2y ago

What "LGB without the T" means

You're viewing a single thread.

158 comments

The real fantasy here is that the lgbtqia+ community is something other than fractions of a percentage of the population with extremely niche interests. Voltron all you like, but you're still an extremely small percentage of the whole with an extremely overexposed media footprint. I'm glad yall are being celebrated again as my people once celebrated and venerated twinsouls, but we also need to refocus our outrage on the shit that affects all of us, like net neutrality and basic right to live shit. Gender affirming care is wonderful for the people who have ready access to food, water, and shelter. I am more worried about the people who don't have even those basic things. And the number of those people in this country grows every day.
- Whether or not you meant it this way, your argument has been used to downplay important social issues for over 100 years, probably a lot longer.
  I've heard "Why spend so much effort on X when people are dying out there?"
  Where X is womens' voting rights, Black rights, sexual freedoms, political freedoms, and religious freedoms just off the top of my head in the US alone.
  If you did mean it with good intentions and not as a debate tactic, know that we can work on two things at once. To use the US as an example again, most of those things I addressed were indeed improved and it's not like other things just fell by the wayside. We vastly improved food safety, workplace safety, hunger, infrastructure, etc. at the same time.
  
  What I'm saying is that I'm tired of hearing about wants constantly on the news when our country is filled with so much need it hurts. You want to transition. That's good. I'm so happy for you that you've figured out who you want to be. You want a safe community for all your people to gather and share. Totally understandable, people have been doing that for thousands of years. What I am concerned about is what people NEED to live. People need shelter that doesn't make them unable to afford food. People need food that isn't so preserved with chemicals and colorants it gives them cancer 20 years down the line. People need water that isn't full of whatever runoff dupont feels like dumping in 10 miles up the river. None of the other issues become any less important, but we need to understand that needs are more important than wants on a fundamental level. And we are not meeting the needs of our people. Until that happens, I'm gonna be mad about people crying for their wants.
  
  What a truly fascinating way to view the world.
  If you actually believe that, surely you're not going far enough though? You can follow your logic to its conclusion:
  People need water that isn’t full of whatever runoff dupont feels like dumping in 10 miles up the river
  Actually, some people have no water at all. We should literally expend no effort into cleaning up water until every single human on the planet has access to some form of water.
  People need shelter that doesn’t make them unable to afford food.
  Actually, some people can afford neither food or shelter, and so we should not expend any effort in providing them with shelter until every single human on the planet has access to food.
  It's almost like we're a complex society that can address more than one societal issue at a given point.
  
  there's always a bigger fish, right?
  the adage goes 'pick your fights' for a reason. while the needs that badadvice (fitting name, actually lol) mentions are vital and important, the scale of them is such that we would spend all of our energy on them and ignore the plethora of other issues being discussed in this post. while we need to be working on affordable housing, clean water, etc., we also need to be considering where we can do the most good. and people like badadvice get angry that the forest exists because it obscures the their particular tree and would burn the rest of the forest if they think it will help their tree. the reality is that the diminishing returns for fights like badadvice is advocating for puts us in a position that they are often untenable to try and tackle with the level of effort they want to put towards it. this isn't a matter of being cold-hearted toward those issues, it's a matter of triaging our problems as a society.
  
  You are so completely full of shit.
  "You don't understand, I have to hate the gays, it's the only way to stop cancer and poverty."
  
  Hello straw man. Lmao pretty sure what I said is that trans issues are disproportionately overexposed in media and really shouldn't be considering how small of a percentage of the population those issues directly affect. Especially when you look at it through the perspective of someone who knows exactly how much of an issue getting clean water on reservations can be right now, even in the "deluxe American poverty" of the midwest
  
  The whole reason the LGBTQ+ topic is so big is because of those other issues, specifically because solving those would take actual effort and money and if you don't want to expend that you just tie up people's attention and energy in useless culture wars, and then they're too tired and distracted to deal with all the other problems that need solving.
- and basic right to live shit
  You're so very close. The LGBT+ is fighting for exactly that. They're on that front line. And if that front line breaks, they'll come for your half a twin soul next.
  
  As an overwhelming majority, they arent. The ones with mental health issues might be, which are disproportionately common considering the extremely small percentage of the population we have been talking about to begin with. However, imo that's a larger mental health care issue than strictly a lgbtia+ issue anyways. The point I'm making here is that people truly struggling with basic right to live shit (ie food, water, shelter) arent worried about getting their next dose of hormones or what dive bar they can pick up some ass at. Look at the truly poor communities and tell me that a gay bar and some estrogen pills will do anything for them. You'll tell me next "oh no it's about identity and the right to be who they are!!1!" Lmfao imagine being so fucking free as to CHOOSE your own identity instead of having it branded on you at birth like a fucking animal. Hell, some of you even get to choose new parts if the factory didn't send you what you wanted. Meanwhile, on the actual rez, Sam the injun boy gets to play with arid dirt and hope the financial services check comes on time this month so mom and dad don't scream so much. You see the disparity here?
  
  You think people choose their sexuality and gender?
  Interesting.
  When did you choose to be straight?
- Hi we can fight about other things too? like I'm also fucking super concerned about how religious institutions are infiltrating our government and other positions of power and how there are still so many mass shootings, and the opioid crisis, and mental health is still abysmal, and dental insurance is a joke even though bad teeth hurt your health.. oh and earth is basically fucking melting and people STILL deny global warming. Look see a person can be aware and care about a lot and consider all the things important! You're making the same type of argument that would come up with ANY progressive outcry of injustice, same fucking arguments happened with police brutality against people of color. Lawmakers don't have to focus on just ONE FUCKING THING and progress doesn't have to either.
  And fuck this shit people still die from being LGBTQA. Fuck off with "you're too small to matter enough to protect" bullshit. I get it if you feel like it has too much media attention it's mostly because it became profitable to talk about it. That's capitalism at work but don't lessen and downplay a legitimate fight for equality because of that.
  
  It's not a fight for equality. Nobody wants equality because equal for us sucks every ass. It's a fight to be at the front of the line for the money fountain, and every feel good story about an eleventy thousand dollar hormone treatment that got approved could have been a fucking well in a reservation that would have given clean water to hundreds of native people. I'm glad Suzy doesn't have to be Kevin any more, but Kevin still would have had food, water, and a place to sleep. Some of us don't even have that. So yeah, until all of us have the basic shit covered, I'm going to mad about the overexposure of a niche group who cry about their wants instead of recognizing all the need around them.
  
  This is a terrible take. Given the high rate of suicide among trans individuals who have no social or medical support, this is a public health issue and not just a race to the "money fountain". Should we also cut funding for all mental health causes because the Flint water crisis isn't yet taken care of? Not every trans individual is even asking for or wants to transition surgically. And when they do, most are paying out if their own pocket. And even those that get any public funding represent a literal drop in the ocean. Are you also mad at women who get attention and funding for breast reconstruction surgery after cancer?
  By your logic no other social issue should be dealt with or funded if we don't solve world hunger first. It's not marginalised communities that are standing between people in need and resources, and it's frankly not constructive to be mad at those marginalised communities for getting the attention they do. Better to use that energy to go after those who hoard resources and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
  
  You're complaining about someone getting to go to a buffet when you are starving while someone just flew halfway across a country on a private jet to eat a steak down the block from you.
  If you want to complain about money not going to get everyone basic needs met, then team together with the people who more often than not are also struggling to get by and target who actually has the money and hoards it for power instead of using it to eliminate hunger from the world.
- It's not about the percentage of the minority, it's about how that minority is used politically against it's allies and supporters.
  
  Imagine your people being politically valuable instead of being thrown into the worst badlands the government could find and forgotten.
  
  I'm sorry your people are not valuable. That's how insane you are sounding.
- "Trans people are a minority they don't matter let's ignore them and tolerate hateful people attacking them because, see that non-trans person over there? They need a home."
  --> That is pretty much what you're saying right? If not, how did I mischaracterize you?
  I don't see how this type of attitude is fundamentally different than "Black people are a minority so lets tolerate hate because, see that white person over there? Their kids need to go to college.
  
  When did I say anyone should be ignored? My whole point is that the lgbtqia+ media footprint is disproportionately large and pushes out other important issues. I just want less lizzo and ru Paul in the news when I know damn well this country has obligations by treaty to my people that they arent upholding. That should be in the fuckin news. But sure, bring out your straw man. It's your favorite thing to bitch about so you might as well use it yourself.
  
  Intersectionality is the only way. If we let others down, why would we expect others to fight for us? If you let us down, would you expect us and our allies to still fight for "your people"? Minorities against other minorities are the worst.
  You say this country has treaties for your people (I'm guessing you're Native American? I'm Mexican so half and people think I'm native by my looks), does this mean they have no obligation to treat other minorities with respect? I fully respect any culture you might from and if our country has treaties with your people they should be upheld. But does that mean we need to have fewer rainbows on TV? Are there not LGBTQIA+ members of "your people"?
  Also, I'd say one of the main reasons the LBGTQIA+ "media footprint" is as large as it is, is because of hateful people using it to divide people and our need to fight back. And we do it fabulously, the only way we know how. Is it really outsized? LGBTQIA+ is somewhere between 5% and 20% of the population depending on how and who you ask. I don't think even 5% of people in the media are in this group.
  The (typical) news is for-profit, are you really expecting to see appropriate representation? Probably along with actual truth and honesty? Watch Democracy Now for something better.
- LGBT+ people are disproportionately affected by homelessness, access to food and water, civil rights, and everything else you just spouted, so I don't see how improving their living conditions doesn't also help mitigate the other problems.
  Could you explain?
  
  Add discrimination, mental illness, alcoholism, generational poverty, and cultural genocide to the list, then change lgbt+ to native Americans.
  In that case, that's exactly the point I'm making. Lgbt+ haven't been generationally oppressed because those things aren't born with you. A gay man can have a straight son as easily as a trans daughter, but a native man will always have a native child, and that child will face undue hardship by the simple fact of the history they are born into. That deserves more of the news cycle than another protest to keep or ban drag queen story hour at the local library.
  
  You frame the issue as if you are more important than LGBT people, but then you also signal that their issues don't actually exist, so I'm not really willing to trust that you actually care at all.
  This is the same way TERFs frame feminism. "Fuck you, I want mine." It is quite toxic.
  This is an unfortunate take since the intersectionality of gender identity, sexuality, and race when it comes to ALL OF THOSE ISSUES is there. But you don't see them as allies fighting for common ground. You see this as a zero-sum game.
  You also seem to side with the media's focus, which is swallowing right-wing talking points, so I also have to believe that you're not really learning from indigenous history, as those same tactics were used against them, as well.
  If you want to help indigenous peoples, you can focus on a problem that affects many groups and bring it to the forefront. That brings allies into your group to work together towards a goal, instead of dividing them so that they are easily conquered.
  
  Your last paragraph so neatly captures my own point it's kinda funny. "If you want to help lgbt+, you can focus on a problem that affects many groups (like clean water). That brings allies into your group to work together towards a goal." Except your group has more fucking allies than members in my entire nation. And instead of using those allies to fight for something like water rights, you're burning media time to talk about how grown men should be able to dress as overtly sexualized caricatures of women to read books to children. That's not an issue that affects many groups. But it's still on the fuckin news. Our world isn't EXACTLY zero sum but it's close. There are only so many hours in the 24 hours news cycle, and I should be seeing more water cleaning and less drag book reading. Explain to me why that is without blaming the mysterious powers that be who are probably just trying to make you look bad.
  
  Again, you should re-read history for how indigenous peoples were systematically genocided. Shall I post for you the "noble savage"? Would you like to see how media at the time was flooded with stories about "they just want to dance, worship animals, and speak gibberish?" Want to tell me how it's different from what you're saying now?
  You are eating the same brand of propaganda that was used against indigenous peoples, black people, women, etc., etc., and using it against LGBT people. You have learned nothing from tragedy, except to hate others. Congratulations on assimilating.
  
  Bullets and blankets mostly. Then came the churches, the camps, and eventually the schools. Y'see, the difference is that the media came after. It happened to the southern empires first. The propaganda comes well after the genocide. It's a justification tool. You're here trying to tell me the media is telling me who to hate. I don't hate trannies. We have a gay bar downtown overflowing with them. Good, cop hating people. What I hate is seeing them in the news picketing to bring back drag queen story hour when there are homeless cities without water down the street. I hate seeing senators argue about prepubescent access to hrt when there are 150 year old treaties not being honored to this day with native peoples. And I hate seeing all of you here put words in my mouth about who I should or shouldn't hate for reasons I never brought up to begin with. There is no wrong think. Hatred is allowed. Sometimes, it's even justified. I just try my best to hate ideas instead of people. So no, I don't hate trannies or gays or twinsouls or any other extremely niche group youd like to add to the soup. I hate the overblown media footprint of shit that does not and will not ever matter to the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
  
  You obviously do, since you're using the t-slur to describe them, as well as saying "gays".
  Damn, dude, try harder.
  
  "change lgbt+ to native americans" is veiled whataboutism. There's no reason we can't improve living standards for both groups at once, and using one struggling group as a reason to not support another struggling group is dishonest.

158 comments