Welcome, Reddit ban wave refugees!

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I guess to me things like "only the bible has arguments challenging these ideas" and "people who think very differently than I do about these topics are homophobic/bigots" seem more ideological and dogmatic.

At any rate, thanks for sharing your current thoughts about this. I'm not that familiar with LGBdroptheT so it's interesting to see what people have to say about it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've had countless arguments over countless hours with all sorts of people. If I am not allowed to summarize my experiences by accurately depicting the vast majority of them as "muh bible", which they generally are, what am I supposed to do? Write whole books and encyclopedias of transcripts? It isn't about "people who think differently", it's a special category of people I reserve as bigots who are explicitly hypocritical with respect to their treatment of others.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you not think you're being hypocritical if you use "homophobia" this way but don't want others to use "transphobia" (and perhaps "sexism" or "misogyny") this way?

Nobody else here mention the bible, or people who say that it's transphobic for self-identified homosexual men to not consider transgenderist women as sexual partners. It was you who introduced those topics. All I did was say that it looks to me like there is at least one dogmatic, ideological position within LGB-ism: it's bad and not ok to think "homosexuality is as much of a choice as most other human behavior." And I invited you to comment on that. To me, your response suggests to me that this is an ideology-based dogmatic stance for you.

I might be misunderstanding, if so you're welcome to clear it up. That's just how it looks to me. I had somewhat hoped that DropTheT might be a place where more open discussion could take place the way you were talking about it.

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

I do not understand your point at all anymore. It is precisely because sexuality is not something "chosen" that gender ideology is homophobic, since it seeks to supplant innate inclinations with an ideology of gender expression above all else. Just as the bible thumpers did with one era of their arguments against homosexuality. What do you think is hypocritical here?

To compare what is, reality, with dogma and ideology, is to supplant reality itself with mere opinion. The "choices" people make in the casual way people mean choice, such as whether to have a sandwich or make eggs, is not comparable nor even coherent to sexuality. That is a real, distinct, difference. How is that ideology?

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

I do not understand your point at all anymore.

Oh. Sorry. I'm not always as clear a writer as I'd like to be. Was there anything in particular where it wasn't clear what I was saying?

To compare what is, reality, with dogma and ideology, is to supplant reality itself with mere opinion. The "choices" people make in the casual way people mean choice, such as whether to have a sandwich or make eggs, is not comparable nor even coherent to sexuality. That is a real, distinct, difference. How is that ideology?

I would consider it dogmatic and ideological to say "this is what reality is, that's just the way it is." It seems like most of the time when we're trying to be reality based, people can just freely discuss ideas. If something's incorrect, it's easy to correct because you can just point out how reality is, and everyone in the conversation can see it. People are more likely to say, "this is what we've learned about X topic so far" or "I find it useful to think of it like this" than "this is just how it is and there's probably something wrong with people who think otherwise."

I don't think LGB ideology really attempts to be reality-based. I think for one, the "it's never a choice" thing exists because it's politically useful because of the existing framework for anti-discrimination laws. I would also consider it dogmatic and ideological to insist on understanding human sexual behavior in the LGB way. That there is a thing called "sexuality" that all humans have. It's innate; environmental factors don't affect it. "Sexuality" can basically be "homosexual" or "heterosexual" or "bisexual". The most important thing that informs this "sexuality" is a person's biological sex, above all. Thoughts, emotions, drives, etc about reproduction are an entirely unrelated thing from "sexuality". Etc.

Are these things true? Maybe some of them. Maybe like geocentric astronomy they kinda work ok enough much of the time. Maybe some aren't true. Maybe that's not the only way to think of things and that's ok. But it doesn't seem like you can freely explore these ideas in places which enforce LGB ideology. That's why it seems ideological and dogmatic to me.