To book a 1:1 coaching session with Mark, click here: www.notdefining.com/coaching-info. Text chat with Mark and join group sessions at patreon.com/notdefining. For more videos click the JOIN button.
@@notdefiningyeah. My daughter asked me what “gay” was recently, as I had never named it before, but she’s just seen it as normal. We discussed family and once she understood her response was: “okay!” And took off to go fight with her sibling about a toy or something. The kids don’t care, it’s the grownups who are so insecure about it.
I think when they say "children will be confused" they mean children will be allowed to think things we don't want them to--it interferes with their desire to have absolute power over their children
I think it's not wanting the self face slap of having to describe their own bigotry to their children. Even if the kids won't understand that it's bigotry, having to articulate in simple words, without dog whistles, without the complicated rationalizations, it just makes it too clear to the parents themselves that they are just bigots. And that, even the idea of having to do it, is just icky and not nice feeling. It makes the hypocrisy too stark. So it's the _children_ that are confused and can't handle it. Certainly not the bigoted parents.
I think that for progressive parents it's wanting their children to have a factual, ideology free education about their bodies and health, because that's their right.
@@suruxstrawde8322 I'm not talking about LGBT inclusion. I'm talking about the ideology of 'gender' being taught as fact in our classrooms. According to your own words that sex and 'gender' are not the same, it has nothing to do with biology.
In response to "what rights don't you have" I tend to reply that it's not so much about what rights we don't have, it's about how we have to constantly fight to keep our current rights. If the person is a troll then it tends to shut them up pretty quickly as they realise they're not going to "win" the discussion, if it's a genuine question then this tend to open up discussions
That response wont shut up a troll. Trolls only stop if they lose interest in trolling you. Either they just got bored of it or you stopped responding to them. A troll wont look at your response and think about it, or maybe change their mind. If that would be the case they would not have been a troll at all
@Zoli-7658 That's why I dig into them when I can. I hit them with the "I'm talking to the person hiding behind the troll mask, you're pathetic and you know it" lmaooo
Perhaps more effective might be stating how, in several countries today, we don’t have any rights at all, and our very existence is outlawed, not to mention the fact that in the grand scheme of western history, queer rights happened relatively a only a matter of seconds ago on the clock of history. Although on another hand, on another matter, we have existed for many, many, MANY thousands of years in human society, so it’s no new thing, either. It’s just that we’ve stopped keeping to the shadows quite as intensely as before.
@@Zoli-7658 I find that refusing to buy into their framing of the question is a pretty good deterrent. Reframing the bad faith question shows that you're not gonna take their crap & that works well at making them be the one to stop responding
@@ManyArmedMooseDei I normally encounter this line of questioning on UK based articles & posts on FB so I keep it to how the situation is in the UK. If you bring up the situation in other countries then it risks opening the door to them simply replying that I should just go live there & fight for rights in that country. Boxing them in & taking control of the narrative is often an effective way of shutting them down.
Thank you so much for this video. I'm bi and my daughter is a lesbian. At school some kids are telling her she is going to hell. Her response has been the only person that judge her is God not them. The one that I get the most you have already covered. I get asked how can I be in a monogamous marriage if I'm bi.
When people say "You're changing the definition of marriage," I want to answer with how many *other* wives does your husband have? or how many *sheep* did you get for marrying your wife?
I always go the route of physics like “the marriage of these two pieces of the same element create a stronger bond that if we used two different materials” the word marriage isnt a singular definition word as many of the english language words.
Cishets will reference their sexuality and/or gender identity dozens of times in a given day without even realizing it, because they didn't end up in a debate or argument every time they alluded to their husband or wife or called themselves a man or a woman. Most people would snap after the third time somebody went, "Excuuuuuuse meeeee, I disagreeeee with your lifestyle."
It really means "it's the only part of your identity I pay attention to" -- I'm not sure that they can actually imagine that we have lives outside of their plans against us.
It also totally ignores how much of their identity cis het people make arround being cis het. Like, if they tell me they find girl A and girl B hot, that's "normal", yet if anyone tells them they find girl A and guy B hot, it's suddently "making your whole identity arround it" or "shoving it into their face"
Im in my sixties in age. A gay man. Ive heard straight people saying that gay people dont procreate and bring life into the world. Thats not true , some gay people have children , and make far better parents than many straights do. At least we are open minded.
"At least we are open minded"- This right here. I'm starting to realize that openness to experience is both a trait that doesn't change much throughout someone's life and seems to be at the root of so much grief when there's very little of it. I don't know what to _do_ with that idea because hooo boy is it a dangerous one. It just makes me sad and frustrated.
@paultaylor914 Yes , and make better parents than straights . I grew up with an angry father. He would fly into rages and abuse me. He never showed any affection towards me.
I really appreciate your calm and clear responses to all of these arguments. I'm a gay man who grew up in the south (in the US), and wish I had more voices like yours to help navigate life in those early years. Thank you for making these videos. :)
If someone says something about "God doesn't make mistakes" in a transgender argument then 1. If the argument is sincere and not just them trying to harass you, then mention anything about disabilities, flaws in the human body, or if they had a surgery or wear glasses point that out. 2. If it's just them being rude mention that God made them and they're a mistake 🔥🔥🔥
I always ask why they wear makeup or wear clothes when it's not hazardous or cold then. And if they further don't get the point, I ask why children die from cancer. "It's God's plan" they whine, unaware that evil and suffering are made by the same thing (if it ever existed).
"God made me trans for the same reason he made wheat and not beer. So I could take part in the 'joys of creation'." "God made me trans to test his followers on the whole 'love your neighbor' thing. You're currently failing the test." A couple of my favorite options for that argument.
I used to have the energy to fight with these things, but now I just avoid it wherever possible. In real life and online. Speaking of fighting online, today's bisexual tidbit is a highly relatable one I feel. I used to fight homophobes because I thought I was being a really good ally. I was really interested in same sex marriage in a way no one else but my lesbian sister was. 😂
There's always going to be transphobes, homophobes, sexists, racists & religious extremists. It's unfortunately just human nature to group & other ourselves.
@firetube8288 Are you suggesting there's absolutely no difference between a trans woman & a cis woman? I absolutely respect & support trans women's identities, but when their sex is relevant, I think we should acknowledge it.
@@firetube8288 Anywhere they would be seen naked & be vulnerable. So locker rooms, spas & prisons. I think a distinction of being post-op of SRS is worthy of consideration though. Anywhere where the physicality of sexual dimorphism is relevant so sports.
Preface: I'm gay and married to a man. There's a flaw in your argument regarding marriage. Saying that people who don't have children shouldn't be allowed to get married ignores the fact that people with this view believe that the point of marriage is to create a monogamous relationship *in which* to procreate, not necessarily to come into the marriage with pre-existing children. My counter-argument to these people is to say "Should infertile people not be allowed to get married? What about heterosexual people who have decided not to have children for whatever reason? How is my same-sex marriage any different?"
The people making that argument don't believe it in any rigorous way -- they have _all sorts_ of exceptions they'll still allow into marriage. Their claim is ultimately the (historically inaccurate) claim that marriage was invented by religion (or, though they're usually quieter on this front, only legitimate when it's endorsed by _their_ religion specifically).
I just go for the jugular and point out the absurdity of their religious belief system straight on dawkins style. Otherwise you are buying into the false premise that is taking it seriously and arguing semantics about it.
I hate when people say LGB without the T. You remove the T, next it will be the B, then the G, then the L... Then what do you have? Stand together alphabet mafia!
And I hate this argument. It's truly sad and pathetic that no one just gives a shit about intersectionality on principle. Meanwhile most of the people who claim to will turn around and sling microagression (or just plain agression) if it's towards the right people.
it reminds me of this quote by niemoller First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemöller Remove the T, it's easier to remove the rest. Stand united strong, Stand divided weak.
There’s an interesting theory that bisexuality and homosexuality have evolutionary advantages. Say if a breeding pair has abandoned or is neglecting their offspring due to lack of resources, a same-sex pairing might find and adopt the offspring as their own. Or if an animal’s mating partner dies and leaves the other as a single parent, that animal has a higher likelihood of finding a new partner to help continue caring for the offspring if they are bisexual.
@@Mel-wn9gb Depends on what obviously non-factual ideas you're thinking of. But to name a few--- > the nature of dysphoria as a harmless neurological aberration > the fact the "groomer" narrative is a complete lie > the fact there's nothing immoral about non aligned sexualities > the fact gender and sex are separate > the fact no diseases are of any higher prevalence within these communities > the fact none of this is traumatizing to children > the fact none of this is biologically unnatural, or even remotely unheard of in other animals
@suruxstrawde8322 The fact that gender dysphoria is defined as a mental illness, not a natural aberration. The fact the groomer narrative being a complete lie or not is irrelevant to my comments. The fact that I'm not talking about sexuality, but the ideological concept of 'gender'. The fact that I didn't say a word about disease, but also the fact that some members of the LGBTQ community are at higher risk of disease. The fact that there's no long term research into the effects of 'gender affirming care' in children, or anyone else. The fact that we're talking about humans, not other species, and your claim thst sex and 'gender' are not the same makes biology irrelevant. The fact that sex and 'gender' are not the same. Sex is objective fact, 'gender' is sexist ideology.
Everything so well said! I really like your explanation of hetero-normative being the complicated system that doesn’t make sense to kids- It still doesn’t make sense as an adult.
Yeah try to explain that to my 10yo autistic self lol Nowadays I’m aware how this beast works, _and I choose to defy heteronormativity out of spite_ Less so actual spite, moreso it’s straight up bull that men get to game at 23 and I don’t get to do it without getting called immature because I’m not.
