So, your argument is, some of those groups are actually oppressed, therefore, it is inappropriate to throw in some of the actually oppressed groups in the same bin as obviously non-oppressed ones?

Yeah, that is a fair point, I guess. In retrospect, I should not have done this, if only because it distracts from the original argument, and I can see how it can be read as “look at me, a non-oppressed person, I am soo oppressed”. You live and learn, I never had the intention to make this about me, or any group I may be in.

I believe that my original argument, while maybe not exactly presented in the best way, still is valid: blanket statements against a group, any group, are bad. Some are worse than others in the context of how society treats them, sure, I agree with that.

My bad, I thought you were arguing in good faith. easy mistake. But apparently I hate queer people now.

The example of me being a straight man does not matter at all. I could have picked any other group. In fact, in retrospect, I probably should, because we are now arguing about straight men, when we should be arguing about how “$group is bad” is a fucked up style of thinking. The solution to a society that is oppressive to some (like homosexual women) is not applying the same rhetoric of oppression and stereotype to groups that are more likely to do that oppression (like heterosexual women).

drunk straight women love to SA queer women

That is a very general statement. I really dislike like such blanket statements. Because what is the difference between that and statements like “black people are dumb”, “Mexicans are drug dealers”, or, yes, “straight men are rapists”?

if someone critiques an identity that you are a part of and the critique doesnt apply to you then its probably not about you

If someone critiques a whole identity, they should either make sure that it applies to all or at least the overwhelming majority of that identity, or be prepared to be called a bigot and prejudiced.

To be extremely clear, because I know this is the internet, nuance is dead, and everything has to be black and white and packed for a 10s attention span:

You should critique people. You should point out toxic and hostile behaviour and oppressive social norms. You should, in my humble opinion, never fall into the trap of going from “gay people are bad” to “straight people are bad”.

The opposite of a restrictive society that enforces a one-size-fits-all norm (like heterosexuality, or being of $majorityEthnicity) is not an inverse stereotype, it is a free society where people are judged on their actions, not the properties they were born with.

Then let me rephrase it, because I forgot it’s the internet and people will try to misunderstand me.

As a member of a non-specified group X, I would hate it if people would precondemn me based on thing Y, which a part of group X does more than the average population.

I could have picked any other stereotype, I just happen to be not a woman, and of the majority ethnicity in my country. Blame my parents.

However, based on this hypothetical, yet relatable thought experiment, saying that a group does a bad thing because some people who happen to be in that group do that bad thing more often than other people is at the very least rude.

Throwing a whole group of people in there with the actions of some idiots is a tiny bit rude.

Signed, a straight man who kind of likes not being treated as a rapist and murderer.

Edit: In retrospect, please ignore the second sentence. It distracts from the actual argument, and me picking an arbitrary group should not effect the validity of the first sentence.