Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
The debate on TNG about the appropriateness of outing public figures, particularly "hypocritical" ones, really got me thinking. On and off the blog, I've argued vehemently to a number of people that outing people is not appropriate. In my opinion, the decision to come out is either a personal or calculated one that doesn't need to be made by anyone except for the person who will then be adorned with the gay badge for the rest of his or her public career. Yes, having more out public figures will probably hasten the rate of acceptance; however, my argument is that some gay people who are not out publicly can do more to advance the causes that are most important to them if they are not shrouded in the gay veil – the veil that makes other people think, "Oh, they think like that because they’re gay."
The more I've thought about it, however, the more I realize that there is another aspect to "outing" people that bothers me – the idea that unless a person publicly announces that he or she is gay, everyone else must act like he or she is straight or pretending to be straight. Right now, this dilemma is blowing up in the tabloids as Clay Aiken goes on the cover of People to say, "Yes, I’m gay," while Lindsay and Sam are often still referred to as "gal pals" because they have yet to go "public" (without Lindsay’s publicist taking it back). Really? We can't call Sam and Lindsay girlfriends because they have yet to verbally confirm that they are dating? They are not "out" because they haven’t called up the editors of US Weekly to say, “Hip, hip hooray – we're gay, gay, gay!”
Bullshit.
When people expect gays to "come out," they are implicitly stating that unless someone makes some kind of bizarre and usually out of place announcement, then they are obviously pretending to be straight. For many "not out" gays this just isn’t the case. Not being "here and queer!" doesn’t mean that someone is ashamed of being gay or trying to pass as straight. When other people act like they can’t treat obviously gay people like they’re gay just because they haven’t announced it, they’re only feeding into and bolstering the negative connotation that is all too often associated with homosexuality. Both straight and gay people need to stop assuming, giving "the benefit of the doubt", that people are straight unless they've announced that they’re gay. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they don't have genital warts. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not a moron if they use the wrong version of 'their.' I do not give people the benefit of the doubt, however, that they are straight. Statistically speaking, the chances are higher that most people I meet are straight; but I don't wait for every single person I meet to do a mini-gay parade for me and shout, "I'm gay!" before I go ahead and assume that they're gay.
If we wait for people to make loud announcements about their gayness, we’re acting like all people should be assumed straight unless they say they’re gay. Similarly, to forcefully out another person who has clearly made a choice not to make a huge public statement is to ignorantly say, "You’re not really gay unless you have publicly proclaimed it. In order to be gay you must assure us that you are not straight!" How progressive is that?
For a number of reasons, mostly that it just never comes up, I’m not "out" to many people that I frequently interact with. However, if they ever imply during conversation that I’m straight, I usually react with wide-eyed laughing and either correct them or somehow let them know that they’re way off course. Just because I haven’t told people that I’m gay, I surely don’t expect them to assume that I’m straight. Gay people in particular need to start taking this mindset towards other gay people more often. Let’s stop giving people the benefit of the doubt that they’re straight. Let’s stop demanding that people out themselves. Let’s just accept that gay is a normal state of being; it’s okay to assume that some people are gay – it’s not offensive. Let gay people live how they want to. If other people have chosen not to put their sexuality on display, let’s not assume that they’re ashamed or hiding behind the rainbow marshmallows in the pantry. In this 21st century America, it’s possible not to be out in the old-fashioned sense, but to still be gay, out and proud.
3 comments:
I recently went out with a bunch of guys from the Opera chorus and we had to have the what are you question. There was one new guy who was an enigma, but I had made enough comments that I didn't think I needed to proclaim my sexuality.
ow...my...head...hurts....
I don't think that one can gets to the point in society where 'heterosexual' is not the default option without the time we live in now, when people in many walks of life come out, continuously, so that the default option is no longer valid.
" In this 21st century America, it’s possible not to be out in the old-fashioned sense, but to still be gay, out and proud."
I certainly hope so we get there one day, but we are at least 10 years from that. In a society where we still have to struggle for our rights, I believe there is power still to the act of coming out. And coming out does not have to be a loud, bizarre act. If, next time at work someone starts talking about their weekend, and then you chime in that you and your boyfriend (or girlfriend) took it easy and just saw a movie, well, that's coming out. No need to have a Pride parade march through the lobby.
Now, in the specific case of the outing debate, well, I think we can agree that there is a difference between outing someone because society in general wants everybody to fit into a neat box and have an easily-read tag attached, and outing as a political act.
Yes, coming out is a personal journey that everyone undertakes at their own speed, and outing a private individual in the case is just unnecessary. The real debate is, what about outing someone in a position of power, whether elected or not?
Post a Comment