LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[SowZ]

"Human" is a subset of the superset "People." Depending on definition, I'm not sure I could count as a member of the smaller set, and I don't care to include myself whether or not I could. Consider me a sympathetic third party.

Huh, well, whatever then.

[golentan]

Huh, well, whatever then.

I've found from centuries of dealing with me that the best solution is to ignore me, punctuated occasionally with slaps. Though I never mean to slap myself. My hands just have a mind of my own.

[Coidzor]

So how do you tell the difference between a bisexual character and a lesbian character that was just in denial about it until the end of her character arc anyway?

[SiuiS]

"Human" is a subset of the superset "People." Depending on definition, I'm not sure I could count as a member of the smaller set, and I don't care to include myself whether or not I could. Consider me a sympathetic third party.

Indeed. It's a strange concept for some, so I just say I'm weird and they let it go.

So how do you tell the difference between a bisexual character and a lesbian character that was just in denial about it until the end of her character arc anyway?

Why would you write a lesbian who is in denial as a character arc? I cannot see the value.


*


A point was made recently that the support thread hasn't really been about support so much as rapport, so I think I'm gonna mellow out on my responses unless they're involved in that support function. A lot of this stuff would be better off I. The questions & discussion thread anyway, or PMs. :)

[Kajhera]

There was a point in my life I interpreted my past self as lesbian in denial. I'm now pretty sure I'm bi, but thinking about being lesbian and in denial is still not a valueless thing to me.

[Coidzor]

Why would you write a lesbian who is in denial as a character arc? I cannot see the value.

*shrug* Couldn't say as to the specifics of character arcs and plots and the raw nuts and bolts of writing. Representation is the first thing that comes to mind as a higher-order explanation.

Granted, I don't even know the right term for a woman who previously had thought she was straight but then later realized she was actually a lesbian or if there is such a thing as the proper term there.

This is ultimately in response to [TELEVISION SHOW], though, and how it's ambiguous whether the character or characters in question are lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, or some combination thereof.

Edit: No spoilers though, please.

A point was made recently that the support thread hasn't really been about support so much as rapport, so I think I'm gonna mellow out on my responses unless they're involved in that support function. A lot of this stuff would be better off I. The questions & discussion thread anyway, or PMs. :)

Uh... This is the Questions and Discussion thread.

[SiuiS]

*shrug* Couldn't say as to the specifics of character arcs and plots and the raw nuts and bolts of writing. Representation is the first thing that comes to mind as a higher-order explanation.

Aye.

Uh... This is the Questions and Discussion thread.

Indeed. There's a lot of cross pollination though do the point stands; I don't like technical accuracy for it's own sake and I should work on being more supportive else mum, so I will. :)

[banthesun]

Hi Questions thread! I've been wanting to have something of a discussion about allyship for a while, so I'm finally settling down to post my thoughts here.

Personally, I don't feel comfortable considering myself as an ally. For me, this is mainly because I see allyship as something you do, not something you are. I don't really find myself in many situations where I am standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people, ie. actually being an ally. On top of this, I have some views that I'm pretty sure members of said community would challenge, specifically regarding gay marriage in NSW (as far as I know, civil unions or defacto relationships afford the same statuses and protections as marriage, and are open to couples regardless of their makeup). To me this seems counter to the level of listening one would need to really be an ally.

Also, I've recently come across this article by Mattie Brice, which discusses problems with the concept of allyship. In brief, she talks about the power relationship involved in people self-identifying as allies, and how it can be exploitative of the people they're claiming to be allies of. It suggests that the entire concept of allyship needs to be renegotiated, but I'm not sure what the solution here would necessarily be (and I wouldn't be in a position to suggest a solution, even if I had one).

Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought of the concept of allyship. I feel like I've been a bit rambly with my post, but hopefully it wasn't too messy. Thanks for reading.

[Gwynfrid]

I've always be wary of the concept of "ally", because it's inherently divisive. "Ally" implies there's an enemy, and implies a kind of compact, explicit or implicit, to fight in a war of some sort. Also, it is a political notion, especially with the example given (by the way, with "NSW" I assume you mean the state in Australia, right?), and politics isn't a welcome topic in this forum.

[SowZ]

The Civil Unions thing is fine if you think that straight couples shouldn't get marriages but only Civil Unions. If you think that gay people should only be offered Civil Unions but you should have the option of both Civil Unions and marriages, yes, you're right, that is a problem because it means that you believe you should have more rights and liberties than other human beings.

[Anarion]

Hi Questions thread! I've been wanting to have something of a discussion about allyship for a while, so I'm finally settling down to post my thoughts here.

Cool, thanks for coming.

Personally, I don't feel comfortable considering myself as an ally. For me, this is mainly because I see allyship as something you do, not something you are. I don't really find myself in many situations where I am standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people, ie. actually being an ally.

