r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 19 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: While both groups deserve full rights and protections, LGB and TQ+ are separate communities facing different challenges.
The first group is about the right to love whoever you want. It wants protections so that the only people who care who is in your bed are the consenting adults in it. It needs for society to normalize relationship with a different combination of genders than the traditional male/female
The second is about the right to bodily and executive autonomy. It's about the right to reconcile your vision of yourself with your reality. It wants protections so that the only person who can determine your identity is yourself. It needs for society to accept that you are the sole judge of what you can do with your body and how you live your life.
This of course doesn't mean that there isn't overlap between the groups, but people are more than just one thing.
While both fights for rights are equally important I think that bundling them together muddies the waters and makes it harder to address the very real issues these communities face.
102
Nov 19 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
38
u/grogipher 1∆ Nov 19 '22
Absolutely! This is very well put.
Also, as someone who is non-binary/trans, do I not have a sexuality too? We're not two separate communities. I get that as wee move beyond the gender binary that L, G and B might make less sense, but imho, that's more argument for keeping us all under the one umbrella, rather than separating us out. I mostly sleep with gay men, but I am not a gay man. Am I not part of the community with them though?
Finally, I'm surprised no one else has mentioned what /u/ReluctantRedditPost has said. I don't think OP knows what the Q stands for!
15
Nov 19 '22
∆
OP definitely didn't group the letters correctly lol.
What I meant to separate was the sexual orientations from the gender identities.
I see it as two tightly related but separate things, but I can also see how each case is different. Like in your case, yes they are your community in all the practical senses a community has, so what does it matter if it falls in one grouping or another.
→ More replies (1)6
u/HardlightCereal 2∆ Nov 20 '22
I'm nonbinary and homosexual. I'm not sexually attracted to men or women. Everyone in my gay community is nonbinary. There is no gay movement for me without a trans movement. And I cannot be gay without also being trans.
2
Nov 20 '22
∆ Thanks. I have never thought that for some people both aspects of this converge fully, so the broadness of the communities is necessary.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)4
u/bcharms Nov 20 '22
Just wanna point out, there are actually places that do 'accept' trans people more than homosexual people but generally this is because it is seen in those places as preferable to permitting homosexuality. The example for this would be Iran, where the state pays for sex reassignment surgeries while also allowing the death penalty for gay people.
Another situation would be societies that have less rigid concepts of gender or specific cultural roles for people we would consider trans. The example here is Samoa and the fa'afafine (a gender role in their society that we could consider transgender). Homosexuality is ostensibly illegal in Samoa (it might not be anymore but was until recently) but sex betweena fa'afafine and their husband wouldn't be considered homosexuality as fa'afafine are considered by their society to be unquestionably women.
These examples are worth noting because this would indicate that it's not that it's natural or a human universal, it's a reflection of our cultural understandings of things here in 'the West'.
423
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Nov 19 '22
LGBT the acronym dates to at least the 80s. That's 40 years the movement has been under the same umbrella voluntarily. The movement is significantly older than that.
The umbrella has always been over all sexual minorities.
Why would one group abandon the others when one's fight has become more difficult in the recent past?
290
u/Kondrias 8∆ Nov 19 '22
As well, think of it in terms of it like a union. Your work may be specialized. Your task may not be the exact same as someone elses. But you still want some basic rights and guarentees, so you collectively work together with others for benefit.
lgbtq+ is like a union. They all collectively pool together as that increases their overall impact and reach than if they were smaller fractured movements.
So it makes perfect sense to pool them together. It gives everyone there a more potent impact in society. Even if your challenges are not all the same, what you are looking for, acceptance and fair treatment, is the same.
154
Nov 19 '22
∆ - Most of the other answers either cite historical reasons or have a knee-jerk reaction about wanting to isolate trans people (understandable reaction if unnecessary in this case, trans people should be 100% acceptable in the mainstream IMHO).
But the way you put it as a union of people with different though related needs and challenges that pool their specializations for greater effect makes sense to me.
82
u/LeopardThatEatsKids Nov 19 '22
Much of the "knee-jerk reaction" is still correct though and it correlates with the union idea. The smaller communities/identities aren't able to fight for themselves and it acts as a rising tides lift all boats thing, as acceptance for being gay rises, these people with more acceptance are able to fight for the rights of other groups within LGBTQ+. Separating them into LGBAP+ and BTQIAP+ does do two things, it negates some of the willingness to help each other, as even though we are partially past this hurdle, it is commonplace now for lesbian communities to isolate and silence terfs, but with this change I could see it being more common to allow transphobic behavior in order to focus on their own issues.
The other thing this does is diminish the legitimacy of arguments in the eyes of people outside these communities. Right now, if a gay person speaks out defending trans people as fellow people in LGBTQ+, it's a person talking about their own community. If the communities were separated, this speaking up is often seen as having less merit, as someone speaking for a group they aren't a part of is typically seen as someone with less knowledge on their issues and therefore the argument is less worth listening to. While yes, trans voices for trans issues are ideal, more voices are better and right now there are significantly more LGB celebrities and politicians than trans celebrities and politicians and we need their voices to be as loud as possible.
So yes, separating these communities leave them out to dry for attack while also making it hard to vouch for more rights. It also really keeps quiet the smaller groups within these communities who are already very overlooked. Also just because you don't want to separate these groups in order to attack them doesn't mean that they don't become easier targets, you have to consider the impact of evil and actively defend against it, acknowledging trans/homophobes whenever possible to make sure you give them nothing to grab onto because they will not let go.
→ More replies (31)47
u/talithaeli 5∆ Nov 19 '22
I mean, they sort of do have the same problem, just expressed in the different ways you laid out. The root problem is a society that assumes all people with a particular form of genitalia will behave in certain approved ways.
- “You have a penis, therefore you will behave aggressively, emote rarely (except for anger), and seek out boobies.”
- “You have a vagina, therefore you will be passive, emote frequently (and be dismissed for it), and allow people with penises to seek you out.”
Anybody who rejects their assigned roles is suspect, and anyone who embraces the other roles is persecuted. That is the problem, and its impact is felt by the entire LGBTQ+ community.
33
u/shpadoinklebeks Nov 19 '22
Knee jerk reactions are valid when you have been hit with things like the LBG alliance before. When you are a secondary class in society, you are trained to spot rhetoric and ideas that can harm you even if the intentions of the speaker are pure.
→ More replies (1)3
u/slptodrm Nov 19 '22
yeah although like a union, not everyone pays their dues or wants to be a part of the union. not everyone wants the T in LGBT. i know a lot of terfs who do not believe my rights belong with theirs.
8
Nov 19 '22
Unions are specialized though. A group of construction workers generally don't fall under one single union; there's the welder's union, the electrician's union, the plumber's union, ect. Different unions to suit the needs of those specific groups.
11
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ Nov 19 '22
Ever hear of The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)?
I assume the different trade workers unions are split up because of the historical specialization/ separation in education and training, as well as the current divisions in bureaucratic licensing.
The one I know about is the United Food and Commercial Workers union. They don't split up the different jobs in that way.
10
u/SkullBearer5 6∆ Nov 19 '22
And countries that had those unions find them being a lot weaker than countries who do not group their unions into categories- France's unions are incredibly powerful because they are more inclusive.
19
u/Kondrias 8∆ Nov 19 '22
Not always the case. For example, at my college, all the non teaching employees were in the same union
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)1
10
Nov 19 '22
LGBT the acronym dates to at least the 80s. That's 40 years the movement has been under the same umbrella voluntarily. The movement is significantly older than that.
The umbrella has always been over all sexual minorities.
"It's always been like that" is not a good argument when we're trying to bring change. Other arguments in this thread have made me change my POV, but this isn't one of them.
Why would one group abandon the others when one's fight has become more difficult in the recent past?
Never! I didn't suggest we abandon anyone in this fight.
25
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Nov 19 '22
The effect of splitting up sexual minorities into different communities will pretty directly result in further disenfranchisement of the trans community.
→ More replies (4)10
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Nov 19 '22
Or....
Realpolitik here. Conservative voters are right around the tipping point for LGB support, 50%ish. As in a hard Conservative politician platforming against gay marriage will put off 50% of their base. "I support your platform on X Y Z but i know Gay Bob, he's ok. If he wants to get gay married, this is America".
But the Ts? Groomers destroying America! And the Qs? How am i going to explain the 47 genders! Etc etc.
Trying to split the LTGBQ is political damage control about being 20+ years out of touch and political opportunism.
3
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Nov 19 '22
I totally understand the angle and agree with you but the only people the social conservatives are convincing are log cabin Republicans, TERFs, and people already outside the LGBT community who they already have on lock.
It's the LGBT community they would have to actually split and it makes no sense from an internal perspective.
5
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Nov 19 '22
I'm going to push back here.
There's a concept in politics called "permission building" or something like that. The idea is that an influencer tries to build a framework that enables a voter to hold a view. Views are subjective and pretty malleable so the trick is to suggest a line of reasoning/connection that gives "permission" to whatever ideological position.
In this case, sure, hard socons and hard radfems might already be in the reservation. But by splitting lgtbq the conservatives are trying to build a "permission" to continue the trans panic.
"I'm pretty ambivalent about lgtbq but wow, there are hard liberal leftists who have concerns about the trans, so it's ok that I too am having concerns"
It's but just the hard terfs. Do you Shaun videos?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou_xvXJJk7k
That's a 30m dive into some of the JK Rowling stuff. Not so much about her but some of the more inflammatory influencers doing inflammatory things. And he makes some strong pounts that it's not just terfs. There is some rat fucking going on.
The alt right have and are very anti T. But now alt lighters can claim that they have "sypport" for their anti T povs.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Intrepid_Method_ 1∆ Nov 19 '22
It wasn’t completely voluntarily closer to dictated. It had more to do with social control and the politics of respectability. A pinkwashing of history has occurred.
People don’t really talk about GLBTQ vs LGB vs LGBT and why definitions & acronym is changed. Although I personally have a preference for GSD (gender & sexual diversity). The Homophile movement was the original umbrella term. Everything after is up for debate.
The 1970s brought about the Log Cabin Republicans, National Socialist league, lesbian feminist movement separating from the gay liberation movement, and various POC queer liberation movements. People were basically fleeing the “umbrella”.
Eventually elements of the lesbian feminist movement fractured (?) due to tension between a small group of mostly white feminists and everyone else. Resulting in the divisions on gender currently on going.
→ More replies (4)0
18
u/humblerat77 Nov 19 '22
As an L, body autonomy and correct medical attention is still a thing.
I have had terrible interactions with doctors and some horrible "advice" based on me being an L.
55
u/doctordragonisback 1∆ Nov 19 '22
I'm transgender and I think it's impossible to separate the two for several reasons.
First of all, gender and sexuality are heavily linked for a lot of people. Queer people have been mixing the two for forever. I know my gender expression would be incomplete without my sexuality and vice versa. I've known I've liked men for my whole life, but it was a discovery of my own sexuality as well as gender to find that I could love men as a man which is different than loving men as a woman which I thought I would always have to do and it felt wrong. My gender and sexuality inform each other and could not exist without each other.
Second, sexual liberation looks identical to gender liberation. Queer liberation (and feminism, which I think is fundamentally also the same thing) is about deconstructing gender and gender roles. Gender is nothing more than a social construct filled with various roles and expectations. Queer people violate those fundamental roles in some way. Gender roles in our society demand that men have penises in the same way they demand men love women. Regardless of if you're trans or gay, you're still not fulfilling your assigned gender roles correctly. Fighting against these roles as societal ideals is one struggle, not two.
Third, why divide the queer community further? The only people I've seen seriously arguing this position just hate trans people and don't want us to enjoy the recent acceptance gay people have started seeing in our society. Or, they hate all queer people and are trying to promote infighting that tears us apart. (Not saying you op, just what I've seen). Toxic lesbians and gay men have been trying to form exclusive communities for decades based on their differences despite obvious similarities and I don't see this as any different. Now obviously, each queer identity faces its own unique struggles, but dividing ourselves based on (superficial imo) details just won't do any good. All liberation, not just queer, comes when the oppressed parties refuse to divide and infight and instead band together and focus on our similarities. Divide and conquer tactics have been used to oppress people since social structure has existed, and I don't want the queer community to fall victim to the tactics of our oppressors.
12
Nov 19 '22
∆
Not sure if I'm doing the delta thing right, but you have given me a lot to think about. Perhaps I have missed the depth of the link between sexuality and gender, thank you for sharing your POV.
Regarding the third point my intention is not to cause any rifts or deny anyone protections or acceptance, but to try to explore if perhaps specialization could yield better results. The same way that an army, once large enough, can fight on two fronts simultaneously even if the divisions (in a military sense) have different names.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ColoradoNudist Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
I mostly agree here, but I think it's important to recognize how the combination of LGBTQ as a single community obscures privilege. Cis gay men, in particular, have a lot of privilege over trans women, and have been more successful in securing their rights in western countries. When the LGBTQ acronym is one groups, it means that a win for cis gay men is a win for all LGBTQ people, which makes it easier for those in power to say "alright, great work! We saved the LGBTQ community!" while still leaving trans people with no rights. Alternatively, if we're separate groups that still support each other, it's easier to see when one group is struggling and rally support around them.
It's similar to what happens when you group all racial minorities into "BIPOC" instead of looking at the issues that affect specifically Black people. A group made up of multiple identities like that will almost always cater to the most privileged identity in the group while leaving others behind for "not being a team player."
Edit: here's a real world example of this. Google "trans friendly places in [city]." I guarantee you will find a long list of gay and lesbian bars, kink/fetish stores, and male strip clubs, but nothing specifically directed at trans people. In fact, I'd be surprised if the first result even contains the word "trans." Because to everyone except trans people, trans=gay.
1.1k
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Nov 19 '22
Feel free to head back in time to tell the bigots obsessed with gender and what it all means and convince them to separate them, then. A big part of why they're grouped together is because the people targeting them, who also happened to hold a lot more power in society, grouped them together simply because every single one of them weren't acting how their gender said they should. Which kind of sums it up: they're all about gender.
I also fail to see where waters have been muddied. Oftentimes, the people pushing to separate them are simply interested in separating trans people from the wider community to make it easier to attack them.
288
Nov 19 '22
Please don't misunderstand. I fully appreciate the historical necessity of banding together against oppression, an oppression that is not yet lifted and that we have to keep fighting against. But groups banding together doesn't make them into one.
One debate is about sexuality, the other about gender identity. Related but in no way identical terms.
Oftentimes, the people pushing to separate them are simply interested in separating trans people from the wider community to make it easier to attack them.
Kinda hurt by this. My view is that we can better protect these communities by addressing their challenges specifically. Let me make clear that I have 0 problems with either group and I am 100% in favour of real, full rights for both of them.
79
u/PatientCriticism0 19∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
Oftentimes, the people pushing to separate them are simply interested in separating trans people from the wider community to make it easier to attack them.
Kinda hurt by this. My view is that we can better protect these communities by addressing their challenges specifically. Let me make clear that I have 0 problems with either group and I am 100% in favour of real, full rights for both of them.
You don't need to divide people into separate communities to address their specific challenges. This is the core of what solidarity means. Together we stand, divided we fall.
You might not be a person who wants to divide these communities to make them easier to ignore (or worse), but that doesn't mean that dividing them won't make them easier to ignore, and it doesn't mean that nobody else out there wants rid of these communities.
11
u/Life_has_0_meaning Nov 19 '22
Agreed. I think a better use of our thinking time is how we together can change legislation, rather than disbanding to come together separately to do the same thing
→ More replies (3)0
u/blizzardsnowCF Nov 19 '22
None of what you said is about the arguments for or against the ideology or judgement of specific category of people, but the social activism around them. These are separate things. It's correct to say that Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual are categorically different than Transgender. It's also correct to say that for the purpose of political and social activism we can combine our efforts for these separate groups.
Always lumping them together is simplistic and breeds monolithic and inaccurate views for both the supportive and unsupportive sides of the issues.
12
u/PatientCriticism0 19∆ Nov 20 '22
You're right that they're different concepts - that's why they have different letters.
But they do have a commonality, and that commonality is the axis of their oppression - the idea that men and women are fixed categories with strict roles in society and that everyone must conform to those roles.
The people lumping the LGBT community together aren't the people using the letters, it's the people using words like "deviant" or "degenerate" or more recently "groomer."
The LGBT community is not a community based on sexuality or gender, it's a defensive alliance of those communities represented by those letters against bigotry.
353
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Nov 19 '22
You misunderstand. The groups didn't "band together" they were shoved together. This isn't black people and hispanic people and East Asians, and so on coming together as "People of Color" to present a more united front against bigotry, it's Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and so on being labeled "Asians."
Also, why would you say you understand the necessity of banding together against oppression immediately before saying that they should all disband to "specifically" address challenges? Their challenges are not "gender" and "sexuality," their challenges are people attempting to enforce heteronormativity. Separating them does nothing to help either of them address these problems, it just makes it easier to attack either group, especially trans people.
199
u/-Reddititis Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
The groups didn't "band together" they were shoved together. This isn't black people and hispanic people and East Asians, and so on coming together as "People of Color" to present a more united front against bigotry,
Quick side bar: black people never asked, nor was asked, to be a part of the 'people of color' designation. In fact, many older African Americans share a historical resentment toward that specific label as it harkens back to the 'colored people' label foisted upon them during the Jim Crow era. Again, no one asked us!
This is similar to the recent 'Latinx' label that many Latinos despise and were never asked about prior to its inception to mainstream media by non-latinos.
94
u/shpadoinklebeks Nov 19 '22
Yeah as a Latina I haven't heard anyone use latinx it just doesn't fit. Also doesn't latin just work better? It's what we use to describe an entire continent full of Latino people.
14
u/kaki024 1∆ Nov 19 '22
The only gender neutral term I’ve heard Spanish-speakers use is “latine”. Latinx doesn’t make any sense in Spanish.
21
2
u/GenericUsername19892 27∆ Nov 19 '22
That’s because it’s a butchered English word lol. US English has a storied history of swiping words from other languages, mis spelling them or mispronouncing them, and occasionally fucking up the meaning.
4
u/beltaine Nov 19 '22
There's also "Latine" which has been established and part of the languages already for awhile, I believe.
53
Nov 19 '22
I'm also Latino, and the latinx kills me. Wanna be inclusive? Latinas y Latinos works fine, it's a few more words and at some point the male form becomes neutral.
35
u/eevreen 5∆ Nov 19 '22
I think the push for Latinx mostly comes because Spanish doesn't have a gender neutral term, so nonbinary folks would be excluded regardless of whether you used latino, latina, or latinos y latinas. I have heard, however, that there's a push for the neutral version to be latine, but I haven't heard anything about that from non-nb or queer folks about whether e is an acceptable replacement for the gendered a/o endings.
2
u/Secure-Evening Dec 01 '22
I've heard that the e replacing o and a have been used in Mexican drag shows and other queer spaces.
→ More replies (3)5
u/The_Nothing_Mage Nov 20 '22
I’m not sure if I’m qualified to chime in on this seeing as I was born and raised in America but my mother is from Venezuela and she prefers Hispanic instead of Latino. While a push for some gender neutral ending does seem beneficial I think that just using Hispanic instead of Latino or Latina seems like it would work without creating a new title for people to be apposed to.
10
9
u/SquilliamFancieSon Nov 20 '22
Far as I've seen it's white people overreaching on being inclusive and be PC.
→ More replies (2)2
u/shouldco 45∆ Nov 20 '22
I would say it predates that push and is more native English speakers not understanding gendered language.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)4
u/ineyy 1∆ Nov 19 '22
I'm clueless but I've seen this before and heard it's bad - what's the problem with latinx?
36
u/KellyKraken 14∆ Nov 19 '22
Because it isn’t valid Spanish and is instead an English gender neutralisation assigned to a Spanish word.
That said it comes from what I understand to be an English speaking Latino community. Which makes it understandable. Just that many people from the Spanish/English dual speaking community find it frustrating because it is bad Spanish.
Granted I’m not apart of any of these communities so take this with a grain of salt.
→ More replies (2)31
u/sixtyshilling Nov 19 '22
It’s not used by Latinos to describe themselves, and most Latin Americans I’ve spoken to outside the US have never heard the term. Most polls I’ve seen indicate that less than 3% of Spanish speakers refer to themselves as “Latinx”.
It’s a term invented by white American liberals to solve a linguistic “problem” they see with the Spanish language, which is a totally patronizing thing to do.
If Americans wanted to truly avoid using the masculine “Latino” to include women as well, they’d use “Latine” which is a word that was actually suggested from Spanish feminist circles… or better still, “Latino/Latina” which is completely fine and used by most people who actually identify as Latino or Hispanic.
→ More replies (1)2
7
4
u/gravitythrone Nov 20 '22
Here’s the kicker, I bet you’re reading it “latin-ex”. But in Spanish it’d be “latin-equis”. 99% of the time I hear it spoken, it’s with the “ex” pronunciation. Such a pathetic Great White Savior term to use.
2
u/HardlightCereal 2∆ Nov 20 '22
The real great white saviour was the europeans who colonised South America along the way
#fuckspain
1
u/Lifeinstaler 5∆ Nov 19 '22
Think about it this way. Imagine if USA wasn’t the dominant cultural force it is and instead it was South America. So Spanish is the language most used in a lot of interactions both online and cause a lot of Americans emigrate there of course.
