Can’t really articulate what that is and what it means, or be specific about what they don’t like about it.
Sadly, this tracks, this is this entire block of white men pretty much (and is identical to people who complain about “woke” and “critical race theory”). It’s a result of flooding the zone with shit (google that if you don’t know what it means) and if anything, it usefully tells us who’s vulnerable to that (a tragically large number of people).
That isn’t a tenet. A tenet is a specific belief, like, “Jesus is the son of God”, to use a Christian example. I am asking, because given that LGBT is a descriptive label for a group and not a prescriptive belief system/ ideology, I am dubious that you can list an ideological tenet.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not intending to make this assertion, but as a warning: transphobia, homophobia, and misogyny are not nice, and are not tolerated on Beehaw.
Nowadays everything it’s blamed to be some kind of phobia. Personally I don’t think I’m one of these but anyway I’m leaving beehaw just in case, can you please ban my account to save some time deleting it?
Actually I read that as misandry. Especially considering that when it comes to trans enmity TERFs are very much a driving force and those tend to be almost exclusively cis women, not men.
And you believe that it’s not that the Right has succeeded in pushing anti-LGBT propaganda onto young white men so much that it has tipped them towards that stance, but rather that it is genuine backlash by young white men against LGBT beliefs?
I believe isn’t just white men, a lot of men in general are not ok with the feminists and LGBT people preaching, and as men are IDK maybe 50% of the population that’s half the votes, the fact it’s radical people are just like 10% each side so both sides keep pushing their ideologies to take the remaining 80% votes.
a lot of men in general are not ok with the feminists and LGBT people preaching
But they are okay with non-feminists and anti-LBGT people “preaching”? And can you clarify who are you referring to when you say “radical people”? Is that meant to be feminists and LGBT people?
I wanted to ask, “what exactly is ‘radical’ on the Left?”, but I think it’s very clear that you’re coming from a viewpoint that is pretty well steeped in right-wing propaganda.
There is a fundamental issue at play here with your starting argument, which is the labeling of an affirmation of existence, e.g. “trans women are women” as an ideological position. To argue anything else is, by definition, to deny their existence. If trans women are not women, then they are not trans women, ipso facto. Denying someone’s identity is, no matter how you cut it, a position of dehumanization.
If I told you that you are not actually whatever gender you identify as, and I got enough people to do the same, you’d be rightfully angry and upset. That you clearly do not have to contend with that reality makes it clear why you are apparently comfortable taking that stance towards others.
There is no 10 / 10 / 80 division of power or ideology; there’s literally no factual basis for claiming that 80% of people are politically unaligned. The only purpose in that fabrication is to make a “both-sides” argument a la “Enlightened Centrism”. Right-wing anti-LGBT ideology is a massively powerful and widespread influence, that encompasses most of the religious Christian populace. To claim they are somehow equivalent to the ~2.5% of people who are LGBT+, or that the pro-LGBT Left are actually 10% and the anti-LGBT right-wingers are 10%, is ridiculous.
Lastly, the most basic, core tenet of Feminism is “equality between genders”. If someone believes that any tenet of feminism advocates inequality between genders, they have fallen prey to right-wing propaganda. If that equality is either threatening or unacceptable to someone, it should raise a ton of eyebrows.
Thinking that posting “kill all men” is a net benefit to society?
My point being: You’ll have to dare a perspective shift to actually understand the issue. No, it’s not about gay marriage and stuff. People by and large, at the utmost, just don’t give a fuck. Live and let live is popular as ever. Hearing, as a 12yold boy, “Men ruled the world for millennia now it’s our turn, you have no problems, men, boys, by definition can’t have any problems, also mutilating your genitals is perfectly justified look at this one random study which says that if you don’t wash yourself then circumcision reduces AIDS rates”… yeah. 12 years is significantly less than millennia, why in the everloving fuck would you blame the poor kid for it and don’t get me started on the circumcision shit the US is cooked.
