight. (I personally think that there is a distinction between het and straight, and that straight should be reserved for people who receive full cisheteronormative privilege from the other straights, and that anyone in the marginalized gender identity/orientation umbrella does not count as straight, but other people use a different definition where straight and het are full-on synonyms.) Are you trying to attack them too?

myceliorum:

lilyvonpseudonym:

bi-trans-alliance:

bisexualbaker:

stilesisbiles:

bi-trans-alliance:

Bi & Pan solidarity ❤️

This tweet angered a lot of biphobes, panphobes, terfs, and general transphobes…must be doing something right 

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[Image: Tweet by Bi-Trans Alliance ( @BiTransAlliance ); transcript follows.]

If someone tells you they’re #bisexual, they’re bisexual.

If someone tells you they’re #pansexual, they’re pansexual.

If someone says they’re both bi and pan, they’re both bi and pan.

What label(s) a person uses, if any, is up to them, and should be respected.

Unsurprisingly getting angry “you can’t be bi AND pan” messages and demands that those who ID as both go on public internet trial to defend calling themselves that, and angry “bi means men and women only” messages.

Label policing never ends.

@ everybody in the notes thinking they are asking reasonable questions: google is free

I am afraid to use the combination of labels I prefer because people either think it’s impossible, that it implies things it doesn’t actually imply about the world, or that it indicates a specific ideology I definitely don’t hold in a million years.  Or sometimes all three.  Meanwhile the way labels are changing to become stricter about certain things shuts me out of places that would’ve welcomed me before.  

(Just as an example:  What used to be a lesbian group around here is now called something like a group for people with a female gender identity attracted to other people with a female gender identity.  That first off implies declaring your gender identity by entering thus either outing or closeting or shutting you out depending on what goes on, and second off is much narrower in scope than what lesbian usually means.)

All within queer communities.  Which – people … need belonging in these communities, not ever-narrower definitions.  When people stop discriminating against us based on whether we fit these narrow definitions of things then maybe someone will have a point.  No, not even then.  But seriously, until then, can everyone trying to say everyone else’s identity has some bearing on your own to the point you want to shut them out, please just stop!?  

lilyvonpseudonym:

bi-trans-alliance:

bisexualbaker:

stilesisbiles:

bi-trans-alliance:

Bi & Pan solidarity ❤️

This tweet angered a lot of biphobes, panphobes, terfs, and general transphobes…must be doing something right 

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[Image: Tweet by Bi-Trans Alliance ( @BiTransAlliance ); transcript follows.]

If someone tells you they’re #bisexual, they’re bisexual.

If someone tells you they’re #pansexual, they’re pansexual.

If someone says they’re both bi and pan, they’re both bi and pan.

What label(s) a person uses, if any, is up to them, and should be respected.

Unsurprisingly getting angry “you can’t be bi AND pan” messages and demands that those who ID as both go on public internet trial to defend calling themselves that, and angry “bi means men and women only” messages.

Label policing never ends.

@ everybody in the notes thinking they are asking reasonable questions: google is free

When you wanna claim something as your Hyperfixation or your Special Interest…

jumpingjacktrash:

lysikan:

candidlyautistic:

noonewouldlisten25:

But you don’t know if you’re autistic/ADHD and don’t wanna be offensive if you’re not 

¯_(ツ)_/¯

For all y’all still exploring this, or are self diagnosed or community diagnosed… y’all aren’t being offensive. Keep on being you. It doesn’t matter if you ever get a clinical diagnosis or not. If you relate to the autistic and ADHD communities, and you find comfort in the advice and coping techniques we have to share, then chances are that you belong.

and word policing doesn’t help acceptance, it hurts it. Any of y’all what feels a thing feels the thing and can use the same words as nother peoples what feels the thing.
Words is for communicating – if you restricts who can use them then they lose their value.
Making up new words for the same thing based on tiny differences if F-ing stupid – we already gots too many words!

erm – end rant?

special interests are called that because they’re specially interesting, not because autistic people are so very different from Real People that you need special terminology to denote us liking something.

word policing is othering. don’t do it.

bemusedlybespectacled:

autismserenity:

weareallstilllearningright:

autismserenity:

I’ve been exploring monosexism and the concept of privilege a lot lately. I was just reading a Facebook conversation, among bisexuals, about how we (supposedly) have “passing privilege”. And it really made a lot of stuff gel for me.

