The icky wobbly greyness of my brain

[alias_sqbr]

So, I've been thinking for quite a while about writing a "Why I'm an antiracist" post along the lines of my why I'm a feminist one. Partly to explain because people have asked, and also to get it straight in my head.

Some of the reasons are reasonably straight-forward and reasonable¹, but I had a rather unpleasant epiphany about it today. Namely, I think one of the reasons I focus on race in particular, instead of other "-isms" I'm not personally oppressed by like homophobia, is because in some ways it's easy.



Warning: this is all a bit navel-gazy and awkward. Also I poke my brain for it's attitudes towards race and sexuality, and you might not like the results any more than I do. I thought about waiting until later before posting but, well, I have an interview tomorrow and don't want this on my mind.

Two of the defining features of my personality are that I like the moral highground, and I deal badly with being yelled at. Thus my least favourite thing in the world is being yelled at and knowing I'm in the wrong.

Australia is an incredibly racist society, and australians on the whole are incredibly racist people. It doesn't take much to be good-average at fighting racism by australian standards, and pretty much all the australian anti-racist messages I've encountered are non-challenging pre-digested pap like "other cultures are fun! Fight racism by trying some new foods!". I can think of two times in my entire life when I've been sincerely accused of racism in Australia, both by non-australians, and both in highschool (both times I dismissed them out of hand, yay me) Posting about race on the lj, the most negative reaction I've gotten has been "Um, I don't see that that's a big deal" (plus some very polite corrections when I was factually incorrect)

Discussion about racism on the internet, on the other hand, is almost entirely dominated by the american perspective (for reasons of demographics). There's a lot of very challenging and subtle analysis, which I find really interesting and sometimes very difficult, but I can always go "Ah well, so I don't get it, must be because I'm not american". For a start, most of it is about racism towards african americans, a group I have had (and am likely to have) vanishingly few real life interactions with, and whose oppression I am not directly implicit in. And even though a lot of the ideas and issues transfer over here pretty neatly, they still engage my "Not my problem" field to a certain extent allowing me emotional distance, meaning that even when I have been yelled at by POC online I haven't been that upset by it (for me, it was still pretty confronting), and also I'm able to admit I might be wrong quickly when criticised because I am at peace with having a poor understanding of racial issues in America.

I have tried to challenge my own racist assumptions and privilege, but challenging yourself is much less confronting and difficult (and effective) than being challenged by someone else.

Compare to homophobia: (from my ignorant perspective) it works pretty much exactly the same way here as it does in America etc, the subgroups and issues are pretty much exactly the same and in my experience australian GLBT people are much more likely to confront others homophobia than australian POC are to confront racism². I have encountered a lot of very vocal GLBT folk and while I haven't had them yell at me I've seen them yell at other people (who deserved it, may I add) If I see a discussion, say, about homophobia amongst american left-liberals, I don't feel that much distance and am likely to see it as applying to me as an australian left-liberal. I have a lot (a lot!) of unexamined heterosexist assumptions, and I have occasionally been called on them by my GLBT friends (which is good!). When I asked myself "Why don't you post more about homophobia?" my immediate answer was "Because I'll say something stupid and offend someone! And they might yell at me! And think I'm dumb! I should leave it to all the smart GLBT people on my flist to talk about that stuff" (even though you guys have never yelled at me about this stuff, just ever-so-politely suggested I might be ever-so-slightly misguided) n.b. I'm not saying Australia isn't homophobic! But the dynamics are different than with racism.

I mean, thinking back, the time I remember making the most effort to be anti-homophobia was in primary school and early highschool, when (as far as I knew) everyone I knew was straight, and the main issue was fairly blatant, easy-to-spot-and-criticise homophobia. Once a bunch of my friends came out and my peer's homophobia got more subtle and complicated, I was forced to confront some of my dodgier heterosexist assumptions and let go of my self image as a morally pure campaigner for justice.

On the other hand, I have a more uncomplicated antipathy to transphobia, probably because (a) the background level of transphobia in Australia is so absurdly high it is again easy to look good in comparison and (b) I don't actually know any transfolk (beyond the level of acquaintance) so it's easy to feel smug in my not-oppressing-the-trans-ness without going to any effort.

So, yeah. This is cowardly and lazy of me.

I'm not going to stop talking about race, because it is important, and the level of discourse in this country so watered down and thin on the ground that we need all the voices we can get. And gee, if everyone who did social justice partly out of misguided smugness were to stop we'd be in all sorts of trouble :)

But homophobia, and discrimination against the disabled (is there a neat word for that?) ablism, and all that other stuff is important too, and if I genuinely care about understanding the way the world really works and making it better, I need to focus on that stuff too.

So! This is me vowing to try to be less easy on myself in the future, and opening myself up for you guys to tell me when I'm full of homophobic/sexist/racist etc crap³. I can't guarantee I'll react well in any specific instance, because I am as prone to defensive whining as the next person, but I'll probably thank you in the long run (I will understand if that doesn't sound like it's worth the reward :)) Also, while I'm at it, I'd like to apologise for any stupid sexist/racist/homophobic/generally tactless stuff I've said or done in the past, and will say/do in the future. Sorry I'm such a doofus :/

And have any of you had similar issues? How do you confront your own prejudices and privileges without sinking into complacency and not-my-problem? Any other comments?

*crosses fingers none of you big scary meanies yells at me*

EDIT: I realise this may come across as me blaming me being full of crap on other people for not calling me on it, but I don't mean to, except in a "society's to blame" sort of way.

(1) As I went into here, in general believe that it is the job of every human being to fight for a better and fairer society for everyone, and as I went into here see racism as a cognitive disfunction which clouds my vision. Learning to see racism is learning to see the truth, and the more I see the more impatient I become with myself for the huge spots in my vision that remain.
(2) This isn't meant as a criticism! It's just based on my observations of similar situations in say unisfa.
(3) I'm less open to being told by white straight men etc that I'm too oversensitive about racism/sexism etc but will accept it if you can provide a polite and reasoned argument and are open to being proven wrong :) EDIT: by "less open" I don't mean "not open". I mean "I am not actively seeking it out, because I already encounter a fair amount of it". Really I'm just annoyed becuase I've been having an annoying conversation with a borderline troll. *flails some more*

Comments

[nephron.livejournal.com]

"Ablism" is the word you're looking for in regards to prejudice against the disabled.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes! I knew there was one, but my brain refused to oblige.

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

(3) I'm less open to being told by white straight men etc that I'm too oversensitive about racism/sexism etc but will accept it if you can provide a polite and reasoned argument and are open to being proven wrong :)


I think this is my major issue when people start yelling at me for being racist or 'whateverist' (I mostly just get racist, because, apparently I don't look all that straight, though I occasionally get sexist with trust issues with guys) in Australian society. And probably why I don't react all that positively to your rants (which I don't agree with, but don't particularly see the need to fight about).

I always feel the need to add a disclaimer to when posting on your lj, to point out that I explain things badly, especially when tired :S

Attempt at explaining what I think I meant

[alias_sqbr]

I always feel the need to add a disclaimer to when posting on your lj, to point out that I explain things badly, especially when tired :S

Heh, you have seen my default icon right? *points*

I didn't express myself very well, and I think I need to think about what I really meant. Most of the time(*) I do actually like sincere, (roughly) on-topic disagreement, even if it seems a bit racist or sexist to me (or at least anti-feminist or anti-anti-racist, which isn't alweys the same thing) It keeps me on my toes and makes me think about why I believe what I believe, and lets people understand what I mean better and maybe even come around to my way of thinking (though that's not compulsory!) This is what you do (when you're not scared off by the idea of me yelling at you :)), and I don't want you to stop.

What I don't like is mean-spirited ranting from people who often haven't paid any attention to what I've actually said (which they may not even disagree with) but refuse on principle to admit that any feminist/anti-racist etc may have a point about anything and just want an excuse to put down feminism/anti-racism etc. Which you have never done, as far as I can recall (about the only person you know who's sometimes (but not always) prone to this is Thatcher, and he recently defriended me so there you go(**))

The thing is, though, is that the sort of anti-homophibic etc ideas I'm interested in hearing are against the mainstream, and like any non-mainstream opinion are likely to get drowned out in all the mainstream opinions. I don't want to stop people having or saying mainstream opinions, but they're not what I'm actively looking for, and so I'm "less open to them". I understand that by the defintion of "typical", most people will have fairly typical responses to this sort of stuff ("It doesn't seem like such a big deal to me" etc), and you have a right to express that. But since I'm trying to overcome the "typical" reaction, it's not as helpful as the few (if any) "It's a bigger deal than you realise" responses that I'm looking for. It's like if I decided I hated Joss Whedon, and wanted to talk to anyone else who hated Joss Whedon, and all the responses I got on my lj were people going "But..he's awesome!". Perfectly understandable, and given how odd my opinion is I should probably make some effort to respond and explain myself, but not what I'm looking for and in large numbers rather frustrating.

