Feminism

[Grank]

I think a better question than "how many LGBT people do you know" is "how many people in general do you know" or "how often do you go outside" if this is honestly what you think.

The society I live in is different from the west. People here seriously don't talk about sex when socializing. We talk about girlfriends and wives, but not in the context of sex. It's almost always in the context of family or SFW lover activities like going on a trip. While we do make sex jokes, it's not the vulgar kind. Just silly innuendos.

When guys talk about their girlfriends or vice versa, people in media (fiction and non-fiction) are portrayed in heterosexual relationships, etc. it's all taken for granted and left out of your mental calculus for determining how prevalent it is.

Most people are programmed to be heterosexual. Therefore there's no need to promote it. Thinking about heterosexual activities won't disturb most people because they develop a liking to it once they're in puberty. Homosexuality is not programmed in most people. People naturally aren't comfortable with the idea. If you want to normalize it, you will have to push people to get through their biological discomfort. The question is, what about people who don't want to? If it's disturbing to them, chance is they won't want to watch enough homosexual activity to get used to it. Forcing it will cause conflict. It's not even necessary. You can befriend someone just fine without liking/caring about their sexual orientation/fetish/hentai tags. It's not exclusive to homosexuality either. People generally keep their fetish to themselves. They don't force others to accept it. That's just weird. Yet you don't see people complaining about how they feel so oppressed that they can't talk about their sexual preferences.

That's why every post you write reads like moving the goalposts, because arguments from rational positions have already been refuted by data.

Those weren't actual questions. I was just putting them out there to make you understand why people have doubts. Still, you didn't answer my questions about the bullying and the kid's psychology. Not that I blame you, because the answers are very complicated. Child growth as a whole is very complex. There are so many factors that research on a particular topic is not the end of it. For example, formula milk. While it may be physically healthy, it's not necessarily so for the psychology of the child. Breastfeeding helps build a bond between mother and child, which will be important a long way down the road. These kinds of things are difficult to research properly. There are too many variables, and growth takes a very long time. Also, the women thing is not just stereotype. There's biology into it. Even animals have it. Yet these are rarely discussed when the LGBT movement is concerned. The conversation usually only goes accept/not -> hurrah/boo.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Right now it's the LGBT people who are getting the test, because they want gay marriage and other stuff, and people doubt it because they have not known if it's a good idea. This doubt is not entirely based on bigotry. We simply haven't known it yet, and it's normal to doubt that because it's so odd from natural perspective. First of all, it's not their baby. How will the baby get milk? Full formula? Is that even healthy? How about the psychological needs? Women are known to be more nurturing than men. Can two men do it? How about the kid's feeling? What if they want a mom? What if they get bullied for it? It's not the kid's fault. Alright then, should we test this? Well a human life is too important for experiment isn't it? This is not just a few months of medical experiments in a hospital. This is the entire lifetime of a human being. You can see how difficult this issue is, and why it's normal for people to have doubts.

Alright, well then based on this post, it looks to me that you hold very strong opinions that border into hateful, and that honestly makes me question if you are fit to raise children. Therefore if you ever have kids I am gonna need you to go through a series of tests to prove to me and a committee of like-minded people that you are fit to be a parent, just so that we can make sure that you can take good care of your children. Same goes with marriage, this is a thing that will be debated upon by people who know nothing about you and have sets of belief completely clashing with yours I decided, and they will be the arbiters of what can and can't happen in your life. Because you know something about the way you talk and act makes me uncomfortable, and therefore I can't just let you do things without scrutinizing into them really deeply and regulating them by law in excruciating detail in terms of what is and isn't allowed.

Really? It's for us to figure out? What constitutes as "harm" here? Even before I knew anything about LGBT people to have any prejudice against them, men dressing like women drew a very natural gag reaction from me. Of course now I can tolerate it to some degree, but there's natural aspect to this. Where should we draw the line? You wouldn't want to see people naked on the streets now would you? You might be fine with it, but how about others? Well, normalize it then I guess? Make people used to it. How about kids then? Should we show drag queens and naked adults to kids? Or should we "educate" kids that these are gay people etc? They dress like women because they prefer having sex with men. What's sex? Well, you see, Jimmy, sex is- [snip]. You see where I'm going with this?

