Jump to content

Controversial topic: outing closeted queer people


everywhere and nowhere

Outing closeted queer people  

167 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you consider outing queer people against their will permissible?

    • Yes
      2
    • No
      147
    • Yes, but only if that person promotes intolerance and prejudice against LGBT+ people
      10
    • I'm unsure / don't have a strong opinion
      8
  2. 2. Do you consider yourself queer?

    • Yes and I'm a homo-/bi-/panromantic or trans ace
      62
    • I'm neither of the above, but I think all aces are queer
      38
    • Yes and I'm not ace
      5
    • No / rather no
      62
  3. 3. Do you have contact with non-asexual queer communities?

    • Yes, quite much
      37
    • Yes, a little
      69
    • Usually no
      61

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

I embrace the queer label!! But only when it's being used in the original sense (because I am a particularly strange individual) :ph34r: 

Ha, ha, me too. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No. Never.

2. Queer is a hate word. I am not LGBT.

3. I have a lot of contact with LGBT communities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jayce said:

And then it’s still not ok for us to expose them. Us exposing these people means we’d breach they’re right for privacy wich is a basic human right. We should judge them by the crime they’ve committed and not by their sexual/romantic orientation or gender identity. Whenever we like it or not: They are a part of the LGBT+ community thus we should respect that. If we choose to do otherwise it wouldn’t make us a hair better either. Or do you want to tell me it’s ok if you did something bad and everyone would expose you as LGBT+ and make you suffer because of it? I don’t think so.

Jayce I have repeatedly said that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that being closeted doesn't grant them immunity from facing consequences for actual bona fide wrongdoings, even if presenting the evidence could potentially out them. Evidence of criminal activity that may expose their sexual orientation is valid in the court of law, even though their sexual orientation is irrelevant to the crime. They do not get to dismiss certain relevant evidence being used because it outs them. And to make it entirely clear, as I'm my point being skewed beyond recognition here: I'm absolutely NOT saying that their sexual orientation is a crime or is a part of the crime they committed. I'm saying they DON'T GET SPECIAL TREATMENT!

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

Jayce I have repeatedly said that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that being closeted doesn't grant them immunity from facing consequences for actual bona fide wrongdoings, even if presenting the evidence could potentially out them. Evidence of criminal activity that may expose their sexual orientation is valid in the court of law, even though their sexual orientation is irrelevant to the crime. They do not get to dismiss certain relevant evidence being used because it outs them. And to make it entirely clear, as I'm my point being skewed beyond recognition here: I'm absolutely NOT saying that their sexual orientation is a crime or is a part of the crime they committed. I'm saying they DON'T GET SPECIAL TREATMENT!

*Sigh*

 

The only thing you are argueing is that they don’t get a special treatement because they committed a crime wich is what i fully disagree with.How much more clearer do i need to make it? You don’t expose criminals because of they’re gender identity/ romantic orientation and they’ve committed a crime. That’s not ok. You are advocating to be able to expose them. I’m not. I say: You don’t out queer people under any circumstance.

 

 

Also, can we quit the all caps thing? It’s not really adding much value to the discussion and i’m not intend to continue to yell over a simple disagreement as i do prefer a calm discussion even if we disagree.

So the choice is simple: we either continue to talk normally or we continue yelling and i’ll bow out as i’m not in the mood for a he said she said game.

 

Fair enough?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jayce said:

The only thing you are argueing is that they don’t get a special treatement because they committed a crime wich is what i fully disagree with.

So you believe that if people are in the closet, they don't need to face justice for crimes they commit.

 

5 minutes ago, Jayce said:

You are advocating to be able to expose them.

I'm advocating that evidence against them for the crimes they committed should not be deemed invalid in the court of law simply because they are in the closet. Personal secrets, while they should be absolutely respected in most cases and especially where it could impact their security, do not make people willfully committing criminal activity immune from consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/17/2018 at 5:07 PM, Jayce said:

That’s not ok. You are advocating to be able to expose them. I’m not. I say: You don’t out queer people under any circumstance.

On 2/17/2018 at 5:17 PM, Snao Cone said:

So you believe that if people are in the closet, they don't need to face justice for crimes they commit.

 

I'm advocating that evidence against them for the crimes they committed should not be deemed invalid in the court of law simply because they are in the closet. Personal secrets, while they should be absolutely respected in most cases and especially where it could impact their security, do not make people willfully committing criminal activity immune from consequences.

I think what Snao is saying is that in these cases, it is sometimes impossible to give full evidence of certain crimes in court without also incidentally outing someone's non-straight sexuality or gender identity - simply because of the nature of the evidence, not because someone is intentionally outing them to be cruel or discriminatory. In most cases, the genders of the parties involved will become apparent when giving evidence - therefore the accused in question may implicitly be outed as not straight. This can have terrible effects, especially in high profile cases, not just for the accused person but also for the LGBT community in general -- but the fact of the matter is that you cannot really give a full description of an accusation and victim's statement while also trying to keep the genders and sexualities of all parties involved ambiguous / behind closed doors - especially if such details are directly relevant to the evidence - (I.e. How can the accused face a full and fair trial if half the evidence is withheld depending on whether anyone else knows about the accused's sexuality? Should a victim of a queer person keep quiet about their gender/the gender of the perpetrator for fear of outing them as gay, trans or queer?)

 

If we hid some of the evidence in order to protect a person's sexuality in any of these cases, it would set a precedent for queer people not having the same rights for a full trial as straight people - unless we also hid the same evidence in all trials of that nature (i.e. by maintaining anonymity of all parties accused of/affected by a crime and deciding guilt based on very general facts) - but that could make such cases difficult to prosecute, defend or settle in general.. and there would be very few specifics released to the court or the general public allowing pertinent details of potentially serious crimes to remain behind closed doors.

 

I personally think it's never okay to intentionally expose a closeted queer person, but in a court of law I think the person's right to a full and fair trial must overcome that rule in order for the accused to be given due process. Otherwise, it'd open up a lot of legal questions about what evidence is permittable where an individual is "closeted", what constitutes a person being "closeted" versus someone who is open about their sexuality, and how this would affect the evidence released to the lawyers/court/public etc. (Would only one person knowing a person's sexuality count as 'closeted' or 'open'? How would we evaluate a person's closeted/open status in cases of people being selectively out to different groups of people (i.e. with only friends and not family / with some friends and family but not professionally, etc.) 

 

There are a lot of non-legal things to be considered too - I definitely disagree with outing people who may or may not be queer without their permission even when they abuse the LGBT community, because this can really promote the idea that people who are closeted are homophobic (rather than in the closet for their own safety, perhaps), or that perpetrators of homophobic violence are actually homosexual or queer themselves --- which casts doubt on the violence done to us by straight people by accusing members of our own community for the worst crimes... but there is a strong instinctive desire for people to want to call someone out on their hypocrisy...

 

It's a tough one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 (This poor post has been sitting in the draft-abyss for days. ;_; )

I started off with, "it's never okay to out someone for any circumstance' but I was thinking only about personal lives and not law situations where it may have to come up, so now I have exceptions. xP
 

On 2/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Snao Cone said:

With public figures (most notably politicians, activists, or religious leaders) who are strongly promoting anti-LGBT laws, policies, practices, or sentiment, their hypocrisy is a public concern. It shouldn't be their sexuality or gender that makes them bad leaders, though. The bigotry and discrimination should be criticized on its own. If they're closeted and actively living out their identity in private (more about sexuality than gender), that only highlights hypocrisy and double standards. It's not what they're doing in private that's bad (assuming consenting adults - I don't care about the infidelity side, but if it involves children or a lack of consent that's straight out illegal) but the hypocrisy is a public concern.

