[split] LGBT (sub)section?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2017, 09:37 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:19 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 09:12 AM)julep Wrote:  Not to mention the recent bunch of state legislation attempting to allow religious people in every field to discriminate against LGBT. Not to mention also that the reason many Trump voters give for supporting him is the judges he's going to appoint--judges' ruling these kinds of laws unconstitutional have been the most effective obstacles to their being enacted. And finally, not to mention that further executive orders in this area have been hinted at--dogwhistles to the fundies to be patient, they'll "get their country back."


I would refer to what is currently going on in the U.S. with Betsy DeVos. When asked about equal treatment of transgender students in public and private schools she may have a backwards opinion but congress members continuously call her out on her bigotry and stupidity.

Bigoted people might gain office, sure, but now that things are the way they are I'd find it quite difficult for anyone to get their agenda actually out to where it could do sincere harm (that is, of course, other than to their own reputation.)

I don't think your example is comforting. They can call her out...she is still the director of her department. She gets to guide the regulations and direction of the department.

I also don't agree that there are just unfortunately a few bigots in office who are easily overruled by others. These laws have been passed at a state level in more than one state in the past two or three years. Either a majority of the legislators in those states are bigots--which makes them more than an isolated few--or the majority of the legislators are employing other rationales which allow them to vote for laws embracing bigotry. This is as much a matter of a majority group trying to keep hold of the power it has as it is of people trying to follow their religion, but its effect on the targeted marginal groups is the same: they become second-class citizens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
14-06-2017, 09:39 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:29 AM)Emma Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 09:19 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  I would refer to what is currently going on in the U.S. with Betsy DeVos. When asked about equal treatment of transgender students in public and private schools she may have a backwards opinion but congress members continuously call her out on her bigotry and stupidity.

Bigoted people might gain office, sure, but now that things are the way they are I'd find it quite difficult for anyone to get their agenda actually out to where it could do sincere harm (that is, of course, other than to their own reputation.)

The problem is that their policies do real and actual damage to people. You might not think so, but they do.

It's not just "politics", their policies actually do affect people. And Betsy being called-out doesn't mean she will actually listen or change her approach. She doesn't have to protect LGBT students from discrimination if it's not law. Marriage equality can still be overturned- though it's not likely at this point. It's still legal in many states to fire someone for being LGBT. Where I live, in Florida, I could get fired because I'm trans. The "bathroom bills" being put forward all over the country actually harm people and they make bathrooms a dangerous place for trans people to go. And not just trans- cis people that might "look trans", too.

There are plenty of legislative problems out there for LGBT people. It's not a settled issue. And yes, the goal includes trying to eliminate violence against LGBT people. Sure, it will never totally go away, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for that and hopefully reduce it as much as is possible.


That is fair enough, I forgot about the bathroom bill momentarily. I agree the idea behind why politicians campaign for it is ridiculous but many others see that as so too. It's stupid and I feel many treat it as such and I imagine that with enough people talking about that particular issue it might sway opinions.

I fail to see how it would require more than that, honestly...
Having pride parades, and LGBT specific things seems... excessive and alienating to the members of the LGBT. Almost creating an "us and them" mentality. I'm not saying that it is an inherently negative one. We're all humans, no need for it, I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 09:42 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:37 AM)julep Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 09:19 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  I would refer to what is currently going on in the U.S. with Betsy DeVos. When asked about equal treatment of transgender students in public and private schools she may have a backwards opinion but congress members continuously call her out on her bigotry and stupidity.

Bigoted people might gain office, sure, but now that things are the way they are I'd find it quite difficult for anyone to get their agenda actually out to where it could do sincere harm (that is, of course, other than to their own reputation.)

I don't think your example is comforting. They can call her out...she is still the director of her department. She gets to guide the regulations and direction of the department.

I also don't agree that there are just unfortunately a few bigots in office who are easily overruled by others. These laws have been passed at a state level in more than one state in the past two or three years. Either a majority of the legislators in those states are bigots--which makes them more than an isolated few--or the majority of the legislators are employing other rationales which allow them to vote for laws embracing bigotry. This is as much a matter of a majority group trying to keep hold of the power it has as it is of people trying to follow their religion, but its effect on the targeted marginal groups is the same: they become second-class citizens.

Hm. That is quite true. I retract my statement about it being "over" though I do still feel that pride parades, and sub-sections are unnecessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Larai19's post
14-06-2017, 09:43 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 08:56 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  ...
but it's pointless to draw attention to the fact after the war was fought and won.
...

(14-06-2017 08:59 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  I think talking about this is important.
...

