Does the Gay Community really exist? Does the local community lack an effective gay symbol?

The Gay Community. One hears this phrase thrown about a lot – it’s often used to refer to us as the collective group, with a whole secret political agenda to take over the world and threaten the institution of marriage and family.

But flippant ironies aside, what does it really mean? Let’s start with the dictionary definition – that’s always a good place to start.

Community (plural communities )
1. Group of people sharing a common understanding who reveal themselves by using the same language, manners, tradition and law.
2. The condition of having certain attitudes and interests in common.

So then comes the question - is there a gay community?

Going by the first definition, the answer would likely be yes. The gay community does share a common understanding – that we are interested in men, of course.

Do we reveal ourselves using the same language, manners, tradition and law? Most definitely. The laws of fashion and aesthetics govern us all. Be it wearing tailored bermudas, sashaying down Tanjong Pagar, or spending small fortunes on personal grooming, any gay man worth his salt is definitely able to identify another.

However, while we do live in a common fashion, the second definition does not seem to hold. As a whole, the condition of having certain attitudes and interests in common does not seem to be true.

The gay community seems to be fractured into many sub communities, each pursuing their own individual aims and interests. From the profit motive of saunas and clubs, to the personal sexual escapade that one pursues through various channels, there seems to be little concern for a motive outside of one's personal realm.

Very rarely do we see the entire community moving together towards one purposeful aim, in one coordinated direction. Be it setting up a business, climbing the corporate ladder in our careers, or pursuing our next relationship, these seem to be our main, private concerns.

Greater social issues, such as HIV and AIDS, minority discrimination within our own community, and even gay rights itself, often take a backseat. While there have been commendable efforts in each of these areas, to say that the entire community made a concerted, unified stand is far from the truth.

The question is, why?

It's easy to throw the usual rhetoric of how human beings are selfish, and that gay men are especially selfish things, concerned only with themselves. But if this were so, any greater cause would be doomed to fail under the pressure of petty human selfishness.

Such a generalization does not hold up, when one takes a broader perspective. Gay rights movements show a communal sense of purpose not present in the Singaporean context. The problem does not lie with our sexuality, or our innate human selfishness.

Perhaps this might be due to the lack of a truly unifying symbol or theme.

Symbols are powerful things. The West has pride parades, Stonewall, days of silence for GLBT victims and Ian McKellen. These act as rallying points, symbols that foster a sense of community that supports each other in times of need.

However, these symbols have not proven themselves to be as effective in an Asian context..

The Rainbow Flag, for example, is a wholesale import from Western movements, and many that I've spoken to find that they do not relate to this symbol.

It's hardly surprising. After all, the rainbow flag also hails from the very same culture that stereotypes Asian gay men as being weak, timid, unassertive, and effeminate. The rallying points that the Western culture use are not necessarily translatable into an Asian context.

Undeed, how many of us know the history behind the Rainbow Flag, and what each colour of the Rainbow Flag stands for?

(For those of you who would like to know, the Flag was first flown in the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade on June 25th 1978. The eight colours, Pink, Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Turquoise, Blue, and Violet represented Sexuality, Life, Healing, Sunlight, Nature, Magic, Serenity and Spirit respectively.)

So what symbol does Singapore have? 377A?

Much has been talked about the debate against 377A being a milestone in the advancement of gay rights. Serving as a rallying point for gay rights, Singapore was propelled on to the world map of gay rights advancements.

Everyone knows about it. But how many people do staunchly support its repeal? I've come across a large number of people who are simply content with the government's placatory statement of not actively prosecuting.

Which is rather dismal, considering that there are also a fair amount of straight men and women who support the repeal.

A symbol needs to be created by the people, for the people, to have a rallying effect. The intricate web of traditions and representations needs to be understood by the people, in order for the symbol to be effective.

And maybe, with such a symbol flying high, we too can have the sense of pride and communal acceptance when we say that we are, indeed, part of the gay community of Singapore

BITCH!

Bitch.

Such a strong word. Even the way you say it, almost spitting it out like a wad of curdled yoghurt, and its sound, is vehemently unforgiving. The word itself has a host of meanings, most of them unpleasant, including: a female dog; a malicious, unpleasant or selfish person; or a complaint. Used as a verb, it means to complain or to gripe.

Gay people, be they campy and loose-wristed or macho and straight acting, love to bitch. Even the most discreet of us can sometimes unwittingly launch into a bitch session with all the enthusiasm of a true-blue Bitcherina.

Some of us even take the title as a compliment – I have a friend who likes to call himself 'Queen Bitch of the Universe'. When we meet after a hard day of work for a drink, he would stalk up, briefcase in hand, plonk into an empty seat, light a cigarette and repeat his usual line, “I'm in a bitchy mood today.” This often amuses me, because the bitchier he gets, the more he walks like Naomi Campbell, although he probably doesn't realise it and we never tell him.

It seems that this is almost a natural ability with gay boys, and we make sure everyone knows it. It is sometimes whispered in certain awe (I exaggerate a little) that no man, woman or creature can out-bitch a gay guy on the warpath.

