From the 1980s reading, I was particularly intrigued by the fact that Queer Nation outed many public figures using New York City as a platform to plaster photos with the phrase “Absolutely Queer.” Then, Washington Queer National Michael Petrelis held a news conference in which he attempted to out many closeted politicians. While the media went to this conference, no names were ever leaked. As long as I’ve been aware of “outing”, I’ve believed that it was a bad thing. I’ve always thought it was terrible for an aspect of someone’s identity to be exposed like that, especially when they might not yet be comfortable with sharing it with people yet. I’ve always believed that we should allow people to come out on their own terms and when they are ready to, instead of forcing them to accept the public knowing.
When I realized that this outing came from a queer group, rather than a homophobic one, I was confused. I suppose I’ve never really thought about why they may have tried outing these celebrities and politicians. They assumed that because they were in a position of power and wealth, they would have the ability to change laws and societal expectations of queer people. While I’ve never thought of it like this, I still condemn outing in most scenarios. One’s sexuality is such a personal thing that has the ability to carry so much weight for someone; it could ruin or reinforce a relationship with a friend, family member, or community. Ultimately, I feel as though while I can see where Queer Nation was coming from at the time, modern society would most likely never accept that as an attempt to further gain queer rights.
Discussion Questions:
What were your thoughts on outing before reading this piece?
How about after? Are you able to understand why Queer Nation felt the urge to out these people?
4 comments:
Great question! I think one of the main reasons why outing was popular in the 80s and 90s was that there were far more people who were closeted and were also voting against the needs and rights of the LGBTQ community. This infuriated many LGBT activists who felt that in those situations even those people are members of the LGBT community, they had forfeited any goodwill or charity LGBTQ people might feel towards each other for being part of an oppressed group.
In the black community there's an expression "Not all skin folk are kin folk" which means just because someone is Black doesn't mean they will act in the best interests if Black folks. (One example that comes to mind is Clarence Thomas. But this raises a really important question of "Who gets to decide what is best for all "skin" folks? And I think it's the idea that there's no good answer to that question in the case of LGBT people that led to outing becoming less of a salient talking point and weapon.
I agree with you in the sense that I also was confused about outing being instigated by Queer Nation. I have always thought of it in a negative light and it's interesting to me to read that they were the ones who were starting it. However, I can definitely see where they're coming from from a liberation point of view. I still think that one's sexuality is sacred and personal and that they should be able to choose when, where, to whom, and how they share this part of their identity. Therefore, I am not particularly fond of Queer Nation's outing of people.
I wonder what supporters of the process of "outing" believe now and if their opinion has changed/how and why.
Always thought outing was a negative thing. After reading the article, I feel in between about it. I agree that sexuality should be shared only if the person is comfortable to say it. I guess I'm not really open to the idea to use sexuality as a means of hurting others...
Post a Comment