Intolerance within the LGBT Community

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.

[Deleted User] · 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?

[Deleted User] · 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!

[Deleted User] · 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?

[Deleted User] · 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!

[Deleted User] · 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.

One eyed Jack · 01-11-2019 7:20pm

[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 · 01-11-2019 7:22pm

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 · 01-11-2019 7:34pm

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.

[Deleted User] · 01-11-2019 7:40pm

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 · 01-11-2019 7:43pm

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 · 01-11-2019 7:56pm

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 · 01-11-2019 7:57pm

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 · 01-11-2019 8:01pm

Ironicname wrote: »

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

In this case, Piers Morgan.

Danzy · 01-11-2019 8:02pm

[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 · 01-11-2019 8:04pm

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.

Intolerance within the LGBT Community

Comments