>>126590I'm not a lesbian , but in some ways you're right.
I agree that lesbians in third world countries have no rights (women in these countries typically have no rights), but judging by how you write, I don't think this applies to you.
It also grinds my gears when trans """women""" call themselves lesbians or faggots, because they aren't. I don't browse the internet half as much as I used to and I have still heard trans """women""" say such things in public with their mouths. I live in Australia, and this year I heard about the "Tickle v Giggle" case, which involved a trans woman who sued a "girls-only" app owner (the troon won $20,000 AUD). Funnily enough, if the owner had just said "she was excluded for being ugly" it probably would have been ok and the app would still exist.
Where I disagree is where you say that lesbians are the most oppressed. I don't know if it's possible to quantify which group is the "most" oppressed, but if I had to pick one, I'd pick poor people. I'd say ugly people are the second most oppressed. I say this because there are no laws for discriminating against SES, nor are there laws for discriminating against how attractive someone is, at least here. Race, gender, sexual identity, and religion are protected, but your income and your face are fair game it seems. Even if people don't overtly discriminate against poor and ugly people, they definitely act more nicely towards rich and pretty people. Most people who talk about oppression never bring this up, maybe because we've been conditioned to think it's "bad" to acknowledge that some people are poor or ugly. Being ugly isn't bad though, it says nothing about who you are as a person. Same with being poor. idk, just ramblin'
