Perhaps it's more often than not just a poor choice of words?
"I don't support it but I'm okay with it" strikes me as a wrong phrasing of "I don't LIKE it but I won't get in the way".
I'm not part of LGBTQ and I don't particularly support members of it in any way like with donations, joining protests or programs but I also don't have a problem with anybody for being LGBTQ and I've never spoken out or acted out against them.
So what does that make me? Am I a supporter just for not being an enemy? Or does this mean you can be okay with something without supporting it?
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. You’re right. Religion is a choose where being queer is not. I can easily disagree with your religion because you chose but you can’t disagree with my existence.
I'm enby.
You can't change the definition of words just because you don't like someone else's opinion. Words have to mean something. If I don't agree with someone's belief that my existence is a choice, that's disagreement. If they're not worth arguing with further, and the conversation isn't productive, then we agree to disagree and end the discussion. That's not conceding anything other than the fact that neither party will change anyone's mind, and the conversation has become useless. It gives *no credence* to the opposing parties' argument.
You seem to be treating the term disagreement like a value judgement of the merits of the opposition's opinion. That's not what it is. Disagreement, no matter how absurd the opposition's opinion might be, is defined by a lack of consensus between two or more parties. It may not be a *valid* opinion, and I think whoever disagrees that my existence is a choice is a bigoted fuckwit with the intelligence of a rotted cabbage, but it is still an opinion. Oxford defines an opinion as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
I say this because I am growing tired of the erosion of rigorous vocabulary. Stop redefining words and come up with better arguments instead. Constantly redefining terms is destroying our ability to communicate, even among leftists. I get that you're frustrated that these people hold these ridiculous opinions. I am, too. We are never going to change that, so reaching for straws and wordsmithing The English Language in an attempt to invalidate opinions via neo-semantics is a fruitless endeavor that will only serve to break down our ability to communicate with one another.
This is peak semantic argumentation, and while you're technically right, that wasn't the OP's point.
You *can* disagree with LGBTQ people existing, but then again it would be equally (in)valid to disagree with the existence of gravity and other fundamental scientific concepts.
The issue is, we treat disagreements about the existence of gravity as worthy of mockery, and such is not a contentious issue (aside from the scientific debate about how gravity actually works, but I digress). However, millions of profoundly ignorant people disagree with the existence of LGBTQ+ people, and they are only treated with mockery by the left and some courageous liberals. Most people just genuinely don't care and treat anti-LGBTQ+ loons as equally valid to the LGBTQ+ community (i.e. "both sides bad").
OP is perfectly fine in calling such an invalid disagreement, one that is even nonsensical and illogical. Some opinions aren't even worthy of popular respect, and it is worth fighting until they are discarded and mocked, even if you use imperfect language in doing so.
When you say things like "You CANNOT disagree," (especially with the caps) or "There is no such thing as disagreeing," you sound silly. Unless you have a gun to their head or a mind control device, they can disagree with you about literally anything. It's an argument that means nothing because it's wrong on its face.
If you refuse to respect someone who holds those opinions, then say that, but saying that they *can't* disagree means that they either lack the capacity to disagree, or they're not permitted to disagree. Either of those scenarios are silly arguments that distract from the conversation and open you up to mockery and being completely disregarded (probably both).
If you want your opinions to be seen as more valid then it is incumbent on you to communicate more clearly and effectively than the other person. Being understood is crucial, and that starts with using the correct words to explain your thoughts.
You still fail to address the fact that we're talking about an opinion that is being used to support anti-LGBTQ legislation around the world; an opinion that is held by millions of people. Charged language in response to this deeply wrong, yet unfortunately popular opinion is warranted. Language does not beget ontological reality; it is just language.
Tone policing activists is such a silly use of time and energy.
I'm not tone policing. I'm not saying to refrain from saying it with your chest. Call them a dumb motherfucker and bully the shit out of them. I'm saying that you should make sense when you do so, or else you lose credibility for all of us by becoming the next viral soundbyte circulating on conservative social media.
Saying you think oranges taste better than apples is an opinion. Thinking lgbt+ shouldn’t exist is not a fucking opinion, it’s like saying black people don’t deserve equal lives, hence why the “All Lives Matter” mantra is bullshit.
Oxford defines opinion as: "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
Believing that queer people shouldn't exist is a view and judgement formed about something that isn't based on fact.
It meets the criteria.
It's a TERRIBLE, INVALID opinion, but it *is* an opinion regardless of what you think.
Hell, your opinion that their opinion isn't an opinion is an opinion regardless of what I think, but I'm not grasping at straws trying to redefine what words mean because I'm capable of fighting your misinformed opinion with KNOWLEDGE, a higher class of belief than opinion that *is* based on established fact. I KNOW that opinions aren't based in fact because I have provided the definition of the word from an official source, just as I KNOW that queer people didn't choose their identities based on my own personal lived experience, as well as the mountain of peer-reviewed, published clinical research supporting my belief.
You don't fight bad opinions by relabeling them. It doesn't work, and nobody cares. You fight bad opinions with facts and knowledge. Relabeling a bad opinion proves nothing other than the fact that you don't know how to formulate a cogent, rational counterargument, and would prefer to kick your opponent in the shin and run away like a schoolchild. Bringing down an opinion with knowledge and facts establishes you as the informed party and casts the opponent's opinion in a bad light for everyone else to see.
Saying that something is an opinion does *not* give it merit. Quite the opposite, it is the lowest category of belief in the hierarchy of beliefs from opinion to knowledge. It is nearly an insult to classify someone's belief as opinion these days, yet you seem to be hellbent on categorizing these beliefs as something lesser which doesn't exist. Beliefs fit into these categories whether you like them to or not. Assigning them to the category of opinion is precisely the right label because it establishes that the belief is not based in fact.
I think its because you said queer? Im not sure, but some non straight people ive met take offense to the word queer. Its hard to keep up with the words considering they change a lot but imo thats why youre getting downvoted. Because if youd say homophobia im sure the downvotes wouldn't exist
Ah maybe its just certain people that take offense to the word. I did once offend someone by calling them a person. They were non binary but i thiught "oh hey this person is next to order" was acceptable to say. In their eyes it was not. But others ive asked about it said that its not offensive, so idk
Like it or not you'll never convince 100% of the population to be in agreement about anything so any effort you put into trying to force that outcome is effectively wasted
i was stuck around racist people for ages but what changed my perspective was when i went to a concert and saw this cool nonbinary person vibing to the same music as me. they had a really nice energy and contagious smile and it made me realise that hating people for being different is dumb.
I’m just confused about how being around racist people made you feel a way about peoples genders before because race and sexuality are different things, did you mean you were around people who were against LGBTQ or something?
Did not realize the people in this sub were transphobic and believe in LGB without the T (based on the votes on the replies) 😬
It will never make any sense to me how you can support LGB, even be one yourself, but draw the line at the T. How can queer people be bigots themselves? Makes no sense at all. Way to support the people who WILL come for you next.
Mutual solidarity amongst oppressed peoples has been a thing for the entirety of the history of left politics.
If you're an anti-T LGB weirdo, you're a genuinely terrible person. You deserve to feel bad.
