Nope, that’s categorically false in every possible way, even if we’re being pedantic. For the sake of informing those who might have been misled by this (since I have little doubt you’re being intentionally disingenuous as campists often are) Here’s a couple relevant excerpts from the Wikipedia article on LGBTQ rights in China:
[LGBTQ] people in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) face legal and social challenges that are not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. While both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal, same-sex couples are currently unable to marry or adopt, and households headed by such couples are ineligible for the same legal protections available to heterosexual couples. No explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people are present in its legal system, nor do hate crime laws cover sexual orientation or gender identity.
Under Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Xi Jinping, LGBTQ venues and events have been forced to shut and LGBTQ rights activists have become subject to greater scrutiny by the country’s system of mass surveillance. The CCP increasingly considers LGBTQ advocacy the work of "foreign forces”. LGBTQ content is censored. Authors of boys’ love works are routinely arrested and criminally prosecuted.
You didn’t, silly. You said being gay isn’t illegal, which sure, is conditionally true, but neither was being a free black person in post-slavery America, and yet we hopefully both know how that demographic was treated then, if not even now.
Besides, my goal isn’t to address something you did before me, but to point out how, intentionally or not, you’re leaving out very important info that lays out the mis-or-disinformative nature of your point. You can’t talk about the quality of a book if you’ve only read a single chapter.
Anyway, feel free to continue implying something along the lines of me being on the payroll of the all-powerful capitalist oligarchs of the world or something. It’ll really help your point.
Nope, that’s categorically false in every possible way, even if we’re being pedantic. For the sake of informing those who might have been misled by this (since I have little doubt you’re being intentionally disingenuous
as campists often are) Here’s a couple relevant excerpts from the Wikipedia article on LGBTQ rights in China:Yup this underlines what i meant very well, especially the excerpt from wikipedia.
I already addressed this but good try little buddy. I hope they’re giving you overtime pay.
You didn’t, silly. You said being gay isn’t illegal, which sure, is conditionally true, but neither was being a free black person in post-slavery America, and yet we hopefully both know how that demographic was treated then, if not even now.
Besides, my goal isn’t to address something you did before me, but to point out how, intentionally or not, you’re leaving out very important info that lays out the mis-or-disinformative nature of your point. You can’t talk about the quality of a book if you’ve only read a single chapter.
Anyway, feel free to continue implying something along the lines of me being on the payroll of the all-powerful capitalist oligarchs of the world or something. It’ll really help your point.