Commentary: Defending Anti-Gay Hate with Masculinity Arguments?

Earlier this week, in a column, we questioned the defense in the Clayton Garzon case, where he allegedly attacked Mikey Partida while using racial epithets.  As we noted at the time, the defense brought in a linguistics expert from Brigham Young University in Utah to testify that anti-gay slurs are not necessarily reflective of bias against homosexuals, but rather could be simply used to challenge one’s manhood.

Professor William Eggington testified that language is more nuanced than people think, with a single word having a variety of meanings when used in various social contexts.

He would argue that the term used by Mr. Garzon, “fag” or “faggot,” could very easily mean “sissy” or “girlie man” or, in other words, terms that challenge one’s masculinity.

But, as we argued, it was a fine line that he drew and he forgot one important point – the reason the term “fag” or “faggot” means “sissy” or “girlie man” is that society, in creating stereotypical images, has connoted homosexuality with those negative stereotypes.

In other words, while Mr. Garzon’s defense is trying to argue that he was using the term as a more colloquial putdown than a sign of hate, they forgot that the origins of that colloquial putdown are rooted in the very hate and negative stereotypes that they are attempting to avoid.

This is a key point that Jonathan London brings up in his weekly column in the local paper.

Mr. London writes, “I can only imagine the huge sigh of relief from gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and others considered outside of the hetero-norm in response to the news that the alleged assailant in Mikey Partida’s beating was not motivated by gay-hatred but was only a challenge to Partida’s ‘masculinity.’ “

Defense attorney Linda Parisi, Mr. London argues, was attempting to make the argument that when her client was quoted saying, “Your (gay expletive) cousin was talking (expletive), I had to (expletive) him up” he really meant, “Your (overly feminine) cousin was talking (expletive), I had to (expletive) him up.”

Mr. London retorts, “What, you didn’t hear this sigh of relief? Neither did I. In fact, this argument itself is frightening.”

Mr. London goes on to argue, “While it may be a reasonable legal defense tactic to avoid a hate-crime enhancement for her client, Parisi’s distinction between gay bias and gender-identity bias reflects a profound ignorance about the common origin and impacts of both biases.”

This was one of the points we were trying to make earlier this week.

He continues, “Both biases function to enforce rigid categories of male and female, gay and straight, normal and abnormal. Those who transgress these boundaries – based on how they dress, walk, talk or love – are often subject to emotional and often physical violence.”

The language of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, finally signed into law in 2009 by President Obama, actually addresses this point by making hate crimes those based on the “actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity” of the victim.

It is a good point.  When in college, I knew a guy who spoke softly and in a somewhat high pitched voice and everyone naturally assumed he was gay, even though he wasn’t.  One would hardly want to give someone a get out of jail card because the defense was that, since the guy turned out to not be gay, it could not be considered a hate crime.

But it also negates the defense offered by Ms. Parisi that Mr. Garzon could not have known that Mr. Partida was gay because, “No one wears sexual orientation as some kind of uniform.”

Mr. London also points out that the language of AB 537, which was passed back in 2000, “added actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender (including gender identity and gender-related appearance and behavior) to the California Education Code non-discrimination policy.”

He writes, “These laws recognize that certain actions and crimes not only affect their intended victims, but also serve to terrorize entire populations.”

Mr. London notes, “In the case of the near-fatal beating of Mikey Partida, this population is all of us.”

He writes, “For some of us who more closely approximate the social norms of gender and sexual orientation, this may manifest in feeling – or being told – that we are not ‘man enough’ or not ‘ladylike.’ These messages can be subtle (‘Son, are you sure you want a tea set, not a baseball for your birthday?’) to not-so-subtle (‘Boy, stop crying, you sound like a girl!’ – or, ‘Girl, you are not going out in those combat boots, they make you look like a man’).”

“But for those of us whose bodies, gender identities or sexualities are judged further from the mainstream, these messages can be enforced with discriminatory and sometimes violent acts,” he writes.

People want to argue that Mr. Garzon is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  I agree completely.  There is no one who believes in the right to a fair trial more than me and, in a number of cases that have come before Yolo County court charging a hate crime, I have disputed whether a hate crime actually occurred and in at least one case there was an acquittal on that charge.

I have seen the DA botch investigations and blow charges way out of proportion.  I have seen in court the same from the Davis Police Department.  So, in the end, I can only judge this case, thus far, on the arguments put forth by both sides.

In the end, just because I believe that the man is entitled to a fair trial and to dispute the hate crime allegations vigorously, does not mean I have to swallow the preposterous arguments put forward by the defense in the preliminary hearing.

Unfortunately, I think the linguist is just tapping into the origins of the terms a bit too late in the process.  The origins of the connotation that he is deriving are anti-gay origins that equate homosexuality with the absence of masculinity.

This is a dangerous argument, as Jonathan London rightly puts out.

Writes Mr. London, “The savage beating of Mikey Partida – and the questionable logic of the attorney defending the alleged assailant, Clayton Garzon – should serve as a wake-up call that emotional, physical and sexual violence related to gender identity as well as sexual orientation (perceived and real) are a threat to everyone, not just 125-pound gay men at their birthday parties.”

He adds, “As a man, I am diminished when I have to question and police how I signify my masculinity. As a co-parent of a daughter and a son, I am pained to the extent that they and their friends do not have freedom to love, dress, talk and walk in whatever way gives their lives meaning. As a community member, I am committed to building a society that embraces all of these ways of being.”

My view, then, is if the defense wants to properly attack the hate crime charge, show that Mr. Garzon does not hate.  They have real evidence of that, even if it in the end comes down to “some of my best friends and relatives are gay.”  Then again, that argument has more validity than we may want to admit.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Categories: