**READ BEFORE COMMENTING!**
A high standard of discussion is required, meaning that the mods will be taking a strict stance with respect to our regular rules as well as expecting comments to be both **substantive and on topic**. Also be aware that violating the sitewide *Reddit Content Policy - Rule 1* will likely lead to action from Reddit admin.
For more information, please refer to our [Guidance for Trans Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/15iz19o/guidance_for_trans_discussion/).
If you cannot adhere to these stricter standards, we ask that you please refrain from participating in these posts. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I had the same tipping point politically (the pandemic response, and the social issues that erupted during the same time period) and agree with most of what you wrote.
2 questions, if you're willing to answer:
1. Are you a social conservative in other ways?
2. Do you have anything like an overarching view of a conservative approach to transgender matters in contrast to the contemporary left wing one?
Curious on "cancel culture"... Do you believe an individual has the right to decide what business they will support and make that decision and their reasons public? And do they have a right to encourage their friends (or followers) to do the same?
An example, I think Elon Musk is a vile POS and I will not support anything that will possibly benefit him in any way. And I encourage my friends to do the same.
Do you voluntarily support people you think are terrible? Do you tell your friends about it?
Isn't that the apex of civil non-violent protest?
Trans children... What about the Rights desire to ban ALL gender affirming care for youth?
And SPECIFICALLY what "life altering medical decisions" are you talking about?
Would you mind answering a few questions? For transparency, I’m also a transgender woman, and I have a hard time seeing the view you’re espousing regarding not permitting transition before 18 as anything short of monstrous.
I didn’t transition until I was an adult, and honestly I fought it until I couldn’t anymore. Fighting my gender dysphoria by pushing it down and dissociating from it led to uncontrollable panic attacks, debilitating depression, and depersonalization/derealization so severe the world literally distorted and faded into the distance. I hit a point where I couldn’t function, not for one more day, without dealing with it. And transition was the only thing that helped for me.
It was absolute torture, that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. While not all trans folks have this experience, I’ve met other trans folks who had this experience, and hit that point while they were under the age of 18. If I had been blocked from transitioning when I hit that point, I have absolutely zero doubt I would have committed suicide.
So where does this idea that people under the age of 18 should be blocked from transitioning come from? What should be done with kids who hit that point?
>and honestly I fought it until I couldn’t anymore
I mean surely you see that there's a pretty large gap between "avoid medical actions with permanent consequences" and what you did, yeah?
Sure, but my point is that gender dysphoria can be a very serious condition, and we need to leave these options on the table.
Also, puberty has permanent consequences, too. There is a lot that I struggle with today that is a direct result of having gone through the puberty I went through. I certainly wish I would have started my medical transition as a child. But conservatives seem to weigh the outcomes for the vast majority of trans people who remain transitioned as drastically less important than the outcomes for the minuscule percentage of people who detransition.
I hesitate to speak for them, but it seemed to me that they oppose medical transition at that age more than social transition. I could be wrong, of course.
Would a supportive network and a full social transition have mitigated the unfortunate byproducts of your delayed medical transition? Is that still "monstrous"?
I of course can’t say for sure what would have happened if my life went differently. But the answer is “likely some, but not all”. But different people experience this in different severities, and there are people with even worse experiences than mine. So yeah, I’d still view it as monstrous. It’s denying medical care to suffering children, and I know, deeply and personally, how much what they’re going through hurts. In that light, how could I view it as anything but monstrous?
One thing that I can say for certain is that even if it mitigated some of the problems I’ve had, it certainly wouldn’t have mitigated all of them. A lot of my current struggles with physical dysphoria revolve around the permanent physical impacts of having gone through the puberty I went through. Part of my problem here is that conservatives seem to weigh the struggles of the miniscule number of detransitioners much higher than the struggles faced by the vast majority of trans people who remain transitioned.
Also, it should be noted that your hypothetical seems to be designed around a very different Republican Party than the one that actually exists. Republicans in numerous states are pushing for things that interfere with social transition, including barring teachers from using a child’s preferred name and pronouns.
>Part of my problem here is that conservatives seem to weigh the struggles of the miniscule number of detransitioners much higher than the struggles faced by the vast majority of trans people who remain transitioned.
Well, I don't have data for this, but I believe that most conservatives view transgender people as mentally ill and err on the side of not fostering delusion. We've talked before where I outlined this.
>Also, it should be noted that your hypothetical seems to be designed around a very different Republican Party than the one that actually exists. Republicans in numerous states are pushing for things that interfere with social transition, including barring teachers from using a child’s preferred name and pronouns.
This is r/askconservatives, not r/republican. They are not the same thing. There is a lot of overlap, but they are not synonyms. I don't support 90% of what either party wants because they are chock full of radical progressives (you just disagree with the direction one of them wants to progress in, I disagree with both).
>Well, I don't have data for this, but I believe that most conservatives view transgender people as mentally ill and err on the side of not fostering delusion. We've talked before where I outlined this.
Well, if we’ve talked about this before, I assume we got into the discussion of how gender dysphoria is *not* delusion. It’s a distinct condition, with a very different presentation and very different treatment modalities. I’ll take the conservative position on this more seriously the day that they can show even a sliver of evidence that their preferred treatment approach is effective. Until that day, though, it’s all just armchair doctoring based on how someone thinks the world *should* work, rather than being based on how the world actually works in practice.
>This is r/askconservatives, not r/republican. They are not the same thing. There is a lot of overlap, but they are not synonyms. I don't support 90% of what either party wants because they are chock full of radical progressives (you just disagree with the direction one of them wants to progress in, I disagree with both).
That’s totally fair. I shouldn’t conflate the two. I’ve just never seen people who push to restrict medical transition actually support social transition, though. The two tend to be bundled together.
>I’ve just never seen people who push to restrict medical transition actually support social transition, though. The two tend to be bundled together.
I mean I just did...
I was taking that as a hypothetical. I meant in practice, based on the trans people I have met or heard their stories. Would you support social transition in practice?
From my experience, a supportive network and a full social transition would not have mitigated the damages that a delayed transition caused. The support network would have been made up of people I wouldn’t trust. The social transition would have only highlighted the features that caused the worst amount of dysphoria. It would also not have helped that my school environment would still have been toxic and dangerous.
>a supportive network and a full social transition
>The support network would have been made up of people I wouldn’t trust.
That isn't a support network then.
>It would also not have helped that my school environment would still have been toxic and dangerous.
Doesn't sound like a supported transition.
The idea I proposed was meant to imply a perfect world scenario of social affirmation in youth. Would that have offset the negatives of delayed medical intervention?
I offer this because it will be a looong time (possibly never) before many come around to medical (much less surgical) intervention on kids. But calling people what they want to be called and being civil about it is a much more achievable goal.
The problem with many progressive ideas when they run up against conservative thought is the "all or nothing" approach. You have to wear us down like water over stone. Eventually, we will smooth out, and if your idea actually has merit and works, we'll adopt it. Every bit of social progress in the world has come in this way. Yet, knowing this, progressives still swing for the fences.
>That isn't a support network then.
What would a support network for someone younger than 18 look like them? If friends can barely be trusted and family can’t be trusted at all, what is the support network?
>Doesn't sound like a supported transition.
That was my conservative high school. It was homophobic and probably transphobic too. Can’t have a supported transition if the transition isn’t supported.
>The idea I proposed was meant to imply a perfect world scenario of social affirmation in youth.
We don’t live in a perfect world.
>Would that have offset the negatives of delayed medical intervention?
No. My body still would have been changed in ways that cause me extreme distress. Social transition would have only highlighted it.
>I offer this because it will be a looong time (possibly never) before many come around to medical (much less surgical) intervention on kids. But calling people what they want to be called and being civil about it is a much more achievable goal.
Being called my chosen name, would have only made it worse for me. I would have still looked like a teenage boy. Calling me my name and referring to me as her would have only worded my dysphoria since I would not have the appearance to match it, especially since I got hit with massive fucking stick. I’m only person in my family who started balding before I hit 18. I can’t count the amount of breakdowns that alone caused.
>The problem with many progressive ideas when they run up against conservative thought is the "all or nothing" approach. You have to wear us down like water over stone. Eventually, we will smooth out, and if your idea actually has merit and works, we'll adopt it. Every bit of social progress in the world has come in this way. Yet, knowing this, progressives still swing for the fences.
The “compromises” you want aren’t actually compromised though. An actual compromise to banning those under 18 from transitioning, is for the state to cover all transition services for those over 18. If the state wants to harm some irreversibly, it can pay the cost to treat that harm.
You’re touching on something critical here. People talk about limiting medical transition, and relying on social transition alone. But in reality we can’t control social acceptance the way we can medical transition.
Maybe social transition alone would be more effective of the world was more accepting of trans people. But it’s not, and as many conservatives like to point out, there are a ton of people who will fight tooth and nail against efforts to make the world more accepting. They treat that as shoving things down their throats, and trying to control how people think.
We can’t control how other people think, but we can control our own medical choices. Personally, I find that medical transition has made the shortfalls in social support much easier to bear. This feels like that “no take! only throw.” meme, and ultimately regardless of intent it is in effect just works to defer and delay rather than actually *help* trans people.
Yes, Europe is subject to similar political pressures as in the US on this topic. A European journalist could write practically the same article about developments in US states.
I’ve followed developments over there closely, and the most negative thing I’ve seen to be drawn is the idea that more evidence is needed. Which sure, more and better quality evidence is always good. But I have seen precisely zero evidence arise in those discussions which indicate towards a more effective treatment method besides transition.
I’m not an expert. So if I get to vote on the topic my vote goes for the people not in favor of doping children. Sorry I’m not going to spend hours of my day and pay to take college courses to understand every topic I have to possibly make a decision on. Sometimes we all have to go with our gut instincts. And I certainly don’t trust big pharma or psychiatrists.
My point is that you shouldn’t be having a vote on that. You only “get to vote on the topic” because conservative politicians are inserting themselves between parents and their kids’ doctors. Are you going to vote on oncology as well?
Do you believe the current republican party is pro-small government? I don't really consider them conservative anymore, but wondering how you square that circle.
>Not necessarily, but I don’t think the Democratic Party is either. Ron DeSantis is an example of that, with his recent ban on lab grown meat
Yet you still vote Republican anyway
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
So how do you reconcile the fact that the party you vote with does not stand for anything you claim to believe in, except for the second amendment?
How do you feel about so many in the party you vote with saying that you should not be alive? Calling you a groomer?
100% sure that none of it has happened though. Voting based on blatant lies is kinda silly.
They preach small government, then raise the deficit 7 trillion.
They preach the 2A, then arbitrarily ban bump stocks with a signature.
They preach freedom, then reauthorize the patriot act.
They preach the constitution, but they’ve never read it.
Wow it’s almost like the left wants to silence/hear silence from and/or erase the voice of people who fall in their pre-defined minority groups who don’t tow their political line. A good trans male friend of mine doesn’t at all vent to me about this at all when we talk politics, society, and their journey.
>How do we know you are a trans woman? I’ve seen plenty of white MAGAs wearing Blacks for Trump T Shirts.
It's her truth. Who are you to question her? What happened to "believe all women"?
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
You're free to vote for whoever you want. It doesn't make sense to most people voting for the politicians/party who are against gay marriage, LGBT adoption, and most all of anti-LGBT bills/policies
By the same token, liberals tell me they want their right to keep and bear arms respected while voting for a party that constantly promises to abrogate that right.
It's almost like, and bear with me here, we're not all single-issue voters.
I'm a mortician. I had to get a license, go to school, and do a bunch of annoying crap to get my license. Am I being "crazy and over-controlling" because I agree that maybe people should have some training before they do what I do?
I just want to know, sincerely, do you think that, for example, anybody should be allowed to embalm a dead body, no questions asked, as long as they pay for a license?
What's the difference, then, between that and a liberal who votes for people who say "maybe we should make it so that people who are a legit danger have a hard time getting these things"?
And yeah-stuff will still go wrong. But you still put on a seatbelt, so you can know you did everything you reasonably could.
But if you're still not convinced, I have one last question- would you *really*, truly, honestly, want *me* having unrestricted access to a gun? Bear in mind I have very little to care about, and have severely irrational thoughts when it comes to what should be done to people who abuse animals.
> I had to get a license, go to school, and do a bunch of annoying crap to get my license
Wait, you need a *license* for that? Hold on. I'll be right back.
OK. Nobody look in the closet. Now, where were we?
> Bear in mind I have very little to care about, and have severely irrational thoughts when it comes to what should be done to people who abuse animals.
Then it's your decision whether or not you feel it's suitable to own a gun. Our culture is built on the foundation of personal responsibility.
The problem arises when you decide the factors in your decision have to apply to everyone else.
>Wait, you need a license for that? Hold on. I'll be right back.
>OK. Nobody look in the closet. Now, where were we?
I just... I just want to thank you for reminding me that laughter and humor is what brings us together. I forget that sometimes, but it's true. If we can laigh and smile and have a good time together a little more, then ... well, then maybe things will be alright. ❤
Do those liberals that "want their right to keep and bear arms" tell you they also support common sense gun legislation? Because that's how the majority of liberals feel.
The problem is the majority of conservatives appear to support removing personhood for trans people.
I'm pro-gun too. I can be okay with or without guns. I can't be okay with laws that would discriminate against me based on my sexual or gender identity.
OK, then go trust the party of Don't Ask/Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, the party who opposed gay marriage up until the Supreme Court made it safe to claim they supported it all along.
See, I've been advocating since the 1990s. All those folks who go on CNN and social media saying they're *fighting for equality* or whatever? They never answered our calls or agreed to talk to us. It's always pandering for political points.
No thanks.
While I know Clinton came up with DADT as a compromise, stressing the "don't ask" part to prevent investigations, didn't Obama oversee its repeal in 2011 while the majority of the 2012 Republican candidates promised to restore it, and the audience at a Republican debate booed a gay US soldier in Iraq?
And wasn't DOMA introduced by two Republican Congressmen with a third of Democrats voting against it, and didn't Biden oversee its repeal? And doesn't the current official GOP platform still advocate for overturning same-sex marriage?
Edit: And also Trump was openly against gay marriage before the SCOTUS ruling, and in 2016 after the SCOTUS ruling he said “if I'm elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change things” in his desire to see the ruling reversed.
Democrats used to be against [thing] and no longer are, whereas Republicans remain against [thing], ergo, Democrats bad, Republicans good?
Like...Republicans are growing *more openly hostile* towards our community than they have been in a *while*.
> than they have been in a while.
Right. Since about, say, the early 2000s? And why would that be?
Maybe it's because we worked hard in the prior years to convince people we were normal folks who just wanted the same fair shake everyone else gets.
And it was working. But *no.* Gen Z had to crash the party, and now Will Truman has been replaced with Toby. Look at Toby. He's up on that Pride float with his My Little Pony hair, wearing a dog leash and getting spanked by a Tom of Finland reject.
And you know what? Marge and Joe Sixpack see that. Whether you like it or not, their opinion *matters.* If they think we're a bunch of perverts, all our work is undone. When they find out people are sneaking books like *Genderqueer* into school libraries (that happened in my county), they're going to react badly.
This is what people don't get: *perception matters.* What we're seeing is the pendulum swinging violently back in reaction to people acting very badly and very publicly.
While I do agree Gen Z can get a bit *extra,* for one thing, conservatism never considered you or I normal and was at best seething over the slow increase in acceptance. Hell, I'd suggest they're angrier now that it's *mostly considered normal,* not just because the kids have gone wild.
Also, I gotta say your choice of lament over Pride kink is funny, because The Onion was talking about that 23 years ago: https://www.theonion.com/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays-bac-1819566014
They never stopped thinking we were perverts. Go by some of the conversations about HB 1557 here, it's clear it's not just about Gender Queer, it's about *normalcy,* about LGBT people (especially T, but all of us) showing up in more media now. This was rising before the increase in trans visibility. Trans issues certainly don't help, but "it was fine until you got too weird with it" is, in my experience, a fiction.
> I'm pro-free speech too. I can be okay with or without free speech. I can't be okay with laws that would discriminate against me based on my sexual or gender identity.
We often conflate being a part of a community and caring about that community. Eric Adams is blk. He also loves arming and empowering police to act with impunity. He ignores the wishes of his constituents and does all he can to keep police from receiving punishment for anything they do.
When someone is in an environment where their identity is something they can hide, or if they are in a position of power to avoid the fallout of other people in their same group, they often go ahead and side with the people around them, even if those people want them to stop existing.
marriage:
Has been defined for over a millennium as legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Don’t highjack words. Best solution get government out of the marriage conversation entirely.
I am not sure on LGBT adoption, how are is it for a strait male to adopt? I think both a Male and Female are needed to create a child for a reason. Either God or Evolution decided that was a best fit.
What anti LGBT bills are you taking about? The Florida bill that says we don’t need sex ed until 3rd grade? Please provide examples?
To be clear strait is not a word my friends use to describe me. Not that I feel the need to define my sexuality with everyone.
I do value life, anti abortion, strong 2a supporter, highly supportive of low taxes, small businesses, don’t care about sexuality if an individual as long as they are a good person.
Just to head off the question, I am cool with a woman doing what she wants with her body but once she is pregnant I believe that is a second life. My libertarian view say do what as long as you’re not violating the rights of another. Right to life in this example.
The thing that bugs me about “get government out of marriage entirely” is that a) we both know it’s never going to happen, b) it ignores why the government deals with marriage in the first place and c) it’s largely a dismissive response to the issue because of reasons a and b, but that’s just my own personal opinion/impression.
You should probably take that up with the conservatives that historically legislated based on sexuality and identity then - and still are in several states
The difference is that liberals have been a non issue for the last 15 years while there are a large number of present day conservatives still at it.
Someone with cognitive dissonance might desperately want to imply conservatives are on the same level as liberals today in an attempt to resolve it. They are not.
Nothing makes the sub quite so salty as bringing this up I have noticed but just the same it never gets really addressed either.
Okay, **and?**
Like...criticize libs' motives for pivoting on LGBT issues, but they **pivoted.** Conservatives haven't pivoted nearly as much, and going by the return of Anita Bryant style rhetoric about my community, it's clear they never *really* pivoted at all. It just became more gauche to say "f-ggot".
Having LGBT people be just normal people who have a variety of political views is actually a good thing for LGBT acceptance.
Seeing a gay guy posting on here making totally based conservative arguments on here helps me feel a lot more affinity and respect for the LGBT community than it would if every gay person I met was an idiotic leftist robot.
Dude, this reminds me of these 2 gay dudes in a YouTube reply section that said they were conservatives and weren't a part of the lgbt community. The community started insulting them XD. Now I know all of em aren't like that but it was crazy.
I wonder why LGBTQ usually allign more the group who is friendly to them and not the one historically against their existence "morally" and legislatively
What does it mean to be against someone's existence?
Might liberals be against someone's existence on other bases?
In the modern environment, where aggressive persecution against LGBT people isn't on the table, doesn't that "friendliness" count for a lot less?
Is that friendliness really all that friendly?
What are you trying to imply with these weird ring-around questions? I'll bite anyways.
>What does it mean to be against someone's existence?
It means being homophobic to the point of inciting violence. You don't necessarily have to be the one committing the violence to be such a person, speaking out your hate is enough.
>Might liberals be against someone's existence on other bases?
As a whole, no. Maybe literal dictator fascists like Putin or the entire Kim dynasty, but liberalism promotes equal rights for everyone. If you are asking this question you must have some objections I assume?
>In the modern environment, where aggressive persecution against LGBT people isn't on the table, doesn't that "friendliness" count for a lot less?
It is very, VERY much on the table.
The friendliness will count for less only when the right lets go of homophobia as a whole so that the entire world can look at being LGBT as a normal occurrence where we wont even need a pride month.
>Is that friendliness really all that friendly?
Is this an attempt to undermine the left's support towards the LGBT community?
>It means being homophobic to the point of inciting violence. You don't necessarily have to be the one committing the violence to be such a person, speaking out your hate is enough.
I don't doubt that one can incite violence without explicitly saying "someone should do an act of violence". But a lot of people are assuming that anybody is "speaking out hate" or treating dissent as hate. This isn't realistic. The mainstream cultural/social Right, realistically, isn't.
>If you are asking this question you must have some objections I assume?
I think the Left is... Often against my existence as a religious person.
>so that the entire world can look at being LGBT as a normal occurrence where we wont even need a pride month.
Do you understand why, to us, this comes across as worryingly like "we will never be safe until we have hegemony over everyone else"? You will never, ever get rid of dissent.
And in any case, its clear that a lot of LGBT people don't share that view, and the value proposition of the Left's friendliness is a lot less.
>Is this an attempt to undermine the left's support towards the LGBT community?
More like to question it's motives. The Left often seems to view itself as entitled to the unconditional support of its client demographics. When it becomes apparent that this support is conditional upon the Left meeting their needs, the response often is deeply alarming.
> But a lot of people are assuming that anybody is "speaking out hate" or treating dissent as hate. This isn't realistic. The mainstream cultural/social Right, realistically, isn't.
What does dissent mean in this case? What differentiates it from hate? Why would you try to dissent against social equality?
> I think the Left is... Often against my existence as a religious person.
Oh, spare me the victim card.
Have you ever been called a slur for being Christian? Are you afraid of being honor killed in any eastern and African countries? Are you considered a criminal in majority of them? Have you ever been outcast as a child in your life for being Christian? Has your right to marry or adopt ever been put into jeopardy? Do people cover the eyes of their children when you pass by in public? Were you born a Christian or did you choose to be one?
So much wolf in sheepish clothing responses in this sub.
> Do you understand why, to us, this comes across as worryingly like "we will never be safe until we have hegemony over everyone else"? You will never, ever get rid of dissent.
I understand. I just have no sympathy. Because I don’t want you to actively support the LGBT community, just want you to see them as regular people like you and me. They should not be upheld nor downcast. Just treated fairly based on character.
Do you think you are on the right side of history here? Any of your arguments could be made for black people or women 200 years ago and look where we are now. You cannot halt social progress.
> More like to question it's motives. The Left often seems to view itself as entitled to the unconditional support of its client demographics. When it becomes apparent that this support is conditional upon the Left meeting their needs, the response often is deeply alarming
We dont expect unconditional support from anyone. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think minorities voting republican go through one hell of mental gymnastics. What you call “deeply alarming” is just calling them, at least in my case, abject fools. Certainly a better reaction than violence often displayed by the right.
>What does dissent mean in this case? What differentiates it from hate? Why would you try to dissent against social equality?
Inability to distinguish between hatred and non-hateful disagreement, dissent, or opposition... Is really not a good look. Frankly, I strongly believe that this is one of the roots of totalitarianism.
I'm bewildered that you can't understand this distinction existing - it seems like brainwashing.
Fundamentally, they're blatantly different. The types of dissent I'm referring to involves disagreeing with someone's choices and wanting not to support or participate in those choices.
Hatred, well, involves hating someone, wanting to harm them or have them be consumed by disgust, etc.
A lot of the talk of equality on this matter smacks to us of "five should be equal to three, because it's unfair for three to be a smaller number".
>Oh, spare me the victim card.
If you never accept that anyone else might have been victimized...
Accused of supporting pedophilia, targeted for forcing breaking confidentiality, told we should hide our religion in public, numerous church arsons, unrelated churches attacked for vandalism in revenge for something some people were incorrectly accused of doing, fake stories of historical crimes...
>just want you to see them as regular people like you and me
And I argue that I do.
>Do you think you are on the right side of history here?
**Yes. Full stop.**
More specifically: it's quite possible that we'll never be vindicated in our lifetime, or even within the world, but we take the position we do because to the best of our knowledge it's the objectively right one to take, and in the uttermost reckoning we will be seen to have made the correct and loving choice, even under difficult circumstance.
>You cannot halt social progress.
There's no "progress" in that sense, for us to halt, certainly not one which always favors you or inevitably unfolds.
In my view, the only reason you feel like you're on the right side of history is because you have been stronger for 250 years and history is written by the victors.
>Any of your arguments could be made for black people or women 200 years ago
We were on the same side for black people. But skin color is very different from the (sexual) uses of the human body.
> Fundamentally, they're blatantly different. The types of dissent I'm referring to involves disagreeing with someone's choices and wanting not to support or participate in those choices.
Not a choice.
Also, I am trying to influence you to think your answers, if you see my attempt at letting you explain the nuance as blindness to the point totalitarianism, then I am afraid we may be getting on the wrong foot. I just want you to explain to me what you personally believe.
That’s fine. Disagree all you want. That’s what I want, really, just if you do it without actively inciting violence. Without letting the dissent breed hate. It seems you are already at this stage so unless you are actively speaking out against them I have no quarrel. Of course, I’d much prefer a world where everyone recognizes the LGBT community as a normal part of life but I am a realist, even black people aren’t fully accepted today after a century and a half. I do not see a full acceptance anytime soon.
> If you never accept that anyone else might have been victimized...
Not anyone. Individuals, of course. Christians as a whole, I definitely do not think.
> Accused of supporting pedophilia, targeted for forcing breaking confidentiality, told we should hide our religion in public, numerous church arsons, unrelated churches attacked for vandalism in revenge for something some people were incorrectly accused of doing, fake stories of historical crimes...
All of these except the first one are inconsequential or petty crimes. They do not compare to anything I listed for the LGBT community. I don’t want to downplay your problems, those are real issues, but on the topic of comparing it to the everyday fight of minority communities it stands rather inconsequential and rare. Not a methodical discrimination.
Your first example however is a sad truth. It goes for the LGBT community too, they suffer the same problem. Nobody should be branded such an awful thing for being who they are and people who generalize as such are shallow and dislikable often. I would rather proselytize the Ten Commandments before I call you such a thing.
> And I argue that I do
Thank you. Genuinely. It’s enough to make a change if everyone was at least in your level of thinking. Especially given that some religious people often base their religion for actual hate and violence, I’m glad you avoided such a path.
> Yes. Full stop
What you think right now is the loving and right choice may be what slave owners though 200 years ago as well. Again, this argument lost a bit of meaning because you aren’t entirely homophobic, but it is apparent that you hold at least some disagreement or dislike towards the trait of LGBT. So in this context, where the left wholly embraces it while the right’s best case tolerates, do you think its baseless for the LGBT community to (mostly) see the right as the enemy?
We have never been stronger on the social side of history as the left, but it is true that we keep getting victories. Because like I said, you cannot halt social progress.
> There's no "progress" in that sense, for us to halt, certainly not one which always favors you or inevitably unfolds.
Well my entire argument is that there is one. I am trying my best to understand your views and I hope you can make the same effort. I am not a SJW but I see the hardships for the LGBT community all the same. The history has always been black and white in this regard, the perpetrator and the victim. Spoiler alert: the victim eventually wins.
> We were on the same side for black people. But skin color is very different from the (sexual) uses of the human body.
Who’s “we”? Again, this argument boils down to you thinking its a choice. Being LGBT is not a choice. Do you think a married man of 20 years just suddenly goes “man I want some of that guy pecs” and turns gay? If such a thing happens, they always have been gay. They just suppress it.
I think this is the heart of the problem. Its not a choice. There have been numerous studies on this, its been confirmed that the brain develops at least some part of the affiliation at an early age.
>Not a choice.
This may indeed be the big disconnect.
Having sex with a person of the same sex as yourself is *absolutely* a choice, and I doubt that many people would disagree. (So is having sex with a person of the opposite sex as yourself, or being celibate.) On the other hand, one does not choose who one is attracted to.
My primary claim is that people should make a different choice (i.e. to not do that), and sundry other choices in the same line.
>Not anyone. Individuals, of course. Christians as a whole, I definitely do not think.
Between the level of individuals and all of Christianity, there's definitely the category of certain sects, or people who hold to a particular overall traditionalistic tendency. That is the group that is under attack.
The thing I tend to perceive the opposition as saying is that it is OK if I am a Christian, as long as I don't actually believe it.
>The history has always been black and white in this regard, the perpetrator and the victim. Spoiler alert: the victim eventually wins.
I believe that the only reason we think this, is that who the "victim" is gets decided after the fact. And not everyone even has that underdog-sense.
It would have been possible that Hitler would win WWII and everyone would talk about how it was inevitable that the natural strength and bravery of the Aryan race would prevail.
It also would have been possible that the Soviets would overtake capitalism, and, well, blah blah blah.
It also historically would be possible that the Christian Right would win in the recent past, and they might do so in the future. It is my sincere hope that we can be more honest about history.
> Having sex with a person of the same sex as yourself is absolutely a choice, and I doubt that many people would disagree
True but what does that have to do with anything? Are you against sodomy specifically? If so, why do you care what happens in the bedroom?
> My primary claim is that people should make a different choice
Sorry, I don’t get what you mean by this. Should gay people make the choice of not having sex? If so, see above.
> or people who hold to a particular overall traditionalistic tendency. That is the group that is under attack.
Maybe it’s because that is the group that tries to tell others how to live based on their religion and tradition, and that they see social progress as an attack on their existence. No one is actively physically harming traditionalists around the world. Cause why would they? As a (mostly) socially progressive person even I can see that tradition is culture. It must be preserved (as long as it doesn’t interfere in other people’s lives).
> The thing I tend to perceive the opposition as saying is that it is OK if I am a Christian, as long as I don't actually believe it
We must be perceiving some very different things. Almost every leftist I know irl suppprts a secular nation where people are free to practice whatever they want, just don’t proselytize to me. I don’t wanna see Bible quotes in the YouTube comments of a cooking channel. That’s essentially how I expect others to perceive the LGBT community as well. They mind their business and you mind yours.
> It would have been possible that Hitler would win WWII and everyone would talk about how it was inevitable that the natural strength and bravery of the Aryan race would prevail
If the Nazis took over the world maybe we would talk that facing the holster of a gun. Do you see North Korea as the right side just cause the Kim dynasty were the victors? If you cannot differentiate the right side from the wrong when the wrong one actively harms the right one, damn, you need some glasses.
> It also historically would be possible that the Christian Right would win in the recent past, and they might do so in the future
Win what? The war of not letting LGBT people live their lives without major repercussions? Putting the Ten Commandments into classrooms?
Cause if so, congratulations, you’re halfway there already.
> Inability to distinguish between hatred and non-hateful disagreement, dissent, or opposition... Is really not a good look.
Let me start by saying I truly believe you when you say your dissent (if this is a position held by you and not simply one you're defending) is not based in hate.
However.
If you tell me, a bisexual man, that a) pubescent kids cannot possibly be LGBT or that b) we shouldn't teach pubescent kids that LGBT (or even just LGB) people exist the same way we do with straight people...I can't see that as anything *but* hateful. It's essentially "you are pornography." If it was just "Gender Queer is too sexually explicit for people under 18," that'd be one thing, but it is "children cannot see routine depictions of LGBT people the same way they see depictions of straight people, not even mentioning two moms in a math problem".
That's a mainstream conservative position. How do I look at that and think anything other than "wow, these people hate me, think of me as something disgusting they have to tolerate but must keep their children away from," etc.?
You wanna think being bi is wrong, okay, fine. But that's not enough, going by laws like HB 1557. Kids have to not know what being bi is. Because being bi is somehow Adults-Only, just Inappropriate for a kid to know about. Billy can't have a crush on Suzy *and* a crush on Tommy. Not even an opt-out thing; we need to add legal peril to any mention of bi people.
That's not dissent. That's *control.*
To be fair, republicans haven’t totally come around to the whole gay thing yet. Yeah, it’s less acceptable to be outwardly homophobic in general, and there is more support for gay rights than there used to be. But by and large, many of the issues that matter to gay people: gay marriage, gay couples right to adopt, non-discrimination protections, and bans on conversion therapy (particularly for minors more than anything), are things that the Republican Party is flat out against and would not have as law if it weren’t for various court cases here and there holding that they can’t touch the issue.
I think a better question you should ask is why the Left is claimant to them. My brother married a man from India, and he's further Right than I am, simply because FJB.
Gay man here. I'm technically a moderate/centrist but I currently lean more conservative because of how far the left has gone, and I wish to correct that with my vote.
So why am I not a lefty? Because my politics have nothing to do with my sexuality. I have almost zero in common with the conventional LGBT community. Pride doesn't interest me. The experimental relationship and sexual models promoted by the mainstream gay community not only don't interest me, I think they are degenerate. The current iteration of social justice, critical race theory, intersectionality and queer theory are corrupted to the core and don't represent me or me interests. And the fact is, there are more pressing matters than people's sexualities and gender identites. Like, way bigger.
I am interested in smaller government, debt control and reigned in spending, national sovereignty, the right to self-defense, private property, and social spending that is practical (which INCLUDES controls on corporate welfare, btw). The list goes on. I also have way more in common with Paleoconservatives when it comes to things like decentralization, reduced spending, ending financial interference of politicians (bribes), ending corporate personhood (which is a huge joke), etc. The socially conservative aspect of Paleoconservativism interests me less, but I do think we need to balance a lot of the radical leftism with some rightism. We need to return more to center. I think the traditional family model was better. The birth rate is down for a reason and it's because there is a culture war between men and women, thanks to radical leftism... and with the help of social media. I know conservative gay couples who are raising families under the nuclear model, and their children are super well-adjusted. This model doesn't jive with radical leftism, which is destroying the nuclear family. They believe in poly, open relationships, multiple partners, promiscuity and the prioritization of pleasure over life discipline. These are not virtues, they are lazy cop outs from what it takes to really contribute to your society. This is why economies in traditional nations are starting to overtake us. Their work ethic is way better than ours. My partner and I both work in white collar professions... we worked our asses off for everything we have. And our reward? Left-wing governments taxing the shit out of us to prop up welfare programs and loan forgiveness for lazy leftists who took women's studies in university. It's laughable.
I actually have more sympathy for classical liberals, or even the liberalism that existed pre-2018. It has gone totally off the rails now thanks to radical leftism and progressivism infecting everything. I feel super alienated as a gay man and I want to see social policy that reigns some of this crap in... like child grooming in education, drag queens entering children's species, and anyone declaring themselves trans without medical qualification so that they can invade gender-segregated spaces. No. It stops now. After gay marriage and parental rights were signed into law, I felt ZERO threat from the right wing. It is the current left wing that has made me feel unsafe. They are dying on hills like teaching kids about sex toys, and drag queens reading to kids, which has stoked the radical right into coming back out of the woodwork to attack all gay people. We need to get back to reality, and get back to policy making that is actually pertinent... like preventing economic collapse and foreign interference.
I will vote conservative, even if it's conservative-independent, until this madness ends. We need balance, badly.
I am LGB without the TQ+. The TQ+ can go to hell. They don't represent me and every time one of them talks about "LGBTQ+" I remind them that they are NOTHING like the LGB movement that won its rights through popular discourse. So... my vote is not only about the economy and sane policy, it's about ending child grooming and letting people with personality disorders hijack our institutions.
>I am LGB without the TQ+. The TQ+ can go to hell.
i'm trans. should i go to hell for existing? :(
even if you think i should, i'm still bi. i'm not only that dirty ugly gross "TQ+".
if you want me dead for, i don't know, literally *existing* then that's pretty goddamn fucking disgusting. i don't think you should go to hell for existing even just because you are a conservative. whatever. i don't agree and think your worldview is harmful (especially to yourself) but you don't deserve death for it. believe what you want. i'm not forcing you to do anything.
i'm not exposing kids to sexual content for existing unlike what some people think (the 2025 conservative promise literally is using roundabout language to want to execute us LOL). i have clothes on and keep sexual desires to myself.
i am not sexual for existing. i am being sexualized by others for existing. i have done nothing except exist.
>like teaching kids about sex toys, and drag queens reading to kids
... literally who is doing that? who is showing kids sex toys? and what's wrong with being a drag queen when it's just a form of self expression that *you* don't like just because *you* don't understand it?
like, think about it. should *you* not be in front of children or be allowed to talk to them because you're gay? or just because you like to dress a certain way and like certain things that aren't even harmful?
and are you, like, confused about teaching kids about reproduction? yeah, we teach kids about reproduction bc we need to.
if we DON'T teach kids about reproduction, we're gonna have unwanted children born to teenagers who cannot take care of them. we need to teach them about protected sex and contraception. we need to teach them what STIs are. if you don't want abortions then don't create a situation where they're needed in the first place. the foster system is already fucked and people don't want their children going through that which would lead them to keeping the child in a situation where they just can't take care of the kid.
i learned about the reproductive system in *middle school* using textbook drawings and sheets to fill out. my teacher taught me about them, showed a condom, talked about other contraceptive devices & medications, etc. i knew i was trans before that. that had absolutely *nothing* to do with my transition. i had never met another trans person. i never learned about sex toys. and i am from a notoriously far left part of the country.
i never once learned about anything sexual in elementary school. i learned about female puberty and that's it. never formally learned what a dick was until middle school. i knew what they were before then but let me tell you this: it wasn't lgbtq people showing me that.
hell, if i knew about reproduction earlier and that safety, my mind wouldn't be wrecked by things that have been done to me. i would have known it's not normal and to tell someone.
