• flicker@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t like the idea of expanding the acronym to intentionally place someone “first.”

    Everyone has an equal place at the table and this feels like a great way to start the kind of stupid infighting that I’ve found exhausting since I first heard a man claim that he didn’t have an interest in a community that spent any time and energy fighting for anything but his needs. At a Pride parade in the late nineties ffs.

    Additionally, it feels hollow in the same way that corporate pride feels. “You haven’t been represented appropriately in this community up until now, but look! You’re first!

    • Grant_MOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      More allies are needed, not less. It’s great to know there is one in the Senate. Haven’t you been paying attention to what bigot Moe and his far right government are doing in Saskatchewan?

      • flicker@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Adding is absolutely not the issue here. I think I was pretty clear on that. There is room for everyone in our world.

        It’s the intentional effort to put one group before all others, especially when that group has been vastly under-supported, historically.

    • Victor Villas
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      like a great way to start the kind of stupid infighting

      How much infighting regarding this have you been seeing? From where I stand, it has been pretty smooth sailing. The LGBTQIA+ community reaction I’ve seen varies between “meh, whatever” to “yeah that’s kinda cool”.

      • flicker@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I specifically referenced an incident but there were others. Did you finish reading that sentence?

        • Victor Villas
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          That was in the nineties? I mean infighting specifically due to that 2S change. Also, chill.

          • flicker@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I absolutely haven’t heard anyone infighting about this thing I’m hearing about for the first time, and also am referencing other times we added things and people engaged in infighting, since last behavior can often help predict future.

            I take issue with putting a specific group first, intentionally, and can tell you (now that I’ve had a day) that the first indigenous person I asked about it said that it was “bullshit” because it feels “placating” to persons historically unrepresented and oppressed. Which does support my concern even if n=1.

            For clarity, he is neither cisgender, nor heteronormative in any fashion.