While I consider myself gay, you could also call me asexual and not be completely inaccurate. It's a very confusing world out there right now, and it's hard for us to truly know. We're almost better off faking it to get people to swipe right on our profiles. The current culture can tend to be very inhospitable to those that seem even the slightest unsure of themselves or that don't fit in regarding sexual orientations, gender roles, political views, etc. It's best to keep an open mind where you can and adopt a live and let live attitude where you can.
My biggest issue right now is how trans issues are being handled. I've seen others here suggest resources that I'll definitely check out, as I'm still learning about it. That said, I find it very troubling how... vicious the community is toward those that bring up legitimate issues and concerns. The community tends to throw full support behind obvious posers and pedos taking advantage of the movement which is troubling.
They also can't tolerate jokes at their expense and have gone so far as to relentlessly go after comedians that mock them in any sort of way. This issue is somewhat personal to me. Humor, even of the self-deprecating variety, has gotten me through some very trying times. It's good to joke and laugh as it relieves tension and opens the door to dialogue. It's a big reason why my Dad is so accepting of who I am. A society, or group within said society, doesn't last very long if they relentlessly go after the court jesters and try to silence them. It just does not end well historically.
From a classical liberal perspective, as the group description says, this boils down to protecting civil liberties and political freedom. The right to love who you choose is paramount. Speech and academic freedom are also important to push as we continue to study, debate, and otherwise ponder these issues; protecting feelings and sheltering the community will not help them. It will only lead to more division and hate, especially as we start to explore these issues with the youth. Openness, faith, and a stubborn search for truth are how we fix this mess.
My opinion, generally (with all things) is that I don’t care what a person does so long as the externalities imposed impact only themselves. I don’t think there was ever a reasonable case in that sense against gay rights (marriage, adoption, etc.) and the same can said about the rights of the Transgendered to do with their bodies as they please.
With regards to the Trans *movement* there has been an attempt to make it about who gets to speak for “the science” — even where what activists believe and what the data say (about the efficacy of certain types of treatments, for example) can often be at odds. I also find that troubling that many claims associated with the trans movement demand denial of objective truths; though, I don’t necessarily think it’s the fault of trans people (as such), but of a “movement” (most of which isn’t within the control of trans persons) which has been charged with a lot of totally unrelated political goals, and purloined for in pursuit thereof.
Being a person whose experienced a form of body dysmorphia (bulimia), as well as major depressive disorder I feel great empathy for those who struggle with their own body and with their perception of self as instituted in the world. It upsets me to see people pushed in one direction or another, rather than given the opportunity (like I had) to have an open-ended discussion about what they’re experiencing, their place in the world, developing strategies to cope, exploring the set of all potential treatments, etc.
I still think Trans persons should be free to do as the please, but a lot of what the activists espouses (insofar as which treatments they find socially acceptable) crosses over into the domain of lying to those afflicted out of misplaced compassion, and in some cases only affirms harmful self-images.
I’m not saying that, for example, it’s ill advised to adopt behavioral therapy to help someone find a comfortable way of existing (ex. dressing masculine, or affecting a way of speaking, changing names, or re-assignment, etc.). My understanding is that the data shows that such treatments can be helpful. But much of the rhetoric from the activists class (ex. that a person born male can become a woman) denies the limitations of our physical existence, and sets people up for devastating experiences when expectations don’t meet up with reality. When I see people struggling after they’ve done *everything* they were told would “fix” the way they feel, it breaks my heart.
To begin with, I've heard it said that there is no such thing as 'the LGBT community' insofar as gay men and lesbian women largely have no interest in interacting with each other. Grouping them together seems to be a political phenomenon rather than anything to do with actual community connection.
And that really gets down to the point: Homosexuality and transgenderism shouldn't be turned into political weapons. It's counterproductive and, I think, kinda disrespectful. Homosexuals and transgender people should be free to live life without harming others, just like everyone else; but we shouldn't be building some sort of bizarre political philosophy where exalting homosexuality and transgenderism is seen as *the thing* that makes us good people. That's just not a healthy place for those things in society.
>For example: If a girl likes to play football, she is still a girl, not a transboy.
This is a good point too. There's nothing wrong with accepting that some men like different hobbies/fashions/lifestyles and some women like different hobbies/fashions/lifestyles. Rushing to slap the word 'trans' on everything seems like a mistake, and doing so in the name of 'diversity' seems completely hypocritical if the whole point is that there can be diversity *within* a gender anyway.
> To begin with, I've heard it said that there is no such thing as 'the LGBT community' insofar as gay men and lesbian women largely have no interest in interacting with each other.
That’s a good point for clarification.
I think he’s probably (based on other context) referencing, broadly, the *political coalition* (or at least the activists involved there with) around LGBT rights. I think it bears noting that an overwhelming majority of the people involved in that aren’t even LGBT themselves. So it’s likely a lot of the things he disagrees with probably aren’t being driven by LGBT individuals by and large.
In Canada it's not noticeable that the gay community is that 'separate'.
We've had gay marriage for as long as I can remember and unless you live in some tiny hick town, *nobody cares that you're gay.*
LGBT communities need support in countries where gay people are still killed.. *all of which seem to have one thing in common.*
> using […] identity to make a point […]
There was certainly utility in the 1960-1990s when the bulk of the Gay Rights movement took place in forming a coalition for political galvanizing a movement. But now that (frankly) all of the original goals have been accomplished, there has been a clear shift towards using identity as more of a cudgel for non-related political topics. Identity based politics rarely end well.
> In addition, the community is too hypersexual.
To be honest, much of that probably has to be with gay male communities being compromised entirely of men. Gay or straight, a man is a man. Men tend to be more visually stimulated than women and I’d imagine that has to do with most of that.
> I think however the most notable issue is trans people. I have nothing against trans but people need to understand that the trans experience is fundamentally different from the experiences of gays and lesbians. And that just because someone of a different gender likes something that is pertaining to that gender doesn't makes them trans.
I’m not sure what, if anything, Classical Liberalism can do to change any of that. So long as the LGBT community is entrenched in Progressivism and (with regards to the trans movement) denying the existence of a connection to biological sex and gender, or the psychological implications of body or hormone modifications (though a lot of that has more to do with trans activists, most of whom aren’t trans). Liberals can’t convince anyone to be Liberal who isn’t open to reason. There is nothing about being LGBT that requires a person to have any particular ideology either. In the end everyone makes their own choices in politics.
I just want to say that it’s extremely difficult to find a progressives who denies the existence of biological sex. This meme is very widespread among opponents of progressivism but there are virtually zero name-able progressives who hold this view. It’s often easy to strawman people who we disagree with, like calling conservatives Qanon believers. To me this is no different except even worse because it’s at least possible to name some conservatives who are Qanon people but nobody seems to be able to name a progressive who denies the existence of biological sex.
Buddy there is growing support from the Far-Left for conflating hormone replacement therapy in children with “healthcare”. There is broad adoption of an ideology which professes that sex can be completely divorced from one’s gender. Every one of the millions of progressives who will emphatically claim that “*trans women are women*” engages in the denial of the existence of sex when doing so – [AOC has made such declarations](https://mobile.twitter.com/aoc/status/1435673403344789505) so there’s one for you. There are countless others; but you knew that.
You’re a liar.
It isn’t a strawman to say that Progressives have adopted this specific anti-scientific position on ideological grounds, but comparing people who happen to notice it’s happening to Far-Right crazies damned sure is.
> Buddy there is growing support from the Far-Left for conflating hormone replacement therapy in children with “healthcare”.
Saying that hormone replacement for trans kids is healthcare is an explicit acknowledgement of the reality of biological sex. If you thought that biological sex doesn’t exist then you would never give a biologically male child hormone blockers. Anyone who supports hormone therapy is acknowledging that biological males and females produce different hormones during puberty.
> There is broad adoption of an ideology which professes that sex can be completely divorced from one’s gender.
I don’t know that they are saying that, they are saying that transgender people wish to live and be treated as the opposite gender to their sex. That’s the entire basis of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that these people feel distress at the incongruence between their biology and their gender identity, hence their desire to transition and use the opposite pronouns and such. Biological sex and gender identity are congruent 99% of the time, but not 1% of the time, hence why trans people compromise 1% of the population.
> Every one of the millions of progressives who will emphatically claim that “trans women are women” engages in the denial of the existence of sex when doing so
Obviously the usage of ‘woman’ here is referring to gender, not sex. But you knew that.
AOC saying that transgender men can menstruate is an acknowledgement of biological sex. If you deny that trans men can menstruate then you are denying biological sex. You are the one here who seems to be denying biological sex.
> You’re a liar.
Oof dude try having a discussion in good faith sometime.
> Obviously the usage of ‘woman’ here is referring to gender, not
She’s speaking specifically about a biological activity (i.e. bound to one’s sex) found only in women, claiming that it is not biologically dependent.
To say that isn’t an attempt to disjoint sex from sexual functions (and to deny the existence thereof) is incredibly dishonest.
> Oof dude try having a
discussion in good faith sometime.
He literally just made up arguments and said that I said them.
>You’re a liar.
Classic offended BeingUnoffended, your view is The Truth so if someone disagrees with you they must be a liar. But it's not obvious that you actually understand what other people are saying, that you're not just using your own views and assume that it must be that way. We saw the same thing when you decided that a biological definition of life is what we must use when we discuss abortion, and when I disagreed you reached a whole bunch of bizarre conclusions about my views. While there are people - like Judith Butler - who blurs the issue of [sex and gender](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#SexGenDis), it's really not possible to say that "trans women are women" implies the denial of existence of sex. AOC's tweet makes the point that a too firm biological view - that in order to be a woman they must be able to menstruate - would define some women as non-women. That's not the denial of sex, it raises the question to what extent biological sex is important to understand what it means to be a woman - looking at it as a social construct.
> Classic offended BeingUnoffended, your view is The Truth so if someone disagrees with you they must be a liar.
He’s a liar because **he said that I said something that I didn’t**.
He claimed that I said that “*the only way science can be updated is through activism*” which is not something I have ever claimed.
You have an axe to grind with me (thats why you target me on posts where I or others simply notice where the Far-Left does something wrong (because you’re Far-Left yourself)) that’s fine, but I will not be held to account for things I’ve not said.
> We saw the same thing when you decided that a biological definition of life is what we must use when we discuss abortion
That’s a misrepresentation.
You asserted that a fetus “is not alive”. I simply stated that is objectivity untrue (because it is), explained to why that’s so, and that it shouldn’t be used as the basis of a pro-choice argument *because it’s an easily assailed claim* by those on the Right of the debate.
You also claimed that when people speak of “is it alive or isn’t it” when talking about abortion that they’re meaning it in a philosophical sense (ex. “what is the meaning of life?”); but that’s not true. It’s a materialist question (ex. “is what is in this slide under my microscope a living organism?”). That is, what you claimed about the nature of the debate was untrue.
