LGB ErasureThe only possible explanation for being gay and not LGBTQT++++ is: Republican Nazism!

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from (reddit.com)

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

God forbid someone doesnt want to join the cult. Let's revoke his gay card.

What a bunch of zealots. I come from a cult so it's not really easy to impress me with religious zealotry, but they made it. What a toxic cesspool is that subreddit.

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

It’s not fair to take advantage of the work the rest of us have done for his benefit and then throw us under the bus.

this man's "work" is most likely posting stupid shit on twitter and calling it activism

Queer women, trans people, and bisexuals/have pansexuals have fought like hell—done far more than cis gay men—but he’s going to reap the benefits of that and do nothing in return.

if gay men aren't as useful to the alphabet soup as this crossdressing gamer turd says, then why does he care if they start leaving

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

this man's "work" is most likely posting stupid shit on twitter and calling it activism

Ah, the good old slacktivism!

These wastes of space appropriating the hard work of others is nothing new.

[–]Horror-SwordfishI don't get how flairs work 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's because they're trying their hardest to say, "we're not the hangers-on, we built this movement."

Plus gay men are like the straight men of the "queer" community. It's cool to hate on us.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They love to use the phrase "divided we fall" because when we are dealing with cancer the cure is obviously to join together and metastasize.

[–]Neo_Shadow_LurkerPronouns: I/Don't/Care 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Queer women, trans people, and bisexuals/have pansexuals have fought like hell—done far more than cis gay men

[CITATION NEEDED]

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

The fact that anyone can say this with any degree of seriousness. LOL.

I guess I have seen a lot of vague, substance-lacking news articles churned out about "queer people" being "valid" in their "queer identities," so they've been busy in that sense...

[–]Giant-Blue-Catfish 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Source my ass 2020

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I find it crazy how people once heard some bullshit without any citation and now they repeat it like some total, absolute truth.

I also don't get how gay men are treated like "cishets" of the LGBT community, since if you look at third world countries they truly suffer the most. They are killed for being gay by some laws there!

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

When did this idiotic subreddit start having an automod comment under every post evangelizing about "biromantic lesbians"?

Biromantic Lesbians: LGBTQ And All

Sexists. I see there is no "biromantic gay men" article and comment. Just keep pressuring women to date men no matter what, that's fine.

Most biromantic individuals identify as asexual, meaning they can have romantic connections with people without wanting to sleep with them.

Emotional connection without sexual attraction is called a friendship, you fucking morons. It enrages me to see this blatantly homophobic and sexist drivel being spread because it pressures lesbian women to say and believe that they are bisexual, when they are not. This is exactly what happened to me when I was younger. And it is harmful for both lesbian and bisexual women. Meanwhile, equally clueless people in academia completely neglect to mention this phenomenon of lesbian women being pressured to self-identify as bisexual, and instead like to claim bullshit like "wOmEn aRe nAtUrAlLy bIsExUaL!1!" (edit: looking at you, Michael Bailey)

Anyway... on to the actual post...

So much angry denial and scapegoating in the top-voted comments, lol:

Hearing that with no other context makes me immediately assume it’s someone who votes Republican

"Liberal LGB people who want to drop the TQ must not exist." A massive lie.

Internalized homophobia

sounds like "pick me" behavior

"If you don't want to join us, then there is something wrong with you." Hmm, what a lovely-sounding, accepting community, I wonder why so many of us LGB don't want to be a part of it 😆

Sounds like he might be willing to throw the rest of us under the bus rather than stand up for our rights (his included).

LGB people have already been thrown under the bus, that's why so many of us are leaving. Or at least trying to leave, but can't yet openly disavow LGBTQ+ because of the risk of violence.

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

Jehova witnesses were exactly like this.

"Good hearted, honest people will accept the truth"

"You can't be a real christian if you don't join our organization"

"Apostates are bitter, vindictive people. There isn't a good reason to leave God's organization"

Its scary how they use the same cult tactics. At this point they have killed the LGBT community and they are wearing its rainbow corpse. I pity young gay people who fall prey to their manipulation.

[–]Athelhilda4Questioning 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Homoromantic, Biromantic, and Heteromantic only makes sense for asexual people. A woman who is asexual and biromantic isn't a lesbian, she's an asexual who likes to snuggle, kiss, and hold hands with men and other women.

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

I'm not sure it even makes sense for asexuals... although I would be curious to hear the perspective of asexual people here. It just seems like an "asexual and biromantic" person could be simply described as a touchy-feely person who has no preference regarding the sex of who they are physically affectionate with. Just my POV, idk.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

According to this form of classification I am aromantic and asexual (so technically your stereotypical asexual) so I may not be able to answer that too well. I think the difference between sexless romance and friendship is a bit blurry. I guess you wouldn't kiss a friend though. Might be that asexual simply says they're comfortable with doing stuff like kissing with both sexes. Some only feel comfortable with doing it with the same sex as them or as the opposite one.

Since I am super clueless about romance and sex (I mean, not surprising lol) then I am not gonna try engaging in a discussion about romantic attraction. Traditionally romantic attraction is understood as platonic attraction and sexual attraction. In asexual community they define it as... platonic attraction with some extra but not sexual stuff? I mean I am not gonna critize it because it's not rare to find the same word meaning a bit different things depending on the place/context/culture. So I don't think it's a stretch that romantic attraction understood by asexuals will be different than romantic attraction defined by the rest of society. It even shows some of these fundamental differences between actual asexuals and the rest of population I assume.

But this is where I think the whole split attraction model should be used exclusively by asexuals. Because asexual romantic attraction(platonic+nonsexual extra) is different from typical romantic attraction (platonic+sexual).

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

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I wonder what that "nonsexual extra" is supposed to mean, though, to asexuals who identify with this framework... I could be wrong but I am really wondering if it may actually just be a very very strong platonic bond, such that the "asexual romantic" person is deeply invested in the person they have "romantic but not sexual" attraction to. I say "just" to indicate the simplicity of the type of attraction; I do not mean to diminish the significance of that bond in any way. If anything, "friend" is too light and casual a word to describe the kind of incredibly deep platonic bond that two human beings can have. I guess what I am saying is, I wonder if some "romantic asexuals" are actually experiencing platonic affection but are put off by how much pop culture may dismiss and undervalue deep platonic relationships compared to sexual ones.

I think there is also a different subgroup of "romantic asexuals" who seem to be disgusted by or otherwise bothered by their sexual attraction. I know a number of gay/lesbian/bisexual people sometimes call themselves asexual before realizing and/or admitting that they are LGB, because the fact of their own sexual attraction bothers or unnerves them, or makes them ashamed. I have known at least one straight person like this, too.

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

I definitely agree that the whole "romantic asexual" thing might be just a platonic bond but since people don't take friendships seriously even if such bonds can be as strong and a "breakup" hurts as much too, then they prefer to call it romantic so it could be seen as more significant.

If that's the case it's definitely rather sad, not gonna lie. I can form really strong platonic bonds (friendships) but since it's not romantic in the actual sense (lacks sexual component) then it isn't seen as important by society even if it is important for me. It is seen as okay to end or neglect such a relationship for the sake of romantic one because it's seen as higher priority.

So I can see why ace community is clingy towards using that wording. Even if it's technically wrong.

I also agree with the other subgroup of "romantic asexuals." I overall have the impression asexual label truly attracts confused people (or spicy straights) but since this is a some kind of entry to LGBT community as a whole then maybe with time they will grow more comfortable with being just gay or bi by observing others who are gay or bi there.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Emotional connection without sexual attraction is called a friendship, you fucking morons. It enrages me to see this blatantly homophobic and sexist drivel being spread because it pressures lesbian women to say and believe that they are bisexual, when they are not. This is exactly what happened to me when I was younger. And it is harmful for both lesbian and bisexual women. Meanwhile, equally clueless people in academia completely neglect to mention this phenomenon of lesbian women being pressured to self-identify as bisexual, and instead like to claim bullshit like "wOmEn aRe nAtUrAlLy bIsExUaL!1!" (edit: looking at you, Michael Bailey)

Yup I totally agree. I honestly think the whole stuff with biromantic, aromantic, homoromantic crap should be a thing exclusively used by asexuals. Using it outside of asexual community should be called a misuse and a mean of confusing people, who try to get more comfortable with being fully gay or bi.

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

It is reddit. I read that a lot of reddit users are really bots, fake accounts farming for karma/attention, spammers, etc.

A lot of the actual people in the LGBT, trans subs and on Twitter just spew the same tiresome BS over and over and think if they repeat it enough it will make it true such as the "trans women of color Stonewall myth" or the myth catchphrase of "The first pride was a riot!" Neither of these are remotely true. Trans people were not at Stonewall or the early pride events at all. I know people who were actually at both Stonewall as bar customers and the demonstration as well as early LGB aka gay pride events and trans/transsexuals were not there or involved. Trans people and drag queens were not even allowed in the Stonewall bar and those who pretended to be regulars when in reality they never were such as Malcolm/Marsha and Sylvia were not allowed in and were seen as the nutcases or people to avoid that they were. Malcolm/Marsha was schizophrenic not on meds and changed personalities by the minute/hour. Sylvia bragged about robbing gay and bisexual men who would go to the Stonewall bar or who were leaving it or near it.

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

Trans people and drag queens were not even allowed in the Stonewall bar and those who pretended to be regulars when in reality they never were such as Malcolm/Marsha and Sylvia were not allowed in and were seen as the nutcases or people to avoid that they were. Malcolm/Marsha was schizophrenic not on meds and changed personalities by the minute/hour. Sylvia bragged about robbing gay and bisexual men who would go to the Stonewall bar or who were leaving it or near it.

Damn, reality is bleaker than I thought. I already knew Marsha wasn't a mythical hero, but I couldn't imagine he and Sylvia were like that. Not like I took the time to investigate, but the trans community put them in a pedestal.

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

Trans people and drag queens were not even allowed in the Stonewall bar and those who pretended to be regulars when in reality they never were such as Malcolm/Marsha and Sylvia were not allowed in and were seen as the nutcases or people to avoid that they were.

I'm not sure about this. Early newspaper reports highlighted drag queens during the riots.

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

A bunch of comments saying

If someone is gay, they are by definition part of the LGBTQ+ community whether they like it or not.

but then they're the first ones to say you're not queer if you don't agree with their tenets. They can't fathom people not being part of a monolithic group just because they are somewhat related (and even that's a stretch since e.g. homosexuals, transsexuals and gender-non-conforming people don't have anything in common with each other necessarily).

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

LGBTQ+ community is mostly a bunch of people, who actually don't have much in common besides for being a bit different. Trans people have so completely different stuff going on than gay or bi people. Asexual people are also different than gay or bi people - in such a space they wouldn't like to talk about sex in theory, right?

[–]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:

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