this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6191 readers
44 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thoughts on this? Based on the title I thought it was a bad thing, but after reading the article I can see the reasoning behind it.
I can see the reasoning, but i think making the ban more surgical in nature would be a better approach, ie lifting the ban for specific things such as research and outreach. I think lifting the ban outright sends the message that if enough places discriminate then its ok. Atkins mentioned making personal connections, and i do think thats important, but im not sure that lifting the ban completely is the best way to go about forging personal connections. That being said, im not sure what would be the best way, and a mediocre idea is better than no idea.
Id like to see a migration fund and social net fund for people fleeing discriminatory legislation, but that is a whole lot more work to implement than bans like this one.