The problem is that by calling it passing privilege, we confuse it with what is usually meant by privilege.

You do not have to pay for privilege. You can’t pay for privilege.

I am white; I have white privilege no matter what I do.

There is a whole system in place that puts a ton of money and effort and privilege into giving me and other white people privilege by stealing from people of color.

I can choose to play into and support that system to perhaps, arguably, access a little more of that privilege, and to help keep the racist system going.

Or I can work to unlearn racism and learn the ways I have been feeding the system, and work to cut them off, and work to support and defend people of color.

But I don’t earn white privilege through some kind of points system. It’s just there.

If I have to pay for privilege by giving up who I am, lying about who and what I am, hiding my past and present, then it is not privilege. By definition. Because I am paying for it – paying a very high price.

If safety and danger are thrust upon me at random based on people’s perception of me – as they are also done with my gender, as a genderqueer, and as they are done to gays and lesbians all the time as well – then that, likewise, is not privilege. It is Russian roulette.

This does not only happen to bi/pan and trans people, of course. Asexuals get the same bullshit. Biracial people get it. All sorts of light-skinned people of color get it. Femme women of all types get it. Butch gay, bi, ace, and trans men get it. Intersex people get it. People with invisible disabilities get it. All us liminal people get it. Who am I leaving out?

Privilege is when you have access to safety and acceptance that others don’t, based on things you cannot control.

It especially becomes a problem when we accept it and use it and (no matter how obliviously or intentionally) support the harm of others.

Whether that’s active, like telling bi people that we should stop whining about erasure, or passive, like ignoring bi experience, politics, and culture in favor of the vicious cycle of bias confirmation.

(Like only hearing about bi history as bits of tiny scraps in the context of gay history, where it’s not mentioned when major figures were actually bi, or when something specific to the bi community happened. And then assuming that’s an accurate picture of community history instead of specifically of one piece of our community. And then assuming that bi people are in the minority, don’t do much of the work, and don’t have many problems. And then assuming that people who say differently are being divisive and self-centered, because they aren’t really oppressed, because you haven’t heard anything that says they are, so….)

Passing is not privilege. It is a form of blackmail, a threat.

“Pretend you are gay in this community, pretend you are straight in that one, and pass, and we’ll treat you as we treat each other. Admit you are bisexual, and we will take you down.”

That is not what privilege sounds like. That is what it looks like when people WITH privilege turn on you.

You can also tell it’s not privilege, because the same communities that shame and reject us when we DON’T pass, immediately turn around and use “passing privilege” to tell us we’re not oppressed – and certainly not oppressed by them!

The word for that isn’t “privilege”. It’s “abusive mindfuck”.

“This does not only happen to bi/pan and trans people, of course. Asexuals get the same bullshit. Biracial people get it. All sorts of light-skinned people of color get it. Femme women of all types get it. Butch gay, bi, ace, and trans men get it. Intersex people get it. People with invisible disabilities get it. All us liminal people get it. Who am I leaving out?” 

This is an interesting idea. I started typing “I think it would be insincere to not admit that bi people are exposed less severe stigma” but I suppose that’s not really true its just different. I think the easiest way to understand it (for me personally) is comparing it to biracialism; light skinned mixed race people tend to experience less severe racism but are often outcasted from dark skinned communities. Ultimately though, even though the experience is difference the root of what we experience  is homophobia and fear of dark skin. Most people aren’t biphobic they’re homophobic and bi people are affected because of that (same with racism faced by multiracial people.) For me personally though, the suspicion or rejection from the communities that are more severely hit by the root (i.e dark skinned people and gay/lesbian people) can’t be called oppression as the last paragraph insinuates “ we’re not oppressed – and certainly not oppressed by them!

