idw.community
9 3

So, a few days ago I started chatting with someone online. This person (non-binary; I'm still going to respect their preferred pronouns even if you don't believe non-binary is a thing) was nice to talk to, we talked about gender and stuff like that. They recommended a few books on the topic. I was interested. I thought I'd try to have a look at and understand their point of view. They were vocal about their support of the LGBT community. I thought they were a decent person who I could talk to on this topic. Then they went on a rant on their instagram story about how much they hate gender and how we should get rid of it. I responded to that story, stating that if the concept of gender was lost, it would be interesting to see how sexuality and labels to describe them would change. I personally believe both sex and gender play a role in attraction, and so I mentioned how a lot of this form of activism makes it seem like being attracted to a specific gender is shameful and transphobic, which is obviously wrong and invalidates most of the LGBT community. And, their response was "F**** those gendered sexuality labels". The lesbian community has been being invalidated by the community for a while now, ever since the "genital preferences" thing started (btw the community claiming genital "preferences" are transphobic has grown massively over the last year). Many young lesbians would much rather choose the labels "bisexual" or "queer". But now people are claiming that attraction to a specific gender itself is transphobic. What?? Apparently, the only valid sexuality is pansexual... How has the LGBT community gone from accepting people for who they are attracted to, to hating people for not being attracted to who they WANT them to be attracted to (literally what the right wing christians have done throughout history). The LGBT community is the wrong name, because they are too focused on non-binary and gender nonconforming people, and are completely ignoring gay and lesbian people.

dylanhope951 4 Sep 10
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

9 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

stating that the only valid sexual orientation is pansexual, is homophobic and heterophobic in nature.

0

Dude, this sounds like a journalism news story. But the reason I think so is because like there's nothing new it sounds like, it sounds like this has been a problem. It has, hasn't it? I think so too. You make such a really real good point. You basically just took the words right out of my mouth, I couldn't say it any better than this even if I tried. People be thinking that since if they can it's true that they can be outraged about something, that therefore they must have something to complain about in order to be complaining, that's so stupid and just more I don't know what to call it more human bullshit. And something you said, that they are invalidating the lesbian community, I don't know really what you just said, but in light of this new information now, you know what, I guess that it wouldn't even surprise me then. And I do think you're right.

0

Sadly that is the name of the game now days... "Minority" groups just out right attacking whoever is not agreeing with them... A few guys/girls/people at the top just spreading hate and promoting thier on agenda with no concern to other individuals or the laws for that matter... So many these and those groups killed innocent people and committed really serious crimes just in the name of their cause... Unbelievable... Good fashioned LOGIC has become like a curse word now days... Good day... πŸ™‚

1

It would be misguided in my opinion to equate speaking to one person, a few Twitter twits, or a few instagratifiers and then relegating their views to an entire community.

Remember that a vocal minority... Is still a minority.

0

Totally pro LGBT . Pedophillia? That’s based on Abrahamic law. What age determines this? I willingly had sex when I was 13 (with someone much older) . I mean, without Biblical law, what age do u know β€œyou are willing”?

0

people who are miserable in their own skin (and the topic here is homosexuality) seem often times determined to bring literally everyone else down to their level. they are obviously out of step with "normal" existence and so they demand that the world fall in step with their own psychoses. This is unreasonable, Pathetic and pathological.
Its one thing to demand that "the whole world" accept them as we find them and a completely different thing to insist that the whole world acquiesce and subscribe too their personal delusional angst. If you a biologically born male want to live and behave as though you are female - well, good luck to you. But for you to demand that I a person with a brain and an objective sensibility agree with your delusion is just - well, twisted and wrong.
I will NOT give up my own sanity in order to appease your delusional sensibilities

iThink Level 8 Sep 10, 2020

@iThink I almost wanted to argue with you, but then I realized that what you're talking about doesn't pertain to me. I've never demanded that anyone else play any role in my transition. If people see me as something that I don't agree with, well, that's life for you. I see other people as things they wouldn't "identify" themselves as too, I'm sure. For example, few people would call themselves an "idiot," but I see idiots EVERYWHERE!

