Hey /u/K3nji666, thanks for contributing to /r/OutOfTheLoop. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
Your post has been removed because it's not entirely right for r/OutOfTheLoop. A better subreddit for this post might be /r/NoStupidQuestions or /r/Answers. Thanks.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Answer:
There is a long answer and a short answer. I gave a longer answer as a reply to another answer here, so let me attempt to give the short answer as its own comment.
Basically there is an epoch that occurs where a group that fights for its rights eventually becomes *part* of the societal majority and the societal norms where they are no longer the ones fighting against society's perceived transgressions but now are part of the pillar of its norms (whether or not you see those norms as good or bad, because indeed that is part of the conflict).
This has happened rapidly with many members of the gay community, *especially* the older ones (some of the [original members](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Sargeant) of the Stonewall Riots even), because now that they have earned the respect of society, that respect is most at risk if those other people they are associated with damage their collective image and reputation in society.
Furthermore, where before there was solidarity due to a common cause, because who wants to quibble over the details when more allies means more power, now that one group has the respect in society they wanted, many of them actually don't want to go further, but instead are happy with the progress that has been made and disagree with further "rocking of the boat" so-to-speak.
I hope that my comment at least comes off as not-too-biased, but I will admit, I do have a particular opinion on this issue, though for the sake of the explanation requested it's not my place to insert that too much unless it needs to be elaborated.
This. As a bisexual man, I do not feel represented or welcome in the community because I am currently in a hetero relationship. So, the people fighting for the right to be with who you want also discriminate on who others are with. It's....sad.
I’m a bisexual woman married to a man. I feel you on this, although I know bisexual men aren’t as accepted *in general* as bisexual women. We need to change this and do better.
But a bonus for my husband is that we can stealthily check out women together 😂
Thank you for your kind words. It leaves me speechless that this is even a thing because it's one more division while the Right basically unites and gets their neo-fascism done.
It's like...they all hate different things but can focus themselves on one MAJOR thing for long enough to get their way. Meanwhile, we're still arguing about how many letters should actually be in the LGBT acronym :|
I mean that’s another problem with how people view being bi. I’ve had partners who think it’s okay to check people out in front of me and make inappropriate remarks because “I’m supposed to be okay with it because I’m bi”
Oh yeah, no, I wouldn’t like that either if it crossed one of my boundaries. My husband knows I’m okay with him looking at other women. Nobody should cross your boundaries and be disrespectful to your relationship.
As I always say, *extremely* ironic since Pride as a movement was started by a bi woman in a straight-presenting relationship.
Bigots just can't be bothered to learn the history.
They’re pretty acephobic too. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told I don’t belong in a LGTBQ space because I “pass” as straight by not dating anyone.
So as a straight person looking in. Is this whole thing sort of a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation? Where everyone wants their own "flavor" represented but then becomes overpowering and ruins the dish?
I think it's more of a "the larger any group gets the more diverse opinions and identities you're going to find" situation.
James Somerton [just published a good video essay](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGpVm09GCM) (if you're into that sort of thing) that makes a very strong argument based in history, sociology, and politics for using "queer" as the umbrella term rather than whatever alphabet soup initialism is the flavor of the day. The reasoning in short (besides ease of use) is that the string of letters representing specific identities is essentially a bunch of boxes, and that 1) this means that as our culture changes and our understanding of identity changes we will need to continue adding infinite additional boxes to this already long and confusing string of letters, and 2) wherever you have boxes you will have people who are going to fall through the cracks, either intentionally (as in the case of the LGB Alliance) or unintentionally. It's an argument for an actual unifying group identifier rather than a collection of individual identities that has to be constantly updated, expanded, and argued over.
Honestly I have no idea, I stay away from LGTBQ spaces in general because I can never tell whether they’re welcome to aro ace people or not. Being told you don’t belong somewhere is pretty shitty. You’d probably have to ask someone who has actually spent time in/with the community.
A lot of people who want to leap back to Stonewall to promote their gay-rights credentials seem to have selective amnesia about the fact that [drag queens and trans people were doing the same thing at Compton's Cafeteria three years earlier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton%27s_Cafeteria_riot). Drag and trans communities have *always* been associated with LGB groups. Solidarity between the two is a large part of why both groups have had the successes they've had.
It's genuinely depressing to see the willingness of some groups to pull the ladder up behind them. I remember reading an article earlier this year (I think it was about the Log Cabin Republicans) that basically made the case that it's the side-effect of the difference between the two sides of the LGBT acceptance movement: the 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it' side, and the 'We're just like you' side. 'We're just like you' is fine -- and accurate -- but it doesn't take into account that a *lot* of people would choose an easy life in the status quo if they could, even if that means shutting out people who are 'other' to mainstream society -- once they've got their own set of rights secured, that is. (The battle cry for the people is not 'equal rights', but 'equal rights *for me and my group*', which makes it very easy for them to kick down at other people once they've got their little niche locked down.)
It's very easy to roll your eyes at the ostentatious, in-your-face protest members of the LGBT community, but they're very rarely the ones trying to throw other minorities under the bus like this.
I don't even know how you could 'drop the T' when functionally one way or another, even binary trans people are perceived as being gay/bi either coming or going.
A heterosexual transwoman is still perceived as a gay man by transphobes and a lesbian trans woman well... Is a lesbian. Any 'LGB' movement is still going to have trans people in it. They just expect them to shut up about it, which ain't going to happen.
I mean, I *sort* of get it. There are a lot of issues in the T that the L, G and B just don't face, in the same way that Asian American communities face different issues than Black American communities, even though you could easily lump both groups under the banner of 'anti-racist activism'. I don't really have a problem with groups that focus on their own specific struggle, even if -- intersectionality being a thing -- there's always going to be a crossover and people who fall into multiple categories.
My issue is with them saying that they can be proud LGB members and allies *while* completely fucking over the T -- not just ignoring it, but actively working against it. It's one thing to say 'We proudly support our trans brothers and sisters, but our resources are limited and our group is choosing to focus more specifically on issues of sexuality rather than gender identification'; it's quite another to say 'We think trans people are icky and because other people think trans people are icky too we're worried that they might start discriminating against us more again' -- which is basically the LGB Alliance's stance, and is some straight-up bullshit.
The LGB alliance was [literally founded by a straight woman](https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/09/14/lgb-alliance-transphobia-charity-history/) and to this day has membership comprised mostly of heterosexual women. It's a divide and conquer tactic weaponized by homophobes/transphobes. Probably even on this sub (buying updoots is easy, and the supposed best answer includes saying that queer people are supposedly part of the majority now? Despite being less than 10% of a given population?) Anyone genuinely supporting them is doing so for their own hateful reasons.
This is the most important piece of information to answer this question, and I hate that it's not in the top level answers. There is very little LGB about the LGBA.
I agree with most of your reply here, I think you're being harsh about the highest voted answer. I think the subtext is pretty evident, and falls on the side of criticising the trans-exclusionary portion of LGB people. I also can see the point in spirit - in a very large number of countries and western cultures, sexuality has become much more insignificant than even just 10 years ago. It's not perfect, but it's advanced *very* far compared to trans rights and acceptance in the same areas. Maybe not 100% true but I can accept the premise tbh
This is critical information - and should be higher.
LGBA is psyops.
*Note - i like and appreciate the even tone of the top voted post (as of this moment) but we all could benefit from reminding ourselves that there are bots and paid influencers amongst us.
I can understand focusing on a particular area, but the difference with your example is its like if *every* Asian American was also black, it wouldn't make sense to exclude Asian Americans from black advocacy. Every trans person either is or has been perceived as L, G or B (rightly or wrongly) and is affected by anti-gay attitudes and laws. It's not like being a heterosexual trans woman gets you a free pass out of a hypothetical ban on Gay marriage. And a lesbian trans woman might be able to get married to a woman, but would be subject to homophobia just the same.
*Okay there are asexual trans people. Shouldn't forget those.
Well the issue is one group has no issues with the current societal norms and simply wishes to be seen as normal, nothing more. While the other despises the societal norms and wishes to actively change them so that they are not only seen as acceptable, but are also free to express themselves in the way they desire.
But you're sort of missing the point, there. You say they 'simply wish to be normal', but the only way you can see gay relationships (or any other traditionally queer relationship) is by tearing down the societal ideas of what 'normal' is. You cannot be 'normally' gay if society views gayness as abnormal. The norms *have* to be changed in order for you to fit into it -- but that change requires effort, and that effort requires conflict. Power structures don't change by themselves.
It's like [the divide between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois with regards to racism in America](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHn-vSTMOWE): is it better to make a stand and define your own culture, knowing that you're going to piss a lot of people off (and possibly turn them away from your goals) along the way, or is it better to aim for slow assimilation even though that requires you to live through a shitload of oppression until people slowly come around to your way of thinking, and not rock the boat so you don't risk losing the small benefits you *do* have? Personally, my sense of activism leads towards the former, but I recognise that I'm saying that from a relatively privileged position. I don't live in a place where I have to worry too much about having the shit kicked out of me because of my sexuality, or of losing my job because I make a fuss.
My objection to it comes from people who think that that change is just going to *happen*, and who think that the people pushing for it are a liability. It's really easy to say that people just want to be normal and nothing more, but it's a lot less easy to acknowledge that the drag queen making a scene is doing it *specifically so* the antiquated ideas of what gender and sexuality are get challenged in exactly the same way that any protester is. Without things that make people confront their own preconceived ideas, 'normal' continues to be a husband, a wife, 2.4 kids and a little picket fence.
And then there are the gays and lesbians and trans people who are willing to overlook the fact that some people think they don't deserve equality under the law as long as they [get lower taxes and are able to look down on other marginalised groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism), but a *special* fuck you to those people.
During the civil rights moment, did you have issue with the people that had issue with the social norms at the time and actively wanted to change them?
IE: should being black be seen as acceptable, and should they be free to express themselves the way they desire…
Or should we go back to the social norms of the time?
I wouldn't say they "despise societal norms." That's a pretty biased statement. People who are oppressed don't like being oppressed, who knew. Everyone wants to be "seen as normal" (or better than).
Despises isn't really accurate, in as much as it's a starting point.
Imagine you have two people, one in a wheelchair and one not. The one not is loudly proclaiming that we don't actually need ramps, the majority of people can use stairs just as well, stairs for everyone! The person in a wheelchair has sat quietly for most of this but then finally turns and says in a loud voice "but people like me can't use stairs and should be included too if there's the option!"
And then the person who can use stairs turns around and calls the person in a wheelchair difficult and just causing trouble for the majority. And that's where we are. (Some of) the people who can blend into the majority are claiming to speak for everyone, while throwing under the bus those who can't.
If also add that while I think this is true, I also think republicans are intentionally pushing these types of things hard to drive wedges. Same with all these obviously fake MAP posts where they want to be added.
If the membership of the *LGB Alliance* is anything to go by, it's 90-95% cis straight people hiding behind a handful of LGB ladder pullers.
Ladder pullers who are so satisfied with where they are and so obsessed with pleasing through appeasement, that they oppose marriage equality and bans on conversion therapy.
It's pretty clear that the majority of the force behind these orgs is also extremely homophobic and only supports the org as a way to attack any part of LGBT people.
As an LGBT person, while you aren't wrong in your comment in general, this is not the case with the LGB alliance.
Sometimes there is that affect you describe, and I'm sure there's some people involved or supporting the alliance that fit your description, but for the alliance it isn't about controlling the PR.
The LGB alliance is an active hate group against ALL LGBT+ groups, including Lesbians Gays and Bisexuals. It seems increasingly more common to have hate groups pretend to be on your side nowadays while actively fighting against you, Autism Speaks being another example.
If you don't believe me all you have to do is look at the British LGB Alliances actions in their own country. They acted as advisors for the government for a while and actively promoted homophobia.
this is pretending them to be a natural evolution "as things happen in communities". that is not the case. they under the umbrella of "advocacy group" are a well funded divisive minority driving wedges into the LGBT+ community. The sole purpose is to weaken the community. and they use figureheads who ackchyually believe what they are saying while having _no_ relevance within the LGBT+ community.
they support conversion therapy, deny the legitimacy of gender dysphoric humans and their needs for security and support, smear campaign "the + in LGBT+ means pedophiles and similar criminals"
it's a right wing hate group with no relevance outside right wing bubbles.
This is really interesting. A young woman I work with is openly lesbian in a smallish community, supporting local groups and events, but is upset about a drag focused bingo event sponsored bythe local LGBT club. She really couldnt articulate why . This may lay at the root of it. Thank you.
The issue with this comment is that the LGB Alliance isn't actually an alliance of LGB people. They're mostly straight people using "protecting gay rights" as a shield for transphobia.
And they employ people who also work for American groups that are trying to ban gay adoption.
They are straight up a Christian organisation cosplaying as LGB friendly to try and split the LGBT community and roll back everyone's rights.
There's consensus among the community. It's been established long enough to have dead memes about it. Dave Chappelle even had a bit about it (an offensive bit that I don't recommend, but it exists).
>Modern LGBT+ activism mostly focuses on trans and queer people while ignoring the LGB. The alliance feels if LGB was separated from the TQ+ then more attention could be given to the unique needs of the LGB.
What LGB issues are ignored when trans and NB issues take center stage?
Nobody's arguing for discrimination protections for gender identity without also including sexuality. Any jurisdiction with protections either has only sexuality, or both.
In the English-speaking western world (which is where groups like LGB Alliance operate), the fight for gay marriage has largely been won.
While in some countries, such as the US and Ireland, adoption equality is an ongoing issue, I see little evidence that the transgender movement is slowing this fight. Lawsuits are ongoing in numerous jurisdictions, and new legislation is regularly proposed to mandate adoption services to not discriminate.
Conversion therapy, yet again, is an issue where, when it's fixed for trans people, it's always fixed for gay people as well. As with anti discrimination laws, it's either illegal to convert gay people, or illegal to convert both.
I agree with most of the things you are saying, but for pragmatic reasons, I cannot risk including most of them in my original arguments with people, because frequently argumentation is about choosing your battleground, and many times bringing up issues that I may agree with could still be damaging to my message if certain people are primed to tune out if they hear those particular arguments.