It is most definitely for you to figure out. And you definitely should educate your kids on who gay people are, and it's up to you as a parent how deep you want to go into the birds and the bees talk. It is honestly a little weird to me that you feel that this conversation would immediately turn into a detailed description of what sex is. You can just tell your child that they dress that way because that's what makes them feel comfortable with themselves, and leave it at that. And the analogy between someone dressing up in a way that feels gender appropriate to them and someone walking around naked is, again, nonsensical. Where do we draw the line? We draw it somewhere. If you want to be very conservative, well, I think that you are very, very ugly and seeing your face makes me uncomfortable. So please lock yourself in your home and never show your true self around, heck wear a mask if you need to I am ok with that. It is your duty to make me comfortable so I am gonna need you to change aspects of who you are at a very fundamental level, even if you are not actually doing anything wrong and it's really just a choice of what you keep in your wardrobe. I get to decide what clothes you wear, not you.


(to be clear, I don't actually think any of the things that I wrote about you in the previous paragraphs, but hopefully that gives you a different perspective on the things that you are saying here)

 

[AoC]

If you want to be very conservative, well, I think that you are very, very ugly and seeing your face makes me uncomfortable. So please lock yourself in your home and never show your true self around, heck wear a mask if you need to I am ok with that.

Heh, it's illegal here to wear a mask in public. I'd 100% wear something really cool (but you might find it uncomfortable). Also, no problem with locking myself in home either.

 

[Kissaki]

But they are. Justification doesn't erase reality. And you said it yourself. It's pride, and what they're promoting is not "LGBT people are normal". It's "We're so damn weird and we're proud of it, screw you." It's not doing them any favor indeed. Again, I know it's the minority, but it's that loud minority that I'm against. Not the people who are not doing that.

I have to wonder if the only exposure you have to the LGBT community is Pride parade. And I fear this is the case for many, which is why I feel the parade itself - the way it is being carried out - is counter-productive to the cause.

And if you concede that it's only that loud minority you're against, why do you wish the restrictions be applied broadly, to the entire LGBT community?

Those 8 billion people won't take care of YOU when you're too old to work and feed yourself. They have their own family to feed. That's why it's still an issue, and why some countries are freaking out about demographic collapse and birth rate. It's undeniable fact that people grow old and frail. You will need someone to take care of you when that time comes. That's the functional aspect of a family. You invest so much resources into raising someone that will care about you enough to wipe your bum the same way you wiped theirs when they're just helpless babies.

Retirement house workers won't love you the same way. They're just paid to do it, and they have other things to take care of too. And again, they have to be young. Someone else's child. And who's paying them to take care of you? You? Okay. Then what about people who don't have the money? And how many people want to be care takers for the elderly as a profession? You're holding society back if you don't do your part and make your own care taker.

Sure, but if I don't have any kids to take care of me, then that's my problem. If two gay people get married, and never have any kids by any means at all, then that's their choice - and if it becomes a problem, it will be their problem. So I still don't see why that should be an argument.

Correct. It should be case by case basis. Is the LGBT movement pushing for this tho? Nope. They think in "us". The whole group. I bet you they won't accept case by case evaluation as they think it's discriminatory to only allow a portion of their "us".

No, this is simply incorrect. They want the same rights for their demographic as for the straight demographic. That is, that they should not be disqualified as candidates simply because of their orientation. None of them - not a single one - is arguing that unfit members of their community should be allowed to adopt. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[Orion]

If it's disturbing to them, chance is they won't want to watch enough homosexual activity to get used to it. Forcing it will cause conflict.

What kind of bizarro strawman is this? Nobody's running homosexual tolerance conversion camps where you're forced to watch Village People music videos a la A Clockwork Orange. You don't have to attend pride parades, hang out at gay bars, or go to drag shows if you don't want to, you just have to stop being an ass and let other people do it if they want to. It's as simple as that.

