I feel like people might think this is figurative, or like maybe it's a simplistic story, but it's very real. In the 70s, it was never "LGBT" it was gay organizations, lesbian organizations, transsexual or transvestite organizations, gay and lesbian organizations, but not all together. It was only the threat posed by the AIDS crisis that spurred the creation of organizations like Queer Nation it was in this climate that the coalition building happened, and where things like equal marriage became a rallying cry (as many people watched their loved ones die and have their affairs revert to--often homophobic--next of kin rather than their lifelong partners)
It was only the threat posed by the AIDS crisis that spurred the creation of organizations like Queer Nation it was in this climate that the coalition building happened, and where things like equal marriage became a rallying cry (as many people watched their loved ones die and have their affairs revert to–often homophobic–next of kin rather than their lifelong partners)
the biggest irony to all of it is that we now support the people that ignored the aids crisis and helped make equal marriage illegal; eg biden.
We won’t; Biden is directly response for a lot of the social issues that these groups are trying to fix, but they won’t because he still stands by his decision and liberal voters don’t care to know how to know it because he’s a Democrat
Wow, people grow and change, in direct contradiction to the old dog adage.
Note that at no point is it implied that one shouldn’t feel aggrieved about past positions - only that one shouldn’t overlook changes for the better…or forget what came before.
Yes biden is a straight neoliberal, yes he has supported some bad things. He is a straight line party man. Yes he isn’t progressive in any sense. Yes he isn’t doing enough for the climate at all. Yes he is a strike breaker whenever he feels like it, the rat bastard.
However, the biden administration has done 4 huge things including:
Infrastructure bill: largest investment in American infrastructure in generations. Yes he broke the railroad strike, but he also continued negotiations and got the rail workers their requested sick days and then invested a massive amount of money into fixing the safety problem. (Yes, rail should be nationalized ESPECIALLY since the fucking government is fixing the problems with social money because the crooken rail companies only care about quarterly profit) Shit is getting done though
CHiPs ACT: bringing semiconductor fabrication to the US. This act will actually bring back chip fabrication into the US, making everyone less reliant on China and the threat of Chinese invasion in Taiwan. Not only that, but bringing chip fabrication there entails strictor environmental regulations on processes that will be built in any case.
omnibus bill that allows Medicare to negotiate prices again which is the single largest factor of why healthcare in the US is so expensive and it was made that way due to insurance lobbying. This is a huge step forward. This bill also capped insulin prices to actually bring the US into the western world of medicinal capabilities and has already lead to a massive increase in insulin manufacturing. Also this bill is the largest climate bill in history. It is nowhere near enough, but also a huge step forward.
These three bills plus the American rescue plan would be capstones individually for a presidency.
He isn’t a good person, he isn’t progressive, he isn’t what the world needs, but his administratiln is getting shit done when things have been at a standstill or a regression for 20 years.
ngl i can see it with a society that has no social part. My country is headed down that path as well. I look for greater suffering far away from me, like a soothing balm.
The biggest problem with the Trans specific community is that there’s a lot of hesitation from within and surrounding allies to call out the crazy stuff that’s being pushed. Most people are okay, for example, with queer books being in schools. Most people are not okay with pornography in certain books. Can’t we push queer books that talk about age-appropriate sexuality without pictures of people giving blow jobs to strap-ons? My mom would have had a fit if she found anything like that between straight couples in my school library.
So, it comes out that some books contain this explicit material, and instead of the queer activists/supporters saying: “Alright, yeah, this material shouldn’t be here. How about replacing them with these queer books that don’t contain explicit material?” They said: “fuck you, there’s nothing wrong with this, you’re just a bigoted transphobe.”
That’s where we’re losing a lot of support. Because most people draw a line at explicit material for those underage. If they physically see that it’s there, and advocates are shouting that it’s not there (and if it is there, that it’s a good thing anyway 🙄) then rational supporters are going to take a big step back and say “whoa, that’s going too far.” And you’re going to get some who say: “yeah, let’s take it all out, at least until we can be sure the explicit stuff is gone.” The tactic of denying that the explicit stuff exists in the face of reality does not work. It causes people to pull away instead of supporting the overall goal.
Gender Queer has over 200 pages, and in it there is this one scene on one page. According to poynter.org/…/gender-queer-book-in-elementary-sch… it was never recommended for kids. Maybe it was in some school libraries in the 16+ section or whatever, which can be argued how age appropriate that is, but pragmatically, at that age they’ve probably seen way worse.
It’s no wonder that people are called bigots over this if their approach is totally in bad faith; they don’t want a constructive discussion, it’s just performative outrage and virtue signalling.
Just because some of them have “probably seen worse” does not mean we should allow sexually explicit materials in school that are not strictly textbook in nature. And as a freshman in high school at 14, I had access to all the books, no matter what age grouping they were in.
I’m not sure what bad faith about it. The characters sext each other at one point, where one talks about explicit sex acts they want to do, and there’s images of one sucking on a strapon the other is wearing. You can argue that you think this material is okay for all high schoolers (most would disagree), but claiming those who are LGBT members or supporters are just trying to start somthing in bad faith isnt the truth.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the following books:
IT - Stephen King
Memoirs of a Geisha
A clockwork orange
Forever - Judy Blume
The Gossip Girl Series
The Song of Ice and Fire books
That's a small list of some very popular books I'm personally aware of with sexually explicit content, some of it very violent. They're readily available in many school libraries. Clockwork orange is even studied in some high schools. The reason people are saying you're arguing in bad faith is because the nature of the bans are deliberately targeted at LGBT content. There are plenty of other books with much worse content and you're not seeing a national movement to ban that content. Hence the push-back.
I’ve only ever read ASOIAF and Memoiars of a geisha from that list. I don’t remember how explicit scenes were in Memoairs, so I’d have to go back and re-read, but from my memory the scenes were not graphic in detail like the books above. I don’t think ASOIAF should be in school libraries at all, and I’d be onboard with removing those too.
The focus on these books being lbgt has some context behind it. When quarantine happened, parents suddenly had an open door into what was being taught in classrooms. To be clear, this wasn’t all teachers and all classrooms, but it turns out that there were some classrooms that were teaching things that parents weren’t happy about, and it was happening across the country. A lot of this material was centered around “anti racism” which was highly prejudiced and discriminatory in nature, and LGBT teachings that lots of parents found to be inappropriate (which, for the most part, probably came from religious parents).
Whether it’s fair or not, this caused parents to zoom in on these specific categories of material. These categories are being examined with a fine-toothed comb, which is why they’re in the spotlight.
