all 22 comments

[–][deleted] 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that lumping LGB in with paraphilias is bad and needs to be opposed. Especially with how much kink stuff is being pushed as part of the inclusivity package.

But I think the concern should be more about pedophilia than bestiality. The TQ+ is really pushing for children to have the ability to consent to life altering medical procedures without parental consent. If kids are deemed capable of consenting to that it's only a small step away for people to argue they can consent to sex with adults as well. Not to mention all the grooming that goes on in online spaces for the TQ+.

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

This is the most bland, common sense take. We are simply rules by psychopaths and surrounded by lemmings.

[–]motss-pb 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The accepted narrative is that the "slippery slope" is a phantom created by the homophobic religious right who allege that the acceptance of homosexuality will inevitably lead to the normalization of other behaviors such as bestiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia. Since this is a homophobic argument, anyone who even acknowledges or suggests that the slippery slope could be real is immediately perceived to align with the religious right. This is the source of the backlash against LGBA. They are addressing the slippery slope.

The problem is that gender studies academics, with every nonsense jargon-laden paper they publish, continually push the boundaries of their "queer" umbrella and effectively turn the slippery slope argument into a reality. The paper in question "LGBTQ ... Z" was written by a gender studies professor at Duke University. In the paper, author Kathy Rudy confesses her love of animals and invokes her queer theorist mentor, Eve Sedwick, to try to justify her inclusion of bestiality and zoophilia as queer.

The slippery slope does exist. It's represented by the meaningless label "queer" which now includes straight people with kinks. The slippery slope is also represented by the (+) symbol along with the dozens of new identity labels and flags. The slippery slope is enabled by people who validate everything, preach about inclusion, "acceptance without exception", and denounce any form of gatekeeping or exclusion.

We should have the ability to distinguish healthy sexualities like homosexuality and bisexuality from paraphilias and kinks. But to do that we have to acknowledge that the slippery slope is not just a phantom cooked up by conservative homophobes. Why is LGBA being criticized rather than the person who wrote the homophobic paper? This wasn't some random anonymous Twitter user; this was a Duke professor. And the paper was published in 2012 by Hypatia and then republished in 2020 by Cambridge University Press. No criticism for the quality standards of the editors of those publications? If the threat of bestiality/zoophilia/pedophilia is so outlandish, how do these topics get so far in academia with so little backlash?

[–]CaptainMooseEx-Bathhouse Employee 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

On the subject of Kathy Rudy, she's a lesbian zoophile. The problem isn't just that random pervs are latching on to the work LGB people have done to gain acceptance, the problem is also coming from within our own demographics. LGB people need to find it in ourselves to tell these people to fuck off and that they do not represent our beliefs at large nor our interests. Maybe even go as far as to protest their speaking on our behalf (I think it would be wild if a group of lesbians at Duke egged her office).

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem isn't just that random pervs are latching on to the work LGB people have done to gain acceptance, the problem is also coming from within our own demographics. LGB people need to find it in ourselves to tell these people to fuck off and that they do not represent our beliefs at large nor our interests. Maybe even go as far as to protest their speaking on our behalf

Completely, completely agree. And I think it starts with making it clear what sexual orientation IS and is not, and dropping the TQ+. There are four possible configurations of sexual orientation: homosexual (attraction to same sex only), bisexual (attraction to both sexes only), heterosexual (attraction to opposite sex only), and asexual (no attraction to either sex). But I do think that cases like these occur not just in the context of Queer Theory but regardless within our own demographics, as you say... I'm reminded of (at least one?) gay rights movement leader who tried to blend the same-sex rights movement with a p*dophilic one.

[–]DimDroog 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Kathy Rudy

Jhc, she's a piece of shit.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response. I'm really glad I made a post about this, I did not know the context about this paper. That's awful that this person, Kathy Rudy, put that argument out in the world and claims to represent us all; that's infuriating.

I agree with your description about the slippery slope problem. I think the thing people get stuck on about it, is that it involves prediction of possibilities. Sometimes when people predict stuff, they're catastrophizing! And catastrophization needs to be called out for what it is. I think many people say "Slippery slope! You're wrong!" not having really thought through the situation or knowing what the fallacy is. Because sometimes when people predict stuff, they're accurate predictions and not catastrophizing.

