LGB HistoryFake Gay History - the pink triangle is apparently now a symbol for genderqueer women

submitted by KingDickThe2nd from (compactmag.com)

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]reluctant_commenter 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

The teacher continues, “The pink triangle was used in concentration camps to identify gay women and also people who were asexual

Oh, so THIS is the "asexual oppression" we've been hearing all about. Those nazis just really, really wanted people in concentration camps to have sex with each other.

On a more serious note: I don't think this magazine is a credible source, either. This claim isn't true:

The Nazis didn’t, in fact, systematically persecute lesbians.

Also not a fan of this article celebrating condescending patriarchies.

[–]CancelPowerSuper Bi Male 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Throughout history, gay men were much more oppressed than lesbians. I'm not saying lesbians weren't oppressed too but like...c'mon. Gay men were always target #1 for straight people while lesbians were more like "dismissed" and "ignored"

It's very harmful not to acknowledge that.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

On a more serious note: I don't think this magazine is a credible source, either. This claim isn't true:

The Nazis didn’t, in fact, systematically persecute lesbians.

It appears to be an oversimplification on his part rather than being outright false. I note that the first sentence of what you linked is almost word-for-word what he said and I think actually supports the main point he is making. Nazi and other regimes' treatment toward homosexuality, gender non-conformity, and transsexualism is one of the things on my list to look into more, especially toward female homosexuality.

All of this being said, it feels odd for the author (River Page who is a gay man) to emphasize lesbians in this, as if it's lesbians that are anachronistically overinserting ourselves into history via "queer" narratives, but it seems like this is the result of him addressing a viral Tik Tok that invoked lesbians specifically for whatever reason. I'm not on Tik Tok and am not familiar with that particular Tik Tok video so I can't say much about his selection of this Tik Tok to call out specifically.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I note that the first sentence of what you linked is almost word-for-word what he said

I don't think it is, though. What he said was:

The Nazis didn’t, in fact, systematically persecute lesbians.

What the first sentence of the article I linked said:

The Nazis did not systematically prosecute or persecute lesbians solely because of their same-sex sexuality (commonly called homosexuality at the time).

I put the emphasis on solely. The distinction made in the article is that women's same-sex attraction was perceived as not existing, or as being "more capable of being changed by coercion," than men's same-sex attraction:

The Nazis did not create any separate policies that singled out lesbians as a problem for Aryan procreation. Their reasoning drew on widespread attitudes about the differences between male and female sexuality. The Nazis concluded that Aryan lesbians could easily be persuaded or forced to bear children.

It's true that there weren't tons of official laws explicitly condemning female homosexuality the way male homosexuality was condemned. I think that's an interesting and important point-- a difference in how same sex attracted men were harmed by the Nazi regime, versus same sex attracted women. But as that article describes, there were still persistent, regular patterns of persecution of lesbian women. Those patterns stayed consistent over time and they at least followed a system of cultural rules and norms, even if not a legal one. I'd call that "systematic" in the colloquial sense of the word, even there weren't official laws condemning female homosexuality. Perhaps I am using the word systematic differently than other people are.

Just my take. But if you think I am making a logical error here, please point it out! I always appreciate hearing your perspective.

All of this being said, it feels odd for the author (River Page who is a gay man) to emphasize lesbians in this, as if its lesbians that are anachronistically overinserting ourselves into history via "queer" narratives

Yeah I wasn't a fan of that lol. I do get the anger at lesbian women who perpetuate transgender ideology/Queer Theory. Conceptually, though, it seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison-- lumping female homosexuality in with the meaningless label "queer".

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'll take a look again. I skimmed that pretty quickly tbh. But my impression was that the de facto discrimination against lesbians that occurred was primarily because they were women rather than same-sex attracted women. I think this is a major difference that underscores what the author is trying to communicate. I think this is a common blindspot in "LGBT history" and "LGBT narratives" because most cultures of the past and outside of the west today don't really recognize female sexuality at all regardless of who it was or is directed at. I'm not saying that lesbian women did not and do not experience discrimination as a result, but I think it's very meaningfully different and requires its own separate analysis that should be handled separately from treatment of male homosexuality/homosexual behavior.

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

But my impression was that the de facto discrimination against lesbians that occurred was primarily because they were women rather than same-sex attracted women.

Hmm, that's interesting. I honestly don't know enough of general LGB discrimination history to be sure one way or another. I do think it's clear that lesbian women faced unique forms of discrimination that non-lesbian women didn't have to deal with; but maybe that is more related to an anti-GNC menality as opposed to people being against female same-sex attraction. I'll have to read more about it.

I'm not saying that lesbian women did not and do not experience discrimination as a result, but I think it's very meaningfully different and requires its own separate analysis that should be handled separately from treatment of male homosexuality/homosexual behavior.

Makes sense, and I completely agree!

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

To study sexuality close to WWII, around 1930's, the Weimar Republic, like in Berlin would be a good start. There's a few journal entries or bits in memories written about that time which may give an insight on the attitude about those things at the time.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some things in here I need to fact check myself, but I am always thrilled to see LGB people call out the politically motivated revisionism of gay/same-sex rights history.

Lost amid these ferocious skirmishes, however, is the principle of factual probity. Far too often, what passes for “discussions of gender and sexuality” and “allyship” among the educator-activist class is, in fact, propaganda that traduces actual LGBT history and insults the intelligence of the wider community. And it’s all done to maintain narratives that serve the interests of the educator-activist class, whether they be personal or political.

Yes, it is an incredibly short-sighted strategy and will do more harm than good in the long run. Most people don't appreciate having their intelligence insulted and being prevented from calling it out. And once people realize they've been lied to so thoroughly on so many levels, they naturally recalibrate themselves as incredulous.

A politically charged, DIY approach to “queer history” lies behind TikTok’s pink-triangle fantasies. For three decades, that approach has triumphed over objective research by serious journalists and historians. Combatting the conservative charge that LGBT history is a tool for ideological warfare begins with gay people acknowledging the gun in their hands. Until then, we can only watch the shots being fired, one convenient story at a time.

I am curious about the "three decades" assertion, but otherwise agree that those who act with such willful disregard for the truth squander what credibility and moral high ground we have. I'm glad to hear more people voicing this from within the community.

[–]automoderatorHuman-Exclusionary Radical Overlord[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Click to view and/or archive snapshots:

If this comment is being added for websites which cannot be usefully archived - for example, video hosts or an existing archive site - please let the subreddit Moderators know by sending ModMail. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this sub if you have any questions or concerns.