25 ms·

On Geeks and Gays

241 points by bootload 17y ago

bootload 17y ago
"... When I was a teenager at school I definitely did not fit in. I had glasses, was awkward, brainy, wore the school uniform because I had no idea what else to wear, and suffered insults from my classmates. One of these was the frequent and common slander “poof” (which is probably the closest thing to the American term “fag”). I was either ignored, or verbally abused, or physically assaulted. In one attack two boys pinned me down and asked me the incongruous question: “Do you prefer music or art?”. “Art” after all was something only a poof would like. ..." Cripes @JGC I feel for you mate. The self description as a student could fit any reader here. There but for the grace go I - except I was probably bigger & uglier than yourself. Anyone who wants a quick understanding of the mechanics of bullying and ways to circumvent it, take a peek at "Hacking People" ~ http://bootload.posterous.com/hacking-people http://bootload.posterous.com/hacking-people and some thoughts on identifying Cyber Bullies ~ http://seldomlogical.com/2010/03/13/hacking-bullies http://seldomlogical.com/2010/03/13/hacking-bullies
- elblanco 17y ago
  Thanks for the links. While I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth). But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times.
  - bootload 17y ago
    "... I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth) ..." Excellent stuff, go boxing. There's a lot to say for standing up for yourself. "... But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times. ..." Observing body language should probably be a taught subject in school ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201004/what-every-parent-should-teach-their-child-about-body-language http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201004/what-e... An understanding of body language might allow you to see peoples intentions before they give off overt intent. If you want to understand more about decoding & understanding behaviour, talk to http://twitter.com/navarrotells http://twitter.com/navarrotells or get a copy "Louder than words" or "What Every Body is Saying" ~ http://jnforensics.com/Books_%26_Videos.html http://jnforensics.com/Books_%26_Videos.html
    - elblanco 17y ago
      I agree, most of the time when I got into a fight in school was because I wasn't paying attention to the aggressive body language of my challenger. When I did notice it, I found I was usually able to talk myself out of the fights by simply taking what the guy was saying and turning it back on him. It defused the immediate situation because it prevented the bully from amping himself up. One incident in middle school permanently ruined the reputation of a would-be bully since all he knew how to say to start a fight was "common man, let's go". To which I responded "okay, sounds great, where to?" He repeated his statement over and over while I repeated mine. Eventually, it defused the fight. I think he simply didn't know how to respond when I didn't back down and simply took what he was saying absolutely literally instead of as the slang he meant. It also happened in front of a crowd and all through middle and high school was ribbed as the guy who couldn't figure out where to go. He used to get a few compasses at the beginning of every year and offers to help him find his way to class.
  - bootload 17y ago
    "... I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth) ..." However this technique does not always work. Bullying is about finding weakness and applying an asymmetric attack. I'm not sure this approach will work with say a group of girls?
    - elblanco 17y ago
      For guys? It works pretty well, close to 100%. If you can stand up for yourself, even "losing" a fight will usually put a stop to the bullying. The desire not to get hurt, even as a fight "winner", will typically prevent most bullies from engaging in the behavior. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator. Bullies seem to try and pick most subjects to pick on because they believe that subject won't fight back. Once they do (at least with guys), they become too much of a hassle to deal with. I will caveat this though in that the subject has to be smart and assess the chances of the bully returning with a posse to even the score later. There is a problem though with many subjects in that they are simply not physically capable to respond. I was lucky that my father taught me how to box and told me that he would stand up for me with the school administration if I ever got in a fight standing up to bullies at school. I knew, because of that, that if I was called out to a fight, I could show up at the designated time and place and give what I could. The only times I was every bullied was immediately after transferring between schools, and it only lasted the first time. However, most of my friends were not so lucky, they either didn't have the parental support, or were actively advised to keep their heads low and just suffer through. A few of them had physical problems that prevented them from getting into fights, etc. Some of my friends got hurt pretty bad as a result and were tormented throughout school. I'm not a girl so I can't really say how to deal with girl bullying. Girl bullies seem to operate on a much subtler level than guy bullies, mostly through social ostracization campaigns. What always fascinated me is how girl bullying has almost no effect on a guy (even with other girls), so girls quickly give up on bullying guys (I'll come back to this in a second), but can devastate a girl, while the inverse, guys bullying girls can be just as effective as guys bullying guys. It seems to me that getting a girl who is bullied out of the environment where she is bullied as much as possible, and into a group of peers where she can exist without that kind of mal-treatment (basically allow her to