LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

Bacle said:

aging hardcore social-con

Click to expand...

It’s not really aging. The biggest and most organized challenge to the Establishment right this second is America First which is centered around a 22 year old pundit and his base that is largely Gen Z/Millennial.


Just pulled off a pretty solid event and a challenge to CPAC that got several other pundits and a couple GOP reps there. This movement is going to continue to grow and gain popularity and legitimacy despite all effort to destroy it via the left and con inc.

Abhorsen said:

I mean, I go to pride (or did, before Covid), and I was going in Boston. I was the only conservative in my friend groups

Click to expand...

What on earth makes you a conservative.

FriedCFour said:

What on earth makes you a conservative.

Click to expand...

Relative to them, I should say.

strunkenwhite said:

2a. Your contortions are nonsensical. By your standard no couple should get a marriage license until the female is in her second trimester at a minimum. It is only by the grace of the state that said license is not rescinded upon the death of the child.

Click to expand...

This is a totally nonsensical contortion lol. If you’re going to be this ridiculous and ignore my explanations I don’t even know how I can discuss anything with you.

FriedCFour said:

This is a totally nonsensical contortion lol. If you’re going to be this ridiculous and ignore my explanations I don’t even know how I can discuss anything with you.

Click to expand...

Oh you mean explanations like "A marriage where one or both partners are infertile [...] but both are heterosexual, is far less egregious against the purpose [of procreation and child-rearing] because between the partners it’s an exception, not the rule"?

When there is 1+ infertile person in a couple they are 100% not having a child. It's not an exception. The entire group is already the exception—just like with homosexuals.* How am I wrong here?

*Correction: a lesbian couple that agreed to get impregnated is more capable of having a child than an infertile heterosexual couple. Thus they would be more fit for purpose under your standard.

strunkenwhite said:

Oh you mean explanations like "A marriage where one or both partners are infertile [...] but both are heterosexual, is far less egregious against the purpose [of procreation and child-rearing] because between the partners it’s an exception, not the rule"?

Click to expand...

Egregious is wrong for infertile. It’s egregious to get married when you are well into older age, infertility isn’t really anything wrong on the part of the people but an extremely unfortunate hardship to deal with. Hell you should be married before you hit 30 or have sex. But otherwise no, I don’t see why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around.

When there is 1+ infertile person in a couple they are 100% not having a child. It's not an exception. The entire group is already the exception—just like with homosexuals. How am I wrong here?

Click to expand...

There’s fertility treatments and you generally don’t even know if you are fertile or not unless a menopausal woman or you’ve tried and failed to have children and checked with a doctor. You’re wrong because, like all of you, you continually ignore the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual coupling. They aren’t the same, they shouldn’t be treated the same. Defining it around heterosexual marriage because heterosexual couples have kids means that infertility is an exception to that withon

FriedCFour said:

Egregious is wrong for infertile. It’s egregious to get married when you are well into older age, infertility isn’t really anything wrong on the part of the people but an extremely unfortunate hardship to deal with. Hell you should be married before you hit 30 or have sex. But otherwise no, I don’t see why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around.

Click to expand...

It's hard because "egregious" is just your completely subjective excuse in your head to give some people a pass and not others. Your standard is no standard.

There’s fertility treatments and you generally don’t even know if you are fertile or not unless a menopausal woman or you’ve tried and failed to have children and checked with a doctor. You’re wrong because, like all of you, you continually ignore the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual coupling. They aren’t the same, they shouldn’t be treated the same. Defining it around heterosexual marriage because heterosexual couples have kids means that infertility is an exception to that withon

Click to expand...

Yeah that's why if your standard really cared about the ability of the couple to have and rear children it would demand a demonstration of fertility as a prerequisite to marriage.

Whether or not a given couple is actually capable of having a child is irrelevant to the discussion of "what about heterosexual couples that cannot in fact have children, or who never will?"

If you're willing to make an exception to your standard for infertile heterosexuals, what is your logic for doing that and yet denying a similar exception for homosexuals who may in fact be fertile and willing to be e.g. artificially inseminated? Saying "one is OK and the other isn't" is a non-answer.

