• Awkwardly_Frank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Even were it true, which it is not, that the ruling classes push LGBTQ+ acceptance, Nutomic’s argument would be ignorant at best and dishonest. Either they don’t know of all the historic instances in which those in power have played both sides of an issue against each other in order to divide potential opponents or, more likely, they are willing to selectively overlook it to justify their prejudices.

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 days ago

      in other words, it’s true that it’s a distraction, but it’s a distraction in the opposite direction from what tankies like nutomic say. it being a distraction is not a reason to abandon your trans allies, it’s a reason to protect them from the hoardes of haters who don’t readize they act as class traitors when they attack our trans brothers and sisters

      • thanks AV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        You’re 100% right. It’s ts a distraction insofar as it serves to quell the movement. The bourgeois elite gave these protections to queer people out of a singular desire to protect their capital interests. If they can mandate gay marriage is legal and suddenly capital is sharing pride month celebrations and the revolutionary intent behind the push for trans rights and queer liberation is stifled.

        We got gay marriage, what’s there to be militant about?

        It’s a distraction from the inherent oppressive system that has the ability to marginalize people in the first place.

    • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      It’s not even “both sides” necessarily, to me that sounds a bit too elaborate for the rather dumb forces at play. It could be just “whichever side is more economically/politically useful at the moment”. After years and decades of LGBT activism, companies turned to LGBT acceptance to give themselves a more tolerable human face (after someone else has already done the work of humanising LGBT, but the companies want some of that aura). When they feel that it’s not politically profitable anymore, they just switch back to homophobia. Case in point: Musk who used to tell people not to buy his cars if they don’t support LGBT.