The article by Dennis Deuling in the current issue of the gay magazine "Männer" is entitled "Equal rights for equals!". Topic of the issue: (Homo) rioting or adaptation? For Deuling, the answer is clear: conformity!
This is the wrong approach for a lifestyle-accepting campaign like I KNOW WHAT I DO. Diversity is our strength. We say that everyone should be allowed to live the way they want. Regardless of whether they are conformist or "shrill" and "colourful".
But a magazine like "Männer" is allowed - perhaps even obliged - to have this discussion, and of course Dennis Deuling is allowed to have and express his opinion.
However, we are puzzled when the author sees the homophobic laws in Russia and Uganda as a reaction to the Western portrayal of homosexual life. We shouldn't be surprised that "heterosexual mainstream society is afraid of us" if we constantly emphasise our "otherness" in this way, we read.
So far, so strange.
But what is written in this article goes far beyond the boundaries of responsible journalism. Because what is not acceptable and must not go unchallenged are historical distortions and inversions of victimhood and perpetration. And that is exactly what Deuling does:
First he pounces on the "shocking otherness" of Conchita Wurst, before passing judgement: "And that's not a good thing!"
The author finds otherness, even shocking otherness, harmful. And quickly finds evidence of this. In the story. And here, at the latest, the editors of Männer have to ask themselves whether this article has even been proofread:
"Throughout our history, we can trace where this "otherness" has led us. can lead to. First Indians were locked up in reservations, then blacks were enslaved and what happened to the "different", especially the Jews, in the Third Reich does not need to be explained here. These groups all have one thing in common. They were always "different", which in concrete terms means that they did not conform to standard society. In the past, "otherness" was determined on the basis of the culture, origin or religion of those affected. Today, the measurement made by heterosexual society is similar. We are not only measured by who we share our bed with. But also by how we present this fact. My favourite grandmother was a very intelligent woman and one of her rules for society was: "As you shout into the forest, so it sounds out again!"
Victims are turned into accomplices here. It is suggested that Jews, "Indians" and blacks were somehow complicit in their persecution and murder. After all - as Deuling can be understood - they were "different", "not conforming to standard society" and therefore not "adapted" enough.
But this is a deeply inhuman argument that can only make you shake your head in bewilderment: Deuling blames an assumed "otherness" of "Indians", blacks and Jews for what they suffered.
It is unbelievable how much historical oblivion must go hand in hand with such an opinion. The depiction is simply historically incorrect! Because even where people from the named groups conformed to the majority social norm in their behaviour and appearance, they were persecuted, disenfranchised and murdered.
But this doesn't seem to bother Deuling. For him, one thing is certain: "As you shout into the forest, so it sounds out again!" Seriously?
It may be that the author was not aware of these connections, although they are very obvious. But how such a text with these statements could simply end up in an issue of "Männer" is incomprehensible.
Deuling's article was not a contribution to the debate. It was thoughtless and cynical.
Tim Schomann, campaign manager of the nationwide prevention campaign ICH WEISS WAS ICH TU by Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe
