DU people: What makes you assume folks are heterosexual?

[rbnyc]

Poll question: DU people: What makes you assume folks are heterosexual?

Hi. Sorry, I sound like a smart-ass in my subject line. I know the folks who started the DU Men and DU Women polls haven't meant any harm. But I see these kinds of polls a lot, and I just want to remind people that just because someone is a man, that doesn't mean they're attracted to women, and just because someone is a woman, doesn't mean that they're not attracted to women, etc. It doesn't feel good to be left out.

I took a survey the other day and it asked my sexual orientation, straight, lesbian, or gay. I was so pissed that bisexual wasn't an option. There I was taking my time to answer some company's market research study, and I wasn't even able to answer honestly.

But anyway, onto the original question. If there's ever been a time that you assumed people were straight, why did you do it?

(And again, I don't mean to come down on anyone. I just want to remind folks, when posts assume that readers are straight, it bothers some of us.

Thanks.)

EDIT: companies/company's

[LynneSin]

1. RBNYC, are you a lesbian?

I seem to ask everyone that question so it's your turn now

:loveya:

(edit note: I know your answer hun, just wanted to live up to the expectations that everyone else has of me :eyes: )

[chiburb]

2. No, but she makes great toast! n/t

.

[rbnyc]

4. LOL (nt)

[rbnyc]

3. I nearly started a poll yesterday...

...asking why LynneSin is so obsessed with lesbians!

:P

:hi:

:loveya:

[LynneSin]

5. It's probably from hanging out with you hun

I promise if I'm ever to convert you'll be the first person I call!!

[rbnyc]

7. Cool!

Cliff says I'm allowed one affair with a woman.

;-)

[LynneSin]

9. One for the rest of your life

or just one woman at a time?

[rbnyc]

13. Hmmm...

...I think I know which one he meant, but I could pretend to be confused. That way I don't have to choose between you and NSMA.

[LynneSin]

21. NSMA is a lesbian???

:P

[Bertha Venation]

26. Oh, yeah?

Need applicants? ;)

[chiburb]

6. Speaking for me...

I don't assume anything when I meet someone face to face. But I think I'd be right if I GUESSED "straight" like 90% of the time (?)

But then again, I'd have to ignore the bi possibilities. So... never mind!

[pagerbear]

8. Heterosexist pigs!

"Because it's my experience and frame of reference, it's valid for the whole world!"

And I mean that in the gentlest and most loving way. ;-)

[Misunderestimator]

10. I guess I won't answer the poll since it wasn't addressed to me...

:bounce: :evilgrin: I just tend to butt into those threads anyway... but I get your point... everywhere I go, everyone I meet assumes I'm straight... Just assume you don't know... That's what I do when I meet straight people... I assume I don't know if they're straight or gay.

[Commendatori]

11. When we were shadowing each other, I was

HOPING you were straight. ;)

Kidding aside, I guess people just assume that someone is straight until told otherwise. Depending on which stats you read, you're likely to be right around 90% of the time.

[Misunderestimator]

14. True enough.... it's easy to assume by statistics...

and thanks for the compliment. :)

[rbnyc]

12. I assume...

...that whether a person is male, female, straight, gay, or bi...they would do it with me.

LOL

Just kidding. Thanks for chiming in.

:)

[mongo]

23. right on!

Personally, I don't have any idea if someone is straight or gay until they come up to the counter with their video purchase.

Even then some people buy the whole range - I'm not too sure about that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. True..when I meet straight people, I always assume they're not gay yet

:evilgrin:

[Misunderestimator]

40. Oh, you're just bad...

tsk tsk

[kitkatrose]

15. Other.

I don't really assume anything, because I'm usually not thinking about it. When it comes up, I wait until they expressly say.

[rbnyc]

16. Good call. (nt)

[rbnyc]

17. I have to go.

I have to clean the kitchen before I go to therapy. I don't know when I'll be back. Thanks for taking this poll and thinking about this, everyone.

:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Because...

only 2.1% of Americans identify themselves as openly gay and approximately 8% (or about 2 out of every 25 people) of Americans have engaged in same-sex behavior, according to William B. Rubenstein, R. Bradley Sears, Robert J. Sockloskie (2003), The Williams Project, UCLA School of Law.

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~erg/pubs/GD/GayDemographics.pdf

[rbnyc]

25. I wonder what percentage of DUers are gay?

And even if it were only 2%, does that mean it's okay to exclude them from our conversation?

Also, I think it's kind of interesting that you'd have this statistic ready. I know we've clashed on LGBT issues before. But I do note that the language is "identify as" and the same sex behavior number has to be based on self-reporting. Do you think more people would come out if the community were more inclusive?

Sorry, tho. I really have to go, so I won't be able to respond today. I'll check in on my lunch break tomorrow.

EDIT: not/note

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Ready?

Perhaps you need to be introduced to http://www.google.com/ :eyes:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=gay+population+percentage

It's the 6th link down. But I guess being able to find information quickly makes me a terrible person, huh?

Oh, and I quoted the other language where the figure came up as 8% based on people who have engaged in "same sex behavior" as well, but perhaps you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit nicely into your argument? Further, if people don't identify themselves as being gay, how can anyone else identify them as gay? So therefore wouldn't that 2% figure still work for our purposes here, as we're only talking about identifying gay or straight people?

But regardless of all that pointless banter, how does assuming one isn't gay without any other information to the contrary make gay people any less invited? I ask in all humbleness and ignorance on the subject, what makes you feel that way? Wouldn't a conversation be more candid without such distinctions being made?

[rbnyc]

56. Of course you googled for the stat...

...all I meant was that I found it interesting that you felt you had to come armed with the stat, and didn't add anything beyond that. And I know you quoted the language. That was my whole point, that it was based on self identifying and self reporting and most likely doesn't reflect what percentage of people are actually gay.

All I meant by my original poll is that when a general address to the public assumes heterosexuality, it's hard for a non-straight person not to read that as, "Gays need not apply." And all I meant in my reply to you is that more people would probably self identify and self report if they felt that people would welcome or at least acknowledge them in their communities.

Your reply is so defensive and snotty. Same thing happened to us last time we tried to talk about LGBT sensitivity. What is it with you and gay issues?

EDIT: typo

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. ...

I'm going to ramble a little here because it's been a really long day and I'm kind of tired. Bear with me, if you will.

Language of exclusion is either very specific or context driven. I'll grant you that if we were to attend a speech on family values and marriage, unless it specifically included gay marriage in a positive manner, I agree, under that context you would have a right to feel excluded. That's a very isolated example, however. Take DU for example. There are definitely polls here on DU that get tailored to heterosexuals even though they could apply to gays, lesbians, or bisexuals too. However, I do also know that in many of those situations, someone like Pagerbear will give a friendly little reminder to the poll's maker, and in most all instances, it gets fixed. It's a small microsmic example, and I can see how that can be annoying, but there's nothing sinister or consciously exclusionary about it in most cases.

In my own defense, the part about me bringing up a stat is just how I was taught to debate. I've always been taught that if you're going to say something, you'd better damn well back it up with a fact. So I brought the fact - straight people just flat out don't encounter many gay people because there aren't that many to encounter. Heterosexuals should make more of an effort to use better language so as to include, but you do have to realize that statistic of about 2% of our population being openly gay IS a very important point to make. A lot of heterosexual people simply do not encounter that many openly gay people. I think perhaps you lose a bit of perspective on this simply because of the company you likely keep. So when such addresses, as you put it, are made, it's simply natural language for heterosexuals not to make an explicit welcome to gay people. Cases of true homophobia aside, that's not meant to exclude, it's just innocent carelessness and thoughtlessness.

