Archive
Atheism, Bigotry, and Politics
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Today’s article is by SASHA member Alex Papulis.
I’d like to consider something in response to Dave’s June 14 post, where he explains that he will stop using the word “homophobia” and instead use “bigotry”.
Atheism does not entail any given political position, or any political position at all. There is nothing requiring an atheist to support either high or low taxes, strict or forgiving immigration policies, capital punishment or its abolition, or anything at all. One cannot be an atheist and support abolition of the death penalty because God says don’t murder, but one can be an atheist and support the abolition of the death penalty. According to moral nihilism, there are no positive moral facts about the world, and as moral nihilism follows from naturalistic atheism (see brief argument at end of post if you like), there is no imperative that the atheist support or oppose any particular policy.
Additionally, though, as all positive moral propositions are false, we should note that the atheist is inconsistent in claiming any political position to be wrong, bad, harmful, etc. Any such claim, that is held intolerantly in the face of opposition, is bigotry on the part of the atheist. For what reason could an atheist hold to a belief for which there is no evidence, in the face of opposition?
So, while an atheist certainly cannot consistently claim, for example, that homosexual behavior is bad or harmful, neither can he claim that anti-homosexual behavior is bad or harmful. Laws expanding the definition of marriage are not harmful, but neither are laws that restrict the definition of marriage. And it’s clear that anyone who says that such law is harmful, and is intolerant of those disagreeing, is behaving in a bigoted manner. There is no evidence for their belief, yet they obstinately hold on to it and disapprove of those who do not share their belief.
But surely, you may be thinking, there are political positions that are worse than others. Some taxes are better than none, highways are better than no highways, and firemen, policemen, ambulances, these are all good things, and policies can certainly be harmful in this regard. Surely we all agree on this. But we have to be careful. It may be the case that most of us like these things, and we don’t like things that lessen them, but that doesn’t get us what would be needed to avoid a charge of bigotry. After all, everyone can appeal to what they like, and the anti-homosexual doesn’t get off the hook because he likes restrictive marriage laws. No, in the end, stubbornly and intolerantly moralizing is bigotry.
So what’s left? For one, there are our desires. We prefer certain states of the world over others. We like what certain policies get us and dislike what others get us, even if none is better than another. And of course, atheism doesn’t entail anything about what preferences or desires one should have. It doesn’t require one be tolerant or accepting of differences, though one may like if atheists are these things.
The pro-gay, then, is fundamentally no different than the anti-gay. The bigots are those who intolerantly assert that one of the positions is good or bad. The two sides are simply two groups with different political desires, and they both try to impose those desires on the other via legislation. There is no place for moral indignation.
Moral nihilism: There are two problems with a realist view of morality for the naturalist atheist. First, moral entities (be they properties, relations, values) don’t seem to fit into the naturalist catalog. A quick way of thinking about it is by dissecting a behavior or act into its physical constituents and then considering where the moral properties might be. We can think about all the physical elements and effects of an action, yet when we try to find the “requirement” or “obligation” or “value”, we are unable. Second, even if moral entities did exist, it is unclear how we would be able to ascertain their existence or character. As moral entities don’t seem to fit into a naturalist understanding of the world, similarly it seems that our perception of them would be impossible without some faculty of perception capable of perceiving non-natural things.
After completing an economics degree at Washington University in St Louis, Alex Papulis just finished a year at Mizzou as a non-degree-seeking, non-transfer Degree-seeking Transfer student. He enjoyed it, and looks forward to starting a philosophy MA program in Milwaukee this fall.
_________________________________________________________________________
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Things change, Jed.
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Word Origin & History:
matrimony
c.1300, from O.Fr. matremoine, from L. matrimonium “wedlock, marriage,” from matrem (nom. mater) “mother” + -monium, suffix signifying “action, state, condition.” Related: Matrimonial.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas HarperThe word matrimony honors women as mothers. Who are the mothers in these so-called same sex marriages? These perverts do not want to be mothers; they hate children and hate God, the source of life. Nor do they love one another. We need to restore the”holy” to holy matrimony.
My response (on his wall):
Things change, Jed. The year 1300 was 7 centuries ago. Even as a Christian, since you are a Protestant, you would almost certainly be burned at the stake for believing the things that you do today, if we were to go back to the 14th century. Christianity itself has changed immensely since then.
There is a difference between a change over time, and a perversion. Also, have you ever even met a gay person? It seems hard to believe that you have, given that you are saying things like “they hate children and hate God…” I know many gay Christians who love God and love children, and I know that you do, too, because some of the people I know are also some of the people you know.
Jed, I want you to think hard about what you are saying. You are getting to that age now, when thinking about what you will accomplish is lower on your list, and it’s time to start thinking about how you will be remembered. Your grandchildren are going to grow up viewing gay marriage the same way that people of my generation see interracial marriage: as nothing wrong or perverted at all, and as a beautiful way to demonstrate their love for each other publicly to the world. If you persist in these falsehoods, these lies about gay people about which I know you know better, you are going to be remembered as an intolerant bigot. You are going to be remembered the same way people of my generation remember racists who fought against desegregation. I just want you to think about that.
My real question is, why do you feel it necessary to lie about gay people, to demonize them in this way and assassinate their character? Are you afraid that being honest and telling the truth about them will somehow make them more human, more equal? We both know that gay people do not hate children. Why would you even say something like that, if not to demonize them? Is it because you don’t actually have any good reasons for disliking them and discriminating against them, so you have to resort to lies?
Please name one gay person who actually hates children and hates God. I would like very much to meet one, and ask him some questions, if he exists. Surely there are gay people who don’t WANT children of their own, but hating children is something different than not wanting kids, just like not believing your god exists is entirely different from “hating” your god.
Looking forward to your response.
Another person, Stephen S, also posted this, which I thought was great!
in lesbian marriages there are two mothers i hope this helps
Until next time,
Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Just a cute black couple…
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
- Dave
mail@davemuscato.com
(573) 424-0420 cell/text
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
P.S. Today’s post is just making a point. A friend of mine posted a picture on her Facebook profile, of a lesbian couple hugging, with the caption, “Just a cute lesbian couple :3 nbd”. It’s received 29 likes in the past 19 hours.
I commented, “And on your right, you’ll notice a cute lesbian couple. Don’t tap on the glass, please. And on your left…” which received 5 likes.
The point I’m making is simply that I dream of the day when we can say, “Just a cute couple” without having to point out that they’re black, white, LGBTQ – or straight, for that matter.What difference does that make? Why even say it?
While I of course respect and care about my friend, and appreciate what she’s trying to do with her Facebook post, I think it’s not simply unnecessary, but disrespectful to draw attention to the fact that they’re gay.
When I was a teenager, I loved Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (my favorite series was always Captain Picard’s Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I had a big crush on Lieutenant Dax from DS9, too). In the DS9 series, one of the main characters, the commander of the station, Captain Sisko, is played by an actor named Avery Brooks.
Avery Brooks as "Captain Benjamin Sisko"
Some years later, I heard an interview with the actor talking about how important it was for him to play the role of Captain Sisko on the series. He said that (I’m paraphrasing), as a black man, it was important to him that, in the 24th century, there were black officers in high-up positions, and that this was an opportunity for him to be an actor as well as be an advocate for social progress.
When I first heard that, my reaction was, “He’s black?” Then I thought, “I mean, yeah, of course he is. I just never thought about that before.”
It never actually occurred to me that Captain Sisko was a black captain. I had always simply thought of him as “captain.” Pointing out that he was “black” seemed to me – 9 years old when the series started – as… well, unnecessary, and weid. It seemed a random thing to draw attention to. Captain Sisko was also bald. He also liked baseball and seafood. It seemed about as arbitrary to me as the actor saying, “As a baseball fan, it was important that, in the future, there were baseball fans in high-up positions, and that this was an opportunity for me to be an actor as well as an advocate for baseball.”
Looking back on this now, I think about the fact that, in 1993 (when this series came out), it was really only about 25 years after the height of the civil-rights movement in this country. Avery Brooks – 45 at the time the series started – would have had clear memories as a 16-year-old of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and as a 20-year-old of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Martin Luther King, Jr’s assassination in 1968. It made a lot more sense to me why Brooks would have this attitude toward portraying a black Starfleet captain looking at things from this perspective. But as a 9-year-old unaware of all of that, it seemed normal and even insignificant that the actor was black. I just enjoyed watching him and the other characters be all bad-ass in the 24th century – curing plagues with science, exploring the far reaches of the galaxy, playing baseball in the holosuites, and learning about other cultures.
I guess what I’m saying is, I thought we were past pointing out things like whether someone is straight or not when saying whether they’re cute or not. But if it took 25+ years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act for people to get over that kind of thinking in terms of race, I suppose it’s wishful thinking that we’re going to get over this kind of thinking so quickly, considering that it’s only been 7 years since the first US state legally recognized same-sex marriage. Maybe it’s a generational thing… Maybe in 2060, when 45-year-olds who were born in 2015, who have no memory of a time before gay marriage was legal in all 50 states (let’s hope)… maybe they will think it’s weird when we point out cute couples with the qualifier that they’re gay. I hope it doesn’t take that long, but either way, I hope I’m around to see it 
- Dave
Zach Wahls Speaks About Family
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
What’s the reason for opposing this again? Your imaginary friend told someone you’ve never even met, thousands of years ago, a fairy tale, and you are stupid enough to believe that it’s actually true? What is wrong with you?
Phyllis Siegal, 76, and Connie Kopelov, 84, the first gay couple legally married under New York State's recent marriage equality law. They have been together for 23 years.
There is a place for understanding and accommodation in religion debates (Chris Stedman et al), and there is a place for simply informing people that they are, in fact, wrong. That the facts are against you, and it’s now time for you to bite the bullet and admit it. If you think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because a fictional character in some book says so, I make no apologies for telling you flat-out that you are, in fact, wrong. And worse than that, you are a bigot, and you deserve to be called out on it, and you deserve to be made to feel bad about it, publicly.
I hope that you feel ashamed when you watch this video.
I hope that you understand that your fairy tales are NOT harmless.
I hope that you understand that there is nothing “loving” about being a bigot, and that you are a hypocrite and a liar if you insist otherwise. Even if your god DID exist, he would NOT be worthy of worship, but in fact would have a whole lot of explaining to do. If your god did exist, those of us who are ACTUALLY moral would arrest him and try him for genocide and crimes against humanity. It’s a good thing that he’s imaginary, for his sake. In the meantime, you need to recognize that it is you, religious people, who are the ones actually carrying out this hate, discrimination, and bigotry, and you need to take responsibility for it and stop passing the buck to some book, regardless of what you believe about the authority of that book itself.
We can stop treating each other like enemies and start realizing that love is the answer. These people just want to live their lives. It is YOU who is causing the problem. The sooner you come to see that, the sooner we can all start getting along. The ball is in your court.
- Dave
mail@davemuscato.com
(573) 424-0420 cell/text
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
This is why…
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
- Dave
mail@davemuscato.com
(573) 424-0420 cell/text
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Making headway!
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
Hello everyone!
Today we set up the Ask an Atheist table again at Speakers’ Circle, and handed out approximately 150 of these flyers:
We got overwhelmingly positive responses at the table; we had a few very good discussions and helped several people understand what we mean by the word “atheist”/”agnostic,” why we do what we do, how atheists make ethical decisions, etc. We told a lot of people about events we have planned for this year, and I think we’re going to have even more people at our next meeting than we did at our last one, especially considering we haven’t put up the bulk of the posters yet!
Coincidentally, there were independently two (unrelated) street preachers at the circle today, as well. The first up was a 40ish man with a thick Alabama accent and a VERY loud voice who read from his bible incessantly for several hours. He was completely uninterested in opening a dialogue and simply yelled bible verses at students. A few people sat and listened, but he didn’t really have a crowd going. I went over and tried to start a conversation with him, but gave up after about 5 minutes – every time I asked him a question, e.g. “You quote the bible, but why do you believe in the bible?” or “What’s your name?” he simply said “Not now” and continued reading his bible to the open air. I don’t think he really reached anyone.
