Quote from: organofcorti on April 12, 2016, 04:56:20 AM

Quote from: Swordsoffreedom on April 12, 2016, 04:40:16 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 12, 2016, 04:23:36 AM

Someone coined a phrase for something so specific? I'm guessing there's a very interesting etymology -- can you explain how the term came about?

There are no general terminologies to my knowledge regarding the anti-gay word that basically means against gays that do not have the word gay in it.
I used bite-back as a lexicon term to illustrate the promotion of a gay lifestyle an extreme left SJW focus being forced down society's throat regardless of religious/conservative viewpoints.

The word Bite-Back though does have a terminology I just applied it to this case, sometimes we make the dictionary its how language is organicaly created after all Tongue

(Used Organ in there)

The two main lexicon uses per se are
1. to stop yourself from saying something or from expressing an emotion:
2. to react angrily, especially to someone who has done something unpleasant to you: A youth club has bitten back at vandals by covering its roof with razor-sharp security wire.

I used the second term as it is a nice way to put it in not so many words, basically I meant its an idea of gay vengance on anything that is not in line with their viewpoint or perspective and that is namely religion in particular christianty and by bite-back I mean using social media the SJW the press, corporations and activists groups to push an agenda that is against the majority opinion.

The closest related term I could have used instead would be the pink/gay mafia but that didn't seem to cover the entire context so I used bite-back instead to relate to that point since you mentioned funding and I was responding in regards to how it is being used by the gay community to promote a one could say hatred filled agenda against Christianity in general and some peoples conscientious beliefs.

That said I also implied the first term in how religious organizations tend to hold back on their opinion for the most part regarding this issue but when they do make a stand and protest, the gay community Bites back at them for having a conflicting viewpoint and trying to stifle any open discussion on any issue in a sort of SJW ish way.

I misunderstood what you meant and hadn't looked it up myself.

Ther way you're phrasing it sounds to me like you're saying that there are saying that there are pro-sexual freedom groups and religious anti-sexual freedom groups, and when the second group posts hate messages about the first, they react angrily. I think this is a pretty fair response, tbh. If someone I didn't know claimed to have unfalsifiable "proof" that I'm evil and shouldn't be allowed the same freedoms as other people, I'd be pretty pissed too.

If I'm not getting it, it's probably that I just don't have a good guide for these issues in your country -- I don't see much religious hatred of sexual practices where I am, and there are churches that cater for both groups.

That seems like a fair interpretation of Bite-Back, using the definitons of the free dictionary that is also how a person could read it in the scope of sexual freedoms.

Example:
South Carolina voted they don't want transgenders in my bathroom to protect children (anti-sexual freedom works as well), a gay group bit back and said they would boycott the state because it's one or another they either let everyone use that bathroom or seperate it for men and women which has been the standard for the last 100+ years (pro-sexual freedom).

I didn't want to use the one that used an animal interpretation which is why I posted the other definition as that could be interpreted wrongly, ah history it could be treated as ~~nigger~~ ahem black person reference since historically they were called animals.

1. Lit. to defend an attack by biting at someone or something. (Usually an animal.) I threatened the dog and the dog bit back.
2. Fig. to fight back at someone; to return someone's anger or attack; to speak back to someone with anger. She is usually tolerant, but she will bite back if pressed. Yes, she will bite back.

I would be pissed that a pedophile could use the girls room in a school pretending to be transgender and vice versa for females who like little boys.

That is why we have unisex bathrooms which address transgender issues but on the other hand I can't see the economic viability of making a unisex bathroom in every single building. One you would need to change the building code to mandate three bathrooms in a building to address a minority, or two you need to retroactively have all male female bathrooms become unisex.

Passing that bill raises the issues of privacy and comfort for others as well so religious freedom which is why I can see that people are pissed off on both sides of this spectrum, personally I don't want people to use my bathroom if they are transgender and would just want unisex to be used. If its not available then the problem lies in that if one identifies as a female but looks like a male where do we draw the line into what bathroom they use.

So when you have people like Bruce Springsteen boycotting a state because of that reason it seems bigoted to me but in a term he bit back.
Folks with gender disorders deserve basic protections, but that doesn't mean we turn the social norms of our society upside down.

One group's rights cannot trump another's. This is fundamental to a society that is respectful of rights. As the saying goes "your right to swing your arm ends when it meets my face". The Trans community needs to come to terms with the fact that there will be limits to how they exercise their rights when they come into conflict with the reasonable and legitimate rights of others.

Either way this is the biggest Gay/Christian battle America wise at present so it fits into the context of this thread based on where you stand personally.
https://www.charlotteagenda.com/44997/hold-creating-author-profilei-love-lgbt-community-support-house-bill-2/

That said the debate is ignited in the US because of the Supreme Court Decision, legislatures are trying to be pre-emptive in making legislation they didn't plan on making any time soon so there are competiting priorities, what makes the debate depends on their own alignment of interests, here the legislature voted so there were no issues which makes sense organ believe your Canadian as well that said in the USA they forced it through courts so some resentment would be expected.

Either way South Carolinas not alone on that even Canada is debating it in general but we just don't see boycotts since its not affecting anything at the provincial level yet.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transgender-rights-bill-gutted-by-transphobic-senate-amendment-1.2975024

Either way hope that explained that issue for you a bit organ.