Not sure if you caught this, but here is the statement that the Columbia Queer Alliance released in response to A.'s appearance:

"We stand in solidarity with our peers in Iran, but we do not presume to speak for them. We cannot possibly claim to understand the multiple and diverse experiences of living with same-sex desires in Iran. Our cultural values and experiences are distinct, but the stakes are one and the same: the essential human right to express our desires freely. Moreover, we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as 'gay', 'lesbian', or 'homosexual' to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire. The construction of sexual orientation as a social and political identity and all of the vocabulary therein is a Western cultural idiom. As such, scholars of sexuality in the Middle East generally use the terms 'same-sex practices' and 'same-sex desire' in recognition of the inadequacy of Western terminology. President Ahmadinejad's presence on campus has provided an impetus for us all to examine a number of issues, but most relevant to our concerns are the complexities of how sexual identity is constructed and understood in different parts of the world."

Funny, you would think that most relevant would be standing in solidarity with those members of the GLBT community who are being stoned and hung to death. Somehow, I seriously doubt that the theories of sexuality put forth by historians like Berube and Chauncey have made it into the academies in Tehran. Maybe when the Columbia students take A. up on his offer for exchange they can take a copy of "Gay New York" with them.

"Funny, you would think that most relevant would be standing in
solidarity with those members of the GLBT community who are being
stoned and hung to death. Somehow, I seriously doubt that the theories
of sexuality put forth by historians like Berube and Chauncey
have made it into the academies in Tehran."

Their sole point, quite valid, is that we should not assume that the cultural context surrounding "Western" homosexuality is universal. By blindly applying label like "gay" and "lesbian" to people in the middle east, we don't achieve solidarity. Instead, we portray the advocacy in Iran as seeking the acceptance of the predominant "Western" culture surrounding homosexuality. This undermines the actual people practicing homosexuality in Iran by branding them pro-Western.

The CDC has similar justification for its use of the MSM designation. The CDC doesn't care if people identify as "gay" or "queer" or anything or nothing. They're in the disease control business; all they care about is the actual sexual act. Using "gay" in such a context would be inaccurate, especially among people who engage in homosexual activity but refuse to label themselves culturally distinct.

Yes, but my point simply is that in this instance it really does not matter. Ahmadinejad's appearance should not necessarily have be an opportunity to discuss/debate the social and cultural definitions and impositions of sexuality (certainly valid and important discussions), in the face of violent repression of sexuality in Iran--an issue that I would say many people are grossly uneducated about. (I would also dare say that, perhaps, Iran isn't proof of the malleability of sexual designation, but rather of how gay culture isn't allowed to form in the face of intimidation and violence). In the statement released by the QA, a short paragraph condeming anti-gay violence preceded the one I quoted above. In my most humble of estimations, A.'s visit should have been just as significant an affront to the QA as it was to Jews/Baha'ii, etc...on campus.

cant we all agree that the plight of gays in Iran is Abe Foxman's fault?