Matthew Vines (@VinesMatthew) - Twitter Profili

Sabitlenmiş Tweet

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·30 Haz

"Gay" and "queer" are increasingly used interchangeably in progressive discourse. But the two words don't mean the same thing. And in that difference lies a danger for our hard-fought equality. My essay in today's New York Times: nytimes.com/2026/06/30/opi…

English

154

221

1.2K

205.7K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·21h

Well, to be fair, I also got a lot of positive feedback from Times readers on the article (see the reader comments on it). And since the piece was more controversial than most, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Times to curate a selection of critical responses to make sure those views get their due as well. I'm in favor of an open, civil debate. And while I certainly have my critics on the left (as well as on the right, as you can attest), I would note that my views weren't too conservative for the Times to publish in the first place. And I am grateful for that!

English

0

10

654

Denny Burk@DennyBurk·1d

Matthew Vines has done as much as anyone to tempt evangelicals toward LGBTQ affirmation. Many of the high-profile defections have cited his work. And yet, he’s still too conservative for readers of The NY Times, who excoriate him in letters to the editor. nytimes.com/2026/07/18/opi…

English

4

2

23

21.6K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·10 Tem

@holybullies Not sure what you mean. I don't have a problem with criticism. My point here is that I think this particular critique is overly pessimistic and embraces a victim mentality to an unhealthy degree.

English

1

0

4

301

Holy Bullies@holybullies·10 Tem

@VinesMatthew In all honesty Matt, while your piece was interesting, for you play a victim here is inaccurate. You spoke if your experiences. People responded in a way which spoke of their experiences too. You are able to pass. Some of them aren't.

English

2

0

2

347

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·10 Tem

This is among the more common critical responses I've received since last week: the people who are committed to hating you no matter what will still hate you regardless of what language you use or whether you advocate for integration into society or subversion of it. That is true, but trivially so, because fortunately, the great majority of people are not committed to hating gay people no matter what. The world cannot be neatly divided into people who seek our destruction and people who will applaud no matter what we say or do—and in fact, almost everyone exists somewhere in between those extremes. So no, I have no illusions that reclaiming a message focused on shared values and common humanity will magically eliminate all ill will toward gay people in the world. But I do think it will make a significant difference for the large number of people who do not want to persecute gay people but who also are understandably alienated by radical, us-vs.-them approaches to LGBTQ activism that have become far too common in recent years.

True North Eager Beaver Media (he/him/Mr Beaver)@TrueEager

Dear Matthew Vines... I can guarantee you the difference does not matter a lick to those who would readily put you on a train and send you to a camp

English

14

6

85

10.7K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·8 Tem

Inclusive orthodoxy only makes sense if it retains a clear norm of monogamy. People are free to make whatever arguments they want or write whatever books they like, but the case for polyamory is ultimately quite weak and short-sighted, and that will remain true no matter how many books people write in its defense. And those of us who disagree with it can write our own books and arguments as well, which I fully expect will persuade many more people in the long run.

English

0

16

433

alex@dogslovecranmer·8 Tem

just so yall know, there’s two big theological books about polyamory releasing next year, so the inclusive orthodox big tent can probably only stay viable until then

English

16

0

37

8.3K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·8 Tem

This feels significant: @WNYC (the main NPR member station in New York City) ran a 12-minute segment today about the word "queer." The title was "Why Do You Identify As Queer?", but @BrianLehrer spent the first half of the segment reading excerpts from my NYT essay to give listeners my perspective (without framing it as problematic): wnyc.org/browse/shows/e…. He then invited calls from listeners who do embrace "queer" for themselves to share why they like the word. Which is fine by me! I have no interest in shutting anyone else down or preventing anyone from using their term of choice. I just want the 52% of gay, bisexual, and transgender people who do not identify with "queer" to have a voice, too. A week ago, it would've been hard to imagine a major NPR member station giving equal time to both views on this topic. I hope this is a sign of where things are headed.

English

16

14

105

4K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·6 Tem

@RolandDunbrack A striking number of the negative responses to my essay have been from people saying that being gay inherently makes me queer, and therefore they will call me queer despite me saying I don't want that label for myself. That is the imposition, and it is remarkably widespread.

English

8

0

25

432

Roland Dunbrack 🏳️‍🌈 @rolanddunbrack.bsky.social@RolandDunbrack·6 Tem

@VinesMatthew I still don't get it: who is imposing the word "queer" on gay men like you? It's just a term some people use for themselves. Not many people go around discussing "queer theory," no less trying to impose it on you. Who is criticizing you for not being "queer enough?"

English

5

0

13

601

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·5 Tem

Why imposing the "queer" label on all gay people limits our freedom rather than expands it (from the comments section on my New York Times essay): nytimes.com/2026/06/30/opi…

English

37

52

355

15.3K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·5 Tem

Thanks for sharing. I think that's an uncharitable reading. The essay focused on the difference between gay and queer because that is my own experience and orientation, and because I know I can't speak for everyone. But that doesn't mean I'm not for people who are different from me. I support bisexual people. I support trans people. I support people who identify as queer as a synonym for non-straight, even though I don't. And I certainly support LGBTQ people regardless of their race, class, geographic location, etc. Where I do think it is important to clarify—and yes, narrow—what we are fighting for is the question of whether we are fighting for equal rights and acceptance for LGBTQ people, or whether that fight is also inherently connected to a myriad of political ideologies that, in my opinion, have nothing to do with it. Do gay people—or bi or trans people—need to be on board with abolishing prisons and the police? Do we need to see the United States as an evil country that should be loathed for its flaws rather than loved for its virtues, while still working to improve it? Do we need to view normative monogamy as an oppressive force to be dismantled rather than a cornerstone of a stable, equal, and just society? I am not against any people. I am against radical ideas that are being imposed on LGBTQ people through the subversive, deconstructive worldview of queer theory. What exactly do I want to exclude that you think deserves to be included, and why do you think it should be included?

English

2

0

4

312

Chris Damian@CDamianWrites·5 Tem

@VinesMatthew It feels like you climbed a ladder that a lot of the broader LGBTQ+ community worked to build, and now you’re saying that good respectable gay people need to stop trying to make the ladder bigger

English

1

0

5

312

Chris Damian@CDamianWrites·3 Tem

On the “distinguishing gay from queer” thing… There’s a theoretical argument and a political argument. Matthew Vines focused on the latter, wanting gay couples with “traditional” marriages to have legal security, implying others can fend for themselves. This gay man says 👎

English

7

1

18

3.9K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·4 Tem

@JamesAl79378451 @dwaldenwrites James, I am grateful for your ministry and your work. Would appreciate your thoughts on this: x.com/VinesMatthew/s…

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew

Hi, Dan—I hear your sentiment but I don't think you're fully understanding what I wrote. I do feel a kinship and solidarity with many people who don't share my identity, from bisexual people to transgender people to people who identify as "queer" as a synonym for "non-heterosexual" (even though I don't). But "queer," via the influence of queer theory, increasingly isn't limited to those groups: it can also encompass all non-normative sexual practices and even a wide range of radical political ideologies that have nothing to do with gender or sexuality. To what extent do gay people need to hitch our wagons to, say, people who want to have sex in public? Or to the cause of abolishing the police? I'm all for respecting the dignity of everyone, even people whose choices I think are harmful for themselves and society. But to say that gay people must align ourselves with every non-normative practice/worldview is the mirror image of the conservative argument that being gay is fundamentally deviant and can only be viewed through that prism.

English

1

0

216

James Alison@JamesAl79378451·4 Tem

@dwaldenwrites Completely with you on this. Much more than who we are, it matters who we are for.

English

1

0

2

290

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·4 Tem

Hi, Dan—I hear your sentiment but I don't think you're fully understanding what I wrote. I do feel a kinship and solidarity with many people who don't share my identity, from bisexual people to transgender people to people who identify as "queer" as a synonym for "non-heterosexual" (even though I don't). But "queer," via the influence of queer theory, increasingly isn't limited to those groups: it can also encompass all non-normative sexual practices and even a wide range of radical political ideologies that have nothing to do with gender or sexuality. To what extent do gay people need to hitch our wagons to, say, people who want to have sex in public? Or to the cause of abolishing the police? I'm all for respecting the dignity of everyone, even people whose choices I think are harmful for themselves and society. But to say that gay people must align ourselves with every non-normative practice/worldview is the mirror image of the conservative argument that being gay is fundamentally deviant and can only be viewed through that prism.

English

9

2

42

1.1K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·4 Tem

@McCormickProf @BMcGrewvy Hi, Professor George—I think there absolutely is a principled basis for normative monogamy even from a pro-same-sex marriage perspective. If you're interested, I lay out that case in detail in this talk I gave last fall: youtube.com/watch?v=ZzDh4X….

YouTube

English

2

0

511

Robert P. George@McCormickProf·3 Tem

@BMcGrewvy What many fail--or refuse--to see is that there's no principled basis for monogamy, exclusivity, permanence or any "moderate" or "reasonable" constraints on sexual choices once you abandon the conjugal conception of marriage and the understanding of sexual morality supporting it.

English

11

5

58

10.7K

Bethel McGrew@BMcGrewvy·3 Tem

(It was never moderate nor reasonable.)

Kelden Formosa@KeldenFormosa

Great piece making a similar point that I made earlier this week: Many gay people don't want to scandalize society or overturn our traditions. We want moderate, reasonable accommodations that uphold our human dignity, not a revolution that risks undermining it.

English

2

35

6.6K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·3 Tem

@jrlaco11 @babybeginner I hear from them on a regular basis because I know them.

English

2

0

1

137

jrlaco1@jrlaco11·3 Tem

@VinesMatthew @babybeginner We never hear from those folks though, do we?

English

1

0

132

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·2 Tem

I'm in print in The New York Times today: "I'm Gay, Not Queer. It Matters." So many gay (and bisexual and transgender) people agree with me, but we have felt it nearly impossible to speak up without being shouted down. But the tides are now starting to turn. I'm very grateful.

English

409

566

4.2K

526.9K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·3 Tem

I oppose queer theory, but I'm not against people who identify as T or Q. I care about and respect many of them, and plenty of people I know who identify as queer don't even mean the term in the sense of queer theory. So I want to approach this topic with the care and nuance I think it requires and focus on ideas rather than people. I especially do not want to toss out whole groups of people based on their identity when I know there is more diversity of thought within those groups than many assume.

English

8

0

35

3.4K

GayLumberjack@gay_lumberjack·3 Tem

@VinesMatthew You’re almost there, but you’re still illogically connecting gays to the TQ+.

English

1

0

78

3.9K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·3 Tem

This sort of rhetoric is indeed disturbing and wrong, but I know plenty of transgender people as well as people who identify as queer who would absolutely not agree with it. Both labels represent large and diverse groups, and I don't want to make sweeping statements about what everyone in them believes when I know from my own experience and relationships that there is genuine diversity of thought among them.

English

7

0

27

3.2K

Jennifer 🟥🔴🧙‍♀️🦉🐈‍⬛ 🦖@babybeginner·3 Tem

@VinesMatthew TQ thinks it’s bigoted to be LG. Yes. TQ is dragging you down in the eyes of the rest of society. But then, they don’t like you. They are responsible for the real conversion therapy happening these days. Men telling lesbians they have to learn to like girl 🍆?

English

2

4

59

5.1K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·3 Tem

@RolandDunbrack @phoenox29 Queer theory isn't mostly about literature. I offer a more detailed analysis and critique of it in the video linked on this page if you're interested. reformationproject.org/affirming-theo…

English

5

0

28

2.7K

Roland Dunbrack 🏳️‍🌈 @rolanddunbrack.bsky.social@RolandDunbrack·3 Tem

@VinesMatthew @phoenox29 Thanks for responding. I am trying to understand you but I don't: Queer theory is an academic discipline mostly about literature. It is not important to anyone outside of academia. Why is this where you hang your hat? I don't get what you are trying to make a case against.

English

7

0

40

2.5K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·3 Tem

Of course, everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. I was just noting that transgender people should not all be assumed to adhere to ideologies like queer theory. And no, I'm not advocating for throwing anyone "under the bus;" I just fundamentally disagree with queer theory and will make the case against it, but I see that as a matter of ideas rather than people themselves.

English

8

1

45

2.9K

Roland Dunbrack 🏳️‍🌈 @rolanddunbrack.bsky.social@RolandDunbrack·3 Tem

@VinesMatthew @phoenox29 But if they're into queer theory (an academic idea not many people know or care about) and promote an ideology (like equal rights) then you'll throw them under the bus? So who exactly do you think does not deserve dignity and respect?

English

3

0

66

2.7K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·3 Tem

Hi, Gillian—I'm fine with people disagreeing with me and expressing that. I'm all for a healthy and open debate. I'm not fine with people dismissing and ignoring LGBT people who ask not to be called "queer." For instance, Mayor Mamdani's Pride tweet just said that Pride was about "queer and trans people" as though that described everyone who isn't heterosexual. This has become quite common among many progressives, and I've seen too many allies dismiss or even mock LGBT people who ask not to be put under this label. And yes, I'm obviously not feeling that it's impossible to speak up anymore, thanks to the Times choosing to publish this—but that is a real change, and it's one I am grateful for.

English

10

0

86

2K

Gillian Branstetter@GBBranstetter·3 Tem

Always fascinated by the fear of being "shouted down" - "If you disagree with me you're engaging in censorship" is itself a demand for censorship - but especially when it's literally combined with a picture of your speech in The New York Times

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew

I'm in print in The New York Times today: "I'm Gay, Not Queer. It Matters." So many gay (and bisexual and transgender) people agree with me, but we have felt it nearly impossible to speak up without being shouted down. But the tides are now starting to turn. I'm very grateful.

English

17

67

658

26.8K

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew·2 Tem

Halperin's book is quite interesting. He has a section about how queer could ultimately re-stigmatize gay men and lesbians, and he was prescient about that. He also is an excellent classicist and his book "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality" is very good. I just totally part ways with him when it comes to his positive view of queer theory.

English

1

0

19

663

Jack@tracewoodgrains·2 Tem

this article made me curious enough to read Halperin's "Saint Foucault," which contains the definition of "queer" Vines is objecting to, and I was entertained to find that Halperin himself had made much the same critique two pages after providing his definition

Matthew Vines@VinesMatthew

I'm in print in The New York Times today: "I'm Gay, Not Queer. It Matters." So many gay (and bisexual and transgender) people agree with me, but we have felt it nearly impossible to speak up without being shouted down. But the tides are now starting to turn. I'm very grateful.

English

10

8

90

30.9K

Matthew Vines

Keşfet