4 ms·

I do genuinely believe that "consdering that the T doesn't belong with the LGB" makes you "anti-LGBT".

jaywalk 4y ago
But they're not against LGB, just T. So they're anti-T. When every letter in the acronym is literally representing a different group, lumping them together the way you are is dishonest.
- mock-possum 4y ago
  that's exactly the kind of divide-and-conquer approach that queer solidarity is a bulwark against though - whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, or trans, we all face a very particular kind of oppression having to do with sex and gender, and our best bet for countering that oppression is to have eachother's backs: if you're coming after trans people you're going to have to get through the rest of us first. That's not dishonest, that's a strategic show of strength.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    I'm not saying there's anything dishonest about LGBT people all banding together to show strength. I'm saying that it's dishonest to say that an LGB person who doesn't want to be lumped in with the T people is "anti-LGBT." I'm not LGBT, but I do personally know LGB people who don't like the Ts being lumped in with them. They aren't anti-trans by any means, but they see it as a different thing that tends to distract from the LGB and causes more strife. I also know LGB people who share your philosophy and are perfectly happy to have the Ts onboard. I'm just explaining my POV as an outsider.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
- nisegami 4y ago
  In a literal sense, you're right. But the ideas and values that underpins the LGBT movement and many of the people who identify with it are not compatible with accepting just part of that group.
- notahacker 4y ago
  LGBT people bundled themselves together, decades ago. This particular group was formed to combat the notion of LGBT identity. So it isn't unreasonable to class it as anti-LGBT, in addition to also holding more specifically anti-T positions.
kelnos 4y ago
How do you figure? It doesn't require you to be anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, or anti-trans, in order to question why we lump together people who are homosexual/bisexual (which describes the types of people someone wants to get into a romantic or sexual relationship with), with people who are trans (people whose assigned-at-birth gender is not who they are). The answer is, of course, that "we" don't lump them together; the group as a whole has decided to band together because the persecution and opression they suffer is in many ways shared, and often the kind of person who would persecute one of the groups would persecute all of them. But it's not "anti-trans" or "anti-LGBT" to ask this question. (Consider "Asian-American", which is more a political/activist construct than anything else, given that "Asian" describes a bunch of different groups, some of which may not have all that much in common culturally or even politically.) The organization in question may also be anti-trans (or anti-LGBT as a whole), but that's... a separate issue?

But they're not against LGB, just T. So they're anti-T. When every letter in the acronym is literally representing a different group, lumping them together the way you are is dishonest.

mock-possum 4y ago
that's exactly the kind of divide-and-conquer approach that queer solidarity is a bulwark against though - whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, or trans, we all face a very particular kind of oppression having to do with sex and gender, and our best bet for countering that oppression is to have eachother's backs: if you're coming after trans people you're going to have to get through the rest of us first. That's not dishonest, that's a strategic show of strength.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I'm not saying there's anything dishonest about LGBT people all banding together to show strength. I'm saying that it's dishonest to say that an LGB person who doesn't want to be lumped in with the T people is "anti-LGBT." I'm not LGBT, but I do personally know LGB people who don't like the Ts being lumped in with them. They aren't anti-trans by any means, but they see it as a different thing that tends to distract from the LGB and causes more strife. I also know LGB people who share your philosophy and are perfectly happy to have the Ts onboard. I'm just explaining my POV as an outsider.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
nisegami 4y ago
In a literal sense, you're right. But the ideas and values that underpins the LGBT movement and many of the people who identify with it are not compatible with accepting just part of that group.
notahacker 4y ago
LGBT people bundled themselves together, decades ago. This particular group was formed to combat the notion of LGBT identity. So it isn't unreasonable to class it as anti-LGBT, in addition to also holding more specifically anti-T positions.

kelnos 4y ago

How do you figure? It doesn't require you to be anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, or anti-trans, in order to question why we lump together people who are homosexual/bisexual (which describes the types of people someone wants to get into a romantic or sexual relationship with), with people who are trans (people whose assigned-at-birth gender is not who they are). The answer is, of course, that "we" don't lump them together; the group as a whole has decided to band together because the persecution and opression they suffer is in many ways shared, and often the kind of person who would persecute one of the groups would persecute all of them. But it's not "anti-trans" or "anti-LGBT" to ask this question. (Consider "Asian-American", which is more a political/activist construct than anything else, given that "Asian" describes a bunch of different groups, some of which may not have all that much in common culturally or even politically.) The organization in question may also be anti-trans (or anti-LGBT as a whole), but that's... a separate issue?