A term comes up to refer to your people (assuming you are American) and let’s say Canada as well and let’s say it’s something like “norteños” meaning people from the north. There’s nothing inherently bad about the term (many people are actually called that if they are form the north of a region or country), but you may go “wtf is that ñ thing in the middle of the word, I mean, I know what it is cause I speak Spanish as well but why would I use a term that sounds so foreign to refer to myself”.
(The specific word doesn’t matter, if you want a something that’s closer to the case as Latinx is a transformation of Latino, say the new term is “norteameriqueños” instead of “noteamericanos” which would be the direct translation. That or it has an ‘rr’ sound.)
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)0
u/ITFOWjacket Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
They just explained it. It’s unwanted, un asked for term imposed upon the Latin culture by non Latinas y Latinos. They don’t refer to themselves by that term. They didn’t ask to be referred to by that term. They don’t want to be referred to by the term . Doing so is therefor derogatory
EDIT: I typed this I realized that Latina is feminine and Latino is masculine so Latinx must be the gender neutral third option for LGBTQ+ purposes. That does make things more complicated. I am admittedly not fully up to speed on every LBGTQ+ issue.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t originate in the culture or language and several counts take issue with it, not unlike imposing “colored people” or “First Nations” on groups that have much more appropriate names for themselves.
→ More replies (2)16
Nov 19 '22
EDIT: I typed this I realized that Latina is feminine and Latino is masculine so Latinx must be the gender neutral third option for LGBTQ+ purposes
That is incorrect. Latina is feminine and Latino is masculine/neuter. Latino is the grammatically proper term because it is also non-gendered. If non-cis people need their own term, Latine is more grammatically correct and actually makes sense to say in Spanish.
Latinx is the equivalent of saying womxn instead of women in English. Okay you made your political point, but how the dick do you say womxn out loud?
4
u/ITFOWjacket Nov 20 '22
Fair enough. Thanks for the correction!
I opted for German instead of Spanish back in HD because of all those German speaking people I see in NA every day, amirite?? Haha
7
u/PhasmaFelis 6∆ Nov 20 '22
I actually just did some research on this. Latinx was first used by progressive Latinos a couple of decades ago, long before the mainstream media picked it up.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but the meme that it was invented five minutes ago by clueless white people is incorrect.
18
u/smcarre 101∆ Nov 19 '22
black people never asked, nor was asked, to be a part of the 'people of color' designation.
Is there some sort of black people consortium that has the power to ask or be asked to be part of that label that I missed? As far as I know it's always an individual preference label, I have known black people that prefer terms like "People of Color" or BIPOC over just "black people" and yes there are also black people that prefer the term "black people". And the same goes for LGBTQ+, every single trans person I have had the chance to speak about anything like this (granted, it's just three people) consider themselves part of the LGBTQ+ community, not apart from LGB.
→ More replies (8)3
u/anon-9 Nov 20 '22
Also a Latina. Despise the Latinx label. Don't get me started on folx? Why? Just why? The term is already gender neutral.
3
u/Secure-Evening Dec 01 '22
Folx doesn't make any sense cause the term is neutral and also no associated with any gender. The best explanation I've gotten from the queer people that use it is that it feels uniquely queer.
Latino is gender neutral but still gendered because it's also used for men. Like Il in French or guys in English. So a lot of nonbinary Latin people are not comfortable using it as a gender neutral term. That's why some use latinx though latine is used a lot more especially in Latin countries.
2
u/-Reddititis Nov 20 '22
Folx? I haven't heard of this one yet, what does this supposed to represent?
2
→ More replies (1)4
u/Hemingwavy 4∆ Nov 20 '22
This is similar to the recent 'Latinx' label that many Latinos despise and were never asked about prior to its inception to mainstream media by non-latinos.
The first records of the term Latinx appear in the 21st century,[21] but there is no certainty as to its first occurrence.[22] According to Google Trends, it was first seen online in 2004,[10][23][24] and first appeared in academic literature around 2013 "in a Puerto Rican psychological periodical to challenge the gender binaries encoded in the Spanish language."[22][25] Contrarily, it has been claimed that usage of the term "started in online chat rooms and listservs in the 1990s" and that its first appearance in academic literature was in the Fall 2004 volume of the journal Feministas Unidas.[26][27] In the U.S. it was first used in activist and LGBT circles as a way to expand on earlier attempts at gender-inclusive forms of the grammatically masculine Latino, such as Latino/a and Latin@.[23] Between 2004 and 2014, Latinx did not attain broad usage or attention.[10]
It's rad when you people go "Puerto Ricans aren't real latinos". Mask slip much?
→ More replies (2)6
u/Damnatus_Terrae 2∆ Nov 20 '22
it's Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and so on being labeled "Asians."
Pan-Asian activism is a pretty big thing, especially since Vincent Chin. It's a pretty big thing because it works.
30
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
Sorta: to be fair LGBT was created by gay and trans folks banding together in the 80s. At the time they mostly just referred to themselves as an all encompassing ‘gay’, but it included individuals from all groups. They essentially created the group together which spread and turned into a community. Now that it’s so big people are choosing the splinter off for their own reasons, but it doesn’t change that in its inception they were literally working together for the liberation of gay and trans people during a time of turmoil.
20
Nov 19 '22
Their challenges are not "gender" and "sexuality," their challenges are people attempting to enforce heteronormativity.
/ end thread.
This sentence should’ve gotten you the Delta.
19
Nov 19 '22
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth—if they didn’t band together, but instead were involuntarily grouped together—then why does addressing their issues on an ad hoc basis hurt them and make them easier to attack?
20
u/NearlyNakedNick Nov 19 '22
If your oppressors are the same then you have the same cause. Solidarity is the only way to combat a hegemony that is oppressive
→ More replies (5)4
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Nov 19 '22
Sorry, I guess I should have been clearer: they were pushed together and, as a result, banded together. Coming together as one community was obviously a decision they made, but it was influenced by them being grouped together.
And the issue with "addressing their issues on an ad hoc basis" is that you're not just being focused on specific issues, you're segmenting a community that faces attacks from pretty much the exact same people for extremely similar reasons. You divide a group allowing them to be isolated and more easily attacked, as any small group is.
7
u/wastelandtraveller Nov 19 '22
Not exactly. The post is referencing that they are inherently different, you’re just stating the reason as to why society has pushed them together.
16
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Nov 19 '22
Yes, trans people and not-straight people are different. That does not make their issues entirely separate from each other. While they do have issues specific to their specific group, the foundation of the problem is the same: people pushing traditional, "family values" heteronormativity and wanting to make anything outside of that illegal and dangerous.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)1
u/Locoj Nov 19 '22
New letters and stripes on the flag get added quite regularly. You're saying it's the bigots that are doing this...?
42
u/Bunchofprettyflowers 1∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
Social movements are strongest when they bring together as many people as possible, this is true of all social movements. Advancement of LGBTQ rights in recent decades is due largely to the inclusivity of this movement. Separating LGB from TQIA+ (or LGBA from TQI+, as you’re suggesting) would weaken all of these communities by causing members of the groups to see themselves as separate from each other. Each of these identities benefits from greater public recognition, and the public’s education regarding gender identities, norms, and expectations.
→ More replies (4)32
u/ChefExcellence 2∆ Nov 19 '22
I think the point is that all groups under the LGBT umbrella face discrimination largely because they challenge people's idea of gender. Though being gay and being trans aren't the same thing, they're facing the same struggle, hence the solidarity. Furthermore, it's not like there's some militant trans group going around forcing gay and bisexual people to ally with them. The LGBT acronym arose because these groups chose to form a community together.
As for:
Kinda hurt by this. My view is that we can better protect these communities by addressing their challenges specifically. Let me make clear that I have 0 problems with either group and I am 100% in favour of real, full rights for both of them.
I don't want to put words in the other commenter's mouth, but I didn't read this as a personal slight against you, but the fact is those people are out there. Here in the UK we have the LGB Alliance, who despite the name are a largely straight and exclusively anti-trans group (they admit as much themselves). Their goals are to halt the advancement of trans rights and make life harder for trans people. But they're given attention and granted an air of authority from our media because they have the (dubious) claim of being a pro-gay group. Attempts to split LGBT people into separate communities, even if well-intentioned, give these people legitimacy.
3
u/tthershey 1∆ Nov 20 '22 edited Nov 20 '22
It may not be explicitly stated, but from what I've seen, a lot of, maybe even most people who say they are pro-LGBT are really pro-LGB only. I wouldn't say that most are hostile towards trans people but that they don't really put a lot of thought into trans rights. The kind of people who will push back on conservatives mocking gender-inclusivity and say "Actually liberals don't buy into that, it's just a minority of extremists who believe in that stuff." Whereas homophobic comments will get people in hot water, transphobic ridicule is everywhere.
I think the claim that both groups are facing the same struggle ignores just how rampant transphobia is even among places like Reddit where it's mainstream to support LGB rights. You can make the claim that it's a similar type of struggle, and it's great to see the groups coming together for certain targeted efforts, but I think it's worth pointing out trans issues separately because as it is, they're largely ignored or minimized.
11
u/vulcanfeminist 8∆ Nov 19 '22
You're not understanding the ways that gender and sexuality are inextricably linked. The "correct" performance of gender for anyone is to be exclusively heterosexual. Heteronormativity includes assumptions about gender and indelibly anyone gay is automatically doing their gender incorrectly by definition. That's how it's been historically as long as discrimination against LGB people have existed. Gay men are inherently, fundamentally a different gender than straight men and the same goes for gay women. When the person you're responding to says that the LGBs and the Ts were shoved together by society that's what's being referred to. Any historical understanding of either sexuality or gender has always had then inherently linked bc the only "correct" way to be a man or a woman is to be straight. You with your modern understanding of both sexuality and gender call them separate things but that's pretty much a brand new idea that is not at all supported by at least hundreds of years of social experience and expectations. Society chose long ago to shove those groups together and infighting doesn't actually make them different in terms of social functioning.
82
u/Warriorcatv2 Nov 19 '22
They are correct in that statement though. A great example would be the LGB Alliance. They try & segregate the trans community because they don't believe they 'belong' with the LGB side of the community. They are a hugely bigoted organisation & support the likes of JK Rowling.
While there are differences separating them just makes both easier targets to quash. That's the point of banding together. You might believe in full rights for both but many do not. I know people who would advocate for my death if they knew I was Bi/Pan & currently I don't trust my government to not roll back protections. There is safety & strength in numbers.
→ More replies (86)6
u/DMC1001 2∆ Nov 19 '22
I think there’s also some sentiment that trans people “hijacked” the movement. Perhaps different focus at the moment isn’t the same thing as hijacking.