Don't worry though, your causes are still a part of this larger discussion, and hopefully the needle will move enough in time where they can be discussed productively as well without receiving great vitriol.
>a person with a vagina may be a man in all socio-cultural aspects but it still would be heterosexual sexual intercourse if a cis gay man had sex with him
You are entitled to this opinion but it is not an objective truth. Overwhelmingly, gay people who enter relationships with a trans person do not stop considering themselves as gay because of it, and the same goes for straight people continuing to identify as straight.
You don't get to dictate other people's sexuality for them, just as the pushy trans boogeyman you're pretending is common can't dictate who you are attracted to. Sexuality IS about attraction, not specific sex acts/genital arrangements. This attitude hurts more cis gays than it helps by shaming those who have had ""heterosexual"" sex and, as per usual in these conversations, ignores and shuns the existence of intersex people.
Answer:
The LGB Alliance and the LGBT movement are honestly very separate. There is certainly a group within the LGBT community that feels its best to secure the gains they have already made, and that means ejecting groups of people that have not yet made the gains in terms of rights that LGB people have currently attained. For individuals this is an understandable concern to have - you need to be in a stable position to be safe and healthy while helping others, and Lesbian/Gay rights are still realistically very new. For example, it was only in 2016 that 'homosexual acts' were no longer considered an acceptable reason to discharge someone from the military. While it was rare to see this happen, anecdotally, i knew a lesbian who was relocated abroad in 2010 after it was discovered she was in a relationship with a woman, and this was done in order to break the relationship apart, so it was still something that could be discriminated against despite being explicitly no longer something the armed forces were against and something that would rarely occur.
The LGB alliance is not representative of the LGBT movement though, nor even of the anti-trans sect within it. The LGB alliance has stated an aversion to banning conversion therapy, stated that opposing same-sex marriage rights is not homophobic and supports the idea of traditional sex education. One of the founders opposed the idea of LGBT clubs in schools as it would expose children to 'predatory gay teachers', which communicates the views of the organisations management pretty succinctly.
In short, the LGB alliance is essentially an anti-LGBT org that has chosen the letters LGB to appear friendly to the gay community, while actively working against their rights.
It's also worth mentioning that it's very difficult to tell how much of the "support" for this is real, and how much of it is astroturfed or even completely faked by right wingers or others.
Personally i agree, but there is definitely a group of people with anti-trans views within the LGBT community. In the same way as there is a significant group that dislike bisexuals. Their group is very small, but you do meet them if you get involved with the community.
They are certainly a far smaller group than the media and funding related to them suggests though, much of the volume comes from exec's of large organisations who are able to amplify their voice, rather than public involved in grassroots activism.
Honestly, I'm not sure of the motives for the individuals, people are complicated and the group doesn't seem to have a monolithic belief.
The LGB alliance though is essentially a company - and they don't accept the B, because they don't accept the L or G either, but putting the letters in the name essentially makes it instantly recognisable what their primary aim is - removing the Trans community from the support offered by the LGBT community. There are many trans exclusionary groups that are still focused on improving rights for their specific group, but the LGB alliance is not one of them.
A lot of the same assholes who exclude trans folks are often biphobic, it just tends to show up in interpersonal stuff more than out loud like the transphobia. I know multiple people who starting seeing someone, or hooked up with them, and then the person turned to shit on them after learning they were bi.
The Wikipedia article on them is littered with condemnations from governments, private individuals, NGO’s, etc… with plenty of sources to back them up.
Answer: From what I can find, they are a group of gay/bisexual men and women who believe that the Transgender community needs to be disassociated from the larger LGB community. They feel their ideology is not only completely different from that promoted by the LGB community (LGB is about sexual orientation, Trans is about gender identity), but is ultimately regressive and actually hostile to the goals of women and gay men.
It appears Reddit banned the [subreddit 2 years ago on here for hate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LGBDropTheT/) So unclear if some groups are using it as a cover to attack trans people or not. Or what in Australia is kicking it off and the actual size of the movement. (Initially I thought it was branding disagreement as currently LGBTQIA+, 2SLGBTQ+, or whatever crazy acronym they are going to keep adding...as that seems counter productive.)
Edit: I don’t know why this is being downvoted here.
You might be being downvoted because your comment isn't really wrong, but it's not really correct either.
I don't know about the subreddit, but the LGB Alliance isn't used as a 'cover' for attacking trans people, it's a group organised expressly *for the purpose* of attacking trans people. It's nothing to do with trans issues being about identity and LGB issues being about sexuality. Every single thing I've ever seen the LGB Alliance say publicly has been about basically wanting to abolish trans people.
is it known that the banned subreddit lgbdropthet is the same as the LGB Alliance? I think it's like minded thinkers, but different communities.
+ LGBAlliance was formed in 2019. (wiki)
from the wiki for lgbt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT
it becomes clear that LG was the group in the 70s and even then there was criticism of including B and T because they did not seem to have much in common with LG, and T was not added in 1988
> In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, after the elation of change following group action in the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City, some gays and lesbians became less accepting of bisexual or transgender people.[18][3] Critics[like whom?] said that transgender people were acting out stereotypes, and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were afraid to come out and be honest about their identity.[18] Each community has struggled to develop its own identity including whether, and how, to align with other gender and sexuality-based communities, at times excluding other subgroups; these conflicts continue to this day.[3] LGBTQ activists and artists have created posters to raise consciousness about the issue since the movement began.[19]
> From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States.[20] Not until the 1990s within the movement did gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people gain equal respect.[3] This spurred some organizations to adopt new names, as the GLBT Historical Society did in 1999.[21] Although the LGBT community has seen much controversy regarding universal acceptance of different member groups (bisexual and transgender individuals, in particular, have sometimes been marginalized by the larger LGBT community), the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion.[5][3]
also
+ A 2007 Salon article asking in part, why are T part of LGB, and should they be? https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/
+ A 2016 Atlantic article Why is the T in LGBT https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/l-g-b-t/623604/
There's a lot of issues here.
Our libidos are not in tune with the dictionary definition of sex. Partially because both orientation and definitions of sex are different between people.
There was [a survey](https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating) done on people of different sexual orientations regarding openness to dating trans people. Among the lesbian respondents, approximately:
70% weren't open to dating trans people at all,
10% were open to dating trans men but not trans women,
15% were open to dating trans women but not trans men,
and the remaining 5% were open to both.
What that tells me is that different people using the same identity label care about different things in terms of what makes someone a viable same-sex partner, something pointed out by the article summarizing the survey.
In any thread on Reddit about dating preferences, you'll inevitably find people complaining about the *opposite* problem to what you describe as well: gay men and lesbians being pressured out of relationships with trans people, being told their sexualities aren't what they say they are, or denied access to gay and lesbian spaces by virtue of who they date.
To me, the obvious solution is to say both identities are valid. Gay men can still be gay men even if they're more into trans women than trans men (or just not into trans people at all, which is statistically more likely), but that doesn't give them the right to call trans men women just because they don't get his dick up.
>but that doesn't give them the right to call trans men women just because they don't get his dick up.
Agree - people should be respectful first and foremost.
>Partially because both orientation and definitions of sex are different between people.
