I like that you bring up “audience” in this case, which is useful. Does hearing about the “hypocrisy” of some of these politicians and religious leaders change the minds of those who do not support queer rights/inclusion/liberation movements? I can’t really put myself in that position easily, so I don’t know. Does it change the minds of people about these politicians? Yes, I’m pretty sure. But if they’re already anti-queer, don’t they just change who they support? I think an anti-queer citizen is more likely to change which anti-queer politician they support than interrogate their own homophobia.

I think that there is actually a real political necessity to pointing out that people who think homosexuality is unnatural, voluntary, and inexcusably wrong can indeed by gay themselves.

Agreed. But two points on this: One is that it doesn’t necessity outing bigots to do this. Queer people can talk about their own experiences, about their own shame, about their own history of being anti-queer and even current shame or discomfort they feel. I think gay and lesbian activists are often too quick to promote themselves as out and proud (coherently so) at the expense of the possible fruitfulness of discussing their own bad affects. This paints a picture of two types of “gay”: closeted and shameful vs. out and proud, with little middle ground. So, I agree with your statement, but I think it can be easily (and perhaps more fruitfully done) by people talking about their own experiences.

My second point, which is more in line with my original post, is to question that these men are “gay.” Do they have same-sex desires? Based on their actions, probably. Does this make them “gay”? This is arguable, and I’d say yes and no. Identity-wise (do they identify this way): no. Positionality-wise: no. Desire-wise: yes, if we’re lenient with the word to mean similar to homosexual or bisexual.

But I think it’s problematic to say because we know your desires, we can know you, and this is where my discomfort comes from. I think buying into this cultural logic is problematic. When I asked what these outings do, I think I was trying to answer my own question with: It only (and does little more, I think) reinforces a cultural logic of desire=identity.

Some queer theorists have pointed out that the process of coming out of the closet and of asserting a gay or lesbian identity has been and can be a process of creating and asserting a positionality (a political understanding of one’s position in society). However, too often now coming out and identifying as “gay” or “lesbian” is seen as “discovering” an inner truth.

And I think it’s this logic of an inner truth about identity and desire that I am objecting to. And I think I’d rather see resistance to homophobia come from a different place than this cultural logic.

But seriously, I think few are really anonymous. If anyone took the time, it would be pretty easy to figure out the identity of most anonymous bloggers. And if bloggers say anything even mildly controversial, people would take the time. So there’s not much gain there. So I’m not convinced it offers much protection. It’s easy to get real cynical about this sort of thing, and either bag on people for trying to maintain such illusory anonymity, or otherwise go into the whole “own your sentiments” song and dance. I’m not sure it matters much either way.

I do think you’re on the right track, however, in terms of the way it might transform something like subjective experience. I like the idea of enacting particular modes of alterity (see, for example, http://sevenred.net/2007/08/31/graffiti-fridays-lincoln-park-walking-tour/ ). If those are the stakes, and it’s not merely some version of false shield for the sake of a some kind of consequence free opinion (there’s no such thing), then we’re getting somewhere.

Warner’s point that perhaps the requirement of periodicity for publics is waning because of the internet is an interesting one, and I think your topic sounds amazing.

I don’t really have anything to add, except to question “higher periodicity.” I’m not sure, based on the definitions you give, if something can be more or less periodic than something else. Either it’s regular or it’s not. Seems like periodicity is one of those not-relative nouns, like uniqueness, not a relative one, like warmth.

Looks like you had a great discussion! cool!

Glad to hear (see?) that the convo with the adviser went well.

Sounds like a good book, though! And I’m sure you’ll get something useful out of it, even if it seems to be stealing thunder from Chapter 2.

Insert words of encouragement here

If your problem is specifically with blip, there’s an answer here if you scroll down a bit.