I’m a white cishet male so I’m not really in a good position to opine on the best way to react to LGBT people getting outed for very behavior they publicly condemn.
I certainly am not about to step in if members of the LGBT community decide to tear him a new one though. Lindsey’s situation reminds me of how sex columnist Dan Savage responded to news of Ted Haggard’s extracurricular activities.
As a white cishet woman, I feel the same, to the point where I wasn’t sure I should have started this topic. But I do think we’re obliged to use our privilege to call out things we see that are problematic, and to listen to those in the affected communities when they tell us “that’s wrong, don’t do it, it hurts us.”
Sometimes it’s effective. “Lady G” isn’t a slur for the male sex workers who originated it, but it would be for the Know-Nothings who support him. But it’s a grey area, so I’d certainly drop the specific term in favour of discussing the hypocritical behaviour of a “family values” anti-LGBTQ male politician frequenting male sex workers.
I don’t stigmatise sex work or those who partake in it – as long as it’s consensual I don’t consider it any of my business. Lindsey Graham and his supporters, in contrast…
I do that, too. But if the powerful arsehole is also a hypocrite and a kapo I have no problem using the behaviours that create that situation against them.
That was a response to @anon59592690, not you.
Which is exactly how this whole “Lady G” business got started. I’m with Dan Savage on this one.
No, but it will cost LG their vote and help take him out of power. Of course they’ll vote for someone just as awful next time, but that person will have to start from scratch.
True, but I felt I needed to reply. The issue isn’t about going easy on Graham, it never was. The issue is how to combat him, and others like him, in ways that don’t do collateral damage.
That’s anecdotal and not really relevant.
If it hurts other marginalized people that are not Lindsey Graham, then it’s not okay, no matter what the rent boys may say amongst themselves. Period.
The first step to true allyhood remains the same; listen to the oppressed and persecuted, even when it’s inconvenient or difficult, for whatever reasons.
To do less is to be lacking.
There are other ways to criticize Graham as a horrible person without demonizing his latent homosexuality, even if that’s what shames him the most.
That’s my input, and now I’m out.
That’s one of the places you lose me. I’ve never encountered a ® that will hold that consistent of a thought. You’re much more likely to get the response, “If he’s gay, then he can’t be homophobic!” Or worse, “Then he’s an example of how inclusive and progressive the Republican Party is!”
Ugh. Now I feel like I have to take a shower.
I’ll leave them to that, then. But I’d no sooner repeat it any more than I’d repeat a Black person’s casual use of the N-word.
“Lindsey Graham” is a big enough insult as it is.
Even if it is (and it doesn’t seem to be so far), that argues that it’s perfectly okay to do or say bad, harmful things to achieve good ends, or when it’s aimed at a target we deem to be acceptable.
I’m not sure that’s something we should advocate.
We can do better than that.
We should do better than that.
That part, right there.
In-group usage of a slur is punching up; other people outside that group using it is punching down.
(Even if the asshole in question just deserves to be punched in general.)
Okay, NOW I’m out.
I really need to file those damn TPS reports.
I think there’s a substantive difference between outing a powerful hypocrite who does real societal damage and outing a hypocrite who isn’t harming anyone except himself – enough of a difference that I really don’t see the former promoting or excusing the latter.
That’s fair, but in narrow-margin races there are enough idiots who won’t vote for a gay man under any circumstances to create a strong possibility that he’ll be kicked out of power and stop doing damage.
And, for the third time, I agree that use of the term is in enough of a grey area that I’ll personally drop it. If the DC escort community or other LGBTQ people use it, I’m not going to complain about it.
It’s an ethical debate to be sure. I’m arguing for a special case when it comes to powerful kapos and hypocrites, but acknowledge that not everyone is comfortable with that and sees the potential for collateral damage that I, per the first part of this comment, don’t.
So wait, how did all these other issues swirling around the horror that is LG get dragged into this?
Far as I know, this thread is about whether calling him Lady G is okay, and that’s pretty much the whole topic at hand, no?
And you’re grudgingly willing to stop using it, you say? How big of you.
No “grudgingly” involved. I listened to people who objected to the specific term and agreed to stop using it because they convinced me it was open to misinterpretation.
@Nightflyer - thanks for spinning this off as it’s own thread. It’s been really educational.
The discussion reinforces my overall efforts to avoid insulting people based on identity traits and stick to their actions that are causing harm to others. It can be hard, but like @Melizmatic and @DukeTrout mentioned above, it’s a work in progress and totally possible.
As a SWM, I have become very sensitized to use of any kind of questionable terms. Even those that seem to have been successfully repurposed like “queer.” One of my nieces self identifies this way, but I cannot bring myself to us the term. I guess, while calling Lindsey out for his attractions might be satisfying, there is an implication in doing so that it is not ok to be gay, or at least that it can be a source of public humiliation. I don’t really give a damn about the impact on him, not one iota, but there are lots of folks scared and insecure about their sexuality who could be hurt by it. The possibility of collateral damage more than outweighs the satisfaction of sticking it to a very very bad person. For that reason I fall on the side of not using those kind of gotchas, at least for me. Emphasis on that last part, as I can only speak for myself.
As with observing most American Nazi Party aka GOP active members, I do not wish to pay close enough attention to Graham to bother noting his hypocrisies. I smell traitorous scumbag. That is sufficient for me.
I have to wonder, how many ordinary, sensible people have small sized hands, whose lives have gotten worse since Donald Trump started making that a thing. Seriously, with so many things wrong with the guy, why focus on the one thing he has no choice about?
The hypocrisy argument does not work with evangelicals. Because from their point of view there is no hypocrisy.
(The following is what I have understood from discussions I have had with former evangelical gay men. It is in no way my way of looking at things!)
Lindsey Graham is not gay. Lindsey Graham “struggles with homosexual urges”. This alone is a misfortune, not a sin. His sin is that he acted on it. But! People are sinners. He can repent, feel very sorry, feel shame about his awful, awful urges. And then get right with God, and ask Jesus for forgiveness and all that good stuff. The reaction of other evangelicals to this sort of revelation about someone who is powerful within their movement is to pray for them. Poor sinner Graham. He must get right with God, etc. He can make some mournful statements and be all good with them. Repent!
Believe these people when they say that what they are really against is “the homosexual lifestyle”. What is intolerable is gay men living happily together, out and proud, holding hands in the street, and forming their own families. That repudiates the very core of their convictions of the role of men and women, the construction of family and so on. Being attracted to men isn’t really the problem. Acting on it is, but forgivable as long as you are properly ashamed of it.
So there is no hypocrisy. Some sinnful sex on the down-low is bad, but recoverable. There would only be hypocrisy if Graham somehow had a loving, committed gay relationship and “lived the lifestyle”.
Point out that Jesus said, and there is plenty of dispute about what he said but the thrust of this one is not disputed, it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?
I believe that the camel in the metaphor refers to a camel hair rope rather than an actual animal. But the point remains. Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef really did not like rich people whom he most likely saw as collaborators in the occupation. And he didn’t give a fuck about what non Jewish people thought. I mean he went to lengths to avoid the Greek towns in his travels. Paul was wrong about everything as far as I can see.
And maybe we shouldn’t encourage the Levitican crowd, with stones ready in their pockets. Right?
F that. He needs to be removed from politics by any means before he gets more people killed.
