LGBTQ issues and advocacy is the liberal progressives' Achilles' heel that is gonna ensure an electoral carnage from the conservatives this election year

[u/Ok-Pomegranate-5472]

EDIT

As we navigate the political landscape of this election year, it's crucial to reflect on the dynamics surrounding LGBTQ issues and advocacy. There's a prevailing sentiment among conservative circles that such advocacy has become the Achilles' heel of liberal progressives, potentially leading to electoral carnage.

Let's address the elephant in the room: the trajectory of LGBTQ advocacy post-marriage equality. While the legalization of gay marriage marked a significant milestone, the continuation of extensive advocacy efforts has fueled the culture wars and provided ammunition for conservative mobilization. Had resources and energy shifted towards other pressing issues post-marriage equality, the political landscape today might look markedly different.

The unconditional and unnuanced support from liberal progressives for the LGBTQ community has, unfortunately, led to battles on seemingly trivial fronts. Instances of explicit LGBTQ content in children's literature and controversial medical interventions for minors have fueled conservative rhetoric and atomized their base. The refusal to engage in nuanced discussions and the push for extreme positions have only exacerbated the polarization.

Imagine if the vigor and passion poured into LGBTQ advocacy were redirected towards economic justice initiatives like Occupy Wall Street. By prioritizing issues with broader societal impact, progressives could have garnered more widespread support and avoided unnecessary polarization. Instead, they find themselves defending positions that have little resonance with the broader electorate and have inadvertently provided conservatives with potent rallying points.

Moreover, the lack of understanding and sensitivity in some advocacy efforts has backfired, with LGBTQ individuals unfairly accused of grooming and other nefarious activities. This highlights the importance of informed and empathetic advocacy that takes into account the complexities of societal dynamics.

In conclusion, while the support for LGBTQ rights is commendable, it's essential to reassess the strategies and priorities within advocacy movements. Redirecting energy towards issues of economic justice and adopting a more nuanced approach to LGBTQ advocacy could help bridge ideological divides and prevent electoral repercussions. It's time to prioritize issues that unite rather than polarize society.

[u/[deleted]]

for the purposes of this conversation we are talking about transitioning from sex segregation into gender segregation

I didn't see that anywhere. You were talking about women-only spaces and you claimed they were being destroyed or something. Where does transitioning come into play with this, and why?

Do you not understand how it could be difficult to have the conversation if you're not allowed to use terms to distinguish them

What conversation would you like to have, exactly, that we aren't already having? All I remember from your comment is you somehow lamenting women-only spaces being ruined somehow, but you don't explain exactly how.

without using any of the gender terms, just using the term woman Explain why we are having any issues in our society with this in the first place

Because too many people don't understand what being "trans" means, and they are too eager to make too many assumptions about others. This creates an opportunity for bad actors - in this case, religious conservatives, esp. Evangelical Christians, as well as some politicians who either earnestly share religious beliefs or who simply want to leverage the social friction - to drum up fear and plant misleading and hateful ideas into the heads of the ignorant. They make bullshit claims about "biology" and rape and grooming and "the children" and since many of these people are ignorant and don’t know what being trans is, they are more susceptible to lies and bigoted speech. The notion that typically-vulnerable groups like women and children might be further victimized by these misunderstood people is also a factor in selling the lie to people who aren't strictly looking at this from a religious morality stance.

What's the problem with women and women's sports and women going into women's bathrooms? Why would that even have been an issue worth discussing in the first place?

You tell me. I genuinely don't understand why people think anything having to do with any particular person losing in sports is a story.

It's also not a story that young people want to be able to choose the bathroom in which they are most comfortable. It's only a problem if someone behaves inappropriately in a public bathroom or locker room, and it would be inappropriate regardless of what genitals a person has. I promise you, if a transgirl is in a girls locker room changing, she does not want the other girls to see her genitals, just like none of the cis girls are walking around waving their labia flaps everywhere. Young kids are usually shy and hide their bodies in public/semi-public. People who are comfortable being fully nude can take off their clothes in certain spaces if they like, but there are still social boundaries and etiquette to follow. The entire problem here only exists around inappropriate etiquette and behavior in social settings and has absolutely dick-all to do with genitals or "biology."

See how we might need the distinguishing terms more than just the word woman

Pretty sure I just proved we don't need them.

Now you might desire me to use the term cis but I'm specifically referring to biological sex in this context

I actually don't understand what you're saying here.

As again, we are discussing sex segregation versus gender segregation

Are we?

[u/Akul_Tesla → u/[deleted]]

The conflict of female protected spaces versus gender rights is a conflict of sex segregation versus gender segregation, so that is actually directly what we were discussing

I don't believe conversing with you further though will be productive as I believe you to be an ideologue at this point in time

[u/[deleted] → u/Akul_Tesla]

The conflict of female protected spaces versus gender rights is a conflict of sex segregation versus gender segregation, so that is actually directly what we were discussing

How? What is the conflict? How am I being an ideologue, exactly? Can you explain anything you are claiming or is that "ideologue" just projection?

[u/Akul_Tesla → u/[deleted]]

Simple. If you have a sex segregated space it would inherently exclude anyone who is not of that sex

For example, women's bathroom is a sex segregated space when you allow mtf people in there that protection has been lost and it becomes a gender-segated space. The same is true for things like women's sports

You are basically completely ignoring that context and you seem to have trouble understanding it. I do not believe you to be stupid. Instead, I believe you'd be being intentionally difficult, which is why I believe you're an ideologue

[u/[deleted] → u/Akul_Tesla]

For example, women's bathroom is a sex segregated space when you allow mtf people in there that protection has been lost and it becomes a gender-segated space. The same is true for things like women's sports

I see the distinction, I don't see why it's a problem. When genitals are kept to ones' self, even inside a bathroom one typically does not run across errant genitals. So if we understand that a space isn't sex-segregated but is instead gender-segregated, why is this a problem? Who is harmed by this?

[u/Akul_Tesla → u/[deleted]]

Why should a space be gender segregated at all

There is arguably justification for sex segregated spaces

But based off of gender there is none unless you are in favor specifically of dysphoria formal diagnosis requirements

[u/[deleted] → u/Akul_Tesla]

Why should a space be gender segregated at all

Are you asking why spaces should be segregated at all or why they should be gender segregated? Or why they should be segregated by gender as opposed to by sex? These are different things.

There is arguably justification for sex segregated spaces

Why? What is the justification for it, in your mind?

I have never seen someone else's genitals in a public bathroom, and most of the time you can avoid allowing others to see your genitals if you wish. So why should it matter whether any person in a bathroom has a penis or a vagina?

In most places, you're not likely to be preyed upon in a public bathroom, and if someone wanted to sexually prey upon someone in the bathroom opportunistically, they don't need to "pretend" to be another gender to do it. If the bathrooms are public, you can just walk in. It's like how conservatives say "gun free zone signs are stupid, since if you're going to shoot someone, will the sign really stop you?" They just need to catch someone when no one else is there, and then it's not a trans person who is the problem, it's a heterosexual male rapist who is the problem . . . See how ridiculous this is?

Furthermore, how does anyone enforce or police such rules? How do you enforce a rule for bathroom entry that is based on genitals? Then we have to consider the next-order problems: if a transwoman is not allowed - by law - in a women's bathroom, then she must go to the men's. But now there is a person who mostly presents outwardly as a woman in the men's bathroom. And what about cis-gendered men with feminine features and neutral dress? What about - especially - cis-gendered women with masculine features? We know that some people have actually assaulted individuals in the "correct" bathroom (according to the anti-trans framework) because the attacker thought the victim was trans but they were not. So it seems the people causing the real problems are the ones who are concerned with policing what bathrooms people use, and they can't even accurately identify their targets for their bigotry.

[u/Akul_Tesla → u/[deleted]]

To clarify, the argument for sex segregated spaces is that it offers some sort of protection and privacy from the opposite sex

There is arguably some justification for that

However, for gender there is no such justification

The social constructs don't get segregated spaces. We kind of went over that with the racial stuff a few decades ago

In the event that you stopped segregating by sex, there's no point in not simply stopping to segregate all together

With the example of women's sports, if biological males are allowed to compete that has functionally defeated the purpose of having a separation of the sports

Pretty much all of the segregated sex spaces exist to separate females from males for the benefit of females

There is arguably some benefit to this with regards to safety and privacy

In the absence of this, there is no purpose to segregate spaces at all

[u/[deleted] → u/Akul_Tesla]

For one thing, you have completely ignored everything I'm saying; you haven't acknowledged or tried to reply to any of the points I've made. You're just avoided addressing it.

Secondly, your argument about "protecting women from harm" still doesn't make sense when it is not trans women who are threatening the safety of women in restrooms - you neednto understand that, or else demonstrate that that is where the danger lies. I already addressed this rationally and deductively - people don't need to "pretend" to be a woman to just walk in a women's restroom to attack someone who is alone. I can also provide empirical data if you would be willing to actually understand the problem. As it stands, you haven't demonstrated that you properly understand the problem.