Actor Josh Hutcherson recently won GLAAD’s Vanguard Award. This award is presented to entertainers who have made significant contributions to the promotion of LGBT equality. Hutcherson, who was in a little movie you may have heard about called The Hunger Games, won the award for his work with the Straight But Not Narrow campaign.
During his acceptance speech at the 2012 GLAAD Media Awards, he said:
I’m so sick of saying the words “gay” and “lesbian”—like, just people.I’m so tired of that. One day I want my son to come home from school and be like, “I found this guy and I love him!” and I’m going to be like, “Yes, you do, and that’s okay!” Like, you know, I so want that.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but this annoys me to no end.
Members of a privileged class talking about how they are so annoyed with words used by oppressed people to describe their identities does not give me much confidence in the privileged person’s status as an ally. When you seek to erase these words, you are seeking to erase people’s identities and experiences.
I do not understand this drive to erase difference. I thrive on difference and diversity. I don’t want there to be no more differences between people. Difference is a good thing!
More to the point, not all queer people want these identity markers to be erased—and it is quite presumptuous to assume that we do. These are the same sorts of things we hear when people believe we are in or should be in post-racial and postfeminist times. These assertions usually come from people not of the oppressed groups. Part of being an ally means accepting the ways that oppressed peoples talk about themselves. This means not being annoyed or sickened by the words people use to identify themselves.
My suggestion to those who wish to be allies: accept our differences, and don’t try to erase our identities by making us more like you. And Josh, we are already in times where your son can come home and you can be happy about him falling in love with whoever he wants. And it won’t require you rejecting whatever words he might use to describe his identity.
This post is cross-posted over at Queereka. For more queer skepticism, come pay us a visit!
Well, it makes perfect sense from Hutcherson's POV. In the same way that Whiteness is an "absence of race" that many white people would like to extend to non-whites, lots of well-meaning straight people would like to imagine a world where everyone can go through life without having to declare a "team". They don't realize that 1) it is a trade-off of assimilation in exchange for cultural identity and 2) not everyone can "pass" and not everyone wants to, and 3) even if they make the trade, there's no good reason to believe that the trade will be at all worth it. How many women tried to make it in "a man's world" by suppressing aspects of their femininity, only to realize that they'll never be anything more than "that bitch" to the people they work for? How many non-whites have abandoned their culture and alienated the people that they grew up with, and they are still excluded and discriminated against.
It's a lovely, naive, and deeply deeply dumb(at best) idea to think that you can disappear problems by disappearing labels. We'll be better off in the long run to get all of it out in the open, and get people to accept differences instead of trying to make them go away and pretend that we're all really the same.
There is nothing that is not true and well said about this comment.
Just like in the N-word post, I prefer to hear opinions from gays and lesbians on this. Hopefully I'm not overstepping my bounds with my opinion then, but I agree somewhat – why should gay be the first thing people think of when they see someone? We don't think that way about straignt people, after all. When someone looks at me, I would want them to think, "Biologist, artist, mud racer, cat expert, woman". What gender I prefer is not relevant to most of what I'm proud of.
It's purely individual choice, but that's my 2 cents. Why not leave it up to what each person prefers?
I don't think it needs to be "the first thing people think of." But to tell me I should not refer to myself as gay because I'm just a person is insulting because it erases all of the experiences I have had due to being a gay man.
Of course if someone wants to not be referred to as gay or lesbian that is their prerogative. But I'm actually advocating for choice in the matter here–I enjoy my gay identity, and for some straight person to tell me to stop using that label because they are sick of using it is obnoxious.
And, as a straight person, you get the luxury (read: privilege) of not thinking about the relevance of your sexual orientation. Society implicitly and explicitly supports heterosexuality–it's ubiquitous. For queer people, we are confonted on a daily basis with heteronormativity. It is a constant barrage of messages giving us all sorts of messages about how we are weird, abnormal, non-normative, etc. Some queer people are okay with being non-normative and thrive on it, and others are not and wish to be seen as "just a person." So, it seems to me that it's easy for a straight person to think we should all be normative because straight people are already normative.
What if a man told you that in your list of identity traits, that you should not refer to yourself as woman anymore, because, you know, you're just a person. Do you feel that would erase your experiences as a woman? Do those experiences have important impacts on your life that a man most likely cannot understand?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read Hutcherson's comment to be that he hopes his son would be thought of as just another human being who falls in love. I did not read that to mean YOU or anyone else should use any particular identity. No?
There was an episode of a tv program where a nurse discovers she is attracted to women. Her new partner has dinner with her, and invites her to a gay rally. The nurse feels openly uncomfortable. She said she does not think of herself as an activist, just a nurse who likes other women. That was an eye opener for me. I don't think it was EVER implied that gays should stop trying to enlighten society, merely that some people may have their own feelings and preferences.
This is slightly off topic, but I am put off when someone insists I must call myself an atheist because I don't believe in God. Well, I should be able to identify any way I damned well please. I'm not trying to compare that to being gay, which must entail all sorts of prejudice. Simply trying to point out: realize some people may want to focus on other things, that does not mean shame, it means personal preference.
I don't agree with your interpretation of his words. He said he is "sick of saying the words" because we're all just people. So, yes, he is talking about me because I use one of those words to describe my identity.
