Category Archives: Politics

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

When Anti-Gay Rhetoric Erases Victims

Leave a comment

[Content Note:  Child Sexual Abuse, Homophobia]

As he is often wont to do, Bryan Fischer had some horrible things to say about gay people, this time in the context of how he’s greatly upset over the legislature’s most recent consideration of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would protect LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace.  In his diatribe, Fischer refers to homosexuality as sexual deviancy, and compares it — shocker, I know — to pedophilia.  He even refers to ENDA as “The Jerry Sandusky Pedophile Protection Act.”

People have covered how laughably offensive it is to compare gay people to pedophiles and other sexual predators.  The idea that any sex between consenting adults is the moral equivalent of non-consensual sex of any kind demonstrates a complete failure to appreciate the importance of consent when it comes to sex, and this is a failure that I’ve noted before.  Today, however, I’d like to draw attention to how this kind of rhetoric, as evidenced by Fischer’s statements, also erases victims of sexual abuse and assault and trivializes their experience.

Note that Fischer mentions that Sandusky was imprisoned for “engaging in sexual deviancy.”  That’s not an entirely accurate statement.  Sandusky was imprisoned for raping and otherwise sexually abuses young boys.  Sandusky’s crimes were not “deviating from some norm,” but violating other human beings, human beings he had some measure of power over due to his work with them.  Reframing his crimes as “sexual deviancy” ignores and erases the fact that other people were harmed by his actions.  They become the easily forgotten pawns in Fischer’s rhetorical campaign against LGBT people.

That’s just not right.

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

I’m not down with media that polices other people’s sexual choices

Leave a comment

[Content Note:  Sex, Policing others’ sexual choices, Homophobia]

While perusing Twitter today, I ran across a link to a Queerty story (linked article includes NSFW image) about a young man who plans on having anal sex for the first time as performance art.  The article describes the planned event thus:

The sweeping act of teenage narcissism deflowering will be tittled “Art School Stole My Virginity” and will feature 19-year-old Pettet and his friend engaging in safe sex until completion.  Afterwards, they will ask the audience what they thought of the performance.  Because who doesn’t like to be critiqued after sex?

No PolicingThat quote is verbatim.  I did nothing to edit it.  The phrase “sweeping act of teenage narcissism” is included in the original article, complete with strikeout font.  Because apparently, the Graham Gremore, the writer, couldn’t help but fill the entire article with signs of his contempt for Pettet’s choices.

And that what my blog post is about.  I have nothing to say about Pettet’s plans, other than to wish him the best and hope that he finds the whole thing rewarding, however he chooses to evaluate what would make the experience rewarding to thim.  Because in the end, I’m pro-choice and fully embrace Pettet’s agency.

It becomes pretty obvious that the writer for Gremore would rather condemn and ridicule Pettet’s choice.  Fankly, I’m not okay with that.  I think this is just more evidence that the LGBT community — or at least certain segments of it — is still all too willing to police the sexuality and sexual choices of others.

Of course, a lot of this plays into the attempt to gain LGBT approval through mainstreaming.  “Oh, we’re not all like those promiscuous [a word which, in my experience, is highly subjective and simply means “has had more sex than the speaker personally approves of”] gay men in bath houses.”  It’s true, of course.  But I’m deeply troubled by the fact that some people are willing to throw gay men who are like that under the bus for the sake of their own increased freedom.  (And to make matters worse, it’s not a very effective strategy.)

I am pro-choice and I believe that everyone’s sexual choices should be respected.  People should be allowed to have as much or as little sex as they want, with who they want (and only with who they want), how they want, and for whatever reason they want (be it love, the need to get off, or performance art).  To me, this idea is central to the equality and freedom of sexual minorities.

And I would like a site like Queerty to be a bit more onboard with and sensitive to that notion by telling Mr. Gremore and anyone else like him to keep their contempt for others sexual choices out of their writing.

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

Some days, you just can’t win

Leave a comment

[Content Note:  Homophobia]

Today, I ran across this Right Wing Watch post:

American Family Association talk show host Sandy Rios this week once again connected the gay community to child abuse, this time telling Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality that the fact gay people want to serve as Scoutmasters or Big Brothers or Big Sisters is “big proof” they are pedophiles.

As I noted on Facebook:

This is what gets me. Some anti-gays will scream “gay people don’t have children, so they contribute nothing to society!” [Libby Anne did a post on this phenomenon yesterday.] Yet, when some LGBT people choose to get involved in programs where they can mentor and otherwise help youth (often at-risk youth), they turn around and scream “Oh look, they want to be around kids! They must be pedophiles!”

Some days, you just can’t win.

 

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

The latest dishonesty of Maggie Gallagher

2 Comments

[Content Note:  Homophobia, Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, Infertility]

This morning, Maggie Gallagher used her column at the National Review to chime in on the law New Jersey governor Chris Christie recently signed that prohibits licensed therapists from offering “conversion therapy” to minors.  Of course, Maggie is dead set opposed to the new law and considers this the latest example of Christian persecution and infringement on (Christian) religious liberties.

Of course, in decrying this law, she fails to exercise her religious liberty to be honest, something that I’m fairly certain is supposed to be pretty central to the Christian faith.  She starts out by decrying a press release that someone wrongly slapped her name on it, offering the following criticism:

I dislike using language that portrays gay people as “homosexuals” who are “tormented” by same-sex desires.

Um, since when?  Let’s go to Gallagher’s own words:

Please note, this is different from saying that homosexuals are mentally ill. In a simple biological framework, abstracted from all religion and morality, homosexuality is like infertility. It is a sexual disability, preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species.

While Maggie can technically argue that she’s not saying gay people are mentally ill the above statement, I’m not sure that calling them “disabled” is any better.  And no, my being gay is not the same as my being infertile (and I am deeply sympathetic and sorry to anyone who is infertile and hurt by Gallagher’s choice to appropriate what may be a painful reality for them).  To the best of my knowledge, I am perfectly capable of sexually reproducing, either by having sex with a fertile woman or via sperm donation.  My being gay simply means I am not inclined to engage in sexual or romantic relations with women.  There’s a whole world of difference between the two things she’s comparison and the comparison strikes me as insulting and demeaning to everyone caught by it.

So yeah, for her to say that she “dislikes” it when gay people are portrayed as “homosexuals” who are “tormented” by their desires when she has much said things just as horrible?  Completely dishonest.

Of course, her continuing statement in today’s column suggests she’s not really opposed to saying that gay men (and note how she’s now going to erase all the lesbians in addition to the bisexuals she’s already been erasing) are “tormented” by their sexual desires so much as she’d in support of portraying all men as so tormented:

Among other things, as far as I can see for most men, of whatever orientation or state in life, being tormented by sexual desire is pretty much the human condition for long stretches of life, rather than an unbearable cause for condescending pity.

I don’t know what men Gallagher is hanging out with.  I certainly don’t feel tormented by my sexual desires.  I don’t get the impression that most of the men — regardless of sexual orientation — I know feel particularly tormented, either.

Of the bill itself, Gallagher makes the following claim:

Governor Christie just endorsed a law that thus excludes many gay teens who wish to live in accordance with Bible-based values from the circle of care; he has outright banned chastity as a goal of counseling.

Now having looked at the text of the bill, I admit that it’s a bit confusing, and it’s not immediately clear to me what qualifies as “attempts to change behavior” as mentioned in the bill.  However, I will note what Dr. Warren Throckmorton said back in May concerning the bill and the Sexual Identiy Therapy Framework he promotes:

I believe SITF would be safe if this bill passes. I have discussed this issue with some of the bill proponents and they agree. In any case, since we do not attempt to change orientation, we are not doing anything covered by the bill. I do not attempt to reduce attractions since I don’t think it is possible in any psychological manner. I think people succeed in handling their attractions in such a way as to better comport with their beliefs. Avoiding situations and practicing religious disciplines may help give a sense that attractions are being reduced but I don’t think this is what the NJ bill is aiming at. If ever it is, I will be more vocal in opposition.

Note that Throckmorton actually talked to the bill’s proponents about his questions regarding the law and SITF, which does consider helping a client remain celibate a valid course if the client decides it’s the best choice for hir life.  I’m inclined to take his interpretation of the law and how it will be applied compared over Gallagher’s who admits that she hadn’t even looked into the law before yesterday.  I sincerely doubt she contacted any of the bill’s backers for clarification.

