More than just a parade
London planning bid to host World Pride 2030
Head of Pride in London, Christopher Joell-Deshields, said the gala would be more than “just a parade”, but would accommodate discussions on topics including LGBTQ+ inclusive education and banning so-called conversion therapy. London Mayor Sadiq Khan described the city as “a beacon of inclusiveness, acceptance and diversity”. He added that he was “hugely proud” that London would be in the mix to host the event.
Ok but why so much focus on LGBTQ+ and so little focus on, say, women?
Why not women? Why never women?
There’s never any answer.
Hell, at this point, it’d be nice if we could get a bit of just LGB, on its own.
The rainbow is a minority and thus more important and virtuous than women.
It’ll liven things up when the Neo Sovs roll into Poland…
I think it’s important to emphasize a distinction in meaning here – in this case, as in most, “LGBTQ+” does not mean (the set of all people referred to by some letter within the initialism), but rather (a fairly specific political movement which purports to represent that set). Of course, the whole movement feeds deeply on conflation and on this idea of a huge, united, sociopolitically monolithic “community,” even though this is not only absurd and self-contradictory given the alleged nature of the community, but also quite patronizing to the individuals it claims to defend, and blatantly in disagreement with reality: there are many “members of the LGBTQ+ community” who don’t actually feel that they have some sort of deep and inextricable connection to each other, and who have their own sets of values and beliefs.
All in all, I feel that a lot of “LGBTQ+” discourse and initiatives are just lumping a bunch of unrelated people in a box in order to exploit the resulting image for self-interested purposes. Since the associated rituals are capable of bringing significant popularity while requiring little effort and having little concrete impact on anything, they are very convenient for politicians. There are places out there where homosexuals are routinely put to death; surely stopping this would be a worthy cause, yet we seem to hear much less about it than we do about, say, correct pronominalization. I propose that this is because it’s easier. So, if you will, there is little LEGITIMATE “focus on LGBTQ+.”
It is likewise, I think, that there is so little focus on women. Actually putting an end to the rampant sexism of current societies would be a huge deal of work, require lots of changes in our ways of thinking, and that’s just plain hard. People aren’t up to it, and politicians aren’t bold enough. On the other hand, coming up with a narrative about pink and blue brains that are sometimes located in the wrong bodies is easy. Why take on legitimate causes when there are much cheaper ways to achieve gratification?
Hear, hear. This fits in with what we’ve discussed here so often, the T glomming onto movements that have already done a lot of hard work to get the level of acceptance they have. The T is preventing both the LGB and women from thinking about much else, so the remaining hard work is not being done, and the T are just shouting slogans and bullying people.
In short, the T are acting like the people they are – men – bullying gays and women. And of course capturing a large number of women for their cause.
Also explains why UK police spend more time policing stickers, ribbons, and limericks, than it does weeding out the misogyny within its ranks. That would take a lot more work, and make police forces a lot smaller. Screw that. I mean wouldn’t you rather go after a sticker-wielding feminist in a wheelchair, than a murderous, rapist fellow police officer?
Mosnae@4: This tendency on the left to try to lump together multiple movements has other facets. A key one in this coming election is the myth of the “Latino vote”. There is no such animal. If you actually talk to Hispanics in America, you’ll find a very, very wide range of views on almost every subject, including immigration. Cuban Americans freak out about anything that vaguely smells like socialist economic policy. Puerto Ricans most often are indifferent to immigration discussions, but can be quite passionate about the exploitation of their homeland (whether that exploitation is best addressed by independence or statehood is an ongoing debate, and one that has helped maintain the wretched status quo, by preventing a consensus position). Mexican Americans are divided into two camps–those who came here legally are often as resentful as any MAGAt at illegal immigration, while those who grew up here after being brought over the border by their parents are the poster children for DACA. And the smaller central American groups all come with their own agendas, as well. But the Dems really, really want these communities to all be about one thing only, and to be on one side of that issue, because that’s easier and cheaper to address.
[…] a comment by Mosnae on More than just a […]