The term "Breeder"

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, I was at an LGBT conference last month and I was talking with an open lesbian. She asked me what I identified myself as and I said, "A heterosexual Ally." She kinda snapped back at me with, "we don't need sympathy from breeders." I wasn't even sure what the term meant but I knew it was offensive and related to my being straight. I reply to her, "What? Why don't you want the support of heterosexuals? Seems kind of counterproductive doesn't it?" She muttered something and walked away. I was really confused. I talked to other Allies at the conference and they experienced similar things as well.

I went home and then looked up the definition of a "breeder" and this is what I found:
"Breeder is a slang term (either joking or derogatory) used to describe heterosexuals, primarily by homosexuals. It is drawn from the fact that while homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction, heterosexual sex can, with implicit mocking by connotation of animal husbandry."

Okay, so what I want to know is why some heterosexual receive this kind of backlash for supporting the LGBT community. My uncle who acted as my father figure after my parents split was closeted as homosexual through most of my childhood and was kicked out of the house after he came out. So while I haven't experienced this discrimination firsthand, I'm still affected by it. Why shouldn't I be permitted to support the LGBT community?

P.S. I haven't been treated this way by ALL LGBT, it was just the one time that made me want to post about it. I've been embraced by most of my coworkers at the LGBT Center at my university, hence why I was invited to this conference in the first place. I'm just asking what people think. >.<

Ignore her, she's an idiot. And, she's about 20-30 years behind the times, both in attitude and terminology. With advances in science, I see a lot of homosexual couples with children.

Besides, if *everyone* thought her way (and went out of their way not to have children), this entire conversation would be over and done with in about 100 years...

No meaningful dialogue is ever sustained by marginalizing the participants.

This.

Interestingly, the term "breeder" is also used by the child-free community (but not as a synonym for parent).

http://www.childfreeclique.com/2007/12/ ... er-if.html

I figured as much. It's just kind of a slap in the face for me to offer my support in a cause that affects them and then get rejected because I'm not LGBT. *shrug* I dunno. I'm sure if I said she could support my struggle with AS because she's an NT lesbian, she would have flipped out at me (and rightly so) so it seems a bit hypocritical.

Zen - I discovered that as well while researching. And someone also told me that it's also a reference to making and raising babies like livestock. I'm not going to lie, I want kids someday. But I'm not treating them as livestock. That's kind of silly.

I think it was really uncalled for what she did. It must be some issues she has with herself and nothing to do with you.

But the term breeder i think is somewhat true, humanity is taking on sickening proportions. And what about all those freaking orphins already. No people have to have their own baby whom they can inject with all of their own faults.

More people would adopt if it wasn't so freaking expensive. I know I would. Lots of people end up giving birth to babies they can't care for due to lack of birth control or horrible luck. So it's not like they WANT to get pregnant with a baby they can't keep. >.<

And then they're pressured by society to actually have the kid once they are pregnant.

I agree. In nearly any medium-large sized group, you'll find a handful of idiots who only want to cause trouble.

Some really good points brought up in this thread. As I know you can't please everyone no matter how hard you try. People can be just as bias as the bias that's set up against them. My advice is ignore this girl. Normally I would say confront and ask her but I think most of us on the spectrum have trouble with this. It isn't your problem it's hers.

I think you'll find, too, that there are a lot of extremists in college groups. It sometimes takes a lot more life experience to be able to measure things carefully. After all, all of that group's members had parents who were technically "breeders."

It sucks for any person to be heterophobic as much as it does for any person to be homophobic, biphobic, or transphobic. I've seen all these mentalities, they're all common, and I think they're all the same type of ignorance and all just feeding the same fire. I would only use a term like "breeder" (probably phrasing it as "rampant breeder" or "careless breeder") for someone who repeatedly breeds *carelessly and irresponsibly* (sexual orientation wouldn't be the issue for me; I'm a guy who is mainly into girls, for the record). I dislike people who do that, but because of what their unwanted kids will have to go through. I'm also pro-choice, but that's a big can of worms I don't want to open here.

There's some logical fallacy in what that girl said to you. LGBT people do, in fact, need all the support they can get from heterosexuals. Whenever there's a straight person willing to help our cause, I'd personally welcome that person with arms wide open.

Are you still a member of the conference? If so, then I personally think you should report any heterophobic behavior to the officers of the conference. They'll more than likely take it seriously.

I remember something similar happening at my campus's Gay-Straight Alliance. I heard that a lot of the members were hesitant to allow straight people in the club. The president of the GSA actually made it a point in one of his meetings to repudiate that sentiment. He also had me, the secretary, send out an e-mail to all the members calling them out for that. I remarked that it was called the "Gay-Straight Alliance" for a reason.

Well s**t... I was always grateful of support from heterosexuals. After all, isn't that what we have been striving for?

Calling you a breeder is rather silly, too. Not everyone in the LGBT community stays child-free. I sure didn't. *eyes tantruming toddler*

It sounds to me like she was an arrogant ninny.

Homophobia is degrading to the human race in general. It's not just an affront to the queers, but it's an affront to anybody who believes that we are ruled by laws and principles greater than ourselves, not just the whims of those who have the power to impose their will on others.

Those who are fortunate enough themselves to have ordinary sexual predispositions and ordinary family lives are not in themselves at fault. However, there are unethical individuals in this sector of society who are not content with merely being fortunate, and they have used their status and power to systematically ruin and silence anyone who does not have the same good fortune as themselves.

Therefore, I would only ask that those who have heterosexual predispositions understand my view on it. I see their support for the queers as an exemplification of the power of our civilization over the whims of those who would use our society as if it were nothing more than a stage for acting out their illusions and satisfying their wants. We will not tolerate being judged by the sole measure of whether or not we are playing in our expected role in someone else's badly written script for a tacky, pretentious and unimaginative pageant. We are human beings, and that category constitutes all of us, wicked or virtuous, vain or modest, generous or selfish, lawful or dilinquent, wise or foolish, gay or straight, vanilla or twisted, sane or disturbed, black or white. By calling homophobia or so-called "family values" out for what it is, I feel that it is an affirmation of the right of human beings to have lives outside of being pawns in someone else's sick game.

But it is appreciated nevertheless.

Whether it is radical queers, radical womyn or any radical member of a minority group, the presence of "others" will present to opportunity for conflict. Radicalism holds, at its core, the belief that we, and we alone (whatever that "we" might be) have sufficient strength to fight our own fights.

Men are asked (or in some cases told) to remain silent during "Take Back the Night" events because our voices are neither wanted nor needed. Similarly some thing that straight voices are neither wanted nor needed in the LGBT movement.

For my part, I disagree--but I understand the radical thinking that lies behind those positions. Personally, I'm a "big tent" kind of activist. I like to think that there are more of me than there are of the radicals. But I am thankful that the radicals are here, nonetheless.

It was a 3 day conference that they do once a year. I'm still involved with the LGBT group on campus though. Hell, I was their intern for the semester so I was helping them out without any pay. This conference was in New York and I think the girl said she was from Massachusetts or one of the east coast states. Either way, I won't be seeing that girl again. I reported this back to the group I went to the conference with and they were appalled. They pretty much said collectively, "God, what a f*****g moron." I wasn't the only ally in the group that went. We had 16 go and three were allies.

Xeno - That's how I would use the term. Oh, keep popping out babies when you can't afford them? What are you going to do? Sell your kids?

Tea - And not every heterosexual has children. Sexuality doesn't necessarily define one's behavior.

On a related note, it was brought up at the conference that there is a lot of hate between the different "letters" of the LGBT community. It was something to the extent of Gays and Lesbians don't like Bisexuals and Trans just don't fit in at all and if you're Demisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, then bugger off! I do agree that there's A LOT of drama involved, just like any other large group. However, this generalization seems a bit silly. Especially for our keynote speaker to be endorsing at a f*****g LGBT conference. He pretty much only acknowledged the gay man's struggle and ignored the other 3/4 of the audience. :/