 

However, this shouldn't be handled as a tabloid story or a "gotcha!" tactic in election season. It's merely part of a larger more serious problem.

I disagree about the public figures one actually (at least for politicans and religious leaders) because I know some politicians think their own views should be somewhat irrelevant to their job since they're elected to represent the views of their constituents, and I imagine some religious leaders put what they think are the religion's views above their own when it comes to their profession.

 

On 2/16/2018 at 1:44 PM, Snao Cone said:

That is not what I'm saying! If they did something bad that is relevant to or exposes sexual activity or orientation, they don't get protection from consequences just because they're in the closet. FOR EXAMPLE: say someone commits massive fraud and runs away with loads of money. They're caught and charged and the evidence against them includes documents of a lavish romantic vacation they took with an accomplice of the same gender. Is it okay to use that evidence in court?

 

 

Edited to add: Being in the closet doesn't make it okay for people to get away with crimes or serious ethics violations that may expose them. That's my point.

Agreed to this one! If you committed a crime and a key piece of evidence will unavoidably out the individual, then it should be used in court regardless of the fact that it will out you, because your sexuality and privacy become irrelevant (for everyone of any sexuality or who have any secret) when the evidence involved becomes strongly relevant to the commission of a crime. We don't get exempt from trouble just because we've chosen or feel when need to be closeted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think if you were a witness to evidence of a crime, it would be illegal for you to refuse to testify to that evidence because you didn't want to out someone.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to add one more example here for consideration (though I don't have a strong opinion on it so I won't participate past this):

Some months ago, in the midst of the still-ongoing dialogue on bringing open secrets of Hollywood sexual harassment and assault, actor Anthony Rapp shared his experience from when he was 14 years old, and he was aggressively hit on by Kevin Spacey, who was an adult at the time. At this point Spacey was not "outwardly out", so this revelation could be considered outing him. This was not done in the court of law, but was intended to bring the tolerance of sexual abuse into the light as part of a wider discussion.

 

This kind of "outing" may have even worked in Spacey's favour, because he used his as an opportunity to talk about his sexuality instead of about how he came onto minors. As far as I know, he never spoke against LGBT people, so it's not like he was actively working against equality or promoting homophobia/biphobia/transphobia. (In different jurisdictions there could also be legal issues with saying anything about someone else's sexual contact, whether straight or gay and whether closeted or not - but in this case, that wasn't an issue for Rapp coming forward.)

 

Rapp wasn't using this as an opportunity to ruin Spacey's career with the knowledge that he was bisexual. That wasn't the ammo against him. But, does the fact that this did expose Spacey's sexual orientation make it wrong for Rapp to have come forward?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Snao Cone said:

Rapp wasn't using this as an opportunity to ruin Spacey's career with the knowledge that he was bisexual. That wasn't the ammo against him. But, does the fact that this did expose Spacey's sexual orientation make it wrong for Rapp to have come forward?

Absolutely not. The ammo against Spacey was that he aggressively hit on Rapp.  That would be the same if Rapp  had been female.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Jetsun Milarepa

I'd never do that to someone in the closet, it's not fair. If it were done to me however, it wouldn't matter a jot, as I'm in no closet!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never consider throwing someone's life in possible dissaray. If they do not want to reveal themselves, it is not my right. Even if it is to defend someone's identity. Sometimes, being hidden is useful and makes life easier for some. Others desire no confrontation, and do not like attention. 

 

I have many friends of the LGBT+ community.

 

I do not consider myself queer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say that you never know if someone is closeted because they are in an unsafe situation.

E.g., if you out someone who is closeted, and their queerphobic relatives find out, they could be hurt. Possibly badly.

Because of this, I think you should not out a closeted person. If not because of that, simply to respect their privacy. Their orientation is something personal, and they should be able to know who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2018 at 4:50 AM, Snao Cone said:

I just want to add one more example here for consideration (though I don't have a strong opinion on it so I won't participate past this):

Some months ago, in the midst of the still-ongoing dialogue on bringing open secrets of Hollywood sexual harassment and assault, actor Anthony Rapp shared his experience from when he was 14 years old, and he was aggressively hit on by Kevin Spacey, who was an adult at the time. At this point Spacey was not "outwardly out", so this revelation could be considered outing him. This was not done in the court of law, but was intended to bring the tolerance of sexual abuse into the light as part of a wider discussion.

 

This kind of "outing" may have even worked in Spacey's favour, because he used his as an opportunity to talk about his sexuality instead of about how he came onto minors. As far as I know, he never spoke against LGBT people, so it's not like he was actively working against equality or promoting homophobia/biphobia/transphobia. (In different jurisdictions there could also be legal issues with saying anything about someone else's sexual contact, whether straight or gay and whether closeted or not - but in this case, that wasn't an issue for Rapp coming forward.)

 

Rapp wasn't using this as an opportunity to ruin Spacey's career with the knowledge that he was bisexual. That wasn't the ammo against him. But, does the fact that this did expose Spacey's sexual orientation make it wrong for Rapp to have come forward?

I don't consider that as outing him. People sexually assault and pray on minors regardless of their sexuality. Spacey came out himself in his response and it was seem as an attempt to deflect and distract from what should have been the main topic of the reply. His sexuality was irrelevant. Anthony Rapp had every right to come forward about what had happened to him. You said it yourself - Spacey himself used it as an opportunity, it wasn't Rapp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vicky Angel

If you are referring to recent situations where sexual assault occurred and the victims were minors at the time. As adults they publicly spoke of this and the person who preyed on them was closeted.  It's a tricky situation.   

 

In general no one should be outed.   No one should be pressured into being out, or telling someone before they are ready. (I've been put in that situation, and it's made me even more cautious about being fully out). 

 

I am Ace but I don't personally identify as queer.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was brought up with a homophobic father, my thoughts of him are not fit to be read by anyone, in my job, I know a lot of gay people, only because they've told me they're gay. I was in work one day, there was a meeting of store managers at our depot, one of the managers, a woman young enough to be my daughter, I get on with really well, we always have a cuddle when we see each other, we did the same this day, afterwards, I went and sat down (we were in the canteen at the time), one of my managers said to me, "don't know why you're flirting with her, she's a ginger" (Cockney rhyming slang, ginger beer=queer), although I already knew that, I asked him, what's that got to do with me? She's still the same person I know, her sexuality has nothing to do with me.

 

 I have a godson, he is gay, his oldest sister, when she found out made a big thing of it, he at the time was only 17, maybe 18 at the most, still in the stages of self discovery, he's permanently wheelchair bound due to being born with an ailment, not that that has anything to do with this, but his sister was disgusted by his being gay and threatened him that she would tell the whole family if he didn't, under pressure, he told the family, they all accepted it apart from her, he's now 25, I don't know if she's spoken to him since, but I found it all very disturbing, he would have told them, just in his own time, instead, he was forced to do so against his will.

 

 I myself have been single for a long time now, I don't' find other men attractive, I definitely prefer women, I would say I'm probably hetero romantic, but they don't make women that are that desperate 😀 so I'm single.

 

 I don't really have much time to even be associated with asexual groups apart from on here, to my knowledge, I don't even know if I've ever met another asexual person, really I only see family and friends on my days off, and work colleagues the rest of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine a situation where outing someone as queer without permission from the queer person would be okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I can't think of any good reason whereby it would be ethically permissible to out a closeted queer person. Perhaps one could imagine extenuating circumstances where this would be ethically permissible. Otherwise, I would say no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

During the late 80s--early 90s, when closeted gay politicians were refusing to vote for funding AIDS research into treatments, some AIDS activists outed them.  It may not have been ethnical to do so, but it was difficult to feel sorry for the outed pols when people were dying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

@Nowhere Girl

 

This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organisation, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to restart new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them.

  

iff, Census Forum Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...