[RD] LGBTQ news
- Thread starter bernie14
- Start date
It is pretty interesting that you assume I am against you personally and group wise. and i don't understand discrimination. What I have said is that if trans people want wider public support, they need to make it easy for folks to side with their cause. I have not said you need spend any time explaining anything to me.
It's past my bedtime, so good night and good luck to you.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
uh huh
Look if a group wants their basic rights affirmed and not removed they have to act in a way which pleases me, a person who isn't a member of that group
Senethro
Overlord
Ugh. Its awkward.
Look. If you want to offer pragmatic advice about useful things trans people can do to advocate for themselves, you could at least draw the sting in it by acknowledging that it is not easy and definitely not fair to need to be polite and respectable by the standards of a Society that has at time redrawn the boundaries of what is polite and respectable to deliberately exclude you.
And definitely don't follow up by saying "Thats just how it is
"
Look. If you want to offer pragmatic advice about useful things trans people can do to advocate for themselves, you could at least draw the sting in it by acknowledging that it is not easy and definitely not fair to need to be polite and respectable by the standards of a Society that has at time redrawn the boundaries of what is polite and respectable to deliberately exclude you.
And definitely don't follow up by saying "Thats just how it is
"
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
What kind of unholy train wreck happened here while I slept?
I mean, if you ask me I love queer as an umbrella term but due to its history as a reclaimed/under reclamation slur, some people, particularly the older generations are uncomfortable with it, which I can respect. "Gender and sexual diversity" or "Gender and sexual minorities", though I think I'd prefer "Gender and Attraction diversity", though most forms of attraction are sexuality-adjacent enough that GASM works. But all of them are flawed.
. "Anti-leviticus defence league" is a nice find, El Mac. XD
What there isn't much work being done (except by the usual respectability politic suspects) on is rejecting parts of those minorities because "If there's too many of them then it's too hard for other folk to understand". The need of each group to fight for recognition and acceptance is not contingent on the number of groups the common people can manage, and leaving the smaller groups to fend for themselves, while it may make tactical sense for the larger group, pretty much amounts to condemning the smaller group and their needs and rights to be completely forgotten. Not an acceptable reasonable outcome unless there is something fundamentally unethical (ie, attraction to those who cannot consent, such as, for example, children) about that particular minority.
--------------------
Polyamory is a relationship structure model (regardless of attraction), so completely different from aromanticism (which is purely a question of attraction, not of how you structure your relationship). Not to say it doesn't have its place in the movement, that's a whole other teakettle, but simply that regardless of whether or not they do, there is no meaningful link between polyamory and aromanticism.
I mean, if you ask me I love queer as an umbrella term but due to its history as a reclaimed/under reclamation slur, some people, particularly the older generations are uncomfortable with it, which I can respect. "Gender and sexual diversity" or "Gender and sexual minorities", though I think I'd prefer "Gender and Attraction diversity", though most forms of attraction are sexuality-adjacent enough that GASM works. But all of them are flawed.
. "Anti-leviticus defence league" is a nice find, El Mac. XD
What there isn't much work being done (except by the usual respectability politic suspects) on is rejecting parts of those minorities because "If there's too many of them then it's too hard for other folk to understand". The need of each group to fight for recognition and acceptance is not contingent on the number of groups the common people can manage, and leaving the smaller groups to fend for themselves, while it may make tactical sense for the larger group, pretty much amounts to condemning the smaller group and their needs and rights to be completely forgotten. Not an acceptable reasonable outcome unless there is something fundamentally unethical (ie, attraction to those who cannot consent, such as, for example, children) about that particular minority.
--------------------
Polyamory is a relationship structure model (regardless of attraction), so completely different from aromanticism (which is purely a question of attraction, not of how you structure your relationship). Not to say it doesn't have its place in the movement, that's a whole other teakettle, but simply that regardless of whether or not they do, there is no meaningful link between polyamory and aromanticism.
The thread shifted quickly, but I think you both just used the shortened form of the acronym.
Strategically, I think resorting to the short form is superior, but (like I said) I'm not really sure of the upside to making it ever-longer. Socially or politically.
I'm in (er, watching) another thread where they're discussing if polyamorous people are auto-include in 'queer', so some of this is very fast-moving.
In my view, if you're not cis/het, you're queer in some regard, but labels can be an intensely personal experience. I don't define myself as aromantic, but given how infrequently I crush on people, I realise that I am at least on that spectrum. If I was heterosexual and aromantic, I might never even consider being queer, but since I've never been sexually attracted to women anyway, my having a queer identity is a lot more obvious than my aro/demi-romanticism.
You are trying to help, very obviously
But I am sure you don't wish to direct people against another poster. Personally I don't see him as a minority, but simply a decent poster; yet this doesn't mean I expect NovaKart to have had an easy road either.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Using the long form in formal (where you probably want to be more inclusive than usual) or educational (when you are actually trying to explain the various umbrellas within the group) material make sense, but yeah, outside that, when being less formal, I've mostly in the past stopped at LGBTQ+ (Q is really important I feel as it coverd a lot of ground) though I'm trying to include 2 as much as I can, due to Canada's history of erasing indigenous cultures.
That last one needing focused on is more locally specific to NA and maybe even Canada, though.
That last one needing focused on is more locally specific to NA and maybe even Canada, though.
Yeah I let Q and plus do a lot of heavy lifting. Honestly, I'm not going to memorize an alphabet soup, no matter how righteous it feels. Part of the job is out-reach, which means streamlining.
Your rationale on 2 is very sound. I don't know how much of that is me imposing something on First Nations, though.
Nearly all my work on FN advocacy is to get (local) people to focus their BLM urges into proactive behavior on our FN.
Your rationale on 2 is very sound. I don't know how much of that is me imposing something on First Nations, though.
Nearly all my work on FN advocacy is to get (local) people to focus their BLM urges into proactive behavior on our FN.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I mean, less difficult for me because I identify with...like, half the major letters anyway (T, Q and both non-ally As at the minimum, and...well, it's complicated because of the messy interaction with the two As and how it expresses itself with regard to non-binary people, but at least L-adjacent) , and I'm pretty sure that whatever + we add in the future, at least some will turn out to be "Oh, hey, I finally have a word for *that* experience of mine, neat*.
But yeah, other than the T being really important as its own thing, I can live with Q+ doing the heavy lifting.
But yeah, other than the T being really important as its own thing, I can live with Q+ doing the heavy lifting.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Lesbians can get pregnant.
Trans gay men can get pregnant
Bi cis women and bi trans men can get pregnant
Trans men and AFAB non-binary people can get pregnant
Aro/Ace AFAB people can get pregnant
Intersex people can get pregnant
Abortion restrictions disproportionately harm people without the means to procure a safe abortion illegally or travel to a place where abortions are permitted, as well as those who do not have the means to give birth to, and subsequently care for, a child. They also harm those in abusive relationships, as it's harder to leave the relationship both physically, financially, and emotionally, both during the pregnancy itself, and after giving birth. LGBTQ+ people, especially those of color, are more likely to to face food and housing insecurity, to be trapped in abusive relationships, to live in poverty or on the verge of poverty, etc. Really basic stuff.
Trans gay men can get pregnant
Bi cis women and bi trans men can get pregnant
Trans men and AFAB non-binary people can get pregnant
Aro/Ace AFAB people can get pregnant
Intersex people can get pregnant
Abortion restrictions disproportionately harm people without the means to procure a safe abortion illegally or travel to a place where abortions are permitted, as well as those who do not have the means to give birth to, and subsequently care for, a child. They also harm those in abusive relationships, as it's harder to leave the relationship both physically, financially, and emotionally, both during the pregnancy itself, and after giving birth. LGBTQ+ people, especially those of color, are more likely to to face food and housing insecurity, to be trapped in abusive relationships, to live in poverty or on the verge of poverty, etc. Really basic stuff.
Last edited:
The key word here is disproportionate. Even if LGBT people are more likely to live in poverty how are they more likely to get pregnant? And I doubt we have the statistics that show all those Aro/Ace people in abusive relationships living in poverty.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
The tweet says nothing about likelihood to get pregnant.
Okay then why doesn’t it disproportionately impact straight men?
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Also says nothing about impact.
The ban interacts with reduced access to services, statistically, so that the ban itself is going to impact that specific person more painfully.
Just like rubbing salt on the forearm of a burn victim is 'worse' than for someone with healthy skin.
This is not to say that people with healthy skin are less likely to have salt rubbed into their skin or that burn victims outnumber those with healthy skin.
I will grant that the messaging isn't efficient, because it too easily makes people think of a larger aggregate harm than a deeper individual harm.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Amongst the people who are capable of pregnancy (so: not the vast majority of straight men, as they are cisgender men, and any straight man who is not cis is lgbt in the first place), those who are economically and socially disadvataged (such as members the groups listed on the tweet, which both tend to be poorer and to face increased prejudices in their dealings with the world) are much more impacted by abortion bans than those who are less economically and socially disadvantaged.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
It says "disproportionately harms," proceeds to list a bunch of economically and politically precarious populations, then declares it a matter of racial and economic justice. I don't really see how the mind could go broad rather than deep, unless you read BIPOC, young people, and immigrants and your mind immediately jumps to "ah yes, the people that have the most babies"
Similar threads
