AGP is not an orienation!

submitted by PotatoCake from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]one1won 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I personally don't have a problem with describing AGP as a sexual orientation

Um. About Biden Administration’s Equality Act, proposing to replace, in law, the word sex with gender identity and sexual orientation, et al

So, if AGP may, or may not, be admitted as being in “gender identity” but if it is considered a “sexual orientation”, the Acts definition of sexual orientation could be amended to include...

To whom are legislators and power brokers listening? The LGBTQ activist orgs, persons in the TQ community, and TQ allied “experts” in professional fields. Is “AGP is a sexual orientation” rhetoric being normalized in the TQ community? IF it is, it would be with this AGP inclusion intent in mind.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This is a really great point, in that it further underscores the need for the bill to refer to explicitly-codified categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual to further entrench the concept and reality of biological sex into law while avoiding the type of trojan-horse loopholes that could be exploited, in the worst-case scenario, to provide criminal indemnity for acts of child sexual abuse via the pedophilia-as-an-orientation narrative.

[–]one1won 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The Equality Act currently states

“(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

For Now. Yes, I agree, if there would be Any good faith by the promoters of the Act, they would make or agree to protections such as you mention. Make it explicitly biological/sexual and bar fetishisms as we currently know them.

My fear is with public acceptance of AGP individuals as “Trans” (used to seeing them), combined with an official professional standard stating AGP as a sexual orientation, we’d be on that slippery slope of “but they were born that way/can’t help themselves” legal “recognition”. And pedophilia could piggyback. It would be open season on women and children.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

AGP individuals as “Trans”

Yes, yes! This really encompasses the whole "truscum vs tucute" dogmatic spat, i.e. that "transgender" was created as an umbrella term to sneak in perverts through the trojan horse of medicalized gender dysphoria/identity disorder.

The best solution may actually to side with the transmedicalists in simply insisting on the old paradigm - the epistemology of "transsexualism" medical disorder that is clearly-definable by a diagnosis of prolonged gender identity disorder.

That's the one strategy with a near-guaranteed outcome of halting the insanity - by codifying things in law with a scientific basis and essentially locking the discourse there.

[–]one1won 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’m a hardliner, myself, but such a course might also put the kibosh on self ID/gender fluid BS, yes. Might. Sigh. Still doesn’t address institutional capture or the “orientation” classification question or sex stereotypes (Equality Act definition of sex is also sex stereotypes, ffs!). Couldn’t sex stereotypes be used against homosexuals just as well as against women? So mightn’t help enough.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Couldn’t sex stereotypes be used against homosexuals just as well as against women?

Yep, that was the basis of last years' SCOTUS employment rulings with respect to Title VII and sex-based discrimination. One of Kavanaugh/Gorsuch's breakout moments.