LGBTQ synthesis view

My relationship views from my sister blog spheres: here

I support the Respect for Marriage Act to go codify same sex marriage and interracial marriage and I am cool with the compromises.

I like this act because it seems to be the first step toward getting the government out of the marriage business (since I want the government to be removed from the marriage business since I feel that marriage is a private matter) 

That act also retroactively makes the Constitution support same sex marriage and interracial marriage by codifying that into the Constitution.  Though as mentioned elsewhere, those rights were already found to have always existed in the Constitution, but codification , well that goes the extra mile has the state protect those rights which is base. Moreover marrying whoever you want is a natural right

Sexuality is structured by patriarchy and heterosexual normativity. Since patriarchy and heteronormativity are dominant orders, by definition they have significant power to determine what it is that sex means. 

So thus I am a supporter of Queer Anarchism. and its social insurrection mission to abolish the state and capitalism with the anarchist ideal of complete individual freedom as a method of liberation for the   LGBTQ community which would then lead to the abolition of homophobia, transphobia, heteronormativity, patriarchy, and the gender binary.

Being LGBTQ was acceptable and common in the Americas (like Second Spirit in First Nations pre Canada) and Asia before European imperialism and colonialism criminalized LGBTQ acts in those countries and thus set off centuries of hetereosexist , Anti LGBTQ laws, cultural views and tragedies (tragedies like the brutal persecution and oppression of Queer people in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s). So we must defeat Imperialism and Colonialism once and for all to liberate the LGBTQ

LGBTQ people are humans not political pawns . Playing around with their lives through political games by the West is a loss for everyone

The US using gay people and other LGBTQ people as pawns in order to justify and spread their imperialism as mentioned above is known as Homonationalism 

In particular with Homonationalism, the western imperialists use nationalization of queer movements to help justify their growing anti-immigrant stances, while the western imperialists turn a blind eye to homophobia still occurring in Western society.

I support the Gay Shame movement .  

Seeing gays sell out by hereosexualizing themselves through marrying within a heteronormative/heterosexist patriarchal marriage system was a lot to take but I quickly accepted this as can be seen throughout my blog

It is just that I always respected how gays were unique and didn't want to follow social norms and seeing same sex couples marrying into marriage which is a system built upon heteronormative/heterosexuality foundations which was designed around the desires and needs of straight/hetereosexual couples felt like same sex couples were second class citizens within that heteronormative/heterosexuality marriage system that failed to meet their unique desires and needs

I am sympathetic to supportive of the Gay Shame movement’s hesitancy of queer mainstreaming, supportive to their demands of the abolishment of state sanctioned coupling (marriage for people of all sexual orientations ie hetereo and gay) since I like them see marriage as an exploitation at the benefit of others, and believe that people shouldn't have to do a ritualistic things like get married to get benefits like healthcare and the like . 

Same sex marriage won’t alter and fix heterosexual marriage at all, though it will instead enhance the cachet of that rather tattered institution by pledging more bodies and lives to the altar of normative familialism . 

Homosexuals and lesbians make up about single digit percent of the US population. About 1 in 1x Americans identify as homosexuals/lesbians

The amount of LGBTQ-identifying adults married to a person of the opposite-sex is 11 and a half percent, (source:Gallup), which exceeds the percent of those LGBTQ identified adults who are married to a person of the same-sex (9 and a half percent) by about 18 percent. 

TLTR: Some gays feel that gay marriage might be culturally appropriating straight/hereosexual marriage .It seems that marriage, since time immemorial, has been a part of heteronormative culture, a truth which some parts of the gay community (like the aforementioned gay shame movement and also David Starkey) understand.

To make the government expand the realm of marriage to include same sex couples culturally appropriates a heteronormative cultural practice to the homosexual culture. This can cause same sex marriage to fall under that umbrella?

Though maybe Queer Heterosexuality can address the gay shame movements concerns.

