zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
I'm a gay man and I think we are going to far with this PC nonsense. I had a hard time growing up in the 90s knowing I was different and being tormented by my peers, so I'm happy to see gay "normalized" in current pop culture more because I think it teaches the younger generation to accept themselves and others. However I feel that it's going to far, for example I started reading a novel the other day but gave up a third of the way through because every character was some form of LGBT or interracial or something. It made the story seem fake and unrealistic. I think editing classic books is wrong even if it is covering up something like hate or bigotry. History forgotten is history bound to repeat itself.

>>double+ls1
> I started reading a novel the other day but gave up a third of the way through because every character was some form of LGBT or interracial or something. It made the story seem fake and unrealistic.

Sounds like a great book. Nearly all of my friends are trans, as I like to be around other trans people. It’s nice to be understood without constant questions. I’m an adult and I live in a very queer area. For younger queer people that live in more conservative places, full of people that don’t understand them or are actively hostile, stories of healthy queer community can give those people hope for a better life. These things are extremely important to a lot of young queer people and even as an adult I prefer stories that have realistic trans representation for people like me - which means everyone is some kind of queer.

It sounds like the story just wasn’t for you but it strikes me as totally realistic to have a book with primarily or only queer characters. These people congregate in groups because they understand each other better.

>>Taylor+9x1
> it strikes me as totally realistic to have a book with primarily or only queer characters

It doesn’t strike me as realistic at all. Queer people need to be able to deal with heteronormative people as much as the reverse.

Otherwise you’re just self selecting into ghettos. I don’t think it can really be avoided, but to present it as desirable strikes me as wrong.

>>Aeolun+vJ1
There is a massive difference between a ghetto that a group is forced to be in, excluded from the outside world, and a community built where one feels accepted and safe which one can enter and leave at will (free association). As long as outside this community is not properly welcoming and accepting its need to exist will be there. It’s the outside world that needs to change first. Discouraging such communities is basically asking those in need of that community to do most of the hard work.

>>jahnu+HQ1
> It’s the outside world that needs to change first.

That is never going to happen if you’re not part of that outside world. Queer people should be normalized, not hidden. Though it’s absolutely true it’ll suck for the ones alive now, it might make it better for the ones born three generations from now.

>>Aeolun+mO3
I disagree because history has shown this is the way it goes. For example, it did happen for gay men to a large extent in the western world. This is a gross generalisation for the sake of discussion on here, but until recent decades almost all gay men had to hide and needed spaces where they could just be themselves with like minded and mostly gay people. The outside world eventually changed and then these spaces became more open to non gay people. Not everyone in those communities was happy with that but many felt it was the price to pay for general acceptance and improved equality. See what happened to the Castro area gay bars in S.F. and the debates about the fact that they became popular with straight people once being gay became accepted in general society.

The idea isn’t that marginalised groups should hide and not mingle at all but that they should have a refuge they can retreat to because the outside world is too harsh right now.