DiscussionCurious what you guys think of this LGB Alliance tweet, removed by Twitter.

submitted by reluctant_commenter from archive.md

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]motss-pb 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The accepted narrative is that the "slippery slope" is a phantom created by the homophobic religious right who allege that the acceptance of homosexuality will inevitably lead to the normalization of other behaviors such as bestiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia. Since this is a homophobic argument, anyone who even acknowledges or suggests that the slippery slope could be real is immediately perceived to align with the religious right. This is the source of the backlash against LGBA. They are addressing the slippery slope.

The problem is that gender studies academics, with every nonsense jargon-laden paper they publish, continually push the boundaries of their "queer" umbrella and effectively turn the slippery slope argument into a reality. The paper in question "LGBTQ ... Z" was written by a gender studies professor at Duke University. In the paper, author Kathy Rudy confesses her love of animals and invokes her queer theorist mentor, Eve Sedwick, to try to justify her inclusion of bestiality and zoophilia as queer.

The slippery slope does exist. It's represented by the meaningless label "queer" which now includes straight people with kinks. The slippery slope is also represented by the (+) symbol along with the dozens of new identity labels and flags. The slippery slope is enabled by people who validate everything, preach about inclusion, "acceptance without exception", and denounce any form of gatekeeping or exclusion.

We should have the ability to distinguish healthy sexualities like homosexuality and bisexuality from paraphilias and kinks. But to do that we have to acknowledge that the slippery slope is not just a phantom cooked up by conservative homophobes. Why is LGBA being criticized rather than the person who wrote the homophobic paper? This wasn't some random anonymous Twitter user; this was a Duke professor. And the paper was published in 2012 by Hypatia and then republished in 2020 by Cambridge University Press. No criticism for the quality standards of the editors of those publications? If the threat of bestiality/zoophilia/pedophilia is so outlandish, how do these topics get so far in academia with so little backlash?

[–]CaptainMooseEx-Bathhouse Employee 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

On the subject of Kathy Rudy, she's a lesbian zoophile. The problem isn't just that random pervs are latching on to the work LGB people have done to gain acceptance, the problem is also coming from within our own demographics. LGB people need to find it in ourselves to tell these people to fuck off and that they do not represent our beliefs at large nor our interests. Maybe even go as far as to protest their speaking on our behalf (I think it would be wild if a group of lesbians at Duke egged her office).

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem isn't just that random pervs are latching on to the work LGB people have done to gain acceptance, the problem is also coming from within our own demographics. LGB people need to find it in ourselves to tell these people to fuck off and that they do not represent our beliefs at large nor our interests. Maybe even go as far as to protest their speaking on our behalf

Completely, completely agree. And I think it starts with making it clear what sexual orientation IS and is not, and dropping the TQ+. There are four possible configurations of sexual orientation: homosexual (attraction to same sex only), bisexual (attraction to both sexes only), heterosexual (attraction to opposite sex only), and asexual (no attraction to either sex). But I do think that cases like these occur not just in the context of Queer Theory but regardless within our own demographics, as you say... I'm reminded of (at least one?) gay rights movement leader who tried to blend the same-sex rights movement with a p*dophilic one.

[–]DimDroog 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Kathy Rudy

Jhc, she's a piece of shit.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response. I'm really glad I made a post about this, I did not know the context about this paper. That's awful that this person, Kathy Rudy, put that argument out in the world and claims to represent us all; that's infuriating.

I agree with your description about the slippery slope problem. I think the thing people get stuck on about it, is that it involves prediction of possibilities. Sometimes when people predict stuff, they're catastrophizing! And catastrophization needs to be called out for what it is. I think many people say "Slippery slope! You're wrong!" not having really thought through the situation or knowing what the fallacy is. Because sometimes when people predict stuff, they're accurate predictions and not catastrophizing.

We should have the ability to distinguish healthy sexualities like homosexuality and bisexuality from paraphilias and kinks. But to do that we have to acknowledge that the slippery slope is not just a phantom cooked up by conservative homophobes. Why is LGBA being criticized rather than the person who wrote the homophobic paper? This wasn't some random anonymous Twitter user; this was a Duke professor. And the paper was published in 2012 by Hypatia and then republished in 2020 by Cambridge University Press. No criticism for the quality standards of the editors of those publications? If the threat of bestiality/zoophilia/pedophilia is so outlandish, how do these topics get so far in academia with so little backlash?

Completely agree. It's fucked up beyond belief. I am so angry at this person who is, apparently, harming our community from within. I'll need to go take a look at her paper, ugh... not looking forward to reading this one.