Moderator: Forum Administrators
But what is that "respect" based in? I don't think you can "respect" someone without understanding something about their background, and being part of a marginalised group is generally a very important component of that.hreru wrote:If you could take me as someone who can't look at things this way. For me it is and will be a matter of two individuals respecting, or not, each other.
linguoboy wrote:There's a weird contradiction underlying this discussion. Both hreru and Yserenhart have vociferously defended making assumptions based on the underlying norms of the majority culture. Yet when I suggest that they should also be willing to make certain assumptions about members of marginalised groups based on commonalities in their experiences, suddenly everyone's an individual and "respect" looks the same for everybody.
You know what's a very common experience among marginalised groups? Not being believed when we try to talk about our experiences. On the one hand, Yserenhart states its our responsibility to do this in order to educate the majority. And then when I do, he (and hreru in turn) openly questions the validity of them. Think about how you would respond to that sort of reinforcement.
In case you've forgotten, here's what you wrote:Yserenhart wrote:I wasn't actually questioning the validity of your experiences, nor denying that they were harmful to you (and could be to others too), I was questioning if it was a problem of being LGBT, or from a different source (and in one of your later posts you at least partially agreed it could be more than just heteronormativity).
[My emphasis.] So you quite clearly stated that you were questioning more than just this single instance. How much more? I'm not a mindreader, so I have absolutely know way of knowing.Yserenhart wrote:I will admit that I'm a bit doubtful that all of the discrimination shared here on UL that's attributed to heteronormativity is actually because of it. For example, part of linguoboy's testimony about the staff in hospital, and it being assumed that his husband was his father[.]
The only one of those assumptions I believe I'm guilty of making is assumption of masculine gender identity. I don't remember my basis for this, but it goes back at least as far as our previous conversation and perhaps much earlier. Moreover, I'm only doing so because the grammar of English requires it. In any case, give me your preferences in terms of pronoun reference[*] and I will abide by them. If my remarks about the experience of marginalised groups seemed to exclude you, it's because I was addressing an audience which I believed no longer included you.Yserenhart wrote:It also seems that a lot of people (if not everyone) is assuming that I'm straight and identify as male; I don't actually recall giving any indication as to either of those. It also seems that there's an assumption that I don't understand what it's like to be a marginalised individual; this is very much an incorrect assumption, part of the reason I left (and don't ever intend to return to) my country of birth was to escape the discrimination I faced.
I'm afraid I can't explain it better than I did but I'll try. I mean, let's say, generalised respect, that is accepting the other one who might be even very different from me, as another human being. I can go on from that if I get to know them better. I will probably do mistakes on the way. At the same time I have to be careful about them not hurting or misusing me, there always might be lying, emotional blackmailing, open aggression or some such. What I've learned I will use the next time on similar occasion, mostly subconsciously I suppose. But everyone is different, a new person will mean a new beginning for me; it's funny how some people laugh at what others consider an offence and vice versa. And I'll be repeating this over and over and learning how to be a human among people. For my whole life.linguoboy wrote:But what is that "respect" based in?
And what made you think I had failed to consider that alternative? Why would you assume I hadn't asked myself the question, "What's behind this? Is this really heterosexism or is there something else going on?" about a dozen times before coming to the conclusions I did? Is that not something you do?hreru wrote:I didn't say it was your case, I offered it as an alternative.
Fair enough. But, by the same token, don't expect me to be accepting of having my experiences trivialised and discounted. I'm coming off of a whole lifetime of defending myself against that sort of reception. It really would be nice if the rest of the world evolved to the point where I could stop.hreru wrote:In other words, if you happened to be around and wanted to stop by for a tea you'd be welcome. But don't expect me to take everything you say about your life for granted, I simply might understand it differently because my life is different.
linguoboy wrote:And what made you think I had failed to consider that alternative? Why would you assume I hadn't asked myself the question, "What's behind this? Is this really heterosexism or is there something else going on?" about a dozen times before coming to the conclusions I did? Is that not something you do?
linguoboy wrote:Fair enough. But, by the same token, don't expect me to be accepting of having my experiences trivialised and discounted.
I see Freud, as well as Marx, is still very much alive and kicking in Kerala.The other features this guy who is apparently a doctor (specifically a sexologist and psychologist. Isn't that scary?). I haven't seen this whole video yet, but towards the beginning, when the host asks him whether homosexuality is a disease(!), he's like it's not a disease, nooooooooo. It's just what happens when kids don't have a strong father figure at home!
meidei wrote:The rainbow index is strictly representing the legal situation (stuff like, no requirements to update gender field on ID or clear anti-discrimination clause in the constitution).
linguoboy wrote:meidei wrote:The rainbow index is strictly representing the legal situation (stuff like, no requirements to update gender field on ID or clear anti-discrimination clause in the constitution).
Yeah, I thought that was immediately obvious from how much better Croatia scores than Italy. Legal protections don't mean much if they aren't actually enforced.
hreru wrote:And finally, what I'm after are the other one's intentions - have they wanted to insult or to ridicule me? You say this is not so important for you. I find it difficult to understand then what it is that you take into consideration. Is the main criterion a sign indicating you're not fully accepted? If it's so, I think it's a mistake. Homosexuality will hardly be fully accepted by everyone; and apart from people who simply hate it there are those who disapprove of it but tolerate it and in my opinion that's only a good thing. What could perhaps be done is creating such an athmosphere in which any criticism is considered bad so nobody will dare to say it aloud but they will think the bad things the more; but that's not what you want, or do you?
hreru wrote:It's never occured to me there should be anything wrong about homosexuality. I can't see why marriage or adoption should be unaccessable to gays. At the same time I think it is less natural and normal than heterosexuality. I don't mean it negatively, more like stating a fact, I said I understand these words differently. Say, I don't have children and I'm not going to have any, and I definitely think that is less natural and normal compared to women who do have children.
hreru wrote:But in my opinion being biased against a group of people and still treating them individually is a positive thing. It's good, when you have issues with Jews, to learn to know some of them better and make friends with them.
linguoboy wrote:I don't agree, and increasingly US society is changing its views in this area as well. Nearly one in five women nowadays is childfree by choice. (That's twice the incidence of lefthanders!) Among college-educated people, it's considered a normal life choice, and increasingly a positive one (given concerns about overpopulation and resource exhaustion).
To me homosexuality is both normal as in "belonging to a spectre of accepted behaviour" and abnormal, meaning "deviating from prevailing norm".
linguoboy wrote:I've explained quite clearly what I want: full acceptance. I don't see any convincing reason why this should be impossible.
The effects are always mediated by perceptions of the target's perceived gender (and age, and race, and class, and national origin, etc.). Thus the causes are never either-or, they're always both-and. It's a combination of heterosexism and sexism and ageism and racism and classism that causes an individual to see two men of the same race and class but different ages together and assume a blood relationship rather than a romantic one...(Which is why I recommend an approach than involves making as few assumptions about the parties involved as possible.)
linguoboy wrote:hreru wrote:But in my opinion being biased against a group of people and still treating them individually is a positive thing. It's good, when you have issues with Jews, to learn to know some of them better and make friends with them.
No one is disagreeing that this is a good thing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests