Serious LGBTQ+

Crux

i want it...
If you are refusing to engage in argument stop posting contentless and meaningless nonsense. Otherwise, engage with the argument. The fact that you are more interested in obfuscating about eligibility for the argument (i.e. identity) rather than the argument itself indicates that you are probably more concerned with identity and liberalism than what I have posted.
 

Nalei

girl oo
is a Pre-Contributor
Each of us has a different understanding of each of those terms as it relates not only to us generally, but also to specific relationships that we have. For instance, when does a particularly close platonic relationship become romantic? Each individual will have a different bar/line/conception as the concepts are, themselves, vague. Attempts to delineate certain points or differences between the two will always fail.
We also have different ideas about what sexual attraction is, what gender is, even what happiness or fulfillment or the color green is. Everyone has slightly different ideas of what anything means. This doesn't stop us from categorizing things - it's human nature. If the split attraction model categorizes things more accurately than a different model, regardless of the universal challenges it faces in people having different lines of where one thing becomes another, it's a better model.
I do think that for strictly asexual or aromantic people the split attraction model does make some sense.
Clearly the split attraction model has roots in reality, then? It's exceedingly clear to me that people who don't experience sexual attraction but do experience romantic attraction exist and also that people who do experience sexual attraction but not romantic attraction exist. If this is true, which based on the personal testaments of many people, it is, then sexual and romantic attraction do fall into different categories and ought to be categorized separately.
But attempting to apply a spectrum to this also is utterly nonsense,
Why?
and attempting to categorise what is actually just a reflection of human difference in levels of attraction/connection.
I'm not sure that I get where you're going here; the wording is super vague. I'll give it a shot, though. So categorizations of romantic attraction (ie heteroromantic, etc) are actually just reflective of attraction? If you're talking about physical/sexual attraction, as proved by asexual people who are romantic and their inverses... no. If you're talking about romantic attraction... yes, that's what I'm saying so probably not where you're going. If you're talking about attraction in an intentionally broad sense, not only do the aforementioned asexual people who are romantic and their inverses break apart that distinction but saying that the split attraction model is bad for the reason that [its definition is untrue] proves nothing at all. Again, feel free to clarify.
It may be a useful tool for you personally – it does not follow from this that it is a useful tool generally or that it should be generally proliferated.
I partially agree. If someone says they're gay, it makes sense to assume that they're both homosexual and homoromantic. This doesn't need to change and if you are, I'd even argue that it's a net negative for you to identify as homosexual and homoromantic instead of just gay. However, for people who do have differences in their sexual and romantic attractions, who are indeed a minority, there's no reason to toss the model out.
Unless you’re heteroromantic homosexual, in which case I love you and I think you need to get help.
:pikuh:
 
what sort of mind goes to an lgbt space to say "y'all are good, except 'x', y'all need help"
this and your further engagements are such intentional misreadings of crux’s post. obviously that bit was tongue in cheek... and also: his entire message strikes at the politicization of our identities. some markers are not politically useful. you are free to with identify whatever you want. that does not mean your identities (i.e. sapiosexual) are above critique. the fact that you pullquote a straw man and refuse to engage with the substance of his post—instead accusing him of being exclusionar—is quite telling,,, considering how his post critiqued the gate keeping nature of such rigid classification structures.
 

Crux

i want it...
Before responding to this I just want to note that I do not think this is an effective response to any part of my argument. I think it is intellectually dishonest at best and bad faith at worst. Pulling out certain lines when literally the next sentence explains it in more depth or explains why the problem you have with the smaller quote is just lazy. A lot of what you have said in this post is already responded to in depth in my original post, and this reads more like a lazy attempt at a series of gotchas rather than any attempt to provide something of substance.

We also have different ideas about what sexual attraction is, what gender is, even what happiness or fulfillment or the color green is. Everyone has slightly different ideas of what anything means. This doesn't stop us from categorizing things - it's human nature. If the split attraction model categorizes things more accurately than a different model, regardless of the universal challenges it faces in people having different lines of where one thing becomes another, it's a better model.
1) This is not true. Most of the other concepts and models we use to describe human sexuality can be reasonably defined, at the very least there is broad intersubjective agreement about what the general concepts mean. Sure, there might be some fuzziness when it comes to distinguishing borderline cases but the concepts are workable. My argument is that this model and the concepts that come with it are not.

2) My whole argument is that it is not a better model. It is incoherent, homophobic, and dangerous. If you think it is a better model then justify it and engage with my argument.

Clearly the split attraction model has roots in reality, then? It's exceedingly clear to me that people who don't experience sexual attraction but do experience romantic attraction exist and also that people who do experience sexual attraction but not romantic attraction exist. If this is true, which based on the personal testaments of many people, it is, then sexual and romantic attraction do fall into different categories and ought to be categorized separately.
It does not follow from the fact that some people identify this way or feel this way that this model is true. Literally my whole post is dealing with that concept, which you have ignored. The model might be a useful conceptual tool for some individuals, I am not disputing that. Nothing else you say here is relevant to my post.

Because the concepts of “asexual” and “aromantic” reduce to meaninglessness when conceived of as a spectrum. What is the actual conceptual difference between a grey asexual and a demisexual? There is not one. One of these terms might resonate more strongly with any particular individual, but that does not a spectrum make. The problem is that asexual and aromantic as categories aren’t of themselves sexualities, but modifiers on sexuality. Where as identity classes like gay, bi, etc. describe to whom you experience attraction, ace, aro, etc. describe how you experience attraction. That is solely and completely an individual experience, and attempting to obfuscate your way into an additional meaningless spectrum is bad for the reasons I have outlined in my post.

I'm not sure that I get where you're going here; the wording is super vague. I'll give it a shot, though. So categorizations of romantic attraction (ie heteroromantic, etc) are actually just reflective of attraction? If you're talking about physical/sexual attraction, as proved by asexual people who are romantic and their inverses... no. If you're talking about romantic attraction... yes, that's what I'm saying so probably not where you're going. If you're talking about attraction in an intentionally broad sense, not only do the aforementioned asexual people who are romantic and their inverses break apart that distinction but saying that the split attraction model is bad for the reason that [its definition is untrue] proves nothing at all. Again, feel free to clarify.
I think I have clarified this in the immediately previous response.

I would also note that your argument “asexual/aromantic people exist therefore (???? Somehow ?????) this model is true” again makes no sense and has already been responded to in my original post.

I partially agree. If someone says they're gay, it makes sense to assume that they're both homosexual and homoromantic. This doesn't need to change and if you are, I'd even argue that it's a net negative for you to identify as homosexual and homoromantic instead of just gay. However, for people who do have differences in their sexual and romantic attractions, who are indeed a minority, there's no reason to toss the model out.
No, they’re just gay. This is homophobic for the reasons I have explained in my post.

Again, use it individually, but it is not useful in any other way and can actually be damaging. This is getting repetitive.

Honest question, do you think it is healthy for someone to identify as heteroromantic homosexual? If someone told you they were a heteroromantic homosexual what would you obligation to that person be?

This is exactly the kind of person that this split attraction model harms most, as I explained only to be churlishly responded to with a Pikachu face in what appears to be an attempt to virtue signal that you are not, in fact, virtuous.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
A lot of queer politics en vogue lately have been about The Proper Taxonomy of The Homosexual, The Transsexual, and the Interrelations Therein. And it's trash eugenicist bullshit. It's cool and rad that we're expanding the language for queer peoples! It is not cool and rad to start deciding that the language dictates rigid boundaries. A theoretical model of Split Attraction makes sense for people who are ace but just because it makes sense in one instance doesn't mean that you can or even should extrapolate outwards as part of a Grande Unifying Theory of Gender and Sexuality Abnormality.

I understand the kneejerk reaction to Crux's point, that it could foster and buttress the arguments that we face from normative people who think they know better about our identities than us. That "well if we're allowed to say that someone openly advocating for an identity that allows them to be queer without rankling societal norms because they're afraid of actually admitting their own queerness, then really that means anyone else can say that we're just gay because it's popular, or trans because of social pressures." A lot of queer politics is flattened this way, the only discussions we're allowed to have are ones where the cis and the hetero can approve of in their current understandings of gender and sexuality. The reality is more complex, that much of our identities are formed in relation to the cisnormative, to the heteronormative, and understanding that and being open to the idea that we can sometimes be wrong about ourselves because we are still unlearning what society has taught us. And the corollary that sometimes a queer elder can see the failures we're making as we grow and can help us along the way.

