I never said they didn’t have a right to be there, I’d just prefer if they don’t intentionally give more ammunition to those that don’t like us.
you have a right to not like things, but please internalize that right-wingers are never going to care how much you sanitize pride and this kind of placation is useless. for them queer people existing is the ammo—the problem they identify with society—and the only acceptable solution to that problem is to drive queer people into the closet and kill the ones who refuse. if it wasn’t loud, proud queer people they’d manufacture outrage about quiet, docile ones—and i know what i prefer personally.
The other thing that has kinda already been mentioned is that it’s good to normalize being different. During the lavender scare in the 1950s, you could be fired for having a missing button on your blouse, because that suggested homosexual tendencies. Even if you were straight. This got so bad at one point that people started introducing themselves and including their wide and kids in their introduction just to allay any fears that they might be gay/bi.
We have pride parades to not only protect LGBT people, but everyone. So that the people with the missing buttons aren’t reported by the Carols and Karens of the world, so that people with naturally effeminate mannerisms aren’t bullied in schools, so that kids sho grow up in same sex families can live in peace in screwed up states like Florida or screwed up countries like Russia. Pride keeps the sort of tribalistic evil showcased in Lord of the Flies at bay.
The other thing that has kinda already been mentioned is that it’s good to normalize being different. During the lavender scare in the 1950s, you could be fired for having a missing button on your blouse, because that suggested homosexual tendencies. Even if you were straight. This got so bad at one point that people started introducing themselves and including their wide and kids in their introduction just to allay any fears that they might be gay/bi.
good point! you’re seeing this now with some of the anti-trans bills that pass too, where they’re still impacting totally cis, totally heterosexual women because of how sweeping they are (and even if the drafters obviously intend for a bill to be selectively interpreted and enforced)
This exactly. They always start with pointing at the most obvious, easiest targets, but if those people go down they’ll just work their way inward to hate on “”“more normal”“” queer people more explicitly than they ready do.
I’ll bet you anything, if the current hate campaign against trans folks wins, it’ll be gay people on the chopping block all over again, next. Same principle.
They like to divide and conquer, and we’re stronger if we don’t let them divide us, especially not just in hopes that they won’t go after ourselves when they’re done going after those weirder or kinkier or more whatever than ourselves.
See also: they have an entirely manufactured idea of what a trans person is and have no problem acting like a) trans men don’t exist and b) trans women and drag queens are all pedos. They’re not tied to reality at all in what they say.
Kinksters at pride aren’t there to “intentionally give more ammunition” to bigots. They’re there for the same reasons everyone else is. Pride and loudness and “I"m here” in the face of internalized, societally imposed shame, pride in the people who came before and fought for our rights, and so on.
Sometimes a subset of them make me kind of uncomfortable, too, but so do a lot of things - I can deal with uncomfortable.
You seem to forget that there’s a massive spectrum of “right-wingers.” You may never change the mind of those on the far right due to the necessity of being hardline in order to be so vocal, but you win the fight by gaining the acceptance of those that are undecided. You don’t win those people over by alienating them in every way shape and form.
You don’t win those people over by alienating them in every way shape and form.
what we’re ultimately talking about here is a fairly binary question of if you accept the existence and validity of queer people and queerness, and for the vast majority of right-wingers the answer is no and that has literally nothing to do with kink at pride. for most of them this is a religious and moral prior handed to them by God himself who is infallible. it is a fundamental part of how they view the world, and changing it would be asking them to undercut their entire belief system.
now, you personally are free to live in accordance with what this group is asking of you—i can’t stop you from doing that. but i have to once again underscore: what they’re asking of you is to not be queer, and that is not negotiable with them. not having kink at pride will never change this (nor will any other kind of sanding down expressions of queerness) because they simply do not care. fixating on this is at best a red herring, and at worst a fundamental misunderstanding of the broader conservative position on queer people.
