Sunday, March 18, 2012

LGBT Tag on Wikipedia - What?

Here's something to ponder.

Why does Wikipedia have a specific "LGBT" tag? Of course, that's "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender". This is the name of a modern political group/movement - some loose alliance of a diverse collection of people. It's weird and inappropriate to apply this tag to freaking Sappho of Greece, as if she were a proud member of what's largely a 20th century socio-political grouping.

Gay men and lesbian women are not identical. Even where their inclinations are concerned, there are different motivating factors, and likely different physiology in play. Bisexuals? Don't get me started - they're the red-headed stepchild of the entire movement, at least next to the "transgendered". And "transgendered", while it has its own problems, is utterly unlike homosexuality or bisexuality as offered - it's a state of physical impairment requiring corrective surgery, and that's only if you don't consider it to be more properly considered a mental impairment.

This tag should not be in use on the wikipedia. But I will say this - once again, you can admire the group for the sheer ferocity they have. These guys will plant a flag anywhere they can. Learn from their group, even while you try to reason with them individually.


The Phantom Blogger said...

I always hate how the modern Gay Rights movement fails to differentiate between people who have engaged in homosexual activity and open "proud" homosexuals, especially in the historical sense. Every historical figure who may have engaged in some homosexual act or even just had some homosexuals desires at some point, is listed as being gay. And then these people are used as representations of what modern homosexuality stands for and believes in.

Crude said...

I think the movement is rife with some tremendous problems, intellectually and more. I admire their rhetorical effectiveness, if only because it's literally all they have going in their favor.

What I find really odd is that they include thousands-year-old dead greeks under this "LGBT People" label. The very use of that label, outside of an extremely narrow group (Literally, 'People who support or were actively part of the modern LGBT movement'), is wrong. There is zero justification for that grouping except for political reasons.

Syllabus said...

The current thinking seems to be, "anyone who wasn't married or actively shtupping whichever member of the opposite sex was availabe was GAY! Of course, it's all so simple!" - at least, as far as admired historical figures go. I think that's what the psychologists call projection.

Crude said...

That does seem to come up at times, the weird projection thing. As if those are the only reasons anyone may go through life unmarried or as a loner.

This LGBT classification, however, is just insane. I wonder how they'd react to an entry on, say... someone who admittedly had gay/bisexual inclinations, but believed acting on those inclinations would be immoral on the grounds that homosexual sexual activity was wrong. (As opposed to 'Well, I'm a man already married to a woman.')

Which leads into another problem. There's this assumption that any person who was saw homosexual acts as immoral, yet who had those inclinations, was "in denial" or "conditioned" and so on. The very idea that someone could be inclined so, but believe said acts were immoral, isn't even considered. Hence, their every act in that light ends up becoming framed as 'hypocrisy' or such.

Like I said, the purely cultural achievements of this group is something to learn from, because it's BS from top to bottom, yet extremely effective.

Syllabus said...

Well, look how they reacted when that one actress said that she was gay by choice.

And yes, their propaganda is rather effective. Next thing you know, they'll introduce their newest addition - the two-minute hate.

Crude said...

The "gay by choice" thing was amusing. Of course, she seemed really vapid. She muttered something about how they shouldn't condition their language for "bigots" or such. Apparently not realizing that if she really was "gay by choice", the "bigotry" charge flies down the damn tubes.

And of course, the entire Anne Heche thing has been basically Stalin'd out of history, or at least public awareness.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Crude said...

Yeah, codg. I rather wish there were repercussions for this kind of thing. It's one thing to attend, but to be in any position of authority, particularly teaching authority in the Church, while attending it?

Also no surprise on the ****ing 'poor lesbian who was denied communion' being prominent there.