[lbo-talk] Queer-baiting the homophobes: The gist of it

[shag carpet bomb]

At 11:09 PM 10/25/2009, John Adams wrote:
>It occurs to me that I should make it as easy as possible to get 
>critiqued. Here's the situation: One of our senators, Blanche Lincoln, says:
>
>"Thank you for contacting me regarding the Employment Non-Discrimination 
>Act (S. 1584) which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis 
>of sexual orientation and gender identity. However, equal rights should 
>not become special rights, and I appreciate you taking time to share your 
>thoughts with me on this important issue. You can be sure I will remember 
>the concerns you raised if this or similar legislation is considered in 
>the U.S. Senate....."
>
>To which there was an immediate accusation that Blanche Lincoln is a 
>closeted lesbian:
>
>"She's the Tom Cruise of Arkansas politics and just like all the other 
>closet dykes.
>
>"Blanche Lincoln is butcher than Rosie O'Donnell. This is SUCH old news."
>
>And here's the central section of what I had to say:
>
>"Now, as to the misogyny and homophobia expressed toward Blanche Lincoln 
>(whose politics are indeed homophobic) in this thread, well, look:
>
>"In this sexist society, a woman in a leadership position traditionally 
>held by males is damned if she does (that is, looks feminine) and damned 
>if she doesn't (that is, looks tomboyish instead). What's more, by blaming 
>the homophobia of a politician on the politician supposedly being 
>closeted, you are excusing the broader homophobia overwhelmingly exercised 
>by straight homophobes. Instead, you are blaming homophobia on--who 
>else?--a homosexual. (That's not to excuse the hypocritical homophobia 
>often expressed by closeted politicians, just to put it in perspective.) 
>Think back as to how frequently in these comments some right-wing bigot 
>gets accused of being homosexual (and why should that be the accusation, 
>instead of the hypocrisy? Why, because of homophobia). To read these 
>threads, the only homophobes are closeted homosexuals. That's a 
>comfortable, safe way for straight people to argue."
>
>Thanks,
>
>       John A
>       http://www.arkansawyer.com/wordpress/

i guess i would just refer to it as heterosexist. i don't think people are 
afraid of queers. maybe some are. but i think it unnecessarily 
psychologizes the issue. although I think Debz in Texas has argued strongly 
against my position, and her argument is one that makes me pause. Brian may 
have also argued same here, but I can't really remember and too lazy to 
cruise the archives at the moment.

Who's the audience? I take it they're folks angry with her for her 
position, so ostensibly on the anti-heterosexism side. do you know they're 
all hets, though? i think, in general, there's a lot of sympathy for the 
idea that the people opposed to gay struggles, who often do the most 
damaging things to queer struggles, are closeted. and it's not just 
straights who think this. i caught the last five minutes of an HBO 
documentary about this the other night -- the argument being that people 
like Charlie Christ are overcompensating or something. But I think you're 
right that this sort of thing can be damaging. When queer people are doing 
it, though, and not hets I think the argument is something like: well *I* 
can call others like me what I want to.

And I wouldn't call anyone a hypocrite -- logical fallacy anyway. The 
answer to the charge is "so what?" especially if they are Christian. Just 
because someone argues that something is wrong, it doesn't follow that, by 
doing it, they have somehow invalidated their argument. I suppose, if the 
goal is to humiliate the target of criticism, but why? As you suggest, such 
humiliation is precisely the sort of thing we're supposed to be opposed to 
if we are trying to dismantle heterosexism.

shag