• Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!

Serious LGBTQ

Status
Not open for further replies.
My name is Luis, I'm 13 years old and I'm gay, I'm only assumed for my parents and my friends, I'm not taken for my relatives, I took over for my parents and my mother did not like it at all, my father instead She supports everything, my mother is homophobic and she does not want to leave nor do I shave my legs, she and I have already fought several times and I feel like I'm losing that love from son to mother, the love I have is for my father, me I've never had problems on the street or at school about homophobia, just in my home with my mother, I want to ask if your parents are homophobic and what you have to say about it, sorry, my english is not fluent, I am brazilian.
 
Lixx said:
my name is lixx. im transgender female. be my friend
Click to expand...
I feel like updating you guys with my struggle. It seems like the right thing to do. I know everyone here will understand in some way. Hell maybe you can relate to me as well I don't know.

I had always known I would have rather been born a girl. At a fairly early age (10?), I knew that people transitioned genders and had surgeries and hormones and everything. I wished I could have those things for myself, but thought it could never work out for me. I am too tall, my voice is too low, my personality is too dull. (A couple of those things have changed so far)

I held myself back even though I almost spent more time fantasizing about life on the other side than my inevitable future. (I need to thank my parents for steering me through life for so long.) I was not, couldn't, wouldn't be trans.

For quite a few years I sedated myself. I smoked weed 5-6 times a day and was high all the time. It turned the few emotions I had to dust. I wanted to quit, I wanted to transition but I couldn't.

One family vacation two years ago, which was a week long, I couldn't smoke. I got terrible insomnia and racing thoughts and nausea. But I realized over the 48 hours in silence that all of my inhibitions came from other people. They came from my fear of hurting others, stepping on toes, going against the grain to get what I want.

I don't live for other people anymore. This is my life. I'm not yet full time and my parents are less than okay with this, but the train is leaving the station soon and they can either get on or be left behind. (I do love them and hope for the best)
 
BlackMalachite said:
I wouldn't exactly consider myself part of the LBGTQ community (even though from ages 13-18 I very heavily considered starting hormones and becoming a woman) in a traditional sense, seeing as I'm a straight dude who's into biological females, but I couldn't help but notice the discussion involving HIV and felt the need to bring up something in my state that's happening that's been criminally ignored lately.

In my state of California (possibly one of the worst states in the US), a law may very well pass that makes it so that it's no longer a criminal offense for a person to not disclose to their sexual partner that they have HIV. AKA, it's basically legal to give someone HIV during consensual sex without the uninfected person's consent or knowledge. I don't know about all of you, but I think that's absolutely horrifying and needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...
Your post is misleading. It will still be a crime, just not a felony.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB239

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017...s-consider-easing-states-hiv-disclosure-laws/

Some excerpts:

"California lawmakers are re-evaluating a 30-year-old law on HIV disclosure. Right now, intentionally exposing someone to HIV is a felony that could result in seven years in prison. But some state leaders call it discrimination and want the laws to reflect advances in modern medicine.

Senate Bill 239 aims to change laws that criminalize and stigmatize people living with HIV. Furthermore, the authors hope to make laws consistent with laws regarding other infectious diseases."

[...]

"When these laws were enacted, there was no effective treatment for HIV,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) who wrote SB 239. “It was for many people a death sentence.”

But Wiener said it’s a new era, with new medication that makes the likelihood of infecting another person with HIV very low.
“You don’t reduce HIV infections by classifying people as felons,” Wiener said. “You reduce HIV infections by giving people access to healthcare and information.”

Weiner explained that knowingly exposing someone to other infectious diseases is classified as a misdemeanor and said he thinks HIV should be no different. But not everyone has the same perspective."
 
Eevee General said:
Your post is misleading. It will still be a crime, just not a felony.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB239

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017...s-consider-easing-states-hiv-disclosure-laws/

Some excerpts:

"California lawmakers are re-evaluating a 30-year-old law on HIV disclosure. Right now, intentionally exposing someone to HIV is a felony that could result in seven years in prison. But some state leaders call it discrimination and want the laws to reflect advances in modern medicine.

Senate Bill 239 aims to change laws that criminalize and stigmatize people living with HIV. Furthermore, the authors hope to make laws consistent with laws regarding other infectious diseases."

[...]

"When these laws were enacted, there was no effective treatment for HIV,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) who wrote SB 239. “It was for many people a death sentence.”

