LIMITED-TIME CONTENT Over the June with Pride

LeeJarrett said:
Wouldn't that be considered polysexual or similar? If it's similar, why isn't it considered part of LGBT?
Click to expand...
The LGBT community is for those that experience same gender attraction and/or do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.

Having multiple partners is not LGBT. If that were the case, lots of cultures and religions would be considered LGBT because they practice polygamy. Many of these same cultures are also ripe with homophobia and transphobia, most notably the Mormons. It would be counterproductive to include forms of polyamory within the LGBT community as such as it would put the remainder of the community at risk of harm.
 
This isn't to say polyamorous people do not encounter their own set of prejudices or discrimination. It just means that they are not part of the LGBT coalition. It is most beneficial for all involved for them to have their own community. Of course, polyamorous people that are otherwise LGBT such as a transgender person would be welcome in the LGBT community. But that would be because they are trans, not polyamorous.
Muschi said:
The LGBT community is for those that experience same gender attraction and/or do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.

Having multiple partners is not LGBT. If that were the case, lots of cultures and religions would be considered LGBT because they practice polygamy. Many of these same cultures are also ripe with homophobia and transphobia, most notably the Mormons. It would be counterproductive to include forms of polyamory within the LGBT community as such as it would put the remainder of the community at risk of harm.
Click to expand...
 
Respectfully, this is gatekeeping. Many consider polyamorous or otherwise ethically non-monogamous people as part of the LGBTQIAA+ community. There are abusive people and groups in almost all communities including the queer community, obviously the existence of homophobic polygamists isn’t a valid reason to exclude non-homophobic, differently oriented ENM people who identify with the alphabet mafia. Particularly given that homophobes of any stripe are unlikely to consider themselves LGBT+, so there’s also a self-selection pressure on which ENM people are part of the queer community.


Muschi said:
This isn't to say polyamorous people do not encounter their own set of prejudices or discrimination. It just means that they are not part of the LGBT coalition. It is most beneficial for all involved for them to have their own community. Of course, polyamorous people that are otherwise LGBT such as a transgender person would be welcome in the LGBT community. But that would be because they are trans, not polyamorous.
Click to expand...
 
Stasiana said:
Respectfully, this is gatekeeping. Many consider polyamorous or otherwise ethically non-monogamous people as part of the LGBTQIAA+ community. There are abusive people and groups in almost all communities including the queer community, obviously the existence of homophobic polygamists isn’t a valid reason to exclude non-homophobic, differently oriented ENM people who identify with the alphabet mafia. Particularly given that homophobes of any stripe are unlikely to consider themselves LGBT+, so there’s also a self-selection pressure on which ENM people are part of the queer community.
Click to expand...
Historically it was never part of the LGBT community. The LGBT community is a political coalition advocating for rights for people that experience same-gender attraction and people that do not identify with their gender at birth. To alter that historical goal is to be ahistorical. Those that "consider" polyamory to be part of the LGBT community are misinformed on what the LGBT community is for.

It is not gatekeeping to respect the history of the coalition and to adhere to its goals. Polyamorous people do not experience the same types of discrimination that LGBT people face or for the same reasons. It wouldn't be feasible for us to work together in a coalition because our communities needs are so different. It wouldn't be efficient, and efficiency is required for proper advocacy. Please remember the LGBT community is not just a community for anyone that differs from what society has deemed as the norm. It was formed for an extremely specific set of reasons: to fight against forms of homophobia and transphobia.

Also, queer is a slur that should never been used as a blanket terminology for the entire community. Just because some people have chosen to personally reclaim it does not mean it is okay to use for everyone.
 
Preventing the derailment of the original intentions (which have not been fully achieved) =/= gatekeeping the community. And even if it is, the gatekeeping is occurring for a legitimate reason. Not all forms of gatekeeping is bad.

This app is 17+, for example. Is ATA gatekeeping children from the app? They sure are. Is it for a beneficial, logistically sound reason? Absolutely.
 
not all polyamorus people are straight and we face discrimination like jail time if we decide we want to marry more then once and laws that force people to keep it secret so by those standards would it not be a part of lgbtq+
 
-WB-His-Goddess-of-Darkness said:
not all polyamorus people are straight and we face discrimination like jail time if we decide we want to marry more then once and laws that force people to keep it secret so by those standards would it not be a part of lgbtq+
Click to expand...
I already addressed the LGBT people that are polyamorous part:
Muschi said:
This isn't to say polyamorous people do not encounter their own set of prejudices or discrimination. It just means that they are not part of the LGBT coalition. It is most beneficial for all involved for them to have their own community. Of course, polyamorous people that are otherwise LGBT such as a transgender person would be welcome in the LGBT community. But that would be because they are trans, not polyamorous.
Click to expand...
There's many LGBT people of color, too. Does that mean being a POC means you're automatically LGBT? That logic doesn't make any sense.

Also, marrying more than one person is being illegal in most Western countries is not equivalent to gay people not being able to marry people of the same gender. Those things are/were not illegal for the same reasons, and many other people face marriage inequality such as people with disabilities.

Marriage inequality is only one facet of challenges the LGBT faces, and we address marriage inequality because of homophobia and transphobia. Multiple spouses being illegal is not due to homophobia or transphobia.
 
It very much is gatekeeping, by the most explicit definition. You’re using logical fallacy to make this argument. Polyamory not being initially included in the LGBT community is not at all a reason for exclusion. If you are interested in LGBT initialism I have some great resources to share, but you’ll find that many members who are welcomed in the community today were not part of that first movement, but nonetheless deserve inclusion. Asexual and aromantic people are both included in modern LGBTQIAA+ spaces, which presents clear space for people on the other side of the spectrum, who are polyamorous to also be included.

Muschi said:
I already addressed the LGBT people that are polyamorous part:

There's many LGBT people of color, too. Does that mean being a POC means you're automatically LGBT? That logic doesn't make any sense.

Also, marrying more than one person is being illegal in most Western countries is not equivalent to gay people not being able to marry people of the same gender. Those things are/were not illegal for the same reasons, and many other people face marriage inequality such as people with disabilities.

Marriage inequality is only one facet of challenges the LGBT faces, and we address marriage inequality because of homophobia and transphobia. Multiple spouses being illegal is not due to homophobia or transphobia.
Click to expand...
Muschi said:
Historically it was never part of the LGBT community. The LGBT community is a political coalition advocating for rights for people that experience same-gender attraction and people that do not identify with their gender at birth. To alter that historical goal is to be ahistorical. Those that "consider" polyamory to be part of the LGBT community are misinformed on what the LGBT community is for.

It is not gatekeeping to respect the history of the coalition and to adhere to its goals. Polyamorous people do not experience the same types of discrimination that LGBT people face or for the same reasons. It wouldn't be feasible for us to work together in a coalition because our communities needs are so different. It wouldn't be efficient, and efficiency is required for proper advocacy. Please remember the LGBT community is not just a community for anyone that differs from what society has deemed as the norm. It was formed for an extremely specific set of reasons: to fight against forms of homophobia and transphobia.

Also, queer is a slur that should never been used as a blanket terminology for the entire community. Just because some people have chosen to personally reclaim it does not mean it is okay to use for everyone.
Click to expand...
Muschi said:
Historically it was never part of the LGBT community. The LGBT community is a political coalition advocating for rights for people that experience same-gender attraction and people that do not identify with their gender at birth. To alter that historical goal is to be ahistorical. Those that "consider" polyamory to be part of the LGBT community are misinformed on what the LGBT community is for.

It is not gatekeeping to respect the history of the coalition and to adhere to its goals. Polyamorous people do not experience the same types of discrimination that LGBT people face or for the same reasons. It wouldn't be feasible for us to work together in a coalition because our communities needs are so different. It wouldn't be efficient, and efficiency is required for proper advocacy. Please remember the LGBT community is not just a community for anyone that differs from what society has deemed as the norm. It was formed for an extremely specific set of reasons: to fight against forms of homophobia and transphobia.

Also, queer is a slur that should never been used as a blanket terminology for the entire community. Just because some people have chosen to personally reclaim it does not mean it is okay to use for everyone.
Click to expand...
 
Stasiana babe, when you'll find out what people from older generations went through, and what others outside of countries where religious freedom isn't really a thing still go through, you'll understand why Muschi is saying what she's saying. Whatever non-LGBT people were and still are going through is different in terms of needs and level of acceptance from society. That's why we've created our own community. Maybe get off the internet and go outside for once, observe what's going on around you, and see who's really still being bullied and for whom nobody flinches an eye. And then you'll understand why we're ~gatekeeping~ anyone who isn't LGBT. The internet has coddled y'all, and now whoever isn't LGBT but has discovered they feel attraction in a way that's not standard in the eyes of the society they live in feels entitled to inclusion into a group that's fighting a different fight from theirs, just because it's hip to be part of groups that already exist. For real, after decades of fights for LGBT rights, society's perception changed for the better for just a few years, and then everyone was like "what if I'm part of LGBT+ 🤔". And then it dropped again, because there's a lot more verbal and physical violence going on, from people who shout left and right that x y z person or company isn't inclusive enough! I'm very disappointed in how our community ended up having to allow anyone in, like it's a cool kids' club or something, and the fact that I've seen lots of young LGBT people be homophobic and transphobic to each other. All because of people who got in and skewed our perception of what we're supposed to be fighting for even nowadays.
 
