The point of the article is trying to explain the persistence of anti LGBTQIA+ legislation in the world. This is discussing an alternative (or in scientific terms, confounding variable) that challenges the absolute notions laid out in the article. I have no stake in this argument and am making no points against the British Empire or the Muslim religion, but to state that this discussion isn’t relevant to the article is frankly disingenuous.
As a bisexual man of historical UK origin, I can see and understand both impacts simultaneously. I also think we can discuss all forms of queerphobia simultaneously, and that it does a disservice to all my LGBTQIA+ comrades to dissent genuine discussion over the impacts of both colonialism and religion on the presence of queerphobia just because that’s not the specific angle of this specific article.
The point of the article is trying to explain the persistence of anti LGBTQIA+ legislation in the world. This is discussing an alternative (or in scientific terms, confounding variable) that challenges the absolute notions laid out in the article. I have no stake in this argument and am making no points against the British Empire or the Muslim religion, but to state that this discussion isn’t relevant to the article is frankly disingenuous.
As a bisexual man of historical UK origin, I can see and understand both impacts simultaneously. I also think we can discuss all forms of queerphobia simultaneously, and that it does a disservice to all my LGBTQIA+ comrades to dissent genuine discussion over the impacts of both colonialism and religion on the presence of queerphobia just because that’s not the specific angle of this specific article.