had a strange discussion a couple years ago with someone who insisted their fursona / fur suit outfit should be protected like LGBTQ rights have been enshrined. I took exception to that and still do because I do not want to see this as a lever to justify excluding / persecuting LGBTQ folk who have fought for a century for their rights. The way they put it was that ‘stonewall’ was for furry rights as much as LGBTQ rights and my mind said: yeah but they did the fighting, they’ve been in the struggle, you just showed up with a fox suit with crotch zippers… my dawg…
I’m not advocating for their persecution, nor do I believe ‘we have enough diversity and should close the door’… but I still don’t see it as an equivalent.
edit: and so instead of explaining, someone just downvotes. this isn’t going to help your premise.
I do not want to see this as a lever to justify excluding / persecuting LGBTQ folk
You are the one pushing the lever of exclusion by arguing to remove ‘just a bit’ of the Q from LGBTQ.
Re-read this thread replacing ‘furry’ with any other form of queer and tell me that there’s no struggle, fighting, persecution, etc. An equivalent of what you just said would be:
The way they put it was that ‘stonewall’ was for drag rights as much as LGBTQ rights and my mind said: yeah but they did the fighting, they’ve been in the struggle, you just showed up in clown makeup wearing a dress… my dawg…
In order to be welcomed into the “LGBTQ community” you must gain acceptance from the elder queers via the standard committee process. The specifics are written down within the gay agenda if you care to get into the weeds, but ‘furry’ is currently pending review and is in the queue after a consensus is reached on ‘asexual’. /s
Serious answer:
LGBTQ folk are not a monolith and neither are ‘furry’ folk.
This folk, me, would include them as such if that is how they self-identify because that is how you treat people.
You do see how your questions are othering and engaging in the worst kind of gatekeeping right?
of course, you can be gay and furry, but this doesn’t answer the query which was: is furry lgbtq. does a cisgender, straight furry have any claim to the same struggle as stonewall - which was the comment that prompted my query.
you do see how you are continuing to confuse what should be a fairly straight-ahem-forward thing to answer, right?
because I don’t see this as gatekeeping at all, I’m not in either community, but consider myself a strong ally of lgbtq people whom I’ve advocated for my adult life, both in and out of the military. I get that these things are very fluid for some people and titles / permissions aren’t granted by the committee, BUT ALSO, I do listen to my lgbtq peers when they take exception to rando’s hopping onto their float claiming it was built for them.
hence my genuine confusion. it’s not an attempt to limit people’s rights or to man the gates, it’s a genuine question.
does a cisgender, straight furry have any claim to the same struggle as stonewall
If you read through this thread replacing “furry” with any other identity label the levels of discrimination and phobia should be extremely apparent, and this is a rather tolerant and accepting space for them compared to more general cultural attitudes.
Also it’s not like stonewall was the struggle and now that that’s done all the struggle is over. In my opinion the core of “the struggle” is to advocate for inclusivity of all those marginalized. There’s a lot of marganilizing going on in this thread.
you do see how you are continuing to confuse what should be a fairly straight-ahem-forward thing to answer?
To some degree, but the problem is that gender and sexuality is not that straightforward. Do you have suggestions on how to make it less confusing?
I do listen to my lgbtq peers when they take exception to rando’s hopping onto their float claiming it was built for them.
That’s gatekeeping. The only thing it does is further wedge issues and perpetuate divide and conquer exploits. That argument and line of thinking is the exact same one that TERFs, etc. apply. I think they are unaware of the work that the furry community does to help propel that specific float if for no other reason than it adjusts the Overton window.
it’s not an attempt to limit people’s rights or to man the gates, it’s a genuine question.
I know, which is why I’m engaging at all. I apologize as I’m a crotchety old person annoyed at having to constantly repeat the same thing over and over again which always seems to boils down to “discrimination is bad, yeah?”. My frustration isn’t directed at you and I apologize that it’s leaking(spraying) out, but I’m trying to provide a genuine answer to a question with a flawed premise.
To some degree, but the problem is that gender and sexuality is not that straightforward. Do you have suggestions on how to make it less confusing?
yes, by not involving costumes!
That’s gatekeeping. The only thing it does is further wedge issues and perpetuate divide and conquer exploits.
it’s gatekeeping to listen to queer people. Huh. that’s a new one.
“discrimination is bad, yeah?”
and how are they being discriminated against? Are they being refused medical care, marriage rights, the ability to serve their country? I can’t see these as equivalent as they represent two fundamentally wildly different cases - a person wants to wear a costume, vs., a person’s sexual preferences that have been observed in humans and the animal kingdom everywhere.
I’m sorry if my premise is flawed, and I’m not trying to create arguments where there people should find love and support. If people came out of the womb identifying their fursonas perhaps I’d feel differently.
If people came out of the womb identifying their fursonas
Nobody comes out of the womb identifying as anything. If somebody transitions later in life does that make it less valid?
people should find love and support.
That is all I’m arguing for. If somebody self identifies their sexuality as anthropomorphic fictosexual who are you to argue with that? If they define their gender as otherkin why are you telling them that’s not allowed?
Edited to use more technical phrasing to avoid accidental aspersions.
aaah. you have no intention of an actual dialogue this is just some silly attempt to shame me into agreement. fuckin’ gross.
why are you telling them that’s not allowed?
ain’t telling shit to anyone. You keep laying this at my feet as if I’ve constructed it, when I simply stated I think the LGBTQ folk should be the ones to make that decision, not fictosexuals, furries, otherkin, whatever other edge cases you want to toss.
But keep attacking allies that don’t perfectly line up with your arguments, in the long run, you’re making it easy for me to disregard your entire premise.
So I agree with your result but not with the path you took to get there. If we find out tomorrow that there’s some other part of gender or sexuality and people start identifying as that because now their life makes sense with this new label then they should be allowed in even though they didn’t fight or struggle.
But furries aren’t a sexuality or gender, they’re a hobby. It’s just a fun suit and roleplay. That can be enough to base a life around, but it’s a learned hobby like video games or d&d. Not something they’re born with that would cause persecution along with gay and trans rights
Sexuality and gender are a complex interaction of nature and nurture, the belief that homosexuality is exclusively a ‘nature’ thing is predicated on eugenics with the goal of eliminating it. The ‘something they’re born with’ counterargument comes from Alfred Kinsey, et al’s work which showed it’s something everyone carries and so it can’t be eliminated that way.
Traumas, experiences, medications, etc. can all cause changes to an individuals sexuality and gender often in unpredictable ways.
Would you be this exclusive of someone who self-identifies as lesbian after an abusive heterosexual marriage?
You gonna do some introspection on that defensiveness and why you’re trotting out the homophobic “you only support LGBTQ people cause you’re gay” trope?
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I have no idea where you’re getting that from.
I’m saying that you are probably a furry and you think your hobby belong in the LGBTQ space instead of lumped in with other roleplay hobbies like dungeons & dragons or LARPing.
Literally nothing about being gay or homophobia, that’s a completely different subject and the fact that you brought it up means you’re the one being defensive.
Let me try wording it another way. You are using a very specific rhetorical ad homenin argument where you first engage in “othering” so that you can then confidently dismiss anything said.
I was hoping that wording it in a historical context as opposed to a technical description would help you see it without having to spell it out.
Went to pride march recently. We obviously saw some absolutely wild costumes, lots of skin on show etc, but the furries took it to an extreme level. Like couldn’t you just tone it down a little bit in public so you’re not traumatising children.
so we have pride parades that are all out full nudity here heh. PNW. But it’s easier to explain for me. They might see some tiny shriveled dinkies. That’s the majesty of human forms kids. It’s not the skin that would bother me, it’s the mixing of adult and kid stuff that you get with furries. A valid counter-argument is, we sexualize motherhood as well - hell the Venus of Willendorf is some people’s ideal - and that’s not seen as taboo.
It’ll be interesting to see how this all develops in the next few decades.
had a strange discussion a couple years ago with someone who insisted their fursona / fur suit outfit should be protected like LGBTQ rights have been enshrined. I took exception to that and still do because I do not want to see this as a lever to justify excluding / persecuting LGBTQ folk who have fought for a century for their rights. The way they put it was that ‘stonewall’ was for furry rights as much as LGBTQ rights and my mind said: yeah but they did the fighting, they’ve been in the struggle, you just showed up with a fox suit with crotch zippers… my dawg…
I’m not advocating for their persecution, nor do I believe ‘we have enough diversity and should close the door’… but I still don’t see it as an equivalent.
edit: and so instead of explaining, someone just downvotes. this isn’t going to help your premise.
You are the one pushing the lever of exclusion by arguing to remove ‘just a bit’ of the Q from LGBTQ.
Re-read this thread replacing ‘furry’ with any other form of queer and tell me that there’s no struggle, fighting, persecution, etc. An equivalent of what you just said would be:
do the LGBTQ folk consider furry a form of queer? or is that just more of the same assumption on furry folks part?
honest query because that’s a lot more important to me than furry folk considering themselves lgbtq.
In order to be welcomed into the “LGBTQ community” you must gain acceptance from the elder queers via the standard committee process. The specifics are written down within the gay agenda if you care to get into the weeds, but ‘furry’ is currently pending review and is in the queue after a consensus is reached on ‘asexual’. /s
Serious answer:
of course, you can be gay and furry, but this doesn’t answer the query which was: is furry lgbtq. does a cisgender, straight furry have any claim to the same struggle as stonewall - which was the comment that prompted my query.
you do see how you are continuing to confuse what should be a fairly straight-ahem-forward thing to answer, right?
because I don’t see this as gatekeeping at all, I’m not in either community, but consider myself a strong ally of lgbtq people whom I’ve advocated for my adult life, both in and out of the military. I get that these things are very fluid for some people and titles / permissions aren’t granted by the committee, BUT ALSO, I do listen to my lgbtq peers when they take exception to rando’s hopping onto their float claiming it was built for them.
hence my genuine confusion. it’s not an attempt to limit people’s rights or to man the gates, it’s a genuine question.
If you read through this thread replacing “furry” with any other identity label the levels of discrimination and phobia should be extremely apparent, and this is a rather tolerant and accepting space for them compared to more general cultural attitudes.
Also it’s not like stonewall was the struggle and now that that’s done all the struggle is over. In my opinion the core of “the struggle” is to advocate for inclusivity of all those marginalized. There’s a lot of marganilizing going on in this thread.
To some degree, but the problem is that gender and sexuality is not that straightforward. Do you have suggestions on how to make it less confusing?
That’s gatekeeping. The only thing it does is further wedge issues and perpetuate divide and conquer exploits. That argument and line of thinking is the exact same one that TERFs, etc. apply. I think they are unaware of the work that the furry community does to help propel that specific float if for no other reason than it adjusts the Overton window.
I know, which is why I’m engaging at all. I apologize as I’m a crotchety old person annoyed at having to constantly repeat the same thing over and over again which always seems to boils down to “discrimination is bad, yeah?”. My frustration isn’t directed at you and I apologize that it’s leaking(spraying) out, but I’m trying to provide a genuine answer to a question with a flawed premise.
yes, by not involving costumes!
it’s gatekeeping to listen to queer people. Huh. that’s a new one.
and how are they being discriminated against? Are they being refused medical care, marriage rights, the ability to serve their country? I can’t see these as equivalent as they represent two fundamentally wildly different cases - a person wants to wear a costume, vs., a person’s sexual preferences that have been observed in humans and the animal kingdom everywhere.
I’m sorry if my premise is flawed, and I’m not trying to create arguments where there people should find love and support. If people came out of the womb identifying their fursonas perhaps I’d feel differently.
All clothing is costume. People costume to express all sorts of identities, it’s not any more complicated than skirts, dresses, burkas, etc.
Textbook
“I have a black friend” fallacyfriend argumentNobody comes out of the womb identifying as anything. If somebody transitions later in life does that make it less valid?
That is all I’m arguing for. If somebody self identifies their sexuality as anthropomorphic fictosexual who are you to argue with that? If they define their gender as otherkin why are you telling them that’s not allowed?
Edited to use more technical phrasing to avoid accidental aspersions.
aaah. you have no intention of an actual dialogue this is just some silly attempt to shame me into agreement. fuckin’ gross.
ain’t telling shit to anyone. You keep laying this at my feet as if I’ve constructed it, when I simply stated I think the LGBTQ folk should be the ones to make that decision, not fictosexuals, furries, otherkin, whatever other edge cases you want to toss.
But keep attacking allies that don’t perfectly line up with your arguments, in the long run, you’re making it easy for me to disregard your entire premise.
So I agree with your result but not with the path you took to get there. If we find out tomorrow that there’s some other part of gender or sexuality and people start identifying as that because now their life makes sense with this new label then they should be allowed in even though they didn’t fight or struggle.
But furries aren’t a sexuality or gender, they’re a hobby. It’s just a fun suit and roleplay. That can be enough to base a life around, but it’s a learned hobby like video games or d&d. Not something they’re born with that would cause persecution along with gay and trans rights
yep.
Sexuality and gender are a complex interaction of nature and nurture, the belief that homosexuality is exclusively a ‘nature’ thing is predicated on eugenics with the goal of eliminating it. The ‘something they’re born with’ counterargument comes from Alfred Kinsey, et al’s work which showed it’s something everyone carries and so it can’t be eliminated that way.
Traumas, experiences, medications, etc. can all cause changes to an individuals sexuality and gender often in unpredictable ways.
Would you be this exclusive of someone who self-identifies as lesbian after an abusive heterosexual marriage?
If you just want to fuck people wearing wolf costumes then it’s okay dude. You didn’t have to write all that
You gonna do some introspection on that defensiveness and why you’re trotting out the homophobic “you only support LGBTQ people cause you’re gay” trope?
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I have no idea where you’re getting that from.
I’m saying that you are probably a furry and you think your hobby belong in the LGBTQ space instead of lumped in with other roleplay hobbies like dungeons & dragons or LARPing.
Literally nothing about being gay or homophobia, that’s a completely different subject and the fact that you brought it up means you’re the one being defensive.
Let me try wording it another way. You are using a very specific rhetorical ad homenin argument where you first engage in “othering” so that you can then confidently dismiss anything said.
I was hoping that wording it in a historical context as opposed to a technical description would help you see it without having to spell it out.
Went to pride march recently. We obviously saw some absolutely wild costumes, lots of skin on show etc, but the furries took it to an extreme level. Like couldn’t you just tone it down a little bit in public so you’re not traumatising children.
so we have pride parades that are all out full nudity here heh. PNW. But it’s easier to explain for me. They might see some tiny shriveled dinkies. That’s the majesty of human forms kids. It’s not the skin that would bother me, it’s the mixing of adult and kid stuff that you get with furries. A valid counter-argument is, we sexualize motherhood as well - hell the Venus of Willendorf is some people’s ideal - and that’s not seen as taboo.
It’ll be interesting to see how this all develops in the next few decades.