Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:51:29 PM
Yep. But the transphobe position (as exemplified by the British terfs) is basically this:
"Whatever makes them the most miserable and whatever lets me judge literally everyone I see at first glance without needing to think about it in the slightest." Note that a lot of these nutjobs seem to be gaslighting themselves into thinking basically everyone except them is trans because they've ended up with such a narrow and stereotypical view of gender standards that almost no one fits. While also simultaneously thinking they have the majority opinion and that everyone would secretly agree with them if it wasn't for the agenda of a tiny minority of trans people.
I think the cognitive dissonance is, in big part, why such a large percentage of transphobes seem to be going actually insane? No matter where you look, you can find at least some loud and prominent transphobes who deliberately ruined their own lives because they couldn't admit that maybe trans people exist and it's not a secret insidious plot, so they come up with the most deranged garbage to try and justify their position.
Edited by Zendervai on Oct 1st 2022 at 9:44:28 AM
Probably worth noting that there are huge differences between Iran and Sunni Muslim countries. The Quran is far more explicitly transphobic than homophobic (there are direct prohibitions against "imitating the other gender," but only vague implications about gay people). Some Sunni Muslim countries have a "don't ask, don't tell" culture for gay people, but since trans people are more visible, they are persecuted more openly and frequently.
Edited by indigoJay on Oct 2nd 2022 at 11:08:02 AM
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.TBH, I think it's worth remembering that Trans Equals Gay exists as a trope for a reason; it's very rare for someone who has a problem with LGBTQ+ folk to separate their bigotry and like some groups more than others (and even when they do, it's more a primitive divide and conquer mentality, or treating someone as "one of the good ones"). If you threaten the binary model, you're public enemy #1.
And "X is more oppressed than Y" never helps anyone anyway.
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faerIf you mean like, the LGB Alliance, they drop the mask on a regular basis and go after the other letters too.
They were the group that argued that legalizing gay marriage was bad because gay marriage is a small percentage of overall marriages and "if that few people are using the option, was it really necessary?" It's all stuff like that when they aren't just being transphobic as hell.
Oh, and a lot of transphobic groups are obviously biphobic too. Like, not even trying to hide it.
Edited by Zendervai on Oct 2nd 2022 at 5:53:02 AM
Ya, as I said, some LGBTQ+ folk will try and pander to them (there are transmisogynistic trans women), and they'll try divide and conquer strategies by purporting to only be going after a more marginalised identity*, but it's all smoke and mirrors in the end.
*In the sense of groups that have less mainstream representation, that isn't to say "more oppressed".
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faerOn another hand, is it bad that I wish there was more aro/ace visibility and representation in the media? As an aroace, I'm jealous(not in a bad way, don't worry) of the visibility gay/bi/trans identities have, while people like me are hardly mentioned.
Well, not really. I mean characters who are openly aro, ace, or aroace. Or aro/ace/both identities being discussed in TV as often as gay, bi, or trans people. There's a reason why my contributor page has so many aro/ace headcanons.
Edited by CosmosAndChaos on Oct 2nd 2022 at 7:59:08 AM
"Oh, did I win?"
Would Celibate Hero be the trope you are looking for or is that not quite right?
Part of the issue with aro/ace representation is that it is inherently more difficult to demonstrate the absence of something without making an explicit statement about it, although yes, there is a serious issue with representation to the point many vocal LGBT allies still insisnt on treating aro/ace people as deviants and calling us freaks for it.
@Zendervai
I have a lot of unfortunate personal experience with that from the other direction, and it's part of why I remained closeted about my bisexuality for years. A lot of radfems believe in gold-star lesbianism and see bisexuality as a kind of Category Traitor for daring to associate with anyone AMAB (in their logic, straight women being attracted to Always Chaotic Evil men is unfortunate but they can't help it; WLW on the other hand, must be willing traitors!), so it's not all that surprising that they'd also be vicious TER Fs or vice-versa.
Edited by AlleyOop on Oct 3rd 2022 at 4:50:57 AM
Yep, in Allison Bailey's complete joke of a hearing where she lost and the terfs refuse to admit it so they suddenly started talking like going after Stonewall was never the point and it was this big public spectacle because of some company no one cared about being kind of unprofessional...and now that she's trying to appeal Stonewall being found not relevant to the case, suddenly they pivoted right back to Stonewall being the whole point and despite saying that she won, she didn't win and that's why she's appealing despite her not needing to appeal because she totally won and oh dear god those people are fucking insane.
I’m still confused as to what aromanticism means. Asexual, as I understand it, roughly means “not interested in or actively averse to sex” and/or not experiencing sexual attraction.
What’s the equivalent for aromanticism? I’ve heard a whole bunch of different things (not wanting a committed relationship? not wanting cuddles/other forms of physical affection? not thinking you have a One True Love that will be the defining passion of your life [that’s, uh, Hollywood, most allo people don’t have/expect that either]?) and it’s not really clear.
It could mean a number of those things just as asexuality is flexible, but in general it means not capable of feeling romantic attraction for others, as opposed to intense but ultimately platonic/friendship attachments. One can experience sexual attraction to a person without an accompanying desire for a committed relationship of a romantic nature; e.g. it's possible to be aromantic Friends with Benefits with your partner, or for an aromantic person to be in a committed romantic relationship complete with deep and emotionally intimate attachment to their partner, but the attachment is closer to True Companions in natur.
Admittedly, the distinction between friendship and romance has always been at least somewhat subjective and arbitrary, so it's not the easiest concept to communicate. A lot of people mistake romance as inherently more intense than friendship and thus a fictional friendship that is too intense must be a romance in disguise, when the distinction is more a matter of kind than of degree.
Edited by AlleyOop on Oct 4th 2022 at 6:15:46 AM
Your last paragraph hits on the key question - I don’t understand what’s meant by “romantic attraction,” specifically.
Like, for your second example, if someone is in a committed and emotionally intimate relations with someone whom they are also sexually attracted to, that would fit the typical idea of what constitutes two people being a couple (rather than platonic friends). If they have the first two elements but not sexual attraction, they could be an ace couple. But where would the aromantic definition come in, unless it means not wanting the closeness and emotional intimacy and commitment? Yet that isn’t it, because I know aro people don’t like it being defined as “I only want casual flings.”
Edited by Galadriel on Oct 4th 2022 at 3:13:44 AM
You can love someone like a friend, enjoy their company and discussion with them, and want to have sex with them because they look good or because you want to make them happy, without them creating the stirring feelings in your heart that are typically associated with romantic attraction. I have a feeling a lot of companionate love from a relationship where the built-up affection from years of familiarity remains but the passion has gone out could resemble an aromantic's idea of a committed relationship.
I guess, for me, “the stirring feelings that are generally associated with romantic attraction”sounds like it’s describing a crush, butterflies-in-stomach.
“I don’t get crushes” (or, for demiromantic people, “I don’t get crushes on people I don’t already know well”) is a definition for aromanticism I can understand, it just seemsto me…pretty common - probably more the norm than the exception even among a lot of people who would probably describe themselves as allo. Seeing someone and falling head-over-heels for them is, again, a bit of a Hollywood thing. And for even people who get crushes, I wouldn’t generally expect those feelings to stick around long-term in a relationship.
I identify as aromantic. I have no desire for a romantic relationship, whatsoever. I don't get crushes, I've never had a desire to be in a relationship with any particular person, but I also just... don't want one at all. I do not feel unhappy to be single. I have no wish to ever not be single. To be committed to another person and have another person be committed to me is not an impulse that has ever existed in my brain.
Edited by Perseus on Oct 4th 2022 at 10:35:29 PM

So this would involve forcing cis people to live as the opposite gender against their will.
Isn't that pretty much what a lot of hardcore transphobes like to claim support for trans people looks like?