If you're going to say there's a fundamental difference between the fitness of heterosexual couples to rear children and that of homosexual couples then just get on with it and stop embarrassing yourself with this ridiculous attempt at trying to base it on the fact that MM and FF couplings do not bear fruit.

LindyAF said:

And by this logic you might as well throw in the towel on every issue you're right wing on. If you're on team [current year] and "long arc of history" why not just be a dem? Is it just that how quickly dems are moving on stuff the disquiets you?

Click to expand...

This shit right here is why the regressive left and the regressive right compare well together - it is always an "either/or" with these two groups.

Also of note is this odd obsessive tendency some of the people on the religious right have to basically just conflate differing ideologies as "religion," almost as if they simply can't comprehend the idea of someone not being religious, or perhaps that it just makes them feel more comfortable to think in those terms.

Captain X said:

This shit right here is why the regressive left and the regressive right compare well together - it is always an "either/or" with these two groups.

Also of note is this odd obsessive tendency some of the people on the religious right have to basically just conflate differing ideologies as "religion," almost as if they simply can't comprehend the idea of someone not being religious, or perhaps that it just makes them feel more comfortable to think in those terms.

Click to expand...

Call it a 'worldview' then if you want.

If it:

1. Defines your conception of human worth.
2. Defines your conception of human morality.
3. Defines your conception of God.
4. Defines everything that flows down from those philosophically.

Whether you call it a 'religion,' a 'ideology,' a 'worldview,' or whatever else, it is directly equivalent to a religion.

Atheists and agnostics in the 20th century decided it was a useful tool to define themselves as not religious, religious people as irrational, and that 'separation of church and state' meant that everyone else should be banned from using what they believed in to shape culture and political ideology.

Put another way, if atheists and agnostics get to decide that religion isn't allowed in public discourse, and they aren't religious (even though their ideology encompasses everything that a religion does), then they win all discussions and debates by default, because only their ideological assumptions are permissible to argue from.

It's a clever trick, and it's been bloody effective.

Lord Sovereign said:

It's somewhat sad in that the social conservatives would have a platform with broad appeal if they could just ease off on the religious stuff because it gives way to puritanism no one wants. Prime example of that is the Constitution Party, who seem to continuously shoot themselves in the foot with some of the most demented social policy I have ever seen, whilst everything else is reasonable.

Click to expand...

The LGBT response to that was basically, "If we're going to have to fight just as hard to get 'just' civil unions that aren't even pretending to be equal, why should we even consider settling for that?" Especially with people like Orson Scott Card who were not only arguing that they'd revolt against the United States government over LGBT people getting *any* civil rights whatsoever, but outright calling for returning to the days where being LGBT was criminalized *in and of itself*.

ParadiseLost said:

Trans athletes are like .001% of trans people. Same for Trans in the military.

"Part of the issues with Ts is something .002% of Trans people do." .002% of a given demographic are exploiting things they shouldn't be exploiting? Stop the presses!

Click to expand...

You do realize that, given the actual Trans population of the US, your numbers come out to between 10 and 20 people total there?

Bear Ribs said:

You do realize that, given the actual Trans population of the US, your numbers come out to between 10 and 20 people total there?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's a pretty good ballpark number for how many trans there are in professional sports in the US.

If you look at the "notable trans athletes" on Wikipedia, its so specific that its listing individual college-level players. Many of the people listed are no longer in sports.

Trans people are not a relevant part of athletics. That's why you always hear stories about individual trans people in athletics and never overall statistics.

ShadowArxxy said:

The LGBT response to that was basically, "If we're going to have to fight just as hard to get 'just' civil unions that aren't even pretending to be equal, why should we even consider settling for that?" Especially with people like Orson Scott Card who were not only arguing that they'd revolt against the United States government over LGBT people getting *any* civil rights whatsoever, but outright calling for returning to the days where being LGBT was criminalized *in and of itself*.

Click to expand...

Fuckin’ based!

Abhorsen said:

It's not so much the T as it is the weirdos/grifters.

Basically, there are normal trans people, who just transition then just want to act as the other sex, and not do anything weird. Think Blair White, Buck Angel, two people (out of many 'fakes' (including me, I'll get to that below)) that I met in college, etc.

Then there are two other groups (and they quite distinct). There's barely transitioned people who are confused, and are 'non-binary'. That's not a thing. Usually they don't know what they are doing, especially college aged ones (I was one, til I realized that no, I don't have dysphoria, I'm just comfortable in a skirt cause I'm bi and kinky. It's one of the reasons I'm confident non-binaries don't exist. Snapping out of this was part of the reason I'm so happy I left the left. I could have disfigured my body for no reason if I had gone further, and that scares me (Don't think I've ever announced this online either)). These kids are setting themselves up for a possibly horrible future life. I'm lucky I matured fast enough.

Then there are abusive male sex offenders who want to exploit the system. These are almost all MTF, and seem to be fine transitioning.

This is what I think people are fine dropping, but to often normal T's are wrapped up in this bullshit.

Click to expand...

When I was a kid, I was over weight, so I had chubby man breasts.

My lips got chapped a lot and would often be very red.

Some kids made fun of me and called me a girl for these things.

One day I went home to my parents all upset, telling them how I think I'm a girl and shit.

They explained to me how kids are cruel, I'm a boy, and that if I exercised more and didn't eat candy, that problem would go away.

HOLY SHIT am I glad they had that talk! I was just a confused kid because people were making fun of me.

I spent that summer running laps around my back yard and lost a bunch of weight and I never got made fun of for having boobs again.

Had my parents been modern day radical leftists they might have put me on puberty blockers and shit!

ParadiseLost said:

Yes, that's a pretty good ballpark number for how many trans there are in professional sports in the US.

If you look at the "notable trans athletes" on Wikipedia, its so specific that its listing individual college-level players. Many of the people listed are no longer in sports.

Trans people are not a relevant part of athletics. That's why you always hear stories about individual trans people in athletics and never overall statistics.

Click to expand...

And if you check Wikipedia's list of Notable Physicians in the US you'll find only 23 people, most of them also retired from medicine. Do you also believe that's how many doctors there are in the country? Wikipedia's lists are neither exhaustive nor authoritative.

Bear Ribs said:

And if you check Wikipedia's list of Notable Physicians in the US you'll find only 23 people, most of them also retired from medicine. Do you also believe that's how many doctors there are in the country? Wikipedia's lists are neither exhaustive nor authoritative.

Click to expand...

Question: Do you honestly believe there are thousands of trans athletes in American sports? What do you think the numbers are?

Because whatever it is, its insignificant enough that there are no statistics on it.

And even then, what less than .1% (anyone who thinks there are more than 1400 trans athletes in the US is crazy) of a demographic is doing should be pretty irrelevant to how we treat the mass of that demographic.

ParadiseLost said:

Question: Do you honestly believe there are thousands of trans athletes in American sports? What do you think the numbers are?

Because whatever it is, its insignificant enough that there are no statistics on it.

And even then, what less than .1% (anyone who thinks there are more than 1400 trans athletes in the US is crazy) of a demographic is doing should be pretty irrelevant to how we treat the mass of that demographic.

Click to expand...

Well if we go off how many college athletes there are, we get about 400,000 in the US out of a population of about 330,000,000 which yields around 1 per 825 total humans. If we make the base assumption that the percentage of trans athletes is equal to the percentage of non-trans athletes (Not a certainty but a reasonable starting proposition) we get around 1575 college trans athletes, a far cry from 10-20.

Edit: Should probably add that this is a fairly conservative estimate, There are significantly more Trans in the school and college demographics than adults by percentage.

strunkenwhite said:

If you're willing to make an exception to your standard for infertile heterosexuals, what is your logic for doing that and yet denying a similar exception for homosexuals who may in fact be fertile and willing to be e.g. artificially inseminated? Saying "one is OK and the other isn't" is a non-answer.

If you're going to say there's a fundamental difference between the fitness of heterosexual couples to rear children and that of homosexual couples then just get on with it and stop embarrassing yourself with this ridiculous attempt at trying to base it on the fact that MM and FF couplings do not bear fruit.

Click to expand...

.... that is what I am saying, and have been saying this entire time lol. There’s no get on with it. That was my open position from the beginning. “Children should be raised with a mother and father”. It’s just also tied to the fact that marriage is about having kids lol.

Captain X said:

Also of note is this odd obsessive tendency some of the people on the religious right have to basically just conflate differing ideologies as "religion," almost as if they simply can't comprehend the idea of someone not being religious, or perhaps that it just makes them feel more comfortable to think in those terms.

Click to expand...

Are communists or wokeists akin to a religion as @Abhorsen said? This is hardly something that only I do or only my side does. Very often secular left wing ideologies are called a religion by secular right libertarians to discredit them, despite them both being rooted in what is supposedly not religious. What I find weird is that when secular libertarians look at these other secular ideologies, they often say “these guys are like a religion” to discredit them, once again leaving them as the only ideology that is uniquely good, and that they tend to conflate literally all other politics together as the same and as bad in the same way except for their own. I say that it is religious because human beings are naturally religious. It’s something we come to again, among pretty much all civilizations.

Abhorsen said:

Eh. Usually the type I'm talking about have offended before transitioning.

Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not saying people who haven't committed crimes should be treated as if they have. Just that, as you mentioned, this type is perfectly okay with transitioning, which makes me doubt that it's just a way to exploit the system. The progressive narrative on these people is that they're just trans people who are criminals, and in a way I think this is correct, insofar as I've seen nothing to make me think what's going on with transitioning criminals who fit the agp type is much different from transitioning non-criminals who fit the agp type.

IMO Blanchard's typology for agp-type mtfs is convincing, and matches with what I've seen. Admittedly, this is only two agp-types people I've interacted with and I cut contact with them because I thought they were weird before they were publicly trans but it's still 2/3 "trans" people I've known. If that's correct agp-type mtfs can be understood as basically men with a paraphilia who want everyone else to act out their paraphilia, much like, I don't know, someone going out in public wearing a fursuit or bdsm stuff. I think that selecting for people who do that sort of thing selects for people who have little respect for other people's bounadries, so it's no great surprise that there's sexual criminals among them.

Of course, weirdness is not criminality and non-criminals should not be treated like criminals. So while I do think certain people should probably be restricted from roles of authority over children, I don't agree with @The Immortal Watch Dog prescription. (Also, I think it would hurt the "dumb trans-trender kid" and "discord grooming victim" components of the population in a way I don't think is reasonable).

Captain X said:

This shit right here is why the regressive left and the regressive right compare well together - it is always an "either/or" with these two groups.

Click to expand...

Sure, bud. So do you consider yourself, then if you're so concerned with not being one of those spooky regressives? Progressive? Or progressives were right about every single issue they succeeded on up until ~2015, but also wrong about every single other issue, so we need to make sure society stays exactly as it is now?

Yes. My position is informed by the fact that I do not think we can balance midway down the slippery slope. I think your discount, watered-down liberalism is simply outcompeted by the harder, more extreme strain. Conservatism as liberalism going the speed limit is an ideology for the designated losers of the current paradigm. I think in order to construct a movement capable of resisting the aspects of liberalism that everyone here disagrees, and even what most liberals currently disagree with, accepting their premises and then just fiddling a bit with the conclusions is insufficient. What's necessary is presenting a totally different worldview, a complete rejection of liberalism. Weeds have to be pulled up by their roots.

FriedCFour said:

.... that is what I am saying, and have been saying this entire time lol. There’s no get on with it. That was my open position from the beginning. “Children should be raised with a mother and father”. It’s just also tied to the fact that marriage is about having kids lol.

Click to expand...

... but [rant]. Fine. What's your evidence in support of that?