I am interested in feedback on the issue of GLBT "accusations"

[cbayer]

The moderators have consistently removed posts that refer to others as "closeted" or "secretly gay" or generally speculate that a political enemy might be GLBT. We have done this because we consider the "accusation" of being gay to be offensive and homophobic.

Are there any instances where we should allow this?

For example, there was a post this morning basically saying that one of the problems Perry will have is that there have been persistent rumors about his sexuality. The post was framed by the member in a generally non-inflammatory or accusatory way. I suspect there is going to be a whole lot of posts and threads in a similar vein.

So, I am asking for more input on this.

Is there a line that should be drawn and, if so, where is it? Or should we continue to take a very black and white position on this and eliminate all instances of it?

While I are not dismissing the views of non-GLBT members on this matter, I am really most interested in the perspective from within this community.

[True Blue Democrat]

1. The true meaning of free speech is let the other people speak their own minds

While I admit I'm not GBLT, but do have close friends and associates that are, in fact, GBLT - I have respected their right to speak, so why can't DU?

Let the homophobia be displayed, and know who the real players are. Deleting the posts only muddies the water and confuses the reader who the players are.

[Rabblevox]

5. bzzt, fail! (unless you are equally as eager to have racism and sexism displayed)...

and if you are, then get thee to another board.

[William769]

2. Rumors are just that. Rumors. Proof thats another story.

I am all for outing a Government official that is Gay and votes against Gay rights.

To infer someone is Gay in any manner is wrong. DO we go around inferring that a Government official is a Heterosexual?

So I would say yes it is black & white and eliminate all instances of it (with the exception, if it turns out to be true).

Inferring usually does more damage than the truth.

Just my two cents.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. It can be confusing.

If the "being gay" part is the butt of the joke, then I say scrap it. If it is based on highly speculative crap (i.e. stereotypes), scrap it. If, it is like the example you gave, I think that is OK because it is true. Perry will have problems because of the rumors. The real subject is the rumors and not the pondering if he is gay or not.

I find your post an interesting juxtaposition to the recent "Burt and Ernie" scandal.

[Rabblevox]

4. I'm a gay man, and I'll tackle this...

I don't think it's OK to attack someone for their sexual orientation, ever. No, not even for lying asshole rethugs.

I don't think it's OK to imply, assume, or make jokes about someone's sexual orientation.

People come out of the closet at different times, in different situations. It can be one of the most traumatic decisions a gay person can make. It took me until I was damn near 30. (and I work for a liberal non-prof) For a politician, it can be a career-ending decision in most parts of the country.

HOWEVER!

If a public homophobe get's caught with their "hand in the goody jar", I say all bets are off, let's all punk them out! (lookin at YOU, Rick!)

just my 2c.

[DCKit]

6. In other words, the mods and admins need to back the fuck off.

I have no problem with that. We all need to treat the GBLT posts like any other posts, and I also agree the the GBLT posts have received undue attention and deletion. We all want to speak freely.

Our DU brothers and sisters (apparently) aren't so Democratic when it comes to queers, fags and dykes.

WTF?

[WillParkinson]

7. My issue with it...

"Accusations" are nothing without proof of some sort.

Generally accusations are derogatory in nature and seem to be saying that every anti-gay person is a self-loathing closet case.

As William said in another post: Bring me proof and we can discuss it. Rumors of the fact go along with the I heard it from my sisters cousins boyfriends nieces sisters best friend thrice removed.

Without facts to back something up it's senseless to allow baseless claims, in my opinion.

[pinto]

8. I see this as worth discussion. n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

36. As long as the biased and homophobic moderators are allowed to stay

it makes no difference.

[BR_Parkway]

9. I'm a gay guy, tired of being a political football - if someone who is openly

anti-gay in his words, votes or actions - is doing anything that makes others think that he's probably covering up that he's gay himself, I'm all for poking away at that until the he's pushed out of the closet.

Given previous history - the more some guy is on the bandwagon freaking out over what us gay folks are doing, the more likely that he's really got something that he's covering up. Haggard, Craig, Foley.... At this point, Santorum's wife really should be most concerned!

Rumors Perry gets it on with guys? Bring them on.

Marcus Bachmann with his anti-gay "therapy". Makes me think of that other "therapist" who used to cuddle with guys and spank pillows with the tennis racket.

There is nothing Negative implied by trying to find out the truth about those guys - the negative is that they're fucking hypocrites who use their positions to harm us, not that they're gay (and if their base sees it as a negative, well, they reap what they've sown)

But I'm also a somewhat militant fag - I've been beaten, spit on and shot at for being a homo, so it takes a lot to offend me. This might not be a prevailing opinion on here - and as we've seen over the years, there's just some folks who aren't happy if they aren't offended in some way.

I hope you find the whole thread enlightening - I'm afraid you're more likely to wish you'd never opened this can of worms.

[cbayer]

10. I really appreciate the responses so far. I am following and will wait to try and

summarize until enough people get a chance to weigh in.

[NMMNG]

11. If there's some sort of evidence that an anti-gay Republican is gay

that's one thing (such as they were discovered prowling for men on Craigslist, hiring a Rent Boy, or there are photos of them with another dude).

But this constant crap of "OMG Marus Bachman looks soooooo gay" and "Rick Perry Gay comes up as the second most popular search on The Google so it must be true" stuff is annoying and demeaning. Yes, there are anti-gay politicians who are closeted gay men/lesbians. But it's come to the point that people are using that as an excuse to bandy about "He's gay/She's a lesbian" as an insult to nearly every single nasty Republican. It's bad enough that the anti-gay people accuse others of being gay to demonize them, as if there's something wrong with being gay. We shouldn't have people who claim to be on our side doing it.

And I'm sick of hearing "it's not about being gay, it's about the hypocrisy". If someone has some evidence that the person in question is gay (such as mentioned above), they should present it. Otherwise they're just gossiping and adding to the stigma LGBT people face every day.

[William769]

12. +1000!

:thumbsup:

[FreeState]

14. This - +1 n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Agreed.

nt

[Jamastiene]

22. You said it better than I could.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[closeupready]

24. I disagree with your last point. Since my social circle includes NO ONE who is homophobic,

deliberately, then it wouldn't be the case that someone attempting to 'use' the accusation of homosexuality would have any impact on the opinions of anyone with whom I socialize. So I don't understand how the mere gossip of the rumor, is harmful or bad.

[TriMera]

25. This +++ n/t

[bigwillq]

28. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[QC]

29. This is an excellent post. n/t

[hlthe2b]

32. Yet, when Cher did eactly that, there was not a single word of criticism...

Just lots of kudos for her and recs to the greatest page (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1740040)

While I am a Cher fan as well, is this not at least a little inconsistent?

[William769]

33. Sorry you didn't like my answer.

[Sapphocrat]

34. Is Cher a member of DU? n/t

[hlthe2b]

35. If you reread the moderator's question it is about where to draw the line...

Thus a post that highlights accusations made by others would seem to be within that question of where to draw the line. SO, sapphocrat, is posting a thread that repeats a celebrity's accusations ok or not? Where is the line?

[Sapphocrat]

40. I see what you're asking.

If Cher has proof -- and I want sworn affidavits, photos and/or police reports -- that a known anti-gay bigot is a closet case, then go for it. If Cher is just spreading gossip with nothing to back her up, then whoever repeats that on DU is just as out of line as Cher is.

Jesus Christ could descend from on high and say anything he wants about Bachmann, Perry, etc., but if he doesn't have proof, anyone who repeats it is just spreading gossip -- and I would question the motives of both Jesus for saying it and the poster for repeating it.

[Amimnoch]

13. Test sub: What is the context? Is it respectful? Is it directed at someone who deserves respect?

I propose a 3 point test to see if it is a post worthy of DU.

First, ask yourself about the context that the post is made in. Is there a level of familiarity between the person making the comment and the person it is directed at (the wording will usually give it away if it is). Context can usually tell much about the writers intent.

Example:

Someone in say General discussion posts something like "Ricky Martin is so gay, I really can't stand him". The context is obviously using sexual preference as a slur, and therefore is very insulting. However, say the post was in this forum and is along the lines of "Ricky Martin's new BF is so Hawt, that's a gay sandwich I'd love to be the meat between the slices in." well, there's a connotation referring to another gay individual, but is pretty clear it is not meant to be derogatory in any way. Of course there's always the more ambiguous inquiries like "do you think Rick Perry is gay?" those you will have to look at closer to determine if it is a genuine inquiry, or if it is using the word "gay" as an insult.

Is it respectful? This is the second litmus test that will be answered by determining the context above. If it is a genuine inquiry as to weather the opinion is that someone is or is not GLBT, then it is more than likely also respectful. If it is using the term "gay" as a behavior reference, and not a sexual orientation reference, then it is almost definitely not posed in a respectful way. As a side note, if the writer uses the "cool d00dz" speak phrase of "ghey" then is is also almost definitely not respectful.

The last test that I'd recommend is a much more grey area item, and kind of touches on what NMMNG above references. How do you handle posts that, when read literally shows "gay" in a bad light, but is in reference to the behavior of a political opponent who has just turned out to be yet another conservative hypocrite? Personally, I don't have any issue at all with using negative, gay referenced conjecture against such hypocrites, but I can see where others will still see it as offensive. I guess about the best advice I can offer is, if you see it let it ride a bit, but if you start to see flags being raised on it, go ahead and treat it as offensive, and remove it accordingly. If people are seeing it as offensive, regardless of if it is or isn't to others, I prefer to err on the side of respect for those who do take offense to it.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. You know, there are actual tools and methods that those being

moderators could learn and apply to make it easier to understand issues that seem to confound them so.

[dsc]

17. My take

I have no problem with discussing the sexuality of those who either actually are gay or of those where there is actually evidence of them being gay. I have big problems with indulging in ugly stereotypes to 'prove' someone is gay. For example, all the Rush is gay threads that relied on the 'evidence' that he had a gay mentor. Hope that helps.

[Tx4obama]

18. 'Accusing' a DUer of being gay or being a straight is a 'call-out'

There are MANY folks that wish to not publicly say what their sexuality is, and they have the RIGHT to stay private.
But if it is actually a 'news story/article' such as in the case of Rick Perry or Marcus Bachmann, then in my opinion, then it should be allowed to be posted as a news item since they are 'public figures' and there ARE stories in the media regarding their sexuality.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cbayer]

19. This is my take away from what is being said here.

What I read here is that there are some instances that are clearly slurs and that there should be a bright white line in those cases.

"Accusing" someone of being gay is clearly wrong when it is used as a joke, insult or to ridicule/mock someone. It is also clearly wrong when based solely on stereotyping. Calling someone "gay" as a behavior, as opposed to their sexual orientation, is always disrespectful.

Discussing rumors that someone might be GLBT is more complicated.

Rumors without any supporting evidence whatsoever are just accusation. Discussing rumors as a way to harm, derogate or insult another person is generally just gossip and wrong.

Discussing rumors with evidence (past history, photos, web postings, legal intervention) may be ok in some circumstances. This may be particularly true in cases where the target is a person who has been overtly homophobic or has used their position to actively harm the GLBT community. It is OK to point out the blatant hypocrisy of some individuals who have actively sought to discriminate against GLBT persons.

Talking about what is going on in the press and blogosphere is different than talking about the individual. Saying that persistent rumors are going to present a problem for a particular candidate is different than speculating that the person is indeed hiding their own sexuality.

Does that sound right or not?

[William769]

20. Forget everything I said in my earlier post.

I don't care anymore.

Fool me once shame shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

[cbayer]

21. Please help me out here. It seems that I have gotten it wrong.

[yardwork]

30. I'm late to this thread but note how many people here approved post #11

It's a question of respect and sensitivity to people who are a disenfranchised minority. A simple list of rules isn't really enough. The mods and admins need to look deep inside their hearts and ask themselves, "If this was being said about somebody I love very much who already didn't have equal rights, how would I feel about it?"

That should help put things in the right perspective. Thank you for asking.

[cbayer]

31. I agree with you and I think the use of sincere empathy is a great tool when dealing

with an issue like this.

One thing I would like to point out is that we don't see every post and are heavily reliant on the alert system. Many, many times we only find out that something offensive has been posted when we see that a new thread has been started here or posted in ATA.

I am aware that there are those that feel that the alert and moderation systems are broken, and I think the administrators of the site would agree with that. BUT, we can't act if we are not aware.

We need members to alert us when there is a potential problem. It is particularly helpful when we get an explanation with the alert.

[yardwork]

37. Lately I have been seeing improved responses to alerting, but for a long time

posters were literally chastised by moderators and admins for "alerting too much." I was banned for two years, as you may know, because I wrote to Skinner to alert him to a mod who had posted a highly insensitive call-out to gay DUers. For about six months before that my alerts had been mostly ignored. I received one mod warning, I believe, in all my years on DU. It was for "alerting too much."

Other posters have confirmed similar experiences. As a result, many DUers have stopped alerting entirely, particularly those of us who used to alert against homophobia. Yes, we feel bitter.

Since I was allowed to return to DU earlier this summer I have noticed some improvements in awareness toward and sensitivity toward homophobia. Because of this I am sticking around and I'm using alerts. It is going to take a long time for many DUers to trust the alert system again, I believe.

Again, thank you for asking this question and for your efforts. They are noted and appreciated.

[closeupready]

23. Sometimes, I feel I live in a universe apart from many others.

Being gay is not only not embarrassing, it's a character plus, in my book. So an accusation of gayness falls flat, IMO, when thrown to someone whose record on GLBT issues is either positive or neutral. "Okay, so what. Maybe they are gay ... and?"

However, when a homophobic Republican (or Democrat) is accused, then I don't care that the accusation is being raised. Because the hypocrisy is the real issue, IMO.

I guess where I would moderate is when GLBT people are the ones at whose expense jokes and levity are being made. That may not respond to every question you had, and I may come back later to add comments, but I appreciate your seeking input here from the GLBT members. :hi:

[Divine Discontent]

26. Hi cbayer!

:hi:

I think it's certainly appropriate to remove the posts that seem to only insinuate some random GOPer is "gay" if there's no back story that goes with it, or arguable point as to why someone might be accusing someone of being in the closet who works against GLBT rights, or accusing GLBT people as being sinful/shameful who need corrected/arrested/killed for being GLBT.

I also agree that posts that say nasty sexual taunts about a political enemy are not good either, but that falls under the standard rule about people being descriptive about sexual acts.

Good thread! :) Way to be.

[cbayer]

27. Hello DD!! Thanks for chiming in.

You are much missed.

:pals:

[Withywindle]

38. Part of the problem is the cumulative effect of LOTS of similar posts,

more than any individual post.

I don't like the way it's implied cumulatively that any frothing homophobe MUST be secretly gay--it starts to suggest that there are no homophobic straight people and puts the onus of homophobia back on....gay people. Closeted, hypocritical gay people. It winds up giving off the idea that LGBT people are the cause of homophobia, not the victims, and straight people are ultimately off the hook and don't have to take responsibility.


I don't like the way broad offensive stereotyping (hairstyles, manners of speaking, friends and associates) gets used as "hah hah my gaydar winknudge." No, it's stereotyping. Stop it.

[Prism]

41. Ask yourself if people are using stigmatization as a political weapon.

When there is tangible, provable hypocrisy, it's right and proper to highlight an anti-gay politician's hypocrisy.

When there is no evidence, and people are hoping the rumored orientation will "stick" to a politician so that the stigma of homosexuality will politically damage them, then we're watching people on our side employ homophobia for political advantage.

Any use of homophobia both perpetuates and strengthens it. It shouldn't be done by any liberal. All it does is say to people that there is something still to be ashamed of by being gay.

[QC]

43. That sums it up very nicely. n/t

[closeupready]

42. The offensive humor that caricatures stereotypical myths about gay people

is what, I think, is most offensive. As in the 'Rick Rolled over' one.

It's the same kind of offensiveness that would not be tolerated here, if the cartoons of that Orange County woman with regard to Obama eating watermelon, or alternatively, those old jokes from the 70's about ethnic minorities as applied to, for example, Cantor or Lieberman. Or Issa.

To let the gay caricatures slide is to effectively approve of them. Especially on a forum which doesn't tolerate racial or ethnic derision.