As said: Dare that perspective shift. It’s not about queer theory, it’s not about emancipation, it’s about institutionalised cattiness and bitter, over-zealous rhetoric creating a particular appearance. It’s also pretty much limited to the US, there’s bits and pieces floating over the Atlantic but our gender relations and politics over here aren’t fucked-up enough to generate that kind of shit ourselves. Also we don’t mutilate genitals.
Or, differently put: Take all the pain you’ve ever seen within the community created by ace and bi erasure, about TERFy enmity, about transmeds, about whatnot, and funnel it onto a young kid who has no letter, not even the “A” for ally they stole from the aces, because why would you give a fuck about ally status when you’re bitter and want to let off steam. Do that in queer spaces. Do that with your therapist, don’t do it in a public political space – the 12yolds are reading – and even more so don’t try to justify it as “part of the struggle”. And actively work against queer spaces becoming self-pity circlejerks of bitterness. Be uppity, be brash, be loud, be fun, be colourful, don’t be aggressive. Hug a homophobe they hate that, don’t spit fire on them their neuroses love that.
It isn’t, and it is. As said: A matter of perspective. What it definitely is part of is the theory of praxis.
Queer theory itself certainly doesn’t vibe with the essentialism inherent in stuff like “kill all men”. But that doesn’t mean that the two don’t get associated in a 12yold’s brain if “kill all men” is what he hears from a blue-haired lesbian. I’m talking in caricatures, of course, just vaguely gesturing at broader political/social interactions.
And, also, granted, in a different socio-economic environment that blue-haired lesbian probably wouldn’t matter, at all (might even have been a political lesbian appropriating queerness). But our 12yold is also seeing his parents getting fired from their jobs, denied housing assistance, is getting made fun of for it in school, is simultaneously worrying about how to, one time, get a girl and found a family and the situation looks dire indeed – not a siltation which would be conducive of taking a level-headed look at the situation and conclude “that women was just angry, it doesn’t mean anything”. Instead, it’s a convenient point to project generalised ire at, a scapegoat silencing that overpowering help- and hopelessness.
So, in short: “Why do they hate us”? Probably, almost certainly, not for any good reason. That doesn’t mean that nothing can be done to make em love you, in fact it wouldn’t be hard at all because they’re love-starved and looking for at least a hope of a better future. Take them along for the ride and you’ll have an ally for life. Antagonise them, don’t step in when others pointlessly antagonise them, and you shot yourself in the knee.
You’re not talking in caricatures or vaguely gesturing broadly. You’re creating a strawman.
None of that is real and then the question becomes two for, why the hell are you calling it queer theory or gay agenda or gender ideology. Because you’re fucked by propaganda.
Second part, how do you say all this and not question the current “sTrAiGhT tHeOrY” existence we live
I’m calling it queer theory because that’s what it’s called. It’s where terms like “heteronormative” come from. Much of it is about the relationship between social norms, or just what’s common, and non-normative individuals, with a particular focus on sexual and gender minorities. And it, indeed, does not look too kindly on gender essentialism because that would mean erasure of non-binary gender experiences. Also because queer theorists don’t like normativity which essentialism boils down to in practice, in one way or the other.
I am, broadly speaking, a huge fan of it. If I were to critique it… well, it isn’t neuroqueer theory. I like the name though, “queer” should IMHO also apply to neurodivergent people. Can we get a letter? N is free, isn’t it?
“gay agenda”, “gender ideology” are terms you randomly introduced into the conversation.
Second part, how do you say all this and not question the current “sTrAiGhT tHeOrY” existence we live
You mean… heteronormativity? The kind of shit that queer theory analyses? Also there’s plenty of queer straights around. Like, aces exist, trans folks exist. Enbies can also be straight.
Kid reads Tumblr and has Internet access, thinks he knows anything. You’re on the Internet too much and it is showing, you do not engage in any sort of academic setting
You literally speak of these characters as if they’re real people and that’s how they really act. Spewing words like queer theory and gender ideology. People are fuckin hilarious
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Can you explain a tenet of LGBT ideology?
“wanting to be considered people and not hidden away” is apparently too much for some people
Everything related to gender ideology on the schools, hormones for children, etc.
Sadly, this tracks, this is this entire block of white men pretty much (and is identical to people who complain about “woke” and “critical race theory”). It’s a result of flooding the zone with shit (google that if you don’t know what it means) and if anything, it usefully tells us who’s vulnerable to that (a tragically large number of people).
That isn’t a tenet. A tenet is a specific belief, like, “Jesus is the son of God”, to use a Christian example. I am asking, because given that LGBT is a descriptive label for a group and not a prescriptive belief system/ ideology, I am dubious that you can list an ideological tenet.
Maybe “trans women are women” there is a lot of men who believe that’s not true.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not intending to make this assertion, but as a warning: transphobia, homophobia, and misogyny are not nice, and are not tolerated on Beehaw.
Nowadays everything it’s blamed to be some kind of phobia. Personally I don’t think I’m one of these but anyway I’m leaving beehaw just in case, can you please ban my account to save some time deleting it?
Actually I read that as misandry. Especially considering that when it comes to trans enmity TERFs are very much a driving force and those tend to be almost exclusively cis women, not men.
And you believe that it’s not that the Right has succeeded in pushing anti-LGBT propaganda onto young white men so much that it has tipped them towards that stance, but rather that it is genuine backlash by young white men against LGBT beliefs?
I believe isn’t just white men, a lot of men in general are not ok with the feminists and LGBT people preaching, and as men are IDK maybe 50% of the population that’s half the votes, the fact it’s radical people are just like 10% each side so both sides keep pushing their ideologies to take the remaining 80% votes.
But they are okay with non-feminists and anti-LBGT people “preaching”? And can you clarify who are you referring to when you say “radical people”? Is that meant to be feminists and LGBT people?
Radical people of both sides right and left are just like 10% each. The remaining 80% of the population have to be convinced by both sides propaganda.
I wanted to ask, “what exactly is ‘radical’ on the Left?”, but I think it’s very clear that you’re coming from a viewpoint that is pretty well steeped in right-wing propaganda.
There is a fundamental issue at play here with your starting argument, which is the labeling of an affirmation of existence, e.g. “trans women are women” as an ideological position. To argue anything else is, by definition, to deny their existence. If trans women are not women, then they are not trans women, ipso facto. Denying someone’s identity is, no matter how you cut it, a position of dehumanization.
If I told you that you are not actually whatever gender you identify as, and I got enough people to do the same, you’d be rightfully angry and upset. That you clearly do not have to contend with that reality makes it clear why you are apparently comfortable taking that stance towards others.
There is no 10 / 10 / 80 division of power or ideology; there’s literally no factual basis for claiming that 80% of people are politically unaligned. The only purpose in that fabrication is to make a “both-sides” argument a la “Enlightened Centrism”. Right-wing anti-LGBT ideology is a massively powerful and widespread influence, that encompasses most of the religious Christian populace. To claim they are somehow equivalent to the ~2.5% of people who are LGBT+, or that the pro-LGBT Left are actually 10% and the anti-LGBT right-wingers are 10%, is ridiculous.
Lastly, the most basic, core tenet of Feminism is “equality between genders”. If someone believes that any tenet of feminism advocates inequality between genders, they have fallen prey to right-wing propaganda. If that equality is either threatening or unacceptable to someone, it should raise a ton of eyebrows.
What a non answer!
Thinking that posting “kill all men” is a net benefit to society?
My point being: You’ll have to dare a perspective shift to actually understand the issue. No, it’s not about gay marriage and stuff. People by and large, at the utmost, just don’t give a fuck. Live and let live is popular as ever. Hearing, as a 12yold boy, “Men ruled the world for millennia now it’s our turn, you have no problems, men, boys, by definition can’t have any problems, also mutilating your genitals is perfectly justified look at this one random study which says that if you don’t wash yourself then circumcision reduces AIDS rates”… yeah. 12 years is significantly less than millennia, why in the everloving fuck would you blame the poor kid for it and don’t get me started on the circumcision shit the US is cooked.
As said: Dare that perspective shift. It’s not about queer theory, it’s not about emancipation, it’s about institutionalised cattiness and bitter, over-zealous rhetoric creating a particular appearance. It’s also pretty much limited to the US, there’s bits and pieces floating over the Atlantic but our gender relations and politics over here aren’t fucked-up enough to generate that kind of shit ourselves. Also we don’t mutilate genitals.
Or, differently put: Take all the pain you’ve ever seen within the community created by ace and bi erasure, about TERFy enmity, about transmeds, about whatnot, and funnel it onto a young kid who has no letter, not even the “A” for ally they stole from the aces, because why would you give a fuck about ally status when you’re bitter and want to let off steam. Do that in queer spaces. Do that with your therapist, don’t do it in a public political space – the 12yolds are reading – and even more so don’t try to justify it as “part of the struggle”. And actively work against queer spaces becoming self-pity circlejerks of bitterness. Be uppity, be brash, be loud, be fun, be colourful, don’t be aggressive. Hug a homophobe they hate that, don’t spit fire on them their neuroses love that.
Lol how is that LGBT ideology?
It isn’t, and it is. As said: A matter of perspective. What it definitely is part of is the theory of praxis.
Queer theory itself certainly doesn’t vibe with the essentialism inherent in stuff like “kill all men”. But that doesn’t mean that the two don’t get associated in a 12yold’s brain if “kill all men” is what he hears from a blue-haired lesbian. I’m talking in caricatures, of course, just vaguely gesturing at broader political/social interactions.
And, also, granted, in a different socio-economic environment that blue-haired lesbian probably wouldn’t matter, at all (might even have been a political lesbian appropriating queerness). But our 12yold is also seeing his parents getting fired from their jobs, denied housing assistance, is getting made fun of for it in school, is simultaneously worrying about how to, one time, get a girl and found a family and the situation looks dire indeed – not a siltation which would be conducive of taking a level-headed look at the situation and conclude “that women was just angry, it doesn’t mean anything”. Instead, it’s a convenient point to project generalised ire at, a scapegoat silencing that overpowering help- and hopelessness.
So, in short: “Why do they hate us”? Probably, almost certainly, not for any good reason. That doesn’t mean that nothing can be done to make em love you, in fact it wouldn’t be hard at all because they’re love-starved and looking for at least a hope of a better future. Take them along for the ride and you’ll have an ally for life. Antagonise them, don’t step in when others pointlessly antagonise them, and you shot yourself in the knee.
Lmfao ramblings of a doofus
You’re not talking in caricatures or vaguely gesturing broadly. You’re creating a strawman.
None of that is real and then the question becomes two for, why the hell are you calling it queer theory or gay agenda or gender ideology. Because you’re fucked by propaganda.
Second part, how do you say all this and not question the current “sTrAiGhT tHeOrY” existence we live
I’m calling it queer theory because that’s what it’s called. It’s where terms like “heteronormative” come from. Much of it is about the relationship between social norms, or just what’s common, and non-normative individuals, with a particular focus on sexual and gender minorities. And it, indeed, does not look too kindly on gender essentialism because that would mean erasure of non-binary gender experiences. Also because queer theorists don’t like normativity which essentialism boils down to in practice, in one way or the other.
I am, broadly speaking, a huge fan of it. If I were to critique it… well, it isn’t neuroqueer theory. I like the name though, “queer” should IMHO also apply to neurodivergent people. Can we get a letter? N is free, isn’t it?
“gay agenda”, “gender ideology” are terms you randomly introduced into the conversation.
You mean… heteronormativity? The kind of shit that queer theory analyses? Also there’s plenty of queer straights around. Like, aces exist, trans folks exist. Enbies can also be straight.
Kid reads Tumblr and has Internet access, thinks he knows anything. You’re on the Internet too much and it is showing, you do not engage in any sort of academic setting
You literally speak of these characters as if they’re real people and that’s how they really act. Spewing words like queer theory and gender ideology. People are fuckin hilarious
That we can agree on.