this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
142 points (97.3% liked)

QueerDefenseFront

639 readers
52 users here now

LGBTQ+ rights are under attack across the world.

This a Community dedicated to the discussion of how to protect, advocate for, and restore LGBTQ rights!

With the rampant increase of Anti LGBTQ+ hate crimes, speech and laws internationally, the LGBTQ community globally no longer feels safe.

We refuse to stand by while injustice against our community reigns.

Here we will organize, and discuss ways to make our voices heard!

Link to QDL Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Queerdefensefront/s/s1JGAmJK9d

Link to QDL Discord Server: https://discord.com/invite/ng7DZqP6pf


Community Rules:

  1. No Hate Speech

No Hate Speech allowed whatsoever. This is a O tolerance policy. This goes for any form of hate and/or bigotry regarding race, religion, or LGBTQ+ identities.

While we will have discussions on political issues dealing with hate and bigotry AGAINST the LGBTQ+ community, please keep your comments respectful of ail parties.

Be better than how your enemies treat you.


  1. Respect the trans community

Respect the people who belong here. If you're confused what that means, here's a minor primer:

No asking to date trans people or otherwise meet up with them. No treating being transgender as a mental illness or as being lesser in any way. No arguing with trans people about their identity. No arguing with trans people about their vulnerabilities, including anything related to sports, laws, etc. This includes anything else that the mod team deems disrespectful.


  1. Stay on topic!

Posts should be related to the defense, advocacy, and restoration of LGBTQ+ rights.

This Community is for news regarding, as well as the discussion of, anti LGBTQ+ laws, hate crimes, and propaganda.


  1. Bunnies are above the law

This isn't a rule but it shows you're paying attention to the rules. good for you!


Similar Communities:

c/Gaymers: !gaymers@lemmy.blahaj.zone

c/trans_guns: !trans_guns@Lemmy.blahaj.zone

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is just islamophobia. People are people, I take them at face value.

[–] belluck@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Where is this specifically islamophobia rather than just anti-religiousness?

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It being a response to an article about a muslim woman???

[–] belluck@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Usually the Religion isn’t mentioned in the headline, so maybe that’s what prompted them to make that comment?

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Except it is often in the headline if the person is islamic...

[–] belluck@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s on the people writing headlines though, not on the commenter

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They chose to respond that comment to this article. Whether it was in the headline or not is irrelevant.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Yeah, you can look at their other comments and see that they're clearly just anti-religion and not Islamophobic. You are the kind of person who lessens claims of Islamophobia or Anti-semitism's validity by flooding the gate with invalid accusations and make it harder to see valid accusations. Thanks for your hard work.

[–] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And they mention two other religions, and criticise religion generally. This is not targeted at Islam specifically and exclusively.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I don't buy that. The comment is in response to this article. Generalising it doesn't make it less prejudice. That's like saying it's not antisemitic to walk into a* synagogue and start shouting about how all religion is evil.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, it isn't. You're just being reactionary.

You made up a completely separate scenario that involves an individual going to a specific location to target a specific group of people.

In this scenario, a person saw a random article in their feed that happens to mention the legislator's faith. And that person commented generally on all faith (but especially Abrahamic faiths) being dangerous.

They didn't seek out an article about muslims to target muslims.

If the article was about a Jewish legislator or Christian legislator where their faith is directly mentioned in the headline, the comment's intent and meaning would remain identical.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"I saw a random place of worship and wandered right in."

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's just intellectual dishonesty. Stop coping and grow up.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm the one coping? You managed to be that upset at me you replied in two different comment chains.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ironic and hypocritical that you would call me out for something you did in the same comment chains.

stop coping and grow up.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

me when I can't argue anything of substance against the smarter person but I still want to be willfully ignorant and keep doing the stupid shit I'm doing

[–] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The comment about religion is on an article about a religious person, yes. I guess OP could have gone and found a different article that specifically mentions a different religion in the headline, but that would have been prejudiced against that particular religion, yeah? What are we supposed to just pussyfoot around any naming of any specific religion?

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The US doesn't have an anti-christianity issue, it has an anti-islam issue.

[–] etherphon@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

The last thing we need is TWO shitty fundamentalist religions battling it out.

[–] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's true! However, the USA does have a Christian Nationalist problem, and the merging of religion and state is a big problem. That's what I thought the commenter was saying; merging religion and the state is bad.

I think it's good that you're watchful for Islamophobia, genuinely, because it's really common and it is a real problem. It's a huge problem over here in the UK, too. I don't think this is a case of Islamophobia, and I don't think it's helpful to treat Islam with kid gloves just because people often disproportionately criticise Islam for all sorts of disingenuous reasons.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

The reason, to me, it comes across as islamophobia is that the article has nothing whatsoever to do with her faith, apart from where she's talked about facing similar marginalisation for her identity. So the OC espousing a stance against the merging of religion and state just comes across as "muslims shouldn't hold office" as it relates to this post, this article and this woman. She very literally talks about islamophobia she's faced in life, and OC just turns around and tries to argue she shouldn't be an elected representative, how is that not prejudice?

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Punching at all religions equally is not equitable since one is the dominant religion oppressing others. Also reducing a religion to its book is just a profound misunderstanding of what religion is. And is completely ignorant of the history of homophobia in muslim countries which is largely influenced by the colonial powers occupying it.

And going from "muslim woman" to "she's like the american taliban" is just racist.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I love that u ended ur point with something you completely made up and didn't happen.

I get what ur saying in the first half, tho, i just dont agree

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Don’t mix religion and government, that’s how you get nazis and project 2025.

Thats scaremongering that letting a muslim into congress will lead to what people call the "american taliban" simply on the basis of her being muslim. That's racist.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You keep putting "american taliban" in quotes, but you're not quoting anyone present. You're the only one here using that terminology.

You see, from my perspective, I see the candidate's religion being Islam as a plus at first glance. It probably means they'll have a better policy on the Palestinian genocide, for example. Or be better for brown people in general.

I think, on lemmy, that's how most people are going to interpret that headline.

That's just an atheist pointing out that Islam is no better than the other Abrahamic religions, from my perspective. The way I interpret this is that the fact that she is muslim is being used as a positive spin, when at best it is a neutral spin that doesn't even need mentioned.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The way I interpret this is that the fact that she is muslim is being used as a positive spin, when at best it is a neutral spin that doesn’t even need mentioned.

Incorrect, since muslims get mentioned on every negative thing in the headlines, therefore not mentioning it on positive things hides the positive news out of the muslim community while highlighting the negatives.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, it's a leftist article being posted in a leftist space, so... no. Doesn't need to be mentioned here.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, it’s a leftist article that might be visible outside of a leftist space, so… yes. It does need to be mentioned here.