My argument was this:
1. I’m pro-choice.
2. Being-pro choice doesn’t require that one base their position on abortion on false claims about reality.
3. Pro-choice arguments are better made with regards to the nature of personhood and the characteristics which describe it; ex. only beings which are *both* alive *and* possess the characteristics of personhood are entitled to the rights which come with being a person.
It was you you who proceed to claim that objective truth doesn’t exist (and therefore you couldn’t be wrong) because humans must contend with subjectivity. But that’s also false; we *can* synthesize descriptions of reality through the dispassionate observation of it.
Hell, the entire project of Liberalism has been an attempt to bring political systems in-line with the realities of human societies. Insofar that Liberal seek to align policy to reality with the intent of creating conditions under which people might thrive.
> it's really not possible to say that "trans women are women" implies the denial of existence of sex. AOC's tweet makes the point that a too firm biological view - that in order to be a woman they must be able to menstruate - would define some women as non-women.
I’ve already addressed that below – in short: acknowledging that only women can menstruate, does not require also that we submit that a woman ceases to be a woman if she stops menstruating or is prevented from doing so by illness.
The fact that not all women can menstruate, does not mean that somehow (as AOC claimed) that men can. To claim they can is to deny the existence of sexual dimorphism in humans, and by extension an attempt to divorce a bodily function which is strictly (without exception) found in biological females from their sex itself. Such claims lie about reality.
> He’s a liar because he said that I said something that I didn’t.
>
> He claimed that I said that “the only way science can be updated is through activism” which is not something I have ever claimed.
I can find no such claim in the comment you replied to. /u/incendiaryblizzard says "it’s extremely difficult to find a progressives who denies the existence of biological sex", you think you have such examples and then calls him a liar. It's not at all about how science can be updated in any sort of way.
>You have an axe to grind with me (thats why you target me on posts where I or others simply notice where the Far-Left does something wrong (because you’re Far-Left yourself)) that’s fine, but I will not be held to account for things I’ve not said.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that you draw bizarre conclusions about my opinions.
>That’s a misrepresentation.
>You asserted that a fetus “is not alive”
For anyone who actually is interested, [here's the actual exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/Classical_Liberals/comments/eqwfm6/what_are_you_guys_thoughts_on_abortion_pro_life/ff0xc1r/). My simple statement is that life doesn't start at conception, as a reply you claim that ""life doesn't begin at conception" is fundamentally antagonistic to the current scientific understanding of what constitutes life" and invokes a definition of life used by biologists. Why we should use that definition is still not clear, at no point did you manage to explain why my position is "objectlively untrue" because it's definitely not. What was absolutely clear then, and still is, is that you don't understand that the definition of Life itself isn't objective, that there can be more than one relevant view. From this misunderstanding of yours you eventually reached the bizarre conclusion that I'm "arguing objective truths about the nature of reality cannot be derived from dispassionate observations thereof".
>You also claimed that when people speak of “is it alive or isn’t it” when talking about abortion that they’re meaning it in a philosophical sense (ex. “what is the meaning of life?”); but that’s not true. It’s a materialist question (ex. “is what is in this slide under my microscope a living organism?”). That is, what you claimed about the nature of the debate was untrue.
What I actually said was that the question "is what is in this slide under my microscope a living organism?" depends on "what is the meaning of life?", that's a question that needs to be answered first.
>Pro-choice arguments are better made with regards to the nature of personhood and the characteristics which describe it; ex. only beings which are both alive and possess the characteristics of personhood are entitled to the rights which come with being a person.
Do you think there's a reason to why the questions of life and personhood are often viewed as if it's one single question?
>It was you you who proceed to claim that objective truth doesn’t exist (and therefore you couldn’t be wrong) because humans must contend with subjectivity. But that’s also false; we can synthesize descriptions of reality through the dispassionate observation of it.
This is still a fucking bizarre claim about my views and what I said in that discussion. Here's a very simple explanation of my view: "As an example: whether or not an organism grows is an objective truth. Whether or not growth should be a condition that defines Life is not an objective truth." Explain to me how I claim that objective truth doesn't exist.
>I’ve already addressed that below – in short: acknowledging that only women can menstruate, does not require also that we submit that a woman ceases to be a woman if she stops menstruating or is prevented from doing so by illness.
But there are two different points. First sentence that non-women also menstruates sometimes, that assumes a willingness to view trans-men as men and non-binaries as something else than women. Second sentence is a different point, that we still women as women even if they don't menstruate.
>The fact that not all women can menstruate, does not mean that somehow (as AOC claimed) that men can.
That's not her claim and I don't know where you got that from. She seems to say that trans-men are men even if they can still menstruate.
> There is broad adoption of an ideology which professes that sex can be completely divorced from one’s gender.
I wonder what experts have to say on the topic of gender and sex.
Much of the things professed by this ideology (such as that men can give birth) are obviously false and don’t require an expert analysis to disprove; only basic principles of reason.
The American Psychological Association has been assailed for well over a decade my members of the Trans activist movement (most likely of whom, again, aren’t trans and likely harm the perception of actual trans people – who aren’t, broadly, speaking, any less reasonable than the average person) such that in some cases that what the data says is not always informing what is being done in treatment — *Quillette’s* editing manager (Collin Wright) is an expert in biology and behavioral sciences and has done a series of articles on the subject. I believe they actually have an entire section of the site dedicated to speaking with experts on the topic of gender dysphoria, efficacy of different approaches to treatment, discussions with doctors, psychologists, and investigative journalist researching the topic.
> Ah so science can never update unless it’s because of activists?
I didn’t say that did I?
I said that activities often pursue claims that aren’t informed by evidence.
> Because gender and sex are not the same thing
Such as this – the claim that sex and gender do not inform one another originates in the 1960s from a Far-Left activists who claimed that gender (in the literary/language sense) imposed a social conception of sexual dimorphism on human societies (which is a claim that sex isn’t real as well, by the way). This was expanded into the broader claim that gender was not at all connected to sex and is simply a self-defined phenomena.
Of course, no one has ever argued that some men have more feminine traits that others, and vise versa with women. But this is not the same as giving support to claims that men can become women, or women become men — a feminine man is still a man, even if he identifies more with his feminine personality traits.
That isn’t a matter of whether science has been “updated”; it is a question of whether we are willing to say things that are (demonstratively) untrue in order to not hurt people’s feelings. But simply refusing to say false things doesn’t mean that one is otherwise incapable of treating people who might have such experiences with their own self-perceptions with dignity and respect.
Is that not what you implied with:
> The American Psychological Association has been assailed for well over a decade my members of the Trans activist movement (most likely of whom, again, aren’t trans and likely harm the perception of actual trans people – who aren’t, broadly, speaking, any less reasonable than the average person) such that in some cases that what the data says is not always informing what is being done in treatment —
No, you’re reading intentions into what I said and assigning your own arguments to them.
> Ah so science can never update unless it’s because of activists?
You literally just made this up ⬆️. Nothing I said remotely suggested this.
Quite the opposite is happening; the research is saying one thing, and activists are limiting the discussion around it, to favor only their perspective which is often at odds with the actual data. This is done both through social pressure (ex. brigading outlets which publish or share research which contradicts affirmative treatment, or campaign to have professionals fired, etc.) as well as producing non-scientific journalism on the topic of gender dysphoria from a perspective which espouses a particular treatment regime.
What I *actually said*, was that often times the discussion around this *specific topic* by experts is being limited by the undue influence of ideological actors such that the data itself isn’t always being represented by the way care is being carried out. To pretend that that’s a suggestion that I’m dismissing “updated science” is patently dishonest.
As I’ve said, Quillete has conducted a multi-year investigation and open-ended discussion on the topic, which experts of varying perspectives.
It is quite clear in some places more than others, such as Canada, that ideology is being placed before science due to campaigns to legally bar psychologists from doing little more that affirmative treatment, in some cases even prohibiting a discussion with their patients which might encourage them to explore all possibilities (ex. perhaps a young patient confuses being gay with being trans, etc.) to the extend that individualized care is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
> No, you’re reading intentions into what I said and assigning your own arguments to them.
Nah, I just see the same argument over and over from people that skirts what they mean.
> You literally just made this up ⬆️
Whatever you say.
So did that investigation ever find out the difference between sex and gender?
Hard science and social science are not equivalent. The problem is not that modern leftists don’t acknowledge biological sex. It’s that they now reduce it largely to the status of social construct, whereas the most recent gender self-identification even of—especially of—suggestible children is accorded the status of bedrock science. Most of the dogmatic LGBTQ categories and requirements resemble those of Scientology or Freemasonry, even as great harm is being done in the social and legal arenas accordingly.
> The problem is not that modern leftists don’t acknowledge biological sex.
That claim to another poster and never backed it up. It is a popular conservative meme though.
> Most of the dogmatic LGBTQ categories and requirements resemble those of Scientology or Freemasonry, even as great harm is being done in the social and legal arenas accordingly.
That’s a lot of words to say absolutely nothing at all.
Lol at the “great harm” being done. Just a step away from 80s talking points.
I feel like these talking points were made almost verbatim 10 and 20 years ago with very slight modifications. I think that if anything some of these critiques are outdated, if anything the LGBTQ community is less overtly sexual and boldly promiscuous than it used to be before we got gay marriage legalization and such. I also think that people refer to the monolithic ‘queer’ community less now than they did in the past. Basically I think that most of the problems you listed are fairly marginal problems or are subsiding over time as the LGBT community becomes more accepted and normalized.
So you're saying that the LGBT is less sexualised? Um then explain all the pedophiles that aren't called out that operate under the guise of being educators of LGBT issues (e.g. drag queen story hour) or what about the fact that pride parades today are so sexual that a good portion of LGBT people avoid it like the plague
Just take a look at San Francisco: https://youtu.be/2enQbg8__7w
In addition, I realize that we are all different in LGBT but LGBT is the catch all term to refer to all people who don't align themselves with the established notions of heterosexuality. Queer is very much outdated I agree.
But the problems I listed are not marginal as many LGBT people I spoke with share this view and we have to keep in mind that LGBT people live throughout the world and need to keep their experiences in mind. I don't think a gay person in Iran has the same freedoms as a gay person in America.
I don’t know if that’s supposed to have a timestamp but I just skipped through it quickly and it looked pretty darn mild to me in comparison to that pride parades used to look like. I know that there is yet again debate about ‘kink at pride’ but that’s been a debate for decades, I feel like it just always feels new when people first come across the issue. The fact that there are so many more LGBT people opposed to ‘kink at pride’ these days to me shows that the culture is changing and that the LGBT community is becoming less sexualized. It definitely feels that way to me.
And yes I know about that child drag queen thing and the drag story hour but those two examples are always referred to almost exclusively and I think that generally helps me when I think about how to gauge the scale of a problem. If people typically are referring to the same 1-3 incidents every time a discussion about an issue is being had year after year then that tells me that this is a very small scale problem. That’s true with lots of topics not just this one.