Acknowledgements:

  • I found out about Maggie’s commentary on the bill via The New Civil Rights Movement.
  • I gleaned the link to the bill’s text from Dr. Throckmorton’s blog.
  • I found the link to Gallagher’s quote comparing homosexuality to infertility through GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project page for her.

 

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

A few brief words.

Leave a comment

Colorful ExplosionsI haven’t posted anything since this past weekend.  That’s because I’ve been a bit busy and a bit tired.  I’ve been sleeping through most of the evenings.  I’m hoping to feel rested again soon.  of course, staying up last night to keep tabs on Wendy Davis’s incredible filibuster efforts and the support she received from the feminist army through to the end didn’t help that.  But all the same, it was worth it.  I went to bed after they GOP senators tried to sneak in a vote after midnight and started making the claim that the vote happened first.  I was glad to see that their last ditch attempt at fraud failed.  Just one question:  What do we as nation have to do to make sure they never try such a thing again?

Naturally, I’m very excited to learn that the Supreme Court has struck down DOMA.  I’m pleased that they also sent those who were trying to get Proposition 8 reinstated packing, but I’m disappointed that they didn’t tackle the constitutionality question and destroy all such discriminatory marriage laws and state amendments for good.

Finally, I’m concerned about the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act.  While I’m certainly glad that we’re that much closer to marriage equality and I’m glad women get to maintain control over their bodies, I can’t forget those who will be disenfranchised by states who now can do what they can to screw over non-white voters because no one is looking.

I hope to be back soon with something a bit more insightful to offer.  In the meantime, go read the wonderful links of what other people are saying.

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

Admitting we exist is an endorsement?

Leave a comment

Dallas > AIDS BillboardThe image attached to this blog post displays a billboard currently on display in Dallas is meant to raise awareness of HIV and encourage people to get tested.  To anyone who cares about their fellow human being’s good health, this is a good message to get out.  Regular testing for HIV and other STD’s allows for early detection and treatment of infections.  And while HIV and certain other STD’s cannot be cured (at least not at this time), early and proper treatment can mean for a longer life and a better quality of life for the person infected.  Also, it means that such a person can take precautions to protect hir own partners.

Writing for LGBTQNation, Brody Levesque notes that the billboard’s choice to depict a black male couple was based on demographics concerning who is most affected in the area by HIV:

A report released in 2011 by the Dallas County Health and Human Services Department revealed that the new infections rate among the city’s black community had increased to nearly half of all newly reported infections.

The report also noted that county’s rate of HIV infection was the highest in the state of Texas and that the rate was disproportionately higher among African-American men who have sex with men.

There’s a certain logic in choosing advertising that most closely represents a group you’re particularly interested in reaching out to when it comes to health concerns.  So it makes sense that Dallas Health and Community Services would choose this image.

Of course, not everyone sees it that way, including Dallas city council member Vonciel Jones Hill.  Hill has decried the billboard as something in which “African American men who engage in homosexual conduct [are] presented as acceptable.”

Funny, it seems to me that the message of the billboard seems more along the lines that African American men who love and have sex with other men should get tested, just like every other sexually active person.  How Hill comes to the conclusion that the billboard is making any moral judgement in either direction is a bit of  mystery.

Or it would be a mystery if I haven’t seen this song and dance a thousand times before.  To people like Hill, acknowledging that LGBT people and same-sex couples exist at all — at least not without a sufficient amount of self-righteous condemnation strewn in with the acknowledgement — is an automatic endorsement.  Hill has aligned herself with the other reality-deniers who wish to pretend that LGBT people don’t exist and don’t form relationships, and instead imagine whatever horrible straw-queers their own — dare I say depraved? — imaginations can come up with.

That such people are willing to prioritize their desire to promote ugly stereotypes of LGBT people and decry anything that undermines those stereotypes over concern for the actual health and well-being of LGBT people speaks volumes.

Politics

It’s a feature, Rick. Not a bug.

Leave a comment

So at some point, for some reason that eludes me, someone invited Rick Santorum to speak and voice his critique of why the Republicans lost the presidential election last year.  Here’s a wonderful little gem that Santorum came up with:

“One after another, they talked about the business they had built. But not a single—not a single —factory worker went out there,” Santorum told a few hundred conservative activists at an “after-hours session” of the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in Washington. “Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked in that company! We didn’t care about them. You know what? They built that company too! And we should have had them on that stage.”

