yourlecturer

Warren J. Blumenfeld

It is often said that, in t h e midst of misfortune, something unexpectedly valuable arises, and this h a s indeed been my experience. While traveling alone t h r o u g h Scandinavia one summer, I began to lose the vision in both my eyes. W h e n I reached Denmark, I went to a hospital for a n evaluation, and, after a n u m b e r of tests, a physician notified m e t h a t my retinas h a d detached, probably because of a congenital defect. She advised immediate surgery to prevent f u r t h e r deterioration, and I was admitted to t h e Community Hospital in Copenhagen,

The next day, my sister, Susan, flew to Copenhagen to be with m e for w h a t turned out to be nearly two months.

That summer in this distant n o r t h e r n land, fearing t h e p e r m a n e n t loss of my vision, I lay in a n a r r o w hospital bed longing for friends a n d relatives back home. But as Susan sat w i t h m e day after day, giving her love, h e r courage, h e r h u m o r (and spectacular Danish pastries), s o m e t h i n g r e m a r k a b l e h a p p e n e d . Amid t h e bells of a distant c h u r c h tolling away the passing h o u r s , Susan and I genuinely got to know o n e a n o t h e r for the first time.

A l t h o u g h we inhabited t h e s a m e h o u s e for over seventeen years, t h e r e was always some unspoken tension between us, some wall keeping us apart. Having only eighteen months separating us in age, we attended the same schools and h a d similar peer grdups. For the first few years of o u r lives, we seemed to get along fine. We h a d a few friends in common, and we usually found time to play together most days. Our closeness, however, was soon to come to a n end.

By the time I reached the age of seven or eight, I was increasingly becoming the tar- get of harassment and attack by my peers, who perceived m e as someone w h o was differ- ent. Names like queer, sissy, little girl, and fag were thrown at m e like t h e large red ball the children hurled on t h e school yard in dodge ball games. During subsequent years, the sit-

, uation only got worse. I tried to avoid o t h e r children a n d increasingly kept to myself. Susan and I grew apart. Only w h e n we were both in o u r early twenties, about the time I went to Denmark, were we beginning to rediscover one a n o t h e r a n d to share t h e details of our lives.

While in college, I began to sort out how I had suffered as a gay m a l e u n d e r t h e force of homophobia, but until my hospitalization I h a d very little idea how it h a d also affected Susan growing u p as my heterosexually oriented younger sister. Smart, attractive,

outgoing, she appeared to have, at least f r o m my v a n t a g e point, plenty of friends a n d seemed to fit in. In Denmark, however, she confided to m e that, t h r o u g h o u t our school years, s h e was continually teased for h a v i n g a "faggot" brother. On one occasion, s h e recalled some of t h e older boys l a u g h i n g at her, asking if she were "like h e r brother." W h e n she witnessed other students harassing me, peer pressure, coupled with h e r own fear of becoming a target, compelled her to distance herself from m e by adding her voice to the chorus of insults. I felt betrayed, and at t h e time despised her for it.

Our time together in my hospital r o o m permitted us t h e needed c h a n c e to define the basis of our past estrangement, Through the tears, t h e apologies, t h e rage at having been raised in an oppressive environment, a n d the regrets over losing so m u c h precious time, we began the process of healing our relationship. As it turned out, my vision was not the only thing restored to m e t h a t summer.

This essay represents t h e growth of a seed planted in my mind back in D e n m a r k . It centers around one primary premise: within each of t h e n u m e r o u s forms of oppression, members of the target group (sometimes called "minority") are oppressed while o n some level members of t h e d o m i n a n t or agent group are h u r t . Although t h e effects of oppres- sion differ qualitatively for specific target a n d agent groups, in the end everyone loses.

Most of us hold simultaneous membership in a number of groups based, for example, on our personal and physical characteristics, o n o u r abilities and class backgrounds, and on our cultural, racial, or religious identifications. We may find ourselves both in groups targeted for oppression and in those d o m i n a n t groups granted relatively higher degrees of power and prestige. By examining how we are disadvantaged as well as looking at the privileges we have, we c a n develop empathy for individuals different from ourselves a n d create a basis for alliances.

