Skip to content
Maintankadin

LGBT rights discussion

Klaudandus
Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Sabindeus wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:
Skye1013 wrote:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/28/afa-shops-who-display-we-dont-discriminate-stickers-are-bullying-christians/


Civil Rights are not a Zero Sum game! *facedesk*


Civil Rights are a zero sum game between the oppressors and those who are oppressed.


Only in their minds.
Koatanga
Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:03 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

"They don’t want to hear that homosexuality is sinful behaviour – and they wish to silence Christians and the church who dare to believe this truth"

Imagine the gall of some people not wanting to hear hate speech. Furthermore, imagine the horrors of being oppressed by a sticker - an entire sticker - that proclaims a shop doesn't discriminate. Doesn't discriminate. Oh how can they even live in a community where discrimination is not the absolute rule! Lord help them.
Skye1013
Sat May 03, 2014 7:36 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Was perusing reddit when I came across this little gem:

Unknown wrote:What you're missing here, though, is that homophobia and anti-lgbt attitudes aren't defined by the identity of the people in any given situation. You can't claim that homophobia only encompasses identified, open gay people called "fags" by people who KNOW they are gay online. Hurting people that straight people know are hurt by that word is only a part of why it is used as an insult.

In a broader sense, words like "pussy", "fag", "homo", "bitch", etc. are considered attached to negative qualities centered around femininity and weakness. Straight men (and a lot of gay ones, too) attach homosexuality directly to feminine weakness (among other things), and then use homophobic language to suggest another person shares those qualities. It doesn't much matter if they are actually gay or not, because that's not the point.

The point is to say that by extension of being read as queer, the individual being abused is weak, feminine, and deserving of abuse. That's the message being reinforced by normalizing the use of anti-gay slurs in casual conversation. It's just not straight people's place to tell us that "fag" doesn't mean anything anymore considering even when it's used without knowing the sexuality of the other person the word itself is used to evoke gay stereotypes.

Also, being gay and using fag isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as you aren't hurting your fellow gay people when you do it by demonizing feminine men to suck up to straight people and show how super normal you are (which is something we see A LOT in this community).

"Fag" definitely has room to be reclaimed, BY US THOUGH, and honestly since I can't tell a gay person from a straight person in Tribunal and wouldn't be able to trust someone who identified as such in chat...it's better that nobody use it in the context of a game.

I applaud this person (the username was deleted, so no accreditation.)

The discussion thread in case you're interested.
Nooska
Sat May 03, 2014 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

One of teh first things that came to mind is how slurs are very culturally limited.
"Fag" is (and has been for a long time) slang for a cigarette in most of britain.

As for "homo", I have a hard time calling that a slur anywhere, as it is hjust a shortened form of homo-sexual.

I also have a very hard time agreeing with either "fag" or "homo" being directed at feminine weakness (and to be fair, I think the quoted posted has some latent mysoginistic or mysophobic issues of his own)

That being said, I do agree with the point that words can be reclaimed, but not by a subgroup, reclamation has to be supported by people ouside a subgroup, with the lack of hurtful intent.

If I use the danish equivalent for fag (for instance), noone would likely think it a slur (ignoring the ability to make any word a slur by tone or context), since it has been relaimed by the male homosexual community - the reclaiming and restriction of words that have been used as slurs, though is doomed to fail - if a words usages ir restricted by the reclaimers "you can't call us this, we are the only ones that can" then the word hasn't been and won't be reclaimed.
On the other hand, if you reclaim a word and start using it and stating "I am not hurt by this word, you may use it about med too, because I selfidentify with this, and it makes me stronger", then the word stops being a slur in general usage, and just becomes a nomer.
Fivelives
Tue May 06, 2014 5:48 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

the reclaiming and restriction of words that have been used as slurs, though is doomed to fail - if a words usages ir restricted by the reclaimers "you can't call us this, we are the only ones that can" then the word hasn't been and won't be reclaimed.
On the other hand, if you reclaim a word and start using it and stating "I am not hurt by this word, you may use it about med too, because I selfidentify with this, and it makes me stronger", then the word stops being a slur in general usage, and just becomes a nomer.


So much this.
Brekkie
Tue May 13, 2014 12:24 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Fivelives wrote:
the reclaiming and restriction of words that have been used as slurs, though is doomed to fail - if a words usages ir restricted by the reclaimers "you can't call us this, we are the only ones that can" then the word hasn't been and won't be reclaimed.
On the other hand, if you reclaim a word and start using it and stating "I am not hurt by this word, you may use it about med too, because I selfidentify with this, and it makes me stronger", then the word stops being a slur in general usage, and just becomes a nomer.


So much this.


Are there other examples of that kind of reclamation, other than the danish one you described?

I'm trying to think of any, and I'm coming up blank. I can't think of any hateful identifiers that actually have really shed their legacy of hate. I can't think of any racial slurs that simply became non-hateful common-usage in the way you are describing. The ones that are no longer used in a hateful way are ones that simply faded from use entirely. Are Native Americans running around referring to themselves casually as Redskins? Are italians referring to each other as Wops? Jews as Christ-killers?