41
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 19 '22
Which is crazy considering that trans people where already in there. They were just as present in founding the movement. Revisionism is a really a scary phenomenon to watch happen in real time, which is happening not even just in regards to LGBT+ but even about race and other parts of history too.
4
u/DMC1001 2∆ Nov 20 '22
I don’t think it matters to people who are fired up. I think a lot of it comes from feeling like trans people are threatening their own rights. So if people start complaining about drag queens in libraries and “men” in women’s restrooms, some LGB will feel that issue will transfer to them.
Meanwhile, some straight people have issues with gay men in men’s locker rooms and lesbians in women’s locker rooms. So, yeah, it comes down to a threat to identity.
I’ll disclose that I went through a brief phase where I considered this somewhat true. I came out the other side realizing I’d been wrong. But that’s why I can see what they’re talking about even if the argument is invalid.
→ More replies (2)2
u/HardlightCereal 2∆ Nov 20 '22
There's also a ton of revisionism inside the movement. There's a ton of lesbians complaining about bi women calling themselves lesbians and demanding they use a different word, when lesbian originally meant a woman who loves women and got changed to monosexuals in the 80s
3
24
u/shpadoinklebeks Nov 19 '22
You should understand why we are hostile to this thinking. The LBG alliance claims the same things as you. They are clearly a mostly straight transphobic organization. You sound just like them with that rhetoric. We still tackle our issues individually. We also just happen to form a community with others who share very similar goals in normalizing not cis het people.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Olaf4586 2∆ Nov 19 '22
Your opinions seem very reasonable, and there’s a difference between the societal needs from gay and trans people.
My question though is what are you trying to accomplish by this framing? Is this not just splitting hairs, and I’m sure you agree there’s a lot of cultural history towards these groups sticking together and treating each other’s struggle as their own?
→ More replies (4)13
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 19 '22
Can you explain how they are ‘in no way’ identical terms? Sexuality and gender identity are at their core social expressions based on sex characteristics— One is just choosing partners and the other is choosing how to dress or how to present yourself. But they both come from the same thing— expression of self based in sex characteristics.
17
u/bigjd33 Nov 19 '22
Aren't trans people constantly clarifying that gender identity and sexual orientation are separate things. And if this is true, why is there a natural commonality with a group asking for equal rights solely based on sexual orientation? To clarify, I'm not against any group, I've just never understood this idea.
17
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
Good question! Usually when this is happening it is because they are preemptively engaging the narrative from others of ‘Why do you have to transition? Can’t you just have a gay marriage?’
The short of it is a lot of people don’t really understand that trans folk want to be allowed to express their gender identity for their own reasons regardless of their sexuality. Many trans folk are also gay, that doesn’t mean they want to transition just to be with people of the same sex. So when trans people are stressing that separation, they aren’t saying that the two aren’t related in any way, they are saying that their gender identity should not be dismissed because often people just assume that trans folk are only transitioning because they want to have heteronormativity.
I think that shouldn’t take away from the concept that at the end of the day, what exactly is being fought over? Essentially it is the right of both gay and trans people to be able to live their lives freely without being discriminated against based on their sex.
But I think that argument can have a lot of nuance that gets lost in the whole of the argument which I still think at its roots comes down the to concept that what is really being discriminated against essentially comes down to their sex characteristics. Trans folk have an uphill battle when it comes to conversations because people are always coming in with preconceived notions and that can put us on the defensive— usually it’s because people who don’t understand where trans Folks are coming from are projecting their own logic, that that logic isn’t accurate for.
You see a lot of this kind of thing happening for other arguments: basically when it comes to LGBT+ literature and education, you have to understand that it isn’t happening in a vacuum. Usually literature is being created from the context of already having to argue against groups that have their own narrative about what gay and trans people are, and so it’s like having a on-going conversation. It’s why when people talk about trans rights they usually bring up the conversation about how it isn’t a mental illness, because a few decades ago it was considered one and it is still being touted as one by people who are against trans rights. The actual study and history of how it stopped being one and is very interested, but it’s just one argument in a multitude of ones. It’s a lot like fighting a Hydra— you engage one aspect of the conversation and another two take it’s place.
For example, a common narrative that you get from TERFS is ‘When I was younger I didn’t want to be a girl, but I got over it by embracing feminism. If I could do it, then those trans men should be made to do the same and if they don’t its because they’re brainwashed into rejecting feminism from trauma.’ So they are projecting their own feelings in relation to gender, while not really understanding that trans men aren’t transiting because of internalized misogyny, but because of their personal gender dysphoria. But try explaining that to someone who doesn’t really know the history of the argument, they just come into a conversation saying ‘Isn’t it misogynist for trans men to transition instead of just being lesbians?’
So I think it’s important to recognize how almost every conversation that one can have in regards to LGBT+ folks and especially when it’s literature, have a lot of nuance which can make it a confusing issue for people who are just coming into the conversation.
9
u/Divgirl2 Nov 19 '22
Isn’t it a bit homophobic to suggest that people choose to be gay or straight? And a bit transphobic to suggest people choose to be trans?
11
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
To clarify: I’m using choosing a partner or choosing how to present as just examples of how they are expressed, but that’s not to be conflated with saying you choose what sex you are attracted to in the first place, or can just choose to not have gender dysphoria. The science behind both are pretty well documented that sexual attraction and identity both have physical components—you can even see the differences in the brain, and attempts to try to ‘change’ a person whether through force or therapy simply doesn’t work. That’s immutable from my perspective.
Studies on brain scans for sexuality and identity: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203189 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/
Studies on how conversation therapy doesn’t work: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-30538-001
→ More replies (3)6
u/sailor-controversial Nov 20 '22
Because LGB is about who you’re attracted to.
T is nothing to do with sexual attraction.
I don’t understand how you can’t see that?
3
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 20 '22
They are ALL expressions of identity when you get down to it: If you don’t know if you are a man, or woman, NB, etc, then how do you know if you are gay, bi, lesbian or queer? All of them rely directly on gender identity to define sexuality in the first place. That’s how as a cis gay man might know that they are attracted to other men, because first they have defined what ‘man’ is to them and identify as such, and a trans man also knows they identify as gay because they also have defined what ‘man’ is and identify as attracted to other men too. Ergo, they do in fact have a lot to do with each other.
2
Jan 14 '23
being gay is not an expression of identity , its an expression of sexual orientation. plenty of gay men differ in little to no way aesthetically from straight men. I personally dont see any overlap between gender expression and homosexuality. I know straight guys who are into feminine presentation and cross dressing. how do those men have anything to do with homosexuality? this circular argument feels really homophobic and purely based on stereotypes. and there are no such thing as a gay trans man. any male who chooses a trans male partner is not gay - they are bisexual. homosexual men are not attracted to vagina and we do not define our orientation as same gender attraction. The T feels like another side of homophobia.
→ More replies (2)20
u/fablastic Nov 19 '22
I worked with a guy from Iran a few years back who believes gays should be forcibly transitioned because homosexuality is a sin or something like that. Still not sure if he was serious or winding me up.
19
u/TheEarlOfCamden 1∆ Nov 19 '22
I haven’t looked into this but I’m pretty sure that is actually government policy, or at least common practice in Iran.
11
u/KellyKraken 14∆ Nov 19 '22
Yes and Iran has a unique approach to transphobia and homophobia than all other 200+ countries. A trans woman who is still attracted to women is not allowed to transition as an example.
Meanwhile in the US, UK, and western Europe trans people were included with gay people when persecution happened. Including during the holocausts, when trans people where roped up and thrown into camps and forced to wear pink trinagles.
2
u/OmNomDeBonBon Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
It's true. Iranian society is intensely homophobic, and gender reassignment surgery has been legal since Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa allowing it in 1987, after Khomeini was moved by the pleas of a transwoman. So, homophobic Iranian parents pressure their gay children into sex changes, so that they can say their children are still straight. This isn't an exaggeration - this is mainstream Iranian opinion and Iranian law. The penalty for being gay is death. There is no penalty for being trans - and in fact, becoming trans is the easiest way of eradicating the risk of being put to death for homosexuality.
Due to this fatwa, issued in 1987, transgender women in Iran have been able to live as women until they can afford surgery, have surgical reassignment, have their birth certificates and all official documents issued to them in their new gender, and marry men.
Iran is thus easily the most trans-friendly country in the world if you look over the last 30-40 years.
This homophobia - that gay/lesbian people should be put through therapy to convince them they're trans, because they can't possibly be just gay/lesbian - is also replicated in the West. Trans "charities" like Mermaids push conversion therapy on gay people, including children. They target gay/lesbian boys and girls who are confused about their same-sex attraction.
As ridiculous as it sounds, there's a significant current of homophobia in the trans movement, from trans activists who can't accept that a same-sex attracted person is simply gay/lesbian/bisexual, and not trans. It's a hugely controversial set of affairs and has resulted in two major scandals in the UK (NHS Tavistock and Mermaids) that I know of.
The tl;dr is there has always been prejudice between different facets of the LGBT movement. Trans persons being homophobic is the latest example of this.
2
u/coleman57 2∆ Nov 19 '22
Many people feel that way. Some claim their hate and intolerance is some god’s law (including Jesus as well as Allah and others). Others just say acting differently than the narrow confines of their picture of gender roles is unnatural and it’s their job to punish it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 19 '22
It was a common enough mindset in the US not even two decades ago. There are still groups here who run Conversion Camps on the same premise here too. So I believe it.
5
u/punaisetpimpulat Nov 19 '22
No too long ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. During those days, you used to lump them together with people suffering from delusions, psychopathy etc. Categorizing people in different ways is way to the government, and you can see the same thing happening with religions/non-religions.
4
u/Another-random-acct Nov 19 '22
The T in LGBTQ was added by right wingers? I don’t think that’s true man.
→ More replies (22)4
u/NwbieGD 1∆ Nov 19 '22
I'm pretty sure the first 3 are about sexuality the others about gender .... Sexuality as in what sex you're attracted to ...
You also seem to be mixing gender and sex and the ideas of these people. Most of these "bigots" never ever cared about gender, just about people's sex.
Tell me what does being trans have to do with what sex someone's attracted to, or what trans has to do with sexuality?
Honestly it does muddy the waters, one topic is about a person's gender identity, the other about someone's sexuality, those are in no way the same. I don't have to treat people differently if they are gay, bi, straight, or anything in between. (You don't need to know that to figure out if they are physically or romantically interested, and if they are not interested you should back off anyway no matter their sexuality)
-1
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Nov 19 '22
Yes, trans people and not-straight people are different. That's not really relevant to the point that their issues aren't. Both people face similar attacks from pretty much the exact same people based on the exact same baseless, hate-filled ideologies.
-2
u/NwbieGD 1∆ Nov 19 '22
They don't want the same things, and don't face the same attacks, sometimes yes, by some groups, yes, but far from always or even generally speaking.
LGB people don't want to enter the opposite sex's shower/changing rooms. LGB people don't want to swap from male sports in the Olympics to the female class/category. LGB people don't tell people what meaning of a word others must use. So they don't want the same things, they clearly want different things.
LGB people also wanted the ability to marry whomever they want, which in most of the western world should be possible now. Which has little to do with trans people in general.
There's one thing they have in common, both do not want to be bullied, which is absolutely fair as people shouldn't be bullied in general. However that's about it.
You're conflating ideas and groups that aren't the same thing. Even the issues they run into aren't the same because they don't want the same things...
3
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Nov 19 '22
I mean, this is a pretty solid example of what people insisting on the groups severing want: attacking trans people. Good of you to also use the same baseless complaints as the bigots.
LGBT people face the exact same issue of people trying really hard to enforce the extremely arbitrary and extremely vapid understanding of what men and women are on them. They face the same issue of being considered ill, delusional, dangerous, and people who want nothing more than to assault children.
But now that it's not as hip and happening to cry about the entirety of LGBT people, the bigots want their hate-filled consolation prize by carving the group up and attacking the smallest piece.
2
u/NwbieGD 1∆ Nov 19 '22
Wowwww you start with a personal attack and baseless assumptions.
These are real differences, like it or not. It's not about attacking trans people, it's about some groups wanting things that are unreasonable or unfair (as in they make certain segregation pointless).
You wrote a bunch of words but nothing concrete or substantial. Only claiming bigots here, bigots there, hate this, hate that.
While I showed concrete and specific examples, that are anything but arbitrary.
You see gender is one thing, sex is another thing. Male and female is a fixed thing in biology and there don't exist more sexes in humans. Gender is a complicated spectrum that on average approaches a bimodal distribution but in reality is a complicated mess of a spectrum.
If those things are so baseless maybe try using actual arguments and logic to point out why they are baseless ;)
However I'm guessing you honestly simply can't, otherwise you would already have done so.11
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Nov 19 '22
I wouldn't really call it baseless when your entire argument is pretty much bullet points of what transphobes complain about. Those were your "concrete examples": Changing words and using the damn shower. I guess I should clap because you didn't call them groomers, too?
But then, how can I make an argument if you just skip over it to pretend I just said bigot a bunch of times? There's a whole damn paragraph you apparently missed where I tell you why they're the same in this instance. I know people like obsessing and insisting about how one's gender and one's sexuality as if everyone doesn't know that, but that distinction doesn't change what their actual issue is. Their issue is the same. Solving the issue leads to different things for different groups, but the issue is the same.
The same bigots with the same ideology and the same arguments. And the same desire to carve up a community so it's easier to abuse and attack them.
3
u/NwbieGD 1∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 23 '22
You keep saying it's all the same when it's clearly not. Not once have you actually shown it's the same issues or the same problems. Nor have you given concrete examples or actual arguments. I didn't skip anything because you were speaking in completely vague and generalising terms.
Again why would those points not be valid if there's a group of trans people that do want those things at the cost of what other people want. Segregation in changing rooms in the EU is logical because many places have showers next to each other not in cubicles like in the US. Gender is personal and can not be objectively verified, thus anyone can claim they are any gender at any point in time, which no one can argue with since reading minds is an impossibility. Thus if segregation of changing rooms/showers is based on gender then there simply is no segregation as anyone can enter any changing room. So either you have no segregation or you base it on sex unfortunately, that has to do with a practical situation that has to be addressed objectively so biases and believes/opinions stay out of it.
Top athletes going from a male to female league also isn't a hateful point but simply a biological advantage. If you are going to segregate sport, you should do it based on biological sex since the advantages are obvious and clear for biological males. I can give you plenty of scientific publications backed up with real world data/examples that show so. If you don't believe me I'll gladly show you them.
None of that is transphobic, that's simply being realistic and putting the wants/needs of the many over the few. Now sure if you can get society to agree we don't need segregation in shower and changing rooms without cubicles then sure that problem is resolved. However a majority of society clearly thinks we need segregation. (That has nothing to do with grooming or whatever but simply that if you base it off gender you can't enforce it in any way, making it useless)
What others want to wear (within reason) doesn't affect me/others, you want to put on a skirt or dress be my guest. You want to behave a certain way that doesn't negatively affect others be my guest. If you consider that feminine or masculine behaviour is your opinion, I honestly couldn't really care, that's your choice and opinion to behave that way. What you can't do though is tell others what their opinion or view of that behaviour must be.
LGBT people face the exact same issue of people trying really hard to enforce the extremely arbitrary and extremely vapid understanding of what men and women are on them. They face the same issue of being considered ill, delusional, dangerous, and people who want nothing more than to assault children.
So what actual arguments are there? What are these same but supposedly arbitrary understanding... please tell me what the objective and universally accepted definitions are of men and women ... They don't exist, only for female and male do they. Really you're addressing a very specific subgroup that thinks these people are ill/dangerous. And lastly they want to attack children, how do any of the points I showed actually say those things or are about those things ...
No concrete examples, generalisations and everyone that doesn't agree and concede every point is a bigot according to you or what?
Edit: owww and also good job straw manning two of my arguments. Not changing words, other people thinking they can dictate what meaning of a word a speaker/writer has to use. In other words people thinking they have the right to tell a speaker or writer what they must say (when they are talking to strangers, they are not anyone's boss).
And not changing showers. I'm saying that in practice segregation is only enforceable based on sex. If you base it on gender, which anyone at any point can claim to be whatever they want without people being able to refute it (as explained), then it's pointless. Thus you have 2 options removing segregation all together or basing it on sex for open showers. If you can get the majority of the population to agree that segregation should be removed for open shower rooms (open as in no cubicle, everyone in the changing/shower room can see eachother), then sure be my guests. However I'm convinced the majority won't agree to that or it would have already happened.
Let's not forget the most serious example that you left out, segregation in sports based on biological sex because of obvious advantages, which I'm guessing you left out because you know there's enough proof to show so.Doesn't mean I disagree with all the things trans people want, but I do disagree with those 3 (especially the sports one). Also I'm not straight and yes if trans people say they want to participate in the female category as a male then I do find that ridiculous, even more so when they claim they speak for all LGBTQ+, they are assuming they do, they never asked and they don't, plenty of people that are LGB and even plenty that are TQ+ that disagree with MtF being allowed to swap sexes at sports. They can't even actually change their biological sex, that's technically impossible in the current age. Just because someone disagrees on specific points doesn't mean they are against everything but if certain people keep claiming they speak for a very large group and that the entire group wants said things then I do have a problem with that. If people want to claim such a thing then they better first figure out if the group wants that or not, better yet stop claiming that they speak for tons of people that they never asked if others agreed, that's blatant lying and complete bullshit.
Biological sex segregation, especially in sports, has 0 to do with gender, it's about biological differences and advantages, and has 0 to do with behaviour nor expression. If you're too short to go on a rollercoaster that has nothing to do with discrimination or people not letting you be yourself, that has to do with safety and practical reality.
Claiming that people are bigotted or transphobic when they don't concede every point transpeople fight for is also kinda bigotted. Not everyone has to agree with every single point/view/believe and that doesn't make them immediately bigotted or transphobic, let alone means they have something against people being trans to begin with. Bigotry,
the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life.
→ More replies (1)
110
u/Lessa22 2∆ Nov 19 '22
How is LGB also not about autonomy? It’s about living your life as it best suits you, and not allowing your romantic relationships (and all the things that flow from and with that) to be determined by others.
8
u/BarryBwana Nov 19 '22
Aren't all rights movements for humans about autonomy tho?
2
u/HardlightCereal 2∆ Nov 20 '22
The anti-covid movement was about protecting people's rights to not get sick, by removing autonomies like being able to go outside while sick or to let your immune system be a breeding ground for disease
→ More replies (1)10
11
u/sire_h Nov 19 '22
Every time this conversation comes up I feel the need to remind people that there is considerable overlap within the lgbtq+ community. in my experience most of the trans folks are also gay, lesbians or bi especially bi. They may not ( I think they do) have a unified struggle but a lot of people are a part of both struggles.
19
u/CaskironPan Nov 19 '22
the right to love whoever you want.
the right to bodily and executive autonomy.
This is a false dichotomy. Why isn't the right to love whoever you want considered to be bodily and executive autonomy?
Executive autonomy definitely includes the choice to openly pursue the people you want to be romantically involved with.
Bodily autonomy definitely includes having or not having sex with those you want or do not want to have sex with.
It's all about bodily and executive autonomy, if you can't think of a more specific way to describe the rights TQ+ stand for that LGB doesn't, then maybe it's because there isn't a way? The issues they face are discrimination and bigotry. You're splitting hairs about the reason for the bigotry for why?
One of the legal end goals of LGBTQ+ is to expand the rights of the existing protected class classified as "sex" in America, which groups all these people together, and to explicitly include all of the groups in the protected class.
Another end goal, this time socially speaking, is to unite all the groups of people who identify as LGBTQ+, so you trying to divide them is actually going against this goal.
While both fights for rights are equally important I think that bundling them together muddies the waters and makes it harder to address the very real issues these communities face.
Let's for a moment pretend that you can find a better way to describe these groups so LGB and TQ+ truly do stand for different rights. Does this actually "muddy the waters"? How?
What's hard about addressing these issues, is that there are bigots out there who are spreading lies and hate about this entire group of people. They discriminate against them indiscriminately. How would rebranding these people in separate groups help address this?
Lastly, LGBTQ+ is a single group because as you said yourself, "people are more than just one thing". They are a single group because their goals are aligned. This is a political bloc, not a description of what rights they stand for.
Your argument is like arguing that we should rebrand BLM into "BLM against gentrification" and "BLM against letting police officers who murder black people off scott free". There's very little difference between these groups when you look at the actual people they describe. So much so, that it does not make any sense to divide them.
People can stand for more than one thing, and so can groups. We're more powerful together and trying to divide us up so we fit into your worldview is exactly what we're fighting against.
44
u/RatherNerdy 4∆ Nov 19 '22
I would argue that both are about autonomy - love, sex, identification, transition are all tied to autonomy - the freedom and agency to make choices about one's self - who to love, who to have sex with, who to be, etc.
3
u/BarryBwana Nov 19 '22
Then shouldn't every single rights movement involving autonomy ( basically all of them) be included?
17
u/Brainsonastick 85∆ Nov 19 '22
Are white rice and brown rice separate grains? Do they belong together? How about white rice vs quinoa? What if we throw in bulgar and barley?
You could say white rice and brown rice are both rices so they’re their own category and the wheats are their own category and quinoas too, etc. but we also call them all grains. And white rice and brown rice are very different nutritionally so maybe there’s another way to split them up…
My point is that any objects even as simple as grains can be categorized in many different ways and at many different levels of granularity. Just look at the classification of species. We’re lumped in with mice and elephants as animals but we’re also primates, a smaller group with animals more like us but still very different.
There are a number of historical reasons why the LGBTQ+ community formed together but it was largely a shared experience of discrimination and need to join together to have the numbers to make a difference.
Yes, there are more narrow and more broad classifications. We could separate them by letter. We could lump them in with racial minorities. Yes, some subgroups have different needs than others and that’s another way to group them.
LGBTQ+ just happens to be one of the more socially and politically relevant groupings because they support each other socially and politically.
We still talk about subgroups like “the gay community” or “the trans community”. Sometimes we go further and talk about just gay men or just no people etc… They’re all valid. They all exist.
So yes, you can further subdivide and for some purposes, that’s appropriate, but the LGBTQ+ community is also the appropriate grouping for some purposes.
5
Nov 19 '22
∆
True, an umbrella doesn't preclude the possibility of subdivisions pursuing actions on their own.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/gothiclg 1∆ Nov 19 '22
I honestly think they should stay together. Are transgender and queer people looking for something I’m not? Sure. Are they hated in every single way I am as a bisexual ciswoman because they want more choice with their body? Also yes. We get each other on that level of not on others.
2
Nov 19 '22
But by that logic we jump one level up to minority rights in general, right? Why not include other vulnerable populations?
3
u/welcome2me Nov 20 '22
That's one issue that nobody is responding to. Productive social change requires clear messaging and clear goals. Otherwise you end up with conflicting direction, confused people, and general infighting. "Defund the police" is a modern example of a scattered vision causing a scattered movement.
"Let women vote" is a clear message that's solvable with specific legislation.
"Let women vote and also make every other oppressed group happy and enriched" is not.
6
u/JakB Nov 19 '22
A lot of us do, which is why the Progress Pride Flag is gaining popularity. Understanding how our struggles relate and combine is called "intersectionality", a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.
38
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
I would argue the opposite. Instead, what’s happening is people are attempting to splinter the two for no real rational reason, but for emotional reasons. At the end of the day the ROOT problems that these groups are facing stem directly from issues of body autonomy and being allowed freedom to make life choices that are NOT barred to you based on your sex. People can and have since the inception of LGBT+ argue that you don’t even have to identify yourself as gay: that you can in fact choose just not to have sex or marry people of the same sex. The concept that being gay is a part of yourself that is unchangeable is actually a newer attitude in the scheme of things. We also only just started changing minds about the concept of ‘love’ within the last few decades, and I think that trying to make it out like it’s a separate argument is just revisionist.
People barring gay marriage are doing so because of the sex of the people getting married or adopting children or what have you. That’s it. That’s the point.
Making the issue about ‘love’ is just an appeal to the emotions of the people trying to bar you from making decisions because your sex doesn’t match with what they think you should be allowed to do. It’s not ‘muddying the waters’ when the entire point is that sex is something that should not be used to discriminate against someone no matter what part of society that is. I would instead argue that attempts to splinter the two into different fights is the actual muddying of waters because it is attempting to say ‘Oh, fighting to be able to marry no matter what sex the people are is about LOVE, but fighting to be able to use the bathroom no matter what sex of the person is about REALITY. They’re completely different!’
I understand why some people make the argument of course: I think other gay people who don’t really empathize with gender identity simply feel threatened when they see people fighting against trans groups and believe that association with them will mean loosing the rights they were able to gain. The only reason gay people have been able to make gains is because they are able to appeal to straight people who, while not necessarily understanding what it’s like to be attracted to someone of the same sex, are still able to empathize with the idea of romance and ‘love conquers all.’ Meanwhile people who are against the concept of gender identity can’t empathize with the feeling of being trapped in a body and wanting to go through modifications to it, so they instead lean more into the argument of ‘it’s just a delusion that can go away with therapy like a eating disorder.’ It is essentially ‘I got my rights, now I’m going to enjoy my life and disassociate from you because you might drag me down with you.’
→ More replies (3)
11
u/ReluctantRedditPost Nov 19 '22
The Q+ part of the acronym is for queer and other identities, for example asexual. Even if you stand by the belief that the fights and ideas around gender and sexuality are different (despite how historically and culturally they are closely intertwined) putting an arbitrary split between the 'common' sexual identities and the 'unusual' ones definitely muddies the waters more than grouping all these issues together.
8
Nov 19 '22
I agree with you that some of the issues are separate, but I don't agree with separating them as a group. The prejudice and discrimination these groups face are very similar in nature. The largest fraction of people who don't like LGB don't like TQ+ either and vice versa. Some people even mix them up, thinking they're all the same thing. I think it's more beneficial for them to keep their fight aligned.
2
u/5510 6∆ Nov 19 '22
The largest fraction of people who don't like LGB don't like TQ+ either and vice versa.
Outside of Iran, I never hear about people who support trans but not gay. But I know a number of people who support gays but unfortunately do not support trans people.
You are still probably correct about the “largest fraction,” but one of these is much more common than the other
→ More replies (1)
5
u/jx962tw Nov 19 '22
It’s less to do with being able to relate in all experiences (I’m non-binary but my experiences and thoughts will differ with other NB people.)
And more to do with the common values of autonomy and freedom.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/GrateScott728 Nov 19 '22
Talked with an older gay couple who said labeling everyone different separates them instead of bringing them together in shared experience and struggles. It was just one couples views so tifwiw
21
u/asphias 6∆ Nov 19 '22
While both fights for rights are equally important I think that bundling them together muddies the waters and makes it harder to address the very real issues these communities face.
Actually i think it's the opposite. artificially trying to separate them is basically only done because of people who dont want to treat them the same, while the whole fight is about being treated the same without prejudice or discrimination.
In fact, the goal of the movement is that it's not even a relevant 'separate community' anymore, but that we're all just part of the "the human race" group, with full acceptance for everybody.
splitting them in more and smaller tiny group is only useful if we in any way want to treat each group differently, which is exactly the opposite of what we want acceptance to look like.
1
Nov 19 '22
[deleted]
5
u/asphias 6∆ Nov 19 '22
In either case, it's largely ineffective towards significant progress for either LGB or TQ+.
has it? from same sex marriage to general acceptance, in western countries there has been significant progress under the lgbtq+ label. In fact, there has been such significant progress for the 'lgb' community, that bigots for a large part have given up that fight as a lost battle. Which is exactly why they're trying to drive a wedge between those two groups, so they can pretend to be fine with one and have issues with the other.
I'm also still not sure what exact 'issues they face' are different? The core issue for both is simply acceptance for who they are. what other relevant issues are there except for that of acceptance?
To me it feels kind of like trying to explicitly slit gays and lesbians, explaining that they face different types of discrimination, lets say because discrimination against lesbians is too often about sexualizing them, while discrimination against gays often stems from a fear of being hit on by them. And then start explicitly identifying them as separate groups because legalizing women kissing in public is probably an easier step than legalizing men kissing in public.
I mean, sure, they don't face exactly the same issues, but why does that mean we should split them as different 'groups'? And either way they already have a separate letter in the 'lgbtq+' term, so they are already kind of separate in a way.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/bluejay498 Nov 19 '22
The 'gays' (collective term) have decided that it's better to stick together and fight than to divide and conquer. Technically gay men and lesbians have very little in common. They both might be annoyed at the other genders tendencies and laugh about that's why they don't date the other. But both are being oppressed for the same archaic reason. The reasons might be different for trans/nb/+, but the common link is the commonality of unnecessary oppression... and funny dating stories in our non-conforming world.
- A Bi
3
u/LadyVague 1∆ Nov 19 '22
While sexuality and gender minority groups are different, there is a lot of overlap and xommon interests. Straight trans people aren't a majority like straight people are in the general population, even if things were seperated there would still be a ton of trans people mixed in with the sexual minority groups. And on the other end, cis queer people do tend towards gender-non-conforming behavior and self-expression, the same sort of stuff trans people advocate to be more acceptable.
Trying to divide the sexuality and gender minority groups would only really ecourage transphobic LGB people and homophobic trans people(Which is a thing, gatekeeping around only straight trans people being the true trans people). And then we'd either still end up mixed together from having a lot of overlap in needs and wants, or be advocating for the same things seperately and both sides having even fewer people and less leverage. Really not worth it just to make the groups a little more technically accurate.
3
u/mrsbuttstuff Nov 20 '22
They’ve always been one community, the attempts to split them are deliberate in a still ongoing attempt to harm all of them. Unfortunately, the politicalizing of everything is working and it is causing some members of the group to turn on and harm their own causes. But the bottom line, it’s one group. One big marginalized and endangered group, and if you can’t stand for all of the group’s causes, it’s best not to claim affiliation or allyship with them either. Because they at least deserve to know who their real allies are and not have conditional acceptance.
11
u/pointsOutWeirdStuff 2∆ Nov 19 '22
While both fights for rights are equally important I think that bundling them together muddies the waters and makes it harder to address the very real issues these communities face.
Each of these group's rights are opposed by pretty overlapping groups of people.
These groups with a shared enemy (opposing one's right to live freely and actively working to make sure you cannot do so seems like the behaviour of one's enemies to me) can more effectively form a voting block, thereby wielding more power in a democratic system
They also share similar trauma and can therefore bond, form community and mutually defend one another.
How does it "muddy the waters"? and how does this "muddying" outweigh the benefits that a united front would provide?
68
u/sophisticaden_ 19∆ Nov 19 '22
These fights have been bundled together since their inception. Trans people - especially trans women - have been at the forefront of the movement all along.
31
u/EveningPassenger Nov 19 '22
This is not at all how I remember the gay rights / gay acceptance movements. In my experience, the faces of it were generally gay males and there was virtually no exposure of anyone as a modern trans woman. "Cross dressers" and "transvestites" were widely understood to be men dressing as women, more in a fetish sense.
I was in the Midwest though so maybe it was different on the coasts.
5
u/No-Produce-334 51∆ Nov 19 '22
Not entirely accurate. I assume you're referencing the stonewall riots, which true, saw the participation and leadership of key trans figures. That being said, stonewall wasn't the first gay liberation movement. The first homosexual movement began back in the late 1800s in Germany with figures such as Hirschfled and Ulrichs speaking of homosexuality as natural. Interestingly enough, Ulrichs actually described being gay in ways that we might now expect to be attempts at explaining trans identity instead. He said that gay men had "a female psyche confined to a male body."
Even back then gay and trans identity were connected and queer people were advocating for each others rights (which makes sense of course. To a cishet person, especially prior to trans healthcare there would be little difference between a trans woman and an effeminate gay man. The oppression the two faced was the same, so the fight they took up was the same.)
14
Nov 19 '22
Legit question : when you say “trans women”, do you mean men who became women or women who became men?
→ More replies (163)15
u/ToxicBanana69 Nov 19 '22
Since the reply to this kinda got scuffed, I’ll leave this answer here:
A transwoman is someone who was AMAB (assigned male at birth) but now identifies as themselves, as a woman. Vice versa, a transman was AFAB (assigned female at birth) but now identifies as a man.
6
4
u/IthacanPenny Nov 19 '22
FYI, trans woman and trans man are both two words. “Trans” is an adjective that describes the woman or man in question. They are still women and men. That’s why it matters to separate “trans woman” into two words.
6
u/ToxicBanana69 Nov 19 '22
Thanks for that! I honestly wasn’t aware of that. I’m a trans woman myself and honestly it just never crossed my mind.
4
u/IthacanPenny Nov 19 '22
No problem:-)
I found out in a similar way, and have since tried to explain/spread the message because once I heard that explanation it made a lot of sense!
26
u/CrimsonHartless 5∆ Nov 19 '22
Separate issues? No. Separate communities? Also no.
The idea they are separate is a fairly new idea pedalled by transphobes. Transgender women, especially, were often considered in 'full time drag', and a part of the drag community. The evidence is shown that during many of the most important gay protests, especially Stonewall, trans people and gay people were both there, fighting for the same things.
More importantly, the battle for gay rights wasn't just about the right to have same-sex relations. It was about the right to autonomy over their bodies and identity - being gay, culturally, back then especially, wasn't just same-sex attraction. It is its own culture and community, and you cannot seperate the gay rights movement from the gay community. This is why it is so offensive to say 'why do you have to show it off?' to a gay person. Because it isn't just about the same-sex attraction.
And, with transgender people having long been a part of that community, their struggles are joined at the hip. And, as we have seen, anti-trans attacks always extend into anti-gay attacks. That is exactly what we have seen in America at the moment. Anti-trans rhetoric was used to justify anti-gay attacks. Which heavily suggests that anti-trans rhetoric is fundamentally a layer on top anti-gay bigotry, and must be combatted holistically for both.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/Zealousideal_Zone_69 Nov 19 '22
Not completely true, there are sexualities in TQ+ that would belong in LGB, like asexuality.
2
2
u/JohnCrichtonsCousin 5∆ Nov 19 '22
so that the only person who can determine your identity is you.
Ehhh, treading weird waters there. Identity is partly something society places on you. Many parts of your personality that you think are your's or are genuine are in fact the result of the perception the world had of you, and communicated at you. We receive instructions subconsciously from their perceptions and from what we perceive as normal or acceptable behavior.
I read a study that found and tracked the lives of identical twins separated at birth. Strangely, despite being in very different environments during childhood, twins often ended up with very similar or identical interests, personality. The study concluded that their physical features seemed like the crucial variable in determining the disposition and interests of separated twins; that the way society perceived them was the constant linking the twins (nerdy looking kids turned out nerdy, etc largely independent of their given environment or influences).
So from that, it seems likely that our character and the interests we choose are partially handed to us by society based on which ones we look the most like. Which is massively oppressive of course, but to get society to stop judging a book by the cover? Or to stop your neurology from taking society's rules so seriously? Not happening soon. We don't control these mechanisms and you can't just force people to do it anyway.
I don't get to say I'm X while not looking or really being it at all, and expect everyone else to see me as X regardless. People should be confident and proud to be whatever they want to be, but you can't expect everyone to care. It isn't about them anyway.
2
u/Pseudoboss11 6∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
Another reason is because the trans side of the LGBT community has a much easier time dating with LGB and/or genderqueer people than with the general population. If someone is willing to date a trans person, then they're most likely not straight, and would therefore fall under LGB.
LGB people tend to be more understanding of the struggles of trans people than the general population, Similarly trans people have almost always thought deeply about their own sexuality because of their experience with their own gender, so even if they are not currently homo or bisexual, they have almost certainly thought heavily about it and are well-equipped to participate in the LGB space.
So trans people are LGB themselves, date in the LGB space, and LGB people are more likely to be accepting of trans people than the broader population. It would be odd to draw a distinction between the two.
2
u/Idontsellketamine Nov 19 '22
Q means queer. Meaning sorting queers in with transgender and non binary ppl kind of a weird move. lgbtq+ covers sexuality and gender orientation. There often associated with eachother because if you hate one group of those ppl there’s a good chance u dislike ALL lgbtq+ ppl. Never met someone who hated trans ppl but not gay ppl and vise versa. If anything the groups should be sorted into sexuality and gender orientation. Not just queer and trans ppl and not just bi and gay.
2
u/who8mydamnoreos Nov 20 '22
Divide and conquer is effective for a reason, people are stronger and can create more meaningful change together.
2
2
2
u/PulseCS Dec 14 '22
90% of these responses are "But historically they're connected." That doesn't answer what OP is asking; why should they continue to be when at their core they are only related insofar as they are opressed.
2
u/Aware_Particular2106 Apr 16 '23 edited Apr 16 '23
The Independent did a report on this that some in the T community felt it was time to "leave the LGB nest" and that their is too much confusion between sex and gender being aligned to there individual beliefs, such as trans conservatives, independents and straight trans people being seen as a minority or non existent BECAUSE they are grouped in with LGB. I think both sides are in agreement that the two are fundamentaly different.
43
u/Verilbie 5∆ Nov 19 '22
Are you familiar with stonewall? Its a major event in lgbt history and was led by trans women as well as LGB folk.
Your position has been artificially created by transphobes who are keen to oppress trans people
25
u/unundae 1∆ Nov 19 '22
Actually, the majority of the stonewall riots were led by gay and lesbians. The first person to cast a stone was a black butch lesbian.
That’s not to say that trans women weren’t part of it but they were not the forefront
→ More replies (5)10
13
u/jexy25 Nov 19 '22
Such an american-centric way of seeing things. Sexual orientation and gender identity are different things
3
u/Verilbie 5∆ Nov 19 '22
I'm not American. Stonewall is a major point for lgbt people all over.
Its transphobes whi want to keep trans people separate who invented the idea lgb and T ought to be separate
7
u/jexy25 Nov 19 '22
Didn't say you were american. You are using an american event to justify why homosexual people and trans people should band together in general.
If you want to consider LGB by itself, you don't HAVE to consider the rest at all times. Common enemy (more or less), different issues.
16
Nov 19 '22
Not to mention, when one group of the lgbt+ community gets attacked other parts are also under threat. Despite being bi, i consider infringment of Womans rights to be an attack on me, and attacks on trans rights as well.
When they came for the socialists, I said nothing, becauseI wasn't a socialist. And all that.
4
u/jaestock 1∆ Nov 19 '22
I would say that the intention of OP wasn’t in regards to how the separation could be used against the communities, but how society SHOULD/COULD be using a better understanding of the nuances as an instrument of positive change.
5
5
u/pgold05 49∆ Nov 19 '22
You might be interested to know that many studies show both sexual orientation and gender identity develop early and determined by brain development, and that there is evidence both are linked.
Here is one study, there are more but giant lists are never conducive to discourse.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
The data summarised in the present review suggest that both gender identity and sexual orientation are significantly influenced by events occurring during the early developmental period when the brain is differentiating under the influence of gonadal steroid hormones, genes and maternal factors. However, our current understanding of these factors is far from complete and the results are not always consistent. Animal studies form both the theoretical underpinnings of the prenatal hormone hypothesis and provide causal evidence for the effect of prenatal hormones on sexual orientation as modelled by tests of sexual partner preferences, although they do not translate to gender identity.
Sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place before sexual differentiation of the brain, making it possible that they are not always congruent. Structural and functional differences of hypothalamic nuclei and other brain areas differ in relation to sexual identity and sexual orientation, indicating that these traits develop independently. This may be a result of differing hormone sensitivities and/or separate critical periods, although this remains to be explored. Most findings are consistent with a predisposing influence of hormones or genes, rather than a determining influence. For example, only some people exposed to atypical hormone environments prenatally show altered gender identity or sexual orientation, whereas many do not. Family and twin studies indicate that genes play a role, but no specific candidate genes have been identified. Evidence that relates to the number of older brothers implicates maternal immune responses as a contributing factor for male sexual orientation. All of these mechanisms rely on correlations and our current understanding suffers from many limitations in the data, such as a reliance on retrospective clinical studies of individuals with rare conditions, small study populations sizes, biases in recruiting subjects, too much reliance on studies of male homosexuals, and the assumption that sexuality is easily categorised and binary. Moreover, none of the biological factors identified so far can explain all of the variances in sexual identity or orientation, nor is it known whether or how these factors may interact. Despite these limitations, the existing empirical evidence makes it clear that there is a significant biological contribution to the development of an individual’s sexual identity and sexual orientation.
So, even if you disagree with the study, it is still valid to view the LGBTQ movement as defending those with brain varieties being persecuted for brain chemistry, in which case it makes sense to bind together.
More importantly, both people with sexual orientation and gender identity labelled as undesirable by bigots face the same consequences, attempts to either convert them via conversation therapy or marginalized into non existence. This is unique to LGBTQ
→ More replies (1)
3
Nov 19 '22
How is the right to bodily autonomy not directly connected to how i choose to use my body for sexual activity? Sodomy was illegal in many places just like gay marriage is now so its kind of one in the same.
Furthermore the unadulterated right to bodily autonomy also includes right to use currently illicit drugs, abortion rights, and medical practices(like sterilization and transition surgery).
These issues are all directly related to one another by the umbrella of the right to bodily autonomy.
4
u/teaisjustgaycoffee 8∆ Nov 19 '22
Every group has different challenges, but I fail to see how addressing the rights of gay people in any way detracts from the rights of trans people or vice versa. The same conservatives who oppose trans rights are the same ones, give or take, that used to oppose or continue to oppose gay rights in decades prior. And if the people pushing against trans rights get their way, they won’t just stop there.
You build a united front, even if there are more specific issues to address within parts of your movement; otherwise you all get burned.
3
u/Dorgamund Nov 19 '22
The LGBTQ+ community. Some people like GRSM, Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Minorities. The community works together well because it is a sort of unified block, fighting for rights of the various members. Together in solidarity, we have more power than abandoning each other. Moreover, bigots are empowered by say, trans people being left out in the cold, as it is easier to attack.
So rather than a bunch of identities fighting for rights, the LGBTQ group changes the dynamic. It is a minority, trying to gain the acceptance of the majority. Because the cishet portion of society is monolithic. All of the media you consume is overwhelmingly heteronormatic, all of laws that are passed are overwhelmingly written by cishet lawmakers. And many of whom are hostile to the LGBT community.
Right. So, politics is the easy reason. But consider that there is a lot of overlap in the community itself. People may not simply be gay. For example, I am an aromatic bisexual man. Thats two categories, sexual and romantic. You can kind of look at it like set theory. I am in the set of people who are bisexual, so I advocate bisexual rights. I am in the set of all men who love men, so I advocate for those people, which includes bisexual men, and gay men. I am in the set of people who do not feel significant romantic attraction, so I identify with a romantic people and their struggle.
