Three recent and/or current events provide a nice platform for examining if and when outing someone over their sexual orientation or inclination would be appropriate.
Disgraceful Outing
I’m pretty tolerant of outing figures who take stands against their own closeted situations. I’m not at all tolerant of outing people for one thing simply because they support or oppose an unrelated issue. So it’s particularly annoying to hear from Gabriel Arana of TAPPED that…
Looks like the nativist group Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) is getting desperate. William Gheen’s rant at a rally “outing” Sen. Lindsey Graham, who supports comprehensive immigration reform, has gone viral. Though Graham has said repeatedly that he is not gay (just single), ALIPAC insists on pushing this line. The organization sent out a press release praising Gheen for correcting the “information imbalance”:
When you have a U.S. Senator from such a conservative state like South Carolina working hand in hand with Obama and New York liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer to pass an Amnesty bill for illegal aliens, there is something very wrong.
So ALIPAC thinks the only possible reason Graham could support immigration reform is because liberals are holding his “alternative lifestyle” over his head? The logic here is so bizarre I have trouble seeing how Gheen could believe it himself.
Arana points out that Gheen’s using the exact intimidation tactic he’s accusing pro-immigration activists of using. (No surprise there since projection backed up by self-loathing is central to conservative character.)
Graceless Outing
If Mr. Gheen’s behavior is disgraceful, Babette Josephs’ insinuations about her primary candidate Gregg Kravitz was merely graceless. Talking Points Memo’s Rachel Slajda says longtime state legislator Babette Josephs is backing away from her prior accusation that the young man challenging her in the upcoming primary in her heavily LGBT Philadelphia district is straight!
Kravitz, who says he’s bisexual, is currently partners with a woman. Josephs considered that enough of a “gotcha” to call him a liar and brag that “I outed him as a straight person.” According to TPM’s Slajda she now says “I don’t even care, because a person’s sexuality has nothing to do with any of this.”
Which, of course, is perfectly true! Josephs herself appears to be the most actively pro-LGBT legislator in Pennsylvania even though she also appears to be 100% heterosexual. And meanwhile Kravitz might not end up being as effective a legislator even if he’s not 100% hetero.
Still, it’s approximately as graceless to assume that having, or having had, an opposite-sex partner makes one heterosexual as it would be to assume that a former or current partner of the same sex makes one homosexual.
Barely Regrettable Outing
On the other hand, when it comes to cases where a legislator or other public figure is aggressively and actively antagonistic to their own orientation or inclination, as with the closeted sex-purchasing of anti-prostitution activists David Vitter’s or Randall Tobias, or as with aggressive anti-homosexual activist legislator Roy Ashburn’s homosexuality, or family-values stalwart John Ensign’s affair? I feel pretty comfortable saying that when you make it your business it becomes everybody’s business what your business really is.
“Still, it’s approximately as
Submitted by Eve (not verified) on Fri, 2010-04-23 15:02.“Still, it’s approximately as graceless to assume that having, or having had, an opposite-sex partner makes one heterosexual as it would be to assume that a former or current partner of the same sex makes one homosexual.”
Yes, this. This brings me to a point that is a little off the topic of this post as a whole, but this particular sentence caught my attention. I notice what seems to me like an awful lot of people making that exact assumption, specifically regarding bisexual people like me. I’ve encountered multiple times this weird attitude that I can’t be truly queer because I’m in a relationship with a man right now (or even that I can’t be queer unless I exclusively date or have sex with women).
Now that I’m done with that little tangent, I agree with you about when it is and isn’t acceptable to out someone.
[Exactly. And you can’t be bisexual unless you’re always, perpetually, and simultaneously involved with both men and women. Or, I guess, if you’re going to be involved with only one person it has to be someone who’s exactly 50% transitioned. :-P Thanks, Eve. —fl]
I see. So “sexual preference”
Submitted by Nightfall (not verified) on Fri, 2010-04-23 20:00.I see. So “sexual preference” is a misnomer, it’s actually an activity instead of a preference? ;-)
It amazes me how bisexuals are largely invisible to many, despite the fact that they’re probably around 4-5 times as common as homosexuals.
Yes! Invisibility is exactly
Submitted by Eve (not verified) on Fri, 2010-04-23 21:21.Yes! Invisibility is exactly what I was getting at. It really sucks.
I also notice a lot of people think we’re just claiming to be bisexual “for attention” (most people don’t keep that up for very long) or else identifying as bisexual because we’re afraid to come out of the closet all the way (it happens sometimes, but again, most people don’t stay there very long). Because of that, some people think all bisexuals are “confused” or that bisexuality doesn’t even truly exist (which did wonders for my identity as a teen, I’m sure!). Ick, I could go on for days about the weird non-space we occupy in society.