Intolerance within the LGBT Community

31-10-2019 3:09pm #1

Hi there,

First and foremost, I'm gay. And as someone who is an active member of this community and who gets involved with the community as much as possible, I have noticed one or two things which have become a cause for concern.

One of those worrying factors is the growing intolerance within some parts of the LGBT community. There appears to be a growing consensus of what opinions are / are not allowed. I have routinely been ostracized from social situations if I utter the "wrong opinion". I'm even fearful of raising this issue here for precisely the same reason.

More specifically, it's often due to my views on gender identity. I sincerely hold to my views with as much conviction as the next person and their opinion. Even if I meet fellow members of the LGBT community who have polar opposite views to my own, I always treat that view with respect and never allow the situation to become personal or abusive.

What is my view? My view is that gender identity is nothing to do with LGBT - nothing, not a damn thing.

I believe there are biological men and biological women. In cases where an individual feels as if they were born in the wrong body, they can transition to become members of the opposite sex. That, to me, is what "transgender" means - transitioning to the opposite sex.

Gender identity has no biological basis. It's all about how an individual may not "feel masculine" or "feel feminine" in relation to how society views the social roles of men and women. I myself am not a typically "masculine" man - but that's all it makes me; not masculine.

When we start confusing sex and gender, then, I think it creates more problems than it needs to. Rather than having 100+ (potentially infinite) number of genders, what we're talking about is 100+ personality types and how those personality deviations differ from what is standardly considered "masculine" or "feminine". So, whilst I do not identify as a "masculine" or "feminine" person, that's all it says. Nothing more than that.

As a consequence of the above, I also do not believe that pronouns should legally be changed. Pronouns should be kept based on the biological sex of that person. Even if they don't identify as a biological man, they are still biological men (pronouns should be changed for persons who fully transition, of course, but not based on some randomly constructed gender identity). If they claim not to be masculine, but "somewhere in between masculine and feminine", that's got nothing to do with biological sex - and its sex that we base pronouns on.

My view may not agree to everyone, but it is a sincerely held belief. I'm not asking for anything more than mutual respect between peoples within the LGBT community. If this growing intolerance ensues, where my views (and other people's) become drowned out with abuse, it makes dialogue impossible.

That surely cannot be an acceptable way to move forward. And no - I am not a religious person (atheist here), I'm pro-abortion etc. and pro-gay marriage and all the other standardly liberal policies. The reason I utter this is because many people, when hearing my view on gender identity, suddenly assume that I'm the worst kind of conservative.

I'd be interested to hear what other member's of the LGBT community have experienced. Whether you have experienced the same degree of ostracization when expressing views that are not considered "mainstream", and whether - like me - you are beginning to say what people want to hear just to avoid any potential conflict.

victor8600 · 31-10-2019 3:16pm

Just accept that your view is wrong, make peace and move on. No ostracization, no division. /thread

31-10-2019 3:19pm

victor8600 wrote: »

Just accept that your view is wrong, make peace and move on. No ostracization, no division. /thread

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

"Conform now - or consider yourself a pariah".

Goodshape · 31-10-2019 3:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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

"Conform now - or consider yourself a pariah".

You can think what you like and accept that it's not going to be the favoured opinion. Maybe listen to those people actually affected by these issues – not just those who have a difficult time thinking about it. And ultimately, move on and let it be.

Like what do you expect to happen when you express these opinions? What would anyone gain if we all suddenly agreed with you?

31-10-2019 3:28pm

Goodshape wrote: »

You can think what you like and accept that it's not going to be the favoured opinion. Maybe listen to those people actually affected by these issues – not just those who have a difficult time thinking about it. And ultimately, move on and let it be.

Like what do you expect to happen when you express these opinions? What would anyone gain if we all suddenly agreed with you?

I'm interested in the truth - and my views are not a randomly-oriented collection of thoughts, but reasoned out over a long period of time.

Furthermore, I'm not asking for everyone to agree with me; I'm simply asking for mutual respect on what is considered a contentious topic.

Mere adherence to dogma is akin to what constitutes a religion; based on faith as opposed to fact.

Open discussion and dialogue is healthy, not a hindrance. Furthermore, how is the ostracization of gay people such as myself, and the views I hold, an acceptable enterprise? Or are only minorities accepted if they conform to all the views of the majority?

victor8600 · 31-10-2019 3:33pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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

"Conform now - or consider yourself a pariah".

Well yes. I am not saying that you are wrong exactly, and my opinion has no more weight than yours. But your opinion itself is dividing, thus if your goal is to avoid a division, either keep your opinion to yourself or revise it.

Or else, your actual goal may be the exclusion of "T" from LGBT. But why stop there? Surely, a united "G" front would have less issues to worry about?

Or we could just accept that the LGBT "community" is not a monolith corporation and every member has their own view and natural divisions occur all the time and it's ok.

31-10-2019 3:36pm

victor8600 wrote: »

Well yes. I am not saying that you are wrong exactly, and my opinion has no more weight than yours. But your opinion itself is dividing, thus if your goal is to avoid a division, either keep your opinion to yourself or revise it.

Or else, your actual goal may be the exclusion of "T" from LGBT. But why stop there? Surely, a united "G" front would have less issues to worry about?

Precisely the opposite.

In my opening remarks, I stated that transgender - those who are born in the wrong biological body and must undergo reassignment surgery - is something to be acknowledged and respected and those who undergo the surgery are to be admired. It surely cannot be easy.

But that's where it ends. That's what "transgender" means.

It does not refer to "two-spirit person" or "neutrois" or any of these newly developed constructions which have nothing to do with sex.

I cannot "transition" to become a "two-spirit person" - but I can transition to be a woman. See what I mean?

brownej · 31-10-2019 3:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Precisely the opposite.

In my opening remarks, I stated that transgender - those who are born in the wrong biological body and must undergo reassignment surgery - is something to be acknowledged and respected and those who undergo the surgery are to be admired. It surely cannot be easy.

But that's where it ends. That's what "transgender" means.

It does not refer to "two-spirit person" or "neutrois" or any of this newly-harvested nonsense which has nothing to do with sex.

I cannot "transition" to become a "two-spirit person" - but I can transition to be a woman. See what I mean?

Ah I think I see the problem here.
You are always going to get a negative response to your opinions when you refer to others as "nonsense".
You start off with a somewhat rationally constructed argument but cant seem to hold it together for more than a couple of posts before descending into rubbishing any other veiw points.

31-10-2019 3:51pm

brownej wrote: »

Ah I think I see the problem here.
You are always going to get a negative response to your opinions when you refer to others as "nonsense".

You start off with a somewhat rationally constructed argument but cant seem to hold it together for more than a couple of posts before descending into rubbishing any other veiw points.

True, but that's only because I'm online.

When discussing this matter in person, I'm far more diplomatic in my approach and do my best to avoid active confrontation.

Here though, I'm expressing a raw opinion.

If it proves to be a distraction, I'd rather not let it undermine the discussion, so I've edited my comments above.

brownej · 31-10-2019 4:04pm

To be honest when I clicked on this thread I had expected to read about people that fall outside the more clearly defined L, G, B and T being excluded.

It was somewhat of a surprise to find that it was someone whos exclusionary opinions are not being well received.

I have no opinion one way or the other on the issue of Gender identity, I simply dont know enough about it.
What I do have an opinion on is that the LGBTQ+ community has always been inclusive of the diversity that exists in society and I would welcome this and like to see it continue. I think its a good thing that the LGBTQ+ community is open and welcoming.

31-10-2019 4:07pm

brownej wrote: »

What I do have an opinion on is that the LGBTQ+ community has always been inclusive of the diversity that exists in society and I would welcome this and like to see it continue. I think its a good thing that the LGBTQ+ community is open and welcoming.

The problem with these types of cliched platitudes is that the LGBT community is held as "open, welcoming" and "always been inclusive of diversity" - except diversity of opinion within the LGBT community.

That is not inclusive, that is exclusive and dogmatic and harmful to members within its own boundaries.

It's akin to Russia allowing one version of events to be released on RT television, and all other views are automatically considered heresy and those people must be silenced.

And like Russia, when people try to silence dissenting views, it says more about the censor than the censored.

eviltwin · 31-10-2019 5:51pm

I know two transgender people and all I need to know is what they tell me. They always felt their body was the wrong one, psychologically they weren't in a great way and both are much happier post transition. That's enough for me.

brownej · 31-10-2019 6:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with these types of cliched platitudes is that the LGBT community is held as "open, welcoming" and "always been inclusive of diversity" - except diversity of opinion within the LGBT community.

That is not inclusive, that is exclusive and dogmatic and harmful to members within its own boundaries.

It's akin to Russia allowing one version of events to be released on RT television, and all other views are automatically considered heresy and those people must be silenced.

And like Russia, when people try to silence dissenting views, it says more about the censor than the censored.

Oh goody, I love it when discussions resort to false equivalences.
Give me a minute and I'll think of one involving Eskimos. :cool:

p1akuw47h5r3it · 31-10-2019 7:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Precisely the opposite.

In my opening remarks, I stated that transgender - those who are born in the wrong biological body and must undergo reassignment surgery - is something to be acknowledged and respected and those who undergo the surgery are to be admired. It surely cannot be easy.

But that's where it ends. That's what "transgender" means.

It does not refer to "two-spirit person" or "neutrois" or any of these newly developed constructions which have nothing to do with sex.

I cannot "transition" to become a "two-spirit person" - but I can transition to be a woman. See what I mean?

And this is the crux of the issue. These " there are a 100 genders people" have infiltrated and destroyed the trans movement by intentionally mixing the issues, and label people like you with pretty run of the mill opinions as transphobic because you believe the idea of being non-gender binary is a little silly.
But a self identifying non-gender-binary person simply can't be trans as they claim to be neither male nor female.

eviltwin wrote: »

I know two transgender people and all I need to know is what they tell me. They always felt their body was the wrong one, psychologically they weren't in a great way and both are much happier post transition. That's enough for me.

The OP isn't talking about trans people though. Yet again the issues are wrongly conflated.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 31-10-2019 7:09pm

brownej wrote: »

To be honest when I clicked on this thread I had expected to read about people that fall outside the more clearly defined L, G, B and T being excluded.

It was somewhat of a surprise to find that it was someone whos exclusionary opinions are not being well received.

I have no opinion one way or the other on the issue of Gender identity, I simply dont know enough about it.
What I do have an opinion on is that the LGBTQ+ community has always been inclusive of the diversity that exists in society and I would welcome this and like to see it continue. I think its a good thing that the LGBTQ+ community is open and welcoming.

We've had posters, themselves members of this community, say the exact opposite of this. It's questionable if the community is really all that welcoming.

31-10-2019 7:29pm

eviltwin wrote: »

I know two transgender people and all I need to know is what they tell me. They always felt their body was the wrong one, psychologically they weren't in a great way and both are much happier post transition. That's enough for me.

As stated in my introduction post, and on a more recent post, that I accept fully the idea that an individual who feels they were born in the wrong body has every right to transition - as that's what "transgender" refers to - and I have no issue with this whatsoever.

brownej wrote: »

Oh goody, I love it when discussions resort to false equivalences.
Give me a minute and I'll think of one involving Eskimos. :cool:

But it's not a false equivalence is it, though?

I'm not directly comparing the two. What I am doing is saying that if the majority have a view over the minority and the minority are sternly warned to "accept this new prevailing orthodoxy, without question", that is anything but "inclusive".

Second, it raises a more fundamental question:

Namely, why does one person's opinion on gender self-identification trump my opinion on gender self-identification?

We are both member's of the same community, yet one is afforded a greater level of free speech and acceptability over the other?

As far as I see, there is no reason to assume this - and so I battle on. I'm perfectly happy to change my mind, but the evidence (though more "assertions") produced to date as yet to persuade me.

Moreover, if gender and sex are the same thing and that "two-spirit person" and "neutrois" are sex identities, you must then adhere to the view that it's possible for me or you or anyone else to transition medically to "two-spirit person". This is self-evidently not possible.

But it IS possible for male-to-female and female-to-male.

As another poster has pointed out, the question of 100+ genders has swung a wrecking ball to the legitimate transgender movement. More and more transgender women - such as India Willoughby - now come out condemning the new-wave gender movement as undermining her legitimacy to be a transgender woman.

suicide_circus · 31-10-2019 7:42pm

its an interesting one alright. your opinions are, i suspect, pretty widely held in private but are still taboo/heresy if uttered publicly. Society is still trying to process this stuff and the LBGT community is no different.

31-10-2019 7:52pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

its an interesting one alright. your opinions are, i suspect, pretty widely held in private but are still taboo/heresy if uttered publicly. Society is still trying to process this stuff and the LBGT community is no different.

I don't want to cast too broad a brush.

I have met many LGBT people, on an individual basis, who acknowledge the views I espouse, yet also declare their fear of saying these things publicly, or as part of a wider LGBT group.

We know and understand the fear and the potential repurcussions of what will happen if we stray away from the "party line".

J_E · 31-10-2019 9:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

We know and understand the fear and the potential repurcussions of what will happen if we stray away from the "party line".

I think it's more being conscious of causing hurt to people who may already have enough on their plate already. I certainly don't want to go out of my way to alienate someone or make them feel like they aren't welcome within a community. Everyone has their own opinions, but it is also our responsibility as LGBT people to keep an open mind and foster understanding, beyond pure biology. The outside world hurts enough as it is.