You’re taking the worst possible caricature of the opposition and applying it to every single person on the spectrum of “right wing” out there. There are large swaths of people who are undecided and you’re actively giving them reasons to not like us.
As I said, I couldn’t give less of a shit about the religious who will literally never be “okay” with the community. My entire point is that there are millions of people who sit in the middle. Your actions sway them, and that’s all that matters. You’re spending your effort to get back at the people with the most hardline stance, and all you’re succeeding in is alienating the people who could easily agree with you.
You’re taking the worst possible caricature of the opposition and applying it to every single person on the spectrum of “right wing” out there.
i guess my only further comment is: yeah, i am. what reason have i been given by any conservative since Stonewall—no matter how “open” they are to not considering us faggots—to not do that?
i honestly think this position is naive at best, and when it comes from a queer person it generally indicates a failure to look at the history of conservatism as it relates to queerness. i just don’t think you should care about anything these people feel about us—nor should it ever be your priority to appeal to them, no matter how numerous they are. and even being apathetic to most conservatives is probably too nice, because they certainly do not turn the other cheek when it comes to how they feel about us.
but also: you have not demonstrated this “moderate middle” of sorts exists, much less cares about any of what you’re talking about here—and i just categorically do not think what is allowed at pride should be tailored to a hypothetical person when there are very real people who get joy out of openly being who they are and have a long history of coexisting at pride with no issue.
There are lots of moderate middle sorts who accept gay men, but think that the trans agenda is a threat to their children. I suppose we should throw them under the bus, too. Maybe then daddy will love us.
You realize that conservatives aren’t the only voting bloc that votes republican, right? You understand that, yes? Genuinely? You understand the concept of moderates?
Additionally, I can agree that they should be allowed at pride, but I don’t have to like it. I’m not arguing in favor of banning it, just that I personally don’t like seeing it.
I believe you are laboring under the misconception that moderate Republicans can be swayed out of supporting queer exterminationists by appeals to queer people’s humanity and decency. This is not the case.
My dad loves me, his openly queer child. Like, really genuinely loves me. I know because he’s forgiven me for doing some truly awful shit to him. He’s an amazing dad in some respects. He does not think there should be any legal prohibitions on queerness, and I don’t think he cares much one way or the other about queer people. He also votes for queer exterminationists on the regular.
It’s not as though I’ve never tried to point out how this hurts me, either. I have made it very clear to him that I feel betrayed by him continuing to vote for people who want me dead. I have told him directly that it endangers me. He apparently does not believe that I personally am in enough danger to warrant him changing his voting patterns, or perhaps he believes that the alternatives are more dangerous to me somehow. I’m not entirely sure.
Granted, I don’t know if my dad counts as a “moderate Republican.” He considers himself a libertarian. But I believe he is the sort of person you are talking about: a fence-sitter. Someone who isn’t really an ally but doesn’t outright hate us either. And I think his response is typical of those people.
Some people will simply never, ever give a shit about something until it becomes their problem. This is how you get genocides: Not by the majority being violently bigoted, but by the majority being apathetic.
What do you do, then, if you can’t appeal to their compassion? The only option I can see is to become a group that is Not To Be Fucked With. You hit us, we’ll hit back harder. Bigots won’t let us live and moderates won’t help us thrive. All we have is one another, and we have to unite and rally around our shared interests in order to save ourselves. Respectability politics only divides us, and we can’t afford that.
They would not be agreeing with us. They would be agreeing with a facile image that you would have us project in place of us. That’s not okay. If we have to pretend to be something other than what we are for their support, then they are not our allies!
You seem to have the view that people are kinky just to be difficult or something. You don’t accept people telling you that is what they are. So you’re never going to see eye to eye with the people who are being marginalized.
My guy, you’re assuming absolutely everyone at pride is into the same kinky shit you are. Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you’re kinky and just because you’re kinky doesn’t mean you’re gay. You’re putting them together as if they’re the same and that if you don’t support kink in public then you don’t support gay people at all. This is incorrect.