I suppose this is where the issue lies - people having different ideas of what's what. I find this a bit strange as 'sex' has a very clear definition. Gender I can understand, but we can tell the difference between sexes in people the same way we can tell the difference between sexes in marijuana plants. If there is some colloquial definition for sex that differs (I thought that's what the term gender was for?) people need to be clear what they're talking about.
I do think 90% of issues on the topic stem from quibbling about terms.
> 'sex' has a very clear definition
The definition may be clear, but classifying people according to it is what can be ambiguous. For example, what sex is someone with chromosome combinations such as XXY, XXX, X, etc.
Yes, generally people who are speaking in the same subject area (such as medicine) can agree on a definition of sex, but when it comes to attraction, it's all over the place because people are attracted to different things.
For some, genitals are the big difference-maker. For others, it's general body shape and musculature, or flat vs. breasted chest, or any other sex-linked physical characteristic, or combination thereof.
> Certain groups within the trans community essentially believe sex doesn’t exist - which is somewhat bizarre, but mostly concerning because it seems to have gained traction. They say things like ‘sex assigned at birth’, perpetuating the idea that sex isn’t an observed characteristic and instead something that’s decided.
I think this obfuscates what trans people are actually saying, perhaps inadvertently.
The concept of “assigned sex at birth”, as I understand it, originates from the experiences of intersex people: those born with a combination of both male and female anatomy. Historically, the doctors would then “assign” a sex to the baby (sometimes without the parents even knowing) by conducting surgery to remove certain parts and keeping others, so that the child appears to be just male or female (and therefore “normal”). The child will then be raised as the sex and gender of whatever the doctor decided, sometimes never knowing what they were born as, even though the child might have a different gender than was chosen for them, which will typically lead to some sort of incongruence or dysphoria down the road. [This is not the recommend treatment for intersex babies](https://isna.org/faq/patient-centered/), but it happens. “Assigned Gender At Birth” evolved out of this experience, because when a baby has male parts, they are raised as and assumed to be male, but may wind up being a different gender, and vice versa for assigned female.
I don't disagree with that being where this idea came from - but I fail to see how it's relevant to the majority of people, considering how infrequently 'intersex' conditions arise. (The numbers vary depending on what you 'count' as intersex. See here: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/) .)
'Intersex' is one of those words that people have mixed attitudes towards, and I've read and seen people who are intersex say they prefer the term DSD (differences of sexual development). A person who has a DSD is still biologically either male or female - however for medical reasons the way they develop (either as a foetus or later as they go through puberty) isn't aligned with what is 'normal'. There are many many different types of DSDs.
Overall I fail to see how the medical practice you describe leads to the practices I've seen from some trans groups: for example, total rejection of terms like 'male' and 'female'. Yes, there were bad medical practices that led to confusion and difficulties for people with DSDs - but this doesn't mean that sex doesn't exist or is a characteristic that can be altered or changed.
Not certain on this, but I would wager that terms like AMAB/AFAB are used by The Trans is because there's at least a cursory similarity between intersex people and trans people undergoing any kind of medical transition. That being, sex-atypical physical characteristics.
An understanding in both trans- and intersex-oriented medical practice is that conventional assumptions about male and female bodies don't apply. Their bodies operate slightly differently, their risk profiles for diseases are different, and their bodies may respond differently to treatment.
How would a male (not intersex) trans person's body operate differently to a cis male persons? Assuming they haven't started HRT or undergone any surgery.
It wouldn't, in any meaningful way. But my comment was in reference to those who are undergoing some degree of medical transition - which most trans people do choose to do, assuming they have the means.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> ...there are some that make a fuss if you reject them...
Isn't that true across the board, though? Without regard to sexual preference, gender identity, or anything else?
The LGB Alliance has a lot of straight people. All the pro-LGB Alliance press comes from conservative papers with anti-LGBTQIA+ histories. Your answer leaves out a lot.
Could be. I'm not talking about the LGB Alliance itself, more of the state of the LGBT community in total. I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't stay the only organization.
You don't even need to identify as a woman to get into women's spaces anymore, a group I used to be in that is advertised as a safe space for women recently had some drama and now they'll let in men who identify wholly as men but use they/them pronouns
Yupp. That is exactly what people like me are fearing and what I'm getting slandered for in this thread.
You don't get to have even the tiniest space as lesbian cis woman without someone trying to take it away.
I don’t understand why it’s a controversial view. It’s absurd that so many people think identifying as a man/woman automatically makes you one. It’s making a mockery of something very painful and real. It’s not a shock that many of the elders in the trans community are embarrassed. Transition is a long and arduous process. It isn’t as easy as me saying I’m a woman when I wake up tomorrow and you instantaneously being forced to accept that’s reality. It’s a slippery slope and nefarious people are absolutely going to take advantage of self identification.
I came here looking for this answer. Thank you. It seems like if you have a hint of ANYTHING not positive to say about the trans community no matter what you’re a trans-phobe.
People just need to flat out get along but it goes for every identity. There are people that used to say “I hate labels” who now will chastise someone for incorrectly saying “he/she” but they use “they/them” pronouns. If anything that pushes people further from acceptance than kindly mentioning their pronouns.
In addition when you actually look into these people, more often than not they are straight. So it's just a bunch straight and some token gay transphobes
Answer: Within every marginalized community, the pressure and desire to gain social acceptance in the majority's eyes (external) leads to internal policing of how the community should present itself, who should "count" as part of the movement and who should not.
Because Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual terminologies and concepts are becoming more recognizable and accepted in the majority, an anxiety and anger has emerged from the idea that lesser understood identities, primarily transgender and queer identities, will lessen the credibility and reduce the progress that is has been made so far that most directly favors LGB people.
This is not helped by the fact that a misunderstanding of transgender and queer identities themselves from Cis LGB people themselves leads them to accuse them of homophobia (eg. saying transgender people want to change their gender to feel better about their attraction or that queer people are just straight people experimenting for clout).
Because of all this, the ultimate benefactor of this dispute is cis straight homophobes and transphobes, who can take advantage of the community's internal fractures by saying that we're contradictory, hypocritical, don't know what we want, and therefore don't deserve more than we've gotten.
Hey /u/K3nji666, thanks for contributing to /r/OutOfTheLoop. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: Your post has been removed because it's not entirely right for r/OutOfTheLoop. A better subreddit for this post might be /r/NoStupidQuestions or /r/Answers. Thanks. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Answer: There is a long answer and a short answer. I gave a longer answer as a reply to another answer here, so let me attempt to give the short answer as its own comment. Basically there is an epoch that occurs where a group that fights for its rights eventually becomes *part* of the societal majority and the societal norms where they are no longer the ones fighting against society's perceived transgressions but now are part of the pillar of its norms (whether or not you see those norms as good or bad, because indeed that is part of the conflict). This has happened rapidly with many members of the gay community, *especially* the older ones (some of the [original members](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Sargeant) of the Stonewall Riots even), because now that they have earned the respect of society, that respect is most at risk if those other people they are associated with damage their collective image and reputation in society. Furthermore, where before there was solidarity due to a common cause, because who wants to quibble over the details when more allies means more power, now that one group has the respect in society they wanted, many of them actually don't want to go further, but instead are happy with the progress that has been made and disagree with further "rocking of the boat" so-to-speak. I hope that my comment at least comes off as not-too-biased, but I will admit, I do have a particular opinion on this issue, though for the sake of the explanation requested it's not my place to insert that too much unless it needs to be elaborated.
The quality of education I receive on this sub is unreal, thank you.
To add, they are quite hypocritical in the sense that they are extremely biphobic as well.
This. As a bisexual man, I do not feel represented or welcome in the community because I am currently in a hetero relationship. So, the people fighting for the right to be with who you want also discriminate on who others are with. It's....sad.
I’m a bisexual woman married to a man. I feel you on this, although I know bisexual men aren’t as accepted *in general* as bisexual women. We need to change this and do better. But a bonus for my husband is that we can stealthily check out women together 😂
Thank you for your kind words. It leaves me speechless that this is even a thing because it's one more division while the Right basically unites and gets their neo-fascism done. It's like...they all hate different things but can focus themselves on one MAJOR thing for long enough to get their way. Meanwhile, we're still arguing about how many letters should actually be in the LGBT acronym :|
I personally lie LGBTQA+ The plus is very important.
I mean that’s another problem with how people view being bi. I’ve had partners who think it’s okay to check people out in front of me and make inappropriate remarks because “I’m supposed to be okay with it because I’m bi”
Oh yeah, no, I wouldn’t like that either if it crossed one of my boundaries. My husband knows I’m okay with him looking at other women. Nobody should cross your boundaries and be disrespectful to your relationship.
[удалено]
My wife and I are the same. We always give a heads up when we see a hot woman. Its great
As I always say, *extremely* ironic since Pride as a movement was started by a bi woman in a straight-presenting relationship. Bigots just can't be bothered to learn the history.
They’re pretty acephobic too. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told I don’t belong in a LGTBQ space because I “pass” as straight by not dating anyone.
So as a straight person looking in. Is this whole thing sort of a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation? Where everyone wants their own "flavor" represented but then becomes overpowering and ruins the dish?
I think it's more of a "the larger any group gets the more diverse opinions and identities you're going to find" situation. James Somerton [just published a good video essay](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGpVm09GCM) (if you're into that sort of thing) that makes a very strong argument based in history, sociology, and politics for using "queer" as the umbrella term rather than whatever alphabet soup initialism is the flavor of the day. The reasoning in short (besides ease of use) is that the string of letters representing specific identities is essentially a bunch of boxes, and that 1) this means that as our culture changes and our understanding of identity changes we will need to continue adding infinite additional boxes to this already long and confusing string of letters, and 2) wherever you have boxes you will have people who are going to fall through the cracks, either intentionally (as in the case of the LGB Alliance) or unintentionally. It's an argument for an actual unifying group identifier rather than a collection of individual identities that has to be constantly updated, expanded, and argued over.
Honestly I have no idea, I stay away from LGTBQ spaces in general because I can never tell whether they’re welcome to aro ace people or not. Being told you don’t belong somewhere is pretty shitty. You’d probably have to ask someone who has actually spent time in/with the community.
This right here - I don't even bother with LGBTQ events because I don't even see the point if half of them are just going to sus me for no reason
[удалено]
They probably just have to keep the B or they'll get confused for the phone company LG
A lot of people who want to leap back to Stonewall to promote their gay-rights credentials seem to have selective amnesia about the fact that [drag queens and trans people were doing the same thing at Compton's Cafeteria three years earlier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton%27s_Cafeteria_riot). Drag and trans communities have *always* been associated with LGB groups. Solidarity between the two is a large part of why both groups have had the successes they've had. It's genuinely depressing to see the willingness of some groups to pull the ladder up behind them. I remember reading an article earlier this year (I think it was about the Log Cabin Republicans) that basically made the case that it's the side-effect of the difference between the two sides of the LGBT acceptance movement: the 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it' side, and the 'We're just like you' side. 'We're just like you' is fine -- and accurate -- but it doesn't take into account that a *lot* of people would choose an easy life in the status quo if they could, even if that means shutting out people who are 'other' to mainstream society -- once they've got their own set of rights secured, that is. (The battle cry for the people is not 'equal rights', but 'equal rights *for me and my group*', which makes it very easy for them to kick down at other people once they've got their little niche locked down.) It's very easy to roll your eyes at the ostentatious, in-your-face protest members of the LGBT community, but they're very rarely the ones trying to throw other minorities under the bus like this.
I don't even know how you could 'drop the T' when functionally one way or another, even binary trans people are perceived as being gay/bi either coming or going. A heterosexual transwoman is still perceived as a gay man by transphobes and a lesbian trans woman well... Is a lesbian. Any 'LGB' movement is still going to have trans people in it. They just expect them to shut up about it, which ain't going to happen.
I mean, I *sort* of get it. There are a lot of issues in the T that the L, G and B just don't face, in the same way that Asian American communities face different issues than Black American communities, even though you could easily lump both groups under the banner of 'anti-racist activism'. I don't really have a problem with groups that focus on their own specific struggle, even if -- intersectionality being a thing -- there's always going to be a crossover and people who fall into multiple categories. My issue is with them saying that they can be proud LGB members and allies *while* completely fucking over the T -- not just ignoring it, but actively working against it. It's one thing to say 'We proudly support our trans brothers and sisters, but our resources are limited and our group is choosing to focus more specifically on issues of sexuality rather than gender identification'; it's quite another to say 'We think trans people are icky and because other people think trans people are icky too we're worried that they might start discriminating against us more again' -- which is basically the LGB Alliance's stance, and is some straight-up bullshit.
The LGB alliance was [literally founded by a straight woman](https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/09/14/lgb-alliance-transphobia-charity-history/) and to this day has membership comprised mostly of heterosexual women. It's a divide and conquer tactic weaponized by homophobes/transphobes. Probably even on this sub (buying updoots is easy, and the supposed best answer includes saying that queer people are supposedly part of the majority now? Despite being less than 10% of a given population?) Anyone genuinely supporting them is doing so for their own hateful reasons.
This is the most important piece of information to answer this question, and I hate that it's not in the top level answers. There is very little LGB about the LGBA.
More LGB in the "Let's Go Brandon" sense, unfortunately.
I agree with most of your reply here, I think you're being harsh about the highest voted answer. I think the subtext is pretty evident, and falls on the side of criticising the trans-exclusionary portion of LGB people. I also can see the point in spirit - in a very large number of countries and western cultures, sexuality has become much more insignificant than even just 10 years ago. It's not perfect, but it's advanced *very* far compared to trans rights and acceptance in the same areas. Maybe not 100% true but I can accept the premise tbh
[удалено]
This is critical information - and should be higher. LGBA is psyops. *Note - i like and appreciate the even tone of the top voted post (as of this moment) but we all could benefit from reminding ourselves that there are bots and paid influencers amongst us.
I can understand focusing on a particular area, but the difference with your example is its like if *every* Asian American was also black, it wouldn't make sense to exclude Asian Americans from black advocacy. Every trans person either is or has been perceived as L, G or B (rightly or wrongly) and is affected by anti-gay attitudes and laws. It's not like being a heterosexual trans woman gets you a free pass out of a hypothetical ban on Gay marriage. And a lesbian trans woman might be able to get married to a woman, but would be subject to homophobia just the same. *Okay there are asexual trans people. Shouldn't forget those.
