3 ms·

> The current approach is radicalizing people against trans. I have seen no evidence in support of this. There's plenty of anecdotes of people saying it happen

> The current approach is radicalizing people against trans. I have seen no evidence in support of this. There's plenty of anecdotes of people saying it happened to them, but no evidence of a widespread trend. I remember when "gay" was the insult du jour in middle school. Now high schools are having walkouts in opposition of homophobic laws [1]. This would never have happened ten years ago. It wasn't even conceivable twenty years ago. Gay rights were further from the mainstream than trans rights are now. These things move fast, and they move together. > There's many many openly homosexual republicans now. Did the Republican party start supporting gay marriage while I wasn't looking? Some republicans still feel comfortable questioning interracial marriage. > Trans people are pawns in the grander scheme. This has little to do with trans people but rather a political issue that is being used to censor political opponents and remove their seat in the debate. Maybe they aren't. Maybe trans people are the important issue here. Maybe people really do believe the things they say they believe, support the things they say they support. It's a comforting thought to deny it, because if attacks on trans people aren't a proxy for some other issue, then it rules out the easy solutions where you can just convince them to stop. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/07/us/orange-county-florida-high-school-walkout-dont-say-gay-bill/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/07/us/orange-county-florida-high...

incomingpain 5y ago
>I have seen no evidence in support of this. There's plenty of anecdotes of people saying it happened to them, but no evidence of a widespread trend. I hope you are right and I am wrong. >I remember when "gay" was the insult du jour in middle school. Still is. Let's go find a random thread on reddit that has nothing to do with sex or gender. https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/tm3kd6/anon_has_no_friends/i1xg3si/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/tm3kd6/anon_has_... And that's reddit... where there are no conservatives left. They've banned all of us. >Now high schools are having walkouts in opposition of homophobic laws [1] School walkouts by children aren't because the students are so well versed and well informed on issues. They were convinced by the teachers to walk out. People who wanted to skip school joins. In terms of this specific one of 'dont say gay' https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... Ctrl + F "gay": 0 results. Ctrl + F "homo": 0 results. So frankly the title of 'dont say gay' is propaganda. So what does it say? Classroom instruction by school personnel or third 98 parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur 99 in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age 100 appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. So it's not that they banned saying gay. They banned talking about sexual orientation with children below grade 3. So 8 years old? Do kids younger than 8 years old need to know about sexual orientation as defined by the government? or should parents be responsible here? I say parents, but this is a key political point. There is no objective truth of what is right or wrong on this issue. What should the age be? Age of consent is similar, no one has the answer to what the age of consent should be. >Did the Republican party start supporting gay marriage while I wasn't looking? Some republicans still feel comfortable questioning interracial marriage. Not exactly what I said; but its amazing how people are allowed to have differing views. I'm not in or from the USA so I'm not going to defend unnamed random republicans who probably dont represent the party. How about Trump's position: https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Donald_Trump_Civil_Rights.htm#LGBT_Rights https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Donald_Trump_Civil_Rights.h... Ya he went around the world and picked a fight with places like the middle east and russia to fight for gay rights. Seems like Trump was doing the right thing? That gay marriage is a state issue. Which it very clearly is a state issue. >Maybe they aren't. Maybe trans people are the important issue here. Maybe people really do believe the things they say they believe, support the things they say they support. It's a comforting thought to deny it, because if attacks on trans people aren't a proxy for some other issue, then it rules out the easy solutions where you can just convince them to stop. We could go into this if you're interested. We would need primers on the grand debt cycle, the new world order stuff(mainly china becoming #1, good job USA shipping all your factories to china), the USA losing their reserve currency benefits, and the coming probable civil war as indicated by the huge political polarization coming from the democratic party. So for example this 43 minute video covering it only slightly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8
- a_shovel 5y ago
  > And that's reddit... where there are no conservatives left. I don't know if that's true. I'd always hear Reddit was more conservative than most other sites. I've noticed that people of every political alignment think that social media is biased against them. In truth, both sides have prominent figures who would have been banned years ago if they weren't famous enough to get an exception from the rules, both sides have people banned for no good reason, and both sides have people banned for good reasons that they don't think are good reasons. A nuanced study of whether one side is more affected than the other would never survive the heated environment of political social media. > Ctrl + F "gay": 0 results. Ctrl + F "homo": 0 results. True and entirely irrelevant. It is easy to make a law that targets a group without directly naming them. > Do kids younger than 8 years old need to know about sexual orientation? "Straight" is also a sexual orientation. It is not possible for a child to avoid fairy tales where a prince marries a princess, or ads with a husband and wife in them, or cartoons where a boy and a girl have a crush on each other. So they're gonna know about that one. On the other hand, they might be able to make it to age 8 with minimal exposure to gay couples if their parents are conservative. Really, it's about whether teachers will be allowed to read a children's book featuring a gay couple to the class. If the principal gets a letter from a lawyer saying a teacher gave age-inappropriate instruction on sexual orientation to first graders, and cited the line of the law forbidding it, then it doesn't matter if the principal supports the teacher. Nor that the "instruction" was just reading a children's book that featured a gay couple; legally, it would likely be considered instruction. Nor that it was entirely age-appropriate; that exception is so vague as to be useless. They can't afford to defend themselves in a lawsuit. So they get rid of the book to make the lawsuit go away. End result is all the books about gay people get thrown out and, if history feels poetic, burned. (I would also like to note that it has language about requiring schools not to withhold information about the child's health from their parents that seems designed to out transgender and gay children to their parents against their wishes; it too has an exception too vague and limited to be useful.)
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > ... Really, it's about whether teachers will be allowed to read a children's book featuring a gay couple to the class. ... Same-sex couples have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation per se. Heterosexual folks can certainly form strong affiliative bonds with friends/associates of the same sex, that are functionally identical to so-called "gay or lesbian couples", though in fact the traditional term is something like "blood brotherhood". Sexual orientation matters only inasmuch as it describes why some of these pairs might engage in sexual contact (hopefully of the consensual sort) whereas most do not. Teach kids about blood brotherhood and similar traditional bonds between people of the same sex, and they will be very well equipped (in fact, more so than most!) to understand "gay marriage" later on, when they are able to relate to what is meant by sexual orientation. Traditional culture has the language to talk about all of this stuff, in a way that's appealing and not offputting to conservative concerns, or for that matter "progressive" ones.

incomingpain 5y ago

>I have seen no evidence in support of this. There's plenty of anecdotes of people saying it happened to them, but no evidence of a widespread trend. I hope you are right and I am wrong. >I remember when "gay" was the insult du jour in middle school. Still is. Let's go find a random thread on reddit that has nothing to do with sex or gender. https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/tm3kd6/anon_has_no_friends/i1xg3si/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/tm3kd6/anon_has_... And that's reddit... where there are no conservatives left. They've banned all of us. >Now high schools are having walkouts in opposition of homophobic laws [1] School walkouts by children aren't because the students are so well versed and well informed on issues. They were convinced by the teachers to walk out. People who wanted to skip school joins. In terms of this specific one of 'dont say gay' https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... Ctrl + F "gay": 0 results. Ctrl + F "homo": 0 results. So frankly the title of 'dont say gay' is propaganda. So what does it say? Classroom instruction by school personnel or third 98 parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur 99 in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age 100 appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. So it's not that they banned saying gay. They banned talking about sexual orientation with children below grade 3. So 8 years old? Do kids younger than 8 years old need to know about sexual orientation as defined by the government? or should parents be responsible here? I say parents, but this is a key political point. There is no objective truth of what is right or wrong on this issue. What should the age be? Age of consent is similar, no one has the answer to what the age of consent should be. >Did the Republican party start supporting gay marriage while I wasn't looking? Some republicans still feel comfortable questioning interracial marriage. Not exactly what I said; but its amazing how people are allowed to have differing views. I'm not in or from the USA so I'm not going to defend unnamed random republicans who probably dont represent the party. How about Trump's position: https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Donald_Trump_Civil_Rights.htm#LGBT_Rights https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Donald_Trump_Civil_Rights.h... Ya he went around the world and picked a fight with places like the middle east and russia to fight for gay rights. Seems like Trump was doing the right thing? That gay marriage is a state issue. Which it very clearly is a state issue. >Maybe they aren't. Maybe trans people are the important issue here. Maybe people really do believe the things they say they believe, support the things they say they support. It's a comforting thought to deny it, because if attacks on trans people aren't a proxy for some other issue, then it rules out the easy solutions where you can just convince them to stop. We could go into this if you're interested. We would need primers on the grand debt cycle, the new world order stuff(mainly china becoming #1, good job USA shipping all your factories to china), the USA losing their reserve currency benefits, and the coming probable civil war as indicated by the huge political polarization coming from the democratic party. So for example this 43 minute video covering it only slightly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8

a_shovel 5y ago
> And that's reddit... where there are no conservatives left. I don't know if that's true. I'd always hear Reddit was more conservative than most other sites. I've noticed that people of every political alignment think that social media is biased against them. In truth, both sides have prominent figures who would have been banned years ago if they weren't famous enough to get an exception from the rules, both sides have people banned for no good reason, and both sides have people banned for good reasons that they don't think are good reasons. A nuanced study of whether one side is more affected than the other would never survive the heated environment of political social media. > Ctrl + F "gay": 0 results. Ctrl + F "homo": 0 results. True and entirely irrelevant. It is easy to make a law that targets a group without directly naming them. > Do kids younger than 8 years old need to know about sexual orientation? "Straight" is also a sexual orientation. It is not possible for a child to avoid fairy tales where a prince marries a princess, or ads with a husband and wife in them, or cartoons where a boy and a girl have a crush on each other. So they're gonna know about that one. On the other hand, they might be able to make it to age 8 with minimal exposure to gay couples if their parents are conservative. Really, it's about whether teachers will be allowed to read a children's book featuring a gay couple to the class. If the principal gets a letter from a lawyer saying a teacher gave age-inappropriate instruction on sexual orientation to first graders, and cited the line of the law forbidding it, then it doesn't matter if the principal supports the teacher. Nor that the "instruction" was just reading a children's book that featured a gay couple; legally, it would likely be considered instruction. Nor that it was entirely age-appropriate; that exception is so vague as to be useless. They can't afford to defend themselves in a lawsuit. So they get rid of the book to make the lawsuit go away. End result is all the books about gay people get thrown out and, if history feels poetic, burned. (I would also like to note that it has language about requiring schools not to withhold information about the child's health from their parents that seems designed to out transgender and gay children to their parents against their wishes; it too has an exception too vague and limited to be useful.)
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > ... Really, it's about whether teachers will be allowed to read a children's book featuring a gay couple to the class. ... Same-sex couples have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation per se. Heterosexual folks can certainly form strong affiliative bonds with friends/associates of the same sex, that are functionally identical to so-called "gay or lesbian couples", though in fact the traditional term is something like "blood brotherhood". Sexual orientation matters only inasmuch as it describes why some of these pairs might engage in sexual contact (hopefully of the consensual sort) whereas most do not. Teach kids about blood brotherhood and similar traditional bonds between people of the same sex, and they will be very well equipped (in fact, more so than most!) to understand "gay marriage" later on, when they are able to relate to what is meant by sexual orientation. Traditional culture has the language to talk about all of this stuff, in a way that's appealing and not offputting to conservative concerns, or for that matter "progressive" ones.