“ those groups don’t really have the power to cause us systematic issues it can just feel bad which is unfortunate, but is just the side effect of living in a racist/homophobic society. To me its understandable  why those communities might be apprehensive because, “at least bi people have the option to pretend” or “light skinned people are still treated better and benefiting from colourism”. Don’t get me wrong it would be wonderful if it wasn’t like that I just think its important to focus on the actual cause not the by-product (aka hate from other minorities.)

What I find fascinating about it is that, you know, I too see the world as a place where bi people are less stigmatized… BUT… at the same time, the more I learn, the clearer it becomes that that’s not true. 

Like: when the Association of American Universities did a study in 2015 on sexual assault and harassment, bi students consistently reported significantly higher rates of everything than their gay and lesbian counterparts, who reported significantly higher rates that their straight counterparts. 

(And most of the time, aces fell between bi students and gay/lesbian ones – and obviously, therefore, WAY above straight students. Which also counters the common perception that “nobody knows or cares if you’re ace.”)

Or like, 25% of bisexuals in the United States are on food stamps, compared to 14% of lesbians and gay men

Or like, while portrayals of gay and trans people have been rising and becoming more respectful – not perfect, the bury your gays trope is really fucking people up, but the characters are more consistently positive real people, not jokes or stereotypes – portrayals of bisexuals are actually getting WORSE. 

According to GLAAD’s “Where We Are In Tv” report for the 2015-16 season, “It appears that what the website TV Tropes calls ‘the Depraved Bisexual’ is only getting more common. Bisexuality in general on TV is on the rise; among television’s regular and recurring LGBT characters, 28 percent are bisexual. 

“But while gay and lesbian characters on TV increasingly are portrayed in a way that doesn’t make their sexuality into a large and dubious metaphor about their character, bisexuality often is portrayed as… untrustworthy, prone to infidelity, and/or lacking a sense of morality… [using] sex as a means of manipulation or lacking the ability to form genuine relationships; associations with self-destructive behavior; [or used as] a temporary plot device that is rarely addressed again.“

Or like the Canadian study that found that whereas 9.6% of straight women and 29.5% of lesbian women reported feeling suicidal, suicidality among bisexual women was found to be as high as 45.4%. As for men, whereas 7.4% of straights and 25.2% of gays reported suicidality, bisexuals who reported suicidality made up 34.8% of the respondents. 

Whereas in Britain, “young and middle-aged bisexual adults reported poorer mental health than any other sexual orientation group examined. The researchers even go as far as saying that ‘[p]revious studies may have overstated the risk of mental health problems for homosexuals by grouping them together with bisexuals.’” 

I would agree that the gay community doesn’t have systemic power in and of itself. But it’s done an admirable, amazing job of fighting for and gaining SOME systemic power – for society to take seriously hate crimes, and marriage equality, and “the pink dollar,” and see gay people as real people, and as an important political force. 

There are still tons and tons of barriers; there’s HB2, there’s the entire Republican party, there’s tons and tons of heterosexism. And all of this varies so widely from country to country. 

But there’s a consistent pattern where the money donated to LGBT nonprofits, which is where most of that SMALL amount of legislative and media power comes from, does not go to bi organizations or bi issues. 

“Funders for LGBTQ Issues” publishes an annual report showing where this money goes. From 2008 through 2010, $0 went to “bisexual-focused issues.” In the most recent report, which is for 2013, it had increased to “less than 1%” of the total grant money nationwide. Even though bisexuals make up about 50% of the community. (Even among trans people, about 50% of us are m-spec.) 

