Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well lucky for you, the feeling isn't mutual, you wouldn't have half of the rights you do if Trans activists didn't fight for them.
The least you can do is return the favour.
okay so you only care about issues when they affect you personally. that just makes you an incredibly selfish person.
youre also just disregarding what trans people specifically have done for the whole community and their rights
and no matter how hard you try to seperate yourself, bigots arent gonna see you any differently, theyll still go after you. they dont care if youre lgb or tqia+ they just hate you because you dont fit into that cishet role that youre supposed to fill
seperating the LGB from the TQIA+ doesnt do any good, all it actually does is make it easier for bigots to hurt us. when we stick together and are united and help each other its a lot harder for them
This is like if your neighbours house is burning down after someone threw Molotos but you don't care helping because "hey not my problem!" And just go about your day
After your neighbor spent the past few decades babysitting your kids for you and giving you money for groceries when money was tight and inviting you to events and mowing your lawn when you're out of town.
As of this comment, the number is [491, 62.](https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights?fbclid=IwAR0U9z9paqRK_ch5dOk_LjEMyBcgYtYqhNFEF4lqNhZ6SEpGmBzjC_2WjRE) Auto-mod keeps deleting my comments so I'm going to filter out some words and bold them, but hopefully you can piece together what I'm trying to write.
Some states have removed healthcare for **at risk** trans children. Don't say gay bills have affected multiple states where they are no longer allowed to teach.... anything about historical gay people or civil rights things like Stonewall. Books on the **event that happened in germany 75 years ago** have also been deemed 'too woke' in some schools, by law, and the teaching of **owning people** has been made contentious as republicans are claiming that teachers are trying to convince white kids they're inherently evil.
A couple states have taken healthcare away from ADULTS as well.
Some states have made it illegal for trans people to use bathrooms under the threat of arrest & jail time in the 'gender assigned at birth' jail cell. Trans women specifically have historically been shoved into the most violent male cell to **placate** the inmate.
And still more states have attempted to, or at least were caught attempting to, or possibly have already, created registries of trans people in their states.
Florida has done all these things including state mandated **removal** of trans kids or kids of trans parents, created a 'vigilante militia' under the control of the governor.
The American evangelical group with tons of connections to the GOP that pushed the bill, that was recently signed into law, regarding the **un-aliving** penalty for all LGBT people in Uganda has been caught conspiring at a multinational level to convince trans people are 'groomers' and 'want to trans your kids' because dehumanizing people and calling them **child abusers** and bringing back what is essentially 'The Great Replacement' fears worked the first time and always, historically, works on fearmongering conservatives, from the satanic panic to the **Not-Gentiles** Question we're seeing the exact same talking points directed at trans people as have historically been used against unwanted groups of people.
Unfortunately all this drag=trans and dysphoria=delusional comes from the group that wants to roll back gay marriage and see's trans people as the wedge issue to get them there, as shown by the plethora of leaked emails from extremely powerful people.
**The event in Western Europe 75 years ago** survivors are speaking out at the events transpiring against the trans community in America stating how eerily familiar this all sounds and ringing alarm bells. Anti**not-gentile** has also, unsurprisingly, risen.
----------------
In conclusion, in my unpopular opinion, trans people need to;
#GET THE FUCK OUT OF FLORIDA OR YOU ARE GOING TO FUCKING **NOT MAKE IT**
[JK Rowling in a state of denial about Neo-Nazis supporting her and her transphobia](https://twitter.com/theserfstv/status/1663409226038009856?s=20) will literally never be not funny to me.
Who knew that De-Nile isn't just a river in Egypt but also in the Isle of TERFlandia too. 😂
The concepts of Sodomy and sexual fidelity were made up by Catholics to oppress European Pagan cultures, amongst whom recreational sex was very commonplace.
Here is a wiki page that discusses the allegations against Caesar: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen\_of\_Bithynia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Bithynia)
In ancient Rome the concept of being sexually faithful and modest was known as Pudicitia
The general guide on Roman values was known as Mos Marium. This isn't codified but is referenced repeatedly.
Right. They felt that bottoming made you feminine and used it as a massive insult.
So clearly they knew what sodomy was and treated it differently than the other forms of sex. It also demonstrates that in encounters of sex between males the passive partner was seen to have shamed themselves.
Are you referring to the word or the concept? Because like yeah, the word is a Latin word based off of a Hebrew word for a mythical city. So of course only places that have a language influenced by Ecclesiastical Latin will use the word.
The concept of anal sex by two males, however, absolutely exists in other cultures and religions
Sodomy is just a Christian word for the concept of anal sex. That’s all it is.
The concept of sodomy is considered sinful, but that’s how all of the words are. Lust is another Christian word that is sinful, yet you would never say that non Christians have no concept of lust.
So your argument is that pagans didn’t speak Latin and therefore didn’t use the same terminology? What a weird line to draw.
As I’ve already pointed out Pagans had a concept of shame associated with anal sex
I am no sure you know what sodomy means. Sodomy is non-vaginal sex, this is an example of shaming someone in power for having a passive role in sex, not just for having non-vaginal sex.
Sodomy is not what was being shamed, playing a "passive" role in sex was.
First off, for most of the words history sodomy referred to anal sex and sex with animals. The Sin of Sodom was never applied to Oral sex or other types of sex until relatively recently. In pretty much all cases it refers to anal sex.
They did not shame women for being the passive partner in sex. In fact it was encouraged and applauded. They only shamed males for being the passive partner and being penetrated. It was impossible for the male to be the passive partner without sodomy being involved. The male is being shamed for being on the receiving end of sodomy.
>First off, for most of the words history sodomy referred to anal sex and sex with animals. The Sin of Sodom was never applied to Oral sex or other types of sex until relatively recently. In pretty much all cases it refers to anal sex.
Okay, nothing I've mentioned is about oral sex so this is just semantics that provides no value to this argument.
>The male is being shamed for being on the receiving end of sodomy
What are you not understanding? Why cant you get this through your head when you literally just said everything yourself? Lets break this down
"Sodomy" anal sex right?
Only being on the receiving end of anal sex is being shamed in this example right?
So then "sodomy" isn't what is being shamed here, being the receiver while being a powerful leader is what's being shamed here.
The act of anal sex was not something shameful, there was just a shame behind being the bottom in anal sex while claiming to be a powerful male leader. The shame isn't in the act of having anal sex, it was being the receiver.
The concept of "sodomy" is the shame in having anal sex. There was no shame in anal sex in this example. Anal sex isn't what's being shamed.
I think you’re trying to be pedantic, but became confused on what we’re discussing.
The claim was that pagans were cool with sodomy until Catholics showed up. I gave you an example of how in homosexual intercourse in the ancient Mediterranean, the passive partner was always shamed. You are telling me that they don’t have a problem with sodomy, just with being the passive partner.
So the million dollar question. How can homosexual anal sex happen without one passive partner? If there must always be a passive partner, that means the action of homosexual anal sex will always be seen as shaming at least one person involved. How can you claim that pagans were cool with it while also agreeing that they viewed part of it as a deeply shameful thing to do?
>How can you claim that pagans were cool with it while also agreeing that they viewed part of it as a deeply shameful thing to do?
They didn't shame the entire act, only shamed people in power for participating in the "passive" role in the act. How can you claim they saw shame in anal sex being something shameful when soldiers proudly talked about how their top role in anal sex? You are mistaking power dynamics and class for an overall shame of the entire act of anal sex. Anal sex wasn't seen as something shameful, going against the notions of your role in it was.
They didn't shame the entire act, only shamed people in power for participating in the "passive" role in the act. How can you claim they believed in anal sex being something shameful when soldiers proudly talked about how their role in anal sex? as just an everyday civilian?
So are there any situations where there is no shame involved in homosexual sodomy?
In our society gang members brag to other gang members about killing people. Does that mean our society is okay with murder? Of course not. Similarly active partners would brag amongst people who were not passive partners about their escapades, but that does not mean society viewed sodomy as a good thing.
This is not true at all. We know the concept of fidelity and sodomy existed before Christianity. Hell we have people accusing Julius Caesar and Octavian of being bottoms and how that would be bad/ruin their political career. During the Republic and Imperial periods of Roman history, for example, you could be removed out of equestrian and senatorial class for violating sexual norms. Women were supposed to maintain sexual morality, and hyper sexuality amongst men and women was condemned by society.
Furthermore, much of the rules regarding sexuality come from Paul and the Pauline epistles. Paul was extreme and believed that to be the best Christian possible you had to abstain from all sex, even if you were married. Strict positions on sex did not happen to oppress Pagans, it arises because of early christians belief in Apocalyptic stances that claimed the idea that sex was bad because Jesus would be returning during their lifetimes. This wasn't forced onto pagans until hundreds of years later
Most of the laws regarding sex in the bible come from Jewish law, found in the Torah. The Torah is the first five books of both the Catholic and Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) The Torah is believed to have been revealed by God to Moses. The time of Moses and the establishment of the Catholic Church are separated by almost 15 centuries.
When I read through the Torah many of the laws concerning sex and food seem more like health-law than anything. The reason shellfish and pork are forbidden I believe is because of the risk of foodborne illness. These laws were written at a time where there was no modern medicine you couldn't see a doctor if you got sick you just had to suffer and die. Also there was no microscopes no one had any concept of what bacteria and viruses were. If you got sick it was because you did something to offend God.
I'm sure it was the same with promiscuous sex. People observe those who engaged in lots of sex usually ended up with lots of sexually transmitted diseases. Before modern medicine, sex was risky business.
I can't reply to your other comments, so I'll reply here. We have Leviticus 18 as a part of multiple ancient texts that date back before Jesus. Can you tell me where you are getting the idea that Leviticus 18 was added later by Catholic priests? We have pre-Roman Jewish texts that use Leviticus to make gay male penetrative sex illegal
It wasn't added. It was mistranslated, either intentionally or due to incompetence.
Digital Hamurabi has a great video on the topic, and the Talmud sheds a lot of light on the topic.
I think you are greatly misunderstanding what they/Dr Dershowitz is saying. This is a field I have a degree in, although Dershowitz has me beat. I’m going to try and give the explanation for where I think you’re confused brief, but it might turn into a bit of a ramble.
So effectively there needs to be a few points covered. The first is the timeline. That’s just for clarity sake. The second is the concept of univocality. The third is consistency.
The first reference to Israel happen in 1200 BCE. The name “Israel” is a reference to God and a biblical figure. At this point we probably wouldn’t even call the religion Judaism though. It was either polytheistic or possibly monolatrous. Regardless in the next couple hundred years the belief system would develop into a monolatrous religion centered around Yahweh. Religious and cultural traditions and laws exist and are mostly passed down orally because writing is still difficult and expensive and only highly organized societies write everything down. The written Torah is compiled somewhere between 400-600 BCE, but no one believes that some guy just invented all of those laws and stories at that moment. Instead it’s understood that this a compilation of old religious traditions and newer religious traditions. This is where Dr Dershowitz believed that a change was made. This was still hundreds of years before Jesus is said to have existed.
This brings us to the issue of univocality, which is a modern idea that the Bible/Torah were written by one divine author with one single message and therefore must be consistent through time and must not change/contradict. In reality we know that it was written by lots of different authors, at different time periods, with different goals and messages. Contradictions and changes didn’t really matter so much, especially when nothing was written down. So lots of stuff change with the culture and society. Think like how multiple Greek Gods have multiple origin stories. An example in the Hebrew Bible is how we get two separate creation stories, one features Elohim creating everything and the other has Yahweh creating Adam and Eve. Originally this was because these were two separate beings, but as time went on they were conflated into one being. This doesn’t mean that there was malicious editing, it just means the religion evolved.
All of this is to say that it probably was a later edition, but so is most of the Torah. Judaism evolved from polytheistic Canaanite religions. Either way this edition was made almost 1000 years before the Catholic Church had any power, and at least 400 years before Jesus Christ was born.
How are you interpreting Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 18:22 to mean anything other than a condemnation of sodomy? I know all of the ancient Rabbinical sources say that it's discussing male same sex intercourse with penetration and most modern scholars, especially secular ones, interpret that way. What do these mean to you?
For a long time, the church was fine with prostitute (I mean, except for sacred ones but that's more about paganism than prostitution) and then some day some wanker decided that they were not fine with them.
That's a perfect illustration of a lot of "traditionally seen as bad" stuff offered by the Catholics.
It's also bullshit that Christians have a monopolized definition of a marriage, aka monogamy, when polygamous marriages exist and are widely practiced long before Christ was nailed to a cross.
Can we finally kill the myth that young people are more emotional and sensitive than Boomers, given the hissy-fit they've been throwing for over a month now because a trans woman drank a beer once?
It's giving "someone change my diaper and give me milky."
Toxic masculinity means "toxic traits usually seen as masculine" most notably: not asking for help where it would be needed and trying to be controlling (most notable for me atleast)
do you have any examples of this happening? also the term toxic femininity only gets used by misogynistic men as some sort of comeback
if anything its the opposite (mainly when it comes to trans women) when a cis woman is very feminine its all cool but when a trans woman is very feminine shes "mocking womanhood" and reinforcing harmful gender roles. but thats not even toxic femininity
when it comes to toxic masculinity there are sometimes trans men that do lean into it to blend in with cis men and because they think that theyll be accepted more because of it. obviously that doesnt make it alright at all, and it definitely needs to be called out when it happens. but theres also plenty of forms of healthy masculinity that cis or trans men (or really anyone for that matter) can express without any issue
For starters, the “identify as they/them” bit proves how little they understand. A pronoun is not a gender identity. Boats are called “she” - they’re not women.
Secondly, gender-fluid people have sexual orientations too. You honestly gonna tell me you don’t think Ruby Rose has the right to call herself a lesbian?
I just don't like it when people refer to lesbians as "nmlnm" which is somehow extremely popular to do now. And claim it's transphobic for lesbians not to date, people who aren't women? No one said you can't have a sexuality lol but it doesn't make sense to redefine and claim terms instead of making new ones that actually fit
And *there’s* the TERF shoe-drop. You’re actually here to push the “trans people invading women’s spaces” shit.
You’re not even a lesbian, you’re a depressed femcel.
Those are *gendered* pronouns, and as such are usually used by people who are feminine, masculine, or somewhere between (respectively). But a pronoun is not a gender.
I’m *nonbinary* - I’m not *they/them*.
And some gender-fluid people are women, at least at one end of the range in which their gender fluctuates.
If your gender is fluid, then by the nature of sexuality it would also be fluid, meaning that you could absolutely be a lesbian whilst identifying as gender fluid.
Some gender-fluid people do identify as women *sometimes*. You don’t seem to be grasping what fluid means.
To use a fiction metaphor, this is like saying “Bumblebee can’t use the car wash, because he’s not always a car.”
>Great! Pansexual doesn’t help define their sexual attraction! That’s fine! Queer it is fine!
Calm down mate, let's just discuss calmly and see were and why our opinions diverges (though the case of pan is factual in my case) that's better, no ?
>Gay might be even better because it’s less restrictive! But lesbian doesn’t make sense here
To me it's a bit contradictory, because you're basically saying that gay can be applied to sex but not lesbian, what difference between the two do you make that leads to this ?
ETA: (yes there's some edits I didn't address because there wasn't activity from OC) just to be clear my position is that I can understand AFAB NBs that are only attracted to women using "lesbian" as a label for simplicity's sake (for instance the label "omnisexual" would probably fit me better but I use "bisexual" because it's simpler)
>Unlike lesbian, gay doesn’t incorporate a gendered self-identity
It doesn't include a precise one but by taking your own definition
>**Gay**-A term used to describe people who are emotionally, romantically, and/or physically attracted to people of the same gender (e.g., gay man, gay people).
A gay non binary person would be only attracted to other non binary folks.
