LGBTI?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

I was just wondering...why isn't there an "I" for "intersex" at the end of "LGBT"? I don't think there seems to be any kind of strong advocacy, nor do I feel strongly for it, for adding another letter to an acronym that people are already making into an alphabet soup clusterfuck (e.g. "A" for "Allies" being people that aren't gay, bi or trans - they just support LGBT rights), but this one always seemed to be one that deserved to be plonked at the end there, to make "LGBTI". And it's not as if there aren't other acronyms that are longer, and many people can still remember them just fine.

Intersex people are a distinctly separate group from transgender people, just like gay men are distinctly different from lesbians, or gay women. The acronym is meant to tackle things concerning gender identity, sexuality, free expression of those things, and the issues that people can suffer as a result - which, presumably, is why gay and lesbian is distinguished with "G" and "L" (even though some would argue that they still share the same sexuality of "homosexuality"; the only difference is the gender of the attractee). 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; otherwise, we'll have to start counting "bicurious", and potentially even more vague/ambiguous terms, despite the fact that sexuality is a sliding scale anyway and we could (and probably have) made up about a million necessary and/or unnecessary labels for these things.

So what do you think? Should "I" be added into the "LGBT" acronym, to shine more light on the intersexual minority?

A is for Asexuals, which are non-straight.

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.

As a member of the community, and of my university's LGBT society's committee, I honestly wouldn't care one way or another. If enough people came to our committee asking to change it, I'm sure we would, and the same for the LGBT community at large. I don't know how big an issue it is, as no one has ever approached me about it.
As for the other stuff, I actually find it quite annoying that so many terms need be invented, and think that a lot of the people I meet who use the more rare terms to identify themselves come across like they are just trying to be contrary and special, rather than really identifying as whatever it happens to be.

It is easy to get mixed up with all the different letters, I think you are supposed to have a Q in there somewhere for instance. I'm not sure how well they fit in to begin with, us transsexuals have it awkward enough around all the pink and sparkles. In sweden they have their own organisation, but do kind of swim along regarding trans issues when it comes to surgery, hormones etc.

Perhaps they should revamp the whole acronym thing so it doesn't have to explain every single thing, otherwise it can get pretty long.

Honestly it seems to be the same discussion as with transsexuality, a medical diagnosis often requiring treatment being lumped together alternative preferences. In my own opinion I certainly don't complain as they are basically the only ones who care enough to make a difference in sweden.

The one thing that one should research first is wether they actually want to be included. Especially if we talk about organisations were trans are the lowest in the hierarchy because some of us are straight, or were bisexuals get crap about faking it and not actually existing and so on.

Can we just call it "non-Hetero" and be done with this? I know that some people like to be different, but for some reason you're grouping all of them together.

LGBTI? What are you? Some kind of conservative dickbag racist?

Everybody knows the real progressives support LGTBIAGPPITT.

Darken12:
A is for Asexuals, which are non-straight.

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.

I think the U was for Undecided.

OP:
I see people using any combination of the above they want. Sometimes they'll also omit the T, or make it LGB-T.
It all depends on the person talking and the group they're talking about.

Darken12:
A is for Asexuals, which are non-straight.

I heard that there are two "A"s, one being for "Asexual" and the other being for "Allies".

Glasgow:
Can we just call it "non-Hetero" and be done with this? I know that some people like to be different, but for some reason you're grouping all of them together.

Because "non-hetero" doesn't consider those with gender identity issues, as not all transgendered people are non-straight and not all non-straight people are transgendered.

People use labels because of society having a penchant for putting people in and making them conform into their own confined little boxes. But also, presumably because it's easier to say "gay" than "a man who's into other men, but not women" in a conversation, whether it be in dating, politics, or something else.

Psykoma:

Darken12:
A is for Asexuals, which are non-straight.

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.

I think the U was for Undecided.

Wasn't that Questioning? Or have we dropped that and reserved the Q for Queer? Man, I am so out of touch with the LGBT blogosphere these days.

Relish in Chaos:

Darken12:
A is for Asexuals, which are non-straight.

I heard that there are two "A"s, one being for "Asexual" and the other being for "Allies".

So it would be QUILTBAAG? Or QUILTBAGA? The latter makes me giggle, a little, but is otherwise easier to remember.

Darken12:

Psykoma:

Darken12:
A is for Asexuals, which are non-straight.

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.

I think the U was for Undecided.

