The L / G / B / T divide

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby katzgar » 19 October 2021, 08:57

AGIS wrote:
katzgar wrote:
AGIS wrote:
katzgar wrote:kind of like a jew voting for hitler because hitler was good for the economy.



There it is! I found the Hitler reference! "Voting for Trump is a mental illness!", really now? So I guess because I enjoy the company of males, that means I'm forced into YOUR box for my entire life? "If you don't vote the way I see fit, then you're mentally ill!". Thats funny coming from someone who just voted for a dementia laden racist pedophile with a history of incompetency. Maybe you just like it when he sniffs kids or something.


you have serious self harming issues, you need therapy


Self harm for voting in my best interest? Yes, how insane of me. But again, you use logical fallacy to attack me instead of my argument. Care to try again?


I have explained to you and provided you a last of trumps anti gay executive orders. All you do is spout lies about Biden. Biden has undone your guys gay hate. Yes, you do have serious self hate issues. when you spout lies about the man that has undone your guiys hate that is indeed self hate.
katzgar
 
Posts: 95
+1s received: 2
Joined: 30 September 2019, 12:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby AGIS » 20 October 2021, 05:51

[quote="katzgar]
I have explained to you and provided you a last of trumps anti gay executive orders. All you do is spout lies about Biden. Biden has undone your guys gay hate. Yes, you do have serious self hate issues. when you spout lies about the man that has undone your guiys hate that is indeed self hate.[/quote]

Really, because last I checked he (Trump) fixed the VA (massive benefit to me), he forgave student loans for veterans (massive benefit to me), and he didn't cause a border crisis, re-arm the Taliban, spike gas prices or cause massive inflation. So go ahead, tell me how my bettering myself is self hate. Because last I checked Trump was far better than your disgusting pedophile racist. You're a Leftist shill with no brain of your own. You parrot Leftist ideology. Biden could bomb a car full of kids, and you'd thank him for cutting down carbon footprints. People like your fucking disgust me.

But go ahead, tell me more about how being a segregationist is okay. Tell me about how being anti-gay marriage is okay.

Tell me about how being buddies with high up KKK members it totally fine.

I'll wait.
AGIS
 
Posts: 97
+1s received: 16
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby katzgar » 20 October 2021, 11:32

AGIS wrote:[quote="katzgar]
I have explained to you and provided you a last of trumps anti gay executive orders. All you do is spout lies about Biden. Biden has undone your guys gay hate. Yes, you do have serious self hate issues. when you spout lies about the man that has undone your guiys hate that is indeed self hate.
[/quote]

Really, because last I checked he (Trump) fixed the VA (massive benefit to me), he forgave student loans for veterans (massive benefit to me), and he didn't cause a border crisis, re-arm the Taliban, spike gas prices or cause massive inflation. So go ahead, tell me how my bettering myself is self hate. Because last I checked Trump was far better than your disgusting pedophile racist. You're a Leftist shill with no brain of your own. You parrot Leftist ideology. Biden could bomb a car full of kids, and you'd thank him for cutting down carbon footprints. People like your fucking disgust me.

But go ahead, tell me more about how being a segregationist is okay. Tell me about how being anti-gay marriage is okay.

Tell me about how being buddies with high up KKK members it totally fine.

I'll wait.[/quote]



you are trying to create a lie. The fact that you lack the abitity to use a search engine is amazing.
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/ ... age-076103
katzgar
 
Posts: 95
+1s received: 2
Joined: 30 September 2019, 12:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby AGIS » 23 October 2021, 04:17

katzgar wrote:you are trying to create a lie. The fact that you lack the abitity to use a search engine is amazing.
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/ ... age-076103


Literally nothing I said in that post was a lie, and your link has nothing to do with my claims. Do you just...not expect people to click your sources or something? This is the second time I've called you out on this.
AGIS
 
Posts: 97
+1s received: 16
Joined: 16 April 2016, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Eryx » 23 October 2021, 21:58

Excuse me, you little pricks, I don't give a fuck about your politics. Create a new thread to discuss your ex-president, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
ImageImageImage Image Image Image ImageImage

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
— Harlan Ellison
User avatar
Eryx
 
Posts: 3079
+1s received: 2030
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:48
Location: Belo Horizonte, MG
Country: Brazil (br)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby LokiMayBeSalmon » 11 December 2021, 17:13

I was a feminist until my mother said something. She was a strong, independent, single mother and strong aunties surrounded me all the time and as well as deadbeat uncles. I seriously believed that women were the better sex. I grew up watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Star Trek, etc.

But my mum said - "Don't be a feminist 'Loki', it's not worth it".

I never understood her problem with it but I heard about this pressure group in the UK that was famous for using the colour purple and dressing in Batman suits. They were fathers who wanted equal custody of their children and fair treatment in curt. I found it strange - children need their mothers. Fathers are an accessory, at best. My father was shitty. My mother was always there for me.

Fast forward 10 years and I join a sub-reddit called MRA (Mens Rights Activits). I start to hear and chec, re-check, triple-check, qudruple-check the facts I was seeing:

1. The biggest killer of men aged 18-50 is suicide.
2. More men than women are homeless.
3. 45% of domestic abuse is against men.
4. Men serve 64% longer in prison for the same crime as women.
5. More men are attacked on the street than women. As a man, you're statistically more vulnerable than the lone woman walking home at night.

That's just 5 facts. Here's a few more:
I discovered that the first woman to open a rescue home for female domestic abuse victims in the UK was barred from her own rescue home by 'ultra-feminists' after she decided to open a home for battered men (completely separate) but the ultra-feminists had taken over the original rescue home and made it impossible for her to visit it. She was in in her 80's when the interview was done. Ca't find it at the moment but it's a real eye-opener.
The "gender pay gap" is a myth. Originally the feminist slogan was: "Equal pay for equal work!". Now it's just: "Equal pay!". When you actually factor in things like the type of job, the career path chosen, etc it all evens out. A female CEO will get paid the exact same as a male CEO. Sandi Toksvig famously said she gets paid a pittance compared to Stepen Fry which is clearly evidence of the gender pay gap. No - it isn't. Who has heard of Sandy Toksvig? No one outside the bloody UK, I bet. Stephen Fry getspaid more because he's a bigger celebrity. Its got sweet FA to do with what's between your legs!

The biggest thing that changed my mind on feminism and MRA was when I watched "The Red Pill". Unfortunate name as it has other connections to 'negging' and 'pick up artists'. But basically it's a documentary made by a former strongly avowed feminist who wanted to show the vileness of the MRA-movement. To show how mysoginistic and anti-woman it was. During the making of the programme, interviewing various men from these groups, she completely switched sides.

She actually sympathised with the men's various issues and realised it's not just women that are victims in society but men too. Of course new-wave feminists would chalk that up to "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy" but you can't do that to all the things she revealed.

What happened when the documentary got released? Instead of an honest debate on gender issues, feminists protested so violently that several cinemas decided to shut the film down in multiple countries due to safety fears. She was issued death threats by women and so called "ally men" for months.

All because she did a documentary revealing men can suffer in society from various ills too and maybe women aren't the crushed, devastated victims feminists claim they are.

She showed all the above in the documentary with backup stats and more.

An MP in the UK parliament LAUGHED when an MP asked for a national "Mens Day" to discuss the issues affecting men, including all the items above. She LAUGHED as he read that more men and boys are killing themselves than women and girls. She LAUGHED as he stated more men die on the streets than women. She's a devout feminist.

Now I've since decided I'm not an MRA or a feminist or any other group-think label. I rarely get involved in group political activities because it removes your free reasoning. You end up agreeing to all that the group does in order to stay a part of it. Even if that means you end up issuing death threats to another woman because she pointed out fewer boys get into further and higher education than girls. Or that most homeless people are male.

Oh and Asia Argento - the woman who was partially responsible for triggering the #MeToo movement? Turns out she'd been having a fling with an underage teenage boy for a few years before she started slating men abusing their power for sex. Bit of a hypocrite, don't you think?

A soon as someone says "I'm a feminist" or "I'm a KKK member" or "I'm a BLM supporter" or "I'm a ALM supporter" part of my brain switches off. I already know 90% of the shit that will come out of their mouth cos I've heard it all before. They don't think as themselves. They think whatever the group they've assigned themselves to thinks.

Stop pigeon holing people. Stop acting in groups of Them vs Us. People should just talk. To each other openly and honestly as INDIVIDUALS!

That's my opinion anyway.
LokiMayBeSalmon
 
Posts: 25
+1s received: 5
Joined: 11 December 2021, 11:19

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby DegreeCrab » 24 December 2021, 04:07

The 30,000 year history of the 300 pound blob who doesn't understand you or where you're at - is quite a mouthful, given you're the one in charge of when we should eat. But he cared for you - he had to! - all those years, and now you've evolved, and you want something as purely plain and simple as restrained, on both your parts. Well, you chose the right sexual orientation. Sort of.

The glitch in most relationship is as simple as something as a door key and who owns /you - or the witch down the hall, for that matter, these days, given advances in tolerance and the likelihood of never seeing anyone again. That tends not to still be the problem for the fairer halves now that an ascendancy has transpired (finally), and you feel foot-loose and fancy-free. Don't touch! Equality is ubiquitous, and your grandmother was right, that even a mountain man and his wife are brought down to the planes (of another existence) now and then, the so-called '50 foot collossus in heaven', whom we'd all strain under the laws involving other species, at least for a generation so as to evade this deeply rooted in the cenozoic iniquity.
DegreeCrab
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 24 December 2021, 03:46
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby oldfriend » 24 December 2021, 06:13

I too have experienced this divide and senseless aggression. In short, it scares me.

Some examples I have seen:

- At my workplace I once observed a lesbian shame two gay men for talking between themselves about other men in terms that I believe other men would take no issue with. She referred to their objectification as "shocking and appalling", essentially presenting it as an absolute wrong. This is obviously invalid, since objectification is a common part of human sexuality which only becomes a problem when applied without consent. Shaming others on the other hand, is very difficult to justify in any circumstance.
- I once saw two of my friends end their friendship because he refused to identity as a feminist and she heard this as "you don't think I don't deserve equal rights?" I think in reality he was just trying to say he didn't associate too closely with any group because he was never very welcome as a child, but she was too enraged to hear this.

I've come to learn this is really a matter of public mental health. Too many people simply aren't taught the critical thinking skills needed to cut through confirmation bias, projection, cognitive distortion, and other nasty psychological mechanisms. A scalable solution however, eludes me.

The best thing any of us can do is learn to defend ourselves and avoid the conflict. Learn to notice psychological projection in others and yourself (hint: it's usually based around a story and has many cognitive distortions baked in), remember who you are and remind yourself you have no obligation to engage with someone who is acting or speaking abusively, and calmly but firmly push back. I find that if you refuse to accept an absurd position and instead slowly chip away at the inconsistencies, the story has no where to go but back where it came from: Their mind.
Last edited by oldfriend on 24 December 2021, 08:50, edited 1 time in total.
oldfriend
 
Posts: 8
+1s received: 7
Joined: 23 December 2021, 04:06
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby katzgar » 24 December 2021, 08:25

A dynamic I see on gay forums is gays getting abusive when you discuss hypersexuality as being dysfunctional. There is a reason few ACEs will be on a gay forum.
katzgar
 
Posts: 95
+1s received: 2
Joined: 30 September 2019, 12:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 24 December 2021, 16:43

To cycle back and repeat myself ( as I am prone to do) I feel it's important that we acknoweldge some pretty common realities that perhaps, have gone unnoticed for much of our subcultures history.

That reality being, that the divide between the various letter groups has always existed.

I think it is a universal truth, that in western gay communities around the world for example, that Lesbian communties have often had their own ecosphere, seperate from gay men's ecosphere. There are places where the two subgroups meet and interact but by and large, gay women, have less in common with gay men, than most of us think. The reverese is true too. This makes plenty of sense when you think about it. While gay men find kindred spirits in hetero-women, people they can relate to about relationships with men, that same connection is completely absent between gay men and gay women.

There is so little that both groups share in common, on a day to day basis, beyond our shared experience of oppression and social stigmatism. The political cause has largely been the only one uniting us. Is it any surprise that, as we have achieved wide spread acceptance, the necessity of our allegiance to one another, has waned. Now, the things that seperate us and set us apart, loom larger than before.

Gay men and womens interests diverge wildly and there has alwyas been a low level animosity between the two, that stems partly from gender hostilitiy. Those extreme elements amongst lesbians who hate men and those gay men who have no use for or respect towards women. I noticed this especially amongst older gay men in the UK, who would literally sneer at the mention of "lezzahs" (Not all mind, but enough to have it be it's own thing.) Without the alliance of convenience holding these divergent groups together, they are naturally moving apart.

This extends even more so to Bi identifying people, who have always been held in a degree of contempt or at least, distrust by the wider gay community, I've discussed my thoughts on why before now, but again, they have been part of a broader community that has included them out of convenience and necessity.

The most noticeably sub-sub group of the gay community, has always been trans people. Because Trans people have always been awkward allies under lgbt umbrella.

I have always gravitated towards the social outsiders, the outliers and misfits in life. I've never really questioned why but it has meant that I have noticed more than some, just how much on the fringe and periphery, trans people have always been in the wider gay community. They often had their own bars and clubs, they were regarded completely differently from drag queens who got alot of attention and respect, while true trans people, were kept very much at arms length.

Why? Gay men, like men. Trans represented men who wanted to be women, which didn't interest most gay men and tended to be the sort of thing that a particular type of straight guy was looking for. Trans women didn't share much in common with gay men, because they lived different lives, had different hopes, aims, life goals. Many trans women, didn't want to be with gay men, who really wanted to be with another man. The same could be said for many gay women, who looked on at men being women with suspicion and regarded women wanting to men, as being treasonous on some level.

At various pride events, my first was 1998, I remember a large group of trans people being present just outside a bar, I think it used to be called QuBar, just across the way from Kings Cross station (nope Charing cross, jeez I'm getting old) and the club Heaven beneath. This bar was a gay bar but it was close to the train station and a well known trans place not too far off. They gathered on their own seperately and didn't have alot of interaction with the other gay people, who largely ignored or shunned them.

I remember talking to an older, post op trans woman. We spent most of the afternoon and evening talking about a lot of things, but one theme that kept coming up, was that she had never really felt comfortable in the gay community. She didn't fit. She was kinda sad, but resigned about alot of things and much of what she said, I would go on to hear echoed and repeated by other trans women as time went on. This same sentiment being expressed by a lot of trans and most gay men didn't have much to say about trans folks. They were acknowledged, only when they had to be. Otherwise, it could sometimes be, like they didn't exist.

The exceptions in many of these cases where those who identified primarily as Queer, rather than gay or lesbian. The people who railed against ideas and notions of gender, aswell as sexuality. They would flit around a bit more I think and tended to represent those gay men or women who had more diverse social circles.

It's a sad reality, perhaps, but one that we should recognise isn't new and perhaps, it isn't surprising that as we have achieved wide societal acceptance and equality under the law, that the necessity of our alliance, has diminished, so too has our need to have strange bedfellows for political purposes.

If the only thing that united us, was the discrimination we faced, as that discrimination subsides, is it any wonder that we find opurselves going seperate ways?
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4030
+1s received: 2998
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby katzgar » 24 December 2021, 19:36

PopTart wrote:To cycle back and repeat myself ( as I am prone to do) I feel it's important that we acknoweldge some pretty common realities that perhaps, have gone unnoticed for much of our subcultures history.

That reality being, that the divide between the various letter groups has always existed.

I think it is a universal truth, that in western gay communities around the world for example, that Lesbian communties have often had their own ecosphere, seperate from gay men's ecosphere. There are places where the two subgroups meet and interact but by and large, gay women, have less in common with gay men, than most of us think. The reverese is true too. This makes plenty of sense when you think about it. While gay men find kindred spirits in hetero-women, people they can relate to about relationships with men, that same connection is completely absent between gay men and gay women.

There is so little that both groups share in common, on a day to day basis, beyond our shared experience of oppression and social stigmatism. The political cause has largely been the only one uniting us. Is it any surprise that, as we have achieved wide spread acceptance, the necessity of our allegiance to one another, has waned. Now, the things that seperate us and set us apart, loom larger than before.

Gay men and womens interests diverge wildly and there has alwyas been a low level animosity between the two, that stems partly from gender hostilitiy. Those extreme elements amongst lesbians who hate men and those gay men who have no use for or respect towards women. I noticed this especially amongst older gay men in the UK, who would literally sneer at the mention of "lezzahs" (Not all mind, but enough to have it be it's own thing.) Without the alliance of convenience holding these divergent groups together, they are naturally moving apart.

This extends even more so to Bi identifying people, who have always been held in a degree of contempt or at least, distrust by the wider gay community, I've discussed my thoughts on why before now, but again, they have been part of a broader community that has included them out of convenience and necessity.

The most noticeably sub-sub group of the gay community, has always been trans people. Because Trans people have always been awkward allies under lgbt umbrella.

I have always gravitated towards the social outsiders, the outliers and misfits in life. I've never really questioned why but it has meant that I have noticed more than some, just how much on the fringe and periphery, trans people have always been in the wider gay community. They often had their own bars and clubs, they were regarded completely differently from drag queens who got alot of attention and respect, while true trans people, were kept very much at arms length.

Why? Gay men, like men. Trans represented men who wanted to be women, which didn't interest most gay men and tended to be the sort of thing that a particular type of straight guy was looking for. Trans women didn't share much in common with gay men, because they lived different lives, had different hopes, aims, life goals. Many trans women, didn't want to be with gay men, who really wanted to be with another man. The same could be said for many gay women, who looked on at men being women with suspicion and regarded women wanting to men, as being treasonous on some level.

At various pride events, my first was 1998, I remember a large group of trans people being present just outside a bar, I think it used to be called QuBar, just across the way from Kings Cross station (nope Charing cross, jeez I'm getting old) and the club Heaven beneath. This bar was a gay bar but it was close to the train station and a well known trans place not too far off. They gathered on their own seperately and didn't have alot of interaction with the other gay people, who largely ignored or shunned them.

I remember talking to an older, post op trans woman. We spent most of the afternoon and evening talking about a lot of things, but one theme that kept coming up, was that she had never really felt comfortable in the gay community. She didn't fit. She was kinda sad, but resigned about alot of things and much of what she said, I would go on to hear echoed and repeated by other trans women as time went on. This same sentiment being expressed by a lot of trans and most gay men didn't have much to say about trans folks. They were acknowledged, only when they had to be. Otherwise, it could sometimes be, like they didn't exist.

The exceptions in many of these cases where those who identified primarily as Queer, rather than gay or lesbian. The people who railed against ideas and notions of gender, aswell as sexuality. They would flit around a bit more I think and tended to represent those gay men or women who had more diverse social circles.

It's a sad reality, perhaps, but one that we should recognise isn't new and perhaps, it isn't surprising that as we have achieved wide societal acceptance and equality under the law, that the necessity of our alliance, has diminished, so too has our need to have strange bedfellows for political purposes.

If the only thing that united us, was the discrimination we faced, as that discrimination subsides, is it any wonder that we find opurselves going seperate ways?


the way gays like you treat the other letters is why they go their separate ways.
Last edited by katzgar on 25 December 2021, 11:01, edited 1 time in total.
katzgar
 
Posts: 95
+1s received: 2
Joined: 30 September 2019, 12:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Eryx » 25 December 2021, 08:30

Can't agree with this one, Poptart.
ImageImageImage Image Image Image ImageImage

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
— Harlan Ellison
User avatar
Eryx
 
Posts: 3079
+1s received: 2030
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:48
Location: Belo Horizonte, MG
Country: Brazil (br)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 25 December 2021, 08:44

Eryx wrote:Can't agree with this one, Poptart.

I can only speak to my experience in the UK, things in Brazil might well be different.

Do you find that the various letters interact more frequently in Brazil?

I should stress, that my assessment isn't absolute. Though talking about any group as monoliths tends to go that way.

Take myself for example, two of my closest friends are Lesbians, and I don't mean to suggest that we can't get along, or find common ground. I always enjoyed hanging out with those trans people I'd meet at pride as they were less pretensious much of the time.

This goes more to a general attitude, the ones people would express, when no one else was about. The way trans groups would congregate on the periphery, the way lesbians would have their own venues and could be hostile towards gay men and vice versa.

I remember going to a club, called the fridge, a lesbian place where men, gay or otherwise, were only allowed entry, if a woman vouched for you. I recall one night, when I was one of the only guys in this group as the lesbians began talking about men and it was like they knew I was there but they just pretended I wasn't as they laid into men, all men and how much scorn we deserved. I didn't say much as the time, I was young. But I remember being shot plenty of looks during that conversation and there was a lot of feeling and resentment behind what the girls had to say.

I heard many older gay men do the same. As I described.

But those weren't the only experiences I had, I had plenty of positive ones too.

But it did reveal stark divides between the letter, here in the UK, that I think have always existed. Sure we came together, but we always went our seperate ways at the end of a night. We might have been kin, of a sort, but we weren't the same.

How has your experience differed?
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4030
+1s received: 2998
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Brenden » 25 December 2021, 13:53

oldfriend wrote:I once saw two of my friends end their friendship because he refused to identity as a feminist and she heard this as "you don't think I don't deserve equal rights?" I think in reality he was just trying to say he didn't associate too closely with any group because he was never very welcome as a child, but she was too enraged to hear this.

Feminists have taken pains to try and get "feminist" defined as "believer in equality", and their true believers have internalised it. According to surveys, a surprisingly small portion of women consider themselves "feminists", probably because contemporary feminism is toxic.

I always just say I'm an egalitarian, which actually does mean someone who believes in equality.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 9155
+1s received: 3525
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Eryx » 26 December 2021, 04:58

PopTart wrote:How has your experience differed?
Those are all social quarrels and dynamics, they don't really mean anything. At least here the LGBT have something in common because they hang out together. What happens related to open relationships or monogamy, clothing or pop culture, relevant bars, music and politics is all tightly related and transcendent through every letter of the alphabet.

Sure, lesbians behave differently in relationships and their sex is bound to work at another tone, but for the most part their experience as humans with prejudice, coming out, being and looking different, and frequenting places is very close to ours. And we do borrow from each other through this, because we're LGBT, so those boundaries between two genders are pretty blurred.

My experience might not have necessarily differed from anything you described, maybe I just see it differently, or maybe it is indeed different in Germany. But for the most part I think lesbians are the group that has the most in common with gay men in the world. Not even bi guys experience things as similarly.
ImageImageImage Image Image Image ImageImage

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
— Harlan Ellison
User avatar
Eryx
 
Posts: 3079
+1s received: 2030
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:48
Location: Belo Horizonte, MG
Country: Brazil (br)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 26 December 2021, 10:49

Eryx wrote:
PopTart wrote:How has your experience differed?
Those are all social quarrels and dynamics, they don't really mean anything.
Come now Eryx, everything means something! :P Even nothing means something. :lol: But I get what your saying, my being pedantic aside.

Eryx wrote:At least here the LGBT have something in common because they hang out together. What happens related to open relationships or monogamy, clothing or pop culture, relevant bars, music and politics is all tightly related and transcendent through every letter of the alphabet.
That probably does make a difference. Socialising builds personal bonds and facilitates mutual respect. Even in conflict. I can see a closer, tight-knit LGBT community, remaining cohesive longer, than one that isn't.

Eryx wrote:Sure, lesbians behave differently in relationships and their sex is bound to work at another tone, but for the most part their experience as humans with prejudice, coming out, being and looking different, and frequenting places is very close to ours. And we do borrow from each other through this, because we're LGBT, so those boundaries between two genders are pretty blurred.
I can agree with what your saying to a degree. I don't mean to imply that any differences or divergence between the gendered L and G, means that there can't be unity, solidarity or reason to flock together. For example, we have a shared experience of our relationships and sex, being atypical of the norm, in hetero-normative society. Which I think lends itself to being, generally speaking, more open minded about such matters, be it polyamory, multiple sexual partners, acceptance of sexual promiscuity. All that stuff. We share this liberalisation in attitude towards sex and relationships, in common and that can bring us together. That's just one way, I think you're referring too, that we share commonality. And there are many.

But what happens to that attractor, if you will, that glue, when wider society also becomes more tolerant and open minded, as I believe it has. Not on par with the LGBTQ community, yet, but it has liberalised immensely in just the last 20 years. This thing that united us, because it once set us apart, no longer does to the same extent, does it retain it's stickiness? Should we be surprised, if the answer is no, not to the same degree.

I believe there are other things too, that once brought us together, that no longer have the same "gravity" They still count, but how much and to what extent and is the overall "attraction" sufficient to overcome the factors that push us apart?

Eryx wrote:My experience might not have necessarily differed from anything you described, maybe I just see it differently, or maybe it is indeed different in Germany. But for the most part I think lesbians are the group that has the most in common with gay men in the world. Not even bi guys experience things as similarly.
Germany?! Have you emigrated?! Snuck off to the fetish clubs of Berlin? If so, I'm jell. :D

Again, I agree that lesbians are the group with whom, gay men have the most in common. Hands down agree. So, what the fuck am I saying?! You'd be forgiven for wondering. Well, let me try to bring this lame goose in for a landing... this might be messy.

We talk about the divide in the LGBT community and when we do, we talk largely about the divide between Lesbians, Gays, Bi and Trans. But we don't talk much about Q, Queers. I know, I too never used to pay Queers much attention as, once upon a time, I considered the term to be redundant. We were Lesbian, Gay, Bi etc and we were all queer! To a degree I think this still holds true, in that, all gay people are some degree of queer. But some are more queer than others. Do I need to go into the definition of what being Queer is? I shouldn't think so, but if any isn't sure :confused:

The LGBTQ community has never really resolved or reconciled the Q with the goals of the LGBT community, politically speaking. This is about the divide between mainstream gays and queer gays.

This divide has always existed, between those who identified as gay, but sought to advance the LGBT agenda on the idea, that we be regarded as the same as wider hetero-normative society, that we achieve equality and parity and can live our lives, just as they live theirs. Straight-gays, if you will. Mainstreaming. Then there were those that sought to advance the LGBT agenda on the idea that we are different and that we needed to Queer hetero-normative society, so that it better represented us and we would be accepted based upon those differences, because there wouldn't be a hetero-normative society to be part of or discriminated by. Queers. In the political.

I think there has always been a silent battle waged in the communities political circles, as to which principle should take primacy and it has often flitted from one to the other, but, ultimately, the element fighting for mainstreaming, had the upper hand.

It is easier for a wider society to accept a subgroup or culture, if it shares commonality with the wider community. In other words it was easier to convince the hetero world, we were just like them, but you know, slightly different in little ways, than it was to convince the hetero-world to be more queer. So the mainstreaming agenda pretty much won out. (It is worth noting that I think the Queer agenda played a role, in liberalising mainstream society, alongside womens rights and feminism, to create a more sexual liberal society, more open to mainstreaming LBGT's agenda, but ultimately, the two goals are kinda mutually exclusive, in that, one seek to gain acceptance and admittance to a wider culture, while the other seeks to negate it!)

What does any of this have to do with the growing divide between LGBT?

The consequence of mainstreaming, was always going to be a dilution of the shared experience, born of discrimination, meaning the glue that held the LBGT together was going to need to be other things. Without overt discrimination, the reliance on other aspects of shared experience would be needed to maintain cohesion of the community.

But those other things have also been influenced by trends resultant from wide spread acceptance of homosexuality (where that is the case) Such that the glue doesn't hold quite as tight.

Being attracted to the same sex, is a pretty immutable commonality. That isn't going to change and should hold as strong and true for a long time to come. So it should "in theory" hold us together and bind us under the LGBT umbrella, right? But... well, that only holds true for the L, G and maybe the B, but what of the T? Well, shucks. There is a whole conversation to be had there huh? Turns out, this might not be as clear cut as it once was.

Well, without discrimination and without our shared attraction to the same sex, kind of, what about our other shared experiences? Our shared goals! We all seek wide spread acceptance right? But then we introduce the present day arguments about gender, identity etc and you'll find different people fall all over the spectrum on those issues, not so much based on L, G, B or T natures of their identity, but on the Q part. There are many gay men, for example, who strongly identify as men and don't agree with elements of the Trans community that argue that gender is a construct of society.

Lets be honest, even here, on this very board, we see heated debates and arguments over these issues within our own little community that reflect a similar trend taking place all over the LBGT world, aswell as beyond.

I could write a hell of a lot more on this subject, really, it's quite fascinating. But in short, I'm not so sure that the things that have held us together in the past, will continue to do so, going forward.

I suspect our community will continue to fragment. I'm not saying it will ever disband, but it's already begun. There once was no need to distinguish the Q, for every letter added, we are looking at an ever increasingly fragmented group. While we may not remain in the same "solar system" so to speak, we will likely remain in the same constellation, but the cohesiveness and unity of that grouping, is likely to become looser.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4030
+1s received: 2998
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby Josh » 27 December 2021, 01:17

This has all always seemed quite straightforward to me. Any thoughts I express openly about LGBTQ unity or division, I express as an openly bisexual guy; and I can only do that because of generations worth of openly LGBTQ people before me who successfully fought for my right to do so. My very freedom to talk openly, identify openly, live openly, is done so because of a shared collective effort from those before me.

That fight for equality/freedom/representation continues today. Many LGBTQ people actively participate in that, others do not as they are fully entitled not to - not one single LGBTQ person owes themselves to some 'fight'. It has, however, always been a collective. Socially, politically, sensibly... unity has always guided minorities, and is the means by which progress has been achieved. Basic, verifiable logic. Any gay man participating in this thread who is married, enjoys that right to be married because of the unity of LGBTQ people before him. Easily forgotten, I find, perhaps because it's easy to dissociate from other LGBTQ people once you've got your own rights in order. And that seems to be where we are. The "I'm alright Jack" mentality. The privilege secured for gay and lesbian people in the west creating a complacency that leaves bi, trans, queer, and all other issues that lag behind feeling like a burden. I don't think it's malicious, but it is certainly ignorant. These divisions are perpetuated and pushed by sensationalist thought-pieces that ironically do very little thinking, and by people who aren't even LGBTQ themselves. All it then takes is a small number of predominantly gay and lesbian people to hope and will this effort along, and we're where we are.

Take LGB Alliance, for example. They're a hate group, let's make that clear. Their main target is not trans people, but gay people. Gay people are their first and last target. Firstly, because they're interested in the support of susceptible gay people who seem to agree with the vague (and false) ideal that gay and trans people have nothing in common and therefore should dissociate. Lastly, because they're predominantly made up of straight people, more often (though less exclusively) from conservative backgrounds, whose motivation is in stripping back the rights secured and afforded to gay people. It's a divide and conquer tactic that has so far convinced few - they make noise disproportionate to their size, is all. But it's enough to convince gay people to go from vague dissociation from trans people, to a vocal position on 'sex not gender'. LGBA deny the existence of gender as a social construct and insist it is a modern phenomenon that exists solely to undermine the rights of women. This disregards all scientific and sociological understanding on the existence of gender. It dismisses the lived experiences of trans people, and also of bi people - whose preferences are often rooted in different genders. LGB Alliance tell straight up lies that go unverified by their supporters... bi people were allegedly never part of the gay rights movement (incorrect), bi people are proof of a binary that delegitimises gender identity (incorrect), bi people can simply choose an easier life (incorrect)... and they do all this to undermine both bi and trans people. So why is the B even in their name? Well because the moment they ditch the B, they out themselves as the hate group that they are, which exists solely to divide LGBTQ people. They're a good representation of everything driving divides within the community - a minority of people who shout very loudly, pushing sensationalist and often inaccurate information about minorities, and insisting that the only way to make better sense of any of this is to stand more independently of one another... to divide. Cue them backing ideals that are fiercely reminiscent of the UK's Section 28. So whilst groups they attack, such as Stonewall, continually fight hard and strive for progress for all LGBTQ people, LGB Alliance is more interested in questioning why we're all a unit and doing nothing else. In the back quarter of 2021, Stonewall helped secure safe passage for hundreds of gay refugees into the UK. What have LGB Alliance explicitly done, even once, to the benefit of gay people? The answer is nothing. Because division yields nothing.


As an openly bisexual guy, it always makes me laugh a little bit when a gay guy starts trying to justify why a division of the community is for the best. "It means we can focus on gay rights more", bro you have the most rights of anyone here and secured them through our collective efforts. "I think trans activists are just hostile", dude do you realise how much you sound like the straight people from a few decades ago who said the same about the people who, through considerably vocal anger, secured your right to marry and exist in relative peace? "It's overshadowing gay people at this point", they say whilst bi people, despite making up the largest segment of the shared community, have next to zero media representation, cannot guarantee even being represented in Pride events (even major ones), and their specific charities receive less than 1% of annual funds directed at LGBTQ establishments in the UK. There's a depressingly predictable irony to the fact that gay and lesbian people are the biggest benefactors of our unity so far, yet are also the first and most likely within the community to call for divisions to be made from it. I've heard it all but none of it washes. These remarks are as redundant as saying 'all lives matter' or 'egalitarianism > feminism' - because they're all remarks that actively dismiss minority groups and the specific issues pertaining to them. It doesn't matter how righteous you think you are by doing this, the uncomfortable truth is that for one reason or another, you're entrenching divisions through a dismissive attitude.

If in doubt, I unequivocally support unity between gay, lesbian, bi, trans, pan, poly, ace, queer people. I acknowledge the overlap of both discrimination we face in our lives under these identities, and I understand that it is possible to identify with more than one of the above. Nobody constructed a rule that the community was based solely on sexuality until some people suddenly did, and now we have to put up with the division that this pointless idea has created. It achieves nothing.

Being atypical in a predominantly cisgender, and heteronormative society should be enough to bind people. Sweeping generalisations about the hostility of activists you've anecdotally encountered through the bought and agenda-driven print media, or broad assertions about other groups of similarly persecuted people you are not qualified to comment on, are redundant and bitter attitudes that achieve nothing through their expression. But the bigots will thank you for those attitudes later.

-

TLDR: bits in bold
Josh
 
Posts: 3469
+1s received: 60
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:55
Location: 23 Piss Off Ave, London W F*ck

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby PopTart » 27 December 2021, 09:49

Josh wrote:My very freedom to talk openly, identify openly, live openly, is done so because of a shared collective effort from those before me.
Undoubtedly so. We would never have achieved half as much, as seperate blocks, representing individual letters and groups. Minorities benefit from collective action. Logical.

