Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[SecretAgentMa'am]

The major ethic I've taken from the queer community in the scant few years I've really been part of it is "I won't ever tell you you're wrong if you won't ever tell me I'm wrong." We're all so concerned with never being questioned and never having to explain ourselves that we have this vast, unspoken agreement that no one should ever have to explain anything, and anyone who breaks this unspoken agreement is treated pretty harshly.

I think this is a big part of the problem. If you never have to explain yourself, you're never held accountable for anything. The community in general has this idea that you can spout off any old thing you want, and if you follow it up with "well, that's my truth" then no one gets to question you, no matter how sexist, racist, misogynist, hateful, or just plain factually wrong you might be.

The thing is, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot with this way of thinking. When people on the other side of the political spectrum from us, the ones who think we're horrible deviants with no moral center who deserve to be oppressed, talk about how we don't have any sense of right and wrong, or any morals or values, how we think everything is okay and there's no such thing as a moral wrong, this is what they're talking about. If we can't stand up within our own community and say "No, this is wrong, this behavior is not acceptable" then how can we complain when people who don't like us point out that we won't do just that and use it against us?

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

The major ethic I've taken from the queer community in the scant few years I've really been part of it is "I won't ever tell you you're wrong if you won't ever tell me I'm wrong." We're all so concerned with never being questioned and never having to explain ourselves that we have this vast, unspoken agreement that no one should ever have to explain anything, and anyone who breaks this unspoken agreement is treated pretty harshly.

I think this is a big part of the problem. If you never have to explain yourself, you're never held accountable for anything. The community in general has this idea that you can spout off any old thing you want, and if you follow it up with "well, that's my truth" then no one gets to question you, no matter how sexist, racist, misogynist, hateful, or just plain factually wrong you might be.

The thing is, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot with this way of thinking. When people on the other side of the political spectrum from us, the ones who think we're horrible deviants with no moral center who deserve to be oppressed, talk about how we don't have any sense of right and wrong, or any morals or values, how we think everything is okay and there's no such thing as a moral wrong, this is what they're talking about. If we can't stand up within our own community and say "No, this is wrong, this behavior is not acceptable" then how can we complain when people who don't like us point out that we won't do just that and use it against us?

I agree with you about our community being accountable. In my opinion, if we cannot start with being accountable to one another here, then ? I am having a problem with the "moral" statement. Who's morality? There are some that think our way of life is NOT moral and I would disagree.

I don't want to get caught up in another round of semantics. Thank you for posting your thoughts, and I support you in speaking up.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I'm not actually talking about being called out for who you are. More not being called for what you do because of who you are.

"I'm a woman, I can act however I want and it can't be sexist."
"I'm a transman, I don't have male privilege to throw around."
"I'm a POC, nothing I say can be racist."

That's what I'm talking about.

Also, regarding morals: I think we've made a big mistake in not being willing to claim morals or take a moral stand. Yes, some people think we're all immoral. My moral center says those people are the ones who are immoral. If one side says they're taking a moral stand, and those they're opposed to won't, things will continue just as they are. Different people have different morals, and we would help ourselves a lot more by standing up and claiming *our* morals and holding them up against the morals of the opposition. As long as only one side is willing to claim a moral stand, only one side will be seen as moral. This is one of those cases where we need to be willing to say "no, what you're calling moral is actually wrong and immoral."

Originally Posted by Greyson

I agree with you about our community being accountable. In my opinion, if we cannot start with being accountable to one another here, then ? I am having a problem with the "moral" statement. Who's morality? There are some that think our way of life is NOT moral and I would disagree.

I don't want to get caught up in another round of semantics. Thank you for posting your thoughts, and I support you in speaking up.

I am going to say that we do need to talk about morality. Dr. King gets invoked a lot and, quite honestly, I find it tiresome but I'm going to invoke him today. I'm invoking him because the *reason* why a national monument was opened in his honor this week is because he spoke for a moral vision. He said to America that the struggle for civil rights WAS a moral struggle and that one side was wrong and it wasn't his. He was, in fact, right. The struggle I was a beneficiary was was first and foremost a moral struggle because segregation was first and foremost a moral stain on our country. I believe that our struggle is a moral struggle, that there is the right side of that struggle and the wrong side of that struggle and those who argue that queer people have no place in society because this or that holy book says we don't are on the wrong side of it.

You ask what morality? I don't know that I have specifics but let me toss out a touchstone that I wish I had thought of but I didn't. If we ask ourselves "would I feel comfortable if everyone applied this rule, behaved this way, held this ethic" and if we can come away with a yes (or perhaps even a probably) then chances are that's a pretty good bet that you're onto something that works. It works in so many domains and I think if we use that as our flashlight and our machete as we hack through the underbrush then I think we will likely do more good than harm.

Why? Because let us assume that people don't want to screw themselves over. I don't. I'm willing to take some things on the chin but I'm not going to intentionally put my family on the street! Once we get past the simple stuff (the not killing, not taking other people's stuff, etc.) and we get to the knotty issues that touchstone really comes in handy.

How would I like to be spoken to? Well, I prefer not to have racial slurs thrown at me. Since I cannot think of a single good reason--certainly not one any of y'all would accept--that I should be able to use racial or sexist language but you can't, I should avoid using racial or sexist language. I prefer not to be pushed in the mud, so I won't push you in the mud so that you won't push me in the mud. Is that a perfect moral system? No, there is no such animal. It is workable, though.

So what kind of morality? All people have worth and value. Their worth and value is intrinsic to them being human beings. All people have rights, those rights adhere to them BECAUSE they are human beings and injustice entails denying them their rights because of this or that fully arbitrary trait. (This allows us to seriously constrain the rights of, for instance, a serial rapist who has proven he has no interest in playing nice with the rest of us) All people have a right to bodily integrity meaning that violence against persons is wrong.

This doesn't give us a list of moral codes but it begins to form the outline of a morality by talking about the values we hold dear.

Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Yes, but I really don't want anyone to call me out for who I am...it is none of anyone's business.

Individual bad behavior? Yes Who I am? No

Admittedly I live in the South where we talk behind people's backs and never to their faces, but who am I to make moral judgements for other people outside of the basics?

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I'm not actually talking about being called out for who you are. More not being called for what you do because of who you are.

"I'm a woman, I can act however I want and it can't be sexist."
"I'm a transman, I don't have male privilege to throw around."
"I'm a POC, nothing I say can be racist."

That's what I'm talking about.

Also, regarding morals: I think we've made a big mistake in not being willing to claim morals or take a moral stand. Yes, some people think we're all immoral. My moral center says those people are the ones who are immoral. If one side says they're taking a moral stand, and those they're opposed to won't, things will continue just as they are. Different people have different morals, and we would help ourselves a lot more by standing up and claiming *our* morals and holding them up against the morals of the opposition. As long as only one side is willing to claim a moral stand, only one side will be seen as moral. This is one of those cases where we need to be willing to say "no, what you're calling moral is actually wrong and immoral."

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

"I'm a woman, I can act however I want and it can't be sexist."
"I'm a transman, I don't have male privilege to throw around."
"I'm a POC, nothing I say can be racist."

That's what I'm talking about.

Thank you.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I use words like bitch, cunt towards both men and women. I have posted in language that isn't appealing. Aj you stopped me in my tracks in The Racism thread about behaviour expectations of being the better person. I've not posted in there since because you're right I know better and should know better. I don't know how easy how it's going to be calling out community when it comes to isms. "I" feel when and if you do call them out some people will either have this need to only listen to those who post in verbiage that's acceptable. Also it's just downright tiring to always or to see stuff and watch it get unnoticed. Sometimes some of us want to say more and we don't know how to use academic language that won't sound "angry". I find myself once again relearning things from communications that have gone on, are going on and hopefully will continue on. Thanks for the kick in the rear and reminding us to unpack our shit. It's time it seems. How much people will depends on putting trust that when you are no one holds it against us.

[Medusa]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

The major ethic I've taken from the queer community in the scant few years I've really been part of it is "I won't ever tell you you're wrong if you won't ever tell me I'm wrong." We're all so concerned with never being questioned and never having to explain ourselves that we have this vast, unspoken agreement that no one should ever have to explain anything, and anyone who breaks this unspoken agreement is treated pretty harshly.

I think this is a big part of the problem. If you never have to explain yourself, you're never held accountable for anything. The community in general has this idea that you can spout off any old thing you want, and if you follow it up with "well, that's my truth" then no one gets to question you, no matter how sexist, racist, misogynist, hateful, or just plain factually wrong you might be.

I'd like to echo this sentiment.

One thing I have seen and experienced is that folks are often super quick to label someone a "bully" for saying "Hey, that thing you just said is fucked up". If 3 or 4 people come in and say the same thing, then they are a "clique" or a "gang". Instead of becoming people who think that thing you just said is fucked up, they are people who have "targeted" you in some way and specifically have sought out your postings so they can "shred them" or "rip them apart" for entertainment.

It's that whole "whoever can claim "victim" first" thing wins. Or perhaps it's whoever labels another person "opressor" first?

Either way, I have seen it stifle more discussions than I can remember and think that it is damaging behavior. I've employed this behavior myself even when I didn't realize it because I often interpreted "I don't agree" with "you suck and are a x, y, z". I try to keep in mind now that disagreement does not equate "value judgment" (until it does).

Also, the "my truth" thing - and I think we have a thread on this somewhere? We bend over backwards to hear people's "truths" even when those "truths" are things like "Every fat person I have ever known stinks" or "I once saw a real live troll leaving candy under my bed". There's a place for us to go "Your a dumbass if you think I believe that" (in friendlier words).

There is a flip side to that coin, I do feel that we don't get to tell other people what their experiences have been. I've seen discussions devolve when people's personal experiences get untangled and all of the sudden, they don't recognize their own story. Sometimes that's because they need to hear their experience regurgitated by another person with a different perspective and sometimes it's because other perspectives make that experience feel scarily different.

I'm rambling here and don't mean to be (I'm a 'stream of consciousness' poster)...