Wasn't that Questioning? Or have we dropped that and reserved the Q for Queer? Man, I am so out of touch with the LGBT blogosphere these days.

Relish in Chaos:

Darken12:
A is for Asexuals, which are non-straight.

I heard that there are two "A"s, one being for "Asexual" and the other being for "Allies".

So it would be QUILTBAAG? Or QUILTBAGA? The latter makes me giggle, a little, but is otherwise easier to remember.

I think the Q was reserved exclusively for Queer.
Even though I don't think "Allies" really belongs, I must say QUILTBAGA is pretty awesome.

Psykoma:
I think the Q was reserved exclusively for Queer.
Even though I don't think "Allies" really belongs, I must say QUILTBAGA is pretty awesome.

It totally evokes an Avengers-like (or Justice League-like) bunch of badass people posing superhero-style.

We might be going a little overboard here with the acronyms and mnemonic devices.

Atrocious Joystick:

Everybody knows the real progressives support LGTBIAGPPITT.

Nevermind. This is what I'm using forever.

To be honest, I find that the alphabet soup will only grow until it becomes too cumbersome for most people to remember, which is why I see "LGBTQ" the most often. The latest acronym I saw though was something along the lines of "QUILTBAGPIPE" or "Queer/Questioning, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans*, Bisexual, Asexual/Allies, Gay/Genderqueer, Pansexual, Intersex (can't remember if it was listed twice or if I'm forgetting a term), Polyamorous, and Everybody else."

I personally prefer the acronym GSM, or Gender/Sexual Minorities since it can refer to a much wider spectrum of people without needing to become too large in order to be inclusive. I've also heard the term "queer identified" thrown around, but I guess it's a matter of personal preference.

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; otherwise, we'll have to start counting "bicurious", and potentially even more vague/ambiguous terms, despite the fact that sexuality is a sliding scale anyway and we could (and probably have) made up about a million necessary and/or unnecessary labels for these things.

Actually, pansexuality is distinct from bisexuality not because it is presumed to be "bisexual with a greater focus on love", pansexuality as a term exists because of the growing number of gender identities available. You yourself are promoted the greater awareness of Intersex people, who have a completely different biological sex from people considered male or female, and some of them will not identify with an identify in the male/female binary. Pansexuality is the explicit inclusion of sexual attraction people of any biological sex or gender, not just males and females.

There are some people who consider themselves bisexual because they feel distinct attraction to two genders, but no more (Not all bisexuals are explicitly interested in males/females; some may be attracted to males and a single non-binary identity, though I don't think that is particularly common). Just because some people use pansexuality as a more pretentious way of calling themselves bisexual does not mean that all pansexuals feel this way.

I have seen distinctions where some say that bisexuals feels attraction to men differently to how they feel attraction to women, but pansexuals feel "genderblind" in their attractions, but I am neither bisexual or pansexual, so I couldn't really confirm this on a personal level. I think the biggest indicator of sexuality is who you are (and are not) attracted to though.

Personally, I think this is going completely overboard. Nevertheless, which letter is designated for those individuals who identify themselves as lesbian/gay/transgender/etc. etc. ad infinitum, but don't identify with the "community"?

That's my main problem with this constant and increased differentiation: it only strengthens the inclusion/exclusion dynamic. It only leads to the "Dutch" political phenomenon of pillarization (voluntary, though nearly complete segregration of social groups within society), which I don't think is a good thing.

actually the main group in my state does use LGBTI so i assumed it was commenly accepted now

I think LGBT is just now a recognised label and most people know what it stands for (except funnily enough by a gay guy I met last week). Anyway, not a huge fan of labels - far to often misused despite their usefulness - and I'd be interested to know whether or not many Intersex people want to be rolled in with the LGBT crowd. I remember a bloke from a gay rights lobby group saying that a lot of transgenders aren't keen on the idea.

I honestly think there doesn't even need to be a T. It's like playing which one of these doesn't belong - 3 are sexual preferences and one is a gender preference. As far as I'm conerned, being an insensitive bastard and none of the positions described by this acronym, adding any more letters is missing the point. If you want to include people, stop defining them into little groups. if I'm not mistaken, there's a certain solidarity. All sexualities and genders contained under the LGBT umbrella just want acceptance and for their practises to not be condemned or illegal. I think you'd be better off with a term like GSM, rather than having to tack on all the subcategories after LGBT.

