The similarities between sexual freedom and religious freedom is striking. Sexual attraction and identification is important to be free and open, just like religious freedom. Free from persecution, equal rights and oppertunities.
But I don't like when people forcefully spread their belief system and their values to others. Let it be organic, don't try to force change. People are free to pursue their lifestyle and i'm free to pursue mine. In today's society, it feels like the ownerclass are running pro lgbtq advertisements. Is it another divide and conquer technique? The whole thing feels forced...
Please don't downvote just because it's an unpopular opinion, rather lets discuss the issue š
it feels like the ownerclass are running pro lgbtq advertisements
Corporations make inclusive advertisement when it makes them more money than not doing so. You can easily see the same movie studios making fairly different advertisement in EU/USA than in China/Saudi Arabia. This is virtue signalling, but I'm fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don't have good intentions, but good results come out of it.
There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement.
"This is virtue signalling, but I'm fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don't have good intentions, but good results come out of it."
US Supreme Court has upheld the ban on religious ads, and my initial comparison between religion and sexual freedom runs deeper. They are very comparable. Both have been persecuted heavily up in history. A big difference is what I posted in a different sub-thread
"Even though I'm an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law."
Religion within ads are not protected by freedom of expression (acc. to US SC), and a sexual expression as an ad has not, to my knowledge, been challenged in the courts (yet). Correct me if I'm wrong.
"There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement."
It's like burning books or flags, it's a protected form of expression. Even though these actions are very divisive. I will fight for even these, and the ones you put as examples' right to express themselves. It's very much like Noam Chomsky says: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
so you like creating (and when corps create) echo-chambers when they fit the concepts that you want? with all respect possible to give, your logic is therefore not sound
Talking in broad strokes all about balancing "freedom of identity/attraction" and "religious freedom" makes for a decent-sounding empathetic viewpoint prioritizing individual liberty. I understand where this is coming from, I don't disagree myself, but then again who would?
And that's why we have to get into the specifics of "forcefully spreading their belief system and values to others" because that's what happens to queer people as status quo. We're legally and socially discriminated out of a lot of aspects of public life and often carry deep trauma from wrath and abuse incurred on the way. Conversion therapy is still legal in many places for fucks sake! The hell is that if not forcefully spreading a belief system?
Often times, the term this is justified under is "freedom of religion" - but really it's freedom to control and abuse others due to religious justification. The two freedoms are not equatable, therefore the balanced center between is not a neutral position.
Corporate pride advertising is super forced and very few queer people are actually on board with it. The term is "rainbow capitalism" and it's pretty derisive. Unfortunately that's all of what some people know of us - they don't know us as people, as communities, just like them; they know us as a rainbow flag on a TV screen and as a Tucker/LWT/[whoever's got opinions about us today] talk show segment, and so that's all they think we are. Nobody likes this, queer people least of all.
"Conversion therapy is still legal in many places for fucks sake!" This is a blatant form of persecution and everyone shoult protest and shut shit down until it's fixed. Conversion therapy is, in my book, not protected by religious freedom, at all.
This remids me about the meme, two bomb-planes D and R, were one just bombs, and the other bombs too, but with rainbow colors, blm and every other "current" coopted flag.
You take an awful coropration and put lipstick on it to make it better...
I try to take a few steps back and, to me, it looks like the exploitation-class has coopted this issue, enlarging it, to make it more divisive than it actually is. I would think most people have a "can we not just live our lives in peace" attitude, whether you are lgbtq, straight, religious or atheist.
I point conversion therapy out as an egregious example of persecution, but there's plenty more, through a variety of avenues. Many fly under the radar as things that sound less intense - schools notifying parents if kids go by a nickname or change how they present is one that's come up a lot lately.
From experience - lots of people thankfully have a "live our lives in peace" attitude - but unfortunately even a minority of bigots can make our lives pretty difficult and divisive. Especially if they're allowed to do so by other people who don't agree themselves, but also don't fight it when they see it.
And so sure, the message has been coopted for mainstream audiences by corporations running ads like "[sterile uplifting music] at CitiBank, we think you're people! [stock rainbow flags waving]" If you know anyone who's queer, you know there's real difficulty that comes with it, but also a resilient community takes care of each other the best they can. Pride ads are how most people know of us, but they're not even close to representing us or the stakes we face. They're pretty much entirely irrelevant to us - we never asked for them, and they certainly don't help.
I cannot help but make the comparison to religion, yet again. Even though I'm an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law. Whenever freedom of expression is challenged, there should be huge crowds to support the FoE, and I think that is also relevant in context of your next paragraph too.
Regarding your last paragraph. Corporations hammer the message for the same reason they hammer any ad, it works. If ads didn't work, it wouldn't be a billion dollar industry. My point is, every corporation hammering the "we are inclusive" message feels inorganic. I might confuse this feeling with it just being "in" or trendy atm.
Yep. I stopped going to Pride because of the corporate nonsense. I like that children are there with rainbow flags, but the rest is unhelpful.
I went just once in Capitol Hill, Seattle. If I was more of an extroverted type it probably could have been cool - it was a concert venue featuring a bunch of queer artists, and a lot of tents for queer community organizations - mutual aid, healthcare, counseling, etc. There's definitely a way to make Pride useful for the community. But it's really just bringing together a community that always existed regardless - and imo no reason to wait til June to start getting involved and organized š
Presuming Seattle based on response, but know there are other places named Capitol Hill.
