It's hard to believe that esteemed gay scholars, among others, would engage in this kind of a campaign. Yet those in the newly-formed New York group helped orchestrate a campaign of name-calling meant to discredit queer activists (including myself) and damage their reputations--decidedly not the way that academics usually engage in debate and discussion.

The first phase of the smear campaign began in June when the group wrote and distributed a flier that claimed that I "blame" gay men for "spreading" AIDS, and that I don't "trust" gay men. It then attempted to blur the distinctions between me and other gay writers the group is targeting, and to portray us all as "neo-conservatives," much in the way the right-wing attempts to blur the distinctions between everyone in the Democratic Party so as to portray them all as far-left ideologues.

The fliers were distributed all over New York City, placed in coffee shops, slapped on telephone poles, distributed house-to-house on Fire Island, and even placed inside all copies of my new book at one prominent gay bookstore. They were reprinted in full page ads in gay publications, and an electronic version was posted on the Internet and sent around the world. In perhaps the group's least creative moment, the fliers proclaimed me and other writers, "TURDZ!"

Why would esteemed scholars and others do this? It appears the reason is simply because I--who am very much on the gay left and probably agree with them on most things--seem to disagree with them on one particular issue: How to navigate sex in the middle of the AIDS epidemic. And they seem to believe that one's positions on this issue is a litmus test for being properly queer. It seems that they do not like the critique I have put forth in my new book, Life Outside. For that reason, these scholars and activists would rather engage in a smear campaign than talk to me about the actual ideas I lay out in my book. The goal of any smear campaign is to induce fear in people by making baseless charges. (This group has gone so far as to suggest that my book has inspired government repression).

A couple of weeks after the fliers were distributed, the campaign went into its second phase. One gay academic for whom I've always had a lot of respect, was quoted in the group's widely-distributed press release claiming that I "don't believe in safer sex." He did not present any examples from my work to back up these assertions. Anyone who has read my work--particularly my columns in Out on unsafe sex--knows this is patently false.

The third phase of this smear campaign came days later when another academic, also a member of the group, published a piece in The Nation in which he incredulously lumped together gay writers who run the gamut of the gay political spectrum and dubbed us all "neo-conservatives." He claimed that I like to think of myself as being "in the mainstream of the gay movement" but that I am really a "neocon," even if "unconsciously." What examples from my work did he use to back up this truly bizarre charge? None. All he offered was his observation that, among other things, I "repudiate" the gay movement's "goal of political mobilization."

Really? Through my work in ACT UP, Queer Nation, OutWeek magazine, The Advocate, and Out, and through my books and articles, I have certainly done my share of political mobilizing. For the record: I chaired ACT UP's media committee through its most successful years, co-founded Queer Nation, and greatly contributed to the firestorm over "outing" when I began reporting as a journalist on often hypocritical closeted gay public figures--a position I still support and about which I continue to come under attack from gay conservatives and many others.

I am opposed to the death penalty and to dismantling welfare. I believe we must fervently protect affirmative action and a woman's right to choose an abortion. I believe we must continue to demand a federal needle exchange program to prevent the spread of HIV among IV drug users. In recent columns in Out I have championed the transgendered movement, and have been highly critical of what I see as the Human Rights Campaign's pandering to the Clinton administration.

Some might think it ridiculous for me to have to state my positions on issues, and to summarize my history in order to disprove the charge that I am a "neocon." But when it comes to smear campaigns one must challenge the perpetrators ad nauseum. For this is how smear campaigns work: The perpetrators put a label on you, an ugly and potentially damaging charge that has no basis in fact, which they repeat over and over again, hoping that it will stick.

But while smear campaigns are often successful, at other times they don't stick simply because people wise up and become tired of the attacks. That is what happened during Bob Dole's run against President Clinton. And it will happen in the midst of this particular smear campaign too, simply because most gay people are too smart for such tactics, and will not stand for them.

But the question remains, Why are these people doing this? To answer that we need only to look at why right-wing Republicans do it: To divert attention from the real, important issues at hand. My book raises a lot of questions about where gay men as a community are going as the AIDS epidemic continues its assault, how some aspects of our sexual culture often impact our emotional and physical well-being, and how we need to be more self-aware and self-critical at this point in time. It looks at a particularly influential segment of gay sexual culture that demands conformity and creates anxiety for a lot of men. And while the book does not advocate any one way for gay men to lead their lives, it displays the problems some gay men are facing and looks to other men for possible solutions. Life Outside is about creating more options for gay men, not limiting them.

What we need right now is a national, open discussion about sex and our sexual culture--not ugly smear tactics, fear-mongering, and name-calling that polarize debate and shut down discussion. These tactics carve out a black and white scenario that oversimplifies our lives.

In spite of what has transpired, I would welcome working with these individuals in the ongoing fight against homophobia. I welcome listening to their ideas about how to deal with the problems many gay men face, and I welcome hearing their ideas for new HIV prevention strategies. I'm encouraged already by what appears to be a change in their tone. But if the name-calling and labeling continues, I will continue to expose it as the smear campaign that it is.