Relish in Chaos:
I was just wondering...why isn't there an "I" for "intersex" at the end of "LGBT"? I don't think there seems to be any kind of strong advocacy, nor do I feel strongly for it, for adding another letter to an acronym that people are already making into an alphabet soup clusterfuck (e.g. "A" for "Allies" being people that aren't gay, bi or trans - they just support LGBT rights), but this one always seemed to be one that deserved to be plonked at the end there, to make "LGBTI". And it's not as if there aren't other acronyms that are longer, and many people can still remember them just fine.

Intersex people are a distinctly separate group from transgender people, just like gay men are distinctly different from lesbians, or gay women. The acronym is meant to tackle things concerning gender identity, sexuality, free expression of those things, and the issues that people can suffer as a result - which, presumably, is why gay and lesbian is distinguished with "G" and "L" (even though some would argue that they still share the same sexuality of "homosexuality"; the only difference is the gender of the attractee). 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; otherwise, we'll have to start counting "bicurious", and potentially even more vague/ambiguous terms, despite the fact that sexuality is a sliding scale anyway and we could (and probably have) made up about a million necessary and/or unnecessary labels for these things.

So what do you think? Should "I" be added into the "LGBT" acronym, to shine more light on the intersexual minority?

Its a gradual process, eventually you'll see LGBTI as the generally accepted acronym.

The Night Angel:
As for the other stuff, I actually find it quite annoying that so many terms need be invented, and think that a lot of the people I meet who use the more rare terms to identify themselves come across like they are just trying to be contrary and special, rather than really identifying as whatever it happens to be.

This.

I believe pretty strongly that everyone deserves to be treated as a human being, to me that generally means trying to break down this culture of everybody labelling each other, so I honestly find it astonishing that some people go out of their way to tag themselves with obscure labels, and honestly it does just feel like some people are trying to be attention seeking for the hell of it.

'Pansexual' is an example of this to me - someone decided that 'Bisexual' didn't cover all the genders and everything in between, so decided that a new word was needed - instead of just taking the currently existing one (which, in my opinion is quite sufficient), some people will argue til they're blue in the face at how different they are from Bisexuals - Further segregation which seems unnecessary in my opinion.

That said, however, I'm not in any LGBT communities, so at the end of the day it doesn't really make a difference to me if these organisations do choose to keep adding letters to their acronym to try and be more all encompassing - As I say, if it was me I'd go the other way and start taking labels away to allow people to truly be integrated into the community, instead of trying to decide what exact label it is they are, in an already confusing world.

I think we can all agree that the most progressive acronym is obviously QUILTBAGSAVITORIFRIBULOUS.

(That's "Quilt-Bagsa-Vitori-Fribulous)

Which stands for:

Queer/Questioning, Undecided,Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay, Straight, Amorphous[1], Vicarious[2], Isotopic[3], Transexuormers[4], Orwellian[5], Reproachful[6], Igneous[7], Fictitious[8], Romantic[9], Idiots[10], Bears[11], Ursine[12], Liquids[13], Omnipotent[14], Unknowable[15], Spider-Monsters[16]

You guys are all bigots. ALL groups should be equally represented.

[1] Those who are amorphous blobs and are not strictly either gender. Or necessarily human.
[2] Those who only have sex vicariously, through other people. Not the same as voyeurism.
[3] Those who reproduce through the exchange of molecular particles
[4] People who can change their sex back and forth at will
[5] Those whose true love is crushed by a totalitarian regime that allows for no emotion
[6] Those who are having sex, but aren't happy about it.
[7] Refers to a small group of rocks that have gained the ability to reproduce sexually.
[8] Those who do not actually exist, and thus have no gender.
[9] Those who have an overly-idealistic and nieve view of sex and relationships.
[10] Those who are too stupid to reproduce without measurably damaging the human race, and thus cannot legally have sex with anyone
[11] Self-explanatory
[12] Also self-explanatory. Not the same as Bears.
[13] Refers to beings made of liquid that can reproduce sexually
[14] Refers to all gods and god-like beings how have grown beyond the need for sexual desires.
[15] Refers to beings of unknowable horror that nonetheless have sexual desires, even if nobody is sure exactly what they are.
[16] Refers to horrible monsters that reproduce by laying eggs inside their helpless, screaming victims.

I think 6th and Silver makes a good point. Adding more and more letters to the initialism just makes it unwieldy. Nobody in the LG community, or the LGBT commmunity, or the GLBTIQSDFBDDR community, is likely to be excluding others. That would be terrible hypocrisy.

Maybe if people want something to rally around, there needs to be a word that just means something to the effect of "not cis-gender cis-sexuality". Maybe the community should reclaim the word "queer"?

I dunno. But this increasingly long initialism just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Stu35:

The Night Angel:
As for the other stuff, I actually find it quite annoying that so many terms need be invented, and think that a lot of the people I meet who use the more rare terms to identify themselves come across like they are just trying to be contrary and special, rather than really identifying as whatever it happens to be.

This.

I believe pretty strongly that everyone deserves to be treated as a human being, to me that generally means trying to break down this culture of everybody labelling each other, so I honestly find it astonishing that some people go out of their way to tag themselves with obscure labels, and honestly it does just feel like some people are trying to be attention seeking for the hell of it.

'Pansexual' is an example of this to me - someone decided that 'Bisexual' didn't cover all the genders and everything in between, so decided that a new word was needed - instead of just taking the currently existing one (which, in my opinion is quite sufficient), some people will argue til they're blue in the face at how different they are from Bisexuals - Further segregation which seems unnecessary in my opinion.

That said, however, I'm not in any LGBT communities, so at the end of the day it doesn't really make a difference to me if these organisations do choose to keep adding letters to their acronym to try and be more all encompassing - As I say, if it was me I'd go the other way and start taking labels away to allow people to truly be integrated into the community, instead of trying to decide what exact label it is they are, in an already confusing world.

We have the terms because they are needed to effectively differentiate between different orientations. Most of the terms aren't because someone decided to be PC, but because there is a reason to have the different terms.

For example Bisexual and Pansexual are completely different things. Bisexual refers to physical sexual attraction of varying levels to both sexes. Pansexual refers to attraction to things not necessarily physical, such as personality or intelligence.

Claripit772:

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; otherwise, we'll have to start counting "bicurious", and potentially even more vague/ambiguous terms, despite the fact that sexuality is a sliding scale anyway and we could (and probably have) made up about a million necessary and/or unnecessary labels for these things.

Actually, pansexuality is distinct from bisexuality not because it is presumed to be "bisexual with a greater focus on love", pansexuality as a term exists because of the growing number of gender identities available. You yourself are promoted the greater awareness of Intersex people, who have a completely different biological sex from people considered male or female, and some of them will not identify with an identify in the male/female binary. Pansexuality is the explicit inclusion of sexual attraction people of any biological sex or gender, not just males and females.

There are some people who consider themselves bisexual because they feel distinct attraction to two genders, but no more (Not all bisexuals are explicitly interested in males/females; some may be attracted to males and a single non-binary identity, though I don't think that is particularly common). Just because some people use pansexuality as a more pretentious way of calling themselves bisexual does not mean that all pansexuals feel this way.

I have seen distinctions where some say that bisexuals feels attraction to men differently to how they feel attraction to women, but pansexuals feel "genderblind" in their attractions, but I am neither bisexual or pansexual, so I couldn't really confirm this on a personal level. I think the biggest indicator of sexuality is who you are (and are not) attracted to though.

This is what I immediately wanted to comment on after reading the initial post, but I was surprised and glad to see I was beat to it. That post pointed out the differences and then went right ahead and contradicted itself by suggesting that there aren't actually any.

In everyday life, it's generally easier to say bisexual to most people just to get the point across, because that's what's most widely recognized/understood by everyone. Strictly speaking though, it's inaccurate. I find individual people attractive regardless of their sex/gender based on all the usual things people like about each other. In theory the possibilities are endless, but in reality I'm kind of picky and have my preferences just like anyone else does.

I haven't really noticed a difference in the way I feel toward members of different sexes/genders, other than that I'm more or less likely to be attracted to them in the first place sometimes depending on which they are, kind of like how someone might prefer blondes or brunettes but be perfectly fine with either depending on the other qualities of the individual.

6th And Silver:
I think we can all agree that the most progressive acronym is obviously QUILTBAGSAVITORIFRIBULOUS.

(That's "Quilt-Bagsa-Vitori-Fribulous)

Which stands for:

Queer/Questioning, Undecided,Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay, Straight, Amorphous[1], Vicarious[2], Isotopic[3], Transexuormers[4], Orwellian[5], Reproachful[6], Igneous[7], Fictitious[8], Romantic[9], Idiots[10], Bears[11], Ursine[12], Liquids[13], Omnipotent[14], Unknowable[15], Spider-Monsters[16]

You guys are all bigots. ALL groups should be equally represented.

Thank you for the fantastic early-morning chuckle. Wish I could be arsed to remove all those footnotes.

Glasgow:
Can we just call it "non-Hetero" and be done with this? I know that some people like to be different, but for some reason you're grouping all of them together.

I'm okay with this. It's certainly much more efficient in my opinion.

[1] Those who are amorphous blobs and are not strictly either gender. Or necessarily human.
[2] Those who only have sex vicariously, through other people. Not the same as voyeurism.
[3] Those who reproduce through the exchange of molecular particles
[4] People who can change their sex back and forth at will
[5] Those whose true love is crushed by a totalitarian regime that allows for no emotion
[6] Those who are having sex, but aren't happy about it.
[7] Refers to a small group of rocks that have gained the ability to reproduce sexually.
[8] Those who do not actually exist, and thus have no gender.
[9] Those who have an overly-idealistic and nieve view of sex and relationships.
[10] Those who are too stupid to reproduce without measurably damaging the human race, and thus cannot legally have sex with anyone
[11] Self-explanatory
[12] Also self-explanatory. Not the same as Bears.
[13] Refers to beings made of liquid that can reproduce sexually
[14] Refers to all gods and god-like beings how have grown beyond the need for sexual desires.
[15] Refers to beings of unknowable horror that nonetheless have sexual desires, even if nobody is sure exactly what they are.
[16] Refers to horrible monsters that reproduce by laying eggs inside their helpless, screaming victims.

I've never had to use any form of those acronyms in conversations, so do what you like to it.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what is a intersexual?

I'm rather new to the LGBTI community as I've only very recently been coming to terms/realizing my non-straightness.

I must say that the intersex label fits more snuggly than anything else, that or being gender-neutral, as I don't really identify myself as a man. Sure biologically I am but personally I don't really feel like one of them. Never really felt at home amongst men either, more so amongst females, and I can't really stand it if I'm expected to behave or be a certain way just because I have a penis.

So yeah I'd like the Intersex label to be there. Though I agree that too many labels can be too silly. But do mind the difference between sexuality and gender identification. Non-hetero is nice and general for sexuality but not so much for gender identification.

Dammit, let's focus on just being decent humans. Humans who have sex in their off-time. Or don't.
I'm not LGBTVIWTFBBQLDSLOLUGOTAIDSN00BROFLMAOZEDONG.
I'm human.
I just also like both genders. And playing video games. And learning trivia and errata. And breathing.

Cowabungaa:
I'm rather new to the LGBTI community as I've only very recently been coming to terms/realizing my non-straightness.

I must say that the intersex label fits more snuggly than anything else, that or being gender-neutral, as I don't really identify myself as a man. Sure biologically I am but personally I don't really feel like one of them. Never really felt at home amongst men either, more so amongst females, and I can't really stand it if I'm expected to behave or be a certain way just because I have a penis.

So yeah I'd like the Intersex label to be there. Though I agree that too many labels can be too silly. But do mind the difference between sexuality and gender identification. Non-hetero is nice and general for sexuality but not so much for gender identification.

Is this were I explain that intersexual isn't a identity as much as a medical term for various androgynous syndromes and malfunctions? Kind of like transsexual is a medical term foremost. What you describe is called intergender, as in gender neutral. "Sex" refers to biology and the term intersexual usually require a medical diagnosis.

With that said I have to support your viewpoint. Be who you want to be and do what you want to do, not letting one be limited by arbritary rules. I try to live someway like that myself.

MorphingDragon:
-snip-

For example Bisexual and Pansexual are completely different things. Bisexual refers to physical sexual attraction of varying levels to both sexes. Pansexual refers to attraction to things not necessarily physical, such as personality or intelligence.

Right. And Pansexuals are the only people who can be attracted to people for traits other than physical looks? I tend to find I fancy people once I get to know them, rather than at face value. Yet I don't fancy both sexes, what does that make me?

QUICK I NEED A NEW WORD TO DESCRIBE MY SEXUALITY! I only fancy girls, but like, I like them for reasons beyond their body! No. No that doesn't make me straight, it makes me....spiri-sexual. Yeah. That's what I am, and none of /you/ are. Look how unique I am!

We don't need a term for every single little subcategory. Otherwise I /should/ have my own sexuality. Any different from that? Otherwise where does it stop? Everyone has different things that make them tick, or what they're attracted to, we can't give them all names, otherwise it looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_subgenres

And that's not even a complete list, those categories have sub catagories beyond subcatagories.

I mean look at it, it's silly right? Folk Metal. Bam, done. But no, someone decided we needed to divide it into 10 different categories, even though the only difference between them is totally inconsequential. Metalcore. Bam, done. But nOOOO, one band uses slightly odd time signatures, and they become Mathcore. Mathcore becomes Death Matchcore. Which becomes Death Mathcore fusion. See where I'm going with this?

Let's just call them "people" 'kay?

elvor0:

MorphingDragon:
-snip-

For example Bisexual and Pansexual are completely different things. Bisexual refers to physical sexual attraction of varying levels to both sexes. Pansexual refers to attraction to things not necessarily physical, such as personality or intelligence.

QUICK I NEED A NEW WORD TO DESCRIBE MY SEXUALITY! I only fancy girls, but like, I like them for reasons beyond their body! No. No that doesn't make me straight, it makes me....spiri-sexual. Yeah. That's what I am, and none of /you/ are. Look how unique I am!

By that definition you are Pansexual, ironically discrediting your own argument. No one is trying to go around making lots of terms for sexuality. I mean really, we don't need terms like homo sapien; Animalia is perfectly adequate and there's no reason to add more.

We need these terms (Ignoring slang) to concisely express our ideas, just like the music hipsters need the terms to concisely express theirs. Not to mention you discredit people like Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey - people who spend years studying human sexuality and identity, making terms you don't even know about so they could accurately express their ideas and research.

Also comparing music to sexuality is an inept metaphor. People don't make 5000+ names for sexuality as the explicit nature of it makes it more clear cut than the nuances of music. There are clear definitions accepted in the medical and academic studies in sexuality.

Wikipedia even has a convenient list for them as well. I can confirm that they match with my own psyc books.

Asexual Bisexual Heterosexual Homosexual Androphilia and gynephilia Pansexuality Polysexuality Intersexuality Third gender Two-Spirit

MorphingDragon:
For example Bisexual and Pansexual are completely different things. Bisexual refers to physical sexual attraction of varying levels to both sexes. Pansexual refers to attraction to things not necessarily physical, such as personality or intelligence.

But then again, couldn't you say that about most people? It's not as if everyone dates solely based on physical attractiveness in appearance. Non-pansexual people like personality and intelligence too (and it's not as if pansexuals are asexual, except when they find someone they love for themselves). I mean, for example, I'm attracted to femininity, so even if it's a transvestite or transsexual or a female bodybuilderr, as long as they look feminine enough I wouldn't mind dating or having sex with them. If anything, they might have "the best of both worlds". However, I identify as heterosexual, because rigid masculinity doesn't attract me in most situations. So what does that make me? Heterosexual, like I identify as? A bisexual in denial? A "pansexual" heterosexual?

Even though these labels are pretty stupid in retrospect (sexologists such as Alfred Kinsey pretty much proved that sexuality is a sliding scale anyway, arguably meaning that most people aren't 100% heterosexual), the reason we have them is for practicality. Why introduce yourself to someone as "pansexual", when most people don't even know how it's that different from bisexuality? I might sound ignorant here, but it's not as if a heterosexual man couldn't find an intersexual person attractive if they looked feminine enough. It's not that I'm denying anyone's pansexuality like how people try to claim that bisexuals don't exist and that you're either straight or gay. It's just that I don't think there's enough of a distinction to justify another separate label being made; one which isn't even used by that many people, even in the LGBT community itself, in the first place.

The reason I was wondering why "I" for "Intersex" isn't in the acronym is because they are distinctly different from transgendered people, and most people know it. Not all intersexual people are transgendered/transsexual, and not all transgendered/transsexuals people are intersexual. At birth, it appears that the doctor just does a 50/50 on what they and their genitalia looks like, then assigns them either male or female.

But, since I'm not in any LGBT communities, what do I know? This barely even affects me. I have a habit of thinking too much about things that don't, or probably never will, affect me in real-life. But I like to research stuff like this, and I'm currently studying A-Level Sociology.

