6 ms·

Has anyone seriously and honestly asked themselves why the US is so keen on pushing the LQBTQ agenda? Even if sincere, LGBTQ people are a very tiny percentage o

Has anyone seriously and honestly asked themselves why the US is so keen on pushing the LQBTQ agenda? Even if sincere, LGBTQ people are a very tiny percentage of the population so why go through such lengths to make large and sweeping systemic changes? It is totally distracting from much more serious issues. Very puzzling.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kn0where 5y ago
Is it really a large and sweeping change, or a tiny change that’s far less difficult to implement in our politically gridlocked country than anything requiring legislation?
version_five 5y ago
I dont think it's fair to characterize an "LGBTQ Agenda" as if there is cabal trying to bend the country to their will. I think somehow it's become mainstream to be terrified of offending anyone, while simultaneously not really understanding what we stand for. And a very small minority of trolls exploit that to see how far they can push us on ridiculous directions. You look at how much harm this does to the public perception of people who may fall under someone's umbrella LGBetc acronym, and how everyone gets riled up while also looking ridiculous. Who does it actually serve. So don't think there is a coherent agenda, just look at it as trolling and try not to hold it against normal people who just want to live their lives.
Saris 5y ago
Is it really a large change? It's just a letter on a document. I wouldn't call the LGBTQ population a tiny percentage when ~14% of people in the US don't identify as straight. I have seen pretty much nothing from the US that appears to be “pushing the LQBTQ agenda”.
meepmorp 5y ago
> It is totally distracting from much more serious issues Which other issues? Which issues would be getting addressed now, but for attention consumed by "the LGBTQ agenda?"
- IshKebab 5y ago
  Climate change, energy efficiency (cough bitcoin), ocean pollution, political corruption, abortion laws, tax evasion, etc. etc. I'm not sure I agree with him but there definitely are more important issues and attention isn't an unlimited resource. The time spent changing this definitely took time away from something else.
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    > Climate change, energy efficiency (cough bitcoin), ocean pollution, political corruption, abortion laws, tax evasion, etc. etc. Are you serious? Is this just a way of getting out of admitting you don't really care about LGBTQ issues? Because the idea that we'd otherwise be making any kind of meaningful progress on any those issues is stupendously naive.
trasz 5y ago
Same as with anti-apartheid agenda. Largely opposed by the same kind of people.
exabrial 5y ago
More than likely the answer is: pandering for votes. A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male), or one of many extraordinarily rare edge cases such as (not inclusive): XXY, XYY, XYY, XXX, etc. The fact this under debate shows the level of disillusionment and detachment from science among the individuals arguing for it. This is the opinion section of my comment: I think LQBTQ individuals desire to have their sexual preferences reinforced by society. I imagine the thought process is something like "If I can only prove it's biological, I no longer have to constantly justify my choices to others and there will be acceptance." This is sad in my opinion, as we should not be lecturing others unless they ask for your opinion. You certainly aren't required to support anyone's decisions, but treating them less than human isn't acceptable. Unfortunately, I see LQBTQ communities are further distancing themselves by pushing this agenda of redefining science. Like another commentor said, I don't think it's any government's business who I am. And while that's a great theory, the real world doesn't work out this way. Marking your passport this way will more than likely cause issues at international borders and it would be good to stick to scientific identification to avoid unjust arrest.
- Majromax 5y ago
  > A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male) [...] A reasonable person is also not applying a chromosomal test to determine gender. Instead, the reasonable person identifies gender by appearance, incorporating anatomical features, grooming choices, and social paraphernalia like wardrobe. In most people, chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical, and social genders conform. The "reasonable person" heuristic is therefore correct in the majority of cases. However, the risks are borne disproportionately by those for whom there is nonconformance. A gender-neutral option on identification provides at minimum a signal that the a binary (social) gender marker is not helpful for identification of the bearer. That's rights-enhancing, with no cost to the gender-conforming majority.
  - buckfast 5y ago
    > grooming choices, and social paraphernalia like wardrobe That's a very regressive approach, based on cultural stereotyping and expectations related to restrictive ideals of masculinity and femininity. A woman who chooses to shave her hair short is still a woman. A man who chooses to wear a dress is still a man. Let's not discriminate against gender non-conforming people by denying or questioning their sex due to their reluctance to adhere to stereotypes. It's not really a reasonable position to take.
muzika 5y ago
And the concerning part to me is that there seems to be no end in sight to this movement. Why not allow people to have multiple wives/husbands/spouses? And what if someone wants to identify as a dog? Or merry their dog? And is why not let children get married, why discriminate based on age? If they are old enough to decide which gender they identify as… Etc etc.
- Inityx 5y ago
- buckfast 5y ago
  > And is why not let children get married, why discriminate based on age? The really awful thing is, there are paedophiles (or "minor-attracted persons", as they prefer to rebrand themselves nowadays) and their advocates making this exact argument in earnest. Including some in academia trying to influence from a position of supposed research. It's sickening.
delusion 5y ago
This really has nothing to do with the LGB. There's no passport marker for sexuality.
psyc 5y ago
I have seriously and honestly asked myself this! In my own head and never publicly, of course. I don't believe it's subject to rational/utilitarian analysis. It has, gradually at first, accelerating to a tipping point, become fashionable (albeit in a very serious way) to seek to protect this category of person. Admittedly reductionist, but I believe the core essence is simply this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ I think protection, respect, dignity, rights for LGBTQ people is great! But as you note, there is something extra here. It seems like the entire population, which is mostly cis and hetero, is being asked... well, not asked, really. It's not a request anymore, is it? Strongly urged, to deconstruct and overhaul how we think and speak about sex and gender in all contexts and at all times. And this is a bit difficult to square with the goodness of protecting LGBTQ people. It's a little extra. I was going to write that the growth of this movement consists of cishet people ("allies!"), since it's not a recruitment drive to turn people. But then I realized that's not strictly true either. While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen, there is some fuzziness in the [TQ] part. I could, with high sincerity, choose to identify as agender, possibly a bit genderfluid, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify as non-binary, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify myself as transgender. I don't do that. I don't see it as being in my interest, but that could change. I could join up in the future. In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill!
- buckfast 5y ago
  > In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill! Very much agreed. I suspect that a lot of these identity issues are being deliberately pushed as a distraction from these more fundamental and wider societal concerns of material wellbeing that successive governments have largely failed at addressing. > While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen The leap of logic with gender dysphoria in recent years seems to be that if a person has dysphoria, then they actually are the alternate gender (in terms of a replacement to the concept of sex) that they desire to be. So, we're told, people identify into the role of a man or a woman, rather than simply existing as such in material biological reality. Personally I find that assertion rather questionable, but it seems it's no longer acceptable to question this.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kn0where 5y ago

