Comment by Ourgon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ourgon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> and I'm saying this as an LGBT person

I' m left-handed but I would never think of identifying myself as being part of some diffuse group of people 'united' by handedness. In the same vein I do not see why gays, lesbians and bisexuals are to be seen as part of a single group given that as far as I gather there is often not that much love [no pun intended] between the former two - it is not as if gays and lesbians have much in common.

Do you truly identify as 'an LGBT person' - implying that those who claim to be spokespeople for 'this group' also speak for you - or do you just see yourself as a gay, lesbian or bisexual man or woman? Or, to put it even more bluntly, would you not rather see yourself as a person who happens to be gay or lesbian or bisexual, just like I see myself as a person who happens to be left-handed? I may sometimes grumble about some object which could have easily be made to fit left- and right-handed people alike [1] but I would never join a left-handed political action committee, nor would I trust anyone to 'speak for me' in such a context because I don't want to be used as a pawn in some ideological/political struggle.

[1] If you ever start a cheese packing facility make sure to put a peel corner on the left and right hand side of the package, the latter is far more useable for left-handed people...

There's a difference between what one wishes the world was like, and what one should do given the world as it actually is.

Given the past rampant anti-LGBT feelings and actions around the world, it totally made sense for LGBT people to band together, to enact change on their own behalf.

Much of the world is better for LGBT people today, but a) it's still not quite as good as most would want it, and b) in many parts of the world, it's still quite bad.

So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly, then of course it makes sense for them to act as a group. (Though of course I don't literally mean that everyone treats them badly, just the general trend)

> So given that everyone else treats LGBT as a group, and that everyone else treats them badly

Simply put: Nonsense

A bit more elaborate: some people have something against people who differ in some way, whether that be in their sexual orientation or handedness or skin colour or the language they speak or the food they eat or the god(s) they worship or the parties they vote for or the places they live or the clothes they wear. This has always been that way and will always be so. Most people harbour some preconceived ideas about those 'others' - yes, you do as well. In most liberal western societies these preconceived ideas are frowned upon by official institutions, especially when it concerns such ideas related to 'protected' identity categories like sexual orientation, race and religion. your statement regarding the supposed mistreatment of that group does not hold any water. It is a lie, an untruth, a distortion of the facts - unless you can prove your claim.

Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam, not even when it is claimed to be true by academics from the grievance studies departments - especially not when claimed by those academics from those grievance studies departments since they are on an ideological mission.

> Can you prove it? Show us how your statement is true, in what way everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. Just saying this does not make it true, not even repeating it ad nauseam,

As I said in the original comment, not literally everyone treats LGBT people badly. But are you seriously suggesting there is zero bad treatment of LGBT people? Do you think historically there was, but now there isn't? Based on the language in your comment, it seems you have a certain point of view about this topic which makes you think there isn't any bias against LGBT people, and you're not just randomly asking for proof.

So as proof, I can easily show historical mistreatment of LGBT groups. Example: having homosexual sex, at least for men, was illegal in some places (including some states in the US). Until fairly recently, getting married to a same-sex partner was illegal in the US. Those are two easy examples, the latter change happening what, less than a decade ago?

For existing mistreatment, homosexuality is still illegal in many countries. There are new laws being passed in the US which some LGBT groups consider to be against their interest. In my own country, it's only within the last year that gay couples could have a baby through surrogacy within the country. Etc.

If you think that none of this counts as mistreatment, I'd urge you to say what * would* count in your opinion.

You first state that 'everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly', only to walk it back a few words later. Why did you say it in the first place?

Also, I asked for proof of your statement in the here and now, not for historical proof. Not 'was' but 'is'. Furthermore, the fact that some things are illegal in some countries does not mean anything for how those things are treated in liberal western democracies which is what I was asking about.

The fact that 'new laws being passed in the US which some LGBT groups consider to be against their interest' is totally irrelevant unless you can show which laws those are and in what way they actually discriminate against gays, lesbians and bisexual people.

You have not shown proof of your claim that everyone treats gays, lesbians and bisexuals badly. It is not up to me to provide you with examples of what would be mistreatment since I did not make any claims about people being mistreated. You made a claim but you can not prove it, it is up to you to either provide proof or walk back your claim.

> If you ever start a cheese packing facility make sure to put a peel corner on the left and right hand side of the package, the latter is far more useable for left-handed people...

I think there are a LOT of products that would benefit from company leadership having someone left handed (or colorblind, for that matter) due to the fact that more than a few products work sub-optimally ... probably more than from having someone who's gay.

Diversity in company leadership would better be spent on factors relevant to the product or workforce. Outside of some specialist industries, board members sexuality has absolutely no place in the workplace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com