LGBT - A Discussion

[matt_rawlings]

A group of feminists called me an asshole because I said I personally didn't support the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual) association at my university. Now, I have nothing wrong at all with any sexuality. It's personal characteristic and homophobia sickens me.

What i have a problem with is the fact that, by nature, it's a segregatory organisation. It lumps anyone who isn't straight into a group of "Others" which is so far off the mark of sexual equality that it doesn't make sense. In fact, one of their rules was that no heterosexual person would be allowed to attend meetings or social events. That is prejudice right there.

Also, all of their events were themed around extraordinarily specific gay themes (screenings of "The Birdcage" and "Prescila Queen of the Desert", pink and leather night). As a straight person, I find it offensive that this is a group that states that sexuality is the exact same thing as personality, character and interests.


If you want to be taken seriously as an organisation and do something good, work on intergration and understanding. Don't create a group with a persecution complex. We are all people. The whole point should be that sexuality doesn't matter.

[SgtSmegma]

All great points.

I am of the opinion that these types of organizations only set back equality in that they male a distinction between homosexuals/transgenders/etc and "normal" people

[sjb2k1]

that's a very odd rule. most LGBT organizations encourage any and all people to show up. in fact they welcome the support of straight "allies"

[Neo Cassady]

that's a very odd rule. most LGBT organizations encourage any and all people to show up. in fact they welcome the support of straight "allies"

I was just gonna say, the LGBT organization at my high school was called Gay-Straight Alliance, and in college was Spectrum, which describes itself as a "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight alliance".

[Jennurna Gray]

Backed up 100%.

[matt_rawlings]

that's a very odd rule. most LGBT organizations encourage any and all people to show up. in fact they welcome the support of straight "allies"

When I asked the former head about it, he said it was because straight people made some of the members uncomfortable. I was going to write a piece for the university newspaper but I was warned away from doing it because it could have serious implications levelled against me, such as making me out to be homophobic.

Also, true story, in my first year of university in Edinburgh (before I transferred to Stirling and started over) I lived with a genuine heterophobic guy (a gay person who despises and will not socialise with straight men).

[Neo Cassady]

When I asked the former head about it, he said it was because straight people made some of the members uncomfortable. I was going to write a piece for the university newspaper but I was warned away from doing it because it could have serious implications levelled against me, such as making me out to be homophobic.

Also, true story, in my first year of university in Edinburgh (before I transferred to Stirling and started over) I lived with a genuine heterophobic guy (a gay person who despises and will not socialise with straight men).

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? I mean, really, how is that different from the homophobia they're working to combat?

[MattRM]

Yeah, I've never heard of an LGBT organization having a rule that excludes anyone. I wouldn't support the group either - by the whole nature of the issue of sexuality, they should be accepting of everyone.

[popdisaster00]

I was just gonna say, the LGBT organization at my high school was called Gay-Straight Alliance, and in college was Spectrum, which describes itself as a "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight alliance".
Yep, it was gay straight alliance at my HS too. I can't imagine why these people would want a group that bans straight people.

[matt_rawlings]

Having quite a few friends of mixed sexual preference, I know for a fact that there are going to be severe changes next semester. The "no straights" rule will have to be lifted as it technically goes against the charter of university committees.

What really gets me though is that to some of the more indoctrinated members, it becomes there way of life because it is so highly dominant;

Hobbies - I am gay
Likes - Gay things
Personality - Camp

What's to say a gay person wouldn't want to go and see "Inception" instead of going around to someones house to watch "Moulin Rouge"? That's all they do.

The racial equality groups and foreign exchange groups all go out clubbing or go bowling or other general activities that PEOPLE like.

[deadkidsean]

I love Moulin Rouge!

[sjb2k1]

I was just gonna say, the LGBT organization at my high school was called Gay-Straight Alliance, and in college was Spectrum, which describes itself as a "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight alliance".my college's GSA was called Spectrum as well, haha...and yeah, we had all types of people involved. in fact, we made it a point to have straight allies.
When I asked the former head about it, he said it was because straight people made some of the members uncomfortable. I was going to write a piece for the university newspaper but I was warned away from doing it because it could have serious implications levelled against me, such as making me out to be homophobic.

Also, true story, in my first year of university in Edinburgh (before I transferred to Stirling and started over) I lived with a genuine heterophobic guy (a gay person who despises and will not socialise with straight men).yeah, it's probably better that you didn't write anything. i completely understand what you're saying, though.

i don't know if i'll ever understand that kind of thing, just like i don't understand homophobia. my best friends are all straight people.

[Wake Up]

I love Moulin Rouge!

You're in.

[deadkidsean]

You're in.
You know it. I'm a big 'The Red Curtain Trilogy' fan.

[doomcrs04]

You know it. I'm a big 'The Red Curtain Trilogy' fan.
Wow, looks like I'm getting a blowie whenever I roll through OH.

Matt, if you're interested there is a great book that talks about gay segregation from the rest of society. It explains why cliques, groups, and gay ghettos are detrimental to progressing the LGBT rights movement. Here. (http://www.amazon.com/Androphilia-Rejecting-Identity-Reclaiming-Masculinity/dp/0976403587)

[eraserhead]

Huh, I always thought this about my school's LGBT group, but didn't know how to say it without sounding condescending or homophobic.

[only the clouds]

Yeah, the straight exclusion thing is really strange. The queer organization at my college is very inclusive (although sadly not very popular). Our events tend to have vaguely fabulous themes but are more about having fun than being gay with a capital G.

[<*)))><]

Reminds me of PETA. What is PETA 2?

[The Indigo]

I've never ran into this personally. The gay-straight alliance at my high school and QFLAG (Queens Friends of Lesbians and Gays) are the two LGBT organizations I've been around and neither have ever excluded straight people or become caricatures of gay stereotypes. Sounds like a problem in your school's organization's understanding of what the purpose of a LGBT advocacy group should be (at least in my opinion).

[blackdaisyx]

A group of feminists called me an asshole because I said I personally didn't support the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual) association at my university. Now, I have nothing wrong at all with any sexuality. It's personal characteristic and homophobia sickens me.

What i have a problem with is the fact that, by nature, it's a segregatory organisation. It lumps anyone who isn't straight into a group of "Others" which is so far off the mark of sexual equality that it doesn't make sense. In fact, one of their rules was that no heterosexual person would be allowed to attend meetings or social events. That is prejudice right there.

Also, all of their events were themed around extraordinarily specific gay themes (screenings of "The Birdcage" and "Prescila Queen of the Desert", pink and leather night). As a straight person, I find it offensive that this is a group that states that sexuality is the exact same thing as personality, character and interests.


If you want to be taken seriously as an organisation and do something good, work on intergration and understanding. Don't create a group with a persecution complex. We are all people. The whole point should be that sexuality doesn't matter.

Heterophobia is just as bad as homophobia. In my opinion, if we (as gays) cannot gain the support of heteros, who do we gain support from?

[A Wild Pikachu!]

Definitely sounds like an isolated problem, rather than a problem with LGBT groups in general. Straight exclusion is not something that seems very common.

Though I definitely think that it IS a problem. Self-segregation is lame and counter-productive.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Just asking... in terms of heterophobia, is it the notion for gays that they've been oppressed and ridiculed by the mainstream straight society that they feel they cannot have trust for any straight person? And/or is it that gays only trust other gays and lesbians because they fall into the same genetic and cultural perspective as they do? As a straight person who supports LGBT rights, I'm curious.

