In light of recent events in the SC I feel an AMA may help people understand more things. I don’t get offended. Feel free to ask me what you want to know and I’ll answer if the best I can. This may be exhausting for me but I’m going to try and have fun while doing it. No question is too stupid and no question is too dumb.
Ps: Smart and dumb questions will be published, but obviously trollish or homophobic questions will not be, despite Queer Customer's kind offer to be patient :)
1. How does the queer community respond to certain lawyers perceived as hogging the limelight in cases involving the community? I am referring to certain NLSIU alumni and a recent GNLU alum. Do you think a lot of people go unappreciated because they are low-profile?
2. How does the queer community respond to the fact that one of the petitioners in the same-sex marriage case is a queer RW guy who supports the BJP? What credibility does he have within the community?
3. Your thoughts on the trans rights culture war in the West (Lia Thomas, Dylan Mulvaney etc).
1. How does the queer community respond to certain lawyers perceived as hogging the limelight in cases involving the community? I am referring to certain NLSIU alumni and a recent GNLU alum. Do you think a lot of people go unappreciated because they are low-profile?
They don't. I think the Queer legal community is broken into two parts. One that wants limelight and the other that wants to get on with it. People who do the hard work are ignored mostly yes. But thats the case with any profession and is not a uniquely Queer Problem. Let them take the limelight, they are answerable to their own conscience. Also a lot of queer lawyers don't want the limelight so in one way its good attention is deflected. 2. How does the queer community respond to the fact that one of the petitioners in the same-sex marriage case is a queer RW guy who supports the BJP? What credibility does he have within the community?
The community is super diverse and there are RW people there as well. Don't forget the RSS came out and said queer people deserve rights. Outside campus, the community is super diverse.
3. Your thoughts on the trans rights culture war in the West (Lia Thomas, Dylan Mulvaney etc).
None whats so ever. Trans are people and should have rights. Apart from that I always feel no locus no opinion.
What do you mean “hogging the limelight” and “answerable to their conscience”? They never asked for such publicity and have always made it clear that it was a collective fight and credit should be shared by all. It’s the global media that highlighted them. What can they do?
I mean there is a general feeling that those who are putting in the work aren't getting noticed and those who are getting noticed aren't putting in the work. This is something only those involved can answer hence "answerable to their conscience". What you have said is a defence of such persons. This is outside the scope of matters that concern me. I don't look at appearances in judgements. They are already too long to read.
1.How do you feel about watching homophobia and transphobia in live court yesterday!? I am gay too, but yesterday's proceeding was triggering for me. Reading responses on social media made it worse. How do you see the future !? I wish sometimes i shouldn't have been born here, especially in a small town. I dont see a future for me.
2. Do you have LGBTQ+ friends more or straights!? Watching my friends circle sometimes, i wish, i should just be friends with, and hang out with people from my community only.
3. As a queer litigating lawyer, how hard it is to make it in profession in delhi? I am from a small town, will switch to delhi for litigation.
1.How do you feel about watching homophobia and transphobia in live court yesterday!? I am gay too, but yesterday's proceeding was triggering for me. Reading responses on social media made it worse. How do you see the future !? I wish sometimes i shouldn't have been born here, especially in a small town. I dont see a future for me.
It made me look at various pathways to emigrate from this country honestly. I have no hopes of things getter better here and you should try and get out while you can.
2. Do you have LGBTQ+ friends more or straights!? Watching my friends circle sometimes, i wish, i should just be friends with, and hang out with people from my community only.
Its a mix. I haven't done an itemised list. But my best friends are straight and I have a super Will & Grace situation going on if that helps.
3. As a queer litigating lawyer, how hard it is to make it in profession in delhi? I am from a small town, will switch to delhi for litigation.
I haven't done it so can't say. But Delhi has more open minded people in the Bar. A minority but they exist.
Yes I see problems. I had the unfortunate privilege of listening to the Solicitor General dehumanise my entire community because his instructing attorney seems to be Fox News.
I have a mixed emotion about queers and queer expression.
1. I see all as equals with everyone living the way they want.
2. Sometimes I feel that the gender fluidity discussion has been taken too far. E.g. i identify as abc...
3. How much of being queer is nature ? Is there no element of nature ? I know it is going to be shot down but I believe there is definitely some element of nurture and surroundings which impact the development of a person's sexuality. Either is right. It's essentially a right to chose at the end of the day.
4. I don't know any lesbian. I have friends who are gay. A fairly high percentage of them were sexually abused as children- a percentage high enough to not make it seem as a co-incidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample- is there any co-relation? (Linking it to my question in nurture and surroundings).
5. Queer people who have come out- a lot of them wear their sexuality on their sleeve? Is it that they are just more expressive or the.just the fact the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly ?
These are honest questions and at the risk of sounding ignorant, I'm taking refuge in anonymity to ask these questions.
This is philosophical unless you mean nurture. Its all nature. At least that's what the doctor told me. Something to do with a chromosome that likes to tap dance.
Also you really haven't asked questions. It's unfair if you give me a bunch of data and ask me to frame my own questions. Next time after lamba rant, frame a question. Anyway I will frame them and answer them for I am feeling thoda nice today.
I have a mixed emotion about queers and queer expression.
1. I see all as equals with everyone living the way they want.
Good
2. Sometimes I feel that the gender fluidity discussion has been taken too far. E.g. i identify as abc...
Far from what? Why is there a benchmark? How did you set the bench mark? Why is nature so important if you are okay with choice? If choice exists, then the question of nature is irrelevant.
3. How much of being queer is nature ? Is there no element of nature ? I know it is going to be shot down but I believe there is definitely some element of nurture and surroundings which impact the development of a person's sexuality. Either is right. It's essentially a right to chose at the end of the day.
Talk to the scientists then. Do a study. Have it peer reviewed and publish it.
4. I don't know any lesbian. I have friends who are gay. A fairly high percentage of them were sexually abused as children- a percentage high enough to not make it seem as a co-incidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample- is there any co-relation? (Linking it to my question in nurture and surroundings).
Then please pitch a study to see if childhood sexual abuse results in queer identity. You can't determine this on legally India! Please be structured about how you go about things. You are or probably are a lawyer one day!
5. Queer people who have come out- a lot of them wear their sexuality on their sleeve? Is it that they are just more expressive or the.just the fact the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly ?
Well straight people wear it on their sleeves too. It's just that it doesn't appear different from the background. Go to marine drive. So many holding hands and hiding under umbrellas. They too wear it on their sleeves. Just cause someone is open, doesn't mean they wear it on their sleeves. Sexuality is one part of an identity, not all of it.
These are honest questions and at the risk of sounding ignorant, I'm taking refuge in anonymity to ask these questions.
These aren't honest questions. Cause you didn't ask anyway. I'm playing in good faith, why can't you? Just play in good faith. If you want to say bigoted things, just say it, don't couch it in false sociological studies ka language. I would much rather deal with open bigotry than hidden nonsense like this. Have honour.
Cause they want to get married and the term person includes LGBT people. That's why. It's not about personal freedom its about being able to raise children, pass on property and take medical decisions.
On polygamy, I'm okay with it. I don't see anything wrong with it same with polyandry. Find a way to make sure it won't be abused and disproportionately affect women and allow for it. I'll support you.
Marriage is more about rights - ability to adopt, spousal benefits under various statutes and insurance policies, taking medical decisions and also tax structuring. I don't see why one's sexuality should play into these decisions. If 2 people want to get married so that they are legally considered a couple along with all the ramifications it brings, I don't know how that affects society.
Polygamy is fine where there are consenting adults not under duress or undue influence. But the same legal issues get murkier with multiple partners including inheritance rights, spousal benefits etc. Still, these issues could be ironed out if one were so inclined.
In light of Section 21A of SMA, do we need UCC before gay marriage? Not UCC in supersession of personal laws, but rather as an optional supplement. Currently, as per HMA, anyone not belonging to any other organised religion is treated as a Hindu right?
Yes an opt in UCC would have made this much much easier. Taiwan's case was successful as they had a UCC. I am a RW Queer. I want the UCC as much as others who want it.
This is not "trollish" or homophobic for the following reason-
I argue that the paragraph is not homophobic but rather critiques the OP's perceived lack of expertise on the Supreme Court matter, regardless of their gender identity. The sentence "nor has he hinted at working or researching the same" implies that the OP's gender identity is not the main issue, but rather their lack of involvement or expertise on the topic. Additionally, the use of the phrase "identify as one gender" is simply a factual description of the OP's gender identity and not intended to be dismissive or derogatory.
(Also why am I not being allowed to downvote this? ;( )
That doesn't sound like you had a question there, nor does it relate to OP's post? Did you mean to ask, why would a person identifying as LGBTQ offer to answer questions about being LGBTQ?
You do know that not all LGBT people thing this case before the Supreme Court is the way of going about it right? There's a large diverse community with a wide variety of views. I for example, am off the view that I have a right to be treated with dignity by Parliament and recognised as a human being by them. I hate that my marriage right will come via what most people think is the backdoor.
Mod: I can deal with this person. Let it rip please. I want to deal with this person and show the world that the Conservative Union of Law has ZERO clue about what it means to be a conservative.
Dear CUL,
READ BURKE. READ HAYEK. READ SAVARKAR. UNDERSTAND WHAT BENJAMIN DISRAELI STOOD FOR. UNDERSTAND THATCHER. UNDERSTAND RAJAJI. KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE. TUCKER CARLSON CANNOT BE YOUR INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATION. IF YOU WANT TO BE A CONSERVATIVE, BE ONE PROPERLY.
1. Burke has always valued social stability in society and family structures. He would have written a huge tweet criticising the judiciary intervening in this, like in the Sabarimala (I see people seeking review of this when even in the present case Hindu family values are being dealt with by ill equipped judges)
2. Savarkar- haha, he was a staunch Hindu nationalist and believed to the stars in Hindu family values. He literally endorsed the Manusmriti to govern the Hindus, and would have opposed even the Hindu code bill which was still pretty discriminatory but one step ahead of Manu.
3.Disreali has always endorsed social hierarchies, he would even oppose basic rights for LGBTQ (himself being one, this is to appease fellow conservatives)
4. Thatcher, please don't even get me started. She pioneered a anti-LGBTQ legislation that banned any association with any literary work that even hinted at homosexuality, in schools, libraries etc.
Quoting from a public speech of thatcher-
“Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay,” she said. “All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life. Yes, cheated.”
Finally I would like you to understand hitting at someones intellectual capacity is a fallacy. I may not be a seasoned conservative, but I do read on once in a while.
Also, conservative queer? Please read on what 'oxymoron' means, you qualify for the second syllable of that word.
1. Burke has always valued social stability in society and family structures. He would have written a huge tweet criticising the judiciary intervening in this, like in the Sabarimala (I see people seeking review of this when even in the present case Hindu family values are being dealt with by ill equipped judges)
Yes but Burke also valued them rising bottom up rather than top down. Which is what makes him the foundation of modern English conservatism. In this context, LGBTQ relationships are a reality. While even I disagree with judicial intervention, a proper conservative would find a way to accommodate all parts of society including LGBTQ people instead of going about demonising them. What you're doing in practice is using the marxist field manual which is etherisation to justify violence. Lennin and you would have loved each other.
2. Savarkar- haha, he was a staunch Hindu nationalist and believed to the stars in Hindu family values. He literally endorsed the Manusmriti to govern the Hindus, and would have opposed even the Hindu code bill which was still pretty discriminatory but one step ahead of Manu.
Savarkar was a staunch atheist and only a cultural Hindu. He was not a religious one. He wanted more reform in our scriptures than most people. It's why Ambedkar and the RSS got along. He felt Hindu society should improve themselves and modernise to meet the challenge of a rising nation state. This is why the RSS (and not the Jammiat btw) has come out on record saying LGBTQ people deserve human rights. Its hard baked into Savarkar's idea that India being our home, we have a right to be ourselves.
3.Disreali has always endorsed social hierarchies, he would even oppose basic rights for LGBTQ (himself being one, this is to appease fellow conservatives)
Disraeli has endorsed the role of top down hierarchies in improving the lives for bottom up hierarchies. Please read him properly and don't just rely on the Wikipedia page.
4. Thatcher, please don't even get me started. She pioneered a anti-LGBTQ legislation that banned any association with any literary work that even hinted at homosexuality, in schools, libraries etc.
Quoting from a public speech of thatcher-
“Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay,” she said. “All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life. Yes, cheated.”
Yes. But in 2013 her Conservative Party is the one that finally introduced LGBT marriage. She supported decriminalisation in 1960 and she was invoked by backers of the marriage law (See https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/04/margaret-thatcher-tory-backers-gay-marriage). Thatherism's focus on the individual made LGBTQ rights an inevitability rather than something that is out of the blue. She laid the foundation for gay liberation without explicitly doing so. Making her the greatest female LGBTQ icon in my view since Lady Gaga
Finally I would like you to understand hitting at someones intellectual capacity is a fallacy. I may not be a seasoned conservative, but I do read on once in a while.
From the above, it is clear you do not read at all. You are not a conservative. You're just a fascist trying to fit in at intellectual tea parties. You're a a fake.
Also, conservative queer? Please read on what 'oxymoron' means, you qualify for the second syllable of that word.
You mean like T.E. Lawrence? Or the huge group of conservative homosexuals who have been around for ever? Come on read up. The first bunch of conservative homosexuals come from Ancient Greece. Conservatism has always been full of gay people. It's only Marxists who had an issue with homosexuals.
I agree. I have this problem too with the community. Its expression is far too sexual for my liking. Though in Bombay, we have a clandestine queer lawyers bridge game once a month. I love community events like that.
But also see how much sexuality forms a part of the straight identity. The whole lifecycle is built on study so you can find a partner, find a partner, pop out a human being, then raise that human being to find their own partner. Its there if you just look to see it. :-)
How do you feel about SC finally deciding that LGBTQ community deserves some representation and the only person they could find (Mr. Kripal) was son of an Ex-wife CJI (who may or may not have played a role in elevation of current CJI).
