The Gay Thread

[Alex]

Well, if we want to dictionary-off:

Random House:
- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

The American Heritage Dictionary
- the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Collins English Dictionary
- the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety

Oxford English Dictionary
- assuming a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclination, especially in respect of religious life or belief.

But that's moot, because I believe the definition given by JWBear agrees with me more than him.

If simply pretending to be what you're not is hypocrisy then the word has no distinct meaning, it is simply a synonym for lying or misrepresentation. I have no doubt that Shirvell is a hypocrite on many fronts.

Now, denying or hiding homosexuality to avoid the repercussions of your own claimed beliefs would be hypocritical. But if it is your view that being gay is a sin and should in every way be suppressed then in every way suppressing your own homosexuality would not be hypocritical. Being unaware or unable to recognize your own homosexuality is not hypocritical.

To use the definition of hypocrite (as opposed to hypocrisy) from JWBear's preferred dictionary:

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Being gay, not telling people, and engaging in gay bashing does not inherently meet either of those definitions. That is not to say that many people in that situation aren't hypocrites but it is not enough to simply show that a person espousing anti-gay positions is himself gay. Failing to live up to your own ideals is not hypocrisy, except insofar as we define the word so broadly that it no longer has any useful meaning.

And if simply lying about some aspect of yourself is hypocrisy (to stop the definition JW provided after 7 words) then that is again to broaden the word beyond value as it is simply an synonym for lying.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

But that's moot, because I believe the definition given by JWBear agrees with me more than him.

Conversly, I think the definitions you posted agree with my point as well. It's all semantics and splitting hairs, and has very little to do with the point at hand IMO.

Originally Posted by Alex

Now, denying or hiding homosexuality to avoid the repercussions of your own claimed beliefs would be hypocritical.

I certainly think that is true in his case.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I certainly think that is true in his case.

Again, on what evidence other than that you think he fits some stereotype of a swishy fag? I know, gays just know. But if I accepted that I'd be down at Mistress Fantasia's having my palm read so that I'd make a killing on the stock market.

Originally Posted by JWBear

It's all semantics and splitting hairs, and has very little to do with the point at hand IMO.

The key fact being that I'm right and you're wrong. As long as we can agree on that it'll all be good. Don't make me go to Aquinas, putting out the Samuel Johnson quote was onerous enough.

But when the answer to "why is it relevant whether he's gay?" is "because if he is then he's a hypocrite (with the implication that this somehow makes his behavior worse)" then I think the misuse of the word is pretty well on point.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Alex

Again, on what evidence other than that you think he fits some stereotype of a swishy fag? I know, gays just know. But if I accepted that I'd be down at Mistress Fantasia's having my palm read so that I'd make a killing on the stock market.

When you grow up gay and so much energy is spent on whether someone else is a compatible sexual partner, you get to be pretty finely attuned to the gaydar. It becomes second nature. Yes, there are stereotypes, but those stereotypes do serve a purpose. Of course there are people outside of those stereotypes. Of course gaydar doesn't always work. But there's a lot more to it than just blind luck.

Sorry, but a swishy guy who is obsessed with another guy to that degree? That doesn't seem the least bit gay? Come on. It may not be definitive, but it seems relatively clear to everyone but him. There's just a really, really good chance.

But when the answer to "why is it relevant whether he's gay?" is "because if he is then he's a hypocrite (with the implication that this somehow makes his behavior worse)" then I think the misuse of the word is pretty well on point.

So the distinction is just whether he's out to himself or not? I can kind of see that, i.e. he's not a hypocrite because he's criticizing other people for being gay, and he doesn't think he's gay. But then what's the correct word for someone like Larry Craig, who insists he's not gay as he taps his foot in the restroom?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

But then what's the correct word for someone like Larry Craig, who insists he's not gay as he taps his foot in the restroom?

Liar?

If I said to you right now that I'm not straight then went home and had an orgy with the Golden State Warriors dance squad, that wouldn't make me a hypocrite. Just a liar.

If Larry Craig was saying that gay activities are shameful and shouldn't be acted on no matter what while he himself shamelessly pursued that same activities. Then he's a hypocrite.

If he held that position and despite personal struggle to resist the urge, still had gay sex then he's not a hypocrite, he's merely failed to live up to his own ideals. Now, it would be great if when he told people homosexuality is a behavior that should be resisted he shared the story of his own struggles and personal failures, but not doing so still doesn't make it hypocrisy.

Sorry, but a swishy guy who is obsessed with another guy to that degree?

Maybe based on the second part, but not because of the first part. You may think the collective gay gaydar is near infallible but I've not seen great evidence of that based on the number of gay men I watched hit on my step father over the years (and if anyone responds the way I suspect someone might we'll just be back to saying that whether someone is gay is determined by vote regardless of how that person actually lives and thinks).

But regardless, there is a huge difference between "these factors increase the likelihood he is gay" (and I don't deny that such a calculation could be done) and "that man is gay because of those factors." Especially when once his homosexuality becomes assumed it is used to make other arguments about his character, motivations, and the meaning of his actions.

It just feels to me like a more local version of the old news analysis trick of saying "I don't like to speculate but maybe X is true" and then after five minutes of discussion they just begin to proceed with it no longer being speculation but fact. Even when the initial speculation ends up being correct, to me it is inimical to honest discussion.

[Gemini Cricket]

I'd like to weigh in on this with sincerity and not much joking. (Although levity is often vital to me.)

The focus should be on the fact that what he did was wrong; especially when you consider what his position (Assistant AG) is. I say is because he was reinstated today.

When it comes down to it, I don't care if he's a gay or not. It comes down to what kind of jerk this guy is on the inside to let this sort of bullying, harassment occur and whether this kind of thinking will affect his job and other people he may have to deal with in the future.

Yes, there is a huge amount of anti-gay loudmouths who are out there that are gay. But I see Alex and GD's point, I don't know if he's gay for sure (although my gaydar tells me he is) and I don't really care, it's only relevant to him and his therapist (if he has one). Deep down (and here comes the softie Brad) I think this guy needs help. If he is gay, he's in a lot of pain. If not, then he needs to sort out the way he deals with people.

I'd rather focus on getting this guy removed from his Asst AG position.

[innerSpaceman]

No, no, no, Alex, you are, I believe, missing a big point. Shirvell is not gay bashing. His blog and actions are not against homosexuals in general. He is stalking and blogging about one particular gay man. This reeks of obsession in the same way his persona reeks of gay.

Under the assumption he is gay, then his completely gay action of stalking and obsessing over a particular gay man while pretending not to be gay and not to be obsessed with him for that reason is hypocritical.

Granted, we have no real idea whether Shirvell is gay. He may just be, to paraphrase Sulu, a douchebag. But we gays know a gay when we see and hear one so freaking obviously, and Shirvell is not banned from setting foot on campus* because he's a general gay-basher. He's a stalker.



* the ban has been modified to allow him on campus, but he is to have no contact with Mr. Armstrong, his sole and exclusive victim.




As for the meaning of the word hypocrisy, I suggest it has simply morphed over time to encompass subsidiary but highly related concepts. The English language is constantly morphing in this fashion, and that's generally (though not always) a good thing.


Gay used to mean Happy.

[Alex]

No, no, no, Alex, you are, I believe, missing a big point. Shirvell is not gay bashing. His blog and actions are not against homosexuals in general. He is stalking and blogging about one particular gay man. This reeks of obsession in the same way his persona reeks of gay.

Ok (I don't really buy that first part since while he's targeting a single gay man he is doing it in terms critical of homosexuals), but the whole part about what "hypocrisy" means was started by someone questioning my contention that a gay gay basher is not inherently hypocritical.

So divorce Shirvell from my responses and the poitns remain the same and valid in the original context.

And even further, even if Shirvell is gay he may not be doing what you say because he himself may be unaware (through confusion or simple pyschological inacapacity) of his homosexuality.

Under the assumption he is gay, then his completely gay action of stalking and obsessing over a particular gay man while pretending not to be gay and not to be obsessed with him for that reason is hypocritical.

Still not hypocrisy. Just lying. Let's use a milder sitcom plot as a surrogate. Maybe one from a movie you recently enjoyed.

The male characters, let's call him Kick-Ass, has a crush on a girl who he feels barely knows he's alive. He pretends to be gay so that she'll have no reason to thinks he's sexually obsessed with her and under this ruse manages to be with her wherever she is, doing what she's doing and completely taking advantage of her to even the extent of getting to see her naked.

Is he a hypocrite? Or just a liar? As with Shirvell (under your assumption) he's denying his sexuality in order to mask the intention of his actions.


I'm generally quite the descriptivist when it comes to usage, but I have issues with just saying "well, hypocrisy has been redefined in common useage to include entirely new things." Those being:

1. Those entirely new things already had perfectly good words for them (liar, dissembler, self deluding, etc.)
2. This leaves no good word for actual hypocrisy.
3. And because I think frequently the misuse of the word is intentionally designed to confuse so as to dismiss out of hand as hypocrisy something that would otherwise have to be addressed more substantively.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I do think it makes it worse to gay-bash when oneself is gay. Just like I think it's heinous to crusade about virtue when one is visiting prostitutes.

Can't say whether Shirvell is gay or not, but there's something odd about the whole thing. And yes, it's quite common to project or displace or whatever- that what offends us most about others is the flaw that we ourselves possess. Sometimes we know we have the flaw, sometimes not. I'm not sure which makes it better.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here's my perspective:

I can't find details, but I'm pretty sure at least one of the recent gay bullying related suicides was by a kid who was not gay, but was subjected to "your gay!" bullsh*t because he fit some gay stereotype or another.

Around these parts I may be butch-by-comparison. But (prepare for the shock of a lfetime), in average American circles I am not the paradigm of hetero-male-machismo. And, for my entire life, because I have the audacity to not spend 100% of my time thinking and talking about tits and pro wrestling, I've had the "gay" label attached to me. Hell, my college roommate who walked in on me and CP while "indisposed" and caught me snooping through his considerable collection of hetero porn, STILL was apparently speculating to everyone else in the dorm that I was gay. Because...I don't know. My voice isn't deep enough? I don't know what to do with my hands while talking? I'm not threatened to spend time with other males who aren't macho enough? Who know, and who gives a sh*t?

So yeah, I'm a little touchy when it comes to the subject of "gaydar" and swishiness.

I'll let y'all fight over whether it fits the dictionary definition of hypocrisy to be passing around "It Gets Better" videos while out of the other side of your mouth you're merrily reinforcing that it's okay to label people based on gay stereotypes. Whatever you want to call it, I don't like it and I'm going to call you on it every time.