Two of the most ill-informed
defenses of homophobia, racism, and general bigotry: 1) "Why should their
beliefs be challenged? What they believe is their own business and their own
right," and 2) "What's so wrong with taking your own side?"
The first excuse might hold a
little more weight if bigotry toward marginalized groups were entirely self-contained
and didn't actually affect said groups. But in reality, these attitudes don't
exist in a vacuum. They have a huge impact on the way members of privileged
groups treat other people. It makes a difference not only in interactions, but
also voting habits and laws. Additionally, it influences the way parents raise
their children. Raising a child with bigotry not only perpetuates the cycle; it
also has hugely damaging consequences if the kid happens to be a member of a
group that the parents hate. An obvious example would be homophobic parents of
a gay kid. And following up the "How is it anybody else's business?"
defense with "They have a right to their own beliefs, so their opinions
shouldn't be challenged" is based on a glaring misconception. It falsely
equates having the right to your own beliefs with having the "right"
to live one's entire life without ever hearing those beliefs questioned. Yes,
people have the right to be as bigoted as they please, but it's still a
terrible perspective. And the freedom of speech afforded to those of us who are
averse to such bigotry means that we have the right to openly disagree.
The second argument, "What's wrong
with taking your own side?", is less of an excuse and more of an outright
attempt at justification. When a member of a privileged class decides to attack
those who are unprivileged, they are not "taking their own side."
They are targeting marginalized groups of which they are not a part. You can
care about the safety and well-being of people in your own group without being
hostile toward outsiders. But misogynistic, white supremacist, classist, and
LGBT-phobic people always define themselves by their hatred of disadvantaged
populations, rather than defining themselves simply by their concern for
straight, rich, non-trans, and white peers (who are not being collectively oppressed for those
traits, even if they have problems as individuals). And in calling that
"their own side," they are the ones conflating white people
with white supremacy, straight people with homophobia, men with misogyny, rich
people with classism, cisgender (non-trans) people with transphobia, and more.
It's ironic, because that's exactly what they accuse their critics of doing.