So while gay people can’t oppress us, they can deny us the resources we help fight for. They can certainly, on an individual level, make us feel like we do not qualify for those resources, like we’re not bi enough or not gay enough to access them, like we’ll be turned away and rejected if we try to access them. And we can’t really say that the stuff we experience there is homophobia. 

(Personally, I’ve seen a lot of straight people who are biased against both bi and gay people, for distinct reasons – my own in-laws aren’t comfortable with either group, but are definitely less happy with bi people and more judgmental of us. Because they see us as choosing to ignore God’s will, instead of just as pitiable souls who are allowed to be gay but celibate.) 

They can, individually and as organizations, erase and silence us without even meaning to, to the point where we don’t know that we’re experiencing more of the effects of oppression and need more help. It becomes this vicious cycle where we all think that bi people are sort of unoppressed semi-straights, and just generation after generation buys into this idea in both groups.

Which can then lead to the same organizations that we participate in not dedicating any resources to bi issues. Not even knowing what bi issues are, often. Not having any specific bi programming, not having bi people very high up on their staff, often not having us in their name, just kind of… passively continuing to accept that we’re not important in this battle. 

I totally agree that that kind of suspicion of “you must be suffering less, you look more like the oppressor to me” comes from the oppressive mainstream culture. It’s a divide and conquer tactic. 

And that bi erasure originates in that culture, as much as gay erasure and all our other queer erasures do. 

The root of our oppression is the same. All of it is rooted in cissexism and intersexism, tbh. All of it is this desperate ploy to protect the idea that everyone is supposed to be male or female in the “right” way – cis, and gender-conforming, and perisex, and sexually active with only the “opposite” sex (but definitely sexually and romantically active), and only within a monogamous relationship, and probably some other shit I forgot. 

Presumably it all goes back to capitalism trying to generate more workers or something like that. And to the kyriarchy, the drive to divide every group into “good” and “bad” so that you can force yourself onto the “good” side and get power over other people. 

Honestly I think SO much of it is probably intersectional, too. Like, I have a friend who would agree that she gets some kind of privilege from “passing” as straight. And also, she’s white and cis and gender-conforming and I think perisex and upper-middle-class. And I think that’s a big part of it. 

And I don’t actually know, if she were with a same-gender partner, how much would change for her personally; she’s been with the same guy for freaking ever and has kids with him. I think it’s very easy to say things like, “Well, I don’t have to deal with any oppression at my work, because I’m perceived as straight,” and never measure the psychological cost of being closeted at your work and (if applicable) having a straight partner who may not understand your experiences and culture. 

It’s even easier to stand in a position of relative privilege on all those other points, white and cis and etc., and think about it only in terms of “I’m not really experiencing oppression because I’m bi and het-partnered” instead of “I’m not really experiencing oppression because I’m cis and white and in a very accepting geographic area and have class privilege and….” 

I’ve said this a lot, but I’ll say it again: “passing privilege” is just punishing people for being closeted.

Seriously, the classic example is that a bi woman walking around with a guy will be read as straight, while a bi woman with another woman will be read as lesbian: the first one “passes” and the second doesn’t. But that’s ignoring two major, major things:

  • a bi person walking around single is also going to be read as straight, not because of some nefarious plan, but because heteronormativity means we assume all people are straight unless proven otherwise. that’s why coming out is even a thing.
  • the same is true of every other closeted person, regardless of orientation, because heteronormativity is a hell of a drug. even non-closeted people can “pass:” the entire “gals being pals” meme is predicated on f/f couples being read as platonic friends. are we going to accuse them of “passing privilege” because people assumed they were straight?

When I see “passing privilege,” what I hear is “how dare you not out yourself at every opportunity?”

autismserenity:

“Before she died I said to her “Sylvia (Rivera), it just drives me crazy when people say to me ‘now was Stonewall a gay rebellion or was it a transgender rebellion’”. And I told her “I just tell them yes”. “Sylvia, what do you say? What would you say if somebody says ‘did you fight back that night because you were gay, because you were a self-identified drag queen, because of police brutality, because you were a sex-worker, you had to turn tricks in order to survive, because you were homeless, because you knew what it meant to go to jail, because you didn’t have a draft card when the demanded to you that night?” And I’ll never forget her answer it was so succinctly eloquent, she said: “we were fighting for our lives”. And the fact is that oppressions overlap in people’s life, as they do in this room. There are people in this room who are carrying heavier burdens of discrimination and oppression. There are people who had more dreams that have been deferred. There are people who have less opportunities, more doors slammed in their face. And that was true at the Stonewall too … But the fact is that when they all came together, shoulder to shoulder, to fight back against a common oppressor that night, they made history. Not in spite of their differences, but because they came to understand the need to fight together against a common enemy. And that was the most important lesson of the Stonewall rebellion for so many of us, that was the power of what we could do when we all came together.”

— Leslie Feinberg www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaRF0Ohb1mg (via grossefem)

This right here is what I mean about how frustrating it is to me that people keep trying to divide queer down into little tiny boxes of what is and is not allowed to count.

The idea that any of our predecessors were trying to fight for just one aspect of their existence is ridiculous, erasive, and cruel. The phrase “queer rights are human rights” does not just mean that anything queer is a human right. It means anything that is a human right can be queer.

(via butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway)

clatterbane:

Another Google Photos Assistant auto-animated delight from a series of photos (“Rediscover this day: Jan 14 2013”) 🐶

Reminded by discussion coming up yet again over ownership of “butch” (and connections to Polari – British gay slang).

Not long after we adopted this little guy, I took him along to Pets At Home to buy some things for him. As you do.

And some older, rather camp gentleman came across the store to make over him. First words? “He’s SO butch!!!”

(While Nervous Boy kept eyeing the guy’s fluffy little dog like it was a wolverine that might chew his face off at any moment…)

So yeah, at least in that guy’s estimation? You don’t even have to be human to qualify as butch. And he should know appropriate usage there better than many.

lines-and-edges:

canadianwheatpirates:

vaspider:

bullet-farmer:

vaspider:

a-polite-melody:

socialjusticeichigo:

Another thing that confuses me about the ‘butch/femme are lesbian only terms and m-spec women shouldn’t use them’ thing is that I’ve been seeing queer men use femme for like, a really long time?

Same. And it’s… telling that not a single word about them, that I’ve seen anyway, has been said by the “they’re for lesbians only” crowd. Like. If they are lesbian-exclusive words, shouldn’t gay men using them be just as in the wrong as multispec women?

I would ask why it is I haven’t heard a single word about that, but… I think the answer is pretty clear. (Hint: it’s multispec antagonism.)

It’s also just a complete lack of understanding of where the terms butch/femme came from. I can’t yell enough about how people need to look up Polaris and learn about the whole fascinating history of the cant that gave us butch and femme in the first place. 

I mean, “Stone Butch Blues” shows men and women identifying as femme in Buffalo, NY’s bar scene in the 50s, but of course some random exclusionists on Tumblr.hell can go off, I guess.

Stone Butch Blues is actually set in the 1970s, but otherwise you’re dead on. 🙂 

Hell, there’s a book on my shelf with quotes describing men as butch that go back to the 40′s (so what’s that whole “it came out of 50′s lesbian bar culture” thing again?):

Like most of Derrick’s partners – among them the “butch number” in charge of the electricity generator – Fred marries and raised a family after the war [WWII] was over.

[…]

The New Zealand Pictorial drew 1955 to a close with tales of this new urban phenomenon. Like the Observer some eight years earlier, the Pictorial managed to moralise, inform and titillate all at the same time:

“Homosexuals have a strict code of their own and on no account will they sexually associate with women. Oddly enough they fight among themselves like kilkenny cats [sic]. For this reason a group of homosexuals is always controlled by the “queen bee” whose word is absolutely final. Others in the sect are “marthas”, who dress as women; “arthurs”, who adopt the normal male role, and “butchs” who stand in either way.”

[AN: this was written by straight people, and as such may not be accurate terminology, but it also stands as evidence that these terms were widespread enough for straight people to notice them.]

[…]

One avid party-goer wrote about this in-between time of evening in “The Night Is Young and We’re So Beautiful”, an unpublished 1966 story about his Auckland social circle:

[cut for length] “The more discreet or nervous would exit hurriedly and linger not. They would attempt an air of “How ever did I get mixed up with this lot when I was really drinking in the side bar with all those butch sporty types?”, and rush to their transport looking neither to right nor to left. “

– from Mates & Lovers: A History Of Gay New Zealand by Chris Brickell

Also, there’s a claim that floats around sometimes that butch and femme mean different things for lesbians because they relate to gender identity and expression. That’s a cool claim! It also goes for gay men:

Many stereotypes of gay men presume some form of cross-gender identification and remain prevalent even though the past two decades have seen a large-scale “butch shift” among gay men in Western communities.

[…]

“Butch is to straight-acting what camp is to effeminate – it’s like taking qualities that we consider masculine and over-emphasising them.”

“Butch can be camp in a way. It’s almost like it’s an exaggerated, overblown, unrealistic version of masculinity – you know, it’s not real.”

While butch is taken to clearly be a performance and generally a self-conscious and entertaining one, straight-acting is ambiguous in the same way as camp.

[…]

“When I first came out I actually got quite camp in both my speaking style and my movement style and then sort of when I decided that was actually really dumb, I swung back and got sort of completely butch in both and now I think I’ve sort of settled somewhere in the middle somewhere and I’m quite comfortable.”

[…]

Interviewee: I think camp’s making a parody of the masculine stereotype [whereas butch] is trying to be the equivalent of what straight men should be, like really tough, macho.

Chris: Do you think it sends it up or actually values it?

Interviewee: I don’t know, I think both to an extent. I mostly think it values it.

[…]

The interview accounts discussed here suggest that, rather than attempting to dismantle the taxonomy that incorporates butch, camp, effeminate and straight acting, gay men are refining that semantic space by introducing a new dimension of authenticity to the available distinctions.

– from “What it means to be a gay man” in Queer In Aotearoa New Zealand (2004), by Chris Brickell and Ben Taylor

And as a bonus, some comments on gay men in film by Vito Goddamn Russo:

To make matters worse, it was just about this time (1969) that gay men, themselves buyers of the American dream, rejected the sissy confessions of The Boys in the Band, opting for the macho drag of Joe Buck instead of fuzzy sweaters and teased hair, in order to prove that homosexual men could be just as butch as anyone else. (Which is true, of course, but why bother?) Instead of recognizing and destroying the worn-out myth of the real man, faggots adopted the solution of the traditional male. Just as Marion Morrison changed his name to John Wayne, they jumped on the bandwagon and became part of the parade.
[…]
George Schlatter’s Norman, Is That You? (1976) may have been the first pro-gay fag joke. Schlatter combined what looked to be good intentions with a production that only a hack could love and a solution that nobody could believe. The short-lived Broadway comedy about the parents who discover their son’s lover and gay lifestyle on a weekend visit went on to become a big dinner theater hit, and it is easy to see why: it plays both ends from the middle, refusing to make any comment on the situation for fear of offending someone. The black lover is butch, obviously the “husband”; the white lover is nellie, obviously the “wife.” Just like us, George!

– from The Celluloid Closet

Butch and femme are very important terms to lesbian history, I’m not arguing against that. But it hacks me the hell off to see the claim that they’re only for lesbians because that’s an active denial of my history and culture as a bi man. Plus, there are gay men out there right now with “no fats no femmes” in their grindr bios; try going and telling them that it’s a lesbian only term lmao

Thanks for adding all the citations! This is very good reference material.