I need to think about this some more though. One of the main things that put me off feminism for so long was the sense that feminists were big meanies who wouldn't tolerate dissent, so I REALLY don't want to turn into that myself! Sorry if I've had that effect on you. I blame the patriarchy

(*)and the exceptions to this are what I need to figure out
(**)EDIT: Actually even he's not as bad as all that, and usually had something interesting to say amongst the macros. I'm mainly thinking of this annoying racist troll who keeps popping up

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

You know, I feel your pain. My biggest problem, at least as far as self-image goes, is confronting the ways in which I'm complicit in Australia's homophobic, heterosexist ways.

In my case, of course, it's easy to give myself a pass because, well, I'm non-heterosexual myself, so I must be fine, right?

Wrong. *sigh*

[alias_sqbr]

But, silly, you're one of my Many Gay Friends^TM. And if having Many Gay Friends^TM means I can't be homophobic, then obviously you can't be homophobic either. Duh.

:)

[trs80.ucc.asn.au (from livejournal.com)]

Somewhat related: http://whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/ambivalence-amplification-theory/ (and the rest of the blog).

[alias_sqbr]

Yes! That! Exactly!

EDIT: Dammit, that blog is fascinating. I have work to do! :)

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I think in Australia it is easy to feel that you can deal with racism as a separate issue to differences of culture and class. It is very easy to feel that you aren't racist because, well, you have friends of other races that you went to school/university with, and race has never been an issue, so yay for not being racist, right? There are many ways in which Australia is not that racist (in particular, our second generation migrants often integrate just fine), which makes it easy to be complacent. And, except for Aboriginal Australia, race is not as firmly tied up with questions of class as it is in a lot of the US.

But people who have genuinely different cultural rules we cope very badly with. Islam is a current one. Aboriginal culture is another. I know people who think they aren't racist because they only hate Aboriginals 'who behave badly'.

And Australia likes to think it has no class system. But it does have one, just a relatively mobile one based on educatiion as much as anything, but its a system in which many people from different cultures are immediately bounced to near the bottom.

[alias_sqbr]

But people who have genuinely different cultural rules we cope very badly with. Islam is a current one. Aboriginal culture is another. I know people who think they aren't racist because they only hate Aboriginals 'who behave badly'.

Absolutely: non-white people are fine as long as they act like white people "real australians".

Oh, you don't need to convince me we have a class system! I think the fact that so many poor people are white (because pretty much everyone is white, for less than benign historical reasons) means there isn't the whole poor=not-white=bad subtext you get in say America, but yes it still interacts with race in a significant way.

Every now and then I reflect on the fact that I had a lot of aboriginal friends and acquaintances growing up in a poor area, but then had none whatsoever for the entirety of my university education (not counting stalls at O-day etc). Working in the same building/area as a number of government aboriginal services I'm now encountering a fair few middle class aboriginal public servants and my brain is having trouble dealing with the cognitive dissonance. I think the stratification is so hard wired into our society it just seems natural, which of course makes it very hard to overcome.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

because pretty much everyone is white
though for fairly broad values of white. A lot of people who wouldn't have been considered 'white' a few decades ago (such as those of meditteranean descent, and if you go back a little earlier, even the Irish) now are more or less considered white.

And people of south east asian descent are the classic example of people who are considered white if they act white.

I find it quite interesting here in Alice, because people still talk about 'black and white', but its pretty obvious that the 'white' part of the town isn't all that white (the vietnamese and chinese descended health professionals definitely count as white, for example -- actually, the health professionals have a fairly wide and interesting range of backgrounds), and by 'black' they mean 'aboriginal', rather all black people - for example, the small number of black americans in town actually fall into the same category as the white americans, which is more or less 'super-white'.

