Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 16, 2009
Homo The Uncivilized World
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM
They're going after the gays in Rwanda too, a country that Rick Warren declared “a purpose-driven nation” back in 2005. Increasingly the treatment of gay and lesbian citizens is the defining difference between civilized and uncivilized nations, between free societies and tyrannies.
1
LC will disagree with that characterization and call your concern "neocolonialism," just like she has the slightest clue of what that term means.
2
Yup, in the end, Western notions of freedom and individual rights and liberty are the best, and despite our many sins, are gradually taking hold over the rest of the world, leading to better times. Hopefully da wymen and da gays in the backwards nations will be able to get equality and fair treatment leading to moderation of the cruelty and aggression shown by the straight males in charge of those places. Here in the west we also have division of power etc. and democracy, and those Western ideals are purty darn good, too, at building up civilization and progress.
3
Religion is irrational. When you extrapolate the irrational you can get only one thing. Mass murder. This has been proven over and over for thousands of years.
5
A brief forensic study of the "Loveschild" persona
Overview
Recently, the blogs of The Stranger, a weekly alternative paper in the Seattle metro, have been frequently visited by a commenter by the name of Loveschild, who purports to be an ardent supporter of "traditional" marriage, african-american and a mother of a various count of children of various ages. In order to better understand her, we at the Baconcat Institute propose to determine, in brief, if this persona represents an actual or fictitious person.
Basic presentation of the persona
The Loveschild persona presents itself with the following characteristics:
1) Racial disparity with the current posting/commenting population at the blog and certain populations represented in articles posted by the blog
2) Strict literalism in biblical interpretation
3) Shifting grammatical and rhetorical constructs
4) Citation of, but inconsistent application of, political stances
5) Refusal to confront reasonable questions or fact-based arguments or flippant disregard for same
Deconstruction of the above characteristics
Racial Disparity: The Loveschild Persona ("Persona") frequently makes use of the appeal to ignorance fallacy by positioning itself in an unassailable position that molds itself on commonly assumed racial stereotypes that are made to fit the current argument. This extends to those who share the Persona's purported race by way of ad hominems presupposing a lack of adherence to "common" racial traits (e.g. african-americans who disagree with the Persona are therefore not "black enough").
Strict Literalism: This characteristic is another position that uses logical fallacies that require the second party to yield to the Persona by way of proposing a biblical position that is, again, unassailable.
Shifting grammar and rhetoric: The oft-noted rationale behind dismissing the Persona is its inconsistent grammatical usage and rhetoric. It frequently will mutate its grammatical and rhetorical structure to fit a presupposed stereotypical style as arguments progress, sometimes reasserting its biblical and racial position through forced stereotypical language.
Inconsistent political stances: An overlooked "tell" in this Persona is its inconsistent application of the political stances of its oft-cited political foundation. For example, in referencing same-sex pairings, the Persona will use terms like "gay" or "same-sex" which are completely an inexorably incongruous with the decades-old style put forth by the Persona's own political foundations which prefer the terms "homosexual" and, infrequently, "sodomite" with clearly defined cases for usage(cit. Focus on the Family style sheet). Persona will also present itself as a fairly progressive liberal democrat, which stands opposed to its current Persona.
Refusal to confront reasonable questions: Persona, for lack of a better description, will simply refuse to yield itself to answering the most simple of questions when bested by any other commenter or contributor.
Best case assumptions
Given the sum total of the above deconstruction, it is difficult to assume that the Persona is anything approaching its presentation in any literal, figurative or partial way. By this we can assume that it's not likely in any case that it holds any sincerity to its arguments and may be arguing these cases in a "devil's advocate" style to ferret out a personally salient point about the targeted opposition. From this we can draw several conclusions, but our best case assumption is to simple treat this person as a generally-consistent internet troll that holds a rather elementary understanding of rhetoric in a way that allows it to participate wholly in arguments on a specific subset of topics.
Conclusion:
The Baconcat Institute hereby deems the Persona to be completely and incontrovertibly fake. The Baconcat Institute also proposes that the Persona may likely share IP addresses with an existing commenter to an extent that allows the administrators of this blog to determine fully who this persona is. The Baconcat Institute, however, demurs on the question of whether or not it is appropriate to determine the perpetrator of this Persona and suggests that for the sake of discourse, other commenters merely take the likely reality under advisement and continue the current path of discourse to further dialog for the sake of real world practice and the progress of discourse, civil or otherwise.
The Baconcat Institute hereby invokes Poe's Law.
More...
Overview
Recently, the blogs of The Stranger, a weekly alternative paper in the Seattle metro, have been frequently visited by a commenter by the name of Loveschild, who purports to be an ardent supporter of "traditional" marriage, african-american and a mother of a various count of children of various ages. In order to better understand her, we at the Baconcat Institute propose to determine, in brief, if this persona represents an actual or fictitious person.
Basic presentation of the persona
The Loveschild persona presents itself with the following characteristics:
1) Racial disparity with the current posting/commenting population at the blog and certain populations represented in articles posted by the blog
2) Strict literalism in biblical interpretation
3) Shifting grammatical and rhetorical constructs
4) Citation of, but inconsistent application of, political stances
5) Refusal to confront reasonable questions or fact-based arguments or flippant disregard for same
Deconstruction of the above characteristics
Racial Disparity: The Loveschild Persona ("Persona") frequently makes use of the appeal to ignorance fallacy by positioning itself in an unassailable position that molds itself on commonly assumed racial stereotypes that are made to fit the current argument. This extends to those who share the Persona's purported race by way of ad hominems presupposing a lack of adherence to "common" racial traits (e.g. african-americans who disagree with the Persona are therefore not "black enough").
Strict Literalism: This characteristic is another position that uses logical fallacies that require the second party to yield to the Persona by way of proposing a biblical position that is, again, unassailable.
Shifting grammar and rhetoric: The oft-noted rationale behind dismissing the Persona is its inconsistent grammatical usage and rhetoric. It frequently will mutate its grammatical and rhetorical structure to fit a presupposed stereotypical style as arguments progress, sometimes reasserting its biblical and racial position through forced stereotypical language.
Inconsistent political stances: An overlooked "tell" in this Persona is its inconsistent application of the political stances of its oft-cited political foundation. For example, in referencing same-sex pairings, the Persona will use terms like "gay" or "same-sex" which are completely an inexorably incongruous with the decades-old style put forth by the Persona's own political foundations which prefer the terms "homosexual" and, infrequently, "sodomite" with clearly defined cases for usage(cit. Focus on the Family style sheet). Persona will also present itself as a fairly progressive liberal democrat, which stands opposed to its current Persona.
Refusal to confront reasonable questions: Persona, for lack of a better description, will simply refuse to yield itself to answering the most simple of questions when bested by any other commenter or contributor.
Best case assumptions
Given the sum total of the above deconstruction, it is difficult to assume that the Persona is anything approaching its presentation in any literal, figurative or partial way. By this we can assume that it's not likely in any case that it holds any sincerity to its arguments and may be arguing these cases in a "devil's advocate" style to ferret out a personally salient point about the targeted opposition. From this we can draw several conclusions, but our best case assumption is to simple treat this person as a generally-consistent internet troll that holds a rather elementary understanding of rhetoric in a way that allows it to participate wholly in arguments on a specific subset of topics.