The problem is the whataboutism you’re displaying here. “What about these books?” You’re right that there are most likely inappropriate books in schools that aren’t categorized as lgbt, and I do think you’d have an avenue or removing them, if they’re on the level that these are sexually. But you completely cut off that option by doubling down that the books originally ousted should remain. “These aren’t that bad, other books are worse” isn’t a reasonable argument when people can see them with their own eyes and see that they are. Also, I’d love for you to discover any other book in a school library that instructs teens on how to make their own pornography, which, besides the obvious tie in to child porn, would label these kids themselves as sexual preditors and put them on the list.
You could easily make these arguments if we replaced these specific books with LGBT ones that are sexually appropriate. Why is that not an option? Why are you arguing to keep a book in these schools that instruct 14-17 year olds how to make their own porn?
It’s staggering to me that you’d die on this hill. Rational parents now see two options: either the sexually explicit material remains, or all queer material is banned. They’re not seeing a rational pushback against that second option, so they’re going to go with that second option. The doubling down is in fear that all queer books will eventually be banned from schools. Well guess what: it’s happening because you’re doubling down. You started this argument with “its not happening” and now your argument is “its happening, but it’s not that bad.” You’re actively pushing for a queer book ban, you’re just going the long way to do it.
There are, I’m assuming, plenty of queer books without these explicit pictures and instructions? Why aren’t those being championed instead?
The books aren’t pornographic in their whole, but they have pornographic material in them. The two that have gotten major publicity are:
Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. Where the described strap-on blowing scene is from. It also has explicit sexting scenes where a character describes how hot certain sexual acts would be. I have no problem with coming-of-age stories for queer people, and I have no problem with books with this kind of material being in public libraries. For high schools, you want to talk about/show queer people kissing? Cool. Want them to talk about having sex in general? Cool. But those explicit scenes should probably not be in school libraries. Keep them to general community libraries and let parents decide what’s appropriate to read beyond what’s school-appropriate.
Trans Bodies, Trans Selves by Laura Erickson Schroth. While again, I think a lot of good can come from seeing pictures of normal, naked bodies not in a state of arousal, the book goes beyond that in sections, discussing ways in which to search for trans porn, or to make trans porn youself.
“The use of feminist, queer, and sex positive broadens the search for trans women/femmes, trans lesbians, trans fags, gender fuckers, and all trans no/op, pre-op, and post-op folks.”
“If you find a porn star you really like, hit them up on Twitter or another platform and ask them what they would recommend.”
“It may surprise you how little people talk about porn or respond to your work face to face,” wrote another contributor, “but if you make something wonderful you could change someone’s life.”
“Just start filming and get comfortable around the camera,” another contributor wrote.
And listen, I have no issues with porn. Most of us find it online when we’re young anyway. But that doesnt mean it should be offered how to navigate it, or how to start doing it yourself in school, even in high schools. Most people, including most people in the LBGT+ communities agree that there’s a line to draw here. Leave it up to individual parents to decide how to manage what their kids come into contact with.
These two books caused a firestorm, and when it was shown what had parents upset, instead of saying: “here are some alternatives that have the same themes with no explicit content” activists said: “fuck you, you’re lying” or “fuck you, there’s nothing wrong with showing this.”
Such a dumb response, because it pushes rational people away who see/hear that response and think: “wtf, why are they denying what I’m seeing with my own eyes?” Or “of course there’s something wrong with teenagers in high school reading text about how to make their own porn, these activists are crazy”. It literally ensures there’s going to be a bigger backlash and they’ll start going overboard.
I don’t like the source I have, by the way. It’s incredibly politically biased and one sided, but it’s the only site that lists the explicit parts. I also need to point out that I don’t agree with everything that’s listed in this writeup as being bad. I think talking about what goes into being a trans person is a good thing, and would 100% be on board with these books in high schools if the sexuality explicit stuff weren’t in them. Source.
Like, there have to be queer books out there that are actually age-appropriate, right? Why aren’t we pushing those?
it comes across as bigoted lies because nearly every time, even the most reasonable sounding arguments contain blatant misinformation at best and lies at worst
framing gender queer as porn because it includes one sex scene is just slightly less ridiculous than framing stephen king’s ‘it’ as porn
its hard to take your comment as sincere when the most genuine and reasonable speech folks can muster still relies on distorting the truth
its also hard to take concerned citizens as genuinely concerned when their concern only ever seems to kick in when it lets them yell about the alphabet people
Okay, so what about the hooks and my post is misinformation or lies? Seeing examples of the exact problematic pages shows you its true and the information is correct.
I didn’t say gender queer as a whole is porn, but there are sections in it that are pornographic in nature. To be clear: These scenes would still be an issue if it were a book about straight people.
It makes no sense not to just replace it with queer books and stories that don’t contain this sexually explicit stuff.
I would just like to point out that I do think this is a very reasonable take even if you’re being downvoted. Perhaps there’s no literal books of people blowing strap-ons, perhaps plenty of people don’t consider that inappropriate for children. But it’s never unreasonable to try to understand your “opponents” in a battle, and even perhaps come to compromise. Most social movements start by asking for a lot, then dialing back to more “agreeable” terms. Sure, the fight isn’t over yet, but a battle being won is still important.
Hey thanks. It’s okay, I knew my comment would not be popular, haha. There’s definitely a litteral book with the strap on part, and a book that teaches you how to find specific porn and how to make it yourself. I listed them in a comment below.
I think we should definitely have queer representation in the books in our schools libraries. I don’t see how pushing to keep ones with explicit material is going to help keep that representation there. If anything, it’s going to cause a bigger pushback. We could have easily replaced them with school appropriate material instead.
You can find concrete examples in another comment i made on this thread. They were found in high schools, so ages 14-18. Most people don’t have any problem with these books being in any library that aren’t school libraries. Leave it up to the parents to decide on their own terms how they handle their children’s access. But get the sexuality explicit stuff out of schools.
Most people would have the same issue if it were books about straight people that had this material in schools.
It was certainly made confusing with the title. I was assuming the blue bird was intended to be trans exclusionary gays or LGB without the T. I really don’t know what the title was trying to say.
"LGB without the T" is a common phrase used by transphobes. As the comic notes, division is a tool used by oppressors; all "LGB without the T" means is "Divide yourselves up so we can oppress you like old times".
My biggest beef with the LGBTQIA2+ meme sexuality is that the actual rainbow flag used for 50 years is being erased by countless other random color schemes and with the progress pride flag even BLM. Wasn’t the point of the rainbow to be all inclusive? Why does Trans need its own special section now when it even had a specific color of the rainbow?
I forgot to mention why I ranted. It’s because of the pastel colors so often associated with new flags. Everything is always pastels.
The real fantasy here is that the lgbtqia+ community is something other than fractions of a percentage of the population with extremely niche interests. Voltron all you like, but you’re still an extremely small percentage of the whole with an extremely overexposed media footprint. I’m glad yall are being celebrated again as my people once celebrated and venerated twinsouls, but we also need to refocus our outrage on the shit that affects all of us, like net neutrality and basic right to live shit. Gender affirming care is wonderful for the people who have ready access to food, water, and shelter. I am more worried about the people who don’t have even those basic things. And the number of those people in this country grows every day.
Whether or not you meant it this way, your argument has been used to downplay important social issues for over 100 years, probably a lot longer.
I’ve heard “Why spend so much effort on X when people are dying out there?”
Where X is womens’ voting rights, Black rights, sexual freedoms, political freedoms, and religious freedoms just off the top of my head in the US alone.
If you did mean it with good intentions and not as a debate tactic, know that we can work on two things at once. To use the US as an example again, most of those things I addressed were indeed improved and it’s not like other things just fell by the wayside. We vastly improved food safety, workplace safety, hunger, infrastructure, etc. at the same time.
What I’m saying is that I’m tired of hearing about wants constantly on the news when our country is filled with so much need it hurts. You want to transition. That’s good. I’m so happy for you that you’ve figured out who you want to be. You want a safe community for all your people to gather and share. Totally understandable, people have been doing that for thousands of years. What I am concerned about is what people NEED to live. People need shelter that doesn’t make them unable to afford food. People need food that isn’t so preserved with chemicals and colorants it gives them cancer 20 years down the line. People need water that isn’t full of whatever runoff dupont feels like dumping in 10 miles up the river. None of the other issues become any less important, but we need to understand that needs are more important than wants on a fundamental level. And we are not meeting the needs of our people. Until that happens, I’m gonna be mad about people crying for their wants.
Hello straw man. Lmao pretty sure what I said is that trans issues are disproportionately overexposed in media and really shouldn’t be considering how small of a percentage of the population those issues directly affect. Especially when you look at it through the perspective of someone who knows exactly how much of an issue getting clean water on reservations can be right now, even in the “deluxe American poverty” of the midwest
The whole reason the LGBTQ+ topic is so big is because of those other issues, specifically because solving those would take actual effort and money and if you don’t want to expend that you just tie up people’s attention and energy in useless culture wars, and then they’re too tired and distracted to deal with all the other problems that need solving.
If you actually believe that, surely you’re not going far enough though? You can follow your logic to its conclusion:
People need water that isn’t full of whatever runoff dupont feels like dumping in 10 miles up the river
Actually, some people have no water at all. We should literally expend no effort into cleaning up water until every single human on the planet has access to some form of water.
People need shelter that doesn’t make them unable to afford food.
Actually, some people can afford neither food or shelter, and so we should not expend any effort in providing them with shelter until every single human on the planet has access to food.
It’s almost like we’re a complex society that can address more than one societal issue at a given point.
the adage goes ‘pick your fights’ for a reason. while the needs that badadvice (fitting name, actually lol) mentions are vital and important, the scale of them is such that we would spend all of our energy on them and ignore the plethora of other issues being discussed in this post. while we need to be working on affordable housing, clean water, etc., we also need to be considering where we can do the most good. and people like badadvice get angry that the forest exists because it obscures the their particular tree and would burn the rest of the forest if they think it will help their tree. the reality is that the diminishing returns for fights like badadvice is advocating for puts us in a position that they are often untenable to try and tackle with the level of effort they want to put towards it. this isn’t a matter of being cold-hearted toward those issues, it’s a matter of triaging our problems as a society.
You’re so very close. The LGBT+ is fighting for exactly that. They’re on that front line. And if that front line breaks, they’ll come for your half a twin soul next.
As an overwhelming majority, they arent. The ones with mental health issues might be, which are disproportionately common considering the extremely small percentage of the population we have been talking about to begin with. However, imo that’s a larger mental health care issue than strictly a lgbtia+ issue anyways. The point I’m making here is that people truly struggling with basic right to live shit (ie food, water, shelter) arent worried about getting their next dose of hormones or what dive bar they can pick up some ass at. Look at the truly poor communities and tell me that a gay bar and some estrogen pills will do anything for them. You’ll tell me next “oh no it’s about identity and the right to be who they are!!1!” Lmfao imagine being so fucking free as to CHOOSE your own identity instead of having it branded on you at birth like a fucking animal. Hell, some of you even get to choose new parts if the factory didn’t send you what you wanted. Meanwhile, on the actual rez, Sam the injun boy gets to play with arid dirt and hope the financial services check comes on time this month so mom and dad don’t scream so much. You see the disparity here?
Ok now this clearly shows you're a bigot before all else. You never came here to argue in good faith, did you? Just move goalpoasts and exploit the struggles of native american people as cover for your hatred.
If you're truly native american as you say, you're a terrible representative for your people. But thankfully, unlike you, we don't assume one individual is a representative for all.
Which one did I assume was the representative for all of you? I have different burns lined up for Miller or Jenner, so you’re going to have to remind me which one it was.
My argument has always been that important issues should get more air time. Flint, MI got some, mostly because the water there affected white people. Now let’s see that for some of us redskins. It only took you about 100 years to change the football team. I’ll hold my breath.
You've pointed out specific LGBT individuals as if they're somehow a representation of the wider community. For someone complaining about one dimensional focus you sure spend a lot of time calling out these people specifically because they're LGBT and not all of the other reasons they're getting attention. Ever considered these are just famous rich people that get more airtime just like all famous rich people do? Not exactly exclusive to the LGBT community is it?
And my argument is who makes you the arbitrer of which issues are more important than others? Who do you think should get to decide, because, news flash, it's not the minorities who are calling the shots here. Again, if that's your issue, you need to take it up with the people who do have the power to decide, not shit on the LGBT community.
Most people are mentally weak. Turns out, you can reprogram your whole mind with enough effort. Sort of like a person who is born male convincing themselves they should have been born female, to the point that they will mutilate their bodies to make their physical reality match their perceived ideal. It’s a triumph of mind over body, and it takes discipline. But you go ahead and hold onto the notion that people can’t choose for themselves. That’s a very conservative viewpoint. Colonial, even.
Of course they choose to be non-straight. Everyone is born straight. There is no evidence to suggest that people are born gay. The “Gay Gene” has been debunked consistently.
Hi we can fight about other things too? like I’m also fucking super concerned about how religious institutions are infiltrating our government and other positions of power and how there are still so many mass shootings, and the opioid crisis, and mental health is still abysmal, and dental insurance is a joke even though bad teeth hurt your health… oh and earth is basically fucking melting and people STILL deny global warming. Look see a person can be aware and care about a lot and consider all the things important! You’re making the same type of argument that would come up with ANY progressive outcry of injustice, same fucking arguments happened with police brutality against people of color. Lawmakers don’t have to focus on just ONE FUCKING THING and progress doesn’t have to either.
And fuck this shit people still die from being LGBTQA. Fuck off with “you’re too small to matter enough to protect” bullshit. I get it if you feel like it has too much media attention it’s mostly because it became profitable to talk about it. That’s capitalism at work but don’t lessen and downplay a legitimate fight for equality because of that.
It’s not a fight for equality. Nobody wants equality because equal for us sucks every ass. It’s a fight to be at the front of the line for the money fountain, and every feel good story about an eleventy thousand dollar hormone treatment that got approved could have been a fucking well in a reservation that would have given clean water to hundreds of native people. I’m glad Suzy doesn’t have to be Kevin any more, but Kevin still would have had food, water, and a place to sleep. Some of us don’t even have that. So yeah, until all of us have the basic shit covered, I’m going to mad about the overexposure of a niche group who cry about their wants instead of recognizing all the need around them.
This is a terrible take. Given the high rate of suicide among trans individuals who have no social or medical support, this is a public health issue and not just a race to the "money fountain". Should we also cut funding for all mental health causes because the Flint water crisis isn't yet taken care of? Not every trans individual is even asking for or wants to transition surgically. And when they do, most are paying out if their own pocket. And even those that get any public funding represent a literal drop in the ocean. Are you also mad at women who get attention and funding for breast reconstruction surgery after cancer?
By your logic no other social issue should be dealt with or funded if we don't solve world hunger first. It's not marginalised communities that are standing between people in need and resources, and it's frankly not constructive to be mad at those marginalised communities for getting the attention they do. Better to use that energy to go after those who hoard resources and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
LGBTQIA are getting a lot more screen time because a small group of powerful people decided we're a good scapegoat to distract everyone else (including you) from the real reason the issues you so vehemently abhor are even happening in the first place. Maybe you should direct your ire at them, it's a hell of a lot more constructive.
Also what's this about "you people"? I'm not American. In fact I come from a former colony of a European country that's still getting royally fucked over decades after independence, and the majority of the population lives in abject poverty. Don't lecture me about who's getting enough attention. Most of the people in your country have barely even heard of the place I'm from, let alone give even an iota of a shit about the plight of the people there. And you don't hear me ranting that native americans are getting more "attention" and "resources" compared to my people who are dying of rampant AIDs, violent conflict, and fucking disease and starvation. We all deserve equality and justice - focus your efforts on tearing down the causes, not other groups fighting for themselves against the same fucking oppressors.
Imagine having the independence to fuck up your own country as you like lmao you’re talking about comparing a genocide to intermittent cultural oppression like they’re even remotely similar. I’m sorry the Europeons came to your country and made things worse for your people. Mine never left and have only recently agreed to stop sending us to mandatory death camps dressed up as houses of God. Do your people still have concentration camps? Mine are called reservations.
If you think a lot of African countries are truly independent and not still being fucked every day by the same imperialists that put them in that situation in the first place, you have a lot to learn. Your people aren't the only ones who suffered from genocide and literal slavery courtesy the same breed of colonialists you talk about. Again if you have an issue with the status quo take it up with your oppressors rather than shitting on other oppressed peoples. And while you've turned this into an oppression dick measuring contest you, have yet to tell me how the lack of attention to your cause is specifically the LGBT community's fault as you've alluded to time and again
Because the lgbt community is fighting for wants instead of raising awareness about needs. Let’s talk about drag queen story hour. Do we need protests and media coverage for drag queen story hour to keep going when a rez in the state doesn’t have its own water supply? Apparently so, because that’s what’s on the news. When I say “genocide” what I’m talking about is the 112 million people who lived on this land, of whom there are 7 million descendants today. That’s almost 95% decline. And that’s with explosive growth in the last 2 generations. My people were very nearly eradicated entirely, while lgbtqia+ have enjoyed varying levels of acceptance since written history began.
Your strawman argument fails to demonstrate why this is any of the LGBT community’s fault or responsibility. You know why drag queen story hour is on the news? Nobody cared until bigots made it a big deal and pushed it to mainstream attention. Drag queen story hour has been going on for years, then the ‘phobes started showing up with guns. As if any of us wants to be in the news because we’re being threatened with violence. Christ.
Also where are you getting the 112 million native americans figure from? Most estimates in North America don’t break past 20 million pre-Columbus (and that includes Canada):
Nobody can deny indigenous peoples have suffered from genocide and other injustices, but you do realise the LGBT community is no stranger to genocide and concentration camps, right? Are you unaware of what happened in Europe in the mid-20th century? And that’s only one example – LGBT individuals have been and are still being raped, imprisoned and murdered around the globe. Our saving grace is that we’ve been/are able to able to hide our identities, but a great personal cost.
Finally, the reason none the issues you bring up get any airtime is because the people responsible for picking what gets attention (hint: it's not the LGBT mafia) frankly don’t care. That’s not on us.
“The Native Population of the America’s 1492” 2nd edition, University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. You wanna Cite an actual source or just use Wikipedia? Further, you got put in concentration camps once if you were stupid enough to admit to being gay. We got put onto reservations regardless of what we claimed to be, because we are all Indians. And we never got liberated. We’re still in the camps. Drag queen story hour is an issue of years. The oppression of my people is an issue of CENTURIES. it’s not even remotely similar.
That book refers to the population of ALL of the Americas, including central and south america. To say the native american population went from 112 million to 7 million is a LIE. The wiki page cites actual sources for the figures, or have you never used Wikipedia before?
And we're moving goalposts again I see. You didn't need to admit to being gay, you'd just have to be suspected of being gay to end up in a concentration camp. Today, LGBT people are still being killed, raped, imprisoned, beaten the world over. That's been happening for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, I mean it's in the fucking bible, qran, torah, etc for fuck's sake. And trust me they weren't stoning drag queens and twinks back then. Just because there's LGBT acceptance in -some places- now doesn't mean everything is peachy. So no, your problem isn't remotely similar, but if you want to play oppression Olympics against a group of people who have been persectured for literal millenia, AND STILL ARE, you don't have much of a leg to stand on. But this isn't about who's more or less oppressed. This is about you coming here and faulting the LGBT community for speaking for ourselves, as if it's somehow our fault everyone else is ignoring your people's problem. Take it up with the mainstream media dude, they and the people in power who maintain the status quo are your real enemies, not us.
Yep and I'm proud of it. Oh and the people that matter are proud of me too, thanks. I don't exist for anyone else's gratification, thanks, least of all for people like you.
I'm not giving personal identifying information on the internet, but I'll go as far as saying it's in southern Africa. It's not illegal where I'm from and my family is aware, but I'm not dumb enough to shout it from the rooftops and make it obvious out and about. And this highlights why the fight for LGBT rights are still important - we're still getting murdered or beaten for who we are.
Do you mind sharing your story as to why you identify as LGBT? When did you start developing non-hetero feelings?
I usually find that most people have gone through some form of trauma, abuse, or an experience they’ve had as a child which continued to develop and eventually led to them becoming LGBT.
You’re complaining about someone getting to go to a buffet when you are starving while someone just flew halfway across a country on a private jet to eat a steak down the block from you.
If you want to complain about money not going to get everyone basic needs met, then team together with the people who more often than not are also struggling to get by and target who actually has the money and hoards it for power instead of using it to eliminate hunger from the world.
And how is this the fault of the LGBT community? Are the LGBT community specifically responsible for native americans not getting enough attention? You have yet to make an argument why the LGBT community itself deserves your ire. Have they somehow -tricked- people into getting more attention? I really struggle to understand why you've picked on this group in particular. Are black people being given too much attention too? Women? Elderly people with dementia?
Let’s look at all those groups as a percentage of the population and you tell me who should recieve the attention. Women? Half the population? Black people? Maybe 20-30% of the population around me? Elderly people with dementia? Now we have a very tiny group, except literally anyone could become a part of this group eventually. Now the LGBTQIA+. Not even 1 in 10, and that’s in our VERY accepting society with legally protected status. You don’t even get rounded up in concentration camps. Not here anyways. But could rupaul spare a shout out for my people on the rez? Nah. Better talk about lizzo some more. She needs the exposure.
Ho boy where do I start? You are aware LGBT individuals are everywhere, right? Including on your reservation? In every country in the world, in every social class, race, religion, etc? We are children, siblings, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, colleagues, friends, etc etc. HOW are you surprised the LGBT community gets this kind of representation? The vast majority of people know or know of someone who is LGBT in their social circle. Can the same be said for native americans? Don't assume I don't feel for your people, but conflating LGBT representation as somehow a specific injustice to native americans is incredibly flimsy logic.
Using Rupaul as an example is a supremely poor choice given drag race has specifically given representation to native performers in the US and Canada, and created a platform for those performers to highlight issues their communities have faced:
And again why is it his or any other LGBT individual's responsibility to fight for your cause anymore than it should be anyone else's responsibility?
And you want to talk numbers, ok let's talk numbers. I'll use my country as an example. We're 32 million people, over 60% of that population lives in poverty. Not the deluxe American level of poverty, third world country levels of poverty. That's nearly 20 million people. Nearly half of those 32 million don't have access to clean water, that's over 16 million. Only one in five have access to adequate sanitation, that's 28 million people without adequate sanitation. How many native americans are there in the US? Around 7 million? That's a lot more people in a lot worse living conditions where I'm from than your entire population combined. Should I start complaining that you have more representation in famous movies than my people do? Should I concern troll about there being more native American millionaires than there are in my country? Should I expect native americans to fight for my people's cause too, to give us a shout-out? Using your logic I should go around dismissing any calls for justice for native american peoples simply by citing the fact that more than the equivalent of triple your entire population are living in abject poverty in my country.
Oh and another thing - this whole time you've been shitting in the LGBT community you've neglected the fact that the new pride flag was redesigned not only to give a specific shout out to trans individuals, but also people of colour AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, represented by the black and brown stripes:
Your reading comprehension is lacking - my point is exactly the opposite. I'm not going to shit on someone fighting for a cause that matters to them because they're not taking time out of their day to fight for LGBT individuals. Also, you know it's possible to support multiple causes simultaneously, right? My problem with BadAdvice is not that they're fighting for native american rights, which is a just cause in my eyes. My problem is they're telling us we shouldn't be paying so much attention to LGBT issues because native american issues aren't getting enough attention - as if that's something LGBT individuals even desire or control.
Ok. So you are ok if there are people that don’t support your cause then correct? Because I see so many in your camp villifying those that stay silent or don’t support the cause.
You can fight for multiple causes. The problem BadAdvice is bringing up is that LGBT and a few other politically tensioned issues like BLM are the only ones that get media coverage. You have genocide happening in Palestine, Xinjiang region, Kashmir, etc. And no one bats an eye. Government doesn’t care about anything unless it involves them profiting off of it. Same goes for mainstream media because they know the left and right will get triggered when BLM and LGBT is brought up. So I understand BadAdvice’s plight.
What LGBT and BLM folks can do is switch the narrative and instead of talking about their specific rights, talk about the broader rights that extend to every group.
You need to get off the internet and meet some regular LGBT people if you think the rabid fringe activists represent all of us. I assume you're Muslim given your username, so you must know how it feels when people assume a small number of your people who do bad things are somehow a representation of the larger community. Duh I'm ok people not specifically supporting our cause, especially if they have their own shit to deal with. But if they're here telling us we're getting undeserved attention and need to shut up, well I'm going to take issue with that.
Let's take a specific example - the problems Muslims face in Europe who are threatened by bigotry and the rise of the far right. That's getting a good chunk of airtime in the EU, more than trans rights. I'm not going to tell those Muslims protesting unfair treatment that they should talk about "broader rights" or also fight for trans rights because they obviously need to focus on the specific threat to their existence.
LGBT people and the BLM movement don't control the media and it is not the responsibility of an oppressed group to talk for any other group, nor is it a good idea frankly. This is the same reasoning the men's rights movement makes when they say feminists are not paying enough attention to men's issues. The same argument the "all lives matter" group makes against the BLM movement. It's a bad faith argument meant to derail the conversation from specific issues affecting specific communities. Movements fail when they lose focus, just ask anyone involved in Occupy Wall street.
I do understand how it feels to be villified as a minority so thank you for trying to connect with that. And you bring good points not to use a select few that misrepresent your group.
However, maybe it’s just me but every time I interact with someone from the LGBT community online, I am immediately attacked and called a bigot just because of my beliefs as a Muslim. You are literally the only one so far that has been respectful to me despite my hostile approach initially which I do apologize for.
Perhaps this goes to show that uniting on the basis of being a minority is not the way forward. There has to be a unifying ideology because once a group starts as a minority and accomplishes its goal, it no longer has a cause to fight for. Alhamdulillah, in Islam there is a goal for everyone to strive for in the Hereafter. Otherwise, people will be left aimless in this world.
Bud. If you think reservations are some kind of deluxe poverty, you don’t understand what you’re talking about. Black and brown stripes, because that’s what my people and culture boils down to. Clean water isn’t just some necessity we’d like to have, but it’s literally sacred to us. Our rivers and lakes, poisoned as they are, are still holy to us. We are put on the least arable land possible by hundred year old treaties that are disrespected constantly. Our 7 million are what’s left after 300 years of constant, targeted genocide. Best estimates put the pre colonial population at around 112 million. That’s almost a 95% kill rate. And after all that, we still can’t farm the land we are left with and cannot make our own water clean. I cannot get over “deluxe American poverty” like it even remotely applies to reservations. Has your little shithole ever had concentration camps?
Moving goalposts again. You complained the LGBT community and a specific prominent figure haven't given your cause any attention. You've conveniently ignored that part of my reply.
Are people on reservations today dying of starvation, rampant AIDs, dysentery, cholera, some warlord or child soldier gunning down their home? Seriously, I can keep that list going. And let's talk objective figures. You know what the life expectancy for native americans is? Just over 70. In my country it's just over 60. Listen, what your people went through and are going through is and was unjust, no one can deny it - but if you're going to argue that the level of injustice should dictate who gets more attention, well there's plenty of other populations way worse off than yours who are getting even less attention. If I were to follow your own argument - my people are suffering way worse, so your people are currently getting way more attention than they deserve. Do you not see how this is absurd?
Again your figure of 112 million is disingenuous as I stated in my above comment. Yes, my little shithole had concentration camps, many African countries did. You really need to pick up a few history books and do some reading. Some examples:
You also conveniently forget millions of Africans were rounded up and sold like cattle to slavery. Only reason they kept any of us alive was to be used as slave labour and kept as property. Is it unfair that some groups get more attention than others? Sure. But it's not any given oppressed group's fault and blaming them for it is useless at best, and malicious at worst.
LGBT+ people are disproportionately affected by homelessness, access to food and water, civil rights, and everything else you just spouted, so I don’t see how improving their living conditions doesn’t also help mitigate the other problems.
Add discrimination, mental illness, alcoholism, generational poverty, and cultural genocide to the list, then change lgbt+ to native Americans.
In that case, that’s exactly the point I’m making. Lgbt+ haven’t been generationally oppressed because those things aren’t born with you. A gay man can have a straight son as easily as a trans daughter, but a native man will always have a native child, and that child will face undue hardship by the simple fact of the history they are born into. That deserves more of the news cycle than another protest to keep or ban drag queen story hour at the local library.
You frame the issue as if you are more important than LGBT people, but then you also signal that their issues don’t actually exist, so I’m not really willing to trust that you actually care at all.
This is the same way TERFs frame feminism. “Fuck you, I want mine.” It is quite toxic.
This is an unfortunate take since the intersectionality of gender identity, sexuality, and race when it comes to ALL OF THOSE ISSUES is there. But you don’t see them as allies fighting for common ground. You see this as a zero-sum game.
You also seem to side with the media’s focus, which is swallowing right-wing talking points, so I also have to believe that you’re not really learning from indigenous history, as those same tactics were used against them, as well.
If you want to help indigenous peoples, you can focus on a problem that affects many groups and bring it to the forefront. That brings allies into your group to work together towards a goal, instead of dividing them so that they are easily conquered.
Your last paragraph so neatly captures my own point it’s kinda funny. “If you want to help lgbt+, you can focus on a problem that affects many groups (like clean water). That brings allies into your group to work together towards a goal.” Except your group has more fucking allies than members in my entire nation. And instead of using those allies to fight for something like water rights, you’re burning media time to talk about how grown men should be able to dress as overtly sexualized caricatures of women to read books to children. That’s not an issue that affects many groups. But it’s still on the fuckin news. Our world isn’t EXACTLY zero sum but it’s close. There are only so many hours in the 24 hours news cycle, and I should be seeing more water cleaning and less drag book reading. Explain to me why that is without blaming the mysterious powers that be who are probably just trying to make you look bad.
Again, you should re-read history for how indigenous peoples were systematically genocided. Shall I post for you the “noble savage”? Would you like to see how media at the time was flooded with stories about “they just want to dance, worship animals, and speak gibberish?” Want to tell me how it’s different from what you’re saying now?
You are eating the same brand of propaganda that was used against indigenous peoples, black people, women, etc., etc., and using it against LGBT people. You have learned nothing from tragedy, except to hate others. Congratulations on assimilating.
Bullets and blankets mostly. Then came the churches, the camps, and eventually the schools. Y’see, the difference is that the media came after. It happened to the southern empires first. The propaganda comes well after the genocide. It’s a justification tool. You’re here trying to tell me the media is telling me who to hate. I don’t hate trannies. We have a gay bar downtown overflowing with them. Good, cop hating people. What I hate is seeing them in the news picketing to bring back drag queen story hour when there are homeless cities without water down the street. I hate seeing senators argue about prepubescent access to hrt when there are 150 year old treaties not being honored to this day with native peoples. And I hate seeing all of you here put words in my mouth about who I should or shouldn’t hate for reasons I never brought up to begin with. There is no wrong think. Hatred is allowed. Sometimes, it’s even justified. I just try my best to hate ideas instead of people. So no, I don’t hate trannies or gays or twinsouls or any other extremely niche group youd like to add to the soup. I hate the overblown media footprint of shit that does not and will not ever matter to the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
“change lgbt+ to native americans” is veiled whataboutism. There’s no reason we can’t improve living standards for both groups at once, and using one struggling group as a reason to not support another struggling group is dishonest.
“Trans people are a minority they don’t matter let’s ignore them and tolerate hateful people attacking them because, see that non-trans person over there? They need a home.”
–> That is pretty much what you’re saying right? If not, how did I mischaracterize you?
I don’t see how this type of attitude is fundamentally different than "Black people are a minority so lets tolerate hate because, see that white person over there? Their kids need to go to college.
When did I say anyone should be ignored? My whole point is that the lgbtqia+ media footprint is disproportionately large and pushes out other important issues. I just want less lizzo and ru Paul in the news when I know damn well this country has obligations by treaty to my people that they arent upholding. That should be in the fuckin news. But sure, bring out your straw man. It’s your favorite thing to bitch about so you might as well use it yourself.
Intersectionality is the only way. If we let others down, why would we expect others to fight for us? If you let us down, would you expect us and our allies to still fight for “your people”? Minorities against other minorities are the worst.
You say this country has treaties for your people (I’m guessing you’re Native American? I’m Mexican so half and people think I’m native by my looks), does this mean they have no obligation to treat other minorities with respect? I fully respect any culture you might from and if our country has treaties with your people they should be upheld. But does that mean we need to have fewer rainbows on TV? Are there not LGBTQIA+ members of “your people”?
Also, I’d say one of the main reasons the LBGTQIA+ “media footprint” is as large as it is, is because of hateful people using it to divide people and our need to fight back. And we do it fabulously, the only way we know how. Is it really outsized? LGBTQIA+ is somewhere between 5% and 20% of the population depending on how and who you ask. I don’t think even 5% of people in the media are in this group.
The (typical) news is for-profit, are you really expecting to see appropriate representation? Probably along with actual truth and honesty? Watch Democracy Now for something better.
“T” does not fit, hahahha. Literally gay means therr are 2 genders, same with Lesbian. Damn the word ‘bisexual’ literally means there are 2 sexualities. Hahahhaha
Uh there’s a word for everything in between, male, female and nonbinary. It’s a spectrum, there’s even a word for people that are into all orientations and genders, pansexual.
Trans isn’t really the same sort of thing as Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Ace (which all describe sexual partner preferences not gender identities/expression) and I think that confuses people sometimes
I'm genderqueer, but growing up in a crappy little Midwest town, not conforming to gender norms meant I was "gay" and I was bullied for being gay. The bigots we're never confused, they are out to get us all.
And so my closest friends were and are the LGBT+ fam, because our reasons and identities may be different, but the prejudices we face are remarkably similar.
Everyone of every stripe has the potential to face similer prejudice based on circumstance. Activists cant take the stand of all lives matter because they need to priortise the lives of others the value more. As their perception of morality is relative to what they know and can see
And? Trans individuals were fighting alongside the rest of us for gay rights, gay marriage, etc, since the very beginning. People forget it was the out, loud and proud "freaks" and "weirdos" that spearhead the movement because they were brave enough to speak out when the rest of us couldn't/wouldn't. Many of them were trans individuals who put themselves in danger for the cause. Now the heat is off us and is on them, and we hang them out to dry because some people "might be confused"? Anyone with this mentality can please fuck right off.
Never said there should be no solidarity, but Trans people were/are also huge civil rights activists and we haven’t added races into the acronym—was just pointing out that it can cause confusion.
We added races to the flag though. Intersectionality is the way.
And there's a reason my generation embraced the word "queer" because it encompassed anyone gender nonconforming without demanding that they define themselves. Trans, gay, nonbinary, ace are all gender nonconforming identities in some way.
Yeah I'm the tail end of Gen X and "genderqueer" also still makes me wince, though I understand the reclaiming. I much prefer genderfluid. It just sounds so nice lol
I feel like millennials are in a weird place with this one? I personally grew up in the f***** world, hearing queer in any context almost never. It was a word I mostly read in old and fantasy books that meant strange or unusual. Don’t get me wrong, I’m from the south and knew and know all the slurs (I’ve always had the unseemly duty of teaching my wife what slurs mean when she encounters a new one in art or media =/) but queer wasn’t in regular circulation in my life. To me, the weird part about the reclamation was that it felt like reviving a dead word.
Well not really. Its a fallacy. By adding more and more it becomes more and more ridiculous. To the point that the lgbt community who was once shunned by a religious majority. Has now become religious in turn to try and accomodate every single group that is perceived as weak.
And I'm asking why it should matter in this context. Even in its earliest form the gay rights movement considered gender non-conforming individuals as an inherent part of the community, and no one cared if others were confused (frankly, they were all too busy fighting for their fucking lives). Why should we care to differentiate now when our predecessors didn't at a time when their safety and lives were at stake? Only reason it's being questioned now is because, exactly as the comic points out, the issue is being pushed by far right groups to create a wedge between us.
Public understanding is an important part of changing social norms. People need to be able to conceptualize things in order to understand them. Using clear terminology is an important part of this. Lumping together sexual preferences with gender expression muddies understanding.
Some people think others should simply tolerate differences but I think we are looking for acceptance and not mere tolerance. I think acceptance requires understanding. I think clear terminology aides understanding.
This is way too much good faith for extremist hate and exclusion. Do you suggest what, trans people should just fight on their own? It’s not just a fight about what bathrooms to use and we are already seeing the signs that after trans, the rest of the alphabet is next.
And they are including race into it more and more because the singular similarity is that it’s a group of people that are hated viciously and have their rights and freedoms and saftey threatened for things they cannot control about themselves.
If you really don’t understand that, and even as part of the community, think it’s just a problem that it confuses people because it’s not about love but gender identity (and thus being able to love yourself) then well, I would really like to go live in that world where hate is only because of confusion and understanding. That’s definitely a factor but not here.
Gender and sexuality are socially entwined: how often have you heard that a gay man isn’t a man, that a woman is too pretty (read: feminine) to be a lesbian, that “gay” traits and “traits of the opposite gender” are one and the same, or at least have heavy overlap?
There is going to be bleeding between groups, both internal to the community by people who fall into multiple categories or revel in the freedom that umbrella terms like “queer” bring to them, and without, by those who look at a heterosexual drag queen and only see a freak. Slicing it apart is how you force people to choose terms that don’t apply to them for the sake of remaining within a community, which goes against everything that MY queerdom stands for.
I’d rather outsiders be confused than my own people not feel at home.
Right, if you think about it, why are gay men and lesbian women discriminated against? It’'s because of their gender transgressions – because they don’t share the same desire as others of their gender.
Me and my spouse go out on a date, we walk into the store holding hands, play footsy while ordering, share a dessert, and have a good kiss or two before walking out.
How do you propose that no one knows what my sexual preference is in that situation?
That’s a situation where you are (intimate) with your partner. I was talking about situations where you are alone on the street… there is no reason why another person should be able to guess what your sexual preferences are.
That’s not even what I said… I said that if you are alone (i.e. not with your partner, doing obvious partner activities) how would anyone even know that you are gay?
If you are an effeminate gay like my husband. People can tell right away no matter what he is doing and people will give him the stink eye or throw a slur his way.
They are doing an activity that a straight person would do (i.e. hang out with a partner) and judged differently.
In an ideal world, you would be right. Heck, you can hold hands, hug, kiss anyone and not be gay! But doing those activities for people that look gay attracts negative attention. People with non-conforming appearances get judged differently. Girl with short hair? Guy with long hair? Guy wearing a dress? These are completely normal things for certain presenting genders that I have seen called slurs.
Girl with short hair? Guy with long hair? Guy wearing a dress?
So you are not actually being harassed for your sexual preferences, but for dressing unconventionally…
I’m ready to bet that two average / boring looking guys making out in public will get less harassment, than any guy with colorful hair walking in high heels or something.
This might be a surprise to learn, but some people actually go on dates in public places. Even areas you would think are safe like restaurants, movie theaters, bars and parks. There you can see all kinds of debauchery like hugging, saying I love you, some freaks even hold hands in front of other people.
When a man holds another mans hand, or a woman a woman etc. Doesnt take a genius to infer. Its not “invisible being forced to visible”. So instead of pushing the narrative of “just consistently police yourself so that no one knows anything about you” why not push the “mind your own business and dont intrude into peoples lives” one instead? I.e. you can marry, get healthcare, and opportunities for employment regardless?
Also its not “preference” unless you agree that heterosexual people just “prefer” the opposite sex, but can always change if their “tastes shift”
Dont even need to be on the lgbt clock yo be called a removed its word use is thing of liberal and versatile beauty. Cunt will always be my personal favourite tho
Having gender dysphoria is not the same as a sexual orientation.
And the trans movement is convincing gay kids they are a different gender and medicalising them.
But because the T has joined the LGB umbrella - any sane questioning of the trans movement - not trans people, the trans movement - is met with accusations of bigotry.
Proof? What evidence you have for this? You claim to hate the right but you are no different than conspiracy theorists talking about how reptiles rule the world.
That’s what happens when your group gets mainstream or majority support and you forget that it came with the blood, sweat, tears and bruised bodies of the ones who threw the first bricks at Stonewall.
“I don’t get it, but you do you”: if you can’t help at least do no harm.
You literally are engaging me by replying, which is odd considering your whole shtick right now is loudly and repeatedly declaring your own moral superiority.
Of course the LGBTQ+ community is not a monolith, barely any large community is. But that "alliance" in particular is exactly the kind of group this comic is aimed at. It's no secret the LGB alliance is cheered on by some hard right conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation.United we stand, divided we fall.
To make a long story short, the idea of gender as distinct from sex results in a lot of circular reasoning, or contradiction if you try to work around that circular reasoning.
I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture, considering that publishing anything that goes against that distinction is a good way to lose your job. When arguments against it aren't allowed, you can't rightly point to the lack of arguments against it.
If I were to link you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against gender ideology, would you consider that it may truly be a problem?
As someone with a degree in one of the social sciences, I don't say this as a complete outsider.
If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights 'ideological capture'?
Or would you consider that researchers acting in bad faith are not entitled to be taken seriously by simple dint of their profession, and that allowing people to spew academically ridiculous invective under the guise of 'just asking questions' is harmful to the reputation and integrity of academic institutions and a violation of the duty they hold to improve society's understanding, not worsen it with the implicit endorsement of weasel words and misleading obscurantism?
History major here. Not exactly distant from the scene.
If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights 'ideological capture'?
Yes. Standing behind an idea doesn't require that you censor all attempts at disagreement. Even the most mundane, universal, and virtually unquestionable ideas should come under attack, lest we forget why the attacks are wrong and lose the ability to explain why our convictions are right in the first place.
In other words, it's easy to argue that racism is bad. If the only way society can convince people of this is by harassment of those who disagree, we evidently don't remember exactly why racism is bad. We should be drawing those who advocate for abhorrent moral evils into the limelight and using the superiority of our convictions to demonstrate why they're wrong, not censoring them and doing nothing to prevent more misguided people from going astray.
If indeed gender and sex are uncontrovertibly distinct, it should be trivial for academics to address arguments to the contrary. A refusal to engage suggests that one's ideas are flimsy rather than strong. A good case-in-point is the user below who has decided to find an arbitrary reason to dismiss my arguments rather than addressing them. That reeks of loose conviction.
This only works if all arguments are made in good faith, and as many of your comments have demonstrated, that's not always the case, is it?
Since when is academic research necessary to demonstrate why racism is bad? If we take your argument to its ultimate conclusion, then the KKK having existed and lynched black people was a good thing since without that people wouldn't have figured out why racism is bad. Arguing that we won't remember or understand why any particular prejudice is bad because academia doesn't show us both sides, including the abhorent and extreme, is not arguing in good faith. And frankly the majority of those people you say are being led astray are not listening to academics in the first place, unless they confirm their biases - remember the antivax movement and the chloroquine craze during the pandemic? That's exactly why the kind of 'research' you advocate for is unuseful at best and dangerous at worst.
That you would frame anti-LGBT “research” as an “attempt at disagreement” reveals that ideology, rather than science, drives that perspective. If there were evidence to support those claims, it would stand up to peer review. But there isn’t, because the “research” you’re referencing is almost universally made of pre-conceived conclusions picking what ever evidence fits their narrative.
Arguments that go against the existence of people are very similar to eugenics in all possible ways. We can talk about semantics, but if your take on semantics is going to exclude people, then we have active proof that your semantics are wrong, even if it sounds so simple and right. That is what these sciences study on and what motivates to figure out how it all actually works.
Generally it is, but I prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt. Especially since I've heard people use it in reference to gender as a concept, ie the "Abolish all genders" types, which, while I would not take seriously, I also would not necessarily regard as bigoted. Just a little... misguided.
I deny that I am transphobic, but you are free to demonstrate otherwise.
I linked to the LGB Alliance as it was the first group that came to mind. I haven't read up on them much, and if they are full of Nazis (in the literal sense, not the "anyone who disagrees with you" sense), then I'm open to hearing about it.
You've done nothing this whole time other than employ personal attacks and derail conversations. It would be good to see you contribute something of substance.
Add comment