Why are you so freaking hostile to the individual? I don't get it. He is just listing his queries, and that is also in an euphemistic manner. If you had so much of a problem with the alleged 'bad faith', then why did you say:
1. I don’t get offended
2. No question is too stupid, and no question is too dumb.
Own up to your own sh*t before asking others to have honest questions.
▮▮▮ then I'll state them to you in a 'more' simplified manner:
a) Sometimes I feel that the gender fluidity discussion has been taken too far. E.g. i identify as abc. What do you think about it? Is it fine to identify as a black women if you feel like it?
b) How much of being queer is nature? Is there no element of nurture?
c) A fairly high percentage of my gay friends were sexually abused as children— a percentage high enough to not make it seem like a coincidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample, is there any correlation?
d) Is it that they are just more expressive, or is it just the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly?
How are they not honest or comprehensible to you?
PS: I don't correlate to these doubts, I just wanted to acknowledge the duality of this individual because I was also feeling 'thoda nice' today.
Mod, please let this pass through with necessary censorship because I'm aware of it's borderline trolling potential but this is not fair.
I am a litigator. I know a "leading question" when I see one. OP here didn't ask a question cause they wanted to use the question framework to lay out an opinion. One that is largely unfounded. They want to say that being LGBT is a psychological disorder that is linked to how the individual was raised. I am fine with them saying that. I am not offended by the fact that they said that. I am irritated by the fact that they choose to couch it in "leading questions" instead of you know, directly saying it. Now thanks to the form of argument they took, the entire interaction was useless. Cause I still honestly can't tell what their question is apart from stating a hypothesis and letting the world figure it out. This is intellectually dishonest behaviour. I am happy to honestly deal with issues and have to an extent tried to frame issues on OPs post to deal with. But asking leading questions is just not on.
Responses to your simplified questions in next post.
a) Sometimes I feel that the gender fluidity discussion has been taken too far. E.g. i identify as abc. What do you think about it? Is it fine to identify as a black women if you feel like it?
Yeah sure why not. But that means that race is also a sociological construct rather than a purely biological one. I am sure children of mixed race families have these doubts all the time as to which race they finally identify with. I fee you should be able to identify as what you want. Whether you have the lived experience for others to take your identity seriously is a whole different question and whether an oppressor race identifying as an oppressed race creates racism issues as another question. But yes in theory if you are a free floating variable, you should be able to identify as what you like.
b) How much of being queer is nature? Is there no element of nurture?
This is a question for doctors and scientists. Doctors say it's nature. If you disagree with the doctors, then follow up with the science stream for these answers.
c) A fairly high percentage of my gay friends were sexually abused as children— a percentage high enough to not make it seem like a coincidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample, is there any correlation?
Once more, this is a question for doctors and scientists. Doctors say it's nature. If you disagree with the doctors, then follow up with the science stream for these answers.
d) Is it that they are just more expressive, or is it just the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly?
I am not an anthropologist or a sociologist. But I feel they are expressive cause they are finally able to express themselves. About 50 years down the line you're going to have conservative queers like me saying we shouldn't discuss sexuality in public.
PS: I don't correlate to these doubts, I just wanted to acknowledge the duality of this individual because I was also feeling 'thoda nice' today.
Then your entire line of interaction is in bad faith. Reconsider your fitness to remain ▮▮▮ post behaviour like this.
Why ▮▮▮? If you've invited all questions and offered to respond- then just relax a bit. Or if you are not feeling upto answering the questions- refrain. ▮▮▮
1 and 2 are background to my questions in 3-5. They are not that difficult to find.
Go research and to doctors and scientists is a great tip. Possibly obviates this thread in totality. The point was however asking about your view. And just because you are queer doesnt make you a scientist/doctor/ expert either.
I have a body and a brain - but I'm not an expert about how it works and about the why and hows of it. Similarly I'm not coming to you for your expert opinion. But your view on it..
Will take time sometime when I have more.of.it.to respond to you pointwise.
Especially the last paragraph which appears in bad taste.
Do you believe that gender dysphoria is a valid and legitimate clinical psychological condition? Additionally, can you explain the psychological and legal criteria for assisting someone in realizing that they may be LGBTQ rather than experiencing gender dysphoria? Please provide a detailed response and feel free to refer me to reputable articles on this topic.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican Presidential Nominee, holds the belief that gender is binary, and he argues that perspectives similar to yours contribute to the perpetuation of cruelty. What is your response to this standpoint? - https://youtube.com/shorts/n4YS5P27HFE?feature=share
What do you believe should be the checks and balances for preventing the Medical Industry from misusing the movement and conducting sex change surgeries on demand for wrongful gains?
Do you feel sympathy for victims like Chloe Cole?
Are there any checks and balances in India? Is the India LGBTQ+ movement even tolerant towards/ fostering candid conversations on this specific subject? Please point me to articles and links.
You had inserted a lot of videos, which need to be watched by this poor moderator since prima facie they seem like they could include hate speech or trollish with incendiary titles like 'Woke Gender Lies, Child Abuse, and Mutiliation'...
Do you want to help and include a tl;dr summary of each video / what your point is, which would also actually help if someone wants to respond without having to watch those videos?
I made a conscious effort to word that post responsibly and am disappointed with your characterization of the material shared. Also - it was the only post that pointed readers to an ongoing court case. The only post that has the account a victim. I expected better from you.
A lot of these YouTube shorts are basically troll bait / culture war fodder in some US alt-right echo chamber, which doesn't really have relevance in an Indian LGBTQ context. Have published your posts without the videos, if people are interested they can search for the case and commentaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloe_Cole
Your characterization of the material shared, the questions posed to the OP, and my motivations is completely misplaced and unfair. The LA Times article exhibits a biased perspective against the victim. By choosing to prioritize the publication of that article instead of including Chloe's personal testimony and lived experience (which involved numerous procedures and medications), you have clearly shown your bias and an unfortunate unwillingness to consider factual information.
If you believe that being this inflexible defines what it means to be leftist or liberal, then you are gravely mistaken!
This is not about left vs right, this is about preventing hate speech and encouraging intelligent discourse. Honestly and good faith argued opinions are always welcome here, from either side.
Chloe's personal experience is surely legitimate and valuable and is arguably not often written about (for a variety of reasons that would be interesting to explore but would be too long for this comment), though there seems to be fair questions that can be raised about how much it is allegedly a case of medical negligence as opposed to the 'woke mind virus that will destroy us all'. That first YT Short, for example, was disingenuous at best with the headline 'Woke Gender Lies, Child Abuse, and Mutiliation'. That is code / dog whistles for hate speech, and is intentionally designed to reduce the faculties of reason and stir up emotions. It also does nothing to encourage intelligent debate or further understanding.
Again, this is not a 'right' vs 'left' thing. We would similarly seek to moderate a video or comment that started with: "JK Rowling is a transphobic child abuser", which is presumably also a popular argument of the social media fringes on the opposite end of the culture war.
Please think for yourself in nuance, argue and articulate your own thoughts and you'll have space here.
There is no space here, however, to uncritically copy paste and reproduce political propaganda that is intentionally designed to make us all more stupid rather than making us understand each other better.
Mod pls approve. Thanks :)
Ps: Smart and dumb questions will be published, but obviously trollish or homophobic questions will not be, despite Queer Customer's kind offer to be patient :)
1. How does the queer community respond to certain lawyers perceived as hogging the limelight in cases involving the community? I am referring to certain NLSIU alumni and a recent GNLU alum. Do you think a lot of people go unappreciated because they are low-profile?
2. How does the queer community respond to the fact that one of the petitioners in the same-sex marriage case is a queer RW guy who supports the BJP? What credibility does he have within the community?
3. Your thoughts on the trans rights culture war in the West (Lia Thomas, Dylan Mulvaney etc).
1. How does the queer community respond to certain lawyers perceived as hogging the limelight in cases involving the community? I am referring to certain NLSIU alumni and a recent GNLU alum. Do you think a lot of people go unappreciated because they are low-profile?
They don't. I think the Queer legal community is broken into two parts. One that wants limelight and the other that wants to get on with it. People who do the hard work are ignored mostly yes. But thats the case with any profession and is not a uniquely Queer Problem. Let them take the limelight, they are answerable to their own conscience. Also a lot of queer lawyers don't want the limelight so in one way its good attention is deflected.
2. How does the queer community respond to the fact that one of the petitioners in the same-sex marriage case is a queer RW guy who supports the BJP? What credibility does he have within the community?
The community is super diverse and there are RW people there as well. Don't forget the RSS came out and said queer people deserve rights. Outside campus, the community is super diverse.
3. Your thoughts on the trans rights culture war in the West (Lia Thomas, Dylan Mulvaney etc).
None whats so ever. Trans are people and should have rights. Apart from that I always feel no locus no opinion.
2. Do you have LGBTQ+ friends more or straights!? Watching my friends circle sometimes, i wish, i should just be friends with, and hang out with people from my community only.
3. As a queer litigating lawyer, how hard it is to make it in profession in delhi? I am from a small town, will switch to delhi for litigation.
How
It made me look at various pathways to emigrate from this country honestly. I have no hopes of things getter better here and you should try and get out while you can.
2. Do you have LGBTQ+ friends more or straights!? Watching my friends circle sometimes, i wish, i should just be friends with, and hang out with people from my community only.
Its a mix. I haven't done an itemised list. But my best friends are straight and I have a super Will & Grace situation going on if that helps.
3. As a queer litigating lawyer, how hard it is to make it in profession in delhi? I am from a small town, will switch to delhi for litigation.
I haven't done it so can't say. But Delhi has more open minded people in the Bar. A minority but they exist.
I have a mixed emotion about queers and queer expression.
1. I see all as equals with everyone living the way they want.
2. Sometimes I feel that the gender fluidity discussion has been taken too far. E.g. i identify as abc...
3. How much of being queer is nature ? Is there no element of nature ? I know it is going to be shot down but I believe there is definitely some element of nurture and surroundings which impact the development of a person's sexuality. Either is right. It's essentially a right to chose at the end of the day.
4. I don't know any lesbian. I have friends who are gay. A fairly high percentage of them were sexually abused as children- a percentage high enough to not make it seem as a co-incidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample- is there any co-relation? (Linking it to my question in nurture and surroundings).
5. Queer people who have come out- a lot of them wear their sexuality on their sleeve? Is it that they are just more expressive or the.just the fact the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly ?
These are honest questions and at the risk of sounding ignorant, I'm taking refuge in anonymity to ask these questions.
This is philosophical unless you mean nurture. Its all nature. At least that's what the doctor told me. Something to do with a chromosome that likes to tap dance.
Also you really haven't asked questions. It's unfair if you give me a bunch of data and ask me to frame my own questions. Next time after lamba rant, frame a question. Anyway I will frame them and answer them for I am feeling thoda nice today.
I have a mixed emotion about queers and queer expression.
1. I see all as equals with everyone living the way they want.
Good
2. Sometimes I feel that the gender fluidity discussion has been taken too far. E.g. i identify as abc...
Far from what? Why is there a benchmark? How did you set the bench mark? Why is nature so important if you are okay with choice? If choice exists, then the question of nature is irrelevant.
3. How much of being queer is nature ? Is there no element of nature ? I know it is going to be shot down but I believe there is definitely some element of nurture and surroundings which impact the development of a person's sexuality. Either is right. It's essentially a right to chose at the end of the day.
Talk to the scientists then. Do a study. Have it peer reviewed and publish it.
4. I don't know any lesbian. I have friends who are gay. A fairly high percentage of them were sexually abused as children- a percentage high enough to not make it seem as a co-incidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample- is there any co-relation? (Linking it to my question in nurture and surroundings).
Then please pitch a study to see if childhood sexual abuse results in queer identity. You can't determine this on legally India! Please be structured about how you go about things. You are or probably are a lawyer one day!
5. Queer people who have come out- a lot of them wear their sexuality on their sleeve? Is it that they are just more expressive or the.just the fact the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly ?
Well straight people wear it on their sleeves too. It's just that it doesn't appear different from the background. Go to marine drive. So many holding hands and hiding under umbrellas. They too wear it on their sleeves. Just cause someone is open, doesn't mean they wear it on their sleeves. Sexuality is one part of an identity, not all of it.
These are honest questions and at the risk of sounding ignorant, I'm taking refuge in anonymity to ask these questions.
These aren't honest questions. Cause you didn't ask anyway. I'm playing in good faith, why can't you? Just play in good faith. If you want to say bigoted things, just say it, don't couch it in false sociological studies ka language. I would much rather deal with open bigotry than hidden nonsense like this. Have honour.
On polygamy, I'm okay with it. I don't see anything wrong with it same with polyandry. Find a way to make sure it won't be abused and disproportionately affect women and allow for it. I'll support you.
Polygamy is fine where there are consenting adults not under duress or undue influence. But the same legal issues get murkier with multiple partners including inheritance rights, spousal benefits etc. Still, these issues could be ironed out if one were so inclined.
▮▮▮
This is not "trollish" or homophobic for the following reason-
I argue that the paragraph is not homophobic but rather critiques the OP's perceived lack of expertise on the Supreme Court matter, regardless of their gender identity. The sentence "nor has he hinted at working or researching the same" implies that the OP's gender identity is not the main issue, but rather their lack of involvement or expertise on the topic. Additionally, the use of the phrase "identify as one gender" is simply a factual description of the OP's gender identity and not intended to be dismissive or derogatory.
(Also why am I not being allowed to downvote this? ;( )
Mod: I can deal with this person. Let it rip please. I want to deal with this person and show the world that the Conservative Union of Law has ZERO clue about what it means to be a conservative.
Dear CUL,
READ BURKE. READ HAYEK. READ SAVARKAR. UNDERSTAND WHAT BENJAMIN DISRAELI STOOD FOR. UNDERSTAND THATCHER. UNDERSTAND RAJAJI. KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE. TUCKER CARLSON CANNOT BE YOUR INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATION. IF YOU WANT TO BE A CONSERVATIVE, BE ONE PROPERLY.
Thanks.
A Conservative Queer
2. Savarkar- haha, he was a staunch Hindu nationalist and believed to the stars in Hindu family values. He literally endorsed the Manusmriti to govern the Hindus, and would have opposed even the Hindu code bill which was still pretty discriminatory but one step ahead of Manu.
3.Disreali has always endorsed social hierarchies, he would even oppose basic rights for LGBTQ (himself being one, this is to appease fellow conservatives)
4. Thatcher, please don't even get me started. She pioneered a anti-LGBTQ legislation that banned any association with any literary work that even hinted at homosexuality, in schools, libraries etc.
Quoting from a public speech of thatcher-
“Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay,” she said. “All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life. Yes, cheated.”
Finally I would like you to understand hitting at someones intellectual capacity is a fallacy. I may not be a seasoned conservative, but I do read on once in a while.
Also, conservative queer? Please read on what 'oxymoron' means, you qualify for the second syllable of that word.
1. Burke has always valued social stability in society and family structures. He would have written a huge tweet criticising the judiciary intervening in this, like in the Sabarimala (I see people seeking review of this when even in the present case Hindu family values are being dealt with by ill equipped judges)
Yes but Burke also valued them rising bottom up rather than top down. Which is what makes him the foundation of modern English conservatism. In this context, LGBTQ relationships are a reality. While even I disagree with judicial intervention, a proper conservative would find a way to accommodate all parts of society including LGBTQ people instead of going about demonising them. What you're doing in practice is using the marxist field manual which is etherisation to justify violence. Lennin and you would have loved each other.
2. Savarkar- haha, he was a staunch Hindu nationalist and believed to the stars in Hindu family values. He literally endorsed the Manusmriti to govern the Hindus, and would have opposed even the Hindu code bill which was still pretty discriminatory but one step ahead of Manu.
Savarkar was a staunch atheist and only a cultural Hindu. He was not a religious one. He wanted more reform in our scriptures than most people. It's why Ambedkar and the RSS got along. He felt Hindu society should improve themselves and modernise to meet the challenge of a rising nation state. This is why the RSS (and not the Jammiat btw) has come out on record saying LGBTQ people deserve human rights. Its hard baked into Savarkar's idea that India being our home, we have a right to be ourselves.
3.Disreali has always endorsed social hierarchies, he would even oppose basic rights for LGBTQ (himself being one, this is to appease fellow conservatives)
Disraeli has endorsed the role of top down hierarchies in improving the lives for bottom up hierarchies. Please read him properly and don't just rely on the Wikipedia page.
4. Thatcher, please don't even get me started. She pioneered a anti-LGBTQ legislation that banned any association with any literary work that even hinted at homosexuality, in schools, libraries etc.
Quoting from a public speech of thatcher-
“Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay,” she said. “All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life. Yes, cheated.”
Yes. But in 2013 her Conservative Party is the one that finally introduced LGBT marriage. She supported decriminalisation in 1960 and she was invoked by backers of the marriage law (See https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/04/margaret-thatcher-tory-backers-gay-marriage). Thatherism's focus on the individual made LGBTQ rights an inevitability rather than something that is out of the blue. She laid the foundation for gay liberation without explicitly doing so. Making her the greatest female LGBTQ icon in my view since Lady Gaga
Finally I would like you to understand hitting at someones intellectual capacity is a fallacy. I may not be a seasoned conservative, but I do read on once in a while.
From the above, it is clear you do not read at all. You are not a conservative. You're just a fascist trying to fit in at intellectual tea parties. You're a a fake.
Also, conservative queer? Please read on what 'oxymoron' means, you qualify for the second syllable of that word.
You mean like T.E. Lawrence? Or the huge group of conservative homosexuals who have been around for ever? Come on read up. The first bunch of conservative homosexuals come from Ancient Greece. Conservatism has always been full of gay people. It's only Marxists who had an issue with homosexuals.
But also see how much sexuality forms a part of the straight identity. The whole lifecycle is built on study so you can find a partner, find a partner, pop out a human being, then raise that human being to find their own partner. Its there if you just look to see it. :-)
Should children be allowed to have themselves physically mutilated by doctors, to express their perceived gender - as they are, in the United States?
1. I don’t get offended
2. No question is too stupid, and no question is too dumb.
Own up to your own sh*t before asking others to have honest questions.
▮▮▮ then I'll state them to you in a 'more' simplified manner:
a) Sometimes I feel that the gender fluidity discussion has been taken too far. E.g. i identify as abc. What do you think about it? Is it fine to identify as a black women if you feel like it?
b) How much of being queer is nature? Is there no element of nurture?
c) A fairly high percentage of my gay friends were sexually abused as children— a percentage high enough to not make it seem like a coincidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample, is there any correlation?
d) Is it that they are just more expressive, or is it just the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly?
How are they not honest or comprehensible to you?
PS: I don't correlate to these doubts, I just wanted to acknowledge the duality of this individual because I was also feeling 'thoda nice' today.
Mod, please let this pass through with necessary censorship because I'm aware of it's borderline trolling potential but this is not fair.
Cheers! ✨
Responses to your simplified questions in next post.
Yeah sure why not. But that means that race is also a sociological construct rather than a purely biological one. I am sure children of mixed race families have these doubts all the time as to which race they finally identify with. I fee you should be able to identify as what you want. Whether you have the lived experience for others to take your identity seriously is a whole different question and whether an oppressor race identifying as an oppressed race creates racism issues as another question. But yes in theory if you are a free floating variable, you should be able to identify as what you like.
b) How much of being queer is nature? Is there no element of nurture?
This is a question for doctors and scientists. Doctors say it's nature. If you disagree with the doctors, then follow up with the science stream for these answers.
c) A fairly high percentage of my gay friends were sexually abused as children— a percentage high enough to not make it seem like a coincidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample, is there any correlation?
Once more, this is a question for doctors and scientists. Doctors say it's nature. If you disagree with the doctors, then follow up with the science stream for these answers.
d) Is it that they are just more expressive, or is it just the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly?
I am not an anthropologist or a sociologist. But I feel they are expressive cause they are finally able to express themselves. About 50 years down the line you're going to have conservative queers like me saying we shouldn't discuss sexuality in public.
PS: I don't correlate to these doubts, I just wanted to acknowledge the duality of this individual because I was also feeling 'thoda nice' today.
Then your entire line of interaction is in bad faith. Reconsider your fitness to remain ▮▮▮ post behaviour like this.
Why ▮▮▮? If you've invited all questions and offered to respond- then just relax a bit. Or if you are not feeling upto answering the questions- refrain. ▮▮▮
1 and 2 are background to my questions in 3-5. They are not that difficult to find.
Go research and to doctors and scientists is a great tip. Possibly obviates this thread in totality. The point was however asking about your view. And just because you are queer doesnt make you a scientist/doctor/ expert either.
I have a body and a brain - but I'm not an expert about how it works and about the why and hows of it. Similarly I'm not coming to you for your expert opinion. But your view on it..
Will take time sometime when I have more.of.it.to respond to you pointwise.
Especially the last paragraph which appears in bad taste.
Should the likes of Lia Thomas continue to participate in women's sports?
Please give a well-thought-out answer. Thanks!
[Post merged: ]
I would like to know your views on this -
https://youtube.com/shorts/pbQlUesdfb0?feature=share
[Summary: both are videos on competitive swimmer Riley Gaines on her experience of a trans woman in her sport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_Gaines ]
1. You can adopt individually. And socially co-parent. Difficult to implement than said.
2. Give the other partner POA to take your medical decisions.
3. Nominate a trust your loss payee in your insurance contract. Name your partner a beneficiary.
4. Housing will be an issue regardless you marry or not. Seller/ lessor/ society needs to be open minded.
Do you feel sympathy for victims like Chloe Cole?
Are there any checks and balances in India? Is the India LGBTQ+ movement even tolerant towards/ fostering candid conversations on this specific subject? Please point me to articles and links.
[videos removed]
Do you want to help and include a tl;dr summary of each video / what your point is, which would also actually help if someone wants to respond without having to watch those videos?
It certainly seems like an interesting and complicated case that is worth discussing, but it seems a lot of the nuance and substance also gets lost in the dog whistles of the culture war 'cause': https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-03-02/transgender-patients-chloe-cole-lawsuit-against-kaiser-lgbtq-rights
If you believe that being this inflexible defines what it means to be leftist or liberal, then you are gravely mistaken!
Chloe's personal experience is surely legitimate and valuable and is arguably not often written about (for a variety of reasons that would be interesting to explore but would be too long for this comment), though there seems to be fair questions that can be raised about how much it is allegedly a case of medical negligence as opposed to the 'woke mind virus that will destroy us all'. That first YT Short, for example, was disingenuous at best with the headline 'Woke Gender Lies, Child Abuse, and Mutiliation'. That is code / dog whistles for hate speech, and is intentionally designed to reduce the faculties of reason and stir up emotions. It also does nothing to encourage intelligent debate or further understanding.
Again, this is not a 'right' vs 'left' thing. We would similarly seek to moderate a video or comment that started with: "JK Rowling is a transphobic child abuser", which is presumably also a popular argument of the social media fringes on the opposite end of the culture war.
Please think for yourself in nuance, argue and articulate your own thoughts and you'll have space here.
There is no space here, however, to uncritically copy paste and reproduce political propaganda that is intentionally designed to make us all more stupid rather than making us understand each other better.