To reiterate and assuage the reactionary concerns, this doesn't also mean that any queer elder who questions your identity is automatically correct! Buck Angel hey how are you. At the end of the day, the only person you have to answer to is yourself. But maybe just maybe you aren't asking yourself the right questions.
 

Nalei

girl oo
is a Pre-Contributor
Before responding to this I just want to note that I do not think this is an effective response to any part of my argument. I think it is intellectually dishonest at best and bad faith at worst. Pulling out certain lines when literally the next sentence explains it in more depth or explains why the problem you have with the smaller quote is just lazy. A lot of what you have said in this post is already responded to in depth in my original post, and this reads more like a lazy attempt at a series of gotchas rather than any attempt to provide something of substance.
I'm genuinely sorry that it came off as such and perhaps I was operating in bad faith in some instances. In truth, I read your post through a couple times and had a hard time extrapolating a central idea which is why I took smaller bites instead of trying to tackle the issue more conceptually. Your response to my own cleared up a lot of my confusion so I feel that I have a lot more to chew on than before. I won't post any additional rebuttals because, well, I need to think about this more. A few mostly disconnected thoughts in the mean time:

When I read your first caveat, I was expecting to agree with a lot more of your post than I did.
I didn't appreciate the bulk of how you presented your argument but I do appreciate your genuine concern for the lives of others.
"Valid" has become devoid of meaning and I hate using the word for that reason.
I don't think that because you've been led astray by an identity that everyone else who identifies that way is in a situation likes yours and that the identity is necessarily the problem. There is a problem, though.
Valkyries - I disagree with some of what you said, I failed to grasp other bits, but the remainder was just the call-out that I needed so thanks for that.
ehT - ,

Honest question, do you think it is healthy for someone to identify as heteroromantic homosexual? If someone told you they were a heteroromantic homosexual what would you obligation to that person be?

This is exactly the kind of person that this split attraction model harms most, as I explained only to be churlishly responded to with a Pikachu face in what appears to be an attempt to virtue signal that you are not, in fact, virtuous.
Whether it's healthy or not depends on whether the individual's experiences fall in line with their identity.
My obligation to someone who identifies as heteroromantic homosexual would be to assess if the label is true of themselves and provide assistance of it doesn't.
I didn't give you a pikuhh for the sake of communicating that I'm in line with some liberal doctrine. I gave you a pikuhh because you blanketed an identity as in need of help which I don't believe to be the case. I think you'll find that I'm significantly less adverse to most queer people than intervening in matters of people's identity.
 

Kris

broken bricks
is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Battle Simulator Driveris a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Implying everyone who disagrees with u is taking away ur free speech isn't a good look when you're literally antagonizing people for daring to want nuanced labels to describe their orientafion. Literally stop it's so cringy
You don't need to continuously get defensive whenever someone replies to you by the way. It's not a good look. Everyone else in this thread is just having a serious discussion, and you coming in and talking like we're in PS talking in Lobby is the only truly cringe part of this. Literally stop trying to police everything. You've done this in the PokePride discord and now it's happening here. It's fine if you don't agree with this discussion, but if you have absolutely nothing constructive to add onto it, there's no point in commenting on it. With a modified quote FROM you,

[5:27 PM] [ehT]: get off my dick

(changing name since I don't want to leak your real name)
 

Crux

i want it...
Implying everyone who disagrees with u is taking away ur free speech isn't a good look when you're literally antagonizing people for daring to want nuanced labels to describe their orientafion. Literally stop it's so cringy
No, what I was implying was that you had contributed nothing of value to the conversation but for some reason felt the need to chime in regardless. You thought that was an invitation to make an even more puerile post.

Clearly, you think that my argument is wrong. I think that these discussions are valuable and would love to hear your perspective in full, so please explain to me why I am wrong. Before you do though, I would encourage you to read my posts, and the thoughtful contributions of dice and TheValkyries again in detail, as from this post it is pretty clear you have either not read the posts at all, completely misunderstood the argument, or are being deliberately disingenuous (though for what reason I am baffled).
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
I'm p sure I do not need to chime in here as my feminism has barely updated since the 80's, but I feel like Crux is making an important point about the relationship between the structures of oppression we encounter and the identity labels we take up. Nuanced labels are important to individuals' wellbeing, but when we atomize ourselves with these labels it can separate us politically in ways that do not make sense in relation to the forces of oppression we encounter. It might seem trite or policing in some sense to re-read ppl's experiences back to them, but ppl often make bad assumptions about forces of oppression. For example, as a non-binary person I encounter a lovely package of forms of discrimination that people who aren't non-binary do not encounter in exactly the same way. Is being a white non-binary a special political class that needs to be organized around specifically and separately? No, although other identities do not encounter heterosexism/homophobia and misogyny/patriarchy in exactly the same way as I do, the forms of oppression I encounter still coalesce around oppressing women and homosexual/non-heterosexual subjects. So in my political discourses/action I try to centre women, non-white ppl, and homosexuals since it is forms of oppression centre-d on these identities that I encounter. My label as a gender non-conforming person is not necessarily separate or indicative of an increased encounter with oppression than a binary woman, I encounter this form of oppression differently but it is the same form of oppression that women encounter as women and it is important to identify the overlapping experiences of this oppression in order to build political solidarity. Same for the case of homophobia/heterosexism, I do not experience a unique form of oppression that we could for example hypothetically call 'binarism' that only applies to non-binary gender identities, in fact 'binarism' belongs to the same forces of oppression as would more broadly be called 'heterosexism' and that is encountered as homophobia by the subjects it effects.

hopefully I am understanding all of this right, I have rly not worked on theory v much in recent years. feel free to correct me to emphasize certain things that I was not able to.
 

Rosa

AAAAAAA
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
The crucial point here is that identity is a neoliberal farce. It encourages us to view ourselves as individual units distinct from a social whole. It reduces us to a series of words that actually make very little sense, and strips us of our understanding of the relational whole that Gender and Sexuality actually must be. Neither Gender or Sexuality make any coherent conceptual sense unless viewed contextually. This should be obvious given that they are purely defined relationally. How you identify does not change how you will be treated. Homophobes, transphobes, etc. don’t know the difference. They categorise you and will harm you regardless of what you actually identify as. Your identity matters to you and you alone. Sometimes it is a useful tool to explain yourself to the world, but most of the time it is lazy – both in terms of articulating who you are and what you aspire to be, and in terms of introspection.
I wouldn't say identity as a construct is so bad, per se. While I do agree that limiting ourselves to a set of terms with rigid definitions to try and legitimize the non-rigid feelings we have deep inside isn't ideal, having labels is still at the very least a convenience for the sake of explaining the brunt of how you feel, even if words themselves can never fully portray the way we feel internally to perfect detail.

It would be an ideal world if everyone could just shrug their shoulders and say "I am what I am", but we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world. People are obsessed with trying to put terms to things and categorize them to the finest detail; it is that same notion that lends to people feeling like it's necessary to "come out" whenever they find the words to come to terms with how they associate themselves.

Personally, I believe that if we were to cease all use of labels, that it would only set us backwards to the previous "default" of only associating things as either masculine or feminine, which can only serve to bring harm to people who find their identities and preferences somewhere in between or external to those constructs.
You’re valid, identify how you want. But also think about it. Unless you’re heteroromantic homosexual, in which case I love you and I think you need to get help.
Funny joke, though probably not something to end an otherwise entirely formal argument on-
 

Crux

i want it...
I wouldn't say identity as a construct is so bad, per se. While I do agree that limiting ourselves to a set of terms with rigid definitions to try and legitimize the non-rigid feelings we have deep inside isn't ideal, having labels is still at the very least a convenience for the sake of explaining the brunt of how you feel, even if words themselves can never fully portray the way we feel internally to perfect detail.

It would be an ideal world if everyone could just shrug their shoulders and say "I am what I am", but we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world. People are obsessed with trying to put terms to things and categorize them to the finest detail; it is that same notion that lends to people feeling like it's necessary to "come out" whenever they find the words to come to terms with how they associate themselves.

Personally, I believe that if we were to cease all use of labels, that it would only set us backwards to the previous "default" of only associating things as either masculine or feminine, which can only serve to bring harm to people who find their identities and preferences somewhere in between or external to those constructs.

Funny joke, though probably not something to end an otherwise entirely formal argument on-
Again, there is a distinction between people's personal use of labels etc. to understand their personal identity and generalising that as a model of attraction or as something with any worth beyond that specific individual. You are saying that the former is often good and fine. I have said repeatedly that I agree with this. I am saying the latter is bad, and this post misunderstands my argument entirely.

Also, I still don't get why the people who have responded are so obsessed with the last line of my post rather than the substance of my argument.

If they had actually read my argument about why the distinction between romantic and sexual attraction is particularly harmful for gay people then maybe they would reconsider this.
 

ehT

:dog:
is a Contributor to Smogon
Again, there is a distinction between people's personal use of labels etc. to understand their personal identity and generalising that as a model of attraction or as something with any worth beyond that specific individual. You are saying that the former is often good and fine. I have said repeatedly that I agree with this. I am saying the latter is bad, and this post misunderstands my argument entirely.

Also, I still don't get why the people who have responded are so obsessed with the last line of my post rather than the substance of my argument.

If they had actually read my argument about why the distinction between romantic and sexual attraction is particularly harmful for gay people then maybe they would reconsider this.
seriously? the distinction between romantic and sexual attraction harms no one. it's just a fact of human sexuality. when someone chooses a label for themselves, it does not impact you in any way. it doesn't hurt you, either, when that label becomes something more than one person uses that label. just because labels are descriptive rather than prescriptive and people wanna try different ones doesn't mean people are obsessed with them, and pointing out that these nuances exist doesn't sexualize queer people. that's bullshit. straight people have a sexual orientation too and their own individual nuances. they're allowed to have labels too lol. the point of queer liberation is to let people live and love on their own terms, and when you imply that people are hurting you for deciding what terms they live on, it's honestly no different from like telling bi ppl to "just pick one" cause it makes gay ppl look bad. just cause some kid on tumblr is exploring their sexuality and using words you don't like doesn't mean they'd find their True Orientation TM if they just logged off and thought a little harder about it. that's so condescending dude. i wouldn't have found out i was bi and nonbinary if i didn't meet people on the internet who told me i could even feel that way. i would probably still be unsure of myself if i didn't get the chance to think about who i could be, or hear people describe their experience in a way that resonated with me. being gay was unthinkable 100 years ago, too. but oh, one conservative made a joke about neopronouns so i guess i gotta throw my whole identity out and start from scratch!!
 
ehT i am just going to assume you are misunderstanding and are acting in good faith. because you are flattening a cogent critique of a model argued to be harmful toward queers (esp blossoming ones) because of its messy attempt at disarticulating sexuality & romance. it's hard to distill crux's entire argument succinctly, since he also goes into discussion about how [neo]liberal (read: assimilationist) conceptions of identity atomize individuals, further isolating organizing and community efforts. but there are other valid reasons outlined that you should really delve into. this conversation does require some footing in theory.

honestly, your entire post reads very incoherently. you are arguing against something that no one said.

straight people have a sexual orientation too and their own individual nuances. they're allowed to have labels too lol. the point of queer liberation is to let people live and love on their own terms, and when you imply that people are hurting you for deciding what terms they live on, it's honestly no different from like telling bi ppl to "just pick one" cause it makes gay ppl look bad.
yes, and we make fun of straight people's shitty labeling all the time. sapiosexual!! demisexual!! if an identity marker is misguided or harmful, we have the capacity to say: yes, this is bad. i cannot believe you said with your whole chest that wanting to eliminate language that obfuscates and misleads people is somehow an equivalent to erasing someone's sexuality. please reread his post. i am not sure where you went wrong.
 

Crux

i want it...
big fan of dice but there is literally no conceivable way that this post is in good faith unless its writer is illiterate. To begin with, it accuses me of a variety of different intolerances that I neither have nor have expressed in any of my posts in this thread. The only possible reason for this is an attempt at bad faith engagement to undermine the points I have made without actually engaging with them. Next, it is comprised of a series of non-sequiturs that are individually incoherent, and somehow collectively contradictory.

Most of my responses to replies to my post in this thread have just been pointing out that they have failed to understand my argument and redirecting them to important distinctions that cause their response to be unresponsive. In this case, dice has already done that for me. ehT 's response, however, not only has nothing to do with what I said but also has a very large number of separate problems that deserve individual treatment. Each sentence, more or less, expresses a separately bad response or independently harmful idea, so I will respond to each in turn.

I would also like to apologise to Nalei - I think you were actually replying in good faith. Regardless, if we are talking bad faith and intellectual dishonesty, this post takes the cake. I will also try to make this post as clear as possible, such that each claim is separate and precise, hence the format.

seriously? the distinction between romantic and sexual attraction harms no one.
1) I explained in my first post that it harmed gay people as a whole and especially young LGBT people. This is not a response to that argument.
2) There are a very large number of young gay/lesbian people who have latched onto the distinction between sexual and romantic attraction because they have grown up in homophobic environments. This has led them to experience a significant amount of trauma. They have objectively been harmed by this model.
3) As I explained in my first post, it literally perpetuates homophobia. I assume you think this is harmful.
4) Even if it were not harmful, it is still incoherent. We should not model LGBT politics around an incoherent model.
5) In terms of more indirect harms, if this is our model of sexuality, then it changes the goals and advocacy of LGBT movements, safe spaces, and groups. Given that I have explained why it is independently wrong and harmful to those things, your argument that it is harming no individual misunderstands the full impact that the split attraction model has. You focus only on individuals and not their relations to a whole. This is, by definition, the neoliberalism I am critiquing.

it's just a fact of human sexuality. when someone chooses a label for themselves, it does not impact you in any way.
1) It does impact me. I have been harmed by it as a gay non-binary person.
2) I explained at great length in my first post why it is not a general "fact of human sexuality".
3) You cannot just claim something is a fact of human sexuality. If you think that it is a fact of human sexuality, then explain why and respond to my arguments.

it doesn't hurt you, either, when that label becomes something more than one person uses that label.
1) It does and has hurt me personally.
2) People using the labels as individuals is fine if they think it is valuable to them.
3) A caveat to that is that these labels also often hurt the individuals who subscribe to them, as explained in my original post and above.
4) People using labels is different from us understanding LGBT politics (i.e. anything but individual identity) on the basis of these models.

just because labels are descriptive rather than prescriptive and people wanna try different ones doesn't mean people are obsessed with them, and pointing out that these nuances exist doesn't sexualize queer people. that's bullshit.
1) This first half of this sentence is incoherent.
2) I explained in depth how it specifically sexualises and harms gay people. If you disagree, then respond to that argument.
3) The fact you are willing to respond to an argument about how something harms gay people with "that's bullshit" and no other substance says a lot about how much you actually care about gay people.

straight people have a sexual orientation too and their own individual nuances. they're allowed to have labels too lol.
1) Everyone is allowed labels individually, it does not follow from this that they are good or should be applied generally to our thinking or politics.
2) Nearly all of the straight labels are terrible and incoherent as well, for the reasons in my original post.

the point of queer liberation is to let people live and love on their own terms, and when you imply that people are hurting you for deciding what terms they live on, it's honestly no different from like telling bi ppl to "just pick one" cause it makes gay ppl look bad.
1) It is not at all clear that this is the point of queer liberation.
2) I am not implying they are hurting me for the terms "they live on", I am explicitly stating that this model of LGBT sexuality and politics is harmful.
3) This bi politics thing is totally unrelated. But also, people do not systematically think this about bi people. Even if they did, it is not a form of oppression. Neoliberal cooption of terms of identity in a way that is harmful to the entire LGBT community is both systematic and a form of oppression. It is also the locus of the biphobia you are alluding to.
4) Why did you even bring this up lol it is totally irrelevant to everything I have said.

just cause some kid on tumblr is exploring their sexuality and using words you don't like doesn't mean they'd find their True Orientation TM if they just logged off and thought a little harder about it. that's so condescending dude. i wouldn't have found out i was bi and nonbinary if i didn't meet people on the internet who told me i could even feel that way. i would probably still be unsure of myself if i didn't get the chance to think about who i could be, or hear people describe their experience in a way that resonated with me.
1) This is meaningless. I am glad you found your identity that way, but it does not follow from this that the split attraction model is good or legitimate.
2) It is uncontroversial that many people are wrong about what their identity actually is. Patriarchy and homophobia are constructs literally designed to ensure that people who don't fit within those paradigms don't identify with what they are actually feeling. It is my argument that the split attraction model is not only symptomatic of that, but a part of it. If you are interested in this, lesbian literature on compulsory heterosexuality, which I discussed in my original post, is particularly enlightening.
3) I can't believe I am having to clarify this again, but I am not concerned with individual identity. People are more than free to identify how they want, if it is helpful to them. The fact that they may be wrong or that what they are identifying as may actually be harmful to them does not detract from that in anyway. What I am actually critiquing is a model and conceptual understanding of identity as it relates to overall LGBT politics/communities. Nothing you have said engages with that crucial distinction.

being gay was unthinkable 100 years ago, too. but oh, one conservative made a joke about neopronouns so i guess i gotta throw my whole identity out and start from scratch!!
1) Irrelevant
2) At the risk of making another one liner that liberals latch onto as the only point I made and try to one up me in this thread: neopronouns are also harmful. They make mockery of the trans experience, focus on individualistic linguistic politics and attempt to categorise differences that don't actually exist (i.e. the same argument I have made about the split attraction model applies to them too.)

I would appreciate it if further responses to my post actually engaged with it, rather than merely spouting the same harmful and homophobic liberal queer politics that I am critiquing back at me.
 
important

what shiny mons have trans flag colors? im trying to make a team but the only ones i know are sylveon and porygon line
some are slightly less prominent than others, but here's what i found:

- mareep/ampharos/ampharos-mega
- politoed
- slowking (seems to be slightly pinker in older gens)
- ralts?
- toxicroak
- yanmega
- dewott (but not so much oshawott/samurott)
- drizzile/inteleon
- debatably obstagoon
- morgrem (but not impidimp/grimmsnarl)

a lot of these are not quite the right shade of blue/pink for the flag, but hopefully they're close enough.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Normal: Hatterene, Galarian Rapidash (maybe), Primarina

Shiny: Golduck (a stretch), Aerodactyl, Politoed, Ampharos, Toxicroak, Vivillion, Primarina (again), Inteleon.

lots of some other ticky tacky Maybes but these are the ones I flagged
 

Ausma

Formerly mangarrow
LGBT+; it always was just a dicey topic. Thing is though, I was thinking on it lately, and the more I think on it the less I understand the reason why.

For reference, I'm a bisexual trans girl; I've been bi for a pretty long time, but I've only been trans for about 9 months now. By nature, of course it wouldn't make sense to me, but I'm talking in terms of actual logistics. To a degree, I understand the attention-seeking aspect for the super specific "genders" and whatnot, but what I don't understand is the inherent idea behind LGBT hatred. Logically, why should people try to threaten the lives of those who just want to be happy with themselves and be with who they want to be? Isn't happiness, self-discovery, and security the crux of mental health according to pretty much everyone? Why should people make exceptions for LGBT+ members?

The only real explanation I can really come up with is that people are afraid of change and things outside of what is considered the "norm". But, change is another fundamental aspect of human society and growth, so I suppose it comes full circle. I guess I just wish people were more accepting of LGBT folk, because at the end of the day, we just want to be secure with who we are and what we want to be. Threatening people's lives and trying to tear people apart just because you don't want to understand them is not only ridiculous, but hypocritical at its core.

Late night thoughts at their finest
 

Taptricity

Trick or Treat!
is a Pre-Contributor
Ausma from what I’ve noticed from most right wing politics, the argument always ends up going to a fallacious slippery slope. Where do we toe the line when it comes to the rights of others? Throughout history it seems that because a minority group earn rights to their cause, people try to stoop down to a group that’s inherently harmful. They think that the movement will reach a point of absurdity (if they somehow don’t already think it has but the current battle atm is trans rights which isn’t harmful if you looked up the majority of studies supporting trans people) if more minorities continue to earn rights.

If you live in the US, notice how when gay marriage was legalized, there was a complete shift over to oppressing trans people? It’s because they knew they were facing a losing battle and now the same arguments made against gay people a decade ago were copy pasted for trans people. It’s all been a cycle from the Civil Rights movement, to gay rights, and now trans rights. And they’re still under the impression that if [insert minority group here] gain more rights it will then move to supporting pedophiles or beastiality which as mentioned before, are inherently harmful to both parties of such affairs.

To me conservatism is self destrcutive to the very nature of humanity. We as a species have been gifted a high intelligence and we are made to adapt to the circumstances around us. It’s how we are capable of surviving. Why are we to embrace traditional values when there is so much more to discover by opening up our hearts to the possibilities of the future.

Also it’s very clear to me that these people have certainly seen or met a trans person throughout their life but pass well enough in society and also them being trans is none of your business anyway unless they want to be public about it lol.
 

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

Top