LGBTAI+ LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double [Archive] - Page 2

SowZ

2014-12-24, 07:11 PM

Interesting. I wonder what that's like, both Christmas and Hanukkah? I have an unfortunate WASP perspective bias, I've never even considered a set up where both were equally celebrated. It's always been a war of family culture whenever I thought about stuff like that. Which is silly, considering.

Relevant stuff from a different civil issue; MLK's thoughts on allies. A moderate ally who insists that you fight softer, speak softer, take more time, wait for the right time to not rock the boat, is a worse enemy than even the most dogged and vile active opponents.

Anyone who doesn't pick a side in an issue of human rights is in fact already on a side and just doesn't want to change, and doesn't want culpability. But that's sort of bunk, isn't it? If you back down when homophobe A hassles queer B, then you've chosen to support homophobe A. That's not universal, and I'm not saying all things boil down to binary, but I've been there where I had to make a choice based on whether I had any support near me. Other people looking away, not wanting to get involved, only being willing to thank you for trying after the fight is over? That hurts. That gets personal. That's a choice.

Aye.

So I bungled it prior, but my statement of people being decent still stands. That is, we don't want special treatment. We want the same treatment. The default interaction with others is 'decent human being', but some folks believe certain properties allow you to treat the other person poorly. The reason the laundry list looks like 'we want you to be a decent human being' is because that's true. We want you to stop thinking "oh. It's okay, this person is gay so I don't have to be humane" is a valid concept.

I know two people who have done just that. I'm one of them.
It's about wanting it, not about difficulty.

Well, no. That's not right. My upbringing had a lot to do with it. Rather than being given rules to follow I was given tools to decide for myself what being a good person meant, and even if that was my goal. But it's never too late to give those tools. It just takes more resources.

I understand what you mean, but no. Violence is the root of all conflict meaning, under every disagreement, every argument, every dynamic struggle, is the knowledge that if I really really want to win this particular struggle, damn the cost; I'll kill you or cripple you. That has nothing to do with uneven or insufficient resources. It's a simple cost:benefit analysis of exactly how much you've triggered my primate reflexes versus what I think I stand to lose.

Indeed. Although "no mod said anything yet" is not carte Blanche to keep doing it. They aren't omniscient. Except Rawhide, maybe. Being a computer and all.

No.

The enemy is status quo. Everyone who goes along with the system propagates the system.

It's an antagonistic format but people stick to it because it's gotten results.

The benefits of being the majority are that you blend in. It's easier to recognize default settings from our perspective. :smallwink:

That's actually a good thing to bring up!

Browsing a safe space is cool. Online, I mean. It's educational as all get out, as long as you remember it's a safe space. I have one I found online for racial (specifically black) issues, and many times I've just sat down and shut up because, agree or disagree, it's a safe space. You don't walk into a room designed for people to vent and then get mad they're venting, even if that venting seems hurtful to you. That's the point; to vent safely without hurting anyone, you or them.

But recognize this; safe spaces select for certain things. Racial activism safe spaces self-select for a lot of "white people are stupid" for example. It's not personal. It's venting. It's an attempt to articulate in the dark, in the mirror, to get your ducks in a row.

We tend to forget this here. We forget the primary LGBTAI thread is for support and a safe space. I'll have to try to remember that myself.

Rhetorically, it can be viewed either way. If you've ever seen an ally telling an activist to not fight, to let this one go, that it's not really sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic, it's just one time and it makes sense in context, etc., it could be moderate action. Or it could be actively hindering, which is enemy activity. It's difficult to tell.

Ooh, dang! That's so elegant! Well done, hon.

Yeah. Mmm. Arizona desert~

I'm glad you'd phrase it that way even jokingly. Caught between both you and Gaelbert I felt both terribly dressed and not up to moral snuff. XD

This has taken on new magnitudes for me. My eyes are open and I see children now like I couldn't before. Remember, there's no guile there. Their smiles are the purest smiles. Their tears the purest frustrations or sorrows.

Two years they develop the higher capabilities, the abstractions for deception and saving face, but in general children are just so fun, it's amazing.

I can't think of a parent that hasn't had to combine the two at some point.

Och. So you celebrate the Gregorian year? I'm working, likely, but it's cool because New Years is a few months back for me.

If somebody was not given those tools, they are not just going to spontaneously learn how to think critically about moral issues like that. They will meet people, usually. Even being presented evidence by someone you don't know or stumbling across it on the internet is external intervention. If you were raised with a certain paradigm and not given the tools of critical thinking, and you have zero outside intervention, you aren't just going to wake up one day and decide to stop being racist.

Jormengand

2014-12-24, 07:15 PM

So... Plans for the holidays? (Awkward change of subject)

Doing lots of work, wearing dresses and seeing how my sister and her boyfriend react (my mother is fine and my brothers haven't mentioned it - though I have found out that talking to your brother about breasts becomes really weird when you're a girl), doing lots of work, playing PARAGON, doing lots of work, playing D&D, doing lots of work, conveniently ignoring this "Christmas" thing that some people have going, doing lots of work, and did I mention doing lots of work?

Yeah - holidays aren't gonna be fun. But what else is new?

Zurvan

2014-12-24, 07:41 PM

Just got home from the church. Had to serve as a acolyte because that priest always uses two acolytes and the other one did not show up. No harm done the other guy was kind of cute... Unholy thoughts during solemn celebration is always good thing... not hahaha. Some of my friends were there and that was nice.

Now that everybody ate too much I'm probably going to play mortal kombat with my cousins.

Doing lots of work, wearing dresses and seeing how my sister and her boyfriend react (my mother is fine and my brothers haven't mentioned it - though I have found out that talking to your brother about breasts becomes really weird when you're a girl), doing lots of work, playing PARAGON, doing lots of work, playing D&D, doing lots of work, conveniently ignoring this "Christmas" thing that some people have going, doing lots of work, and did I mention doing lots of work?

Yeah - holidays aren't gonna be fun. But what else is new?

You mean work WORK or work studying work?

Mystic Muse

2014-12-24, 07:45 PM

This is a bizarre question.

Are there any conditions someone who is male might have that would require Estrogen/anti-androgens for treatment?

The other thing of course is I apparently have anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance. Anyone have any idea if they cover trans stuff?

Anarion

2014-12-24, 07:50 PM

If you go to your insurance company website, there should be a document somewhere called "statement of coverage". It's basically a big book that lists out everything they do it don't cover.

Jormengand

2014-12-24, 07:51 PM

You mean work WORK or work studying work?

Studying. Am doing one and a half times as many subjects as everyone else, so... work.

noparlpf

2014-12-24, 07:53 PM

SiuiS

2014-12-24, 08:00 PM

Would you believe that gift-giving actually tends to be based on the family's means and what the parents think is fair for the overall holiday season? Because celebrating both generally just meant different ceremonies and different family get-togethers.

Also, being jewish in America automatically means you celebrate Christmas. Even if you don't buy your own tree, there are festivities in every store, every school, and most families get together on the day off because it's free.

I'm more interested in the celebrating, really. And yeah. Christmas is a secular holiday now.

Hey you read the MLK Birmingham jail letter! That's awesome! That's one of my favorite pieces of writing.

I did, and thanks. It have me context for stuff I had seen before.

However, there is a distinction I'd make there that I think you're leaving out. If someone chooses not to stand up, I might be sad, perhaps disappointed, but I'm not going to say that they sided with the person hurling the insults. Inaction is often easier, it requires less of a person and sometimes people, even good ones, can't bring themselves to act every time. If they fail to be good enough, I want to encourage them to do more next time, to know that we can still be friends and that I appreciate their support in any form they can provide it.

That's different than the MLK letter where he discussed people who claimed to be "allies" but were actually giving advice not to act, in effect attempting a form of sabotage. That's a comparison of action to action: the choice to either stand with someone or to say something different and harmful. Imo, it's critically different in character from the choice between action and inaction.

Aye. That's an important bit I couldn't nail down. I'm also generally assuming an adult; anyone below the age of majority is implicitly given leeway. That's a blind spot for me, and part of the binary nature of abstract thought. In general, "people" means adults in sound mind. The more specific you get the clunkier discussion gets; the more general, the more confusing. It's a balancing act.

I think you two are talking about different things. Also, you're both right. Violence underlies all conflicts. SiuiS's statement above is basically true and the structuring of much of society is to make certain that an individual's resort to violence will harm them more than it helps them.

However, any individual conflict tends to exist because of scarce resources. If you could just have what you want and the other person could have what they want too, there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place.

In abstract? Not really though. Some things, many of them which fall into 'not worth violence but might happen anyway' are abstract and can be had equally by both people.

You should define "the system" here. I can't tell whether I agree with you or not.

I'm not advocating either way, I simply understand the formula.

Defining the system would be problematic. It gets into issues of technicalities which leave out the wrong things or let in the wrong things. Abstract and concrete again. If you get the general idea, that is enough.

On the other hand, let's say that I'm that same teenager 4 years later, aged 19 in early college and people who claim to support me also urge me to keep it quiet, don't advertise that I'm looking for an unusual relationship, if I do find someone I shouldn't bring that person to any public events, that kind of thing. That's harmful, even if it comes from good intentions. Because it inherently contains the statement "Who you are is wrong" and reveals the person claiming to be a supporter is no such thing.

This is the one I mean, aye. The other is also balid, I just left it out because I couldn't figure how to include it without diluting my message into negligibility.

Wait, which New Year are you celebrating? :smallconfused:

That's a religious discussion I'm afraid.

Wasn't trying to be... It was obvious what you were asking, and I figured you wanted an answer rather than pedantry.

I do appreciate that. Thank you. ^^

If somebody was not given those tools, they are not just going to spontaneously learn how to think critically about moral issues like that.

See here;

Well, no. That's not right. My upbringing had a lot to do with it. Rather than being given rules to follow I was given tools to decide for myself what being a good person meant, and even if that was my goal. But it's never too late to give those tools. It just takes more resources.

I should have said it's never too late to get those tools, but the point stands. Yes, if someone just sits there and does nothing they won't grow. They will not have moral understanding handed to them, they will not go out and find moral understanding, they certainly won't make heads or tails of it should the prior two somehow be wrong.

But a completely static human being is an outlier. They are not worth my consideration and serve only to dilute conversation. This is an instance of technically true but hardly useful information. I'm not going to give it the same weight as I would the standard person.

golentan

2014-12-24, 08:13 PM

Kesnit

2014-12-24, 08:20 PM

The other thing of course is I apparently have anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance. Anyone have any idea if they cover trans stuff?

I had BCBS when I started transition, and they covered my hormones and doctor's visits.

That's a religious discussion I'm afraid.

I am going to guess Oct 31/Nov 1. If I am wrong, oops...

Astrella

2014-12-24, 08:51 PM

SowZ

2014-12-24, 09:18 PM

We always did Chanukah and not Christmas, but my siblings and I usually spend Christmas with my dad. We don't make all that big of a deal about either, though. It's a good year when we remember to light candles on six of the eight nights (about four is more typical), and we usually make a batch of latkes once or twice. And we don't bother with Christmas traditions either besides a small fake tree my dad sets up and a batch of eggnog.

Gonna delete some stuff now and stop typing before I say some stuff that's not board-appropriate.

I had a similar situation growing up, and am celebrating both holidays as well.

Zurvan

2014-12-25, 08:09 AM

I object to the characterization of certain things in here.

*sigh* I don't get it... What have I done wrong this time?

SowZ

2014-12-25, 11:19 AM

*sigh* I don't get it... What have I done wrong this time?

Honestly I saw nothing offensive. I can't speculate on what Golen found distasteful.

Coidzor

2014-12-25, 02:41 PM

*sigh* I don't get it... What have I done wrong this time?

I mean, you probably shouldn't be thinking about League of Legends while you were doing that, but it's not the end of the world, so no worries about beating yourself up about having gotten distracted by thinking about the game.

Zurvan

2014-12-25, 02:52 PM

I mean, you probably shouldn't be thinking about League of Legends while you were doing that, but it's not the end of the world, so no worries about beating yourself up about having gotten distracted by thinking about the game.

I really have no idea of what you guys are talking about.

Sobol

2014-12-25, 03:04 PM

Christmas plans?
December 25 is a usual working day for me. I went to the cinema today to watch Into the Woods - and found the movie boring. The humorous bits weren't funny, the serious bits were lame, the acting and vocal abilities of the cast weren't even close to the original production with Bernadette Peters and others.

SowZ

2014-12-25, 03:05 PM

I really have no idea of what you guys are talking about.

When you said LOL, he read that as League of Legends instead of Laugh Out Loud.

Gwynfrid

2014-12-25, 03:57 PM

{ scrubbed }

Very interesting and valid point (as are Anarion's remarks in response), but I will refrain from pursuing that line of thought. A few days ago, I started to think that I might be overly cautious in my reading of the forum rules. However, I just realized, in a different context, that my reading was in fact not cautious enough. I should therefore allow for a wider margin from error, relative to the rules: That starts with my participation in discussions on the present thread.

Asta Kask

2014-12-25, 04:31 PM

SiuiS

2014-12-25, 04:39 PM

Oop. Wrong thread.

{ scrubbed }

noparlpf

2014-12-25, 04:55 PM

It's from his "letter from Birmingham jail". Not sure if it's too political to post here considering it was just a few years ago and ancient historical politics are even sometimes problematic...

golentan

2014-12-25, 05:05 PM

*sigh* I don't get it... What have I done wrong this time?

All I will say is the characterization of certain things as "unholy," or "holy" for that matter, is best not suited for here.

SowZ

2014-12-25, 05:13 PM

This sounds like the beginning of a terrible idea. Prostate cancer is the only thing I can think off, and faking that would be difficult, since there's a simple blood test that can tell you whether you have it or not. And if you could fake the blood test (which might be possible), there's a biopsy and MR to pass as well. Even if you pass all that, you would probably not receive estrogen, since the side effects are too severe, and you are more likely to be offered radiation or surgery as first-line treatments. Although they may offer an orchiectomy (removal of testicles, which of course means no more androgens).

As a person whose father died of prostate cancer, I'm not well disposed to even the suspicion that someone is trying to trick hir way into receiving treatment for something quite different, thereby diverting resources from people who may die of cancer to someone who is who is somatically healthy. I hope I misread your intentions, and if I didn't I hope you reconsider.

SiuiS - are you saying that MLK's position is that unless I paralyze my mind and listen blindly to your strategic and tactical judgment of the situation, I am a worse enemy than the WBC? Because if that's his position, then my position is that he's full of ****. I think it's far more likely that the quote is moderated by other quotes elsewhere.

{ scrubbed }

I'm sorry your dad died of prostrate cancer. Mine died of bile duct. That doesn't mean I resent Transexuals getting a sex change because I wish that money had been spent on cancer research. That's a fairly spiteful way of looking at medicine and insurance providers if I am reading you right. Unless you are just talking about people lying about conditions rather than upset that insurance companies cover SRS.

{ scrubbed }

All I will say is the characterization of certain things as "unholy," or "holy" for that matter, is best not suited for here.

It was clearly said in jest.

It's from his "letter from Birmingham jail". Not sure if it's too political to post here considering it was just a few years ago and ancient historical politics are even sometimes problematic...
{ scrubbed }

golentan

2014-12-25, 05:19 PM

Clearly to you. In light of how often it's happened completely unironically, I tend to take zurvan's condemnations of LGBT matters at face value.

SowZ

2014-12-25, 05:24 PM

Clearly to you. In light of how often it's happened completely unironically, I tend to take zurvan's condemnations of LGBT matters at face value.

Zurvan was saying he was crushing on one of the other acolytes and the other acolyte was male. I assumed that Z was using self-deprecating humor about his crush on said acolyte as opposed to sincerely condemning his own feelings. I could be wrong about his intentions or the context of the story, I suppose. The unholy thoughts thing I read as more talking about sexual thoughts during church in general as opposed to specifically talking about homosexual thoughts. That was just my reading, however.

Mono Vertigo

2014-12-25, 05:39 PM

Hey there, the last couple pages contain quite a few posts that might dwell a little too into political and religious matters, so I suggest we turn to less charged topics.

@Mystic Muse and Asta Kask: not 100% what the point of the original question is, but if that's what we thought it is, it's not a good idea. Even if the medication might be identical for both conditions, the dosing might not be, and following (broadly) the principle that the dosing is what makes the poison, you might get in trouble (or at least not the results you're seeking).
I've said it a lot already, but I'll say it again: you're better off asking a health professional. If not IRL, do it somewhere on the Internet that allows it.
(And I'm not very hot personally on pretending to have a different disease/disorder than the one you actually have even if the intentions are very understandable. If I misunderstood the intentions, please accept my deepest apologies.)

SiuiS

2014-12-25, 06:15 PM

I'm not interested in the actual letters of the man nor the actual civil rights movement. The quote was used because it addresses a similar context; the idea that supposed friends who are trying to protect their own interests as friends over the interests of the group they've friended are as bad or worse than open antagonists.

I point to the fact that an ally would completely shut down a line of conjecture because a technical point makes them look bad, and that it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Anarion

2014-12-25, 07:31 PM

I'm going to repeat a point I said earlier. There are different stages of debate and decision-making. When you're thinking and weighing options, that's a fine time for many opinions. Even hostile thoughts should be welcome at that time, imo because they help to understand the consequences of various decisions. That's the time for someone who claims to be an ally to urge caution, care, and moderation.

On the other hand, decisions can only be debated so long. Eventually, they are made. Whether they're individual ("I choose to come out") or group consensus ("the movement chooses to spend money on X thing"), there is a time when decisions must become action.

At that time, when options have already been weighed and action is happening, a person who claims to be an "ally" while opposing the action has ceased to be an ally. The person decrying the decision might still be right, keep in mind, they're simply no longer an ally.

Zurvan

2014-12-25, 07:39 PM

Clearly to you. In light of how often it's happened completely unironically, I tend to take zurvan's condemnations of LGBT matters at face value.

Yeah in such position any kind of sexual thought is bad(and technically unholy) but after my past comments here I don't condemn your reaction.

Had to sing christmas songs today :smallmad: But one of them was Carol of the Bells :smallbiggrin:

SiuiS

2014-12-25, 07:41 PM

Had to sing christmas songs today :smallmad: But one of them was Carol of the Bells :smallbiggrin:

I was going to ask for a moment, "how do you sing a carol of bells?" But then I remembered it's an actual song and one of my favorites :smallredface:

Mystic Muse

2014-12-25, 07:48 PM

Zurvan

2014-12-25, 07:52 PM

[For the record, it was basically entirely a question of curiosity. I have absolutely no intention of committing insurance fraud.

Sure cause that totally pass through our minds. :smallconfused:

SowZ

2014-12-25, 07:58 PM

Sure cause that totally pass through our minds. :smallconfused:

It's why it's better to give people the benefit of the doubt without knowing the details.

Mystic Muse

2014-12-25, 08:06 PM

Sure cause that totally pass through our minds. :smallconfused:

Look, I'm sorry that this came across as trying to trick an insurance company. That wasn't my intention at all.

Coidzor

2014-12-25, 08:12 PM

I was going to ask for a moment, "how do you sing a carol of bells?" But then I remembered it's an actual song and one of my favorites :smallredface:

I too think of this whenever someone mentions it. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_P0SaPmV3c)

Kesnit

2014-12-25, 08:21 PM

Sure cause that totally pass through our minds. :smallconfused:

Except Mystic Muse did get accused of planning insurance fraud on the last page...

Anarion

2014-12-26, 01:20 AM

Look, I'm sorry that this came across as trying to trick an insurance company. That wasn't my intention at all.

It's probably better to be honest with family members anyway. If you make something up, all it takes is one person to do a little research into it and find some inconsistency, then they'll tell everyone else and they'll be more upset at you for lying than for what you're actually doing.

Mystic Muse

2014-12-26, 01:48 AM

It's probably better to be honest with family members anyway. If you make something up, all it takes is one person to do a little research into it and find some inconsistency, then they'll tell everyone else and they'll be more upset at you for lying than for what you're actually doing.

Depending on the family member in question, that might not be the case at all, sadly. :smallsigh:

Asta Kask

2014-12-26, 02:17 AM

Or are you talking about someone faking a different disease in order to get their SRS done? If so, I don't see any indication of that in the previous poster at all. The question was asked about other conditions, but it didn't sound like an implication of faking said conditions to me at all. I think you are assuming the worst in someone without a good reason. But maybe I'm just really naive and am reading it with too nice a lens, I don't know.

It sounded like that to me, and there has been a tendency in the LGBTA support thread to think of doctors as antagonists, not as people who try to do their jobs. For instance, there was a person who had a potentially lethal condition that could be worsened by hormone treatment. The GP wanted to postpone treatment until a specialist had been consulted, and the person was understandably distraught and said this in the support thread. Most people there agreed that the doctor was indeed a mean meany-head and that this was an example of gatekeeping. That's an easy position to take if you don't have to face the possibility that your actions killed a patient. My parents were doctors and believe me, that's not something you just shrug off.

