“Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference”

I was trawling through Facebook last night when a status caught my attention. The status was from a school friend, about three tranies he has seen ‘twerking’ at his local supermarket. After checking Google search to investigate what ‘twerking’ was – a sexual dance – I returned to the status and scrolled down his comments. One comment disturbed me. This comment asserted that those who did not conform to typical female and male sexual identities were ‘filth.’ This position had then been supported by the individual who made the status.  The comments that followed these statements strongly disagreed with this statement.

One individual noted how surprised they were that such statements could be made after the passing of the Marriage Equality Bill on the 17^th of April. But why were they surprised? Did we expect that the passing of the bill was going to result in a change in public opinion, or a change in public discourse? I expect some of us did. I however did not, for as Thomas Reed, the former US politician once noted, ‘One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in the world are to be cured by legislation.’ The Facebook debate proved this point, the passing of the bill did not change the public perception. In this regard National MP, Jonathon Young spoke truthfully when he noted on the 17^th the bill “is not as clear as many people think ... I believe our society is more divided than this house is on this issue.”

I agree with this position, since I have seen little consensus in the circles I am part of, especially in those with a Christian influence. This is not surprising given that Christians have been consistently critical of any legislation legitimating the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Queer/Questioning) community. To frame it another way Christians have consistently been against any move which gives rights to LGBTQ individuals. That being said, there have been some local churches that have supported the LGBTQ. Although this has often been due to having LGBTQ individuals in their congregation, i.e. the (in)famous St. Matthews. The majority of supporters though are youth with a Jesus complex and a mentality of ‘WWJD?’ (What Would Jesus Do?). Such a position amounts to little when there is no action accompanying the slogan.

Despite there being vocal Christians on both sides, the majority are silent. Christians are conservative about being conservative. Although this is preferable to the traditional tactics of calling down fire and brimstone on God’s behalf, and employing outdated dictums phrases – such as ‘God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’. There is no doubt though that these approaches are still inadequate. As Green MP, Kevin Hague said shortly during the third reading of the Marriage Equality Bill, ‘There is no room for nuance and middle ground. What history will record is whether you voted for inclusivity ... or against.’

These words mirror Desmond Tutu’s (former Anglican Bishop) during Apartheid, ‘If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.’ I bring up this challenging quote, since many individuals see parallels between the oppression of blacks and of sexual minorities. However, not everyone agrees, nor likes the comparison between the two.

This was evident in the Facebook debate mentioned earlier. Since the person who posted the status and called LGBTQ individuals ‘filth’ had African heritage. They noted that they would confront anyone who referred to them as ‘filth’. Yet, they saw no double-standard in this position. Despite the fact that African’s and African-American’s have been subjected to similar and sometimes worse labels, they were still unable to recognise, let alone sympathise with the oppression of the LGBTQ community.

Research into the oppression of the LGBTQ community is a relatively new field. In 1999, Town identified three practices which serve to undermine and oppress homosexuals in school settings. These being: silence; pathologisation (treating homosexuality as a disease); and group behaviour. All of these practices have been evident in the marriage equality debates.

Pathologisation is seen in the Facebook comment describing LGBTQ individuals as ‘filth’. The connotations of this description are of these individuals being dirty and deviant. Research done by Matthew Ripley in 2011, found that most heterosexual individuals conflate, that is combine, sexual practice and sexual orientation. In other words homosexuals are defined by their homosexual acts.

In sociological terms they are ‘marked’, in other words distinguished or discriminated from the rest of society. This makes it ‘us’ and ‘them’. Proof of this thinking is seen in how LGBTQ individuals are seen as ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal’. While heterosexuals are (seen without question as being) ‘natural’ and ‘normal’. Sexual binaries like this are not only unhelpful and untrue, but deeply offensive to the LGBTQ community.

In the Facebook debate mentioned earlier, conflation and sexual binaries were both used by those against the LGBTQ community. I am sure that if you as a reader think back to the conversations you have on this topic you will find both tactics being used. I encourage you as a reader to look out for these tactics in the future, and to challenge them. The use of these tactics calls for new discourses, meaning new ways of talking about and with sexual minorities.

New discourses though will need to be informed by these sexual minorities. For discourses which do not consult with these minorities will risk misleading the public and misrepresenting these individuals. Therefore what is needed is for the public to not only tolerate, nor to just accept the LGBTQ community, but to relate with them. This will start to work on the root problem – our attitudes. This problem comes back to the title of this piece, which is a statement made by Winston Churchill. This statement recognises the impact our attitude makes, for our attitudes inform our thoughts, which in turn inform our speech with others. Our speech however also impacts on how we relate with others. This leads us to Town’s third practice whether oppression against homosexuals, is done through ‘group behaviour’.

Group behaviour is influenced and informed by the current discourses or lack of discourses. This is witnessed  in Town’s two other practices of homosexual oppression; silence, and pathologies of homosexuals. This relates to research undertaken by DePalma and Elizabeth Atkinson in 2010. They noted that group behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals is influenced by institutional homophobia and therefore nothing but institutional policy will change public sexual discourse and policy. This policy they assert would have to be made into legislation.

Now as I said earlier, legislation is inadequate to change public discourses and mindsets. So let me explain myself in this supposed contradiction. Laws such as the Marriage Equality Act are inadequate by themself, but when combined with governmental education, enforcement and intervention they can be successful in effecting change. In relation to this point DePalma refers to the success of the racism campaign that followed the murder of the British black male, Stephen Lawrence in 1993. They suggest that if homophobia was confronted through education, as racism was, that homophobia could be dealt with.

DePalma believes that the education of children in the correct discourses and the (re)education of adults in appropriate discourses will bring about a ‘conceptual shift’. By conceptual shift they mean  a change in the way society thinks about the LGBTQ community. This point was also stated by Chris Auchinvole on the 17^th shortly before the vote was cast. Where Auchinvole alleged that public discussion would be the ‘beginning of a change process’.

I agree with Auchinvole, but I believe this process must not only be discussed in ‘our homes’ and ‘our churches’ as he puts it, but also in our institutions, which includes schools and businesses, and throughout the nation. But also I assert that the discussion must not only include the LGBTQ community into the discussions, but that the discussions must be informed and chaired by them. This will need to initiated and funded by the government, and must make use of the media, through the use of radio talk nations, current affairs TV shows, advertising campaigns and public meetings. This will help remove the entrenched homophobic discourses in society and the resulting stigmas attached to LGBTQ identities.

Therefore, although the Marriage Equality is a good start, further policy and legislation is needed to educate the public. Only intervention at the institutional level will bring about change at a societal level. But don’t forget you are part of society, you can choose to be informed by and to inform society. To paraphrase Churchill, your attitude is a little thing that can make a big difference. Your attitude matters.