"T+"?Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Printable View
"T+"?Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Nothing will happen in U.S. political races, but I expect gay folks who are involved in LGBT+ rights groups to be questioning and voting on issues of leadership and platforms within their own organizations. Non-profits that serve these folks and represent these issues will have some hard decisions to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Gay women have formed at least one group to combat what they see as erasure of woman’s concerns and leadership due to takeover by trans activists. Kathleen Stock who was cancelled by her University for perceived “trans hate” is one of the leaders.
Personally, I find Kathleen to show calm friendliness and logical reasoning when talking abput gender issue in the U.K. But of course I am just a hater.
The U.K. Is grappling with gender issues at a pointed level, for many reasons having to do with government overreach and them being, well, just a small island.
It's one of the oldest tricks in the oppression playbook. Get two (or more) marginalized groups of people to spend their time and effort fighting each other and they won't have the resources to fight their actual oppressors.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
This trivializes actual ideological conflicts. But carry-on making everything the fault of wascally Wepublicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
yawn.
And not pointing out the greater number of similarities trivializes those.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
At this point since the republicans don’t actually have a meaningful policy platform beyond win at any cost the culture war strategy of divide and conquer is pretty much all they’ve got going for them.
The Humanist Report notes that Republicans' only party platform is hatred and cruelty, with reference to his recent homophobic campaign ad.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
In this specific arena they are reflecting a majority of Americans about 1) medicalized treatment for opposite sex ideating youth and 2) natal males on women sports teams. I guess that’s your “HATE? “Seems hyperbolic to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...n-sports-poll/
And apparently you are simply incapable of understanding what I was saying. I'm not surprised. You're a boring cis het old lady who hates the trans folks. Talk about yawn...Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Awww, jp, as a boring old lady, I along with your 8th grade English teacher who presumably taught you rhetoric am disappointed in how quickly you descend to name calling in persuasive discourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
We both think you can do better.
Also, the demographic populating this space is primarily old, cis, and hetero; not necessarily a bad thing. Shrug.
I do see a real age divide on the issue of trans women trampling and invading women’s spaces and taking over women’s issues. Whether you think they are doing that or not, it is interesting that “ old dingbat lesbos” are the leading voices in the UK in speaking up about it. Younger folks are subject to cancellation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I haven’t made up my mind about much of it,, but I DO see instances of young women being intimidated to accept and celebrate their husband’s transitions to women. Young gay girls being ridiculed as transphobes for not dating trans women. Young girls cowed by adult males stripping down in lockers and changing rooms.
us old bats are far less likely to put up with that bullshit.
Admittedly, I don't get out much (at all), but I don't know any transwomen, and I don't believe their numbers are such that they're wreaking havoc wholesale in society. I can't imagine that many women are accepting and celebrating a newly-gendered husband, either--though there was that author and her wife...At any rate, there are plenty of societal problems I can worry about, if I'm so inclined (Great Reset, anyone?) so I'll sit trans panic out.
Yeah, I agree with Jane, I think it's mostly a non-issue. As it happens I do know a family in which the husband is currently transitioning (after landing a job with decent insurance). The wife, who is cis, has been encouraging this change since the husband finally realized that she is indeed more female than male. Cis wife says she fell in love with the person, not the gender, and has every confidence that they will continue to be happy together. They have a daughter, who is of course also in counseling, and seems to be taking it in stride, she's known about her father's mis-gender much of her life. Both parents are very focused on her well being. I can only hope it all works out well for them! They are hardly a threat to world order.
Now that Bidens build back better plan for infrastructure and environment is on it’s way, I wonder what the dem platform will be, if anything. There will always be the tradition differences between progressive and conservative. I’ve not heard any discussion from anyone about climate change in spite of worsening weather extremes. Although Pence has referred to things as the “war against energy”.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Relatively speaking, LGBT issues seem far less significant, if not an invention of political theater.
The climate change issue will probably come to a head when the WHO/WEF led movers and shakers in our government try to substitute insects and lab-grown meat for the real thing in Americans' already pathogenic diet, as they are already moving to do in parts of Europe. Phase out fossil fuels, advance technology, modify and/or shut down factory farms--there are plenty of meaningful actions that can be taken instead. Meat is not, and has never been, the enemy.
"Climate change" is likely to be the Trojan Horse within which the WHO/WEF makes serious inroads into our lives, IMO.
Given the relatively small number of lgbt folks compared to the size of the total population that may well be true. But the Republican war on us seems to be bearing fruit, at least among republicans. In just one year republicans opinion about the moral acceptability of same sex relationships has dropped 15 points, from 56% last year to 41% this year. That terrifying change calls to mind the change in attitudes towards gay people during the Weimar Republic, during which LGBT people were considered relatively acceptable but after which gay Germans were rounded up and sent to concentration camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gallup...e=pocket_saves
Yea it's less significant than climate change. Climate change is going to kill billions worldwide, disruptions in agriculture, etc.Quote:
Relatively speaking, LGBT issues seem far less significant, if not an invention of political theater.
Yes, not to totally diminish LBGT issues, but I get the impression that it has become a major campaign platform, which is basically the anti woke platform of DeSantis. And the dems seem as lacking in more significant campaign issues as the GOP. A lot of this is due to media attention and strikes me as theater.
Gays were not the only non Jewish minority target of the WWII concentration camps. Just ask the Jehovah Witnesses.
Maybe someone should suggest to desantis that jehovas witnesses are as dreadful as us gay people. We would probably all benefit if he spread the hate around.
Don't forget the trade unionists, the disabled, Romany people...
And cAtholics too, like the many priests murdered, including Blessed Titus Brandsma. And for those of you who feel it is okay to target Witnesses, here are some Jehovahs Witness families destroyed in the holocaust, just in case anyone really needs photos to humanize a group of people that have been demonized by someone in a position to do so:
Nazi Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses - Photograph | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)
Yes, desantis should include everyone in his ad. But wow, that would turn an already really strange ad into quite a complicated message. Having it rapid fire between pictures of him and super bitch gay men and jehovah’s witnesses and trade unionists and priests, etc might be a bit overwhelming.
I'm so glad I live in California where we don't tolerate banning books that present the history of non-straight, non-white people, and not some shithole state like Florida.
“Cancel culture has gone too far in Temecula: radicalized zealots on the school board rejected a textbook used by hundreds of thousands of students and now children will begin the school year without the tools they need to learn,” said Governor Newsom. “If the school board won’t do its job by its next board meeting to ensure kids start the school year with basic materials, the state will deliver the book into the hands of children and their parents — and we’ll send the district the bill and fine them for violating state law.”
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/07/13/temecula-do-your-job/
Other than publicity, what interest does the state of California have in trying to force the use of a specific textbook in an elementary school?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
If Gavin Newsom wants to run for president so badly, why doesn’t he just go ahead and do it?
Nobody is forcing anyone to use the textbook, just make it available so that parents in the district that don’t want their kids to grow up to be ignorant can get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I think I read somewhere that it wasn't necessarily the book the school board took issue with but rather the curriculum designed to accompany it. I'm not sure what that curriculum entailed that will leave young children ignorant unless they're exposed to it but it must be a doozy for Newsom to make such a big deal of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Or, maybe his actions have another purpose.....hmmmmm, I'll have to ponder that.
The outside curriculum included a brief section on Harvey milk, the first elected openly lgbt person in the US. Who happened to have been elected in California, so an important bit of California history whether the bigots like it or not.
To be sure his actions do do more than afford parents the chance to educate their children. They also serve to highlight the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Sort of a two birds with one stone situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Oh yeah, that was it. Something about not wanting to promote someone known to have a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy in New York while in his 30's. Bigots indeed!
Yes, I suppose they do, but I suspect it's only a benefit with extremely casual observers. That's probably enough though.Quote:
They also serve to highlight the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.
So do you think that we should try to ‘cancel’ Harvey or tell his story warts and all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
It strikes me as weird that republicans get their panties all in a twist that we might want to point out the issues of founders that owned slaves but simultaneously want to cancel the history of non cis het white folks in our history.
I have no idea what's included in the curriculum but doubt the 'warts' are included, but maybe they are, maybe the curriculum does point out that he was a known, yet celebrated pedophile. Stranger things have happened. But still not appropriate for elementary school students.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
It's funny you mentioned that as I was thinking the same thing, yet in reverse. Weird indeed!Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
The word "pedophile" refers to someone attracted to prepubescent children. The correct term for someone attracted to youths past puberty is hebephile or ephebophile.
Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. (Wikipedia)
Hebephilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent children who are in early adolescence, typically ages 11–14 and showing Tanner stages 2 to 3 of physical development. It differs from pedophilia, and from ephebophilia. (Wikipedia)
Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid-20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia.(Wikipedia)
There's a huge difference--in my mind at least--between lusting after a four-year-old and a sixteen-year-old.
It’s also important to remember that regardless of age gay sex was illegal in a Variety of states at that time. The Lawrence decision hadn’t happened yet so consensual sex between two men was still a crime regardless of age. That ought to be included in the study guide but I doubt it would satisfy republicans who want to hate on LGBTQ people.
And then there's Russia:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67454386
Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Speaking of repressive regimes and LGBTQetc people, I marvel that “”Queers for Palestine” are embracing one of the most repressive societies that exists. I shudder to think how gay people will be treated when Palestine is free to expand and populate nearby regions. This is how they treat their gay folks:
https://apnews.com/article/middle-ea...cc0800b272b159
https://www.advocate.com/politics/20...ne#toggle-gdpr
It’s hard to comprehend the incandescent stupidity of such a position.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
"From the River to the Sea, they will kill people just like me!"Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
And now I’m reading that Bin Laden’s “Letter to America” is enjoying a vogue in social media. From what kind of environment are these people breathing in such preposterous tripe that they fall prey to such self-destructive delusions? Is it the vanity of ignorance or just unreflective groupthink?Quote:
Originally Posted by bae