ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

Religion is only a protected characteristic in that someone cannot be targeted with hate for being an adherent of a particular religion. So if someone were to say "Die, Muslim scum," that would be protected. Criticizing religious dogma or stances, or even criticizing an individual for following religious doctrine is not protected. And Christians in particular are not members of an oppressed group in the way that Muslims in Western nations are, for instance, and are much less subject to being targeted with hate, if at all.

Would it be okay then, and not discrimination if Person A were to deride and harshly criticize, or to demonize 'gay culture'? I mean, no individual is having any specific homophobia directed at them, so that is or would be okay?

When people mock or criticize religion, in a way that appears to be hateful based on language used and words chosen for that purpose, is that not religiophobia? There are comments in this thread that at the very least, demonstrate misotheism and which have more than whiff of religiophobia about them.

There's no such thing as gay culture. There are only gay people. Anytime you speak ill of being gay, you are attacking gay people. Being religious is not the same as being gay, but this has already been explained to you countless times. I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or if you really don't understand.

Anytime someone disagrees with a belief that you have, that is not hate. It can be rude and you can not like it. But that's all.

^^^ I think you are just taking part of what I said and focusing on that and arguing about that. In the original post I made that you are referring to, I was making a broader point, and you have picked up on a part of what I said, which was an example to illustrate the point I was making.

But okay, fine, some people do experience discrimination, even when they do not have the characteristics that they are being discriminated against with?

You seem to have a habit of confidently declaring that "there is no *insert here something that exists*"

Here is a link to the definition of LGBTQ culture. Gay culture is indeed real, and comes under the umbrella of LGBTQ culture:

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

You make it sound like being an activist organization is a bad thing, and you apparently think that, but that is simply wrong.

The purpose of activism is to make the world better for everyone, and in this case for LGBT+ folks in particular.

The only objection I can see one can have to GLAAD is if one is homophobic and doesn't want the equality and rights for LGBT+ people that GLAAD is fighting for.

No, I think that activists and their organizations have agendas that make them untrustworthy, and I'm correct in that, it's literally what they do.



Wrong again, the purpose of activism is to pursue an agenda, which could be anything from lowering taxes to getting religion in or out of government to environmental policy, the term in and of itself has no moral valence, it only denotes that a person or organization is pursuing an end. As to GLAAD in particular, they pursue a version of LGBTQ+ advocacy that contains a heavy dose of Queer Theory that I object to, and they also have a poor track record on honest reporting, such as protesting the NYT for publishing accurate articles on trans issues and smearing talented journalists who question their orthodoxy.



That's entirely a failure on your part.

This thread is giving me heavy flashbacks to how woke social justice was largely birthed online from the ruins of the atheism+ movement, right down to the anti-religious acting exactly in the way they always complained about the churches acting, suppressing dissent, cracking down on heretics, calling for blasphemy to be silenced, etc. It's not exactly horseshoe theory, more like the narcissism of small differences mixing with cluster b personality disorders.

You haven't said if you are LGBT+ and you don't have to say, but if you're not, you have no business objecting to queer theory or any other view that comes from an actual LGBT+ perspective on NYT articles or anything else.

Employed by prominent anti-LGBTQ accounts and similar to the trope “transgenderism,” “gender ideology” is a malicious rhetorical construct that falsely asserts that LGBTQ — notably trans — people are an ideological movement rather than an intrinsic identity.

As the ADL notes, “proponents of the phrase often use it to oppose school curricula that feature and/or celebrate LGBTQ+ history or experiences, falsely claiming that such materials promote the sexualization of minors and/or coerce children into identifying as members of the LGBTQ+ community.” The Southern Poverty Law Center adds: “Anti-LGBTQ+ groups often employ the term to claim any kind of positive affirmation of trans young people is a nefarious method of creating or recruiting new trans kids.” On Twitter/X, for example, far-right outlet The Daily Wire widely promoted a speech by anti-trans commentator Matt Walsh, who said in April 2023, “I truly see the fight against gender ideology as the last stand for Western civilization.” Other extremist accounts have used the phrase as a dog whistle to spread animus against trans people. That same month, Gays Against Groomers posted across Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter/X: “Gender ideology must be completely abolished and destroyed.”

According to some studies researching the origin of the phrase, “gender ideology” as an anti-LGBTQ trope can be traced back to Catholic conservative groups in the U.S. in the 1990s. In recent years, anti-LGBTQ groups, commentators, and political figures around the world have employed the phrase — on social platforms, in mass media, and in legal contexts — to dehumanize trans people and oppose LGBTQ rights.

Like its buzzword brother “fake news,” “gender ideology” hasn’t taken long crossing borders into nationalist lexicons. The vacuous but dangerous term was adopted by the Holy See decades ago to refer to a supposed gay and feminist-led movement to subvert traditional families and social values, a reaction against the rights of women and expanding protections for sexual and gender minorities.

Since then, it has developed into a catch-all phrase and short-hand for various anxieties about social change—a Hydra-like global conspiracy myth that, despite being mildly ridiculous and readily exposed, has significant traction.

In recent years, “gender ideology” has been used as a secular rallying cry against same-sex marriage in France, an alliance-building initiative between nationalists and religious conservatives in Poland, a boost to anti-Muslim groups in Austria, a popularity enhancer for Costa Rican presidential hopeful Fabricio Alvarado, and a mobilizing tool against the recent peace accord in Colombia.

Which is a lot. How can one concept have so many purposes?

In France, anti-gender activists tried to frame the marriage equality debate around protection of children within traditional families under threat from a foreign ideology; in Poland, nationalists and conservatives rallied around an idea presented as dangerously cosmopolitan and against church teachings; in Austria, anti-immigrant groups suggested a link between gender progressives and immigrants—both accused of undermining the social fabric; in eastern Europe, anti-gender activists mobilized against the Istanbul Convention on combatting violence against women, because it was said to legitimize transgender identity claims; in Costa Rica, an outlier in the 2018 presidential election did surprisingly well by conjuring up a threat to the gender order; and in Colombia, citizens opposed to the peace accords suggested that the deal was the thin edge of a sinister “gender ideology” wedge.

“Gender ideology” has also insinuated itself into mainstream US politics where its deployment is evident in domestic and foreign policy initiatives. In 2016, Roger Severino, then-director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the conservative Washington-based Heritage Foundation, blamed the inclusion of transgender troops on a “radical new gender ideology”; in 2017 Trump appointed him director of the Office for Civil Rights at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The recently leaked HHS memo that seeks to define gender as binary and immutable, and US attempts to remove the word “gender” from United Nations documents, stem from fears of “gender ideology.”

At its root, the practice of raising the specter of undefined “gender ideology” aims to curtail sexual and reproductive rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equality by playing on people’s fear of social change and claiming a global conspiracy of great influence and scale. Where advances are made in women’s empowerment or in non-discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, those decrying “gender ideology” see dark forces at work to destroy the social order.

Some have referred to the term as “symbolic glue,” or an “empty signifier”: it simultaneously means nothing and everything, but is consistently used to attack feminism, transgender equality, the existence of intersex bodies, the elimination of sex stereotyping, family law reform, same-sex marriage, access to abortion, contraception and comprehensive sexuality education.

Exposing it for what it is—a fantasy of a gender and sexuality conspiracy—and loosening its grip on public debate is crucial in the years ahead to ensure this myth does not shape policy and limit women’s reproductive rights and the rights of sexual and gender minorities.

The anti-gender movement has successfully consolidated disparate constituencies around a flimsy but effective moral panic over gender and sexuality. The women’s movement and LGBT advocates pushing back would do well to learn from their opponents’ playbook—sexuality and gender issues are indeed linked—and mobilize jointly around fundamental rights to dignity, bodily autonomy, access to information, the right to live free from violence and discrimination, and freedom of association and expression.

Thank you; I was absolutely unprepared for the treatment I received.

You said some pretty terrible things. Bigoted, hateful, and hurtful things.

You were treated more kindly and compassionately by most people here than you deserved.

Since I have already requested specifics on how I attacked you personally, and you have failed to provide evidence, I am left with the conclusion that I am simply being accused of general "things" without merit.



Again, we disagree.

See, there they go again

They have an entire NGO industrial complex that churns out all of these authoritative sounding "findings", all carefully curated so as to always agree with their ideology. Treat them as you would any other religion, as that's what they are.

I never said you attacked me personally.

You disparaged vulnerable members of protected groups, which is much more hurtful and offensive to me than any slight directed at me personally.