Do you think this is because you don't know many people of different orientations from yourself, because you wouldn't stand up for them if the opportunity came up, or because the moments are passing you by without you even realizing that they occur?

Here's an easy one. Do you friends call things gay when they mean "bad"? Do you? Are you okay with people doing that?

On top of this, I have some views that I'm pretty sure members of said community would challenge, specifically regarding gay marriage in NSW (as far as I know, civil unions or defacto relationships afford the same statuses and protections as marriage, and are open to couples regardless of their makeup). To me this seems counter to the level of listening one would need to really be an ally.

While nitpicking definitions can be bad, words are very important. I'm assuming from the way you've approached the topic, that you're a heterosexual with an interest in monogamous relationships. Would you be okay with never being allowed to be married and being limited only to a civil union?

Also, you should be aware that you're wrong from a strictly practical standpoint. I don't know a ton about international law, but I can tell you about the United States. In the US, there are multiple levels of law: Federal (that is, national), State, and local. "Marriage" as a legal issue intersects with all three. There are also hundreds or even thousands of laws on the books that refer to marriage, including everything from hospital visitation to taxes, to property inheritance upon a person's death. Changing every single one of those laws to include the term "civil union" has not been done and would be extremely difficult to do (even a blanket "everywhere it says 'marriage' add 'civil union' wouldn't solve everything due to use of archaic wording and interpretive challenges).

So, you should be aware that, in addition to any questions of personal recognition, it's simply untrue that civil unions offer the same things as marriage.


Edit: Here's an example. Someone dies. A handwritten will is found that seems to leave everything to the person's brother and nothing to the other member of the civil union. If there were a marriage, the spouse would have the right, under the common law (it's not written down in statute except in a small number of states) to receive some of the person's property anyway because the law has decided that you can't screw over your spouse in your will. The civil union guy though, might get screwed. Even if a statute said "everywhere it says marriage, add civil union," this law comes from a combination of case precedent and historical policy. Nowhere does it say "marriage" in a single law that can be updated to include civil unions. If you try to sue about this and get a conservative judge (average judge age is 50+ so guess how likely that is), that judge will probably rule that the common law doesn't extend to civil unions and the person who's lover just died also gets screwed out of everything.

Also, I've recently come across this article by Mattie Brice, which discusses problems with the concept of allyship. In brief, she talks about the power relationship involved in people self-identifying as allies, and how it can be exploitative of the people they're claiming to be allies of. It suggests that the entire concept of allyship needs to be renegotiated, but I'm not sure what the solution here would necessarily be (and I wouldn't be in a position to suggest a solution, even if I had one).

I'm not a fan of that line of thinking. It's a good thing to make people conscious of the ways that they can offend without meaning to, but telling people who want to be helpful to go away tends to be counter-productive in my experience.

In my opinion, step 1 is to say that if people want to be friends, they can be friends however they want. Step 2 is once they're friends, gentling pointing out if they do something wrong or offensive unintentionally, and helping them understand how they can be helpful. If somebody is trying to be exploitive, it quickly becomes obvious when they don't correct their behavior or pay attention to the people they claim to be friends with. And there's nothing new about that, it's just being a jerk.

Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought of the concept of allyship. I feel like I've been a bit rambly with my post, but hopefully it wasn't too messy. Thanks for reading.

The concept is great, the execution may need improvement.

I'm curious though. Was it the article you read that brought you here now? Or something else? You seem to be unsure of your own position and if you don't mind my prying, I'd very much like to know what motivated you to join the discussion. Please ignore this last part if you'd rather not discuss it, though.

[Coidzor]

Personally, I don't feel comfortable considering myself as an ally. For me, this is mainly because I see allyship as something you do, not something you are. I don't really find myself in many situations where I am standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people, ie. actually being an ally. On top of this, I have some views that I'm pretty sure members of said community would challenge, specifically regarding gay marriage in NSW (as far as I know, civil unions or defacto relationships afford the same statuses and protections as marriage, and are open to couples regardless of their makeup). To me this seems counter to the level of listening one would need to really be an ally.

I think you'd actually have to elaborate on that point for us to grok what you're trying to say there. And why you'd hold that position.

So we can properly and specifically unpack and address this issue.

Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought of the concept of allyship. I feel like I've been a bit rambly with my post, but hopefully it wasn't too messy. Thanks for reading.

If it's actually an important self-label to someone, then they've misunderstood something somewhere and have, in all likelihood, messed up.

On the other hand, ideas like "you must have attended X number of protests, signed Y number of petitions, donated Z dollars to GSRM causes, and spent such-and-such many hours personally consoling, supporting, and helping GSRM people in the past month or year" are highly distasteful to me.

[golentan]

Being an ally is pretty simple in my experience. Don't tell me I'm going to hell, don't assault me, don't try to make my sex life illegal or keep me from getting a marriage license based on the sex of my partner, and don't try to justify the actions of people who do any of those things.

[Gwynfrid]

Being an ally is pretty simple in my experience. Don't tell me I'm going to hell, don't assault me, don't try to make my sex life illegal or keep me from getting a marriage license based on the sex of my partner, and don't try to justify the actions of people who do any of those things.

That point about marriage is political so I will refrain from comment, but for all the others, it looks like being an ally and being a halfway decent and respectful human being isn't that much different. That's fine and I see no problem being an ally under that definition. But I don't think it is universally shared.

[Eldan]

Actually, I know exactly one person who calls things gay when he means bad. And he's gay. Incredibly over hte top camp gay even, sometimes. Also the only LGBT person I know, to my knowledge.

[SiuiS]

That point about marriage is political so I will refrain from comment, but for all the others, it looks like being an ally and being a halfway decent and respectful human being isn't that much different. That's fine and I see no problem being an ally under that definition. But I don't think it is universally shared.

That's the point. You'll notice that the difference is between "decent people" and "people who oppose gays" because decent people have no reason to oppose homosexuality.

[SowZ]

That's the point. You'll notice that the difference is between "decent people" and "people who oppose gays" because decent people have no reason to oppose homosexuality.

Indoctrination is stronger than that, though. Decent people won't actively go out trying to hurt people, but there are certainly decent people who think gay is sinful or whatever because they've been brainwashed to believe so. Just as there aren't decent neo-nazis who go around beating people up, but there are decent people who are anti-semites/racist/what-have-you. If being racist/homophobic/etc. instantly makes you a bad person, the vast majority of the world are bad people. Which I do not accept.

I've met plenty of people who have told me that the holocaust was exaggerated, or that there's a cabal of Jews manipulating the economies and media of all the world as some Semitic Illuminati plot, and it is hateful and disgusting, but I wouldn't say they are all bad people. Although I am sympathetic towards people who are routinely discriminated against feeling that racism/homophobia instantly makes someone a bad person because I recognize such people are so frequently harassed.

[SiuiS]

I would say they are stupid people, though.

It's simple. There's cognitive dissonance experienced when facts contradict one's desired world view. To resolve that cognitive dissonance one of two things must happen, you either accept the facts as true or you deny the facts. In this case, "deny the facts" is the choose to remain homophobic and uneducated camp. And I am firm on the idea that people who choose to be bigoted because maturing is hard are bad people.

E: firm. Firm on the idea. Seriously phone how do you mess that up?

[SowZ]

I would say they are stupid people, though.

It's simple. There's cognitive dissonance experienced when facts contradict one's desired world view. To resolve that cognitive dissonance one of two things must happen, you either accept the facts as true or you deny the facts. In this case, "deny the facts" is the choose to remain homophobic and uneducated camp. And I am firm on the idea that people who choose to be bigoted because maturing is hard are bad people.

E: firm. Firm on the idea. Seriously phone how do you mess that up?

But it is harder than that. You don't just mature and learn through sheer force of will. There usually has to be outside factors, meaning which people grow and which don't is at least partly luck. When an idea is ingrained in you from childhood and continually reinforced, neural pathways actually form which inhibit your physical ability to fairly consider alternative viewpoints. And then there are defense mechanisms that
belief systems have built in. These defense mechanisms can take the form of divine punishment, social ostracism, a condemnation of being unpatriotic, etc.

And a large portion of the people with such prejudiced beliefs are surrounded by people that reinforce said ignorance, and squelch any attempt for the mind to break free of this prison.

Changing a life long view isn't just hard.

I have witnessed, though, people who are intelligent and compassionate people have their racist/sexist/homophobic views soften and vanish as they age whereas mean/arrogant people allow such views to fester, and they became even more stubborn and hateful as they age. But this maturing process can be slow for most people. It takes years, in my observation.

[SiuiS]

Change over time is fine. It's still change. Crawl if you have to, but keep moving and all that.

[Anarion]

It takes years, in my observation.

I think it's less about time and more about proximity. People can be told and told things and exposed to them for years and never change. But if they see a good friend or a family member suffering and are faced first-hand with the reality that someone they know, KNOW, to be a good person is also an orientation that they've been told is sinful, it can break them out of that mindset.

[golentan]

That point about marriage is political so I will refrain from comment, but for all the others, it looks like being an ally and being a halfway decent and respectful human being isn't that much different. That's fine and I see no problem being an ally under that definition. But I don't think it is universally shared.

To other people it' political. To me it's my life. It's like claiming that someone complaining about being hungry is political because some people dislike foodstamps.

[Marnath]

But it is harder than that. You don't just mature and learn through sheer force of will. There usually has to be outside factors, meaning which people grow and which don't is at least partly luck. When an idea is ingrained in you from childhood and continually reinforced, neural pathways actually form which inhibit your physical ability to fairly consider alternative viewpoints. And then there are defense mechanisms that
belief systems have built in. These defense mechanisms can take the form of divine punishment, social ostracism, a condemnation of being unpatriotic, etc.

Speaking from experience, it's not the outside influences that start you down the path of letting go of your bigotry. You have to want to change. Before that, any outside arguments hit your defenses and are ignored. You can't "fix" a bigot until they want to change.

[Gwynfrid]

To other people it' political. To me it's my life. It's like claiming that someone complaining about being hungry is political because some people dislike foodstamps.

Yes. I get that. Unfortunately, being hungry isn't political, but a foodstamp program is - can't be helped. Politics does impact people lives. And I won't discuss it any further, as it would clearly violate forum rules.

[SiuiS]

Yes. I get that. Unfortunately, being hungry isn't political, but a foodstamp program is - can't be helped. Politics does impact people lives. And I won't discuss it any further, as it would clearly violate forum rules.

In my experience, by the time you say "I won't discuss it any further" it's too late, but to each their own.

The discussion of humans rights includes the right to marry. The specifics of how marriage happens and what it does and means gets political, but "I deserve to have the same happiness as straight people" is allowed. Just don't go into detail on licenses specifically.

[Shadowscale]

In my experience, by the time you say "I won't discuss it any further" it's too late, but to each their own.

The discussion of humans rights includes the right to marry. The specifics of how marriage happens and what it does and means gets political, but "I deserve to have the same happiness as straight people" is allowed. Just don't go into detail on licenses specifically.

I like the metaphor

I don't like chocolate cake therefore since I don't want to eat it no one should be allowed to do so.

It doesn't make sense does it?

I don't like that you're doing something I think is wrong, how would it affect you?

[SiuiS]

Morality is a bad road to go down with people like me. It's far more complex than usual because I understand that the root of all conflict and civility is violence. Moral stances aren't philosophies. They are ultimatums past which the point is "when you transgress this enough, you're not human enough that I need to respect your rights". That's why they're such a huge issue; if followed to their reasonable conclusions we would have war and genocide over... Everything we've had war and genocide over. Huh.

Anyway! Acknowledging that isn't condoning it, but it's a layer of discussion that needs to be touched on and explored before we can really get anywhere, and it requires an intimacy that large Internet groups don't have.

But yes, there does come a point where I don't like tapioca so if you do I'll imprison you or worse. I don't like murder so even if you do, you'll get in trouble for it. Etc.

[Anarion]

But yes, there does come a point where I don't like tapioca so if you do I'll imprison you or worse. I don't like murder so even if you do, you'll get in trouble for it. Etc.

SiuiS beat me to it, but yeah, the counter to the cake thing is: "I don't like it when people go around punching others in the face, so you don't get to do it."

At some level there's a list of stuff that's definitely okay, stuff that's definitely not okay, and then a fairly large grey area where reasonable minds may differ (example, is putting an arm around somebody's shoulder during conversation an okay touching?).

The thing is, trying to dig down, logically, as to how stuff falls into the okay, not okay, or unsure categories is this insane rabbit hole. You need to start with Plato, throw in some Aristotle, read up on your Thomas Aquinas, reference Kant, and then pick your three favorite modern philosophers and smash them into each other like bumper cars.

[Shadowscale]

SiuiS beat me to it, but yeah, the counter to the cake thing is: "I don't like it when people go around punching others in the face, so you don't get to do it."

At some level there's a list of stuff that's definitely okay, stuff that's definitely not okay, and then a fairly large grey area where reasonable minds may differ (example, is putting an arm around somebody's shoulder during conversation an okay touching?).

The thing is, trying to dig down, logically, as to how stuff falls into the okay, not okay, or unsure categories is this insane rabbit hole. You need to start with Plato, throw in some Aristotle, read up on your Thomas Aquinas, reference Kant, and then pick your three favorite modern philosophers and smash them into each other like bumper cars.

Life is complicated. Happiness is hard to achieve when everyone is different, yet I guess that makes it more worth it.

[Gwynfrid]

In my experience, by the time you say "I won't discuss it any further" it's too late, but to each their own.

Listen to the conspicuous sound of silence...

The discussion of humans rights includes the right to marry. The specifics of how marriage happens and what it does and means gets political, but "I deserve to have the same happiness as straight people" is allowed. Just don't go into detail on licenses specifically.

If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

(Edit: the only reason I pointed this out is in answer Golentan: to let him know that while I recognize and respect his very legitimate expression of need, we can't discuss the topic here. I'm happy to do that on another medium, although I thingk there isn't much I can say that's very original or interesting on it).