I once went with my family to a rather misguided Australian day lunch that was supposed to illustrate Aboriginal and white families celebrating together (not one of that particular aunts better ideas). It failed dismally, as the the two groups had little in common and obviously very different expectations (several people where very drunk before we turned up), and pretty much entirely stayed separate -- but it was interesting that the few middle class, university educated, Aboriginals who had been invited, were definitely on the 'white' half of that divide. Class barriers can be harder to cross than race ones.

Australians are actually pretty good about race, really. But we are much worse than we think we are at real class and cultural differences, and tend to get that all mixed up with race in our heads.

And it really is pretty hard to overcome cultural differences, harder than race. It hasn't escaped my notice that, living in Alice here, that our one close Aboriginal friend just happens to be university educated, and share very similar tastes to ourselves.

[alias_sqbr]

I was waiting to reply to this until I had something to add, but I can't think of anything beyond: yes, that's pretty much what I think (I have a few vague quibbles but nothing I can articulate)

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

Have you read *What we are fighting for* by Joanna Russ on the links between feminism, anti-racism, homophobia and ableism?

[alias_sqbr]

No I have not *adds to reading list*

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

is v good - besr overview ive ever read

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking for a while about why this post bugs me, and I think I've mostly narrowed it down to one thing: the primary purpose of this sort of introspective activism seems to be to satisfy that desire to feel secure in the moral high ground. It seems like an unnecessary and unproductive step; you already know that prejudice is ethically wrong, so the primary concern should be your ability to confront others about their prejudicial views and to accept criticism when others confront you, not establishing your impeccable character. Security is not necessarily a good thing; while it may strengthen your confidence, it will make you less willing to accept criticism from those you see as 'in the wrong' (e.g. I'm less open to being told by white straight men etc that I'm too oversensitive about racism/sexism).

However, I should acknowledge that I rail against activism in general. The value I see in it is purely in spreading awareness of a problem; the real change has to come from social pressure which I feel activists do not effectively contribute to (largely due to their 'moral high ground' stance). Obviously, opinions on this subject are going to differ, and I am open to discussion about it.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

the primary purpose of this sort of introspective activism seems to be to satisfy that desire to feel secure in the moral high ground.

That seems to me to be an intrinsically bad-faith way of viewing the situation. I see this sort of effort as being more like cleaning up your own house, and not being a giant hypocrite. That's an effort I'd like to see more people making, not fewer.

I don't see this as a cookie-seeking or boasting post at all; it's really coming from a quite vulnerable place (well, that's my interpretation).

You really think all the social justice changes that have taken place and are taking place in the world had nothing to do in any way with activists? That astonishes me. I can't see how anyone could make that argument successfully, as least not without redefining "activists" in a very narrow and specific way.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

My apologies, I seem to have left myself open to misinterpretation (communicating in a text-only medium is so difficult!). I wasn't describing the post as cookie-seeking; if anything, it's the opposite, a sort of public self-flagellation.

What I meant is that while acknowledging your privilege and prejudice can be important in understanding the context for your views, social change would be far better effected by ensuring that you challenge the views of others and allow others to challenge your own views. As sqbr points out, it is far more confronting for others to challenge you than to challenge yourself; I was extending that thought to say that examining your own views is generally an exercise in reassurance (which opposes change) rather than confrontation (which stimulates it).

As for the activism, as I mentioned, I believe that activists play a vital role in increasing public awareness of a problem. All social change must necessarily begin with activism, because that is how the problem is brought to the fore. However, I do not believe that activism has very much effect on the actual process of change beyond creating the initial impetus. I am not in any way trying to belittle the efforts of social justice campaigners in their struggle against prevailing views, but I do believe that activism is a process of education, and social change is a different, slower process that is started, but not accelerated, by activism.

[gyges-ring.livejournal.com]

You really think all the social justice changes that have taken place and are taking place in the world had nothing to do in any way with activists? That astonishes me. I can't see how anyone could make that argument successfully, as least not without redefining "activists" in a very narrow and specific way.

I think there's a big difference between changes happening, and changes happening and being effectively contributed to. It's something you can bring out with a simple word substitution (that makes remains equally true, because it keeps the same argument form):
"You really think all the social justice changes that have taken place and are taking place in the world had nothing to do in any way with bigots? That astonishes me. I can't see how anyone could make that argument successfully, as least not without redefining "bigots" in a very narrow and specific way."
The above is not a very convincing argument for the need for more bigotry in society.

