AtheismPlus hates the Human Rights Campaign

What is new there?

Well, if you aren't already aware, there is a gay rights group in the United States called "Human Rights Campaign". (HRC for short)

Among other things, they advocate for things like gay marriage. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Wrong.

AtheismPlus hates Human Rights Campaign.

Thread titled: "Social Media on Marriage Equality: The Equal Sign"

A little history here: HRC's logo was previously a yellow equal sign on blue background
User "NoGodsNoMasters" writes:

So, has anyone got an opinion on the surge of equal signs on social media the past couple of days?
I first noticed it when George Takei on FB brought it up, changing his profile picture to a pink and red equal sign, to bring attention to the SCOTUS hearings this week.

I have seen many many people copy and spread it around.
My personal opinion:
It's cute. I suppose it means something. I have considered changing my picture to it, but I think it might be something of bandwaggoning or peer pressure. I have been a vocal proponent of marriage equality for a long time, regularly bringing it up to people who wouldn't otherwise have had their beliefs challenged. But this just seems... late? Like it's something the popular kids do.
Also, I'm not going to be dispairaging about the "effort" put in by millions of people all over to show their support. I don't always think that a consciousness raising campaign like this on social media means nothing, sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. I feel like this could really mean something. I certainly have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of people on my friends list who have only just now publically showed their support for equal marriage rights. These are sometimes people who I really thought didn't care, didn't care enough to find out, or maybe were too religious (in believing that it was wrong in some god's eyes), but loads of people have come out in support and I love knowing that.
But... I can't help but feel like if they had been more vocal, more accepting, more active in the first place rather than everyone doing this very little thing now, maybe things would have changed a lot faster. And that's why I haven't changed my profile picture. Because I feel like nothing about me has changed, I am still the same with the same feelings about the issue. I don't think I have to come out to anyone to show my opinion on the matter. It should already be well known if they know me enough to have me friended.

Translation: "I supported gay marriage before it was cool."

This is also in line with other A+ threads. It is the norm on A+ to not so much trade actions or ideas, but opinions.

More HRC "haters" chime in - "Richard_Austin" writes:

I live in California. I know people who voted for Prop 8 who are now putting this up. My emotional response is a mix of "good for you for changing," and "fuck off, this is your fault to begin with" - and, honestly, a bit more the latter than the former.

For most of the people I know, the social or political cost of changing an FB icon to this is very little to nothing at all. Many (most?) of them will never do anything else to ever actively support marriage equality. This, and most "campaigns" like this, seems patronizing. I know that peer pressure and social awareness are big things in advancing social justice, but it still feels like appropriation.

Translation: "Sure, you support gay marriage now, but what have you done for me lately?"

But...it kinda seems like a lot of people who are doing it are the faux-allies. These are the people who are cookie beggars. I've seen one person who is a friend who is gay put it up, but none of the others (that I know of). And...I feel like that kinda says something. I haven't been following the campaign, which I probably should, and I did hear as well that they're throwing trans* under the bus and that is totally not okay.

I'm seconding Richard Austin, patronizing is how this feels. A lot of the same people putting it up because it's popular are the same who are casually homophobic and hateful because it's popular. I wouldn't doubt that the same girls who found out that a girl they hugged was a lesbian and went 'ewww' are doing this, and I'll guarantee that there are libertarians and republicans and romney-voters who actively made this happen with them up. 

Support me with actions that matter. Actually speak up when you see hatred. Get out with a picket sign, campaign for our rights, fight the bigots, vote for the non-bigots, all that shit that matters that us gay people can't do (except vote!) because we legitimately have to fear outing and violence if we do so. Don't just put up a little red equals sign and wipe off your hands and call it a day if you want me to consider you an ally, and especially don't do that if you don't even know where it comes from or what it means or if you don't really care. I'd rather have a little bit of genuine support than a ton of faux-backpat-begging-support.

Officially HRC is pro-transgender rights, but their lobbying efforts and their leadership have always been willing to triangulate on it. I'm not ready to throw the whole organization under the bus though--whenever I've gone into the HRC office in DC the people I talk to there are awesome and certainly trans-friendly. I would think that on the whole most people in the organization, and its supporters, are pro-trans* rights. I don't have any idea who these fucksticks were whining about the trans* flags--fuck them obviously.

"Hamilton" also tries to question their strategy:

If you were in the US in 1860 and you were part of an organization that wanted to give complete freedom and equality to African Americans you wont get it, because wont be OK with the "complete equality" part. But if you talk about abolition, and then start moving for rights and freedoms after you get abolition, you'll end up winning. It's about getting people to do the right thing slowly, because if you rush, you wont get anywhere. If you talk about trans* marriage equality along with homosexual marriage equality, the people who are borderline supportive will drop out of supporting. While the issue is in front of the Supreme Court, it is also in front of the court of public opinion (see for example, the abortion issue, decided in the Supreme Court, but still an issue because of public opinion). Sometimes, things need to be done incrementally. 

I'm not saying that this is their logic, or even that it's strictly OK, just that they might have largely noble motives for their actions.

This sounds like a reasonable disagreement!

How does AtheismPlus respond?

A moderator, user "SubMor", did the following things:

1. Edited Hamilton's response so readers don't even see it unless they expand the comment specifically
2. Added a comment "see following post" implying the rebuttal to Hamilton was a slam-dunk
3. SubMor's reason for the edit was "throwing each other under the bus? not cool." which implies that is in fact what Hamilton was arguing for.

"Justice delayed is too often justice denied."

"Sylvia Sybil" adds:

I'm pretty sure this is their logic. The "we'll come back for you" rhetoric is pretty common when it comes to gays getting things that bis infrequently do and trans* folk almost never do.

And I would say that logic isn't okay. Partly because it creates unequal suffering in a community that's supposedly united to end their own suffering. And partly because, well, they rarely do come back for those left behind.

In AtheismPlus' strange reality, once gay marriage is legal, transsexuals will be still left out in the rain and will not benefit whatsoever from HRC's successes.

Is this accurate?

SubMor (the strategist) responds:

Hamilton, it is never okay to tell someone "we can't give you your rights because if we try to give you rights, it'll be harder for us to get our own rights." What you're talking about isn't incremental change. It's accepting the status quo for you because "screw you, I've got to get mine." It's playing right into that "divide and conquer" kyriarchy nonsense.

Why stop at trans rights, SubMor?

It's a wonder why AtheismPlus doesn't also push single payer universal healthcare at the same time.

The rest of the exchange:

Kaczuszka:

Incremental change: 'First we will fight for equal marriage laws for everyone, then we will fight for equal adoption rights for everyone'
Shit HRC is doing 'First we will fight for rights for cisgender people, then we will fight for transgender rights. Maybe.'

Hamilton: (the protagonist of this story):