@RavenMStark

yes well even though "idiot" is a clinical term it is also used mostly as a pejorative - which is how you are using it here. In that context - the pejorative context - "idiot" is merely a subjective term - what one person calls idiocy another person might well see nothing idiotic at all and each person has very right to their opinions. Full stop.

For example you implying that I am an idiot is really nothing other than your opinion. It has no basis in objective fact - unless I were to be tested for IQ and were to fall somewhere below 85 percentile. In that case you could call me "idiot" and you would be objectively correct! see? LOL

@iThink I didn't actually mean to call YOU an idiot, but I see what it looks like. (Haha, I'm glad you're laughing!) I actually meant to AGREE with you, at least in part.

I DO think it's unreasonable (perhaps even "delusional" ) for a person to expect all others around them to acquiesce and subscribe to their worldview/sensibilities. I am completely with you on that.

I do NOT think it's delusional for a person to be trans in the first place. I didn't see you specifically say that was your opinion either. You said "good luck to you," which is a pretty positive statement.

@RavenMStark I'm an old while hetero/normative male (a deplorable LOL). I have always treated people with respect regardless their race, color creed, sex...yes even homosexuals. Just a short story. I was a HS sophomore looking to hang with some other guys in my class. Stopped by this guys house and there were two other guys already there besides the boy who lived there. No parents anywhere. Anyhow I got pretty uncomfortable right away - they were drinking beer! A big nono for that time period - weed would've been worse but that was not part of this story. So the guy who lives in this house says something like "man I'm bored - lets go over to xxxx - (a part of town where the gays tend to gather)..."lets drive over there and beat up some queers" - I was a lot more than merely "uncomfortable" now...I said something like "you must be joking" (these days people say "you must be shittin'πŸ˜‰...I said you guys are nuts - leave those people alone they aren't doing any harm to anyone and its none of your business anyhow...they laughed at me called me a queer too...I left ...never went back - never even spoke to those guys at school if I didn't have to...
While I might - and do - feel sympathy for the homosexual personality I would never mistreat them. Full stop.
The reason I say sympathy is because truthfully I long ago observed that the word "gay" is a terrible misnomer - the homosexual personality is anything but "gay" - they are the most profoundly self loathing group I know of. So maybe the word should be pity - pity for people in that perpetually sad state of mind.

@iThink That's a great story and a good example of your character. I haven't seen you write anything violent or hateful here on Slug that I can recall either, so I agree that you're respectful and that you feel sympathy.

I have to agree with you there too, that self-loathing people are to be pitied. I would expand that idea to include any people who must constantly make themselves out to be the "victim."

I think that there are exceptions to what you have observed about perpetual sadness. Not every homosexual is self-hating and sad (and you didn't claim that much!) But I think you might be right in a general sense. I think I have also observed an inclination towards victimhood in the group (again, with many individual exceptions).

1

I'm a trans man. I don't think genital preferences are transphobic. I have genital preferences too. Just putting that out there.

0

Emotional, subjective and shallow. That's all I have to say about them.

Naomi Level 8 Sep 10, 2020
1

It's because the goal post always moves when you are in the game of being a victim.

It's the hot new trend, you should be a victim too!

I'm telling you, in the next couple of years, there is going to be a stronger push for pedophilia to be part of the LGBT+ umbrella.

I must respectfully disagree with you.

I am extremely far-left on many social issues, including strong support for GSRM (gender/sexual/romantic minority) rights. However I, and many others with similar positions as me, do not agree with the fringe notion that "gender preferences are transphobic". The overwhelming majority of trans activists and allies do not think that people can't have preferences for genitals - just as they believe you are born gay or trans, they believe you are born with attraction to specific genitals. The person Dylan spoke to is clearly on the fringe, and doesn't represent the majority of supporters in any way shape or form. People who have those views are not much different than incels - they feel like they are owed sex from anyone they want, and will get angry and talk about injustice if they aren't accommodated.

Most trans people just want to live their lives, not call attention to themselves and be forced to live as an "other". They want to prevent being fired or denied housing simply for who they are (fortunately bills were passed recently which rectified this issue). They want to ban federal allowances of the "gay / trans panic defense" wherein defendants can try to get lesser charges by claiming they were justifiably enraged to attack / kill because they found out someone was gay or trans.

There are vast differences between sexual orientation and gender identity when it comes to any number of consenting adults who are free to live their lives and act as they please, and sexual corruption of a minor (or even animal) who has no ability to consent. There are groups within the far-right who are trying to masquerade as GSRM supporters advocating for pedophilia in order to disparage legitimate GSRM supporters. Using the never-ending slippery slope approach is never helpful, and people need to stop bringing up pedophilia or bestiality or "marrying your toaster" when it comes to GSRM rights.

@JacksonNought "There are groups within the far-right who are trying to masquerade as GSRM supporters advocating for pedophilia in order to disparage legitimate GSRM supporters. Using the never-ending slippery slope approach is never helpful, and people need to stop bringing up pedophilia or bestiality or "marrying your toaster" when it comes to GSRM rights."

Honestly, the "far-right" is what they call everyone that is not a liberal. The far-right is extremely fringe and conservatives decry far-right ideology. They sit in their corner and yell at the wall and we don't pay them any mind. It is similar to how in politics, anyone that disagrees with a liberal policy is a nazi. It's over-used.

Now that I've stated that, the idea that the acceptance of pedophilia isn't growing primarily with sympathetic liberals, especially the elites, is not seeing the whole picture. I wrote an article ( [wrongspeak.net] ) talking about #map where teenage kids are looking for adults as sexual partners while they fly the LGBT flag and vice versa, adults are looking for teenagers to have relationships with. If you dig deeper, there are so called intellectuals and psychologists who fight for "MAP rights". This world exists and it is becoming more and more relevant.

These people aren't fringe, they are self-described liberals (whether you disagree they are liberals or not is something different). Regardless, these are people of the liberal class, the left elite class and so called intellectuals who are trying to redefine our outlook and acceptability of "MAPs" and how we view them. This is not a conspiracy, if you go on twitter, you can easily find them. This isn't the "far right masquerading". This is legitimate.

I encourage you to read my article and have an open mind to the concerns of many adults and parents. If you don't think that there isn't a "slippery slope" ask yourself this, how many times did you hear the word trans gender 5 years ago? Pan sexual? I am old enough to remember when the fight was about L & G rights, now everyone is trying to jump on the train of social acceptability and that is fine with me personally. However, if we have seen this acceleration with these groups, and I've pointed out the growing underground acceptability of "Minor Attracted People", then it is not far fetched to see that LGBT acronym grow.

@Chanel you didn't even read what I wrote, did you? You just have your narrative and will see whatever you want to support it.

First, GSRM is not a new acronym, and it DOES NOT support pedophilia. It is just an easier all-encompassing term for sexual orientation, gender identity, and romantic identity, so it covers gay, straight, queer, trans, intersex, asexual, aromantic, poly, etc. It is easier than constantly adding letters to LGBTQIA... acronym and getting people like you making derogatory comments about the "alphabet club" or something.

Once more, it has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. MAP is a fringe concept, one wholly rejected by the overwhelming majority of GSRM people and allies. It is no different than NAMBLA, which also gets overwhelmingly rejected.

Trying to equate pedophilia with consenting adults living their lives does nothing more than try to hurt innocent people and strip away civil rights. How would you like it if I said all Catholics are pedophiles, a Catholic by any other name, etc? And any time someone Catholic spoke up I said "oh well here come the pedophiles"?

@BlackoutNJ

Far-right isn't what people call anything non-liberal, liberals (at least this one) see a distinction between typical right and far or alt right. As you said, it is a fringe group, which I agree with, and conservatives should decry it. Yet it is still these far right groups who are trying to troll the Internet and make it seem like MAP is actually a thing.

