• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Gay rights vs Trans rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.
lobosrul5 said:
Bisexuals don't exist?
Click to expand...
Of course not. Nor do straight men experiment.

QUOTE=Lplus;14300074]from Oxford languages

homosexual
/ˌhəʊmə(ʊ)ˈsɛkʃʊ(ə)l,ˌhɒmə(ʊ)ˈsɛkʃʊ(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: homosexual

sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex.
"campaigning by homosexual men and women for an end to social and legal discrimination"
involving or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction or activity between people of the same sex.
"homosexual desire"

noun
noun: homosexual; plural noun: homosexuals

a person who is sexually or romantically attracted to people of their own sex.
Men who have sex with other men but aren't sexually attracted to men? What are they identifying as?
Click to expand...
Bicurious. Experimental.
Click to expand...
 
TragicMonkey said:
As long as people insist on seeing sexuality as a state of being rather than behavior there will be confusion and upset. People are really invested in dividing things up into neat categories with clear boundaries, and if anyone doesn't fit into those categories they'll invent a new one.

This relates to transgenderism because of the drive to identify which category any given person belongs in. Here's Jo. Is Jo a man or a woman? Is Jo gay or straight? Is Jo cis or trans? Those who care about transgenderism the most are firmly in the lump-everyone-into-categories school: they just fight over which category to stick Jo into. Those who see sexuality as behavior aren't invested in categorization and view Jo as a person who sometimes does this, sometimes does that, likes to be called this, likes to get freaky with that. "But what is Jo?!" isn't an overriding concern because to them Jo isn't anything, Jo does certain things. Which may vary over time.
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of the obsessive fascination certain fans had when the webcomic Questionable Content had when a trans character was introduced. It was creepy
 
theprestige said:
We're getting a little off topic here.

---

What rights do gay people currently enjoy, that trans people do not? The right to free assembly? The right to free speech? The right to freedom from discrimination in housing, employment, and commerce? The right to freely have intimate relations with any willing partner?
Click to expand...

These are all equality claims. That is the key difference between the two rights movements. The gay rights movement was largely about the right of people to live as they wish provided they don't harm others, to have equal rights with everyone else, and to be free from illegal discrimination and harassment. The trans rights movement, at least since around 2010, has very little to do with any of this and almost entirely to do with demanding that everyone agree with specific philosophical beliefs and pseudo-scientific claims about sex and gender or be targeted for discrimination and harassment. In that sense it is more similar to a religious cult than a civil rights movement.

There's an analysis of the difference between equality claims and belief claims in the philosopher's magazine that I linked to elsewhere. Of course nobody who needs to read it will do so, because religious fundamentalists recoil in horror from blasphemy.
 
Let me spell it out for 'em, Herc

If a guy only ***** women, he's an AR-15 and can go, do, and be anywhere & everything.

If a guy ***** guys, he's an assault rifle and is subject to every rule in & on the books and Americans got no right to stick up for him.

Jesus, can't you guys understand plain black and white?
 
Hercules56 said:
What men have sex with other men when they are not Gay??

Seems like its only a prison rape thing.
Click to expand...

I can see others have referred to this, but I think it needs to be stressed, because you don't seem to understand.

Back in the 1980s, authorities were very concerned, because AIDS information and safe sex campaigns weren't working.

The problem was identified as a reasonably large cohort of men, who were not gay, who would have sex with other men when the opportunity presented itself. A subset of that group, were men who would visit 'beats' where sex was available, instantly, with strangers, sometimes for money, usually at no cost.

Those men did not read publications aimed at gay men, didn't attend gay bars, didn't go to movies with homosexual themes.

There was even some speculation that some may have thought that they couldn't get AIDS because they weren't 'gay'.

Advertising, which was targeting gay men, completely missed them, those men wouldn't see those ads, because nothing in the ads would attract their attention.

I'm really surprised that you haven't heard about this before.
 
sackett said:
If a guy only ***** women, he's an AR-15 and can go, do, and be anywhere & everything.

If a guy ***** guys, he's an assault rifle and is subject to every rule in & on the books and Americans got no right to stick up for him.

Jesus, can't you guys understand plain black and white?
Click to expand...

Huh??
 
idk man i think i need a chart of all these different kinds of gays and how gay they are
 
I was surprised how recently I learned how new the concept of being "gay" or "straight" really is. Sexuality as an identity doesn't go back more than about 150 years or so. Before then it was just behaviour. People did gay or straight things, but they weren't gay or straight.

Source: an episode, can't remember which one, of the podcast Betwixt the Sheets, which is really interesting and on numerous occasions highlights just how weird and messy human sexuality can get.
 
It's all human rights; gender and sexuality are on a spectrum. Jesus Effing Christ, we're headed back to the 50s. The 1850s.
 
Hercules56 said:
"Men sexually abuse others to establish dominance, power and to maintain their masculinity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality#Male_prisoners
Click to expand...

A Wikipedia entry with one paraphrased source cited.

Call me a cynic, but when a convicted criminal admits to rape while in prison and then claims it's not at all gay I tend to --what's the word? oh, yeah-- be skeptical about that. Because a) they're not exactly trustworthy, b) psychological denial of homosexual inclinations is not rare, and c) actual denial of homosexual inclinations is, in certain environments like prison, a highly sensible position to take in order to avoid a great deal of potential personal harm.

There are a lot of ways, even in prison, to "establish dominance, power, and to maintain masculinity" that don't require same-sex rape. I think the claim that it's "nothing to do with sexual attraction" is not only extraordinary --and thus requiring quite a bit of evidence-- but, frankly, extraordinarily naive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom