Intolerance within the LGBT Community

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That makes the LGBT community sound like a political movement, of which you must pay to subscribe, become a member, and adhere to its manifesto.

But it isn't; it's a diverse collection of people who have a common thread.

Collection of opinion is not a prerequisite, nor should it be.

Do you not see how you’re contradicting yourself? You’re arguing that you’re made to feel excluded from a community, for arguing that other people should be excluded from that community. Other people who don’t share your opinions are also part of that community as much as you are.

What you want to do is the equivalent of going up to people in the club and telling them they’re not welcome. When other people do the same thing to you then, you don’t like it. Expecting people to respect your opinions while you don’t feel you should have any respect for their opinions is just silly, frankly. You don’t want civil discussion, you just want people to agree with you even though it means they continue to suffer. They should continue to suffer so you’re not inconvenienced, is basically what you’re arguing for.

The whole idea of a community is based upon supporting each other in spite of your disagreements. That’s how communities grow and become more diverse and inclusive. To coin a phrase from JFK -

‘Ask not what your community can do for you - ask what you can do for your community’

Support them, is one thing you can do for your community. You don’t have to agree with everything, you don’t have to accept anything. Just treat people with the same dignity and respect you would want to be treated with yourself, and perhaps then you won’t be left feeling excluded.

Goodshape

Deleted User wrote: »

Lets have valid in this instance to mean: having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

Do I accept every variation of gender to have a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent, even those which I may not have heard of before?

That's an impossible question.

More importantly it's irrelevant. I would still try to be respectful of peoples wishes when it comes to their own identity.,

One eyed Jack

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But it's your "side" that preaches tolerance, and respect, and inclusitivity. But it's always a one way street! Being "inclusive" is even part of the charter of this forum. And then with no hint of irony you bring up the "paradox of telorence".

Why preach these things if you know you can't practice them?

You’re inventing a double standard there while you’re unwilling to be held to the same standard you speak of. I won’t say preaching because that’s just inflammatory, but you’re trying to argue that people who don’t share your opinions shouldn’t have the same right to campaign against your opinions as you have to campaign against their opinions.

Goodshape

Goodshape wrote: »

Do I accept every variation of gender to have a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent, even those which I may not have heard of before?

That's an impossible question.

More importantly it's irrelevant. I would still try to be respectful of peoples wishes when it comes to their own identity.,

Being respectful does not mean be accepting. I can list genders where I would find it impossible to accept. I mean, I wouldn't try to force my opinion on it, but I think that not being able to discuss how absurd some beliefs are is hardly intolerant.

That is the crux of the issue. By saying you wouldn't refuse to be respectful to someone's self indentity, means that you must be respectful to piers morgan or Rachel Doziel (sp?), despite the fact that you know/believe that it's bull****. It is bull**** but if he says he identifies as that, it holds as much credence as anyone else surely?

(clarification... I am not comparing any identity to an animal, I am merely pointing out that one persons self identification should/must be as valid as anyone elses)

p1akuw47h5r3it

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re inventing a double standard there while you’re unwilling to be held to the same standard you speak of. I won’t say preaching because that’s just inflammatory, but you’re trying to argue that people who don’t share your opinions shouldn’t have the same right to campaign against your opinions as you have to campaign against their opinions.

What? Where exactly have I argued that.

It is silly to constantly talk about being tolerant of others, to be inclusive, to chastise others for not being these things, and then suddenly bring up the paradox of intolerance.

And preach was not intended to be inflammatory.

Goodshape

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't try to force my opinion on it, but I think that not being able to discuss how absurd some beliefs are is hardly intolerant.

That is the crux of the issue.

Well discuss it when the subject arises then. I honestly don't think anyone is stopping you. Just be respectful and aware that it might not be the popular opinion.

By saying you wouldn't refuse to be respectful to someone's self indentity, means that you must be respectful to piers morgan or Rachel Doziel (sp?), despite the fact that you know/believe that it's bull****. It is bull**** but if he says he identifies as that, it holds as much credence as anyone else surely?

That's a farce and you know it. And Piers Morgan doesn't need to identify as anything in particular for me to think he's bull****.

Ironicname

So who decides what is or isn't a farce?

It was asked earlier about transablism. Do you believe that should be supported and people should be encouraged to live their own truth?

Goodshape

Ironicname wrote: »

So who decides what is or isn't a farce?

In this case, Piers Morgan.

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Isn't that type of comment precisely what I'm referring to?

"Conform now - or consider yourself a pariah".

This is growing across all activists, not just LGBT.

Wrong think is a sin, non conformity to doctrine is heresy.

Your only consolation is that they are coming for everyone, gay or straight, rich or poor etc etc and often for each other.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Goodshape wrote: »

Well discuss it when the subject arises then. I honestly don't think anyone is stopping you. Just be respectful and aware that it might not be the popular opinion.



That's a farce and you know it. And Piers Morgan doesn't need to identify as anything in particular for me to think he's bull****.

How is it a farce? RD identifies as being African American. It's a truly held belief that she has.

Do you accept, deep down inside you, that she is African American, simply because she identifies as African American? And if you do not, are you being intolerable, uninclusive?

I'm not asking if you'd be respective to her if you met her. I'm asking if you truly believe that she is, just becuase she says so.

Goodshape

I have no idea who Rachel Doziel is. I was talking about Piers Morgan.

Goodshape

Goodshape wrote: »

Cool. It is a paradox alright. Bit of head scratcher!

But it ain't a head scratcher.

Here's one standard definition of "intolerance":

"not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters"

A perfectly valid definition.

Here is what has happened in this amicable discussion:

I have been repeatedly ordered to:

a) Accept a belief even if I disagree with it.
b) That my opinion is "bull****"
c) To "just accept I'm wrong" and get with the movement.

Whereas I have stated:

a) I am happy for people to have their own views, however different to mine.
b) I respect other people's choices, but I should not be compelled to believe those choices (in the same way as religion, for example)
c) That if someone wishes to believe something, that's fine, but that it should not be imposed on everyone else.

So we can quite clearly see who the "intolerant" ones are.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Goodshape wrote: »

I have no idea who Rachel Doziel is. I was talking about Piers Morgan.

Rachel Dolezal (or as I've just seen, now Akechi Amare Diallo):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

Have a read and let us know the answer to my question please.

One eyed Jack

DanDan6592 wrote: »

What? Where exactly have I argued that.

You haven’t said so in those exact words, but that’s what I’m generally picking up from what you’re saying, is that because you don’t agree with someone’s opinions, nobody else should take them seriously either.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It is silly to constantly talk about being tolerant of others, to be inclusive, to chastise others for not being these things, and then suddenly bring up the paradox of intolerance.

And preach was not intended to be inflammatory.

It’s not silly at all. The point being made is that in the same way as you expect you shouldn’t be subjected to complete nonsense, other people have that same right not to have to put up with what they consider to be complete nonsense.

If the OP wants to be a member of a community with which he disagrees, then it’s his responsibility as a member of that community to lead by example - if he wants the community to be inclusive and diverse and accepting of his beliefs, then the onus is on him to practice what he preaches. It’s because he doesn’t practice what he preaches that he finds himself feeling excluded from the community - he wants acceptance, but isn’t prepared to give it.

Ironicname

Tommy Itchy Percussionist wrote:

I'm not asking if you'd be respective to her if you met her. I'm asking if you truly believe that she is, just becuase she says so.

That's a good question. So while you can be as respectful as you like, are there any genders you simply find privately ridiculous?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because he doesn’t practice what he preaches that he finds himself feeling excluded from the community - he wants acceptance, but isn’t prepared to give it.

I'll never sacrifice freedom of conscience and speech for the sake of inclusion.

It's not me who has to move, it's those who are imposing their belief system not just upon me, but society at large.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Ironicname wrote: »

That's a good question. So while you can be as respectful as you like, are there any genders you simply find privately ridiculous?

Yes, basically all the new ones.

Also, if you can choose your gender then I see no reason why you can't choose your sexuality, and we know the problems that will lead to.

I believe neither can be chosen, and are innate.

If I was to meet a gender non-binary person or whatever I'd use whatever pronouns they would want me to and I may pretend that I think it's real if they were to ask. But deep down I don't.

Lefty Bicek

Deleted User wrote: »

I would never or have ever compared trans people to animals.

I was stating that if you were to blindly accept all peoples ideals, it would be unfair to exclude others and blindly accepting peoples beliefs that contradict your own is dangerous and leaves no boundaries.

I did not compare trans people to animals and I want that made abundantly clear.

This is not me questioning a mod instruction, this is me correcting an accusation.

No reasonable, sensible person even thought you were making the comparison.

p1akuw47h5r3it

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You haven’t said so in those exact words, but that’s what I’m generally picking up from what you’re saying, is that because you don’t agree with someone’s opinions, nobody else should take them seriously either.

Well, ye, sort of. We all like to think we're right. But you said I'd

[tried] to argue that people who don’t share your opinions shouldn’t have the same right to campaign against your opinions as you have to campaign against their opinions.

as if I'd somehow try to supress their opinions. I absolutely would not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not silly at all. The point being made is that in the same way as you expect you shouldn’t be subjected to complete nonsense, other people have that same right not to have to put up with what they consider to be complete nonsense.

If the OP wants to be a member of a community with which he disagrees, then it’s his responsibility as a member of that community to lead by example - if he wants the community to be inclusive and diverse and accepting of his beliefs, then the onus is on him to practice what he preaches. It’s because he doesn’t practice what he preaches that he finds himself feeling excluded from the community - he wants acceptance, but isn’t prepared to give it.

Which shows the farce of the idea of the "gay community".

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'll never sacrifice freedom of conscience and speech for the sake of inclusion.

Good for you, you can understand then why other people who don’t share your beliefs also aren’t going to sacrifice their civil rights for the sake of including people in their communities who wish to deny them those rights.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not me who has to move, it's those who are imposing their belief system not just upon me, but society at large.

I’m almost certain nobody cares whether you move or not. They’re no different to you in that in just the same way as you wish to impose your beliefs upon them, they wish that you didn’t, and so they are campaigning for equal treatment in society, the treatment which you take for granted, so when other people are campaigning for to be treated the same way you are, you immediately think that means you have to give up anything.

You don’t have to give up anything, equal rights means just that - the same rights to education, healthcare, family and employment rights that you and I already enjoy, they are generally campaigning for the same thing - basic human rights which they are entitled to and shouldn’t have to fight for. I support anyone who is having to fight for their right to be treated as an equal member of society, regardless of whether or not on an individual level there are some people who I find are a complete pain in the arse - they’re human, and that’s a fact which underpins their entitlement to be treated with dignity and respect, no different to the way in which any other human being would want to be treated.

One eyed Jack

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Well, ye, sort of. We all like to think we're right. But you said I'd

as if I'd somehow try to supress their opinions. I absolutely would not.

Ahh no I picked you up wrong then, sorry about that, that’s fair enough like and we’d be on the same page there.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Which shows the farce of the idea of the "gay community".

I dunno that it does show the idea of the gay community to be a farce to be honest, I mean, the clue is in the description, the thing which binds them as a community is their identity as being gay, or being supportive of people who are gay, and the wider community then is composed of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc, that could literally be an alphabet of an acronym. By observation alone, they’re a fairly diverse and inclusive bunch, and that’s even before you get down to the opinions held by individuals who identify themselves as members of that community.

Put it this way - I get that there’s an expectation that a community would have a shared set of principles and beliefs, doctrines even, if you will, but the bigger the community, the more diversity you’ll find among their opinions on everything under the sun. It would be disingenuous to try and argue that if they don’t share your opinion or if they aren’t willing to entertain what they believe to be nonsense, they aren’t being diverse and inclusive. That simply strikes me as finger wagging and winding people up, deliberately and intentionally missing what is meant by diversity and inclusion.

Ironicname

One eyed Jack wrote:

It would be disingenuous to try and argue that if they don’t share your opinion or if they aren’t willing to entertain what they believe to be nonsense, they aren’t being diverse and inclusive. That simply strikes me as finger wagging and winding people up, deliberately and intentionally missing what is meant by diversity and inclusion.

Again, no.

It's because the bastardisation of the (as you put it) alphabet of different identities, nobody has anything in common anymore. There is no community because it is a race to the bottom to show how "tolerant" and "respectful" you can be.

The community is imploding on itself and it's because everything is accepted apart from people pointing out that perhaps some of things are absurd.

p1akuw47h5r3it

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh no I picked you up wrong then, sorry about that, that’s fair enough like and we’d be on the same page there.

haha no problem tis grand!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I dunno that it does show the idea of the gay community to be a farce to be honest, I mean, the clue is in the description, the thing which binds them as a community is their identity as being gay, or being supportive of people who are gay, and the wider community then is composed of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc, that could literally be an alphabet of an acronym. By observation alone, they’re a fairly diverse and inclusive bunch, and that’s even before you get down to the opinions held by individuals who identify themselves as members of that community.

Put it this way - I get that there’s an expectation that a community would have a shared set of principles and beliefs, doctrines even, if you will, but the bigger the community, the more diversity you’ll find among their opinions on everything under the sun. It would be disingenuous to try and argue that if they don’t share your opinion or if they aren’t willing to entertain what they believe to be nonsense, they aren’t being diverse and inclusive. That simply strikes me as finger wagging and winding people up, deliberately and intentionally missing what is meant by diversity and inclusion.

I've read on this forum, and heard from others, that the gay community really isn't all that inclusive but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. But this is a debate for another day.

It would annoy me to be associated with a sense of beliefs simply because of how I was born. I guess ultimately this is why if I was gay I'd reject the idea of a Gay community, even if very technically I would belong to it based on what a community is.

One eyed Jack

Ironicname wrote: »

Again, no.

It's because the bastardisation of the (as you put it) alphabet of different identities, nobody has anything in common anymore. There is no community because it is a race to the bottom to show how "tolerant" and "respectful" you can be.

The community is imploding on itself and it's because everything is accepted apart from people pointing out that perhaps some of things are absurd.

And as I pointed out already too - they actually do have one fundamental thing in common, they’re all human beings, who belong to an even bigger community again. As humans we have plenty in common with each other, and even at that it’s not as though there are any limitations imposed upon however many letters there are in an acronym.

The community is expanding actually, and becoming more diverse and more inclusive, and that’s precisely the reason why some people are left feeling excluded, because the community they feel once represented their interests no longer represents their interests. It’s understandable then that they would consider any deviation from what is familiar to them would be absurd. That was what led to the establishment of the community in the first place - it grew organically out of people who felt ostracised in what the majority of people regarded as civilised society, and that’s why it continues to grow and expand, as opposed to your assertion that it’s imploding on itself.

Ironicname

One eyed Jack wrote:

The community is expanding actually, and becoming more diverse and more inclusive, and that’s precisely the reason why some people are left feeling excluded, because the community they feel once represented their interests no longer represents their interests. It’s understandable then that they would consider any deviation from what is familiar to them would be absurd. That was what led to the establishment of the community in the first place - it grew organically out of people who felt ostracised in what the majority of people regarded as civilised society, and that’s why it continues to grow and expand, as opposed to your assertion that it’s imploding on itself.

Sorry but that isn't true. The community is eating itself and is full of self serving liars who are trying to "out-tolerate" each other.

Can you please answer whether you are accepting that Rachel Doziel or a transabilist would be welcomed and encouraged to live their truth by yourself?

Annasopra

Ironicname wrote: »

Sorry but that isn't true. The community is eating itself and is full of self serving liars who are trying to "out-tolerate" each other.

Can you please answer whether you are accepting that Rachel Doziel or a transabilist would be welcomed and encouraged to live their truth by yourself?

Mod

This post breaks the forum charter, particularly parts 2, 7, 8, 9, 14. Dont post in the thread again. Any issues pm me.

Part 2 - this is not civil mature or constructive discussion
Part 7 - this is clearly trolling as you expect an angry response
Part 8 - this is abusive language suggesting all lgbt people are sel serving liars
Part 9 - the whole comment is agressive snd snide
Part 14 - this comment does not show dignity or respect to lgbt people

I should have posted some of these earlier, to add some digestible meat to the discussion.

But here they are, some of the gender identities that now exist:

• Polygender - When you identify with multiple genders at once. Sometimes referred to as multigender.
• Neutrois - When you identify as agender, neither male nor female, and/or genderless (how can a genderless state be a "gender", by definition?).
• Demigender - When you feel as if you are one part a defined gender and one or more parts an undefined gender. Terms can include demigirl, demiboy, demiagender, ect. (Does this mean you can be one part of genderless, too?)
• Aporagender - Somebody with a strong gender identification of themselves that is non-binary.
• Maverique - A non-binary gender that exists outside of the orthodox social bounds of gender.

...and perhaps the most incomprehensible, literally:

• Novigender - A gender that is super complex and impossible to describe in a single term.

Now here is the problem. If this were just a matter of self-identification, fine - I'm willing to hear an individual describe themselves as any of the above, or something completely different.

However, when pronouns - which are sex-based - are now called into question as a direct result of the above, then that acts as a direct imposition of their belief onto the rest of society.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion. This is based on facts and evidence. In any other domain, we harness evidence and facts to form a reasoned judgement - and then act on that judgement accordingly.

In this, almost unique case, we are being asked to jettison evidence and facts in favor of feelings and emotion.

Again, the above "genders" are merely personality types - nothing more. They say nothing about the biological sex of that person. As I stated in my introduction, I myself would not call myself "masculine" as stereotypes demand - but that doesn't license me to create a linguistic term and impose that term upon society.

For example, I could validly create the following gender right now:

• Metrogender - a non-binary gender that tangentially orients toward the masculine and male gender form, but is unique in its own right.

Technically speaking, I could genuinely identify as that term. However, all I am doing is describing my personality as it relates to socially-constructed stereotypes.

I do not have the right to impose this on society. Nor does anyone else.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I should have posted some of these earlier, to add some digestible meat to the discussion.

But here they are, some of the gender identities that now exist:

...

However, when pronouns - which are sex-based - are now called into question as a direct result of the above, then that acts as a direct imposition of their belief onto the rest of society.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion. This is based on facts and evidence. In any other domain, we harness evidence and facts to form a reasoned judgement - and then act on that judgement accordingly.

In this, almost unique case, we are being asked to jettison evidence and facts in favor of feelings and emotion.

I’m not sure you understand what a pronoun is in English grammar, and what it’s used for. Here’s a good explanation of what are pronouns and their purpose in the English language -

Grammar Rules - Pronouns


What you have is an opinion, and the facts and evidence you’re presenting as a means of suggesting that pronouns are sex based, is only evidence that you don’t understand how language is constructed and evolves.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, the above "genders" are merely personality types - nothing more. They say nothing about the biological sex of that person. As I stated in my introduction, I myself would not call myself "masculine" as stereotypes demand - but that doesn't license me to create a linguistic term and impose that term upon society.

...

I do not have the right to impose this on society. Nor does anyone else.

Actually, that’s exactly what it does, and that’s a right you and everyone else has. It’s called freedom of expression, and if the linguistic terms you invent catch on and become popular in common usage, who knows? Remember when being gay used to mean happy, and now it means being attracted to a person of the same sex? Yeah, it’s kinda like that the way language evolves, it has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with expressing how we feel and think about the world around us and the people in it that make up a society, or community, if you prefer that term.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you have is an opinion...


Actually, that’s exactly what it does, and that’s a right you and everyone else has. It’s called freedom of expression, and if the linguistic terms you invent catch on and become popular in common usage, who knows? Remember when being gay used to mean happy, and now it means being attracted to a person of the same sex? Yeah, it’s kinda like that the way language evolves, it has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with expressing how we feel and think about the world around us and the people in it that make up a society, or community, if you prefer that term.

No - it's you who has the opinion.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No - it's you who has the opinion.

Yes, we both have our own opinions. Your basic problem is that you haven’t met too many people within your community who want to entertain yours.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, we both have our own opinions. Your basic problem is that you haven’t met too many people within your community who want to entertain yours.

Not at all.

My views are grounded in logic, evidence, and reason. I have elucidated that throughout this discussion.

Again, I am happy for people to have their own beliefs, but those beliefs must reside within the confines of their cerebral system and not imposed upon the rest of us who - through logic, evidence, and reason - have come to a very different conclusion indeed.

We exchange evidence for emotion at our peril.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not at all.

My views are grounded in logic, evidence, and reason. I have elucidated that throughout this discussion.

Again, I am happy for people to have their own beliefs, but those beliefs must reside within the confines of their cerebral system and not imposed upon the rest of us who - through logic, evidence, and reason - have come to a very different conclusion indeed.

We exchange evidence for emotion at our peril.

And the people who don’t share your opinions and have no interest in entertaining your opinions have come to the conclusions they have as a result of employing logic, evidence and reason.

It would be exchanging evidence for emotion if anyone were to allow your special pleadings to have any legitimacy -

Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.


Comes back to the same basic problem again - you want people within your community to listen to you and entertain what I would call nonsense anyway, but you don’t want to listen to them, in fact you really do want them excluded from what you feel is “your” community. Instead, it’s you who is left feeling excluded and claiming that the community isn’t diverse or inclusive on the basis that you haven’t met many people who share your opinions within that community. It’s you who doesn’t appreciate diversity of opinions and beliefs, and you want people excluded from “your” community on the basis that they don’t share your opinions or beliefs about them and their lives and the reasons why they feel they want to be members of a community where they feel supported and they can give back to the community by educating people and campaigning for equal rights and equal treatment within society.

You don’t appear to want to give anything back, you just want everyone to listen to you and conform to your beliefs and opinions for how the community should conduct themselves and the doctrines they should adhere to according to the word of eskimohunt because you have used logic, evidence and reason to form your opinions.... and completely miss the point of a community.

Barna77

I'm totally lost with gender identity / pronouns these days... Got a bit out of hand if you ask me

Ready for criticism.

Barna77

Barna77 wrote: »

I'm totally lost with gender identity / pronouns these days... Got a bit out of hand if you ask me

Ready for criticism.

I agree.

Throughout this thread, I've put forward a cogent and logical position. However, as expected, I've so far not been engaged with the content of my points, but instead the content of my character.

is_that_so

Barna77 wrote: »

I'm totally lost with gender identity / pronouns these days... Got a bit out of hand if you ask me

Ready for criticism.

What it tends to do is imply that identity is all about gender, when we know in our own lives it is way more complex than that. The attempt at invented pronouns is absurd and gives the impression that some people have personality disorders. They are also unlikely to bite in general usage as there is no obvious connection to any nouns/people they might refer to and we do already have the pretty useful they and their to cover a lot of bases, with the very stuffy "one" to back it up.

Irish Praetorian

I must confess I do find this debate fascinating and it seems to be part of a wider debate currently going on in the LGBT community about what exactly that community is and ought to be, as what the community is and ought to be doing. I wouldn't really like to pretend that I would land on the more 'progressive' end of the spectrum of the community, but I do like people to keep in mind one thing. Back in the days of the Stonewall Inn, it wasn't the respectable groups like the Mattachine Society or the Daughters of Biltis, but rather the street boys and black transwomen.

Anyways, to paraphrase Douglas Murray, it all seems to speak to a bigger division which seems to abounding in the LGBT community at the moment; namely wether being gay is just an orientation or the first step in overthrowing the establishment.

Irish Praetorian

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Anyways, to paraphrase Douglas Murray, it all seems to speak to a bigger division which seems to abounding in the LGBT community at the moment; namely wether being gay is just an orientation or the first step in overthrowing the establishment.

I can't confirm this, but my guess is that the majority of gender identities are created by members of the LGBT community.

I'm curious as to why the phenomenon is not more common in the Hetero- community. After all, they compose 95% of society and have every right to have their own gender identities - yet they do not.

If, as I suspect, gender identities are almost exclusive to the LGBT community, it suggests that there's something else going on because, if it were genetic, you would find greater diversity of genders within the straight community.

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't confirm this, but my guess is that the majority of gender identities are created by members of the LGBT community.

I'm curious as to why the phenomenon is not more common in the Hetero- community. After all, they compose 95% of society and have every right to have their own gender identities - yet they do not.

If, as I suspect, gender identities are almost exclusive to the LGBT community, it suggests that there's something else going on because, if it were genetic, you would find greater diversity of genders within the straight community.

One might postulate that LGBT people create those identities, but there is a question at that point of who is really 'creating' the identity - do gay people exist because some people are sexually attracted to their own gender or because wider society needs to find a way to categorize those people? I suppose it's just a rehash of the old 'does a tree falling in the woods make any noise if no-one is around to hear it' question.

I would make a further point about the existence of such identities in certain societies but I'm exhausted at the moment from this cold so I will return to make the point later.

isohon

@the OP;

You are clearly an intelligent person. You are surely aware then that societal mores evolve over time. You hold a position, that within the community you single out, has become unpopular and unpalatable to your peers. You are free to express your views, clearly you do based on your own comments in this thread. Likewise your acquaintances are free to express their own, including by vocally disagreeing with you and ultimately by deciding they do not wish to associate with you.

If you believe in your position you must be satisfied to accept the opprobrium of those who do not agree, as you most surely would accept gladly the encouragement of those who do. It is a wonder you aren't.

isohon

isohon wrote: »

If you believe in your position you must be satisfied to accept the opprobrium of those who do not agree, as you most surely would accept gladly the encouragement of those who do. It is a wonder you aren't.

There's a stark difference, though, between two people agreeing to disagree on an issue - which is normal and relatively prevalent - and opting to silence someone for having "the wrong opinion".

The latter is where I, and others, draw the line.

Furthermore, having a respectable opinion should not gather opprobrium in the first place. That's the whole point of my thread. It would be akin to me holding others in opprobrium for failing to agree with me.

I don't care if people agree or disagree with me, but what I do expect is to be heard - which is the same respect I afford to others.

isohon

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a stark difference, though, between two people agreeing to disagree on an issue - which is normal and relatively prevalent - and opting to silence someone for having "the wrong opinion".

The latter is where I, and others, draw the line.

Furthermore, having a respectable opinion should not gather opprobrium in the first place. That's the whole point of my thread. It would be akin to me holding others in opprobrium for failing to agree with me.

I don't care if people agree or disagree with me, but what I do expect is to be heard - which is the same respect I afford to others.

But you haven't been silenced? If you were silenced you couldn't possibly have experienced the responses you've already cited in this thread, you couldn't be in this thread. You wouldn't be among the many other individuals who complain regularly online, in print, on the radio, on the television that they too have been silenced. If you were silenced your opinion should be shocking and interesting to us, but it isn't. It is just the same opinion as countless others including well placed politicians, columnists, comedians, etc express daily.

You are not silenced.

pinkyeye

OP I kind of get where you're coming from but in more simple terms can you please explain why you feel:

a) that others views are being imposed upon you or affecting your life

b) how often these topics would ever come up?

You've stated a few times that you want to be heard but why is it so important to you for others to listen to your views on such an obscure subject?

We all have views that others don't agree with but just don't feel the need to voice them all the time.

For example I hate piercings but I would never feel the need to tell someone with piercings this because that's just being deliberately provocative. They obviously like piercings and they're not affecting my life so live and let live no?

Is it not that simple?

Barna77

pinkyeye wrote: »

OP I kind of get where you're coming from but in more simple terms can you please explain why you feel:

a) that others views are being imposed upon you or affecting your life

I think what the OP is trying to say is that lately if you don't agree with the let's call it LGTB (I refuse to add more letters) point of view you are labelled as a bigot homophobe cave wo/man

pinkyeye

pinkyeye wrote: »

OP I kind of get where you're coming from but in more simple terms can you please explain why you feel:

a) that others views are being imposed upon you or affecting your life

b) how often these topics would ever come up?

You've stated a few times that you want to be heard but why is it so important to you for others to listen to your views on such an obscure subject?

We all have views that others don't agree with but just don't feel the need to voice them all the time.

For example I hate piercings but I would never feel the need to tell someone with piercings this because that's just being deliberately provocative. They obviously like piercings and they're not affecting my life so live and let live no?

Is it not that simple?

In terms of (a), we are confronted - almost on a daily basis - of an ever-encroaching trend toward censoring words and phrases in favor of what I believe to be a social fad. Today's example is that "Ladies and Gentlemen" is going to be banned by a theatre for fear that the term "excludes" non-binary people.

In the United States, for example, I think the figure is 0.4% of the population identify as non-binary.

Even if the statistic were double or treble that value, I think altering the way we speak is incredibly damaging and it's a very long, slippery slope toward targeting other forms of speech and aspects of language.

All this, based on what all evidence suggests is a subjective personality description that has absolutely nothing to do sex.

Goodshape

So what's the hard scientific truth and evidence behind the existence of "Ladies" or "Gentlemen"? Those are just imagined titles aren't they? Shouldn't they be saying "Biological Males and Biological Females"?

Or is it maybe just an attempt to be polite?

Could the answer to the question "what is polite?", when addressing a large audience, change over time?

Is there actually any cause for alarm if or when it does?

Goodshape

Goodshape wrote: »

So what's the hard scientific truth and evidence behind the existence of "Ladies" or "Gentlemen"? Those are just imagined titles aren't they? Shouldn't they be saying "Biological Males and Biological Females"?

Or is it maybe just an attempt to be polite?

Could the answer to the question "what is polite?", when addressing a large audience, change over time?

Is there actually any cause for alarm if or when it does?

Sure what's the point in having meanings of words at all then?

Should common usage of words be changed to accommodate an absolutely tiny percentage of the population for the sake of "inclusivity"?

Should people who wish not to change their vernacular be branded as intolerant?

The problem here is that a large percentage of people are being coerced to change their way of thinking/speaking for fear of being labelled as some sort of bigot.

Lefty Bicek

Goodshape wrote: »

So what's the hard scientific truth and evidence behind the existence of "Ladies" or "Gentlemen"? Those are just imagined titles aren't they? Shouldn't they be saying "Biological Males and Biological Females"?

Or is it maybe just an attempt to be polite?

Could the answer to the question "what is polite?", when addressing a large audience, change over time?

Is there actually any cause for alarm if or when it does?

Big difference between 'change over time' on the one hand; and on the other, the systematic re-engineering of language not because it reflects gradual shifts in mores but because it wants to embed and reinforce novel categories, with consequences for anyone who doesn't immediately bend to the new orthodoxy.

It is the difference between evolution and revolution.

is_that_so

Goodshape wrote: »

So what's the hard scientific truth and evidence behind the existence of "Ladies" or "Gentlemen"? Those are just imagined titles aren't they? Shouldn't they be saying "Biological Males and Biological Females"?

Or is it maybe just an attempt to be polite?

Could the answer to the question "what is polite?", when addressing a large audience, change over time?

Is there actually any cause for alarm if or when it does?

They evolved to represent all the perceived good qualities of those titles. Their modern use in many languages show respect and decorum and a level of protocol that a bland "inoffensive" epithet can't match. As to how they change the level of formality may have but many remain based on the same principles other generations would recognise.

Here's Geoffrey Leech on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_maxims

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

They evolved to represent all the perceived good qualities of those titles. Their modern use in many languages show respect and decorum and a level of protocol that a bland "inoffensive" epithet can't match. As to how they change the level of formality may have but many remain based on the same principles other generations would recognise.

Here's Geoffrey Leech on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_maxims

Over the years many women have complained about how men are referred to as "gentlemen", but women are referred to as just "ladies".

In fact, I imagine the percentage is more than the 0.4% of the population who identify as non-binary.

Yet the terms remained.

In today's instance, those terms buckle under the pressure of the non-binary phenomenon.

It's a political weapon imposed upon the rest of us.

At least with "gay" and so on, it's a biological reality and the term progressed over time as more people understood that very biological basis.

With non-binary terms and phraseology, it is entirely socially constructed and personally subjective, and the 100s of terms are not progressing over time, but rather politically imposed with strict enforcement.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

Over the years many women have complained about how men are referred to as "gentlemen", but women are referred to as just "ladies".

In fact, I imagine the percentage is more than the 0.4% of the population who identify as non-binary.

Yet the terms remained.

In today's instance, those terms buckle under the pressure of the non-binary phenomenon.

It's a political weapon imposed upon the rest of us.

At least with "gay" and so on, it's a biological reality and the term progressed over time as more people understood that very biological basis.

With non-binary terms and phraseology, it is entirely socially constructed and personally subjective, and the term is not progressing over time, but rather politically imposed with strict enforcement.

It's really nothing of the sort at all. The terms in question now have very restricted usage and largely in highly formalised social gatherings. You should really read that link and go and look up Grice, mentioned in that, as well. How we communicate is a matter of personal choice. I don't know about that ladies thing any more. I've heard girls used about 60 year olds.