I've submitted my answers, but I agree that I found a few of the questions too vaguely-worded and hard to answer.
The fact that you don't judge people based on their sexuality means you're not homophobic, which seems to be what the survey was trying to determine. Stereotyping is about judging people without actually knowing them, so if you're not doing that, that's a good sign.
That said, while I agree that perhaps the survey should use wording like "people who experience same-sex attraction" instead of "gay people," the comment that straight and gay people don't exist seems like a silly statement to me. Plenty of people outright define themselves as being gay/straight/bisexual/pansexual/etc. Saying "x people don't exist" is actually pretty invalidating and rude, because there are plenty of people who identify that way, and it's safe to say they know themselves better than we do. If you want to get into how labels are meaningless, that's another subject, but labels are pretty darn important to a lot of people.
Also, those are adjectives, not nouns - few people seriously identify themselves as being "a gay" the same way trans people do not identify as "a transgender" and I do not generally identify as "a Jew."
Otherwise agreed with your post for the most part.
~Psychic
Thanks for the reply. I actually did not articulate my point that clearly! But your response has helped me identify how to present my argument more clearly.
The one issue I have is that homophobia is not a good term to research. Heteronormativity is perhaps a more useful measure. The reason being, in society we can be "nice" to gay people, but still oppress them by constructing a social idenity grouping.
Though, many embrace the social constructed group identity; group identity is a limitation and is often what we do to feel normalized within a society in which a group is othered. There is an issue with hate against people with the same genitals having relationships; however, it is the very issue of constructing an other group that is the actual underlying problem.
For instance, we can Joe Feagan, the leading race scholar, has termed "white racial framework" to EXPLAIN the construction of racial hierachy and the behavior of all people in the United States who have no choice but to participate in it. Some people resist the framework, but must work within that framework to either negotiate its terms or to overthrow it with political revolution...ie Black Lives Matter. Measuring for "racism" is futile, and often ignores how race is in the consciousness and impacts the behaviors of even well-intentioned liberals who often vote and support policy that suppresses minority groups which have been historically, socially, and politically constructed.
The problem I have with this research question is that it lacks a good FRAMEWORK! Frameworks are employed to EXPLAIN and UNDERSTAND social reality objectively/intersubjectively rather than subjectively. This research aim is superficial in that it relies upon the responses on a likert scale regarding "homophobia" and fails to acknowledge how the lived experience of a LGBTQ person is largely determined by the way we are categorized and how policy/research/advocacy is often speaking on our behalf as a monolithic group.
I am a big believer in the critical scientfic studies because the aim is to understand the ideology which governs people rational decision making process. Thus, Critical Scientific Studies actual describe why social phenomenon are constructed the way they are and how they operate. Asking individuals about homophobia does not provide us with that information, and can mislead us into believing if homophobia (defined by society) is going down, then we are less heteronormative -- or oppressive. It does not give much explanation at all.
For instance, OVERT racism has generally gone down in the United States since Jim Crow (even taking into account the Trumpsters). However, the white racial framework, the ideological perspective in which actors make choices regarding white superiority in hiring, housing, sentencing, among numerous other sectors has been maintained and reified. In Michelle Alexander's book, the New Jim Crow, she uses a critical framework, similar to Foucault, to explain why the white racial frame of racism is more colorblind, unconscious, and thus harder to resist and change since we live in segregated communities and imprison black people and as a result we are often unable to understand how our current society is maintaining, nor decreasing, in radicalized hierarchy. Even looking at wealth rates, black demographics continue to acquire wealth, which impacts their children and their children's children.
Likewise, how much power do gay individuals have? I have an issue when research and public discourse focuses on the wrong questions. Foucault explains this process in Discipline and Punish. With the construction of the French Prison System society is allowed to punish individuals behind bars, rather than public displays of torture. Society used to have to condone torture, but now society just has to be ignorant of it (but implicitly embrace it). We continue to operate under false consciousness when the epistemological function of "torture" is the same, it is just taking a different form. Futhermore, individuals in society often discipline themselves in order to adhere to laws or norms. As such, out-groups often are "normalized" by the pressure of the dominant norms (heteronormativity) or (whiteness) as being the desirable lifestyle. In that way, what whiteness and heteronormativite values could contain both good and bad norms, but we never actually interrogate them or HAVE CHOICE as to why we self-discipline. Thus why cultural hegemony does not allow for either knowledge or choice -- which is needed for freedom. Even for "straight white men"
good values are often chosen for them, and they either strive to achieve them and succeed/fail or resist them and are punished by society. The lack of public consciousness as to why these are they way they are and what ideologies and values drive their own behavior is exactly what I have an issue with in this research, and most other research that is being funded by the very education system which indoctrinates children into being unquestioning capitalists and nationalists.
It seems like when I explain this to people, they shrug it off or think I am being mean. In actuality, the conventions of social science are normalizing value systems as being true, good, and unchanging. As such, by ignoring these value systems they are failing to allow for individuals to understand themselves and society they are placed. Moreover, they are participating in subjectivity, supporting values as being good without justification or acknowledgment!!! Through objective description of reality (unveiling ideological systems that govern rational discourse) we can achieve inter-subjectivity (discuss these ideological systems and form consensus rationally). We cannot be rational or even caring for that matter without truth -- objectivity as researchers.
It's depressing as a critical theorist, since we are ignored even though we provide rigorous methods and justify our choices rather than sweeping subjective and oppressive ideology under the rug.
On a personal note, I am tired of other people creating standards as to what tolerance is and is not. What identity is and is not. Identity should be universal as a goal -- human. We need to take away the power of domination through the terms of group identity and group representation. Objective knowledge of reality allow for the collective of individuals in society to participate in public discourse rationally. Rather than individuals who regurgitate values systems unconsciously. Researchers have an ethical obligation to be objective, but often fall victim to the institutional rewards and punishments, thus resorting to subjectivism more often than not. Gender and sexuality is EXTREMELY suppressed, and we CANNOT be COMPLETELY free to express our individual gender and sexuality when we live have social coercion. What I was trying to express is that "gay" sexual orientation is in many ways a boundary marker. First off, it demonstrates that each individual is adhering to a gender binary. Gender and sexual orientation if truly expressive should be something that is not influenced by unconscious ideology. To identify as "gay" or "straight" is false consciousness. This is the very difficult thing about being a good social scientist, we have to criticize ideological systems that bound identity. As such, we have to point out the objective fact that individuals who ascribed to identities are often limited by making unconscious choices from the social norms that surround them. This includes me! We have little choice on what we can value and express when we live in the sort of world we live in where value is often decided for us. The normative aim of my research is to provide objective knowledge and let individuals be truly free to communicate with others and create social value CONSCIOUSLY.
What I actually meant by "x people do not exist" is more along the lines that "x people exist because of y". The y is the ideological construction toward a particular aim of elites. Ideally, conscious society would consider, " I am x...x is defined by my reflection of myself and an ideology in which I have constructed through my social interractions with other conscious and rational individuals rather than elites or groups...I my own identity is unique and others have unique identities which ought to be respected so long as those values are no oppressing others ability to express themselves freely.
" I advocate that individuals need to construct y, and y is an expression of an ideological perspective that values ought not be oppressive or being oppressed and should strive to be fully conscious in order to KNOW that they are not oppressive or being oppressed. Please do not consider my critique to be rude by denying others the ability to self-label...that is actually what I am trying to advocate for!!! [I hope I explained myself better :) ]
Let me know what you (and others) think. Also, I should clarify that "gay" and "straight" identities DO EXIST in our social context, but I want to explain why and how they exist, and critique their existence as a form of control and coercion that suppress true individualistic identity formation. My thesis is that we can only be truly collective as individuals. We can only be truly individuals when we are fully collective. Of course, these are ideals to which we should aim, perhaps something we can progress toward but never fully. We often choose identity from what is provided by society, and the values laden in them, but these value systems are often never able to be challenged, and thus the group identities are often not challenged. Where is the choice in that?