The only Pride worth going to is the small parade that happens on like a Thursday before the big one. It's really the event of the locals and those who have been part of the community. For whatever reason, the City of Seattle will no longer permit the big parade through the actual gay neighborhood, pushing it through downtown and on to Seattle Center instead. I am fairly certain that this is specifically done for capitalist reasons so they have more room for people to sell overpriced food.
In any case, never go to the BIG event, go to the smaller neighborhood one in whichever city you're in.
Please don't downvote just because it's an unpopular opinion, rather lets discuss the issue š
No. š
It is kinda counter productive to downvote a comment of someone that tries to engange in a meaningful conversation. Divisive topics should be more discussed, not less, and definately not discouraged/punished...
I'm not going to debate whether gay people should be allowed to express themselves.
I posted this two hours before your comment
"I'm not religious and I'm not lgbtq either, but I will fight for either's right and freedom to practise their beliefs." Freedom of Expression is the most precious thing we have. I cannot understate how important this is. I feel like you might have misunderstood me, I should have tried to word myself better in my original, first post. I don't want to edit it, let history be a judge. It's difficult to thread lightly in this subject. It's a subject close to the heart of many people.
"oh, poor me, I used hateful rhetoric and people won't ENGAGE with me"
I try to better myself and my understanding of lgbtq. What was hateful, so I can perhaps word myself in a better way? Thank you.
Except one thing is real and the other is not. There is no god, but there is definitely sexual attraction in forms beyond heterosexuality and gender expressions outside the heteronormative form. So there is a difference between spreading misinformation in form of religion or quite useful information on gender and sex.
I'm not religious and I'm not lgbtq either, but I will fight for either's right and freedom to practise their beliefs. I'd be more careful in calling one side "misinformation", when you have just spent decades being on the receiving end of that cruelty.
Telling people that your make believe fantasy story is true, is fundamental different from acknowledging existence or expression of non heterosexual sex and non heteronormative gender expression/identity. Especially since people tent to create moral norms for others, based on the particular fantasy story they happen to believe in.
Saying God isn't real is kinda like saying santa claus isn't real, and to those kids that desperately needs a santa, Santa is real to them, and that's all that matters..
"people tent to create moral norms for others"
As long as those norms are not forcefully applied, it's fine.
"based on the particular fantasy story they happen to believe in." I would hope you were more self aware because not too long ago lgbtq's were dismissed as "fantasy" or some kind of medical diagnose. Just please be more considerate before throwing those types of accusations around.
Saying God isnāt real is kinda like saying santa claus isnāt real, and to those kids that desperately needs a santa, Santa is real to them, and thatās all that mattersā¦
So, what you are saying is - we should treat religious people like children? Not sure, that is what you intended - but for sure an interesting example to chose, to make your point. Also at no point did I argue for people not be able to practice their religion, in fact I have no problems with peoples personal spirituality as long as it does not negatively effect people around them.
āpeople tent to create moral norms for othersā As long as those norms are not forcefully applied, itās fine.
But the forceful part is kind of what organized religion tends to be all about. Religious majorities tend to demand conformism even from people not following their religion.
ābased on the particular fantasy story they happen to believe in.ā I would hope you were more self aware because not too long ago lgbtqās were dismissed as āfantasyā or some kind of medical diagnose. Just please be more considerate before throwing those types of accusations around.
Except LGBTQ people are real, you can go outside and talk to them, they will talk back at you. If god is talking back at you, I have bad news for you my friend. What are we even talking about?
Are we not all just children stuck in adult bodies. /end cringe philosophy. I wrote it in this context because I hoped it would be easier to relate to for someone, clearly, not religious. Religious freedom is not a blanket "do whatever you like" free-card. I believe RF is covered under Freedom of Expression, at least in most European Contries. It's limited to not infringe on other people's freedom of expression.
Your next paragraph is also best answered with; their freedom of expression is limited to not infringe on other people's freedom of expression. And this is what makes this so hard.
"Except LGBTQ people are real, you can go outside and talk to them, they will talk back at you."
Again, I know lgbtq is real, if god is real or not doesn't matter, that's not relevant, the actions of those convinced he is real, those actions are real.
"What are we even talking about"
I was trying to have a discussion about that, in my view sexual freedom and religious freedom are very similar. They are both the fight for freedom of extression.
And my other thought (not so popular thought, so you better not air it) was that recently this fight for lgbtq feels inorganically amplified by legacy media. It makes me suspicious about if there might be a divide and conquer agenda behind it.
It's fun to discuss with you, you seem like you argue in good faith. Managed to slip in a semi-dad joke too.
Are we not all just children stuck in adult bodies. /end cringe philosophy.
You got me there. Can't ague with that - and my point was unnecessary provokative. Sorry.
if god is real or not doesnāt matter, thatās not relevant, the actions of those convinced he is real, those actions are real.
It kind of matters a lot, since people justify their action by the fact that god is real and therefore their morals are absolute.
I was trying to have a discussion about that, in my view sexual freedom and religious freedom are very similar. They are both the fight for freedom of extression.
I think, I can see your argument - maybe on a philosophical level I even agree with you. But I just realize it's something I have to think about for my self for some time.
And my other thought (not so popular thought, so you better not air it) was that recently this fight for lgbtq feels inorganically amplified by legacy media. It makes me suspicious about if there might be a divide and conquer agenda behind it.
I don't consume legacy media, so I can't really argue on that one.
tās fun to discuss with you, you seem like you argue in good faith. Managed to slip in a semi-dad joke too.
Dang, I don't even have kids, it's just getting old.
We started on opposing sides and reached a kinda agreement and hopefully, we both grew as a result of it. I like you.
