I feel like people might think this is figurative, or like maybe it’s a simplistic story, but it’s very real. In the 70s, it was never “LGBT” it was gay organizations, lesbian organizations, transsexual or transvestite organizations, gay and lesbian organizations, but not all together. It was only the threat posed by the AIDS crisis that spurred the creation of organizations like Queer Nation it was in this climate that the coalition building happened, and where things like equal marriage became a rallying cry (as many people watched their loved ones die and have their affairs revert to–often homophobic–next of kin rather than their lifelong partners)
Divide and conquer is an age old strategy.
Trans isn’t really the same sort of thing as Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Ace (which all describe sexual partner preferences not gender identities/expression) and I think that confuses people sometimes
And? Trans individuals were fighting alongside the rest of us for gay rights, gay marriage, etc, since the very beginning. People forget it was the out, loud and proud “freaks” and “weirdos” that spearhead the movement because they were brave enough to speak out when the rest of us couldn’t/wouldn’t. Many of them were trans individuals who put themselves in danger for the cause. Now the heat is off us and is on them, and we hang them out to dry because some people “might be confused”? Anyone with this mentality can please fuck right off.
Never said there should be no solidarity, but Trans people were/are also huge civil rights activists and we haven’t added races into the acronym—was just pointing out that it can cause confusion.
And I’m asking why it should matter in this context. Even in its earliest form the gay rights movement considered gender non-conforming individuals as an inherent part of the community, and no one cared if others were confused (frankly, they were all too busy fighting for their fucking lives). Why should we care to differentiate now when our predecessors didn’t at a time when their safety and lives were at stake? Only reason it’s being questioned now is because, exactly as the comic points out, the issue is being pushed by far right groups to create a wedge between us.
I agree it’s worth explaining—here’s my logic
Public understanding is an important part of changing social norms. People need to be able to conceptualize things in order to understand them. Using clear terminology is an important part of this. Lumping together sexual preferences with gender expression muddies understanding.
Some people think others should simply tolerate differences but I think we are looking for acceptance and not mere tolerance. I think acceptance requires understanding. I think clear terminology aides understanding.
We added races to the flag though. Intersectionality is the way.
And there’s a reason my generation embraced the word “queer” because it encompassed anyone gender nonconforming without demanding that they define themselves. Trans, gay, nonbinary, ace are all gender nonconforming identities in some way.
As a Gen X, “queer” still makes me wince internally since I remember when it was only a slur and hadn’t been taken back. But I’m glad it was!
I feel like millennials are in a weird place with this one? I personally grew up in the f***** world, hearing queer in any context almost never. It was a word I mostly read in old and fantasy books that meant strange or unusual. Don’t get me wrong, I’m from the south and knew and know all the slurs (I’ve always had the unseemly duty of teaching my wife what slurs mean when she encounters a new one in art or media =/) but queer wasn’t in regular circulation in my life. To me, the weird part about the reclamation was that it felt like reviving a dead word.
Yeah I’m the tail end of Gen X and “genderqueer” also still makes me wince, though I understand the reclaiming. I much prefer genderfluid. It just sounds so nice lol
I’m genderqueer, but growing up in a crappy little Midwest town, not conforming to gender norms meant I was “gay” and I was bullied for being gay. The bigots we’re never confused, they are out to get us all.
And so my closest friends were and are the LGBT+ fam, because our reasons and identities may be different, but the prejudices we face are remarkably similar.
June being pride month was literally started by a trans woman throwing a brick at a cop and her community (including gay people) rallying around her.
You’re quite right.
Having gender dysphoria is not the same as a sexual orientation.
And the trans movement is convincing gay kids they are a different gender and medicalising them.
But because the T has joined the LGB umbrella - any sane questioning of the trans movement - not trans people, the trans movement - is met with accusations of bigotry.
It’s the perfect hiding place.
I mean, let’s not pretend that everyone in that group thinks the same way about this issue.
Plus, we’d do better to stop equating people finding gender ideology to be incoherent with “intolerance.”
Of course the LGBTQ+ community is not a monolith, barely any large community is. But that “alliance” in particular is exactly the kind of group this comic is aimed at. It’s no secret the LGB alliance is cheered on by some hard right conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation.United we stand, divided we fall.
You really thought to pull up and just shout “I read and believe bigot propoganda”.
What did you think you proved here?
finding gender ideology to be incoherent
What exactly do you mean by this
To make a long story short, the idea of gender as distinct from sex results in a lot of circular reasoning, or contradiction if you try to work around that circular reasoning.
That gender and sex are distinct is academically uncontroversial. Sociology in particular likes to dive into that issue.
I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture, considering that publishing anything that goes against that distinction is a good way to lose your job. When arguments against it aren’t allowed, you can’t rightly point to the lack of arguments against it.
I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture,
Big yikes.
If I were to link you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against gender ideology, would you consider that it may truly be a problem?
As someone with a degree in one of the social sciences, I don’t say this as a complete outsider.
If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights ‘ideological capture’?
Or would you consider that researchers acting in bad faith are not entitled to be taken seriously by simple dint of their profession, and that allowing people to spew academically ridiculous invective under the guise of ‘just asking questions’ is harmful to the reputation and integrity of academic institutions and a violation of the duty they hold to improve society’s understanding, not worsen it with the implicit endorsement of weasel words and misleading obscurantism?
History major here. Not exactly distant from the scene.
Thats old now. You’re transphobic.
(I kid, I kid)
“LGB Alliance” is an astroturf front group for the heritage foundation that’s led by straight people, hope that helps!
The biggest problem with the Trans specific community is that there’s a lot of hesitation from within and surrounding allies to call out the crazy stuff that’s being pushed. Most people are okay, for example, with queer books being in schools. Most people are not okay with pornography in certain books. Can’t we push queer books that talk about age-appropriate sexuality without pictures of people giving blow jobs to strap-ons? My mom would have had a fit if she found anything like that between straight couples in my school library.
So, it comes out that some books contain this explicit material, and instead of the queer activists/supporters saying: “Alright, yeah, this material shouldn’t be here. How about replacing them with these queer books that don’t contain explicit material?” They said: “fuck you, there’s nothing wrong with this, you’re just a bigoted transphobe.”
That’s where we’re losing a lot of support. Because most people draw a line at explicit material for those underage. If they physically see that it’s there, and advocates are shouting that it’s not there (and if it is there, that it’s a good thing anyway 🙄) then rational supporters are going to take a big step back and say “whoa, that’s going too far.” And you’re going to get some who say: “yeah, let’s take it all out, at least until we can be sure the explicit stuff is gone.” The tactic of denying that the explicit stuff exists in the face of reality does not work. It causes people to pull away instead of supporting the overall goal.
What pornographic books with strapons are you talking about
Yeah, I’d like specific examples, this sounds like a strawman.
Gender Queer has over 200 pages, and in it there is this one scene on one page. According to https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/gender-queer-book-in-elementary-schools/ it was never recommended for kids. Maybe it was in some school libraries in the 16+ section or whatever, which can be argued how age appropriate that is, but pragmatically, at that age they’ve probably seen way worse.
It’s no wonder that people are called bigots over this if their approach is totally in bad faith; they don’t want a constructive discussion, it’s just performative outrage and virtue signalling.
Just because some of them have “probably seen worse” does not mean we should allow sexually explicit materials in school that are not strictly textbook in nature. And as a freshman in high school at 14, I had access to all the books, no matter what age grouping they were in.
I’m not sure what bad faith about it. The characters sext each other at one point, where one talks about explicit sex acts they want to do, and there’s images of one sucking on a strapon the other is wearing. You can argue that you think this material is okay for all high schoolers (most would disagree), but claiming those who are LGBT members or supporters are just trying to start somthing in bad faith isnt the truth.
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the following books:
IT - Stephen King
Memoirs of a Geisha
A clockwork orange
Forever - Judy Blume
The Gossip Girl Series
The Song of Ice and Fire booksThat’s a small list of some very popular books I’m personally aware of with sexually explicit content, some of it very violent. They’re readily available in many school libraries. Clockwork orange is even studied in some high schools. The reason people are saying you’re arguing in bad faith is because the nature of the bans are deliberately targeted at LGBT content. There are plenty of other books with much worse content and you’re not seeing a national movement to ban that content. Hence the push-back.
I’ve only ever read ASOIAF and Memoiars of a geisha from that list. I don’t remember how explicit scenes were in Memoairs, so I’d have to go back and re-read, but from my memory the scenes were not graphic in detail like the books above. I don’t think ASOIAF should be in school libraries at all, and I’d be onboard with removing those too.
The focus on these books being lbgt has some context behind it. When quarantine happened, parents suddenly had an open door into what was being taught in classrooms. To be clear, this wasn’t all teachers and all classrooms, but it turns out that there were some classrooms that were teaching things that parents weren’t happy about, and it was happening across the country. A lot of this material was centered around “anti racism” which was highly prejudiced and discriminatory in nature, and LGBT teachings that lots of parents found to be inappropriate (which, for the most part, probably came from religious parents).
Whether it’s fair or not, this caused parents to zoom in on these specific categories of material. These categories are being examined with a fine-toothed comb, which is why they’re in the spotlight.
The problem is the whataboutism you’re displaying here. “What about these books?” You’re right that there are most likely inappropriate books in schools that aren’t categorized as lgbt, and I do think you’d have an avenue or removing them, if they’re on the level that these are sexually. But you completely cut off that option by doubling down that the books originally ousted should remain. “These aren’t that bad, other books are worse” isn’t a reasonable argument when people can see them with their own eyes and see that they are. Also, I’d love for you to discover any other book in a school library that instructs teens on how to make their own pornography, which, besides the obvious tie in to child porn, would label these kids themselves as sexual preditors and put them on the list.
You could easily make these arguments if we replaced these specific books with LGBT ones that are sexually appropriate. Why is that not an option? Why are you arguing to keep a book in these schools that instruct 14-17 year olds how to make their own porn?
It’s staggering to me that you’d die on this hill. Rational parents now see two options: either the sexually explicit material remains, or all queer material is banned. They’re not seeing a rational pushback against that second option, so they’re going to go with that second option. The doubling down is in fear that all queer books will eventually be banned from schools. Well guess what: it’s happening because you’re doubling down. You started this argument with “its not happening” and now your argument is “its happening, but it’s not that bad.” You’re actively pushing for a queer book ban, you’re just going the long way to do it.
There are, I’m assuming, plenty of queer books without these explicit pictures and instructions? Why aren’t those being championed instead?
I did in response to another commenter.
The books aren’t pornographic in their whole, but they have pornographic material in them. The two that have gotten major publicity are:
-
Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. Where the described strap-on blowing scene is from. It also has explicit sexting scenes where a character describes how hot certain sexual acts would be. I have no problem with coming-of-age stories for queer people, and I have no problem with books with this kind of material being in public libraries. For high schools, you want to talk about/show queer people kissing? Cool. Want them to talk about having sex in general? Cool. But those explicit scenes should probably not be in school libraries. Keep them to general community libraries and let parents decide what’s appropriate to read beyond what’s school-appropriate.
-
Trans Bodies, Trans Selves by Laura Erickson Schroth. While again, I think a lot of good can come from seeing pictures of normal, naked bodies not in a state of arousal, the book goes beyond that in sections, discussing ways in which to search for trans porn, or to make trans porn youself.
“The use of feminist, queer, and sex positive broadens the search for trans women/femmes, trans lesbians, trans fags, gender fuckers, and all trans no/op, pre-op, and post-op folks.”
“If you find a porn star you really like, hit them up on Twitter or another platform and ask them what they would recommend.”
“It may surprise you how little people talk about porn or respond to your work face to face,” wrote another contributor, “but if you make something wonderful you could change someone’s life.”
“Just start filming and get comfortable around the camera,” another contributor wrote.
And listen, I have no issues with porn. Most of us find it online when we’re young anyway. But that doesnt mean it should be offered how to navigate it, or how to start doing it yourself in school, even in high schools. Most people, including most people in the LBGT+ communities agree that there’s a line to draw here. Leave it up to individual parents to decide how to manage what their kids come into contact with.
These two books caused a firestorm, and when it was shown what had parents upset, instead of saying: “here are some alternatives that have the same themes with no explicit content” activists said: “fuck you, you’re lying” or “fuck you, there’s nothing wrong with showing this.”
Such a dumb response, because it pushes rational people away who see/hear that response and think: “wtf, why are they denying what I’m seeing with my own eyes?” Or “of course there’s something wrong with teenagers in high school reading text about how to make their own porn, these activists are crazy”. It literally ensures there’s going to be a bigger backlash and they’ll start going overboard.
I don’t like the source I have, by the way. It’s incredibly politically biased and one sided, but it’s the only site that lists the explicit parts. I also need to point out that I don’t agree with everything that’s listed in this writeup as being bad. I think talking about what goes into being a trans person is a good thing, and would 100% be on board with these books in high schools if the sexuality explicit stuff weren’t in them. Source.
Like, there have to be queer books out there that are actually age-appropriate, right? Why aren’t we pushing those?
it comes across as bigoted lies because nearly every time, even the most reasonable sounding arguments contain blatant misinformation at best and lies at worst
framing gender queer as porn because it includes one sex scene is just slightly less ridiculous than framing stephen king’s ‘it’ as porn
its hard to take your comment as sincere when the most genuine and reasonable speech folks can muster still relies on distorting the truth
its also hard to take concerned citizens as genuinely concerned when their concern only ever seems to kick in when it lets them yell about the alphabet people
Okay, so what about the hooks and my post is misinformation or lies? Seeing examples of the exact problematic pages shows you its true and the information is correct.
I didn’t say gender queer as a whole is porn, but there are sections in it that are pornographic in nature. To be clear: These scenes would still be an issue if it were a book about straight people.
It makes no sense not to just replace it with queer books and stories that don’t contain this sexually explicit stuff.
-
Looks like the Lemmy community has decided to use the voting system like reddit did in the end. An agreement vote, not an ‘adding to discussion’ vote.
Here we go again!
That’s not a reddit or lemmy thing. That’s a human thing.
“T” does not fit, hahahha. Literally gay means therr are 2 genders, same with Lesbian. Damn the word ‘bisexual’ literally means there are 2 sexualities. Hahahhaha
Hydrogen is 74% of everything in the universe, and Helium is 24%. Who cares about all the rest? It’s only one percent so clearly it doesn’t matter.
Why is the T bird bigger when it’s 10% of LGBT?
what color is transgender
I’m able to read context of the title and it’s pretty obvious it’s the many colored birds joining together into one pastel pastiche.
Ok, so which one of the colored birds is transgender
If they’re helpfully lined up in order, it’s the purple one!