[SgtSmegma]

Yeah, the straight exclusion thing is really strange. The queer organization at my college is very inclusive (although sadly not very popular). Our events tend to have vaguely fabulous themes but are more about having fun than being gay with a capital G.

Probably not the best word choice...

[zion the lion]

I've never heard of that exclusion rule...it sounds like one of those club houses a 5 year old boy would have that says "no girls allowed" though. Like the little rascals.

[only the clouds]

Probably not the best word choice...
"Queer" is a lot shorter and less confusing than "LGBTQQIAA."

[SgtSmegma]

"Queer" is a lot shorter and less confusing than "LGBTQQIAA."

So saying "******" is OK because its shorter than African American?

[GeeBee]

So saying "******" is OK because its shorter than African American?

Queer isn't really considered an insult, turbo. What was it you thought the Q in LGBTQ stands for?
Being offended is a choice.

[SgtSmegma]

Queer isn't really considered an insult, turbo. What was it you thought the Q in LGBTQ stands for?
Being offended is a choice.

Queer generally carries a negative connotation

[GeeBee]

Queer generally carries a negative connotation

I guess I'd better stop watching "Q**** Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Q**** as Folk".

Like most words, it depends on the context. But merely acknowledging a "queer club" (as they do exist in great number) is not negative at all. No need for hypersensitivity - which is also ironic considering your first post in this thread. Treating the community with kid gloves does nothing to forward the agenda, either.

[blackdaisyx]

This discussion about the word "queer" makes me think of the South Park and the word "****" episode. I'm with Trey and Matt on this one.

edit: totally didn't realise i'd get bleeped. whatever. the one with the fucking bikers.

[The Indigo]

Queer isn't really considered an insult, turbo. What was it you thought the Q in LGBTQ stands for?
Being offended is a choice.
I've always understood the Q stood for questioning, but that's not really the point of the discussion, I suppose. To stay on topic, I don't consider queer a slur in most cases.

[Machu505]

I guess I'd better stop watching "Q**** Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Q**** as Folk". All I learned from this post is that you watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

It's a little bit ridiculous for straight people to not be allowed to meetings.

[GeeBee]

All I learned from this post is that you watch Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

It's a little bit ridiculous for straight people to not be allowed to meetings.

What's ridiculous is a straight guy wearing THAT this season...(rolls eyes flamboyantly).

[Machu505]

What's ridiculous is a straight guy wearing THAT this season...(rolls eyes flamboyantly).

I'd make fun of you for Queer as Folk too, but I don't really know what that is.

You win this time, Geebz.

[NervousDestiny]

I wouldn't support that group either, if they really want to teach acceptance and respect then they need to include EVERYONE in their group. I have never hear of a GLBT group that excluded heterosexual people. I mean, I understand the idea of there being queer spaces and whatnot, but forming a group that purposely excludes people is ridiculous.

[GeeBee]

Everyone's welcome to join my He-Man Woman-Haters Club.

[only the clouds]

So saying "******" is OK because its shorter than African American?
What? No. "Queer" isn't derogatory. It used to be, but it hasn't been for some time.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/images/heman.jpg

[caveBEAR]

:-d

[Kurt Retenauer]

This reminds me of a situation someone posed to be about their university.

The university has a "student union" and a "black student union." Is this ethical, considering black people can be in both the student union, as well as the black student union, where as white people can only be in the traditional student union?

[Broken Parachute]

My college is Catholic so I don't think they would even allow a LGBT society (if they do have one, I have never heard of it). However, as Kurt above me posted, my school has a large black population and we have a black student union which a lot of people are iffy about.

[GeeBee]

This reminds me of a situation someone posed to be about their university.

The university has a "student union" and a "black student union." Is this ethical, considering black people can be in both the student union, as well as the black student union, where as white people can only be in the traditional student union?

There's obviously too much unionizing.

Seriously, why do people need so many goddamn clubs where they go and congratulate each other for agreeing on something or being "samesies"? /rant.

[Kurt Retenauer]

There's obviously too much unionizing.

Seriously, why do people need so many goddamn clubs where they go and congratulate each other for agreeing on something or being "samesies"? /rant.
I agree with you. I don't see the point in clubs to only try and make people equal, by making other clubs that are remotely different than the original one, haha.

[Kurt Retenauer]

My college is Catholic so I don't think they would even allow a LGBT society (if they do have one, I have never heard of it). However, as Kurt above me posted, my school has a large black population and we have a black student union which a lot of people are iffy about.
Yeah, I phrased the question awkwardly. It was my college, and my college is Catholic too, and, as I said, we have a black student union. We don't have a lot of black people, not that it matters, but for sake of argument, it just seems silly to have a club claiming equality by separation from another one.

[saofan_315]

To my understanding and what I've been told by people in the LGBT community, the word "queer" in modern terms has become pretty popular for phrasing gender ambiguity. Pretty much, being "queer" in an LGBT setting means that a person is not defined by or even recognizing of a gender (in other words, there is no male/female, there is just people and they can be with whomever they choose).

[hcar]

So saying "******" is OK because its shorter than African American?

****** really isn't that offensive if you don't say it in a rude way. Same with queer.

You can choose to say it in a rude way and people will get pissed off.

[SgtSmegma]

****** really isn't that offensive if you don't say it in a rude way. Same with queer.

You can choose to say it in a rude way and people will get pissed off.

Uhhhhh........no. Sorry. That's just blatantly wrong and doesn't even warrant a thoughtful response

[GeeBee]

I'm with Smegma on this one...

[hcar]

Uhhhhh........no. Sorry. That's just blatantly wrong and doesn't even warrant a thoughtful response

I choose not to use the n word, but most black people I know are chill with everyone using it if it's not in a derogatory way.
If everyone stoped making such a big deal about certain words or topics it wouldn't matter.

[SgtSmegma]

I choose not to use the n word, but most black people I know are chill with everyone using it if it's not in a derogatory way.
If everyone stoped making such a big deal about certain words or topics it wouldn't matter.

Nigg-a vs ******

[Scrandon]

Basically it's just the same word used in a different context.

[starstrucklola]

I went a couple of times for the free food and cause my girlfriend threatened that I don't support her aka no sex.

[x togepi x]

i've skimmed this but I think you should support the organization anyway.

The point of excluding heterosexuals is to create a dialogue about how society does the same separation all the time. By doing the excluding, the queer community gets power in this situation. The role reversal is powerful because it calls into question notions of straight privilege and straight entitlement. it's a more radical call for equality than just hanging out at gay straight alliance. it even points out the heterosexist views that even an ally of GBLT groups might unconsciously hold.

[A Wild Pikachu!]

i've skimmed this but I think you should support the organization anyway.

The point of excluding heterosexuals is to create a dialogue about how society does the same separation all the time. By doing the excluding, the queer community gets power in this situation. The role reversal is powerful because it calls into question notions of straight privilege and straight entitlement. it's a more radical call for equality than just hanging out at gay straight alliance. it even points out the heterosexist views that even an ally of GBLT groups might unconsciously hold.Gotta disagree here. I think that a taste-of-your-own-medicine strategy is interesting in theory but counter-productive in practice. Especially since (and I'll admit this is kind of a big assumption on my part) that message probably isn't being communicated very effectively if it's even intended to be communicated at all. It seems to me that when a straight person is excluded from an LGBT group, the message of "now you know how we feel" would get drowned out by "we don't want you here."

I wouldn't want to alienate potential allies—period. Self-segregation, even in an attempt to make some symbolic point, doesn't lead to unity.

[DJWildefire]

Gotta disagree here. I think that a taste-of-your-own-medicine strategy is interesting in theory but counter-productive in practice. Especially since (and I'll admit this is kind of a big assumption on my part) that message probably isn't being communicated very effectively if it's even intended to be communicated at all. It seems to me that when a straight person is excluded from an LGBT group, the message of "now you know how we feel" would get drowned out by "we don't want you here."

I wouldn't want to alienate potential allies—period. Self-segregation, even in an attempt to make some symbolic point, doesn't lead to unity.
Gotta agree with Pikachu. GSA's are the way to go.

[DJWildefire]

****** really isn't that offensive if you don't say it in a rude way. Same with queer.

You can choose to say it in a rude way and people will get pissed off.
I love how you censor ****** and not queer. Don't censor either of them. I don't think ****** should be used in a joking or derogatory way. I have no problem if you say something like "Let's have a dialogue about why ****** is a bad word" or whatever but I don't think anyone should be called that. Regardless of whether you use it rudely or not, the history of that word is so awful that I think it's ridiculous to joke about it. Queer isn't necessarily a bad word. There are many people who identify that way and don't mind someone saying "So you're queer?" because that is what they consider themselves. ****** is though (when not being used as a reclaim term).
EDIT: I guess ****** gets censored automatically hahaha. Sorry.

[tonyC4L]

Gotta disagree here. I think that a taste-of-your-own-medicine strategy is interesting in theory but counter-productive in practice. Especially since (and I'll admit this is kind of a big assumption on my part) that message probably isn't being communicated very effectively if it's even intended to be communicated at all. It seems to me that when a straight person is excluded from an LGBT group, the message of "now you know how we feel" would get drowned out by "we don't want you here."

I wouldn't want to alienate potential allies—period. Self-segregation, even in an attempt to make some symbolic point, doesn't lead to unity.
Yeah, I agree. I think that any straight people wanting to join the club in the first place are the ones you'd want in the club because they're supportive. Excluding them just seems pointless.

[DJWildefire]

To my understanding and what I've been told by people in the LGBT community, the word "queer" in modern terms has become pretty popular for phrasing gender ambiguity. Pretty much, being "queer" in an LGBT setting means that a person is not defined by or even recognizing of a gender (in other words, there is no male/female, there is just people and they can be with whomever they choose).

That would be genderqueer. While queer can be used for that, it can also describe pansexuals, homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, etc. etc.

[DJWildefire]

Yeah, I agree. I think that any straight people wanting to join the club in the first place are the ones you'd want in the club because they're supportive. Excluding them just seems pointless.
That's because it is. It's basically just the letter people sabotaging their own movement. (unintentionally of course)

[DJWildefire]

So saying "******" is OK because its shorter than African American?
Argument is void because the Q in LGBTQ stands for queer. No negative connotation is attached unless you use it derogatorily.

[x togepi x]

Gotta disagree here. I think that a taste-of-your-own-medicine strategy is interesting in theory but counter-productive in practice. Especially since (and I'll admit this is kind of a big assumption on my part) that message probably isn't being communicated very effectively if it's even intended to be communicated at all. It seems to me that when a straight person is excluded from an LGBT group, the message of "now you know how we feel" would get drowned out by "we don't want you here."

I wouldn't characterize it as a "taste of your own medicine" approach. That's a strawman. It's about creating a safe space where one can escape homophobia and the liberal perception that we can all play nice and get along (without really being critical of the status quo). The "let's all be friends" approach is hardly critical of the homophobia within that friendship.

I wouldn't want to alienate potential allies—period. Self-segregation, even in an attempt to make some symbolic point, doesn't lead to unity.


I would argue that potential allies should stop being alienating. Why are we worried about the alienation of the dominant class? it's the dialogue that leads to "unity" (what does that even mean?) not the separation itself.

The problem is you guys are looking at this as the end when it's really just an alternate means to an end.

[MattRM]

I would argue that potential allies should stop being alienating. Why are we worried about the alienation of the dominant class? it's the dialogue that leads to "unity" (what does that even mean?) not the separation itself.

The problem is you guys are looking at this as the end when it's really just an alternate means to an end.
What are you even saying here? The bolded part especially, but I'm not really following any of the quote.

[x togepi x]

What are you even saying here? The bolded part especially, but I'm not really following any of the quote.

I'm saying that homophobia is an extremely dangerous phenomenon and that merely putting a rainbow flag sticker on your car and voting for gay marriage isn't going to fix it. While many allies of homosexuality claim to "not be homophobic", they often are quite critical/belittling of types of homosexuality that do not resemble their heterosexual relationships.

for example, i used to be close friends with a girl who was a lesbian and polyamorous. her justification for polyamory was that monogamy was a social construction borne out of the heterosexual notion of what a relationship is. while plenty of her gay right's supporting straight friends wanted to support her right to marry, they were not supportive of her right to decide what types of relationships are okay and often made comments that there must have been something wrong with her to make her so "promiscuous".

What I'm saying is that anyone should have the right to live in any way they so choose as long as it's not oppressive. Unity is great, but the idea is a very loaded term that isn't necessarily possible for everyone (at least in the world as it is today).

[sjb2k1]

I went a couple of times for the free food and cause my girlfriend threatened that I don't support her aka no sex.
i approve of your avatar.

[A Wild Pikachu!]

I wouldn't characterize it as a "taste of your own medicine" approach. That's a strawman.It's not, actually. Your exact words were "the point of excluding heterosexuals is to create a dialogue about how society does the same separation all the time.... The role reversal is powerful because it calls into question notions of straight privilege and straight entitlement." It seems clear to me that what you're arguing is that showing straight people how it feels to be treated as "other" incentivizes them to stop doing so (even if they didn't realize they had been doing it before). I think that can be accurately characterized as a taste-of-your-own-medicine approach. If that's not the case, please correct me, because I genuinely don't know what you're getting at then.

It's about creating a safe space where one can escape homophobia and the liberal perception that we can all play nice and get along (without really being critical of the status quo).Well, see, now you're talking about this from a different angle entirely. Creating a "safe space" for gay people to gather and communicate is not the same thing as attempting to show straight society the error of its ways. You may try to execute both with the same brush stroke, but they're different topics of discussion entirely.

The "let's all be friends" approach is hardly critical of the homophobia within that friendship.It seems like you're focusing on 1:1 relationships here. Like, a gay person trying to make his or her unintentionally homophobic friend realize that he or she is homophobic (to some extent). This, to my understanding, is not what the topic is about. I assume you probably have some kind of personal experience that makes you focus on this.

I would argue that potential allies should stop being alienating. Why are we worried about the alienation of the dominant class? it's the dialogue that leads to "unity" (what does that even mean?) not the separation itself.Like I said, if you're not describing a taste-of-your-own-medicine scenario here, then I don't know what your point is. From what I gather from you, it seems like you're saying that the exclusion of straight people from LGBT "clubs" or "groups" or what have you creates a dialogue. And that this dialogue would highlight the current inequalities between heterosexuals and homosexuals in society, forcing (or quickening) the eventual disintegration of those inequalities. That's what I thought you were saying in your last post, and that's what I think you're saying now. I'm arguing that while there is logic to than in theory, it would fail in practice. Or, at least, not be as effective as allowing an actual verbal dialogue to take place. You know, in the LGBT club.

