Homosexual Bigotry

Post Reply New Topic

I related my own experiences. To say to me that I might someday become interested in homosexual activity would provoke my curiosity as to how this might come about. If you are offended by a similar thought then it seems you are some form of homophobic individual. There is nothing inherently noble about any sexual orientation nor anything that disturbs me. If a Christian tries to convince me of his religion and I reject it and he ells me I might someday change my mind I certainly am not offended, merely amused and curious as to what might make me change my mind. I certainly don't imply that somebody must change their orientation, merely that it is possible.

This is in no way patronizing and to be offended by my conjecture is to be frightfully thin skinned and perhaps emotionally insecure.

Hey, whoa. I did not personally attack you; please do not attack me.

That said: what's missing from your argument is acknowledgement of your privilege: you have straight privilege and non-asexual privilege. (See Daily effects of straight privilege and "Check my what?" On privilege and what we can do about it for more information about what privilege is and how it works.) It is a given that a sexual, heterosexual identity is valued in our culture as the "default" identity. People are assumed to be sexual and heterosexual unless proven otherwise. As a member of those groups, you are afforded privilege.

When a privileged person calls the validity of a non-privileged person's identity into question, their statement carries an enormous weight of cultural oppression, a weight that does not come in to play when the roles are reversed. If someone suggests that you might not be straight, you have the luxury of reacting with amusement and curiosity, because you are protected by your privilege. What's more, this does not happen often because your identity is considered "default": people tend not to question the validity of "default" identities, whereas, people with non-privileged identities are frequently asked to justify their identities.

Something that compounds this is that non-"default" identities are made "invisible" by a lack of cultural awareness and representation in media. People in privileged groups are free to assume that everyone is like them, and may not even realize that other identities exist. No one would regard straightness itself with skepticism, because it is privileged, but people do regard asexuality with skepticism.

In communities of non-privileged people, the ways that people of privileged groups deny the validity of their non-privileged identities are so well-known as to become jokes. It's called being "bingoed": when a person "bingos" you, they're using the same tired argument that ignorant people use again and again. See Asexual Bingo and Breeder Bingo for arguments that asexual and childfree people, respectively, are asked repeatedly. These documents demonstrate that asexual and childfree identities are not privileged within the culture from which those documents came.

I encourage you to learn more about privilege, in order to contribute to the work we must do in order to bring justice to the world.

You are apparently unaware of the force of your argument. You did attack me. I responded by speculating as to why. Perhaps you felt my curiosity was an attack.

Woah.. are you saying that it's wrong to have questions about a lifestyle other than your own?
Or are you just trying to gain some kind of "privilege" of your own?

If people from a different lifestyle have questions about your lifestyle, perhaps it'd be a good idea to educate them by answering those questions, rather than encouraging hatred by telling them that there's something wrong with them for asking.
They're not saying hateful things, they're asking questions.
Are you saying that every human being should know everything about every other culture and lifestyle on the planet, and not ask questions when encountering those people? What would even be the point of that?

Maybe instead of telling someone there's something wrong with them, you should find out a bit about them, too! Understand them instead of acting like you're better. You're complaining that they act like they're better for asking about your lifestyle! How does that make sense?

What does ignorant means exactly?


I know that, and I already made that distinction by referencing species which do reproduce sexually, in which humans are also included biologically.



I doubt my argument is as weak as you claim, given that I'm not arguing in favor of the "hunger and sexual desire are fundamental human urges." argument, rather, I'm arguing about a fundamental aspect of sexuality regarding the preservation of a sexually reproduction species. In such case, your argument would seem weaker than mine, considering that your argument seems to be justified from an exceptional case and you are using modern science and technology to justify a biological aspect of human nature regarding reproduction.

I mean, the fundamental aspect on this is a generalization, given that that is how the human species have existed over a great period of time, the fact that technology can get around this is not justification enough to deny the generalization of that natural aspect, and well, just because you and a group don't comply with it, doesn't mean that generalization isn't justified. If I believe that Sexuality is a fundamental aspect for reproduction, I'm not denying nor arguing against Homosexuality (because within homosexual relationships they wouldn't naturally reproduce), given that I do support the idea of homosexuality being natural rather than unnatural as some believe.


well, if your seed comes out in another way, it would mean it wouldn't be masturbation, would it?

So, you think that identifying an offensive statement and explaining my reasoning is an "attack", but you think that calling me "frightfully thin skinned and perhaps emotionally insecure" and declaring me "unaware" is simply "speculation". Interesting.

Care to point out where I "attacked" you? The way I see it, I called your rather insensitive suggestion into question, while taking care to use neutral, explanatory language and refrain from insult. You've made cheap shots twice, now.

You did not respond to any of my points.

There is a huge difference between:

* taking potshots at a vulnerable member of a minority group and attempting to disprove the validity of their existence ("you make me uncomfortable for some reason that i may not even understand, and now i'm going to argue with you, because i respond to unfamiliar concepts with hostility")
* lolling around in a privileged position of ignorance and sloughing off your personal responsibility to educate yourself into the laps of the members of the minority group whom your ignorance harms ("you didn't tell me about you, so it's your fault that i don't know")
* demanding that a member of a minority group spend their time and energy "educating" you ("it's not my job to educate myself, it's your job")
* taking the time to thoroughly educate yourself about a minority group, gaining basic competency in the cultural prejudices they face, and THEN respectfully approaching a member of the minority group and asking permission to ask them a question about their group, fully willing to accept "no" for an answer without umbrage


Check out what people are saying about whose job it is to educate ignorant privileged people, here.


Wanting to live one's life on one's own terms, rather than maintaining an outpost as an on-call free tour guide for ignorant privileged folks is not "encouraging hatred".

Last edited by sg33 on 10 Aug 2009, 12:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

If you are totally unaware of your clear aggressive statements you are obviously on hair trigger to attack and I am not interested in dogfights.

Do you always keep such big squibs in your shirt?

Please, carry on with poisoning the well.

Woof!

Let's cut back on the attacks, shall we? It's no one's job to go and research every single minority group one can claim to belong to, especially when we're talking about sexuality and you have straight, gay, bi, transgender, asexual, etc and it is relatively rare to encounter people outside the "default" heterosexual grouping.

And yeah, you are encouraging hatred by referring to the overwhelming majority of the population in derogatory terms.

Well, you might change your mind on wether that is actually offensive or not, regardless of this reply being offensive to you or not.


hmmm, a childfree person, well that is not necessarily an issue, some childfree people may end up having a child at a later time, some of them can indeed change their minds or for any other reason ending up with a child, and that is always a possibility.


You can argue the suggestion wether to be incorrect or correct regarding the issue of asexuality and childbearing, which in this case the issue seems to be aimed to that rather than homosexuality if I'm correct, the term offensive is something that seems questionable given the subjective nature of it and the aggresive nature of such responses.


Where does ignorance play a role on the issue exactly? Is ignorance always the case?
Does someone disagreeing with me = ignorant?
These would be questions relavitely justified when getting claims of ignorance given the case.

And well, I don't grasp this "the job of educating the ignorant privileged people" thing, not only the term seems questionable enough, but also the issue of proselytizing.

What you interpreted as "calling all privileged folks ignorant" (i.e. using a slur) is actually the act of differentiating between knowledgeable privileged folks and ignorant privileged folks. Learning more about one's privilege does not cause it to fade away, but it can turn a person from an oppressor into an ally.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man - Your suggestion is not an accurate representation of my argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False dilemma - Your suggestion is not the only option besides indolence.

In order to create a world that is more just, it really is our job to learn how our privilege benefits us. It is unjust to allow ourselves to continue to benefit from an abusive system that provides us with benefits at the expense of others. Privilege and identity politics are topics that require our attention throughout our lives, as cultures, economics, and attitudes change. One cannot learn it overnight, one must spend time throughout one's life learning and working for justice. The amount any one person will pitch in differs, but most people are not doing enough. One should do something, though.

However, to declare the topic too large, detailed or daunting to spend any time on it is to shirk one's responsibility to humanity. The easiest place to start is by simply listening to members of minority groups. One of the most important times to listen is when members of a group raise concern or outrage about privileged people's actions.

Thanks for proving my point!

sg33: You have been making some reasonable points, but you have been doing so in too combative a manner to be productive. You are not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, and you could well be alienating people who would otherwise lean towards agreeing with you. Preaching to the choir while denouncing and ridiculing unbelievers doesn't win many converts.

Anyone can change their mind about anything. So what? That does not invalidate anything I have said, in the slightest.


You're missing the point. The point is that the act of using the arguments on the Breeder Bingo card is usually borne of of ignorance about childfreedom, and sometmes of the desire to attack an unfamiliar choice. If, when someone else comes out with their identity or lifestyle choice, you find yourself immediately feeling defensive or argumentative despite not having identified any specific way in which their identity or choice harms you or anyone else, that is a really good indicator that it is time to check your privilege.


This run-on sentence is very poorly constructed. I will state my (possibly completely incorrect) attempt at interpretation, and my response to my interpretation.

sg33 interpreted greenblue's words to mean:
Whether your suggestions about the issues of asexuality and childbearing are correct is open to argument. In this case, the suggestions seems to be focused mainly on those two things, rather than on homosexuality. If I'm correct, I question your use of the term offensive, given the subjective and aggressive nature of the term.

sg33's response:
I tried to cut down on the bulk of material I included for the sake of readability. If you really want me to wax on and on about how privileged folks discriminate and oppress LGBT people I would be happy to do that but I don't think it would aid your understanding at all. Consider that LGBT rights is a more visible and commonly-understood issue than either asexual rights or childfree rights.


Ignorance plays an important role, in that people who are ignorant of the harm they cause within a privileged system are still responsible for it because the luxury of being oblivious to one's privilege is another form of privilege.

Does someone disagreeing with you mean that they are ignorant? I don't know what you mean or how to answer this.

Regarding whose job it is: did you even look at the link I provided? The point is that it is not the job of a minority member to "maintain an outpost as an on-call free tour guide for ignorant privileged folks". It is not the job of oppressed people to "educate" their oppressors. That expectation is, itself, oppressive. Certainly, oppressed groups may educate others if they choose, but that choice (or the choice not to) does not make their oppressors' ignorance the oppressed folks' responsibility.

Last edited by sg33 on 10 Aug 2009, 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.