socialize in a safe way) can do wonders to build social skills. I have a niece who is smart, creative, talented and otherwise charming, but who is definitely not one of the popular girls. I happened to see her socializing with some of her friends in a public area when the "popular girls" came into the space. I noticed that her friends immediately withdrew while she more or less just ignored them. I think the difference is that her parents enroll her in all kinds of activities, so she has enough confidence through socialization to ignore being ignored, while her friends do no such extra-curricular activities and only know how to socialize with that particular group of peers. The problem with girls also seems to be identifying bullying. Is she just getting ignored or is she getting bullied? With a guy, a torn shirt or bloody nose is easy to see. So I asked my niece, did she feel like those girls bullied her? Without hesitating she said "no, but they do bully my friends." And I think that the secret for her is what I said earlier about girl bullies and guys. Most guys just ignore girl bullies, and my niece seems to do the same. She has enough socialization with other kids her age who don't bully her that she feels confident enough to simply ignore the bullies and as a result she doesn't get bullied. She knows that she has a peer group she can draw positive socializations from, while her friends are still thinking that someday, those popular girls might want to be friends with them and care about maintaining that possible relationship -- which the popular girls seem to use as an avenue for their bullying.
- drunkpotato 17y ago
  This is something I have an interest in, but from a different perspective. I wasn't bullied. I was smart, fat, unapologetically nerdy, and never paid a social price (I had friends, girlfriends in high school, and was not socially maladjusted other than a stubborn anti-authority streak that remains with me). Seemingly I also had higher confidence and was more physically oriented than many geeks I have met later in life. I'm wondering what the differences were. I know one is that I went to high school in a highly educated town where geeks and jocks were nearly equally respected. That can't be the whole story, however, because I also had some friends who happened to be the less socially able geeks, and I experienced a similar degree of friendship and acceptance in junior high, which was in a decidedly less intellectual-friendly city. I'm sorry if I seem to be going on, but I want to provide a counterpoint to the picked-on geek, and I'm curious why the bullied geek is such a common stereotype (seems to be a true stereotype; I don't argue otherwise).
  - bootload 17y ago
    "... I was smart, fat, unapologetically nerdy, and never paid a social price (I had friends, girlfriends in high school, and was not socially maladjusted other than a stubborn anti-authority streak that remains with me). Seemingly I also had higher confidence and was more physically oriented than many geeks I have met later in life. ..." Extrovert? This matters because if you are introverted people see less information. Being in social situations might also give off a "discomfort" signal in body language. It's easy to see someone is uncomfortable. Harder to understand why? Reading body language is one way Bullies select targets. Simple experiment. Next time someone is in an argument with you change your stance by placing your hands on your hips, "arms akimbo". The stand of defiance. It's no coincidence US Marine Corp instructors use this stand. It means don't mess with me, I'm standing my ground. Extroverts won't have a clue about these subtle body language because they have more interesting things to think about. Hence they can become TARGETS. "... I know one is that I went to high school in a highly educated town where geeks and jocks were nearly equally respected. ..." Now that's a good place to be. I'm not sure it's Geeks v's Jocks as much as Geeks being the bottom of the short lived social graph. PG refers to this phenomena in "Why Nerds are unpopular" ~ http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html "... I want to provide a counterpoint to the picked-on geek, and I'm curious why the bullied geek is such a common stereotype (seems to be a true stereotype; I don't argue otherwise). ..." Because they show weakness. Because they could be introverted and therefore appear weak. Because not enough people stand by them when it counts. These reasons alone make them a TARGET for bullies.
kajecounterhack 17y ago
I feel similarly as a gay-affirming Christian. Standing up for equal treatment of people doesn't make a person gay.
- lallysingh 17y ago
  I donno about you, but I never thought the author was. I wonder how many people here did.
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?
- natrius 17y ago
  If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number of children who benefit from both.
  - count 17y ago
    What is 'parent substantially better'?
    - natrius 17y ago
      Therein lies the rub. It is logically possible. It is practically unlikely.
  - wdewind 17y ago
    BIG if
    - dejb 17y ago
      It is an arrangement that is extremely uncommon through most of human history/evolution so it seems reasonable to believe that humans may not be well adapted to brought up by gay couples. You could argue that the lack of genetic relationship to the parents overwhelms any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. But on balance it is not difficult to see why being reared be both a male and female parent could have advantages. Additionally to this you could imagine a scenario where the genes that tended to increase heterosexuality also played a part in being a naturally 'good parent'. Of course all these 'first assumptions' could and should be replaced by actual evidence and I know there is some of that. However I'd argue that studies and statistics to date are likely to be biased by the additional hurdles placed in front of gay couples. Only the very best and most dedicated gay couples are likely to allowed to adopt. I'm not arguing that this justifies a blanket ban, but a degree of caution seems to make sense.
drivebyacct 17y ago
Well I read two lines and stopped: "I’m not, so what was it that drove me to stand up for a gay man?" Is that a serious question? Who the hell wouldn't stand up for a man who was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. I mean, what reasonable non-crazy-fundie person would support that? Wow, I kept reading: "Many of those people who wrongly assumed I was gay would probably be surprised to learn that I campaigned for Alan Turing despite having my own discomfort with homosexuality. I don’t have clear thoughts about whether gay marriage or civil partnerships are better; I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt." Seriously? This is worthy of being the top article on HN. Shudder. Not rhetoric I'm proud of in the least.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- sophacles 17y ago
  Honestly, I'm more impressed with someone campaigning for what is logically right (even tho they have emotional hangups) than I am with someone who follows their emotions for the "right thing" but can't explain why it is right. The latter is just a result of luck. I have had my own stupid emotional discomforts. None of them were logical, but all of them were easier to deal with when I was open about it. Get off your high horse. Edit: strike that "get off your high horse" bit, its too reactionary of me -- sorry about that.
  - drivebyacct 17y ago
    I suppose. I just don't like the fact that the article exists solely based on the premise that a nonhomosexual has to justify speaking up for a homosexual. It's that precise dichotomy and separation that we need to be moving away from, not framing entire blog posts about.
    - sophacles 17y ago
      Sure, I agree with that, but it is nice to show the world that "non-members of group X" can stand up for group X anyway. This is still a bit of a tricky thing. See non-members sticking up for a group can imply weakness, and goes against certain empowerment based philosophies. Think how many times you've seen the equivalent of "I don't need you to fight my battles" in some "X movement" themed movie.
mpk 17y ago
I'd say that geeks tend to think about their environment a lot more than other people because geeks tend to think about systems in general. I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. Gay people seem to me to be just as likely to be virtuous or decadent as straight people. Discriminating against people for having a different sexual orientation seems totally irrational to me. As far as I'm concerned, 'gay rights' generally equate to 'human rights' and you can sign me up for supporting those any day.
- pbiggar 17y ago
  I've found that geeks tend to be either very religious, or very atheist, but rarely in between (or at least much more rarely than in real life). Perhaps it is the same with other moral issues. (Alternatively, perhaps JGC is very religious, and his religion guides his views on gay adoption and marriage.)
  - MartinCron 17y ago
    What? Being theist or atheist is not a moral issue, it's a philosophical issue about the nature of the universe. The notion that atheists are less moral than theists is a common misconception.
    - jon_dahl 17y ago
      I don't think he was saying that one (religious or atheist) is more moral than the other. Just that when we geeks take a stand on a fundamental question, whether it's moral or philosophical/theological, we often do it with conviction.
    - joubert 17y ago
      I would argue it is more moral to be atheistic than to believe in some god.
      - jimbokun 17y ago
        And a theist would argue that being theistic is more moral. This devolves simply to the question of whether theism or atheism is correct, so the question of the morality of either position is largely beside the point. EDIT: Hacker News is not allowing me to reply to you, so I'll ask my question here: If a group of atheist people shared a set of contradictory beliefs, requiring vile and immoral actions, would that make atheism immoral?
merraksh 17y ago
No matter how natural and necessary this might be, it doesn't happen very often that someone fights for a group he/she doesn't belong to. Hats off once more to JGC for that.
sophacles 17y ago
This is just odd to me. It never even occurred to me that the sexuality of a person running a campaign like that would matter. I mean, its Turing -- a name most known for inventing the freaking computer. Sure there is the whole "gay angle" and it being the reason for the treatment -- but I figured the campaign was more about, lets clear this extremely important historical person's name, and for Britain to admit the world had been done an injustice. I guess I'm sadder that in the world I live in such a thing matters so much, than I was that bad things were done to Turing. So jgrahamc: FWIW I just figured you were some guy who was more annoyed than me over the Turing thing, and better positioned to make a fuss over it, and for that: good on you. Were I asked, I would have assumed your sexuality is straight, but thats just playing the odds, as I don't know or care who you screw.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  I'm only guessing but my thinking on how the thought process went was.. People wondered why he was sticking up for Turing in particular - a lot of people have been abused by the government (and society) in the past. They wondered if he had a certain interest in this specific case; and they falsely assumed it was an issue of sexuality, forgetting that Turing was a geek too :)
caryme 17y ago
As a gay geek, I found myself drawn to Turing's story - a tragic story of (probably) unrequited love as a schoolboy, a heroic story of a great thinker and war hero, and a heart-wrenching story of humiliating rejection by the same country he served. I'm surprised JGC was assumed to be gay for standing up for Alan Turing, but proud that he handled the assumptions well. From our perspective, Turing's story is so much bigger than his sexuality. But to the common person, who likely knows little to nothing about Turing beyond what the news says - that he was convicted of homosexuality by his country - this advocacy appears to be one for gay people. Thank you, Mr. Graham-Cumming, not just for standing up for Turing, but for simply explaining you are not gay without getting defensive. Too often, straight men handle being assumed as gay as a terrible and dehumanizing accusation.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Likewise. I think that JGC's campaign (a) shows us what it really means to be without prejudice; and (b) reveals that others in the business of civil rights persist in viewing the world through those same old goggles. That said, I think that JGC breaks from this in the essay. He says: as a geek I empathized with the idea that being different from some societal norm brings enormous pain. To me, that destroys, at least partially, the idea of a completely independent bystander fighting for truth. It brings us, at least partly, back to someone campaigning for a fellow in his own group -- it's just that the dimension JGC chose to sort by is different from the one that most of society would choose. I wish John had simply said because Alan Turing’s treatment was wrong and left it at that.
dinde 17y ago
I love these things, as a gay coder I get to feel special and like I'm representing my kind with my views. ;) In my experience, it's not geeks specifically that are more accepting, but educated people in general. It seems obvious but I think that's all it is.
johngalt 17y ago
Odd, I made no assumptions about jgc's sexuality. I guess I assumed he was straight if anything. Just one geek rising in defense of another.
tsally 17y ago
A thought: Alan Turing died when he was 41. Anything Turing would have invented between 41 and his natural death are things lost to society because of the persecution of homosexuals. What an incredible cost.
- caryme 17y ago
  Although I agree with you that Turing's death was an incredible loss, I wouldn't be so sure he would have died a natural death. Turing had considered suicide before, during his failed work on the Riemann hypothesis. At that time, he schemed up a suicide mechanism involving an apple and electrical wiring which he described in a letter to an old boyfriend. Turing was pretty eccentric, romanticized suicide (and was a little obsessed with this apple idea), and was in and out of depression. Mind you, I agree. I'm just not so sure Turing ever would have died naturally.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    He uh... also tried to poison his PhD advisor.
    - bdr 17y ago
      You aren't thinking of Oppenheimer?
      - rjurney 17y ago
        Whoops, you're right :/
    - madair 17y ago
      Hopefully someone will fix this misinformation soon, and gaddammit dude, when you're going to accuse someone of attempted murder, do a little fact check and send along a reference link or something for crissakkes
      - rjurney 17y ago
jonpaul 17y ago
Kudos to this guy. It's sad that many people in society are myopic and think that this guy was gay. As stated, I think it's simply a case of one geek that was persecuted standing up for a fellow geek. The world needs more people like this guy.
seldo 17y ago
Would it be unbecoming of me to suggest that some readers of this thread might be interested in visiting http://GayGeeks.org http://GayGeeks.org? It is a not-for-profit side venture of mine.
- caryme 17y ago
  Thanks for that. Just joined with the same username.
neodude 17y ago
It's nice to see so many gay geeks 'come out' on this thread. I had assumed I was the only one. Sexuality is such an infrequent topic on HN.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > I had assumed I was the only one. That's strange then because there are plenty of people here that have stated openly and without reservation that they are gay or transgender. In a population of this size you should be very surprised if you are the only gay person.
  - thingie 17y ago
    While it would be very surprising to actually be the only one, it's not surprising to feel as the only one. It's quite reasonable to believe that a randomly chosen person is not gay, so you can't just pick someone and think, he is too, fine, I'm not alone. Statistics are not enough, real concrete persons count.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Given the size of the HN population you could expect 100's to 1000's of people to be gay. It's true that the distribution is such that the chance that someone is gay is low but if you approach 10 people your chances are better than even that at least one of them is gay. Quite a few of them are 'out' in public, google can help you out there.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
John -- congratulations in your quest. I never understood it and even after reading your description don't understand it. Turing had a great mind, but there are a plethora of people with great minds who were killed by society in some fashion or another because of being different. The Holocaust comes to mind. We could take up reams of paper with people treated just like Turing. What real impact does this have aside from making people feel like they did something of value? I really do not understand -- but that's not important. Obviously this was great for both you and your supporters. I can respect the fact that everybody has different motivations and values, some of which are fathomless. So while I can't share your joy, I can be happy for you. Congratulations in accomplishing your goal!

241 points by bootload 17y ago

"... When I was a teenager at school I definitely did not fit in. I had glasses, was awkward, brainy, wore the school uniform because I had no idea what else to wear, and suffered insults from my classmates. One of these was the frequent and common slander “poof” (which is probably the closest thing to the American term “fag”). I was either ignored, or verbally abused, or physically assaulted. In one attack two boys pinned me down and asked me the incongruous question: “Do you prefer music or art?”. “Art” after all was something only a poof would like. ..." Cripes @JGC I feel for you mate. The self description as a student could fit any reader here. There but for the grace go I - except I was probably bigger & uglier than yourself. Anyone who wants a quick understanding of the mechanics of bullying and ways to circumvent it, take a peek at "Hacking People" ~ http://bootload.posterous.com/hacking-people http://bootload.posterous.com/hacking-people and some thoughts on identifying Cyber Bullies ~ http://seldomlogical.com/2010/03/13/hacking-bullies http://seldomlogical.com/2010/03/13/hacking-bullies

elblanco 17y ago
Thanks for the links. While I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth). But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times.
- bootload 17y ago
  "... I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth) ..." Excellent stuff, go boxing. There's a lot to say for standing up for yourself. "... But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times. ..." Observing body language should probably be a taught subject in school ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201004/what-every-parent-should-teach-their-child-about-body-language http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201004/what-e... An understanding of body language might allow you to see peoples intentions before they give off overt intent. If you want to understand more about decoding & understanding behaviour, talk to http://twitter.com/navarrotells http://twitter.com/navarrotells or get a copy "Louder than words" or "What Every Body is Saying" ~ http://jnforensics.com/Books_%26_Videos.html http://jnforensics.com/Books_%26_Videos.html
  - elblanco 17y ago
    I agree, most of the time when I got into a fight in school was because I wasn't paying attention to the aggressive body language of my challenger. When I did notice it, I found I was usually able to talk myself out of the fights by simply taking what the guy was saying and turning it back on him. It defused the immediate situation because it prevented the bully from amping himself up. One incident in middle school permanently ruined the reputation of a would-be bully since all he knew how to say to start a fight was "common man, let's go". To which I responded "okay, sounds great, where to?" He repeated his statement over and over while I repeated mine. Eventually, it defused the fight. I think he simply didn't know how to respond when I didn't back down and simply took what he was saying absolutely literally instead of as the slang he meant. It also happened in front of a crowd and all through middle and high school was ribbed as the guy who couldn't figure out where to go. He used to get a few compasses at the beginning of every year and offers to help him find his way to class.
- bootload 17y ago
  "... I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth) ..." However this technique does not always work. Bullying is about finding weakness and applying an asymmetric attack. I'm not sure this approach will work with say a group of girls?
  - elblanco 17y ago
    For guys? It works pretty well, close to 100%. If you can stand up for yourself, even "losing" a fight will usually put a stop to the bullying. The desire not to get hurt, even as a fight "winner", will typically prevent most bullies from engaging in the behavior. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator. Bullies seem to try and pick most subjects to pick on because they believe that subject won't fight back. Once they do (at least with guys), they become too much of a hassle to deal with. I will caveat this though in that the subject has to be smart and assess the chances of the bully returning with a posse to even the score later. There is a problem though with many subjects in that they are simply not physically capable to respond. I was lucky that my father taught me how to box and told me that he would stand up for me with the school administration if I ever got in a fight standing up to bullies at school. I knew, because of that, that if I was called out to a fight, I could show up at the designated time and place and give what I could. The only times I was every bullied was immediately after transferring between schools, and it only lasted the first time. However, most of my friends were not so lucky, they either didn't have the parental support, or were actively advised to keep their heads low and just suffer through. A few of them had physical problems that prevented them from getting into fights, etc. Some of my friends got hurt pretty bad as a result and were tormented throughout school. I'm not a girl so I can't really say how to deal with girl bullying. Girl bullies seem to operate on a much subtler level than guy bullies, mostly through social ostracization campaigns. What always fascinated me is how girl bullying has almost no effect on a guy (even with other girls), so girls quickly give up on bullying guys (I'll come back to this in a second), but can devastate a girl, while the inverse, guys bullying girls can be just as effective as guys bullying guys. It seems to me that getting a girl who is bullied out of the environment where she is bullied as much as possible, and into a group of peers where she can exist without that kind of mal-treatment (basically allow her to socialize in a safe way) can do wonders to build social skills. I have a niece who is smart, creative, talented and otherwise charming, but who is definitely not one of the popular girls. I happened to see her socializing with some of her friends in a public area when the "popular girls" came into the space. I noticed that her friends immediately withdrew while she more or less just ignored them. I think the difference is that her parents enroll her in all kinds of activities, so she has enough confidence through socialization to ignore being ignored, while her friends do no such extra-curricular activities and only know how to socialize with that particular group of peers. The problem with girls also seems to be identifying bullying. Is she just getting ignored or is she getting bullied? With a guy, a torn shirt or bloody nose is easy to see. So I asked my niece, did she feel like those girls bullied her? Without hesitating she said "no, but they do bully my friends." And I think that the secret for her is what I said earlier about girl bullies and guys. Most guys just ignore girl bullies, and my niece seems to do the same. She has enough socialization with other kids her age who don't bully her that she feels confident enough to simply ignore the bullies and as a result she doesn't get bullied. She knows that she has a peer group she can draw positive socializations from, while her friends are still thinking that someday, those popular girls might want to be friends with them and care about maintaining that possible relationship -- which the popular girls seem to use as an avenue for their bullying.
drunkpotato 17y ago
This is something I have an interest in, but from a different perspective. I wasn't bullied. I was smart, fat, unapologetically nerdy, and never paid a social price (I had friends, girlfriends in high school, and was not socially maladjusted other than a stubborn anti-authority streak that remains with me). Seemingly I also had higher confidence and was more physically oriented than many geeks I have met later in life. I'm wondering what the differences were. I know one is that I went to high school in a highly educated town where geeks and jocks were nearly equally respected. That can't be the whole story, however, because I also had some friends who happened to be the less socially able geeks, and I experienced a similar degree of friendship and acceptance in junior high, which was in a decidedly less intellectual-friendly city. I'm sorry if I seem to be going on, but I want to provide a counterpoint to the picked-on geek, and I'm curious why the bullied geek is such a common stereotype (seems to be a true stereotype; I don't argue otherwise).
- bootload 17y ago
  "... I was smart, fat, unapologetically nerdy, and never paid a social price (I had friends, girlfriends in high school, and was not socially maladjusted other than a stubborn anti-authority streak that remains with me). Seemingly I also had higher confidence and was more physically oriented than many geeks I have met later in life. ..." Extrovert? This matters because if you are introverted people see less information. Being in social situations might also give off a "discomfort" signal in body language. It's easy to see someone is uncomfortable. Harder to understand why? Reading body language is one way Bullies select targets. Simple experiment. Next time someone is in an argument with you change your stance by placing your hands on your hips, "arms akimbo". The stand of defiance. It's no coincidence US Marine Corp instructors use this stand. It means don't mess with me, I'm standing my ground. Extroverts won't have a clue about these subtle body language because they have more interesting things to think about. Hence they can become TARGETS. "... I know one is that I went to high school in a highly educated town where geeks and jocks were nearly equally respected. ..." Now that's a good place to be. I'm not sure it's Geeks v's Jocks as much as Geeks being the bottom of the short lived social graph. PG refers to this phenomena in "Why Nerds are unpopular" ~ http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html "... I want to provide a counterpoint to the picked-on geek, and I'm curious why the bullied geek is such a common stereotype (seems to be a true stereotype; I don't argue otherwise). ..." Because they show weakness. Because they could be introverted and therefore appear weak. Because not enough people stand by them when it counts. These reasons alone make them a TARGET for bullies.

kajecounterhack 17y ago

I feel similarly as a gay-affirming Christian. Standing up for equal treatment of people doesn't make a person gay.

lallysingh 17y ago
I donno about you, but I never thought the author was. I wonder how many people here did.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

natrius 17y ago
If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number of children who benefit from both.
- count 17y ago
  What is 'parent substantially better'?
  - natrius 17y ago
    Therein lies the rub. It is logically possible. It is practically unlikely.
- wdewind 17y ago
  BIG if
  - dejb 17y ago
    It is an arrangement that is extremely uncommon through most of human history/evolution so it seems reasonable to believe that humans may not be well adapted to brought up by gay couples. You could argue that the lack of genetic relationship to the parents overwhelms any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. But on balance it is not difficult to see why being reared be both a male and female parent could have advantages. Additionally to this you could imagine a scenario where the genes that tended to increase heterosexuality also played a part in being a naturally 'good parent'. Of course all these 'first assumptions' could and should be replaced by actual evidence and I know there is some of that. However I'd argue that studies and statistics to date are likely to be biased by the additional hurdles placed in front of gay couples. Only the very best and most dedicated gay couples are likely to allowed to adopt. I'm not arguing that this justifies a blanket ban, but a degree of caution seems to make sense.

drivebyacct 17y ago

Well I read two lines and stopped: "I’m not, so what was it that drove me to stand up for a gay man?" Is that a serious question? Who the hell wouldn't stand up for a man who was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. I mean, what reasonable non-crazy-fundie person would support that? Wow, I kept reading: "Many of those people who wrongly assumed I was gay would probably be surprised to learn that I campaigned for Alan Turing despite having my own discomfort with homosexuality. I don’t have clear thoughts about whether gay marriage or civil partnerships are better; I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt." Seriously? This is worthy of being the top article on HN. Shudder. Not rhetoric I'm proud of in the least.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
sophacles 17y ago
Honestly, I'm more impressed with someone campaigning for what is logically right (even tho they have emotional hangups) than I am with someone who follows their emotions for the "right thing" but can't explain why it is right. The latter is just a result of luck. I have had my own stupid emotional discomforts. None of them were logical, but all of them were easier to deal with when I was open about it. Get off your high horse. Edit: strike that "get off your high horse" bit, its too reactionary of me -- sorry about that.
- drivebyacct 17y ago
  I suppose. I just don't like the fact that the article exists solely based on the premise that a nonhomosexual has to justify speaking up for a homosexual. It's that precise dichotomy and separation that we need to be moving away from, not framing entire blog posts about.
  - sophacles 17y ago
    Sure, I agree with that, but it is nice to show the world that "non-members of group X" can stand up for group X anyway. This is still a bit of a tricky thing. See non-members sticking up for a group can imply weakness, and goes against certain empowerment based philosophies. Think how many times you've seen the equivalent of "I don't need you to fight my battles" in some "X movement" themed movie.

mpk 17y ago

I'd say that geeks tend to think about their environment a lot more than other people because geeks tend to think about systems in general. I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. Gay people seem to me to be just as likely to be virtuous or decadent as straight people. Discriminating against people for having a different sexual orientation seems totally irrational to me. As far as I'm concerned, 'gay rights' generally equate to 'human rights' and you can sign me up for supporting those any day.

pbiggar 17y ago
I've found that geeks tend to be either very religious, or very atheist, but rarely in between (or at least much more rarely than in real life). Perhaps it is the same with other moral issues. (Alternatively, perhaps JGC is very religious, and his religion guides his views on gay adoption and marriage.)
- MartinCron 17y ago
  What? Being theist or atheist is not a moral issue, it's a philosophical issue about the nature of the universe. The notion that atheists are less moral than theists is a common misconception.
  - jon_dahl 17y ago
    I don't think he was saying that one (religious or atheist) is more moral than the other. Just that when we geeks take a stand on a fundamental question, whether it's moral or philosophical/theological, we often do it with conviction.
  - joubert 17y ago
    I would argue it is more moral to be atheistic than to believe in some god.
    - jimbokun 17y ago
      And a theist would argue that being theistic is more moral. This devolves simply to the question of whether theism or atheism is correct, so the question of the morality of either position is largely beside the point. EDIT: Hacker News is not allowing me to reply to you, so I'll ask my question here: If a group of atheist people shared a set of contradictory beliefs, requiring vile and immoral actions, would that make atheism immoral?

merraksh 17y ago

No matter how natural and necessary this might be, it doesn't happen very often that someone fights for a group he/she doesn't belong to. Hats off once more to JGC for that.

sophacles 17y ago

This is just odd to me. It never even occurred to me that the sexuality of a person running a campaign like that would matter. I mean, its Turing -- a name most known for inventing the freaking computer. Sure there is the whole "gay angle" and it being the reason for the treatment -- but I figured the campaign was more about, lets clear this extremely important historical person's name, and for Britain to admit the world had been done an injustice. I guess I'm sadder that in the world I live in such a thing matters so much, than I was that bad things were done to Turing. So jgrahamc: FWIW I just figured you were some guy who was more annoyed than me over the Turing thing, and better positioned to make a fuss over it, and for that: good on you. Were I asked, I would have assumed your sexuality is straight, but thats just playing the odds, as I don't know or care who you screw.

ErrantX 17y ago
I'm only guessing but my thinking on how the thought process went was.. People wondered why he was sticking up for Turing in particular - a lot of people have been abused by the government (and society) in the past. They wondered if he had a certain interest in this specific case; and they falsely assumed it was an issue of sexuality, forgetting that Turing was a geek too :)

caryme 17y ago

As a gay geek, I found myself drawn to Turing's story - a tragic story of (probably) unrequited love as a schoolboy, a heroic story of a great thinker and war hero, and a heart-wrenching story of humiliating rejection by the same country he served. I'm surprised JGC was assumed to be gay for standing up for Alan Turing, but proud that he handled the assumptions well. From our perspective, Turing's story is so much bigger than his sexuality. But to the common person, who likely knows little to nothing about Turing beyond what the news says - that he was convicted of homosexuality by his country - this advocacy appears to be one for gay people. Thank you, Mr. Graham-Cumming, not just for standing up for Turing, but for simply explaining you are not gay without getting defensive. Too often, straight men handle being assumed as gay as a terrible and dehumanizing accusation.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Likewise. I think that JGC's campaign (a) shows us what it really means to be without prejudice; and (b) reveals that others in the business of civil rights persist in viewing the world through those same old goggles. That said, I think that JGC breaks from this in the essay. He says: as a geek I empathized with the idea that being different from some societal norm brings enormous pain. To me, that destroys, at least partially, the idea of a completely independent bystander fighting for truth. It brings us, at least partly, back to someone campaigning for a fellow in his own group -- it's just that the dimension JGC chose to sort by is different from the one that most of society would choose. I wish John had simply said because Alan Turing’s treatment was wrong and left it at that.

dinde 17y ago

I love these things, as a gay coder I get to feel special and like I'm representing my kind with my views. ;) In my experience, it's not geeks specifically that are more accepting, but educated people in general. It seems obvious but I think that's all it is.

johngalt 17y ago

Odd, I made no assumptions about jgc's sexuality. I guess I assumed he was straight if anything. Just one geek rising in defense of another.

tsally 17y ago

A thought: Alan Turing died when he was 41. Anything Turing would have invented between 41 and his natural death are things lost to society because of the persecution of homosexuals. What an incredible cost.

caryme 17y ago
Although I agree with you that Turing's death was an incredible loss, I wouldn't be so sure he would have died a natural death. Turing had considered suicide before, during his failed work on the Riemann hypothesis. At that time, he schemed up a suicide mechanism involving an apple and electrical wiring which he described in a letter to an old boyfriend. Turing was pretty eccentric, romanticized suicide (and was a little obsessed with this apple idea), and was in and out of depression. Mind you, I agree. I'm just not so sure Turing ever would have died naturally.
- rjurney 17y ago
  He uh... also tried to poison his PhD advisor.
  - bdr 17y ago
    You aren't thinking of Oppenheimer?
    - rjurney 17y ago
      Whoops, you're right :/
  - madair 17y ago
    Hopefully someone will fix this misinformation soon, and gaddammit dude, when you're going to accuse someone of attempted murder, do a little fact check and send along a reference link or something for crissakkes
    - rjurney 17y ago

jonpaul 17y ago

Kudos to this guy. It's sad that many people in society are myopic and think that this guy was gay. As stated, I think it's simply a case of one geek that was persecuted standing up for a fellow geek. The world needs more people like this guy.

seldo 17y ago

Would it be unbecoming of me to suggest that some readers of this thread might be interested in visiting http://GayGeeks.org http://GayGeeks.org? It is a not-for-profit side venture of mine.

caryme 17y ago
Thanks for that. Just joined with the same username.

neodude 17y ago

It's nice to see so many gay geeks 'come out' on this thread. I had assumed I was the only one. Sexuality is such an infrequent topic on HN.

jacquesm 17y ago
> I had assumed I was the only one. That's strange then because there are plenty of people here that have stated openly and without reservation that they are gay or transgender. In a population of this size you should be very surprised if you are the only gay person.
- thingie 17y ago
  While it would be very surprising to actually be the only one, it's not surprising to feel as the only one. It's quite reasonable to believe that a randomly chosen person is not gay, so you can't just pick someone and think, he is too, fine, I'm not alone. Statistics are not enough, real concrete persons count.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Given the size of the HN population you could expect 100's to 1000's of people to be gay. It's true that the distribution is such that the chance that someone is gay is low but if you approach 10 people your chances are better than even that at least one of them is gay. Quite a few of them are 'out' in public, google can help you out there.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

John -- congratulations in your quest. I never understood it and even after reading your description don't understand it. Turing had a great mind, but there are a plethora of people with great minds who were killed by society in some fashion or another because of being different. The Holocaust comes to mind. We could take up reams of paper with people treated just like Turing. What real impact does this have aside from making people feel like they did something of value? I really do not understand -- but that's not important. Obviously this was great for both you and your supporters. I can respect the fact that everybody has different motivations and values, some of which are fathomless. So while I can't share your joy, I can be happy for you. Congratulations in accomplishing your goal!