LGBTI?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

AstroSmash:
People go on and on about how they hate labels, then they have to have some commitee acknowledge each label for every % of confusion there is in your sexuality.

Are you a female, would never sleep with a women, but you can admire some female bodies? You're interqueercurios.
Are you a shemale, but feel like a girl, but kind of a lesbian, but totally gay? You're transmogrifiomnipanalphasexual.
Why must there be more names for sexuality than metal music genres?

Because sexuality actually matters.

*rimshot*

I find it amusing that in a topic about being more inclusive, pansexuals are being shot down so much. The distinction for me between bisexuals and pansexuals is the rejection of a gender binary. While a bisexual is someone who can have a romantic or sexual attraction to either a male or female (and in my experience, an attraction to one more than the other is quite common anyway), pansexualism encompasses attraction to everything in between as well. In my mind at least, bisexual says "I can love you if you are male or female" while pansexual says "Gender isn't important, I can love you regardless of gender identification".

Anyway, on the topic of the thread, I think that the term LGBT has become a popular one to the point where attempting to add any more individual letters to it probably isn't going to have any wide-spread effect on its use. The best suggestion I've seen in the thread so far is the use of LGBT+, retaining the popular terminology while having inclusiveness of more obscure minorities in the title. Really though, in my experience, the LGBT community is a wonderfully inclusive community to begin with and any changes to the name don't really seem necessary to identify with that group.

Relish in Chaos:

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.

Actually, I don't agree with how he phrased it, but I think Glasgow's on the right track here: Eventually if you add everything to the label, it stops having meaning. Sooner or later it's easier to define it by the out-groups than the in, and after that, the word's not a shorthand anymore. There's got to be a better way of defining the socially maligned "non-standard" gender or sexual orientation people than listing their preference or condition in an acronym.

Especially since the label is generally used as a part of activism and social awareness, so it's not describing so much a group as a movement.

azukar:
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.

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.)

boots:
snip

If you hadn't skipped the part saying I'm totally cool with gays you would understand that I'm totally cool with gays. Maybe you're right that I'm in the camp of "you can be gay just don't shove it in my face". But I view flaunting it in your face to be an attention grabbing technique used by those who need either attention, validation, or both. Maybe I'm not a nice person, but to me that sort of behavior is childish and annoying. If everyone around you (in his case) already doesn't care, then why would you go out of your way to make sure people know. That's annoying to me. I dont mind people being stereotypically "gay" or do overtly gay things. I do care, however, when these things are done to garner attention. I severely dislike people of any sexual orientation who actively try to be the center of attention.
As for heteros flaunting their sexuality, I would be curious to know where you get that statistic from. I know that the people I know don't go around telling every person and their dog what person of the opposite sex they banged last night. Heck I don't even hear gay people saying that. So yea I'm curious. And you know, I don't mind gay people describing their interest in specific people of the same sex either. Also, my sex life is generally a private matter, and unless asked directly I don't go out of my way to tell people. Everyone I know is like that too.
As for the last bit, I meant that it will be unnecessary except for in countries in the Middle East and in areas of religious fundamentalism.

I know many people have already touched on this, but frankly, the more letters go into this acronym, the wider a net it casts--sort of the opposite idea of a singling out a minority. I guess the real question is, where do you draw the line? Should we include foot fetishists or furries? What about people who have sex with dolphins? On what grounds would you bar those or include them, and what makes intersex worthy of inclusion, or for that matter, even gay? At some point you have to start defining why these people are different and deserve segregation (or recognition, depending on which lens you're deciding to look through). Personally, I'd say that all sexual tendencies involve one person loving someone else, so why bother trying to say anything other than "not considered the social ideal of perfectly 'straight'" if anything at all?

With that in mind, here is my new proposal for an acronym that's most fair:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Or--and this is radical, I'll warn you--how about people are just people and we stop our endless and pointless categorization to make it easier for us to inaccurately judge or refer to large swaths of the populace?

I never had any reason to keep up with all these fancy initialisms and seeing how new ones apparently get invented almost daily, I'll be sticking with my favorite "IDGAF" while politely refusing any involvement in debates concerning these "identities" or whatever those are. Other people's sex lives are none of my business, after all...

the doom cannon:

If you hadn't skipped the part saying I'm totally cool with gays you would understand that I'm totally cool with gays.

I didn't skip that part. Unfortunately your post was a case of "I'm totally cool with gays but..."

I dont mind people being stereotypically "gay" or do overtly gay things. I do care, however, when these things are done to garner attention. I severely dislike people of any sexual orientation who actively try to be the center of attention.

How do you know they're acting that way to garner attention? How can you tell the difference between a person who acts a certain way because it comes naturally and someone who "just wants attention"? Besides, you didn't just say that you don't like people who want to be the centre of attention. You extended this to say that you don't get why LGBT people need a sexual identity, and that they shouldn't need to be acknowledged and validated by the rest of society.

You say that your uncle and his partner are gay. Have you ever said to him, "Man, I'm glad you're not one of those attention-seeking gays who shove their gayness in people's faces"? How do you think he'd react if you did?

As for heteros flaunting their sexuality, I would be curious to know where you get that statistic from.

What statistic? O.o

As for the last bit, I meant that it will be unnecessary except for in countries in the Middle East and in areas of religious fundamentalism.

Homophobia in the US will be completely eliminated within 20 years? Wow. That's ... optimistic. Especially since I would consider many places in the US to be areas of religious fundamentalism.

Mike Kayatta:
I know many people have already touched on this, but frankly, the more letters go into this acronym, the wider a net it casts--sort of the opposite idea of a singling out a minority. I guess the real question is, where do you draw the line? Should we include foot fetishists or furries? What about people who have sex with dolphins? On what grounds would you bar those or include them, and what makes intersex worthy of inclusion, or for that matter, even gay? At some point you have to start defining why these people are different and deserve segregation (or recognition, depending on which lens you're deciding to look through). Personally, I'd say that all sexual tendencies involve one person loving someone else, so why bother trying to say anything other than "not considered the social ideal of perfectly 'straight'" if anything at all?

With that in mind, here is my new proposal for an acronym that's most fair:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Or--and this is radical, I'll warn you--how about people are just people and we stop our endless and pointless categorization to make it easier for us to inaccurately judge or refer to large swaths of the populace?

That's just great. Now we've even got The Escapist writers comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

I can see how this post might have been well-intentioned, but it's just another one to add to the "why should LGBT+ people be allowed their own identity?" pile.

P.S. SEXUAL IDENTITY IS NOT A FUCKING FETISH.

boots:

Mike Kayatta:
I know many people have already touched on this, but frankly, the more letters go into this acronym, the wider a net it casts--sort of the opposite idea of a singling out a minority. I guess the real question is, where do you draw the line? Should we include foot fetishists or furries? What about people who have sex with dolphins? On what grounds would you bar those or include them, and what makes intersex worthy of inclusion, or for that matter, even gay? At some point you have to start defining why these people are different and deserve segregation (or recognition, depending on which lens you're deciding to look through). Personally, I'd say that all sexual tendencies involve one person loving someone else, so why bother trying to say anything other than "not considered the social ideal of perfectly 'straight'" if anything at all?

With that in mind, here is my new proposal for an acronym that's most fair:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Or--and this is radical, I'll warn you--how about people are just people and we stop our endless and pointless categorization to make it easier for us to inaccurately judge or refer to large swaths of the populace?

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

That's just great. Now we've even got The Escapist writers comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

I can see how this post might have been well-intentioned, but it's just another one to add to the "why should LGBT people be allowed their own identity?" pile.

Ha, I am far from comparing homosexuality to bestiality in the way you're implying. Trust me, there are many comments you can track down to be legitimately concerned with, so please take Jesus elsewhere. My point is that EVERYONE is allowed their own identity, but the more you amalgamate them, the more that identity ceases to be. Once you start regrouping everyone, then what identity are you really "allowing"? Who here is qualified to say who is and isn't allowed to be a part of that shared description. And as long as the answer is ~shrug~ then maybe we should move on from trying to be so technical about how we're segregating groups.

Mike Kayatta:

Ha, I am far from comparing homosexuality to bestiality in the way you're implying. Trust me, there are many comments you can track down to be legitimately concerned with, so please take Jesus elsewhere. My point is that EVERYONE is allowed their own identity, but the more you amalgamate them, the more that identity ceases to be. Once you start regrouping everyone, then what identity are you really "allowing"? Who here is qualified to say who is and isn't allowed to be a part of that shared description. And as long as the answer is ~shrug~ then maybe we should move on from trying to be so technical about how we're segregating groups.

I'm legitimately concerned with your comment because you compared sexual identities like homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality with criminal activities like bestiality and fetishes like foot fetishism. You used a crass, dismissive, reductio ad absurdum argument in an attempt to prove how "open-minded" you are.

I don't care if you don't want to identify yourself as part of any particular group, but telling people that they shouldn't do so either is unbelievably arrogant, especially coming as it does from (I'm guessing) a cisgendered heterosexual perspective. It's very easy to handwave away other people's right to differentiate themselves when you fit safely into the socially accepted picture of normality.

