all 39 comments

[–]tu_jode_mucho 30 insightful - 3 fun30 insightful - 2 fun31 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

What sub did you post that on?

I still very much appreciate being able to marry my gf when we're ready but you're not off base. As many here have pointed out, all the 'queers' popped up once it was no longer inconvenient to be gay. I know a straight couple who got married in 2012 and now the girl has transed herself and now they claim to be a gay couple. Me and my gf used to hang out with them from 2011-2013ish in college. Funny how she wasn't a gay man at all when it would've been inconvenient and my gf and I had to go down the list of ~4 states and debate whether we should move to one of them or leave the US altogether. It's definitely one of the things I appreciate about being an old les--I can easily call out my peers who are so 'queer' now who were not at all gay anything back in high school and college (when there was no question of queer being a slur).

Also, I have to give credit to one of my old friends. She transitioned back in 2011-2012ish, changed over all documentation and became a man on paper. She was already in a LTR with a dude and they got married as soon as gay marriage became legal. She opted-in to the struggle way before it became cool and they never lectured or went on about political queer gender shit. I can't do anything but respect that.

[–]justagaydude123[S] 16 insightful - 7 fun16 insightful - 6 fun17 insightful - 7 fun -  (8 children)

I posted it in unpopularopinion of all places 😆

[–]tu_jode_mucho 16 insightful - 8 fun16 insightful - 7 fun17 insightful - 8 fun -  (2 children)

Only popular opinions allowed on r/unpopularopinions! Smh bigot /s

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is a sub on Reddit called True Unpopular Opinions. However, I’m not sure if that sub is what its title says it is. Reddit, and Big Tech platforms in general, don’t like dissent. They want to push a narrative. If you post a comment that contains an opinion or declares a fact that goes against the narrative, then your comment will get buried in downvotes or deleted, and if you keep posting comments like that, you will get banned. Reddit is not a place for debate despite advertising themselves as such.

[–]shveya 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The10thDentist can be decent for actual unpopular opinions without too much over fury non-wokeness.

[–]kwallio 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

tumblrinaction would have been a safer place for those sentiments, if you ever choose to go back to reddit. Tho I feel like TIA's days are numbered.

[–]SkepticalHPSSuper Straight 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

TiA has been posting a lot of that kind of stuff lately. Somehow admins haven’t nuked it yet.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Let’s hope that sub survives. It helps that it’s a big subreddit.

[–][deleted] 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That sub doesn't allow wrongthink and kowtows to Admins ... they are infamous among Redditors because of that.

Try r/TrueOffMyChest with your next account

[–]Socialjustus 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Unpopular opinion ironically is ONLY for popular opinions.

[–]CuntWorshiperWomenholic full time | vagina fetishist part-time 25 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

What is the correlation between same sex marriage and gender ideology? (Not a rhetoric question. Genuinely wanna know)

In my country same sex marriage became lawful way before gender ideology was this circus it is now. And, at least in my country, marriage equality is a sex based right, if anything that goes against gender ideology. And marriage equality (in my country) came with other homosexual rights, such as criminalization of medical and religious conversion therapy, and workplace discrimination. Those are very important laws for lesbians and gays. Also, in my country marriage give people some rights such as adoption (at least back then only married people could adopt, idk if that changed now). And taxe benefits for married people who have children. Visa benefits. These rights are just the ones that popped in my mind now, I’m sure there’s more. Those are civil rights, they’re based on nationality, all my countrywomen/men have, why should it be denied to me simply because I’m a lesbian? If I have the same duties as my countrywomen I want the same rights as my countrywomen.

I think we should not mistake civil rights with woke laws I.e. criminalization of “misgendering”. They’re not comparable. The first are serious laws the second is western bullshitry.

Just one year ago a friend of mine got married to her now french wife, they live here now. And she only got a resident visa to her wife because their marriage is recognized by law. You may think your civil rights are useless but that’s just until you need it. I very much want to merry one day, and since I have to pay taxes like a motherfucker anyways, I want all my rights.

[–]MarkJeffersonRaga Shave 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. If marriage was just some mere social thing then who cares? But it grants so many integral legal rights which usually don't become apparent until you start requiring them. This gender crap just has to be dealt with for now.

[–]kwallio 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What is the correlation between same sex marriage and gender ideology?

It seems to be that once gay marriage was achieved, all the gay rights orgs had to find a new topic or just close up shop so they went full tilt gender nonsense/trans rights.

The spicy straigts also seemed to get the idea from the gay rights campaign that it was "cool" to be gay and gay was more of a lifestyle choice than and actual sexual orientation. Hence lgbtq becoming sort of a fashion statement.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is the correct answer. In order to avoid irrelevance they needed something else to fight for. They gained structural power and credibility through the gay rights movement then used that authority to push crazy gender ideology.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Marriage provides couples with a lot of social and legal rights and protections. Sure, a civil partnership could do that, if it explicitly comes with all of these legal protections, but a lot of people do not know what a civil partnership is, or don’t see it as a real union, whereas everybody understands what marriage is.

I can understand someone opposing the government legalising same sex marriage if this person sees marriage as a religious institution and believes that the government should not be involved in it. But as long as the government is involved and offers civil marriage, then yes, there’s no reason why gay marriage cannot be legalised in a country unless most people in that country oppose it. In fact, if you have to get married in order to avail of the rights and protections married couples enjoy, then gay marriage should be legalised.

Now, you can argue that the correlation with gay marriage and gender ideology is present because in order to legalise gay marriage you’d have to change the definition of marriage. For thousands of years marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. In fact, before the 1970s this was just common sense in most countries. Many gay marriage opponents fear that if you redefine marriage to allow same sex marriages, it could open the flood gates to idiots wanting to redefine what a man is or what a woman is. Of course, men and women are natural beings, whereas marriage is an artificial institution and a tool. Plus, we cross bridges when we get to them. You can still allow same sex marriage and also define men as males and women as females.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My thoughts exactly. Allowing same-sex marriage also facilitated LGB to form more stable family and social units. It fosters community.

What’s the difference between “you can get married, just to a member of the opposite sex like everyone else” and “trans people can play sports, just with their biological sex like everyone else?” I would say (1) the purpose of the institution and (2) whether or not there’s a conflict of rights to be reconciled.

For the first point, the question is whether or not same-sex marriage is consistent with the purpose of civil marriage in a modern society. You can debate what kinds of partnerships the state should recognize, why, and how. And we did.

For the second point, allowing same sex marriage doesn’t affect anyone else’s marriage or the rights and privileges they get from their marriages. There’s no conflict of rights other than in contexts involving alleged conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs. But we’re not talking about requiring religious institutions to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. At least I’m not.

In contrast the gender identity movement mostly has nothing to do with civil rights or any kind of right as we ordinarily think of it. Rather, it’s a system of belief that demands constant demonstrations of belief and loyalty and seeks to redefine even the most fundamental aspects of other human beings, their relationships, and their social interactions even when a trans person isn’t involved. This inherently implicates several conflicts of rights and interests, but proponents refuse to recognize the interests and rights of others at stake. And therefore they assume (project) any attempt by another group or individual to defend an existing right as inherently motivated by bigotry.

For same sex rights, I do regret lazy tactics, advocacy, and sloganeering but I did participate in actual debate in which neither I nor my opponents sought to prevent the other from being able to have a job, get an education, or participate in society.

I think we failed to see how trendy we would become to the point of straight people trying to become and replace us.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Completely right about taxes, and we completely deserve the same rights regardless of sexual orientation. Before we got same sex marriage here a few years back, there was a case where a (British?) gay couple were on holiday and one of the two men died. Because gay marriage wasn't recognised here, there were all sorts of issues regarding the handling of the dead man's affairs and it was a real mess which wouldn't have happened if it was a straight married couple.

Most people don't realise the legal implications and limitations of civil unions and why gay marriage is an essential human right, especially if LGB people contribute to society, pay taxes, contribute to the economy, etc, and are in no way different to everyone else.

[–]MyLongestJourney 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are wrong.It is not the fight for homosexual people's legal equality that lead to this.It is the dominion of critical theory in academia.

[–]verystablegenius 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

precisely.

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

I think it’s both. I think that organizations or charities are like any other business. They want to expand or at least stay in business. That coupled with all of the critical theory stuff they push on everyone when they get to college and you get organizations that have to focus on gender identities to stay relevant and an army of woke sjws to scream and yell and back them up

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm glad I am married to my husband. I don't see a direct link with the trans bs.

Except possibly that the Queer Theorists need to keep pushing the envelope, and once marriage equality was a done deal they moved onto other battles. But let's be honest, the QT people are anti-marriage in any meaningful sense.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except possibly that the Queer Theorists need to keep pushing the envelope, and once marriage equality was a done deal they moved onto other battles.

Fun fact: the Q was never too keen on marriage equality in the first place because it integrates gays and lesbians into the rest of society, which in the perspective of Queer Theory is a big no no.

[–]NutterButterFlutterStill waving into the void 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh hey, I was just reading that whole thread on AGB and was wondering why your account was suddenly suspended. RES shows me I apparently upvoted you a lot, haha

If you told LGB people 10 years ago that gay marriage would lead to a world of male lesbians and penis-in-vagina being considered gay sex, they would have rejected it.

I don't believe gay marriage was the cause, but I do see how once gay marriage was legal, everything shifted and TQ+ started ramping up.

I can't comment on whether LGB would have rejected it though, knowing then what we know now. As an unmarried person who doesn't ever plan to do so, I don't think I'm quite qualified :)

[–]reluctant_commenter 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can get banned from Reddit for saying something as basic as "there are only two sexes" or linking to a publicly-available news article. Sorry, this counts as "wrongthink" these days.

I think that's an interesting idea, I'm not sure if I agree but I think it's a good topic for debate. I'm curious to hear what other people think.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agree or disagree, what you said isn't 'hate'. It's the kind of topic that can and should be addressed with open discussion.

The real tragedy is that so many people, particularly of the younger generation, have become accustomed to labelling everything 'hate' and seeing free speech as a privilege rather than a default value.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are some connections between gay marriage and neoliberal gender ideology. But it’s not so much that it’s because legalising gay marriage would automatically lead to this ideology becoming prevalent in the country that legalised gay marriage. There are a lot of factors at play that contribute to the spread of this ideology.

Yes, gay marriage was legalised in New Zealand (2013), Great Britain (2014), the US (2015 nationwide) and Ireland (2015), around the same time this woke gender ideology took off in those countries. And because the US is such a powerful, influential country, it wasn’t a surprise this shit spread across the western world. But explain Canada - gay marriage was legalised there beginning in 2003 and legalised nationwide in 2005, yet Canada remained a sane country until 2015 when Justin Trudeau became their prime minister and woke culture had infested the US. Plus, woke culture isn’t so bad in the Netherlands, which has had gay marriage since 2001.

But guess what happened around 2013-2015? Social media. Yes, it’s existed since the mid-2000s, or even before that. But social media didn’t become mainstream until 2009 or 2010. Before social media became mainstream, you could have a debate about virtually anything in most western cultures. You could have an opinion that is extremely unpopular, and as long as you weren’t advocating child abuse or inhumane behaviour, the worst that could happen is that somebody would initiate the debate. Now, we have echo chambers online where dissent is not allowed, because the social media platforms we're on employ algorithms that give the user only results that connect with his or her ideology, so he or she rarely comes across the other sides of the debate. Plus, if you make a post on social media, you get likes, which unleashes dopamine hits and can lead to narcissism in certain people; the same kinds of people who participate in gender ideology. And when you look at the social media platforms that are dominant in society, you can look at the place as well as the time. Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube are all headquartered in Silicon Valley, and the CEOs of these companies are friends. It really makes you think.

Another element of this ideology to consider is the fact that most of the people spreading this shit are teenagers or young adults with no experience with life. You could say that people in these age groups act like all of their opinions are gospel because of lack of experience and lack of humility. And we all know that teenagers tend to be rude and arrogant, at least nowadays. But wait a minute, weren’t there times when most teenagers were polite and looked up to adults? I definitely think so. But forget about teenagers, pre-teens are even worse these days. So whats the deal? Lack of discipline in youths. Now, I’m not saying that parents need to smack their kids - some people need it, let’s be honest, but I know lots of people who were never smacked and they’ve turned our normal. But we live in a culture where the idea of letting your children learn from their mistakes, saying no to your children when we want sweets before dinner or want to stay up late on a school night, or punishing your children for misbehaving is considered abuse. Hell, if a father yelled at his son nowadays, there is a chance some idiot is going to yell at the father before figuring out why the father was cross with his son. Children obviously need love, support, nurturing and care, but discipline does help to prepare children for adulthood, because actions have consequences and life is tough.

But it’s not just the lack of discipline, but also how kids are raised. A lot of parents nowadays just give their children iPads to "keep them quiet". I’m all for letting children use iPads, but they shouldn’t be on them all day long. But a lot parents these days are lazy and they don’t want to interact with their children, so they just give their kids these electronics to use until bedtime so the parents can chat with their friends and watch TV. Now, obviously parents need a break now and then, but they need to give their kids something to do. When my parents took me to restaurants, they expected me, my brother and my sister to behave. So they included us in conversations. And if a restaurant had an outdoor area or somewhere kids can safely hang out, my parents let us go outside to play or explore the establishment - but they also told us not to go into restricted areas, make a mess, cause a scene or interact with strangers. Whenever my parents visited friends or family and I went with them because I was too young to be left alone, I went outside to play, explored the hosts' house or watched TV - my parents told me not to touch valuables, break stuff or enter rooms I should not be in, and they made sure the host was comfortable with me walking around their house while also making sure that I could entertain myself. But now you have parents who just give their kids iPads so they’d sit at the table and keep quiet while the parents talk with their friends and ignore the kids, which is child abuse. Kids need to move about because they have so much energy, and they bored very easily. A lot of kids don’t play outside anymore "because it’s too dangerous", and a lot of parents don’t send their kids to extracurricular clubs or societies to keep busy because "it’s too much effort". But one of the most damaging aspects of modern parenting is that both parents work all day and they are too tired from work to bond with their kids when they come home. But most parents have to work nowadays because the cost of raising a child has gone up exponentially while wages and salaries have not gone up as much. And oftentimes, most parents work in soul-crushing, dead-end corporate jobs that drain them of their mental and physical energy. Ideally, one of the parents should stay at home and manage the household; doesn’t have to be the mother but it should be parent who earns less money or the parent who has less job security. But if both parents have to work, then the kids should be looked after by their grandparents, the neighbours, or any adult who is close to the parents; not by a nanny (unless the child or the family have special needs), or by a daycare centre. I heard that 65% of Dutch grandmothers and 60% of Dutch grandfathers are the primary caregivers of the children. It’s the same in countries like Japan, China, Vietnam or Cambodia, where both parents work and the grandparents live with or live close to their children and grandchildren. And if you ask me, it’s a very sustainable method of child rearing, because not only are both parents able to work, but the grandparents are involved with the family and given incentives to stay energised and lively as opposed to being isolated in a nursing home where they lose the will to live, and the children are being raised by familiar faces who care about and love them. But when you look at the west, you see a lot of grandparents in nursing homes, a lot of children raised by daycare centres and television and iPads, and a lot of atomised families. And such families are vulnerable to this gender ideology.

Even without gay marriage, this trans ideology would have taken off. For example, Chile still hasn’t legalised gay marriage (they have civil partnerships), and Chile already has self-ID gender identity law that even allows 14 year olds to change their genders and get sex change operations. Same with Bolivia, which didn’t even have civil unions until a court ruling late last year. Now look, you don’t have to be in favour of gay marriage if you were raised to believe it’s between a man and a woman, but gay marriage is not solely responsible for this madness we’re dealing with.

[–]GayBoner 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m grateful that I was able to gay-marry. In addition to the legal benefits of getting married, it gives a social legitimacy to a relationship that even homophobes can’t deny. I also see no correlation between gay marriage and gender woo-woo craziness.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I see conservatives make this argument sometimes... I don't see how you from legal rights for couples, to transing kids and genderspecials. They aren't related. keep in mind gay marriage was supposed to lead to men marrying dogs and horses, not male lesbians. But seriously, the people who objected to the heteronormapatriarchical nature of gay marriage tended to be in the Q+ crowd, not really in the everyday LGB. So they wouldn't have been fighting for it back then.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"If you told LGB people 10 years ago that gay marriage would lead to a world of male lesbians and penis-in-vagina being considered gay sex, they would have rejected it."

It's important to remember that correlation is not causation, as there's a lot of places that are trans friendly but homophobic as hell.

By this logic, in order to keep the TQ freaks at bay, hardcore homophobia would still need to be a thing in modern western society, which is ludicrous.

Also, TQs hate, and I mean hate, gay marriage and what it represents. By rejecting it you're basicly giving them what they want.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, shall we?

[–]fuck_reddit 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know a guy that was very high up in the marriage equality campaign during DOMA. He literally said this exact same thing to me two weeks ago.

[–]SuperGayIsOkay 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cute hot take but it's also misguided. You're assuming that:

a) Trans campaigning would not have been successful without the rise and success of LGB advocacy.

and that

b) LGB people should be responsible for gender ideology's rise.

Neither one is necessarily true. Trans activism could've come just as easily from religious groups pushing to promote it as a means of "curing" homosexuality as we see in Arabic countries, and the idea that we cannot differentiate between LGB and trans activism's totally different goals is simply not true.

The problems stem from allowing trans interests to piggyback on unrelated LGB advocacy. Shoulda put our foot down immediately and drawn a line.

[–]millicentfawcett 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It may have accelerated its reach a bit in some countries like the UK because Stonewall felt they needed a new cause but I think it would have still happened to some extent without marriage equality.

I think some of the timing is coincidental rather than straight up causation. Around a decade ago is when social media really blew up and people started becoming very 'online' especially the youngest generations. That's what has fed much of it in conjunction with queer theory being pushed via higher education. Speaking of higher ed, in the UK at least, it's also the time frame in which universities have ceded a lot of power to students because they became paying customers via high tuition fees. If education were still free I think more of the crap that goes on would have been nipped in the bud.

It's also worth noting that orgs like The Beaumont Society and the older transactivists like Burns and Whittle have been around much longer than most people are aware of, lobbying governments and influential people. I'm speaking from a UK centric perspective here but much of the groundwork was already laid before it all went viral and anyone realised the significance of what was being done.

In short I think it's been a perfect storm situation with no one factor to 'blame'.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Good points. Social media, the level of power given to university students and high tuition fees have definitely played a role in this mess. Also, parents don’t discipline their kids as much as they used to. Not saying we should smack children, but nowadays a lot parents never punish their kids at all or never say no to them. They just give their kids iPads because "it keeps them quiet" while those parents can ignore their children. This has lead to a lot of spoiled children, who speak their mind now as if everything they say is gospel and accuse you of child abuse if you criticise their opinions.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I really think people shouldn't be carefully considering the opinions of young children who are only just grasping the concept of object permanence.

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

That’s a dumb af take. I enjoy my rights and my homosexuality has nothing to do with heterosexuals being dumb and trying to appropriate my sexuality.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you told LGB people 10 years ago that earning rights would lead to the T ideology of today, they would've thought you were crazy. The cause wasn't gay marriage, it was poor leadership and overinclusivity. I think that the marriage rights were unrelated for the most part. If there is any connection, it is that the T saw the victory as the perfect opportunity to join themselves to us, which is like blaming someone who got robbed because their new job allowed them to earn more money.

It may be true that if we were still opressed by the religious bigots on the Right, then we wouldn't be the victims of the religious bigots on the Left, but I'd hardly call it a true causation.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think that the legalization of same-sex marriage is responsible for this trans-scourge; it's only a symbol, and what it symbolizes isn't anything negative. The blame lies elsewhere.

Same-sex marriage represents the de-stigmatization of gay and bisexual people: our being acknowledged as normal members of society. Not that it's the only form this takes, but it's the most convenient shorthand for it.

Did LGB normalization open the door to imposters like "transbians" and "gay transmen"? Yes, in that it made calling oneself gay much less risky. But this had to happen; it's what LGB rights are all about. The problem was allowing people in who didn't belong, because gender-based identity is not only nothing like our own bio-sex based identities, it's actually antithetical to them.

Same-sex marriage didn't cause that. Just look at the sad example of what was done to Michfest (the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival): "transwomen"'s sustained assault on it began in 1995, twenty years before the Obergefell decision. So the T didn't need "gay marriage" to start violating other's boundaries; that was already well underway.

So what did cause it? Confusion, I think, between being same-sex-attracted and being a libertine– which is to say, a sexual hedonist without any brakes, moral or otherwise. Of course this is the perennial accusation hurled at LGB people, and a perception that we continue to struggle against... but ironically there are those who embrace it. And not all of them are straight “trans” people motivated by sexual fetishism. It’s sometimes us. For different reasons, though, I suspect– namely the legacy of the closet. If you’ve grown up being forced to hide your sexuality out of shame and fear, and then gotten to the point where you can finally act on it... any restrictions could feel like a threat; as though the closet is back. And you may reflexively resist. Thus leaving you vulnerable to exploitation by the real libertines, whose agenda you mistake for your own.

But in any case, OP, your opinion to the contrary certainly doesn’t constitute hate, and shouldn’t have gotten you banned. Especially when organized attacks on the right to same-sex attraction by the T and their flying monkeys never receive the same treatment.