No, I am not. You are assuming that kink is an affectation that can just be taken off like a rainbow flag button. I’m not saying that you don’t support gay people, I’m saying you only support them if they are not kinky! Tell me otherwise.
you have a right to not like things, but please internalize that right-wingers are never going to care how much you sanitize pride and this kind of placation is useless. for them queer people existing is the ammo—the problem they identify with society—and the only acceptable solution to that problem is to drive queer people into the closet and kill the ones who refuse. if it wasn’t loud, proud queer people they’d manufacture outrage about quiet, docile ones—and i know what i prefer personally.
The other thing that has kinda already been mentioned is that it’s good to normalize being different. During the lavender scare in the 1950s, you could be fired for having a missing button on your blouse, because that suggested homosexual tendencies. Even if you were straight. This got so bad at one point that people started introducing themselves and including their wide and kids in their introduction just to allay any fears that they might be gay/bi.
We have pride parades to not only protect LGBT people, but everyone. So that the people with the missing buttons aren’t reported by the Carols and Karens of the world, so that people with naturally effeminate mannerisms aren’t bullied in schools, so that kids sho grow up in same sex families can live in peace in screwed up states like Florida or screwed up countries like Russia. Pride keeps the sort of tribalistic evil showcased in Lord of the Flies at bay.
good point! you’re seeing this now with some of the anti-trans bills that pass too, where they’re still impacting totally cis, totally heterosexual women because of how sweeping they are (and even if the drafters obviously intend for a bill to be selectively interpreted and enforced)
This exactly. They always start with pointing at the most obvious, easiest targets, but if those people go down they’ll just work their way inward to hate on “”“more normal”“” queer people more explicitly than they ready do.
I’ll bet you anything, if the current hate campaign against trans folks wins, it’ll be gay people on the chopping block all over again, next. Same principle.
They like to divide and conquer, and we’re stronger if we don’t let them divide us, especially not just in hopes that they won’t go after ourselves when they’re done going after those weirder or kinkier or more whatever than ourselves.
See also: they have an entirely manufactured idea of what a trans person is and have no problem acting like a) trans men don’t exist and b) trans women and drag queens are all pedos. They’re not tied to reality at all in what they say.
Kinksters at pride aren’t there to “intentionally give more ammunition” to bigots. They’re there for the same reasons everyone else is. Pride and loudness and “I"m here” in the face of internalized, societally imposed shame, pride in the people who came before and fought for our rights, and so on.
Sometimes a subset of them make me kind of uncomfortable, too, but so do a lot of things - I can deal with uncomfortable.
You seem to forget that there’s a massive spectrum of “right-wingers.” You may never change the mind of those on the far right due to the necessity of being hardline in order to be so vocal, but you win the fight by gaining the acceptance of those that are undecided. You don’t win those people over by alienating them in every way shape and form.
what we’re ultimately talking about here is a fairly binary question of if you accept the existence and validity of queer people and queerness, and for the vast majority of right-wingers the answer is no and that has literally nothing to do with kink at pride. for most of them this is a religious and moral prior handed to them by God himself who is infallible. it is a fundamental part of how they view the world, and changing it would be asking them to undercut their entire belief system.
now, you personally are free to live in accordance with what this group is asking of you—i can’t stop you from doing that. but i have to once again underscore: what they’re asking of you is to not be queer, and that is not negotiable with them. not having kink at pride will never change this (nor will any other kind of sanding down expressions of queerness) because they simply do not care. fixating on this is at best a red herring, and at worst a fundamental misunderstanding of the broader conservative position on queer people.
You’re taking the worst possible caricature of the opposition and applying it to every single person on the spectrum of “right wing” out there. There are large swaths of people who are undecided and you’re actively giving them reasons to not like us.
