JMG has put up some interesting case studies for 'outing'.
Passions run high on the topic. It seems like a timely topic to tackle probably. Re-tackle is probably more accurate, since it's hardly a new issue.
Why? Well, I heard CNN the other morning do a segment in which they asked, more or less, "Is outing just mean?" That doesn't seem right to me, the whole truth. I thought maybe I could find a way to 'balance' the discussion, so people aren't so much at odds over it, talking past each other. (...such low goals I set, right? I can't even finish my 'summer reading').
Not that I feel confident jumping in. So, maybe just read this, if you care to at all, NOT as a 'manifesto' (please!), but as a way to sharpen your own thoughts - or as an exposé of how I can fail, as the case may be. (This is my workpad, so I may edit these things as I go along, as well).
The case-study approach is good, since people can test their intuitions in an action-oriented format, rather than read a long, boring treatise.
Some cases seem to be easily concurred. This fact seems to get masked in discussions that quickly hone in on the finer points, the harder cases. That's potentially quite negative, because folks end up feeling further apart than they probably are or needlessly divided, suggesting that one needs be either all one way or all the other.
For these 'hard cases', the central point of contention seems to be whether there is a moral compromise to be had whatsoever with homophobia. Put another way, can you choose to 'get by' in a hostile, non-gay world without somehow betraying a broader purpose?
The answer to that is probably a definitive "no". But that's also a hugely simplistic answer, maybe even an irresponsible one. Why? Because there are probably more ways to fight homophobia than just one. Also, it's not sufficient to the cause. Everyone could be "outed", yet gay people could still be abjectly discriminated against and/or fail to be politically organized or galvanized. So, it seems to be a "right" answer, but it seems to lack elements of "wisdom" about it.
What one might say *usefully*, "in general" and upfront, may end there. The rest of the stuff I'll put in a summary at the end.
Anyway, on to the cases (which I'm grateful for, because they helped me focus, although they are a little andro-centric):
CASE STUDIES
"Twisted Sisters"
Should Senator Jones be outed?
A1: Yes (and the reasons why matter a great deal).
Senator Jones is the prime candidate for outing, especially if there are signs that he belongs to that small set who are self-loathing and overcompensate, visibly and actively.
The key issue is not where or how he is having gay sex (apart from its impact on him or that it might be unsafe), but that he is having homosex at all, in abject contravention to *his own* words and actions, both of which support a public, 'generalized homophobia'. (Since he's acted as principal, we don't have the vexing problem of what his associates might be saying or doing, as well).
Whether or not Senator Jones is 'gay identified' or not seems to be an ancillary, unknown fact, not a key issue, in his circumstances nor a mitigating consideration.
Both "words" and "actions" are important. Words can be interpreted any number of ways, but a politician's words can be taken as a form of influencing, not just imaging or representing, and, by consequence, harm the gay community's aspirations for acceptance, integration, and basic rights. Deeply harmful words can have deleterious effects on individuals, so the character of the words must be judged as well. The upshot is that the detail of speeches has to be kept - it's probably not sufficient to credulity to off-handedly peg someone for 'anti-gay speech'. "Strident" is also an important factor. Senator Ninetenths may vote consistently for rights legislation, but then cast an oddball vote for a seemingly anti-gay federal justice. The greater the stridency (and frequency and importance of the platform, etc.), the worse the intended harm.
There is a strong case to be made for what is objectively "anti-gay" in legislation, and it includes denying gay civil marriage and adding sexual orientation *alongside* other classes in hate crimes and workplace discrimination laws. In other words, IF we are going to have civil marriage laws, workplace discrimination and hate crimes laws that protect classes of people who have been historically or frequently targeted, THEN gays and lesbians ought to be included. That's a comfortably non-ideological, if-then construct. One could make ideological arguments about whether civil marriage was itself a beneficial idea or a State interest at all, whether or not any hate crime or workplace discrimination laws were necessary, but that would be a separate set of arguments. Therefore, it would be non-ideological to conclude that opposing this set of legislative initiatives is anti-gay.
By the same token, authoring (and co-sponsoring) legislation to that effect, as Jones has done, is also a hostile act.
A2 (how should it be handled): Politically, few will want to put on any kid gloves for Jones, although they might consider it for his family.
Technically, he probably needs an intervention, not an 'outing'. I'm not sure I have especially good ideas or expertise. The tighter people are 'wound up', the harder (and more dangerous to self) it is when they unwind, so prudence may also be warranted.
[added 9/13]: One of AS's readers notes that one technical term might be reaction formulation, which a psychological defense mechanism that can be seen as a symptom of "the closet" or 'generalized homophobia'. Of course, diagnosing people long-distance is ridiculous and, possibly, deprecating. Still, calibrating a action in terms of possible treatments seems an informed way to act.
If those familiar with similar cases opine that best thing psychologically is for people with Jones' issues to be forced to a clean break, then maybe a resignation is also a first, best option. Even if not, it is really hard to see how folks like Jones might get the courtesy of a 'first call', since they set themselves up so dramatically for 'failure'.
Next up:
"Pink Elephants, Mr. 'Agent' Man"
