outing

[seXieleXie]

for as long as i've been part of a queer community i've always been taught that to out someone against their will is the ultimate sin, with wearing black socks and brown shoes running a close second. and in general, i agree.

however, i know this guy at school who writes for the conservative paper (modeled after the national review, and founded by anne coulter) who has been very vocal about denouncing the lgbt community at school and the "gay lifestyle" in general. he is also gay, and occasionally will show up to a party or whatever. he is very active in the campus political scene, but is extremely closeted and continues to stand by his bigoted collegues.

never in my life have i had the urdge to take out a full page ad in any paper announcing someone is gay, except for with this guy. now, i'm not going to do that. i'm not even going to out him in more subtle, sneaky ways, but at the same time i wonder if i'm doing anyone any favors by allowing him to maintain his charade.

okay, that was a long windup for a thread topic, but here is my question. should lgbt politcians, entertainers or other public figures be outed against their will? why or why not?

 

[Queersetti]

I think there is one situation in which it is acceptable to out a politician, and that is when they use their inside knowledge of the GLBT community to cause that same community, or members of it harm.

For example, while I would not consider it ethical to out a politician for solely for opposing the "gay rights agenda", since obviously, not all gays should be expected to agree politically, I would consider it acceptable to out a gay politician who outted other members of the community for political purposes or took other actions of that sort.

 

[modest mouse]

Okay, that was a long windup for a thread topic, but here is my question. Should LGBT politcians, entertainers or other public figures be outed against their will? Why or why not?

No. The same rule applies as to any other politician. Their sexuality should not be brought to the table unless they choose to do so. In my mind, any politician who does so is less likely to get my vote.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: outing

No. The same rule applies as to any other politician. Their sexuality should not be brought to the table unless they choose to do so. In my mind, any politician who does so is less likely to get my vote.

Let me posit a hypothetical and please tell me what you think.

A closeted gay politician attends a party at a private gay club. He sees an opponent at the event.

In the next campaign, he denounces the opponent for attending the event, while still maintaining secretiveness about his own sexuality.

Would you feel it was unfair for the opponent to point out that the accuser was there as well?

 

[modest mouse]

Re: Re: Re: outing

Would you feel it was unfair for the opponent to point out that the accuser was there as well?

Fair enough.

In this case, the politician has brought sexuality to the table, which in turn brings his own into the fray as an issue.

The accused politician would then be perfectly within his rights to cite the presence of the closeted gentleman. Of course he would have to do so ina manner that was without condescension in order to maintain political viability.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: outing

Fair enough.

In this case, the politician has brought sexuality to the table, which in turn brings his own into the fray as an issue.

The accused politician would then be perfectly within his rights to cite the presence of the closeted gentleman. Of course he would have to do so ina manner that was without condescension in order to maintain political viability.

I agree with you. That is the sort of narrow circumstance in which I would support outting a gay politician.

 

[Quint]

I agree as well, albeit somewhat unwillingly. It borders on tu quoque, a fallacy based on "you did it too so I'm not wrong!" But since the attack was on the opponent to begin with, logical fallacies don't really apply. It would still leave somewhat of a foul taste in my mouth.

 

[Queersetti]

I agree as well, albeit somewhat unwillingly. It borders on tu quoque, a fallacy based on "you did it too so I'm not wrong!" But since the attack was on the opponent to begin with, logical fallacies don't really apply. It would still leave somewhat of a foul taste in my mouth.

In the realm of politics I don't think it's a matter of "you did it too so I'm not wrong" as much as it's a matter of "If you think it'd wrong, why did you do it yourself?"