LGBTAitp - Part Fourteen

[WarKitty]

Random question of the day:

How did wrestling get to be the epitome of heterosexual masculinity? You have a bunch of well-muscled guys in tiny spandex shorts wrestling and getting all sweaty.

[Serpentine]

Add to it the whole "was originally done in the nude covered in oil" thing...

[Coidzor]

Random question of the day:

How did wrestling get to be the epitome of heterosexual masculinity? You have a bunch of well-muscled guys in tiny spandex shorts wrestling and getting all sweaty.

Well, you've got people close to the physical ideal of maleness being violent, aggressive, and in competition with one another. Then you carefully repress thoughts of any of that other stuff as long as they're not actually boinking other dudes.

That's about the best way I can think of to explain that thought process or lack thereof anyway.

Generally though, for people, violence aspect would kinda outweigh any sexual aspect unless they were inclined to look for it, or it was gratuitously brought up. I imagine being reminded that men can actually be gay and having sports or wrestling as a related subject in their minds at the same time is part of why some people object as they do to gay athletes and give them grief.


Add to it the whole "was originally done in the nude covered in oil" thing...

Well, yes, but the less thought about the Greeks of Antiquity and sexuality, the better, really. Much better to think about SPAAAAARTAAAAA!!

[Asta Kask]

Random question of the day:

How did wrestling get to be the epitome of heterosexual masculinity? You have a bunch of well-muscled guys in tiny spandex shorts wrestling and getting all sweaty.

Apparently erections are quite common during wrestling matches.

But as a heterosexual lad with heterosexual male friends... it is not seen as the epitome of heterosexual masculinity. On the contrary, anyone who is a wrestler is immediately 'under suspicion' as it were. But we wouldn't say anything to his face, obviously, because he can put us in a headlock and break our arms, but still...

[AmberVael]

So, I think I met someone last night who's MtF. But I'm not sure. And, as always, there's no non-insulting way I can think to ask regardless of the answer.

Damn my relentless curiosity. If I weren't so nosey and up in people's private business I'd get along with everyone so much better.

Really?

You could just ask if they're trans. That's not insulting, though it may be a little awkward depending on whether they are out or not (or are trans).

[Coidzor]

But as a heterosexual lad with heterosexual male friends... it is not seen as the epitome of heterosexual masculinity. On the contrary, anyone who is a wrestler is immediately 'under suspicion' as it were. But we wouldn't say anything to his face, obviously, because he can put us in a headlock and break our arms, but still...

I must say though, this has been the more common attitude towards, well, actual people who wrestle rather than personalities from Pro Wrestling.

[Serpentine]

Well, yes, but the less thought about the Greeks of Antiquity and sexuality, the better, really. Much better to think about SPAAAAARTAAAAA!!...you do realise that Sparta was mad on the whole boy-love thing, to the extent of pretty much institutionalising it, right?

[DeadManSleeping]

So, I think I met someone last night who's MtF. But I'm not sure. And, as always, there's no non-insulting way I can think to ask regardless of the answer.

Damn my relentless curiosity. If I weren't so nosey and up in people's private business I'd get along with everyone so much better.

Look off-balance, go straight in for the crotch-grope and fall one millisecond after. You just slipped, so why should she get offended? :smalltongue:

re Wrestling: To those of us with working brains, it's really not considered all that heterosexual. However, those closed-minded types don't really consciously see the sexual side of it. Wrestling is a pure expression of physical prowess, the ideal method of determining the alpha male. Physical dominance is a huge thing with males.

[Coidzor]

An example of my earlier point about humor not really working well, especially given the context of this thread, Rayne


...you do realise that Sparta was mad on the whole boy-love thing, to the extent of pretty much institutionalising it, right?

Yes, but do the kind of people who unironically like the whole SPAAAAAARTAAAAAAA thing know that? :smalltongue:


Really?

You could just ask if they're trans. That's not insulting, though it may be a little awkward depending on whether they are out or not (or are trans).

Unless they're not trans, in which case he's just told a cis-guy that he can't believe that he's not really a woman on the inside from the way he acts and carries himself or told a cis-woman that she's so ugly that he thought she was born a man.

That is to say, I can certainly see how that could be construed as insulting, especially to the person being asked.

And a transperson being offended due to the ultra-importance of passing and feeling embarrassed by not passing and being angry at anyone for pointing this out "to shame and embarrass them."

[AmberVael]

Unless they're not trans, in which case he's just told a cis-guy that he can't believe that he's not really a woman on the inside from the way he acts and carries himself or told a cis-woman that she's so ugly that he thought she was born a man.

I really hope I don't have to explain what is wrong with this to you.
And if I don't, I hope you'll understand why I'm not particularly empathetic towards people holding said views.

It's not an insult to anyone, and if they think it is, maybe that would be a good opportunity to explain why it isn't.


And a transperson being offended due to the ultra-importance of passing and feeling embarrassed by not passing and being angry at anyone for pointing this out "to shame and embarrass them."
Embarrassment I can see, but I wouldn't really call it insulting unless you handle it incorrectly. Nonetheless, it may be better to tread carefully.

Just to be clear, I am not encouraging asking unless it is relevant or important. It's probably better left alone. That said, properly handled, such a question does not have to be insulting.

[Heliomance]

It's easy for other MtFs to ask. The question then is "Are you a Sister?" If they are trans, you've told them it's okay to say because you are too. If they're not, they probably won't understand. If they're not but do understand, they're almost certainly supportive.

[Mina Kobold]

Random question of the day:

How did wrestling get to be the epitome of heterosexual masculinity? You have a bunch of well-muscled guys in tiny spandex shorts wrestling and getting all sweaty.

Well, this is just a hypothesis, but I have a guess.

Among some homophobes, can not say I know terribly many, there seem to be an equation of homosexuality with acting like the opposite gender. As such, acting stereotypically male and staying from anything percieved as feminine may be a way to show off their heteronormativety.

It makes no sense if you think about it, but it is all I can think of.

Other than kittens, they are adorable.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Cats_Petunia_and_Mimosa_2004.jpg/220px-Cats_Petunia_and_Mimosa_2004.jpg


It's easy for other MtFs to ask. The question then is "Are you a Sister?" If they are trans, you've told them it's okay to say because you are too. If they're not, they probably won't understand. If they're not but do understand, they're almost certainly supportive.

Until this post I would have replied "No, I am an only child"

I learnt something!

[Asta Kask]

I really hope I don't have to explain what is wrong with this to you.
And if I don't, I hope you'll understand why I'm not particularly empathetic towards people holding said views.

It's not an insult to anyone, and if they think it is, maybe that would be a good opportunity to explain why it isn't.

I wouldn't be insulted, but ask that of the wrong person and you have a face full of fist. I prefer my golentans in one piece.

[golentan]

I wouldn't be insulted, but ask that of the wrong person and you have a face full of fist. I prefer my golentans in one piece.

As do I. I don't think the question should be insulting, but I understand the reasons that people can and do view it as such. Basically, what coidzor summed up in his typically coidzor indelicately phrased way. Which is silly, because I actually think she's really beautiful (I believe I've mentioned my love of androgyny before, though only a couple dozen times), but it doesn't sound that way when asking to most people.

Meh. I guess I'll have to just let my curiosity go unsated for now. (http://keychain.patternspider.net/archive/koc0136.html) (second row of panels)

[Asta Kask]

****!

I just heard the worst crock of feces I've ever heard. Homosexuals are extra moral, and deserve more praise than others... provided, of course, they live in chastity. By overcoming these "perverse impulses" they show themselves to be extra moral.

I really, really, really, really, hate this moral and what it teaches. I hate this "you can only be moral if you wear the hair-shirt", if you live as a masochist, if you give up everything that's worth something to you.

And it has to be worth something. To be truly praiseworthy you have to burn with passion. An asexual wouldn't be praised for being chaste - but if he or she enters a relationship repulsive to her, to fulfill their duty - now there's a sacrifice.

So a homosexual can only be truly praiseworthy if he or she burns with lust, is plagued by visions of naked writhing bodies day and night, only then is the sacrifice complete.

Sorry, I just had to vent. :furious:

[Mono Vertigo]

By that logic, are bigots praiseworthy if they refrain from saying stupidities and overcome their bigotic impulses?
... that's just wishful thinking, isn't it?

[Gardener]

Generally if one is trans or genderqueer, those labels would take precedence over straight but not narrow, IIRC.

I meant people in general, not people wearing the label. Someone with the badge is straight and cisgendered, but sees nothing wrong with other people not being so.

Oh, never mind...

[rayne_dragon]

An example of my earlier point about humor not really working well, especially given the context of this thread, Rayne


*shrug* It either works or it doesn't. When there are misunderstanding they can either be explained or at least tend to lead to interesting topics.


Really?

You could just ask if they're trans. That's not insulting, though it may be a little awkward depending on whether they are out or not (or are trans).

I think it's an insulting thing to ask. It may not be offensive to everyone and might even be understandable under certain circumstances, but it is, in general, a rather rude thing to ask someone.

[golentan]

By that logic, are bigots praiseworthy if they refrain from saying stupidities and overcome their bigotic impulses?
... that's just wishful thinking, isn't it?

Yes, actually. I think they are.

[DeadManSleeping]

By that logic, are bigots praiseworthy if they refrain from saying stupidities and overcome their bigotic impulses?

Defying part of who you were to be better is always praiseworthy, no matter how low you started.

[Coidzor]

I really hope I don't have to explain what is wrong with this to you.
And if I don't, I hope you'll understand why I'm not particularly empathetic towards people holding said views.

I understand, yes. The way you had put it made it seem like you didn't understand how someone could possibly hold that view.

But having to go through a long and drawn out process of educating someone about what their worldview about certain questions being posed to them would be rather inconvenient and a waste of time, especially if one is unempathetic towards them as you seem to be recommending so that one's explanation is just so much wasted air in regards to actually getting them to change.

[AmberVael]

I think it's an insulting thing to ask. It may not be offensive to everyone and might even be understandable under certain circumstances, but it is, in general, a rather rude thing to ask someone.

I would make a distinction between rude and insulting. To me, rude implies lack of manner, discretion, and courtesy, while an insult would be specifically deriding one's character or person (or many other things).

I would certainly agree that it would be all too possible to be rather rude in bringing it up (though it doesn't have to be brought up in a rude manner), calling it insulting is basically implying that there is something wrong with being trans in the first place, which is why I felt compelled to post on the subject.

[Coidzor]

I would make a distinction between rude and insulting. To me, rude implies lack of manner, discretion, and courtesy, while an insult would be specifically deriding one's character or person (or many other things).


Most of the people whose definitions of insult I've come across seem to be using ones that a lot broader than the one you use, Vael.

I think there's actually an idiom or two that you're basically making it impossible to get the full gist of if you run with that distinction strictly. :smallconfused:

[golentan]

I would make a distinction between rude and insulting. To me, rude implies lack of manner, discretion, and courtesy, while an insult would be specifically deriding one's character or person (or many other things).

I would certainly agree that it would be all too possible to be rather rude in bringing it up (though it doesn't have to be brought up in a rude manner), calling it insulting is basically implying that there is something wrong with being trans in the first place, which is why I felt compelled to post on the subject.

It doesn't need to imply being trans is bad to imply someone has physical or personality traits that they'd rather not associate with, which can definitely be construed as a form of insult. I'd think that the fact that people can be trans is terrific evidence that people can find being mistaken for an undesired sex or gender uncomfortable in the extreme.

And it cuts both ways. If the person is trans but doesn't quite pass, being asked about it could bring up negative associations with their original body and be construed as an insult. Something along the lines of "you'll never be a real x, I can tell you're really y," even if it was not intended that way (which it wouldn't be in this case). But a perceived insult is as bad as an intended one in most ways.

I think at this point you're sticking to your guns for an admittedly noble purpose and matter of principle that is nonetheless not entirely relevant and in my mind not worth defending compared to the value of baser compromise. In this case hurting fewer feelings at the cost of acknowledging that something which should not hurt feelings can. *shrug* I suppose we all take our stands where we must.

[742]

As do I. I don't think the question should be insulting, but I understand the reasons that people can and do view it as such. Basically, what coidzor summed up in his typically coidzor indelicately phrased way. Which is silly, because I actually think she's really beautiful (I believe I've mentioned my love of androgyny before, though only a couple dozen times), but it doesn't sound that way when asking to most people.
hm, why do you have these suspicions? if its a physical feature you might try complimenting it then leading into question with that. not that it wont still be awkward and potentially cause offense, but much less so.

[Serpentine]

I really hope I don't have to explain what is wrong with this to you.
And if I don't, I hope you'll understand why I'm not particularly empathetic towards people holding said views.If they're a cisman, you're telling them they're a dude who looks like a dude trying to look like a lady. If they're a ciswoman, you're telling them they're a lady who looks like a dude trying to look like a lady. In factually inaccurate, crude, insensitive but frankly quite realistically of the type potentially thought, conciously or otherwise, by them, words.
From what Golentan said later it's quite likely that's not an issue cuz they're apparently nicely androgenous, but... well, to be blunt, at least certain varieties of "looking like the other sex" is not attractive, and to imply that someone does so can be quite insulting.
It's not a matter of "holding views", most likely. It's simply a matter of vanity.

[Knaight]

I would certainly agree that it would be all too possible to be rather rude in bringing it up (though it doesn't have to be brought up in a rude manner), calling it insulting is basically implying that there is something wrong with being trans in the first place, which is why I felt compelled to post on the subject.

Given the context, it doesn't matter if it is insulting, or if it should be insulting, merely if it is likely that someone could view it as insulting. As for that last part, it is likely that someone could view it as insulting, just like so many people view being homosexual as insulting. Its a shame, because the view that it is insulting might well be based upon the view that there is something wrong with being trans, and that view really needs to go away. Still, that it shouldn't be there isn't a reason to act as if it isn't there.

[Asta Kask]

Would it be insulting to say to a trans-man "You look like a real woman!"

[Mystic Muse]

Would it be insulting to say to a trans-man "You look like a real woman!"

It could be and likely would be since it kind of implies that they aren't really a woman.

[Serpentine]

Would it be insulting to say to a trans-man "You look like a real woman!"I think it depends on context and intent, but it's actually a question I'd quite like to have answered. Is it okay, for instance, to tell an MTF that it looks like their HRT is going really well because they're looking a lot more feminine than they were a few months ago, or is that drawing unwanted attention to the fact they're not born biologically female?

[Mystic Muse]

I think it depends on context and intent, but it's actually a question I'd quite like to have answered. Is it okay, for instance, to tell an MTF that it looks like their HRT is going really well because they're looking a lot more feminine than they were a few months ago, or is that drawing unwanted attention to the fact they're not born biologically female?

That one sounds a little more iffy and I would say depends on the person. It could easily be taken as either a compliment or an insult, although I would hope it would be taken as a compliment since that's clearly the intent. I don't think that's necessarily drawing attention to the fact that they aren't biologically female, it's just saying they look more female than they did a while ago.

[Ceric]

Huh. You knwo my first instinct would be to tell him to hurt his father by reporting that statement. Then again, I'm a bit angry at heart, especially when it comes to situations like this.

And as for the mom saying she wants to kill herself, that's the worst kind of emotional blackmail, and his counter should be to say as much, an dmake it clear that he won't feel responsible if she does so.

Yeah, I thought of the first one too.

Based on past history (well, one instance that I know of, but that's still history), she actually does feel that upset, rather than purposefully using it as blackmail.



If they love the kid

Tha'ts a big if. Heaven knows, I've dealt with enough people that were kicked (in some cases literally) out of their homes over this.

I went and asked my mom about this, since she knows the parents' personalities better than I do. The parents do love their kids, and there's pretty much no chance of them kicking him out of the house. The likely scenarios for the mom, then, are either that she'll (eventually) accept the son somehow, or she won't and will become depressed. The dad has a better chance of acceptance than the mom does, partially because he's been in this country longer and partially based on his personality.

Most of the lines I quoted from them was from their first-day reaction. We'll see how it pans out later...


I think bad news I'm afraid. My experiences from skepticism has taught me one thing - you can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into. If the parents are religious, it might help to find religious leaders who accept homosexuality, or point towards 'hating the sin but love the sinner'. It's a bad solution, horrible, but it might be the best solution there is.

That... is a really good way of phrasing something I'd only half thought of. :smallsigh: And yes, they're religious, and that's one of their biggest issues with this.


@Ceric:
Sadly, my opinion is that there's no real way to reason his parents. If there are arguments you could use, there is a very real risk they will react badly and not listen.
The best thing to do for him? When he's ready, he should go live somewhere away from his parents, and lead a happy, healthy life without their influence. Go for pacific revenge. If they do love their son, they'll miss him; and they will have to recognize that he's managed to find a decent job, that he caught no bad STD since he left, and, hopefully, that he will have found a man who loves and support him. Either they will struggle to point at issues that obviously don't exist ("OMG HOMELESS", "OMG AIDS", etc) and everyone sane will safely ignore them, either they will have to recognize that they were wrong.

That's the best solution I can think of. It's long, it's not guaranteed to succeed, but it is better than trying to reason them right now. And it seems I'm not the only one to believe this.

To be frank, I don't actually know what the son is doing about his parents. He's currently in France with his orchestra program. Lucky guy :smalltongue: I'm getting most of this information from my mom about his mom, because they're fairly close friends (although my family is much more liberal than theirs) and his mom was the one who contacted mine, in near-hysterics, for someone to vent to just a few days after the son came out. But I do think that, if he needed to, he could definitely last long enough to take this solution, get out of the house, and start a life by himself. Both his siblings completely support him, as do all of his friends at school.

And if it were me, it's definitely the solution I would take >.> He's far braver than me. I would have waited until moving to college before telling parents like his, if not longer >.>

Thank you for all the replies! :smallsmile:

[Mono Vertigo]

Yes, actually. I think they are.


Defying part of who you were to be better is always praiseworthy, no matter how low you started.

Actually, my point was that, by exploiting that kind of logic, one could invite a bigot to stop telling everyone else what's praiseworthy or not. The "wishful thinking" part of my comment was meant to say that in fact, it's unlikely many bigots would be completely coherent with their own logic and shut up. :smallwink:

[Lissou]

calling it insulting is basically implying that there is something wrong with being trans in the first place, which is why I felt compelled to post on the subject.

I don't think so. A lot of people are insulted by being called things they are not, regardless of these things being an insult.
Putting transgenderism aside for a second, women generally see it as an insult if you think they're men, and men if you think they're women. Neither is better than the other though, but it can hurt them. Similarly, being thought older or younger than you actually are can be thought insulting and hurt, even though there is nothing wrong with being younger or older.
Simply, the person hears it as "I don't look the way I should look" or possibly "I don't look the way I want to look" and it hurts their feelings. If someone is dressed and you ask what they're dressed as and they were just trying to be pretty or fancy, it hurts their feelings and is insulting, even though there is nothing wrong with costumes and cosplay.
If you tell someone they have a nice daughter when it's their sister, they're likely to feel hurt you thought that and see it as insulting, even though there is nothing wrong with having a daughter.

And so on and so forth. The insulting part isn't the content of what you say, but the fact it's not true, and that in many case, it not being obvious is considered a bad thing in itself.

[Asta Kask]

Again an example of something that can be a compliment or an insult, depending on context. Do not ask a woman if she's pregnant unless you are really, really sure. Especially if they're of the voluptuous body-type and sensitive about their weight. My leg still hurts on windy days. :smalleek:

[golentan]

hm, why do you have these suspicions? if its a physical feature you might try complimenting it then leading into question with that. not that it wont still be awkward and potentially cause offense, but much less so.

Facial shape, bone structure, adams apple and what sounded like the occasional voice slip.

[Coidzor]

Would it be insulting to say to a trans-man "You look like a real woman!"

Well you're basically saying they suck at passing... :smallconfused:

[Qaera]

Isn't the adam's apple definitive? :smallconfused:

[Mina Kobold]

Isn't the adam's apple definitive? :smallconfused:

Not neccesarily, I think.

The adam's apple exist in most humans (I believe it's rather essential to speaking) but it is usually more prominent in males.

It should be possible for a female to have it for another reason, or simply appear to do.

Or if one is intersex, then it would be natural to have one. If I use that word right. ^_^'

[Lissou]

Yeah, I'm definitely female, and while my adam's apple generally doesn't show, I can feel it and it shows on some pictures, at some angles and stuff like that. Women have them too, they're just smaller (which is linked with the higher pitched voice). There can also be some hormonal stuff that causes it to look like someone has an adam's apple when it's actually something else (like thyroid issues for instance).

Usually though, Adam's apple means male body. This being said, it could still be a cisgendered male.

[Coidzor]

Isn't the adam's apple definitive? :smallconfused:

Not quite definitive.

Wrists are the closest to definitive from what'd I heard, but even then...

[golentan]

Usually though, Adam's apple means male body. This being said, it could still be a cisgendered male.

No it couldn't. They're definitely a woman, whether born that way or not.

[Qaera]

Huh. TIL.

Lately I've been thinking about Sex Education in schools. All I seem to remember from mine was ways to practice safe heterosexual sex, but not really any alternatives (we always joked about the kids who would take notes). I can understand how some people don't want to get explicit, but really the purpose of the class is to teach how to practice safe sex regardless of orientation. Maybe they think if they don't talk about it, it won't happen? Is there a way to change this?

[golentan]

Well, IMO, most of the safe sex tips are equally valid for alternate orientations. For example: Always use a Condom or Dental Dam is good advice no matter who you are or who you're doing it with, and the mechanics of these things do not significantly change with the gender or specific acts of the participants. So... yeah...

[Lissou]

No it couldn't. They're definitely a woman, whether born that way or not.

Ah. Well I haven't seen her so I wouldn't know :)

About the sex ed, the one I had focused on birth control, and there wasn't much about STDs. I mean we were taught about them, and taught "use condoms on top of birth control" (we were never told to consider condoms a form of birth control because they're apparently not effective and reliable enough). And well it's not quite exhaustive even for heterosexual sex (they didn't tell us about dental dams or how to make one from condoms, or to use gloves. They also didn't talk about what to do with toys, that is use different toys for each orifice or change condoms when you change orifices, be it the same person or different people).

[Delusion]

So, today was Helsinki Pride. I had been planning on going ever since I heard that Finland actually had pride parades a year ago. (it should have been pretty obvious before that too, but I had never even thought about).

Quess what. I didn't go.:smallsigh:

Two days ago I got letter stating that I didn't get to the university I had planned on going. So last two days I have been too depressed to do anything, even asking if any of my friends were going and if we could meet. So today morning I realised that I would be alone in there and that it 32 degrees celcius so I stayed home, depressed as ever playing TF2.

[Asta Kask]

We were taught about STDs and pregnancies. Not much about LGBs except "Yeah, they're no different when it comes to this". I'm not sure whether that's good or bad. I don't remember anything about Ts or As, but my memory is far from perfect and it was almost 20 years ago.


Two days ago I got letter stating that I didn't get to the university I had planned on going. So last two days I have been too depressed to do anything, even asking if any of my friends were going and if we could meet. So today morning I realised that I would be alone in there and that it 32 degrees celcius so I stayed home, depressed as ever playing TF2.

It happens, but its rarely a big deal, at least in Sweden (and I think Finland's pretty close). You can almost always switch in your second year if you ask around and make the effort. So chin up young lady.

[Delusion]

Oh I am definately applying a again next year. Its more about that the part where I failed in was the interview (its program (I think thats the word) to become a teacher), which means that they don't think I would make a good or acceptable teacher or something, which has ubercharged my inferiority complex (did I meantion I have been playing TF2 a lot lately?) and I don't think I will ever find a job I can handle.

Though I think thats suited for depression thread if I were to elaborate more on that :smallsigh:

[Asta Kask]

Yeah, poor self-esteem is not something I can fix - otherwise I'd fix my own.

[Ashtagon]

Isn't the adam's apple definitive? :smallconfused:

http://whadawethink.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/adamann.jpg

Ann Coulter disagrees.

[Qaera]

http://whadawethink.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/adamann.jpg

Ann Coulter disagrees.

No he doesn't :smalltongue:

[Blisstake]

Well, IMO, most of the safe sex tips are equally valid for alternate orientations. For example: Always use a Condom or Dental Dam is good advice no matter who you are or who you're doing it with, and the mechanics of these things do not significantly change with the gender or specific acts of the participants. So... yeah...

Lesbians don't have much use for birth control, though :smallsmile:

I am now going to look up Dental Dam.

[rayne_dragon]

I would make a distinction between rude and insulting. To me, rude implies lack of manner, discretion, and courtesy, while an insult would be specifically deriding one's character or person (or many other things).

I would certainly agree that it would be all too possible to be rather rude in bringing it up (though it doesn't have to be brought up in a rude manner), calling it insulting is basically implying that there is something wrong with being trans in the first place, which is why I felt compelled to post on the subject.

Ahh, I see what you mean. I don't think there's anything wrong with being trans, but there is still a lot of social stigma around it. Plus I'm not sure that most transfolk enjoy it being pointed out that they're different than a cisperson of their gender. If anything it seems like trans people are more likely to be highly sensitive about which gender they are percieved as.


I think it depends on context and intent, but it's actually a question I'd quite like to have answered. Is it okay, for instance, to tell an MTF that it looks like their HRT is going really well because they're looking a lot more feminine than they were a few months ago, or is that drawing unwanted attention to the fact they're not born biologically female?

I would also say that this depends on the situation. In a general case, I'd say it's not okay. However, if one is a close friend of the trans person in question and they're open to talking to you about their transitioning, then it can actually be an acceptable compliment.


Not quite definitive.

Wrists are the closest to definitive from what'd I heard, but even then...

Wrists? Hmmm, you don't happen to have a source for this information do you? I don't think I've seen a woman with manish wrists, but I've seen men with rather feminine wrists, so I'm curious to know more about this.


http://whadawethink.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/adamann.jpg

Ann Coulter disagrees.

That's not that significantly noticable... people always get so focused on little details.... :smallannoyed:

[Coidzor]

Wrists? Hmmm, you don't happen to have a source for this information do you? I don't think I've seen a woman with manish wrists, but I've seen men with rather feminine wrists, so I'm curious to know more about this.

best friend's mother in HS collected art of transvestites. One of the tells she mentioned was the wrists, which are one of the few things even experts have difficulty hiding if they have 'em.

[golentan]

best friend's mother in HS collected art of transvestites. One of the tells she mentioned was the wrists, which are one of the few things even experts have difficulty hiding if they have 'em.

Could you elaborate, peas? I don't actually know what the difference in wrists would be, visually. I've always just thought of them as a basic joint and never really looked for variation.

[Coidzor]

Could you elaborate, peas? I don't actually know what the difference in wrists would be, visually. I've always just thought of them as a basic joint and never really looked for variation.

Not really sure, I believe something about the way the bone of the wrist is visible vs. the contours of the flesh due to fat distribution due to hormones, which may or may not be altered by any hormones or other things one was taking. Something about width as well, kinda taking a break from fireworks though so anything you can google on this would probably get more information more quickly.

sorry

[Serpentine]

My wrist has no contours :/
Lately I've been thinking about Sex Education in schools. All I seem to remember from mine was ways to practice safe heterosexual sex, but not really any alternatives (we always joked about the kids who would take notes). I can understand how some people don't want to get explicit, but really the purpose of the class is to teach how to practice safe sex regardless of orientation. Maybe they think if they don't talk about it, it won't happen? Is there a way to change this?I don't remember much about my Sex Ed. I did about 3 assignments on siphillis, and were shown a variety of contraceptives... I don't think homosexuality was actively excluded, and I don't know that it was stressed at all as "when you have heterosexual sex between a man and a woman in which the P goes in the V" sorta thing. I believe, in other words, that homosexuality was at least mentioned, and that the advice was generally useful either way.
What I do remember is a fascinating video about some island off... Africa, maybe? Where a massive proportion of girls would hit puberty and, bam, they're boys. It happens so often that it's pretty much normal now, even if the roles of the sexes are quite distinct.

By the way, I think the teachers were always pretty aware that a not insignificant portion of the class was already sexually active or would be soon. Things like (not actually, but like): "Of course, the only completely 100% way to ensure no pregnancy and no STDs is abstinence." *beat* "Ha!"

[WarKitty]

Practical PSA: For those of us who missed sex ed completely or didn't get sufficient, there's a lovely site out there - just google scarleteen. Answers pretty much every question you could come up with.

I suspect that homosexual sex is still considered to coincide with "kinky" sex, since a lot of heterosexual people consider anything that's not standard PIV "kinky." Of course, I never really got sex ed...

[Coidzor]

^: good to know. always useful to have a somewhat reliable and decent sex reference other than anecdote or clinical stuff.
My wrist has no contours

Wait, what? :smallconfused: ...What does that even mean?

[Serpentine]

My wrists are just tubes. They go smoothly from arm to palm. No curves.

[Coidzor]

My wrists are just tubes. They go smoothly from arm to palm. No curves.

Odd, everyone has flesh as far as I ever knew. and as far as I know, there's like contours due to the way the skin is setup with those breaks and lines and things.

Are you meaning you have no bulge? because tha'ts supposed to be one of the main differences beftwn men and women.

edit: hmm. I think that's trying to say something to me about whether I should be posting or not. haha. sorry.

[KenderWizard]

Catholic school in small town in Ireland; guess how much sex ed I had? :smallsigh: We didn't even get as far as "Sex is only for making babies. You will go to hell if you don't practice abstinence." We had no sex ed whatsoever. We did have a nice lady from Always sanitary products come to tell us about periods and how it was important to use Always (TM). That was one half an hour one time, and she just gave her talk and gave us each an Always starter pack and that was it.

Actually, when I was in my final year, the head girl tried to make it an issue. She went to the principal and vice principals and made the case for having proper sex ed. They said "Why would we need sex ed? Girls in this school are good, they don't have sex." Head girl said "Well, actually, we have had some pregnancies..." They didn't believe her, so she went around and made a list of the girls who'd dropped out because they got pregnant. When she showed them the list they accused her of listening to nasty rumours about nice girls who moved away or got homeschooled. She pointed out that some of them clearly had babies. One even brought her baby in to visit. They said that was just nice girls looking after younger siblings, and she shouldn't jump to conclusions. So, that was that. Her list had 13 names on it, of girls from our year. In final year, there were 128 girls in the year. I think our year was particularly bad, but that's basically a 1 in 10 chance of pregnancy. "[School's name] girls don't have sex."

So yeah. LGBT wasn't mentioned. I suspect that if we had had sex ed, it would have been heteronormative or bust, and probably featured a married couple.

[Mono Vertigo]

That story is horrifying. How can people be truly that naive and stupid?! :smalleek:
In my catholic (in name only) school, we had unremarkable sex ed. We only had one or two hour of it, and much of it was wasted with classmates giggling or making derpy comments over the teacher's explanations. We did, however, have a prop of male genitals and a demonstration on how to put a condom on. More idiotic laughters ensued. Those who were interested and wanted to listen didn't hear all the details; I know I didn't. :smallsigh: And no, no mention of LGBT, though I remember no teacher pretended they didn't exist.
(For the record, we were pseudo-catholic because we had one or two years of religion course... studying the bible from a more philosophical than theological approach, and the rest of the religion course was about studying other religions, and actual issues related to it, such as abortion. Moreover, I believe more students were either openly atheistic, Muslims, or pretended to practice catholicism. And this is a Belgian school.)

In particular, we studied basic (Freudian :smalltongue:) psychology and took a quick look at the DMS-V. Of course, we talked briefly about sexual deviancy. Homosexuality, transvestism and transexuality were mentioned as "having a less-clearly defined status as mental disorders", and very shortly after that, in a seemingly-unrelated topic, said teacher spent a lot of time explaining the concepts of normalcy and deviancy, how normalcy was subjective, and how behaviours that should be considered "normal" (in that they were done by a significant number of people AND didn't hurt anybody) were still considered against social rules.
That man was awesome; one lesson was about the Milgram experiment. And it made me immediately fall in love with social psychology, and led me to think thoroughly about the concepts of good, evil, and normalcy. I suggest you guys look up that experiment if you're unfamiliar with it; I warn you it is cruel and is a trigger related to death and torture, but the results and justifications of participants truly make you think. :smallredface:

But otherwise, until the age of 17-18, I believe all LGBT sexual education I had came from fan-translated doujinshis. :smallbiggrin: I got better.

[Coidzor]

That story is horrifying. How can people be truly that naive and stupid?! :smalleek:

Well, it is horrifying. But not because they're naive and stupid. Because they're adults in a position of authority over children who have basically revealed that they have no ethical constraints from out and out lying to children in a way that will cause them harm.

They know what's going on, but they either are unwilling to do what is right or have a vested interest in making sure that things do not go as they should.

And they're in charge of children. :smallyuk:

[golentan]

I have a relevant anecdote for how I feel on the subject. When I was a kid there was a scare at my school because some kids were caught with hard drugs. The school called a general PTA to let people know. When my dad got back, he gave me an hour long lecture on why these things were dangerous (if I hadn't known before), and how he hoped I'd never do them, and how he trusted me to make the right decisions if my friends pressured me (he gave examples of why he trusted me :smallsmile:). And then he followed up with a crash course on needle safety. I'm never going to so much as smoke, but at least if I went off the deep end I'd be doing it as safely as possible. You should do what it takes to watch out for the welfare of your kids, whatever that means. And it usually means teaching them how to watch out for themselves, even in situations they should never be in.

[Serpentine]

That's very cool :smallsmile: I dunno... Anything I could do, my sister's done worse, so I just have her to ask about anything that might come up.

[Qaera]

DMS-V.
Are you from the future? :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

Yes. She wants to know if you are familiar with the name Sarah Connor.

[Qaera]

Erm, no? Who is that?

[golentan]

I'll tell you later. But now I have to run. Don't worry: I'll be back.

[Mystic Muse]

Erm, no? Who is that?

Protagonist from Terminator 1 and Terminator 2.

[Coidzor]

Protagonist from Terminator 1 and Terminator 2.

Mother of the year, 1985-92. :smallamused:

[Serpentine]

Hey, I think the latest SMBC has a girl asking another girl to the prom - and her saying yes! I think. It's a bit unclear.

[golentan]

Hey, I think the latest SMBC has a girl asking another girl to the prom - and her saying yes! I think. It's a bit unclear.

Huh. It may be, but it's almost impossible for me to tell without seeing the asker better.

[Asta Kask]

Erm, no? Who is that?

Now I feel really old.

[sparkyinbozo]

In particular, we studied basic (Freudian :smalltongue:) psychology and took a quick look at the DMS-V. Of course, we talked briefly about sexual deviancy. Homosexuality, transvestism and transexuality were mentioned as "having a less-clearly defined status as mental disorders", and very shortly after that, in a seemingly-unrelated topic, said teacher spent a lot of time explaining the concepts of normalcy and deviancy, how normalcy was subjective, and how behaviours that should be considered "normal" (in that they were done by a significant number of people AND didn't hurt anybody) were still considered against social rules.

I'm guessing that was a DSM I or II? As a sidenote, the talk of "abnormal vs weird vs uncommon vs disordered" IS a really, really important one to have, even misguided as it may be.

[Coidzor]

Hey, I think the latest SMBC has a girl asking another girl to the prom - and her saying yes! I think. It's a bit unclear.

Ahh, ambiguity.

[Mono Vertigo]

I'm guessing that was a DSM I or II? As a sidenote, the talk of "abnormal vs weird vs uncommon vs disordered" IS a really, really important one to have, even misguided as it may be.

...II. Mental lapsus. :smallfrown:
So, no, sorry, I'm not really Sarah Connor, though I DID have an @skynet address at some point...

[Asta Kask]

Eh. We all have brainfarts. I spent a good deal of a thread arguing against a position no one, in fact, held. :smallredface:

[Rappy]

While it's only tangentially related to this thread, I was testing out the new items and functions of the latest expansion pack for the game Sims 3, and it appears that Electronic Arts allowed crossdressing into the game with Sims 3: Generations' "play dressup" function.

Hopefully this is an intentionally progressive moment and not a "bug" that gets "fixed" in the next patch.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

[DeadManSleeping]

I'm going to guess it's intentional. As I recall, for a while now, the Sims has allowed "gayer than Paris in the springtime" to be quite easy to play (though they don't let you adopt kids yet, I don't think).

Either way, though, it's good to hear. For some reason, I get endless joy out of putting "female" clothing on male Gaiavatars in tektek. I have no idea why.

[Jacklu]

Message from anonymous person! Looks like I got here before Smee this time.



My parents are not the most accepting people in the world. When I was
younger and didn't quite understand that they wouldn't support my
bisexuality, I tried to come out to my mother. She told me it was a phase. I
actually believed her for a while, but three years have since passed and I'm
still attracted to both sexes. I recently met a fabulous girl who I am
overjoyed to say is now my first girlfriend, and I believe my mother has
picked up on my lovestruck ways. I also just got a rather "butch" haircut,
and since then my mother, father, and brother have started in on the
lesbian/transgender jokes. These jokes are stupid and prejudiced, but
they're bothering me. I tried to tell my family they were hurting me, and
was told to toughen up and stop being so sensitive.

I've rambled a bit, for which I apologize. The point is, how can I avoid
destroying my relationships with my family and still get them to be less
offensive? Advice?

[Serpentine]

It could just be their way of coping with a situation that's making them uncomfortable. "Refuge in humour", that sorta thing. Don't have much advice on getting them to stop, though. At the less confrontational end, you could sorta just express your disapproval at them - don't even crack a smile, maybe roll your eyes or shake your head, maybe sigh, and otherwise ignore it.

[Blisstake]

Oh boy. Yesterday I had a dream where I, uh, got very intimate with a woman. I'm fairly certain I'm gay, and don't find women sexually attractive, so the whole thing was a complete shock when I woke up. But in the dream itself, it felt perfectly normal.

I have no idea what to think about this.

[golentan]

Yeah, not much you can do to make them stop, it sounds like. Am I to assume they know about your galpal, as it sounds like? If not, I'd recommend opening up (they don't sound actively intolerant so much as passively, though that is admittedly harder to deal with) and it might make them think about why some of the comments get under your skin. If they're ribbing you just because of the hair, for example, they might adjust tack if they found out that hey, that is hitting close to home. If they do know already, as Serp says humor is a coping mechanism, albeit one which can be exclusionary. An odd suggestion that I find handy would be to tell a queer joke of your own, and while they're laughing tell a straight joke, or one that lampoons several orientations. It makes you part of the circle and equalizes everyone at the same time, and is an excellent social "weapon" to prevent fights.

Obviously, this all varies based on your superior understanding of causes and dynamics within your family and what you feel comfortable with. My go to piece of advice: Do what you think is best.

Edit: @bliss... So... What's the problem? People have dreams all the time of all varieties, and pleasure responses are pleasure responses. Heck, I once had a wet dream involving a singing lobster dinner and the Great Pyramid filled with this weird library thing. I... uh... did figure that one out but I don't feel very comfortable talking about what the symbolism meant. But my point is at least if you're sticking to humans you're orders of magnitude more normal than me, and I don't consider my stuff to be worrisome.

[Qaera]

Obviously it is a phallic symbol representing your latent and repressed homose- hmm. I've never had to check sex off my failproof dream analysis checkboard. The last explanation is aggression. Yup. Cause you're male. Angry man hit stuff, show men you man.

Luckily, we've learned more about dreams, namely that they don't really mean as much as we used to think. I believe it's just the brains way of going through events the previous day. So maybe you had an intimate (read: close, not sexy close) experience with a moment, and also happened to be thinking normal gay thoughts, and whoopsedoo brain mixed em up. Or you could be simulating what you think should have happened to you, if your family is particularly unaccepting. If you're a Leo, then watch out for Capricorns trying to get you to go to house parties.

Just my 2¢ dream analysis horoscope.

[Blisstake]

I don't know why it disturbed me so much. I mean, I've had dreams where I was eaten by my parents (whom I have no issues with... I think), and murdered by myself.

Although I typically remember about 3 dreams a year, so I probably put more stock into them than I should...

[Coidzor]

I also just got a rather "butch" haircut,
and since then my mother, father, and brother have started in on the
lesbian/transgender jokes. These jokes are stupid and prejudiced, but
they're bothering me. I tried to tell my family they were hurting me, and
was told to toughen up and stop being so sensitive.

I've rambled a bit, for which I apologize. The point is, how can I avoid
destroying my relationships with my family and still get them to be less
offensive? Advice?

There isn't any really on that actual front, your family has basically decided that they want to destroy their relationships with you. Right now, it's not so much avoiding destroying your relationships with them as it is convincing them not to dissolve your familial bonds more than they already have. Now how you go about doing that depends on how much things are already deteriorated and your prior relationship and so on. And I'm kinda blanking out on specific stratagems anyway.

The fact that their jokes are stupid and bigoted and not even actually funny for it should bother you, not be something you use to make excuses for their bad behavior in mistreating you. Or shifting blame onto yourself for their ill use of you.

...Plus, if senses of humor are genetic at all...:smalleek:


Oh boy. Yesterday I had a dream where I, uh, got very intimate with a woman. I'm fairly certain I'm gay, and don't find women sexually attractive, so the whole thing was a complete shock when I woke up. But in the dream itself, it felt perfectly normal.

I have no idea what to think about this.

So, you have two options here. 1. Don't Panic or 2. find a decent person to talk to that knows such things to have it out with and work through whether you're repressed or what.

[Mono Vertigo]

Oh boy. Yesterday I had a dream where I, uh, got very intimate with a woman. I'm fairly certain I'm gay, and don't find women sexually attractive, so the whole thing was a complete shock when I woke up. But in the dream itself, it felt perfectly normal.

I have no idea what to think about this.

Well, despite what some "experts" claim, no, significant dreams are NOT common. It's a bunch of daytime events and thoughts mixed together, or random mental scenarios that are not significant. Or maybe they're even symbolic of other, seemingly unrelated or actually benign things (yes, sex can be a metaphor for innocent things! Isn't the brain amazing?). By the way, there is no universal dictionary of symbols. While similar experiences pop up often in the collective imaginary, their meaning can change wildly from person to person... if there even is a meaning.
Your reaction to these dreams is usually more important to their content. But again, it's difficult to gauge from your post alone. Don't be shocked just because you were told dreams hold messages, it would be the same as finding a painting pretty just because someone said it's pretty.

Oh, and last but not least, there's a characteristic that trumps both the content and your reaction; it's the frequency of the dream. If the same core elements pop up regularly... yeah, maybe there's something at work. Until that pops up again though, there's no reason to fear for your sexuality or sanity. :smallwink:

[Serpentine]

I regularly dream about my teeth falling out...
WHERE'S YOUR SCIENCE NOW

[742]

I don't know why it disturbed me so much. I mean, I've had dreams where I was eaten by my parents (whom I have no issues with... I think), and murdered by myself.

Although I typically remember about 3 dreams a year, so I probably put more stock into them than I should...

its probably just mind****ery, revenge on yourself, self loathing, drugs, or a really really strange chain of thought. ive had stranger.

if it has to mean something then maybe its that your secretly some imperceptible amount bi and in denial, as cliche and reverse cliche as that may sound. maybe even the exact opposite if you were feeling insecure, a misguided internal attempt to confirm your sexuality by guessing what you(low level) think it might be like to be straight, then showing you the difference.
oooh or maybe the sex represents baseball which represents the pacific ocean which represents the abstract notion of loneliness in the universe which represents the last movie you watched which represents sigmund freud who represents sex and unusual sex based dreams, she represents your mother who represents your father who represents your pet goldfish who represents your favorite object of sexual desire who represents your pet goldfish(yes i saw that loop there.) who represents your father who represents your favorite food which represents you, who popped over from an alternate reality to find out exactly how good he is in bed, but something went wrong and the aforementioned chain of symbolism occured. when i overanalyze i dont do it halfway.:smalltongue:

[Mono Vertigo]

I regularly dream about my teeth falling out...
WHERE'S YOUR SCIENCE NOW

You secretly think you need a new dentist?
:smallbiggrin:
And I regularly have nightmares about having exams and hilariously failing them because I panic, haven't studied, had completely forgotten I had to pass them, or any combination of the above. Mostly means I have stressful memories of written exams, and that I'm still afraid sometimes of failure due to lack of preparation. Unlikely to totally go away until I've become an absolutely self-confident and arrogant beast. :smallwink:

No, honestly, I don't know about the teeth, it just tends to happen to a lot of people but me

[Serpentine]

My mum's 55 and still has nightmares about exams...

[Mono Vertigo]

Dayum. I hope I won't still have them when I'm 55, they're just dreams, but while I'm sleeping and convinced the exams are happening, I feel so stupid and helpless. :smallfrown:

[Anethiel]

Oh boy. Yesterday I had a dream where I, uh, got very intimate with a woman. I'm fairly certain I'm gay, and don't find women sexually attractive, so the whole thing was a complete shock when I woke up. But in the dream itself, it felt perfectly normal.

I have no idea what to think about this.

It happened to me too, quite recently. I didn't give it much weight, as my brain is known to randomly simulate improbable situations through dreams (as if they were some kind of "holodeck").


My mum's 55 and still has nightmares about exams...


Dayum. I hope I won't still have them when I'm 55, they're just dreams, but while I'm sleeping and convinced the exams are happening, I feel so stupid and helpless. :smallfrown:

It will never be over :smallfrown:

[DeadManSleeping]

I regularly dream about my teeth falling out...
WHERE'S YOUR SCIENCE NOW

It means they're spreading (http://xkcd.com/719/) :smalltongue:

[Blisstake]

All right, thanks guys. Sometimes I feel like my mind is telling me to be straight (not only in dreams, but... it's kind of hard to explain), even though I know I'm not. Nothing serious, I suppose, especially since I recently found out it's possible have wet dreams to something you aren't attracted to.

[Lissou]

It could be that you wish you were straight to fit in the norm or something, even in a very small amount. But it might also mean nothing, you probably see representation of straight sex a lot so your brain just showed it back to you. Could just be curiosity. I've definitely had dreams of having sex with women (both as a woman and as a man) and I'm definitely not attracted to them.

Of course, I remember several dreams per night on average, so I'm much harder to freak out. Especially about sex. I was told during dreams your body gets aroused, and as a result sex dreams about anything and everything are very common, or dreams not sexual in nature that have you wake up aroused. There are many things or people I've had dreams about having sex with (and liking it, and finding it perfectly normal) and then I woke up and went "WTH, dream?"

So I wouldn't worry about it. Just, you know, if it became a recurrent dream you can try to figure out if it means something, but a single dream is largely irrelevant.

Serp, maybe you grin your teeth as you sleep?

[Borgh]

All right, thanks guys. Sometimes I feel like my mind is telling me to be straight (not only in dreams, but... it's kind of hard to explain), even though I know I'm not. Nothing serious, I suppose, especially since I recently found out it's possible have wet dreams to something you aren't attracted to.

Also remember that physical attraction=/=mental attraction. Perfectly possible that vestiges of mental attraction (oh wow that woman is really smart) kicked in but somehow got linked to your physical attraction.

[KenderWizard]

I regularly dream about my teeth falling out...
WHERE'S YOUR SCIENCE NOW

I'm pretty sure that was a sign of terribly bad luck in Ancient Egypt. Avoid Ancient Egypt!

@Anonymous Person: That's a very unfortunate situation. I had a milder form of it for a long time, in that my father would tease me and make jokes at my expense. If you don't find it funny, it's really frustrating, because the more upset you get, the bigger a deal it is. I think the best advice is to try to slag them back or ignore it. Basically, try to not let it get to you. If it doesn't die off, try talking to them one at a time, starting with the one most likely to take your side. Say you're feeling rough and the teasing is making life hard for you, and can they just go easy?

[Coidzor]

All right, thanks guys. Sometimes I feel like my mind is telling me to be straight (not only in dreams, but... it's kind of hard to explain), even though I know I'm not. Nothing serious, I suppose, especially since I recently found out it's possible have wet dreams to something you aren't attracted to.

...You didn't go over that in Sex Ed? :smallconfused:

[KingOfLaughter]

Ah! My only issue with the whole going public is a few of my friends are total [insert plural noun] and as much as I know I shouldn't be friedns with them becuase of this, I want cause hell, I like my friends, they're my freidns for a reason, you know? I'm going to find out from one today when we hangout how he feels, and the rest is... Ugh I dunno...

[Asta Kask]

I regularly dream about my teeth falling out...
WHERE'S YOUR SCIENCE NOW

Well, according to this (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/teeth-falling-out-dream-meaning.html) site, it's a sign that you're coming close to menopause.

*looks at photos in You! thread*

You don't look a day over 40! :smallbiggrin:

[turkishproverb]

Oh boy. Yesterday I had a dream where I, uh, got very intimate with a woman. I'm fairly certain I'm gay, and don't find women sexually attractive, so the whole thing was a complete shock when I woke up. But in the dream itself, it felt perfectly normal.

I have no idea what to think about this.

Dreams like that are fairly normal. You have to remember, dreams usually aren't literal even when there's a logic to them.