>I remind them that they are NOTHING like the LGB movement that won its rights through popular discourse.
do... do you not know your own history? it isn't only that. it's incredibly nuanced. a drag queen (or trans woman? dunno) threw the first rock at stonewall. drag queens and trans people fought for the same rights as you. it isn't ONLY you. it's all of us. trans people have always been part of the community and we have done good things for it.
trans people have been met with much of the same adversity that other lgbt people have. they both have to do with expressing ourselves without fear. both sexuality and gender literally have a distinct focus on gender. so many trans people are also lgbt. we have the same struggles.
the far right is driving a wedge within the lgbt community. they are trying to separate us and turning us against ourselves which is *exactly* what is happening right here. if you don't think so, **tell me why it isn't.**
when the far right is done with us, *you're next.* shit ain't getting better for either of us until we work together. don't like me? too bad. we're in this together whether you like it or not.
no matter how much you align yourself with the right, you're still gonna be hated.
frankly i don't care if you don't like me for being trans. i'm alive. i'm happy. i have goals and aspirations. i'm going to get a master's and maybe even a phd. i'm going to make changes to this world and you can't stop me. they're going to be good changes. i'm not going to med school but just because a doctor is trans doesn't mean they don't save lives.
(continuing in reply)
if you have a problem with me being *happy* and fucking ***alive***, that is ENTIRELY a you problem. and if you do you honestly disgust me. and i see the best in everyone and give everyone a chance, even if i don't like them.
i do understand where you are coming from. i do. i used to be like "oh, i don't identify with THOSE lgbtq people. i'm not one of them. i'm normal like you guys." but then i figured something out that DRASTICALLY improved my life:
i decided i didn't care.
people are happy and why police them for that? this is ultimately harmless. i think everyone deserves happiness as long as it isn't putting down others. it doesn't even only go for "those" lgbtq people. someone has a different opinion? whatever. i let people believe what they want. frankly i wasn't even going to respond to this comment until you told me to go to hell. that's a step too far, man. you don't even know me.
who even says we have to please cishet people? why should we conform to what *they* want? letting us exist is the least they can do after centuries of oppression.
the world isn't made of boxes. boohoo. humans are diverse and we have been for thousands of years. LGBT people have existed for thousands of years and there's even gay shit arguably depicted in cave paintings and even if you deny those, there's still stuff in written history. times are changing and that's a good thing.
after the right is done with us, they're gonna eat you. and you aren't gonna have anybody left to stand up for you, now will you?
i'll stand up for you even if you wouldn't do the same for me.
i'm sure i don't only speak for myself when i say i do want you to be happy. you deserve it. even if you don't think the same for me. but you turning against your own community, even if you don't understand it or dislike it, is making you upset. i have been there. i know this from experience.
turn off your brain for a day. look at things from the other side. leave people be. the less you care about policing others, even if it's for your own "good", the happier you're gonna be.
i know from YEARS of reflection that i just wanted to please cishet people so i wouldn't be treated badly. i was insecure. i turned against my own community *and* yours. both of ours. don't like me including you in my icky leftist ways?
not my problem for wanting what is best for both of us.
Tl;dr
I have no problem with individual, legit trans people. I have trans friends. I am sick of the TRA movement and what it has become. That's what I mean by the TQ can go to hell. Sadly I think trans people have been done more harm by the TQ+ because of how toxic the politics are now, and because of all the bandwagoning by people who aren't even trans.
No, a drag queen or trans person did not throw the first brick. I am so sick of this lie. Marsha P Johnson was a gay man. We have archival footage of him saying as much. Just because he was femme does not mean he was actually a woman. Stop appropriating femme gay men into the trans umbrella. It's another reason why gay men fucking can't stand the TQ. Gay men are men, they are not destined to be women.
Now go away with your hyperbolic nonsense.
"i'm not transphobic, i have trans friends!" ok? you can say that but actions speak louder than words. i can say i'm a vegetarian but if i eat meat, i'm not actually one.
in all honesty i'm confused on why they're even friends with you? which i mean from a neutral and curious standpoint. if i had to guess they're demonstrating that same fawn response i did all those years ago. *i* wouldn't be friends with you. so far i don't really like you so far but that doesn't mean i hate you. infighting gets us absolutely *nowhere*.
what you are saying is transphobic tbh. "the TQ can go to hell". how is this not transphobic? i could list more but i've already done that in my previous comments (if you're curious, i had to make it 2 comments since reddit didn't let me post something that long in one comment).
>I have no problem with individual, legit trans people.
okay, but here's the question: how do you know who is and isn't a "legit" trans person? what even IS a "legit" trans person?
why is it even up to *you*, a *cisgender* person, to speak for a community you can't understand nor seemingly care to learn about?
>Marsha P Johnson was a gay man. We have archival footage of him saying as much. \[...\] Stop appropriating femme gay men into the trans umbrella.
you do realize you can be both a gay man AND a drag queen, right? these aren't mutually exclusive??? people today are gay men and drag queens. and peoples' identities change over time. when i was little i thought i was cisgender and heterosexual. then i thought i was a cis lesbian. then i thought i was an asexual straight trans guy. now i know i'm a bisexual transgender guy.
things like this aren't static. they change as we find out who we actually are and then we stick with that. it's just like with any other identity. if my favorite color was green when i was little, then i decided it was red, then blue, then cyan, that doesn't mean my favorite color IS green. it means my favorite color is cyan. my favorite color USED to be green. if i said ALL of these were my favorite color that doesn't mean green is exclusively my favorite color even if it's one of them. it's not fair to say that's my only favorite color.
even if marsha *wasn't* a trans woman *or* a drag queen, it isn't like she (if she uses that, i'll use it) was the only person to fight for us. you can literally find so many if you do a few mins of research. even wikipedia is fine if the info you're looking for has a direct citation; i've used this before. we have stood up for you whether you like it or not and we're here whether you like it or not.
we do not owe the people who oppress us, demonize us, etc a damn thing. we've listened for so long. it's their turn to listen. so what it's not what aligns with their beliefs? if they do not want people being HAPPY then that's just gross.
i am SO much happier now that i do not care what cishet people think. i ain't aligning myself with people who dislike me and my lgbt siblings. they just want people to be like them when that's not how humans work. it never has been and it never should be. why should i align with them when it hurts myself and our community that *you're* part of whether you like it or not? your rights are ours, too.
believe what you want. i saw you change your flair from paleoconservative to center-right. did i do something? i dunno. i don't care. literally what matters is that you know the pov of those you don't like. even i do that. i wouldn't be on this sub if i didn't want to see the other side nor should you if *you* don't want to see the other side. that's the whole point of the subreddit.
and anyway, no thanks. i like my hyperbolic nonsense.
i get this is a confusing topic bc i was confused by it, too. so i learned about it. i'd suggest you also do the same and i'm happy to tell you anything you want to know or explain everything you don't understand because i understand that infighting is pointless and gets us nowhere. minorities are stronger together rather than divided and we should support one another.
I don't know how to multiquote so I'll just put yours in bold.
**"i'm not transphobic, i have trans friends!" ok? you can say that but actions speak louder than words. i can say i'm a vegetarian but if i eat meat, i'm not actually one.**
Don't care. Gay and trans people are not a monolith. You know there's lots of trans people out there who don't like the TRA movement, right? I'm not interested in your purity politics.
**what you are saying is transphobic tbh. "the TQ can go to hell". how is this not transphobic? i could list more but i've already done that in my previous comments (if you're curious, i had to make it 2 comments since reddit didn't let me post something that long in one comment).**
This question was already answered. I didn't say trans people I said the TQ. You can disagree with a movement and not the people it claims to represent (but doesn't), that's because its people are not a monolith (see above).
**okay, but here's the question: how do you know who is and isn't a "legit" trans person? what even IS a "legit" trans person?**
They have a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Everybody else is cosplaying.
**why is it even up to** ***you*****, a** ***cisgender*** **person, to speak for a community you can't understand nor seemingly care to learn about?**
I'm not "speaking to a community". There is no community. Stop acting like you're part of a monolith. ***YOU'RE NOT.***
**you do realize you can be both a gay man AND a drag queen, right? these aren't mutually exclusive???**
Oh lord. Do you hear yourself? Trans people have been trying to say that a trans person threw the first brick because progressives are obsessed with rewriting history. MPJ was a gay man. That's why I'm mentioning. Don't give a shit if he was a "drag queen" or not... he wasn't trans.
**things like this aren't static. they change as we find out who we actually are and then we stick with that. it's just like with any other identity.**
You can't rewrite history, no matter how hard you want to. If you won't respect the very words out of the man's mouth then you are just appropriating this person as an icon for ideology.
**we do not owe the people who oppress us, demonize us, etc a damn thing. we've listened for so long. it's their turn to listen. so what it's not what aligns with their beliefs? if they do not want people being HAPPY then that's just gross.**
Again with the monolithic righteous talk.
**i am SO much happier now that i do not care what cishet people think.**
You seem to care very much what this cis person thinks. \*shrug\*
**i ain't aligning myself with people who dislike me and my lgbt siblings. they just want people to be like them when that's not how humans work. it never has been and it never should be. why should i align with them when it hurts myself and our community that** ***you're*** **part of whether you like it or not? your rights are ours, too.**
More monolithic talk. There is no LGBT community. We are a wide range of diverse individuals from all walks of life. Acting like we should all think and act the same, and fall in line or else, is just the usual progressive communist talk. This is why the TQ should go to hell. They are subverting a historical movement (LGB) that was conducted in good faith and making it about a new type of social conformity. MY ANSWER IS NO.
**believe what you want. i saw you change your flair from paleoconservative to center-right. did i do something? i dunno. i don't care.**
Super telling that you thought this had anything to do with you. You know the world doesn't revolve around you, right?
**and anyway, no thanks. i like my hyperbolic nonsense.**
That much is obvious.
**i get this is a confusing topic bc i was confused by it, too. so i learned about it. i'd suggest you also do the same and i'm happy to tell you anything you want to know or explain everything you don't understand**
Abso-fucking-lutely not. The fact that you think I have a different POV than you means I lack education just goes to the show the level of entitlement at work here. Again, this is why the TQ movement can go to hell. You're into purity politics and don't give two shits if someone has any concerns about the way things are being conducted -- i.e. child grooming. This is why the TQ movement is losing allies left, right and centre, including from the LGB. The total tone deafness is alienating everyone that would be on your side if you'd STFU for 5 seconds, stop lecturing us with high-minded rhetoric, and listen to our concerns. Anytime somebody tries, people like you play the victim and go for the usual low hanging fruit, in the usual narcissistic way. I'm not trying to oppress you, I ***was*** trying to have a conversation. But you won't do that, and so we're done. Doxx me all you like with personal attacks, I don't give one single F. Your argument in of itself is indefensible. Enjoy your echo chamber lifestyle.
Bye felicia.
u can quote multiple things by putting a > in front of them, so your comment would look like ">words".
honestly i think we're at a standstill here.
you have genuinely been fascinating to talk to and i genuinely have enjoyed hearing from you! maybe i don't like you but i'm gonna listen. your points are really interesting and things i haven't thought of. like i said, i wouldn't come to this sub if i didn't want to hear what other people think.
i do think you have good points. i wouldn't respond to you if i didn't think you have good points. i am able to reflect on them and will think more about them to see what i think of them; i can't say what i think about them right now until i do more research.
and no. you do lack education. as do i, i didn't know marsha described herself as a gay man. but i will continue referring to her with she/her pronouns because that is what she preferred. it's not that hard. i will respect that even if you won't. you should research more history about the lgbtq community honestly, trans people are a part of it whether you like it or not and whether you reject it or not.
i honestly don't know where you're getting that child grooming thing from. still. groomers are groomers, trans or not. being trans has nothing to do with that? just like how being gay has nothing to do with grooming or whatever. yeah, there's overlap, but they aren't equated and it is unfair to equate them. can't imagine you'd have much fun if i called gay people groomers as a generalization or implied you were one or supported them :P
honestly, as someone who HAS been groomed, i do everything i can to STOP others from being groomed. and before you ask, being groomed has nothing to do with me being trans; it was after i already knew and this person just desensitized me to nsfw/nsfl topics. both cis AND trans people were groomed by this person.
being a "pick me" isn't gonna get you anywhere. homophobes will dislike you whether or not you're a "good one" tbh. lgbtq people are on a sinking ship and just because you're on a higher part of the ship doesn't mean you aren't sinking (an analogy i heard in a video earlier, weird timing haha, tell me if u want the vid! it's honestly really good).
you can align with cishet people if you want but the problem comes with putting down others and demonizing parts of your own community, which you are doing. i have been in that situation which is why i know it's bad.
even if you don't identify with the lgbtq community yourself, which is whatever, not gonna force you to do that, we're still in the same boat. we still have the same struggles. even if i don't like you and you don't like me we ultimately want the same thing which is to be accepted and safe. i just don't think we should roll over on our backs and show our bellies just to be accepted rather than being able to be ourselves apologetically. we've done enough of that, haven't we?
love and acceptance should not be conditional. if your mom or whatever only said she loved you when you do what she wants, then you'd feel bad because that love is conditional. she only loves you sometimes. she'll only treat you well when you please her. we shouldn't have to DO things to be accepted and to be safe. cishet people don't have to. why should we? that isn't equality.
cishet folks don't need to do anything. lgbtq folks shouldn't need to do anything, either. that's how you get equality and acceptance. by not putting down others and controlling them via fear even if that fear is subconscious.
like i said earlier, i'm not interested in continuing this convo nor do i think you are. i'm leaving you with my thoughts there and if you have questions, direct message me because i no longer will be keeping up with this reply string. we aren't getting anywhere so i'm not gonna waste my time; i'm gonna go use that time loving myself and supporting others since that's what we need.
I'm not a "pick me" and that was the entire reason why I responded to your OP. To let you know that people have other reasons than simple conformity for being against the TQ. Yet you still persist in calling me that despite me giving you very detailed explanations for why I don't like the TQ movement.
You seem to think LGBT is a monolith and anyone who doesn't adhere to your purity politics is a "pick me." The reality is I don't really give a shit what anyone else thinks, liberal or conservative, when it comes to forming my own point of view. People like you who characterize conservatives as mindless conformists are why liberals and progressives are losing the PR campaign for acceptance. Your politics are gross and built upon group think speak, including the ways you characterize people into weird camps who disagee you.
In our conversation you have essentially trotted out every tired cliche that progressives use when they can't convert the other party to their cause. It never occurs to you that I may be highly educated and still conclude something differently than you would. That's the basis of disagreement. The fact that you would rather throw insults or try to minimize my position as being a "pick me" shows the level of maturity that you operate from.
At the end of the day I don't really care what you think. The TRA movement is losing in pretty much the entire Western world. Maybe you should "get educated" about why that's happening, instead of assuming that it's just because of idle bigotry. I assure you it's not. The TQ is extremely aggressive and polarizing in how it deals with disagreement. It is part and parcel with social justice, critical race theory, and queer theory, all of which are extremely caustic and have very clear flaws in their ideology. But no, we can't talk about that rationally, because to disagree with the religion is just bigotry.
I'm sure you are a lovely person IRL but your politics are toxic. Take care.
Bisexual man here, and I completely agree with you on everything you said here.
Also I’m so with you on the LGB without the TQ and all the other damn letters. I also fucking hate pride, like it’s become so perverted and so pointless. Like what is there to celebrate about wanting to sleep with someone of the same gender, especially now in 2024.
I also can’t stand the whole gender ideology, pronouns and critical race theory. Especially as a half white half asian man, I think the whole critical race theory is bullshit, and for the democrats to say this is a racist country, especially Joe Biden who was the VP of the first black man to be US president in a majority white country, like I don’t even call them liberals anymore because there is nothing liberating in telling people they are oppressed and that their character and talent doesn’t matter if they aren’t completely white.
I’m definitely never going to be able to call myself anything other than a Republican. I can not associate myself with a party that demanded people get a vaccine if they want to work (and I got the vaccine, but I don’t think it should be required, at least not in a school full of healthy young people). I can not associate myself with a party that believes putting America first is bad. I can not support a party that wants people of color and half white half POC people like me to feel like we can’t become what we want to be because of our ethnic background. I can not
Like now that we have the Respect For Marriage Act law, and the legal right for gay couples to be parents, I feel no threat from the right wing. If anything I feel actually less threatened from the right wing than I do the left wing.
Most people seem to forget that it was Bill Clinton, Hillary and Joe Biden who were all a large part of the reason we even needed the Respect For Marriage Act, which was to repeal a law they created. And Hillary tried to defend her and her husband passing DOMA in 1996 as something that “had to be enacted to stop an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” Yeah, Hillary, just admit that you were against gay marriage and did this to try to make it harder for LGB people to achieve equality in America. Like don’t play the hero in this Hillary.
I’ve only been called homophobic slurs once in my whole life and it was on Reddit on this sub by leftists, progressives and democrats who claim that I am being oppressed by the right wing. I’m not, I am free. They just hate seeing people like me and you not vote based on what sex we want to sleep with.
I am not opposed to voting for a Democrat like JFK Obama or Tulsi Gabbard, but the current high profile democrats like Newsom and Biden, they dont represent my political beliefs in the slightest other than their support for gay marriage, but that is all. Which if Donald Trump was so anti-gay, why did he host several gay weddings?
Also they like to forget that Joe Biden has done way more for trans people than LGB people. And that congress passed the respect for marriage act, not Biden. Also, Joe Biden voted against gay marriage three times, supported DOMA and DADT and he even said homosexuals were a national security threat. I bet he was terrified when Donald Trump appointed the first openly gay man into the US cabinet.
When the emotionally hijacked leftists and “progressives” say to me, “but the sky is going to fall if Donald Trump gets into office.” I will now say to them, “you mean like last time?”
I love seeing other gay/bi guys that are conservatives on this app!!! Glad to find people that think alike to me!!!
You said a lot that I agree with. What you said about anti-gay democrats is a perfect example of how people and institutions flip the script when it suits their political ambitions. It's just like corporations. The left used to be anti-corporate, now they will kiss the ass of any corporation who waves a pride flag. You go to pride and see a float for Lockheed Martin... but the left is supposed to be anti-war? As for Biden himself... at this point he is playing with half a deck, so I think it's laughable when he talks about trans anything when he is barely aware of where the exit of the stage is.
The progressive movement has a huge PR problem. They've not only failed to gain popular support, they are actually turning their allies against them. This is how the left eats itself, and it's pretty sad to watch. All I really want is rational discourse... but the left is pro-censorship now, so that is a non-starter. This is the first place on reddit I've been where I can really, truly openly talk about this without a mod banning me.
Far leftism is when trans, apparently. Do you understand they were saying the very same thing about gay people? The time has shown they were wrong about gay people and will show they are wrong about trans people. They will become an organic part of an American society. I hate Twitter communists for validating retarded stereotypes, gay people are lucky to have had significant victories before Twitter.
I disagree. Trans rights activism is a totally different animal than gay rights activism. LBG is about sexual orientation. It was proven to not be a mental disorder in the 70s, which was a long time ago now. Real trans people (not phonies bandwagoning on a social contagion) have gender dysphoria. If you talk to any legit trans person they will openly admit that they have a mental health condition.
The TQ+ bandwagoning on the LGB is inappropriate. We are not the same community, we have very different concerns. The only common thing we share is a gender bending attitude... but we actually live in very different realities. It's the same reason why I hate everyone being called "queer" now... as if we are one group. We're not.
LGB people won the civil rights movement because we used the slow, painstaking route of civil rights discourse. We won hearts and minds. The TRAs did not do that. They hijacked institutions and created top-down ideologies that have *no scientific evidence*. It's all based on queer theory, which has many problematic aspects like child grooming and support for pedophilia. The medicalization of children is particularly evil. There needs to be a lot more gatekeeping and objective medical assessment.
The Cass Report informs us that virtually everything that was claimed about trans children has been a lie, including the medicalization process. It's why detransitioners are growing in numbers and why "gender affirming care" is a model that is slowly dying out. Clinics all over the world are starting to close, either due to lawsuits or government re-assessment.
This is why I will be voting conservative. We need to stop this unscientific crap from continuing. I don't want to lose the rights we've gained in the LGB because of people with personality disorders calling themselves TQ+ when really they need a psychiatrist.
The Cass report is a joke. It was staffed by people with incredible biases, it made conclusions that went against results of studies it commissioned, and just made up things, like claiming that porn made people trans even though they had no evidence for it.
What is your evidence for these claims? I mean real evidence... not just social media posts.
Do you have any credible analysis from the scientific community to refute the Cass report?
Fact is, it's not a joke at all. It's the opposite of a joke. It's the biggest longitudinal study of its kind ever done. They closed "gender affirming care" clinics in the UK and banned puberty blockers because of that study.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I haven't read Cass report myself ("25 years old childbrain" cringe was enough for me), but it's accuracy and unbiasedness is questionable
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249
With a title like that, its credibility is automatically in question.
I realize all the leftists in the institutions hate the Cass report and are doing everything they can to tear it down, but the only real way they can do that is by replicating the study and showing opposite results. I work in science, have read the report thoroughly, and I have read the critiques on it. The critiques are mostly misinformed mouth foaming, making up the usual lies in order to discredit a real professional effort to get at the truth. Which is very reminiscent of most of our institutions now. Instead of intellectual excellence, idiots are trying to take over and silence dissent. Those idiots should be ignored and thrown out of their jobs.
Here's a pre-print that shows some of the issues with the Cass review:
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/wjafd
There have been other reports since then and the scientific community is closing in on a consensus that the Cass review has severe methodological issues.
Furthermore, here's a neat listing of statements and commentary from various experts and organizations:
https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/
You need to stop misrepresenting what's happening in the academic world based on your political biases. I work in science, you can't BS me. Your links are to *commentaries*, they are not formal rebuttals of papers that have led to interventions by the publication.
If Cass is truly methodologically unsound, the paper will either be pulled, retractions will be amended to the paper, or the authors will have an opportunity to rectify methodological errors for resubmission. So far, the paper is untouched.
Saying "a consensus is being closed in on" is a meaningless statement and frankly adjacent to lying. The scientific community does not operate like a democracy. There is supporting research and non-supporting research. Anyone can publish research that supports findings or doesn't support findings. Then the research is replicated. Consensus is based upon meta-analyses of a collection of research, and not whether or not people are pissed off that one article found support for a political opinion that's unpopular. For example, following the Cass report, if there are 10 more studies done and they all have findings that don't support the Cass report, then the Cass report is likely discredited. If the Cass report itself is methodologically in error, then the journal makes the necessary modifications in the here and now. If not, then the paper remains untouched and future research will have to replicate the Cass report and see if the findings match up. THAT is how real research works.
Btw, Dori Grijseels, the author of one of your links, is a postdoc, she's not even completed her training. So obviously she is trying to kiss some serious ass by writing that critique, probably to get the attention of grant funding. Typical. Her opinion is low caliber mostly due to her lack of tenure association with a credible institution. She is what we all a low-merit PhD. I mean, look at her fucking Twitter feed... she is as hard left as they come. Sooo unbiased!
But I understand that the social sciences like to create witch hunts for things they don't like. They will try to find methodology problems in order to discredit research they deem politically incorrect. I know right away, from reading those commentaries, that this is not about academic excellence but about personal opinions trying to masquerade as "science" to shut somebody up. This why it's SO IMPORTANT that our research institutions not be hijacked by activism. The truth has to prevail even if it makes us uncomfortable.
Just because the Cass report pissed off trans people, does not mean it's wrong. The social science research institutions are largely being hijacked by left wing activism now, which thinks oppression politics should trump real research findings. No. It doesn't matter if half of the research population in those institutions are "upset" about Cass. Feelings are irrelevant to truth. If the paper doesn't get pulled or modified, then it is contributing to the body of knowledge whether you like it or not.
Fact is... it's the biggest study of its kind. If you don't like it, do your own study to try and disprove it. Otherwise be quiet.
>>You need to stop misrepresenting what's happening in the academic world based on your political biases. I work in science, you can't BS me. Your links are to commentaries, they are not formal rebuttals of papers that have led to interventions by the publication.
There is no misrepresentation. I specifically gave you a pre-print that shows clear issues with the Cass report. There are **multiple** different pre-prints already that do the same exact thing. You work in science (you're not the only one by the way!) so you know that a proper rebuttal takes time. Give it a few months and we'll get enough papers that will tear the Cass review to shreds.
>>If Cass is truly methodologically unsound, the paper will either be pulled, retractions will be amended to the paper, or the authors will have an opportunity to rectify methodological errors for resubmission. So far, the paper is untouched.
Which takes time. Literally my point.
>>Saying "a consensus is being closed in on" is a meaningless statement and frankly adjacent to lying. The scientific community does not operate like a democracy. There is supporting research and non-supporting research. Anyone can publish research that supports findings or doesn't support findings. Then the research is replicated. Consensus is based upon meta-analyses of a collection of research, and not whether or not people are pissed off that one article found support for a political opinion that's unpopular. For example, following the Cass report, if there are 10 more studies done and they all have findings that don't support the Cass report, then the Cass report is likely discredited. If the Cass report itself is methodologically in error, then the journal makes the necessary modifications in the here and now. If not, then the paper remains untouched and future research will have to replicate the Cass report and see if the findings match up. THAT is how real research works.
You don't need to explain this to me, I'm well versed with academic research. And I also know that more and more research is worked on that analyzes the Cass report and finds deep methodological issues and problems. The more time goes on, the more discredited it will be.
>>Btw, Dori Grijseels, the author of one of your links, is a postdoc, she's not even completed her training. So obviously she is trying to kiss some serious ass by writing that critique, probably to get the attention of grant funding. Typical. Her opinion is low caliber mostly due to her lack of tenure association with a credible institution. She is what we all a low-merit PhD. I mean, look at her fucking Twitter feed... she is as hard left as they come. Sooo unbiased!
Ah and now the ad hominems and the typical fallacies. A postdoc is just as much a valid researcher as people who went beyond. Just because you disagree with what they have to say you don't get to downplay their contribution. See how that works both ways? ;)
>>But I understand that the social sciences like to create witch hunts for things they don't like. They will try to find methodology problems in order to discredit research they deem politically incorrect. I know right away, from reading those commentaries, that this is not about academic excellence but about personal opinions trying to masquerade as "science" to shut somebody up. This why it's SO IMPORTANT that our research institutions not be hijacked by activism. The truth has to prevail even if it makes us uncomfortable.
None of this is relevant to the fact that the methodology of the Cass report is heavily flawed. We've seen some reports already and their number is only increasing. This has nothing to do with activism. In fact, one could argue that _Cass_ engaged in activism, considering the many flaws of the review.
>>Just because the Cass report pissed off trans people, does not mean it's wrong. The social science research institutions are largely being hijacked by left wing activism now, which thinks oppression politics should trump real research findings. No. It doesn't matter if half of the research population in those institutions are "upset" about Cass. Feelings are irrelevant to truth. If the paper doesn't get pulled or modified, then it is contributing to the body of knowledge whether you like it or not.
Again with the strawmen. I like to engage with actual data and facts, not opinions and emotions. Just because people with anti-trans views like the review doesn't make it correct.
>>Fact is... it's the biggest study of its kind. If you don't like it, do your own study to try and disprove it. Otherwise be quiet.
That's literally why I sent the pre-print. And why other researchers are actively working on their own reviews. That's the entire point of this.
The fact that you say the Cass report WILL be more discredited as time goes on shows you have no real interest in objectivity. People like you are destroying the credibility of science with your bullshit activist politics.
You're literally labeled a leftist and you're living up to it.
Go away now.
Even more ad hominems. I'm being entirely objective. It is a fact, proven by multiple independent researchers already that the Cass review has severe methodological flaws. Pre-prints are already out there and more research is conducted as well.
As Benny always says: Facts don't care about your feelings.
But sure, I'll leave you alone now.
Edit: Aw, the coward blocked me because the facts are against him lol
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Birth rates are down because of high opportunity cost (people have so much life options that compete with reproduction) and draconian parenting standards (some people think having two young children share a room is monstrous). The trend predates gender wars which are not that strong outside of South Korea. Not even women's education is as important as these two factors.
I highly doubt that. There are a lot of people who want kids who either can't find a partner, the partners they do find have low ethics, or cost of living is now prohibitive.
My parents had two kids and we all traveled, went on adventures, lived life, because my parents didn't have opportunity costs. They just did what they wanted and brought their kids with them. They weren't rich, life was just way more affordable. Back then, a dual income household meant you could live an upper middle class life.
Personally I choose to be single and childless. I can literally go anywhere I may choose right now and not have to tell a soul and spend my money how I like to
That's legit. I have more than one hetero male friend going that way now, mostly because they don't trust institutions to have a guy's back. Marriage and children really do not favour men anymore. You could lose it all if your wife turns vindictive.
Plus my POV is that there are what, 8 billion people on the planet now? We're not hurting for humans.
Or it's not nothing to do with worrying about the "vindictive spouse."
I'm lucky I can take care of myself, let alone another spawn. I help friends with their kids and that's enough. Often when they would have a meltdown, my line to them was "Hey guess what buddy?! I don't live here and can go home whenever I want!"
I'm childfree as well, but for different reasons. Not sure why you keep downvoting my replies to you though? If you don't want to keep chatting then just say so.
I am glad for your parents having had it all, but this is not always achievable. At least not with modern parenting standards and opportunity cost. Modern parents are expected to invest more in their children than they were then, and richer communities have higher parenting expectations than poorer ones. The opportunity cost have grown tremendously. People can afford living the way people lived 30 years ago, the modern people just have higher standards.
Well I certainly don’t like this idea that the only people worthy of being brought into the world are people who don’t have a fucked up life. Because a fucked up life is not a life inherently not worth living
There is a lot of what you said that I agree with--but doesn't Trump basically worship the worst offender in terms of foreign interference? Or are you an anti-Trump conservative? I'm not sure how many of those are left at the level of our actual federal representatives.
I'm actually not even American, I live in Canada. If I lived in the U.S., I would probably vote conservative-independent. I don't envy the US right now... the choice of Trump vs. Biden is pretty abysmal. Here in Canada, our federal conservative party is really strong now. All polls show they would have a supermajority if there were an election today. People are sick of radical leftism running the government. The left is shaking in their boots because there is a shift to rightism all over the western world, yet they will never, ever stop and self-reflect on how they contributed to that. Canada is (legit, I'm not exaggerating) being destroyed from the inside. Most of our major institutions have been taken over by social justice types and they are issuing major decrees top-down without public discourse. We need to clean house badly up here. This is why I find it laughable when the OP asks why, as a gay man, I'm not allied with the left-wing. The radical left is doing damage to the LGBT community, they aren't helping us. I experience more hate now from progressives and the right-wing who hate them by proxy than I have in the past 20 years.
Ha, I had no idea you were in CA because everything you said about the left is true of the left here in the U.S.! That's so interesting that it's the same there.
It's true that the Dems here seem incapable of self-reflection. And I cannot believe they are letting Biden run again. It is extremely depressing that our choices are Biden vs. Trump AGAIN.
All countries in the western world are having the same problems right now. There is a coordinated demolition of our societies happening so they can institute a new system. Some call it the great reset. I just call it neo-liberalism and globalism subverting national sovereignty to steal massive amounts of money from the public... and they are mostly using left wing ideology to do it, at this point. It could switch to right wing though. Doesn't really matter since most politicians can be easily bought.
I honestly don't think there's a big difference between the two parties in terms of economic stuff. That's why they push the social issues so hard... as a distraction.
Simple. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the right to defend myself and the people I care about matter more to me than anything else. Generally speaking, conservatives in the US agree with those principles more than progressives/leftists. This was somewhat less true 15-20 years ago, but the gap has widened in recent years as the diverging approaches to the pandemic in red vs. blue states showed.
I don't trust anyone who hasn't earned that trust. Least of all the government. So when left-wing politicians' pitch is "we care more about you for who you are and want to take care of you and help you flourish, but also we want to disarm you, control what you can and can't say, and limit who you can and can't hang out with or do business with, for your own protection" the first part rings kinda hollow.
If you really cared about people like me, you'd spend more of your time and effort ensuring I was left alone to live my life as I please, and less time trying to micromanage my life and everyone else's for "the greater good".
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Hi all. Straight conservative here. Two things.
1) I've never met a conservative who doesn't like gay people. Don't like pride because it's being shoved on them? Yes, but strictly dislike gay people? No.
2) Do you see how judgemental your question is? Ask the same question of a black or Hispanic conservative and it is blatantly racist.
Bisexual conservative here.
1. I haven’t met a conservative who doesn’t like LGB people either. I have met people who do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but I’d say almost all (if not all) of them are okay with gay marriage being legalized. And many of the conservatives I know also don’t like pride, and neither do I, like I just don’t understand why we need to see a rainbow flag everywhere to feel like I am welcome in my country. And I don’t think I will ever understand why we need to treat someone saying who they want to sleep with as though they got into an Ivy League school or cured cancer. It’s always irritated me from a young age, and I don’t have any homophobia (internal or external) in even the slightest.
2. Also I agree with what you brought up here. Like I hate how anyone who isn’t a straight white man is expected to vote Democrat. Like I thought the Democrat party celebrated diversity and inclusion, well than why do they get their panties in a bunch over someone who isn’t a straight white man wanting to think freely?
I’m curious what state you live in. I live in Texas and I’ve met many conservatives who hate gay people. It’s mostly the religious crowd, but I’ve definitely met some
Many people are conflict adverse irl and will just be cordial even if they don't agree with someone.
Are there nasty assholes out there, yea. But most people do not want to get into a yelling match in public because they saw two dudes holding hands.
When you say the religious crowd hates gay people, do you mean hate like the Muslim community?
Like what specifically do they say? Because I disagree with Pride wholeheartedly, but I have no ill will with a gay person being gay, I just don't like kink and degeneracy being shoved in my face by a small portion of the community under the guise of celebration.
If I were to use that I heard used to describe people like me when I was in high school, I’d be banned. Even the people who we’re slinging slurs would still describe gay or trans people has disgusting and made them uncomfortable to be around. If they had it their way, gay marriage would never have become legalized and Lawerence v Texas wouldn’t have been legalized gay relationships. We’d still be in the lavender scare if it was up to them.
You can censor what they said on here. But it also sounds like you have anecdotal evidence. Considering at the time gay marriage was allowed, majority of the country was OK with it.
It is only recently that we are starting to see a decline in acceptance from younger generations. Almost like the country gave an inch and the Pride community took a mile
Gay marriage also became more popular after the Windsor came out and started making many of the bans conservatives states had on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Also, conservatives here are only speaking from their own experiences and perspectives. That is not objective either. If my experience going to be hand waved away because it’s “anecdotal evidence”, then their experiences needs to be as well.
Did pride “take a mile” or did the continuous escalating rhetoric of the right since 2016, lead to an explosion on both sides? I’ve literally been called a pedophiles just for being trans. That’s the only things some conservatives know about me and they are still calling me that.
It's a trauma response like fight, freeze, flee. Fawning would be something like keeping the aggressor happy so they won't hurt you rather fighting or fleeing from the aggressor.
So.... Here's the thing.
This is fundamentally based on the idea that, not just right wing pushback against the LGBT movement/ideology, but also conservative political attitudes in general, constitute or are seen as "aggression" of a kind that would be threatening enough to produce such a response.
While I definitely don't deny that such things are out there, I think that this doesn't vaguely describe why many people who are homosexual or transgender or otherwise identify with "LGBT", would either be interested in right wing politics generally, see it as the best hope for a generally secure and prosperous society, or not consider it terrifying.
Because we can decide and pick whoever we want to vote for. I am not gay, but let me say this. A gay man, a lesbian woman, or a transgender person can be conservative, and is more than welcome to join the movement.
I believe that Gay Men should have the right to keep and bear arms and grow weed. Essentially I have that Libertarian position.
There is also for reference a faction in the Republican Party known as the Log Cabin Republicans, where they advocate for conservative values while also being Pro LGBTQ.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
My reasoning is nobody cares about lgbt people. Except the corporations that profit from us.
But lots of people care about q people.
That commie nonsense is evil shit.
Additionally, judging people by their sexuality is super boring.
Perhaps there are some people who view themselves as more than who they have sex with.
Besides once you get that entire alphabet going lots of people could be caught up in it who don't even consider it a meaningful part of their identity.
Hell me a straight white man married to my wife of 15 years with 3 children could still be somewhere in the + range if her or I felt like it.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a gay friend from high school. He voted for Trump twice! He also can't stand all the transgender nonsense. You'd be surprised how many gay men resent the transgender BS.
**READ BEFORE COMMENTING!** A high standard of discussion is required, meaning that the mods will be taking a strict stance with respect to our regular rules as well as expecting comments to be both **substantive and on topic**. Also be aware that violating the sitewide *Reddit Content Policy - Rule 1* will likely lead to action from Reddit admin. For more information, please refer to our [Guidance for Trans Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/15iz19o/guidance_for_trans_discussion/). If you cannot adhere to these stricter standards, we ask that you please refrain from participating in these posts. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Well said. COVID had the same effect on me. Pushed me more to the right. That's when I first identified myself as a conservative.
I had the same tipping point politically (the pandemic response, and the social issues that erupted during the same time period) and agree with most of what you wrote.
2 questions, if you're willing to answer: 1. Are you a social conservative in other ways? 2. Do you have anything like an overarching view of a conservative approach to transgender matters in contrast to the contemporary left wing one?
[удалено]
Curious on "cancel culture"... Do you believe an individual has the right to decide what business they will support and make that decision and their reasons public? And do they have a right to encourage their friends (or followers) to do the same? An example, I think Elon Musk is a vile POS and I will not support anything that will possibly benefit him in any way. And I encourage my friends to do the same. Do you voluntarily support people you think are terrible? Do you tell your friends about it? Isn't that the apex of civil non-violent protest?
Trans children... What about the Rights desire to ban ALL gender affirming care for youth? And SPECIFICALLY what "life altering medical decisions" are you talking about?
Would you mind answering a few questions? For transparency, I’m also a transgender woman, and I have a hard time seeing the view you’re espousing regarding not permitting transition before 18 as anything short of monstrous. I didn’t transition until I was an adult, and honestly I fought it until I couldn’t anymore. Fighting my gender dysphoria by pushing it down and dissociating from it led to uncontrollable panic attacks, debilitating depression, and depersonalization/derealization so severe the world literally distorted and faded into the distance. I hit a point where I couldn’t function, not for one more day, without dealing with it. And transition was the only thing that helped for me. It was absolute torture, that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. While not all trans folks have this experience, I’ve met other trans folks who had this experience, and hit that point while they were under the age of 18. If I had been blocked from transitioning when I hit that point, I have absolutely zero doubt I would have committed suicide. So where does this idea that people under the age of 18 should be blocked from transitioning come from? What should be done with kids who hit that point?
>and honestly I fought it until I couldn’t anymore I mean surely you see that there's a pretty large gap between "avoid medical actions with permanent consequences" and what you did, yeah?
Sure, but my point is that gender dysphoria can be a very serious condition, and we need to leave these options on the table. Also, puberty has permanent consequences, too. There is a lot that I struggle with today that is a direct result of having gone through the puberty I went through. I certainly wish I would have started my medical transition as a child. But conservatives seem to weigh the outcomes for the vast majority of trans people who remain transitioned as drastically less important than the outcomes for the minuscule percentage of people who detransition.
I hesitate to speak for them, but it seemed to me that they oppose medical transition at that age more than social transition. I could be wrong, of course. Would a supportive network and a full social transition have mitigated the unfortunate byproducts of your delayed medical transition? Is that still "monstrous"?
I of course can’t say for sure what would have happened if my life went differently. But the answer is “likely some, but not all”. But different people experience this in different severities, and there are people with even worse experiences than mine. So yeah, I’d still view it as monstrous. It’s denying medical care to suffering children, and I know, deeply and personally, how much what they’re going through hurts. In that light, how could I view it as anything but monstrous? One thing that I can say for certain is that even if it mitigated some of the problems I’ve had, it certainly wouldn’t have mitigated all of them. A lot of my current struggles with physical dysphoria revolve around the permanent physical impacts of having gone through the puberty I went through. Part of my problem here is that conservatives seem to weigh the struggles of the miniscule number of detransitioners much higher than the struggles faced by the vast majority of trans people who remain transitioned. Also, it should be noted that your hypothetical seems to be designed around a very different Republican Party than the one that actually exists. Republicans in numerous states are pushing for things that interfere with social transition, including barring teachers from using a child’s preferred name and pronouns.
>Part of my problem here is that conservatives seem to weigh the struggles of the miniscule number of detransitioners much higher than the struggles faced by the vast majority of trans people who remain transitioned. Well, I don't have data for this, but I believe that most conservatives view transgender people as mentally ill and err on the side of not fostering delusion. We've talked before where I outlined this. >Also, it should be noted that your hypothetical seems to be designed around a very different Republican Party than the one that actually exists. Republicans in numerous states are pushing for things that interfere with social transition, including barring teachers from using a child’s preferred name and pronouns. This is r/askconservatives, not r/republican. They are not the same thing. There is a lot of overlap, but they are not synonyms. I don't support 90% of what either party wants because they are chock full of radical progressives (you just disagree with the direction one of them wants to progress in, I disagree with both).
>Well, I don't have data for this, but I believe that most conservatives view transgender people as mentally ill and err on the side of not fostering delusion. We've talked before where I outlined this. Well, if we’ve talked about this before, I assume we got into the discussion of how gender dysphoria is *not* delusion. It’s a distinct condition, with a very different presentation and very different treatment modalities. I’ll take the conservative position on this more seriously the day that they can show even a sliver of evidence that their preferred treatment approach is effective. Until that day, though, it’s all just armchair doctoring based on how someone thinks the world *should* work, rather than being based on how the world actually works in practice. >This is r/askconservatives, not r/republican. They are not the same thing. There is a lot of overlap, but they are not synonyms. I don't support 90% of what either party wants because they are chock full of radical progressives (you just disagree with the direction one of them wants to progress in, I disagree with both). That’s totally fair. I shouldn’t conflate the two. I’ve just never seen people who push to restrict medical transition actually support social transition, though. The two tend to be bundled together.
>I’ve just never seen people who push to restrict medical transition actually support social transition, though. The two tend to be bundled together. I mean I just did...
I was taking that as a hypothetical. I meant in practice, based on the trans people I have met or heard their stories. Would you support social transition in practice?
From my experience, a supportive network and a full social transition would not have mitigated the damages that a delayed transition caused. The support network would have been made up of people I wouldn’t trust. The social transition would have only highlighted the features that caused the worst amount of dysphoria. It would also not have helped that my school environment would still have been toxic and dangerous.
>a supportive network and a full social transition >The support network would have been made up of people I wouldn’t trust. That isn't a support network then. >It would also not have helped that my school environment would still have been toxic and dangerous. Doesn't sound like a supported transition. The idea I proposed was meant to imply a perfect world scenario of social affirmation in youth. Would that have offset the negatives of delayed medical intervention? I offer this because it will be a looong time (possibly never) before many come around to medical (much less surgical) intervention on kids. But calling people what they want to be called and being civil about it is a much more achievable goal. The problem with many progressive ideas when they run up against conservative thought is the "all or nothing" approach. You have to wear us down like water over stone. Eventually, we will smooth out, and if your idea actually has merit and works, we'll adopt it. Every bit of social progress in the world has come in this way. Yet, knowing this, progressives still swing for the fences.
>That isn't a support network then. What would a support network for someone younger than 18 look like them? If friends can barely be trusted and family can’t be trusted at all, what is the support network? >Doesn't sound like a supported transition. That was my conservative high school. It was homophobic and probably transphobic too. Can’t have a supported transition if the transition isn’t supported. >The idea I proposed was meant to imply a perfect world scenario of social affirmation in youth. We don’t live in a perfect world. >Would that have offset the negatives of delayed medical intervention? No. My body still would have been changed in ways that cause me extreme distress. Social transition would have only highlighted it. >I offer this because it will be a looong time (possibly never) before many come around to medical (much less surgical) intervention on kids. But calling people what they want to be called and being civil about it is a much more achievable goal. Being called my chosen name, would have only made it worse for me. I would have still looked like a teenage boy. Calling me my name and referring to me as her would have only worded my dysphoria since I would not have the appearance to match it, especially since I got hit with massive fucking stick. I’m only person in my family who started balding before I hit 18. I can’t count the amount of breakdowns that alone caused. >The problem with many progressive ideas when they run up against conservative thought is the "all or nothing" approach. You have to wear us down like water over stone. Eventually, we will smooth out, and if your idea actually has merit and works, we'll adopt it. Every bit of social progress in the world has come in this way. Yet, knowing this, progressives still swing for the fences. The “compromises” you want aren’t actually compromised though. An actual compromise to banning those under 18 from transitioning, is for the state to cover all transition services for those over 18. If the state wants to harm some irreversibly, it can pay the cost to treat that harm.
You’re touching on something critical here. People talk about limiting medical transition, and relying on social transition alone. But in reality we can’t control social acceptance the way we can medical transition. Maybe social transition alone would be more effective of the world was more accepting of trans people. But it’s not, and as many conservatives like to point out, there are a ton of people who will fight tooth and nail against efforts to make the world more accepting. They treat that as shoving things down their throats, and trying to control how people think. We can’t control how other people think, but we can control our own medical choices. Personally, I find that medical transition has made the shortfalls in social support much easier to bear. This feels like that “no take! only throw.” meme, and ultimately regardless of intent it is in effect just works to defer and delay rather than actually *help* trans people.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-07-12/why-european-countries-are-rethinking-gender-affirming-care-for-minors
Yes, Europe is subject to similar political pressures as in the US on this topic. A European journalist could write practically the same article about developments in US states. I’ve followed developments over there closely, and the most negative thing I’ve seen to be drawn is the idea that more evidence is needed. Which sure, more and better quality evidence is always good. But I have seen precisely zero evidence arise in those discussions which indicate towards a more effective treatment method besides transition.
I’m not an expert. So if I get to vote on the topic my vote goes for the people not in favor of doping children. Sorry I’m not going to spend hours of my day and pay to take college courses to understand every topic I have to possibly make a decision on. Sometimes we all have to go with our gut instincts. And I certainly don’t trust big pharma or psychiatrists.
My point is that you shouldn’t be having a vote on that. You only “get to vote on the topic” because conservative politicians are inserting themselves between parents and their kids’ doctors. Are you going to vote on oncology as well?
Do you believe the current republican party is pro-small government? I don't really consider them conservative anymore, but wondering how you square that circle.
[удалено]
Totally agree. Worst part is it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon now that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
>Not necessarily, but I don’t think the Democratic Party is either. Ron DeSantis is an example of that, with his recent ban on lab grown meat Yet you still vote Republican anyway
[удалено]
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
So how do you reconcile the fact that the party you vote with does not stand for anything you claim to believe in, except for the second amendment? How do you feel about so many in the party you vote with saying that you should not be alive? Calling you a groomer?
Pretty sure the vast majority of what he claims is more easily met in the Republican party than the democrat party.
100% sure that none of it has happened though. Voting based on blatant lies is kinda silly. They preach small government, then raise the deficit 7 trillion. They preach the 2A, then arbitrarily ban bump stocks with a signature. They preach freedom, then reauthorize the patriot act. They preach the constitution, but they’ve never read it.
[удалено]
Wow it’s almost like the left wants to silence/hear silence from and/or erase the voice of people who fall in their pre-defined minority groups who don’t tow their political line. A good trans male friend of mine doesn’t at all vent to me about this at all when we talk politics, society, and their journey.
>How do we know you are a trans woman? I’ve seen plenty of white MAGAs wearing Blacks for Trump T Shirts. It's her truth. Who are you to question her? What happened to "believe all women"?
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Why are you entitled to my vote simply because of who I am?
You're free to vote for whoever you want. It doesn't make sense to most people voting for the politicians/party who are against gay marriage, LGBT adoption, and most all of anti-LGBT bills/policies
What doesn't make sense? I either care very little about those things, or agree with them in many cases involving Wednesday topics and kids.
By the same token, liberals tell me they want their right to keep and bear arms respected while voting for a party that constantly promises to abrogate that right. It's almost like, and bear with me here, we're not all single-issue voters.
I'm a mortician. I had to get a license, go to school, and do a bunch of annoying crap to get my license. Am I being "crazy and over-controlling" because I agree that maybe people should have some training before they do what I do? I just want to know, sincerely, do you think that, for example, anybody should be allowed to embalm a dead body, no questions asked, as long as they pay for a license? What's the difference, then, between that and a liberal who votes for people who say "maybe we should make it so that people who are a legit danger have a hard time getting these things"? And yeah-stuff will still go wrong. But you still put on a seatbelt, so you can know you did everything you reasonably could. But if you're still not convinced, I have one last question- would you *really*, truly, honestly, want *me* having unrestricted access to a gun? Bear in mind I have very little to care about, and have severely irrational thoughts when it comes to what should be done to people who abuse animals.
> I had to get a license, go to school, and do a bunch of annoying crap to get my license Wait, you need a *license* for that? Hold on. I'll be right back. OK. Nobody look in the closet. Now, where were we? > Bear in mind I have very little to care about, and have severely irrational thoughts when it comes to what should be done to people who abuse animals. Then it's your decision whether or not you feel it's suitable to own a gun. Our culture is built on the foundation of personal responsibility. The problem arises when you decide the factors in your decision have to apply to everyone else.
>Wait, you need a license for that? Hold on. I'll be right back. >OK. Nobody look in the closet. Now, where were we? I just... I just want to thank you for reminding me that laughter and humor is what brings us together. I forget that sometimes, but it's true. If we can laigh and smile and have a good time together a little more, then ... well, then maybe things will be alright. ❤
Do those liberals that "want their right to keep and bear arms" tell you they also support common sense gun legislation? Because that's how the majority of liberals feel. The problem is the majority of conservatives appear to support removing personhood for trans people.
I'm pro-gun too. I can be okay with or without guns. I can't be okay with laws that would discriminate against me based on my sexual or gender identity.
OK, then go trust the party of Don't Ask/Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, the party who opposed gay marriage up until the Supreme Court made it safe to claim they supported it all along. See, I've been advocating since the 1990s. All those folks who go on CNN and social media saying they're *fighting for equality* or whatever? They never answered our calls or agreed to talk to us. It's always pandering for political points. No thanks.
While I know Clinton came up with DADT as a compromise, stressing the "don't ask" part to prevent investigations, didn't Obama oversee its repeal in 2011 while the majority of the 2012 Republican candidates promised to restore it, and the audience at a Republican debate booed a gay US soldier in Iraq? And wasn't DOMA introduced by two Republican Congressmen with a third of Democrats voting against it, and didn't Biden oversee its repeal? And doesn't the current official GOP platform still advocate for overturning same-sex marriage? Edit: And also Trump was openly against gay marriage before the SCOTUS ruling, and in 2016 after the SCOTUS ruling he said “if I'm elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change things” in his desire to see the ruling reversed.
Democrats used to be against [thing] and no longer are, whereas Republicans remain against [thing], ergo, Democrats bad, Republicans good? Like...Republicans are growing *more openly hostile* towards our community than they have been in a *while*.
> than they have been in a while. Right. Since about, say, the early 2000s? And why would that be? Maybe it's because we worked hard in the prior years to convince people we were normal folks who just wanted the same fair shake everyone else gets. And it was working. But *no.* Gen Z had to crash the party, and now Will Truman has been replaced with Toby. Look at Toby. He's up on that Pride float with his My Little Pony hair, wearing a dog leash and getting spanked by a Tom of Finland reject. And you know what? Marge and Joe Sixpack see that. Whether you like it or not, their opinion *matters.* If they think we're a bunch of perverts, all our work is undone. When they find out people are sneaking books like *Genderqueer* into school libraries (that happened in my county), they're going to react badly. This is what people don't get: *perception matters.* What we're seeing is the pendulum swinging violently back in reaction to people acting very badly and very publicly.
While I do agree Gen Z can get a bit *extra,* for one thing, conservatism never considered you or I normal and was at best seething over the slow increase in acceptance. Hell, I'd suggest they're angrier now that it's *mostly considered normal,* not just because the kids have gone wild. Also, I gotta say your choice of lament over Pride kink is funny, because The Onion was talking about that 23 years ago: https://www.theonion.com/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays-bac-1819566014 They never stopped thinking we were perverts. Go by some of the conversations about HB 1557 here, it's clear it's not just about Gender Queer, it's about *normalcy,* about LGBT people (especially T, but all of us) showing up in more media now. This was rising before the increase in trans visibility. Trans issues certainly don't help, but "it was fine until you got too weird with it" is, in my experience, a fiction.
If you are fine without guns, you aren't pro guns because you are happy to let others have their guns taken away from them.
> I'm pro-free speech too. I can be okay with or without free speech. I can't be okay with laws that would discriminate against me based on my sexual or gender identity.
We often conflate being a part of a community and caring about that community. Eric Adams is blk. He also loves arming and empowering police to act with impunity. He ignores the wishes of his constituents and does all he can to keep police from receiving punishment for anything they do. When someone is in an environment where their identity is something they can hide, or if they are in a position of power to avoid the fallout of other people in their same group, they often go ahead and side with the people around them, even if those people want them to stop existing.
marriage: Has been defined for over a millennium as legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Don’t highjack words. Best solution get government out of the marriage conversation entirely. I am not sure on LGBT adoption, how are is it for a strait male to adopt? I think both a Male and Female are needed to create a child for a reason. Either God or Evolution decided that was a best fit. What anti LGBT bills are you taking about? The Florida bill that says we don’t need sex ed until 3rd grade? Please provide examples? To be clear strait is not a word my friends use to describe me. Not that I feel the need to define my sexuality with everyone. I do value life, anti abortion, strong 2a supporter, highly supportive of low taxes, small businesses, don’t care about sexuality if an individual as long as they are a good person. Just to head off the question, I am cool with a woman doing what she wants with her body but once she is pregnant I believe that is a second life. My libertarian view say do what as long as you’re not violating the rights of another. Right to life in this example.
The thing that bugs me about “get government out of marriage entirely” is that a) we both know it’s never going to happen, b) it ignores why the government deals with marriage in the first place and c) it’s largely a dismissive response to the issue because of reasons a and b, but that’s just my own personal opinion/impression.
The idea that we should vote based on our sexuality/identity and not our policy views is insulting.
You should probably take that up with the conservatives that historically legislated based on sexuality and identity then - and still are in several states
Liberals and Conservatives historically*
The difference is that liberals have been a non issue for the last 15 years while there are a large number of present day conservatives still at it. Someone with cognitive dissonance might desperately want to imply conservatives are on the same level as liberals today in an attempt to resolve it. They are not. Nothing makes the sub quite so salty as bringing this up I have noticed but just the same it never gets really addressed either.
I hate that this is true but it is. That being said in the current time one is championing the other is attempting to dismantle
Okay, **and?** Like...criticize libs' motives for pivoting on LGBT issues, but they **pivoted.** Conservatives haven't pivoted nearly as much, and going by the return of Anita Bryant style rhetoric about my community, it's clear they never *really* pivoted at all. It just became more gauche to say "f-ggot".
Even if GOP is trying to ban LGBTQ+ related healthcare? That should be considered to a show-stopper for an LGBTQ+ person.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Having LGBT people be just normal people who have a variety of political views is actually a good thing for LGBT acceptance. Seeing a gay guy posting on here making totally based conservative arguments on here helps me feel a lot more affinity and respect for the LGBT community than it would if every gay person I met was an idiotic leftist robot.
Dude, this reminds me of these 2 gay dudes in a YouTube reply section that said they were conservatives and weren't a part of the lgbt community. The community started insulting them XD. Now I know all of em aren't like that but it was crazy.
I wonder why LGBTQ usually allign more the group who is friendly to them and not the one historically against their existence "morally" and legislatively
What does it mean to be against someone's existence? Might liberals be against someone's existence on other bases? In the modern environment, where aggressive persecution against LGBT people isn't on the table, doesn't that "friendliness" count for a lot less? Is that friendliness really all that friendly?
What are you trying to imply with these weird ring-around questions? I'll bite anyways. >What does it mean to be against someone's existence? It means being homophobic to the point of inciting violence. You don't necessarily have to be the one committing the violence to be such a person, speaking out your hate is enough. >Might liberals be against someone's existence on other bases? As a whole, no. Maybe literal dictator fascists like Putin or the entire Kim dynasty, but liberalism promotes equal rights for everyone. If you are asking this question you must have some objections I assume? >In the modern environment, where aggressive persecution against LGBT people isn't on the table, doesn't that "friendliness" count for a lot less? It is very, VERY much on the table. The friendliness will count for less only when the right lets go of homophobia as a whole so that the entire world can look at being LGBT as a normal occurrence where we wont even need a pride month. >Is that friendliness really all that friendly? Is this an attempt to undermine the left's support towards the LGBT community?
>It means being homophobic to the point of inciting violence. You don't necessarily have to be the one committing the violence to be such a person, speaking out your hate is enough. I don't doubt that one can incite violence without explicitly saying "someone should do an act of violence". But a lot of people are assuming that anybody is "speaking out hate" or treating dissent as hate. This isn't realistic. The mainstream cultural/social Right, realistically, isn't. >If you are asking this question you must have some objections I assume? I think the Left is... Often against my existence as a religious person. >so that the entire world can look at being LGBT as a normal occurrence where we wont even need a pride month. Do you understand why, to us, this comes across as worryingly like "we will never be safe until we have hegemony over everyone else"? You will never, ever get rid of dissent. And in any case, its clear that a lot of LGBT people don't share that view, and the value proposition of the Left's friendliness is a lot less. >Is this an attempt to undermine the left's support towards the LGBT community? More like to question it's motives. The Left often seems to view itself as entitled to the unconditional support of its client demographics. When it becomes apparent that this support is conditional upon the Left meeting their needs, the response often is deeply alarming.
> But a lot of people are assuming that anybody is "speaking out hate" or treating dissent as hate. This isn't realistic. The mainstream cultural/social Right, realistically, isn't. What does dissent mean in this case? What differentiates it from hate? Why would you try to dissent against social equality? > I think the Left is... Often against my existence as a religious person. Oh, spare me the victim card. Have you ever been called a slur for being Christian? Are you afraid of being honor killed in any eastern and African countries? Are you considered a criminal in majority of them? Have you ever been outcast as a child in your life for being Christian? Has your right to marry or adopt ever been put into jeopardy? Do people cover the eyes of their children when you pass by in public? Were you born a Christian or did you choose to be one? So much wolf in sheepish clothing responses in this sub. > Do you understand why, to us, this comes across as worryingly like "we will never be safe until we have hegemony over everyone else"? You will never, ever get rid of dissent. I understand. I just have no sympathy. Because I don’t want you to actively support the LGBT community, just want you to see them as regular people like you and me. They should not be upheld nor downcast. Just treated fairly based on character. Do you think you are on the right side of history here? Any of your arguments could be made for black people or women 200 years ago and look where we are now. You cannot halt social progress. > More like to question it's motives. The Left often seems to view itself as entitled to the unconditional support of its client demographics. When it becomes apparent that this support is conditional upon the Left meeting their needs, the response often is deeply alarming We dont expect unconditional support from anyone. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think minorities voting republican go through one hell of mental gymnastics. What you call “deeply alarming” is just calling them, at least in my case, abject fools. Certainly a better reaction than violence often displayed by the right.
>What does dissent mean in this case? What differentiates it from hate? Why would you try to dissent against social equality? Inability to distinguish between hatred and non-hateful disagreement, dissent, or opposition... Is really not a good look. Frankly, I strongly believe that this is one of the roots of totalitarianism. I'm bewildered that you can't understand this distinction existing - it seems like brainwashing. Fundamentally, they're blatantly different. The types of dissent I'm referring to involves disagreeing with someone's choices and wanting not to support or participate in those choices. Hatred, well, involves hating someone, wanting to harm them or have them be consumed by disgust, etc. A lot of the talk of equality on this matter smacks to us of "five should be equal to three, because it's unfair for three to be a smaller number". >Oh, spare me the victim card. If you never accept that anyone else might have been victimized... Accused of supporting pedophilia, targeted for forcing breaking confidentiality, told we should hide our religion in public, numerous church arsons, unrelated churches attacked for vandalism in revenge for something some people were incorrectly accused of doing, fake stories of historical crimes... >just want you to see them as regular people like you and me And I argue that I do. >Do you think you are on the right side of history here? **Yes. Full stop.** More specifically: it's quite possible that we'll never be vindicated in our lifetime, or even within the world, but we take the position we do because to the best of our knowledge it's the objectively right one to take, and in the uttermost reckoning we will be seen to have made the correct and loving choice, even under difficult circumstance. >You cannot halt social progress. There's no "progress" in that sense, for us to halt, certainly not one which always favors you or inevitably unfolds. In my view, the only reason you feel like you're on the right side of history is because you have been stronger for 250 years and history is written by the victors. >Any of your arguments could be made for black people or women 200 years ago We were on the same side for black people. But skin color is very different from the (sexual) uses of the human body.
> Fundamentally, they're blatantly different. The types of dissent I'm referring to involves disagreeing with someone's choices and wanting not to support or participate in those choices. Not a choice. Also, I am trying to influence you to think your answers, if you see my attempt at letting you explain the nuance as blindness to the point totalitarianism, then I am afraid we may be getting on the wrong foot. I just want you to explain to me what you personally believe. That’s fine. Disagree all you want. That’s what I want, really, just if you do it without actively inciting violence. Without letting the dissent breed hate. It seems you are already at this stage so unless you are actively speaking out against them I have no quarrel. Of course, I’d much prefer a world where everyone recognizes the LGBT community as a normal part of life but I am a realist, even black people aren’t fully accepted today after a century and a half. I do not see a full acceptance anytime soon. > If you never accept that anyone else might have been victimized... Not anyone. Individuals, of course. Christians as a whole, I definitely do not think. > Accused of supporting pedophilia, targeted for forcing breaking confidentiality, told we should hide our religion in public, numerous church arsons, unrelated churches attacked for vandalism in revenge for something some people were incorrectly accused of doing, fake stories of historical crimes... All of these except the first one are inconsequential or petty crimes. They do not compare to anything I listed for the LGBT community. I don’t want to downplay your problems, those are real issues, but on the topic of comparing it to the everyday fight of minority communities it stands rather inconsequential and rare. Not a methodical discrimination. Your first example however is a sad truth. It goes for the LGBT community too, they suffer the same problem. Nobody should be branded such an awful thing for being who they are and people who generalize as such are shallow and dislikable often. I would rather proselytize the Ten Commandments before I call you such a thing. > And I argue that I do Thank you. Genuinely. It’s enough to make a change if everyone was at least in your level of thinking. Especially given that some religious people often base their religion for actual hate and violence, I’m glad you avoided such a path. > Yes. Full stop What you think right now is the loving and right choice may be what slave owners though 200 years ago as well. Again, this argument lost a bit of meaning because you aren’t entirely homophobic, but it is apparent that you hold at least some disagreement or dislike towards the trait of LGBT. So in this context, where the left wholly embraces it while the right’s best case tolerates, do you think its baseless for the LGBT community to (mostly) see the right as the enemy? We have never been stronger on the social side of history as the left, but it is true that we keep getting victories. Because like I said, you cannot halt social progress. > There's no "progress" in that sense, for us to halt, certainly not one which always favors you or inevitably unfolds. Well my entire argument is that there is one. I am trying my best to understand your views and I hope you can make the same effort. I am not a SJW but I see the hardships for the LGBT community all the same. The history has always been black and white in this regard, the perpetrator and the victim. Spoiler alert: the victim eventually wins. > We were on the same side for black people. But skin color is very different from the (sexual) uses of the human body. Who’s “we”? Again, this argument boils down to you thinking its a choice. Being LGBT is not a choice. Do you think a married man of 20 years just suddenly goes “man I want some of that guy pecs” and turns gay? If such a thing happens, they always have been gay. They just suppress it. I think this is the heart of the problem. Its not a choice. There have been numerous studies on this, its been confirmed that the brain develops at least some part of the affiliation at an early age.
>Not a choice. This may indeed be the big disconnect. Having sex with a person of the same sex as yourself is *absolutely* a choice, and I doubt that many people would disagree. (So is having sex with a person of the opposite sex as yourself, or being celibate.) On the other hand, one does not choose who one is attracted to. My primary claim is that people should make a different choice (i.e. to not do that), and sundry other choices in the same line. >Not anyone. Individuals, of course. Christians as a whole, I definitely do not think. Between the level of individuals and all of Christianity, there's definitely the category of certain sects, or people who hold to a particular overall traditionalistic tendency. That is the group that is under attack. The thing I tend to perceive the opposition as saying is that it is OK if I am a Christian, as long as I don't actually believe it. >The history has always been black and white in this regard, the perpetrator and the victim. Spoiler alert: the victim eventually wins. I believe that the only reason we think this, is that who the "victim" is gets decided after the fact. And not everyone even has that underdog-sense. It would have been possible that Hitler would win WWII and everyone would talk about how it was inevitable that the natural strength and bravery of the Aryan race would prevail. It also would have been possible that the Soviets would overtake capitalism, and, well, blah blah blah. It also historically would be possible that the Christian Right would win in the recent past, and they might do so in the future. It is my sincere hope that we can be more honest about history.
> Having sex with a person of the same sex as yourself is absolutely a choice, and I doubt that many people would disagree True but what does that have to do with anything? Are you against sodomy specifically? If so, why do you care what happens in the bedroom? > My primary claim is that people should make a different choice Sorry, I don’t get what you mean by this. Should gay people make the choice of not having sex? If so, see above. > or people who hold to a particular overall traditionalistic tendency. That is the group that is under attack. Maybe it’s because that is the group that tries to tell others how to live based on their religion and tradition, and that they see social progress as an attack on their existence. No one is actively physically harming traditionalists around the world. Cause why would they? As a (mostly) socially progressive person even I can see that tradition is culture. It must be preserved (as long as it doesn’t interfere in other people’s lives). > The thing I tend to perceive the opposition as saying is that it is OK if I am a Christian, as long as I don't actually believe it We must be perceiving some very different things. Almost every leftist I know irl suppprts a secular nation where people are free to practice whatever they want, just don’t proselytize to me. I don’t wanna see Bible quotes in the YouTube comments of a cooking channel. That’s essentially how I expect others to perceive the LGBT community as well. They mind their business and you mind yours. > It would have been possible that Hitler would win WWII and everyone would talk about how it was inevitable that the natural strength and bravery of the Aryan race would prevail If the Nazis took over the world maybe we would talk that facing the holster of a gun. Do you see North Korea as the right side just cause the Kim dynasty were the victors? If you cannot differentiate the right side from the wrong when the wrong one actively harms the right one, damn, you need some glasses. > It also historically would be possible that the Christian Right would win in the recent past, and they might do so in the future Win what? The war of not letting LGBT people live their lives without major repercussions? Putting the Ten Commandments into classrooms? Cause if so, congratulations, you’re halfway there already.
> Inability to distinguish between hatred and non-hateful disagreement, dissent, or opposition... Is really not a good look. Let me start by saying I truly believe you when you say your dissent (if this is a position held by you and not simply one you're defending) is not based in hate. However. If you tell me, a bisexual man, that a) pubescent kids cannot possibly be LGBT or that b) we shouldn't teach pubescent kids that LGBT (or even just LGB) people exist the same way we do with straight people...I can't see that as anything *but* hateful. It's essentially "you are pornography." If it was just "Gender Queer is too sexually explicit for people under 18," that'd be one thing, but it is "children cannot see routine depictions of LGBT people the same way they see depictions of straight people, not even mentioning two moms in a math problem". That's a mainstream conservative position. How do I look at that and think anything other than "wow, these people hate me, think of me as something disgusting they have to tolerate but must keep their children away from," etc.? You wanna think being bi is wrong, okay, fine. But that's not enough, going by laws like HB 1557. Kids have to not know what being bi is. Because being bi is somehow Adults-Only, just Inappropriate for a kid to know about. Billy can't have a crush on Suzy *and* a crush on Tommy. Not even an opt-out thing; we need to add legal peril to any mention of bi people. That's not dissent. That's *control.*
To be fair, republicans haven’t totally come around to the whole gay thing yet. Yeah, it’s less acceptable to be outwardly homophobic in general, and there is more support for gay rights than there used to be. But by and large, many of the issues that matter to gay people: gay marriage, gay couples right to adopt, non-discrimination protections, and bans on conversion therapy (particularly for minors more than anything), are things that the Republican Party is flat out against and would not have as law if it weren’t for various court cases here and there holding that they can’t touch the issue.
I think a better question you should ask is why the Left is claimant to them. My brother married a man from India, and he's further Right than I am, simply because FJB.
Gay man here. I'm technically a moderate/centrist but I currently lean more conservative because of how far the left has gone, and I wish to correct that with my vote. So why am I not a lefty? Because my politics have nothing to do with my sexuality. I have almost zero in common with the conventional LGBT community. Pride doesn't interest me. The experimental relationship and sexual models promoted by the mainstream gay community not only don't interest me, I think they are degenerate. The current iteration of social justice, critical race theory, intersectionality and queer theory are corrupted to the core and don't represent me or me interests. And the fact is, there are more pressing matters than people's sexualities and gender identites. Like, way bigger. I am interested in smaller government, debt control and reigned in spending, national sovereignty, the right to self-defense, private property, and social spending that is practical (which INCLUDES controls on corporate welfare, btw). The list goes on. I also have way more in common with Paleoconservatives when it comes to things like decentralization, reduced spending, ending financial interference of politicians (bribes), ending corporate personhood (which is a huge joke), etc. The socially conservative aspect of Paleoconservativism interests me less, but I do think we need to balance a lot of the radical leftism with some rightism. We need to return more to center. I think the traditional family model was better. The birth rate is down for a reason and it's because there is a culture war between men and women, thanks to radical leftism... and with the help of social media. I know conservative gay couples who are raising families under the nuclear model, and their children are super well-adjusted. This model doesn't jive with radical leftism, which is destroying the nuclear family. They believe in poly, open relationships, multiple partners, promiscuity and the prioritization of pleasure over life discipline. These are not virtues, they are lazy cop outs from what it takes to really contribute to your society. This is why economies in traditional nations are starting to overtake us. Their work ethic is way better than ours. My partner and I both work in white collar professions... we worked our asses off for everything we have. And our reward? Left-wing governments taxing the shit out of us to prop up welfare programs and loan forgiveness for lazy leftists who took women's studies in university. It's laughable. I actually have more sympathy for classical liberals, or even the liberalism that existed pre-2018. It has gone totally off the rails now thanks to radical leftism and progressivism infecting everything. I feel super alienated as a gay man and I want to see social policy that reigns some of this crap in... like child grooming in education, drag queens entering children's species, and anyone declaring themselves trans without medical qualification so that they can invade gender-segregated spaces. No. It stops now. After gay marriage and parental rights were signed into law, I felt ZERO threat from the right wing. It is the current left wing that has made me feel unsafe. They are dying on hills like teaching kids about sex toys, and drag queens reading to kids, which has stoked the radical right into coming back out of the woodwork to attack all gay people. We need to get back to reality, and get back to policy making that is actually pertinent... like preventing economic collapse and foreign interference. I will vote conservative, even if it's conservative-independent, until this madness ends. We need balance, badly. I am LGB without the TQ+. The TQ+ can go to hell. They don't represent me and every time one of them talks about "LGBTQ+" I remind them that they are NOTHING like the LGB movement that won its rights through popular discourse. So... my vote is not only about the economy and sane policy, it's about ending child grooming and letting people with personality disorders hijack our institutions.
