Gender Roles

[Jokodo]

So take all this as a "concurring opinion". I'm actually agreeing with you -- I likewise reject the whole premise as relevant. But not because it's incoherent or illogical or impossible. But rather, because it's just another example of something else you've frequently criticized: "trans allies" trying to make hay by appropriating for their own political purposes the separate medical issues of people with DSDs.

The LGBTQIA alliance doesn't exist because the people in it don't understand that there are differences between the Is and the Ts (or any of the other letters) but because the same Christian theocrats shitbags and their white nationalist cronies are trying to legislate all of us out of our rights, and we're better off standing together against them than getting individually hunted down and neutralized in silence. Yes, our unity is accomplished for "political purposes". It always was. And we have as much right to form a political coalition as does anyone else.

Actually... the LGBTQXYZ alliance exists because those activist organizations accomplished the overwhelming majority of their goal of equal rights for homosexuals in developed nations... and didn't want to lose their incomes. So they shifted focus and decided that TQETC was just as much of a money-maker for them.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory if ever I heard one.

 

[Emily Lake]

So take all this as a "concurring opinion". I'm actually agreeing with you -- I likewise reject the whole premise as relevant. But not because it's incoherent or illogical or impossible. But rather, because it's just another example of something else you've frequently criticized: "trans allies" trying to make hay by appropriating for their own political purposes the separate medical issues of people with DSDs.

The LGBTQIA alliance doesn't exist because the people in it don't understand that there are differences between the Is and the Ts (or any of the other letters) but because the same Christian theocrats shitbags and their white nationalist cronies are trying to legislate all of us out of our rights, and we're better off standing together against them than getting individually hunted down and neutralized in silence. Yes, our unity is accomplished for "political purposes". It always was. And we have as much right to form a political coalition as does anyone else.

Actually... the LGBTQXYZ alliance exists because those activist organizations accomplished the overwhelming majority of their goal of equal rights for homosexuals in developed nations... and didn't want to lose their incomes. So they shifted focus and decided that TQETC was just as much of a money-maker for them.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory if ever I heard one.

Sure. But it's also true. Pretty much all of the organizations that are collecting donations and fighting for trans stuff right now are ones that were originally involved in gay and lesbian rights to same sex marriages and equal treatment under the law. Look back through the history, at when they shifted from a focus on gay rights to a focus on trans-related issues.

It's also true that a whole pile of christians oppose all of the various letters involved. I didn't intend to question that. But it's also true that pretty much all of those organizations started out as L/G orgs, won their fight, and then switched gears to become T/Q orgs. And in many cases, the L/G people who supported them have become a bit disillusioned by the shift. Some of the objectives sought on behalf of T/Q is detrimental to L/G. For example, rebranding the term lesbian to include people with penises, and to frame the discussion around orientation being based on gender rather than sex.

If you doubt that this has been a bit of a problem, look into the Cotton Ceiling.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So take all this as a "concurring opinion". I'm actually agreeing with you -- I likewise reject the whole premise as relevant. But not because it's incoherent or illogical or impossible. But rather, because it's just another example of something else you've frequently criticized: "trans allies" trying to make hay by appropriating for their own political purposes the separate medical issues of people with DSDs.

The LGBTQIA alliance doesn't exist because the people in it don't understand that there are differences between the Is and the Ts (or any of the other letters) but because the same Christian theocrats shitbags and their white nationalist cronies are trying to legislate all of us out of our rights, and we're better off standing together against them than getting individually hunted down and neutralized in silence. Yes, our unity is accomplished for "political purposes". It always was. And we have as much right to form a political coalition as does anyone else.

Actually... the LGBTQXYZ alliance exists because those activist organizations accomplished the overwhelming majority of their goal of equal rights for homosexuals in developed nations... and didn't want to lose their incomes. So they shifted focus and decided that TQETC was just as much of a money-maker for them.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory if ever I heard one.

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

 

[Politesse]

So take all this as a "concurring opinion". I'm actually agreeing with you -- I likewise reject the whole premise as relevant. But not because it's incoherent or illogical or impossible. But rather, because it's just another example of something else you've frequently criticized: "trans allies" trying to make hay by appropriating for their own political purposes the separate medical issues of people with DSDs.

The LGBTQIA alliance doesn't exist because the people in it don't understand that there are differences between the Is and the Ts (or any of the other letters) but because the same Christian theocrats shitbags and their white nationalist cronies are trying to legislate all of us out of our rights, and we're better off standing together against them than getting individually hunted down and neutralized in silence. Yes, our unity is accomplished for "political purposes". It always was. And we have as much right to form a political coalition as does anyone else.

Actually... the LGBTQXYZ alliance exists because those activist organizations accomplished the overwhelming majority of their goal of equal rights for homosexuals in developed nations... and didn't want to lose their incomes. So they shifted focus and decided that TQETC was just as much of a money-maker for them.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory if ever I heard one.

Also, just... fascinatingly ignorant of history that is not even that recent. Proposing that LGBT or GLBT is any younger than the gay rights movement itself is such an easily disproven claim that it's clearly being thrown out to cause deliberate confusion. For the record, gay and trans rights have always been linked. If anything, they were less clearly distinguished in the years before the sex/gender distnction caught on, since antihomosexual laws were often the avenue by which trans people (then called by other terms) were persecuted, and gay men and women were frequently protrayed in media and politics as both confused about their sex and prone to "cross-dressing".

 

[Jarhyn]

That sounds like a conspiracy theory if ever I heard one.

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

More, the organizations I've been part of always included the LBT, even if they were originally formed mostly of the G iny experience.

I remember when the first GSAs became LGBT groups instead.

Mostly, the goal was always stated up front here that the only real limit to advocacy for minorities ended at the boundary of consent.

Before trans people were "trans" they were "gays" in the eyes of those who didn't even know enough to be able to differentiate (and even in the eyes of many older gays).

 

[Politesse]

That sounds like a conspiracy theory if ever I heard one.

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

More, the organizations I've been part of always included the LBT, even if they were originally formed mostly of the G iny experience.

I remember when the first GSAs became LGBT groups instead.

Mostly, the goal was always stated up front here that the only real limit to advocacy for minorities ended at the boundary of consent.

Before trans people were "trans" they were "gays" in the eyes of those who didn't even know enough to be able to differentiate (and even in the eyes of many older gays).

Here's the thing though, they only added the S to GSA after us gays were already full citizens wth full rights, so they'd still have something to do. This proves that straight people are a recent innovation.

 

[Politesse]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

Especially in the face of conservatives who think life was better in the bad old days.

There's a reason there's the phrase "came out of the woodwork".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

I'm not making a request, just pointing out a reality. Part of the real-world task of any organization is it's continued existence, whether it's existence serves the overall good or not.

 

[Jokodo]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

I'm not making a request, just pointing out a reality. Part of the real-world task of any organization is it's continued existence, whether it's existence serves the overall good or not.

Unions should have just dissolved themselves the day they achieved a ban of child labour, right?

 

[Politesse]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

I'm not making a request, just pointing out a reality. Part of the real-world task of any organization is it's continued existence, whether it's existence serves the overall good or not.

Civil rights groups do serve the overall group. The principle of equal treatment under the law is a fundamental right, that all citizens should insist upon, and will always benefit from doing so.

 

[bilby]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

I'm not making a request, just pointing out a reality. Part of the real-world task of any organization is it's continued existence, whether it's existence serves the overall good or not.

Unions should have just dissolved themselves the day they achieved a ban of child labour, right?

And the NRA on the day the Second Amendment was ratified.

 

[Bomb#20]

Another supremely dishonest and <expletive deleted> form of argument I see here is that when a poster posts a current step to an argument oftentimes some other poster will instead go further back into the thread to dig up something that was said much earlier to respond to, rather than additional supporting arguments made later that clarify the underlying reasons. Someone dug back 5 pages here to find something to respond to rather than to actually address the current topic, which at this moment has been the dividing line in separations of space, another thing you straw-man over.

One such argument is Bomb digging up an older post where I discussed that culture is not monolithic.

I don't know what goes on in your brain to make you think other posters are necessarily focused on whatever topic you happen to feel is "the" current topic. I didn't "dig up" an older post. As I worked through the backlog of other posters' posts to me that I had not yet replied to, I finally got to it. And since in your post you trumped up a false baseless charge against me with malice and reckless disregard for the truth, I addressed it. If you think there's some sort of statute of limitations on libel here, think again. My post was addressing the post it quoted, not whatever topic you unilaterally decide is the topic we should all be talking about now. In case you are unclear about my priorities, let me put it in terms you're personally familiar with. I give exactly the same number of rats' asses about your opinion as to what we should be talking about now as the number of rats' asses you give about whether the accusations you make against other posters are true.

It's a free country, but it's a polite message board, Bomb. Either be polite or don't address me.

It is not a particularly polite message board and you are one of the top offenders. I'm polite to people who are polite to others. You claimed "My issue with your point of view is that it disregards my right to participate and use language as I and my own cosm of culture sees fit.". That was libelous. Now you claim my post is "Another supremely dishonest" "form of argument". That too is libelous. Libel is rude. There is no way to libel people politely. If you wish for this to become a polite message board, stop libeling other posters.

That's what this is about. If someone on the street called me "he" pointedly or "le" snidely, I would say "they/them, please",

Well, in the first place, wow! You actually know the word "please"! Its use is not restricted to the street; you're actually allowed to say it here too.

In the second place, I didn't refer to you in Estonian "snidely"; I simply code-switched. If I'd wanted to be snide I would have picked Kurdish.

