Back when the country was debating marriage equality (called same-sex marriageat the time), there was a meta-debate raging about the ‘tone’ of queers as we argued for our basic civil rights. And, yes, I am framing it in a deliberate way beacause I rail against the notion of neutrality when it comes to the issue. I remember Matt Birk, ex-Vikings (maybe current at the time) center bleating about how we can be cvil as we disagree.
So many of the anti-equality people wanted to control the WAY we debated the issue along with debating the issue itself because it behooved them to strip out anything emotional from the discussion.
The ywanted to make it simply about two differing points of views. Both equally valid, reasonable minds agreeing to disagree, etc., etc., etc. ‘Civil’ was repeated over and over and over yet again.
“We can disagree without being disagreeable” was another saying I heard way too many times.
I’ was reminded of this because on NPR, they were touting a town meeting with four diverse thiners as a way to come together as a society. ‘HELL NO!’ is what I said out loud in my car. Because I don’t want distasteful ideas such as white supremacy, monitoring the genitalia of trans kids, and a federal ban on abortionto be made palatable. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the NPR tow hall had in mind, but it was what I immediately thought of.
See, in order to have this kind of discussion, you have to have some ground rules. As someone who is a minority in so many ways, I’ve lost count, my first would be my civil rights as an American on several levels. As a queer person. As an agender person. As someone who could still theoretically have a child but most emphatically does not want one. As an areligious person.
My ground rules would be that a person’s gender identity is not up for debate–nor is their sexual identity. I was listening to the radio in the car the other day, and the co-hosts were going on and on and about the ‘alphabet soup’ that is queer identity. They were begrudgingly accepting of gays, but started pooh-poohing trans and everything else. “The founding fathers got their ideas from church!” one of them declared. Which…was an interesting interpretation.
By this point, I knew it was a hateful station and when they said they were The Blaze, I could not change the station fast enough. That was two minutes of talking. That was all it took me to figure out that they were hateful assholes who I did not need to pay the least attention to. They actually compared queer people to aliens, by the way. So they don’t consider us humans.
I’m old. I died twice. I don’t have any interest in placating anyone who doesn’t consider me a human being. There is no discussion to be had if that’s on the table. The thing that got me abou marriage equality and how against it some Christians were was that it did not affect them at all. Not in the least! They don’t like gay marriage? they don’t have to do it. Done.
And, yes, I know they claim that it makes a mockery of marriage–as if hets getting married in Vegas over the weekend and getting divorced the following week doesn’t do that on its own. Give queers a chance to be miserably married, too! I’m not a marriage person, by the way. I was plumping for protection in the workplace over marriage equality because that felt more important to me, but I was outvoted.
While I presonally don’t care about marriage, I DO carry about equality. If straights can be wedded in misery and hate their spouses for decades, so should queer people be able to do thusly.
Same with abortion. I have been in the small minority who believes that there should be no restrictions. It should be up to the pregnant person and their doctor. Period. I can guarantee you that there aren’t people who are running around nine months pregnant, getting abortions on a whim. This isn’t happening! No matter how much the Republican Party wants to pretend it is.
I am not a brood mare. My life is more important than any hypothetical sprog that may gestate in my womb. I’m sorry if this offends you. But it’s true. I once had an arrgument with a ‘liberal’ Catholic on a liberal blog about abortion. He said if someone was irresponsible enough to get pregnant they should have to deal with the consequences. He likened it to someone driving recklessly and getting into a car crash. They had to deal with the aftermath whether or not they had intended to.
I was horrified at his analogy because first of all, he was saying that having a child was a punishment. That’s a great way to bring a child into the world! In addition, it’s a faulty comparision because if you, say, break your leg, you have to go through the healing process whatever it is. You can’t just skip that step. If you get pregnant, you CAN get an abortion. You don’t HAVE to have that kid.
I mentioned that if I were to get pregnant, I wo;uld kill myself if I were forced to have the baby because i was that horrified at the idea. He said that I could get a doctor’s note in that case. I said why should I have to do that? Why can’t I just be trusted to make the decision that was best for me? That was the part that got to me. I would be ‘allowed’ to have an abortion if my reason for having one was urgent enough (according to him).
I don’t agree with people who want to ban abortions without exception, but I at least can respect their belief. No abortion. Period. I cannot respect those who make exceptions for horrific circumstances because they are assigning moral value to sex that I don’t agree with. And it’s a way of controlling and punishing women. Specifically women, even though they’re not the only ones who can have children (most anti-abortion types don’t think about trans men).
They want to punish the slutty slut for having slutty sex. That’s it. THat’s all. Moving right along. Otherwise, why the exceptions, usually in the case of rape? If a woman willingly indulges in sex, then’s a slattern who gets what’s coming to her. Even the kinder interpretation that someone who was forced into sex shouldn’t be forced to bear their rapist’s child still implies that the opposite, someone who willingly fornicates should be forced to have the child, even against her will. You cannot get around the idea that it’s a punishment to the woman for having sex.
As for white supremacists, hopefully, it goes without saying why I categorically would not want to have anything to do with them.
I have no interest in making any of these ideas civilized. Frankly, I don’t give a shit why they think that way or want to try to win them over. My humanity is not up for debate. They would freak the fuck out if I questioned if they should be treated differently because they believed in a god I don’t think exists. Can you imagine the howls of rage? And Christianity is the majority in this country!
So, no. I won’t be listening to a polite version of Marjorie Taylor Greene tell me that I’m everything wrong with this country, thank you very much. I don’t have myself that much.