Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Intolerance within the LGBT Community
Comments
-
I have no idea who Rachel Doziel is. I was talking about Piers Morgan.0
-
Cool. It is a paradox alright. Bit of head scratcher!
But it ain't a head scratcher.
Here's one standard definition of "intolerance":
"not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters"
A perfectly valid definition.
Here is what has happened in this amicable discussion:
I have been repeatedly ordered to:
a) Accept a belief even if I disagree with it.
b) That my opinion is "bull****"
c) To "just accept I'm wrong" and get with the movement.
Whereas I have stated:
a) I am happy for people to have their own views, however different to mine.
b) I respect other people's choices, but I should not be compelled to believe those choices (in the same way as religion, for example)
c) That if someone wishes to believe something, that's fine, but that it should not be imposed on everyone else.
So we can quite clearly see who the "intolerant" ones are.0 -
I have no idea who Rachel Doziel is. I was talking about Piers Morgan.
Rachel Dolezal (or as I've just seen, now Akechi Amare Diallo):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
Have a read and let us know the answer to my question please.0 -
DanDan6592 wrote: »What? Where exactly have I argued that.
You haven’t said so in those exact words, but that’s what I’m generally picking up from what you’re saying, is that because you don’t agree with someone’s opinions, nobody else should take them seriously either.DanDan6592 wrote: »It is silly to constantly talk about being tolerant of others, to be inclusive, to chastise others for not being these things, and then suddenly bring up the paradox of intolerance.
And preach was not intended to be inflammatory.
It’s not silly at all. The point being made is that in the same way as you expect you shouldn’t be subjected to complete nonsense, other people have that same right not to have to put up with what they consider to be complete nonsense.
If the OP wants to be a member of a community with which he disagrees, then it’s his responsibility as a member of that community to lead by example - if he wants the community to be inclusive and diverse and accepting of his beliefs, then the onus is on him to practice what he preaches. It’s because he doesn’t practice what he preaches that he finds himself feeling excluded from the community - he wants acceptance, but isn’t prepared to give it.0 -
Tommy Itchy Percussionist wrote:I'm not asking if you'd be respective to her if you met her. I'm asking if you truly believe that she is, just becuase she says so.
That's a good question. So while you can be as respectful as you like, are there any genders you simply find privately ridiculous?0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s because he doesn’t practice what he preaches that he finds himself feeling excluded from the community - he wants acceptance, but isn’t prepared to give it.
I'll never sacrifice freedom of conscience and speech for the sake of inclusion.
It's not me who has to move, it's those who are imposing their belief system not just upon me, but society at large.0 -
Ironicname wrote: »That's a good question. So while you can be as respectful as you like, are there any genders you simply find privately ridiculous?
Yes, basically all the new ones.
Also, if you can choose your gender then I see no reason why you can't choose your sexuality, and we know the problems that will lead to.
I believe neither can be chosen, and are innate.
If I was to meet a gender non-binary person or whatever I'd use whatever pronouns they would want me to and I may pretend that I think it's real if they were to ask. But deep down I don't.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I would never or have ever compared trans people to animals.
I was stating that if you were to blindly accept all peoples ideals, it would be unfair to exclude others and blindly accepting peoples beliefs that contradict your own is dangerous and leaves no boundaries.
I did not compare trans people to animals and I want that made abundantly clear.
This is not me questioning a mod instruction, this is me correcting an accusation.
No reasonable, sensible person even thought you were making the comparison.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You haven’t said so in those exact words, but that’s what I’m generally picking up from what you’re saying, is that because you don’t agree with someone’s opinions, nobody else should take them seriously either.
Well, ye, sort of. We all like to think we're right. But you said I'd[tried] to argue that people who don’t share your opinions shouldn’t have the same right to campaign against your opinions as you have to campaign against their opinions.
as if I'd somehow try to supress their opinions. I absolutely would not.One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s not silly at all. The point being made is that in the same way as you expect you shouldn’t be subjected to complete nonsense, other people have that same right not to have to put up with what they consider to be complete nonsense.