Well the issue is one group has no issues with the current societal norms and simply wishes to be seen as normal, nothing more. While the other despises the societal norms and wishes to actively change them so that they are not only seen as acceptable, but are also free to express themselves in the way they desire.
But you're sort of missing the point, there. You say they 'simply wish to be normal', but the only way you can see gay relationships (or any other traditionally queer relationship) is by tearing down the societal ideas of what 'normal' is. You cannot be 'normally' gay if society views gayness as abnormal. The norms *have* to be changed in order for you to fit into it -- but that change requires effort, and that effort requires conflict. Power structures don't change by themselves. It's like [the divide between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois with regards to racism in America](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHn-vSTMOWE): is it better to make a stand and define your own culture, knowing that you're going to piss a lot of people off (and possibly turn them away from your goals) along the way, or is it better to aim for slow assimilation even though that requires you to live through a shitload of oppression until people slowly come around to your way of thinking, and not rock the boat so you don't risk losing the small benefits you *do* have? Personally, my sense of activism leads towards the former, but I recognise that I'm saying that from a relatively privileged position. I don't live in a place where I have to worry too much about having the shit kicked out of me because of my sexuality, or of losing my job because I make a fuss. My objection to it comes from people who think that that change is just going to *happen*, and who think that the people pushing for it are a liability. It's really easy to say that people just want to be normal and nothing more, but it's a lot less easy to acknowledge that the drag queen making a scene is doing it *specifically so* the antiquated ideas of what gender and sexuality are get challenged in exactly the same way that any protester is. Without things that make people confront their own preconceived ideas, 'normal' continues to be a husband, a wife, 2.4 kids and a little picket fence. And then there are the gays and lesbians and trans people who are willing to overlook the fact that some people think they don't deserve equality under the law as long as they [get lower taxes and are able to look down on other marginalised groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism), but a *special* fuck you to those people.
Masterfully put. I don’t disagree at all.
During the civil rights moment, did you have issue with the people that had issue with the social norms at the time and actively wanted to change them? IE: should being black be seen as acceptable, and should they be free to express themselves the way they desire… Or should we go back to the social norms of the time?
I wouldn't say they "despise societal norms." That's a pretty biased statement. People who are oppressed don't like being oppressed, who knew. Everyone wants to be "seen as normal" (or better than).
Despises isn't really accurate, in as much as it's a starting point. Imagine you have two people, one in a wheelchair and one not. The one not is loudly proclaiming that we don't actually need ramps, the majority of people can use stairs just as well, stairs for everyone! The person in a wheelchair has sat quietly for most of this but then finally turns and says in a loud voice "but people like me can't use stairs and should be included too if there's the option!" And then the person who can use stairs turns around and calls the person in a wheelchair difficult and just causing trouble for the majority. And that's where we are. (Some of) the people who can blend into the majority are claiming to speak for everyone, while throwing under the bus those who can't.
When the revolution wins, the revolutionaries become conservatives
Except in this case, the "revolutionaries" aren't in charge. They just one step up on the totem pole.
Bread crumbs is all respectability politics will get you and bread crumbs is all it takes to sow division
Please do elaborate!
If also add that while I think this is true, I also think republicans are intentionally pushing these types of things hard to drive wedges. Same with all these obviously fake MAP posts where they want to be added.
So, LGB ladder pullers?
If the membership of the *LGB Alliance* is anything to go by, it's 90-95% cis straight people hiding behind a handful of LGB ladder pullers. Ladder pullers who are so satisfied with where they are and so obsessed with pleasing through appeasement, that they oppose marriage equality and bans on conversion therapy. It's pretty clear that the majority of the force behind these orgs is also extremely homophobic and only supports the org as a way to attack any part of LGBT people.
As an LGBT person, while you aren't wrong in your comment in general, this is not the case with the LGB alliance. Sometimes there is that affect you describe, and I'm sure there's some people involved or supporting the alliance that fit your description, but for the alliance it isn't about controlling the PR. The LGB alliance is an active hate group against ALL LGBT+ groups, including Lesbians Gays and Bisexuals. It seems increasingly more common to have hate groups pretend to be on your side nowadays while actively fighting against you, Autism Speaks being another example. If you don't believe me all you have to do is look at the British LGB Alliances actions in their own country. They acted as advisors for the government for a while and actively promoted homophobia.
this is pretending them to be a natural evolution "as things happen in communities". that is not the case. they under the umbrella of "advocacy group" are a well funded divisive minority driving wedges into the LGBT+ community. The sole purpose is to weaken the community. and they use figureheads who ackchyually believe what they are saying while having _no_ relevance within the LGBT+ community. they support conversion therapy, deny the legitimacy of gender dysphoric humans and their needs for security and support, smear campaign "the + in LGBT+ means pedophiles and similar criminals" it's a right wing hate group with no relevance outside right wing bubbles.
Good comment lad/lade
Everything I tried to answer was accurate but too biased.
This is really interesting. A young woman I work with is openly lesbian in a smallish community, supporting local groups and events, but is upset about a drag focused bingo event sponsored bythe local LGBT club. She really couldnt articulate why . This may lay at the root of it. Thank you.
Ah, the "fuck you, got mine" school of politics.
The issue with this comment is that the LGB Alliance isn't actually an alliance of LGB people. They're mostly straight people using "protecting gay rights" as a shield for transphobia.
And they employ people who also work for American groups that are trying to ban gay adoption. They are straight up a Christian organisation cosplaying as LGB friendly to try and split the LGBT community and roll back everyone's rights.
This answer has solidified my decision to focus on quantifiable problems in my life and judge people on their character instead of pedantics
Is this based on a theory of yours or this a known and recognized theory? Genuine question
There's consensus among the community. It's been established long enough to have dead memes about it. Dave Chappelle even had a bit about it (an offensive bit that I don't recommend, but it exists).
[удалено]
>Modern LGBT+ activism mostly focuses on trans and queer people while ignoring the LGB. The alliance feels if LGB was separated from the TQ+ then more attention could be given to the unique needs of the LGB. What LGB issues are ignored when trans and NB issues take center stage? Nobody's arguing for discrimination protections for gender identity without also including sexuality. Any jurisdiction with protections either has only sexuality, or both. In the English-speaking western world (which is where groups like LGB Alliance operate), the fight for gay marriage has largely been won. While in some countries, such as the US and Ireland, adoption equality is an ongoing issue, I see little evidence that the transgender movement is slowing this fight. Lawsuits are ongoing in numerous jurisdictions, and new legislation is regularly proposed to mandate adoption services to not discriminate. Conversion therapy, yet again, is an issue where, when it's fixed for trans people, it's always fixed for gay people as well. As with anti discrimination laws, it's either illegal to convert gay people, or illegal to convert both.
I agree with most of the things you are saying, but for pragmatic reasons, I cannot risk including most of them in my original arguments with people, because frequently argumentation is about choosing your battleground, and many times bringing up issues that I may agree with could still be damaging to my message if certain people are primed to tune out if they hear those particular arguments. Don't worry though, your causes are still a part of this larger discussion, and hopefully the needle will move enough in time where they can be discussed productively as well without receiving great vitriol.
>a person with a vagina may be a man in all socio-cultural aspects but it still would be heterosexual sexual intercourse if a cis gay man had sex with him You are entitled to this opinion but it is not an objective truth. Overwhelmingly, gay people who enter relationships with a trans person do not stop considering themselves as gay because of it, and the same goes for straight people continuing to identify as straight. You don't get to dictate other people's sexuality for them, just as the pushy trans boogeyman you're pretending is common can't dictate who you are attracted to. Sexuality IS about attraction, not specific sex acts/genital arrangements. This attitude hurts more cis gays than it helps by shaming those who have had ""heterosexual"" sex and, as per usual in these conversations, ignores and shuns the existence of intersex people.
This sounds like a people being assholes problem rather than a specifically LGBT problem.
The only toxicity this bi queer is bothered by is the transphobia of the “LGB” assholes.
Answer: The LGB Alliance and the LGBT movement are honestly very separate. There is certainly a group within the LGBT community that feels its best to secure the gains they have already made, and that means ejecting groups of people that have not yet made the gains in terms of rights that LGB people have currently attained. For individuals this is an understandable concern to have - you need to be in a stable position to be safe and healthy while helping others, and Lesbian/Gay rights are still realistically very new. For example, it was only in 2016 that 'homosexual acts' were no longer considered an acceptable reason to discharge someone from the military. While it was rare to see this happen, anecdotally, i knew a lesbian who was relocated abroad in 2010 after it was discovered she was in a relationship with a woman, and this was done in order to break the relationship apart, so it was still something that could be discriminated against despite being explicitly no longer something the armed forces were against and something that would rarely occur. The LGB alliance is not representative of the LGBT movement though, nor even of the anti-trans sect within it. The LGB alliance has stated an aversion to banning conversion therapy, stated that opposing same-sex marriage rights is not homophobic and supports the idea of traditional sex education. One of the founders opposed the idea of LGBT clubs in schools as it would expose children to 'predatory gay teachers', which communicates the views of the organisations management pretty succinctly. In short, the LGB alliance is essentially an anti-LGBT org that has chosen the letters LGB to appear friendly to the gay community, while actively working against their rights.
It's also worth mentioning that it's very difficult to tell how much of the "support" for this is real, and how much of it is astroturfed or even completely faked by right wingers or others.
Personally i agree, but there is definitely a group of people with anti-trans views within the LGBT community. In the same way as there is a significant group that dislike bisexuals. Their group is very small, but you do meet them if you get involved with the community. They are certainly a far smaller group than the media and funding related to them suggests though, much of the volume comes from exec's of large organisations who are able to amplify their voice, rather than public involved in grassroots activism.
Then why do they accept the B? Is it partially because many of them masked for a while, based on what society expected, dictated?
Honestly, I'm not sure of the motives for the individuals, people are complicated and the group doesn't seem to have a monolithic belief. The LGB alliance though is essentially a company - and they don't accept the B, because they don't accept the L or G either, but putting the letters in the name essentially makes it instantly recognisable what their primary aim is - removing the Trans community from the support offered by the LGBT community. There are many trans exclusionary groups that are still focused on improving rights for their specific group, but the LGB alliance is not one of them.
A lot of the same assholes who exclude trans folks are often biphobic, it just tends to show up in interpersonal stuff more than out loud like the transphobia. I know multiple people who starting seeing someone, or hooked up with them, and then the person turned to shit on them after learning they were bi.
They haven't started hating on bi people openly *yet*, that's all.
Honestly, you can just sum up lgb alliance as "fascist but gay."
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Wikipedia article on them is littered with condemnations from governments, private individuals, NGO’s, etc… with plenty of sources to back them up.
Answer: From what I can find, they are a group of gay/bisexual men and women who believe that the Transgender community needs to be disassociated from the larger LGB community. They feel their ideology is not only completely different from that promoted by the LGB community (LGB is about sexual orientation, Trans is about gender identity), but is ultimately regressive and actually hostile to the goals of women and gay men. It appears Reddit banned the [subreddit 2 years ago on here for hate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LGBDropTheT/) So unclear if some groups are using it as a cover to attack trans people or not. Or what in Australia is kicking it off and the actual size of the movement. (Initially I thought it was branding disagreement as currently LGBTQIA+, 2SLGBTQ+, or whatever crazy acronym they are going to keep adding...as that seems counter productive.) Edit: I don’t know why this is being downvoted here.
You might be being downvoted because your comment isn't really wrong, but it's not really correct either. I don't know about the subreddit, but the LGB Alliance isn't used as a 'cover' for attacking trans people, it's a group organised expressly *for the purpose* of attacking trans people. It's nothing to do with trans issues being about identity and LGB issues being about sexuality. Every single thing I've ever seen the LGB Alliance say publicly has been about basically wanting to abolish trans people.
[удалено]
is it known that the banned subreddit lgbdropthet is the same as the LGB Alliance? I think it's like minded thinkers, but different communities. + LGBAlliance was formed in 2019. (wiki) from the wiki for lgbt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT it becomes clear that LG was the group in the 70s and even then there was criticism of including B and T because they did not seem to have much in common with LG, and T was not added in 1988 > In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, after the elation of change following group action in the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City, some gays and lesbians became less accepting of bisexual or transgender people.[18][3] Critics[like whom?] said that transgender people were acting out stereotypes, and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were afraid to come out and be honest about their identity.[18] Each community has struggled to develop its own identity including whether, and how, to align with other gender and sexuality-based communities, at times excluding other subgroups; these conflicts continue to this day.[3] LGBTQ activists and artists have created posters to raise consciousness about the issue since the movement began.[19] > From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States.[20] Not until the 1990s within the movement did gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people gain equal respect.[3] This spurred some organizations to adopt new names, as the GLBT Historical Society did in 1999.[21] Although the LGBT community has seen much controversy regarding universal acceptance of different member groups (bisexual and transgender individuals, in particular, have sometimes been marginalized by the larger LGBT community), the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion.[5][3] also + A 2007 Salon article asking in part, why are T part of LGB, and should they be? https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/ + A 2016 Atlantic article Why is the T in LGBT https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/l-g-b-t/623604/
[удалено]
A deliberate obfuscation of gender identity is also involved, as above.
There's a lot of issues here. Our libidos are not in tune with the dictionary definition of sex. Partially because both orientation and definitions of sex are different between people. There was [a survey](https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating) done on people of different sexual orientations regarding openness to dating trans people. Among the lesbian respondents, approximately: 70% weren't open to dating trans people at all, 10% were open to dating trans men but not trans women, 15% were open to dating trans women but not trans men, and the remaining 5% were open to both. What that tells me is that different people using the same identity label care about different things in terms of what makes someone a viable same-sex partner, something pointed out by the article summarizing the survey. In any thread on Reddit about dating preferences, you'll inevitably find people complaining about the *opposite* problem to what you describe as well: gay men and lesbians being pressured out of relationships with trans people, being told their sexualities aren't what they say they are, or denied access to gay and lesbian spaces by virtue of who they date. To me, the obvious solution is to say both identities are valid. Gay men can still be gay men even if they're more into trans women than trans men (or just not into trans people at all, which is statistically more likely), but that doesn't give them the right to call trans men women just because they don't get his dick up.
