One would think that I’d learned my lesson from the responses to my first wespeak, in which I criticized the radical tactics some members of the LGBTQ community use. Since writing that wespeak, many friends of different sexual preferences have reaffirmed that my point was both clear and correct: The current tactics employed by the radical LGBTQ community are not effective in reaching straight people or achieving the goal of radical LGBTQ actions. For any who wonder what I define as the goal of LGBTQ radicalism, please refer to Maggie Starr’s wespeak from Tuesday Oct. 26, in which she states that the goal is to challenge and change the definition and structure of normalcy. That definition has not been refuted, and given that social change is indeed the goal of LGBTQ radicalism, I have a few more things to say.
First, I would like to recognize a point I should have acknowledged in my first wespeak: Members of the LGBTQ community have a right to be angry, to feel oppressed and to be upset. I apologize for not acknowledging that point earlier, as it appears that my failure to do so resulted in the assumption that I did not think it was true. This assumption is incorrect.
Secondly, I would like to respond to a few points Dave Carhart put forth in his rebuttal to my first wespeak. Actually, Dave, I invite you to read my article again, because it’s apparent you missed my point. If you read it again, you’ll see that I never claimed to be oppressed, nor did I “spout off” about sexual deviance. Although I don’t think you’re going to believe me, I want you to know that I don’t consider being “queer” as being deviant. Also, you seem to have presumed that I’m uncomfortable acknowledging that Wesleyan has a large sexually active LGBTQ community—I’m not, and I congratulate whoever is getting lucky.
In terms of creating a dialogue, you claim that I am “obviously uncomfortable with people being vocal about how they don’t conform” to sexual norms, yet never cared enough to read what I said: I only think that it is unnecessary to use profanity, which many radical LGBTQers ostensibly use for pure shock value. (see Wilson, Chase.) Lastly, and most importantly, so please read carefully, Dave, I never claimed that the goal of social transformation was for me to feel comfortable. I did, and still do, claim that your approach will never beget any change through shocking and offending people, which I know to be true from conversations with many straight friends. I can’t spell it out any clearer than that.
I also think some of Chase Wilson’s comments in hir response to my article merit rebuttal. Chase, you, like Dave, don’t appear to understand the point I’m putting forth, and you also make several claims that have no foundation in truth. My words are online and in print for anyone to read; please don’t try to twist their meaning to vilify me. In response to your piece in the Argus, I never suggested you closet the fact that you are gay, or lesbian, or “queer,” nor did I say I represented a novel perspective. I also didn’t say that the LGBTQ community refuses to engage in dialogue. What I did say is that the tactics employed by radicals are only serving to push straight people away, destroying the chance of initiating any discourse. That you actively seek to shock, offend, and push away the straight community is immature and mystifying. Furthermore, your assumptions about me and what I stand for are horribly wrong. Insulting me publicly through the Argus because I politely criticized the way you seek to affect change is puerile, pathetic, and reprehensible. Despite your disgraceful invectives, I invite you to come speak with me sometime; I know it’s impossible to establish a dialogue by pushing someone away.
Chase and Dave, both of you carefully condemn me for not allowing you to express yourselves. So why, when I express myself, do you deliberately and contemptibly insult me? When a member of the straight community tells you that the manner in which you hope to efface change is not working, why not endeavor to try something new? It all boils down to this: What you’re doing now still isn’t effectual. It has not yet worked, and it never will. If you want change, the way you seek it also must change.
Leave a Reply