If the OP wants to be a member of a community with which he disagrees, then it’s his responsibility as a member of that community to lead by example - if he wants the community to be inclusive and diverse and accepting of his beliefs, then the onus is on him to practice what he preaches. It’s because he doesn’t practice what he preaches that he finds himself feeling excluded from the community - he wants acceptance, but isn’t prepared to give it.
Which shows the farce of the idea of the "gay community".0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I'll never sacrifice freedom of conscience and speech for the sake of inclusion.
Good for you, you can understand then why other people who don’t share your beliefs also aren’t going to sacrifice their civil rights for the sake of including people in their communities who wish to deny them those rights.[Deleted User] wrote: »It's not me who has to move, it's those who are imposing their belief system not just upon me, but society at large.
I’m almost certain nobody cares whether you move or not. They’re no different to you in that in just the same way as you wish to impose your beliefs upon them, they wish that you didn’t, and so they are campaigning for equal treatment in society, the treatment which you take for granted, so when other people are campaigning for to be treated the same way you are, you immediately think that means you have to give up anything.
You don’t have to give up anything, equal rights means just that - the same rights to education, healthcare, family and employment rights that you and I already enjoy, they are generally campaigning for the same thing - basic human rights which they are entitled to and shouldn’t have to fight for. I support anyone who is having to fight for their right to be treated as an equal member of society, regardless of whether or not on an individual level there are some people who I find are a complete pain in the arse - they’re human, and that’s a fact which underpins their entitlement to be treated with dignity and respect, no different to the way in which any other human being would want to be treated.0 -
Advertisement
-
DanDan6592 wrote: »Well, ye, sort of. We all like to think we're right. But you said I'd
as if I'd somehow try to supress their opinions. I absolutely would not.
Ahh no I picked you up wrong then, sorry about that, that’s fair enough like and we’d be on the same page there.DanDan6592 wrote: »Which shows the farce of the idea of the "gay community".
I dunno that it does show the idea of the gay community to be a farce to be honest, I mean, the clue is in the description, the thing which binds them as a community is their identity as being gay, or being supportive of people who are gay, and the wider community then is composed of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc, that could literally be an alphabet of an acronym. By observation alone, they’re a fairly diverse and inclusive bunch, and that’s even before you get down to the opinions held by individuals who identify themselves as members of that community.
Put it this way - I get that there’s an expectation that a community would have a shared set of principles and beliefs, doctrines even, if you will, but the bigger the community, the more diversity you’ll find among their opinions on everything under the sun. It would be disingenuous to try and argue that if they don’t share your opinion or if they aren’t willing to entertain what they believe to be nonsense, they aren’t being diverse and inclusive. That simply strikes me as finger wagging and winding people up, deliberately and intentionally missing what is meant by diversity and inclusion.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote:It would be disingenuous to try and argue that if they don’t share your opinion or if they aren’t willing to entertain what they believe to be nonsense, they aren’t being diverse and inclusive. That simply strikes me as finger wagging and winding people up, deliberately and intentionally missing what is meant by diversity and inclusion.
Again, no.
It's because the bastardisation of the (as you put it) alphabet of different identities, nobody has anything in common anymore. There is no community because it is a race to the bottom to show how "tolerant" and "respectful" you can be.
The community is imploding on itself and it's because everything is accepted apart from people pointing out that perhaps some of things are absurd.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Ahh no I picked you up wrong then, sorry about that, that’s fair enough like and we’d be on the same page there.
haha no problem tis grand!One eyed Jack wrote: »I dunno that it does show the idea of the gay community to be a farce to be honest, I mean, the clue is in the description, the thing which binds them as a community is their identity as being gay, or being supportive of people who are gay, and the wider community then is composed of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc, that could literally be an alphabet of an acronym. By observation alone, they’re a fairly diverse and inclusive bunch, and that’s even before you get down to the opinions held by individuals who identify themselves as members of that community.
Put it this way - I get that there’s an expectation that a community would have a shared set of principles and beliefs, doctrines even, if you will, but the bigger the community, the more diversity you’ll find among their opinions on everything under the sun. It would be disingenuous to try and argue that if they don’t share your opinion or if they aren’t willing to entertain what they believe to be nonsense, they aren’t being diverse and inclusive. That simply strikes me as finger wagging and winding people up, deliberately and intentionally missing what is meant by diversity and inclusion.
