LGBT Issues/Support Thread

[Palmyrion]

Firstly, that's awful and I'm sorry that your family believes that. Clearly the political climate in the Phillipines is vastly different than that of the US. I assumed originally that your were american.
Secondly, they are harmful because they are false, and because they villainize and demonize an entire half of the population by calling them evil.

1) I'll give you some slack about assuming I'm American.
2) See below.

So why is the main conservative party trying to legislate the LGBT+ community out of existence?

[Sagadahock]

And the liberal extremists suppressing media if it doesn't agree with leftist ideals is better? Not a single people in my community, or shares political ideals as me, wishes to exterminate anyone.

Since when are liberals left?
Oh wait, they never were.
They are pseudo-progressives. They take up the aesthetics of progressivism while upholding the status quo with minimal concessions.
The Democrats aren't even social liberals which would be centre/centre-left.
Liberals are opposed to any serious leftist ideal because it would undermine any facade of the status quo.

What?
You just said Social-Liberals (the main kind of Liberalism in the US) is leftist, while also saying that Liberalism isn't leftist. You provided an
irrefutable counterargument in your own argument.

[Vassenor]

So I guess all these things are fictional then:

Hundreds of anti-LGBTQ+ protesters hijack school board meeting demanding queer book ban

A school board meeting erupted as hundreds of anti-LGBTQ+ protesters brought proceedings to a halt.

A board meeting of Michigan’s Dearborn Public Schools on Monday (12 October) was interrupted by protesters who wanted LGBTQ+ books kept out of schools.

Tensions have risen in the city of Michigan in the past few months over LGBTQ+ books in public school libraries. Various anti-LGBTQ+ groups have been advocating for their removal, including at a similar protest on 25 September, which saw groups outside the Henry Ford Centennial Library chant homophobic rhetoric.

So far, six books have been banned in public libraries, but this apparently wasn’t enough enough for protesters who held signs saying “protect our children, “quit grooming students” and “stop brainwash our children”.

Hundreds of protesters attended the school board meeting, USA Today reported. They belonged to several factions and shouted over each other for attention, occasionally interrupting the board as it attended other matters.

Things spiralled out of control after one of the board members made a remark about public commentators speaking outside time limits, as well as the lack of civility shown by the group.

Ohio Republicans advance bill requiring genital inspection to enforce trans sports ban

Ohio Republicans have advanced a bill that would require student-athletes to undergo a medical “verification” process to enforce a ban trans kids from playing sports.

Lawmakers pushed through the anti-trans bill late Wednesday (1 June) night, the first night of Pride Month. The state House was originally set to vote on a bill to modify Ohio’s teacher residency programme when Republicans added the trans sports ban on it at the last minute, Cleveland-based ABC affiliate WEWS News 5 reported.

The new measure would require schools, state universities and private colleges to establish “single-sex” athletic teams and sports for the “male sex” and “female sex” or have co-ed teams.

The bill would require students whose “sex is disputed” to provide a doctor’s statement verifying their “internal and external reproductive anatomy”. This physician would also need to confirm the student’s “normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone” and perform an “analysis of the participant’s genetic makeup”.

Ohio governor signs sinister bill allowing doctors to refuse care to LGBT+ people

The governor of Ohio has signed a bill that allows doctors to refuse medical care to LGBT+ patients if they have an objection based on “moral” grounds.

The provision was buried in a 700-page document of last-minute amendments to the state’s two-year budget bill, which governor Mike DeWine approved last Wednesday (30 June).

It allows any medical provider – from doctors and nurses to researchers, lab techs and insurance companies – “the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs”.

This sweeping religious exemption raised major red flags for LGBT+ and women’s rights groups, with multiple advocates in the state expressing serious concern.

[Armeattla]

Since when are liberals left?
Oh wait, they never were.
They are pseudo-progressives. They take up the aesthetics of progressivism while upholding the status quo with minimal concessions.
The Democrats aren't even social liberals which would be centre/centre-left.
Liberals are opposed to any serious leftist ideal because it would undermine any facade of the status quo.

What?
You just said Social-Liberals (the main kind of Liberalism in the US) is leftist, while also saying that Liberalism isn't leftist. You provided an
adequate counterargument in your own argument.

Social Liberalism is centre-left at best - meaning part of the centre tending towards the left. And they are by no means the main kind of liberalism in the US - which is Neoliberalism.
Social Liberals are closer to Bernie (who presents as Social Democrat) than to the Democratic party.

[The H Corporation]

And the liberal extremists suppressing media if it doesn't agree with leftist ideals is better? Not a single people in my community, or shares political ideals as me, wishes to exterminate anyone.

