![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
musings on flavors of activism
(Sparked by a posting from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
red_frog.)
The question: "why does queer in-your-face outness have to be so [overtly sexual]?" (phrasing changed from the original for clarity)
I think that there's a few things going on.red_frog already covered some of them well, so I'm going to throw out a few additional complementary hypotheses of my own.
First, I'm going to broaden the question a bit, and change it to "why do social-issues activists have to be so aggressive?"
Well, they don't, of course. But this partially depends on your audience. For people that can be convinced by rational argument, or to explicitly examine their assumptions, quiet persuasion generally works just fine. But persuasion probably doesn't work as well for people that aren't particularly introspective...and asred_frog says, sometimes you have to get their attention first.
Another point: people seem to find it easier to discriminate (and persecute, and hate) in the abstract. If Joe Voter has never met a homosexual who's "out", or seen one on television, then all he can do is base his opinions on his knowledge of, or his cultural biases regarding, homosexuality, rather than his knowledge of particular homosexuals. It's all abstract, and any discriminatory measures he supports don't really affect him personally in any way that he can detect.
On the other hand, if he's forced to confront a homosexual as an actual person--or, better still, a number of different ones--then his opinions become much more concrete. And, you know, evidence-based, even.
As a side note,red_frog brings up the "bisexual in theory" thing, and correctly points out that asking someone who's declared themselves as bisexual whether they've actually been sexually involved with both women and men is generally pretty intrusive, and possibly a little bit insulting, as the implication is at least occasionally "well, if you haven't had sex with members of both sexes, you aren't really bi, you're just trendy/trying to make a political point/confused/etc.". My personal take on this is somewhat similar to my response to the "is sexuality a choice, or biologically determined?" question. And for similar reasons, I get annoyed at people that assert "it's biological!" as a defense against the "your sexuality is wrong-wrong-wrong" accusation, for two reasons.
First, people do in fact manage to ignore, or override, their sexual impulses. (Otherwise the entire feline population would be extinct. *grin*) In all seriousness, it can be done. I'm not saying that people should be forced by society to do this (as I hope my next point will illustrate), but that the trick is possible.
Second, and far more important: answering the question as posed accepts the frame that the question poses. I believe that it's an interesting and reasonable question that shouldn't have a flipping thing to do with how people should be treated, personally or legally. Whether my sexuality is a matter of choice or of genetic determination, I should be allowed to express it as I like--and this includes choosing not to do so, in the case of bisexuals that aren't currently intimately involved, or perhaps have never been so, with people of both sexes.
red_frog.)The question: "why does queer in-your-face outness have to be so [overtly sexual]?" (phrasing changed from the original for clarity)
I think that there's a few things going on.
red_frog already covered some of them well, so I'm going to throw out a few additional complementary hypotheses of my own.First, I'm going to broaden the question a bit, and change it to "why do social-issues activists have to be so aggressive?"
Well, they don't, of course. But this partially depends on your audience. For people that can be convinced by rational argument, or to explicitly examine their assumptions, quiet persuasion generally works just fine. But persuasion probably doesn't work as well for people that aren't particularly introspective...and as
red_frog says, sometimes you have to get their attention first.Another point: people seem to find it easier to discriminate (and persecute, and hate) in the abstract. If Joe Voter has never met a homosexual who's "out", or seen one on television, then all he can do is base his opinions on his knowledge of, or his cultural biases regarding, homosexuality, rather than his knowledge of particular homosexuals. It's all abstract, and any discriminatory measures he supports don't really affect him personally in any way that he can detect.
On the other hand, if he's forced to confront a homosexual as an actual person--or, better still, a number of different ones--then his opinions become much more concrete. And, you know, evidence-based, even.
As a side note,
red_frog brings up the "bisexual in theory" thing, and correctly points out that asking someone who's declared themselves as bisexual whether they've actually been sexually involved with both women and men is generally pretty intrusive, and possibly a little bit insulting, as the implication is at least occasionally "well, if you haven't had sex with members of both sexes, you aren't really bi, you're just trendy/trying to make a political point/confused/etc.". My personal take on this is somewhat similar to my response to the "is sexuality a choice, or biologically determined?" question. And for similar reasons, I get annoyed at people that assert "it's biological!" as a defense against the "your sexuality is wrong-wrong-wrong" accusation, for two reasons. First, people do in fact manage to ignore, or override, their sexual impulses. (Otherwise the entire feline population would be extinct. *grin*) In all seriousness, it can be done. I'm not saying that people should be forced by society to do this (as I hope my next point will illustrate), but that the trick is possible.
Second, and far more important: answering the question as posed accepts the frame that the question poses. I believe that it's an interesting and reasonable question that shouldn't have a flipping thing to do with how people should be treated, personally or legally. Whether my sexuality is a matter of choice or of genetic determination, I should be allowed to express it as I like--and this includes choosing not to do so, in the case of bisexuals that aren't currently intimately involved, or perhaps have never been so, with people of both sexes.