Tracking the anti-LBGTQ+ movement

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Yamer

What's the genesis of this recent, fully-throated resistance to queerness?

Great question. I think the answer can be found in the way the pendulum swings in society. The pendulum swung in favor of gay rights and people were in support of that. What happened next was what caused the push back IMO.

The momentum of the swing was leveraged by every queer sub-culture and fractured it into too many facets for people to grasp. Worse, the cultures began to be rammed down the throats of everyone with forced diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. That is how you get people to push back and push back hard. Instead of allowing acceptance to develop organically the acceptance of these lifestyles was forced. You can't tell people what terms to use or pronouns that are acceptable. You have to teach them over time and allow that change to happen organically. When corporations started to go overboard with adopting queer people as representatives so they could display their wokeism it alienated a lot of customers. When they do forced DE&I programs they force people to make choices about perceptions and acceptance, and some of those choices are not going to be positive. This is the mistake and what caused the pushback IMO.

Things went too far, too fast, and did not happen at the speed of adoption the culture was ready to accept.

[Ozy_Flame]

My issue with this statement is that how bad has ones life been affected where a more prominent voice for subcultures had negatively impacted your life to the point of being antagonized by it?

Has it been so pervasive and abrasive that one can't just turn off the noise?

Does this relate to timing with the pervasive existence of social media? Your phone use is ultimately in your own control if you want it to be.

I just don't see the difference between this subculture growth and say, subculture growth in the past around things like gender equality or equal treatment of races, in both society and the workplace.

Is it the megaphone that's the problem for some?

Is it the fact that it makes people uncomfortable and can't relate?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Great question. I think the answer can be found in the way the pendulum swings in society. The pendulum swung in favor of gay rights and people were in support of that. What happened next was what caused the push back IMO.

The momentum of the swing was leveraged by every queer sub-culture and fractured it into too many facets for people to grasp. Worse, the cultures began to be rammed down the throats of everyone with forced diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. That is how you get people to push back and push back hard. Instead of allowing acceptance to develop organically the acceptance of these lifestyles was forced. You can't tell people what terms to use or pronouns that are acceptable. You have to teach them over time and allow that change to happen organically. When corporations started to go overboard with adopting queer people as representatives so they could display their wokeism it alienated a lot of customers. When they do forced DE&I programs they force people to make choices about perceptions and acceptance, and some of those choices are not going to be positive. This is the mistake and what caused the pushback IMO.

Things went too far, too fast, and did not happen at the speed of adoption the culture was ready to accept.

Has any of that progress had a measurable negative impact on anyone’s life? People seem to be pushing back against stuff that doesn’t affect them.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Has any of that progress had a measurable negative impact on anyone’s life? People seem to be pushing back against stuff that doesn’t affect them.

There's a meme for that.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

I agree and support this statement.

... and now to ask...

That said one of the issues is that these days people have to either be "for" or "against" anything, including this LGB... I think fundamentally that's a problem and causes much strife. What's wrong with simply living your life without having to be a champion of something?

Just because I'm hetero and don't embrace or participate in LBG... lifestyles/events certainly doesn't mean I'm against it - it's simply not my thing. No hate, no drama. But neither should I be vilified for *not* going to pro-LBG... events (marches etc...) or wearing pro-LGB... paraphernalia.

I recently started working with someone who I suspected of being "not-hetero". Later they freely/casually mentioned it (somehow it fit the context of the conversation), and conversation went on as normal. Anyways this person is frickin' awesome.... and it has nothing to do with their orientation. They're just top notch to deal with work-wise and a hoot to chat with. I'd definitely go for beers with them.

If you can articulate the situation in which you felt vilified for the wrong of "simply living your life" I think we'll be able to help you understand the way(s) in which your attitude, words or actions were, in fact, offensive and unsupportive of LGBTQ people.

Literally no one has ever been vilified in the history of Canada for "simply living their life" in regards to this topic. I've never been to a pride parade, but I've yet to be vilified for that. Also don't wear pride pins/colours/etc. and have never felt anybody's animosity directed at me for that.

I do think it's incumbent upon you to defend human beings from other human beings, though. Like, if you're with a friend or relative or whatever and they start flapping around barfing up bs about drag time story hour or something, it's a good opportunity to - at the very least - interject to let them know that they can "simply live their life" and not worry one bit about that type of thing. So really, the "simply live your life" statement is rational when directed at people who are anti-lgbtq, but it's really not applicable to the people already doing that.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Great question. I think the answer can be found in the way the pendulum swings in society. The pendulum swung in favor of gay rights and people were in support of that. What happened next was what caused the push back IMO.

The momentum of the swing was leveraged by every queer sub-culture and fractured it into too many facets for people to grasp. Worse, the cultures began to be rammed down the throats of everyone with forced diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. That is how you get people to push back and push back hard. Instead of allowing acceptance to develop organically the acceptance of these lifestyles was forced. You can't tell people what terms to use or pronouns that are acceptable. You have to teach them over time and allow that change to happen organically. When corporations started to go overboard with adopting queer people as representatives so they could display their wokeism it alienated a lot of customers. When they do forced DE&I programs they force people to make choices about perceptions and acceptance, and some of those choices are not going to be positive. This is the mistake and what caused the pushback IMO.

Things went too far, too fast, and did not happen at the speed of adoption the culture was ready to accept.

This sounds well-reasoned, but is in fact vapid victim-blaming. Describing DEIJ programs as “forced” as opposed to “necessary.” Stating that having queer spokespeople is going “overboard.” Labelling the efforts to establish diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice as a “mistake.”

Lanny, you are giving bigots an excuse for their bigotry with language like this.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Sliver

If you can articulate the situation in which you felt vilified for the wrong of "simply living your life" I think we'll be able to help you understand the way(s) in which your attitude, words or actions were, in fact, offensive and unsupportive of LGBTQ people.

Literally no one has ever been vilified in the history of Canada for "simply living their life" in regards to this topic. I've never been to a pride parade, but I've yet to be vilified for that. Also don't wear pride pins/colours/etc. and have never felt anybody's animosity directed at me for that.

I do think it's incumbent upon you to defend human beings from other human beings, though. Like, if you're with a friend or relative or whatever and they start flapping around barfing up bs about drag time story hour or something, it's a good opportunity to - at the very least - interject to let them know that they can "simply live their life" and not worry one bit about that type of thing. So really, the "simply live your life" statement is rational when directed at people who are anti-lgbtq, but it's really not applicable to the people already doing that.

In the absence of specific "vilifying" actions against them from others, I'm guessing the vilifying is coming from within themself for not doing enough.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Yamer

What's the genesis of this recent, fully-throated resistance to queerness? It really seemed like we were moving in the right direction until about 2014 or 2015. I don't recall Trump being outwardly against these rights, but it sure feels like it was co-opted into the culture wars after he came into the political sphere.

The real answer is that the worst dregs of right-wing idealogues leveraged older and less cosmopolitan people's natural discomfort and turned it into a frothy rage.

Equating queer persons with pedophilia has been a long-standing tactic of the grossest pundits, but it's seen significant traction in the last 7 years.

Public transgenderism, and in particular, a larger spectrum of transgenderism that doesn't equate gender identity with "passing", has been an exceptionally easy target for the hate-mongers.

[bluejays]

Hate to get involved in a thread like this but I think it's a question of how we as society are now conditioned. News outlets on this issue or politics never have the middle of the road representative to talk about why there are problems and how to solve in a dispelling way. It's always the extreme sides of the spectrum who are made our representatives and you're subtly asked to pick a side. Well no, all this stuff is nuanced on how the best way forward to approach change is, and you don't have to pick an extreme side. Idiots on both sides often have monetary benefits to themselves and they're our representatives on numerous issues. Politics is the same. Hyperbole and talking heads looking to quick soundbite that alludes to extremes if X happens. Well, X hardly happens so why not talk things out and see what the best path forward is? There's none of that on media generally and it seems to be getting worse over time.

Don't pick a side - think logically as the way forward is sometimes closer to the middle.

[ZedMan]

What's "the middle" of accepting that LGBQ+ people exist and allowing them to live their lives?

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

What's "the middle" of accepting that LGBQ+ people exist and allowing them to live their lives?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why nibble at the smallest choice of words. Look at what people's issues are on both sides and come to middle ground understanding and bridge the gap about misconceptions. That's all I'm saying. I have no further thing to clarify.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bluejays

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why nibble at the smallest choice of words. Look at what people's issues are on both sides and come to middle ground understanding and bridge the gap about misconceptions. That's all I'm saying. I have no further thing to clarify.

Ok, but it’s a fair question, because you went through the effort of saying you “hate to get involved” and then followed it up with a bunch of vague, cliché aphorisms about “meeting in the middle,” so… what middle? Of every issue? What are the two extremes you’re thinking of when you mentioned that specifically? Is the middle always the correct place to be? What if one side is extreme and the other isn’t?

It’s easy to shrug and trot out weightless stuff like “we all just have to listen” or “we must meet in the middle,” but without any point of reference it’s meaningless nonsense. It’s why people poke fun at “both sides, many sides” because sometimes people use it at the dumbest possible moment where it’s pretty clear it isn’t a “both sides” issue… like… I dunno… a thread about Russia labelling LGBT as “extremist” and raiding gay clubs. Where the middle supposed to meet there? What is the other “extreme” side of it?

That situation, by the way, makes “Hyperbole and talking heads looking to quick soundbite that alludes to extremes if X happens. Well, X hardly happens so why not talk things out and see what the best path forward is?” extra funny, as it’s not every day someone says “x hardly happens” in a thread about x happening, but it also shows a pretty high level of ignorance about LGBTQ issues and the types of gains LGBTQ have made in recent history and how fragile those gains are.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This needs its own thread. These movements are popping up all over the world, including North America, and I think it's important to point it out and the harm it causes.

This is what's happening in Russia right now, and if you don't think this is the end goal of the movements in North America, I have a bridge to sell you.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1730733389303427358

This was two days after Putin announced that he was increasing front line troops in Ukraine by 15%. Not hard to figure out who's going.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think you can point to one reason why there is increasing backlash against the LGBTQ+ community. Like what is happening in Russia is probably quite different that what is happening in North America. Russia has always been extreme against that sort of thing.

In North America, I think there is a backlash against the mainstreaming of LGBTQ+ stuff from conservative people who are resistant to change. Anytime there is a cultural shift in society, there are going to be people who resist it. I don't know how you avoid it, I think it just take times. It's a fine line because the more you try to enforce policies to facilitate the cultural shift, the stronger the backlash becomes.

In BC recently, the government has increased available resources and grants to companies that hire people who self-identify. This isn't just limited to people who self-identify as a visible minority, but also people who self-identify as LGBTQ+. This caused a backlash from the usual "they're taking our jerbs" people. Then you have people opposed to school curriculums that implement LGBTQ+ topics to young children. I am not saying doing so is right or wrong, but it has created a lot of debate and backlash.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok, but it’s a fair question, because you went through the effort of saying you “hate to get involved” and then followed it up with a bunch of vague, cliché aphorisms about “meeting in the middle,” so… what middle? Of every issue? What are the two extremes you’re thinking of when you mentioned that specifically? Is the middle always the correct place to be? What if one side is extreme and the other isn’t?

It’s easy to shrug and trot out weightless stuff like “we all just have to listen” or “we must meet in the middle,” but without any point of reference it’s meaningless nonsense. It’s why people poke fun at “both sides, many sides” because sometimes people use it at the dumbest possible moment where it’s pretty clear it isn’t a “both sides” issue… like… I dunno… a thread about Russia labelling LGBT as “extremist” and raiding gay clubs. Where the middle supposed to meet there? What is the other “extreme” side of it?

That situation, by the way, makes “Hyperbole and talking heads looking to quick soundbite that alludes to extremes if X happens. Well, X hardly happens so why not talk things out and see what the best path forward is?” extra funny, as it’s not every day someone says “x hardly happens” in a thread about x happening, but it also shows a pretty high level of ignorance about LGBTQ issues and the types of gains LGBTQ have made in recent history and how fragile those gains are.

I think one has to ask why they are so fragile? Do you think that possibly the LGBTQ Community are risking a part of their acceptance by insisting on the use of the various pronouns, when they ask that parents be excluded from decisions made by their children in the classroom, when parents object to the manner in which sex education is taught, when they condone physical sex changes in underage people, when they expand their community to LGBTQQIP2SAA....

In no way do I wish us to backtrack on all the gains made by the LGBT Community in the past decades. However, when the drums for change is coming from virtue signaling politicians and psychologists and teachers wishing to change the world, I think it's time to ask questions as to how all these change will affect society.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think one has to ask why they are so fragile?

Who is so fragile in this scenario? Transgender people who want society to accept them for who they are or bigots who get so ridiculously worked over something that doesn't even affect them personally up they can't even use the words "she" or "her" when talking about a trans woman?

[Izzle]

Let's explore the middle ground.

Far right: kill all LGBTQ+people.

Far left: please use my preferred pronouns.

Middle: kill only 50% of LGBTQ+ people?

The middle is absurd, isn't it.

[Slava]

I hate to put words in their mouth, but I’d imagine what they mean by middle ground is neither pushing to make LGBTQ people’s lives difficult but also not participating in all the pride events and such. And honestly, this is probably where the majority of people are?

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Let's explore the middle ground.

Far right: kill all LGBTQ+people.

Far left: please use my preferred pronouns.

Middle: kill only 50% of LGBTQ+ people?

The middle is absurd, isn't it.

I have no horse in this race aside from firmly believing in equality.


However, this analogy is a little exaggerated no? The far left would likely be more about making pronouns a human rights issue enough to charge a person for not using it. Middle ground is more to ask why each side believes in what they argue. Then just keep asking why and resolving each underlying issue.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by bluejays

The far left would likely be more about making pronouns a human rights issue enough to charge a person for not using it.

Okay there, Jordan Peterson.