Homophobia - II

[baby_mouse]

This was a post in response to Skinner in meegbear's "I alerted" thread. I want to know what people think...

It's a difficult thing for us, too. Anyone can post something on a message board claiming to be gay, for one thing. There are many among us who have no problem with accusing other homosexuals of homophobia, many of us WERE homophobic before we came out and many of us still are, even after having come out, just in different ways.

There is certainly a phenomenon of gay people disagreeing vehemently on what constitutes damaging homophobia. I had to invent terms for the different kinds of homophobia I could see, *acute* homophobia, meaning actual dislike and distrust of homosexuality and *sub* homophobia, the kind where everyone persistently jokes "with" you cos they're so "cool with it" about asses, anal penetration, how much of a "queen" you are and so on, to the exclusion, pretty much, of any other kind of conversation. You get to the stage fairly quickly in the second case where you have to think "this guy's even more interested with what I do with my dick in my spare time than I am" and it gets you wondering.

TBH, I swither on cases of "sub" homophobia. It's not malicious, and that makes it difficult to justify calling people out on it. It's just that it's sometimes really annoying and sometimes really *embarassing*. I don't necessarily WANT to talk about my ass all the time, sometimes I want to talk about gardening or how the weather is (attempts to discuss these actual subjects with people who know I'm gay have recently resulted in people saying "Oh, you're so gay, that's such a gay thing (WTF? What's gay about weather and gardening???)) and it's like they can't hear a word I say.

Unfortunately, if you allow ALL "sub" homophobia (there really ought to be a better term, it's not really "phobic" as such (I hope, and, um, am prepared to believe)) then eventually it starts to degrade and become actually insulting and rude. I've first hand experience of this.

I have to confess I'm a bit of a hypocrite, as I play up to the "queen" thing riotously on occasion, I really enjoy doing it when its actually FUNNY, but it's a persona I adopt, not the be-all and end-all off my immortal soul, or something...

So, I guess it's like black people using the n-word. Some black people don't think it's right at all, some black people think you take the power out of the word by trivialising its use (but you'll notice that they don't like it when other people use it in a non-trivial context).

So, someone says you're a big queen. What does it mean?


1. They're homophobic and insulting you?

2. They're gay and having a joke with you?

3. They're gay and THINK they're having a joke with you but are actually a bit screwed up and in an attempt to trivialise or the negative connotations of "queen" are accidentally also trivialising YOU?

4. They're gay and think "queen" is a profound compliment?

5. They're straight and think "queen" is a profound compliment and actually, genuinely respect and admire your queeniness? (There are some of these straight people! Really, there are! Guys as well as girls!)

6. They're gay and deliberately and quite consciously trivialising *you personally* under the guise of trivialising or "exalting" the term "queen"? (Ho, yuss. Genuine phenomenon).

7. etc...


How are we supposed to tell which from which, on a message board?

Its a lot easier for "gay". We all know that that's meant to be insulting under the guise of... something else, and a lot of the peripheral slurring using "water-sports", talk of dildos and like go along with that... but all these terms fit in a personalised continuum unique to each GLBT person. There are lots of gay-related terms we could slot in those interpretations I listed above in place of "queen", and each of them will push slightly different buttons in each of us.

I don't know if I've ever offended anyone with my playing up to the queen stereotype. I hope not. I think it requires a good ear, if you like, which I hope I have.

There are differing takes on what a "queen" is, anyway, and my guess is, from reading a lot of the recent threads on offensive posting, that it's mostly reactions to what I would term a perceived "queeniness" that's so irritating, being "oversensitive" or "bitchy". Sometimes I deliberately pretend to be oversensitive and bitchy, with people who "get it", for the sake of super-irony. I go all Jack. But, also, sometimes I wonder if I'm being fair doing this.

So what do you think? Are ALL references to homosexuality automatically "homophobic"? (Renders the term meaningless) Or is that an "oversensitive" position? (What a lovely trap! Objecting to the insult validates it! Isn't that great?!?!?! Oh, hang on. In that case, is there any way of telling someone who is genuinely being oversensitive to chill WITHOUT spring that trap on them?) Is it even POSSIBLE to separate the content of a "joke" containing the word "gay" from its cultural overtones? ("OMG. Overanalyse much, babymouse? Self-absorbed? Queenie much?")

