LGBTQ+ Rights Worldwide

Even those conservative elements that are incredibly hostile towards gay people will happily accept a Token Minority gay so they can hold him up and either say "look this gay person accepts gays are bad" (yes, they exist) or "we can't be homophobic, we like this gay guy" (who conveniently pushes their ideology down to a T) - like Dave Rubin! For an example. But not all conservative elements are that married to the religious right. It is arguably hypocritical for those non-homophobic and homosexual conservatives to openly ally themselves with the openly homophobic right, but they shy away from confronting that hypocrisy by trying to quash the question of sexuality as a defining characteristic, and framing themselves by the ideology they have in common with homophobes rather than their differences - as is aptly demonstrated in the West Wing- derived page quote of the Gay Conservative page. The Right have always been good at falling into line and coalition building between seemingly irreconcilable differences in the face of opposition.

The general idea is that collaboration earns you a stay of execution.

Some of them tend to be pretty privileged in other aspects such as being wealthy. So they think (key word: think) they won't be targeted. See: Vampire Vannabe Peter Thiel.

Edited by M84 on Feb 25th 2020 at 7:31:16 PM

It can also be chalked up to a "screw you, go mine" attitude to the LGBTQ+ rights movement. Especially for white cisgender gay men and women.

They also often will genuinely put class solidarity or ideological solidarity over sexual mores.

And then there's the corporate position of "We don't actually give a shit about LGBT rights but we've figured out that people will buy our shit if we stick a rainbow flag on it and yell 'go team gay!' "

Sure, but that's corporations and they're not necessarily conservative.

According to this tweet showing off the character customization, Animal Crossing: New Horizons will not have gender roles with hairstyles, clothing, or body options and from what I've been hearing elsewhere, gender pronouns are optional and you can change your character from any mirror once you upgrade to a house.

This is from the same team that brought you a franchise where you can freely swap binary genders, the same franchise where it's mobile spinoff has this exact same option, and the previous mainline game had a step forward with unlocking hairstlyes not of your current gender.

That being said, I have to wonder just how the localizations will handle this, especially English since it doesn't have any singular personal pronouns.

Maybe the game will prompt you for pronouns and record them in your save file.

Isn't the game already out?

Doesn't come out until March or so.

"They" is a fine gender-neutral singular pronoun, or just let players input personal pronouns.

That said, this is a cool feature and it's lovely to see a prominent franchise openly embrace gender nonconformism

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 26th 2020 at 7:01:05 AM

Animal Crossing has been pretty good about this for a while now. I remember in New Leaf, some clothing articles will prompt Labelle to compliment you on bucking traditional gender roles.

Huh, I had no idea.

That's cool.

New Leaf is a fairly gender neutral game. You can wear all clothes no matter your gender and characters rarely gender you. You'll get stuff like Lazy villagers calling you "bro" or "lady-bro", but that's rare. Characters rarely even gender each other (I assume to make dialogue easier).

Hell, they outright changed the gender of a handful of characters and it made no difference in-game.

Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 26th 2020 at 2:20:57 PM

Sad news for LGBT folks in Indonesia. Indonesian government has a high chance of legalizing bullshit family protection act that criminalizes BDSM, homosexuality, and incest (the only sane thing in that law). If that is not shitty enough, said law also try to militarize the entire thing by declaring the perpetrators of those acts or a witness of those acts are obligated to report it to the authority so the perpetrators can be rehabilitated. And if that is still not shitty enough, it also regulate how a husband and especially a wife should act in a family. Basically, it tries to enforce the old gender role form the old New Order era in Indonesia where women are nothing more than a wife or a mother. Heck, it even criminalize donating or buying/selling sperm for some reason.

If this law is meant to protect family or children or whatever, it clearly do jack shit because I personally think that the most serious problem for that shit in Indonesia is underage marriage. Indonesia has a lot of underage marriage that is somehow able to happen from the usual some old coot marrying a girl who could be his daughter or even grand daughter to a marriage between two teenagers. For fuck's sake, I know a high school student who is not only already married but is also a father of one boy. If those stupid fuckers want to protect family and children, they should focus on that shit, except the incest part. That one deserve it.

To make things sillier, this law comes unprovoked. The LGBT folks here for the most part are fine with the status quo of not being noticed, so they are not demanding to the government that they are also able to marry and their marriages are recognized by the government. In fact, those stupid fuckers' effort to scare Indonesian people to support their law is by telling them that gay marriages are increasingly normalized in other countries. What if Indonesia is the next one?

...Stupid fuckers.

Not surprising, considering Indonesia was radically Islamizing to the point of massive censorship and suppression of freedom of religion. The said same thing can apply to Malaysia, where homosexuality is already illegal under British colonial law, but Islamists want to incorporate Sharia law in regards to punishing homosexuality.

And if this were to pass, this will result in a massive condemnation from the United Nations.

Edited by DarkPaladinX on Feb 29th 2020 at 1:34:11 AM

A transphobe argument that is new to me: "cisgender is a slur, because gender says that women are inferior and cis says women agree with that - this has been explained before so keep up on your reading"

I've no idea what this person was going on about.

Ooh, here's another one "Cis as a prefix means to women what Native means to Americans; that you've been so thoroughly fucked over by colonial invaders that they've even taken away your name."

I don't get this line of argumentation at all. Are trans women the Europeans here?

It's Insane Troll Logic. Probably built on cis = sis = sister = I can't look anything up in dictionaries.

Idk, it sounds like they're blaming the entire patriarchal gender dynamic as the fault of gender itself for existing or gender being the tool created specifically to enforce that, while cis then affirms that warped definition of gender because it accepts trans people as ... existing, I guess?

As a biologist with chemistry credentials I can confirm that cis and trans have no inherent value. The best case she can make is that the need to put cis in front of women means she is disprivileged with the nuisance of cis no longer being the default, but that's not a slur, that's just an already-privileged group's semantic status being matched to par with the disadvantaged one's.

But she's not making that argument. I have no idea where these etymologies come from. And if anything it's probably the same pseudohistory that gave us words like womyn, persyn, and herstory. "Man" originally just meant "human", I've thought for a good time that we should just bring werman back if that bothers them that much. And "person" comes from Latin "persona", and "history" from Greek "histor". If you know that and still persist on changing them because male-aligned terms are that significantly triggering then that's one thing, but I've been tired of seeing these fake etymologies pushed by the loony section of the radfems since the Livejournal days where they ran haywire.

Edited by AlleyOop on Mar 5th 2020 at 6:55:11 AM

No, it really doesn't.

If you asked a random person to "look at that Man over there" do you think they would assume that you were referring to a human of either gender? Of course, they wouldn't.

Male means only a male human, the fact that it was also used to refer to humans in-general (in the deeply sexist past) does not make that less true.

I amended my original post now that I realize the way it was worded was confusing people.

But historically "man" meant the human race in general (see: Greek "anthropos" versus "andros", Latin "homo" versus "vir") and the words "werman" and "wifman" (from which "woman" is derived, as at some point the "f" became silent) used to refer to male humans and female humans. At some point "werman" fell out of use and melded into "man" due to the assumption of the male as default, but "man" was originally non-gendered.

To say that the word "woman" is intrinsically misogynistic, that it's a statement about female humans being linguistically classified as a derivative offshoot of male humans, is getting wrong at a folk etymology. Bring back "werman" and return "man" to its original ungendered state, don't erase the part of "woman" that affirms our humanity out of a mistaken assumption that its etymological stem means maleness.

Also, men are always going to exist whether gynocentric radfems want them or not. Trying to eradicate all connections with AMAB society even if it's based on false assumptions is a fruitless endeavor because men will still persist in the form of trans men.

Edited by AlleyOop on Mar 5th 2020 at 7:23:14 AM

Ah, nevermind then.

I don't necessarily support those sillier alternatives, I just don't like "Man" as the default.