this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
64 points (86.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7233 readers
312 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
very insightful comment.
Instead of concerning yourself one bit with the important part of the news, you decided to pick on the acronym made for inclusion.
While to some it might seem as exaggerated, the acronym is this lengthy to bring the inclusion spotlight and to raise awareness of certain things. In day to day talk most people wouldn't bother with the official acronym and LGBT or LGBTQ+ OR LGBT+ would do the trick.
The full acronym, in this context, is a formality most likely.
Oh, there's a lot to be said for the important part, notably how it shouldn't be an advisory for the United States GENERALLY, but rather certain, specific (red) states.
I'm certain the West coast would welcome Canadians of all stripes. Gulf coast? Eh... erm... em...
Literally the beginning of the article makes it clear Canada is refering to "certain states" and it's repeated through the entire article. You just came here to crack a joke in poor taste and didn't even bother reading the article lol.
Also as someone from outside the U.S., I'd understand it even if the advising was country-wide and not state specific. But it isn't.
I started reading the article in good faith and was jarred out of it by a term that even among first nations is not universally accepted:
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes/
https://objectnow.org/debunking-the-two-spirit-myth/
But in the end, I think this discussion has ended up educating people so it's a win.