Sister Cindy preached next, but honestly I didn’t get a chance to listen to her, since I was back at the table by then. I did see that she was holding up a condom, so I imagine she was talking about “fornication!!!!!” I do think it’s interesting that, according to Brother Jed’s journal about today, he was worried about a young guy named Marcus who all set to get saved, but changed his mind at the last minute because he realized that he would have to obey the bible in its entirety (according to Jed), and believing and obeying the Christian bible meant turning against his sister, who’s gay. (Jed quoted Luke 14:26 in his journal, which reads: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”) I think it’s ironic that Sister Cindy was preaching today, considering that apparently she believes it’s alright to pick and choose from the bible (see 1 Timothy 2:11-12).
We’ve discussed this before at meetings, but I think it’s worth mentioning: Our table has a big sign that says “Ask an Atheist” (see yesterday’s post for a photo), and we’re wondering if we’re really approaching our tabling with the right goal in mind. Although we do want to chat with people who are curious about atheism and help them understand better what it means, we are also—primarily, even—seeking other atheists who are interested in joining our group. The sign we’re using now doesn’t really work well for that purpose. We get a lot of people giving us thumbs-up as they walk by, or taking pictures of our sign and waving at us, or telling us “Keep up the good work!” and so on, but we want those people to stop at the table and learn about our group! Those who did approach us, often, didn’t even realize we were part of a group that has regular meetings, as much as just taking it upon ourselves to answer people’s questions about atheism. I think we’ll need to make a new sign with something more direct, for example, “Atheist? Join the club!” or something along those lines to accompany the one we have now.
After we finished tabling, we went to the LGBTQ Resource Center‘s welcome pizza party. It was great! So many people having fun, getting to know each other, and knowing that have a safe place on campus to learn, read, and not have to worry about people not understanding them. This is the type of thing of which we need more, not Brother Jed telling people that they are “not worthy” because they’re not willing to “hate” their sisters simply for being gay. I am honestly tired of Christians, mostly who haven’t ever read the bible, trying to convince me that Jesus was all about love and peace. The character of Jesus as portrayed in the bible doesn’t exactly match the glowing beacon of acceptance your youth pastor told you about, guys… sorry to burst your bubble!
People who use reason, logic, and evidence to decide how to weigh what’s acceptable or not are the people I want to hang around, and an ethical (and legal) system based on critical examination and rationality is the kind of system under which I want to live. Richard Dawkins explains it well in this clip, I think (and gets a round of applause, as well):
Until next time!
- Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, he posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
What you always wanted to know about LGBTQ language (but were afraid to ask)
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
I love language. I love its power, beauty, and flaws. I adore etymology, linguistic anthropology, linguistic semantics, and collecting interesting quotations. Some of my most-prized possessions are books, including a signed, first-edition/first-pressing of Anne Lamott’s “Bird by Bird.” Language can do more than any other force on Earth, for good or otherwise.
You may not be familiar with this word, but it’s a fun one: argot. An argot is a special vocabulary of a particular group. They can be very useful as a tool for group cohesion and identity. For example, asking “When does the narwhal bacon?” is used by Redditors to identify themselves in public to other Redditors. (I don’t feel bad about spilling the beans because only Redditors even know what a Redditor is, anyway).
Lots of groups do this in lots of different ways. In cases where there is some kind of motivation to keep the information secret unless you know how the other person will take it, you can use argot and see what happens. An old-fashioned term for this among gay people is “dropping bobbies” or “dropping hairpins.” For example, you can mention Brokeback Mountain and see if your conversation partner reacts negatively or not. Argots work in much the same way: Among other things, they help LGBT people & allies identify each other in conversation without asking directly.
If you don’t have a background in LGBTQ issues, you may be inadvertently causing offense. I presume that, if you are causing harm unintentionally, you would like to know about it. So, that’s why I’m writing this.
I sometimes see even otherwise well-educated people make errors in this realm. I do it myself! I understand that it’s not out of malice and I hope no one blames people for honest mistakes. But in the interest of correcting these things, I want to point out a couple of misused terms I’ve noticed floating around the interwebz and in conversation… No one is upset here, but I think that by educating people about this, we can all live a little more peacefully.
Not all people, even among LGBTQ activists, agree about the correct or incorrect use of all these terms, or as I like to say, “Homosexual does not mean homogeneous.” If you’re unsure, ask! Even the “stupidest” question will be well-received if you make an effort to come across as sincere and genuinely curious in your inquiry. Most of us – if not all of us – are very understanding people who desire to get along and help everyone become more educated about this. It’s just a matter of consciousness-raising, and patience is a big part of that. We’re not out to get you if you say the wrong word or something!
It seems to me that a lot of people are either 1) unaware that they are causing offense or 2) aware that they may be causing offense but don’t know what words to use instead, and are afraid to ask, for fear of offending someone. I can’t speak for all LGBTQ activists when I say this, but I would much prefer you ask and show me that you are at least trying to have empathy, than to say nothing.
It’s perfectly okay to talk about this stuff and we don’t mind if you bring it up (if we have the time and are in the mood to discuss it). In fact, a lot of us appreciate your interest, if you’re respectful and sincere about it.
A lot of us activists enjoy talking about these things, especially people like me, who are interested in linguistics. In linguistics, this is called “lavender language” and it has its own jargon flush with highly-charged semantic underpinnings. No one expects you to know all of this as if by magic. But if you’re trying to forge a friendship or conversation with a foundation of respect, it really goes a LONG WAY to get the details right, and I hope to help with that in my post today.
Let’s start with “LGBTQ” itself. This stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (or Transsexual), and Queer (or Questioning). Some people leave it at LGBT (or sometimes GLBT); others append one or more Qs, and -I or -IA for intersex & ally. I have seen LGBTTQQIA in print (for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, & Ally), although personally I think that’s too unwieldy to be useful. I prefer “LGBTQ,” or when referring to allies like me, “LGBTQ ally,” but you are unlikely to offend anyone if you stick with “LGBT.”
This is a huge topic and obviously I’m not going to be able to cover everything in one post. A lot of LGBTQ activists will probably disagree with me about this or that aspect of lavender language, and that’s okay. I encourage further reading if this topic interests you. For now, without further ado, here are some pointers for those interested, but afraid to ask:
- There is no such thing as “the gay lifestyle” and this term is considered very offensive by most every gay person I know.
- “Gay” is appropriately used with a copula syntactically, not as a substantive adjective with an indefinite article. That is, “Tom is gay” is a totally acceptable and appropriate use of the term. “Tom is a gay” is often considered quite offensive. If you use “gay” as an adjective agreeing with an appropriate noun (e.g. “Tom is a gay man”), it’s debatable but certainly less offensive than “a gay.” The word “gay” usually applies to men but it’s totally acceptable to refer to a woman who is oriented toward other women as “gay” as well. Again, if you’re unsure, just ask. It’s generally considered offensive to say “Tom is homosexual,” as this makes use of distancing language (see below).
- This should go without saying, but in the spirit of being clear, the terms “homo,” “faggot” or “fag,” “flamer,” “queer,” “fruit,” “queen,” “dyke,” “lesbo”/”lezzie,” “fairy,” “trannie,” “sissy,” “poof,” “twink,” etc are off-limits unless you know EXACTLY what you’re doing. Several of these words (dyke, queer, among others) have been reclaimed from the realm of pejorative slang and are a point of pride and identity among some LGBTQ people, but these words have very specific meanings and misusing them is easy to do and can cause extreme offense. Think of these words the way you think of the word “nigger”: Under very specific circumstances they can be inoffensive or even affectionate, but unless you really know what you’re doing, it’s best to avoid these terms altogether. Of course, if you are talking to someone and that person indicates that they prefer a certain term, then go for it!
- “Homosexual” and “homosexuality” are considered offensive by most LGBTQ people. “Gay” is fine regardless of someone’s sex (“Tom is gay” or “Danielle is gay”); “lesbian” (with a copula and an indefinite article) is also okay if you’re talking about a woman (e.g. “Danielle is a lesbian”). The reason for this stems from what is called “distancing language” in linguistics, which is different from but similar to the use of euphemisms. You often see distancing language in the military and among doctors and scientists, who use more-formal language so as to distance themselves from what they are studying or working with. (It’s pretty difficult to operate on someone when you’re thinking about “sewing Tom’s chest closed”; it’s easier if you think of it as “suturing the patient’s thoracic wall”). The terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” have strong historical associations to criminal behavior and pathology from the days when being gay was illegal and considered a psychiatric condition; the term “gay” is preferred now.
- “Sex” is biological and based on sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics; “gender” is a social construct based on social roles, cultural norms, and expressed identity. Just as “male” versus “masculine” and “female” versus “feminine” are not synonymous nor interchangeable, neither are “sex” and “gender.” At birth, everyone is either assigned male, female, or intersex. These are sexes. Regardless of their sex, infants and young children are de facto genderless; they develop or are assigned/nudged toward various genders based on cultural norms and expressed gender identity. Independent from sex (male/female/intersex), the terms masculine/feminine and the range in between and beyond refer to genders. A recent publication from the Australian Human Rights Commission identifies at least 23 different human genders. Gender can also be thought of as a continuum or a spectrum. Another way to think of gender is as an internal sense of one type of cultural and interpersonal/romantic or cultural role; it takes into account all sorts of things independent from genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics (hip/waist ratio, body hair, size of larynx, stature, muscle mass, etc).
- “Sexual preference” is inaccurate and considered offensive by many LGBTQ activists, because it implies volition and a hierarchy of attraction (the term “prefer” literally means “to put or place before” and comes from the Latin prae- [before] and ferre [to carry, from ferro]). “Sexual orientation” is the appropriate term.
- “Opposite sex” can be considered offensive; “male-female” is preferred.
- “Sex” or “sexual activity” is preferred to “sexual intercourse,” since the latter implies that sex necessarily includes both male & female sex organs.
- Transsexual and transgender are not interchangeable, although to be admittedly confusing, “trans” can refer to either. Someone who is transsexual (note the lack of indefinite article) is someone who identifies as a different sex than their sex as assigned at birth. For example, if someone was assigned female at birth but now identifies as male, he is a transsexual man. If someone was assigned male at birth but now identifies as female, she is a transsexual woman. Some transsexual people prefer to drop the “transsexual” adjective once they have transitioned – a transitioning female-to-male transsexual is a trans man; someone who is fully transitioned (assigned female at birth but is now male) is simply a man.
- Transgender means identifying as a different gender than the gender “traditionally aligned” with one’s birth sex. There are many, many definitions of “transgender” and its use varies depending on whom you ask and what the context is, but it’s generally considered to be independent from sexual orientation. That is, being a transgender man (assigned female at birth, but with an internal sense on the end of the spectrum closer to masculinity rather than femininity) does not imply being sexually attracted to women (being a lesbian). Similarly, being a transgender woman does not imply that someone is sexually attracted to men (gay), although this may also be true. Some people think of transgender as meaning transcending gender roles altogether, rather than crossing from one end of the spectrum to the other.
Why is this important for skeptics?
Lots of reasons. First of all, much of what Western society has historically considered “normal” romantic relationships is based on Christian dogmatic pronouncements on the topic that are not in line with real life. Humans are not, and never have been, monogamous, two-gendered, two-sexed animals. The trumped-up idealization of a male/masculine paired with a female/feminine in a lifelong relationship with no premarital sex and no masturbation, no exceptions, is more-or-less unique to Judeo-Christian cultures. It’s archaic, harmful, and it denies our heritage and sexual expression as intelligent animals. It’s also not even true within Judeo-Christian cultures, even though a lot of Christians pretend that it is, the same way many of them lie through their teeth about, for example, masturbation.
Throughout history and throughout world cultures, other genders have been recognized, and sexual relationships are not really expected to be 1) monogamous or 2) life-long. Not that we can’t have cissexual lifelong relationships with no premarital sex and no masturbation if that makes us happy and feel comfortable in our bodies doing so, but putting pressure toward these characteristics as a cultural norm for everyone is not only harmful to our nature for many people, but it makes a lot of people very unhappy, trying to live up to expectations that may not be realistic or even healthy.
