Happy pride month! π
Sources: Gallup surveys from 2012, 2016 and 2021 and the PRRI survey of 2023
Title
Happy pride month! π
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
112 points (99.1% liked)
LGBTQ+
6191 readers
45 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Pride is my most favourite sin π
I realise this is probably a joke post, but I thought the whole premise of the anti-pray-the-gay-away argument (which I don't agree with btw, just to be clear) was that sexuality is fixed not chosen. If you can "make" non-LGBT the minority then that suggests sexuality can be manipulated and thus validates the PTGA position.
Even if its not fixed or somehow we find a way to change it that isn't abusive in other ways, it would still be wrong for parents to make that decision for others imo. People deserve more bodily autonomy than that. The problem with PTGA is that it presupposes that being gay is wrong and that's the primary problem with it. Whether people can choose or not is irrelevant imo. There's also the secondary problem that the methods used to try to change children are often abusive in other way, but that's not inherent to it.
The unwelcoming post title aside (I assume in jest)...
A single takeaway of my personal opinion from this series of polls is that Gen Z is comfortable with themselves, don't feel the need to hide, and the older generations are following suit and/or the long fought battle for social change from the older generations have finally yielded an environment that people can just be themselves.
I'm 100% straight millennial (and thus didn't have to deal with this struggle personally), but I can for sure say the general culture today, I would feel comfortable being out in, but in 2012.... I would not have been. Still dealing with people I thought were accepting people falling for the the Prop 8 BS from.. what was that, 2008?
Proud for having a generally more accepting and welcoming culture/society.
A single takeaway of my personal opinion from this series of polls is that Gen Z is comfortable with themselves, donβt feel the need to hide, and the older generations are following suit and/or the long fought battle for social change from the older generations have finally yielded an environment that people can just be themselves.
At least a small part is simply people having the knowledge to realize they are LGBT, but this is probably more relevant for the less common parts of the rainbow. Part of that is just the internet has grown. I found I gravitated towards queer spaces personally despite thinking I was allocishet at the time.
I can for sure say the general culture today, I would feel comfortable being out in, but in 2012β¦ I would not have been.
This is still dependent on what type of LGBT you are and what area you are in imo. Personally, I don't think I'd have had any problem being out as gay in 2012 (pretty sure a fair number of people assumed I was and I thought that was cool), but I'm still plenty uncomfortable being out as trans atm, for example. Granted, part of it was I was in school in 2012 and now I work in the field of education (fortunately not a public school) in Texas.
I don't really like how this comment section is going. Be(e) nice or I'll lock it.
OK, now we've got people telling others to "piss off". The thread has mostly run its course anyway, so I'm going to lock it.
Is the dramatic percentage increase among the silent generation because all the queers take care of themselves and live longer?
Maybe.. But probably, because tge last survey is from a different institute..
Oh yes good point
No, probably more people coming out due to social change
Happy Pride month!π€π»
Yip
Nyo more cishet :D
Can I ask, why do people make comments like this? What's the appeal?
when a large chunk of the population is trying to deny you basic rights at best, and eradicate you at worst, at some point you'll start mocking them online as a form of comic relief.
Then they'll become the oppressed group and return the favor.
Bigotry is not just a comic relief, intolerance increases intolerance, can't fight fire with fire.
oh no, those poor oppressed *check notes* cisgender heterosexual people! how will they ever get over *double checks* being able to marry the person they love and *glances again* having other people address them the way they want to be addressed!
feel free to look up the concept of "punching up" in the search engine of your choice.
past β present β future
Thanks for the search suggestion, and let me return the favor: look up how people end up after all the fistfights and wars all around the world.
No right has been ever won by punching.
setting aside the obvious part where the word I'm talking about doesn't refer to actual physical act of punching (perhaps actually look it up, maybe?) - of course, you're completely right, suffragettes won the right to vote sheerly by peaceful and quiet protests, and the Pride movement has got roots in a well-known event called "the Stonewall campfire sing-along".
I don't find your sarcasm, bad faith, and dismissal of a serious concern, to be compatible with a constructive conversation. If you feel like ditching that, please come again.
You come into a space trying to tone police, arguing with people about how to fight for rights, then get mad when they are a little sarcastic to you? Wow
Where by "a little", you mean every single sentence? No, thanks.
Not every single sentence and also they could have been way worse, especially since you are way out of pocket here.
they could have been way worse
Does that make it acceptable, or worthwhile of discussing? I don't think so.
you are way out of pocket here
Disagree.
Does that make it acceptable, or worthwhile of discussing? I donβt think so.
They didn't want to discuss, they wanted you to put in a modicum of effort to go look up some easily attainable information. You are the one that tried to tone police, so being met with moderate sarcasm is the least bad thing that could have happened
Disagree
K. Good luck sticking your nose in places it doesn't belong then getting upset when people don't appreciate it
You keep calling it "tone policing", I call it "strategy recommendation".
And no thanks, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about, is not a nice thing. I've seen plenty of that "easily attainable information", and I still don't agree.
sticking your nose in places it doesn't belong
Plus gatekeeping. How exactly do you figure my nose doesn't belong here?
You keep calling it βtone policingβ, I call it βstrategy recommendationβ.
You can call whatever you want, it is still tone policing. Telling people they should not punch up because it is not productive is square in that definition, especially on a thread that started with a very silly joke.
Plus gatekeeping. How exactly do you figure my nose doesnβt belong here?
Giving advice where it wasn't asked for is sticking your nose in places it doesn't belong. I don't claim to know your personal intersections, and apologize if you thought I meant you don't belong in this particular community
That's your projection though. How do you know that oppressed people will in turn become the oppressors once they have the chance? Same goes for racial or other kinds of oppression. Women, queer people, people of color and any other minority have been working to get a more inclusive world benefitting everyone. It is just fear mongering to warn against this. As the other person said, it is comic relief to make fun of the oppressor, in this case cishet people, and it is obviously not a long-term strategy. But it is also not bigotry because for that you need power.
How do you know that oppressed people will in turn become the oppressors once they have the chance?
Historical data... mostly political, but what in human behavior isn't "political"?
[...] make fun of the oppressor [...]
All you said is great... until that point. All action has an opposite reaction, if you want some "comic relief", I suggest you point it in an orthogonal direction so their reaction is also comic and not reinforcing their bigotry.
But it is also not bigotry because for that you need power.
You have that power in a safe space where the other bigots get silenced, don't fall into the trap of copying their behavior.
While I see your point of humans being humans and those being in power often oppressing others, I don't think this applies here. Because the struggle of emancipatory movements against the existing power hierarchies is not one of overthrowing one ruling class and replacing it with another. If you think that's what is going on when people try to abolish racism or the patriarchy, then you have to be very far removed from those struggles in the first place. Instead of trying to topple one ruling class, we fight an intersectional struggle here, running through families affecting each person differently. This is a structural oppression very different from one class of rulers against an oppressed class. On top of that, I think the vast majority of oppressed people would agree that they want to live in a emancipated society where the form of oppression they face isn't present anymore. No one wants to turn any form of oppression around.
I try to be giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you really think that feminism or anti-racism is about the goal of oppressing others, then you have to be either ignorant or malicious.
Regarding the comic relief, I think you downplay the role of personal emotions too much. What for of relief or venting would you suggest for all the suffering, the fear, the anger people have? I'm not Jesus and I don't think his victim mentality will bring us any further here. I won't turn the other cheek.
I also disagree with reversed bigotry in a safe place. First of all, Lemmy is no safe place. Most of the people here are cis(het) dudes and that makes it not safe per se. Second, I think there is a huge difference between structural oppression backing bigotry or people being assholes. The person you were responding to was obviously not saying that all the cishet people should vanish. You may have projected that on them, but that wasn't the point. The point is comic relief and as such more of a sarcastic joke. When I say "cis men are garbage" (as I did some months ago here on Lemmy), I don't literally mean that I think all cis men are really bad people that I want to get rid of. But what else to do about the fact that like 99% of cis men are bigots and are abusing their power? I would be the first person to welcome cis men into my life and be friends with them, if they would not be such irresponsible bigots. So saying "cis men are garbage" can help me vent all this frustration but without me being literal.
And sure, one could say that we should only apply the means that fit our end goals. But this form of comic relief is just that. It is not supposed to be a form of change or how we restructure society. If all we did would be to complain about oppression without trying to constructively change it, then I would be opposed to this as well. But this is not the case. There are already so many things people try to do to make this a better world for everyone. But we are all humans after all and so there needs to be some way of letting off steam. So don't police other people innocently complain about oppression...
Historical dataβ¦ mostly political, but what in human behavior isnβt βpoliticalβ?
Heavy doubt on that one. Care to cite some sources?
Sure, here go a few hundred (thousand?) sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history_of_the_world
Which one of those shows an oppressed people turning around and oppressing the oppressor?
Each and every one? Start with the prehistoric era and tribal warfare, you'll find a constant theme of oppressors, revolts, winners becoming the new oppressors, revolts... all the way to the present.
I'm asking for specifics here. You made a claim, back it up with 1 single, tangible source, not some generic "all of history" bullshit
You want me to dissect the history of Israel, Korea, Morocco, Germany, the Byzantine Empire, Russia, India, Egypt, Rome... seriously? Not the time and place.
I want you to give one example of the thing you claimed will happen actually happening. Name a time an oppressed class got rights, then oppressed the people that oppressed them.
He met your burden of proof and then some. You asked him to cite sources and he did. You requiring a specific situation is partly you moving the goalposts, and partly you simply being lazy. You are not arguing in good faith and until you start, there is no reason to interact with you.
Saying all of history is not it and the fact that he can't narrow it down is telling.
Don't get it twisted. You're the one that is flying in the face of overwhelming data, not the other way around.
It's not his fault that you refuse to read anything at all about history. But to help you out I will give you a very notable one.
One notable instance of a persecuted minority group gaining rights and eventually persecuting their former persecutors is the history of Christians in the Roman Empire.
During the early centuries of the Common Era, Christians were a minority group within the Roman Empire and faced periods of intense persecution. This persecution included being blamed for natural disasters, subjected to public executions, and targeted during the reigns of several emperors, most notably Nero and Diocletian. Christians were often forced to practice their faith in secret to avoid these harsh penalties.
The turning point came in the early 4th century when Constantine the Great became emperor. In 313 CE, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which granted religious tolerance to all religions, including Christianity. Over time, Christianity not only became accepted but also began to receive imperial patronage. By the end of the 4th century, under Emperor Theodosius I, Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire.
Once in a position of power, Christians began to persecute those who did not conform to their religious views. Pagan practices and temples were suppressed, and non-Christian religions were marginalized. Heretical Christian sects were also targeted. For example, the destruction of the Serapeum of Alexandria in 391 CE and the persecution of pagans and Jews are indicative of this shift from being persecuted to becoming persecutors.
Now, piss off and I'm blocking you for wasting everyone's time and arguing in bad faith. I have better shit to do than teach you history that you should have learned in 9th grade.
Yelling into the void since you blocked me, but saying "here is a list of historical events" is not a source, and expecting someone to read the whole thing to pick out an example of the thing YOU claim to have happened is not arguing in good faith.
Christians are an example, for sure. The only thing I would say is the difference is that in that case Christianity is about a religious belief and not an intrinsic property of the people. If it had been raised as an example earlier, we could have actually had a discussion about that difference instead of someone saying "just look at history, it will definitely happen in this case."
Bigotry is bigotry regardless of whether you have any power or not.
Where in the world did you ever get the idea that any type of bigotry is acceptable?
This is a huge problem with your thought process; I suggest you take whatever steps necessary to fix it.
Do you also complain about people saying 'eat the rich'? What is considered bigotry and what not? I didn't say that bigotry is fine per se, just that some comic relief is. And I'm firmly convinced that discrimination is based on a structural oppression. That's what I meant with the phrase about bigotry. But sure, even someone without much power can be an asshole and this wouldn't be fine for me either. Although it is more complicated than to say this person is just a bigot, because you would need to include a structural level in this. Calling other people bigot for not confirming to your standards is a common way of discrimination as well. So talking about bigotry like a universal thing that is always this one way and that is bad is really overly simplistic and just playing into structural oppression. So maybe go fix this yourself?
Bigotry is not acceptable. Period. End of story.
You of all people should be capable of understanding this very simple principle.
And since I am absolutely out of patience with bad faith actors today, I'm blocking you as well. Now, piss off.
You've told two people in here to "piss off". I don't care how irritated you are with them, that is not even close to be(e)ing nice. You can, in fact, block people without being a jackass about it.
Also this
Its called being silly :3
I liked comments like that when I didn't realize I was LGBT. So in that case, the appeal was getting to be a non-cis-het.
It's gay