this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
462 points (82.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
8794 readers
2577 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are the one pushing the lever of exclusion by arguing to remove 'just a bit' of the Q from LGBTQ.
Re-read this thread replacing 'furry' with any other form of queer and tell me that there's no struggle, fighting, persecution, etc. An equivalent of what you just said would be:
do the LGBTQ folk consider furry a form of queer? or is that just more of the same assumption on furry folks part?
honest query because that's a lot more important to me than furry folk considering themselves lgbtq.
In order to be welcomed into the "LGBTQ community" you must gain acceptance from the elder queers via the standard committee process. The specifics are written down within the gay agenda if you care to get into the weeds, but 'furry' is currently pending review and is in the queue after a consensus is reached on 'asexual'. /s
Serious answer:
of course, you can be gay and furry, but this doesn't answer the query which was: is furry lgbtq. does a cisgender, straight furry have any claim to the same struggle as stonewall - which was the comment that prompted my query.
you do see how you are continuing to confuse what should be a fairly straight-ahem-forward thing to answer, right?
because I don't see this as gatekeeping at all, I'm not in either community, but consider myself a strong ally of lgbtq people whom I've advocated for my adult life, both in and out of the military. I get that these things are very fluid for some people and titles / permissions aren't granted by the committee, BUT ALSO, I do listen to my lgbtq peers when they take exception to rando's hopping onto their float claiming it was built for them.
hence my genuine confusion. it's not an attempt to limit people's rights or to man the gates, it's a genuine question.
If you read through this thread replacing "furry" with any other identity label the levels of discrimination and phobia should be extremely apparent, and this is a rather tolerant and accepting space for them compared to more general cultural attitudes.
Also it's not like stonewall was the struggle and now that that's done all the struggle is over. In my opinion the core of "the struggle" is to advocate for inclusivity of all those marginalized. There's a lot of marganilizing going on in this thread.
To some degree, but the problem is that gender and sexuality is not that straightforward. Do you have suggestions on how to make it less confusing?
That's gatekeeping. The only thing it does is further wedge issues and perpetuate divide and conquer exploits. That argument and line of thinking is the exact same one that TERFs, etc. apply. I think they are unaware of the work that the furry community does to help propel that specific float if for no other reason than it adjusts the Overton window.
I know, which is why I'm engaging at all. I apologize as I'm a crotchety old person annoyed at having to constantly repeat the same thing over and over again which always seems to boils down to "discrimination is bad, yeah?". My frustration isn't directed at you and I apologize that it's leaking(spraying) out, but I'm trying to provide a genuine answer to a question with a flawed premise.
yes, by not involving costumes!
it's gatekeeping to listen to queer people. Huh. that's a new one.
and how are they being discriminated against? Are they being refused medical care, marriage rights, the ability to serve their country? I can't see these as equivalent as they represent two fundamentally wildly different cases - a person wants to wear a costume, vs., a person's sexual preferences that have been observed in humans and the animal kingdom everywhere.
I'm sorry if my premise is flawed, and I'm not trying to create arguments where there people should find love and support. If people came out of the womb identifying their fursonas perhaps I'd feel differently.
All clothing is costume. People costume to express all sorts of identities, it's not any more complicated than skirts, dresses, burkas, etc.
Textbook ~~"I have a black friend" fallacy~~ friend argument
Nobody comes out of the womb identifying as anything. If somebody transitions later in life does that make it less valid?
That is all I'm arguing for. If somebody self identifies their sexuality as anthropomorphic fictosexual who are you to argue with that? If they define their gender as otherkin why are you telling them that's not allowed?
Edited to use more technical phrasing to avoid accidental aspersions.
aaah. you have no intention of an actual dialogue this is just some silly attempt to shame me into agreement. fuckin' gross.
ain't telling shit to anyone. You keep laying this at my feet as if I've constructed it, when I simply stated I think the LGBTQ folk should be the ones to make that decision, not fictosexuals, furries, otherkin, whatever other edge cases you want to toss.
But keep attacking allies that don't perfectly line up with your arguments, in the long run, you're making it easy for me to disregard your entire premise.