It’s like being blaming someone for not being able to fly. Some animals can do that, like falcons or hummingbirds or pterodactyls, but it’s just not in our biology, much as we might fantasize about it in our dreams and in comic books. Lots of people would be very happy to try out flying, and consider it a success as far as their lives are concerned, but it’s just not a realistic expectation given our biology.
But we can do lots of things that falcons and hummingbirds and pterodactyls can’t do. We can write books, we can use computers, we can fly to the Moon! It takes all kinds to make the world go ’round. THERE IS NOTHING INFERIOR OR UNDESIRABLE about not identifying with the two-gender/two-sex “model,” nor with the lifelong-monogamy model, nor with the no-premarital-sex/no-masturbation model. These things are just not part of what makes us human. I say we embrace it!
There is another, very important reason that these issues matter to skeptics, and this will be the subject of Saturday’s post.
Until next time,
- Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, he posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Eww, duck sex!
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Hello all; Dave here. A friend of mine posted this pro-gay marriage video on Facebook, and I thought it was funny, so I’m passing it along. Enjoy.
Homosexual marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage doesn’t piss off fundamentalist jackasses or make them cry and is therefore nowhere near as awesome as homosexual marriage. – Sean Gillespie
Until next time!
- Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, and posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Are Christians our enemies?
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog.
If you haven’t already, please join our group on Facebook.
Hello all; Dave here.
I was reading The Friendly Atheist’s blog, specifically this post about exposing an anti-gay pastor for the bigot that he is:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/07/04/exposing-an-anti-gay-pastors-ministry/
Watch this video for context:
In it, someone on the stage repeatedly refers to “the lie of the enemy,” that is, those of us who say that homosexuality is O.K. Well, I have to say that I never really thought of myself as an enemy to Christians – more like a former Christian who realized I was being brainwashed and, fortunately, got myself out – but I’m starting to wonder if we should think twice about this label.
What is an enemy?
I love etymology, and the word “enemy” comes to us from Latin prefix in + amicus, -i (friend) – in other words, not a friend. It doesn’t sound quite so bad in this context, but consider Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Unabridged definition of the word as it stands in modern English:
one that seeks the injury, overthrow, or failure of a person or thing to which he is opposed : ADVERSARY, OPPONENT
“enemy.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (4 Jul. 2011).
That certainly seems to describe the relationship between Christians and LGBTQ allies like me, at least from their perspective.
The woman on stage then goes on to scream “The truth of God! The truth of God! The truth of God! The truth of God! The truth of God! The truth of God!” literally six times, as though screaming it loudly and repeatedly is some sort of rational argument in its favor.
I have news for you, Christians: Being gay is neither a choice nor a sin. If you have a rational, reasoned, evidence-based argument to the contrary, I’m all ears. But if “it’s true because I’m really loud!” is the best you’ve got, well… Frankly, I suppose we just may be enemies. I seek your failure in poisoning the minds of innocent people, young and old. I seek the overthrow of your bigotry. I positively do not seek your injury, but I do remember Matthew Shepard, and I’m sorry to say that, unfortunately, the same is not true the other way around.
Christians who are not bigots, where are you? Stand up against this. You should be ashamed of what your fellow Christians are saying and you should be out here telling them to stop making you look so evil. I don’t care what the Bible says about being gay; the Bible is an outdated, barbarian, immoral load of crap. The Bible also mandates the death penalty for working on Saturdays, cursing your parents, and premarital sex. It mandates the death of everyone in an entire town if one person there worships a different imaginary god.
I am fed up with this. My personality tends toward accomodationism, but I’m starting to realize more and more that in the face of this level of dogmatic bigotry, that may not actually be an option. “True” Christians already consider us their enemies; we have it on tape. Can more progress be made by calling a spade a spade and recognizing Christians for what they are?
Your thoughts and feedback are appreciated.
Regards,
Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, and posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
