LGBTI?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

boots:
--snip--

Technically, heterosexuality is the norm. Most people are heterosexual. No need for the quotes there.

LetalisK:
I think it might be part of his point that we label things as "sexual identities" when we find them acceptable and "fetishes" when we deem them to be taboo. I don't disagree with this point, either, as society is fickle and stupid and it wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was considered a fetish and it was incredibly insulting. If there is a difference between homosexuality and foot fetishism, then one can not simply appeal to contemporary opinion to explain why. It does make me curious if a neuroscience study has been done about this subject, ie seeing brain activity in that of a heterosexual, homosexual, fetishist, etc when exposed to their sexual desire of choice and noting the differences. That's not to say such a study alone would make definitive separations between these categories, but it would definitely provide a window into the neurological/biological nature of sexuality.

Actually there is already a definitive separation. Sexual identity refers to the people you're attracted to. Fetish refers to the sexual activity that you're attracted to.

That saved some time.

boots:

That's what you said. You used the word "instead". That implies that you don't think it's possible to both divide people into groups and accept them as fellow human beings.

Actually, using the word "instead" does not imply that in the context which I used the word. I can't believe you're tell me what I meant. I know what I meant, obviously. It is not my problem if you are incapable of understanding my posts.

There's nothing special about benches either. Should we stop using the word "bench" because it arbitrarily separates it from other wood constructions like treehouses and tables?

This is a false equivalence. If you don't understand the difference between a human being and a bench, you need to see a doctor!

boots:
[quote="LetalisK" post="18.401421.16551055"]--snip--

Doesn't that leave some space for sub-category crossover, though? Like, if a guy likes women but only if they have dicks, is that a fetish or a fully-fledged sexual identity? Or is it somewhere between the two?

boots:

Abomination:

So far the only "similarity" that list of letters seems to embrace is they aren't straight. I understand some want to merge together out of fear of a tyrany of the majority but this isn't a war and the more letters you add to that the more "Us vs. Them" the vibe becomes.

The entire "movement" is about uniting to have a strong enough voice to not be overcome by the heterosexual majority. The only uniting factor of the group is that they are not straight. Save them from absurdity and just call them "non-heterosexual"... or "NH" if you're obsessed over applying capitol letters to everything.

Errr, maybe because LGBT+ people don't want to collect together under a group that starts with a negative? Maybe they want to be able to be groups in their own right, and not just be referred to as "not heterosexual" or "not normal". Maybe they celebrate the different groups in the LGBT+ community within their name because they believe that difference is a good thing, and that it's OK to be different. Maybe because there are actually a huge number of heterosexual cisgendered people who actively support the LGBT+ community and might feel a bit excluded if the group started calling themselves "the non-heterosexuals".

Bloody hell, you worry that having too many letters in the name will create an "Us vs. Them" mentality, and your alternative proposition is just to divide everyone up into "heterosexual" and "not heterosexual"? Yeah, that's a much better idea.

Because including every potential letter in the alphabet to describe or identify a 'group' when the realistic and practical situation is simply that they're not part of the heterosexual majority is absurd.

Labeling someone as non-heterosexual doesn't automatically make it a bad thing - who on earth in this thread is even arguing that not being heterosexual is a bad thing? Outside, looking in, the longer and longer label comes off as nothing more than pandering to smaller and smaller subsets of the non-heterosexual community.

"Queer" would be a good term to use as it does accurately describe the situation, people who are "out of the ordinary" with their sexual/gender alignment.

Do I have to add a disclaimer that "out of the ordinary" doesn't mean "bad" or "evil" or "disgusting" or whatever else I'm going to be accused of being due to being insensitive?

In the end the entire POINT of the LGBTWTFBBQ(add whatever more letters are deemed appropriate) movement is to have a rallying point in the face of the boring, unimaginative, normal, heterosexual majority.

Heck, the first phrase of the Wikipedia article for "Queer" is

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary.

Froggy Slayer:
Actually, I have always wondered; why are gay, lesbian and bisexual people lumped with transexual and intersexual people? Aren't they two seperate groups; one group deals with differing sexual preference and one deals with different sexual organs and identities. Not complaining, but genuinely interested in how the two groups over-lapped.

