Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[ScandalAndy]

Sometimes I use ugly words when I am angry or threatened. I've called women some pretty awful things because they made me feel bad so I wanted to make them feel bad too, even though those words go against everything I believe in.

Originally Posted by June

I'll start.

I have had other Lesbians tell me they couldn't be sexist because they're women.

I've had Butches tell me to "Lighten up" because I wanted to pay my own way and it hurt their egos.

I have used derogatory terms towards other women, Bitch, Cunt and Whore in really ugly, sexist ways thinking it was okay, because I am a woman.

I have been afraid of having conversations because even though I own that I'm Transphobic, I don't want to prove it in words publicly while I am working it out.

I have been the subject of and witnessed others being the subject of really misogynistic and sexist behavior by members of this community via head patting and shaming because we're not ladylike enough or not doing Femme, Butch, Lesbian, Male, Woman, Feminist, etc. in the right way (meaning their way).

That's just a small portion of what comes to mind right now, and I look forward to this discussion.

[JAGG]

Guilty! I am owning up to being judgemental about area's of our community. Room to improve here, and grow. And I intend to.

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Sometimes I use ugly words when I am angry or threatened. I've called women some pretty awful things because they made me feel bad so I wanted to make them feel bad too, even though those words go against everything I believe in.

Aren't we all guilty of muttering "bitch" under our breath every now and again? The difference I am recognizing is how I feel immediately after that ugly word leaves my mouth.

We need to stop oppressing one another.

[Dominique]

It's been 30 years and I am still trying to figure out Lesbian Culture. I feel like I am an invisable Femme. I've said this on here, and over there and in my real life.

Then I worry about bigoted comments from my on line community. I have no real life *community*, there I am a Lesbian,-Queer would be pushing it.
Comments from my real life lesbian friends are always *You're not Queer enough, except you're a jock*

From the straights that I've told *Really? You're Gay? You don't look it? P A U S E ah, just that jock stuff*

I'm introverted. I write, I draw, I paint. I run, I cycle and I kayak. All very inwardly tranquil. INWARD. The inward things, figments of our imaginations. So unless you look different, unless there is something physically proving ~whatever that is~ theres plenty of room for people to doubt you and judge you and feel justified with the doubting and the judgeing.

As always, writing this has felt very empowering.

Thanks all.

I also become very frustrated always having to explain myself. Maybe thats why I don't.

[Apocalipstic]

It seems that when one or very few members of a minority make a mistake or are a jerk then they seen as representative of that entire group.

For example one Transperson (Argentine, Woman, Master etc) acted in this or that way so I hate all Transpeople (or whatever the group is). This is not reality.

Individuals do not speak for the whole.

Yes, we "represent" our group in the same way we are supposed to "represent" our parents, and should ac t right. But I hope I am not held as representative of all adoptees or women or Lesbians etc.

We need to stop thinking things like..."well I was raped by a redmeck white woman", so I hate all redneck white women. and when I say "we", I mean I need to stop.

[Apocalipstic]

I hate the whole "safe place" thing.

One thing I have learned is that there is mo safe place and I have looked.

I think it is an excuse to be exclusionary a lot of the time.

[Dominique]

I dislike slurs and derogatory name calling between women.

Bad enough i/ we have had to endure it from men since the age of time, I am far less accepting of it from another woman. I work very hard to not do it. Certainly I can find a more powerful word in my vocabulary.

[deb_U_taunt]

Wow, our community is human?

[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)...

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

It seems that when one or very few members of a minority make a mistake or are a jerk then they seen as representative of that entire group.

For example one Transperson (Argentine, Woman, Master etc) acted in this or that way so I hate all Transpeople (or whatever the group is). This is not reality.

Individuals do not speak for the whole.

Yes, we "represent" our group in the same way we are supposed to "represent" our parents, and should ac t right. But I hope I am not held as representative of all adoptees or women or Lesbians etc.

We need to stop thinking things like..."well I was raped by a redmeck white woman", so I hate all redneck white women. and when I say "we", I mean I need to stop.

YES!

I want to piggy back off this by saying that I have felt hurt when I have seen femme threads on here where some people have talked about men with a broad brush, and a negative one at that. And since it was in the femme zone, I felt I couldn't and shouldn't come in and say, "Hey, as a transguy I want to say that not all guys are like that. I'm not like that!"

I also want to say that I, personally, try to keep in mind that we queer people, LGBTQ, etc. all know what it is like to be marginalized and oppressed by the hetero-normative, non-trans, homophobic, white-centric, racist and patriarchal dominant culture of our respective countries. We all experience it on one level or another, or on multiple levels. We need to stick together and stop attacking each other! I have said this several times before and I will keep saying it. Stop the madness! lol.

I try my best to listen to the concerns and issues of others, and put myself in their shoes. I can't always relate to what everyone is going through because I don't always have the same exact experiences. But I have to take someone's word for it when they say they feel marginalized. However, sometimes, given all the facts, I can see that there are times when such feelings are based on miscommunications or misperceptions of the facts. One person says one thing, and another person assumes there is an intent in those words that simply isn't there, and then feels upset.

Here is a personal example for me: I have been told that I could never understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of racism, and my comments were dismissed. My point of view is, yes I will never know exactly what that is like, it's true. However, I do know what it is like to have a hard time getting employment on the basis of who I am and what I look like, being passed over for promotions, stared at in public places, treated as if I am less than human, had my property vandalized, called hurtful bigoted words, etc. It's not exactly the same, but it's something. And I will never understand any better as long as no one tries explain it to me. I would love for someone to say, "Drew, these are the experiences I have and this is how it effects my life and makes me feel." As a white person who doesn't experience the receiving end of racism, I want to understand better. And I want others to understand better what it is like to be me and what I go through too. All it takes is an openness to listen, and the patience to explain without judgment. The same goes for sexism, and all the other -isms.