But Wiener said it’s a new era, with new medication that makes the likelihood of infecting another person with HIV very low.
“You don’t reduce HIV infections by classifying people as felons,” Wiener said. “You reduce HIV infections by giving people access to healthcare and information.”

Weiner explained that knowingly exposing someone to other infectious diseases is classified as a misdemeanor and said he thinks HIV should be no different. But not everyone has the same perspective."
Click to expand...

That clears it up quite a bit, thank you for the sourcing. However, even with this I still don't agree with the law. While there are far more effective treatments for HIV, it's still a far more dangerous disease that can result in death, and due to its effects on the immune system should it progress, it can lead to even more worse diseases / infections.
 
When we talk about a homosexual marriage, we are talking about marriage, as well as a straight couple, I do not see why LGBT can not marry in the church, Christianity does not prohibit this marriage, who prohibits are people who are part of the Christianity, all I can say is, love others as yourself, this is a unique moment in the life of a couple, this is love.
 
i read this piece the other day. you should too.

"
The other day I was talking to a friend, thinking about weight loss surgery.

I was thinking about weight loss surgery.
I told her I never say never. I dn't believe in foreclosing possibilities. Not in some weird naïve hyperoptimism way, but in a queer way, which maybe is the same thing.
I told her I wouldn't get weight loss surgery--at least right now--but if there was some way for me to have the genetics for thinness I would take it in a heartbeat.
(Are genetics just a way to blame my ancestors?)
I told her I believe in an easier life, and if there was a way for me to have an easier life I would absolutely take it.
I mean, that's why I'm in grad school. In an attempt to make an easier (read: upwardly mobile, financially stable) life.
I told her these are scary things I wasn't ready to say publicly yet.

I told her that these things aren't actually about fatness, though. There is nothing inherent about fatness that makes it difficult. It's the social experience. We are social beings. Pack animals.
I think. If I could have the same access to sex and dating that I see my thin friends. If I could just walk in to any store and whenever I wanted and find clothing in my size. Maybe it's cold and I forgot a jacket. Maybe i dropped something on my pants, or a shirt got ripped. If I could be fungible. I have never gone in an H&M in my life.

If I could find a seat--any seat--seat and not feel the legs swelling under me. If I went to school and fit in the desk. If I could fit in a single bathroom stall. A restaurant booth. A roller coaster. If my fear of flying was about perhaps heights or speed and not about being forced to leave a plane because they didn't fit me. If people didn't think automatically think I was stupid by my body. Or ugly. If It didn't make me stick out in any social setting. And not because of my race, which is also about body.

These are not problems with my body. These are problems with the social world. There are no excuses for this to be my experience.

I've learned to just stay home instead.

I have been thinking about isolation a lot.

I went to an event on Friday. I was excited to try to get out and find queer community in Oakland, something I have up until this point been apathetic towards. I was optimistic I could meet people. At one point I turned around and saw a sea of thin, mostly white people. And understood. This space wasn't for me. I left early, for a few related and unrelated reasons.

I have been thinking about isolation a lot.

A few weeks ago some friends and I were talking about going to Ships. I felt insecure and said I'm not dressed for Ships. Then I thought, who am I kidding? It's not like anyway would talk to me no matter how I'm dressed. That night we stayed in and watched YouTube videos.

I have been thinking about isolation a lot.

On Sunday I witnessed the intentional, consistent and adamant exclusion of Deaf and Disabled folks from the Oakland Book Festival. I left early, for a few related and unrelated reasons.

I have been thinking about isolation a lot.

Last night I'm in a book store in Alameda, there is a table full of white people talking to eachother. One is wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt. I hear them talking about prisons (badly). I look over. They smile. Tell me they like my shirt.
I ask, "Is this a white people's book club?" They laugh, uncomfortably.
They say, "it happens to be, tonight. This is Alameda for Black Lives."
I say, "Oh, ok. Cute." (It's not.)
One says "I always strive to be cute." (They're not.)
I walk away.
They keep talking about prisons. About criminals. About violent versus non-violent offenses.
I bought my book and left.

I have been thinking about isolation a lot.

When I see groups of only white people or thin people I wonder if they notice. By which I mean, I wonder if they think about who's not there.

I doubt it. I don't think I notice where there aren't any disabled, or trans folks in spaces I'm in.

I have been thinking about isolation a lot.

I grew up in a household with a mother who is hard-of-hearing. The closed captioning was always on on the television, and I still watch everything with the captions on. But I've never asked why there are no Deaf or blind folks at the movies when I've gone, for example.