I've read on this forum, and heard from others, that the gay community really isn't all that inclusive but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. But this is a debate for another day.
It would annoy me to be associated with a sense of beliefs simply because of how I was born. I guess ultimately this is why if I was gay I'd reject the idea of a Gay community, even if very technically I would belong to it based on what a community is.0 -
Ironicname wrote: »Again, no.
It's because the bastardisation of the (as you put it) alphabet of different identities, nobody has anything in common anymore. There is no community because it is a race to the bottom to show how "tolerant" and "respectful" you can be.
The community is imploding on itself and it's because everything is accepted apart from people pointing out that perhaps some of things are absurd.
And as I pointed out already too - they actually do have one fundamental thing in common, they’re all human beings, who belong to an even bigger community again. As humans we have plenty in common with each other, and even at that it’s not as though there are any limitations imposed upon however many letters there are in an acronym.
The community is expanding actually, and becoming more diverse and more inclusive, and that’s precisely the reason why some people are left feeling excluded, because the community they feel once represented their interests no longer represents their interests. It’s understandable then that they would consider any deviation from what is familiar to them would be absurd. That was what led to the establishment of the community in the first place - it grew organically out of people who felt ostracised in what the majority of people regarded as civilised society, and that’s why it continues to grow and expand, as opposed to your assertion that it’s imploding on itself.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote:The community is expanding actually, and becoming more diverse and more inclusive, and that’s precisely the reason why some people are left feeling excluded, because the community they feel once represented their interests no longer represents their interests. It’s understandable then that they would consider any deviation from what is familiar to them would be absurd. That was what led to the establishment of the community in the first place - it grew organically out of people who felt ostracised in what the majority of people regarded as civilised society, and that’s why it continues to grow and expand, as opposed to your assertion that it’s imploding on itself.
Sorry but that isn't true. The community is eating itself and is full of self serving liars who are trying to "out-tolerate" each other.
Can you please answer whether you are accepting that Rachel Doziel or a transabilist would be welcomed and encouraged to live their truth by yourself?0 -
Ironicname wrote: »Sorry but that isn't true. The community is eating itself and is full of self serving liars who are trying to "out-tolerate" each other.
Can you please answer whether you are accepting that Rachel Doziel or a transabilist would be welcomed and encouraged to live their truth by yourself?
Mod
This post breaks the forum charter, particularly parts 2, 7, 8, 9, 14. Dont post in the thread again. Any issues pm me.
Part 2 - this is not civil mature or constructive discussion
Part 7 - this is clearly trolling as you expect an angry response
Part 8 - this is abusive language suggesting all lgbt people are sel serving liars
Part 9 - the whole comment is agressive snd snide
Part 14 - this comment does not show dignity or respect to lgbt peopleIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
I should have posted some of these earlier, to add some digestible meat to the discussion.
But here they are, some of the gender identities that now exist:- Polygender - When you identify with multiple genders at once. Sometimes referred to as multigender.
- Neutrois - When you identify as agender, neither male nor female, and/or genderless (how can a genderless state be a "gender", by definition?).
- Demigender - When you feel as if you are one part a defined gender and one or more parts an undefined gender. Terms can include demigirl, demiboy, demiagender, ect. (Does this mean you can be one part of genderless, too?)
- Aporagender - Somebody with a strong gender identification of themselves that is non-binary.
- Maverique - A non-binary gender that exists outside of the orthodox social bounds of gender.
- Novigender - A gender that is super complex and impossible to describe in a single term.
However, when pronouns - which are sex-based - are now called into question as a direct result of the above, then that acts as a direct imposition of their belief onto the rest of society.
Again, this is not a matter of opinion. This is based on facts and evidence. In any other domain, we harness evidence and facts to form a reasoned judgement - and then act on that judgement accordingly.
In this, almost unique case, we are being asked to jettison evidence and facts in favor of feelings and emotion.
Again, the above "genders" are merely personality types - nothing more. They say nothing about the biological sex of that person. As I stated in my introduction, I myself would not call myself "masculine" as stereotypes demand - but that doesn't license me to create a linguistic term and impose that term upon society.
