A Single Unified LGBT Character Thread

sigh can anyone answer my last question please then I'll leave you alone. (the raven and crows one)

edit: page topper, whooohoo.

edited 3rd Apr '17 9:23:31 AM by ewolf2015

long post followed by a short answer.

whelp, thanks for the kickstart.

I feel like you could benefit by watching some Irish films to get a sense for what the atmosphere is like here (there aren't really any LGBT-specific Irish films I'd recommend but still you can possibly get something of a sense of the social context). Sing Street is really good (very Irish and also properly enjoyable) but it's set in the 80s.

Perhaps I can't fully understand, but I could try. Going solely by the information you've given me I couldn't even do that, since you don't want me to.

It's not acceptable for a gay person to say "Sexuality is a choice" either because at this point I'm fairly sure that's simply not true, and being part of a group doesn't give you the privilege to say whatever you want about that group. I refuse to be denied my capacity for understanding not because of hard facts, but simply because I'm different from you. Emotional investment in an issue does not equal rationality of thought concerning the issue.

That's horrible! You have to know that not all Christians have something against LGBT people, what have they done to deserve this? Understand that I'm not defending the Church or Christianity at large, just those Christians that have never done anything to LGBT people (which do exist, you know).

Why would a LGBT person not be in a position to mistreat another person? Anyone is! LGBT people aren't incapable of being assholes, just like everyone else. I'm fairly sure you know what "treat like shit" means, actually. In fact, I don't feel treated fairly by you at all right now.

I'm a Christian myself (if not a particularly fundamentalistic one), and never in my life have I gleefully mistreated a gay person because they were gay, and I will not stand idly by while you call me an oppressor by proxy. Stop pigeonholing people, man. (Is that the right phrase? I hope it's the right phrase).

When a LGBT person oppresses a Christian person because of their religion, despite them not having or doing anything against LGBT people, I will absolutely put it on the same level as a Christian hating on gays because they're gay. Don't put your pain on a pedestal, you don't have to be LGBT to suffer from mobbing and suicidal thoughts.

edited 3rd Apr '17 10:16:04 AM by ilili

Pigeonholing is spreading into parts while this is more generalising of some sort, I think?

But eh, ESLing.

edited 3rd Apr '17 10:21:59 AM by Adannor

All righty folks here's the dealio.

First off, let's work off some biases here:

Communities can have a collective wariness of a ruling class. I am muslim, and when 9/11 happened, I was in fact collectively wary of christianity because of the situation at hand. Transgender folks are often wary of cisgender people due to the historical statistical violence that has been done onto them.

The idea that all community wariness is the same is not correct, because groups in power have the ability to affect people on a widespread systematic form. Christians are everywhere. They influence everything. And for folks who don't fit the mold, we certainly feel it.

When a community states something, you should look at it two-fold. For one, what is their mission statement? for LGBTQ folks, they want to be able to exist without oppression. We can verify this with the fact that in many places they are severely oppressed. Fairly simple, and it rules out plenty of groups with violent mission statements or inaccurate mission statements.

Next part is even simpler, you want to listen to the community when it says something about how they are treated. They are the ones who are on the ground zone experiencing all of it. Black indviduals know anti-black racism the best, and lgbtq folks know the spectrum of homophobia the best, because they are the ones it is targetted to.

And obviously you can't judge people individually, but it's not always a matter of "oh here are some jerks."

Sometimes it's a matter of life or death, and other times still it's a matter of emotional harm. When the majority creates most of the rules and standards in a culture, it is a VERY different situation than when someone points blame at a minority, which historically has been shown to be a red herring.

It's not pigeonholing, it's taking general noted trends and applying them for the sake of safety. For example, in a previous post you used the term "the homosexuals" yes? This is an incredibly derogatory term. You were harmful without even meaning it, but so are many others, because of how they are raised, and usually it's because they lack the proper education.

That doesn't make it their fault, but it DOES mean people who are used to verbal/emotional community violence might have REALLY good reason to want to stay away, especially if they are not skilled in communication and explanations. We also often get into this nasty double standard where anyone in a minority must be a Model version of what they are, but a majority member doesn't have to speak for their group as a whole. Lots of stuff like that that behind-the-scenes aggravate the whole situation, which many people do not notice and get a tad confused when they interact with it due to lack of education (as mentioned before).

While you can argue ignorance is not a reason to stay away from people, the ability to convince individuals is INCREDIBLY difficult and furthermore, it's a HUGE emotional gamble on whether that person is going to listen. Often they don't.

edited 3rd Apr '17 10:27:38 AM by MrAHR

Wariness and open dislike are different.

When did I say that all community wariness is the same? I was referring to one incident, namely that of an LGBT-group leader harassing a transgender person simply because they're Christian.

A community hasn't stated anything here. One individual has. I'd be more willing to believe what a community says than the words of one person who seems to hate all Christians. I get that the targets of a specific oppression know about the subject best, but that doesn't mean outsiders should just give up on understanding it, which I got the feeling is what Vincent Quill is saying.

Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say here .

I wasn't talking about majority. What you said doesn't make me get why disliking all Christians is good and calling a LGBT person a bigot who acts like one is bad. Using derogatory terms out of ignorance sucks, I'm really sorry and don't want to downplay my blunder, but there are worse levels of mistreatment, things I haven't done. I don't want a cookie for that because it's basic decency, damnit, I just don't want to be called a homophobe when I've done my best not to be.

Calling all Christians homophobic oppressors is a horrible generalization. If I am dramatizing what you said I am sorry, this is starting to wear on me.

Seems we have a misunderstanding regarding what I think "dislike" entails. Your (perhaps more accurate than mine) definition seems "a desire to stay away", while I thought it meant "a desire to mistreat". I won't argue against LGBT people wanting to stay away from Christians, only against them being jerks to them without immediate provokation, because of religion.

So sexuality is a choice (which I thought it wasn't, thanks for clearing that up), but straight people aren't allowed to say that? If sexuality isn't a biological, immovable factor, why wouldn't straight people be capable of pondering theirs?

I disagree with your perspective 'cause it doesn't make sense to me, though I think that's slowly getting better.

I brought up rationality because you basically said being affected by something automatically gives you superior knowledge on the topic someone not affected can't have, which I consider irrational. For instance, a psychology professor could know more about depression than a depressed person. How does "status quo" factor into any of this? I'm not against progressive LGBT rights, if that's what you mean.

I don't believe my problems equal those of billions of people, and I have never said so. If I did say so out of ignorance or bad choice of words, I failed to convey my opinion properly and apologize. Still, a history of mistreatment does not excuse mistreatment of other, innocent people. And yes, I do consider people who are only ignorant and not willfully malicious or oppressive towards LGBT people "innocent". They do not deserve the hate that actually homophobic people provoke.

I have NEVER considered someone against same sex marriage "entitled to their opinion", stop assuming things. I must have said things that made my gay friends uncomfortable, but I have tried my best not to, and that's not something I'll let you ignore. I have no responsiblity to make up for the sins of my ancestors, nor for what people whose faith carries the same label as mine do, and I will not let it be forced upon me. LGBT people may be suspicious of me, but after I have not practiced outright homophobia they have no right to treat me like a bigot (which they never have, thankfully).

You could also just not be rude. I am trying very hard not to be, after your numerous quips.

You are correct. I don't want to rule out that none of these things have been done by LGBT people ever (sue me), that Christians have done way more goes without saying. I never wanted to equate the mistreatment of a single person with that of billions of people, and I have no idea what makes you think I did.

All I wanted to say was that an LGBT person is perfectly capable of being a bigot[EDIT: prejudiced] for hating Christians, everybody is, and that hating all members of a group because the active majority of a group does horrible things isn't right. Was I really wrong enough about this to warrant this huge discussion?

EDIT: I'll keep trying to shorten this.

edited 3rd Apr '17 4:46:36 PM by ilili

The main issue is how the language works in academia. Bigotry is USUALLY defined in academic circles as prejudice + power. You can have intracommunity issues where that gets muddy, but if you lack the societal power, than it would be considered prejudice, not bigotry.

Thank you very much for shitting on my efforts, though I can't really blame anyone for not wanting to read a longass post like that.

You've disqualified yourself as an LGBT person worth listening to, at least on this specific matter. I will not center my understanding of LGBT matters on someone who has said the things you have. I hope you understand, but feel free not to give a damn.

I see. Would being the leader of the LGBT social group in question be enough social power to warrant the label? A mere technicality, but I might aswell find out now.

edited 3rd Apr '17 12:25:00 PM by ilili

uhhh no offense but can we please get off the subject for now? i didnt really intend to start a debate, i was just trying to get advice on a work-in-progress.

that and i really really really really really really really really really dont want this thread to get locked

edited 3rd Apr '17 12:28:02 PM by I-Teleported-Bread

A leader of an LGBT group usually does not have any power over christian institutions. They might be bigoted towards specific LGBT individuals they have control over (intra-community issues) which is usually common in larger groups (biphobia, transphobia, aphobia, all that good stuff).

I could create a group with a few dozen thousand people that all love a specific tv show, but that doesn't mean we have structural power. We might be able to mobilize and achieve it, but it's not something that can be easily achieved.

The most pertinent examples of it happening are usually groups on the edge of one structural power and the oppressed minority. White women, for example, can occasionally traverse the boundaries and be simultaneously oppressed for being a woman, but also have the systematic power that comes from being white, and thus could be actively oppressing other women who might be poc/lgbt/disabled, etc.

So an LGBT leader could be bigoted in the sense of being racist for example, since that is in fact a common issue.

Another aspect are those who enforce the norms. A sort of conditional privilege if you will. For example, Milo Yiannopolous is a gay male who was a huge alt-right figure, and went to college to college outing immigrant and transgender students, and doing all sorts of terrrrible things. There you have an example of how despite his marginalized identity, he was able to use his legal status, his whiteness and his cisgender identity against other marginalized individuals. And while there were those who might be against him because he's gay, because he enforced the ideas he wanted, he was sort of accepted by terrible people, because he was equally terrible.

It's called "intersectionality" basically, and it's the concept that there is no one form of oppression, but dozens of them, and they all pile on top of each other in unique ways, depending on the person.

edited 3rd Apr '17 12:33:53 PM by MrAHR

Bread: For the record, I am not gay, I mostly just have a toe in on the aromantic spectrum, but am otherwise cisgender/heterosexual. But I did study an immense amount of lgbt/sociology/oppression stuff in college and in my free time. It's a specific interest of mine.

So while I don't speak from personal experience, I can confirm that Vincent's feelings aren't particularly out there. Calling someone a bigot in that context, as opposed to prejudiced is going to leave a bad taste in the mouths of the people who you probably want to be a part of your audience.

Part of it can be chalked up to the trope having the language set in, but yes, if that is a thing you want to write, and you want to make that character, you would want to start by codifying it properly, aka not bigotry, but prejudice.

Now within its own contexts, you can argue that they are creating their own power structures within their group, but that is where you get into a messier part of intersectionality and systematic inequality.

So basically, just avoid using equalizing language and you will be fine assuming no other issues. You yourself want it to be sympathetic.

edited 3rd Apr '17 12:48:33 PM by MrAHR

I see. Thank you very much, though I'm sure I didn't get all of that.

This thread is certainly not a straight circlejerk, you big ol' meanie. I was the only person acting up, stop insulting others. Also, I don't think the argument was pointless at all, I learned a lot from it (about posturing, for one. I'll allow myself that one quip). I used I-Teleported-Bread's post as a vehicle for my own interests, and it would appear I have gone too far and misused the thread. Sorry about that.

@Vincent Quill If you have any further quarrel, feel free to pm me.

I will be quiet now.

edited 3rd Apr '17 4:50:07 PM by ilili

i only referred to the character as a Tragic Bigot because that's the trope's name, actually. I wasn't trying to call them bigoted.

Ah OK just try to keep in mind the history of the terms. But yeah being a jerk to Christian LGBT people would suggest it's something he definitely needs to work on.

Well with that doused down, I've something I'd like to ponder along - a more general concept rather than a specific character question yet.

How would a transgender character uniquely react to becoming something abilogical, like for example the furniture in Beauty And The Beast. They all seemed to be pretty used to their new bodies so lets presume the spell takes care of that in general, but for a transperson, that would eliminate the regular dysphoria of their wrongness of body they suffer as well, wouldn't it?

Oh though on the topic of the Priest/Pastor is their any particular reason he's a Love The Sinner Hate the Sin type and not affirming? Because unless he changes from the first to the second over the course of the story, he would be less sympathetic to me I think.

like i said before he was pretty much led to believe that because his parents raised him like that, and he ended up joining a circle of some sort (think, like, a cult that's veiled as a section) that were only using him, but have no direct involvement in the plot. he does get a change of heart after he learns of the plights of queer people and opens his eyes to it. he then wants to have his congregation stand with the lgbt club.

though im trying not to make my story go down the #AllLivesMatter route. if you happen to have any suggestions, i would like to hear them, thank you.

edited 4th Apr '17 9:05:23 AM by I-Teleported-Bread

Adannor: I mean I'd go the other route and assume most of the furniture are having a slow emerging sense of dysphoria and dysmorphia.

"Everybody rolls over into suicidal despair" isn't a story conductive to much of anything

On the other hand, a character expressing feeling more comfortable in the strange situation than they were previously is a curious trait.

edited 4th Apr '17 9:13:54 AM by Adannor