LGBInternational: Serious or Transphobic?

1. 86

   GA Andersonposted 2 days ago

   A new international movement (9/20/25) has emerged to support the LGB communities against what is perceived as a 'usurpation' by the TQ+(etc) communities: LGB International. You can see their "Declaration of Independence"  in this X post video
   
   Since I solved the "When does life begin?" question with my typically infallible logic and reason, I've decided to use that same lack of authority and shallow knowledge to support passing judgment on this idea.
   
   It makes sense to me. The LGB argument feels legitimate. However, since I don't support the trans movement, could the argument's appeal be simply a case of confirmation bias?
   
   A look-around found that the primary opposition is a claim of transphobia. That sounds strange. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black — in a descriptive way, not a derogatory one.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Ken Burgessposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      The sooner they shed their connection to the Trans and Pedophile (MAPs) and +++/Furry groups the sooner they can get back to being streamlined into acceptance by the main.
      
      I think the acceptance of the others is an acceptance that a culture/society is dying and doomed... there is no place in the main for insanity to be accepted or for criminal, harmful, abusive acts to be legalized.
      
      I can see why they would want no part in it... there are enough people who will hold biases against them (Religious extremists of multiple faiths)... linking arms with the criminal and insane as culture determines the others to be today does them no good.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         GA Andersonposted 45 hours agoin reply to this

         The flippant part of the OP, the "since I . . . " part, was dumb. It was too late to edit it when I came back. Mea culpa.
         
         But . . . the video got my attention. The portrayals looked like just average folks. Plus, the points they made relative to 'going too far' were ones a lot of us Conservative folks agree with.
         
         That agreement doesn't have to be due to any bias; it could be 'just common sense' tolerance. But it can't hurt to check. I think I'm good.  ;-)
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Ken Burgessposted 23 hours agoin reply to this

            To be pitied for sure... but all efforts to keep this from the main should be exhausted.  Tolerance for the spread of mental illness is not a good thing:
            
            https://x.com/stillgray/status/1970982884795187203

            replyreport
            1. 86

               GA Andersonposted 21 hours agoin reply to this

               Something feels like a disconnect. Your link didn't reference the tolerance I meant to infer.
               
               GA

               replyreport
   2. 77

      Kyler J Falkposted 20 hours agoin reply to this

      Strangely enough, I discussed something along these lines with my gym partner today. She asked me, "Do you think the left is going to disappear in America?"
      
      I responded with no, we have a longstanding two-party system that is required by our social and political infrastructure to keep the country moving smoothly and any radical change to that would equal the destruction of any coherency in the nation we have left.
      
      She clarified, "No, I mean like the LGBT community who wants to mutilate children and create more trans kids. You know, the ones who scream the most and loudest, and the media pushes them everywhere as representing the left."
      
      I then responded that the industry for brainwashing, mutilating and chemically altering children and adults alike was a billions-of-dollars industry. They don't push it to represent a political stance, they push it as a political stance to normalize their business practices.
      
      I then asked her this because she is 'transphobic': "If I gave you $200k per year to change your opinion and express support for the 'TQ+' agenda publicly, would you do so?"
      
      She agreed that it would weigh heavily on her conscience, but that she wouldn't be able to resist such an offer.
      
      I'm convinced that this is the majority of the reason that politicians haven't outright purged the 'TQ+' indoctrination from public discourse, but instead many openly promote and call for even more of it. It's a money maker, and so long as they can keep it in the spotlight as a soapbox to stand on, the money will continue to flow. It is, as a whole, a business interest to keep people heading down that path toward grooming, chemical castration, literal castration, brainwashing, etc.
      
      This isn't to say that there aren't truly a minority of cases where such treatment is actually beneficial, but on the whole it's a business venture through and through.
      
      Who wouldn't want an extra few thousands in their back pocket if all they have to do is keep it popular and legal to groom and experiment on the public?
      
      Personally, a little scorched earth on the topic is what I'd like to see, but this is my perspective on the whole thing. I'd like to see more focus on how much money is made and to who that money goes as far as the entire medical regimen for 'TQ+' individuals is concerned.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Readmikenowposted 11 hours agoin reply to this

         I enjoyed reading your comment. 
         