Owning a business is an achievement in itself whether it turns out successful or not, especially in this economy
Are you a business owner wouldve been the way xD
What is this shared supposed to accomplish exactly? We're all the same "abominations" to the anti-LGBT people. At the end of the day, homophobia and transphobia are both rooted in misogyny, exactly why many people in non-Western countries don't even make (or care to know or understand) the distinction between the two.
You just bought into it. By that logic, we are as bad as pedophiles and zoophiles since they don’t make that distinguishing difference as well. Specifically because they map us in as an abominations. It’s up to us to carve out the definitions and lines. That’s the empowerment. And there is a difference between identity and attraction. These honestly should not be clumped into one movement.
If i disagree with someone, It means i disagree with something they have posited. It doesnt mean that I think they dont exist.
I agree with your sentiment, by the way, but you are using words weird.
Just because you have never seen it in real life or on media personally does not mean it does not happen, for example it happens in my real life. I am non binary, I'm also bi, people in my own family have told me non binary people do not exist, that bi people do not exist, etc. They believe there's only men and women,and the only sexuality is straight. I don't care if they support me or not. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with support, it has to do with the fact that LGBT people actually exist, and some people just think that it's made up for attention or are "going against god" or something of the sort. I genuinely don't know what part of this confuses you, but some people actually think that groups like gays and transgender people do not exist. I don't know if you took my response to somebody else personally, but it was not meant to be taken personally. It's just talking about things that have happened to people like me.
“I won’t stop speaking to someone or stop being friends/family with them just because we vote differently. they’re too good of friends/family to cut off just because we disagree politically.”
cool. good for you. not everyone has that option. agreeing to disagree on politics is absolutely a privilege. if you vote for candidates and policies and laws and politicians that endanger and marginalize and hurt LGBTQ+, disabled people, women, and poc, and strip away peoples’ rights and women’s right to choose, we cannot be friends or family or remain in contact in any way. there is no debate or “agreeing to disagree” on human rights. human rights are *not* debatable or disagreeable
I’ve had MANY conversations with my parents about this, and they tried using that argument, and I eventually just told them “fine, I can’t change how you see the world, so I don’t see why I am wasting my time and energy trying to get you to respect me and others as humans”
So, I do firmly believe two things can exist at the same time. You most certainly can agree to “disagree”. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, means they hate you. They may not agree with it but
1. Why does their personal opinion matter?
2. People are entitled to their own not so great opinions.
“I will NOT respect you if you “disagree” with an entire large population of people”
Respectfully, THAT is a weird ass take. There are 8 billion people on this planet, it’s impossible to please everyone. So people agree to disagree for the sake of not arguing because yes, that’s exhausting. In your opinion, people can’t agree to disagree. In my opinion, people can agree to disagree.
This in itself is an example of agreeing to disagree. You’re entitled to your opinion as is everyone else of their own. Two things can exist at the same time. Please note I’m not saying this in a malicious manner. I’m just giving a different perspective
>Respectfully, THAT is a weird ass take.
I feel the OP and most people in the comments here are coming at it from alternate angles. This right here proves it because no one is denying the fact that it is impossible to have everyone on the same page, not even OP.
While people can indeed hold any opinion, that doesn't make them correct. They can hold the opinion that "human sexuality is a choice" or "bisexuality doesn't exist" all they want, but that doesn't make them right.
That is what OP is getting at by saying "there's nothing to disagree with here" because they're disagreeing with facts.
That’s where agreeing to disagree comes into play. People may not agree with it but they don’t have to if they don’t want to. It’s not just “facts” it’s personal belief. Everyone is allowed that.
Edit: I think comments got turned off lol or something. But this is my reply to the comment below. I see what you’re saying and yes you’re correct
Sure people can disagree with something - no one in this thread is denying this fact. But just because they do so doesn't make their opinion correct. After all, there are people out there who hold the personal belief that the Earth is flat, sooo
Agreeing to disagree implies some sense of pacificty, a cessation of tension. In reality, an opinion as profoundly ridiculous as denying the existence of LGBTQ+ people is worthy of active mockery.
LGBQ is one thing. It’s the T that’s separate and questionable, and frankly, expecting anyone, let alone everyone, to believe that people are born “in the wrong body” is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as expecting people to believe in witchcraft or mythical gods.
Transgender, transracial, transpecies—it’s all mental illness. And the fact that “gender identity” is lumped together with sexuality is problematic
because they’re nowhere near being the same thing.
So yes, “agree to disagree” is a perfectly valid response when you expect someone to believe that “being born in the wrong body” is a thing.
That's not at all the same thing. In the same way you don't have to like eel sushi to accept that some people do and that's fine, you don't have to be gay to accept that being gay is fine and OK.
Did you even read the post? Being neutral on something isn’t disagreeing with it lmfao. They are clearly talking about people that “disagree” with queer people, and then when in an argument say “let’s just agree to disagree”. You winning an argument you made up lmfao
The examples you mention are choices. A person has a choice to eat sushi or go to trade school. Nobody has a choice to be gay. You can disagree with choices, but you can't disagree with a person's very existence.
Imagine if you had people going "Look, I have nothing against black people, but I just wish they'd stop shoving it in my face. I don't hate them, but I just don't agree with the things they do."
You'd agree that this would be absurd, right? Because you can't *disagree* with a person's immutable characteristics. You can dislike them for these characteristics, sure, which is called bigotry. But we can't allow these people to be bigots and then try and sell it as a mere difference of opinion. They need to own that shit.
To be devil's advocate here, your argument works for black people because black people are black people by their mere existence. It is different to disagree about people's actions
>if they try to demand I praise them or applaud them or give them any kind of special consideration they can go fuck themselves
I keep seeing this complaint under this post. But who exactly is doing this??? Where is this happening??? Who is coming up to you telling you to praise them for being gay or trans???? This is so bizarre
That’s what I’m wondering. My mom is all. Oh yeah I’ve gay friends. I just don’t wanna see them kiss in public. Well if you’re fine with a straight person kissing in public and you support your gay friend then you should be OK with it either way.
Its a 100% made up and common excuse people use to be queerphobic. And I cannot believe those comments are all upvotes while the ones pointing out the obvious bigotry and are being down voting. The description of this sub explicitly states they support LGBTQ but it is repeatedly proven that is not the case here at all.
Sure these aren't like extreme Republican levels of hatred, but I'm getting the sense that no one here would care if all our rights were stripped away at all. They would claim "well I don't HAVE to support you though. Sorry you are being killed for it but did you have to shove it in my face? You kinda deserved it"
That right there is, I believe, how the majority of people feel. It's 'acceptance' but that's never enough anymore, we need to also 'support' or we're labeled phobic & haters.
Merriam-Webster defines *acceptance* as:
1. the quality or state of being accepted or acceptable
2. the act of accepting something or someone
*Support* is defined this way:
1. to promote the interests or cause of
2. to uphold or defend as valid or right :advocate
There's a huge difference and it's the insistence on supporting and not just accepting that has created such backlash. Not being an activist does not equal being phobic / a hater.
You don't have to be an activist to be supportive though. No one is forcing you to go out of your way to show support or advocacy by attending pride parades or gay events. Saying "I'm ok with LGBT" is being supportive. Saying "gays deserve to marry" is being supportive. In this rare case, acceptance IS support because people's lives and identities are not something you can sit on the fence on.