You talk about "segregating groups" as though a great authoritarian council is reaching down and restrictively dividing people up, and after they've done so all the gays sit in one corner of a room glaring over at the transgendered people and saying, "You'd better not cross the dividing line!" Sexual identity terms are just that: they're terms, used to describe particular sexual preferences. If someone finds a term that fits them, why shouldn't they be allowed to use it? What harm does it do you if someone stands up and says, "Hi, I'm bisexual!"

I suppose I just can't get my head around the mentality of "We should do away with all individual sexual identities ... because the LGBT+ acronym takes too long to say."

Mike Kayatta:

boots:

Mike Kayatta:
I know many people have already touched on this, but frankly, the more letters go into this acronym, the wider a net it casts--sort of the opposite idea of a singling out a minority. I guess the real question is, where do you draw the line? Should we include foot fetishists or furries? What about people who have sex with dolphins? On what grounds would you bar those or include them, and what makes intersex worthy of inclusion, or for that matter, even gay? At some point you have to start defining why these people are different and deserve segregation (or recognition, depending on which lens you're deciding to look through). Personally, I'd say that all sexual tendencies involve one person loving someone else, so why bother trying to say anything other than "not considered the social ideal of perfectly 'straight'" if anything at all?

With that in mind, here is my new proposal for an acronym that's most fair:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Or--and this is radical, I'll warn you--how about people are just people and we stop our endless and pointless categorization to make it easier for us to inaccurately judge or refer to large swaths of the populace?

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

That's just great. Now we've even got The Escapist writers comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

I can see how this post might have been well-intentioned, but it's just another one to add to the "why should LGBT people be allowed their own identity?" pile.

Ha, I am far from comparing homosexuality to bestiality in the way you're implying. Trust me, there are many comments you can track down to be legitimately concerned with, so please take Jesus elsewhere. My point is that EVERYONE is allowed their own identity, but the more you amalgamate them, the more that identity ceases to be. Once you start regrouping everyone, then what identity are you really "allowing"? Who here is qualified to say who is and isn't allowed to be a part of that shared description. And as long as the answer is ~shrug~ then maybe we should move on from trying to be so technical about how we're segregating groups.

Broadly, the shared description covers people who are not straight (gay, bi, pan, etc) or who are not cis and/or do not fit into the gender binary (transsexual, genderqueer, third sex, etc.) Discussing terminology isn't about broadening definitions to the point of meaninglessness; it's about trying to accommodate a variety of granular labels that already fall under the umbrella ideas.

But more importantly, it is a community. There's a certain amount of shared culture/ideals and factional bullshit, much like in mainstream culture. Not all people described by the terms consider themselves to be part of it, and the goal is to allow all those who do to feel a degree of acceptance they don't get from mainstream culture.

It'd be nice if we lived in a world where these sorts of distinctions and designations didn't matter, but frankly, that ain't the world we live in.

I guess that I'm fine with it, doesn't really affect me that much anyway.

Darken12:
QUILTBAG.

Don't really like that abbreviation, just because 'Quiltbag' sounds like a crappy catchphrase from an 80's show.

'Catch you on the flipside, quiltbag!'

In respect to the argument that seems to be going on here with homsexuality/lesbianality/transexuality/etc being too 'in your face', I'd say that gay pride festivals are actually very good, because in that situation, ostentatiousness is needed. I find it annoying if a gay person tries to substitute being gay for an actual fucking personality, but those people are incredibly few and far between, and that's more because I find anyone taking one aspect of their personality and making that their entire personality to be very annoying.

Though, I must say, I don't admire the aesthetic of gay pride parades. Why so much pink, guys? I always thought that purple was the LGBTQ colour of choice. Purple is a much nicer colour than pink.

UltimateNoodle:
In my mind at least, bisexual says "I can love you if you are male or female" while pansexual says "Gender isn't important, I can love you regardless of gender identification".

And in practical terms, what does that even mean? Who can be loved by pansexuals but can't be loved by bisexuals?

Mike Kayatta:
Should we include foot fetishists or furries? What about people who have sex with dolphins?

Why would we? Neither are sexualities. Actually, it's pretty damn insulting to compare a sexual orientation or anyone who isn't cis-gendered to a fetishist.

We could always call it the NCS community (Not Completely Straight) and that would probably cover everyone. If we have to go higher than QUILTBAG, I'm going to be in danger of just calling them "Them".

It all seems a bit pedantic to me. Why do we have to compartmentalise everyone?

Reeve:
It all seems a bit pedantic to me. Why do we have to compartmentalise everyone?

Yeah, why can't we just call them all "the abnormals". Would be much easier.

boots:

Reeve:
It all seems a bit pedantic to me. Why do we have to compartmentalise everyone?

Yeah, why can't we just call them all "the abnormals". Would be much easier.

It seems like you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that I don't think we should arbitrarily 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? To put it another way: Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

Reeve:

boots:

Reeve:
It all seems a bit pedantic to me. Why do we have to compartmentalise everyone?

Yeah, why can't we just call them all "the abnormals". Would be much easier.

It seems like you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that I don't think we should arbitrarily 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? To put it another way: Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

In a perfect world, this would work, but LGBTQ people also want to carve out an identity, and have a word to describe what they are. Words can be used to categorise and compartmentalise, but they can also be used for self-expression.

Stu35:
Bullshit.

I don't have to come out and say "I support... [every fucking niche label in the world]" just so they can feel warm and fuzzy and know that I'm on their side (for a start, if they were truly happy in their own skin they wouldn't need my fucking approval anyway).

So no, there is EVERY reason to assume that I include Gays, Bisexuals, Lesbians, Transgenders, Intergenders, Hermaphrodites, Pansexuals, Queers, Asexuals, [insert your goddamned sexuality label here] When I say 'I support the Gay community'.

Again, many members of the actual gay community don't include them, you can assume someone who happens to support the gay community does.

Mike Kayatta:
Or--and this is radical, I'll warn you--how about people are just people and we stop our endless and pointless categorization to make it easier for us to inaccurately judge or refer to large swaths of the populace?

Reeve:
Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

Because that's exactly how it doesn't work in the really real world. One of the things the LGBT community is fighting for is recognition that their problems exist. That their movement should exist, or on a more basic level, that they exist and won't be silenced..

Saying the movement shouldn't exist and LGBT should be quiet about it because there shouldn't be a problem in the first place is not particularly helpful.

Reeve:
[
It seems like you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that I don't think we should arbitrarily 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? To put it another way: Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

OK, you and a lot of people in this thread need to get past the idea that "naming" is somehow destructive or harmful. We have names for just about everything that exists in this world, along with names for a lot of things that don't exist. So why the hell are you all getting so affronted by the idea of naming different types of sexual orientation?

You do realise that identifying as gay or bi doesn't automatically preclude you from also identifying as a human being, right? "Gay" and "human" aren't mutually exclusive terms.

You also don't seem to understand what the word "arbitrary" means. If I were to divide people into a group by going "eenie meenie miney mo" then that would be arbitrary. When we identify people as belonging to a particular sexual orientation, it is not arbitrary, because they are naturally organised into that group by way of fitting a definition. So people who only have sexual attraction to the opposite sex fit the definition of "heterosexual" and people who are attracted to both sexes are "bisexual" and so on. We're not forcing people into any boxes, we're just coming up with language to describe commonalities that they have with other people.

Of course, when you get right down to it all language is completely arbitrary, but that way lies post-structuralism and Derrida and headaches so we'll leave off that tangent.

Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

But that's exactly what terms for LGBT+ people do. They focus on similarities that people share. For a lot of LGBT+ people, belonging to a group is actually very comforting. It builds a sense of community. Do you really want to snatch that away and say, "NO! We're all one big homogeneous mass and you're not allowed to celebrate your individuality!"

thaluikhain:

Saying the movement shouldn't exist and LGBT should be quiet about it because there shouldn't be a problem in the first place is not particularly helpful.

If you had even the most basic ability at reading comprehension you would know that I have not said that the movement should not exist or that they should "keep quiet."

It would be a massive help to you if you learned to read and comprehend correctly. ;)

Reeve:

thaluikhain:

Saying the movement shouldn't exist and LGBT should be quiet about it because there shouldn't be a problem in the first place is not particularly helpful.

If you had even the most basic ability at reading comprehension you would know that I have not said that the movement should not exist or that they should "keep quiet."

It would be a massive help to you if you learned to read and comprehend correctly. ;)

That may not have been what you meant to say, but it's what bigots say to attack the LGBT community for existing.

boots:

Reeve:
[
It seems like you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that I don't think we should arbitrarily 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? To put it another way: Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

OK, you and a lot of people in this thread need to get past the idea that "naming" is somehow destructive or harmful. We have names for just about everything that exists in this world, along with names for a lot of things that don't exist. So why the hell are you all getting so affronted by the idea of naming different types of sexual orientation?

I wasn't getting "affronted." Don't project intentions or feelings on to me that you have merely imagined.

You do realise that identifying as gay or bi doesn't automatically preclude you from also identifying as a human being, right? "Gay" and "human" aren't mutually exclusive terms.

