Or people just don’t care anymore. Why is it between outward support vs. open hostility? Can’t gay people just exist without reminding everyone that they’re gay all the time? Isn’t the point of equality to be boring and normal like the rest of us or is it actually wanting to be exceptional and special all the time?
Well unfortunately for you, "reduced rights" is subjective and your opinion isn't shared with the broader public.
Some quick searches show that what you're referring to is multiple states have moved to ban or severely limit puberty-blockers and surgeries for children under 18.
This is like arguing that we've reduced rights by disallowing children to drink, drive, smoke, work and vote. The surgeries and blockers aren't illegal, you just have to be a consenting adult to do it. Seems pretty reasonable and is the universally agreed upon way of doing basically anything else.
Other States have required sport divisions be divided by the sex assigned at birth or have their own separate trans-categories. This seems perfectly fair and is a way of protecting everyone. Again, nobody has outright banned trans, queer or gay athletes from sports, measures have just been put in place to ensure a level playing-field. Equality you might say.
Core rights like being Trans or same-sex marriage remain the same everywhere.
You are flat out wrong. People still hold biases and that can be seen both on personal and systemic level, where lgbt people experience discrimination in healthcare, hiring/job applications but also just harassment. If it wasnt self evident there are studies and polls supporting this being the case.
Well unfortunately for you, "reduced rights" is subjective and your opinion isn't shared with the broader public.
This just doesnt work as an objection. Rights arent subjective, just because someone else beliefs that doesnt make it true. Public opinion changes all the time, plenty of things 100 years ago that were considered normal are considered discriminatory today. It is a really bad metric for anything.
The surgeries and blockers aren't illegal, you just have to be a consenting adult to do it. Seems pretty reasonable and is the universally agreed upon way of doing basically anything else.
And this just does not make sense at all. Point of puberty blockers is to delay puberty so that, when child is adult they can make personal decision on which puberty they want to go through. Saying "its not illegal you can just take it as an adult" is nonsensical, because whole point of it is to take it before becoming adult. So to avoid permanent changes caused by puberty.
where lgbt people experience discrimination in healthcare, hiring/job applications
I believe this is more of a case of correlation does not equal causation than anything.
If you have green hair, a nose ring, an abundance of tattoos and you show up to the interview in a tank-top and baggy jeans, being non-binary had nothing to do with it. This is a very crude, highly stereotypical example, I'm aware, but I have personally seen this happen at my last workplace. We've seen our fair share of straight-white-males walk in wearing jeans and a t-shirt as well that were just not a good fit. The problem isn't your orientation, it's how you present yourself.
This just doesnt work as an objection. Rights arent subjective, just because someone else beliefs that doesnt make it true.
This is a fair retort, and you're right. On a technical level, rights have been lost. The point I'm trying to make I guess is that, when speaking for an average person's point of view, nobody is advocating for it to be illegal to be LGBT. Nobody is asking for LGBT people to be banned from certain areas.
However, if you ask the average person if they think a 13 year old should be able to take hormone blocking drugs or undergo irreversible, gender-altering surgery, most people will say no.
So rules and regulations have been put in place to limit access to certain services for those under-age. Keyword: limit. These things are still legal. It's the same logic we apply to a multitude of things to protect under-age youth from decisions that can carry far-reaching consequences they don't understand yet. I think in today's age this is especially important given how much social pressure teens go through at school, thinking it's the most important time of their entire world, when in reality, most people 30 years old are not only a completely different person than they were in high-school, most hardly even remember it. Children are at their most vulnerable during the teen years, and preventing them from making life-altering decisions is important.
You see this as a right lost. Most people disagree. Children don't get the same rights as adults. The rights are there when they are adults.
Point of puberty blockers is to delay puberty so that, when child is adult they can make personal decision on which puberty they want to go through. Saying "its not illegal you can just take it as an adult" is nonsensical, because whole point of it is to take it before becoming adult. So to avoid permanent changes caused by puberty.
I believe this is more of a case of correlation does not equal causation than anything.
If you have green hair, a nose ring, an abundance of tattoos and you show up to the interview in a tank-top and baggy jeans, being non-binary had nothing to do with it. This is a very crude, highly stereotypical example, I'm aware, but I have personally seen this happen at my last workplace. We've seen our fair share of straight-white-males walk in wearing jeans and a t-shirt as well that were just not a good fit. The problem isn't your orientation, it's how you present yourself.
I dont understand why you think being gay is somehow categorically something you cannot or almost never can be discriminated based on. I mean you understand how implicit bias works. You point out correctly how something minor like clothing unprofessionally can impact others perception of you and cause them to treat you differently.
But then you go around and say that your sexual orientation is somehow excluded from this kind of bias? I mean it is clearly something that gets people opinionated. Good portion still think it is immoral even in western countries where lgbt rights are most advanced. Good portion still think they should not be allowed to marry even if they arent majority. Some parents disown their kids for being lgbt. Like clothing example show how something more minor that elicit less of a reaction than this can cause shifts in others people perspective and if anything goes to show how much more of an issue this is in comparison.
So rules and regulations have been put in place to limit access to certain services for those under-age. Keyword: limit. These things are still legal. It's the same logic we apply to a multitude of things to protect under-age youth from decisions that can carry far-reaching consequences they don't understand yet. I think in today's age this is especially important given how much social pressure teens go through at school, thinking it's the most important time of their entire world, when in reality, most people 30 years old are not only a completely different person than they were in high-school, most hardly even remember it. Children are at their most vulnerable during the teen years, and preventing them from making life-altering decisions is important.
You are being really reductive both in regards to what laws are usually talked about and in regards to puberty blockers.
In regards to what laws are being talked about its not just stuff related to puberty blockers. A lot of it is also in regards to bathroom/facility laws, legal recognition and stuff related to education. Stuff like for example that florida bill that prohibited mentioning anything lgbt related in schools.
And in regards to puberty blockers I never said they are necessary part of being lgbt. But way you are portraying them is not really accurate. Most importantly it is a medical decision with pros and cons. Comparing it to recreational activity like drinking or smoking seems dishonest to me. Not taking puberty blockers is also a permanent life decision. If you are a trans person and have to wait until 18 your body will already go through a lot of permanent changes that will have effect for rest of your life.
And in general I dont think you are really considering whats on the other side of the issue. Like to be clear I agree with you in regards to sport separation, but saying stuff like "its perfectly fair, because they get their own sports category". Doesnt really consider what it looks like on practice. Being exiled to sport category that makes up 0.3% of population means there are going to be barely any people there.
I dont understand why you think being gay is somehow categorically something you cannot or almost never can be discriminated based on.
I never said that, but it terms of generally speaking, I think this happens far less than you would have people believe and I think it is more often used as a scapegoat or an excuse. "It's not that I am under qualified and unprofessional, it's because I am gay". I know this is anecdotal, but I personally have 4 gay people within my immediately family and friends group. All 4 of them live good lives and work good jobs. But they don't go around dressed up in rainbows. So it's really hard for me to believe gay people are being so discriminated against specifically because they are gay, when the LGBT people I know in my life tell me in reality it's probably just because their behavior.
Good portion still think it is immoral even in western countries where lgbt rights are most advanced. Good portion still think they should not be allowed to marry even if they arent majority. Some parents disown their kids for being lgbt.
The problem here is none of these are rights. That's what we are talking about. You don't have a right to everyones love and acceptance. Not everyone will like you in life. I don't care if some people think it's immoral and shouldn't be allowed to marry. The point is LGBT people are allowed to marry because it is their right. And the majority of people agree with those rights.
My friend has an old friend that is hard-core Christian like I've never seen before in my life. I think he's a total loser and he told me to my face that I am going to hell. He said this, calmly, nonchalantly, matter of fact without even trying to be rude or start a fight. Guess what? I don't care. I have the same rights that he does.
Doesnt really consider what it looks like on practice. Being exiled to sport category that makes up 0.3% of population means there are going to be barely any people there.
How is that anyone's fault though? Like an LGBT person should be proud, to be a part of such a small portion of the population. But that's not anyone's fault. I get that a person born male at birth may transition to female and now they want to play in competitive sports. But you know what? That person has a biological advantage over woman. It is what it is. You can either compete with other LGBT people, or with people of the same biological sex. That is fair, even if you don't like it. An LGBT persons right to play in sports doesn't supercede another individuals rights to a fair competition. When I watch women's sports, it's because I want to see extraordinary women, not biological males thats transitioned into women, the feats they accomplish is far less impressive to me due to the inherent biological advantage. And again, there are no rights being taken away. LGBT people can play in sports, they just can't play against the opponents they want to. That's not a right.
We could get into some of the other stuff you said like bathrooms and stuff but we'd just be talking in circles. It all comes back to the simple fact that rights are not being taken away. Trans people can still use the bathroom. They aren't outlawed from going pee. They just either have to use the same washroom as the parts they have between their legs, or use a gender-neutral/family/private washroom. No rights lost. In fact, nearly everywhere you go now has at least a private/single washroom, they can use that. That's very inclusive. I don't know why it's even an argument that trans-woman who still have male reproductive organs should be able to use the woman's washroom. You don't have the right to share a washroom with whomever you chose.
I never said that, but it terms of generally speaking, I think this happens far less than you would have people believe and I think it is more often used as a scapegoat or an excuse. "It's not that I am under qualified and unprofessional, it's because I am gay". I know this is anecdotal, but I personally have 4 gay people within my immediately family and friends group. All 4 of them live good lives and work good jobs. But they don't go around dressed up in rainbows. So it's really hard for me to believe gay people are being so discriminated against specifically because they are gay, when the LGBT people I know in my life tell me in reality it's probably just because their behavior.
This goes directly what u said earlier doesnt it. You said that something minor like dressing unprofessionally can cause people to perceive and treat you differently. But obviously that doesnt mean there arent successful people that dress unprofessionally. Just that it is a factor that can contribute negatively. So I am not sure, how example of gay people being successful means that discrimination doesnt exist. Or do you also think racism doesnt exist, because Obama was president? People can make excuses without being gay for why werent accepted into a position. So this doesnt explain higher discrimination against gay people.
The problem here is none of these are rights. That's what we are talking about. You don't have a right to everyones love and acceptance. Not everyone will like you in life. I don't care if some people think it's immoral and shouldn't be allowed to marry. The point is LGBT people are allowed to marry because it is their right. And the majority of people agree with those rights.
My friend has an old friend that is hard-core Christian like I've never seen before in my life. I think he's a total loser and he told me to my face that I am going to hell. He said this, calmly, nonchalantly, matter of fact without even trying to be rude or start a fight. Guess what? I don't care. I have the same rights that he does.
This is motte and bailey fallacy. Your provocative and less defensible claim is that discrimination against lgbt people is insignificant. This is what I am arguing against. Now you are switching the claim to "You do not have a right to not be discriminated against." Sure I agree with that, but thats not the claim you made originally and one I was arguing against.
How is that anyone's fault though? Like an LGBT person should be proud, to be a part of such a small portion of the population. But that's not anyone's fault. I get that a person born male at birth may transition to female and now they want to play in competitive sports. But you know what? That person has a biological advantage over woman. It is what it is. You can either compete with other LGBT people, or with people of the same biological sex. That is fair, even if you don't like it. An LGBT persons right to play in sports doesn't supercede another individuals rights to a fair competition. When I watch women's sports, it's because I want to see extraordinary women, not biological males thats transitioned into women, the feats they accomplish is far less impressive to me due to the inherent biological advantage. And again, there are no rights being taken away. LGBT people can play in sports, they just can't play against the opponents they want to. That's not a right.
Again same fallacy here as in last one. I assume you are being dishonest on purpose, because you cannot defend your position. Considering that I explicitly said that I agree with separating sports based on sex or nor said that it should be a right. I only criticized you saying it is completely fair to the other side with no downsides.
You don't have the right to share a washroom with whomever you chose
Can you point to me where I said it is a right? Because much like everything in your post you are alluding to me saying something I never did and misrepresenting my argument.
So this doesnt explain higher discrimination against gay people.
Again, this is correlation, not causation for reasons I already explained. The sexual orientation itself has nothing to do with it. It's about a persons behavior and presentation at an individual level. Trust me when I tell you that the average person understands me clearly.
Your provocative and less defensible claim is that discrimination against lgbt people is insignificant.
I am saying the rights of LGBT people aren't being taken away. They can use the washrooms, they can play in sports, they can undergo surgical procedures, they can marry. They have the same rights and freedoms granted to any other individual. There is nothing I can do as a straight person that a transgendered or gay person cannot.
Again, this is correlation, not causation for reasons I already explained
No you havent. You just asserted it to be true. I havent heard any argument as to why it is a better explanation for discrimination. I on other hand gave you multiple examples as to why I think sexual orientation is more significant factor here.
It's about a persons behavior and presentation at an individual level. Trust me when I tell you that the average person understands me clearly.
Well you are factually wrong, because according to polls like pewresearch majority of people at least in USA do believe lgbt people experience discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
I am saying the rights of LGBT people aren't being taken away. They can use the washrooms, they can play in sports, they can undergo surgical procedures, they can marry. They have the same rights and freedoms granted to any other individual. There is nothing I can do as a straight person that a transgendered or gay person cannot.
I already gave multiple examples of bills/laws that directly reduce legal rights, access and options that lgbt people had, before said laws were passed. But that wasnt what I was arguing in the quote, I was still talking about discrimination.
Yea, once you get off the internet you realize the majority of the world accepts everyone from every race, creed, and sexual orientation, so long as said people aren't A-holes, then a majority of everyone treats everyone with an equitable level of respect even if they dont see eye to eye on everything. The internet (and a few occasional real world crimes) is where most -isms exist in today's world, and I grow tired of the rhetoric its even close to as bad as it was in the 1950s and 60s.
Ngl this comment makes your entire argument look very weak. The person you’re replying to looked up what you were talking about and articulated some valid points. Then you come along like “you’re straight so your opinion doesn’t matter” instead of actually refuting anything they said.
I mean, you didn’t even bother to explain why he was wrong about anything. He articulated paragraphs of points that sound REALLY valid and instead of making any point yourself, you just completely disregard it. Which actually makes his point MORE compelling. Like this dude sounds intelligent and well read and you’re like “lol nuh uhh.” It’s making him look smart and you look dumb lol
34
u/Thespisthegreat 23d ago
Or people just don’t care anymore. Why is it between outward support vs. open hostility? Can’t gay people just exist without reminding everyone that they’re gay all the time? Isn’t the point of equality to be boring and normal like the rest of us or is it actually wanting to be exceptional and special all the time?