Dingle_berry · 01-11-2019 6:56am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Namely, why does one person's opinion on gender self-identification trump my opinion on gender self-identification?

Because they're the expert. They've been through it. They have the support of the majority of experts on the human mind (psychologists and psychiatrists).
It's the same as any argument in life; victim versus accused, who to vote for, what food to eat or not eat, legalise drugs or not. When confronted with 2 or more views, listen openly to the people affected and the experts. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're not an expert on gender identity from either a personal or an academic point of view?
Would you make the same arguments about aspergers or colour blindness?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We are both member's of the same community, yet one is afforded a greater level of free speech and acceptability over the other?

Free speech doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want and not be challenged on it. That's only for the likes of fascist leaders. As well as free speech there is the right to choose not to listen or read someone's speech. No one has a right to pontificate or othereise force others to listen to their views.

Ironicname · 01-11-2019 8:34am

J_E wrote:

but it is also our responsibility as LGBT people to keep an open mind and foster understanding, beyond pure biology. The outside world hurts enough as it is.

That's one of the most regressive and depressing things I have ever read.

Gay people in your mind have a responsibility to ignore biology and be understanding to ideals they might not believe in because the world can be a bad place?

Why would a gay person have a responsibility to understand someone who self identifies as a pan-gendered two spirit? Why would a trans woman need to understand gender fluidity (which undermines their transition)?

01-11-2019 9:45am

J_E wrote: »

I think it's more being conscious of causing hurt to people who may already have enough on their plate already. I certainly don't want to go out of my way to alienate someone or make them feel like they aren't welcome within a community. Everyone has their own opinions, but it is also our responsibility as LGBT people to keep an open mind and foster understanding, beyond pure biology. The outside world hurts enough as it is.

I think one of the problems with new-wave gender identification is that it's pretty much, anything goes.

And if anything literally does go, then where do you draw the line?

Are there any boundaries that you are prepared not to accept?

For example - there are people who identify as "trans-able"; the idea being that they believe they were born into a "disabled" body even though they are fully able-bodied people. Should we accept this identification, too? What are the ramifications of that acceptance - a human right for a person to sever a limb to meet their mental identification?

Should we then say, "We cannot disagree with this, in part because it may hurt their feelings and so therefore we must be as inclusive as possible".

You see where this can lead.

Without boundaries, you are committed to accepting everything.

One eyed Jack · 01-11-2019 10:21am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think one of the problems with new-wave gender identification is that it's pretty much, anything goes.

And if anything literally does go, then where do you draw the line?

Are there any boundaries that you are prepared not to accept?

For example - there are people who identify as "trans-able"; the idea being that they believe they were born into a "disabled" body even though they are fully able-bodied people. Should we accept this identification, too? What are the ramifications of that acceptance - a human right for a person to sever a limb to meet their mental identification?

Should we then say, "We cannot disagree with this, in part because it may hurt their feelings and so therefore we must be as inclusive as possible".

You see where this can lead.

Without boundaries, you are committed to accepting everything.

Only you can decide for yourself where your boundaries are, and what you are and aren’t willing to accept or otherwise. By that same token though - other people have that same right to decide where their boundaries are and what they’re willing to accept or otherwise.

Your basic problem is that you’re finding out where other people’s boundaries are, and their boundaries mean not having to put up with your opinions. You don’t like it, obviously, because it leaves you feeling excluded. That’s exactly how other people feel when they become aware of where your boundaries are.

Basically, you’re complaining because other people aren’t treating people the way you yourself wouldn’t want being treated. I get that it doesn’t feel good, but communities are formed of shared ideas and principles - form your own community of people who agree with you, and there are plenty of people who do, but you can’t have it both ways - the idea that you should be able to treat other people like crap, and expect them to just accept your bullshìt.

01-11-2019 10:48am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Only you can decide for yourself where your boundaries are, and what you are and aren’t willing to accept or otherwise. By that same token though - other people have that same right to decide where their boundaries are and what they’re willing to accept or otherwise.

Your basic problem is that you’re finding out where other people’s boundaries are, and their boundaries mean not having to put up with your opinions. You don’t like it, obviously, because it leaves you feeling excluded. That’s exactly how other people feel when they become aware of where your boundaries are.

Basically, you’re complaining because other people aren’t treating people the way you yourself wouldn’t want being treated. I get that it doesn’t feel good, but communities are formed of shared ideas and principles - form your own community of people who agree with you, and there are plenty of people who do, but you can’t have it both ways - the idea that you should be able to treat other people like crap, and expect them to just accept your bullshìt.

Hang on.

Telling people that their belief doesn't trump your own is not treating them like **** or asking them to accept your bull****.

I have no responsibility to accept tri-sexual pangender people just because they want to be accepted.

If that was the case, you must agree that Piers Morgan should be accepted as a two spirit penguin.

01-11-2019 10:51am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Only you can decide for yourself where your boundaries are, and what you are and aren’t willing to accept or otherwise. By that same token though - other people have that same right to decide where their boundaries are and what they’re willing to accept or otherwise.

That assumes that this is all a matter of opinion.

I'm arguing that it is not - that there is a bedrock of truth to be had. If we take your view, and assume that everyone's statements about identification are equally valid, then you must accept the "trans-able" person's belief that they were born disabled - perhaps blind. Are you prepared to sanction the state to effectively blind someone to meet that mental identification? If you are, fine - but at least have the courage of your convictions.

And if that truth is valid, which I believe it is, we must act upon it and ensure that structures within our society that have held for centuries, are maintained and not eroded in favour of "three-spirit pangender tri-sexual amorphous non-people".

One eyed Jack · 01-11-2019 11:36am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hang on.

Telling people that their belief doesn't trump your own is not treating them like **** or asking them to accept your bull****.

I have no responsibility to accept tri-sexual pangender people just because they want to be accepted.

If that was the case, you must agree that Piers Morgan should be accepted as a two spirit penguin.

The OP isn’t just telling people that their beliefs don’t trump his own though, his complaint is that he doesn’t like having to acknowledge that his beliefs don’t trump other people’s beliefs.

I’m not the poster who suggested anyone had any responsibility for anyone else, I never bought into the whole idea of a community based upon sexual orientation or gender identity in the first place, but if that’s a community the OP wants to belong to, then being a part of that community means they’re going to have to accept things they may not want to accept, like the fact that other people too have their own ideas too about who does or doesn’t belong to that community or what they are or aren’t willing to accept.

To be perfectly honest I’ve never gotten the point of “If you want to identify as whatever, then you must accept that I identify as whatever too”. I’m fine with however anyone else wants to identify themselves, and if Piers Morgan wants to be accepted as a two spirit penguin, he can work away. I still believe he’s an obnoxious prick though, and I accept that he’s very unlikely to care for my opinion one way or the other in the same way as I’m not the least bit concerned with his opinions, beliefs, etc.

I’m clearly not a member of the Piers Morgan fan club, but if I wanted to be accepted as a member of the Piers Morgan fan club (like the OP who wanted to be accepted and acknowledged as a member of an LGBT community), then I would have to accept that I should keep my opinions about other members of that community to myself, as opposed to stirring up resentment among the community. I dunno about you but I just prefer my dignity intact as opposed to begging to be accepted by a community which I know doesn’t accept my opinions, beliefs or me as a person.

One eyed Jack · 01-11-2019 12:13pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That assumes that this is all a matter of opinion.

I'm arguing that it is not - that there is a bedrock of truth to be had. If we take your view, and assume that everyone's statements about identification are equally valid, then you must accept the "trans-able" person's belief that they were born disabled - perhaps blind. Are you prepared to sanction the state to effectively blind someone to meet that mental identification? If you are, fine - but at least have the courage of your convictions.

I don’t have to accept anything I don’t want to accept. Nobody does. It’s not a matter of belief as to whether everyone’s individual opinions or beliefs are of equal validity, it’s just a fact that they are equally valid. It’s more of a question of the popularity of people’s beliefs, and because we live in a democracy - in the same way as you’re entitled to campaign for what you believe, other people are entitled to do the very same thing. What you appear to want is a theocracy, where everyone must comply with your beliefs.

Have the courage of your own convictions if you’re prepared for the State to exclude people on the basis that they don’t conform to your traditional beliefs. That’ll quickly come back to bite you in the arse though, as it has done in the past when gay men were persecuted by the State.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And if that truth is valid, which I believe it is, we must act upon it and ensure that structures within our society that have held for centuries, are maintained and not eroded in favour of "three-spirit pangender tri-sexual amorphous non-people".

Well it’s only natural that you believe your version of the truth should be the version that everyone acts upon which has actually only held for maybe the last 30 years or so in Western society, as opposed to your contention that it has held for centuries. Other people are free to disagree, which brings us back to your original complaint that you’re feeling excluded from a community which you were once a part of because the community is acting to create structures in society which are being built to accommodate more people in society, as opposed to leaving them on the outside of a system that supported you when you needed it, with no obligation on you to give back to that community. Be nice if you did, but you’re not under any obligation to do so.

Annasopra · 01-11-2019 12:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Hang on.

Telling people that their belief doesn't trump your own is not treating them like **** or asking them to accept your bull****.

I have no responsibility to accept tri-sexual pangender people just because they want to be accepted.

If that was the case, you must agree that Piers Morgan should be accepted as a two spirit penguin.

Mod

Dont compare trans people to animals on this forum. Its disrespectful and breaks about 3 or 4 parts of the forum charter. Any issues then PM me.

Annasopra · 01-11-2019 12:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That assumes that this is all a matter of opinion.

I'm arguing that it is not - that there is a bedrock of truth to be had. If we take your view, and assume that everyone's statements about identification are equally valid, then you must accept the "trans-able" person's belief that they were born disabled - perhaps blind. Are you prepared to sanction the state to effectively blind someone to meet that mental identification? If you are, fine - but at least have the courage of your convictions.

And if that truth is valid, which I believe it is, we must act upon it and ensure that structures within our society that have held for centuries, are maintained and not eroded in favour of "three-spirit pangender tri-sexual amorphous non-people".

Mod

I presume you do want to have a civil mature constructive discussion as per the forum charter. If you do then quit the soapboxing about trans ability as that is nothing to do with gender identity and quit the trollish "three....." comments. Any issues pm me.

01-11-2019 1:08pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Mod

Dont compare trans people to animals on this forum. Its disrespectful and breaks about 3 or 4 parts of the forum charter. Any issues then PM me.

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.

01-11-2019 1:19pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not the poster who suggested anyone had any responsibility for anyone else, I never bought into the whole idea of a community based upon sexual orientation or gender identity in the first place, but if that’s a community the OP wants to belong to, then being a part of that community means they’re going to have to accept things they may not want to accept, like the fact that other people too have their own ideas too about who does or doesn’t belong to that community or what they are or aren’t willing to accept.

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.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 01-11-2019 1:35pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well it’s only natural that you believe your version of the truth should be the version that everyone acts upon which has actually only held for maybe the last 30 years or so in Western society, as opposed to your contention that it has held for centuries. Other people are free to disagree, which brings us back to your original complaint that you’re feeling excluded from a community which you were once a part of because the community is acting to create structures in society which are being built to accommodate more people in society, as opposed to leaving them on the outside of a system that supported you when you needed it, with no obligation on you to give back to that community. Be nice if you did, but you’re not under any obligation to do so.

He doesn't. I believe what he is saying, and I'm sure you'll agree, is that there is a biological, read scientific, truth. For example, Rachel Dolezal believes herself to be black. But she simply isn't. You, and anyway, can let people, or you yourself, can call or identify as whatever you want. But it doesn't make it true.

One eyed Jack · 01-11-2019 1:37pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

The issue for the OP is that they don’t want to accept other people have boundaries too, because the OP is left feeling excluded. The OP is basically arguing that they want to exclude people from “their” community, and is getting bent out of shape that it is them who is feeling excluded instead.

It’s a sort of circular logic which only makes any sense if like the OP - one has a short memory (either that or they aren’t familiar with the history of the movement), and is only concerned with their own welfare - rights for themselves, and to hell with everyone else. That was the same fundamentally flawed logic which was historically used to deny people like the OP their human rights, and now the OP is trying to use those same arguments to deny other people the same rights which have put them in the position they’re in where they get notions as soon as they get a sniff of power over other people.

They basically want a community that serves their needs, that they don’t have to give back to. Society doesn’t function like that, and the rules which govern a society in law, don’t work like that, and the OP is unlikely to meet many people who will accept that sort of self-centred attitude.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 01-11-2019 1:41pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The issue for the OP is that they don’t want to accept other people have boundaries too, because the OP is left feeling excluded. The OP is basically arguing that they want to exclude people from “their” community, and is getting bent out of shape that it is them who is feeling excluded instead.

It’s a sort of circular logic which only makes any sense if like the OP - one has a short memory (either that or they aren’t familiar with the history of the movement), and is only concerned with their own welfare - rights for themselves, and to hell with everyone else. That was the same fundamentally flawed logic which was historically used to deny people like the OP their human rights, and now the OP is trying to use those same arguments to deny other people the same rights which have put them in the position they’re in where they get notions as soon as they get a sniff of power over other people.

They basically want a community that serves their needs, that they don’t have to give back to. Society doesn’t function like that, and the rules which govern a society in law, don’t work like that, and the OP is unlikely to meet many people who will accept that sort of self-centred attitude.

Whose rights is the OP trying to deny? I think what he wants is a community that doesn't have to simply accept the latest dogma without any reproach.

01-11-2019 1:47pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The issue for the OP is that they don’t want to accept other people have boundaries too, because the OP is left feeling excluded. The OP is basically arguing that they want to exclude people from “their” community, and is getting bent out of shape that it is them who is feeling excluded instead.

It’s a sort of circular logic which only makes any sense if like the OP - one has a short memory (either that or they aren’t familiar with the history of the movement), and is only concerned with their own welfare - rights for themselves, and to hell with everyone else. That was the same fundamentally flawed logic which was historically used to deny people like the OP their human rights, and now the OP is trying to use those same arguments to deny other people the same rights which have put them in the position they’re in where they get notions as soon as they get a sniff of power over other people.

They basically want a community that serves their needs, that they don’t have to give back to. Society doesn’t function like that, and the rules which govern a society in law, don’t work like that, and the OP is unlikely to meet many people who will accept that sort of self-centred attitude.

I think that is a big misrepresentation of what the op said.

What I took was that he wanted to remain part of a community but not be castigated for not blindly following the "belief de jour". That isn't a bad thing.

Goodshape · 01-11-2019 3:42pm

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.

I think you're kind of talking yourself in circles here (and elsewhere in this thread tbh).

You are correct – "The LGBT Community" is not any kind of singular entity, group, movement, or whatever else. It's just.... people who are LGBT.

Nobody is denying you access to or kicking you out of "The LGBT Community" – because there is nothing to be kicked out of, quite frankly.

At the same time, I don't know what you'd expect from voicing these opinions. A pat on the back?

01-11-2019 3:57pm

Goodshape wrote: »

I think you're kind of talking yourself in circles here (and elsewhere in this thread tbh).

You are correct – "The LGBT Community" is not any kind of singular entity, group, movement, or whatever else. It's just.... people who are LGBT.

Nobody is denying you access to or kicking you out of "The LGBT Community" – because there is nothing to be kicked out of, quite frankly.

At the same time, I don't know what you'd expect from voicing these opinions. A pat on the back?

I think it's more along the lines of the "if you don't agree or have any issues with "x", then you aren't welcome in this community if you want to discuss them" is a strange, yet prevalent attitude taken by a very vocal large percentage of the LGBT community.

I don't think the OP was expecting a pat on the back, but rather somewhere he could voice his concern that he felt that the community was (ironically) not being accepting of diversity of opinion when it comes to certain matters

splinter65 · 01-11-2019 4:08pm

My colleague who happens to be a lesbian was at a wedding in York and decided the following night to go to a gay bar herself to see what the craic was like.
She got chatted up by a transwoman which she enjoyed until she rejected the transwoman’s offer to go back to her house for more drinks at closing time.
Cue a bit of a hissy fit which included a repeated accusation of transphobia.
It’s an interesting notion.

Gynoid · 01-11-2019 4:14pm

For all those in the LGB community who so loudly preach boundless acceptance, there is but one question to ask - and one that is rarely answered - Is your same sex attraction linked to genitalia? If it is not, fair enough, you walk the talk. If you will not have sex with an opposite sex bodied person as a homosexual then you fit the description of transphobic bigot. As the reasoning stands now.
I disagree with this reasoning.

seanachai67 · 01-11-2019 4:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm interested in the truth - and my views are not a randomly-oriented collection of thoughts, but reasoned out over a long period of time.

Furthermore, I'm not asking for everyone to agree with me; I'm simply asking for mutual respect on what is considered a contentious topic.

Mere adherence to dogma is akin to what constitutes a religion; based on faith as opposed to fact.

Open discussion and dialogue is healthy, not a hindrance. Furthermore, how is the ostracization of gay people such as myself, and the views I hold, an acceptable enterprise? Or are only minorities accepted if they conform to all the views of the majority?

It's called enforced orthodoxy, but those enforcing it are much more tolerant than you!

01-11-2019 4:22pm

Goodshape wrote: »

I think you're kind of talking yourself in circles here (and elsewhere in this thread tbh).

You are correct – "The LGBT Community" is not any kind of singular entity, group, movement, or whatever else. It's just.... people who are LGBT.

Nobody is denying you access to or kicking you out of "The LGBT Community" – because there is nothing to be kicked out of, quite frankly.

At the same time, I don't know what you'd expect from voicing these opinions. A pat on the back?

Abstractly such a "community", in the same way a "Muslim community" exists. And just as being gay excludes you (often) from being an active member of that community - welcomed and included; the same is true of large parts of the LGBT community who are unable to listen to sincerely held, opposing views.

I don't want, need, or expect everyone to agree with me. But tolerance of difference of opinion is a two-way street.

I'm not advocating hate, violence or any other form of extreme behavior. I happen to have a point of view. Nothing more, nothing less - just that.

seanachai67 wrote: »

It's called enforced orthodoxy, but those enforcing it are much more tolerant than you!

"Enforced orthodoxy" is a euphemism for censorship.

You could easily argue that the Catholic Church "enforced orthodoxy", but that wouldn't justify the enforcement nor validate the truth of the orthodoxy.

Goodshape · 01-11-2019 5:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's more along the lines of the "if you don't agree or have any issues with "x", then you aren't welcome in this community if you want to discuss them" is a strange, yet prevalent attitude taken by a very vocal large percentage of the LGBT community.

I don't think the OP was expecting a pat on the back, but rather somewhere he could voice his concern that he felt that the community was (ironically) not being accepting of diversity of opinion when it comes to certain matters

Being intolerant of intolerance is an accepted paradox alright, but I think (hope?) you can see how it differs from other forms of intolerance.

And yes, I'd imagine that a majority of LGBT people will be less tolerant of intolerance than most. So it follows that a majority of LGBT identifying groups and communities (such as this forum) are also going to be pretty intolerant of intolerance.

But again, there is no singular "LGBT Community". I'm sure the OP can find a group of LGBT people to share his views they look hard enough.

Annasopra · 01-11-2019 5:06pm

Gynoid wrote: »

For all those in the LGB community who so loudly preach boundless acceptance, there is but one question to ask - and one that is rarely answered - Is your same sex attraction linked to genitalia? If it is not, fair enough, you walk the talk. If you will not have sex with an opposite sex bodied person as a homosexual then you fit the description of transphobic bigot. As the reasoning stands now.
I disagree with this reasoning.

Mod

This post breaks the charter particulary in points 2, 7, 14

Dont post in the thread again.

Any feedback by pm only

p1akuw47h5r3it · 01-11-2019 6:20pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Being intolerant of intolerance is an accepted paradox alright, but I think (hope?) you can see how it differs from other forms of intolerance.

And yes, I'd imagine that a majority of LGBT people will be less tolerant of intolerance than most. So it follows that a majority of LGBT identifying groups and communities (such as this forum) are also going to be pretty intolerant of intolerance.

But again, there is no singular "LGBT Community". I'm sure the OP can find a group of LGBT people to share his views they look hard enough.

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?

01-11-2019 6:29pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Being intolerant of intolerance is an accepted paradox alright, but I think (hope?) you can see how it differs from other forms of intolerance.

And yes, I'd imagine that a majority of LGBT people will be less tolerant of intolerance than most. So it follows that a majority of LGBT identifying groups and communities (such as this forum) are also going to be pretty intolerant of intolerance.

But again, there is no singular "LGBT Community". I'm sure the OP can find a group of LGBT people to share his views they look hard enough.

As a matter of interest, do you accept every variation of gender to be valid, even those which you may not have heard of before?

Would it be intolerant not to?

In fact there are plenty of genders which by their own definition are impossible to understand.

Goodshape · 01-11-2019 6:47pm

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?

Are you saying we should be tolerant of intolerance? You don't see the dangers in that?

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that, "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

p1akuw47h5r3it · 01-11-2019 6:48pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Are you saying we should be tolerant of intolerance? You don't see the dangers in that?

No. I'm pointing out a double standard.

Goodshape · 01-11-2019 6:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

As a matter of interest, do you accept every variation of gender to be valid, even those which you may not have heard of before?

Would it be intolerant not to?

In fact there are plenty of genders which by their own definition are impossible to understand.

"Valid" means different things to different people at different times.

I try to be respectful of peoples wishes when it comes to their own identity and how they chose to express themselves. Unless it concerns me directly – and it very rarely (not sure if ever tbh) does – I'm happy to leave it there. Respectful of their wishes.

Goodshape · 01-11-2019 6:51pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

No. I'm pointing out a double standard.

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

01-11-2019 6:56pm

Goodshape wrote: »

"Valid" means different things to different people at different times.

I try to be respectful of peoples wishes when it comes to their own identity and how they chose to express themselves. Unless it concerns me directly – and it very rarely (not sure if ever tbh) does – I'm happy to leave it there. Respectful of their wishes.

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

Where is your line when it comes to this?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 01-11-2019 6:57pm

Goodshape wrote: »

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

You've missed the point.

Intolerance within the LGBT Community

Comments