For example, I could validly create the following gender right now:- Metrogender - a non-binary gender that tangentially orients toward the masculine and male gender form, but is unique in its own right.
I do not have the right to impose this on society. Nor does anyone else.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I should have posted some of these earlier, to add some digestible meat to the discussion.
But here they are, some of the gender identities that now exist:
...
However, when pronouns - which are sex-based - are now called into question as a direct result of the above, then that acts as a direct imposition of their belief onto the rest of society.
Again, this is not a matter of opinion. This is based on facts and evidence. In any other domain, we harness evidence and facts to form a reasoned judgement - and then act on that judgement accordingly.
In this, almost unique case, we are being asked to jettison evidence and facts in favor of feelings and emotion.
I’m not sure you understand what a pronoun is in English grammar, and what it’s used for. Here’s a good explanation of what are pronouns and their purpose in the English language -
Grammar Rules - Pronouns
What you have is an opinion, and the facts and evidence you’re presenting as a means of suggesting that pronouns are sex based, is only evidence that you don’t understand how language is constructed and evolves.[Deleted User] wrote: »Again, the above "genders" are merely personality types - nothing more. They say nothing about the biological sex of that person. As I stated in my introduction, I myself would not call myself "masculine" as stereotypes demand - but that doesn't license me to create a linguistic term and impose that term upon society.
...
I do not have the right to impose this on society. Nor does anyone else.
Actually, that’s exactly what it does, and that’s a right you and everyone else has. It’s called freedom of expression, and if the linguistic terms you invent catch on and become popular in common usage, who knows? Remember when being gay used to mean happy, and now it means being attracted to a person of the same sex? Yeah, it’s kinda like that the way language evolves, it has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with expressing how we feel and think about the world around us and the people in it that make up a society, or community, if you prefer that term.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
What you have is an opinion...
Actually, that’s exactly what it does, and that’s a right you and everyone else has. It’s called freedom of expression, and if the linguistic terms you invent catch on and become popular in common usage, who knows? Remember when being gay used to mean happy, and now it means being attracted to a person of the same sex? Yeah, it’s kinda like that the way language evolves, it has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with expressing how we feel and think about the world around us and the people in it that make up a society, or community, if you prefer that term.
No - it's you who has the opinion.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »No - it's you who has the opinion.
Yes, we both have our own opinions. Your basic problem is that you haven’t met too many people within your community who want to entertain yours.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Yes, we both have our own opinions. Your basic problem is that you haven’t met too many people within your community who want to entertain yours.
Not at all.
My views are grounded in logic, evidence, and reason. I have elucidated that throughout this discussion.
Again, I am happy for people to have their own beliefs, but those beliefs must reside within the confines of their cerebral system and not imposed upon the rest of us who - through logic, evidence, and reason - have come to a very different conclusion indeed.
We exchange evidence for emotion at our peril.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Not at all.
My views are grounded in logic, evidence, and reason. I have elucidated that throughout this discussion.
Again, I am happy for people to have their own beliefs, but those beliefs must reside within the confines of their cerebral system and not imposed upon the rest of us who - through logic, evidence, and reason - have come to a very different conclusion indeed.
We exchange evidence for emotion at our peril.
And the people who don’t share your opinions and have no interest in entertaining your opinions have come to the conclusions they have as a result of employing logic, evidence and reason.
It would be exchanging evidence for emotion if anyone were to allow your special pleadings to have any legitimacy -
Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.
Comes back to the same basic problem again - you want people within your community to listen to you and entertain what I would call nonsense anyway, but you don’t want to listen to them, in fact you really do want them excluded from what you feel is “your” community. Instead, it’s you who is left feeling excluded and claiming that the community isn’t diverse or inclusive on the basis that you haven’t met many people who share your opinions within that community. It’s you who doesn’t appreciate diversity of opinions and beliefs, and you want people excluded from “your” community on the basis that they don’t share your opinions or beliefs about them and their lives and the reasons why they feel they want to be members of a community where they feel supported and they can give back to the community by educating people and campaigning for equal rights and equal treatment within society.