Again, I am not saying that everyone must identify one way or another–that's actually what Josh is advocating. He's saying that I should accept that I'm "just a person" and stop using the word "gay" to describe myself because he's sick of using the word. There is more to being queer than "just falling in love," and, again, it seems to me that you're speaking from a place of unexamined privilege.
With regards to "just wanting to focus on other things": maybe he shouldn't be accepting an award for working on LGBT equality if he wants to "focus on other things." I don't care if people don't want to identify as gay or lesbian or queer or atheist or whatever, but I do care about people who are none of those things telling people to stop identifying in those ways.
I would be offended by his words as you were if he was telling the LGBT community how to identify themselves. Maybe his words were poorly chosen, the quote was confusing to me. Maybe his Straight and Narrow campaign was an important one, I'd say that would be up to you to decide, not me.
See, now that's an interesting question. And as I mentioned in my first sentence, no one has any right to tell me how to identify. However – at my job, I prefer to be thought of as part of the team. At the same time, totally personal preference, I think that women are different in a few ways than men. We breastfeed. We may have chemical differences. We may tolerate pain better and be better nurturers. I have no problem with that, even at work as long as I get equal pay and equal treatment.
Gays, on the other hand, well I don't see how they would be different at work, nor should they be labelled that way. As a woman, hey, I feel as though I do have an instinct to make food for the team and care for people (maybe some men do also, fine). Personal preference. Maybe there are cultural differences when a gay community gets together and feels sympatico, I'm not one to speak on that.
Point is, there may in fact be biological differences with some women who feel a matronly role at their jobs. Gays? Not sure if everyone should have to talk about their sexual orientation. I do think the gay community faces more severe prejudice than do straight women, in some respects. I hate to see someone like Hutcherson offend the community when he is making what I see as a valid but very convoluted point. I can only hope he meant personal preference, not telling others what they should do or say.
Setting aside your absurd biological reductionism, it's clear to me now that you're refusing to examine your straight privilege. When I say "there is more to being queer than attraction" and you continue to focus on sexual orientation, that is you refusing to listen. Additionally, you keep putting words in my mouth–I never said people "have to talk about their sexual orientation." I'm saying stop trying to silence those of us who do want to talk about it.
You probably don't realize how often sexual orientation is brought up in the work place because the majority of it is heterosexual–men saying what they did with their girlfriend/wife on a date last night, women talking about their lazy boyfriend/husband sitting on the couch all evening, or whatever. There is an implicit discussion of sexual orientation happening there that you're most likely not even recognizing. And those of us who are queer, depending on the work environment, may not feel that we can be open about our own relationships. This creates stress and can have deliterious effects on people. And you and Josh Hutcherson think the answer is to just pretend like there are no differences and we're all just people? That certainly doesn't contribute to a recognition of the unique experiences of queer people.
Ultimately, it's not up to Hutcherson to dictate how queer people can/should identify–including his imagined future son. If his imagined future son wants to use the word "gay" to describe himself, that's his son's decision and not Hutcherson's.
But my queerness is an important part of me, and a part I'm proud of. As long as I have to hear straight people talk about their dates, partners, etc., orientation matters.
@Will (ran out of reply boxes) no, you're putting words in MY mouth. I stated that there is a difference between our interpretation of Hutcherson's words. Personal preference, don't you get it? I never said you stated that people have to talk about their sexual orientation. Read my comment again, it was not in reference to anything you said.
It's amusing you brought up the workplace, because I have worked with 2 gay men. Different jobs, both men in a steady gay relationship. I loved both of them. In fact, I had a crush on one worker. I suppose you're going to read all sorts of things into that, but no, I did not have any resentment towards his gay relationship. In fact, I saw both men as mentors – they were both smart, artistic, great human beings. We talked about the challenges they faced, all the time. We talked about them trying to buy a house, start a family, all that stuff. I deeply loved both of them.
If there is any misunderstanding here, it is probably because I live in Massachusetts. I did my best to support MassEquality, and honestly, I am probably spoiled, because gays have a pretty decent state to live in as far as gay rights. I don't see as much ugliness as they probably do in the Red States.
I don't know what the hell you mean by biological reductionism. If you want studies to show that men are biologically different than women, I shall provide them if you promise to read the studies. Do all women have that motherly instinct? Of course not. I do. That is all I am saying.
Again, you misunderstand my interpretation of Hutcherson's words. I take it to mean this: NOT that we pretend there is no difference. But if I am a lesbian, maybe I don't want to be in this situation at work:
Boss: have you met our new worker, Luna?
HR person: Oh, you mean the lesbian girl?
See what I mean? I don't go around saying, oh, I know Ted. He's that tall black guy. Instead, I would say, oh yes, he's in charge of accounting. Do you see the difference? Personal preference.
Okay, this is my last attempt.
Your interpretation of Hutcherson's words is based on unexamined privilege. You and he have the luxury of thinking that talking about sexual orientation is always a preference or a choice. Because for you, it is. There are those of us who are queer that don't have the option of "passing" for straight or who don't want to pass for straight. It's easy to interpret his words as "NOT that we pretend there is no difference" when you're straight, but when someone says they're "sick" of using words that I identify with and says we're "just people," that is most certainly an attempt to erase difference. We're not just people–we're gay people. There's nothing wrong with that label, despite him being "sick" of using it.
I didn't bring up the workplace–you did. Not sure what your anecdote has to do with whether or not queer people should continue to identify using certain words.
The misunderstanding does not stem from you living in Massachusetts, it stems from your unexamined straight privilege. Gays in Massachusetts still do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples, even though they have marriage equality. Until there is a federal recognition of marriage equality, they still lose that recognition as soon as they go to a state that doesn't recognize it.
What I mean by biological reductionism is that you're reducing women's roles in the workplace to biological functions. It's absurd and offensive. I study gender and sexuality, I don't need you to send me any evopsych articles reducing people to false assumptions about biology.
I do get your point Will, and hopefully I said it enough times that you believe me – I have no idea what a gay or lesbian person must face on a daily basis. I don't get it now, nor will I ever. As a woman working in biology, I have been dismissed (along with some other women workers) as "that girl biologist". Well I don't want to be "that girl biologist". I just want to be, "that biologist". That is my point.
Do I need to erase my identiy as a woman? Of course not! Neither should someone who is gay. But there are many facets of my life, of my career, of my personality. I am a woman, but that is not all I am. I am not AT ALL reducing women's rolls in the workplace. I have worked with new moms, one of them was my boss. While she was at work, she played the roll of mom as well as my boss. She can do both. That is the important part.
Now, should women play any particular role in the workplace because of their femininity? Hell, no. They can make the choice to have any kind of roll they damn well please – including CEO, accountant, field worker, new mother, or a combination. YOU are the one who seems to be limiting that choice for me as a woman.
Gays can use any words they want – it is none of my business. Another example – at my graduate school I referred to one of the professors as "African American". A black man standing by stepped in, and told me, "We are NOT African American. We are BLACK".
See what I mean? Everyone has their own ideas on this. That is all I'm saying. Get it?
ps Will (follow up to my very last comment) I DO NOT like the idea of post-anything as though it is not important any more. I am grateful for those speaking out every day. I am simply supporting individualism, and perhaps introversion of some people who wish to remain in the shadows. I can somewhat relate to that, I prefer for people to know very little about my private life. Nothing to do with gay awareness, simply my hermit preferences when it comes to my life. I hope plenty of the LGBT community continue to speak out.
Great post Will, and you have shown an amazing amount of patience with Luna here. Oi vey!
Wow, that was profound. Working hard to move the conversation forward, I see. Not cowardly at all.
If you want me to spell it out:
You've made a bunch of long rambling comments that I frankly can't even follow. Will has repeatedly brought it back around to his main point about straight priviledge. You won't respond to his point or examine your own priviledge, so I don't think the conversation should go any further. Will did his best, and now I've done mine. If you don't get it at this point, you're not going to.
I haven't read all of his speech, just the snippet here, but it seems to me that he's talking about how straight people tend to reduce gays to their label and ignore everything about them except their sexual orientation and view them as odd, or wrong, or other than human. His comments were poorly phrased and he is definitely coming from a position of privelege, but I think he meant well (hence the award he received). And I completely see your point and agree with your point of view.
Of course he meant well. I don't think he's some closet bigot who secretly hates gays and lesbians. But intent is not magical. Whether he intends to do good or not, his comments come across as advocating for a post-queer mentality, like those labels are just not important anymore. I see very strong parallels to post-racial and postfeminist musings, which are often (though not always) based in the best of intentions.
There are a lot of gay people out there who do say that they "don't want to be labeled." Maybe it's because I'm both an engineer and and English major, but I don't get that. Labels, verbal or visual, tell people important things about you, like whether you are sexually available to them. That is especially important for communities that are as small and hidden as the gay community is. Hitting on people is hard enough without having only a 3-5% chance of then getting the odds straight people get.
Anyway, it is up to the individual, but we have a differentiating label for a reason. Gay people are different. It's not the difference that's the problem, but how people respond to it. I see both sides of your debate Luna and Will, and I think you both mean well. Will just understandably has emotional history with the subject. Just like feminists, we get told not to "flaunt" that we're gay, not to make a fuss, and "just be normal" already. A lot of us are proud of overcoming that to step forward and claim the label.
Who's speaking for the thoughts and desires of others now?
I understand your position and I think it's valid, but I also think you're projecting the meaning behind it onto what he said. For most straight people those words are used to either condemn or support LGBT people. I too am sick of those words in that context.
What he said could be worded better but I don't think he should be condemned for it, just educated a little.
Tell me, how should queer people make sense of their identities and experiences if they are discouraged from using certain words because some straight guy is sick of using them? Why do straight people get any say in how we talk about ourselves, including the words we use to express our identities to straight people?
I'm doing exactly the opposite of reading meaning into his words–I'm taking them at face value. He is advocating for the discontinued use of those terms because we're all "just people." Trying to excuse his words through intent is what requires projecting meaning.
I didn't "condemn" him, I spoke out against his words. I advocated for him (and other people of privilege) to stop making statements that seek to erase difference.