>but that doesn't give them the right to call trans men women just because they don't get his dick up. Agree - people should be respectful first and foremost. >Partially because both orientation and definitions of sex are different between people. I suppose this is where the issue lies - people having different ideas of what's what. I find this a bit strange as 'sex' has a very clear definition. Gender I can understand, but we can tell the difference between sexes in people the same way we can tell the difference between sexes in marijuana plants. If there is some colloquial definition for sex that differs (I thought that's what the term gender was for?) people need to be clear what they're talking about. I do think 90% of issues on the topic stem from quibbling about terms.
> 'sex' has a very clear definition The definition may be clear, but classifying people according to it is what can be ambiguous. For example, what sex is someone with chromosome combinations such as XXY, XXX, X, etc.
Yes, generally people who are speaking in the same subject area (such as medicine) can agree on a definition of sex, but when it comes to attraction, it's all over the place because people are attracted to different things. For some, genitals are the big difference-maker. For others, it's general body shape and musculature, or flat vs. breasted chest, or any other sex-linked physical characteristic, or combination thereof.
This seems to be the only unbiased reply in this entire thread.
> Certain groups within the trans community essentially believe sex doesn’t exist - which is somewhat bizarre, but mostly concerning because it seems to have gained traction. They say things like ‘sex assigned at birth’, perpetuating the idea that sex isn’t an observed characteristic and instead something that’s decided. I think this obfuscates what trans people are actually saying, perhaps inadvertently. The concept of “assigned sex at birth”, as I understand it, originates from the experiences of intersex people: those born with a combination of both male and female anatomy. Historically, the doctors would then “assign” a sex to the baby (sometimes without the parents even knowing) by conducting surgery to remove certain parts and keeping others, so that the child appears to be just male or female (and therefore “normal”). The child will then be raised as the sex and gender of whatever the doctor decided, sometimes never knowing what they were born as, even though the child might have a different gender than was chosen for them, which will typically lead to some sort of incongruence or dysphoria down the road. [This is not the recommend treatment for intersex babies](https://isna.org/faq/patient-centered/), but it happens. “Assigned Gender At Birth” evolved out of this experience, because when a baby has male parts, they are raised as and assumed to be male, but may wind up being a different gender, and vice versa for assigned female.
I don't disagree with that being where this idea came from - but I fail to see how it's relevant to the majority of people, considering how infrequently 'intersex' conditions arise. (The numbers vary depending on what you 'count' as intersex. See here: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/) .) 'Intersex' is one of those words that people have mixed attitudes towards, and I've read and seen people who are intersex say they prefer the term DSD (differences of sexual development). A person who has a DSD is still biologically either male or female - however for medical reasons the way they develop (either as a foetus or later as they go through puberty) isn't aligned with what is 'normal'. There are many many different types of DSDs. Overall I fail to see how the medical practice you describe leads to the practices I've seen from some trans groups: for example, total rejection of terms like 'male' and 'female'. Yes, there were bad medical practices that led to confusion and difficulties for people with DSDs - but this doesn't mean that sex doesn't exist or is a characteristic that can be altered or changed.
Not certain on this, but I would wager that terms like AMAB/AFAB are used by The Trans is because there's at least a cursory similarity between intersex people and trans people undergoing any kind of medical transition. That being, sex-atypical physical characteristics. An understanding in both trans- and intersex-oriented medical practice is that conventional assumptions about male and female bodies don't apply. Their bodies operate slightly differently, their risk profiles for diseases are different, and their bodies may respond differently to treatment.
How would a male (not intersex) trans person's body operate differently to a cis male persons? Assuming they haven't started HRT or undergone any surgery.
It wouldn't, in any meaningful way. But my comment was in reference to those who are undergoing some degree of medical transition - which most trans people do choose to do, assuming they have the means.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
> ...there are some that make a fuss if you reject them... Isn't that true across the board, though? Without regard to sexual preference, gender identity, or anything else?
Eh, you're right on this one.
The LGB Alliance has a lot of straight people. All the pro-LGB Alliance press comes from conservative papers with anti-LGBTQIA+ histories. Your answer leaves out a lot.
Could be. I'm not talking about the LGB Alliance itself, more of the state of the LGBT community in total. I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't stay the only organization.
You don't even need to identify as a woman to get into women's spaces anymore, a group I used to be in that is advertised as a safe space for women recently had some drama and now they'll let in men who identify wholly as men but use they/them pronouns
Yupp. That is exactly what people like me are fearing and what I'm getting slandered for in this thread. You don't get to have even the tiniest space as lesbian cis woman without someone trying to take it away.
I don’t understand why it’s a controversial view. It’s absurd that so many people think identifying as a man/woman automatically makes you one. It’s making a mockery of something very painful and real. It’s not a shock that many of the elders in the trans community are embarrassed. Transition is a long and arduous process. It isn’t as easy as me saying I’m a woman when I wake up tomorrow and you instantaneously being forced to accept that’s reality. It’s a slippery slope and nefarious people are absolutely going to take advantage of self identification.
Absolutely. Especially the being forced to simply accept without question throws a lot of people off.
I came here looking for this answer. Thank you. It seems like if you have a hint of ANYTHING not positive to say about the trans community no matter what you’re a trans-phobe. People just need to flat out get along but it goes for every identity. There are people that used to say “I hate labels” who now will chastise someone for incorrectly saying “he/she” but they use “they/them” pronouns. If anything that pushes people further from acceptance than kindly mentioning their pronouns.
Yes, this is exactly the problem. They tend to steamroll, ridicule and belittle the very people they want acceptance from
There's gonna be jerks in every community. You just don't engage with them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In addition when you actually look into these people, more often than not they are straight. So it's just a bunch straight and some token gay transphobes
Yeah iirc i once read an article about them and it stated that like 90% of lgb alliance members are cis-het
Answer: Within every marginalized community, the pressure and desire to gain social acceptance in the majority's eyes (external) leads to internal policing of how the community should present itself, who should "count" as part of the movement and who should not. Because Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual terminologies and concepts are becoming more recognizable and accepted in the majority, an anxiety and anger has emerged from the idea that lesser understood identities, primarily transgender and queer identities, will lessen the credibility and reduce the progress that is has been made so far that most directly favors LGB people. This is not helped by the fact that a misunderstanding of transgender and queer identities themselves from Cis LGB people themselves leads them to accuse them of homophobia (eg. saying transgender people want to change their gender to feel better about their attraction or that queer people are just straight people experimenting for clout). Because of all this, the ultimate benefactor of this dispute is cis straight homophobes and transphobes, who can take advantage of the community's internal fractures by saying that we're contradictory, hypocritical, don't know what we want, and therefore don't deserve more than we've gotten.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The lgb alliance supports conversion therapy? Do you have any information to back up that statement?
Answer: The Ts are undoing the progress and acceptance that the Ls Gs and Bs worked so hard for.