IML—The Outcome and Ongoing Debate

I've been asked by a number of people what my impression is of the outcome of IML.  It's certainly a popular topic of "discussion" at the moment.

There appear to be a few different perspectives forming around the community with regard to the selection of Tyler as IML. The two I've heard most frequently from other can be categorized as follows:

a) This is a wonderful thing.  IML is reflecting the breadth and openness that we hold as ideals of the Leather Community.

b) This is incomprehensible.  How can we see Tyler as representing our community.  (Sometimes accompanied by snide comments regarding trans-men).

What bothers me about the "discussion" is how easily the opinions run to these endpoints of wonderful or horrible.  This is a circumstance, I have said, which provides an opportunity for serious discussion about the nature and values we hold strong in our community.  The key word being discussion.  I've seen rants and I've heard defensive rebuttals, but not much open discussion. 

Here's my three cents, which may cost me far more than that in the long run.

I congratulate Tyler on a wonderful accomplishment.  I hope that he will serve admirably as IML, and look forward to spending time with him at events and offline as the year goes forward.  Do I consider him to be someone who can fulfill the role of IML?  From what I have seen and heard, absolutely. Do I think he was an inappropriate choice for IML?  No, I do not.

But.

I am concerned that we have gone from being a community where being in a wheelchair would rule you out from winning IML, to one where we subconsciously overcompensate for people who "have faced or are facing life challenges".  I do think that Tyler won in part because he was in a wheelchair.  Do I think he would have been in the Top 20 otherwise?  Yes, I think he would have made Top 20 regardless.  He is well-spoken, genial, has stage presence, certainly must have interviewed well, is passionate...all the sort of qualities we look for in an IML candidate.

But.

I heard the murmurings and discussions regarding Tyler's being F to M after the fact.  I've heard tell that the judges were not aware of this. I've heard Tyler's speech and the reference to the challenge of being F-M.  I've heard it all.  I've heard the points about IML not even having to be gay.  My concern is this: to me, IML is a title that is fundamentally about sexuality.  Kinky sexuality.  We talk about inclusiveness, and the judges are sensitive to this.  Clearly so, given the contest results.  Not having seen the applications, not having been in the interviews, to the best of my knowledge, the judges weren't aware of Tyler's being F to M until his speech.  I do indeed have a problem with nondisclosure.  I have a problem with someone serving as leader of our community, with "Trust, Honor, and Respect" as its three most discussed values, if he is not able to Trust the judges with that information, Honor our desire for openness, and Respect the community at large by being upfront about his sexuality and gender identity.

I would make the same remarks about a winner who competes under a pseudonym.  I would make the same remarks about a winner who is not out to his or her family while maintaining a relationship with them.

I have no issue with a contestant being F to M.  I have no issue with a contestant being straight.  I have no issue with a contestant being in a wheelchair.

But — when we as a community and a collection of judges select someone in part because of any of these qualities, and not simply with rational consideration of them, then yes, I have an issue.

Fundamentally, I thought Tyler gave a good speech, but, in my opinion, not the best one.  I think it was absolutely in part because he walked out on stage that it was astonishing to the audience.  And yes, I suspect the judges scores' reflected this audience amazement, and not just the inherent message of Tyler's speech itself.  The cynic in me has to wonder why it is that Tyler only came out without his chair when it came time for his last appearance and speech, if not to elicit an emotional response from the audience and judges.  If the judges credited that audience reaction (even before Tyler had begun speaking), then were they not in fact giving credit to Tyler for walking which they would not afford any other contestant?

That may or may not be the case, but I have not heard any open discussion about this concern.

People want to present the two ends of the spectrum as if they are the only options.  Saying that the winner must be a 'Tom of Finland' as being the only alternative to Tyler McCormick does a disservice to the dozens of men who are somewhere in between.  Saying that either we rule in Tyler or we rule out Tyler does him a disservice.

To close: Tyler won.  The judges cast their scores.  How we respond to his selection is up to us.  I will embrace him and support him.  I will challenge those who exclude him or reject him.  But...I will be honest about the process and my concerns about overreactions pro and con with any and all...including Tyler.