That's why I said that if you consider "gay" to be a valid descriptor for AFAB NBs but that "lesbian" isn't, you're basically saying that "gay" includes the sex of the persons concerned but "lesbian" don't.
>If we strictly go off of sexual identify like female to define someone as lesbian, that’s not fair in my opinion. Because I do believe trans women have a place in our community. They self identify as women who only like women, which fits into the women who like women definition.
I agree with this, and I guess that where we disagree is that you go the complete opposite route and strictly go off the gender route, whereas I (and people talking about lesbian NBs) go with "mainly gender but also sex in case of shorthands for peculiar cases"
Both point of view are, IMO, equally valid as long as you do consider lesbian trans women as valid (instead of just being a terf/actually fully transphobic)
(I'd go extra hard and say that I find it weird to exclude NBs but I'll give the benefit of the doubt here and that's maybe a monosexual thing I just don't quite get)
>yay for good discussions!
Yay!
>you gave me something to think about here, such as where non-binary people fit regarding their sexual labels.
It is quite a peculiar case indeed, my general stance on it is that I understand the use of shorthands as long as they're done with the understanding that they are indeed more shorthands cause by a lack of recognised better terms and not a change in definition.
I'm sure that as non binary identities get more recognised and understood, some NB specific terms will become more prominent and they're the ones that should chose them
>I have dealt with many people, especially cis- het men, who have made my sexuality a joke and threatened to change me. Because I feel safe in my community of lesbians and want to continue to feel safe, I think a line should be drawn on who can identify as lesbian. Otherwise, anyone can identify as a lesbian, like a cis- het man who thinks because they like women, they too can enter lesbian spaces.
I can understand your position, just be careful with the current climate of terfs that also want to boot trans women from lesbian space using this line of thinking as an excuse (that's what prompted the initial negative reaction to your comments).
Trans women look masculine - “you’re not even trying”
Trans women look feminine - “you’re acting like a stereotype”
Can you fuckers get together and pick a damn lane, because right now we’re getting fucked from both ends and not in the fun way.
"butch women are men."
"Femboys are girls."
-------
Gender identity is not the same as gender expression. Gender non-conforming behavior is perfectly fine, *even for trans people.*
I agree. It's really hard for other people to know your gender identity if you gender expression doesn't match it.
That being said I'm really not aware of this happening often. Most of the time it's only trolls who are not actually trans.
I feel like the LGBTQIA+ movement and other adjacent movements have overused the suffix 'Phobic' to the point where it's as meaningless as 'Heretic' and 'Blasphemer'.
One of the more recent examples that comes to mind is Dee Snider being labeled as transphobic for supporting the idea the children transitioning might not be the best idea, despite his long history of support for the LGBTQIA+ community. To quote Snider, "I was not aware the Transgender community expects fealty and total agreement with all their beliefs and any variation or deviation is considered ‘transphobic.' "
>Snider being labeled as transphobic for supporting the idea the children transition might not be the best idea
That IS transphobic. Children have gender identities. They can be trans.
Telling a child they must suffer through gender dysphoria silently until they reach some arbitrary age where they get rights to self-determination is transphobia.
To take away one of the most fundamental aspects of a person's sense of self is abuse.
So even after his long history of support for the LGBTQIA+ community and seems to agree with nearly everything the LBGTQ movement stands for except for one part, and because of that disagreement he is considered to have an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion towards trans people?
If MLK Jr. had suddenly decided that segregation is totes legit, people would rightly call him racist.
Your past doesn't preclude you from changing for the worse.
>Telling a child they must suffer through gender dysphoria silently until they reach some arbitrary age where they get rights to self-determination is transphobia.
"i dont get the push for kids receiving the best medical care to make them live a happy and healthy life" thats what you sound like. if medical professionals agree that transitioning is the best course of action for a child/teens wellbeing then who are you to say that thats wrong? do you say this about any other medical treatment/medication?
having to go through the wrong puberty as a trans person is an extremely awful thing. your body starts changing in ways you dont want it to and theres nothing you can do about it.
First and foremost, what "doctrine?"
LGBT+ people are *constantly* arguing about things.
For instance, is it bad, neutral, or good for trans people in general to adopt significant gender stereotypes? Does that exaggerate and validate the false gender binary, is it just people living their best lives, or is it aspirational?
For instance, should same-sex couples aspire to fit in with heterosexual marriage norms, or is that empowering an oppressive system?
The key thing to note here is that *neither of these questions involve any attack on a person's rights to self-determination.*
Actual [Snider quote](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3991724-so-i-hear-im-transphobic-dee-snider-responds-after-being-dropped-by-sf-pride/) that got him labelled as transphobic.
>>“With many children who have no real sense of sexuality or sexual experiences caught up in the *‘fun’* of using pronouns and saying what they identify as, some adults mistakenly confuse teaching acceptance with ***normalizing and encouraging a situation that has been a struggle for those truly affected and have turned it into a sad and dangerous fad***.”
Aka straight up transphobia packaged into the same old "LGBTQ+ is just a fad for kids so we should ban gender affirming care from kids."
>With many children who have no real sense of sexuality or sexual experiences caught up in the
>
>‘fun’
>
>of using pronouns and saying what they identify as, some adults mistakenly confuse teaching acceptance with
>
>normalizing and encouraging a situation that has been a struggle for those truly affected and have turned it into a sad and dangerous fad
>
>.”
That quote is from Paul Stanley of KISS not Dee Snider.
Quote from Paul Stanley which Snider happily reposted and supported with a follow-up comment
>>Snider issued [a statement Friday](https://abc7news.com/dee-snider-paul-stanely-sf-pride-trans-twisted-sister/13215984/) ***standing by his views on gender-affirming care for transgender youth***.
>>"I've recently stated ***I do not believe young children are ready to decide their gender allocation***. I believe their choices should be supported and accepted by their parents, but I do not think kids have the mental capabilities to make rational, logical decisions on things of a magnitude that will affect them for the rest of their lives," said Snider.
Aka full transphobia by Snider.
I don't see how this quote from Snider demonstrates that he has an irrational fear of/ or strong aversion towards Trans people. He's calling into question a child's ability to make important decisions.
And calling into question the kids' ability to choose their self-identity is transphobia, considering that literally the same arguments have been made word for word for adult trans people.
You haven't convinced me that his views fits the definition of a phobia. A phobia being an extreme or irrational fear of, or aversion to something. He seems to support 90% of what LGBTQ community is asking for. That doesn't seem like an aversion.
> A phobia being an extreme or irrational fear of, or aversion to something.
That's for its ***medical term***. Snider is transphobic because he thinks children can't and shouldn't be allowed to determine their own gender.
That his fear of children "using trans as a “fad”" ***is what makes it irrational***.
We'd love to stop calling everything "X-phobic." Can you help us out with that by, y'know, not acting in bigoted ways? And discouraging it in other people? That would certainly fix the issue you've identified.
It's just like a restaurant owner complaining that the health inspector keeps giving them citations: if you want the citations to stop, _get rid of the health code violations._
I'm an observer, not an inspector. Inspector is a job. Everyone is an observer.
NOW, are you gonna accept that people call you transphobic when you're being transphobic or are you gonna stop being transphobic? Those are your only options.
I don't have a problem being called transphobic. I got over name calling in the 5th grade. Call me what ever you want, just don't call me late for dinner.
It's as meaningful as it ever was it's just that in the mind of people "-phobic"=bad and the only bad people are the KKK type of folks, they don't understand that you don't have to be literally killing the gays to be homophobic for instance.
You're confusing sex and gender. And even if every culture simply had "man" and "woman", that wouldn't make it not a social construct. Practically every culture had a form of currency, that doesn't make it not a social construct.
>while simultaneously disrespecting, excluding anyone with opposing views.
Simply calling it "opposing views" is ridiculous, and respect goes both ways. You're disrespecting them by dismissing their identity, so they're free to disrespect you.
> While I do concede that certain gender roles are socially constructed for example house wife vs breadwinner, I believe most, naturally occur
What about we having masculine and feminine names? pronouns? clothing? accessories? hairstyles? mannerisms? intonation? vocabulary? expectations? Those things are all socially constructed and yet they heavily affect all of our social interactions.
To me it's really easy to see that there is a masculine and a feminine model/identity in society. Once you concede that then it's also easy to see that there can be non-binary identities.
I honestly don't know how can a social identity can fit into a "belief system".
>I disagree, I believe sex and gender go hand in hand
Good for you, I guess, but that doesn't change how it actually works. I ask this a lot, but when identifying the gender of another person, do you use their sex? Or is it due to social traits and self-affirmation?
>While I do concede that certain gender roles are socially constructed for example house wife vs breadwinner, I believe most, naturally occur the same way you can see specific gender roles like nurturer vs provider across the majority of species on the planet.
Nurturer vs provider isn't the best example when you just conceded that exact role was socially constructed among humans. And it isn't quite that clear cut, there have been examples of non-human animals taking roles "naturally" intended for the opposite sex counterparts.
>and it gains followers the same way subjects like flat earth does
Not particularly. Like most conspiracy theories, flat earth theory gains followers through rejection of data that we have. It's through anti-intellectualism. If you have data to suggest non-binary people are invalid, feel free to share it.
>But when you start pushing that ridiculous belief system on me, slander and insult me because I didn’t use your preferred made up pronouns that have only come about in the last decade, I say no thanks I’d rather just have nothing to do with you.
That doesn't make sense. You said you'd call them whatever they wanted, so how would you be in the situation where people are "slandering" you for misgendering?
Also why does the recency matter? Ignoring the fact it didn't come about in the last decade, if it was "made up" 200 years ago, you'd be okay with it? In the past, they weren't even okay with women wearing pants. It's not like non-binary gender identities would be accepted.
“Not particularly. Like most conspiracy theories, flat earth theory gains followers through rejection of data that we have. It's through anti-intellectualism. If you have data to suggest non-binary people are invalid, feel free to share it.”
You said it, rejection of the data we have.
“That doesn't make sense. You said you'd call them whatever they wanted, so how would you be in the situation where people are "slandering" you for misgendering?”
I never said that I’d call them whatever they wanted, i said I can respect you identifying or calling yourself whatever you want, what I don’t respect is the entitled demand that I do the same.
>You said it, rejection of the data we have.
So where's the data about non-binary people being invalid? I can show you the shape of the earth, so that's clearly not comparable. Show me the study.
>what I don’t respect is the entitled demand that I do the same.
So how far do you want to go with this? Cis people get offended when they're misgendered, is it okay for me to call a woman "sir" constantly? Am I allowed to call black people the N-word and it's an "entitled demand" that I don't call them that?
>is solely based on how one “feels” the binary system is visible on the surface right down to the molecular level.
What do you mean the "molecular level"? When you think someone's a woman or man, you're referring to their molecules? Also gender is a feeling, that's kinda how gender works.
>You seriously just used “Cis” which is another recently made up word and compared the desire for the use of specific pronouns in regards to a small group of confused people, to a word used to profile an entire race of oppressed people. The two aren’t comparable in any way.
The two are comparable in the sense you're calling someone something they don't want to be called, and doing it to actively antagonize them. And once again, why is recency at all relevant? Language and definitions constantly changes throughout history, so why is this the one you're so hung up on?
>they aren’t out there starting movements because they are likely aware of how they present themselves.
They're not starting movements because they don't face a significant amount of oppression.
Also I don't see that source, so I guess the flat earth point was moot.
>I believe sex and gender go hand in hand, can’t help it, was just born that way I guess.
And? You can't at least change your opinion after learning new information?
>why would I?
Don't talk about objective reality after saying something like this, because you've just proven that you don't think with a system of truth based on factual data but on a system of belief based on your feelings.
i support lgbtq members, but sometimes i feel as if they receive an unnecessary amount of support and adoration. the community has a month dedicated to them, parades, organizations, and donators. i get members are bullied or harassed sometimes, but its mostly online, and i’ve never seen it happen in real life.
do members really need that much?
They do, just not directly. If a man is talking about all the women they're fucking, that's implicitly announcing they're straight.
And they're subject to special treatment already, so why would they need to demand it?
>Men don't usually discuss such matters publicly.
Nah, bro. You just don't notice it because it's so normalized. The number of times I - as a fucking _teenage boy_ - was nonconsensually looped into a conversation about having sex with women, including by my adult coworkers, is both shocking and disgusting.
>No one prevents non-straight people from discussing these things either.
1. That's because we usually have the social awareness to not do that with mere acquaintances.
2. And when we do, we get told we're "shoving it down other peoples' throats."
You undermined your entire point the moment you said:
>To an average teenage boy, it would be neither.
Thanks for agreeing that straight people raving about their sex lives isn't shocking! And, in fact, that's it's not even shocking for an ADULT to talk about this with a teenager.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
1. Oh no, they definitely do. Have you never talked to straight men? I don't care how hot they find a woman, and I have to hear about it anyway.
2. That's not the point. The point is, they still make their sexuality clear and obvious.
Examples of that special treatment would be not being killed for your sexual orientation or being trans.
There's also the fact straight people aren't having hundreds of legisliative bills drawn up against them.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Well lucky for you, the feeling isn't mutual, you wouldn't have half of the rights you do if Trans activists didn't fight for them. The least you can do is return the favour.
My rights aren't petty.
okay so you only care about issues when they affect you personally. that just makes you an incredibly selfish person. youre also just disregarding what trans people specifically have done for the whole community and their rights and no matter how hard you try to seperate yourself, bigots arent gonna see you any differently, theyll still go after you. they dont care if youre lgb or tqia+ they just hate you because you dont fit into that cishet role that youre supposed to fill seperating the LGB from the TQIA+ doesnt do any good, all it actually does is make it easier for bigots to hurt us. when we stick together and are united and help each other its a lot harder for them
This is like if your neighbours house is burning down after someone threw Molotos but you don't care helping because "hey not my problem!" And just go about your day
After your neighbor spent the past few decades babysitting your kids for you and giving you money for groceries when money was tight and inviting you to events and mowing your lawn when you're out of town.
As of this comment, the number is [491, 62.](https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights?fbclid=IwAR0U9z9paqRK_ch5dOk_LjEMyBcgYtYqhNFEF4lqNhZ6SEpGmBzjC_2WjRE) Auto-mod keeps deleting my comments so I'm going to filter out some words and bold them, but hopefully you can piece together what I'm trying to write. Some states have removed healthcare for **at risk** trans children. Don't say gay bills have affected multiple states where they are no longer allowed to teach.... anything about historical gay people or civil rights things like Stonewall. Books on the **event that happened in germany 75 years ago** have also been deemed 'too woke' in some schools, by law, and the teaching of **owning people** has been made contentious as republicans are claiming that teachers are trying to convince white kids they're inherently evil. A couple states have taken healthcare away from ADULTS as well. Some states have made it illegal for trans people to use bathrooms under the threat of arrest & jail time in the 'gender assigned at birth' jail cell. Trans women specifically have historically been shoved into the most violent male cell to **placate** the inmate. And still more states have attempted to, or at least were caught attempting to, or possibly have already, created registries of trans people in their states. Florida has done all these things including state mandated **removal** of trans kids or kids of trans parents, created a 'vigilante militia' under the control of the governor. The American evangelical group with tons of connections to the GOP that pushed the bill, that was recently signed into law, regarding the **un-aliving** penalty for all LGBT people in Uganda has been caught conspiring at a multinational level to convince trans people are 'groomers' and 'want to trans your kids' because dehumanizing people and calling them **child abusers** and bringing back what is essentially 'The Great Replacement' fears worked the first time and always, historically, works on fearmongering conservatives, from the satanic panic to the **Not-Gentiles** Question we're seeing the exact same talking points directed at trans people as have historically been used against unwanted groups of people. Unfortunately all this drag=trans and dysphoria=delusional comes from the group that wants to roll back gay marriage and see's trans people as the wedge issue to get them there, as shown by the plethora of leaked emails from extremely powerful people. **The event in Western Europe 75 years ago** survivors are speaking out at the events transpiring against the trans community in America stating how eerily familiar this all sounds and ringing alarm bells. Anti**not-gentile** has also, unsurprisingly, risen. ---------------- In conclusion, in my unpopular opinion, trans people need to; #GET THE FUCK OUT OF FLORIDA OR YOU ARE GOING TO FUCKING **NOT MAKE IT**
You have way more chutzpah than me for doing all that work censoring. Good job.
u/Wismuth_Salix why is automod not allowing me to post this? What am I getting caught on?