It just goes round and round in circles and usually what happens is we tend to land on one pole or another, we assume that either all tongues in cheeks (steady, there, girls...) are off limits or none of them are... and that's problematic, because neither position can ever be the whole truth.

This has been a baby_mouse brain-dump(TM). Post away, my dears... (oops. habit.)

[MikeE]

1. Interesting questions

I know we have been struggling with this as a community for some time. I think all minority communities do, as you pointed out. My personal thought is let people say what they want. I've always found that the best way to deal with something blatently homophobic is a smartass comment back. But, with the other stuff, I think some part of it isn't even homophobia, it may just be a part of the coming out process and embracing everything that we are or have been, or have been represented as. I guess you have to react to each situation in its own context.

[baby_mouse]

5. Well, the awkward thing is, you can change the context with your reaction.

It can turn from jokey fun to bitter recriminations if you bristle up at someone who meant nothing malicious.

[papapi]

2. Hmmmmmm. I guess I just let some of it roll off like water off a....

....duck's ass. -phobia is the unnatural fear of *something* which elicits an irrational response (in the phobian).

I've only been here a short time. So far I believe I've seen some homophobia, heterophobia, demo-phobia, etc. To take offense at the mere mention of the word 'homosexual' or 'queen' I believe is a sort of phobia.

I certainly believe the general public still needs an education when it comes to what should be discussed in a public arena. And things seem to be getting worse, not better. Recent Obama pastor problems are probably an example.

Just some thoughts. I'm just sitting here trying to digest some of what baby_mouse is trying to formulate in this discussion. I'll check out the thread periodically to see more of what everyone thinks.

[Creideiki]

14. Most "isms" aren't welcome here

Like racism and sexism.

So the milder "homophobia" may be termed "heterosexism" (and there are likely "homosexists" as well).

[Glorfindel]

3. Are ALL references to homosexuality automatically "homophobic"?

No; of course not. Only people who think homosexuality is bad, in and of itself with no relation to anything else, would think such a thing. Imagine a situation in which you're introduced to someone who identifies himself as being from Lithuania. Is it anti-Lithuanian to say, "How interesting. I've never been to Lithuania. Tell me about it." Similarly, if I tell someone I'm gay, and she says, "I don't think I've ever met a gay person before. How interesting!" That's not homophobic; it's a conversation starter.

On the other hand, I don't like the word "queer" when applied to gay people. I hate it. I don't use it, and I don't want anyone using it in reference to me. I guess that shows my age.

[baby_mouse]

4. It was intended as a rhetorical question, really, to illustrate one pole of a point.

You are correct in all you say, of course.

Would you feel justified in alerting on a post that uses the word "queer"?

[Toasterlad]

6. Context, People! It's All About Context!

It is mind-boggling to me that people as intelligent as I believe the average GLBT poster to be would be willing to "outlaw" EVERY use of a word. What does that say about such people? I'll tell you what it says: it says that they can't process ideas properly, That they are incapable of any rational discussion; that their reflexive, knee-jerk response to issues is all the depth they're capable of.

Oh my GOD, yes, I get it. It's hard to be gay. People are constantly attacking you and disparaging you. Even people you consider your allies don't understand you, or why you'd find some seemingly harmless joke deeply offensive. Yes, I've gone off the handle too (I had to leave DU for a couple of months in the wake of the whole Larry Craig fiasco). We all do. It's human nature to see things from a specific point of view, especially when you have reason to believe that someone else is speaking from a different place.

But holy fucking CHRIST, do we need censorship to be civil??? Can't you all see that regulating speech is ALWAY wrong, no matter what the intent? This is supposedly a liberal, progressive website. Is limiting speech a liberal, progressive thing to do? Can't you all see just how FREEPERISH such a practice is???

Alright, I'm done. I promise not to get on my free-speech soapbox for at least another two weeks. And I apologize to Baby Mouse; this response is not directed soley at you, but was instigated by the general (dismaying) tone of the GLBT forum these days.

[baby_mouse]

7. ...

I've just had a conversation with my boyfriend. I wanted a glass of milk and said: "I shall now pour myself the most deliciously refreshing glass of milk. Full of health-givingness and perk. Mm! Yummy!"

He started sniggering and said it sounded like I was talking about spunk.

He then said, as I spat the milk out all over the table: "Can you keep the noise down please, some of us over here are trying to be grown-ups."

Anyway, you're right and wrong, censorship is (mostly) wrong, but I'm surprised you compare the moderation of a message board to censorship, as you, O Lad of Toast, cannot be sufficiently ill-educated (I say this having read your posts) as to not know the difference. Deleting someone's post isn't the same as telling them to shut up and neither is the same as censoring them, which is practiced, exclusively and by definition, by governments.

I'm *quite* surprised to find myself wondering if you didn't see that my "should all references to homosexuality be regarded as offensive" question was rhetorical. You did see that, didn't you?

I will respect your decision to remain off your free speech soap-box, and in return I'll stay off my "Oh, free speech, huh?" soap-box. (I'm not at ALL impressed by the thinking that goes on behind most discussions on that subject on DU these days. Thats not to say that you might not argue sensibly but I have no wish to attract flies...)

My boyfriend is now refusing to give me a lift to the pub. He says it's a lovely evening and I will enjoy the walk. I have threatened to take the cakes to the pub so he can't eat them.

Hmf.

Have you seen Spoilsbury Toast Boy? Just wondered.

[Toasterlad]

15. Not On the Soap Box, Just Responding.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, BM (tee hee!). You can call it whatever you want, but deleting posts is the very essence of censorship. By doing so, you're denying someone their voice. If a person demonstrates through repeated posting that they're just a dick, posting soley to piss people off, go ahead and ban them. But deleting posts is wrong, no matter how many people are offended. The proper response to something offensive is to refute it logically (or with some withering snark, which is the method preffered by certain people who shall remain me), not to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened.

I DID see that your question was rhetorical; as I said, I wasn't responding soley to you, but to the general, ugly tone in GLBT these days.

Meanwhile, you never told us what happened with the cakes. Did you take them to the pub? Did your boyfriend go hungry? It is NOT cool to leave us in suspense.

[baby_mouse]

20. Okidoke.

More like standing on one of those little individually wrapped soaps you get on planes and in hotels... :D VERY WELL. This being the case...

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, BM (tee hee!). You can call it whatever you want, but deleting posts is the very essence of censorship. By doing so, you're denying someone their voice. If a person demonstrates through repeated posting that they're just a dick, posting soley to piss people off, go ahead and ban them. But deleting posts is wrong, no matter how many people are offended.

Okay, but why?

It's the sense of propriety that's at issue here, I think. My suspicion is that most of us would like to post somewhere where we don't necessarily want to be reminded of the cluelessness of the world. It is meant to be left-wing site, after all.

The proper response to something offensive is to refute it logically (or with some withering snark, which is the method prefered by certain people who shall remain me), not to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened.

This, to me is a bit like laying miniature noticeboard next to a dog-turd on the carpet saying "This is a dog-turd". If we were to follow the usual DU pattern, this noticeboard would trigger a snakey pantomime of increasingly terse noticeboards all over the carpet saying "Oh no it isn't" and "Oh, yes it is." Why not just get rid of the dog-turd?

:shrug: A hyperbolic example, for sure. In many cases it's more like a dirty sock. But still, why not just clean it up? It's OUR house, isn't it? Certainly we can't always establish on whether it's a dog-turd, a sock or the gay-speak equivalent of a miniature Damien Hirst but *sometimes* we can. Chuck it, I say. If people are that bothered about who does or doesn't like where they leave their socks they can always give up and go somewhere else. It's not as if we can stop them elsewhere.

And yes, I agree that its lots of fun writing things like: "I think you'll find, sir that your pet's arse has taken over your keyboard"...

The difference between banning someone who's being a dick and simply deleting their dickish posts is that in the second case they get to hang around and maybe find out more about why the dickishness isn't allowed. That's good, isn't it?

I DID see that your question was rhetorical, as I said, I wasn't responding soley to you, but to the general, ugly tone in GLBT these days.

I am relieved and should have placed more faith in you.

Meanwhile, you never told us what happened with the cakes. Did you take them to the pub? Did your boyfriend go hungry? It is NOT cool to leave us in suspense.

I capitulated and left them behind on the condition that he only ate one. He usually scoffs the lot. I returned from the pub to discover that only one cake had been eaten. I deemed his behaviour commendable and ate two on the spot. He announced, in retaliation for this impertinence, that it was my turn to do the washing up so I buried his head under my shirt and then we did what comes naturally to chaps like us. It was quite good.

[Glorfindel]

8. No. I believe in freedom of speech, and some people like to call themselves queer

I said I was showing my age. I really think "alerting" is kind of silly. We at DU are smart enough to figure out what people are saying and what they mean without nanny having to come to our rescue. :hi:

[baby_mouse]

11. Well, I hope so.

I've been caught out more than once through not using the "sarcasm" tag. Also on a number of occasions I have blundered into a thread accusing people of homophobia only to discover that they're all gay... :blush:

:hi:

[Creideiki]

13. Here's my disagreement.

At the messageboard I moderate, we like to describe it as a dinner party at the board owner's house. If someone is repeatedly rude, insulting, and boorish, then we, as moderators ask that person to take a break (temporary ban), think about how to behave socially so that they will be welcome to the next dinner party. If someone comes back and continues to be rude, insulting, and boorish, then we may suggest to that person that this isn't the right place for them and permanently ban them. Why is it incumbent on other people to spend their free time around people that insult them because they're "more thick-skinned", "anti-PC", or otherwise evolved above the concerns of politeness and decorum? What happens when the polite people finally decide that, hey, this is free time and should be fun and maybe they'll find other venues? Then this place becomes a bunch of rude children hurling food-fight insults at each other and congratulating the little cliques that form up around each table of cream pies.

This messageboard is much like a dinner party at Skinner's house, and he should get to decide what type of person is invited to that party.

[baby_mouse]

19. That's exactly how I see it.

If my sister asked me to take care of the printing of her wedding invitations and I decided to put a picture of a giant cock on them and she got annoyed and reprinted them, that's not censorship, or, if it is, censorship is sometimes good.

[MNBrewer]

12. What if a poster uses it in reference to themselves?

[LeftCoast]

9. It all comes down to where we draw the line

It seems obvious after the last few days that each person draws that line in slightly different places. After the discussion that has already taken place, I probably wouldn't alert on a thread that questioned whether a movie was gay or not. Its pretty clear that there isn't a consensus on this particular issue. I reserve the right to post why I find it objectionable though.

Thanks for a well-written and thoughtful post baby-mouse!

[Fearless]

10. Words are meaningless, meaning is all that matters.

Queer, fag, dyke... None of the words mean anything into and of themselves. They're letters that form words. Words can have meanings and it's only the meaning that matters. I've said it a million times by now that chat forums make bastards of us all. It's very hard to discern meaning from text online. We see only the meaning we tie to words subconsciously. So, we all have to be careful about how we say things online. It's very easy to be taken the wrong way.

Personally I don't see a problem with the word queer if the meaning is well-intentioned.

[papapi]

16. I've been called 'queer' especially when I was a young man in the '70s....

...I personally find it objectionable and don't apply it to myself, but hey, if someone thinks using it in a positive way to point out the subjugating hatred spewed by the morality freaks and others, I'm all for it.

[Touchdown]

17. I think you are over-thinking it.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Some men are into camp. Some into sex play. Some into gardening. I'm not into Cher, and for some that's just fine, for others I'm a heretic.:scared:

We are not a monolith. We are just as diverse as the rainbow flag is supposed to represent.:hi:

EDITED to add; It would be a real shame that we as a community have broken free from the forced conformity of the larger world, only to shackle ourselves in that same conformity out of some elusive notion of inclusiveness, which itself becomes less inclusive the more rules we apply and lines we draw.

[Rowdyboy]

18. I'm not into camp but gardening and Cher can be fun and sex play is excellent

Thank God we are not a monolith. I like the weird diversity I find in threads in the GLBT forum. I may not read every thread but at least I have the option.