According to Heather Brook on Queer Heterosexuality:, “the term 'same-sex marriage' is similarly oxymoronic to 'queer heterosexuality'. They both challenge and connect to essentialist understandings of heterosexuality. However, where 'same-sex marriage' aims to gain social capital from the normativeness of heterosexual marriage, 'queer heterosexuality' pulls on the fluidity of queerness.”

Brook describes how both terms incite fear of appropriation and the pejoration of a gendered understanding of societal institutions. Specifically, when straight people use 'queer', a term which was reclaimed by the community it now describes, to describe their heterosexuality, it straightens the word within the social consciousness. 

Brook posits that queer heterosexuality forces an exploration of how heteronormative institutions like marriage can be defined outside of binary oppositions like "hetero and homo; men and women; queer and straight"

So based on everything above, we need to abolish hetereonormativey/hetereosexual patriarchy and marriage all together in order to end the hetereosexualizing and oppression of same sex couples since same sex couples will always wrongly be seen as second class in a marriage system not designed around their unique desires and needs due to the marriage system being built upon heteronormative/heterosexuality foundations and designed around the desires and needs of straight couples/hetereosexual couples.

We then need to help improve the relationships of same sex couples by finding a relational system that is built for them and all types of couples equally instead of built on a hetereonormativey/hetereosexual patriarchy marriage system

Queer equality within a Western homonationalist narrative is showcased as inclusion in heteronormative practices, as in legal marriage. Social equality claimed by Western society is then compared with countries that either criminalize homosexuality or do not legally or formally recognize same-sex marriages;  absence of queer equality is typically associated with Muslim nations.  

Jasbir Puar states in her 2013 article, "Rethinking Homonationalism", that the notion should not be seen only as a description of "bad politics" or a political accusation, yet that it is rather based on a structure of modernity and has leeched onto Western societal constructions as to support the dominant power structures.

Homonationalism is a process by which neoliberal and capitalist power structures line up with the claims of the LGBTQ community as a weapon to justify racist, xenophobic and aporophobic positions those western countries hold, in particular against Muslims, basing them on prejudices that immigrants are homophobic and that Western society is egalitarian.

Therefore sexual diversity and LGBTQ rights are used to maintain political stances against immigration, becoming more and more typical among further-right wing parties.

Queer Heterosexuality is good for that aim by  “the queer critique of sexual normativity is both bound to the history of specific identities and committed to the destabilization of sexual identities—including those that have become hegemonic"  

“the de- and possible reconstruction of heterosexual subjectivity through the straight authors' aspiration to identify as queer". 

“seeking in the book to "identify and out the queer heterosexual" in historic and contemporary literature and to identify "inherently queer heterosexual practices" which critique heteronormativity and open up possibilities for the future. 

The examples in the book include anchorites, the Marquis de Sade and Algernon Charles Swinburne as examples of queer heterosexuals. "Male masochism disavows a masculinity predicated on phallic mastery, and hence becomes a strategic site for queer heterosexual resistance to heteronormativity”

I also believe in a similar ideology girlfags and guydykes

I feel that gays are sadly being used by Liberal 2.0ers as stepping stones to further their own selves and party and such gay saviorism is an insult to gays. Liberal 2.0ers also use gays as background objects to fill their diversity quotas/fetishes or to make themselves look 'moral' which also triggers me.

I further sympathize with their views that gay marriage and voting are only hollow things that reinforce the patriarchal structure instead of changing or blowing up those patriarchal structures and allowing people of all sexual orientations a fresh new and equal start. 

Basically unless we abolish or radically change marriage for everyone, gay marriage is only a hollow victory. In the meantime we need to use same sex marriage to alter and fix heterosexual marriage 

The whole concept of the bourgeois dividing people by their sexual orientation ('straight', 'queer i.e gay', 'bisexual') is what they use to enslave people of all sexual orientations. We need to abolish labeling people by sexual orientation, and stop labeling sexual orientations blur

This is because things like :queer fluidity, queer curiosity, queer flexibility, hetero fluidity, hetero curiosity, hetero flexibility,  bi fluidity, bi curiosity, bi flexibility, gender non conforming and their relationships and similar post sexual orientation things are becoming more and more common. 

Because of that and the fact that the lines between sexual orientations are becoming less and less defined and different, there is no need to label people as 'straight' 'queer i.e gay' ,'bi sexual' etc 

Moreover, educating gays bi sexuals etc about what I wrote above, can help them realize they don't have to be Pidgeon holed into one LGBTQ+ box and can be free to explore whatever is best for them. This will make people of all sexual orientations productive members of our society creating a working class conscious. 

No more, will gays or bi sexual people have to beer the stigma of being labeled 'queer/gay' or 'bi sexual', since there will no clear boundary between the many types of sexual orientations, which are all becoming less and less defined. This will send a message to the bourgeoisie that them dividing us by sexual orientation has ended. 

This is because on the social level, the reappropriation of life, in addition to its full reappropriation on the individual level, people of all sexual orientations will have stopped identifying essentially in terms of their sexual preference social identities.

This is basically to queer heterosexuality which seeks to destabilize all such orientation categories, and move towards a world where categories like 'heterosexual' are rendered redundant. Gays need to continue to publically assimilate

This is also basically Queer neutrality/queer anti-identitarianism which I support (Like the gay shame movement, coalitions of queer neutrality like Queer Nation set aside their identity differences in order to team up against assimilationist movements). Think of it as an undoing of the structural logics of the indexical trace and the rhetorical apostrophe 

For example, the band Queen, in the 2018 film Bohemian Rhapsody when someone asks front man Freddy Mercury (played by Rami Malek), “What makes Queen any different from all of the other wannabe rock stars I meet?” Freddy Mercury responds,

“I’ll tell you what it is. We are four misfits who don’t belong together, playing to the other misfits: the outcasts right at the back of the room who are pretty sure they don’t belong either. We belong to them”

This depiction of the queer community as not belonging and yet belonging to those who do not belong is anti-identitarian because it crosses genders/genres and interrupts the boundaries of communication.

More from Freddy Mercury “We’ll mix genres, we’ll cross boundaries, we’ll speak in bloody tongues if we want to” (Bohemian Rhapsody). Queer neutrality is supposed to be a condition of relation without any determinate representational or indexical tie, especially the ties of social categories, associational boundaries, and personal identities that shape conventional relations.

John Paul Ricco states a queer-neutral anti-methodology in his The Logic of the Lure (2002) book, where he writes “What if we neither began nor ended with identity? In the end, what if we were to substitute something like a cruising ground for an epistemological ground”

The above changes will liberate all homophobes, biphobes and heterophobes from their homophobia, biphobia and heterophobia . The above changes will also help people not end up like this former liberal by making it impossible to be homophobic, biphobic or heterephobic in the first place

Judith/Jack Halberstam’s Queer Art of Failure (2011) builds upon antisocial impersonality by further developing an idea of queer impersonality as “radically passive masochism,” that Queer people can relate to one another in their anticlimactic and destructive nonrelations to them/selves. 

Halberstam reinvigorates the cruising fetish for Queer people by making the utility of getting lost over finding their way attractive, and so Queer people should conjure a Benjaminian stroll or a situationist flow, an ambulatory journey through the unplanned, unexpected, improvised, and surprising

I believe that queer utopianism can rely on anti-identitarianism to turn humanism into a disruption of the ossification of the human disruption of the ossification of the human which is why I support that

However, the idpol of intersectionality is not easily dismissed by queer neutrality theorists . After all the first chapter of the Queer Neutrality book notes that even the English gender comes not just via the French genre but it also comes via the Latin genus, as in kind, type, class, set, group, or race, and Sigmund Freud used the German term Geschlecht, which means sex, family, or race. 