I didn't say that it did preclude someone from identifying as a human. Don't try and put words into my mouth.

You also don't seem to understand what the word "arbitrary" means.

You don't seem to understand that there's nothing particularly special about sexual orientation. The only reason why we single it out these days (along with things like race) is because it has been (and is) a massive social taboo, for ages.

thaluikhain:

Reeve:

thaluikhain:

Saying the movement shouldn't exist and LGBT should be quiet about it because there shouldn't be a problem in the first place is not particularly helpful.

If you had even the most basic ability at reading comprehension you would know that I have not said that the movement should not exist or that they should "keep quiet."

It would be a massive help to you if you learned to read and comprehend correctly. ;)

That may not have been what you meant to say, but it's what bigots say to attack the LGBT community for existing.

I didn't say that. The fault is with you for seeing me as an opponent. Also, if you want to call me an bigot, don't be underhanded about it. Call me a bigot. But be prepared to have your mischaracterisation justly thrown back in your face. I am not a bigot. Don't presume to know things about strangers on the Internet. ;)

boots:
But that's exactly what terms for LGBT+ people do. They focus on similarities that people share. For a lot of LGBT+ people, belonging to a group is actually very comforting. It builds a sense of community. Do you really want to snatch that away and say, "NO! We're all one big homogeneous mass and you're not allowed to celebrate your individuality!"

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.

Reeve:

I wasn't getting "affronted." Don't project intentions or feelings on to me that you have merely imagined.

Errr, when you object to something and say that people shouldn't do it, I think that pretty much qualifies as taking affront.

I didn't say that it did preclude someone from identifying as a human. Don't try and put words into my mouth.

OK, I won't.

"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?"

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. Breaking news: it's not an either-or thing. You can accept that someone is gay and also accept that they're your fellow human being. Amazing, huh?

You don't seem to understand that there's nothing particularly special about sexual orientation. The only reason why we single it out these days (along with things like race) is because it has been (and is) a massive social taboo, for ages.

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?

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?

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 US vs Them thing? Really? What do you think it's a response thing, if not LBGT people being seen as a dangerous "Them" to be gotten rid of by large parts of society?

Abomination:
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.

Who does that cover though? You can't say "everyone who isn't straight" because "everyone who isn't straight" is supposed to be part of "everyone", and the whole point of the movement is that that didn't work.

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.

boots:
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.

Everyone remembers the worst case of "Us vs. Them" in the history of the world: disestablishmentarianists vs. antidisestablishmentarianists. We must be wary of the letters.

I'm tempted to just shout 'LOOK EVERYONE, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND ALL AGREE ON THAT WE NEED LABELS OTHERWISE WE CAN'T EVEN DESCRIBE GROUPS PROPERLY IN CONVERSATION, AND THAT THE BEST LABEL WOULD BE 'NON-HETEROSEXUAL' AS IT'S EASY TO SAY, READ AND WRITE AND EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE ON ABOUT'. However, that would take forever to shout so I'd probably lose the annoyance halfway through so I'd stop shouting. So, I'll just say it in a forum post:
Look everyone, shut the fuck up and all agree on that we need labels otherwise we can't even describe groups properly in conversation, and that the best label would be 'non-heterosexual' as it's easy to say, read and write and everyone knows what you're on about.

Is this okay for everyone? (I don't know why, but I think I'm going to get attacked for doing something wrong - ah well, my fault for posting in a thread regarding gender disposition.)

Remaiki:
I'm tempted to just shout 'LOOK EVERYONE, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND ALL AGREE ON THAT WE NEED LABELS OTHERWISE WE CAN'T EVEN DESCRIBE GROUPS PROPERLY IN CONVERSATION, AND THAT THE BEST LABEL WOULD BE 'NON-HETEROSEXUAL' AS IT'S EASY TO SAY, READ AND WRITE AND EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE ON ABOUT'. However, that would take forever to shout so I'd probably lose the annoyance halfway through so I'd stop shouting. So, I'll just say it in a forum post:
Look everyone, shut the fuck up and all agree on that we need labels otherwise we can't even describe groups properly in conversation, and that the best label would be 'non-heterosexual' as it's easy to say, read and write and everyone knows what you're on about.

Is this okay for everyone? (I don't know why, but I think I'm going to get attacked for doing something wrong - ah well, my fault for posting in a thread regarding gender disposition.)

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.

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.

Katatori-kun:

Mike Kayatta:
Should we include foot fetishists or furries? What about people who have sex with dolphins?

Why would we? Neither are sexualities. Actually, it's pretty damn insulting to compare a sexual orientation or anyone who isn't cis-gendered to a fetishist.

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here