The person I was vagueblogging about before began her incredibly hateful rant with “I am absolutely not intolerant of homosexuals.” She then proceeded to unleash some of the worst bile I’ve seen in person.
I have a friend from the vintage community who’s an evangelical Christian. She’s a good friend. We talk about a lot of things. She does not call herself an ally to the LGBT movement, and she has confided in me that she does not feel equipped to support it because of her religion.
And yet she is one of the most unfailingly kind people I’ve ever met, to people of all stripes. She has a trans woman friend of whom she speaks highly, and not just in a “she’s one of the good ones” way. She has never remotely slut-shamed openly polyamorous, premarital-sex-having me. She’s posted about the importance of intervening in anti-LGBT bullying and of loving one’s children unconditionally. In other words, she is a better ally than many self-identified allies.
This is why I’m wary of placing emphasis on saying all the right things. On bearing all the right labels. Of construing your support in the exact right ways. Often, when you’re worrying about that, you’re thinking too abstractly. In “movements” rather than in people. So you support a movement or you don’t - big deal. I care about whether you support the actual human beings the movement is purporting to help. That’s it. It doesn’t matter what you call yourself if you treat people with respect.
It’s easy to convince yourself you’re a good person for holding all the correct meta-level beliefs while being patently nasty on the object level. Both levels matter, but one is far likelier than the other to make a real difference in others’ lives. I would one million times rather have a friend whose meta-level beliefs I found questionable but who was kind and generous in practice than a friend who said the right things but didn’t walk the walk.