Calls for violence against LGBTQ people intensify

[Arkhane]

That's the problem, there was no "gay civil war" where the lgbt community had to go up in arms and defeat the homophobic army, we won our rights through classic activism, open discussion and slowly making the other side understand. And it worked wonders.

...No, we won our rights through force of law. One of those things you were complaining about.

"Force of law" no, we did not hold anyone at gunpoint or threatened the legislative body. We are the side of tolerance and reason and understanding, by not using force, we made people hear out our side and we were able to win them over to our line of thinking as opposed to the wild accusations, strawmanning and threats made by homophobes.

[Rhodevus]

there's a really good analogy i like to use when people argue this. did you know that left handedness in the US jumped from 3% to 12% after they stopped shaming and hitting people for being so?

it's almost if we stop oppressing people, they feel more comfortable being open about who they are

Another good example is Dissociative Identity Disorder. A pretty rare (and likely not real) disorder caused by intense trauma. Even though it's ostensibly a negative thing a bunch of people online say they have it and talk about how proud they are and how all lf their separate identities are real. Many advocate for increased recognition, or the use of plural pronouns, and complain about how hard it is to live and be understood (while being showered with praise).

People can be suppressed, they can also be confused, they can also lie.

2 separate issues here. First. "rare means it's likely not real". No. That's not how that works. Rare means rare. According to this, 1.5% of the global population has it. You know what else has 1.5% of all people? Ethiopia. Does that mean Ethiopia likely doesn't exist? What about smaller groups? Jews make up 0.2% of the global population. Do they not exist because they are rare?

Left handed people in 1900 made up about 2-5% of people in the US. Does that mean left-handedness didn't exist? of course not. It was just a)not considered normal and b)not broadcasted. Then, all of a sudden the left-handed population exploded! Not because it became a trend, but because left-handedness was a rare thing, but not as rare we people realized. As more info became available, it was better understood. Of course, this one is a bit more of a tangent, but DID is also gaining visibility, and even if the numbers change up or down, rare doesn't mean fake.

the second issue is people being proud of the disability. For that, I can't argue for or against. We have people that argue for or against recognition and pride for all sorts of ailments, from DID and autism, to visually or hearing impaired people. Hell, I bet there are people proud of having lost or being born with a missing foot. Some people want to be proud and recognized for being themselves, in a world that constantly tells them that they are different, wrong, broken, etc.

[Arkhane]

You sure are convincing me with all your well reasoned responses. No wonder homophobia is dying down and there is no crisis and people are understanding the lgbt community and willing to hear them out.

Sorry for just telling it like it is, I guess. Beats making shit up and going into hysterics over pride parades.

The funny thing is, I did not make those things up, what I quoted are the very arguments and paranoid accusations the rightwing religious homophobes kept perpetuating about the lgbt community. That letting us have rights in the bedroom would mean we would next come after marriage and children and influence them with our deviant ways and eventually make it in a way as to rob straight people and religious people of their rights and how we will start making public spectacles of indecency to assert our dominance.

[Necroghastia]

...No, we won our rights through force of law. One of those things you were complaining about.

"Force of law" no, we did not hold anyone at gunpoint or threatened the legislative body. We are the side of tolerance and reason and understanding, by not using force, we made people hear out our side and we were able to win them over to our line of thinking as opposed to the wild accusations, strawmanning and threats made by homophobes.

Did I say anything at all about holding people at gunpoint? No. By force of law I mean that we used the law to get our rights. Obergefell. Lawrence. Windsor. And so on. Do you really think without cases like those places like Alabama or Tennessee would've just come around naturally? Hah.

Sorry for just telling it like it is, I guess. Beats making shit up and going into hysterics over pride parades.

The funny thing is, I did not make those things up, what I quoted are the very arguments and paranoid accusations the rightwing religious homophobes kept perpetuating about the lgbt community. That letting us have rights in the bedroom would mean we would next come after marriage and children and influence them with our deviant ways and eventually make it in a way as to rob straight people and religious people of their rights and how we will start making public spectacles of indecency to assert our dominance.