My initial reaction to that statement was to laugh.  In fact, I offered the following thoughts on the subject in a comment over at Shakesville:

Rick, Rick, Rick, I’d love to agree with you. There’s just one problem. If the GOP suddenly started talking about how important factory workers, janitors, servers, and other such people are to building the company they work for, those people might start wondering why the GOP keeps doing things that let their bosses pay them such lousy wages and do other things to screw them over.

I mean, seriously, we’re talking about a party who has been been carrying water for powerful executives.  This is the party that keeps telling us that those executives are the most important people in the world, who keep the businesses they run and therefore the whole world running.  Of course they’re going to keep parading executive after executive.  If they started talking about the importance of working class people — people that the Republican party refuses to protect by raising the minimum wage to something people and even families can live on — it would undermine that message faster than you can say “trickle down economics don’t work.”  (Granted, I will be very surprised if I ever hear a Republican utter that particular phrase.)

You can’t parade a janitor across a stage and talk about how important his contribution to building a company or keeping it operational (and make no mistake about it, that contribution is of incredible importance) while insisting that it’s okay to pay him barely enough (if he’s lucky) to keep his family out of poverty while simultaneously offering his CEO gets bonuses, golden parachutes, and tax breaks.  At least not without causing a lot of people to experience cognitive dissonance.  Or figure out what utter bullshit you’re trying to peddle.

(h/t Melissa McEwan at Shakesville)

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

Asking to be treated like everyone else is demanding “special rights”: Immigration edition

Leave a comment

Same Sex CouplesRight now, Congress is working on legislation for immigration reform.  Some people have had this “radical” idea that such reform should also speak to the fact that in some parts of our country, same-sex couples can legally get married.  After all, our laws already take people’s marriage to different-sex couples into account when making immigration decisions (e.g. we generally let an immigrant who is married to a citizen stay in the country), so it only makes sense to give married same-sex couples the same kind of consideration.

Unless you’re someone like Eugene Delgaudio, who had this to say about the idea in a recent fundraising email he sent on behalf of the Public Advocate of the United States:

You see, the Homosexual Immigration Act would give homosexuals a preferred immigration status and lead to the defacto nationalization of homosexual “marriage.”

Pay close attention to that statement.  According to people like Eugene Delgaudio, acknowledging that same-sex couples who went through the same process to gain the same legal recognition of their relationship as many different-sex couples and therefore deserve the same legal considerations that those different-sex couples receive — and often take for granted — is giving them a “preferred immigration status.”

Placing people on equal legal ground now constitutes “privileging” them?  Is there any evidence that would be more convincing than this that people like Eugene Delgaudio really have no idea what words “privilege” and “preferential status” mean?

I also think that it’s telling that he mentions this “granting of preferred immigration status” before the idea of “nationalizing homosexual ‘marriage.'”  It suggests that for all the anti-gay rhetoric about “protecting marriage” and “making sure every child has a mother and father,” the real motivation behind fighting marriage equality is that it still gives them ways to treat LGBT people as second-class citizens.  Stop and think about it.  If they deny that there can be such a thing as same sex marriage, they can continue to claim that treating same-sex couples with the same dignity and respect is perfectly okay.  Breaking up same-sex couples through deportation is okay because they were never a “real” couple.

That is an act of aggression against same-sex couples.  It’s an act of bigotry.  It’s an act of bigotry that is enabled by every person who opposes marriage equality, especially those who refuse to acknowledge how the lack of marriage equality negatively impacts same-sex couples.

 

Gender and Sexuality, Politics, Randomness

Liberty and Justice for All: A Work in Progress

2 Comments

Here are some words that are familiar to most Americans:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

They are the most commonly quoted words from that famous document signed on July 4, 1776 which marked the beginning of the North American colonies’ fight for Independence from the British crown.  I suspect that those words will be remembered and even invoked by many today, 236 years later as those of us in the United States celebrate our Independence Day.

What occurs to me as I think on those words, however, is that while they are sweeping and have far-reaching implications (despite the fact that they are gender exclusive), they were penned, signed onto, and embraced by men who applied them in a much more limited fashion.  After all, many of our nation’s great founders and lovers of liberty owned slaves, denying those slaves their own liberty.  In fact, it would be almost a full century after the Declaration of Independence was signed that its principle of the God-given, inalienable right to liberty would be recognized for slaves.

I don’t say this to demonize our founding fathers.  I say this to point out that, as great as they were, they were men, perfectly imperfect and equally capable of not seeing how their principles need to be applied to all people.  I say this to remind us on this holiday that we should not merely celebrate our independence — or freedom, as it is more often (at least to my mind) called.  We should continue to make liberty for all a greater reality, because that great work started by those great men over two centuries ago has not been accomplished in full.

So today, I offer a small list of the many liberties that I see as lacking and in need of greater support and defense:

  • Young black men still need the liberty to walk through certain neighborhoods without immediately being treated with suspicion.
  • Women still need the liberty to pick out their clothing without worrying about how others — particularly — men will view and treat them based on their attire.
  • Same sex couples still need the liberty to walk in public arm-in-arm or holding hands without the fear of being harassed or assaulted.
  • Workers need (to keep) the liberty to form unions so that they can better bargain and fight for their needs in the face of the corporate interests of their employers.

This is just a small list.  There are many different people in this great country that values freedom who still struggle to maintain and gain some basic freedoms, both constitutional and otherwise.  I would encourage others to add to my list in the comments.  I would also say that while we celebrate our freedom today, let us keep in mind that freedom is a much more perfect and comprehensive prospect than we — much like our founding fathers — fully realize.  And let us continue to work to see that perfect and comprehensive prospect fully explored and fully realized.

Gender and Sexuality, Introspection, Politics, Society

If I’m going to be an ally, it can’t be about me

Leave a comment

Some time ago, I had a friend who liked to be “helpful.”  He loved to do nice things for others.  He loved talking about all the nice things he did for other people.  It got annoying rather quickly.

Mind you, there’s nothing annoying about helping other people.  In fact, such expressions of altruism, hospitality, and compassion are something I personally value greatly — and think everyone should value greatly.

There’s also nothing inherently wrong with sharing stories where one helps another.  It’s often a good way of raising awareness of the problems and needs of others.  If my friend Becky mentions in passing that she gave our mutual friend Ralph some extra grocery money, I might respond by saying that I didn’t realize Ralph was strapped for cash and ask if he’s okay.  I might even contact Ralph and ask him if there’s anything else he needs.

No, the problem with my friend’s behavior was that he was bragging.  What’s more, it quickly became clear that his intentions were not so much to help others but to draw attention to himself in that “look at what a great guy I am” sort of way.  In time, I began wondering if he cared about the people he helped at all beyond a way to show off what a great guy he was.

I thought of this friend as I got involved in a conversation over at Fannie’s Room regarding those people who wish to be seen as, to paraphrase Fannie, heroic allies of women or racial minorities (or QUILTBAG people or any other marginalized group) for the simplest and most basic things while they ignore subtler, more complex, and equally important (not to mention more common) manifestations of marginalization.

While I certainly agreed with the point Fannie was making, I took it one step further:

You know, I never really got this mentality.  I have no desire to be a “heroic feminist ally.”  Quite frankly, doing so would strike me as making being a feminist ally all about me.  (Do I really need to spell out why this is problematic?)  Personally, I’d much prefer feminists give me an honest critique of where I do well and where I need to improve.

I want to expand on that point.  When a person is acting as an ally to others, it’s not about them, and it’s inappropriate and rude to make it about them.  People who wish to be an ally — whether it’s an ally to women, QUILTBAG people, racial minorities, or some other group — need to understand this fact quite clearly.  Without doing so, one isn’t much of an ally.

On those occasions that I write about feminist issues as a man — or should I ever right about trans* issues as a cisgender man or racial issues as a white man — I don’t do so in order to gain praise.  I do so to help out women (or trans* people or people of other races), and I believe I wholeheartedly have a duty to do my best to help them.  Part of helping them means not drawing attention to or accolades for myself in the process.

That’s why of all the blog posts I’ve ever written, the blog posts I write about women are probably the ones I think hardest about and fret the most over.  It’s easy for me to write one about gay male sexuality, Pagan spirituality, or my past experiences as a fundamentalist.  I’m intimately familiar with those subjects on a personal level.  When I write about issues that affect women, I’m writing about someone else’s experiences and struggles as an outsider.  That calls for great care and attention, because it’s not about me at all.

And that’s the way it should be.