Boss of facts
But a fact is the very thing it isn’t. It’s the opposite of a fact. It’s a fiction, and a lie. It’s fatuous to claim that X is a fact when X is obviously not even slightly a fact. Stop doing it. Everybody stop doing it. Everybody stop pretending your increasingly absurd daydreams are “facts.” They’re not.
On the same note there can be no vegan movement without meat-eaters, no teetotalist movement without drinkers, and no pacifist movement without violent people. This is a fact. It’s not up for debate.
In fact (lol) it’s worse than that… because those actually make some sort of sense! A vegan movement would be unremarkable if no one normally ate meat, a teetotalist movement would be unremarkable without drinkers, and pacifists would be unremarkable without violence. “LGB” isn’t defined in relation to “the T”, and exists wholly independently of its absurdity. The same note to me seems like it might be more along the lines of “There is no feminist without the zebras.” :-P
This was discovered a while back by the German philosopher GWF Hegel, and it rests on the primacy of the idea. The idea of X immediately calls into existence its dialectical opposite, non-X or anti-X. So those creatures which inhabit the permanent darkness of the ocean depths can have no idea of light; or of dark; not until one of those lampfish happens along which has a ball of luminescence hanging from a bauble on its nose.
I take ‘LGBT to mean ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.’ The opposite of ‘transgender’ would have to be ‘non-transgender.’ The other 3 can go on their merry way quite well without the T, but T calls forth non-T, instantaneously and of necessity.
Which adds a new dimension to the concept of Tea for Two, as played by Tommy Dorsey.
Is Herren saying that he’s gay but he sleeps with women if they say they’re really men inside? Or is that just something he thinks lesbians have to do?
ibbica @2
I certainly agree that a movement specifically dedicated to veganism wouldn’t make much sense in a world without meat-eaters etc. Still, that hardly makes it a non-debatable “fact” that, in this world, the vegan movement needs to include meat-eaters as members, which was the intended reading in this case. By the same logic it’s hardly a non-debatable “fact” that a movement dedicated to defending same-sex attraction (the LGB part) needs to include among it’s ranks people (the T part) actively hostile to same-sex attraction, e.g. by condemning lesbians for not being into “lady-cock”.
So is Andy T then?
It’s not even clear to me what “There is no LGB without the T” is supposed to mean. Does it mean that the LGB only exists thanks to the T, so that if the T were to disappear, so would the LGB? Does it mean that wherever homosexuals and bisexuals are to be found, trans people will systematically also be present? Does it mean that there are no instances of a standalone LGB political movement? Does it mean that all homosexual, bisexual and trans people everywhere are best friends forever due to some magic force woven deeply into the fabric of the universe?
It means the LGB have to devote themselves to the T at all times, including when their own interests are at stake, OR ELSE.