Just on a point of order, of which you may not be aware... a mod split out the first four posts from a different thread and moved them to the Viper's Pit.

This section is for throwing things at each other rather than for healthy discussion.
Angel

Meanwhile, and I'm not throwing things here, I wonder if you can see a contradiction in your above two posts?

And my 2 penny's worth:

Cultural changes come at a cost because they represent the collision of two or more (sub)cultures.

Think of like a swinging pendulum... to achieve change there needs to be push away from the initial inertia state. A certain in-yer-faceness might be required.

The back-swing, as highlighted in julep's post, is invariably inevitable because a population's culture (collective behavours) is a combination of organisational ethics and individual ethics and these change at varying rates (if at all).

Then the pendulum swings back again and so on via a process of discourse and dialectic.

Dialectic is, by the way, a Hegelian term as is 'alienation' as Muffsy has been using it.

The identification of a group 'x' will automatically create a group 'not x'.

So your second post is the correct one... until the pendulum ceases to swing and a new normal has been achieved.

What we're seeing here is a natural process and not a new one.

If the battle to which you are referring in your first post is the battle over having a separate moderated section of TTA, you are right. But nothing is permanent in life so who knows.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
14-06-2017, 09:48 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:43 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 08:56 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  ...
but it's pointless to draw attention to the fact after the war was fought and won.
...

(14-06-2017 08:59 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  I think talking about this is important.
...

Just on a point of order, of which you may not be aware... a mod split out the first four posts from a different thread and moved them to the Viper's Pit.

This section is for throwing things at each other rather than for healthy discussion.
Angel

Meanwhile, and I'm not throwing things here, I wonder if you can see a contradiction in your above two posts?

And my 2 penny's worth:

Cultural changes come at a cost because they represent the collision of two or more (sub)cultures.

Think of like a swinging pendulum... to achieve change there needs to be push away from the initial inertia state. A certain in-yer-faceness might be required.

The back-swing, as highlighted in julep's post, is invariably inevitable because a population's culture (collective behavours) is a combination of organisational ethics and individual ethics and these change at varying rates (if at all).

Then the pendulum swings back again and so on via a process of discourse and dialectic.

Dialectic is, by the way, a Hegelian term as is 'alienation' as Muffsy has been using it.

The identification of a group 'x' will automatically create a group 'not x'.

So your second post is the correct one... until the pendulum ceases to swing and a new normal has been achieved.

What we're seeing here is a natural process and not a new one.

If the battle to which you are referring in your first post is the battle over having a separate moderated section of TTA, you are right. But nothing is permanent in life so who knows.

Wink

That is a very fair assessment of my argument. Smile
I was mistaken in saying it the way I did. I only meant that there is no heavy oppression to the stake of majority opinion and how others speak out against bigotry of this kind nowadays. And, I'd, at the very least hope, America won't regress, and I feel that it won't which was where my statement was founded.

Nevertheless, I see my error. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Larai19's post
14-06-2017, 09:49 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:23 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 09:16 AM)jennybee Wrote:  I don't think it's about confining yourself to one thing. I think it's about being proud of who you are as a person--after years of people telling you you shouldn't be, after years of people telling you you are less than. The flag is a way, a symbol to stand together and say "I'm proud of who I am." A symbol for those with LGBT friends and family to say "I support and love you for who you are."

I don't think by waving a pride flag that means you are only that one thing. When I see the flag, I see families, I see community members, I see my neighbors. I don't just say Oh, thy're LGBT, don't need to know anything else about them 'cause that's apparently all there is Tongue

I see your point and I acknowledge that it is fair. When I said "confining yourself to one thing" I meant more or less taking one specific aspect about your character and parading it.

But, honestly, shouldn't we now, treat everyone's sexuality with indifference? I get that people should be comfortable and happy with their sexuality but now that things are pretty much settled in the department why do we still have to look at the subject with reverence?

I don't really look at the flag as people parading it (well, unless it's at the Pride parade Wink ) It's just one aspect of someone's life, one aspect of who they are.

People's homes showcase all different parts of their personalities. I have yoga things all over the place. I also wear vegan t-shirts on occasion. They are me, they're what I'm passionate about. Someone who is active in the LGBT community is passionate about LGBT rights and activism, why not showcase that aspect of their personalities in their own homes? Don't you have things that you like in your own home that say things about you? How is that not parading aspects of your personality about?

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
14-06-2017, 09:54 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:49 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 09:23 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  I see your point and I acknowledge that it is fair. When I said "confining yourself to one thing" I meant more or less taking one specific aspect about your character and parading it.

But, honestly, shouldn't we now, treat everyone's sexuality with indifference? I get that people should be comfortable and happy with their sexuality but now that things are pretty much settled in the department why do we still have to look at the subject with reverence?

