LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GreenGoo »

Apathy feels like hate when people don't care about you. Opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy etc.

In any case, if the NYT continue to publish opinion pieces from people trying to marginalize a group, I'm not surprised it feels like hate. Because it is.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Kurth wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:43 am So, we’re going to throw a flag on the NYT because they are “platforming” this guy? Give me a break.
I'm going to throw a flag because he's apparently defended a hate group. Again, if GLAAD is pointing out it's problematic, I'm inclined to side with them.
Kurth wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:46 pm
No, I disagree with you here.

First, I think there needs to be a massive reduction on the use of the word “hate.” Is that really what the NYT is peddling? One of the articles that triggered this new anti-NYT campaign was The Battle Over Gender Therapy - “More teenagers than ever are seeking transitions, but the medical community that treats them is deeply divided about why — and what to do to help them,” by Emily Bazelon. To me, that article was a thoughtful take on some of the tricky and complicated questions about how to treat kids and young adults who identify as trans. I can certainly understand why members of the trans community might object to it, but it’s not “hate.” It feels like anything we (collective we) don’t agree with or that we see as opposing the best interests and welfare of our group is considered “hate” these days. Through overuse, that word is on the edge of being so diluted as to be nearly meaningless.
How do can we better describe issues related to bodily autonomy then? Especially when the loudest objections to LGBTQ+ individuals are typically coming from religious framework? And many of them peddle conversion or punishment for individuals that don't "conform"? If that isn't hate, I'm not exactly sure how else to label it in such a way that it is given the attention it needs.
Second, I don’t think historically marginalized groups are less likely to lean into an “us or them” dogma with a heavy emphasis on ideological purity. In fact, I think they’re often more likely to go in that direction given their history of marginalization. I think when a group has been victimized and abused, there’s a natural tendency to bucketize the world into allies and enemies. But the world is a whole lot more nuanced than that.
I think overs have covered this, but as a white heterosexual man having never experienced an ounce of intolerance - social, political, career, etc... I am not going to tell a group of individuals that for ~50 years have been actively fighting for recognition and acceptance here in the United States - especially while after making progress in some areas are being pushed back in others.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Apollo
Posts: 1789
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Gardendale, AL

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Apollo »

I would just like to point out that there are many of us who have no problem with trans-gender people, who don't mind them using whatever bathroom, who feel they have every right to participate in our society however they see fit. However many folks, myself included, have a problem with changing the definition of reality to make a group of people happy. When we start talking about "people who menstruate" or allowing folks to make up pronouns to refer to themselves, or allowing men who have transitioned to women to play women's sports, and then referring to those who disagree as spreading anti-transgender hate, you're alienating a whole lot of people who would otherwise be more sympathetic.

To make matters worse, the mainstream media seems to accept all of the transgender "agenda" hook line and sinker without any pushback whatsoever (probably to keep the social media mobs at bay). And the extreme hatred shown online by transgender groups against any who disagree with any aspect of their beliefs about transgenders (like J.K. Rowling or Scarlett Johansson) is almost identical to what the far-right does when anyone attacks any of its beliefs, including death threats and calls to ban books, movies, etc. The Far Left's insistence that disagreeing with any of their tenets on transgenders amounts to bigotry is one of the reasons, along with the Far Left's attack on free speech, freedom of expression, Capitalism, etc., that I no longer refer to myself as a Liberal but rather as a left of center moderate or even a Centrist, a group everyone seems to hate nowadays.

In short, I don't have a problem with transgenders but I do have a problem with the "transgender agenda", the acceptance of which seems to somehow be more important than how transgenders are actually being treated.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by ImLawBoy »

Apollo wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:45 pm To make matters worse, the mainstream media seems to accept all of the transgender "agenda" hook line and sinker without any pushback whatsoever (probably to keep the social media mobs at bay).
Given that this latest issue is largely about the New York Times, arguably the most mainstream of all mainstream media, not accepting the "transgender 'agenda'" hook, line, and sinker, I'm not sure how accurate this statement is.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GreenGoo »

Apollo wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:45 pm However many folks, myself included, have a problem with changing the definition of reality to make a group of people happy.
The problem is that your definition of reality is wrong, not theirs. That you don't understand that is not your fault. But it's true, nonetheless.