Conclusion:
The Baconcat Institute hereby deems the Persona to be completely and incontrovertibly fake. The Baconcat Institute also proposes that the Persona may likely share IP addresses with an existing commenter to an extent that allows the administrators of this blog to determine fully who this persona is. The Baconcat Institute, however, demurs on the question of whether or not it is appropriate to determine the perpetrator of this Persona and suggests that for the sake of discourse, other commenters merely take the likely reality under advisement and continue the current path of discourse to further dialog for the sake of real world practice and the progress of discourse, civil or otherwise.
The Baconcat Institute hereby invokes Poe's Law.
7
Dan, go to Brazil and stfu.
They kill shitloads of transsexuals there, and no one there thinks it's such a bad thing. Otherwise, Rick Warren would be spending more of his time there to fix things up real good now.
You'll love it in Rio especially the bit about being civilized enough to host the Olympics and having a bunch of gorgeous, tanned bodies found all over the beach.
[Translation: it's all well and good that you're echoing MSNBC and other blogs about the Africa-which-can't-save-itself-from-itself-from-American-evangelism-so-leave-it-up-to-omg-guess-who?-Americans-to-blog-about-it-with-alacrity, but this topic is sounding like a stuck groove needing to move onto the next beat. That is, something other than constantly whining about it from an office on Pike Street in Seattle and calling it a day after 5p,]
p.s.: Today is hyphen day.
They kill shitloads of transsexuals there, and no one there thinks it's such a bad thing. Otherwise, Rick Warren would be spending more of his time there to fix things up real good now.
You'll love it in Rio especially the bit about being civilized enough to host the Olympics and having a bunch of gorgeous, tanned bodies found all over the beach.
[Translation: it's all well and good that you're echoing MSNBC and other blogs about the Africa-which-can't-save-itself-from-itself-from-American-evangelism-so-leave-it-up-to-omg-guess-who?-Americans-to-blog-about-it-with-alacrity, but this topic is sounding like a stuck groove needing to move onto the next beat. That is, something other than constantly whining about it from an office on Pike Street in Seattle and calling it a day after 5p,]
p.s.: Today is hyphen day.
8
If you foster economic dependence on your church (aka - master's plantation)...
If you demand absolute allegiance to your Gawd and his emissary (namely, you...on both accounts)...
If you tell people that AIDS and its troubles should be blamed on someone (just not your audience, of course)...
If you point the finger of blame at gay people...
If you dehumanize gay people to make it easier to harm them...
You cannot proclaim your innocence when gays are prosecuted, persecuted and killed.
Rick Warren and other evangelical politicians are the evil they seek in the world.
If you demand absolute allegiance to your Gawd and his emissary (namely, you...on both accounts)...
If you tell people that AIDS and its troubles should be blamed on someone (just not your audience, of course)...
If you point the finger of blame at gay people...
If you dehumanize gay people to make it easier to harm them...
You cannot proclaim your innocence when gays are prosecuted, persecuted and killed.
Rick Warren and other evangelical politicians are the evil they seek in the world.
9
I love that here in America we are not even a generation away from similar sentiments towards gays and you want to start defining countries as civilized or not because they do not fit into your narrow parameters. whats so civilized about remote bombing of villages? Whats so civilized about the A bomb?
11
@5 Shit --- took you scientists over there long enough to figure this out .....
My hard-earned tax dollars had better not have been spent on this obvious study!
My hard-earned tax dollars had better not have been spent on this obvious study!
15
@11: It was obvious from the get-go, but the people were looking for the Baconcat Institute to take an official position on the matter. Our field scientists (the esteemed Doctors K. Portland, R. D.J. Riz and R. Baltimore) had previously cemented our working stance, but taking a more nuanced political one was difficult until we could secure the funding for peer-review, alcohol-based breakroom supplies and our dodecannual retreat.
It only set the taxpayers back a modest $1.485bn, don't worry about it. That's like, what, 5 hours in Afghanistan?
It only set the taxpayers back a modest $1.485bn, don't worry about it. That's like, what, 5 hours in Afghanistan?
18
@8: You make the bigger point without saying it wholesale:
"If you dehumanize __________ people to make it easier to harm them..."
Pretty much. Get creative.
"If you dehumanize __________ people to make it easier to harm them..."
Pretty much. Get creative.
19
Loveschild is a black woman who advocates intolerance for gay people? Well that explains a lot! The oppressed become the oppressor (usually hiding behind a warped and misinterpreted religious doctrine).
Funny how a person from a minority group that has been until very recently a consistently oppressed and repressed underclass can advocate the same treatment towards another minority group.
According to early American church and political doctrine black people were less than human and had no soul, therefore blacks were not worthy of converting to Christianity- Native people on the other hand had half a soul and therefore Christian conversion would be beneficial. Marrying a native was acceptable but to marry a black was to pollute and degrade the genetics of the human race.
Loveschild has forgotten the long hard embattled road from whence she came
Loveschild = Hateschild...
Funny how a person from a minority group that has been until very recently a consistently oppressed and repressed underclass can advocate the same treatment towards another minority group.
According to early American church and political doctrine black people were less than human and had no soul, therefore blacks were not worthy of converting to Christianity- Native people on the other hand had half a soul and therefore Christian conversion would be beneficial. Marrying a native was acceptable but to marry a black was to pollute and degrade the genetics of the human race.
Loveschild has forgotten the long hard embattled road from whence she came
Loveschild = Hateschild...
20
Golf claps for #5.
As for the question of whether countries that perpetuate or enact anti-gay legislation are "uncivilized," the appelation seems quite apt. For the record, however, Brazil has no anti-gay legislation: its sodomy laws were stricken from the books in 1830 and discrimination based on sexual orientation has been outlawed since 1989. Furthermore, a civil union act has been pending since the mid-1990s (it hasn't yet been voted on, but same-sex couples do get various benefits), since 2003 same sex unions performed abroad have been recognized for immigration purposes, and adoption by same-sex couples is legal. Brazil also presented a draft resolution specifically including sexual orientation to be voted at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2003. And transgender people are explicitly protected by the law in several Brazilian states, and gender reassignment surgery is paid for by the public healthcare system. So despite the rampant homophobia in its culture and the difficulties and violence faced by LGBT people there, which is certainly worthy of criticism, Brazil is in reality fairly politically progressive: certainly more so than the US.
As for the question of whether countries that perpetuate or enact anti-gay legislation are "uncivilized," the appelation seems quite apt. For the record, however, Brazil has no anti-gay legislation: its sodomy laws were stricken from the books in 1830 and discrimination based on sexual orientation has been outlawed since 1989. Furthermore, a civil union act has been pending since the mid-1990s (it hasn't yet been voted on, but same-sex couples do get various benefits), since 2003 same sex unions performed abroad have been recognized for immigration purposes, and adoption by same-sex couples is legal. Brazil also presented a draft resolution specifically including sexual orientation to be voted at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2003. And transgender people are explicitly protected by the law in several Brazilian states, and gender reassignment surgery is paid for by the public healthcare system. So despite the rampant homophobia in its culture and the difficulties and violence faced by LGBT people there, which is certainly worthy of criticism, Brazil is in reality fairly politically progressive: certainly more so than the US.
22
Baconcat
CEO and Head of Research, Baconcat Institute
In the interest of good faith and promoting harmony in the field of both domestic and international research, I must express my sincere gratitude to my co-field scientists, the esteemed Doctors U. 238, S. Aussie, C. Jack, Fnarf, J. Girl, and M. Denver, whose work I'm deeply indebted to.
