LGBTI?

[bananafishtoday]

Bloody hell, you worry that having too many letters in the name will create an "Us vs. Them" mentality, and your alternative proposition is just to divide everyone up into "heterosexual" and "not heterosexual"? Yeah, that's a much better idea.

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

 

[Remaiki]

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

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

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Actually, I have always wondered; why are gay, lesbian and bisexual people lumped with transexual and intersexual people? Aren't they two seperate groups; one group deals with differing sexual preference and one deals with different sexual organs and identities. Not complaining, but genuinely interested in how the two groups over-lapped.

 

[LetalisK]

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

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

I think it might be part of his point that we label things as "sexual identities" when we find them acceptable and "fetishes" when we deem them to be taboo. I don't disagree with this point, either, as society is fickle and stupid and it wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was considered a fetish and it was incredibly insulting. If there is a difference between homosexuality and foot fetishism, then one can not simply appeal to contemporary opinion to explain why. It does make me curious if a neuroscience study has been done about this subject, ie seeing brain activity in that of a heterosexual, homosexual, fetishist, etc when exposed to their sexual desire of choice and noting the differences. That's not to say such a study alone would make definitive separations between these categories, but it would definitely provide a window into the neurological/biological nature of sexuality.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

--snip--

Technically, heterosexuality is the norm. Most people are heterosexual. No need for the quotes there.

 

[Reeve]

That's what you said. You used the word "instead". That implies that you don't think it's possible to both divide people into groups and accept them as fellow human beings.

Actually, using the word "instead" does not imply that in the context which I used the word. I can't believe you're tell me what I meant. I know what I meant, obviously. It is not my problem if you are incapable of understanding my posts.

There's nothing special about benches either. Should we stop using the word "bench" because it arbitrarily separates it from other wood constructions like treehouses and tables?

This is a false equivalence. If you don't understand the difference between a human being and a bench, you need to see a doctor!

 

[Froggy Slayer]

--snip--

Doesn't that leave some space for sub-category crossover, though? Like, if a guy likes women but only if they have dicks, is that a fetish or a fully-fledged sexual identity? Or is it somewhere between the two?

 

[Abomination]

So far the only "similarity" that list of letters seems to embrace is they aren't straight. I understand some want to merge together out of fear of a tyrany of the majority but this isn't a war and the more letters you add to that the more "Us vs. Them" the vibe becomes.

The entire "movement" is about uniting to have a strong enough voice to not be overcome by the heterosexual majority. The only uniting factor of the group is that they are not straight. Save them from absurdity and just call them "non-heterosexual"... or "NH" if you're obsessed over applying capitol letters to everything.

Errr, maybe because LGBT+ people don't want to collect together under a group that starts with a negative? Maybe they want to be able to be groups in their own right, and not just be referred to as "not heterosexual" or "not normal". Maybe they celebrate the different groups in the LGBT+ community within their name because they believe that difference is a good thing, and that it's OK to be different. Maybe because there are actually a huge number of heterosexual cisgendered people who actively support the LGBT+ community and might feel a bit excluded if the group started calling themselves "the non-heterosexuals".

Bloody hell, you worry that having too many letters in the name will create an "Us vs. Them" mentality, and your alternative proposition is just to divide everyone up into "heterosexual" and "not heterosexual"? Yeah, that's a much better idea.

Because including every potential letter in the alphabet to describe or identify a 'group' when the realistic and practical situation is simply that they're not part of the heterosexual majority is absurd.

Labeling someone as non-heterosexual doesn't automatically make it a bad thing - who on earth in this thread is even arguing that not being heterosexual is a bad thing? Outside, looking in, the longer and longer label comes off as nothing more than pandering to smaller and smaller subsets of the non-heterosexual community.

"Queer" would be a good term to use as it does accurately describe the situation, people who are "out of the ordinary" with their sexual/gender alignment.

Do I have to add a disclaimer that "out of the ordinary" doesn't mean "bad" or "evil" or "disgusting" or whatever else I'm going to be accused of being due to being insensitive?

In the end the entire POINT of the LGBTWTFBBQ(add whatever more letters are deemed appropriate) movement is to have a rallying point in the face of the boring, unimaginative, normal, heterosexual majority.

Heck, the first phrase of the Wikipedia article for "Queer" is

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary.

 

[Darken12]

Actually, I have always wondered; why are gay, lesbian and bisexual people lumped with transexual and intersexual people? Aren't they two seperate groups; one group deals with differing sexual preference and one deals with different sexual organs and identities. Not complaining, but genuinely interested in how the two groups over-lapped.

Strength in numbers, in short, plus basically facing the exact same problems for eerily similar reasons. For a long time, there wasn't a difference in society's eyes between a man who liked men and a man who identified as a (straight) woman. They both got beat up, killed or similarly hate-crime'd. So the lesbian gal and the gay dude joined forces with the transgendered man, the transgendered woman, the bisexuals (of both genders) and lately, the asexuals, the intersexed, those who refuse to conform to physical expectations of one gender or another, and other people who were hate-crime'd because they didn't conform to social expectations of either gender or sexuality.

And the next time someone went on to beat up one of these people, all the others were standing with them. And legally, they only have weight to gain rights and protection when they achieve a significant political weight.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Actually, I have always wondered; why are gay, lesbian and bisexual people lumped with transexual and intersexual people? Aren't they two seperate groups; one group deals with differing sexual preference and one deals with different sexual organs and identities. Not complaining, but genuinely interested in how the two groups over-lapped.

Strength in numbers, in short, plus basically facing the exact same problems for eerily similar reasons. For a long time, there wasn't a difference in society's eyes between a man who liked men and a man who identified as a (straight) woman. They both got beat up, killed or similarly hate-crime'd. So the lesbian gal and the gay dude joined forces with the transgendered man, the transgendered woman, the bisexuals (of both genders) and lately, the asexuals, the intersexed, those who refuse to conform to physical expectations of one gender or another, and other people who were hate-crime'd because they didn't conform to social expectations of either gender or sexuality.

And the next time someone went on to beat up one of these people, all the others were standing with them. And legally, they only have weight to gain rights and protection when they achieve a significant political weight.

I never really thought that asexual people were really victims of hate crimes, compared to other LGBTQ groups.

 

[Remaiki]

snip

How about no? How about we don't define the many, many varied groups under the LGBT+ banner with a single label that starts with a negative? How about we don't define these people by the fact that they differ from the heterosexual "norm"?

There's a reason we don't call all women "not-men". It's because they have actual identities and aren't just recognisable by their lack of manhood. Likewise, we're not going to start defining LGBT+ people by their lack of heterosexuality.

EDIT: Plus there's the slightly awkward fact that many LGBT+ people are heterosexual. That sort of throws a wrench in the works.

So, to your first point: You mean, these people that includes me? Weren't expecting that, were ya'? (I jest, if you're wondering.) I never stated or even implied that heterosexuality was the 'norm'. (You use the phrase like you're quoting me.) The term starts with a negative because it's expressing that the term refers to people who aren't heterosexual. It's simple, really.

To your second: Well, yeah, there is a reason we don't call all women 'not-men' - it's because there are only 2 genders, and about 50 bazillion million different gender orientations(as evidenced by this very thread).

However, your third point is actually valid. ...However, I think I have the answer: 'sexual preference minority'. Taken straight from the 'ethnic minority' school of thought. But, I've thought of a problem - the 'minority' part kinda stumps me - to use our 'ethnic minority' example, the phrase no longer means what you generally think it means when referring to places like Bradford - where the predominant 'ethnic minority' is, actually, white.

I never really thought that asexual people were really victims of hate crimes, compared to other LGBTQ groups.

From my experiences, that's probably because almost no-one I've met in real life even knows it exists.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

I never really thought that asexual people were really victims of hate crimes, compared to other LGBTQ groups.

Oh no, asexual people are lucky in that a lot of people don't believe they exist at all. All they have to do is put up with constant remarks of "Oh, you just haven't met the right person yet," and "Maybe there's something wrong with you. You know, Down There. You should go and see the doctor," and "But seriously, though, when are you going to get married and have kids like a normal person?"

Really? Do people actually find it that hard to believe that some people are totally uninterested in sex? Why? I know a girl who's asexual. She has made it clear when people ask her tab out her sexuality that she is asexual. How the fuck does someone warp this in their head to 'oh, they do want kids really, they're just too shy to say'?

 

[LetalisK]

Actually there is already a definitive separation. Sexual identity refers to the people you're attracted to. Fetish refers to the sexual activity that you're attracted to.

That saved some time.

You missed my point. How words are supposed to be used does not mean society will use or consider them in that manner. We're assholes like that.

Doesn't that leave some space for sub-category crossover, though? Like, if a guy likes women but only if they have dicks, is that a fetish or a fully-fledged sexual identity? Or is it somewhere between the two?

I would think so, yes. I've seen a lot of people, even the open-minded ones, consider sexuality like shaped holes meant for shaped pegs. "You are X, Orange, or Theta." However, I think Kinsey was on the right track. I would see it more as a continuum of some sort rather than categories. Categories are simply easier for conversation's sake, but we end up getting wrapped up in them.

Edit: Bah, dorked up quoting ftl, sorry Froggy.

 

[bananafishtoday]

"Queer" would be a good term to use as it does accurately describe the situation, people who are "out of the ordinary" with their sexual/gender alignment.

[...]

Heck, the first phrase of the Wikipedia article for "Queer" is

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, heteronormative, or gender-binary.

If you'd even read the rest of the (relatively short) article, you'd have seen why this word is not acceptable to the entire community:

Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists; by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities; by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight; and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender". It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer"-identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" homosexuals.

[...]

For some queer-identified people, part of the point of the term "queer" is that it simultaneously builds up and tears down boundaries of identity. For instance, among genderqueer people, who do not solidly identify with one particular gender, once solid gender roles have been torn down, it becomes difficult to situate sexual identity. For some people, the non-specificity of the term is liberating. Queerness becomes a way to make a political move against heteronormativity while simultaneously refusing to engage in traditional essentialist identity politics.

I'm personally in the "queer" camp, but I can understand why others in the community would object to the term because of its political underpinnings.

Edit:

Really? Do people actually find it that hard to believe that some people are totally uninterested in sex? Why? I know a girl who's asexual. She has made it clear when people ask her tab out her sexuality that she is asexual. How the fuck does someone warp this in their head to 'oh, they do want kids really, they're just too shy to say'?

Yes, unfortunately some people do. And like some lesbians, some asexuals are victims of so-called "corrective" rape.

 

[LetalisK]

I think it might be part of his point that we label things as "sexual identities" when we find them acceptable and "fetishes" when we deem them to be taboo.

I doubt people who actually study sex academically do. Every definition for fetish I've ever heard has been an a non-sexual item which is necessary for sexual arousal.

If there is a difference between homosexuality and foot fetishism, then one can not simply appeal to contemporary opinion to explain why.

One doesn't need to. Feet are not sexual. People are.

I'd reference to my above post. I have no doubt professionals deal with the terms as they're meant to be dealt with. They're not what I'm concerned about. You'd have a hard time convincing me that the word "fetish" doesn't have a taboo, if not outright negative, connotation attached to it in common usage, particularly when reading this thread, when it really shouldn't.

I wouldn't think that there's much value in it. People put far too much weight in brain blood-flow studies, but all they do is show which parts of the brain are active. The fact that the same regions of the brain might be active in both fetishists and people with a sexual orientation would not show anything other than that the same parts of the brain are used to process the psychology- not that the psychologies have anything remotely in common.

Here we disagree then, I think. The fact that the same part of the brain is used is a commonality in and of itself and can tell us a lot about how the mind works. While malleable, different parts of our brain do have specific...not functions, but that's the closest word I can think of right now, and examining what is affected during what activity is a foundation for further research into said psychology and has helped dramatically speed up psychological research, even make previously impossible research possible. As much as the clinical psychologists would disagree with this, but in my opinion neuroscience is the future of psychology. That's not to say it will replace psychology.