But I just keep coming back to imagining how they decided this kid in Massachusetts wasn’t actually gay. What, did they ask his mom and dad? Did they ask people that knew him if he “seemed” gay? Whether he’d talked about having a crush on a guy or not? Presumably, if he were like most 11 year olds, he didn’t have much of a sexual history, and if he were getting bullied to this extent, he would have had solid reasons for being deeply closeted. I can’t conjure up in my imagination how they could possibly know what kind of person he was / would be attracted to, given that it’s clear this kid was feeling some serious pressure to appear as straight as he could be, no matter what.

It’s telling that journalists (and even parents and friends) feel like they’d be able to “tell” if a kid was gay or not, just like the bullies thought they could “tell.” Actually, the idea that this kid might have indeed been gay and that that was erased by not only his own suicide, but by (well-meaning?) family, friends and journalists after his death is terribly sad. Of course my point is that we really don’t know.

But what continually frustrates me is the element that Katy points out… that recent stories have been careful to clarify that these suicidal kids aren’t actually gay. I’ll optimistically doubt that journalists mean it to come across as homophobic, but that kind of assertion implies that there is indeed something wrong with being gay in the first place. Surely the way to combat the problem is not only to teach the bullied to stand up to their attackers, but also to change the entire system of thought that says “gay” is in fact an undesirable label. What if someone calls you gay, and you don’t care? As I said above, what if we remove the word’s power?

Like Katy, I’m also befuddled by Judith Warner’s logic that being called a fag has nothing to do with being gay. As a gay person who heard other kids calling each other fags in high school, I can tell you that it certainly does. Sure, the word “fag” (in this context) implies a general failure of masculinity, but it still represents the perception that gay sex is tantamount with not being a true man. Call someone a fag for playing violin, and on some level, you’re still saying that he’s as worthless as a homosexual.

Which is all ludicrous, really, because haven’t we all seen gay men who are butcher than Sly Stallone? Lord knows, they’re always in my gym, benching 250 and talking about their cars.

Insults are normally insulting because of the taboos and shames of the day, and as an adult who participates in a world which influences young people, I really rail at the idea that homophobia will flourish “on my watch.” I don’t like this way of thinking, which I find so antiquated and unfair, being perpetuated in the media.

Also, I was really surprised at Oprah, who has been friendly toward the GLBT community what with her positive coverage of Thomas Beady and other more general topics.

There was a recent NYTime blog post by Judith Warner, who I usually think makes sense, but really came up with some baffling statements on this topic. She essentially seemed to be arguing that homophobic slurs weren’t really homophobic slurs.

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/who-are-you-calling-gay/

She argued that a little boy being called “gay” as an insult wasn’t really about being antigay, it was about a policing of a version of masculinity. Here was her big headscratcher of a thesis:

“Being called a ‘fag,’ you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay. It’s really about showing any perceived weakness or femininity – by being emotional, seeming incompetent, caring too much about clothing, liking to dance or even having an interest in literature.”

Warner thinks that a too-rigid understanding of masculinity is the Big Problem. And hell, maybe it is, but dude, that doesn’t mean that getting called “fag” has nothing to do with being gay. I can’t even wrap my head around the logic of that.

Warner, as well as many media outlets that covered the story, also made it clear that the 11-year old from Massachusetts who committed suicide wasn’t “really” gay. Two thoughts about that: (A) how the hell does anybody know with any certainty whether a dead 11-year old was or wasn’t gay? and (B) is it the sexuality of the target that should define it as antigay bullying? Because surely antigay bullying is a kind of intimidation and oppression of gay kids even when it doesn’t directly target them?

I agree with Michael that I’m skeptical of the argument that there’s been any increase in antigay bullying recently. What *does* seem to be different is a media approach to covering it. Now we have a particular narrative frame for the Bully Story, which presses people’s buttons and gets the parents all worked up. It does seem to be, as Michael says, a pretty inadequate way to talk about homophobia.

That young man was so obviously tormented and unhappy, and the other Psychologist recommended adding fuel to the fire of dicord rather than helping him develop any sort of internalized self-confidence.

As for the connection of these events to the new national discussion on gay marriage and gay equality, two thoughts from an older generation: 1. Queer is the new sissy–these insults were there a long time before Iowa went for gay marriage. Trust me. It’s possible that these particular bullying events may have been influenced by parental discussion of current controversies–but it’s not necessarily anything new, and I’m not sure it’s more intense than in the past. This weekend I mourned two adult gay men (who if alive would now be in their fifties) who killed themselves because of their sexuality. 2) The current controversies over gay marriage have a positive side–might it not be argued that the growing legitimation of gay lives could arm these bullied kids with better ego-armor? Might they not be hearing good things about gays as well as bad from their parents?

In short, I think the influence of contemporary gay rights struggles on these cases is hard to determine,

As far as the contemporary moment goes, as I see it, it’s actually a positive thing that there’s outrage and large discussion about these suicides and questioning, however inadequate, about the causes–there was a time when there would have been less questioning.