Why are gay people so bitchy? Is it simply yet another undeserved stereotype, or is there a reason to explain why we turn into Lady Deathstrikes whenever we want to? I am no Sigmund Freud, but I figure it could simply be a defense mechanism – or a cry for attention.

Those of us who were teased mercilessly when we were young for being faggots or sissies simply had to find a way to deal with all the ridicule. If they called you 'sissy', you retorted with 'slut'. If they sneered and called you a lady-boy, you gave them the finger and insulted their vocabulary.

One day, they told you that you were a bitch, and you said, “Whatever, it's better than being an ugly orang-utan.” and you had the last word. You discovered you could deal with being a bitch, even liked it because you usually had the last word, and so from that day on, you decided that being bitchy was a good way of dealing with unpleasant people.

So what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, a.k.a. when Bitcherina clashes with Bitchzilla?

In physics, they would say such a paradox would result in an outpouring of energy that would eventually destroy the universe. However, in the gay world, we know better. What is generated is mainly a lot of unpleasant squabbling over increasingly ridiculous and trivial issues.

This is often apparent on the Trevvy forums. When two parties have differing points of view that they feel very strongly about, they sometimes tend to get into hissy fits that can continue past the point of no return.

While I am all for a spot of bitching now and then – it does wonders for one's self-esteem and is quite a lot of fun once in a while – I also know that it can affect others around us.

For that reason, I tend to temper myself and proceed with caution. Bitching is an activity reserved for days out with the sisters, impolite hawker centre aunties and homophobic bigots. It is not, no matter how it seems, about proving who can have the last word and thus reign as Queen of Hell.

Next time, when you start to bitch consider the people around you (like just before sex, you think 'condoms!'), and try not to let any of it spill over.

Thinking out loud - the invisible gay olympic medalist.

If you are wondering about the recent furore surrounding Olympic diver Matthew Mitcham, here is the summary:

Matthew Mitcham was an up-and-coming Olympic hopeful when he dropped out of the sport two years before the Beijing Games due to anxiety and depression. One year before the actual Olympics, the young diver resumed training after much persuasion from his coach. He made the national team, which was not expected to fare well against China's famous powerhouse diving team.

True to expectations, the athlete performed poorly in his first event, not even making it to the semifinals. On his final attempt in his final event, however, he raised shockwaves that rippled across the sports community in an upset win that not only denied China the gold medal, but prevented China from taking a gold medal sweep in all eight of that sports category.

Matthew Mitcham, young, talented and goodlooking, is also the only out gay male athlete at the event, having come out as gay less than six months earlier.

His victory is easily the highest profile win ever by a gay man in an Olympic event, having posted the highest score ever given to a single dive during Olympic competitions.

Both his mother and his partner were in the stands to witness his triumph, their trip having been financed by a grant from Johnson & Johnson, a trip they would never have been able to afford otherwise.

After receiving his gold medal, he climbs into the stands to kiss his partner. One would have expected such a compelling story of victory and human interest to be told. Not according to broadcast giant, NBC.

Matthew's award ceremony and story did not make the NBC telecast, but was shown on their website.

When asked about why NBC had not mentioned that Mitcham was gay or that his partner was in the stands, NBC spokesperson, Greg Hughes said, “In virtually every case, we don't discuss an athlete's sexual orientation.”

It was, however, pointed out that in fact the network does exactly that by telling viewers about Olympic athletes’ various spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, and even in one case a heterosexual “love triangle” Hughes responded, “Not in every case. Not every athlete has a personal discussion. I could show you 500 athletes we didn’t show. We don’t show everyone. We don’t show every ceremony.”

But surely, taking into account Mticham’s stunning come-from-behind victory, the historical significance of his achievement as a gay man, and his own personal history, it seems unlikely the vast majority of those other athletes truly have as compelling a story as Mitcham. The human interest element in this story is indeniable, nor is Mitcham's performance in the event. Said Hughes, “How do you know that? How do you know that someone on the rowing team doesn’t have as compelling a story?”

Pressed that it was hard to believe that there truly any other athletes with stories as compelling as Matthew’s, especially ones who single-handedly prevented the Chinese from sweeping all of the gold medals in an entire sport, Hughes would only say, “It’s not possible to cover the entire personal story of every athlete regarding their performance. … It’s just not possible to single out coverage."

In Singapore such aversion towards covering or telecasting any gay-related material is nothing new. Season 4 of Desperate Housewives, for example, was not shown on local TV despite high ratings of past seasons of the hugely popular television series. It is interesting to note that Season 4 of Desperate Housewives features a gay couple moving in to Wisteria Lane.

The authorities have already made their point very clear - local media must not promote an 'alternative' lifestyle. Previously, Singapore's Channel 5 was fined a hefty $15,000 for airing an episode of a home decor series which contained scenes of a gay couple with their baby. The show also featured "the presenter's congratulations and acknowledgement of them as a family unit in a way which normalises their gay lifestyle and unconventional family setup."

While we understand that local media companies have regulations and guidelines imposed by the authorities, we are still hopeful that one day Singapore can look past such peripherals and that eventually the media can judge relevant news and entertainment for what they are - news and entertainment - and not let it be coloured by regulatory concerns. We can only wait to find out.