LGBT Tolerance Versus Promotion

LGBT: Promotion Under the Guise of Tolerance

People are not intolerant of LGBT people, but some have issues with the promotion of it. Children are considering their gender identity. My daughter had a friend over a while ago and my daughter’s mom told me she was non-binary. I don’t care about her gender identity, I care about the fact that she helps my daughter clean her room, she’s respectful, and my daughter enjoys her company. She left a good impression when she was over here. She’s only 13 years old, but some children who are considering their gender identity and sexuality are under the age of 10.  

Children considering gender identity is evidence of LGBT promotion.  It is evidence because a child absent the suggestion would never consider am I really a girl in the body of a boy, or am I a boy in the body of a girl. These are questions of external origins, through the promotion of the LGBT agenda, that promote under the disguise of tolerance and equal treatment. That is what I’m contending and what I have an issue with. Tolerance and equal treatment exist in abundance for LGBT people, but what they are promoting is their sexual preference.

The previous point leads into my next point but I have to address the anticipated leftist, PC, LGBT criticism of the word preference. They may contend I am making sexuality a choice and people are born predisposed to their attraction. Recently, a study was published where hundreds of thousands of people’s DNA profile was mapped out, and they responded to a survey that asked if they had a same sex experience. There was a lack of genetic consistency between those who identified as gay, as well as those who had a same sex experience who identified as straight or bisexual.  A comment summarizes the conclusion of the findings “the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay. “It’s the end of the ’gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study.”(1) Preference is the correct term to describe LGBT sexuality, despite same sex attraction and arousal not being a choice, it also isn’t genetic.  Attraction and sexual arousal towards the same sex is developed. 

1: Scientific American, 8/29/2019, “Massive Study Finds No Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior”, by Sara Reardon. 

The other aspect of the promotion of the LGBT lifestyle, which is promoted for tolerance and equality is the special treatment that results from being considered a disadvantaged group. The group is made to appear the victim of discrimination by their advocates who over emphasize the problem.  An example is Democracy Now, who reports the murder of all transgender people, which implies transgender people are being targeted for violence because they are transgender. Based on the number of homicides that occur in the United States annually (17,000), in proportion to the number of transgender people in the country (.6% of the population is trans gender), (2) transgender people are murdered at a rate that is 4 times lower than non-transgender people. 102 trans-murders per year would be proportionate to their numbers in the population (17,000 x .006).  Last year only 24 trans-people were the victims of homicide. Democracy Now has reported and re-reported the murder of trans-people. This is an example I have fresh in my mind but what I’m trying to demonstrate is, it is easy to make a group appear the target of discrimination. Report a new story about an incident that seems to represent discrimination a few times per month and increase the impressions by reporting the developments in the story.  These infrequent incidents appear to indicate a serious problem for the group. The same as a roofer needs to convince people there is a problem with people’s roof, an activist whose cause is race, sexuality, or gender discrimination must find, either through interpretation or event, examples of discrimination to justify their existence.

2: Source: Andrew Flores, 2016 “How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United States”, Williams Institute of Law.

How does this affect the promotion of the LGBT lifestyle and how it influences the sexuality of children? Beyond gender identity, a child who is considering sexuality may not be considering sexual orientation based solely on their attraction or arousal by the same sex. LGBT people are people who receive special treatment from the public.  LGBT people are a group perceived as receiving less than equal treatment because of their sexual orientation, and it is socially unacceptable.  Therefore, many people treat LGBT people special because giving a seemingly disadvantaged group special treatment carries with it feelings of moral affirmations that produce good sensations, and B: people do not want to appear to be homophobic because of the social repercussions. Special treatment may influence a child’s reason for same sex orientation. Along similar lines, a child who lacks belonging in a social setting, being without quality peer relationships may see an LGBT identification as an opportunity for social interaction and belonging.

As the research establishes, no one is born gay, people become gay through what is largely unknown factors. There may be psychological studies that identify some environmental contributions, but misses many circumstances, and limited data on patterns of thoughts and feelings that lead to same sex attraction and arousal. Of course, this research is tainted by the promotion of the idea that people are born gay or born the wrong gender. Meaning a respondent to a study is inclined to emphasize thoughts, feelings, and behavior consistent with the ideas they believe, which tend towards being born LGBT.  

There is nothing biological about sexuality.  A person cannot be discriminated against based on sexuality.  There is no way for a person to know your sexuality unless they are having sex with you, or unless you tell them.  That may seem ridiculous, because when someone walks in the room and you ask them how they’re doing and they say “Fabbbbulousss”, most people can infer the sexuality.  If a person avoids Mr./Mrs. Fabulous, it may have nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with style, a man portraying feminine qualities, or the gusto with which those qualities are applied.  Just because those qualities are associated with a person’s sexuality, does mean the issue is with sexuality, the issue may be with the behavior.  People do not have to like how you behave and what you do.  The only requirement is that they don’t impose on you for doing it. 

I don’t follow tabloid politics very closely, so I didn’t know Pete Buttigieg was gay until I saw his interview with Anderson Cooper.  I saw other clips of him and there was nothing that could be inferred from his behavior to suggest that he’s gay.  Buttigieg is a generic center left progressive candidate, with nothing to contribute in dialogue, idea, insight, or truth.  I felt the same way before I knew he was gay as I did after I learned he was gay.  Now if the person in the previous paragraph met Buttigieg, he wouldn’t avoid him for being gay the same way he would avoid Mr/Mrs. Fabulous.  Because it isn’t about sexuality, it’s about behavior.

I saw a Facebook post recently that showed a picture of a boy in a princess costume and asked if people had a problem with the picture.  I commented that most people wouldn’t have a problem with it as long as it wasn’t their boy in the costume.  Which I think is true more often than not, but not based on parents having a problem with their child being gay, but a problem with their boy being feminine and having his values and behavior reflect those qualities.  Most of the time the issue is the behavior, not the gender they want to have sex with.  

There are very few people in this country who actually have a problem with people because of their sexuality, they have a problem with behavior that typically indicates a sexual orientation, but there would be no problem without the behavior.  For example, if you knew someone who wore bells around his neck, you may not want to associate with the person, for no other reason than the bells are an irritant.  In the interest of liberty, he should be able to wear bells if he likes to wear bells, and you should be free to avoid the source of your irritant when possible.  Not only do people not have to like how people behave, in many cases, they may not be able to help how they feel about it.  Still, everyone can do what they want to do so long as they are not imposed upon or imposing on anyone.  

My points are,

1: LGBT discrimination is overemphasized.

2: The promotion of tolerance and equal treatment of LGBT people is intended to promote LGBT sexuality.

3: Children question their gender identity because the idea is made known to them, and in some cases, this is harmful to development. It is not an organic question, which is why Dave Chappelle’s bit about being a Chinese man in a black man’s body was so funny and illustrative. Men wanted to dress up like women, wear makeup, and live their idea of the opposite gender, which probably began with them being gay. They became gay and developed attraction to and arousal from the same sex. The idea of gender identity was born out of this and promoted to the extent that children are aware of the idea and consider the possibility.

4: Most importantly, by claiming a group is the subject of frequent persecution over their sexuality when they are not creates a sense of urgency for their cause when the problem itself doesn’t exist to a meaningful degree. It is also divisive and divides the underclass, leaving class interests neglected.

5: The behavior of some is an irritant akin to a person wearing a bell around the neck, and just because someone associates a behavior with their sexual orientation, does mean people are treating them different because of an aversion to their sexuality; it often means their behavior is not valued.  

The following is comment exchange with a person who seems to believe that gender identity is a fundamental question of the human experience, where the person presents arguments that attempt to challenge some of the points presented in the previous article. 

CBS This Morning the Word They  ( 

The word they was updated in the Merriam Webster Dictionary, to refer to one person whose gender identity is non-binary.  

1st Comment: Orion Simerl Can you use it in a sentence?  They (LGBT) have promoted their sexuality agenda under the guise of tolerance causing children to consider made up concepts like gender identity.

2nd Comment: jr almendarez@Orion Simerl lol yeah because gender isn’t already a social construct that is subject to change.

3rd Comment Orion Simerl@Jr Almendarez Gender is the word used to distinguish between the different physiological characteristics between a male and female, not a social construct subject to change.  Gender identity is what people made up who valued ideas associated with the opposite sex to make it appear that what they like is an innate part of them instead of just what they like.  I don’t have a problem with it, but the promotion is potentially harmful to the development of children, and before the promotion, there are no ancient texts of people pondering the question of their gender.

4th Comment: Incathuga@Orion Simerl Just a few examples throughout antiquity: sekhet in Egypt, Hijra in India, two-spirit Native Americans, Galli in Rome, Māhū in Hawaii and Tahiti, and deities in various mythologies (Loki in the Norse pantheon takes on both male and female forms, for example). Just because you didn’t learn about non-binary gender identities doesn’t mean they haven’t existed throughout history.

5th Comment: Orion Simerl@Incathuga You’re talking about mythology, not a popular element of the human experience.  Children do not think about their gender identity without the idea of gender identity being presented to them.

6th Comment: Incathuga@Orion Simerl Only my last example was mythology; the rest are actual people who have lived throughout history. And if people don’t think about gender identity without hearing about it, how did it first show up? Some people, including children, do figure out that they don’t feel like their birth gender without knowing about trans and non-binary identities. They just don’t use the word trans to explain it because they don’t know about it.

​7th Comment: OrionSimerl@Incathuga  There is more to the examples than people who identify as a different gender and many of these examples are not gender identification examples but people who have adopted feminine values.  The term two spirits in Native American culture was coined in 1990.  I’m not arguing that people in various cultures throughout human history haven’t developled same sex attraction, arrousal, and adopted feminine values preferring feminine roles.  What I’m arguing against is the idea that people feel like they are actually a gender they haven’t been born, and there is no genetic basis for this.  I don’t believe it is a tolerance issue for trans people, I believe it is the promotion of sexuality, and introducing children to these ideas can be detrimental to their development.  Gender identity is a recent idea, it comes from increasing the comfort of men who want to dress up and adopt the mannerisms of women, an effort at making it seem as if it is something innate and therefore above criticism, when it is a product of values, and no one has to like something just because you like it.  At the same time if what people do does not prevent other people from doing what they want to do there is nothing wrong with it.  My issue is the promotion and how these ideas affect the development of children and the impact it has on the general culture.

8th Comment: Incathuga@Orion Simerl I want to point out that you’re switching from a history argument, which was wrong, to a science argument, which is also wrong. There are studies showing that the brains of trans people look more like the brains of cis people of the gender they identify as (ie, a trans woman’s brain looks more like a cis female brain than a cis male brain). There are plenty of studies where individuals who check most of the boxes for “biologically male” react to certain medicines or chemicals the way you would expect a woman to react, and vice versa. The consensus among doctors is that trans people really should be treated as the gender they identify as, including non-binary people. As for the whole corrupting the youth argument, I’ve never seen any evidence that LGBT+ people are actually affecting children in any negative way. LGBT issues being talked about more isn’t making more people gay or trans or bisexual, it’s just showing people who are LGBT that they aren’t alone. That might make children more likely to realize or admit that they’re trans or gay, but there isn’t some vast conspiracy to “turn children trans” or anything like that.

9th Comment: Orion Simerl@Incathuga  The historic argument isn’t wrong.  I suggest you revisit my previous comment where I pointed out that you failed to provide a single example of gender identity, only the adoption of femine values which is not the same as gender identity.  Second, it doesn’t matter if the brains of trans people look more like the brains of females they identify with because thinking habits change the physical characteristics of the brain.  Nice try but not quite.  There is no basis scientifically or historically that a trans person is innately different than a non trans-person.  Arousal and attraction develop, but gender identity is an effort to associate a person’s value with something innate about them, and it is a harmful concept to project onto children.  Again, we’re not talking about tolerance, no one cares if you’re a man who likes makeup and dresses or if you’re a woman who wears jeans and flannels, but you are introducing fictitious concepts to children, which is harmful to children.  It isn’t a turn your child trans conspiracy, but sexuality or gender identity can be chosen based on other benefits derived through the identification: attention, special treatment, and social inclusion to name a few.

To conclude I wanted to share one final comment I made on a FB post. The comment is primarily a reiteration of points made above but I address one crucial point that I didn’t previously on the subject of pride.  It’s an interesting contradiction that LGBT peoples main promotion is encouraging people to be proud of being LGBT, but the premise that people are born LGBT contradicts the notion of pride.  

Jerome Pickles posted a link to an article with the following captions “As we continue to witness many people in the religious community and sadly individuals of the religious community too (yes, even non-believers) demonize the LGBTQ community and treat them unfairly. I dare ask, is it because we can’t hear our own whisper and rather pay so close to that of someone’s pushed agenda”

My Comment: I think it’s because you can’t produce enough evidence that LGBT people are being treated unfairly, and often exaggerate the frequency, extent, and even the definition of the word discrimination. You promote false ideas that sexuality and gender identity are genetic, when in fact sexual arousal and attraction are developed. You claim pride, but your lack of pride is evident in your claim that preferences are biological rather than environmental, which means you don’t have the pride to claim your values.  If LGBT people had pride they would say this is what I like and who I want to be, not this is what I am so accept what I have to be. 

The promotion of sexuality and false concepts like gender identity are harmful to the development of children who are considering fictitious concepts like gender identity that they wouldn’t be considering if the idea wasn’t brought to their attention. Instead of addressing the general social dysfunction that is a product of this (American) deceptive culture, children are using sexuality for social opportunities, to be included in a group, or to be a member of a group that receives special treatment.  I believe some children are inclined to socially barter with their sexuality or may be persuaded by arguments that children are socially alienated because they don’t know they’re gay. Social alienation frequently occurs regardless of sexuality, which causes some children to consider they are gay and that is the cause of their alienation as is promoted. I don’t have an issue with what two consenting adults do with one another, but I do have an issue with the development of children being affected by false ideas promoted for the sake of causing people to feel more comfortable with their values.