I never suggested that people shouldn't talk about thier differences, and I don't think that was Josh's point either. I think he spoke in a way that caused you and others to focus on his words and not his message.
I also agreed with you that his words should have been chosen better.
Yes, you're right. Clearly, the problem is us queer people focusing on what people say instead of what they mean.
We really should devote more of our time and energy making sure we accept the good intentions of straight people, even and especially when they hurt us.
Well, isn't this post about educating him, and us? I don't think Will's " annoys me to no end" is some kind of huge, unfair condemnation. Honestly, I'm surprised that skepchick commenters are apparently so bothered by Will's very mild post. It's pretty noncontroversial to point out that calls to get rid of identy markers come from a place of privilege–i.e. Very well-intentioned (white) people often congratulate themselves about being "colorblind," while mainly succeeding at being blind to the existence of racial inequality around them. Heteronormativity is probably even more invisible from the place of straight priviledge.
Maybe its just that I have no idea who Josh Hutcherson is*, but the rush to defend him against this very mild criticism seems really strange to me.
*I am dissertating and thus pretty much out of touch with pop culture!
@Mraby Actually I acknowleged my straight privellege about half a dozen times in my comments. Learn to read.
You know there's more to it than acknowledging it's there, right? Like you have to not keep saying these incredibly straight-privileged things too?
Thanks for the post! This is something that I had not thought about before. I can appreciate why those labels are important after some consideration. If someone tried to ignor or minimize 'my labels' it would be like minimizing who I am and my life experiences. In that, I would feel terrible doing that to someone else. Thanks for the post!
The academic, sociological, and not a little pedantic word skewering and parsing of an entertainer’s feelings and spoken emotional response makes me giddy with optimism for the broader cultural acceptance of the skeptical movement.
I know, right? Because what better way to fight injustice than silence when allies say stupid things?
Frankly, I'm baffled by the anti-intellectualism in your comment. Are you saying that we should not think and talk critically about what people–be they entertainers or not–say publically? Are you worried that critical thought is going to tarnish public acceptance of skepticism? Seriously?
I was not aware that speculative language parsing had achieved recognition as a serious science. And my intellect gets crampy when presumptions and assumptions are assigned the position of foundational pillar of an absent opponent’s position.
I see. So someone who is a member of an oppressed group speaking out against what an ally said because it repeats often-heard discourses that have the effect of erasing people's experiences is presumptuous? I've already said I have no idea what his intentions are–and that they don't freaking matter anyway. What matters are his actual words and the possible effects they have on people he claims to be an ally to.
And who said anything about this being a "serious science"? Critical thinking does not require the scientific method. What, exactly, is your problem with my post? How about instead of being snarky you just out with it so we can have a serious discussion instead of dancing around your sarcasm?
I like being sarcastic and snarky, but fair enough if you’re not appreciative. I in fact don’t disagree with anything you’ve said; and certainly pointing out how statements like Josh made have the potential to cause harm and impede progress is a good thing. You’ve also said you don’t care what Josh’s intentions were, just his words. Again fair enough, but don’t you think your discussion should have moved on from Josh to address the broader issue of privilege discounting and identity denial when it seems highly likely Hutcherson would never disagree with your position? It seems to me that the content of your post makes this a Josh problem despite your protestations otherwise; and this IMO diminishes the effectiveness of your argument. And when an argument or statement looks or sounds like a personal dressing down people will often stop listening to your content regardless of its value, and I think this is especially important when dealing with an otherwise allied person.
So basically, you agree with my position but stopped listening to what I said to prove a point that people will stop listening to what I said if it even has the appearance of being too personal? Clever. And totally useless.
I fail to see how I made this "a Josh problem" at the expense of discussing the larger issues of privilege. In my original post, I discussed how this is a symptom of the ways privileged people use post-identity language. Many responses to my post have focused on his intentions, as if that changes his words and their effects. Certainly I would like to focus on the broader picture of privilege among allies, but that's hard to do when people post snarky, unproductive comments or continue to engage in the very post-identity "I only see people, not labels" language that I'm deriding.
It's a little pedantic maybe, but I think it started a good discussion about a valid issue. I'm a gay man that's done quite a bit of activism and I'm learning from reading other's opinions and thinking more on my own.
This is just one example. There are other examples. Straight allies like to say this kind of stuff. Just look in the comments! Will was just trying to start a discussion. How is this any different from any number of posts about what other people have said? This isn't the first time a comment a celebrity has made has been brought up. And this is important because this is a very current, visible celebrity who is claiming to be our ally. He's going to have some influence. Even if you think he's "just" an entertainer, many people WILL listen to him. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. If what is being said isn't problematic — but this is. There's nothing wrong with addressing that. Blogs do this shit all the time.
Let me try to clarify. Here is how I read Hutchingson's statement:
Let's PRETEND that, in 20 years, his son turns 16. He tells everyone that he has fallen in love with a boy at school. His pastor, his doctor, his friends, his friend's Christian parents, most of them in our current atmosphere may react in disgust. Instead, Hutchinson is hoping for a world in the future where those people will react the same as if his son had fallen in love with a girl. They are not shocked, disgusted or judgemental. Instead, they FOCUS on the fact that his son is experiencing young love.
