Did a LGBT Member Group start?

[glueman]

"don't be so gay"

The word gay has been redefined in recent years, especially in youthful circles with only a tentative nod towards homosexuality or its prior meaning of jolly. It now means something like ridiculous or ineffectual. I can see the word going the way of nice, a complete 180 degree turn from the Elizabethan sinister or suspicious to its present use of pleasing.
Of course while such transitions are taking place it's important we're aware of inadvertantly giving offence.

[Si]

"don't be so gay"

The word gay has been redefined in recent years, especially in youthful circles with only a tentative nod towards homosexuality or its prior meaning of jolly. It now means something like ridiculous or ineffectual. I can see the word going the way of nice, a complete 180 degree turn from the Elizabethan sinister or suspicious to its present use of pleasing.
Of course while such transitions are taking place it's important we're aware of inadvertantly giving offence.

Yes, that was my point - you can't actually tell if it is being used with the intention of demeaning anyone who might think of themselves as gay. You might suggest that the meaning has changed and thus using it in this way is no longer offensive, but on the other hand, you could equally well suggest that the appropriation of this word is equally offensive - if they wanted a new word to insult people why did they choose one that was associated with homosexuals rather than any other group? But because you can't be sure that they do not have intent of being homophobic it puts you in an uncomfortable position that you might not have encountered if you were in a LGBT group.

Of course, you can spin it all around on it's head and suggest that protection of specific words/groups is actually offensive to the group concerned, for instance the stories about renaming "black boards" to "chalk boards" seems to have annoyed as many black people as it did white as it created conflict where non previously existed. It is surely the case that the creation of the LGBT group has annoyed some people who might be labeled as LGBT as they do not want their sexual preferences to determine how others judge them. We have to remember that someone's identity does not rest solely on whether they are LGBT or not - that a LGBT person might have much more in common with a heterosexual than with another LGBT.

[glueman]

On a practical level groups like this may depend on whether they are set against rising or falling local membership. If club participation rests on three chaps riding together a breakaway faction may prove its deathnell, if the CTC is growing in an area themed groups won't be a problem.
It's hard to tell whether any specialist section (in which I include LGBT) detracts from existing provision or adds riders who would otherwise, rightly or wrongly, feel themselves disenfranchised. I tend towards the latter while believing ideally no member should feel themselves excluded from the larger group.

It may also be a male thing, I can think of one female cycling group that includes straight and gay members united unproblematically by the fact they're women. Maybe in an atomised society we need more stimulus to team up than the mere fact of beng touring cyclists.

[cycling-claire]

Well thanks peeps.... I've had a reply from Barry and there is a list of about 25 who have expressed interest.

From my point of view my needs are very few. A good club ride every Sunday to interesting places (cafe stops!) with a good group of friends who don't stop (much) between the tea stops. The knowledge that anyone could turn up on that ride and feel comfortable there. An end to banter that fosters prejudicial attitudes, that banter is only funny to those who subscribe to the attitudes.

And more youngsters on the rides. Who arrive without attitude. And can learn about group riding, making friends and having a good time and not learn how to become a bigot.

There we are. Not a lot to ask, is it?

Do I need a special LGBT group? No. Some do though. So I will support such a group.

Best Wishes

Claire

[Kirst]

I don't think it should be up to straight people to tell LGBT people that they shouldn't have or don't need a LGBT subgroup. I wouldn't expect men to tell women they can't have a women subgroup. I wouldn't expect able-bodied people to tell disabled people they can't have a disability subgroup.

[Richard]

So if someone wanted to start a hetrosexual group the LGBT community wouldn't oppose it?

From my reading of this thread I think there was a lot of considered debate and at no stage did anyone say they would directly oppose one. Personally I would question whether it wiill do anything to stop any prejudice against the LGBT community but mine is only one view and should someone wish to start one I wish them well.

[Cunobelin]

I have no axe to grind about any particular group (apart from single panniers)

However would any of us have contributed to this thread, gained any education or insight if it had been in a LGBT section of this forum, or would it have been in a section that we simply had no great interest and visited rarely if at all?

I feel that the Human Powered Vehicles section of the site has done exactly that - the contributors, discussion and comments tend to be the same "converts" and whilst their contribution is valuable there is a lack of fresh and questioning input.

[Si]

I feel that the Human Powered Vehicles section of the site has done exactly that - the contributors, discussion and comments tend to be the same "converts" and whilst their contribution is valuable there is a lack of fresh and questioning input.

when it was set up it wasn't for recumbents only - it was for all of the weird and wonderful none-standard types of cycle (folders, trikes, tandems, small wheelers, cargo bikes, etc) but seems to have become the sole domain of 'bents, thus it is visited and contributed to by only a few. Perhaps a different name might have helped - e.g. "Non-standard Cycles" or some such.