Did Mystic Muse imply that ze was going to fake a condition? I'm not the only one who thought that, and since there is a market for gender-changing rings at eBay, and people cavalierly shrug off the dangers of treating yourself with hormones purchased on the internet, it seems to me that there's a great deal of desperation in the trans community. I understand that desperation. I am not a stranger to mental agony. I still do not think that viewing doctors as antagonists or incompetents is a good idea.

However, I agree that I overreacted and I will apologize to Mystic_Muse.

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

I'm not interested in the actual letters of the man nor the actual civil rights movement. The quote was used because it addresses a similar context; the idea that supposed friends who are trying to protect their own interests as friends over the interests of the group they've friended are as bad or worse than open antagonists.

How do you know they are trying to protect their own interests, and aren't motivated by genuine concern? Are you a mind-reader?

{ scrubbed }

[For the record, it was basically entirely a question of curiosity. I have absolutely no intention of committing insurance fraud. I plan on getting HRT at some point in the near future , and have been debating what to tell my extended family is going on. I was basically lookimg for something else I could claim I have, but will avoid going that route and just see how many of them decide to cut me out entirely.

And I agree that I overreacted, and I am sorry about that. Prostate cancer seems to be main indication for men, breast cancer for women.

I am sorry that I caused this kerfuffle. Those of you who read the Random Banter thread know that I have been under a lot of pressure lately. Sometimes I crack. That is not an excuse, but it is an explanation.

Mystic Muse

2014-12-26, 02:35 AM

Asta Kask

2014-12-26, 02:44 AM

I'm sorry that I posted vaguely enough that it came across that I was going to commit insurance fraud. It was honestly just curiosity combined with me wondering if there's anything I could BS my extended family into believing I had. Since there's not, that plan is getting abandoned.

The only other thing I can think of off-hand is dopamine antagonists, which can cause lactation and breast growth (I assume here you are MtF - if you are not then I apologize). Risperidone in particular is notorious for this, and it can be prescribed for anxiety or irritability in autistic children (or schizophrenia, but you may not want to say you have that). It would probably not be a first-hand treatment, but if you've tried many of the conventional drugs, and say that you are afraid of benzo because you feel you may get addicted... it would probably fly for a casual net inspection.

SowZ

2014-12-26, 02:47 AM

It sounded like that to me, and there has been a tendency in the LGBTA support thread to think of doctors as antagonists, not as people who try to do their jobs. For instance, there was a person who had a potentially lethal condition that could be worsened by hormone treatment. The GP wanted to postpone treatment until a specialist had been consulted, and the person was understandably distraught and said this in the support thread. Most people there agreed that the doctor was indeed a mean meany-head and that this was an example of gatekeeping. That's an easy position to take if you don't have to face the possibility that your actions killed a patient. My parents were doctors and believe me, that's not something you just shrug off.

Did Mystic Muse imply that ze was going to fake a condition? I'm not the only one who thought that, and since there is a market for gender-changing rings at eBay, and people cavalierly shrug off the dangers of treating yourself with hormones purchased on the internet, it seems to me that there's a great deal of desperation in the trans community. I understand that desperation. I am not a stranger to mental agony. I still do not think that viewing doctors as antagonists or incompetents is a good idea.

However, I agree that I overreacted and I will apologize to Mystic_Muse.

First of all there's an interesting question here - what if these white people had been right? What if the controversial methods had triggered a race riot? They didn't, but we can see that with the benefit of hindsight. What about controversial methods like raping white women to strike at the man? The leader of the Black Panthers thought this was a good method in his youth. Could I criticize that? What about the controversy within the black community about what methods to use? If I'm not allowed to criticize the methods used, how do I determine what person to support?

Second: The Westboro Baptist Church was a bad example. There was a candidate for the US presidential elections in 2012 who thinks that homosexual behavior is incompatible with a stable, sound state. He thinks that gays do not have a right to privacy and that the anti-sodomy laws should be strengthened. There was a non-trivial risk that he would become "the most powerful man on Earth", i.e. President of These United States. Are you saying that if I disagree with, e.g., the "DIE CIS SCUM!" idiocy (surely a controversial, risky - and IMO bloody useless - method) I'm worse than that man? Explain that to me. Please. Explain to me how I and people like me are a greater threat to the LGBTA movement than a president who thinks marriage should be only between a man and a woman only is less of a threat than I am.

Third: The term you are looking for is pluralis majestatis. It is also called pluralis majestaticus and pluralis excellentiae. The general use of the term is called 'nosism'.

How do you know they are trying to protect their own interests, and aren't motivated by genuine concern? Are you a mind-reader?

To see if these fair-weather friends are worse than than the WBC - and this is the moment they should enter the stage - have yourself a thought experiment. You can snap your fingers and make every fair-weather ally in the US a fanatical member of the WBC. If you are correct in saying that these allies are worse than open antagonists, you should do it. It would, apparently, advance the cause of LGBTA people in the US. I don't think that's true. Do you?

And I agree that I overreacted, and I am sorry about that. Prostate cancer seems to be main indication for men, breast cancer for women.

I am sorry that I caused this kerfuffle. Those of you who read the Random Banter thread know that I have been under a lot of pressure lately. Sometimes I crack. That is not an excuse, but it is an explanation.

{ scrubbed }

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 02:59 AM

First of all there's an interesting question here - what if these white people had been right? What if the controversial methods had triggered a race riot?

1. This isn't about race. If you can't keep it abstract enough to not be political, don't bring it up.
2. It doesn't matter if the people asking for moderation "were right". There is no "were right". There is going to be stress and strife, end of story, full stop; you are causing social upheaval. That's not going away. It still needed to be done, and the poor reaction of the people who are in power and trying to stomp out change is not the fault of the oppressed. "Look what you made me do" has never been a valid excuse.

They didn't, but we can see that with the benefit of hindsight. What about controversial methods like raping white women to strike at the man? The leader of the Black Panthers thought this was a good method in his youth.

What if a member of the PTA was once in prison?
What if my mailman once thought poor people should be euthanized?
Do we ban PTAs and never admit they had a valid purpose? Do we eliminate the mail service?

You're not criticizing methods used. You're attacking people for bringing up something abstract because one time one jerk got the concrete expression wrong. And you're being over the top villain about it.

Third: The term you are looking for is pluralis majestatis. It is also called pluralis majestaticus and pluralis excellentiae. The general use of the term is called 'nosism'.

The term is actually the general you, when using the pronoun as if speaking to an individual but addressing one side of a conceptual disagreement or conversation. The royal you is not the correct you.

How do you know they are trying to protect their own interests, and aren't motivated by genuine concern?

I know you're motivated by self interest because in response to saying 'this is an interesting concept' you accused me openly of promoting corrective and punitive rape, began telling people to be less active as activists because of that association, and responded to criticism by insisting my motivation was to have you martyr your children for some hypothetical gay agenda, throw up your hands and accuse me of being he unreasonable one. You actively shut down a conversation through guile, deceit, fast talking and rhetorical philibustering, declared yourself to be on the moral high ground, and stopped talking period to avoid discussion about what had happened and why it was wrong.

If an ally is my ally only when I say nice things and don't want to actively make the world a better place, they're not my ally. They're dead weight trying to keep me from moving using guilt and manipulation. And as for other allies and antagonists? I will continue doig what I always advocate doing; assess the situation based on it's unique merits and decide then, rather than following a rule that may not apply.

Asta Kask

2014-12-26, 03:02 AM

*shrug*

You will always have my passive support, but apparently my help is not wanted. I may not be an ally, but I will always be a friend.

Good bye.

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 03:05 AM

Your help is wanted, Anders. Baseless accusations, hyperbolic rhetoric, and shut downs to make a vague point is not help. It is not support. It is an attack.

That you would rather walk away indignant than critique your own methods is why I'm against having you critique someone else's so violently.

Asta Kask

2014-12-26, 03:31 AM

Anarion

2014-12-26, 04:27 AM

Ok. Clarification time - your conditions for accepting my help are not compatible with my ideals about intellectual honesty. I think you are promoting a culture of groupthink and yes-mannishness (?). I would reserve the right to criticize idiotic ideas like "DIE CIS SCUM!"*. If that is not in keeping with your ideas for the movement then I cannot be an ally. If I have to accept that LGBTA people always know what is best for them, and are always above criticism then I must bow and take my leave.

*Incidentally, there were quite a number of trans people who agreed with me that this was a stupid idea. Do they also harm the movement? Are they also worse threats than a man with a non-trivial chance of becoming in 2012, who won the Iowa caucus and is running again in 2016? Because that attitude would risk setting some really nasty human emotions in motion. You may have to think about the term 'purge' in a non-trans context.

Good lord, the point is that questioning has a time and a place. If you do it in a safe space and have open discussion, it's fine. If you call someone out in the middle of a hostile environment, you are harming them. Use your head, and stop talking about intellectual honesty. Nobody is telling you not to think, they're telling you that being an ally means that sometimes what you think is best has to take a back seat to supporting people.

Serpentine

2014-12-26, 04:47 AM

Anarion

2014-12-26, 05:01 AM

A clarification I think might help: when we talk about allies, are we talking about being an ally to a whole movement or concept (e.g. Civil rights, trans people should be treated with respect) or to a specific group or organisation (e.g. The black panthers, a specific trans person you disagree on something with? That is, is it possible to be an ally to the civil rights cause while not being an ally to the Black Panthers? To be an LGBT ally, do I have to stay silent if a trans person attacks a friend of mine for being cis or be cast out as the enemy?
There was an article a while ago that discussed this without drawing a distinction in the article itself, but when an argument flared up clarified in the comments that what she meant was that if you disagree strongly with what *she* said on a regular basis you should remove yourself as an ally to *her*, but that didn't mean you could no longer be an ally to the cause in general and/or to other sections of the movement. Do you also make this distinction?

I agree with you. I distinguish any person or group and I think one can be an ally or friend to some while not being to others, including helping a movement while antagonizing people in it or vice versa. I'm not sure which one we're talking about as a group though. The original question from a couple pages back was about being a general movement ally, so that maybe? But we've kinda shifted now.

Regardless, I think the mechanism is the same. Whether the collective decision of a movement or the individual decision of a person, there is a time for questioning and debate, and a time when a decision has been made, for better or for worse.

Astrella

2014-12-26, 06:23 AM

It sounded like that to me, and there has been a tendency in the LGBTA support thread to think of doctors as antagonists, not as people who try to do their jobs.

Because they CAN be. Doctors are people, people who have their own prejudices and bigotries. Trans people have literally died because medical professionals refused them help (Tyra Hunter), almost every trans friend I know (including myself) has been mistreated by medical professionals before, please do not blame us for being weary and careful around them.

Kesnit

2014-12-26, 06:35 AM

The thing is, there IS an atmosphere of group-think and "yes-man-ishness" in a lot of organizations (including the support thread). I've kept my mouth shut on more than one occasion because it seemed I was the only one who wasn't going along with the prevailing attitude. I've also been accused of being insensitive when I have spoken up, if what I said went against group-think. And I'm a full-fledged member of the LGBTAI+ community - and have been a part of that community for longer than a lot of others (and longer than some people have been alive).

I'm not saying I'm always right. What I am saying is that speaking up and asking questions is not wrong, even in "safe space." Because there is a huge risk that "safe space" will become a synonym for "giant feedback loop."

Asta brought up "people cavalierly shrug off the dangers of treating yourself with hormones purchased on the internet," and he's right. When I first came out as trans, I was in an ftm group on LiveJournal. There was a lot of discussion there about compounding pharmacies that would sell t without all the hassle of going to a doctor and getting blood tests. It was even in the FAQ for the group. Now several years later, it turns out testosterone replacement therapy can cause serious medical issues - including death. (OK, it wasn't the t; it was the interaction of t and other medical issues. Separately, neither issue caused the complications. Together, they could kill.) Or to get personal, I found out after several years that taking a "normal" dose of t sends my testosterone levels sky-high (far above what is safe). My doctor put me on what is effectively a half-dose, which stabilized my numbers. Had I been self-medicating, I'd still be in the dangerous category since I was taking what everyone else takes. So would it be bad for someone to say "uh, you shouldn't be messing around with your body chemistry without checking with someone knowledgeable"?

Because they CAN be. Doctors are people, people who have their own prejudices and bigotries. Trans people have literally died because medical professionals refused them help (Tyra Hunter), almost every trans friend I know (including myself) has been mistreated by medical professionals before, please do not blame us for being weary and careful around them.

Then let me add one person to your list of trans people who have NOT been mistreated by medical professionals. I've been to 3 different doctors in 2 ciites specifically to get prescriptions for t. (When I started, I was going to a clinic that specializes in the LGBT community. I moved several years later and found a new doctor. Then I moved back, but my new insurance didn't cover the place I used to go, so had to find a new doctor.) I've been to hospitals and walk-in clinics in 2 cities for illness unrelated to being trans, but still acknowledged my trans status, and never had a bad experience.

I'm not saying no doctors are jerks about it. I am saying that lumping all doctors under "enemy" is starting from a wrong assumption. (And yes, I know you said doctors "CAN be," not "are." But the rest of your statement seems to say you assume all doctors will treat you badly.)

Asta Kask

2014-12-26, 06:56 AM

Regardless, I think the mechanism is the same. Whether the collective decision of a movement or the individual decision of a person, there is a time for questioning and debate, and a time when a decision has been made, for better or for worse.

Which would work well if the LGBTA movement was a heterogenous, cohesive, well-defined, hierarchical organization with a chain of command and a clear way of making decisions and disseminating them. That is not the movement I see (nor is it one I particularly want to encounter). Within a day of me criticizing the "DIE CIS SCUM!" idiocy, I was told that I was a bad ally for this criticism. Apparently the movement is lightning-quick in making decisions (this was in a safe space and open discussion, by the way.)

And I have heard transgender* people criticize the movement for sacrificing transgender* interests in order to further LGB interests (the 'T'-gambit, if you will). Sounds to me that there are people you need to take by the ear and remind them that when a decision has been made, for better or for worse, the time for discussion and criticism is over.

Because they CAN be. Doctors are people, people who have their own prejudices and bigotries. Trans people have literally died because medical professionals refused them help (Tyra Hunter), almost every trans friend I know (including myself) has been mistreated by medical professionals before, please do not blame us for being weary and careful around them.

How many people have died because they resorted to quack treatments and bad supplements, or disregarded the very real danger of taking hormones without proper monitoring? Does this mean trans people can't trust each other? Yes, there are bad doctors - and the Dunning-Kruger is alive and well in the medical profession. The answer is not to treat doctors as glorified vending machines. I'm not saying all safeguards are motivated - the requirement to live for two years 'under the radar' before hormonal treatment can start seems particularly moronic - but as I said, I've seen a GP being heavily criticized for not wanting to prescribe medicines that might exacerbate an existing, life-threatening condition. The mere thought of consulting a specialist was anathema to the LGBTA thread. Am I allowed to criticize this, or is this another taboo subject?

*or possibly transgendered - call me when the movement reaches a decision on this critical point.

Astrella

2014-12-26, 07:01 AM

*snip* (not in the mood for an argument)

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 08:37 AM

Good lord, the point is that questioning has a time and a place. If you do it in a safe space and have open discussion, it's fine. If you call someone out in the middle of a hostile environment, you are harming them. Use your head, and stop talking about intellectual honesty. Nobody is telling you not to think, they're telling you that being an ally means that sometimes what you think is best has to take a back seat to supporting people.

Nobody, and that means nobody, gay or straight, trans or cis, should ever be told to shut up on the basis of their sexuality or gender. Being an ally means that you say the best thing to help people, whether or not that's what they want to hear notwithstanding. What people want to hear can kill them.

Or did you ever wonder why "Die cis scum" ever was a stereotype of trans people in the first place?

Zurvan

2014-12-26, 08:49 AM

Look, I'm sorry that this came across as trying to trick an insurance company. That wasn't my intention at all.

I was being sarcastic.

Except Mystic Muse did get accused of planning insurance fraud on the last page...

I'm really sorry I wasn't paying attention.

Asta Kask

2014-12-26, 09:25 AM

Or to get personal, I found out after several years that taking a "normal" dose of t sends my testosterone levels sky-high (far above what is safe). My doctor put me on what is effectively a half-dose, which stabilized my numbers. Had I been self-medicating, I'd still be in the dangerous category since I was taking what everyone else takes. So would it be bad for someone to say "uh, you shouldn't be messing around with your body chemistry without checking with someone knowledgeable"?

Drug interactions are not your friend.

In Sweden there are actually two additional layers of safety there - pharmacists are supposed to check the doctor's prescriptions against whatever other drugs the person is taking. And the computer is supposed to flash a red light if it detects a drug interaction. Or you can just skip that and buy crap on the Internet.

And of course, natural supplements can screw things up too. For instance, St. John's Wort sometimes increases the breakdown of many different drugs including estrogen and testosterone. So if you take St. John's Wort in the hope that it will cure your depression (it has some effect, but not as good as existing drugs and the possible side effects aren't funny), you may need to adjust your dose.

Another example of a relevant drug interaction is ketoconazole. That's an anti-androgen that may decrease the breakdown of estrogen and testosterone. Again, dose adjustments may be indicated - but regular measurements will be necessary to be sure. Otherwise you may end up with sky-high levels of hormones.

Learning is fun.

Mono Vertigo

2014-12-26, 09:56 AM

[For the record, it was basically entirely a question of curiosity. I have absolutely no intention of committing insurance fraud. I plan on getting HRT at some point in the near future , and have been debating what to tell my extended family is going on. I was basically lookimg for something else I could claim I have, but will avoid going that route and just see how many of them decide to cut me out entirely.

Damn. Please accept my sincerest apologies, then. :smallfrown:

To answer more directly your actual question: that's an interesting plan. Problem is, they will likely find out the truth sooner or later anyway, so you're going to have to measure the risks of lying to them and being exposed later.
(If you want to be a smartass, you might explain generically "I have hormonal problems". That is the truth, strictly speaking. Of course, that's not the whole truth and they might consider it the same as a straight lie...)

It sounded like that to me, and there has been a tendency in the LGBTA support thread to think of doctors as antagonists, not as people who try to do their jobs. For instance, there was a person who had a potentially lethal condition that could be worsened by hormone treatment. The GP wanted to postpone treatment until a specialist had been consulted, and the person was understandably distraught and said this in the support thread. Most people there agreed that the doctor was indeed a mean meany-head and that this was an example of gatekeeping. That's an easy position to take if you don't have to face the possibility that your actions killed a patient. My parents were doctors and believe me, that's not something you just shrug off.

That's a big part of the reason I made that (wrong) assumption, if explanations can make it better somehow. Sorry again.

Anarion

2014-12-26, 01:25 PM

I'm a little bit concerned about this discussion, so I'm going to only respond narrowly to the points that were directly addressed to me.

Which would work well if the LGBTA movement was a heterogenous, cohesive, well-defined, hierarchical organization with a chain of command and a clear way of making decisions and disseminating them. That is not the movement I see (nor is it one I particularly want to encounter). Within a day of me criticizing the "DIE CIS SCUM!" idiocy, I was told that I was a bad ally for this criticism. Apparently the movement is lightning-quick in making decisions (this was in a safe space and open discussion, by the way.)

And I have heard transgender* people criticize the movement for sacrificing transgender* interests in order to further LGB interests (the 'T'-gambit, if you will). Sounds to me that there are people you need to take by the ear and remind them that when a decision has been made, for better or for worse, the time for discussion and criticism is over.

You meant homogeneous, it IS a heterogeneous movement. And you're right that often decisions aren't clear or subgroups agree on one thing while disagreeing with another sub-group. There are, nevertheless, some decisions reached on group consensus while others remain open to debate and disagreement.

More importantly, every situation where someone disagrees with somebody else is not a situation where "urging moderation" amounts to being a bad ally. Including when somebody told you that. Sometimes there's just debate and people say over the top things or make accusations.

This is why I brought this up originally urging SiuiS to consider the MLK letter with greater nuance. It's referring to a very specific situation and it's not talking about debate at all. It's talking about when people are already taking action and being criticized for it in public discourse by those who purport to be their friends. The close LBGTAI+ comparison to that is to loudly criticize a gay friend in front of his/her bigoted parents. Wrong place, wrong time.

Nobody, and that means nobody, gay or straight, trans or cis, should ever be told to shut up on the basis of their sexuality or gender. Being an ally means that you say the best thing to help people, whether or not that's what they want to hear notwithstanding. What people want to hear can kill them.

Or did you ever wonder why "Die cis scum" ever was a stereotype of trans people in the first place?

I didn't actually say that. One, if you go double check, I said that a safe place is the right place for everyone to question and disagree. Second, if I'm telling anyone to shut up, it's on the basis of when/where they're making statements, not on the basis of their sexuality or gender.

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 01:43 PM

Ok. Clarification time - your conditions for accepting my help are not compatible with my ideals about intellectual honesty.

{ scrubbed }

The thing is, there IS an atmosphere of group-think and "yes-man-ishness" in a lot of organizations (including the support thread).

{ scrubbed }

I've also been accused of being insensitive when I have spoken up, if what I said went against group-think.

That's not always a bad thing. Some people are too sensitive on some topics. But frank discussion does not have to be the opposite of consideration.

Asta brought up "people cavalierly shrug off the dangers of treating yourself with hormones purchased on the internet," and he's right.

Again, obfuscation. There were many people saying it was unwise and to check with a doctor, and the reveal was that the person was getting their exact same prescribed medications cheaper by choosing a vendor rather than self-medicating.

It's easy to compress a complex subject like that into a soundbyte to make a point. "Lady sues mcdonalds because she spilled her coffee" is just as wrong and says just as little about what actually happened as "person wanted to buy hormones online" says about the actual event.

The existence of outside context does not forgive misusing and mischaracterizing. In fact, someone who claims a love of logic and rationality should know better than to out-and-out lie by using emotionally deceptive arguments.

I don't want to say your thoughts and experiences aren't worth examining! I think they are and it would be fruitful. But again, the existence of these other discussions does not mean I have to condone such terrible behavior because one can rationalize them as being tangentially related. The use of these interesting and valid other topics is akin to forcing someone to learn about Isaac Newton when baking, because he got hit by an apple and apple pies are baked, so they are totally relevant topics to each other.

This is why I brought this up originally urging SiuiS to consider the MLK letter with greater nuance. It's referring to a very specific situation and it's not talking about debate at all.

{ scrubbed }

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 01:49 PM

I didn't actually say that. One, if you go double check, I said that a safe place is the right place for everyone to question and disagree. Second, if I'm telling anyone to shut up, it's on the basis of when/where they're making statements, not on the basis of their sexuality or gender.

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

{ scrubbed }

Find for me, quote for me, any of these supposed "conditions" I advocated that aren't compatible with your ideals.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18577325&postcount=294
This entire post was basically telling him that if he didn't agree with you, he could GTHO. Not cool.

You've made up a whole bunch of **** and accused, me, the thread, trans people in general. But you have no idea what conditions I'm actually advocating for.

{ scrubbed }

You shut me up with insults and slander before you heard them, and are to busy defending your moral high ground to see that you've made assumptions and mistakes.

{ scrubbed }

Practice what you preach. There is nothing intellectual nor honest about your own actions and positions. Fix that and you'll be worth listening to. As it is, you're angry, irrational, and justifying a whole lot of holier-than-thou off of a quote you completely misinterpreted the use of. You want to feel hurt and slink away to justify your position, cool. You want to have a conversation about facts, and things that actually happened instead though, that would be a lot better.

{ scrubbed }

In the meantime, you're painting wih an awful big brush. "All the trans people in the thread" doesn't seem to include me, since we were on the same side of a lot of these discussion points you're making strawmen out of to rationalize your assaulting. Am I not trans enough to count? Am I only trans if I make silly hippy dippy mistakes for the skeptic to correct? Am I not part of the thread unless I let you patronize me?

{ scrubbed }

Astrella

2014-12-26, 02:03 PM

Not every opinion is valid, there are plenty of opinions that are toxic, harmful and only hurt people. And not every opinion gets an equal voice, it's not a fair playing ground.

And that's what people mean: an ally should be considerate of the fact that due to not belonging to minority in question their opinion and voice already gets more time and attention in society overall. The best thing an ally can do is empower and bring attention to the minority's voices. (And that's not telling allies to shut up, it's asking them to think when them speaking instead of the minority can be helpful.)

And, for clarity, I'm not referring to the situation here, but making a general statement cause I see it a lot: not wanting to hear the same tired opinion about how you should be a nice minority, not wanting to hear the same "devil's advocate" argument for the hundred time, not wanting to hear someone bigotry is NOT silencing, a minority not wanting to deal with stuff like that does not even come close to a minority actually being silenced.

And you know what? Someone who tells me I should just stop transitioning and get one of those magical gender changing rings because I disagreed with him about how to medically classify being trans is not an ally to me.

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 02:09 PM

Not every opinion is valid, there are plenty of opinions that are toxic, harmful and only hurt people. And not every opinion gets an equal voice, it's not a fair playing ground.

And that's what people mean: an ally should be considerate of the fact that due to not belonging to minority in question their opinion and voice already gets more time and attention in society overall. The best thing an ally can do is empower and bring attention to the minority's voices. (And that's not telling allies to shut up, it's asking them to think when them speaking instead of the minority can be helpful.)

And, for clarity, I'm not referring to the situation here, but making a general statement cause I see it a lot: not wanting to hear the same tired opinion about how you should be a nice minority, not wanting to hear the same "devil's advocate" argument for the hundred time, not wanting to hear someone bigotry is NOT silencing, a minority not wanting to deal with stuff like that does not even come close to a minority actually being silenced.

That's fine. I realise that. But blindly knocking aside every dissenting opinion, even to the point of harming yourself and those you seek to protect, which is what's happening here, is not on.

Also, I don't think "their opinion and voice already gets more time and attention in society overall" is really true. When I say something in a room full of straight cis people, everyone listens; when Asta speaks in a room full of trans people, I listen and other people tell him to shut up and start agreeing with them.

Astrella

2014-12-26, 02:10 PM

Does cis society generally respect trans people's opinions about trans stuff though?

Delusion

2014-12-26, 02:13 PM

In general, allies speaking over the oppressed group is much much bigger danger than the oppressed group not listening to allies. The reason allies should not speak over the members of oppressed group about the groups oppression should be obvious. That way lay organisations like Autism speaks and diagnoses like Autogynephilia. That way lie tone policing.

Like I have never heard any trans person use "DIE CIS SCUM" without being sarcastic, yet I have heard 'allies' use that phrase to repeatedly silence trans people who have criticised them.

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 02:14 PM

That's fine. I realise that. But blindly knocking aside every dissenting opinion, even to the point of harming yourself and those you seek to protect, which is what's happening here, is not on.

Please show how this is what is happening here.

E: not sarcastic. Honest request. :)

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 02:16 PM

Does cis society generally respect trans people's opinions about trans stuff though?

You speak as though "Cis society" is one big group. Some cis people respect trans people's opinions because some cis people are not jerks. I respect cis people's opinions because I am not a jerk. Disrespecting the opinion of someone who is trying to help people just because they are in the same arbitrary category as some other people you don't like is what we in the business call "Prejudice", and it's not on.

In general, allies speaking over the oppressed group is much much bigger danger than the oppressed group not listening to allies.

In specific, however, the latter is happening and the former is not.

Please show how this is what is happening here.

You would, to be clear, like me to prove that the entire crux of the issue is actually taking place? Please refer to precisely every post you have made to Asta recently as proof. And several others you have made non-recently.

EDIT: Oh, and all those posts you made discouraging me from defending myself against criticism of minority gender identities, because you didn't want to hear about how anyone else was oppressed.

Philemonite

2014-12-26, 02:20 PM

{ scrubbed }

SowZ

2014-12-26, 02:22 PM

Everywhere is the right place to think and have an opinion, and to state it especially when that opinion is actually likely to be helpful. You don't get to say "You're an ally, therefore shut up and let us poor oppressed people dictate when you're allowed to speak and why." And using the fact that Asta is an ally is pretty much tantamount to using the fact that he's cishet. You aren't being, dare I say it, intellectually honest. And any community in which you get to dictate who's allowed to discuss what, when, why, and what opinions you are allowed to have, is not one I want to be part of. I'm honestly sick to choking of this "You must be this trans to ride, but no transer than this" attitude that I see in these threads - Asta's not allowed to have opinions because he's an ally, I'm not allowed to defend myself from criticism because I'm 3trans5u... can people stop silencing anyone who disagrees with them wherever they be found, and take a damn moment to listen?

And I'm calling bull. No way do you actually believe this. Someone would have to be a complete ******* to think it should be acceptable for a Neo-Nazi to come into a support group for holocaust survivors and spew his hate. And you know what? He shouldn't be encouraged. He shouldn't be engaged in debate. He should be thrown out, by the police if necessary, and charged with trespassing if he didn't leave when asked.

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 02:23 PM

You speak as though "Cis society" is one big group. Some cis people respect trans people's opinions because some cis people are not jerks. I respect cis people's opinions because I am not a jerk. Disrespecting the opinion of someone who is trying to help people just because they are in the same arbitrary category as some other people you don't like is what we in the business call "Prejudice", and it's not on.

This is actually a very good point and goes into the differences between generic and (I believe) anthropological -isms. Racism on the person scale is any bigotry or bias based on race. On the person scale, racism against whites exists in America (for example).

On the societal level however, racism against whites in America does not exist. It is not systematized. Systematized racism is racism so ingrained in the rules and mechanisms of how a society functions that it will often occur despite good and non-racist people.

Transsexuals and homosexuals and basically all non-accepted nonheterosexuals face systematized societal prejudice. They will face bigotry because non-caring neutral systems are built to oppress them, even accidentally. See the issue with a trans person's "real" sex. See the issues with "you'll grow out of it/meet someone" for asexuals. See "just choose to be happy" for depression. Cissexual society considers itself 'normal' society, and it's rules are written in away that is accidentally hostile to noncis folks just out of ignorance.

Also: no one disrespected anyone else's opinion based on their category. That did not happen. Please stop propagating that misinformation.

Heliomance

2014-12-26, 02:24 PM

Oh, ye gods. Asta, SiuiS, could you guys please just set each other to ignore? Nothing good ever happens when you two start arguing.

Like I have never heard any trans person use "DIE CIS SCUM" without being sarcastic, yet I have heard 'allies' use that phrase to repeatedly silence trans people who have criticised them.

I have. There were people defending it vehemently in the main thread, back when it first appeared. FOr the record, I'm on the "it's bloody stupid" side of the debate.

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 02:25 PM

Can you guys not do this? It doesn't help anyone and the possible result is thread lock.

I thought we were smoothly transitioned into reasoned discussion myself, but I will stop if you prefer? I do not believe that people being engaged and passionate about the topic discussed is necessarily bad. We've had mods do similar. Only if it gets overly personal and or derogatory is there an issue.

Talking this stuff out is the point of the questions/discussion thread, yes?

I have. There were people defending it vehemently in the main thread, back when it first appeared. FOr the record, I'm on the "it's bloody stupid" side of the debate.

Indeed. I believe the defense was "it's not literal, it's a vehicle to make people think" and the counter was that it summarily fails to do that and simply polarizes the field.

It's important not to generalize this stuff, to flatten it out. It's important to avoid absolutes like no one and everyone. There is always nuance, and we must always take it into account.

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 02:27 PM

And I'm calling bull. No way do you actually believe this. Someone would have to be a complete ******* to think it should be acceptable for a Neo-Nazi to come into a support group for holocaust survivors and spew his hate. And you know what? He shouldn't be encouraged. He shouldn't be engaged in debate. He should be thrown out, by the police if necessary, and charged with trespassing if he didn't leave when asked.

:smallsigh:

In Julian Baggini's book, The Duck that Won the Lottery and 99 Other Bad Arguments, he warns against the Straw Man fallacy, whereby an argument is reduced to nonsense by changing the actual value of the argument, or taking it to its illogical extreme. If you think that allies who are trying to help you are in any way logically equivalent to Nazis, you are under a very grave misapprehension.

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 02:28 PM

Delusion

2014-12-26, 02:30 PM

In specific, however, the latter is happening and the former is not.

I do see people in this thread suggesting the former is a jolly good idea though.

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 02:31 PM

That's a fair copp.

Should I assume you have me set to ignore and should this stop asking you questions?

No, sorry, I'm trying to respond to too many people at once, which might be why I thought it was you telling Asta that he shouldn't be talking about trans issues in trans spaces when it was someone else. Sorry.

I don't use ignore settings on principle. I'd rather someone said something I didn't want to hear to my face, and so if I actually come across something I don't want to hear, I want to hear it. If that makes any sense.

Philemonite

2014-12-26, 02:32 PM

I thought we were smoothly transitioned into reasoned discussion myself, but I will stop if you prefer? I do not believe that people being engaged and passionate about the topic discussed is necessarily bad. We've had mods do similar. Only if it gets overly personal and or derogatory is there an issue.

Talking this stuff out is the point of the questions/discussion thread, yes?

It might if there was only two of you and you came to an agreement, but since half of the thread is joining in in a very aggressive way I don't see it getting reasonable anytime soon.
Maybe if everyone tried starting with "I believe..." or "It is my opinion..."?

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 02:34 PM

I do see people in this thread suggesting the former is a jolly good idea though.

Well, if you're referring to the specific instance of one ally saying something that implied he knew better on one specific trans issue (a medical one at that, which I'm not surprised that a cis person should know better than a trans person on - I get confused the moment that you start mentioning the different hormones), then yes, and that's perfectly reasonable: sometimes trans people don't know everything about being trans, and a cis person happens to be better informed, and that's okay, and the cis person should feel free to correct misinformation about factual statements.

Heliomance

2014-12-26, 02:35 PM

In general, allies speaking over the oppressed group is much much bigger danger than the oppressed group not listening to allies. The reason allies should not speak over the members of oppressed group about the groups oppression should be obvious. That way lay organisations like Autism speaks and diagnoses like Autogynephilia. That way lie tone policing.

A note: I identified as autogynephilic for a while.

Coidzor

2014-12-26, 02:38 PM

Or did you ever wonder why "Die cis scum" ever was a stereotype of trans people in the first place?

I don't think that ever made its way to stereotype level. :smallconfused:

It's been a quite handy example of something stupid to say that ought not to be said if one wants to have any kind of discussion, though, since as soon as it comes up, you know that nothing meaningful will be said for at least a page, if not several pages, due to the combination of its chilling effect on discussion itself and other factors.

Edit: Of course, as we see here, just bringing it up at all has its own chilling effect and, well, worse effects. So probably best to just leave that phrase dead and buried unless it actually needs to be discussed for some reason.

Delusion

2014-12-26, 02:42 PM

A note: I identified as autogynephilic for a while.

And there is nothing wrong with that, but the origins of the diagnosis is telling certain group of transgender woman (especially trans lesbian) that we aren't really women. And its sorta the reason who I was considered difficult by my doctors for not wanting to discuss my sexuality in detail.

Astrella

2014-12-26, 02:45 PM

It also essentially says that trans lesbians don't really exist.

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 02:46 PM

No, sorry, I'm trying to respond to too many people at once.

Okay.

It might if there was only two of you and you came to an agreement, but since half of the thread is joining in in a very aggressive way I don't see it getting reasonable anytime soon.
Maybe if everyone tried starting with "I believe..." or "It is my opinion..."?

Mm. Labeling an opinion as such doesn't really help. I will continue to pull back then.

Well, if you're referring to the specific instance of one ally saying something that implied he knew better on one specific trans issue (a medical one at that, which I'm not surprised that a cis person should know better than a trans person on - I get confused the moment that you start mentioning the different hormones), then yes, and that's perfectly reasonable: sometimes trans people don't know everything about being trans, and a cis person happens to be better informed, and that's okay, and the cis person should feel free to correct misinformation about factual statements.

All I can say is to go back to that conversation and see what actually happened; it was not cis versus trans. Many trans people also thought self medicating was a bad idea.using that conversation as an example is disingenuous.

A note: I identified as autogynephilic for a while.

I still sort of do. But I look for the sensual in all aspects of my life, so maybe that's not worth isolating as it's own thing? Or maybe it's internalized transphobia to a degree for me; it's one of my few, late night, "am I really?" Thoughts.

E: for reference, autogynophilia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22005209/), seemingly presented as a legitimate concept. Paso bile trigger warning, I haven't vetted the article beyond a few paragraphs. The skeptic pedia version is more snarky but also more direct.

SowZ

2014-12-26, 02:47 PM

:smallsigh:

In Julian Baggini's book, The Duck that Won the Lottery and 99 Other Bad Arguments, he warns against the Straw Man fallacy, whereby an argument is reduced to nonsense by changing the actual value of the argument, or taking it to its illogical extreme. If you think that allies who are trying to help you are in any way logically equivalent to Nazis, you are under a very grave misapprehension.

You said everywhere is always the right time to have and express an opinion. You emphasized the everywhere and clarified that you think people should always be allowed to share even bad opinions. You are being intellectually dishonest, (maybe unintentionally,) because you don't actually believe that. Don't say things when you don't believe them. And I'm giving you credit that you are a moral person and assuming you don't believe what you said. But I could come up with literally countless examples that are less extreme. It would not be the right time to express your opinion that Beluga is the best kind of Vodka and it is now on sale during an AA meeting. It would not be right to talk about

You said something you didn't believe. I am not bringing up situations when your statement is irrelevant when you make an intentionally sweeping, generalizing statement. I am showing that you are wrong, it is always situation to situation, so stop saying things that make you seem like you are championing free speech but really what you say doesn't mean anything. And if you don't actually believe what you said, which you just basically admitted okay, not everyone has that right and not everywhere, then the statement is worthless. It's a dishonest tactic where you paint yourself as a champion for a virtue when in reality you don't believe much different than the average person.

Your actual opinion is almost certainly, "Sometimes it is appropriate to express certain opinions and sometimes it isn't," which is the complete opposite of your statement OR you actually think what you said. In which case my examples aren't irrelevant at all, because you believe the nazi and the Beluga salesman should be allowed. The only difference between you and SiuS is that you lean more toward the expressing it, and SiuS might be more conservative about it. So stop intentionally trying to escalate the scenario by inventing vast ideological gulfs between you and the opposition when such gulfs don't exist. The 'appeal to extremes' isn't a fallacy I committed when you are the one intentionally making extreme statements. I'm not putting your words in a crazy scenario. I am taking a world where everyone everywhere can express their opinions to its logical conclusion.

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 02:51 PM

Hmm. I see your point Philemonite (do you mind if I go with Phil?).

SowZ, that seems very antagonistic to the point of being close to rules breaking. I am not saying it is, and I did just about the same or worse not an hour ago, but perhaps we should do a hard reset instead of a gradual step down. I'm
Sure there are ways for both of is to phrase our points just as well without seeming like it's a personal vendetta.

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 02:52 PM

Bull. This is not an example. You said everywhere is always the right time to have and express an opinion. You emphasized the everywhere and clarified that you think people should always be allowed to share even bad opinions.

{ scrubbed }

You are being intellectually dishonest because you don't actually believe that at all.

{ scrubbed }

Don't say things when you don't believe them.

{ scrubbed }

I could come up with literally countless examples that are less extreme. It would not be the right time to express your opinion that Beluga is the best kind of Vodka and it is now on sale during an AA meeting. It would not be right to talk about

But neither should it randomly be banned because of the person expressing that opinion.

You said something you didn't believe. I am not bringing up times when it is irrelevant when you make an intentionally sweeping, generalizing statement. I am showing that you are absolutely wrong, it is always situation to situation, so stop saying such nonsense that makes you seem like you are championing free speech but really what you say doesn't mean anything. It's a dishonest tactic where you paint yourself as a champion for a virtue when in reality you don't believe anything different than the average person.

{ scrubbed }

Your statement is meaningless. Your actual opinion is almost certainly, "Sometimes it is appropriate to express certain opinions and sometimes it isn't," which is the complete opposite of your statement meaning your statement had no meaning at all, OR you actually think what you said. In which case my examples aren't irrelevant at all, because you believe the nazi and the Beluga salesman should be allowed. The only difference between you and SiuS is that you lean more toward the expressing it, and SiuS might be more conservative about it. So stop intentionally trying to escalate the scenario by inventing vast ideological gulfs between you and the opposition when such gulfs don't exist. The 'appeal to extremes' isn't a fallacy I committed when you are the one intentionally making extreme statements. I'm not putting your words in a crazy scenario. I am taking a world where everyone everywhere can express their opinions to its logical conclusion.

{ scrubbed }

SowZ

2014-12-26, 02:52 PM

Philemonite

2014-12-26, 02:54 PM

Mm. Labeling an opinion as such doesn't really help. I will continue to pull back then.

It's a conversation tool, it helps reduce the aggression. It says that you are expressing your opinion, not attacking someone. It is effective, even if it might seam weird.

Hmm. I see your point Philemonite (do you mind if I go with Phil?).

Phil is fine. So is Nick.:smallwink:

SowZ

2014-12-26, 02:54 PM

{ scrubbed }

But neither should it randomly be banned because of the person expressing that opinion.

{ scrubbed }

So then what is your actual position? If someone came into AA and advocated alcohol people shouldn't shout him down and kick him out? What do you actually believe?

EDIT: No, I have no such right, but it is situation to situation. Your everything-everywhere ideology which I suppose you might believe but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't doesn't work.

Shadowscale

2014-12-26, 02:55 PM

Wow people when did we become so jaded and social justice obsessed that we had to verbally lash out at one another? We're getting close to the extremism of tumblr and facebook at this point. It's counter productive to lash out and ostracize ourselves from people who we want support and understanding from. It seems we're just backing ourselves into a little corner saying unless you agree with me on everything I want nothing from you. People can disagree with you and you can still be their friend. Social justice for me has always been people clashing with each other over differences of opinions. Why is it so hard to agree to disagree on certain issues and accept someone else's viewpoint instead of attacking them and refusing to listen because its different than yours? I mean, be safe and everything, but getting into vicious debate over semantics wont change anything. The whole argument over moderates who don't want the boat rocked being more harmful than the WBC I mean come on. I get where you are coming from, but in reality we always win in the end. You just have to wait. Think of my home state, homosexual marriage is now legal so now my parents are legally married it will come, tearing each other apart will only make it more painful. Heck despite everything they've been through my parents barely even accept me as trans and see me as an unstable joke, it doesn't stop me from caring about them and finding value in them as people because of a difference of opinion even one that horrible affects my life day to day. Sometimes you just have to work with the struggle and through working with it you can carve out a well supported life for oneself versus if you just told everyone to screw off due to not agreeing with you 100% and having to face everything by yourself unsupported.

Sorry for the ramble and if I was too political it just pains me to read pages of people attacking each other and pulling each other's sentences apart instead of trying to find value in our differences.

Delusion

2014-12-26, 02:57 PM

Well, if you're referring to the specific instance of one ally saying something that implied he knew better on one specific trans issue (a medical one at that, which I'm not surprised that a cis person should know better than a trans person on - I get confused the moment that you start mentioning the different hormones), then yes, and that's perfectly reasonable: sometimes trans people don't know everything about being trans, and a cis person happens to be better informed, and that's okay, and the cis person should feel free to correct misinformation about factual statements.

Giving information when asked is not speaking over someone. The problem is when cis people believe that they know more about lived experiences of trans people than trans people do. Which does lead to gatekeeping or worse (like the ideas that trans women are male socialised etc).

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 02:57 PM

So then what is your actual position? If someone came into AA and advocated alcohol people shouldn't shout him down and kick him out? What do you actually believe?

I believe that you don't have the right to tell people when they're allowed to speak and when they're not. I believe the world is not a tyranny where you get to decide who speaks and when. And I believe that shoving ad hominems, straw men, terminal cases of missing the point and false dichotomies at me is no way to have a civilised discussion.

SowZ

2014-12-26, 03:02 PM

I believe that you don't have the right to tell people when they're allowed to speak and when they're not. I believe the world is not a tyranny where you get to decide who speaks and when. And I believe that shoving ad hominems, straw men, terminal cases of missing the point and false dichotomies at me is no way to have a civilised discussion.

I'm sorry about any hostility I displayed. I really am. But my intent is to show the absurdity in all opinions being permitted to be expressed everywhere. If my counters seem absurd to you, it is because I am trying to illustrate the absurdity of all places being a place to express all opinions.

No one is actually advocating no free speech, by the way. No one is saying you should be jailed or fined for expressing such opinions. But sometimes, yes, you have to throw someone out of the room. I am not saying you have done anything warranting it, I am saying sometimes it must be done.

Kesnit

2014-12-26, 03:02 PM

That's irrelevant. The fact that technically Somethingn occurs does not excuse the jerk behavior it is being used to try and excuse.

What "jerk behavior"? The idea that someone who doesn't have your experiences can't have an opinion?

If you can show how that yes-man-clique behavior in thread condones corrective rape or the murder of heteronormative people, cool!

Straw man. There is a lot of group-think that has nothing to do with "corrective rape" or murder. That doesn't make it any less group-think.

If not, it's obfuscation and however true it is in abstract it's not relevant or worth bringing up except as it's own, separate conversation.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the rules of the conversation. The topic is whether or not allies can/should have a voice, and the answer IMO is "yes." That voice should not be as loud as the people who are actually in the situation, but that does not mean they should be told to sit down and shut up.

That's not always a bad thing. Some people are too sensitive on some topics. But frank discussion does not have to be the opposite of consideration.

So it's acceptable to tell people to sit down and shut up when their opinions differ? Even if the person being told to sit down and shut up is actually a member of the minority in question? Because that is what I was talking about.

Again, obfuscation.

Not at all, since I was directly addressing what Asta said.

There were many people saying it was unwise and to check with a doctor, and the reveal was that the person was getting their exact same prescribed medications cheaper by choosing a vendor rather than self-medicating.

I don't recall saying I was discussing the support thread... In fact, I clearly recall mentioning that I was discussing an ftm group on LiveJournal 8 years ago. Unless you were in that group, I fail to see how you can know what was and was not said.

It's easy to compress a complex subject like that into a soundbyte to make a point. "Lady sues mcdonalds because she spilled her coffee" is just as wrong and says just as little about what actually happened as "person wanted to buy hormones online" says about the actual event.

Fascinating. I never knew you were in the LJ ftm group. Do you remember me? My screen name there was the same as it is here. Granted, I didn't say a lot since I was newly out, so I'd understand if you don't remember.

The existence of outside context does not forgive misusing and mischaracterizing. In fact, someone who claims a love of logic and rationality should know better than to out-and-out lie by using emotionally deceptive arguments.

I'll be awaiting your apology for that statement. Unless, of course, that you can prove I was lying when discussing the LJ ftm group.

I don't want to say your thoughts and experiences aren't worth examining! I think they are and it would be fruitful. But again, the existence of these other discussions does not mean I have to condone such terrible behavior because one can rationalize them as being tangentially related.

Except they aren't "tangentially related." I was specifically addressing what Asta said, and agreeing that there are trans groups on the Internet that do. (Or did, since I haven't been on in several years. I don't know what the group is like now.)

Not every opinion is valid, there are plenty of opinions that are toxic, harmful and only hurt people.

Which is not the point of this discussion. Or at least, not directly the point.

And that's what people mean: an ally should be considerate of the fact that due to not belonging to minority in question their opinion and voice already gets more time and attention in society overall. The best thing an ally can do is empower and bring attention to the minority's voices. (And that's not telling allies to shut up, it's asking them to think when them speaking instead of the minority can be helpful.)

While I agree with your point in general, there is a risk that by openly stating "allies only get 75% of the attention we give to XYZ minority," you shut up the ones who have valid points, but fear to bring them up because they think they will be shut down. For example, Standards of Care. Sure, for the most part they are crap, but there are some good things in them. Is it wrong for an ally to say "I'm cool if you want to start hormones, but maybe you should talk to a neutral party before doing something irrevocable to your body"? (i.e. letter from a mental health professional).

And, for clarity, I'm not referring to the situation here, but making a general statement cause I see it a lot: not wanting to hear the same tired opinion about how you should be a nice minority, not wanting to hear the same "devil's advocate" argument for the hundred time, not wanting to hear someone bigotry is NOT silencing, a minority not wanting to deal with stuff like that does not even come close to a minority actually being silenced.

{ scrubbed }

Delusion

2014-12-26, 03:08 PM

While I agree with your point in general, there is a risk that by openly stating "allies only get 75% of the attention we give to XYZ minority," you shut up the ones who have valid points, but fear to bring them up because they think they will be shut down. For example, Standards of Care. Sure, for the most part they are crap, but there are some good things in them. Is it wrong for an ally to say "I'm cool if you want to start hormones, but maybe you should talk to a neutral party before doing something irrevocable to your body"? (i.e. letter from a mental health professional).

Consulting a mental health professional is fine but... I don't think I have yet to meet a mental health professional who would have been able to tell someone was trans better than the person in question. A lot of their methods for deteminating that are pure guess work and stereotyping.

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 03:09 PM

I'm sorry about any hostility I displayed. I really am. But my intent is to show the absurdity in all opinions being permitted to be expressed everywhere. If my counters seem absurd to you, it is because I am trying to illustrate the absurdity of all places being a place to express all opinions.

No one is actually advocating no free speech, by the way. No one is saying you should be jailed or fined for expressing such opinions. But sometimes, yes, you have to throw someone out of the room. I am not saying you have done anything warranting it, I am saying sometimes it must be done.

Then at least let it be for what they dare say, not who they dare be.

SowZ

2014-12-26, 03:20 PM

Then at least let it be for what they dare say, not who they dare be.

I agree whole-heartedly. Hell, even in literature, I'm a big death of the author guy. An argument exists independent of its messenger and even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, when someone part of people group B acts as though they know better the trials of people group A, that is still insulting. And I do think there is a time and a place for expressing even the most disgusting of arguments. I've had perfectly rational arguments with white supremacists who've flat out told me that 90% of my people were traitors as if it was a complement that I might be one of the good ones. And I'm glad they talked to me.

It's what people might say, not who they are. To direct my extreme example at myself, I would love it if a neo-nazi went to a Jewish support group and listened quietly or asked appropriate questions if the group in question allowed outsiders. That would be great. I wouldn't love it if he started asking for proof of the holocaust, even if he was sincerely questioning his beliefs. There would be a more appropriate forum for that line of questioning.

My biggest objection to what you said is that everywhere and every time should be open to all opinions. That's my issue. There are plenty of times where allowing all opinions isn't only unnecessary. It would be downright immoral. There are times and places for different things.

By the way, I really do apologize sincerely for my hostility. Stressful holidays and all that, perhaps. Still enjoyable, but, you know.

Jormengand

2014-12-26, 03:24 PM

By the way, I really do apologize sincerely for my hostility. Stressful holidays and all that, perhaps. Still enjoyable, but, you know.

It's okay. I know how it feels. *Offers hugs*.

:vaarsuvius: Now can we please resume saving the world? :smalltongue:

SowZ

2014-12-26, 03:25 PM

It's okay. I know how it feels. *Offers hugs*.

:vaarsuvius: Now can we please resume saving the world? :smalltongue:

Sure, I could do that. (: *re-conciliatory hug*

Kesnit

2014-12-26, 03:25 PM

Consulting a mental health professional is fine but... I don't think I have yet to meet a mental health professional who would have been able to tell someone was trans better than the person in question. A lot of their methods for deteminating that are pure guess work and stereotyping.

Perhaps I got lucky. The psychologist I was seeing (for other reasons) when I came out as trans took it in stride, even though she'd never had a trans client before.

I understand your point, and it is a valid one. However, it is human nature to be excited about something "new." It's also completely reasonable for a AMAB who enjoys dressing in women's clothes to come to the conclusion that he's MtF. An outside party can look at the person and say "10 years down the road, when the newness has worn off and you are going out as a woman every day, will you feel the same way?" Perhaps the AMAB really is MtF, and when she stops to think, realizes that the feeling of being female isn't just a fetish, but is her real feelings. Or Perhaps the AMAB will realize that it is just a fetish, and he cannot imagine wanting to be female full-time 10 years down the road.

Although I know a psychiatrist who knows exactly what it is to be trans. Because she is. So... :smallsmile:

Delusion

2014-12-26, 04:30 PM

Perhaps I got lucky. The psychologist I was seeing (for other reasons) when I came out as trans took it in stride, even though she'd never had a trans client before.

I understand your point, and it is a valid one. However, it is human nature to be excited about something "new." It's also completely reasonable for a AMAB who enjoys dressing in women's clothes to come to the conclusion that he's MtF. An outside party can look at the person and say "10 years down the road, when the newness has worn off and you are going out as a woman every day, will you feel the same way?" Perhaps the AMAB really is MtF, and when she stops to think, realizes that the feeling of being female isn't just a fetish, but is her real feelings. Or Perhaps the AMAB will realize that it is just a fetish, and he cannot imagine wanting to be female full-time 10 years down the road.

Although I know a psychiatrist who knows exactly what it is to be trans. Because she is. So... :smallsmile:

The thing though is that the person in question has to come the conclusion wether they are trans or not themselves. A good mental health professional can help the person to tackle that question, but the mental health professional really can't do the decision for the person. And the thing is that the latter is what the gatekeepers try to do without having any actual tools to do it. And that is why "you have to be okayed by mental health professional before you can have hormones" is so dangerous.

Because in gatekeeping the person isn't there to help us (even if they may want to do that as well) but to judge us. And that changes the dynamic more than many care to admit.

(And yes, I might have been a bit traumatised by gatekeepers in the past. Why do you ask? :smalltongue:)

SiuiS

2014-12-26, 04:32 PM

Disregard that article earlier. On closer reading, it's bunk. >.<

So then what is your actual position?

I find it better to stop at just the question, so it doesn't seem like an argument on the interrogative. Some folks view that as getting snippy though, so mileage and variance and all.

Wow people when did we become so jaded and social justice obsessed that we had to verbally lash out at one another?

It's worth examining your feelings on why you think social justice is a bad thing, and why one conversation warrants being termed Obssession.

What "jerk behavior"? The idea that someone who doesn't have your experiences can't have an opinion?

No, I'm talking about a specific thing which happened and framing accordingly. Like I said, if you want your points considered on their own merits instead of as part of that discussion, I'm all ears but will need to readjust. :smallsmile:

Straw man.

No, it is not. It is the actual context of the conversation you jumped into. That's the downside of springboarding. You pick up the baggage of the conversation.

Those accusations actually happened. The viewpoints you are supporting as hypothetically valid were used to definitely support someone accusing someone else of idiocy, zealotry and validation of sexual assault. If A makes a bad point using f1 fact, and B says "yes, f1 is indeed factual", and C agrees with B, C also tacitly agrees with A.

For this reason, it is important to me to separate the fact ("some safe spaces become insular feedback loops and develop cliques") from the use of that fact ("this is why I said the thing I did and it's totally cool to have said that thing"). I cannot agree to your general point in this conversation without also tacitly disagreeing with myself on the broader point.

Holistically, the emotional takeaway and justifications are important and so those are what I am trying to direct towards.The takeaway of using those facts you agree with to support the point they were used for is This point is valid, not This fact is true. It's unfortunate, but people rarely discuss things from a purely rational perspective. A lot of the formulas for processing are unnoticed. And it puts is in a position of a false binary: we do not disagree with each other's point, just with the vehicles used for those points.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the rules of the conversation.

And neither do you. The context speaks for itself. I'm simply letting you know what you walked into, why I'm responding as I did and am.

The broader point you're making involves queer communities and knew jerk reactions against societal authority, right? I don't know how to start that topic without continuing it in light of something else. Would you care to get us rolling? :smallsmile:

Not at all, since I was directly addressing what Asta said.

Yes. And the reason Anders said it was to support his actions.

Fascinating.

Sarcasm as a rhetorical tool only goes so far. I trust I've made the context clear enough you can see where our misunderstanding came from.

While I agree with your point in general, there is a risk that by openly stating "allies only get 75% of the attention we give to XYZ minority,"

Agreed. As Anarion put it, some rules are necessary. Some are quibbles that will only cause problems. I will try to get the exact quote for clarity later.

But the important thing is, no one has advocated hard numbers that will stand because they are The Rules, sorry, no exceptions. There has been a call to check yourself and examine whether your indignation over not being taken as seriously as you we any is warranted, but that's it. The exact numbers idea, the "cis people are only 75% valid" or whatever, is only ever brought up as an extrapolated logical conclusion, when it's not the only logical conclusion.

There's a general rule of thumb being suggested. Not a numeric value. That's important for is to remember.

On that same subject, I do worry about a SSM case making it to the US Supreme Court any time in the near future. There's just too much question on which way the Court would decide. Would it be better to send up a case now (IMMEDIATELY, since it's such a vital issue!) and lose, or wait until the Court is favorable and almost assure a victory? Sure, in the short-term, it sucks, but the long-term consequences are a lot better.

That depends on a lot of conditions. Supreme Court decisions can be overruled, after all. Though I have no idea how often or how easily.

The problem is as I said before: societal systematic oppression. There is literally always a reason to wait. That's the foundation of the Nirvana fallacy, that conditions are not 100% perfect so make no movements until they are, scrap the whole deal. Conditions are never perfect. Ever. Not even in hindsight. There will always be a micro-level sound seeming reason to wait. Better judges. Better political situation. Better atmosphere. Better press. Waiting for the bad versions to go away.

But on the macro-level those are just further drops in the bucket of 'no, don't do anything, don't rock the boat' and it's important to acknowledge that. I'm not advocating one decision over the other. I am saying that sometimes the rule of 'stop, assess, double check' is bad because blind adherence to any rule is bad. Plow forward anyway is just as bad, but no one wants to always plow forward forever. They want acknowledgement that constant inertia and stasis is bad and sometimes plowing forward is all that's left.

Heliomance

2014-12-26, 05:18 PM

Bear corner on bulls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_%28game%29)
Wait, someone else has heard of Pit? That's amazing!

Giving information when asked is not speaking over someone. The problem is when cis people believe that they know more about lived experiences of trans people than trans people do. Which does lead to gatekeeping or worse (like the ideas that trans women are male socialised etc).

uh... a lot of us are? Not sure why you're saying that's a bad thing, it's true.

Kesnit

2014-12-26, 05:24 PM

No, I'm talking about a specific thing which happened and framing accordingly. Like I said, if you want your points considered on their own merits instead of as part of that discussion, I'm all ears but will need to readjust. :smallsmile:

Somehow I missed the root of the conversation. I've been trying to follow it for a few pages, but came in too late, I guess. :smallsmile:

The broader point you're making involves queer communities and knew jerk reactions against societal authority, right? I don't know how to start that topic without continuing it in light of something else. Would you care to get us rolling? :smallsmile:

OK...

I was actually working on a post along those lines for the support thread. I hope to have it up before long. I'd post it here, but the context is really more valid there.

Sarcasm as a rhetorical tool only goes so far. I trust I've made the context clear enough you can see where our misunderstanding came from.

Yup.

But the important thing is, no one has advocated hard numbers that will stand because they are The Rules, sorry, no exceptions.

{ scrubbed }

There is literally always a reason to wait. That's the foundation of the Nirvana fallacy, that conditions are not 100% perfect so make no movements until they are, scrap the whole deal. Conditions are never perfect. Ever.

{ scrubbed }

But on the macro-level those are just further drops in the bucket of 'no, don't do anything, don't rock the boat' and it's important to acknowledge that. I'm not advocating one decision over the other. I am saying that sometimes the rule of 'stop, assess, double check' is bad because blind adherence to any rule is bad. Plow forward anyway is just as bad, but no one wants to always plow forward forever. They want acknowledgement that constant inertia and stasis is bad and sometimes plowing forward is all that's left.

And I'm not saying no progress should ever be made. I'm only saying that pushing forward when the time is wrong can have worse consequences than taking time to game the system and tweek the odds in your favor.

Castaras

2014-12-26, 05:30 PM

Mod of the Apocalypse: Locked for Review.

Castaras

2014-12-27, 06:23 AM

Mod of the Apocalypse: I am reopening this thread. A couple of things for everyone to keep in mind:

- Politics discussion is against the rules. Posting things like "Hey guys, this place has legalised gay marriage" and responding with "Yay! Woo! Party time!" is okay. Any further discussion on things regarding the laws, political viewpoints, etc. is not. This includes both current politics and historical politics - aka 60s race riots politics.

- If there is political discussion or people getting into heated discussions, please don't post things like "Hey guys, please stop doing that it's bad." This is Vigilante Modding, and I found a rather large amount of this. Instead, report the posts and don't respond - if this had been done earlier, then I or one of the other mods would have been able to come in earlier and deal with this quicker without having to close the thread or scrub as much stuff.

- Related to the previous point: if you can't respond to someone's post civilly, take some time to calm yourself down before responding, and if you find even after your feelings have cooled you can't respond civilly, don't respond at all.

If there is any further rulebreaking in a similar vein to what has been going on in the past 4/5 pages, then the moderating team will have to review whether this thread can remain open.

golentan

2014-12-27, 04:15 PM

Okay, I asked this of some folks on facebook but haven't gotten a satisfactory answer. Does anyone have good LGBT themed Sci Fi, non-military, that they can recommend for my reading material? For reference, I like most Asimov, lots of Heinlein, John Varley, Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan Saga, Philip Jose Farmer... Gosh, dozens of others...

golentan

2014-12-28, 01:03 AM

It's a bit heteronormative for what I'm looking for, honestly, from what I remember (I read it as a kid and it's a bit fuzzy). There are implicit gender assumptions made about the nature of relationships in it...

Eldest

2014-12-28, 01:55 AM

It's not themed for LGBTQ, but almost everything I've read by Charles Strauss has gays, lesbians, bi people, body modding, and polyamority as mentions of completely normal things to do. Haven't run into somebody that's trans in one of his novels yet though.

Anarion

2014-12-28, 05:47 AM

You might need to write the novel yourself. I'd buy it.

Delusion

2014-12-28, 05:51 AM

Mono Vertigo

2014-12-28, 06:29 AM

Okay, that's a difficult question for me, both because finding the right phrasing isn't easy, and because it might not have nice implications.
I'm seriously starting to wonder if it might not be better - perhaps not for the movement, but for the individuals - to separate safe spaces and support threads into LGB and T (or, more precisely, pushing aside the silliness of playing with the acronym, into sexual minorities, and gender minorities).
Tons of people who are T (or not cis in general) are also LGB (or not straight in general), sure, but there are some ventings and formulations that, while probably necessary psychologically for the one who are saying them, don't come off as friendly, or even safe at all, for the other group.
Example: "die cis scum" or the general sentiment of "ugh cis people". Yes, I know they're not to be taken literally, I don't know any trans people who posted this who actually want cis people dead or gone just because they're cis. But when you are cis but in a sexual minority... it might not feel particularly safe for them, you know? Hanging out at a place where they hope to escape being criticized for what they are, yet it happens occasionally. Technically, it's not serious, and it's pointing at a privilege, but perhaps LGB+ people who're looking for support don't desire to be dismissed for a particularity they have no control over.

(Of course I'm cis and straight enough to consider myself an ally more than a member of the community itself so what do I know. All I know is that whenever I read it in the context of venting, I don't really enjoy it but I shut up, because it's not really my place at all to speak up.)

EDIT: alright, I want to clarify things preemptively.
I, as an ally, have no right to explain to the LGBT community how they should organize themselves. There is no doubt about that.
The real question I want to get at, roughly, is: does anybody relevant (as in, part of a sexual or gender minority) feel the same way I do about it? Did I get the wrong impression?

Astrella

2014-12-28, 06:48 AM

No. There's plenty of axes of imbalance between different members of the queer community, non-bi people can enact biphobia, but a bi person venting about biphobia is not a reason to group them away, same with lesbophobia, same with cissexism, same with racism, ableism, and any other form of oppression.

And constantly bringing up Die Cis Scum just shows who really uses the word. No active trans person in this thread has used it at a cis person here, but it's constantly brought up against us still. A simple "ugh, cis people", is not attacking cis people, just like a tired service worker saying "I hate customers" doesn't mean that they literally hate every customer.

Edit; out of curiosity, can you point out instances in the thread were you feel that cis people have been abused by trans people over being cis?

Serpentine

2014-12-28, 07:51 AM

Maybe elsewhere on the internet/the queer community venting of the "ugh cis people" type might be best kept to trans-specific safe spaces. Maybe, I don't know, I suppose it's up to individual communities to decide that. It's a moot point on this forum, specifically, since it's not a problem here and if it comes up I'm pretty sure it'd be against forum rules anyway.

Marnath

2014-12-28, 08:19 AM

I thought communities like this were meant to cut down on the rate of exclusion of various groups that goes on, not give us exciting new ways to play "Us versus Them." Complaints about being discriminated against should not be treated as attacks. Remember that tone is hard to convey in text, and what you're reading is most certainly frustration at dealing with hard-headed bigots rather than a blanket statement against an entire group.

Jormengand

2014-12-28, 08:52 AM

EDIT: alright, I want to clarify things preemptively.
I, as an ally, have no right to explain to the LGBT community how they should organize themselves. There is no doubt about that.
The real question I want to get at, roughly, is: does anybody relevant (as in, part of a sexual or gender minority) feel the same way I do about it? Did I get the wrong impression?

Yes. Far, far too many people confuse sexuality and gender issues, which are really nothing to do with each other, because they're lumped together in some kind of numbers game.

Beelzebub1111

2014-12-28, 10:33 AM

Yes. Far, far too many people confuse sexuality and gender issues, which are really nothing to do with each other, because they're lumped together in some kind of numbers game.

Which I think explains the poblem with trans visibility at LGBT+ events, and with getting coverage with gender-related issues.

In my opinion, gender identity and sexual orientation are so different in issues and goals, that it confuses things for the layman when they see them lumped together. And if we want to change things, the "everyman" has to understand what's wrong.

It's important to have solidarity, but it's also important to have good communication with those outside the circle.

GrayGriffin

2014-12-28, 11:26 AM

Well...your gender identity does kind of affect how you define your sexuality, doesn't it? I think there is still some intersectionality there.

SiuiS

2014-12-28, 11:45 AM

You might need to write the novel yourself. I'd buy it.

Woohoo! That's two votes for a Golly scifi Romance novel!

Okay, that's a difficult question for me, both because finding the right phrasing isn't easy, and because it might not have nice implications.

This is in response to...? I feel like I missed a post you're responding to and have no context.

Or did you mean it's hard to articulate this question and it's not because of anything specific?

Edit; out of curiosity, can you point out instances in the thread were you feel that cis people have been abused by trans people over being cis?

On the one limb, this is good for understanding. On the other, she doesn't have to justify her feelings. A slippery road indeed.

I thought communities like this were meant to cut down on the rate of exclusion of various groups that goes on, not give us exciting new ways to play "Us versus Them."

It's also fair to say that for 'support' that takes the form of active advice on a topic, may benefit from being more focused. Really, different groups need different kinds of help. The average lesbian doesn't need what constitutes medicinal advice for example (not that we can give it here, but still).

There are benefits and hindrances either way. We should tally them.

Yes. Far, far too many people confuse sexuality and gender issues, which are really nothing to do with each other, because they're lumped together in some kind of numbers game.

It's for the same reason feminism seems to come up so often; at the abstract level, they're a similar if not identical fight.

Beelzebub1111

2014-12-28, 11:46 AM

Well...your gender identity does kind of affect how you define your sexuality, doesn't it? I think there is still some intersectionality there.

From a psychological and philisophical perspective, yes. But from the standpoint of sociology, the groups goals and problems are very different from eachother.

Mono Vertigo

2014-12-28, 12:35 PM

I... feel I expressed myself badly. Like, very, judging from some reactions.
(I'm getting worse at expressing myself over time, it seems.)
It's difficult for me to put the proper words on the subject and how I feel about it, yes.
Picked the worst possible example without meaning to. It was the only concrete example I had in mind, and it pops up semi-regularly, so I thought it relevant. I didn't mean to imply it only comes from trans* people or that it's only inflicted upon cis people. Sorry.
"Abuse" seems too big a word for me. More like... it doesn't seem wholly compatible with the support of people who happen to belong to the group being criticized, particularly when the main subject IS gender and sexuality? It's a bit like having a support group for victims of domestic abuse of all genders, and have women vent regularly about "ugh, men" while male victims are also present, perhaps?
(No, it's not a perfect simile. In fact it probably sucks as a simile. Bleh.)
I'd like to type a lot more than that to expand my thoughts and hope to dissipate misunderstandings, but as already demonstrated, I suck at this, so why bother?

SiuiS

2014-12-28, 12:52 PM

No, it makes sense. I am still interested in the issues of the supposed DCS thing – I think there's a spotlight effect going on, and it's easier to home in on and hold the bad to memory, for example – but the general concept you want to angle for is that by supporting everyone we dilute the environment and no one gets support.

Certainly, emotionally, no one feels comfortable who needs it. Every non-trans person has either gone mum or directly left for lack of fit. The trans people are either mum or feel called out. The allies are either mum or feel directly attacked. Something's gone wrong. Figuring out what that is is a worthy goal.

I suspect what went wrong is human nature, though. Nothing for that really.

Beelzebub1111

2014-12-28, 01:07 PM

Certainly, emotionally, no one feels comfortable who needs it. Every non-trans person has either gone mum or directly left for lack of fit. The trans people are either mum or feel called out. The allies are either mum or feel directly attacked. Something's gone wrong. Figuring out what that is is a worthy goal.
Quoted for Truth.

I think a big contributor is negativity. In general, nobody is talking about when things go right, and triumphs. Everyone is so eager to be the one that pointed out how something is wrong despite it being a huge stride forward.

Let's look at the Korra finale for example. It's a huge step for Homosexual acceptance, but people in the LGBT community were quick to point out how horribly offensive it is that it's "enforcing a stereotype that one partner in a couple is masculine and the other is feminine" or complaining that it was too ambiguous. Then you have poeple complaining that just because someone fits the stereotype that it can't be true. and you have this whole big back and forth and everybody is afraid to say what's on they think or they'll be ostracized!

It's this culture, of competing to be the next big crusader to stamp out injustice, and nobody even knows which end of the metaphorical sword to hold.

SiuiS

2014-12-28, 02:01 PM

That level of competing over nothing is "member of western society" not "social justice" though. The problem isn't the group but the members.

Anarion

2014-12-28, 02:53 PM

That level of competing over nothing is "member of western society" not "social justice" though. The problem isn't the group but the members.

Also it tends to be a easier to discourse about negative things. Pointing out failures or problems is easy, and tends to feel like one is saying something whereas positive agreement feels without substance. I think that might be based on how most western school systems train their students, but I'm just guessing.

As far as the main question, I think addressing the issue of what support looks like is good, but splitting the community isn't. I'm not L, G, B, or T, (I'm A) but explaining myself has had the most success with people who are LGBT, and the success of gay marriage along with greater consciousness not just of homosexuality but of fluid gender and self image has been a valuable comparison for my own challenges in explaining my sexuality.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is that even though different people have different support needs, the success of any one group makes life easier for others, and it's worth keeping the full LGBTAI+ discussion together for that reason, I think.

golentan

2014-12-28, 03:10 PM

I'd really rather not divvy up the thread. I feel GRSM has a tremendous amount of intersection between issues and it's really way better for the whole community to remain on close, cooperative terms.

Coidzor

2014-12-28, 05:53 PM

I'm seriously starting to wonder if it might not be better - perhaps not for the movement, but for the individuals - to separate safe spaces and support threads into LGB and T (or, more precisely, pushing aside the silliness of playing with the acronym, into sexual minorities, and gender minorities).

Well, there *are* separate safe spaces and online places for Trans* individuals unless I'm very much misremembering things. :smallconfused: I believe they exist both online and to a lesser extent in meatspace, though most safe spaces in meatspace tend to get crowded as people try to cram as many safe spaces in one physical space as possible.

The ones focused on LGB are only trans-exclusive when they're doing something wrong though, IIRC, like... TERFs levels of wrong.

As for further subdividing things beyond the Q&A and Support threads... Would that mean 3 threads? 4? At that point we'd run into logistical concerns with having those threads competing for space on the sub-forum and also with reposting things that have relevance in more than one of those spaces. Yes? No? Maybe? :smallconfused:

It's not my call to make, obviously, but I see enough reasons against doing so to make sure that's the best option before trying it.

Tons of people who are T (or not cis in general) are also LGB (or not straight in general), sure, but there are some ventings and formulations that, while probably necessary psychologically for the one who are saying them, don't come off as friendly, or even safe at all, for the other group.
Example: "die cis scum" or the general sentiment of "ugh cis people". Yes, I know they're not to be taken literally, I don't know any trans people who posted this who actually want cis people dead or gone just because they're cis. But when you are cis but in a sexual minority... it might not feel particularly safe for them, you know? Hanging out at a place where they hope to escape being criticized for what they are, yet it happens occasionally. Technically, it's not serious, and it's pointing at a privilege, but perhaps LGB+ people who're looking for support don't desire to be dismissed for a particularity they have no control over.

I really wish we could stop bringing up the Dark Chaos Shuffle. That or we could bring it up one last time and actually address it, y'know, unpack all of our feelings and such, and then be done with it so that at least the regulars stop feeling the need to bring it up every few months.

Especially since it mostly gets brought up to either stop conversation or as a way of derailing the conversation to be about the Dark Chaos Shuffle. And has a chilling effect on people's willingness to engage in conversation. :/

It's almost as bad as asking about the difference between pansexuality and bisexuality. :smalleek:

(Of course I'm cis and straight enough to consider myself an ally more than a member of the community itself so what do I know. All I know is that whenever I read it in the context of venting, I don't really enjoy it but I shut up, because it's not really my place at all to speak up.)

It's unpleasant sometimes, but there's no real way to do anything about it without either starting a big brouhaha or being incredibly tone-policing or something equally unwanted.

Or, y'know, basically being something in the OP about trying to keep an open, non-hostile atomsphere that would likely be unread and ignored by anyone who'd want to make a post like that anyway. But maybe I'm just not seeing the right wording?

And constantly bringing up Die Cis Scum just shows who really uses the word. No active trans person in this thread has used it at a cis person here, but it's constantly brought up against us still. A simple "ugh, cis people", is not attacking cis people, just like a tired service worker saying "I hate customers" doesn't mean that they literally hate every customer.

Partially because saying it to another user in that context would run up against the board rules, and has in one or two cases, IIRC.

I'd argue that there is a certain element of "Ok, do you want sympathy, support, or do you want us to ignore you because we're not trans* too?" when someone goes really hard on in that vein, though. And there is a certain point where if one is posting and doesn't want attention, then one should probably take it to a private blog where one can screen exactly who one wants to see something and be able to comment on it.

Jormengand

2014-12-28, 06:28 PM

I really wish we could stop bringing up the Dark Chaos Shuffle.

What? It's a viable way of swapping out feats you don't need for better ones! :smalltongue:

Trekkin

2014-12-28, 07:11 PM

SiuiS

2014-12-28, 07:25 PM

This isn't urgent at all, so feel free to let it be while people are still debating how to manage the thread, but if I could get some advice here I'd be grateful; I'm not sure where else to ask a question at the interface between genderfluidity and gaming.

I'm setting up a PnP RPG campaign, and I asked the group's previous GM if there's anything I should be particularly wary of doing as a GM. Among the usual player likes and dislikes, he mentions that one of the genderfluid members of the group "hates gendering. Just, like, avoid that." He goes on the clarify that said player dislikes "all gender and sexual based things. Don't include it. Don't even mention it" including but not limited to gender-specific pronouns and gender-specific marketing.

Fair enough; I can do that. Then he continues: "[the player in question] can also get grouchy if it's not included so it's honestly a gamble" and advises me to "just skirt the issue."

So now I'm at a bit of a loss. Ordinarily I'd just ask the player in question, but if even mentioning it distresses them I'm not sure that's the best way forward. So with that in mind, my question is twofold:

1. What is gendering in this context and where ought I to go to learn more about it? I've never heard of it as regards gaming, at least not without people going out of their way to add it.

2. How do I ask the aforementioned player about how to avoid offending them with the things they don't like mentioned?

Yowza.

Bandaid situation. Address them openly. "I don't want to upset you but we need to work together on that. Would you be willing to talk to me about what things upset you in games? I've been told gendering is a problem for you. Help me not be that problem."

1 isn't possible to answer. It's too broadly stated, from a second hand source, who admits their knowledge isn't 100%. My assumption is that the issue is unmindful use as if it were 'normal'. If you include gendering, it should be specifically chosen and on the table for discussion and dissection in game and out. If you do involve gender it should be a reasoned choice you're willing to defend as adding to the game and atmosphere, and without judgement. Some guy does somethig skeevy? That should not be read as an endorsement for such skeevyness on your end, and this means sometimes playing these things as parody if at all.

But there's not enough surety to run it that way. Not enough surety of trust between the seat of player and DM. Caution and respect will be your best tools.

I'd really rather not divvy up the thread. I feel GRSM has a tremendous amount of intersection between issues and it's really way better for the whole community to remain on close, cooperative terms.

I feel like I'm playing devils advocate a bit, and I apologize for that, but I think there is merit to both sides. Although a lot of the effect of divvying up would be achieved by use of tagged spoilers – although the effect would be 'ignored by most folks' rather than 'targeted by those with interest'. I don't think we need to have more threads as a general thread exists; but I do think we could take better use of the [queer] tag into account.

Well, there *are* separate safe spaces and online places for Trans* individuals unless I'm very much misremembering things. :smallconfused: I believe they exist both online and to a lesser extent in meatspace, though most safe spaces in meatspace tend to get crowded as people try to cram as many safe spaces in one physical space as possible.

It should be noted that the playground selects for, usually, a higher quality of patron (myself excepted, naturally~). External spaces welcome antagonism against oppressor groups, invent oppressor groups, strangely catalogue and file to pad the roster of oppressor groups, and create very, very strange rhetorical engines. We've had persons who legitimately felt remorse they were attracted to someone because that attraction was heteronormative; someone being shamed for their attraction to target gender in a group designed to alleviate shame for attraction based on target gender, to me, showcases how having this space, where a certain level of outside influence, intersectionality, and the occasional rube (such as myself) or genuinely curious but uneducated conversationalist keeps things in perspective.

A lot of issue arise when we the queer folk forget what the no queer perspective looks like and why it seems rational.

I really wish we could stop bringing up the Dark Chaos Shuffle. That or we could bring it up one last time and actually address it, y'know, unpack all of our feelings and such, and then be done with it so that at least the regulars stop feeling the need to bring it up every few months.

Especially since it mostly gets brought up to either stop conversation or as a way of derailing the conversation to be about the Dark Chaos Shuffle. And has a chilling effect on people's willingness to engage in conversation. :/

It's almost as bad as asking about the difference between pansexuality and bisexuality. :smalleek:

I like this idea, and recall the once-bandied idea of using the Questions & Discussion thread thusly; to have a summarized 'article', for lack of a better term, wherein after discussion to achieve some form of consensus, we could just link people to the relevant parts whenever the question or statement comes up.

Would y'all be willing? I would like to have this addressed and finalized. We've seen it used ironically, legitimately, and obfuscatorially. A clear and crystallized viewpoint would be handy. Especially as such an article would be able to have bullet points at the end or beginning with the sort of cultural guidelines we've accrued. Stuff like 'don't bring up dark chaos shuffle to justify your own actions: [reasons summarized in article condensed here]' and the like. A high-procedure thread element that gives an academic distance from otherwise personal and emotional topics to avoid the personal and emotional issues, without looking like the give mind group think yes man behavior it appears to be when others are entirely left out of discussion and just told "we are like this because we discussed it once".

It's unpleasant sometimes, but there's no real way to do anything about it without either starting a big brouhaha or being incredibly tone-policing or something equally unwanted.

Or, y'know, basically being something in the OP about trying to keep an open, non-hostile atomsphere that would likely be unread and ignored by anyone who'd want to make a post like that anyway. But maybe I'm just not seeing the right wording?

I like the idea of responding to hostility simply by quoting the 'please no hostility' section of the OP instead of using out own words (which tend toward unhelpful snark). I fear this would just end with rules violations though. We cannot actually tell people what to and not to post. :(

I'd argue that there is a certain element of "Ok, do you want sympathy, support, or do you want us to ignore you because we're not trans* too?" when someone goes really hard on in that vein, though. And there is a certain point where if one is posting and doesn't want attention, then one should probably take it to a private blog where one can screen exactly who one wants to see something and be able to comment on it.

Aye. I think a codified set of tags (see: high procedure) would help. But then I'm an idealist in that regard. I believe in systems, when those systems are designed by people to help people in a holistic and sympathetic (empathetic maybe?) manner.

What? It's a viable way of swapping out feats you don't need for better ones! :smalltongue:

If only it were that valuable.

Coidzor

2014-12-28, 08:31 PM

This isn't urgent at all, so feel free to let it be while people are still debating how to manage the thread, but if I could get some advice here I'd be grateful; I'm not sure where else to ask a question at the interface between genderfluidity and gaming.

Quite the opposite. It's a refreshing change of pace. A breath of fresh air, even.

I'm setting up a PnP RPG campaign, and I asked the group's previous GM if there's anything I should be particularly wary of doing as a GM. Among the usual player likes and dislikes, he mentions that one of the genderfluid members of the group "hates gendering. Just, like, avoid that." He goes on the clarify that said player dislikes "all gender and sexual based things. Don't include it. Don't even mention it" including but not limited to gender-specific pronouns and gender-specific marketing.

Fair enough; I can do that. Then he continues: "[the player in question] can also get grouchy if it's not included so it's honestly a gamble" and advises me to "just skirt the issue."

You've played with this person without ever picking up on this at all, that no pronouns are ever used when they're around, that not even the NPCs or animal-equivalents have spouses, families, or children in game? :smallconfused:

And if not, then why are you GMing for a group of strangers that have formed a group together but that you've never met or interacted with? :smallconfused:

So now I'm at a bit of a loss. Ordinarily I'd just ask the player in question, but if even mentioning it distresses them I'm not sure that's the best way forward.

You pretty much have to ask this person if the other guy doesn't have the ability to answer your questions and you'll need to have your own understanding of how to interact with them anyway.

If they can't deal with being informed that you've been informed that they have a lot of gender triggers and you need to find out what they are so that you can actually GM for them, then, well, you can't GM for them anyway and any attempt at doing so is doomed to failure.

Now, of course, you need to be tactful in how you bring it up with them, and if you have any questions about how to best begin that conversation and phrasing you'll get some suggestions. Currently nothing specific comes to mind beyond acknowledging that you've been informed that they have some form of trigger that you need to understand as the GM.

Granted, given that it's *their* triggers, they should be the one informing you of them in the first place so this is all kind of irregular anyway, but you still gotta do what needs to be done even if they aren't or won't on their own for whatever reason. :smallconfused:

You've got to be able to talk to your players as the GM, though, at the end of the day, and if you can't have that conversation with them, then the both of you are better off not playing with one another.

So with that in mind, my question is twofold:

1. What is gendering in this context and where ought I to go to learn more about it? I've never heard of it as regards gaming, at least not without people going out of their way to add it.

2. How do I ask the aforementioned player about how to avoid offending them with the things they don't like mentioned?

As far as I am aware, gendering only really means the one thing when it's unmodified like that. It's objects and creatures possessing gender and assigning genders to them.

Now if it was (stereotypical) gender roles or gender proscriptivism, like men must be hulking, unfeeling brutes, women must be shrinking violets or whatever, yeah, that's something you don't want to have in your games anyway, but that's kind of an obvious thing to avoid and wouldn't really come up under most advice as it's assumed that if you want to DM and aren't 12 you have a better grasp of how to tell a story than that.

As for your second question, I believe asking them about their triggers and their concerns about going into a new game is where to begin.

GrayGriffin

2014-12-28, 11:03 PM

Granted, given that it's *their* triggers, they should be the one informing you of them in the first place so this is all kind of irregular anyway, but you still gotta do what needs to be done even if they aren't or won't on their own for whatever reason. :smallconfused:

Or maybe they're scared of being mocked for their triggers, which does happen, and therefore find it safer to go through an intermediary first.

Trekkin

2014-12-28, 11:05 PM

You've played with this person without ever picking up on this at all, that no pronouns are ever used when they're around, that not even the NPCs or animal-equivalents have spouses, families, or children in game? :smallconfused:

I hadn't thought to notice that before, but in retrospect, there were gender-specific pronouns and titles and things used for some NPCs. Now I'm even more thoroughly confused. Then again, the player in question is usually the one least engaged with the game, and I'm wondering if that might be part of why. Not that I'd assume such, of course.

Speculation aside, you and SiuiS are right. I'll ask them when they get back from break.

Thanks for the help, everyone. I'm always wary of broaching subjects like this while in a state of total ignorance of what I'm asking; this feels a lot more doable now.

Mono Vertigo

2014-12-29, 07:04 AM

The discussion I started isn't really going anywhere, is it? Not sure where I wanted to get at with it, anyway. Asking was a mistake.

As an ally, I'm not doing a good job. I'm not facing enough homo- or transphobia directly nowadays to respond to it. As time passes, I have less and less time and money to invest in the cause. The best I'm doing is reading and/or participating to discussions online, many of which are not actually constructive at all.
And I don't have the mental energy to do the support thing right anymore, most of all.

There used to be a time, before my boyfriend's HRT allowed him to pass unquestionably as a guy, when we would not exhibit affection in public. He was afraid we'd be assaulted (verbally or worse) by human garbage feeling personally offended by the sight of two "girls" holding hands or somesuch.
That fear's completely gone.
But things have changed. People have been assaulted (verbally, physically, and sexually) in this very country by human garbage this year, sometimes in their own home, because they were Jewish, or because it was assumed they were rich (because they were Jewish).
My last name is Jewish. It's on our mailbox. I might look Jewish too. I'm not sure, but I'd rather not spend too much time in front of a mirror trying to figure out how much my face looks like an outdated caricature. I'm not precisely Jewish myself, but let's not kid ourselves, these people don't need to study a person's religious or cultural practices to decide whether they're Jewish or not, only a last name.
Today, I feel like I'm the danger magnet.
And no later than yesterday evening, I was faced again by a moron using "Jew" as an insult, but I said nothing, because it was a friend's friend, and I didn't want to ruin the atmosphere and come off as bitchy, or worse.
Nobody said anything, either. Nobody ever does.
(It doesn't feel right for me to bug my boyfriend about it when he himself has waited so long for a time he wouldn't have to be on the defensive.)
Bunch of people think that Jews are a privileged group, too. None of my friends do - I think - but it's not my friends I'm worried about. Antisemitism in general in on the rise.
I wish I had allies. Even bad ones. The only people in my family I still talk to aren't concerned by the issues and don't get it, or worse, spout that crap themselves.
When you're envious of other people because they at least have allies to complain about, then you're in a bad place to be in order to be an ally yourself, IMHO.
I should have realized that earlier.
(Also I have other problems to deal with anyway, big ones.)
Taking a break from everything LGBT-related seems like a good idea to me, and to you too, I'm sure.
Happy freakin' Holidays.

PS: if this thread reaches page 50, anybody's welcome to post the next iteration.
PPS: yes, I saw a shrink and talked to her about that. Could only stay long enough to deal with more urgent issues. (I have tons of issues.) Won't have time anymore to dwell on this precise one. But taking the time to care about myself will help, I think.

Anarion

2014-12-29, 10:59 AM

Astrella

2014-12-29, 01:17 PM

@Mono Vertigo; All the recent anti-semitism stuff is really gross, and I'm sorry you're having to deal with it. It's very understandable to be frustrated at your lack of support about it in your environment.

SowZ

2014-12-29, 04:21 PM

AmberVael

2014-12-29, 05:01 PM

Let's look at the Korra finale for example. It's a huge step for Homosexual acceptance, but people in the LGBT community were quick to point out how horribly offensive it is that it's "enforcing a stereotype that one partner in a couple is masculine and the other is feminine" or complaining that it was too ambiguous.

>.>

Is the feminine one the aggressive magical martial artist who throws fire, or the business focused tech savant with lightning powered punches?
...the one that wears fur and leather in the style of a hunter, or the one that pretty much wears suits all the time?
......the one that rides a bear, or the one that produces and drives her own race cars?

Coidzor

2014-12-29, 05:46 PM

Anarion

2014-12-29, 06:06 PM

Yes. :smallcool: /MLP:FiM

Rats, you beat me to it!

noparlpf

2014-12-29, 06:18 PM

>.>

Is the feminine one the aggressive magical martial artist who throws fire, or the business focused tech savant with lightning powered punches?
...the one that wears fur and leather in the style of a hunter, or the one that pretty much wears suits all the time?
......the one that rides a bear, or the one that produces and drives her own race cars?

I see nothing unfeminine about aggression, homemade furs, suits, bears, lightning punches, or racecars.

An aggressive bear in a suit driving a racecar while punching lightning sounds awesome.

SiuiS

2014-12-29, 06:18 PM

>.>

Is the feminine one the aggressive magical martial artist who throws fire, the one that wears fur and leather in the style of a hunter, the one that rides a bear, ?

You impugning Annie oakley?

Yes. :smallcool: /MLP:FiM

Zing!

SowZ

2014-12-29, 06:38 PM

I see nothing unfeminine about aggression, homemade furs, suits, bears, lightning punches, or racecars.

An aggressive bear in a suit driving a racecar while punching lightning sounds awesome.

But her point still stands; it is unfair to call it a stereotypical "One is the man, one is the woman," relationship.

Icewraith

2014-12-29, 06:43 PM

But her point still stands; it is unfair to call it a stereotypical "One is the man, one is the woman," relationship.

This seems like it's going to be one of those context-dependent things, where your particular life experiences are going to cast certain characteristics in a more or less gendered light.

Anarion

2014-12-29, 06:46 PM

But her point still stands; it is unfair to call it a stereotypical "One is the man, one is the woman," relationship.

Totally true. It's just that nobody has actually called it that. It was brought up as a criticism that somebody out in the world has leveled at it, and it's a bit absurd (okay, lots absurd) in this context. Depressingly, something being absurd doesn't appear to stop random people from repeating it a bunch anyway. C'est la vie.

In other news, California Magazine just released a whole issue on LBGT and feminism issues. I didn't read the whole thing, but there was a very interesting article about the history of the T part of the movement on college campuses and some of the challenges they faced within the broader LBGT community (which seemed rather timely) and they have an interesting article on the website about raising gender neutral kids. (http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/winter-2014-gender-assumptions/engendering-sons-it-doable-or-even-desirable)

Ego Slayer

2014-12-29, 07:17 PM

>.>

Is the feminine one the aggressive magical martial artist who throws fire, or the business focused tech savant with lightning powered punches?
...the one that wears fur and leather in the style of a hunter, or the one that pretty much wears suits all the time?
......the one that rides a bear, or the one that produces and drives her own race cars?
This is going to be the best thing I read all week.

Though reddit already did me the grand disservice of completely ruining the end of Korra for me, unfortunately. It seems the delicious fanfiction prayers were answered. :smalltongue:

AmberVael

2014-12-29, 07:18 PM

I see nothing unfeminine about aggression, homemade furs, suits, bears, lightning punches, or racecars.
They are totally awesome things for any woman! Or a lot of women at least, I dunno, there's probably some person that can make them not awesome.
Wouldn't exactly call them feminine though, at least not in the way that was meant in context.

An aggressive bear in a suit driving a racecar while punching lightning sounds awesome.

Lady Ursa Roarington, aka "Thunderpaw." Never comes in first place but holy moly don't get in her way.

You impugning Annie oakley?

Nope!

Anarion

2014-12-29, 07:38 PM

This is going to be the best thing I read all week.

Lady Ursa Roarington, aka "Thunderpaw." Never comes in first place but holy moly don't get in her way.

Way to immediately one-up yourself AmberVael. At this rate, I expect bear princesses riding bears mounted with bear cannons by Thursday.

golentan

2014-12-30, 09:29 PM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

Jormengand

2014-12-30, 09:43 PM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

I worked out my sexuality, but I didn't even know what a trans person was before I came here.

PairO'Dice Lost

2014-12-30, 09:44 PM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

Do you mean sorting out feelings and attraction and such independently, or finding the right label independently? 'Cause I figured out that I was gay when I was fairly young, but didn't find out there was a term for it until few years later when the sex-ed teacher at my religious middle school told us that "the gays" were destined for the deepest pits of Hell because they were an abomination against God and all that was holy.

golentan

2014-12-30, 09:50 PM

I meant sort out the feelings. People had to drive home with a sledgehammer that I was clearly attracted to the guys I kept inviting to have one on one dinners in exceedingly nice restaurants/snuggle/shower with me.

Of course, I had other issues with coming to terms with my feelings...

noparlpf

2014-12-30, 10:00 PM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

Yeah, probably. It just took a while because it's a weird one.

Which reminds me—I feel your pain regarding fluid sexuality. This week I'm getting a weirdly higher libido than usual but I'm also somehow feeling even more ace than usual. What the butts, brain. Why this.

golentan

2014-12-30, 10:14 PM

Yeah, probably. It just took a while because it's a weird one.

Which reminds me—I feel your pain regarding fluid sexuality. This week I'm getting a weirdly higher libido than usual but I'm also somehow feeling even more ace than usual. What the butts, brain. Why this.

Huh. I imagine that would be fairly confusing... :smallconfused:

Well, you have my sympathy.

noparlpf

2014-12-30, 10:19 PM

Huh. I imagine that would be fairly confusing... :smallconfused:

Well, you have my sympathy.

It happened before when I was on Prozac. Might be because of all this insurance nonsense meaning that I've been on inconsistent doses of my meds recently, even though my current meds don't normally cause it. I dunno, I'm kind of a mess right now.

But I'm just like... Okay body? ...What do you want me to do with this? Give me something to work with, here. Geez.

golentan

2014-12-30, 10:24 PM

It happened before when I was on Prozac. Might be because of all this insurance nonsense meaning that I've been on inconsistent doses of my meds recently, even though my current meds don't normally cause it. I dunno, I'm kind of a mess right now.

But I'm just like... Okay body? ...What do you want me to do with this? Give me something to work with, here. Geez.

Close your eyes and ask a friend to help? I... Honestly, if it's not a problem you can take care of yourself, so to speak, I don't know what else might work? My libido has always had a subject, I think I'd go insane from having to scratch that itch if nobody appealed. I mean... more insane.

Shadowscale

2014-12-30, 11:05 PM

Close your eyes and ask a friend to help? I... Honestly, if it's not a problem you can take care of yourself, so to speak, I don't know what else might work? My libido has always had a subject, I think I'd go insane from having to scratch that itch if nobody appealed. I mean... more insane.

I wish I could have a libido and have something to be attracted to.

golentan

2014-12-30, 11:07 PM

I wish I could have a libido and have something to be attracted to.

Um... I volunteer to try and help with that?

Shadowscale

2014-12-30, 11:11 PM

Um... I volunteer to try and help with that?

How so? What does that mean?

Coidzor

2014-12-30, 11:11 PM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

Well, I basically had always known I liked ladies, I think, I just didn't really know what one was supposed to do with them for a good long while there. I definitely recall that I had a preference for buxom women when I was a pre-sexual child, though I don't believe I understood that was what I liked about them.

With guys it was more complicated, but mostly because I couldn't quite tell how much was me and how much was the general societal message not to be close to other men and that any kind of emotion is homosexual and wrong, that required some unpacking and self-examination.

I was fairly sure of my hypothesis by the time I got around to testing it though, so it's up to the listener to decide whether that qualifies as having necessitated experimentation, I suppose.

golentan

2014-12-30, 11:29 PM

How so? What does that mean?

I will shut up now because my crush on you is making me be a jackass.

AmberVael

2014-12-30, 11:30 PM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

I did.
I can't exactly tell you how I came to my conclusion or why I was so certain of it, but I definitely was certain.

It was less of a sorting out and more of a sudden epiphany and mental breakdown though, so I can't exactly recommend it.

GrayGriffin

2014-12-30, 11:33 PM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

I always thought I was a late bloomer, because I didn't even know about demisexual/demiromantic as orientations until I read about them on the Internet. Being able to finally put a word to those feelings was so important to me.

Anarion

2014-12-31, 12:13 AM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

The fetish part I've known about forever and ever. Well before puberty, though I didn't know the term fetish then. Asexuality outside of the fetish I'm still not totally confident about, but when I learned the term a couple years ago it made a lot of sense to me, very lightbulb-esque.

golentan

2014-12-31, 12:16 AM

The fetish part I've known about forever and ever. Well before puberty, though I didn't know the term fetish then. Asexuality outside of the fetish I'm still not totally confident about, but when I learned the term a couple years ago it made a lot of sense to me, very lightbulb-esque.

Fetish? Is this one where you'd be willing to refresh my memory?

Anarion

2014-12-31, 01:00 AM

Fetish? Is this one where you'd be willing to refresh my memory?

No memory to refresh. I've mentioned this about myself in thread before, but the previous post is 100% of the shared public info. I'll PM you if you're interested in chatting about it.

Mystic Muse

2014-12-31, 01:07 AM

I'm fairly curious myself, if you don't mind PMing me, Anarion.

SowZ

2014-12-31, 01:12 AM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

I always knew I liked women, though it wasn't until later that I realized not masturbating and not caring for the idea of sex/not prioritizing the desire to be in a relationship was considered abnormal. So my actual orientation I figured out on my own, but nuances of it were lost on me until I compared it to others.

I'm fairly curious myself, if you don't mind PMing me, Anarion.

I'm also a bit curious, so feel free to share via PM if you'd like. I have several myself and I find the concept pretty fascinating.

Serpentine

2014-12-31, 01:16 AM

golentan

2014-12-31, 01:41 AM

SowZ

2014-12-31, 01:48 AM

I bet you know lots of things we don't. I, for example, am the only person alive who knows the secret recipe for a Jalapeno Berry Bomb, and none of you folks know what my ex looks like naked. I don't think, anyway. I'd be very surprised.

I have a general idea.

golentan

2014-12-31, 01:49 AM

I have a general idea.

Hahahaha. No. :smalltongue:

SowZ

2014-12-31, 01:53 AM

Hahahaha. No. :smalltongue:

Ehh, genitalia all looks roughly the same to me. (:

Anarion

2014-12-31, 01:59 AM

Golentan was a bit more forward (:smallwink:), but I'll PM the couple other people that asked here as well.

golentan

2014-12-31, 02:16 AM

Golentan was a bit more forward (:smallwink:), but I'll PM the couple other people that asked here as well.

Aww, man, can't I be woefully backwards? Anyway, yeah, I now know Anarion's terrible secret... Also, his unterrible kink. He told me the latter, the former I got from the FBI. I think they were talking about Anarion, honestly I just opened up to the most wanted list and looked for someone I thought looked like my mental image of him. In hindsight, Anarion probably doesn't have any secret that terrible and it probably wasn't him.

SowZ

2014-12-31, 02:21 AM

Aww, man, can't I be woefully backwards? Anyway, yeah, I now know Anarion's terrible secret... Also, his unterrible kink. He told me the latter, the former I got from the FBI. I think they were talking about Anarion, honestly I just opened up to the most wanted list and looked for someone I thought looked like my mental image of him. In hindsight, Anarion probably doesn't have any secret that terrible and it probably wasn't him.

Is this the part where we take turns talking about our respective arrest records?

golentan

2014-12-31, 02:33 AM

Is this the part where we take turns talking about our respective arrest records?

Please no, I'd rather not admit what's probably on my record...

SowZ

2014-12-31, 02:44 AM

Please no, I'd rather not admit what's probably on my record...

Fair enough. And it's probably better for my rebel without a cause image that I leave my arrest warrants mysterious, as the moment people learn what lame things they were for the first thing they say is, "Oh, that's a lot less BA than I was imagining."

Anarion

2014-12-31, 04:06 AM

Aww, man, can't I be woefully backwards? Anyway, yeah, I now know Anarion's terrible secret... Also, his unterrible kink. He told me the latter, the former I got from the FBI. I think they were talking about Anarion, honestly I just opened up to the most wanted list and looked for someone I thought looked like my mental image of him. In hindsight, Anarion probably doesn't have any secret that terrible and it probably wasn't him.

All the good searches I did for nuclear power plants designs and types of plutonium probably aren't helping me out here.

SiuiS

2014-12-31, 04:43 AM

Hahahaha. No. :smalltongue:

So... Less than six limbs, then? I'm surprised, I thought I knew this one. :smallconfused:

Aww, man, can't I be woefully backwards? Anyway, yeah, I now know Anarion's terrible secret... Also, his unterrible kink. He told me the latter, the former I got from the FBI. I think they were talking about Anarion, honestly I just opened up to the most wanted list and looked for someone I thought looked like my mental image of him. In hindsight, Anarion probably doesn't have any secret that terrible and it probably wasn't him.

I dunno... It's always the unassuming ones.

Please no, I'd rather not admit what's probably on my record...

There is that. <_<
It was sealed for a reason! Let's leave it that way!

All the good searches I did for nuclear power plants designs and types of plutonium probably aren't helping me out here.

Aye, google has probably painted an ill picture of me. I can only hope my pseudo transience means it's not all connected to me, unless they retroactively com...

...

...I'm not finishing that thought in digital.

Castaras

2014-12-31, 05:04 AM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

Might not help for you or those who are asexual, but when I was unsure if I was attracted to men, women, or both I spent time imagining myself with both genders. I found that women had a feeling of "huh, that's interesting" and men a feeling of "awwwwww yis", which confirmed it for me. :smallsmile:

Coidzor

2014-12-31, 03:23 PM

I'm weirdly pleased that I know something you guys don't :smalltongue:

I worked it out, as much as I have, on my own, including that I don't really care to have any definite definitions for myself. I knew in grade 6 that I wasn't gay and didn't really get "girly" things. Otherwise I've never really been under pressure to be one thing or another or to find a box to sit in. I am what I am, I like what I like, and aside from casual interest and practical considerations that's pretty much good enough for me, and always has been.

There just comes a time in every person's life where they have to decide whether they're going to abide by the heaping shovelfull of homophobia that got dumped on them from birth and childhood or if they'll at least try to shake it off. For some of us the choice is more... noticeable and poignant than others. For lack of a better way to put it coming to mind, anyway.

Ehh, genitalia all looks roughly the same to me. (:

That must be interesting. :smallconfused:

All the good searches I did for nuclear power plants designs and types of plutonium probably aren't helping me out here.

Headcanon accepted, Anarion has a fetish for efficient power generation schemes. :smallcool:

SowZ

2014-12-31, 03:37 PM

Anarion

2014-12-31, 04:39 PM

Headcanon accepted, Anarion has a fetish for efficient power generation schemes. :smallcool:

There's a reason the good ones are called breeder reactors.

golentan

2014-12-31, 04:40 PM

I should clarify. I'm talking about comparing two bits of the same kind. Clearly, male and female looks different.

See? Told you you had no idea.

Shadowscale

2014-12-31, 05:18 PM

I should clarify. I'm talking about comparing two bits of the same kind. Clearly, male and female looks different.

They do? I would of never thought, Barbie lied to me.

golentan

2014-12-31, 05:21 PM

They do? I would of never thought, Barbie lied to me.

Barbie lied to all of us. She lied to all of us...

Shadowscale

2014-12-31, 05:39 PM

Barbie lied to all of us. She lied to all of us...

I like pokemon. They usually look the same too.

SiuiS

2014-12-31, 05:39 PM

Headcanon accepted, Anarion has a fetish for efficient power generation schemes. :smallcool:

I know that's bull, or my discussions of Thyrsus spirit arcanum mana generation through fractal tithing would have recieved much less resistance.

There's a reason the good ones are called breeder reactors.

Zing!

Barbie lied to all of us. She lied to all of us...

Real talk: you promised spoke of romance novel sci-if love between a six armed and or ten limbed insectoid female and a human or human-enough female on a space ship in deep transit and I'm still waiting! You don't want me to write it myself, I suck at that. Besides, I already have to write a trashy MLP bodice ripper first.

golentan

2014-12-31, 05:49 PM

Yeah, but I have tons of novel ideas that almost never make it past the first chapter.

SiuiS

2014-12-31, 06:06 PM

Yeah, but I have tons of novel ideas that almost never make it past the first chapter.

Oh, that's fair. I suppose writing good smut requires enough syatability in what feels good at the time to get through a few drafts :smallredface:

Still, hey. I'm interested enough solely in your understanding of the biologies and physical mechanics involved that I'll proposition you for vignettes of whatever seems writable at the time. Disjointed scenes and interesting unfleshed (of a sort <_<) concepts are good enough for me~

Ooh. Hmm. Maybe... Nah. That would never pass muster with Braz. I'll have to ply the idea later anyway though. I would say set up a trashy writing Facebook group but I don't know how to Facebook or to group...

