Rape Accusations, LGBT “Choice”, and Emotional Dimwits
In a discussion about rape, assault, and attitudes about them, a writer asked:
“When have you known a woman to benefit in any lasting way from accusing a man of rape? What would be the motivation to risk undermining one’s life, knowing full well how much scrutiny, innuendo and lies they are likely to be subjected to?”
—
This excellent question puts me in mind of another, one I less often now have to ask, to those who as yet insist that sexual/gender identity is a choice.
Why would anyone choose to live a life of possible if not probable social condemnation, living in social and professional shadows, choose a life of ginding discrimination?
The possible answers are two:
. lgbt people do not, in fact, choose their orientation, or
. lgbt people are, and fairly well all of them and everywhere, plain insane.
Neither explanation makes sense.
That many men imagine that the accuser in rape/assault situations points her finger lightly, that the societal sanctions for making the accusations of rape and assault are relatively mild ones and do not come with extraordinary sadness and genuine risk, familial, social, professional risk and consequence…also makes no sense.
For those risks and consequences are profound and lasting and men who don’t grasp this are emotional and cultural dimwits, having no place in substantive policy debate.
07/06/2019 @ 11:12 am
People who think that are trying to “weaponize” the reporting of rape or assault. They can then use the simple reporting as a counterbalance to the fact that rape/assault is an actual brutal weapon used to dominate and harm.
The people who think “gender identity and orientation” are a “choice” are never willing to ask themselves if/when they “chose” to be straight.
07/06/2019 @ 1:49 pm
Yes, Amy, bc just asking that question upends their (realised or no) sense of nature/god.
07/06/2019 @ 1:43 pm
The fact that I did not choose to be straight is where I start that discussion. The argument about LGBT choice is the one argument I’ve actually been able to win when talking to conservatives, particularly conservatives who got that choice bullshit from church.
I use the example of highly religious gay people, people who are convinced that God does not approve of homosexuality and who desperately want God’s approval because their lives center around it. They hate who they are. How could one add insult to injury and say they chose this? To them, all it brings is agony and rejection because of their religious beliefs.
Or I say this:
Let’s say God came down and changed His mind, saying something like: “You’re overpopulated, so I’m changing the rules. I now approve of homosexual relationships but disapprove of heterosexual relationships.” Would you be able to reject your heterosexual romantic/sexual relationships and get involved in a homosexual relationship instead? Because that’s what you’re expecting from gay people. However you look at this, don’t ever look at this like it’s facile.
The reason churches push choice as an explanation is that it puts responsibility on gays and takes it off God. If it is on God, then you can’t assume God disapproves of homosexuality and you have to have a closer look at exactly what Scripture might mean that you don’t currently think it means.