The problem is you guys are looking at this as the end when it's really just an alternate means to an end.No, that's actually exactly the way I was looking at it. Like I said, I just think it's likely a less effective alternative to just allowing straights in and having a discussion with them.

And in your most recent post, while I understand what you're getting at, I think it's tangential from the topic at hand. Your friend shouldn't have to deal with that, but if that personal situation can be remedied, it can be done without segregation. If you really want to create a dialogue, then actually speak to the people that are being oppressive (even if they aren't trying to be). Removing yourself from the situation entirely fixes nothing, because it expresses nothing. If her friends just CAN'T understand her point of view, then it's her decision to just not deal with them rather than putting up with their shit. But as a WHOLE, the gay community cannot afford to just take its ball and go home. There has to be direct dialogue. There has to be communication. If the queer community just stays in its own little corner talking about how the world isn't fair, then the world is never going to get fair. Separating yourself from the rest of society only reinforces your "other" status. It only gives the big, bad straighties less incentive to get to know us and realize we're just like them and break down the social boundaries that created the inequality in the first place.

[starstrucklola]

i approve of your avatar.

Yay I'm fitting in haha thanks

[sjb2k1]

Yay I'm fitting in haha thanks
i'm sure that's what you wanted, internet popularity :-)

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Yay I'm fitting in haha thanks

speaking of which... who is that in your avatar?

[starstrucklola]

i'm sure that's what you wanted, internet popularity :-)

Tis only a dream :-(

[starstrucklola]

speaking of which... who is that in your avatar?

Michelle Rodriguez

[sjb2k1]

michelle rodriguez with her brand new pearly whites*


lol

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Ana-Lucia from LOST?!?!!?!? Awesome!

[bung]

i've skimmed this but I think you should support the organization anyway.

The point of excluding heterosexuals is to create a dialogue about how society does the same separation all the time. By doing the excluding, the queer community gets power in this situation. The role reversal is powerful because it calls into question notions of straight privilege and straight entitlement. it's a more radical call for equality than just hanging out at gay straight alliance. it even points out the heterosexist views that even an ally of GBLT groups might unconsciously hold.

If this is at a college, and they are receiving funding from that college, or recognized by the school as an official organization, it would be illegal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/hastings-college-christia_n_627708.html) to exclude heterosexuals.

A shame that the sword cuts both ways, huh?

[sjb2k1]

the way he described it, it didn't sound like they were excluding heterosexuals because they wanted to call into question notions of straight privilege and straight entitlement. it sounded like they did it because some of the members don't like straight people/are uncomfortable (http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=73132662#post73132 662) around straight people.

[perceptrons]

The few posts about black student unions seemed a little odd to me. Since most colleges have a minority of blacks, black student unions are formed to tackle issues at the college that usually go under the radar of other organizations, as well as plan events that are more inclusive of black culture.

[x togepi x]

If this is at a college, and they are receiving funding from that college, or recognized by the school as an official organization, it would be illegal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/hastings-college-christia_n_627708.html) to exclude heterosexuals.

A shame that the sword cuts both ways, huh?

I'm glad you pointed out the obvious. We're talking about theory. It's way over your head.

[x togepi x]

It's not, actually. Your exact words were "the point of excluding heterosexuals is to create a dialogue about how society does the same separation all the time.... The role reversal is powerful because it calls into question notions of straight privilege and straight entitlement." It seems clear to me that what you're arguing is that showing straight people how it feels to be treated as "other" incentivizes them to stop doing so (even if they didn't realize they had been doing it before). I think that can be accurately characterized as a taste-of-your-own-medicine approach. If that's not the case, please correct me, because I genuinely don't know what you're getting at then.

It's not giving one a taste of their own medicine because the argument is more nuanced than "fuck you guys for excluding us WE'LL EXCLUDE you from our little club." Essentially the point of separatism for any minority group is often to get people to rethink their perceptions of what equality means, because, to a lot of gay rights activists equality=gay marriage.

I'm not even referring to making straight people "the other" because that's impossible in a society ran by heterosexuals.

Well, see, now you're talking about this from a different angle entirely. Creating a "safe space" for gay people to gather and communicate is not the same thing as attempting to show straight society the error of its ways. You may try to execute both with the same brush stroke, but they're different topics of discussion entirely.


This isn't true at all because safe spaces aren't mutually exclusive with critiquing one's own perception of equality or unity. They aren't different topics entirely because they're highly connected. Safe spaces are necessary because equality doesn't exist. This is why we have women's shelters or African American centers in universities.

It seems like you're focusing on 1:1 relationships here. Like, a gay person trying to make his or her unintentionally homophobic friend realize that he or she is homophobic (to some extent). This, to my understanding, is not what the topic is about. I assume you probably have some kind of personal experience that makes you focus on this.

No, i'm referring to the approach of "unity" or "tolerance." That isn't merely 1:1 because the views have social and political implications for the entire community.

Like I said, if you're not describing a taste-of-your-own-medicine scenario here, then I don't know what your point is. From what I gather from you, it seems like you're saying that the exclusion of straight people from LGBT "clubs" or "groups" or what have you creates a dialogue.

which this thread is empirical proof that i'm right.

And that this dialogue would highlight the current inequalities between heterosexuals and homosexuals in society, forcing (or quickening) the eventual disintegration of those inequalities. That's what I thought you were saying in your last post, and that's what I think you're saying now. I'm arguing that while there is logic to than in theory, it would fail in practice. Or, at least, not be as effective as allowing an actual verbal dialogue to take place. You know, in the LGBT club.

verbal dialogue does very little to solve anything in practice as well. if anything GSA meetings can just turn into a bunch of people patting themselves on the back, especially the "straight allies."

No, that's actually exactly the way I was looking at it. Like I said, I just think it's likely a less effective alternative to just allowing straights in and having a discussion with them.

if it was that simple, we'd already have equality. Your logic here assumes a strict binary of Homophobic/Not Homophobic. What i'm telling you is that it's a lot more complicated than that. There are plenty of allies who hold homophobic/biphobic/transphobic views that they don't necessarily know they have and those things aren't going to be rectified in a conversation without some sort of cause, ie: the creation of a club that excludes them.


And in your most recent post, while I understand what you're getting at, I think it's tangential from the topic at hand. Your friend shouldn't have to deal with that, but if that personal situation can be remedied, it can be done without segregation. If you really want to create a dialogue, then actually speak to the people that are being oppressive (even if they aren't trying to be). Removing yourself from the situation entirely fixes nothing, because it expresses nothing. If her friends just CAN'T understand her point of view, then it's her decision to just not deal with them rather than putting up with their shit. But as a WHOLE, the gay community cannot afford to just take its ball and go home. There has to be direct dialogue. There has to be communication. If the queer community just stays in its own little corner talking about how the world isn't fair, then the world is never going to get fair.

I'm confused why you think this dialogue has to happen within an organization or think that because there's a gay rights organization that's GBLT only that there can't be one for everyone as well. It's not as if you have to support one and oppose the other.

Separating yourself from the rest of society only reinforces your "other" status. It only gives the big, bad straighties less incentive to get to know us and realize we're just like them and break down the social boundaries that created the inequality in the first place.

This claim has been proven empirically wrong by the successes of the Black church during the civil rights period.

[bung]

I'm glad you pointed out the obvious. We're talking about theory. It's way over your head.

lol

[bung]

Yes. It's great to be forced to monetarily support an organization that excludes you from membership and, in some cases, actively discriminates against you.

[x togepi x]

Yes. It's great to be forced to monetarily support an organization that excludes you from membership and, in some cases, actively discriminates against you.

i'll accept your whining about this to be okay when the federal government stops discriminating against essentially any minority class possible.

[GeeBee]

The few posts about black student unions seemed a little odd to me. Since most colleges have a minority of blacks, black student unions are formed to tackle issues at the college that usually go under the radar of other organizations, as well as plan events that are more inclusive of black culture.
This is a fair point, which I agree with.
My main gripe is that too often, groups like the above referenced often devolve into or are overtaken in volume by groups who's sole purpose is to guarantee 2nd-class citizen status to its members, or to become a circle-jerk of superiority.

[x togepi x]

This is a fair point, which I agree with.
My main gripe is that too often, groups like the above referenced often devolve into or are overtaken in volume by groups who's sole purpose is to guarantee 2nd-class citizen status to its members, or to become a circle-jerk of superiority.

I think this has happened in almost any gay rights/activist group i've ever been a part of. fuck, that's why i stopped volunteering.

[bung]

i'll accept your whining about this to be okay when the federal government stops discriminating against essentially any minority class possible.

Whining? You're Mr. Butthurt Supreme about virtually every topic. All you've been doing is derping up this thread, like you derp up every other thread, and making a parody of yourself in the process.

[GeeBee]

wow. Pot...meet kettle.

[sjb2k1]

the way he described it, it didn't sound like they were excluding heterosexuals because they wanted to call into question notions of straight privilege and straight entitlement. it sounded like they did it because some of the members don't like straight people/are uncomfortable (http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=73132662#post73132 662) around straight people.
quoting myself because i'm important and i think this was overlooked. it may be the case that other organizations do this, but this one sounds like they excluded straight people because they were icky, not to promote dialogue.

[x togepi x]

quoting myself because i'm important and i think this was overlooked. it may be the case that other organizations do this, but this one sounds like they excluded straight people because they were icky, not to promote dialogue.

Yeah I can how someone would think that is stupid but I felt like the theory was worth defending here. I think it's annoying when white straight men get all whiney about equality only when they're excluded from something. There's a club here that won't let you in unless you're gay on a certain night and a bunch of my friends on facebook complain about it constantly.


Whining? You're Mr. Butthurt Supreme about virtually every topic. All you've been doing is derping up this thread, like you derp up every other thread, and making a parody of yourself in the process.

Stop being a philistine and I'll address you with respect. Though you're a libertarian so that will be pretty hard.

and lol about me thinking being a parody is a bad thing. you should learn to read because that's all i've ever claimed to be.

[sjb2k1]

Yeah I can how someone would think that is stupid but I felt like the theory was worth defending here. I think it's annoying when white straight men get all whiney about equality only when they're excluded from something. There's a club here that won't let you in unless you're gay on a certain night and a bunch of my friends on facebook complain about it constantly.




Stop being a philistine and I'll address you with respect. Though you're a libertarian so that will be pretty hard.

and lol about me thinking being a parody is a bad thing. you should learn to read because that's all i've ever claimed to be.
totally get where you're coming from. just wanted to point out in this case it probably wasn't what was going on...i always find that kind of thing amusing. they're part of a historically privileged class, but omg i'm not allowed to do something oh no. i would assume with the club it could also be a case of safety, as well. there are plenty of people out there who go looking for trouble on nights like that...and i bet they don't complain on ladies night when chicks get in free or whatever.

[x togepi x]

totally get where you're coming from. just wanted to point out in this case it probably wasn't what was going on...i always find that kind of thing amusing. they're part of a historically privileged class, but omg i'm not allowed to do something oh no. i would assume with the club it could also be a case of safety, as well. there are plenty of people out there who go looking for trouble on nights like that...and i bet they don't complain on ladies night when chicks get in free or whatever.

Yeah, i mean from what little i've interacted with the dude who made this thread, he seems like a good dude who isn't abusing privilege and is just asking a question that i once had about women's shelters.

it's funny and annoying. it's especially funny since i doubt a lot of those guys would want to go if they were allowed to. i really hate how gay culture as been fetishized.

[DCfreak]

A group of feminists called me an asshole because I said I personally didn't support the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual) association at my university. Now, I have nothing wrong at all with any sexuality. It's personal characteristic and homophobia sickens me.

What i have a problem with is the fact that, by nature, it's a segregatory organisation. It lumps anyone who isn't straight into a group of "Others" which is so far off the mark of sexual equality that it doesn't make sense. In fact, one of their rules was that no heterosexual person would be allowed to attend meetings or social events. That is prejudice right there.

Also, all of their events were themed around extraordinarily specific gay themes (screenings of "The Birdcage" and "Prescila Queen of the Desert", pink and leather night). As a straight person, I find it offensive that this is a group that states that sexuality is the exact same thing as personality, character and interests.


If you want to be taken seriously as an organisation and do something good, work on intergration and understanding. Don't create a group with a persecution complex. We are all people. The whole point should be that sexuality doesn't matter.


I read this when you posted it a week ago. It intrigued me, so i asked a friend of mine that is the head of "Act Out" at Depaul University (Their LGBT group). She said it would take a while to respond... but she did.



First of all, i'm proud to say that Act-Out at DePaul does not do this at all. We are an LGBTQA organization that works with religious organizations, fraternities and sororities and volunteer organizations so that all parties involved can h...ave a greater understanding of one another. Activism through conversation and education is our motto, and, because misunderstanding (I believe) is so common in our community, Act-Out's focus on integration winthin all realms has helped me and many others look at sexuality in regards to social life, religion and what have you differently and more productively. However, Spectrum DePaul, is a fantastic group that is more centered on being LGBT and having fun with that. Both of our groups, have specifically LGBT related events.

Let me next say that personally, my sexuality is a part of my personality and my character because of the amount of time I've put into studying sexuality in general, working with it, discussing it, reading about it and even majoring in it. My sexuality, and sexuality in general, is a major part of who i am.

That being said, in a lot of ways the person who wrote this comment originally is missing the point of this specific LGBT group (I think). Though i don't understand why straight people would not be allowed (this is very confusing and I wonder if it is the truth or a misunderstanding, truly. I do not believe a rule could be 'no heterosexuals'), sexuality is a part of personality and character. And many times, people in the straight community who have never had to think about their sexuality, or how it relates them to the rest of the world, or how it **separates** them from the rest of the world, miss this point entirely. Its nice to think that LGBT people are making a big deal about nothing, but there is a lot of resistance still. Things are changing, but it is essential to look at this group not through a straight perspective of "why do they need to always do LGBT centric events" and examine it from the LGBT perspective of "where else can we find an open, welcoming environment where we can be.. gay"

Also, another look their events being specifically gay centric would find the perspective switch going from hetero-"why can't they find something else to watch together. Aren't they supposed to be integrating themselves into society" to the LGBT --"We need a place to feel comfortable being who we are in our sexuality. We need to find things that relate to us from the media because that is not what we primarily see outside of our gatherings. We are fully surrounded by straight media, we can use this time to remind ourselves that there are other people that went through the same things as us and there's proof in media"

I'm not saying that doing only LGBT centric events is the right move, but I don't see how not doing them is either. If it is an LGBT group it is formed because these people are the minority and feel that way. There's just no way right now that someone who is LGBT can be integrated into society, 100% because the same rights aren't there. It would be kind of silly, don't you think, to have a LGBT group where they watched movies like Meet the Parents or Dark Knight. What would be the point? The majority of people, straight society, would pick that over Priscilla Queen of the Desert anytime... and HAVE.

