Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Any Other Gay Objectivists Out There?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On the member's listing page, click the button that says "Toggle More options". One of the filters is "Sexual Orientation".

Very few people give an answer to that question in their profiles :)

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a few years ago coming across a website that was an organization of G&L Oists.

The Rattigan Society Foundation

The Rattigan Society Foundation for gay and lesbian Objectivists is devoted to providing an alternative to the collectivist voices of the gay and lesbian community.

the website is down atm, but i hope that is something of interest

Edited by athena glaukopis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are probably hundreds of gay Objectivists out there. I've met a dozen or so personally and have seen dozens more on internet chat forums. Check out Objectivism Online (member search using the Sexual Orientation filter), The Atlasphere, the SOLO Passion website, Rebirth of Reason, and other forums. There are a number of publicly gay folks at SOLO Passion, in part because the website's owner is gay (though I would steer clear of him because he's an asshole).

Best of Luck.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few people give an answer to that question in their profiles :D

Interesting. Do you think they would be more likely to provide that information in a thread titled as such? Less people look at profiles than threads (I would think) and you would have to notice that in the profile as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I was wondering about the Rattigan society myself. For instance, they have a group on Facebook, but there are only two people in it!

In Peikoff's last podcast he addressed a question someone had asked, which was, "Why is there a proportionately high number of gays in Objectivism?" This question surprised me because it has not been my experience at all. If anything, I've found that most gays and lesbians are put off by Objectivism. If they knew more about Objectivism, perhaps they wouldn't be, as one of the underlying cores of Objectivism is figuring out what you want (rationally, not the whimsical) and living for yourself. I don't know about anyone else, but Objectivism helped me immensly during the coming out process in that it dissuaded me from forcing myself to be something I wasn't just to please other people.

Interestingly, on the other hand, I know a high number gay Christians. (Of the "liberal, new age-y, love everyone" Christian variety, not Christian conservatives.) Which, at its core, is all about sacrificing the truth of who you are (among other things) for the sake of other people. Or sadly, when I meet a potential new friend who identifies as a gay Objectivist, they over time reveal themselves to be libertarians with a poor understanding of how and why much of libertarianism isn't even compatable with Objectivism.

On a related note, I'm curious about the use of the word "homosexual" in Objectivism. That is, Objectivists seem to favor "homosexual" over the more current "gay/lesbian." I was wondering, is this intentional? Sure, you're only calling a spade a spade. I mean, we are homosexuals, so why not, right? But there seems to be certain ignorance of the history and context of the word. Mainly, we are more than who we sleep with. Being a "homo," as they say, is only a very small part of my life and philosophical outlook. To myself and most other people, "homosexual" is reminiscent of dated medical terminology and schoolyard slurs. That's seriously the first thing I think of when I hear "homosexual." Sure, it's what we are, but over the years the word has taken on a context that makes most people think of rightwing Christians (Pat Robertson on the 700 Club says "homosexual" all the time) or guys in white coats and thick glasses pouring over 1950s textbooks.

Using "homosexual" is just as dated as using "negro" when referring to a black person -- and I'm surprised that Objectivism either hasn't caught on to this or seems to be doing this intentionally to send some sort of message. So I'm curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this matter.

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-- and I'm surprised that Objectivism either hasn't caught on to this or seems to be doing this intentionally to send some sort of message. So I'm curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this matter.

Who you have sex with is the only essential differentia between straights and gays/lesbians, and while it is clinical sounding, it does serve a purpose, in that, it refers to both gay and lesbian people avoiding the burdensome "slash word" I had to use above.

It can be used in a pejorative sense, but so can gay and lesbian, so I guess I do not see the reason for your offense.

There is no conspiracy amongst objectivists, so far as I have been made aware. The only common causations I can come up with are either an unwillingness to keep up with every change in terminology caused by the political correctness crowd or a lack of knowledge that the term was no longer acceptable(which I was not aware of).

For myself, gay/lesbian conjures up thoughts of the GLBT rights stuff which always strikes me as anti-individualistic, tribal, group rights nonsense which I don't buy into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who you have sex with is the only essential differentia between straights and gays/lesbians, and while it is clinical sounding, it does serve a purpose, in that, it refers to both gay and lesbian people avoiding the burdensome "slash word" I had to use above.

Yes, "slash words" are cumbersome. I can buy that, though I'm not sure semantic laziness is a good enough reason to abandon it entirely. Rational lesbians (myself included) couldn't care less whether they're called gay or lesbian. For what it's worth, I don't know why "lesbian" even needs to be a word (what function does it serve?), but there ya go.

It can be used in a pejorative sense, but so can gay and lesbian, so I guess I do not see the reason for your offense.

How is gay/lesbian perjorative if it's what people want to be called? Again, if you can see why blacks prefer "black" to "negro," why not simply extend the same courtesy to gays? I just don't get why it's so complicated. No one's asking anyone to do anything labor intensive here. It's not "political correctness" run amok, it's basic respect. For instance, it is also semantically correct to refer to people with mental retardation as "idiots," but we don't do that anymore... and no one cries about being forced into "political correctness" over that one.

There is no conspiracy amongst objectivists, so far as I have been made aware. The only common causations I can come up with are either an unwillingness to keep up with every change in terminology caused by the political correctness crowd or a lack of knowledge that the term was no longer acceptable(which I was not aware of).

But "gay" isn't one of those recent trends that people defer to out of political correctness. The word has been around for almost a century. It's not like it's a word that's constantly being updated to fit an agenda, or that anyone's demanding it be changed every five minutes (unless you're dealing with the "GLBT" crowd -- see below).

For myself, gay/lesbian conjures up thoughts of the GLBT rights stuff which always strikes me as anti-individualistic, tribal, group rights nonsense which I don't buy into.

And for myself, "homosexual" conjures up the rightwing Christian mindset, or as I said the "homo" playground insults, which in practice is just as collectivist as the "GLBT" stuff. Which, by the way, I am also against for the reasons you mentioned... and then some. "Gay" is not the same as the GLBT nonsense, and that's where I personally draw the line.

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a case of "you say tomato, I say fabulous shade of red I would love to have a pair of shoes in."

I don't have any problem using the term "homosexual" to describe myself because whenever I am using that word, I am speaking in the context of sexuality. It's not like whenever I discuss, say, the morality of taxation that I say "well, as a homosexual tax payer, I think..."

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is gay/lesbian perjorative if it's what people want to be called? Again, if you can see why blacks prefer "black" to "negro," why not simply extend the same courtesy to gays?

It isn't inherently. Only meant that it can be...as in "Dude, that's so gay!" or "You're a gaywad!" My point was mainly that 'homosexual' does not inherently imply the chritian right tone of voice with it, anymore then gay implies the schoolyard name calling.

Blacks went from 'nigger'(where it wasn't a bad thing, just a description) to 'colored', to 'Negro', to 'African-American', to 'black', to 'nigga'(not in a bad way). This all happened over the course of a 150 years. So say it takes 30 years for an alteration in semantics to take hold across the board, on average. I've heard non-racist older people, say "colo-...I mean, afri-..., I mean, black people," when attempting to refer to blacks. Just because accepted use of a term changes in a particular culteral subset, does not mean that it will change everywhere as quickly.

But "gay" isn't one of those recent trends that people defer to out of political correctness. The word has been around for almost a century. It's not like it's a word that's constantly being updated to fit an agenda, or that anyone's demanding it be changed every five minutes (unless you're dealing with the "GLBT" crowd -- see below).

I realize that it's not, but people learn to identify things with words pretty early in life. It's a very automated process, so changing the habituation of millions of people doesn't happen quickly. More like generationally.

So say we change the word 'red' to 'blue'. Every time you see a red object, your inclination will be to say red. A conscious act would be necessary to force you to say blue for quite some time. So it's not that it's difficult, only that it is slow to change a habit, especially across the board.

And for myself, "homosexual" conjures up the rightwing Christian mindset, or as I said the "homo" playground insults, which in practice is just as collectivist as the "GLBT" stuff. Which, by the way, I am also against for the reasons you mentioned... and then some. "Gay" is not the same as the GLBT nonsense, and that's where I personally draw the line.

Cool. I agree.

Truthfully, this is the first time that I have heard that homosexual is not a preferred term, and I don't think of myself as being that old and out of touch, yet. So I would just give it time. I would bet though that as soon as everyone uses the gay term ubiquitously, another term will be considered more appropriate. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer "fucking queer!", or sometimes "You're a girl," but that's what everyone called me when I was younger, so I'm partial to it. :wacko:

Really, though, everything homosexual has a negative connotation to it for loads of people, somewhere. I have normalized every term, including the generally accepted "mean" ones, like "fag," though that one was on its way out by the time it mattered in my life. Now, if I hear some idiot try to insult by gay-accusing, it seems oh-so-futile, and I kind of feel sorry that he doesn't understand the automatic failure from his efforts.

Personally, I use whatever word sounds best in whatever sentence I'm constructing that involves the gays. I see no advantage, from any everyday viewpoint, in using one word over another. (Though I guess it would be odd for a scientist to discuss the "fags" in his study on homosexual behavior in early childhood.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I use whatever word sounds best in whatever sentence I'm constructing that involves the gays.

Yeah, I pretty much do the same. For instance, I might say something like "the homosexuality of so and so" because that rolls off the tongue easier / sounds more natural than "the gayness of so and so." "Gay" is preferred, but "homosexual" still has its place given the context of the sentance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a related note, I'm curious about the use of the word "homosexual" in Objectivism. That is, Objectivists seem to favor "homosexual" over the more current "gay/lesbian." I was wondering, is this intentional?

Using "homosexual" is just as dated as using "negro" when referring to a black person -- and I'm surprised that Objectivism either hasn't caught on to this or seems to be doing this intentionally to send some sort of message. So I'm curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this matter.

An interesting discussion. I'm new to the Forum, but a thing I have noticed is that many Objectivists have a tendency to quote Ayn Rand as Christians quote from the Bible. Rand was not completely comfortable discussing human sexuality in her novels or her essays. (Is this heresy?) She used the term "homosexual" exclusively. Her writing was before "gay" and "lesbian" were the preferred terms. Students of Objectivism who enter into philosophical discussions of sexuality are inclined to use Rand's own terminology.

I find that the only time I ever use the term, "thug," is when I in a philosophical discussion. ES

Edited by softwareNerd
Fixed quote tag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... it is HER philosophy. Who should we quote? Gilbert Gottfried?

Gilbert can be pretty funny at times. The point was that "we" students tend to use her phraseology instead of our own. Hence, the use of the term "homosexual" and not "gay" or "lesbian." Many discussions among Objectists seem to have an air of biblical scholars quoting scripture at each other; and I hasten to add that this one does not. ES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when is homosexual a bad word? Is heterosexual a bad word too? Are those not the technical terms we should be using? Gay means happy. Lesbian means you're from Lesbos. Just because those two words were hijacked by a certain group of people, why does that make the technical terms bad? Why is it that "minorities" keep changing what they want to be called and if the rest of us miss the press release, we're labeled something bad? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that "minorities" keep changing what they want to be called

Because liberals lack self-esteem and therefore, self-identity. Liberal minorities find comfort in their labeling because it makes them feel like they belong because they don't know how to be an individual :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually what happens is the new word becomes a perjorative and eventually the liberal interest group becomes offended by it as well.

For example, you couldn't use "bum" but had to use "homeless" but those who have contempt for bums/homeless started using "homeless" with a sneering tone, so it's only a matter of time before they pick a new word to describe the bums or homeless.

Urban outdoorsmen? Differently sheltered?

What is happening is that people are trying to gain unearned (or earned but unjustly denied) respect by insisting that you change the word they are described by, thinking that the new word will magically call respect to occur.

BTW I thought "Black" was the preferred term before "African American" contra to what AequalsA implied in his post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tabitha,

Thank you for your input. You said everything that I was going to say. I think part of the reason why some Objectivists still use the term "Homosexual" is because they are of another generation. Many first generation Objectivists grew up in the Rand era. Such people generally think saying "Homosexual" is more elevated and or proper as apposed to the language of the general population. I prefer Gay over Homosexual too, but I usually do not take offense over it. I think as we see more younger Objectivists appear, this minor issue will fade.

Edited by Donovan.A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...