And you could say the same about the MTB section.

But I guess that it's a bit of a fine line: either you have minority interest topics in with everything else and those interested in reading them find them hard to locate or keep near the top, or you segregate them off and only a few people visit plus they don't attract newcomers. Although, of course, getting someone interested in a new type of bike is a little different to getting them interested in a new sexuality

[Cunobelin]

It wasn't meant as a criticism of the board as such, but an observation.

The question is whether the folders, tandems and others ever saw themselves as a special group, and not identifying with the group and hence not contributing.

[Si]

worry not, it wasn't taken as a criticism - was just explaining how it came to be.

on other boards folders, tandems, etc have asked for and got their own sections so it would seem that there probably is a feeling of unity within their numbers. But then these sections seem to be less used than others. Now that we have a search facility that works there is less of a need or keeping such info somewhere separate. But, on the other hand, having a separate section can encourage more discussion of a subject.

[meic]

I am a bit curious about these groups that dont seem to talk to each other at all.
If we ever get a new rider they get a (very friendly) Spanish Inquisition.
If a new rider was gay they would have to do some nifty verbal footwork to keep the fact hidden and why should they?
I think the fact would become self evident very quickly and then would be passed secretly between the other members. I hope that after a few weeks of the novelty value it would soon be of no more importance than say my being a veggie. Of course it shouldnt be as important as my being a veggie but most of my group are old enough to remember when it was a criminal offence!
I am not saying my group are acting as they should do but I am saying how I think they would act, for the first gay person to join the group.
The second would not be noticed.

[cycling-claire]

.........I am not saying my group are acting as they should do but I am saying how I think they would act, for the first gay person to join the group. The second would not be noticed.

How do you know that there are not already gay members on your rides?

Best Wishes

Claire

[meic]

Every one that I can think of is or has been part of a couple. Of course if someone felt it was in their interests to keep being gay a secret then I would easily be misled.
A lot of the conversation that goes on is for entertainment or distraction during the ride and I think it is OK for anyone on the rides to make up any stories they like about themselves if they dont want to expose their personal details.
There are aspects of my life that are unconventional and I vary my answers depending on whether I wish to challenge my comrades viewpoints or just have a quiet life.
Out here in rural Wales we have an expresion "Pawb yn nabod pawb"
which is that in a small rural community everyone knows everyone else and what they are up to.

[ANTONISH]

I thought LGBT were are part of the community in these more enlightened times. When I was young GAY's were often persecuted and imprisoned for their lifestyle and for this reason most were very good at concealing their sexual persuasions. I'm not sure why LGBT would want a separate grouping - most, to my knowledge (only based on a few individuals) gravitate to a group in which they feel happy, I don't think sexual persuasion is a big issue for many CTC members.

[genome]

I am 60 years old and have never heard any other LGBT person introduce themselves as being queer, poofter or any of the many other derogatory names for us, so please don't use them here.

My gay friends constantly refer to themselves as queer, hence my use of the term but I apologise if it gives offence. I assumed the word had been rehabilitated enough not to be seen as perjorative, like for instance, black for any non-Caucasian and in the context of it being liberated of its older, negative connotations. Nevertheless I shall be more careful in future.

I hate to correct you here, but 'Black' refers to those who were once referred to as Negro and now as being of 'African / afro-Carribean' decent.

But before we all jump on the victimist bandwagon and start bewailing political correctness, let's return to the main issue at hand. Is it really necessary to have an LGBT sub-group under CTC. If you look at the objectives of the CTC they do NOT relate to sexuality, or any other issue bar cycling. It exists to promote cycling in the UK, and to that end should stick to that objective.

Perhaps, if they wish to target certain audiences e.g. Women cyclists (London), or indeed LGBT then perhaps it would be best to offer their indirect support to a related charity / campaign. An example would be advertising CTC at those Gay Pride marches, so that the people there know of the CTC thus can join the cause -special one-off bike rides could then be organised at these events. An other example would be pairing up with TFL for future events promoting cycling to women where certain issues of particular importance to women would be raised such as the Lorry problem and articles / videos about Assertive Cycling (although we really should be petitioning for separate cycle routes ).

This would mean that the CTC can maximise outreach thereby furthering ITS CAUSE as well as addressing several niche areas without needlessly dedicating their-selves to them; permanant commitment to several areas would dilute and distract the CTC from it's MAIN cause.