What unites LGBTQI+ people?

Andrew Sullivan, a prominent member of the gay community, decided to start bashing the trans community to curry favor with the hetero community, and now he discovers that the homophobes and bigots, who see no difference between pedophiles and sodomites, are also coming after the gay community again.

 

This topic is a poorly concealed attempt to drive a wedge between the various letters of the LGBTQ+ community.

Divide and conquer, that's the idea. Don't be fooled!

Don't think that if you have legal protection to marry a member of the same sex, you can accept what you currently have and throw the rest of the letters under the bus.

The right is coming for us all, and then take everything away. They want to install a fairy tale system of oppression to return the world to a state that never actually existed, but they don't let that bother them.

 

No, it is not. And I have zero respect for people who try to attribute false motives to others. That sort of slanderous conduct should not be tolerated on the forum.

 

This is funny. Not buying your story. You are doing the painting with that broad brush, your are pointing to the drips on the carpet and blaming someone else for the fact they are there.

I am not painted with any broad stroke by anyone I respect, and if anyone is stupid enough to think that members of the LBGTQ alliance don't use their own critical thinking capacity just as readiliy as straight cisgender people do, I have no time for them. See, if you took off the 'T', the same problem is there ,because any broad brusher idiots like the ones you are talking about, are going to use the same bristles and leave the same paint. I happen to be gay and gay activists take positions in my name and sometimes I disagree with them about policy and tactics. I don't have to agree with either gay rights activists, or trans rights activists. I decide when I will and when I wont/

You aren't going to play divide and conquer with me.

 

Then I think you have to explain what the topic of this thread is and especially what you mean in your second paragraph of post #1.

 

My gut told me you'd do this, but I thought I'd give it a shot. You really did not want an answer that you could not first oversimplify, and then dismiss as inadequate.

 

No, I don't. It is clear. You just insist on reading into it something that isn't there, and then pretend to read minds and motives, which I have zero respect for no matter who does it to who. I don't know why that is and I won't engage in attributing motive to you.

I see no justification for pushing gay men and women under the same acronym or flag as trans people, bisexual people, or "two spirit", etc. I see no reason to presume that trans people identify with gay people any more than with straight people.

 

The "LBGTQ+ Alliance" does not defacto include L, B, G, T, Q, or + people. That's the point. It is a political position, not a matter of sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

To piss off the rightwing.



And guess what.......? Lol, it works.

Like a charm.

 

No we aren't a community. this is a propaganda term to try and make us all the same. All of them were united in the late 60s as they were all put in the same catagory. in the 80s there was an alliance between lesbians and gays for the aids thing. these days i am called transphobic for being gay and thus not wanting to be with a female that identifies as a man. God in all his power couldnt convert me but some how pronouns are.

And bisexual men particularly are treated horribly by gay men. I am not sure if that happens with bi women men seem cool with them though.

 

Are you saying even asexuality is a perversion? I would love to hear your explanation.

 

I would like to hear his explanation for B as well.

 

Interesting. Why do you suppose that is? You see more animosity towards bi moreso than towards straight men from gay men?

 

No, I don't think I said that. I never even mentioned asexuality.

Can you explain to all of us how you conjured up that conclusion?

 

Explanation for bisexuality?

Why it is love. Two human beings getting together for sexual relations, then the woman drops the man like a bag of sxxx, and hooks up with another woman because "love" between two people together is beautiful and when you are catching orgasms off two different people who don't even know each other (hopefully), that adds up to a whole lot of orgasms, and orgasms are love, am I right?

 

For you calling it delusion. Seems biological to me. If you accept that being gay is biological and not delusional, then why not being bi?

 

You didn't. But many add it to the alphabet people grouping, which is probably where that response came from.

 

Funny thing about biological adaptations, humans are the only creature on earth with the ability tochoose negative adaptations or adaptations that are detrimental to survival. Every other creature that does something stupid dies out quick.

A man choosing to stick his seed in a barren place for personal gratification is not a beneficial adaptation and has a lot more to do with psychology than biology. It's a biological dead end.

 

Your point is not very important. There is a default presumption if you are openly gay or trans or lesbian that you are part of the queer community or LBGTQ community and share its values, priorities, history and politics. If you are black, there is a default presumption that you are part of the black community, share its values priorities, history and politics. If you are Clarence Thomas that may be problematic. If you were adopted by a white family, and were not exposed to the values, history, it could be problematic too. If you are jewish, there is a default presumption that you are part of the jewish community, share its values, priorities, history and politics. If you are jewish but support an independent Palestinian state you won't fit the presumed default politics part consistently. If I am a Democrat there is a presumption that I share the party's values, priorities, history, and politics. Same is true if I am a Republican.

When we want to distinguish ours from some collective default generalization, we do so. If for example, I were a pro life Democrat ( there are some), and I wanted to separate myself from the default presumption that I was pro choice, I would call myself a 'pro life Democrat'. I am not forced into any box that two sylables can't get me out of. Yes I still have to do it regularly, if it matters to me a lot, but its just two sylables. Similarly, if I were a gay man, and I wanted to distinguish myself from the default presumption I was 'pro trans', I could just drop that 'T' and voila! I am not a member of the LBGTQ community. I am a member of the LBG community. If I want to add more. I might describe myself as 'gay Muslim' or a 'gay African American'.

What if I am a gay man, who supports most of the Trans political agenda, and feel that traditional kinship etc but I am concerned about the fairness of the 'sports issue'? I may be described as a proud member of the LBGTQ community, and still disagree with trans athletes competing with women. When that topic comes up, I get to open up my mouth and speak my mind! if I were a gay man, a proud member of the LBGTQ alliance who does not happen to believe in civil rights laws forcing anyone to hire a gay man or woman, I get to open up my mouth and speak my mind

There are always potential social consequences to these choices . If a gay man were to want to separate or distance himself from being associated with our trans allies, and drop that 'T', I would respect his choice be entirely polite and want to separate and distance myself from him.

I proudly share my community, my values and history with drag queens, transexuals, with or without gender dysphoria even though I may disagree about this policy question or that one.

 

Yes. But should there be? It's rather prejudiced, don't you think? It isn't even a link to another sexual orientation, as Bisexual would be. It is a whole other unrelated thing that has as much actual relation to being straight as to being gay.

Sure. A gay man can say he doesn't support the "Trans" movement. A gay man can also say he isn't a pedophile and also that he isn't sexually reckless and spreading STDs around everywhere. Do you think it ok to spread such prejudices so that he has to? Prejudice is prejudice and just because you may support a particular one doesn't make it a fair or ok thing to do.

Nobody chooses to be their race, sex, or sexual orientation (unlike a political party or religion), and nobody elected the "leaders of the [insert race/gender/sexual orientation/etc] community" to represent people of that trait. The political movements using those words as propaganda should not be taken to represent the traits or be allowed to link those traits to any particular behavior, belief, or ideology.

 

It is my experience that people who have been oppressed feel a kinship with others also oppressed. It doesn't mean that your oppressors are the same, but the experience is. And anyone with empathy will align with them and help them any way they can.

And further on empathy - I don't need to have been oppressed to appreciate someone needing help. Apparently, that is supposed to be the Christian way. But, sadly, I don't see a lot of Christian behavior from many 'Christians' these days.

 

Telling a delusion man that believes he is a woman that he is "okay" and reinforcing his delusion by calling him, "her", is not helping.

 

I’ve noticed the same people attacking the gay community are now attacking the trans community.

We didn’t make progress by trying to placate the bigots

 

LBGQ+ people have been treated poorly, by some groups of people for many years. That was wrong.

What the LBGQ+ community needs to realize is that treated straight people badly because of the past is also a mistake. The tolerance and acceptance factors have become widespread. Many accept gay marriage and wish the the movement to grow.

The trouble comes when you mess around with young children's minds and you insistent on trans males participating in women's sports. There are also issues with trans men, who have not had the operation in women's restrooms and locker rooms.

LBGQ+ people need to understand, that the "I get everything I want, and you have to knuckle under to us or else" approach is going to hurt their movement. You might get the government to force your demands down people's throats, but the resentment is only going to grow.

 

That distinction of yours between which suspect classes of historical discrimination, you are born into and which you choose, has no basis in constitutional law, or statutory protection. That's a big deal to you but its a very blurry line at best. My sexual orientation, I cannot change, whether I kiss a man, or have sex with him or marry him or stay closeted is my choice. Whether I am born with male or female genitalia was not a choice, whether I dress in drag, call myself a woman, or retain that genitalia are choices. I may be born with one skin color, but I can choose to lighten or darken it, or use make up to hide it and try to 'pass'. I may be born to a Jewish family, be raised in the faith, and change my name, my religion and walk entirely away from it by choice.

There is zero difference between a gay man feeling obliged he does not support the trans movement, a black man feeling obliged to say he does not support civil rights laws, and an atheist feeling he is obliged to say he supports the rights of local governments to post the 10 commandments on City Hall or the local public school. When you go against the prevailing tide of political or social views of whatever group or class you are associated with, chosen or not, you are the guy who has to do the splaining! None of these are remotely the same as having to say you are not a gay pedophile or that you are not a black shoplifter, or an amoral atheist