Yikes. Fortunately you’re not in charge of who gets to be part of the LGBT+ community. Your post makes a lot of assumptions that I’m not going to justify re: age, knowledge, and lived experience. Also, you didn’t respond to the logical points made in the post, and attempting (inaccurate) personal attacks in lieu of actual debate is a bad look. 👀


Chimichanga said:
Stasiana babe, when you'll find out what people from older generations went through, and what others outside of countries where religious freedom isn't really a thing still go through, you'll understand why Muschi is saying what she's saying. Whatever non-LGBT people were and still are going through is different in terms of needs and level of acceptance from society. That's why we've created our own community. Maybe get off the internet and go outside for once, observe what's going on around you, and see who's really still being bullied and for whom nobody flinches an eye. And then you'll understand why we're ~gatekeeping~ anyone who isn't LGBT. The internet has coddled y'all, and now whoever isn't LGBT but has discovered they feel attraction in a way that's not standard in the eyes of the society they live in feels entitled to inclusion into a group that's fighting a different fight from theirs, just because it's hip to be part of groups that already exist. For real, after decades of fights for LGBT rights, society's perception changed for the better for just a few years, and then everyone was like "what if I'm part of LGBT+ 🤔". And then it dropped again, because there's a lot more verbal and physical violence going on, from people who shout left and right that x y z person or company isn't inclusive enough! I'm very disappointed in how our community ended up having to allow anyone in, like it's a cool kids' club or something, and the fact that I've seen lots of young LGBT people be homophobic and transphobic to each other. All because of people who got in and skewed our perception of what we're supposed to be fighting for even nowadays.
Click to expand...
 
Stasiana said:
Yikes. Fortunately you’re not in charge of who gets to be part of the LGBT+ community. Your post makes a lot of assumptions that I’m not going to justify re: age, knowledge, and lived experience. Also, you didn’t respond to the logical points made in the post, and attempting (inaccurate) personal attacks in lieu of actual debate is a bad look. 👀
Click to expand...
And you aren't either.
 
Also, I don't see anymore personal attacks made against you than you have made against other people. Telling you that you are uneducated is not necessarily an attack, and even if it was, you have name-called me as a gatekeeper. If saying you are uneducated is a personal attack, would calling me a gatekeeper not be one?
 
Stasiana said:
Yikes. Fortunately you’re not in charge of who gets to be part of the LGBT+ community. Your post makes a lot of assumptions that I’m not going to justify re: age, knowledge, and lived experience. Also, you didn’t respond to the logical points made in the post, and attempting (inaccurate) personal attacks in lieu of actual debate is a bad look. 👀
Click to expand...

Look, a LOT of us get where you’re coming from. Polyamory is difficult to show in many places, and marriage difficulties along with scrutiny from society IS a shared problem among all of us. However, not adding polyamory to LGBT+ is not inherent gatekeeping nor discrimination in this situation. When it comes down to it, as someone who is both poly and queer, we don’t face nearly the same severity of said scrutiny as queer folk. Explaining you want more than one partner often results in simple responses of dislike, “no’s”, and weird looks due to the normalization of monogamy in current society (this is obviously a generalization and depends on many things, as all identity-related things do). Typically, you may hear things about how you might “want to cheat” and that’s why you’re poly similarly to bi/pansexual individuals experience. That doesn’t come with nearly the same weight as the ongoing, and still very deadly, fight for LGBT+ basic human rights and respect.

Polyamory IS VERY celebrated at pride as though it’s part of the lettering, just like how kink is super common and normally accepted in the 18+ / bar spaces during this month and after the initial parading. Polyamory also does have things like a flag and it’s own spaces, just like there are spaces for all specific identities. A lot of areas don’t include it because it’s often not a different sexuality, not as a way to discriminate against you. Polyamory is not a change or difference in sexuality the way being gay or asexual is, it’s something that is very normal to us as basic mammal instinct. The only reason it isn’t normalized currently is due to shifts in mating patterns due to things such as joint parenting, religion, and the acceptance of forceful jealousy (among other reasons, of course, those are just common and likely!).

At the end of the day, polyamory IS very normal and not a differing sexuality, as it doesn’t have you barred from monogamy, depending on the person. It might not be expected in some spaces, but monogamy isn’t normal either depending on where you look (and not the most normal scientifically). Rather than attempting to force yourself into these spaces, just mingle in them. Most of the time, we don’t give a shit if you want to join in to show everyone support and love, even if you’re straight and monogamous and simply want to dance around in some rainbows during one pride parade as an ally. Just don’t assume and make statements that being open about polyamory (esp straight), on a large scale, results in the same severity and torment LGBT+ do.

Also I apologize for any errors or weird sounded sentences if they’re there, I’m tired and have a headache lol.
 
Oliver_Kirk said:
uhh aside from the debate... i see theres a lot of trans furniture that isnt shown in this post, how do i get that, is it in any box?
Click to expand...
u mean furniture in the color of the trans flag? do u know anyone who has them? i think they might have been part of a different hunt or maybe from the previous pride events or idk
 
It’s so wild to me how much cognitive dissonance goes into thinking that polyam folks should be excluded from LGBT+ spaces when asexual and aromantic people are (rightly) considered perfectly valid inclusions, along the same spectrum. Like why are we only trying to include half of the spectrum? For why? 😂 It’s also weird to me how much energy people want to spend excluding others. Obviously not all members of the LGBT+ community face the same level of discrimination, BIPOC trans folks are more marginalized than cis white gay men, but of course there is still (rightly) space for them. It is a false equivalence based on an incorrect premise to say that any difference in discrimination levels polyam people experience means they can’t be included.
 
New throwback pridedorm- 2018 special offer (rug,shelf item, lamp, above plant) isn’t 50% off.
The price is almost same as if I would buy ECs offer and then buy those furnis from furniture shop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top