But in the third place, asking to be called "they/them" is asking for special treatment. It's asking to be singled out for extra attention not afforded to the rest of us -- extra attention to be paid to an imagined form of specialness the asker probably cares a lot more about than the asked do. The rest of us typically find it a little irritating when Jane Doe "corrects" someone who calls her "Ms. Blow", with "Dr. Blow, please."; but our culture does have a social custom in place recognizing the smarts and diligence it takes to get through medical school as earning a measure of special treatment. So the question is, what have you done to earn special treatment? What makes your request for special treatment (if it had been a request) more like that of a doctor wanting the lay folk to consciously acknowledge her M.D., and less like some jackass aristocrat asking to be called "his Lordship" because he wants the common folk to consciously acknowledge his lordship? That aristocrat is being rude to the common folk, even if he says "his Lordship, please".

and if they did not respond in polite deference to that then I would be able to post a recording of the incident to r/boomersbeingfools, and that individual, whoever they were, would likely feel their ears burning as they ought.

If you feel my lack of deference to one of my betters is something I ought be publicly shamed for, you have every right to inform r/boomersbeingfools of what I said. It kind of goes with your right to participate and use language as you and your own cosm of culture see fit.

Secondly, my only recent post here is on this line of argument: <snip>

And maybe I'll respond to that once I get to it. Hold your breath if you want. It's a safe bet that being unreasonable will get you bumped up to the front of the line.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So take all this as a "concurring opinion". I'm actually agreeing with you -- I likewise reject the whole premise as relevant. But not because it's incoherent or illogical or impossible. But rather, because it's just another example of something else you've frequently criticized: "trans allies" trying to make hay by appropriating for their own political purposes the separate medical issues of people with DSDs.

The LGBTQIA alliance doesn't exist because the people in it don't understand that there are differences between the Is and the Ts (or any of the other letters) but because the same Christian theocrats shitbags and their white nationalist cronies are trying to legislate all of us out of our rights, and we're better off standing together against them than getting individually hunted down and neutralized in silence. Yes, our unity is accomplished for "political purposes". It always was. And we have as much right to form a political coalition as does anyone else.

Actually... the LGBTQXYZ alliance exists because those activist organizations accomplished the overwhelming majority of their goal of equal rights for homosexuals in developed nations... and didn't want to lose their incomes. So they shifted focus and decided that TQETC was just as much of a money-maker for them.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory if ever I heard one.

Also, do I have to point out that political groups conspire against each other, because that's how politics currently works, regardless of which side you're on? Why is it so outlandish that there's a "conspiracy" against certain political groups? That's literally just how power struggles work.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

I'm not making a request, just pointing out a reality. Part of the real-world task of any organization is it's continued existence, whether it's existence serves the overall good or not.

Civil rights groups do serve the overall group. The principle of equal treatment under the law is a fundamental right, that all citizens should insist upon, and will always benefit from doing so.

And I might add there's always a frontier where proto-fascists seek an enemy to unite (behind them) to fight against, and they will generally pick easily singled-out targets of convenience rather than the much harder case of actual evil. Oftentimes they will find some group with some members who are doing something bad and paint the well-behaved majority with the badly-behaved minority (or with a complete lie they made up in their heads).

There will always be "trouble in river city".

It's my form thought that the groups who fight for achieving equality need to continue even after they achieve it in law, because if they stop, the short memory of the public will take over and the people who are really making the "troubles in river city" will have their next victim to blame.

After the equality comes ongoing education.

Actually fighting real injustice is much harder than singling out targets of convenience... It takes education (which is expensive) and challenging power structures that are built atop injustice (which is dangerous and extremely hard), rather than going after people on public media over dressing in drag and reading to kids.

 

[Swammerdami]

Titania McGrath shares "her" views on woke culture. Please do NOT click unless you're in for the giggles.

 

[Jarhyn]

Titania McGrath shares "her" views on woke culture. Please do NOT click unless you're in for the giggles.

Just... Wow. Like holy shit wow. I've never seen such a Trainwreck of not-even-wrong before.

 

[Emily Lake]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

This is a silly thing to say. You only have to work to keep rights when someone is trying to take them away.

Do you think that black people and women are out there constantly having to fight so that they can keep voting? Or be allowed to drink from the same water fountain?

To my knowledge, there are no current challenges to gay marriage in the US at all. No attempts to reinstate sodomy laws. No efforts to make gay people unemployable. So what gay rights exactly are gay rights organizations fighting for?

 

[Emily Lake]

I can't address whether it's true in this particular case. But the general pattern certainly is true--very few organizations stop when they attain their "goal". Rather, they either pretend their goal has not been attained or look for something related to their goal to continue so they don't lose their position.

This is a batshit insane request on your part. Why would an advocacy group stop advocating because they met some sort of proximate goal? You don't just keep rights, you have to work to keep them.

I'm not making a request, just pointing out a reality. Part of the real-world task of any organization is it's continued existence, whether it's existence serves the overall good or not.

Civil rights groups do serve the overall group. The principle of equal treatment under the law is a fundamental right, that all citizens should insist upon, and will always benefit from doing so.

Sure... but women's rights groups are full of evil bigoted TERFs who should just shut the fuck up and know their place?

 

[Emily Lake]

Titania McGrath shares "her" views on woke culture. Please do NOT click unless you're in for the giggles.

Just... Wow. Like holy shit wow. I've never seen such a Trainwreck of not-even-wrong before.

For anyone else who has missed the point... I would suggest you consider things like The Onion or The Babylon Bee before finding yourself aghast at Titania McGrath.