Since when are liberals left?
Oh wait, they never were.
They are pseudo-progressives. They take up the aesthetics of progressivism while upholding the status quo with minimal concessions.
The Democrats aren't even social liberals which would be centre/centre-left.
Liberals are opposed to any serious leftist ideal because it would undermine any facade of the status quo.

Summary: Liberalism is leftist, but it is also not leftist

[Palmyrion]

I have mentioned that I regularly talk with social conservatives in Facebook such as the "Philippine Social Conservative Movement" and "Conservatives in the Philippines" that say they want to create a Philippines where homosexuality, transgenderism, and gender non-conformity are socially ostracised and even criminalized (complete with morality police) but homosexuals, transgenders, and gender non-conformists should be embraced and be changed.

Plus, I don't care if those accusations are harmful, they only need to be true. Besides, the only reason they're harmful is because they mercilessly strike a whole lot of nerves.

Where such extreme sentiments always present in philippine political discourse or did appear at some point, and if so around what time they did appear?

65% of Filipinos say homosexuality bad. Source.

27% of Filipinos say people in same-sex relationships should be charged as criminals. Source

61% of Filipinos disapprove of same-sex civil unions. Source

[Armeattla]

Since when are liberals left?
Oh wait, they never were.
They are pseudo-progressives. They take up the aesthetics of progressivism while upholding the status quo with minimal concessions.
The Democrats aren't even social liberals which would be centre/centre-left.
Liberals are opposed to any serious leftist ideal because it would undermine any facade of the status quo.

Summary: Liberalism is leftist, but it is also not leftist

No. Liberalism in it'S entirety is centrist. Yet there exists a certain strands of liberalism which gives great care to social issues which tends towards the left end of the centrist spectrum.
They aren't left yet, they are still centrist, but they are more left than neoliberals or conservative liberals.

The ones sitting on the fence between left and centre are Social Democrats - who are usually anywhere from left-centre to centrist.

[Sagadahock]

What?
You just said Social-Liberals (the main kind of Liberalism in the US) is leftist, while also saying that Liberalism isn't leftist. You provided an
adequate counterargument in your own argument.

Social Liberalism is centre-left at beast - meaning part of the centre tending towards the left. And they are by no means the main kind of liberalism in the US - which is Neoliberalism.
Social Liberals are closer to Bernie (who presents as Social Democrat) than to the Democratic party.

Alright, Neoliberalism has almost nothing to do with Social Liberalism. They are vastly different, as Neoliberalism is firmly right-wing while Social Liberalism is left wing. I can call Conservatism and Social Democracy the same thing and then use that to say that Social Democracy is right wing, but that just sounds silly, doesn't it?

[Palmyrion]

What?
You just said Social-Liberals (the main kind of Liberalism in the US) is leftist, while also saying that Liberalism isn't leftist. You provided an
adequate counterargument in your own argument.

Social Liberalism is centre-left at best - meaning part of the centre tending towards the left. And they are by no means the main kind of liberalism in the US - which is Neoliberalism.
Social Liberals are closer to Bernie (who presents as Social Democrat) than to the Democratic party.

You could be socially liberal while being economically right-wing. CATO Institute is an example. The Economist has sentiments like these.

Also, you can't ignore the lower-right corner of the polcomp.

Jesus Christ, what have I done...I have gravedug a thread that was inactive for two years already.

[Armeattla]

Social Liberalism is centre-left at beast - meaning part of the centre tending towards the left. And they are by no means the main kind of liberalism in the US - which is Neoliberalism.
Social Liberals are closer to Bernie (who presents as Social Democrat) than to the Democratic party.

Alright, Neoliberalism has almost nothing to do with Social Liberalism. They are vastly different, as Neoliberalism is firmly right-wing while Social Liberalism is left wing. I can call Conservatism and Social Democracy the same thing and then use that to say that Social Democracy is right wing, but that just sounds silly, doesn't it?

Neoliberals are centrist, not right wing.

Bloody hell do people here have issues understanding tendencies and nuance?

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Firstly, that's awful and I'm sorry that your family believes that. Clearly the political climate in the Phillipines is vastly different than that of the US. I assumed originally that your were american.
Secondly, they are harmful because they are false, and because they villainize and demonize an entire half of the population by calling them evil.

1) I'll give you some slack about assuming I'm American.
2) See below.

So why is the main conservative party trying to legislate the LGBT+ community out of existence?

To be fair, not all conservatives are like the American Republican party and our broken political system as well as other factors has allowed the fringes to become mainstream. You see this with things like QAnon also becoming mainstream as well as outright election denial-ism.

That being said, it is true that the more socially conservative one is, the less likely they are to be LGBT+ friendly.

[Armeattla]

Social Liberalism is centre-left at best - meaning part of the centre tending towards the left. And they are by no means the main kind of liberalism in the US - which is Neoliberalism.
Social Liberals are closer to Bernie (who presents as Social Democrat) than to the Democratic party.

You could be socially liberal while being economically right-wing. CATO Institute is an example. The Economist has sentiments like these.

I mean... Social Liberals are by definition economically right wing because they are still very laissez fair capitalist.

But we're getting severely off track.

[Sagadahock]

Alright, Neoliberalism has almost nothing to do with Social Liberalism. They are vastly different, as Neoliberalism is firmly right-wing while Social Liberalism is left wing. I can call Conservatism and Social Democracy the same thing and then use that to say that Social Democracy is right wing, but that just sounds silly, doesn't it?

Neoliberals are centrist, not right wing.

Bloody hell do people here have issues understanding tendencies and nuance?

Despite the "States opinion, calls people dumb for not having opinion" thing, Centrism is an inadequate term, as how broad "Centrist" is is entirely up to the individual using the term. As such, I just use "Right-Wing" and "Left-Wing" and go further with "Center-Left" and "Center-Right."

[Sordhau]

Pretty much everything he said applies to US Conservatives too.

No, it really doesn't. As a moderate, wouldn't you agree that I am a little less biased on this than you, a radical leftist?

No, because I used to be a Moderate myself. I'm a Radical Leftist quite explicitly because (among other reasons) Moderates were doing fuck all to prevent the criminalization of my existence by trying to reach across the lines and work with the people who want me in the closet at best and dead at worst.

Being a "Moderate" means you have your head in the sand and have no idea wtf is going on. If you're still "Moderate" about anything in today's political climate then you are woefully uninformed; the GOP is on a speedrun toward Fascism and the Dems are too corrupt and incompetent to stop it.

[Sagadahock]

No, it really doesn't. As a moderate, wouldn't you agree that I am a little less biased on this than you, a radical leftist?

No, because I used to be a Moderate myself. I'm a Radical Leftist quite explicitly because (among other reasons) Moderates were doing fuck all to prevent the criminalization of my existence by trying to reach across the lines and work with the people who want me in the closet at best and dead at worst.

Being a "Moderate" means you have your head in the sand and have no idea wtf is going on. If you're still "Moderate" about anything in today's political climate then you are woefully uninformed; the GOP is on a speedrun toward Fascism and the Dems are too corrupt and incompetent to stop it.

Your entire worldview lacks nuance and is heavily biased. I really can't refute all of this because the argument would take too long and achieve nothing, but I will say that Moderates do not "have their head in the sand." I know what's going on, and what both sides think, and I believe in a more modest approach to things. I know what's going on, and yet I'm not a fascist or a marxist. I don't know why you think like this.

[Palmyrion]

1) I'll give you some slack about assuming I'm American.
2) See below.

To be fair, not all conservatives are like the American Republican party and our broken political system as well as other factors has allowed the fringes to become mainstream. You see this with things like QAnon also becoming mainstream as well as outright election denial-ism.

It can be argued that social media has a role with distilling and distributing "fringe" opinions, kinda like how you could mass-manufacture rectified spirits, or for that matter high-purity cocaine.

[Palmyrion]

No, because I used to be a Moderate myself. I'm a Radical Leftist quite explicitly because (among other reasons) Moderates were doing fuck all to prevent the criminalization of my existence by trying to reach across the lines and work with the people who want me in the closet at best and dead at worst.

Being a "Moderate" means you have your head in the sand and have no idea wtf is going on. If you're still "Moderate" about anything in today's political climate then you are woefully uninformed; the GOP is on a speedrun toward Fascism and the Dems are too corrupt and incompetent to stop it.

Your entire worldview lacks nuance and is heavily biased. I really can't refute all of this because the argument would take too long and achieve nothing, but I will say that Moderates do not "have their head in the sand." I know what's going on, and what both sides think, and I believe in a more modest approach to things. I know what's going on, and yet I'm not a fascist or a marxist. I don't know why you think like this.

I wouldn't call it head in the sand. I'd call it awful naivety.

Also you gonna ask a member of an eternally-aggrieved community why they think like that? You really think when your existence is on the line, when you are fighting an existential war, you could be a moderate? It's like asking Zelenskyy why he thinks like that, why he is willing to negotiate with Russia but not with Putin and his lackeys. It's like asking a Ukrainian with contempt for Russia about how their contempt for Russia came to be.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

To be fair, not all conservatives are like the American Republican party and our broken political system as well as other factors has allowed the fringes to become mainstream. You see this with things like QAnon also becoming mainstream as well as outright election denial-ism.

It can be argued that social media has a role with distilling and distributing "fringe" opinions, kinda like how you could mass-manufacture rectified spirits, or for that matter high-purity cocaine.

An LSD trip would be more coherent than their worldview at this point. True, the shit I see on social media is abysmal.

We have politicians running who want to impose capital punishment by stoning and imposing Dominionism on the country. We should copy Saudi Arabia's laws some of them say. Religious conservatism and "keeping God in the public sphere" is nothing new, but this is something else.

[Sordhau]

No, because I used to be a Moderate myself. I'm a Radical Leftist quite explicitly because (among other reasons) Moderates were doing fuck all to prevent the criminalization of my existence by trying to reach across the lines and work with the people who want me in the closet at best and dead at worst.

Being a "Moderate" means you have your head in the sand and have no idea wtf is going on. If you're still "Moderate" about anything in today's political climate then you are woefully uninformed; the GOP is on a speedrun toward Fascism and the Dems are too corrupt and incompetent to stop it.

Your entire worldview lacks nuance and is heavily biased. I really can't refute all of this because the argument would take too long and achieve nothing, but I will say that Moderates do not "have their head in the sand." I know what's going on, and what both sides think, and I believe in a more modest approach to things. I know what's going on, and yet I'm not a fascist or a marxist. I don't know why you think like this.

Because I'm telling you that I used to be you about 3 years ago. You are wrong now, just as I was back then. My entire worldview was forged when I came to the gross realization that Dems don't care about working people or minorities outside of election season, that the GOP will gleefully and happily expand our already-existent police state to dystopian levels to stay in power and appeal to their increasingly radical base, and Moderates are a fence-sitters running this country into the ground through "compromise" while shouting "peace in our time". Liberal Democracy has failed and unrestrained Capitalism has sown the seeds for civil war in this country. There is no "nuance"; there is only obfuscation of this fact. Our government and media are bought and paid for by two opposing groups of corporate elites, one of which has decided it will no longer maintain the status quo. America's future is bleak and do-nothing Moderates are the express reason for it.

[Sagadahock]

Your entire worldview lacks nuance and is heavily biased. I really can't refute all of this because the argument would take too long and achieve nothing, but I will say that Moderates do not "have their head in the sand." I know what's going on, and what both sides think, and I believe in a more modest approach to things. I know what's going on, and yet I'm not a fascist or a marxist. I don't know why you think like this.

Because I'm telling you that I used to be you about 3 years ago. You are wrong now, just as I was back then. My entire worldview was forged when I came to the gross realization that Dems don't care about working people or minorities outside of election season, that the GOP will gleefully and happily expand our already-existent police state to dystopian levels to stay in power and appeal to their increasingly radical base, and Moderates are a fence-sitters running this country into the ground through "compromise" while shouting "peace in our time". Liberal Democracy has failed and unrestrained Capitalism has sown the seeds for civil war in this country. There is no "nuance"; there is only obfuscation of this fact. Our government and media are bought and paid for by two opposing groups of corporate elites, one of which has decided it will no longer maintain the status quo. America's future is bleak and do-nothing Moderates are the express reason for it.

In all honesty, your worldview and opinions are far too different from mine for me to actually argue with, which is weird. We're pretty much playing on 2 seperate fields here, with seperate rules and base assumptions of the world. As such, I won't argue with this much, but I will say this has definitely humanized your opinions a bit. I agree on many of the points, but I disagree on the conclusions. Other than that, I don't have much to say. Have a good day.

[Polanas]

Leftists on their way to bump a 2 year old thread just so they can spew their blatantly incorrect view of something that is clearly not true.

And which side of the political spectrum is currently trying to legislate LGBT+ people out of existence any way they can?

It depends on how extreme you go. Communists in China are also notoriously anti-LGBT and they're on the left side of the spectrum.

[Floofybit]

And which side of the political spectrum is currently trying to legislate LGBT+ people out of existence any way they can?

It depends on how extreme you go. Communists in China are also notoriously anti-LGBT and they're on the left side of the spectrum.

Extremists on both sides are always anti-human and such. We shouldn't be classifying one party only by the extremists. I agree

[Vassenor]

And which side of the political spectrum is currently trying to legislate LGBT+ people out of existence any way they can?

It depends on how extreme you go. Communists in China are also notoriously anti-LGBT and they're on the left side of the spectrum.

>China

>Left Wing

[The H Corporation]

And which side of the political spectrum is currently trying to legislate LGBT+ people out of existence any way they can?

It depends on how extreme you go. Communists in China are also notoriously anti-LGBT and they're on the left side of the spectrum.

China is not left-wing

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

And which side of the political spectrum is currently trying to legislate LGBT+ people out of existence any way they can?

It depends on how extreme you go. Communists in China are also notoriously anti-LGBT and they're on the left side of the spectrum.

That’s factually wrong!