40516 Everyone Is Awesome

[icm]

1 hour ago, Mister Phes said:

This topic isn't intended to be an argument with the intent of an outcome,  but rather a discussion to express different views so we can learn from each other.

It has been a good thread for that. In the post you're responding to I used the word argument because I was afraid the thread was going to go in an uncivil direction. That worry hasn't panned out, so I apologize for using the wrong word.

[Mister Phes]

48 minutes ago, icm said:

It has been a good thread for that. In the post you're responding to I used the word argument because I was afraid the thread was going to go in an uncivil direction. That worry hasn't panned out, so I apologize for using the wrong word.

No need to apologise because I did present an argument when I entered the discussion.

However, the intent was not to maintain that argument, but instead use it to elicit responses which provide greater insight.

[danth]

People concerned about "corporate policy", when Lego puts stud-shooters and guns and swords in almost every set they make, and centers their main in-house theme around violence (named after an actual martial arts that focused on assassination), and their biggest licensed theme has "Wars" in the title and the movies feature people dismembering each other with swords -- after decades of being so anti-violence that Space sets weren't even allowed to have laser guns and had to make them look like "sensors or lights" to get designs approved:

Quote

🤐🤐🤐🤐

People concerned about "corporate policy", when Lego removed alt build pictures from their sets, and now make sets from movie licenses or in-house themes with named characters almost exclusively, after decades of claiming to be about creativity, and about children creating their own stories and adventures, and building their own worlds:

Quote

🤐🤐🤐🤐

People concerned about "corporate policy", when Lego makes the second Lando Calrissian out of brown plastic, because it's obvious yellow didn't look right on the first one, after years of LEGO claiming "yElLoW iS RaCiAlLy NeUtRaL":

Quote

🤐🤐🤐🤐

People concerned about "corporate policy", when Lego throws a bone to gay and trans people:

Quote

😱😱😱🤬🤬🤬😭😭😭

It's almost like there's a pattern of not really caring about "corporate policy" at all, and there's some other, mystery reason why they might be upset?

Edited May 23, 2021 by danth

[Alexandrina]

29 minutes ago, danth said:

It's almost like there's a pattern of not really caring about "corporate policy" at all, and there's some other, mystery reason why they might be upset?

Especially when corporate policy is explicitly committed to diversity and inclusion. 

[Lira_Bricks]

47 minutes ago, danth said:

It's almost like there's a pattern of not really caring about "corporate policy" at all, and there's some other, mystery reason why they might be upset?

 

17 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

Especially when corporate policy is explicitly committed to diversity and inclusion. 

They forget that Lego in the sixties made a lot of ads featuring girls playing with Lego. At the time women were mostly shown as playing with dolls or helping the mother with cleaning. Their corporate policy has not changed in these 60 years :P

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--qNwzV56S--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_center,h_358,q_80,w_636/17msrnrw3mpxjjpg.jpg

Edited May 23, 2021 by Lira_Bricks
Add image

[Aanchir]

8 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

See that I genuinely didn't know! The oldest reference I could think of was the Slade song, which is definitely said as "Christmas" even if it was spelt differently.

Yeah, in general, when spoken it's pronounced "Christmas", regardless of how it's abbreviated… same as how "Mr." is pronounced "mister" and not "mrrrrrr" .

[Alexandrina]

Just now, Aanchir said:

Yeah, in general, when spoken it's pronounced "Christmas", regardless of how it's abbreviated… same as how "Mr." is pronounced "mister" and not "mrrrrrr" .

It might be fun to start saying "mrrrr" though!

[Itaria No Shintaku]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:16 AM, Robert8 said:

@Itaria No Shintaku 

!!!!!!!

Sorry I wasn't here.
As we saw it's a fantastic set and I will surely buy one both for the set and its meaning

[Robert8]

34 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

Sorry I wasn't here.
As we saw it's a fantastic set and I will surely buy one both for the set and its meaning

I tagged you because it was first rumored to be a CMF (or so I thought) 

I set myself up for disappointment I guess lol 

[Fuppylodders]

On 5/22/2021 at 3:56 PM, Alexandrina said:

I am trans, and tbh rainbow and trans flags are the only way I can think of without either creating a full narrative or resorting to crass and offensive stereotypes. 

Can't figure out how to type above the quote as I can't move the quote down (on my phone) but have just read the whole thread, and is a wholesome read. 

