The Excuses of Homophobes again ring hollow

A should be a surprise to absolutely no-one, an undercover reporter at a NOM convention found it full of homophobic bigotry.

 Hate Group is hateful – are we surprised?

 Well, here’s the thing, NOM often goes out of its way to deny its homophobia and obsess about how it’s only against marriage equality (which is homophobic anyway), until relatively recently when they’ve decided to climb into bed with the FRC (well, they’ve already been on the same team but they’re often careful about distancing themselves).

And it’s a lie too many people buy.  There is too much willingness to ignore homophobia, homophobic positions and homophobic hate speech. And NOM is one of the biggest pushers of the whole “we’re not homophobes, but…” crowd.

 This just shows who they really are.

 But it should also be a call to action. Any time someone says “I’m not a homophobe, BUT…” then you know they’re lying. You know what they really are, you know their bigotry – and they should be called on it.

 No more “I’m not a homophobe, but I oppose equal rights/marriage equality/hate crime protection/anti-bullying laws”. They are homophobes. ANY treatment of gay people as less than straight folks is homophobic. End of. No more weasel words. You’re a homophobe, stop sugar coating.

 No more “I’m not a homophobe, but my holy book/culture/history/pet cat says…” it doesn’t matter where your bigotry comes from, it’s still bigotry. And so’s your source as well. You’re not going to convince me you have a legitimate reason for regarding me as less. You’re a homophobe, stop sugar coating/

 No more “I’m not a homophobe, but gay people make me uncomfortable/are icky/whatever” then you’re a homophobe. Seriously why, in the name of all that is holy, would you consider this ok? You’re a homophobe and there’s no way in hell you can sugar coat that.

 No more “I’m not a homophobe, but why do you have to be everywhere/so flamboyant/ram it down our throat?” this just convinces me we need more and wilder Pride parades. If you object to our presence, if you object to not being able to pretend we’re not there – then you’re a homophobe and a bigot. Stop sugar coating.

 No more “I’m not a homophobe, but gay people are so….” Gay people are people. We are no more or less anything than straight people. If you’re going to make sweeping statements about the lot of us, that is reductive of our humanity and our being – something that marginalised people constantly face. To remove our individuality is to regard us negatively – and is homophobic. Stop sugar coating.

Read More


 

Fictional Marginalised Oppressors: the new fad

So, because a bad idea just doesn't die like it should, Victoria Foyt's racist Save the Pearls now has homophobic versions: for books: and television. I hate linking to them but they need to be seen. One is a book and the other movie with the same premise: an all gay world that persecutes the straight minority

 So that’s more appropriating the issues we live with, our history, our suffering and then shitting on it all by making us the perpetrators of the violations committed against us. How can they not see how offensive this is? How can they not see how offensive taking the severe bigotry thrown at us every day and throughout history, bigotry that has cost us so much and then making our oppressors the victims and us the attackers, is? This is appropriative, this is offensive, it’s disrespectful and it’s outright bigoted.

 Y’know, if you actually want to talk about prejudice and persecution and how they can affect people’s lives, why not use actual marginalised people? You want to show how a person navigates a society that has extreme prejudice against their skin colour? Why not make your protagonist a POC? You want to show a society that persecutes people based on who they’re attracted to and who they love? Why not make your protagonist gay?

 Oh, but then that becomes a specialist subject, right? A “niche”, dealing with marginalised issues. A POC book. A Gay/Lesbian book. Totally inappropriate for mainstream audience – when we can take the same story and flip it to bizarre bigot world and make the poor straight, white person the persecuted victim and we’re back in mainstream land. Funny, that.

Is that what this is? This whole offensive, bullshit trend (I mean, apart from prejudiced arsehattery, which kind of goes without saying)? A desire to use prejudice as a plot point but not sully your main character by making them an actual minority?

 

And don’t tell me it will help straight/white people understand oppression. Because if a privileged person will only hear about prejudiced issues when it comes from a privileged mouth then what is the point? I’ve said this before when we’ve had similar bullshit, how are you going to encourage people to address prejudice and marginalisation while at the same time training them that it’s only worth listening to privileged people?

 Because that’s what I hear when this excuse is trawled out. Straight, white people can’t possibly empathise with a POC or GBLT protagonist so we have to present these prejudiced issues through a privileged lens, from a privileged mouth. Or even from an elf or vampire – because that’s easier to swallow than actually facing real life prejudice that hits real prejudiced people.

 And don’t tell me it’s for marginalised people. Would I like to read a book where marginalised people are the majority and in charge? Sure – but not through the eyes of a poor, oppressed straight/white person who is suffering so awfully at the hands of the big, mean, prejudiced gay/black people. Because maginalised people being cast as evil villains? Been done and it’s not fun.

 Just stop. You want to include marginalised people, then do it. But don’t make free with the severe issues that have shaped and attacked us for generations and appropriate them for your own ends. And certainly don’t do it while making our oppressor’s the victims and the persecuted the attackers in these lazy, shallow, ridiculous worlds.