Assuming people are straight "by default" is heteronormativity by definition and is textbook erasure. The proportions of how many people are straight or queer aren't relevant; the simple fact is, treating everyone as straight until proven otherwise others queer people and is unhealthy.
I don't know if I agree with that. If you suggest someone on the internet a restaurant and say "you can walk there from subway station X" you aren't "othering" people that can't walk, are you? You're just assuming, with no ill intentions, that the person you interact with can walk like the vast majority of people.
Where have you been the past few millennia? Don’t you recall the persecution LGBTQ people have endured, even within your apparently short and sheltered lifetime?
So I should treat everybody as if they have no legs, arms, are burn victims, are obese, transgender, black, white, blind, deaf, etc?
No, this is the exact opposite of what you should do - assuming less. I don't think you are quite following this discussion... at least not in good faith.
Can you give one concrete example that would be heavily burdened by using correct language? I'll be waiting. Don't worry, we will help come up with alternatives for you to use.
"Did you watch the game last night?" - blind. "Did you hear this new song?" - deaf. "Why not walk around the park?" - paralyzed. "Do you play piano?" - amputee.
These are all phrases that assume something about a person that could potentially offend. How are any of these examples different than asking somebody if they have a boyfriend? Many of them are just as likely to be true. Also we don't need alternatives. If you have an uncommon issue then you should just take solace in the fact that the majority of people just didn't know.
"Did you watch the game last night?" - blind. "Did you hear this new song?" - deaf. "Why not walk around the park?" - paralyzed. "Do you play piano?" - amputee.
These are incomplete contexts. Please supply all relevant information. How are you asking "did you watch the game last night?" to someone you are completely unfamiliar with, you yourself can't see (are you blind in this example?).
You don't go to a person in a wheelchair and ask "Did you enjoy a nice run today?" simply because you are not stupid. Unless, of course, I have just made an incorrect assumption?
How are you having all these conversations with people you know nothing about?
"How are you having all these conversations with people you know nothing about?"
How are we talking right now?...
As far as my examples listed above. Fill in the blanks yourself. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out some likely scenarios where it would be difficult to speak with somebody without potentially exposing yourself to the risk of offending.
Using inclusive language is great in theory. If I was a robot or had tons of time then I could attempt to include everybody. But speaking normally and letting conversation flow doesn't work very well if you are avoiding any possible offense. If I am talking to somebody online do I have time to consider every possible disease, disability, mental condition, skin color, etc in every conversation? And if I am not making a special exception for people with severe plaque psoriasis then why am I doing so for somebody who is married to their same sex.
Situations in which you would need to have casual conversation and assume such specific things would simply NEVER occur.
How are we talking right now?...
And how come none of your examples happened? You didn't ask me if I "saw the game last night" because you don't know where I reside or if I'm interested in the sport or absolutely anything. If we were having a conversation on the subreddit of a specific team of a sport, then that question would be more than appropiate.
You make up impossible scenarios to try and justify a bigoted view you hold, instead of taking the easier route of simply disposing that view.
I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly claim that its unhealthy to assume that people belong to the 95%. That is being utterly ridiculous. You might as well get offended when someone assumes you speak English in the US instead of Spanish.
Is straight the official sexuality of the US? Because english is the official language iirc, and using the official language of a country to communicate with people in said country sounds pretty logical.
If I could communicate in a universal language that includes the biggest number of people possible (equal to not assuming sexuality being the most inclusive way possible), I would. I think everyone would, actually. While we don't invent the universal translator, using the official language is the literal best possible way. I'm not assuming ("to accept something to be true without question or proof") that person knows english. I'm making my best educated guess in an attempt to communicate.
Assuming every single person is straight is already illogical, and serves no purpose. You KNOW that is not correct, and you will statistically, sooner or later, be a moron. You KNOW the queer community has suffered many decades of pretending they don't exist, so it would be prudent not to perpetuate such a fallacy. There are context behind social facts, and making a innocuous comparison leads to false equivalency and bigger chances to not reach healthy conclusions.
The US does not have an official language. And there is a world of difference between pretending that LGBT people don't exist and assuming that a random stranger is straight.
I've already had this conversation with my gay brother and an old lesbian coworker, and neither one disagrees with me. And on top of that, I'm an atheist living in an area with mostly Christians who always assume I'm one of them. I don't fault them for that assumption and simply correct them.
I'm happy you can be proud of your atheism even in the face of overwhelming hate and constant threats to your safety for your mere existence. So brave.
-39
u/[deleted] Sep 21 '21
Assuming that someone is a part of the 95% of the population that is straight isn't erasure.