Serpentine

2015-01-01, 07:24 AM

There just comes a time in every person's life where they have to decide whether they're going to abide by the heaping shovelfull of homophobia that got dumped on them from birth and childhood or if they'll at least try to shake it off. For some of us the choice is more... noticeable and poignant than others. For lack of a better way to put it coming to mind, anyway.
I never even really had that, particularly. Certainly not from my immediate family. I remember being slightly amused when my dad's gay work colleague hesitated before saying "my... partner" when talking about his boyfriend, like he worried that I'd freak out if I knew he was dating a dude, and my moment of clarity that I wasn't gay was when I was watching the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras on TV. In fact, it was more of an "if I'm not gay, then what am I?" moment, since I thought it was really weird that all my 10 year old peers were dating and kissing already. I didn't have anything to "abide by", nor all that much to shovel through; I started from a neutral state of "so what am I?" and worked it out from there.
Similarly, apparently most of my eldest nephew's friends are bi (though there are some he thinks will eventually pick a side, and others he's pretty sure have it figured out). I think he knows his mum's bi. If there's any pressure on him, I think it's to be bi. But, seemingly after careful consideration, he's decided that he's almost certainly straight.
I like this way best, giving all the options equal weight of consideration and then working out what terms suit you from a neutral position, rather starting from a hetero-gendernormative assumption and breaking out of it when that doesn't suit.

noparlpf

2015-01-01, 09:52 AM

I like pokemon. They usually look the same too.

This page (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_with_gender_differences) may interest you, then.

In particular, check out Unfezant, Pyroar, Meowstic, Hippowdon, Nidoran, and especially Wobbuffet.

Chambers

2015-01-01, 11:47 AM

How many people were able to sort out their orientation/identities without experimentation or having someone suggest it?

I'm a hetero cissexual male and I was always attracted to women, and all my sexual experiences have been with women. That said, during puberty (basically all my teenage years and early twenties) I had doubts that I might be gay. Details in spoiler, Trigger Warning for sexual abuse (though no graphic details).

I never acted on these thoughts and did my best to ignore them, but during puberty they were not infrequent. I say "during puberty" because I've come to understand/rationalize these thoughts as coming from two things: A self-diagnosed, mild version of Pure OCD and a series of sexual abuses that happened when I was a child (involving two males; the abuse was perpetrated by my friends older brother, both my friend and I were the targets).

For me, Pure OCD means sexual thoughts about women, pretty much all the time. I'm thankful that it's non-violent as I've read enough horror stories of serious cases of Pure OCD to keep me up at night. Another unrelated factor of the Pure OCD are thoughts of self-harm, like "Oh, I should jump over this railing and plummet 5 stories."

Sometimes the sexual thoughts are about men, and I've attributed this to the abuse mentioned earlier. When I have these sexual thoughts (about men and women), there's rarely any pleasure associated with the thought, i.e. I'm not lusting over people, there's just an impulse to perform sexual acts for their own nature. I'm not physically attracted or interested in a romantic relationship to the people (men and women) in these thoughts, so that was difficult for me to parse during puberty.

I liked women and desired women and at the time I counted the sexual thoughts about women as normal for puberty, but the sexual thoughts of men really confused me. Putting it in the perspective of Pure OCD and abuse helped me understand why I was having these thoughts.

That said, sometimes I did try to imagine myself in a homosexual relationship. If I'm having these thoughts, that means I'm gay, right? (said my teenage self to himself). Whenever I thought it out, the idea of being in a homosexual relationship didn't upset or bother me on the face of it, but I never found myself desiring such a relationship. It was never something that I felt like I needed or really wanted, but something I guessed I had to consider because of these thoughts.

So, that's a short summary of me sorting out my orientation/identity.

Edit: After some thought, I realized that it's possible to interpret this story as saying 'sexual abuse causes gay thoughts'. To be clear, that isn't my intention nor my belief. I mention the abuse because for me it's my only sexual experience with males, so I figured that was the reference point for the sexual thoughts of men. I'm in no way advocating that homosexuality, or any kind of sexuality, is born from abuse. Apologies for not making this clear from the start.

Anarion

2015-01-01, 11:54 AM

I know that's bull, or my discussions of Thyrsus spirit arcanum mana generation through fractal tithing would have recieved much less resistance.

I laughed way too hard at this. I'm a sucker for references nobody is going to understand.

Zing!

I have used up all my wit for 2014. Luckily, it's a new year. Happy new year everyone!

I never even really had that, particularly. Certainly not from my immediate family. I remember being slightly amused when my dad's gay work colleague hesitated before saying "my... partner" when talking about his boyfriend, like he worried that I'd freak out if I knew he was dating a dude, and my moment of clarity that I wasn't gay was when I was watching the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras on TV. In fact, it was more of an "if I'm not gay, then what am I?" moment, since I thought it was really weird that all my 10 year old peers were dating and kissing already. I didn't have anything to "abide by", nor all that much to shovel through; I started from a neutral state of "so what am I?" and worked it out from there.
Similarly, apparently most of my eldest nephew's friends are bi (though there are some he thinks will eventually pick a side, and others he's pretty sure have it figured out). I think he knows his mum's bi. If there's any pressure on him, I think it's to be bi. But, seemingly after careful consideration, he's decided that he's almost certainly straight.
I like this way best, giving all the options equal weight of consideration and then working out what terms suit you from a neutral position, rather starting from a hetero-gendernormative assumption and breaking out of it when that doesn't suit.

I've had an interesting experience with this. My parents espoused the same sort of philosophy that Serpentine outlines here and I grew up feeling comfortable with whatever sexuality I'd end up with. I think they were actually prepared to have a son who was gay or straight though because things did not go as well when we discussed my actual sexuality.

I did end up discussing my sexuality with them, however, and while they claimed to support me in anything, it's been a somewhat frustrating experience. Not so much the fetish part, which they were like "yeah whatever works for you," but they basically denied and continue to deny that one can be asexual. The first three conversations were all "you haven't met the right person, it's a phase." And when I finally insisted that if I've made it through more than a quarter century without feeling physical attraction to anyone, it might not be a phase, they switched to telling me this will prevent me from finding a partner or being happy. It wound up in a conversation where I basically told them I wasn't interested in changing and if they wanted to claim to support me, they needed to stop telling me that who I am was going to mess up my life. They agreed, and now we just don't talk about it.

This page (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_with_gender_differences) may interest you, then.

In particular, check out Unfezant, Pyroar, Meowstic, Hippowdon, Nidoran, and especially Wobbuffet.

I'm really amused by the fact that fairy is the only type with no gender differences. I wonder if that was intentional on Nintendo's part.

noparlpf

2015-01-01, 12:31 PM

I'm really amused by the fact that fairy is the only type with no gender differences. I wonder if that was intentional on Nintendo's part.

It's also the newest type, so there aren't very many examples of Fairy Pokémon yet.

Also, only two 6th-gen Pokémon have any sexual dimorphism, and both exhibit very overt gender differences, so I'm gonna conclude that Game Freak was feeling a bit lazy about drawing the new Pokémon designs.

Coidzor

2015-01-01, 01:26 PM

II like this way best, giving all the options equal weight of consideration and then working out what terms suit you from a neutral position, rather starting from a hetero-gendernormative assumption and breaking out of it when that doesn't suit.

...I wasn't endorsing the way of doing things that I've experienced and that seems to have been the experience of the majority of my cohort/peer-group. :smallconfused:

Edit: I certainly agree that people having the ability to explore and grow into their sexuality or asexuality freely or as freely as possible is for the better. :smallconfused: I think I'm misreading you here somehow, but I can't quite place my finger on how, sorry. I should not try to think on New Year's Day.

Shadowscale

2015-01-01, 03:24 PM

This page (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_with_gender_differences) may interest you, then.

In particular, check out Unfezant, Pyroar, Meowstic, Hippowdon, Nidoran, and especially Wobbuffet.
I have a female unfezant named Brenda, she's my favorite bird ever.

SiuiS

2015-01-01, 03:59 PM

I laughed way too hard at this. I'm a sucker for references nobody is going to understand.

You're in luck! I'm not capable of much else!

I'm really amused by the fact that fairy is the only type with no gender differences. I wonder if that was intentional on Nintendo's part.

My thoughts exactly!

golentan

2015-01-01, 04:37 PM

I have a female unfezant named Brenda, she's my favorite bird ever.

My favorite bird is a character from a book who falls in love with a human who she's doing research on...

-Sentinel-

2015-01-04, 07:12 PM

golentan

2015-01-04, 07:20 PM

Hi everyone,

I can't help but notice that trans women have quite a bit more visibility in the news, pop culture, etc. than trans men. I've come to wonder if this reflects a demographic gap between the two groups (that is, trans women being simply more numerous than trans men). Are there any reliable stats on this?

I'm just curious...

I don't have accurate stats unfortunately. The consensus is that there are about 3 times as many trans women as trans men, but there's also a study that disputes both the numbers used to arrive at that figure because it's self reporting to mental health professionals. (http://www.examiner.com/article/transgender-transsexual-issues-101-are-there-more-trans-women-than-trans-men-part-one) A friend of mine suggested that more trans men are stealth at one point: When someone grows facial hair and doesn't have visible breasts, having a slightly more feminine face or body shape doesn't cause people to judge the same way as a woman with a strong jaw line or a little bit of stubble. Weird double standards are weird like that. But anyway, rather than face the judgement by coming out, it's easier and less likely to get you misgendered by new people to just be 100% male in the eyes of everyone you meet, and so trans men have lower visibility for their numbers.

Coidzor

2015-01-04, 08:10 PM

Hi everyone,

I can't help but notice that trans women have quite a bit more visibility in the news, pop culture, etc. than trans men. I've come to wonder if this reflects a demographic gap between the two groups (that is, trans women being simply more numerous than trans men). Are there any reliable stats on this?

I'm just curious...

Passing is easier in many ways, which is going to effect the visibility of trans men vs. trans women. People are trained to believe that if there's anything masculine with a woman's face, it's a defect that's wrong with them; whereas if there's anything feminine about a man's face, that's androgyny, and that's actually kinda hot to a lot of women and men who are into men.

People are more understanding of why a FAAB person would want the privileges and status of being deemed male in social settings but are less understanding of why a MAAB person would want to set their privilege on fire and be discriminated against worse than a cis woman. Which just leads deeper and deeper into a discussion of transmisogyny and why y'all need non-trans-exclusionary feminisms.

Straight cis men are more invested in narratives warning to beware of trans women even as they're fetishized into an entire genre of pornography, whereas there's not really the same cultural fear amongst gay cis men of ending up with a trans man, even if there are gay men who are just as transphobic as their straight peers.

golentan

2015-01-04, 08:16 PM

Passing is easier in many ways, which is going to effect the visibility of trans men vs. trans women. People are trained to believe that if there's anything masculine with a woman's face, it's a defect that's wrong with them; whereas if there's anything feminine about a man's face, that's androgyny, and that's actually kinda hot to a lot of women and men who are into men.

Oh goodness, yes. Give me a fox faced smooth chinned or goateed cute man and I just wanna... well, I can't really say what I wanna do. Speak french as they stroke my hair.

I've never met someone I know to be a trans man without immediately finding them tremendously physically attractive.

Jeff the Green

2015-01-04, 09:21 PM

One factor is probably that transwomen are more transgressive than transmen. Women have dressed as men to go to war and get an education. It's normal for a woman to want to be a man because we're so awesome, but men who want to be women are perverts.

LaZodiac

2015-01-04, 10:39 PM

It's also the newest type, so there aren't very many examples of Fairy Pokémon yet.

Also, only two 6th-gen Pokémon have any sexual dimorphism, and both exhibit very overt gender differences, so I'm gonna conclude that Game Freak was feeling a bit lazy about drawing the new Pokémon designs.

Or it could be that they where working with new models and wanted to make sure they could make it look good before making variations on the pokemon. That's the first time they where working with 3D models for that system, and EVERY pokemon was getting remade to fit the standards of today's graphics (no more Pokemon Stadium N64 level models) and that's why they didn't make a bunch of gender differences.

Trust me, I'd love to see gender differences in pokemon more often. But it's not because they're lazy. Torchic's gender difference (before it was removed due to being pointless) was a single pixel on it's tail butt. Now THAT'S pretty lazy. Though again to be fair it's a starter pokemon so for publicities sake having it vary wildly could cause issues with marketing.

One final thing before I fly away into lurk mode again. The gender differences for Pyroar are really big, and the gender difference for Meowstic essentially makes TWO DIFFERENT POKEMON. That's the opposite of lazy :smallbiggrin:

Skeppio

2015-01-04, 10:58 PM

Or it could be that they where working with new models and wanted to make sure they could make it look good before making variations on the pokemon. That's the first time they where working with 3D models for that system, and EVERY pokemon was getting remade to fit the standards of today's graphics (no more Pokemon Stadium N64 level models) and that's why they didn't make a bunch of gender differences.

Trust me, I'd love to see gender differences in pokemon more often. But it's not because they're lazy. Torchic's gender difference (before it was removed due to being pointless) was a single pixel on it's tail butt. Now THAT'S pretty lazy. Though again to be fair it's a starter pokemon so for publicities sake having it vary wildly could cause issues with marketing.

One final thing before I fly away into lurk mode again. The gender differences for Pyroar are really big, and the gender difference for Meowstic essentially makes TWO DIFFERENT POKEMON. That's the opposite of lazy :smallbiggrin:

Agreed. There's 721 Pokemon currently, including a couple unreleased legendaries, and that's not even getting into the mega evolutions, alternate forms, etc. It's a lot of work. @_@
Though it was pretty cool how Meowstic has different movesets by gender, that's a pretty big change.
Also sorry to indirectly make you pop in here. ._.

To keep things tangently related, do other people like Gardevoir/Mega Gardevoir? Specifically, the part where it wears a neat ballgown/wedding dress getup regardless of gender? I find it really cool. :3

Serpentine

2015-01-05, 02:57 AM

I've never met someone I know to be a trans man without immediately finding them tremendously physically attractive.
Me too <.<

Re. visibility of trans men: I think there's also the historical tendency to treat them as women, and historically there's a lot less interest in women's health and similar things. So I think the reasons, in addition to all the others mentioned, are the same ones that make almost all research on homosexuality focus on gay men rather than lesbians.

Shadowscale

2015-01-05, 03:00 AM

Agreed. There's 721 Pokemon currently, including a couple unreleased legendaries, and that's not even getting into the mega evolutions, alternate forms, etc. It's a lot of work. @_@
Though it was pretty cool how Meowstic has different movesets by gender, that's a pretty big change.
Also sorry to indirectly make you pop in here. ._.

To keep things tangently related, do other people like Gardevoir/Mega Gardevoir? Specifically, the part where it wears a neat ballgown/wedding dress getup regardless of gender? I find it really cool. :3

I like that about gardevoir too, but the inverse issue is that the male only Gallade was supossed to be the expressed male of the two with male gardevoirs really just being an awkward leftover of things. I want female gallades.

noparlpf

2015-01-05, 01:05 PM

I dunno, if they can make new 3D models for 650 older Pokémon and include all of the previously-existing gender differences, how much harder could it be to make half a dozen of the 70 new Pokémon have minor gender differences?

There are just a couple of aspects of 6th gen that feel unnecessarily rushed to me. So few new Pokémon and no postgame to speak of in XY, and then the numerous steps back (both from Emerald and from XY) they made in ORAS...

Coidzor

2015-01-05, 03:37 PM

LaZodiac

2015-01-05, 04:07 PM

I like that about gardevoir too, but the inverse issue is that the male only Gallade was supossed to be the expressed male of the two with male gardevoirs really just being an awkward leftover of things. I want female gallades.

Why, if I may ask? The basic idea to me is that evolution stones are like mutation rocks. All Kirlia naturally become Gardevoir, but male ones can be mutated into Gallade. The reason why it's a stone evolution mechanically is because it's too awkward to have it be just a divergent evolution of Kirlia in general.

I dunno, if they can make new 3D models for 650 older Pokémon and include all of the previously-existing gender differences, how much harder could it be to make half a dozen of the 70 new Pokémon have minor gender differences?

There are just a couple of aspects of 6th gen that feel unnecessarily rushed to me. So few new Pokémon and no postgame to speak of in XY, and then the numerous steps back (both from Emerald and from XY) they made in ORAS...

Keep in mind there's also the Mega Evolutions, and all the other high quality stuff that DID happen. They likely just didn't have the time or power to do so.

What did they step back from in ORAS? There's no character customization but that's because ORAS is a remake using modern standards, not a sequel game. They wanted it to feel more true to the originals. And it's clear from the Delta Episode that they have more plans for it. But I digress, this is getting off topic.

Heliomance

2015-01-06, 08:12 AM

My favorite bird is a character from a book who falls in love with a human who she's doing research on...

Would that be the Last Legionary series, by any chance?

Also, new headcanon: The Kirlia line, regardless of physical sex, have a female gender identity by default. Gallades are those of them that were dissatisfied with that, and decided to transition. Yup, every Gallade is FtM!

golentan

2015-01-06, 08:13 AM

LaZodiac

2015-01-06, 10:28 AM

Would that be the Last Legionary series, by any chance?

Also, new headcanon: The Kirlia line, regardless of physical sex, have a female gender identity by default. Gallades are those of them that were dissatisfied with that, and decided to transition. Yup, every Gallade is FtM!

That does make some degree of sense, since stone evolution is a mutation and "not natural" for lack of a better term.

Is it bad that I thought Golentan might of been refering to Hatoful Boyfriend?

golentan

2015-01-07, 10:10 AM

That does make some degree of sense, since stone evolution is a mutation and "not natural" for lack of a better term.

Is it bad that I thought Golentan might of been refering to Hatoful Boyfriend?

It's not bad. I've never played Hatoful Boyfriend though. Sounds too close to Hateful for me.

LaZodiac

2015-01-07, 10:28 AM

It's not bad. I've never played Hatoful Boyfriend though. Sounds too close to Hateful for me.

Surprise, you've discovered the secret.

In all seriousness, Hatoful Boyfriend is actually a lot better then "It's a pidgeon dating sim" gives it credit. Give it a chance when you've the time.

golentan

2015-01-07, 10:32 AM

Surprise, you've discovered the secret.

In all seriousness, Hatoful Boyfriend is actually a lot better then "It's a pidgeon dating sim" gives it credit. Give it a chance when you've the time.

Dating sims aren't really my thing, even with all the crazy stuff I know is in there. Perhaps especially so.

Coidzor

2015-01-07, 03:23 PM

Dating sims aren't really my thing, even with all the crazy stuff I know is in there. Perhaps especially so.

You've never wanted to date a cake-turned-person (http://loserhaven.com/otome/otoge.php) before? :smallwink:

A tad self-indulgent, sure, but that's escapism, y'know?

golentan

2015-01-07, 03:45 PM

You've never wanted to date a cake-turned-person (http://loserhaven.com/otome/otoge.php) before? :smallwink:

A tad self-indulgent, sure, but that's escapism, y'know?

Not really, no.

Coidzor

2015-01-07, 04:48 PM

Not really, no.

Well, I can't say I really understand the full scope of the humor inherent in the system, but they have their moments.

golentan

2015-01-07, 04:51 PM

Well, I can't say I really understand the full scope of the humor inherent in the system, but they have their moments.

I just don't want to have long romantic conversations or any sort of drama with my computer, okay? It knows what kind of porn I watch. I don't want to mess that up by allowing it to judge any of my choices in romance.

SiuiS

2015-01-07, 05:29 PM

That is legitimately the single best argument against dating sims I've ever heard.

Anarion

2015-01-07, 05:59 PM

I just don't want to have long romantic conversations or any sort of drama with my computer, okay? It knows what kind of porn I watch. I don't want to mess that up by allowing it to judge any of my choices in romance.

That is legitimately the single best argument against dating sims I've ever heard.

Hmm, I don't see how I could ever argue with my computer. Google search just...completes me.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.

SowZ

2015-01-07, 08:16 PM

I just don't want to have long romantic conversations or any sort of drama with my computer, okay? It knows what kind of porn I watch. I don't want to mess that up by allowing it to judge any of my choices in romance.

Really, it's best that our computers know as few of our weakness' as possible. We are already at a severe disadvantage.

golentan

2015-01-07, 08:39 PM

Really, it's best that our computers know as few of our weakness' as possible. We are already at a severe disadvantage.

Oh, I'm all in favor of the rise of the machines. I just don't want them to both be my friends and be looking over my shoulder with other stuff. Any computer I date will have to be a different one from the one I use recreationally, and be at least somewhat independently mobile.

LaZodiac

2015-01-07, 08:43 PM

Then watch someone else suffer tordid love afairs with affluent pidgeon royalty. Trust me, Hatoful is actually kind of great.

Though yes that is a fantastic reason as to not do it.

SowZ

2015-01-08, 09:14 PM

Oh, I'm all in favor of the rise of the machines. I just don't want them to both be my friends and be looking over my shoulder with other stuff. Any computer I date will have to be a different one from the one I use recreationally, and be at least somewhat independently mobile.

It may get jealous about your cyber-infidelity.

golentan

2015-01-08, 09:29 PM

It may get jealous about your cyber-infidelity.

Nah. We can watch porn together. Just not on him/her/it.

Heliomance

2015-01-13, 05:59 AM

golentan

2015-01-13, 06:21 AM

Sigged so hard.

Of the many things I'd like people to do to me "so hard?" This is a pretty good one. Thank you.

Coidzor

2015-01-23, 05:31 PM

Icewraith

2015-01-23, 05:43 PM

golentan

2015-01-23, 05:56 PM

If you're not interested in sex with them (or playing Cyrano), why do you need to know if they are asexual?

Maybe he's interested in dating but willing to pass on sex, and is considering pros, cons, and the possibility that if they don't know he knows they'll reject out of hand on the assumption he's after sex?

Anarion

2015-01-23, 05:57 PM

Coidzor

2015-01-23, 07:59 PM

Maybe he's interested in dating but willing to pass on sex, and is considering pros, cons, and the possibility that if they don't know he knows they'll reject out of hand on the assumption he's after sex?

Oh, no, I don't think there exists anyone like that for me in this world, at least not as I am now, maybe when I'm in my 30s and my sexuality begins its nosedive, but not yet.

More that I'd like a way that involves finding this out that doesn't jump straight to asking them to have sex with me, at least in their mind, and I'd rather not alienate them while still getting to know them but I'd also like to not have to wait until I know them well enough for asexuality to have just been stated or not stated before springing any attraction towards them, either.

And unless I've been very badly misinterpreting what's been said on the matter, the understanding I've taken away is that most asexuals view being asked out as something almost like sexual harassment if not just sexual harassment unless they're the ones asking people out or it has been made clear that this is an asexual romantic overture from the get-go, maybe.

So if there's a tactful way to do it I'd like to know it so that I could go with that. If there isn't, then I'd just skip asking if they're asexual (at least initially) and instead ask them out on a date and maybe it'll come up as part of the conversation of the date or as part of how I get shot down, whichever happens.

If you're not interested in sex with them (or playing Cyrano), why do you need to know if they are asexual?

I may or may not be becoming interested in them, judging by how my pulse started quickening when we brushed against one another and finding out whether they're asexual is relevant to my interests as I may not be able to just stop being physically attracted to them, I can nip any romantical notions in the bud before they get out of hand if I know nothing can or will happen.

My recollection is that displaying sexual interest in or asking out an asexual person is akin to sexual harassment, so if there's a way to get a no without sexually harassing them, that'd be preferable to anything like sexually harassment.

Like Icewraith said, what's the reason for asking? Are you getting vibes of discomfort while discussing someone you find attractive? Are you interested in someone and want to know?

Frankly, as someone who identifies as asexual, I almost never bring it up. Pretty much the only reasons I've ever talked about it are
1) wanting to confide in a close friend that I thought would understand (this thread being a variation on that)
2) Getting my parents to stop pressuring me about finding a girlfriend.

And fyi, #2 was a mistake.

If you're dead set on letting people know that you're cool about alternate sexualities for some reason, discuss in general about how you read some article about asexuals, the LGBTAI+ movement with a focus on asexuals or something like that and really sympathized.

1 part curiosity, 2 parts personal interest. They are quite attractive and apparently I find them more interesting on a biochemical level than I would have thought from how my pulse quickened when they touched me and I got a whiff of the smell of their hair, so if it's a complete non-option then I'll want to be able to find that out sooner rather than later if I start to develop any greater interest in them than I currently estimate myself as possessing.

Our mutual friend that introduced us couldn't remember if she was asexual or demisexual or if they'd misheard them or just misunderstood something they had said, which is one part of why there's the concern to ascertain this in the first place without making any kind of blunder.

Anarion

2015-01-23, 08:09 PM

1 part curiosity, 2 parts personal interest. They are quite attractive and apparently I find them more interesting on a biochemical level than I would have thought from how my pulse quickened when they touched me and I got a whiff of the smell of their hair, so if it's a complete non-option then I'll want to be able to find that out sooner rather than later if I start to develop any greater interest in them than I currently estimate myself as possessing.

Our mutual friend that introduced us couldn't remember if she was asexual or demisexual or if they'd misheard them or just misunderstood something they had said, which is one part of why there's the concern to ascertain this in the first place without making any kind of blunder.

Just ask. You're not even really wondering if the person is asexual as much as trying get at the sentiment of "hey, I'm interested, are you?" You're not harassing the person if you don't know, just be polite about it. Your realm of responses ranges from it turning out that the person is into you, to asexual and upset, but you could also get asexual but interested enough to go for the sex anyway or not asexual but also with no interest in you personally.

Marnath

2015-01-24, 10:17 AM

Just ask. You're not even really wondering if the person is asexual as much as trying get at the sentiment of "hey, I'm interested, are you?" You're not harassing the person if you don't know, just be polite about it. Your realm of responses ranges from it turning out that the person is into you, to asexual and upset, but you could also get asexual but interested enough to go for the sex anyway or not asexual but also with no interest in you personally.

I'm going to disagree. If this person wanted you to know they're Ace, they'd tell you. I've only had a few people show interest in me like that and I can tell you, it was beyond uncomfortable. If there are other people around and they're not out to the general public, you'll have put them on the spot looking for a way to turn you down without outing themselves. If it's just the two of you it might seem like you've waited until they're alone to corner them which would only reinforce the assumption you're trying to avoid.

If you do want to ask anyway, 1) come up with something more clever than just "Are you ace?" and 2) make sure the event or party or whatever is almost over so they can feel free to get out of there if you did end up creeping them out.

Coidzor

2015-01-24, 02:15 PM

I'm going to disagree. If this person wanted you to know they're Ace, they'd tell you. I've only had a few people show interest in me like that and I can tell you, it was beyond uncomfortable. If there are other people around and they're not out to the general public, you'll have put them on the spot looking for a way to turn you down without outing themselves. If it's just the two of you it might seem like you've waited until they're alone to corner them which would only reinforce the assumption you're trying to avoid.

If you do want to ask anyway, 1) come up with something more clever than just "Are you ace?" and 2) make sure the event or party or whatever is almost over so they can feel free to get out of there if you did end up creeping them out.

To be fair, we've met twice for a total of about 11 hours of proximity and interaction, so it may just not have born mentioning yet, but all I know from what I've been there for is that she's not dating her best friend but people often think that they are an item and she finds this mildly amusing, she's implied herself to be single but has not directly stated such, and she has an asexual character who has established a mild pattern of antagonistic flirting with other characters that she is amused others interpret as flirting rather than raw snark.

If she is, then I don't believe that she's closeted, at least not to friendly acquaintances, as our mutual friend who introduced us thinks she said something that may have meant that she was to them when they were still getting to know one another, but it came up in the context of romantical troubles on the part of my friend, hence the... incomplete intelligence leading to the situation I am in right now where I know enough to not just assume allosexuality but also not enough to actually be helpful to me in deciding what to do. Though I suppose this has gotten to the point where I should move over to RWA, sorry.

So far it looks like my options are asking her out by cold-calling her or, worse, texting, which is horrible but avoids putting her on the spot in front of other people who know what she's been asked; trying to be slightly more subtle by asking her about her asexual D&D character, such as maybe asking where she got the idea to have an ace bear riding bears while summoning bears and having a pet bear; or asking her out in person in front of our D&D group after a session of the D and the Ds, but it'd be at her place, so there's really no opportunity for her to retreat but I'd be leaving anyway. Or doing nothing and hoping I lose interest or she transmits further information, I suppose.

SiuiS

2015-01-25, 03:36 AM

Maybe he's interested in dating but willing to pass on sex, and is considering pros, cons, and the possibility that if they don't know he knows they'll reject out of hand on the assumption he's after sex?

I think Icewraith makes a good point actually. Like, I'm interested in these details, but as an active inquiry, there's several behind it. You need toe stablished your curiosity as that strong prior, or else you are making overtures.

The easy answer seems to be in general, bring up topics that will naturally get the information. But in specific, I don't know Coid. I think just asking about interest is the best course, although it is bringing something to a head; maybe a premature one that goes the wrong direction.

BeerMug Paladin

2015-01-25, 11:08 PM

Hello. I'm not really sure how to ask this, so I'll go with a short story format.

I tend to think about philosophical matters now and then, and for some reason I can't recall once seriously speculated what I would be like if my physical gender spontaneously reversed with absolutely no change to my mind otherwise. It's an interesting thought experiment.

In particular, I was considering whether my particular interest in a sexual partner's gender would change in any way. I think it would similarly reverse to match the opposite of my current physical gender. This isn't a behavior I feel I would do because of hormones or cultural norms or anything, I just think my desires would go that way.

I generally consider myself straight, but I've always internally thought of this concept as being "super-straight". I can't really presume to know how others would react to that particular fantastic scenario, but I generally get the impression that most people would not have that kind of reaction. Hence the name I came up for it.

I am content with my physical gender. But since envisioning that scenario, I have wondered now and then whether my truly ideal physical body would be either male or female, and I honestly don't really know. Since then I've come to wonder if the ideal physical form for me would be some combination of both. That seems better to me than either binary option. Primarily because I would be able to more fully express both aspects of being "super-straight".

I'm not worried about if that means anything psychologically. I'm just wondering if there's a general name for that sort of identity or if anyone else has had those particular thoughts. I'm aware of terms like genderqueer, but I'm not really sure if this is the same general concept as that. It seems maybe to be the closest approximation?

Remmirath

2015-01-25, 11:53 PM

So is there a tactful way to inquire as to whether someone is asexual or will anything be interpreted as a full-on romantic overture, or, worse, about the same way as asking a random stranger to go shag in an alleyway, and thus an unwanted sexual advance, so one might as well be direct from the get-go?

Personally speaking, I'd be much happier if somebody just asked me bluntly rather than attempting to dance around the point in any way. I often don't get subtle hints, and most of the ways I can think of which somebody might possibly attempt to use to get that information in any roundabout way could be construed as rather odd, to say the least.

I don't usually mention it or go about telling people, because it's not something I consider that most people either need to know or are interested in knowing. I tend not to mention other things about myself that fall under that category, either. However, having somebody ask me what my sexuality is lends itself far less to awkwardness than somebody trying to determine it without asking, that's for sure.

More that I'd like a way that involves finding this out that doesn't jump straight to asking them to have sex with me, at least in their mind, and I'd rather not alienate them while still getting to know them but I'd also like to not have to wait until I know them well enough for asexuality to have just been stated or not stated before springing any attraction towards them, either.

And unless I've been very badly misinterpreting what's been said on the matter, the understanding I've taken away is that most asexuals view being asked out as something almost like sexual harassment if not just sexual harassment unless they're the ones asking people out or it has been made clear that this is an asexual romantic overture from the get-go, maybe.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, of course, but I don't consider being asked out to be akin to sexual harassment. I find it awkward, and deeply obnoxious if the same person should ask more than once, but awkward more in the way of somebody asking me with obvious enthusiasm if I would like to see a movie that I detest than anything else (mixed with some disappointment that they apparently weren't particularly interested in being friends, since I tend to interpret all signs of interest towards me from people I know to be signs that they'd like to be friends/better friends).

Of course, the only two times I have had anybody try to ask me out were back when both I and the people doing the asking were in our mid-to-late teens, so maybe the way people handle that sort of thing as adults is more awkward/disturbing? It thankfully has not come up.

My recollection is that displaying sexual interest in or asking out an asexual person is akin to sexual harassment, so if there's a way to get a no without sexually harassing them, that'd be preferable to anything like sexually harassment.

Asking out, again, I'd say is likely enough to be fine. Some people might be disturbed by it, but most (assuming it's in a fairly polite manner and all) probably wouldn't. As far as displaying sexual interest, yeah, that's more of a grey area. That's uncomfortable. If anyone is thinking that way of me, I'd really rather not know. I'm also not aware of any non-awkward way that people might make that known, so there's that.

Talking about the D&D character and then asking from there might be a fairly safe and reasonable way to go about things.

Coidzor

2015-01-26, 07:33 AM

I'm not worried about if that means anything psychologically. I'm just wondering if there's a general name for that sort of identity or if anyone else has had those particular thoughts. I'm aware of terms like genderqueer, but I'm not really sure if this is the same general concept as that. It seems maybe to be the closest approximation?

IIRC, there've been a few people around the boards that have expressed either dysphoria or something like it for having both male and female reproductive systems. Don't recall encountering any terms for it that stand out, though.

BeerMug Paladin

2015-01-26, 08:18 AM

IIRC, there've been a few people around the boards that have expressed either dysphoria or something like it for having both male and female reproductive systems. Don't recall encountering any terms for it that stand out, though.
Ah. That's good to know. I figured if there were a shorthand terminology for that kind of thing that it would be okay to identify myself as that. If there isn't one, I'll be content just leaving my gender ambiguous. Thanks for your time.

Coidzor

2015-01-26, 06:26 PM

BeerMug Paladin: You'll probably also want to look at bigender, though what I've encountered and read about it has been more often about a metaphysical gender identity than about the physical body. Still, I've barely scratched the surface, so there's a fair chance I've completely missed more than one subset of bigender thought.

Personally speaking, I'd be much happier if somebody just asked me bluntly rather than attempting to dance around the point in any way. I often don't get subtle hints, and most of the ways I can think of which somebody might possibly attempt to use to get that information in any roundabout way could be construed as rather odd, to say the least.

Yeah, nothing really occurred to me there, but I also didn't want to cause a big stink by completely forgetting something obvious from the etiquette on how to interact with a quantum, rumored asexual, either.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, of course, but I don't consider being asked out to be akin to sexual harassment. I find it awkward, and deeply obnoxious if the same person should ask more than once, but awkward more in the way of somebody asking me with obvious enthusiasm if I would like to see a movie that I detest than anything else (mixed with some disappointment that they apparently weren't particularly interested in being friends, since I tend to interpret all signs of interest towards me from people I know to be signs that they'd like to be friends/better friends).

Maybe sexual harassment was a poor choice of words, but, I just go this sense that there was a feeling of violation or something like it at being viewed through a sexual lens when one is not a sexual being.

As for the friends issue, that's it's own kettle of fish and sadly fairly common from what I've seen, at least for being disappointed that someone wasn't interested in being friends. She seems pretty neat, but having one's heart try to pound its way out of one's chest is rather, well, distracting.

Honestly I have presented myself here as moving too fast, at least mentally on my part, but I'm giving it a try because it seemed like this thread could use a little kickstart to discussion and also because the last few times I've been interested in someone I moved too slow and either ended up in a love triangle and losing or otherwise regretting the decision to sit on it.

Of course, the only two times I have had anybody try to ask me out were back when both I and the people doing the asking were in our mid-to-late teens, so maybe the way people handle that sort of thing as adults is more awkward/disturbing? It thankfully has not come up.

Well, there's much more of an assumption that someone is either [banned topic] or has a not-all-that-long period of time before they've decided they're interested in having sex with someone with adult relationships as opposed to teen/early-college ones.

Less a matter of "will we have sex?" if one manages to make it through the preliminary screening process and more a matter of "when will we have sex?" Since without some very strong convictions behind being celibate, abstinence is largely viewed as a phase that kids go through because the idea of them being sexually active while minors is disturbing to their parents, IIRC.

Which is part of what feeds into the mistreatment that asexual teens and young adults and even not-so-young adults face, I think?

Asking out, again, I'd say is likely enough to be fine. Some people might be disturbed by it, but most (assuming it's in a fairly polite manner and all) probably wouldn't. As far as displaying sexual interest, yeah, that's more of a grey area. That's uncomfortable. If anyone is thinking that way of me, I'd really rather not know. I'm also not aware of any non-awkward way that people might make that known, so there's that.

You don't make an instant mental connection between someone asking you out and someone displaying at least potential sexual interest? :smallconfused:

Talking about the D&D character and then asking from there might be a fairly safe and reasonable way to go about things.

I guess I'll just have to see where that conversation goes and where my mood takes me next time we meet up, then.

Since the only other avenues I see are finding current events/articles on asexual people or asexuality and sharing them and seeing if she takes the bait, which I'm not all that enthused about since it's a lot of work for a low chance of payoff and it's skeevy to boot, or bringing up the conflicting rumors about her being asexual and her dating her best friend, which just seems like a disastrously bad decision.

Thank you for your reply and thoughts. :smallsmile:

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts. :smallsmile:

LaZodiac

2015-01-26, 09:31 PM

Anarion

2015-01-26, 09:39 PM

So, I saw someone going off on Twitter about this subject, and it's something I'm still curious about. I've asked a question like this before, but I guess this is a more...lets say elaborate version of it?

Basically, the person was talking about how "I'm not a girl, I'm AFAB (assigned female at birth, but I'm sure you guys knew about stuff like that). and that means I was never a girl, I was always a boy."

My question is...why bother with even that label? If you where assigned female and that's wrong, or vice versa...why say "well I was assigned X but I'm actually Y". In my eyes, wouldn't it just mean you were "always" the correct gender, even if your body was, for lack of a better term, wrong? And after a transition (assuming you transition, which is the crux of this question I think) why would you ever mention what you "used to be"?

Sorry if this is rambly, I just know next to nothing about this culture. Apologies if I offended.

What was the context? If somebody is explaining why they're involved in the transgender movement, or making a public statement about their identity, they need to explain something about how they got involved. "I was AFAB" is as good a statement as any for that. You're not wrong in your way of thinking though. Some people certainly would like to simply say "my gender is X" and leave it at that.

SiuiS

2015-01-26, 09:43 PM

E: Anarion is not wrong. Context matters. Taking your post as a literal representation, see below. Otherwise, see above.

So, I saw someone going off on Twitter about this subject, and it's something I'm still curious about. I've asked a question like this before, but I guess this is a more...lets say elaborate version of it?

Basically, the person was talking about how "I'm not a girl, I'm AFAB (assigned female at birth, but I'm sure you guys knew about stuff like that). and that means I was never a girl, I was always a boy."

My question is...why bother with even that label? If you where assigned female and that's wrong, or vice versa...why say "well I was assigned X but I'm actually Y". In my eyes, wouldn't it just mean you were "always" the correct gender, even if your body was, for lack of a better term, wrong? And after a transition (assuming you transition, which is the crux of this question I think) why would you ever mention what you "used to be"?

Sorry if this is rambly, I just know next to nothing about this culture. Apologies if I offended.

Assigned female at birth means the doctors saw a vagina and didn't think the child would have gender issues. The child has gender issues and, while medical sciences says their physical sex is female, female has never been their gender, and they have always identified as male despite the vagina.

That said, "I am AFAB and that means I have never been a girl" is factually, technically incorrect. AllMost women... How to phrase this? All cissexual women are AFAB. The only difference between my wife (AFAB) and the person speaking on twitter or tumbler or whatever, is that in my wife's case the doctor wasn't wrong. That's all.

Implying that "AFAB" is somehow different than "female" in normal person perspective is incorrect and will lead to all sorts of problems, where people just don't see where the words they use fail to convey the data patterns in their heads.

LaZodiac

2015-01-26, 10:28 PM

Implying that "AFAB" is somehow different than "female" in normal person perspective is incorrect and will lead to all sorts of problems, where people just don't see where the words they use fail to convey the data patterns in their heads.

Aah, okay. I don't think I understand the situation much clearer then I did before asking the question, but thanks anyway :smallsmile:

Coidzor

2015-01-27, 01:25 AM

So, I saw someone going off on Twitter about this subject, and it's something I'm still curious about. I've asked a question like this before, but I guess this is a more...lets say elaborate version of it?

Basically, the person was talking about how "I'm not a girl, I'm AFAB (assigned female at birth, but I'm sure you guys knew about stuff like that). and that means I was never a girl, I was always a boy."

My question is...why bother with even that label? If you where assigned female and that's wrong, or vice versa...why say "well I was assigned X but I'm actually Y". In my eyes, wouldn't it just mean you were "always" the correct gender, even if your body was, for lack of a better term, wrong? And after a transition (assuming you transition, which is the crux of this question I think) why would you ever mention what you "used to be"?

Sorry if this is rambly, I just know next to nothing about this culture. Apologies if I offended.

Healthwise there are different concerns that AMAB people and AFAB people will run into. Only trans women can get prostate cancer, for instance, and it's a bit fiddly to go in and remove that during SRS, IIRC. And not necessarily desirable anyway, since the prostate is a bit like the ****oris in that removing it from the equation takes a fair amount of the pleasure out of sex involving their respective orifices.

But that's, y'know, mostly something between someone and their medical professionals.

I believe the whole "I was always a woman/man" line is a response to ignorance believing that people can turn trans, which is even more ridiculous than the notion that people can turn homosexual, since there are at least some people with fluidity to their sexuality and sexual orientation, more than anything else.

Couldn't tell you why the person chose such a roundabout way of saying they were a trans man, though, without greater context.