Quite frankly, I think you may have a giant chip on your shoulder. It seems whenever we discuss things, you discuss you automatically assume people are out to get you, and that's not the truth at all. That was the case the first time we discussed LGBT issues. And I should note your first reply this time around was quite snotty as well. You implied somehow from my statistic that I thought it was "okay to exclude them from our conversation", which implies to me you wanted to call me a homophobe again, simply because I noted a statistic and little more. Does that seem fair to you? You don't seem to understand that facts are just facts sometimes. Sometimes the facts aren't fair, but in this case, fairness or unfairness isn't going to change that because openly gay people make up only about 2% of the population, the other 98% are most likely not going to measure their language for specific inclusion. I made no comments at all on the fairness of the issue. You're automatically seeing a problem where it doesn't exist.

I know things aren't easy for the LGBT community and would not wish to imply otherwise. I understand that you're speaking from some deep-seated frustration, and you probably have a good reason for that. But when you say that it's hard for a non-straight person not to read that as "gays need not apply", that's ENTIRELY the wrong outlook to have, in my humble and perhaps even slightly naive opinion.

Finally, you ask, "Do you think more people would come out if the community were more inclusive?" Probably. But I'm not sure that what you're asking, a change in simple daily life language, is even feasible on any kind of noticeable scale, at least not in the short term. Changes in centuries' long human conditioning do not occur overnight. Right now, fighting for simple acceptance seems to be the first step, and looking at the right wing, that's still an uphill battle.

[rbnyc]

66. Thanks for taking so much time with this.

I can see why you would think I have a chip on my shoulder. I have a hard time not reflecting what I perceive as hostility in your posts. But I think that you and I just have styles of communication that clash and make it hard for us to understand each other. I think we've each made assumptions about the other that probably aren't true simply because we don't communicate as well with each other as we do, perhaps with other people.

I really don't think that people are out to get me. But I do have a heightened sensitivity to LGBT issues, not even so much because of my orientation, but because of my vocation.

I'm a bisexual woman married to a man, so I live a life of heterosexual privilege. But I work for a non-profit that provides services to the LGBT communities. I work directly with people who have been the victims of bias crimes, workplace discrimination, who've had their parental rights challenged, who are afraid to come out to their neighbors or at their places of work, who have not been allowed to visit their life partners in ICU, who have had people point and them and say "Is THAT a man or a woman?"--all kinds of people who come to my community center seeking refuge from the straight world.

Because of these people, I have a heightened awareness of what it is about the straight world that makes LGBT people feel dismissed, undervalued, uncomfortable or ignored.

I didn't start this thread because I felt that people in the Lounge were out to get me. I just wanted to see if I could get people to think a little harder about some of the unintended consequences of the language they use around sexuality.

Anyway, I do really appreciate you taking the time to explain your point of view. I don't agree with much of what you say, but I do understand you better, and I understand that much of the hostility I perceive has more to do with the way we hear each other than what we intend to say.

Thanks Much.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. I also appreciate you taking the time

Now that you have told me where you work and what you see and deal with on a day-to-day basis, I can better understand where your perspective on the issue. I also better understand what exactly it is that you were driving at. I honestly had the impression that you meant day-to-day normal conversations, or maybe political figures in their speeches. However, it sounds more like you are referring to what I would've called "language of exclusion" and blatant insensitivity. Perhaps you can see more clearly where my confusion lay. You can see from the example I used that I was far off from what exactly you had in mind.

People are very ignorant and can be very cruel hearted. The example you gave of "Is THAT a man or a woman?" is simply horrible, and there's no place for that in our society. I would HOPE that's the exception and not the rule, but maybe I'm a little naive. You're right - we absolutely do need to fight such ignorance. I'll also say I don't think the two of us were all that far off with what we feel is needs to be done - I just think we were flat out on the wrong page to begin with. I feel what you've described is part of what I referred to in my last post as the fight for basic acceptance. I misunderstood what you meant and I apologize.

