All Things LGBTQ+ (5 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[coldseat]

The list of food brands that conservatives are refusing to purchase because they’re too LGBTQ+ got quite a bit longer this week after transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney had her picture taken with Tony the Tiger. Now many on the right are calling for a boycott of Kellogg’s, the cereal brand.

The offending picture took place at the Tony Awards this past Sunday. Mulvaney, in a Christian Siriano gown, almost walked into a person in a Tony the Tiger costume. Tony the Tiger is the mascot for the Kellogg’s breakfast cereal Frosted Flakes............

MSN

www.msn.com

Let them boycott themselves into irrelevance. With every new boycott, their clan loses more and more people as they realize that their lives start sucking because of everything they boycott. It will fizzle out and everything will go back to normal.

If Corporate America wants to speed this up, every brand mascot out there should take a picture with Dylan Mulvaney and pay her for sponsorship.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Let them boycott themselves into irrelevance. With every new boycott, their clan loses more and more people as they realize that their lives start sucking because of everything they boycott. It will fizzle out and everything will go back to normal.

If Corporate America wants to speed this up, every brand mascot out there should take a picture with Dylan Mulvaney a pay her for sponsorship.

Certainly hope so

But there’s this that I posted
=================

Anheuser-Busch InBev’s Bud Light has lost its top spot in the US beer market to Constellation Brands’ Modelo Especial, after a backlash from conservatives over a social media promotion with the transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Sales of Bud Light and Budweiser dropped 24.6% and 9.2%, respectively, for the four weeks ended 3 June from a year earlier, while Modelo Especial sales rose 10.2%, according to the consulting company Bump Williams, which sources data from NielsenIQ.…..

Bud Light loses top US beer spot after promotion with transgender influencer

Sales dropped by almost 25% on last year after brand featured Dylan Mulvaney in social media

www.theguardian.com

===============

That coupled with the news that a lot of companies have either scaled back or canceled their pride support/sponsorship is enough for them to think that they’ve won, enough for others to think these tactics work and expect even more in the future

I think there will a tipping point and that fizzling out will happen, don’t know when it will happen and I’m afraid it will happen because some poor clerk got beat to death in a Target or some gay guy playing with his kid in the park

 

[Snarky Sack]

Let them boycott themselves into irrelevance. With every new boycott, their clan loses more and more people as they realize that their lives start sucking because of everything they boycott. It will fizzle out and everything will go back to normal.

If Corporate America wants to speed this up, every brand mascot out there should take a picture with Dylan Mulvaney an pay her for sponsorship.

I have to agree that it is unfair to boycott Kellog's because Dylan Mulvaney chose to get his picture taken with Tony. Between the two for them, Tony the Tiger is by far the bigger celebrity.

TtT was there to offer people a chance to have their photo taken with him. Donald Trump himself has often done that. Assuming that a photo op such as that indicates support of a controversial figure is pretty silly.

I doubt Tony knew who it was, or that it was a transgirl. Hard to see well

Kids, don't look!

out of that suit

. Dylan has been lamenting his datelessness lately. Maybe

Kid, don't look. In fact, find another thread, kids!

furries who also wear vision blocking costumes

would be more interested.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I have to agree that it is unfair to boycott Kellog's because Dylan Mulvaney chose to get his picture taken with Tony. Between the two for them, Tony the Tiger is by far the bigger celebrity.

TtT was there to offer people a chance to have their photo taken with him. Donald Trump himself has often done that. Assuming that a photo op such as that indicates support of a controversial figure is pretty silly.

I doubt Tony knew who it was, or that it was a transgirl. Hard to see well

Kids, don't look!

out of that suit

. In fact, Dylan has been lamenting his datelessness lately. Maybe furries who also wear vision blocking costumes would be more interested.

She/her. Dylan Mulvaney is a woman that uses she/her pronouns, FYI.

 

[Snarky Sack]

She/her. Dylan Mulvaney is a woman that uses she/her pronouns, FYI.

I prefer to go by biology in pronoun use, as do the majority of Americans. Owing the Dylan's campaign to "normalize the bulge" his biology is all too obvious.

Would you recommend that he go to Target to pick up a discount case of Bud Lite, and a tuck friendly swimsuit?
I see them both as fine for adults, but the swimsuits are a terrible way to tell a child that his body is somehow wrong and that part of it must be "tucked" out of sight.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It is all but official: We can identify our own race, as well as our own gender. This is the head of DEI for the State Department itself:



1:45

Congressman: Can you tell me . . . am I white?

State Department Head of DEI: *pause* I would allow you to tell me how you characterize yourself.

If reparations are ever given for black Americans, it seems likely that everyone will get them, that being the case.

 

[coldseat]

I prefer to go by biology in pronoun use, as do the majority of Americans.

You constantly make these general assertions of facts that aren't true.

The Politics of Gender, Pronouns, and Public Education | PRRI

To view a webinar discussion on key findings with PRRI's CEO Melissa Deckman, Heath Brown, and PRRI Public Fellows Kelsy Burke, Andrew R. Flores, and Suzanna Krivulskaya, click here.

www.prri.org

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I prefer to go by biology in pronoun use, as do the majority of Americans. Owing the Dylan's campaign to "normalize the bulge" his biology is all too obvious.

Argumentum ad populum. What the majority thinks does not matter. Even if it did, you haven't demonstrated that the majority think this. Dylan Mulvaney goes by she/her pronouns. Declining to show the tiniest bit of effort is an butt crevasse move.

Would you recommend that he go to Target to pick up a discount case of Bud Lite, and a tuck friendly swimsuit?

I wouldn't recommend any beer. I don't drink. I also have no opinion on swimsuits.

I see them both as fine for adults, but the swimsuits are a terrible way to tell a child that his body is somehow wrong and that part of it must be "tucked" out of sight.

The swimsuits were made for adults, not children, so I guess you and I agree on Target advertising, displaying, and selling these in an easy-to-find location.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Argumentum ad populum. What the majority thinks does not matter.

Agree with the second, respectfully disagree with the first. What the majority thinks does not matter as to the truth of the statement. While I can understand your mistaking my argument for Argumentum ad populum, I mentioned the significant number of people who agree with me to show that biology dictating gender is not a radical idea.

Even if it did, you haven't demonstrated that the majority think this. Dylan Mulvaney goes by she/her pronouns. Declining to show the tiniest bit of effort is an butt crevasse move.

It is no more effort to say "she/her" than to say he/him. In fact, I would and do make whatever degree of effort it is to use people's preferred pronoun when I am convinced that they are sincere in wanting to represent their gender.

I don't afford Mr. Mulvaney that courtesy, for specific reasons

I wouldn't recommend any beer. I don't drink. I also have no opinion on swimsuits.

I suppose lack of opinions also vary.

The swimsuits were made for adults, not children,

Glad to hear it.

so I guess you and I agree on Target advertising, displaying, and selling these in an easy-to-find location.

Certainly. If that is their successful marketing plan, I am no one to tell them no. I enjoyed seeing this person shop for one.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You constantly make these general assertions of facts that aren't true.

The Politics of Gender, Pronouns, and Public Education | PRRI

To view a webinar discussion on key findings with PRRI's CEO Melissa Deckman, Heath Brown, and PRRI Public Fellows Kelsy Burke, Andrew R. Flores, and Suzanna Krivulskaya, click here.

www.prri.org

I disagree with the design of that poll, going just by that graphic you present. But I'll talk about it as if it is a very well done poll.

According to that poll, 43% of all Americans would be somewhat uncomfortable or very uncomfortable learning that a friend would like them to use a pronouns like he/she that do not match the gender they perceive. Not the majority, but a significant enough number to make my point, which was only that my wanting pronouns to match biology is not a radical idea.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I disagree with the design of that poll, going just by that graphic you present. But I'll talk about it as if it is a very well done poll.

According to that poll, 43% of all Americans would be somewhat uncomfortable or very uncomfortable learning that a friend would like them to use a pronouns like he/she that do not match the gender they perceive. Not the majority, but a significant enough number to make my point, which was only that my wanting pronouns to match biology is not a radical idea.

So what you are saying is that you made an assertion, you were demonstrably wrong, and now you are shifting the goalposts.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Agree with the second, respectfully disagree with the first. What the majority thinks does not matter as to the truth of the statement. While I can understand your mistaking my argument for Argumentum ad populum, I mentioned the significant number of people who agree with me to show that biology dictating gender is not a radical idea.

You can disagree all you want, but you are incorrect. Argumentum ad populum doesn't necessarily mean you are claiming something is true. It can also be used to claim that something is acceptable or even just a good thing. That's exactly what you did.

It is no more effort to say "she/her" than to say he/him. In fact, I would and do make whatever degree of effort it is to use people's preferred pronoun when I am convinced that they are sincere in wanting to represent their gender.

I don't afford Mr. Mulvaney that courtesy, for specific reasons

Oh, please elaborate on the reason Dylan Mulvaney doesn't deserve basic human decency.

I suppose lack of opinions also vary.

Sure.

Glad to hear it.

Certainly. If that is their successful marketing plan, I am no one to tell them no. I enjoyed seeing this person shop for one.

Shift those goalposts again. Not only can't you acknowledge that you were wrong, you then turn around and share some stupid video from the same type of person who spreads the lies you just got called out for spreading as well.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You can disagree all you want, but you are incorrect. Argumentum ad populum doesn't necessarily mean you are claiming something is true. It can also be used to claim that something is acceptable or even just a good thing. That's exactly what you did.

I disagree with your definition of Argumentem ad Populum and your interpretation of what I claimed.

Oh, please elaborate on the reason Dylan Mulvaney doesn't deserve basic human decency.

I can't. Because I never said that Dylan Mulvaney doesn't deserve basic human decency. So, even if I argued that now (which I never would), it would not be elaborating, but making a new argument.

On the assumption that you are using hyperbole, the reason I won't indulge Mr. Mulvaney in his desire to be referred to as she/her, is that he is the worst example of men who put on womanface and costume to mock women. He is worse than others because he does not represent himself as a woman but as a "girl." So it is girlface. In my opinion, his goal is to appeal to pedophiles.

Shift those goalposts again. Not only can't you acknowledge that you were wrong, you then turn around and share some stupid video from the same type of person who spreads the lies you just got called out for spreading as well.

I'm sorry you dislike the video. May I respectfully ask what lies that person told?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Has MTG been more unhinged than usual lately?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Let's look at the dynamic at play:

Person A: I consider myself to be X, so I want to be referred to as X.
Person B: You are wrong. You are not X, so I refuse to refer to you as X.

Person A is asking for the right to self-determination through self-identification.

Person B is refusing to respect a person's right to self-determination through self-identification.

Person A is asking to be respectfully allowed to be different.

Person B is insisting that other people conform to Person B's identification of them.

Person B has an authoritarian and oppressive mindset. That mindset has no place in a free and open society of equals. especially when it comes to policy making and legal code.

Case in point:

I prefer to go by biology in pronoun use, as do the majority of Americans. Owing the Dylan's campaign to "normalize the bulge" his biology is all too obvious.

Would you recommend that he go to Target to pick up a discount case of Bud Lite, and a tuck friendly swimsuit?
I see them both as fine for adults, but the swimsuits are a terrible way to tell a child that his body is somehow wrong and that part of it must be "tucked" out of sight.

The more we talk, the more we show people who we are.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I disagree with your definition of Argumentem ad Populum and your interpretation of what I claimed.

Not surprising. You disagree with reality a lot.

I can't. Because I never said that Dylan Mulvaney doesn't deserve basic human decency. So, even if I argued that now (which I never would), it would not be elaborating, but making a new argument.

Sure you did. Intentionally misgendering someone shows a lack of basic decency.

On the assumption that you are using hyperbole, the reason I won't indulge Mr. Mulvaney in his desire to be referred to as she/her, is that he is the worst example of men who put on womanface and costume to mock women. He is worse than others because he does not represent himself as a woman but as a "girl." So it is girlface. In my opinion, his goal is to appeal to pedophiles.

Guys, I found it! It's Farb!

I'm sorry you dislike the video. May I respectfully ask what lies that person told?

I never said that person told lies. I said people like that person spread lies. Given the fact that you repeated those lies in this very thread, I think we can agree that they are liars spreading lies.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Case in point:

The more we talk, the more we show people who we are.

Respectfully disagree. In your example:

• Person A: I consider myself to be X, so I want to be referred to as X.
• Person B: You are wrong. You are not X, so I refuse to refer to you as X.

Person A is asking for the right to self-determination through self-identification.

Person B is refusing to respect a person's right to self-determination through self-identification.

Person A is asking to be respectfully allowed to be different.

Person B is insisting that other people conform to Person B's identification of them.

Person B has an authoritarian and oppressive mindset. That mindset has no place in a free and open society of equals. especially when it comes to policy making and legal code.

Person B, having been asked to refer to Person A as X, offers an opinion that Person A is actually not X. Person B is not refusing to respect any rights, by stating an opinion that Person A disagrees with.

Person B demands nothing of Person A that would limit person A's right to self-determination through self-identification. Person A is still perfectly free to identify as X. All day every day for life or until they decide different.

Respectfully, it appears that you are claiming a right for Person A to not only choose to say they are X and feel that they are X, but to require others to say that Person A is X, regardless of their own thoughts on the topic.

That sounds like the authoritative and oppressive mindset.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Not surprising. You disagree with reality a lot.

I hate when I do that.

Sure you did. Intentionally misgendering someone shows a lack of basic decency.

Have we then raised the bar on "decency" into the stratosphere, or lowered it into the dirt? I'll have to ponder that one.

Or not. It was a pleasing metaphor, but only briefly. In truth, what such a statement does is conflate "agree" and "disagree" with "decency" and "indecency."

Guys, I found it! It's Farb!

No doubt a humorous reference with which I am unfamiliar. A bit of "inside baseball" so to speak.

I never said that person told lies. I said people like that person spread lies. Given the fact that you repeated those lies in this very thread, I think we can agree that they are liars spreading lies.

So nothing specific then?

This appears to be another case of conflation. This time conflating "disagreements" with "lies."

That's only my opinion.