Raising consciousness - sexual orientation

[Metaphor]

I've been reading Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior, and in between alternate bouts of mild amusement and heart-wrenching horror, I was struck by two things - Bill's self characterisation as centrist (not even by US standards, Bill) and his description of the ACLU head as 'openly gay'.

The fact that the ACLU head is openly gay had nothing to do with the argument he was making, except in his backhanded attempt to imply that there was some vast left-wing homosexual agenda going on.

But it did get me thinking. Anyone who doesn't hide their homosexual sexual orientation is 'openly gay'. I believe GLBT folk and sympathisers should take up a consciousness raising exercise - and refer to any heterosexual that does not hide his or her heterosexuality (eg by talking about relationships or spouses) as 'openly heterosexual'. After all, this is doing no more than applying the same rule to heterosexuals that is applied to homosexuals.

Of COURSE it is absurd to characterise someone as an 'open heterosexual' - and that's the point - to raise awareness of what calling somebody 'openly gay' actually does - as if the default should be protecting society from your sexual orientation.

What do you think?

[spacejunkie]

I think referencing a person's sexual orientation is ridiculous in every way. Don't lower yourself to O'Reilly's level. The view from there sucks.

[Ldyjinx]

As the mother of a homosexual daughter I will tell you who and which sex my daughter sleeps with is no ones business but hers!! Why on earth would it concern anyone else?
I sleep with a man and no one cares, we are not and never will marry, and no one cares but for my daughter to be attracted to other women causes narrow minded bigots to throw a fundie fit?
Get a grip.

[Metaphor]

As the mother of a homosexual daughter I will tell you who and which sex my daughter sleeps with is no ones business but hers!! Why on earth would it concern anyone else?
I sleep with a man and no one cares, we are not and never will marry, and no one cares but for my daughter to be attracted to other women causes narrow minded bigots to throw a fundie fit?
Get a grip.

Is this directed at me?

[Nitrousoxide]

That's a great idea Metaphor. People already think (and I agree) that many homosexuals think of themselves as superior to those "breeders." Coming up with another heterosexual slur is a great idea for them to gain wide acceptence.

[Metaphor]

That's a great idea Metaphor. People already think (and I agree) that many homosexuals think of themselves as superior to those "breeders." Coming up with another heterosexual slur is a great idea for them to gain wide acceptence.

So let me get this straight. 'Openly gay' is not a slur and is used without anyone, gay or straight, batting an eyelid, but saying 'openly heterosexual' is a slur against straights?

Has EVERYONE missed the point of my post? I think labelling someone 'openly heterosexual' for no reason is UTTERLY LUDICROUS, that's why it would be so effective at raising consciousness about people saying 'openly gay'.

[Nitrousoxide]

I didn't say 'Openly gay' isn't a slur. I just think adding another slur in retaliation is not a terribly smashing idea.

The two groups which are using these terms as slurs really aren't terribly fond of eachother. It's like having two kids fighting each other with fists and you throw each of them a pair of brass knuckles.

[Metaphor]

I didn't say 'Openly gay' isn't a slur. I just think adding another slur in retaliation is not a terribly smashing idea.

The two groups which are using these terms as slurs really aren't terribly fond of eachother. It's like having two kids fighting each other with fists and you throw each of them a pair of brass knuckles.

It isn't a slur. It's just a practice that goes unnoticed, much like referring to 'the common man' or referring to any unknown person as 'he'. That practice did not change until feminists started saying 'she' instead of he unexpectedly - and that was a wake up call.

[Nitrousoxide]

When you use a description as a vicious insult when it would normally not be, like how O'Reilly did, it's a slur.

You're asking for people to fight fire with fire as it were and respond in much the same way that O'Reilly did. What he did was a slur. So what you want people to do is respond with a slur.

There's nothing inherently wrong with saying an "open homosexual" It describes a particular sort of homosexual, namely, one who is open about his homosexuality. Just in various cases where it is used viciously can it's use be wrong.

[Metaphor]

When you use a description as a vicious insult when it would normally not be, like how O'Reilly did, it's a slur.

You're asking for people to fight fire with fire as it were and respond in much the same way that O'Reilly did. What he did was a slur. So what you want people to do is respond with a slur.

There's nothing inherently wrong with saying an "open homosexual" It describes a particular sort of homosexual, namely, one who is open about his homosexuality. Just in various cases where it is used viciously can it's use be wrong.

So why can't open heterosexuals be described as such? Can't you see you are demonstrating the very point I'm trying to make.

[Nitrousoxide]

Well, it's a bit of a silly phrase if only because what sort of heterosexual wouldn't be open about his sexuality?

Not many really, unless you're going into the priesthood or the like.

On the other hand, many, if not most homosexuals are not open about their sexuality, so it is a description which one cannot simply assume after being told that a person is homosexual.

In other words, "openly gay" tells us something interesting, but "openly straight" doesn't in the vasty majority of cases.

[Metaphor]

Well, it's a bit of a silly phrase if only because what sort of heterosexual wouldn't be open about his sexuality?

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. heterosexuals are free to be open about their sexuality without a second thought. Hence, there is a complete lack of awareness about what it is actually like to not be open, or if you are, you are 'openly gay'.


On the other hand, many, if not most homosexuals are not open about their sexuality, so it is a description which one cannot simply assume after being told that a person is homosexual.

In other words, "openly gay" tells us something interesting, but "openly straight" doesn't in the vasty majority of cases.

The phrase openly gay does tell us something interesting - it forces the listener to think about the subject of the speech in completely sexual terms. When someone is labelled 'openly gay', their entire essence is bound up in that description, whereas heterosexual people are normal with normal sexualities and mentioning some activity that reveals your heterosexuality is a complete nonevent.

[Nitrousoxide]

The problem with what Bill said isn't that he used the term "openly homosexual." The term has real uses and serves to allow us to express certain true or false statements about people. The problem is that he (presumably) was using it as an ad hominem attack on the leader of that group, as a means to insult or otherwise diminish his reader's willingness to accept what the leader and that group have to say.

To illustrate my point, let me use Sultanist as an example.
I might use the term "openly homosexual" to describe him as a particular sort of homosexual amongst the homosexual population on this board.

One might also use the term to insult him or attack his credibility by mentioning unrelated facts about him which people may not like. For instance, "don't listen to that Sultanist, he's an open homosexual." That's certainly an inappropriate use of the term, but so would "open heterosexual" or "tree," or "Southerner." So long as one uses irrelevant facts about a person to attack his credibility, one is misusing the term.
The fact that these terms can be misused in that manner speaks nothing as to whether we should or shouldn't EVER use the term. Just like how we shouldn't stop using "Southerner" because it can be used as an insult, so we shouldn't stop using "open homosexual."

[Betelnut]

Metaphor makes an interesting point.

In a slightly different look at this issue, isn't it interesting that "white" (or "Caucasian") is the default (just like "straight" or "heterosexual" is the default). So the only time race is mentioned is if the race of a person is not white and the only time sexual orientation isn't mentioned (if known) is if it is straight.

One of the few times a white person's race is mentioned is if the magazine or newspaper is for black people.

Experiment for white folks: Try describing a black person to another white person without mentioning his or her race. For example, you are at work and you mention "Margaret" to a coworkder. "Margaret" works in another division in your company and is African American. The person you are talking to says, "Oh who's that?" Try to desribe the woman without mentioning her race. (She works in XXX. She's in her forties. She has two kids. She always wears pants suits. She has gray chin length hair. She went to Hawaii last year for vacation. Etc.) You co-worker still doesn't "get her." Then say, "Oh she's black." Click, the light turns on. "OH, MARGARET!"

I've actually done the above experiment and it played out just like the example I give above.

The default is white.

So, I think Metaphor has a good point. "Openly straight George Bush announced today....."

I like the sound of it!

[Metaphor]

Metaphor makes an interesting point.

In a slightly different look at this issue, isn't it interesting that "white" (or "Caucasian") is the default (just like "straight" or "heterosexual" is the default). So the only time race is mentioned is if the race of a person is not white and the only time sexual orientation isn't mentioned (if known) is if it is straight.

