LGBT Student Activist Group Says Gay Men Not Oppressed Enough to Deserve Representation

National Union of Students LGBT Campaign passes motion against cis white gay guys.

|

Gay
Dreamstime

The National Union of Students' LGBT Campaign—a coalition of British student-activists—passed a motion to end committee representation for gay men, because they aren't as oppressed as other LGBT individuals: like students of color and transgender students. 

That's the latest hilariously self-parodying move by the famously illiberal NUS, an organization wholly dedicated to the enshrinement of safe spaces and the abolition of free expression at British universities. NUS routinely attempts to deny speaking platforms to people who have ever expressed any views that violate far-left social justice orthodoxy (Germaine GreerPeter Tatchell, and Julie Bindel are three recent examples). 

According to Pink News, delegates at the LGBT Campaign's yearly gathering decided that "Misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia are often present in LGBT+ societies. This is unfortunately more likely to occur when the society is dominated by white cis gay men." 

University LGBT clubs are often run by committees that have a trans representative, a gay male representative, a student of color, and so on. But since white cis gay men are relative enablers, rather than victims, of oppression, NUS endorsed a motion that calls on these clubs to stop extending automatic representation to them. The conference resolved, "To encourage LGBT+ Societies that have a gay men's rep to drop the position." 

Pink News noted the irony of the motion—other approved motions stressed that gay men were at increased risk of HIV infection, and even violence, relative to other marginalized groups. 

Other motions were just as absurd. One asserted that the 'A' often found in the LGBT+ acronym should and must always stand for "ace" (as in, asexual), rather than "ally." 

It's easy to laugh at these developments, though they speak to a real sickness on the left: hysterical obsession with group identity. In the eyes of the NUS LGBT Campaign, no one is an individual—everyone must be labelled according to their sexual preference, skin color, and gender expression, and then assigned a grievance based on the collective wisdom of their similarly marginalized peers.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

231 responses to “LGBT Student Activist Group Says Gay Men Not Oppressed Enough to Deserve Representation

  1. These people are beyond parody.

  2. Let the cannibalism begin.

    1. Also, what does the “G” stand for?

      1. Groovy?

        Gestalt?

      2. Gooey. Think warm American processed cheese food.

        1. I’d rather not think about Hillary.

          1. The “G” stands for gay. So now they will be LBT or BLT

  3. *dies laughing*

  4. Just call it “No Milos”. That’s who got them all wound up.

    1. “It says no Milos. We’re allowed to have one.”

      1. Who controls the British pound?
        Who keeps the metric system down?
        We do! We do!

        1. +1 Stone of Triumph

  5. Finally, something the Hit’n’Runpublicans and the SJWs can agree on!

    1. You mean this part?

      everyone must be labelled according to their sexual preference, skin color, and gender expression,

      1. Definitely not that part, I preferred labeled with one l.

        1. in the middle that is.

    2. Its always everyone else saying = “everyone not in my narrow-minded little clique sucks”, isn’t it?

      When you find yourself constantly using and worrying about labels, you’re probably part of the problem

      1. Labels like “radical Islamic terror”?

        1. No, labels like “Kenneth Cole” and “Dolce & Gabbana”.

          1. Ugh, so ugh, even worse = UGG

  6. #Winning

      1. We can say that now. He has no power.

        1. Naw man, I have ALL the power, I’m part of the cis-heteronormative patriarchy.

          Wait, serious practical question here: are gay jokes now unfunny like “white people” jokes? Or are they socially acceptable like “Polack” jokes?

          1. Wait, white people jokes aren’t funny?

            1. Can you think of a generic white people joke that’s funny? Specific national origin ones don’t count.

              Even things like stuff white people like are more about class and generational affiliations than race where “white people” is today’s yuppies rather than actual white people.

              1. A personal favorite from Undercover Brother

                So the conspiracies we’ve believed for all these years are true? The NBA really did institute the three point shot to give white boys a chance?

                1. “And OJ really was innocent.”

                  1. Marsha Clarke could not prove his guilt. I heard what the jurors in that case said about the evidence presented to them. Also the glove did not fit O.J.’s hand. That is what I’m looking at. What makes you think OJ is guilty?

              2. I’m not sure a truly generic [any race] joke is all funny. Every good racial joke has at least SOME degree of specificity to it. I mean every good “Jewish” joke I hear is TECHNICALLY just talking about the Ashkenazis, every good “black people” joke is TECHNICALLY just talking about African Americans. Latino jokes I know typically refer to specific country (ie Mexicans, Colombians, etc).

                Do you have any racial joke that is both good and refers to an entire race?? If so, please share. I’m intrigued…

                1. I don’t. The funniest stereotypes are always built around a specific community of people and their associated behaviors.

