![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The chair of the LGB forum I'm part of has been asked to participate in a TV debate this weekend. The question is: Should gay people be honest about their sexuality?
If it was me, my answer would be 'when straight people start being honest about their sexuality, instead of assuming I know what it is, I'll start being honest about mine.' How is it okay to go around asking that? Like we've got some moral obligation to be out to people, and if we're not, we're lying. How is it our fault that society assumes we're straight until we say otherwise? Am I lying if I don't tell someone I'm gay and they continue to assume I'm not? Where are we drawing the line anyway? Do I have to tell the guy at the Chinese takeaway? All my co-workers? All the people using the community centre? Am I being dishonest if I don't tell every single person I have contact with that I'm gay, or can I be honest about my sexuality if I don't lie if someone asks me outright? I mean, I'm openly gay, but everyone I know doesn't know it, the same way that I don't know the sexuality of everyone I know.
I hate that our chair is going to stand up and say that, although there are places where maybe people can't be out, they should be if they can be, so that bigoted people can learn that gay people aren't some scary abstract, we're just like them. Why do I have to be a teaching tool for these people? Why do I have to put up with their stupid, bigoted comments so they can maybe learn that gay people are actually okay? Or maybe not learn it, and maybe become really difficult for me to deal with instead. Why does being gay compel me to be more selfless than straight people?
Why isn't the question 'should society stop assuming that people are straight, and stop reacting in such a way that people are nervous about being honest about their sexuality if they're not straight?' Or at least phrased in a way that doesn't imply that we have some obligation to be honest, because people would like to be able to avoid us, like people who want to know if they have a child molester living in their neighbourhood.
And most importantly, why is a representative of the forum more or less saying that he agrees with this? No-one has an obligation to reveal anything about their personal life that they don't want to, from little old me who's not important at all, to celebrities. I mean, personally, I don't think people should lie about it, but (a) that's not the same thing as having to be honest (you can just be silent, for example) and (b) it's none of my business or anyone else's whether people lie, are honest, neglect to mention, or whatever they feel comfortable with, their sexuality, and there's no 'have to be' about it.
ETA: Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think my answer is 'when I can be honest about my sexuality the same way straight people can be (without fear, without losing anything, and without being asked a million questions because clearly I'm telling you so you can learn from me) then we'll take about whether I should be. Until then, I should be about as much as my sister should be honest about how she likes to knit, which is to say, not at all.'
If it was me, my answer would be 'when straight people start being honest about their sexuality, instead of assuming I know what it is, I'll start being honest about mine.' How is it okay to go around asking that? Like we've got some moral obligation to be out to people, and if we're not, we're lying. How is it our fault that society assumes we're straight until we say otherwise? Am I lying if I don't tell someone I'm gay and they continue to assume I'm not? Where are we drawing the line anyway? Do I have to tell the guy at the Chinese takeaway? All my co-workers? All the people using the community centre? Am I being dishonest if I don't tell every single person I have contact with that I'm gay, or can I be honest about my sexuality if I don't lie if someone asks me outright? I mean, I'm openly gay, but everyone I know doesn't know it, the same way that I don't know the sexuality of everyone I know.
I hate that our chair is going to stand up and say that, although there are places where maybe people can't be out, they should be if they can be, so that bigoted people can learn that gay people aren't some scary abstract, we're just like them. Why do I have to be a teaching tool for these people? Why do I have to put up with their stupid, bigoted comments so they can maybe learn that gay people are actually okay? Or maybe not learn it, and maybe become really difficult for me to deal with instead. Why does being gay compel me to be more selfless than straight people?
Why isn't the question 'should society stop assuming that people are straight, and stop reacting in such a way that people are nervous about being honest about their sexuality if they're not straight?' Or at least phrased in a way that doesn't imply that we have some obligation to be honest, because people would like to be able to avoid us, like people who want to know if they have a child molester living in their neighbourhood.
And most importantly, why is a representative of the forum more or less saying that he agrees with this? No-one has an obligation to reveal anything about their personal life that they don't want to, from little old me who's not important at all, to celebrities. I mean, personally, I don't think people should lie about it, but (a) that's not the same thing as having to be honest (you can just be silent, for example) and (b) it's none of my business or anyone else's whether people lie, are honest, neglect to mention, or whatever they feel comfortable with, their sexuality, and there's no 'have to be' about it.
ETA: Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think my answer is 'when I can be honest about my sexuality the same way straight people can be (without fear, without losing anything, and without being asked a million questions because clearly I'm telling you so you can learn from me) then we'll take about whether I should be. Until then, I should be about as much as my sister should be honest about how she likes to knit, which is to say, not at all.'
Tags:
no subject
And, I hope equating sexuality to alcoholism or PETA membership isn't shitty - I just meant that they're part of yourself that may be extremely important to you but not immediately obvious - so why should we be required to tell people it right away? Alcoholism is perhaps apt, but not the PETA membership... anyway. Sorry for the long, idiotic edit...
no subject
Exactly! I mean, if it's someone I know I'm going to be spending time with, I usually try to find a way to get it into conversation so they do know and it doesn't come as a shock, or end up costing me someone I was getting to like because they turn out to be a raging homophobe and just hiding it really well (which has happened, sadly), but even then, people are remarkably good at not hearing it - the number of people who've been shocked to realise I'm gay, despite me having mentioned an ex-girlfriend two or three times, is kind of depressing.
And, I hope equating sexuality to alcoholism or PETA membership isn't shitty
I don't think so - you're not saying that being gay is the same as being an alcoholic. And unlike a lot of other minority status', it's something that people can't tell about you just from looking, so...
On the downside, I emailed some of my rant to our chair, who emailed back to say that he disagrees that people have a right to lie about their life, so I think he and I might just have a fundamental and irresolvable difference of opinion on this. Sigh.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I usually try to find a way to get it into conversation
Yes, me too. I mean, I do try to mention it as early in the relationship as I can reasonably bring it up, but sometimes it's just not possible.
end up costing me someone I was getting to like because they turn out to be a raging homophobe and just hiding it really well (which has happened, sadly)
Ugh. I'm sorry. That's terrible. :(
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
<3
no subject
no subject
PS: I just talked to my grandad about this, and even he agrees with you. And he's in his 70s.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
So much yes. That's why I joined the forum in the first place - so I could be a teaching tool *with them* not all the time. If you want to learn, buy a book, surf the net, contact the damn forum. I'm not compelled to be out so someone else can learn from me.
no subject
I guess it's because it's still a "cause". and until things change dramatically, it will continue to be. There will always be people of the mindset that if you want things to change you have to be "part of the solution..." I don't happen to believe that not participating overtly in that change makes someone "...part of the problem", but I guess I can see everybody's point.
Me? I like everyone. and there have even been times when I felt I needed to keep silent about that around some of my more activist gay friends - as if I can't decide or something.
Frankly, I agree with you - a lot. And I really don't want to know who's doing what with whom - either celebrity or the UPS girl (okay, I think she's cute, so maybe I do kinda wanna know that - but you get my point *g*) Basically how is it any concern, straight, gay or bi, who someone with whom you're not having sex finds attractive?
When reading your (well written) rant, I had a shivery moment ala "1984" or something where I envisioned pink triangles on every "outted" shirt (star of David anyone?) and while for some this may be a moment of pride (and hey, I'll wear a rainbow with impunity and glee when casual and say, at a concert or the mall) for others it's just another box to be put into. As women, there's already pre-judgment of our ability (STILL!) and I don't really think we need to add to any proclivity to judge books by covers - yes?
um, wow. That was more than I intended. Thanks for the thinky thoughts and the space to share them.
no subject
I think someone has to be part of the solution if they want things to change but (a) that doesn't mean that if you're not, you're part of the problem (and anyway, how are we defining 'part of'? To me, wearing a rainbow badge is about being part of the solution) and (b) that doesn't mean you have to do it all the time. I want things to change, so I joined the forum, where I could have a focus for being 'the gay person,' and because while I want things to change, I don't want to be 'the gay person' all the time.
And I really don't want to know who's doing what with whom - either celebrity or the UPS girl (okay, I think she's cute, so maybe I do kinda wanna know that - but you get my point *g*)
Exactly. I mean, yes, there are people I wanted to know about (nurse when I worked in a hospital, I couldn't string a sentence together in front of her, I had such a crush) but, you know, I ask, if I can. And if I don't know them well enough to ask, I don't know them well enough to know. I'm happy to be out, but that doesn't mean I think everyone else has to be as well. As you say, 1984 much?
no subject
Let's say a gay man is very closeted and insists to his girlfriend that he's bi. She's a fanfiction writer and supportive, suggests that he might be gay since he's been with more men than women. He insists he's not. They're together for over ten years.
In the last three years of the relationship he starts bugging her to marry him. She says no, and points to the fact that he doesn't have a job and they haven't had sex in a very long time. She brings up again that he might be gay.
He gets a job (she's supported him for the last nine year) and then asks her again. She refers again to their non-existent sex life and points out that, although she's happy, she wonders if he might be gay, not bi. He tells her, "I don't want to be gay."
He hounds her, points out the practical benefits of being covered on health care plan (she's in college now and doesn't have any insurance), the job, "I want you to be under my umbrella." And then he pulls out the big guns, "You're not going anywhere, are you?" She points to the happy gay couples in the grocery store and asks him, "Don't you want that?" No, no, he doesn't, he insists.
She stumbles across an email account that's left open on their computer one morning. He's placed an ad for gay partners with the caveat "I'm in a relationship so must be discreet." He has emails with gay men, an entire double life. She confronts him about this. He insists that he just wanted to have friends that we just his, and the sex ad was just a fantasy, nothing more. She believes him. Or rather, she chooses to trust him is closer to the truth.
But she still says no to the marriage idea. The lack of a sex life is a problem.
Then the worst happens: she has a health issue and no insurance. She's in agonizing pain and can barely drive herself to his company. He pays for it out of pocket. She realizes that had she accepted his marriage idea it would have cost him the deductible and not over a grand. So she accepts the marriage plan with trepidation. They buy rings.
He takes a year to ask her, and honestly, she's relieved that maybe it's not going to happen. But then he asks her and she says yes, and there are problems but their relationship has lasted thirteen years so far so....
She goes out of town to a language program, gone for nine weeks. Four weeks in he calls to tell her he thinks he's gay and he doesn't think he can be faithful to her.
Then he moves while she's gone, insisting that if she returns he'll "take drastic measures." He promises to send her her things, sends her 20 boxes of her books and clothes, and then steals everything else she ever owned.
Maybe in this case some honesty would be in order.
no subject
All that said, he should have been honest regardless of whether he's gay, straight, undecided or whatever - he's neither more nor less obliged to be honest with you because of his sexuality. Plus, that's a specific relationship between two specific people, not a general thing.
None of which makes what he did any less shitty.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Semantic issue
Re: Semantic issue
Re: Semantic issue
Re: Semantic issue
Re: Semantic issue
no subject
I like to play the social confusion game, though. That's always a good time.
no subject
I like that answer. Reminds me of an article I read for a gender and language class, in which a man was complaining that if women started using 'ms,' how would he know if they were married or not? To which my answer was, if it's your business, you'll know. If it's not, you don't need to know anyway.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
It is so fucking offensive.
(your knitting example is a little confusing, btw. is your sister not at all honest about how much she likes to knit, or does she not like to knit at all?)
no subject
Yes. No-one has an inalienable right to know anything about another person that that person doesn't choose to tell them. I don't see why that's being debated - even if we're going to call it lying if I don't tell someone I'm gay (which it isn't - it's not my fault they make the assumption I'm straight) I have as much right to lie as the straight person who chooses not to mention that he's having an affair, or that her partner's dynamite in the sack, or whatever, good or bad or neutral. Hence the reason it's called a private life.
(your knitting example is a little confusing, btw. is your sister not at all honest about how much she likes to knit, or does she not like to knit at all?)
I actually have no idea how honest my sister is about how much she likes to knit (though she does like to): I was trying (and probably failing) to say that she should have to tell people how much she likes to about as much as we should have to tell people we're gay, which is to say, neither of us should have to, and when we're saying 'have to be honest about liking to knit' it makes the 'have to be honest about being gay' thing sound ridiculous (hopefully).
no subject
I HATE THIS SO MUCH. I used to hang out on afterelton.com a lot? Because they recap some shows I like? And finally had to back away because their whole "people who are in the closet are clearly ashamed, self-hating, and also, EVIL TRAITORS" view on politics drove me up the wall. Life is so much more complex than that. God.
no subject
Or they're not out to you. Or they don't want to be out. Or they don't choose to state their sexuality because they don't feel they should have to, or it's too complicated to label or...
Gah, evil traitors, seriously? Cos what the gay rights movement definitely needs is a prominent gay website getting all judgemental about people's right to not declare their sexuality!
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
Well, who do you think you are, wanting to keep your private life private? That's just unreasonable! /sarcasm.
I think that's actually worse - at least with the gay thing, they're basically saying that we should tell the truth, but with trans people, it's more dismissing their ability to state their own gender, or their right to be treated as the person they present as.
Why can't everyone just mind their own business? If you need to know things that badly, become a detective and poke into people's lives for a living!
no subject
If they are requiring gays to be 'truthful', then the rest should be 'fair' and 'just'. There is too much riding on it. People lose jobs and sometimes their lives over this...
no subject
Yeah. I mean, I'm very openly gay, despite the continued failure of a lot of people to notice, but that's my choice. If I want to not tell people, that's my right, as much as it's a straight person's right not to confirm that they're straight. We just don't usually see it that way, because the world assumes you're striaght anyway.
(no subject)