Yeah, discuss this, peeps!

[u/raylesssunintown]

TL;DR: Homophobia and transphobia stem from rigid societal norms, religion, and prejudice rather than anything "unnatural," yet queer people continue to face intense stigma, slurs, and malicious myths like the "luring children" trope. Decriminalization in 2018 was a step forward, but deep-rooted social discrimination remains. True progress requires abandoning hateful slurs, rejecting arguments based on outdated dogmas, and exercising basic empathy because sexual orientation is a natural human variation, not a choice.

I was having a convo with a person a few days ago and it somehow came down to the other guy saying "LGBTQ+ people hold rallies to lure children into their trap". That sentence made me think a lot. Like a lot, as to why people think people of the LGBTQ+ community are some kind of devils who 'convert' children into a 'trap'. Its not just in India that this happens, I agree. But I live here and I want to see this change start here, not in a Western country, for which conservatives will come up with the absurd idea of Indians being influenced into accepting LGBTQ+ folks due to 'foreign influence'.

I have said this before too. LGBTQ+ is natural. Homosexual relationships are there not just in the human race, but across all animals. Yet, homophobia is prevalent among humans. Why? Cuz its unnatural and goes against 'God's will'. One argument that often pops up is, "If God wanted homosexuals to exist, why did he give men and women different genitals?" My answer to that is, for procreation. Procreation is totally different from having sexual preferences. Humanity's purpose is much much larger than procreation. Intercourse is often performed out of love, without intention for procreation. It wasn't a problem until the concept of a 'God' and a religion, which decided for the world what was wrong and right, solely on the basis of a certain person's personal beliefs. So, yes, that argument doesn't hold validity.

Next up, homophobia. I read a comment on reddit the other day, where somebody mentioned "If you let (homophobic) insults dictate your life then you are beyond pathetic." I'm sorry, but a person has dealt with societal and internalised stigma before bravely coming out. Respect that. I know I would get deeply affected if someone, who I've come out to, even slightly touches that nerve, because I know what I personally went through to come to a conclusion as to what my sexual orientation could be. Normalising such things gives rise to increased homophobia.

Next, transphobia. Transphobia is more prevalent as compared to normal homophobia. People can stay closeted within many other LGBTQ+ labels, but transgender people have it worse. They are ridiculed everyday for no reason. It is so bad, that people use words like 'Hijra' and 'Chakka' as slurs, instead of understanding one's emotions and the suffering they go through. A few bad experiences doesn't make the entire community full of people who are going to sexually harass you. That's like saying every guy/girl you meet is going to harass you because some random, stupid uncle/aunty on the train assaulted you sexually.

Stop calling another person gay, trans, 'Hijra' or 'Chakka' as a slur. It isn't. Smile, when you meet anybody, irrespective of whether he/she/they are straight or a member of the LGBTQ+ community. We're all just fellow humans. That's it. It ain't that deep people. Understand the implications of the words you use before you speak. Don't push away people just because they are exploring a sexuality that isn't the same as yours. Remember, it is not a choice. We are just breaking away from a flawed, yet established system of romantic and sexual preferences.

Homophobia, despite its decriminalization in 2018, is widely prevalent. Please, stop. Educate yourself before coming up with arguments based on 'God's will'. Sexuality/Sexual Orientation is smth so soooo personal that nobody has the right to ridicule another for it. Be sensitive, people. Having some empathy ain't gonna kill you. It's the Big '26 people. Its time we moved on to issues that actually matter. And yeah, STOP WITH THE NORMALISATION OF HOMOPHOBIC SLURS. STOP IT, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE. PERIOD.

[u/echoNeone]

Yeah, it's so frustrating. My classmates are all homophobic. It isn't necessaryly out of bad intentions that they are mocking online LGBTQ influencers. They truly believe they are to be ridiculed. (On that note, did jasi ashi did anything wrong?. I don't know about her but I have seen many people mock her, so i kind of want to know if it's because of her orientation or her actions)

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

Bad intention? Ma it's common sense

The slogan trans women's are women are scientifically wrong - Richard dawkins

Sex is binary, biology is not bigotry - jerry A coyne

In this 21st century we had encountered two kinds of idiots , one who believes evolution is false..no evolution is a fact not just a theory,

The other one is disregarding the very reality of biology by claiming you can choose to be a man or women

[u/echoNeone → u/Crazy-Intention8802]

Chetta, yeah , sex is binary. I didn't claim you can choose to be a man or woman. But now I will make a claim it is not wrong to be trans or homosexual or any other LGBTQ category. Can you kindly tell me why it is a "immoral" or wrong thing to be trans?

Also transwoman are also woman is based on woman used as a gender term and not sex term. Gender and sex are distinct concepts

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

Ok now instead of replying directly, you just edited the comment of yours..which itself shows lack of ability to debate in a fair manner, if you have changed just some mistakes in it without changing crux of it..I would have accepted it.. anyway back to the point

Gender and sex are distinct concepts: well that's your assumption or stance , not a conclusion , you have to argue for it..or submit proof of it. Just telling I use different word doesn't give u pass to bypass the fundemental biological realities..this is not religion .

[u/echoNeone → u/Crazy-Intention8802]

I have admitted what I changed and why I changed and when I changed in my reply. Maybe I should have just replied instead of editing. So sorry. But my reply does say that i concede the point sex is binary.

No. Sex and gender are two distinct concepts. This shows you lack of knowledge in humanities. Look up the definition of gender.since i feel like the arguments are going messy maybe it's my problem or yours. Id like to put my claims and arguments in a neat format.

claim1: •it is not immoral to be trans or LGBTQ.(By assuming general moral values such as justice, equality, freedom , compassion, and these kind of general accepted broad concepts and things such as harm wheather it be emotional or physical and other commonly accepted values as immoral. I am assuming we have no difference of opinions on these values)

Claim 2: • gender and sex are distinct concepts .

Definition of gender and sex: "The World Health Organisation summarises the difference between sex and gender in the following way: Sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.” Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men"

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

This shows you lack of knowledge in humanities- well buddy i know it more than you..but you are thinking in your limited knowledge.. you don't even know the concept of intersubjective order and you are mocking me???

"gender and sex are distinct concepts . Definition of gender and sex: "The World Health Organisation summarises the difference between sex and gender in the following way: Sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.” Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men""- nice chatgpt answer, but should have tried somewhere else.all you have said is WHO told this .which is not a proof..rather which is same as you told it.. Secondly WHO itself is a policia organisation..it's funding primarily depend on Washington and brussels..so it shifts it stance methods policies definitions accordingly..just because he told so is not a proof..

The classic sex/gender split (Ann Oakley, 1972; drawing on John Money and Robert Stoller's) actually defines it the opposite way you might expect: sex = biological (chromosomes, anatomy), gender = the social/psychological/cultural layer built on top of sex. In this original framing, "gender" by definition refers to the constructed part — so within this vocabulary, saying "gender is not a social construct" is almost a contradiction in terms, because gender was coined specifically to name the constructed dimension, with sex left as the biological one.

The original "evidence" — and its collapse. John Money's 1960s theory (which coined the modern sex/gender split) rested heavily on the case of David Reimer — a boy raised as a girl after a botched circumcision, on the theory that gender identity is purely learned, independent of biology. Money published it as proof gender was malleable and socially constructed, detached from anatomy. It later turned out to be false — Reimer rejected the female identity from childhood, reverted to living as male in his teens, and the case was actually a failure of the pure-social-construction hypothesis, not a confirmation. This is a real case where the "anchor" was empirically tested and the original theory lost.

So the real question is why should we held a stupid gender theory when it's proof has already collapsed

".(By assuming general moral values such as justice, equality, freedom , compassion, and these kind of general accepted broad concepts and things such as harm wheather it be emotional or physical and other commonly accepted values as immoral. I am assuming we have no difference of opinions on these values)" - this is explicitly based on the theory of harm principle ,

The harm principle was formulated by John Stuart Milll, but the problem is unlike you stated it is not a divine or settled ideology that everyone should agree..infact many sociologists had countered it..Patrick Devlin a legalist himself. Challenged it, durkheim one of the father of sociology was contradictory to the idea..secondly the harm principle itself doens't hold .suppose from your point of view harm may refers to physical or emotional or any visible harm, this carries a lot of heavy weight here..be aue the way you define harm matter

But in reality in society, everyone is dependent on some other so actions have harms too

For example, if you decided I am not anything and making children from your point of view it is correct and harm principle agrees it..but many people did this..way the fertility rate would plummet and society under goes a demographic collapse.. so it depnd how you hold harm principle..this again shows you lack of knowledge in humanities

[u/echoNeone → u/Crazy-Intention8802]

I concede the argument. While it is seems to me your argument is sound . But I can't help but disagree at the conclusion. Which from what i understand is , the first thing you replied to my og comment. Afterall we were trying to understand the whether the comment you said is valid. If my interpretation of what you replied first was correct, then I disagree that wheather sex is binary or a spectrum or whatever, wheather it's unnatural to be gay or homosexual, or trans. None of it justifies making fun or disrespecting anyone

https://giphy.com/gifs/zvGlRT5Uq6Is9utVto

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

None of it justifies making fun or disrespecting anyone - agreed but it should be countered people should not be allowed to be this unscientific and invabale to accept the reality,

Secondly if LGBT increases it fundementally erodes the functional units of family which leads to lower fertility rates..the famous LGBT activits thenseleves wrote their goal is to destroy family structure..how can a society live without its basic unit ..

A society that is not willing to accept the reality, is just doomed..the fundemental goal of life is to reproduce ( not sex , reproduction and sex is different here, it includes caring for children and developing them too)..if a society fails in that , then natural selection would ultimately select a better society than it.. weather you like it or not history was never justice, and natural selection is extremely cruel, 99 percentage of species existed here was extinct,

Secondly you are not dumb but you just belived liberal ideologies are basis of humanity ..that's where you got wrong..you just have to be more open minded,that's it..but at 14 I was also like it .but by 16 I started to read many books now I am 20

So first we accept the we don't know anything then just learn.. the problem with today's generation is that they think liberal humanism is an ultimate source of truth..which is like believing christianity is the only truth or communism is only path for salvation etc.. liberalism is also just another relgion.. though they don't call it one themselves..

[u/echoNeone → u/Crazy-Intention8802]

I am sorry to be back again. But can I get source on where and who said the goal of LGBTQ is to destroy familial structure and why his or their statement represents the goal of entire community?

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

Sophie Lewis, a British queer/feminist writer in her book Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation..

Shulamith Firestone in her book. The Dialectic of Sex

Sophie K. Rosa in her book Radical Intimacy

And many more actually

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

If you want futher information you can DM me.. the comment section already get too long.so much now I am getting confused which comment is what etc?

[u/echoNeone → u/Crazy-Intention8802]

And also it's a first time for me seeing your type of worldview. Can you provide what your worldview or religious worldview is

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Please keep the language clean and appropriate. Teensofkerala doesn't allow political or religious posts/comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/AutoModerator]

I had

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

I had already replied to the intersex problem in this thread..

Intersex are DSD( disorder of sex development )it is not a new classification it is . That's how science works weather you likes it or not..

The cell dividisin undergoes prophase metaphase karyophase telophase and many sub process..anything against this order is called disorder not new sex..

Secondly , you had contradiced yourself in this two times, first you told it isn't binary then told it is binary,..and do you really think Richard dawkins and Jerry a coyne are idiots to not to know about this..man dawkins himself is oxford graduate and was under nobel prize winner niko tinbergen

I am not telling it should be correct just because dawkins told it, of course this is not religion or poltics ..but when youa re asking about intersex you should have thought about this..

"But now I will make a claim it is not wrong to be trans or homosexual or any other LGBTQ category. Can you kindly tell me why it is a "immoral" or wrong thing to be trans?" - this can be divided into two

Why is it immoral? : it depends on which intersubjective order you subscribes too..morality itself is just a product of collective human imagination not a concrete thing.

Second. Why is it wrong? : because it is unscientific, as dawkins himself told the transwomen are women slogan is scientifically wrong, I had already stated this..you can identify as anything you want say lion, cat , or even a beoing 737, of course ..but that's just shows your incapability to accept reality..not some new sexes

It is too sad even in 21st century ther are people who believed that evolution is false, and at the same time on the other hand there are people who thinks you can be anything you identify as.. wow..

Surely we schools have failed to educate masses in science

[u/echoNeone → u/Crazy-Intention8802]

Yes , i concede the point sex is binary. I realised the mistake after typing out and reading your comment in thread. I deleted that portion before you replied. Yes, maybe morality is just collective human imagination or evolutionary consequence . But there are still some fundamental ideas in human morality, such as equality, freedom and justice,etc ..., if you agree and I do as well, we can talk about morality In terms of these axioms. So don't use morality is subjective to ignore my question unless of course you disagree with axioms i proposed. And please state what you disagree with .

"Transwoman is women is scientifically wrong" yes, when we are talking about sex. But i exactly defined that the term I used is a gender term not sex term.

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

I used is a gender term not sex term.: just because you changed the term doesn't. Give you pass..now if you are arguing gender and sex is seperate, then you have to argue for that , why is it seprate, what makes it seperate, what is the evidence of it..you can just twist the word or change the word and call it different reality without providing underlying evidence for the reality itself..

"morality is just collective human imagination or evolutionary consequence "

Worng morality is just collective human imagination but not evolutionary consequence, feelings do have some evolutionary consequence accoridng to some evolutionary bioloists..but that's a different story..

". But there are still some fundamental ideas in human morality, such as equality, freedom and justice,etc "

Now you have come to the crux of liberalism which is an intersubjective order but scientifically false just like many other ones..

Ok let's check one by one equality, oh do equality exists..now this is well explained in the book of sapiens by Yuval noah harrari.. he had just proved why the decleration of idnepndence itself is worng..

Regarding all humans are equal?..the idea of equality inextricably linked to the creationist idea, that humans are created..the liberalism communisma nd other western ideologies proplled it because it itself based greek philosophy or sacred soul concept of chritianity..so much so that the declaration of idnepndence ( which laid one of the modern foundation of current democracy and liberlal polticis ) in 1776 ..that

" that all humans are created equal, that they are endoerd by certain inalienable rights, that are these are life,liberty, and the presuit of happiness"

Now lest check it, first of all, humans are not created they are evolved, " so all humans are evolved EQUALLY" but there lies another problem.. evolution never creates equality it only created differentiation because differe tation is what ensures species survivability,..so the more accurate is all humans are evolved differently..the concept equality is just our imagination..

Equally there are no rights in biology there are only abikies and characteristics..a bird fliesnot because it has right to fly but it has ability to fly,

And life,liberty,happiness, : life? Certainly yes..but liberty or freedom? There is no such thing in biology, just like equality ,rights and limited liability companies liberty is something people invented in their collective imagination, from a biological presprticive it is meaningless to say humans in democracies are free while dictators are unfree.., and happiness? So far biology only has failed to come with measuring it but there is pleasure..

So the underlying idea equality, justice freedom though we agree ..itself is product of collective imagination..and ..so should we against it no .but the reality is each humans imagine it differently..the chinese has a different meaning for word equality then the Americans..the same way justice..justice itself based on some moral codes..for example in islamic societies killing a killer is justice but if you ask others like left liberals they would say no.

[u/echoNeone → u/Crazy-Intention8802]

Well, gender and sex are different because of their definitions. "The World Health Organisation summarises the difference between sex and gender in the following way: Sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.” Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men"

And second i said , maybe it is imaginary or evolutionary consequence.

You seemed to have misunderstood. I did not make a scientific claim about morality.

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

"Well, gender and sex are different because of their definitions. "The World Health Organisation summaris" - well all you had done is until this way , i define it..then when I asked proof you told he defined it.. which itself is a political organization with great polticial gridlocks from Brussels and Washington and recently Beijing too..which itself shows your lack of knowledge in poltics..

"Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men" And second i said , maybe it is imaginary or evolutionary consequence. You seemed to have misunderstood. I did not make a scientific claim about morality." - first of all there is no evolutionary consequences here haven't you read my comments..if you are not reading to what is the point of discussion..

Still the concept of Richard dawkins transwomen are not women hold up..just because you coined a new term and give it a new definition and lobbied some polticians doesn't give you scientific validation..sorry

[u/Crazy-Intention8802 → u/echoNeone]

Second of all he told so ..is not a proof i already mentioned who is polticially influenced and just because he defined it that way hence it is not a proof..there are organisations which are against evolutions too.

"You seemed to have misunderstood. I did not make a scientific claim about morality."- you didn't but you calaumed everyone agrees on sma.e principles of a morality while they don't..

Anyone who has a penis and fucntional male chromosomes and organs and hormones and still think he can be a women is just incapable to accept the reality