A discussion on the use of "masculine", or "strait-acting" in the gay community.

Context: Bob makes a comment on how self identifying as "masculine", is a mans way of saying he doesn't want to be associated with gay people in the gay community, and that he's really a closet gay, who is self conscious.Jerry: People attach labels to traits for a reason, its sometimes for ease of understandingBob: Mmmmm. Sometimes it's about saying "I may sleep with men, but don't worry; I'm not one of those gross flamers."In fact I'd say it's almost always that"Masculine" is just a hair away from "straight-acting" in terms of bad gay vocabularyJerry: They could also be trying to communicate they are a manly type of guy. Like maybe the dude loves hunting and fishing and sports, that would be classified as masculine. I think I disagree with you. Saying its "almost always that" is a huge assumption and generalization. I think its a mix of both - insecure gay men that are scared of self acceptance, and gay men that accept they are gay and embrace it; but are communicating more succinctly.There is also a huge gap in meaning between those two terms "straight acting" and "masculine". Straight acting is often despised in the gay community as its seen as a negative description. Its seen more often than not as exactly what you said, someone who is self conscious and non accepting. Its not always the case though, and I think people over all need to stop being so defensive and allow people to express themselves how they want.Bob: No, I don't think it's enough to say that it's just people "expressing how they are" or whatever. There's a problem implicit in the term. Gay men should know better than to try to define what is "manly" or "masculine" in a way that includes some men and excludes others. That's exactly the weapon that conservative straight people have used against us for generations, and now we're using it against each other. Every person who identifies as male should be considered "manly" or "masculine." Creating categories of "unmanly men," especially when the people who end up in that category are the ones who already receive the most abuse from the straight world, is being complicit in homophobia. And I agree that people should be able to express themselves how they want, but when they express themselves by basically saying "I'm not one of those gross unmanly gays, and you shouldn't talk to me if you're one of those gross unmanly gays" then I reserve the right to call that out for the bullshit that it is.Jerry: In regards to including some men and excluding others: Yes, the terms do that; are some men not more masculine than others though? Straight or not. Its simply communication, people are being forward with how they view themselves.In regards to the ones that end up in the feminine category receiving more abuse from the straight community: Sadly thats entirely true, but no matter how people label themselves, people will discriminate. As an observer - I can make my own judgement on what I find feminine or masculine, then as a result could in turn treat that person how ever I feel based on that observation. Labels would not effect that.I think the real problem is that on both sides of this - people are insecure and opinionated. Its OK to be masculine, and its OK to be feminine - neither description is superior in any way, shape, or form. People are giving power to those words by taking offence to them - showing that there is an amount of truth to them when theres not.Bob: No, absolutely not. People give power to those words by refusing to challenge or question them. It is not a neutral act to identify as masculine or to say you only want to hear from masculine guys. You're invoking and reinforcing categories that have been and are being used against gay people, especially gay people who don't conform to conservative definitions of masculinity. If no one called you out on it, those words would still have the effect of segregating the gay community along gender conformity lines. The only way to push back against that trend is to "take offense" and call people out on the fact that they're taking the same homophobic categories that were used against ALL of us not that long ago and using those categories to stigmatize and exclude the most vulnerable subgroup of gay men.Jerry: I respectfully disagree. I stand by my earlier statements; that as observers people will make their own judgements based on their own criteria, I don't think labels particularly make a difference. Challenging someones opinion with intent on changing it is certainly a way to change thought. Unfortunately we can see throughout history - this not entirely working. Martin Luther King Jr challenged the opinions of conservative white folk in the late 50's. Did he succeed in the liberation of black folk? Yes, he did. Did he eliminate racism? No, he did not. People are still as racist as ever, and the derogatory use of the word "nigger" is highly taboo because of the power given to it. White people now a days dare not utter that word. Its has so much power because people find it incredibly offensive. If black/white people were to not take offence to the word - it would have ZERO meaning, or power.Language is incredibly powerful.Btw I was using the Martin king reference to illustrate my point on the power of words. Lets not discuss semantics and get off topic on that example please.Bob did not comment again after the last message.TL;DR - sorry its so long, intended for serious discussion and input.