Belial wrote: And while I don't see the utility in opposing same-sex marriage for that reason, I understand how someone sufficiently pissed off could see otherwise.
As I see it, not standing up to them means nothing is going to change for the rest of us. There's a history of this - for example, there was at least one bill that would have legalised sex between men, but set a higher age of consent (21) for all same-sex-fucking than for opposite-sex-fucking, which was rejected by a majority of the queer community. The people pushing the bill were mostly middle-aged gay men who would have been quite happy to set the age at 30 or 40 if that was what it took to pass it; since they got smacked down, we eventually got a law with equal ages of consent. If the original bill had passed, then amending it to make the ages equal would have been a hell of a lot harder - the opposing discourse would have been all "homosexuals want to have sex with your teenage kids", and
the old gay men would have opposed any change due to a fear of backlash. Being nice about it and staying neutral just lets them gain ground while we stay still, leaving us with more opponents in the long run.
It's actually been worse than that with gay marriage; while the bill was before parliament, the groups with a pro-marriage agenda were actively setting out to assimilate or squash all other queer activism. I was involved in a not-very-radical-but-left-of-the-marriage-groups queer group around this time, and not only did the pro-marriage group type out a page-long list (I shit you not) of things they didn't want us to do/say/chant (a lot of it was stuff like "don't mention polyamory", "don't call the opponents bigots", etc) on the march that they organised (though we did a lot of the actual work - placard-making etc), but they also got very aggressive about what we were doing and saying on our own marches that had nothing to do with marriage
. Over the course of the campaign I got a lot more shit from my supposed (pro-marriage) friends than from anyone who opposed marriage (and I helped set up the pro-marriage group in the first place; this stuff started well before I took an anti-marriage position), and it did proportionately more damage. The process of cisgays getting things like marriage is actively harmful to us unless we're getting what we need as part of the deal, at the same time or earlier.
T-Form wrote:The "battles we can win"/"don't worry, you're next" stuff is pretty much a mix of lying to us so they can get away with what they're doing, and lying to themselves because their self-image relies on the idea that they are good and progressive people (and they generally have at least some idea that they're doing something wrong).
Is it even the former at all? Do LGB people need T people's support (and would they be significantly affected by their opposition?) to achieve their ends?
I don't know. They certainly have benefited a lot from trans people; the modern gay rights movement was started by (and subsequently stolen from) trans women of colour. Whether they actually *need* trans people today is another matter - they'd have to do a lot more work without us for sure, but I don't know that that's enough. They might be in trouble if we could get a clear oppositional message out though, 'cause then the liberal cishets get mixed messages from queer people and don't know which ones to support, and if they're split then the right wing bastards will win against the liberal cisgay cause of the day. It probably *is* possible to get that message out since the right, who have the power to make that happen, would make those short-term gains from it. So basically yes, but we have to do this stupid brinkmanship thing to make it work :(
Azrael wrote:Where weird is 'call out one specific less-than-equal group who is not doing a good job supporting your other, separate such group and demand that they either coat-tail you or fail?
See the thing here is that even if the interests of the T are separate from those of the LGB, a hell of a lot of trans people are also queer in terms of sexuality - personally, I am losing out in the short term when gay rights stuff fails, but in the long run I lose more if it succeeds while trans rights stuff fails. So it's really not so much about two separate groups as one group that's been hijacked by the cisgay faction.
Also I should probably clarify that I'm less worried that trans rights will never be properly recognised, I'm more worried that we won't get very far along that track until long after I'm dead (and unless we change things, that progress would probably be achieved by screwing over someone else, probably intersex people).