Strength in numbers, in short, plus basically facing the exact same problems for eerily similar reasons. For a long time, there wasn't a difference in society's eyes between a man who liked men and a man who identified as a (straight) woman. They both got beat up, killed or similarly hate-crime'd. So the lesbian gal and the gay dude joined forces with the transgendered man, the transgendered woman, the bisexuals (of both genders) and lately, the asexuals, the intersexed, those who refuse to conform to physical expectations of one gender or another, and other people who were hate-crime'd because they didn't conform to social expectations of either gender or sexuality.

And the next time someone went on to beat up one of these people, all the others were standing with them. And legally, they only have weight to gain rights and protection when they achieve a significant political weight.

LetalisK:
I think it might be part of his point that we label things as "sexual identities" when we find them acceptable and "fetishes" when we deem them to be taboo.

I doubt people who actually study sex academically do. Every definition for fetish I've ever heard has been an a non-sexual item which is necessary for sexual arousal.

If there is a difference between homosexuality and foot fetishism, then one can not simply appeal to contemporary opinion to explain why.

One doesn't need to. Feet are not sexual. People are.

It does make me curious if a neuroscience study has been done about this subject, ie seeing brain activity in that of a heterosexual, homosexual, fetishist, etc when exposed to their sexual desire of choice and noting the differences.

I wouldn't think that there's much value in it. People put far too much weight in brain blood-flow studies, but all they do is show which parts of the brain are active. The fact that the same regions of the brain might be active in both fetishists and people with a sexual orientation would not show anything other than that the same parts of the brain are used to process the psychology- not that the psychologies have anything remotely in common.

Reeve:

boots:

That's what you said. You used the word "instead". That implies that you don't think it's possible to both divide people into groups and accept them as fellow human beings.

Actually, using the word "instead" does not imply that in the context that I used the word. I can't believe you're tell me what I meant. I know what I meant, obviously. It is not my problem if you are incapable of understanding my posts.

It is your fault if you're incapable of explaining what your actual meaning was. Right now all you're saying is, "You're wrong, so there!" With a wild "context!" thrown in there as well.

Oh dear, you appear to have accidentally deleted your original statement from your post. No worries, I can go and fetch it again.

"I don't think we should arbitrarily [sic] divide people into groups based on their traits - whether that's race, sexual orientation etc. Instead, can we not just accept each person as a fellow human being?"

See? There is your statement, in all its contextual glory. Nothing taken away. You say that you don't think you should divide people into groups based on their traits (first clause) and that we should accept each person as a fellow human being (second clause). You connect these two clauses using the conjunctive "instead", positing the second as an alternative to the first, and therefore implying that the two are mutually exclusive.

But please, try to explain your meaning further to my poor simple mind. So you do think it is possible to both accept someone as gay and accept them as a fellow human being? If the first acceptance does not limit the second, why should it be done away with at all?

There's nothing special about benches either. Should we stop using the word "bench" because it arbitrarily separates it from other wood constructions like treehouses and tables?

This is a false equivalence. If you don't understand the difference between a human being and a bench, you need to see a doctor!

I explained the connection between trees and human beings in the very next paragraph. Oh dear, you seem to have deleted that too, and not responded to it at all, and opted for an ad hominem instead. Don't worry, I can post the explanation again. Here we go...

"There is no harm in giving names to different types of sexual orientation. This is how language works. We have parent terms which then get subdivided into different categories, often many times over and into very specific definitions. We do it with animal species, with sciences, with philosophies, with political beliefs, with different types of dairy products, with film genres and everything above and beyond - great and small. Why do you think we need to make an exception for sexual orientation if there is "nothing special" about it?"

Darken12:

Froggy Slayer:
Actually, I have always wondered; why are gay, lesbian and bisexual people lumped with transexual and intersexual people? Aren't they two seperate groups; one group deals with differing sexual preference and one deals with different sexual organs and identities. Not complaining, but genuinely interested in how the two groups over-lapped.

Strength in numbers, in short, plus basically facing the exact same problems for eerily similar reasons. For a long time, there wasn't a difference in society's eyes between a man who liked men and a man who identified as a (straight) woman. They both got beat up, killed or similarly hate-crime'd. So the lesbian gal and the gay dude joined forces with the transgendered man, the transgendered woman, the bisexuals (of both genders) and lately, the asexuals, the intersexed, those who refuse to conform to physical expectations of one gender or another, and other people who were hate-crime'd because they didn't conform to social expectations of either gender or sexuality.

And the next time someone went on to beat up one of these people, all the others were standing with them. And legally, they only have weight to gain rights and protection when they achieve a significant political weight.

I never really thought that asexual people were really victims of hate crimes, compared to other LGBTQ groups.

boots:

Remaiki:
snip

How about no? How about we don't define the many, many varied groups under the LGBT+ banner with a single label that starts with a negative? How about we don't define these people by the fact that they differ from the heterosexual "norm"?

There's a reason we don't call all women "not-men". It's because they have actual identities and aren't just recognisable by their lack of manhood. Likewise, we're not going to start defining LGBT+ people by their lack of heterosexuality.

EDIT: Plus there's the slightly awkward fact that many LGBT+ people are heterosexual. That sort of throws a wrench in the works.

So, to your first point: You mean, these people that includes me? Weren't expecting that, were ya'? (I jest, if you're wondering.) I never stated or even implied that heterosexuality was the 'norm'. (You use the phrase like you're quoting me.) The term starts with a negative because it's expressing that the term refers to people who aren't heterosexual. It's simple, really.

To your second: Well, yeah, there is a reason we don't call all women 'not-men' - it's because there are only 2 genders, and about 50 bazillion million different gender orientations(as evidenced by this very thread).

However, your third point is actually valid. ...However, I think I have the answer: 'sexual preference minority'. Taken straight from the 'ethnic minority' school of thought. But, I've thought of a problem - the 'minority' part kinda stumps me - to use our 'ethnic minority' example, the phrase no longer means what you generally think it means when referring to places like Bradford - where the predominant 'ethnic minority' is, actually, white.

Froggy Slayer:
I never really thought that asexual people were really victims of hate crimes, compared to other LGBTQ groups.

From my experiences, that's probably because almost no-one I've met in real life even knows it exists.

Froggy Slayer:

I never really thought that asexual people were really victims of hate crimes, compared to other LGBTQ groups.

Oh no, asexual people are lucky in that a lot of people don't believe they exist at all. All they have to do is put up with constant remarks of "Oh, you just haven't met the right person yet," and "Maybe there's something wrong with you. You know, Down There. You should go and see the doctor," and "But seriously, though, when are you going to get married and have kids like a normal person?"

boots:

Froggy Slayer:

I never really thought that asexual people were really victims of hate crimes, compared to other LGBTQ groups.

Oh no, asexual people are lucky in that a lot of people don't believe they exist at all. All they have to do is put up with constant remarks of "Oh, you just haven't met the right person yet," and "Maybe there's something wrong with you. You know, Down There. You should go and see the doctor," and "But seriously, though, when are you going to get married and have kids like a normal person?"

Really? Do people actually find it that hard to believe that some people are totally uninterested in sex? Why? I know a girl who's asexual. She has made it clear when people ask her tab out her sexuality that she is asexual. How the fuck does someone warp this in their head to 'oh, they do want kids really, they're just too shy to say'?

boots:

Actually there is already a definitive separation. Sexual identity refers to the people you're attracted to. Fetish refers to the sexual activity that you're attracted to.

That saved some time.

You missed my point. How words are supposed to be used does not mean society will use or consider them in that manner. We're assholes like that.

Froggy Slayer:

Doesn't that leave some space for sub-category crossover, though? Like, if a guy likes women but only if they have dicks, is that a fetish or a fully-fledged sexual identity? Or is it somewhere between the two?

I would think so, yes. I've seen a lot of people, even the open-minded ones, consider sexuality like shaped holes meant for shaped pegs. "You are X, Orange, or Theta." However, I think Kinsey was on the right track. I would see it more as a continuum of some sort rather than categories. Categories are simply easier for conversation's sake, but we end up getting wrapped up in them.

Edit: Bah, dorked up quoting ftl, sorry Froggy.

Abomination:
"Queer" would be a good term to use as it does accurately describe the situation, people who are "out of the ordinary" with their sexual/gender alignment.

[...]

Heck, the first phrase of the Wikipedia article for "Queer" is

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary.

If you'd even read the rest of the (relatively short) article, you'd have seen why this word is not acceptable to the entire community:

Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists; by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities; by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight; and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender". It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer"-identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" homosexuals.

[...]

For some queer-identified people, part of the point of the term "queer" is that it simultaneously builds up and tears down boundaries of identity. For instance, among genderqueer people, who do not solidly identify with one particular gender, once solid gender roles have been torn down, it becomes difficult to situate sexual identity. For some people, the non-specificity of the term is liberating. Queerness becomes a way to make a political move against heteronormativity while simultaneously refusing to engage in traditional essentialist identity politics.

I'm personally in the "queer" camp, but I can understand why others in the community would object to the term because of its political underpinnings.

Edit:

Froggy Slayer:
Really? Do people actually find it that hard to believe that some people are totally uninterested in sex? Why? I know a girl who's asexual. She has made it clear when people ask her tab out her sexuality that she is asexual. How the fuck does someone warp this in their head to 'oh, they do want kids really, they're just too shy to say'?

Yes, unfortunately some people do. And like some lesbians, some asexuals are victims of so-called "corrective" rape.

Katatori-kun:

LetalisK:
I think it might be part of his point that we label things as "sexual identities" when we find them acceptable and "fetishes" when we deem them to be taboo.

I doubt people who actually study sex academically do. Every definition for fetish I've ever heard has been an a non-sexual item which is necessary for sexual arousal.

If there is a difference between homosexuality and foot fetishism, then one can not simply appeal to contemporary opinion to explain why.

One doesn't need to. Feet are not sexual. People are.

I'd reference to my above post. I have no doubt professionals deal with the terms as they're meant to be dealt with. They're not what I'm concerned about. You'd have a hard time convincing me that the word "fetish" doesn't have a taboo, if not outright negative, connotation attached to it in common usage, particularly when reading this thread, when it really shouldn't.

I wouldn't think that there's much value in it. People put far too much weight in brain blood-flow studies, but all they do is show which parts of the brain are active. The fact that the same regions of the brain might be active in both fetishists and people with a sexual orientation would not show anything other than that the same parts of the brain are used to process the psychology- not that the psychologies have anything remotely in common.

Here we disagree then, I think. The fact that the same part of the brain is used is a commonality in and of itself and can tell us a lot about how the mind works. While malleable, different parts of our brain do have specific...not functions, but that's the closest word I can think of right now, and examining what is affected during what activity is a foundation for further research into said psychology and has helped dramatically speed up psychological research, even make previously impossible research possible. As much as the clinical psychologists would disagree with this, but in my opinion neuroscience is the future of psychology. That's not to say it will replace psychology.

bananafishtoday:
]
Yes, unfortunately some people do. And like some lesbians, some asexuals are victims of so-called "corrective" rape.

Jesus fucking Christ, 'corrective rape'? How? How the fuck do you fucking rape someone and not realise that what you are doing is not just raping them, but raping their fucking identity?!

Fuck, that fucking idea has me close to fucking rage tears. Dear sweet merciful Christ, I get it now. I get why LGBTQ people are so in your face about their issues. How could you not be when people are getting FUCKING RAPED just because of their sexuality?

bananafishtoday:

Abomination:
"Queer" would be a good term to use as it does accurately describe the situation, people who are "out of the ordinary" with their sexual/gender alignment.

[...]

Heck, the first phrase of the Wikipedia article for "Queer" is

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary.

If you'd even read the rest of the (relatively short) article, you'd have seen why this word is not acceptable to the entire community:

Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists; by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities; by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight; and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender". It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer"-identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" homosexuals.

[...]

For some queer-identified people, part of the point of the term "queer" is that it simultaneously builds up and tears down boundaries of identity. For instance, among genderqueer people, who do not solidly identify with one particular gender, once solid gender roles have been torn down, it becomes difficult to situate sexual identity. For some people, the non-specificity of the term is liberating. Queerness becomes a way to make a political move against heteronormativity while simultaneously refusing to engage in traditional essentialist identity politics.

I'm personally in the "queer" camp, but I can understand why others in the community would object to the term because of its political underpinnings.

... like feminism?

It just seems to be getting more and more absurd. The word "queer" has been mishandled by a few and so it can not be used by the majority when it would otherwise perfectly cover the needed spectrum.

How long until the "new" LGBTI+ becomes a political volleyball?

Froggy Slayer:

bananafishtoday:
]
Yes, unfortunately some people do. And like some lesbians, some asexuals are victims of so-called "corrective" rape.

Jesus fucking Christ, 'corrective rape'? How? How the fuck do you fucking rape someone and not realise that what you are doing is not just raping them, but raping their fucking identity?!

Fuck, that fucking idea has me close to fucking rage tears. Dear sweet merciful Christ, I get it now. I get why LGBTQ people are so in your face about their issues. How could you not be when people are getting FUCKING RAPED just because of their sexuality?

Because not every non-LGBTQ is a rapist? Those who rape people are despised universally. Just because someone being in my face about their identity annoys me doesn't place me on par with a rapist.

Abomination:

Froggy Slayer:

bananafishtoday:
]
Yes, unfortunately some people do. And like some lesbians, some asexuals are victims of so-called "corrective" rape.

Jesus fucking Christ, 'corrective rape'? How? How the fuck do you fucking rape someone and not realise that what you are doing is not just raping them, but raping their fucking identity?!

Fuck, that fucking idea has me close to fucking rage tears. Dear sweet merciful Christ, I get it now. I get why LGBTQ people are so in your face about their issues. How could you not be when people are getting FUCKING RAPED just because of their sexuality?

Because not every non-LGBTQ is a rapist? Those who rape people are despised universally. Just because someone being in my face about their identity annoys me doesn't place me on par with a rapist.

Didn't say you are man, didn't say that you are. I can just understand more why they feel more of a need to be 'in-your-face' in informing people about their issues. As I said earlier, people who substitute personality with their sexuality do annoy me to no end, especially because they hurt their own cause.

Again, sorry if I worded that badly, no offence to you intended.

Froggy Slayer:
I never really thought that asexual people were really victims of hate crimes, compared to other LGBTQ groups.

Asexuals in many places are persecuted as being diseased (like gay/bi people), unnatural and have "corrective procedures" performed on them. Also, asexual women (and some asexual men) have been sexually assaulted or raped precisely because of their asexuality.

The problem is that the documentation regarding hate crimes against asexuals has been extremely poorly collected, as the main problem with asexuality is visibility. Asexuals are only currently being recognised as a valid sexuality, and hate crimes have been attributed retroactively.

Froggy Slayer:
Didn't say you are man, didn't say that you are. I can just understand more why they feel more of a need to be 'in-your-face' in informing people about their issues. As I said earlier, people who substitute personality with their sexuality do annoy me to no end, especially because they hurt their own cause.

Again, sorry if I worded that badly, no offence to you intended.

Oh, I wasn't offended at all. I just thought I would highlight how that line of reasoning that because a VERY MINOR group/individuals has/have done some terrible things to a group of people for morally and intellectually corrupt reasons is no justification to be immune from criticism or grants that group special status.

Essentially the actions of very, very few against a group don't suddenly grant that group a special status.

LetalisK:
You'd have a hard time convincing me that the word "fetish" doesn't have a taboo, if not outright negative, connotation attached to it in common usage, particularly when reading this thread, when it really shouldn't.

So? That doesn't really have anything to do with sexual orientation. That's a bit like saying that brussel sprouts and herpes are the same because a lot of people dislike both.

As much as the clinical psychologists would disagree with this, but in my opinion neuroscience is the future of psychology. That's not to say it will replace psychology.

I don't dispute neuroscience- in fact I'm rather a fan of learning more. But the old approach of "hey, let's scan the brain" isn't an especially useful approach to figuring out everything. The same part of the brain, the amygdala, is used for sexual orientation, social interaction, binge drinking and alcoholism, aggression, fear, and general emotional learning. That doesn't mean any of those phenomena are related. They just get processed in the same area. Or rather, they just activate blood flow in the same area.

Darken12:
...

I've seen the term QUILTBAG thrown around (it's easy to remember, as far as mnemonics go). Queer/Questioning, I always forget what the U stands for, Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.

Seems a little redundant of an acronym, considering its:
Q - Queer/questioning
U - Undecided
I - Intersex
L - Lesbian
T - Tramsgender/sexual
B - Bi
A - Allies/Asexual
G - Gay/Genderqueer

you could probably take out at least the Q.

OT: Theres a lot of letters missing off the LGBT acronym, but they're established now as that so its probably easier. its not like they fight exclusively for those four letters anyway.

emeraldrafael:

Darken12:
...

I've seen the term QUILTBAG thrown around (it's easy to remember, as far as mnemonics go). Queer/Questioning, I always forget what the U stands for, Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.

Seems a little redundant of an acronym, considering its:
Q - Queer/questioning
U - Undecided
I - Intersex
L - Lesbian
T - Tramsgender/sexual
B - Bi
A - Allies/Asexual
G - Gay/Genderqueer

you could probably take out at least the Q.

OT: Theres a lot of letters missing off the LGBT acronym, but they're established now as that so its probably easier. its not like they fight exclusively for those four letters anyway.

LOL, so if we take out the Q and add one G for Genderqueer, it's a GUILTBAG, then?

Darken12:

emeraldrafael:

Darken12:
...

I've seen the term QUILTBAG thrown around (it's easy to remember, as far as mnemonics go). Queer/Questioning, I always forget what the U stands for, Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.

Seems a little redundant of an acronym, considering its:
Q - Queer/questioning
U - Undecided
I - Intersex
L - Lesbian
T - Tramsgender/sexual
B - Bi
A - Allies/Asexual
G - Gay/Genderqueer

you could probably take out at least the Q.

OT: Theres a lot of letters missing off the LGBT acronym, but they're established now as that so its probably easier. its not like they fight exclusively for those four letters anyway.

LOL, so if we take out the Q and add one G for Genderqueer, it's a GUILTBAG, then?

admittedly that would be a bit funny, but I dont htink you really need the gender/queer g part. and if youre going to keep the letter Q for queer you could take out the L and G (for both) and the U for undecided. then you ust have BATIQQ

You Can't Take the Sky From Me:

I don't really have anything to add, I just wanted to thank you for knowing the difference between acronyms and initialisms. It made me happy.
(If I did have an opinion it would be that overly long initialisms start sounding like jokes.)

You're reading the posts of a primary school teacher who is also a linguistics nerd :)

bananafishtoday:

I'd say "queer" has been reclaimed, but it still carries the connotation of difference. It'll prolly never catch on in general use for the reasons I talked about above: the friction between "we're here, we're queer" and "we just want to be seen as normal."

That's stupid. Any term used to define a group of people has to differentiate. There's nothing wrong with differentiation. Gay people and straight people are different. Neither is more worthy than the other, nobody deserves discrimination or bigotry or mindless hate, but they're different. I can even prove it: gay men like penises, straight men mostly only like their own penis.

Grar. Mindless inclusivity and fearing difference make me unhappy.

(My defence against the medium of Interwebz: this isn't a rant aimed at you specifically, bananfishtoday, only at the idea that "queer" won't be used because oh noez it gives the impression that LGTBIQMOMGBBQ people and not-LGTMFWTF people are different)

I'm not sure whether or not I should feel good or bad for creating a thread in which everyone can pick over the worms of the can that I've opened.

Relish in Chaos:
But let's not add a "P" on there for "pansexual" because - and no offence to anyone that does identify as pansexual - I think it's a mildly pretentious way of saying "bisexual, but with a greater focus on love", since pansexuals likely will be dating both males and females either way, so there's no real need to make another technical term

I don't have time to read through ALL the comments so I apologise if this has been addressed but are you aware of the hypocrisy of advocating the rights of Intergender/Intersex people while at the same time completely dismissing Pansexuality (which includes intergender/intersex people) in favor of Bisexuality (which assumes attractiveness to only those of a Male or Female sex)?

boots:

Reeve:

boots:

That's what you said. You used the word "instead". That implies that you don't think it's possible to both divide people into groups and accept them as fellow human beings.

Actually, using the word "instead" does not imply that in the context that I used the word. I can't believe you're tell me what I meant. I know what I meant, obviously. It is not my problem if you are incapable of understanding my posts.

It is your fault if you're incapable of explaining what your actual meaning was. Right now all you're saying is, "You're wrong, so there!" With a wild "context!" thrown in there as well.

Oh dear, you appear to have accidentally deleted your original statement from your post. No worries, I can go and fetch it again.

"I don't think we should arbitrarily [sic] divide people into groups based on their traits - whether that's race, sexual orientation etc. Instead, can we not just accept each person as a fellow human being?"

See? There is your statement, in all its contextual glory. Nothing taken away. You say that you don't think you should divide people into groups based on their traits (first clause) and that we should accept each person as a fellow human being (second clause). You connect these two clauses using the conjunctive "instead", positing the second as an alternative to the first, and therefore implying that the two are mutually exclusive.

But please, try to explain your meaning further to my poor simple mind. So you do think it is possible to both accept someone as gay and accept them as a fellow human being? If the first acceptance does not limit the second, why should it be done away with at all?

You don't need to be so damn passive-aggressive about it. I guess I used the wrong word by using "instead." Does that appease you? Or are there any other words you want to nit-pick in my post? You are wrong about the "instead" though. It doesn't necessarily imply mutual exclusivity. For example, "I ate the chips first instead of the ice cream." That does not imply that I won't or can't eat the ice cream.

I just prefer to focus on the similarities everyone shares. There's nothing more eye-opening than realising the things you have in common with someone unrelated to you. If more people realised that, I think we'd all get along better. That doesn't mean to say that there's anything wrong with expressing one's individuality but we are social creatures, after all.

And despite what I've typed, I'm sure you'll find something wrong with my post because scoring imaginary points on the Internet (which doesn't actually impress anyone but a lot of people seem to think it does) is way more important than coming to any kind of resolution in a discussion.

Relish in Chaos:
I'm not sure whether or not I should feel good or bad for creating a thread in which everyone can pick over the worms of the can that I've opened.

You should feel fucking terrible! image

Reeve:

You don't need to be so damn passive-aggressive about it. I guess I used the wrong word by using "instead." Does that appease you? Or are there any other words you want to nit-pick in my post? You are wrong about the "instead" though. It doesn't necessarily imply mutual exclusivity. For example, "I ate the chips first instead of the ice cream." That does not imply that I won't or can't eat the ice cream.

Well actually I could nitpick that as well. Because you cannot eat the chips first and also eat the ice cream first. So "instead" means mutual exclusivity in that context as well.

I just prefer to focus on the similarities everyone shares. There's nothing more eye-opening than realising the things you have in common with someone unrelated to you. If more people realised that, I think we'd all get along better. That doesn't mean to say that there's anything wrong with expressing one's individuality but we are social creatures, after all.

Oookay ... so how exactly do you go from "people should realise that we have things in common" to "we shouldn't have names for different sexual orientations"? That's somewhat counter-intuitive. Sexual orientation is one of the many things that recognises shared experience among people who might not have anything else in common. Moreover, "similarity" exists in a linguistic binary with "difference". Without difference, similarity would be meaningless.

If you think that is wrong, then please explain how recognising people's differences in any way impinges upon our ability to recognise their similarities.

You also forgot to engage with this:

"There is no harm in giving names to different types of sexual orientation. This is how language works. We have parent terms which then get subdivided into different categories, often many times over and into very specific definitions. We do it with animal species, with sciences, with philosophies, with political beliefs, with different types of dairy products, with film genres and everything above and beyond - great and small. Why do you think we need to make an exception for sexual orientation if there is "nothing special" about it?"

And despite what I've typed, I'm sure you'll find something wrong with my post because scoring imaginary points on the Internet (which doesn't actually impress anyone but a lot of people seem to think it does) is way more important than coming to any kind of resolution in a discussion.

Wow, you took a right turn into ad hominemville and decided to settle down and have a few kids there, didn't ya?

P.S. "Coming to a resolution" doesn't mean "shutting up and agreeing with me despite the fact that I've failed to piece together anything resembling a logical argument".

Abomination:
Those who rape people are despised universally.

Unfortunately, no.
Or rather, some cultures (like the Western one for the longest time) make expections, like how it's not rape if it happened in a marriage.
Or how you can't rape a man, and if a man was sexually abused, it's his fault for not being man enough.

Ilikemilkshake:

Relish in Chaos:
But let's not add a "P" on there for "pansexual" because - and no offence to anyone that does identify as pansexual - I think it's a mildly pretentious way of saying "bisexual, but with a greater focus on love", since pansexuals likely will be dating both males and females either way, so there's no real need to make another technical term

I don't have time to read through ALL the comments so I apologise if this has been addressed but are you aware of the hypocrisy of advocating the rights of Intergender/Intersex people while at the same time completely dismissing Pansexuality (which includes intergender/intersex people) in favor of Bisexuality (which assumes attractiveness to only those of a Male or Female sex)?

Without trying to sound like an ignorant douche, I've pretty much always thought of pansexuality as a subset of bisexuality. I mean, it's not as if bisexuals, or even heterosexuals, can't be attracted to intersexed people too. Intersex isn't a "third gender"; it's either the two sexes merged together, it falls between the two (hence the "inter"), or both. Therefore, if you're a heterosexual mana, you might find something attractive in an intersexed person if you see their feminine characteristics, and bisexual people could potentially see them as "the best of both worlds".

I dunno, I just get the feeling that "pansexuality" is along the same lines of "bicurious": there doesn't seem like that much of a need for the terms at all, or at least not to include in an acronym. Maybe I'm not the most well-informed person on this subject, but...ehh. I just think, if you focus more on the love side of a relationship rather than the sexual side, then practically everyone (apart from the people in whom there is no romantic capacity in their neural or whatever system) could identify as "pansexual". It just seems like they might as well just call themselves "bisexual". It's not a denial of the existence of pansexuals. It just seems like an unnecessary extra category, if you get my drift. (I tried to phrase that in the least offensive way possible.)

The reason that transgendered/transsexual people are more distinctly different to intersexed people is that transgendered people are born one sex, with the opposite gender. Intersexed people are born with both sexes, but gender can vary or be none at all.

Lieju:

Abomination:
Those who rape people are despised universally.

Unfortunately, no.
Or rather, some cultures (like the Western one for the longest time) make expections, like how it's not rape if it happened in a marriage.
Or how you can't rape a man, and if a man was sexually abused, it's his fault for not being man enough.

Or how some people still believe in the whole "It's not rape if you enjoy it!" Hasn't anyone ever heard of unwanted boners? Like, you're just sitting in class somewhere, and you get aroused for thinking about something that you don't want at that particular moment? Same thing applies if someone pushes your arousal button, and you can't help but, well, be aroused. It's nature. Even if it was your freakin' daddy doing it, there wouldn't be much you could do to stop your body from reacting to touch like that.

azukar:

bananafishtoday:

I'd say "queer" has been reclaimed, but it still carries the connotation of difference. It'll prolly never catch on in general use for the reasons I talked about above: the friction between "we're here, we're queer" and "we just want to be seen as normal."

That's stupid. Any term used to define a group of people has to differentiate. There's nothing wrong with differentiation. Gay people and straight people are different. Neither is more worthy than the other, nobody deserves discrimination or bigotry or mindless hate, but they're different. I can even prove it: gay men like penises, straight men mostly only like their own penis.

Grar. Mindless inclusivity and fearing difference make me unhappy.

(My defence against the medium of Interwebz: this isn't a rant aimed at you specifically, bananfishtoday, only at the idea that "queer" won't be used because oh noez it gives the impression that LGTBIQMOMGBBQ people and not-LGTMFWTF people are different)

My bad, imprecise word choice. What I meant to communicate was more like "deviation from the norm." One side wishes to establish and promote a set of behaviors/appearances/etc that can be accepted by society as "normal" (generally embracing the nuclear family and demanding gender conformity.) The other side argues that the marginalization of those with more "deviant" behaviors/appearances just to benefit those willing to "normalize" is unjust (and that "true" acceptance even for "normalized" individuals is impossible anyway without broader changes to society.)

Basically, assimilationists vs. activists. "Queer" has a lot of sociopolitical connotations within the community.

Relish in Chaos:
I'm not sure whether or not I should feel good or bad for creating a thread in which everyone can pick over the worms of the can that I've opened.

Really? I thought you relish in chaos.

I'll be here all week, folks.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked