The Gay Rights Struggle Ain't Over

nighttimer said:

If a high school were to hold a prom and with the caveat only girls can wear dresses and only boys can wear tuxedos would that be an act of discrimination against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students? I'd say so.

Click to expand...

... What? How?

I mean, I think people should be able to wear whatever damn clothes they want. But that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. Like, not even a little bit.

ViridianChick said:

Sure.

Is there a reason you decided to suggest @Usher doesn't care about racism?

There are all kinds of discrimination, Nighttimer. We could write a whole list. I'm pretty sure that's what Usher meant when s/he said "sexism, ect." The "ect" part stands for other forms of discrimination.

Just how I took it. Maybe I'm missing something, here.

Click to expand...

A different thread. I believe when you base something on skin colour and exclude someone of another skin colour that is racially motivated segregation - you can then argue that is a good thing. I don't think it is although I appreciate the particular event we were discussing was meant to be positive. Nighttimer doesn't agree with me. It means I don't care about racism -- apparently.

But I don't think segregating based on sexuality or gender is a good thing either.

But yes a whole variety of prejudices and isms were in my etc of which one was racism. The fact I was even having that other discussion shows it is far from a battle that is won.

ViridianChick said:

... What? How?

I mean, I think people should be able to wear whatever damn clothes they want. But that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. Like, not even a little bit.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does. You're right that it's not a little bit--it's a pretty big deal. My partner identifies as a butch lesbian. As such, she would always choose a tuxedo over a dress. It is absolutely part of her sexual orientation. I have a large number of lesbian friends who would agree with her that dressing in trousers is an outward manifestation of their orientation. Given the choice between tuxedo and dress, they would always choose the tux, and to say they would have to wear a dress solely because they are female would be quite offensive to them because they don't identify as feminine women (and again, this is a part of their lesbian identity).

absitinvidia said:

Given the choice between tuxedo and dress, they would always choose the tux, and to say they would have to wear a dress solely because they are female would be quite offensive to them because they don't identify as feminine women.

Click to expand...

I don't think any woman should be forced to wear a dress.

That being said, I'm really not sure I understand you. It's fine if being butch is part of her personal identity, but the idea that being butch is somehow a part of the lesbian identity is an idea deeply rooted shallow stereotypes. Should we really be propagating such things in our own community?

There are feminine lesbians and butch straight women. Let's not erase them.

Being forced to wear a dress is oppressive to any woman who doesn't want to wear a dress. Conflating "doesn't like wearing dresses" with "lesbian and bisexual women" is harmful to both queer and straight women. I don't think that's what you were doing, Absitinvidia, but I do get the sense that's what Nighttimer was doing in the post I responded to.

ViridianChick said:

That being said, I'm really not sure I understand you. It's fine if being butch is part of her personal identity, but the idea that being butch is somehow a part of the lesbian identity is an idea deeply rooted shallow stereotypes. Should we really be propagating such things in our own community?

Click to expand...

The example wasn't about all lesbians. Just one. Individually, how we dress might be a big part of our sexuality or gender identity.

I do think it's very pernicious that the right has managed to define human rights as political issues for so long, and they're now re framing the same old bigoted behavior in terms of religious freedom.

From that bent perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to assert that a desire for equal rights for all groups is "way out left wing politics," while support of the status quo is neutral (often presented as apolitical) and someone only counts as "way out right wing" if they want to pursue a policy of active persecution, like this guy or this one.

"See how reasonable we are? We don't want to hurt LGBT people. Just refuse service."

You can't be neutral on human rights issues. You either believe that a group in question deserves the same rights and respect as everyone else, or you don't. Most of the people I've met who say they're neutral, or want to compromise on the issue really want to keep things the way they've been up until now (as in discriminatory but with gay, lesbian, transgender people mostly left alone if they don't rub it in everyone's faces stay closeted).

I hate seeing people I care for treated differently than I am. I'm sick to death of seeing politicians presenting "compromises" that are just the same old discriminatory behavior repackaged. But I also realize it's not my place (as a straight, white, cisgender an mostly gender conforming person) to tell gay and lesbian and transgender people how to fight this battle. I can see how exhausting this struggle must be, and I can understand why some people want to pause and savor what progress has been made before taking things to the next level.

All I can say is that whatever choice is made by any group of people struggling with rights issue that are different from my own, I'll do my best to support them and have their back in whatever way they want me to.

ViridianChick said:

That being said, I'm really not sure I understand you. It's fine if being butch is part of her personal identity, but the idea that being butch is somehow a part of the lesbian identity is an idea deeply rooted shallow stereotypes. Should we really be propagating such things in our own community?

Click to expand...

Though we do need to be careful about stereotyping, some women do identify very strongly as butch lesbians or considering being butch a part of their sexuality. And their feelings about their own identities are just as valid as the feelings of lesbians who are very traditionally feminine.

Nobody should be stereotyped, but I don't think it's good to go so far in the opposite direction that people who happen to fit the stereotypes are made to feel ashamed because they're "propagating stereotypes" in the LGBT community. And yes, sometimes those of us who don't fit gender norms are accused of that. I've seen people outright say that butch lesbians and effeminate gay men are casting the LGBT community in a bad light.

ViridianChick said:

... What? How?

I mean, I think people should be able to wear whatever damn clothes they want. But that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. Like, not even a little bit.

Click to expand...

It certainly has to something to do with gender identity.

Not every woman who is butch is a lesbian and not every man who quite likes wearing girly things is gay. Nor are they automatically trans either. Some lesbians are butch and some gay men like sparkly. There isn't a single lesbian, gay, straight, bisexual, intersexed or trans identity.

As a girl I'd be as happy in a tux as I am in a dress. Because of my body shape (I have very broad shoulders) men's clothes are more comfortable. But nor am I particularly butch.

I feel like maybe there's been a miscommunication, here.

I don't think there's a problem with lesbians who choose to be butch. That's not what I mean when I say "propagating shallow stereotypes."

I am objecting, specifically, to the idea that women being forced to wear dresses is oppressive to the LGBT community. It's not. It's oppressive to any woman who doesn't want to wear a dress, which is not the same as queer women.

- Viridian, who is queer, and wearing the frilliest of dresses

ViridianChick said:

I feel like maybe there's been a miscommunication, here.

I don't think there's a problem with lesbians who choose to be butch. That's not what I mean when I say "propagating shallow stereotypes."

I am objecting, specifically, to the idea that women being forced to wear dresses is oppressive to the LGBT community. It's not. It's oppressive to any woman who doesn't want to wear a dress, which is not the same as queer women.

- Viridian, who is queer, and wearing the frilliest of dresses

Click to expand...

What about the people born male who identify as women and who want to wear dresses? Being forbidden to do so isn't oppressive to them?

Diana Hignutt said:

What about the people born male who identify as women and who want to wear dresses? Being forbidden to do so isn't oppressive to them?

Click to expand...

Of course it is. I'm sorry if my posts come across as ignoring that issue, Diana.

If a transgender woman were being treated "properly" in that situation, she'd be forced into a dress like all the other women.

At the end of the day, the issue is the still the fact that people shouldn't be forced to wear suits or dresses. (And as a bonus: transgender people should be treated as their gender identity.)

Diana Hignutt said:

What about the people born male who identify as women and who want to wear dresses? Being forbidden to do so isn't oppressive to them?

Click to expand...

I was under the impression they were women. Any woman told they cannot wear a tux is being oppressed and any man who is told they can't wear a dress is being oppressed.

LGBTQ isn't the issue - it's sexism and outdated views on gender.

Usher said:

I was under the impression they were women. Any woman told they cannot wear a tux is being oppressed and any man who is told they can't wear a dress is being oppressed.

LGBTQ isn't the issue - it's sexism and outdated views on gender.

Click to expand...

Your enlightened views are not necessarily generally accepted in many places.

ViridianChick said:

I am objecting, specifically, to the idea that women being forced to wear dresses is oppressive to the LGBT community. It's not. It's oppressive to any woman who doesn't want to wear a dress, which is not the same as queer women.

Click to expand...

But if how one dresses is important to one's gender identity, then it still becomes a gender identity issue as well.

kuwisdelu said:

But if how one dresses is important to one's gender identity, then it still becomes a gender identity issue as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah. No disagreement there. It's an issue on several levels to several different groups of people.

Anyway, back to the original topic: should we be dicks to bigots?

