Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Fannie's Room

Miscellaneous

: Fannie's Room

What's More Rude Than Being Gay?

By Fannie

Surprise, surprise, another anti-gay bigot is misusing research data about gay men and lesbians to support his already-held and unsubstantiated conclusions about gay people.

This latest example of propaganda comes from "On Lawn," a member of the Opine Editorials' cast of anti-gay characters.

In his recent article entitled "Chastity, selfishness, and other thoughts from the week," "On Lawn" provides the following quotation:

"Lesbians report 'physically or mentally coercive sex' more often than do gay men. One study found that thirty-one percent of lesbians reported forced sexual encounters versus twelve percent of gay men."

My curiosity got the best of me and I immediately wondered a few things about this study "On Lawn" quoted.

One, did he know.... anything... about this study prior to eagerly quoting it? Or did he see that it has some anti-gay connotations and immediately post it in hopes that it would bolster his already-held opinions about gay people and the world?

Which leads me to two, what is this study, anyway?

After doing about 2 minutes of research, I found that "On Lawn's" quotation comes from another person's blog article that was quoting another person's blog article that was quoting a book by Pepper Schwartz that was quoting a study from 1989 (Waterman, C. K., Dawson, L. J., & Bologna, M. J. (1989). Sexual coercion in gay male and lesbian
relationships: Predictors and implications for support services. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 118-124.)

After reading the abstract alone, we see that this almost 20-year old study had a so very representative sample size of a "whopping" 36 female and 34 male college students who were in gay or lesbian relationships at the time. Let's reiterate: 36 females. 34 males. College students. 1989. Can someone scurry on over to the public library and dig it up on microfiche?

That "On Lawn," has no qualms with citing hearsay to the 3rd degree in the form of a 20-year-old non-representative study is not really surprising. He is the same guy, after all, who earnestly and frequently quotes right-wing propaganda machine LifeSiteNews articles as though they are honest, neutral, and fair sources of information.

At this point, I can only wonder what was "On Lawn's" purpose in providing this quotation?

It is difficult to ascertain the answer to my third question as all we have to go on is his meandering article inarticulately discussing the concept of "chastity," something about "Algebra," and how this all relates to his fave topics of "abuse" and "teh gays." Or something. It's hard to say, really. (As "On Lawn's" knee-jerk reaction to someone not being able to understand WTF he's ever talking about is to question the reader's reading comprehension, I invite you all to try to make sense of his article and report back!)

We sort of get our answer as to "On Lawn's" point here, however, when he says the following:

"That is why lesbianism, homosexualism, pornography, etc... are simply selfish -- and a misunderstood attempt at marriage can be too. They are taking something you want at the expense of the other.... [blah blah blah]... Demanding the government and others call your arrangement marriage is selfish and rude, at the expense of society."

I see. His posting is a long-winded, incomprehensible way of using a 20-year-old non-representative study to say that gay men and lesbians are selfish. Got it.

And if that's not his point, let me be the first to warn "On Lawn" that when a person writes less-than-articulate, illogical articles using bigoted, generalized language like "lesbianism is selfish" he really only ends up pissing off a bunch of people and cutting off any hope of reasonable dialogue. Let's be real here, the only comprehensible message from his post is this:

"On Lawn" for some reason thinks gay people are selfish and he quotes decades-old studies he knows nothing about.

But that's not the most disturbing part of this man's article.

Let's just assume here for one brief and fleeting moment that the claims that this study makes about lesbians are true: Lesbians coerce their female partners into sex at really high rates. Note that nowhere in his article do we see "On Lawn" say something along the lines of "That's too bad, maybe lesbians should have some sort of domestic violence program that they feel safe attending and are free to talk about sexual coercion they have experienced at the hands of their female partners. Maybe they should have programs where people won't tell them that if they don't want to be abused they shouldn't be gay. Or, maybe they should have a program that will not make them change the pronouns of their perpetrator."

But no. Instead "On Lawn" uses this study to make sweeping generalizations about the character of all gay people in the history of the universe. It is partly because of people like him why our community is sometimes hesitant to create needed culturally-competent programs for LGBT survivors of violence. We know that our community is not perfect, just as no community is. But small-minded men like "On Lawn" demand perfection from us by pouncing on and misusing any study with an iota of the anti-gay in it to justify their bigoted claims about gay people.

And thus we have yet another way the bigots are harming us. While he is just one man ignorantly blogging about something he knows nothing about, others with more influence use the same tactics. In short, they put us in a no-win situation. If we acknowledge the violence that does exist in our community, the bigots exaggerate it, misuse research findings, and use it against us. And yet if we don't acknowledge violence in our community, those who need help do not get it because programs for LGBT persons are not created out of fear that they will be used against us. In the heads of bigots, any mention of violence in our community implicates all gay people. By making that quantum leap of a generalization, "On Lawn" and his ilk help render LGBT victims of domestic violence invisible while simultaneously exaggerating the "Lesbian Abuser" myth.

Well done, "On Lawn." Mis-using research data? Failing to show lack of empathy or compassion for victims of abuse? I believe most would call such behavior "rude." And that's a generous characterization.

Unfortunately, I predict that if "On Lawn" reads this critique of his article he will respond that it somehow constitutes some sort of personal attack, lie, or misrepresentation of him. In that likely event, I can only say this: In the face of an egregious and offensive misuse of a research study, I will not remain quiet and not defend the community that "On Lawn" so often seeks to denigrate. "On Lawn's" article is available for all to read and draw their own conclusions and I am confident that what other peoples' findings will support the conclusions I have drawn.

So to "On Lawn" I can only end with this sarcastic note: Keep on speaking truth to power, brother!

Full post as published by Fannie's Room on March 12, 2008 (boomark / email).