This essay, therefore, is really about alliances: s u p p o r t for t h e m a i n t e n a n c e a n d strengthening of alliances where they currently exist and assistance in forging new ones where n o n e h a s existed before—specifically, alliances between and a m o n g lesbians, gay males, bisexuais, transgender people, a n d heterosexuals.

How Are LGBT People Oppressed by Homophobia?]

Lesbians, gay males, bisexuais, a n d t r a n s g e n d e r (LGBT) people—are a m o n g t h e m o s t despised groups in t h e United States today. Perhaps paradoxically, for m a n y in our soci- ety, love of sameness (i.e., /lomo-sexuality) makes people different, whereas love of differ- ence (i.e., /^em-sexuality) makes people the same.

Much h a s been written about t h e ways h o m o p h o b i a in m a n y Western cultures tar- gets LGBT people, r a n g i n g from negative beliefs about these groups (which may or may n o t be expressed), to exclusion, denial of civil and legal protections, and, in, some cases, overt acts of violence. Negative attitudes internalized by members of these groups often damage the spirit and stifle emotional growth.

Homophobia operates on four distinct but interrelated levels; t h e personal, the interper-' sonal, t h e institutional, and t h e cultural (also called the collective or societal) (Thompson a n d Zoloth 1989).

Persons/ homophobia refers to a personal belief system (a prejudice) t h a t LGBT people either deserve to be pitied as u n f o r t u n a t e beings who are powerless to control their desires or should be hated, t h a t they are psychologically disturbed, genetically defective, unfor- t u n a t e misfits, t h a t their existence contradicts t h e "laws" of nature, t h a t they are spiritu- ally immoral, infected pariahs, disgusting—to put it quite simply, t h a t they are generally inferior to heterosexuals.

Interpersonal homophobia is m a n i f e s t w h e n a p e r s o n a l bias or prejudice affects rela- tions among individuals, transforming prejudice into its active component—discrimina-

. , — • m i u u v c i y c j i c

tion. Examples of interpersonal homophobia are n a m e calling or "joke" telling intended to insult or defame individuals or groups; verbal and physical harassment and intimida- tion as well as more extreme forms of violence; the withholding of support, rejection, or abandonment by friends and other peers, coworkers, and family members; refusal of land- lords to r e n t apartments, shop owners to provide services, insurance companies to extend coverage, and employers to hire on the basis of actual or perceived sexual identity. And the list goes on,

A study by t h e National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) found t h a t more t h a n 9 0 percent of the respondents had experienced some form of victimization based on their sexual identity a n d t h a t over 3 3 percent h a d been t h r e a t e n e d directly w i t h violence; "More t h a n one in five males, and nearly one in ten females, say they were 'punched, hit, kicked, or beaten,' and approximately the same ratios suffered some form of police abuse. Assaults with weapons are reported by one in ten males and one in twenty females. Many of those w h o r e p o r t h a v i n g been harassed or assaulted f u r t h e r state t h a t incidents occurred multiple times" ( 1 9 8 4 , 4). Approximately one-third of t h e respondents were assaulted verbally, while more t h a n one in fifteen were physically abused by members of their own families.

Reports of violence directed against lesbians, gay males, bisexuals, and transgender people have increased e a c h year since t h e NGLTF h a s been keeping records, a n d s u c h incidents are only the tip of the iceberg. By no means are they isolated to certain locales; rather, they are widespread, occurring throughout the country.

Institutional homophobia refers to the ways in which governments, businesses, and edu- cational, religious, a n d professional organizations systematically discriminate on t h e basis of sexual orientation or identity. Sometimes laws, codes, or policies actually enforce such discrimination. Few institutions have policies supportive of LGBT people, and many actively work against n o t only those minorities but also heterosexuals who support them.