I think our perspectives on how LGBT men and women are treated lie on the opposite side of the spectrum from each other. My view probably doesn't adequately affect how bad things are, and I'm guessing yours probably overdoes it a little, but given the circumstances, it's easy to see how that would be the case. Although I doubt you will benefit as I have, this experience brings me a little closer to the reality of the situation. Perhaps in the future, you'll be a bit more understanding that people just simply haven't quite seen the horrors that you have. We could benefit from your wisdom if you're more willing to open up and find a way to articulate what you see and feel on a daily basis. I know that there are plenty of ignorant people out there that will never "see the light" so to speak, and it would be a waste of time and energy to try and educate them, but I feel like here on DU, you can give the benefit of the doubt, for at least a post or two.

But again, I apologize and thank you for taking the time to help me see your perspective on this issue. I am a better man for that.

[Misunderestimator]

29. Blech...

I always love THAT statistic which is so far off from MOST being used. And I'm with rbnyc on this...

[eyesroll]

19. I think part of it is statistical, and part of it is the message we

get when growing up -- boys like girls and girls like boys and then they grow up and get maaarriiiied.
The messages are starting to diversify, but for those of us who grew up before today, it was a constant. Girls played the mommies and boys played the daddies at the little kitchen set in the pre-school classroom. When we (or at least I) were introduced to non-heterosexual people, it was usually in the context of Hollywood -- a soap character with a difficult coming-out story. Drag queens played for comedic effect. GLBT people on TV were always portrayed in the context of their sexual orientation -- there never was a character who was, say, a stock broker or a garbage collector or a stay-at-home mom, who happened to be gay.

It took me until college to realize that non-heterosexual people are people first, sexual orientation later.

I admit I do still assume people are heterosexual, unless they say otherwise. I frankly should know better, given my own confusion (posted in grand TMI fashion a few weeks ago). But it's hard to shed assumptions, even when you know intelletually, they're BS.

[LynneSin]

20. On a more serious note

I think it's because I was raised in a region of the country (rural Pennsylvania) where Homosexuality was preached as being evil. I can assure you there were probably more homosexuals trapped in heterosexual marriages in order to mask their true identity.

So for me, my assumption is basically that I would assume everyone is straight because it was an insult to assume otherwise. I also know that's the wrong way to think. Ironically I correct my nieces & nephews anytime they refer to someone or something as "that's gay". Maybe I need to correct my own bad habits.

I've always thought that I was an open person, but I never accepted homosexuality as a normal way of life until probably in my earlier 20s. I was fortunate to work at a job where I had met my first somewhat out homosexuals (they were once a couple but had then broken up but stayed friends). From them I realized that I was given alot of perceived crap from the folks that I grew up with when it comes to gays & lesbians. And if I were to ever to see either of those guys I again I would thank them for expanding my mind.\

But what has amazed me these past 3 years is the great diversity of people that I have met. I'm probably the goofiest, straight person out there and yet I feel that I have a great circle of friends I've met from all types of backgrounds. When that infamouse moment that I asked NSMA "Are you a Lesbian", I'm amazed that I wasn't lamblasted for my ignorance. I admit that question really was a combination of my redneck upbring and an ample amount of beer & tequila in my system.

But RB, you have some valid points - thanks for starting this thread

:loveya:

[Misunderestimator]

22. Thanks for that...

and well said. :loveya:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. heterosexist issues

and most people are not straight ....most people are in the grey areas between 100% straight and 100% gay.

[rbnyc]

28. AHHH. I really have to go now!

But I wanted to say I think you're right. Most people are in the grey area, IMO.

[Right Makes Might]

53. I agree - most of aren't either straight or gay

but I feel bad about my general assumption that people are "straight"... Doh!

Also, about the 10% (or 8%, close enough) figure - I recall reading something somewhere about people picking 10% as a figure for a lot of things. I think we just like that number when we're thinking about something we think is kind of but not terribly rare.

Is it really that hurtful, tho, to be inadvertently excluded? I mean, I think most people here don't make polls that deliberately exclude people with different sexual orientations.

Just wondering.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. its not hurtful per se

its just a STUPID INSENSITIVE assumption...

[MissMillie]

27. Try not to let it bother you

While your sexuality is part of who you are, it's not everything you are.

I am a single mom. Almost all of my son's friends and teachers call me "Mrs. _____", assuming that I am married, or at the very least I have at one time been married. This is not the case.

I'm not offended because there's nothing wrong with a person being married, so it's not like assuming that I am is a big insult.

I'm assuming that you don't see anything wrong with people being heterosexual.... and I hope you would realize that no one making such an assumption about you is intending it as an insult.

Be offended when someone insults you.

[Angelus]

30. Um...because most people are straight?

I wouldn't let it bother you. There's worse things to worry about.

[Donkeyboy75]

31. I noticed that as well, but I don't think there's an assumption of hetero-

sexuality. I think there's a explanation (but I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth). I'm using one of these polls as an example. If you are a female, and want to know what men find attractive about females, it may be a good idea to only ask straight men...as there may be a difference between what lesbian women and straight men find appealing about women. Of course, this could have been included as a disclaimer in the question, but I am not sure it's necessary. If you don't swing that way, you won't answer the question anyway.

[Misunderestimator]

34. I'll answer the question anyway...

[rbnyc]

57. That's a really good point.

Thanks for that.

[Loonman]

32. I really don't care, one way or the other

What the person's orientation is, and i assume nothing.

[IronLionZion]

35. because straight is great!

i'm kidding. Like 90% of people are straight. If you were going to meet someone from a very rural mountain area of Pennsylvania, would you think oh maybe he/she is black or chinese or hispanic or jewish? Hmm... I don't know about you, but I would assume he/she is white! (I'm not white, but it's a reasonable assumption)

and when you assume...:dem:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. Don't assume anything. None of my bloody business. (nt)

[NightTrain]

37. One word: conditioning.

[Misunderestimator]

41. Yep, that's one word...

What did it mean, other than the obvious? Certainly conditioning is part of all of our lives and definitely explains the assumption, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't express how being invisible sometimes feels.

[Red State Rebel]

38. I have more gay friends than straight....

so my gaydar is pretty honed in.

[TrogL]

42. I assume they're bi

[prolesunited]

43. In my own defense

I wasn't making any sort of assumption about anybody here. There's lots of polls and questions here every day that don't apply to me. I just move on. I don't take offense or feel excluded.

For example, if someone started a thread addressing DU cat lovers and asked what the best breed was. Should I be offended because they didn't include those who don't have cats? There's all sorts of groups here that have different interests, be it pets, music, etc.

I riffed off another thread. If you felt a group was left out, you could have started one asking DU women what they find attractive in other women. Or someone could have started the same sort about men.

In fact, I even asked someone in that thread if I should another thread, but decided not to because I'm not a gay woman and felt the question would be weird coming from me. In fact, the reason I didn't was because I thought some would find that offensive.

I will try to be more sensitive in the future, but I really think you have read way too much into this. If you would like, I would be happy to ask a mod to lock the thread because I intended it as nothing more as a bit of silliness.

[Misunderestimator]

45. Nah... this is definitely a thread unto itself...

I didn't find anything insulting in your poll... I just answered it. :) :bounce::bounce::bounce:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. Nah, Proles..you're cool!

In lieu of saying ten "Hail Marys" for your penance you can strip for me and be absolved from your sins ;)

[prolesunited]

47. You wish!

:P

Thanks!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. having pets is a choice sexuality isnt

you are comparing apples and steak....( i know the correct phrase is apples and oranges but they have fruit in common)

[rbnyc]

58. proles, you're cool with me too.

I really am not trying to make anyone feel bad. But there is a difference between addressing a post to cat-lovers, or another specific group, and making a post to a general group, like men or women, and assuming that they all have something in common, like being straight.

But I don't think there's any need to lock the thread, or even to apologize for it. I just wanted to provide some balance to it, and the similar thread today. And I wanted to give LGBT folks a chance to say if they feel the same way I do when they see threads like that.

I really, really didn't want to make you feel bad. I just wanted to generate a little discussion.

:loveya:

[prolesunited]

59. No worries!

Point taken and no offense meant.

:loveya: back. :-)

[sniffa]

44. hey,

if they're not coming on to me they must be hetero.

[trof]

48. Because the odds are that they are.

According to this website:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

"5. 1.51% of total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. 2.8% of males age 18 or older, and 1.4% of females age 18 or older divided by 284,800,000 total population (2003 figures). 0.9% of women identify themselves as lesbians (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.32% of total U.S. population being lesbians. 2 percent of men identify themselves as gay (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.7% of total U.S. population being gay men.

Source: National study published in Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), cited in Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. Lawrence and Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003), pg. 16.

This friend of the court brief was filed by a coalition of leading pro-GLBT activist groups, including: Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Pride At Work AFL-CIO, People For the American Way Foundation, Anti-Defamation League, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Soulforce, Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston, and others.

See also: Peter Sprigg, 28 January 2004, "Homosexual Groups Back Off From '10 Percent' Myth", InFocus (Family Research Council), Issue No. 260; URL: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04A01."

Having said (or cited) this, when I learn otherwise it generally makes me feel that this is someone whose politics and general outlook on society and life are probably closer to my own than not. I've just learned this through experience.

And no, I don't think you're a smartass for bringing it up.
:-)

[jukes]

49. doesn't matter

n/f/n

[smirkymonkey]

51. I don't, anymore.

After living in San Francisco and New York, I have learned to assume nothing regarding peoples' sexual orientation.

[slinkerwink]

52. let's see.....the mullets on men.

[SOteric]

54. I'm sure I've done so before, but it's really rather rare.

I suspect for the most part its simply another form of copycatting. The "DU Women/DU Men" form of address has become routine here and I likely don't need to explain to you how much more adrenalin is involved in starting a new poll than is thought.

The solution needn't be linguistically complicated, "DUers: What attracts you to a woman/man?" No target audience is identified, anyone who finds themself attracted to the gender specified can answer.

[maveric]

60. If they talk sports and know what they are talking about. n/t

[slackdude]

62. Seeing them making out with the opposite sex (n/t)

[rbnyc]

67. could be bi ;-) (nt)

[slackdude]

69. True, but...

I just can't help myself when the opportunity to make a wiseass comment like that arises.

[Heyo]

63. Gadar

j/k.....

I don't know really. Alot of times you can't tell, and I never really think much about it because it doesn't matter..

(just no ass grabbing.. control yourselves people.. I know it's grade A and all, but sheesh...)

:dunce:

Heyo

[andino]

64. Because it is the internet and...

I really don't know who I am talking to. So how am I supposed to know if you are gay, male, female, or even if you have 3 arms coming out of your forehead. I can understand if I talked to you a few times and you told me. And if I can remember it. But to be very honest with you, you are just words on a screen with a screen name (that is often misleading). Don't get me wrong, I value everyones opinion but I don't assume anything about anyone before I know them..
.

:)

[nini]

65. same reason I don't assume they're white, or Christian or married etc..

It really doesn't cross my mind what I do or don't have in common with someone until I learn more about them from their posts.

I see what you mean, but I think if a single hetero wants to see what other single heteros may think about something to compare them to themselves (or whatever) - that's not leaving anyone out just like the 'how old were you when you came out?' posts weren't intentionally meant to ignore heteros - it just didn't apply to them in that particular case.

We all have similarities and differences, that's what makes this place such a wonderful place.


Point taken though to think about how wording something may make a big difference in how it is perceived by others.

[mitchum]

70. It really doesn't matter to me. People's sexuality is pretty low on...

my interest scale. I would rather they have a personality instead of an "identity"

[geniph]

71. I assume nothing

What I find ironic is that even in the chorus I sing with - the Seattle Lesbian and Gay Chorus - most of the chorus members assumed I was straight, because I'm married to a man. Neither he or I are straight. I finally started quietly wearing my "Don't Assume I'm Heterosexual" button to rehearsal. Even other bi folks on the chorus had assumed John & I were straight...even the ones who've confused everyone ELSE on the chorus by moving in with men after years of living as lesbians!

I think I've finally managed to disabuse them all of that particular misapprehension. ;-)