Also, within the "no heterosexuals" comment, because it keeps rubbing me the wrong way, I wonder if this LGBT group at this time can only deal with straight people who already recognize the label of Ally. Perhaps they don't feel like teaching heterosexuals the term because then he heterosexuals are not truly allies?

Heterosexual is different than allied because allied means you are supporting the cause, not trying to integrate LGBT into straight society, but rather supporting the fact that they ARE different because of their sexuality. That they DO feel that way. That they NEED to have this time together to recognize that part in themselves instead of ignoring it because its taboo like much of straight society has made it. I would bet money that if this kid went to the group meeting and said, I'm an ally, they would let him in. But I don't why they would screen members... i don't know how they could get away with that even within themselves. Something is missing here...

The feminists who called the writer an asshole were wrong, first and foremost, because this person was obviously interested in discussing the group and perhaps even supporting. However, I have to look at this from a different perspective. This comment is very fantasy world, I believe. We are people, yes, but we are all people with a lot of facets and a lot of differences. Sexuality is a really big difference right now. Whether you think it or not, there is a total, TOTAL, different look at LGBT people. Switch your thinking, would be my plea to this character. THink this: Sports can be a part of your personality and character. Drinking can be a part of your personality and character. Why should sexuality, which is SO INTEGRAL in your future choices, not be!? The 'heterosexual' perspective misses that point.

It IS different to be LGBT. It IS needed to have a place where you primarily will not be judged for that sexual expression. It IS the straight perspective that this writer has asking why in the ways in which are asked. Because, LGBT people are reminded daily, DAILY, that they are not part of majority society. That they are different. That there is something about them that separates them from other people... constantly. Its not fair to look at this comment from anything other than as it is. A straight person, not necessarily an ally, attacking a group because its a minority that comes together on that fact. Ask, why is it necessary for them to do that. Why is it essential for their comfort that heterosexuals not be there? I'm not saying that this group is necessarily right... but this writer isn't either.


For the 1 or 2 of you that didn't find that TLDR... A Friend of hers responded afterwords about her take on the question.

Well Katie.. I have little to add because you did a FANTASTIC job of answering that question.

I would probably call this person an asshole as well because I don't have the patience that Katie does and it doesn't really sound like he or she i...s really prepared to see another perspective. As a non-heterosexual I'm offended that this person is pissed about a queer group spending time doing queer things. The immediate assumption conditioned by every experience with straight society is that if you don't like the "extraordinarily specific gay themes" you want the group to have more "normal" (read straight) events. I can understand a longing for a group that is trying to overcme stereotypes and creating understanding (that is after all what Act Out does) but obviously that is not the mission of this particular group. It really seems that this person is complaining that this group is too gay, but it seems the group exists to provide a safe and fun community where non-normative people can come together and be who they are (and as gay as they want to be).

A queer identity is just as much a part of a person's personality and character as any other community identity such as religion or race. There are tons of groups on college campuses that are for one specific community to come together. I feel that if you transfer the authors argument to apply to other communities on campus it obvious how ridiculous it is.

The Christian group on campus always does stuff that is so religious. They don't include atheists and are just segregating themselves.
The Black Student Union is discriminatory because it is geared entirely towards black students.

I just don't think that there is anything offensive about a group coming together to celebrate one thing that they have in common and existing entirely within one community. Why should they be catering to the interests of those who aren't in that community? That isn't what the group is there for.

"the whole point should be that sexuality doesn't matter." BUT IT DOES!!! That is such a priveleged statment that I can't stand it! If you are heterosxual you have the privelege that your sexuality doesn't matter. Not everyone does. When you are constantly told not to be yourself, to fit in, to be "normal," that you shouldn't be so different your sexuality does matter. It is a part of who you are. It makes you different and that is a wonderful thing.

The point should be that everyone should have equal treatment, rights, and opportunities regardless of sexuality even though sexuality matters a great deal. Bottom line: If you are asking someone who is non-normative to be more normal, you are not accepting or respecting them. I can't blame them for not encouraging a person like that to join their group. This person doesn't understand what his/her queer peers experience and their safe space and supportive community is not the place to educate him/her

[sjb2k1]

jesus lord i read that whole thing.

/comment

[matt_rawlings]

I read this when you posted it a week ago. It intrigued me, so i asked a friend of mine that is the head of "Act Out" at Depaul University (Their LGBT group). She said it would take a while to respond... but she did.



First of all, i'm proud to say that Act-Out at DePaul does not do this at all. We are an LGBTQA organization that works with religious organizations, fraternities and sororities and volunteer organizations so that all parties involved can h...ave a greater understanding of one another. Activism through conversation and education is our motto, and, because misunderstanding (I believe) is so common in our community, Act-Out's focus on integration winthin all realms has helped me and many others look at sexuality in regards to social life, religion and what have you differently and more productively. However, Spectrum DePaul, is a fantastic group that is more centered on being LGBT and having fun with that. Both of our groups, have specifically LGBT related events.

Let me next say that personally, my sexuality is a part of my personality and my character because of the amount of time I've put into studying sexuality in general, working with it, discussing it, reading about it and even majoring in it. My sexuality, and sexuality in general, is a major part of who i am.

That being said, in a lot of ways the person who wrote this comment originally is missing the point of this specific LGBT group (I think). Though i don't understand why straight people would not be allowed (this is very confusing and I wonder if it is the truth or a misunderstanding, truly. I do not believe a rule could be 'no heterosexuals'), sexuality is a part of personality and character. And many times, people in the straight community who have never had to think about their sexuality, or how it relates them to the rest of the world, or how it **separates** them from the rest of the world, miss this point entirely. Its nice to think that LGBT people are making a big deal about nothing, but there is a lot of resistance still. Things are changing, but it is essential to look at this group not through a straight perspective of "why do they need to always do LGBT centric events" and examine it from the LGBT perspective of "where else can we find an open, welcoming environment where we can be.. gay"

Also, another look their events being specifically gay centric would find the perspective switch going from hetero-"why can't they find something else to watch together. Aren't they supposed to be integrating themselves into society" to the LGBT --"We need a place to feel comfortable being who we are in our sexuality. We need to find things that relate to us from the media because that is not what we primarily see outside of our gatherings. We are fully surrounded by straight media, we can use this time to remind ourselves that there are other people that went through the same things as us and there's proof in media"

I'm not saying that doing only LGBT centric events is the right move, but I don't see how not doing them is either. If it is an LGBT group it is formed because these people are the minority and feel that way. There's just no way right now that someone who is LGBT can be integrated into society, 100% because the same rights aren't there. It would be kind of silly, don't you think, to have a LGBT group where they watched movies like Meet the Parents or Dark Knight. What would be the point? The majority of people, straight society, would pick that over Priscilla Queen of the Desert anytime... and HAVE.

