LGBTI?

[Darken12]

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

And you assume that more words mean more clarity? I assure you, it's far easier to confuse people by speaking at length than by providing specific words with already agreed-upon definitions.

Let's be honest here, pretty much everyone who has argued against specific words with agreed-upon definitions has done it, deep down, out of laziness and disinterest. You just don't want to keep up with the progress.

 

[Reeve]

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...

You should chill out.

 

[Darken12]

You should chill out.

Mhm. Standard diversion tactic. Instead of engaging the argument, you appeal to an emotion fallacy.

Keep on truckin'.

EDIT: Hilariously, it's also you who are calling people names. Perhaps you should help yourself to a chill pill.

 

[Reeve]

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

And you assume that more words mean more clarity? I assure you, it's far easier to confuse people by speaking at length than by providing specific words with already agreed-upon definitions.

Yeah, using more words doesn't necessarily mean greater clarity either.

Let's be honest here, pretty much everyone who has argued against specific words with agreed-upon definitions has done it, deep down, out of laziness and disinterest. You just don't want to keep up with the progress.

You clearly don't appreciate the weaknesses and vagueness involved in communication.

 

[Reeve]

You should chill out.

Mhm. Standard diversion tactic. Instead of engaging the argument, you appeal to an emotion fallacy.

I wasn't attempting to engage your argument though. Just making a comment

EDIT: Hilariously, it's also you who are calling people names. Perhaps you should help yourself to a chill pill.

It's nearly 5 in the morning where I am. I have had a long day and am exhausted. Don't expect me to be in the most chipper mood!

 

[Darken12]

Yeah, using more words doesn't necessarily mean greater clarity either.

Then your argument is flawed.

You clearly don't appreciate the weaknesses and vagueness involved in communication.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Allow me a sardonic laugh at the idea of precise words with agreed-upon meanings being somehow weaker and vaguer in communicating ideas than long, made-up-on-the-spot paragraphs.

EDIT:

It's nearly 5 in the morning where I am. I have had a long day and am exhausted. Don't expect me to be in the most chipper mood!

Then don't tell other people to do something you yourself aren't doing.

 

[Reeve]

I'm not saying we should ban actual use of these terms. I'm not stupid enough to think we should actually make sure people aren't allowed to use words. My very first post was not me advocating some political stance or anything like that. It was me expressing what I personally thought - i.e. for me it's easier if complex terms aren't thrown around because describing exactly what you like etc. is always going to be clearer than a blanket term. But this is the Internet where people seem to think that if I make a statement without adding silly things like "in my opinion" that means I'm trying to force the view on everyone.

Just as a point of reference, here are your first two posts again. You don't mention any kind of difficulty understanding complex terms. You just say that we shouldn't have such categories at all.

The first post was a question. The key word in that post being "to me."

In today's society of course sexual orientation etc. needs highlighting but eventually I suspect it won't be an issue any more i.e. it would be redundant to slap names on behaviours because they'll have been accepted as normal. Nobody cares about the name for whatever the majority is.

 

[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.

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...

That seemed funnier in my head, and I forget how sensitive of an issue it is. [small]This is why I shouldn't be allowed to post while intoxicated.[/small]

I don't actually believe they don't exist or that there's nothing beyond LGBT, however some of it I do not understand. The third gender, for example, is a concept I struggle with. Asexuality and Intersexed people are easy concepts to grasp and understand however.

To be honest I struggle to understand Transsexuality though, not having anything comparable in my own life.

 

[Reeve]

Yeah, using more words doesn't necessarily mean greater clarity either.

Then your argument is flawed.

Nope. The keyword is "necessarily" that means that it might do, it might not - but it doesn't have to...

You clearly don't appreciate the weaknesses and vagueness involved in communication.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Allow me a sardonic laugh at the idea of precise words with agreed-upon meanings being somehow weaker and vaguer in communicating ideas than long, made-up-on-the-spot paragraphs.

Laugh it up, I guess. You would be surprised with how little there really is agreed upon.

It's nearly 5 in the morning where I am. I have had a long day and am exhausted. Don't expect me to be in the most chipper mood!

Then don't tell other people to do something you yourself aren't doing.

Why not? I know what I'm doing is "wrong." That doesn't mean I can't recognise and advocate what the "right" thing to do is. xD Do as they say not as they do.

 

[Darken12]

Nope. The keyword is "necessarily" that means that it might do, it might not - but it doesn't have to...

Then the use of gay, trans, bi and so on also means they might serve their purpose just fine without any risk of confusion.

Laugh it up, I guess. You would be surprised with how little there really is agreed upon.

It also happens in the scientific community, particularly in radical new discoveries, and especially if they are simultaneous (happens very often). One scientist names a bacterium this, another one names it differently, we all have to keep going back and forth until we eventually settle for one name.

It's not that big of a deal.

Why not? I know what I'm doing is "wrong." That doesn't mean I can't recognise and advocate what the "right" thing to do is. xD Do as they say not as they do.

That's also called "being a bit of a hypocrite" where I'm from.

 

[Darken12]

That seemed funnier in my head, and I forget how sensitive of an issue it is. [small]This is why I shouldn't be allowed to post while intoxicated.[/small]

I don't actually believe they don't exist or that there's nothing beyond LGBT, however some of it I do not understand. The third gender, for example, is a concept I struggle with. Asexuality and Intersexed people are easy concepts to grasp and understand however.

To be honest I struggle to understand Transsexuality though, not having anything comparable in my own life.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were serious. Poe's Law and all that.

Well, I'll try to give you the best explanation I can:

Gender constructs and gender roles are arbitrary. They aren't biological, they are entirely made up by society and sustained by cultural inertia and traditionalism. Men are taught and pressured to be manly, and what constitutes as manliness varies from culture to culture and generation to generation, but it is always a list of traits and behaviours that all men are taught to strive for. Women, too, are taught to strive to be womanly. People are also taught to police each other's masculinity and femininity. Men are taught to mock and denigrate men who are not sufficiently manly or who are less manly than them, and women are taught to do the same with women who are less feminine than them or do not meet standards of femininity.

Some people do not agree with the message they are taught by society. They do not identify as the gender they are born in, and instead identify with the physical appearance, traits and behaviours of the opposite gender. These people are transgendered/transexuals, and most of them do believe in upholding traditional gender constructs- they just identify with the opposite gender they were born as.

Other people do not identify with either gender, and instead identify with either both genders simultaneously or with neither. These people are usually against traditional gender constructs, as they feel a very strong social pressure to conform to the gender they were born as, just like trans people, but they do not have the option of "passing" for either gender, which is an option that trans people do have (and often strive for). These people want to be allowed to be androgynous, agendered, third-gendered or whatever gender identity they identify as, but they are constantly policed by society, who sees them as a threat to the established gender constructs (because gender constructs are a tool of oppression, so without gender roles, it becomes very hard to convince men that risking their lives for the country is manly, or that women are supposed to be physically weak to be attractive, for example).

Does that help any?

 

[bananafishtoday]

Reeve, before you reply again, I just wanted to point something out: boots literally needed to explain to you the purpose of words. To be absolutely clear, not "this is what this word and that word are for," but "this is why our language has words in general." And by "need" I mean that you honestly did not understand this and it became necessary to explain it to you.

So... before you make any other comments such as

Why do you feel you have to misrepresent what I say in my posts?

or

You either have very poor ability at comprehending things you have just read or are trying to once again misrepresent what I said.

or

You clearly don't appreciate the weaknesses and vagueness involved in communication.

please take into account the possibility that it may be you who has a poor ability to communicate. This is not meant to be an attack on you. I understand this may be difficult for you to admit to yourself, and I'm only trying to help. It may be that everyone in this thread you've attempted to communicate your ideas to, including me, is incapable of understanding your precisely worded and masterfully crafted posts. I merely submit that this is statistically unlikely. I'm only looking out for your best interests. Please, Reeve. Before you post, think.

This has been a PSA on behalf of the Escapist community. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Spinozaad]

To be fair, call me prejudiced, call me old-fashioned, but when you have someone (a hypothetical example mind you)...

...who was physically born a man, but feels he is actually a woman, who is attracted to other women, well... At that point I throw in the towel and give up. I don't believe you, I don't acknowledge that to be real or true in any subjective or objective sense. Doesn't mean you can't "be" who you want to be/think you are. It's your life, you're not hurting me with it.

...but please, all these different categories are getting ridiculous. A shit is a shit, despite poop coming in different forms and shapes. We're all just humans, and we all just want to bone someone/something. Isn't that realisation enough?

-Edit-

The cold harsh point being that I personally think that a male who surgically "transforms" himself into a woman, is ultimately still a man.

I accept your right/desire to "become who you are", but don't expect me to accept your categorization of the world. In turn, I don't expect you to accept mine. Tolerance, people!

 

[Reeve]

I take back everything I said. I was wrong; other posters were right. I'm sorry for any offence caused.

Now I need to stop procrastinating on my uni work and never come back to this Satan-spawned thread!

Thanks and goodnight!

 

[Hap2]

To be fair, call me prejudiced, call me old-fashioned, but when you have someone (a hypothetical example mind you)...

...who was physically born a man, but feels he is actually a woman, who is attracted to other women, well... At that point I throw in the towel and give up. I don't believe you, I don't acknowledge that to be real or true in any subjective or objective sense. Doesn't mean you can't "be" who you want to be/think you are. It's your life, you're not hurting me with it.

...but please, all these different categories are getting ridiculous. A shit is a shit, despite poop coming in different forms and shapes. We're all just humans, and we all just want to bone someone/something. Isn't that realisation enough?

-Edit-

The cold harsh point being that I personally think that a male who surgically "transforms" himself into a woman, is ultimately still a man.

I accept your right/desire to "become who you are", but don't expect me to accept your categorization of the world. In turn, I don't expect you to accept mine. Tolerance, people!

So let's clear this up shall we?

"I don't understand you, therefore you do not exist!"

"Stop complicating my simplistic understanding of the world!"

"I don't believe that which contradicts my understanding of the world, therefore I am going to force my understanding on you instead, whether you like it or not."

Medical science disagrees with you, mate. Transgendered people in Canada and the US both have to prove to doctors that gender related issues have a great psychological toll on the individual in question, well before any surgery or hormone therapy can be approved. It is not a simple manner that one can dismiss as 'not true' merely because one is unable to comprehend it. When it comes to behaviour and variance, especially with humans, there is no such thing as 'simple'.

The labels are there for descriptive purposes, not to define a person in their entire being. If you are defining people with them as such, as though people can only be fit into categories if they attempt to use something to describe themselves with, then you are simply misusing language and conflating reality with your confusion. It is easier to say that I am asexual than it is to explain why I have no particular built-in inclination, something that I cannot help, for desiring sex with anyone of any gender. Does that mean I am purporting myself to be some stereotype like Sheldon Cooper off of the Big Bang Theory? Or that I am trying to cover up some sort of inadequacy? Not at all. To describe my sexuality is no different than me describing my hair colour as blonde, or saying my favourite food is vegetarian fresh rolls with peanut sauce. Some descriptions of others are going to be longer, depending on the context and how much detail there might be intertwined. Sexuality is anything but simple, and if we have to use a number of words to adequately convey the reality of the situation, so be it. It is much better to have a large number of descriptors that paint a more accurate picture than it is to distort reality by forcing everything to adhere to a few.

If there is a problem with defining people with labels, then it lies with those very same people who do not understand that the labels are mere descriptors for convenience-sake, not categories to 'fit people into boxes'. Language does not have to be simplified to avoid such conflicts; rather, people need to step back and take a good look at their own manner of perceiving things.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Oh, sorry, I thought you were serious. Poe's Law and all that.

Well, I'll try to give you the best explanation I can:

Gender constructs and gender roles are arbitrary. They aren't biological, they are entirely made up by society and sustained by cultural inertia and traditionalism. Men are taught and pressured to be manly, and what constitutes as manliness varies from culture to culture and generation to generation, but it is always a list of traits and behaviours that all men are taught to strive for. Women, too, are taught to strive to be womanly. People are also taught to police each other's masculinity and femininity. Men are taught to mock and denigrate men who are not sufficiently manly or who are less manly than them, and women are taught to do the same with women who are less feminine than them or do not meet standards of femininity.

Some people do not agree with the message they are taught by society. They do not identify as the gender they are born in, and instead identify with the physical appearance, traits and behaviours of the opposite gender. These people are transgendered/transexuals, and most of them do believe in upholding traditional gender constructs- they just identify with the opposite gender they were born as.

Other people do not identify with either gender, and instead identify with either both genders simultaneously or with neither. These people are usually against traditional gender constructs, as they feel a very strong social pressure to conform to the gender they were born as, just like trans people, but they do not have the option of "passing" for either gender, which is an option that trans people do have (and often strive for). These people want to be allowed to be androgynous, agendered, third-gendered or whatever gender identity they identify as, but they are constantly policed by society, who sees them as a threat to the established gender constructs (because gender constructs are a tool of oppression, so without gender roles, it becomes very hard to convince men that risking their lives for the country is manly, or that women are supposed to be physically weak to be attractive, for example).

Does that help any?

When I say I don't understand it's not that I don't know what it's about, it's more that I can't see things from their perspective as I have nothing comparable in my own life. I guess maybe discovering that I loved leather and metal rather than pretending to like rap and tracksuits might be somewhat similar if on a completely different scale...


I must say I disagree with gender constructs as a tool of oppression, or at least I disagree with that being their original intention or purpose. (I'm going to include a disclaimer here that I'm probably misunderstanding what you mean by gender construct while I attempt to crawl across this minefield with two broken legs and one arm.) The idea of the male as the protector and the female as the child bearer probably originated as a primal thing necessary for the continuation of the species while we were still at threat from predators. Considering the rather slow rate at which humans produce offspring it would have been necessary for the males to protect the females while they were pregnant and vulnerable so as to preserve the continuation of the pack/tribe/whatever.

I'm not sure. I've never felt pressured to act a certain way because I'm biologically male but that doesn't mean others haven't. It's a large and complex issue that I don't really know where I fit into.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

You know what I don't understand? People who don't understand transsexuality. First, you need to understand the difference between gender and sex. For transgendered people, the gender (mind) and sex (body) are opposites of each other. They're not doing it for attention or to make themselves feel "special"; it's a genuine condition named "gender dysphoria" (I think it used to be called "gender identity disorder".

I watched this teenage trans boy (I think it was some kid from Cumbria) go onto a talk show tearfully attempting to persuade his parents to let him do surgery (or hormones; I can't remember), but they were refusing - for better reasons that others, to be fair (the father had heard of numerous people that'd undergone surgery, regretted it, and been unable to go back) - but refusing nonetheless. And you could see the emotion in his face, his eyes. He can't have been faking it. Why would he? He has nothing to gain by faking it, by pleading his parents on national television to let him become who he'd always wanted to be.

I can comprehend this, and I'm neither gay nor transgender, but I have one of the most important assets to humanity: empathy. I've had my friends try to deny my OCD for no other reason than "You don't do all the clean stuff as those people do, therefore you're just being weird". So why can I understand this, but others can't? None of you can know what other people feel in their bodies. You're not them, are you? You can't just smugly say, "You can do whatever you want to your own body, but don't expect me to tolerate your wishes - I'll still be thinking of you as another gender behind your back!", when you take for granted the fact that you were luckily born with the same gender and sex, therefore you've never been pressured to conform accordingly to whatever arbitrary gender guidelines have been set out before your birth into this society.

In a nutshell...it's not your body, so don't assume that you know everything there is to know about it, when you're not them. You're not even a psychologist.