I think this is ridiculous, LGBTQ is a minority. Trads are part of a waning majority.
All evidence points towards LGBTQ always existing but just becoming more open.
Trads being Counter Culture? That's the same double speak that gets us Citizens United and Right to Work. Where did these trads get their radically traditional values? From the majority.
It is a minority, but if I go into work and announce that I am trans and will now be transitioning and my name is now X, people will fall all over themselves be supportive and congratulating me. It literally happened recently when Chris became Christina at my work. But, if I come in and announce that I have decided to become Catholic or Evangelical or Mormon there will be a lot of awkward silence with maybe some "okaaaaayyy, anyway, let's continue with the planning for the next project..."
Because no one needs to change the way they act around you. Christianity and Catholicism are strongly majority groups in the US. You were already treated as a Christian because that's what the majority of our society is based on.
Or no one feels like it's a change worth celebrating, whereas there's a strong streak of culture (particularly in more liberal areas) that makes congratulating trans people on their transition/gay people coming out of the closet a social obligation even if you're neither trans nor gay. It's almost gotten to the level of congratulating a couple for having an infant. If you don't think it's worth celebrating you're seen as an asshole.
My wife and I are fairly traditional in that I work full time and she's a housewife/mother. Most people are mildly surprised that she doesn't work, and there's definitely been the occasional awkward social interaction where she was clearly being judged by other women (notably non-parents) for that decision. This is in an extremely blue city, I imagine if we moved out even into the suburbs things would shift.
No, where I live you are considered to be a freak if you are religious. Announcing that you have joined a religion is like announcing you are trans in Alabama 50 years ago.
Agree with the sibling you would have a much higher chance of being discriminated against. Particularly in an interview. If you were wearing a cross necklace or some other visible indicator of your membership in Christianity, you would be way more likely to be turned down for a job in the Bay Area.
Same as you would have been discriminated against for being trans, gay, or black 30 years ago.
What's worse?
Not getting a job or getting murdered?
Not trying to minimize the discrimination of the religious but can't you see why most would try to minimize discrimination against a class who has a history of discriminating? Additionally, the severity is not comparable. Maybe if we were in the Crusades things would be different...do you see what I'm saying?
Having worked in the Bay for ~9 years I never met anyone that cared what religion a fellow employee was. So if we're just running off anecdotes and impressions, there's mine.
This is such a known situation that HBO's Silicon Valley did a whole bit on it in the show. Be thankful you've managed to avoid it in your 9 years in the valley!
I'm using to prove that the allegation, that people are careful being 'out' as a Christian' exists, not to prove that the religious discrimination, which would be illegal, exists. Your point is that it couldn't possibly exist because you've never even heard of such a thing. I'm saying that it's entirely possible for it to exist, because everyone else seems to have heard of it to the point that a popular TV chose to lampoon it.
> Your point is that it couldn't possibly exist because you've never even heard of such a thing.
Oh, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. The point I was trying to make was not that it doesn't exist, but that it's not widespread and not significant enough to worry about. It exists, but I don't believe being Christian today is like being gay or black in 1990. You're more likely to be discriminated against for your height than your religion at this point.
No, but you would be discriminated against. Announcing you are religious would be the quickest way to be sidelined on projects and slowly forced out of the company. Announcing that your are LGBTQ is the quickest way to advance in the company and receive accolades. And this is a Fortune 100 company that nearly everyone on the planet has heard of. Where I live, LGBTQ is very much the mainstream and the most acceptable lifestyle.
That doesn't mean anything. Discrimination is a matter of degree. Everyone gets discriminated against pretty often to lesser degrees. If you tell me about your horoscope I'll roll my eyes and probably not want to hang out with you very much because of your spiritual beliefs.
Are people refusing to sell you good and services? Calling you names? Throwing bricks through your windows?
Is it putting more of a damper on you living a happy life than the occasional moment of discomfort because someone thinks something you think is dumb? People think lots of my beliefs are dumb, and that's fine, as long as I can go about my day.
> Announcing that your are LGBTQ is the quickest way to advance in the company and receive accolades.
First, I doubt a gay new hire can reach C suite with nothing but a couple of rainbows and dildos for qualifications.
Second, office politics are crappy, but you either cope or move on, with maybe a lawsuit if you have a legal leg to stand on.
I don't think likelihood of violence from a belief has much to do with counterculture status, moreso that the people that don't like queer people are more violent than the other way around.
This is patently absurd. I'm neither trans nor religious but hypothetically I'd much rather announce that I joined a religion anywhere in the US than announce being trans in the small town where my grandparents live today. Let alone Alabama 50 years ago.
Yes in very progressive environments you will get more support for announcing the later but that's because being in the later group is actually a challenge while religion has built up a reputation for maligning groups of people for things out of their control and for generally anti-scientific beliefs. Being part of a group that largely denies evolution and climate change is obviously not going to grant you any favors in groups with an academic (especially STEM) background.
No, what you experience is people who personally aren't pro-religion, often for reasons of personal experience. It's nothing like the brave people hosting home churches in China, or an even better example, the people telling their stories in the bible, where the entire culture/government and it's moral basis is against your religion.
> no one needs to change the way they act around you.
This is only because Catholics and Christians often don’t mention when workplace behaviors make them uncomfortable. I’ve been in multiple situations where coworkers have used names of God as expletives or made jokes about things I consider holy.
And if you’re a Catholic and “trad” and planning lunch with colleagues, things like “is it Friday” or “is it a Friday in Lent” would affect others (except that, today, there’s a lot of vegetarian options for independent reasons).
Abstinence is a form of penance. Frankly if the office doesn't bend over backwards for your self-flagellation every week I'm OK with it. Are you demanding that the entire office fast with you if they can't find a pescatarian option?
You missed the point: if I’m planning lunch with my friends and they want to go to barbecue on Friday, I’m going to be suggesting an alternative so I can get something to eat too. Just like we had to plan lunches around my Jain, Jewish and Muslim coworkers dietary restrictions.
So, in fact, some people will have to do something different to include me in some of their activities.
Queer people also don't mention workplace behavior that makes them uncomfortable all the time...I'm sure it's easy for you to think that queer people don't let transgressions slide, but many times they do so for their own safety or livelihood.
You are not made unsafe because I said the fuck word...
Catholic teaching is that men cannot become women and women cannot become men. Catholic teaching is that lying is sinful. Practicing the Catholic faith by saying "I'm sorry, but I can't 'use your pronouns' because that would be a lie by falsely saying you're a woman when you can't be" will get you reprimanded or fired at most any major US company.
I'm not catholic so please help me out here. If you cannot use requested pronouns, does your religion also ban you from using nicknames? Is it okay for you to be called User23? Is it okay to say someone's cat is cute even if you don't really care for cats? What do you do if your partner asks if they look good or bad in something?
These are all reasonable questions. I'll answer as best as I can, but please understand that I'm not any kind of formal authority.
> If you cannot use requested pronouns, does your religion also ban you from using nicknames? Is it okay for you to be called User23?
I don't know of any Catholic doctrine that says people can't use pseudonyms, nicknames, or even change their name altogether.
> Is it okay to say someone's cat is cute even if you don't really care for cats? What do you do if your partner asks if they look good or bad in something?
Is it a lie, which is to say a falsehood told with the intent to deceive? Then yes it's wrong. Wouldn't you want to be told the truth if you in fact looked bad? Wouldn't you want to know that when you're told that you look good that you really do?
Personally, supposing I didn't think the cat was cute, I wouldn't say I thought it was. I would most likely treat it as a good opportunity to say nothing on the subject. Some theologians put forth a doctrine of "mental reservation"[1] which somehow makes lying OK, but I have to admit I'm not capable of the necessary mental gymnastics in any but the most clear cut cases.
Is it possible to say nothing about a trans co-workers transition then? If Jessica is now Kevin, what's the difference between that and Jacob going "nah call me Jake"? Is it just that you can't call Kevin he/him pronouns? Can you call Kevin as Kevin?
