LGBTQ+

[VillaChris]

28 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

it's not gone away. there's a reason sky sports turns replies off on their tweets about rainbow laces etc

Well socials are a cresspit, that's not going to change I'm afraid.

Just watching the news and of course the Army used to get rid of anyone they suspected were LGBTQ. Ban was only lifted in January 2000. The Athlete Kelly Holmes did a really good documentary last year as she was in it during the early 90s before dedicating her career to Athletics. 

[one_ian_taylor]

3 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Unfortunately whether we agree with it or not its their countries and they can do as they please no matter how bad it is. Isnt most of the middle east against all the LGBTQ movement too?

Countries are imagined constructs. People are real. It's  a fairly natural human reaction to be worried about something like this. 

[TheAuthority]

7 hours ago, Chindie said:

Theres quite a lot of controversy over the LGBTQ+ definition - there's those that believe you can't treat all those different communities as homogenous in any respect; there's infamously a chunk of the lesbian community that actively wants to cut the T part off entirely (boomboom); there's controversy over whether intersex should be included on various sides (and similarly asexual); Q is controversial because some in the community think it complicates things unnecessarily and involves matters and concepts that they consider are not needed to be discussed under the same banner, as well as problems with using a term that historically is an insult to some; and there's controversy over the + because it opens up the term to things some don't think should be in the same conversations or undermines the whole thing.

I think generally if you're open minded, non-judgemental, people aren't going to attack you for being ignorant of the minutiae of all this, and you'd need to really blunder into things to rile someone on it. Accepting of course that there's arseholes everywhere and some prick might overreact to an unknowing slight. 

There's a large portion of the male gay community who are also anti-trans. It's as if the gay rights movement has said, "hey we had to fight for our right through the 70's 80's and 90's, you can't just come along and expect them - go and fight for your own." The sad thing being that when the gay community was fighting for civil rights, the trans community was right there alongside them, and in many cases were very active leaders. For them now to be ostracized and in many cases vilified is a tragedy.

I have no skin in the trans game. I'm not trans and I only have two trans friends (one trans woman and one trans man.) However I cannot help but notice that the community seemingly gets attacked from every angle currently. Thats my objective view of a subject that I don't have any stake in. 99% of the time it's straight white people arguing about the "trans issue" with zero representation from the trans community. It's so one sided it's absolutely laughable. I'm not sure what it's like in the UK but over here is hilarious and also tragic that the conversation is controlled completely by people who are not part the community.

[bannedfromHandV]

12 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

What about the people that are born in these countries that are punished and even killed for something that they have absolutely no control over?

You can’t control your nature but you can control your actions, just saying. I’m not saying someone should control their actions but if something is illegal, no matter how abhorrent and backwards the law may be and you break that law, that’s a conscious decision to do so.

[tomav84]

6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

You can’t control your nature but you can control your actions, just saying. I’m not saying someone should control their actions but if something is illegal, no matter how abhorrent and backwards the law may be and you break that law, that’s a conscious decision to do so.

i guess but the thing is that laws are generally set up to protect people. who are they protecting by implementing these laws?

people are born with the desire to kill people. they also cannot control their nature, but there are laws in place to prevent them from acting upon these impulses and punishing them from doing so because by doing so, they would harm others by their actions.

[chrisp65]

6 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

There's a large portion of the male gay community who are also anti-trans. It's as if the gay rights movement has said, "hey we had to fight for our right through the 70's 80's and 90's, you can't just come along and expect them - go and fight for your own." The sad thing being that when the gay community was fighting for civil rights, the trans community was right there alongside them, and in many cases were very active leaders. For them now to be ostracized and in many cases vilified is a tragedy.

I have no skin in the trans game. I'm not trans and I only have two trans friends (one trans woman and one trans man.) However I cannot help but notice that the community seemingly gets attacked from every angle currently. Thats my objective view of a subject that I don't have any stake in. 99% of the time it's straight white people arguing about the "trans issue" with zero representation from the trans community. It's so one sided it's absolutely laughable. I'm not sure what it's like in the UK but over here is hilarious and also tragic that the conversation is controlled completely by people who are not part the community.

In the last 6 months, I’ve been walking down the street with a trans person, in a ‘nice’ part of the world, middle of the day, and they were spotted as different and abused by a bunch of ‘ladz’ it was a very emotional thing to witness pretty much first hand. Truly scary and upsetting. The person wasn’t acting in any sort of provocative way and was wearing neutral nondescript clothing. But if you were looking for someone different, you’d have seen him. 

Its getting worse because of brexit / trump types legitimising scummy attitudes.

[Rodders]

re queer

I read an interesting essay in the book 'what is history, now' by Justin Bengry talking about Queer in terms of a historical issue, and the thorny problem of applying such labels to people in the past, using terms that people back then would either never of heard of, or would never have chosen for themselves. A bit of a digressionary point to this thread, but labelling can get very political, and loaded very quickly based on definitions. Does using queer end up erasing the specific experiences of individual groups? Is it more harmful? But then what about people who prefer queer to one of those labels. It's a bit of a minefield looking outside in. 

[CVByrne]

What! So they're not allowing the children to have two legal same sex parents!! Surely there are laws that the Government have to adhere to there??

or is it just birth certificates? As in they are saying for lesbian couples there is one mother and an unknown father? 

What legality is there for them to do this?

This is just cruelty for no reason. 

Edited July 20, 2023 by CVByrne

[CVByrne]

In the general discussion. I think there is a general conflation between LBGT+ Activism (especially Tans activism) and just people who are Gay or Trans etc..

I've gay and lesbian friends and they're just normal people who have same sex partners and just get on with life. So what would be called "Queer culture" or the "LBGT+ movement" they are just communities and political movements etc.. 

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are automatically part of Queer culture or part of the LBGT+ movement. No more than a black person is part of BLM or a straight white male from Alabama is part of a white supremist group or whatever.

immutable things like sexual preference or skin colour are distinct from cultural views and values etc.. we more associate with communities and political groups/movements. 

 

[Vancvillan]

19 hours ago, CVByrne said:

In the general discussion. I think there is a general conflation between LBGT+ Activism (especially Tans activism) and just people who are Gay or Trans etc..

I've gay and lesbian friends and they're just normal people who have same sex partners and just get on with life. So what would be called "Queer culture" or the "LBGT+ movement" they are just communities and political movements etc.. 

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are automatically part of Queer culture or part of the LBGT+ movement. No more than a black person is part of BLM or a straight white male from Alabama is part of a white supremist group or whatever.

immutable things like sexual preference or skin colour are distinct from cultural views and values etc.. we more associate with communities and political groups/movements. 

 

I go further and say the LBGTQI+ community doesn't have singular agreed upon defined goals or ideals (beyond very broad basic human rights issues). Like any group of more than one person it's not a monolith. I know a bunch of people who are gay and if you put them in a room and asked them to agree on one thing they'd be in there for hours.

Which is exactly like any other group of 10-20 people.

People are different, even when they share a lot in common.

[CVByrne]

7 minutes ago, Vancvillan said:

I go further and say the LBGTQI+ community doesn't have singular agreed upon defined goals or ideals (beyond very broad basic human rights issues). Like any group of more than one person it's not a monolith. I know a bunch of people who are gay and if you put them in a room and asked them to agree on one thing they'd be in there for hours.

Which is exactly like any other group of 10-20 people.

People are different, even when they share a lot in common.

Agreed. I suppose what I mean is just because someone is Gay doesn't mean they are "part of the LGBT+ community". Actually a lot of Gay men who were effeminate as kids are worried about the Tavistok stuff and the rush to transition kids at young ages etc. Something which the Trans element of the LBGT+ community seems to be so vocal in support about. 

[Seal]

On 19/07/2023 at 22:20, one_ian_taylor said:

Countries are imagined constructs. People are real. It's  a fairly natural human reaction to be worried about something like this. 

there is only one nation that can truly exist! the imagination!

[one_ian_taylor]

4 hours ago, Seal said:

there is only one nation that can truly exist! the imagination!

Sounds like a quote - where's it from?

[Seal]

58 minutes ago, one_ian_taylor said:

Sounds like a quote - where's it from?

I actually think I came up with it. There is small chance it was something Robert Anton Wilson wrote that I forgot and then it popped up in my head disguised as an original quote.

If it is Robert Anton Wilson, i suspect it is from illuminatus! or cosmic trigger. 

[legov]

On 20/07/2023 at 10:59, TheAuthority said:

There's a large portion of the male gay community who are also anti-trans. It's as if the gay rights movement has said, "hey we had to fight for our right through the 70's 80's and 90's, you can't just come along and expect them - go and fight for your own." The sad thing being that when the gay community was fighting for civil rights, the trans community was right there alongside them, and in many cases were very active leaders. For them now to be ostracized and in many cases vilified is a tragedy.

I have no skin in the trans game. I'm not trans and I only have two trans friends (one trans woman and one trans man.) However I cannot help but notice that the community seemingly gets attacked from every angle currently. Thats my objective view of a subject that I don't have any stake in. 99% of the time it's straight white people arguing about the "trans issue" with zero representation from the trans community. It's so one sided it's absolutely laughable. I'm not sure what it's like in the UK but over here is hilarious and also tragic that the conversation is controlled completely by people who are not part the community.

It's a story as old as time, sadly.

[CVByrne]

On 20/07/2023 at 03:59, TheAuthority said:

There's a large portion of the male gay community who are also anti-trans. It's as if the gay rights movement has said, "hey we had to fight for our right through the 70's 80's and 90's, you can't just come along and expect them - go and fight for your own." The sad thing being that when the gay community was fighting for civil rights, the trans community was right there alongside them, and in many cases were very active leaders. For them now to be ostracized and in many cases vilified is a tragedy.

I have no skin in the trans game. I'm not trans and I only have two trans friends (one trans woman and one trans man.) However I cannot help but notice that the community seemingly gets attacked from every angle currently. Thats my objective view of a subject that I don't have any stake in. 99% of the time it's straight white people arguing about the "trans issue" with zero representation from the trans community. It's so one sided it's absolutely laughable. I'm not sure what it's like in the UK but over here is hilarious and also tragic that the conversation is controlled completely by people who are not part the community.

I don't think it's againt trans people or the trans community. It's the to do with transitioning children and the lack of medical evidence to support the benefits etc.. 

The idea that any effeminate boy means they are trans and should socially transition and then puberty blockers etc.. 

It's that gay men are the ones who understand this more than most is why they seem to be taking issues with the Trans activists. Similarly the more masculine women who are lesbians. 

A lot of what's said is just let the kids grow up and get through puberty and the vast majority will be fine and just gay people who needed no interventions. Sexual preference is just a characteristic of a person.

[chrisp65]

19 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I don't think it's againt trans people or the trans community. It's the to do with transitioning children and the lack of medical evidence to support the benefits etc.. 

The idea that any effeminate boy means they are trans and should socially transition and then puberty blockers etc.. 

It's that gay men are the ones who understand this more than most is why they seem to be taking issues with the Trans activists. Similarly the more masculine women who are lesbians. 

A lot of what's said is just let the kids grow up and get through puberty and the vast majority will be fine and just gay people who needed no interventions. Sexual preference is just a characteristic of a person.

Who’s saying any effeminate boy is trans and needs puberty blockers? I’ve never heard this argument.

It’s too personalised an issue for any blanket statement, but social media and social commentators thrive on sweeping generalisations.

Why should a kid that has insisted they are in the wrong body since they were 4 have to wait until they are 18 before they can request a place on a 5 year waiting list? That’s an equally valid question, but not currently favoured by mainstream media so they largely ignore it.

It’s basically, in my opinion, too complex an issue for a clunking one size fits all solution.

[TheAuthority]

2 hours ago, CVByrne said:

I don't think it's againt trans people or the trans community. 

I think if you did a little more reading you’d see it is exactly that.

[CVByrne]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Who’s saying any effeminate boy is trans and needs puberty blockers? I’ve never heard this argument.

It’s too personalised an issue for any blanket statement, but social media and social commentators thrive on sweeping generalisations.

Why should a kid that has insisted they are in the wrong body since they were 4 have to wait until they are 18 before they can request a place on a 5 year waiting list? That’s an equally valid question, but not currently favoured by mainstream media so they largely ignore it.

It’s basically, in my opinion, too complex an issue for a clunking one size fits all solution.

I've not said that kids who really are trans shouldn't be helped and absolutely 100% there are kids who are born in the wrong bodies and are trans. There's no question on that.

The issue is that we don't have a reliable method to identify the people who will grow up and always be that way and the group who will just grow up to be gay. Puberty changes all kids profoundly and a lot of who a person becomes is after that. 

The issue is solely down to trans kids will suffer if we allow them to go through puberty when they are in the wrong body. Kids who are just gay or not even gay will suffer greatly by an intervention to transition them to the opposite gender.

We have to accept it's that trade off we as a society need to debate and understand. The fact that there is a lack of medical evidence for the benefit or the long term issues associated with transitioning kids should worry anyone who believes in evidence based medicine. 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I've not said that kids who really are trans shouldn't be helped and absolutely 100% there are kids who are born in the wrong bodies and are trans. There's no question on that.

The issue is that we don't have a reliable method to identify the people who will grow up and always be that way and the group who will just grow up to be gay. Puberty changes all kids profoundly and a lot of who a person becomes is after that. 

The issue is solely down to trans kids will suffer if we allow them to go through puberty when they are in the wrong body. Kids who are just gay or not even gay will suffer greatly by an intervention to transition them to the opposite gender.

We have to accept it's that trade off we as a society need to debate and understand. The fact that there is a lack of medical evidence for the benefit or the long term issues associated with transitioning kids should worry anyone who believes in evidence based medicine. 

But genuinely, who’s trying to transition kids that aren’t requesting it themselves? I might just be missing something here but I’m not aware of this. I would imagine (and I could be really wrong here) the number of kids being bounced or tricked or persuaded in to transition must be incredibly small? Smaller than the number that are categorical for multiple years there’s been some sort of basic biological mistake?

A blanket ban until we have more evidence, well, where will the evidence come from if there is a ban?

Absolutely agree medicine has to be evidence based, people have to be aware of risks and aware of options and outcomes. But some bad outcomes due to some bad actors should trigger better medicine and greater control, not a blanket ban. We haven’t stopped surgery for breast cancer because some surgeons turned out to be butchers. We’ve refined the rules.