Still, you didn't answer my questions about the bullying and the kid's psychology. Not that I blame you, because the answers are very complicated.

It's also because I wrote it while between games with a friend who came to visit. You--and this forum as a whole--do not command my full attention at all times.

Children being bullied (by other children, I assume) is inevitable. There is often no rhyme or reason to it, and it can be pointlessly cruel. The best course of action is teaching kids to be kind to themselves and others. Why a kid is bullied is often much more difficult to address (because reasons can be entirely subjective and nebulous) than it is to ensure that kid has support elsewhere. Arguing that it's bad for kids to have gay parents because it makes them a target for bullying is akin to saying it's bad for kids to have any kind of parental situation which differs from the norm. I've personally seen kids bullied for having single moms, single dads, mixed race parents, older parents, being raised by other relatives like grandparents/aunts/uncles, foster and adopted parents, and minority parents (race & religion). I've also seen people who check none of those boxes being bullied for other things, like the shirt they wore, their grades (good and bad), their hair cut, the sound of their name, and walking too fast.

Bullies are not rational enforcers of societal norms. They're kids with their own problems.

Also, the women thing is not just stereotype. There's biology into it. Even animals have it.

It is much more nuanced than that and the jury is still out on the nature vs nurture aspect of it. Not all animals exhibit greater empathy in females than males, and in some it is an opposite in the extreme. In both animals and humans there is evidence that empathy is heritable, but which sex is naturally more empathetic than the other varies based on social roles and pressures which can be influenced externally (i.e. it's not entirely biological predisposition, but also learned behavior, conscious and unconscious).

 

[Kissaki]

It is much more nuanced than that and the jury is still out on the nature vs nurture aspect of it. Not all animals exhibit greater empathy in females than males, and in some it is an opposite in the extreme. In both animals and humans there is evidence that empathy is heritable, but which sex is naturally more empathetic than the other varies based on social roles and pressures which can be influenced externally (i.e. it's not entirely biological predisposition, but also learned behavior, conscious and unconscious).

That article actually phrases it the other way around: not merely learned behaviour, but rooted in biology. And in any case, culturally learned gender roles were not assigned at random. They were, in their inception, informed by biology. That female mammals should be more nurturing by nature only makes sense, when the offspring is reliant on the mother's milk for the first phase of its life - the mother is the obvious caretaker. Any other arrangement would be rather counter-productive. You mention species where empathy is greater in males than females - I am pretty sure there would be obvious reasons for this in each species' evolution (like eg. the seahorse). Which species did you have in mind?

 

[Grank]

Spoiler

Alright, well then based on this post, it looks to me that you hold very strong opinions that border into hateful, and that honestly makes me question if you are fit to raise children.

Sorry but I'm not going to entertain this narrative. I've said what needed to be said. Heterosexual marriage is vital for the continuation of our species. It has to do with duty. If you marry just for pleasure or "love" (lust) it will fall apart once that love disappears, as it often does, because humans are naturally selfish creatures. Homosexual relationship is an entirely different thing. It's just for personal pleasure. It has no other function, nor is it necessary. You can love without sex or marriage, the same way you can love your parents, siblings or children. There's no reason you have to extend that to sex and marriage other than for your own personal selfish pleasure. It's detrimental to society when a contract as important as marriage is cheapened into a simple status update for pleasure. Divorce rate will increase and children will have their family life screwed up.

It is most definitely for you to figure out.

Why and how should I fight my own biological reaction? There's no merit for me to do so. This is akin to saying that I should just destroy my ear drums because a small group of people in my neighborhood likes blasting music.

And the analogy between someone dressing up in a way that feels gender appropriate to them and someone walking around naked is, again, nonsensical.

Is it? It's pretty close in my opinion. Many people are naturally disgusted by cross-dressing. It's similar to seeing people naked in public. You didn't address this at all. You just addressed them as nonsensical because you don't have it, if you're even honest about that. And think about what "educating children about gay people" will consist of. What if your kid gags when he sees a grown man cross-dressing? You're going to tell him he's wrong and he shouldn't react like that? Kids aren't sheep. You can't just tell them "It's their preference" and stop there. Kids are curious and won't be satisfied by dismissive answers. Why should I teach kids about things so closely related to sexual orientation? Especially when people can just be civil and dress normally. Not all clothes are gendered. How many women do you see wear pants instead of skirts? There are so many ways around it. It's not all dress and skirts. If you can't even be bothered to do that much, why should other people work so hard for you? Why is it so hard to keep your sexual fetish in your own house? Really. Answer that last one.

And if you concede that it's only that loud minority you're against, why do you wish the restrictions be applied broadly, to the entire LGBT community?

What restrictions? All I'm trying to say all this time is that LGBT people should just live their lives normally instead of making their sexual orientation their whole identity. As you said yourself, LGBT parades are counter-productive to their cause. The same with them pushing LGBT ideas in social media. I know they can live a normal live, and many are living a normal live right now. I'm addressing the LGBT movement, which is filled by obnoxious people, LBGT and not.

then that's my problem

That's very shallow, frankly speaking. It's not just your problem. The country or community will (have to) do something about you, because it's inhumane to just leave a neighbor rotting away like that. Even if do die and rot alone in your house, there will be people who have to deal with your corpse and other things. There's a term for this in Japanese by the way (kodokushi = lonely death). That's not all tho. You may be able to stomach that lonely life because you know it's your own fault, sure, but spreading this lifestyle to others who may not even think about this, is irresponsible.

That is, that they should not be disqualified as candidates simply because of their orientation.

Why not? I've said before that it's extremely unnatural and suspicious. There are so many concerns about this that can't be answered with a definite yes/no.

You don't have to attend pride parades, hang out at gay bars, or go to drag shows if you don't want to

Yet we're being shown LGBT content all the time in media, people get shat on when expressing dislike to said content, and parades take public space which affect uninterested people too. And how else would you normalize it unless you show it in some form? You're telling me that people should just keep their dislike to themselves? Sure. Why can't these LGBT people do the same then?

What I suggested is peaceful enough. Normalization from simply living together. Do whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't disturb anyone. When you want to do your sex things, do it in your own house, where the chance that someone uncomfortable with it will see you doing it, is 0%. Straight people are already doing this. Again, you don't see people protesting that they can't dress in BDSM/furry gears in public. They know those are for the bedroom.

There is often no rhyme or reason to it, and it can be pointlessly cruel. [...] Bullies are not rational enforcers of societal norms. They're kids with their own problems.

Yes, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't minimize the chance that kids get bullied. If a gay couple adopts a kid, and the kid innocently accepts only to later find themselves get bullied for it, the damage is already done. You can't really police other people's kids. You can't solve bullying entirely to prevent this from happening. It's best to try minimize it. Some of the other things you said are avoidable too, frankly enough. Take marriage seriously, don't have sex simply for pleasure and accidentally create children, etc. These are not just irrational religious teachings. They have functions.

It is much more nuanced than that and the jury is still out on the nature vs nurture aspect of it.

Yes. It's more nuanced than that, which is my point. You said it's a stereotype, but it's not true. There's biology that plays into it, but it's not entirely biology either. There's also education. These are very complicated, and that's why many people have doubts that having two men/two women to take care of children is a good idea.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

ok, that's enough of that.

i'll not have any more about how there's "natural disgust" or "biological reactions" to excuse bigotry, nor calling being queer a "sexual fetish", nor any of the rest of that open bigotry.

orion gave you plenty of chances to stop digging yourself deeper and you refused every one.

 

[Kissaki]

I see Grank has been muted. It would not be fair for me to reply to him then (and it might only provoke him to say more mutable things when he returns).

Man, this is the Afghanistan of internet fora - this is where empires seasoned forum members come to die.

 

[Mad Vader]

I see Grank has been muted. It would not be fair for me to reply to him then (and it might only provoke him to say more mutable things when he returns).

Is there a point trying to reason with him? He has spent months picking up rationalizations for his prejudices from conservative parts of the internet, and he won't shed them because you explain nicely why is he wrong or unethical.
My favorite is "the gays don't reproduce! we must reproduce quickly, because that's the meaning of life! brb need to impregnate someone".

 

[Kissaki]

Is there a point trying to reason with him? He has spent months picking up rationalizations for his prejudices from conservative parts of the internet, and he won't shed them because you explain nicely why is he wrong or unethical.
My favorite is "the gays don't reproduce! we must reproduce quickly, because that's the meaning of life! brb need to impregnate someone".

True enough, because the nature of a discussion (especially on the internet) is that the participants want to be right - or at least they don't want to be wrong. But third parties reading these comments, who are either on the fence or even hold the same antiquated views, may be convinced without having to suffer the indignity of admitting to being wrong. True for Grank, true for me.

And in any case, I've been where Grank is myself, many years ago. And sure, I wasn't persuaded by people telling me I was wrong; I think it was that the more I perceived people being on the LGBT side, the easier I found it to accept that there was nothing abnormal about it - combined with the realisation that the only reason I had been against it was the fact that I, personally, didn't like it - and that's what had motivated me to find evidence to support my conclusion. I was never religious or anything, but homophobia has nevertheless had a solid foothold in our culture for a very long time. It is really only in living memory that this has started to change.

 

[Antonis]

And in any case, I've been where Grank is myself, many years ago.

Damn, I literally winced at that, hits closer to home than I wanted. To paraphrase Moist van Lipwig, not the happiest reunion with my past.

 

[eddiemccandless]

True enough, because the nature of a discussion (especially on the internet) is that the participants want to be right - or at least they don't want to be wrong. But third parties reading these comments, who are either on the fence or even hold the same antiquated views, may be convinced without having to suffer the indignity of admitting to being wrong. True for Grank, true for me.

And in any case, I've been where Grank is myself, many years ago. And sure, I wasn't persuaded by people telling me I was wrong; I think it was that the more I perceived people being on the LGBT side, the easier I found it to accept that there was nothing abnormal about it - combined with the realisation that the only reason I had been against it was the fact that I, personally, didn't like it - and that's what had motivated me to find evidence to support my conclusion. I was never religious or anything, but homophobia has nevertheless had a solid foothold in our culture for a very long time. It is really only in living memory that this has started to change.

It is a lot easier to dislike a category of people when you don't really have friends that are part of that particular group. The reality is that even with all the differences that exist between groups, in the end we are all just people. Once you befriend someone it's going to be a hell of a lot more difficult to have negative feelings towards fundamental aspects of their being.

I really think Grank is missing out on that part. Grank, I hope you at least come to realize that a lot of what you're writing is straight up homophobia. You can rationalize it all you like, but if you really feel even a tenth of what you're expressing here, that's exactly what is going on, whether you're willing to admit it to yourself or not.

 

[Mad Vader]

I've frankly lost hope that eddie and others have, being exposed to conservative sites on the internet and people in real life who are hell-bent on attacking homosexuals in every way they can. Especially since their messaging strategy shifted to "think of the children", which is simply manipulative, dishonest propaganda.
We have a conservative campaign in our country called "For the children" and led by our variant of Christian fundamentalists, but broadly supported by the right wing which is luckily in opposition. Guess what the campaign is about.
That's what grinds my gears and I can't have any sympathy for Granks when they try the same dishonest tactics. I prefer honest homophobes who freely admit to their dislike of gays.

 

[Kissaki]

I've frankly lost hope that eddie and others have, being exposed to conservative sites on the internet and people in real life who are hell-bent on attacking homosexuals in every way they can. Especially since their messaging strategy shifted to "think of the children", which is simply manipulative, dishonest propaganda.

Ah, but aren't you then falling into the same trap as they? Seeing a very vocal minority and extrapolating from that?

We have a conservative campaign in our country called "For the children" and led by our variant of Christian fundamentalists, but broadly supported by the right wing which is luckily in opposition. Guess what the campaign is about.
That's what grinds my gears and I can't have any sympathy for Granks when they try the same dishonest tactics. I prefer honest homophobes who freely admit to their dislike of gays.