As I said, I couldn’t give less of a shit about the religious who will literally never be “okay” with the community. My entire point is that there are millions of people who sit in the middle. Your actions sway them, and that’s all that matters. You’re spending your effort to get back at the people with the most hardline stance, and all you’re succeeding in is alienating the people who could easily agree with you.
i guess my only further comment is: yeah, i am. what reason have i been given by any conservative since Stonewall—no matter how “open” they are to not considering us faggots—to not do that?
i honestly think this position is naive at best, and when it comes from a queer person it generally indicates a failure to look at the history of conservatism as it relates to queerness. i just don’t think you should care about anything these people feel about us—nor should it ever be your priority to appeal to them, no matter how numerous they are. and even being apathetic to most conservatives is probably too nice, because they certainly do not turn the other cheek when it comes to how they feel about us.
but also: you have not demonstrated this “moderate middle” of sorts exists, much less cares about any of what you’re talking about here—and i just categorically do not think what is allowed at pride should be tailored to a hypothetical person when there are very real people who get joy out of openly being who they are and have a long history of coexisting at pride with no issue.
There are lots of moderate middle sorts who accept gay men, but think that the trans agenda is a threat to their children. I suppose we should throw them under the bus, too. Maybe then daddy will love us.
You realize that conservatives aren’t the only voting bloc that votes republican, right? You understand that, yes? Genuinely? You understand the concept of moderates?
Additionally, I can agree that they should be allowed at pride, but I don’t have to like it. I’m not arguing in favor of banning it, just that I personally don’t like seeing it.
I believe you are laboring under the misconception that moderate Republicans can be swayed out of supporting queer exterminationists by appeals to queer people’s humanity and decency. This is not the case.
My dad loves me, his openly queer child. Like, really genuinely loves me. I know because he’s forgiven me for doing some truly awful shit to him. He’s an amazing dad in some respects. He does not think there should be any legal prohibitions on queerness, and I don’t think he cares much one way or the other about queer people. He also votes for queer exterminationists on the regular.
It’s not as though I’ve never tried to point out how this hurts me, either. I have made it very clear to him that I feel betrayed by him continuing to vote for people who want me dead. I have told him directly that it endangers me. He apparently does not believe that I personally am in enough danger to warrant him changing his voting patterns, or perhaps he believes that the alternatives are more dangerous to me somehow. I’m not entirely sure.
Granted, I don’t know if my dad counts as a “moderate Republican.” He considers himself a libertarian. But I believe he is the sort of person you are talking about: a fence-sitter. Someone who isn’t really an ally but doesn’t outright hate us either. And I think his response is typical of those people.
Some people will simply never, ever give a shit about something until it becomes their problem. This is how you get genocides: Not by the majority being violently bigoted, but by the majority being apathetic.
What do you do, then, if you can’t appeal to their compassion? The only option I can see is to become a group that is Not To Be Fucked With. You hit us, we’ll hit back harder. Bigots won’t let us live and moderates won’t help us thrive. All we have is one another, and we have to unite and rally around our shared interests in order to save ourselves. Respectability politics only divides us, and we can’t afford that.
They would not be agreeing with us. They would be agreeing with a facile image that you would have us project in place of us. That’s not okay. If we have to pretend to be something other than what we are for their support, then they are not our allies!
You seem to have the view that people are kinky just to be difficult or something. You don’t accept people telling you that is what they are. So you’re never going to see eye to eye with the people who are being marginalized.
My guy, you’re assuming absolutely everyone at pride is into the same kinky shit you are. Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you’re kinky and just because you’re kinky doesn’t mean you’re gay. You’re putting them together as if they’re the same and that if you don’t support kink in public then you don’t support gay people at all. This is incorrect.
No, I am not. You are assuming that kink is an affectation that can just be taken off like a rainbow flag button. I’m not saying that you don’t support gay people, I’m saying you only support them if they are not kinky! Tell me otherwise.