Debates over sex and gender

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose I struggle to grasp the logic behind the idea that a woman inhabiting a male body could be considered identical to a woman inhabiting a female body.🤷
How far would society actually go in practice when it comes to accepting a trans woman as a woman?
To me, it all seems quite clear if I just sit back and let my mind wander for a moment without overthinking it too much.
It really isn't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't pretend that it is.

So, we're looking at this through the lens of some kind of trans-logic—which, let’s be honest, is usually just a fancy way of being illogical. I guess it works if you're into that sort of thing, but it mostly just feels like circular reasoning dressed up in a suit.

Quincy:

I guess it really depends on who you ask, doesn't it? It’s one of those questions where the answer shifts depending on whether you’re looking at a corporate HR manual in Manhattan or just grabbing a beer in some small town in the Midwest. In a vacuum—like, if we're talking about big tech companies or major corporations based in places like San Francisco or Seattle—the official policy is obviously going to be full acceptance. They have all these DEI frameworks in place, so on paper, it’s a non-issue. But actual practice? That’s where things get messy and complicated. People have their own biases, regardless of what the handbook says. Then you have the more traditional parts of the country, where social circles might be a bit more... let's say, conservative. In those areas, the social friction might be higher, and the "acceptance" might feel a lot more forced or superficial. It’s a weird spectrum, I suppose. There isn't really one single way America handles this; it's more like a patchwork of different social realities depending on exactly where you're standing.

So, apparently, the trans activists are out there claiming that if we don't all just collectively decide that trans women are women, then we're automatically labeled as transphobic. It’s one of those things where you're basically handed a script—either follow the lines or get branded with the label. I guess that's just how the whole dynamic works now, though it feels a bit like being backed into a corner, maybe.

Quincy:

Honestly, when I sit back and just picture the whole thing—without really overthinking it or trying too hard to make sense of it all—it pretty much tells me everything I need to know. I guess it just speaks for itself. It’s not really the same thing—and honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to pretend that it is.

Fair point, I guess.

So, here we go again—yet another YouTube video from my favorite critic of the trans movement, Matt Walsh.
YouTube

So, Walsh is out here pointing out this weird little contradiction—I guess you could call it a double standard—where the LGBTQ+ crowd insists that sexual orientation isn't some kind of choice and that people should be free to love whoever they want. But then, somehow, it’s the exact same group deciding you're being "exclusionary" if you say you're attracted to biological women—you know, women born female—and apparently, you're suddenly "transphobic" if your definition of "woman" doesn't include trans women. It's a bit of a head-scratcher, honestly.

Second point—Walsh argues that if you find someone attractive, then they're attractive based entirely on how you perceive them—not based on how they view themselves. I guess it’s just a matter of perception, really.
So, sure, trans people can see themselves as women—that’s fine—but if a straight guy doesn't actually perceive that femininity or find them attractive... well, then you aren't exactly getting anywhere with romance. It’s just how things work, I guess.
It’s really more about the freedom of choice than it is about being transphobic. Honestly—and I guess this is just my two cents—"transphobia" has basically become this convenient little label people slap on anyone who dares to question certain LGBTQ+ stances. It feels less like an actual critique and more like a way to shut down the conversation entirely.

So, my little one—she’s got this thing, I guess—she absolutely lives for rock 'n' roll. It’s her whole vibe. Electronic stuff? Doesn't move her. Blues or jazz? Not really her speed either—it just doesn't click for her, I suppose.
Am I jazz-phobic? Blues-phobic? Or just some hater of electronic music? Not really—it’s more like I just don't listen to it and stick to rock. It's a preference, I guess.☕

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose I struggle to grasp the logic behind the idea that a woman inhabiting a male body could be considered identical to a woman inhabiting a female body.🤷
How far would society actually go in practice when it comes to accepting a trans woman as a woman?
To me, it all seems quite clear if I just sit back and let my mind wander for a moment without overthinking it too much.
It really isn't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't pretend that it is.

It’s actually pretty simple—you just have to look at two different levels of reality. On a biological level, they aren't the same; on a spiritual level, they are. People claiming they're identical are talking about the soul, while those saying they aren't are looking at nature. They end up fighting because half the people involved don't even realize what the other side is actually talking about.

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose I struggle to grasp the logic behind the idea that a woman inhabiting a male body could be considered identical to a woman inhabiting a female body.🤷
How far would society actually go in practice when it comes to accepting a trans woman as a woman?
To me, it all seems quite clear if I just sit back and let my mind wander for a moment without overthinking it too much.
It really isn't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't pretend that it is.

Using Hegelian logic—where the woman is the idea.

Jose Edwards16 said:So, we're looking at this through the lens of some kind of trans-logic—which, let’s be honest, is usually just a fancy way of being illogical. I guess it works if you're into that sort of thing, but it mostly just feels like circular reasoning dressed up in a suit.

Quincy:

I guess it really depends on who you ask, doesn't it? It’s one of those questions where the answer shifts depending on whether you’re looking at a corporate HR manual in Manhattan or just grabbing a beer in some small town in the Midwest. In a vacuum—like, if we're talking about big tech companies or major corporations based in places like San Francisco or Seattle—the official policy is obviously going to be full acceptance. They have all these DEI frameworks in place, so on paper, it’s a non-issue. But actual practice? That’s where things get messy and complicated. People have their own biases, regardless of what the handbook says. Then you have the more traditional parts of the country, where social circles might be a bit more... let's say, conservative. In those areas, the social friction might be higher, and the "acceptance" might feel a lot more forced or superficial. It’s a weird spectrum, I suppose. There isn't really one single way America handles this; it's more like a patchwork of different social realities depending on exactly where you're standing.

So, apparently, the trans activists are out there claiming that if we don't all just collectively decide that trans women are women, then we're automatically labeled as transphobic. It’s one of those things where you're basically handed a script—either follow the lines or get branded with the label. I guess that's just how the whole dynamic works now, though it feels a bit like being backed into a corner, maybe.

Quincy:

Honestly, when I sit back and just picture the whole thing—without really overthinking it or trying too hard to make sense of it all—it pretty much tells me everything I need to know. I guess it just speaks for itself. It’s not really the same thing—and honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to pretend that it is.

Fair point, I guess.

So, here we go again—yet another YouTube video from my favorite critic of the trans movement, Matt Walsh.
YouTube

So, Walsh is out here pointing out this weird little contradiction—I guess you could call it a double standard—where the LGBTQ+ crowd insists that sexual orientation isn't some kind of choice and that people should be free to love whoever they want. But then, somehow, it’s the exact same group deciding you're being "exclusionary" if you say you're attracted to biological women—you know, women born female—and apparently, you're suddenly "transphobic" if your definition of "woman" doesn't include trans women. It's a bit of a head-scratcher, honestly.

Second point—Walsh argues that if you find someone attractive, then they're attractive based entirely on how you perceive them—not based on how they view themselves. I guess it’s just a matter of perception, really.
So, sure, trans people can see themselves as women—that’s fine—but if a straight guy doesn't actually perceive that femininity or find them attractive... well, then you aren't exactly getting anywhere with romance. It’s just how things work, I guess.
It’s really more about the freedom of choice than it is about being transphobic. Honestly—and I guess this is just my two cents—"transphobia" has basically become this convenient little label people slap on anyone who dares to question certain LGBTQ+ stances. It feels less like an actual critique and more like a way to shut down the conversation entirely.

So, my little one—she’s got this thing, I guess—she absolutely lives for rock 'n' roll. It’s her whole vibe. Electronic stuff? Doesn't move her. Blues or jazz? Not really her speed either—it just doesn't click for her, I suppose.
Am I jazz-phobic? Blues-phobic? Or just some hater of electronic music? Not really—it’s more like I just don't listen to it and stick to rock. It's a preference, I guess.☕

I didn't really become "transphobic" until after watching several "don't be transphobic" videos, once I saw what kind of situations were actually involved. There are probably perfectly fine trans people out there, but these specific representatives have done more to alienate people than to help them. Much like they've done with the gay community. For me, I just need to look at how that trans person presents, and everything becomes clear.

ruggedraven36 said:It’s actually pretty simple—you just have to look at two different levels of reality. On a biological level, they aren't the same; on a spiritual level, they are. People claiming they're identical are talking about the soul, while those saying they aren't are looking at nature. They end up fighting because half the people involved don't even realize what the other side is actually talking about.

And credit to those who think in terms of the spirit. 🤷

Harold Doyle3 said:Using Hegelian logic—where the woman is the idea.

Isn't he the one who came up with those pelvic floor exercises?

Laura Jones56 said:I didn't really become "transphobic" until after watching several "don't be transphobic" videos, once I saw what kind of situations were actually involved. There are probably perfectly fine trans people out there, but these specific representatives have done more to alienate people than to help them. Much like they've done with the gay community. For me, I just need to look at how that trans person presents, and everything becomes clear.

And credit to those who think in terms of the spirit. 🤷

Isn't he the one who came up with those pelvic floor exercises?

The man thinks anatomy is just a suggestion.

Harold Doyle3 said:The man thinks anatomy is just a suggestion.

I wonder what on earth that poor guy could have possibly done to deserve this?

Laura Jones56 said:I didn't really become "transphobic" until after watching several "don't be transphobic" videos, once I saw what kind of situations were actually involved. There are probably perfectly fine trans people out there, but these specific representatives have done more to alienate people than to help them. Much like they've done with the gay community. For me, I just need to look at how that trans person presents, and everything becomes clear.

And credit to those who think in terms of the spirit. 🤷

Isn't he the one who came up with those pelvic floor exercises?

The term 'transphobic' is basically just a label LGBTQ+ activists slap on anyone who dares to question trans ideology.

About a year ago, this video popped up on TikTok where a guy basically said:
'Hey, I've invented a new sexual orientation— superstraight. Since straight people get accused of being transphobic just because they wouldn't date trans women, I’m declaring myself a superstraight person. That means I'm only interested in people of the opposite sex—specifically, women born female.
That way, nobody can call me transphobic anymore.'

To clarify his point, he was making it very obvious that he didn't come up with 'superstraight' to attack trans people, but rather to highlight
his own preferences and logic. Having an opinion isn't the same thing as hating someone. If you don't agree with something, it doesn't mean you hate it, I suppose.
Video

And then our friend Jamie shows up again, apparently being 'superstraight'—which is apparently transphobic behavior.
Or rather, if you're superstraight, you're super-transphobic.
Yt

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose I struggle to grasp the logic behind the idea that a woman inhabiting a male body could be considered identical to a woman inhabiting a female body.🤷
How far would society actually go in practice when it comes to accepting a trans woman as a woman?
To me, it all seems quite clear if I just sit back and let my mind wander for a moment without overthinking it too much.
It really isn't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't pretend that it is.

So, I stumbled upon this woman online—just one of those random, unexpected encounters where you aren't looking for anything at all—and she completely floored me with her perspective on life, her sheer sensibility, and this incredible, subtle sensuality that just radiates through a screen. Honestly, I couldn't help myself; I had to reach out privately because the connection was just too intense to ignore. We started messaging and talking about absolutely everything, building this deep friendship that naturally carried this heavy, electric erotic undertone between us. We grew so close, so quickly, and even though we could have easily let this stay tucked away in our digital bubbles, I found myself craving her presence in the real world, so I finally took the leap and asked her to meet me in person.

She was really second-guessing herself about the whole thing, but I kept trying to cheer her on and give her that extra push she needed, even when she started throwing these wild hypothetical questions my way—like, she actually asked me how on earth I’d react if she were suddenly a woman trapped in a man's body, and what my immediate response would be if I saw her like that. I saw you....or what?
Haha, you were practically howling while typing that out, weren't you? Honestly, that has to be the most elaborate attempt at dodging a meetup I’ve ever heard, and believe me, I’ve been rejected more times than I care to admit. So, since we're actually doing this, how about we just meet up this Friday around five o'clock over at Starbucks in downtown Chicago?

Consider this a little thought experiment.

She didn't show up, and honestly, I can't help but wonder if her headspace is just completely different from how you first met her, like she's forgotten the very essence of who she was when you two actually connected.

It popped up: can you? I just really need to see her.Can you actually recognize that specific person you once knew, even when they're standing right in front of you in a man's body?

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose I struggle to grasp the logic behind the idea that a woman inhabiting a male body could be considered identical to a woman inhabiting a female body.🤷
How far would society actually go in practice when it comes to accepting a trans woman as a woman?
To me, it all seems quite clear if I just sit back and let my mind wander for a moment without overthinking it too much.
It really isn't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't pretend that it is.

I honestly feel like she’d be really understanding toward you if you just sat her down and talked it out.

🙂)

steelridge58 said:So, I stumbled upon this woman online—just one of those random, unexpected encounters where you aren't looking for anything at all—and she completely floored me with her perspective on life, her sheer sensibility, and this incredible, subtle sensuality that just radiates through a screen. Honestly, I couldn't help myself; I had to reach out privately because the connection was just too intense to ignore. We started messaging and talking about absolutely everything, building this deep friendship that naturally carried this heavy, electric erotic undertone between us. We grew so close, so quickly, and even though we could have easily let this stay tucked away in our digital bubbles, I found myself craving her presence in the real world, so I finally took the leap and asked her to meet me in person.

She was really second-guessing herself about the whole thing, but I kept trying to cheer her on and give her that extra push she needed, even when she started throwing these wild hypothetical questions my way—like, she actually asked me how on earth I’d react if she were suddenly a woman trapped in a man's body, and what my immediate response would be if I saw her like that. I saw you....or what?
Haha, you were practically howling while typing that out, weren't you? Honestly, that has to be the most elaborate attempt at dodging a meetup I’ve ever heard, and believe me, I’ve been rejected more times than I care to admit. So, since we're actually doing this, how about we just meet up this Friday around five o'clock over at Starbucks in downtown Chicago?

Consider this a little thought experiment.

She didn't show up, and honestly, I can't help but wonder if her headspace is just completely different from how you first met her, like she's forgotten the very essence of who she was when you two actually connected.

It popped up: can you? I just really need to see her.Can you actually recognize that specific person you once knew, even when they're standing right in front of you in a man's body?

I honestly feel like she’d be really understanding toward you if you just sat her down and talked it out.

🙂)

I guess your little thought experiment might have made sense back in the early 2000s, but honestly, in this day and age, if you trust anyone or anything you find on the internet, you're probably being a bit of an idiot. The person you're chatting with might not just be a different gender than they claim, but they might not even be a real human being at all, but some kind of bot or artificial int10010100010010.

That’s really just irrelevant to the core of this thought experiment and what we're actually trying to get at here.

steelridge58 said:That’s really just irrelevant to the core of this thought experiment and what we're actually trying to get at here.

Well, I might have to respectfully disagree with you there, if you don't mind me saying.

I truly believe that men are just fundamentally visual creatures, at least in my estimation. It seems like they don't really buy into anything until they can see it with their own eyes. Even if someone were to lie about their gender, or maybe their weight, or something else entirely—it doesn't really matter—because, in the end, you’re just going to perceive them as being dishonest.

Personally speaking, I think I would much rather be in a situation where I was surrounded by ten men in a woman's body than deal with just one woman in a man's body.

I mean, I guess we all pretty much know what the ultimate goal of this whole scenario is intended to be, right? 😬

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I guess your little thought experiment might have made sense back in the early 2000s, but honestly, in this day and age, if you trust anyone or anything you find on the internet, you're probably being a bit of an idiot. The person you're chatting with might not just be a different gender than they claim, but they might not even be a real human being at all, but some kind of bot or artificial int10010100010010.

But here's the kicker—if you don't trust a single soul on the web and you're still hanging out here, then you're an even bigger idiot.

ruggedraven36 said:But here's the kicker—if you don't trust a single soul on the web and you're still hanging out here, then you're an even bigger idiot.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with that entirely, because I think it's quite possible to be on the internet specifically to spread lies and deceive others 🙂

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I'm not sure I agree with that entirely, because I think it's quite possible to be on the internet specifically to spread lies and deceive others 🙂

That’s exactly what I was thinking when I called them an "even bigger idiot."

Physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder just dropped a new video about trans women in sports. Check it out. Her channel’s huge—she keeps things snappy, simple, and actually knows her stuff. Even when she tackles topics outside her usual lane, she brings in the right experts to back her up.

She breaks down why this isn't some black-and-white issue like people think, especially those stuck in that rigid, old-school "men are men, women are women, end of story" mindset. Major sports leagues have been wrestling with this for nearly 40 years now. Scientists are digging into it too, and the data isn't exactly straightforward—it varies wildly depending on the sport...

steelridge58 said:So, I stumbled upon this woman online—just one of those random, unexpected encounters where you aren't looking for anything at all—and she completely floored me with her perspective on life, her sheer sensibility, and this incredible, subtle sensuality that just radiates through a screen. Honestly, I couldn't help myself; I had to reach out privately because the connection was just too intense to ignore. We started messaging and talking about absolutely everything, building this deep friendship that naturally carried this heavy, electric erotic undertone between us. We grew so close, so quickly, and even though we could have easily let this stay tucked away in our digital bubbles, I found myself craving her presence in the real world, so I finally took the leap and asked her to meet me in person.

She was really second-guessing herself about the whole thing, but I kept trying to cheer her on and give her that extra push she needed, even when she started throwing these wild hypothetical questions my way—like, she actually asked me how on earth I’d react if she were suddenly a woman trapped in a man's body, and what my immediate response would be if I saw her like that. I saw you....or what?
Haha, you were practically howling while typing that out, weren't you? Honestly, that has to be the most elaborate attempt at dodging a meetup I’ve ever heard, and believe me, I’ve been rejected more times than I care to admit. So, since we're actually doing this, how about we just meet up this Friday around five o'clock over at Starbucks in downtown Chicago?

Consider this a little thought experiment.

She didn't show up, and honestly, I can't help but wonder if her headspace is just completely different from how you first met her, like she's forgotten the very essence of who she was when you two actually connected.

It popped up: can you? I just really need to see her.Can you actually recognize that specific person you once knew, even when they're standing right in front of you in a man's body?

I honestly feel like she’d be really understanding toward you if you just sat her down and talked it out.

🙂)

It really is just a thought experiment—playing around with hollow possibilities.
In practical terms, such a scenario is impossible because this premise

1) assumes you met a woman online whom you found deeply attractive, specifically for her way of thinking

contradicts the very foundation of point

2) and she asks what would happen if she were a woman in a man's body.

This implies that one can be attracted to a woman—without having seen her, essentially detached from physical appearance (which presents its own set of complications)—based solely on her intellectual framework...

... while simultaneously assuming that her way of thinking is such that she can perceive herself as a woman inhabiting a male body.

That is where the logic collapses; the abstract assumption that her way of thinking alone could be the catalyst for attraction is flawed. If her mindset is truly structured in a way that allows for such identity confusion, that perspective won't be a mere isolated fragment; it will permeate everything about her. Consequently, the idea that I could be attracted to her through her intellect becomes moot. In reality, her worldview would manifest in every interaction, ensuring we remain fundamental strangers on almost every level, far from any kind of mutual spark.

steelridge58 said:So, I stumbled upon this woman online—just one of those random, unexpected encounters where you aren't looking for anything at all—and she completely floored me with her perspective on life, her sheer sensibility, and this incredible, subtle sensuality that just radiates through a screen. Honestly, I couldn't help myself; I had to reach out privately because the connection was just too intense to ignore. We started messaging and talking about absolutely everything, building this deep friendship that naturally carried this heavy, electric erotic undertone between us. We grew so close, so quickly, and even though we could have easily let this stay tucked away in our digital bubbles, I found myself craving her presence in the real world, so I finally took the leap and asked her to meet me in person.

She was really second-guessing herself about the whole thing, but I kept trying to cheer her on and give her that extra push she needed, even when she started throwing these wild hypothetical questions my way—like, she actually asked me how on earth I’d react if she were suddenly a woman trapped in a man's body, and what my immediate response would be if I saw her like that. I saw you....or what?
Haha, you were practically howling while typing that out, weren't you? Honestly, that has to be the most elaborate attempt at dodging a meetup I’ve ever heard, and believe me, I’ve been rejected more times than I care to admit. So, since we're actually doing this, how about we just meet up this Friday around five o'clock over at Starbucks in downtown Chicago?

Consider this a little thought experiment.

She didn't show up, and honestly, I can't help but wonder if her headspace is just completely different from how you first met her, like she's forgotten the very essence of who she was when you two actually connected.

It popped up: can you? I just really need to see her.Can you actually recognize that specific person you once knew, even when they're standing right in front of you in a man's body?

I honestly feel like she’d be really understanding toward you if you just sat her down and talked it out.

🙂)

Would I see them as I wish to see them, or as they truly are? If it's the former, I suppose I might find some way to cling to the illusion. But if it's the latter, then I am merely a victim of his own fervor and pretension.
No, because it wouldn't be her anymore; it would just be him pretending to be her. No matter how feminine or delicate a man might act, he is still a man. Add to that the fact that he believes himself to be a woman, and well... that doesn't suddenly make him one. It just makes him such an anomaly that I wouldn't even want to know him, let alone pursue any kind of relationship.
Let's stop pretending that having certain preferences isn't perfectly normal. 😉
Well, I guess I don't really care much for being "understanding" in that regard. 🙂)

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I might have to respectfully disagree with you there, if you don't mind me saying.

I truly believe that men are just fundamentally visual creatures, at least in my estimation. It seems like they don't really buy into anything until they can see it with their own eyes. Even if someone were to lie about their gender, or maybe their weight, or something else entirely—it doesn't really matter—because, in the end, you’re just going to perceive them as being dishonest.

Personally speaking, I think I would much rather be in a situation where I was surrounded by ten men in a woman's body than deal with just one woman in a man's body.

I mean, I guess we all pretty much know what the ultimate goal of this whole scenario is intended to be, right? 😬

True enough.

Justin Richardson7 said:It really is just a thought experiment—playing around with hollow possibilities.
In practical terms, such a scenario is impossible because this premise

1) assumes you met a woman online whom you found deeply attractive, specifically for her way of thinking

contradicts the very foundation of point

2) and she asks what would happen if she were a woman in a man's body.

This implies that one can be attracted to a woman—without having seen her, essentially detached from physical appearance (which presents its own set of complications)—based solely on her intellectual framework...

... while simultaneously assuming that her way of thinking is such that she can perceive herself as a woman inhabiting a male body.

That is where the logic collapses; the abstract assumption that her way of thinking alone could be the catalyst for attraction is flawed. If her mindset is truly structured in a way that allows for such identity confusion, that perspective won't be a mere isolated fragment; it will permeate everything about her. Consequently, the idea that I could be attracted to her through her intellect becomes moot. In reality, her worldview would manifest in every interaction, ensuring we remain fundamental strangers on almost every level, far from any kind of mutual spark.

Yeah, I suppose so.

lonetrucker4 said:Physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder just dropped a new video about trans women in sports. Check it out. Her channel’s huge—she keeps things snappy, simple, and actually knows her stuff. Even when she tackles topics outside her usual lane, she brings in the right experts to back her up.

She breaks down why this isn't some black-and-white issue like people think, especially those stuck in that rigid, old-school "men are men, women are women, end of story" mindset. Major sports leagues have been wrestling with this for nearly 40 years now. Scientists are digging into it too, and the data isn't exactly straightforward—it varies wildly depending on the sport...

I feel like there might be a bit of a flaw in her reasoning here, if you ask me. She didn't really address things like reflexes or reaction speeds at all, so I guess she might be mistaken when she suggests that gender doesn't matter, even in something like e-sports. In my experience, male teams in competitive gaming tend to beat female teams quite easily, so that doesn't really level the playing field either.

During the League of Legends Championship, an all-female squad ended up with a 52-2 record before they were eventually knocked out, mostly because watching them lose over and over wasn't exactly thrilling for the audience.😁

It’s actually quite interesting to me how almost all the criticism seems to focus on men who transition and then compete against other women, whereas you almost never hear about the reverse happening. I suppose that says a whole lot on its own.😬

Back in 2019, Boston hosted a "Straight Pride parade."

The Group super happy Fun America (SHFA) put together a "Straight Pride parade" on August 31—it drew in a few hundred people, though there were thousands of protesters showing up too. I guess you could say the counter-protesters totally dwarfed the actual parade attendees. SHFA basically framed the whole thing as their way of pushing back against the left's obsession with "identity politics."

Link

Some of the folks at that "pride" event seemed like they were just there for the hell of it, while others... well, they actually seemed to take it quite seriously, I suppose.
It’s interesting, though—there was a huge turnout of opponents from within the LGBT community protesting against the straight demonstration.
Video report:

Yt