Judging by the things you write when you are attempting to be more intellectual and less emotional, you should be in complete agreement with this analysis, that the majority of the individuals you seek to persecute are in facts victims – and not active champions – of heteronormativity. I am drawn to one particular example from your blog from last month, whose profile simply said “Like to maybe meet up with funy, easy-going guys. Straight acting a must!” This gentleman did not actively preclude anyone from consideration and demonstrated no aggression towards those who did not conform to his preferences; whilst his use of the term “straight acting” is regrettable, it did not illustrate anything about him. You, nonetheless, immediately branded him as self-hating and suffering from internalised homophobia. Amusingly, your tags describe him as “racist” and guilty of a sense of “white privilege” – despite the fact this gentleman quite clearly notes he is of mixed race and made absolutely no reference to race being a factor in discriminating between potential partners. You know next to nothing of this gentleman, yet you feel as though you have the moral authority to judge his entire character.
So yes, as per the last paragraph, I am in complete agreement with your analysis of the motivations and reasons why people write what they write in their profiles. Yes, I agree they are victims of heteronormativity. I don’t agree that they aren’t champions of heteronormativity though, I think they arechampions of it, but only because they fear being otherwise (whether this is conscious or unconscious fear I do not know).
In relation to what you say about my erroneous tags in the above – I completely agree with your criticism and will alter the tags as soon as I can. In the example you provided, I agree the profile in question was not racist. When I first started my blog I did not use tags; I didn’t realise what they were for. When I did work it out, I stupidly did a “mass post edit” and added the same generic tags to hundreds of posts. As a result all the posts ended up with the same tags – these tags were meant to be indicative of my blog in general. I can see by what you’ve pointed out that this has caused confusion and labelled people incorrectly, so I will do my best to rectify that.
You state that I “know next to nothing of this gentleman, yet [I] feel as though [I] have the moral authority to judge his entire character.” Well, this is not entirely true. I know that this “gentleman” uses offensive terms like “straight-acting” (whether he realises they are offensive or not is beside the point. I know when I tried to talk to him about the use of the term (a term you agree you despise as well), he was extremely unpleasant, and began to rant about “faggots, queens, and lady gaga fans”. Again we could argue – is he a victim or a champion of heteronormativity? I’d prefer instead to put him up on my blog, send him the link, and wait to see how long it took him to remove the term “straight acting” from his profile (it didn’t take too long). Quick, effective, and in my eyes a justifiable strategy. You make it sound like these people are poor innocent child-victims. They are not. They were raised in the same world as you and me, with the same conditioning. They make hateful comments about the community I live in and love. It’s 2012, not 1612, and I just don’t think there’s enough excuses anymore for this kind of behaviour. If they react with hatred to me, I put them up. If they react with more thoughtfulness and a genuine desire not to offend others, or even just a more reasoned defence to why they say what they say, then I don’t. It’s simple. Just like your analysis of me and my blog (that was a swipe at you, by the way, in case you weren’t sure, in response to your comment/insult about me “attempting” to be more intellectual).
stay tuned, or read the full article here.