I'm unwilling by act or omission to knowingly indicate that I believe something that the Church teaches to be false. Thus, it depends on whether or not I'm being asked to participate in a deception, which I will not do. On the other hand, unlikely though it may be, if it's somehow clear that "Kevin" has no intent to deceive and is not deceiving anyone about her sex then I don't have an absolute moral objection to calling her that. This scenario is contrived and unrealistic, but it is largely a matter of prudence. Thus if I did surprisingly find myself in a similar circumstance, my actions would depend on the details.
As another Catholic commenter said, we owe Christian charity to all other human beings, including those affected by gender dysphoria. However, charity doesn't mean being "nice" or "accommodating," but it does require respecting the dignity of the human person. One way to respect that dignity is by not encouraging or condoning disordered behaviors or beliefs. I wouldn't offer a recovering alcoholic a drink, even if it was really great stuff.
That leads to another pragmatic matter. No matter what disordered beliefs or behaviors a person has (and I have my own share), we should want to help that person come to a rightly ordered place. There's really no one size fits all approach to that.
To your first point, pronouns and nicknames are not the same thing. Pronouns indicate that a man can become a woman or vise versa which is not what the Catechism teaches. Additionally, calling a cat cute if you don't care for them is lying which is a venial sin (meaning you probably won't be damned to Hell for it but one should confess if they sin regardless).
Catholics are called to Love (God is Love) and to love all sinners but hate the sins. We know that Church is a place for imperfect humans and thus we do seek to purify our souls with prayer, works of mercy and the Sacraments.
So with all the above in mind, we usually tend to avoid pronouns and refer to transgenders by their name instead. However, out of basic respect and good manners we can all call them what they want if they insist.
Jesus commands us that we must be known as his disciples by our love. Christian love begins with basic respect and good manners. Selfless love does not begin with requiring others to conform to our doctrine.
St. Paul said that he became all things for all people so that he may save some. We should do the same.
1 Peter 3:15-16 be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence,
I know several Catholics who have no problem using a transgender person's pronouns. Trying to use a religion as a cover for bigotry is disrespectful to both the transgender person and other members of the religion.
But who determines what is "OK by the Bible?" A plain reading of it shows a number of clear contradictions, so we naturally can't rely on the verbatim text. Not to mention there is more than one version of the Bible itself.
That leaves it up to personal interpretation and opinion. Considering that the overall message of Christianity is supposedly something about "love and grace" the not transphobic opinions are a lot more compelling.
> Catholic teaching is that men cannot become women and women cannot become men.
People (including Catholics) supporting trans rights agree with that.
Of course, most of the Catholic heirarchy and supporters of trans rights disagree on who are men and who are women to start with, but, I mean, the former at least should be familiar with the idea of an entity having the observable physical characteistics of one thing but being something radically different because of its innate essence.
> Catholic teaching is that lying is sinful.
Catholic teaching is that lying consists of objectively false statements told with intent to deceive. (CCC 2482)
> Practicing the Catholic faith by saying "I'm sorry, but I can't 'use your pronouns' because that would be a lie by falsely saying you're a woman when you can't be" will get you reprimanded or fired at most any major US company.
But this is not something that the Catholic faith teaches is lying, even if some Catholics may see it as lying or some other offense against truth. Why?
(1) As Catholic traditionalists and trans rights activists agree, “gender identity” is not the same thing that Catholics see as binary sex. Acknowledging that a persons gender identity is this or that is not a fact claim about the construct of sex, but also
(2) Preferred pronouns are a distinct (though sometimes correlated) issue to gender identity (people with different gender identity can have the same oreferred pronouns, and vice versa), so even if acknowledging the validity of gender identity waa making a claim about sex, and even if such a claim would be false, respecting preferred pronouns isn’t acknowledging gender identity, its just respecting preferred pronouns.
(3) On top of all of the above, the purpose of use of a person's preferred pronouns by a Catholic in a work environment would, presumably, not be convince anyone of some false claim about the subject's sex, and without intent to deceive, it would not be a lie even if its content were an objectively false claim. (Which, for the reasons discussed previously, it is not.)
If you wanted to make an argument against respecting preferred pronouns that was grounded in Catholic doctrine, you would do better to argue that it is adulation (CCC 2480) from the view that transgenderism is inherently wrongful and doing so, lacking the intent to deceive required for lying, is a form of encouragement; OTOH, you could equally argue that failure to do so, in many circumstances, is detraction (CCC 2477) on the same assumption and calumny (also CCC 2477) without it.
This is some very solid casuistry. Father James Martin, S.J. would be proud.
> Of course, most of the Catholic heirarchy and supporters of trans rights disagree on who are men and who are women to start with, but, I mean, the former at least should be familiar with the idea of an entity having the observable physical characteistics of one thing but being something radically different because of its innate essence.
I'd love to know where you found the teaching that God miraculously transubstantiates people into a body of the wrong sex.
> Catholic teaching is that lying consists of objectively false statements told with intent to deceive. (CCC 2482).
My conscience tells me that it's objectively false and if I say it isn't I'm intentionally deceiving. (CCC 1778)
> (1) As Catholic traditionalists and trans rights activists agree, “gender identity” is not the same thing that Catholics see as binary sex. Acknowledging that a persons gender identity is this or that is not a fact claim about the construct of sex, but also
Motte and bailey.
As an aside what Doctor of the Church has anything to say about "gender identity?" Presumably if this is part of tradition one of them must have had something to say on the subject. In fact, where are you finding any Catholic traditionalist who is leaning on 1970s era radical feminist linguistic novelties?[1]
> (2) Preferred pronouns are a distinct (though sometimes correlated) issue to gender identity (people with different gender identity can have the same oreferred pronouns, and vice versa), so even if acknowledging the validity of gender identity waa making a claim about sex, and even if such a claim would be false, respecting preferred pronouns isn’t acknowledging gender identity, its just respecting preferred pronouns.
More equivocating. Everyone knows the confusion is intentional.
> (3) On top of all of the above, the purpose of use of a person's preferred pronouns by a Catholic in a work environment would, presumably, not be convince anyone of some false claim about the subject's sex, and without intent to deceive, it would not be a lie even if its content were an objectively false claim. (Which, for the reasons discussed previously, it is not.)
Then why would he care when I use pronouns appropriate to his sex?
Do you cast judgement on people that color their hair when it gets gray? Do you cast judgement on people that try and change their body by dieting/exercising?
I've never had random people on the street threaten to beat my ass or make violent threats towards me before my transition, and now it happens a couple times a year. I also way to many trans friends that are homeless because their conservative parents disagreed.
Across every single metric, trans people, especially trans POC face disproportionate adversity. i.e. income, murder rate, housing insecurity, education etc...
At our haircut place there was a husband and wife that worked there, the husband became the wife and the wife became the husband!
And I think the traditional people are doing so in much more subversive ways now - plenty of our friends are going private and Catholic school to get their kids out of the public schools, which are getting pretty wild in the indoctrination.
In a society that actually respected women, people would be falling over themselves to call out his misogynistic delusion that being a woman can amount to a thought in a man's head. But sadly not. That's male privilege for you.
Context: Am LGBTQ person who also has traditional religious views.
Big disagree. You carry a pride flag in the wrong parts of town where I am, you'll get beat up.
Walk around preaching hellfire and damnation and at most you'll get a lot of annoyed looks and at best you'll get people cheering you on.
> In schools these days it's trendy to be anything but straight.
In high schools in my town people get beat up for coming out. A friend who went to college out of state was mocked because people thought he was gay, despite him being straight.
Also, you appear to have a misconception of what the LGBTQ acronym includes.
LGBA - these are related to attraction.
TI - These are for Trans/Intersex individuals and have nothing to do with attraction.
Q - Questioning/Queer. Can be used by those who don't feel as though they are properly described by the above descriptions, or who are opposed to them for some reason.
There are other letters, but for the most part they are subsets/synonyms of the above labels, at least as far as the use case here is concerned.
Yeah it seems you can have wildly different experiences depending on where you live in the US. Probably why we are so politically divided, at this point we're living in different societies.
Anywhere in California you would not experience any of that. In fact it really is as OP describes. Look at polls of kids in elementary schools where 50%+ of young kids are identifying as non-binary because it is trendy.
the people beating up anyone are the cultural underclass/proles, be it rural whites or ghetto blacks -- by definition these are not cultural elites.
Physical violence (and any indicator of physical needs- shelter, food, safety) basically signals 'cheap animal unit', and animals are useful tools to be managed by the machinery (of capital, patriarchy, globalism, blah blah etc whatever left or right wing flavor of 'power structure' you mentally choose to sketch it out, it's there churning, by whatever name you like)
you seem to confuse elite signaling and countersignaling with personal sufferings when in reality, both are exactly how it's supposed to go
The cultural machinery works thru contradiction and desperate elite mimicry, people trying to aspirationally sound like the class right above them, leading to tragedy of the commons, for example:
Rich women support bail reform/ islamic immigration/ transgender craze/ porn-culture that gets poorer women raped/ scared/ fired / cheapened, and that's the new feminism
Pragmatic feminists/terfs/lesbians/mom groups/anti-vaccers are the new witches to be burned as the purity test for desperate psuedo-middle-class aspirational women, supplying the cultural fodder content mill, while Republican women/Christian evangelicals make popcorn...
Abortion rights are a cheap voting lever, the more passionate you are the more the machine knows how to use you, people are putting their carrots and sticks in their bios, announcing the best ways to control them with a smile lol
Women in Iran and Afghanistan not allowed to go to school, that is defacto no longer a feminist issue but something something 'why not both' meme-mumbles by nonbinary mental illness connoisseurs.
Gays getting beat up by rural whites so they move to metropolis and work for the rainbow utopia of corporate America is exactly how the machine eats :)
Let's try to disentagle this gish gallop shall we :) ?
> the people beating up anyone are the underclass/proles, be it rural whites or ghetto blacks -- by definition these are not cultural elites.
But they do make up the culture of the parts of society people actually live in.
> Physical violence (and physical needs, shelter, food, safety) basically signals 'cheap animal unit', and animals are useful tools to be managed by the machinery (of capital, patriarchy, globalism, blah blah etc whatever left or right wing flavor of 'power structure' you mentally choose to sketch it out, it's there churning, by whatever name you like)
"People who have needs are manipulated by people who have money". Shocking.
> Rich women support bail reform/ islamic immigration/ transgender craze/ porn-culture that gets poorer women raped/ scared/ fired / cheapened, and that's the new feminism
> (Pragmatic feminists/terfs/lesbians/mom groups/anti-vaccers are the new witches to be burned as the purity test for desperate psuedo-middle-class aspirational women, supplying the cultural fodder content mill, while Republican women/Christian evangelicals make popcorn...)
You uh... might want to back of the OAN/Fox
> Abortion rights are a cheap voting lever, the more passionate you are the more the machine knows how to use you, people are putting their carrots and sticks in their bios, announcing the best ways to control them with a smile lol
No machine cares enough about an individual to look through their bio.
> Women in Iran and Afghanistan not allowed to go to school, that is defacto no longer a feminist issue but something something 'why not both' meme-mumbles by nonbinary mental illness connoisseurs.
"People put the most focus on issues directly impacting themselves". What a shocking discovery you've made.
In my church, there's a frequent saying "you can't help others until you've helped yourself". You have to have yourself on a stable base before you can lift others. In addition, there's a conversation to be had about interventionism in there, it's bit off topic but clearly didn't go so well last time.
> Gays getting beat up by rural whites so they move to metropolis and work for the rainbow utopia of corporate America is exactly how the machine eats :)
I'll admit this part confuses me. You go drop all the right wing talking points up above, and then go "All the right wing people are being manipulated to make educated lgbt people go to cities and work"... and instead of the solution being to help educate more people, it's to make things worse for LGBT people everywhere?
sorry but discussions of culture trends can't be easily parsed by people who can only think so ...literally
why not just get stuck on 'what IS culture even', 'what is a trend Really??', and other forms of useless filler-think that magically only crop up when a middle class smart-and-friendly-smile type person is made uncomfortable by working class people actually 'noticing things' with their eyes and ears...
Policy-wonks aren't gonna be in the family rooms where people say things that matter to them, where populism and/or prejudice brews.
Get to know some immigrant communities, they don't understand english to watch fox or cnn. Black folks didn't make vaccine decisions based on what channel you think they should watch. Wealthy white people buying property or voting with their feet/dollars aren't going to tell all the friends they went to college with exactly why, revealed preferences and all that.
I'm a radical feminist, if american conservatives/rep have common cause then all the better
Imagine understanding capitalism, the state, warfare, or the history of any nation at all.... and still having party loyalties??? sad :)
Indeed, I now hear acquaintances on the right referring to them derisively as the 'alphabet mafia.' I wonder if maybe it's gotten meaningless when there are so many letters. Sometimes I see "+" used instead, after the first few letters. In that case, do the members of the groups that come after feel marginalized compared to the big ones that make up the first few letters?
And what about the people who self-identify as one of the groups but don't want to advertise it as their defining characteristic? What do they do? That's a hard one, I think there are quite a lot of people that are in that situation.
I suppose the holy grail will be if/when we just decide that such labels don't matter.
For me, it's nice to see the full acronym in places where it makes sense or are already LGBTQ focused.
Outside of those spaces, I generally prefer LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ for that reason.
That holy grail would be nice to reach some day.
For those looking on and saying "well, you're doing it to yourselves":
The answer is that currently we _have_ to do it because any many parts of the USA/world people who fall under that umbrella aren't able to live in a way that brings them joy.
As such, they need a banner to organize under and belong with. Once that need passes eventually so will the labels.
> Indeed, I now hear acquaintances on the right referring to them derisively as the 'alphabet mafia.' I wonder if maybe it's gotten meaningless when there are so many letters.
Despite the number of letters increasing, it's still a minority. Additionally, the rate of popularity is slowing.
I am still on the fence whether or not this is a left-handedness situation. (The number of people who are left-handed sharply increased within 1-2 generations once we stopped beating children for primarily using their left hands. But this was generally not considered a social contagion or some grooming behavior from left-handed teachers or something.) If it is, then we should see identification level out within a generation or two.
The actual traits described are not a choice, but identifying as part of the LGBTQ culture absolutely is. Not everyone is comfortable advertising their sexuality to strangers.
Do you think only the 'traditional dominant culture' has a desire for personal privacy? I tend to view privacy as more fundamental, and in my experience most people want a good amount of it. I do not feel unique when I say that regardless of who I am attracted to and/or having sexual relations with (or nobody at all), this is only my business (and my partner, if they exist).
I can name a number of people in my family who are openly gay but not politically active. If you asked them if they identified as LGBTQ+ they would probably say "sure" but they don't wave flags, have stickers, clothes, or anything else proclaiming their sexuality. They're not trying to hide it (as if that were possible, they're all married to partners of the same sex), but it isn't a fundamental part of how they interact with the world.
And I know people in my family who are quietly bisexual or gay, too. Plenty of folks would accuse them of being in the closet, as if that were bad (because they should want to advertise it, right?). It must be fear of bigotry that keeps them in the closet, right? In my experience, no, they aren't actively hiding anything, not using subterfuge to make people think they are straight, they just keep their sexuality to themselves.
I've heard a good part of younger generations think differently. I get the impression the pride thing represents more than sexuality to kids who don't share the same context as older generations. They almost treat it like a brand.
I agree 100%. I have two middle school-age kids, only one of whom has entered puberty but both have extensive thoughts on what LGBT(+) means. I do a lot of smiling and nodding, and just listening, because they really see it quite differently than any adult I have met. It's very much become an entire culture that is only loosely related to actual sexuality.
I am very interested to see how it plays out with my kids as they mature, and as their cohort matures into adulthood. It's fascinating, a little overwhelming perhaps, but not particularly threatening. They aren't at all militant, and I don't know if that's an age thing, or if the culture is evolving away from it.
Sexuality seems to not be a choice, but gender expression (which people sort of mentally lump in) can be a choice (obviously gender dysphoria is not a choice, but not all gender expression decisions are made due to the presence of absence of dysphoria).
In my social mileu (highly and elite educated, coastal, etc) that's not accurate at all. I am literally the only one of my friends who adheres even partially to a traditional organized religion and believes in traditional values. My friends don't quite know what to do with this. Some are gay themselves, none of us think twice about it.
I mean yes, physically they are a minority. Culturally, they are incredibly mainstream. There are examples everywhere.
There are tons of big movies and TV shows featuring gay people coming out.
_Every_ company changes their logo during pride month.
Look at the Apple Watch or iPhone, they come preloaded with Pride wallpapers and watch faces, they produce pride bands for the watch, which sell very well.
Disneyland has Gay Days.
Defcon has a massive attached event called Queercon that dwarfs all other subcons.
Googlers who are gay are called Gayglers.
So many famous actors and politicians are openly gay.
Biden literally just did a major interview in the Whitehouse with a TikToker who's only claim to fame was making videos about becoming trans.
I could list SO many more examples of this everywhere in our culture, and these are random things I could think of off the top of my head, but they are decent examples of culture I think.
I don't have a problem with any of this, I think it's great.
But there is absolutely no way you can claim that this is not the mainstream now.
It sounds like you consider talking about trads that way to be dangerous, like it might bring them back or something.
You're confusing the fact that the existence of LGBTQ people is being acknowledged finally in the mainstream with some sort of shift of what the 'dominant culture' is.
All of these things you listed merely acknowledge that non-cis gendered people exist, that's it. There is no massive shift in the mainstream culture. In fact, there are legions of reactionaries incredibly aggrieved by having this existence "shoved in their faces" such that they will push for laws banning discussion of sexuality in schools, call bomb threats in to hospitals, or lose their shit when gay people kiss in a movie.
The dominance of queer culture goes much farther than simply existing.
Criticize it in even the most mild way at most companies and expect to be fired from your job.
The dominance goes even further. Direct criticism isn't necessary. Try to promote straight culture and you'll also get dogpiled and fired. (Brandon Eich)
How many Christians do you know who fast, or pray the daily hours? How many who are devout enough to respond when someone takes the name of the Lord in vain? As a cultural stream "Trads" are definitely distinct from Conservative Protestantism or the evangelical movement.
Before making such an effort in thought were you even aware of such a subculture?
I get why you might not want to participate in the those things but the point that Trads as a counterculture phenomenon are new and distinct from the previous mainline Protestant or evangelical Christian cultural movements.
That is an interesting point. What do you do when your minority position goes mainstream? When so much of your identity is based on assumed oppression, what does it look like when that oppression vanishes? Do you oppress those who oppressed you in the past in retaliation?
That just drives home the point that we need clear, universally accepted terminology for when we are referring to mental identity versus physical attributes. I feel like a large part of the disagreement on policies towards transgender people today are manifestations of this ambiguity. Other languages do a better job than English, for certain.
I would argue LGBTQ stuff is being shoved into the mainstream because trying to fit in didn't work for them. If we just granted gay people gay marriage when they asked politely for it then they wouldn't have needed to build such an in-your-face political movement. We can see this in early documents during the gay equality movement and the AIDS crisis. There were gay people trying to say "we're just like you, but gay, please help us, we're dying", and nothing got done about the mass death and suffering until they started protesting en-masse and throwing the ashes of their community members on white house grounds.
Obviously, if an entire community needed to be loud to survive, that community is going to retain its loudness into the next generation. The "original sin" as it were was ignoring their suffering in the first place.
That's a little disingenuous. A lot of people are pushing for trans rights that goes well beyond being recognized as an equal member of society. There are 100% legitimate discussions to be had which get shouted down with accusations of bigotry.
An easy example is insisting that trans people be allowed to play in sports based only on their identified gender. We have separation between mens' and women's teams because in many cases men have a biological advantage that would mean women did not ever win.
Insisting that an MTF woman be permitted to compete on equal footing somehow feels like offering equality to the trans person, but it does so at the expense of everyone else she competes against.
A perfect example is the MMF fighter who as a man was decidedly mediocre, but absolutely dominated when fighting as a woman. That is grossly unfair to the women she was competing against.
Trans supporters are fond of loudly, but falsely proclaiming anybody that holds this position is some kind of bigot. Except that biology is real and it is distinct from gender identification. Conflating them isn't helpful.
All evidence points towards LGBTQ always existing but just becoming more open.
Trads being Counter Culture? That's the same double speak that gets us Citizens United and Right to Work. Where did these trads get their radically traditional values? From the majority.