I was debating whether to insert this within LGBT+ or Islamic Leftism but I do think ultimately it might fit here better because it covers the specific experience of French indigènes, which makes it more relevant here.
I feel like in these sort of online Islamic “progressive” spaces, there’s no genuine discussions happening. These spaces are often almost defensive in nature - like the existence of this community is just to prove to disapproving whites that Islam isn’t this, or isn’t that. This is a result of being in a Western dominated space in general.
Gender and sexual minorities is a very important phenomenon that must require a response, yet it is almost ignored or never spoken about because this muslim-homophobia dichotomy is so engrained that people are (rightfully) scared to even talk about it, especially across the White left.
I’d of course invite everyone to treat this article critically, and contribute if you have any qualms against their conclusions, although I will admit my opinions have slowly drifted closer to the article as the years went by.
I dunno about the parts regarding French politics but I think the point they’re trying to make is that our ideas about sexuality do not apply to every culture. And that foreign attempts to “liberate gay people” are often as misguided as historic attempts to “civilize the natives”.
Like, consider what it means to “be gay”. First, you need to think about gender such that everyone has it, and has only 1 kind. Then you need to make distinctions between attraction towards different genders. Then you need to draw discrete lines between those categories. And where are those lines? Is it about kissing? Or just having thoughts? Or having sex? Is dating enough? If it is then what qualifies as dating?
Different cultures have wildly different frameworks for all of this and what they’re saying is that in order to save “gay people” you need to create “gay people” as a concept. And that we should be very careful with how we approach social issues because we can provoke a negative backlash when we impose ourselves.
I think we should be mindful of how our beliefs about gender and sexuality are informed by our history and that people with different histories think differently.
Being LGBT is not a medical condition with rigorous diagnostics, symptoms, and tests. It is a fully defined concept and the only prerequisite is that you identify with the orientation of the label you take on.
No one is doing verification about where you draw the line. The definition for gay for example is simply attraction to the same gender. That’s it. But it’s not “ having thoughts” or “kissing”, or anything like that. You are LGBT when you say you’re LGBT, that’s it. No one gets to decide that for you, and only you get to decide what line is enough for you. There is no need to create a bizarre and Byzantine “verification” system. There is no ultra-rigid definition for orientation.
Also what do you mean by “gay people as a concept”. That’s extremely obvious, also looking into this organization, they do outreach and assist those that come to them first for safety due to homophobia. They aren’t white knighting and “saving gay people”, they are protecting lgbt individuals whose lives are in danger, have been kicked out and made homeless, and have nowhere to go due to the response to their orientation.
That said response is coming from people much like the author of the article, who view those lgbt individuals as artificial constructs of imperialism that are gay because they’re appealing to the white western masses and “indoctrination”, and not because they are… you know… LGBT.
The author even has the quote “They are creatures of God so we must respect them and not do violence to them (even if religion disapproves of homosexuality)”
And with that last line they expose the entire issue behind their argument. Yes, they might believe the first line of that quote, but other people will not, and because of that religious disapproval they resort to reactionary and homophobic action and thought. Which only works to play into the Rights hands. Which is why the author is forced to desperately make the distinction that their homophobia is in fact different and justified unlike that from the fascist catholic traditionalist Civitas movement, even though they share the exact same opinion and beliefs regarding the LGBT, in that they are against their religion.
I know being queer isn’t a disease lol. I am queer. The point I was trying to make is that our beliefs about gender and sexuality are informed by our particular culture and they do not necessarily carry over to other cultures.
You say it’s obvious what gay people are, but is it really? The word “homosexual” is only about 100 years old yet you speak about it as if it were an innate characteristic of humanity. And I don’t mean that in a “people only started experiencing same-sex attraction recently” kind of way. I mean that the way we understand human sexuality is invented. And that the words westerners came up with don’t translate well to other cultures.
Also, the paragraph following that quote clarifies the author’s position. Which is that we should allow for and encourage colonized peoples to develop their own societies and create their own norms regarding sexuality in their own time. And let them define and redefine their own language because the heterosexual/homosexual binary was imposed on them by westerners, which is why they often reject movements by them even when they’re arguably good.
Btw when I mentioned saving gay people, I was thinking about libs who want to go to war against this or that country because their people are deemed homophobic. I wasn’t referring to this org in specific.
Oh, I didn’t mean that as in “queer is a disease”, but moreso it doesn’t have some detailed diagnostic criteria, like a condition or disease would. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
But yes, it is very obvious what gay people are this is a thing that people have identified and defined clearly, it is not some abstract philosophical concept, and it is absolutely an innate characteristic of humanity. As even the author states how homosexuality has been present in human society for all of recorded history, and even further with archeological evidence.
Also if they still doesn’t answer to why the author believes that the west is forcing migrants to be gay, or why that’s phrased as a bad thing (no matter how absurd it is).
Lastly, religion and societal development is not an excuse for homophobia and oppression. Especially if even for reasons outside of their control, migrants travel to the west, and then take up arms against societal standards such lgbt acceptance. Especially when members of that migrant community come out as lgbt. The community cannot just say “Oopsie, we’re not ready yet, back in the closet”. That’s basically what they’re saying, they’re acting like the concept that there are lgbt members in “working class migrant communities” is laughable and some absurd notion, they straight say that marriage equality for gay infidividuals is something they are against and would cut their leftist allies off over, and that their communities are near devioud of LGBT influence except for dastardly western imperialist influence.They are living in some bizarre wonderland that they’ve constructed specifically to tailor to their worldview. Even though it is devious of reality.
Also there is not a homosexual/heterosexual binary in the modern day lgbt community, escept for deranged conservatives. That’s the entire point of the pansexual and bisexual orientations just to name a few.
Overall, I agree with most of your points and concepts, but you’re still playing a post hoc defense for an author who is most obviously not as charitable as you, and I doubt believe the things you are trying say. Hence their reactionary, homophobic, and extremely bizarre language and strances in several topics (hence my original post).
Hmm I’m not sure you’re picking up what I’m putting down. I’m saying that “homosexuality” is a relatively new concept (so is “heterosexuality” btw). It’s a word that people of the distant past definitely did not use and definitely did not identify with. It’s a word that many people of the present don’t identify with either, even if you can make the argument that they fit the criteria. But really, what does it matter? The goal of queer liberation should be to free people from discrimination, not to force all cultures to subscribe to the same notion of gender and sexuality.
I don’t know why you think the author is making excuses for homophobia. And I don’t think they meant to imply that straight and gay are the only sexual orientations (they say LGBT a lot and bisexual is right there in the acronym). I’m not trying to play defense for this person, I don’t know who they even are, but it feels like we’ve read completely different articles ngl :s
Anyway, I interpreted the author as saying that white people need to meet indigenous people where they’re at & allow their communities to deal with their social issues in their own way, at their own pace. And that it’s unacceptable for white people to demand them to change according to white standards. Especially when those same white people are apathetic to all their other economic and political concerns.
Like, if you’ve had to live with police brutality, unemployment, and homelessness all your life, would you believe that an outside movement to protect the gay rights of your community is sincere? When that movement is led by the very same people who subjugate you in the first place?