Question for African American/Black Posters here. (Not troll thread)

That's not true, transpeople are killed for being trans. The common scenario is after they have sex with someone and reveal their trans status.

Im sure you wont agree and I dont think killing someone is right but I dont think rape by deception is ok either and when you run that game on someone you put yourself at risk . A straight man should have the right to choose if he wants to have gay sex without being tricked. That isnt going out of your way to kill somebody and a problem that can be avoided easily enough. I dont think you should be murdered but I do think the person wronged should be able to file rape charges and have them taken seriously.

I dont think trans people have an automatic right to straight peoples bodies and consent must be given. Just because you say you are something else doesnt mean you are
 
Disclaimer: This is NOT a troll, race baiting, flaming thread. I'm asking a genuine question here.

I was listening to a Joe Rogan Pod Cast, it may have been the Ben Shapiro one or the Jordan Peterson one, I'm not 100 percent sure to be honest.

The topic of the new genders, transgenders, biology of sex came up.

And one of the mentioned that the absurdity of comparing the gender movement, their pronouns (non binary, Ze, Zer etc) and how they often compare themselves to the Civil Rights movement by African AMericans.

Here is my question for those here whom are black/African American (actually to all who want to answer)

Do you believe that this comparison is legitimate?

Comparing the struggles of those whom are Non-Binary/Transgender etc to the plight of African Americans in this country in terms of being recognized, respected, etc?

Do you have a problem with this or are offended by it?

All opinions welcome.

Yes, it's the same to a great extent.

Obviously, the oppression and disenfranchisement of LGBTQ persons does not have the same clarity as that of the black community, what with sexual minorities not being denied personhood, voting rights, landowning rights, etc., but it certainly has been vicious and persistent.

Ze/zir/zirs is a pronoun preference, and a relatively remote one at that, so I don't know how relevant that is. But, I have no problem with the LGBTQ community adopting civil rights language or pointing to the obvious symmetry between their plight and that of the black community. I have never heard any assertions that they are exactly the same, nor that their movement is more important, so I don't know why offense would be taken.
 
I'm not offended by it, but I don't believe it is legitimate. Slavery and Jim Crow were formal government policies. The closest thing on the LGBT side is the issue over marriage equality but that's very minor in comparison.
.

You do not know what you're talking about, I am afraid.

LGBTQ persons are not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and can still be lawfully discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. Before that, homosexuality was illegal and criminally punished as recently as the 1980s. Before that, it was grounds for institutionalization. Before that, it was grounds for lynching.

Your assertion that oppression of LGBTQ persons begins and ends at marriage equality is absurdly ignorant.
 
Not black, but the question is action vs immutable characteristics. Simply being black vs going out of your way to slap on a dress and some makeup and declare yourself zir is not the same.

God, you're stupid.
 
Hell no that comparison is not legitimate. It's offensive actually.

In fact no group should compare their hiustorical plight to African Americans. There is no comparison.

Native Americans? Sub-saharan Africans? Jews? Aborigines? Aboriginal Tasmanians?

There are a lot of peoples that could identify with the historical plight of black Americans.
 
Cool, yeah, obviously putting on a dress and being black is the same thing. You sound brilliant.

You're reducing an issue to a straw man and not even trying to hide it.

Choosing to wear a dress is not the extent of being homosexual or transgendered. Your assertion that sexual minorities exist only to the extent that they choose to be different for the hell of it is insanely obtuse.

You sound stupid. Because you're stupid.
 
You're reducing an issue to a straw man and not even trying to hide it.

Choosing to wear a dress is not the extent of being homosexual or transgendered. Your assertion that sexual minorities exist only to the extent that they choose to be different for the hell of it is insanely obtuse.

You sound stupid. Because you're stupid.
Nobody said homosexual. Why the fuck would homosexual somehow in your head be the same thing as someone who has made up a gender that they want to be called? It's you, because you're simple, that decided "gays, people that have decided to make up fake genders, all the same to me".
 
Native Americans? Sub-saharan Africans? Jews? Aborigines? Aboriginal Tasmanians?

There are a lot of peoples that could identify with the historical plight of black Americans.

I meant in regards to their experience in America. There has been no historically oppressed group in America other than African Americans.
 
IThere has been no historically oppressed group in America other than African Americans.

Huh? How little do you know about US history?

Native Americans being displaced, mass murdered, and having federal lands allocated to them only to be told they could not sell them to anyone but the federal government at a fraction of the market value? They've been almost wiped off the face of the planet despite being the original inhabitants of what became the most powerful country in world history.

Chinese immigrants being murdered and deported in mass after the Chinese Exclusion Act?

Women not being allowed to vote, own real property, practice law, or own businesses?

LGBTQ persons being arrested for homosexual acts, institutionalized for homosexuality, and still to this day not being protected against employment discrimination?

Japanese citizens being put in internment camps during WWII?

Mexican immigrants being shipped it by big American business to fulfill labor demands and to bust strikes, only to thereafter be lynched and deported?

Arabs and Central Asians being summarily arrested and denied due process following 9/11?



What constitutes "historically oppressed" to you?
 
No. I don't believe the struggle is close. While the trans movement is still early in gaining legitimacy and equal rights, they don't have as far to go as blacks did back in the fifties and sixties and through today. Both have had fatalities because they were black, or gay, or trans, but the numbers and widespread racism is on the side of the blacks.
 
You do not know what you're talking about, I am afraid.
10


LGBTQ persons are not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and can still be lawfully discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality.
Lack of protection under the law is not institutionalized action.

What do I mean by that? It's the difference between "you will not be punished by the law if you refuse to give up your seat for John" and "John will be punished by the law if he tries to sit anywhere."

There's a very valid argument to be made that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, since the government shouldn't be interfering in voluntary interactions, and discrimination carries huge social and economic costs for the businesses that try it (in fact, businesses even today go out of their way to employ minorities and illegal immigrants BECAUSE people the government doesn't like for invalid reasons tend to be the most cost-effective labor).

There is no valid argument that government should FORCE or INITIATE discrimination. Thus, Jim Crow is no comparison to lack of protection laws for discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. So your first attempted argument reveals your ignorance of a key difference in policy and economics.

Before that, homosexuality was illegal and criminally punished as recently as the 1980s. Before that, it was grounds for institutionalization. Before that, it was grounds for lynching.
Yes, there have been buggery laws in various places. Alan Turing was prosecuted and eventually committed suicide in England due to them. But that was not an official, nationally-recognized policy that was carried out and enforced by formal institutions in half of the USA, as slavery was.

On top of that, sexual preferences are not visually distinguishable unless the person in question chooses to demonstrate it. Race IS. What's the difference? A homosexual person can literally walk right out of any town with buggery-laws and they have no way of knowing the person's status in regards to those laws. Black people could be and were detained, and apprehended and sent to slavers ON SIGHT in slave states if they didn't have free papers, and even that was for a limited time and assumed the papers weren't simply destroyed by the investigator.

If I didn't make you see this clearly enough, ask yourself why there was an Underground Railroad which required the coordination of thousands of people to free small numbers of slaves, and nothing of that sort ever had to be organized for gay people?

So no, buggery laws are no comparison whatsoever for slavery.

Your assertion that oppression of LGBTQ persons begins and ends at marriage equality is absurdly ignorant.
By this time this is over, every argument you make will have been destroyed and you will be making excuses to get out of this discussion.
 
Last edited:
That's not true, transpeople are killed for being trans. The common scenario is after they have sex with someone and reveal their trans status.

Claiming that that is being killed for being trans is not exactly accurate though, is it?
 
Lack of protection under the law is not institutionalized action. What do I mean by that? It's the difference between "you will not be punished by the law if you refuse to give up your seat for John" and "John will be punished by the law if he tries to sit anywhere."

It literally is. Civil rights are natural and inalienable rights and need not be negatively codified for their infringement by the government to exist. Crimes and discrimination can be committed by omission as well as action.

There's a very valid argument to be made that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, since the government shouldn't be interfering in voluntary interactions, and discrimination carries huge social and economic costs for the businesses that try it (in fact, businesses even today go out of their way to employ minorities and illegal immigrants BECAUSE people the government doesn't like for invalid reasons tend to be the most cost-effective labor).

No there isn't. The extent to which businesses should be allowed to discriminate (and are allowed to discriminate for that matter) is competence in the workplace and demonstrable skills. Any other discrimination not only infringes on any and all civil/human rights acts/conventions, but also allows the possibility of a discriminated group not being able to find employment anywhere which infringes on any other civil/human right which has an economic component to it.

There is no valid argument that government should FORCE or INITIATE discrimination. Thus, Jim Crow is no comparison to lack of protection laws for discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. So your first attempted argument reveals your ignorance of a key difference in policy and economics.

The full extent of a human being that isn't discriminated against is one where said human being has the legal guarantee of respect their innate rights as humans. One does not need to have segregation laws passed against them to be considered discriminated against. Discrimination in this context means the disadvantaged inequality of one group when compared to others, in this regard if the overall population enjoys protection by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but LGBTQ persons do not - they are quite simply discriminated against by the legislator that omitted them from said act.

Yes, there have been buggery laws in various places. Alan Turing was prosecuted and eventually committed suicide in England due to them. But that was not an official, nationally-recognized policy that was carried out and enforced by formal institutions in half of the USA, as slavery was.

Yes, there was. The national policy was differently enforced in the various states due to the very nature of sovereignty in a federation, but there was one.

On top of that, sexual preferences are not visually distinguishable unless the person in question chooses to demonstrate it. Race IS. What's the difference? A homosexual person can literally walk right out of any town with buggery-laws and they have no way of knowing the person's status in regards to those laws. Black people could be and were detained, and apprehended and sent to slavers ON SIGHT in slave states if they didn't have free papers, and even that was for a limited time and assumed the papers weren't simply destroyed by the investigator.

So visibility is an integral element of human rights? Hand-holding, pink-wearing gays need more protection than straight ones? Masculine transsexual women are more deserving of civil rights than feminine ones? That would explain the privileged position that light-skinned black girls have in today's society though.

If I didn't make you see this clearly enough, ask yourself why there was an Underground Railroad which required the coordination of thousands of people to free small numbers of slaves, and nothing of that sort ever had to be organized for gay people?

So no, buggery laws are no comparison whatsoever for slavery.

You're missing the point by a mile.

The point isn't a practical one such as which form of discrimination had more severe repercussions; the point is a legal one - do LGBTQ persons face regular infringements of their human rights and are these infringements similar to those faced by black people, and by this it isn't meant "is a trans person getting fired due to discrimination similar to a black person getting lynched", no, what's meant is "is an LGBTQ person being fired due to discrimination similar to a black person getting fired due to discrimination", and in that sense it absolutely is. Both were fired not on the grounds of professional merits, but on the grounds of perceived undesirability.
 
Last edited:
A similiar question...

(i) A man that culturally appropriates oppressed women's clothing is applauded for defying the cis male patriarchy.
(ii) A man that culturally appropriates oppressed minorities' clothing gets publically flogged.

28513377646ba5ecd6622f6247f603fcb5d49b3a359cef4f5b3eae07f9691dff.jpg
 
When trans/gay people get fucking whipped to death in a field for 400 years then they can start comparing their plight.
 
A similiar question...

(i) A man that culturally appropriates oppressed women's clothing is applauded for defying the cis male patriarchy.
(ii) A man that culturally appropriates oppressed minorities' clothing gets publically flogged.

28513377646ba5ecd6622f6247f603fcb5d49b3a359cef4f5b3eae07f9691dff.jpg

That's because the prevailing position on masculinity clashes with the first example and not with the second. When a man wears a dress he is standing up to the majority position in this regard, when he wears FUBU he doesn't challenge anything, just wears something associated with urban black people for the sake of his own vanity.
 
Back
Top