One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[delwynmarch]

susanmcgee wrote:
> Perhaps then we could ban the word homosexual? 
> Which I have said again and again is offensive.

Del replies:
It's not universally offensive. First it's not 
offensive where I come from, and second I've 
discussed homosexuality at length with quite 
a few Americans, including gay and lesbian ones, 
and NONE of them EVER mentioned that my using the 
word "homosexual" was offensive to them.

"Homosexual" is an apt descriptor, just like bigot 
is, when correctly used. People who are sexually 
attracted to people of the same sex and only 
people of the same sex, are homosexual, period.
That's not an insult, that's a description. If 
"homosexual" is somehow an insult, then using 
the word "heterosexual" is also an insult.

I don't see bisexuals or heterosexuals objecting 
to the use of those terms. So why do gays and 
lesbians object to the use of "homosexual"? 
If it's just because they see in the term 
"homosexual" an innuendo that isn't meant by most 
people who actually use that word, then I'd say 
the burden of changing is on gays' shoulders.

By the way, I would consider that for gays and 
lesbians, the word "straight" would be far more
insulting than the word "heterosexual". I mean, 
if I'm straight, then what are you supposed to be?
Crooked, bent, deviant?

> Bigotry is real. Oppression is real. Assaults 
> on lesbians and gays are real.

Nobody on this list has denied that.

> If you read my posts carefully, I said holding 
> and expressing those viewpoints contribute to an 
> atmosphere that allows and condones such actions.

And that's the part I disagree with. First because 
quite a few people who have a problem with 
homosexuality actually fight the victimisation of 
gays and lesbians. And second because forcing 
people to keep their opinions to themselves has never 
been a good way to ensure that those opinions 
disappear and that they are never acted upon, quite 
the contrary in fact: the more people are forced to 
repress their opinions, the more likely they are to 
violently act upon them sooner or later, given the 
opportunity.

> Being a lesbian is only one part of my very 
> complex identity.....

That's true of everyone, including bigots and 
more generally people who have a problem with 
homosexuality: they are *complex* people, so 
reducing them to hateful bigots is in fact 
counter-effective.

> Trying to put us all in one package is 
> discriminatory and bigoted.

Then you should understand why it's just as 
offensive to put all people who have a problem 
of some kind with homosexuality in the same 
package.

> JKR doesn't have to pander to ANYone at this point.

Then why did she? If she thought of DD as gay from 
back before she even started writing the books, how 
come she didn't actually write him AS gay? She was 
obviously under some compulsion of some kind to 
NOT write him as gay, and to even not mention 
any instance of homosexuality in her books. Now, 
what could that compulsion have been?

Was it internal? Did she have a personal reason 
not to mention homosexuality at all in her books, 
and to keep the homosexuality of one of her main 
characters a secret? What reason could this have 
been? It can't have been a desire to keep ALL 
sexuality out of her books, since heterosexuality 
is pretty heavily mentioned and shown. So what 
was it? Can YOU imagine a reason that does NOT 
involve considering that homosexuality is not 
quite "as normal" as heterosexuality? I can't.

Or maybe her compulsion was external? Maybe it 
was the publishers, though by the time she wrote 
the last books, you'd think she'd have enough 
power to include obvious allusions if she wanted to.
Or maybe, oops, she was actually PANDERING to 
the unspoken wishes of a good deal of her readers, 
by keeping such a controversial issue as 
homosexuality out of her books?

Can you give me another reason?

> I would have been happier if she had included 
> a couple of same gender adolescent couples, 
> and I am still puzzled as to why she didn't.

Exactly. WHY didn't she? She had PLENTY of 
opportunities, and she passed them all. Why?

> frankly, when you're a lesbian, you're used 
> to 90% of the stuff you see not reflecting 
> your life in one way. It's unfair and unjust, 
> but so it goes...

Try and be a Christian in an staunchly atheist
country. Granted, we don't get beaten or otherwise
physically abused, but our very existence is 
considered as a joke.

> Folks, if you persist in insisting it's just 
> fine (because it's part of your religion, 
> or whatever) to say that homosexuality is wrong 
> or immoral, I'm going to say that you're voicing 
> bigotry.

>From dictionary.com:
bigotry: 
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, 
belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Which one is the bigot?
* The person who says "I think there's something 
wrong with homosexuality, but I don't mind other 
people thinking otherwise, and I won't persecute 
gays and lesbians in any way"?
* Or the person who says "I don't care what your 
reasons for saying something are, I just won't 
allow you to say it without verbally attacking 
you"?

I'm not the one around here openly saying that 
if people say X or Y, I'm going to jump on them
and call them offensive words.

> It's nice to say, gosh, let's just agree 
> to disagree, but this is my life, my 
> civil rights, my children's lives.... it's 
> not an intellectual conversation.

And it's not my life too, maybe??? Do you 
think that maybe I'm not actually living in this 
world, or something??
 
> After all, the DeathEaters had the right to 
> believe that being a mudblood made you inferior, 
> right? And they could say it all they liked as 
> long as they didn't DO anything about it, right? 
> That IS the argument? And if they believe that, 
> I'm supposed to be tolerant of their beliefs?

DD was. Harry was. That's EXACTLY what TOLERANCE 
is about! Tolerance is not about tolerating the 
beliefs that we don't mind: it's about granting 
other people the right to believe anything they 
want, no matter how offensive it may be to us. 
You can claim the right to be intolerant, and you 
can choose to be intolerant, but then please don't 
turn around and try and teach some warped vision 
of tolerance to others.

> If someone voices a comment about a racial minority, 
> for example, if they said it was wrong for Harry 
> and Cho to kiss, would that be okay?

It would be their right, yes. No matter how 
distateful it would be to me, I would nonetheless 
grant them the right to say things like that. I 
would be personally hurt because I couldn't avoid 
thinking about my Eurasian cousins, but that 
wouldn't change the fact that I would grant that 
person the right to say that on a public forum. 
Not in my house, though...

> Is anyone hearing me say that slavery and 
> oppression have Biblical supports, and lots 
> of people said they were following their religious 
> teachings by keeping slaves?

If you wanted to say it, I'd see no reason to 
stop you from saying it.

Del