Home » Black People » Persuasive Essay On Gay Race

Persuasive Essay On Gay Race

“Where do we draw the line? I get it, the Black and hispanic community deserve their rights, they are people, I get it. But racially mixed bathrooms?? Like, you’re joking right? You can give me all the stats about Black men and how they don’t rape our white women, but this is asking for problems. Our country for some reason has tried to please everyone, tried to make sure no ones feelings get hurt and now we no longer have a line… this is ridiculous, get mad at me for posting this. Idc, you know this is bad and you know this is gonna cause issues.

Quit fighting for your feelings and wake up, realize how bad this could go and how much this affects the future of our culture and society. ” – Cleatus T. Racist circa 1959 Using “the saftey of children” or “women” or “the future of culture and society” as an excuse to subgegate people who are different. There are litterally people who believed (and still believe) that you, a black man, would at the first oppurtunity, post desegragation, rape their white children if you were allowed to go to school with them. That if minorities were allowed to use the same bathroom as whites, “the future of culture and society” would unravel and fall apart.

The problem with this way of thinking is that you are assuming that all or even some transgender people are sexual predators who seek to commit perverse sexual acts with their newly granted EQUAL rights. You assume they can’t be trusted with that much responsibility. Just like Cleatus assumed that all minorities wouldn’t be able to deal with the responsibility of voting or attending desegregated schools or sitting with whites at a lunch counter, or god forbid, interacial relationships. The reason that is a, not only wrong, but INVALID argument is that it’s already illegal to sexually assault someone.

Anywhere, a bathroom, a desegregated school, or even on an interacial date. This is the same argument used against those that opposed interacial relationships, or even homsexual realtionships. Those that opposed desegregation, interacial relationships and homosexual relationships used exactly the same arguments you used above. If someone tries to sexually assault someone in a public restroom it is already illegal. We have laws that protect us from that, from anyone. I have never heard you complaining about how those laws don’t work, until now.

But now that you want to subjugate an already disenfranchised minority (and make no mistake about it, thats what you are doing by telling someone “You can’t because you’re different”), now those laws are no longer enough of a deterent. Now, you feel that because there are going to be people you disagree with having the rights that you have, you feel that its appropriate to call them sexual deviants, and miscreants in defense of your subgigation of them. This is exactly the same argument that people who were against ending segregation used.

If you believe that these people being afforded these rights is dangerous because they are suffering from some sort of pyschological ailment that makes them sexual deviants, then why haven’t you ever voiced your opinion about lesbians being allowed to go to the restroom with your children or wife? (whichever you are using at the moment to give yourself permission to subgigate an already disenfranchised minority) They are sexually attracted to women. We know this, LoL. Jackson Roye and you, Isaac both mention choice and that is the crux of your invalid arguments.

But for a moment for this analogy lets assume the lesbians in my example above, “made a choice” (as you would have us believe) to be homosexual. Why is it that you have never voiced opposition to them using the restroom with your wife or children? Could it be because if someone goes into a public restroom and tries to watch people use the restroom, they are breaking the law? Could it be because someone going into a public restroom and exposing themselves to someone, is already against the law? Those laws seem to be working pretty well.

I’ve never heard you complain about letting gay men use the same restroom as you and I’ve never heard you complain about letting lesbians use the restroom with “your children or wife. ” Could it be that you believe these laws work as a deterent? Or could it be that you don’t dehumanize homosexuals, the same way you have chosen to dehumanize transgender people? It’s probably a combonation of the two. Jackson Roye’s quote, “All lines have been crossed, i wondering when pedophilia will be considered a sexual preference. Years ago homosexuality, transgendered, and it didnt happen then but furries would have been viewed as mental disorders.

Now its natural, the norm almost. Children at a very young age are allowed to decide their gender, if you’re letting a small child decide that then why cant you let them decide to consent to pedophiles. ” This assertion is ultimatley invalid because it is based on the incorrect assumption that “children” or anyone for that matter, choose to be transgender. You either are transgender or you aren’t. No one is allowed to choose their gender identity and consent has absolutley no bearing on passive state, such as being transgender. The children are who and what they are whether or not you deny them the actualization of this self image.

As for your remarks about mental disorders, “Now it’s natural,the norm almost. “, makes it sound like you think it would be better if Homosexuality, Transgender and furries should classified as mental disorders again. I hope thats not the case. Especially about the first two. You also say, “Children at a very young age are allowed to decide their gender, if you’re letting a small child decide that then why cant you let them decide to consent to pedophiles. ” Your assumtion that consent is invovled in how someone, of any age, is invalid as it is based on the false assumtion that you can give someone consent to be.

Your analogy between consent to perform an act and a passive state (being transgender) is therefore also invalid. Concent implies an agreement. There must be a choice between resistance and acquiescence. You do not make a choice about a state of being. Thus there is no validity to your statement Which brings us to, as I mentioned before, the crux of your invalid argument, making this issue about choice. By definition, a transgender person is not making a choice. If they were making a choice they would be a man pretending to be a woman or a woman pretending to be a man.

This is often confused as choice because the act of realizing their self image (through dress or surgery or whatever) is accompanied by admitting these feelings they have had inside to the rest of the world. Actualizing their self image, is a choice. Being transgender is not. Just like being homosexual is not a choice, neither is being transgender. Only the act of being who they really are in public is a choice. Not realizing that, in and of itself is to deny a person the same rights you and I have. This is an important distinction that we have to make when drawn in to the “choice argument” when it comes to this topic.

You go to the mens room (not only because you are a man) because you identify yourself as a man. Just because you don’t understand the mindset of a man who identifies with being a woman, doesn’t mean its a choice. I know you and I know you have no problem making that distiction with homosexuals. I know you don’t believe they are “making a choice”, or “pretending. ” So why then can’t you see the parralel between the two? The reason is, you don’t understand. It seems like a choice to you. This is the same mindset and arguments used by Segregationists and those that sought (and seek) to subgigate homosexualaity.

You are better than that. You wouldn’t say the things you have said if you understood their mindset (through discussion). You wouldn’t be able to so easily dehumanize someone for something they can’t change. You know that this concept, equal rights for all, is the only answer to bringing that understanding into the mainstream. You have no problem making the distiction between choice and circumstance when it comes to homosexuals because they were given rights and accepted by society, therefore you were allowed to meet and become freinds with them without fear of soical backlash.

This led to your understanding of their circustance and did away with the prejudicial idea that they “made a choice” or that they are all sexual deviants who can’t be trusted with “our children or wives. ” Just like I have no problem making the distiction between choice and circumstance when it relates to black men, and what those who seek to subgigate black people would have me believe. I’ve never known a black rapist. Yet, there are those who would have me and you believe that given the oppurtunity a black man will instantly be compelled to rape a white women.

You know how I learned that? By the time I was born schools and lunch counters and water fountains and yes, even restrooms had been desegrigated. Affording me the oppurtunity to meet, share ideas with and learn about and from black people without feeling as though socitey would shun me for treating black people like human beings. Even though, I still heard racist ideas and stereotypes I was able to vacinate those ideas with the humanity I saw in my friends and those I learned from and eventually loved. Still I heard things like, “It’s not about race, it’s about how you present yourself.

Which is a neo-racist way of attempting to make “the condition of being black” a choice. It basically is saying, “I don’t like or disagree with your culture (because I disagree with it or don’t understand it) so assimilate into my culture or be relegated to sub-human status. ” This neo-racism is also highlighted by the giving of ranks or titles to minorities like “One of the good ones” or saying things like “I have lots of black friends. ” Being black is not a choice. Indetifing with african american culture is not a choice. Acting on those states of being is a choice.

The fact that doing so is called disrespectful, or lewd by neo-racists is disgusting. But do you know why neo-racist have such a hard time understanding racism? Things like racism are institutionalized, it’s systemic. A white person might not know any bigots, and so they feel like, “Well, I don’t hate black people, so I’m not a racist. ” But they still benefit from racism, just by the merit of the color of your skin. There’s opportunities that they have. They’re privileged in ways that they may not even realize. Because they haven’t been deprived in certain ways.

This is the same kind of thinking that attempts to blur our understanding of the disctintion between BEING transgender, and CHOOSING to act on what you ARE. Using reasons like “our childrens safety” as excuses to be intolerant and mean to people we don’t even know is beneath us. I’m reminded of a quote by the prophet Dave Chappelle, “The worst thing to call somebody is crazy. It’s dismissive. “I don’t understand this person. So they’re crazy. ” That’s bullshit. These people are not crazy. They strong people. Maybe their environment is a little sick. “

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.