         You've provided some very interesting content.

         replyreport
      2. 86

         GA Andersonposted 9 hours agoin reply to this

         I think the LGB International point makes sense. The conflation of TQ+ with LGB hurts everyone.
         
         The perspective that LGB is saying just leave us alone to live our lives, and TQ+ is demanding recognition and promotion of theirs, seems a fair one.
         
         One is reality, whether we like it or not, and one is demanding we accept an alternative reality, whether we like it or not.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kyler J Falkposted 9 hours agoin reply to this

            I think that most, if not all social movements that center around swaying public opinion, perception, and discourse are established and promoted by those with ulterior motives and should not be taken at face value. That includes this group trying to break away from the more-unattractive half of the alphabet tribe for me.
            
            For all I know, this organization has been formed, elevated, and put in the spotlight to further entrench the claimed victimization of a group of individuals. Arguments are only strengthened by the presence of a counterargument, and only time can tell what the true motives are of any given social movement.
            
            It seems counterintuitive to jump on a soapbox and yell out, "Oh God, can't everyone just leave me alone. Gah, just look at how obsessed you are with me! Can't I just live my life!? Stop looking at those weirdos, and don't look at me either, just hear me as I scream from my pulpit to mind your own business!"
            
            Seems fishy. Good sentiment, fishy delivery. They should be in front of congress or their equivalent with their soapbox and messages, and if they can't get a hearing then they should be on the border of the capitol building making their demands.
            
            Perhaps I'm just too cynical toward social movements these days, I'm convinced most of them are just controlled opposition.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               GA Andersonposted 8 hours agoin reply to this

               I can't resist, but I can strip all the typical negative connotations from my intent:
               
               Duh! That's the reality of human nature.   ;-)
               
               My point wasn't about the mechanisms, and only a little bit about the 'true' motives of the group. It was about the resonance of the message, regardless of whether it was from a monied cabal, an activist group, or an affected individual.
               
               Today, any actor has access to enough data, and capabilities to craft a message that hits home for any of us.
               This one hit all my buttons, so my 'bias concern' was addressed.
               
               Your cynicism is historically well-founded, but supporting facts are not. The presentation of the video could be a manipulative marketing bullseye for folks like me, or the presented message could be authentic and the craftsmanship of its presentation shouldn't be a detraction.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Kyler J Falkposted 8 hours agoin reply to this

                  The fact it hits all of my buttons was the reason I immediately questioned it. I find my immediate, "fuck yeah," response suspicious. Perhaps I'm letting too many thoughts spill out from beneath my tinfoil hat.
                  
                  I agree, the message is one I could support at face value.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     GA Andersonposted 7 hours agoin reply to this

                     Damn, two bullseyes in a row, you and Sharlee. To your point, my first response was also 'hell yeah,' but my second was a 'Whoa,'; concerning the truth of the message, not the source of its presentation.
                     
                     I'm still leery of manipulation because even after a bit of digestion, the message seems right to me. And that's due to the message, not the messenger.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
   3. 86

      Sharlee01posted 8 hours agoin reply to this

      You raise a good point. For a long time, society moved toward acceptance of LGB people, and while it wasn’t perfect, there was real progress; people worked hard to build understanding and win rights that most of us now take for granted. What I notice today, though, is that the newer layers of the movement (with all the added letters) haven’t taken that same path of working toward acceptance over time. Instead, it often feels like they expect instant acceptance, and when people aren’t immediately on board, it’s labeled as hate or a phobia.
      
      I think that’s why some in the LGB community are now pushing back. They’re saying, “We fought for recognition in a way that built bridges, but now it feels like something very different is being forced.” To me, that doesn’t sound like transphobia; it sounds like a reasonable frustration about process, approach, and the changing definition of what the movement even stands for.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         GA Andersonposted 8 hours agoin reply to this

         Yep. 'common sense tolerance.' It's given, not forced.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 6 hours agoin reply to this

            I came to this view not just through common sense, but from years of watching and listening. I’ve witnessed the uphill battle the LGB community faced for decades, how they fought for recognition and worked to blend into a society that, for a long time, wouldn’t even consider accepting them. They endured those struggles, overcame immense obstacles, and I imagine that most now feel a strong sense of accomplishment and a desire to protect the progress they’ve made.

            replyreport