From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
> Again, this seems to be your personal definition of what a radical is and
how she would act.
^^^^
CB: It is a definition that some others would share, but what other definition of "radical" did you think I would use but mine ? What's your definition of "radical" ?
^^^^^^
The radical left has an okay history. I have older friends who were kicked out of the Communist Party for being gay.
^^^^^^ CB: I forget what your point is here ? The left has moved in the direction you favor over the years.
^^^^^
> A liberal elevates "freedom" of criticism above defense of the revolution
in unity against the counterrevolution.
How about the disunity radicals showed by oppressing queers and denying them full equality?
^^^^^ CB: There isn't significant oppression of queers by radicals or power to deny them full equality.
If you are saying that the radicals in Cuba have not made enough progress for you, and that is disunity with you, and so you join the liberal critics of Cuba, go ahead and do your thing.
> Who are you speaking to in the U.S. and what do you expect them to do in
Cuba?
I am speaking to radicals in Cuba and the US who would spread disunion in the movement by supporting queer oppression.
^^^^ CB: Fine.
^^^^^^
> Why is it that you feel you must speak to Americans about things wrong in
Cuba?
Because I think it is dangerous to praise a model of revolution that has not striven for sexual equality. Had radicals spoken up when Stalin began his campaigns against queers, maybe those who looked to Stalin as a model would not have incorporated the same hate in their version of the struggle.
^^^^^ CB: Uhuh. Do I understand that you support the communist revolution ?
^^^^^
> What are you trying to get Americans to do?
Support the right to sexual self determination everywhere.
^^^^^ CB: Right now it's more important to get the Americans out of everywhere, and stop them from "supporting" anything anywhere, except in their own country.
^^^^^^
> But not everybody who is a same sexer down through history is bred in the
bone. Many come through socially constructed processes.
What do you mean?
^^^^ CB: It is not in their genes ,but learned after they are born like most things human.
^^^^^
> Are you saying that all gayness is biologically inherited when you
say"bred in the bone"?
Queer desire is part of some human being's software. Just like het desire is part of other people's.
^^^^ CB: Software or hardware ? Anyway "bred in the bone" seems to mean inherited in genes ( and proteins ? :>)) from parents, not learned after being born.
^^^^^^
> I mean that some people are born gay and some people learn it.
How do you learn to be gay? How do you learn desire?
^^^^ CB: Somebody teaches you or an experience teaches you. How do you acquire a taste/desire for wine or coffee or baseball ?
^^^
Having sex with a man doesn't mean that you have gay desire. People eat caviar because they think it is posh without ever having a taste for it.
^^^^^ CB: OK. You might want to elaborate.
^^^^^^^
> People weren't homophobic and then started trying to rationalize it by
saying it was associated with the rich. It was associated with the rich in
fact, and then people made the connection.
See Homophobia: A History by Byrne Fone (2000).
^^^^^^ CB: What does he say ?
^^^^
> Right you continue to be queer, and you associate your queerness with the
other rightwing and liberal critics of Cuba.
You associate my queerness with critics of Cuba. That is your connection not mine.
^^^^^^ CB: No , that is the connection you put yourself in.
^^^^^^
> In fact, you are the one falling in step with the "Hitlers" of today who
run the USA. That's what I am advising you on. Don't associate yourself with
anti-Cuban, "Hitler"-USA, because there is a ruling class, gay tradition
too, and you will be categorized in it.
The Hitler's are the ones who oppress queers and do not support sexual self determination for all people.
^^^^^^^ CB: That's your definition of "the Hitlers". Mine is more historically based in what Hitler actually did.