>I am LGB without the TQ+. The TQ+ can go to hell. i'm trans. should i go to hell for existing? :( even if you think i should, i'm still bi. i'm not only that dirty ugly gross "TQ+". if you want me dead for, i don't know, literally *existing* then that's pretty goddamn fucking disgusting. i don't think you should go to hell for existing even just because you are a conservative. whatever. i don't agree and think your worldview is harmful (especially to yourself) but you don't deserve death for it. believe what you want. i'm not forcing you to do anything. i'm not exposing kids to sexual content for existing unlike what some people think (the 2025 conservative promise literally is using roundabout language to want to execute us LOL). i have clothes on and keep sexual desires to myself. i am not sexual for existing. i am being sexualized by others for existing. i have done nothing except exist. >like teaching kids about sex toys, and drag queens reading to kids ... literally who is doing that? who is showing kids sex toys? and what's wrong with being a drag queen when it's just a form of self expression that *you* don't like just because *you* don't understand it? like, think about it. should *you* not be in front of children or be allowed to talk to them because you're gay? or just because you like to dress a certain way and like certain things that aren't even harmful? and are you, like, confused about teaching kids about reproduction? yeah, we teach kids about reproduction bc we need to. if we DON'T teach kids about reproduction, we're gonna have unwanted children born to teenagers who cannot take care of them. we need to teach them about protected sex and contraception. we need to teach them what STIs are. if you don't want abortions then don't create a situation where they're needed in the first place. the foster system is already fucked and people don't want their children going through that which would lead them to keeping the child in a situation where they just can't take care of the kid. i learned about the reproductive system in *middle school* using textbook drawings and sheets to fill out. my teacher taught me about them, showed a condom, talked about other contraceptive devices & medications, etc. i knew i was trans before that. that had absolutely *nothing* to do with my transition. i had never met another trans person. i never learned about sex toys. and i am from a notoriously far left part of the country. i never once learned about anything sexual in elementary school. i learned about female puberty and that's it. never formally learned what a dick was until middle school. i knew what they were before then but let me tell you this: it wasn't lgbtq people showing me that. hell, if i knew about reproduction earlier and that safety, my mind wouldn't be wrecked by things that have been done to me. i would have known it's not normal and to tell someone. >I remind them that they are NOTHING like the LGB movement that won its rights through popular discourse. do... do you not know your own history? it isn't only that. it's incredibly nuanced. a drag queen (or trans woman? dunno) threw the first rock at stonewall. drag queens and trans people fought for the same rights as you. it isn't ONLY you. it's all of us. trans people have always been part of the community and we have done good things for it. trans people have been met with much of the same adversity that other lgbt people have. they both have to do with expressing ourselves without fear. both sexuality and gender literally have a distinct focus on gender. so many trans people are also lgbt. we have the same struggles. the far right is driving a wedge within the lgbt community. they are trying to separate us and turning us against ourselves which is *exactly* what is happening right here. if you don't think so, **tell me why it isn't.** when the far right is done with us, *you're next.* shit ain't getting better for either of us until we work together. don't like me? too bad. we're in this together whether you like it or not. no matter how much you align yourself with the right, you're still gonna be hated. frankly i don't care if you don't like me for being trans. i'm alive. i'm happy. i have goals and aspirations. i'm going to get a master's and maybe even a phd. i'm going to make changes to this world and you can't stop me. they're going to be good changes. i'm not going to med school but just because a doctor is trans doesn't mean they don't save lives. (continuing in reply)
if you have a problem with me being *happy* and fucking ***alive***, that is ENTIRELY a you problem. and if you do you honestly disgust me. and i see the best in everyone and give everyone a chance, even if i don't like them. i do understand where you are coming from. i do. i used to be like "oh, i don't identify with THOSE lgbtq people. i'm not one of them. i'm normal like you guys." but then i figured something out that DRASTICALLY improved my life: i decided i didn't care. people are happy and why police them for that? this is ultimately harmless. i think everyone deserves happiness as long as it isn't putting down others. it doesn't even only go for "those" lgbtq people. someone has a different opinion? whatever. i let people believe what they want. frankly i wasn't even going to respond to this comment until you told me to go to hell. that's a step too far, man. you don't even know me. who even says we have to please cishet people? why should we conform to what *they* want? letting us exist is the least they can do after centuries of oppression. the world isn't made of boxes. boohoo. humans are diverse and we have been for thousands of years. LGBT people have existed for thousands of years and there's even gay shit arguably depicted in cave paintings and even if you deny those, there's still stuff in written history. times are changing and that's a good thing. after the right is done with us, they're gonna eat you. and you aren't gonna have anybody left to stand up for you, now will you? i'll stand up for you even if you wouldn't do the same for me. i'm sure i don't only speak for myself when i say i do want you to be happy. you deserve it. even if you don't think the same for me. but you turning against your own community, even if you don't understand it or dislike it, is making you upset. i have been there. i know this from experience. turn off your brain for a day. look at things from the other side. leave people be. the less you care about policing others, even if it's for your own "good", the happier you're gonna be. i know from YEARS of reflection that i just wanted to please cishet people so i wouldn't be treated badly. i was insecure. i turned against my own community *and* yours. both of ours. don't like me including you in my icky leftist ways? not my problem for wanting what is best for both of us.
Tl;dr I have no problem with individual, legit trans people. I have trans friends. I am sick of the TRA movement and what it has become. That's what I mean by the TQ can go to hell. Sadly I think trans people have been done more harm by the TQ+ because of how toxic the politics are now, and because of all the bandwagoning by people who aren't even trans. No, a drag queen or trans person did not throw the first brick. I am so sick of this lie. Marsha P Johnson was a gay man. We have archival footage of him saying as much. Just because he was femme does not mean he was actually a woman. Stop appropriating femme gay men into the trans umbrella. It's another reason why gay men fucking can't stand the TQ. Gay men are men, they are not destined to be women. Now go away with your hyperbolic nonsense.
"i'm not transphobic, i have trans friends!" ok? you can say that but actions speak louder than words. i can say i'm a vegetarian but if i eat meat, i'm not actually one. in all honesty i'm confused on why they're even friends with you? which i mean from a neutral and curious standpoint. if i had to guess they're demonstrating that same fawn response i did all those years ago. *i* wouldn't be friends with you. so far i don't really like you so far but that doesn't mean i hate you. infighting gets us absolutely *nowhere*. what you are saying is transphobic tbh. "the TQ can go to hell". how is this not transphobic? i could list more but i've already done that in my previous comments (if you're curious, i had to make it 2 comments since reddit didn't let me post something that long in one comment). >I have no problem with individual, legit trans people. okay, but here's the question: how do you know who is and isn't a "legit" trans person? what even IS a "legit" trans person? why is it even up to *you*, a *cisgender* person, to speak for a community you can't understand nor seemingly care to learn about? >Marsha P Johnson was a gay man. We have archival footage of him saying as much. \[...\] Stop appropriating femme gay men into the trans umbrella. you do realize you can be both a gay man AND a drag queen, right? these aren't mutually exclusive??? people today are gay men and drag queens. and peoples' identities change over time. when i was little i thought i was cisgender and heterosexual. then i thought i was a cis lesbian. then i thought i was an asexual straight trans guy. now i know i'm a bisexual transgender guy. things like this aren't static. they change as we find out who we actually are and then we stick with that. it's just like with any other identity. if my favorite color was green when i was little, then i decided it was red, then blue, then cyan, that doesn't mean my favorite color IS green. it means my favorite color is cyan. my favorite color USED to be green. if i said ALL of these were my favorite color that doesn't mean green is exclusively my favorite color even if it's one of them. it's not fair to say that's my only favorite color. even if marsha *wasn't* a trans woman *or* a drag queen, it isn't like she (if she uses that, i'll use it) was the only person to fight for us. you can literally find so many if you do a few mins of research. even wikipedia is fine if the info you're looking for has a direct citation; i've used this before. we have stood up for you whether you like it or not and we're here whether you like it or not. we do not owe the people who oppress us, demonize us, etc a damn thing. we've listened for so long. it's their turn to listen. so what it's not what aligns with their beliefs? if they do not want people being HAPPY then that's just gross. i am SO much happier now that i do not care what cishet people think. i ain't aligning myself with people who dislike me and my lgbt siblings. they just want people to be like them when that's not how humans work. it never has been and it never should be. why should i align with them when it hurts myself and our community that *you're* part of whether you like it or not? your rights are ours, too. believe what you want. i saw you change your flair from paleoconservative to center-right. did i do something? i dunno. i don't care. literally what matters is that you know the pov of those you don't like. even i do that. i wouldn't be on this sub if i didn't want to see the other side nor should you if *you* don't want to see the other side. that's the whole point of the subreddit. and anyway, no thanks. i like my hyperbolic nonsense. i get this is a confusing topic bc i was confused by it, too. so i learned about it. i'd suggest you also do the same and i'm happy to tell you anything you want to know or explain everything you don't understand because i understand that infighting is pointless and gets us nowhere. minorities are stronger together rather than divided and we should support one another.
I don't know how to multiquote so I'll just put yours in bold. **"i'm not transphobic, i have trans friends!" ok? you can say that but actions speak louder than words. i can say i'm a vegetarian but if i eat meat, i'm not actually one.** Don't care. Gay and trans people are not a monolith. You know there's lots of trans people out there who don't like the TRA movement, right? I'm not interested in your purity politics. **what you are saying is transphobic tbh. "the TQ can go to hell". how is this not transphobic? i could list more but i've already done that in my previous comments (if you're curious, i had to make it 2 comments since reddit didn't let me post something that long in one comment).** This question was already answered. I didn't say trans people I said the TQ. You can disagree with a movement and not the people it claims to represent (but doesn't), that's because its people are not a monolith (see above). **okay, but here's the question: how do you know who is and isn't a "legit" trans person? what even IS a "legit" trans person?** They have a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Everybody else is cosplaying. **why is it even up to** ***you*****, a** ***cisgender*** **person, to speak for a community you can't understand nor seemingly care to learn about?** I'm not "speaking to a community". There is no community. Stop acting like you're part of a monolith. ***YOU'RE NOT.*** **you do realize you can be both a gay man AND a drag queen, right? these aren't mutually exclusive???** Oh lord. Do you hear yourself? Trans people have been trying to say that a trans person threw the first brick because progressives are obsessed with rewriting history. MPJ was a gay man. That's why I'm mentioning. Don't give a shit if he was a "drag queen" or not... he wasn't trans. **things like this aren't static. they change as we find out who we actually are and then we stick with that. it's just like with any other identity.** You can't rewrite history, no matter how hard you want to. If you won't respect the very words out of the man's mouth then you are just appropriating this person as an icon for ideology. **we do not owe the people who oppress us, demonize us, etc a damn thing. we've listened for so long. it's their turn to listen. so what it's not what aligns with their beliefs? if they do not want people being HAPPY then that's just gross.** Again with the monolithic righteous talk.
**i am SO much happier now that i do not care what cishet people think.** You seem to care very much what this cis person thinks. \*shrug\* **i ain't aligning myself with people who dislike me and my lgbt siblings. they just want people to be like them when that's not how humans work. it never has been and it never should be. why should i align with them when it hurts myself and our community that** ***you're*** **part of whether you like it or not? your rights are ours, too.** More monolithic talk. There is no LGBT community. We are a wide range of diverse individuals from all walks of life. Acting like we should all think and act the same, and fall in line or else, is just the usual progressive communist talk. This is why the TQ should go to hell. They are subverting a historical movement (LGB) that was conducted in good faith and making it about a new type of social conformity. MY ANSWER IS NO. **believe what you want. i saw you change your flair from paleoconservative to center-right. did i do something? i dunno. i don't care.** Super telling that you thought this had anything to do with you. You know the world doesn't revolve around you, right? **and anyway, no thanks. i like my hyperbolic nonsense.** That much is obvious. **i get this is a confusing topic bc i was confused by it, too. so i learned about it. i'd suggest you also do the same and i'm happy to tell you anything you want to know or explain everything you don't understand** Abso-fucking-lutely not. The fact that you think I have a different POV than you means I lack education just goes to the show the level of entitlement at work here. Again, this is why the TQ movement can go to hell. You're into purity politics and don't give two shits if someone has any concerns about the way things are being conducted -- i.e. child grooming. This is why the TQ movement is losing allies left, right and centre, including from the LGB. The total tone deafness is alienating everyone that would be on your side if you'd STFU for 5 seconds, stop lecturing us with high-minded rhetoric, and listen to our concerns. Anytime somebody tries, people like you play the victim and go for the usual low hanging fruit, in the usual narcissistic way. I'm not trying to oppress you, I ***was*** trying to have a conversation. But you won't do that, and so we're done. Doxx me all you like with personal attacks, I don't give one single F. Your argument in of itself is indefensible. Enjoy your echo chamber lifestyle. Bye felicia.
u can quote multiple things by putting a > in front of them, so your comment would look like ">words". honestly i think we're at a standstill here. you have genuinely been fascinating to talk to and i genuinely have enjoyed hearing from you! maybe i don't like you but i'm gonna listen. your points are really interesting and things i haven't thought of. like i said, i wouldn't come to this sub if i didn't want to hear what other people think. i do think you have good points. i wouldn't respond to you if i didn't think you have good points. i am able to reflect on them and will think more about them to see what i think of them; i can't say what i think about them right now until i do more research. and no. you do lack education. as do i, i didn't know marsha described herself as a gay man. but i will continue referring to her with she/her pronouns because that is what she preferred. it's not that hard. i will respect that even if you won't. you should research more history about the lgbtq community honestly, trans people are a part of it whether you like it or not and whether you reject it or not. i honestly don't know where you're getting that child grooming thing from. still. groomers are groomers, trans or not. being trans has nothing to do with that? just like how being gay has nothing to do with grooming or whatever. yeah, there's overlap, but they aren't equated and it is unfair to equate them. can't imagine you'd have much fun if i called gay people groomers as a generalization or implied you were one or supported them :P honestly, as someone who HAS been groomed, i do everything i can to STOP others from being groomed. and before you ask, being groomed has nothing to do with me being trans; it was after i already knew and this person just desensitized me to nsfw/nsfl topics. both cis AND trans people were groomed by this person. being a "pick me" isn't gonna get you anywhere. homophobes will dislike you whether or not you're a "good one" tbh. lgbtq people are on a sinking ship and just because you're on a higher part of the ship doesn't mean you aren't sinking (an analogy i heard in a video earlier, weird timing haha, tell me if u want the vid! it's honestly really good). you can align with cishet people if you want but the problem comes with putting down others and demonizing parts of your own community, which you are doing. i have been in that situation which is why i know it's bad. even if you don't identify with the lgbtq community yourself, which is whatever, not gonna force you to do that, we're still in the same boat. we still have the same struggles. even if i don't like you and you don't like me we ultimately want the same thing which is to be accepted and safe. i just don't think we should roll over on our backs and show our bellies just to be accepted rather than being able to be ourselves apologetically. we've done enough of that, haven't we? love and acceptance should not be conditional. if your mom or whatever only said she loved you when you do what she wants, then you'd feel bad because that love is conditional. she only loves you sometimes. she'll only treat you well when you please her. we shouldn't have to DO things to be accepted and to be safe. cishet people don't have to. why should we? that isn't equality. cishet folks don't need to do anything. lgbtq folks shouldn't need to do anything, either. that's how you get equality and acceptance. by not putting down others and controlling them via fear even if that fear is subconscious. like i said earlier, i'm not interested in continuing this convo nor do i think you are. i'm leaving you with my thoughts there and if you have questions, direct message me because i no longer will be keeping up with this reply string. we aren't getting anywhere so i'm not gonna waste my time; i'm gonna go use that time loving myself and supporting others since that's what we need.
I'm not a "pick me" and that was the entire reason why I responded to your OP. To let you know that people have other reasons than simple conformity for being against the TQ. Yet you still persist in calling me that despite me giving you very detailed explanations for why I don't like the TQ movement. You seem to think LGBT is a monolith and anyone who doesn't adhere to your purity politics is a "pick me." The reality is I don't really give a shit what anyone else thinks, liberal or conservative, when it comes to forming my own point of view. People like you who characterize conservatives as mindless conformists are why liberals and progressives are losing the PR campaign for acceptance. Your politics are gross and built upon group think speak, including the ways you characterize people into weird camps who disagee you. In our conversation you have essentially trotted out every tired cliche that progressives use when they can't convert the other party to their cause. It never occurs to you that I may be highly educated and still conclude something differently than you would. That's the basis of disagreement. The fact that you would rather throw insults or try to minimize my position as being a "pick me" shows the level of maturity that you operate from. At the end of the day I don't really care what you think. The TRA movement is losing in pretty much the entire Western world. Maybe you should "get educated" about why that's happening, instead of assuming that it's just because of idle bigotry. I assure you it's not. The TQ is extremely aggressive and polarizing in how it deals with disagreement. It is part and parcel with social justice, critical race theory, and queer theory, all of which are extremely caustic and have very clear flaws in their ideology. But no, we can't talk about that rationally, because to disagree with the religion is just bigotry. I'm sure you are a lovely person IRL but your politics are toxic. Take care.
Bisexual man here, and I completely agree with you on everything you said here. Also I’m so with you on the LGB without the TQ and all the other damn letters. I also fucking hate pride, like it’s become so perverted and so pointless. Like what is there to celebrate about wanting to sleep with someone of the same gender, especially now in 2024. I also can’t stand the whole gender ideology, pronouns and critical race theory. Especially as a half white half asian man, I think the whole critical race theory is bullshit, and for the democrats to say this is a racist country, especially Joe Biden who was the VP of the first black man to be US president in a majority white country, like I don’t even call them liberals anymore because there is nothing liberating in telling people they are oppressed and that their character and talent doesn’t matter if they aren’t completely white. I’m definitely never going to be able to call myself anything other than a Republican. I can not associate myself with a party that demanded people get a vaccine if they want to work (and I got the vaccine, but I don’t think it should be required, at least not in a school full of healthy young people). I can not associate myself with a party that believes putting America first is bad. I can not support a party that wants people of color and half white half POC people like me to feel like we can’t become what we want to be because of our ethnic background. I can not Like now that we have the Respect For Marriage Act law, and the legal right for gay couples to be parents, I feel no threat from the right wing. If anything I feel actually less threatened from the right wing than I do the left wing. Most people seem to forget that it was Bill Clinton, Hillary and Joe Biden who were all a large part of the reason we even needed the Respect For Marriage Act, which was to repeal a law they created. And Hillary tried to defend her and her husband passing DOMA in 1996 as something that “had to be enacted to stop an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” Yeah, Hillary, just admit that you were against gay marriage and did this to try to make it harder for LGB people to achieve equality in America. Like don’t play the hero in this Hillary. I’ve only been called homophobic slurs once in my whole life and it was on Reddit on this sub by leftists, progressives and democrats who claim that I am being oppressed by the right wing. I’m not, I am free. They just hate seeing people like me and you not vote based on what sex we want to sleep with. I am not opposed to voting for a Democrat like JFK Obama or Tulsi Gabbard, but the current high profile democrats like Newsom and Biden, they dont represent my political beliefs in the slightest other than their support for gay marriage, but that is all. Which if Donald Trump was so anti-gay, why did he host several gay weddings? Also they like to forget that Joe Biden has done way more for trans people than LGB people. And that congress passed the respect for marriage act, not Biden. Also, Joe Biden voted against gay marriage three times, supported DOMA and DADT and he even said homosexuals were a national security threat. I bet he was terrified when Donald Trump appointed the first openly gay man into the US cabinet. When the emotionally hijacked leftists and “progressives” say to me, “but the sky is going to fall if Donald Trump gets into office.” I will now say to them, “you mean like last time?” I love seeing other gay/bi guys that are conservatives on this app!!! Glad to find people that think alike to me!!!
You said a lot that I agree with. What you said about anti-gay democrats is a perfect example of how people and institutions flip the script when it suits their political ambitions. It's just like corporations. The left used to be anti-corporate, now they will kiss the ass of any corporation who waves a pride flag. You go to pride and see a float for Lockheed Martin... but the left is supposed to be anti-war? As for Biden himself... at this point he is playing with half a deck, so I think it's laughable when he talks about trans anything when he is barely aware of where the exit of the stage is. The progressive movement has a huge PR problem. They've not only failed to gain popular support, they are actually turning their allies against them. This is how the left eats itself, and it's pretty sad to watch. All I really want is rational discourse... but the left is pro-censorship now, so that is a non-starter. This is the first place on reddit I've been where I can really, truly openly talk about this without a mod banning me.
Far leftism is when trans, apparently. Do you understand they were saying the very same thing about gay people? The time has shown they were wrong about gay people and will show they are wrong about trans people. They will become an organic part of an American society. I hate Twitter communists for validating retarded stereotypes, gay people are lucky to have had significant victories before Twitter.
I disagree. Trans rights activism is a totally different animal than gay rights activism. LBG is about sexual orientation. It was proven to not be a mental disorder in the 70s, which was a long time ago now. Real trans people (not phonies bandwagoning on a social contagion) have gender dysphoria. If you talk to any legit trans person they will openly admit that they have a mental health condition. The TQ+ bandwagoning on the LGB is inappropriate. We are not the same community, we have very different concerns. The only common thing we share is a gender bending attitude... but we actually live in very different realities. It's the same reason why I hate everyone being called "queer" now... as if we are one group. We're not. LGB people won the civil rights movement because we used the slow, painstaking route of civil rights discourse. We won hearts and minds. The TRAs did not do that. They hijacked institutions and created top-down ideologies that have *no scientific evidence*. It's all based on queer theory, which has many problematic aspects like child grooming and support for pedophilia. The medicalization of children is particularly evil. There needs to be a lot more gatekeeping and objective medical assessment. The Cass Report informs us that virtually everything that was claimed about trans children has been a lie, including the medicalization process. It's why detransitioners are growing in numbers and why "gender affirming care" is a model that is slowly dying out. Clinics all over the world are starting to close, either due to lawsuits or government re-assessment. This is why I will be voting conservative. We need to stop this unscientific crap from continuing. I don't want to lose the rights we've gained in the LGB because of people with personality disorders calling themselves TQ+ when really they need a psychiatrist.
The Cass report is a joke. It was staffed by people with incredible biases, it made conclusions that went against results of studies it commissioned, and just made up things, like claiming that porn made people trans even though they had no evidence for it.
What is your evidence for these claims? I mean real evidence... not just social media posts. Do you have any credible analysis from the scientific community to refute the Cass report? Fact is, it's not a joke at all. It's the opposite of a joke. It's the biggest longitudinal study of its kind ever done. They closed "gender affirming care" clinics in the UK and banned puberty blockers because of that study.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I haven't read Cass report myself ("25 years old childbrain" cringe was enough for me), but it's accuracy and unbiasedness is questionable https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249
With a title like that, its credibility is automatically in question. I realize all the leftists in the institutions hate the Cass report and are doing everything they can to tear it down, but the only real way they can do that is by replicating the study and showing opposite results. I work in science, have read the report thoroughly, and I have read the critiques on it. The critiques are mostly misinformed mouth foaming, making up the usual lies in order to discredit a real professional effort to get at the truth. Which is very reminiscent of most of our institutions now. Instead of intellectual excellence, idiots are trying to take over and silence dissent. Those idiots should be ignored and thrown out of their jobs.
Here's a pre-print that shows some of the issues with the Cass review: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/wjafd There have been other reports since then and the scientific community is closing in on a consensus that the Cass review has severe methodological issues. Furthermore, here's a neat listing of statements and commentary from various experts and organizations: https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/
You need to stop misrepresenting what's happening in the academic world based on your political biases. I work in science, you can't BS me. Your links are to *commentaries*, they are not formal rebuttals of papers that have led to interventions by the publication. If Cass is truly methodologically unsound, the paper will either be pulled, retractions will be amended to the paper, or the authors will have an opportunity to rectify methodological errors for resubmission. So far, the paper is untouched. Saying "a consensus is being closed in on" is a meaningless statement and frankly adjacent to lying. The scientific community does not operate like a democracy. There is supporting research and non-supporting research. Anyone can publish research that supports findings or doesn't support findings. Then the research is replicated. Consensus is based upon meta-analyses of a collection of research, and not whether or not people are pissed off that one article found support for a political opinion that's unpopular. For example, following the Cass report, if there are 10 more studies done and they all have findings that don't support the Cass report, then the Cass report is likely discredited. If the Cass report itself is methodologically in error, then the journal makes the necessary modifications in the here and now. If not, then the paper remains untouched and future research will have to replicate the Cass report and see if the findings match up. THAT is how real research works. Btw, Dori Grijseels, the author of one of your links, is a postdoc, she's not even completed her training. So obviously she is trying to kiss some serious ass by writing that critique, probably to get the attention of grant funding. Typical. Her opinion is low caliber mostly due to her lack of tenure association with a credible institution. She is what we all a low-merit PhD. I mean, look at her fucking Twitter feed... she is as hard left as they come. Sooo unbiased! But I understand that the social sciences like to create witch hunts for things they don't like. They will try to find methodology problems in order to discredit research they deem politically incorrect. I know right away, from reading those commentaries, that this is not about academic excellence but about personal opinions trying to masquerade as "science" to shut somebody up. This why it's SO IMPORTANT that our research institutions not be hijacked by activism. The truth has to prevail even if it makes us uncomfortable. Just because the Cass report pissed off trans people, does not mean it's wrong. The social science research institutions are largely being hijacked by left wing activism now, which thinks oppression politics should trump real research findings. No. It doesn't matter if half of the research population in those institutions are "upset" about Cass. Feelings are irrelevant to truth. If the paper doesn't get pulled or modified, then it is contributing to the body of knowledge whether you like it or not. Fact is... it's the biggest study of its kind. If you don't like it, do your own study to try and disprove it. Otherwise be quiet.
>>You need to stop misrepresenting what's happening in the academic world based on your political biases. I work in science, you can't BS me. Your links are to commentaries, they are not formal rebuttals of papers that have led to interventions by the publication. There is no misrepresentation. I specifically gave you a pre-print that shows clear issues with the Cass report. There are **multiple** different pre-prints already that do the same exact thing. You work in science (you're not the only one by the way!) so you know that a proper rebuttal takes time. Give it a few months and we'll get enough papers that will tear the Cass review to shreds. >>If Cass is truly methodologically unsound, the paper will either be pulled, retractions will be amended to the paper, or the authors will have an opportunity to rectify methodological errors for resubmission. So far, the paper is untouched. Which takes time. Literally my point. >>Saying "a consensus is being closed in on" is a meaningless statement and frankly adjacent to lying. The scientific community does not operate like a democracy. There is supporting research and non-supporting research. Anyone can publish research that supports findings or doesn't support findings. Then the research is replicated. Consensus is based upon meta-analyses of a collection of research, and not whether or not people are pissed off that one article found support for a political opinion that's unpopular. For example, following the Cass report, if there are 10 more studies done and they all have findings that don't support the Cass report, then the Cass report is likely discredited. If the Cass report itself is methodologically in error, then the journal makes the necessary modifications in the here and now. If not, then the paper remains untouched and future research will have to replicate the Cass report and see if the findings match up. THAT is how real research works. You don't need to explain this to me, I'm well versed with academic research. And I also know that more and more research is worked on that analyzes the Cass report and finds deep methodological issues and problems. The more time goes on, the more discredited it will be. >>Btw, Dori Grijseels, the author of one of your links, is a postdoc, she's not even completed her training. So obviously she is trying to kiss some serious ass by writing that critique, probably to get the attention of grant funding. Typical. Her opinion is low caliber mostly due to her lack of tenure association with a credible institution. She is what we all a low-merit PhD. I mean, look at her fucking Twitter feed... she is as hard left as they come. Sooo unbiased! Ah and now the ad hominems and the typical fallacies. A postdoc is just as much a valid researcher as people who went beyond. Just because you disagree with what they have to say you don't get to downplay their contribution. See how that works both ways? ;) >>But I understand that the social sciences like to create witch hunts for things they don't like. They will try to find methodology problems in order to discredit research they deem politically incorrect. I know right away, from reading those commentaries, that this is not about academic excellence but about personal opinions trying to masquerade as "science" to shut somebody up. This why it's SO IMPORTANT that our research institutions not be hijacked by activism. The truth has to prevail even if it makes us uncomfortable. None of this is relevant to the fact that the methodology of the Cass report is heavily flawed. We've seen some reports already and their number is only increasing. This has nothing to do with activism. In fact, one could argue that _Cass_ engaged in activism, considering the many flaws of the review. >>Just because the Cass report pissed off trans people, does not mean it's wrong. The social science research institutions are largely being hijacked by left wing activism now, which thinks oppression politics should trump real research findings. No. It doesn't matter if half of the research population in those institutions are "upset" about Cass. Feelings are irrelevant to truth. If the paper doesn't get pulled or modified, then it is contributing to the body of knowledge whether you like it or not. Again with the strawmen. I like to engage with actual data and facts, not opinions and emotions. Just because people with anti-trans views like the review doesn't make it correct. >>Fact is... it's the biggest study of its kind. If you don't like it, do your own study to try and disprove it. Otherwise be quiet. That's literally why I sent the pre-print. And why other researchers are actively working on their own reviews. That's the entire point of this.
The fact that you say the Cass report WILL be more discredited as time goes on shows you have no real interest in objectivity. People like you are destroying the credibility of science with your bullshit activist politics. You're literally labeled a leftist and you're living up to it. Go away now.
Even more ad hominems. I'm being entirely objective. It is a fact, proven by multiple independent researchers already that the Cass review has severe methodological flaws. Pre-prints are already out there and more research is conducted as well. As Benny always says: Facts don't care about your feelings. But sure, I'll leave you alone now. Edit: Aw, the coward blocked me because the facts are against him lol
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Birth rates are down because of high opportunity cost (people have so much life options that compete with reproduction) and draconian parenting standards (some people think having two young children share a room is monstrous). The trend predates gender wars which are not that strong outside of South Korea. Not even women's education is as important as these two factors.
I highly doubt that. There are a lot of people who want kids who either can't find a partner, the partners they do find have low ethics, or cost of living is now prohibitive. My parents had two kids and we all traveled, went on adventures, lived life, because my parents didn't have opportunity costs. They just did what they wanted and brought their kids with them. They weren't rich, life was just way more affordable. Back then, a dual income household meant you could live an upper middle class life.
Personally I choose to be single and childless. I can literally go anywhere I may choose right now and not have to tell a soul and spend my money how I like to
That's legit. I have more than one hetero male friend going that way now, mostly because they don't trust institutions to have a guy's back. Marriage and children really do not favour men anymore. You could lose it all if your wife turns vindictive. Plus my POV is that there are what, 8 billion people on the planet now? We're not hurting for humans.
Or it's not nothing to do with worrying about the "vindictive spouse." I'm lucky I can take care of myself, let alone another spawn. I help friends with their kids and that's enough. Often when they would have a meltdown, my line to them was "Hey guess what buddy?! I don't live here and can go home whenever I want!"
I'm childfree as well, but for different reasons. Not sure why you keep downvoting my replies to you though? If you don't want to keep chatting then just say so.
I am glad for your parents having had it all, but this is not always achievable. At least not with modern parenting standards and opportunity cost. Modern parents are expected to invest more in their children than they were then, and richer communities have higher parenting expectations than poorer ones. The opportunity cost have grown tremendously. People can afford living the way people lived 30 years ago, the modern people just have higher standards.
i would like to add: the world is fucked. and people don't want to bring children into this fucked world.
Well I certainly don’t like this idea that the only people worthy of being brought into the world are people who don’t have a fucked up life. Because a fucked up life is not a life inherently not worth living
There is a lot of what you said that I agree with--but doesn't Trump basically worship the worst offender in terms of foreign interference? Or are you an anti-Trump conservative? I'm not sure how many of those are left at the level of our actual federal representatives.
I'm actually not even American, I live in Canada. If I lived in the U.S., I would probably vote conservative-independent. I don't envy the US right now... the choice of Trump vs. Biden is pretty abysmal. Here in Canada, our federal conservative party is really strong now. All polls show they would have a supermajority if there were an election today. People are sick of radical leftism running the government. The left is shaking in their boots because there is a shift to rightism all over the western world, yet they will never, ever stop and self-reflect on how they contributed to that. Canada is (legit, I'm not exaggerating) being destroyed from the inside. Most of our major institutions have been taken over by social justice types and they are issuing major decrees top-down without public discourse. We need to clean house badly up here. This is why I find it laughable when the OP asks why, as a gay man, I'm not allied with the left-wing. The radical left is doing damage to the LGBT community, they aren't helping us. I experience more hate now from progressives and the right-wing who hate them by proxy than I have in the past 20 years.
Ha, I had no idea you were in CA because everything you said about the left is true of the left here in the U.S.! That's so interesting that it's the same there. It's true that the Dems here seem incapable of self-reflection. And I cannot believe they are letting Biden run again. It is extremely depressing that our choices are Biden vs. Trump AGAIN.
All countries in the western world are having the same problems right now. There is a coordinated demolition of our societies happening so they can institute a new system. Some call it the great reset. I just call it neo-liberalism and globalism subverting national sovereignty to steal massive amounts of money from the public... and they are mostly using left wing ideology to do it, at this point. It could switch to right wing though. Doesn't really matter since most politicians can be easily bought.
I honestly don't think there's a big difference between the two parties in terms of economic stuff. That's why they push the social issues so hard... as a distraction.
Because I despise government. Plain as that
Simple. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the right to defend myself and the people I care about matter more to me than anything else. Generally speaking, conservatives in the US agree with those principles more than progressives/leftists. This was somewhat less true 15-20 years ago, but the gap has widened in recent years as the diverging approaches to the pandemic in red vs. blue states showed. I don't trust anyone who hasn't earned that trust. Least of all the government. So when left-wing politicians' pitch is "we care more about you for who you are and want to take care of you and help you flourish, but also we want to disarm you, control what you can and can't say, and limit who you can and can't hang out with or do business with, for your own protection" the first part rings kinda hollow. If you really cared about people like me, you'd spend more of your time and effort ensuring I was left alone to live my life as I please, and less time trying to micromanage my life and everyone else's for "the greater good".
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Hi all. Straight conservative here. Two things. 1) I've never met a conservative who doesn't like gay people. Don't like pride because it's being shoved on them? Yes, but strictly dislike gay people? No. 2) Do you see how judgemental your question is? Ask the same question of a black or Hispanic conservative and it is blatantly racist.
Bisexual conservative here. 1. I haven’t met a conservative who doesn’t like LGB people either. I have met people who do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but I’d say almost all (if not all) of them are okay with gay marriage being legalized. And many of the conservatives I know also don’t like pride, and neither do I, like I just don’t understand why we need to see a rainbow flag everywhere to feel like I am welcome in my country. And I don’t think I will ever understand why we need to treat someone saying who they want to sleep with as though they got into an Ivy League school or cured cancer. It’s always irritated me from a young age, and I don’t have any homophobia (internal or external) in even the slightest. 2. Also I agree with what you brought up here. Like I hate how anyone who isn’t a straight white man is expected to vote Democrat. Like I thought the Democrat party celebrated diversity and inclusion, well than why do they get their panties in a bunch over someone who isn’t a straight white man wanting to think freely?
I’m curious what state you live in. I live in Texas and I’ve met many conservatives who hate gay people. It’s mostly the religious crowd, but I’ve definitely met some
Many people are conflict adverse irl and will just be cordial even if they don't agree with someone. Are there nasty assholes out there, yea. But most people do not want to get into a yelling match in public because they saw two dudes holding hands.
When you say the religious crowd hates gay people, do you mean hate like the Muslim community? Like what specifically do they say? Because I disagree with Pride wholeheartedly, but I have no ill will with a gay person being gay, I just don't like kink and degeneracy being shoved in my face by a small portion of the community under the guise of celebration.
If I were to use that I heard used to describe people like me when I was in high school, I’d be banned. Even the people who we’re slinging slurs would still describe gay or trans people has disgusting and made them uncomfortable to be around. If they had it their way, gay marriage would never have become legalized and Lawerence v Texas wouldn’t have been legalized gay relationships. We’d still be in the lavender scare if it was up to them.
You can censor what they said on here. But it also sounds like you have anecdotal evidence. Considering at the time gay marriage was allowed, majority of the country was OK with it. It is only recently that we are starting to see a decline in acceptance from younger generations. Almost like the country gave an inch and the Pride community took a mile
Gay marriage also became more popular after the Windsor came out and started making many of the bans conservatives states had on gay marriage unconstitutional. Also, conservatives here are only speaking from their own experiences and perspectives. That is not objective either. If my experience going to be hand waved away because it’s “anecdotal evidence”, then their experiences needs to be as well. Did pride “take a mile” or did the continuous escalating rhetoric of the right since 2016, lead to an explosion on both sides? I’ve literally been called a pedophiles just for being trans. That’s the only things some conservatives know about me and they are still calling me that.
What do you mean by "fawn response"?
It's a trauma response like fight, freeze, flee. Fawning would be something like keeping the aggressor happy so they won't hurt you rather fighting or fleeing from the aggressor.
So.... Here's the thing. This is fundamentally based on the idea that, not just right wing pushback against the LGBT movement/ideology, but also conservative political attitudes in general, constitute or are seen as "aggression" of a kind that would be threatening enough to produce such a response. While I definitely don't deny that such things are out there, I think that this doesn't vaguely describe why many people who are homosexual or transgender or otherwise identify with "LGBT", would either be interested in right wing politics generally, see it as the best hope for a generally secure and prosperous society, or not consider it terrifying.
I mostly agree with conservatives. It’s pretty simple, really.
Because we can decide and pick whoever we want to vote for. I am not gay, but let me say this. A gay man, a lesbian woman, or a transgender person can be conservative, and is more than welcome to join the movement. I believe that Gay Men should have the right to keep and bear arms and grow weed. Essentially I have that Libertarian position. There is also for reference a faction in the Republican Party known as the Log Cabin Republicans, where they advocate for conservative values while also being Pro LGBTQ.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
My reasoning is nobody cares about lgbt people. Except the corporations that profit from us. But lots of people care about q people. That commie nonsense is evil shit. Additionally, judging people by their sexuality is super boring.
Perhaps there are some people who view themselves as more than who they have sex with. Besides once you get that entire alphabet going lots of people could be caught up in it who don't even consider it a meaningful part of their identity. Hell me a straight white man married to my wife of 15 years with 3 children could still be somewhere in the + range if her or I felt like it.
Nothing about your policies would improve my life, and I see what it has done to local communities.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a gay friend from high school. He voted for Trump twice! He also can't stand all the transgender nonsense. You'd be surprised how many gay men resent the transgender BS.
Here's a good video offering that perspective: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEW2H4TrH8w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEW2H4TrH8w)