This is something that minorities have been doing for ages, and it drives me 'round the bend. Granted, there are some cases where someone should have certain qualifications before speaking on a topic. But I think the pervading qualification here should be knowledge.
Instead, we seem to insist that the person who is speaking about a minority subject be, themselves, a minority. I'm going to mention a recent topic, which I know very little about, mind, as a point of reference.
An individual was posting about how frequently disabled children get murdered by their own family and how the media representation is terrible and portrays the family as having had extenuating circumstances (the disability of the child) that makes it okay. Now, this is not a subject I can speak on. It's something I know little about. But this person (The pronouns this individual uses are ou by the way) had Google alarms set to alert ou whenever a news article popped up about a disabled person who had been killed by their family. Ou had clearly done an extensive amount of research into this topic, and there's reason to believe based on the comments and what this person wrote ouself that the reason ou felt so strongly about it is because ou had a disability.
However, the comments seemed to believe that because this person could be considered high functioning, this disability was not strong enough for ou to be speaking on behalf of the individuals ou was referencing.
... Are... you FUCKING KIDDING ME.
I should really know better by now. Never read the comments. It's a rule. And what did I do? I read the comments. And now I feel worse about humanity.
You see, individuals in minority groups get spoken for a lot. And they get sick of it. Because a lot of the time, it's an individual who is not qualified and is making a sweeping, inaccurate, generalization. As a member of the LGBT community, I do understand. There are definitely times that I feel over-generalized by people who should have kept their fucking mouth shut. However, I'm thinking of, for example, someone like Westboro Baptist Church. I'm thinking of my old Southern Baptist church, who said things like, it wasn't gay people's fault they were on the road to Hell, because the Devil was working in their lives and they just needed to be Saved (clearly gay people couldn't be Christians). I'm thinking of the people that think that lesbians just haven't been fucked by the right man yet. I'm thinking of the people who say that gay men might well as be women. I'm thinking of all the awful people who aren't trying to help.
This person was trying to help. I don't understand what reason someone could possibly have for saying that ou's opinion was invalid. Not only was ou actually a member of this minority group, ou was trying to bring awareness to the issue.
That'd be like saying bisexuals can pass, so they don't know what it's like to have a gay relationship, so they can't speak to gay experiences. They wouldn't have to come out, so you know, they don't know how scary the coming out process is.
Do you know what that is? That's biphobia. And yes, people do make these claims.
Why are we fighting about whether someone has had enough experience to make a claim in support of our cause? What is with the fucked-up dick-measuring contest to see who's had the worst minority experience, and is therefore the most qualified?
I guarantee you someone is going to take offense to the fact that I called it a "dick-measuring contest" because that's "heteronormative" and "cisnormative." And you know what? It totally is. But why do we have to pick apart what even supporters say in an effort to prove who's the better activist? Why is it that Macklemore does so much to open people's eyes to white privilege and class privilege, and "I can't listen to his music because he's misogynistic."
And yet, on the other hand, even if he did say something in support of women, would it turn into what happened to the individual who wrote that blog? Macklemore's not part of the female minority, and therefore cannot understand the female experience, so he shouldn't talk about it? I mean this author was someone who had a disability and because ou was on the "high functioning" end, ou apparently didn't have the right to talk about individuals who were on the lower end of the scale (apparently only people on the low functioning side were at risk of being killed by their parents). So what, really, would happen if this was someone who was an activist, but straight, white, middle-class male? How much are we really going to let them say if minorities aren't even letting someone in their own minority group talk about their experiences?
It's a juxtaposition that I've never understood. If someone wants to help, let them help. And if they do something wrong, tell them. But if they do something right even though they don't have your experiences, don't get pissed off at them.
Don't get me wrong; people who have experienced an issue have more right to talk about the subject than those who have not, because they are drawing from personal experience. But does that mean that those who have not had those experiences have no right? If that's the case, then why do we teach about minority issues in college? If we are never going to be allowed to talk about a subject that is not directly relating to our own personal experiences, then why do we bother learning anything?
I just don't get it. I really don't. Because on the other hand, my schooling has taught me so many things that people assume are true that aren't. And it's also taught me that colloquialisms mean nothing. Your personal truth is your personal truth, and it will never be universally applicable. I've never gotten beaten up for being gay, so I guess no one has, right?
There comes a time when activism means holding a solid front against a common enemy, and that's never going to happen if we keep insisting that no one can speak on behalf of our cause except for people who are in our club. It's petty and insulting to the people who study these issues. Here was a person who had a running Google News feed of nothing but horrific death, who was traumatizing ouself in an effort to stay educated and to educate others. And yet a good half of the comments are nothing but people shitting on this person's qualifications. I guess since the author isn't qualified to speak on this issue, so it makes those deaths okay, right?
No, you tool. It doesn't. So why again are you complaining?