To respond to the above quote, regarding the 'crass and offensive stereotypes', can you define them? I ask this, because, these crass and 'offensive stereotypes' exist because there are actually people who genuinely are like that. Isnt this meant to be about inclusion, diversity and acceptance? Those people who genuinely do fall into the stereotype are seen as offensive to you, why? Aren't they just as equally part of the LGBTQ community as you are, yet you're providing an undertone with the view of being better than them. Yet, they, for their 'crass and offensive stereotype' have probably done a lot for the LGBTQ community, I'm guessing, as the overtly exaggerated gayness etc... By being openly proud and excessive about it, has helped to keep it in the public eye much easier and given the people who were closet, some strength to come out as they knew they weren't alone. 

By all means, I'm sure I've misunderstood, but that's how that statement is coming across to me. 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 8:25 PM, Alexandrina said:

What blows my mind is that not only was the comment made - it was made in response to a thread where multiple users had identified themselves as LGBTQ+. That's about as direct as you can get without sending a private message!

And all that in response to a set which makes the wholesome statement "everyone is awesome". 

So, you'd rather they hid in the shadows and made a snide hidden comment to everyone but those in the community? They opened themselves up for being seen for their view. While you might disagree with it (I'm certainly not saying they're right), at least they've been open and owned their view balls deep. They've also put *their* morals above the lego community. There is nothing wrong with that at all, it shows how strongly that is their belief. 

What blows my mind, is yes, I understand (but don't agree with!) some of (*edited for clarification/correction of my view) the bigotry aimed at the LGBTQ community, but your community want everyone to understand and let you guys simply be, and for everyone to understand your point of view. Which is entirely fair. But you're doing so while not understanding their point of view, but simply blanket dismissing nearly everything as bigotry that disagrees with LGBTQ. 

I'm going to be slightly crude in my explanation, I don't mean to offend, but I don't know how to word it differently /better... 

That person has likely been brainwashed with strong religious views right from the start. Am going to assume a strong religious community, or something that gives them a strong and extreme belief. LGBTQ people are naturally the way they are. Being brainwashed is essentially as close as you can get to that. People are all different. Some people will have extreme views, but be open to understanding and learning. Others, will be extremely set in their ways. Those extremely set in their ways, they can't help it, it's their resolve. It's their belief. It's the way they live their life.

I don't agree with religion at all. But I understand there are people who are extreme in their religious (or even non religious) views. As long as they're not bombing places/killing people, and theyre not physically affecting my life or others, they're free to believe what they want. Just as the LGBTQ community are free to live how they want (well, in some countries). Sure, there's pushback, it's been frowned upon for a few thousand years and then some. Romans freeborn were only legally allowed to be the consenting masculine side (let's say the dominant one). Anything else, and it was illegal and punishable. Soon as Christianity came along properly and roman gods weren't a thing anymore, that was it. No more gay at all. Its been a thing of contention for thousands of years, you can't expect absolutely everyone to accept it right now just because you say so. Some will still have strong views. Some will just shy away from it and not want a part of it. 

As time goes by, those with extreme against views will be watered down and it'll be a norm. But, while it's not right for people to want to actually stop you doing what feels natural to you, you can't expect everyone to simply jump on board. But it is amazing how many people's minds are being opened up due to (mostly) civilised discussions such as these. 

 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 10:17 PM, PhoenixBuilder said:

I've been watching the discussion, and I think there are two things that are worth mentioning:

• I appreciate that many people in this thread may not have engaged in conversations around LGBTQ+ issues before - welcome to the party! But for the LGBTQ+ people who are in this thread, we will (likely) have all had these................... 

Sorry for not quoting your whole post, but I'm referring to the whole of that post (cutting space down on my phone screen). 

Absolutely great post and couldn't agree more! 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 1:24 AM, Aanchir said:

I think you're both right, in a way — LEGO is definitely taking a firm and supportive stance by insisting that this is not political, and I applaud them on that, but the reality is that more things are still politically divisive than a lot of people (including the LEGO Group) would like to admit. Let's not forget that less than a decade ago, a Cheerios ad got pulled off the air because of all the complaints about it having the audacity to (gasp) portray a multiracial family!

The inverse is also true — there are certainly plenty of parts in the world where legal challenges or obstacles to equality continue to spring up even long after those forms of equality achieve popular support among ordinary people. Even in places where government officials are chosen by popular vote in theory, that doesn't mean that their actions accurately reflect the viewpoints of their constituents in practice, particularly since even in ideal circumstances, it can be very difficult to completely snuff out the possibilities of bribery or corruption.

 

I've shortened the quoted text as above, but I wholeheartedly agree with everything in your post! I'd have made a horrid mess of it trying to get that from my head into words... 

 

Moving on from quotes, I'm getting lost... LGBTQ I get, but where's the IA come from with LGBTQIA? 

Additionally, and connected to the above question, and something someone said... Aren't people getting offended just a little too easy now? I mean, LGBTQIA, how many more letters do I have to remember in order to include absolutely everyone so I don't neglect to include a type and be seen as offending them for not being inclusive? We know LGBTQ(IA?) are people or a community, not stating the words 'community' or 'people' is being just a bit touchy.... Like, I'm not offended if someone refers to me as straight because they're dehumanising me by not acknowledging that I'm an actual human being!? It's implied. I know I'm a person. I know I'm included in the community of cisgender straight people (as much as sometimes I wish I was my own community... And I'm sure some people might wish me to be in my own community too... ), I don't need to be spoon-fed I'm a person too. Everyone knows you're people too. Keep the focus on the real issues and not on the excessive offensiveness... 

 

Adding onto that, one thing I dislike, is that now everyone is getting offended for not being represented now that LGBTQ+ are. While I respect disabled people, because life is a shit ton tougher for them with issues a lot of people couldn't handle, can we stop with the 'LGBTQ getting representation, Where's mine?!' 

You realise how many different disabilities there are? Wheelchair bound is an obvious visual one that can be easily represented hence why it was (I assume) the first(or blind guide dog). Partially deaf? Hearing aid head print. Fully deaf? Well... Most minifigs are already representing them as they typically have no ears to start with! People with ears aren't represented enough in that case.... So how do you represent actual deaf people, so as not to offend fully deaf people? Blind people? You got your guide dog, and people with solid blacked out glasses for partially blind, minifigs already have solid black dot eyes which doesn't represent true eyeballs and therefore, people with normal sight. 

What about paraplegics? Quadraplegics? Dementia? Depression? Bi-polar disorder? Meningitis? Mental health issues? People born with mini limbs (no idea what the name is) and other physical deformaties from birth? Burn victims? Narcolepsy sufferers? ADHD, downs syndrome (I'm almost certain that last one would be a big can of worms). The list is endless... 

Where does it end?! It doesn't. And that's the problem. There is always someone out there who won't be represented because it's impossible to represent *every disability* because there's just tooooo many!! 'yeah but my disability is common'... And so are a dozen others... 

They're trying.... Give them a break. Let the LGBTQ + have their moment with this, they deserve it. Its not a snuff to disabled people by any stretch, and that's not to say disabled people don't deserve it. But can we just stop with finding offense in absolutely everything....?? 

 

Final statement... I'm glad for nudists too. Even they're represented in this set 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Fuppylodders

[icm]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

These are the IA you asked about, I think.

[Fuppylodders]

12 minutes ago, icm said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

These are the IA you asked about, I think.

Thank you, appreciated :) 

[Alexandrina]

35 minutes ago, Fuppylodders said:

To respond to the above quote, regarding the 'crass and offensive stereotypes', can you define them?

I was specifically thinking of representing trans women in the form of minifigures with female-coded torsos/hair and full beards - and yes, there are people who fit this description and of course they deserve respect, but the concern I have is that since this is both the only way I can think of to code a minifigure as trans without using the flags or a backstory, and also fits into some pretty ugly preconceptions of what trans people are, it would be at best poor representation of the trans community. We aren't far removed from the period in time when society's accepted perception of all the trans women was "men in dresses" and that's something I really don't ever want to return to. This also has undertones rooted in the deeply harmful autogynephilia propagated in the 20th century, which put forth the notion that a trans woman was really a heterosexual man who got off on making himself into a woman. 

You mentioned overt flamboyancy - that never crossed my mind as a possible interpretation of my comment, because I don't see it as being crass or offensive. I specifically referred to the stereotypes which have harmed and still harm trans people to this day (including the albeit-unlikely in a toy stereotype of trans women as sex-maniac serial killers who dress up as women to fulfil a fantasy). 

47 minutes ago, Fuppylodders said:

But you're doing so while not understanding their point of view, but simply blanket dismissing nearly everything as bigotry that disagrees with LGBTQ

I was dismissing as bigotry the notion that being LGBTQ+ is sexual immorality - a point which I would argue is the definition of bigotry, since it posits that someone is immoral, or at least behaves immorally, as a result of immutable characteristics. 

Honestly, it rankles a bit that you have decided to take a very harsh interpretation of my comments (I have never once said a single word against religion or those who are religious on these boards or anywhere else) in order to defend a comment that - albeit indirectly - denied the gender of multiple people here and questioned the morality of multiple others.

I'm also a bit confused about the part of your comment referring to having to remember all the letters to avoid offending people. Maybe I missed it, but I have seen no such comment here to draw this remark. I don't speak for all LGBTQ+ people, but I know for a fact that I only get offended when somebody explicitly denies that I am a woman or excludes me from a social situation entirely on the basis of my being trans (where I would have been included were I a cis woman, or had I not transitioned).

I apologise if I've misinterpreted anything you've said - if so let me know and I will retract the relevant parts of my comment .

[Mattallica]

if you're here complaining about this set as you perceive it as being Hypocritical of Lego in actions vs words(stated policy) its simple stop buying Lego products.

if you're still here complaining about it i think the problem is you.

 

for what its worth im a straight white male, and i think the set AND the message behind it are both beautiful!

[Fuppylodders]

1 hour ago, Alexandrina said:

1.

I was specifically thinking of representing trans women in the form of minifigures with female-coded torsos/hair and full beards - and yes, there are people who fit this description and of course they deserve respect, but the concern I have is that since this is both the only way I can think of to code a minifigure as trans without using the flags or a backstory, and also fits into some pretty ugly preconceptions of what trans people are, it would be at best poor representation of the trans community. We aren't far removed from the period in time when society's accepted perception of all the trans women was "men in dresses" and that's something I really don't ever want to return to. This also has undertones rooted in the deeply harmful autogynephilia propagated in the 20th century, which put forth the notion that a trans woman was really a heterosexual man who got off on making himself into a woman. 

2.

You mentioned overt flamboyancy - that never crossed my mind as a possible interpretation of my comment, because I don't see it as being crass or offensive. I specifically referred to the stereotypes which have harmed and still harm trans people to this day (including the albeit-unlikely in a toy stereotype of trans women as sex-maniac serial killers who dress up as women to fulfil a fantasy). 

3.

I was dismissing as bigotry the notion that being LGBTQ+ is sexual immorality - a point which I would argue is the definition of bigotry, since it posits that someone is immoral, or at least behaves immorally, as a result of immutable characteristics. 

4.

Honestly, it rankles a bit that you have decided to take a very harsh interpretation of my comments (I have never once said a single word against religion or those who are religious on these boards or anywhere else) in order to defend a comment that - albeit indirectly - denied the gender of multiple people here and questioned the morality of multiple others.

5.

I'm also a bit confused about the part of your comment referring to having to remember all the letters to avoid offending people. Maybe I missed it, but I have seen no such comment here to draw this remark. I don't speak for all LGBTQ+ people, but I know for a fact that I only get offended when somebody explicitly denies that I am a woman or excludes me from a social situation entirely on the basis of my being trans (where I would have been included were I a cis woman, or had I not transitioned).

6.

I apologise if I've misinterpreted anything you've said - if so let me know and I will retract the relevant parts of my comment .

I've numbered inside the quote to make it easier to follow my replying. 

1. From my ignorant viewpoint, Eddie Izzard instantly springs to mind when you mention that. He's the first person I remember being openly trans and making me aware of it more than a subconscious thought. Chiseled jawline as often seen on male minifig heads perhaps? No beard necessarily required? I know it's not how all trans are, but, you gotta start somewhere if you want a minifig to represent specifically a trans person. And those that wish to portray themselves in such a view also deserve representation, as, was it not essentially the basic level of how trans were before the modern world of current trans? (please do correct me if that's an incorrect view/thought). 

Further to my ignorance, I never even knew autogynephilia was a harmful thing in the/to the trans community. Is it because it involves the sexualisation of trans and thus diminishing the nature of those who are for reasons outside a sexual desire? (That's a complete guess, but I'd be interested to learn how?) 

2. Ahhh ok, I see where you're coming from. I can't see that bearded trans people would necessarily be a poor representation, again, I feel that view still kinda diminishes their value...  As much as trans serial killers aren't all trans people, not all bearded trans are just 'men in dresses'. I would hope, that nowadays, people would be smart enough to distinguish the difference between a serial killer who dresses as a woman of various tendancies to having no relation at all to all trans people in general... But I guess, here we are having a conversation that shouldn't really be being had at all... (I don't mean you and me, i mean the entire discussion) 

3.

But, that is their viewpoint. Is it also intolerant to not accept that not everyone will accept LGBTQIA+ as it is against their opinions and lifestyle? As wrong as we may feel it to be? At one point in time, society dictated LGBTQIA as frowned upon/not tolerated/illegal etc... Society dictated that. Times *are* changing and society is now swinging the other way. Some are swinging faster than others. But there are still pockets of society that are alive and were through the time of the negative perceptions which were initially acceptable, and living in communities where it was widespread and taught through the generations, and thus still in places has strong resentment. It is naive to expect it not to exist, but to blame them for their own life circumstances? For having been alive during the time it was acceptable to resent/be afraid of it, and sticking to their beliefs? It kinda feels like fighting bigotry with bigotry. (I know that statement won't go down well, but that's my honest feelings). 

4. I apologise for not picking out statements you've made that I totally agree with (they are there! ) to counter the perception I'm only taking a harsh view of your comments (not all, just some, but these were the ones that stood out to me that I feel others haven't addressed - perhaps because only I see them and its me that's the issue ). 

Back on target, defend? Nope. Understanding both perspectives and trying to explain the religious person's perspective? Yes. I say this, fully in my own belief there is no God, that none of what he says matters(in the judgy damning kinda sense) -even moreso due to my belief. That in the outside world, I have to be respectful and mindful that religion plays a part in a lot of people's lives, and as much as I wish people simply had their own morals and did good deeds by their own merits instead of following a book open to all sorts of interpretational abuse, it always will be a part of life. That some will have extreme views that I disagree with. But that's their freedom too. 

5. Someone mentioned something about finding it offensive or disliking or something, about wanting the words 'people' or community after LGBTQ, someone mentioned LGBTQIA (extra letters), given someone is offended at not explicitly being referred to as a collective noun when the implication is there given that is literally what every human is, and how the list of letters is getting longer and longer like the list of different genders, it's a matter of time before someone becomes offended at not saying their specific letter but genericising with just LGBT... It wasn't specifically aimed at you (hence no quote or anything), it was a pre-emption given the proceeding statement I made after. That was definitely a thing, it's why I said it, but there is soooooo much text in these pages, I lost track of where or who said it. 

6. No need to retract at all, I don't believe you've misinterpreted anything I've said. I understand I come across harsh in my statements, I struggle with words and remembering the right words, it gets frustrating as I forget such simple words which may literally be the single word that my entire point is based around and without it, I make no sense.... So I kinda just say things how my mind can, in addition to my life path has made me end up just saying things without beating around the bush and being (perhaps too) blunt. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Fuppylodders

[Lord Insanity]

 

47 minutes ago, Fuppylodders said:

But, that is their viewpoint. Is it also intolerant to not accept that not everyone will accept LGBTQIA+ as it is against their opinions and lifestyle?

I don't mean to single Fuppylodders out specifically here, but this question keeps cropping up and seems to warrant a much more specific answer in general.

Most species on Earth do not fall into the "typical" male and female gender division.  Many species can flat out change sex at will in response to specific environmental pressures.  The movie Finding Nemo should have had Nemo's dad change sex after his mate was eaten because that is what real life Clownfish do. 

All Humans at conception are always functionally asexual an will grow typical female genitalia by default.  People with XY chromosomes usually have a burst of developmental testosterone in the womb at 8 weeks which causes them to grow typical male genitalia.  There is a small population in the Dominican Republic that has girls born that do not experience developmental testosterone until they hit puberty around age 12 and become fully functional men after being a girl for the first 12 years of their lives.  Yes, really.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "brain wiring" is even more unpredictable.  While there is no significant difference of intelligence level between "male" and "female" "brain wiring" there are several differences that are testable and measurable.  A person can't "fake it" or "just decide one day", they are born that way.  When "brain wiring" doesn't match the physical anatomy we can change the anatomy.  We can't change "brain wiring" and I would find it utterly horrific if someone tried to.

One specific interpretation of one specific translation of one specific religious text is flat out wrong.  Period.

[Alexandrina]

3 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

Ahhh ok, I see where you're coming from. I can't see that bearded trans people would necessarily be a poor representation, again, I feel that view still kinda diminishes their value... 

I'm not saying it would be poor representation on its own per se. The issue would be more that alternative representation is harder to pull off visually without the use of symbology cues (that was the original point I was making on the first comment). If the entirety of trans representation was restricted to typically male facial features paired with typically female clothing and hair, it paints a picture that leaves an unbalanced view of trans women. My gut instinct based on my time in the community is that trans women who regularly present with facial hair as a conscious aspect of their presentation (rather than those who are struggling to remove it and thus have visible stubble, especially at the end of a long day) are a minority - I could be wrong here, I've never done a full survey. Again, as part of a balanced representation it would be fine - but the crux of the matter is that it's harder to show trans women without obvious facial hair. 

There are other risks too. Off the top of my head, it would reinforce in certain circles stereotypes against trans women in the UK particularly that are currently doing us damage. For instance, there's a growing voice against self-identification - based on dodgy reporting in the media on what self-ID actually is and reinforced by certain personalities online (not here, I add). There's a perception that self-ID would allow any man to declare himself a woman and immediately be allowed into women's spaces, and I have seen propaganda that plays on this fear which leans hard on the image of a "man in a dress" with very clumsy presentation. Self-identification is actually making a statutory declaration regarding gender - a legal document signed in the presence of a solicitor - rather than the current system of following arbitrary standards of presentation for a period of several years in order to be eligible to legally change gender marker.

I will respond to the rest of your comment later - as I have to rush off to work now! I'm not ignoring the rest of it. 

[danth]

3 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

But, that is their viewpoint. Is it also intolerant to not accept that not everyone will accept LGBTQIA+ as it is against their opinions and lifestyle?

Intolerance of intolerance is not only justified, it is required for a functioning society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It's just like self defense: violence is wrong, unless it's done to stop someone from doing violence.

[allanp]

2 hours ago, danth said:

Intolerance of intolerance is not only justified, it is required for a functioning society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It's just like self defense: violence is wrong, unless it's done to stop someone from doing violence.

Intolerance exists on both sides, from those who think trans people should be shunned into the shadows, but also from those who seek to punish and silence those who use "the wrong" pronoun, or just don't agree that men should be allowed to use the women's bathroom or take part in women's sports. There is intolerance everywhere from everyone and in that respect everyone is certainly not awesome. But I get the idea that everyone is awesome is a positive feeling one, just not sure I can agree that the best way to promote that is to pick one intolerant side over another. Lego should just stay non political.

[Lira_Bricks]

9 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

To respond to the above quote, regarding the 'crass and offensive stereotypes', can you define them?

As for transgender people: the ending of Ace Venture for example. For some people "transgender = men in dresses fooling other people, sometimes for crime". Transgender women are just people trying to live their live normally. Other transgender people, like transgender men, are often ignored. Or depicted as "lesbian women who are just confused"

6 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

1. From my ignorant viewpoint, Eddie Izzard instantly springs to mind when you mention that. He's the first person I remember being openly trans and making me aware of it more than a subconscious thought.

She* damn it.

3 hours ago, danth said:

Intolerance of intolerance is not only justified, it is required for a functioning society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It's just like self defense: violence is wrong, unless it's done to stop someone from doing violence.

Fully agree. Some people here would justify the Nazi's if they came to power again >.>

42 minutes ago, allanp said:

Intolerance exists on both sides, from those who think trans people should be shunned into the shadows, but also from those who seek to punish and silence those who use "the wrong" pronoun, or just don't agree that men should be allowed to use the women's bathroom or take part in women's sports. There is intolerance everywhere from everyone and in that respect everyone is certainly not awesome. But I get the idea that everyone is awesome is a positive feeling one, just not sure I can agree that the best way to promote that is to pick one intolerant side over another. Lego should just stay non political.

1. The "punishment" for using the wrong pronoun is simply be told "no, I prefer pronoun <x>". The punishment intolerant people want to give transgender people go a bit further than that.

2. "men should be allowed to use the women's bathroom"? It is really obvious that you are one of those people that thinks "trans = men in dresses fooling other people, sometimes for crime"

You want these women to go to the men's bathroom? They were assigned male at birth... https://i.pinimg.com/originals/74/ea/a6/74eaa6c80596ae718169aa0a26c4d9bc.jpg (eurobricks does not want to load the image)

You want this man to go to the women's bathroom? He was assigned female at birth... https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_11/1460351/160316-bejamin-melzer-jpo-623a_10195d3684621d6e56fa7adaf5281d68.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg

3. "just not sure I can agree that the best way to promote that is to pick one intolerant side over another. " Thank you for not reading previous discussions

Edited May 25, 2021 by Lira_Bricks
Cleaned up post

[Lira_Bricks]

5 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

There is a small population in the Dominican Republic that has girls born that do not experience developmental testosterone until they hit puberty around age 12 and become fully functional men after being a girl for the first 12 years of their lives.  Yes, really.

I never heard about that before, interesting :)

[allanp]

@Lira_Bricks I didn't mean any nastyness. It's just a different point of view. I may be wrong and ignorant, but I am not nasty or bigoted and will not be made to feel as such. I just haven't found *some* of the arguments of the trans community to be as persuasive as others. I don't think I should be made to apologize for that. This should not offend anyone but for some reason it does, which to me looks like some of the intolerance I was talking about. We have different lives and different lived experiences which will necessarily lead to different points of view, and we have to allow for that without resorting to calling each other nasty. I may disagree but will fight for your right to say it sort of thing. I really didn't mean to cause any hurt feelings, so unless you would like me continue (I really don't mind either way) I shall bow out if this discussion. 

I really didn't mean anything in a nasty way. I would like to extend my hopes of peace and love to you as fellow traveller in life. 

[Lira_Bricks]

28 minutes ago, allanp said:

I really didn't mean anything in a nasty way. I would like to extend my hopes of peace and love to you as fellow traveller in life. 

This is what I really cannot stand. "I don't mean to be nasty, I just don't want you to exist! But I still love you!"

Also, why do we transpeople even *need* to convince you?

30 minutes ago, allanp said:

This should not offend anyone but for some reason it does

In your previous post you insinuated that transwomen are men and that they should be banned from the women's bathroom. Want to explain to me how that is not offensive? Have you looked at the picture of the transgender women I posted? Do you want them to use an urinal next to you?

Banning transgender people from using the bathroom is not to protect women or children, it is to make life harder for transgender people. And yes, I mean it when I say banning. Transgender women would be banned from the women's bathroom if it was up to you, and banned from the men's bathroom, because you know, they are women and men would simply block the entrance.

[PhoenixBuilder]

While I'm going to quote posts here, my comments are meant more generally and not criticisms of these writers specifically. (Also my patience is beginning to run a little thin with this whole topic, so if I'm blunt, apologies in advance.)

11 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

We know LGBTQ(IA?) are people or a community, not stating the words 'community' or 'people' is being just a bit touchy.... Like, I'm not offended if someone refers to me as straight because they're dehumanising me by not acknowledging that I'm an actual human being!? It's implied. I know I'm a person. I know I'm included in the community of cisgender straight people (as much as sometimes I wish I was my own community... And I'm sure some people might wish me to be in my own community too... ), I don't need to be spoon-fed I'm a person too. Everyone knows you're people too. Keep the focus on the real issues and not on the excessive offensiveness.

This was me, I made that comment earlier in the thread. I'm going to put the first part of my response to this in spoiler tags, as I'm not sure what this forum's policies are in terms of ... adult conversations:

Spoiler

The reason behind this request is that there is a history of LGBTQ people being defined by sex acts, and those sex acts being considered disgusting or perverted etc. Adding the word 'person' gives a greater sense of the personhood of an LGBTQ person, not being defined by how they have sex and the stigma that comes along with that, and acknowledges that there is more to the identity than just that. Of course it should be implied that we're all people, but typically if someone uses a term like 'why does LGBTQ want _____', it raises a red flag. For that reason, it's not comparable to referring to the experience of being straight / cis as there is an understanding by default that those elements are not the defining part of a person.

Even if you can't / don't want to read that spoiler tag, I'm gonna turn this question around -- what is the cost to you of adding in the word 'person' if someone asks? If it makes people feel more valued as people, and requires a few keystrokes, why not do it? The same goes for using pronouns that people request. Society is totally used to women changing their names after marriage, no one bats an eyelid, so what is the struggle when people ask to be recognised as people / individuals ask for certain pronouns to be used / survivors of sexual violence ask to be called survivors and not victims? (Again, not directed at the original comment here at all!)

2 hours ago, allanp said:

 

Intolerance exists on both sides, from those who think trans people should be shunned into the shadows, but also from those who seek to punish and silence those who use "the wrong" pronoun, or just don't agree that men should be allowed to use the women's bathroom or take part in women's sports. There is intolerance everywhere from everyone and in that respect everyone is certainly not awesome. But I get the idea that everyone is awesome is a positive feeling one, just not sure I can agree that the best way to promote that is to pick one intolerant side over another. Lego should just stay non political.

This argument about 'intolerance on both sides' keeps being raised and is utterly vacuous. The core difference here is that people who seek to judge or shame or disrespect LGBTQ+ people are projecting their values and judgements onto the lives of LGBTQ+ people, and the same is not being done in response. The vast, vast majority of people who campaign against civil rights for LGBTQ+ people, who campaign against same sex marriage, who bar LGBTQ+ people from accessing necessary medical services, are not part of the community, and yet have decided that they get to have a say in other people's lives. LGBTQ+ people (typically) are not advocating that, for example, those with religious convictions that do not accept us should be banned from practicing their religion. We aren't trying to insert our beliefs or values into anyone else's life, but that is what is being done to us. All we're asking for is to be seen and acknowledged and respected for who we are, and to be treated at the same level as straight people. That's why pronouns are important. That's why feeling safe in a bathroom is important. That's why having a Lego set made about you is important! 

One other point while I'm here: I don't expect everyone to have an intuitive knowledge of all of this stuff, but I do think it is not the responsibility of LGBTQ+ people on this forum to answer every question or argue everyone's 'devil's advocate' arguments about LGBTQ+ people. If you have a question, I'd encourage you to Google an answer first -- there are many activists and advocates who have written about most of these topics, and I think many of the questions being raised can be answered there without putting a weighty responsibility on LGBTQ+ members here. I, as a cis man, would hold myself to that when it comes to trans issues: I don't believe I have any knowledge of what gender dysphoria is like to experience, nor am I directly affected by issues facing the trans community, but much of the knowledge I'm lacking I've found through blog posts, social media, and articles written by brave and admirable trans people. (If a question is still outstanding, of course I'd bring it to my friends, but only if / when they're comfortable having that conversation)

Having said that, I am desperately trying to make at least some of the experience of being queer relatable or understandable for the straight people in this thread, but honestly it is becoming exhausting and upsetting. Please, just let us have this one Lego set. It's depressing when any tiny sense of recognition or representation we get has to be picked apart over and over again.

Edited May 25, 2021 by PhoenixBuilder
Added second last para

[allanp]

@Lira_Bricks the difference of opinion we have is so fundamental that we shall never agree. The difference is that I'm fine with that while you are not.

I never once said nor implied that I don't want you to exist. Far from it. If I saw a man physically abusing you I would fight him to protect your existence. If for example, I claimed to be 30 years old, when physically I am not in fact 30 years old, then you disagreeing with my claim that I am 30 years old would in no way deny my existence as a human being. It would simply mean that you disagree with one singular claim that I make about myself. This does not invalidate anyone's existence or prove any existence of hate or intolerance from anyone. 

The toilet issue I admit is a tricky one to answer in a way that would satisfy everyone. I'd be happy with having all public toilets being genderless as long as they are clearly defined as such. 

@PhoenixBuilder actually many in the trans community are demanding that I do not follow my own ethical moral code. When someone is born a male (and I'm not talking to the very few that are intersex) then they transition to becoming a female, to them that is their truth, to them, it is not a lie and comes from a place of trying to live their truth and I fully understand and accept that. But to me, refering to someone that was born a male as "she" is a lie. I'm fine with those born biologically male identifying their selves as female. But many are not fine with me identifying those born male as "he". 

I am happy to try to explain further if you guys wish, but I'm also happy to just live and let live. I won't continue this unless there are any specific questions for me.