We should have the ability to distinguish healthy sexualities like homosexuality and bisexuality from paraphilias and kinks. But to do that we have to acknowledge that the slippery slope is not just a phantom cooked up by conservative homophobes. Why is LGBA being criticized rather than the person who wrote the homophobic paper? This wasn't some random anonymous Twitter user; this was a Duke professor. And the paper was published in 2012 by Hypatia and then republished in 2020 by Cambridge University Press. No criticism for the quality standards of the editors of those publications? If the threat of bestiality/zoophilia/pedophilia is so outlandish, how do these topics get so far in academia with so little backlash?

Completely agree. It's fucked up beyond belief. I am so angry at this person who is, apparently, harming our community from within. I'll need to go take a look at her paper, ugh... not looking forward to reading this one.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If I have understood the context of this tweet correctly, it was a response to the 'feminist' academic journal Hypatia's article about bestiality. I don't know why the article from 9 years ago is suddenly trending on the internet but I suspect some offence archaeology was afoot. There was an Ovarit thread in the last couple of days but I am unable to find it at the moment.

Anyway, I don't think the LGB Alliance posted this tweet apropos of nothing. If they had, it would be fairly strange and would be one of the rare instances where the moniker 'bizarre rant' would be justified. As usual however, nuance and context are flattened and removed so all the 'normal' people see is the backlash.

The same thing is happening around Scotland Rape Relief. The trans-identifying nominal head of a rape charity makes stupid and grossly unprofessional remarks and is called out on it by people on Twitter, but then those call outs are framed as 'transphobic abuse' because of course they are.

Anyway enough of context. As for my thoughts on the tweet itself, I agree in sentiment but /u/sneeuweekhoorn makes a very trenchant point about bestiality not really being what we should be worried about. Gender Inc.'s relentless focus on the transing of children is the bigger concern, especially since gay men have had to spend decades convincing normal people that they are not paedophiles and then TQ minces in and undoes all that.

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

As someone who IS concerned about animal abuse, I agree with you.

The focus is on children, not disgusting bestiality.

I think they will do everything they can to normalize pedophilia, THEN the flood gate will open up further.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, thank you for the context!! I did not have time to dig deeper than just this tweet being removed. That makes more sense.

Agreed with you both also. :)

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The fact that Twitter took it down proves that Twitter is a danger to common sense.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Maybe a controversial opinion here, but I'm a little on the fence about this post. I get the general idea: the + opens the doors wide for literally any group to be defined in the same category as LGB, bringing in demographics whose interests and goals have nothing to do with ours and who shout us down.

I guess my biggest issue is with the messaging. For one, the paraphilias most an issue in the TQ+ movement are autogynephilia (AGP) and also arguably autoandrophilia (AAP). Bestiality is not really at the heart of the gender dysphoria debate, whereas AGP/AAP actually are. Why not mention those instead, at least AGP? For two, the statement is easily misread as "anything not LGB is bestiality," which is not what they literally said but it's an easy mistake to make and one that would inflame resistance from the left, rather than starting a dialogue (which I would hope is the goal of LGB Alliance).

Idk. Happy to hear arguments to the contrary. Thoughts?

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

I think they mentioned zoophilia cause of that “queer theory” paper. I dont know for sure though.

[–]Horror-SwordfishI don't get how flairs work 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

While you, and other commenters here, are right in that zoophilia is really the least of our worries, this tweet was clearly in response to (as can be seen right fucking there below the tweet) Allison Bailey's tweet regarding that article about how zoophilia should be included under the queer umbrella. Anyone who looks at the tweet they're responding to, and then reads the LGB Alliance tweet, and comes to the conclusion that the LGB Alliance is coming completely out of nowhere and saying the + is all zoophiles is being deliberate in their misinterpretation.

While AGP and AAP are arguably more of a threat to young gays and lesbians, it would have been completely out of left-field for them to bring that up in response to Allison's tweet. But it's a good point to bring up, and I personally would think that it would be more of an eye-opener for people than talking about AGP/AAP. I'd venture a guess to say that the majority of people don't really know about or think about AGP/AAP, but pretty much everyone knows what bestiality is and is morally opposed to it.

So if we bring up fringe ideas like this one, from an academic journal, saying "bestiality should be considered a queer sexuality," maybe, just maybe, we'll get people to look at that and say, "Okay, wait a second, how did we get to this point where we are saying zoophiles should be validated by society?"

Personally, my biggest issue with that tweet is the replies to it. Everyone is willfully misinterpreting it and then fucking tattling on them to the UK Charity Commission. The LGB Alliance's tweet isn't even inflammatory, is making a commentary on an existing article while linking the tweet that links that article, and isn't even saying anything about trans people whatsoever. Yet, trans people read that LGB Alliance doesn't want to see bestiality be listed under the queer umbrella and they get all up in arms about it. To me, that's pretty telling.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The LGB Alliance could tweet about their official endorsement of pineapple on pizza, and then restaurants and takeaways up and down the nation would be pressured to remove the 'harmful' items from their menus.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Anyone who looks at the tweet they're responding to, and then reads the LGB Alliance tweet, and comes to the conclusion that the LGB Alliance is coming completely out of nowhere and saying the + is all zoophiles is being deliberate in their misinterpretation.

...Aaaaand I did not look at the tweet they responded to, so your statement still stands. :) Fortunately you and several other people cleared up my confusion over the context, so I'm glad I asked about it!

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with pretty much all your points. In regards to the tweet's replies, with people furious and not seeming to realize (or refusing to acknowledge?) the context of the tweet-- sometimes I wonder whether it might be worth my time to make a Twitter just to post/share evidence in the threads like this... I'm not sure how much good it might do, but I wish the sanity I see here made it into even a fraction of the discussions on Twitter that people here reference.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Guess I have to bite the ethical bullet, because I eat animals--pretty obscene things can happen to them such that I am able to do so--and I wear their hides on my feet. My wallet is made of leather, as well. In this vein, I don't think animals should be killed except for providing food and/or ending their suffering, and we have an imperative to use as much of them as possible. As well as their humane treatment until they end up on our dinner plates.

Vegans have the moral high ground here, I do not. I am, however, healthier. (Naturalistic fallacy, anybody?)

So maybe not the best paraphilia to frame the issue with regards to LGBTQ+, because most of us are not saints as far as agricultural animals are concerned.

What if I have sex with my dinner before I eat it? Seeing how it's already dead? Is that wrong? Why? a priori Weird indeed, but give me an objective moral argument. We find ourselves yet again, back in moral arguments of yesteryear. Slippery slopes, etc.

Back to the topic at hand. (And if you can't deal with these sorts of issues, how can one sort out the rest? It's an issue of framework.)

Can LGB ever be decoupled in the mind of the lay person from anything that's not heterosexual? Defined here as coitus with opposite-sex, adult, phenotypically normal, consenting partners. (So, no, sex with opposite-sex farm animals isn't heterosexual. No, zoophiles, it isn't. Sorry, not sorry.)

Decoupling? To an extent, yes. However, I do see a strong trend to treat things as either heterosexual or "other." That's the framing. Look around. Het or other. Tell me I'm wrong. The "LGBTQ+" community.

You can beat your head against this and lose, or, there's another approach.

Have the parties advocate for themselves. Give them the oxygen, or in some cases, the rope with which they can hang themselves with. When someone says they're a zoophile? That is a sexuality. That is their sexual orientation, if it's their most salient sexual feature. (In a technical sense, this is very much the case. It's only in the sociopolitics that it gets muddled.) Don't have them hide behind the "+," let them go their own way, casting off LGB.

Let them develop their own sense of community, of belonging. Encourage them. You can try and kick them out of LGB, yes, but you'll have better luck if you also advocate for them to associate with their alternative, despite not being onboard with it. Carrot and stick.

I know. You know. The common person? they don't know. That's the target demographic here.

And to the TQ+ folks reading this, if the gay rights movement falls, you fall. How and when did societal attitudes change such that you enjoy your current sexual freedoms? Best try to not screw that up. It's not a sure thing. You're not springboarding off a concrete locus; it's quite tentative.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Can I just say, I love reading your long comments lmao. They are often very entertaining, and I appreciate the points you bring up. :)

Decoupling? To an extent, yes. However, I do see a strong trend to treat things as either heterosexual or "other." That's the framing. Look around. Het or other. Tell me I'm wrong. The "LGBTQ+" community.

I agree, there IS that trend. I would say that is central to one of the stereotypes about same-sex attraction, no? "It's weird, it's bad, it's other, it's 'queer'" and I think that this framing, driven by the "LGBTQ+" movement, is born out of homophobia, because many people in the "LGBTQ+" movement are just identity tourists who believe that the words "lesbian" "gay" "bisexual" (and "asexual" while we're at it) are just fun clothes you can try on, take off, and don't describe an actual objective reality in any sense. They completely ignore the fact that BY DEFINITION these three sexual orientations are defined by whether a person has an experience. And that experience is, same-sex attraction. I would say that it demonstrates a remarkable lack of perspective, a remarkable lack of interest in other people's experience of the world. Now as I'm writing I'm wondering whether "identity tourism" is perhaps the least-talked-about powerful element in all this madness.

(In a technical sense, this is very much the case. It's only in the sociopolitics that it gets muddled.)

Yes, I think you and I have each gotten into gigantic debates before on this parenthetical, hahahaha.

Encourage them. You can try and kick them out of LGB, yes, but you'll have better luck if you also advocate for them to associate with their alternative, despite not being onboard with it. Carrot and stick.

Honestly I think just emphasizing that "LGB should be allowed to have their own movement, regardless of everything else going on we have the RIGHT to have our own movement" will be a big step in this direction. I honestly am inclined to believe, I hate to say it but, it would be hard to completely destroy all "let's be one big umbrella!" sentiment... I just want us to be able to have our own space, period. I think the TQ+ is really harmful to LGB people because it's homophobic (not to mention how it harms women, people on the spectrum, and other vulnerable groups), but even just having an LGB movement AND an "LGBTQ+" movement would be WAY better than what we've got right now. Which is, "you're evil cis [insert slur here]s for trying to have LGB-only groups!" Baby steps. I don't know, just some thoughts.

And to the TQ+ folks reading this, if the gay rights movement falls, you fall. How and when did societal attitudes change such that you enjoy your current sexual freedoms? Best try to not screw that up. It's not a sure thing. You're not springboarding off a concrete locus; it's quite tentative.

Yep. It is tentative. Did you see that meme the other day? Lol.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I hate to say it but, it would be hard to completely destroy all "let's be one big umbrella!" sentiment..

One approach I can see is that people who are presently "allies" of LGBTQ+ get recognized as more of what they generally are: friends. Then, you chop it up into LGB, TQ (the gender crowd, paraphilia-motivated or no,) and the paraphilias that can be acted on with consenting adults. So three groups, roughly. Then, these groups could potentially be "allies" to each other, in the same way that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in WWII, but they certainly were not friends.

It respects the distinction that already exists between the groups, and sometimes they can come together on a shared issue, and I do believe they have some shared issues.

I think this would be an improvement. I'm not sure exactly what my ideal would be for all this, let alone how to usher it all in. At the end of the day, none of these three groups are going anywhere, and they're always going to be advocating for themselves. They're not going back into the proverbial box any time soon, so I'm thinking... just control the chaos. I certainly want to avoid the screw-ups from one group taking everyone else down with them.

It's like the results of an anti-trust lawsuit. Break it up.

your long comments lmao.

Thanks. =)

Now as I'm writing I'm wondering whether "identity tourism" is perhaps the least-talked-about powerful element in all this madness.

Yeah, it's there, we all know it, but we don't talk about it as such. I wonder, what else is another phenomena of identity tourism that this could be compared and contrasted with? To make that conceptual shift that this recent stuff is merely that in people's minds. Seems like a bit of pernicious human behavior that's baked in. It's just a shame that today there are adults in the wings, who should know better, more than ready to give medical treatments to children. Kids who used to g through a goth or punk phase could just chuck their old clothing, all-black makeup, etc.

I hate to say it but, it would be hard to completely destroy all "let's be one big umbrella!" sentiment...

I'm scratching my head why it's proving so difficult. If one sits down, and looks at the philosophical take of the gay rights movement in the USA, then looks at the philosophical take of gender ideology in the USA, it's plainly obvious that these are not compatible systems of thought. They're actually antithetical to each other. It really is that simple.

There are a lot of currents at play that are trying to put everyone into the same camp, even if I can't quite put my finger on all of them.

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

No prob :)

I think this would be an improvement.

Same. At the very least, my idea would include a society that recognizes the importance of free speech, and values tolerance of different opinions while condemning violence. Right now, the TQ+ movement is anti-tolerance.

Seems like a bit of pernicious human behavior that's baked in.

Completely agree! I would love to see a documentary on the history of identity tourism, lol. Now I say that I'm sure there's got to be one out there, I've just never thought to Google it.

I'm scratching my head why it's proving so difficult. If one sits down, and looks at the philosophical take of the gay rights movement in the USA, then looks at the philosophical take of gender ideology in the USA, it's plainly obvious that these are not compatible systems of thought. They're actually antithetical to each other. It really is that simple.

That's true, but I guess I was more thinking, It would be difficult to destroy all "let's be one big umbrella!" sentiment simply because diversity of opinion, perspective and ideology is always going to be at play. I think giving ourselves a voice in the mainstream media narratives would be an awesome start towards reaching our goals. I don't think convincing everyone and stamping out all disagreement is a realistic goal, even if the point of disagreement is such that one side IS in fact completely wrong. There are always gonna be some idiots out there who refuse to listen to reason (and who fail to use logic, your point is a logical one and some people just don't buy into that system of thinking, lol). The ultimate goal, I think, should be tolerance... and right now, the LGB are not tolerated by the TQ+, which is why we're here. Our existence as same-sex-attracted people is not tolerated. And it troubles me that "tolerance" is pathologized and condemned by the TQ+, I have even seen "LGBTQ+" pamphlets suggesting that "tolerance is bigotry," no joke.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

your point is a logical one

¯_ (ツ)_/¯

Logic and rationality let me navigate the world without going completely insane. They're very necessary tools to me and my style of cognition. I lean on them pretty heavily.

free speech, and values tolerance of different opinions while condemning violence

Couldn't agree more. It's amazing how this topic especially (gender ideology) has been framed that any dissent is bigotry. It's very authoritarian. They clearly are not armed with much to have others accept their ideology and politics, we know this, so it seems to me they've fallen back on strong-arming. This does not seem like a good strategy for long-term success, especially since the eventual swing back is really going to hit them hard in the backside. This unfortunately smacks of the mental disorder side of the topic, where they're just not in touch with reality. Not the "I have GD and transitioning is a treatment for it, and I'll always be my birth sex" crowd, but the "I literally am the opposite sex" crowd. Getting through to these people is difficult. At the end of the day, we all have to live with each other, and authoritarianism is not the answer to that. Neither is re-organizing our societies around the needs or wants of a small minority.

Shakes fist at sky Damn Enlightenment value systems.

If we could just wrap people back into Enlightenment values, we wouldn't even need to talk about LGBTQ+, it would just sort itself out. Here, we're staring down the specter of postmodern neo-Marxism.

LGBTQ+ in some sense is a proxy issue.

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

Shakes fist at sky Damn Enlightenment value systems.

If we could just wrap people back into Enlightenment values, we wouldn't even need to talk about LGBTQ+, it would just sort itself out. Here, we're staring down the specter of postmodern neo-Marxism.

I've probably said it a million times on this sub by this point, but I'm a part of the younger generation and I have heard people my age explicitly say, "Rationalism is racist" "Enlightenment values are problematic" (the word is an accusation of bigotry and evil, without explicitly saying so), things like that. It really troubles me. And it's funny, I have come to value logical debate much more since joining Saidit and reading about gender dysphoria.

LGBTQ+ in some sense is a proxy issue.

COMPLETELY agree. I have more recently been reading about the parallels between our issues, and our censorship off of Reddit, and other issues where there is a remarkably similar phenomenon playing out of bannings, use of CP as a weapon to silence and destroy online communities, etc. Race-related topics are just one such area.

Sometimes I worry that we're not looking at a big enough view of the picture. We should be joining hands with people sounding the alarm in the ASD community, with women (although radical feminism can be QUITE homophobic/biphobic, and has a way louder voice than LGB people's right now), and with other minority demographics. That's part of why I was so excited to see this letter signed by a bunch of organizations across demographics! Small progress but still, a step. I'm glad groups such as these are starting to reach out to each other.