LGBTI?

[Abomination]

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.

I can assure you that they are becoming even more a minority than they already are. Of course there are going to be outfielders who believe some forms of rape are "justified" but they're likely a sad minority or just defense lawyers doing their "job" (as disgusting as it might be, they are required to use every trick in the book they know of - by law).

 

[tahrey]

Short answer (again avoiding 5 pages of possibly flameheavy discussion)...

The existing terms, which started with just LGB, describe sexual or gender expression and preference, which ... well, there's no easy way of describing it at 5pm on a friday without offending someone. Let's say it's a mental thing. There's something inside your grey matter that, regardless of what you actually believe is behind it (genetics, chemicals, personal choice, demonic posession...), regulates who you find attractive, and at least some of the time seems to modulate your personality somewhat, generally towards a more androgynous aspect.

Then it became LGBT which also includes another similar "mental" thing - Transsexualism/Transgenderism, or if you want to get coldly technical about it, gender dysphoria. You could argue that this could be seen as the right brain but the wrong body, but at least from a medical and genetic standpoint you have a properly manufactured male or female body, but the brain controlling it has the firmware for the opposite kind installed. Seeing as it's both currently impossible to change the firmware, and would be far more ethically questionable to do so anyway, we do commonly effect treatment for this with physical alterations by way of hormones and surgery. However, a transperson is still a transperson whether or not they're receiving treatment, so physical changes are not the primary indicator.

Now, recently, some have started adding a Q on the end, for "(gender)queer", which basically covers any similar ... ehh... "setups"(?) that don't quite fit those slots - neutral/third gender, asexuality and so forth.

And the acronym is already getting a bit unwieldy.

Putting I on the end is arguable; it both seems sort of fair and a sensible extension, but also it changes the game somewhat. An intersex person is not necessarily expressing a non-"straight" (within the majority heteronormative social mainstream) gender, sexual preference or even sexual identity, but does have a non-binary sexual phenotype. A non "straight" physical expression if you like, and most certainly not one of choice even if you were operating from that standpoint for the others. EG an individual with an XY genotype, male gender identity and a sexual preference for women... with micropenis or hyperspadias, which is an intersex condition, although often only a mild one. Or man-preferring XX female with clitoromegaly (staying within the purely genital area which I know is an oversimplification, but roll with it). The line is a little blurry now... where do you draw it? How many more letters are there to add?

Seeing at least what's on the first page, and thinking about this, I think I fall into the "need to rethink the collective noun to make it more inclusive" camp... Give emphasis to the idea that this sort of thing isn't really an "either/or", but more of a spectrum, as per the theories of ol' Dr Kinsey and plentiful pyschological, physiological and genetic research since. There may be some distance in "reclaiming" Queer, for example, but that may be "too soon" and open to abuse (given that Gay and Lesbian were themselves at one time obscuring euphemisms, rather than ubiquitous homonyms for male and female homosexuals)... and it still may put too sharply defined a bar between the dead-straights and anyone who feels they want to claim that badge for themselves.

Difficult. Very difficult. But the tl;dr version as to why LGBT hasn't habitually become LGBTI (yet) is that the first four represent psychological aspects, your mental workings and personality, which are maybe easier to hide from cursory examination but hellish to withstand, and the latter is more of a traditional physical determination, which is clear for anyone to see if they whip your pants off but otherwise doesn't explicitly affect who you are mentally. It's maybe an abitrary distinction, but it's a distinction nontheless.

 

[Darken12]

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

Well, I honestly think that there's a difference between, say, a girly lesbian/manly gay dude, and a person who, regardless of their sexual preference, rejects gender constructs and chooses to construct their gender as something in between or as neither male nor female. Intersex might be biological, but genderqueer is not. Whether it's similar to transexuality or a conscious choice to reject traditional gender constructs, people have a right to be androgynous, wear whatever they want to wear and leave people confused about their gender without getting the shit beaten out of them. Hence why I think it's important to recognise genderqueer people.

 

[Reeve]

Oookay ... so how exactly do you go from "people should realise that we have things in common" to "we shouldn't have names for different sexual orientations"? That's somewhat counter-intuitive. Sexual orientation is one of the many things that recognises shared experience among people who might not have anything else in common.

I don't know who you imagine you are responding to. Enough with the straw-man argument, I am supportive of equality and all that good stuff. The point I am making is that, in an ideal world, it wouldn't have to be an issue what people's sexual orientation is. There would just be the understanding that people have sexual behaviour. Categorising peoples' sexual orientation is an artificial construction. Individual people don't really fit exactly into the definitions sociologists like to make up.

Moreover, "similarity" exists in a linguistic binary with "difference". Without difference, similarity would be meaningless.

And? I didn't say anything to the contrary of this.

please explain how recognising people's differences in any way impinges upon our ability to recognise their similarities.

I never said it did. I prefer looking at similarities. It's always division and difference that makes people conflict with one another. Similarties bring people together and create communities. There's loads of evidence of that. The Escapist itself is an example.

You also forgot to engage with this:

"There is no harm in giving names to different types of sexual orientation. This is how language works. We have parent terms which then get subdivided into different categories, often many times over and into very specific definitions. We do it with animal species, with sciences, with philosophies, with political beliefs, with different types of dairy products, with film genres and everything above and beyond - great and small. Why do you think we need to make an exception for sexual orientation if there is "nothing special" about it?"

I don't think an exception should be made. I think that we shouldn't get carried away with putting people into groups based on their traits. As the definitions of groups are always some ideal and not the variability of reality. What does declaring that you are members of groups X, Y and Z even achieve - outside of statistical analysis? Why is it not a case-by-case basis where each person is thought of individually?

P.S. "Coming to a resolution" doesn't mean "shutting up and agreeing with me despite the fact that I've failed to piece together anything resembling a logical argument".

I didn't say that's what a resolution was. I was merely attacking your stupid fucking, inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

I can assure you that they are becoming even more a minority than they already are. Of course there are going to be outfielders who believe some forms of rape are "justified" but they're likely a sad minority or just defense lawyers doing their "job" (as disgusting as it might be, they are required to use every trick in the book they know of - by law).

Unfortunately not, there's still a massive amount of people willing to do through those mental gymnastics to deny or defend rape. Look at all the Polanski supporters, for example.

 

[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.

Really? I thought you relish in chaos.

I'll be here all week, folks.

Genuinely LOL'd at that! XD

 

[Mike Kayatta]

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.

Out of context, that looks like a pretty harsh snip of what I was saying. But that aside, you think I'm being unfair to gay people? I think you're being unfair to people who are attracted to dolphins. I never said that a fetish was the same as a sexual orientation. All I said was that I'm less interested in defining who's allowed to be part of gay culture than I am at protecting everyone's rights. If you aren't hurting anyone, then awesome. Have at it. Period. In fact, your offense at a fetish being compared to being gay is pretty offensive to people with fetishes. Why are they lower on your acceptability list, like somehow being associated with them is degrading? It's amazing to me that saying, "Hey, how about everyone is just cool with whoever others are and/or whatever those people choose" is somehow driving anger. Maybe you should examine just how pugnacious you are when it comes to these issues before pulling quotes out of origin.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

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.

I can assure you that they are becoming even more a minority than they already are. Of course there are going to be outfielders who believe some forms of rape are "justified" but they're likely a sad minority or just defense lawyers doing their "job" (as disgusting as it might be, they are required to use every trick in the book they know of - by law).

Unfortunately not, there's still a massive amount of people willing to do through those mental gymnastics to deny or defend rape. Look at all the Polanski supporters, for example.

However such attitudes are changing with time. This might not be comforting to anybody that has been a victim of rape but things are getting better. Changing how a society views things takes quite some time but it does happen. I'd be willing to put my money down that in another 50 years such people will be a fairly small minority.

 

[LetalisK]

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.

So? That doesn't really have anything to do with sexual orientation. That's a bit like saying that brussel sprouts and herpes are the same because a lot of people dislike both.

Except it's not. The form of your analogy isn't even congruent with what I'm saying. It would be more like "People call brussel sprouts herpes when they don't like them," except it still wouldn't make sense considering brussel sprouts and herpes are not related while sexual identity and fetishism are(the latter being a component of the former academically but being used as a negative form of the former socially). Unless you contest sexual identity and fetishism are as unrelated as brussel sprouts and herpes.

I don't dispute neuroscience- in fact I'm rather a fan of learning more. But the old approach of "hey, let's scan the brain" isn't an especially useful approach to figuring out everything. The same part of the brain, the amygdala, is used for sexual orientation, social interaction, binge drinking and alcoholism, aggression, fear, and general emotional learning. That doesn't mean any of those phenomena are related. They just get processed in the same area. Or rather, they just activate blood flow in the same area.

I never claimed it was the key to figuring out everything. I explicitly said otherwise. Being a great tool does not make it a master key. And while one part of the brain is responsible for multiple things, it does not mean it acts the same way with each activity, thereby creating differentiation. It's much more refined than seeing an area of the brain light up and drawing conclusions from that. It's down to individual neural pathways and rigorous testing and retesting ad nauseum as with any other field of science.

Edit: Quotefail.

 

[Reeve]

You probably shouldn't use the term "straw-man argument" if you don't know what it means (see also: 'arbitrary')

A straw-man argument is where one misrepresents their opponent's argument so that it is easier for one to refute. i.e. what you've been doing demanding that I am saying we shouldn't have names for things, when I was not saying that at all.

Secondly, "sociologists" (I don't know why you're picking on the sociologists, but I'll assume you're using them as a euphemism for "people who give names to stuff") don't make up definitions and then force people to fit into them.

I did not say that they did, nor was I picking on them. Jesus Christ your abilities at comprehension are astoundingly low.
It is sociologists and psychologists that invent terms for things such as sexuality, likely for the purposes of analysis of averages amongst populations etc.

They give names to traits that already exist. That's all that terms for sexual orientation are: they are words with definitions.

No, the terms are approximations. That's how it is with most definitions: An approximation of the reality. Only the philosophically naive would think that pre-decided definitions of words wholly, accurately represented reality. This is not the case at all. Go and look into model-dependent realism.

They're not going to jump up and attack you or carry anyone off and stuff them into a cage.

I didn't claim that's what would happen. Why do you feel you have to misrepresent what I say in my posts?

When people don't fit a definition exactly the solution is not to panic and scrap the definition entirely so that it can never be used again.

Again, I have not said that is the "solution." There is not a solution. We have to accept that any definition we have is just an approximation.

All it means is that you have to come up with a better word to describe the people who don't fit, which is more or less what happened with bisexuality and pansexuality.

Like I said before, such terms are only useful when sociologist talk about averages, statistics and studies. There's really no need to apply them with personal social interactions with people. It doesn't change anything about the person how you label them. What has been changed by doing this?

Top tip: you probably shouldn't vehemently deny that you said something, and then immediately go on to say it again...Now, in the very next sentence you immediately go on to argue that recognising people's differences impinges on our ability to recognise their similarities. You see how that's a little confusing?

No, I was referring to a historical fact that humans typically fight over differences. This does not mean that recognising differences impinges on one's ability to recognise similarities. Nor do I actually say this. You either have very poor ability at comprehending things you have just read or are trying to once again misrepresent what I said.

It's always division and difference that makes people conflict with one another.

OK, let's try and break down this ludicrously oversized generalisation logically. I can't quite wrap my brain around the fact that you seriously think that any recognition of difference between people is going to create conflict.[/quote]
No, I was pointing out that people typically fight over differences. This is a fact of human history. I am not saying that recognising differences creates conflict. I am saying that people fight over differences.

What does having definitions for sexual and gender orientation achieve? How about letting LGBT people know that their experience is normal and shared by other people.

Why does it need a label to be understood as normal? No one needed to define "heterosexual" for me before I could get past any cognitive dissonance. In fact, I have no cognitive dissonance over what/who I am. It's only because society has made these things taboo that anyone would need reassuring.

Imagine if you were transgendered but had absolutely no knowledge of the word and were trying to come to terms with the fact that...

Interesting choice of words. It's sad that it has to be described as "coming to terms" as though it's not something you would accept right from the start. I don't think most heterosexuals, for example, have to "come to terms" with their sexual orientation. Why? Because it's understood by society as "normal" and O.K. It's a shame it's not like this with these other things. Again, we can thank society for making it taboo not to be "normal." If that changes maybe we can drop the plethora of terms for these things outside of an academic context.

The argument that you're making is that we shouldn't have as many terms for different sexual orientation as we do, but if you take them away it actually makes it much harder to treat people individually.

I get treated like an individual and no one has to keep reminding me of the exact word for my sexual orientation. Why? Oh yeah, society and it's taboos. Again.

I didn't say that's what a resolution was. I was merely attacking your stupid fucking, inflammatory rhetoric.

Cool it, sparky, there's no need to get all riled up. It's just a conversation on the internet.

What you can get passionate about this and I can't?

 

[Reeve]

Case in point:

I am not saying that recognising differences creates conflict.

It's always division and difference that makes people conflict with one another

You can't see how these aren't equivalent? Ok.

you are suggesting that there is something inherently negative about difference. That is the attitude that leads to conflict over our differences.

There's nothing wrong with difference in and of itself.

You pretty much crossed the line for me when you scoffed at the idea of transgendered people needing to "come to terms" with their gender orientation. You say, "Well I didn't have to come to terms with being a cisgendered heterosexual, so why should they have to come to terms with being transgendered?" Guess what. You didn't need to come to terms with anything because society considers you to be "normal", and to sneer at the idea of marginalised peoples' desire for a defining label is blindingly arrogant.

I wasn't sneering, you fool. I was lamenting! I even said that the reason I don't have to "come to terms" is because of society and it's stupid taboos! I said what you have just said yourself! I agree with you on that.

You can spout stuff such as "people don't fit in boxes, man!" but how else would you describe someone's individual personality, without using language? You could describe them as "boisterous" or "friendly" or "short-tempered", but in doing so you are using the existing definitions that fit them best, just as you would when describing them as "gay" or "asexual". You could shun existing terms for sexual or gender orientation and instead say something like, "He is attracted to males and masculine qualities", but this requires engagement with our existing definitions of the words "male" and "masculine" and "attracted" and "qualities". Sorry, language is one of those things that there's just no getting away from.

Terms such as "pansexual" and "transexual" are not the same as adjectives. They are academic classifications. It's more useful, in everyday talk, to say - in precise words- "I'm sexually attracted to X, Y, Z and I like to dress like X, Y, Z" than to spout "I'm a post-gender-trans-sexual-three-spirited-curious" I'll understand you better if you put it to me straight (pun intended)

 

[Darken12]

Terms such as "pansexual" and "transexual" are not the same as adjectives. They are academic classifications. It's more useful, in everyday talk, to say - in precise words- "I'm sexually attracted to X, Y, Z and I like to dress like X, Y, Z" than to spout "I'm a post-gender-trans-sexual-three-spirited-curious" I'll understand you better if you put it to me straight (pun intended)

This is incomprehensible and self-contradictory.

"I'm a post-gender-trans-sexual-three-spirited-curious" is a lot easier than rattling on about what you like and dislike, how you identify yourself (in terms of sexuality, spirituality and gender), and what you intend to accomplish socially.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

My life was so much simpler back when I was only aware of LGBT. I'm fairly certain that anything beyond that is just people fucking with me.

 

[Darken12]

My life was so much simpler back when I was only aware of LGBT. I'm fairly certain that anything beyond that is just people fucking with me.

Right, because people who happen to be anything other than that (such as asexuals, intersexed people, people who don't fit into the gender binary, people who aren't exactly gay or bisexual or straight, and so on) are just fucking with you. They can't possibly exist.

Captcha: "she loves him". Et tu, Captcha? Who'd have known you were so heteronormative...

 

[Reeve]

Terms such as "pansexual" and "transexual" are not the same as adjectives. They are academic classifications. It's more useful, in everyday talk, to say - in precise words- "I'm sexually attracted to X, Y, Z and I like to dress like X, Y, Z" than to spout "I'm a post-gender-trans-sexual-three-spirited-curious" I'll understand you better if you put it to me straight (pun intended)

This is incomprehensible and self-contradictory.

"I'm a post-gender-trans-sexual-three-spirited-curious" is a lot easier than rattling on about what you like and dislike, how you identify yourself (in terms of sexuality, spirituality and gender), and what you intend to accomplish socially.

It might be easier but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has as much clarity.

 

[Reeve]

Why am I wasting time here at 4.30 in the morning? I have better things to do!

Thanks a lot Relish in Chaos :/