Unfortunately it takes effort to learn this, and most of us are busy with something else. Anything else. Because it doesn't affect us and we already understand that men and women exist (and some other vague groups that many of us don't really understand).

I'm not singling you out Apollo, and my own knowledge is imperfect for sure, but your post was a nice jumping off point. I'm not here to educate, because as I said, my knowledge is not complete, but there is enough science out there that covers all this, if people want to learn.

Also
Apollo wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:45 pm

In short, I don't have a problem with transgenders blacks but I do have a problem with the "transgender black agenda"
See how that reads?
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Exactly. When you have generations of LGBTQ+ people saying that when society does [X] it is causing us harm, please stop, I'm not sure how you turn a blind eye. How many more suicides or attempted suicides are needed before we collectively think, "hmmm, maybe there is some harm in taking a middle of the road stance here?" There are (I think) ~14 states that are currently trying to ban/restrict drag shows at a state level, because...? Legally going after the guardians and and doctors of individuals seeking gender-affirming care to prosecute them with criminal charges? Removing books that cover these issues in an attempt to erase or push individuals back into hiding?

It's arguably socially barbaric and I genuinely don't understand how people don't broadly see the overt attempts to drag us back to a world where the Stonewall Riots happened.

I do think part of the issue is the nebulous nature of LGBTQ+ rights. I don't know a single person that identifies as such - at least, not to me. I'd imagine for many Americans, it is similar. So like everything else, if it's not something that's immediately in my family or I have direct experience with, I'm unmotivated to care; it's not worth my time. But I think part of the problem there is the history of intolerance and we don't (collectively) know much about the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ people in our communities because they've been pushed into hiding for decades - they don't want to be open because society at large *still* doesn't accept them (see above).

That's why I push back against the idea that they're making a big deal out something that isn't happening or using language that is inflammatory. They're aggressively fighting against what they're experiencing so that others outside of their community can learn about what's happening. If someone is passionately fighting for their existence and that bothers you, I'm not really sure how to respond to it.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur »

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:26 pm Exactly. When you have generations of LGBTQ+ people saying that when society does [X] it is causing us harm, please stop, I'm not sure how you turn a blind eye. How many more suicides or attempted suicides are needed before we collectively think, "hmmm, maybe there is some harm in taking a middle of the road stance here?"
Image
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Blackhawk »

Nobody is changing reality. Social constructs are just ideas accepted by society, and ideas aren't the same as 'reality'. We have just had some social constructs around for so long that we don't think of them as the subjective ideas that they are any more, and look at them as hard black-and-white facts. And we have a hard to recognizing that the society that developed some of these ideas has passed, and it's not a recent development.

Reality is that sex (physical sex) is more complex than A or B. It's like classifying all automobiles by whether they have two doors or four, and ignoring every other distinguishing factor (like whether they're a sports car or a semi truck, and just what do you do with a vehicle with six doors, or none?) Physical sex is a combination of multiple physiological factors, not just whether you're born an innie or an outie. For most, those factors generally line up behind the naughty bits, but not for all. And for centuries we've treated those who don't fit out binary ideals as a freaks to be fixed, as family secrets that nobody can ever know.

Reality is that gender (the role of sexes as defined by society rather than biology) doesn't always match the physical sex perfectly - in fact, I'd bet that it rarely matches completely, due to the absurd notions we have about what a "man" or a "woman" are supposed to be. And yet we've treated people who don't automatically line up with our assumptions as freaks to be fixed.