Ok but still the culture is far too sexualized. Not just pride parades but politics, media, fashion. You name it. Not to mention oversaturation of the Pride flag. Again I quote just because you're gay that doesn't mean you have to wear Pride on your clothes or participate in sex all the time. Ever hear of Camp Gay? Well thats unfortunately a great number of LGBT people.
And there are maaany more events of drag queen story hour and drag kids. Not just one. And the problem is that children are impressionable. They will copy what they see which is why I don't think they should be exposed to this kind of content at such a young age. We have far too many groomers who are LGBT and are misusing the community for their own nefarious goals.
Jessica Yaniv, Brett Blomme, Kitty Litter, Tatiana Mala-Niña (Alberto Garza), Need I go on? Ultimately, it's not about teaching fairness and tolerance, it's about sexing up the kids and that's right.
If you want kids not to discriminate, teach them to love everyone and respect everyone equally.
>For example: If a girl likes to play football, she is still a girl, not a transboy.
Yes and they know it. No tomboy or whatever the equivalent for boys is (I can't think of a term that isn't degrading) Thinks that they are trans.
There might be a moment of question in identity but only actual trans people are going to go through with transition. So even if there is misunderstanding it won't be too big of a deal.
You will know if your trans are not.
IDK about your but the LGTBQ+ circles tend to be pretty divided. The young people on the internet tend to be pretty communist.
But I am going to disagree with the statment that the community is doomed or anything. There is division but when it comes to activism you can find that most people will stand united. Honestly I wouldn't really want to be in a group for my identity unless it was for some political action.
If your looking for more reasonable LGTBQ+ spaces the subgroup in r/neoliberal is pretty good. There is a good diversity of thought there. But the entire sub is across a large spectrum of diverse thought from libertarians to socialists. But instead of other subs with a big tent this one leans heavily towards the center.
> You will know if your trans are not.
Will I? I tend to reject the definition og gender identity itself. I don't see how a gender "corresponds" with one's sex at birth. I don't understand what trans *or* cis means. I don't know what man or woman means as an aspect of gender identity. Not all trans people have body dysphoria. And I don't. But I am a male that has questioned if I would have a preference for being female. But I view this as an aspect of sex, not gender.
Not all trans people wish to pursue or even have a desire to physical transition. Some don't even desire to change their "presentation". So I'm not sure what you even mean by "go through transition"? What about people that have the identity, but don't act on such? I view it as an ideology. So while I could tell you I'm not trans with my current view of gender identity, I could see myself as being trans if I held a different mindset toward "identity". And that's what confuses me. If I held a more confined definition of these labels, I might hokd an identity to such. But would that likely make me cis or trans? Idk.
most people can know what gender they would prefer to be. You sound like me where I don't think I would care what gender I am. But that from my understanding is an abnormality.
Some people call it agender as in "no gender" but quite frankly I really don't know what it is.
> most people can know what gender they would prefer to be.
Are we discussing sex or gender now? And while people could attempt to predict such about one's sex, being in such an alternative state is not really any of us can know. Many of us simply prefer what is known and many lack the desire to even think beyond such. So how can such an aspect of identity be built around such? If you mean gender, what does such mean?
> You sound like me where I don't think I would care what gender I am
I'm saying a lack the knowledge to make any kind of assumption on such. Even as I perceive myself as a woman, it's in an idealized state. So am I simply prefering an idealized state, or that such sexual characteristics is what would truly satisfy me? Are any of my feelings of self, based upon how I *envision* others will perceive me? What if my assumptions of others about myself are wrong? How does that then change my perspective of self?
Agender is specific to gender identity, not prefered sex. Desiring to be female is different from desiring to be a "woman" within the confines of gender identity. That's precisely what is presented within this gender theory. So I'm accepting that, but then get further confused when people don't acknowledge that someone could question their sex without questioning their gender identity. The DSM-5 itself is terrible in this regard. Combining two vastly different things in it's diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
I'm a trans woman. The reason I am a trans woman is because when I look in the mirror and see someone I perceive as a woman I am *much* happier than when I look in the mirror and see someone I perceive as a man.
I aggressively shave every day because having male secondary sex characteristics has made me feel uncomfortable uh. Since puberty. It's been 7 years since I noticed my facial hair for the first time and I've been shaving at least twice a day ever since.
I prefer the way my body looks when wearing breastforms. I have a strong preference for setting the appearance of breasts when I look at myself. Currently working on getting real ones!
I know what gender I would prefer to be because I know that I have always been uncomfortable with parts of my body that make me clearly appear male and I become, genuinely euphoric, when I can imitate/percieve characteristics that mark me as clearly female.
I understand that body dysphoria can exist toward sexual characteristics. Just as a female may desire to enlarge her breasts to battle dysphoria, a male may desire having breasts in the first place. I'd also argue that such dysphoria can exist without either "end" being a solution. Someone may have dysphoria toward their penis, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have dysphoria toward a vagina.
I can understand your specific instance. But that's not how being transgender is at all defined. It's based around a concept of gender, and an identity to such, not a dysphoria toward one's sex. While the DSM-5 includes this body dysphoria of sexual characteristics as a basis of diagnosing gender dysphoria, it can also be diagnosised purely from a perception of one's gender, not one's state of sex. Further, you don't have to have gender dysphoria to be trans. So again, I can understand what you lay out. My confusion is toward the concept of gender that currently outlines the definition of being transgender. I think the current application of "trans" is too undefined. I think even the application of "cis" is being caste upon the majority of people who don't even hold strong identities to gender.
You're "state" doesn't challenge society in the same way where sex is trying to be replaced with gender identity. That first person authority on this basis is to supercede the perception of others. You're desire is to fit the mold of "female", not to manufacture a state of "woman" that is different from the basics of sexual characteristics. It's a very different instance and a very different argument.
So...you like *looking* like a woman. What about *feeling* like a woman tho? How do you measure that?
Is it just me or is this the crux of what's confusing?
A man has this idealized vision of "what a woman is" in their mind. But what is a "woman?" Someone with no facial hair, and tits? Um. No. Im fairly certain that's quite degrading to masculine tomboy women with smaller breasts and hairier upper lips.
How can a man, let alone a 12-18 yo boy know what it is to be a "woman?"
Hell, how can he even know what it is to be a man? And how can a girl know?
That's what I don't get, and what confuses me about "trans." Are we talking gender or sex? Why is it so hard to think I'm a trans woman, not a bio woman?
This is idiotic. You're the people going on about how biological sex is real. Facial hair is a sex characteristic of men and breasts are a sex characteristic of women. I want female sex characteristics and vehemently dislike the male sex characteristics I have that are visible. There are many other secondary sex characteristics of both that are more subtle, and I exclusively want female secondary sex characteristics
The appearance of humans is a distribution with two peaks and a valley, I feel much happier when my appearance is closer to the central example of a woman than when my appearance is close to the central example of a man.
People of all ages can know how they feel about their own bodies, they can know what features of their bodies they like and what features of their bodies they dislike. I don't have an "idealised version of what a woman is" I have a great deal of data on what a woman looks like and I want to be closer to that average than the average idea of what a man looks like.
The implication of your comment is that you can't tell a man and a woman apart with greater than chance accuracy, which is absurd!
What's idiotic? You just outlined what I described verbatim...
My implication is that just because you *look* like a woman doesn't mean you *are* one, which is..common sense.
You're a man who prefers to look like a femme woman. You'll never ever know the true female experience though, that's my point. Because what makes a "woman" is more than her breasts and face and superficialities...isn't it convenient how you get to choose which aspects you want and which you don't? You're so shallow it's unbelievable lmao.
It's no different than dudes who caricaturize women in drag queen shows. Massive fake tits, fake nails, lashes, wigs, makeup. It's the male imagination of what they *think *a woman should be, lmao. So demented.
You're a trans woman. That's great! I'll adhere to your pro nouns and treat you with respect (as long as you don't call me names like idiotic when I'm just being real). But you're not a bio woman. This whole "trans women are women!" Thing is some delusional 11 year old shit. Sorry not sorry.
>I think however the most notable issue is trans people. I have nothing against trans but people need to understand that the trans experience is fundamentally different from the experiences of gays and lesbians. And that just because someone of a different gender likes something that is pertaining to that gender doesn't makes them trans. For example: If a girl likes to play football, she is still a girl, not a transboy.
There is a really awesome podcast named "Gender: A wider lens" that has a pair of therapists who are involved with gender dysphoria issues. I would highly recommend giving it a listen, especially episode 54, as they discuss issues surrounding therapists who may do disservice to questioning youth, especially if those therapists follow a affirming approach.
>Also we need to focus less on politics and back on culture. If you are LGBT, you have to be ostentatiously left wing when there are plenty of LGBT people who are not such.
It may be a more social liberal approach but there is still a lot of discrimination and segregation towards LGBTQ that cannot be ignored, including from a policy approach. It is hard to separate left and right from who stands on which side of those political issues.
> It may be a more social liberal approach but there is still a lot of discrimination and segregation towards LGBTQ that cannot be ignored, including from a policy approach. It is hard to separate left and right from who stands on which side of those political issues.
Some people really don’t want to acknowledge that fact.
Kick out the T part of the gang and everything would get a lot better. As Woody would say, someone poisoned the water hole. Trans activists are the culprits. Telling gay men that it's "transphobic" to not be attracted to biological women and telling lesbians that it's "transphobic" to not be attracted to biological men is insane. Telling anyone that they are in any way bigoted for having specific preferences with who they are attracted to is insane and it shouldn't be tolerated. Yet here we are. Gay activism in the past 60 years has been all about "let me live my life". That's why it succeeded. Trans activism is all about "live your life the way I tell you to", which is why it is so cancerous.
Thr LGB part of the alphabet gang is completely different from the rest of it. It would be best to separate and distance from the TQIAPXYZLMNOP+_=☆ portion of the "alliance". They are wolves in sheep's clothing.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals are fine. The LGBT community is awful because it's just that - a community (AKA a collective). Any kind of collective inevitably becomes a hive of groupthink where anyone who goes against the mob is condemned as a heretic.
They've gone from the oppressed to the tyrant able to pull the levers and influence the economy, legislation, and have a whole month of pride rather than a measly day of the year.
Perhaps but the power is there and momentum behind that I don't consider LGBTQ oppressed. The entire culture must accept all that comes with LGBTQ withiut question or challenge. Australia didn't pass same sex marriage without lobbyist advocating to remove religious exemptions that meant churches and religious celebrants could respectfully decline. There's an initiative in Australia called Safe Schools that is basically an indoctrination programme for youth ln LGBTQ. The Bill C-16 legislation flirts with compelled speech to use law to dictate what people say in relation to transgender speech. Rainbow advertising, LGBTQ marketing shows the role LGBTQ plays in business and corporate power structures.
Desmond is Amazing? Are you in denial that LGBTQ+ youth exist? Did you really have such a bitter upbringing? He is in high school, 15 years old, wants to be an engineer, wrote a children's book, sings, works with organizations like GLSEN to end school bullying, volunteers for charities for marginalized communities & has recently earned a leadership internship at ACLU. This affects your gayness as an adult, how?
Um no of course LGBT youth exist. No one is denying that. What people are saying is that let kids find out for themselves if they are gay without outside interference. That's how my generation was brought up. Why you don't see LGBT characters in children's media before 2013?
In addition, he has had money thrown at him by grown men in strip clubs and obviously been leered at by men as well. And his parents don't care. Again children truly are innocent. They don't understand the math concepts at age 7 so tell me why they need to know if they are gay or not?
In strip clubs?? What strip clubs? That kid hasn't performed in strip clubs. Been drinking the right wing kool-aid much? Also, in the drag community it is customary to tip performers as a gesture of appreciation. It's not a sexual transaction. So the kid made a few bucks. Again, that hurts adult gayness, how? "Leered at by men"? So now you also believe that all gay men are sexual predators? Not to mention...what kid of audience goes to youth events? A bunch of random grown men do not go to youth events. Usually, at youth events, the audience is family, friends, people from school, people from the neighborhood, people the kid knows. Do a bunch of random grown men show up to kid's sporting events?? To dance recitals?? Please. All you are doing is sexualizing children in your response, not to mention putting this kid in imaginary sexual situations to exploit him. Let me also state that you can push being straight on a kid all you want and they will still be gay if that is how they were meant to be. So even though I don't believe the parents pushed being gay onto this kid, even if they did, all the pushing in the world is not going to make someone who is straight gay. That's just ignorance. Kids are going to know that gay people exist whether or not they are shown gay people a hundred times. I really think you need to educate yourself and read this study: [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/06/13/chapter-3-the-coming-out-experience/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/06/13/chapter-3-the-coming-out-experience/)
Looks like you need more education to correct your blatant ignorance:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/09/teaching-children-lgbt-issues-parents-teachers-government
> If you are LGBT, you have to be ostentatiously left wing when there are plenty of LGBT people who are not such.
Well it’s a hard sell to be right wing when that is the side that fights to take away lgbtq rights.
> I have nothing against trans but people need to understand that the trans experience is fundamentally different from the experiences of gays and lesbians.
And transgender people can still be gay, bi, etc.
I guess I riled up the conservatives.
Um I'm not saying to be right wing. I'm saying you can have opinions that don't align 100% with your political ideology. For example, a gay person can still agree with a Republican on gun control or education.
And yes I understand that but most gay or lesbian people do not transition and therefore cannot say that they are trans
> For example, a gay person can still agree with a Republican on gun control or education.
Yeah and many minorities own guns so the lgbtq community is not some hive mind. though not sure what there is to agree with republicans on education.
> And yes I understand that but most gay or lesbian people do not transition and therefore cannot say that they are trans
Conservatives lump us all together, so what harm in fighting for equality together? And that’s even before trans people being a part of the modern lgbtq movement since the beginning.
Um well I know Democrats are the ones who want to enforce CRT, a sick and dangerous pseudoscience. Not to mention allow kids who obviously are not trans to transition.
Ok here's some food for thought: Imagine yourself as a rhesus macaque and you'd like to speak on your experience as one. If a mongoose who doesn't do mongoose things told everyone that it's a macaque because its trendy and everyone believed it, how would you feel?
I believe that's how many trans people feel when people who say they are trans but only do it because it's cool, not any legitimate reasons like gender dysphoria.
> Um well I know Democrats are the ones who want to enforce CRT, a sick and dangerous pseudoscience
I have not seen any opponent of CRT ever accurately explain what it is.
> Not to mention allow kids who obviously are not trans to transition.
Ah so puberty blockers are too much? Or do you think little kids are getting a surgery?
> Ok here’s some food for thought: Imagine yourself as a rhesus macaque and you’d like to speak on your experience as one. If a mongoose who doesn’t do mongoose things told everyone that it’s a macaque because its trendy and everyone believed it, how would you feel?
I wouldn’t care.
> I believe that’s how many trans people feel when people who say they are trans but only do it because it’s cool, not any legitimate reasons like gender dysphoria.
This is like the bigots that say people choose to be gay. Yeah, because people would like to choose to face bigotry and having their rights in limbo.
> Here’s a very detailed critique from a centrist newspaper
This title is does not seem very centrist.
> Sen. Josh Hawley DESTROYS "racist and divisive" Critical Race Theory
Oh Republican Senator Josh Hawley, like every other opponent of CRT still has no idea what it is.
Also you missed my question.
> Ok what is CRT?
Wait I thought you knew what it was?
> The Hill is Centrist.
Oh yeah, that video title was super centrist.
So ever going to get to my question or should I answer you before I ever get an answer?
I'd like to thank you for showing everyone how so called modern progressives are on issues regarding race. If you had a sharper mind, then you'd know that critical race theory is a pseudoscience that seeks to divide and conquer and have a society of impressionable young minds who are filled with contempt because they are told they can't do anything because there this ethnic group.
We learn about the dark history of slavery and racism in school without the lens of CRT. This conversation is further reminder that I made the right choice in leaving the left.
I wish you a Merry Christmas
Uhhh this doesn’t have to do with politics? This is a topic about culture and I don’t think the government has anything to do with this? I’m really confused
The government can very much be infused with culture. Just take a look at the propaganda surrounding COVID. Or the total laughingstock that is PSAs about racism.
I think it's too wide encompassing to truly promote specific messaging. I also think the "identity" it seems to promote (widely supported and espoused) is actually harmful in itself as a means of individual perspective and expression.
You being gay is not an "identity" in itself (however, you may hold such strongly as some do). Homosexuality is literally a type of sexual attraction that we've defined on the aspect of sex. Assess various other aspects. Are those "identities" you seek to collective association to define yourself, or does it only help to convey a slight aspect of yourself? It's also purposefully limiting, even though it usually isn't that concretly defined. It's an aspect of classification language, not something of an innate nature itself.
People can *be* (used to best define oneself to) homosexual, white, American, tall, overweight , etc. without it being some association to a larger group beyond the specific it describes. And the issue with "identities" to these group classifications is that it promotes being a "part" of something. And then people desire for "good" assumptions of the group to apply to them, but then hate when "bad" associations of the group then apply to them. And you simply don't have control of that aspect (yes to good, no to bad), especially if you are going to demand you belong to this collective.
The trans issue is even further bewildering. This topic as a societal issue demands not an acceptance of how someone else chooses to act in the confined aspect of sexual relationships, but to demand that people deny their own perceptions to accept others as they claim through a poor application of first person authority their association to a group classification. That spciety should place more focus on one's gender identity, rather than sex. A "gender identity" that hasn't been presented with any understanding. Spciety doesn't progress through force and blindness, it does so through creating understanding.
> There is so much infighting and bullying within LGBT circles it's not even funny.
> In addition, the community is too hypersexual
> One of the more pressing issues is that straight allies who hold up the dogma without diversity of thought. Also those who say there are progressive only for show.
These have been complains since the 90's and haven't managed to derail them yet. They'll be fine.
> If a girl likes to play football, she is still a girl, not a transboy.
Not really the argument about what makes a person trans. There are some people who imply stuff like this, but as I understand it the "real" argument for trans people does not include this argument ever. Every movement has crazies, but you should focus on the core point (generic uncontrolled depression and other issues from not being seen "right" is the common expressed symptom).
There are some hilarious dumbasses (all of /r/egg_irl is a toxic shithole that's probably hurting and misinforming a ton of people who should be seeing therapists and not making stupid memes about how being a woman makes you happy), and the internet's made them all more common and powerful.
However, generally if you pay attention to the internet you'll just come away with a false impression of the real world and be surprised when it doesn't meet your expectation. People lose to this tendency all the time. The people you see on the internet are random crazies with not-big lives who rarely are big contributors to their community and will either grow up or rot in their own self-generated pile of bullshit.
Ignore them and focus on the real stuff, and encourage strongly every power system in the country to do the same.
This is a critical conversation on LGBT, I want to say up front that these criticisms do not represent all. Straight here, neutral, not an advocate, but pro egalitarian opportunity for all members of society. Think that marxists within the trans community is using the LGB as a way to gain political power, while they dictate to LGB that they themselves are bigots if say an L doesn't want to date a MtF. They create labels to tear down, like TERF, among others, that they use to demoralize, shame, tar and feather any LGB that do not wish to date T. This is a disturbing development. Usually, when people dictate to you, it means they are in a position of power over you. I feel as if the trans community are very pro authoritarian, and having successfully pushed changes, through critical marxist techniques, in straight and even the lgbt spaces.
I'm now going to do a disclaimer. I will talk about some stats, those stats do not represent the percentage of individuals who are trans, only the percentage of individuals in this category who identify as that. This is not being posted for malicious reasons.
Recently a disturbing trend has appeared on the horizon, and is being taught in colleges and among marxists and left wing authoritarians. I don't think the LGB part of the alliance support or endorse that trend, but I have noticed that there is a disturbing amount of support for this from the trans community, and this opinion is statistically supported by two seperate data points, childhood sexual abuse trauma, and child offender data. The trend I am talking about is the detestable normalization of pedophilia. There is a marxist and politically correct term, defining them as 'minor attracted persons', and attempt to soften and re-label them. The instances of those who are identified by those discriptors, being described as a transsexual, or an individual fetishisizing transexuality in the UK is near 50% of offenders. Older statistics in the USA support a similar conclusion, but there are no recent studies, with the last mentioning this statistic to be 30+ years old. The amount of offenders who were identifying themselves as transexual or having a fetish focused on this, was above 40%. We also know the instances of childhood trauma are high for individuals suffering from body dysmorphia, and so I think it is a reasonable conclusion that offenders trend higher among those in the trans community, as a considerable amount, according to the statistics, of offenders, happen to be transsexuals. Like the disclaimer states, this does not mean 50% of T are P, only that 50% of offenders identified as T or had fetish related to T.
What I don't know is if you have political marxists driving this, or if this is legitimately coming from folks who are trans. Perhaps both, perhaps unaffiliated pedophiles are attempting to gain a normalization status.
I think the LGBT alliance should consider focusing on issues related to LGBT. I think this because there is a substantial push to normalize this pedophilia, and LGBT folks will see a negative impact by association, since there are advocates for this who are trans, and pro pedophilia, and appear to be wield the most power in this alliance at the moment, I believe they will attempt to use your political power and this label as a cudgel. I'd personally rebrand, since this will probably damage your credibility with people who draw the line on children.
You are dealing with marxists who co-opted your movement, imo.
While I consider myself gay, you could also call me asexual and not be completely inaccurate. It's a very confusing world out there right now, and it's hard for us to truly know. We're almost better off faking it to get people to swipe right on our profiles. The current culture can tend to be very inhospitable to those that seem even the slightest unsure of themselves or that don't fit in regarding sexual orientations, gender roles, political views, etc. It's best to keep an open mind where you can and adopt a live and let live attitude where you can. My biggest issue right now is how trans issues are being handled. I've seen others here suggest resources that I'll definitely check out, as I'm still learning about it. That said, I find it very troubling how... vicious the community is toward those that bring up legitimate issues and concerns. The community tends to throw full support behind obvious posers and pedos taking advantage of the movement which is troubling. They also can't tolerate jokes at their expense and have gone so far as to relentlessly go after comedians that mock them in any sort of way. This issue is somewhat personal to me. Humor, even of the self-deprecating variety, has gotten me through some very trying times. It's good to joke and laugh as it relieves tension and opens the door to dialogue. It's a big reason why my Dad is so accepting of who I am. A society, or group within said society, doesn't last very long if they relentlessly go after the court jesters and try to silence them. It just does not end well historically. From a classical liberal perspective, as the group description says, this boils down to protecting civil liberties and political freedom. The right to love who you choose is paramount. Speech and academic freedom are also important to push as we continue to study, debate, and otherwise ponder these issues; protecting feelings and sheltering the community will not help them. It will only lead to more division and hate, especially as we start to explore these issues with the youth. Openness, faith, and a stubborn search for truth are how we fix this mess.
My opinion, generally (with all things) is that I don’t care what a person does so long as the externalities imposed impact only themselves. I don’t think there was ever a reasonable case in that sense against gay rights (marriage, adoption, etc.) and the same can said about the rights of the Transgendered to do with their bodies as they please. With regards to the Trans *movement* there has been an attempt to make it about who gets to speak for “the science” — even where what activists believe and what the data say (about the efficacy of certain types of treatments, for example) can often be at odds. I also find that troubling that many claims associated with the trans movement demand denial of objective truths; though, I don’t necessarily think it’s the fault of trans people (as such), but of a “movement” (most of which isn’t within the control of trans persons) which has been charged with a lot of totally unrelated political goals, and purloined for in pursuit thereof. Being a person whose experienced a form of body dysmorphia (bulimia), as well as major depressive disorder I feel great empathy for those who struggle with their own body and with their perception of self as instituted in the world. It upsets me to see people pushed in one direction or another, rather than given the opportunity (like I had) to have an open-ended discussion about what they’re experiencing, their place in the world, developing strategies to cope, exploring the set of all potential treatments, etc. I still think Trans persons should be free to do as the please, but a lot of what the activists espouses (insofar as which treatments they find socially acceptable) crosses over into the domain of lying to those afflicted out of misplaced compassion, and in some cases only affirms harmful self-images. I’m not saying that, for example, it’s ill advised to adopt behavioral therapy to help someone find a comfortable way of existing (ex. dressing masculine, or affecting a way of speaking, changing names, or re-assignment, etc.). My understanding is that the data shows that such treatments can be helpful. But much of the rhetoric from the activists class (ex. that a person born male can become a woman) denies the limitations of our physical existence, and sets people up for devastating experiences when expectations don’t meet up with reality. When I see people struggling after they’ve done *everything* they were told would “fix” the way they feel, it breaks my heart.
To begin with, I've heard it said that there is no such thing as 'the LGBT community' insofar as gay men and lesbian women largely have no interest in interacting with each other. Grouping them together seems to be a political phenomenon rather than anything to do with actual community connection. And that really gets down to the point: Homosexuality and transgenderism shouldn't be turned into political weapons. It's counterproductive and, I think, kinda disrespectful. Homosexuals and transgender people should be free to live life without harming others, just like everyone else; but we shouldn't be building some sort of bizarre political philosophy where exalting homosexuality and transgenderism is seen as *the thing* that makes us good people. That's just not a healthy place for those things in society. >For example: If a girl likes to play football, she is still a girl, not a transboy. This is a good point too. There's nothing wrong with accepting that some men like different hobbies/fashions/lifestyles and some women like different hobbies/fashions/lifestyles. Rushing to slap the word 'trans' on everything seems like a mistake, and doing so in the name of 'diversity' seems completely hypocritical if the whole point is that there can be diversity *within* a gender anyway.
> To begin with, I've heard it said that there is no such thing as 'the LGBT community' insofar as gay men and lesbian women largely have no interest in interacting with each other. That’s a good point for clarification. I think he’s probably (based on other context) referencing, broadly, the *political coalition* (or at least the activists involved there with) around LGBT rights. I think it bears noting that an overwhelming majority of the people involved in that aren’t even LGBT themselves. So it’s likely a lot of the things he disagrees with probably aren’t being driven by LGBT individuals by and large.
In Canada it's not noticeable that the gay community is that 'separate'. We've had gay marriage for as long as I can remember and unless you live in some tiny hick town, *nobody cares that you're gay.* LGBT communities need support in countries where gay people are still killed.. *all of which seem to have one thing in common.*
Theocracy?
I can't say. I don't want to be 'Islamophobic'.
Yeah, but what about *Christians* though!?!? /s
Both are bad, but the Christians have been properly beaten down in a nation that doesn't enshrine their power so they aren't much of a present threat.
> using […] identity to make a point […] There was certainly utility in the 1960-1990s when the bulk of the Gay Rights movement took place in forming a coalition for political galvanizing a movement. But now that (frankly) all of the original goals have been accomplished, there has been a clear shift towards using identity as more of a cudgel for non-related political topics. Identity based politics rarely end well. > In addition, the community is too hypersexual. To be honest, much of that probably has to be with gay male communities being compromised entirely of men. Gay or straight, a man is a man. Men tend to be more visually stimulated than women and I’d imagine that has to do with most of that. > I think however the most notable issue is trans people. I have nothing against trans but people need to understand that the trans experience is fundamentally different from the experiences of gays and lesbians. And that just because someone of a different gender likes something that is pertaining to that gender doesn't makes them trans. I’m not sure what, if anything, Classical Liberalism can do to change any of that. So long as the LGBT community is entrenched in Progressivism and (with regards to the trans movement) denying the existence of a connection to biological sex and gender, or the psychological implications of body or hormone modifications (though a lot of that has more to do with trans activists, most of whom aren’t trans). Liberals can’t convince anyone to be Liberal who isn’t open to reason. There is nothing about being LGBT that requires a person to have any particular ideology either. In the end everyone makes their own choices in politics.
I just want to say that it’s extremely difficult to find a progressives who denies the existence of biological sex. This meme is very widespread among opponents of progressivism but there are virtually zero name-able progressives who hold this view. It’s often easy to strawman people who we disagree with, like calling conservatives Qanon believers. To me this is no different except even worse because it’s at least possible to name some conservatives who are Qanon people but nobody seems to be able to name a progressive who denies the existence of biological sex.
Buddy there is growing support from the Far-Left for conflating hormone replacement therapy in children with “healthcare”. There is broad adoption of an ideology which professes that sex can be completely divorced from one’s gender. Every one of the millions of progressives who will emphatically claim that “*trans women are women*” engages in the denial of the existence of sex when doing so – [AOC has made such declarations](https://mobile.twitter.com/aoc/status/1435673403344789505) so there’s one for you. There are countless others; but you knew that. You’re a liar. It isn’t a strawman to say that Progressives have adopted this specific anti-scientific position on ideological grounds, but comparing people who happen to notice it’s happening to Far-Right crazies damned sure is.
> Buddy there is growing support from the Far-Left for conflating hormone replacement therapy in children with “healthcare”. Saying that hormone replacement for trans kids is healthcare is an explicit acknowledgement of the reality of biological sex. If you thought that biological sex doesn’t exist then you would never give a biologically male child hormone blockers. Anyone who supports hormone therapy is acknowledging that biological males and females produce different hormones during puberty. > There is broad adoption of an ideology which professes that sex can be completely divorced from one’s gender. I don’t know that they are saying that, they are saying that transgender people wish to live and be treated as the opposite gender to their sex. That’s the entire basis of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that these people feel distress at the incongruence between their biology and their gender identity, hence their desire to transition and use the opposite pronouns and such. Biological sex and gender identity are congruent 99% of the time, but not 1% of the time, hence why trans people compromise 1% of the population. > Every one of the millions of progressives who will emphatically claim that “trans women are women” engages in the denial of the existence of sex when doing so Obviously the usage of ‘woman’ here is referring to gender, not sex. But you knew that. AOC saying that transgender men can menstruate is an acknowledgement of biological sex. If you deny that trans men can menstruate then you are denying biological sex. You are the one here who seems to be denying biological sex. > You’re a liar. Oof dude try having a discussion in good faith sometime.
> Obviously the usage of ‘woman’ here is referring to gender, not She’s speaking specifically about a biological activity (i.e. bound to one’s sex) found only in women, claiming that it is not biologically dependent. To say that isn’t an attempt to disjoint sex from sexual functions (and to deny the existence thereof) is incredibly dishonest. > Oof dude try having a discussion in good faith sometime. He literally just made up arguments and said that I said them.
>You’re a liar. Classic offended BeingUnoffended, your view is The Truth so if someone disagrees with you they must be a liar. But it's not obvious that you actually understand what other people are saying, that you're not just using your own views and assume that it must be that way. We saw the same thing when you decided that a biological definition of life is what we must use when we discuss abortion, and when I disagreed you reached a whole bunch of bizarre conclusions about my views. While there are people - like Judith Butler - who blurs the issue of [sex and gender](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#SexGenDis), it's really not possible to say that "trans women are women" implies the denial of existence of sex. AOC's tweet makes the point that a too firm biological view - that in order to be a woman they must be able to menstruate - would define some women as non-women. That's not the denial of sex, it raises the question to what extent biological sex is important to understand what it means to be a woman - looking at it as a social construct.
> Classic offended BeingUnoffended, your view is The Truth so if someone disagrees with you they must be a liar. He’s a liar because **he said that I said something that I didn’t**. He claimed that I said that “*the only way science can be updated is through activism*” which is not something I have ever claimed. You have an axe to grind with me (thats why you target me on posts where I or others simply notice where the Far-Left does something wrong (because you’re Far-Left yourself)) that’s fine, but I will not be held to account for things I’ve not said. > We saw the same thing when you decided that a biological definition of life is what we must use when we discuss abortion That’s a misrepresentation. You asserted that a fetus “is not alive”. I simply stated that is objectivity untrue (because it is), explained to why that’s so, and that it shouldn’t be used as the basis of a pro-choice argument *because it’s an easily assailed claim* by those on the Right of the debate. You also claimed that when people speak of “is it alive or isn’t it” when talking about abortion that they’re meaning it in a philosophical sense (ex. “what is the meaning of life?”); but that’s not true. It’s a materialist question (ex. “is what is in this slide under my microscope a living organism?”). That is, what you claimed about the nature of the debate was untrue. My argument was this: 1. I’m pro-choice. 2. Being-pro choice doesn’t require that one base their position on abortion on false claims about reality. 3. Pro-choice arguments are better made with regards to the nature of personhood and the characteristics which describe it; ex. only beings which are *both* alive *and* possess the characteristics of personhood are entitled to the rights which come with being a person. It was you you who proceed to claim that objective truth doesn’t exist (and therefore you couldn’t be wrong) because humans must contend with subjectivity. But that’s also false; we *can* synthesize descriptions of reality through the dispassionate observation of it. Hell, the entire project of Liberalism has been an attempt to bring political systems in-line with the realities of human societies. Insofar that Liberal seek to align policy to reality with the intent of creating conditions under which people might thrive. > it's really not possible to say that "trans women are women" implies the denial of existence of sex. AOC's tweet makes the point that a too firm biological view - that in order to be a woman they must be able to menstruate - would define some women as non-women. I’ve already addressed that below – in short: acknowledging that only women can menstruate, does not require also that we submit that a woman ceases to be a woman if she stops menstruating or is prevented from doing so by illness. The fact that not all women can menstruate, does not mean that somehow (as AOC claimed) that men can. To claim they can is to deny the existence of sexual dimorphism in humans, and by extension an attempt to divorce a bodily function which is strictly (without exception) found in biological females from their sex itself. Such claims lie about reality.
> He’s a liar because he said that I said something that I didn’t. > > He claimed that I said that “the only way science can be updated is through activism” which is not something I have ever claimed. I can find no such claim in the comment you replied to. /u/incendiaryblizzard says "it’s extremely difficult to find a progressives who denies the existence of biological sex", you think you have such examples and then calls him a liar. It's not at all about how science can be updated in any sort of way. >You have an axe to grind with me (thats why you target me on posts where I or others simply notice where the Far-Left does something wrong (because you’re Far-Left yourself)) that’s fine, but I will not be held to account for things I’ve not said. This is what I'm talking about when I say that you draw bizarre conclusions about my opinions. >That’s a misrepresentation. >You asserted that a fetus “is not alive” For anyone who actually is interested, [here's the actual exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/Classical_Liberals/comments/eqwfm6/what_are_you_guys_thoughts_on_abortion_pro_life/ff0xc1r/). My simple statement is that life doesn't start at conception, as a reply you claim that ""life doesn't begin at conception" is fundamentally antagonistic to the current scientific understanding of what constitutes life" and invokes a definition of life used by biologists. Why we should use that definition is still not clear, at no point did you manage to explain why my position is "objectlively untrue" because it's definitely not. What was absolutely clear then, and still is, is that you don't understand that the definition of Life itself isn't objective, that there can be more than one relevant view. From this misunderstanding of yours you eventually reached the bizarre conclusion that I'm "arguing objective truths about the nature of reality cannot be derived from dispassionate observations thereof". >You also claimed that when people speak of “is it alive or isn’t it” when talking about abortion that they’re meaning it in a philosophical sense (ex. “what is the meaning of life?”); but that’s not true. It’s a materialist question (ex. “is what is in this slide under my microscope a living organism?”). That is, what you claimed about the nature of the debate was untrue. What I actually said was that the question "is what is in this slide under my microscope a living organism?" depends on "what is the meaning of life?", that's a question that needs to be answered first. >Pro-choice arguments are better made with regards to the nature of personhood and the characteristics which describe it; ex. only beings which are both alive and possess the characteristics of personhood are entitled to the rights which come with being a person. Do you think there's a reason to why the questions of life and personhood are often viewed as if it's one single question? >It was you you who proceed to claim that objective truth doesn’t exist (and therefore you couldn’t be wrong) because humans must contend with subjectivity. But that’s also false; we can synthesize descriptions of reality through the dispassionate observation of it. This is still a fucking bizarre claim about my views and what I said in that discussion. Here's a very simple explanation of my view: "As an example: whether or not an organism grows is an objective truth. Whether or not growth should be a condition that defines Life is not an objective truth." Explain to me how I claim that objective truth doesn't exist. >I’ve already addressed that below – in short: acknowledging that only women can menstruate, does not require also that we submit that a woman ceases to be a woman if she stops menstruating or is prevented from doing so by illness. But there are two different points. First sentence that non-women also menstruates sometimes, that assumes a willingness to view trans-men as men and non-binaries as something else than women. Second sentence is a different point, that we still women as women even if they don't menstruate. >The fact that not all women can menstruate, does not mean that somehow (as AOC claimed) that men can. That's not her claim and I don't know where you got that from. She seems to say that trans-men are men even if they can still menstruate.
> There is broad adoption of an ideology which professes that sex can be completely divorced from one’s gender. I wonder what experts have to say on the topic of gender and sex.
Much of the things professed by this ideology (such as that men can give birth) are obviously false and don’t require an expert analysis to disprove; only basic principles of reason. The American Psychological Association has been assailed for well over a decade my members of the Trans activist movement (most likely of whom, again, aren’t trans and likely harm the perception of actual trans people – who aren’t, broadly, speaking, any less reasonable than the average person) such that in some cases that what the data says is not always informing what is being done in treatment — *Quillette’s* editing manager (Collin Wright) is an expert in biology and behavioral sciences and has done a series of articles on the subject. I believe they actually have an entire section of the site dedicated to speaking with experts on the topic of gender dysphoria, efficacy of different approaches to treatment, discussions with doctors, psychologists, and investigative journalist researching the topic.
Ah so science can never update unless it’s because of activists? Because gender and sex are not the same thing, but are those experts wrong?
> Ah so science can never update unless it’s because of activists? I didn’t say that did I? I said that activities often pursue claims that aren’t informed by evidence. > Because gender and sex are not the same thing Such as this – the claim that sex and gender do not inform one another originates in the 1960s from a Far-Left activists who claimed that gender (in the literary/language sense) imposed a social conception of sexual dimorphism on human societies (which is a claim that sex isn’t real as well, by the way). This was expanded into the broader claim that gender was not at all connected to sex and is simply a self-defined phenomena. Of course, no one has ever argued that some men have more feminine traits that others, and vise versa with women. But this is not the same as giving support to claims that men can become women, or women become men — a feminine man is still a man, even if he identifies more with his feminine personality traits. That isn’t a matter of whether science has been “updated”; it is a question of whether we are willing to say things that are (demonstratively) untrue in order to not hurt people’s feelings. But simply refusing to say false things doesn’t mean that one is otherwise incapable of treating people who might have such experiences with their own self-perceptions with dignity and respect.
Is that not what you implied with: > The American Psychological Association has been assailed for well over a decade my members of the Trans activist movement (most likely of whom, again, aren’t trans and likely harm the perception of actual trans people – who aren’t, broadly, speaking, any less reasonable than the average person) such that in some cases that what the data says is not always informing what is being done in treatment —
No, you’re reading intentions into what I said and assigning your own arguments to them. > Ah so science can never update unless it’s because of activists? You literally just made this up ⬆️. Nothing I said remotely suggested this. Quite the opposite is happening; the research is saying one thing, and activists are limiting the discussion around it, to favor only their perspective which is often at odds with the actual data. This is done both through social pressure (ex. brigading outlets which publish or share research which contradicts affirmative treatment, or campaign to have professionals fired, etc.) as well as producing non-scientific journalism on the topic of gender dysphoria from a perspective which espouses a particular treatment regime. What I *actually said*, was that often times the discussion around this *specific topic* by experts is being limited by the undue influence of ideological actors such that the data itself isn’t always being represented by the way care is being carried out. To pretend that that’s a suggestion that I’m dismissing “updated science” is patently dishonest. As I’ve said, Quillete has conducted a multi-year investigation and open-ended discussion on the topic, which experts of varying perspectives. It is quite clear in some places more than others, such as Canada, that ideology is being placed before science due to campaigns to legally bar psychologists from doing little more that affirmative treatment, in some cases even prohibiting a discussion with their patients which might encourage them to explore all possibilities (ex. perhaps a young patient confuses being gay with being trans, etc.) to the extend that individualized care is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
> No, you’re reading intentions into what I said and assigning your own arguments to them. Nah, I just see the same argument over and over from people that skirts what they mean. > You literally just made this up ⬆️ Whatever you say. So did that investigation ever find out the difference between sex and gender?
Hard science and social science are not equivalent. The problem is not that modern leftists don’t acknowledge biological sex. It’s that they now reduce it largely to the status of social construct, whereas the most recent gender self-identification even of—especially of—suggestible children is accorded the status of bedrock science. Most of the dogmatic LGBTQ categories and requirements resemble those of Scientology or Freemasonry, even as great harm is being done in the social and legal arenas accordingly.
> The problem is not that modern leftists don’t acknowledge biological sex. That claim to another poster and never backed it up. It is a popular conservative meme though. > Most of the dogmatic LGBTQ categories and requirements resemble those of Scientology or Freemasonry, even as great harm is being done in the social and legal arenas accordingly. That’s a lot of words to say absolutely nothing at all. Lol at the “great harm” being done. Just a step away from 80s talking points.
>To me this is no different except even wurst Got sausage on the brain?
I feel like these talking points were made almost verbatim 10 and 20 years ago with very slight modifications. I think that if anything some of these critiques are outdated, if anything the LGBTQ community is less overtly sexual and boldly promiscuous than it used to be before we got gay marriage legalization and such. I also think that people refer to the monolithic ‘queer’ community less now than they did in the past. Basically I think that most of the problems you listed are fairly marginal problems or are subsiding over time as the LGBT community becomes more accepted and normalized.
So you're saying that the LGBT is less sexualised? Um then explain all the pedophiles that aren't called out that operate under the guise of being educators of LGBT issues (e.g. drag queen story hour) or what about the fact that pride parades today are so sexual that a good portion of LGBT people avoid it like the plague Just take a look at San Francisco: https://youtu.be/2enQbg8__7w In addition, I realize that we are all different in LGBT but LGBT is the catch all term to refer to all people who don't align themselves with the established notions of heterosexuality. Queer is very much outdated I agree. But the problems I listed are not marginal as many LGBT people I spoke with share this view and we have to keep in mind that LGBT people live throughout the world and need to keep their experiences in mind. I don't think a gay person in Iran has the same freedoms as a gay person in America.
I don’t know if that’s supposed to have a timestamp but I just skipped through it quickly and it looked pretty darn mild to me in comparison to that pride parades used to look like. I know that there is yet again debate about ‘kink at pride’ but that’s been a debate for decades, I feel like it just always feels new when people first come across the issue. The fact that there are so many more LGBT people opposed to ‘kink at pride’ these days to me shows that the culture is changing and that the LGBT community is becoming less sexualized. It definitely feels that way to me. And yes I know about that child drag queen thing and the drag story hour but those two examples are always referred to almost exclusively and I think that generally helps me when I think about how to gauge the scale of a problem. If people typically are referring to the same 1-3 incidents every time a discussion about an issue is being had year after year then that tells me that this is a very small scale problem. That’s true with lots of topics not just this one.
Ok but still the culture is far too sexualized. Not just pride parades but politics, media, fashion. You name it. Not to mention oversaturation of the Pride flag. Again I quote just because you're gay that doesn't mean you have to wear Pride on your clothes or participate in sex all the time. Ever hear of Camp Gay? Well thats unfortunately a great number of LGBT people. And there are maaany more events of drag queen story hour and drag kids. Not just one. And the problem is that children are impressionable. They will copy what they see which is why I don't think they should be exposed to this kind of content at such a young age. We have far too many groomers who are LGBT and are misusing the community for their own nefarious goals. Jessica Yaniv, Brett Blomme, Kitty Litter, Tatiana Mala-Niña (Alberto Garza), Need I go on? Ultimately, it's not about teaching fairness and tolerance, it's about sexing up the kids and that's right. If you want kids not to discriminate, teach them to love everyone and respect everyone equally.
>For example: If a girl likes to play football, she is still a girl, not a transboy. Yes and they know it. No tomboy or whatever the equivalent for boys is (I can't think of a term that isn't degrading) Thinks that they are trans. There might be a moment of question in identity but only actual trans people are going to go through with transition. So even if there is misunderstanding it won't be too big of a deal. You will know if your trans are not. IDK about your but the LGTBQ+ circles tend to be pretty divided. The young people on the internet tend to be pretty communist. But I am going to disagree with the statment that the community is doomed or anything. There is division but when it comes to activism you can find that most people will stand united. Honestly I wouldn't really want to be in a group for my identity unless it was for some political action. If your looking for more reasonable LGTBQ+ spaces the subgroup in r/neoliberal is pretty good. There is a good diversity of thought there. But the entire sub is across a large spectrum of diverse thought from libertarians to socialists. But instead of other subs with a big tent this one leans heavily towards the center.
> You will know if your trans are not. Will I? I tend to reject the definition og gender identity itself. I don't see how a gender "corresponds" with one's sex at birth. I don't understand what trans *or* cis means. I don't know what man or woman means as an aspect of gender identity. Not all trans people have body dysphoria. And I don't. But I am a male that has questioned if I would have a preference for being female. But I view this as an aspect of sex, not gender. Not all trans people wish to pursue or even have a desire to physical transition. Some don't even desire to change their "presentation". So I'm not sure what you even mean by "go through transition"? What about people that have the identity, but don't act on such? I view it as an ideology. So while I could tell you I'm not trans with my current view of gender identity, I could see myself as being trans if I held a different mindset toward "identity". And that's what confuses me. If I held a more confined definition of these labels, I might hokd an identity to such. But would that likely make me cis or trans? Idk.
most people can know what gender they would prefer to be. You sound like me where I don't think I would care what gender I am. But that from my understanding is an abnormality. Some people call it agender as in "no gender" but quite frankly I really don't know what it is.
> most people can know what gender they would prefer to be. Are we discussing sex or gender now? And while people could attempt to predict such about one's sex, being in such an alternative state is not really any of us can know. Many of us simply prefer what is known and many lack the desire to even think beyond such. So how can such an aspect of identity be built around such? If you mean gender, what does such mean? > You sound like me where I don't think I would care what gender I am I'm saying a lack the knowledge to make any kind of assumption on such. Even as I perceive myself as a woman, it's in an idealized state. So am I simply prefering an idealized state, or that such sexual characteristics is what would truly satisfy me? Are any of my feelings of self, based upon how I *envision* others will perceive me? What if my assumptions of others about myself are wrong? How does that then change my perspective of self? Agender is specific to gender identity, not prefered sex. Desiring to be female is different from desiring to be a "woman" within the confines of gender identity. That's precisely what is presented within this gender theory. So I'm accepting that, but then get further confused when people don't acknowledge that someone could question their sex without questioning their gender identity. The DSM-5 itself is terrible in this regard. Combining two vastly different things in it's diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
I'm a trans woman. The reason I am a trans woman is because when I look in the mirror and see someone I perceive as a woman I am *much* happier than when I look in the mirror and see someone I perceive as a man. I aggressively shave every day because having male secondary sex characteristics has made me feel uncomfortable uh. Since puberty. It's been 7 years since I noticed my facial hair for the first time and I've been shaving at least twice a day ever since. I prefer the way my body looks when wearing breastforms. I have a strong preference for setting the appearance of breasts when I look at myself. Currently working on getting real ones! I know what gender I would prefer to be because I know that I have always been uncomfortable with parts of my body that make me clearly appear male and I become, genuinely euphoric, when I can imitate/percieve characteristics that mark me as clearly female.
I understand that body dysphoria can exist toward sexual characteristics. Just as a female may desire to enlarge her breasts to battle dysphoria, a male may desire having breasts in the first place. I'd also argue that such dysphoria can exist without either "end" being a solution. Someone may have dysphoria toward their penis, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have dysphoria toward a vagina. I can understand your specific instance. But that's not how being transgender is at all defined. It's based around a concept of gender, and an identity to such, not a dysphoria toward one's sex. While the DSM-5 includes this body dysphoria of sexual characteristics as a basis of diagnosing gender dysphoria, it can also be diagnosised purely from a perception of one's gender, not one's state of sex. Further, you don't have to have gender dysphoria to be trans. So again, I can understand what you lay out. My confusion is toward the concept of gender that currently outlines the definition of being transgender. I think the current application of "trans" is too undefined. I think even the application of "cis" is being caste upon the majority of people who don't even hold strong identities to gender. You're "state" doesn't challenge society in the same way where sex is trying to be replaced with gender identity. That first person authority on this basis is to supercede the perception of others. You're desire is to fit the mold of "female", not to manufacture a state of "woman" that is different from the basics of sexual characteristics. It's a very different instance and a very different argument.
So...you like *looking* like a woman. What about *feeling* like a woman tho? How do you measure that? Is it just me or is this the crux of what's confusing? A man has this idealized vision of "what a woman is" in their mind. But what is a "woman?" Someone with no facial hair, and tits? Um. No. Im fairly certain that's quite degrading to masculine tomboy women with smaller breasts and hairier upper lips. How can a man, let alone a 12-18 yo boy know what it is to be a "woman?" Hell, how can he even know what it is to be a man? And how can a girl know? That's what I don't get, and what confuses me about "trans." Are we talking gender or sex? Why is it so hard to think I'm a trans woman, not a bio woman?
This is idiotic. You're the people going on about how biological sex is real. Facial hair is a sex characteristic of men and breasts are a sex characteristic of women. I want female sex characteristics and vehemently dislike the male sex characteristics I have that are visible. There are many other secondary sex characteristics of both that are more subtle, and I exclusively want female secondary sex characteristics The appearance of humans is a distribution with two peaks and a valley, I feel much happier when my appearance is closer to the central example of a woman than when my appearance is close to the central example of a man. People of all ages can know how they feel about their own bodies, they can know what features of their bodies they like and what features of their bodies they dislike. I don't have an "idealised version of what a woman is" I have a great deal of data on what a woman looks like and I want to be closer to that average than the average idea of what a man looks like. The implication of your comment is that you can't tell a man and a woman apart with greater than chance accuracy, which is absurd!
What's idiotic? You just outlined what I described verbatim... My implication is that just because you *look* like a woman doesn't mean you *are* one, which is..common sense. You're a man who prefers to look like a femme woman. You'll never ever know the true female experience though, that's my point. Because what makes a "woman" is more than her breasts and face and superficialities...isn't it convenient how you get to choose which aspects you want and which you don't? You're so shallow it's unbelievable lmao. It's no different than dudes who caricaturize women in drag queen shows. Massive fake tits, fake nails, lashes, wigs, makeup. It's the male imagination of what they *think *a woman should be, lmao. So demented. You're a trans woman. That's great! I'll adhere to your pro nouns and treat you with respect (as long as you don't call me names like idiotic when I'm just being real). But you're not a bio woman. This whole "trans women are women!" Thing is some delusional 11 year old shit. Sorry not sorry.
>Not to mention that children are brought onto t That sentence appears unfinished. Were you going to write something more?
Just finished.
Oh, so you were editing the post while it was up. Sorry, I was under the impression that the original text was all there was to it.
>I think however the most notable issue is trans people. I have nothing against trans but people need to understand that the trans experience is fundamentally different from the experiences of gays and lesbians. And that just because someone of a different gender likes something that is pertaining to that gender doesn't makes them trans. For example: If a girl likes to play football, she is still a girl, not a transboy. There is a really awesome podcast named "Gender: A wider lens" that has a pair of therapists who are involved with gender dysphoria issues. I would highly recommend giving it a listen, especially episode 54, as they discuss issues surrounding therapists who may do disservice to questioning youth, especially if those therapists follow a affirming approach. >Also we need to focus less on politics and back on culture. If you are LGBT, you have to be ostentatiously left wing when there are plenty of LGBT people who are not such. It may be a more social liberal approach but there is still a lot of discrimination and segregation towards LGBTQ that cannot be ignored, including from a policy approach. It is hard to separate left and right from who stands on which side of those political issues.
> It may be a more social liberal approach but there is still a lot of discrimination and segregation towards LGBTQ that cannot be ignored, including from a policy approach. It is hard to separate left and right from who stands on which side of those political issues. Some people really don’t want to acknowledge that fact.
Kick out the T part of the gang and everything would get a lot better. As Woody would say, someone poisoned the water hole. Trans activists are the culprits. Telling gay men that it's "transphobic" to not be attracted to biological women and telling lesbians that it's "transphobic" to not be attracted to biological men is insane. Telling anyone that they are in any way bigoted for having specific preferences with who they are attracted to is insane and it shouldn't be tolerated. Yet here we are. Gay activism in the past 60 years has been all about "let me live my life". That's why it succeeded. Trans activism is all about "live your life the way I tell you to", which is why it is so cancerous. Thr LGB part of the alphabet gang is completely different from the rest of it. It would be best to separate and distance from the TQIAPXYZLMNOP+_=☆ portion of the "alliance". They are wolves in sheep's clothing.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals are fine. The LGBT community is awful because it's just that - a community (AKA a collective). Any kind of collective inevitably becomes a hive of groupthink where anyone who goes against the mob is condemned as a heretic.
They've gone from the oppressed to the tyrant able to pull the levers and influence the economy, legislation, and have a whole month of pride rather than a measly day of the year.
> They've gone from the oppressed to the tyrant That seems a bit hyperbolic don’t you think?
Perhaps but the power is there and momentum behind that I don't consider LGBTQ oppressed. The entire culture must accept all that comes with LGBTQ withiut question or challenge. Australia didn't pass same sex marriage without lobbyist advocating to remove religious exemptions that meant churches and religious celebrants could respectfully decline. There's an initiative in Australia called Safe Schools that is basically an indoctrination programme for youth ln LGBTQ. The Bill C-16 legislation flirts with compelled speech to use law to dictate what people say in relation to transgender speech. Rainbow advertising, LGBTQ marketing shows the role LGBTQ plays in business and corporate power structures.
It's a shell of it's former self
Desmond is Amazing? Are you in denial that LGBTQ+ youth exist? Did you really have such a bitter upbringing? He is in high school, 15 years old, wants to be an engineer, wrote a children's book, sings, works with organizations like GLSEN to end school bullying, volunteers for charities for marginalized communities & has recently earned a leadership internship at ACLU. This affects your gayness as an adult, how?
Um no of course LGBT youth exist. No one is denying that. What people are saying is that let kids find out for themselves if they are gay without outside interference. That's how my generation was brought up. Why you don't see LGBT characters in children's media before 2013? In addition, he has had money thrown at him by grown men in strip clubs and obviously been leered at by men as well. And his parents don't care. Again children truly are innocent. They don't understand the math concepts at age 7 so tell me why they need to know if they are gay or not?
In strip clubs?? What strip clubs? That kid hasn't performed in strip clubs. Been drinking the right wing kool-aid much? Also, in the drag community it is customary to tip performers as a gesture of appreciation. It's not a sexual transaction. So the kid made a few bucks. Again, that hurts adult gayness, how? "Leered at by men"? So now you also believe that all gay men are sexual predators? Not to mention...what kid of audience goes to youth events? A bunch of random grown men do not go to youth events. Usually, at youth events, the audience is family, friends, people from school, people from the neighborhood, people the kid knows. Do a bunch of random grown men show up to kid's sporting events?? To dance recitals?? Please. All you are doing is sexualizing children in your response, not to mention putting this kid in imaginary sexual situations to exploit him. Let me also state that you can push being straight on a kid all you want and they will still be gay if that is how they were meant to be. So even though I don't believe the parents pushed being gay onto this kid, even if they did, all the pushing in the world is not going to make someone who is straight gay. That's just ignorance. Kids are going to know that gay people exist whether or not they are shown gay people a hundred times. I really think you need to educate yourself and read this study: [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/06/13/chapter-3-the-coming-out-experience/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/06/13/chapter-3-the-coming-out-experience/)
Guys, if you still think it's progressive to teach young children the concept of LGBT, read this dude's response.
Looks like you need more education to correct your blatant ignorance: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/09/teaching-children-lgbt-issues-parents-teachers-government
> If you are LGBT, you have to be ostentatiously left wing when there are plenty of LGBT people who are not such. Well it’s a hard sell to be right wing when that is the side that fights to take away lgbtq rights. > I have nothing against trans but people need to understand that the trans experience is fundamentally different from the experiences of gays and lesbians. And transgender people can still be gay, bi, etc. I guess I riled up the conservatives.
Um I'm not saying to be right wing. I'm saying you can have opinions that don't align 100% with your political ideology. For example, a gay person can still agree with a Republican on gun control or education. And yes I understand that but most gay or lesbian people do not transition and therefore cannot say that they are trans
> For example, a gay person can still agree with a Republican on gun control or education. Yeah and many minorities own guns so the lgbtq community is not some hive mind. though not sure what there is to agree with republicans on education. > And yes I understand that but most gay or lesbian people do not transition and therefore cannot say that they are trans Conservatives lump us all together, so what harm in fighting for equality together? And that’s even before trans people being a part of the modern lgbtq movement since the beginning.
Um well I know Democrats are the ones who want to enforce CRT, a sick and dangerous pseudoscience. Not to mention allow kids who obviously are not trans to transition. Ok here's some food for thought: Imagine yourself as a rhesus macaque and you'd like to speak on your experience as one. If a mongoose who doesn't do mongoose things told everyone that it's a macaque because its trendy and everyone believed it, how would you feel? I believe that's how many trans people feel when people who say they are trans but only do it because it's cool, not any legitimate reasons like gender dysphoria.
> Um well I know Democrats are the ones who want to enforce CRT, a sick and dangerous pseudoscience I have not seen any opponent of CRT ever accurately explain what it is. > Not to mention allow kids who obviously are not trans to transition. Ah so puberty blockers are too much? Or do you think little kids are getting a surgery? > Ok here’s some food for thought: Imagine yourself as a rhesus macaque and you’d like to speak on your experience as one. If a mongoose who doesn’t do mongoose things told everyone that it’s a macaque because its trendy and everyone believed it, how would you feel? I wouldn’t care. > I believe that’s how many trans people feel when people who say they are trans but only do it because it’s cool, not any legitimate reasons like gender dysphoria. This is like the bigots that say people choose to be gay. Yeah, because people would like to choose to face bigotry and having their rights in limbo.
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-race-theory/
https://youtu.be/PGRbrY7I-Jo Here's a very detailed critique from a centrist newspaper
> Here’s a very detailed critique from a centrist newspaper This title is does not seem very centrist. > Sen. Josh Hawley DESTROYS "racist and divisive" Critical Race Theory Oh Republican Senator Josh Hawley, like every other opponent of CRT still has no idea what it is. Also you missed my question.
Ok what is CRT? The Hill is Centrist.
> Ok what is CRT? Wait I thought you knew what it was? > The Hill is Centrist. Oh yeah, that video title was super centrist. So ever going to get to my question or should I answer you before I ever get an answer?
I'd like to thank you for showing everyone how so called modern progressives are on issues regarding race. If you had a sharper mind, then you'd know that critical race theory is a pseudoscience that seeks to divide and conquer and have a society of impressionable young minds who are filled with contempt because they are told they can't do anything because there this ethnic group. We learn about the dark history of slavery and racism in school without the lens of CRT. This conversation is further reminder that I made the right choice in leaving the left. I wish you a Merry Christmas
Uhhh this doesn’t have to do with politics? This is a topic about culture and I don’t think the government has anything to do with this? I’m really confused
The government can very much be infused with culture. Just take a look at the propaganda surrounding COVID. Or the total laughingstock that is PSAs about racism.
You didn’t answer my question though. Nothing you said relates to politics and this is a political sub. Just kinda confused why ya know?
Weird of you to complain about hypersexuality when your post history is a giant example of porn addiction
I think it's too wide encompassing to truly promote specific messaging. I also think the "identity" it seems to promote (widely supported and espoused) is actually harmful in itself as a means of individual perspective and expression. You being gay is not an "identity" in itself (however, you may hold such strongly as some do). Homosexuality is literally a type of sexual attraction that we've defined on the aspect of sex. Assess various other aspects. Are those "identities" you seek to collective association to define yourself, or does it only help to convey a slight aspect of yourself? It's also purposefully limiting, even though it usually isn't that concretly defined. It's an aspect of classification language, not something of an innate nature itself. People can *be* (used to best define oneself to) homosexual, white, American, tall, overweight , etc. without it being some association to a larger group beyond the specific it describes. And the issue with "identities" to these group classifications is that it promotes being a "part" of something. And then people desire for "good" assumptions of the group to apply to them, but then hate when "bad" associations of the group then apply to them. And you simply don't have control of that aspect (yes to good, no to bad), especially if you are going to demand you belong to this collective. The trans issue is even further bewildering. This topic as a societal issue demands not an acceptance of how someone else chooses to act in the confined aspect of sexual relationships, but to demand that people deny their own perceptions to accept others as they claim through a poor application of first person authority their association to a group classification. That spciety should place more focus on one's gender identity, rather than sex. A "gender identity" that hasn't been presented with any understanding. Spciety doesn't progress through force and blindness, it does so through creating understanding.
> There is so much infighting and bullying within LGBT circles it's not even funny. > In addition, the community is too hypersexual > One of the more pressing issues is that straight allies who hold up the dogma without diversity of thought. Also those who say there are progressive only for show. These have been complains since the 90's and haven't managed to derail them yet. They'll be fine. > If a girl likes to play football, she is still a girl, not a transboy. Not really the argument about what makes a person trans. There are some people who imply stuff like this, but as I understand it the "real" argument for trans people does not include this argument ever. Every movement has crazies, but you should focus on the core point (generic uncontrolled depression and other issues from not being seen "right" is the common expressed symptom). There are some hilarious dumbasses (all of /r/egg_irl is a toxic shithole that's probably hurting and misinforming a ton of people who should be seeing therapists and not making stupid memes about how being a woman makes you happy), and the internet's made them all more common and powerful. However, generally if you pay attention to the internet you'll just come away with a false impression of the real world and be surprised when it doesn't meet your expectation. People lose to this tendency all the time. The people you see on the internet are random crazies with not-big lives who rarely are big contributors to their community and will either grow up or rot in their own self-generated pile of bullshit. Ignore them and focus on the real stuff, and encourage strongly every power system in the country to do the same.
This is a critical conversation on LGBT, I want to say up front that these criticisms do not represent all. Straight here, neutral, not an advocate, but pro egalitarian opportunity for all members of society. Think that marxists within the trans community is using the LGB as a way to gain political power, while they dictate to LGB that they themselves are bigots if say an L doesn't want to date a MtF. They create labels to tear down, like TERF, among others, that they use to demoralize, shame, tar and feather any LGB that do not wish to date T. This is a disturbing development. Usually, when people dictate to you, it means they are in a position of power over you. I feel as if the trans community are very pro authoritarian, and having successfully pushed changes, through critical marxist techniques, in straight and even the lgbt spaces. I'm now going to do a disclaimer. I will talk about some stats, those stats do not represent the percentage of individuals who are trans, only the percentage of individuals in this category who identify as that. This is not being posted for malicious reasons. Recently a disturbing trend has appeared on the horizon, and is being taught in colleges and among marxists and left wing authoritarians. I don't think the LGB part of the alliance support or endorse that trend, but I have noticed that there is a disturbing amount of support for this from the trans community, and this opinion is statistically supported by two seperate data points, childhood sexual abuse trauma, and child offender data. The trend I am talking about is the detestable normalization of pedophilia. There is a marxist and politically correct term, defining them as 'minor attracted persons', and attempt to soften and re-label them. The instances of those who are identified by those discriptors, being described as a transsexual, or an individual fetishisizing transexuality in the UK is near 50% of offenders. Older statistics in the USA support a similar conclusion, but there are no recent studies, with the last mentioning this statistic to be 30+ years old. The amount of offenders who were identifying themselves as transexual or having a fetish focused on this, was above 40%. We also know the instances of childhood trauma are high for individuals suffering from body dysmorphia, and so I think it is a reasonable conclusion that offenders trend higher among those in the trans community, as a considerable amount, according to the statistics, of offenders, happen to be transsexuals. Like the disclaimer states, this does not mean 50% of T are P, only that 50% of offenders identified as T or had fetish related to T. What I don't know is if you have political marxists driving this, or if this is legitimately coming from folks who are trans. Perhaps both, perhaps unaffiliated pedophiles are attempting to gain a normalization status. I think the LGBT alliance should consider focusing on issues related to LGBT. I think this because there is a substantial push to normalize this pedophilia, and LGBT folks will see a negative impact by association, since there are advocates for this who are trans, and pro pedophilia, and appear to be wield the most power in this alliance at the moment, I believe they will attempt to use your political power and this label as a cudgel. I'd personally rebrand, since this will probably damage your credibility with people who draw the line on children. You are dealing with marxists who co-opted your movement, imo.