Bangkok celebrates first ‘Pride Month’ with newly elected governor

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, jvs said:

I hope you don't mind i just quoted this part.

That is exactly it,you do not need to go and watch.Free choice.!

As long as it is a fun event with nobody being hurt people can do whatever they like!

I can imagine people want to express their true identity and when they have that chance,

do it!

Like you said before the Gay Pride on the canals in Amsterdam are one big party,

for every one i might mention.

Live and let live.

Yes and No.

The roots of Gay Pride are very much POLITICAL.

They started right after Stonewall and are now very much an international movement.

Marginalized groups seeking civil rights and freedom from oppression. 

In countries with less advanced or no LGBT civil rights and in times of waves of oppression (such as now in the U.S.) the parades if they are even legally allowed to happen will naturally be either more political or all political.

In very advanced countries like the Netherlands, they will be big parties and often even sometimes to the the point of being obnoxiously commercial and corporate. 

In many countries having these event is a dream or if they happen the participants are violently attacked. 

People that don't get the meaning of these parades with an international and historical context might consider looking deeper into it.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

42 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Maybe maybe not

A lot of straights go with ladyboys

That's an interesting angle. Since so many straights assume ladyboy fans are bi or gay, it seems to me they would be roughly included under the alphabet umbrella  (even though most are indeed straight).

 

To add speaking as one person, I am not thrilled with the evolution of Gay Pride into alphabet soup that opens us up so easily to satire and derision. In the early days even lesbians were sort of open with associating with that simpler banner. But things change (alot) and even with the downsides the alphabet does expand the coalition and you can't turn back time. For example gays of a certain age still see queer as an ugly slur but many younger gays embrace it.  

Edited June 8, 2022 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Perhaps she is either threatened by her own sexuality, or the fact that it is nearly impossible for her to manifest a single nanogram of femininity. The last thing in the world, this planet needs to worry about is having less straight people around. Talk about a misguided soul. Greene is quite possibly insane. At a minimum, she is completely unhinged. 

 

Or she has been attending church services, but not doing any inner work, whatsoever. A Christian in name only. Wouldn't that make her a CINO? Lastly, it is possible she is simply bought and paid for, pandering to her lobbyists, and voters. 

I think she knows exactly what she's doing which in my estimation makes her evil and dangerous.

[Sparktrader]

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's an interesting angle. Since so many straights assume ladyboy fans are bi or gay, it seems to me they would be roughly included under the alphabet umbrella  (even though most are indeed straight).

 

To add speaking as one person, I am not thrilled with the evolution of Gay Pride into alphabet soup that opens us up so easily to satire and derision. In the early days even lesbians were sort of open with associating with that simpler banner. But things change (alot) and even with the downsides the alphabet does expand the coalition and you can't turn back time. For example gays of a certain age still see queer as an ugly slur but many younger gays embrace it.  

Maybe bis and others felt left out

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Maybe bis and others felt left out

Bi are included with B. 

[Sparktrader]

What does N stand for?

[Jingthing]

Just now, Sparktrader said:

What does N stand for?

I don't know. Did I miss an addition?

[Sparktrader]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's an interesting angle. Since so many straights assume ladyboy fans are bi or gay, it seems to me they would be roughly included under the alphabet umbrella  (even though most are indeed straight).

 

To add speaking as one person, I am not thrilled with the evolution of Gay Pride into alphabet soup that opens us up so easily to satire and derision. In the early days even lesbians were sort of open with associating with that simpler banner. But things change (alot) and even with the downsides the alphabet does expand the coalition and you can't turn back time. For example gays of a certain age still see queer as an ugly slur but many younger gays embrace it.  

All these names are slurs i think. Tom, Mary etc is better.

 

If Tom likes baseball and penis why talk about the later? 

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I don't know. Did I miss an addition?

Sign in picture has N

[Sparktrader]

Non binary

 

 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Sign in picture has N

Corrected. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Jingthing

[Sparktrader]

I should win a prize

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Non binary

 

 

It's hard to keep up even for alphabet people! 

[Sparktrader]

IABIMD - Im a billionaire in my dreams

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

IABIMD - Im a billionaire in my dreams

Good for you. I can't even realistically dream of such a thing. 

[johnnybangkok]

43 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's an interesting angle. Since so many straights assume ladyboy fans are bi or gay, it seems to me they would be roughly included under the alphabet umbrella  (even though most are indeed straight).

 

To add speaking as one person, I am not thrilled with the evolution of Gay Pride into alphabet soup that opens us up so easily to satire and derision. In the early days even lesbians were sort of open with associating with that simpler banner. But things change (alot) and even with the downsides the alphabet does expand the coalition and you can't turn back time. For example gays of a certain age still see queer as an ugly slur but many younger gays embrace it.  

I applaud you sir for your patience and thoroughness when replying to many of the misguided and badly educated on here who think they have a valid point when they haven't even taken the minimum of time to do the minimum of research.

Familiar tropes such as 'I'm fine with it.....but don't wave it in my face' or 'It causes more discomfort than acceptance' and of course the obligitory attempt to associate it with peodophilia are used time and time again to legitimise what is basically homophobia and despite decades of education (thanks mostly to the good work of the early gay community) people still come back to the same, tired old nonsense that's been debunked decades ago. So to help all you people out, here's a quick summary:-

1. People are born LGBTQ+. It's not a 'lifestyle choice' or how their mum brought them up. This is self evident as who in their right mind would choose to be ostricised, bullied and discriminated against?

2. LGBTQ+ are LGBTQ+ and peodophiles are peodophiles. They are two VERY different things.

3. Gay Pride marches vary from country to country depending on how that country treats it's LGBTQ+ community. For example, Gay Pride in London is more akin to Mardi Gras whereas Gay Pride in Thailand will be more militant as Thailand still doesn't recognise same sex marriage and won't let the likes of ladyboys be ladies.

4. The acronym LGBTQ+ will probably continue to grow as more people of a distinctive orientation come forward. Why would this bother you? 

5. Children are not being taught to be LGBTQ+. They are however being taught that's it's ok if you are LGBTQ+. BIG difference. 

 

And finally, if you don't like it or are offended by it then don't go and watch it and there's also no need to comment on it. It's really that simple.  

 

 

  

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I applaud you sir for your patience and thoroughness when replying to many of the misguided and badly educated on here who think they have a valid point when they haven't even taken the minimum of time to do the minimum of research.

Familiar tropes such as 'I'm fine with it.....but don't wave it in my face' or 'It causes more discomfort than acceptance' and of course the obligitory attempt to associate it with peodophilia are used time and time again to legitimise what is basically homophobia and despite decades of education (thanks mostly to the good work of the early gay community) people still come back to the same, tired old nonsense that's been debunked decades ago. So to help all you people out, here's a quick summary:-

1. People are born LGBTQ+. It's not a 'lifestyle choice' or how their mum brought them up. This is self evident as who in their right mind would choose to be ostricised, bullied and discriminated against?

2. LGBTQ+ are LGBTQ+ and peodophiles are peodophiles. They are two VERY different things.

3. Gay Pride marches vary from country to country depending on how that country treats it's LGBTQ+ community. For example, Gay Pride in London is more akin to Mardi Gras whereas Gay Pride in Thailand will be more militant as Thailand still doesn't recognise same sex marriage and won't let the likes of ladyboys be ladies.

4. The acronym LGBTQ+ will probably continue to grow as more people of a distinctive orientation come forward. Why would this bother you? 

5. Children are not being taught to be LGBTQ+. They are however being taught that's it's ok if you are LGBTQ+. BIG difference. 

 

And finally, if you don't like it or are offended by it then don't go and watch it and there's also no need to comment on it. It's really that simple.  

 

 

  

Thank you for your excellent post. 

I would only differ on the born part. While obviously NOT a choice, the science is still out and quite complicated on etiologies as far as the mix of genetics and environment. I think probably a portion of gay people were born to inevitably be gay (I tend to think I was based on my memories of being 5 years old) but I think it's too early and perhaps never the time to say it's always 100 percent genetic. 

From a civil rights POV, I don't think it should matter anyway. We are what we are. We don't ask how straight people became straight. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Jingthing

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Thank you for your excellent post. 

I would only differ on the born part. While obviously NOT a choice, the science is still out and quite complicated on etiologies as far as the mix of genetics and environment. I think probably a portion of gay people were born to inevitably be gay (I tend to think I was based on my memories of being 5 years old) but I think it's too early and perhaps never the time to say it's always 100 percent genetic. 

From a civil rights POV, I don't think it should matter anyway. We are what we are. We don't ask how straight people became straight. 

Yes, the elusive 'gay gene'. 
As much as it hasn't been found I still think it's more nature than nurture from all the studies that have been done, especially on twins (with one being gay and one not). Although anecdotal, I have first hand experience of this with a very good gay friend of mine being almost exactly 1 year younger than his brother but his brother being heterosexual. Both were bought up in a mining town in the North of England, both went to the same school, both of course had the same parents (and his dad was VERY Northern and completly homophobic) yet he turned out gay whilst his brother didn't. 

As you say though, it doesn't matter. You are what you are and should be accepted for that regardless. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Yes, the elusive 'gay gene'. 
As much as it hasn't been found I still think it's more nature than nurture from all the studies that have been done, especially on twins (with one being gay and one not). Although anecdotal, I have first hand experience of this with a very good gay friend of mine being almost exactly 1 year younger than his brother but his brother being heterosexual. Both were bought up in a mining town in the North of England, both went to the same school, both of course had the same parents (and his dad was VERY Northern and completly homophobic) yet he turned out gay whilst his brother didn't. 

As you say though, it doesn't matter. You are what you are and should be accepted for that regardless. 

I think it would be much better if there isn't a gay gene. If there is autocratic regimes will edit them out and less autocratic regimes would offer edits as option. Yes without straight people or at least straight sex gay people would be nowheresville.

[OneMoreFarang]

And then somewhere things get too far. What's next?

 

Sajid Javid criticises changes to NHS pages removing word ‘women’

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/08/sajid-javid-criticises-changes-to-nhs-pages-removing-word-women

 

[RJRS1301]

On 6/6/2022 at 4:28 PM, proton said:

I would suggest NORMAL for that ????

 

[Jingthing]

33 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And then somewhere things get too far. What's next?

 

Sajid Javid criticises changes to NHS pages removing word ‘women’

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/08/sajid-javid-criticises-changes-to-nhs-pages-removing-word-women

 

You're just trying to hijack this topic with more hateful fear mongering.

Read the article and you can see it's just about trying to be inclusive to all people with ovaries regardless of their identification.

What's next?

I'm sure in the paranoid imaginations of some homophobes, some pretty scary but not real stuff. Perhaps gay marriage being required?

Edited June 8, 2022 by Jingthing

[Mac Mickmanus]

41 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're just trying to hijack this topic with more hateful fear mongering.

Read the article and you can see it's just about trying to be inclusive to all people with ovaries regardless of their identification.

What's next?

I'm sure in the paranoid imaginations of some homophobes, some pretty scary but not real stuff. Perhaps gay marriage being required?

A person who was born a female with ovaries and now still has ovaries but is now a man  , he may feel that as hes not  Woman , if the written title is "Womans ovarian cancer issues" , he would think that that cancer wouldnt apply to him, because hes not a woman 

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

A person who was born a female with ovaries and now still has ovaries but is now a man  , he may feel that as hes not  Woman , if the written title is "Womans ovarian cancer issues" , he would think that that cancer wouldnt apply to him, because hes not a woman 

They know their own biological histories better than anyone. Whatever language health services use the actual problem globally with trans men is often being made to feel very unwelcome for female services. Yes using inclusive language tells them they will be treated with humane respect.

 

Also this is getting SUPER OFF TOPIC to gay pride parades.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Jingthing

[johnnybangkok]

On 6/8/2022 at 7:13 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

And then somewhere things get too far. What's next?

 

Sajid Javid criticises changes to NHS pages removing word ‘women’

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/08/sajid-javid-criticises-changes-to-nhs-pages-removing-word-women

 

What on earth does this have to do with the topic at hand?
And as explained to you by Jingthing all this 'woke' stuff that so many of you get your knickers in a twist about is simply to try and be less prejudice and more inclusive of those that have been in the past, victimised for their sexual orientation or gender preference. 
I really don't get why this bothers so many people. Is it affecting you personally? Does it affect anyone you know? Has it made the world a worst place? If the answer to these is 'no' then you really shouldn't be getting yourself so worked up about it. It's an obvious dog whistle from the far-right and/or religious zealots, both of whom rely on harking back to Victorian times or at least to the 1950's.

The world is moving forward so either become part of the solution or at the very least, try not to be part of the problem.    

[simon43]

On 6/6/2022 at 11:06 AM, Sparktrader said:

LGBTQIA+ is an inclusive term that includes people of all genders and sexualities, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, intersex, asexual, pansexual, and allies.

Er ... you missed out heterosexual.  Surely that is a sexuality as well?

 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Er ... you missed out heterosexual.  Surely that is a sexuality as well?

 

Yeah he did..

The alphabet thingie is about trying to include all sexual minorites. Heterosexual majorities are included in societies automatically.

.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

...

The world is moving forward so either become part of the solution or at the very least, try not to be part of the problem.    

Too late for that.

[Jai Dee]

A baiting troll post as well as a reply have been removed.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Jai Dee

[Rimmer]

Off topic video removed