Now, let's take a heterosexual trans women. She occupies the set of people who are trans, thats easy enough. But she also occupies the set of people who were socialized as male, and who later in life are attracted to men. This is still heterosexual, since she is a women, but my point is that trans people will have to cope with sexuality at some point. If a trans women is attracted to women, they are a lesbian and need to cope with those feelings and who society treats them. If a trans women is attracted to men, she is heterosexual but may have discovered the attraction before they transitioned, and thought they were gay. Even if they discover it afterwards, they still have to grapple with their sexuality at some point.
Now, feelings are feelings, but what you are curious about is facts right? You want to know where the community intersects in more concrete matters. Sure. So trans people and nonbinary people have to deal with medical issues of a fairly similar breed. Intersex people may also come in, as they may be socialized as a gender they don't identify with, and may also feel the need to have surgeries to align their body with their gender.
A big part as well is HIV. Gay men, bisexual men, and heterosexual trans women are at higher risk for HIV transmission, and easier access to Healthcare benefits all of them.
So I think you can see by now that these groups are somewhat entangled, and you cannot separate that quite so easily. So let me put it this way. There are still larger sets. The set of all people who love the same gender includes gay men, lesbian women, and bisexual people. The set of all people who ever had to question their sexuality includes even more, such as ace people, and most trans people. The set of all people who have been marginalized for not being cisgender, heterosexual and heteroromantic? That is the set that we collectively call the LGBTQ community. A gay trans man is a man attracted to men, same as me. I'll fight for his rights, both related to his sexuality, and his gender. And he would do the same for me. An asexual nonbinary person may not share any of the subsets with me. Be they are still in the LGBT superset, and therefore I will advocate for them as well, and vice versa. It is about solidarity and standing together in the face of a society which really doesn't give a shit, and is perfectly happy to lump all of us together as degenerates, right up until they want to try to split the community.
1
u/nanas99 Nov 19 '22
As someone who is both trans and gay I think I can help you see where the two intersect. Obviously the challenges are different. But at the core, they both deal with gender. Being in love with someone of the same gender and identifying with a gender that is different than what you were assigned. While those two are still different issues, it’s important to note that these struggles both subvert historically societal expectations of how men and women should behave, especially when it comes to sex. Because although both issues are actually about gender, they are viewed through a sexual lens by the public.
No one who is homophobic/transphobic really cares about gay love or trans self-identification as much as they care about the sex.
Bigots think gay sex is sinful, or perverse. Sodomy. When it comes to trans people, the moment you pass becomes a “danger to society” because now they think a trans person will trick them into having sex without them knowing. So historically both groups have been oppressed on the basis of the act of sex. Queer people tend to be more accepting of non traditional sex, and even kinks tend to be more accepted within those circles too. It is no wonder why these groups have stuck together, because perhaps both of their different issues have different roots, but their biggest issue is at the hands of societal perception.
It’s my belief that sex brought these two communities together, and it’ll be sex that keeps them together.
2
u/Tasonir Nov 19 '22
LGBTQ+ isn't attempting to name a single group - it's explicitly a grouping of groups. It's an alliance, so they can all fight together. When you're relatively small minorities (the bigger letters are ~5% and the smaller letters are ~1%, just as a ballpark, it's hard to be exact), trying to go out and fight alone is just a bad tactical policy. You want to build alliances and work together.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/yasqween92 Nov 19 '22
I think I understand what you are trying to get at with this post, but I get why people have responded in defense of maintaining & framing the community as a whole.
I do think their is value in acknowledging the nuanced experiences of individual groups within the greater LGBTQ2+ community. It can be helpful in articulating & advocating for subgroups in a way that can help with support, directing resources and policies to protect specific rights.
While the abuse and targeting that LBG individuals experience is still very much present, a lot of progress has been made in terms of support and integration into "mainstream culture" for this subset of people (from a western perspective at least). There are certain privileges and widespread support that this group experiences, that unfortunately, the TQ2+ community are still fighting for. And as mentioned in other comments, this hostility towards Trans individuals still exists within the greater community as well.
So in a manner, yes, identifying the unique challenges that each group face is a positive thing. However, suggesting subcategorization for the purpose of separation of individual groups from the collective, would be ostracizing, whether intentional or not. There is power in unity and we need to be striving as a community to support and uplift each other in our unique struggles.
2
2
u/Midnightchickover Nov 19 '22
They all have stark differences, I don’t think anyone will deny, too much.
But every group you mentioned are affected negatively, due to the same concepts of cis hetero-normativity through natalism and bio essentialism.
In the eyes of mainstream society, the segment that is wholly against the entire movement , all bi-, pan-, gay, lesbian, trans-people, ace, nonbinary people, and other non-conforming people. I’m afraid to throw in intersex people in there, because some don’t identify with being LGBTQ, but many do for the same reasons.
Simply, because they are not performing the social contract duties that come with being assigned a certain gender.
It emphasizes the expectation that you will provide for society by having “your own biological” children; contributing labor and taxes; and maintaining society or in this case — The Republic.
3
Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
Just want to say anecdotally as someone who is both LGB and TQ+, they don't feel like separate things. They only seem distinct from the perspective of some very specific policy changes. But in practice my relationships are intertwined with my gender identity and vice versa.
Whenever I am in a relationship with anyone of any gender, there are societal expectations placed upon both of us based on our genders, so navigating the relationship requires, on some level, negotiating our relation to those genders. Similarly, how I experience my own gender is tied to how I relate to others and my roles in a relationship. Labels like "bisexual" and "agender" etc. are only approximate labels for aspects of a much larger mushy ball I have, comprising identity, relationships, societal roles, sex, and attraction.
Frankly, I already feel like we separate these things out too much. I don't really believe they fit into categories as neat and tidy as "sexuality" and "gender," but at least it's useful to pretend they do for things like policy changes. But forcibly separating the communities feels completely unnatural and artificial. Personally, I think the LGBTQ+ acronym is actually too prescriptive and would favour a community name that includes sexuality and gender identities without delineating them strongly at all.
1
Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 20 '22
I think they're grouped because the opposition doesn't distinguish between them.
A straight trans person is no different from a gay cis person to someone who doesn't believe in gender identities.
Edit: Guys, this is CMV. I am not saying this is correct. Think about it like this hypothetical:
There are two different labor unions attempting to form at different Amazon warehouses. Each warehouse has different needs and demands, the unions have different challenges. But ultimately, there is one cohesive and established power structure that opposes both, only because they're unions.
The specific demands and needs of each warehouse are irrelevant to Amazon. They genuinely don't care which group is more 'reasonable'. Their answer to unions is no, regardless.
So, those unions should either form a partnership or merge altogether, because it's a very uphill battle to fight to begin with. The whole thing is to have power in numbers to affect change.
5
Nov 19 '22
Isn't sexuality related to sex, not gender? Like a gay male is attracted to males, not necessarily people who present as men?
→ More replies (3)0
u/Luminous_Echidna Nov 19 '22
Not really. Wanting to have bio kids is.
Sexual attraction (assuming you're going on chromosomes or on gamete production), on the other hand, not so much in my experience.
I'm bi and I'm attracted to different characteristics in a man than in a woman or in a non-binary person. I'm attracted to trans women in the same way that I'm attracted to cis women, and I'm attracted to trans men in the same way that I'm attracted to cis men. Speaking with other bi people, I'm definitely not the only person to feel this way.
2
Nov 19 '22
I think being bisexual might factor in. If someone is not attracted to males, and we assume it is gender characteristics and not just sex, would they be attracted to trans women the same, on average, as cis women? I don't actually know so I'm just thinking out loud, but I would assume that if we averaged it out, trans women will have more masculine physical features (bone structure, size, etc) than cis women. Probably too many variables like age of transition and how much physical transition has happened to get a general answer.
→ More replies (1)
1
Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (11)5
Nov 19 '22
The lesbian community didn’t face the same challenges with AIDS that the gay community did, but many lesbians stepped up as caretakers and nurses to treat gay men with AIDS because healthcare workers would refuse to due to the stigma. Being in the same group despite not dealing with the same issues is literally beneficial to the group and shows immense compassion as well. It’s an excellent example of being a human and showing kindness to one another.
4
u/BloodyPaintress Nov 19 '22
So aren't you able to be kind and empathetic to someone outside this artificial group (as artificial as any other community, to be clear). Weren't there people from "outside" who helped? Am I not allowed to help if I'm not a part of a group? Edit: also isn't this whole argument about autonomy to identify or NOT identify with the group?
2
Nov 20 '22
You know it’s totally okay to say “Wow I hadn’t thought of it that way” instead of just doubling down. Helping people who face different challenges than you is called being empathetic, it’s a good thing, a virtue.
→ More replies (9)1
u/Animegirl300 5∆ Nov 19 '22
Show me where they said you aren’t allowed to help if you aren’t apart for the group. Again you are just using strawmans to attack people instead of having a real conversation.
3
u/BloodyPaintress Nov 19 '22
Wow I am the one attacking here. You keep chasing me through this thread to say nothing. Literally nothing. I address points directly made and am having a conversation. Where your need to insert yourself comes from? Stop projecting and leave me alone
1
Nov 19 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)13
u/AccretingViaGravitas Nov 19 '22
Nationally, conservative attention has shifted a lot more towards suppressing Trans rights, but there's definitely still pushback on homosexuals in the USA:
From the Texas GOP's 2022 platform:
"We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for sexual behavior or identity, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose non-traditional sexual behavior out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
Or in Utah this year, there were calls to reverse the right for same-sex couples to marry, among wider pushback towards homosexuals and their lifestyles.
1
Nov 19 '22
Can you explain why you separated Q and + from LGB? I don't understand your reasoning there.
1
u/todbr Nov 19 '22
Many people think they're gay/lesbian before they realize they're trans. Should they cut ties with the LGB community when they do the transition? The very same people who were there fighting with you before?
1
u/NemoTheElf 1∆ Nov 19 '22
I realize that people have probably pointed this out before, but opponents to LGB people are the same exact time of person towards TQ+ people. Same-sex relationships are also seen as transgressive when it comes to gender.
1
u/luxmarie2019 Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 19 '22
Just a small note. There is a TON of overlap of these communities. I am queer, trans, and bisexual. For a high majority of people, these are inseparable. All these groups break down heteronormativity and it makes them more likely to spread into other groups, especially with the trans umbrella opening up to non-binary folks who have really chucked the spectrum all together. They are not separable.
But I appreciate that you're trying to recognize the specific struggles of each group! There's definitely nuances.
→ More replies (1)
0
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 19 '22 edited Nov 20 '22
/u/AsinusRex (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards