Serious LGBTQ

Status
Not open for further replies.
sjw is a pejorative that has been used to dismiss liberal and/or radical actors pushing towards progressive change. to employ it is far more of a strawman steelwithit's post. in fact, the usage of sjw shows that you don't want to even have discourse about issues and instead wish to silence the opposition.

for many folx in the lgbtq+ community, our queerness is integral to our identity. consequently, it is important to discuss the conceptualization of queerness in these spaces.

i think that the relationship i have to my queerness is heavily affected by the interconnection of my queerness and environment. regardless of my proximity to others, my queerness is often a defining marker of my identity in many contexts. in spite of my initial push towards obfuscating my sexuality, it often come to the forefront of my life and, in turn, this pushes me towards a community of other ppl who have dealt with similar experiences.

accepting your queerness is accepting marginalisation. you're embracing a historical baggage of being systematically pathologised by western medicine, sterilised, discriminated in work life and otherwise, being killed etc. our experiences and current context are affected by the history of those who have created this environment. that's why i'm trying to unpack my privileges and oppression. my own experiences in relation to those in the community still matter.

throughout history, the lack of intersectionality in marginalised communities has led to a systematic invisiblisation of folx. if you've ever had even cursory engagement with academic feminist literature, you would be aware of audre lorde's speech 'the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house'. in it, she condemns the erasure of black women [and in doing so, the 'master' is the white women who are extracting labor (metaphor is indeed slavemaster)] in the second wave movement. black power + civil rights activism was geared towards men while feminism was geared towards white women. this left black women (don't get me wrong, others too e.g. gnc folx, genderqueer...) without a vehicle to attach themselves to.

so why am i saying this? because my post was describing how i feel that these very systems of erasure are enacting themselves again in the queer community. why is it that queer spaces are predominately white? predominately thin? as someone who benefits in many of these axes of privilege, i am cognizant of how my life and experiences are drastically different from someone else's.

wrt your dismissal of certain privilege: the dominant ideology that is so pervasive in our culture is to frame beauty as natural and abiding. your post exemplifies this: it's colonialistic by nature. beauty is a power dynamic. what we deem beautiful is mutable: just look at the shifts in beauty standards throughout history. what determines what is beautiful? power. imperialism. white folx have always been seen as the epitome of beauty because they have dominated most societies. oppressive constructs which play into our conceptualisation of beauty such as the golden standard and bmi were drafted through and for white ppl (predominately male, too). our view of eurocentrism as the most beautiful and most represented phenotype is part and parcel to our own internalised and socialised biases.

in part, this plays into fat ppl, poc, etc. being systemically less appealing (both romantically and interpersonally... there is a lot of unpack here that would take up too much space). we live in a society in which these intersections of our identity are not given the time of day in more marginalised spaces. queerness as an umbrella tends to invisiblise more margnalised identities underneath it because of conventionally less oppressed folx having the power in these communities. this is the homonormativity that i described: and this is dangerous.

to frame my experiences as some sort of 'guilt' is offensive and a complete misconception of my feelings. i don't give a fuck about guilt. guilt doesn't solve anything and is more of an impediment than anything. if you don't care about systems of oppression in our society which leave people disadvantaged, then i cannot force you to care. however, i personally wish to look towards a society and a community in which there is a plurality of discussion and viewpoints. i want an lgbtq community (and society as a whole) which is accepting of others and is able to unpack their privilege. i want people to stop dismissing issues of oppression as "unimportant" and making them seem like they "don't matter" because you personally don't feel that way.

my queerness isn't a badge of honor, but another part of my identity which has serious implications of how i relate to others. my queerness is, in fact, important. my queerness is ever evolving. and so are many others in this community who are often ignored by us. the aftermath and continuation of colonialisation, patriarchy, etc. isn't just a long-forgotten history, but is an ongoing struggle which affects people of this community too. telling others ignore issues you deem 'not serious' because you've accepted the notion that things are just meant to be like this is just fucked up.
 
Last edited:

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
wrt your dismissal of certain privilege: the dominant ideology that is so pervasive in our culture is to frame beauty as natural and abiding. your post exemplifies this: it's colonialistic by nature. beauty is a power dynamic. what we deem beautiful is mutable: just look at the shifts in beauty standards throughout history. what determines what is beautiful? power. imperialism. white folx have always been seen as the epitome of beauty because they have dominated most societies. oppressive constructs which play into our conceptualisation of beauty such as the golden standard and bmi were drafted through and for white ppl (predominately male, too). our view of eurocentrism as the most beautiful and most represented phenotype is part and parcel to our own internalised and socialised biases.

in part, this plays into fat ppl, poc, etc. being systemically less appealing (both romantically and interpersonally... there is a lot of unpack here that would take up too much space). we live in a society in which these intersections of our identity of our identity are not given the time of day in more marginalised spaces. queerness as an umbrella tends to invisiblise more margnalised identities underneath it because of conventionally less oppressed folx having the power in these communities. this is the homonormativity that i described: and this is dangerous.
you absolutely went off the rails here. Your theory of knowledge has no business trying to assert any kind of truths in respect to what is beauty, sexually appealing, or anything like that. It is an incomprehensibly tangled neuroscientific web, and any claim you make is just a reflection of your ideological position.
 
for clarification: the following post is being made because i do want to have a dialogue with people that hold different opinions. i honestly disagreed with nearly everything you said in your original post dice, but instead of attacking the post and nitpicking it, i tried to be more open and kind about my opposition to your opinion on things. if i didn't want to have a dialogue about this stuff, i'd either not post or make a very rude and/or shitposty post. i'm really sorry if my previous post came off rude; i genuinely didn't mean it, but it's sorta hard to not find things that are in pretty big opposition to whatever you say as not rude.

sjw is a pejorative that has been used to dismiss liberal and/or radical actors pushing towards progressive change. to employ it is far more of a strawman steelwithit's post. in fact, the usage of sjw shows that you don't want to even have discourse about issues and instead wish to silence the opposition.
i'm not gonna get into the debate about whether your views and/or the views of many LGBT communities at large are sjw or liberal or whatever, but i used the term SJW not to dismiss your views, but to sorta put a blanket around them + the views of other LGBT communities... i don't that i'm saying all your views are the same or whatever, just "bundling" similar views under 1 term for ease of discussion.
for many folx in the lgbtq+ community, our queerness is integral to our identity. consequently, it is important to discuss the conceptualization of queerness in these spaces.

i think that the relationship i have to my queerness is heavily affected by the interconnection of my queerness and environment. regardless of my proximity to others, my queerness is often a defining marker of my identity in many contexts. in spite of my initial push towards obfuscating my sexuality, it often come to the forefront of my life and, in turn, this pushes me towards a community of other ppl who have dealt with similar experiences.
in my previous post i sorta tried to address the huge focus on identity in the LGBT community. to reiterate, i do think LGBT people should recognize and be "proud" of their identities, and i do think there should be more casual and open LGBT communities for convenience. however, i disagree with such a large emphasis on the identity. i feel like it segregates (not as in black/white segregation of the past... i'm not trying to be drastic) the LGBT community from others, and sometimes it even causes divide within the LGBT community itself. i totally agree with you on being "pushed" towards a community of people with similar experiences. i just don't agree with how much value you (seemingly) and many many others place in their LGBT identities.
accepting your queerness is accepting marginalisation. you're embracing a historical baggage of being systematically pathologised by western medicine, sterilised, discriminated in work life and otherwise, being killed etc. our experiences and current context are affected by the history of those who have created this environment. that's why i'm trying to unpack my privileges and oppression. my own experiences in relation to those in the community still matter.

throughout history, the lack of intersectionality in marginalised communities has led to a systematic invisiblisation of folx. if you've ever had even cursory engagement with academic feminist literature, you would be aware of audre lorde's speech 'the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house'. in it, she condemns the erasure of black women [and in doing so, the 'master' is the white women who are extracting labor (metaphor is indeed slavemaster)] in the second wave movement. black power + civil rights activism was geared towards men while feminism was geared towards white women. this left black women (don't get me wrong, others too e.g. gnc folx, genderqueer...) without a vehicle to attach themselves to.
the thing with all of this is that it happened in the past. two of my main gripes with modern liberalism / SJWism are these concepts of "oppression" and "privilege" (Steel With It, this addresses your posts).

simply put, these things happened so long ago. yes, they are part of history; yes, we should recognize them and remember them. HOWEVER, we should not let them affect our own daily lives as LGBT people when they never happened to us. to make it clear, this isn't referring to modern day issues. i revere the struggles of LGBT people in the past, but i just don't "care" about them today... it doesn't affect me. if we want to make more progress on the current day issues, we need to stop claiming to be oppressed or underprivileged due to events of the past, using those events to shame the "more privileged" people. i don't think me accepting my "queerness" (another term i just don't understand, honestly) means i need to pick up historical baggage.
so why am i saying this? because my post was describing how i feel that these very systems of erasure are enacting themselves again in the queer community. why is it that queer spaces are predominately white? predominately thin? as someone who benefits in many of these axes of privilege, i am cognizant of how my life and experiences are drastically different from someone else's.

wrt your dismissal of certain privilege: the dominant ideology that is so pervasive in our culture is to frame beauty as natural and abiding. your post exemplifies this: it's colonialistic by nature. beauty is a power dynamic. what we deem beautiful is mutable: just look at the shifts in beauty standards throughout history. what determines what is beautiful? power. imperialism. white folx have always been seen as the epitome of beauty because they have dominated most societies. oppressive constructs which play into our conceptualisation of beauty such as the golden standard and bmi were drafted through and for white ppl (predominately male, too). our view of eurocentrism as the most beautiful and most represented phenotype is part and parcel to our own internalised and socialised biases.

in part, this plays into fat ppl, poc, etc. being systemically less appealing (both romantically and interpersonally... there is a lot of unpack here that would take up too much space). we live in a society in which these intersections of our identity are not given the time of day in more marginalised spaces. queerness as an umbrella tends to invisiblise more margnalised identities underneath it because of conventionally less oppressed folx having the power in these communities. this is the homonormativity that i described: and this is dangerous.
the western world is a european invention. whites are the majority. european things are considered most beautiful because most people are of european descent, and the core culture was created by europeans. this has definitely played into peoples tastes with things, but i don't see this as a bad thing. people are allowed to have tastes; i understand that those tastes probably have formed over time due to things being eurocentric, but it makes sense for things to be eurocentric in the european invention of the western world.

as for the queer label accepting more marginalized identities underneath it: i don't think LGBT needs to be expanded so much. i think it's fine for these other marginalized communities and the LGBT communities to get along and work together or whatever, but by constantly adding letters onto this thing, it becomes harder for moderate (read: reasonable, but not liberal people) to take things seriously. i mean i personally think the T should just be removed since it isn't a sexual identity; it makes sense for gay/bi people to work together with transgender people (as in, being buddies or whatever).
to frame my experiences as some sort of 'guilt' is offensive and a complete misconception of my feelings. i don't give a fuck about guilt. guilt doesn't solve anything and is more of an impediment than anything. if you don't care about systems of oppression in our society which leave people disadvantaged, then i cannot force you to care. however, i personally wish to look towards a society and a community in which there is a plurality of discussion and viewpoints. i want an lgbtq community (and society as a whole) which is accepting of others and is able to unpack their privilege. i want people to stop dismissing issues of oppression as "unimportant" and making them seem like they "don't matter" because you personally don't feel that way.
i'm sorry i misunderstood what you meant. it genuinely seemed like you feel guilty for being white and stuff. i do care about systems that leave people disadvantaged (most of those aren't proper discussion for this thread, however). with that said, i don't think those systems are as big and powerful as you and many others make them out to be.

i don't want to get into "unpacking privilege".
my queerness isn't a badge of honor, but another part of my identity which has serious implications of how i relate to others. my queerness is, in fact, important. my queerness is ever evolving. and so are many others in this community who are often ignored by us. the aftermath and continuation of colonialisation, patriarchy, etc. isn't just a long-forgotten history, but is an ongoing struggle which affects people of this community too. telling others ignore issues you deem 'not serious' because you've accepted the notion that things are just meant to be like this is just fucked up.
i don't understand how queerness could be "ever evolving"... it's a pretty clear yes/no thing usually. you're gay or bi and/or trans. the constant addition of new labels (or the newest, hippest label: the lack of labels that gets flaunted as if it's a label lol) isn't doing anyone any favors. like with the expansion of LGBT to LGBTQIA+ or whatever, it just over complicates things for moderate people who don't really give a shit if someone is gay or bi or trans or whatever (for don't give a shit, i mean they aren't opposed to LGBT people and are fine with LGBT stuff).

just for me personally, i live in a conservative environment, and i rarely find people that are upset about gay people or actual transgender people. they usually get annoyed with "alternative identities" like being agender, genderfluid, pansexual, etc.. the only mean spirited jokes i ever hear about LGBT stuff by non LGBT people are along the lines of "attack helicopter XD", "le 72 genders XD", "LGBTQIA+ABC123", etc.. it's this overcomplicated, unnecessary representation of an EXTREME minority within an EXTREME minority that causes reasonable people to be opposed to LGBT people as a whole. things are already pretty rough... the last thing i need is some 12 year old who is a "pansexual genderfluid demiboy" or whatever to be making me look like i'm not valid for happening to be transgender.
 

EV

Banned deucer.
Pansexual genderfluid demiboys are just trying to live why you gotta knock them like that.

Seriously though, starry blanket , on the one hand you want validation to live as transgender but you refuse the existence of PGDs. That's like climbing a ladder and kicking it out from under you, don't you think?

Also, why do we need to cater to conservative bigots who think 72 genders are a hoot and a half? This isn't about making other people comfortable.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
you absolutely went off the rails here. Your theory of knowledge has no business trying to assert any kind of truths in respect to what is beauty, sexually appealing, or anything like that. It is an incomprehensibly tangled neuroscientific web, and any claim you make is just a reflection of your ideological position.
Sure. dice has an ideological stance. But as opposed to what? Please elaborate any non-ideological position on gender and sexuality.
 
I don't usually post around here, but this is something relevant to me so I thought I'd chip in. I'm not going to talk about liberalism and the veracity of the SJW movement, simply because my opinions are not strong enough to argue on these points.

I identify as gender non-binary, specifically as an androgyne (man and woman simultaneously). This concept at least to me seems reasonable - some people know they are a man, others know they are a woman, and still others know that they are neither. The masculine and the feminine are not opposite of each other. Given this, it seems feasible that one can identify as both a man and a woman concurrently. I just so happen to be one of those people, and I'm very sure that this is my identity. Actually, most of the gender identities I am aware of seem to be reasonable in similar manners if you take the time to dig through them - there is nothing proving that the gender binary exists.

I'm not a 12 year old, nor am I looking for attention. I'm a 20 year old college student who is actively uncomfortable receiving people's strange looks on the days when I cross-dress.

I'm not trying to co-opt or undermine the LGBT movement, user starry blanket. I'm sorry that people are leveraging attacks against people like me in such a way as to complicate things for you. But consider things from my perspective for a second. Those same attacks that make things hard for you are incredibly frustrating and demeaning for me. Those people are denying my existence and laughing at me. It often makes me seethe with rage. Those attacks that you hate on your behalf I DESPISE on my behalf. And if the LGBT community were to reject the gender non-binary, things would get much worse for me. It's hard enough feeling safe as it is right now, and were people not standing up for me I'd likely be forced back into the closet.

We have similar aims - people deny both of our existence and call us unnatural on behalf of our gender identity. We should work together. On a personal level, I'd like to work together in any way I can. Even though the gender non-binary is a minority within a minority, there still doesn't strike me as a good reason that you should be accepted by society and I shouldn't. Aside from our distinct gender identities, the exact same argument applies (namely, minorities shouldn't be persecuted, our gender identities DO exist, etc.). And the mentality of 'waiting one's turn' means that all the people who are suffering at the hands of prejudice have to sit through that unfair suffering in the mean time, which isn't right. It may mean you have to take the brunt of attacks directed towards people like me, but just know that you are doing it for the right reason - that all people regardless of gender or sexuality be treated fairly.

My apologies if this is inelegantly worded - it's late here!
 
just for me personally, i live in a conservative environment, and i rarely find people that are upset about gay people or actual transgender people. they usually get annoyed with "alternative identities" like being agender, genderfluid, pansexual, etc.. the only mean spirited jokes i ever hear about LGBT stuff by non LGBT people are along the lines of "attack helicopter XD", "le 72 genders XD", "LGBTQIA+ABC123", etc.. it's this overcomplicated, unnecessary representation of an EXTREME minority within an EXTREME minority that causes reasonable people to be opposed to LGBT people as a whole. things are already pretty rough... the last thing i need is some 12 year old who is a "pansexual genderfluid demiboy" or whatever to be making me look like i'm not valid for happening to be transgender.

If the only argument you have for your opinion is as circular as "The existence of transphobic bigots justifies transphobic bigotry," then maybe - just maybe - it's a bad opinion.

Also, I should point out that nonbinary identities are not a new thing, not a "Trend" or whatever. Rather, the forced binary is what's (comparatively) new.
 
Last edited:
Milo Yiannopolis, you mean a senior editor for Breitbart? A website Steve Bannon declared to be "the platform of the Alt-right". A man who has stated that "gay rights are detrimental to humanity".

I can't say I'm fond of him, and I honestly can't see how any other members of the LGBTQIAP+ community would be either.
 

brightobject

treadshot lightly
is a Top Artistis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
one thing I was wondering about the idea of rejecting the gender binary (which believe me, I wholeheartedly agree with) is why reject the gender binary, only to then effectively latch onto another gender 'identifier?' why 'identify' with any kind of gender label at all? Why not embrace the individuality of your gender (which in this case, means no gender at all, given that gender as a concept is simply a social construct), if the binary is as restrictive as your act of rejecting it makes it out to be (I believe it is, no worries)?

e.g., why jump from the female gender to the male gender, when those genders are based off of sex-based normative behaviours that clearly don't apply to you in the first place (since they are and always have been intrinsically linked to sex)?

Just as no woman will ever conform perfectly to all the social expectations set out for her by the "gender" of woman, just as much will any one individual not be able to meet all the social expectations of either gender in the gender binary (hopefully you will agree with me on this). Would it not make sense then to treat "gender" conceptually as an androgynous spectrum, not one stratified into [x] number of individual gender labels, all of which as they increase in specificity seem to me only to further place boundaries on the individual's own character?

Believe me, I am in no way trying to attack the currently dominant approach taken by those in the nonbinary community, merely curious as to the reasoning behind that decision. Perhaps I am confused as to the very definitions of gender being operated on (looking into it I only find myself getting more and more confused).

Apologies for hastily worded post--newcomer to a lot of the terminology wrt this subject. Hopefully my main point was understood

[Aside from issues like being forced to identify as male or female or whatever in official documentation I mean]


e: after doing some cursory research on the topic it seems the philosophy outlined above seems to match up pretty closely with agender people. Go figure
 
one thing I was wondering about the idea of rejecting the gender binary (which believe me, I wholeheartedly agree with) is why reject the gender binary, only to then effectively latch onto another gender 'identifier?' why 'identify' with any kind of gender label at all? Why not embrace the individuality of your gender (which in this case, means no gender at all, given that gender as a concept is simply a social construct), if the binary is as restrictive as your act of rejecting it makes it out to be (I believe it is, no worries)?

e.g., why jump from the female gender to the male gender, when those genders are based off of sex-based normative behaviours that clearly don't apply to you in the first place (since they are and always have been intrinsically linked to sex)?

Just as no woman will ever conform perfectly to all the social expectations set out for her by the "gender" of woman, just as much will any one individual not be able to meet all the social expectations of either gender in the gender binary (hopefully you will agree with me on this). Would it not make sense then to treat "gender" conceptually as an androgynous spectrum, not one stratified into [x] number of individual gender labels, all of which as they increase in specificity seem to me only to further place boundaries on the individual's own character?

Believe me, I am in no way trying to attack the currently dominant approach taken by those in the nonbinary community, merely curious as to the reasoning behind that decision. Perhaps I am confused as to the very definitions of gender being operated on (looking into it I only find myself getting more and more confused).

Apologies for hastily worded post--newcomer to a lot of the terminology wrt this subject. Hopefully my main point was understood

[Aside from issues like being forced to identify as male or female or whatever in official documentation I mean]
I'm not sure how well I can respond to this, or if anyone can provide adequate answers to your questions, but I'll at least try to explore how I see some of these ideas. This may be a bit rambly.

Defining gender as a concept is tricky, and is something books could be written about and is a field of study in its own right. You seem to already be aware of the difference between Gender and Sex, which saves a good bit of time. You're probably also aware that Gender is a social construct; which isn't to say that gender doesn't exist, but rather that it exists only as a part of human culture and can vary wildly based on the surrounding culture and how individuals interpret it.

For me the key is to understand that how any given person might experience or relate themselves to gender is very personal, potentially unique, and that with a nebulous a concept as gender is the vocabulary for that is limited. A woman (trans or cis) isn't necessarily trying to meet any standard of femininity, simply the way she experiences and/or relates to gender is what she would call being a woman. What being a woman means to her might be vastly different than what it means to other women, but nonetheless she is a woman.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
To bo's point I do know someone trans* who identified as agender. She ultimately shifted to using female pronouns.

I think the reason you don't see many trans* people rejecting gender as a whole comes down partially to society and partially to just what gender is to most people.

There's just very few people who can honestly identify as agender. If we take the classic idea of "gender performativity," I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who at all times is performing neither maleness nor femaleness. You're much more likely to find someone who maybe identifies as bigender or gender fluid or genderqueer.

But even then, in terms of societal pressure, I think there are many, many trans* people whose gender performance is probably better described with some level of fluidity than a rigid male or female. That's also true for many cis people, right? Am I equally performing maleness at all times? Of course not. But I still identify fully as male because it's just not worth the confusion for most people. So a trans* person, for whom there's almost certainly more fluidity, will still be pressured the same way to identify one way or the other, not somewhere in between.

In my friend's case I think (totally my opinion here) she initially was super gung ho about her trans* identity and is the sort of person who just loves to non-conform, and that's where her initial identity of agender came from. I don't think in her case she caved to societal expectations of only 2 genders... But ultimately, she found herself performing as female about 99% of the time, hence the eventual shift.
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
Sure. dice has an ideological stance. But as opposed to what? Please elaborate any non-ideological position on gender and sexuality.
I was only talking about claims to what is beauty, and what is sexually attractive. That is something that science can be used to investigate, and science (on paper) is non-ideological.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
First Bughouse not gonna really say anything outside of don't say "trans*". Say trans people or what have you, but the asterisk looks like it does in all other contexts where it's like "yeah but there's a caveat". Like you're accidentally implying "they're trans but there's no such thing as being trans."

Ash Borer science is extremely ideological in the nature of the questions scientists pose. Like yours which ignores the very possibility that attractiveness is mutable and is influenced by a ridiculous amount of things. Gay men are not attracted to the same thing as straight women or vice versa or what have you. You ask Indian people what's most attractive and you will measure answers vastly different than what's attractive to Chinese people. And like I said attractions can change, it's not some objective biological axiom. Like if you think that's true maybe like live life a little more because that shit happens all the time where you're like "yo this feature is actually super cute I've never thought of it before but wowee I like that."

Also fwiw science has been attacking the idea for objective beauty standards forever along the axes that I've described already. So food for thinks I guess.
 
First Bughouse not gonna really say anything outside of don't say "trans*". Say trans people or what have you, but the asterisk looks like it does in all other contexts where it's like "yeah but there's a caveat". Like you're accidentally implying "they're trans but there's no such thing as being trans."
It looks like it does in one context, you mean, and only if you're approaching it from that angle. The idea that it represents a caveat is... unusual, to say the least, especially given its primary usage is within the trans (most commonly the NB) community. The more logical interpretation is that it represents a wildcard, which is how both how it's used and how it was originally intended, given that there are never actually any footnotes or stated caveats. Honestly, this all feels on par with the transgender vs transgendered argument, which shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of how English works and how it's a stupid ass language where prescriptivism and overarching language rules go to die. I don't use either of them myself, but damn. Talk about pointless intracommunity fighting/nitpicking.

Because I think this is an interesting piece of history said:
But trans historian Cristan Williams cautions against leaping to any conclusions. “In talking with older trans community members, they tell me that they had used t* as a short code for all things trans back in the early 1980s message boards.”
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
Ash Borer science is extremely ideological in the nature of the questions scientists pose. Like yours which ignores the very possibility that attractiveness is mutable and is influenced by a ridiculous amount of things. Gay men are not attracted to the same thing as straight women or vice versa or what have you. You ask Indian people what's most attractive and you will measure answers vastly different than what's attractive to Chinese people. And like I said attractions can change, it's not some objective biological axiom. Like if you think that's true maybe like live life a little more because that shit happens all the time where you're like "yo this feature is actually super cute I've never thought of it before but wowee I like that."
no it isn't, it's just a method of investigation. What question scientists decide to actually investigate is utterly irrelevant to its epistemology. Anyways, your level of thinking on this topic is kind of shallow. A scientific theory of beauty could account for the apparent multi-layered nature of how beauty manifests itself. Neurology is so incomprehensibly complex, such surface level perceptions don't even begin to start working towards truth..
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
If trans* isn't used anymore, then my bad, but I learned it as a more inclusive version of trans, as trans was often understood to mean either a trans man or a trans woman, while trans* would include other gender identities.

Definitely not meant as a critical or suspicious thing.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Yeah as elcheeso was quick to go to war over its a super nitpicky type of thing for sure so it's not a SUPER BIG DEAL or something. I've just seen people uncomfortable with it as it gets used more because of the context I mentioned which is kind of a super common context.
 
Hiya, I'm a pansexual AFAB gal who occasionally suffers from gender dysphoria. Not bad enough to make me feel like I want to fully become a guy, and not all of the time. So, I identify as demigirl. Not because I'm a tomboy who acts guyish, not because of my social roles, but because of my internal feelings and struggles with dysphoria. I usually present as a girl and use she/her pronouns, though on days of particularly bad dysphoria I'll cross dress intently and refuse to take showers/look at my naked body. I hate the idea that gender is a social construct--gender roles are, yes, but gender identity? That's a fucking biological thing, I'd absolutely love to be cis and not have to deal with the dysphoria/fact that my nb identity is used by bigots to invalidate my trans friends', but unfortunately that isn't the case. Anyway hiya, I'm a somewhat new participator here at the smogon forums and I love to participate in debates/discussion! :)

*edit: typos because I typed this at 2am
 
Last edited:

Stallion

Tree Young
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
I'm as straight as an arrow, but I'm going to be on top of a Mardi Gras float in Sydney this Saturday (DJing / looking pretty), and I'm super excited. I'm pretty stoked to be a part of such an important event for the LGTBQ community!
 

junior

jet fuel can't melt steel beams
is a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
i find it really interesting that there are people out there who support lgbtq people and our rights, but not really. and on the subject of pride, for example, I have a friend who has countless lgbtq friends, yet refuses to come to pride citing their religious affiliation as their reasoning. They do not have any issues against gays, but would be fiercely against the notion of gay marriage as one example. now while i do understand that this is actually a very minor issue in the grand scheme of lgbtq rights, I think that their opposition of marriage equality says volumes about their stance against lgbtqs. It makes me so uncomfortable to know that these people you call friends disapprove of you when you get to the core of it.

anyone else have this issue?

on a more positive note though, i've been blessed to be surrounded by many people who have reformed their way of thinking. some family members and some of my closest friends were once homophobic cis-hets but slowly changed their stance and viewpoint after i came out to them years ago. feels good man
 

brightobject

treadshot lightly
is a Top Artistis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
i find it really interesting that there are people out there who support lgbtq people and our rights, but not really. and on the subject of pride, for example, I have a friend who has countless lgbtq friends, yet refuses to come to pride citing their religious affiliation as their reasoning. They do not have any issues against gays, but would be fiercely against the notion of gay marriage as one example. now while i do understand that this is actually a very minor issue in the grand scheme of lgbtq rights, I think that their opposition of marriage equality says volumes about their stance against lgbtqs. It makes me so uncomfortable to know that these people you call friends disapprove of you when you get to the core of it.

anyone else have this issue?

on a more positive note though, i've been blessed to be surrounded by many people who have reformed their way of thinking. some family members and some of my closest friends were once homophobic cis-hets but slowly changed their stance and viewpoint after i came out to them years ago. feels good man
Living on the East Coast I see a general acceptance of gay marriage etc, however some rather ugly mockery often does rise to the surface when hanging with more crass or uninhibited friends (of all persuasions, mind you, which I'd argue has more to do with a devaluing of said terms in my area). One thing I've seen arise from the (relatively) conservative people I know is a distaste for the general tone of the LGBTQ+ movement, i.e. that they would like them a lot more if they weren't so flamboyant, etc., saying the "gay rights movement has gone too far." To be perfectly honest, I am not really that familiar with the tone of the majority of the LGBTQ+ movement (not heavily involved on the ground, not as heavily invested in the literature or vernacular either) and so don't have much to say about this other than surprise that the movement now could somehow be more flamboyant than the drag queens who started it all at places like Stonewall. But yeah, not much visibly expressed homophobia in my area at all. I can recall one darkly humorous moment where a Christian friend did say over text that he liked gays, but would rather if they weren't...gay? Sparked some controversy but he quickly recanted and called it a slip of the "tongue." Personally I don't think it was malicious in intent but rather a horribly worded statement regarding his own struggle with his friends and the contrasting doctrine of his church...but who am I to talk.

Tangentially related, but I was thinking more about how different the LGB- part of the movement is from the -T part (and to a certain extent the Q+'s). The former being modeled around modifying one's sexual attractions, while the latter involves changing one's gender entirely. It's understandable that the two factions came together early on, with sex and gender being connected as they are and the whole tiny oppressed groups coming together to form one strong front thing, but at the same time I think it's made it a lot easier for people to push aside trans issues while embracing lesbians, bi's, and gays and then claiming to embrace the movement as a whole (stuff like the bathroom travesty makes this hugely clear to me, at least). Arguably it makes more sense to be able to separate the two, doesn't it? Disregarding the practical effects of such a break (what with all members of the umbrella suffering regardless, but trans and other queer people would definitely get the short end of the stick if a split did hypothetically occur), it's interesting to think about the fundamental differences between many of the parts of this movement. It's always bizarre when I meet gay people or people accepting of gays who in the same breath reject the idea of transgender or transsexual people, but once I thought about it I realize it's not that hard to rationalize a divide between the two. Similar things occur with lesbians or gays rejecting bisexuals, but on a much smaller scale I'd wager judging from the amount of literature I've seen on the subject. Thoughts?

Also chiming in to say that the transgenders in bathrooms issue is complex but that the reasoning being pushed by conservative politicians at current is utterly abhorrent. If you are so worried about protecting women from trans-women impostor rapists, what about lesbians? Or gay men stalking our boys in the toilets? Running with their logic would mean bathrooms designed for one person each, all to protect from hypothetical sexual provocations (note the absence of transgender people convicted of sexual misconduct in bathrooms). Utter insanity. Unless there's some secret bathroom mechanism designed to protect against this kind of stuff that I'm missing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top