I don't really look at the flag as people parading it (well, unless it's at the Pride parade Wink ) It's just one aspect of someone's life, one aspect of who they are.

People's homes showcase all different parts of their personalities. I have yoga things all over the place. I also wear vegan t-shirts on occasion. They are me, they're what I'm passionate about. Someone who is active in the LGBT community is passionate about LGBT rights and activism, why not showcase that aspect of their personalities in their own homes? Don't you have things that you like in your own home that say things about you? How is that not parading aspects of your personality about?


However, it isn't just things that they do/ are interested in/ or enjoy. It is something fundamental to their being. I don't equate being gay to be the same as having a yoga t-shirt or in my own case a Queen t-shirt. Smile

I mean, I'm not going to try to censor what others do. I just think it's needless to showcase something that you are fundamentally. I think it is akin to being proud of your eye color, or your nose shape.

I also don't think being gay isn't a personality trait. It is only a sexuality in my view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:39 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 09:29 AM)Emma Wrote:  The problem is that their policies do real and actual damage to people. You might not think so, but they do.

It's not just "politics", their policies actually do affect people. And Betsy being called-out doesn't mean she will actually listen or change her approach. She doesn't have to protect LGBT students from discrimination if it's not law. Marriage equality can still be overturned- though it's not likely at this point. It's still legal in many states to fire someone for being LGBT. Where I live, in Florida, I could get fired because I'm trans. The "bathroom bills" being put forward all over the country actually harm people and they make bathrooms a dangerous place for trans people to go. And not just trans- cis people that might "look trans", too.

There are plenty of legislative problems out there for LGBT people. It's not a settled issue. And yes, the goal includes trying to eliminate violence against LGBT people. Sure, it will never totally go away, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for that and hopefully reduce it as much as is possible.


That is fair enough, I forgot about the bathroom bill momentarily. I agree the idea behind why politicians campaign for it is ridiculous but many others see that as so too. It's stupid and I feel many treat it as such and I imagine that with enough people talking about that particular issue it might sway opinions.

I fail to see how it would require more than that, honestly...
Having pride parades, and LGBT specific things seems... excessive and alienating to the members of the LGBT. Almost creating an "us and them" mentality. I'm not saying that it is an inherently negative one. We're all humans, no need for it, I think.

I recognize that there's probably not anything I can say to convince you that Pride parades have been helpful to the community and continue to be helpful.

It might feed into an "us and them" mentality to a degree. But that mentality already exists, it doesn't create it. Pride is a place for the oppressed out-group (LGBT people) to summon courage and regain some self-love in a society that is still quite rife with systematic oppression and negativity toward them. And sure, Pride events can be really "extra" sometimes, but they are damn fun places to be, too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Emma's post
14-06-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
Um, the Pride is a reaction against having to hide from the eyes of society for centuries, so it's absolutely not comparable to just bragging about or showcasing parts of who you are. It's about "we are not going to hide anymore, just because who we are makes *you* uncomfortable".

I at best don't much care about demonstrations and crowds of people gathered together in one place and at worst downright detest them, but there is - still - a bigger point behind the Pride parades. As this forum has plentifully proven. Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
14-06-2017, 09:59 AM
RE: [split] LGBT (sub)section?
(14-06-2017 09:54 AM)Larai19 Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 09:49 AM)jennybee Wrote:  I don't really look at the flag as people parading it (well, unless it's at the Pride parade Wink ) It's just one aspect of someone's life, one aspect of who they are.

People's homes showcase all different parts of their personalities. I have yoga things all over the place. I also wear vegan t-shirts on occasion. They are me, they're what I'm passionate about. Someone who is active in the LGBT community is passionate about LGBT rights and activism, why not showcase that aspect of their personalities in their own homes? Don't you have things that you like in your own home that say things about you? How is that not parading aspects of your personality about?


However, it isn't just things that they do/ are interested in/ or enjoy. It is something fundamental to their being. I don't equate being gay to be the same as having a yoga t-shirt or in my own case a Queen t-shirt. Smile

I mean, I'm not going to try to censor what others do. I just think it's needless to showcase something that you are fundamentally. I think it is akin to being proud of your eye color, or your nose shape.

I also don't think being gay isn't a personality trait. It is only a sexuality in my view.

It is fundamental to their core, just like all sexuality--however I was talking about activism within the LGBT community (i.e. being an activist is a personality trait). That is why I compared it to yoga (which some people view as a religion, its not) and my being vegan (I'm an animal rights activist). As such, people showcase aspects of their personalities within their lives and homes.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: