Louis writes:
> I would like to know more specifically what you mean
by 'queers' -- including who is included and excluded from
your definition.
Queers are non-gender-specific humans that define themselves, not against heterosexuality, but against the normative. Queers resist the regimes of the normal.
> Also, if you could provide links to 'queer' sites that you say
leftists should read, I would appreciate it.
Doug writes:
> Yeah American unions are fucked up but they're American,
so what else do you expect?
So that is the excuse. Since unions are fucked up, they can practice heterosexism and we should still defend them.
Duncan writes:
> So, setting aside Michael's original quandary, what is the
fascination here with exceptional cases?
Because these cases are causing actual harm to queers. This is not theoretical, it is actual.
> but this is just the kind of meme I'd sow if I wanted to watch
the fractured left pry itself apart some more.
If I wanted to split the left I would make sure that my union redefined marriage to exclude queers and did not support marriage equality for queers.
John L writes:
> There are lots of unions that take all kinds of fucked-up positions,
often because their leadership either shares or capitulates to fucked-up
and backward attitudes among their membership.
Aren't leaders supposed to rise above the fucked-up and backward attitudes of their membership and work for the greater good and respect for basic human rights? Or are leaders just supposed to mimic the idiocy and hatred of their membership?
> Machinists were openly calling for the incineration of thousands of Arabs
and Muslims regardless of whether they were innocent of any crime. It does
NOT follow that you should then support their boss if they get into a fight
with the boss over wages, pensions or what-have-you.
Nor does it follow that you should support them. Unless you are arguing that unions should be supported no matter what -- without regard for whatever racist, hetero/sexist, ageist positions they support. Is that your position John L?
> I made the analogy with the HRC -- and I agree that it's hard to
imagine the HRC calling a demonstration about anything, but you
get my point, don't you? -- because I was trying to show that the
content of an action matters more than the overall attitude and
opinions of the people involved in it.
No, I disagree. Content of action is equally important to the actions and positions of the leadership and membership of the group calling for the action.
> If we can expect solidarity from and for only people who accept
the full measure of everything we believe, we will get nowhere.
But I think we can expect agreement and support for basic human rights. If you disagree with me, I am curious as to what your reasons are.
> The queer liberation struggle does not deserve to get fucked over
by others just because the HRC may be in the lead in a particular
case and its leaders are assholes.
Yes it does. Queers deserve whatever they get for allowing HRC to assume a leadership position. HRC is a racist, classist organization that needs to be destabilized before it does any more harm.
> The same goes for IBEW members -- and by the way, if you think
that there are no queers in the trades (particularly among women!),
you are out of your mind . . .
When did I post otherwise?
> and they deserve decent wages, pensions, opportunities for training
and upgrade and all the good things that go along with being a union
member.
Many of these good things come from marriage equality as well. It seems to me that a union that rejects marriage equality and practices heterosexism is acting in opposition to its own stated goals.
> Like I said before, if the IBEW actively pickets against gay rights,
you have the right -- no, let me be "authoritarian" (functional definition:
saying that we all have responsibilities and standards that we ought to
live up to) again and say you have the OBLIGATION -- to undermine
that and fight against it.
They are doing WORSE than picket. They have turned themselves into tools of heterosexism. They are presenting a model of a union which believes that it is proper to engage in heterosexism. By doing this they are providing cover for other unions to follow suit. "Hey the IBEW did it, so it must be okay."
> If they picket for better wages and working conditions for union
members, and you try to undermine them then, then you are indeed
siding with their boss because there are only two sides in a situation
like that -- and you would be a scab.
More reductive thinking. There are always more than two sides. You just refuse to acknowledge them. But your refusal does not negate their existence.
> Once again, what is so difficult about this?
Reductive thinking is just not my thang. It may work for you, but I live in a world of nuance and find that the blinkers you promote are not a good fit for me.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister