Thread by @Ali_Davis

I would like to talk about the "I don't agree with it" construction. You know the one. "I'm not prejudiced against homosexuals. I just don't agree with it. I just don't agree with the lifestyle."

("Lifestyle" itself is gross, as it carries the insidious implication that actually getting to build a life with a person you're in love with is a frivolous and expendable thing on a par with dancing in clubs or chainsaw sculpture. But that's not why we're here.)

"I don't agree with it" is a careful, evil construction designed to cast the speaker as a perfectly reasonable independent thinker -- maybe the only reasonable person in the conversation -- and not a bigot. DEFINITELY not a bigot.

"I don't agree with it" does a lot of work, wrenching logic and common sense around to present LGBT rights as simply an intangible thing that anyone might like or not.

It suggests that not "agreeing" with The Gay is the same as not agreeing with the decision to remaster the first three Star Wars movies. An abstract that reasonable people can disagree on, and the only damage that might be done is to George Lucas's feelings.

But that's not what "disagreeing" with LGBT rights is. It has real effects. It's about being blocked from visiting a dying spouse in the hospital. It's about parental rights being taken away, about deportation because of a refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage.

It's about preventing people from being able to feel safe in a job or reliable housing. Anti-trans bathroom bills are about trying to drive transfolk out of public spaces entirely.

Rolling back anti-bullying and hate crime laws isn't about "disagreeing with a lifestyle," it's about knowingly opening human beings up to (increased) violence. It's about essentially being fine with the fact that transwomen of color are murdered at horrifying rates.

I've actually had people tell me that they don't talk about it in those terms because it makes them "sound mean." Damn right it does.

"I just don't agree with it" is the coward's way out. It's a way of holding a bigoted position without the courage to take the social consequences. It's a way of maintaining a prejudice without even a moment of self-examination.

And the people who use that dodge frequently get away with it. Because they have set up the false proposition that if we call them on it, we're the ones who are being intolerant.

Here in the thick of Pride Month, I am making a request of journalists (and bystanders, if you're feeling both safe and up for it):

When someone says "I just don't agree with it," ask them if the world would be a better place if all the LGBT people disappeared. No weaseling with "it would be better if they adopted a straight lifestyle." One straight answer.

I want Mike Pence to answer on the record whether the world would be a better place if LGBT people simply disappeared. I want Mike Pompeo and Betsy DeVos to answer that one question.

If you don't agree with the "lifestyle," if you don't agree with the LGBT community existing as they are, would it be better if they didn't exist?

If it WOULDN'T be better for LGBT people to disappear, should you maybe let us live our lives in peace and with full civil rights?

(By the way, what was Jesus's position on whether you should make life for marginalized people harder or easier?)

If it WOULD be better for LGBT people to disappear, how do you reconcile that with the claim that you don't feel any animosity?

Pride month is Pride month. Let's encourage right-wing politicos to be who they are right out loud.