Josh wrote:That fight for equality/freedom/representation continues today. Many LGBTQ people actively participate in that, others do not as they are fully entitled not to - not one single LGBTQ person owes themselves to some 'fight'.
I sense a "but" coming...
Josh wrote:Any gay man participating in this thread who is married, enjoys that right to be married because of the unity of LGBTQ people before him. Easily forgotten, I find, perhaps because it's easy to dissociate from other LGBTQ people once you've got your own rights in order. And that seems to be where we are. The "I'm alright Jack" mentality.
Here it comes...

Josh wrote:The privilege secured for gay and lesbian people in the west creating a complacency that leaves bi, trans, queer, and all other issues that lag behind feeling like a burden. I don't think it's malicious, but it is certainly ignorant.
... and there we go. In the one breath, you grant licence for those who have attained some degree of equality and acceptance, to not have to participate in some fight, only to then place a moral judgement upon that decision and declare it ignorant. It is a small leap in sentiment, from that kind of value judgement, to one that says If you aren't fighting the fight, you're helping the oppression to sentiments like If your not with us, you're against us to If you aren't one of us, you have no right to speak for us We have seen this same kind of radical thinking, come to dominate other minority rights groups and efforts and it turns people away, is counter productive and fails to understand the underlying seperating factors, within minority collectives, that presage fragmentation. We must try to understand and tolerate peoples positions, in order to diagnose and address that fragmentation, in a way that doesn't exacerbate it. If your goal is to keep people on side, perhaps, don't call them ignorant? Perhaps, don't go out of your way to alienate them, because they aren't towing the line?

On a side note:
People also don't need anyones permission to not be politically active. You can certainly express that you have no respect for people who are not actively participating in activism, but you shouldn't expect, that having done so, you'll be entitled to theirs.

Josh wrote:These divisions are perpetuated and pushed by sensationalist thought-pieces that ironically do very little thinking, and by people who aren't even LGBTQ themselves. All it then takes is a small number of predominantly gay and lesbian people to hope and will this effort along, and we're where we are.
These divisions have always existed. Is it possible that some outside groups could exploit them for advantage? Ofcourse, all the more reason that the collective we are a part of, needs to come to terms with those differences, identify and talk about them and come to some kind of consensus on how we remain a functional collective in the face of those differences. Or else, fragmentation is inevitable.

Josh wrote:Take LGB Alliance, for example. They're a hate group, let's make that clear.
Never heard of them tbf. I'd have to investigate for myself but for now, I'll take your word for it.

Josh wrote:Their main target is not trans people, but gay people. Gay people are their first and last target.
Which shouldn't be a problem, in and of itself. I agree it runs the risk of diluting the power of the collective movement, but if we don't recognise, that different groups, who have attained equality at different rates, are going to have differing priorities, then we are sunk anyway.

Josh wrote:Firstly, because they're interested in the support of susceptible gay people
What do you mean by susceptible gay people? Why are they susceptible? What are they susceptible too? I sense an unspoken insinuation here but I'm not privy to the particulars.

Josh wrote:who seem to agree with the vague (and false) ideal that gay and trans people have nothing in common and therefore should dissociate.
I wouldn't go so far as to say, Gay people have nothing in common with trans people. That would be quite the broad statement and bound to be erroneous. I'm also not sure I'd agree at this point dissociation would be the best course, but I do recognise that LG and perhaps B people, might now have different priorities to Trans people. Due to the different places we find ourselves in. This is both rational and understandable, but denying the possibility, is neither.

Josh wrote:LGBA deny the existence of gender as a social construct and insist it is a modern phenomenon that exists solely to undermine the rights of women.
I can't say I agree with them, I tend to think the idea of gender is indeed a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. The problems in modern society, usually crop up when groups deny one or the other and fail to realise they are linked and can't be individually dismissed or considered in isolation from one another. :shrug:

Josh wrote:It dismisses the lived experiences of trans people, and also of bi people - whose preferences are often rooted in different genders. LGB Alliance tell straight up lies that go unverified by their supporters... bi people were allegedly never part of the gay rights movement (incorrect), bi people are proof of a binary that delegitimises gender identity (incorrect), bi people can simply choose an easier life (incorrect)... and they do all this to undermine both bi and trans people.
As I said before, I can't speak to this LBGA, if indeed those are positions they advance, I can't say I'd agree with them at all.

Josh wrote:So why is the B even in their name? Well because the moment they ditch the B, they out themselves as the hate group that they are, which exists solely to divide LGBTQ people. They're a good representation of everything driving divides within the community
Again, these divisions have always existed. Divisions aren't inherently bad. Being different isn't bad. Learning to work cohesively in the face of those differences is important and that isn't achieved by denying that differences exist. Coming to terms with those differences and finding where we do share common ground, is the only way the LGBTQ alliance is going to survive going into the future.

Josh wrote:As an openly bisexual guy, it always makes me laugh a little bit when a gay guy starts trying to justify why a division of the community is for the best.
I'm sure that must be frustrating, tinged with irony.

Josh wrote:"It means we can focus on gay rights more", bro you have the most rights of anyone here and secured them through our collective efforts.
I agree we do have the most recognised rights of the letters. It is failing to acknowledge and understand what that means for changing priorities and how to integrate that into the wider collective agenda, that is a problem. Once again, under these circumstances, fragmentation is both likely and natural unless we react by changing tack. We need to be reactive, not reactionary.

Josh wrote:"I think trans activists are just hostile", dude do you realise how much you sound like the straight people from a few decades ago who said the same about the people who, through considerably vocal anger, secured your right to marry and exist in relative peace?
Here for the first time in your well written and engaging post, I have to flat out disagree with you. Not the trans part, the bold part. Because as one of those that was witness to the gay rights movement as it existed before, it was never predominantly angry. On the contrary, it struck an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming tone. It never couched it's arguments or positions in adversarial tones. Were there angry people in the community, sure. But the movement was far more loving, than angry. It didn't position itself as an adversary to societies normal. I'm not sure that can be said of activism today. Which very much has taken an adversarial position and now laments it's embattled status, as if in surprise. The movement as it was, was about being fairly included. But the movement today, has become so much more hostile and angry and I think that has been to the detriment of activism in general. You are at liberty to disagree ofcourse. But that is my opinion.

Josh wrote:"It's overshadowing gay people at this point", they say whilst bi people, despite making up the largest segment of the shared community, have next to zero media representation, cannot guarantee even being represented in Pride events (even major ones), and their specific charities receive less than 1% of annual funds directed at LGBTQ establishments in the UK.
I can't really argue with that. But what proportion of the discrimination do Bi people get, for being, specifically Bi? Which makes it sound like I'm trying to justify Bi exclusion. I'm not. My point is, that the discrimination Bi people suffer, has always been something of a submarine issue, from what I can tell. Largely as, amongst straight people, discrimination towards Bisexuals is expressed as homophobia and within the gay community (which also discriminates against Bi people) it is a more subtle discrimination, mistrust or ridicule. The Bi specific discrimination from one side, is fought through the L and G agenda and didn't benefit from being it's own thing. While the Bi specific discrimination in the community, has always gone largely unspoken. As such, I feel that Bi has never really been given attention it was due, it lacks even basic recognition. But that might be a broader conversation for another thread.

Josh wrote:There's a depressingly predictable irony to the fact that gay and lesbian people are the biggest benefactors of our unity so far, yet are also the first and most likely within the community to call for divisions to be made from it.
I don't think it's ironic at all, but you're right, it is predictable. Extremely so, because it follows that, once one group achieves their goal, they are the most likely to want to get off the boat and set up shop independantly, they have, after all, arrived. It also follows that there would be some resentment from those groups who still have a way to go (another factor contributing to frangmentation, that needs to be spoken about and reconciled)

Josh wrote:These remarks are as redundant as saying 'all lives matter' or 'egalitarianism > feminism' - because they're all remarks that actively dismiss minority groups and the specific issues pertaining to them.
I sense some dissonance here. On the one hand you advocate for collective minority action and umbrella groupings, while denouncing factionalism amongst minorities based on specific individual issues... while also claiming that some collective groupings are too broad(?) an that the focus should be on specific minorities and their specific issues. These two things would seem to be at odds, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Josh wrote:It doesn't matter how righteous you think you are by doing this, the uncomfortable truth is that for one reason or another, you're entrenching divisions through a dismissive attitude.
I don't think righteousness really comes into it. I think it's about acknowledging the reality that divisions, inevitably exist and in ignoring or dismissing those divisions, we can never hope to reconcile them, learn to work around them or account for them in our collective actions and it will inevitably lead to fragmentationa and break down.

Josh wrote:If in doubt, I unequivocally support unity between gay, lesbian, bi, trans, pan, poly, ace, queer people. I acknowledge the overlap of both discrimination we face in our lives under these identities, and I understand that it is possible to identify with more than one of the above.
I can broadly agree with you here. It does beg the question, if the only overlap of importance is discrimination, why not include everyone, that is in some way discriminated against? It also begs the question what happens when one subgroup of the wider collective, ceases to be discriminated against?

Josh wrote:Nobody constructed a rule that the community was based solely on sexuality until some people suddenly did, and now we have to put up with the division that this pointless idea has created. It achieves nothing.
I honestly don't think people before, really thought about it much. We are having the discussions, that we, perhaps, should have had 40 years ago. :shrug:

Josh wrote:Being atypical in a predominantly cisgender, and heteronormative society should be enough to bind people.
You'd think, right? But apparantly, and by your own admission and the evidence of current trends... it's not and no amount of wishing otherwise is changing that. We need to understand what it is dividing us.

Josh wrote:Sweeping generalisations about the hostility of activists you've anecdotally encountered through...
I always get a little uncomfortable when these arguments come out, primarily because, on the one hand you say:
Josh wrote:It dismisses the lived experiences of trans people
.. Which is also just another way of saying.. anecdotal. Why is it that the experiences of one group (that perhaps you agree with) is acceptable as "lived experience" while the experiences of another group (with whom you might disagree or stand in opposition too) are readily dismissed as "anecdotal"? I think this speaks to some bias and some degree of dissonance, intentional or otherwise. I don't think it invalidates everything you have said before, but it gives me pause.

Josh wrote:or broad assertions about other groups of similarly persecuted people you are not qualified to comment on
Again, I'm nitpicking at your style of debate rather than the substance of it, but this rings hollow as a value statement. On the one hand, you want people to empathise and place themselves in the shoes of persecuted minorities, but on the other hand, you deem that they are not qualified to formulate opnions on the matter. Where then is the incentive for people to empathise, if you are unwilling to ever let them have a meaningful say? Does this strike you as the road to better mutual understanding and respect?

Josh wrote:are redundant and bitter attitudes that achieve nothing through their expression.
Nothing that is expressed is expressed in vain. It all has some benefit.

Josh wrote:But the bigots will thank you for those attitudes later.
Mayhaps they will, if we never learn to master the differences between us, so that we can present a genuinely united front and not one with festering resentments and divisions beneath the surface, chances are high that outside forces could dismantle any movement.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4030
+1s received: 2998
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The L / G / B / T divide

Unread postby katzgar » 27 December 2021, 20:26

AGIS wrote:
katzgar wrote:you are trying to create a lie. The fact that you lack the abitity to use a search engine is amazing.
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/ ... age-076103


Literally nothing I said in that post was a lie, and your link has nothing to do with my claims. Do you just...not expect people to click your sources or something? This is the second time I've called you out on this.


your refusal to act like an adult is disturbing
katzgar
 
Posts: 95
+1s received: 2
Joined: 30 September 2019, 12:03
Country: United States (us)

PostThis post was deleted by katzgar on 27 December 2021, 20:27.

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 33 guests