                2. What did the Jewish child molester say to the boy?

                  “Hey kid! Wanna buy some candy?”

                  Be here all week folks!

                3. Do you have any racial joke that is both good and refers to an entire race?? If so, please share. I’m intrigued…

                  That rather gets to the heart of the point, no? You don’t have to make an Ashkenazi joke, or break it down to “African Americans from the south, originally of West African extraction” the caricatured groups play stand in for the whole. Jokes about white people writ large (besides possibly jokes about lack of coordination) fall flat. You need to drill down to pasty, bucktoothed British people, brutally efficient Germans, and cheese-eating surrender monkey French to get a joke that works.

                  1. How many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb?

                    One. They are efficient and don’t have humor.

                    1. Three. One to draw up the plans, one to change the bulb, and one to make a report documenting the change.

                  2. “You don’t have to make an Ashkenazi joke, or break it down to “African Americans from the south, originally of West African extraction” the caricatured groups play stand in for the whole”

                    Ah, I get what you’re saying. It’s that if someone makes a joke about Ashkenazis, and frames it as a “Jewish Joke”, it still works because people accept Ashkenazis to be a stand in for all Jewish groups, even if that is far from the group.

                    In that case, I disagree for different reasons:

                    “You need to drill down to pasty, bucktoothed British people, brutally efficient Germans, and cheese-eating surrender monkey French to get a joke that works.”

                    Nah. There are some good jokes out there about “white people” that are actually about rednecks or hillbillies, and those groups work because society accepts that a caricatured redneck as a valid stand in for “white people” as a whole.

                    1. There are some good jokes out there about “white people” that are actually about rednecks or hillbillies, and those groups work because society accepts that a caricatured redneck as a valid stand in for “white people” as a whole.

                      I don’t think that’s true. I think you tell a hillbilly joke or a yuppie joke and people accept that white people are the hillbillies or yuppies you’re talking about. You’re still having to drill down to make the joke stick rather than throwing out “white people” and having people automatically do the drilling down for you.

                    2. That’s a racist microaggession* right there! WHITE PRIVILEGE!! I mean, people just accept that there are all different kinds of white people**. Grrr…

                      *-hah! Reason’s spellcheck insists that ‘microaggression’, even spelled correctly, is wrong. Good spellcheck, well done.

                      **-though, as with so many of the things I’ve heard described as “white privilege”, I fail to see how anyone is harmed in any way by it. *sigh* Prior to this SJW madness, I never thought I’d be proud of failing to understand something. Now, it happens pretty frequently.

              3. What do you call a dirty, filthy stinking honky?

                A dirty, filthy stinking honky.

                1. What do you call a dirty, filthy stinking honky?

                  Isn’t that more a class joke than a race joke?

                  Richard Pryor job interview

              4. White people dancing is a perennial favorite.

                1. Yeah, can’t jump, can’t shoot, can’t dance. Being uncoordinated seems to be the one that sticks.

                  I’m actually really entertained by the hapless white liberal woman archetype that Selina Meyers and Liz Lemon represent.

                  1. Can’t shoot? Oh, you mean basketballs. Never mind.

                    1. That was my first reaction, then I put my revolver away.

                  2. Must really sting that all those uncoordinated white dudes dominated the planet.

              5. At the improv in San Jose:

                “I will prove that everyone is racist. If you are driving on the freeway and someone cuts you off, you will find SOME way to be racist:

                – Look at that Asian, can’t drive at all!
                – Look at that Mexican, I bet they don’t have insurance
                – Look at that White Guy…. I bet he’s just going to his JOB or something”

              6. How about this one:

                Guy goes into a talent agency and says he’d like representation:

                Agent: So, what do you do?
                Guy: I tell some jokes.
                Agent: So, you’re Jewish.
                Guy: No ,I’m not.
                Agent: So what else you got?
                Guy: I also sing.
                Agent: So, you’re Italian.
                Guy: No, I’m not.
                Agent: Well, what are you?
                Guy: I’m an white anglo-sexton protestant.
                Agent: Oh. Well, go get 99 more of you and we’ll form a marching band.

  7. So, they are going to fix that?

  8. It’s easy to laugh at these developments, though they speak to a real sickness on the left: hysterical obsession with group identity.

    I disagree. If it weren’t for bizarre, absurd, and hilarious internecine conflicts within these grievance groups, they’d be totally rather than mostly useless.

  9. It’s easy to laugh at these developments, though they speak to a real sickness on the left: hysterical obsession with group identity

    Isn’t it more fun to call them “neoliberal shock troops” than “the left”?

    1. how do you define “the left”?

      and what’s the distinction between neoliberals and “the left”?

      1. and what’s the distinction between neoliberals and “the left”?

        As always, there’s an economic perspective and a cultural perspective.

        Neoliberal in economic terms refers to a slate of policies best identified with modern US Presidents (Reagan, Clinton, Bush, even Obama). Globalization, free(er) trade, generally favoring the spread of information over greater state control of the economy.

        However, in cultural terms neoliberal generally means anything not orthodox Marxist. Obviously, there is some overlap, but people who would not be considered neoliberal economically (e.g. they would be happy with the nationalization of all businesses) might be considered neoliberal culturally (e.g. they think in terms of race and gender rather than class).

        1. a slate of policies best identified with modern US Presidents (Reagan, Clinton, Bush, even Obama). Globalization, free(er) trade, generally favoring the spread of information over greater state control of the economy.

          Every modern US president is “neoliberal”? All modern capitalism is “neoliberal”?

          It strikes me a bit like the term “interventionism”. Its basically “Everything except what it is not”, and the “not” is never precisely defined either.

          ‘anything not orthodox marxist’ seems to work for both your economic/cultural aspects.

          but i still think its odd. The frankfurt school is what dragged in all this race and gender bullshit, and now the race and genderphiles are all moaning about neoliberals?

          1. Every modern US president is “neoliberal”? All modern capitalism is “neoliberal”?

            Are those really novel claims to you? That seems totally standard to me.

            The frankfurt school is what dragged in all this race and gender bullshit, and now the race and genderphiles are all moaning about neoliberals?

            Um, no. The left (i.e., communists) is moaning about the race and genderphiles, who are the neoliberals.

            1. Are those really novel claims to you? That seems totally standard to me.

              I haven’t heard any actual technical definition of what neoliberal means yet. So citing “every US president” – as though ‘presidents’ are determinate of economic policy – is pretty useless in clearing that up.

              The left (i.e., communists) is moaning about the race and genderphiles, who are the neoliberals.

              you’ve confused me. The “left” is opposed to all this LGBTQA stuff? which is totes neoliberals? (still undefined)

              1. Well kbolino pretty much covered defining it.

                The “left” is opposed to all this LGBTQA stuff? which is totes neoliberals? (still undefined)

                Yes. That’s what I’ve been trying to explain to people here for months. And neoliberal is only undefined if you’ve chosen to completely ignore everything kbolino has said, and have never paid attention to what leftists are actually publishing.

                I don’t have any idea why this is (a) hard to understand or (b) unfamiliar.

                1. I don’t have any idea why this is (a) hard to understand or (b) unfamiliar.

                  “Others” are so hard to talk to?

                2. have never paid attention to what leftists are actually publishing.

                  If you mean Freddie DeBoer, its because he’s an idiot

                  1. He is an example of a leftist who is against identity politics and would characterize such as neoliberal, yes.

                    1. I don’t think he’s against identity politics, I think he believes they’ve gone to far.

          2. Ask them to define neoliberal and you’ll get a multitude of answers. At least neocon has some basis in political thought, even if it is a little broad.

          3. Every modern US president is “neoliberal”? All modern capitalism is “neoliberal”?

            Oh, yes. To traditional Marxists, a large swath of the left “sold out” on these issues. Note, I’m not endorsing these terms, only describing how I’ve seen them used.

            It strikes me a bit like the term “interventionism”. Its basically “Everything except what it is not”, and the “not” is never precisely defined either.

            I agree with the analogy, but I think I’ve given a fairly rigorous definition here, at least compared to many of the people who use the term as an insult.

            ‘anything not orthodox marxist’ seems to work for both your economic/cultural aspects.

            Not exactly. Mercantilism/protectionism would be neither neoliberal nor orthodox Marxist. Furthermore, laissez-faire capitalism (vs. internationally managed capitalism) would be an unspeakable evil for which the derogatory appellation “neoliberal” would hardly be sufficient.

            The frankfurt school is what dragged in all this race and gender bullshit, and now the race and genderphiles are all moaning about neoliberals?

            No, you are missing the point. The Frankfurt School is neoliberal, and the accusations of neoliberalism are coming from outside the “race and gender bullshit” traffickers.

            This is an internecine battle on the left.

            1. The Frankfurt School is neoliberal, and the accusations of neoliberalism are coming from outside the “race and gender bullshit” traffickers.

              So there’s some “real leftists” somewhere who think cultural marxists are way lame? which is weird, because i don’t hear much criticism of the race/genderbaiters from the ‘generic left’.

              This is an internecine battle on the left.

              i guess that’s a yes.

              It all still seems to add up to a term used by orthodox marxists to call “everything not us”. which is frankly (no pun) stupid as fuck and utterly useless. It presumes “marxists” are the center of some ideological universe.

              1. So there’s some “real leftists” somewhere who think cultural marxists are way lame? which is weird, because i don’t hear much criticism of the race/genderbaiters from the ‘generic left’.

                Well it sure doesn’t seem like you’re a regular reader of Jacobin, so that doesn’t exactly surprise me.

                It all still seems to add up to a term used by orthodox marxists to call “everything not us”. which is frankly (no pun) stupid as fuck and utterly useless. It presumes “marxists” are the center of some ideological universe.

                Yeah I have no idea why people would center their own worlds around themselves. That’s just crazy. It doesn’t make any sense at all for me to separate the world into statists and anti-statists either. Obviously.

                And you’re still wrong about that anyway: kbolino mentioned a few possibilities of things that were neither Marxist nor neoliberal, like mercantlism.

                1. Well it sure doesn’t seem like you’re a regular reader of Jacobin

                  Thank you.

                  It doesn’t make any sense at all for me to separate the world into statists and anti-statists either.

                  No, it mostly doesn’t, because we do live in a world defined by states. which explains a lot of libertarian problems talking about foreign policy.

                  kbolino mentioned a few possibilities of things that were neither Marxist nor neoliberal, like mercantlism.

                  it just seems like the term “neoliberal” is actually *used* far more frequently to describe everything “not marxist”

                  i see it tossed around constantly, and its generally very un-specific, a la the “All US presidents” thing

                  1. No, it mostly doesn’t, because we do live in a world defined by states. which explains a lot of libertarian problems talking about foreign policy.

                    And this is how the state wins.

                    1. yes, we know. Congratulations on that whole “opting out” thing.

              2. It all still seems to add up to a term used by orthodox marxists to call “everything not us”. which is frankly (no pun) stupid as fuck and utterly useless. It presumes “marxists” are the center of some ideological universe.

                Yes, it is all of those things. Why the fuck are you yelling at me about it?

                1. sorry, wasn’t yelling. my standard patter is ‘brusque’ and seems highly offensive at even low volumes. thanks for the clarifications, they were helpful.

              3. And here I thought the Frankfurt School was neo-Marxist.

                1. here I thought the Frankfurt School was neo-Marxist.

                  That sounds like exactly the thing a neoconservative would say

                  1. Is that anywhere near the School for Brats?

        2. It is worth noting that monetary policy is also a hallmark of economic neoliberalism. Orthodox Marxists would consider discussions about money to be pointless conflicts created by the bourgeoisie to distract the masses.

          1. again = all you seem to be saying is that “Neoliberal” is a term coined by orthodox marxists to describe “Not-Orthodox-Marxists”.

            Which is just a way of pretending, “Everyone except us has some uniform ideology!”

            1. Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.

              As to who is pretending and what they’re pretending, I’m not taking any position on that (for the moment). You asked, and I answered.

              I realize this conflict seems pointless to libertarian eyes and I hardly disagree, but “all I see to be saying” is that there is a major divide on the (far) left and these are the (rough) battle lines.

              1. I realize this conflict seems pointless to libertarian eyes

                Not at all. I pointed out before that this is identical to the use of the term “interventionist” in libertarian circles to elide all Foreign Policy issues down to a stupid, “NOT US” label.

                1. Not at all. I pointed out before that this is identical to the use of the term “interventionist” in libertarian circles to elide all Foreign Policy issues down to a stupid, “NOT US” label.

                  Are you arguing about the (theoretical) utility of the definition, or the (practical) utility of the word as a euphemism?

                  I would say both terms (interventionist and neoliberal) have the former, but you are far more likely to see the latter in practice.

                  1. probably the practical more than anything. as nikki noted, i’m not a Jacobin reader and not particularly concerned with theoretical gradations from the perspective of the hard left.

                    in the practical sense, both terms are just so much spackle used to cover up problems that they don’t want to engage.

        3. My only quibble with that is the idea that any modern US President has favored the spread of information over greater state control of the economy. Especially Obama.

    2. Isn’t it more fun to call them “neoliberal shock troops” than “the left”?

      No.

  10. “LGBT Student Activist Group Says Gay Men Not Oppressed Enough to Deserve Representation”

    Even Takimag joked about this coming years ago. What group will get the ax next is the more difficult question?

    “One asserted that the ‘A’ often found in the LGBT+ acronym should and must always stand for “ace” (as in, asexual), rather than “ally.””

    Seems like the last place for asexuals. Tumblr has taught me that they’re obsessed with sex more than any of them though.

    1. The big fight right now is between radfems and transgender people. Each side blames the other on gay men.

      1. That fight is 40 years old!

        http://theterfs.com/2013/10/12…..ast-terfs/

        I’m still not sure who to bet on though, but Gutter Dykes is a sweet team name.

      2. Are people with two X chromosomes who identify as male and like to have sex with XY sex chromosomed peiple who also ifentify as male gay men for this particular fight? To an outside observer like myself this is like fighting over whether advancing on ground ball is a sacrifice or a fielders choice.

        1. Are people with two X chromosomes who identify as male and like to have sex with XY sex chromosomed peiple who also ifentify as male gay men for this particular fight?

          From a broader perspective, gay men are now seen as indistinguishable from straight men. You don’t get “blamed” for this particular fight only because you’re the greater-scope villain. In this analogy, gay men were the lesser villains and infiltrators sent to do the patriarchy’s bidding.

          1. So basically, gay white men have gained so much acceptance that they are now “The Man”?

            1. Well, they do control Hollywood.

              1. And Fashion Week.

                1. (high five)

            2. And the fact that, as a whole, gay men are seen as unserious about “the struggle.” It’s really a fight about intersectionality and white straight women have been attacked for unseriousness on that front for years.

              1. Well it was always a little offensive when white girl would have her bridal shower at the gay bar.

        2. To an outside observer like myself this is like fighting over whether advancing on ground ball is a sacrifice or a fielders choice.

          Baseballsexuals are the worst

          1. Gay men have culturally appropriated our term “switch hitter”.

          2. Look, if two guys want to wear tight pants and spank each other in the privacy of their bedroom that’s one thing, but when you start broadcasting it on TV for generations…

    2. Yeah, I’m not sure how asexual people are supposed to fit in there. Shouldn’t they just not give a crap about sexual orientations since they aren’t interested in sex? Why the hell would anyone base an identity on something they aren’t interested in?

      1. Without membership in a certified victimhood category, a person’s existence has no value.

      2. What the doctor said.

        Also, just my uneducated opinion here, most of them, particularly the one’s who go by “Ace” aren’t actually asexual. They just weren’t creative enough to think of another silly orientation name.

      3. Further, what discrimination or victimization have they experienced on the basis of their “orientation”? Unless they want some affirmative action to get one of those cushy porn or prostitution jobs without having to have sex, I’m a little lost.

      4. Ask Richard Dawkins.

    3. After the white gays get purged, straight white chicks will be the next against the wall – it’s already starting, in fact.

      1. “After the white gays get purged, straight white chicks will be the next against the wall – it’s already starting, in fact.”

        Yeah? I think the entire movement depends on them so I don’t see it happening.

        1. Well, traditionally the straight white chicks have run things… but once we get into the victim-credential-schlong-measuring-contest phase, they lose out pretty quickly. It’s like the white gays – if you’re only in *one* victim category, you’re screwed.

          1. “Well, traditionally the straight white chicks have run things… but once we get into the victim-credential-schlong-measuring-contest phase, they lose out pretty quickly. It’s like the white gays – if you’re only in *one* victim category, you’re screwed.”

            Well, let’s hope so.

            I see more and more white women discovering that they’re lesbian or bi, as well as having unsubstantiated childhood traumas, to keep their numbers inflated.

        2. Once you buy into “white privilege”, white anything moves down a rung or three on the ladder – chicks, fags, you name it.

      2. First they they came for the white gay men and I said nothing because I wasn’t a gay white man. Then they came for the black gay men and I said nothing because I wasn’t a gay black man. Then they came for the white lesbians and I said nothing because I wasn’t a white lesbian. By the time they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me – but there were only two of them left because they had run everybody else off so I just laughed in their faces and smacked ’em upside the head and told them to piss off and they whined and cried and finally went away.

  11. they speak to a real sickness on the left: hysterical obsession with group identity. In the eyes of the NUS LGBT Campaign, no one is an individual?everyone must be labelled according to their sexual preference, skin color, and gender expression, and then assigned a grievance based on the collective wisdom of their similarly marginalized peers.

    well said.

    although you could have left out “similarly marginalized” since one of the largest groups of gripers are actually hetero white women who’ve latched onto this Social Justice shit as some kind of weapon.

  12. Anyone who is the least bit surprised hasn’t been paying attention to what’s been happening in the LGBTQAMOUSE community since at least the eighties.

    1. I am both not shocked or aware of any of this.

    2. Technically, LGBTQEEKAMOUSE.

  13. I am stuck at 0 grievance points. My wife gets points for being at least three criteria. Since this is all group politics, is there any way I can convert her individual points into family points?

    1. Family is the patriarchy at its worst! She loses her points for joining the patriarchy.

      1. Damn! What if she is head of the family and I am her income slave?

        1. Pretty sure people at level 0 can’t be slaves. Just like blacks can’t be racist.

        2. So *that’s* how it is in their family.

        3. If she makes more than you it’s because you’re lazy and are taking advantage of her. You still lose.

          1. I wish she made more than me. The Patriarchy won’t allow that, so she stays home with the kids.

            1. That makes her a gender traitor. Sorry Scalro, you all actually have negative points.

              1. She is also a race traitor. Does that make her worse than I?

    2. Jet Blue has a family pooling program……

    3. I think family must be negative, so your wife loses points for admitting she has family. I mean, family is just so cis, so ancient and traditional, like 1066 or earlier.

      1. She probably isn’t even written in English.

  14. Who didn’t see this coming? Hopefully they’ll segregate into small enough groups that no one will bother to listen to them.

    1. In many of her lectures, Christina Hoff Sommers tells the story of the Women’s Studies conference she attended in the early ’80s. The whole group was instructed to split into smaller groups based on what were supposed to be concerns but were really identities. None of the groups proved stable, each splitting into smaller groups. Lather, rinse, repeat, until all you had was a bunch of individuals screaming at each other.

      The fundamental assumption of SocJus (pronounced “sock juice”) appears to be that the world is one great big junior high school and the determination of whether something is said in good or bad faith can be made purely by consideration of where the speaker’s clique ranks in the pecking order.

  15. the society is dominated by white cis gay men.

    They say this like it’s a bad thing.

    1. WHERE MUH BOTTOMLESS MIMOSASA GONE?!

      1. Mimosas*….but mimosasa has a nice ring to it

        1. I think you mean “Mimosassy”, Doyers.

        2. Mimosasa is the traditional accompanying dance.

    2. I’m just an old fat white guy, I don’t even know what that means? Too many varieties to keep up with.

    3. ‘white-cis-straight-male’ to the queer-tumblr world is ‘faggot’ to the straight world~
      so white-gay-cis-male is like a swear-word~ we have /way/ too much privilege to be part of the cool club now… I mean we can get married and everything~

  16. Huh. I would have thought the bisexual men would be the first.

    How about this? People do whatever they want and stop caring what other people categorize them as.

    1. “Huh. I would have thought the bisexual men would be the first.”

      I would have thought that as well. But I suppose they’ve been aiming at gay men ever since they decided that gay men were “appropriating” the culture black women. Despite the fact that the reality of the situation is the opposite.

      Still, though. The LGBT community has always had a good dose of anti-bi rhetoric within it, so it is surprising they’ve not yet targeted bisexuals. Though, perhaps they’re merely trying to avoid targeting women, since most LGBT complaints about bisexual men are identical to complaints about bisexual women (Something to the effect of bisexuals who engage in opposite-sex relations aren’t REALLY LGBT because they are engaging in society’s preferred pairing or whatever). This way they can just shut out the group containing only men while they think up a way to shut down bi men without hitting bi women with collateral damage.

      “How about this? People do whatever they want and stop caring what other people categorize them as.”

      Yes 100%.

      1. The only reason all these groups get lumped together is by virtue of being “different” from the norm. Other than that they don’t really see eye-to-eye on much of anything.

      2. Male bisexuals have their “identities erased” by both gay men and straight men, so they are sufficiently victimized.

    2. My understanding is that bi men were never actually allowed in the group to begin with.

      1. Yeah, when everyone but your in-group says “You stick it in that? Ewww” you’re destined for the bottom of the stack.

    3. If I don’t categorize myself or at least insist that others MUST be offensively categorizing me, then how in the world do I weaponize my “otherness”?
      Stop trying to de-empower me, slaver.

  17. “Gay men not oppressed enough”

    You know who else wasn’t oppressed enough?

    1. the shitty panini i got in an airport?

      1. *a-pressed

        because you like a da sauce.

    2. Peasants during the reign of King Arthur?

      1. +1 violence inherent in the system

    3. Gay Hitler?

    4. My dry cleaning?

  18. I love watching purists rip each other to shreds… its like watching libertarians.

    1. So that’s why you come here.

      1. It’s what I’m here for.

      2. Haha, the intelligence of the commenters here seems to be above-average, which is why I stick around. Still, Libertarians have the ability to shoot themselves in the foot whenever a political victory is at hand – a quality that is shared among all political groups.

  19. Not so inclusive a policy, is it?

  20. The build up-to the Summer Oppression Olympics is so exciting! Who will take the gold?

    1. Shanequa Lopez-Mustapha-Littlefeather-Park a pansexual/asexual muliple-personality transwoman who prior to her reassignment surgery was a transman, who identifies as unicornkin and is currently a refugee from Switzerland.

      1. That was actually pretty funny, Jar-Jar.

      2. Voting R voids all of that.

  21. “Other motions were just as absurd. One asserted that the ‘A’ often found in the LGBT+ acronym should and must always stand for “ace” (as in, asexual), rather than “ally.” ”

    Asexuals are the biggest drama whores on the planet, outside of people who call themselves ‘pansexual.’

    1. ‘pansexual.’

      Look, if you’re not interested in fucking a well-endowed goat-human hybrid deity known for his sexual prowess that’s on you. Just know *you’re* the weirdo.

        1. Trees?? Just, sitting there, rooted in the ground?? How could someone be sexually attracted to that?? I mean, sure, if you cut them down, stacked ’em up and turned ’em into a bonfire, then I could understand the arousal, but who get’s turned on by UNCOMBUSTED trees?!

          1. That knot was groin level and just asking for it.

            1. Couldn’t give affirmative consent.

              Rapist.

        2. There is trouble in the forest indeed.

        3. I wrote a scene for a never published near future detective novel where a stripper made a shit-ton of money be modifying herself to look like a dryad. Shit. There was even a bad joke about treehuggers getting their own wood.

      1. I think it would be great if there were a pansexual meeting, and one person stands up in the middle and goes, “Jesus guys, i mean, i’m sorry, i think there was a mistake. I thought this was about ceramic skillets and teflon and Thermolon…. oh, god… sorry, have to go…”

        1. It’s pansexual–it IS about ceramic skillets and teflon and Thermolon and a whole lot of other stuff

          1. Fe-males prefer cast iron.

    2. Asexuals are the biggest drama whores on the planet

      Maybe if they got laid more often?

      1. The thing about asexuals is that no one’s ever gone out of their way to beat them up for being asexual. They’ve never gotten arrested or anything.

        So who gives a fuck? You just want attention by continuously bringing it up when no one cares.

        1. “The thing about asexuals is that no one’s ever gone out of their way to beat them up for being asexual. They’ve never gotten arrested or anything.”

          Maybe no oppression can itself be a form of oppression.

          1. In today’s age, where value is measured by oppression, lack of oppression is indeed oppression. XD

            1. Damn you for saying simply and plainly what I was struggling to say with sarcasm.

      2. asexual = virgin? or maybe a medical problem of low hormones? When did an asexual person EVER suffer oppression except for missing out on the fun? How do they even claim oppression?

    3. Asexuals are the biggest drama whores

      do you meet a lot of people who bring this up in casual conversation, or is this an internet thing?

      1. I think it’s a tumblr and reddit thing

      2. It’s an internet thing. You see it all over the place, where people just can’t avoid telling everyone they’re asexual.

        1. I think the new “cool” involves inventing a new category of oppression. I thought that …whatsherface…. Johnny Depp’s daughter? really made a stroke of genius by inventing a new category of “Maybesexual

          Its just so *meta*. Its the same thing everyone is, yet always magically its own thing. You can be just like everyone, and yet like no one. Its the perfection of everything ‘teen’.

          1. I thought Demisexual was the big thing now. The people who claim it, say they are only attracted to people they make a mental connection with first. It makes them sooo special. They aren’t like the rest of us with our base urges. Nope they are super evolved and care more about the mind than the body.

      3. Internet thing. I know an asexual in real life. It’s just a fact like her hair color. It only comes up if it is relevant to the conversation (we both discuss our writing together. That’s how I found out in the first place). Otherwise, she just doesn’t talk about something that she doesn’t care about.

        1. Oh, i’ve met one or two myself. I think i actually even dated one once. lets just say it didn’t work out.

          1. Oooo, yeah, that would be a recipe for disaster. Hope you didn’t lose too much time, and that the dates were entertaining and fun otherwise.

    4. “Asexuals are the biggest drama whores on the planet, outside of people who call themselves ‘pansexual.'”

      Half agreed. “Demisexuals” are worse. The people who like sex, but not as much as they think other people like sex, and therefore think they have some special category that gives them Oppression Cred despite the fact that literally no one gives a ~shit~.

      1. Or “Aromantic” people. The ones who are into sex but not romantic relationships and for some reason don’t realize that a lot of people are the same way and that this doesn’t make them special in the slightest.

        Or the “demiboy/demigirl” people who think tomboys are actually a unique form of trans person…

        Why do so many of these people exist??

        … Oh yeah, it’s that somehow it’s now “cool” to be queer so all these straight kids are running around looking for ANY AND ALL excuse to not call themselves straight because they don’t want to be uncool… -.-

        1. These demigirls or tomboys, do they have freckles ?
          Asking for a friend.

          1. Only demi-gods have freckles.. .

        2. When did every fucking personality type become an oppressed gender identity or sexual orientation? I guess that is what happens when your currency is victim points.

          Jesus, all of these people need serious psychiatric help, or possibly just a swift kick in the ass

          1. Paging Red Forman

        3. That is exactly it. They all spend time on Tumblr and realize being an average person makes them the enemy, so they come up with new sexualities so they can be one of the good guys.

          It’s still better than the people that make posts about how even though they like sex, want to have more of it, and spend their free time reading and writing porn, they are still asexual. I want a dumbness filter, so badly for that site.

          1. Isn’t tumblr that amateur porn site?

            1. Nope, it’s a blogger site mostly used by SJW’s to spread fake stories about how evil the other is, and to write smutty fanfiction about their favorite fictional character. My interests unfortunately align with the second category, so I have to put up with the nonsense in the first. Thus the desire for a stupid filter.

              1. Really?

                I only ever use it to look at porn.

            2. Correct, at least according to my work’s internet filter.

      2. I hereby designate a new category and claim ownership. Quasquisexuals have 1-1/4 the sex drive of an average human.

        Stop oppressing me.

        1. You should next insist that you can’t be summarized by a letter and need a fraction symbol.

          LGBTQA?

        2. This is starting to sound a lot a D&D character sheet. “I’m a chaoctic neutral half-orc druid demisexual, with a +1 mace of smashing cishetero normativity.”

          1. #MartialClassLivesMatter #DivineCasterPrivilege

  22. NB4 Eddie and John show up to gloat about this

  23. So what? Let the retards marginalize each other to their heart’s content. I’m stuck being a white privileged patriarchal asshole anyway and that has zero effect on my life. Why should I care that these lunatics want to start a war among themselves?

  24. University LGBT clubs are often run by committees that have a trans representative, a gay male representative, a student of color, and so on.

    Hilarious. It sure wasn’t like that back in my day (early 90s). The only remarkable thing I remember from the couple times I hung out in their office was that it was a good place to close the door after hours and smoke some weed.

    1. Every organization eventually gets taken by those who only wish to further the breadth and scope of the organization instead of serving its founding ideals.

  25. No NUS is good NUS.

    1. We make snu-snu now

  26. EVERYONE STAND BACK! LET THIS PLAY ITSELF OUT!

    1. *looks back to get one last glance, turns into a pillar of salt*

  27. I don’t know why they had to only exclude guys. Lipstick lesbians aren’t exactly oppressed by the patriarchy either.

    You might even say they’re celebrated.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKq84YDhy7A

  28. This is why Obama needs a liaison for the LGBTs. ‘Cause without liaisons, hows do we knows?

    1. Sounds like a dangerous job.

  29. I was told there would be cake.

    1. Oooh! I want cake!

        1. The cake is a lie.

  30. LGBT Student Activist Group Says Gay Men Not Oppressed Enough to Deserve Representation

    You know what – they’re kinda right. Gay *men* have generally worked pretty damn hard fighting back against oppression.

    I think that not only are they able to stand on their own two feet just fine, but given the direction the LBGTWTFBBQBBC movement is going, they’d be well-served to distance themselves from it.

  31. I thought “cis” means “straight” ? I haz a confuze.

    1. Cis means you don’t pretend to be a gender different from your biological one

      1. Oh. “Reality-based”, as it were.

      2. And how many Lesbians do you know that would refer to themselves as CIS?

        1. Why would they? They get victims points for being lesbians. They aren’t going to highlight areas in which they are victimization-deficient.

  32. The revolution, as always, eats itself.

  33. ” white CIS gay men” ?!

    Um, I do not think this word means what you think it means.

    1. As a white cis gay man, I think it is /you/ who don’t know what it is ~

      cisgender and transgender is the opposite – so if you have a penis and identify as a man, you are cis, even if you’re attracted to other guys~

  34. The fact that an otherwise reasonable publication such as this would use the ludicrous term “gender expression” shows how far these nonsensical groups have penetrated sane society.

  35. What the hell does “cis” mean?

    1. It’s an appropriation of chemistry terms, where cis and trans are opposites. Basically the trannies thought it would be clever to refer to non-tran people as cis.

      1. …no. It’s Latin. “Cisalpine Gaul” is Gaul on the near side of the Alps, from the perspective of the Romans.

        Chemistry lol

  36. The gay community or should I say the community formerly of gays is cannibalizing itself. I guess if we are going to be watching this. The only thing to do at this point is make popcorn and enjoy the show.

  37. funny note from my wife – white people are not oppressed enough – so only black women should be represented in the queer community

  38. I would THINK that if part of your oppressed group was no longer THAT oppressed, it would be cause for a celebration.

    And we all know how LBGT+A + xxxxxxxxx like a party, No? (Aces? Really? That’s a new one?.)

    “No Lets kick them out! They are no longer sufficiently downtrodden, WE can trodden them some! We’ll trodden them good and hard!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.