"Sometimes my trauma shows": Billy Porter tells Billy Eichner about calling out Black homophobia
Aux Features Clips
“I’m 50 years old, I don’t do that,” is how Emmy-winning Pose star Billy Porter explained his approach to letting social media controversy dampen his signature sunny disposition. Porter was telling guest Jimmy Kimmel Live host Billy Eichner about doing an “addendum” to his widely-shared Instagram video wherein he furiously addressed the righteously mobilized Black Lives Matter movement regarding what Porter described accurately as “the highest violence on record” against Black transgender women by “black CIS men.” Noting that—just this once—he allowed online backlash to enter his consciousness, Porter told Porter superfan Eichner that he’s willing to admit when he’s wrong. Well, a little bit wrong.
Porter told Eichner he’s not retracting the very real and sobering facts about the pandemic-level violence against Black trans women, so much as allowing that the Black community he grew up in is “changing and shifting.” “I am Black first,” stressed Porter, “and growing up gay in the Black community, it’s a very homophobic community across the board.” Still, Porter—currently relishing getting to be “spooky” in Jordan Peele’s Twilight Zone reboot—was receptive to feedback from some CIS Black men out there who proclaimed their love for and acceptance of Porter as a gay Black man. Thus, the addendum, where Porter—showing all-too-rare internet flexibility of mind—allowed, “I also receive when I am tone deaf.”
Still, Porter was adamant and passionate on his original point about the Black community needing to rally around its “LGBT-plus” segment, saying that his original post still stands. “Sometimes, my trauma shows,” explained Porter, telling the understanding Eichner that his original post’s anger that “as a Black, queer man in America, my basic human rights have been up for legislation every single day that I have had breath in my body” isn’t going anywhere. In tagging a sort-of not-all-Black-men followup to that, Porter showed a willingness himself to allow for change and nuance, which, again, is leading by all-too-rare example. “Love the humanity in every single human being,” exhorted Porter, “We’re human beings first.”
Looking for ways to advocate for Black lives? Check out this list of resources by our sister site Lifehacker for ways to get involved. Looking for ways to advocate for trans lives as well? Here’s a good place to start.
12 Comments
Acknowledging that Black trans women face violence from all corners is critical to keeping them safe. This is somewhat tangential to what Porter’s identifying, but there have been multiple reckonings in online Black circles recently where femmes have come forward about abuse by those even within the trans community, and the reckoning has been thoughtful and frankly revolutionary as an example of widespread restorative justice. For those wondering, I highly recommend following @jewel_thegem on Instagram.
The topic deserves greater study: how, within the activist community especially, can there be a demand for empathy and fairness that extends only to themselves and not to other minorities? It appears to defy the entire idea of empathy and verge into the Trumpy “I want elevation for myself alone” area. DeSean Jackson being a hitler quoting anti-semite, Jews who still use the term “schvartza” and think they can get away with it because they’re a minority also (or who deny that it is now indistinguishable from the n-word), people who make an “exception” for being racist against Asians because they see them as less disadvantaged, Asians who want to pull the ladder up behind them on affirmative action…this is the same kind of shitty no matter who you are.
The problem is entirely rooted in modern critical theory, which has replaced the traditional Marxist concept of “the means of production” with immutable characteristics like race and sex, and a byproduct of this is that people are categorized into “winners” and “losers” based on whether they have enough ethereal privilege that comes from their demographic. One of the results of this theory is the notion is that prejudice exhibited by women and minorities cannot be seen in the same light as prejudice exhibited by whites or men. It’s a fundamentally flawed, and ultimately ideological, perspective that prevents people from forming a diversified community based on mutual respect, which used to be the goal.
I’m not entirely sure I follow…are you saying that these people behave this way because of modern critical theory instead of because they are bigoted jerks? Or that modern critical theory made them bigoted jerks? That divisions based on race come from modern critical theory instead of people enforcing divisions based on race? I mean, there is a good reason why prejudice exhibited by the dominant culture reaping the rewards of both its own oppressive system as well as infighting between the oppressed is seen differently than prejudice exhibited by oppressed minorities…I didn’t mean to imply there isn’t a difference. I just call into question the sincerity of somebody who only wants equality for themself.
I would reconsider engaging with people that want to boil down issues of oppression into academic thought experiments. That is how TERFs and other “not my problem” intellectuals operate.
I constantly engage with the wrong people on these comment boards. But I wanted to ask because it just looks like a more florid version of John Roberts’ “it’s a nasty business this dividing up of people by race” or whatever he said. To me the response to that is: you know what’s worse than being called a racist? BEING a fucking racist. (X is standing over a body holding a bloody knife, Y: You killed him!, X: (gasps, clutches pearls) are you calling me…a MURDERER?). Acting like people are racist entirely because there is now the means to explain what they’re doing when being racist is like saying testing makes people have COVID. Like, was the commenter saying David Duke is a POS because he’s a rogue theoretician? Pardon me, I’m going to go eat this pie I have renamed “carrots” and it will be extremely nutritious and improve my eyesight…diabeehtuss? Quelle suprise!
It’s like…when Shakespeare said “there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so” he wasn’t talking about like slowly impaling people on pikes.
Perfect example of our times. If you disagree with me, even if you’re trying to be reasonable, you are prejudiced, because I am right, and you are wrong. But your comment amuses me because I can’t think of anything more wonderful than if people like you left people like me the hell alone.
Well the issue is that we can’t conflate overt acts of bigotry and prejudice with what is essentially now a systems theory. Under modern critical theory it is no longer necessary for an actor to actually do something to be prejudiced – their mere existence as part of the system establishes their, for example, white supremacist tendencies. If you can label a system as “systemically racist” then all participants are now steeped in privilege and effectively oppressors (which is why you see many white progressives on twitter making these statements of penance which sound suspiciously like the struggle sessions prominent in Marxist societies, though I’m not really suggesting these examples are as extreme). Which goes back to my point that I don’t think this is a particularly useful lens for approaching issues of sex, race, or gender, because it is by its very nature divisive. As for how this intersects with studying prejudicial behavior of those critical theory deems systemically oppressed, this is where it gets turned on its head because the model only accounts for oppression downwards by people who are, generally speaking, cis, white, straight, or male. The notion that someone systemically oppressed could actually oppress someone else isn’t part of the model because the model doesn’t care about these examples.
a) I’m talking about overt acts of bigotry or covert acts (asians opposing affirmative action) that are fairly unmistakable, you seem to be conflating them with an inapplicable systems theory…people didn’t just start to only care about unfair treatment only towards themselves because of modern critical theory, dude, b) I don’t need for DeSean Jackson to “oppress” the Jewish people for that to be antisemitic, there’s a difference between “quoting Hitler at a Jewish person you have power over which infringes on their freedom” and “quoting Hitler at a Jewish person telling them they’re part of the synagogue of satan and should be driven into the sea five minutes after somebody else just called you a racial slur.”I agree it isn’t a particularly useful lens to approach this problem…I didn’t bring it up?
Buttigieg polled very low with black voters and no one had the guts to say why.
“was receptive to feedback from some CIS Black men out there who proclaimed their love for and acceptance of Porter as a gay Black man. Thus, the addendum, where Porter—showing all-too-rare internet flexibility of mind—allowed, “I also receive when I am tone deaf.” So he repented in response to an argument that is literally “not all men”? How come when men normally come forward to say they aren’t sexist or abusive people chastise them, and mock them with refrain “not all men”, but right here its seen as a legitimate commentary worthy of sober reflection? This is why people, including progressives, don’t take the modern woke movement seriously – it’s replete with hypocrisies and absurdities like this.
Still, Porter was adamant and passionate on his original point about the Black community needing to rally around its “LGBT-plus” segment, saying that his original post still stands.Allyship is such a difficult topic in the black community. Distrust of others has been a survival mechanism in response to a long history of betrayal. Despite this, Porter understands its value because he had to go outside of his race to find the support he needed for his sexuality. To preempt criticism that he is abandoning his racial identity for his sexual identity, Porter has to acknowledge that he is black first.