Consider, for example, the "Briggs" Initiative in the late 1970s: had it passed, it would have required the dismissal of California teachers who support gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights regardless of those teachers' actual sexual identification. The U.S. military h a s a long-standing policy excluding lesbians, gays, a n d bisexuals f r o m service. In most instances, rights gained t h r o u g h marriage, including spousal benefits and child custody considerations, do not extend to LGBT people, Homosexual acts are outlawed in a n u m - b e r of states. And a l t h o u g h a n u m b e r of municipalities a n d some states have extended

r 4 q u a l protection in t h e a r e a s of employment, housing, i n s u r a n c e , credit, and public accommodations, n o such statute exists on the national level.

Although agreement concerning same-sex relationships and sexuality does not exist across the various religious communities, and while some denominations are rethinking ( their negative s t a n d s on homosexuality a n d bisexualifcy, o t h e r s p r e a c h against s u c h behaviors, a n d as a m a t t e r of policy exclude people f r o m m a n y aspects of religious life simply o n t h e basis of sexual identity.

Until 1 9 7 3 , established psychiatric associations considered homosexuality a disor- dered condition. People were often institutionalized against their will, m a d e to undergo dangerous and humiliating "aversion therapy," and even, at times, lobotomized to alter their sexual desires. Same-sex lovers and friends are often still denied access to loved ones in hospital intensive-care u n i t s because of hospital policy allowing only blood relatives or a legal spouse visitation rights.

Today, although a n u m b e r of practitioners within both the psychiatric and the medical professions hold genuinely enlightened attitudes regarding t h e realities of homosexual- ity, bisexuality, a n d t r a n s g e n d e r i n g , some, unfortunately, r e m a i n e n t r e n c h e d in their negative perceptions of same-sex attractions a n d gender expression, and these percep- tions often affect the m a n n e r in which they respond to their clients.

Cultural homophobia (sometimes called collective or societal homophobia) refers to t h e social norms or codes of behavior that, although not expressly written into law or policy, nonetheless work within a society to legitimize oppression. It results in attempts either to exclude images of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, a n d transgender people f r o m t h e media or from history or to represent these groups in negative stereotypical terms, The theologian James S. Tinney ( 1 9 8 3 ) suggests seven overlapping categories by which cultural homo- phobia is manifested. 1, 2. Conspiracy to silence a n d denial of culture. These first two categories are closely

aligned. Although n o t expressly written into law, societies informally attempt to pre- vent large n u m b e r s of individuals of a p a r t i c u l a r minority (or target) g r o u p from congregating in any o n e place (e.g., in b a r s a n d o t h e r social centers), deny t h e m space to hold social or political functions, deny t h e m access to materials, attempt to restrict representation in a n y given educational institution or e m p l o y m e n t in any business, and inhibit frank, open, a n d h o n e s t discussion of topics of interest to or concerning these groups.

3 . Denial of popular strength, Many studies have found t h a t a significant percentage of the population experiences same-sex desires, and t h a t these individuals often define their identity in terms of these desires. The cultural assumption exists, however, t h a t one is heterosexual u n t i l "proven guilty." According to Tinney, "Society refuses to believe how m a n y blacks there are in this country 'passing' for white and how m a n y lesbians and gays [and bisexuals] there a r e o u t t h e r e passing as heterosexuals" (Tinney 1983, 5).

4. Fear of overvisibility. A form of homophobia is manifested each time LGBT people are told that they should not define themselves in terms of their sexuality or gender iden- tity or when they a r e accused of being "blatant" by expressing signs of affection in public, behaviors t h a t heterosexual couples routinely take for granted, They are given the message t h a t there is something inherently wrong with same-sex desire and t h a t individuals so inclined should keep such desire well hidden and to themselves.

5. Creation of defined public spaces. Society tends to force disenfranchised individuals and groups into ghettos, w h e r e there is little possibility of integration into the general life of t h e community. Neighborhoods, business establishments, a n d even profes- sions a r e t h u s set aside for LGBT people as they are for o t h e r t a r g e t groups. Individuals enter these areas hoping to find t e m p o r a r y respite f r o m the outside world's homophobia.

6. Denial of self-labeling. Epithets a n d o t h e r derogatory labels a r e directed at every target group. LGBT people have chosen terms of self-definition (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, for example) to p o r t r a y t h e positive aspects of their lives a n d loves m o r e adequately. Recently, increasing n u m b e r s of lesbians, gays, bi- sexuals, and transgender people have reappropriated such terms as queer, faggot, and dyke in order to t r a n s f o r m these venomous symbols of h u r t a n d bigotry into tools of empowerment.

7. Negative symbolism (stereotyping). Stereotyping groups of people is used as a m e a n s of control a n d a f u r t h e r h i n d r a n c e to u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d to m e a n i n g f u l social change. Stereotypes about LGBT people abound, ranging from their alleged predato- ry appetites, to their physical appearance, to the possible "causes" of their desires.

In addition to Tinney's categories of cultural homophobia, psychologist Dorothy Riddle (1985) suggests t h a t t h e concepts of tolerance and acceptance should also be included: tol-

erance because it can, in actuality, be a mask for an underlying fear or even hatred (one is tolerant, e.g., of a baby crying on a n airplane while simultaneously wishing it would l o p or go away), a n d acceptance because it assumes t h a t t h e r e is indeed something to accept.

tow Homophobia Hurts Everyone

It cannot be denied t h a t h o m o p h o b i a , like o t h e r f o r m s of oppression, serves t h e r dominant g r o u p by establishing and m a i n t a i n i n g power a n d m a s t e r y over those w h o | are marginalized or disenfranchised. Individuals m a i n t a i n oppressive behaviors to I gain certain rewards or to avoid punishment, to protect their self-esteem against psycho- | logical doubts or conflicts, to e n h a n c e their value systems, or to categorize others in 1 an attempt to c o m p r e h e n d a complex world. By excluding entire groups of people, L those in positions of power obtain economic, political, ideological, a n d other privi-

leges. In m a n y ways, through, oppression, in this instance homophobia, ultimately limits heterosexuals.

Homophobia inhibits the ability of heterosexuals to form close, intimate relationships with members of their own sex.

Young people often form close same-sex a t t a c h m e n t s d u r i n g their childhood years. But once they r e a c h a c e r t a i n age (usually a r o u n d t h e time of puberty), their elders encourage t h e m to distance themselves f r o m these friends, w i t h t h e implication t h a t if they do not, their sexuality will be called into question. This means—especially for males—no more sleeping over at each other's houses, no more sharing intimate secrets, no more spending as m u c h time together. Ultimately, this situation tends to hinder the ability of heretosexual adults to get as close to a same-sex friend as they once did when they were very young.

Homophobia locks all people into rigid gender-based roles that inhibit creativity and self- expression.

Much has been written about gender roles and how they constrain both females and males. In Western culture, concepts of masculinity a n d feminity promote the domina- tion of males over females and reinforce the identification of maleness with power. Males are encouraged to be independent, competitive, goal oriented, and unemotional, to value physical courage a n d toughness. Females, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , are t a u g h t to be n u r t u r - ing, emotional, sensitive, expressive, to be caretakers of others while disregarding their own needs.

Gender roles maintain the sexist structure of society, and homophobia reinforces those roles—for example, by casting such epithets as faggot, dyke, and homo at people who step outside designated gender roles. This pervasive social conditioning based on anatomical sex effectively generates great disparities between males and females. For evidence of this inequality one need only look at the preponderance of m e n over women in upper m a n - agement positions and other positions of prestige, or at t h e fact t h a t women still do not i a m equal pay for equal work. There is also evidence, in a classic 1 9 3 5 anthropological !tudy of three cultures by Margaret Mead, t h a t there is a n increased incidence of vio- ence against women in male-dominated societies.

Homophobic conditioning (and indeed all forms of oppression) compromises the integrity of leterosexual people by pressuring them into treating others badly, actions contrary to their msic humanity.

By way of analogy, Frederick Douglass, t h e f a m o u s n i n e t e e n t h t h - c e n t u r y escaped

slave and abolitionist, described what h e called "the dehumanizing effects" of slavery not on slaves alone, b u t also o n white slave owners, whose position to slavery corrupted their humanity. Describing his experiences with Mrs. Sophia Auld, mistress of t h e Baltimore household in which Douglass lived and worked during t h e 1820s, Douglass wrote,

My new mistress proved to be a woman of the kindest heart and finest feelings. But, alas, this kind heart had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work. Slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of (her) heavenly qualities. Under its influence, the tender heart became stone, and the iamblike disposition gave way to one of tigerlike fierceness. (Douglass 1 8 4 5 , 7 7 - 7 8 )

Homophobia can be used to stigmatize, silence, and, on occasion, target people who are per- ceived or defined by others as gay, lesbian, or bisexual but iv/io are in actuality heterosexual

For more t h a n two millennia in the West, antihomosexual laws and decrees have been enacted by religious d e n o m i n a t i o n s a n d governments c a r r y i n g p u n i s h m e n t s r a n g i n g from ridicule to d e a t h of t h e "accused." These decrees have been used to justify h a r s h treatment of those discovered or believed to have engaged in same-sex activity. But w h a t is often forgotten or overlooked is t h e fact t h a t these same laws have, on occasion, been used by individuals a n d governments to silence opponents, regardless of whether they have engaged in same-sex activity.

In our own century, Paragraph 175 of t h e German Penal Code, which banned homo- sexuality, was used by t h e Nazi regime to incarcerate and ultimately to send great n u m - bers of men suspected of being homosexual to their death, a n d was also at times employed to incarcerate Catholic clergy, many of w h o m were heterosexual, as well as non-Catholic heterosexuals w h o opposed state authority. In addition, "sodomy" laws r e m a i n o n t h e books in m a n y states. Although designed chiefly to harass persons engaging in same-sex activity, they have also been used to prosecute heterosexuals.

T h e Lambda Legal Defense a n d Education F u n d — a New York-based gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender-oriented legal organization—defended a twenty-six-year-old heterosexual m a n w h o was denied health insurance because h e was u n m a r r i e d , living in New York City with a male roommate, and therefore presumed to be gay and stereo- typically assumed to be at increased risk for HIV/AIDS. Heterosexual male hairdressers and female gym t e a c h e r s a n d other heterosexuals working in professions widely per- ceived to be "gay," along w i t h single people living in red-lined "gay" zip codes, are also vulnerable to victimization by similar homophobia-based discrimination.

Violent "queer-bashing" is not infrequently directed against heterosexuals who a r e also perceived to be gay or lesbian. The clear implication here is t h a t all people are at risk for attack, irrespective of their actual sexual identity, so long as any group remains the target of violent hate-motivated assaults.

Homophobia generally restricts communication with a significant portion of the population and, more specifically, limits family relationships.

No m a t t e r h o w they are constituted, families will c o n t i n u e to p r o d u c e lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender offspring. The political and theocratic Right argues loudly t h a t homosexuality poses a direct threat to "traditional family values." In actuality, however, it is homophobia t h a t strains family relationships by restricting communication a m o n g family members, loosening t h e very ties t h a t bind. Children, fearing negative reactions from parents, hold back important information about their lives. Parents, often not want- ing to h e a r a b o u t their child's sexual or gender identity, never truly get to k n o w their children. Even w h e n p a r e n t s and children reside in t h e s a m e house, secret u p o n secret adds u p to polite estrangement and sometimes to a total break.

When LGBT people finally do "come o u t " to their relatives and friends, the heterosex- ual relatives and friends sometimes go into a "closet" as their homophobia a n d / o r t h a t of those around them leads them to withhold the t r u t h from friends and neighbors. Indeed, family members sometimes become targets of stigmatization w h e n t h e t r u t h about a n LGBT relative becomes known. In any case, the emotional toll c a n be great.

Homophobia ultimately undermines the process of parenting in all families. It h a r m s n o t only those in t h e more obvious cases where there are LGBT children, or LGBT par- ents, but t h a t it also imposes great impediments to "mainstream" heterosexual families with heterosexual children.

Societal homophobia prevents some lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from developing an authentic self identity, and adds to the pressure to marry, which in turn places undue stress and oftentimes trauma on themselves as well as their heterosexual spouses and their children.

The suppression of information about t h e gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender expe- rience reinforces t h e heterosexist assumption t h a t everyone is or should be heterosexual and should conform to s t a n d a r d conceptualizations of gender expression. This assump- tion, coupled with the frequently very real penalties for n o t conforming to heterosexual n o r m s , h a s pressured m a n y people either to hide their t r u e sexual a n d / o r gender identity or h a s restricted their self realization. Some have married in an attempt to "fit in" or "pass," or in hopes of "being cured" of their same-sex a t t r a c t i o n s a n d / o r their gender expressions.

Homophobia is one cause of premature sexual involvement that increases the chances of teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs),

Young people, of all sexual identities, a r e often pressured to become heterosexually active to prove to themselves a n d others t h a t they a r e " n o r m a l . " If h o m o p h o b i a were reduced in the schools and society at large, in all likelihood, fewer young people would act out heterosexually during adolescence.

Homophobia combined with sexphobla (fear and revulsion of sex) results in the elimination of any discussion of the lives and sexuality of sexual minorities as part of school-based sex education, keeping vital information from all students, Such a lack of information can kill people in the age of AIDS.

Some religious a n d c o m m u n i t y leaders, educators, and p a r e n t s actively work to prevent honest and n o n j u d g m e n t a l information concerning homosexuality, bisexuality, a n d transgenderism—indeed, sexuality a n d gender in general—from r e a c h i n g y o u n g people. Students of all sexual a n d gender identities need this i n f o r m a t i o n to m a k e informed decisions about their sexual activity. Without it, they are placed at greater risk for u n w a n t e d pregnancy, STDs, and HIV infection.

Homophobia (along with racism, sexism, classism, sexphobia, and others) inhibits a unified and effective governmental and societal response to AIDS.

It c a n be reasonably argued that if the majority of people with AIDS had initially been middle-class, white, s u b u r b a n h e t e r o s e x u a l males, r a t h e r t h a n gay a n d bisexual m e n , people of color, working-class people, sex workers (prostitutes), a n d d r u g users, t h e n governmental and societal institutions would have mobilized immediately to defeat the epidemic,

Because of t h e lack of wide-scale early attention, AIDS h a s spread to pandemic pro- portions. The government and society, at least initially, did not make a true commitment to education, research, and treatment. Funding remained insufficient for as m a n y years

Heterosexism as AIDS retained its erroneous reputation of a disease of outcast sexual a n d social minori- ties. The result was, and in some sectors continues to be, t h a t m a n y heterosexuals have a false sense that they will n o t be affected, and take n o precautions.

Homophobia prevents heterosexuals from accepting the benefits and gifts offered by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities: theoretical insights, spiritual visions and options, contributions in the arts and cidture, to religion, to family life, indeed to all facets of society.

In cultures where h o m o p h o b i a is present, there have been active a t t e m p t s to falsify historical a c c o u n t s of same-sex l o v e — t h r o u g h censorship, deletion, h a l f - t r u t h s , a n d altering p r o n o u n s signifying gender—making accurate r e c o n s t r u c t i o n extremely diffi- cult. This effectively distorts society's collective memory (i.e. history), clouding our sense of identity as individuals a n d as social beings. Everyone loses from this suppression of the t r u t h .

John Boswell cites an example of this censorship in a manuscript of The Art of Love by the Roman a u t h o r Ovid. A phrase t h a t originally read, "A boy's love appealed to me less" (Hoc est quodpueri tanger amore minus) was altered by a Medieval moralist to read, 'A boy's love appealed to m e n o t at all" (Hoc est quod pueri tanger amore nihil), and a n editor's note that appeared in the m a r g i n informed the reader, "Thus you m a y be s u r e t h a t Ovid was not a sodomite" (Ex hoc nota quod Ovidius nonfrerit Sodomita) (Boswell 1980, 18).

Boswell also cites a Renaissance example of h o m o p h o b i c c e n s o r s h i p in which Michelangelo's g r a n d - n e p h e w c h a n g e d t h e sex of the subject of his uncle's s o n n e t s to make them more acceptable to t h e public.

Closer to our time, government-sponsored censorship of a r t deemed "homoerotic" by the National Endowment for t h e Arts ultimately restricts creativity a n d freedom of expres- sion of the entire artistic community.

In addition, traditional religious teachings o n homosexuality keep lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people from entering religious life or from being t r u e to them- selves. These teachings also inhibit t h e ability of m a n y congregations to value and cele- brate h u m a n diversity and, most importantly, impedes spiritual growth.

Homophobia saps energy from more constructive endeavors. Like all forms of oppression, h o m o p h o b i a inhibits o u r ability to u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e

n a t u r e and scope of truly serious and far-reaching social problems (e.g. poverty, illitera- cy, war, disease, environmental decay, crime, and drug addiction). Oppression results in the scapegoating and distancing of people from one another, diminishing our capacity to address these problems a n d thereby degrading the quality of life for all of us. By reduc- ing the various forms of oppression, we quite literally make o u r society more socially effi- cient, increasing our ability to find solutions to t h e social and ecological challenges t h a t threaten our collective future.

Homophobia inhibits appreciation of other types of diversity, making it unsafe for everyone because each person has unique traits not considered mainstream or dominant Therefore, we are all diminished when any one of us is demeaned.

As Reverend Martin Niemoeller, wrote during World War n , In Germany they c a m e first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

The meaning is quite clear. When any particular group of people is scapegoated, it is ultimately everyone's concern. For today, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are targeted, Tomorrow, they may come for you. Therefore, it is in everyone's self-interest to work actively to dismantle all the many forms of oppression, including homophobia.

Conclusion!

In truth, homophobia is pervasive throughout the society and each of us, irrespective of sexual or gender identity, is at risk of its h a r m f u l effects. Within the schools, homopho- bia compromises the entire educational environment, Though homophobia did not origi- nate with us and we are n o t to blame, we are all responsible for its elimination and, therefore, all can gain by a closer examination of the issues.

Lesbians, bisexuals, gay males, and transgender people have been, and continue to be, on the front lines in fighting against homophobia, and standing by our sides are support- ive heterosexual allies—people who have worked and continue to work t h r o u g h their own homophobic conditioning, who are secure with their own sexual identities, who have joined us and have not cared when others called their sexuality into question.

We are all born into a great pollution called homophobia (one among many forms of oppression) that falls upon us like acid rain, For some people, spirits are tarnished to the core; others are m a r r e d on the surface, b u t no one is completely protected. Yet neither are we to blame. We h a d no control over the formulation of this pollution, nor did we direct it to pour down upon us. On the other hand, we all have a responsibility, indeed a n opportunity, to join together to construct protective shelters from the corrosive effect of oppression while working to clean u p the homophobic environment in which we live. Once sufficient steps are taken to reduce this pollution, we will all breathe a lot easier.

References

J^lumenfeld, W. J., ed. (1992). Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price. Boston: Beacon Press. Boswell, J. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe

from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thompson C., and B. Zoloth. (1989). "Homophobia." A pamphlet. Cambridge, Mass.: Campaign to End Homophobia.

Douglass, P. ( 1 9 8 2 {1845]). Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself, ed. H. A. Baker, Jr. New York: Penguin.

Mead, M. (1935). Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. New York: William Morrow/Quill. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Nnfionrtl Anti-Gay/Lesbian Victimization Report.

Washington, D.C.: NGLTF Riddle, D. (1985). "Homophobia Scale." In Opening Doors to Understanding and Acceptance, ed. K,

Obear and A. Reynolds. Boston: Unpublished essay. Tinney, J. S. (1983). "Interconnections." In Interracial Books for Children Bidietin 14, nos. 3 - 4 . New

York: Council on Interracial Books for Children.