LGBT and liberalism

[jenny_]

One thing i've noticed about transgender and homosexual people is that views tend to be more liberal and/or tolerant than amongst general population.  Do you think this is true, and do you think such views come from being LGBT, or having such views makes you more willing to accept such a nature (or neither)?



I've always been liberal minded, but always struggled with this question.  I was certainly liberal and tolerant of others long before being conciously aware of my identity (though i had some inklings), so i've always thought my liberalness/tolerance came before understanding who i was.  Yet perhaps, being liberal comes from being aware of these issues within myself since an early age.

[lisagurl]

You can be liberal and respect other people's liberties but you do not have to agree with them or even want them as friends. You have your own liberties to live your life as you please, remember there is both positive and negative liberties. People deserve the courtesy of respect but not the expectation of acceptance.

[jenny_]

You can be liberal and respect other people's liberties but you do not have to agree with them or even want them as friends. You have your own liberties to live your life as you please, remember there is both positive and negative liberties. People deserve the courtesy of respect but not the expectation of acceptance.

Not agreeing with somebody is certainly fine from a liberal standpoint (and is pretty common!), but to refuse  to be somebody's friend nor accepting of another person i'm not so sure are liberal (or tolerant).  To have "your own liberties to live your life as you please" is surely only half of the fundamental liberal principle!

Do you agree with my observation about common views within LGBT communities, or disagree?  I can't say i've spoken to people outside of susans, or the area i've come from, so i might be wrong!

[Kaitlyn]

I don't think liberal and tolerant necessarily go along with one another - although liberals are generally more tolerant of LGBT stuff than conservatives.

You can be liberal and respect other people's liberties but you do not have to agree with them or even want them as friends. You have your own liberties to live your life as you please, remember there is both positive and negative liberties. People deserve the courtesy of respect but not the expectation of acceptance.

Right. Sometimes, though, liberals forget about the negative rights in all their emphasis on the positive.

[lisagurl]

but to refuse  to be somebody's friend nor accepting of another person i'm not so sure are liberal (or tolerant).

One person's rights ends where another's begins. Liberty is the right to act and also the right to refuse to act. Isaiah Berlin explains both positive and negative liberties in his writings. Being tolerant is doing business with someone but not inviting them into your home.  I think that the LGBT has too much special interests that go beyond other peoples liberties such as private religion. They also expect government handouts. It is one thing to get equal treatment under the law and another very different to get special treatment from special laws.

[Kaitlyn]

Take the "freedom of association" - it implies the right NOT to associate.  Otherwise, it's not freedom at all, but compulsion.  Social relations are a two-way street, and some liberals seem to think the state should apply violence when one party isn't willing.

[jenny_]

I don't think liberal and tolerant necessarily go along with one another - although liberals are generally more tolerant of LGBT stuff than conservatives.

You can be liberal and respect other people's liberties but you do not have to agree with them or even want them as friends. You have your own liberties to live your life as you please, remember there is both positive and negative liberties. People deserve the courtesy of respect but not the expectation of acceptance.

Right. Sometimes, though, liberals forget about the negative rights in all their emphasis on the positive.

Liberalism, the idea that every person is free to do as they want to, as long as it does no harm to another person. (Mills)


So surely liberalism denies the freedom to be intolerant or discriminate against another person, and as such implies tolerance, hence why i used the terms together.

Of cause "freedom of association" implies the right not to associate, but only provided its not out of discrimination.  A refusal to be accepting of another in the context of not tolerating them, i think, would be illiberal.

I'm not quite sure what your referring to in emphasing negative liberties, in the context of LGBT rights.



My original question could be restated without using the word liberal (since we don't seem to understand the same thing from it).

One thing i've noticed about transgender and homosexual people is that views tend to be more tolerant of other people who are different than amongst people in general  Do you think this is true, and do you think such views come from being trans and/or homosexual, or having such views makes you more willing to accept such a nature (or neither)?

[NicholeW.]

Toleration and acceptance often, although not always, seems to come more easily to those whose lives have not been tolerated or accepted by others.

Nichole

[Kaitlyn]

So surely liberalism denies the freedom to be intolerant or discriminate against another person, and as such implies tolerance, hence why i used the terms together.

American liberalism certainly denies that freedom - which is one of my main objections to it.  I don't see any basis besides discrimination for not associating with someone.  To discriminate just means "to choose between alternatives".  Why do we treat it as a special case when someone uses race or gender or whatever as the basis for their discrimination?  And then, why do we make such frequent exceptions to prohibitions against discrimination after establishing them?  Think about it - does everyone evaluate an even mix of genders and ethnicities when choosing their sexual partners, or their spouses?  How about when adopting children?  When choosing the neighborhood to move into?  When choosing friends?  When patronizing businesses? 

If you think a white cismale heterosexual business owner needs to have a de facto quota system imposed on him to ensure that he's not improperly discriminating among job applicants, shouldn't he also have that same quota system imposed on his patronage of other businesses?  Shouldn't the government be watching him to make sure that he patronizes minority-owned businesses in proportion to their presence in society?  If not, why not?

Furthermore, tolerance is an attitude in an observer's mind.  How can you make someone tolerant by threatening him with violence for non-compliance?  How do you know when he's being tolerant and when he's just pretending?  Doesn't a legal prohibition against a certain state of mind constitute thought crime legislation?

[lisagurl]

I'm not quite sure what your referring to in emphasizing negative liberties, in the context of LGBT rights.

LGBT have no more rights than anyone else. There is a public and private world. In the public world people have the right to compete without discrimination. In the private world people have a right to discriminate and make choices as they please. Hurt feelings are not breaking the law. In a democratic Federal republic one faces a problem of laws that are the will of the majority but might discriminate a minority group. Hence Indian reservations. Some Indians have taken advantage of the special status to run gambling where is is other wise illegal. Small business or religious businesses can discriminate as large business or those getting Government contracts can not.

"Give me liberty or give me death" some people are willing to die instead of being told who they can not discriminate against.

[jenny_]

LGBT have no more rights than anyone else. There is a public and private world. In the public world people have the right to compete without discrimination. In the private world people have a right to discriminate and make choices as they please.

It is that right of people to discriminate that in practice means that minority groups do have less freedom and rights.  And a distinction between public and private worlds maybe fine in theory, but how can that work in practice?  For starters the difference between public and private isn't always easy to tell.  Also to think that a boss could be quite freely a homophobic mysogynist at home, but suddenly gets to work and is gonna change attitude and respect those that are different?

"Give me liberty or give me death" some people are willing to die instead of being told who they can not discriminate against.

Yet what they're so willing to die defending, is difficult to describe as liberal in any sort of sense.  What use is there in defending somebodys "liberty" to take away the "liberty" of another?  What sort of liberalism is that?

Posted on: October 16, 2008, 10:41:11 pm

So surely liberalism denies the freedom to be intolerant or discriminate against another person, and as such implies tolerance, hence why i used the terms together.

American liberalism certainly denies that freedom - which is one of my main objections to it.  I don't see any basis besides discrimination for not associating with someone.  To discriminate just means "to choose between alternatives".  Why do we treat it as a special case when someone uses race or gender or whatever as the basis for their discrimination? 

To treat somebody less favourably than another purely because of their race or gender is generally what discrimination means in practice in those cases you mention.  I'm not aware of any form of liberalism, american or otherwise, that supports a persons freedom to the point of taking freedom away from others.

I think its pretty ironic that Classical liberalism is so concerned with a state not taking away a person's liberty that it allows a person to interfere with another persons liberty.

Posted on: October 16, 2008, 10:57:12 pm

Furthermore, tolerance is an attitude in an observer's mind.  How can you make someone tolerant by threatening him with violence for non-compliance?  How do you know when he's being tolerant and when he's just pretending?  Doesn't a legal prohibition against a certain state of mind constitute thought crime legislation?

who's threatening anybody with violence for non-compliance?

[lisagurl]

It is that right of people to discriminate that in practice means that minority groups do have less freedom and rights.

That is not accurate. For anyone to be treated well the need to conform to what is expected to be respected. If a millionaire goes into a Rolls Royce dealer dressed like a homeless person has body odor and wants to test drive a new car they will throw them out. However if a homeless person goes in dressed in a new suit and conducts himself with dignity they will be more than happy to let him drive. It is the way society works. People with intelligence know this, they conform and set the image that is expected to get along in public. However when they get home they can run around naked for nobody cares. You can not make a law to force people to accept something that is not socially accepted in public in a system such as ours. Social norms change slowly, culture is more acceptable inside that paradigm but not in the general social public norm. When the probability of certain stereo types reaches the social norm them it will be accepted. The same reason a movie star does not need to make reservations at a nice restaurant, the have a social privilege.

[Kaitlyn]

To treat somebody less favourably than another purely because of their race or gender is generally what discrimination means in practice in those cases you mention.  I'm not aware of any form of liberalism, american or otherwise, that supports a persons freedom to the point of taking freedom away from others.

It's not taking freedom away from someone for me to refuse to associate with them - not unless they own me, which is slavery.  You're the one advocating taking freedom away from others.  You're attacking the right of association.

LGBT have no more rights than anyone else. There is a public and private world. In the public world people have the right to compete without discrimination. In the private world people have a right to discriminate and make choices as they please.

It is that right of people to discriminate that in practice means that minority groups do have less freedom and rights.  And a distinction between public and private worlds maybe fine in theory, but how can that work in practice?

Simple.  You just do it.  I find black skin generally less attractive than white skin.  I also find brunettes generally less attractive than blondes.  If the second one is OK, why not the first?  I don't take either into account for friendship or business dealings.

"Give me liberty or give me death" some people are willing to die instead of being told who they can not discriminate against.

Yet what they're so willing to die defending, is difficult to describe as liberal in any sort of sense.  What use is there in defending somebodys "liberty" to take away the "liberty" of another?  What sort of liberalism is that?

We teach our children that part of growing up is accepting that you're not the center of the world.  People may not like you.  People may hate you.  They may even hate you without rational cause.  That doesn't mean they're taking away your liberty.  Their lives and property are, by definition, theirs - not yours.  Only if something is yours to begin with can you argue that someone is taking it away from you.

I think its pretty ironic that Classical liberalism is so concerned with a state not taking away a person's liberty that it allows a person to interfere with another persons liberty.

I'll say it again - you're not entitled to my affection, friendship, companionship, patronage, or aid.  You don't own my property, you don't own my body, and you don't own my mind.  Compulsion has no place in social relationships.  I think you should take a good, long look at what involving the state and the legal system entails.

who's threatening anybody with violence for non-compliance?

That's the entire basis of law and government.  That's its defining characteristic - a monopoly on the use of violence.  Behind every law is a gun.  Anti-discrimination law, right or wrong, is about threatening people with violence to prevent discrimination.

I read a idea a few months back... when considering a law, or an idea for a law, imagine a gun pointed at a loved one's head because they broke that law.  If you're not willing to have that happen, then you really shouldn't support the law.

[jenny_]

It is that right of people to discriminate that in practice means that minority groups do have less freedom and rights.

That is not accurate. For anyone to be treated well the need to conform to what is expected to be respected. If a millionaire goes into a Rolls Royce dealer dressed like a homeless person has body odor and wants to test drive a new car they will throw them out. However if a homeless person goes in dressed in a new suit and conducts himself with dignity they will be more than happy to let him drive. It is the way society works. People with intelligence know this, they conform and set the image that is expected to get along in public. However when they get home they can run around naked for nobody cares.

Yes, but the point i was getting was that to conform to somebody else's expectations was the problem.  What if this rolls royce dealer expected people who came into his show-room to be middle-aged white males?  How does a woman or a black guy then go about conforming?

The right for people to discriminate against others, protects the liberty of those who are "priviliged" in a society even at the expense of the "unpriviliged"

You can not make a law to force people to accept something that is not socially accepted in public in a system such as ours. Social norms change slowly, culture is more acceptable inside that paradigm but not in the general social public norm. When the probability of certain stereo types reaches the social norm them it will be accepted. The same reason a movie star does not need to make reservations at a nice restaurant, the have a social privilege.

You are quite right in saying that not even a Liberal government can legislate to make their people Liberal.  But anti-discrimination laws are about building a fair society far all, to make people treat others fairly.  I've never said that any government should force people to accept all people who are different.  What i said was that you can't be a Liberal and be intolerant to others.  But i've never been under any illusion that places like America and Britain were Liberal societies.

Posted on: October 17, 2008, 08:42:49 pm

who's threatening anybody with violence for non-compliance?

That's the entire basis of law and government.  That's its defining characteristic - a monopoly on the use of violence.  Behind every law is a gun.  Anti-discrimination law, right or wrong, is about threatening people with violence to prevent discrimination.

I read a idea a few months back... when considering a law, or an idea for a law, imagine a gun pointed at a loved one's head because they broke that law.  If you're not willing to have that happen, then you really shouldn't support the law.

I'm certain that breaking an anti-discrimination law (or any other law for that matter) in this country won't see a gun pointed at your head, and i'm guessing that is also true in america.

[Kaitlyn]

I'm certain that breaking an anti-discrimination law (or any other law for that matter) in this country won't see a gun pointed at your head, and i'm guessing that is also true in america.

I'm sorry to contradict you so harshly, but that's the essence of law.  It's not even open for debate.  It's why police carry guns.  The entire purpose of government is to establish a monopoly on the use of force.  The end result of resistance to any law is the gun.  I'm not condemning it per se, it's just the way it is.  There's no reason to make something into a law unless you want it enforced by violence.

Posted on: October 17, 2008, 04:07:23 pmThink about what happens if you disrespect a law, and refuse to comply with the escalating consequences.

Fines -> Summons -> Police coercion to bring you into custody -> Weapons -> Death

[jenny_]

I'm certain that breaking an anti-discrimination law (or any other law for that matter) in this country won't see a gun pointed at your head, and i'm guessing that is also true in america.

I'm sorry to contradict you so harshly, but that's the essence of law.  It's not even open for debate.  It's why police carry guns.  The entire purpose of government is to establish a monopoly on the use of force.  The end result of resistance to any law is the gun.  I'm not condemning it per se, it's just the way it is.

Posted on: October 17, 2008, 04:07:23 pmThink about what happens if you disrespect a law, and refuse to comply with the escalating consequences.

In your country that maybe true, but i don't think america has any monopoly on defining what the essence
law is.

For the record, British police don't carry guns.  And our government doesn't go around killing people who break the law.  We also have a democracy, so the purpose of our government is to represent the views of the people, and is why British citizens accept its authority, and not because parliament goes round threatening violence to people who don't accept its authority.

[Kaitlyn]

It's not about outright killing people who break the law, it's about the MEANING of law, and the ultimate consequences of resisting it.  Think of the gun as a metaphor, if you will - if the threat of violence and death didn't back the law, it woudn't be law.  It would be taboo, custom, contract, or etiquette.

If you break a law, however small, there will be legal consequences.  If you resist or ignore those consequences, they will escalate.  Eventually, police will arrive to arrest/detail/question you.  If you resist them...

Posted on: October 17, 2008, 04:22:51 pmA introductory-level Political Science course teaches right off the bat that government is institutionalized, monopolized, legitimized violence.  I'm not interpreting here, that's the accepted nature of government.  It's supposed to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands.

Posted on: October 17, 2008, 04:27:35 pmFrom "Government" on Wikipedia: "Government, with the authority to make laws, to adjudicate disputes, and to issue administrative decisions, and with a monopoly of authorized force where it fails to persuade, is an indispensable means, proximately, to the peace of communal life." (Emphasis mine)

[lisagurl]

Yes, but the point i was getting was that to conform to somebody else's expectations was the problem.

That is your problem. This world takes cooperation. If you refuse to cooperate with the expected norm you will pay a price.

[jenny_]

Yes, but the point i was getting was that to conform to somebody else's expectations was the problem.

That is your problem. This world takes cooperation. If you refuse to cooperate with the expected norm you will pay a price.

And if that norm happens to be heteronormative male-dominated white-dominated, then thats ok then?

[lisagurl]

And if that norm happens to be hetero normative male-dominated white-dominated, then thats OK then?

No the norm is to avoid sex, politics and religion. You can get along fine in this world as long as you do not push your beliefs on other people.  It has nothing to do with male, white or anything other personal attribute, can you not keep your personal life out of the public arena?

Look at Joe the plumber ( hetero normative male-dominated white-dominated, )The city of Toledo is preparing a letter to his employer seeking to determine whether he is violating city codes, and the plumbers union is on his tail. He opened his beliefs on politics.   White people are also charged with sexual harassment both male and female. If a black person acting and dressing like Obama or MS Rice they also would get to drive the RR. I get the sense that you discriminate against hetero normative male-dominated white-dominated. It is only dominated because they are a majority.