Fantastic video, with fantastic arguments against some of the worst reasons that bigots use to explain why they don't think we should exist. As an enby, I'm still not always sure which bathroom or changeroom I should use, but that's a personal issue! And although you pointed out Canada as a very safe place for LGBTQ people (and it overall still is!), we've had a disturbing rise in far-right conservative politics of late, with a lot of hate speech, and a frighteningly popular (and populist) political movement that a lot of us have begun to refer to as "Maple MAGA". I'm still very glad that I live here rather than in most other countries in the world, but like most of my (also very queer) friends, I'm afraid for the future.
If I’m not mistaken, boys even did used to wear dresses. Or why even in the 2009 the Christmas Carol played by Jim Carrey, was Ebeneezer Scrooge, dressed up in a sleeping gown.
@@rainkidwell2467nah, they hate crossdressing too. haven't you seen the way they talk about drag queens? tbf tho it seems like half the time they don't understand the difference between crossdressing and trans ppl
I feel that peoples' physiological tendencies are so strong that they conflate that strong feeling with "the laws of nature" or something like that. Especially when they have social conditioning to back it up.
If being raised by gay people made you gay, then the corollary of being raised straight would make you straight would be true. Just like how if listening to a gay musician made you gay, all you’d have to do to switch back is listen to a heterosexual musician 🤣
Love the message. I'm a queer seminary student and clergy candidate with MCC. Jesus did speak about gay people. The Centurian's "servant" was his shield mate, or gay partner. The Greek word used for "servant" only appears twice in the bible during both telling's of this story. Also, when Jesus talked about the eunuchs in Matthew, his descriptions can easily translate to Drag performers, intersexed, and transwomen today. In none of the kinds did he condemn the eunuch. It's there in, well, red and white. Thank you again.
Far-right conservative parties are rising in most countries, also in northern Europe: Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France. On the other hand, Portugal and Spain are still very safe places for Lgbtq people, despite the presence of some extremist far-right parties, which are not in power, though.
1:25 I grew up and reached adulthood in an age when the length of a boy's hair was an accurate indicator of his intoxicant(s) of choice. But there are always exceptions to the rules. I was surprised to learn that a short-haired lad, who wore a "letter" jacket & was a top basketball player, was the top "speed" dealer on my H.S. campus.
i think that debating bigots is a bad thing to do because by debating them you acknowledge their point is something that is to be taken seriously. some of the points you made are great though. like it makes a lot of sense when you say that gay men sleep around way more than straight men. obviously if gay marriage is illegal gay people are just going to have casual relationships instead
I agree debating them can shift the Overton window to the right, and that really sucks. But sometimes you unfortunately have to fight back when silence on the matter allows their ideas to be the only ones anybody hears. When the right goes all in on anti trans rhetoric, you kinda have to fight backnn
@@a-rat-in-your-walls online the answer is to either ignore or troll and offline you laugh at them. no sane person will look at this bigot coming up to a trans stranger and think theyre the sane person in the interaction
The responses are well thought out and logical, but unfortunately, most of the people making these claims aren’t doing so in good faith, and they don’t care about their factual accuracy. They have no self awareness or shame. You can’t win by quoting facts at people who don’t care about the facts. The cruelty is the point.
Very sad, but very true. I’m starting to give up on arguing with bigots, it’s obvious they don’t want to hear facts, they just want to oppress people who they refuse to understand and then play victim when they’re called out for their bigotry. It’s a sad reality.
@@steveluxecable3817 A person can make an argument in bad faith and still be factual. Look at Trump for example. A terrible specimen of humanity with nothing but self interested motivations, and yet he's absolutely right that a woman is a human female, and a man is a human male.
I've used the analogy of a boob job. "Would it be appropriate for me to ask you (your wife/ daughter) has had a boob job? Something like that is none of my business, therefore, my transition status is none of yours."
As far as the "unnatural" argument goes: it's even crazier than that (!?!), at least from the perspective of the cis het world. Not only are there fish and amphibians that can change from male to female (depending on temperature, other environmental conditions, and even just population pressures--e.g., too many of one sex or another); and, there are female birds that can spontaneously grow male-appearing plumage (without actually undergoing a biological sex change), which always have the evolutionary purpose of attracting the attention of female birds for mating. Pretty amazing, huh? The book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl gives an extensive (but by no means comprehensive) catalogue of such phenomena as observed in nature. Something like 90% of the animal species about which we know anything regarding their sexual/mating habits exhibit homosexual, bisexual, or transexual behaviors. (And, unfortunately, many Christians will counter this with, "Well, all of nature is fallen," to which the only response can be "go away!")
Also: on the matter of Jesus and his teachings...there is only one definite documented place that Jesus said anything about (very specifically) men having sex with men. It's in a second-century apocryphal gospel known, literally, as the Gospel of Judas, which has only been known (in its current form...there were definitely other versions of it) to the wider world since 2006. If one argues that Jesus is against homosexuality, one is literally preaching the Gospel of Judas.
I appreciate this video however, the main problem here is that the evidence issue they won’t listen to it. They don’t care about evidence. They just want to be right.
@@teddscaut493 Because I'm noticing a pattern here where people talk about facts and evidence, but won't say what they are, presumably because then those facts and evidence might be questioned and challenged.
You left out the gender roles thing. My mom believes gay people of any gender shouldn't have kids because kids need to have an example of both genders to have a healthy upbringing (🙄). Definitely part of a bigger belief of how men and women should act both in a relationship and as parents. But it's definitely a thing. "Children should have a strong one and a soft one, a caregiver and a provider, a man and a woman." You know. That sort of thing.
I find this rhetoric really funny because in a conservative household most fathers are either physically and/or emotionally distant, or they don’t let the mother have any part in raising them other than cooking.
@@Mel-wn9gb Incorrect as always, that's based on internal psychological tendencies. We know this because the environment in which a trans person develops doesn't change what gender they identify with. . The smallest glimmer of an exception would actually be in how stereotyped roles often confuse them while they take time figuring out who they are.
Hello, Not•Defining ❤ Your videos are remarkable and quite informative. Thanks for being an advocate and activist for the LGBT community. I too have been interested in researching, educating, and supporting the advancement of our fellow Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans people. My mission has been to be as actively visible as a Gay man without hesitation or any embarrassment.
Hey Gary thanks so much for your kind words of support and for spreading the message. By all means use these in whatever way you can. I’m so glad it’s helpful. Big respect and appreciation.
🙋🏾♀️ 16:08 This Might be an easy Comeback but one must Never forget to not fight against homophobia with racism. Which might easily be interpreted in such a siimplecised statement.
Hey thank you for raising this point. A couple of other people have as well and I’ve taken note. I do agree with you on how it could be interpreted and I sincerely apologise if it came across as offensive. Absolutely not okay on my part and I will do better. 🙏🏽
As a trans Christian, I would say that Jesus _did_ speak favorably about gender-nonconforming people at least once. In his day, the only socially recognized example of this were "eunuchs", who had a "third gender" status in society. In Matthew 19:12, he discusses three types of eunuchs: born that way from the womb (which we would now identify as intersex conditions), involuntary (i.e. forcibly castrated slaves) and voluntary (i.e. men who proactively choose to undergo castration for religious or personal reasons). Some eunuchs, eg. the Galli / Gallae, dressed and behaved like women. Others did not, and were more like "effeminate" men. Sounds like what we would now call gay and trans people to me. 😇
I really liked almost all your points. Even though I understand why someone would do that if they were talking to a conservative relative, I felt like you were trying to compromise with people that view having multiple partners as a negative thing. I think that, if we want to be radical in our self-acceptance, we shouldn't have to conform to the view that monogany is better than polyamory or other forms of ethical non-monogamy, or that these forms of relationships are immoral or inherently negative. I also think that your comparison between colonized queerphobic countries and countries where queer people have more rights hides the historical causes of a lot of queerphobia in these countries is a direct consequence of colonialism. A lot of populations around the world used to have culutural acceptance and inclusion towards sexual and gender diversity, but were forced to lose this part of their culture through the violence of colonizers imposing their religions and queerphobia on them. Colonialism, which has never truly disappeared, is also the reason why a lot of colonized countries can't economically compete with the ones that benefitted from it.
@@notdefining Thank you! I really like your videos and I think they're really helpful. I wanted to clarify these details, as a burundian trans woman living in Canada. Keep up the good work!
About 2/3rds done with the video, and I now have an issue. Jesus didnt say anything about homosexuality being good or bad or neutral, no, but he also didnt say anything about slavery being good or bad or neutral. He had a lot to say about a lot of things, if you even believe he existed, but the people who wrote and editorialized the bible certainly dismissed queer narratives or repressed them - New and Old testament put homosexuality on par with murder. As for what Jesus did say - he said he came to fulfil the old testament, not to chamge a single word or letter. I am trans. I was once gay. Now am somewhere in the pan spectrum. Raised by Christians. Christianity is by no means pro-lgbt. I think anyone who argues that it is tolerant is deluding themselves. Christianity and Islam are two sides of the same suppressive, repressive, authoritarian coin. Islam means Submission, and Christianity is just their own version of that.
Hey thanks for sharing your perspectives. I totally agree with you. I’m certainly not of the view that we should be claiming Abrahamic religions to be pro-LGBT because they seriously are not. As a queer person who was brought up in quite an extreme Christian home, I absolutely relate with your feelings. This one was just to provide something of a response to hopefully help anyone who might have to be exposed to those kind of Christian arguments. I find that there is a wealth of utterly bonkers hypocrisy in Christianity especially that can be brought out if nothing else to deflect when these things are brought up. Definitely though, if someone is a Christian, for me, they have to seriously explain at length why they are absolutely against their faith’s view on queerness in order to be considered a safe person for me.
@notdefining I get it. Your video had a lot of heavy, enormous stuff it had to distill in order to achieve its goals, so I'm sure a lot ended up on the cutting room floor. This one topic just felt extremely important to discuss with a little more depth and care. Any religion, but especially these 2/3 in particular can't be handled lightly, especially now. Few to no Christian minds will be changed even by LGBT folk within the religion with arguments that a naive audience member taking your advice here might make. At minimum, they would need some of the context I added. Honestly, this could be a video all of its own. I dont understand why any LGBT folk cling to religions, but it hurts my heart for them.
It’s funny how the first two are humans I’ve actually done. I’ve used those responses. My father is still doesn’t accept me as I am. His response to mine is always the animals don’t know any better because their animals like we aren’t animals or that were better animals and we’re superior animals bullshit
By definition, únnatural'hings cannot exist! So to say being gay is unnatural just means that it doesn't fit with their limited concept of how the world should be (usually stunted through religion and low IQ) Yes, manmade or artificial things do exist but they require a 'natural' being to bring them into existence and they are always comprised of 'natural' constituents. This can also be explained legitimately as the universe bringing said objects into being by using a tool - e.g. a human being, which it already created and which can then create other things. Thus nothing that exists is unnatural. The argument is nonsensical and is an admission of fear, confusion and fragility on the part of the accuser.
When it comes to SA, how much do qualifiers matter? I get that it's easier to rally around a particularly beloved, or vulnerable group, it would just be grand if we kept in mind that there's no acceptable version of SA. If you think it could be a just punishment for anything, your anger is clouding your judgement at a level that should startle you.
Each of the gospels say different things about being a pacifist or defending oneself. Turning the other cheek is about making the person treat you as an equal, not being pacifist. Harder for of resistance.
Out of curiosity how much money are the people who say queers shouldn't adopt to make sure the government raises kids better then non-allocishet couples? Also if promiscuity is something they care about why does everyone keep telling aroaces that they will grow out of it and that they should be trying to find someone?
The "this is confusing for children" makes no sense!! If im like a pre-k-er(?) And i was taught only men and women relationships are aloud id be pretty confused because like...WHY NOT wlw or mlm relationships!!
Jesus was not a radical pacifist: "I bring the sword, I am here to fulfill the law, if your parents dont hate you then you are not a real follower" paraphrasing here.
I love this video but I will say I really dislike your last argument about the degeneracy/downfall of society. Ngl your answer kinda smells like western chauvinism and Islamophobia. Are those countries most people would want to live? No, but that's mostly not due to the queerphobia. The reason those countries are doing so poorly is pretty explicitly due to western backed interference purposefully destabilizing the area for decades in a bid to secure oil and "fight the commies" in proxy wars. If the countries were stable, in time the queerphobia would likely dissipate as people's base needs were met and they could move on to focusing on things higher up the hierarchy of needs. If the areas were stable and not either embroiled in wars or rules by Islamic theocracy, I really think LGBTQ rights would follow in time. But the state of those countries is in large part due to western imperial hegemony exploiting everything outside the imperial core for everything they're worth. The queerphobia is pretty unrelated to the state of each country.
Hey thank you for sharing this important perspective. I hear what you’re saying and I take your point. Absolutely agree with you on the dynamics of post-colonial exploitation and how this plays into it. I apologise because I can see the way what I said could come across and I don’t want to ever speak poorly of anyone from those countries. I will reflect on this and bear it in mind in future. Thank you again for bringing this up and in such a constructive way. I appreciate it.
13:00 what about the argument that same sex parents mean the child is missing either a father or a mother figure in their life? If both parents are butch men, then the child isn't getting that... "Motherly" love and missing the things that a father or mother are supposed to teach their kids. What do you say to people who argue that?
It's the same mode of argumentation used by promoters of homeopathy. An effect (deficits in parenting by same-sex couples, ability of water to treat diseases if it's been in the vicinity of a particular ingredient) is excluded in the research, but instead of recognizing the result the promoters of the discredited model instead propose a different _mechanism_ for the effect _which has already been ruled out_ to be generated. If an effect does not exist, proposing more causes for that effect doesn't cause the effect to spring into existence.
@@M_M_ODonnell I'm sorry but I can't understand anything you just said. What does any of that random vocabulary have to do with the argument of a kid not getting an equal balance of both feminine and masculine parental teachings?
@@WigWoo1 None of it random -- maybe I was just overly generous in assuming you weren't aggressively ignorant about your own position. I'll break it down: 1. Studies have looked for a difference in outcomes in children raised by same-sex vs opposite-sex couples -- which would have included the consequences of the situation you "suggest" that children without two gender-conforming opposite-gender parents would have worse outcomes. 2. Studies found that the disadvantage for children raised by same-sex couples _did not exist._ 3. Saying "well, what if kids raised by same-sex couples have worse outcomes because [insert justification here]" don't change the existing findings that _there are not worse outcomes_ -- so making up justifications for why those worse outcomes might exist is pointless, because those worse outcomes do _not_ exist. 4. Homeopathy promoters do the same thing as homophobes. Every time there's a new round of studies showing that it doesn't work, they confer a bit and come back with a new explanation for why they think it _should_ work and demand new studies, even though the last round didn't test a particular mechanism, they tested whether homeopathy works at all. Coming up with new justifications for why you think something should have happened doesn't change the fact that _it didn't happen_
Ask them if they then think straight couples who are both very masculine should be banned. If the argument is that children need 2 distinct types of people to take care of them, then that bars a lot of straight couples who don't embody those distinct types.
@@gwit4051 It's not about types, because it's not about effects -- it's about power and exclusion. "Children need this particular configuration" has no connection to material reality (as has been demonstrated repeatedly), it's just a post hoc excuse for the restriction they've already decided based on their patriarchal doctrines is necessary.
The concepts of sexuality and gender didn't really exist in biblical times either, people who use the bible as part of the argument aren't educated about the time periods these stories roughly take place in. Plus, there's a lot of mistranslations, both deliberate and accidental.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the argument with a Christian person will be an affective one (coming from an apostate). The best thing I think is to take every instance of homosexuality in the Bible and examine the context of it. Argue that it wasn’t the homosexuality that the Bible condemns; it’s the context in which it was practiced at the time. Remember that God of Old Testament = God of New Testament = Jesus. Their ideals are all the same. So you have to frame them all to agree.
The religious arguments are as easy to debunk as the 'trans' ones. Just remind the person that their personal, religious or ideological beliefs are not facts.
@ThatFont Yes, people who believe in the concept of 'gender' have a right to believe it, just as religious people have a right to their rigious beliefs. They don't have a right to impose their beliefs onto others though. That's where their rights end and other people's rights begin.
@ What is there to believe about ‘gender’ though? It’s a social construct created to divide people meant to uphold the patriarchy. You can “believe” that that’s a good thing, but you’d be kidding yourself.
@@ThatFont Genders are absolutely older than the patriarchal takeover that game with eurocentricism. It's literally just an inevitable sociological metacategorical thing that happens when sex becomes connected to roles in groups. It in fact predates modern society and technology, you only associate it with people suffering from miso-neism because their entire worldview requires unnecessary restrictions to be validated.
I think the girl having long hair and boys having short are beauty standards. Same with all the other things. My answer to the unnatural arguments would be that yes the evolutionarily intended way is to be heterosexual, but nature isn't always perfect. The majority of violence against women whether sexual or physical is at the hands of males. So women need safe spaces from men no matter how they identify as. I think being gay is different. I am not claiming to be something I am not. I am making a new claim about myself that I like men. I am not trying identify into a different class of people. Abrahamic religions are inherently against homosexuality. But i don't have to believe in some silly ancient books. I think a lot of lgbt people feel they don't belong. That is why they believe in extreme ideologies. Most lgbt people are rejected by their families and society, I think if our parents instilled their values and loved us, we would be more like them. I agree with your point on gay men. I live in a less accepting place. It's easier for us to stay safe, if we engage in just hookups. It is easier to hide those. And we haven't yet developed the culture of commited relationships. I haven't even seen online spaces for lesbians here. Maybe I am not aware of them, but it seems like as lesbians have to deal with misogyny on top of homophobia, they sadly have to go along with straight marriages or things like that.
"Evolutionarily intended" is a teleological/theological argument, so should probably be kept for people who already share the same theological context.
I'm aromantic/asexual, and I believe that part of the reason we see more asexual people might be because there are too many people on the earth, and that it's not a "mistake" of nature, but rather intentional, in an effort to reduce the population to a more manageable size. I know that couples with one or more asexual people can have children, but it is a usually a more intentional act.
1. Evolution has no intention. If something happens in evolution then it happens, and it is no more or less supposed to happen than anything else. 2. This is a very problematic train of thought to adhere to. Swap out the words males, women, and men with any racial group that disproportionately receives violence from another and then tell me you think this means we should segregate spaces based on race. 3. Identifying as gay when you previously identified as straight literally is identifying into a different "class" (I think the word group is more accurate) of people. You were part of the straight group, but then you realized you belonged to a different group, just like trans people do.
Can you give any concrete data that suggests trans women are a threat to cis women in bathrooms? Because when I searched: "are trans women in womens bathrooms a threat" I got: "statistics show that there is no concrete data to prove that trans people are a threat or participate on acts of violence against users of women's bathroom." And several articles that say similar.
I’m gay and a psychologist and I don’t agree with the first supposition you made which is that young children’s behavior being divided by gender in ways that objectively make no sense for example, the type of play they do (or are encouraged to do), or wearing pink versus blue. there’s a lot of developmental and observational studies that show that boys and girls do differ in their preference for the type of play they like, how active they are versus how verbal, etc. boys tend to be more rough and tumble and active and girls tend to play in groups and it’s more of a social thing so there are gender differences, separate from the social learning. and so if a child is behaving more along the lines of the other gender one could say that child’s behavior is gender atypical, and maybe the parents or a teacher would discourage them from doing that because they’re afraid it will make for hardship for them in the future. I would like to be able to have space for children to be able to play and dress the way they want and to give space to boys and girls who are not as a gender normative, but also not pushing them to identify with the opposite gender the gender whose body they were not born into and labeling them, trans. Why push a child down one path or another? Why not just let it evolve and see where it goes and be more hands off with the kid and let the kid figure it out?