I've always wondered about this. I mean, of any group of people, it would seem that intersex would have the most things stacked against them. These days people accept that a man can be attracted to a man, a woman can be attracted to a woman, people can be attracted to people of both sexes, or that someone can have their sex surgically changed. But intersex people have such a low profile that most Americans at least automatically assume that there are only two physical sexes and everyone must neatly fit into one or the other. I've never met anyone who actually was intersex, but then how would I know, because how many people let that be outwardly known? And certainly intersexuality has been a feature that has been mocked in the popular culture- not only that but there was a practice of doctors surgically altering children in order to eliminate intersex features up until fairly recently.

I mean, hell. Just look at the bullshit people like Caster Semenya and Lady Gaga had to go through because people refused to believe that your physical sex could be anything but binary. Or maybe the bigger motivation was because it's so fun to speculate about celebrities having deformed genitals, because taking famous people who have achieved more than us down a peg makes us feel better about ourselves.

So if any group needs organization to raise awareness and get protection, it's intersex people. But I see precious little support for them. And I wonder why. Is it because intersex people are so rare that they can't get enough people together to make their voices heard? Or is it because intersexuality is so stigmatized that people are afraid to openly admit it? Especially since from what I gather most intersex people are not cases that might have been called "hermaphrodites" in an earlier time (i.e. people with both genetalia), but people who simply have ambiguous genetalia. How many men with micropenis for example, are willing to stand up and proclaim it to the world?

It's a pity to see so many Escapists reflexively opposing the idea of recognizing and supporting intersex people. A pity, but not at all surprising.

Katatori-kun:
I've always wondered about this. I mean, of any group of people, it would seem that intersex would have the most things stacked against them. These days people accept that a man can be attracted to a man, a woman can be attracted to a woman, people can be attracted to people of both sexes, or that someone can have their sex surgically changed. But intersex people have such a low profile that most Americans at least automatically assume that there are only two physical sexes and everyone must neatly fit into one or the other. I've never met anyone who actually was intersex, but then how would I know, because how many people let that be outwardly known? And certainly intersexuality has been a feature that has been mocked in the popular culture- not only that but there was a practice of doctors surgically altering children in order to eliminate intersex features up until fairly recently.

I mean, hell. Just look at the bullshit people like Caster Semenya and Lady Gaga had to go through because people refused to believe that your physical sex could be anything but binary. Or maybe the bigger motivation was because it's so fun to speculate about celebrities having deformed genitals, because taking famous people who have achieved more than us down a peg makes us feel better about ourselves.

So if any group needs organization to raise awareness and get protection, it's intersex people. But I see precious little support for them. And I wonder why. Is it because intersex people are so rare that they can't get enough people together to make their voices heard? Or is it because intersexuality is so stigmatized that people are afraid to openly admit it? Especially since from what I gather most intersex people are not cases that might have been called "hermaphrodites" in an earlier time (i.e. people with both genetalia), but people who simply have ambiguous genetalia. How many men with micropenis for example, are willing to stand up and proclaim it to the world?

It's a pity to see so many Escapists reflexively opposing the idea of recognizing and supporting intersex people. A pity, but not at all surprising.

I agree. Perhaps they don't get enough support (or we don't hear enough about it) because they seem to be an even smaller minority than transgendered people, and it's understandably embarrassing for someone to proclaim that they have a micro-penis or an enlarged clitoris (for the latter, unless they're a female bodybuilding porn star, and even that's a niche category). That's why I think that, if there needs to be any letter added onto the acronym, then it should be "I" for "Intersex". (Although I think the main reasons so many Escapists are reflexively opposing this idea because they believe it encourages even more segregation, and/or the acronym is already a growing clusterfuck of alphabet soup. But I disagree; it's about raising awareness about these people and their issues, and it's not as if they don't accept straight and/or cis male/female people that support their causes. It's like having a go at shelters for abused women because men get abused too - without considering that women would feel more anxious with men there if they've been repeatedly beaten up by a man.)

This topic was partly inspired by a programme I watched a while ago, about this intersexual person who was born female, but because of her ambiguous genitalia, I think the doctor might've done something or another and assigned her as male. When she was growing up, she took on the persona of a predominantly masculine-looking gay men, but later decided to get surgery to become female (and she looked just like a cis female too - which might, at least partly, be because she was already biologically female in part in the first place). But I think she might've had problem with her new vagina lubricating and/or something else, because of what the doctor may or may not have done to her at birth.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked