View div view

 I can’t say personally I’ve heard the exact argument you’re talking about but I think I understand it.

I’m imagining the logic here is that human rights are something inherently tied to the State. States use rights ironically to ignore rights, as they are never truly expected to make them a reality. As Long as a theoretical right exists, a State can claim it’s being progressive and has done nothing wrong. However, homophobia, like racism and the cis-patriarchy, are functions of the State as they are systems as opposed to acts of meanness, which is unfortunately what most people perceive them to be. And because most people think bigotry is just mean people, when a State appears to be awarding rights, the State looks like the good guys without ever actually changing the conditions or circumstances of the people at all. When the oppressed group starts asking for more than ceremonial gestures, it is easy for the State and the media to demonise the marginalised group for “not being grateful”, as if the oppressed people should be grateful to their oppressors.

This kind of stuff happens all the time here in Australia to the Indigenous peoples, so this is where I drew knowledge from in my attempt to understand the argument. Like i said at the start of this though, I haven’t actually heard the specific argument so I could be interpreting it wrong. Anyway I hope this helps and I’d love to hear as to whether or not I got it right. (Btw I’m a fellow queer anarchist. Not really relevant but it’s nice to see more of us)

Edit: I forgot to clarify, when I say bigotry is a function of the State I am not implying it is exclusive to the State, nor am I implying that bigoted acts of meanness and violence don’t exist/aren’t serious issues. We could abolish the State tomorrow and bigotry would still exist. However I do not believe we can ever truly get rid of bigotry while hierarchies stand, so taking down the State is still essential to that.