[cw: use/discussion of “sga” as a term, which for some is experienced as a slur]
Here’s something I haven’t seen addressed yet about lgb homogenization, by which I mean defining “heterosexism” as “homophobia” and defining “homophobia,” in turn, as related strictly to punishment of what’s termed “sga,” as reclaimed by some lgb folk.
This homogenization premise — that all silencing, abuse, and violence on the basis of sexual orientation is specifically about a presence of attraction to people of the same gender as the self (homogenizers regularly shorten this to “sga”) — has this dubious major implication: that the oppression of gay, lesbian, and bi/pan people (should, hypothetically) all function exactly the same way. That is, the things they’re punished for, as lgb people, is a list that begins and ends with so-called “sga.”
I’ve already seen bi people taking issue with that idea, right or wrong, but what I haven’t seen contested or addressed is how this premise denies certain elements of the social reality for gay folks.
That is, for example — homogenization contends that lesbians as a class aren’t punished for anything that bi women as a class are not also punished for.
What strikes me about this, most of all, is that romantic/sexual rejection of men-as-a-class — something associated with lesbians & sometimes used as half the definition of a lesbian — would not, then, be part of the definition of homophobia. According to homogenization, any “non-sga” elements of an orientation are politically irrelevant (that is, such attributes have no relationship to the term “oppression”).
So… if you were someone beginning from a lbg homoginization premise, would you rather:
- argue that [violence targeting people who lack cross-gender attraction or desire] doesn’t happen?
- argue that the aforementioned violence does happen, but is not part of any axis of oppression?
- argue that the aforementioned violence does happen and is oppressive, but is attributable to a different axis of oppression (ex. misogyny and racism, not heterosexism)?
- argue that the aforementioned violence does happen, but only to gay people who have already come out as gay?
- argue that the aforementioned violence does happen, but is attributable to “misdirected homophobia” (even when the targets in question are themselves gay)?
Any other possibilities that haven’t occurred to me here?
Which do you think would be easiest to make a case for?