7 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  I think part of the problem is the circumstances of two people meeting on social media. It's like one of those break-the-ice prompts for new coworkers, but instead of lighthearted nonsense, the card says "the gays are evil, discuss!". In the real world, two very different people might meet and start to build a history and a good deal of rapport and trust with each other before ever getting anywhere close to a divisive issue. When they do eventually get there, without a mob watching, without the fear of every word going in the permanent record, the conversation would likely be far less of a dumpster fire, and minds might actually be changed. As it is, a lot of the discourse you see online is indescribably bad, and I think a lot of it is down to throwing two strangers into a conversation that they would never naturally arrive at upon first meeting.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  > Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life. the conversations are about important things that effect your life, the conversations themselves aren't important and don't actually effect your life.
- COGlory 5y ago
  I find this argument compelling, but the counter-point is: what change is politicing everything going to affect? Will political comments on a codebase make it safer to be homosexual in Saudi Arabia? If not, combining those two things feels like an exercise in futility.
- everdrive 5y ago
  >Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life. I believe it’s very important to be able to calmly and genially argue points which are important to you. There may not be any value in merely being able to argue calmly and politely for points in which you have no interest.
herbstein 5y ago
It's generally quite hard for a trans person to be civil with a transphobe. Just as it's hard for e.g. black people to be civil with a racist. The bigot will, whether conscious or not, make the life of the minority absolutely terrible. With LGBTQ it is therefore not just a difference of opinion on taxation, or a few percentage points difference in a tariff. For trans people it's about whether the other person even acknowledges that you can be trans.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Let's throw in a more complex example. Is someone who identifies as a "trap" trans? Is that self identification trans-phobic? Is it a valid self identity? What if someone identifies as a "trap" but not trans?
  - progman32 5y ago
    Could you clarify your point? Not sure I follow.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      If given a topic like "lgbtq" issues, the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Nobody is actually having that debate anymore and you're fighting straw men. Ie, these debates are not between "pro-lgbtq" and "anti-lgbtq". Instead most of these debates are more nuanced and complicated. I picked the "trap" debate because it's hotly contested, with both sides swearing up and down they are pro-lgbtq and both sides would even claim to be more pro-lgbtq than their opponents. Which is to say, you can probably ignore the debate and not care, still be pro-lgbtq, and go back to playing your board game, even with friends who have a different ideological position on that particular debate. A lot of social media fights are about this scale.
      - progman32 5y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I think mutual respect also plays a part here. My respect, demeanor towards, and willingness to play Settlers with someone who believes LGBTQIA+ people are sinners depends a lot on whether or not that person engages in honest, consensual debate and respects the human on the other side. That is how we form good relationships and strengthen our collective understanding. I wish to underscore the importance of consensual debate, especially when there's a power gradient. I will say though, "Do gay people get basic rights" is _very much_ still a subject of debate. Sadly.
RC_ITR 5y ago
'Let's agree to disagree that you deserve the same rights as me' is just a really hard pill to swallow for LGBTQ+ people. You can choose to hold that opinion if you want, but most LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones will choose not to interact with you as a result.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  but actually, they do. thus, social media as it exists today is a bunch of people all trying to own the other side. they live to interact with people they disagree with, the harder the disagreement the better.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    I can't really parse what you're saying. Who is 'they'?
Pxtl 5y ago
Texas just unveiled a law that proposes putting parents who support their children's gender transition in jail for child abuse. That means one side thinks the other side is a child abuser, and the other side thinks that bigots are going to throw them in prison for being a supportive parent. This is not something you can be "polite" about.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  1. It was an order, not a law 2. It was a clarification of existing rules 3. It does not make "supporting your child's gender transition" a jailable offense. The order says subjecting a child to invasive medical procedure can be abuse, and that doctors and teachers have a legal requirement to report abuse. Here is the order for your reading pleasure: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps-to-investigate-gender-transitioning-procedures-as-child-abuse https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps...
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    "As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to a wide variety of elective procedures for gender transitioning, including reassignment surgeries that can cause sterilization, mastectomies, removals of otherwise healthy body parts, and administration of puberty-blocking drugs or supraphysiologic doses of testosterone or estrogen." Where "subject" appears to be the most general form possible, as far as I can tell from context. Even puberty blockers are on this list! You're not supporting a gender transition if you can't touch hormones at all.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > "As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to ... removals of otherwise healthy body parts" Wow, finally a law against infant male circumcision! In Texas, of all places; whodathunkit.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
xena 5y ago
As someone who is on the LGBTQ spectrum, people that actively advocate for me not being able to exist in civil society without doing anything but trying to be authentic about myself are really not people I want in my life. I absolutely hate that my ability to participate in modern society without harassment for things that are inherent to my existence is limited and I hope that one day we can move past this kind of foolishness as a species.
watwut 5y ago
> Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues? For gay, it means keeping secret over pretty large and important parts of life. As was explained to me by gay who was super civil, but did grumbled and complained about a lot of stuff that was said when it was safe to talk more openly.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ladyattis 5y ago
Not when their opinion means I can't bequeath my prized personal possessions to my partner without burdensome legal complications. I've seen wills being disregarded when it comes to same-sex partners all the time because the surviving family disagreed with their dead loved one so such an extent as to try to find a legal loophole to get out of following their last wishes.
FalconSensei 5y ago
> Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues? Of course, let's put the transphobes and trans people on the same room. That should play out well, like KKK and black people and Nazis and the Jews, right?

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.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
I think part of the problem is the circumstances of two people meeting on social media. It's like one of those break-the-ice prompts for new coworkers, but instead of lighthearted nonsense, the card says "the gays are evil, discuss!". In the real world, two very different people might meet and start to build a history and a good deal of rapport and trust with each other before ever getting anywhere close to a divisive issue. When they do eventually get there, without a mob watching, without the fear of every word going in the permanent record, the conversation would likely be far less of a dumpster fire, and minds might actually be changed. As it is, a lot of the discourse you see online is indescribably bad, and I think a lot of it is down to throwing two strangers into a conversation that they would never naturally arrive at upon first meeting.
pasquinelli 5y ago
> Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life. the conversations are about important things that effect your life, the conversations themselves aren't important and don't actually effect your life.
COGlory 5y ago
I find this argument compelling, but the counter-point is: what change is politicing everything going to affect? Will political comments on a codebase make it safer to be homosexual in Saudi Arabia? If not, combining those two things feels like an exercise in futility.
everdrive 5y ago
>Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life. I believe it’s very important to be able to calmly and genially argue points which are important to you. There may not be any value in merely being able to argue calmly and politely for points in which you have no interest.

herbstein 5y ago

It's generally quite hard for a trans person to be civil with a transphobe. Just as it's hard for e.g. black people to be civil with a racist. The bigot will, whether conscious or not, make the life of the minority absolutely terrible. With LGBTQ it is therefore not just a difference of opinion on taxation, or a few percentage points difference in a tariff. For trans people it's about whether the other person even acknowledges that you can be trans.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Let's throw in a more complex example. Is someone who identifies as a "trap" trans? Is that self identification trans-phobic? Is it a valid self identity? What if someone identifies as a "trap" but not trans?
- progman32 5y ago
  Could you clarify your point? Not sure I follow.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    If given a topic like "lgbtq" issues, the debate is not "Do gay people get basic rights?". Nobody is actually having that debate anymore and you're fighting straw men. Ie, these debates are not between "pro-lgbtq" and "anti-lgbtq". Instead most of these debates are more nuanced and complicated. I picked the "trap" debate because it's hotly contested, with both sides swearing up and down they are pro-lgbtq and both sides would even claim to be more pro-lgbtq than their opponents. Which is to say, you can probably ignore the debate and not care, still be pro-lgbtq, and go back to playing your board game, even with friends who have a different ideological position on that particular debate. A lot of social media fights are about this scale.
    - progman32 5y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I think mutual respect also plays a part here. My respect, demeanor towards, and willingness to play Settlers with someone who believes LGBTQIA+ people are sinners depends a lot on whether or not that person engages in honest, consensual debate and respects the human on the other side. That is how we form good relationships and strengthen our collective understanding. I wish to underscore the importance of consensual debate, especially when there's a power gradient. I will say though, "Do gay people get basic rights" is _very much_ still a subject of debate. Sadly.

RC_ITR 5y ago

'Let's agree to disagree that you deserve the same rights as me' is just a really hard pill to swallow for LGBTQ+ people. You can choose to hold that opinion if you want, but most LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones will choose not to interact with you as a result.

pasquinelli 5y ago
but actually, they do. thus, social media as it exists today is a bunch of people all trying to own the other side. they live to interact with people they disagree with, the harder the disagreement the better.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  I can't really parse what you're saying. Who is 'they'?

Pxtl 5y ago

Texas just unveiled a law that proposes putting parents who support their children's gender transition in jail for child abuse. That means one side thinks the other side is a child abuser, and the other side thinks that bigots are going to throw them in prison for being a supportive parent. This is not something you can be "polite" about.

vorpalhex 5y ago
1. It was an order, not a law 2. It was a clarification of existing rules 3. It does not make "supporting your child's gender transition" a jailable offense. The order says subjecting a child to invasive medical procedure can be abuse, and that doctors and teachers have a legal requirement to report abuse. Here is the order for your reading pleasure: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps-to-investigate-gender-transitioning-procedures-as-child-abuse https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps...
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  "As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to a wide variety of elective procedures for gender transitioning, including reassignment surgeries that can cause sterilization, mastectomies, removals of otherwise healthy body parts, and administration of puberty-blocking drugs or supraphysiologic doses of testosterone or estrogen." Where "subject" appears to be the most general form possible, as far as I can tell from context. Even puberty blockers are on this list! You're not supporting a gender transition if you can't touch hormones at all.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > "As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to ... removals of otherwise healthy body parts" Wow, finally a law against infant male circumcision! In Texas, of all places; whodathunkit.
pasquinelli 5y ago

xena 5y ago

As someone who is on the LGBTQ spectrum, people that actively advocate for me not being able to exist in civil society without doing anything but trying to be authentic about myself are really not people I want in my life. I absolutely hate that my ability to participate in modern society without harassment for things that are inherent to my existence is limited and I hope that one day we can move past this kind of foolishness as a species.

watwut 5y ago

> Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues? For gay, it means keeping secret over pretty large and important parts of life. As was explained to me by gay who was super civil, but did grumbled and complained about a lot of stuff that was said when it was safe to talk more openly.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ladyattis 5y ago

Not when their opinion means I can't bequeath my prized personal possessions to my partner without burdensome legal complications. I've seen wills being disregarded when it comes to same-sex partners all the time because the surviving family disagreed with their dead loved one so such an extent as to try to find a legal loophole to get out of following their last wishes.

FalconSensei 5y ago

> Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues? Of course, let's put the transphobes and trans people on the same room. That should play out well, like KKK and black people and Nazis and the Jews, right?