3 ms·

> Lol religious conservatives. This is the solvable part. They don't run the country; they're a minority. > Encourage men to have sex with men? Religion is

by RajT88 4y ago

> Lol religious conservatives. This is the solvable part. They don't run the country; they're a minority. > Encourage men to have sex with men? Religion is a fig leaf here. The dislike of LGBTQ+ people is retroactively justified by religion, but it just isn't about religion. If it really was about religion, there'd be a lot more weird hills they'd be dying on, since most of the Anti-Gay stuff is in the Old Testament, and there's a lot of stuff in the OT that they seem perfectly comfortable ignoring. (For example: Crustaceans are not allowed as a food, Leviticus 11:9-12) "They just don't like gay people" is too simplistic as well. My theory is that gay men, as well as trans women are a subversion of traditional gender roles which is why conservatives get worked up about it. Trans men and lesbians of course get some ire too from conservatives, but it feels like an afterthought.

wpietri 4y ago
> My theory is that gay men, as well as trans women are a subversion of traditional gender roles which is why conservatives get worked up about it Exactly. The traditional gender roles come out of the tradition of patriarchal exploitation of women and subordinate men. The extreme version of this is seen in groups like the FLDS [1] and make the dynamics more apparent. But it's the same basic deal even on the softer complementarian end of things. The far right will talk about how gay marriage is a threat to marriage in general, and in one sense I agree with them: functional marriages without rigid gender roles demonstrate that their conception of marriage is limited and grimly unequal. [1] Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven is a good place to get the flavor of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven
- poloniust 4y ago
  The irony of transgenderism is that it's just yet another form of patriarchal exploitation of women, in its drive to eradicate female-only spaces, in encouraging actual female women to mutilate themselves to reach some twisted ideal of masculinity, and in reifying gendered impositions as the epitome of womanhood, for the pleasure of men. Conservatives don't see it from this point of view, of course, but feminists - the radical ones, at least - certainly do. It's a movement that hides behind the LGB to paint itself as progressive, but really this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Indeed, without regressive gender roles, there would be no transgenderism. How else would men be able to pretend they are women without the cloak of false femininity to wrap themselves in.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - RajT88 4y ago
    Nothing says, "I am deeply knowledgeable about this issue; you should listen to my authoritative analysis of it" like a burner account post.
    - poloniust 4y ago
      If you've nothing to say other than shallow dismissal, why bother commenting?
      - RajT88 4y ago
        If you would like to list some sources for your assertions, I would be happy to demonstrate that they are extremely dubious.
        poloniust 4y ago
        Which parts of my comment do you believe are dubious, and why? If we look at the eradication of female-only spaces, for example, the reasoning behind this is that proponents of transgenderism want women's spaces to be based on self-declared gender identity rather than sex. Where this occurs, it means that formerly female-only spaces and services now admit a mixture of males and females, as they will also include men who say they are women. Any attempts to maintain female-only spaces are shot down as being 'bigoted' and 'transphobic'.
        RajT88 4y ago
        So you have no sources. Just assertions. And those assertions are taken from the talking point list of people who are bigoted transphobes. Got it.
        poloniust 4y ago
klyrs 4y ago
> This is the solvable part. They don't run the country; they're a minority. Yes and no. They've got a 6:3 majority in the Supreme court for the foreseeable future, and thanks to gerrymandering, their distribution in rural parts gives them a significantly outsized impact on US politics. I would agree that this minority shouldn't run the country, but it isn't the case. And I'm not sure how that's "solvable" either. > Religion is a fig leaf here. Oh, I agree. My favorite is Leviticus 15:32-36... working on the sabbath no longer incurs the death penalty. But, religion is full of contradictions: compare the Prosperity Gospel with the actual teachings of Jesus. Laws and rulings targeting abortions and LGBT rights are couched in terms of "religious freedom." We cannot hold proclaimed religious people accountable for the contradictions we see between their books and their proclaimed faith -- their proclaimed faith is the protected part!

by RajT88 4y ago

wpietri 4y ago

> My theory is that gay men, as well as trans women are a subversion of traditional gender roles which is why conservatives get worked up about it Exactly. The traditional gender roles come out of the tradition of patriarchal exploitation of women and subordinate men. The extreme version of this is seen in groups like the FLDS [1] and make the dynamics more apparent. But it's the same basic deal even on the softer complementarian end of things. The far right will talk about how gay marriage is a threat to marriage in general, and in one sense I agree with them: functional marriages without rigid gender roles demonstrate that their conception of marriage is limited and grimly unequal. [1] Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven is a good place to get the flavor of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven

poloniust 4y ago
The irony of transgenderism is that it's just yet another form of patriarchal exploitation of women, in its drive to eradicate female-only spaces, in encouraging actual female women to mutilate themselves to reach some twisted ideal of masculinity, and in reifying gendered impositions as the epitome of womanhood, for the pleasure of men. Conservatives don't see it from this point of view, of course, but feminists - the radical ones, at least - certainly do. It's a movement that hides behind the LGB to paint itself as progressive, but really this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Indeed, without regressive gender roles, there would be no transgenderism. How else would men be able to pretend they are women without the cloak of false femininity to wrap themselves in.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RajT88 4y ago
  Nothing says, "I am deeply knowledgeable about this issue; you should listen to my authoritative analysis of it" like a burner account post.
  - poloniust 4y ago
    If you've nothing to say other than shallow dismissal, why bother commenting?
    - RajT88 4y ago
      If you would like to list some sources for your assertions, I would be happy to demonstrate that they are extremely dubious.
      - poloniust 4y ago
        Which parts of my comment do you believe are dubious, and why? If we look at the eradication of female-only spaces, for example, the reasoning behind this is that proponents of transgenderism want women's spaces to be based on self-declared gender identity rather than sex. Where this occurs, it means that formerly female-only spaces and services now admit a mixture of males and females, as they will also include men who say they are women. Any attempts to maintain female-only spaces are shot down as being 'bigoted' and 'transphobic'.
        RajT88 4y ago
        So you have no sources. Just assertions. And those assertions are taken from the talking point list of people who are bigoted transphobes. Got it.
        poloniust 4y ago

klyrs 4y ago

> This is the solvable part. They don't run the country; they're a minority. Yes and no. They've got a 6:3 majority in the Supreme court for the foreseeable future, and thanks to gerrymandering, their distribution in rural parts gives them a significantly outsized impact on US politics. I would agree that this minority shouldn't run the country, but it isn't the case. And I'm not sure how that's "solvable" either. > Religion is a fig leaf here. Oh, I agree. My favorite is Leviticus 15:32-36... working on the sabbath no longer incurs the death penalty. But, religion is full of contradictions: compare the Prosperity Gospel with the actual teachings of Jesus. Laws and rulings targeting abortions and LGBT rights are couched in terms of "religious freedom." We cannot hold proclaimed religious people accountable for the contradictions we see between their books and their proclaimed faith -- their proclaimed faith is the protected part!