LGBTI?

[Froggy Slayer]

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

Jesus fucking Christ, 'corrective rape'? How? How the fuck do you fucking rape someone and not realise that what you are doing is not just raping them, but raping their fucking identity?!

Fuck, that fucking idea has me close to fucking rage tears. Dear sweet merciful Christ, I get it now. I get why LGBTQ people are so in your face about their issues. How could you not be when people are getting FUCKING RAPED just because of their sexuality?

 

[Abomination]

"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.

... like feminism?

It just seems to be getting more and more absurd. The word "queer" has been mishandled by a few and so it can not be used by the majority when it would otherwise perfectly cover the needed spectrum.

How long until the "new" LGBTI+ becomes a political volleyball?

 

[Abomination]

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

Jesus fucking Christ, 'corrective rape'? How? How the fuck do you fucking rape someone and not realise that what you are doing is not just raping them, but raping their fucking identity?!

Fuck, that fucking idea has me close to fucking rage tears. Dear sweet merciful Christ, I get it now. I get why LGBTQ people are so in your face about their issues. How could you not be when people are getting FUCKING RAPED just because of their sexuality?

Because not every non-LGBTQ is a rapist? Those who rape people are despised universally. Just because someone being in my face about their identity annoys me doesn't place me on par with a rapist.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

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

Jesus fucking Christ, 'corrective rape'? How? How the fuck do you fucking rape someone and not realise that what you are doing is not just raping them, but raping their fucking identity?!

Fuck, that fucking idea has me close to fucking rage tears. Dear sweet merciful Christ, I get it now. I get why LGBTQ people are so in your face about their issues. How could you not be when people are getting FUCKING RAPED just because of their sexuality?

Because not every non-LGBTQ is a rapist? Those who rape people are despised universally. Just because someone being in my face about their identity annoys me doesn't place me on par with a rapist.

Didn't say you are man, didn't say that you are. I can just understand more why they feel more of a need to be 'in-your-face' in informing people about their issues. As I said earlier, people who substitute personality with their sexuality do annoy me to no end, especially because they hurt their own cause.

Again, sorry if I worded that badly, no offence to you intended.

 

[Darken12]

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

Asexuals in many places are persecuted as being diseased (like gay/bi people), unnatural and have "corrective procedures" performed on them. Also, asexual women (and some asexual men) have been sexually assaulted or raped precisely because of their asexuality.

The problem is that the documentation regarding hate crimes against asexuals has been extremely poorly collected, as the main problem with asexuality is visibility. Asexuals are only currently being recognised as a valid sexuality, and hate crimes have been attributed retroactively.

 

[Abomination]

Didn't say you are man, didn't say that you are. I can just understand more why they feel more of a need to be 'in-your-face' in informing people about their issues. As I said earlier, people who substitute personality with their sexuality do annoy me to no end, especially because they hurt their own cause.

Again, sorry if I worded that badly, no offence to you intended.

Oh, I wasn't offended at all. I just thought I would highlight how that line of reasoning that because a VERY MINOR group/individuals has/have done some terrible things to a group of people for morally and intellectually corrupt reasons is no justification to be immune from criticism or grants that group special status.

Essentially the actions of very, very few against a group don't suddenly grant that group a special status.

 

[emeraldrafael]

...

I've seen the term QUILTBAG thrown around (it's easy to remember, as far as mnemonics go). Queer/Questioning, I always forget what the U stands for, Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.

Seems a little redundant of an acronym, considering its:
Q - Queer/questioning
U - Undecided
I - Intersex
L - Lesbian
T - Tramsgender/sexual
B - Bi
A - Allies/Asexual
G - Gay/Genderqueer

you could probably take out at least the Q.

OT: Theres a lot of letters missing off the LGBT acronym, but they're established now as that so its probably easier. its not like they fight exclusively for those four letters anyway.

 

[Darken12]

...

I've seen the term QUILTBAG thrown around (it's easy to remember, as far as mnemonics go). Queer/Questioning, I always forget what the U stands for, Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.

Seems a little redundant of an acronym, considering its:
Q - Queer/questioning
U - Undecided
I - Intersex
L - Lesbian
T - Tramsgender/sexual
B - Bi
A - Allies/Asexual
G - Gay/Genderqueer

you could probably take out at least the Q.

OT: Theres a lot of letters missing off the LGBT acronym, but they're established now as that so its probably easier. its not like they fight exclusively for those four letters anyway.

LOL, so if we take out the Q and add one G for Genderqueer, it's a GUILTBAG, then?

 

[emeraldrafael]

...

I've seen the term QUILTBAG thrown around (it's easy to remember, as far as mnemonics go). Queer/Questioning, I always forget what the U stands for, Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.

Seems a little redundant of an acronym, considering its:
Q - Queer/questioning
U - Undecided
I - Intersex
L - Lesbian
T - Tramsgender/sexual
B - Bi
A - Allies/Asexual
G - Gay/Genderqueer

you could probably take out at least the Q.

OT: Theres a lot of letters missing off the LGBT acronym, but they're established now as that so its probably easier. its not like they fight exclusively for those four letters anyway.

LOL, so if we take out the Q and add one G for Genderqueer, it's a GUILTBAG, then?

admittedly that would be a bit funny, but I dont htink you really need the gender/queer g part. and if youre going to keep the letter Q for queer you could take out the L and G (for both) and the U for undecided. then you ust have BATIQQ

 

[azukar]

I don't really have anything to add, I just wanted to thank you for knowing the difference between acronyms and initialisms. It made me happy.
(If I did have an opinion it would be that overly long initialisms start sounding like jokes.)

You're reading the posts of a primary school teacher who is also a linguistics nerd

 

[azukar]

I'd say "queer" has been reclaimed, but it still carries the connotation of difference. It'll prolly never catch on in general use for the reasons I talked about above: the friction between "we're here, we're queer" and "we just want to be seen as normal."

That's stupid. Any term used to define a group of people has to differentiate. There's nothing wrong with differentiation. Gay people and straight people are different. Neither is more worthy than the other, nobody deserves discrimination or bigotry or mindless hate, but they're different. I can even prove it: gay men like penises, straight men mostly only like their own penis.

Grar. Mindless inclusivity and fearing difference make me unhappy.

(My defence against the medium of Interwebz: this isn't a rant aimed at you specifically, bananfishtoday, only at the idea that "queer" won't be used because oh noez it gives the impression that LGTBIQMOMGBBQ people and not-LGTMFWTF people are different)

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I'm not sure whether or not I should feel good or bad for creating a thread in which everyone can pick over the worms of the can that I've opened.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

But let's not add a "P" on there for "pansexual" because - and no offence to anyone that does identify as pansexual - I think it's a mildly pretentious way of saying "bisexual, but with a greater focus on love", since pansexuals likely will be dating both males and females either way, so there's no real need to make another technical term

I don't have time to read through ALL the comments so I apologise if this has been addressed but are you aware of the hypocrisy of advocating the rights of Intergender/Intersex people while at the same time completely dismissing Pansexuality (which includes intergender/intersex people) in favor of Bisexuality (which assumes attractiveness to only those of a Male or Female sex)?

 

[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 that 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.

It is your fault if you're incapable of explaining what your actual meaning was. Right now all you're saying is, "You're wrong, so there!" With a wild "context!" thrown in there as well.

Oh dear, you appear to have accidentally deleted your original statement from your post. No worries, I can go and fetch it again.

"I don't think we should arbitrarily [sic] divide people into groups based on their traits - whether that's race, sexual orientation etc. Instead, can we not just accept each person as a fellow human being?"

See? There is your statement, in all its contextual glory. Nothing taken away. You say that you don't think you should divide people into groups based on their traits (first clause) and that we should accept each person as a fellow human being (second clause). You connect these two clauses using the conjunctive "instead", positing the second as an alternative to the first, and therefore implying that the two are mutually exclusive.

But please, try to explain your meaning further to my poor simple mind. So you do think it is possible to both accept someone as gay and accept them as a fellow human being? If the first acceptance does not limit the second, why should it be done away with at all?

You don't need to be so damn passive-aggressive about it. I guess I used the wrong word by using "instead." Does that appease you? Or are there any other words you want to nit-pick in my post? You are wrong about the "instead" though. It doesn't necessarily imply mutual exclusivity. For example, "I ate the chips first instead of the ice cream." That does not imply that I won't or can't eat the ice cream.

I just prefer to focus on the similarities everyone shares. There's nothing more eye-opening than realising the things you have in common with someone unrelated to you. If more people realised that, I think we'd all get along better. That doesn't mean to say that there's anything wrong with expressing one's individuality but we are social creatures, after all.

And despite what I've typed, I'm sure you'll find something wrong with my post because scoring imaginary points on the Internet (which doesn't actually impress anyone but a lot of people seem to think it does) is way more important than coming to any kind of resolution in a discussion.

 

[Reeve]

I'm not sure whether or not I should feel good or bad for creating a thread in which everyone can pick over the worms of the can that I've opened.

You should feel fucking terrible!

 

[Lieju]

Those who rape people are despised universally.

Unfortunately, no.
Or rather, some cultures (like the Western one for the longest time) make expections, like how it's not rape if it happened in a marriage.
Or how you can't rape a man, and if a man was sexually abused, it's his fault for not being man enough.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

But let's not add a "P" on there for "pansexual" because - and no offence to anyone that does identify as pansexual - I think it's a mildly pretentious way of saying "bisexual, but with a greater focus on love", since pansexuals likely will be dating both males and females either way, so there's no real need to make another technical term

I don't have time to read through ALL the comments so I apologise if this has been addressed but are you aware of the hypocrisy of advocating the rights of Intergender/Intersex people while at the same time completely dismissing Pansexuality (which includes intergender/intersex people) in favor of Bisexuality (which assumes attractiveness to only those of a Male or Female sex)?

Without trying to sound like an ignorant douche, I've pretty much always thought of pansexuality as a subset of bisexuality. I mean, it's not as if bisexuals, or even heterosexuals, can't be attracted to intersexed people too. Intersex isn't a "third gender"; it's either the two sexes merged together, it falls between the two (hence the "inter"), or both. Therefore, if you're a heterosexual mana, you might find something attractive in an intersexed person if you see their feminine characteristics, and bisexual people could potentially see them as "the best of both worlds".

I dunno, I just get the feeling that ?pansexuality? is along the same lines of ?bicurious?: there doesn?t seem like that much of a need for the terms at all, or at least not to include in an acronym. Maybe I?m not the most well-informed person on this subject, but?ehh. I just think, if you focus more on the love side of a relationship rather than the sexual side, then practically everyone (apart from the people in whom there is no romantic capacity in their neural or whatever system) could identify as ?pansexual?. It just seems like they might as well just call themselves ?bisexual?. It?s not a denial of the existence of pansexuals. It just seems like an unnecessary extra category, if you get my drift. (I tried to phrase that in the least offensive way possible.)

The reason that transgendered/transsexual people are more distinctly different to intersexed people is that transgendered people are born one sex, with the opposite gender. Intersexed people are born with both sexes, but gender can vary or be none at all.

Those who rape people are despised universally.

Unfortunately, no.
Or rather, some cultures (like the Western one for the longest time) make expections, like how it's not rape if it happened in a marriage.
Or how you can't rape a man, and if a man was sexually abused, it's his fault for not being man enough.

Or how some people still believe in the whole "It's not rape if you enjoy it!" Hasn't anyone ever heard of unwanted boners? Like, you're just sitting in class somewhere, and you get aroused for thinking about something that you don't want at that particular moment? Same thing applies if someone pushes your arousal button, and you can't help but, well, be aroused. It's nature. Even if it was your freakin' daddy doing it, there wouldn't be much you could do to stop your body from reacting to touch like that.

 

[bananafishtoday]

I'd say "queer" has been reclaimed, but it still carries the connotation of difference. It'll prolly never catch on in general use for the reasons I talked about above: the friction between "we're here, we're queer" and "we just want to be seen as normal."

That's stupid. Any term used to define a group of people has to differentiate. There's nothing wrong with differentiation. Gay people and straight people are different. Neither is more worthy than the other, nobody deserves discrimination or bigotry or mindless hate, but they're different. I can even prove it: gay men like penises, straight men mostly only like their own penis.

Grar. Mindless inclusivity and fearing difference make me unhappy.

(My defence against the medium of Interwebz: this isn't a rant aimed at you specifically, bananfishtoday, only at the idea that "queer" won't be used because oh noez it gives the impression that LGTBIQMOMGBBQ people and not-LGTMFWTF people are different)

My bad, imprecise word choice. What I meant to communicate was more like "deviation from the norm." One side wishes to establish and promote a set of behaviors/appearances/etc that can be accepted by society as "normal" (generally embracing the nuclear family and demanding gender conformity.) The other side argues that the marginalization of those with more "deviant" behaviors/appearances just to benefit those willing to "normalize" is unjust (and that "true" acceptance even for "normalized" individuals is impossible anyway without broader changes to society.)

Basically, assimilationists vs. activists. "Queer" has a lot of sociopolitical connotations within the community.

I'm not sure whether or not I should feel good or bad for creating a thread in which everyone can pick over the worms of the can that I've opened.

Really? I thought you relish in chaos.

I'll be here all week, folks.