[alias_sqbr]

I need to think about this some more, but I've clarified a bit (though not completely) in my reply to greteldragon above. I definitely am open to the sort of more subtle criticism you're offering here, even if it makes my brain hurt :)

However, I should acknowledge that I rail against activism in general

By "activism" do you mean Consciousness raising? Or are you including more "active" activists like political lobbysists/freedom fighters/union leaders etc as well? I have different arguments for each, you see :)

I will agree that a lot of "activism" is about making the person feel better about themselves rather than actually improving the problem, and relies too much on a good person/bad person Us vs Them dichotomy rather than practical solutions and bridge building. This is something I'm trying to combat in myself.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Consciousness-raising is the element that I see as the essential and positive side of activism. The negative side is basically everything that gives activists a 'bad name' and aligns their cause in opposition to public opinion: assault, property damage, violent protest, certain political tactics, sanctimonious preaching, hypocrisy and so on.

The combative attitude (Us vs Them) of many activist groups is a large part of why I feel they do not contribute effectively to social changes once they are underway - those who join those groups become frustrated with the slow process of social change, and see that as a 'failure' of their positive educational process. They then often become increasingly 'radical' in order to create 'more impact', not realising (or not accepting) that the process is simply gradual and cannot be hurried. Their efforts switch from the positive consciousness-raising to the negative, and they hinder their cause rather than promote it. Obviously not all activist groups fall into this trap, but far too many do (many of those campaigning for animal rights, for example).

Essentially, I believe that activism is necessary, but often misguided. Political lobbies in particular need careful moderation, as they (by their nature) require a core of extremist values to exist. If those values are translated directly into policy, it is usually disastrous, and hinders social acceptance of the cause because people balk at extreme measures.

You seem to have a good understanding of these issues, and can clearly identify positive and negative attitudes in the pursuit of a cause. It's heartening. :)

Reply 2) In defense of activism (kind of)

[alias_sqbr]

First off, I don't really consider myself an activist, just someone who has personal opinions about things I think need changing and wants to educate people about them on a small, individual-scale level.

I actually have a knee-jerk reaction against organised activist groups myself. My family are all crazy left wingers of different stripes and constantly in conflict both with each other and The Movement, so I have no idealistic illusions on that score. Every time I join any sort of organisation I end up conflicting with those who want all my opinions to match the party line. This is why in my "Why I'm a feminist" post I was careful to specify that I'm not really a part of the organised feminist movement (which I think still does some good work, but has issues)

But, well, that doesn't make activists any worse than the people who oppose them, who are also didactic and inconsistent and petty and destructive etc. People suck. Every group is full of idiots and prats whose actions are counter to their stated goals. I mean, I think politicians in a democratic society tend to be power-mongering and corrupt but they're still necessary, and achieve some remarkable things.

Whether or not activists have a positive effect is one of those subjective historical analysis things. You can always argue that the same social shift that precipitates the formation of activist movements is the thing that really drives the changes they claim responsibility for. My understanding of history is that this is not the case: that many of the large social changes of the past century or so (for good or ill) were the direct results of vocal lobbying by activist groups. I think that the opinions, and thus actions of a society are formed as the average of the opinions of it's citizens, and you need "extremists" to pull the average over, even if they are always on the tail end and thus seem divorced from "normal" people.

Even violent protest, while not generally morally justifiable, does often work, although once things get to that stage the country is generally pretty screwed up whatever happens.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I think I agree, for the most part -- its why I choose to, even though a lot of my private political opinions are quite radical (I think multi-gender, multi-person, 'marriages' should have the exact same legal footing as hetersexual monogamous ones, for example. And I favour decriminalisation of most drugs), I choose to engage with the political process via mainstream political means, such as major political parties and lobby groups. It is not enough for the cause to be right, if the tactics are wrong.


That said, I would have thought that the original post fell into the consciousness-raising category, and thus was positive.

[alias_sqbr]

I'm inclined to think we need both sorts of activists: while it's vital for the overall community to be willing to compromise in order to achive any practical goals, you need some people on the sidelines sticking to their unrealistic idealistic goals to remind everyone that it is a compromise.

But I have no strong evidence for this opinion, it's just what I think :)

Reply 1) Why I post about this stuff myself

[alias_sqbr]

I think posts about this sort of stuff serve many different purposes. For me they are as much about getting things straight in my head as anything else: I have trouble figuring out what I think on an issue without talking about it, preferably with some back-and-forth discussion with other people.

Also, something I do try to do (though flinch back from a bit more than I would like) is not to highlight racism/sexism etc over there (like the highly tempting and entertaining but generally pointless genre of "those crazy americans" posts) but to talk about the sort of prejudice we (me and my friends list) are experiencing and perpetuating. A post I've been putting off because it is going to get me flamed is one on cultural appropriation, ie the creepy way a lot of anime fans (including myself) exoticise japanese culture.

So I do try to challenge other people, and by bringing up these topics I am challenged in return (although, as I said in this post, I tend to bring up topics where I'm not going to be challenged, and that is bad) I deal really badly with real-time conflict (my brain turns to jelly and I get all stuttering and awkward) so the internet is a good place for me to express these ideas.

Also, it's my lj, and thus the place where I ramble about whatever is on my mind, whether or not anyone is interested. It says so right in my userinfo :) Afaict this topic is more popular than wire crochet was.

I do agree that some posts (by other people, I say taking the high moral ground :)) strike me as pointless posturing, pointing to really obviously stupid/racist/etc behavior to make the poster look good without having to express more than a superficial and uncontroversial opinion. Of course sometimes they really are expressing genuine hurt/anger etc, or trying to highlight what they feel is a real and important issue, so it's hard to judge.

[out-fox.livejournal.com]

Thinks 1.

I'm delighted that you admit you like the moral high ground. I tend to feel wary of it, because of both the risk of intellectual stagnation in righteous orthodoxies, and because there's a stereotype of grassroots queer activists being expected to be the "angry lesbian feminists" ALL the time. Plus, I just find that attitude really divisive between queers and condescending to straight women sometimes.

So, I reserve the right to be blunt about personal moral authority in some situations, but am also wary of being provoked into the bait/switch role of the "righteous vanguard lesbian feminists" . Like, being relied upon to do the more confrontational work in rape shelters, then goaded and stigmatized for it when it's time to do networking with more populist, media feminists again.

Similar to the "angry Black women" stereotype, I think when people EXPECT you to be righteous, there's a real risk of being put on the defensive by quasi-allies until it causes burn out.

[alias_sqbr]

I don't think I can ever entirely escape the desire for the moral high ground, it's too much a part of my character. Luckily for me, my idea of "the moral highground" includes being better at listening to other people's POV and more willing to compromise, so I may be smug and condescending but I'm generally not too didactic :)

But yes, I think trying to be a perfect example of righteous, uncompromising justice, virtue and Absolute Truth is a trap. Becuase once you fall into that trap, any mistake, or compromise, or changing of mind, is a huge and glaring failure that proves you're not what you say you are. And it can also be very alienating by creating a stark dichotomy between The Righteous and the Unrighteous, not only between say queers and straight women, but ebetween say queer activists who take different approaches. Like the whole pro-sex/anti-porn divide in feminism.

[out-fox.livejournal.com]

Thinks 2.

Agreed with your views on queer voice vs. widespread ignorance of anti-racism in Australia.

I don't think anti-racism's always easier - not if you go beyond doing the 101 in white majority forums. For me it's really raised conflicts between my existing alliances, and about how much my capacity to do ANY activism relies upon white privileges like being able to access a health service which is white dominated and not catering to non-citizens.

Also, I feel that many liberals glom onto gay marriage as their intersectional cause de jour because it's an uncontentious way to show their "ally status" with a minority group. It's less confronting that being an ally about HIV/AIDS or learning all the politics around the NT intervention.

My views on anti-racism are hugely influenced by the contrast of my experiences as white queer compared to how POC peers of any orientation are treated. I still think queers do need to get "shouty", but white queers have gained far more ground on this than POC and transfolk imho.

There are times when I feel the impact of straight clique bias amongst progressives - but it's when discussing racism or trans stuff that I really brace myself for backlash. The most aggressive homophobia I've been subject to in the last few years was from people who're publicly vocally pro-gay. But, when I called them on how either they or their group [feminists, unions and disability services] were racist or transphobic - that's when homophobia was directed at me to put me "in my place" for not backing the "right" ally faction.

It makes me be less shouty, more focussed on anti-racism and trans networking amongst queers.

edited cos ..too long!