Should the LGB split from the TQ+?

Some argue the LGB have different issues to the T. Personally, as a gay man, since I know people of each of the four letters, and we coexist peacefully, I wouldn't like to see a complete divorce of LGB and T. That being said, our issues are objectively different. Luckily, I've grown up in the UK and had the exact same opportunities as my straight counterparts. That doesn't change the fact that in the past, LGB people fought to be recognised as legitimate and to blend into society like everyone else. I just don't see the same mindset in the T community, especially with big organisations referring to women as 'birthing people' or 'cervix-havers', and encouraging people to introduce 'their' pronouns when they state their name, or even being told we're 'cis'. I don't know. The struggles just seem too different. I just want that to be acknowledged and not brushed over.
This is how I feel about the term 'PoC' or 'BIPoC'. The binary of 'white' and 'PoC' is insulting to me, a mixed person, who, like everyone, has a unique background. Native Americans and black Africans are classed as 'PoC', yet their cultures are both different and incredibly rich. G and T may be 'LGBT', yet their struggles are undeniably different.

One relates to what you're aroused to, the other relates to dissatisfaction with your body and arguably veers into body dysmorphia. Unless you're dealing with the fraction that is autogynephilic, they're not both linked to sexuality.

Well it seems strange to me to have an "identity" based on what I'm "aroused" by in general to be honest.

That's like me saying I'm Dina-Meyer sexual




Not being heterosexual could be seen as a kind of body dysmorphia in that you are rejecting what your body was designed for (breeding with the opposite sex)

Do you not know how many of the hate crimes go unrecorded? Those happening within families and other places where people feel if they reported it, they would be the target for more abuse.

I don't really care for the identity part to it, in all honesty, so I'll agree with that much. Beyond not being subjected to violent assault for being gay or bi, I am not awfully concerned about the whole thing - certainly not with things like "gay marriage" etc. It's just a trait, at most, the collection of which form an identity. Though you can always start a Dina-Meyer sexual movement.

I think it's different to that because it isn't to do with altering the body or wishing it were different, but rather using it in a way (sex for pleasure) that is not its primary natural function (or you might say, the one intended by God.) So naturally for many such individuals the desire is to go further and try control perception of gender (or even biological sex) in the eyes of third parties, and to me that's where it enters emperor's new clothes territory.

With that said, some of the aims of the movements (e.g. outlawing "hate" speech, which some think should incorporate "misgendering", legislation promoting "equality" or "equity" etc etc) overlap, but such laws extend far beyond what I would see as desirable, anyway. That's mainly why I'd like to see the two movements split apart.

Don't forget all of the thought crimes that are no doubt occuring as well!

I don't think it should matter whether you get beaten up for any particular reason it should be treated the same beyond things like self defence or circumstantial things. It's the same trap that non white conservatives fall into the lefts "privilege" game. Getting stabbed for being a gay black man is no worse and should be treated no different than being stabbed for any other reason.

Could you clarify your second paragraph I'm not quite sure what you mean.

But in any case on your point on "altering" the body" isn't this just cosmetic though really? Eg like wearing make up, getting Botox etc? (Often in an attempt to gratify their particular arousal)

I don't think it should matter whether you get beaten up for any particular reason it should be treated the same beyond things like self defence or circumstantial things. It's the same trap that non white conservatives fall into the lefts "privilege" game. Getting stabbed for being a gay black man is no worse and should be treated no different than being stabbed for any other reason.

Could you clarify your second paragraph I'm not quite sure what you mean.

But in any case on your point on "altering" the body" isn't this just cosmetic though really? Eg like wearing make up, getting Botox etc? (Often in an attempt to gratify their particular arousal)

Yup, I agree, it ultimately is covered by equal application of the law in that respect. We have that nowadays and have had it for quite some time.

Regarding the second paragraph, I mean the demand for people to use certain pronouns and the attempts to criminalise not doing so.

The degree of change required to alter biological sex (which is an impossibility really) is much further reaching in how far it goes, e.g. hormone therapies, alteration of genitalia etc. It makes the risks of your typical nose job etc. seem trivial by comparison. However, that's exactly why I think it belongs in a category of its own, since that's the key focus.

Yeah I agree with all that.

Ah, yes, because clearly the views of one transperson on Youtube must not only reflect the views of the entire trans community, but also all of those who support transgender acceptance.

Great, now we can burn in cancel culture Hell together.