From kevyn@KSUVM.KSU.EDU Mon Mar 27 11:31:21 1995 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 11:03:03 -0600 (CST) From: Kevyn Jacobs To: "Manhattan Queers Email List [MQ]" Subject: COLLEGIAN LETTER: FROM THE KSU COLLEGIAN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR MARCH 27, 1995 ===================== LETTER: COLUMNIST CAN'T JUSTIFY HOMOPHOBIA Dear Editor: An uncharitable reader of Kathleen Mastio's apology for homophobia might conclude that she wants to give aid and comfort to gay-bashers. But dismissing Mastio's essay on those grounds is a mistake. I suggest that instead, we view her essay as a kind of "reductio ad absurdum." That is to say, she shows the falseness of certain premises by showing the absurdity of the conclusion, which those premises are meant to support. The non-standard structure of Mastio's essay makes it difficult to tell just what, exactly, the premises are, but from what I can see, Mastio proposes four reasons that some heterosexuals are homophobes. First, homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, and like risky sex. Second, homosexuals force their values down "our" throats. Third, homosexuals identify themselves primarily by their sexual orientation. Fourth, homosexuals are attracted to cross-dressing men. Mastio's conclusion is that these reasons both explain and justify heterosexual homophobia. She shows us vividly just how flimsy these reasons are. Take the first one: that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. The "evidence" offered to support this is a quotation from Michael Warner in The Village Voice, as well as anecdotal evidence from Mastio's experience. Mastio says that Warner's statements are "homosexual rhetoric" that should "frighten anyone, gay or straight." We should be afraid, Mastio says, because Warner's behavior represents a scary lack of self-control that can only increase the spread of AIDS. That's certainly a good reason to worry about Warner's state of mind, but why do we have to believe that HIS raging hormones are somehow typical of MOST homosexual people? If a single column in The Village Voice is enough to frighten Mastio away from all homosexuals, then the antics described in entire issues of Cosmopolitan, GQ, Playboy and Redbook, among others, must leave her in absolute dread of heterosexuals -- whose predatory, risky behavior spreads a host of diseases and unplanned pregnancies! It's as laughable to use Michael Warner as the spokesperson for the sexual habits of gay people, as it is to use Helen Gurley Brown and Hugh Hefner as the spokespeople for the sexual habits of straight people. And while Mastio says that her gay acquaintances are "extremely" promiscuous, she neglects to tell us two crucial items: how she is defining "extremely," and how promiscuous her straight friends are. So that claim isn't very interesting. Next are two claims that seem closely related to each other: homosexuals force their values on the rest of us, and they wrongly identify themselves by their sexual preference. It does seem true that some homosexuals demand not just tolerance or acceptance, but also active approval from heterosexuals. We should all live and let live, but as Mastio correctly points out, no one should be forced to approve of behavior that one finds objectionable. Unfortunately for her, it is simply not true that "gays have been forcing their values down our throats for quite some time." Even if we could somehow make Mastio's idea of "gay values" coherent, what history shows us is that gay people have been trying to force HUMAN values down "our" throats -- such as respect for others' differences and the rejection of discrimination, harassment and persecution as acceptable ways to treat other people. (Are these some of the "mainstream values" that she thinks homosexuals shun?) Mastio's remarks show us that broad, sweeping claims about what ALL gays have been doing, or what ALL gays want, represent a sure path to error. Similarly, her charge that homosexuals are wrong to identify themselves by their sexuality is both confused and probably wrong, even if it is based on her experience with gay people. Perhaps the gay people she's met are quick to identify themselves as gay, but that doesn't prove that all, or even most, gay people are the same. She should be well aware, in fact, that many gay people DON'T identify themselves as gay and spend many painful years hiding that part of themselves. Mastio doesn't explain why identifying oneself as gay should count as a "problem" for heterosexuals, any more than my identifying myself as left-handed should be a "problem" for right-handers to hear. If she replies that handedness and sexual orientation are completely different, then she's given up the game: In a world where heterosexuals make an issue of homosexuality, it makes perfect sense that homosexuals will ALSO make their sexuality an issue, especially if they are the targets for hatred and persecution because of that sexuality! Once again, Mastio has cleverly shown us that these two reasons for homophobia are not very well thought out. Finally is the claim that homosexuals are attracted to cross-dressing men. It is here that the "reductio" becomes its most "absurdum." First, we notice, if we haven't already, that Mastio's entire discussion is directed at homosexual MEN. This makes us wonder how we should feel about homosexual women, and how we should feel about the majority of gay men -- who AREN'T attracted to cross-dressers. Then, we learn that a man's attraction to a cross-dressing man "directly contradict(s)" his alleged sexual preference, and furthermore, is somehow incompatible with monogamy itself. These problems cause heterosexuals to "question the validity of homosexuality." As she has done throughout her essay, Mastio presents these statements without critically evaluating them. After all, she doesn't need to. She simply allows them to stand in the full brilliance of their absurdity. Vance Ricks PhD student, philosophy Stanford University ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1995, Student Publications Inc. All rights reserved. This document may be distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of Student Publications Inc., Kansas State University.