I most also proclaim my sincere appreciation to all, your comments have been educating and invaluable.
Kindest regards,
K. Portland
CEO and Head of Research, Baconcat Institute
In the interest of good faith and promoting harmony in the field of both domestic and international research, I must express my sincere gratitude to my co-field scientists, the esteemed Doctors U. 238, S. Aussie, C. Jack, Fnarf, J. Girl, and M. Denver, whose work I'm deeply indebted to.
I most also proclaim my sincere appreciation to all, your comments have been educating and invaluable.
Kindest regards,
K. Portland
23
rewind:
A. Steve, not S. Aussie.
Perhaps we could invest future grant money into a better means of editing?
A. Steve, not S. Aussie.
Perhaps we could invest future grant money into a better means of editing?
27
The first time they try to imprison a gay married couple who are Americans, their skies are going to be filled with warplanes and choppers as we invade them.
Mark my words.
Nobody in a third-world African nation does that.
Mark my words.
Nobody in a third-world African nation does that.
28
Note to @20: you can't "reassign gender" with a blade. Sorry.
More to the point: "no anti-gay legislation" does not translate to enforcement policy of criminal law against targeted and/or marginal populations within the nation-state. Homicide investigations of transsexual victims note that the word "transgender" isn't really known to Brazil are rarely followed through with arrests, much less convictions. In effect, they are one of the most disposable populations, regardless what the law cheerfully says (or doesn't) about being pro-gay. In Turkey, it's even worse. But that's another conversation.
"Sexual orientation" on the books means jack unless it has the teeth of affirming jurisprudence to support it. That goes for Brazil, the U.S., or even King County. "Political progressiveness" is a house of cards without assertive administrative follow-through when sexual orientation violations occur.
Keep that in mind no matter what kind of human rights measure is being discussed.
It's why the Uganda/Rwanda/Rickwarrenda question isn't simply a "gay issue" or this being an issue about pending homophobic legislation. It's that colonialist morality still pervades. It's that known transsexuals, much like known gays and lesbians, are typically hit first in a non-straight populace, and typically without reported care by local law enforcement. Look at Jamaica: a disproportionate share of "battyboys" killed in the middle of the street by mobs are not merely cissexual gay men getting caught holding hands with their boyfriends. It's the transsexual hairdressers, dancers, and sex workers pretty much the only vocations (hallo post-colonial gendering!) in which transsexual women there can make any coin whose actual numbers make up only a fraction of the local gay population. It's that for some cissexual gay men and lesbians, staying "hidden" is an option typically impossible for any transsexual who, even if but for a brief few months, ends up being visible to the local community. The smaller the community, as queers from central Nebraska might attest, the harder it is to escape notice.
[Props to you for sounding like Wikipedia, though.]
More...
More to the point: "no anti-gay legislation" does not translate to enforcement policy of criminal law against targeted and/or marginal populations within the nation-state. Homicide investigations of transsexual victims note that the word "transgender" isn't really known to Brazil are rarely followed through with arrests, much less convictions. In effect, they are one of the most disposable populations, regardless what the law cheerfully says (or doesn't) about being pro-gay. In Turkey, it's even worse. But that's another conversation.
"Sexual orientation" on the books means jack unless it has the teeth of affirming jurisprudence to support it. That goes for Brazil, the U.S., or even King County. "Political progressiveness" is a house of cards without assertive administrative follow-through when sexual orientation violations occur.
Keep that in mind no matter what kind of human rights measure is being discussed.
It's why the Uganda/Rwanda/Rickwarrenda question isn't simply a "gay issue" or this being an issue about pending homophobic legislation. It's that colonialist morality still pervades. It's that known transsexuals, much like known gays and lesbians, are typically hit first in a non-straight populace, and typically without reported care by local law enforcement. Look at Jamaica: a disproportionate share of "battyboys" killed in the middle of the street by mobs are not merely cissexual gay men getting caught holding hands with their boyfriends. It's the transsexual hairdressers, dancers, and sex workers pretty much the only vocations (hallo post-colonial gendering!) in which transsexual women there can make any coin whose actual numbers make up only a fraction of the local gay population. It's that for some cissexual gay men and lesbians, staying "hidden" is an option typically impossible for any transsexual who, even if but for a brief few months, ends up being visible to the local community. The smaller the community, as queers from central Nebraska might attest, the harder it is to escape notice.
[Props to you for sounding like Wikipedia, though.]
29
It should read: They're going after the another African nation (Rwanda) too.
Where does it end? It seems that interest groups in this country are the one instigating harm to be done to others.
I would not doubt that African nations become fed up with the insults "uncivilized nations" being thrown at them from the west. Now more than ever they need to stand up for each other and confront the attacks from elitist outsiders or I fear they will soon find themselves slowly but forcibly back as colonial possessions, and that doesn't have to take the old form (physical presence of Europeans) it once had to revive itself.
Where does it end? It seems that interest groups in this country are the one instigating harm to be done to others.
I would not doubt that African nations become fed up with the insults "uncivilized nations" being thrown at them from the west. Now more than ever they need to stand up for each other and confront the attacks from elitist outsiders or I fear they will soon find themselves slowly but forcibly back as colonial possessions, and that doesn't have to take the old form (physical presence of Europeans) it once had to revive itself.
31
Enough laughing for me. I'm deeply saddend by this proposed legislature, and to hear of further ties to the "Purpose Driven Life" and Mr. Warren.
32
But defending one's sovereignty and decision making in one's own government is somehow seen as hateful, and yet history does not lie., and those who have exercised their hate are well recorded in the analogs of world history. Has any subsaharan African nation invaded and imposed their will, culture, and ideologies upon any Western nation?
The answer is no, none have. And yet most Western european nations and north american cultures in function by those of european descent have done their fair share of subjugation and imposition not only in subsaharan Africa but also in those nations comprised mostly of African descendants in the Caribbean.
Its time for the African continent to realize that unless they're willing to become simple imitations and caricatures of the West they will always have to live in fear of sanctions and punishments, economically or otherwise. It time they fully embrace economic partnership with the east instead. Where they are not asked to observed their customs and deny their own. Africa needs to awaken or loose its sovereignty once more.
The answer is no, none have. And yet most Western european nations and north american cultures in function by those of european descent have done their fair share of subjugation and imposition not only in subsaharan Africa but also in those nations comprised mostly of African descendants in the Caribbean.
Its time for the African continent to realize that unless they're willing to become simple imitations and caricatures of the West they will always have to live in fear of sanctions and punishments, economically or otherwise. It time they fully embrace economic partnership with the east instead. Where they are not asked to observed their customs and deny their own. Africa needs to awaken or loose its sovereignty once more.
33
@28: "sex reassignment," then. "Gender reassignment" may not be strictly accurate, but it is used frequently enough to be a synonym.
As I thought I made clear in my post, culturally there's a lot that's worthy of criticism, and transgender people are at high risk for abuse in even the most politically progressive countries. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the term transgender is unkown in Brazil; certainly transvestism and transsexuality are known (although often conflated with each other and with homosexuality, as is typical in many cultures).
At any rate, you're right that "affirming jurisprudence" is needed to support legislation, and there is some degree of that in Brazil along with a high degree of homophobia, both personal and unofficially institutionalized.
And I agree with you that anti-gay legislation isn't just a gay issue and that vestigial colonial attitudes are informing much of what is happening in such places, as I've posted repeatedly.
As I thought I made clear in my post, culturally there's a lot that's worthy of criticism, and transgender people are at high risk for abuse in even the most politically progressive countries. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the term transgender is unkown in Brazil; certainly transvestism and transsexuality are known (although often conflated with each other and with homosexuality, as is typical in many cultures).
At any rate, you're right that "affirming jurisprudence" is needed to support legislation, and there is some degree of that in Brazil along with a high degree of homophobia, both personal and unofficially institutionalized.
And I agree with you that anti-gay legislation isn't just a gay issue and that vestigial colonial attitudes are informing much of what is happening in such places, as I've posted repeatedly.
35
@30 No sorry, I'm as much as an American as any other person here, and I can walk and chew gum at the same time. The people of subsaharan Africa have an ally in me and many others, and just like any other American citizen we can have political sway in order to secure that they are not harmed. I will not abandon that great obligation just because someone orders me to move to Africa. I am as much an American (pehaps even more) than anyone of european descent.
36
No-one gives a darn about claimed ethnicity. This is the internet. Besides it's worthless pride, if your going to be proud let it be for something your earned or achieved, not, because two people shagged and you were the outcome.
37
@33: What I mean as you pretty much answered your own query is the reified (sidebar: I really wish there was a synonym for that word) North American and European construct of "transgender", born really from academic wankery in the later 1980s, is practically unknown to most of the world. This is but a good thing. In Brazil, it's transexualidade and travestis heard most often. There's even transgenitalizaηγo literally, "transgenital" but nothing for "transgender".
The "conflation" as you put it, almost sounds like an agitating inconvenience rather than an acknowledgement that comprehension of what "gay" means elsewhere is not what North Americans and Europeans wish it to be.
This dissonance between different parts of the world is a modern day colonizing of lexicon controlling the discourse fuck, if you will that devalues regional cultures where meanings diverge substantially from the colony-makers. Thanks for at least re-iterating that you're aware of this; most blithely ignore it.
For instance, back in North America, it makes the likes of Dan or hartiepie get really tetchy to "conflate", as you put it, homosexual and transsexual populations into the same stew because it's politically inexpedient to their own personal ends.
Thrusting "transgenders" into the transsexual mix, even more so, creates an analogous inexpediency that reaches to a more fundamental level of basic human rights (i.e., access to health care without being told to disappear by the Country Doctor and the like). I could continue the case made in earlier threads that transgenders are a colonizing force even within North America and Europe namely at the staggering expense to transsexual populations that are at once excluded from gay discourse (which typically think of "transgender" and transsexual as the same damn thing). Meanwhile, transsexuals have increasingly been rendered a triviality (or just outright resented) by transgender discourses over these past few years. It makes for hostile grounds no matter where you try to go.
Dan, hartiepie, and other fags commenting in this same way tailor their remarks on human rights issues happening elsewhere (like sub-Sahara Africa) to specifically exclude parties that don't mesh with their worldview even when those parties all but mesh in said places. By this, I certainly mean, amongst others, transsexual populations.
I doubt Dan, et al, really consider how their own worldview is fairly niche and confined to a middle class experience relative to how the rest of the world interprets what "homosexual" means in local use. And to be frank, they likely don't give a shit, just as long as they get theirs and fuck all the rest.
More...
The "conflation" as you put it, almost sounds like an agitating inconvenience rather than an acknowledgement that comprehension of what "gay" means elsewhere is not what North Americans and Europeans wish it to be.
This dissonance between different parts of the world is a modern day colonizing of lexicon controlling the discourse fuck, if you will that devalues regional cultures where meanings diverge substantially from the colony-makers. Thanks for at least re-iterating that you're aware of this; most blithely ignore it.
For instance, back in North America, it makes the likes of Dan or hartiepie get really tetchy to "conflate", as you put it, homosexual and transsexual populations into the same stew because it's politically inexpedient to their own personal ends.
Thrusting "transgenders" into the transsexual mix, even more so, creates an analogous inexpediency that reaches to a more fundamental level of basic human rights (i.e., access to health care without being told to disappear by the Country Doctor and the like). I could continue the case made in earlier threads that transgenders are a colonizing force even within North America and Europe namely at the staggering expense to transsexual populations that are at once excluded from gay discourse (which typically think of "transgender" and transsexual as the same damn thing). Meanwhile, transsexuals have increasingly been rendered a triviality (or just outright resented) by transgender discourses over these past few years. It makes for hostile grounds no matter where you try to go.
Dan, hartiepie, and other fags commenting in this same way tailor their remarks on human rights issues happening elsewhere (like sub-Sahara Africa) to specifically exclude parties that don't mesh with their worldview even when those parties all but mesh in said places. By this, I certainly mean, amongst others, transsexual populations.
I doubt Dan, et al, really consider how their own worldview is fairly niche and confined to a middle class experience relative to how the rest of the world interprets what "homosexual" means in local use. And to be frank, they likely don't give a shit, just as long as they get theirs and fuck all the rest.
38
Dan's logic:
western nations = civilized, the birthplace of civilization!
African nations = uncivilized nations, unless they imitate the west, then they can become 'civilized' until they do something the west does not approve of, then they're uncivilized once again.
40
The African Diaspora's experience and its remembrance may seem as "worthless pride" to those who have no connection with it, but to those who do, it is of great importance and survival itself depends on never forgetting it.
I do believe on the value of African peoples culture, and as these current attacks on African nations like Uganda and Rwanda show, the importance African Americans can well be the only thing that stands between threats from certain groups in the west against African nations and the continuity and advancement in political and fully economic independence for said nations.
I do believe on the value of African peoples culture, and as these current attacks on African nations like Uganda and Rwanda show, the importance African Americans can well be the only thing that stands between threats from certain groups in the west against African nations and the continuity and advancement in political and fully economic independence for said nations.
41
This the internet, without verification there is no need to respect nor a moral obligation to accept unsubstantiated claims as fact.
42
You remind me of something a professor of mine back in college, a comparative political systems scholar, told us. In short, the state of civil liberties in any given nation correlates most strongly with two independent measures: regime type (as measured by Freedom House, a nonpartisan research NGO), and l attitudes toward homosexuals.
Dan, your comment that "Increasing the treatment of gay and lesbian citizens is defining difference between civilized and uncivilized nations, between free societies and tyrannies" understates the point. This is established social science.
And let's keep in mind - this isn't Rwanda's first brush with genocide, either.
Also, there's a big, big gap between disrespecting the sovereignty and cultural integrity of a nation and requiring basic minimum human rights standards to be upheld. I imagine if this were racial that LC wouldn't be nearly so, erm, "culturally sensitive." But, hey, gays are acceptable targets - have fun, right?
Dan, your comment that "Increasing the treatment of gay and lesbian citizens is defining difference between civilized and uncivilized nations, between free societies and tyrannies" understates the point. This is established social science.
And let's keep in mind - this isn't Rwanda's first brush with genocide, either.
Also, there's a big, big gap between disrespecting the sovereignty and cultural integrity of a nation and requiring basic minimum human rights standards to be upheld. I imagine if this were racial that LC wouldn't be nearly so, erm, "culturally sensitive." But, hey, gays are acceptable targets - have fun, right?
43
http://www.wgntv.com/news/nationworld/sn…
"But defending one's sovereignty and decision making in one's own government is somehow seen as hateful, and yet history does not lie., and those who have exercised their hate are well recorded in the analogs of world history."
Case-in-point LovesChild
"But defending one's sovereignty and decision making in one's own government is somehow seen as hateful, and yet history does not lie., and those who have exercised their hate are well recorded in the analogs of world history."
Case-in-point LovesChild
44
@37 I think, as you seem to suggest, that there's a lot more to human sex and sexuality (and gender) than has yet been widely studied or discussed even in academia, let alone in politics, activism or culture, and I think that being specific and precise is often a good thing: as you say, same-sex-loving men and women in other cultures often do not identify in ways we would call "gay" in Anglo-European cultures. But I also think there are times when it's fine or even desirable to be general. For example, calling same-sex loving people in other cultures "gay" is a useful shorthand although it may not be utterly accurate, and the hijras in India don't fit neatly into any of our categories, yet it may be useful to include them as "transsexual" for certain purposes.
I'm not really sure that this is a question of North Americans and Europeans wishing for non-Western sexualities to fit neatly into our mold, however. For example, in many cultures it is impossible for same-sex loving men to be open about their desires because all males are expected to marry women and father children. I don't see an imperialistic impulse in Western gays wanting such people to have the kind of freedom they themselves have to be with the partner of their choice and live as they wish. Just because certain practices are claimed to be intrinsic to a culture, are traditional or have a long history doesn't mean that they can't be challenged as unfair, inhumane or as violating human rights.
So while I agree with you that sometimes Western discourse can collapse, ignore or devalue non-Western practices, I don't believe that challenging some of those practices is a bad thing. For example, the practice of female circumcision is regarded as traditional, but I feel utterly comfortable calling it abominable.
I also agree that some North American activists have ignored transsexuals (or worse) because they felt it was expedient to their own political aims. Distasteful as it is, they were probably right from a political point of view. I disagree with your views about Dan\s approach, however.
This is a hasty reply so it's probably accordingly garbled, but interesting as what you and I have been discussing is, I don't think that it really has much to do with the current situation in Uganda and Rwanda.
More...
I'm not really sure that this is a question of North Americans and Europeans wishing for non-Western sexualities to fit neatly into our mold, however. For example, in many cultures it is impossible for same-sex loving men to be open about their desires because all males are expected to marry women and father children. I don't see an imperialistic impulse in Western gays wanting such people to have the kind of freedom they themselves have to be with the partner of their choice and live as they wish. Just because certain practices are claimed to be intrinsic to a culture, are traditional or have a long history doesn't mean that they can't be challenged as unfair, inhumane or as violating human rights.
So while I agree with you that sometimes Western discourse can collapse, ignore or devalue non-Western practices, I don't believe that challenging some of those practices is a bad thing. For example, the practice of female circumcision is regarded as traditional, but I feel utterly comfortable calling it abominable.
I also agree that some North American activists have ignored transsexuals (or worse) because they felt it was expedient to their own political aims. Distasteful as it is, they were probably right from a political point of view. I disagree with your views about Dan\s approach, however.
This is a hasty reply so it's probably accordingly garbled, but interesting as what you and I have been discussing is, I don't think that it really has much to do with the current situation in Uganda and Rwanda.
46
"Just because certain practices are claimed to be intrinsic to a culture, are traditional or have a long history doesn't mean that they can't be challenged as unfair, inhumane or as violating human rights."
And therein lies the euro-centrist problematic, that is, the refusal to acknowledge that they are not solely the ones with the capacity to reform, assert, or thinking thru what social norms they want to preserve in THEIR CULTURE.
This of course is the basis for all the current geopolitical problems we currently face. Because while putting on a face of caring for others who they perceive to share a common life experience with, nothing could be further from the truth, because an African who has seeked encounters with those of his own gender for example, does not necessarily views him or herself as a gay or a lesbian, like those in the west do) there's something else behind this supposed consternation from gays in the west:
"include them as "transsexual" (you could easily substitute for lesbian, gays, or what might have you) for certain purposes."
That meaning, pointing to them not because those in the west really give a damn about them or their culture but doing so simply in order to legitimize their own western notions and labels like "transsexual", lesbian, gay, etc.
And therein lies the euro-centrist problematic, that is, the refusal to acknowledge that they are not solely the ones with the capacity to reform, assert, or thinking thru what social norms they want to preserve in THEIR CULTURE.
This of course is the basis for all the current geopolitical problems we currently face. Because while putting on a face of caring for others who they perceive to share a common life experience with, nothing could be further from the truth, because an African who has seeked encounters with those of his own gender for example, does not necessarily views him or herself as a gay or a lesbian, like those in the west do) there's something else behind this supposed consternation from gays in the west:
"include them as "transsexual" (you could easily substitute for lesbian, gays, or what might have you) for certain purposes."
That meaning, pointing to them not because those in the west really give a damn about them or their culture but doing so simply in order to legitimize their own western notions and labels like "transsexual", lesbian, gay, etc.
47
All of you bitches best stop offending Rugandan's and Uwandan's or i'm gonna tell Big Bro over there and they'll come and fix your sorry asses.
None of y'all give a damn about them anyway, an African who has seeked encounters with those of his own gender for example, does not necessarily views him or herself as a gay or a lesbian, "include them as "transsexual" (you could easily substitute for lesbian, gays, or what might have you) for certain purposes", in order to legitimize their own western notions.
And therein lies the euro-centrist problematic, that is, the refusal to acknowledge that they are not solely the ones with the capacity to reform, assert, or thinking thru what social norms they want to preserve in THEIR CULTURE.
So there it is, y'all is the problem, not then. Try real hard not to forget it and don't get y'all's hackels up and cause no more problems cause there's something else behind this supposed consternation from gays in the west.
I'm going to bed now, so none of you bother me anymore about this. Y'all are walking a fine fine line that you might not recover from raising a ruckus about this.
None of y'all give a damn about them anyway, an African who has seeked encounters with those of his own gender for example, does not necessarily views him or herself as a gay or a lesbian, "include them as "transsexual" (you could easily substitute for lesbian, gays, or what might have you) for certain purposes", in order to legitimize their own western notions.
And therein lies the euro-centrist problematic, that is, the refusal to acknowledge that they are not solely the ones with the capacity to reform, assert, or thinking thru what social norms they want to preserve in THEIR CULTURE.
So there it is, y'all is the problem, not then. Try real hard not to forget it and don't get y'all's hackels up and cause no more problems cause there's something else behind this supposed consternation from gays in the west.
I'm going to bed now, so none of you bother me anymore about this. Y'all are walking a fine fine line that you might not recover from raising a ruckus about this.
48
I never said that people couldn't reform their own culture, but every human being has the right and responsibility to oppose oppression EVEN WHEN it's based on cultural norms or tradition. And people don't get to "decide to maintain social norms" that are blatant violations of human rights, such as female genital mutilation.
The issue is not that North Americans and Anglo-Europeans need to legitimize their own notion of gayness by going outside their cultures. That a man from culture X who has sex with other men may not identify as gay in the way we understand it in the modern West does not mean that he doesn't deserve the same protection from state murder, life imprisonment, violence and discrimination that every human being has an intrinsic right to.
The issue is not that North Americans and Anglo-Europeans need to legitimize their own notion of gayness by going outside their cultures. That a man from culture X who has sex with other men may not identify as gay in the way we understand it in the modern West does not mean that he doesn't deserve the same protection from state murder, life imprisonment, violence and discrimination that every human being has an intrinsic right to.
49
Dingo, I think it's disingenuous to conflate non-consensual action (e.g., FGM or even, arguably, male circumcision after birth) with self-consensual action (transsexual ownership over one's own body or, writ large, one's right to choose as they may for their own body).
I also think your response on @44 was very well put and cogent. On one point, though, I maintain that Dan's approach using one part of the world to make a point that only "gays and lesbians" are under persecution in sub-Sahara wrought by the words of an American thumper feeds into the chronic belief back home that it's only the "gays and lesbians" being targeted over there. That omission (one, I'd argue, of deliberate convenience for the point you made above about political expediency rather than one of honest negligence) reverberates back home as what happens in Uganda or Rwanda, thanks to the Rick Warrens, is "simply" a gay and lesbian problem.
This altogether forecloses discussion that in Uganda or Rwanda, it's also the blood of transsexuals being spilt and prosecutions against them carrying forth to severe punishment by the state: due to gendered divisions of society and labour, transsexual visibility ends up being disproportionate to that of same-sex loving men or women who can manage to keep that fact about themselves better concealed. The transsexual, meanwhile, is in violation of this class of law if she or he uses a different name or shows any indications to the state that certain administrative designators are now in question. They become de facto suspects if not more susceptible to being tried and convicted for the "crime of homosexuality".
What both homosexual and transsexual populations there have in common, though, is that it's perfectly reasonable to expect that one may not necessarily appear to public or community as such to not look "gay" and, in turn, face greater repercussion if outed to the state by family and community as "gay" versus those who are viewable in plain sight as such. The differences lay in perceptions of "deception" when "the truth" is outed: it feels more threatening to people than that which is assumed as a "known" quantity debunked. That's why so many transsexuals get killed, including right there in America. Their killers are cut loose or get off lightly because their defence counsel uses the same "gay panic" defence used when the victim is a cissexual gay man or lesbian. It was the "deception" that triggered the violent response. It's OK to feel that way when "deceived". The chickens come home to roost.
It also forecloses acknowledgement that institutional and social treatment of transsexuals "back home" is really all that bad. If all you hear coming from blog posts about Rwanda and Uganda are about how "gays and lesbians" in sub-Sahara Africa are coming under fire by lawmakers swayed by the writings of American preachers, the absent mention of transsexuals implies that transsexuals don't face this problem there like "gays and lesbians" do. And back in America, should a transsexual actually speak up on being treated like a criminal or an untouchable at home, they're summarily told to shut up and quit bitching when "omg our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Africa could be hit with the death penalty for being gay!!!1!111" It's disingenuous because this reasoning further demerits the political relevance of transsexuals being hurt pretty badly at home much less elsewhere in economic, social, and, yes, corporeal capacity.
In short, what I'm saying at Dan and hartiepie and others is "get your own house of affairs in order before you decide to go out as blogging warriors and change the world like the queer crusaders you are. 'Gay and lesbian' only won't cut it, and the rest of the world will call you out for being an undressed emperor."
But thank you for this discussion. Contrary to @45, my life experiences are no more valid than others. Having these discussions merely underscores that having my life experiences (the Victorian "my"?) is no less valid than expedient discourse concerned politically with merely the "gays and lesbians" of America or Africa. Atop being transsexual, I'm also homosexual, so this Warren shit does bother me on a same-sex loving woman level. I just lack the "luxury" of politically rallying for one while politically dismissing the other.
More...
I also think your response on @44 was very well put and cogent. On one point, though, I maintain that Dan's approach using one part of the world to make a point that only "gays and lesbians" are under persecution in sub-Sahara wrought by the words of an American thumper feeds into the chronic belief back home that it's only the "gays and lesbians" being targeted over there. That omission (one, I'd argue, of deliberate convenience for the point you made above about political expediency rather than one of honest negligence) reverberates back home as what happens in Uganda or Rwanda, thanks to the Rick Warrens, is "simply" a gay and lesbian problem.
This altogether forecloses discussion that in Uganda or Rwanda, it's also the blood of transsexuals being spilt and prosecutions against them carrying forth to severe punishment by the state: due to gendered divisions of society and labour, transsexual visibility ends up being disproportionate to that of same-sex loving men or women who can manage to keep that fact about themselves better concealed. The transsexual, meanwhile, is in violation of this class of law if she or he uses a different name or shows any indications to the state that certain administrative designators are now in question. They become de facto suspects if not more susceptible to being tried and convicted for the "crime of homosexuality".
What both homosexual and transsexual populations there have in common, though, is that it's perfectly reasonable to expect that one may not necessarily appear to public or community as such to not look "gay" and, in turn, face greater repercussion if outed to the state by family and community as "gay" versus those who are viewable in plain sight as such. The differences lay in perceptions of "deception" when "the truth" is outed: it feels more threatening to people than that which is assumed as a "known" quantity debunked. That's why so many transsexuals get killed, including right there in America. Their killers are cut loose or get off lightly because their defence counsel uses the same "gay panic" defence used when the victim is a cissexual gay man or lesbian. It was the "deception" that triggered the violent response. It's OK to feel that way when "deceived". The chickens come home to roost.
It also forecloses acknowledgement that institutional and social treatment of transsexuals "back home" is really all that bad. If all you hear coming from blog posts about Rwanda and Uganda are about how "gays and lesbians" in sub-Sahara Africa are coming under fire by lawmakers swayed by the writings of American preachers, the absent mention of transsexuals implies that transsexuals don't face this problem there like "gays and lesbians" do. And back in America, should a transsexual actually speak up on being treated like a criminal or an untouchable at home, they're summarily told to shut up and quit bitching when "omg our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Africa could be hit with the death penalty for being gay!!!1!111" It's disingenuous because this reasoning further demerits the political relevance of transsexuals being hurt pretty badly at home much less elsewhere in economic, social, and, yes, corporeal capacity.
In short, what I'm saying at Dan and hartiepie and others is "get your own house of affairs in order before you decide to go out as blogging warriors and change the world like the queer crusaders you are. 'Gay and lesbian' only won't cut it, and the rest of the world will call you out for being an undressed emperor."
But thank you for this discussion. Contrary to @45, my life experiences are no more valid than others. Having these discussions merely underscores that having my life experiences (the Victorian "my"?) is no less valid than expedient discourse concerned politically with merely the "gays and lesbians" of America or Africa. Atop being transsexual, I'm also homosexual, so this Warren shit does bother me on a same-sex loving woman level. I just lack the "luxury" of politically rallying for one while politically dismissing the other.
50
@46.. what the fuck does this mean ?....
'...Because while putting on a face of caring for others who they perceive to share a common life experience with, nothing could be further from the truth, because an African who has seeked encounters with those of his own gender for example, does not necessarily views him or herself as a gay or a lesbian, like those in the west do) there's something else behind this supposed consternation from gays in the west:
"include them as "transsexual" (you could easily substitute for lesbian, gays, or what might have you) for certain purposes."
That meaning, pointing to them not because those in the west really give a damn about them or their culture but doing so simply in order to legitimize their own western notions and labels like "transsexual", lesbian, gay, etc.'
..so which gays do you think the ugandans are talking about rounding up, deporting, arresting, and putting to death ? the pretend artificial african ones ?..or the duped westernized ones ?.. and aren't most of them black like you ? and this is just fine with you ?
..fuck you get on my last nerves..