You might want to get a bit more up to date on developmental psych, then? No, saying "we don't want this result to be a consequence of social conditioning" isn't good research practice, and every study that tried to find the results you're claiming in the _absence_ of social pressures has failed to give the patriarchal-essentialist result. (Then again, since even in your comment you've given yourself permission to exclude data points that don't fit your preferred conclusion, maybe reading the literature on the topic wouldn't help. Especially since you're so comfortable misrepresenting care for trans, questioning, and gender-non-conforming youth in exactly the propagandistic ways pushed by the most violent transphobes.)
@@sovietdoge.7369 The current trend is "the existence of trans folks (or whatever group is the target) is inherently bad, so kids being aware of it is inherently harmful." It goes along with "this state of being is natural, so children must be indoctrinated into it" -- like the first commenter in this thread saying that we must preserve gender differences in acceptable behavior literally from birth so that we maintain the "natural" state of affairs caused by pressure to conform to those gender roles. (The "we see this result without pressure to conform" line is...absolutely false, has been demonstrated to be false, and is mostly known to be false even by the people promoting it -- in early childhood, documented gender differences in play preferences and the like are minor enough to not be a good predictor of gender based on play style _and_ demonstrated to be largely the result of social pressure.)
No, when people cite the complexity, they’re usually referring to the concept of limitless genders. For example, in the UK, primary school children were being taught that they might not be boys or girls but could belong to one of 100 different genders. The concepts of men and women are shaped by both cultural and biological influences. As you mentioned, boys and girls are often expected to behave in specific ways, and men and women tend to gravitate toward different ideals. For instance, the vast majority of men and women have differing interests on average, and these cultural patterns influence typical behavior. Historically, men have fought nearly every war, so it’s no surprise that strength and security are associated with men. Similarly, care and compassion are often linked to women because they’ve traditionally been, and still are, the primary caregivers. These traits have naturally developed over time and are rooted in both historical relevance and cultural norms, shaping what we consider typical gendered behavior. It's not even complex, it's atypical. So, do you really expect parents to listen to groups that have no business telling them what they should or shouldn’t teach their children? Groups that don’t have children themselves. Most people wouldn’t even mind if the concepts were simply explained, but trying to influence impressionable children is a different matter entirely.
You can't compare sexual orientation and gay and lesbian rights to 'trans' ideology. Gay rights never violated the rights of anyone else, including gays and lesbians themselves.
People have absolutely claimed gay rights have done just that, and I suspect your reasoning for trans stuff infringing on the rights of others is also weak.
@suruxstrawde8322 What rock have you been living under? The right to be free of sex stereotyping, which is sexism and sex discrimination, the right to privacy, safety, dignity and duty of care, the right to consent and bodily autonomy, the right to equity in employment, education, politics and sport, the right to freedom of association, thought, belief and speech, the right to a fact based education free of ideology, the right to accurate and transparent public research, records and information. There's probably more. Patriarchy is so insidious.
So you really don't know what patriarchy means then. • no stereotypes are perpetuated by trans rights • I'm assuming you mean the bathroom and sports controversies, of which have not endangers anyone to record. • nothing about trans rights even involves women's bodily autonomy or rights to consent (unlike conservative ideals on abortion and traditional gender roles) • trans ppl are not competing in jobs • all of this is factual and based on real research, they unlike the idea that trans ppl are fetishistic predators (they make up less than .1% of all assault cases, guess what percentage cis men make up) • Research being biased isn't specific to gender, fraudulent anti-evolution research gets shot down daily and food companies can publish whatever they want without scrutiny. I swear you must be just a troll cause you can't actually be /trying/ to convince anyone with all this obvious buzzword and biased news based nonsense.
transgender means the gender is different from the one assigned at birth, not that the gender "changed" because of transitioning. using _that_ word to refer to trans people is transmedicalism (unless you use it with someone that specifically wants that term to be used for them).
@Giuliana-w1f I had corrective surgery on my sex to match my gender because gender doesn't trans if you think it does trans your gender to match your sex than you can stop pushing your clothing fetishis and sexual orientation issues onto my medical history
As a lesbian, I do think we should separate LGB from the T, and not for the reasons transphobes may want. Sexuality is about who a person is attracted to emotionally, romantically, and sexually. It's independent of gender identity. Sexual orientation is based on whether someone is attracted to people of a sex different than their own, the same sex, or both sexes. Gender identity is a person's internal sense of being male, female, or another gender. It can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth. I feel that lumping them all together creates confusion (even if us as LGBT people aren’t confused), and creates the assumption that gender identity and sexuality is the same, when it is NOT. Perhaps splitting LGBT up into two categories, sexuality and identity. Getting rid of transgender and all the other identities is ludicrous, however, perhaps dividing the two could help with focusing the attention of what ever group we are talking about in the moment. The media may say “LGBT people are a danger in public bathrooms and woman’s spaces!” While in actuality as you keep listing they are only warning you about transgender women, not the entirety of lgbt, (For example.) If you disagree, that is fine, just be respectful, :3👍.
So you want to toss away the brothers and sisters who fought beside you for the rights you got and I did not. "The media may say 'LGBT people are a danger in public bathrooms and woman’s spaces!'" NEWS FLASH!! Those people think lesbians are a danger in women's spaces too. In fact, they *also* kick out cisgender heterosexual women if they look too masculine. It isn't about safety it is about conformity, and like me, you do not conform to gender norms. You don't have to like it, but if you separate us, they will come after you right after they finish with us. When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, the exact reasons given for excluding trans women from women's spaces were used to exclude lesbians from those same spaces. The lesbian in the bathroom was going to rape your daughter. Now that you are more free to enter women's spaces you want to "separate" from the people who fought for that beside you and claim it is confusing. You are big on how we are different. Let me tell you why we are alike: Both gay people and trans people do not conform to heteronormative social norms. Gay people are gender non-conforming, because in a heteronormative society men are attracted to women and women are attracted to men. BOTH gay and trans people are gender nonconforming. Separating us benefits you at the expense of the people who helped you gain some rights. I spent 35 years identifying as a lesbian before I realized I was trans and lesbians making this big reach to "separate" us make me ashamed of that affiliation.
I suggest you sit down and reflect on why you really want to differentiate between us to the cishet world, because it sounds a lot like "I'm one of the good ones. Your problem is with those trans people over there."
To book a 1:1 coaching session with Mark, click here: www.notdefining.com/coaching-info.
Text chat with Mark and join group sessions at patreon.com/notdefining.
For more videos click the JOIN button.
People say that teaching LGBT topics will confuse kids, but we're out here still trynna teach them algebra and shit.
Totally. Kids are smart.
@@notdefiningyeah. My daughter asked me what “gay” was recently, as I had never named it before, but she’s just seen it as normal. We discussed family and once she understood her response was: “okay!” And took off to go fight with her sibling about a toy or something.
The kids don’t care, it’s the grownups who are so insecure about it.
And by don’t care I mean they aren’t bothered, LGBTQ+ stuff is all just the way things are, not good or bad in and of itself.
I think when they say "children will be confused" they mean children will be allowed to think things we don't want them to--it interferes with their desire to have absolute power over their children
I think it's not wanting the self face slap of having to describe their own bigotry to their children. Even if the kids won't understand that it's bigotry, having to articulate in simple words, without dog whistles, without the complicated rationalizations, it just makes it too clear to the parents themselves that they are just bigots. And that, even the idea of having to do it, is just icky and not nice feeling. It makes the hypocrisy too stark. So it's the _children_ that are confused and can't handle it. Certainly not the bigoted parents.
I think that for progressive parents it's wanting their children to have a factual, ideology free education about their bodies and health, because that's their right.
@@CorwinFound🎯🎯🎯🎯
@@Mel-wn9gb Not a single thing about LGBT inclusion contradicts already established biology.
@@suruxstrawde8322 I'm not talking about LGBT inclusion. I'm talking about the ideology of 'gender' being taught as fact in our classrooms. According to your own words that sex and 'gender' are not the same, it has nothing to do with biology.
In response to "what rights don't you have" I tend to reply that it's not so much about what rights we don't have, it's about how we have to constantly fight to keep our current rights.
If the person is a troll then it tends to shut them up pretty quickly as they realise they're not going to "win" the discussion, if it's a genuine question then this tend to open up discussions
That response wont shut up a troll.
Trolls only stop if they lose interest in trolling you. Either they just got bored of it or you stopped responding to them. A troll wont look at your response and think about it, or maybe change their mind. If that would be the case they would not have been a troll at all
@Zoli-7658
That's why I dig into them when I can. I hit them with the "I'm talking to the person hiding behind the troll mask, you're pathetic and you know it" lmaooo
Perhaps more effective might be stating how, in several countries today, we don’t have any rights at all, and our very existence is outlawed, not to mention the fact that in the grand scheme of western history, queer rights happened relatively a only a matter of seconds ago on the clock of history.
Although on another hand, on another matter, we have existed for many, many, MANY thousands of years in human society, so it’s no new thing, either. It’s just that we’ve stopped keeping to the shadows quite as intensely as before.
@@Zoli-7658 I find that refusing to buy into their framing of the question is a pretty good deterrent.
Reframing the bad faith question shows that you're not gonna take their crap & that works well at making them be the one to stop responding
@@ManyArmedMooseDei I normally encounter this line of questioning on UK based articles & posts on FB so I keep it to how the situation is in the UK.
If you bring up the situation in other countries then it risks opening the door to them simply replying that I should just go live there & fight for rights in that country.
Boxing them in & taking control of the narrative is often an effective way of shutting them down.
Thank you so much for this video. I'm bi and my daughter is a lesbian. At school some kids are telling her she is going to hell. Her response has been the only person that judge her is God not them. The one that I get the most you have already covered. I get asked how can I be in a monogamous marriage if I'm bi.