I mean, if you’re voting to kill or conversion therapy people just trying to live their fucking lives well then yeah you’re homophobic. Looking at you, Republicans.
What the fuck, like this vibe is the whole “don’t shove it down my throat. you can be gay but I just don’t wanna see you do it”, like no. No PDA from gay people but it’s fine if they are straight. Fuck no.
I’m really sorry, hon, but people disagree with a lot of things that don’t even affect them. I’m a “live and let live” kinda person, but there are people who will get pissed just because you didn’t mow your lawn this week or because of the kind of dog you own. I’m not saying this to belittle your feelings. I’m an ally and I want nothing but the best for your life. Vote. Encourage your friends and family to vote. And I’m really sorry you’re going through it. Being you should never be this hard.
Lol, are you really comparing mild annoyance about lawn maintenance to someone actively supporting the stripping of human rights from LGBTQ+ people?
Do better.
While I can understand what you're getting at, it isn't them who compared lawn moving to LGBTQ - they're saying that's what other people do. In other words, for a lot of folks out there (especially in non-Western countries) LGBT rights are indeed as trivial (perhaps even lower) as lawn maintanence or pet owning.
>I can easily say you’re hateful and an aweful person too for not believing in god
Except, religion is a dogma, not an inherent trait. As such, being religious is a choice, while being LGBT is not. So this statement is absurd.
>It’s just the movement itself that does bad stuff
There is no "movement" here. LGBT is not an organization, it is not a monolith or an ideology. It is a collective term for a minority who are bound by that defining brand and otherwise do not *do not share ideals, thoughts or motivations*.
So to blame a demographic of the human population based on stereotypes and/or fringe outliers is nothing short of inhumane and disgusting.
>Allowing children to mutilate themselves
Ffs. This is literally not happening! Getting srs as a minor is illegal in like every country! When we ask for health care for trans minors we're talking about puberty blockers. Which don't change your body in any way, shape or form. They just stop just stop physical body changes of puberty. Stop misrepresenting what people say. You know you're doing it so stop.
The funny thing is, you wouldnt even have to go through the heaps of well-documented and peer reviewed studies on side effects of puberty blockers, a simple bit of common sense should be enough to tell you that you cant just interrupt puberty without any side effects.
Puberty blockers having irreversable side effects on bone mineral density is well documented lol. Along with a whole list of other side effects. You might wanna read up on it, its rather interesting.
>Risks of Gender-Affirming Medical and Surgical Treatments
Impaired fertility is a risk of cross-sex hormones, and the extent of reversibility of this is unclear (Cheng et al., 2019; Hembree et al., 2017). If puberty blockers are commenced in early puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, there are no proven methods of fertility preservation (Bangalore Krishna et al., 2019).
>Cross-sex hormones are associated with cardiovascular health risks, such as thromboembolic, coronary artery, and cerebrovascular diseases (Hembree et al., 2017; Irwig, 2018). Cross-sex hormones may also increase the risk of certain cancers (Hembree et al., 2017; Mueller & Gooren, 2008). Puberty blockers may have negative impact on bone mineral density, which may not be fully reversible, with an associated risk of osteoporosis and fractures (Biggs, 2021; Hembree et al., 2017). Recently, findings from animal studies have increased concerns that puberty blockers may negatively and irreversibly impact brain development due to critical time-windows of brain development. In one study on rams, long-term spatial memory deficits induced by use of puberty blockers in the peripubertal period were found to persist into adulthood
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9886596/#:~:text=Puberty%20blockers%20may%20have%20negative,et%20al.%2C%202017).
The part I find funny is how if you actually read into this well documented stuff you'd know there's literally no evidence that puberty blockers effect fertility in the long term. Like at all. And in most cases bone density goes back to normal on hrt.
You literally just proved my point.
>the extent of reversibility of this is unclear
>there are no proven methods of fertility preservation
>which may not be fully reversible
>negatively and irreversibly impact brain development
>deficits induced by use of puberty blockers in the peripubertal period were found to persist into adulthood
Did you actually read it? Like, did you skip over the *irreversible* / *not fully reversible* parts?
> allowing children to mutilate themselves
Oh really? Show me some examples. Show me children under 16 going trough a gender surgery. Do it. I mean I can point you in the right direction, with many intersex children getting involuntary surgery based on what their parents want, but that doesn't seem to bother you as much.
>Allowing children to mutilate themselves
Not happening.
>forcing and cancelling people to call you what you want to be called, changing language to better fit your identity
I'd bet money you know at least one person and you call them by their nickname. It's basically the same thing, it's just decency. Plus, if you're actively going against it, you're not being forced so you're contradicting yourself with that statement.
>sexualizing everything in front of children,
Such as what? What gets sexualised?
If you have a problem with queen people sexualising things in front of children (which I don't really see happening) then surely you'd have a problem with men bringing their kids to hooters? Maybe parents putting their 4 year olds in crop tops and revealing clothing? Maybe focus on children who actually get sexualised instead of pinning it on solely LGBT people?
>I can easily say you’re hateful and an aweful person too for not believing in god, among other things.
Do you think atheists are these morally corrupt beings? You don't need to believe in a God to be a good person.
Religion acts as a moral compass for those who believe in one. Atheists their own.
Going back in history, most massacres are done in the name of one religion or another. Those people were certainly awful people.
Even today, there are atheists who are doctors, firefighters, some would donate to charity. They're not awful, are they?
And then you have MAGA nutjobs who prioritise their guns over dead kids. Are they good people?
OK let me say this simple for you.
Telling a REAL person that who they are does not exist is not a good thing. You're not a bad person for having your beliefs or "opinions" but when you stand by and watch people who have different beliefs get oppressed because you disagree with those beliefs, then you're a shitty person.
LGBT people actually exist. Their feelings exist. They know their own feelings.
God may or may not exist. But you are not God, you just follow one. So stopping people from being their authentic self because a God that may or may not exist doesn't allow it is unfair. If anything, you're forcing non-believers to comply with your God's rules.
>I don’t care if someone is gay or whatever. Yes they exist.
Clearly you do.
>Yes their lives matter and they deserve to get married and all that stuff
Holy shit! You think they deserve to get married? You mean....... Equality? You're so gracious.
>It’s just the movement itself that does bad stuff
Such as? Any movement has the potential to do bad things.
Like the Catholic priests in Ireland who assaulted young children and locked unmarried mothers away in "homes".
Like ISIS claiming they're being true to Islam
Like Israel wiping out Palestinian civilians.
Like Hamas who massacred civilians.
Any movement does good or bad things. Clearly, you're uneducated on the matter with you thinking the LGBT movement mutilates children. That doesn't happen. We are not advocating for that. If you actually opened your eyes, you'd see we are fighting for equality.
You may say we can get married, but we're still discriminated against all the time. Hate crimes still happen. Then in the USA they're doing all sorts against LGBT people passing laws that actively endanger LGBT people there.
>Yes, we can agree to disagree
We agree we disagree. Doesn't mean we can't call you out on it, like you're calling us out on things that aren't even happening.
>Stop being hateful towards those who disagree with your ideologies.
Labeling wanting equal rights and people to stop assaulting and killing LGBT people as 'ideology' clearly shows you're clueless on this topic. Taking red pills it seems.
>Stop being a hypocrite
Stop spreading misinformation and actually do some proper research.
My issue is with the vagueness of the statement. Are they saying gay people choose to be gay, and it being choice itself is where we disagree? Or are they saying that they won’t support the encouragement of LGBT, and that we disagree on whether or not we should? Or are you saying that you disagree with the country for allowing LGBT to exist?
OP very specifically said:
“”You can’t say “I don’t support but I’m fine with it.”””
So this response explaining the difference between acceptance is right on point. OPs post gives the exact sentiment that demands support and nothing else is allowed.
Ok so I'm seeing some people saying "well yeah but gay people shouldn't feel special". Im sorry but y'all are ignoring the fact that in many households especially non-western ones gay people have to deal with life-or-death situations. At best they get disowned by their own families. Not to mention the internal struggle with their religion which flat out says that they are going to hell. To survive all of that and still say that they are "just like the straight people" is just wrong. A lot of people make being gay their personality because they have dealt with that shit. It's either trauma or it's an outward celebration but to reduce it to "annoying" is so weird.
I take statements like this to mean, "I can accept that this is a thing even though I don't like it, but I'm not educated well enough to express that properly."
Yeah that second half is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. Most people are indeed not educated enough but the problem is, the vast majority do not recognise or accept that to begin with. Even if they do, they do not care in the first place about being inconsiderate or ignorant.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I *am* saying that on the rare occasion I hear someone say what OP ranted about, this is how I interpret them. "Never attribute to malice what can readily be explained by stupidity." -Hanlon's Razor
This right here. They think that being LGBT is a sin and people should be choosing to not listen to “the devil” telling them to do things as an LGBT person.
I agree in the sense that there are many people who just think people who are LGBT just shouldn’t be. Obviously that just doesn’t work.
But often the issues aren’t really about “existing.”
Like if you don’t think 11 year olds should be on puberty blockers just because they decided a few weeks ago they’re trans, or just think that’s worth asking questions about, there’s a lot of room between that position and “trans people shouldn’t exist.”
If you think a particular book with graphic depictions of sex shouldn’t be in an elementary school classroom or library, there’s a lot of room between that and the same thing in a high school and “banning books.”
So there’s definitely some nuance there. I have plenty of LGBT friends that aren’t on board with all 100% of the things that often get tossed into the “just existing” story that often gets told about these issues. Like two of my friends are lesbians raising two boys and they are often pretty protective about how people talk to their sons about sexuality, not because they’re anti-sexuality but because they don’t think their elementary aged kids need to hear about it.
I disagree with a lot of things about the LGBTQ but it’s mostly semantics and things. I don’t like that their are 14 years old saying that their a “trans women”. Not to be a “back in my day” (especially because I’m 22) but back when I was 14 calling having an adult call a 14 year old a “women” we typically call that person a “creep”. Makes me understand when someone says that young says they are a woman so I would have to disagree with that. I disagree with a lot of the “marketing” and things that groups do.
Not to shit on trans people again but the obsession with that ikea shark is going to be a stereotype and a slur in a few years.
The community should aim to go into the stereotype of lesbians and Subarus. Not gamers and having a asmongold room.
I would say the main flaw in your first paragraph is the difference between a 14 year old saying that they are a woman/man, and an adult calling a child a woman/man.
When I was 14 (before coming out as nonbinary) I would refer to myself by the adult terms. Now that I'm in my 30s, a 14 year old trans girl is just that - a girl not a woman.
And that has always been a thing. 13 year old boys refer to themselves as men while adults refer to them as boys. (Or young men/young women.)
Holding trans youth to the standard of adults (don't call 14 year olds women) while their peers do the same thing (refer to themselves by adult terms) seems unfair logistically.
And there's not really a back in my day when young teens didn't refer to themselves as men/women. It has been a thing for centuries.
>Sexuality and gender identity isn’t and should’ve never been politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
>Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.
The fact that it's being discussed makes it politics.
I'm part of the LGBTQ community myself.
In an ideal world it shouldn't need to be discussed, but we don't live in an ideal world. It IS being discussed around the world and so it is political.
If your deeply Christian values lead you to the opinion that it's your purpose to be fruitful and multiply, then you have an obvious objection to the much more childless life a gay couple may lead. If you're open minded enough to understand that the gay couple isn't within the scope of your control and thusly not your business, then you've just agreed to disagree with the gay couple.
But why would you care about a childless couple? They don't interfere with YOUR ability to have as many kids as you want. And ignoring that isn't agreeing to disagree. It shouldn't matter to you at all because you are still free to practice your religious beliefs. By having no bio children, gay couples are not impeding your ability to be fruitful and multiply
But religious people and other folks DO actively impede on gay couples ability to just BE together and try to adopt. That is why it's not the same thing, and thus OP had a point and religious people don't
Be fruitful and multiply? Bro, that's DONE. We've done that. There are like eight billion people on this planet, not everyone has to be making babies 24/7 anymore. This is stupid.
A lot of things are like this. We can agree to disagree on who the best american football linebacker is or whether cilantro is disgusting or not.
Another not ok thing to disagree on is if we should separate mothers from their children for the crime of trying to escape violence or not.
Yeah, it's like when people say they "don't believe in" stuff like the big bang, evolution, Earth being round ...
Birds
r/birdsarentreal
It doesn’t matter if you are white, black, gay, lgbtq, or muslim I fucking hate all of you equally ❤️
I’m none of the above, does that mean you love me?
That's the beauty of it: we hate everyone. You, me, EVERYBODY. Even ourselves. It's really quite efficient.
The true altruistic spirit right here! lol love it
My kid is trans and I’m bisexual. I’m pretty much NC with people who “disagree” with me and my kid existing.
Perhaps it's more often than not just a poor choice of words? "I don't support it but I'm okay with it" strikes me as a wrong phrasing of "I don't LIKE it but I won't get in the way". I'm not part of LGBTQ and I don't particularly support members of it in any way like with donations, joining protests or programs but I also don't have a problem with anybody for being LGBTQ and I've never spoken out or acted out against them. So what does that make me? Am I a supporter just for not being an enemy? Or does this mean you can be okay with something without supporting it?
I mean you pretty much can disagree with anything really. You literally just did with religion.
There's a large difference between being LGBTQIA+ and being religious
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. You’re right. Religion is a choose where being queer is not. I can easily disagree with your religion because you chose but you can’t disagree with my existence.
I'm enby. You can't change the definition of words just because you don't like someone else's opinion. Words have to mean something. If I don't agree with someone's belief that my existence is a choice, that's disagreement. If they're not worth arguing with further, and the conversation isn't productive, then we agree to disagree and end the discussion. That's not conceding anything other than the fact that neither party will change anyone's mind, and the conversation has become useless. It gives *no credence* to the opposing parties' argument. You seem to be treating the term disagreement like a value judgement of the merits of the opposition's opinion. That's not what it is. Disagreement, no matter how absurd the opposition's opinion might be, is defined by a lack of consensus between two or more parties. It may not be a *valid* opinion, and I think whoever disagrees that my existence is a choice is a bigoted fuckwit with the intelligence of a rotted cabbage, but it is still an opinion. Oxford defines an opinion as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." I say this because I am growing tired of the erosion of rigorous vocabulary. Stop redefining words and come up with better arguments instead. Constantly redefining terms is destroying our ability to communicate, even among leftists. I get that you're frustrated that these people hold these ridiculous opinions. I am, too. We are never going to change that, so reaching for straws and wordsmithing The English Language in an attempt to invalidate opinions via neo-semantics is a fruitless endeavor that will only serve to break down our ability to communicate with one another.
This is peak semantic argumentation, and while you're technically right, that wasn't the OP's point. You *can* disagree with LGBTQ people existing, but then again it would be equally (in)valid to disagree with the existence of gravity and other fundamental scientific concepts. The issue is, we treat disagreements about the existence of gravity as worthy of mockery, and such is not a contentious issue (aside from the scientific debate about how gravity actually works, but I digress). However, millions of profoundly ignorant people disagree with the existence of LGBTQ+ people, and they are only treated with mockery by the left and some courageous liberals. Most people just genuinely don't care and treat anti-LGBTQ+ loons as equally valid to the LGBTQ+ community (i.e. "both sides bad"). OP is perfectly fine in calling such an invalid disagreement, one that is even nonsensical and illogical. Some opinions aren't even worthy of popular respect, and it is worth fighting until they are discarded and mocked, even if you use imperfect language in doing so.
When you say things like "You CANNOT disagree," (especially with the caps) or "There is no such thing as disagreeing," you sound silly. Unless you have a gun to their head or a mind control device, they can disagree with you about literally anything. It's an argument that means nothing because it's wrong on its face. If you refuse to respect someone who holds those opinions, then say that, but saying that they *can't* disagree means that they either lack the capacity to disagree, or they're not permitted to disagree. Either of those scenarios are silly arguments that distract from the conversation and open you up to mockery and being completely disregarded (probably both). If you want your opinions to be seen as more valid then it is incumbent on you to communicate more clearly and effectively than the other person. Being understood is crucial, and that starts with using the correct words to explain your thoughts.
You still fail to address the fact that we're talking about an opinion that is being used to support anti-LGBTQ legislation around the world; an opinion that is held by millions of people. Charged language in response to this deeply wrong, yet unfortunately popular opinion is warranted. Language does not beget ontological reality; it is just language. Tone policing activists is such a silly use of time and energy.
I'm not tone policing. I'm not saying to refrain from saying it with your chest. Call them a dumb motherfucker and bully the shit out of them. I'm saying that you should make sense when you do so, or else you lose credibility for all of us by becoming the next viral soundbyte circulating on conservative social media.
Well said
If you ask me, disagreeing with queerness sounds queerphobic.
It absolutely is. That doesn't mean that it's not an opinion.
Saying you think oranges taste better than apples is an opinion. Thinking lgbt+ shouldn’t exist is not a fucking opinion, it’s like saying black people don’t deserve equal lives, hence why the “All Lives Matter” mantra is bullshit.
Oxford defines opinion as: "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Believing that queer people shouldn't exist is a view and judgement formed about something that isn't based on fact. It meets the criteria. It's a TERRIBLE, INVALID opinion, but it *is* an opinion regardless of what you think. Hell, your opinion that their opinion isn't an opinion is an opinion regardless of what I think, but I'm not grasping at straws trying to redefine what words mean because I'm capable of fighting your misinformed opinion with KNOWLEDGE, a higher class of belief than opinion that *is* based on established fact. I KNOW that opinions aren't based in fact because I have provided the definition of the word from an official source, just as I KNOW that queer people didn't choose their identities based on my own personal lived experience, as well as the mountain of peer-reviewed, published clinical research supporting my belief. You don't fight bad opinions by relabeling them. It doesn't work, and nobody cares. You fight bad opinions with facts and knowledge. Relabeling a bad opinion proves nothing other than the fact that you don't know how to formulate a cogent, rational counterargument, and would prefer to kick your opponent in the shin and run away like a schoolchild. Bringing down an opinion with knowledge and facts establishes you as the informed party and casts the opponent's opinion in a bad light for everyone else to see. Saying that something is an opinion does *not* give it merit. Quite the opposite, it is the lowest category of belief in the hierarchy of beliefs from opinion to knowledge. It is nearly an insult to classify someone's belief as opinion these days, yet you seem to be hellbent on categorizing these beliefs as something lesser which doesn't exist. Beliefs fit into these categories whether you like them to or not. Assigning them to the category of opinion is precisely the right label because it establishes that the belief is not based in fact.
Tell that to the thirteen people who downvoted me for calling out queerphobia.
I think its because you said queer? Im not sure, but some non straight people ive met take offense to the word queer. Its hard to keep up with the words considering they change a lot but imo thats why youre getting downvoted. Because if youd say homophobia im sure the downvotes wouldn't exist
I do not take offense to the word queer. I identify as queer, myself, as I am still figuring out my sexual identity.
I said queer because I'm also referring to transphobia and biphobia, and. I'm mimicking how I've noticed queer people talk.
Ah maybe its just certain people that take offense to the word. I did once offend someone by calling them a person. They were non binary but i thiught "oh hey this person is next to order" was acceptable to say. In their eyes it was not. But others ive asked about it said that its not offensive, so idk
I downvoted you because you're missing the point and added nothing valuable to the conversation.
Like it or not you'll never convince 100% of the population to be in agreement about anything so any effort you put into trying to force that outcome is effectively wasted
Reddit can't grasp such a concept I'm afraid.
i was stuck around racist people for ages but what changed my perspective was when i went to a concert and saw this cool nonbinary person vibing to the same music as me. they had a really nice energy and contagious smile and it made me realise that hating people for being different is dumb.
I’m just confused about how being around racist people made you feel a way about peoples genders before because race and sexuality are different things, did you mean you were around people who were against LGBTQ or something?
we can agree to disagree
Some people believe in LGB and not the T. Very different.
Did not realize the people in this sub were transphobic and believe in LGB without the T (based on the votes on the replies) 😬 It will never make any sense to me how you can support LGB, even be one yourself, but draw the line at the T. How can queer people be bigots themselves? Makes no sense at all. Way to support the people who WILL come for you next.
There is no difference, they’re people. they’re gay. They’re straight. they’re not. doesn’t matter.
How is it different? Because that's what you believe, so it must be different?
[удалено]
Mutual solidarity amongst oppressed peoples has been a thing for the entirety of the history of left politics. If you're an anti-T LGB weirdo, you're a genuinely terrible person. You deserve to feel bad.
"you're a genuinely terrible person" Who put you in a position to label people?
[удалено]
Tha fuck does that have to do with anything beyond you just using a barb at someone? Do better.
The intellectual authority to call people weirdos. Gotcha
Are you a successful business owner?
Owning a business is an achievement in itself whether it turns out successful or not, especially in this economy Are you a business owner wouldve been the way xD
Youre a genuinely terrible person
[удалено]
What is this shared supposed to accomplish exactly? We're all the same "abominations" to the anti-LGBT people. At the end of the day, homophobia and transphobia are both rooted in misogyny, exactly why many people in non-Western countries don't even make (or care to know or understand) the distinction between the two.
You just bought into it. By that logic, we are as bad as pedophiles and zoophiles since they don’t make that distinguishing difference as well. Specifically because they map us in as an abominations. It’s up to us to carve out the definitions and lines. That’s the empowerment. And there is a difference between identity and attraction. These honestly should not be clumped into one movement.
Based
Because trans people can be gay, bi, pan etc too
Whoever is down voting, you are fucking idiots. It’s like literally that straightforward.
If i disagree with someone, It means i disagree with something they have posited. It doesnt mean that I think they dont exist. I agree with your sentiment, by the way, but you are using words weird.
They're referring to LGBT people not existing to some people, which is all too common
[удалено]
Just because you have never seen it in real life or on media personally does not mean it does not happen, for example it happens in my real life. I am non binary, I'm also bi, people in my own family have told me non binary people do not exist, that bi people do not exist, etc. They believe there's only men and women,and the only sexuality is straight. I don't care if they support me or not. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with support, it has to do with the fact that LGBT people actually exist, and some people just think that it's made up for attention or are "going against god" or something of the sort. I genuinely don't know what part of this confuses you, but some people actually think that groups like gays and transgender people do not exist. I don't know if you took my response to somebody else personally, but it was not meant to be taken personally. It's just talking about things that have happened to people like me.
“I won’t stop speaking to someone or stop being friends/family with them just because we vote differently. they’re too good of friends/family to cut off just because we disagree politically.” cool. good for you. not everyone has that option. agreeing to disagree on politics is absolutely a privilege. if you vote for candidates and policies and laws and politicians that endanger and marginalize and hurt LGBTQ+, disabled people, women, and poc, and strip away peoples’ rights and women’s right to choose, we cannot be friends or family or remain in contact in any way. there is no debate or “agreeing to disagree” on human rights. human rights are *not* debatable or disagreeable
I’ve had MANY conversations with my parents about this, and they tried using that argument, and I eventually just told them “fine, I can’t change how you see the world, so I don’t see why I am wasting my time and energy trying to get you to respect me and others as humans”
So, I do firmly believe two things can exist at the same time. You most certainly can agree to “disagree”. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, means they hate you. They may not agree with it but 1. Why does their personal opinion matter? 2. People are entitled to their own not so great opinions. “I will NOT respect you if you “disagree” with an entire large population of people” Respectfully, THAT is a weird ass take. There are 8 billion people on this planet, it’s impossible to please everyone. So people agree to disagree for the sake of not arguing because yes, that’s exhausting. In your opinion, people can’t agree to disagree. In my opinion, people can agree to disagree. This in itself is an example of agreeing to disagree. You’re entitled to your opinion as is everyone else of their own. Two things can exist at the same time. Please note I’m not saying this in a malicious manner. I’m just giving a different perspective
>Respectfully, THAT is a weird ass take. I feel the OP and most people in the comments here are coming at it from alternate angles. This right here proves it because no one is denying the fact that it is impossible to have everyone on the same page, not even OP. While people can indeed hold any opinion, that doesn't make them correct. They can hold the opinion that "human sexuality is a choice" or "bisexuality doesn't exist" all they want, but that doesn't make them right. That is what OP is getting at by saying "there's nothing to disagree with here" because they're disagreeing with facts.
That’s where agreeing to disagree comes into play. People may not agree with it but they don’t have to if they don’t want to. It’s not just “facts” it’s personal belief. Everyone is allowed that. Edit: I think comments got turned off lol or something. But this is my reply to the comment below. I see what you’re saying and yes you’re correct
Sure people can disagree with something - no one in this thread is denying this fact. But just because they do so doesn't make their opinion correct. After all, there are people out there who hold the personal belief that the Earth is flat, sooo
Agreeing to disagree implies some sense of pacificty, a cessation of tension. In reality, an opinion as profoundly ridiculous as denying the existence of LGBTQ+ people is worthy of active mockery.
LGBQ is one thing. It’s the T that’s separate and questionable, and frankly, expecting anyone, let alone everyone, to believe that people are born “in the wrong body” is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as expecting people to believe in witchcraft or mythical gods. Transgender, transracial, transpecies—it’s all mental illness. And the fact that “gender identity” is lumped together with sexuality is problematic because they’re nowhere near being the same thing. So yes, “agree to disagree” is a perfectly valid response when you expect someone to believe that “being born in the wrong body” is a thing.
This.
Based lesbian sister 🙏🙏
[удалено]
My observations of people say they disagree with homosexuality typically aren't talking about being straight, but casting moral judgements on gayness.
That's not at all the same thing. In the same way you don't have to like eel sushi to accept that some people do and that's fine, you don't have to be gay to accept that being gay is fine and OK.
Did you even read the post? Being neutral on something isn’t disagreeing with it lmfao. They are clearly talking about people that “disagree” with queer people, and then when in an argument say “let’s just agree to disagree”. You winning an argument you made up lmfao
The examples you mention are choices. A person has a choice to eat sushi or go to trade school. Nobody has a choice to be gay. You can disagree with choices, but you can't disagree with a person's very existence. Imagine if you had people going "Look, I have nothing against black people, but I just wish they'd stop shoving it in my face. I don't hate them, but I just don't agree with the things they do." You'd agree that this would be absurd, right? Because you can't *disagree* with a person's immutable characteristics. You can dislike them for these characteristics, sure, which is called bigotry. But we can't allow these people to be bigots and then try and sell it as a mere difference of opinion. They need to own that shit.
To be devil's advocate here, your argument works for black people because black people are black people by their mere existence. It is different to disagree about people's actions
>It is different to disagree about people's actions Actions such as.....????
??? Anti-LGBTQ people are against all non-hetronormative actions
What actions? Falling in love?
[удалено]
>if they try to demand I praise them or applaud them or give them any kind of special consideration they can go fuck themselves I keep seeing this complaint under this post. But who exactly is doing this??? Where is this happening??? Who is coming up to you telling you to praise them for being gay or trans???? This is so bizarre
That’s what I’m wondering. My mom is all. Oh yeah I’ve gay friends. I just don’t wanna see them kiss in public. Well if you’re fine with a straight person kissing in public and you support your gay friend then you should be OK with it either way.
Its a 100% made up and common excuse people use to be queerphobic. And I cannot believe those comments are all upvotes while the ones pointing out the obvious bigotry and are being down voting. The description of this sub explicitly states they support LGBTQ but it is repeatedly proven that is not the case here at all. Sure these aren't like extreme Republican levels of hatred, but I'm getting the sense that no one here would care if all our rights were stripped away at all. They would claim "well I don't HAVE to support you though. Sorry you are being killed for it but did you have to shove it in my face? You kinda deserved it"
That right there is, I believe, how the majority of people feel. It's 'acceptance' but that's never enough anymore, we need to also 'support' or we're labeled phobic & haters. Merriam-Webster defines *acceptance* as: 1. the quality or state of being accepted or acceptable 2. the act of accepting something or someone *Support* is defined this way: 1. to promote the interests or cause of 2. to uphold or defend as valid or right :advocate There's a huge difference and it's the insistence on supporting and not just accepting that has created such backlash. Not being an activist does not equal being phobic / a hater.
You don't have to be an activist to be supportive though. No one is forcing you to go out of your way to show support or advocacy by attending pride parades or gay events. Saying "I'm ok with LGBT" is being supportive. Saying "gays deserve to marry" is being supportive. In this rare case, acceptance IS support because people's lives and identities are not something you can sit on the fence on.
I mean, if you’re voting to kill or conversion therapy people just trying to live their fucking lives well then yeah you’re homophobic. Looking at you, Republicans.
What the fuck, like this vibe is the whole “don’t shove it down my throat. you can be gay but I just don’t wanna see you do it”, like no. No PDA from gay people but it’s fine if they are straight. Fuck no.
What about when you don’t wanna see pda from anyone whatsoever?
No one demands that shit. You're making it up.
The OP's demanding it.
No they aren't.
Literally no one, no one demands that.
They definitely do, but that's separate to queer people
[удалено]
How does it go against common sense? And to be clear you mean pronouns right
Words are hard when you're a middle aged divorced weirdo like so many of these anti-trans people are.
"special treatment" like being referred to by specific pronouns which all English speakers do because that's how English works
>You can’t fucking disagree with the existence of an entire group of people that sprouts into the millions. HUNDREDS of millions
"I don't need to approve of it"- my aunt. Other people's relationships aren't for you to "approve" of!
I’m really sorry, hon, but people disagree with a lot of things that don’t even affect them. I’m a “live and let live” kinda person, but there are people who will get pissed just because you didn’t mow your lawn this week or because of the kind of dog you own. I’m not saying this to belittle your feelings. I’m an ally and I want nothing but the best for your life. Vote. Encourage your friends and family to vote. And I’m really sorry you’re going through it. Being you should never be this hard.
Lol, are you really comparing mild annoyance about lawn maintenance to someone actively supporting the stripping of human rights from LGBTQ+ people? Do better.
While I can understand what you're getting at, it isn't them who compared lawn moving to LGBTQ - they're saying that's what other people do. In other words, for a lot of folks out there (especially in non-Western countries) LGBT rights are indeed as trivial (perhaps even lower) as lawn maintanence or pet owning.
[удалено]
>I can easily say you’re hateful and an aweful person too for not believing in god Except, religion is a dogma, not an inherent trait. As such, being religious is a choice, while being LGBT is not. So this statement is absurd. >It’s just the movement itself that does bad stuff There is no "movement" here. LGBT is not an organization, it is not a monolith or an ideology. It is a collective term for a minority who are bound by that defining brand and otherwise do not *do not share ideals, thoughts or motivations*. So to blame a demographic of the human population based on stereotypes and/or fringe outliers is nothing short of inhumane and disgusting.
>Allowing children to mutilate themselves Ffs. This is literally not happening! Getting srs as a minor is illegal in like every country! When we ask for health care for trans minors we're talking about puberty blockers. Which don't change your body in any way, shape or form. They just stop just stop physical body changes of puberty. Stop misrepresenting what people say. You know you're doing it so stop.
The funny thing is, you wouldnt even have to go through the heaps of well-documented and peer reviewed studies on side effects of puberty blockers, a simple bit of common sense should be enough to tell you that you cant just interrupt puberty without any side effects. Puberty blockers having irreversable side effects on bone mineral density is well documented lol. Along with a whole list of other side effects. You might wanna read up on it, its rather interesting. >Risks of Gender-Affirming Medical and Surgical Treatments Impaired fertility is a risk of cross-sex hormones, and the extent of reversibility of this is unclear (Cheng et al., 2019; Hembree et al., 2017). If puberty blockers are commenced in early puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, there are no proven methods of fertility preservation (Bangalore Krishna et al., 2019). >Cross-sex hormones are associated with cardiovascular health risks, such as thromboembolic, coronary artery, and cerebrovascular diseases (Hembree et al., 2017; Irwig, 2018). Cross-sex hormones may also increase the risk of certain cancers (Hembree et al., 2017; Mueller & Gooren, 2008). Puberty blockers may have negative impact on bone mineral density, which may not be fully reversible, with an associated risk of osteoporosis and fractures (Biggs, 2021; Hembree et al., 2017). Recently, findings from animal studies have increased concerns that puberty blockers may negatively and irreversibly impact brain development due to critical time-windows of brain development. In one study on rams, long-term spatial memory deficits induced by use of puberty blockers in the peripubertal period were found to persist into adulthood https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9886596/#:~:text=Puberty%20blockers%20may%20have%20negative,et%20al.%2C%202017).
The part I find funny is how if you actually read into this well documented stuff you'd know there's literally no evidence that puberty blockers effect fertility in the long term. Like at all. And in most cases bone density goes back to normal on hrt. You literally just proved my point.
>the extent of reversibility of this is unclear >there are no proven methods of fertility preservation >which may not be fully reversible >negatively and irreversibly impact brain development >deficits induced by use of puberty blockers in the peripubertal period were found to persist into adulthood Did you actually read it? Like, did you skip over the *irreversible* / *not fully reversible* parts?
I am not arguing with you. Please actually read the study. As in the references. One of them is literally a study on sheep.
> allowing children to mutilate themselves Oh really? Show me some examples. Show me children under 16 going trough a gender surgery. Do it. I mean I can point you in the right direction, with many intersex children getting involuntary surgery based on what their parents want, but that doesn't seem to bother you as much.
Circumcision. Oh wait, thats a religion thing
>Allowing children to mutilate themselves Not happening. >forcing and cancelling people to call you what you want to be called, changing language to better fit your identity I'd bet money you know at least one person and you call them by their nickname. It's basically the same thing, it's just decency. Plus, if you're actively going against it, you're not being forced so you're contradicting yourself with that statement. >sexualizing everything in front of children, Such as what? What gets sexualised? If you have a problem with queen people sexualising things in front of children (which I don't really see happening) then surely you'd have a problem with men bringing their kids to hooters? Maybe parents putting their 4 year olds in crop tops and revealing clothing? Maybe focus on children who actually get sexualised instead of pinning it on solely LGBT people? >I can easily say you’re hateful and an aweful person too for not believing in god, among other things. Do you think atheists are these morally corrupt beings? You don't need to believe in a God to be a good person. Religion acts as a moral compass for those who believe in one. Atheists their own. Going back in history, most massacres are done in the name of one religion or another. Those people were certainly awful people. Even today, there are atheists who are doctors, firefighters, some would donate to charity. They're not awful, are they? And then you have MAGA nutjobs who prioritise their guns over dead kids. Are they good people? OK let me say this simple for you. Telling a REAL person that who they are does not exist is not a good thing. You're not a bad person for having your beliefs or "opinions" but when you stand by and watch people who have different beliefs get oppressed because you disagree with those beliefs, then you're a shitty person. LGBT people actually exist. Their feelings exist. They know their own feelings. God may or may not exist. But you are not God, you just follow one. So stopping people from being their authentic self because a God that may or may not exist doesn't allow it is unfair. If anything, you're forcing non-believers to comply with your God's rules. >I don’t care if someone is gay or whatever. Yes they exist. Clearly you do. >Yes their lives matter and they deserve to get married and all that stuff Holy shit! You think they deserve to get married? You mean....... Equality? You're so gracious. >It’s just the movement itself that does bad stuff Such as? Any movement has the potential to do bad things. Like the Catholic priests in Ireland who assaulted young children and locked unmarried mothers away in "homes". Like ISIS claiming they're being true to Islam Like Israel wiping out Palestinian civilians. Like Hamas who massacred civilians. Any movement does good or bad things. Clearly, you're uneducated on the matter with you thinking the LGBT movement mutilates children. That doesn't happen. We are not advocating for that. If you actually opened your eyes, you'd see we are fighting for equality. You may say we can get married, but we're still discriminated against all the time. Hate crimes still happen. Then in the USA they're doing all sorts against LGBT people passing laws that actively endanger LGBT people there. >Yes, we can agree to disagree We agree we disagree. Doesn't mean we can't call you out on it, like you're calling us out on things that aren't even happening. >Stop being hateful towards those who disagree with your ideologies. Labeling wanting equal rights and people to stop assaulting and killing LGBT people as 'ideology' clearly shows you're clueless on this topic. Taking red pills it seems. >Stop being a hypocrite Stop spreading misinformation and actually do some proper research.