You don’t appear to want to give anything back, you just want everyone to listen to you and conform to your beliefs and opinions for how the community should conduct themselves and the doctrines they should adhere to according to the word of eskimohunt because you have used logic, evidence and reason to form your opinions.... and completely miss the point of a community.0 -
I'm totally lost with gender identity / pronouns these days... Got a bit out of hand if you ask me
Ready for criticism.0 -
I'm totally lost with gender identity / pronouns these days... Got a bit out of hand if you ask me
Ready for criticism.
I agree.
Throughout this thread, I've put forward a cogent and logical position. However, as expected, I've so far not been engaged with the content of my points, but instead the content of my character.0 -
What it tends to do is imply that identity is all about gender, when we know in our own lives it is way more complex than that. The attempt at invented pronouns is absurd and gives the impression that some people have personality disorders. They are also unlikely to bite in general usage as there is no obvious connection to any nouns/people they might refer to and we do already have the pretty useful they and their to cover a lot of bases, with the very stuffy "one" to back it up.I'm totally lost with gender identity / pronouns these days... Got a bit out of hand if you ask me
Ready for criticism.0 -
I must confess I do find this debate fascinating and it seems to be part of a wider debate currently going on in the LGBT community about what exactly that community is and ought to be, as what the community is and ought to be doing. I wouldn't really like to pretend that I would land on the more 'progressive' end of the spectrum of the community, but I do like people to keep in mind one thing. Back in the days of the Stonewall Inn, it wasn't the respectable groups like the Mattachine Society or the Daughters of Biltis, but rather the street boys and black transwomen.
Anyways, to paraphrase Douglas Murray, it all seems to speak to a bigger division which seems to abounding in the LGBT community at the moment; namely wether being gay is just an orientation or the first step in overthrowing the establishment.0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »Anyways, to paraphrase Douglas Murray, it all seems to speak to a bigger division which seems to abounding in the LGBT community at the moment; namely wether being gay is just an orientation or the first step in overthrowing the establishment.
I can't confirm this, but my guess is that the majority of gender identities are created by members of the LGBT community.
I'm curious as to why the phenomenon is not more common in the Hetero- community. After all, they compose 95% of society and have every right to have their own gender identities - yet they do not.
If, as I suspect, gender identities are almost exclusive to the LGBT community, it suggests that there's something else going on because, if it were genetic, you would find greater diversity of genders within the straight community.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I can't confirm this, but my guess is that the majority of gender identities are created by members of the LGBT community.
I'm curious as to why the phenomenon is not more common in the Hetero- community. After all, they compose 95% of society and have every right to have their own gender identities - yet they do not.
If, as I suspect, gender identities are almost exclusive to the LGBT community, it suggests that there's something else going on because, if it were genetic, you would find greater diversity of genders within the straight community.
One might postulate that LGBT people create those identities, but there is a question at that point of who is really 'creating' the identity - do gay people exist because some people are sexually attracted to their own gender or because wider society needs to find a way to categorize those people? I suppose it's just a rehash of the old 'does a tree falling in the woods make any noise if no-one is around to hear it' question.
I would make a further point about the existence of such identities in certain societies but I'm exhausted at the moment from this cold so I will return to make the point later.0 -
@the OP;
You are clearly an intelligent person. You are surely aware then that societal mores evolve over time. You hold a position, that within the community you single out, has become unpopular and unpalatable to your peers. You are free to express your views, clearly you do based on your own comments in this thread. Likewise your acquaintances are free to express their own, including by vocally disagreeing with you and ultimately by deciding they do not wish to associate with you.
If you believe in your position you must be satisfied to accept the opprobrium of those who do not agree, as you most surely would accept gladly the encouragement of those who do. It is a wonder you aren't.0 -
Advertisement
-
If you believe in your position you must be satisfied to accept the opprobrium of those who do not agree, as you most surely would accept gladly the encouragement of those who do. It is a wonder you aren't.
There's a stark difference, though, between two people agreeing to disagree on an issue - which is normal and relatively prevalent - and opting to silence someone for having "the wrong opinion".
The latter is where I, and others, draw the line.
Furthermore, having a respectable opinion should not gather opprobrium in the first place. That's the whole point of my thread. It would be akin to me holding others in opprobrium for failing to agree with me.
I don't care if people agree or disagree with me, but what I do expect is to be heard - which is the same respect I afford to others.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement