AUG 15 — I write in response to “Contextualising ongoing discourse on LGBT” by Azril Mohd Amin. While the article may make for a somewhat entertaining read, I think it only fair to call out the bias inherent in the author’s position on this issue, masked even as it is behind prose most purple and the approximated appearance of learned objection.
I ask the author, can you truly draw a conscionable parallel between ‘I disagree with this and therefore it needs to just not exist’ against the actual harm done towards non-heteronormative persons. Additionally, to simplify this issue as a partisan one (i.e. left vs right, conservative vs liberal) does a grave disservice to the cause at hand; which is no more and no less than that of our collective humanity. As we continue to pontificate and split hairs in arguing our side as if it were a zero sum game, sentient human beings continue to be exposed to actual harm, actual injustices (i.e. access to healthcare, oppression by default within the justice system, deprivation of opportunities for self determination, ostracisation from family/faith, etc…)
“Ironically, despite pleas for their minority status to be accorded due recognition and protection, they reject the suggestion that they should at least consider the sentiments of others opposed to their stance but embrace the notion that the rest of society must acquiesce without so much a whimper to their demands.” says the author, completely aware that this is a blatant false equivalence - that the demand for protection against actual harm is equal to that of perceived harm (i.e. violated sentiment, perasaan tersinggung).
“It is we who need to change, not them. Well, if they are to ask that we agree to such an imposition they must be prepared to proffer not just substantial but monumental evidence as to why the rest of us are misguided as they claim.” says the author, thereby providing a prime example of the circular logic that the oppressor has used as both sword and shield since time immemorial. Present evidence of oppression, says the oppressor, knowing full well that the oppressed have never had the opportunity to have the story of their oppression brought to light (pre-Internet of course). Oh, also per the oppressor, the oppressed are fundamentally unGodly given their predilections - why should their word be weighed against the Godly majority? And so berpusing-pusinglah the oppressor goes in defence of his cruelty.
“LGBT activists assert with immense force to all and sundry who would listen that there is nothing wrong with the homosexual and transgender lifestyle, and that attitudes of our social order needs correction.” asserts the author, thereby demonstrating the many teachable moments this moment in public discourse has gifted to all of us. The existence of the LGBTQIA community (accepted or otherwise) puts paid to the reality that the social order as it stands does not reflect the reality of the world.
We bandy about with the word ‘diversity’ without ever truly appreciating the breadth and depth of its meaning. This world isn’t just black or white and people aren’t just bad or good, moral or immoral, Godly or unGodly - everything sits on a spectrum, sexuality included. And with this reality all but equalising and simultaneously exposing the arbitrary nature of all the parameters upon which the current social order is derived, I can totally understand why it is easy to paint a questioning of this order as inherently problematic.
To this point, we offer the alternative that marginalised communities (including cis-gender women FYI) have been fighting for - that our social order be informed by compassion and kindness, that wilful permission and informed consent be the baseline for justice.
To simplify; I believe the requests of the LGBTQIA community will be of benefit to society at large because the essence of this request is that people look to the better angels of their nature - to recognise and repudiate acts of cruelty, to be kinder, to be compassionate, to be less quick to judge, less quick to bay for blood. And yes, to exercise the courage to repudiate acts of cruelty even if they are ostensibly scripturally prescribed. After all, were humans not given the gift of free-will, implying the inherent paradoxical impossibilities and clear fallacy of divine sacrosanctity?
Consider this my contribution to this ongoing discourse.
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
