Tone policing in LGBTQ+ spaces
A persistent and well-deserved criticism of far right spaces is the need to align with the central message, and if you do not then you are ejected from the physical or digital space. As much as radical spaces wish to be seen as more open, more fractious, for me one of the increasing issues I have seen over the last eighteen months is the same sort of tone policing. This is not simply about cancelling specific voices, or rejecting certain political perspectives, all of which have valid reasons. This is more complicated, more nuanced, and more rooted in a desire to be as inclusive as possible.
No idea or concept survives contact with a room full of queer folk. Every single person in the room has an opinion based on their map of the world and lived experiences. There is no one way of seeing the world, and even though many of our queer lives align around certain lived experiences not everyone has those same experiences. This cuts all ways. A central point of intersectionality is that we account for the marginalised, for the disenfranchised.
To be queer, to be LGBTQI+ is to claim and live axes of identity outside the normative. As such, when we dissect ideas we do so often from a position in opposition to the mainstream, to the majority who have no experience of our lives. Yet, much of the debate and critique of queer voices come from within the broad community. If your views do not align, or in the past have not aligned, with the current zeitgeist you are not given space to air your views.
This effects every member of the community, as most of us will have views that are more nuanced and divergent from what a plurality might expect. To critique an idea or concept is never a bad thing, as to blindly believe is always problematic. I tend to write from a position of inclusive critique, to critically engage with whatever idea I am exploring and tackle it in a way that is even handed. Yet, there are moments where I step outside the community and land on a position that is contrary or different. Much like everyone else.
How we police the dissent within queer spaces impacts how those who have differing opinions react and behave. No, I am not arguing for the right of those who blatantly disavow the rights of others to have an active voice; rather, how they reached that position, especially if they are queer themselves, is usually the product of years of conversations and lived experiences. Given how broad the queer community is simply rejecting or cancelling someone has limited power. They will always find another space to inhabit, one which is often less open and more dogmatic.
If it is grace and openness that is the solution, then it has to be done with an awareness that not every muddle headed or ignorant thought is innocent. The reason why we tone police in queer spaces is to protect and preserve, to stop more harm being done. In this quest for respect and the joy of others we seek to create spaces free from slings and arrows. Yet, unless we strike the right balance between protection and critical engagement, we will end up with queer echo chambers that do no good for anyone.
Is it wrong to engage with someone you disagree with, watch media that denigrates your very existence, or have truck with those who wish you harm? These are complex questions that only you can answer, and no-one has the right to expect you to engage with anyone or with ideas you find harmful. However, I would also suggest that getting outside our comfort zones is how we grow and develop as people. Simply rejecting ideas, concepts, and people simply because they may cause us harm is not a way to live. This is a fine balance, one which each of us walks daily. We do what we must to survive, yet if the queer community tone polices everything out of sight, those things hidden in the darkness will just grow and fester.
The power to reject and eject is often the only power queer communities have, and it is in this power that fear and pain can cause us to turn our back. Who wields that power, who gets the final say on who is in or out is complicated, for moderators, journalists, editors, content creators, and tweeters all have their own world views which influence who and what they wish to include and police. That the LGBTQI+ spaces rely on their judgement says much for what we expect from our communities. We accept their discretion, accept their policing of our wellbeing, though if we do not critically engage with those decisions we are left in their hands without recourse should we disagree.
Radical spaces as far back as 300BC Athens have had the same issues, nothing I write here is a modern phenomenon. Much as the right wing press would like to decry radical wokeness, the truth is that to be radical is both have radical opinions and have a desire for a degree of ideological purity to latch onto as a life raft in the eye of the oppressive storm. Simple ideas and concepts work because they are things most easily agreeable to the most people; yet, in their simplicity they leave messy complexities behind. When we police it is often the messiness we are trying to squish, not the person. Or, conversely, it is a simple reductive idea that we understand is in actuality more complicated. Messy.
In the end we need to have safe conversant spaces where we can discuss ideas without being thrown under the bus. Tone policing is useful to counter trolls and ill behaviour, but can be actively harmful if it stifles debate. Every community has rules, written or inherent, that we agree on, though those rules become problematic if they exorcise critiquing voices who could bring fresh insight and perspectives. Thus, all communities need to evolve and grow as new members enter and old ones learn. Queer spaces are vibrant an wonderful, we just need to check that our tone policing is not harming that evolution.
