Very few people actually believe it would be okay to oppress LBGT people if it weren't for "gay penguins". It is an argument that is used in the context of accusations of unnaturalness being thrown at queer people, nothing more.
I cited it as an example of the attitude I see a lot of relying on empiricism as a means of determining morality. I totally agree that that sort of statement is usually used in reaction to the queerness-is-a-choice attitude held by many. But it is frustrating that the anti-gay-rights side has dictated the terms of the entire argument: obviously it’s NOT a choice, but for either side to focus exclusively on whether it’s a choice or not pathologizes queerness and we should avoid it.
TLDR the penguin thing is a limited simplistic example (twitter) but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all be mindful of the ways we are framing this argument. give no ground and don’t let the bad guys dictate the terms.
I am writing this on my phone and watching soccer at a bar maybe not in best spot to have this sort of conversation. anyway I hope I make sense
Hi Evan, I want to thank you for mentioning Junot Díaz in one of your posts. I had not heard of him before, and although I've yet to read any of his work I have now listened to several of his talks. I find his words incredibly inspiring and true regarding creative work of all kinds. I am curious if you have a favourite book or story of his. Thanks!
Junot is great!! I have only read Oscar Wao but I loved it and will read more. He gave me a very nice blurb for the Rice Boy book and he is a very friendly guy.