Also, within the "no heterosexuals" comment, because it keeps rubbing me the wrong way, I wonder if this LGBT group at this time can only deal with straight people who already recognize the label of Ally. Perhaps they don't feel like teaching heterosexuals the term because then he heterosexuals are not truly allies?

Heterosexual is different than allied because allied means you are supporting the cause, not trying to integrate LGBT into straight society, but rather supporting the fact that they ARE different because of their sexuality. That they DO feel that way. That they NEED to have this time together to recognize that part in themselves instead of ignoring it because its taboo like much of straight society has made it. I would bet money that if this kid went to the group meeting and said, I'm an ally, they would let him in. But I don't why they would screen members... i don't know how they could get away with that even within themselves. Something is missing here...

The feminists who called the writer an asshole were wrong, first and foremost, because this person was obviously interested in discussing the group and perhaps even supporting. However, I have to look at this from a different perspective. This comment is very fantasy world, I believe. We are people, yes, but we are all people with a lot of facets and a lot of differences. Sexuality is a really big difference right now. Whether you think it or not, there is a total, TOTAL, different look at LGBT people. Switch your thinking, would be my plea to this character. THink this: Sports can be a part of your personality and character. Drinking can be a part of your personality and character. Why should sexuality, which is SO INTEGRAL in your future choices, not be!? The 'heterosexual' perspective misses that point.

It IS different to be LGBT. It IS needed to have a place where you primarily will not be judged for that sexual expression. It IS the straight perspective that this writer has asking why in the ways in which are asked. Because, LGBT people are reminded daily, DAILY, that they are not part of majority society. That they are different. That there is something about them that separates them from other people... constantly. Its not fair to look at this comment from anything other than as it is. A straight person, not necessarily an ally, attacking a group because its a minority that comes together on that fact. Ask, why is it necessary for them to do that. Why is it essential for their comfort that heterosexuals not be there? I'm not saying that this group is necessarily right... but this writer isn't either.


For the 1 or 2 of you that didn't find that TLDR... A Friend of hers responded afterwords about her take on the question.

Well Katie.. I have little to add because you did a FANTASTIC job of answering that question.

I would probably call this person an asshole as well because I don't have the patience that Katie does and it doesn't really sound like he or she i...s really prepared to see another perspective. As a non-heterosexual I'm offended that this person is pissed about a queer group spending time doing queer things. The immediate assumption conditioned by every experience with straight society is that if you don't like the "extraordinarily specific gay themes" you want the group to have more "normal" (read straight) events. I can understand a longing for a group that is trying to overcme stereotypes and creating understanding (that is after all what Act Out does) but obviously that is not the mission of this particular group. It really seems that this person is complaining that this group is too gay, but it seems the group exists to provide a safe and fun community where non-normative people can come together and be who they are (and as gay as they want to be).

A queer identity is just as much a part of a person's personality and character as any other community identity such as religion or race. There are tons of groups on college campuses that are for one specific community to come together. I feel that if you transfer the authors argument to apply to other communities on campus it obvious how ridiculous it is.

The Christian group on campus always does stuff that is so religious. They don't include atheists and are just segregating themselves.
The Black Student Union is discriminatory because it is geared entirely towards black students.

I just don't think that there is anything offensive about a group coming together to celebrate one thing that they have in common and existing entirely within one community. Why should they be catering to the interests of those who aren't in that community? That isn't what the group is there for.

"the whole point should be that sexuality doesn't matter." BUT IT DOES!!! That is such a priveleged statment that I can't stand it! If you are heterosxual you have the privelege that your sexuality doesn't matter. Not everyone does. When you are constantly told not to be yourself, to fit in, to be "normal," that you shouldn't be so different your sexuality does matter. It is a part of who you are. It makes you different and that is a wonderful thing.

The point should be that everyone should have equal treatment, rights, and opportunities regardless of sexuality even though sexuality matters a great deal. Bottom line: If you are asking someone who is non-normative to be more normal, you are not accepting or respecting them. I can't blame them for not encouraging a person like that to join their group. This person doesn't understand what his/her queer peers experience and their safe space and supportive community is not the place to educate him/her






I would like to comment on a few issues raised here;

Numerous members of my own family, as well as flat mates, colleges and friends are homosexual and it is a non-issue for me because I judge people on character and how they treat other people (not sexuality, race etc). All people have the capacity for good, as well as the capacity for bad. People are people. I have helped to raise money for and been an active participant in gay rights marches and events around campus and to show support for my friends on several instances. Saying I am unable to see things from a non-heterosexual perspective deeply offends me and I am sorry you feel like that as it couldn't be further from the truth. What I was saying is that all activities were limited exclusively to entirely gay themes at the behest of some of the actual members. I am heterosexual, yes. Does that me that every single event I ever attend has to be entirely based in stereotypes of heterosexuality? It would be like if every time I went out with my friends we watched sports themed films, or watched sport on tv at a sports bar while wearing football jerseys. That would be a non-representative and general stereotype of masculinity in the heterosexual male. I have absolutely no issue with LGBT events having gay-centric themes or ideals behind them, it's a means of expression and a fun environment to make friends and have a good time. What blows my mind is the complete lack of variety outside of expressly gay cinema or themes.


I understand that their has been prejudice and people feel the need for a 'safe place' where they can bond in activities that address their own sexual and ethnographic feelings and beliefs. What I was pointing out it that this organisation HAD A STRICT NO-HETEROSEXUAL policy. This was not a misunderstanding on my part, as I have now 100% confirmed with a former head of events at the University as well as 8 members of the LGBT chapter in question. With a changing of LGBT coordination and after a review, this rule has now been changed and they now admit people of any sexual orientation. Speaking to the new head, a number of people left in protest at this change. This I see is a good thing because the society can be representative of what it should be.

When I set out my example, I was expressing a concern at the chapter of LGBT at my university, not all university's. I actively support such organisations as I would any organisation that allows people to bond and develop connections over similar beliefs and interests. I was merely highlighting the issues I had with ONE GROUP in a world of fantastic groups.

Thanks for your reply, but not for the premature judgement based entirely on me having issues with beaurocratic hypocrisy.

[x togepi x]

yeah if that group is just pushing stupid stereotypes of homosexuality, they're a waste of time.

[x togepi x]

i think you should reread what he said. He's talking about problems he had with the structure of the organization.

[saysmydoctor]

Togepi, I have to admit I'm a little torn about your defense of the practice. I'd like you to elaborate a little bit more--I'm not sure where and concerning what, so I guess starting from the beginning would be best. The way I see it, both sides of it have a fair point.

[DCfreak]

I would like to comment on a few issues raised here;

Numerous members of my own family, as well as flat mates, colleges and friends are homosexual and it is a non-issue for me because I judge people on character and how they treat other people (not sexuality, race etc). All people have the capacity for good, as well as the capacity for bad. People are people. I have helped to raise money for and been an active participant in gay rights marches and events around campus and to show support for my friends on several instances. Saying I am unable to see things from a non-heterosexual perspective deeply offends me and I am sorry you feel like that as it couldn't be further from the truth. What I was saying is that all activities were limited exclusively to entirely gay themes at the behest of some of the actual members. I am heterosexual, yes. Does that me that every single event I ever attend has to be entirely based in stereotypes of heterosexuality? It would be like if every time I went out with my friends we watched sports themed films, or watched sport on tv at a sports bar while wearing football jerseys. That would be a non-representative and general stereotype of masculinity in the heterosexual male. I have absolutely no issue with LGBT events having gay-centric themes or ideals behind them, it's a means of expression and a fun environment to make friends and have a good time. What blows my mind is the complete lack of variety outside of expressly gay cinema or themes.


I understand that their has been prejudice and people feel the need for a 'safe place' where they can bond in activities that address their own sexual and ethnographic feelings and beliefs. What I was pointing out it that this organisation HAD A STRICT NO-HETEROSEXUAL policy. This was not a misunderstanding on my part, as I have now 100% confirmed with a former head of events at the University as well as 8 members of the LGBT chapter in question. With a changing of LGBT coordination and after a review, this rule has now been changed and they now admit people of any sexual orientation. Speaking to the new head, a number of people left in protest at this change. This I see is a good thing because the society can be representative of what it should be.

When I set out my example, I was expressing a concern at the chapter of LGBT at my university, not all university's. I actively support such organisations as I would any organisation that allows people to bond and develop connections over similar beliefs and interests. I was merely highlighting the issues I had with ONE GROUP in a world of fantastic groups.

Thanks for your reply, but not for the premature judgement based entirely on me having issues with beaurocratic hypocrisy.

I understand that your direct complaint was with that specific group and its rules, but many of your arguments were worthy of discussion concerning all LGBT groups. I do not think my friend was directly attacking you and you really don't need to be so defensive. However, I don't think anyone in here would argue that an LGBT group should exclude heterosexuals. There is more to your argument than just that and I thought it would be worth it to hear someone elses opinion.

(deleted and reposted for sake of editing)

[x togepi x]

Togepi, I have to admit I'm a little torn about your defense of the practice. I'd like you to elaborate a little bit more--I'm not sure where and concerning what, so I guess starting from the beginning would be best. The way I see it, both sides of it have a fair point.

what exactly are you having trouble with?

[saysmydoctor]

what exactly are you having trouble with?
I don't understand how you can seek inclusion while be exclusionary. I get the rationale, I don't see it as being effective.

I do back your reasoning for not volunteering though. Participation in groups has become all the status and the flaunting and less about the cause and that's kind of obnoxious in my opinion.

[x togepi x]

I don't understand how you can seek inclusion while be exclusionary. I get the rationale, I don't see it as being effective.

I do back your reasoning for not volunteering though. Participation in groups has become all the status and the flaunting and less about the cause and that's kind of obnoxious in my opinion.

The reason this radical approach is being considered by those who adopt it is that they don't like the mainstream definition of tolerance/inclusiveness. A lot of focus is placed on the idea that homosexuality ought to be tolerated, but if you look at idea of tolerance at its root, you still see an implicit judgement (ie: i don't like what you're doing but i'll tolerate it because i'm open minded). Acceptance is what is necessary for a truly inclusive group/society.

The problem is that acceptance isn't necessarily happening in those GBLT groups. What you end up getting is a ton of straight people patting themselves on the back for being allies and then continuing to carrying on other prejudicial or stereotypical views of GBLT people. A lot of what mainline GBLT groups promote is this idea that we're all the same. While this is a great idea for public relations, carrying this position often excludes essentially any GBLT person that doesn't fit in that little box of "acceptable gayness". For example, look at how trans people are talked about, even by liberal gay rights allies.

It isn't just straight people that are the problem. Lots of GBLT people have internalized attitudes that are equally problematic. Listen to how some gay men talk about bi men or how a lot of the so-called gay culture is essentially the promotion of a rich, white, skinny dude as the ideal. Hell, there are a lot of gay men who are extremely territorial and willing to destroy attempts at unity just to preserve their uniqueness. There seems to be this view that the community is a perfect tolerant place but it's really not.

I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding who the target of the radical approach is. It's not meant to appeal to the middle or those who think homosexuality is bad. It's meant to target the GBLT groups/activists to point out that they themselves have their problems. The idea is that those groups, seeing the radicals who are excluding themselves from their organization will re-examine their positions/approaches in order to reach out to them. I agree with the idea that this approach does nothing to persuade the average person to fight for gay rights, but I just want to point out that not every approach targets the average person.

essentially, the question shouldn't be "why are these people excluding us from their group?" but "why do these people feel the need to be separate from us and how can we rectify our own group to make them feel more comfortable?"

[saysmydoctor]

The reason this radical approach is being considered by those who adopt it is that they don't like the mainstream definition of tolerance/inclusiveness. A lot of focus is placed on the idea that homosexuality ought to be tolerated, but if you look at idea of tolerance at its root, you still see an implicit judgement (ie: i don't like what you're doing but i'll tolerate it because i'm open minded). Acceptance is what is necessary for a truly inclusive group/society.

The problem is that acceptance isn't necessarily happening in those GBLT groups. What you end up getting is a ton of straight people patting themselves on the back for being allies and then continuing to carrying on other prejudicial or stereotypical views of GBLT people. A lot of what mainline GBLT groups promote is this idea that we're all the same. While this is a great idea for public relations, carrying this position often excludes essentially any GBLT person that doesn't fit in that little box of "acceptable gayness". For example, look at how trans people are talked about, even by liberal gay rights allies.

It isn't just straight people that are the problem. Lots of GBLT people have internalized attitudes that are equally problematic. Listen to how some gay men talk about bi men or how a lot of the so-called gay culture is essentially the promotion of a rich, white, skinny dude as the ideal. Hell, there are a lot of gay men who are extremely territorial and willing to destroy attempts at unity just to preserve their uniqueness. There seems to be this view that the community is a perfect tolerant place but it's really not.

I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding who the target of the radical approach is. It's not meant to appeal to the middle or those who think homosexuality is bad. It's meant to target the GBLT groups/activists to point out that they themselves have their problems. The idea is that those groups, seeing the radicals who are excluding themselves from their organization will re-examine their positions/approaches in order to reach out to them. I agree with the idea that this approach does nothing to persuade the average person to fight for gay rights, but I just want to point out that not every approach targets the average person.

essentially, the question shouldn't be "why are these people excluding us from their group?" but "why do these people feel the need to be separate from us and how can we rectify our own group to make them feel more comfortable?"
I agree with this. A lot. Thanks for expanding.

[matt_rawlings]

I understand that your direct complaint was with that specific group and its rules, but many of your arguments were worthy of discussion concerning all LGBT groups. I do not think my friend was directly attacking you and you really don't need to be so defensive. However, I don't think anyone in here would argue that an LGBT group should exclude heterosexuals. There is more to your argument than just that and I thought it would be worth it to hear someone elses opinion.

(deleted and reposted for sake of editing)

One of your friends referred to me as an asshole despite having never met me or knowing of my circumstance, based entirely on me questioning the motivations of one individual group within one branch of a worldwide syndicated network of support for LGBT groups. Also, how am I being defensive if I address issues raised within a general discussion? I believe that is called diplomacy and considerate thought within a healthy discussion. I was in no way inflammatory or retaliatory in my comments.