(no subject)

[rm]

While there are a hundred reasons why straight people openly specifying that they are straight and also support the rights of GBLTQ people to marry their partners is a useful thing, think of the power of this:

Just saying that you support it. Without mentioning your own damn orientation.

Because I know it's not always or even often distancing when someone says, "I'm straight but I support gay rights," but trust me, trust me, trust me, trust me, when I tell you that's what it can feel like from over here.

Just try saying it without qualification. Picture _that_ as an LJ meme. You know?

Comments

[random-girl.livejournal.com]

No. I don't think its a queer/straight thing.

Psychologically speaking, human beings who believe you have more invested tend to believe you have a bias and therefore are less trustworthy. It doesn't matter if you're seniors lobbying for more privileges in High School or Women asking for the Vote.

I'm not actually trying to convince the queers that they should have rights. You guys seem pretty on board with that idea. I'm usually trying to persuade idiots who think they shouldn't. This is a method I've found that kind of works to try and make that happen. I'm sorry that, as a race of people, we're still so ignorant that some of our arguments to try and get equality acknowledged has to address that fact that some of the people who are fighting against that equality might not believe in it. Therefore, stating I have nothing personal to gain by the process may sway them more than my silence on that matter.

It is not intended to be offensive.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

I'm well-aware of the mechanics. I don't have to like it. Your intent doesn't make knowing that your voice is more valid than mine, and that you are preserving your position as being more valuable every time you say something like "I'm straight", less painful. Knowing the mechanics doesn't change the fact that that is the message that's being carried. It's especially troubling to me that it is the default statement. Even if the point must, in theory, be made at times to gain ground, the fact that it is made all the time, without thought, is deeply problematic.

Can you honestly say that you only use your privilege as a lever when it's absolutely necessary? Are you sure you're not using it as a way of protecting yourself? Do you think about it? How often are you willing to base an argument for the rights of others on your status as someone who already has those rights?

You may be a well-intentioned straight person invested in gaining rights for queers. That in and of itself is reason not to say "It's not intended to be offensive." and "I'm only doing it for you." That's reason to say, "I'll remember that next time I want to say something like that."

There's a big difference in having an investment in changing the State Bird, say, and an investment in obtaining equal status as human beings. I also find it offensive that men's voices carry more weight in abortion arguments. This sense that women/queers/POC/etc are trying to lie/manipulate/cheat their way into having the same rights as men/straights/whites/etc is deeply ingrained into the privileged class. That's something that has to be confronted for the real work to progress.

[sethg]

I think there's an issue of mixed audiences here. In some contexts, it can be a very useful rhetorical strategy to tell someone "OK, even if for the purpose of argument I concede that A, B, and C are true, I can present this impeccable argument for D...." But if I believe that A, B, and C are titanically offensive positions, I'm going to cringe at overhearing that kind of argument, even if I believe, on an intellectual level, that it's the right strategy to use for that particular situation.