ColonizationMagazine he's talking about is from only 9 years ago! Read the whole thread.

submitted by xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) from twitter.com

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

One of the commenters had a really good point. Focusing on a specific niche is, nowhere else in any media, considered exclusionary. Car enthusiasts don't complain about knitting magazines not featuring Lamborghini updates, gardeners don't whine about the lack of planting tips in train media. Only in LGB specific spaces does anyone complain about something catering to a small and well defined group of people. Because it isn't just straight men whining about being kept out of lesbian spaces or straight women with gay men's spaces. It's anything remotely related to anything gay, lesbian, or bisexual that must not only accept trans people who lie and identify as LGB, we must cater to anything and everything trans.

Nowhere does that happen except with the LGB being forced to take on the TQ+. Just looking at that magazine, did bisexuals ever complain that sexy women never appeared on the cover? Did lesbians ever whine that too many men were featured? I highly doubt it, it's only the T, the Q and the + that demands they appear everywhere, regardless of what a space is truly meant for.

[–]julesburm1891 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Literally this morning, my partner and I were talking about how every other group in western society gets to set boundaries. No one expected black people to put up with Rachel Dolezal. When Muslims want a space to talk about Muslim issues, no one else gets to butt in. If an indigenous tribe wants to hold a cultural event, it’s perfectly understood that anyone who is not a member can’t go and steal the show. But, any time women or LGB people try to set similar boundaries, we’re suddenly the worst most hateful bigots in the history of the world.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 9 insightful - 8 fun9 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

And now you understand why I purposely identify as a bigot.

[–]dilsencySame-sex community 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Queer" and "LGBT" doesn't help. I'm beginning to value specificity more and more. If something relates to gay men, it should be natural to refer to it as such, not "2SLGBTQQIA+".

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

I'm so tired of hearing about "LGBTQ+ people." No person is LGBTQ+.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth)[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

actually the second magazine is from 9 years ago, first is from 1994

[–]PriestTheyCalledHimBisexual 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with when he retweeted this:

The anti LGB backlash has started because of the insane TQs undoing all the good work we did.

Remember what the TQs have done, they’ll try to blame LGB people for this but it’s all on them.

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

Yup. We need to refuse to be their scapegoat.

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

RIP Snappy, I AM THE NEW GOD!

Click below to view and/or archive snapshots:

If this comment is being added for sites which cannot be usefully archived - for example, video hosts or an existing archive site - please let the Moderators know by sending ModMail. REPLIES TO THIS COMMENT ARE NOT SEEN BY MODS

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