'...Because while putting on a face of caring for others who they perceive to share a common life experience with, nothing could be further from the truth, because an African who has seeked encounters with those of his own gender for example, does not necessarily views him or herself as a gay or a lesbian, like those in the west do) there's something else behind this supposed consternation from gays in the west:
"include them as "transsexual" (you could easily substitute for lesbian, gays, or what might have you) for certain purposes."
That meaning, pointing to them not because those in the west really give a damn about them or their culture but doing so simply in order to legitimize their own western notions and labels like "transsexual", lesbian, gay, etc.'
..so which gays do you think the ugandans are talking about rounding up, deporting, arresting, and putting to death ? the pretend artificial african ones ?..or the duped westernized ones ?.. and aren't most of them black like you ? and this is just fine with you ?
..fuck you get on my last nerves..
51
Uh oh. You can always tell when another country is becoming civilized. They start hating, bashing, and murdering people who look or beleive differently than they do. Where do you think they learned to hate gays? It's all of those conservative christian right wingers who think it's their duty to teach them intolerance and and prejudice.
52
Dan, the difference between treatment of the mainstream populace and the fringe groups (including criminal and disabled elements) has always been the measure between functional states and dystopias. The whole point of government is the establishment of a system of rules of cooperation. The wider variety of elements that are included within the system, the more effective it is.
Yes, gays are the present scapegoat (i.e. the popular controversy), much like the Jews in the 30s, much like the blacks during the '60s, much like the Irish, Italians and Chinese in their respective times. Much like the Mexicans when we run out of other flashier peoples to hate.
Eventually the transgenders, the crazies and the disabled will have their turn. (Yes, folks, the loons and the cripples are on the fringe list, and are expected to keep to our ghettos). Eventually, the atheists, neopagans and witches will borrow some limelight to secure rights that compare to the Judeo-Christians. Eventually we'll tire of the latest subculture music, dance, courtship fads whatever, being associated with Satanism. (We have gangsta-rap to thank for some of the progress we made in the '90s and 2000s).
I hope the bisexuals (who, in this town, get hate from both straights and gays) get a free ride into normalcy with the gay revolution. Heck, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I hope we can establish rules to enfold all fringe groups, rather than going through this tedious process to include each separate group, especially since previous groups seem to forget their own ostracized history when it comes to the new spade on the block.
Yes, gays are the present scapegoat (i.e. the popular controversy), much like the Jews in the 30s, much like the blacks during the '60s, much like the Irish, Italians and Chinese in their respective times. Much like the Mexicans when we run out of other flashier peoples to hate.
Eventually the transgenders, the crazies and the disabled will have their turn. (Yes, folks, the loons and the cripples are on the fringe list, and are expected to keep to our ghettos). Eventually, the atheists, neopagans and witches will borrow some limelight to secure rights that compare to the Judeo-Christians. Eventually we'll tire of the latest subculture music, dance, courtship fads whatever, being associated with Satanism. (We have gangsta-rap to thank for some of the progress we made in the '90s and 2000s).
I hope the bisexuals (who, in this town, get hate from both straights and gays) get a free ride into normalcy with the gay revolution. Heck, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I hope we can establish rules to enfold all fringe groups, rather than going through this tedious process to include each separate group, especially since previous groups seem to forget their own ostracized history when it comes to the new spade on the block.
54
49, I agree that FGM and transsexuality aren't comparable. In my later post I was using FGM for the benefit of you-know-who as an example that it's pretty hard to argue outsiders should refrain from criticizing by virtue of its being "traditional."
While I agree with much of what you say in this post as well, I'm pretty sure that it's not Dan's position that only gays and lesbians are under persecution, but he is a gay man and much of what he is concerned about is gay issues; there's nothing wrong with that: we all have our focus. Dan has remarked a number of times in his podcast that those who seek to strip others of their rights are never just trying to take away rights from one group. That may not translate into active activism on behalf of trans people, but I also don't think he's riding roughshod over them either, and he does report on trans issues as well, such as, just recently, the woman who was denied a job at a McDonald's in Florida.
Regarding Uganda and Rwanda specifically, Dan hasn't chosen those places at random and decided to report on the conditions of gay and lesbian people there to the exclusion of trans people. I haven't read the actual text of the proposed bills, but none of the reporting I've seen, and I've read a lot, has mentioned any (broadly defined) trans issues in those bills. In other words, the bills appear to be specifically targeted against people who engage in same-sex sex, and that's what Dan is reporting.
While I agree with much of what you say in this post as well, I'm pretty sure that it's not Dan's position that only gays and lesbians are under persecution, but he is a gay man and much of what he is concerned about is gay issues; there's nothing wrong with that: we all have our focus. Dan has remarked a number of times in his podcast that those who seek to strip others of their rights are never just trying to take away rights from one group. That may not translate into active activism on behalf of trans people, but I also don't think he's riding roughshod over them either, and he does report on trans issues as well, such as, just recently, the woman who was denied a job at a McDonald's in Florida.
Regarding Uganda and Rwanda specifically, Dan hasn't chosen those places at random and decided to report on the conditions of gay and lesbian people there to the exclusion of trans people. I haven't read the actual text of the proposed bills, but none of the reporting I've seen, and I've read a lot, has mentioned any (broadly defined) trans issues in those bills. In other words, the bills appear to be specifically targeted against people who engage in same-sex sex, and that's what Dan is reporting.
55
@54: I think, with regard to Dan, it comes down to this:
He's a cissexual gay man. He is concerned about gay issues. That makes sense.
He is also an editorial director. He is concerned about readership. That also makes sense.
He is not, however, the editorial director of a gay paper, and I think that's where things get all bunged up.
To write about Warren hating on gays and bringing that joy to Africa is one thing (and an important one), but to do no more than play a sympathy card and make examples of pathos over "trans people" (the McDicks report recently, as you mention, being one, but the Chaz Bono fascination is a cloying other one altogether), wedging different populations together, and thinking little more of it than that is disingenuous to a general audience readership although marginally improved from a decade ago when his contempt for transsexual people was worn like new cuff links and no less flocked together with other populations having jack and diane to do with them.
The Stranger remains a significant print and online media channel for Seattle life (sorry Times, but you still suck it like Trebek and you lost whatever raison d'κtre you had when the P-I got yanked). The Stranger's office location in Cap Hill is problematic when one starts playing queer favourites in general editorial capacity at the expense of others.
Were Dan "editor of gay affairs" or sslt, this discussion would be over with.
This above is sort of a "just sayin'" remark, as I grok your point well, Dingo and really you're spot-on through most of it. You're also pretty damn patient with this thread. But I also am confident to risk saying that if you and I were to get on a jet together this Sunday, go to Uganda, be all sociologist observer-y and see who's getting targeted under Warren-inspired state policy, I'd put my scholarly reputation on the line (i.e., something that means a lot to me personally, even if it means nothing to anyone else) to advance that we're gonna see that it's not just gays and lesbians, as North Americans see it, getting hit hard because of the same-sex sex matter alone.
Rather, the bill being discussed [full text as drafted a few weeks ago] at Ugandan legislature suggests that anyone suspected of being gay and I read this as generalized behaviour, not exclusively caught in the act of same-sex sex or "U.C.K." are charged with reporting it to the government, including family members who might also suspect such. I doubt many people there care to nuance the difference between homosexual and transsexual, just as someone from Dothan, Alabama, couldn't be arsed to make the distinction. I also know that it's transsexual people especially in gay-hostile places who disproportionately do work in brothels or in the sex trade in order to eat, especially in places where work is hard to come by for most. Brothels are addressed in this bill. The way same-sex sex is defined in the bill also puts transsexual people in Uganda into the same catch-22 that prevents the same in the U.S. from marrying people of whatever sex (this is where I could cite cases, but this isn't yet a law review, heh).
So I'm sure it might intrigue gay and lesbian readers (cissexual and transsexual alike) of The Stranger to know that this is more than just about gays and lesbians facing hell in Uganda. I'm sure a lot of other general readers would, too. They're not going to get it from MSNBC, blog-o-world in general, and definitely not from Seattle Gay News (and why would they, as that's just a cissexual gay rag where even dykes get to be the token?).
It's also interesting to add that when a cadre of transsexuals get killed over a short span in, say, the aforementioned Brazil or Turkey or even the U.S. I'm so less likely to find out about it in Dan's rag or in the Slog than elsewhere (and often many months later when no one gives a shit anymore, if ever they did). But if it's Son of Matthew Sheppard found on a fence in, uh, western Ohio, picked half-clean by wolves after a hot summer night of bleeding to death after a beating, I'll be looking forward to the investigative dirt as a cover story in next week's Stranger. Hyperbole, yes, but there's always a shred of truth to make it so.
One might think that an influential gay editorial director would find it a general readership bonus to shine above and beyond what is echoed elsewhere by finding out what the "gay and lesbian" community there actually looks like, perhaps by finding a gay source in Uganda via email to get the first-hand dope (e.g., see Mudede and his email source following the Knox trial aftermath). Dan's got his issues with transgender people. So do I. They're probably very similar issues shared up and until when he groups people like my peers in with them and then mocks all. That's where things get acrimonious. And I'm sure he isn't even cognitively aware of a few issues transsexual people have with transgenders, nor would he need to relate just comprehend.
It's just my grouse, really. Dan doesn't have to cater to anyone (and rightly so he shouldn't), but he's in an unusual for 2009, at least position of influence to do what others either have not or cannot do. To echo everywhere else is to squander an opportunity of distinction.
Sorry to stretch this out as long as it's gone, Dingo. All the best to you.
More...
He's a cissexual gay man. He is concerned about gay issues. That makes sense.
He is also an editorial director. He is concerned about readership. That also makes sense.
He is not, however, the editorial director of a gay paper, and I think that's where things get all bunged up.
To write about Warren hating on gays and bringing that joy to Africa is one thing (and an important one), but to do no more than play a sympathy card and make examples of pathos over "trans people" (the McDicks report recently, as you mention, being one, but the Chaz Bono fascination is a cloying other one altogether), wedging different populations together, and thinking little more of it than that is disingenuous to a general audience readership although marginally improved from a decade ago when his contempt for transsexual people was worn like new cuff links and no less flocked together with other populations having jack and diane to do with them.
The Stranger remains a significant print and online media channel for Seattle life (sorry Times, but you still suck it like Trebek and you lost whatever raison d'κtre you had when the P-I got yanked). The Stranger's office location in Cap Hill is problematic when one starts playing queer favourites in general editorial capacity at the expense of others.
Were Dan "editor of gay affairs" or sslt, this discussion would be over with.
This above is sort of a "just sayin'" remark, as I grok your point well, Dingo and really you're spot-on through most of it. You're also pretty damn patient with this thread. But I also am confident to risk saying that if you and I were to get on a jet together this Sunday, go to Uganda, be all sociologist observer-y and see who's getting targeted under Warren-inspired state policy, I'd put my scholarly reputation on the line (i.e., something that means a lot to me personally, even if it means nothing to anyone else) to advance that we're gonna see that it's not just gays and lesbians, as North Americans see it, getting hit hard because of the same-sex sex matter alone.
Rather, the bill being discussed [full text as drafted a few weeks ago] at Ugandan legislature suggests that anyone suspected of being gay and I read this as generalized behaviour, not exclusively caught in the act of same-sex sex or "U.C.K." are charged with reporting it to the government, including family members who might also suspect such. I doubt many people there care to nuance the difference between homosexual and transsexual, just as someone from Dothan, Alabama, couldn't be arsed to make the distinction. I also know that it's transsexual people especially in gay-hostile places who disproportionately do work in brothels or in the sex trade in order to eat, especially in places where work is hard to come by for most. Brothels are addressed in this bill. The way same-sex sex is defined in the bill also puts transsexual people in Uganda into the same catch-22 that prevents the same in the U.S. from marrying people of whatever sex (this is where I could cite cases, but this isn't yet a law review, heh).
So I'm sure it might intrigue gay and lesbian readers (cissexual and transsexual alike) of The Stranger to know that this is more than just about gays and lesbians facing hell in Uganda. I'm sure a lot of other general readers would, too. They're not going to get it from MSNBC, blog-o-world in general, and definitely not from Seattle Gay News (and why would they, as that's just a cissexual gay rag where even dykes get to be the token?).
It's also interesting to add that when a cadre of transsexuals get killed over a short span in, say, the aforementioned Brazil or Turkey or even the U.S. I'm so less likely to find out about it in Dan's rag or in the Slog than elsewhere (and often many months later when no one gives a shit anymore, if ever they did). But if it's Son of Matthew Sheppard found on a fence in, uh, western Ohio, picked half-clean by wolves after a hot summer night of bleeding to death after a beating, I'll be looking forward to the investigative dirt as a cover story in next week's Stranger. Hyperbole, yes, but there's always a shred of truth to make it so.
One might think that an influential gay editorial director would find it a general readership bonus to shine above and beyond what is echoed elsewhere by finding out what the "gay and lesbian" community there actually looks like, perhaps by finding a gay source in Uganda via email to get the first-hand dope (e.g., see Mudede and his email source following the Knox trial aftermath). Dan's got his issues with transgender people. So do I. They're probably very similar issues shared up and until when he groups people like my peers in with them and then mocks all. That's where things get acrimonious. And I'm sure he isn't even cognitively aware of a few issues transsexual people have with transgenders, nor would he need to relate just comprehend.
It's just my grouse, really. Dan doesn't have to cater to anyone (and rightly so he shouldn't), but he's in an unusual for 2009, at least position of influence to do what others either have not or cannot do. To echo everywhere else is to squander an opportunity of distinction.
Sorry to stretch this out as long as it's gone, Dingo. All the best to you.
57
@LC: I am African (and a real "I live here" type of African, thank you very much), and gay, and on behalf of all LGBT people on this continent I'd just like to say: fuck you. Gays, lesbians, and transsexuals have traditionally been among the forefront of civil rights groups here, fighting for equality, social justice, and for everyone's right to be treated with dignity, not to mention access to essential medicine for AIDS and TB, so, er, what the hell do you know?
58
@LC: Why don't you learn something about actual African history and societies before projecting your hate-filled fantasies onto them? Show me some evidence that homosexuality was a concern in the precolonial Rwandan kingdom, and we'll talk. More to the point, wouldn't you approve of the British ban on woman-woman marriages whenever they found them? How about going back to that little bit of authentic African tradition?
There's a long history of African-American appropriation of African experience--and even colonialist projects (see Liberia). You're part of the problem, not the solution.
There's a long history of African-American appropriation of African experience--and even colonialist projects (see Liberia). You're part of the problem, not the solution.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (58) RSS