I was stalking my brother on Facebook last week when I came across a photo of him in stage make-up, posted by a girl who was working on the school musical. She clearly had too much free time. I nearly clicked past it, until I saw the comment that someone had left: “gay homo fag.”
I spent the next five minutes in a mix of disbelief, rage, and hope that my brother was too busy being obsessed with basketball and other things, like being 12 years old, to notice. At first, I considered the idea that his Facebook friend probably didn’t understand the full implication of what he was saying. Then I looked up the commenter’s Facebook and saw that he was actually 15. That, I felt, gave me full rights to go after him—assuming he wasn’t lying about his age.
I proceeded to tell a close friend about the incident, expressing my frustration at how my younger brother had to suffer from the perpetuation of homophobia. My friend’s response was that I should calm down. “You’re overreacting,” he said.
“Sorry,” I responded. “I just have a lot of feelings.” I apologized immediately for expressing emotion, and the intensity of that emotion, even among people I trusted. I corrected myself, steering away from anger into more “acceptable” emotions. I listened to this friend, and in apologizing for my emotions I removed all of their power. I satisfied the status quo.
The two incidents are entirely related. Both indicate the way that, even as we conceive ourselves to be moving toward an age of equality, the norm of invalidating the experience of minorities still eclipses any progress. Minorities are repeatedly told that they will never be anything beyond two-dimensional stereotypes. Any complexity is immediately filed away under “Woman,” or “Hispanic,” or “Gay.” As an Asian female, I’ve experienced this numerous times: people repeatedly asking, each time more slowly and loudly than the last, where I’m supposedly “really” from, or interrupting me midsentence to tell me how good my English is. Each time, these people are surprised that my face is not a passport, and that it also isn’t an invitation to ask stupid questions. Stereotypes reduce rich and human experiences into a flattened narrative that suits the majority. This has been done for all minorities—race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
If a boy has make-up on in a photo, he must be gay. If a woman becomes upset, it’s because she’s too volatile, emotional, or, my personal favorite, that she must be on her period—since hormones totally invalidate opinions. I’ve long been of the school of thought that people with thyroids shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but, of course, those are just my feelings. The majority exerts a tyranny of an inconceivable scale, to the point that I felt obligated to apologize for emotions that I knew were true and valid. The dichotomy between feelings and irrationality is a false one, but somehow we still subscribe to it.
When someone calls my brother a “faggot,” I am angry. My anger is valid. I am angry that I was not able to protect him from the world, and that I didn’t do enough to protect him from this kind of poison. I know that it’s unrealistic to believe that I could keep him from harm, and that it’s a discredit to my brother’s strength if I perceive him as some delicate flower. But goddamn if I can’t still be angry that some kid thinks it’s acceptable to use those words without reverence for hatred that they are afforded. And goddamn if I am not angry that twelve-year-olds still see homosexuality as a negative thing, associated with concocted traditional notions of femininity. And goddamn if I am not angry that a declaration of emotion is considered an overreaction.
Language is the living evidence of thought. It is a huge influence and indicator of what we perceive as normative. This kind of language is an example of the tyranny of ignorance and fear, and it is the whip with which the socially privileged choose to strike others into submission. To demonize the minority. To hurt.
Vilifying certain traits to fit the majority is not the path to a civilized society. Ignoring the opinions of an entire sector of people shows only tacit oppression—it ignores the very basic fact that sexuality takes many forms, and destroys the complexity of experience necessary to continue to write fair and balanced legislation. As long as our culture continues to demean individuals based on what their inherent characteristics are supposed to mean, and as long as we suffer from a structural sapping of privilege based on birth, we will never achieve true liberty.
