• silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      not really - you can be gay and own a major corporation, which necessarily moves you rightward. these personal identity markers are subsumed by material interests and therefore class. it’s, for example, why so many white, wealthy gay people are significantly to the right of where they were 40 years ago - cf Peter Thiel. when the state was turned against their existence they were nominally left and as that violence abated, class interests dominated. it’s also why so many trans people are communists right now - the state is trying to murder us.

      • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        you can be [openly] gay and own a major corporation, which necessarily moves you rightward.

        Exactly. And you can be openly gay and a white supremacist, and you can be openly gay and pro-gun, you can be openly gay and a Christian nationalist.

        You can be an openly gay, white supremacist, pro-gun, Christian nationalist. You could have 99.99% republican values, but spend your weekends furthering LGBTQ rights. The class structures that subsume indenty aren’t as stringent as you present them to be.

        Like without even looking it up I bet there are trans Republican groups, do you disagree?

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Generally you would not expect a gay Republican to be very proactive in furthering gay rights (Dems don’t either most of the time, but w/e). They would spend their time role-playing as “one of the good ones” and get accused of being a subversive is they actually collaborated with queer groups that were anything but “Gays for Trump” type PR campaigns.

          This is not just hypothetical, we can see many people of different minority identities who support horrible reaction and only use that identity as a shield from left criticism. Milo Yianopolos (forgot the spelling) publically gave lectures on how lesbians “don’t exist” and “need a good d***ing” and defended pedophilia, but never seemed that interested in actually furthering rights even for relations between gay men. Candace Owens famously defended Hitler’s domestic policy in public and speaks on black issues mainly to launder conservative talking points using her identity.

      • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You think believing someone can be openly gay and Republican is homophobic?

        Or maybe you just don’t like the political implications of what I’m saying, and how that effects the practicality of your ideology.

        Replace ‘openly gay’ with 'supports universal healthcare. Better?

        • Shinji_Ikari [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Replace ‘openly gay’ with 'supports universal healthcare. Better?

          Uhhh, yeah I’m sure people who support universal healthcare have that hardwired into their brain from childhood. Totally the same thing.

          it’s totally not a conclusion based on analysis of material conditions.

          • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Uhhh, yeah I’m sure people who support universal healthcare have that hardwired into their brain from childhood. Totally the same thing.

            Ugh… I’m kind of tired of clarifying this. I didn’t say ‘gay’ I said ‘openly gay’, keyword ‘openly’, you understand the distinction do you not?

            • Shinji_Ikari [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I think it’s fairly bigoted to compare an open existence to a political act. To say the dignity to exist without hiding one’s nature is a political act is pretty fucked up. It’s not a political act for straight people to exist.

              This exact argument is why people get away with bigotry, calling it all political, implying the non political thing would be to hide and make sure no one sees you.

              Perhaps if you’re tired of clarifying this, you should rethink your stance.

              • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, I think it’s fairly bigoted to compare an open existence to a political act.

                Well the fact of the matter is open existence is a political issue. It shouldn’t be, but it is, and I referenced it because it was appropriate to the topic of discussion. Like the whole fact that this is a contentious subject is why I referenced it.

                Just to be clear, are you denying that the right has traditionally been anti-lgbtq?

                Perhaps if you’re tired of clarifying this, you should rethink your stance.

                Rethink it how?

                This exact argument is why people get away with bigotry, calling it all political, implying the non political thing would be to hide and make sure no one sees you.

                Sorry that’s your implication not mine.

                Also… None of this makes me wrong. I kind of understand now you guys view everything through class structures whereas I’m a pretty staunch individualist. We really don’t have common ground for a discussion.

                This has been interesting.