I don't think they are intentionally dishonest. Naturally they believe their opinions to be correct, or they'd discard them. So what they do is what most people do: they seek out any and all information which corroborates their conclusions. Most people are perfectly capable of thinking scientifically in the fields of their expertise, but have a strong confirmation bias in all other fields, where they only possess a layman's knowledge. Not being an expert never stopped people from having strong opinions on a given subject.

 

[Piconi]

Guess what the campaign is about.

I really can't guess what is it about, with that sort of name.
We have had similarly called initiatives in Serbia, and they usually meant that mothers with 2 or more children receive monthly Government subsidizing, increasing exponentially with each child above 2nd.
I think for single mothers without property they were giving them apartments.
Those were good initiatives imo and not anti anything.

What i can guess is that the campaign you were talking about is that it was nothing similar?

 

[Mad Vader]

I really can't guess what is it about, with that sort of name.
We have had similarly called initiatives in Serbia, and they usually meant that mothers with 2 or more children receive monthly Government subsidizing, increasing exponentially with each child above 2nd.
I think for single mothers without property they were giving them apartments.

There was a point I was making and the real cause behind the campaign in Slovenia proves it: they were against gay marriage and adoption laws and used "think of the children" emotional appeal to get support. A much more realistic campaign name would be "Prevent the gays from having equal rights because we dislike them". They were stopped by the constitutional court from triggering a referendum, but they keep making noises.

I don't think they are intentionally dishonest. Naturally they believe their opinions to be correct, or they'd discard them.

It's the argumentation that is intentionally dishonest, trying to make every anti-gay argument about children. This became a conservative strategy around the world and made its way into the internet debates ("ok groomer" anyone?). (An article about the strategy in the US, but it's really worldwide.)
Even if I was a conservative, I would have known most anti-gay claims are not really about the children, but about sheer dislike of gays. That is if you care about your personal integrity and intellectual honesty.

 

[Kissaki]

It's the argumentation that is intentionally dishonest, trying to make every anti-gay argument about children. This became a conservative strategy around the world and made its way into the internet debates ("ok groomer" anyone?). (An article about the strategy in the US, but it's really worldwide.)
Even if I was a conservative, I would have known most anti-gay claims are not really about the children, but about sheer dislike of gays. That is if you care about your personal integrity and intellectual honesty.

If you were conservative, you would probably have known that, yes. But not if you were anti-gay. The anti-gay genuinely believe those arguments. Remember, everyone thinks they're the good guys.

 

[Piconi]

They were stopped by the constitutional court from triggering a referendum, but they keep making noises.

That's weird news to me, i consider Slovenia the most open to at least gay rights of all Balkan countries.
But because Balkan is as Balkan does, i'm not surprised, and we have also these comical situations, in the only Balkan country to have an openly gay prime minister (Serbia):

Spoiler

 

[eddiemccandless]

I've frankly lost hope that eddie and others have, being exposed to conservative sites on the internet and people in real life who are hell-bent on attacking homosexuals in every way they can. Especially since their messaging strategy shifted to "think of the children", which is simply manipulative, dishonest propaganda.

There's definitely a lot of dishonest actors, at the end of the day I find that calmly contrasting them works best for me. And on the flip said there's also a bunch of people who are just being misled, and are in a sense victims of the process. You and I could be one of them had our lives been different. I have of course no way of knowing where Grank falls on this spectrum, but I choose to assume good faith if there's a chance of it being there.

I do tend to be less constructive when people come and engage in angry rants, like that person who got herself banned. In that case I often still engage as much as I am able, because the more time they spend talking to me, the less time they have to engage with someone who might be affected one way or the other by the rants. It does however tend to be less about having a logical conversation and more about trolling them softly. In fact I have done just so to this person in this very thread, although it was so subtle that I don't think anyone picked up on it .

Ah, but aren't you then falling into the same trap as they? Seeing a very vocal minority and extrapolating from that?

I think that this is a very fair point.