I read your article. Yes, pedophiles are starting to use MAP to try and gain acceptance, no different than NAMBLA trying to gain acceptance. That is rightfully condemned by all sane individuals. Just because someone says they are MAP and attributes it to LGBTQ rights doesn't mean LGBTQ rights advocate for pedophilia. As I already expressed, it really is no different than saying if we give LGBTQ people rights then we will eventually allow bestiality. As I said in a different post, we could then apply this slippery slope to anything - if we allow religious organizations to circumvent the law due to their religious convictions, such as with the birth control mandate of the ACA, then we will eventually allow Catholics to engage in pedophilia with no consequence because it is part of their religious freedom. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? That is where slippery slopes can get you. And it is just what some of these far-right groups want, to try and strip away basic civil rights from people they don't like by trying to label them all as pedophiles.

Now, sure, I have no doubt that some liberals and LGBTQ supporters are trying to also accept MAP as a thing, with no intention of hurting the cause. Ok, big deal. There are also conservatives who want to re-segregate and make slavery legal again. That does not mean it is anything more than a fringe idea wholly rejected by the overwhelming majority of people. You can't rely on Twitter to tell you what the whole world is thinking, especially with so many bots and unverified accounts. There are a bunch of people on Twitter claiming to be Starseeds, that doesn't mean it is a mainstream idea and we are going to start changing laws for people who think they are aliens.

You maybe roll with different circles. I have known about transgender individuals for decades. Same with pansexual. We may have more modern terms for these concepts now, but people have existed with these identities for centuries. And this isn't the first time pedophilia has been brought up as a way to dismiss rights. If you are old enough to remember when the fight was strictly about Gay and Lesbian rights, then I am sure you remember people freaking out that removing anti-sodomy laws and not arresting Gay and Lesbian people just for existing would lead to pedophilia. It is the same argument again. As I already said, there are monumental differences between letting consenting adults identify and live however they wish, and involving minors who cannot consent.

A lot of people talk about LGBTQ people trying to advocate for pedophilia, yet most people seem to ignore the issues going on with religion and pedophilia. I've already brought up the Catholic Church and its issues, but what about child brides? Did you know that 13 states in the USA have no age limit for marriage, meaning a family can marry off their 8 year old daughter to a 40 year old man? And typically, especially in religious scenarios, rape / pedophilia is ignored when it is between married couples. Before Tennessee set an age limit of 17 in 2018, girls as young as 10 were married in 2001.

[independent.co.uk]
Three 10-year-old girls and an 11-year-old boy were among the youngest to wed, under legal loopholes which allow minors to marry in certain circumstances.
The minimum age for marriage across most of the US is 18, but every state has exemptions – such as parental consent or pregnancy – which allow younger children to tie the knot.
In May, the high-profile Republican governor for New Jersey declined to sign into law a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriage without exception. Chris Christie claimed it would "conflict with religious customs."

Why are we so focused on people trying to gain equal rights for their law-abiding-consent identities, but less focused on people like Roy Moore having a legitimate run for public office and receiving a presidential endorsement?

As for the California Bill SB 145 you wrote about in the article, first there is no need to call out the Senator sponsoring the bill as "openly gay" as that can try and equate being gay with being a pedophile, which is wrong. But more importantly, people just see the click-bait headlines and media talking points on this bill and form opinions and outrage without ever looking deeper into it. Why do we have a previous law which automatically labels oral or anal as rape, but lets vaginal sex be excused away by a judge? Especially when vaginal can lead to unplanned / rape pregnancy? The law was already in existence to let a judge excuse away a statutory rape of a minor and someone 10 years older when vaginal sex was involved, the new bill does nothing to change the criteria. This is just applying equal application for LGBTQ people, allowing discretion for sexual acts that aren't strictly heterosexual.

[usatoday.com]
Before SB-145, an 18-year-old male convicted of having oral or anal sex with a 17-year-old male would be required to register as a sex offender, while a 24-year-old male convicted of having penile-vaginal sex with a 15-year-old female would not be automatically required to register – it would be left up to the judge.
Garrett-Pate said SB-145 creates parity regardless of sexual orientation.
"The current law says that for penile-vaginal sex, it's up to the judge to determine whether or not that person should be placed on the registry," he said. "Under current law, however, the judge has no discretion if it's oral or anal sex. That means that LGBTQ young people end up being treated differently than their non-LGBTQ peers."
...Notably, SB-145 does not apply to intercourse of any kind with minors who are younger than 14. In those cases, mandatory sex offender registration is required by law.

@JacksonNought "Just because someone says they are MAP and attributes it to LGBTQ rights doesn't mean LGBTQ rights advocate for pedophilia."

I agree with you. I am not saying that the current LGBTQ WANTS pedophiles, what I am saying is that Pedophiles want to be part of the LGTQ umbrella and it has been ever expanding. NAMBLA couldn't have gained acceptance because there was no mechanism for them to gain sympathy. Now there is and they are actively trying to hijack this movement.

"if we allow religious organizations to circumvent the law due to their religious convictions, such as with the birth control mandate of the ACA, then we will eventually allow Catholics to engage in pedophilia with no consequence because it is part of their religious freedom. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?"

That's a false equivalency. First, sex with a minor is not acceptable and illegal. Second, the priests and higher authorities in the Catholic church were hiding this from the congregation. Sex with children is not part of some religious doctrine within the Christian or Catholic faith. This was purely the church covering up for the priests that were pedophiles. They should all be condemned and prosecuted and once it was known to the congregation, catholics were outraged.

"You maybe roll with different circles. I have known about transgender individuals for decades. Same with pansexual."

That may be the case but the point isn't necessarily that you, who is in those circles, knowing about them...it's myself, who is not in those circles, knows about them.

"A lot of people talk about LGBTQ people trying to advocate for pedophilia, yet most people seem to ignore the issues going on with religion and pedophilia."

Just clarifying, I'm not saying that LGBTQ in a whole want pedophiles, I'm more concerned that pedophiles are actively sliding their way into that movement because it is expanding, and we would be dishonest to say that there aren't any pedophiles who are already part of the LGBTQ movement, just like non-LGBTQ. You don't need 100% acceptancy in any community to have change of thought. I'm concerned for the good people who are part of this movement and it being hijacked, plain and simple.

"first there is no need to call out the Senator sponsoring the bill as "openly gay""

It was necessary. The reason being is because he is sponsoring this bill, as openly gay on behalf of LGBT people. He's coming from the perspective of someone that is within the movement. That is why it's relevant. If we were talking about a tax bill, I wouldn't have said anything.

"The law was already in existence to let a judge excuse away a statutory rape of a minor and someone 10 years older when vaginal sex was involved, the new bill does nothing to change the criteria."

10 years wasn't the marker before but even if it was, WHY IS AN ACTIVE SENATOR PUSHING A BILL TO POTENTIALLY LESSON THE PENALTY OF HAVING SEX WITH MINORS?! That is the question. If there was a bill that allowed for straight people to chop off heads but banned gay people from chopping off heads, that doesn't mean that you should advocate for gay people to chop off heads for the sake of equality. How about not fucking minors?

@BlackoutNJ I must once again disagree with you. I do not think my religious analogy was a false equivalency. As you said, "sex with a minor is not acceptable and illegal." So there is equal chance of it being accepted as part of LGBTQ rights as there is as part of religious rights. Pedophiles can try to hijack religious freedom movements just as they can the LGBTQ movement. But in both cases, as you acknowledge, they should all be condemned and they are not accepted wholly. My point is that we should not halt progress and rights for people, either LGBTQ or religious, just because pedophiles are trying to slide in and gain acceptance.

I do agree with you that we should be condensing the California bill rather than expanding it, either adding in mandatory sex offender registration for penile-vaginal sex regardless of judicial discretion, or severely reducing the age minimums and gaps. Your analogy is apt. But from my perspective, as seen in the unwillingness to ban child marriage, it seems like there was heavy resistance from legislators to reduce leniency on penile-vaginal statutory rape - so trying to gain LGBTQ equality was the path of least resistance. Not the best approach, as we both agree, but it is the sorry state of our country and government right now it seems.

@JacksonNought "Pedophiles can try to hijack religious freedom movements just as they can the LGBTQ movement."

That is possible but I would venture to say less likely because the Christian faith is highly revolved around written doctrine. It is possible to have an off-shoot Christian sect that advocates for pedophiles but that is less likely if they are circling around the bible.

The LGBTQ movement is a movement about treatment and feelings. It is a very sympathetic movement and appears to be very inclusive and I just worry that the default mindset of inclusivity will be manipulated by pedophiles who garner emotional sympathy.

"But from my perspective, as seen in the unwillingness to ban child marriage, it seems like there was heavy resistance from legislators to reduce leniency on penile-vaginal statutory rape - so trying to gain LGBTQ equality was the path of least resistance."

That is a very good point. To be honest, I'm unaware of these marriage laws and you're right, they should be talked about more. It's possible we don't know about it because they rarely be used for underage marriages in modern times versus olden times? Just guessing. I think even the most liberal-minded parent isn't trying to marry off their minor child to a grown adult.

Once again, good discussion. I think we have a common understanding.

@BlackoutNJ the last thing I will say about religion is that there can definitely be a case made that the Bible condones or allows for pedophilia. Many child marriages are religious based, allowed by the Bible. I still think there is equal chance for pedophilia to hijack it.

Yes, the LGBTQ movement can be quite sympathetic and inclusive. A case could be made to sympathize with people who find themselves unwillingly attracted to minors while absolutely refusing to act on urges in any way - there are actually interesting case studies into people who identify as reluctant pedophiles who advocate against pedophilia. But the LGBTQ movement will not endorse pedophilia, and rightfully accepts it as an abhorrent and illegal act.

Unfortunately child marriage is still prevalent today, it is not a stone-age practice. Just last year there was a bill in Idaho to end child marriage and make the minimum age 16. The bill died, with a Republican lawmaker saying it "went too far" and another saying they were concerned about "sanctity of family".

@JacksonNought Thank you for bringing up the child marriage situation. I'll look more into it.

I agree with everything you stated.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 31

Photos 39 More

Posted by Caseyxsharp2I don't know what happened to the comments that I was making before on my other post.

Posted by Caseyxsharp2I don't know what happened to the comments that I was making before on my other post.

Posted by Caseyxsharp2I don't know what happened to the comments that I was making before on my other post.

Posted by NaomiShould there be legal restrictions on trans athletes competing in schools?

Posted by Naomi"Super Bi", “Super Gay”, “Super Lesbian”... So, is there anything wrong with "Super Straight"? Are you offended by the term?

Posted by ariellescarcellaHow do we feel about this? "Men and the rest" Why do men get the "safe space" toilet when they are not the ones who generally at risk?

Posted by AtitayaWoah. This is beyond madness. πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚ “There’s a lot to unpack here.”

Posted by TheHerrDarkSince you are an expert, Doesn't this ad look like a woman taking her top off? Did the Oculus design and marketing team really go there?

Posted by TheHerrDarkRemember when the leftist said Trump would shake Hitler's hand?

Posted by ariellescarcellaMen in dresses. Good, bad? Who cares?

Posted by ariellescarcella"I'm black, trans & I'm voting for Trump" AWESOME What do you guys think? [l.thedoe.com]

Posted by ariellescarcellaShould American voters be given a GOOD third or fourth party for elections? [thedoe.com]

Posted by ariellescarcellaShould people call themselves "trans women" while presenting completely male / as a man?

Posted by ariellescarcellaShould people call themselves "trans women" while presenting completely male / as a man?

Posted by Chaddy685Great interview on louder with Crowder! I’m a fan and you lured me on the site

Posted by AndersTfw your gynecologist is a swan.

  • Top tags#video #world #reason #sex #community #gender #lesbian #hope #videos #society #media #gay #friends #culture #rights #Identity #LGBT #god #youtube #kids #Police #hell #government #conservative #children #money #politics #sexuality #truth #liberal #book #vote #Canada #democrats #Orientation #transgender #feminism #biden #Socialmedia #mother #progressive #guns #racist #TheTruth #evil #created #death #communist #birth #USA ...

    Members 2,426Top

    Moderator