One of the few times a white person's race is mentioned is if the magazine or newspaper is for black people.

Experiment for white folks: Try describing a black person to another white person without mentioning his or her race. For example, you are at work and you mention "Margaret" to a coworkder. "Margaret" works in another division in your company and is African American. The person you are talking to says, "Oh who's that?" Try to desribe the woman without mentioning her race. (She works in XXX. She's in her forties. She has two kids. She always wears pants suits. She has gray chin length hair. She went to Hawaii last year for vacation. Etc.) You co-worker still doesn't "get her." Then say, "Oh she's black." Click, the light turns on. "OH, MARGARET!"

I've actually done the above experiment and it played out just like the example I give above.

The default is white.

So, I think Metaphor has a good point. "Openly straight George Bush announced today....."

I like the sound of it!

This is exactly what I mean. People need to be shocked out of their majority position stupor.

Every time Bill O'Reilly uses the term 'openly gay' he is implying some sort of agenda. If he is openly heterosexual, which he is, then can we assume he has an agenda? Then we ought to let people know!

From now on, Bill O'Reilly is openly straight Bill O'Reilly.

[DietCoke]

Really, Metaphor, everybody gets it. They just think it's not a good idea to do battle with an idiot by adopting the weapons he brings to the fight. Bill O'Reily deserves to be ignored, nothing more.

[Tom Sawyer]

Really, Metaphor, everybody gets it. They just think it's not a good idea to do battle with an idiot by adopting the weapons he brings to the fight. Bill O'Reily deserves to be ignored, nothing more.

I agree. O'Reilly knows exactly what he's doing when he uses phrases like that in this manner. He wants people to get pissed off and start yelling so that he can yell back and the conversation is just reduced to a shouting match.

If both sides are just screaming at each other, all arguments have the same weight, no matter how profound or inane they may be. By degenerating everything to shouting back and forth, O'Reilly doesn't ever have to put any intellectual effort into his position and claim a victory simply by shouting louder.

Recognize the intellectual paucity of his position, but don't get all riled up about it because that's the sole reason that he says it in the first place.

[ghetto astronaut]

You can call me 'openly heterosexual' all you want. I won't care. Why should anyone?

[Metaphor]

You can call me 'openly heterosexual' all you want. I won't care. Why should anyone?

It matters precisely because the implication is that ONLY gay people are open about their sexuality because 'openly heterosexual' is NEVER used to describe heterosexual people, even though almost all heterosexual people are openly heterosexual.

[ghetto astronaut]

It matters precisely because the implication is that ONLY gay people are open about their sexuality because 'openly heterosexual' is NEVER used to describe heterosexual people, even though almost all heterosexual people are openly heterosexual.

Yeah, what's your point? This happens for anything that is a minority. Any major achievement I make in my life will have attention drawn toward it just because I'm female. Even though being female is not a factor at all.

"She's a good ____... for a woman." "Female _____."

It's lame, but I'm not throwing a fit over it.

Similarly, no one calls someone who merely talks about their beliefs a "militant Christian" yet I get to be a "militant atheist" all the time. Big deal, people are just dumb.

[Metaphor]

Yeah, what's your point? This happens for anything that is a minority. Any major achievement I make in my life will have attention drawn toward it just because I'm female. Even though being female is not a factor at all.

"She's a good ____... for a woman." "Female _____."

It's lame, but I'm not throwing a fit over it.

Similarly, no one calls someone who merely talks about their beliefs a "militant Christian" yet I get to be a "militant atheist" all the time. Big deal, people are just dumb.

So wouldn't it be better if people didn't do this? If we can bring to people's attention such tactics, they will surely revise them.

Tell me, do you think that the blatantly sexist language in textbooks, academia, etc up until the 60s was harmless? Would you think there was anything wrong with in a primary school that had storybooks that showed no black children, no girls, etc? Surely an open female such as yourself should realise the problem?

[I. C. Unicorns]

I think Metaphor has a point. Would you enjoy someone describing you as "that guy who fucks other guys" or "the lady down the hall who sleeps with other women"? Just what do you think openly gay implies?

Would you mind if I referred to your grandmother as the "woman who screws grandpa"?

[DietCoke]

I think Metaphor has a point.

Of course he has a point. Everyone in this thread has granted his point. Everyone has also tried to say that there are more effective ways to raise consciousness then to antagonize the narrow minded.

[Metaphor]

Of course he has a point. Everyone in this thread has granted his point. Everyone has also tried to say that there are more effective ways to raise consciousness then to antagonize the narrow minded.

Oh? Like what?

[EricK]

Yeah, what's your point? This happens for anything that is a minority. Any major achievement I make in my life will have attention drawn toward it just because I'm female. Even though being female is not a factor at all.


The irony is that females aren't actually a minority.

[EricK]

This whole thread reminds me of Linda Flint from "Little Britain".

[ghetto astronaut]

The irony is that females aren't actually a minority.

I didn't say they were a minority in general. I was talking about females in male-dominated career fields.

[ghetto astronaut]

So wouldn't it be better if people didn't do this? If we can bring to people's attention such tactics, they will surely revise them.

Sure it would be better if people didn't do that, but I doubt that will ever happen. Of course we can improve, but people are always going to mention things that are unusual.

Tell me, do you think that the blatantly sexist language in textbooks, academia, etc up until the 60s was harmless? Would you think there was anything wrong with in a primary school that had storybooks that showed no black children, no girls, etc? Surely an open female such as yourself should realise the problem?

I think that if you have a large segment of the population that is intentionally left out of books entirely then it probably highlights a problem in society. However, artificially injecting token female/black/gay characters into storylines is irritating and misses the point. Now it's un-PC to have an all male/white/straight group of people, even if that's what would be most realistic.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I think Metaphor has a point. Would you enjoy someone describing you as "that guy who fucks other guys" or "the lady down the hall who sleeps with other women"? Just what do you think openly gay implies?

Would you mind if I referred to your grandmother as the "woman who screws grandpa"?

"Billy, this is the third time you don't bring your homework. I'm going to have to call your dad and the woman that sucks his dick!"

:rolling:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I think that if you have a large segment of the population that is intentionally left out of books entirely then it probably highlights a problem in society. However, artificially injecting token female/black/gay characters into storylines is irritating and misses the point. Now it's un-PC to have an all male/white/straight group of people, even if that's what would be most realistic.

Only in very racist countries. In Latin America, a group of friends is typically a pallet of colors. People of all skin colors marry each other, are friends and family of each other.

Sicko cultures divide people and set them against each other!

[ghetto astronaut]

Only in very racist countries. In Latin America, a group of friends is typically a pallet of colors. People of all skin colors marry each other, are friends and family of each other.

Sicko cultures divide people and set them against each other!

I haven't intentionally had 95% white friends in my life. Outside factors have determined that. People of different races tend to have a higher likelihood of being of different cultures or religions, which is alienating. I think that was the biggest reason for me. I mean, it's the same reason why most of my friends have been around my age, income level, etc. - we simply had more in common. I'm not against having diverse friends in principle, though.

[enoch007]

This point is very relevant to almost all the inclusion debates about gay people. In the vein of counter-labeling the heterosexuals it should be pointed out:

When talking about the risks posed to the institution of marraige by allowing gay people to marry, it should be pointed out that heterosexuals have done everything to marraige that can possible be done.

The entire gays in the military flap cooks my goose (boy, I'll tel ya). When I was in the military I remember that gay people had to totally hide out, being absolutly proscribed, as they were. But the real sexual threat in the Army came from carreerist NCO's who were impregnating the young 18 and 19 year old female recruits right and left. I personally knew of one who had sired five children that everyone knew of.

The fact is the real perverts one has to watch are these heterosexual scum,
They rape children, they spread disease, they get all liquored up on religion til it drives them crazy. We should ban heterosexual marraige!

[Clivedurdle]

A lesbian disabled black priest went into a bar....

A heterosexual fit white priest went into a bar....

What are we trying to do with these labels? Can they be avoided?