Pride - Isn't it Queer?
Why the gay left, like the rest of the Democratic Party, is going to die out.
Back in more innocent days, the lyric “Isn’t it Queer?” was Stephen Sondheim’s and Judy Collins' way of asking if her romantic situation wasn’t odd.
But in 2025, Judy has no need to send in the clowns. They are indeed here, as gay activists have adopted the former derogatory label “queer” for their “culture.” There are “Queer Studies” in universities, and gay people call other gay people “queer” the way some black (and Hispanic immigrant) high school students call their friends, teachers and classmates “nigga” without even asking first if they want to be called that. I’m in a Zoom group now reading the novels of a notable American author, Henry James, who happened to be gay, and one of my co-symposiasts insists on using the word “queer” often when other terms - “homoerotic,” “gay,” “lesbian,” “same-sex,” “Boston marriage” - would be more apt. He thinks he’s saying something, being intellectual, providing insight, the way these same university produced zombies do when they say “privilege,” “class,” “patriarchy,” ad nauseum.
A variety of people - teens, hipsters, bisexuals, the gender dysphoric - run about calling themselves “queer” even though they aren’t gay or lesbian.
I don’t actually object to the term “queer” because it was once considered negative, a slur. I object to it more because it is what Ayn Rand once described as an anti-concept. It’s an equivocation, a grab bag that is intended to throw a bunch of things together that aren’t the same, in order to break down boundaries and distinctions so you can put something over on the gullible.
It’s part of the gay left’s attempt to use language to make clear thinking less likely. The gay press (for example Metroweekly or the Washington Blade) rants every week, sounding like their depictions of Q-Anon and other conspiracy theorists, claiming that Trump and other dark forces are about to march them off to gas chambers, and hoping to convince their readers of this because of the blue smoke and mirrors of the anti-concepts they are constantly slipping to the reader.
Writer Mary McCarthy complains that corporations are not funding Pride as much as they once did - no more grants for floats with dancing, almost naked, twinks covered in glitter, swilling the latest brand of Vodka or wearing banana hammocks with logos promoting Citibank trying to capture the crowds’ interest - because they are, what else, afraid of Trump. Trump, the President who dances to Village People songs, is a secular leaning Manhattanite, and who has appointed gays to run the Treasury, revamp the Kennedy Center, and be the press spokeswoman for the State Department.
More likely they are afraid of being assoeciated with public nudity, weirdo fetishes, and “trans” abuse and mutilation of kids. Something other gay and lesbian Americans, most recently Jillian Michaels, are also complaining about. Writing on X of the mockery of Christians by groups often in Pride marches, like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (men in garish drag as psychedelic nuns) or gays mocking heterosexuals as “breeders”, Michaels asked: “Dear fellow gays, we demand tolerance and respect but then make a mockery of something sacred for over two billion Christians. This type of hypocrisy and lack of understanding is a bad look. We get outraged when the extreme right bashes us but then we do this sh*t. What kind of reaction do you think they will have towards the LGBTQ+ community after this? This is not how we break down barriers, it’s how you build them.”
But the GayTM has its needs. It needed to make transexual grooming of kids central to “gay issues.” With same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and legal surrogacy, as well as gays included in many fair housing and anti-discrimination ordinances, it’s hard to raise money or scare gay voters into voting for some alcoholic or senile Democrat, unless you can create a fake “gay” issue like transexuals in the military to cajole them with.
The latest is that - along with getting rid of federal funding of many other programs Democrats have skimmed money from or used as cushy employment sinecures for decades, Trump is eliminating federal funding of gay suicide hotlines. What Trump is actually doing is eliminating a special silo on the national suicide hotline where a caller will identify themselves as “LGBTQ” and be shunted to special counsellors because of this, or rather these, identities.
I’m curious about why a counselor trained to deal with people in crisis can’t deal with them whether they think their parents will reject them for being gay, or the IRS is auditing them, or they can’t stay sober, or their spouse left them, or their child died, etc. Does every caller need to punch in a number to make sure they go in the correct silo? What if I am depressed and suicidal for more than one reason?
I’m even more curious if anyone has looked into how often the counselors on gay suicide hotlines push young gay people to imagine they are trans and just need a snip and some drugs and hormones? And how often Big Pharma and the transing medical professions donate to these suicide hotlines? (Looking at the 990 tax filing for the Trevor Project, for example, you can see who they pay salaries to and how much, but not who gives them money.)
And of course the question in all these cases: you can’t manage to fund “LGBTQ” suicide hotlines without federal funding? How much money did you spend on Kamala’s campaign?
Coincidentally this week statistician Nate Silver, another gay American, analyzed a lot of polling data about how happy Americans are on X. In EVERY demographic group, non-leftists are happier than leftists. Even allegedly oppressed demographics are usually happier than their oppressors when they are not leftists. Conservative women are not only happier than liberal women, they are happier than liberal men. Rightwing blacks are not only happier than progressive blacks, they are happier than progressive whites.
And gays on the right are not only happier than gays on the left, 60% to 49%, they are are happier than the 57% of liberal heterosexuals who consider themselves happy.
A shorter version of this was published at SpliceToday this week,
Hi Bruce- interesting article as usual. I’m off Facebook as it was getting too crazy. Hope you’re well!
I’m on X too! Come find me and I’ll look for you. @emilytfox is my handle.