Yes. I am aware that those are paranoid accusations. The thing about paranoid accusations? They are made up.

[Des-Bal]

Afaik there is actually some fairly compelling polling evidence that that is how it works for the average voter. Gay marriage, for example, trended upwards pretty much non-stop after Hodges amongst every demographic (even weekly churchgoers and registered Republicans) and has only recently started to experience some drops in support among those demographics, very plausibly because the LGBT movement has taken the forefront in the culture war and if I'm being blunt it has very bad PR nowadays.

I mean that's just how people are. It's like the Halo effect.

When you're living amongst a group of people and you all kind of operate and fit into the same space that's generally fine because you don't form lots of prejudices about people you have normal interactions with.
If you live far away from a group of people that's generally fine because you don't form a lot of prejudices about people you never have to think about.
When you live next to people you start seeing lots of prejudices form because when you interact with these people it's not on normal terms.

When "respectability" is a stand-in for your ability to integrate I wouldn't be surprised if that was pretty much how it worked.

[Rhodevus]

Sorry for just telling it like it is, I guess. Beats making shit up and going into hysterics over pride parades.

The funny thing is, I did not make those things up, what I quoted are the very arguments and paranoid accusations the rightwing religious homophobes kept perpetuating about the lgbt community. That letting us have rights in the bedroom would mean we would next come after marriage and children and influence them with our deviant ways and eventually make it in a way as to rob straight people and religious people of their rights.

it's because religious nut-jobs think that rights are a zero-sum game. That if gay people have rights, then that must mean that they lose rights. That's not how that works. We can all have rights. Just because two gay people can get married, and their kids can learn that being gay is a possibility, doesn't mean that the straights(tm) can't get married and that their children must be gay.

[Fahran]

Afaik there is actually some fairly compelling polling evidence that that is how it works for the average voter. Gay marriage, for example, trended upwards pretty much non-stop after Hodges amongst every demographic (even weekly churchgoers and registered Republicans) and has only recently started to experience some drops in support among those demographics, very plausibly because the LGBT movement has taken the forefront in the culture war and if I'm being blunt it has very bad PR nowadays.

I mean that's just how people are. It's like the Halo effect.

When you're living amongst a group of people and you all kind of operate and fit into the same space that's generally fine because you don't form lots of prejudices about people you have normal interactions with.
If you live far away from a group of people that's generally fine because you don't form a lot of prejudices about people you never have to think about.
When you live next to people you start seeing lots of prejudices form because when you interact with these people it's not on normal terms.

When "respectability" is a stand-in for your ability to integrate I wouldn't be surprised if that was pretty much how it worked.

This is pretty much what is meant by respectability politics. That said, while trans people likely could integrate to some extent, many of their political enemies probably couldn’t be moved to accept all of them - and, obviously, activists are loathe to leave more vulnerable and ostracized groups behind.

[Des-Bal]

2 separate issues here. First. "rare means it's likely not real". No. That's not how that works. Rare means rare. According to this, 1.5% of the global population has it. You know what else has 1.5% of all people? Ethiopia. Does that mean Ethiopia likely doesn't exist? What about smaller groups? Jews make up 0.2% of the global population. Do they not exist because they are rare?

Left handed people in 1900 made up about 2-5% of people in the US. Does that mean left-handedness didn't exist? of course not. It was just a)not considered normal and b)not broadcasted. Then, all of a sudden the left-handed population exploded! Not because it became a trend, but because left-handedness was a rare thing, but not as rare we people realized. As more info became available, it was better understood. Of course, this one is a bit more of a tangent, but DID is also gaining visibility, and even if the numbers change up or down, rare doesn't mean fake.

the second issue is people being proud of the disability. For that, I can't argue for or against. We have people that argue for or against recognition and pride for all sorts of ailments, from DID and autism, to visually or hearing impaired people. Hell, I bet there are people proud of having lost or being born with a missing foot. Some people want to be proud and recognized for being themselves, in a world that constantly tells them that they are different, wrong, broken, etc.

It's not "rare and therefore not real" it's "rare and by the way probably not real for a bunch of reasons we don't need to get into because this isn't that thread."

Nothing else you said attacked any point I made.

[Fahran]

The funny thing is, I did not make those things up, what I quoted are the very arguments and paranoid accusations the rightwing religious homophobes kept perpetuating about the lgbt community. That letting us have rights in the bedroom would mean we would next come after marriage and children and influence them with our deviant ways and eventually make it in a way as to rob straight people and religious people of their rights.

it's because religious nut-jobs think that rights are a zero-sum game. That if gay people have rights, then that must mean that they lose rights. That's not how that works. We can all have rights. Just because two gay people can get married, and their kids can learn that being gay is a possibility, doesn't mean that the straights(tm) can't get married and that their children must be gay.

Rights can be and often are a calculus in which one groups gains and another loses. Every right creates an obligation somewhere else. The right to live, for instance, must demand the abolition of the right to murder.

[Ifreann]

Ah yes, another post attempting to paint a culture war as black and white.

On one side we have the innocent, righteous lgbt democrat heroes fighting for the oppressed victims and seeking to simply live their lives in freedom and altruism vs the evil villainous republican fascist nazis who will stop at nothing to oppress and destroy them because for some reason the world has been more religious and anti-progressive nowadays compared to the utopia it has once been centuries ago when homophobia didnt exist yet.

Sarcasm over.

I remember decades ago being a part of the lgbt community back then and these rightwing paranoid folk were accusing us of a lot of slippery slope fallacies.

I told them "NO, we just want rights in the bedroom and be allowed to love who we want to love. NO, we will NOT start teaching children to be gay or teach them about homosexuality, that's not going to happen. No we will not strip and start parading around the streets and proclaiming to anyone who will listen that we're gay. No we will never force Christian churches to marry us or force christian photographers or bakers to take our photos or bake our cakes, and we will definitely NOT use the law to coerce and force people to accept us, they are free to ignore or hate us. We just want the same rights as people to be left alone and not be harrassed.

17 years later, and now I have nothing to say to assure these people and frankly, I just left the lgbt community, they no longer represent or speak on my behalf and I am near done with this war.

35 years ago, Margaret Thatcher's government passed the Local Government Act of 1988. Section 28 of this law forbade any local authority from intentionally promoting homosexuality, or publishing material with the intention of promoting homosexuality, or promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. What this meant is that it was effectively illegal for schools to teach anything about homosexuality. The Tories campaigned on this policy the year before. Until 2000 in Scotland and 2003 in England and Wales, children could learn nothing about homosexuality beyond schoolyard taunts. A generation of gay people without anyone to tell them that they aren't disgusting AIDS-ridden perverts. A generation of straight people who didn't know any better either.

Which is to say that you were wrong in 2006 when you were saying that no one wanted to teach children about homosexuality. People who support LGBT rights have always wanted children to get the real truth in school rather than to be left ignorant and susceptible to the lies of conservatives.

My point is, this isn't as black and white as you guys believe and the reason why homophobia and anti-lgbt sentiment is on the rise isn't because of some cartoonishly evil people simply deciding to push back harder for the sake of being homophobic. Hate doesnt exist in a vacuum, pushbacks happen because most of the time, people are simply done and had enough.

Yeah, no, you're completely wrong. The pushback is entirely because the American right lost on gay marriage in 2015 and decided to focus on trans people in an effort to split up the LGBT community. Divide et impera. Seems like it worked, at least on you.

---

What is it, then? Extrinsic?

Yes.

Do please elaborate.

[Peoples Place]

why cant everyone just accept the Lgbtq

[Washington Resistance Army]

The funny thing is, I did not make those things up, what I quoted are the very arguments and paranoid accusations the rightwing religious homophobes kept perpetuating about the lgbt community. That letting us have rights in the bedroom would mean we would next come after marriage and children and influence them with our deviant ways and eventually make it in a way as to rob straight people and religious people of their rights.

it's because religious nut-jobs think that rights are a zero-sum game. That if gay people have rights, then that must mean that they lose rights. That's not how that works. We can all have rights. Just because two gay people can get married, and their kids can learn that being gay is a possibility, doesn't mean that the straights(tm) can't get married and that their children must be gay.

Rights in a system like ours functionally are a zero-sum game. Each election has a winner and a loser, and as nice as it would be we don't have a party standing up for everyone and everything and thus someone has to get the short end of the stick.

[Incelastan]

why cant everyone just accept the Lgbtq

Bronze Age Sky Father says no. You know, the same guy who wanted to cut off parts of male anatomy and sever women's hands if they tried to break up fights (though that method of breaking up a fight was rather disturbing). The same guy who lied about creating the Heavens, the Earth, and much of science in general. The one who claimed credit for both good and evil, I might add, but later pinned the blame for the latter on one of his own angels. Yeah, that dude.

As Aron-Ra said, "Yeah, God is love, if by love, you mean...evil."

[Neutraligon]

why cant everyone just accept the Lgbtq

Because they have been taught not to.

[American Legionaries]

why cant everyone just accept the Lgbtq

Because the political system harnesses other issues to accepting them.

[Fahran]

why cant everyone just accept the Lgbtq

I can’t eat bacon, however good a lettuce-guac-bacon-tomato-and-queso sandwich might sound.

[Peoples Place]

why cant everyone just accept the Lgbtq

Because the political system harnesses other issues to accepting them.

ah of course, always politics, thats sad

[Des-Bal]

This is pretty much what is meant by respectability politics. That said, while trans people likely could integrate to some extent, many of their political enemies probably couldn’t be moved to accept all of them - and, obviously, activists are loathe to leave more vulnerable and ostracized groups behind.

I have several ideas for removing all dickheads from the planet but they all include the extermination of all life on the planet- half measures are probably the best were going to do if that's a deal breaker.

I think the biggest issue is the lack of civil discourse. Anything else can be dealt with in time but there's a wave of frustration that's making it very easy to line people up. That's what fuels entrenchment and that's what spurs violence.

[Arkhane]

The funny thing is, I did not make those things up, what I quoted are the very arguments and paranoid accusations the rightwing religious homophobes kept perpetuating about the lgbt community. That letting us have rights in the bedroom would mean we would next come after marriage and children and influence them with our deviant ways and eventually make it in a way as to rob straight people and religious people of their rights.

it's because religious nut-jobs think that rights are a zero-sum game. That if gay people have rights, then that must mean that they lose rights. That's not how that works. We can all have rights. Just because two gay people can get married, and their kids can learn that being gay is a possibility, doesn't mean that the straights(tm) can't get married and that their children must be gay.

As much as I like to believe that we live in a world where rights and privileges are not zero sum, that is not the case.

Only one side wins the war, while one nation is a world power, enjoying the privilege of resources and freedoms mean subjugating other countries to produce the labor and supplies the other needs, we have chocolate and designer clothes because at some part of the world, plantation slaves and sweatshop workers are forced to produce them for our consumption.

As per laws and legislation, its near impossible to make them cater to all which is why we vote and deliberate on them.

One side winning means the other side will have to acquiesce and agree to the terms that were voted on. Some people want guns to give themselves security while others want guns gone altogether for the same reason. Some people want their pronouns respected and validated while others feel respect is earned and must be consensually given.

There is no perfect, non-zero sum solution, the best we have is a case by case investigation and specific review, which is why the law and politics is so messy and complex.

Unfortunately, posts like these make it into a black and white situation where the only apparent solution is open conflict. Something that has never worked in the history of humanity.

[Necroghastia]

it's because religious nut-jobs think that rights are a zero-sum game. That if gay people have rights, then that must mean that they lose rights. That's not how that works. We can all have rights. Just because two gay people can get married, and their kids can learn that being gay is a possibility, doesn't mean that the straights(tm) can't get married and that their children must be gay.

Rights in a system like ours functionally are a zero-sum game. Each election has a winner and a loser, and as nice as it would be we don't have a party standing up for everyone and everything and thus someone has to get the short end of the stick.

...Remind me, whose rights are being negatively impacted by trans people having access to healthcare?

[American Legionaries]

Rights in a system like ours functionally are a zero-sum game. Each election has a winner and a loser, and as nice as it would be we don't have a party standing up for everyone and everything and thus someone has to get the short end of the stick.

...Remind me, whose rights are being negatively impacted by trans people having access to healthcare?

Well if they get healthcare I don't get to put more than ten bullets in my gun.

Yay party politics.

[Rhodevus]

Rights can be and often are a calculus in which one groups gains and another loses. Every right creates an obligation somewhere else. The right to live, for instance, must demand the abolition of the right to murder.

Sure, I guess I was wrong there. It is a zero-sum game. only if you look at it from the standing of the one in authority. a cisgender, white, christian man has all the rights. When a cisgender, white, christian woman gains the right to vote, the man loses the right to have complete control over democracy. When cisgender black, christian men and women gain the right to vote, the man loses the right to have a completely white controlled democracy. The first group does lose their hegemonic control which can be perceived as a right, but it's the other groups that have gained rights.

And that all comes down to what we as a society deems as an ethical 'right'. Does the right to life outweigh the right to murder (this context can be applied to both people and fetuses)? Does the right to marry outweigh the right to personal religion? Does the right to personal safety outweigh the right to collective safety? Does the right to knowledge outweigh the right to opinion?

Maybe you can answer one way or the other for all these questions, maybe it's a scale. But as a collective society (of the world. not just USA), we've so far agreed that more knowledge is better, more collective safety over personal safety, and life over murder.

Will this change in the future? Maybe, I don't know. But we've pretty much been on this trajectory for a while now with more people gaining rights.

Of course, this is a long drawn out thing to say that LGBT+ people deserve rights and all people should be allowed to learn that LGBT+ people exist

[Fahran]

Rights in a system like ours functionally are a zero-sum game. Each election has a winner and a loser, and as nice as it would be we don't have a party standing up for everyone and everything and thus someone has to get the short end of the stick.

...Remind me, whose rights are being negatively impacted by trans people having access to healthcare?

Given the faction supporting trans healthcare opposes unfettered free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to self-defense against child molesters (Rittenhouse), etc. quite a few people’s. But, more generally, rights as a concept require balancing disparate and conflicting interests in many cases. Or winning people over.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Rights in a system like ours functionally are a zero-sum game. Each election has a winner and a loser, and as nice as it would be we don't have a party standing up for everyone and everything and thus someone has to get the short end of the stick.

...Remind me, whose rights are being negatively impacted by trans people having access to healthcare?

Nobodies, but these things don't exist in a vacuum, the Democratic Party pursues other policies and some of them quite negatively impact people. I know several people irl who were recently put out of a job and had their careers ruined because of the new gun control laws in WA, as an example.

[Ifreann]

it's because religious nut-jobs think that rights are a zero-sum game. That if gay people have rights, then that must mean that they lose rights. That's not how that works. We can all have rights. Just because two gay people can get married, and their kids can learn that being gay is a possibility, doesn't mean that the straights(tm) can't get married and that their children must be gay.

As much as I like to believe that we live in a world where rights and privileges are not zero sum, that is not the case.

Only one side wins the war, while one nation is a world power, enjoying the privilege of resources and freedoms mean subjugating other countries to produce the labor and supplies the other needs, we have chocolate and designer clothes because at some part of the world, plantation slaves and sweatshop workers are forced to produce them for our consumption.

As per laws and legislation, its near impossible to make them cater to all which is why we vote and deliberate on them.

One side winning means the other side will have to acquiesce and agree to the terms that were voted on. Some people want guns to give themselves security while others want guns gone altogether for the same reason. Some people want their pronouns respected and validated while others feel respect is earned and must be consensually given.

There is no perfect, non-zero sum solution, the best we have is a case by case investigation and specific review, which is why the law and politics is so messy and complex.

Unfortunately, posts like these make it into a black and white situation where the only apparent solution is open conflict. Something that has never worked in the history of humanity.

Then good news, bud, the right are going to lose on this just like they lost on gay marriage. Most people don't buy into their fearmongering about the transes coming to hose down entire school districts with hormones. That's part of why they did so bad in the midterms.