Will, correct me if I'm wrong: isn't that part of what the LGBT community is hoping for?
I get it, maybe that's not how you interpret his words, but I thought that was part of what he was saying about his son's future.
And my response to you is the same as before: How do those reactions require no longer using the words "gay" or "lesbian"? Of course I want a world where difference is accepted and celebrated. But how does that happen when we're all "just people"? How can there be a celebration of difference if we're all the same?
And assimilation is certainly what some in the queer community want–but not everyone. There is a tension between liberationist and assimilationist that goes back a long time. We are a diverse community with many (often contradictory) motives and desires.
I think that's the heart of what you're saying: "I want a world where difference is accepted and celebrated." Not "tolerated" or "erased" but "accepted and celebrated." It is often the case that people on the outside of an issue forget that language and framing are hugely important, especially from the inside. We can't reasonably get rid of words like "gay" and "lesbian" without erasing a vital part of the people who identify that way. We CAN accept and celebrate those words and the feelings and personal identity that they represent. Not just tolerate, not just make go away because they make people feel uncomfortable to deal with differences.
Beautifully stated.
There is no reason we should get rid of the terms gay or lesbian. I think assimilation versus liberation are pretty narrow categories. Maybe some in the LGBT community want both a family, white picket fence and the expression of who they are as part of the gay community. Maybe there are LGBT hermits (maybe an author) who chooses to live their life in private and they will say they are gay, but they don't feel like it's anyone's business. Hell, I know some people who will get offended if you ask them what they do for a living. It is about people's feelings of privacy.
Let me give another anecdote: (and I realize the comparison is not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with):
There is an Afghani auhtor. He has experienced all sorts of bigotry and hatred in his lifetime. He is a paleontologist. On his resume and his blog, he gives his Bio as a Ph.D in paleontology, he is a dad, and an author. Is it wrong he never mentions he's Afghani on his bio? He is happy to promote respect towards Afghanis and Muslims, but most of the time he is working his ass of just to make money and succeed.
People should use the terms gay and lesbian. But in this day and age, no one should be shocked by it. On a national (and yes a state level as well) I see a lot of ugly bias but among my community, gays and lesbians are our freinds, family, coworkers, yes they face horrible adversity but I hope that lessens.
That's what he said at the end, yes – and that might be what he meant by his entire comment, but first he said he's sick of saying "gay" or "lesbian", refering specifically to the labels. Sure we want to be treated just like everyone else – but not just(as in exactly) like everyone else. We'll still be different and will bring different experiences. There is a value in that difference, and trying to say that we're really exactly like everyone else ignores that.
Wilson, yes I agree. I would never want to see gays and lesbians not use their voices. Their words advance not only gay and lesbian causes, but feminist and other civil rights ones as well.
"Your interpretation of Hutcherson's words is based on unexamined privilege. You and he have the luxury of thinking that talking about sexual orientation is always a preference or a choice. Because for you, it is."
Do you mean to imply that sexuality is never a choice for any non-straight person, can never in any culture be a choice, or that the world would actually be a worse place is sexuality was a matter of choice for fewer people?
That's what I'm hearing from you. Hutcherson did not say anything about how you talk, or act. He said he doesn't want to have to describe his son as gay even if he likes guys. He'll do it, as he diud it in the very speech you quoted, but he doesn't want his son to be forced into The Gay Guy box. He doesn't want sexuality to be so life-defining that his son goes around insisting everyone he meets knows he's gay. In other words "if my son likes guys I don't want society to force him into defining his entire identity based on that fact." In a healthy culture that's just common sense.
Granted we don't currently have a healthy culture, but that doesn't automatically mean anyone who thinks we should have a healthy culture is secretly sending money to the KKK-beat-up-gays fund.
Sexuality is important, and defining for many people; but it should not have to be.
Please read what I said more carefully. I am not talking about sexuality itself being a choice. I said that talking about sexual orientation is often not a choice for queer people. When a straight person talks about their relationships, they are implicitly talking about their sexual orientation. This is done on a constant basis, but straight people don't think about it as sexual orientation because of privilege. When a queer person does the same thing, we must be explicit about our sexuality because we live in a heteronormative society. And then it is is often turned around on us–we're told things like "I don't see gender/sexual orientation, I only see people" or "stop throwing your sexual orientation in everyone's faces–we're all just people." It never fails that those words fall from the lips of someone with privilege–people with the luxury of not having to consider those things on a never-ending basis.
And I have no idea what you mean by a "healthy culture." But I'm sick of all this "in an ideal world" talk. We don't and we never will live in an ideal world. We live in a real world, where people are different and are proud of their differences and should not be shamed for those differences or for using certain words to describe those differences. Whatever Hutcherson's or any other person's intent, the effect is that it shames or erases difference.
If you don't want to talk about your sexuality you don't have to. You don't have to tell your co-workers that your involved at all, much less reveal the gender of your SO. I've worked at the same place a year and a half. As far as any of them know I'm asexual. More importantly if you re-read the original quote you'll note that a) Hutcherson was actually talking his son and b) he didn't say he'd never talk about it. He said he didn't want the default conversation to be about how gay his son was.
And I think I am fairly safe in the generalization that 90-99% of the time when good dads talks about their kids sexuality does not come up at all. It's probably a lower number for gay people, whose gay significant others have to be introduced to people, but even in those cases it's an odd dad who'd spend 20 minutes explaining what his son is doing with his penis to random strangers. Spending 20 minutes to defend his son's right to do whatever he wants is good dadding, but discussing your kid's sexuality in depth is Dirty Old Man creepy.
As for ideal-worldism, keep in mind that without people who talked about the ideal there would never have been a Civil Rights movement, which means there never would have been a template for the gay rights movement to adapt. You do not get people to do uncomfortable things like confront biased assholes if you can't show them that the world they'll create is a lot better then the current one. I'm not gonna say Hutcherson is a great orator, as this thread pretty clearly proves he has a talent for convincing people he's saying the opposite of whay he means.
Wow. So basically, hey queer people, you don't need to have an open, fully honest life! You can just lie or refuse to talk to people! Meanwhile, all your other co-workers are talking about their relationships and partners, but you can remain silent! It's damned if you do, damned if you dont–ostracize yourself by coming out, or ostracize yourself by not participating. Great solution there. Thanks for the support.
Hutcherson doesn't have a son, he was speaking in the hypothetical, hoping for the day when we live in a post-queer world where the labels gay and lesbian no longer have importance. Anything else is you reading into his speech–I quoted his exact words, and I'm taking them at face value.
I don't mind thinking positively, but the notion that we should not acknowledge difference and we should live in a world where difference doesn't matter is not ideal to me–it is hell. And I'm sick of people pushing these post-identity idealist fantasies as if they're something we should be reaching for.
Or you could just do what I did, and decide a full, honest, life, does not include telling your co-workers who your life-partner is. I haven't been ostracized. I haven't been silent. There's still plenty to talk about. Politics, sports, moms, school, co-workers, etc. are all things that your co-workers probably want to hear your take on. Master the art of changing the subject and you're probably never gonna have to talk about your sexuality. Eventually they'll almost certainly decide you're asexual, but that's them misreading your signals, not you living dishonestly. Hell even in a discussion touching on sexuality it's not hard to not mention your personal sexuality.
Granted if you work a place 10 years somebody's gonna find out, but somebody isn't everybody. HR will probably have to know if your company offers benefits to gay husbands. And if you're gay that's slightly riskier then if you're straight because homophobia is a thing and heterophonia is a word I just made up. But you're implying that it's common for everybody who works at an office to know not only the exact romantic status of everyone else, but also their standards in a potential mate (in this case: gender). And that's an exageration to say the least.
As for Hutcherson, I think we've said all there is to say on him. I could repeat myself, but then you'd repeat yourself, and what would be the point?
You know, I'm really freaking sick of straight people telling me to go back into the closet. That's what you're advocating, but you probably don't even realize it. Why? Because you can't see past your own privilege.
I'll say this one more time, and then I'm done: I'm not advocating for forcing people to do anything. I'm advocating for my right and the rights of others to be open and honest about our lives without fear of repercussion. Your solution is completely and utterly unacceptable, and seeks to reverse decades of progress made by queer people being out and proud of their lives. I don't want people to think I'm asexual because I'm not. I want the people in my life, be they co-workers or friends or family, to know who I am. I should not have to hide aspects of my life because it makes some people uncomfortable. I unreservedly reject your call for queer people to go back into the closet.
I may be priveleged, but I'm a lot less self-centered then you.
I never urged you, Will, to do anything. I never urged anyone to do anything this means your contention that I'm "telling you to go back into the closet" is false on it's face. I said you could have done things differently. It's exactly the same thing as saying "But you could have taken the bus instead of renting a car."
Moreover if not talking about sex at work equals being in the closet, even if all social acquaintances know you're gay, your mom knows, etc. then yes, by definiton I am saying gay people could be in the closet. But that's an extremely broad definition of being in the closet which clearly doesn't apply to most Americans, who are only work part-time (the average workweek of 34.5 hours is less then the official part-time definition of 35).
Nickbii, I think Will is arguing that saying that people shouldn't have to be defined by their sexuality is actually a problem. People should be defined by their sexuality, along with their height, their interests, their eye color… He's saying that having a non-normative sexual orientation as part of your "definition" is a good thing, and fighting against that rejects the value to be had in having that as part of how you define yourself. Saying that everyone should just be defined as people means that no difference should be discussed or celebrated just as much as it means that no difference should be ridiculed. When you do that, you almost go full circle to essentially pushing gay people back into the closet. "You don't need to define yourself like that." Yes, we do!
Will, "just people" is how us privileged folks have been told by other, older, privileged folks to think of everyone, especially unprivileged folks, since our childhoods. It's been hammered very, very deeply into our psyches, and it's going to take more than a blog post or two to pry it loose.
I have plenty privilege. I'm a white, able-bodied, middle-class, American, cisgender man in academia. I know what it is like to confront privilege–it requires a constant attention and, you know, not making excuses for continuing on with privileged thinking. It requires listening when oppressed people talk to me about their experiences. It requires me accepting and celebraing difference, not seeking to erase or ignore it.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure what the purpose of your comment is, other than to try to dissuade me from speaking out or make excuses for privilege.
It's to make sure you realize the size and depth of the dragon you're attempting to slay. If you choose to take that negatively or in a dissuading way, well, that's your choice. I suppose I didn't need to tell it to a cultural anthropologist with plenty of privilege, though, so I apologize for being unintentionally condescending.
When I say someone is "just a person" I mean that I treat them without regard to attributes they possess that would historically get them treated badly by people with the attributes I possess. That's all. I'm not erasing their differences; I'm, to coin a phrase, judging them by the content of their character. And I do my best to do that to all "just people".
You're doing exactly the thing that I am railing against in my post–that is, thinking that you could possible see "just people" as if that somehow means they are no longer facing privilege when in your presence. Treating someone as "just a person" necessarily erases those "attributes they possess that would historically get them treated badly" by people with privilege. It also assumes that those attributes are unimportant because you are allegedly not paying any attention to them.
Pretending that you're talking to "just people" is a way for you to avoid being accoutable for your unexamined or unrecognized privilege. I mean, those differences are unimportant to you, so there's no reason to acknowledge or celebrate them. Right? This is the post-queer/feminist/racial mentality that is exactly the problem.
If I treat people equally regardless of their race, gender, orientation, etc., I'm negating their differences, so I'm an inconsiderate asshole.
On the other hand, if I treat people differently based on their race, gender, orientation, etc., I'm a racist/chauvinist/homophobic asshole.
Either way I'm an asshole. So why bother listening to anyone or trying to change?
When you make people who want to be your allies conclude that they are inescapable assholes, you are doing something wrong.
You're not understanding. Why not treat them like someone who has a history and an identity that is unique and valuable? Why pretend that their history and past experiences are unimportant? That can have the effect of erasing their experiences. When you say to me, "I don't see you as gay, I only see you as a person," my response to that is (A) you're full of shit and (B) being gay is a huge part of my identity and my life, and you not acknowledging that and pretending like it's unimportant sends me the message that *I* am unimportant. And isn't it convenient for you, a straight person, to not have to think about the implications of my sexuality on my life.
And, really, it's not about you. This is something that people who want to be allies need to understand. It is not about you. Sometimes you're going to be seen by people as an asshole no matter what you do. The important thing is that you're listening and trying to gain some perspective on your privilege. Stop taking it personally. What you're arguing right now is the same thing that many men argue to feminist women. "But *I* am not an asshole. But *I* care about your cause. *I* don't see gender, I only see people." And on and on. This is no different. Even if you think you're doing the right thing, what I and others are telling you is that your efforts to be color-blind, gender-blind, queer-blind, or whatever, have the effect of negating and erasing experiences. And if you want to continue to pretend like that's not happening, then you're not listening and you're not an ally, plain and simple.
That's how I treat "just people", Will. Everyone has a unique, valuable history and identity.
I see you as a person who has many unique features about them. One of those features is that you're gay. Since you and I will never have sex, it is a feature that, to me, is unimportant. But it's important to you, and that feature (that you're gay is important to you) is important to me.
In other words, I don't care that you're gay, but I care that you care that you're gay, and that's why I'm not really sending the message that you're unimportant.
Stop taking it personally? Stop sending me mixed signals!
Right, because the only important thing about being gay is sexual behavior. *sigh* This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're utterly blind to your privilege. And I have a feeling that nothing I or nayone else says is going to wake you up to it.
Have you been paying attention? Because this comment leads me to believe that you've just completely ignored the entire post and also the following comments just so you can tell us that you just "see people as people, nothing more!" even though the discussion is specifically why that is a problem and why you shouldn't say that to queer people. ESPECIALLY when multiple queer people are trying to tell you why it is problematic.
I apologize for being unintentionally condescending.
Seriously? Now you're just being passive-aggressive. Either you've not read the post, or you're just ignoring it on purpose. I'm not sure. Either way, just stop it. Stop trying to be a martyr. Oh no. We’re calling out your privilege! Now you must apologize passive-aggressively because of course you didn’t *mean* to come across as condescending. ‘Cuz telling a minority how they should feel, and how they should identify, and how you just don’t “see” that they are gay or whatever … that’s totally helpful. Really.
And what a load of bullshit. I don't care how much you try to claim that you never notice when someone is different, whether it be because you know they are gay or because they are not white or maybe they have a scar on their face I don't know, but you notice these things. And these things are often very important to people. And you have no right to completely ignore something written by queer people because you, a straight person, "only see people". Which, as I've said, is such bullshit.
This commenting system is obnoxious. It keeps jumping around on me in the little box. It shouldn't have all been bolded and there is a blockquote in there somewhere. Sorries. I fail.
And let me make something very clear that is VERY important:
Gay people have been invisible for decades. In a lot of ways, they still are.
A section of society doesn’t want them to exist. They’ve never wanted to exist. A section of society will ALWAYS want gay people to be invisible. This isn’t just in America; this is all over the world. Indeed, it is still illegal to be gay in parts of the world. This idea that gay people are invisible isn’t something that is old history. It is still happening all over the world – including America. And your fantasy that it won't matter is just that: Fantasy. Differences will ALWAYS matter. For good or bad.
It is still perfectly legal to fire a person for being gay in some parts of our country. Many teachers continue to lose their jobs when they come out. Many people are still murdered just for being gay or different. I know two gay men who were recently beat to a bloody pulp because they were leaving a gay bar. This was in 2012 in Tempe, AZ. It’s not like this is Iraq.
Do you know who Harvey Milk is? You must. His idea was that gay people had to be open and proud. To come out, so that people KNOW people who are gay. It’s so, so much harder to hate when you know someone personally who is gay. This was the idea.
AND IT WORKED!
Of course, he was murdered for this idea. Only 34 years ago. Not exactly forever ago.
Great, fine. YOU don’t see people except as people. Sure, whatever. I still think it’s bullshit. But good for you! Shall I pat you on the back now? Is this something that you, a privileged straight person, NEED to feel validated about? Because I don’t think you are going to get that from any of us. ‘Cuz honestly … I call bullshit. And I don’t think Will buys it, either.
Do you think the still fairly recent repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell happened because people were just people? OH HELL NO. I have volunteered quite a lot, and protested during a senate hearing – specifically protesting McCain and his stance on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. This shit is not easy and to get this kind of shit done means we HAVE to be loud and we HAVE to be open about who we are and we HAVE to be proud about it. We can’t just sit there meekly going, “Yeah, I’m gay. So what?” Because it’s not “so what”. IT FUCKING MATTERS.
And I know you THINK you mean well, but you’re not helpful at all. We get silenced ALL THE TIME from politicians and senators. We get told we don’t exist. We don’t need it from so-called allies on top of it. Seriously. It is NOT helpful. It misses the larger picture. It is not based in reality. And you being passive-aggressive and condescending is not going to change that.
And here is a great quote from Harvey Milk:
His gay is still important. “Gay person.” It is still part of his identity. But it’s not the ONLY part, and not necessarily the most important. At least in the context of his job. Though of course, in his case, it really was important that he was gay. He was a huge part of the early gay movement in this country.
Reminds me of the South Park movie:
Cartman: 'Kyle, all those times I called you a stupid Jew, I didn't mean it… you're not a Jew.'
Kyle: 'Yes I am Cartman! I am a Jew!'
Cartman: 'No, no, don't be so hard on yourself!"
Perfect.
Indeed!
Woosh.
Problem?
That was in reply to Beleth.
Helpful as always, Marilove.
O really? You're the one that ignored ALL OF MY ACTUAL POINTS that I laid out very patiently and very clearly in several different posts, but then decided to focus on this one little thing? Seroiusly? Do you EVER listen to what others have to say? Yay! A straight person brushes off queer people! This has never happened to me before!!
I ignore all walls of rambling, condescending venom, marilove, not just yours.
Don't take it personally.
NICE!
If I may offer an analogy.
It’s the difference between saying “I wish it didn’t matter if people are gay” and “I wish we didn’t have to talk about people being gay.”
While they use almost the same words one is an honest wish for an accepting world and the other is a personal wish for freedom from a subject that makes the speaker uncomfortable.
If my analogy is off let me know, I want to expose my privilege; it makes it easier to see around.
That sounds about right… although I don't think the actor guy meant to sound like that, that's maybe the way it comes off.
I agree, I doubt he meant it that way. But, again, intent is irrelevant. What matters are the effects of what he's saying. And what he's saying falls into the pattern of other post-identity crap that has the effect of erasure.
Well… and it means double bad not goodness considering the audience? If someone is talking to a GLAAD audience, they should be especially careful to avoid problematic language. We all cut some slack for privilege in situations where that privilege isn't obvious and we know the person speaking doesn't mean any harm. On the other hand, if you know your audience is mostly LGBT, you should be much less casual with your speech.
You're right in that those are different sentiments. But that's not really what I'm getting at.
What I'm saying is that both of those statements are problematic in my view. It does matter and it should matter if people are queer. But it should matter for positive reasons–we should be lauding differences, not seeking to erase them. That's my entire point. To me, the first statement you give is not really a wish for an accepting world but a world in which differences don't matter and are erased. We're all "just people," so we don't talk about our differences, so they're invisible. I agree completely, though, with your assessment of the second statement. ;)
I may not have the exact words to express what I mean here.
I didn’t mean it should be ignored or dismissed, just that it shouldn’t matter, much like it doesn’t matter if you have green eyes, or blonde hair, or are tall. We don’t ignore those traits but they don’t cloud our judgement.
I understand exactly what you mean though, so I’ll leave it at that. :)
Actually, at least two of those things could definitely cloud judgment. ;) (See here and here for examples.)
I think you're right that our disagreement (if it even is a disagreement) seems to me more an issue of words. I think that it should matter, but not in negative ways (i.e., cause of discrimination, bigotry, etc.). You (and others) are saying that it shouldn't matter period. I just don't think that's realistic or even desirable.
Actually, no disagreement at all. I am just not expressing my thoughts adequately, I'll try one last time.
It should matter only to the extent, and in the way, that the individual wishes it to.
Of course it matters, it's just that it shouldn't have to matter.
I hope that makes sense.
Love this quote from Harvey Milk, which I'm going to put into its own post so that it is not missed:
This is a tactic that is STILL WORKING. Don't silence us.
I guess that's part of the thing that s