TL;DR
- WSJ op-ed separates ‘gay’ from ‘queer’.
- Argument promotes conformity over diversity.
- Queer culture is rooted in resistance.
- Pressure to fit into ‘normal’ limits visibility.
- Acceptance shouldn’t come at the cost of identity.
In a world where conformity often masquerades as acceptance, a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal has stirred the pot, and not in a good way. Titled “I’m gay, but that doesn’t make me queer,” Ben Appel’s piece attempts to draw a line between being gay and being queer, suggesting that queerness is an ideological construct that rejects what is deemed ‘normal.’ But hold up—this argument isn’t just a personal distinction; it reeks of a deeper agenda that seeks to define acceptable queer identities while marginalizing those who don’t fit into a neat box.
Let’s get real: Appel’s take is not only reductive but also historically ignorant. By dismissing the rich tapestry of queer culture, which has emerged from decades of struggle, art, and community building, he risks erasing the very identities that have fought for visibility. No one is demanding that he identify as queer, but the attempt to shrink queerness into a palatable package for the straight world is a disservice to everyone who has ever felt the sting of exclusion.
Queer culture is messy, confrontational, and alive. It has always resisted neat definitions, and that’s precisely what makes it beautiful. Yet, in a time when visibility is often rewarded with a shiny badge of acceptability, there’s a troubling trend among some gay men to tone down their flamboyance, femininity, and political edge in favor of a more ‘acceptable’ presentation. This isn’t liberation; it’s adaptation, and it often leads to the erasure of those who don’t conform to the standards of respectability.
What Appel fails to recognize is that the pressure to be ‘normal’ is not just a personal choice; it reflects a broader societal expectation that often sidelines those who don’t fit the mold. Femininity, racial diversity, and nonconformity are not just add-ons to queer culture—they are its backbone. Yet, when acceptance becomes contingent on how closely one resembles straight norms, we lose the very essence of what it means to be queer.
Moreover, the WSJ’s portrayal of queer life often leans toward the aestheticized and domesticated, as seen in their recent feature on a wealthy throuple renovating a luxury home. This framing reduces complex identities to mere lifestyle choices, stripping away the rich history of resistance that defines queer existence. Non-monogamy, for instance, is not just a design problem to be solved; it challenges the very fabric of societal norms.
The irony is palpable: the version of gay life Appel defends is not under threat. In fact, it enjoys a level of acceptance that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. But this acceptance is conditional and comes with boundaries—boundaries that dictate who gets to be seen and who is pushed aside. This hierarchical view of belonging privileges those closest to straightness while marginalizing those who don’t conform.
As a cis white gay man myself, I can relate to the version of gay life Appel describes. I live a life that is broadly accepted within dominant culture. But that doesn’t mean I should ignore the voices of those who have been historically excluded from this narrative. Appel’s argument does real damage by reinforcing a hierarchy that rewards conformity and marginalizes anyone who cannot or will not meet its terms.
Transgender individuals, in particular, face the brunt of this exclusion, often being framed as evidence of queer culture’s ‘excesses.’ This framing is not just harmful; it narrows the definition of who belongs, placing the most vulnerable members of our community under increased scrutiny. Queerness is not Appel’s to redefine into something smaller or safer. It is a rich, expansive identity shaped by survival and resistance.
If queer culture is to have a future, it will not be because it proves its respectability. It will thrive because it continues to resist narrowing definitions, embracing the full spectrum of identities and expressions that refuse to fit into anyone else’s framework. That resistance is not a threat; it is the very essence of what makes queer life vibrant and vital.