9 ms·

While I agree in general, there are plenty of circumstances where people don't get to not have an opinion about things. For example, you can't "agree to disagr

While I agree in general, there are plenty of circumstances where people don't get to not have an opinion about things. For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights.

kerneloftruth 5y ago
I know LGB people who balk at the TQ.* additions to the acronym. Their arguments are cogent and logical. There seems to be plenty of room to disagree, because not all the constituents of the acronym are really fighting the same cause, or even see the groups as all being one team.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  The term has been LGBT basically from the start, hasn't it? Being iffy on new optional extensions is one thing, trying to act like the T is new gets a much less charitable view from me.
  - kerneloftruth 5y ago
    It was added in the '90s. https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/ https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      According to wikipedia "LGBT" was from 1988 and "LGB" itself was spreading in the "mid to late 80s". If you have a stronger source I'm open to being convinced, but otherwise I don't find one anecdotal account very convincing. I can't easily get to the cited books to get any more clarity they might have.
everdrive 5y ago
> For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights. Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  Whenever one group is deciding on what rights another group has, it seems inevitable that civility and friendliness will at some point get left behind.
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    neither group decides anything, they're just a few thousand people talking online.
  - math_denial 5y ago
    Should tha baker have the right to refuse baking a gay wedding cake or some group has the power to decide what rights another group has? As a gay man the LGBT groups keep declining in the quality of their fights and, having survived their own usefulness, they invent fights that inevitably clash with others liberties and belief. No, I do need that cake, there are other bakeries.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Afaik, that baker went out of way to harass them.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      Should a baker have the right to refuse to bake cakes in case it's an interracial couple?
- cgrealy 5y ago
  Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life. It's not as polarised these days, but it was within my lifetime that consensual homosexual sex between adults was illegal in many parts of the world. It still is in some countries. You cannot "agree to disagree" when someone believes you are broken or sinful or whatever and wants to put you in jail. That's just one example. I'm straight, white dude. It's very easy for me to ignore issues like this, because most of the time, they're in my favour. That's just the world.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
But the topic can never come up in organic conversation altogether.
- cgrealy 5y ago
  Maybe, but you have to imagine at some point, things that are in the news will get discussed over a beer. And again, I'm talking about fairly fundamental things here. If someone is pregnant, that's pretty conversation worthy. I also can't imagine someone not discussing seeing a new partner. Ironically, the things you can "agree to disagree" on tend to be the ones that might not come up.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    Since when has "I'm pregnant" been a socially-acceptable cue to start ranting about your views on abortion in either direction?
    - cgrealy 5y ago
      Generally, no, one does not respond to someone saying they're pregnant by suggesting an abortion. That's usually considered rude :D But not all pregnancies are wanted. I have had friends talk to me about their decision wrt an unwanted pregnancy.
CodeGlitch 5y ago
- cgrealy 5y ago
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    So what word would you use to describe people who have the biology to bare children? Because we need to have the language to differentiate the two. In the past we used the word "women", but that has been commandeered... Hence my comment about "person" and IWD.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > So what word would you use to describe people who have the biology to bare children? "People". Anyone and everyone has the biology to bare children; you just need to help them undress. (Not that it's recommended, unless you're their parent or otherwise legitimately required to do that.)
    - cgrealy 5y ago
      I fail to see the relevance to this conversation, and I have zero desire to get into this on HN of all places. My point was about how some people cannot simply “agree to disagree” when important issues are at stake. I provided some simple examples. It’s quite annoying that some people insist on litigating the examples instead of discussing the actual point.
  - s-lambert 5y ago
    They can get pregnant but why do trans men want to have pregnancy as part of their identity? Wouldn't getting pregnant as a trans man trigger dysphoria?
vorpalhex 5y ago
Within LGBTQ communities there are mass disagreements. Should women-only spaces include trans people? Is the word "transsexual" a valid identity even when self chosen? There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it". The trick is that it's not a boolean question. Someone can be gay and anti-trans and this is trivially true.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  > There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it". I've seen a shirt that says "Bi now, gay later"
echelon 5y ago
I'm LGBT and I don't consider the other side evil. I also grew up in the south and know that by yelling at them, you only make them turn their heads away. Sitting down and talking with someone is not impossible. We have more in common than not. Oftentimes a position, belief, or disagreement is a projection of other underlying fears and discomforts. Or maybe it's simply rigidly structured views that need additional time to process new shapes. If an intergalactic enemy suddenly showed up on our doorsteps and started attacking us, we'd all band together.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  The bulk of the Left wing has moved past the whole "coddle them" method where the comfort of the other side is prioritized above all, while the entire time they are passing laws to marginalize and harass people and rolling back the Voting Rights Act.
paganel 5y ago
A close friend of mine is, well, gay (as in man gay), and he doesn't have the fondest opinion of lesbians. He's also quite critical about trans people. He does like other (especially beautiful) men a lot, so that gay part is definitely covered, he's not in the closet by any means or anything like that.
- saltminer 5y ago
  I always find these "screw your rights, I've got mine" types funny. At the end of the day, once conservatives finish tarring and feathering trans people, they're up next. Our rights do not exist in a vacuum; we're all in the same boat. Sure, gender and sexuality stuff isn't the same, but we share a lot of issues and (most importantly) gay men would never have gotten any rights if they were duking it out alone (and neither would the rest of the acronym, for that matter). I think I know why gay men tend to take this view way more often than the rest of the acronym, though: straight men don't hit on gay men, but straight men constantly hit on lesbians. If I had a nickel every time I heard "I can turn you straight," I'd be closing in on a couple dollars by now.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

I know LGB people who balk at the TQ.* additions to the acronym. Their arguments are cogent and logical. There seems to be plenty of room to disagree, because not all the constituents of the acronym are really fighting the same cause, or even see the groups as all being one team.

Dylan16807 5y ago
The term has been LGBT basically from the start, hasn't it? Being iffy on new optional extensions is one thing, trying to act like the T is new gets a much less charitable view from me.
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  It was added in the '90s. https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/ https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    According to wikipedia "LGBT" was from 1988 and "LGB" itself was spreading in the "mid to late 80s". If you have a stronger source I'm open to being convinced, but otherwise I don't find one anecdotal account very convincing. I can't easily get to the cited books to get any more clarity they might have.

everdrive 5y ago

> For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights. Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?

d1sxeyes 5y ago
Whenever one group is deciding on what rights another group has, it seems inevitable that civility and friendliness will at some point get left behind.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  neither group decides anything, they're just a few thousand people talking online.
- math_denial 5y ago
  Should tha baker have the right to refuse baking a gay wedding cake or some group has the power to decide what rights another group has? As a gay man the LGBT groups keep declining in the quality of their fights and, having survived their own usefulness, they invent fights that inevitably clash with others liberties and belief. No, I do need that cake, there are other bakeries.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Afaik, that baker went out of way to harass them.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    Should a baker have the right to refuse to bake cakes in case it's an interracial couple?
cgrealy 5y ago
Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life. It's not as polarised these days, but it was within my lifetime that consensual homosexual sex between adults was illegal in many parts of the world. It still is in some countries. You cannot "agree to disagree" when someone believes you are broken or sinful or whatever and wants to put you in jail. That's just one example. I'm straight, white dude. It's very easy for me to ignore issues like this, because most of the time, they're in my favour. That's just the world.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

But the topic can never come up in organic conversation altogether.

cgrealy 5y ago
Maybe, but you have to imagine at some point, things that are in the news will get discussed over a beer. And again, I'm talking about fairly fundamental things here. If someone is pregnant, that's pretty conversation worthy. I also can't imagine someone not discussing seeing a new partner. Ironically, the things you can "agree to disagree" on tend to be the ones that might not come up.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  Since when has "I'm pregnant" been a socially-acceptable cue to start ranting about your views on abortion in either direction?
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    Generally, no, one does not respond to someone saying they're pregnant by suggesting an abortion. That's usually considered rude :D But not all pregnancies are wanted. I have had friends talk to me about their decision wrt an unwanted pregnancy.

CodeGlitch 5y ago

cgrealy 5y ago
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  So what word would you use to describe people who have the biology to bare children? Because we need to have the language to differentiate the two. In the past we used the word "women", but that has been commandeered... Hence my comment about "person" and IWD.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > So what word would you use to describe people who have the biology to bare children? "People". Anyone and everyone has the biology to bare children; you just need to help them undress. (Not that it's recommended, unless you're their parent or otherwise legitimately required to do that.)
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    I fail to see the relevance to this conversation, and I have zero desire to get into this on HN of all places. My point was about how some people cannot simply “agree to disagree” when important issues are at stake. I provided some simple examples. It’s quite annoying that some people insist on litigating the examples instead of discussing the actual point.
- s-lambert 5y ago
  They can get pregnant but why do trans men want to have pregnancy as part of their identity? Wouldn't getting pregnant as a trans man trigger dysphoria?

vorpalhex 5y ago

Within LGBTQ communities there are mass disagreements. Should women-only spaces include trans people? Is the word "transsexual" a valid identity even when self chosen? There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it". The trick is that it's not a boolean question. Someone can be gay and anti-trans and this is trivially true.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
> There are even Ls and Gs who think Bs are "faking it". I've seen a shirt that says "Bi now, gay later"

echelon 5y ago

I'm LGBT and I don't consider the other side evil. I also grew up in the south and know that by yelling at them, you only make them turn their heads away. Sitting down and talking with someone is not impossible. We have more in common than not. Oftentimes a position, belief, or disagreement is a projection of other underlying fears and discomforts. Or maybe it's simply rigidly structured views that need additional time to process new shapes. If an intergalactic enemy suddenly showed up on our doorsteps and started attacking us, we'd all band together.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
The bulk of the Left wing has moved past the whole "coddle them" method where the comfort of the other side is prioritized above all, while the entire time they are passing laws to marginalize and harass people and rolling back the Voting Rights Act.

paganel 5y ago

A close friend of mine is, well, gay (as in man gay), and he doesn't have the fondest opinion of lesbians. He's also quite critical about trans people. He does like other (especially beautiful) men a lot, so that gay part is definitely covered, he's not in the closet by any means or anything like that.

saltminer 5y ago
I always find these "screw your rights, I've got mine" types funny. At the end of the day, once conservatives finish tarring and feathering trans people, they're up next. Our rights do not exist in a vacuum; we're all in the same boat. Sure, gender and sexuality stuff isn't the same, but we share a lot of issues and (most importantly) gay men would never have gotten any rights if they were duking it out alone (and neither would the rest of the acronym, for that matter). I think I know why gay men tend to take this view way more often than the rest of the acronym, though: straight men don't hit on gay men, but straight men constantly hit on lesbians. If I had a nickel every time I heard "I can turn you straight," I'd be closing in on a couple dollars by now.