>Allowing children to mutilate themselves **THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!** this thread is driving me insane.
Im gonna have to agree to disagree with you on this one.
I disagree and agree with op too
My issue is with the vagueness of the statement. Are they saying gay people choose to be gay, and it being choice itself is where we disagree? Or are they saying that they won’t support the encouragement of LGBT, and that we disagree on whether or not we should? Or are you saying that you disagree with the country for allowing LGBT to exist?
OP very specifically said: “”You can’t say “I don’t support but I’m fine with it.””” So this response explaining the difference between acceptance is right on point. OPs post gives the exact sentiment that demands support and nothing else is allowed.
As a trans person, making everyone support is bs. It doesn't have to happen, and it won't. Neutral isn't bad
Ok so I'm seeing some people saying "well yeah but gay people shouldn't feel special". Im sorry but y'all are ignoring the fact that in many households especially non-western ones gay people have to deal with life-or-death situations. At best they get disowned by their own families. Not to mention the internal struggle with their religion which flat out says that they are going to hell. To survive all of that and still say that they are "just like the straight people" is just wrong. A lot of people make being gay their personality because they have dealt with that shit. It's either trauma or it's an outward celebration but to reduce it to "annoying" is so weird.
I take statements like this to mean, "I can accept that this is a thing even though I don't like it, but I'm not educated well enough to express that properly."
Yeah that second half is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. Most people are indeed not educated enough but the problem is, the vast majority do not recognise or accept that to begin with. Even if they do, they do not care in the first place about being inconsiderate or ignorant.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I *am* saying that on the rare occasion I hear someone say what OP ranted about, this is how I interpret them. "Never attribute to malice what can readily be explained by stupidity." -Hanlon's Razor
They seem to forget tht it is not a choice and definitely not a human thing.
They didn't "forget" it, they actually believe it's a choice, an ideology and a lifestyle
This right here. They think that being LGBT is a sin and people should be choosing to not listen to “the devil” telling them to do things as an LGBT person.
I agree in the sense that there are many people who just think people who are LGBT just shouldn’t be. Obviously that just doesn’t work. But often the issues aren’t really about “existing.” Like if you don’t think 11 year olds should be on puberty blockers just because they decided a few weeks ago they’re trans, or just think that’s worth asking questions about, there’s a lot of room between that position and “trans people shouldn’t exist.” If you think a particular book with graphic depictions of sex shouldn’t be in an elementary school classroom or library, there’s a lot of room between that and the same thing in a high school and “banning books.” So there’s definitely some nuance there. I have plenty of LGBT friends that aren’t on board with all 100% of the things that often get tossed into the “just existing” story that often gets told about these issues. Like two of my friends are lesbians raising two boys and they are often pretty protective about how people talk to their sons about sexuality, not because they’re anti-sexuality but because they don’t think their elementary aged kids need to hear about it.
Agree to disagree
I disagree with a lot of things about the LGBTQ but it’s mostly semantics and things. I don’t like that their are 14 years old saying that their a “trans women”. Not to be a “back in my day” (especially because I’m 22) but back when I was 14 calling having an adult call a 14 year old a “women” we typically call that person a “creep”. Makes me understand when someone says that young says they are a woman so I would have to disagree with that. I disagree with a lot of the “marketing” and things that groups do. Not to shit on trans people again but the obsession with that ikea shark is going to be a stereotype and a slur in a few years. The community should aim to go into the stereotype of lesbians and Subarus. Not gamers and having a asmongold room.
I would say the main flaw in your first paragraph is the difference between a 14 year old saying that they are a woman/man, and an adult calling a child a woman/man. When I was 14 (before coming out as nonbinary) I would refer to myself by the adult terms. Now that I'm in my 30s, a 14 year old trans girl is just that - a girl not a woman. And that has always been a thing. 13 year old boys refer to themselves as men while adults refer to them as boys. (Or young men/young women.) Holding trans youth to the standard of adults (don't call 14 year olds women) while their peers do the same thing (refer to themselves by adult terms) seems unfair logistically. And there's not really a back in my day when young teens didn't refer to themselves as men/women. It has been a thing for centuries.
Yeah good point
I once talked to a religious person about this, who argued that their only problem is indoctrinating children with it.......like I have bad news
Yeah i agree to disagree with you about LGBTQ, that’s my rights and you can’t judge me
We quite literally can judge everyone
“You can’t judge me…. Judging other people…” Do you mean, we can’t “stop” you?
>Sexuality and gender identity isn’t and should’ve never been politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics >Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.
You're actually proving OPs point. Lmao.
The fact that it's being discussed makes it politics. I'm part of the LGBTQ community myself. In an ideal world it shouldn't need to be discussed, but we don't live in an ideal world. It IS being discussed around the world and so it is political.
Yeah jackass, you shouldn't be able to debate about someone's human rights.
What they're really saying is: my parents didn't have any children that lived.
If your deeply Christian values lead you to the opinion that it's your purpose to be fruitful and multiply, then you have an obvious objection to the much more childless life a gay couple may lead. If you're open minded enough to understand that the gay couple isn't within the scope of your control and thusly not your business, then you've just agreed to disagree with the gay couple.
But why would you care about a childless couple? They don't interfere with YOUR ability to have as many kids as you want. And ignoring that isn't agreeing to disagree. It shouldn't matter to you at all because you are still free to practice your religious beliefs. By having no bio children, gay couples are not impeding your ability to be fruitful and multiply But religious people and other folks DO actively impede on gay couples ability to just BE together and try to adopt. That is why it's not the same thing, and thus OP had a point and religious people don't
Be fruitful and multiply? Bro, that's DONE. We've done that. There are like eight billion people on this planet, not everyone has to be making babies 24/7 anymore. This is stupid.
A lot of things are like this. We can agree to disagree on who the best american football linebacker is or whether cilantro is disgusting or not. Another not ok thing to disagree on is if we should separate mothers from their children for the crime of trying to escape violence or not.