[Coidzor]

Dreams like that are fairly normal. You have to remember, dreams usually aren't literal even when there's a logic to them.

Well, some of them can literally be like watching a movie of things happening as one watches as a disembodied audience, I've found. But they've never really had metaphysical significance so far. Or since, like, the 1960s.

[Lix Lorn]

It will never be over :smallfrown:
The same is true of the one with the green ranger. (http://xkcd.com/557/)

[golentan]

The same is true of the one with the green ranger. (http://xkcd.com/557/)

Mmm... Sexy Martial Arts men and Crisco...

[rayne_dragon]

Well, according to this (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/teeth-falling-out-dream-meaning.html) site, it's a sign that you're coming close to menopause.

*looks at photos in You! thread*

You don't look a day over 40! :smallbiggrin:

So... I've been close to menopause since I was 10? :smalltongue:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that I dream about my teeth falling out because I don't feel I take good enough care of them and I worry that they're going to fall out on me.

Not sure if that's the same for Serp though.

[Qaera]

So... I've been close to menopause since I was 10? :smalltongue:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that I dream about my teeth falling out because I don't feel I take good enough care of them and I worry that they're going to fall out on me.

Not sure if that's the same for Serp though.

Closer than about half the population, I bet. :smallwink:

[Serpentine]

Well, according to this (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/teeth-falling-out-dream-meaning.html) site, it's a sign that you're coming close to menopause.

*looks at photos in You! thread*

You don't look a day over 40! :smallbiggrin:Gee, thanks :smallsigh:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that I dream about my teeth falling out because I don't feel I take good enough care of them and I worry that they're going to fall out on me.

Not sure if that's the same for Serp though.Yeah, that sounds about right. I'm pretty bad with cleaning my teeth <.< Oddly enough, I don't know that I've had that dream since the dentist said she wants to pull out my wisdom teeth cuz they've got holes in...

[Coidzor]

Mmm... Sexy Martial Arts men and Crisco...

Crisco? Ewww. :smallyuk:

At least go for the Olive Oil. :smallwink: I mean, really, the tastes just can't be compared.

[golentan]

Crisco? Ewww. :smallyuk:

At least go for the Olive Oil. :smallwink: I mean, really, the tastes just can't be compared.

If it were me, sure, but the scenario invoked with the green ranger explicitlyheh... involves crisco. Which can still be plenty sexy, if not as tasty or nice to look at as oil.

[Coidzor]

If it were me, sure, but the scenario invoked with the green ranger explicitlyheh... involves crisco. Which can still be plenty sexy, if not as tasty or nice to look at as oil.

:smallconfused: The feel of it doesn't bother you?

Stuff makes my skin crawl just thinking about it.

[turkishproverb]

Well, some of them can literally be like watching a movie of things happening as one watches as a disembodied audience, I've found. But they've never really had metaphysical significance so far. Or since, like, the 1960s.

Not a universal meaning no, but that's because people were too obsessed with "universal" symbolism at the time, rather than individual. A dream can be meaningful to the dreamer if looked at properly, usually created as a byproduct of the dream existing, or it can be a bit of undigested beef. :smallwink:

[rayne_dragon]

Closer than about half the population, I bet. :smallwink:

:smallconfused: Is that based on men not going through menopause? Because that's not quite accurate... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andropause) :smallwink:


Yeah, that sounds about right. I'm pretty bad with cleaning my teeth <.< Oddly enough, I don't know that I've had that dream since the dentist said she wants to pull out my wisdom teeth cuz they've got holes in...

Hmmm... you always struck me as the sort of person who takes care of their teeth. Then again, you often surprise me, so you think I'd know better than to make assumptions. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Yeah, no. I'm horrendous at it :smallsigh: As in, now that I'm only ever employed on Saturdays, I'm going to have to make a concious effort to make sure I brush my teeth at least a couple of times a week <.< :smallredface:
edit: But, on the other hand, although my teeth are kinda weak and very sensitive, they're nice and small and neat and white. I had a gap when I was younger, but that was filled in when my wisdom teeth came through - which they did without any issues at all, all four of them - until they became only very slightly crooked compared with their completely straight before that. I have a fairly significant overbite but not that most people would notice and (aside from my wisdom teeth more recently) I've never had a single cavity.

[LaZodiac]

You know, speaking of dreams, what does it mean when you dream and you're a different gender?

[Serpentine]

1. Nothing.
2. Brainfarts (see 1).
3. Transgender/sexuality topics have been a significant feature of your thoughts in recent days.
4. You have issues with your father.
5. You will find happiness in seeking a new job until Aries rises in Taurus.

[rayne_dragon]

You know, speaking of dreams, what does it mean when you dream and you're a different gender?

It's probably best to answer that question for yourself. It might not mean anything. It might be a mild curiousity as to what it's like to be a different gender. It could be subconcious gender identity issues. It could be your brain just being weird and crossing things it sees every day with each other in a random (and perhaps amusing, annoying, or horrifying) fashion.

Sometimes I dream I'm one gender or another. Sometimes I'm one gender, but crossdressing. Sometimes I change gender over the course of the dream. It's pretty weird, although given that it's me probably makes more sense than if someone else had those kind of dreams. I think the point is not to take it too seriously (unless you feel it needs to be taken seriously).

[LaZodiac]

Yha, I'm not taking it seriously, just curious.

[Skeppio]

Yha, I'm not taking it seriously, just curious.

Good move. I once dreamed I was cross-dressing to get aboard a female-only train. I don't think I ever learned the destination, only that I really wanted to get there. Dreams are weird. :smalltongue:

[rayne_dragon]

Yha, I'm not taking it seriously, just curious.

My bad...

It means you should buy your cat new shoes on Tuesday. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

I recently dreamt that I was Pinkie Pie.
I don't even like Pinkie Pie.

[LaZodiac]

My bad...

It means you should buy your cat new shoes on Tuesday. :smalltongue:

No need to feel bad, I was just saying that yha, I wasn't taking it too seriously, like you said :smalltongue:

Also, don't have a cat.

[Coidzor]

:smallconfused: Is that based on men not going through menopause? Because that's not quite accurate... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andropause) :smallwink:

:smallconfused: It's quite accurate because it's not the body shutting down the ovaries. Much in the same way that cismen cannot get premenstrual syndrome despite other's insistence that they can because cismen do not menstruate what with lacking a uterus to have shed its lining.

[Serpentine]

It's menopause-like, according to the wiki article, and "male PMS" is a convenient name for a hormonal fluctuation that causes similar emotional swings in men on a comparable timescale. Your nitpicking misses the point.

[Coidzor]

It's menopause-like, according to the wiki article, and "male PMS" is a convenient name for a hormonal fluctuation that causes similar emotional swings in men on a comparable timescale. Your nitpicking misses the point.

Because something being similar to something else means we should treat it exactly the same and use the same words to refer to different things. :smalltongue:

[Mystic Muse]

I recently dreamt that I was Pinkie Pie.
I don't even like Pinkie Pie.


Aww.

You make Soft Serve sad. Okay, not that sad, but still a little. I like Pinkie.

[Mina Kobold]

I recently dreamt that I was Pinkie Pie.
I don't even like Pinkie Pie.

I don't think liking something matters. I don't like the Simpsons these days and yet I recently dreamt I was several characters from it.

The weirdest part was that they were in a spaceship, and that I was several people at once.

Maybe my subconsciousness is telling me that I should be an alien hivemind... :smalltongue:

EDIT: Also, PONIES!

[Serpentine]

Because something being similar to something else means we should treat it exactly the same and use the same words to refer to different things. :smalltongue:As a tongue-in-cheek term for an of-a-kind phenomenon sharing surprisingly similar causes that conveniently gets across the gist of the concept, yes.
As far as I'm aware "treating it exactly the same" doesn't come into it at all, not least because as far as I'm aware neither gets "treated" any way in particular anyway, outside of medicine, in which colloquial terminology certainly shouldn't be an issue at all.

[Coidzor]

As a tongue-in-cheek term for an of-a-kind phenomenon sharing surprisingly similar causes that conveniently gets across the gist of the concept, yes.

So getting across the general gist of the concept rather than the specific term for what one means is entirely accurate now?


As far as I'm aware "treating it exactly the same" doesn't come into it at all

It does for the post that I made my initial comment that you replied to.

[rayne_dragon]

No need to feel bad, I was just saying that yha, I wasn't taking it too seriously, like you said :smalltongue:

Also, don't have a cat.

You need to get one by Tuesday then! :smalltongue:


:smallconfused: It's quite accurate because it's not the body shutting down the ovaries. Much in the same way that cismen cannot get premenstrual syndrome despite other's insistence that they can because cismen do not menstruate what with lacking a uterus to have shed its lining.

Well, I was making a joke based on the technicality of there being a male menopause, which is a rather inaccurate term, as you point out. I was hoping the ":smallwink:" would indicate that it was meant as a joke.

It's also my understanding that while men don't have PMS, they do suffer from mood swings due to cyclic fluctuations in their hormone level, which occurs with a greater frequency than in women. Not that I can recall where I heard this or have even an less-than-scientific source to link to.

[Serpentine]

So getting across the general gist of the concept rather than the specific term for what one means is entirely accurate now?Rayne said that "men don't have menopause" is "not entirely accurate". That is not the same as "men go through menopause is entirely accurate". So no, because that is not at all what was going on there at all.

It does for the post that I made my initial comment that you replied to.Not as far as I can see, as opposed to the unnecessary nitpickery I'm seeing from you.

[Mono Vertigo]

You know, speaking of dreams, what does it mean when you dream and you're a different gender?
Probably nothing. I had that dream too. And it's a simple enough subject, a lot of people around the world must dream that sometimes. :smallwink:

[Lix Lorn]

1. Nothing.
2. Brainfarts (see 1).
3. Transgender/sexuality topics have been a significant feature of your thoughts in recent days.
4. You have issues with your father.
5. You will find happiness in seeking a new job until Aries rises in Taurus.
6. Happy sexy fun times.

[Asta Kask]

My anxiety dreams usually involve either failing exams or walking around the streets of Gothenburg naked looking for my lost clothes.

[Asta Kask]

Are you from the future? :smalltongue:


Yes. She wants to know if you are familiar with the name Sarah Connor.


Erm, no? Who is that?

More information. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Jo8QoOTQ4&feature=related)

[Petrocorus]

Good morning, everybody.

Haven't been here for a big while, hope everybody's fine.


More information. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Jo8QoOTQ4&feature=related)

When i think to Sarah Connors, i can't help thinking to this thing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reznkmAwhK8)

[KenderWizard]

Well, according to this (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/teeth-falling-out-dream-meaning.html) site, it's a sign that you're coming close to menopause.

*looks at photos in You! thread*

You don't look a day over 40! :smallbiggrin:

How did you achieve this magic? I can't take the You! thread, it's too many yous! If I could work out how to look at pictures of people I know, I would like that, and maybe even post there, but the thought of trawling through it all is a bit mind blowing...


It's probably best to answer that question for yourself. It might not mean anything. It might be a mild curiousity as to what it's like to be a different gender. It could be subconcious gender identity issues. It could be your brain just being weird and crossing things it sees every day with each other in a random (and perhaps amusing, annoying, or horrifying) fashion.

Sometimes I dream I'm one gender or another. Sometimes I'm one gender, but crossdressing. Sometimes I change gender over the course of the dream. It's pretty weird, although given that it's me probably makes more sense than if someone else had those kind of dreams. I think the point is not to take it too seriously (unless you feel it needs to be taken seriously).

I change gender all the time in my dreams! Mostly I'm me, and female, but often I'm someone else, like Harry Potter or someone I know, or just some other person, and then I can be either their gender or my gender. So, I can be Harry Potter who is female, or I can be Harry Potter who is male, but still me.

[Blisstake]

In my dreams, I'm hardly ever myself. Most of the time, I'm not even anyone; I'm just an invisible observer viewing something going on.

Although in my most recent dream, I was me.

[Derjuin]

in my dream
i am the star.
its me

In most of my dreams I'm just some kind of vaguely defined human-shaped being, with no real distinctive features...one of my more common dreams is trying to cross a street, but I find I cannot move, except by jumping REALLY REALLY high, and falling slowly, more often than not moving backwards slightly than forwards, or not moving at all except vertically.

:smalleek:

I like to pretend it is a nonsensical representation of my journey through transitioning, often taking a small step with great effort only to fall two steps behind again.

[Qaera]

and THEN the big man comes
for a little one on one

:smallcool:

You guys are lucky, I never remember my dreams unless they are nightmares.

[golentan]

and THEN the big man comes
for a little one on one

:smallcool:

You guys are lucky, I never remember my dreams unless they are nightmares.

You too, huh? I seem to dream for a couple days out of every few months, no more, but those ones are enough that I'm actually afraid of sleeping much of the time.

[Pika...]

:smallconfused: Is that based on men not going through menopause? Because that's not quite accurate... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andropause) :smallwink:

Wow. I like to think I already have low testosterone, which makes me quite happy since lots of it makes you a stereotypical brute, so I am wondering what will happen in my 40s when that hits. :smalleek:

[Tychris1]

{Scrubbed}

[Serpentine]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}The community itself makes fun of the alphabet soup. Also, there are only two sexes - although those are not always strictly adhered to, see: the various varieties of intersexed. Gender is a spectrum, and one I have a personal distaste for.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}Discrimination is a reality. Why shouldn't they protest it?

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}What would you prefer? That they cower and hide and just accept the hate to which you say they're exposing themselves to and not do anything about it? That is unacceptable to me.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}You have it around the wrong way. And why shouldn't they complain about discrimination? It's discrimination.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}I believe there's a term for that. Majority privilege, perhaps? You don't "see the heteronormality drones" doing that sort of thing because they don't need to. The level of discrimination against the heteronormal in the community is generally likely to be negligible at best.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Asexuals can be heterosexual...

[Qaera]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

...Yeah, this is the problem, here. I'm just-

:smallsigh:

[Dogmantra]

Gender is a spectrum, and one I have a personal distaste for.

You've mentioned your distaste before but I've never really got what you specifically dislike about it. Could you explain what you dislike?

(now I read that it looks like I disapprove or whatever, that's not actually true, I'm just curious not trying to get into an argument)

[Tychris1]

Well no they shouldn't do nothing but parading down the streets doesn't seem like the answer. People should be able to aknowledge who they are and accept themselves by themselves, they shouldn't need to be in a large mob to accept who they are and just neglect people who say otherwise.

It's a complex situation (Atleast in my eyes) since the standard method of parading seems to do as much harm as good (Well maybe a little more good but it's a tiny bit). Also allow me to rephrase myself, no I'm not heterosexual I'm standard asexual (neutral, neither hetero or homo).

[Astrella]

Well no they shouldn't do nothing but parading down the streets doesn't seem like the answer. People should be able to aknowledge who they are and accept themselves by themselves, they shouldn't need to be in a large mob to accept who they are and just neglect people who say otherwise.

Accepting yourself and ignoring other people's opinions is all fine. The sad state is though that people will be treated differently and are denied rights / discriminated against based on their sexuality or gender. That's not something you can just ignore.


It's a complex situation (Atleast in my eyes) since the standard method of parading seems to do as much harm as good (Well maybe a little more good but it's a tiny bit). Also allow me to rephrase myself, no I'm not heterosexual I'm standard asexual (neutral, neither hetero or homo).

Are you also aromantic then?

[Serpentine]

You've mentioned your distaste before but I've never really got what you specifically dislike about it. Could you explain what you dislike?

(now I read that it looks like I disapprove or whatever, that's not actually true, I'm just curious not trying to get into an argument)
Well, there's gender as the observation of traits and tendencies associated with males and females - women tend to be more social, men tend to be more practical, that sort of thing. That I'm okay with. There are natural differences between men and women, as a whole.
But then there's gender as the expectations and requirements placed on the different sexes. These are unnecessary, harmful, outdated and obsolete, and all too often incorrectly equated with the first definition of gender. This has absolutely no place in modern society, as far as I'm aware.
Thus my dislike of the term "genderqueer". It means "I act like a member of the opposite sex", which means "I act like the opposite sex is socially expected to act". It's not a natural phenomenon, and I believe it just serves to reinforce the idea that social gender is "natural" or "normal" or "right", and that deviation from these artificial expectations requires distinct categorisation.

Think that's pretty much it.

[Astrella]

Thus my dislike of the term "genderqueer". It means "I act like a member of the opposite sex", which means "I act like the opposite sex is socially expected to act". It's not a natural phenomenon, and I believe it just serves to reinforce the idea that social gender is "natural" or "normal" or "right", and that deviation from these artificial expectations requires distinct categorisation.

Think that's pretty much it.

That's not really what genderqueer is though. (Though I agree with you on the rest of your post.) Genderqueer (or at least as I see it) is being detached from the gender binary and behaving / dressing / etc. without abiding to the gender stereotypes associated with one's sex.

Edit: Though I guess a problem with the whole genderqueer label is that a lot of people fill in their own meaning for it.

[Serpentine]

That's not really what genderqueer is though. (Though I agree with you on the rest of your post.) Genderqueer (or at least as I see it) is being detached from the gender binary and behaving / dressing / etc. without abiding to the gender stereotypes associated with one's sex....which is exactly what I said, except in different words :smallconfused:
By this logic, I'm genderqueer because I wear pants and like fishing. No I'm not, I'm a girl who likes wearing pants and fishing. The fact that pants are traditionally a male garment, and more men enjoy fishing than women do doesn't mean there's anything meaningful about my preferences.
A boy who likes "girl things" is a boy who likes things artifiically assigned to be "girl things" by our society. There's nothing there that warrants an extra categorisation.
Plegh. I explained it as asked, anyways.

[rayne_dragon]

Well no they shouldn't do nothing but parading down the streets doesn't seem like the answer. People should be able to aknowledge who they are and accept themselves by themselves, they shouldn't need to be in a large mob to accept who they are and just neglect people who say otherwise.

It's a complex situation (Atleast in my eyes) since the standard method of parading seems to do as much harm as good (Well maybe a little more good but it's a tiny bit). Also allow me to rephrase myself, no I'm not heterosexual I'm standard asexual (neutral, neither hetero or homo).

I think it has to do with the right to be oneself openly and not suffer consequences for it. Sure the parades and stuff can get a little over the top, but the point is to make a stand for your beliefs and let those who would hurt you for it know that it's not okay and it will not be tolerated. I don't think the parades are merely for people to accept themselves in a brazen manner, but for people who aren't afraid to flaunt who they are to let people who aren't as secure or open know that they're not alone and that it's okay to be the way they are. I also think that this aspect of it is becomming less important over time as (hopefully) alphabet soup rights improve and it gradually just becomes an excuse for a big celebration.


...which is exactly what I said, except in different words :smallconfused:
By this logic, I'm genderqueer because I wear pants and like fishing. No I'm not, I'm a girl who likes wearing pants and fishing. The fact that pants are traditionally a male garment, and more men enjoy fishing than women do doesn't mean there's anything meaningful about my preferences.
A boy who likes "girl things" is a boy who likes things artifiically assigned to be "girl things" by our society. There's nothing there that warrants an extra categorisation.
Plegh. I explained it as asked, anyways.

I don't think the emphasis is about doing the opposite of what one's gender is typically "supposed" to do, but about rejecting classification as either gender for those people who feel uncomfortable identifying as either male or female. Someone who is genderqueer is specifically trying to break out of the gender binary, not incenditally doing things that historically have been considered more masculine or feminine while being female or male respectively.

Uhg... I guess this might be another of those things like the term pansexual (as opposed to bisexual) where there may not be so much of an actual difference as much as a difference in how one views the situation.

[Serpentine]

Someone who is genderqueer is specifically trying to break out of the gender binary, not incenditally doing things that historically have been considered more masculine or feminine while being female or male respectively.But it's reinforcing the idea that there is a real, valid gender binary to break out of, that if you don't fit into that supposed, artificial gender binary then you must be "something else".

[Mono Vertigo]

@Tychris1:
Okay, here's my view on the thing.
First, honestly, you don't have to remember or use more letters than what's in the LGBT(A) acronym. Honestly. More letters get added because people come up with more words defining the way in which they don't conform to cisgender heterosexuality, gender binary, or identity. People come up with more letters because most humans like having words that describe a specific concept. That's the same phenomenon that causes the dictionary to gain more words every year than it loses. But everyone gets what you're talking about when you just say LGBT(A). Ignore people who accuse you of not being inclusive, when the LGBT(A) acronym has become itself a symbol of non-conformity to gender binary.


Secondly, the Gay Pride problem.
I'll start with a disclaimer: I've never actually took part in one, but I'd like to see one just once, and I'm asexual myself, in a relationship with a FtM.
Now, the Pride itself.
There is something that you ought to understand about that event. What do people usually do there? If they're LGBT, they generally celebrate, dance, and wear funky clothes, all in the name of being LGBT. If they aren't, they do the same, and join in to show their support of LGBT people. Why do they do that? Everyone has their reasons I won't elaborate on now.

Now, please think about other forms of celebrations similar to the Gay Pride. Let's take, say, Mardi Gras. There, people celebrate, dance, and wear funky clothes, in the name of... something. There are many other celebrations in the USA, and probably even more in each country in the rest of the world. There's the 4th of July, Halloween, Christmas, New Year's Eve, whatever I'm forgetting right now. There are many other officious events where tiny groups do the same things in public. What do these have in common? They're all, almost exclusively, corresponding to gender binary and heterosexuality; the few times they don't, it's usually made to mock the representation of LGBT (where, say, a guy disguised as a fairy for Halloween is not just disguised as a fairy, he's a GUY in female clothes and acting somewhat girly and it's FUNNY AND RIDICULOUS LULZ).

LGBTs aren't encouraged to even make themselves known in public. In fact, they may be the object of repression just for doing mundane things that heterosexual cisgender people do all the time. Holding hands, kissing, walking with their kids, buying clothes. All heterosexual cisgender people can do that in public. Why couldn't LGBT, since they don't hurt anyone, and if someone doesn't like it, they could just not look?

I consider Gay Pride as the response to that sad phenomenon. There, LGBT not only celebrate being different from a ill-defined norm, but they also do everything cisgender heterosexuals do the rest of the time (including shouting loudly, kissing others, and dressing with little more than a swimsuit, yes, anyone can think of parades where that happens). And furthermore, by exposing themselves in an over-the-top, stereotypical way, the watching audience has to recognize something: even when it's over-the-top, no, LGBT aren't threatening them. Many bigots apparently feel threatened by us, somehow. We're showing that even when we indulge in all the excesses the rest of society does, we're not a danger to anyone. We're just having fun. We may look silly, but we look human. Like everyone else.
Gay Pride isn't about acting up stereotypes and complaining people hate us. Gay Pride is about giving ourselves the same rights cisgender heterosexuals have, even for a single parade, because the rest of the year, we're punished for doing exactly the same things as everyone else. Heterosexuals celebrate publicly their preferences all the time, everywhere, including in ads, where it's physically impossible finding LGBT people portrayed there that aren't ridiculed just for existing.
Consider countries where Gay Pride is forbidden, either legally, either due to sheer physical repressions, like Russia. LGBTs can't even say "hey, we exist too, and since we don't hurt anyone, we would like the same right as everyone else". And it is just sad when you see the participants that are getting beaten are actually dressed and looking the same as anyone else.
And all this is why Gay Pride isn't inherently a bad thing.


Holy wall of text, Batman! I promise I won't do it again. :smalleek:

EDIT: oh, yeah, I forgot:

You don't see the heteronormality drones calling to attention that they like the opposite gender and creating there own flag for it.
Well, they kinda do that, but more subtly. And they don't need a flag for themselves, simply because they outnumber LGBTs vastly, the bigoted ones don't like thinking they wouldn't obviously be a desirable norm, and it is as relevant to them as making, say, a flag for those who like chocolate and are proud of it. 'cause who doesn't like chocolate, right? Where in fact, there are people who just don't like chocolate, or who are allergic, and they shouldn't be ashamed of something that's their own business.

[Astrella]

But it's reinforcing the idea that there is a real, valid gender binary to break out of, that if you don't fit into that supposed, artificial gender binary then you must be "something else".

Well, yeah, but that doesn't stop it from being brought forth by society (though it's been getting better).

[Mina Kobold]

Asexuals can be heterosexual...

But asexual means without sexual attraction and heterosexual means sexual attraction towards the opposite sex...

Me confuddled. O_O

I do agree that we can be heteroromantic, though.


Also allow me to rephrase myself, no I'm not heterosexual I'm standard asexual (neutral, neither hetero or homo).

Sounds more bisexual to me, or possibly pansexual. If I read this post correctly, which I probably didn't.

There are plenty asexuals who don't care about the gender of who they mate with, but that's usually because they don't care about mating in the first place. I'd say neutrality is more of a bisexual thing.

But I'm probably using the wrong definition of neutrality, sorry. ^_^'

[Tychris1]

@Mushasi

Huh, I never thought of it like that. Although there is one gripe I had with what you said. How does Christmas, New Years Eve, the fourth of July, and haloween have anything to do with heterosexuality? Christmas is about the birth of Jesus for Christians, and a time for family friendship and kindness for everyone else (Plus free junk). New Years eve just celebrates a new year (Of course there's that whole kiss while the ball drops thing but LGBT's can do it to (since it's a KISS at the ball drop, it doesn't have to be with a girl/guy). The fourth of July celebrated America blowing up Great Brit in firey kaboomboom galore. And haloween is just for kids to have candy and adults to go to partys (Although if we look for the original reason then it's to ward of witches and evil spirits).

@AThousandWords
What's the problem?

@Serpentine
I think I understand thousand's problem with what I said. Allow me to explain. Serpentine went into gender in the spectrum way, I'm talking in the mechanical way (Numbers variables things I can work with). Here's an example of what I meant with the unknown sexuality and dog part "I am female A. I have several choices I can choose from. I can be attracted to men, I can be attracted to women, and I can be attracted to neither. I may then specialize how I am attracted to them (Transvestite, homo or hetero asexuals, etc). However I have only two genders to pick from for everything. Sexuality Complete" yeah she sounds like a robot but she gets the job done and shows the mechanical basics of sexuality. However there are some people who believe themselves to be out of that choice area and are some kind of unknown sexuality, which is confusing since there are only two genders to help pick your sexuality so unless you count dogs as a third gender then the choice shouldn't be to complicated.

Edit: And yes keveak there is a difference. A bisexual wants both genders, while a standard asexual does not care about either gender. They share the fact that they encompass both genders but then it splits down to wants/likes to doesn't care/has no want.

[Serpentine]

Gender is a spectrum. It is traits and tendencies associated with the sexes/artificial sex-based social expectations.
There are two sexes: male and female. There are also various degrees of intersexedness, from full-blown hermaphrodites to mere physical oddities. There are also transexuals, and probably some other things I can think of.
Your "dog" nonsense is, as far as I'm aware, pure strawmanning.

[Asta Kask]

But if we plot 'maleness'* and 'femaleness'* against frequency, is the distribution bi-modal? How large is the overlap? Gender stereotypes can still be useful even if they fail in some cases.

That may not have come out, but I can't think of a better way to frame it. I really want to know these things.

*however the hell you define this.

[Tychris1]

A hermaphrodite is an occasion in which the specialization simply holds two genders instead of one (They are male and female. Still of only two genders, simply using both). Although I'm starting to understand why you use the word spectrum. Much like a color spectrum there are 3 primary colors (Gay, Lesbian, Hetero) and each one of them contains lesser shades of it or "Specializations" such as the spot between gay and lesbian (Blue and Red) would make Bisexual (Purple)..... Is that why the gay pride flag is a rainbow? I always thought it was just a mocking use of what discriminators used to describe them (Much like how black people took the N word and made it there own).

[Serpentine]

As I said, there are traits and tendencies that are observably different between the sexes. But they're pretty much always overlapping bellcurves - more men than women might, say, prefer physical occupations, but that difference could be no more than a few percent.

edit: No, a hermaphrodite has characteristics of both sexes. They could be "masculine" or "feminine" or something else entirely. They are neither male nor female, and quite often - most commonly for "true" hermaphrodism, I think - their genitalia is simply indistinguishable as either male or female. It isn't "penis and vagina" it's "it's sorta like a penis, but just as much like a vagina..." And as I said, there are two sexes. Gender, as I defined it above, is a spectrum.

[Mono Vertigo]

@Mushasi

Huh, I never thought of it like that. Although there is one gripe I had with what you said. How does Christmas, New Years Eve, the fourth of July, and haloween have anything to do with heterosexuality? Christmas is about the birth of Jesus for Christians, and a time for family friendship and kindness for everyone else (Plus free junk). New Years eve just celebrates a new year (Of course there's that whole kiss while the ball drops thing but LGBT's can do it to (since it's a KISS at the ball drop, it doesn't have to be with a girl/guy). The fourth of July celebrated America blowing up Great Brit in firey kaboomboom galore. And haloween is just for kids to have candy and adults to go to partys (Although if we look for the original reason then it's to ward of witches and evil spirits).


Good point; that is something I have not properly explained in my original wall of text. Let me correct this immediately.
These celebrations are not about heterosexuality. Of course they aren't. What I meant is that these are public celebrations. They often lead to parades, disguised people. And they are all about things that... not everyone agrees with. Christmas (I'm not going to point out why some people aren't especially fond of a celebrated religion they may not believe in almost be forced upon them; and I don't like Christmas for personal reasons myself), New Year's Eve (some people don't see what's so special about the previous year ending and the next one starting), Halloween (again, some people think it's ridiculous, pagan, and merchandising-driven like all celebrations I mentioned above). And yet, even though not everyone approves of these events, an overwhelming majority is sane about it, and don't complain when they see it happen. Few people waste any significant amount of energy criticizing, say, children and young people who spend the 31st of October dressed as zombies, succubi and vampires for no other reason than "they feel like it".

Then, why should Gay Pride be different? Is it because it's not traditional? Is it because it's not anywhere on the calendar? Or is it because the people in the parade are saying they have the right not to be ashamed about what isn't a choice? If people feel like complaining about men kissing on a chariot, why aren't they complaining about those who made the choice in their life to sermon strangers at Christmas? The first ones did not have any say in their sexuality, and it is extremely easy to look away if you don't like what they do. The latter ones are everywhere on Christmas and the days before, and feel obligated to order you to smile and be happy, when they actually don't want to solve the problems that cause you to be unhappy; and when you speak up, suddenly, you are the bad guy for sullying such a great day with your self-centered worries.
(No, I'm not bitter.)
To be completely honest, I'll have to admit that I'm not sure if, when trying to publicly celebrate the above events when you're LGBT, one risks to undergo more discrimination than the rest of the time. Probably not. So, LGBTs are not the enemies of Christmas, Halloween, and so forth; and it is equally true that these celebrations are not homophobic in and of themselves.
Might have been more accusatory in my rant... that was not my intention, and, hey, I celebrate New Year's Eve and stuff myself! Huh. Must have made more sense to me when I wrote it... shortly after waking up. :smalleek:

[Serpentine]

Is it because it's not anywhere on the calendar?Actually, the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is a major highlight of Sydney's year, accompanied by parties and concerts, and forming a significant economical boost to the city :wink:

[Gardener]

@Tychris1:

If you're intimidated by Pride parades, maybe you're not as comfortable with the real variability of human sexuality as you think you are. Because that's more or less what Pride is about - celebrating human variety. It's saying "Hey, we're all weird, and it's okay", which is certainly more accepting than "Woohoo, we killed a whole lot of British guys!" as a reason for a party. For one thing, what about the Brits? Pride parades are at least as inclusive of heterosexuals as school Christmas plays are of non-Christians.

I think ATW's problem is that you were (indirectly) comparing homosexuality/bisexuality/transgenderism to bestiality, which I think you'd agree could be slightly offensive.

You seem to miss the sex/gender distinction, which is important to some of us. Sex is what's between your legs/in your chromosomes (which can be a lot weirder than you presented, but that's another issue), while gender is the various social constructs built around them - what is "manly" or "feminine", rather than simply male or female. There are two sexes, but the number and character of genders varies from culture to culture - two is typical, but many have three, such as the Indian hijra, the native american two-spirit, or the ancient Egyptian sekhet. Examples abound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender). Beyond that, what is considered "manly" or "feminine" vary enormously between cultures - in Japan, household finances are women's work, while many American men are proud of their ability to manage and invest money well.

Asexuality means not desiring sex. Desiring sex, but not caring about the gender of your partner is bisexuality. It's pretty much my position, too.

[Murdim]

@Serpentine
I think I understand thousand's problem with what I said. Allow me to explain. Serpentine went into gender in the spectrum way, I'm talking in the mechanical way (Numbers variables things I can work with).
But people are that complicated, and trying to substitute their actual, intricate feelings by convenient stereotypes is literally dehumanizing. Would you be happy if I said all people were either straight or gay, and so-called "asexuals" are just fooling themselves, because I like it better that way? (the fact that I don't like it better that way is entirely irrelevant)


But if we plot 'maleness'* and 'femaleness'* against frequency, is the distribution bi-modal? How large is the overlap? Gender stereotypes can still be useful even if they fail in some cases.

That may not have come out, but I can't think of a better way to frame it. I really want to know these things.

*however the hell you define this.
This is pretty much the exact situation we are finding ourselves right now in most Western countries. Men and women are theoretically seen as equal, yet we still try (and invariably fail) to define the objective, intrinsic, mental differences between them. You can see by yourself how well it works. :smallfrown:


And as I said, there are two sexes. Gender, as I defined it above, is a spectrum.
Actually, sex itself is more of a trichotomy. It can be male, female, or neither/ambiguous. This has to do with the fact that its definition is intrinsically linked to sexual reproduction. "Male" characteristics are those linked with the ability to play the "male" role in the reproductive act, "female" characteristics with the "female" role, and ambiguous characteristics with neither - each of our "sexed" characteristics can be independently male, female or neither. And even then, there are grey areas. For example, what is the chromosomal sex of someone with Klinefelter's syndrom (XXY)?

As for gender, like most things in human psychology, it is less like a linear spectrum, and more like a chaotic function defined in a n-dimensional hyperspace. :smallbiggrin:

[Mina Kobold]

Edit: And yes keveak there is a difference. A bisexual wants both genders, while a standard asexual does not care about either gender. They share the fact that they encompass both genders but then it splits down to wants/likes to doesn't care/has no want.

I know...? I never said they were the same.

That would be rather weird.

Also, are you sure there is a standard? I have so far met asexuals in the whole spectrum of romantic attraction and opinion on sex.

Not doubting you, just curious. :smallsmile:

[Serpentine]

I did address intersexuality... Though admittedly I forgot about things like Klinefelter's syndrome, but I think they're still more or less covered. There being deviations from the system doesn't nullify the dichotemy *shrug*

[Murdim]

I did address intersexuality... Though admittedly I forgot about things like Klinefelter's syndrome, but I think they're still more or less covered. There being deviations from the system doesn't nullify the dichotemy *shrug*

Well, technically, it does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy). This is why I'm saying sex is a trichotomy, with "neither" being a valid category because of the way sexual reproduction works.[/pedantic]

[Serpentine]

Our sexual biology results in a dichotomy system. Sometimes there are defects, but that doesn't change the fact that the normal, functioning system is a dichotomy. There are two sexes, but sometimes something goes wrong. The fact that sometimes kids are born with six toes on each foot doesn't change the fact that five toes are a defining feature of humans as a species. All it means is that biology is imperfect.

[Blisstake]

But asexual means without sexual attraction and heterosexual means sexual attraction towards the opposite sex...

Me confuddled. O_O

I do agree that we can be heteroromantic, though.

As I understand it, there are two levels of asexual. The first is having physical attractions toward certain people, but not having any sexual urges or plain disliking sex. The second is not having any sexual attractions at all.

This isn't an official definition or anything. Just what I've noticed from people who identify as asexual. Then again, the definitions for many of these terms seem to vary by location (for example, where I'm from, "queer" exclusively means a gay male.)

[Asta Kask]

If you're intimidated by Pride parades, maybe you're not as comfortable with the real variability of human sexuality as you think you are. Because that's more or less what Pride is about - celebrating human variety. It's saying "Hey, we're all weird, and it's okay", which is certainly more accepting than "Woohoo, we killed a whole lot of British guys!" as a reason for a party. For one thing, what about the Brits? Pride parades are at least as inclusive of heterosexuals as school Christmas plays are of non-Christians.

Or it may be because I don't want to see strangers' sexuality paraded on the street, regardless of whether it's heterosexual, homosexual or something else. I don't mean people kissing, or holding hands, and I certainly don't mind gay couples appearing in commercials all over town... but the Pride Parades I've seen have been rather more explicit. There is such a thing as Too Much Information...

[Murdim]

Our sexual biology results in a dichotomy system. Sometimes there are defects, but that doesn't change the fact that the normal, functioning system is a dichotomy. There are two sexes, but sometimes something goes wrong. The fact that sometimes kids are born with six toes on each foot doesn't change the fact that five toes are a defining feature of humans as a species. All it means is that biology is imperfect.
:smallconfused: This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying... from the beginning I'm not actually arguing with you, just nitpicking. I thought it was clear enough...:smallfrown:


As I understand it, there are two levels of asexual. The first is having physical attractions toward certain people, but not having any sexual urges or plain disliking sex. The second is not having any sexual attractions at all.

This isn't an official definition or anything. Just what I've noticed from people who identify as asexual. Then again, the definitions for many of these terms seem to vary by location (for example, where I'm from, "queer" exclusively means a gay male.)
Actually, there is much more than two "levels" of asexuality. The asexual community (or some elements of it, in any case) is semi-notorious to reject many of its identified members as "not really asexual".

[Asta Kask]

So... I just read through 4 of the most homophobic comics ever made. I'm not going to link to them, because they go pretty far into forbidden territory, as you might guess. You will just have to live without the experience.

But one thing struck me... there were only gays in those comics. The lesbians were absent. It's as if they never existed. So I came to this repository of LBGTA knowledge.

Why? Does anyone know where this Harry Potterian invisibility cloak comes from? Is it just that most of the comics are directed at men, and many men find lesbians hot? Or is there something else going on?

[LaZodiac]

The latter, definitly. Gay is ok when it's two chicks making out, seems to be the rule for most men.

[Mystic Muse]

I know we're a bit past the topic of dreams but I just had one last night. My body had become a lot more feminine and I even had boobs. While I wasn't quit a complete girl (I never seem to be a complete girl in these dreams) It was still extremely satisfying. Plus tomorrow (in the dream) I as going to end up being a complete girl anyway.

I hope I can learn how to lucid dream one day so I can at least be a complete girl in my dreams.

[Qaera]

So... I just read through 4 of the most homophobic comics ever made. I'm not going to link to them, because they go pretty far into forbidden territory, as you might guess. You will just have to live without the experience.

But one thing struck me... there were only gays in those comics. The lesbians were absent. It's as if they never existed. So I came to this repository of LBGTA knowledge.

Why? Does anyone know where this Harry Potterian invisibility cloak comes from? Is it just that most of the comics are directed at men, and many men find lesbians hot? Or is there something else going on?
Not only the "lesbians r hot lol" but also some men may see homosexuality as a direct attack against them, and respond accordingly. Hatred oft does not make sense.

I know we're a bit past the topic of dreams but I just had one last night. My body had become a lot more feminine and I even had boobs. While I wasn't quit a complete girl (I never seem to be a complete girl in these dreams) It was still extremely satisfying. Plus tomorrow (in the dream) I as going to end up being a complete girl anyway.

I hope I can learn how to lucid dream one day so I can at least be a complete girl in my dreams.

I do it by lying there until I get really tired, then force myself to stay awake. Movement, almost any besides blinking and breathing, will disrupt it. Once you think you are, check a book or flip the lights- the book should be blank or the lights will not come on if you are lucid dreaming. It's kind of fun, but like I said, I only remember my nightmares, so I have tried not to do it in a while.

[WarKitty]

So... I just read through 4 of the most homophobic comics ever made. I'm not going to link to them, because they go pretty far into forbidden territory, as you might guess. You will just have to live without the experience.

But one thing struck me... there were only gays in those comics. The lesbians were absent. It's as if they never existed. So I came to this repository of LBGTA knowledge.

Why? Does anyone know where this Harry Potterian invisibility cloak comes from? Is it just that most of the comics are directed at men, and many men find lesbians hot? Or is there something else going on?

I suspect it also stems from our cultural attitudes toward sexuality and gender. Male sexuality is constructed as aggressive and dominant, female as passive and submissive. In heterosexual relationships, this results in the model of the man as wanting sex all the time, and the woman tolerating sex in exchange for other benefits the man supposedly provides.

Those attitudes get taken over to homosexuality. Because male sexuality is aggressive, gay men are seen as threatening. Women aren't seen as experiencing genuine independent sexual desire, so lesbians simply don't exist except as something for straight men's desires.

[Asta Kask]

Our sexual biology results in a dichotomy system. Sometimes there are defects, but that doesn't change the fact that the normal, functioning system is a dichotomy. There are two sexes, but sometimes something goes wrong. The fact that sometimes kids are born with six toes on each foot doesn't change the fact that five toes are a defining feature of humans as a species. All it means is that biology is imperfect.

Yep. I'm perfectly satisified with a classifying scheme that only includes 99% of the population, considering that the alternatives generally are much more complicated.

[WarKitty]

Even without considering non-binary people, I think our society could do with a lot less consideration of biological sex than we currently have. The vast majority of the people we interact with we have no need to know what their sex is. I suspect if we didn't care so much about what sex people are in totally irrelevant contexts, we wouldn't have such a problem with people that don't fit the gender binary. Not to mention we wouldn't be having such problems with plain old sexism.

[DeadManSleeping]

Also, to be fair, no religious document of which I am aware incriminates women for having sex or romance with each other, or even mentions it in the vaguest sense. With religion often having a large place in these issues, I'm guessing that muddies it up some.

Also, it certainly holds a different place in our culture. I knew about the idea of "girls experimenting in college" before I knew anything about "gay pride". They're held really separately, for some reason, even though it all falls under sexuality when you give it the least bit of thought.

And, to be fair, there is absolutely no way to validly defend the phrase "gay sex never hurt anyone" :smallwink: :smalltongue: Yes that was innuendo.

[Coidzor]

Even without considering non-binary people, I think our society could do with a lot less consideration of biological sex than we currently have. The vast majority of the people we interact with we have no need to know what their sex is. I suspect if we didn't care so much about what sex people are in totally irrelevant contexts, we wouldn't have such a problem with people that don't fit the gender binary. Not to mention we wouldn't be having such problems with plain old sexism.

Problem being what would constitute an irrelevant context and what would constitute a relevant context. And with secondary sexual characteristics being what they are... that's either massive hormone therapy or unnecessary surgery for large segments of the population.

[WarKitty]

Problem being what would constitute an irrelevant context.

Anywhere that the purpose of the interaction is not to establish a romantic or sexual connection.

Edit: It's not that we wouldn't notice. But I notice a lot of things about people that theoretically shouldn't change my interaction with them - skin color, height, etc. It's more that people have this obsessive need to treat gender as something relevant to things where it's simply not.

(Incidentally, this is why I never put a gender marker on forums unless I absolutely have to - I dislike the idea that my gender is important or relevant to my posts about D&D or music or whatever.)

[Coidzor]

Anywhere that the purpose of the interaction is not to establish a romantic or sexual connection.

And how does one decide to begin an interaction whose purpose is to form a romantic relationship or get laid without first having an idea as to the sex of the other person?

[Mina Kobold]

Our sexual biology results in a dichotomy system. Sometimes there are defects, but that doesn't change the fact that the normal, functioning system is a dichotomy. There are two sexes, but sometimes something goes wrong. The fact that sometimes kids are born with six toes on each foot doesn't change the fact that five toes are a defining feature of humans as a species. All it means is that biology is imperfect.

From an evolutionary standpoint, diversing from the standard is actually pretty normal.

If the side-effects of a "defect" are benefitial or neutral, then it's not wrong in any way from the evolutionary view. Quite the opposite.

Science!

[Qaera]

And how does one decide to begin an interaction whose purpose is to form a romantic relationship or get laid without first having an idea as to the sex of the other person?

Easy, everyone should be pansexual. :smallwink:

Really though, I don't understand why people make such a big deal about gender/sex of someone they could potentially love.

[WarKitty]

And how does one decide to begin an interaction whose purpose is to form a romantic relationship or get laid without first having an idea as to the sex of the other person?

How does one decide to begin such an interaction without knowing the person's orientation? Or their beliefs concerning marriage and sex? Or whether they're even the type of person you'd want to date? Or whether they're single or not? It's not any harder to manage than those other things, which we handle all the time.

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't come up. I'm arguing that, say, I don't need to care about the sex of the teller at my bank, or whether my professor is male or female, or even what the sex of the members of my gaming group or book club are.

[Asta Kask]

Anywhere that the purpose of the interaction is not to establish a romantic or sexual connection.

But sexuality can - and is - used in many situations where there is no such purpose. Just look at commercials. There was a study that showed that waitresses with large breasts got more tips than waitresses with small breasts. For most of us, sexuality is such a fundamental fact of our lives that it's not realistic to remove it. Not if you meet and interact with the person. Online, it's easier.

[DeadManSleeping]

Easy, everyone should be pansexual. :smallwink:

Really though, I don't understand why people make such a big deal about gender/sex of someone they could potentially love.

I once totally got a crush on the maker of a comic, then found out that person was male. I was very, very sad. Being straight isn't a choice, you know.


How does one decide to begin such an interaction without knowing the person's orientation? Or their beliefs concerning marriage and sex? Or whether they're even the type of person you'd want to date? Or whether they're single or not? It's not any harder to manage than those other things, which we handle all the time.

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't come up. I'm arguing that, say, I don't need to care about the sex of the teller at my bank, or whether my professor is male or female, or even what the sex of the members of my gaming group or book club are.

Unless you're looking for romance, in which case, you need to know the gender of everyone, if gender is a factor in whom you are attracted to (though we recommend that this not come up with any professors). In fact, gaming groups and book clubs are generally considered good ways to meet potential romantic partners (okay, a gaming group is a horrible way to meet a single female, but otherwise).

[Mina Kobold]

But sexuality can - and is - used in many situations where there is no such purpose. Just look at commercials. There was a study that showed that waitresses with large breasts got more tips than waitresses with small breasts. For most of us, sexuality is such a fundamental fact of our lives that it's not realistic to remove it. Not if you meet and interact with the person. Online, it's easier.

Well then we should make everything online, of course!

And I know just how! There's this new thing called The Matrix, it's super-realistic and totally not dangerous!

[WarKitty]

But sexuality can - and is - used in many situations where there is no such purpose. Just look at commercials. There was a study that showed that waitresses with large breasts got more tips than waitresses with small breasts. For most of us, sexuality is such a fundamental fact of our lives that it's not realistic to remove it. Not if you meet and interact with the person. Online, it's easier.

Studies also show that white people are perceived as more trustworthy than black people. It may be something that's ingrained in our society, but I don't think that makes it something biologically necessary or even right.



Unless you're looking for romance, in which case, you need to know the gender of everyone, if gender is a factor in whom you are attracted to (though we recommend that this not come up with any professors). In fact, gaming groups and book clubs are generally considered good ways to meet potential romantic partners (okay, a gaming group is a horrible way to meet a single female, but otherwise).

See that's what I'm saying though. I'm sure there are other factors in who you consider a potential partner than their sex, and that not all of those factors are immediately apparent or something you'd consider otherwise. And frankly, most of the people we interact with are not people we are considering as romantic partners.

I never said we shouldn't consider sex, or shouldn't have it. I said it shouldn't be part of society as much as it is. Why is it that the first question about a new baby is "Is it a boy or a girl?", when an infant is obviously not forming romantic attachments? Why do we have gendered clothing styles? Why does fast food offer boy toys and girl toys? None of these have anything to do with romance (ok, clothing may, but not in a straightforward enough manner to require separation like that).

[Murdim]

But sexuality can - and is - used in many situations where there is no such purpose. Just look at commercials. There was a study that showed that waitresses with large breasts got more tips than waitresses with small breasts. For most of us, sexuality is such a fundamental fact of our lives that it's not realistic to remove it. Not if you meet and interact with the person. Online, it's easier.
I don't think this has anything to do with them being more easily identified as female :smallbiggrin:

WarKitty's point was that people should not care about not knowing the sex of other people when it's not obvious, not that everyone should become androgynous, pansexual and gender-blind. Amirite?

[Asta Kask]

It does not make it right. We are completely in agreement about that.

Also, don't propose sex in elevators. (http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-mythbusters-robot-eyes-feminism-and-jokes/) It never leads to anything good.


I don't think this has anything to do with them being more easily identified as female :smallbiggrin:

No, but it's an example of how sexuality can be used as a bargaining tool.


WarKitty's point was that people should not care about not knowing the sex of other people when it's not obvious, that the knowledge of someone's sex (or lack thereof) should have no incidence on most human interactions, not that everyone should become androgynous, pansexual and gender-blind. Amirite?

Yeah, I just think it's unrealistic. (Most) humans are intensely interested in sex and sexuality and I don't see what can be done about that without going the totalitarian route. Not a good idea.

[Qaera]

I once totally got a crush on the maker of a comic, then found out that person was male. I was very, very sad. Being straight isn't a choice, you know.

(Which comic?) Wait, you got romantic feelings for someone just cause of how they draw? *researches technology*

[WarKitty]

Yeah, I just think it's unrealistic. (Most) humans are intensely interested in sex and sexuality and I don't see what can be done about that without going the totalitarian route. Not a good idea.

Forgive me for being wary, but this is the exact same argument I hear all the time for Why Men Just Can't Stop Objectifying Women. Men are interested in sex, therefore when they see a woman they'll think about sex, therefore they can't be expected to stop treating women as sex objects.

We can put aside our sexuality. We're already expected to do it all the time. Any person in a monogamous partnership is expected to do so when around people other than their partner.

Any like I said, if it's really all about romantic relationships, why are children's genders so important to people?

[Murdim]

Yeah, I just think it's unrealistic. (Most) humans are intensely interested in sex and sexuality and I don't see what can be done about that without going the totalitarian route. Not a good idea.
I actually removed the second sentence for being too unrealistic. The "should not care when that's not obvious" part still stands and do not strike me as "way out there", though.

[Serpentine]

So... I just read through 4 of the most homophobic comics ever made. I'm not going to link to them, because they go pretty far into forbidden territory, as you might guess. You will just have to live without the experience.

But one thing struck me... there were only gays in those comics. The lesbians were absent. It's as if they never existed. So I came to this repository of LBGTA knowledge.

Why? Does anyone know where this Harry Potterian invisibility cloak comes from? Is it just that most of the comics are directed at men, and many men find lesbians hot? Or is there something else going on?Heh, I think I saw that same thing :smallbiggrin: Pretty messed up, especially the thing with the cars...
Regarding your question: It's definitely not limited to that sort of thing, and not even just to anti-LGBT stuff. Look at the scientific literature: the vast majority of it is exclusively or primarily about male homosexuality. I would be surprised if a quarter of it primarily, or even equally, addresses female homosexuality. I mean, for example, all that stuff I've frequently posted here and elsewhere about the evolutionary and biological origins of homosexuality? All about men. I think a lot of it applies, more or less, to women as well, but that's never the angle from which it comes.

[Asta Kask]

Forgive me for being wary, but this is the exact same argument I hear all the time for Why Men Just Can't Stop Objectifying Women. Men are interested in sex, therefore when they see a woman they'll think about sex, therefore they can't be expected to stop treating women as sex objects.


Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes;
Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.


Let's take a case when I go to the store to buy milk. I treat the people there as tools for my purposes - to get milk. I treat the people as if lacking in agency - I don't particularly care about their goals and objectives. I treat the people who work there as interchangeable - I don't care especially who I talk to at the cashier's. And I don't particularly care about the peoples' feelings and experiences - I don't want to hear their life's story, I want my milk.

Given that I can't even get milk without objectifying people in four different ways, I see little hope of getting rid of it for humanity without totalitarian measures (which, of course, carry their own objectification with them.)

[KenderWizard]

Or it may be because I don't want to see strangers' sexuality paraded on the street, regardless of whether it's heterosexual, homosexual or something else. I don't mean people kissing, or holding hands, and I certainly don't mind gay couples appearing in commercials all over town... but the Pride Parades I've seen have been rather more explicit. There is such a thing as Too Much Information...

I don't know about Pride parades in Gothenburg, but the parade in Dublin this year was a model of friendly, happy, proud fun, suitable for all ages. Some of the costumes were a little risque, but nothing more than what you'd see on Hallowe'en, and being worn by people who weren't completely wasted drunk, which was nice. (I can't speak for the night time parties, since I didn't go to any. I imagine there was more drunkenness and probably more behaviour that isn't appropriate in public.) I am also of the opinion that intimate acts are for intimate moments, and I didn't see anything more than couples (mainly young lesbian pairs) holding hands, and the occasional kiss.

Pride isn't about explicitly showing off your sexuality, to me it's more about having a sense of community. Saying "We're here, we're queer, get over it!". It is still a protest because there is still discrimination and systematic failure of alphabet soup people, especially alphabet soup kids and kids bring raised by alphabet soup parents. But I bet even when there are equal rights, there'll still be Pride parades, because it's fun.


Studies also show that white people are perceived as more trustworthy than black people. It may be something that's ingrained in our society, but I don't think that makes it something biologically necessary or even right.


See that's what I'm saying though. I'm sure there are other factors in who you consider a potential partner than their sex, and that not all of those factors are immediately apparent or something you'd consider otherwise. And frankly, most of the people we interact with are not people we are considering as romantic partners.

I never said we shouldn't consider sex, or shouldn't have it. I said it shouldn't be part of society as much as it is. Why is it that the first question about a new baby is "Is it a boy or a girl?", when an infant is obviously not forming romantic attachments? Why do we have gendered clothing styles? Why does fast food offer boy toys and girl toys? None of these have anything to do with romance (ok, clothing may, but not in a straightforward enough manner to require separation like that).

Hear hear! Preach it, sibling!

[Asta Kask]

I don't know about Pride parades in Gothenburg, but the parade in Dublin this year was a model of friendly, happy, proud fun, suitable for all ages. Some of the costumes were a little risque, but nothing more than what you'd see on Hallowe'en, and being worn by people who weren't completely wasted drunk, which was nice.

I've been to two parades and that was... not the case.

[WarKitty]

Heh, I think I saw that same thing :smallbiggrin: Pretty messed up, especially the thing with the cars...
Regarding your question: It's definitely not limited to that sort of thing, and not even just to anti-LGBT stuff. Look at the scientific literature: the vast majority of it is exclusively or primarily about male homosexuality. I would be surprised if a quarter of it primarily, or even equally, addresses female homosexuality. I mean, for example, all that stuff I've frequently posted here and elsewhere about the evolutionary and biological origins of homosexuality? All about men. I think a lot of it applies, more or less, to women as well, but that's never the angle from which it comes.

Actually, that often applies to non-LGBT context stuff as well. If you look at most media, in-depth male characters tend to be more prominent (outside of a few specific genres) than female characters. For a long time, medical studies were done primarily on men.



Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes;
Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.


Let's take a case when I go to the store to buy milk. I treat the people there as tools for my purposes - to get milk. I treat the people as if lacking in agency - I don't particularly care about their goals and objectives. I treat the people who work there as interchangeable - I don't care especially who I talk to at the cashier's. And I don't particularly care about the peoples' feelings and experiences - I don't want to hear their life's story, I want my milk.

Given that I can't even get milk without objectifying people in four different ways, I see little hope of getting rid of it for humanity without totalitarian measures (which, of course, carry their own objectification with them.)

That's rather a different scenario. I don't have time to explain it now, but the simple difference is that the purpose of the store employee's being there is to help you to get milk. That's what they agreed to by accepting employment there. The purpose of a woman being there is not to help you get sex, unless she's a sex worker (which is a whole different issue).

And I've dealt with people that really do have an objectifying attitude towards store employees. They're the ones that don't care if you have a job to do or if you're helping someone else. They don't care that there are rules you have to follow, or if you're off shift when they want help. They want you to drop everything and help them right that instant in the exact manner they want. Any honestly? Those people are jerks. Most people don't shop like that.

[Asta Kask]

That's rather a different scenario. I don't have time to explain it now, but the simple difference is that the purpose of the store employee's being there is to help you to get milk. That's what they agreed to by accepting employment there. The purpose of a woman being there is not to help you get sex, unless she's a sex worker (which is a whole different issue).

By saying the person has a distinct purpose you are objectifying her. To use Kant's formulation, you are treating her as an end to your means - not as an end in herself. That is exactly what I am saying - the concept of objectification coupled with the moral implications of that activity is deeply flawed.

[DeadManSleeping]

See that's what I'm saying though. I'm sure there are other factors in who you consider a potential partner than their sex, and that not all of those factors are immediately apparent or something you'd consider otherwise. And frankly, most of the people we interact with are not people we are considering as romantic partners.

Maybe you're not. I remain incredibly desperate.I'm joking. Kind of.


(Which comic?) Wait, you got romantic feelings for someone just cause of how they draw? *researches technology*

Actually, it was the writing that did it. I am far from the first person to develop a crush on a writer.


Given that I can't even get milk without objectifying people in four different ways, I see little hope of getting rid of it for humanity without totalitarian measures (which, of course, carry their own objectification with them.)

This is basically my viewpoint.

[Qaera]

Ah. Well, maybe you could still be bronies? I could arrange a sex change for them, if you'd like? Gender shouldn't stand between true love! :smalltongue:

[DeadManSleeping]

Dude, it was over two years ago. I've gotten over actual real-person love in that time. It's long past.

[Serpentine]

Actually, that often applies to non-LGBT context stuff as well. If you look at most media, in-depth male characters tend to be more prominent (outside of a few specific genres) than female characters. For a long time, medical studies were done primarily on men.Hell, I'm pretty sure it still applies to an extent, at least in comparison. Believe it or not (not you, specifically, any reader), women are still the "invisible sex", even if things are a lot better now than they used to be.

[Mina Kobold]

By saying the person has a distinct purpose you are objectifying her. To use Kant's formulation, you are treating her as an end to your means - not as an end in herself. That is exactly what I am saying - the concept of objectification coupled with the moral implications of that activity is deeply flawed.

But if I am buying milk, then I am saying I have a distinct purpose too, am I objectifying myself too?

I think people are usually talking about treating people solely as an object to be used and discarded rather than a person who can provide help.

So considering a cashier someone whose job is to help you get milk is not objectifying, while considering a random women a way to get laid is. According to this definition.

These are my two Ears, though. So I may have no idea what I'm talking about. In that case, feel free to correct me. :smallsmile:

[Asta Kask]

But if I am buying milk, then I am saying I have a distinct purpose too, am I objectifying myself too?

That depends. According to Kant, yes. You should do everything not because it has any desired outcome, but because of reverence for the Moral Law. I don't know what Nussbaum would say, but since she is probably sane she would probably have another position. :smallwink:

[Murdim]

Hell, I'm pretty sure it still applies to an extent, at least in comparison. Believe it or not (not you, specifically, any reader), women are still the "invisible sex", even if things are a lot better now than they used to be.
Actually, I'd say the opposite, that women are very visible as a sex. That is, being female is a remarkable and remarked trait, while being male is seen as the "default". This is the old idea that pervades our cultures, that women are an offshoot of men. As a result, men are perceived as more neutral and (paradoxically) more federating than women, who are often accused of focusing on "female issues" (and men to "cater to women"), with the major social implications that we can imagine.

[Asta Kask]

Well, however you put it, there's a problem with women being underrepresented in various studies.

[Lissou]

So much talk! Here are my reactions to selected bits:


Gender is a spectrum, and one I have a personal distaste for.

I don't see gender as a spectrum any more than I see tastes as a spectrum. It's a combination of spectrums, for instance how much you like sports, how much you can cook or sew or run, each of these being a spectrum, and then you add it all together.
Who's more feminine, the person who wears dresses and no make-up or the person who wears make-up and no dresses?
So to me it's more of a combination of characteristics that is so unique to each individual that even having a name for it is something I can't really explain. Especially when so many "boy things" are a "girl thing" in another time, place or culture (and vice-versa). For instance my nephew wasn't interested in bugs as a kid because "liking bugs is a girl thing".


But if we plot 'maleness'* and 'femaleness'* against frequency, is the distribution bi-modal? How large is the overlap? Gender stereotypes can still be useful even if they fail in some cases

The problem is that you will have a hard time finding someone who matches all masculine or feminine aspects of their culture, or find an aspect that's present in all females and no males or vice-versa. So due to the huge amount of characteristics (nowadays almost everything is divided into whether it's more a masculine or a feminine thing) it isn't really of any help at all. As Serp said even when there is a pattern it can be 51%-49% as opposed to 90%-10%. And it leads to way too many cases of people being excluded for no good reason, both in other people's words ("Like all women, I love shoes" > a woman who doesn't love shoes who hears that has just been told she's not a real woman) and actions (not being invited to something you would have loved because people assumed you wouldn't have).

The problem is when these stereotypes replace actual communication and learning each other's tastes. It's so much easier to believe there are two "manuals", one for males and one for females, and that everyone works the same. People don't like the idea that with every single person they have to start over learning everything from the start.
It can also be a problem physically (not everyone likes the same stuff or looks the same, even when they're the same sex for instance, or the same height and weight but with different proportions).

Also, as useful as it is, why do it for masculine/feminine? Why not for tall/short, or group of ethnicities/other group of ethnicities or by age? These have some stereotypes attached to them, but you won't find, for pretty much everything, a clear "this is a tall people/ short people /dark-skinned people kind of thing" like you do with masculine vs feminine.



Asexuals can be heterosexual...
I'm assuming you meant heteroromantic?


Much like a color spectrum there are 3 primary colors (Gay, Lesbian, Hetero)

Really? Gay and Lesbian are two categories but all heteros are together? And no "both" or "neither"?

The way I see orientation, it's divided into a few parts, for instance romantic, physical, sexual and relationship orientations. Spoilered for length:

Romantic, physical and sexual are respectively being emotionally attracted to, physically (but not sexually) attracted to, and sexually attracted to. Many people lump the three of them together because for a lot of people, probably most people, they go together. By which I don't mean you always experience all at once (you might be attracted to someone sexually but not romantically for instance) but that the general category are the same, for instance someone who is heterosexual is usually also heteroromantic.

As far as I know, the physical vs sexual orientation only really comes up for asexuals.

This first three are usually created by adding "hetero-", "homo-", "bi-", "pan-" or "a-" in front. "Andro-" and "Gyno-" are found too, when the focus isn't on whether the person is the same gender/sex as you, but whether they're male/female (that only replaces homo and hetero as the other 3 work the same).
Note that I keep saying gender/sex because it could be either. For me it's always been sex, I couldn't care less about someone's gender, but some people are the opposite and we don't have different words to specify.

Relationship orientation is a different class as the other 3 altogether. As far as I know there is only monoamorous (loves only one person at a time), polyamorous (loves more than one person at a time) and special category biamorous (the rarest of all three, technically a subcategory of poly it's sometimes described as "monoamorous, but twice". It's when a bi person who is in a relationship can fall in love again, but only with someone of the other gender/sex as their current partner. It's actually what some people think all bisexuals are, even though it's pretty rare even among poly bis.)
The same words with "-gamous" instead are used for the number of actual partners regardless of feelings.
Note that these terms are controversed for a few reasons. First, because the -gamous/-amorous thing isn't always used the same way by everyone, and also because monoamorous/polyamorous can be confused with monoromantic/polyromantic (being romantically attracted to one gender/sex or to more than one gender/sex).

Yeah, it's a big mess. And to think I wanted to keep this short >.>


As I understand it, there are two levels of asexual. The first is having physical attractions toward certain people, but not having any sexual urges or plain disliking sex. The second is not having any sexual attractions at all.

I think you might have been talking about the physical/sexual orientation thing from above. Although maybe you refereed to demisexuals? They are people who can develop sexual attraction, but only to specific people they have an intimate relationship with (intimate as in emotional intimacy, I mean).
Because usually when I think of "levels" within the sexual spectrum, I think asexual < demisexual < sexual < hypersexual.
So I wasn't sure which you meant.


Hear hear! Preach it, sibling!

Sometimes having a language where everything has a gender helps (you commonly refers to males with female words and vice-versa and stop noticing). Sometimes though it makes gender neutrality pretty much impossible. Case in point: there is no gender-neutral word such as "sibling" in French.


Hell, I'm pretty sure it still applies to an extent, at least in comparison. Believe it or not (not you, specifically, any reader), women are still the "invisible sex", even if things are a lot better now than they used to be.

Yeah, I remember an argument with a guy about females in videogames. It started off positive-like, with him saying that females should have good characters too and not just stereotypes, but then it quickly turned out that to him, a character was male by default, and there needed to be a "reason" to "turn" that character female.
It's the same with a lot of things. People being straight by default, people being white by default, etc. It's most obvious in fictional characters, whenever a character isn't straight there seems to be a point that's trying to be made, which isn't the case when a character IS straight.
Or all these things that have characters all fitting a specific "type", and one of the type is "the black character" or "the female character" like in itself it's their specificity.

It's very annoying because people don't realise these things require actively trying to stop them. Like, any authors here, next character, try taking a d100 and a table of population percentages in various things, then roll for their sex, then whether they're cisgendered, then their ethnicity, etc. If you do that for every character you can (I can see how siblings should be the same ethnicity unless you roll that one of them has been adopted, in which case you can roll for ethnicity again for them), then you'll end up having a representative population in your story. If you don't, well you're likely to end up with people who are all way too similar.

And I don't mean that if a character ends up asexual or trans it needs to become a big plot point. No, have it just be that way, like their hair colour or something. Mention it when it makes sense, sure, but let it just be something that the story isn't revolving around.
Because as great as it is to see stories revolving around these things, there aren't enough stories in which that's just that, the character is a three dimensional character rather than a plot point. You know what I mean?

[golentan]

I don't know. I mean, I tend to actually randomize certain character traits, sure. But on the other hand, a truly random distribution doesn't work (Certain stories demand certain character traits, and the characters need some common ground to interact on). That said, I do agree women and minorities (especially those not yet fully socially accepted) are underrepresented and that should be fixed. TvTropes has a (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenMinority) fair amount to (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenIndex) say on the matter. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandleThisIndexWithCare)

[Asta Kask]

The problem is that you will have a hard time finding someone who matches all masculine or feminine aspects of their culture, or find an aspect that's present in all females and no males or vice-versa.

Most males or most females would suffice, but I agree that it would be difficult.


And it leads to way too many cases of people being excluded for no good reason, both in other people's words ("Like all women, I love shoes" > a woman who doesn't love shoes who hears that has just been told she's not a real woman) and actions (not being invited to something you would have loved because people assumed you wouldn't have).

I'd say you've just been told the person is an idiot. :smallwink:

Considering this, btw, is it wrong to talk of 'lesbian' relationships? Two bisexual women have a relationship - are they suddenly converted into lesbians?

[Murdim]

Considering this, btw, is it wrong to talk of 'lesbian' relationships? Two bisexual women have a relationship - are they suddenly converted into lesbians?
I don't know. If this was a "homosexual relationship" then that would be okay, because the relationship is homosexual (with the literal meaning of "same-sex") even though none of the partners are homosexual (with the usual meaning of "exclusively attracted to the same sex"). The -sexual words have a different meaning, depending on whether they are used to describe a person or a situation. In contrast, "straight", "gay" and "lesbian" have no such ambiguity, and it might not be as acceptable to use them in situations where people outside the binary might be involved.

But I don't think most people care much either way, really.

[Lissou]

I don't know. I mean, I tend to actually randomize certain character traits, sure. But on the other hand, a truly random distribution doesn't work

I was more thinking of making that an exercise of sorts, before coming up with a story, if that makes sense? Just to see how that would work out. Or for random characters who aren't the main ones, might as well roll these, right? I agree that randomising it all wouldn't work (you might end up with the two main characters of your love story not being of compatible orientation anymore for instance).


Considering this, btw, is it wrong to talk of 'lesbian' relationships? Two bisexual women have a relationship - are they suddenly converted into lesbians?

I think you can usually use orientation words for relationships in a different way as you do for people. For instance, you could be gay in a straight relationship (because you're in the closet), and I guess if you're bi and mono you're never in a "bi" relationship. Because you know, the relationship is either same sex or opposite sex (most of the time. I guess there are intersex exceptions).

I think it could work very well to say "I'm bi, currently in a gay relationship" for instance. But it's probably safest to ask the people involved what they think.

[KenderWizard]

@Lissou: It was me who said "sibling"! (Or, the phrase which included the word "sibling".)

[Castaras]

Why do you even have to put a qualifier? Surely just saying "I'm in a relationship with [x]" or just "I'm in a relationship" is good enough. :smallconfused:

[Qaera]

Re: bisexual relationships, polyamorous relayshes?

[Castaras]

Well... those are different sort of relationships, yes. But I'm meaning more the bit with the "Gay relationship" and such. Why not just say it's a relationship? Whether its girlgirl, boyboy, or boygirl or whatever else the participants are, doesn't change the fact that its a relationship between two people who love each other.

[Qaera]

Well... those are different sort of relationships, yes. But I'm meaning more the bit with the "Gay relationship" and such. Why not just say it's a relationship? Whether its girlgirl, boyboy, or boygirl or whatever else the participants are, doesn't change the fact that its a relationship between two people who love each other.

Or more. :smallcool:
Anyways, I like dis. It is good.

[Murdim]

Well... those are different sort of relationships, yes. But I'm meaning more the bit with the "Gay relationship" and such. Why not just say it's a relationship? Whether its girlgirl, boyboy, or boygirl or whatever else the participants are, doesn't change the fact that its a relationship between two people who love each other.
There are some situations where the "nature" of a relationship have to be explicited, such as discussions on same-sex marriage. It should not matter, but it does.

[golentan]

I was more thinking of making that an exercise of sorts, before coming up with a story, if that makes sense? Just to see how that would work out. Or for random characters who aren't the main ones, might as well roll these, right? I agree that randomising it all wouldn't work (you might end up with the two main characters of your love story not being of compatible orientation anymore for instance).

I don't know, that could be really interesting as a love conquers all situation even (especially) if they never wind up consummating it. I mean, my favorite couple from exalted and the only happily married romantic pair in the setting is Ledaal Kes and Ragara Szaya, and they're both gay.

[Castaras]

There are some situations where the "nature" of a relationship have to be explicited, such as discussions on same-sex marriage. It should not matter, but it does.

"Hi, I'm [x] and I'm in a relationship with [y]." Where [y] can be a girl, multiple girls, a guy, multiple guys, or the nearby mongoose in the lake.

Or am I being stupid here and there's some situation where you can't use this stuff? :smallconfused:

[Qaera]

Mother: "Do you plan on getting married to [Y]?"
You: "No, same-sex marriages aren't legal in [State], so we're thinking about a civil union."
Mother: "Well that's... wait, did you just say same-sex?"

Especially funny if Mother and [Y] have never met, and [Y] has one of those names that could go either way, like Jordan or Alex.

[Asta Kask]

"Hi, I'm [x] and I'm in a relationship with [y]." Where [y] can be a girl, multiple girls, a guy, multiple guys, or the nearby mongoose in the lake.

Or am I being stupid here and there's some situation where you can't use this stuff? :smallconfused:

You forget that I am a nosy person.

[Castaras]

You forget that I am a nosy person.

Okay, I definitely need to go sleep, 'cos I don't see how that relates to using my way of saying things compared to saying [x] relationship. :smallconfused: Nosy or not, both ways would give you the information. Just that saying I'm in a relationship with [x] is easier than trying to find the words and/or correct terminology with [x] relationship.

[golentan]

Mother: "Do you plan on getting married to [Y]?"
You: "No, same-sex marriages aren't legal in [State], so we're thinking about a civil union."
Mother: "Well that's... wait, did you just say same-sex?"

Especially funny if Mother and [Y] have never met, and [Y] has one of those names that could go either way, like Jordan or Alex.

Hehehehe... Be interesting to be a fly on that wall I suspect. Gender ambiguous names can be fun.

[Lissou]

@Lissou: It was me who said "sibling"! (Or, the phrase which included the word "sibling".)

Thanks! I knew that, but somehow when editing all the quotes I fumbled and didn't notice. Thanks for pointing it out.


Why do you even have to put a qualifier? Surely just saying "I'm in a relationship with [x]" or just "I'm in a relationship" is good enough. :smallconfused:

Well, not necessarily, but you might want to. Nowadays, it does make a difference as far as which rights you get. If you say "I wish I could get married, but..." then you need to know how to phrase the end of the sentence. My opinion is that "...I'm in a gay relationship" should work fine even if you're bi or something.

@golentan> true, I thought about it as I was writing it, but if you already have the story all figured out then it doesn't really work. Quite obviously it would come up at some point that they aren't "each other's type": if the message is "love triumphs" then the obstacle needs to be obvious and stated.

So I would say the story would probably develop very differently.

[turkishproverb]

The latter, definitly. Gay is ok when it's two chicks making out, seems to be the rule for most men.

Yea, I see alot of that too. Ironically, I've seen a bit of negative backlash towards lesbians in mainstream cinema by gay men because of it.

[Asta Kask]

Okay, I definitely need to go sleep, 'cos I don't see how that relates to using my way of saying things compared to saying [x] relationship. :smallconfused: Nosy or not, both ways would give you the information. Just that saying I'm in a relationship with [x] is easier than trying to find the words and/or correct terminology with [x] relationship.

You are right and I was wrong. I didn't read your post carefully enough.

[Tychris1]

Yea, I see alot of that too. Ironically, I've seen a bit of negative backlash towards lesbians in mainstream cinema by gay men because of it.

Chasing Amy comes to mind (Not the director of it but the character in it).

[golentan]

Yea, I see alot of that too. Ironically, I've seen a bit of negative backlash towards lesbians in mainstream cinema by gay men because of it.

I've never understood the idea that someone's losing if someone else is winning, or that if you're winning someone else is losing. Especially in cases like this (lesbians don't have it much better than gay guys except when it comes to pornographic fantasies, IMO).

[Lyesmith]

I've never understood the idea that someone's losing if someone else is winning, or that if you're winning someone else is losing. Especially in cases like this (lesbians don't have it much better than gay guys except when it comes to pornographic fantasies, IMO).

Part of it is a status thing. The eaisiest way to gain status is to undermine other people, reducing them and elevating yourself. The eaisest victory is the defeat of another.

[WarKitty]

Part of it is a status thing. The eaisiest way to gain status is to undermine other people, reducing them and elevating yourself. The eaisest victory is the defeat of another.

We live in a society that puts people in a hierarchy that is only semi visible. Part of that is natural. But part of it is also very destructive. Think about some of the parents that want their child to have "all the advantages for getting into a good school" - there comes a point where what they're really doing is making sure their child has advantages relative to another child whose parents didn't send him to as good a school or pay for a SAT prep course, regardless of the actual abilities of the two children. I doubt that's how they see it, but it is there.

In most of our society, being a straight white cis male (or some combination of those traits) gives you a leg up in the hierarchy over someone who lacks one or more of the advantages you have. If someone else is raised to your level, that means you now have to compete with them on an even footing. This is even harder for someone who's already lacking one or more privileges, because they're starting at a disadvantage relative to others.

[Tychris1]

We live in a society that puts people in a hierarchy that is only semi visible. Part of that is natural. But part of it is also very destructive. Think about some of the parents that want their child to have "all the advantages for getting into a good school" - there comes a point where what they're really doing is making sure their child has advantages relative to another child whose parents didn't send him to as good a school or pay for a SAT prep course, regardless of the actual abilities of the two children. I doubt that's how they see it, but it is there.

Well, it depends on what a parent determines as a good school. Some parents (like the ones you listed) would want there kids to go to private schools because they want there children to have an advantage over other kids and have it better in life. However this is not the only reason why they would want there kid to go to private schools, as there are many variables that can effect there choice (Such as for example my parents decided to send me to private school because the community we lived in was underwhelming in many areas such as sanitation and morality). While there are other parents who decide that there kids being in a public school that teaches them what they need in life to get by and progress to be the same thing, a "Good school".

Also, what does CIS stand for? Or were you trying to write something else?

[Lissou]

Also, what does CIS stand for? Or were you trying to write something else?

Cis is the opposite of trans. It's not an acronym.

[Tychris1]

Ah, I never heard of Cis before so excuse my ignorance.

[rayne_dragon]

Ah, I never heard of Cis before so excuse my ignorance.

It's not one of those terms that comes up a lot in non-LGBT-related stuff, so I think many of us have been there ourselves (including me).

[Blisstake]

Huh, well I guess I learned something new today.

Although that's not a word I ever really had to use before :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

I don't see gender as a spectrum any more than I see tastes as a spectrum. It's a combination of spectrums, for instance how much you like sports, how much you can cook or sew or run, each of these being a spectrum, and then you add it all together.
Who's more feminine, the person who wears dresses and no make-up or the person who wears make-up and no dresses?
So to me it's more of a combination of characteristics that is so unique to each individual that even having a name for it is something I can't really explain. Especially when so many "boy things" are a "girl thing" in another time, place or culture (and vice-versa). For instance my nephew wasn't interested in bugs as a kid because "liking bugs is a girl thing".Well... yes. It's still a spectrum, just a very complicated spectrum :smalltongue: I fully agree with you, anyway.

I'm assuming you meant heteroromantic?Not really, I figure it's sort of "I have absolutely no interest in any sexual activities, but if I did it would be with [sex]". But I don't really get asexuality beyond extremely low libido, so I fully accept the possibility that I'm completely wrong *shrug*

[Gardener]

It's not one of those terms that comes up a lot in non-LGBT-related stuff, so I think many of us have been there ourselves (including me).

About the only other place you'll run into it is organic chemistry, where it's used to describe whether two functional groups are on the same side (cis) or opposite sides (trans) of a ring structure.

Remember trans fats? They're organic-chemistry trans, not LGBT trans.

[Dogmantra]

Remember trans fats? They're organic-chemistry trans, not LGBT trans.

They are? Well dang, now I'm just fat and I'm STILL not a girl
;_;

[golentan]

@Lyesmith & Kitty: I hope I don't have summarize why I find that situation incredibly stupid and flawed. :smallsigh: Humans. :smallsigh:

[Coidzor]

@Lyesmith & Kitty: I hope I don't have summarize why I find that situation incredibly stupid and flawed. :smallsigh: Humans. :smallsigh:

Well, I don't think either of them or any of us were espousing this as a good situation. But we're kinda all stuck into the same boat together, golentan. Except we're also trying to do our darndest to make sure we're not the first one cannibalized out of necessity or recreation...


I don't see gender as a spectrum any more than I see tastes as a spectrum. It's a combination of spectrums, for instance how much you like sports, how much you can cook or sew or run, each of these being a spectrum, and then you add it all together.

So why and how is a man objectively feminine in gender because he is a tailor who knows how to cook well? Or a woman objectively masculine because she enjoys watching sports and being physically active?

That just seems to be perpetuating stereotypes from the days before feminism as things that are objectively true about the inner dimension of a person based upon their hobbies.


I never said we shouldn't consider sex, or shouldn't have it. I said it shouldn't be part of society as much as it is.

Oh? You seemed to be suggesting that sexual dimorphism and secondary sexual characteristics being part of humanity was intrinsically immoral.

And from the rest of what you've said, your main objection does seem to be to sexual dimorphism existing at all and what has come from that.


I actually removed the second sentence for being too unrealistic. The "should not care when that's not obvious" part still stands and do not strike me as "way out there", though.

How is that immediately obvious from what she said though? I got a clear "sexual dimorphism is evil" vibe from it.

[Serpentine]

So why and how is a man objectively feminine in gender because he is a tailor who knows how to cook well? Or a woman objectively masculine because she enjoys watching sports and being physically active?

That just seems to be perpetuating stereotypes from the days before feminism as things that are objectively true about the inner dimension of a person based upon their hobbies.That was... my point, at least, and I don't believe Lissou has disagreed with it :smallconfused:

[Ashen Lilies]

I always thought trans fats were carbohydrates that decided that they would rather be fats instead. Huh. :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

That was... my point, at least, and I don't believe Lissou has disagreed with it :smallconfused:

The relevant bit of what I quoted did seem to say that these things actually determined someone's gender strongly enough to be worth mentioning. And, well, I personally reject the notion that whether one enjoys cooking is gendered at all quite strongly.

[Serpentine]

The relevant bit of what I quoted did seem to say that these things actually determined someone's gender strongly enough to be worth mentioning.She was expanding on my comment about gender being a spectrum. It is, perhaps, an example of that conflation of natural, obvervable variation between the sexes gender and the artifiical, socially-defined expectations of the sexes "gender" that I was complaining about, but I don't believe she's actually saying anything that you think she was saying.

And, well, I personally reject the notion that whether one enjoys cooking is gendered at all quite strongly.It's nice you agree with what I said to which she was responding.

[Coidzor]

She was expanding on my comment about gender being a spectrum. It is, perhaps, an example of that conflation of natural, obvervable variation between the sexes gender and the artifiical, socially-defined expectations of the sexes "gender" that I was complaining about, but I don't believe she's actually saying anything that you think she was saying.

Ok, so what is she saying when she's saying that gender is based upon several spectrums, all of which that she named I was objecting to determining gender?

Because if she means to say that these things don't determine gender then she literally said the opposite in what I quoted. And if I missed some crucial part of what she said in the component that I did not quote, would you please point that out to me? Because I've double checked and seen nothing that would modify what I quoted.