3 ms·
> because your spouse existing is a “political” concept The point is to explicitly not politicize these conversations and instead talk and relate on a human-to
by bsima 5y ago
> because your spouse existing is a “political” concept
The point is to explicitly not politicize these conversations and instead talk and relate on a human-to-human level
- drewbug01 5y agoMy point is that some people consider my equal participation in that conversation to be inherently political. My point is essentially that anti-lgbt folk will dehumanize the conversation under the guise of “no politics”. Or at least that they could, and that it sure used to happen an awful lot, and it wasn’t that long ago.
- bsima 5y agoI think it’s more dehumanizing to be reduced to a label than it is to be approached face-to-face
- drewbug01 5y agoIt sure is. But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies, and it’s exactly what I worry about when they’re enacted (because that’s how it used to work). I’m not the one making it an identity politics / label issue; I’m saying “these policies are cover for mean people to reduce me to just a label and then weaponize that against me.”
- bsima 5y ago> But “being reduced to a label” is one of the outcomes of such policies I don’t really see how this can be the case because the very use of such labels as political categories is being removed. If the labels can’t be used then they can’t be weaponized
- drewbug01 5y agoThat’s not what they’re doing though - they’re not saying “we cannot say the word ‘gay’ any more because that makes the sentence a political sentence.” They’re saying you can’t talk about politics, and honestly specific words don’t even have to come into play. You can weaponize the policy easily without using specific words at all.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]