Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
By now I'm sure most of you have heard the vile comments from Tim Hardaway about how much he hates gays. I thought John Amaechi's response was very interesting:
''His words pollute the atmosphere,'' Amaechi said. ''It creates an atmosphere that allows young gays and lesbians to be harassed in school, creates an atmosphere where in 33 states you can lose your job, and where anti-gay and lesbian issues are used for political gain. It's an atmosphere that hurts all of us, not just gay people.''
A very important point: it hurts us all, not just gays. It hurts us not just because we have friends who are gay who are hurt by it, but because it makes out entire society less tolerant. I think it's also interesting that Amaechi said that the responses he had received on his website and at his foundation had been overwhelmingly positive until Hardaway made his comments, which then brought the nuts out of the woodwork. After that point, he said, he began receiving hateful messages as well as many threats of violence.
Amaechi was also on Bill Maher's show last night and I found his interview very interesting. Asked about Hardaway's comments there, he said that he was actually glad that he said those things because it put the lie to those people who say that we shouldn't be making a big deal about this because homophobia is so marginalized in America and on the wane. I think he's right. But he said a couple of other very interesting things as well.
He commented, for example, about his teammates coming in to the locker rooms with their "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets on, bragging about the 3 women they'd shagged the night before (Amaechi is British, so yes, he actually said "shagged"). And asked whether he knew of other gay NBA players and whether they formed a support system for one another, he answered that yes he did know of other gay players in the NBA, some of whom he became friends with and some he didn't. And then he said something very important: that if the only thing he had in common with someone was that they were gay, that's not much to make a friendship out of.
This is an enormously important statement, I think, because it brings to light the fact that being gay is only one small aspect of who someone is. And while all gay people may to some degree have a shared perspective that comes from dealing with many of the same problems in society, that's still not much to go on. When it comes right down to it, all gay people have no more in common than all straight people do, or all white people do, or all brown-haired people do.
Human beings are not defined by their sexual orientation, we are defined by a thousand other traits that are far more central to our identity. An intelligent, well read gay person has far more in common with an intelligent, well read straight person than they do with an ignorant, incurious gay person. And this goes back to an idea I have harped on time and time again, that as human beings we have a disturbing tendency to draw the lines in all the wrong places. We draw lines between us based on the most superficial traits - race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin.
What we need to do instead is draw those lines on the basis of much more important criteria. I don't consider all white people, or all non-religious people, or all Americans to be part of My Tribe. My Tribe is not defined that way. I define my tribe by much more important traits, like intelligence, open mindedness, intellectual curiosity, engagement in the world around us, basic decency toward others, empathy and other traits. If someone has those traits, they're in my tribe, and I simply don't care whether they're Christian or atheist, Muslim or Jew, gay or straight, black or white, American or German or Taiwanese.
John Amaechi and I do not share the same national origin, the same culture or the same sexual orientation, but he is in my tribe because he's intelligent, compassionate, ethical and engaged in trying to make the world a more hospitable place for all of us. Tim Hardaway and I may both be straight and we may both be Americans, but he isn't in my tribe because he's small-minded, bigoted, ignorant and too caught up in his own insecurities to give a damn about other people. When you draw the lines in the right place, you gain a lot of good people and get rid of a lot of dead weight.
Comments
Well said. Your clarity does your tribe of intelligent, open minded, decent people proud.
Posted by: Anuminous | February 17, 2007 9:58 AM
So apparently "Jesus" would go out and have meaningless recreational sex with multiple partners but wouldn't put up with a gay man?
"I'd like Bible thumping hypocracy for $1000 Alex."
Posted by: dogmeatIB | February 17, 2007 10:56 AM
" It hurts us not just because we have friends who are gay who are hurt by it, but because it makes out entire society less tolerant."
Not only less tolerant, but less just.
Posted by: dogscratcher | February 17, 2007 11:35 AM
You're right Ed, the religious right, like all homophobic bigots, always want to make it about sex. I am a heterosexual, and I will be the first to admit that the thought of sex with another man is an absolute turn-off. I don't want to see it, talk about it, think about it, let alone do it. But then, none of my gay friends has ever forced me to do any of those things, not even close. We only ever say and do the same things I enjoy doing with my straight friends, male or female--talk work, talk politics, talk movies, talk relationships, dine out, play sports, and so on. There is no reason to bring sex into the picture at all.
Hardaway probably played alongside at least one gay person in his career. What would have been different had he known who it was? Would he have been quivering in the corner of the locker room afraid he might any minute he might get jumped by the gay guy? Would he be living in fear of catching "the gayness" from his homosexual teammate? Hopefully the backlash from his comments will make him see just how ridiculous he's being. (Not that I hold out much hope.)
Posted by: tacitus | February 17, 2007 11:58 AM
tacitus-
Exactly right. I think about someone like Jason Kuznicki and I think, of all the traits that define who he is, why would the fact that he has sex with a man be the only one that matters to so many people? How about the fact that he's extraordinarily intelligent and well read? The fact that he can carry on a conversation about so many things? The fact that he's such a brilliant writer, or that he makes his own beer, or that he's spent time studying abroad and therefore has a thousand insights and experiences that you probably will never have but can experience vicariously through his stories? Those are the things that make people interesting, that make them good company; sexual orientation is so far down on the list as to be non-existent. But for some people, not only are all of those fascinating characteristics not on the list, there is no list. There's only one thing that defines him. To me it's every bit as ridiculous as deciding that all brown haired people are terrible and ignoring everything else about them. And in a way, when I'm not angry at those people, I feel sad for them. They're missing out on meeting a lot of great people, and doing so based on something so completely irrelevant to anything that matters.
Oscar Wilde famously said, "It is absurd to divide people into good and bad; people are either charming or tedious." By dividing people up into gay and straight, such people are preventing themselves from meeting and getting to know a great many charming people. And they're becoming quite tedious.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 17, 2007 12:34 PM
A lot of what's going on here is outgroup homogeneity bias, a cognitive bias (what Francis Bacon rather eloquently called an "idol") that makes us falsely expect that people we consider "not like us" should all have a lot in common (e.g. the Iranian government and Al-Qaeda are both anti-American, so they must be in cahoots with each other). When it comes to sexual orientation, it leads many straight people (even some who can consider themselves scientists) to assume that gay people all have a lot more in common than just the "polarity" of their sexual/romantic attractions, despite the fact that straight people, another group defined by "polarity," are highly diverse. There's this notion, for example, that all gay men share a "gay sensibility" (or that gay men who don't are deliberately suppressing it in an attempt to "pass"), yet there's no corresponding "straight sensibility" (defenders of the position will argue that there is, coming up with what's commonly called "jock," but most straight men don't meet the jock stereotype).
This bias leads to the assumption of essentialism, that the various not-us groups have "essences" that explain everything about them. Thus everything a gay man, for example, does is attributed as motivated by his homosexuality. This often leads to really strange double standards where a behavior that's considered desirable in in-group members is considered undesirable in out-group members when it occurs under the exact same circumstances (e.g. a bunch of kids are roughhousing on the playground. The white kids are "releasing their energy" while the black kids are "acting out powerful aggressions"). Thus when a gay man is polite or friendly to a homophobe, the homophobe assumes he's trying to get into his pants (I've always found it interesting that, while I suspect the psychological mechanisms are different, this perception is similar to the way pedophiles genuinely believe that pre-pubescent children are making deliberate sexual come-ons to them).
Posted by: ebohlman | February 17, 2007 1:34 PM
To rip-off Molly Ivins, " there are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't."
I understand the point you are making, Ed, with your talk of "your tribe". I don't think you really wish to divide people into little groups, but I respond out of a concern about where tribalism is likely to lead. It denies so much of our commonality. And the polarization it causes damages any community. Also, don't we all belong to a variety of different tribes. My next door neighbor is a right wing Limbaugh fan, but in the summer we talk for hours about softball and our gardens (particularly our tomatoes)
avoiding subjects like the war and anything remotely political. You are a civil libertarian and I rarely (if ever) disagree with your political opinions, but as a Maryland graduate and die hard Terp fan, I find the fact that you cheer for Duke an abomination. Now, Robert Novak is a huge Terp fan but he is revolting to me in almost every other way (he may not even be human, so he can have his own tribe). Obviously some things are far more important than others. It seems to me a liberal gay person might have more in common with me than he or she would with alot of log cabin Republicans. Everyone can set their own standards as to what is important (even if they're wrong).
Posted by: TomMil | February 17, 2007 2:41 PM
Serious praise for Amaechi. Two points:
Firstly, we Brits seriously do say shagged all the time. It is part of the language and doesn't sound nearly as silly when being said by someone who isn't Mike Myers.
Secondly, what I would love is to be talking to a gay person and just once for the topic of 'gayness' not to come up, because the very fact that it always creeps into the conversation implies to me that we are just not relaxed enough about it yet.
I know that if you are gay your sexuality is, due to the bigotry and narrow-mindedness of "we" straights, a more pressing concern on a daily basis than my sexuality is to me, so maybe that's why it always comes up. But I do sometimes wish it was as trivial a footnote to someone's character as their eye colour or nationality.
People like that Hardaway dick really need a good sound beating. Not because it is in any way constructive, but just because the bloke is clearly an A Grade arsehole with no more to offer the planet than anything I may flush down the toilet once a day. Prick.
Posted by: Matthew Young | February 17, 2007 3:09 PM
Matthew: I think you're (probably unconsciously) ignoring the way that heterosexuality gets "brought up" in everyday interactions; it's just so common that it becomes "part of the background" and we don't really notice it. Any time a straight person mentions his/her spouse, kids, wedding anniversary, views on the attractiveness of such-and-such a celebrity, etc. he or she is actually "coming out as straight." But since it's what we expect, it doesn't register on us that they're really talking about their sexuality.
It's the result of a mental filtering process that usually works quite well for us by limiting demands on our attention (brain research shows that it's no coincidence that we speak of "paying" attention; attention is actually a scarce resource), though it misleads us in some circumstances (anyone who has ever debugged a program or proofread a manuscript has spent hours "seeing" what they meant to write rather than what they actually wrote). And thus when a gay person does or says something that conveys his sexuality, even if it's the same sort of thing straight people do all the time, it grabs our attention and makes us think "why does he/she have to do that?"
Posted by: ebohlman | February 17, 2007 6:04 PM
If I don't want to hear it, I tell them. But then, I tell the same thing to everyone. An old friend of mine was recently divorced from 20 years of marriage. He can't stop telling everybody about all his new girlfriends and what they get up to. I told him, thanks, but I just don't want to know.
Posted by: tacitus | February 17, 2007 8:10 PM
More schools need to try Jane Elliott's experiment to drive that exact point home.
Posted by: moniker | February 17, 2007 9:05 PM
Matthew -
Secondly, what I would love is to be talking to a gay person and just once for the topic of 'gayness' not to come up, because the very fact that it always creeps into the conversation implies to me that we are just not relaxed enough about it yet.
I don't have that expierience at all. The vast majority of my friends are either gay or trans. About the only time the topic of either comes up, is when I mention something newsworthy, that relates to gays and/or trans people. I am secure in my sexuality and they in their's, there is little reason to talk about it much. I think the vast majority of the time it does come up, aside from the aforementioned, is when I ask about someones expierience, growing up gay or transexual.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 17, 2007 9:39 PM
I think you're (probably unconsciously) ignoring the way that heterosexuality gets "brought up" in everyday interactions; it's just so common that it becomes "part of the background" and we don't really notice it. Any time a straight person mentions his/her spouse, kids, wedding anniversary, views on the attractiveness of such-and-such a celebrity, etc. he or she is actually "coming out as straight." But since it's what we expect, it doesn't register on us that they're really talking about their sexuality.
Very true.
As an experiment, try posting on a social message board and not revealing your gender.
Never say husband or wife, girlfriend or boyfriend; never mention certain health concerns; don't mention height or weight...
Posted by: khan | February 18, 2007 9:53 AM
"I define my tribe by much more important traits, like intelligence, open mindedness, intellectual curiosity, engagement in the world around us, basic decency toward others, empathy and other traits."
I share your view on this entirely.
I also believe that historical tribalism and religious fundamentalism are intimately related phenomenon. Both attribute great significance to immediately apparent, 'surface' characteristics and both tend to be hostile toward a curiosity that moves us toward more nuanced, deeper and broader observation of ourselves and the world.
And, in my opinion, historical tribalism entails a kind of creature 'literalism' that also works against decency. A deep sense of decency inclines us to search more deeply and honestly and searching more deeply and honestly generally inclines us to live as more decent human beings. The more fundamentalist, literalist and tribal a person is, the less they seem able to look at the underlying motives and heart of another human being. The more decent the underlying heart, the more attentive an individual tends to be to those qualities that are not as easily and immediately perceived in others.
As a Christian, I often find a greater sense of kinship with many atheists who are good-hearted, compassionate, honest and curious than I do with any 'public' Christian who is usually just another indecent, primitive tribalist in my book.
Posted by: dr x | February 18, 2007 1:19 PM
That's not quite what I meant. I meant actual, direct discussion of homosexuality. I find it's happening less and less as I get older, but it is still more common than I would expect.
Please not, though, this is absolutely not a sign of a 'don't ask, don't tell' stance either. I have no issue with gay people, and no issue with talking about it, I just notice that it still does come up a lot. But then, of the gay people I hang around with most regularly, one works in the Scottish Parliament, one is an engineer and one works in training in some field or other, so perhaps the fact that things like parliamentary stuff and engineering are still pretty white, hetero male dominated (they are over here, anyway) means that it is an issue for them more often.
If DuWayne moves in a circle where there are a lot more gay people then I would imagine it becomes far less of an issue.
I am not posting any actual opinions here really, just thinking out loud.
Posted by: Matthew Young | February 18, 2007 4:14 PM
Here's a quote from Amaechi:
"Finally, someone [Harddaway] who is honest. It is ridiculous, absurd, petty, bigoted and shows a lack of empathy that is gargantuan and unfathomable. But it is honest. And it illustrates the problem better than any of the fuzzy language other people have used so far."
Posted by: David C. Brayton | February 25, 2007 1:52 PM