Bi erasure is lovely, now isn't it?
@@melissawalker4093 melissa, you forgot to change accounts, bro.
@@jake-lynndobos659 there was another comment on here but I guess it was deleted.
@@melissawalker4093 oh. I've had that happen before.
As a trans woman i just really wish I could just exist in peace without being scared. Thank you for putting out this video.
When people say "You're changing the definition of marriage," I want to answer with
how many *other* wives does your husband have? or
how many *sheep* did you get for marrying your wife?
I always go the route of physics like “the marriage of these two pieces of the same element create a stronger bond that if we used two different materials” the word marriage isnt a singular definition word as many of the english language words.
I could reply with this, but I have to know why!
"why does it have to be such a big part of your identity tho" yeah I wonder who made it so
Cishets will reference their sexuality and/or gender identity dozens of times in a given day without even realizing it, because they didn't end up in a debate or argument every time they alluded to their husband or wife or called themselves a man or a woman. Most people would snap after the third time somebody went, "Excuuuuuuse meeeee, I disagreeeee with your lifestyle."
It really means "it's the only part of your identity I pay attention to" -- I'm not sure that they can actually imagine that we have lives outside of their plans against us.
It also totally ignores how much of their identity cis het people make arround being cis het. Like, if they tell me they find girl A and girl B hot, that's "normal", yet if anyone tells them they find girl A and guy B hot, it's suddently "making your whole identity arround it" or "shoving it into their face"
I hear it as: "I'd rather live in a world without LGBT people and, barring that, the least you can do is hide that side of yourself from me."
@@M_M_ODonnell Well, people talk about queer-specific issues on the internet a lot. We aren't separated from our online identity by them.
Im in my sixties in age. A gay man. Ive heard straight people saying that gay people dont procreate and bring life into the world. Thats not true , some gay people have children , and make far better parents than many straights do. At least we are open minded.
I like to say it's God's way of making sure the orphans are taken care of.
@liberalsockpuppet4772 yes
Trans people also have kids.
"At least we are open minded"- This right here.
I'm starting to realize that openness to experience is both a trait that doesn't change much throughout someone's life and seems to be at the root of so much grief when there's very little of it. I don't know what to _do_ with that idea because hooo boy is it a dangerous one. It just makes me sad and frustrated.
@paultaylor914 Yes , and make better parents than straights . I grew up with an angry father. He would fly into rages and abuse me. He never showed any affection towards me.
I really appreciate your calm and clear responses to all of these arguments. I'm a gay man who grew up in the south (in the US), and wish I had more voices like yours to help navigate life in those early years. Thank you for making these videos. :)
If someone says something about "God doesn't make mistakes" in a transgender argument then 1. If the argument is sincere and not just them trying to harass you, then mention anything about disabilities, flaws in the human body, or if they had a surgery or wear glasses point that out. 2. If it's just them being rude mention that God made them and they're a mistake 🔥🔥🔥
I always ask why they wear makeup or wear clothes when it's not hazardous or cold then. And if they further don't get the point, I ask why children die from cancer. "It's God's plan" they whine, unaware that evil and suffering are made by the same thing (if it ever existed).
"God made me trans for the same reason he made wheat and not beer. So I could take part in the 'joys of creation'."
"God made me trans to test his followers on the whole 'love your neighbor' thing. You're currently failing the test."
A couple of my favorite options for that argument.
To quote my goat: “I refuse your question” :)
I used to have the energy to fight with these things, but now I just avoid it wherever possible. In real life and online.
Speaking of fighting online, today's bisexual tidbit is a highly relatable one I feel. I used to fight homophobes because I thought I was being a really good ally. I was really interested in same sex marriage in a way no one else but my lesbian sister was. 😂
Been around all throughout history
And there are always those are going to be negative about us
There's always going to be transphobes, homophobes, sexists, racists & religious extremists. It's unfortunately just human nature to group & other ourselves.
@@5-Voltthey said while advocating for othering trans women in another comment
@firetube8288 Are you suggesting there's absolutely no difference between a trans woman & a cis woman? I absolutely respect & support trans women's identities, but when their sex is relevant, I think we should acknowledge it.
@@5-Volt when and why is their sex relevant?
@@firetube8288 Anywhere they would be seen naked & be vulnerable. So locker rooms, spas & prisons. I think a distinction of being post-op of SRS is worthy of consideration though. Anywhere where the physicality of sexual dimorphism is relevant so sports.
Preface: I'm gay and married to a man.
There's a flaw in your argument regarding marriage. Saying that people who don't have children shouldn't be allowed to get married ignores the fact that people with this view believe that the point of marriage is to create a monogamous relationship *in which* to procreate, not necessarily to come into the marriage with pre-existing children.
My counter-argument to these people is to say "Should infertile people not be allowed to get married? What about heterosexual people who have decided not to have children for whatever reason? How is my same-sex marriage any different?"
The people making that argument don't believe it in any rigorous way -- they have _all sorts_ of exceptions they'll still allow into marriage. Their claim is ultimately the (historically inaccurate) claim that marriage was invented by religion (or, though they're usually quieter on this front, only legitimate when it's endorsed by _their_ religion specifically).
I just go for the jugular and point out the absurdity of their religious belief system straight on dawkins style. Otherwise you are buying into the false premise that is taking it seriously and arguing semantics about it.
I hate when people say LGB without the T. You remove the T, next it will be the B, then the G, then the L... Then what do you have? Stand together alphabet mafia!
@XievisTheDragon Completely agree. Division will only make us all easier targets.
And I hate this argument. It's truly sad and pathetic that no one just gives a shit about intersectionality on principle. Meanwhile most of the people who claim to will turn around and sling microagression (or just plain agression) if it's towards the right people.
They're already pretty anti-B; and if you look a bit deeper, anti LG too
it reminds me of this quote by niemoller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller
Remove the T, it's easier to remove the rest.
Stand united strong, Stand divided weak.
We have a winner!
There’s an interesting theory that bisexuality and homosexuality have evolutionary advantages. Say if a breeding pair has abandoned or is neglecting their offspring due to lack of resources, a same-sex pairing might find and adopt the offspring as their own. Or if an animal’s mating partner dies and leaves the other as a single parent, that animal has a higher likelihood of finding a new partner to help continue caring for the offspring if they are bisexual.
yes!! penguins for example do this :3
Most of them don't care about actual facts and evidence. They don't like it because they think it's yucky, but they'll never use that argument.
What facts and evidence?
@@Mel-wn9gb The kind that you can Google and get a clear answer in 1 or 2 sentences-the kind that is taught in high school.
@@Mel-wn9gb Depends on what obviously non-factual ideas you're thinking of. But to name a few---
> the nature of dysphoria as a harmless neurological aberration
> the fact the "groomer" narrative is a complete lie
> the fact there's nothing immoral about non aligned sexualities
> the fact gender and sex are separate
> the fact no diseases are of any higher prevalence within these communities
> the fact none of this is traumatizing to children
> the fact none of this is biologically unnatural, or even remotely unheard of in other animals
@suruxstrawde8322 The fact that gender dysphoria is defined as a mental illness, not a natural aberration. The fact the groomer narrative being a complete lie or not is irrelevant to my comments. The fact that I'm not talking about sexuality, but the ideological concept of 'gender'. The fact that I didn't say a word about disease, but also the fact that some members of the LGBTQ community are at higher risk of disease. The fact that there's no long term research into the effects of 'gender affirming care' in children, or anyone else. The fact that we're talking about humans, not other species, and your claim thst sex and 'gender' are not the same makes biology irrelevant. The fact that sex and 'gender' are not the same. Sex is objective fact, 'gender' is sexist ideology.
@@Mel-wn9gb Mental illnesses are not an unnatural aberration. You being terminally online and advocating rhetoric you can’t defend is unnatural.
Everything so well said! I really like your explanation of hetero-normative being the complicated system that doesn’t make sense to kids- It still doesn’t make sense as an adult.
Yeah try to explain that to my 10yo autistic self lol
Nowadays I’m aware how this beast works, _and I choose to defy heteronormativity out of spite_
Less so actual spite, moreso it’s straight up bull that men get to game at 23 and I don’t get to do it without getting called immature because I’m not.
Fantastic video, with fantastic arguments against some of the worst reasons that bigots use to explain why they don't think we should exist. As an enby, I'm still not always sure which bathroom or changeroom I should use, but that's a personal issue! And although you pointed out Canada as a very safe place for LGBTQ people (and it overall still is!), we've had a disturbing rise in far-right conservative politics of late, with a lot of hate speech, and a frighteningly popular (and populist) political movement that a lot of us have begun to refer to as "Maple MAGA". I'm still very glad that I live here rather than in most other countries in the world, but like most of my (also very queer) friends, I'm afraid for the future.
If I’m not mistaken, boys even did used to wear dresses. Or why even in the 2009 the Christmas Carol played by Jim Carrey, was Ebeneezer Scrooge, dressed up in a sleeping gown.
Men have worn "dresses" all throughout history in most of the world.
@ exactly. And today right wingers seem to have such an issue with cross dressing. 🙄
Women used to get in trouble for wearing pants, but these weirdos want to impose the same controlling BS onto boys and men.
It's meth shit.
@@ConsciencepartyUSAthey really don't, it's trans people they have an issue with. BIG difference
@@rainkidwell2467nah, they hate crossdressing too. haven't you seen the way they talk about drag queens? tbf tho it seems like half the time they don't understand the difference between crossdressing and trans ppl
You have such a calm rational retort to all of the right wing ideologies which discriminate against LGBTQ communities. Well done!
Ah thank you. This means a lot.
I feel that peoples' physiological tendencies are so strong that they conflate that strong feeling with "the laws of nature" or something like that. Especially when they have social conditioning to back it up.
That might explain why men think they're women and vice versa.
@@Mel-wn9gbHail Satan! :3
@@Mel-wn9gb No that's mismatched neurology/hormones/chromosomes, depending on the circumstance. And again, gender=/=sex, keep up.
If being raised by gay people made you gay, then the corollary of being raised straight would make you straight would be true.
Just like how if listening to a gay musician made you gay, all you’d have to do to switch back is listen to a heterosexual musician 🤣
Love the message. I'm a queer seminary student and clergy candidate with MCC. Jesus did speak about gay people. The Centurian's "servant" was his shield mate, or gay partner. The Greek word used for "servant" only appears twice in the bible during both telling's of this story. Also, when Jesus talked about the eunuchs in Matthew, his descriptions can easily translate to Drag performers, intersexed, and transwomen today. In none of the kinds did he condemn the eunuch. It's there in, well, red and white. Thank you again.
Far-right conservative parties are rising in most countries, also in northern Europe: Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France. On the other hand, Portugal and Spain are still very safe places for Lgbtq people, despite the presence of some extremist far-right parties, which are not in power, though.
They arent in power in germany either
I always knew I should've picked Spanish over French in highschool
1:25 I grew up and reached adulthood in an age when the length of a boy's hair was an accurate indicator of his intoxicant(s) of choice. But there are always exceptions to the rules. I was surprised to learn that a short-haired lad, who wore a "letter" jacket & was a top basketball player, was the top "speed" dealer on my H.S. campus.
i think that debating bigots is a bad thing to do because by debating them you acknowledge their point is something that is to be taken seriously. some of the points you made are great though. like it makes a lot of sense when you say that gay men sleep around way more than straight men. obviously if gay marriage is illegal gay people are just going to have casual relationships instead
I agree debating them can shift the Overton window to the right, and that really sucks. But sometimes you unfortunately have to fight back when silence on the matter allows their ideas to be the only ones anybody hears. When the right goes all in on anti trans rhetoric, you kinda have to fight backnn
That's why you openly laugh at then when they make an argument. On top of framing their argument as inherently unserious, it triggers them a loooot.
@@a-rat-in-your-walls online the answer is to either ignore or troll and offline you laugh at them. no sane person will look at this bigot coming up to a trans stranger and think theyre the sane person in the interaction
@@HeadRedShot I usually block and report trolls if I don't want to debate them.
The responses are well thought out and logical, but unfortunately, most of the people making these claims aren’t doing so in good faith, and they don’t care about their factual accuracy. They have no self awareness or shame. You can’t win by quoting facts at people who don’t care about the facts. The cruelty is the point.
Very sad, but very true. I’m starting to give up on arguing with bigots, it’s obvious they don’t want to hear facts, they just want to oppress people who they refuse to understand and then play victim when they’re called out for their bigotry. It’s a sad reality.
What facts are you referring to?
@ Any of them. When someone makes an argument in bad faith, they aren’t arguing from a factual place. It’s a manipulation.
@@steveluxecable3817 A person can make an argument in bad faith and still be factual. Look at Trump for example. A terrible specimen of humanity with nothing but self interested motivations, and yet he's absolutely right that a woman is a human female, and a man is a human male.
@@Mel-wn9gb What do you call someone with a vagina and testes?
What would you say to people who find out you are LGBT, and never stop asking inappropriate questions about it?
I've used the analogy of a boob job. "Would it be appropriate for me to ask you (your wife/ daughter) has had a boob job? Something like that is none of my business, therefore, my transition status is none of yours."
It pisses me off when they say, "If children are taught lgbt things, it'll turn into that" really I've learnt about WW2 but I've yet to invade Poland
Right. Exactly.
As far as the "unnatural" argument goes: it's even crazier than that (!?!), at least from the perspective of the cis het world.
Not only are there fish and amphibians that can change from male to female (depending on temperature, other environmental conditions, and even just population pressures--e.g., too many of one sex or another); and, there are female birds that can spontaneously grow male-appearing plumage (without actually undergoing a biological sex change), which always have the evolutionary purpose of attracting the attention of female birds for mating. Pretty amazing, huh?
The book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl gives an extensive (but by no means comprehensive) catalogue of such phenomena as observed in nature. Something like 90% of the animal species about which we know anything regarding their sexual/mating habits exhibit homosexual, bisexual, or transexual behaviors.
(And, unfortunately, many Christians will counter this with, "Well, all of nature is fallen," to which the only response can be "go away!")
Also: on the matter of Jesus and his teachings...there is only one definite documented place that Jesus said anything about (very specifically) men having sex with men. It's in a second-century apocryphal gospel known, literally, as the Gospel of Judas, which has only been known (in its current form...there were definitely other versions of it) to the wider world since 2006. If one argues that Jesus is against homosexuality, one is literally preaching the Gospel of Judas.
I appreciate this video however, the main problem here is that the evidence issue they won’t listen to it. They don’t care about evidence. They just want to be right.
What evidence for what?
@ it’s hard to get anyone who has been mindwammyed by maga. They don’t care about evidence, they care about vibes
@@Mel-wn9gb Why do you keep asking this question?
@@teddscaut493 Because I'm noticing a pattern here where people talk about facts and evidence, but won't say what they are, presumably because then those facts and evidence might be questioned and challenged.
@@Mel-wn9gb Queer people exist and aren't bad.
You left out the gender roles thing. My mom believes gay people of any gender shouldn't have kids because kids need to have an example of both genders to have a healthy upbringing (🙄). Definitely part of a bigger belief of how men and women should act both in a relationship and as parents. But it's definitely a thing. "Children should have a strong one and a soft one, a caregiver and a provider, a man and a woman." You know. That sort of thing.
That's the sort of thing you base 'gender identity' on though. 🤔
I find this rhetoric really funny because in a conservative household most fathers are either physically and/or emotionally distant, or they don’t let the mother have any part in raising them other than cooking.
@@ThatFont exactly. And then they go "look this is the perfect model of a man for a child to look up to"
@@Mel-wn9gb Incorrect as always, that's based on internal psychological tendencies. We know this because the environment in which a trans person develops doesn't change what gender they identify with.
.
The smallest glimmer of an exception would actually be in how stereotyped roles often confuse them while they take time figuring out who they are.
@@Mel-wn9gb No, it isn't. Educate yourself a little, buddy.
This is def valuable but a lot of these people just don’t care about facts or logic and their minds are completely unable to be changed.
Yes absolutely. I always say don’t try to persuade someone who is committed to disagreeing. But hopefully they’re helpful just in case.
Hello, Not•Defining ❤ Your videos are remarkable and quite informative. Thanks for being an advocate and activist for the LGBT community. I too have been interested in researching, educating, and supporting the advancement of our fellow Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans people. My mission has been to be as actively visible as a Gay man without hesitation or any embarrassment.
Hey Gary thanks so much for your kind words of support and for spreading the message. By all means use these in whatever way you can. I’m so glad it’s helpful. Big respect and appreciation.
Thank you for arming me with more counter arguments!
🙋🏾♀️ 16:08 This Might be an easy Comeback but one must Never forget to not fight against homophobia with racism. Which might easily be interpreted in such a siimplecised statement.
Hey thank you for raising this point. A couple of other people have as well and I’ve taken note. I do agree with you on how it could be interpreted and I sincerely apologise if it came across as offensive. Absolutely not okay on my part and I will do better. 🙏🏽
@ No worries from my part! I appreciate you taking criticism not only into consideration but also trying to do better in the future!
As a trans Christian, I would say that Jesus _did_ speak favorably about gender-nonconforming people at least once. In his day, the only socially recognized example of this were "eunuchs", who had a "third gender" status in society. In Matthew 19:12, he discusses three types of eunuchs: born that way from the womb (which we would now identify as intersex conditions), involuntary (i.e. forcibly castrated slaves) and voluntary (i.e. men who proactively choose to undergo castration for religious or personal reasons). Some eunuchs, eg. the Galli / Gallae, dressed and behaved like women. Others did not, and were more like "effeminate" men. Sounds like what we would now call gay and trans people to me. 😇
I can’t thank you enough for speaking up and defending trans rights!
Thank you so so much!!!
I really liked almost all your points. Even though I understand why someone would do that if they were talking to a conservative relative, I felt like you were trying to compromise with people that view having multiple partners as a negative thing. I think that, if we want to be radical in our self-acceptance, we shouldn't have to conform to the view that monogany is better than polyamory or other forms of ethical non-monogamy, or that these forms of relationships are immoral or inherently negative.
I also think that your comparison between colonized queerphobic countries and countries where queer people have more rights hides the historical causes of a lot of queerphobia in these countries is a direct consequence of colonialism. A lot of populations around the world used to have culutural acceptance and inclusion towards sexual and gender diversity, but were forced to lose this part of their culture through the violence of colonizers imposing their religions and queerphobia on them. Colonialism, which has never truly disappeared, is also the reason why a lot of colonized countries can't economically compete with the ones that benefitted from it.
I don't want to assume that any of these are your beliefs though
Very fair points. Thanks for sharing. I appreciate it.
@@notdefining Thank you! I really like your videos and I think they're really helpful. I wanted to clarify these details, as a burundian trans woman living in Canada. Keep up the good work!
Amusingly, Pink used to be the color for boys. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink
Monogamy depends very much on species
On god such a beautifully calm voice
Definitely listening to this later
💞💞💞
Thanks for standing up and spreading awareness on the trans community. I loved all of your arguments/insight.
When I hear woke from a conservative Al I am seeing is a parrot who said that but don't know what it means.
I wonder how it’d respond to the actual definition.
About 2/3rds done with the video, and I now have an issue. Jesus didnt say anything about homosexuality being good or bad or neutral, no, but he also didnt say anything about slavery being good or bad or neutral. He had a lot to say about a lot of things, if you even believe he existed, but the people who wrote and editorialized the bible certainly dismissed queer narratives or repressed them - New and Old testament put homosexuality on par with murder.
As for what Jesus did say - he said he came to fulfil the old testament, not to chamge a single word or letter.
I am trans. I was once gay. Now am somewhere in the pan spectrum. Raised by Christians. Christianity is by no means pro-lgbt. I think anyone who argues that it is tolerant is deluding themselves. Christianity and Islam are two sides of the same suppressive, repressive, authoritarian coin. Islam means Submission, and Christianity is just their own version of that.
Hey thanks for sharing your perspectives. I totally agree with you. I’m certainly not of the view that we should be claiming Abrahamic religions to be pro-LGBT because they seriously are not. As a queer person who was brought up in quite an extreme Christian home, I absolutely relate with your feelings.
This one was just to provide something of a response to hopefully help anyone who might have to be exposed to those kind of Christian arguments.
I find that there is a wealth of utterly bonkers hypocrisy in Christianity especially that can be brought out if nothing else to deflect when these things are brought up.
Definitely though, if someone is a Christian, for me, they have to seriously explain at length why they are absolutely against their faith’s view on queerness in order to be considered a safe person for me.
@notdefining I get it. Your video had a lot of heavy, enormous stuff it had to distill in order to achieve its goals, so I'm sure a lot ended up on the cutting room floor. This one topic just felt extremely important to discuss with a little more depth and care. Any religion, but especially these 2/3 in particular can't be handled lightly, especially now. Few to no Christian minds will be changed even by LGBT folk within the religion with arguments that a naive audience member taking your advice here might make. At minimum, they would need some of the context I added. Honestly, this could be a video all of its own.
I dont understand why any LGBT folk cling to religions, but it hurts my heart for them.
It’s funny how the first two are humans I’ve actually done. I’ve used those responses. My father is still doesn’t accept me as I am. His response to mine is always the animals don’t know any better because their animals like we aren’t animals or that were better animals and we’re superior animals bullshit
By definition, únnatural'hings cannot exist!
So to say being gay is unnatural just means that it doesn't fit with their limited concept of how the world should be (usually stunted through religion and low IQ)
Yes, manmade or artificial things do exist but they require a 'natural' being to bring them into existence and they are always comprised of 'natural' constituents.
This can also be explained legitimately as the universe bringing said objects into being by using a tool - e.g. a human being, which it already created and which can then create other things. Thus nothing that exists is unnatural.
The argument is nonsensical and is an admission of fear, confusion and fragility on the part of the accuser.
dddddddd...Mark.....Ahhhh... Savior of Universe...saves everyone of us......(Flash Gordon Theme)
When it comes to SA, how much do qualifiers matter? I get that it's easier to rally around a particularly beloved, or vulnerable group, it would just be grand if we kept in mind that there's no acceptable version of SA. If you think it could be a just punishment for anything, your anger is clouding your judgement at a level that should startle you.
1:23 Exactly,it literally makes no sense 👍🏻
Each of the gospels say different things about being a pacifist or defending oneself. Turning the other cheek is about making the person treat you as an equal, not being pacifist. Harder for of resistance.
See Walter Wink’s work.
You are 1000% correct!!
💖 thanks, Mark
You’re so welcome.
Out of curiosity how much money are the people who say queers shouldn't adopt to make sure the government raises kids better then non-allocishet couples?
Also if promiscuity is something they care about why does everyone keep telling aroaces that they will grow out of it and that they should be trying to find someone?
Very good point.
Why on earth did you disable comments on your latest video after saying you'd answer questions in the comments?
TH-cam did it because it made it 18+ but I appealed it and now comments are on again.
The "this is confusing for children" makes no sense!! If im like a pre-k-er(?) And i was taught only men and women relationships are aloud id be pretty confused because like...WHY NOT wlw or mlm relationships!!
Jesus was not a radical pacifist: "I bring the sword, I am here to fulfill the law, if your parents dont hate you then you are not a real follower" paraphrasing here.
I love this video but I will say I really dislike your last argument about the degeneracy/downfall of society. Ngl your answer kinda smells like western chauvinism and Islamophobia. Are those countries most people would want to live? No, but that's mostly not due to the queerphobia. The reason those countries are doing so poorly is pretty explicitly due to western backed interference purposefully destabilizing the area for decades in a bid to secure oil and "fight the commies" in proxy wars. If the countries were stable, in time the queerphobia would likely dissipate as people's base needs were met and they could move on to focusing on things higher up the hierarchy of needs. If the areas were stable and not either embroiled in wars or rules by Islamic theocracy, I really think LGBTQ rights would follow in time. But the state of those countries is in large part due to western imperial hegemony exploiting everything outside the imperial core for everything they're worth. The queerphobia is pretty unrelated to the state of each country.
Hey thank you for sharing this important perspective. I hear what you’re saying and I take your point. Absolutely agree with you on the dynamics of post-colonial exploitation and how this plays into it. I apologise because I can see the way what I said could come across and I don’t want to ever speak poorly of anyone from those countries. I will reflect on this and bear it in mind in future. Thank you again for bringing this up and in such a constructive way. I appreciate it.
13:00 what about the argument that same sex parents mean the child is missing either a father or a mother figure in their life? If both parents are butch men, then the child isn't getting that... "Motherly" love and missing the things that a father or mother are supposed to teach their kids. What do you say to people who argue that?
It's the same mode of argumentation used by promoters of homeopathy. An effect (deficits in parenting by same-sex couples, ability of water to treat diseases if it's been in the vicinity of a particular ingredient) is excluded in the research, but instead of recognizing the result the promoters of the discredited model instead propose a different _mechanism_ for the effect _which has already been ruled out_ to be generated. If an effect does not exist, proposing more causes for that effect doesn't cause the effect to spring into existence.
@@M_M_ODonnell I'm sorry but I can't understand anything you just said. What does any of that random vocabulary have to do with the argument of a kid not getting an equal balance of both feminine and masculine parental teachings?
@@WigWoo1 None of it random -- maybe I was just overly generous in assuming you weren't aggressively ignorant about your own position. I'll break it down:
1. Studies have looked for a difference in outcomes in children raised by same-sex vs opposite-sex couples -- which would have included the consequences of the situation you "suggest" that children without two gender-conforming opposite-gender parents would have worse outcomes.
2. Studies found that the disadvantage for children raised by same-sex couples _did not exist._
3. Saying "well, what if kids raised by same-sex couples have worse outcomes because [insert justification here]" don't change the existing findings that _there are not worse outcomes_ -- so making up justifications for why those worse outcomes might exist is pointless, because those worse outcomes do _not_ exist.
4. Homeopathy promoters do the same thing as homophobes. Every time there's a new round of studies showing that it doesn't work, they confer a bit and come back with a new explanation for why they think it _should_ work and demand new studies, even though the last round didn't test a particular mechanism, they tested whether homeopathy works at all.
Coming up with new justifications for why you think something should have happened doesn't change the fact that _it didn't happen_
Ask them if they then think straight couples who are both very masculine should be banned. If the argument is that children need 2 distinct types of people to take care of them, then that bars a lot of straight couples who don't embody those distinct types.
@@gwit4051 It's not about types, because it's not about effects -- it's about power and exclusion. "Children need this particular configuration" has no connection to material reality (as has been demonstrated repeatedly), it's just a post hoc excuse for the restriction they've already decided based on their patriarchal doctrines is necessary.
Good video, because of critical thinking.
The concepts of sexuality and gender didn't really exist in biblical times either, people who use the bible as part of the argument aren't educated about the time periods these stories roughly take place in. Plus, there's a lot of mistranslations, both deliberate and accidental.
Yes absolutely
Unfortunately, I don’t think the argument with a Christian person will be an affective one (coming from an apostate). The best thing I think is to take every instance of homosexuality in the Bible and examine the context of it. Argue that it wasn’t the homosexuality that the Bible condemns; it’s the context in which it was practiced at the time. Remember that God of Old Testament = God of New Testament = Jesus. Their ideals are all the same. So you have to frame them all to agree.
Mark, your gorgeous 🥰
❤
Random comment
Even more random reply
The religious arguments are as easy to debunk as the 'trans' ones. Just remind the person that their personal, religious or ideological beliefs are not facts.
I agree, religion should not be factored in the ruling that trans rights are human rights.
@ThatFont Yes, people who believe in the concept of 'gender' have a right to believe it, just as religious people have a right to their rigious beliefs. They don't have a right to impose their beliefs onto others though. That's where their rights end and other people's rights begin.
@ What is there to believe about ‘gender’ though? It’s a social construct created to divide people meant to uphold the patriarchy. You can “believe” that that’s a good thing, but you’d be kidding yourself.
@@ThatFont
Genders are absolutely older than the patriarchal takeover that game with eurocentricism. It's literally just an inevitable sociological metacategorical thing that happens when sex becomes connected to roles in groups. It in fact predates modern society and technology, you only associate it with people suffering from miso-neism because their entire worldview requires unnecessary restrictions to be validated.
That's my entire point. It's a highly problematic ideological belief or system, not fact.
'Boys in blue, girls in pink' is the fundamental basis of 'gender', 'cis', 'trans', 'binary' and 'nonbinary'. Very contradictory and hypocritical.
Modern non-aligned genders only use that as a central point, the purpose was never yo erase that binary.
@suruxstrawde8322 That's the entire problem. You uphold the shitty, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, patriarchal system You *are* the system.
I think the girl having long hair and boys having short are beauty standards. Same with all the other things.
My answer to the unnatural arguments would be that yes the evolutionarily intended way is to be heterosexual, but nature isn't always perfect.
The majority of violence against women whether sexual or physical is at the hands of males. So women need safe spaces from men no matter how they identify as.
I think being gay is different. I am not claiming to be something I am not. I am making a new claim about myself that I like men. I am not trying identify into a different class of people.
Abrahamic religions are inherently against homosexuality. But i don't have to believe in some silly ancient books.
I think a lot of lgbt people feel they don't belong. That is why they believe in extreme ideologies. Most lgbt people are rejected by their families and society, I think if our parents instilled their values and loved us, we would be more like them.
I agree with your point on gay men. I live in a less accepting place. It's easier for us to stay safe, if we engage in just hookups. It is easier to hide those. And we haven't yet developed the culture of commited relationships.
I haven't even seen online spaces for lesbians here. Maybe I am not aware of them, but it seems like as lesbians have to deal with misogyny on top of homophobia, they sadly have to go along with straight marriages or things like that.
"Evolutionarily intended" is a teleological/theological argument, so should probably be kept for people who already share the same theological context.
you recognize that you live in a less accepting place, yet you reinforce it by not accepting trans people as who they are.
I'm aromantic/asexual, and I believe that part of the reason we see more asexual people might be because there are too many people on the earth, and that it's not a "mistake" of nature, but rather intentional, in an effort to reduce the population to a more manageable size. I know that couples with one or more asexual people can have children, but it is a usually a more intentional act.
1. Evolution has no intention. If something happens in evolution then it happens, and it is no more or less supposed to happen than anything else.
2. This is a very problematic train of thought to adhere to. Swap out the words males, women, and men with any racial group that disproportionately receives violence from another and then tell me you think this means we should segregate spaces based on race.
3. Identifying as gay when you previously identified as straight literally is identifying into a different "class" (I think the word group is more accurate) of people. You were part of the straight group, but then you realized you belonged to a different group, just like trans people do.
Can you give any concrete data that suggests trans women are a threat to cis women in bathrooms?
Because when I searched:
"are trans women in womens bathrooms a threat"
I got:
"statistics show that there is no concrete data to prove that trans people are a threat or participate on acts of violence against users of women's bathroom."
And several articles that say similar.
I’m gay and a psychologist and I don’t agree with the first supposition you made which is that young children’s behavior being divided by gender in ways that objectively make no sense for example, the type of play they do (or are encouraged to do), or wearing pink versus blue. there’s a lot of developmental and observational studies that show that boys and girls do differ in their preference for the type of play they like, how active they are versus how verbal, etc. boys tend to be more rough and tumble and active and girls tend to play in groups and it’s more of a social thing so there are gender differences, separate from the social learning. and so if a child is behaving more along the lines of the other gender one could say that child’s behavior is gender atypical, and maybe the parents or a teacher would discourage them from doing that because they’re afraid it will make for hardship for them in the future. I would like to be able to have space for children to be able to play and dress the way they want and to give space to boys and girls who are not as a gender normative, but also not pushing them to identify with the opposite gender the gender whose body they were not born into and labeling them, trans. Why push a child down one path or another? Why not just let it evolve and see where it goes and be more hands off with the kid and let the kid figure it out?
You might want to get a bit more up to date on developmental psych, then? No, saying "we don't want this result to be a consequence of social conditioning" isn't good research practice, and every study that tried to find the results you're claiming in the _absence_ of social pressures has failed to give the patriarchal-essentialist result. (Then again, since even in your comment you've given yourself permission to exclude data points that don't fit your preferred conclusion, maybe reading the literature on the topic wouldn't help. Especially since you're so comfortable misrepresenting care for trans, questioning, and gender-non-conforming youth in exactly the propagandistic ways pushed by the most violent transphobes.)
But telling children that trans people exist isn't forcing anything. It's presenting them with more options.
@@sovietdoge.7369 The current trend is "the existence of trans folks (or whatever group is the target) is inherently bad, so kids being aware of it is inherently harmful." It goes along with "this state of being is natural, so children must be indoctrinated into it" -- like the first commenter in this thread saying that we must preserve gender differences in acceptable behavior literally from birth so that we maintain the "natural" state of affairs caused by pressure to conform to those gender roles. (The "we see this result without pressure to conform" line is...absolutely false, has been demonstrated to be false, and is mostly known to be false even by the people promoting it -- in early childhood, documented gender differences in play preferences and the like are minor enough to not be a good predictor of gender based on play style _and_ demonstrated to be largely the result of social pressure.)
No, when people cite the complexity, they’re usually referring to the concept of limitless genders. For example, in the UK, primary school children were being taught that they might not be boys or girls but could belong to one of 100 different genders.
The concepts of men and women are shaped by both cultural and biological influences. As you mentioned, boys and girls are often expected to behave in specific ways, and men and women tend to gravitate toward different ideals. For instance, the vast majority of men and women have differing interests on average, and these cultural patterns influence typical behavior. Historically, men have fought nearly every war, so it’s no surprise that strength and security are associated with men. Similarly, care and compassion are often linked to women because they’ve traditionally been, and still are, the primary caregivers. These traits have naturally developed over time and are rooted in both historical relevance and cultural norms, shaping what we consider typical gendered behavior.
It's not even complex, it's atypical. So, do you really expect parents to listen to groups that have no business telling them what they should or shouldn’t teach their children? Groups that don’t have children themselves. Most people wouldn’t even mind if the concepts were simply explained, but trying to influence impressionable children is a different matter entirely.
You can't compare sexual orientation and gay and lesbian rights to 'trans' ideology. Gay rights never violated the rights of anyone else, including gays and lesbians themselves.
People have absolutely claimed gay rights have done just that, and I suspect your reasoning for trans stuff infringing on the rights of others is also weak.
Trans rights don't violate anyone elses either.
@suruxstrawde8322 What rock have you been living under? The right to be free of sex stereotyping, which is sexism and sex discrimination, the right to privacy, safety, dignity and duty of care, the right to consent and bodily autonomy, the right to equity in employment, education, politics and sport, the right to freedom of association, thought, belief and speech, the right to a fact based education free of ideology, the right to accurate and transparent public research, records and information. There's probably more. Patriarchy is so insidious.
So you really don't know what patriarchy means then.
• no stereotypes are perpetuated by trans rights
• I'm assuming you mean the bathroom and sports controversies, of which have not endangers anyone to record.
• nothing about trans rights even involves women's bodily autonomy or rights to consent (unlike conservative ideals on abortion and traditional gender roles)
• trans ppl are not competing in jobs
• all of this is factual and based on real research, they unlike the idea that trans ppl are fetishistic predators (they make up less than .1% of all assault cases, guess what percentage cis men make up)
• Research being biased isn't specific to gender, fraudulent anti-evolution research gets shot down daily and food companies can publish whatever they want without scrutiny.
I swear you must be just a troll cause you can't actually be /trying/ to convince anyone with all this obvious buzzword and biased news based nonsense.
@@Mel-wn9gb How exactly have trans rights violated anyone else’s rights?
Post op transexual because gender doesn't trans. Heterosexual because I know what fits and what doesn't .
Do you really think sucking up to the people who hate you will protect you for long?
@M_M_ODonnell 30 years post op with out your poser help
transgender means the gender is different from the one assigned at birth, not that the gender "changed" because of transitioning. using _that_ word to refer to trans people is transmedicalism (unless you use it with someone that specifically wants that term to be used for them).
@@BreeKolean Gee, how hurt I must be by a low-effort homophobe screaming "hey, leopards, _please_ eat my face!"
Tokens get spent.
@Giuliana-w1f I had corrective surgery on my sex to match my gender because gender doesn't trans if you think it does trans your gender to match your sex than you can stop pushing your clothing fetishis and sexual orientation issues onto my medical history
As a lesbian, I do think we should separate LGB from the T, and not for the reasons transphobes may want. Sexuality is about who a person is attracted to emotionally, romantically, and sexually. It's independent of gender identity. Sexual orientation is based on whether someone is attracted to people of a sex different than their own, the same sex, or both sexes. Gender identity is a person's internal sense of being male, female, or another gender. It can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth. I feel that lumping them all together creates confusion (even if us as LGBT people aren’t confused), and creates the assumption that gender identity and sexuality is the same, when it is NOT. Perhaps splitting LGBT up into two categories, sexuality and identity. Getting rid of transgender and all the other identities is ludicrous, however, perhaps dividing the two could help with focusing the attention of what ever group we are talking about in the moment. The media may say “LGBT people are a danger in public bathrooms and woman’s spaces!” While in actuality as you keep listing they are only warning you about transgender women, not the entirety of lgbt, (For example.)
If you disagree, that is fine, just be respectful, :3👍.
So you want to toss away the brothers and sisters who fought beside you for the rights you got and I did not.
"The media may say 'LGBT people are a danger in public bathrooms and woman’s spaces!'"
NEWS FLASH!! Those people think lesbians are a danger in women's spaces too. In fact, they *also* kick out cisgender heterosexual women if they look too masculine. It isn't about safety it is about conformity, and like me, you do not conform to gender norms. You don't have to like it, but if you separate us, they will come after you right after they finish with us. When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, the exact reasons given for excluding trans women from women's spaces were used to exclude lesbians from those same spaces. The lesbian in the bathroom was going to rape your daughter. Now that you are more free to enter women's spaces you want to "separate" from the people who fought for that beside you and claim it is confusing.
You are big on how we are different. Let me tell you why we are alike: Both gay people and trans people do not conform to heteronormative social norms. Gay people are gender non-conforming, because in a heteronormative society men are attracted to women and women are attracted to men. BOTH gay and trans people are gender nonconforming. Separating us benefits you at the expense of the people who helped you gain some rights.
I spent 35 years identifying as a lesbian before I realized I was trans and lesbians making this big reach to "separate" us make me ashamed of that affiliation.
I suggest you sit down and reflect on why you really want to differentiate between us to the cishet world, because it sounds a lot like "I'm one of the good ones. Your problem is with those trans people over there."
Why do you want to seperate from those that fought for your rights aswell?
This is basically just divide and conquer, but from the inside. I disagree at face value, and my argument is "safety in numbers". Math, basically.
@@pjaypender1009did you read the last sentence of that paragraph? This user worded that as though those "warnings" are worth heeding