Thanks, you gave me an argument to think about - I'm just a slow thinker. If I reach something that sounds reasonable but contradicts with my view on a topic, I need first to unwind my own argument and how I arrived there, takes some times - but helped me extremely to take heat out of conversations.
I like you.
Likewise, thanks for the conversation.
The way I see it, Religion and Gender are both social constructs that exist to make life easier for people who need it (or, at least thatās what the original purpose of religion was).
Thereās no definite, set-in-stone proof for either being true (as far as I know, do correct me if Iām wrong), but as long as they make someoneās life better without making othersā life worse, I see no issue with either existing.
Itās not really a fair comparison to say āGod doesnāt exist, LGBTQ people doā, when one is a concept and the other is people. Religious people do exist, and the concept of āGenderā is just as vague and undefined as the one for āGodā.
The reason why LGBTQ people are (rightfully) seen better than religious people is that they donāt force people to ājoinā them and donāt treat different people as the scum of the earth.
To be clear I'm not the one bringing up comparison of religion and LGBTQ. I'm pointing out the absurdity of that comparison.
and the concept of āGenderā is just as vague and undefined as the one for āGodā.
Except you can study one empirically and not the other. Want to take a guess wich one?
Religious people will easily tell you God can be empirically studied. The creation of the world, the forming of consciousness, and so on. Theyāre not proof in any way but imo itās not much far off from āsome (but not all) trans people have different brain waves than cis peopleā (at least thatās the most common thing Iāve heard about āobjectivityā in gender).
To me the comparison was kinda fair, if not for the underlying conspiracy theory that āthe ownerclassā is trying to turn people gay for some reason.
Religious people will easily tell you God can be empirically studied.
But that does not make it true. And by the way the whole point of believing is that you don't need actual proof - if you have evidence you don't need to believe, you know.
The creation of the world, the forming of consciousness,
Yes and when we study those empirical we come op with rather different explanations than offered by religion. The "God of Gaps" is getting smaller.
Theyāre not proof in any way but imo itās not much far off from āsome (but not all) trans people have different brain waves than cis peopleā (at least thatās the most common thing Iāve heard about āobjectivityā in gender).
But again. I can go outside an meet trans people. You can have different explanation to why there is such phenomenon as trans people and come up with different explanations and mechanisms. You can't do quite the same thing with god. But sure you are welcome to propose an empirical experiment on nature of god.
And by the way the whole point of believing is that you donāt need actual proof - if you have evidence you donāt need to believe, you know.
Isnāt a major talking point in LGBTQ culture also that asking for āproofā of being trans is rude and you only have to āfeelā like one to be one? Iām not that informed in the culture but I know thereās a subset of āTransmedicalistsā that are usually shunned because of that.
Yes and when we study those empirical we come op with rather different explanations than offered by religion. The āGod of Gapsā is getting smaller.
Afaik we still didnāt find any possible explanation for either that doesnāt just bring up more questions. It got smaller for a long time but weāre at a point where weāre probably not ever going further unless someone does the biggest scientific breakthrough of history.
But again. I can go outside an meet trans people. You can have different explanation to why there is such phenomenon as trans people and come up with different explanations and mechanisms. You canāt do quite the same thing with god. But sure you are welcome to propose an empirical experiment on nature of god.
Again, you can meet with trans people just like you can meet with religious people. And both have (usually) no objective, biological way to discern them from cis people or atheists. If you want to go further, thereās also people who claim they talked with God or whatever. Itās all claims, as far as I know, on both sides. You canāt empirically test well something that, by definition, canāt have an objective tell.
Isnāt a major talking point in LGBTQ culture also that asking for āproofā of being trans is rude and you only have to āfeelā like one to be one? Iām not that informed in the culture but I know thereās a subset of āTransmedicalistsā that are usually shunned because of that.
I'm talking about religion. Also asking people to prove their gender in general is considered rude. If someone says she is a women, you don't normally ask them to prove it - would kind of border on sexual harassment(joke). Not sure why it would be different for trans folk.
Afaik we still didnāt find any possible explanation for either that doesnāt just bring up more questions. It got smaller for a long time but weāre at a point where weāre probably not ever going further unless someone does the biggest scientific breakthrough of history.
What do you mean, we have hypothesis for both. Again the difference is we can actually study those things, we can't study god in the same sense.
Again, you can meet with trans people just like you can meet with religious people.
You are keep switching between god an religious people. Wich is a bit annoying and makes the conversation less fun. You were saying:
Religious people will easily tell you God can be empirically studied. The creation of the world, the forming of consciousness, and so on. Theyāre not proof in any way but imo itās not much far off from āsome (but not all) trans people have different brain waves than cis peopleā (at least thatās the most common thing Iāve heard about āobjectivityā in gender).
So comparing existence of god and trans people. So which one is it?
To be clear I'm not doubting that Religions people exists, I doubt that god exists in the capacity they claim it to exist. As a psychological ans sociological construct god is real - and I might join the first religion than will come down with such definition of god. But that is far from what religions claim to be.
Also asking people to prove their gender in general is considered rude. If someone says she is a women, you donāt normally ask them to prove it - would kind of border on sexual harassment(joke). Not sure why it would be different for trans folk.
Thatās Sex, not Gender, though. Gender is unrelated to physical appearance, as far as I know (and is thus impossible to prove).
What do you mean, we have hypothesis for both.
Not definite ones that donāt bring more questions, is what Iām saying. We have the Big Bang, but how did it happen? What caused it? Thatās a gap that will probably never be filled.
You are keep switching between god an religious people. Wich is a bit annoying and makes the conversation less fun. You were (ā¦)
comparing existence of god and trans people. So which one is it?
To be clear Iām not doubting that Religions people exists, I doubt that god exists in the capacity they claim it to exist.
And I donāt doubt Trans people exist, I doubt āGenderā exists as more than a concept. Iām comparing a āconcreteā God with a āconcreteā Gender, and Religious people with Trans people.
Just like Religious people can exist without proof of God existing, Trans people can exist without Gender actually being a biological, provable and irrefutable thing. Youāre saying āone is real and the other is notā because youāre conflating the two.
Thatās Sex, not Gender, though. Gender is unrelated to physical appearance, as far as I know (and is thus impossible to prove).
So you don't even know what gender is, but you chime in anyway - internet discussion at it best.
Not definite ones that donāt bring more questions, is what Iām saying. We have the Big Bang, but how did it happen? What caused it? Thatās a gap that will probably never be filled.
There are books on knowledge more complex than what we learned in school. If you fit in physics you can make a rather deep dive into all the questions you just asked - it's far more interesting than god just did it for the fun of it.
And I donāt doubt Trans people exist, I doubt āGenderā exists as more than a concept. Iām comparing a āconcreteā God with a āconcreteā Gender, and Religious people with Trans people.
So by this comparison you think that trans people believe to be trans in the same way religious people believe that god exists? Just need to clarify that I got you correct.
Just like Religious people can exist without proof of God existing, Trans people can exist without Gender actually being a biological, provable and irrefutable thing. Youāre saying āone is real and the other is notā because youāre conflating the two.
Again, I don't doubt that religious people exist. Not sure why you keep bringing it up.
So you donāt even know what gender is, but you chime in anyway - internet discussion at it best.
Iām plastering this discussion with āI thinkā, āas far as I knowā and the likes exactly because Iām not fully knowledgeable on the matter. If Iām getting stuff wrong you could correct me instead of simply telling me Iām wrong.
Again, I donāt doubt that religious people exist. Not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Iām not. Iām saying āone is real and the other isnātā works only if you compare God to Trans people instead of the concept of Gender.
So by this comparison you think that trans people believe to be trans in the same way religious people believe that god exists? Just need to clarify that I got you correct.
Iām not Trans and Iām not Religious so I have no actual way to tell. Only someone who is both could actually have a meaningful say in this discussion, and even then itās just the opinion of one person and it wouldnāt represent the whole group(s). What I personally think (and again, this might be entirely wrong as I have no direct knowledge of it), is that theyāre people who felt something wrong with their life and gave it an explanation that lets them live better. That explanation might be true or not, but as long as it makes them live better and doesnāt hurt others (and this is where unfortunately most Religious people fail), it doesnāt really matter for it to work and be accepted as a natural part of society.
I personally know no Trans person and itās genuinely hard to talk about this online without being mistaken as one of the thousand different camps who hate Trans people for one dumb reason or another, so my knowledge about the subject is limited to this, unfortunately. If you know/think itās different Iād be glad to hear why.
Iām plastering this discussion with āI thinkā, āas far as I knowā and the likes exactly because Iām not fully knowledgeable on the matter. If Iām getting stuff wrong you could correct me instead of simply telling me Iām wrong.
That is a fair point. I'm just always surprise how confident people discuss matter they (sometimes they even admit) know little about. So what do you think gender is?
Iām not Trans and Iām not Religious so I have no actual way to tell. Only someone who is both could actually have a meaningful say in this discussion, and even then itās just the opinion of one person and it wouldnāt represent the whole group(s). What I personally think (and again, this might be entirely wrong as I have no direct knowledge of it), is that theyāre people who felt something wrong with their life and gave it an explanation that lets them live better. That explanation might be true or not, but as long as it makes them live better and doesnāt hurt others (and this is where unfortunately most Religious people fail), it doesnāt really matter for it to work and be accepted as a natural part of society.
Ok, so you making a more broader almost philosophical point, that religious experience and gender identity different than hetero are both results of people feeling something wrong (in a complex sense) with their life and come up with an explanation (difficult to find the right words), acceptance of which made them feel better. Did I get your point this time?
personally know no Trans person and itās genuinely hard to talk about this online without being mistaken as one of the thousand different camps who hate Trans people for one dumb reason or another, so my knowledge about the subject is limited to this, unfortunately. If you know/think itās different Iād be glad to hear why.
I'm not trans, but one of my best friends is. I would think that the best way to understand would be to just meet trans folks and talk. You sound like you come from a genuine point of being curious and not understanding something that you don't know which is always ok, and I'm sorry to hear that you had bad experience talking about it online. But that is a nature of a sensitive topic. You can ask me, I might help to clarify some things. But keep in mind, I'm not an expert so verify the things I say and also I don't speak from my own experience.
So what do you think gender is?
The idea I got so far is that it's kind of a social construct of "ways to be perceived by yourself and the world" that is, so far, typical of people born (or at least, raised) with a specific sex. If your preferred way of expressing yourself is mostly conforming with what "the world" expects from your biological sex you're cis, otherwise you're trans. That's roughly how I thought of it until now, tell me if I misunderstood something.
Ok, so you making a more broader almost philosophical point, that religious experience and gender identity different than hetero are both results of people feeling something wrong (in a complex sense) with their life and come up with an explanation (difficult to find the right words), acceptance of which made them feel better. Did I get your point this time?
Kinda, I guess? It's still not there because I know there's people who don't feel Gender Dysphoria for their current sex but only Euphoria for another, but you could say feeling like something "could be better" is still feeling "something wrong", in a sense.
Iām not trans, but one of my best friends is. I would think that the best way to understand would be to just meet trans folks and talk. You sound like you come from a genuine point of being curious and not understanding something that you donāt know which is always ok, and Iām sorry to hear that you had bad experience talking about it online. But that is a nature of a sensitive topic. You can ask me, I might help to clarify some things. But keep in mind, Iām not an expert so verify the things I say and also I donāt speak from my own experience.
Yeah, it's definitely the best way, but I don't really know any trans person and I don't think there's any in my area, or at least none who came out. And even if there was one I wouldn't really want to ask them delicate questions like this unless I'm very close to them. I know it's a very delicate subject even to touch online, I imagine irl people would feel even more pressure.
"To me the comparison was kinda fair, if not for the underlying conspiracy theory that āthe ownerclassā is trying to turn people gay for some reason."
I might be a poor word smith, I don't believe that this is a conspiracy to turn people gay, I feel like it's more of an over-arching agenda to amplify a divisive issue.
It is a very important message, but since legacy media is so enveloped in this, makes me suspicious, and by extension suspisious about legacy media owners' agenda. Hence my suspicion of the owner class, or even better, the exploitation class.
This is propaganda and misinformation, not an unpopular opinion.
Please read other parts of this thread (at least my posts). I try to argue in good faith and better understand this complex issue close to the heart of so many.
In todayās society, it feels like the ownerclass are running pro lgbtq advertisements.
This phenomenon is commonly referred to as pinkwashing and in the case of lgbtq people specifically, rainbow washing.
Pinkwashing has become a common way for brands to co-opt the LGBTQ movement and benefit from its positive image.
To be clear, pinkwashing is not a good thing. It benefits brands and not LGBTQ+ people.
The similarities between sexual freedom and religious freedom is striking...But I donāt like when people forcefully spread their belief system and their values to others.
This is a false equivalence. My existence as a trans woman is not a belief or a value. I'm a real person.
š =|
I'm not sure how to be more organic than asserting I exist in an internet post. And I'll happily force change by voting blue.
I've read a bit about pinkwashing, I might mash the corporations and people too much together. I will try my best to keep them separate, when I'm talking about them.
"But I donāt like when people forcefully spread their belief system and their values to others."
My quote here, is probably better to use corporations, not people. Sorry.
"The similarities between sexual freedom and religious freedom is striking..."
Your answer being:
"This is a false equivalence. My existence as a trans woman is not a belief or a value."
I'm not saying they are equal, but the similarities are striking, and might run deeper than at first glance. My quotes from different sub threads:
"I cannot help but make the comparison to religion, yet again. Even though I'm an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law. Whenever freedom of expression is challenged, there should be huge crowds to support the FoE"
"I'm not sure how to be more organic than asserting I exist in an internet post."
Also from previous, same, sub-thread.
"Corporations hammer the message for the same reason they hammer any ad, it works. If ads didn't work, it wouldn't be a billion dollar industry. My point is, every corporation hammering the "we are inclusive" message feels inorganic. I might confuse this feeling with it just being "in" or trendy atm."
I'm not holding any answers, I just like the discusdion, and it's even more fun when people have other life experiences than me. Echo chaimers are boring.
The similarities between sexual freedom and religious freedom is striking. Sexual attraction and identification is important to be free and open, just like religious freedom. Free from persecution, equal rights and oppertunities.
But I don't like when people forcefully spread their belief system and their values to others. Let it be organic, don't try to force change. People are free to pursue their lifestyle and i'm free to pursue mine. In today's society, it feels like the ownerclass are running pro lgbtq advertisements. Is it another divide and conquer technique? The whole thing feels forced...
Please don't downvote just because it's an unpopular opinion, rather lets discuss the issue š
Corporations make inclusive advertisement when it makes them more money than not doing so. You can easily see the same movie studios making fairly different advertisement in EU/USA than in China/Saudi Arabia. This is virtue signalling, but I'm fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don't have good intentions, but good results come out of it.
There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement.
"This is virtue signalling, but I'm fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don't have good intentions, but good results come out of it."
US Supreme Court has upheld the ban on religious ads, and my initial comparison between religion and sexual freedom runs deeper. They are very comparable. Both have been persecuted heavily up in history. A big difference is what I posted in a different sub-thread
"Even though I'm an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law."
Religion within ads are not protected by freedom of expression (acc. to US SC), and a sexual expression as an ad has not, to my knowledge, been challenged in the courts (yet). Correct me if I'm wrong.
"There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement."
It's like burning books or flags, it's a protected form of expression. Even though these actions are very divisive. I will fight for even these, and the ones you put as examples' right to express themselves. It's very much like Noam Chomsky says: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
so you like creating (and when corps create) echo-chambers when they fit the concepts that you want? with all respect possible to give, your logic is therefore not sound
Talking in broad strokes all about balancing "freedom of identity/attraction" and "religious freedom" makes for a decent-sounding empathetic viewpoint prioritizing individual liberty. I understand where this is coming from, I don't disagree myself, but then again who would?
And that's why we have to get into the specifics of "forcefully spreading their belief system and values to others" because that's what happens to queer people as status quo. We're legally and socially discriminated out of a lot of aspects of public life and often carry deep trauma from wrath and abuse incurred on the way. Conversion therapy is still legal in many places for fucks sake! The hell is that if not forcefully spreading a belief system?
Often times, the term this is justified under is "freedom of religion" - but really it's freedom to control and abuse others due to religious justification. The two freedoms are not equatable, therefore the balanced center between is not a neutral position.
Corporate pride advertising is super forced and very few queer people are actually on board with it. The term is "rainbow capitalism" and it's pretty derisive. Unfortunately that's all of what some people know of us - they don't know us as people, as communities, just like them; they know us as a rainbow flag on a TV screen and as a Tucker/LWT/[whoever's got opinions about us today] talk show segment, and so that's all they think we are. Nobody likes this, queer people least of all.
"Conversion therapy is still legal in many places for fucks sake!" This is a blatant form of persecution and everyone shoult protest and shut shit down until it's fixed. Conversion therapy is, in my book, not protected by religious freedom, at all.
This remids me about the meme, two bomb-planes D and R, were one just bombs, and the other bombs too, but with rainbow colors, blm and every other "current" coopted flag.
You take an awful coropration and put lipstick on it to make it better...
I try to take a few steps back and, to me, it looks like the exploitation-class has coopted this issue, enlarging it, to make it more divisive than it actually is. I would think most people have a "can we not just live our lives in peace" attitude, whether you are lgbtq, straight, religious or atheist.
I point conversion therapy out as an egregious example of persecution, but there's plenty more, through a variety of avenues. Many fly under the radar as things that sound less intense - schools notifying parents if kids go by a nickname or change how they present is one that's come up a lot lately.
From experience - lots of people thankfully have a "live our lives in peace" attitude - but unfortunately even a minority of bigots can make our lives pretty difficult and divisive. Especially if they're allowed to do so by other people who don't agree themselves, but also don't fight it when they see it.
And so sure, the message has been coopted for mainstream audiences by corporations running ads like "[sterile uplifting music] at CitiBank, we think you're people! [stock rainbow flags waving]" If you know anyone who's queer, you know there's real difficulty that comes with it, but also a resilient community takes care of each other the best they can. Pride ads are how most people know of us, but they're not even close to representing us or the stakes we face. They're pretty much entirely irrelevant to us - we never asked for them, and they certainly don't help.
I cannot help but make the comparison to religion, yet again. Even though I'm an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law. Whenever freedom of expression is challenged, there should be huge crowds to support the FoE, and I think that is also relevant in context of your next paragraph too.
Regarding your last paragraph. Corporations hammer the message for the same reason they hammer any ad, it works. If ads didn't work, it wouldn't be a billion dollar industry. My point is, every corporation hammering the "we are inclusive" message feels inorganic. I might confuse this feeling with it just being "in" or trendy atm.
Yep. I stopped going to Pride because of the corporate nonsense. I like that children are there with rainbow flags, but the rest is unhelpful.
I went just once in Capitol Hill, Seattle. If I was more of an extroverted type it probably could have been cool - it was a concert venue featuring a bunch of queer artists, and a lot of tents for queer community organizations - mutual aid, healthcare, counseling, etc. There's definitely a way to make Pride useful for the community. But it's really just bringing together a community that always existed regardless - and imo no reason to wait til June to start getting involved and organized š
Presuming Seattle based on response, but know there are other places named Capitol Hill.
The only Pride worth going to is the small parade that happens on like a Thursday before the big one. It's really the event of the locals and those who have been part of the community. For whatever reason, the City of Seattle will no longer permit the big parade through the actual gay neighborhood, pushing it through downtown and on to Seattle Center instead. I am fairly certain that this is specifically done for capitalist reasons so they have more room for people to sell overpriced food.
In any case, never go to the BIG event, go to the smaller neighborhood one in whichever city you're in.
No. š
It is kinda counter productive to downvote a comment of someone that tries to engange in a meaningful conversation. Divisive topics should be more discussed, not less, and definately not discouraged/punished...
I'm not going to debate whether gay people should be allowed to express themselves.
I posted this two hours before your comment "I'm not religious and I'm not lgbtq either, but I will fight for either's right and freedom to practise their beliefs." Freedom of Expression is the most precious thing we have. I cannot understate how important this is. I feel like you might have misunderstood me, I should have tried to word myself better in my original, first post. I don't want to edit it, let history be a judge. It's difficult to thread lightly in this subject. It's a subject close to the heart of many people.
"oh, poor me, I used hateful rhetoric and people won't ENGAGE with me"
I try to better myself and my understanding of lgbtq. What was hateful, so I can perhaps word myself in a better way? Thank you.
Except one thing is real and the other is not. There is no god, but there is definitely sexual attraction in forms beyond heterosexuality and gender expressions outside the heteronormative form. So there is a difference between spreading misinformation in form of religion or quite useful information on gender and sex.
I'm not religious and I'm not lgbtq either, but I will fight for either's right and freedom to practise their beliefs. I'd be more careful in calling one side "misinformation", when you have just spent decades being on the receiving end of that cruelty.
Telling people that your make believe fantasy story is true, is fundamental different from acknowledging existence or expression of non heterosexual sex and non heteronormative gender expression/identity. Especially since people tent to create moral norms for others, based on the particular fantasy story they happen to believe in.
Saying God isn't real is kinda like saying santa claus isn't real, and to those kids that desperately needs a santa, Santa is real to them, and that's all that matters..
"people tent to create moral norms for others" As long as those norms are not forcefully applied, it's fine.
"based on the particular fantasy story they happen to believe in." I would hope you were more self aware because not too long ago lgbtq's were dismissed as "fantasy" or some kind of medical diagnose. Just please be more considerate before throwing those types of accusations around.
So, what you are saying is - we should treat religious people like children? Not sure, that is what you intended - but for sure an interesting example to chose, to make your point. Also at no point did I argue for people not be able to practice their religion, in fact I have no problems with peoples personal spirituality as long as it does not negatively effect people around them.
But the forceful part is kind of what organized religion tends to be all about. Religious majorities tend to demand conformism even from people not following their religion.
Except LGBTQ people are real, you can go outside and talk to them, they will talk back at you. If god is talking back at you, I have bad news for you my friend. What are we even talking about?
Are we not all just children stuck in adult bodies. /end cringe philosophy. I wrote it in this context because I hoped it would be easier to relate to for someone, clearly, not religious. Religious freedom is not a blanket "do whatever you like" free-card. I believe RF is covered under Freedom of Expression, at least in most European Contries. It's limited to not infringe on other people's freedom of expression.
Your next paragraph is also best answered with; their freedom of expression is limited to not infringe on other people's freedom of expression. And this is what makes this so hard.
"Except LGBTQ people are real, you can go outside and talk to them, they will talk back at you."
Again, I know lgbtq is real, if god is real or not doesn't matter, that's not relevant, the actions of those convinced he is real, those actions are real.
"What are we even talking about" I was trying to have a discussion about that, in my view sexual freedom and religious freedom are very similar. They are both the fight for freedom of extression.
And my other thought (not so popular thought, so you better not air it) was that recently this fight for lgbtq feels inorganically amplified by legacy media. It makes me suspicious about if there might be a divide and conquer agenda behind it.
It's fun to discuss with you, you seem like you argue in good faith. Managed to slip in a semi-dad joke too.
You got me there. Can't ague with that - and my point was unnecessary provokative. Sorry.
It kind of matters a lot, since people justify their action by the fact that god is real and therefore their morals are absolute.
I think, I can see your argument - maybe on a philosophical level I even agree with you. But I just realize it's something I have to think about for my self for some time.
I don't consume legacy media, so I can't really argue on that one.
Dang, I don't even have kids, it's just getting old.
We started on opposing sides and reached a kinda agreement and hopefully, we both grew as a result of it. I like you.
Thanks, you gave me an argument to think about - I'm just a slow thinker. If I reach something that sounds reasonable but contradicts with my view on a topic, I need first to unwind my own argument and how I arrived there, takes some times - but helped me extremely to take heat out of conversations.
Likewise, thanks for the conversation.
The way I see it, Religion and Gender are both social constructs that exist to make life easier for people who need it (or, at least thatās what the original purpose of religion was).
Thereās no definite, set-in-stone proof for either being true (as far as I know, do correct me if Iām wrong), but as long as they make someoneās life better without making othersā life worse, I see no issue with either existing.
Itās not really a fair comparison to say āGod doesnāt exist, LGBTQ people doā, when one is a concept and the other is people. Religious people do exist, and the concept of āGenderā is just as vague and undefined as the one for āGodā.
The reason why LGBTQ people are (rightfully) seen better than religious people is that they donāt force people to ājoinā them and donāt treat different people as the scum of the earth.
To be clear I'm not the one bringing up comparison of religion and LGBTQ. I'm pointing out the absurdity of that comparison.
Except you can study one empirically and not the other. Want to take a guess wich one?
Religious people will easily tell you God can be empirically studied. The creation of the world, the forming of consciousness, and so on. Theyāre not proof in any way but imo itās not much far off from āsome (but not all) trans people have different brain waves than cis peopleā (at least thatās the most common thing Iāve heard about āobjectivityā in gender).
To me the comparison was kinda fair, if not for the underlying conspiracy theory that āthe ownerclassā is trying to turn people gay for some reason.
But that does not make it true. And by the way the whole point of believing is that you don't need actual proof - if you have evidence you don't need to believe, you know.
Yes and when we study those empirical we come op with rather different explanations than offered by religion. The "God of Gaps" is getting smaller.
But again. I can go outside an meet trans people. You can have different explanation to why there is such phenomenon as trans people and come up with different explanations and mechanisms. You can't do quite the same thing with god. But sure you are welcome to propose an empirical experiment on nature of god.
Isnāt a major talking point in LGBTQ culture also that asking for āproofā of being trans is rude and you only have to āfeelā like one to be one? Iām not that informed in the culture but I know thereās a subset of āTransmedicalistsā that are usually shunned because of that.
Afaik we still didnāt find any possible explanation for either that doesnāt just bring up more questions. It got smaller for a long time but weāre at a point where weāre probably not ever going further unless someone does the biggest scientific breakthrough of history.
Again, you can meet with trans people just like you can meet with religious people. And both have (usually) no objective, biological way to discern them from cis people or atheists. If you want to go further, thereās also people who claim they talked with God or whatever. Itās all claims, as far as I know, on both sides. You canāt empirically test well something that, by definition, canāt have an objective tell.
I'm talking about religion. Also asking people to prove their gender in general is considered rude. If someone says she is a women, you don't normally ask them to prove it - would kind of border on sexual harassment(joke). Not sure why it would be different for trans folk.
What do you mean, we have hypothesis for both. Again the difference is we can actually study those things, we can't study god in the same sense.
You are keep switching between god an religious people. Wich is a bit annoying and makes the conversation less fun. You were saying:
So comparing existence of god and trans people. So which one is it?
To be clear I'm not doubting that Religions people exists, I doubt that god exists in the capacity they claim it to exist. As a psychological ans sociological construct god is real - and I might join the first religion than will come down with such definition of god. But that is far from what religions claim to be.
Thatās Sex, not Gender, though. Gender is unrelated to physical appearance, as far as I know (and is thus impossible to prove).
Not definite ones that donāt bring more questions, is what Iām saying. We have the Big Bang, but how did it happen? What caused it? Thatās a gap that will probably never be filled.
And I donāt doubt Trans people exist, I doubt āGenderā exists as more than a concept. Iām comparing a āconcreteā God with a āconcreteā Gender, and Religious people with Trans people.
Just like Religious people can exist without proof of God existing, Trans people can exist without Gender actually being a biological, provable and irrefutable thing. Youāre saying āone is real and the other is notā because youāre conflating the two.
So you don't even know what gender is, but you chime in anyway - internet discussion at it best.
There are books on knowledge more complex than what we learned in school. If you fit in physics you can make a rather deep dive into all the questions you just asked - it's far more interesting than god just did it for the fun of it.
So by this comparison you think that trans people believe to be trans in the same way religious people believe that god exists? Just need to clarify that I got you correct.
Again, I don't doubt that religious people exist. Not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Iām plastering this discussion with āI thinkā, āas far as I knowā and the likes exactly because Iām not fully knowledgeable on the matter. If Iām getting stuff wrong you could correct me instead of simply telling me Iām wrong.
Iām not. Iām saying āone is real and the other isnātā works only if you compare God to Trans people instead of the concept of Gender.
Iām not Trans and Iām not Religious so I have no actual way to tell. Only someone who is both could actually have a meaningful say in this discussion, and even then itās just the opinion of one person and it wouldnāt represent the whole group(s). What I personally think (and again, this might be entirely wrong as I have no direct knowledge of it), is that theyāre people who felt something wrong with their life and gave it an explanation that lets them live better. That explanation might be true or not, but as long as it makes them live better and doesnāt hurt others (and this is where unfortunately most Religious people fail), it doesnāt really matter for it to work and be accepted as a natural part of society.
I personally know no Trans person and itās genuinely hard to talk about this online without being mistaken as one of the thousand different camps who hate Trans people for one dumb reason or another, so my knowledge about the subject is limited to this, unfortunately. If you know/think itās different Iād be glad to hear why.
That is a fair point. I'm just always surprise how confident people discuss matter they (sometimes they even admit) know little about. So what do you think gender is?
Ok, so you making a more broader almost philosophical point, that religious experience and gender identity different than hetero are both results of people feeling something wrong (in a complex sense) with their life and come up with an explanation (difficult to find the right words), acceptance of which made them feel better. Did I get your point this time?
I'm not trans, but one of my best friends is. I would think that the best way to understand would be to just meet trans folks and talk. You sound like you come from a genuine point of being curious and not understanding something that you don't know which is always ok, and I'm sorry to hear that you had bad experience talking about it online. But that is a nature of a sensitive topic. You can ask me, I might help to clarify some things. But keep in mind, I'm not an expert so verify the things I say and also I don't speak from my own experience.
The idea I got so far is that it's kind of a social construct of "ways to be perceived by yourself and the world" that is, so far, typical of people born (or at least, raised) with a specific sex. If your preferred way of expressing yourself is mostly conforming with what "the world" expects from your biological sex you're cis, otherwise you're trans. That's roughly how I thought of it until now, tell me if I misunderstood something.
Kinda, I guess? It's still not there because I know there's people who don't feel Gender Dysphoria for their current sex but only Euphoria for another, but you could say feeling like something "could be better" is still feeling "something wrong", in a sense.
Yeah, it's definitely the best way, but I don't really know any trans person and I don't think there's any in my area, or at least none who came out. And even if there was one I wouldn't really want to ask them delicate questions like this unless I'm very close to them. I know it's a very delicate subject even to touch online, I imagine irl people would feel even more pressure.
"To me the comparison was kinda fair, if not for the underlying conspiracy theory that āthe ownerclassā is trying to turn people gay for some reason."
I might be a poor word smith, I don't believe that this is a conspiracy to turn people gay, I feel like it's more of an over-arching agenda to amplify a divisive issue.
It is a very important message, but since legacy media is so enveloped in this, makes me suspicious, and by extension suspisious about legacy media owners' agenda. Hence my suspicion of the owner class, or even better, the exploitation class.
This is propaganda and misinformation, not an unpopular opinion.
Please read other parts of this thread (at least my posts). I try to argue in good faith and better understand this complex issue close to the heart of so many.
This phenomenon is commonly referred to as pinkwashing and in the case of lgbtq people specifically, rainbow washing.
This article covers a lot of examples:
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/07/what-is-pinkwashing/
To be clear, pinkwashing is not a good thing. It benefits brands and not LGBTQ+ people.
This is a false equivalence. My existence as a trans woman is not a belief or a value. I'm a real person.
š =|
I'm not sure how to be more organic than asserting I exist in an internet post. And I'll happily force change by voting blue.
I've read a bit about pinkwashing, I might mash the corporations and people too much together. I will try my best to keep them separate, when I'm talking about them.
"But I donāt like when people forcefully spread their belief system and their values to others."
My quote here, is probably better to use corporations, not people. Sorry.
"The similarities between sexual freedom and religious freedom is striking..." Your answer being: "This is a false equivalence. My existence as a trans woman is not a belief or a value."
I'm not saying they are equal, but the similarities are striking, and might run deeper than at first glance. My quotes from different sub threads:
"I cannot help but make the comparison to religion, yet again. Even though I'm an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law. Whenever freedom of expression is challenged, there should be huge crowds to support the FoE"
"I'm not sure how to be more organic than asserting I exist in an internet post."
Also from previous, same, sub-thread. "Corporations hammer the message for the same reason they hammer any ad, it works. If ads didn't work, it wouldn't be a billion dollar industry. My point is, every corporation hammering the "we are inclusive" message feels inorganic. I might confuse this feeling with it just being "in" or trendy atm."
I'm not holding any answers, I just like the discusdion, and it's even more fun when people have other life experiences than me. Echo chaimers are boring.