Here are some views on the Black feminist Standpoint theory critique of Queer Neutrality/Queer theory and how Afro Pessimism provides a better alternative to the Black Feminist standpoint theory's limited alternative to Queer Neutrality/Queer theory

In the context of these problems with queer theory, Patricia Hill Collins’I echo every point that Suzanna Danuta Walters made in the II. BEYOND GUNS AND TAFFETA chapter of her book ‘The Few, The Proud, The Gays: Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Trap of Tolerance’

I'm absolutely not happy when Western corporations use rainbow symbols to pretend that they support solidarity with LGBTQ people while said corporations support imperialism and neocolonialism like in pride month. I am against non LGBTQ people displaying pride colors in their social media profiles and especially at home.  I am against sports leagues having pride nights and having their teams display pride colors. 

That commodifies LGBTQ people and is wrong. They only pretend to support LGBTQ people. I echo what Suzanna Dunata Walters said in the piece here. I also echo this meme and this post on this. Also see a similar point in this link along with the related book The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism and this meme here for more

I also don’t like pride in part for the same reason I don’t like public holidays, spring break etc; I don’t like annual rituals shoved down our throats by corporations and the media ,and the capitalist commodification of love, family and morals

Gay activists fought to end DADT with the argument that gays in the military will only enhance unit cohesion and military readiness by permitting openness and—importantly— utilizing all willing soldiers in ,unbeknownst to them, the global battle to wrongly make the world safe for heteronormativity and unfettered Capitalism (when they should be battling to end heteronormativity and Capitalism instead of battling to protect those injustices)

The argument that ultimately won was that the military (and the nation)—were suffering due to gay exclusion, as evidenced by the selective “stop loss” actions, when gays were deemed too essential to discharge over a dumb policy and by the loss of so many Arab translators.

Or to put in another way, discrimination against gays is not just bad in a moral sense; it is actually seen as bad for national security and the economy. 

So gays were wrongly used as new shiny weapons by the military to increase the effectiveness of the military instead of simply letting them join for the right reasons. 

When we destroy the heterosexual patriarchy/heteronormativity naturally in a non hierarchal manner it will naturally help gays to blend in without notice since sexual orientation wouldn’t matter at that point

Some of my other views on DADT are reflected in this book 

I help LGBTQ people through me supporting economic egalitarianism which will help them get true equality and protecting LGBTQ people from abuse 

I am copying this from Marxists.org because I agree with the jist of it so I want to echo it , I want want the things below to become a reality in our society one day:

The struggle against sexual discrimination is linked to the struggle against class society in general for multiple reasons. 

The first reason is that only the abolition of class society can create the material economic basis and cultural drive that is sufficient to dismantle the model of the monogamous family as the only basic unit of society (even if after these post family collectives lead to new type of nuclear family units) . 

By socially carrying out all of the tasks that are assigned today to the family sphere, and mostly to women (cooking, cleaning, raising children), and by allowing the free development of individuals with access to the best material and cultural resources that society can provide, it will be possible to facilitate a process by which interpersonal and family bonds are gradually freed from material necessity and correspond solely to romantic and sexual desire, thereby dissolving the oppressive norms and discriminations that exist in such relationships at present.   

But I would also more than ideally want decentralized free association to also replace the family unit

The second reason is that the solid majority of LGBTQ people are workers, youth, temporary workers, unemployed, who experience a double oppression in regard both to their class, in the workplace and living or surviving conditions, and their identity or sexual orientation. 

Joining in these struggles against those two forms of oppression is therefore the most natural thing, especially when we realize that the enemy is the same. 

Furthermore, it shouldn’t be forgotten that anti gay prejudices are also fostered to divide workers – like to make heterosexual workers believe that, while they may be oppressed, they are still superior to the gay person (how satisfying!), in the same way that racist prejudices are nurtured. The role played by the right wing in this process is self-evident.

Whoever says that the two fronts of struggle should be separated is playing into the enemy's hands. As it is often, in the LGBTQ movement, those people who promote this stance are wealthy individuals who don’t experience the material problems that are faced by LGBTQ workers and youth.

Marxism rightfully defends the peoples unity across all gender and sexual lines in the fight against the oppressive Capitalist system. 

But the Queer Theory holds that our gender and sexual identities are a fiction that is produced by discourses and oppressive power in our society: a learned performance. What does this idea mean for the liberation struggle? Is Queer Theory compatible with Marxism? 

In this talk, recorded at this year's International Marxist University, Yola Kipcak from Der Funke (Austrian section of the IMT) tackles these issues and explains the position of Marxists towards Queer Theory and the struggle against oppression

https://www.marxist.com/marxism-vs-queer-theory.htm    The Queer Theory believers that everyone worldwide has always done the exact opposite of what the Straight White Man does

.If we make the US and rest of the world like this, we will no longer have overkill idpol (or even halfway overkill idpol) or bigotry and our world will totally be free and equal. This will liberate sexist, homophobes and transphobes from their bigotry and prevent people from ending up like this former liberal on these issues  

I support that (Queer Theory) and gender acceleration . Gender Acceleration and the Queer Theory would make the logic of gender broken to the point where someone can freely and safely come out as trans without having to worry about being ostracised from society.

In the Judeo Christian bible, it is often said (by Immanuel) “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” He points to the disciples and says, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

I support abolishing the nuclear family as the norm. This would lead more people being able to find equal alternatives to the nuclear family

While I am ok if this naturally leads to the nuclear family being completely abolished , I am against abolishing the nuclear family by coercion or force (since abolishing the nuclear family completely by coercion or force is authoritarianism and a violation of non aggression principle, personal autonomy and other Left Libertarianism and Anarchism core values), 

In the above ‘post nuclear family societies’  I would be fine with families still being traditional if they voluntarily choose to be that way (no one would stop them from being like that, since Left Libertarianism and Anarchism are the opposite of Authoritarianism)

In the above ‘post nuclear family societies’ , I would be fine with people still getting married if they wanted to do so voluntarily (see relation section way below)

Peter Kropotkin would never support completely abolishing the nuclear family by force 

Abolishing the Nuclear family completely coercion or by force goes against Karl Marx's distinction that he made between personal property as your own stuff, and "private property" as code for the privatized/enclosed means of producing goods and services.

As a self-respecting Left Libertarian/Anarchist, I would never demand the complete abolition of something (the nuclear family) that my family, friends and neighbors participate in freely

I would never demand to completely abolish a thing like the nuclear family which is at the core of so many cultures' daily lives

I also concede that, marriage, family, and childhood, all wrongfully or rightfully have a solid universal basis across many cultures. The form changes, but the core remains. To try to abolish any of these by (at least by coercion or force) instead of only abolishing them as the norm is to attempt to abolish a core piece of humanity.

To completely abolish the nuclear family by coercion or force, would be some corrosive heirarchical elitism. I just want a society that elevates other options as equal alternatives to the nuclear family, and to abolish the nuclear family as the norm. 

So while, I'm no fan of the nuclear family, I'm not going to judge people for being more comfortable with that sort of lifestyle. But I would also more than ideally want decentralized free association to also replace the family unit

If through this abolishing the nuclear family as a norm , the nuclear family was eventually naturally completely abolished, it would be problematic but I would be ok with that and it still wouldn’t be too radical: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/want-to-dismantle-capitalism-abolish-the-family/.  Also see this

I support the Queer Theory , This also plays into my Queer theory views

The Queer Theory challenges the notion that heterosexual desire is ‘normal’. 

The Queer theory explores and challenges how we perpetrate gender- and sex-based binaries, and its goal is to undo hierarchies and to fight against social inequalities.

The Queer Theory can be seen as a site of ‘collective contestation’. Some people suggest that the term ‘queer’ should never be ‘fully owned, but always and only redeployed, twisted, queered from a prior usage and in the direction of urgent and expanding political purposes’.

This flexibility allows for the consistent readjustment of the queer theory to accommodate the experiences of people who face marginalisation and discrimination on account of their sexuality and gender'.

This chapter from Michael Simmons book Neutrality in the Queer theory uses Afro Pessimism to critique the Queer theory and to touch on the relationship and intersection between Afro Pessimism and the Queer theory . 

This chapter from that same book criticizes the Queer theory using Queer of Color critique. Michael Simmons in that book shows the parallel to the way race forms a stumbling block for queer neutrality while also showing how Leo Bersani’s and Lee Edelman’s impersonality runs into a representational tokenism within the Queer theory 

This why I also support Xenofeminism since it is a way to achieve this

Xenofeminism uses tech to abolish gender, dislodging gender from ‘power’ and allows feminists to use the master’s tools to rebuild life. This also has an-anti naturalist element to it

From the Xenofeminist handbook:

"XF is vehemently anti-naturalist. Essentialist naturalism reeks of theology–the sooner it is exorcised, the better.".  "We want neither clean hands nor beautiful souls, neither virtue nor terror. We want superior forms of corruption.".  "Let a hundred sexes bloom!".     "Our lot is cast with technoscience, where nothing is so sacred that it cannot be reengineered and transformed so as to widen our aperture of freedom, extending to gender and the human." "Hormones hack into gender systems"

The Queer theory links universalization with queer . The preference for the term “queer” over the term “lesbian” and “gay” “represents, a bold impulse of generalization since it rejects a minoritizing logic of toleration or simple political interest representation in favor of a more thorough resistance to regimes of the normal. 

While queer theory has been a critical and theoretical discourse that is dedicated to questioning, resisting, and refusing the binary logics and structures that dominant understandings of gender and sexuality have been shaped, never the less, the virtual majority of this discourse continues to be expressed in terms of sameness and difference—a commanding binary structural logic that is especially potent in its ability to exclude, hierarchize, and totalize. 

I am against changing the official definition of Lesbian from woman who is attracted to another women to a non man attracted to another non man. John Hopkins and company are wrongly trying to erase Lesbianism just like Matt Walsh and  are trying to do to Transgender people. Johns Hopkins is Lesphobic for doing that.

See this link for more (⚠)

I am against Lesbian Erasure. It's wrong for people to try to get Lesbians to transition to males, gender non conforming or to become fluid.  The whole concept of girlfags and guydykes means there should be solidarity between cis Lesbians and Transgender people, not division. Being a cisgender Lesbian is NOT transmisogynist and anyone who says otherwise is a Lesphobe and bigot (I echo this Tweet thread on it)

Lesbian erasure is wrong, hypocritical and against the values of our society.  I want Lesbians to get more visibility  within the LGBTQ movement, and be treated as equal to Homosexuals. There is nothing wrong with women being Lesbians.  I oppose the 'cotton ceiling' and the pressure on lesbians to have sex with men. 

Queer Neutrality unites Homosexuals and Lesbians and prevents Lesbian Erasure. Why Queer?, Queer, unlike gay, does not mean male. Furthermore when spoken to other gays and lesbians it is a way of suggesting they close ranks and forget (temporarily) their individual differences because they face a more insidious common enemy.

Queer neutrality expands from a gender-neutral coalition into an identity-neutral or impersonal coalition, with this expansion destabilizing the boundaries of the umbrella term “queer” in so much that it subsumes in a coalition of any non-normative identities (at the time) which as mentioned above includes lesbian, gay, but also bisexual, multiple ts (like transsexual, transvestite, transgender) and an inconsistent (and contested) combo of some of the following sexual and/or gender identities:

Q (Queer Heterosexuality), Q (questioning), Q (queer as a vague non-heterosexual identity), I (intersex), A (asexual), A (allied heterosexual), F (fetish – often shorthand for BDSM), U (undecided – replaces Q/questioning to make the palatable acronym QUILTBAG), 2S (two spirits), P (pansexual), G (girlfags and guydykes) etc

Queer neutrality stresses the interrelatedness of different, and occasional conflicting, communities and thus emphasizes the need to combine forces in our various antihomophobic and antisexist endeavors

However about the term Queer. Outside personhood. Lee Edelman writes, “queerness can never define an identity; it can only ever disturb one” . Again, “queerness could never constitute an authentic or substantive identity, but only a structural position determined by the imperative of figuration”

These are the causes that Edelman gives in support of his claim that queerness attains its ethical value exactly as far as it accedes to that place (of abjection conveyed in the stigma) accepting its figural status as resistance to the feasibility of the social while insisting on the inextricability of such resistance from all social structures.

Tim Dean molds his impersonal ethics of contact that is found in cruising culture in his Unlimited Intimacies: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking book where he writes “The alternative to what I’m calling the politics of identification is an impersonal ethics in which one cares about others even when one cannot see anything of oneself in them”

There is NO such thing as "LGBTQ privilege" and the LGBTQ movement is not really overtly white or patriarchal.  I support the LGBTQ movement the way it is . 

What the woke radlibs wrongly see as "LGBTQ privilege"is really the LGBTQ movement rightfully continuing to be empowered as it should be. 

The woke radlibs wrongly calling the LGBTQ movement 'patriarchal' is transphobie (the T in LGBTQ means Transgender). Terfs always slander and defame Trans women as 'misogynist', and the Trans movement as a while 'sexist (against cis women').  So anyone calling the LGBTQ movement 'patriarchal' is at minimum Transphobic

Homosexualism is the opposite of Patriarchy since patriarchal societies do not consider homosexuals as men. According to our binary society, only a woman can like men. So those radlib wokeists who wrongly say that the LGBTQ movement is 'patriarchal', in relation to gays/queers, they literally have it mixed up since the opposite is true. 

This means those woke radlibs, besides being transphobic are also 

I respond to the woke radlibs smearing the LGBTQ movement as  'overtly white' in this post here

I also echo JK Rowling here “ If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth. 

and here “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women - ie, to male violence - ‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences - is a nonsense.”  

Counterpoint to the ‘ If sex isn’t real, there is no same sex attraction after all’ point above.:

No one is attracted to a "sex" because that's ultimately referring to unobservable traits in the way I outline throughout my blog. Yet in many ways "sex" is just as socially constructed as gender. It's only categories with arbitrary criteria that are invented by humans to attempt and simplify and typecast people into specific social groups. 

It's interesting that there has been a trend in the gender studies field away from the separation of sex and gender and a return to using the terms interchangeably/together for that reason, and an overall stepping back from the idea of sex as something scientifically based and immutable. 

The prevailing line of thought currently looks to be that sex is a construct that in reality only is significant and exists to reinforce the social stratifications and power structures generated by the gender binary, which obviously itself is socially constructed

I would go even as far to say that biological males and biological females are on the LGBTQ spectrum due to gender and sex being one in the same like mentioned above. Like maybe LGBTQMF 

I support FLINTA. FLINTA helps EVERYONE who is marginalized by patriarchal society

FLINTA is for anyone who's not a cis guy, in most cases,. so it makes sense to use it in a number contexts, in other contexts you would have LGBTQIA+ spaces (LGBTQIA+ spaces includes gay and bi cis men,) other times you would have womens spaces (womens spaces includes both cis and trans women,) sometimes you would have mens spaces (mens spaces includes both cis and trans men,) etc. It's just another space in the arsenal of classifying spaces for discussion , meetings and what have you, and I haven't seen the equivalent in english.

Conclusion? See this thread and this thread for some back and forth on this. Such discussion is compelling for me

Of course Transgenderism itself doesn't exist technically because according to the Queer theory gender is merely a social construct just like sex is

from here "The visual and cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity have changed over the centuries. There is no static gender.

Blog 5 hyperlane

I believe Queer Genderism provides a window into destroying the heteronormative/sexual patriarchy which is why I am supportive of it

Synthesis Queer views from that blog which are a snipet of these views

Part II/II.5

The views on gays I write in my posts here ,here, here, here, here and here influence my views on Queer issues

I yield to same sex marriage being legal . One good thing about same sex marriage is that same sex marriage is only a first step in recognizing the diversity of human relationships

I hope that the LGBTQ community attracts more libertarians to it cause. It is worrisome that the only people who are standing up for freedom of speech in the community are rightoids. It's only recently since the mid 2010s that we've seen more political or thought diversity from such communities.  (I also support the Max Stirner inspired brand of Queer Anarchism . I support their notion of [and embracing] radical individualism that is influenced by individual philosophers like Max Stirner. 

In particular I support Queer Anarchists using Max Stirner’s non-systematic approach, radicalism and direct action. I like how queer anarchists organized and played a major role  in the WTO protests and anti-globalization movement. )

The SJWs have gotten away with planting their idelogies in the community and its only causing more division in our society. Other than seeing an amicable solution between gays and religious people upon equal marriage, it has instead become nothing but a petty mud slinging fest with trivial disputes over things like wedding cakes and pizza. Having celebrities such as Ellen Page enflame such tensions does not help at all. 

Such division and intolerance on both sides could cause religious people who were already homoskeptic to become full on homophobes  

CONTINUED

Most LGBTQphobes (i.e homophobes/lesphobes/transphobes) are LGBTQ people in denial of being queer/lesbian/trans and repressing their true LGBTQ (queer/lesbian/trans) desires. So keep that in mind when countering their hate. See here, here, here, here , also here for some balance

At heart, I can bear (with reservations) the idea of requiring homosexuals to become trans women to marry other men and requiring lesbians to become trans men to marry other women. 

I think if such a thing would happen, for homosexuals to become trans women to marry other men, they should basically become Guydyke Heterosexual Trans women and that for lesbians to become trans women to marry other women, they should basically become Girlfag Heterosexual Trans men  (Guydyke Heterosexuality and Girlfag Heterosexuality is like Queer heterosexuality but with Guydyke and Girlfag replacing the Queer part)

This is to prevent Queer erasure since Guydykes/Girlfags as I state in my main blogs are a great way to prevent Queer erasure

Moreover after homosexuals wanting to marry become trans women and lesbians wanting to marry become trans men, they would still be encouraged to be gay curious/bi curious and or even non heterosexual 

In the distant future, IF the Left Wingers , Progressives, and Democrats turn on gays and say that being gay is wrong and that gay rights (including same sex marriage) are wrong from a Left Wing, Progressive and Democrat perspective (like maybe along the lines of future woke views that being gay isn't real because sex is a social construct, similar to the Queer Theory view which denies essentially that there is homosexuality or lesbianism or if homosexuals are labeled sexist for not dating women *or saying that supporting gay rights is homophobic [where I would have this type of view on gay rights]) instead of a Right Wing, Conservative and Christian perspective, in that hypothetical future, I would be forced to join those other hypothetical future Left wingers and Progressives and Democrats in this paradigm shift on gay rights (including same sex marriage) 

My reason would be, since I am an Left Winger and allied with progressives and I am an occasional reserved Democrat stan, if in the future our Left Wing or Progressive/Democratic party platform and ideological platform says that being gay is wrong and that gay rights (including same sex marriage) is wrong (from a Left Wing, Progressive and Democrat perspective) ,I would have to adopt those views even if I don't understand why those change are being made. 

I put the Left Wing views and left Progressive values first and with blind optimism, I trust Left Wingers, Progressive and sometimes Democrats to always do the right thing, even if I don't know why

*Though for this particular whole 'supporting gay rights is homophobic' possible hypothetical future view by Left Wingers, Progressives and Democrats, I would somewhat break with my fellow Left Wingers, Progressives and Democrats on this leftward 'being gay is wrong' view on same sex marriage (I'd be closer to r/MutualSupport leftists on gay rights in that said particular future hypothetical situation and leftish queer critical paradigm shift on gay rights)

So in said particular future hypothetical situation and leftish queer critical paradigm shift on gay rights by the Left, Progressives and Democrats, I would retain some LGBTQ friendly views I have now and thus I would have an eye wink approving/anþeraz political position lean Seventeenth political position political position for this type of unique privatized marriage system for same sex couples (and also for straight couples as well) while I still retain some common ground with Leftists and Left progressives on this new future hypothetical lefitst queer critical view by me suddenly embracing these types of views on rights. 

Blog 4

A Prefigurative hyp futurist polix-wing position on same sex marriage