I think that issue is really a question of what's most effective. No, we shouldn't "agree to disagree." I don't think it's okay to look down on LGBT people, and discrimination is not a religious freedom. There's no gray area. I remember when Leelah Alcorn killed herself, some people argued her parents should be forgiven because they genuinely believed that being transgender was wrong -- and that's a load of bull. Religious freedom and personal opinions do not entitle you to abuse others.

If someone came out today and said that they believed interracial marriage was wrong, what would happen? Would people defend racism as a religious freedom? Would they say we should agree to disagree? No. They would be called bigots. Period.

So why should we be tolerant of those who oppose gay marriage? Why should we pretend that it's okay to discriminate if you really really believe homosexuality is wrong? Why should we pretend it's okay to be homophobic at all?

And yet... We should focus on convincing people we're right, not just being nasty to people that we think are wrong. I mean, keep in mind there's often disagreement among us as well. And shouldn't we be polite to each other? Even if we think the other side is being ignorant?

We should treat each other like sane human beings.

But I think this--

[Homophobes] need to feel a ramification or an embarrassment sometimes. Not all the time. It's fine to let those moments pass, but you can't let every one of those moments pass. If you stand up at least once or twice or every moment when you can, I think it does a world of good. I embarrass them in front of everybody.

Click to expand...

--was a good point. If you can make someone uncomfortable about their beliefs, you can change their mind. And if there's a bigot so cruel their opinion can never be changed, then yeah, by all means, unleash the beast. Show other people that sort of idiocy isn't okay.

ViridianChick said:

That being said, I'm really not sure I understand you. It's fine if being butch is part of her personal identity, but the idea that being butch is somehow a part of the lesbian identity is an idea deeply rooted shallow stereotypes. Should we really be propagating such things in our own community?

Click to expand...

Wow. Just . . . wow.

My partner identifies as a BUTCH LESBIAN. I identify as a FEMME LESBIAN. And I really, really do not appreciate being told I'm propagating "deeply rooted shallow stereotypes" by saying so in what should be a safe space. I really, really don't.

absitinvidia said:

Wow. Just . . . wow.

My partner identifies as a BUTCH LESBIAN. I identify as a FEMME LESBIAN. And I really, really do not appreciate being told I'm propagating "deeply rooted shallow stereotypes" by saying so in what should be a safe space. I really, really don't.

Click to expand...

I feel awful that I've made you uncomfortable, Absitinvidia. Maybe I wasn't clear.

• I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying as a butch lesbian.
• I don't think you or your partner are promoting stereotypes.
• I don't think anything you said promotes stereotypes, either.

A person's identity is not a political statement. Existing is not a political statement.

I think Nighttimer, specifically, is promoting a stereotype by suggesting that clothing choices are an LGBT issue. They're not. Yes, it's an issue that affects some members of the LGBT community. There are also people outside of the LGBT community that it affects, and members of the LGBT community that it doesn't affect.

I feel silly for even bringing it up now.

ViridianChick said:

I think Nighttimer, specifically, is promoting a stereotype by suggesting that clothing choices are an LGBT issue. They're not. Yes, it's an issue that affects some members of the LGBT community. There are also people outside of the LGBT community that it affects, and members of the LGBT community that it doesn't affect.

Click to expand...

I agree that clothing isn't an issue specific to LGBT people, but it can be an LGBT issue. For example, a lot of little boys are discouraged from playing dress-up in dresses or princess costumes because their parents believe that it will make them gay. A lot of the prejudice attached to wearing gender non-conforming clothing is related to homophobia (particularly in regards to men wearing feminine clothes, but this applies to women and masculine clothes, too).

Forcing women to wear dresses is certainly sexist, and it's wrong when the women are straight, too. But it can also be homophobic, and it can be a way of showing prejudice against someone's sexual orientation and gender identity. For some gender non-conforming queer people, their gender presentation is a part of their identity. Though the two communities are separate, there's a certain amount of overlap between the gay and lesbian community and the trans community. Today, I think people are more likely to identify as non-binary or genderqueer if they don't identify strongly with their assigned sex but don't want to transition to the opposite sex. But traditionally, I think the butch identity has been a popular label for women who have some amount of gender dysphoria and who want to present in a masculine way, but who still see themselves as women. For example, the author Leslie Feinberg identified both as trans and as a lesbian, and used both feminine and non-binary pronouns during different times in her life. She's associated with trans literature, but I think she's also a well-known butch lesbian figure (she wrote Stone Butch Blues). There isn't always a strict, black and white separation between sexual orientation and gender identity/presentation. Some people see being butch as a part of their gender identity and/or their sexual orientation.

DancingMaenid said:

I agree that clothing isn't an issue specific to LGBT people, but it can be an LGBT issue.

Click to expand...

It seems like when you say "LGBT issue," you mean "an issue that can be related to homophobia or transphobia."

When I say "LGBT issue," I mean "an issue LGBT people experience that others do not."

There's an old saying. When you disagree with someone completely, you spend a lot of time arguing with them. When you disagree with someone a little, you spend a little time arguing with them. When you barely disagree with someone at all, you spend a ton of time arguing with them.

I don't feel like doing that today, haha.

ViridianChick said:

It seems like when you say "LGBT issue," you mean "an issue that can be related to homophobia or transphobia."

When I say "LGBT issue," I mean "an issue LGBT people experience that others do not."

Click to expand...

I think something can be an "issue" in different ways. Sometimes different groups of people face similar types of prejudice for reasons that are similar but also different.

I think that homophobia, transphobia, and sexism are also already closely linked. For example, some of the homophobia against gay men is tied to beliefs about men who are "feminine" being inferior (and whether a gay man has a feminine style or not, having sex with men is perceived as a feminine activity). Lesbians are often judged based on their attractiveness and availability to men, which is obviously sexist. Lesbians are hot when they're used as a source of arousal in porn, but an insult when they rebuff men's advances in real life.

So I don't think that LGBT issues have to be things that exclusively effect LGBT people.

Roxxsmom said:

I do think it's very pernicious that the right has managed to define human rights as political issues for so long, and they're now re framing the same old bigoted behavior in terms of religious freedom.

From that bent perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to assert that a desire for equal rights for all groups is "way out left wing politics," while support of the status quo is neutral (often presented as apolitical) and someone only counts as "way out right wing" if they want to pursue a policy of active persecution, like this guy or this one.

"See how reasonable we are? We don't want to hurt LGBT people. Just refuse service."

You can't be neutral on human rights issues.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many of the people who support the right of a baker to refuse baking someone a cake for a same-sex wedding would feel okay about it if the tables were turned.

I mean, if they were being consistent in their beliefs, they'd have to accept that it was okay for a baker to say to them, "Sorry, I refuse to bake a cake for your first communion party, because I consider your religion to be immoral."

Somehow, I suspect most of them would be angry about that. They'd consider it persecution. Funny, how they don't seem to consider it persecution when they're the ones doing it.

The Otter said:

I wonder how many of the people who support the right of a baker to refuse baking someone a cake for a same-sex wedding would feel okay about it if the tables were turned.

Click to expand...

They're very good at creating false equivalencies, so they argue that the tables have been turned. They cite the case where the Jewish baker didn't want to make the cake that was decorated with the Nazi flag as being "the same" as a Fundamentalist Christian baker not wanting to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

But of course, it's not the same thing at all, because the Jewish baker wasn't refusing to bake the cake for someone who happened to be a neo Nazi. They were willing to sell the customer a cake but refusing to decorate it with symbols that were offensive to them.

The equivalence would be a Fundamentalist Christian baker telling a same-sex couple, "I will bake you a cake for your wedding, but I won't decorate it with images I find offensive."

I do wonder about the can of worms that could be opened if SCOTUS rules to uphold these "religious freedom" laws. Will these fundamentalists also want to deny services to other people who have "lifestyle" choices they find offensive?

How about unwed mothers, or cohabitating couples, or divorced people who have remarried, or the unbaptized, or people from other religions? Will we all have to carry papers around that designate our lifestyle status so people can decide if they want to serve us or not?

And how will the courts decide which beliefs are truly religious in nature versus simply being personal prejudices? Will there be some kind of list of court approved religions that get discrimination exemptions because of their official tenets? That sounds pretty unconstitutional, since we're not supposed to have official religions or make laws regarding establishments of religion, including designating which religious beliefs are real and sincerely held. Or can anyone say that they believe anything and get it accepted as grounds for discrimination?

That sounds like it would be a real can of worms. Some people might even decide that their religious beliefs mean they don't have to serve bigoted shitheads.

But even if this happens, the people who are in the minority will lose, because there are more people claiming to be religious fundamentalists (probably) who want to shut them out than people who would do the reverse.

That's what they're counting on, I think.