All Things LGBTQ+ (7 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.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

It's not about Person B demanding anything of person A, it's about Person B refusing to respect the wishes of Person A in regards of how they would like to be referred to.

This clearly goes beyond just disagreeing. There is a lot of judging, berating and doing one's best to dehumanize them for not conforming to what one wants.

That is absolutely an authoritative and oppressive mindset.

..., 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,

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. We all have that right to self-determination and self-identity. Some people obliviously have a problem with that, which again, is absolutely an authoritative and oppressive mindset.

..,but to require others to say that Person A is X, regardless of their own thoughts on the topic.

This line of reasoning is also indicative of an authoritative and oppressive mindset.

To see someone asking to be referred to in a certain way as them requiring others to do something, is a world view in which there is no place for cooperation with and respect for those that are different, there is only domination and conformity to what one ignorantly (in the original definition of the term) believes.

Obviously they aren't making anyone refer to them in a certain way or requiring anyone to refer to them in a certain way. They are simply asking us to refer to them in a certain way. Why is it so hard for some people?

Not only are some unwilling to show that basic respect and human dignity, but they go out of their way to repeatedly belittle, demonize and dehumanize them.

That is the first step that has to be taken on the path to human rights violations and atrocities. That first step doesn't always end with human rights violations and atrocities, but it's always the first step down a very dark and dangerous path.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

Person B is not stating an opinion. Saying "you are wrong, you are not X" is not only a statement of fact, it's a refutation of someone's core identity. Person B is refusing to acknowledge that Person A is who they are at their most basic layer.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I hate when I do that.

Then maybe you should spend a day or two lurking and actually reading the sources people are providing instead of just writing it all off because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

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."

It doesn't conflate anything. Agreeing and disagreeing don't factor into it. You can disagree all you want but keep it to yourself and still be decent.

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

I'm sure.

So nothing specific then?

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

That's only my opinion.

No, people of his ilk spread lies. That's not an opinion. That is a fact.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's not about Person B demanding anything of person A, it's about Person B refusing to respect the wishes of Person A in regards of how they would like to be referred to.

This clearly goes beyond just disagreeing. There is a lot of judging, berating and doing one's best to dehumanize them for not conforming to what one wants.

If there is judging and berating, I would oppose that strongly. Whether it is someone judging and berating a person for being trans, or a someone judging and berating a person for not using the "right" pronouns.

Calling an obvious male "sir" or referring to an obvious male using he/him, is not dehumanizing them for not conforming to what one wants.

I respectfully submit that such overwrought language hurts the cause of transgender acceptance much more than it helps.

That is absolutely an authoritative and oppressive mindset.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. We all have that right to self-determination and self-identity. Some people obliviously have a problem with that, which again, is absolutely an authoritative and oppressive mindset.

It would be authoritarian if I tried to force someone to say that their preferred pronouns match their biological sex. It would be just as authoritarian if they tried to force me to use their preferred pronoun.

This line of reasoning is also indicative of an authoritative and oppressive mindset.

To see someone asking to be referred to in a certain way as them requiring others to do something, is a world view in which there is no place for cooperation with and respect for those that are different, there is only domination and conformity to what one ignorantly (in the original definition of the term) believes.

Cooperation can be brought about by persuasion, or it can be brought about by pressure and force. I'm not entirely sure which one you advocate, and I don't want to assume incorrectly.

How do you propose that people be influenced to cooperate with the whole "use my preferred pronouns" idea? What steps would you advocate taking to gain that cooperation?

Obviously they aren't making anyone refer to them in a certain way or requiring anyone to refer to them in a certain way. They are simply asking us to refer to them in a certain way. Why is it so hard for some people?

It is hard for some people for the same reason that it is hard for other people to simply act like their biological gender. People are different.

You advocate persuasion and not force or pressure, if I understand correctly. Other than social pressure, which is not only a valid way to persuade, but has brought about a lot of good in human history. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Not only are some unwilling to show that basic respect and human dignity, but they go out of their way to repeatedly belittle, demonize and dehumanize them.

I think that is true of some who don't like to use preferred pronouns. Some people do have a hatred for transfolk that is every bit as strong as other people's hatred for Trump supporters. But there are also people who do not hate transpeople, and could care less how they live their lives, but by the same token do not want to use pronouns that do not match their perception of reality.

That is the first step that has to be taken on the path to human rights violations and atrocities. That first step doesn't always end with human rights violations and atrocities, but it's always the first step down a very dark and dangerous path.

You are very correct. Calling an obvious male in mom jeans and a blouse "sir" does not always lead to mass murder of transwomen. Just as the first puff of marijuana does not always lead to crack addiction and prostitution, stealing a stick of gum does not always lead to dying in a hail of bullets while robbing a bank, and a kiss without getting spoken permission does not always lead to violent rape.

In fact, I don't know of a case of a person whose use of biocentric pronouns led to atrocities against transfolk. If you know of such cases, I would be grateful for a link.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Then maybe you should spend a day or two lurking and actually reading the sources people are providing instead of just writing it all off because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

That ship has sailed.

As to sources I see very few on this board as far as backing up claims.

It doesn't conflate anything. Agreeing and disagreeing don't factor into it. You can disagree all you want but keep it to yourself and still be decent.

Agree or shut up are my only option?

That dehumanizes me.

No, people of his ilk spread lies. That's not an opinion. That is a fact.

Any examples you could share?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Person B is not stating an opinion. Saying "you are wrong, you are not X" is not only a statement of fact, it's a refutation of someone's core identity. Person B is refusing to acknowledge that Person A is who they are at their most basic layer.

Whether sex/gender is a biological construct or a social one is an opinion, no matter how certain each side may be that they have it right.

 

[RobF]

Agree or shut up are my only option?

That's not what was said. There's clearly the third option, of rudely disregarding someone's identity, loudly and repeatedly expressing that, arguing with people about it, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt to justify your rudeness, and having people think you're a rude bigot as a result.

You are of course, free to take that option. And other people are free to think that you're a rude bigot accordingly.

 

[MT15]

Has MTG been more unhinged than usual lately?

I would argue she came into the House exactly this unhinged.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That ship has sailed.

As to sources I see very few on this board as far as backing up claims.

It hasn't sailed. You can still take a few days to read without interjecting. As for sources, I see them used all the time. You either dismiss them outright or you ignore them. Maybe if you stopped responding to everything, as I suggested, you would see them.

Agree or shut up are my only option?

That dehumanizes me.

I didn't say that at all. Your reading comprehension is terrible. I said it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with someone's pronouns, you still have the choice to either be a decent person and use them or be a dick and ignore them. You can disagree internally and still use someone's preferred pronouns.

Any examples you could share?

Since you posted the video of the guy in Target...

Target’s Pride collection features ‘tuck-friendly’ swimsuits for adults, not kids

Target’s seasonal collection of clothes for Pride month collection has been the subject of several misleading videos in recent weeks, with social media users claiming the retailer is selling “tuck-friendly” bathing suits designed for kids or in kids’ sizes.

apnews.com

Target's 'tuck-friendly' swimsuit is made for adults, not kids | Fact check

The swimsuit is marketed and sized for adults, not children. None of the kids' swimsuits in the Pride section are labeled as "tuck-friendly."

www.usatoday.com

Fox repeatedly pushed the bogus claim that Target’s Pride Month collection included “tuck-friendly” swimsuits for children after it was debunked

www.mediamatters.org

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Whether sex/gender is a biological construct or a social one is an opinion, no matter how certain each side may be that they have it right.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's not what was said. There's clearly the third option, of rudely disregarding someone's identity, loudly and repeatedly expressing that, arguing with people about it, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt to justify your rudeness, and having people think you're a rude bigot as a result.

Anyone who would do that is extremely boorish, and would certainly have no business dealing with the public. I'm sure you would apply that rule to anyone, not just someone who acts that way over pronouns.

Here's an example that is about pronouns. Would you agree that it is an example of loudly and repeatedly expressing their opion, arguing with a person, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt justify rudeness? Would you think the person is a rude bigot as a result?

You are of course, free to take that option. And other people are free to think that you're a rude bigot accordingly.

I never would.

 

[samiam5211]

Sometimes two rude people meet.

 

[RobF]

Anyone who would do that is extremely boorish, and would certainly have no business dealing with the public. I'm sure you would apply that rule to anyone, not just someone who acts that way over pronouns.

Here's an example that is about pronouns. Would you agree that it is an example of loudly and repeatedly expressing their opion, arguing with a person, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt justify rudeness? Would you think the person is a rude bigot as a result?

I've noticed you like to respond to clear points about things you've said by introducing a different topic, in this instance, my personal opinion about an unrelated* GBNews video on YouTube.

I, however, prefer to focus.

I never would.

See, the thing is, you can't say that when you already have.

You misgendered Dylan Mulvaney.

Then, when attempting to claim that you don't do that generally, you said you're doing it here because you're making a judgement about their 'sincerity'. Then you attempted to justify that, and your initial rudeness, by claiming that they use 'girlface' with a, and I quote, 'goal to appeal to pedophiles'.

And like I said, you're free to behave like that, you're free to have those opinions, and to express them. And others are free to have the opinion that someone who behaves like that, as you have, is a rude bigot.


*No, before you try it, I'm also not going to engage in a discussion with you about why it's unrelated. Either you're pretending you don't already know, or you, somehow, genuinely don't understand, and it's not my job to explain it to you.

 

[SFIDC3]

Has MTG been more unhinged than usual lately?

I watched a minute of the trainwreck above....the funniest part was that moron Kirk going "this flag, it's not an isolated incident".....like flying a rainbow flag or any flag is an "incident" what a flailing idiot.....

 

[Snarky Sack]

I've noticed you like to respond to clear points about things you've said by introducing a different topic, in this instance, my personal opinion about an unrelated* GBNews video on YouTube.

*No, before you try it, I'm also not going to engage in a discussion to you about why it's unrelated. Either you're pretending you don't already know, or you, somehow, genuinely don't understand, and it's not my job to explain it to you.

I hope you don't mind that little edit to make it easier for me to respond. The video is absolutely related. It shows someone who loudly and repeatedly expressed an opinion about pronouns, arguing with people about it, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt to justify the rudeness, and having people think they're a rude bigot as a result. Exactly on topic. The only difference is that this video also depicts violence being introduced into the argument.

I applaud your decision not to argue that.

I, however, prefer to focus.


See, the thing is, you can't say that when you already have.

I have? I have rudely disregarded someone's identity, loudly and repeatedly expressing that, arguing with people about it, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt to justify my rudeness? Darn! I stopped doing tequila shots in my twenties to avoid such episodes.*

Quickly! Show me where I did that so I can profusely apologize.

You misgendered Dylan Mulvaney.

No, he is male and does little to hide it.

He is a drag performer in "girlface," not a person attempting to pass as female. Someone making an effort to pass as a female, I would use the gender that he or she appears to prefer.

I'll bore you with an anecdote:

I'm a teacher of behavior to students with disabilities such as autism, ADHD, and emotional disturbance, which is an educators term for mental illness. I have a student coming from another school specifically to participate in my program. I'll use "they" this one time. They are biologically female but identify as male. They prefer a "boys name" that is but one letter off from their birth certificate name.

At her previous school, most of her behavior issues started with teachers not using her preferred name and pronouns. This seventh grader, rightly or wrongly, divided teachers onto those that respect them and those who do not. When she did not feel respected, the class became a power struggle instead of a learning opportunity.

I made a plea to my fellow and sister teachers that they take that into account. I'm not their bosses, so it will be up to them.

Point of the story: Acribing the worst possible motives and behavior to anyone who does not fully agree with every aspect of the entire trans agenda turns a board like this into an insult contest instead of an adult discussion of issues.

Then, when attempting to claim that you don't do that generally, you said you're doing it here because you're making a judgement about their 'sincerity'. Then you attempted to justify that, and your initial rudeness, by claiming that they use 'girlface' with a, and I quote, 'goal to appeal to pedophiles'.

Well, yes. That is my opinion. Yours is just as valid, though.

And like I said, you're free to behave like that, you're free to have those opinions, and to express them. And others are free to have the opinion that someone who behaves like that, as you have, is a rude bigot.

Yes, enjoy your freedom while we still have it!

*Just joking. I never acted like that, Praise Allah.

 

[RobF]

I hope you don't mind that little edit to make it easier for me to respond. The video is absolutely related. It shows someone who loudly and repeatedly expressed an opinion about pronouns, arguing with people about it, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt to justify the rudeness, and having people think they're a rude bigot as a result. Exactly on topic. The only difference is that this video also depicts violence being introduced into the argument.

I applaud your decision not to argue that.

The immediate topic here is your misgendering.

Not a GBNews video on YouTube.

You're also trying the cheap rhetorical device of claiming that not discussing a distraction means not disputing the contents of the distraction. No.

Thing is, those kinds of cheap rhetorical devices only work when people don't point them out.

I have? I have rudely disregarded someone's identity, loudly and repeatedly expressing that, arguing with people about it, adding additional offensive speculation in an attempt to justify my rudeness? Darn! I stopped doing tequila shots in my twenties to avoid such episodes.*

Quickly! Show me where I did that so I can profusely apologize.

And here you're going with the willful ignorance approach to avoid the topic.

That also doesn't work.

All you've actually responded to, on topic here, is this:

No, he is male and does little to hide it.

He is a drag performer in "girlface," not a person attempting to pass as female. Someone making an effort to pass as a female, I would use the gender that he or she appears to prefer.

And this is not a defense of your behaviour, but a repetition of it.

What you are saying here, generally, is that if you don't think someone is feminine enough in behaviour and appearance by your standards, you will deliberately and willfully misgender them.

And what you are trying to argue, more broadly, is the classic 'freedom of consequences'. You want the freedom to express negative opinions about people, but you don't want to accept the consequential opinions people will inevitably have about you.

It doesn't work like that. You can have respect for people, or not. If you don't, you can't expect it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The immediate topic here is your misgendering.

Not a GBNews video on YouTube.

You're also trying the cheap rhetorical device of claiming that not discussing a distraction means not disputing the contents of the distraction. No.

Thing is, those kinds of cheap rhetorical devices only work when people don't point them out.

A lot of words to avoid just saying, "no, that video is different," or some such.

And here you're going with the willful ignorance approach to avoid the topic.

That also doesn't work.

All you've actually responded to, on topic here, is this:

No, he is male and does little to hide it.

He is a drag performer in "girlface," not a person attempting to pass as female. Someone making an effort to pass as a female, I would use the gender that he or she appears to prefer.

And this is not a defense of your behaviour, but a repetition of it.

What you are saying here, generally, is that if you don't think someone is feminine enough in behaviour and appearance by your standards, you will deliberately and willfully misgender them.

May I respectfully recommend that instead of informing me what I'm saying generally, you make the assumption that what I said is what I'm saying.

I said, say, and am saying, that I based my respect for their gender presentation choice based on the effort they make to pass. It is not about how successful the effort is.

For example, Laverne Cox.

In that picture, alone, I would probably assume they are female. But in show it is pretty obvious that she is biologically male. But she makes the effort, so I believe that she is sincere, and I would use the she/her. This transgender:

I don't believe is making much effort at all to look female in sex or gender. When it is that obvious, I'll use he/him.

Now, those are extreme examples, one trying very hard and nearly being successful, and one an obvious scam. We each use our own judgement as to where on that spectrum any given transgender person falls. So, I guess the conflict here is about where to draw the line. Where I draw it, Cox is on the authentic side and Mulvaney is on the inauthentic side.

Where would you place the women's weightlifter above?

And what you are trying to argue, more broadly, is the classic 'freedom of consequences'. You want the freedom to express negative opinions about people, but you don't want to accept the consequential opinions people will inevitably have about you.

Not at all. They are free to have whatever opinion they like. They are not free to use any form of force to get me to adopt their opinions.

It doesn't work like that. You can have respect for people, or not. If you don't, you can't expect it.

I ask only to be left alone, respect is earned by standards each person is free to set.

 

[brandon]

Where would you place the women's weightlifter above?

Did you even read that article?