Some issues are much more complex - like sports. But addressing those things is about coming to terms with reality, not denying it. In fact, it's the opposite - it's about finally confronting reality instead of denying it to fit our preferences.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Yeah, I wanted to come back in and just say that. Americans are very, very focused on binary gender roles. But human beings aren't even sexually binary despite our insistence on using it for identification (or as noted above, sport participation). We still don't talk about intersex people and do our best to force them to conform, completely disregarding their own feelings or how they want to live. Maybe if we started checking to see if boys that are playing high school football actually have testicles this discussion would come to a screeching halt.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Kurth »

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:26 pm I don't know a single person that identifies as such - at least, not to me.
This stopped me in my tracks. If you lived in Montana or one of the Dakotas or some remote, super-rural place where you had very little social interaction, this would make a little more sense to me. But don't you live in Jersey? It just seems incredible to me that you don't know anyone who identifies as LGBTQ+. Impossible to get my mind around that.

LGBTQ+ people are such a part of everyday life for me, it's really hard to imagine someone without those connections. They are my friends, children of friends, co-workers, bosses, direct reports. I also have gay family members. I am, by no means, an expert in LGBTQ+ issues. I'm probably more ignorant than I am informed. My guiding precept is to be inclusive and supportive and to live and let live.

But one thing I do know, and that's that LGBTQ+ people are not a monolith. They have all kinds of different perspectives and opinions on all kinds of different issues, including complex issues relating to gender therapy and sports and pronouns and when to use them. And that's not surprising, because these are thoughtful people for the most part and these are complicated and difficult issues.

That's my problem with this whole thing and what gets my back up. There's so little embrace of the nuances when these "conversations" break down into the inevitable, "you're with us or against us," bullshit.

People can be wrong on trans issues and not be hateful. People can also be right on trans issues and 100% be hateful.

For everyone who is taking a strident position on Rowling, I wonder how many have read her essay that really kicked all this off. I don't understand how anyone could read that essay and come away with the conclusion that JK Rowling is a shitty, horrific person who hates trans people.

I was looking around at the various horrible takes on Rowling that are all over the internet. I did find one that I thought was really solid, though: "I’m trans and I understand JK Rowling’s concerns about the position of women. But transphobia is not the answer"

The whole thing is worth a read, but I particularly liked her conclusion:
While Rowling’s fear of trans people is hardly rational, I recognise her fear of sexual violence and I join her fight for a safer world for women. But to her, I am the proverbial fox in the henhouse, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, the Voldemort in a dress.

I’d like to say to her: I’m not Voldemort. Really, I’m not. And I even believe that you’re not Voldemort. Good and evil are not as binary in real life as they are in your books.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Kurth wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:25 pm This stopped me in my tracks. If you lived in Montana or one of the Dakotas or some remote, super-rural place where you had very little social interaction, this would make a little more sense to me. But don't you live in Jersey? It just seems incredible to me that you don't know anyone who identifies as LGBTQ+. Impossible to get my mind around that.
Me too. My mother is one of 8 children; I have more cousins and second cousins than I can easily count. My MIL is one of five and probably close to 2 dozen cousins and second cousins now for my wife. I can tell you truthfully there is no one in our immediate or extended families that has identified as LGBTQ+ and I absolutely find it strange.

I do live in a rural corner of NJ. Perhaps you'd like to see a recent TV special about it that aired last month? :)



I can't explain my family or extended family, but a large part of it is where I live, absolutely - and I'm on the civilized edge of the county.

I'm headed out, so I'll try to jump back in later - but I did want to clarify that element.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Kraken »

As a copy editor, I'm never going to get used to using "they" as a singular pronoun. I mean, I do it because that's my client's style, but it will never come naturally. Their style is to use present-tense "says" rather than past-tense "said," unless their quote was made at a specific past event. So it's "she says" if she's speaking to an interviewer or "she said" if she said it at a conference or lecture. Fine. But when quoting a "they" do you use "they says" or "they say"? "They says" is plainly ungrammatical but "they say" makes it plural.

Fortunately AP Style already addressed this; the official ruling is "they say."
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Blackhawk »

Kraken wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:47 pm As a copy editor, I'm never going to get used to using "they" as a singular pronoun.
I also use 'they' when appropriate, but nothing I do makes it sound right, and anything I'm writing (or saying) feels off. Please, please just get people to agree on a set of neutral pronouns!
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70100
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by LordMortis »

Kraken wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:47 pm As a copy editor, I'm never going to get used to using "they" as a singular pronoun. I mean, I do it because that's my client's style, but it will never come naturally. Their style is to use present-tense "says" rather than past-tense "said," unless their quote was made at a specific past event. So it's "she says" if she's speaking to an interviewer or "she said" if she said it at a conference or lecture. Fine. But when quoting a "they" do you use "they says" or "they say"? "They says" is plainly ungrammatical but "they say" makes it plural.

Fortunately AP Style already addressed this; the official ruling is "they say."
Long before I ever heard of the term cis, I had used they to refer to a singular person where he/she was unidentifiable. It just made sense. I do have issues getting to know someone's preferred pronoun before using it. So much so, that if I got backed into a corner, I would just refer to all people as they if I had to. I don't mean to disrespect identity or whatever, but I just don't have it in me to learn everyone's preferred pronoun. Aside from defeating the purpose of pronouning, my brain just can't handle what is for all intents and purposes, another name for everyone who requests it. I screw up names of people I've known for years.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Alefroth »

It's not like it hasn't been around a while, and we've adapted to singular you just fine-

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-his ... ular-they/
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat »

Kurth wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:25 pm But one thing I do know, and that's that LGBTQ+ people are not a monolith. They have all kinds of different perspectives and opinions on all kinds of different issues, including complex issues relating to gender therapy and sports and pronouns and when to use them. And that's not surprising, because these are thoughtful people for the most
I've mentioned it before, but my gay brother, who actually runs a resort that caters to the LGBQT community, and his partner of over 25 years, are staunch conservative far right voters who love Trump. They vehemently oppose any and all attempts at using gender neutral pronouns, or pronouns that aren't reflective of a person's biological gender at birth. And will rail on for hours if you even attempt to bring up allowing children to live as a different gender before they're 18...yet they happily host drag shows.

I'm always flabbergasted by their world view...which has gotten more and more extreme right over the years. I'm still continuously amazed that they they're in the business they're in with their opinions. You'd think they'd face some backlash within their community.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63524
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Daehawk »

I watched that video and loved that video.. I was laughing through it. Im glad they are happy and doing their thing. Gonna come out weird in text but I hate when others hate on someone's love of whatever. They looked great too btw. Got some real style.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
RM2
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:42 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by RM2 »

Me too, I live there in Sussex County, NJ
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

hepcat wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 5:39 pmI'm always flabbergasted by their world view...which has gotten more and more extreme right over the years. I'm still continuously amazed that they they're in the business they're in with their opinions. You'd think they'd face some backlash within their community.
It really is diverse. I know more than a few gay folks who are not happy with trans being part of the LGBTQA "universe" as sexual orientation and gender identity are separate issues to them. That translates for some into not playing the pronoun game but I find that to be pretty rare. It's not onerous to be kind/polite after all.

Tim Miller talks in his book "Why We Did It" about how many right-wing/hard right political operatives back to the 70s (if not further back) were gay men. I don't know where that comes from but it's apparently a thing. But in the end cancel culture isn't a big thing in thatt community in my experience. A good number of them are leery of it.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Kurth wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:25 pm That's my problem with this whole thing and what gets my back up. There's so little embrace of the nuances when these "conversations" break down into the inevitable, "you're with us or against us," bullshit.

People can be wrong on trans issues and not be hateful. People can also be right on trans issues and 100% be hateful.
Have you seen this from today?
Important to note that it’s mostly the *threat* of scrutiny, the *potential* of being held to account that is enough to cause the next round of reactionary panic. In practice, the power structures that have traditionally defined American life have unfortunately held up just fine.

These moral panics appeal to (predominantly white, predominantly male) elites because the threat to elite impunity is real - “cancel culture” and “wokeism” may have made it slightly more likely that people get in trouble for racist, misogynistic, disrespectful behavior.

Simply put, elite life in the public spotlight has become slightly more uncomfortable, at least for elites who used to be able to get away with absolutely everything and now they (potentially) don’t anymore. People like David French and Pamela Paul get more public criticism.

The reason is that traditionally marginalized groups have forced their way into the conversation, necessitating a re-negotiation of norms surrounding public speech and expression. That process can be messy at times - but the alternative is continued elite dominance and impunity.
EDIT Then he went back and added more that I can't seem to unroll:


So many people proudly taking the Sullivan “You’re just making stuff up” line in my responses. When this, below, is what’s happening across the U.S.

There is no plausible deniability for this level of willful ignorance or bigotry. You’re just telling the world who you are.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

And speaking of which, just a few days ago, Idaho took a stance:
A bill criminalizing gender-affirming healthcare for minors overwhelmingly passed the Idaho House Thursday, despite warnings from opponents who said it would likely increase suicide rates among teens.

The bill, which would subject physicians to felony charges if they provide puberty blockers, hormone treatment or gender-affirming surgeries to transgender youth under 18, is just one of several targeting Idaho’s LGBTQ+ residents this year. Proponents of the bill have acknowledged that gender-affirming surgeries on minors are not currently being performed in Idaho.

...

But every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Psychiatric Association support gender-affirming care for youth. Many of those organizations have also issued policy statements opposing legislative attempts to limit such care.

As if that's not awful enough:
Several other anti-LGBTQ bills are also still making their way through the Legislature. One would restrict transgender kids’ school bathroom access, by barring them from using locker rooms, changing facilities or bathrooms that match their gender. Another bill limits sex education in grade school and prohibits schools from discussing human sexuality, gender identity or sexual orientation before fifth grade. A bill printed Monday could require schools to inform parents if there is a change in a student’s “mental, emotional or physical health or wellbeing,” — perhaps including if the student discloses they are gay or transgender.

Parents could sue libraries and public schools for $10,000 if anything deemed “harmful to minors” is made available to their child under another bill. The definition of “harmful to minors” includes a long and graphic list of behaviors as well as anything that might have the effect of “substantially arousing” desires in people under 18. It includes a carve-out for things that have serious artistic, scientific, political or literary value for youth, but allows that determination to be made by “prevailing standards in the adult community.”

Many of the bills mirror language that was used in the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” legislation proposed in more than a dozen states last year, seeking to prohibit schools from using curriculum, books or discussions that involve gender identity or sexual orientation.
100% hate.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Ok, one more, then I need to disconnect and decompress. :)

Going back to the NYT, I'm also just seeing this now.


Memo from Joe Kahn to NYT staff responding to yesterday's letter re: trans coverage.

Times leadership says the paper "will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums."
Does this belong here or in the death of the 4th estate? Why not both...
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

Ugh. There are some pretty fundamental logical errors in Twitter thread that really cut it down for me. On top it leans all too heavily on a purely emotional plea about how vulnerable trans people are. Too true - there are real efforts to vilify them and pass laws across the country. However, IMO that makes it all the more important to not lean on appeals to emotion and illogic.

If you want to convince people you have to get them on board with your ideas. And I don't know how you do that by throwing labels around to muddy the water. The thread starts off by calling the author of the NY Times piece an "unhinged" anti-woke crusader. No attempt to argue against the text. No explanation why the author has earned ire as an unhinged anti-woke crusader. Just an ad hominem and move on. We are supposed to just accept that as a fact. Worse then they stretch some tortured argument about power dynamics to opine about the NY Times hiring Conservative voices. It's also a strawman argument.
It’s an unbelievably cynical game: Some of society’s most vulnerable groups – trans people, for instance, whose fundamental rights, including their right to exist in the public square, are being stripped away – are presented as a dangerous, powerful cabal.
This is another classic and fairly obvious strawman. Very few are suggesting trans people are a dangerous, powerful cabal. The thread author is lofting that to knock it down as obviously silly.

Here is a relevant snip from the NY Times piece:
These statements were written by J.K. Rowling, the author of the “Harry Potter” series, a human-rights activist and — according to a noisy fringe of the internet and a number of powerful transgender rights activists and L.G.B.T.Q. lobbying groups — a transphobe.

Even many of Rowling’s devoted fans have made this accusation. In 2020, The Leaky Cauldron, one of the biggest “Harry Potter” fan sites, claimed that Rowling had endorsed “harmful and disproven beliefs about what it means to be a transgender person,” letting members know it would avoid featuring quotes from and photos of the author.
What's missing? A reference to a dangerous, powerful cabal. And that's ultimately the problem with a lot of this argumentation. It often consists of less than convincing arguments that overstate things to manipulate emotions. And it works. There is real harm and danger out there and people need to confront it by being earnest and straightforward. Not by vilifying folks and figuratively screaming at the top of their lungs.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:24 amDoes this belong here or in the death of the 4th estate? Why not both...
I'm probably the biggest critic here of the NY Times. I think the GLAAD letter (and the other letter with a lot of NY Times signatories) had some valid criticism of the NY Times. The NY Times of course delivered an ivory tower response which managed to piss everyone off. And to reference my post above - the NY Times was able to take the easy off-ramp which was pointing out arguments in the GLAAD letter that overstated their case. Even then put that aside and that memo makes total sense. How can they maintain a workplace where the staff are fighting this goddamn bottomless culture war?
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Kurth »

Hadn't seen In Defense of JK Rowling by Pamela Paul, but I gave it a read just now. For the most part, it sums up my feelings on the issue, so I'll quote a few excerpts:
“Trans people need and deserve protection.”

“I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others but are vulnerable.”

“I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them.”

“I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.”

These statements were written by J.K. Rowling, the author of the “Harry Potter” series, a human-rights activist and — according to a noisy fringe of the internet and a number of powerful transgender rights activists and L.G.B.T.Q. lobbying groups — a transphobe.

. . .

So why would anyone accuse her of transphobia? Surely, Rowling must have played some part, you might think.

The answer is straightforward: Because she has asserted the right to spaces for biological women only, such as domestic abuse shelters and sex-segregated prisons. Because she has insisted that when it comes to determining a person’s legal gender status, self-declared gender identity is insufficient. Because she has expressed skepticism about phrases like “people who menstruate” in reference to biological women. Because she has defended herself and, far more important, supported others, including detransitioners and feminist scholars, who have come under attack from trans activists. And because she followed on Twitter and praised some of the work of Magdalen Berns, a lesbian feminist who had made incendiary comments about transgender people.

You might disagree — perhaps strongly — with Rowling’s views and actions here. You may believe that the prevalence of violence against transgender people means that airing any views contrary to those of vocal trans activists will aggravate animus toward a vulnerable population.

But nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic. She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.

Take it from one of her former critics. E.J. Rosetta, a journalist who once denounced Rowling for her supposed transphobia, was commissioned last year to write an article called “20 Transphobic J.K. Rowling Quotes We’re Done With.” After 12 weeks of reporting and reading, Rosetta wrote, “I’ve not found a single truly transphobic message.” On Twitter she declared, “You’re burning the wrong witch.”
Disagree with Rowling all you want - I do on much of this stuff - but don't call her a horrific, shitty, hateful person.

As for that thread from that Zimmer guy, what a crock of shit! Let me get this straight: People have no business critiquing "cancel culture" (we need to put it in quotes here because, as we all know, it's really not a thing) because, even assuming "cancel culture" is a thing, it targets elites who just have very thin skins because they're not used to being criticized. It's all about anxiety fueling a reactionary crusade against “wokeism” and “cancel culture” (again, quotes definitely needed): As Zimmer states, "Societal elites - and elite white men, in particular - face a little more scrutiny and public criticism today than in the past. And they don’t like that."

Yep. That's what this is about. He nailed it!

Finally, on Joe Kahn telling NYT journalists to stop attacking their own and to not be traitorous back-stabbers, good for him.

Now, I'm going to disconnect, decompress and go enjoy some Hogwarts Legacy.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »


"We remain dedicated to finding the angles that best frame the basic rights of the gender-nonconforming as up for debate, and we will use these same angles over and over again in hopes that this repetition makes them suffer."

...

“Research shows that trans people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to be the victim of a violent crime. We salute our colleagues across the media who are working tirelessly to make that number even higher.”

Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Unagi »

:clap:
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

The Onion still delivers cuts with a very sharp knife.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GreenGoo »

There's no shortage of people defending her, that's for sure. Billionaires are among our most vulnerable, so I'm glad she has people to stand up for her. Even if it is just a small town rag like the NYT.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:34 pm There's no shortage of people defending her, that's for sure. Billionaires are among our most vulnerable, so I'm glad she has people to stand up for her. Even if it is just a small town rag like the NYT.
There are definitely people explicitly defending her it is also about a larger issue. There are also people like me who disagree with her but don't agree with these overstated, out of proportion attacks on her and others who hold different views.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

malchior wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:32 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:34 pm There's no shortage of people defending her, that's for sure. Billionaires are among our most vulnerable, so I'm glad she has people to stand up for her. Even if it is just a small town rag like the NYT.
There are definitely people explicitly defending her it is also about a larger issue. There are also people like me who disagree with her but don't agree with these overstated, out of proportion attacks on her and others who hold different views.
Been thinking about this Tweet all day.


So tired of liberals intellectualizing oppression instead of fighting it
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Blackhawk »

Blindly fighting isn't something I can get behind. Fighting for something generally means fighting against something else, and fighting against something (normally either other humans or something important to other humans) needs consideration.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Smoove_B »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:41 pm and fighting against something (normally either other humans or something important to other humans) needs consideration.
From one of the Tweets I shared above:


We have surpassed 300 Anti-LGBTQ+ bills in the USA.

- 91 Gender Affirming Care Bans
- 39 Sports Bans
- 44 Don't Say Gay/Forced Outing bills
- 27 Drag bans
- 12 defining trans people out of law

We are in truly unprecedented times.
I get that we don't want to become the baddies, but I'm not sure how else to communicate we're collectively going backwards.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Blackhawk »

Those of us who care don't need to be convinced, but taking the wrong actions just to be fighting for fighting's sake isn't a positive course.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by malchior »

Eh. I don't find that Tweet (edit: a few posts back) too insightful. In the end, it is possible screaming at people on the internet might move the needle in the fight against oppression but I doubt it. So much time and effort is being wasted alienating people and sabotaging the progress they are fighting for. But I guess they can tell their friends they did something.
Smoove_B wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:44 pmI get that we don't want to become the baddies, but I'm not sure how else to communicate we're collectively going backwards.
Absolutely but how does kvetching about an oped in NYT about JK Rowling help? That's what I'm getting at. There are real fights to be fought but they'd rather beat on the easy, highly visible target.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur »

FFRF
More than 1,000.

That’s how many bills the Freedom From Religion Foundation is now tracking across the United States — and every one of them impacts the fight to keep religion out of our federal and state governmental policies. Less than 50 days into the new year, FFRF has 1,006 bills on our radar.

A large number of these bills — more than 45 percent — are follow-ups to the theocratic Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, either seizing the opportunity provided by the Supreme Court to expand religious control over reproductive rights, or else sometimes engaging in desperate attempts to safeguard abortion access that so many had taken for granted. The strategy from anti-choice lawmakers seems to be to push so many bills that they become hard to keep track of. FFRF is proud that it is even then able to keep tabs on such legislation and stand up for the vital separation of religious dogma from government. In fact, today’s New York Times has a page-one story pointing out there are more than 300 pieces of legislation in 40 states on abortion, with a majority seeking to restrict access, and some to punish providers.

In addition to banned or endangered abortion access, FFRF is cognizant that Justice Clarence Thomas signaled the Supreme Court’s likely next targets: contraception and same-sex marriage. States should pass safeguards for both without delay.

LGBTQ rights are another extremely high-volume issue in front of state legislatures. Focusing particularly on making life miserable for trans children and their families, lawmakers have advanced bans on gender-affirming health care, bans on drag shows broad enough to include trans performers not dressed in drag, and myriad bills aimed at stigmatizing children in public schools. Some bills copy Florida’s infamous “Don’t Say Gay” law, under the guise of protecting parental rights, while others encourage anti-LGBTQ discrimination among religious student groups, require teachers to misgender students and “out” trans children to their parents, and more.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43491
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Blackhawk »

A person who stands with counter-protesters, putting their body on the line to defend a bar during a drag show. A person who speaks up at a community meeting. A person who speaks to a member of congress. A person who has a discussion with a friend or family member in a way that actually changes their mind. A person who donates to appropriate causes. Any one of those people is doing more than five hundred people not buying a Harry Potter game or arguing about an article.

And the person who takes action that will harm the cause by aggressively going after bystanders for a wrong word and pushing them further away from a better viewpoint does less than any of them. In fact, they may do less for the cause than some of their opponents.

Not all action is beneficial, and fighting for the sake of fighting is the best way to lose.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GreenGoo »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:48 pm Those of us who care don't need to be convinced, but taking the wrong actions just to be fighting for fighting's sake isn't a positive course.
Not that I'm picking on you blackhawk, but I just want to mention that statements like this were used against the Black Lives Matter movement as well. It's a pretty common way to undermine a protest movement. And it mostly comes from reasonable people who simply don't agree with the movement, or as ammo for those who don't agree with a movement and need socially acceptable cover to voice that disagreement.

I'm not making any judgments about your particular use, only pointing out similarities and why I personally don't find my own opinions lining up with this type of thinking.

And I thought I implied strongly enough that JK Rowling is going to be perfectly fine. She is in no danger of being "cancelled" or if she is, have it affect her in any way. She doesn't need defending, because as with most billionaires, she's immune to pretty much anything, if she chooses to be. Hurt feelings maybe? Not having her tweets viewed as much as before? Come on. There are real people who's lives are demonstrably shittier (including more likely to be targeted by violence) because of her opening her stupid mouth. If (some) of those people are upset and react irrationally (according to you and Kurth's definition), well, I feel like I can look past that. Because holy shit being trans in our society must truly be a nightmare for a whole host of reasons. See Izzy's post about governments targeting them, for just one example.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GreenGoo »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 9:15 pm Not all action is beneficial, and fighting for the sake of fighting is the best way to lose.
Perhaps they just want to hurt people because they themselves have been hurt. Irrational? Sure. Counter productive? Possibly. Understandable? I think yes.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GreenGoo »

For the record, I'm not defending anyone, just trying to show empathy. Do I agree with Blackhawk in that they are harming their cause? It's certainly harming their cause with him (Blackhawk). Is it doing more harm than good? I have no idea. It's certainly got us talking about their cause which is without question better than not knowing it exists.

I'm neutral on the subject on irrational responses to injustice.
Post Reply