Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00509)

The same situation happened on TI, I assumed the name Alexis was female and
was branded a homophobe. So there you go.

DP

At 11:06 AM 9/1/98 +1200, you wrote:
>Jake,
>
>>         Well, on Dallas's point.....   Calling someone a "him/her" when you
>>know (from the signed private letter to Dallas, which Dallas posted
>>publically) that they are a Man is the same as labelling them a homosexual.
>>Wouldn't you agree?
>
>Absolutely not, in the context. Dallas's use of "him/her"  - and I have
>checked back on the early message in this thread - was so far from the
>implication of homosexual labelling, in tone and obvious intent, that I
>have been amazed that you think that others could draw that from it.
>
>Anyway, "him/her" is not calling anybody homosexual - bisexual or asexual
>would be the nearest it gets. Sutratman himself didn't seem to be too fazed
>about it, either; the most chiding thing he said was "You must have
>forgotten."
>
>>....  A person who regarded themselves as a homosexual would not find it
>>offensive.
>
>Why not, by your criteria? Everybody has a female component, to some
>degree, whether they are physically male or female or both or neither, and
>everybody has a male component vice-versa, so with your mind set, there's
>something to offend everybody in "him/her"!
>
>But him comes before her in this, so what are you moaning about, man???
>
>>      If you say it is not offensive, you haven't understood the issue, or
>you
>>have personal knowledge they guy is "gay,"or you are a liar, or you regard
>>yourself as a homosexual, which is not anyone's business.
>
>The most likely case isn't in the list: how about the plain, little ol'
>assumption that Dallas genuinely didn't intend offense and that most people
>on this discussion list thought little of it until you brought it up?
>
>The issue has many facets, but the main one - the potential hurtfulness of
>deliberately calling a person by the opposite gender - deserves deep
>consideration. I am open to your feelings on this, and am willing to
>participate in discussion on this list on the subject, but for now, I would
>just say that the intention of the sender and the psychological makeup of
>the receiver are both important parts of the equation.
>
>And this issue is just a small part of the whole vexed inter-gender
>conflict - one riddled by historical imbalance, exploitation,
>non-recognition, misunderstanding, hurt and injury. Have you noticed how a
>sense of hurt not only can result from injury, but often fuels an act of
>injury? The aching little child at the controls of the tank, so to speak? I
>do not consider myself separate from this, by the way.
>
>I have learnt much from Kym's writing on the subject, and I think her
>feelings would be the minutest tip of a long-existing iceberg for many
>women. Men have their equivalent set of feelings and accumulated hurts too,
>so I am not indifferent to where you're coming from.
>
>>     As regarding Rilke's frequent lewdness (and my lewding her back for
>>effect, at least)  - it is a matter of record.  I can re-post one that is
>>especially off-color for effect.
>
>Oh, good! A bit of lewdness keeps us all balanced. I don't mind who it
>comes from, either, but let's be conscious of our intent to hurt when it
>arises, and of the fact that we have engendered hurt, when that arises. The
>feedback from others is a valuable indicator in this - to be weighed
>carefully, of course :-) In any relationship, including membership of a
>discussion group.
>
>What will you do with the feedback you have received?
>
>Murray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>