But one attack I find difficult tolerate comes from people who criticize my column’s existence in the first place — complaining that it’s written by a white, straight, cisgender male; a voice they feel is ‘inappropriate’ in a sex positive environment.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a controversial article on whether or not transgender people should be allowed to change the sex on their birth certificates.
It drew a lot of comments — many of them angry and frustrated — and opened my eyes to a lot of different perspectives on the issue. Ultimately, the debate revealed that something I thought was cut-and-dried turned out to be a lot more complex than I’d imagined. My opinion was challenged and my attitudes changed by the experience. But, during the discussion that took place on the EdenFantasys community forum, not all of the comments were constructive. While many challenged what I wrote, some objected to the fact that I wrote it in the first place.
“It’s inappropriate for cis-gender people to sit around and talk about what legal hoops transfolk have to jump through,” one critic complained. “It’s like asking a bunch of former Jews about how, for historical accuracy, their driver's licenses should be marked with little gold stars.”
Now the holocaust reference is repellent enough — but I also find the notion that there are topics certain “types” of people aren’t “allowed” to talk about deeply troubling.
Don’t get me wrong; I do kind of get it. In everyday life, so much of the discussion is dominated by the demographics with privilege and power (typically white, straight, cisgender men). I understand that it must be frustrating to have that same demographic opinionating in an environment many forum members consider ‘safe’ from the inequalities of privilege and power.
But when we signed up to be a part of the sex-positive community, we were supposed to leave our skin color, sexuality and gender at the door. What matters here are words and opinions; not what continent your ancestors were from, or what is swinging (or not) between your legs.
Apparently, there are some people on the Internet who disagree.
Repeatedly, I’ve been challenged online, not because of my opinion, but because of my gender, my race or my sexuality (or the unforgivable combination of all three).
These critics have informed me that the reason I disagree with them isn’t because I think they’re wrong, but because my “position of privilege” means I can’t possibly understand the issue like they can.
Other times, they’ve told me I have to “acknowledge and deal with” my privilege and power before it’s appropriate for me to join a discussion — demanding I apologize for who I am before I’m even allowed to have an opinion. They’ve even argued that my mere presence in a discussion thread can create an inherently “hostile” environment — whether or not I’ve written a word. And these people seem to be passionately oblivious to just how hypocritical their attitude is.
In the real world, they’d complain about a golf club that didn’t accept black members, or a gentleman’s club that wouldn’t admit women — but they’re committing exactly the same kind of discrimination online. It’s the inequalities of the real world, perhaps, which have made them think that this is acceptable. Outside the Internet, they’re the ones being discriminated against (in all honesty, probably by white, straight men). I understand it must be tremendously empowering to be able get their own back online.
But that doesn’t make it right — or excuse the many people in the community who enable their behavior.
I mean, I get that white, straight men are frequently considered the “bad guys” by feminists and activists; but that doesn’t make it acceptable to discriminate against them. It’s equally wrong to ridicule their complaints with sarcastic phrases like “Oh noes, what about teh menz?” In fact, it’s “teh menz” that’s really at the heart of this issue — and why I’m speaking out against it. To me, the people who object to me joining the conversation because I’m white, straight and male also object to the concept of me as an individual.
To them, I don’t have a mind and opinion of my own. I’m just part of a big, heaving, homogenous lump of white/straight/men who all speak, act and discriminate as part of a Borg-like collective.
And that’s offensive: The refusal to recognize me as an individual and instead judge me as nothing more than a tick in some demographic survey box. These people act like I don’t have thoughts, emotions and experiences of my own — that I’m controlled by some giant remote tuned into the frequency of my skin color, sexuality and gender. It’s a dangerous mentality — the same one, in fact, that resulted in states like Florida banning gay people from adopting kids because “all” gay people are apparently unsuitable to be parents. It’s the same attitude that inspired Donald Trump to demand President Obama’s academic grades — because “all” black people require some kind of affirmative action to succeed academically. It’s this attitude that even prevented women from serving on the front lines for decades — because “all” women are incapable of being effective soldiers.
Bloggers and contributors who judge me because I’m white, straight and cisgender male aren’t actually any more evolved than the racists, sexists and homophobes who judge minorities in similarly blinkered ways. The “sex positive” individuals might think they are — because their discrimination is condoned by “politically correct” society — but at the end of the day they’re just as judgmental, just as prejudiced and just as wrong.
Which is why, even though I’m white, straight and cisgender male — and even though it’s considered “inappropriate” for me to talk about issues like this — I’m going to keep on doing it.
Because I want to be treated like everybody should in this beautiful, vibrant community we’ve built — as an individual.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a controversial article on whether or not transgender people should be allowed to change the sex on their birth certificates.
It drew a lot of comments — many of them angry and frustrated — and opened my eyes to a lot of different perspectives on the issue. Ultimately, the debate revealed that something I thought was cut-and-dried turned out to be a lot more complex than I’d imagined. My opinion was challenged and my attitudes changed by the experience. But, during the discussion that took place on the EdenFantasys community forum, not all of the comments were constructive. While many challenged what I wrote, some objected to the fact that I wrote it in the first place.
“It’s inappropriate for cis-gender people to sit around and talk about what legal hoops transfolk have to jump through,” one critic complained. “It’s like asking a bunch of former Jews about how, for historical accuracy, their driver's licenses should be marked with little gold stars.”
Now the holocaust reference is repellent enough — but I also find the notion that there are topics certain “types” of people aren’t “allowed” to talk about deeply troubling.
Don’t get me wrong; I do kind of get it. In everyday life, so much of the discussion is dominated by the demographics with privilege and power (typically white, straight, cisgender men). I understand that it must be frustrating to have that same demographic opinionating in an environment many forum members consider ‘safe’ from the inequalities of privilege and power.
But when we signed up to be a part of the sex-positive community, we were supposed to leave our skin color, sexuality and gender at the door. What matters here are words and opinions; not what continent your ancestors were from, or what is swinging (or not) between your legs.
Apparently, there are some people on the Internet who disagree.
Repeatedly, I’ve been challenged online, not because of my opinion, but because of my gender, my race or my sexuality (or the unforgivable combination of all three).
These critics have informed me that the reason I disagree with them isn’t because I think they’re wrong, but because my “position of privilege” means I can’t possibly understand the issue like they can.
Other times, they’ve told me I have to “acknowledge and deal with” my privilege and power before it’s appropriate for me to join a discussion — demanding I apologize for who I am before I’m even allowed to have an opinion. They’ve even argued that my mere presence in a discussion thread can create an inherently “hostile” environment — whether or not I’ve written a word. And these people seem to be passionately oblivious to just how hypocritical their attitude is.
In the real world, they’d complain about a golf club that didn’t accept black members, or a gentleman’s club that wouldn’t admit women — but they’re committing exactly the same kind of discrimination online. It’s the inequalities of the real world, perhaps, which have made them think that this is acceptable. Outside the Internet, they’re the ones being discriminated against (in all honesty, probably by white, straight men). I understand it must be tremendously empowering to be able get their own back online.
But that doesn’t make it right — or excuse the many people in the community who enable their behavior.
I mean, I get that white, straight men are frequently considered the “bad guys” by feminists and activists; but that doesn’t make it acceptable to discriminate against them. It’s equally wrong to ridicule their complaints with sarcastic phrases like “Oh noes, what about teh menz?” In fact, it’s “teh menz” that’s really at the heart of this issue — and why I’m speaking out against it. To me, the people who object to me joining the conversation because I’m white, straight and male also object to the concept of me as an individual.
To them, I don’t have a mind and opinion of my own. I’m just part of a big, heaving, homogenous lump of white/straight/men who all speak, act and discriminate as part of a Borg-like collective.
And that’s offensive: The refusal to recognize me as an individual and instead judge me as nothing more than a tick in some demographic survey box. These people act like I don’t have thoughts, emotions and experiences of my own — that I’m controlled by some giant remote tuned into the frequency of my skin color, sexuality and gender. It’s a dangerous mentality — the same one, in fact, that resulted in states like Florida banning gay people from adopting kids because “all” gay people are apparently unsuitable to be parents. It’s the same attitude that inspired Donald Trump to demand President Obama’s academic grades — because “all” black people require some kind of affirmative action to succeed academically. It’s this attitude that even prevented women from serving on the front lines for decades — because “all” women are incapable of being effective soldiers.
Bloggers and contributors who judge me because I’m white, straight and cisgender male aren’t actually any more evolved than the racists, sexists and homophobes who judge minorities in similarly blinkered ways. The “sex positive” individuals might think they are — because their discrimination is condoned by “politically correct” society — but at the end of the day they’re just as judgmental, just as prejudiced and just as wrong.
Which is why, even though I’m white, straight and cisgender male — and even though it’s considered “inappropriate” for me to talk about issues like this — I’m going to keep on doing it.
Because I want to be treated like everybody should in this beautiful, vibrant community we’ve built — as an individual.
Bloody hell. Roland, you are correct here. Honestly, not only should you be allowed to talk on stuff you likely do not know about... you should be encouraged to. How the bloody hell do people expect to get better if they cannot allow themselves to say potentially foolish crap. In fact, the more stupid you think your opinion might be, say it. Then, once somebody points to the flaws in it--work from there. Its called learning.
Here, you have the correct attitude. You cannot know... and the conclusion that "well, lets not tell you" is such ridiculous bullshit ever invented. That "you cannot know" attitude that is way too gawd damned prevalent in the LGBT community is why I tend to rarely talk with the community, if I can at all avoid it.
Because it is full of bitches like @Bubbles00, who just retort, "I have been teased bullied and humilated and blah blah fvcking blah, poor fvcking me"... ergo, I am right and you cannot fvcking know.
Right--guess the bloody hell what? Guess why Roland cannot know? Because people in the community refuse to tell him. The LGBT community has become so butt hurt and scared of people hurting them, that this fear is now what propagates the hurt and the fear. Yes, every time, YOU tell a cisgendered hetero white male--or hell, cishetero white females too--that they are not capable of helping, YOU are the one denying help coming in.
I of all people should be the one to take the most help from the LGBT community. I am a Male To Female Transgendered who is dating a Male Identifying Lesbian. Guess what? I tend to get help from cisgendered women. Usually cisgendered straight women. Maybe I will ask a cisgendered bisexual woman.
Why? Because where we are right now, the enemy is not those weird white pasty vaguely human shaped gate keepers. The ones who decide if we are married. The ones who decide who can and cannot attend hospitals. The ones who decide if we get to go to the washroom, or if we just crap out underwear/ No, fvck that--I have yet to have any issues with the gate keepers. I find them the casual sort of person that I can walk up, say hi, or maybe just slap. Yes, that is just right, walk up to the gate keeper, smack his smug face, yell at him. Or hey, maybe give him a light kiss. Sometimes, I think they might actually be nearly people too! The cisheteros? They are not that scary... what is scary is the own damned community at times, really.
What is even more scary when these attitudes are justified by past torture. If that is what people need, well... you can just win. Your life is most fvcked up. You win the "most shitty life" trophy... except, to just punctuate how crappy the idea is, I haven't actually done up a trophy and you will need to accept an IOU. I for one have no desire to try to both to compete with you there. You can share your personal horror stories--I will try to not yawn too terribly much (so as to not be rude). However those contests of "I had this this and this happen to me!" vs. "You think you got it bad? I had that that and that happen to me!" bore the crap out of me. I think I got the best feeling, when I heard a mother talking about her six month old child getting in a car accident. I said, "okay... you win that one"... and in that empathetic act of self defense against momma bear... I learned, why the fvck does my crap need to top anybody's? No, honestly, I hate how I can talk about two average weeks of my past in Alberta, Canada--and it will make everybody cry so much that they have to make themselves numb to hear more. That gets boring to watch half way through the first time.
In fact, more people need to learn, that when somebody says, "you think you got it rough"... to just answer, "okay, you win. Your life is the most fvcking shitty"... then just refuse to talk afterwards. That attitude leaves very soon.
Now then, there are people out there, who try to be progressive. We talk with the enemy. We realise that they are capable of understanding this. It is not "us or them" unless we make it. It is just a large amount of people, who need to just know a person... not a monster. That is what will help the best. Knowing people--it is just as simple as that. Knowing people who do not share sexual identity or gender orientation--and talking with them. If they do not get something we are trying to convey, we only hurt ourselves by not even bothering to try.
[https://www.derailingfordummies.com/#educate]
Hey, you're a ginger, that's totally a discriminated against minority, don't allow them to homogenise you!
All jokes aside, I think you make some very valid points. When people become too used to playing the victim, they often become blind to their hypocrisy. It's useful to remind them that these sort of unfair judgements go both ways. It's never useful to judge people as a group, no matter how righteous people believe their indignation to be, because they're merely lowering themselves to the same level as the very people they believe they're fighting.