I have more to say but I have to get going now. I will be back later. Great topic AJ!!

[The_Lady_Snow]

I'd like to share the word 'morals' is like a trigger, it's cause of the way it can be used to demean. How Aj used morality was not so triggering I'm trying to figure out why...

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I'd like to share the word 'morals' is like a trigger, it's cause of the way it can be used to demean. How Aj used morality was an not so triggering I'm trying to figure out why...

I like to think because it is not a scolding. As SA Ma'am pointed out, the right-wing--at least in America--has spent a long time claiming that the queer movement (and the Left generally) has no morals or thinks that there's no such thing as morals. We have, as she points out, delivered ourselves into their hands. This is not to say that the word isn't going to taste strange on our tongues. It will for a while. It will because we ceded space that we did not need to. At the time, the reasons seemed like good ones. The laboratory of the real world, I think, shows that it wasn't. At the end of the day, theory (we should avoid using moral language) was not in agreement with experiment (human beings use moral language and need to do so).

I think the difference in how I'm using moral is that I'm talking about how we treat one another. One could use ethics but I really want to reclaim the word moral. At some point in my lifetime, the Left just surrendered on the issue of morals and so this allowed the religious right to frame the word 'moral' in a way amenable to them and their goals. Thus morality became about whether one was anti-gay, whether one was anti-choice, whether one believed that women should be subservient and submissive to men and whether one believed in corporal punishment, etc. This allowed other things which my parents would have understood as moral issues to no longer BE moral issues. Rapaciousness and avarice? Once upon a time these were considered ethical blemishes now they are things to brag about between the covers of Forbes or Business Week. Cruelty and torture? Once upon a time we thought these things beyond the pale, completely beyond the pale. Now it is something for law enforcement to fairly boast about (Sheriff Arapaio in Arizona) and for politicians to wax poetic about on the floor of the US congress.

I think we need to reclaim the language of morality, not shirk from it. Because morality is about *behavior* not *being*. A murderer is not some class of person who has never killed, one's behavior makes one a murderer. This is completely different than saying that, for instance, homosexuality has any intrinsic moral weight. It does not. So we are right to judge the murderer harshly because all one had to do to AVOID being a murderer was to refrain from murder. Murder harms people and so we have a vested interest--as a society--for making it abundantly clear that the behavior is unacceptable. Who does homosexuality harm? No one. Because it harms no one--and I'm in favor of a harm-based morality instead of a, say, holy book based one--it has no moral content. It is therefore inappropriate to claim homosexuality is immoral, as the religious right does.

We can talk about morality without being prudes, we just have to be clear about what we mean when we start using moral language.

Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I like to think because it is not a scolding. As SA Ma'am pointed out, the right-wing--at least in America--has spent a long time claiming that the queer movement (and the Left generally) has no morals or thinks that there's no such thing as morals. We have, as she points out, delivered ourselves into their hands. This is not to say that the word isn't going to taste strange on our tongues. It will for a while. It will because we ceded space that we did not need to. At the time, the reasons seemed like good ones. The laboratory of the real world, I think, shows that it wasn't. At the end of the day, theory (we should avoid using moral language) was not in agreement with experiment (human beings use moral language and need to do so).

I think the difference in how I'm using moral is that I'm talking about how we treat one another. One could use ethics but I really want to reclaim the word moral. At some point in my lifetime, the Left just surrendered on the issue of morals and so this allowed the religious right to frame the word 'moral' in a way amenable to them and their goals. Thus morality became about whether one was anti-gay, whether one was anti-choice, whether one believed that women should be subservient and submissive to men and whether one believed in corporal punishment, etc. This allowed other things which my parents would have understood as moral issues to no longer BE moral issues. Rapaciousness and avarice? Once upon a time these were considered ethical blemishes now they are things to brag about between the covers of Forbes or Business Week. Cruelty and torture? Once upon a time we thought these things beyond the pale, completely beyond the pale. Now it is something for law enforcement to fairly boast about (Sheriff Arapaio in Arizona) and for politicians to wax poetic about on the floor of the US congress.

I think we need to reclaim the language of morality, not shirk from it. Because morality is about *behavior* not *being*. A murderer is not some class of person who has never killed, one's behavior makes one a murderer. This is completely different than saying that, for instance, homosexuality has any intrinsic moral weight. It does not. So we are right to judge the murderer harshly because all one had to do to AVOID being a murderer was to refrain from murder. Murder harms people and so we have a vested interest--as a society--for making it abundantly clear that the behavior is unacceptable. Who does homosexuality harm? No one. Because it harms no one--and I'm in favor of a harm-based morality instead of a, say, holy book based one--it has no moral content. It is therefore inappropriate to claim homosexuality is immoral, as the religious right does.

We can talk about morality without being prudes, we just have to be clear about what we mean when we start using moral language.

Cheers
Aj

Yes.

And I think of morality as strictly about doing right by each other as human beings. To me, singling out people and excluding them and harassing them with finger wagging because they are different from you is immoral behavior. Favoring policies that keep the rich richer and the poor poorer is an immoral stance. Anything that creates a strata of civil rights where some have more and some have less is immoral. Racism is immoral. Sexism and homophobia and transphobia and ageism are immoral. Those are all immoral things because they are unfair and harm people in some really significant ways.

I agree with you Aj, that this is a different way of thinking of morality than the religious right seems to. The whole, "the bible says it, I believe it and that settles it!" kind of thinking isn't what I consider moral. I think it's more like using religion to justify one's prejudices and bigotry. That kind of hypocrisy makes me mad because there is no reasoning with people like that. But those people don't have the market cornered on morality; in reality they are lacking it in the most fundamental ways.