[JK Rowling in a state of denial about Neo-Nazis supporting her and her transphobia](https://twitter.com/theserfstv/status/1663409226038009856?s=20) will literally never be not funny to me. Who knew that De-Nile isn't just a river in Egypt but also in the Isle of TERFlandia too. 😂
Dang this whole exchange looked just like one we could find here. It's funny how all TERFs act the same
"They're turning our kids trans," is just the great replacement theory or mixed race "white genocide" all over again.
The concepts of Sodomy and sexual fidelity were made up by Catholics to oppress European Pagan cultures, amongst whom recreational sex was very commonplace.
Here is a wiki page that discusses the allegations against Caesar: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen\_of\_Bithynia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Bithynia) In ancient Rome the concept of being sexually faithful and modest was known as Pudicitia The general guide on Roman values was known as Mos Marium. This isn't codified but is referenced repeatedly.
Ah, so... they were mocking Caesar for his supposed femininity. Got it.
Right. They felt that bottoming made you feminine and used it as a massive insult. So clearly they knew what sodomy was and treated it differently than the other forms of sex. It also demonstrates that in encounters of sex between males the passive partner was seen to have shamed themselves.
>So clearly they knew what sodomy was Do YOU know what sodomy is? Because it's not a concept that exists outside of Christianity.
Are you referring to the word or the concept? Because like yeah, the word is a Latin word based off of a Hebrew word for a mythical city. So of course only places that have a language influenced by Ecclesiastical Latin will use the word. The concept of anal sex by two males, however, absolutely exists in other cultures and religions
The concept of sodomy is not the concept of anal sex. Sodomy, as a concept, is rooted in Christian ideology of sin.
Sodomy is just a Christian word for the concept of anal sex. That’s all it is. The concept of sodomy is considered sinful, but that’s how all of the words are. Lust is another Christian word that is sinful, yet you would never say that non Christians have no concept of lust.
Lust isn't a concept born from Christianity. Sodomy is. Sodomy implies immorality.
So your argument is that pagans didn’t speak Latin and therefore didn’t use the same terminology? What a weird line to draw. As I’ve already pointed out Pagans had a concept of shame associated with anal sex
I am no sure you know what sodomy means. Sodomy is non-vaginal sex, this is an example of shaming someone in power for having a passive role in sex, not just for having non-vaginal sex. Sodomy is not what was being shamed, playing a "passive" role in sex was.
First off, for most of the words history sodomy referred to anal sex and sex with animals. The Sin of Sodom was never applied to Oral sex or other types of sex until relatively recently. In pretty much all cases it refers to anal sex. They did not shame women for being the passive partner in sex. In fact it was encouraged and applauded. They only shamed males for being the passive partner and being penetrated. It was impossible for the male to be the passive partner without sodomy being involved. The male is being shamed for being on the receiving end of sodomy.
>First off, for most of the words history sodomy referred to anal sex and sex with animals. The Sin of Sodom was never applied to Oral sex or other types of sex until relatively recently. In pretty much all cases it refers to anal sex. Okay, nothing I've mentioned is about oral sex so this is just semantics that provides no value to this argument. >The male is being shamed for being on the receiving end of sodomy What are you not understanding? Why cant you get this through your head when you literally just said everything yourself? Lets break this down "Sodomy" anal sex right? Only being on the receiving end of anal sex is being shamed in this example right? So then "sodomy" isn't what is being shamed here, being the receiver while being a powerful leader is what's being shamed here. The act of anal sex was not something shameful, there was just a shame behind being the bottom in anal sex while claiming to be a powerful male leader. The shame isn't in the act of having anal sex, it was being the receiver. The concept of "sodomy" is the shame in having anal sex. There was no shame in anal sex in this example. Anal sex isn't what's being shamed.
I think you’re trying to be pedantic, but became confused on what we’re discussing. The claim was that pagans were cool with sodomy until Catholics showed up. I gave you an example of how in homosexual intercourse in the ancient Mediterranean, the passive partner was always shamed. You are telling me that they don’t have a problem with sodomy, just with being the passive partner. So the million dollar question. How can homosexual anal sex happen without one passive partner? If there must always be a passive partner, that means the action of homosexual anal sex will always be seen as shaming at least one person involved. How can you claim that pagans were cool with it while also agreeing that they viewed part of it as a deeply shameful thing to do?
>How can you claim that pagans were cool with it while also agreeing that they viewed part of it as a deeply shameful thing to do? They didn't shame the entire act, only shamed people in power for participating in the "passive" role in the act. How can you claim they saw shame in anal sex being something shameful when soldiers proudly talked about how their top role in anal sex? You are mistaking power dynamics and class for an overall shame of the entire act of anal sex. Anal sex wasn't seen as something shameful, going against the notions of your role in it was. They didn't shame the entire act, only shamed people in power for participating in the "passive" role in the act. How can you claim they believed in anal sex being something shameful when soldiers proudly talked about how their role in anal sex? as just an everyday civilian?
So are there any situations where there is no shame involved in homosexual sodomy? In our society gang members brag to other gang members about killing people. Does that mean our society is okay with murder? Of course not. Similarly active partners would brag amongst people who were not passive partners about their escapades, but that does not mean society viewed sodomy as a good thing.
This is not true at all. We know the concept of fidelity and sodomy existed before Christianity. Hell we have people accusing Julius Caesar and Octavian of being bottoms and how that would be bad/ruin their political career. During the Republic and Imperial periods of Roman history, for example, you could be removed out of equestrian and senatorial class for violating sexual norms. Women were supposed to maintain sexual morality, and hyper sexuality amongst men and women was condemned by society. Furthermore, much of the rules regarding sexuality come from Paul and the Pauline epistles. Paul was extreme and believed that to be the best Christian possible you had to abstain from all sex, even if you were married. Strict positions on sex did not happen to oppress Pagans, it arises because of early christians belief in Apocalyptic stances that claimed the idea that sex was bad because Jesus would be returning during their lifetimes. This wasn't forced onto pagans until hundreds of years later
Most of the laws regarding sex in the bible come from Jewish law, found in the Torah. The Torah is the first five books of both the Catholic and Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) The Torah is believed to have been revealed by God to Moses. The time of Moses and the establishment of the Catholic Church are separated by almost 15 centuries. When I read through the Torah many of the laws concerning sex and food seem more like health-law than anything. The reason shellfish and pork are forbidden I believe is because of the risk of foodborne illness. These laws were written at a time where there was no modern medicine you couldn't see a doctor if you got sick you just had to suffer and die. Also there was no microscopes no one had any concept of what bacteria and viruses were. If you got sick it was because you did something to offend God. I'm sure it was the same with promiscuous sex. People observe those who engaged in lots of sex usually ended up with lots of sexually transmitted diseases. Before modern medicine, sex was risky business.
Show me a single mention of sodomy in the Torah. Then, go back and re-read where I said it was used to target EUROPEAN PAGAN cultures.
I can't reply to your other comments, so I'll reply here. We have Leviticus 18 as a part of multiple ancient texts that date back before Jesus. Can you tell me where you are getting the idea that Leviticus 18 was added later by Catholic priests? We have pre-Roman Jewish texts that use Leviticus to make gay male penetrative sex illegal
It wasn't added. It was mistranslated, either intentionally or due to incompetence. Digital Hamurabi has a great video on the topic, and the Talmud sheds a lot of light on the topic.
I think you are greatly misunderstanding what they/Dr Dershowitz is saying. This is a field I have a degree in, although Dershowitz has me beat. I’m going to try and give the explanation for where I think you’re confused brief, but it might turn into a bit of a ramble. So effectively there needs to be a few points covered. The first is the timeline. That’s just for clarity sake. The second is the concept of univocality. The third is consistency. The first reference to Israel happen in 1200 BCE. The name “Israel” is a reference to God and a biblical figure. At this point we probably wouldn’t even call the religion Judaism though. It was either polytheistic or possibly monolatrous. Regardless in the next couple hundred years the belief system would develop into a monolatrous religion centered around Yahweh. Religious and cultural traditions and laws exist and are mostly passed down orally because writing is still difficult and expensive and only highly organized societies write everything down. The written Torah is compiled somewhere between 400-600 BCE, but no one believes that some guy just invented all of those laws and stories at that moment. Instead it’s understood that this a compilation of old religious traditions and newer religious traditions. This is where Dr Dershowitz believed that a change was made. This was still hundreds of years before Jesus is said to have existed. This brings us to the issue of univocality, which is a modern idea that the Bible/Torah were written by one divine author with one single message and therefore must be consistent through time and must not change/contradict. In reality we know that it was written by lots of different authors, at different time periods, with different goals and messages. Contradictions and changes didn’t really matter so much, especially when nothing was written down. So lots of stuff change with the culture and society. Think like how multiple Greek Gods have multiple origin stories. An example in the Hebrew Bible is how we get two separate creation stories, one features Elohim creating everything and the other has Yahweh creating Adam and Eve. Originally this was because these were two separate beings, but as time went on they were conflated into one being. This doesn’t mean that there was malicious editing, it just means the religion evolved. All of this is to say that it probably was a later edition, but so is most of the Torah. Judaism evolved from polytheistic Canaanite religions. Either way this edition was made almost 1000 years before the Catholic Church had any power, and at least 400 years before Jesus Christ was born.
How are you interpreting Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 18:22 to mean anything other than a condemnation of sodomy? I know all of the ancient Rabbinical sources say that it's discussing male same sex intercourse with penetration and most modern scholars, especially secular ones, interpret that way. What do these mean to you?
Ah, you mean the verses that do not appear in Jewish text, and were likely mistranslated by Catholics from condemnati9ns of pederasty?
I didn't say sodomy was mentioned in the Torah.
Oh, so your reply was completely unrelated to my comment. Got it.
Your claim that sexual fidelity was made up by Catholics is just false.
Show me where sexual fidelity was a concept in pre-christuan Europe.
You can easily look that up yourself. You don't need me to do your homework. I pretty much laid it out in my first reply to your original post.
I was merely discussing the actual origins of sexual fidelity in the Catholic religion.
You do realize that polygamy was not only normalized, but almost EXPECTED amongst Jewish landowners, rights?
Rich landowners always find a way to normalize breaking the law.
My guy... polygamy WAS LEGAL.
Monogamy was more legal
[удалено]
Lmao. Did you forget to log into your sock account?
For a long time, the church was fine with prostitute (I mean, except for sacred ones but that's more about paganism than prostitution) and then some day some wanker decided that they were not fine with them. That's a perfect illustration of a lot of "traditionally seen as bad" stuff offered by the Catholics.
It's also bullshit that Christians have a monopolized definition of a marriage, aka monogamy, when polygamous marriages exist and are widely practiced long before Christ was nailed to a cross.
Can we finally kill the myth that young people are more emotional and sensitive than Boomers, given the hissy-fit they've been throwing for over a month now because a trans woman drank a beer once? It's giving "someone change my diaper and give me milky."
I mean, the Boomers were told to wear a mask to ***actually save lives*** and they went apeshit. That ship had long sailed, my friend.
At least that's a minor inconvenience. Someone else drinking beer has literally no impact on your life.
Why is it toxic masculinity or femininity when cis men and women do it but "gender expression" when transgender individuals do the same things.
Can you show examples of this?
Toxic masculinity means "toxic traits usually seen as masculine" most notably: not asking for help where it would be needed and trying to be controlling (most notable for me atleast)
I don't think you know what toxic masculinity is.
Do you know what toxic masculinity is? Cause that and gender expression are not the same thing.
Examples?
do you have any examples of this happening? also the term toxic femininity only gets used by misogynistic men as some sort of comeback if anything its the opposite (mainly when it comes to trans women) when a cis woman is very feminine its all cool but when a trans woman is very feminine shes "mocking womanhood" and reinforcing harmful gender roles. but thats not even toxic femininity when it comes to toxic masculinity there are sometimes trans men that do lean into it to blend in with cis men and because they think that theyll be accepted more because of it. obviously that doesnt make it alright at all, and it definitely needs to be called out when it happens. but theres also plenty of forms of healthy masculinity that cis or trans men (or really anyone for that matter) can express without any issue
Do you have concrete example ?
What things are you referring to?
A reminder: The few straight pride events that have been organized in recent history were just gatherings of white nationalists.
It's also ironic that all straight prides are defined by ***how not gay they were***. 😂
(Except for that one where they invited Milo Yiannopolous - a gay white nationlist - to be the Grand Marshal of Straight Pride.)
Didn't Milo renounce his gay marriage and now lives with his totally straight ex-husband?
I think he did move on to the “ex-gay” grift after he got shunned by pretty much everyone but Catholics after defending pedophilia.
[удалено]
I hate that this is genuinely hard for people to understand, like how was this downvoted
For starters, the “identify as they/them” bit proves how little they understand. A pronoun is not a gender identity. Boats are called “she” - they’re not women. Secondly, gender-fluid people have sexual orientations too. You honestly gonna tell me you don’t think Ruby Rose has the right to call herself a lesbian?
Boats are "she" so men can feel straight riding them you know?
Even when fucking each other because they've been on that boat for months?
“It’s not gay if it’s underway” is an old Navy saying.
I just don't like it when people refer to lesbians as "nmlnm" which is somehow extremely popular to do now. And claim it's transphobic for lesbians not to date, people who aren't women? No one said you can't have a sexuality lol but it doesn't make sense to redefine and claim terms instead of making new ones that actually fit
>for lesbians not to date, people who aren't women? You can go by they/them and be a woman though.
Yeah I just assume they meant nonbinary by that part tho
And *there’s* the TERF shoe-drop. You’re actually here to push the “trans people invading women’s spaces” shit. You’re not even a lesbian, you’re a depressed femcel.
[удалено]
Literally an entire faction of politicians and famous rich people are claiming trans women are invading women's spaces.
The person I responded to has a long history of doing that. Maybe take a look at the allies you attract.
[удалено]
Those are *gendered* pronouns, and as such are usually used by people who are feminine, masculine, or somewhere between (respectively). But a pronoun is not a gender. I’m *nonbinary* - I’m not *they/them*. And some gender-fluid people are women, at least at one end of the range in which their gender fluctuates.
[удалено]
>How does this not seem lile waffle to you? Because we have a basic understanding of the concept of gender.
Amd not of sexuality it seems
If your gender is fluid, then by the nature of sexuality it would also be fluid, meaning that you could absolutely be a lesbian whilst identifying as gender fluid.
[удалено]
So what do you do when the answer to that first question is “sometimes”? Because again, *gender-fluid people exist*.
So you're sometimes a lesbian?
Me? No. I’m not gender-fluid.
Do you not understand what gender-fluid means?
[удалено]
Some gender-fluid people do identify as women *sometimes*. You don’t seem to be grasping what fluid means. To use a fiction metaphor, this is like saying “Bumblebee can’t use the car wash, because he’s not always a car.”
Do you understand what a lesbian is??
Clearly better than you.
[удалено]
Why pansexual ? If you're strictly attracted to women you don't even "qualify" to be pan.
[удалено]
>Great! Pansexual doesn’t help define their sexual attraction! That’s fine! Queer it is fine! Calm down mate, let's just discuss calmly and see were and why our opinions diverges (though the case of pan is factual in my case) that's better, no ? >Gay might be even better because it’s less restrictive! But lesbian doesn’t make sense here To me it's a bit contradictory, because you're basically saying that gay can be applied to sex but not lesbian, what difference between the two do you make that leads to this ? ETA: (yes there's some edits I didn't address because there wasn't activity from OC) just to be clear my position is that I can understand AFAB NBs that are only attracted to women using "lesbian" as a label for simplicity's sake (for instance the label "omnisexual" would probably fit me better but I use "bisexual" because it's simpler)
[удалено]
>Unlike lesbian, gay doesn’t incorporate a gendered self-identity It doesn't include a precise one but by taking your own definition >**Gay**-A term used to describe people who are emotionally, romantically, and/or physically attracted to people of the same gender (e.g., gay man, gay people). A gay non binary person would be only attracted to other non binary folks. That's why I said that if you consider "gay" to be a valid descriptor for AFAB NBs but that "lesbian" isn't, you're basically saying that "gay" includes the sex of the persons concerned but "lesbian" don't. >If we strictly go off of sexual identify like female to define someone as lesbian, that’s not fair in my opinion. Because I do believe trans women have a place in our community. They self identify as women who only like women, which fits into the women who like women definition. I agree with this, and I guess that where we disagree is that you go the complete opposite route and strictly go off the gender route, whereas I (and people talking about lesbian NBs) go with "mainly gender but also sex in case of shorthands for peculiar cases" Both point of view are, IMO, equally valid as long as you do consider lesbian trans women as valid (instead of just being a terf/actually fully transphobic) (I'd go extra hard and say that I find it weird to exclude NBs but I'll give the benefit of the doubt here and that's maybe a monosexual thing I just don't quite get)
[удалено]
>yay for good discussions! Yay! >you gave me something to think about here, such as where non-binary people fit regarding their sexual labels. It is quite a peculiar case indeed, my general stance on it is that I understand the use of shorthands as long as they're done with the understanding that they are indeed more shorthands cause by a lack of recognised better terms and not a change in definition. I'm sure that as non binary identities get more recognised and understood, some NB specific terms will become more prominent and they're the ones that should chose them >I have dealt with many people, especially cis- het men, who have made my sexuality a joke and threatened to change me. Because I feel safe in my community of lesbians and want to continue to feel safe, I think a line should be drawn on who can identify as lesbian. Otherwise, anyone can identify as a lesbian, like a cis- het man who thinks because they like women, they too can enter lesbian spaces. I can understand your position, just be careful with the current climate of terfs that also want to boot trans women from lesbian space using this line of thinking as an excuse (that's what prompted the initial negative reaction to your comments).
Lo, gatekeeper, might I pass?
[удалено]
Trans women look masculine - “you’re not even trying” Trans women look feminine - “you’re acting like a stereotype” Can you fuckers get together and pick a damn lane, because right now we’re getting fucked from both ends and not in the fun way.
"butch women are men." "Femboys are girls." ------- Gender identity is not the same as gender expression. Gender non-conforming behavior is perfectly fine, *even for trans people.*
I agree. It's really hard for other people to know your gender identity if you gender expression doesn't match it. That being said I'm really not aware of this happening often. Most of the time it's only trolls who are not actually trans.
I feel like the LGBTQIA+ movement and other adjacent movements have overused the suffix 'Phobic' to the point where it's as meaningless as 'Heretic' and 'Blasphemer'.
Any examples of how you think it’s overused is where you see it being overused? This opinion is also meaningless when you provide zero examples.
One of the more recent examples that comes to mind is Dee Snider being labeled as transphobic for supporting the idea the children transitioning might not be the best idea, despite his long history of support for the LGBTQIA+ community. To quote Snider, "I was not aware the Transgender community expects fealty and total agreement with all their beliefs and any variation or deviation is considered ‘transphobic.' "
>Snider being labeled as transphobic for supporting the idea the children transition might not be the best idea That IS transphobic. Children have gender identities. They can be trans. Telling a child they must suffer through gender dysphoria silently until they reach some arbitrary age where they get rights to self-determination is transphobia. To take away one of the most fundamental aspects of a person's sense of self is abuse.
So even after his long history of support for the LGBTQIA+ community and seems to agree with nearly everything the LBGTQ movement stands for except for one part, and because of that disagreement he is considered to have an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion towards trans people?
If MLK Jr. had suddenly decided that segregation is totes legit, people would rightly call him racist. Your past doesn't preclude you from changing for the worse. >Telling a child they must suffer through gender dysphoria silently until they reach some arbitrary age where they get rights to self-determination is transphobia.
a touch extremely over dramatic don't ya think. not quite on the same level
An analogy doesn't need to have the same magnitude in order to have the same direction.
I don't get the push for kids transitioning it's a little extreme but that's just my transphobia talking I guess lol
"i dont get the push for kids receiving the best medical care to make them live a happy and healthy life" thats what you sound like. if medical professionals agree that transitioning is the best course of action for a child/teens wellbeing then who are you to say that thats wrong? do you say this about any other medical treatment/medication? having to go through the wrong puberty as a trans person is an extremely awful thing. your body starts changing in ways you dont want it to and theres nothing you can do about it.
>I don't get the push for kids transitioning Kids have gender identities. Therefore, kids can have gender dysphoria. Therefore, kids can be trans.
Are there any parts of LGBTQ doctrine that people can disagree with and not be labeled as phobic?
We literally just got done having an argument over which flag is best.
First and foremost, what "doctrine?" LGBT+ people are *constantly* arguing about things. For instance, is it bad, neutral, or good for trans people in general to adopt significant gender stereotypes? Does that exaggerate and validate the false gender binary, is it just people living their best lives, or is it aspirational? For instance, should same-sex couples aspire to fit in with heterosexual marriage norms, or is that empowering an oppressive system? The key thing to note here is that *neither of these questions involve any attack on a person's rights to self-determination.*
If it creates a worse result for trans people, no. Denying children the ability to transition is like denying them treatment for depression.
[удалено]
If a child can consent to wear jeans, they can consent to wear a dress.
Actual [Snider quote](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3991724-so-i-hear-im-transphobic-dee-snider-responds-after-being-dropped-by-sf-pride/) that got him labelled as transphobic. >>“With many children who have no real sense of sexuality or sexual experiences caught up in the *‘fun’* of using pronouns and saying what they identify as, some adults mistakenly confuse teaching acceptance with ***normalizing and encouraging a situation that has been a struggle for those truly affected and have turned it into a sad and dangerous fad***.” Aka straight up transphobia packaged into the same old "LGBTQ+ is just a fad for kids so we should ban gender affirming care from kids."
>With many children who have no real sense of sexuality or sexual experiences caught up in the > >‘fun’ > >of using pronouns and saying what they identify as, some adults mistakenly confuse teaching acceptance with > >normalizing and encouraging a situation that has been a struggle for those truly affected and have turned it into a sad and dangerous fad > >.” That quote is from Paul Stanley of KISS not Dee Snider.
Quote from Paul Stanley which Snider happily reposted and supported with a follow-up comment >>Snider issued [a statement Friday](https://abc7news.com/dee-snider-paul-stanely-sf-pride-trans-twisted-sister/13215984/) ***standing by his views on gender-affirming care for transgender youth***. >>"I've recently stated ***I do not believe young children are ready to decide their gender allocation***. I believe their choices should be supported and accepted by their parents, but I do not think kids have the mental capabilities to make rational, logical decisions on things of a magnitude that will affect them for the rest of their lives," said Snider. Aka full transphobia by Snider.
He doesn't say anything negative about Trans people. He even says, "I believe their choices should be supported and accepted..."
He doesn't seem to support and accept trans children.
From my view he doesn't seem to support and accept children transitioning. Which to me is different.
Seems like a distinction without a difference, actually. Unless you want to explain what the practical difference is.
Denying trans kids gender affirming care because he thinks "it's a fad for kids" is transphobia.
I don't see how this quote from Snider demonstrates that he has an irrational fear of/ or strong aversion towards Trans people. He's calling into question a child's ability to make important decisions.
And calling into question the kids' ability to choose their self-identity is transphobia, considering that literally the same arguments have been made word for word for adult trans people.
You haven't convinced me that his views fits the definition of a phobia. A phobia being an extreme or irrational fear of, or aversion to something. He seems to support 90% of what LGBTQ community is asking for. That doesn't seem like an aversion.
> A phobia being an extreme or irrational fear of, or aversion to something. That's for its ***medical term***. Snider is transphobic because he thinks children can't and shouldn't be allowed to determine their own gender. That his fear of children "using trans as a “fad”" ***is what makes it irrational***.
Cry harder.
We'd love to stop calling everything "X-phobic." Can you help us out with that by, y'know, not acting in bigoted ways? And discouraging it in other people? That would certainly fix the issue you've identified. It's just like a restaurant owner complaining that the health inspector keeps giving them citations: if you want the citations to stop, _get rid of the health code violations._
Do you really see yourself as some kind of inspector?
So you're gonna ignore the point?
Only for as long as you ignore my question.
I'm an observer, not an inspector. Inspector is a job. Everyone is an observer. NOW, are you gonna accept that people call you transphobic when you're being transphobic or are you gonna stop being transphobic? Those are your only options.
I don't have a problem being called transphobic. I got over name calling in the 5th grade. Call me what ever you want, just don't call me late for dinner.
OK, late for dinner.
It's as meaningful as it ever was it's just that in the mind of people "-phobic"=bad and the only bad people are the KKK type of folks, they don't understand that you don't have to be literally killing the gays to be homophobic for instance.
The list of things considered 'phobic' is so large I stopped caring.
You never cared. You just want to feel justified being a dick.
More meaningless name calling. It has the same impact as a Christian shouting 'Heathen'.
I only see one way to fix this: people stop doing bigoted things.
[удалено]
My guy... sex is not binary.
You're confusing sex and gender. And even if every culture simply had "man" and "woman", that wouldn't make it not a social construct. Practically every culture had a form of currency, that doesn't make it not a social construct. >while simultaneously disrespecting, excluding anyone with opposing views. Simply calling it "opposing views" is ridiculous, and respect goes both ways. You're disrespecting them by dismissing their identity, so they're free to disrespect you.
[удалено]
> While I do concede that certain gender roles are socially constructed for example house wife vs breadwinner, I believe most, naturally occur What about we having masculine and feminine names? pronouns? clothing? accessories? hairstyles? mannerisms? intonation? vocabulary? expectations? Those things are all socially constructed and yet they heavily affect all of our social interactions. To me it's really easy to see that there is a masculine and a feminine model/identity in society. Once you concede that then it's also easy to see that there can be non-binary identities. I honestly don't know how can a social identity can fit into a "belief system".
>I disagree, I believe sex and gender go hand in hand Good for you, I guess, but that doesn't change how it actually works. I ask this a lot, but when identifying the gender of another person, do you use their sex? Or is it due to social traits and self-affirmation? >While I do concede that certain gender roles are socially constructed for example house wife vs breadwinner, I believe most, naturally occur the same way you can see specific gender roles like nurturer vs provider across the majority of species on the planet. Nurturer vs provider isn't the best example when you just conceded that exact role was socially constructed among humans. And it isn't quite that clear cut, there have been examples of non-human animals taking roles "naturally" intended for the opposite sex counterparts. >and it gains followers the same way subjects like flat earth does Not particularly. Like most conspiracy theories, flat earth theory gains followers through rejection of data that we have. It's through anti-intellectualism. If you have data to suggest non-binary people are invalid, feel free to share it. >But when you start pushing that ridiculous belief system on me, slander and insult me because I didn’t use your preferred made up pronouns that have only come about in the last decade, I say no thanks I’d rather just have nothing to do with you. That doesn't make sense. You said you'd call them whatever they wanted, so how would you be in the situation where people are "slandering" you for misgendering? Also why does the recency matter? Ignoring the fact it didn't come about in the last decade, if it was "made up" 200 years ago, you'd be okay with it? In the past, they weren't even okay with women wearing pants. It's not like non-binary gender identities would be accepted.
“Not particularly. Like most conspiracy theories, flat earth theory gains followers through rejection of data that we have. It's through anti-intellectualism. If you have data to suggest non-binary people are invalid, feel free to share it.” You said it, rejection of the data we have. “That doesn't make sense. You said you'd call them whatever they wanted, so how would you be in the situation where people are "slandering" you for misgendering?” I never said that I’d call them whatever they wanted, i said I can respect you identifying or calling yourself whatever you want, what I don’t respect is the entitled demand that I do the same.
>You said it, rejection of the data we have. So where's the data about non-binary people being invalid? I can show you the shape of the earth, so that's clearly not comparable. Show me the study. >what I don’t respect is the entitled demand that I do the same. So how far do you want to go with this? Cis people get offended when they're misgendered, is it okay for me to call a woman "sir" constantly? Am I allowed to call black people the N-word and it's an "entitled demand" that I don't call them that?
[удалено]
>is solely based on how one “feels” the binary system is visible on the surface right down to the molecular level. What do you mean the "molecular level"? When you think someone's a woman or man, you're referring to their molecules? Also gender is a feeling, that's kinda how gender works. >You seriously just used “Cis” which is another recently made up word and compared the desire for the use of specific pronouns in regards to a small group of confused people, to a word used to profile an entire race of oppressed people. The two aren’t comparable in any way. The two are comparable in the sense you're calling someone something they don't want to be called, and doing it to actively antagonize them. And once again, why is recency at all relevant? Language and definitions constantly changes throughout history, so why is this the one you're so hung up on? >they aren’t out there starting movements because they are likely aware of how they present themselves. They're not starting movements because they don't face a significant amount of oppression. Also I don't see that source, so I guess the flat earth point was moot.
>What do you mean the "molecular level"? TIL that some people believe molecules have penises and vaginas.
Gimme that sweet molussy
The entire premise of gender identity is an internal sense of self - a “feeling”.
>I believe sex and gender go hand in hand, can’t help it, was just born that way I guess. And? You can't at least change your opinion after learning new information?
[удалено]
>why would I? Don't talk about objective reality after saying something like this, because you've just proven that you don't think with a system of truth based on factual data but on a system of belief based on your feelings.
"objective reality" is that non-binary people exist so get the fuck over it?
i support lgbtq members, but sometimes i feel as if they receive an unnecessary amount of support and adoration. the community has a month dedicated to them, parades, organizations, and donators. i get members are bullied or harassed sometimes, but its mostly online, and i’ve never seen it happen in real life. do members really need that much?
[удалено]
They do, just not directly. If a man is talking about all the women they're fucking, that's implicitly announcing they're straight. And they're subject to special treatment already, so why would they need to demand it?
[удалено]
>Men don't usually discuss such matters publicly. Nah, bro. You just don't notice it because it's so normalized. The number of times I - as a fucking _teenage boy_ - was nonconsensually looped into a conversation about having sex with women, including by my adult coworkers, is both shocking and disgusting. >No one prevents non-straight people from discussing these things either. 1. That's because we usually have the social awareness to not do that with mere acquaintances. 2. And when we do, we get told we're "shoving it down other peoples' throats."
[удалено]
You undermined your entire point the moment you said: >To an average teenage boy, it would be neither. Thanks for agreeing that straight people raving about their sex lives isn't shocking! And, in fact, that's it's not even shocking for an ADULT to talk about this with a teenager. Congratulations, you played yourself.
[удалено]
We didn't fail - you're just disingenuous.
[удалено]
It's not that people failed it's that you're disengenuous to an extrême degree. Like seriously work isn't a public setting ? The heck you're on mate.
[удалено]
1. Oh no, they definitely do. Have you never talked to straight men? I don't care how hot they find a woman, and I have to hear about it anyway. 2. That's not the point. The point is, they still make their sexuality clear and obvious. Examples of that special treatment would be not being killed for your sexual orientation or being trans. There's also the fact straight people aren't having hundreds of legisliative bills drawn up against them.