why is innate with how in this part of the world. We priviledged ones keep talking about why all the time cause it is easy to do. That girl Sara talks about? She would still be bullied even if non-binaries get accepted. Victimology deals with this fairly easily. Every single theory of victimology assess the risk factor and analyzes why and how, and puts more focus on how. cause when there is a problem, a probable chance of victimization, what needs to be asked is "how" it can be solved. all of this is to say if you want to approach LGBTQ+ and any other human rights issues methodically, not with sentiment.
Why is just a part of how. How we can integrate non binaries into our culture? How we can protect all of our other minorities? I get it, if Selina and other like her starts to come out, innate morality might trigger and those who love her might start changing their opinions. But that gets nulled by Honor Killings, which if you don't know is still a big thing in this country and all over subcontinent. That is to say that when Delusion of Grandeur separates Us from Them, "Why" discussions matter a bit less than usual. Cause the reach of that discussion is limited. In a country where Sex as a topic itself is taboo, and famicide is still a thing people overlooks, i would not be so sure about allowing my friend who i like to come out in the open in an unprotected space. that might sound as suppressing freedom of living. But unfortunately that is what it is.
And, western cultures are more civilized to be honest. i don't know why you would say that they aren! civilizations can be judged easily through the amount of readers their culture has, the amount of libraries, and how they treat their books. and no i don't like to assume we have huge gaps in tolerance, cause i know we have huge gaps in tolerance. a simple example would be how our automotives run on road and how we care less and less about human lives. and how we trash everywhere we go and how we respect other cultures that are so called inferior to us. And finally, how our education system has failed. And for that, even when you make logical arguments that calls to innate moralities, most wouldn't understand it, and most who understand would not care at all. For a nation as ours, for such issues, precedented solutions have rarely ever worked. i am not saying why is less important, but throughout actually reading complex subjects such as hate crime, gender crime, and victimology what i learned tells me that i would ask for more research. and research is a part of how mostly.
I agree that a sudden declaration from govt would be brutal for LGBTQ+ people as the general public is quite hostile towards them. This is why activism is needed first to sway public opinion. "Why" is an integral part of that. Crimes come later, crimes do not have a cause and effect relationship with passing a bill. It has to do with individuals.
Acceptance of LGBTQ+ is a political issue, not a criminal one. I don't see how criminology can assess something that is far a broader topic and not a case-by-case one. (Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought criminology assess the did after it is done and it is not a preemptive field to strike the criminals before they commit a crime.) Each crime is case by case, and cannot be generalized. Otherwise, we could easily blame a nation or a religion for all the crimes its members commit. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't agree in that case. Hate crimes, honor killings derived from hatred of LGBTQ+ should also be taken case-by-case and without blaming the entire nation and religion. I do not like Bangladeshi society and am quite cynical about it, even then I don't think it's all that rotten. Insisting it's all bad is a bit sentimental resentment I'd say.
Just like the civil rights movement, feminism, and other socio-political movements that changed the world how we sit bit by bit, the acceptance of LGBTQ+ is a political one. It's imperative we research and understand the importance of political activism that went through in those cases to see how it impacted those causes.
I was not talking about crimes TBH, i was talking about victimization. Social sciences rotate and mostly are common to every discipline in that faculty. And victimization not always result in tangible crimes. i am more focused on the after math tbh.
Crime is not case by case TBH. thats how law treats them but while understanding motif most crimes can be generalized. what you mean is each criminals are diffrent. Crime, in its whole, really isnt. again, victimization, Hate crime, these topics arent bound to just crimes. As criminologists, we try to explain crimes with it, but they talk about both broader and smaller aspects too.
and for the activism, well, ill refrain from commenting:3 i am highly biased and so i am not a better judge of its political dynamics.