I just don't see it.
I feel like this idea is probably not likely to really happen, and has undertones of "just get over it".
Skye1013
Tue May 13, 2014 1:13 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Brekkie wrote:Are there other examples of that kind of reclamation, other than the danish one you described?

I'm trying to think of any, and I'm coming up blank. I can't think of any hateful identifiers that actually have really shed their legacy of hate. I can't think of any racial slurs that simply became non-hateful common-usage in the way you are describing. The ones that are no longer used in a hateful way are ones that simply faded from use entirely. Are Native Americans running around referring to themselves casually as Redskins? Are italians referring to each other as Wops? Jews as Christ-killers?

I just don't see it.
I feel like this idea is probably not likely to really happen, and has undertones of "just get over it".

Good ideas aren't always realistic ideas...

That being said... in regards to the Native Americans/Redskins thing... do Native Americans take offense to that? With as PC as our nation tries to pretend that it is... it's amusing to think we have a major sports team called the Redskins (or... did last I checked, but I don't really keep up with sports) if they do. For that matter... my high school mascot is the "Indians" which isn't necessarily a hate identifier... but definitely a label that has stuck around primarily through ignorance.
Nooska
Tue May 13, 2014 3:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Well, I don't know a LOT about slurs in the US, and of course it depends on the reasoning behind it, the listed example of "christ-killer", as example, I don't see being reclaimed - and not all slurs are wanted to be reclaimed, but the discussion came from discussion about reclaiming slurs be restricting them - that was what I was arguing against (not that slurs in general would be or should be reclaimed - that is an entirely different discussion).

But yeah, there are several other examples, mostly european (as I am european) - being slightly sick still and a little too busy for my own good right now, I can't name any off the top of my head (its made harder because they aren't actually slurs anymore), but I will grant that most of them are from withing the LGBT community.

One I do remember (though my info may be wrong) is the word "nigger" - from my understanding it is used quite freely within the black communities (at least someplaces?), though this would qualify as reclaiming by restriction (as I'm quite sure I, pasty as I am, would not get away with using it).
Klaudandus
Fri May 16, 2014 1:51 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _ever.html

It can be surmised as: "Pocahontas married John Rolfe, therefore restricting marriage to male-female couples is constitutional" and yeah, that's pretty much their argument.

The worst part of this argument is that Virginia did pass anti-miscegenation laws, so it was illegal for native-americans to marry whites, unless you were a relative of Pocahontas, because she was a honorary whitey.

The "Pocahontas exception"[edit]
The Racial Integrity Act was subject to the "Pocahontas exception"—since many influential "First Families of Virginia" (FFV) claimed descent from Pocahontas, a daughter of the Powhatan, the legislature declared that a person could be considered white even if he or she had as much as one-sixteenth Indian ancestry.[11] By comparison, during the 19th century, the legislature had defined that a person with one-eighth or less African ancestry could be considered white. During the years of slavery in effect, white citizens of Virginia were less concerned with non-European ancestry than people had become by the early 20th century, more than 50 years after emancipation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Int ... ception.22
Sagara
Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:34 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Klaudandus wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-republicans-endorse-reparative-therapy-for-gays/

ugh


Image

And the Republicans wonder why they keep losing the so-called "fringe" groups. What's worse is that they basically shut down a part of their own electorate to pass a platform that basically denies them as a group.

I can get our NVA passing messages that shoot down the french-speaking in Belgium, because no freaking french-speaker is ever going to vote for them, but that is dumb beyond words.
Klaudandus
Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

I said it before, Log Cabin Republicans are the poster child of "Stop Hitting Yourself".

The party hates them and wishes they would just shut up. They even blocked them from having a booth at the Texas GOP Convention -- and of course, now that same convention, the party comes out as endorsing gay-conversion therapy...

Log Cabin Republicans are pretty much a text-case of battered wife syndrome. Why they stick with the GOP? I honestly have no idea.

If my party was trying to dehumanize me, I'd abandon it, regardless if the party and I had common ground on things like economic policy.
Sagara
Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:33 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

See, that reminds me of my own situation. I'm fairly right-winged economically and left-winged socially, and I'm a french speaker in Flemish land (P.S. Read that, NVA? I'm in your Flanders, sitting on your land! And you'll NEVER FIND MEEEEEEEAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!). So technically, I could vote for the NVA. Practically, it also holds an economical and social agenda I could consider supporting on quite a few points.

Except. I'm clearly persona non grata - yeah I speak Dutch (part of why YOU'LL NEVER FIND ME, SUCKERS!), I'm also working since I graduated (expect for a single month), and try my freaking level best to be a law-abiding citizen, not raising a fuss that I cannot get official documents in French, because I understand the logistics of it are incredibly annoying and costly. But that doesn't matter. I was born in the wrong neighbourhood, and should thus not taint the glory of Flanders with my existence.

So NVA? I voted blue. And I'll keep voting blue. If you got a beef with me, have fun trying to find me.
Nooska
Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:13 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Bu thats the thing (the one thing where I'll tout europe as "better") - We europeans have choice. ACTUAL choice in politics.
US has "choice", you can choose between 2 things, but if you don't agree with one in general, an dthe other just has stupid, you have to choose between endorsing stupid or policy you don't agree with.
Sag, if you could choose between the NVA and the "opposite" (Leftish economical policy and rightwing social policy, neutral on frenchspeaking) - what would you choose? policy you don't agree with, or the one that doesn't like you personally?
Ironshield
Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:04 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

But this is ALWAYS the problem in a democracy, you will never find a party you agree with 100% even if there were 100 viable options, unless you start it yourself, maybe. Now it appears a LOT more dramatic a difference when it comes to things like gay rights in the US (especially) because there is a pretty emphatic line drawn there. But most things are on a sliding scale of grays. So on the surface you would think the Republicans would be much better off just STFUing about these kinds of things, but the flip side of the coin is that they probably think there are more voters who might like Democrat policies but just hate the darn gays so darn much they'll put up with Republican policies to cling onto their bigotry.
Passionario
Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:42 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Nooska wrote:Bu thats the thing (the one thing where I'll tout europe as "better") - We europeans have choice. ACTUAL choice in politics.
US has "choice", you can choose between 2 things, but if you don't agree with one in general, an dthe other just has stupid, you have to choose between endorsing stupid or policy you don't agree with.

And then you have the Russian system, where no matter what you choose, Putin wins.
Nooska
Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:04 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Passionario wrote:
Nooska wrote:Bu thats the thing (the one thing where I'll tout europe as "better") - We europeans have choice. ACTUAL choice in politics.
US has "choice", you can choose between 2 things, but if you don't agree with one in general, an dthe other just has stupid, you have to choose between endorsing stupid or policy you don't agree with.

And then you have the Russian system, where no matter what you choose, Putin wins.

On the upside Putin turns 62 this year - death will win over putin at some point ;)
Sagara
Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:41 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Nooska wrote:On the upside Putin turns 62 this year - death will win over putin at some point ;)


Guys, this is the LGBT discussions, let's push politics somewhere else (I'll answer to you there Noos')

But just for the hell of it, are you SO sure?

Image
Passionario
Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:39 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Sagara wrote:
Nooska wrote:On the upside Putin turns 62 this year - death will win over putin at some point ;)


Guys, this is the LGBT discussions, let's push politics somewhere else (I'll answer to you there Noos')


Putin is a threat to LGBT rights:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -turn.html
Sagara
Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:51 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Never gonna deny that - it's more that we were steadily going off-track and it was sensible to not mix things up (again) with Politics.

At this rate, I'm really wondering if there are any place safe enough for non-hetero sexualities. Even the vaunted "progressive" Western World seems mired in bigotry and prejudice, even when the law itself tries to oppose it. And well, I've got experience enough to realize that something as innocuous as asexuality isn't easily taken seriously even here.

I guess the best we can hope is to raise the next generations to accept and respect better than we ever could.
Nooska
Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:41 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Well there are a few countries I would consider safe (apart from the 'random' extremist) for non heterosexuals (but still sexuals).

I agree asexuality isn't something that gets taken seriously (yet - hopefully), even here in the nordic countries, but I suppose thats because its easier to say "okay, you are sexually attracted to something else than me" than to accept "okay you are NOT sexually attracted to anyone" - it is so fundamentally different from the majority, that the majority of the majority just don't understand it. That being said, I think asexuals will have an easier time everuwhere, once it is undertsood what asexuality is, than those of a differing "persuasion" than heterosexuals.
Amirya
Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:54 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

My experience with others dealing with asexuality seems to fall into 3 categories:

1 - Assuming that asexual is the same as no gender. "You're not asexual, you're a (wo)man!"
2 - "You just haven't met the right person yet. Once you do, you'll understand it." Same category as parents vs child-free ("It's different once you have your own children.")
3 - Understanding what exactly it entails. This is a huge minority, typically understood only by other asexuals.
Sagara
Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:35 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

I'm of a mind that's a learned concept, but actually a harder one to grasp than homosexuality. It's easily conceivable to be attracted to something unusual (another gender, another species, even non-sapient things). But the absence of attraction just feels odd. And we're not helped that most representation of people not interested in sexuality are either people dangerously laser-focused on something (looking at you, Kira), or broken bird-types that refuse sexuality (and romance) into their lives. Both assumptions being dangerously false.

And Nooska, I'm honestly more worried about latent discrimination against asexuals, if only because asexuality doesn't imply a lack of romantic desire (and GOOD LUCK getting that through someone's head AND getting in a serious romance). Add to that it's ten times easier to believe an asexual is lying and trying not to hurt your feelings, and add to THAT it's a completely different paradigm of life, even more so than for an "alternate" sexual, it's nigh impossible to conceptualize.

So while I'm deadly worried of the violence that the LGBT community can suffer by being looked at as the "opposite number" in aversion, I'm also worried that in the middle, the "impossible third option" gets ignored as an utter impossibility and gets trampled in ignorance.
Nooska
Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:14 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Just thinking aloud here.. should we start putting an A in there? LGBTA networks for instance?