Is it really a large and sweeping change, or a tiny change that’s far less difficult to implement in our politically gridlocked country than anything requiring legislation?

version_five 5y ago

I dont think it's fair to characterize an "LGBTQ Agenda" as if there is cabal trying to bend the country to their will. I think somehow it's become mainstream to be terrified of offending anyone, while simultaneously not really understanding what we stand for. And a very small minority of trolls exploit that to see how far they can push us on ridiculous directions. You look at how much harm this does to the public perception of people who may fall under someone's umbrella LGBetc acronym, and how everyone gets riled up while also looking ridiculous. Who does it actually serve. So don't think there is a coherent agenda, just look at it as trolling and try not to hold it against normal people who just want to live their lives.

Saris 5y ago

Is it really a large change? It's just a letter on a document. I wouldn't call the LGBTQ population a tiny percentage when ~14% of people in the US don't identify as straight. I have seen pretty much nothing from the US that appears to be “pushing the LQBTQ agenda”.

meepmorp 5y ago

> It is totally distracting from much more serious issues Which other issues? Which issues would be getting addressed now, but for attention consumed by "the LGBTQ agenda?"

IshKebab 5y ago
Climate change, energy efficiency (cough bitcoin), ocean pollution, political corruption, abortion laws, tax evasion, etc. etc. I'm not sure I agree with him but there definitely are more important issues and attention isn't an unlimited resource. The time spent changing this definitely took time away from something else.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  > Climate change, energy efficiency (cough bitcoin), ocean pollution, political corruption, abortion laws, tax evasion, etc. etc. Are you serious? Is this just a way of getting out of admitting you don't really care about LGBTQ issues? Because the idea that we'd otherwise be making any kind of meaningful progress on any those issues is stupendously naive.

trasz 5y ago

Same as with anti-apartheid agenda. Largely opposed by the same kind of people.

exabrial 5y ago

More than likely the answer is: pandering for votes. A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male), or one of many extraordinarily rare edge cases such as (not inclusive): XXY, XYY, XYY, XXX, etc. The fact this under debate shows the level of disillusionment and detachment from science among the individuals arguing for it. This is the opinion section of my comment: I think LQBTQ individuals desire to have their sexual preferences reinforced by society. I imagine the thought process is something like "If I can only prove it's biological, I no longer have to constantly justify my choices to others and there will be acceptance." This is sad in my opinion, as we should not be lecturing others unless they ask for your opinion. You certainly aren't required to support anyone's decisions, but treating them less than human isn't acceptable. Unfortunately, I see LQBTQ communities are further distancing themselves by pushing this agenda of redefining science. Like another commentor said, I don't think it's any government's business who I am. And while that's a great theory, the real world doesn't work out this way. Marking your passport this way will more than likely cause issues at international borders and it would be good to stick to scientific identification to avoid unjust arrest.

Majromax 5y ago
> A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male) [...] A reasonable person is also not applying a chromosomal test to determine gender. Instead, the reasonable person identifies gender by appearance, incorporating anatomical features, grooming choices, and social paraphernalia like wardrobe. In most people, chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical, and social genders conform. The "reasonable person" heuristic is therefore correct in the majority of cases. However, the risks are borne disproportionately by those for whom there is nonconformance. A gender-neutral option on identification provides at minimum a signal that the a binary (social) gender marker is not helpful for identification of the bearer. That's rights-enhancing, with no cost to the gender-conforming majority.
- buckfast 5y ago
  > grooming choices, and social paraphernalia like wardrobe That's a very regressive approach, based on cultural stereotyping and expectations related to restrictive ideals of masculinity and femininity. A woman who chooses to shave her hair short is still a woman. A man who chooses to wear a dress is still a man. Let's not discriminate against gender non-conforming people by denying or questioning their sex due to their reluctance to adhere to stereotypes. It's not really a reasonable position to take.

muzika 5y ago

And the concerning part to me is that there seems to be no end in sight to this movement. Why not allow people to have multiple wives/husbands/spouses? And what if someone wants to identify as a dog? Or merry their dog? And is why not let children get married, why discriminate based on age? If they are old enough to decide which gender they identify as… Etc etc.

Inityx 5y ago
buckfast 5y ago
> And is why not let children get married, why discriminate based on age? The really awful thing is, there are paedophiles (or "minor-attracted persons", as they prefer to rebrand themselves nowadays) and their advocates making this exact argument in earnest. Including some in academia trying to influence from a position of supposed research. It's sickening.

delusion 5y ago

This really has nothing to do with the LGB. There's no passport marker for sexuality.

psyc 5y ago

I have seriously and honestly asked myself this! In my own head and never publicly, of course. I don't believe it's subject to rational/utilitarian analysis. It has, gradually at first, accelerating to a tipping point, become fashionable (albeit in a very serious way) to seek to protect this category of person. Admittedly reductionist, but I believe the core essence is simply this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ I think protection, respect, dignity, rights for LGBTQ people is great! But as you note, there is something extra here. It seems like the entire population, which is mostly cis and hetero, is being asked... well, not asked, really. It's not a request anymore, is it? Strongly urged, to deconstruct and overhaul how we think and speak about sex and gender in all contexts and at all times. And this is a bit difficult to square with the goodness of protecting LGBTQ people. It's a little extra. I was going to write that the growth of this movement consists of cishet people ("allies!"), since it's not a recruitment drive to turn people. But then I realized that's not strictly true either. While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen, there is some fuzziness in the [TQ] part. I could, with high sincerity, choose to identify as agender, possibly a bit genderfluid, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify as non-binary, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify myself as transgender. I don't do that. I don't see it as being in my interest, but that could change. I could join up in the future. In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill!

buckfast 5y ago
> In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill! Very much agreed. I suspect that a lot of these identity issues are being deliberately pushed as a distraction from these more fundamental and wider societal concerns of material wellbeing that successive governments have largely failed at addressing. > While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen The leap of logic with gender dysphoria in recent years seems to be that if a person has dysphoria, then they actually are the alternate gender (in terms of a replacement to the concept of sex) that they desire to be. So, we're told, people identify into the role of a man or a woman, rather than simply existing as such in material biological reality. Personally I find that assertion rather questionable, but it seems it's no longer acceptable to question this.