I have been thinking about isolation a lot.

Our movements think about interdependency, about relying on and supporting each other until we are all free.

But do we think about the ways we exclude eachother? The structural ways our joys, our entertainment, our book clubs, our sex, our party spaces, our conferences do?

What does it matter if you hold a meeting in a wheelchair-accessible, scent free space close to the BART with ASL interpreters and comfortable, armless chairs if we don't know the folks who needs those resources to invite them?

On Sunday Stacey said that accessibility is really just step one. Accessibility is just about getting the people necessary into a room to begin to have the conversation.

What would it mean if we weren't already saying to eachother that our bodies mean we don't belong, and we are okay with that?

Why do we fault people who take steps to change their bodies in ways we are already always telling them is necessary?'
 
Having been a gay living in philly before, I can tell you the gayborhood has had massive issues with racism there.

Still don't agree with the "official" flag being altered. I'm perfectly fine with individual people waving their own variants, including this one, the Jewish star one that caused controversy in Chicago, etc. But the regular old rainbow flag, along with the trans flag, should be the only "official" symbols for LGBT issues.
 
It's not at all prevalent you're again receiving and parroting misinformation. Often people say things like "I would never date a trans girl because they have x,y,z" like have a penis or have mannish features or because they can't have kids or blah blah blah. But there are trans girls who are post SRS who do not have a penis, there are many cis women with "mannish features" and many trans women with very girlish features as well as cis women who can't have kids etc etc. A lot of these dumbass conventions are based on faulty predispositions and are worth questioning.

However trans people saying "that's worth questioning because are those things actually true" is then contorted by right wing fuckbois or TERFs and represented as if trans people are saying you have to fuck them as if them saying "your sexuality is more variable than you think" means "you must have sex with me or else you're a transphobe". No, it's transphobic to say dumb shit that group trans people into a single monolithic experience when they are as varied in appearance and personality as literally everyone else.
 
No the only thing referring to you was how you have twice come in misrepresenting a common thread amongst recent LGBT discourse.

But if you want I'm gonna ask if you personally have had experience of the biological difference between a natural vagina or a constructed one or is this based on assumptions? Trans parents can still have kids via adoption so is fatherhood strictly a you need to have a sperm thing for you and if so would you consider a surrogate and therefore still have a relationship with a trans partner? Is sex only enjoyable if your partner has a vagina is that necessarily a strict law for you as well? Has there ever been a sexual experience you had trepidations about but learned to love? Could that then be applied elsewhere? These are the kinds of questions trans people bring up when they say the act of dismissing the possibility of attraction to transpeople is transphobic or sexist. And again it's that act of dismissal that's transphobic not the lack of attraction to a particular trans person.

And yes cis women are different from trans women because all women are different from all other women. The distinctions and groupings are not significantly meaningful and are far more nuanced than you seem to think.
 
"dating a trans" "a normal female"

oh holy shit, you actually sound like a piece of shit just from how you worded those alone. Like, seriously, that wording just makes me think you do see at least trans woman/girls as some unnatural thing. Also, honestly, your personal context means jack fucking shit in terms of you not being a transphobe to me considering how there are transphobic trans people out there. Neither does saying you have trans friends because they very well could just tolerate whatever transphobia you do have because they don't want to rock the boat in whatever friendship you have. Also, it's not really that hard to just bring some lubricant to solve the issue of a lack of naturallly produced.

Like, really, you just sound like someone who says they don't mind trans people, but is paying literally just lip service and think that they're weird and unnatural things.

edit: oh, forgot

It's making the entire community look bad.
Click to expand...

Why should we care? why should we feel bad about not coddling a straight, cis guy who speaks of trans woman/girls as though they're unnatural creatures? Like, we don't really want your approval if i am gonna be honest here.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to weigh in on this as I'm a (genderqueer) transwoman myself. You're entitled to have your preferences for dating someone, and I don't think there's anything wrong with being a straight male and not wanting to have sex with a pre-op transwoman. However, healthy relationships are not founded on sex alone, and I do think it's somewhat shallow to rule someone out as a romantic partner purely because sex alone is out of the question, and slightly ridiculous to write someone off simply for being biologically incapable of pushing a baby out of their vagina when that's far from the only way to have a kid. I get preferring that the kid be biologically yours and being uncomfortable with the idea of a surrogate, but it's questionable when that preference is used as an absolutism to completely take transwomen (and infertile/unwilling ciswomen) out of the picture in terms of dating.
Overall I think that in itself is a grey area, and it's possible that nothing transphobic is meant or felt, but it very much gives that impression, regardless of intention.

Beyond that issue in particular, though, I completely agree with Demoness. The language you're using strongly alludes to some toxic, transphobic ideas, and if you said anything like that during the encounter you described, I don't blame her for slapping you. Am I not a "normal female" because I'm trans and non-binary? I'm subject to othering every day by the society around me, practically every time I go out in public, and, intent irregardless, words like that are reflective of a very harmful attitude. I'll echo the statement that it sounds like you're just paying lip service.

And yeah, having trans friends means nothing, it's the fall-back argument of more or less every homophobic or transphobic bigot I've ever spoken to. If that's the way you treat transwomen (othering us and implying that we're not "real women") maybe your supposed friends need to re-evaluate that friendship.
 
Honestly I think we'd all be better off if we stopped focusing on the straight men who don't want to date trans women (including those who problematically call them fake women) and instead added even more extra focus on the straight men who assault, beat, and kill trans women or the men who won't hire and/or fire already employed trans women, etc.

You can tell me this is too low a bar to set all you want, but it's a bar that's not being met by so many that I think it's rather ridiculous to focus on any trans issue other than basic equality as humans. Dating is so secondary. Accept allies anywhere you can - anyone who believes you deserve to live and to have an equal shot at success is your ally.

This guy is a potential ally who does not mean any harm to anyone and you are all jumping down his throat over dating. I'm serious. Where he's at right now is ahead of at least half of straight men. You need to learn to work with what you're given and not turn people like him away. He's someone who should be on your side. You can educate why he's wrong about something, sure, but not how you've done it here. This was way too negative and pushes men like him away from allyship.
 
Or, and here's a radical though apparently, maybe he can take what we said on what he is saying being transphobic and garbage lip service and actually re-evaluate what he thinks. His wording very much just perpetuates that trans woman/girls are unnatural things, which is pretty damn garbage to let out when you're trying to pretend you actually care about trans people in general tbh. Why is it such a horrible thing that i got angry at that? Am I supposed to just sit there and not get angry at all at people just casually dehumanizing and othering us like that? Be a good little trans girl that doesn't get mad at shit cis boys saying garbage things and just coddle them? Hell, i would consider my response restrained actually compared to how much I could've torn into them, and Seraph's was more calm then mine, but nope, apparently too harsh and jumping down his throat.

Like, why do we need to be respectful and meek towards "potential allies" who just casually dehumanize us like that? Thats frankly really insulting to say at all to a group that is dealing with bigotry that gets them fucking killed.
 
Yeah it's almost funny how bughouse you bring up violence against trans women to try and downplay the importance of us challenging this guys bad ideas about all of this, when quite often violence against transwomen is the result of men who cannot handle their actual real attraction to trans women because they hold beliefs like the ones being talked about here. They lash out at trans women for being threats to their straightness because god forbid a straight man is attracted to a woman.
 
Well, good to know that being kind of angry at shitty cis boy apparently invalidates everything we say, and makes it okay to ignore it. Maybe he and you can learn to not double down and actually take criticism from the very people that have issues here, and are actually affected by what he says.

Edit at below: How is fucking dating not a serious issue for trans people? How is being worried and afraid of trying to start a relationship or date someone because you have to take in the possibility they will fucking kill you out of rage due to being trans not a serious worry? It fucking happens a good amount of the time. I can already tell you know jack fucking shit about trans issues because that is one that is kinda common.
 
Last edited:
"Your personality sufferings don't actually matter until someone violent attacks you based on attitudes that are the cause of your personal sufferings."

Jesus why why why why why do people insist on tone policing us for getting mad at people who are trying to pretend being "not normal" doesn't have any negative connotations to it that's it's strictly a classification thing. Why is this an acceptable tone? Polite condescension that insists your existence and problems are meaningless is upholding decorum therefore it's a ok nobody's feelings are hurt. But being mad at or pointing out how fucked up those types of things are could make Potential Ally over here get upset and then he won't listen to us. Oh nooooo.

Tone policing is bad stop doing it. Every time you get the urge to do it instead tell yourself to eat an ice cream sandwich.

And for the people who feel they are being attacked try and think why what you're saying could make someone feel bad enough to be angry. Reflect on your own words before thinking about theirs.
 
MaceMaster said:
About the normalization of queer people: we're not normal. Define normal as "typical or expected." The average person is straight and cisgender. Queer people are therefore not normal. Note that normal does NOT mean non-human, or exemplify badness in any way. Sure, a good long-term relationship isn't based solely on sex. But maybe that's not what BlackMalachite is looking for. The man wants to have sex with someone who has a vagina, and that isn't transphobic. Some of you expressed displeasure on Bughouse's views of focusing on the real problems rather than dating. Let me use this metaphor: let's say we use 1 million dollars to help cut down on pollution in the US, which has relatively clear air - clean, but not perfect. We only cut down on the pollution index by less than .1%. Now let's say we spend that money to help with pollution in Beijing. The money would make a massive difference! Similarly, by focusing on people who suffer minor social injustices is silly. Our attention should be on those who are really suffering transphobia.
Click to expand...
Interesting. But why are you assuming a zero sum game? Queer Issues isn't the federal budget. I can care about the real issues (as you so put it) and also care about subtle everyday aggression too. Everyone's oppression is different. Its a matter of taking a stance. Why is there this arbitrarily low radius of concern? What is so silly about wanting to live life with the social security and mental peace that binary people have access to?
 
because there is in fact limited political capital. You can only advocate for so many things, especially in the face of a majority that is at best indifferent and at worst antipathetic to our concerns.

And there's a serious hypocrisy here too. The same people who can't stand me saying focus on trans violence not trans dating were saying OMG STOP USING TIME FOCUSING ON GAY MARRIAGE for the past decade. You clearly like telling other people what to focus on, but can't stand being given the same advice yourself.
 
this isnt focusing on transdating, this is responding to someone else

this was a guy that came in uninvited to a thread and shared transphobia within the context of dating. i find it entirely reasonable to respond critically of his views. yes tone can be important but if you believe the tone is more important to the discussion than the message i disagree with that view
 
Didn't I already outline that the attitudes surrounding the transphobia you say is minor and only affecting dating is intrinsically linked to the violence committed. That it stems from "straight" male pride and ego and the inability to cope with being attracted to trans women? Was that a different thread?

And yes there's limited political capital so we should spend it on the attitudes that source problems not in an endless war that treats symptoms but not the disease. Don't ever confuse the goals of activism for LGBTQ rights as simply being the stop gaps and immediate gains to secure rights to exist as we are. I don't know about the people who told you to not focus on Gay Marriage but I know that for a great many in the LGBTQ community, their activism ended when that right was achieved. And that attitude will mean a return of homophobia in the future unless we keep pushing after and challenging the harmful ideas and not just pretending that these problems are just bizarre random occurances. Trans Women aren't being attacked at such a high rate just for funsies there's actual systemic reasons for it and that needs to be diagnosed and addressed wherever possible in an effort to prevent the attitudes that cause the harm and violence.
 
Bughouse said:
because there is in fact limited political capital. You can only advocate for so many things, especially in the face of a majority that is at best indifferent and at worst antipathetic to our concerns.

And there's a serious hypocrisy here too. The same people who can't stand me saying focus on trans violence not trans dating were saying OMG STOP USING TIME FOCUSING ON GAY MARRIAGE for the past decade. You clearly like telling other people what to focus on, but can't stand being given the same advice yourself.
Click to expand...

this is such a false equivalence in order to justify your ambivalence towards trans issues. this indifference toward gay marriage for many is in part due to the fact that it doesn't attack or eliminate injustice; instead, it just endows more privileged people access to an institution that many see as flawed. there is way more nuance than you're suggesting to this argument--many people have promoted alternates of livelihood and prosperity under the tentacles of white supremacy, settler colonialism, et al. many have interrogated what it means to love outside of these boundaries. many have questioned the construction of love. many have questioned the ways we organise our love.

given that many of these problems are a result of the institutionalisation of marriage as a whole, it is only natural that people veered away from how it was promoted by liberal actors, especially as the End All Be All of queer oppression. trans dating, on the other hand, affects almost every trans person in the country. it is perfectly acceptable to devote 'limited political capital' (lol thank u for this fearmongering) to causes which aren't 'of the most importance'. in the case of marriage, critiques by radical queers weren't because marriage was seen as a 'lesser issue', but because its enactment only benefited certain bodies and its roots were in reifying capitalist, patriarchal, et al. structures.

you aren't in a position to stop others from advocating for culturally less desirable bodies. liberals: get the fuck out. thank u
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top