This is the solvable part. They don't run the country; they're a minority.
> Encourage men to have sex with men?
Religion is a fig leaf here. The dislike of LGBTQ+ people is retroactively justified by religion, but it just isn't about religion. If it really was about religion, there'd be a lot more weird hills they'd be dying on, since most of the Anti-Gay stuff is in the Old Testament, and there's a lot of stuff in the OT that they seem perfectly comfortable ignoring. (For example: Crustaceans are not allowed as a food, Leviticus 11:9-12)
"They just don't like gay people" is too simplistic as well. My theory is that gay men, as well as trans women are a subversion of traditional gender roles which is why conservatives get worked up about it.
Trans men and lesbians of course get some ire too from conservatives, but it feels like an afterthought.
> This is the solvable part. They don't run the country; they're a minority.
Yes and no. They've got a 6:3 majority in the Supreme court for the foreseeable future, and thanks to gerrymandering, their distribution in rural parts gives them a significantly outsized impact on US politics. I would agree that this minority shouldn't run the country, but it isn't the case. And I'm not sure how that's "solvable" either.
> Religion is a fig leaf here.
Oh, I agree. My favorite is Leviticus 15:32-36... working on the sabbath no longer incurs the death penalty. But, religion is full of contradictions: compare the Prosperity Gospel with the actual teachings of Jesus. Laws and rulings targeting abortions and LGBT rights are couched in terms of "religious freedom." We cannot hold proclaimed religious people accountable for the contradictions we see between their books and their proclaimed faith -- their proclaimed faith is the protected part!
> My theory is that gay men, as well as trans women are a subversion of traditional gender roles which is why conservatives get worked up about it
Exactly. The traditional gender roles come out of the tradition of patriarchal exploitation of women and subordinate men. The extreme version of this is seen in groups like the FLDS [1] and make the dynamics more apparent. But it's the same basic deal even on the softer complementarian end of things. The far right will talk about how gay marriage is a threat to marriage in general, and in one sense I agree with them: functional marriages without rigid gender roles demonstrate that their conception of marriage is limited and grimly unequal.
The irony of transgenderism is that it's just yet another form of patriarchal exploitation of women, in its drive to eradicate female-only spaces, in encouraging actual female women to mutilate themselves to reach some twisted ideal of masculinity, and in reifying gendered impositions as the epitome of womanhood, for the pleasure of men.
Conservatives don't see it from this point of view, of course, but feminists - the radical ones, at least - certainly do.
It's a movement that hides behind the LGB to paint itself as progressive, but really this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Indeed, without regressive gender roles, there would be no transgenderism. How else would men be able to pretend they are women without the cloak of false femininity to wrap themselves in.
For sure. Especially when it's regurgitating a blob of standard-issue partisan nonsense that is only tenuously related to what's actually being discussed.
Which parts of my comment do you believe are dubious, and why?
If we look at the eradication of female-only spaces, for example, the reasoning behind this is that proponents of transgenderism want women's spaces to be based on self-declared gender identity rather than sex. Where this occurs, it means that formerly female-only spaces and services now admit a mixture of males and females, as they will also include men who say they are women. Any attempts to maintain female-only spaces are shot down as being 'bigoted' and 'transphobic'.
Everyone here can clearly see that you are a sea lion, and not worth debating.
You're not here in good faith. If you were, you wouldn't be making inflammatory assertions from the partisan playbook with no references, and you wouldn't be on here with a burner account. There's another name for that behavior: shitposting.
That's a rather lazy dismissal, seems that you don't like having your beliefs challenged, and will say anything to avoid considering a different point of view.
Perhaps you can explain which parts of my comment you think are factually incorrect?
Resolve the economic equality issues that halted wage growth in the 80s, so that the non-executives see pay increases matching inflation; and cap tuitions for all schools to be affordable at local minimum wage rates, to stop the disparity between white-collar and blue-collar workers from driving men to quit paid work.
Not the worst idea, but moreso because men should be comfortable and encouraged to have sex with whatever gender they want. Right now there is a lack of unanimous support for men who have sex with men.
There's the real rub. The principle issue with this sexual loneliness is an unavailability of consensual partnerships. The men who are not getting sex are not desirable to the women they desire, and they're also not desirable to each other.
Looking back to Greek and Roman times, it really seems that this is not "natural" as much as it is cultural. Culture changes itself, to its own whims. I do not think it can be changed by policy short of genocide (also bad).
