LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[Mono Vertigo]

Hello!
Welcome to the LGBT+ information thread. This thread is meant to answer all sorts of questions one may have about the community, and have a casual atmosphere.
As such, this is an education thread, not a support thread (which you can conveniently find there (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377862-LGBTAI-53-The-Nefarious-Rainbow-Syndicate) instead). Why the split? Because the main thread is mostly populated by LGBT people who are seeking, well, support, and some questions or misunderstandings can be causes of additional stress. You can ask these questions here instead, and receive answers from LGBT people or allies. They can be as general or as precise as you want.

A couple things you need to know before browsing the rest of this thread:
- if you are LGBT+ but do not wish to educate people, or are likely to be offended by the lack of knowledge of some people, you're probably better off not reading this thread.
- if you have questions, go ahead! But try to stay polite and open-minded. If your question has an element of support (like “I think I might be transgender, how do I know for sure?” or “my LGBT friend has problems with their parents, how could I help?”), the support thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377862-LGBTAI-53-The-Nefarious-Rainbow-Syndicate) may also help, so try there as well.
- avoid misinformation. If you don't know the answer, don't intentionally pull stuff out of your backside. If you do so repeatedly, I will hunt you down, and GM your next game, which will include Drizz't and a Kender as GMPCs. (Theoretically unenforceable? You can never be 100% sure. Don't tempt your luck.)
- mind the forum rules and avoid the subjects of politics or religion (or sexually-explicit content for that matter). Otherwise, there is no subject that is preemptively banned, and we'd like it to stay this way; therefore, if a discussion upsets or angers you, report the offending posts (if a forum rule has actually been infringed) and/or step away from the computer until you calm down, instead of starting a flame war. This is the Internet. We're physically stuck behind your screen. The worst we can do is send stupid PMs until the inbox is full – and you don't even have to acknowledge their content before deleting them! We can't follow you and force you to keep arguing.
- no one here should be shunned here for unfortunately lacking some knowledge but desiring to learn. Nothing is self-evident, and that's even more true where gender and sexuality are concerned. (Now, if you request to be educated but act deliberately obtuse when replied to, you're gonna have a bad time. Don't be deliberately obtuse. Nobody likes morons.)

And, for reference, here is a list of commonly used words and definitions by our community. Please understand that this list is currently undergoing construction right now. Any contributions to the list are appreciated.
LGBT: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*

LGBTAI: LGBT+Asexual/Allies+Intersex+All Inclusive

QUILTBAG:
Q - Queer and Questioning
U - Unidentified
I - Intersex
L - Lesbian
T - Transgender, Transexual
B - Bisexual
A - Asexual, Agender, Aromantic
G - Gay, Genderqueer

Where a word below is in italics, that means it has it's own entry on the list.

A note on labels: many of these labels are seemingly interchangeable, and for some people they are. However, please do not presume to correct or judge another person's use of a label. Bisexual and Pansexual are especially tricky in this regard, as are transgender and transsexual to a lesser degree.
Often the difference in why one person feels one label is appropriate and not another is deeply personal. If you wish to know more it is probably a topic to seek private advice on, from one of the people listed in the next section.


AFAB/AMAB: Assigned Female/Male at Birth

Agender(ed): Someone who lacks a gender.

Androgyne: Gender Identity with male and female aspects.

Androsexual: A person who is attracted to men.

Aromantic: A person who does not feel any romantic feeling toward anyone, independently of sexual attraction.

Asexual: A person who does not feel any/some sexual attraction, independently of any romantic feeling.

Binary, The: See: Gender Binary.

Bisexual: 1. attracted to two genders; 2. attracted to one's own gender and another gender; 3. attracted to various genders; 4. attracted to people regardless of gender; 5. ask the person who says they're bi what exactly they mean by that. See also Pansexual

Cis: See: Cisgender

Cisgender (CG): Somebody whose gender and sex align.

Demisexual: A person who is sexually attracted to someone(s) only after they have formed an intense emotional relationship with.

Dysphoria: The disassociation Trans* people feel with their own body.

Male-to-Female (MtF): Someone who was assigned male at birth, but is female. (AKA: trans woman)

Female: See: Woman

Female-to-Male (FtM): Someone who was assigned female at birth, but is male. (AKA: trans man)

FAAB: Female Assigned at Birth.

Feminine: Something generally associated by society with women.

FFS: Facial Feminization Surgery: Surgery to reduce chin/nose/cheekbones. Associated primarily with MAAB Trans people

FtM: See: Female to Male

Gay: A man who is attracted to men.

Gender Binary: The commonly held notion that there are only men and women on two extremes, with nothing in between.

Gender Expression (GE): How one expresses their Gender Identity to society.

Gender Identity (GI): How one feels inside society's idea of "man, woman, or other".

Genderfluid: Someone who fluctuates between different genders.

Genderqueer (GQ): Someone who is not of a binary gender; someone who is not male or female.

Gynosexual: A person who is attracted to women.

Heterosexual: A person who is attracted to members of the opposite gender.

Homosexual: A person who is attracted to members of their gender.

HRT: Hormone replacement therapy. MtF's tend to progestrogens, oestrogens and androgen blockers, while FtM's take testosterone almost exculsively.

Lesbian: A woman who is attracted to women.

MAAB: Male Assigned at Birth.

Male-to-Female (MtF): Someone who was assigned male at birth, but is female. (AKA: trans woman)

Man/men: A cis man or trans man. Male.

Masculine: Something generally associated by society with men.

Pansexual: A person who is attracted to people regardless of gender. See also Bisexual

Polyamorous: A person who is interested in a relationship with more than one person.

Presenting: Trans* shorthand for appearing as their preferred gender, regardless of any HRT, SRS or other changes.

Trans*: Transsexual and Transgender primarily, with the asterisk denoting that the trans- prefix could be followed by any number of appropriate words. It also includes other labels, and is a catch-all term for people who identify as something other than their biological sex at birth.

Transgender: Used in reference to a person whose sex(body) and gender(mind) are at odds or do not match. A transgender person can also identify as genderqueer, transsexual, or may use transgender as their only identity.

Transitioning: The process a Trans* person undergoes to move to their preferred gender. Often includes HRT, SRS, FFS.

Transsexual: In common terms the same as transgender above. In medical terms refers specifically to people who wish to transition from male to female or female to male, not accommodating any other options.

SRS: Sex Reassignment Surgery: Surgery to replace/transform a vagina into a penis, or vice versa. Mastectomies or plastic surgery may be used on breasts.

Sexual Orientation (SO): How one identifies who they are attracted to.

Significant Other(s) (SO): Person(s) you are in a relationship with.

Third-gendered: Someone who fits in a local society's third gender, usually male performing female tasks, occasionally vice versa. Also a person who feels they do not identify with any other gender identity.

Woman: A cis woman or trans woman. Female.

Allies: Hetereosexual-Cisgender people who support equality for sexual, gender, and romantic minorities.


-Philemonite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?74642-Philemonite), for gay-related subjects.
-Mono Vertigo (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?59794-Mono-Vertigo), for asexuality-related subjects.
- Rain Dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?66585-Rain-Dragon), for trans-related subjects (particularly trans men/FtM).
-Miriel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?66396-Miriel), for feminism, gender, asexuality, and trans-related subjects (particularly trans women/MtF).
-Golentan (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?39657-golentan) for bisexuality, genderfluidity/questioning-related subjects, and issues of childhood abuse.
-Irish Musician (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?62949-Irish-Musician) for cis/straight point of view on general LGBT+ subjects.
-Jormengand (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?71090-Jormengand) for bisexuality, trans, polyamory, and genderfluidity-related subjects.
-Arachu (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?41049-Arachu) for trans (particularly trans women/MtF), hormones, bisexuality, pansexuality, and polyamory-related subjects.
-Astrella (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?40288-Astrella) for trans (particularly trans women/FtM), LGBT+ rights, and lesbianly subjects. (Lesbianly is totally a word, shut up.*)
-Eldest (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?58767-Eldest) for bisexuality, pansexuality, polyamoury, and kink-related subjects (still keep it PG-13 please).
-Kesnit (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?251-Kesnit) for trans-related subjects (particularly trans men/FtM).



*this is why savvy people don't usually let me manage a thread.




Last thing: knowledge is power. You might be one of the lucky 10,000 (http://xkcd.com/1053/) today.



Previous thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?356522-LGBTAI-Questions-Information-and-Discussion-thread!).

[golentan]

I have a weird question for people. Without getting graphic, do people's tastes in erotica match up pretty neatly with their tastes in mates?

[Heliomance]

Not especially. Males feature much more heavily in my taste in erotica than my taste in mates. But then, that's largely due to the ability to fantasise myself fully functionally female when indulging in erotica.

[Iruka]

I have a weird question for people. Without getting graphic, do people's tastes in erotica match up pretty neatly with their tastes in mates?
You mean if the people in the erotica are similar to the people I'd consider for a relationship?
I'd say my tastes concerning erotica are broader than for mates. More varied and also with lower standards, I don't have to spend a lot of time with them after all.
Though it makes the erotica more interesting, if the people in it seem like good company.

[Coidzor]

I have a weird question for people. Without getting graphic, do people's tastes in erotica match up pretty neatly with their tastes in mates?

Well, in my smut I prefer for the guys to be more on the attractive side and not look or act like douchebags as that's rather distracting.

In my actual romantic and sexual encounters, though, I prefer for there not to be other guys in the first place. So, y'know.

I've known a few people who were into ****** porn who would never actually date a trans* woman, though the full extent of the whys and wherefores I'd rather not dwell upon.

Other than that, I suppose there was a brief period where I was looking up porn stars who looked like one of my exes after I ran into the idea on reddit. That was a bit surreal.

I don't believe you'll find very many straight men or lesbians who will consume guy-on-guy porn, if that's the sort of thing that you're looking for here, but you'll probably find a fair number of closeted gay men who actively claim to be straight who do.

Well, not *here* obviously and not *find* so much, but, y'know.


Though it makes the erotica more interesting, if the people in it seem like good company.

Well, yeah, that means you're actually reading a decently written erotica or possibly an erotic-romance if they actually have characterization and good dialogue. :smallamused:

[Anarion]

I have a weird question for people. Without getting graphic, do people's tastes in erotica match up pretty neatly with their tastes in mates?

Not in the slightest. :smallwink:

[Heliomance]

I don't believe you'll find very many straight men or lesbians who will consume guy-on-guy porn, if that's the sort of thing that you're looking for here, but you'll probably find a fair number of closeted gay men who actively claim to be straight who do.

Realising I actually kinda liked that was one of the main things that made me admit I'm bi :P

[Siosilvar]

Realising I actually kinda liked that was one of the main things that made me admit I'm bi :P

Same, though I spell realizing with a 'z' because I'm a silly American.

[Icewraith]

Regarding erotica, I used to think that it was a relief valve for when my and my mate's drives misaligned.

However, I've mostly ditched it, and discovered it was actually sucking time and effort better spent on my mate.

[Heliomance]

Regarding erotica, I used to think that it was a relief valve for when my and my mate's drives misaligned.

However, I've mostly ditched it, and discovered it was actually sucking time and effort better spent on my mate.

Mm, my consumption drops to pretty much nil when I'm in a relationship. Doesn't seem right to me to use it.

[golentan]

I don't believe you'll find very many straight men or lesbians who will consume guy-on-guy porn, if that's the sort of thing that you're looking for here, but you'll probably find a fair number of closeted gay men who actively claim to be straight who do.

Well, not *here* obviously and not *find* so much, but, y'know.

Actually one of the things that prompted the question: I know a decent number of lesbians who are into guy-guy stuff for their own recreational use.

[Anarion]

Mm, my consumption drops to pretty much nil when I'm in a relationship. Doesn't seem right to me to use it.

As a strictly theoretical matter, I don't think it's always wrong to use it if you're in a relationship, especially if there's, say, a considerable mismatch between the drives of the two people. I don't think I'd want to myself, though.

[SiuiS]

Not in the slightest. :smallwink:

Yeah, not in action. I may be an aberration in that I wouldn't mind living like that, but a lot of the things in my erotica don't scientifically exist. And unlike fantasies wherein some potentially triggering things can be hit under the collar, in reality they are dangerous and bad to do spontaneously, and any attempts to live out erotica are mitigated by having to worry about if you're doing the right thing.


Mm, my consumption drops to pretty much nil when I'm in a relationship. Doesn't seem right to me to use it.

Huh. My consumption of erotica doesn't really change, but I don't consume it for tittilation most of the time. I suspect I am aberrant in that regard, too.

[Icewraith]

Mm, my consumption drops to pretty much nil when I'm in a relationship. Doesn't seem right to me to use it.

Looking back at the past, there were a couple of places where it was probably a positive thing because of really rough stuff she was going through. Turning me down would have made her feel worse when she had enough going on and trying to tough it out never ends well for anyone. Once things return to normal it's probably unnecessary and a distraction.

I'm a bit surprised about the lesbians guy-guy thing.

[Astrella]

It's partially at least due to the fact that a lot of straight porn is misogynistic, and a lot of lesbian porn is very fetishistic and not aimed at actual lesbians and other women-into-women.

[SowZ]

I have a weird question for people. Without getting graphic, do people's tastes in erotica match up pretty neatly with their tastes in mates?

I prefer my erotica/porn without actual sex or nudity, (keep your underwear on, please,) and sometimes with a few of my kinks. This is how I prefer my sex life as well, at least when I choose to have one. The main difference is I actively seek out this material, whereas physical intimacy/fooling is something I will do and enjoy if it is there and easily available and I'm in a serious relationship, but won't actively pursue or miss when it is gone.

[SiuiS]

A difference (I don't know if this is the intended one) is how much the concept means to one's sense of self. So, for example, I don't personally put much value in gender labels. I am a man, if you happen to ask, or if I need to provide a description of what I look like to somebody. But it wouldn't really bother me if I were a woman and actually I tend to get mistaken for a woman on phone calls sometimes because my voice is kind of high and I almost never correct people.

On the other hand, I'm also a gamer and I identify as a gamer. If people in a conversation start talking about how games are only for kids, or start off on how games encourage violence, I find it agitating and bothersome. It compels me to speak out against it because it's a threat (albeit a minor one) to my own sense of self. Similarly, I might get very upset or defensive if somebody told me that I was a mean person or that I took advantage of my friends and family for my own self-aggrandizement. Because I don't think of myself as a selfish or mean person (and those two are easy examples because almost nobody thinks of themselves as selfish and mean).

So, the distinction I see is that there are things you would use to describe yourself, but you don't much care if people get them wrong or criticize you for them. And there are things you identify as, where they form a part of your overall self-image and mistakes or criticism with regards to those things makes you upset and defensive.

That makes sense but it is too much a "that's what I said". I don't understand it as different from my initial response so I'm missing some of the nuances.

Still, it's an interesting thing. Does self attribution change based on context or only time? Would one be considered strange if they were only a gamer when they decided to be, as opposed to always? Does that make sense? I am trying to feel out the boundaries, where one person can take off and put on these hats, without violating the category. Because at a certai point, if you remove a category whenever it would come up, you don't belong in that category.

[Ifni]

On the question of identity/attribution... hmm. There was a point at which I didn't really identify particularly as a girl/woman. I remember reading in a book about a character making a list of identities that were important to them, and "male" was something like numbers one, four and eight... and I was struck by that, because at the time, I wasn't sure that "female" would even make the top ten for me. (I was probably twelve or thirteen.)

Now... "physicist" is higher, but "female physicist" would probably make the top ten - it is something that connects me to girls who are interested in science and being pushed away from it due to their gender, something that informs and reflects a lifetime of experiences that have been noticeably affected by being (seen as) a woman, and so it does matter to me.

In terms of whether it bothers me to have that challenged or misrepresented? Hmm. I was going to say that it doesn't really bother me at all to have a stranger on the street ID me as a man (and it's happened) - and that's true, but it does bug me when someone assumes in a professional context that I am male (my first name is somewhat ambiguous), because it falls into a pattern of assuming All Physicists Are Male. And seeing female scientists represented as ditzy (or non-existent) in the media makes my blood boil, more so than more general misrepresentation or underrepresentation of women (although the latter do also bother me). Maybe that's a revealing distinction, maybe my gendered identification is more as "female scientist" than "woman".

Thinking about orientation - for me, labeling this as identity rather than preference implies a degree of stability, as well as signifying the depth of association. "I'm asexual and aromantic" tends to be read (correctly in my case) as "and thus not interested in dating now or ever, unless something unexpected changes", whereas "I'm not interested in sex/romance" without that label seems to almost universally get read as "I'm not interested right now". (See prevalence of: "Oh, just wait until you meet the right person!" narratives.)

As implied by this, I feel like there can be a practical aspect to (open) identification in that other people may recognize "I identify as this" as a more serious and valid statement than "I prefer this". I've had friends who listened to me saying "I'm asexual and not interested in anyone" for years but persistently behaved as if I was expressing a temporary preference - then they found out that Other People Are Asexual Too! and suddenly switched straight over to "oh, it's your orientation, okay then". Other people's acceptance of categories as legitimate-for-identification seems to matter.

[Kesnit]

I have a weird question for people. Without getting graphic, do people's tastes in erotica match up pretty neatly with their tastes in mates?


I don't believe you'll find very many straight men or lesbians who will consume guy-on-guy porn, if that's the sort of thing that you're looking for here, but you'll probably find a fair number of closeted gay men who actively claim to be straight who do.

In the 10 years between coming out as a lesbian and coming out as trans, I discovered I HATE lesbian porn. Astrella summed up why. I've heard there is lesbian porn made by women for women, which would probably be OK. But all I've ever seen is unrealistic* trash. Male-female porn can be good, but I often get the impression that the woman is thinking more about what she needs to buy at the grocery store than the fact she's having sex. Strangely, I've always liked male-on-male porn, probably because the men in those videos at least look like they are having fun.



* There is the obvious argument that no porn is realistic, and that is true. When I say "unrealistic," I mean "so far outside the realm of reality that even porn needs a telescope to see it."

[Heliomance]

In the 10 years between coming out as a lesbian and coming out as trans, I discovered I HATE lesbian porn. Astrella summed up why. I've heard there is lesbian porn made by women for women, which would probably be OK. But all I've ever seen is unrealistic* trash. Male-female porn can be good, but I often get the impression that the woman is thinking more about what she needs to buy at the grocery store than the fact she's having sex. Strangely, I've always liked male-on-male porn, probably because the men in those videos at least look like they are having fun.



* There is the obvious argument that no porn is realistic, and that is true. When I say "unrealistic," I mean "so far outside the realm of reality that even porn needs a telescope to see it."

I've come across a few decent lesbian videos. They are hard to find though. My normal issue with them is that they all tend to be really slow and sensual and gentle, which is all well and good if you're in the mood for that sort of thing, but I find kinda boring. I want a little passion, y'know?

Of course, decent trans* erotica is even harder to find >_>

[golentan]

I've come across a few decent lesbian videos. They are hard to find though. My normal issue with them is that they all tend to be really slow and sensual and gentle, which is all well and good if you're in the mood for that sort of thing, but I find kinda boring. I want a little passion, y'know?

Of course, decent trans* erotica is even harder to find >_>

Slow and sensual and gentle is my jam.

That said, I don't like most lesbian porn and I'm supposedly in its target audience.

[-Sentinel-]

I have a strangely specific question. When someone undergoes a sex change (be it surgical/hormonal, legal, social, etc.), do we treat it as retroactive when referring to that person before the sex change?

For example, The Matrix was made in 1999 by the duo then known as the Wachowski brothers, Andy and Larry. Shortly afterwards, the latter underwent a sex change and became Lana Wachowski. Do we say that The Matrix was made by Wachowski brothers Andy and Larry (since Lana was still officially Larry at the time), or that it was made by Wachowski siblings Andy and Lana (since Lana presumably identified as female for most/all of her life)?

[golentan]

I have a strangely specific question. When someone undergoes a sex change (be it surgical/hormonal, legal, social, etc.), do we treat it as retroactive when referring to that person before the sex change?

For example, The Matrix was made in 1999 by the duo then known as the Wachowski brothers, Andy and Larry. Shortly afterwards, the latter underwent a sex change and became Lana Wachowski. Do we say that The Matrix was made by Wachowski brothers Andy and Larry (since Lana was still officially Larry at the time), or that it was made by Wachowski siblings Andy and Lana (since Lana presumably identified as female for most/all of her life)?

I would tend towards the latter. It seems more supportive to me, but I will bow to the opinions of those with more expertise than I.

[SowZ]

I would tend towards the latter. It seems more supportive to me, but I will bow to the opinions of those with more expertise than I.

I would default the same way unless explicitly told otherwise. Sometimes I will refer to an artist by their stage name or name before a name change, especially if their new identity disassociates with their old work, like Cat Stevens, but in general it is probably best to be retroactive. Maybe not, though, I'm no expert.

[SiuiS]

I have a strangely specific question. When someone undergoes a sex change (be it surgical/hormonal, legal, social, etc.), do we treat it as retroactive when referring to that person before the sex change?

For example, The Matrix was made in 1999 by the duo then known as the Wachowski brothers, Andy and Larry. Shortly afterwards, the latter underwent a sex change and became Lana Wachowski. Do we say that The Matrix was made by Wachowski brothers Andy and Larry (since Lana was still officially Larry at the time), or that it was made by Wachowski siblings Andy and Lana (since Lana presumably identified as female for most/all of her life)?

Same default but it's subjective. The only people who can answer that question are the ones you will be talking about.

[Lanaya]

I have a strangely specific question. When someone undergoes a sex change (be it surgical/hormonal, legal, social, etc.), do we treat it as retroactive when referring to that person before the sex change?

I certainly would unless they'd expressed some interest in still being referred to as their birth sex. When someone's gone to that much trouble not to be referred to as a dude it's reasonable to assume they don't want to be referred to as a dude, even if it is happening in the past tense.

[Serpentine]

I think it's probably generally safest to default to applying it retroactively, possibly with an addition like "Lana, then known as Larry" if it's really necessary (e.g. Because she's in the credits as Larry).
I think there may be exceptions, though. For example, I had a friend in high school who turned out to be a trans woman. I have big issues with the person I went to high school with - he was kind of a massive ******** - but none with the person I know now - she's become a pretty good person. So for the sake of our friendship, I find it useful to distinguish between the boy he was then and the woman she is now. It's not something I'd recommend for most people, though.

[Chambers]

I was invited today to be a presenter as an Ally at a local upcoming LGBT+ conference. I didn't get a lot of details, but it was it explained that I'd be leading a sort of Allies 101 workshop. I tentatively agreed and plan on getting more information from my friend about what's expected, but I'd appreciate some help here.

What kinds of resources are you all familiar with that I should know about for such a workshop? Do you have any suggestions for some topics that would be good to bring up?

I'm not active in the local LGBT+ community so I'm not really current on terminology and issues. What are some faux pas that I should avoid? What kinds of information do you think would be useful for new Allies to be aware of?

[Coidzor]

I have a strangely specific question. When someone undergoes a sex change (be it surgical/hormonal, legal, social, etc.), do we treat it as retroactive when referring to that person before the sex change?

Yes, unless you have to refer to their previous legal name for some reason, like denoting that someone was born as Xvine McYington and then later changed their name to Zetalia. :smallconfused:


For example, The Matrix was made in 1999 by the duo then known as the Wachowski brothers, Andy and Larry. Shortly afterwards, the latter underwent a sex change and became Lana Wachowski. Do we say that The Matrix was made by Wachowski brothers Andy and Larry (since Lana was still officially Larry at the time), or that it was made by Wachowski siblings Andy and Lana (since Lana presumably identified as female for most/all of her life)?

You would only say the "Wachowski Brothers" if it was some legal entity above and beyond simply denoting that the two siblings worked together, like it was the name of their company or other wossname, and then only if rather than renaming it to whatever we're supposed to call them now (did they ever go with anything new or are we just supposed to actually remember their first names when they haven't done anything worth remembering since the turn of the century?) they allowed "the Wachowski Brothers" to become defunct/die/whathaveyou, so that whatever they're doing now is legally distinct from their work on the Matrix. So you just go with whatever they're known as now.

[Astrella]

I have a strangely specific question. When someone undergoes a sex change (be it surgical/hormonal, legal, social, etc.), do we treat it as retroactive when referring to that person before the sex change?

For example, The Matrix was made in 1999 by the duo then known as the Wachowski brothers, Andy and Larry. Shortly afterwards, the latter underwent a sex change and became Lana Wachowski. Do we say that The Matrix was made by Wachowski brothers Andy and Larry (since Lana was still officially Larry at the time), or that it was made by Wachowski siblings Andy and Lana (since Lana presumably identified as female for most/all of her life)?

Generally, always refer to people the way they identify now. If you need to like, clarify something, you could always say something like "I met X before she transitioned", or something like that.

(Also I think they prefer the Wachowski Spaceship now. :P )

[Delusion]

In my opinion when you are unsure about wether to mention trans person's deadname always err on the side of not mentioning it. Many of us don't like our deadname mentioned at all its kinda disrespectful and rude to bring that up when not absolutely necessary.

[golentan]

In my opinion when you are unsure about wether to mention trans person's deadname always err on the side of not mentioning it. Many of us don't like our deadname mentioned at all its kinda disrespectful and rude to bring that up when not absolutely necessary.

I've never heard that term before. Is it wordplay on Birthname?

[Jormengand]

I've never heard that term before. Is it wordplay on Birthname?

I think it means dead as in no longer functional/operable. So it's a name which is dead, defunct, out of order, rather than a play on words.

[Gwynfrid]

You would only say the "Wachowski Brothers" if it was some legal entity above and beyond simply denoting that the two siblings worked together, like it was the name of their company or other wossname, and then only if rather than renaming it to whatever we're supposed to call them now (did they ever go with anything new or are we just supposed to actually remember their first names when they haven't done anything worth remembering since the turn of the century?) they allowed "the Wachowski Brothers" to become defunct/die/whathaveyou, so that whatever they're doing now is legally distinct from their work on the Matrix. So you just go with whatever they're known as now.

That makes a lot of sense. In practice, however, it's a bit more difficult in the case of people this famous. It's not really possible to erase the title from a book about them (http://www.amazon.com/The-Wachowski-Brothers-Creators-Families/dp/1404202641), for example. The respectful thing to do now is of course to cease using the term, but it remains necessary to remember it if you want to research and understand old references.

[Septimus Faber]

Are there any bi/pan/[other-similar-orientation-here]sexual people in this thread who find that their attraction, sexual or romantic, to members of one gender or lack-thereof is greater or lesser than their attraction to one other or multiple others? Because that is precisely what I'm finding at the moment, and it's confusing me a little.

[Marnath]

Are there any bi/pan/[other-similar-orientation-here]sexual people in this thread who find that their attraction, sexual or romantic, to members of one gender or lack-thereof is greater or lesser than their attraction to one other or multiple others? Because that is precisely what I'm finding at the moment, and it's confusing me a little.

I'm not Bi or Pan, but I've always heard it expressed that those orientations manifest in a variety of ratios, it doesn't have to be 50%-50%.

[Heliomance]

I think it's probably generally safest to default to applying it retroactively, possibly with an addition like "Lana, then known as Larry" if it's really necessary (e.g. Because she's in the credits as Larry).
I think there may be exceptions, though. For example, I had a friend in high school who turned out to be a trans woman. I have big issues with the person I went to high school with - he was kind of a massive ******** - but none with the person I know now - she's become a pretty good person. So for the sake of our friendship, I find it useful to distinguish between the boy he was then and the woman she is now. It's not something I'd recommend for most people, though.

I have a similar thing - when I went to uni, there was a girl in my class called Emily (names changed to protect the innocent, etc). Emily was pretty great, and I had quite a crush on her.

Some time later, Emily came out, and changed his name to Steve. Now, saying that I had a crush on Steve gives an entirely inaccurate picture of the situation. My perception of him as Emily is important to that scenario. So what's the appropriate language?

[Coidzor]

That makes a lot of sense. In practice, however, it's a bit more difficult in the case of people this famous. It's not really possible to erase the title from a book about them (http://www.amazon.com/The-Wachowski-Brothers-Creators-Families/dp/1404202641), for example. The respectful thing to do now is of course to cease using the term, but it remains necessary to remember it if you want to research and understand old references.

I think referring to the title of a book (which is now less than canon, having had a rare meatspace retcon issued) is basically in the same overall category as referring to the hypothetical defunct/dead company name. You'd only use it to refer to the work/entity itself rather than the pair of human people.


Are there any bi/pan/[other-similar-orientation-here]sexual people in this thread who find that their attraction, sexual or romantic, to members of one gender or lack-thereof is greater or lesser than their attraction to one other or multiple others? Because that is precisely what I'm finding at the moment, and it's confusing me a little.

:smallfrown: What seems to be the source of your confusion? You're not really expected to have a perfect split, after all.

[Anarion]

I have a similar thing - when I went to uni, there was a girl in my class called Emily (names changed to protect the innocent, etc). Emily was pretty great, and I had quite a crush on her.

Some time later, Emily came out, and changed his name to Steve. Now, saying that I had a crush on Steve gives an entirely inaccurate picture of the situation. My perception of him as Emily is important to that scenario. So what's the appropriate language?

Personally, if I were ever in a conversation where I needed to explain that, I think I'd just need to use more words. There's considerable complexity to it. You don't want to misrepresent yourself, upset the person you used to like, or confuse the person with whom you're speaking. So, you just have to give it a minute or two for a fuller explanation or say "it's complicated" and leave it be.

[golentan]

Are there any bi/pan/[other-similar-orientation-here]sexual people in this thread who find that their attraction, sexual or romantic, to members of one gender or lack-thereof is greater or lesser than their attraction to one other or multiple others? Because that is precisely what I'm finding at the moment, and it's confusing me a little.

Yeah. I'm generally more attracted to women, and I'm more attracted especially to androgynous or trans women.

The thing that's weird is that I have a definite cycle, and there are parts of it where I'm more attracted to men. Still mostly androgynous or trans though.

[Coidzor]

So I was randomly struck the other day that most of what people have shown me as examples of androgyny and that I have encountered out in the wild seems to have more to do with MAAB people who don't exhibit expected/typical/[term] levels of sexual dimorphism and less with FAAB people who aren't particularly feminine in facial features or who have actually masculine facial features. (Possibly having something to do with how female is the default body plan for humans/mammals and masculinization is modifying the embryo in utero and then the adolescent-child during puberty?)

Also, FAAB and women who want to appear androgynous tend to aim for "girlish-looking adolescent boy," though the majority of such I've encountered were still relatively young themselves, none being older than 30.

It does seem like androgyny equates with "girlish boy" rather than any kind of approach to the converse, with the only examples that come to mind of the converse being failed attempts at passing or fairly overtly gender****, like presenting as a cis woman save for a full-on dwarven beard.

Has anyone else noticed anything similar, especially in terms of trends and idea(l)s?

[-Sentinel-]

Re: Retroactiveness of sex change: Thanks, everyone! :smallsmile:

[golentan]

So I was randomly struck the other day that most of what people have shown me as examples of androgyny and that I have encountered out in the wild seems to have more to do with MAAB people who don't exhibit expected/typical/[term] levels of sexual dimorphism and less with FAAB people who aren't particularly feminine in facial features or who have actually masculine facial features. (Possibly having something to do with how female is the default body plan for humans/mammals and masculinization is modifying the embryo in utero and then the adolescent-child during puberty?)

Also, FAAB and women who want to appear androgynous tend to aim for "girlish-looking adolescent boy," though the majority of such I've encountered were still relatively young themselves, none being older than 30.

It does seem like androgyny equates with "girlish boy" rather than any kind of approach to the converse, with the only examples that come to mind of the converse being failed attempts at passing or fairly overtly gender****, like presenting as a cis woman save for a full-on dwarven beard.

Has anyone else noticed anything similar, especially in terms of trends and idea(l)s?

I have not noticed that. There are multiple forms of androgyny, and I'm attracted to most of them. When I talk about androgyny, it's as often women with a strong jawline as men with a girlish frame.

[Delusion]

I've never heard that term before. Is it wordplay on Birthname?


I don't actually know its origin, I just use it because it sounds neat. Old name name is too Neutral in my opinion though I used to use the term. It doesn't drive the point that that name is dead to me. That I am not that and that I never really was that and that its really rude to call me that name anymore. Deadname does it better. It feels more powerful statement.

Birthname is just... I didn't have a name when I was born. My parents named me few weeks or months later at my christening.

Of course then there is the term "boy name" which I just hate for obvious reasons.

[SiuiS]

Personally, if I were ever in a conversation where I needed to explain that, I think I'd just need to use more words. There's considerable complexity to it. You don't want to misrepresent yourself, upset the person you used to like, or confuse the person with whom you're speaking. So, you just have to give it a minute or two for a fuller explanation or say "it's complicated" and leave it be.

If I were with people I could not trust would give me time to explain the whole of the scenario, I would give the most confusing but true answer I could. People who I am not comfortable giving information to get the obfuscation instead, until they earn my time. XD


So I was randomly struck the other day that most of what people have shown me as examples of androgyny and that I have encountered out in the wild seems to have more to do with MAAB people who don't exhibit expected/typical/[term] levels of sexual dimorphism and less with FAAB people who aren't particularly feminine in facial features or who have actually masculine facial features. (Possibly having something to do with how female is the default body plan for humans/mammals and masculinization is modifying the embryo in utero and then the adolescent-child during puberty?)

Also, FAAB and women who want to appear androgynous tend to aim for "girlish-looking adolescent boy," though the majority of such I've encountered were still relatively young themselves, none being older than 30.

It does seem like androgyny equates with "girlish boy" rather than any kind of approach to the converse, with the only examples that come to mind of the converse being failed attempts at passing or fairly overtly gender****, like presenting as a cis woman save for a full-on dwarven beard.

Has anyone else noticed anything similar, especially in terms of trends and idea(l)s?

We had this discussion a good ten threads or so back, did we not? Someone brought up a lumberjack woman with a great bushy beard and bulked shoulders and fore arms and muscle tone and an hourglass waist and buxom bosoms, as technically being just as androgynous as a dearth of sex characterizing features. The consensus is that androgyny has moved away from it's root origins to mean a specific aesthetic, one designed to make people unsure of which sex to assign instead of assigning a sex and noting that it is deviated from in some way.


On names, I plan to basically keep mine. It characterizes me well, and I can easily feminize it. Thinking about it brought me a peace I didn't know I had lacked though, which means I really do need to gear up for starting the processes in earnest; plan is to come out to any stragglers (read: everyone I know) on my birthday in January. Then move forward from there.

I am actually rather glad of the thought. The semi spiritual tones involved make me tingle. :smallsmile:

[Jaycemonde]

Oh hey, new thread. Good to see SiuiS is still holding the floor here. SiuiS is a wise one :>

[SiuiS]

Oh hey, new thread. Good to see SiuiS is still holding the floor here. SiuiS is a wise one :>

Strange how that works. When people say this, I never recall why, but I can vividly remember every hoof-in-mouth incident I've caused or been involved in...

Though in all that self deprecating I forgot my manners. Thank you, Jayce. ^^

[Philemonite]

Strange how that works. When people say this, I never recall why, but I can vividly remember every hoof-in-mouth incident I've caused or been involved in...

If I ever got the chance to pick who will give me bad news I would definitely pick you. I don't know anyone who is so direct. I find you fascinating.:smallamused:

And don't get me wrong, I only do guys, so this is not flirting.:smallbiggrin:

[golentan]

If I ever got the chance to pick who will give me bad news I would definitely pick you. I don't know anyone who is so direct. I find you fascinating.:smallamused:

And don't get me wrong, I only do guys, so this is not flirting.:smallbiggrin:

Right. This is flirting. *bats eyes*

[Philemonite]

Right. This is flirting. *bats eyes*

Are you questioning my sexuality?:smallamused:

[golentan]

Are you questioning my sexuality?:smallamused:

No, but I am enquiring. :smallwink:

Like I said, feeling suuuuuuper gay right now.

[Philemonite]

No, but I am enquiring. :smallwink:

Like I said, feeling suuuuuuper gay right now.

Truthfully, if I was to flirt with someone from this thread it would be you. I've seen your picture, so I know you are my type. Plus, you like to cuddle.:smallwink:

[SiuiS]

You guys are adorable, go liven up the support thread a bit~

[Philemonite]

You guys are adorable, go liven up the support thread a bit~

Well, I...:smallredface:

[golentan]

Truthfully, if I was to flirt with someone from this thread it would be you. I've seen your picture, so I know you are my type. Plus, you like to cuddle.:smallwink:

:smallredface: :smallredface: :smallredface:

Where do you live again?

[SowZ]

This isn't a question about LGBT per say, but relationships in general.

Is it weird that both of my exes continued to use my netflix account after we broke up without asking me? I mean, yeah, they had the password already, but still. Was the Onus on me to let them know, or was it on them? Not a big deal, of course. It struck me as really odd, at least the second time, (my first ex and I remained friends so it wasn't as strange,) but I'd like a second opinion.

[golentan]

This isn't a question about LGBT per say, but relationships in general.

Is it weird that both of my exes continued to use my netflix account after we broke up without asking me? I mean, yeah, they had the password already, but still. Was the Onus on me to let them know, or was it on them? It struck me as really odd, at least the second time, (my first ex and I remained friends so it wasn't as strange,) but I'd like a second opinion.

They might have forgotten it was yours, if they were used to handling things like that as automatic bill pays.

[SowZ]

They might have forgotten it was yours, if they were used to handling things like that as automatic bill pays.

That's true. And they may have just had the auto-password fill thing so they'd just go to netflix and already be signed in. Thanks, haha. Not sure why that popped into my head. Carry on, everyone.

[SiuiS]

That's a use of privilege, aye. It happens a lot, and dealing with shared spaces that maybe you don't want to be or shouldn't be shared anymore is so common a thing that is being normalized through popular media in television and movies.

I think they would expect you to change the password if it was an issue, but really it's just like coming over an using the washing machine after break-up. It's tacky and relies on the "easier to get forgiveness than permission" mind set where they don't stop you (because it's awkward, you just barge in wih your laundry basket putting pressure on them and making them look like the bad guy if they refuse) and take compliance as implicit agreement.

[Coidzor]

This isn't a question about LGBT per say, but relationships in general.

Is it weird that both of my exes continued to use my netflix account after we broke up without asking me? I mean, yeah, they had the password already, but still. Was the Onus on me to let them know, or was it on them? Not a big deal, of course. It struck me as really odd, at least the second time, (my first ex and I remained friends so it wasn't as strange,) but I'd like a second opinion.

:smalltongue: There is the RWA thread, y'know.

Not particularly, if they were still using the same devices to Netflix. It's more clear that they were deliberately sponging off your Netflix if they set it up on different devices rather than doing so out of forgetfulness or anything, and even then that's not so much weird as it is, well, mooching.

You can change your password if you don't want them using it, yes?

[SowZ]

:smalltongue: There is the RWA thread, y'know.

Not particularly, if they were still using the same devices to Netflix. It's more clear that they were deliberately sponging off your Netflix if they set it up on different devices rather than doing so out of forgetfulness or anything, and even then that's not so much weird as it is, well, mooching.

You can change your password if you don't want them using it, yes?

It isn't a big enough deal for me to care that much, I'm not resentful or offended really. It just felt weird and I wondered if this was odd behavior or fairly typical, that's all. I never even noticed, or at least didn't consciously register, the RWA thread until minutes after I posted this question and immediately realized it would have fit better there, haha.

[Philemonite]

:smallredface: :smallredface: :smallredface:

Where do you live again?

Europe, unfortunately.:smallfrown:

[golentan]

Europe, unfortunately.:smallfrown:

Thought so. Sadness.

[Philemonite]

Thought so. Sadness.

There will be someone closer. Trust me.:smallwink:

[golentan]

There will be someone closer. Trust me.:smallwink:

People aren't exactly tripping over themselves to date me. A lazy overweight slob with psychosis, depression, abnormally strong body odor, and financially dependent on his family past the midpoint of his twenties?

The handful of people who have said they would be interested are either hundreds/thousands of miles away or are pretty cretinous.

[Philemonite]

People aren't exactly tripping over themselves to date me.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that nobody would want to date you.


A lazy-Hyperactivity is overrated.

overweight-I like chubby guys. And there are a lot of people who do.

psychosis-That is an obstacle, but it doesn't have to be dealbreaker. Nobody is perfect.

depression-Depression is just a state of mind. When the good outnumbers the bad, the depression starts to disappear.

abnormally strong body odor-I can relate there.

financially dependent on his family past the midpoint of his twenties-26, I live with my dad and I work for peanuts that probably wouldn't be enough to pay rent and utilities, not to mention food and other things, if I wanted to live alone.

[Kesnit]

A lazy overweight

My wife (who I love with all my heart) is lazy and obese. Then again, I'm rather lazy, too, and am overweight.


psychosis,

If it can be controlled, then it doesn't really become and issue. And even if it can't, unless it is disruptive, it probably still won't be an issue.


depression,

If people with depression are unlovable, then much of the world would be alone. :smallsmile:


abnormally strong body odor,

If my wife forgets to shower for a few days, this happens to her. (See above for my thoughts on her.)


and financially dependent on his family past the midpoint of his twenties?

I'm almost 40 and living with my in-laws. (Granted, that's because I left a good job 5 years ago to go to law school.)


If my point hasn't come across... None of what you have said makes you unlovable.

[Zurvan]

People aren't exactly tripping over themselves to date me. A lazy overweight slob with psychosis, depression, abnormally strong body odor, and financially dependent on his family past the midpoint of his twenties?

The handful of people who have said they would be interested are either hundreds/thousands of miles away or are pretty cretinous.

I don't want to be too desmotivacional but can't you do anything about it?

I'm so tired of all my gay friends wanting to date super models who are: Muscular,manly, healthy, stylish and intellectual while not even being near that themselves. Worst doing nothing to achieve that.

How Can you expect to date someone that hot if you are not doing anything for yourself? Nothing about your own looks.

Ask yourself. Would you date you ?If the answer is no THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY WRONG HERE.

I really hope I'm not being offensive. But can't you do something about your condition and change? If you are unhappy with it.

Go to a gym or just exercise at home if you don't have the money for that right now, take a bath? Or a shower? If it is a more serious thing... Go see a doctor.

I mean sitting around crying and complaining won't change a thing. And the prince/princess charming won't fall in your lap.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

How Can you expect to date someone that hot if you are not doing anything for yourself? Nothing about your own looks.

Ask yourself. Would you date you ?If the answer is no THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY WRONG HERE.

This isn't exactly a fair benchmark, as not everyone is attracted to people of the same type that they themselves fall into. My D&D group contains a married couple consisting of one short, withdrawn, twink-ish, late-20s Chinese programmer and one tall, boisterous, bear-ish, late-30s white Texan sales rep, and they've been in a happy relationship for years with plenty of previous dating/relationship experience, but would never consider dating themselves.

Going by golentan's post, there have been people interested in him, and he hasn't turned them down just for not being supermodels or anything like that, so this isn't at all a case of too-high standards and blindness to one's own failings as you imply.

[noparlpf]

How Can you expect to date someone that hot if you are not doing anything for yourself? Nothing about your own looks.

I don't do much besides shower daily and shave whenever I remember (although my trimmer is broken so...beard time?). I don't even dress well—cargo pants/shorts and a t-shirt or scrubs. And a decent number of people seem to think I'm attractive. It's largely dependent on a. what's there to work with (because let's face it, I'm gorgeous :smalltongue:) and b. subjective opinion, with (b) being the actual serious significant factor.


Ask yourself. Would you date you? If the answer is no THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY WRONG HERE.

If I were gay? Uhh. Probably not. I'm not really my type and I'm also a bit more tsundere to people I like than I like in a romantic partner.


I really hope I'm not being offensive. But can't you do something about your condition and change? If you are unhappy with it.

Go to a gym or just exercise at home if you don't have the money for that right now, take a bath? Or a shower? If it is a more serious thing... Go see a doctor.

I mean sitting around crying and complaining won't change a thing. And the prince/princess charming won't fall in your lap.

To a large extent body shape and body odor are determined by genetics and can't necessarily be affected by changes in behavior. Mental illness also makes it about a zillion times harder to change behavior to effect desired ends. Personally I have like, three spoons right now. It's almost impossible to "just do something" when you're dealing with depression or similar issues.

[Gwynfrid]

I don't want to dismiss anybody's feelings of course, but it seems to me the present discussion would be more at home in the support thread, or possibly the relationships thread.

[Chambers]

I was invited today to be a presenter as an Ally at a local upcoming LGBT+ conference. I didn't get a lot of details, but it was it explained that I'd be leading a sort of Allies 101 workshop. I tentatively agreed and plan on getting more information from my friend about what's expected, but I'd appreciate some help here.

What kinds of resources are you all familiar with that I should know about for such a workshop? Do you have any suggestions for some topics that would be good to bring up?

I'm not active in the local LGBT+ community so I'm not really current on terminology and issues. What are some faux pas that I should avoid? What kinds of information do you think would be useful for new Allies to be aware of?

I got some more information about the presentation. I'll speak with him again this evening as well.

From my friend: "It is going to be for students in higher education who are LGBT, questioning and allies. I'd like you to present on allyship, specifically when allyship isn't easy. Your ability to interrupt conversations around rape, homophobia, etc is excellent- I would want you to share those skills and techniques with the students. One hour workshop with 10-50 participants based on interest. "

One hour workshop? Suddenly, panic.

[noparlpf]

Oh, that actually sounds like a neat topic. How to stand up to other cis/straight people when they say something that's not okay.

[Grytorm]

Wanted to post thought on my sexuality.(While playing video games at the same time).

So thinking about things, I notice guys are attractive fairly often. I don't feel certain if I really would enjoy close personal relations. I do think about it quite a lot, especially about some of the nicer guys I know. But when I look for entertainment online I generally don't find it very appealing although that might relate to stylistic issues. And when I think about relationships I seem to default to thinking about women. Partially because I don't have any really close friendships with guys. And I don't connect with them as much in class. But maybe that reflects my desire for a relationship leading me to focus on women.

[Anarion]

I'm almost 40 and living with my in-laws. (Granted, that's because I left a good job 5 years ago to go to law school.)


As a lawyer, my curiosity is piqued as to how that worked out. Usually, one doesn't wind up jobless a couple years out of law school, even if yo're not in your mid 20s and raring to work 15 hours days 6 days a week.


Wanted to post thought on my sexuality.(While playing video games at the same time).

So thinking about things, I notice guys are attractive fairly often. I don't feel certain if I really would enjoy close personal relations. I do think about it quite a lot, especially about some of the nicer guys I know. But when I look for entertainment online I generally don't find it very appealing although that might relate to stylistic issues. And when I think about relationships I seem to default to thinking about women. Partially because I don't have any really close friendships with guys. And I don't connect with them as much in class. But maybe that reflects my desire for a relationship leading me to focus on women.

For what it's worth, I've never found any of the "online entertainment" to match up with anything in reality. It may or may not be arousing, but it's quite different and not necessarily something you should use as a barometer for how you feel.

The rest, *shrug* If it's pure social expectation, it probably won't be enough to drive you to do anything if you're not really feeling it inside.

edit: which is to say, don't worry about your expectations. Just enjoy doing things and see what happens.

[Kesnit]

As a lawyer, my curiosity is piqued as to how that worked out. Usually, one doesn't wind up jobless a couple years out of law school, even if yo're not in your mid 20s and raring to work 15 hours days 6 days a week.

Good question. I interned for a year with a prosecutor while in law school, and did a paid Fellowship with a public defender earlier this year. My problem seems to be that (1) there's a glut of entry-level criminal attorneys, and (2) attorneys with a few years of experience are moving around, taking the few jobs there are. (At the end of my Fellowship, a job came open in that office. I thought I was a shoe-in for it. The PD, all the attorneys, and the staff liked me. Until a guy who'd worked for a PD in another city for 3 years applied. As the Deputy PD told me when I asked, "that was something we could not turn down.")

I've applied for every prosecutor and PD job in the state for 2 years and gotten nothing. (That includes offices in the middle of nowhere, where I can't imagine they got a lot of applications.) I get interviews, and even sometimes second round interviews, but in the end, nothing. I'm still trying (and have a few applications still pending).

I'm also on e-mail lists for attorney jobs around the state, and apply for all the ones I find that I could possibly be considered qualified for. I don't even get interviews from those.

[Anarion]

Good question. I interned for a year with a prosecutor while in law school, and did a paid Fellowship with a public defender earlier this year. My problem seems to be that (1) there's a glut of entry-level criminal attorneys, and (2) attorneys with a few years of experience are moving around, taking the few jobs there are. (At the end of my Fellowship, a job came open in that office. I thought I was a shoe-in for it. The PD, all the attorneys, and the staff liked me. Until a guy who'd worked for a PD in another city for 3 years applied. As the Deputy PD told me when I asked, "that was something we could not turn down.")

I've applied for every prosecutor and PD job in the state for 2 years and gotten nothing. (That includes offices in the middle of nowhere, where I can't imagine they got a lot of applications.) I get interviews, and even sometimes second round interviews, but in the end, nothing. I'm still trying (and have a few applications still pending).

I'm also on e-mail lists for attorney jobs around the state, and apply for all the ones I find that I could possibly be considered qualified for. I don't even get interviews from those.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Sadly.

I'd suggest looking into pro bono stuff in your area. There are always legal services people that are looking for able bodies and a big part of the attorney jobs market these days is getting two years of experience under your belt so that you can apply to all the jobs that require it. It's not quite criminal, but stuff like keeping people from losing their homes is pretty rewarding if you can afford to eat the fact that it comes with nada in terms of financial reward.

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss more. I don't want to fling the thread too wildly off topic.

[SiuiS]

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss more. I don't want to fling the thread too wildly off topic.

Damn, this is the most I've gotten out of you about how your job actually works in like, ever. XD

[Orcus The Vile]

What is worse to hurt yourself or the people you love?

[Mystic Muse]

Completely depends on the situation. There are times when each is preferable over the other.

[noparlpf]

What is worse to hurt yourself or the people you love?

I don't think there's an absolute answer to that. It depends on context and degrees.

[Anarion]

What is worse to hurt yourself or the people you love?

Hurting anyone is bad and ideally there are creative ways to approach most situations that minimize both types of harm. In the rare hypothetical where you have to pick one, it's case by case and depends on a lot of other values.

[Coidzor]

What is worse to hurt yourself or the people you love?

It's generally better to be less philosophical and more pragmatic about coming out, especially during financially and economically vulnerable formative years. Also, the framing leaves something to be desired, because it's not really *hurting* one's homophobic relatives if they react badly to the news.

[Axinian]

It's generally better to be less philosophical and more pragmatic about coming out, especially during financially and economically vulnerable formative years. Also, the framing leaves something to be desired, because it's not really *hurting* one's homophobic relatives if they react badly to the news.

Yeah, a poor, homophobic reaction is them hurting themselves. Coming out causes no real harm that they can't avoid.

[SiuiS]

Hurting anyone is bad and ideally there are creative ways to approach most situations that minimize both types of harm. In the rare hypothetical where you have to pick one, it's case by case and depends on a lot of other values.

One should distinguish between hurt and harm.


It's generally better to be less philosophical and more pragmatic about coming out, especially during financially and economically vulnerable formative years. Also, the framing leaves something to be desired, because it's not really *hurting* one's homophobic relatives if they react badly to the news.

Yup.

[Anarion]

One should distinguish between hurt and harm.


I can guess at what you mean there, but could you define the distinction for me?

[Mono Vertigo]

Is it like the difference between the hurt brought by an unfortunate fall in the stairs ("ouch, my arm") and the harm it brings ("welp, now my arm's broke, I won't be able to work anymore, therefore I'll lose my job, and I don't know if I'll completely recover from that injury")? Where the two can be dissociated - you'll feel suffering in the moment but won't suffer consequences in the long term, or you might hardly realize what happened but it'll directly cause your life to change in bad ways?

[golentan]

A better example of the difference might be setting the bone. Leave it alone and it may hurt less than putting it back where it belongs, but the harm brought by a permanent, crippling injury is great, while the harm of setting a bone is negligible.

[Mono Vertigo]

Right, that's an interpretation and simile that make more sense, thanks.
(Still gonna wait on SiuiS for final clarification though...)

[Icewraith]

Sounds like "hurt" is "suffering an injury" and "harm" is "negative consequences of the injury"?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In the same vein of "hypothetical question with varying degrees of circumstance-dependent answers", a question that has been preying in my mind with the recent el goonish shive (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1993) storyline. When should a trans person come out to a (maybe) date? On one hand, you don't want to come out to anyone that invites you out for an afternoon (e.g. beers with a coworker doesn't require it at all), on the other, that's a big thing to keep from a potential romantic partner. My tentative answer is "when it becomes clear they are an actual date", which is fraught with dangers and misunderstanding.

Grey Wolf

[Anarion]

In the same vein of "hypothetical question with varying degrees of circumstance-dependent answers", a question that has been preying in my mind with the recent el goonish shive (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1993) storyline. When should a trans person come out to a (maybe) date? On one hand, you don't want to come out to anyone that invites you out for an afternoon (e.g. beers with a coworker doesn't require it at all), on the other, that's a big thing to keep from a potential romantic partner. My tentative answer is "when it becomes clear they are an actual date", which is fraught with dangers and misunderstanding.

Grey Wolf

Hard question. Also quite broadly applicable, since "when to talk about yourself" comes up with gender, orientation, kinks, fetishes, polyamory, and probably even vanilla relationships where people aren't on the same wavelength right away. Or as Haley put it, "Oooo I probably shouldn't tell you about cousin Sheila then." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0681.html)

I guess, my answer is that you should tell people important info early enough that they won't feel deceived. If it's something like being trans, that's going to be very quickly because otherwise they might make a mistake when it comes to romantic feelings and be very hurt. When it comes to a fetish, it's probably fine to wait longer since that only comes up if a relationship gets serious. Weird family members and assorted personal habits can wait longer still, though I don't think I'd want to marry someone without at least letting them know if they were going to get some serious flak at family events.

[Coidzor]

In the same vein of "hypothetical question with varying degrees of circumstance-dependent answers", a question that has been preying in my mind with the recent el goonish shive (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1993) storyline. When should a trans person come out to a (maybe) date? On one hand, you don't want to come out to anyone that invites you out for an afternoon (e.g. beers with a coworker doesn't require it at all), on the other, that's a big thing to keep from a potential romantic partner. My tentative answer is "when it becomes clear they are an actual date", which is fraught with dangers and misunderstanding.

Grey Wolf

Huh. Last I'd read that they had rayguns that performed perfect, reversible SRS. :smallconfused:

Generally prior to getting alone with them when sexual intercourse is on what they perceive to be the itinerary; unless it's a situation where one will take one's chances with just never telling the other person, such as a shag with a veritable stranger where one is confident that there's no real chance of being clocked during foreplay or sex. So that's really the only hard, hard, hard limit I'm aware of and every time this has come up in the past someone has complained that it lends credence to the idea that there's something wrong about being trans* or that trans* people are expected to apologize to others for existing.

*shrug* Something like somewhere between before the 2nd date and before the 4th date if things are looking serious enough, but generally not *on* one of those dates, or at least, not unless there's some relative conversational privacy without actually being secluded and vulnerable as a result of said privacy is what I can recall as what little attempt at consensus was made last time there was a conversation about this, but even that'll catch some flak, especially if combined with the maxim "don't **** 'em before you've told them if you're ever going to tell them," because many people object to being told to live like nuns.

Of course, with the increased ability to actually have one's transgender status as part of one's dating profile, there's also some pressures to just be out as trans* before one has even been asked on a date, though not enough to counteract the pressures to not reveal one's trans status casually, at least, not on every website. If online dating enters into things at all, though it's not an option on all dating websites yet.

[Heliomance]

Huh. Last I'd read that they had rayguns that performed perfect, reversible SRS. :smallconfused:


They do. Only the inner group of friends know about that, though - Sam is not (yet) part of that group, and no-one knows he's trans. I imagine that this will be brought up quite swiftly once the relevant knowledge becomes known.

[SowZ]

Huh. Last I'd read that they had rayguns that performed perfect, reversible SRS. :smallconfused:

Generally prior to getting alone with them when sexual intercourse is on what they perceive to be the itinerary; unless it's a situation where one will take one's chances with just never telling the other person, such as a shag with a veritable stranger where one is confident that there's no real chance of being clocked during foreplay or sex. So that's really the only hard, hard, hard limit I'm aware of and every time this has come up in the past someone has complained that it lends credence to the idea that there's something wrong about being trans* or that trans* people are expected to apologize to others for existing.

*shrug* Something like somewhere between before the 2nd date and before the 4th date if things are looking serious enough, but generally not *on* one of those dates, or at least, not unless there's some relative conversational privacy without actually being secluded and vulnerable as a result of said privacy is what I can recall as what little attempt at consensus was made last time there was a conversation about this, but even that'll catch some flak, especially if combined with the maxim "don't **** 'em before you've told them if you're ever going to tell them," because many people object to being told to live like nuns.

Of course, with the increased ability to actually have one's transgender status as part of one's dating profile, there's also some pressures to just be out as trans* before one has even been asked on a date, though not enough to counteract the pressures to not reveal one's trans status casually, at least, not on every website. If online dating enters into things at all, though it's not an option on all dating websites yet.

Other than fear for ones safety and reputation, (which are valid concerns, sadly,) what reasons do people have to withhold their transgender status from someone prior to sex? Either the potential partner doesn't mind having sex with a transgender person, in which case it shouldn't be an issue, or they do mind having sex with a transgender person, in which case you are sleeping with someone who wouldn't consent if they knew the whole picture. I realize this is an odd line, as under this paradigm you have to wonder what exactly should one reveal and what are they allowed to keep hidden before sleeping with someone. And being transgender isn't a moral issue, (hey, you should know I'm a neo-nazi,) or a health one, (I have herpes,) so the obligation isn't easily answered. But if you know there is a decent chance someone wouldn't sleep with you if they knew X, whatever X is, isn't it better not to do it? Just respect that, even if you don't respect them for it? It's not a matter of being less of a man or woman, just a matter of recognizing someone else's boundaries even if they are irrational boundaries. If I was going to sleep with someone, and I had reason to believe they don't sleep with or date Jews, I might think they are an ass depending on why, but I like to think I wouldn't sleep with them.

I'm curious to hear other people's opinions on this.

[SiuiS]

I can guess at what you mean there, but could you define the distinction for me?

I am surprised you want clarification. Means it's not as universal to grok as my experiences have shown so far.

I think the basest grosse explanation is "pain" and "damage".


Is it like the difference between the hurt brought by an unfortunate fall in the stairs ("ouch, my arm") and the harm it brings ("welp, now my arm's broke, I won't be able to work anymore, therefore I'll lose my job, and I don't know if I'll completely recover from that injury")? Where the two can be dissociated - you'll feel suffering in the moment but won't suffer consequences in the long term, or you might hardly realize what happened but it'll directly cause your life to change in bad ways?

Sort of.


A better example of the difference might be setting the bone. Leave it alone and it may hurt less than putting it back where it belongs, but the harm brought by a permanent, crippling injury is great, while the harm of setting a bone is negligible.

Yeah, that's probably clearer.

[Anarion]

Other than fear for ones safety and reputation, (which are valid concerns, sadly,) what reasons do people have to withhold their transgender status from someone prior to sex? Either the potential partner doesn't mind having sex with a transgender person, in which case it shouldn't be an issue, or they do mind having sex with a transgender person, in which case you are sleeping with someone who wouldn't consent if they knew the whole picture. I realize this is an odd line, as under this paradigm you have to wonder what exactly should one reveal and what are they allowed to keep hidden before sleeping with someone. And being transgender isn't a moral issue, (hey, you should know I'm a neo-nazi,) or a health one, (I have herpes,) so the obligation isn't easily answered. But if you know there is a decent chance someone wouldn't sleep with you if they knew X, whatever X is, isn't it better not to do it? Just respect that, even if you don't respect them for it? It's not a matter of being less of a man or woman, just a matter of recognizing someone else's boundaries even if they are irrational boundaries. If I was going to sleep with someone, and I had reason to believe they don't sleep with or date Jews, I might think they are an ass but I like to think I wouldn't sleep with them.

I'm curious to hear other people's opinions on this.

The Jewish person example is a good one. And I think there's an argument both ways. On the one hand, if you're getting to know somebody else and they have boundaries, even irrational stupid boundaries that make no sense, it's a good thing to respect them. I think all of us would like everyone we meet to recognize and respect our own boundaries, so it's a fair thing to do the same.

On the other hand, if someone is willing to have sex with you without inquiring about your background, you can argue that's on them. Transgender isn't such a unique thing that it must always be disclosed to all people, it's just one of many characteristics. I don't think most people limit themselves to only have sex after requiring a partner to fill out a questionnaire listing out race, ethnicity, religion, income, any kinks, birth gender, and all past sexual experiences, yet any one of those things could be a deal-breaker for someone.


I am surprised you want clarification. Means it's not as universal to grok as my experiences have shown so far.

I think the basest grosse explanation is "pain" and "damage".


That's about what I thought, but I didn't want to presume. Though I still stand by my original statement for both. If you can avoid it, it's great if both pain and damage are minimized for everyone and in some situations there are creative ways to do that. Other times there aren't and you have to balance things based on the unique factors present in each situation. Pain that is fleeting and ephemeral is less bad than lasting damage in that calculus, but they're all a departure from the ideal.

[SiuiS]

I disagree, based on the idea that pain is a catalyst for growth. I believe this is where intention factors in.

Actually I'm not sure if that's a disagreement really because I cannot think of a specific example of causing someone pain to help them. I support the concept but if the concept is never actionable then why support it? Will ponder.

[SowZ]

I disagree, based on the idea that pain is a catalyst for growth. I believe this is where intention factors in.

Actually I'm not sure if that's a disagreement really because I cannot think of a specific example of causing someone pain to help them. I support the concept but if the concept is never actionable then why support it? Will ponder.

Sometimes you have to allow your children to make mistakes so that they will grow now, rather than make those same mistakes in a more dangerous environment.

[Coidzor]

Other than fear for ones safety and reputation, (which are valid concerns, sadly,) what reasons do people have to withhold their transgender status from someone prior to sex? Either the potential partner doesn't mind having sex with a transgender person, in which case it shouldn't be an issue, or they do mind having sex with a transgender person, in which case you are sleeping with someone who wouldn't consent if they knew the whole picture. I realize this is an odd line, as under this paradigm you have to wonder what exactly should one reveal and what are they allowed to keep hidden before sleeping with someone. And being transgender isn't a moral issue, (hey, you should know I'm a neo-nazi,) or a health one, (I have herpes,) so the obligation isn't easily answered. But if you know there is a decent chance someone wouldn't sleep with you if they knew X, whatever X is, isn't it better not to do it? Just respect that, even if you don't respect them for it? It's not a matter of being less of a man or woman, just a matter of recognizing someone else's boundaries even if they are irrational boundaries. If I was going to sleep with someone, and I had reason to believe they don't sleep with or date Jews, I might think they are an ass depending on why, but I like to think I wouldn't sleep with them.

I'm curious to hear other people's opinions on this.

Well, to paraphrase one current of thought on the subject, only transphobic bigots wouldn't want to have sex with a trans* person or would have their perception of the trans* person they were dating altered by finding out after they had sex or found out somehow on their own rather than being told.

Another is that the trans* person's privacy and comfort trumps the potential sensitivity and importance of that information to the other person.

For one-night stands where one has already isolated out the "will I be murdered by this person I want to have sex with?" element, there's the element of "is it worth the risk of not getting laid and the time it'd take to bring it up and have that conversation?"

Some have voiced the opinion that after having transitioned, acknowledging being trans* would be acknowledging being less than perfectly a woman, though I'm missing some nuance there and am not perfectly repeating that thought.

Anarion has showcased the line of thought that being trans* isn't a big deal and telling the other person without being asked would be making it a bigger deal than it is.

There's an undercurrent that's only rarely explicitly stated that only transphobia would affect consent at that point, and if they're that transphobic then it's on them to have broached the subject, otherwise they really just don't care enough about it to justify telling them.

That's everything I can remember offhand.

[golentan]

My advice for when to come out is "Before you are alone with them when you are considering removing your pants." It's a bad idea to come out to someone when you're alone, because if they freak it's more dangerous than if you're in a public space. Regardless of how terrible I think the idea of a transpanic defense is, don't become a statistic. At the same time, if you're not planning on letting them play with your genitals, they don't have a need to know.

Alternatively, with internet dating and things, it might be a good idea to just be completely up front about it. Include it in your profile and only let people who are okay with it talk to you, that way when the "pants removal" conversation comes around, you're already on the same page.

[SowZ]

Well, to paraphrase one current of thought on the subject, only transphobic bigots wouldn't want to have sex with a trans* person or would have their perception of the trans* person they were dating altered by finding out after they had sex or found out somehow on their own rather than being told.

Another is that the trans* person's privacy and comfort trumps the potential sensitivity and importance of that information to the other person.

For one-night stands where one has already isolated out the "will I be murdered by this person I want to have sex with?" element, there's the element of "is it worth the risk of not getting laid and the time it'd take to bring it up and have that conversation?"

Some have voiced the opinion that after having transitioned, acknowledging being trans* would be acknowledging being less than perfectly a woman, though I'm missing some nuance there and am not perfectly repeating that thought.

Anarion has showcased the line of thought that being trans* isn't a big deal and telling the other person without being asked would be making it a bigger deal than it is.

There's an undercurrent that's only rarely explicitly stated that only transphobia would affect consent at that point, and if they're that transphobic then it's on them to have broached the subject, otherwise they really just don't care enough about it to justify telling them.

That's everything I can remember offhand.

Hmm. Nearly everyone would agree that not telling someone and going ahead with it anyway when you know they would not consent if they knew, or lying when asked then engaging in sex afterwards, is wrong, yes?

The, "If the issue never came up, why is the onus on me? Their assumption is that I am X gender and they are correct." makes sense. But I am incredibly uncomfortable with the, "I wouldn't get laid if they knew so I will withhold the info precisely because I know they would retract sex," line of thought. I am uncomfortable because I think we should cast the widest net that is reasonable around consent, and even when people willingly engage in sex, it is wrong to do so under false pretenses. This also includes my belief that we should respect that everyone has absolute discretion in drawing their own sexual lines; even when such lines are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, whatever. You don't have to respect the individual for it, but if someone has drawn a sexual line, it is not okay to ignore it just because it is invalid and bigoted. Does that make sense? This is not to equate the topic at hand with rape, it clearly isn't the same and anyone who implies that it is is engaging in hyperbole at best and hate speech at worst. But it doesn't have to be rape to be unethical.

Although some of my views may be reactionary to the fact that I am frequently disgusted with the game-like culture that getting laid seems to be knee deep in, and relating to a desire for casual sex with near strangers is something I can't 100% relate to. Regardless, "You didn't ask," might have validity but I don't think deceit does, excepting when lying is for your own safety, of course.

[noparlpf]

My advice for when to come out is "Before you are alone with them when you are considering removing your pants." It's a bad idea to come out to someone when you're alone, because if they freak it's more dangerous than if you're in a public space. Regardless of how terrible I think the idea of a transpanic defense is, don't become a statistic. At the same time, if you're not planning on letting them play with your genitals, they don't have a need to know.

Alternatively, with internet dating and things, it might be a good idea to just be completely up front about it. Include it in your profile and only let people who are okay with it talk to you, that way when the "pants removal" conversation comes around, you're already on the same page.

On AVEN a bit back the question came up, "When should you come out to a potential romantic partner?" For alloromantic asexuals, I would definitely say before the relationship transitions to "dating." But there's also much less acephobia than transphobia and it's generally less extreme. We usually get invisibility and confusion, not anger, disgust, or violence. For trans* people it's a bit bigger deal to come out. For online dating, sure, put it right out there and let people screen themselves out ahead of time; they don't know who you are or where you live yet. For dating the old-fashioned way, though, I'd probably say that it should come up once you think the person is worth getting to know better but after you've gotten to know them well enough to feel things out first. Definitely before things get sexual, because genitals are a big deal for a lot of allosexual people, even if they're not transphobic.

Of course I also have no idea how "dating" even works and the concept is utterly alien to me so who knows if that makes sense.

[SiuiS]

Sometimes you have to allow your children to make mistakes so that they will grow now, rather than make those same mistakes in a more dangerous environment.

Allowance, yes. I think I'm caught though, in that causing pain is almost never better than not causing pain.

[SowZ]

Allowance, yes. I think I'm caught though, in that causing pain is almost never better than not causing pain.

You are sometimes in a situation where if you don't cause pain to one person, you are inadvertently causing more pain to someone else, sometimes someone more innocent in whatever hypothetical scenario we are talking about.


On AVEN a bit back the question came up, "When should you come out to a potential romantic partner?" For alloromantic asexuals, I would definitely say before the relationship transitions to "dating." But there's also much less acephobia than transphobia and it's generally less extreme. We usually get invisibility and confusion, not anger, disgust, or violence. For trans* people it's a bit bigger deal to come out. For online dating, sure, put it right out there and let people screen themselves out ahead of time; they don't know who you are or where you live yet. For dating the old-fashioned way, though, I'd probably say that it should come up once you think the person is worth getting to know better but after you've gotten to know them well enough to feel things out first. Definitely before things get sexual, because genitals are a big deal for a lot of allosexual people, even if they're not transphobic.

Of course I also have no idea how "dating" even works and the concept is utterly alien to me so who knows if that makes sense.

I've dated a couple people so it isn't foreign to me. That all makes sense to me.

[golentan]

On AVEN a bit back the question came up, "When should you come out to a potential romantic partner?" For alloromantic asexuals, I would definitely say before the relationship transitions to "dating." But there's also much less acephobia than transphobia and it's generally less extreme. We usually get invisibility and confusion, not anger, disgust, or violence. For trans* people it's a bit bigger deal to come out. For online dating, sure, put it right out there and let people screen themselves out ahead of time; they don't know who you are or where you live yet. For dating the old-fashioned way, though, I'd probably say that it should come up once you think the person is worth getting to know better but after you've gotten to know them well enough to feel things out first. Definitely before things get sexual, because genitals are a big deal for a lot of allosexual people, even if they're not transphobic.

Of course I also have no idea how "dating" even works and the concept is utterly alien to me so who knows if that makes sense.

See, the difference is the reaction. The negative reaction to an asexual coming out is overwhelmingly "If sex isn't on the table, I'm not interested in a relationship." Sometimes it goes as far as "corrective" rape. It can be bad, but it's not usually life threatening. Trans people (especially women), face life threatening reactions to coming out: more than a hundred trans people are murdered every year, and most of them by romantic or sexual partners who reacted negatively to the news, or potentials for the same. It's not a conversation that you should have in private, where you can't escape or scream for help. If it's a dealbreaker for someone, that's one thing, but if it triggers them to attack you you need to be safe, and while it's not okay to blame the victims if asked for advice my first advice is "be safe, take precautions."

Asexuality, it's probably a good idea to come out before the first date, because it speaks to the expectations of the relationship. Trans people, it's safer not to come out unless it's necessary (they're going to find out anyway if things continue: I.E. you're considering sex) or you're using it to safely screen people out before meeting them (I.E. online dating, or if you're an open face of the LGBT movement: Folks like our own Miriel or a star like Laverne Cox's first credits on a background check are likely to read "transgender activist" and plenty of people google people they're interested in these days). There are people who are dangerous to tell at all, and in such cases it's better to just break up and show them the door rather than risk an explosive reaction, and it's not obvious who they are when you start dating.

Yeah, it can speak to the expectations of the relationship, because you don't have to be transphobic for a penis or a vulva to be a dealbreaker with sex, and sex is an important aspect to relationships for many if not most people. But it's better to have that conversation in a safe public space if and only if you're sure it's a matter for their discussion. When my ex-girlfriend came out to me, she was worried I was going to start beating her because she had been physically assaulted coming out to people twice before: I had suspected she was trans but until it was time to get into each other's pants it wasn't my business, you see, and if she wasn't sure about me I didn't want to pressure her into coming out because that's a bad precedent to set. Good people who are still interested will understand. Bad people aren't going to take it better any earlier in the relationship. People on the fence or who are decent but no longer interested are more likely to take it better the better you already know each other, and if there's a crowd nearby that you can call on for help or as witnesses.

[Coidzor]

Hmm. Nearly everyone would agree that not telling someone and going ahead with it anyway when you know they would not consent if they knew, or lying when asked then engaging in sex afterwards, is wrong, yes?

The, "If the issue never came up, why is the onus on me? Their assumption is that I am X gender and they are correct." makes sense. But I am incredibly uncomfortable with the, "I wouldn't get laid if they knew so I will withhold the info precisely because I know they would retract sex," line of thought. I am uncomfortable because I think we should cast the widest net that is reasonable around consent, and even when people willingly engage in sex, it is wrong to do so under false pretenses. This also includes my belief that we should respect that everyone has absolute discretion in drawing their own sexual lines; even when such lines are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, whatever. You don't have to respect the individual for it, but if someone has drawn a sexual line, it is not okay to ignore it just because it is invalid and bigoted. Does that make sense? This is not to equate the topic at hand with rape, it clearly isn't the same and anyone who implies that it is is engaging in hyperbole at best and hate speech at worst. But it doesn't have to be rape to be unethical.

Although some of my views may be reactionary to the fact that I am frequently disgusted with the game-like culture that getting laid seems to be knee deep in, and relating to a desire for casual sex with near strangers is something I can't 100% relate to. Regardless, "You didn't ask," might have validity but I don't think deceit does, excepting when lying is for your own safety, of course.

I can't really answer that, even what I've said so far is just to the best of my recollection rather than something I can really represent in a discussion beyond "Oh, yeah, I seem to recall something along these lines having been said a few times."

I could share my personal take on the matter, but that's less than useful since the posts I've made on the subject haven't already attracted more attention and all I could hope to do would be to attract more attention.

So until someone comes in to either say "err, you've not quite got it, it's more like..." or "OY! I'll champion that!" it's sorta stalled out and the key point golentan mentioned of pragmatism and ensuring one's own survival is... well, the main key point.

[Kesnit]

Well, to paraphrase one current of thought on the subject, only transphobic bigots wouldn't want to have sex with a trans* person

Er... No. A gay man or straight woman may not want to have sex with me because I don't have a penis. If a significant part of what someone enjoys about sex is not possible because the trans person doesn't have a necessary part, that isn't an issue of transphobia - it's an issue of "this is what I like, and sorry, you can't do it."

Even bottom surgery may not solve the problem. Bottom surgery for transmen does not give very realistic results, even if he takes the option to get the useable penis.



Asexuality, it's probably a good idea to come out before the first date, because it speaks to the expectations of the relationship. Trans people, it's safer not to come out unless it's necessary (they're going to find out anyway if things continue: I.E. you're considering sex) or you're using it to safely screen people out before meeting them (I.E. online dating, or if you're an open face of the LGBT movement: Folks like our own Miriel or a star like Laverne Cox's first credits on a background check are likely to read "transgender activist" and plenty of people google people they're interested in these days).

I once found out a woman I was interested in was trans because I googled her name. (I was looking for research papers she had published.) Turns out she had sued a former employer who fired her when she started transition, and there were newspaper articles about it.

[golentan]

Er... No. A gay man or straight woman may not want to have sex with me because I don't have a penis. If a significant part of what someone enjoys about sex is not possible because the trans person doesn't have a necessary part, that isn't an issue of transphobia - it's an issue of "this is what I like, and sorry, you can't do it."

Even bottom surgery may not solve the problem. Bottom surgery for transmen does not give very realistic results, even if he takes the option to get the useable penis.

I once found out a woman I was interested in was trans because I googled her name. (I was looking for research papers she had published.) Turns out she had sued a former employer who fired her when she started transition, and there were newspaper articles about it.

Which is part of why it's good to practice mindfulness about what might be out there about you. If you get blindsided by someone, any other precautions are moot.

Also, the lack of functionality might be a dealbreaker for me with post op transmen, I don't think so but the fact I'm not sure is an indicator that all might not be well there. I'd be willing to give it a shot, if nothing else, but I don't know that I'd be able to enjoy sex under the circumstances and (same as my concern with dating an asexual who was disturbed by sex rather than simply unaroused) I'm not sure I could stay in a long term relationship where sex wasn't a thing that we did. I think I could, but I don't know.

[Icewraith]

One other point that hasn't really been covered is reproduction. It's not something you usually worry about (as a goal) for a one-night stand, but in a potential long term relationship the partner should probably be aware fairly early on that if kids are going to be in the picture, adoption or surrogacy/sperm donors will probably be involved.

I think if you've got anything physical that might be a deal breaker for the other person, it should probably come out well before sex. When it comes to equipment, it's best if you don't surprise your partner. Cis guys who are extremely short or extremely long in a certain area are in this boat, as are people with nerve damage, medical conditions, ill-considered tattoos, birth defects, extremely strong fetishes, or even things like skin discoloration or oddly shaped birthmarks. The majority of trans people do end up in this category, but having to disclose some physical complications that may result in a potential partner withdrawing consent isn't limited to trans people.

[Heliomance]

I can't quite work out why this isn't a damn good point. I'm sure it isn't, but I can't see the counter argument. Care to help?

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aMbqxo1_460s_v1.jpg

[Jormengand]

I can't quite work out why this isn't a damn good point. I'm sure it isn't, but I can't see the counter argument. Care to help?

It is a good point, but it's a good point which is usually not actually a counter to the point the other person is making - it doesn't mean women don't suffer from discrimination, only that men also do, and anyone who thought they didn't was acting under a very grave misapprehension.

[noparlpf]

I can't quite work out why this isn't a damn good point. I'm sure it isn't, but I can't see the counter argument. Care to help?

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aMbqxo1_460s_v1.jpg

Hmm... What I was about to say is probably not appropriate so give me a minute.
...
The impression I'm getting is that the poster (a 9gag user) is mad about feminism and thinks women just want to take the top spots (by the way, the office is "white collar") and leave men in the trash. So although it's an interesting point it's being made for a bad reason.

There is also some discussion of sexism in blue-collar work out there, mostly saying that women who are physically capable are turned down from construction/contracting/whatever jobs because "women are too weak" or whatever. So the poster also missed that this is in the broader conversation already.

[Lycunadari]

I can't quite work out why this isn't a damn good point. I'm sure it isn't, but I can't see the counter argument. Care to help?

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aMbqxo1_460s_v1.jpg

I've read a good rebuttal of that one on tumblr - basically, it's simply wrong (http://rainwindandstars.tumblr.com/post/105375832632/the-exercist-is-that-so-women-have-been-a).

[SiuiS]

I can't quite work out why this isn't a damn good point. I'm sure it isn't, but I can't see the counter argument. Care to help?

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aMbqxo1_460s_v1.jpg

Women are not stopped from working in cola mines because they are women. Women are not stopped from working in waste management because they are women. Women are not stopped from working in sewers because they are women. The picture showed does not represent blue collar jobs, the picture showed represents white collar jobs.

Contrast with the idea that men's rights activists use; only men go off to die in war, how is that for equal or fair? Answer: you don't get to stop me from making the same sacrifice and blame me for not making the same sacrifice in the same breath.

Work equality is for all jobs. We don't campaign for equality because women aren't in those positions based on merit, we campaign because they are actively sabotaged and kept out of those positions. Show me someone keeping a woman out because she is a woman and I'll fight tooth and nail to get her into that damn sewer.

[Anarion]

I think if you've got anything physical that might be a deal breaker for the other person, it should probably come out well before sex. When it comes to equipment, it's best if you don't surprise your partner. Cis guys who are extremely short or extremely long in a certain area are in this boat, as are people with nerve damage, medical conditions, ill-considered tattoos, birth defects, extremely strong fetishes, or even things like skin discoloration or oddly shaped birthmarks. The majority of trans people do end up in this category, but having to disclose some physical complications that may result in a potential partner withdrawing consent isn't limited to trans people.

I think that's well put. I'd agree with this. I also like that it's a broader thing. If you're unusual in a way that could be a physical issue and the other person wouldn't even know to ask, it does seem fair to share it before anything gets too serious.


I've read a good rebuttal of that one on tumblr - basically, it's simply wrong (http://rainwindandstars.tumblr.com/post/105375832632/the-exercist-is-that-so-women-have-been-a).

Well, that's what I was going to say, so well done everyone tackling all the hard topics. I'd also note that it's nearly impossible to separate out the differences in who goes to which jobs from social gender stereotyping. You can't make a statement like "women simply aren't as interested in being sewer workers as men" because that's likely to come from the fact that parents discourage their daughters from doing anything that gets them dirty while encouraging their sons to play freely outside. I honestly have no idea what the world would look like if all of a sudden every gender stereotype that was enforced from birth were to disappear. It would be interesting.

[SowZ]

Women are not stopped from working in cola mines because they are women. Women are not stopped from working in waste management because they are women. Women are not stopped from working in sewers because they are women. The picture showed does not represent blue collar jobs, the picture showed represents white collar jobs.

Contrast with the idea that men's rights activists use; only men go off to die in war, how is that for equal or fair? Answer: you don't get to stop me from making the same sacrifice and blame me for not making the same sacrifice in the same breath.

Work equality is for all jobs. We don't campaign for equality because women aren't in those positions based on merit, we campaign because they are actively sabotaged and kept out of those positions. Show me someone keeping a woman out because she is a woman and I'll fight tooth and nail to get her into that damn sewer.

Actually, it happens all the damn time. Women don't get mining jobs even when qualified for it frequently. And in many places, mining and warehouse jobs are the highest paying jobs most people can reasonably get.

That men work in mines is in no way discriminatory against men. This isn't slave labor. Men have more options across the board. Blue collar, white collar, whatever. Men can work just about anywhere they want. Men are discriminated when it comes to working with children and to a lesser extent secretarial positions. There's very little job discrimination aside from that.

If women were working all the white collar jobs and men were forced to do blue collar, that would be an issue of discrimination against men. But that doesn't happen.

As for the military service thing. Did you know that white men were the only people conscripted for compulsory military service in apartheid South Africa? Does that equate to discrimination against whites in apartheid South Africa? Of course not. Most countries have an ego thing where they want their military to be a face of the ideal citizen. While I don't agree with compulsory military service in almost any context, compulsory military service of a specific group is generally reflective of that group being considered superior.

(And no, 'most women wouldn't be as good combatants' is a nonsense argument if for no other reason than the sheer number of non-combatant jobs out there. Not to mention there are plenty of women who could fight, and plenty of men who are signed up but wouldn't be good at fighting. Men are the only ones who sign up for selective service because men are seen as stronger and more competent.)

[Coidzor]

I can't quite work out why this isn't a damn good point. I'm sure it isn't, but I can't see the counter argument. Care to help?

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aMbqxo1_460s_v1.jpg

You mean other than disingenuously using the classist notions of society at large that garbage collectors, coal miners, and sewer workers are human trash who don't matter(and in coal miners' cases, don't deserve basic safety in the workplace) to call Feminism evil and illegitimate? :smalltongue:

[golentan]

You mean other than disingenuously using the classist notions of society at large that garbage collectors, coal miners, and sewer workers are human trash who don't matter(and in coal miners' cases, don't deserve basic safety in the workplace) to call Feminism evil and illegitimate? :smalltongue:

We'll always need sanitation, and while I'm hopeful we may transition away from needing massive coal mining soon mining in general is a vital industry for manufacturing. I don't care who's doing it, as long as they're competent, well compensated for taking on frequently unpleasant work, safe, and not discriminated against in hiring practices. You may notice that almost none of those conditions are currently being met. Other people have mentioned how the gender discrimination argument is BS. Anyone who can handle the work should have the opportunity to do so, and should be compensated appropriately for doing so.

You know, back home, the most respected caste of society were the farmers? They handled municipal solid waste, recycling it into food. Without both functions, society would have choked on its own filth and starved to death. The farmers took on the most unpleasant, hard labor we had, and rather than entrust it to automated systems that would be prone to failure in disasters kept alive the methods to do things by hand, and in return we honored them and made sure that they had every available comfort. Society cannot survive without its underpinnings.

[Anarion]

We'll always need sanitation

You don't think we'll transition to some of the heavy labor work being done by friendly, upbeat robots?

[golentan]

You don't think we'll transition to some of the heavy labor work being done by friendly, upbeat robots?

It requires situational awareness and the ability to make judgment calls to do properly (competent), at which point the difference between a robot and an animal or person is negligible and we owe them good treatment (well compensated and safe) and we should preemptively head off treating them as a slave race (not discriminated against in hiring practices). Like I said, I don't care who does the work if those conditions are met.

[Astrella]

I can't quite work out why this isn't a damn good point. I'm sure it isn't, but I can't see the counter argument. Care to help?

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aMbqxo1_460s_v1.jpg

The fact that those sectors are largely male is partially because women are kept out hardtime and if they get in get tons of harassment and sexist crap thrown at them.

[SowZ]

It requires situational awareness and the ability to make judgment calls to do properly (competent), at which point the difference between a robot and an animal or person is negligible and we owe them good treatment (well compensated and safe) and we should preemptively head off treating them as a slave race (not discriminated against in hiring practices). Like I said, I don't care who does the work if those conditions are met.

It would be substantially easier to make a robot safe, and less resources would likely need to be consumed in order to meet the robots needs and make them 'fulfilled' if such a concept was even remotely applicable.

[Heliomance]

It requires situational awareness and the ability to make judgment calls to do properly (competent), at which point the difference between a robot and an animal or person is negligible and we owe them good treatment (well compensated and safe) and we should preemptively head off treating them as a slave race (not discriminated against in hiring practices). Like I said, I don't care who does the work if those conditions are met.

There is no compelling reason to give an AI the ability to feel disgust. So they'll be unlikely to mind doing sanitation work and the like.

[Anarion]

I made the thread be about robots. Best day! :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

I made the thread be about robots. Best day! :smallbiggrin:

And without bringing up robosexuality or whether robots can be homosexual in any meaningful way.

A++

[Icewraith]

And without bringing up robosexuality or whether robots can be homosexual in any meaningful way.

A++

And then you did it anyways.... :p

[SiuiS]

And then you did it anyways.... :p

Gotta keep it topical after all.

[golentan]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

[SowZ]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

I play bisexual characters pretty often, largely because I don't want limits on who I can have my character romance. As for gender, I am male more often than female, but play women with some frequency. Women I have played have been straight or asexual, though. Not sure why. I am developing a character for a super hero game that is gay. As for myself, I am a heterosexual male with a low sex drive.

[SiuiS]

My gaming groups fall into three camps; "hurr hurr boobies", "N/A" and "everyone is lesbian, especially the men". That last one applies to players or characters at your leisure.

I trend towards heterosexuals, but specifically because it's weird; I can think of no other young 'men' who would play a straight woman straight (pardon the pun). RP has always been about psychological exploration and acting mindset for me.


Related (in my mind): Golentan, Anarion, Coidzor, do you folks have strong gender identities? Or are they defined by being static more than [DEFINITELY THIS GENDER]?

[SowZ]

I can think of no other young 'men' who would play a straight woman straight (pardon the pun).

What do you mean by this?

[SiuiS]

What do you mean by this?

I was born with an unfortunate case of congenital penis, but with medical help I should be able to make a full physical recovery.

The anecdotal rate of 8-12 year old males who play D&D or similar, play female characters, and are not A) prostitutes or B) lesbians (because hurr hurr boobies) is vanishingly small.

[SowZ]

I was born with an unfortunate case of congenital penis, but with medical help I should be able to make a full physical recovery.

The anecdotal rate of 8-12 year old males who play D&D or similar, play female characters, and are not A) prostitutes or B) lesbians (because hurr hurr boobies) is vanishingly small.

Hmm. I suppose I don't see it, but I play with adults. And my regular group is pretty evenly split when it comes to gender and sexual orientations. Disconnecting ones own preferences from ones characters doesn't seem that hard to me, either. In my games, I've had a straight(ish) male character played by a gay(mostly) man end up with a straight female character played by a straight dude and nobody thought it odd. If your experiences are with a more juvenile crowd, I sympathize.

[golentan]

Related (in my mind): Golentan, Anarion, Coidzor, do you folks have strong gender identities? Or are they defined by being static more than [DEFINITELY THIS GENDER]?

I identify as genderqueer. I go along with "male/masculine" because people seeing me assume it to be true, because no gender appeals more than another, and because I'm secure enough in myself to not care what other people think about it (whether I'm in a "masculine" or "feminine" mode at the time, I don't care what people think: I'm not going to pretend to be something I'm not either by faking a case of testosterone poisoning or pretending to be a little girl to justify my love of skirts or entering a female dominated profession). But, I mean, I remember being female, whether or not it's happened (probably not, but it's real to me), about half my lives have been women, and regardless of my current gender perception I identify far more with my Birth Caste "Back Home" than with either male and female (which I swapped between with a hormone cocktail as a mere child of 53 years anyway when I was promoted). My last life I was a grandmother. I was a kickass grandma.

[GrayGriffin]

I have recently started playing more non-cis characters, and the sexuality of most of my characters is pretty vague. Mainly because I'm on the ace spectrum myself, so writing about attraction for characters who aren't on the ace spectrum is pretty hard for me.

[Coidzor]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

Fairly often. Most of my characters are aromantic asexuals, or are at most gray-ace, while I am ye olde straight white male. The majority of them have been cisgender like I am.

Only once has one of my characters been explicitly stated to be asexual to the rest of the group, and that was also the only androgyne character I played, because I couldn't decide what to play so I made it so that no one knew what to make of them themselves. We ended up defaulting to female pronouns for the character after a few them/them confusions during play though. I can't remember what I ended up deciding at the time, but right now I think of her as an AFAB agender androgyne "woman" who uses the term grudgingly and for convenience in dealing with others when it is strictly necessary.

I may not play them correctly though, as they sometimes use observational humor over the sexual underpinnings of an awkward situation the party encounters that makes the situation even more awkard but also kind of hilariously ridiculous too.

I can't remember the last time I played a heterosexual male character, I've never played a gay or bi or pan male character, I've only played a few female characters and most of those I've never been able to get enough of a feel for to feel they had a sexuality, a or nay.

I've played warforged and creatures made out of semi-solidified light and dark and shadow and twilight before, and those didn't have sex or sexuality but did have gender and were ubiquitously masculinely gendered or gender neutral with masculine tendencies due to male being the default and my age at the time.

I suspect many D&D characters are somewhere on or near the ace spectrum, de facto if not explicitly.


I trend towards heterosexuals, but specifically because it's weird; I can think of no other young 'men' who would play a straight woman straight (pardon the pun). RP has always been about psychological exploration and acting mindset for me.

There are definitely, ah, practical reasons why playing a straight woman without getting juvenile about it might be balked at. Certainly not wanting to have to RP out any romance scenes with, well, any of my DMs, male or female, has been a contributing factor to my characters being disinterested in sex, sexuality, romance, or attractive damsels in distress or oiled up barbarians.

Unless those oiled up barbarians looked like a good challenge in a fight, seemed potentially recruitable as minions, or there was money involved.

I'm also rather hit-or-miss with romance scenes in fiction, sometimes they're rather interesting but most of the time they're just so much filler.


Related (in my mind): Golentan, Anarion, Coidzor, do you folks have strong gender identities? Or are they defined by being static more than [DEFINITELY THIS GENDER]?

Hm? I'm not quite sure I'm following the question. Or at least, I believe I have a fairly good idea of what a strong gender identity would constitute, but I'm a bit fuzzier on what a gender identity that's defined as being static more than [DEFINITELY THIS GENDER] would entail.

I suppose I fluctuate to some extent, since I'm only consciously aware of being male when reminded by context or something happening, but when I am consciously aware of it, it's more than just an awareness of that physicality or of having those body parts. I think the furthest away from that state of heightened male consciousness of maleness is more distracted/absentminded/hyper-focused on something rather than any sort of feeling of not having gender, even as a passive rather than active thing.

Though I'd really only define myself as strongly gendered as male due to the contrast between what I'm aware of in myself and what I've heard from people who are weakly gendered or too apathetic on gender to be agender but could take or leave gender itself. So I guess if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say middling-strongly gendered male?

[golentan]

Only about 1/10 of my characters are Ace, the rest split about equally between straight, gay, bisexual. Whether or not it ever comes up, my characters are fully fleshed out characters with needs and desires beyond loot and XP. I've played recovering alcoholics who've never mentioned why they stick to cranberry juice when everyone goes to the tavern, but the reason is they don't trust themselves with a beer. Whether or not they're Ace, their sexuality is never de facto.

[Kesnit]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation?

I'm a heterosexual transman, though I seldom identify as such. (I just call myself a guy, not a transman.)

Not long after starting transition, my gaming group (none of whom knew my trans status) started a Vampire: the Requiem game. Since the only WoD I'd ever played was Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines (a video game), I didn't really know what to do with my PC. So I based the PC on the Baron of Santa Monica - a female Malkavian with multiple personalities. The "normal" personality had my birth name and was straight; the other personality was bisexual.

In a Changling: the Lost LARP, I played a gay male escort.

[noparlpf]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

I haven't had a chance to play anything in ages but of the ~ten characters I have used who were well fleshed-out three were canonically asexual, three were straight, two were gay/lesbian, one was questioning, and one was bi. Not that any of this ever came up in-game because I'm a bit averse to roleplaying romance anyway and the group in general also didn't do much of that.

[Philemonite]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation?

I always play gay male characters, even if the gay part is never mentioned. However, when I DM I strive for gender equality when it comes to NPC.


I identify as cute.

Sorry, couldn't resist.:smallbiggrin:


Not long after starting transition, my gaming group (none of whom knew my trans status) started a Vampire: the Requiem game. Since the only WoD I'd ever played was Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines (a video game), I didn't really know what to do with my PC. So I based the PC on the Baron of Santa Monica - a female Malkavian with multiple personalities. The "normal" personality had my birth name and was straight; the other personality was bisexual.

Damn that was an awesome game. Did you know that there is a mod that lets you recruit henchman, including her?:smallamused:

[Jormengand]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

Well...

In a sense it's nigh-impossible for any of my characters to be a different gender from mine, and in another it's almost impossible that they should be the same. I play a mix of male (Callen and Solion Luminor but Solion is later Solia, Jonah Cyrus, Arcanus Mecharius, Kharrus Nessurion, Administrator Antony, Garen Ta-Elvra), female (Solia and Marie Luminor, Kalira Cortesa, Azra Vochar, Sarah and Raine Calthar, Speaker Trianna, Elena Ignacio), other (Commander Kayros Vochar, Arbiter Noone), genderfluid (Pedro Ignacio - only really genderfluid due to multiple personalities but ehh), and unknown (Legio Animus but is probably Pedro, The Hunter but might be Kharrus). There are two to seven trans characters depending on how you count Pedro's personalities and what kind of trans you're talking (Solia, Pedro up to 4 times, Kayros?, Noone?).

Garen is gay and Sarah and Azra are lesbians and Trianna mentions she "Prefers girls" which might mean she's a lesbian and might mean that she only prefers them in a very literal sense and is bi, Pedro is bi/pan, Noone is heavily implied to be ace, Legio is probably ace, Callen, Kharrus and Marie are straight in an or-possibly-bisexual way (Callen and Marie are married and Kharrus and Raine is explicitly straight (because her sister mentions it). Solia, Jonah, Arcanus, Antony, Kalira, Elena, Kayros, and The Hunter are never specified.

And now you have more information on the secret lives of my RPG characters than you will ever need.

[Shadowscale]

You obviously sleep with whomever and whatever will advance you in society towards becoming arch dictator of your dms world whilst keeping a little pink book of favors people owe you.

[Anarion]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

I've played a fairly equal mix of men and women (including ponies) in games that I've been in. Also in videogames where you get to pick your gender. I think most of my characters have been straight, but for some it didn't really come up. When it did, I was always interested in using an RPG setting to simply explore romance without worrying about other issues. I suppose one character was a furry since the Changeling game that SiuiS and I played in had my leopard guy interested in SiuiS' owl girl.

Edit: Actually, Tessen was probably bisexual. She identified as heterosexual, but she went out with Cyprus (a very elegant woman) and was having weird feelings about the whole thing, and she was interested in going out with Errant had things not taken a turn for the monstrous in that game.

I identify as asexual with some remaining uncertainty and a fetish that I don't detail anywhere that can be read by the public. Feel free to PM if you want more of my perspective.



Related (in my mind): Golentan, Anarion, Coidzor, do you folks have strong gender identities? Or are they defined by being static more than [DEFINITELY THIS GENDER]?

I mentioned this one a little while back when we were talking about labels vs. identity. I do not strongly identify with my gender. I have no desire to change it, but I couldn't care less if people get it wrong. I use a female pony avatar here even though I'm a guy because I like the female pony body shape better. I have a relatively high voice and sometimes get mistaken for a woman on the phone and I never correct people because I don't really care (also I think it makes customer service people more helpful and I am not above exploiting this :smallamused:).

I do have a fairly dominant personality sometimes, which some would associate as a traditionally masculine trait. I'm pretty sure I'd have the same personality had I been born female, though.

[SiuiS]

Hmm. I suppose I don't see it, but I play with adults.

Yeah. My gaming career started "professionally" when I was 9, and the majority of people are either juvenile or refrain from the topics because of conditioning and fear of the juvenile. I had a group here in the playground that was capable of adult stuff and then managed to burn my bridges while fiddling a merry jig, and then we all kinda mourned drifting apart. Le sigh.


I identify as genderqueer. I go along with "male/masculine" because people seeing me assume it to be true, because no gender appeals more than another, and because I'm secure enough in myself to not care what other people think about it (whether I'm in a "masculine" or "feminine" mode at the time, I don't care what people think:



There are definitely, ah, practical reasons why playing a straight woman without getting juvenile about it might be balked at. Certainly not wanting to have to RP out any romance scenes with, well, any of my DMs, male or female, has been a contributing factor to my characters being disinterested in sex, sexuality, romance, or attractive damsels in distress or oiled up barbarians.

Unless those oiled up barbarians looked like a good challenge in a fight, seemed potentially recruitable as minions, or there was money involved.

I'm also rather hit-or-miss with romance scenes in fiction, sometimes they're rather interesting but most of the time they're just so much filler.

Aye. I've only had one character for whom romance was a point of importance, at a game of trusted folk, and still managed to get flak from someone for a one-off sentence.

Well no, I'm thinking D&D specifically. Nameless Snow Owl was having some interesting times with a leopard didn't fit her usual "user/luster/player/court intrigue" expectations.



Hm? I'm not quite sure I'm following the question. Or at least, I believe I have a fairly good idea of what a strong gender identity would constitute, but I'm a bit fuzzier on what a gender identity that's defined as being static more than [DEFINITELY THIS GENDER] would entail.

I suppose I fluctuate to some extent, since I'm only consciously aware of being male when reminded by context or something happening, but when I am consciously aware of it, it's more than just an awareness of that physicality or of having those body parts. I think the furthest away from that state of heightened male consciousness of maleness is more distracted/absentminded/hyper-focused on something rather than any sort of feeling of not having gender, even as a passive rather than active thing.

Though I'd really only define myself as strongly gendered as male due to the contrast between what I'm aware of in myself and what I've heard from people who are weakly gendered or too apathetic on gender to be agender but could take or leave gender itself. So I guess if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say middling-strongly gendered male?

That makes sense.

What I meant was, do you specifically feel male, or do you just not feel that you need to challenge your gender identity? Uh, like, "this is what I am, and it's constant, and it may as well be 'male' because why not, it fits, so I'm going to call it male" versus "yup. Definitely a man, 100%, not just constant but constantly manly".

I cannot word from brain day before tomorrow it is known.



Edit: Actually, Tessen was probably bisexual. She identified as heterosexual, but she went out with Cyprus (a very elegant woman) and was having weird feelings about the whole thing, and she was interested in going out with Errant had things not taken a turn for the monstrous in that game.

I think this caused me to lump you in with the GM, as a quantum lesbian player.



I mentioned this one a little while back when we were talking about labels vs. identity. I do not strongly identify with my gender. I have no desire to change it, but I couldn't care less if people get it wrong. I use a female pony avatar here even though I'm a guy because I like the female pony body shape better. I have a relatively high voice and sometimes get mistaken for a woman on the phone and I never correct people because I don't really care (also I think it makes customer service people more helpful and I am not above exploiting this :smallamused:).

Indeed. I Didn't flag it at the time because it wasn't important – it did not inform my sense of your self – but in the context of my being directly curious it would be filed properly.

That's question was open to all by the bye, I just had specific targets as well as general curiosity.

[Zurvan]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

Is that really relevant in a RPG?

I may sound very childish but most of the time I play I want to kill dragons and save the world not try to seduce a NPC that the DM is interpreting(I'm the DM most of the time anyway).

What is the fun of doing that? Can someone explain to me?

[Kesnit]

Is that really relevant in a RPG?

I may sound very childish but most of the time I play I want to kill dragons and save the world not try to seduce a NPC that the DM is interpreting(I'm the DM most of the time anyway).

What is the fun of doing that? Can someone explain to me?

Depends on the game. Most of the D&D games I've been in have been more hack-and-slash, so the concept of relationships never came up. World of Darkness is more character-focused, so relationships/orientation are more likely to come up. As I said above, I played a Changling whose orientation was a specific part of the character concept.

[golentan]

Is that really relevant in a RPG?

I may sound very childish but most of the time I play I want to kill dragons and save the world not try to seduce a NPC that the DM is interpreting(I'm the DM most of the time anyway).

What is the fun of doing that? Can someone explain to me?

Getting inside the character's skin is a big deal for me. Not every RPG is about killing the dragon and saving the kingdom, and a lot of stories end with folks retiring with their loved ones to raise a family. I don't need to flirt with characters to try to understand what my character likes in the people around him.

Also, I play a lot of Exalted. I'm trying to get a dragonblooded game running: marriage and love and sex are really important questions in such a game, carrying a ton of politics and pressure to pass on the gift of the dragons to children.

[Ashtagon]

I can't quite work out why this isn't a damn good point. I'm sure it isn't, but I can't see the counter argument. Care to help?

http://img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/aMbqxo1_460s_v1.jpg

Simple: Men and women are not equal. Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement. Sufficiently strong women are welcome to work those jobs, but they would be subject to the same strength requirement as the men. I'd be pretty annoyed if such a woman suffered sexual harassment at work though, same as any other workplace.

[Anarion]

Is that really relevant in a RPG?

I may sound very childish but most of the time I play I want to kill dragons and save the world not try to seduce a NPC that the DM is interpreting(I'm the DM most of the time anyway).

What is the fun of doing that? Can someone explain to me?

If you're playing a tactical game, I don't think it comes up much. A lot of the games that I've played, though, have been games focused primarily on character dynamics. Settings were in coffee shops, restaurants, and city streets. Even if the characters had magic powers, the challenge tended to be getting other people to buy in to your agenda, not blowing up monsters. When you're spending your time getting into the character's head and thinking about social relationships, I think it's pretty natural to think about romance as well. A lunch out with someone might be primarily designed around agreeing to pursue the same magical project, but sexual interest in the interaction can make the NPC suddenly very interesting or (if one is more calculating) easy to manipulate. It just comes up in those kinds of interactions.

Occasionally, it's even totally unintended. I had no plans for my character to try and woo SiuiS' character in our Changeling game. But we were in France, there was lots of wine, and the character personalities meshed in a way where it suddenly seemed really interesting to pursue it.

[Axinian]

Simple: Men and women are not equal. Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement. Sufficiently strong women are welcome to work those jobs, but they would be subject to the same strength requirement as the men. I'd be pretty annoyed if such a woman suffered sexual harassment at work though, same as any other workplace.

Well, also has other people have pointed out, there HAVE been significant calls for equality in these areas (especially coal mining) so the images are just straight up wrong.

[Coidzor]

Simple: Men and women are not equal.

That inequality and the double standards for men and women exist is part of the problem, yes. :smalltongue: And this image is either denying the inequalities and injustices that women face or it's saying that Feminism is a poison that has taken over the world. So, either way, it's way off-base there, as has been pointed out earlier.


Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement. Sufficiently strong women are welcome to work those jobs, but they would be subject to the same strength requirement as the men.

It's already been pointed out earlier that this is not the case because women do face additional barriers to entry, above and beyond mere brute strength. If you've got something to show otherwise, then, well, good for your corner of the world, I suppose.


I'd be pretty annoyed if such a woman suffered sexual harassment at work though, same as any other workplace.

I should hope so, though your tone seems to indicate that you doubt women actually suffer sexual harassment which is slightly confusing unless you're like, in Sweden or something. :smallconfused:


Is that really relevant in a RPG?

I may sound very childish but most of the time I play I want to kill dragons and save the world not try to seduce a NPC that the DM is interpreting(I'm the DM most of the time anyway).

What is the fun of doing that? Can someone explain to me?

As Kesnit pointed out, it depends on the game. As others have pointed out earlier, it has come up directly in their games. It's been hinted at, but a character's sexual, gender, and romantic orientation can have an influence on their behavior and characterization beyond the simple direct component of whether they're trying to get with anyone and who they're trying to get with.

Well, the appeal is that it's a different kind of story from killing dragons, at the most basic level, though I can't speak to all of the motivations and appeal because I prefer to keep things segregated so that something is either shared erotica, roleplaying, or my own personal fiction that may or may not eventually be turned into something publishable.

[SiuiS]

Is that really relevant in a RPG?

I may sound very childish but most of the time I play I want to kill dragons and save the world not try to seduce a NPC that the DM is interpreting(I'm the DM most of the time anyway).

What is the fun of doing that? Can someone explain to me?

The purpose of role playing is to play a role. Sometimes that's the hero, sometimes that's the merchant. It's actually a thing in European LARPs for example, that people will go out for a week long retreat... To play a farmer or shop keeper and not a mighty warrior.


Simple: Men and women are not equal. Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement. Sufficiently strong women are welcome to work those jobs, but they would be subject to the same strength requirement as the men. I'd be pretty annoyed if such a woman suffered sexual harassment at work though, same as any other workplace.

Eh. This is obfuscation. The jobs self-select for potential; while women trend towards weaker than men, the women who apply for these jobs do not trend toward below the benchmarks needed.

[Mono Vertigo]

Simple: Men and women are not equal. Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement.

It's relevant to note, I think, that we're still researching why they're not equal, and whether it's because of nature or nurture. There's a hypothesis, which I find interesting, that over many generations, girls used to receive less food or care than boys, hindering their developments, and that physically weaker women were more likely to become mothers and pass on their genes (and therefore the genetic part of their physical traits). And, of course, boys are encouraged more than girls to do sports and physical activites. Hence, you end up with women that are, on average, quite a bit inferior physically to guys.

Alas, I can't remember a specific study or article about that, nor do I have the time right now to research it, so unless it's confirmed as a real scientific hypothesis, this falls under "pulling stuff out of your backside" rule, therefore, I'll have to GM my own solo game, and include Drizz't and a Kender in the party.
... this rule might have a tiny loophole somewhere.

[noparlpf]

Seems pretty reasonable considering fairly similar hypotheses for sexual dimorphism in other apes.

[Heliomance]

It's relevant to note, I think, that we're still researching why they're not equal, and whether it's because of nature or nurture. There's a hypothesis, which I find interesting, that over many generations, girls used to receive less food or care than boys, hindering their developments, and that physically weaker women were more likely to become mothers and pass on their genes (and therefore the genetic part of their physical traits). And, of course, boys are encouraged more than girls to do sports and physical activites. Hence, you end up with women that are, on average, quite a bit inferior physically to guys.

Alas, I can't remember a specific study or article about that, nor do I have the time right now to research it, so unless it's confirmed as a real scientific hypothesis, this falls under "pulling stuff out of your backside" rule, therefore, I'll have to GM my own solo game, and include Drizz't and a Kender in the party.
... this rule might have a tiny loophole somewhere.

That's all well and good, but a known side effect of HRT is decreased strength (if going MtF) or increased strength (if going FtM).

[golentan]

That's all well and good, but a known side effect of HRT is decreased strength (if going MtF) or increased strength (if going FtM).

Well, if the relevant genes affect the bodies' response to androgen hormones and are not sex chromosome linked, rather than there being a gene on the Y chromosome that causes increased muscle mass there's no reason that doesn't fit the hypothesis.

[SowZ]

It's relevant to note, I think, that we're still researching why they're not equal, and whether it's because of nature or nurture. There's a hypothesis, which I find interesting, that over many generations, girls used to receive less food or care than boys, hindering their developments, and that physically weaker women were more likely to become mothers and pass on their genes (and therefore the genetic part of their physical traits). And, of course, boys are encouraged more than girls to do sports and physical activites. Hence, you end up with women that are, on average, quite a bit inferior physically to guys.

Alas, I can't remember a specific study or article about that, nor do I have the time right now to research it, so unless it's confirmed as a real scientific hypothesis, this falls under "pulling stuff out of your backside" rule, therefore, I'll have to GM my own solo game, and include Drizz't and a Kender in the party.
... this rule might have a tiny loophole somewhere.

However, even girls that do sports and work out and exercise regularly? They can become stronger than the average man, but not really stronger than the average man who works out the same amount. It is worth noting that in ROTC, (the army college program,) everyone follows a similar work out regimen. They also all take a physical fitness test. In the entire history of ROTC, not a single woman has ever equaled the male average, much less the male high end. As for social pressures encouraging women to be mothers and not athletes, that would only affect evolution if it favored women who were naturally, (genetically,) stronger or weaker. In which case it is selection pressure, which is nature. So yeah, there's truth to that hypothesis probably. Still. Social pressures are a common driver for evolution. But what the parents of a child decide to do, how much nutrition they get, etc. doesn't change evolution. You may as well suggest that getting an arm cut off makes you more likely to birth armless children.

Although social factors do certainly widen the strength gap. Men and women who work out similarly have fairly similar constitutions and leg strength, (still a difference, but far less than upper body.) A more common theory, (I believe it is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis,) is that men devote more of their energy towards muscles growth, (one reason they typically have larger appetites, but of course this varies,) because they are prone to be the warriors because they are more disposable than women. We see this in other mammals and to a much greater extent in insects. If a man in the tribe dies, it's not that big of a deal. The men left may be less likely to die. If a woman dies, it hurts the tribes ability to grow significantly, making them less disposable from a purely evolutionary standpoint. Of course both genders are equally important, but as far as individuals more men can afford to die. This is not to make any sort of ethical statement.

Anyway. This evolutionary value placed on genders is largely irrelevant in modern society where people are largely monogamous and humans are approaching their population plateau. It is worth noting that all the genetic information men use, women have stored away and vice-versa. Every line of code. Other than hormones, there may be other ways to activate these genes that we'll discover eventually. Who knows. I'd like to see that, personally.

[golentan]

Just to point out, there are more species where females are physically stronger, larger, or dominant than male dominated species. Also, that is a really simplistic view of genetics and gene expression.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-04-29-ScreenShot20130429at11.01.21AM.png

[SowZ]

Just to point out, there are more species where females are physically stronger, larger, or dominant than male dominated species. Also, that is a really simplistic view of genetics and gene expression.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-04-29-ScreenShot20130429at11.01.21AM.png

Absolutely, there are plenty of species that fit that model, (where women are larger.) And plenty of species where the female is more valuable, (it would be bad if she died,) and still much physically stronger. I mentioned insects. But humans don't really fit those models. We are more similar to to other mammals that fit the model I described. The graph above is not of mammals but all animals. Mammals pretty much across the board have stronger males. There's a few notable exceptions. Certain bats. A few others.

And everything I said is just one factor, not the only one by a longshot. Other factors may be present in other species resulting in larger females. However, what I described is a factor in deciding why men are more prone to be the fighters, and not a small one by any margin. Just as strong a factor, though, is that men fight amongst themselves to compete for mates. This is something we see in most mammals, too. What I described above explains why this behavior benefits the species as a whole. This is no way means people are obligated to follow this trend. There have been women who have fought in every major war in history and done very well.

Do you also want to talk about epigenetics or something? Feel free. And please don't try and discredit me with vague statements implying you know more about genetics than me but otherwise leaving it unaddressed. You may very well know more, but that kind of tactic is insulting. Point to specific statements you disagree with, please.

[SiuiS]

It's relevant to note, I think, that we're still researching why they're not equal, and whether it's because of nature or nurture. There's a hypothesis, which I find interesting, that over many generations, girls used to receive less food or care than boys, hindering their developments, and that physically weaker women were more likely to become mothers and pass on their genes (and therefore the genetic part of their physical traits). And, of course, boys are encouraged more than girls to do sports and physical activites. Hence, you end up with women that are, on average, quite a bit inferior physically to guys.

Alas, I can't remember a specific study or article about that, nor do I have the time right now to research it, so unless it's confirmed as a real scientific hypothesis, this falls under "pulling stuff out of your backside" rule, therefore, I'll have to GM my own solo game, and include Drizz't and a Kender in the party.
... this rule might have a tiny loophole somewhere.

That is a current hypothesis but it's more to find out the amount attributed to upbringing versus the amount based on hormones. Testosterone increases muscle mass yield from exercise, especially ballistic exercise for fast twitch muscle growth. It also does something to the nerve receptors allowing the muscle to contract faster. Estrogen comes with increased muscular recovery and pain tolerance but actively converts muscle tissue to adipose. Bone structure changes also occur although some of those are likely informed by muscular growth and dynamic force.

Existing sex hormones do control maximum muscular strength and ease of gain. That's not what is required for a lot of these jobs however; the benchmark for labor is not ballistic strength but endurance. This is what muscle tissue under female hormones excels at provided they have the tissue mass to lift or haul in the first place.

The issue is the bone structure. Some women are just tiny, and the jobs are default for certain sizes (which goes both ways, my job is designed for people six inches shorter than me and it's damaging my back and knees...).


Well, if the relevant genes affect the bodies' response to androgen hormones and are not sex chromosome linked, rather than there being a gene on the Y chromosome that causes increased muscle mass there's no reason that doesn't fit the hypothesis.


However, even girls that do sports and work out and exercise regularly? They can become stronger than the average man, but not really stronger than the average man who works out the same amount. It is worth noting that in ROTC, (the army college program,) everyone follows a similar work out regimen. They also all take a physical fitness test.

This regimen does not train for strength as we commonly know it. Many strong men come out of service training leaner and weaker, because the muscle mass for that extra power was a hindrance in all other arenas.

[SowZ]

That is a current hypothesis but it's more to find out the amount attributed to upbringing versus the amount based on hormones. Testosterone increases muscle mass yield from exercise, especially ballistic exercise for fast twitch muscle growth. It also does something to the nerve receptors allowing the muscle to contract faster. Estrogen comes with increased muscular recovery and pain tolerance but actively converts muscle tissue to adipose. Bone structure changes also occur although some of those are likely informed by muscular growth and dynamic force.

Existing sex hormones do control maximum muscular strength and ease of gain. That's not what is required for a lot of these jobs however; the benchmark for labor is not ballistic strength but endurance. This is what muscle tissue under female hormones excels at provided they have the tissue mass to lift or haul in the first place.

The issue is the bone structure. Some women are just tiny, and the jobs are default for certain sizes (which goes both ways, my job is designed for people six inches shorter than me and it's damaging my back and knees...).





This regimen does not train for strength as we commonly know it. Many strong men come out of service training leaner and weaker, because the muscle mass for that extra power was a hindrance in all other arenas.

Sure, a female body builder or strength trainer might easily trounce the vast majority of male military serviceman at strength contests. The ROTCS thing was just an example of when men and women are training along similar guidelines. If we instead compared the peak of men and women who strength train, and compared Olympians or other strength competitions, the gender gap remains. This is not to say it is at all in-feasible for a woman to be stronger than the average man. Just that when a man and woman train the same amount and equally hard, and both are in shape and not of drastically different builds, the man is almost always going to have more raw strength.

It is not something I prefer to believe, I would probably prefer to believe something different that doesn't make my feminist sensibilities uncomfortable, but it is something that numbers show and something that is true in other apes and most mammals. I am very open to alternate opinions and evidence that is contrary to this, but as it stands, I find no other viewpoint that has the data to back it up and is as consistent with an evolutionary perspective.

[SiuiS]

My point is that the gender gap exists but isn't relevant. If a job requires right hours of lifting fifty pounds, then restricting women because they max out at one hundred instead of two hundred "because men are stronger" is deliberate malicious obfuscation of fact, and routinely happens.

Gender gap exists. Whether it needs to be brought up and considered every time it is is a different matter.

[SowZ]

My point is that the gender gap exists but isn't relevant. If a job requires right hours of lifting fifty pounds, then restricting women because they max out at one hundred instead of two hundred "because men are stronger" is deliberate malicious obfuscation of fact, and routinely happens.

Gender gap exists. Whether it needs to be brought up and considered every time it is is a different matter.

Then we are in agreement. Women are perfectly capable of working such jobs. If anything, some research indicates they are more like to stay more focused and have fewer accidents. Even soldiers, women have been competent warriors for all time even if there's fewer of them. There is even research to indicate that for firearms, if you take a man and a women with similar aptitudes and training, the women is more like to be the better of the pair at marksmanship.

[Coidzor]

Then we are in agreement. Women are perfectly capable of working such jobs. If anything, some research indicates they are more like to stay more focused and have fewer accidents. Even soldiers, women have been competent warriors for all time even if there's fewer of them. There is even research to indicate that for firearms, if you take a man and a women with similar aptitudes and training, the women is more like to be the better of the pair at marksmanship.

Well that was a rather pointless tangent then if you were just going to end up saying you agreed all along. :smalltongue:

[golentan]

My objection was more to the sweeping statements about evolutionary value and the expression of genes. When you used insects as an example of male disposability that really bugged me.

[SowZ]

My objection was more to the sweeping statements about evolutionary value and the expression of genes. When you used insects as an example of male disposability that really bugged me.

Pun intended? It was in no way a moral or ethical statement. The moral value of a male and female life are equal. When I say that it matters less when a male member of a mammal pack dies, it is in no way related to ethics. Nature couldn't care less who dies. And both genders as a whole are equally valuable. And of course male disposability from an evolutionary standpoint is far more extreme in insects than mammals, so it isn't a very good equivalence on my part. Gene expression is complicated, and something I'll admit I'd like to understand a lot better, but is there anything specific you think is not true about my statement?


Well that was a rather pointless tangent then if you were just going to end up saying you agreed all along. :smalltongue:

Just for posterities sake. I agree that women should be equal in physically intense fields, but using proper logic to arrive at the correct conclusion is, to me, as important as having the correct conclusion. I think women should work in such fields with no discrimination, and that they are just as able to perform well in such fields, but I want to believe this for valid reasons. Ultimately, though, you are probably right that drawing such a fine distinction was probably a waste of time on my part.

[golentan]

Well, in general genes are expressed or controlled by activation due to chemical messengers (primarily hormones) which are released by environmental factors or other genes. Phenotype doesn't always match Genotype, and you also have to consider the animal's Proteome as the measure of what's being expressed. It's nowhere near as simple as expressing it in terms of "all the same code is there," because the code may well be dormant. For example in any given female cell only one X chromosome is being expressed, and in males the Y chromosome controls almost nothing except the activation sequence to make the gonads develop as testes.

I'm sorry if I offended earlier, by the by.

[SowZ]

Well, in general genes are expressed or controlled by activation due to chemical messengers (primarily hormones) which are released by environmental factors or other genes. Phenotype doesn't always match Genotype, and you also have to consider the animal's Proteome as the measure of what's being expressed. It's nowhere near as simple as expressing it in terms of "all the same code is there," because the code may well be dormant. For example in any given female cell only one X chromosome is being expressed, and in males the Y chromosome controls almost nothing except the activation sequence to make the gonads develop as testes.

I'm sorry if I offended earlier, by the by.

Sure. I can't say I could have recalled the term Proteome, (I'll research it in the next couple days, I'm sure, danke,) but I know the general concept. Chemical activation, genotype, all that jazz. But all the same information is in both genders, even if some of it is dormant.

Otherwise, I'm being over-sensitive, I've been grumpy all day. You didn't really say anything that offensive

[golentan]

Otherwise, I'm being over-sensitive, I've been grumpy all day. You didn't really say anything that offensive

You and me both, brother. I'm sleep deprived and achey.

[Ifni]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

I play mostly cis female characters, but with a fairly wide range of sexual orientations (straight, gay, bi and ace, at least). I've played cis male characters but find it both easier and more interesting in spaces where the other players and GM don't know my actual gender, which means I haven't done it for a while. I am hesitant to play a trans character because of worries about misrepresentation, as I don't have close trans friends. In contrast, I'm fine with playing people who feel sexual/romantic attraction even though I'm ace/aro - since allosexuals/alloromantics are the majority, I feel like I have sufficient data on that one (and I'm not likely to accidentally propagate some horrible stereotype about allosexual/alloromantic people).

I've had a few fairly rewarding romance arcs in PbP Exalted games, all in male/female relationships, although one of those PCs was definitely bi, one was bi in my headcanon although it never came up in-game, and the third apparently came across as bi even though I never said it outright. (It is possible my characters tend to default to bi/pan because I find strictly-gender-based sexual attraction to be another level of "do not grok" over sexual attraction itself.) I basically regard romance arcs as an interesting way to motivate characters and get them to develop; the currently-active character who has a romance arc also has a roughly equally important and powerful arc involving a platonic friendship. I'm now mostly playing games with a heavy focus on "cooperative storytelling" over dungeon-crawling, though.

[Axinian]

Gender gap exists. Whether it needs to be brought up and considered every time it is is a different matter.

And people have an unfortunate tendency to say that men and women aren't "equal." Strinctly speaking, yes, but using the term equal has unfortunate value implications, as though one sex is lesser than the other. There are differences yes, but both have equal value as human beings and should have equal rights and privileges. Saying that men and women are different seems to be more accurate to me, as it doesn't imply that one is worth less. It just means there are differences in certain areas and frankly, those differences are irrelevant most of the time.

Edit: I just realize I was unclear in that I meant in the context of this conversation which was concerning ability in various areas.

[golentan]

The way I like to think of it, sapient lives are infinities. Infinity is not equal to infinity, attempting to compare infinity with another infinity always returns a result of undefined. No two human lives are equal, but it's impossible to say one is more or less valuable than another.

[SowZ]

The way I like to think of it, sapient lives are infinities. Infinity is not equal to infinity, attempting to compare infinity with another infinity always returns a result of undefined. No two human lives are equal, but it's impossible to say one is more or less valuable than another.

Although some infinities are objectively larger than others.

[golentan]

Although some infinities are objectively larger than others.

Yeah. That's when you get into nonhumans, or perhaps future humans though. Deliberately engineered and improved minds. Sapience seems to be binary, you have it or you don't, but once you have it you can start making improvements. You people are at the lowest rung of a very tall ladder, and I'm looking forward to watching you make the climb.

[SiuiS]

And people have an unfortunate tendency to say that men and women aren't "equal." Strinctly speaking, yes, but using the term equal has unfortunate value implications, as though one sex is lesser than the other.

Aye. It's why I sort of campaign against the common use of technicalities and 'logic'. It's impossible to separate the emotional response from the thoughts connected to it. As long as people insist on bringing up the technical inequality, it will be form in people's minds, as you say. I find it better to not insist on technical accuracy when that accuracy isn't relevant to the points made. Ancillary, I believe? No. There's a word that means applicable but unnecessary. Darn, that would be a good word to remember.


Yeah. That's when you get into nonhumans, or perhaps future humans though. Deliberately engineered and improved minds. Sapience seems to be binary, you have it or you don't, but once you have it you can start making improvements. You people are at the lowest rung of a very tall ladder, and I'm looking forward to watching you make the climb.

It's a good feeling to know in not alone. Thank you, dear friend. :smallsmile:

[SowZ]

Yeah. That's when you get into nonhumans, or perhaps future humans though. Deliberately engineered and improved minds. Sapience seems to be binary, you have it or you don't, but once you have it you can start making improvements. You people are at the lowest rung of a very tall ladder, and I'm looking forward to watching you make the climb.

Can I ask what you are talking about?

[golentan]

Can I ask what you are talking about?

The future! I give it tops 20 years before you people have computerized children or start fiddling with your own brains.

[SowZ]

The future! I give it tops 20 years before you people have computerized children or start fiddling with your own brains.

Sure, I'm a transhumanist. I mean speaking in the third person.

[golentan]

Sure, I'm a transhumanist. I mean speaking in the third person.

"Human" is a subset of the superset "People." Depending on definition, I'm not sure I could count as a member of the smaller set, and I don't care to include myself whether or not I could. Consider me a sympathetic third party.

[SowZ]

"Human" is a subset of the superset "People." Depending on definition, I'm not sure I could count as a member of the smaller set, and I don't care to include myself whether or not I could. Consider me a sympathetic third party.

Huh, well, whatever then.

[golentan]

Huh, well, whatever then.

I've found from centuries of dealing with me that the best solution is to ignore me, punctuated occasionally with slaps. Though I never mean to slap myself. My hands just have a mind of my own.

[Coidzor]

So how do you tell the difference between a bisexual character and a lesbian character that was just in denial about it until the end of her character arc anyway?

[SiuiS]

"Human" is a subset of the superset "People." Depending on definition, I'm not sure I could count as a member of the smaller set, and I don't care to include myself whether or not I could. Consider me a sympathetic third party.

Indeed. It's a strange concept for some, so I just say I'm weird and they let it go.


So how do you tell the difference between a bisexual character and a lesbian character that was just in denial about it until the end of her character arc anyway?

Why would you write a lesbian who is in denial as a character arc? I cannot see the value. :smallconfused:


*


A point was made recently that the support thread hasn't really been about support so much as rapport, so I think I'm gonna mellow out on my responses unless they're involved in that support function. A lot of this stuff would be better off I. The questions & discussion thread anyway, or PMs. :)

[Kajhera]

There was a point in my life I interpreted my past self as lesbian in denial. I'm now pretty sure I'm bi, but thinking about being lesbian and in denial is still not a valueless thing to me.

[Coidzor]

Why would you write a lesbian who is in denial as a character arc? I cannot see the value. :smallconfused:

*shrug* Couldn't say as to the specifics of character arcs and plots and the raw nuts and bolts of writing. Representation is the first thing that comes to mind as a higher-order explanation.

Granted, I don't even know the right term for a woman who previously had thought she was straight but then later realized she was actually a lesbian or if there is such a thing as the proper term there.

This is ultimately in response to [TELEVISION SHOW], though, and how it's ambiguous whether the character or characters in question are lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, or some combination thereof.

Edit: No spoilers though, please.


A point was made recently that the support thread hasn't really been about support so much as rapport, so I think I'm gonna mellow out on my responses unless they're involved in that support function. A lot of this stuff would be better off I. The questions & discussion thread anyway, or PMs. :)

Uh... This is the Questions and Discussion thread. :smallconfused:

[SiuiS]

*shrug* Couldn't say as to the specifics of character arcs and plots and the raw nuts and bolts of writing. Representation is the first thing that comes to mind as a higher-order explanation.

Aye.



Uh... This is the Questions and Discussion thread. :smallconfused:

Indeed. There's a lot of cross pollination though do the point stands; I don't like technical accuracy for it's own sake and I should work on being more supportive else mum, so I will. :)

[banthesun]

Hi Questions thread! I've been wanting to have something of a discussion about allyship for a while, so I'm finally settling down to post my thoughts here.

Personally, I don't feel comfortable considering myself as an ally. For me, this is mainly because I see allyship as something you do, not something you are. I don't really find myself in many situations where I am standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people, ie. actually being an ally. On top of this, I have some views that I'm pretty sure members of said community would challenge, specifically regarding gay marriage in NSW (as far as I know, civil unions or defacto relationships afford the same statuses and protections as marriage, and are open to couples regardless of their makeup). To me this seems counter to the level of listening one would need to really be an ally.

Also, I've recently come across this article by Mattie Brice (http://www.mattiebrice.com/rethinking-allyship/), which discusses problems with the concept of allyship. In brief, she talks about the power relationship involved in people self-identifying as allies, and how it can be exploitative of the people they're claiming to be allies of. It suggests that the entire concept of allyship needs to be renegotiated, but I'm not sure what the solution here would necessarily be (and I wouldn't be in a position to suggest a solution, even if I had one).

Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought of the concept of allyship. I feel like I've been a bit rambly with my post, but hopefully it wasn't too messy. Thanks for reading. :smallsmile:

[Gwynfrid]

I've always be wary of the concept of "ally", because it's inherently divisive. "Ally" implies there's an enemy, and implies a kind of compact, explicit or implicit, to fight in a war of some sort. Also, it is a political notion, especially with the example given (by the way, with "NSW" I assume you mean the state in Australia, right?), and politics isn't a welcome topic in this forum.

[SowZ]

The Civil Unions thing is fine if you think that straight couples shouldn't get marriages but only Civil Unions. If you think that gay people should only be offered Civil Unions but you should have the option of both Civil Unions and marriages, yes, you're right, that is a problem because it means that you believe you should have more rights and liberties than other human beings.

[Anarion]

Hi Questions thread! I've been wanting to have something of a discussion about allyship for a while, so I'm finally settling down to post my thoughts here.


Cool, thanks for coming. :smallsmile:



Personally, I don't feel comfortable considering myself as an ally. For me, this is mainly because I see allyship as something you do, not something you are. I don't really find myself in many situations where I am standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people, ie. actually being an ally.


Do you think this is because you don't know many people of different orientations from yourself, because you wouldn't stand up for them if the opportunity came up, or because the moments are passing you by without you even realizing that they occur?

Here's an easy one. Do you friends call things gay when they mean "bad"? Do you? Are you okay with people doing that?



On top of this, I have some views that I'm pretty sure members of said community would challenge, specifically regarding gay marriage in NSW (as far as I know, civil unions or defacto relationships afford the same statuses and protections as marriage, and are open to couples regardless of their makeup). To me this seems counter to the level of listening one would need to really be an ally.


While nitpicking definitions can be bad, words are very important. I'm assuming from the way you've approached the topic, that you're a heterosexual with an interest in monogamous relationships. Would you be okay with never being allowed to be married and being limited only to a civil union?

Also, you should be aware that you're wrong from a strictly practical standpoint. I don't know a ton about international law, but I can tell you about the United States. In the US, there are multiple levels of law: Federal (that is, national), State, and local. "Marriage" as a legal issue intersects with all three. There are also hundreds or even thousands of laws on the books that refer to marriage, including everything from hospital visitation to taxes, to property inheritance upon a person's death. Changing every single one of those laws to include the term "civil union" has not been done and would be extremely difficult to do (even a blanket "everywhere it says 'marriage' add 'civil union' wouldn't solve everything due to use of archaic wording and interpretive challenges).

So, you should be aware that, in addition to any questions of personal recognition, it's simply untrue that civil unions offer the same things as marriage.


Edit: Here's an example. Someone dies. A handwritten will is found that seems to leave everything to the person's brother and nothing to the other member of the civil union. If there were a marriage, the spouse would have the right, under the common law (it's not written down in statute except in a small number of states) to receive some of the person's property anyway because the law has decided that you can't screw over your spouse in your will. The civil union guy though, might get screwed. Even if a statute said "everywhere it says marriage, add civil union," this law comes from a combination of case precedent and historical policy. Nowhere does it say "marriage" in a single law that can be updated to include civil unions. If you try to sue about this and get a conservative judge (average judge age is 50+ so guess how likely that is), that judge will probably rule that the common law doesn't extend to civil unions and the person who's lover just died also gets screwed out of everything.



Also, I've recently come across this article by Mattie Brice (http://www.mattiebrice.com/rethinking-allyship/), which discusses problems with the concept of allyship. In brief, she talks about the power relationship involved in people self-identifying as allies, and how it can be exploitative of the people they're claiming to be allies of. It suggests that the entire concept of allyship needs to be renegotiated, but I'm not sure what the solution here would necessarily be (and I wouldn't be in a position to suggest a solution, even if I had one).


I'm not a fan of that line of thinking. It's a good thing to make people conscious of the ways that they can offend without meaning to, but telling people who want to be helpful to go away tends to be counter-productive in my experience.

In my opinion, step 1 is to say that if people want to be friends, they can be friends however they want. Step 2 is once they're friends, gentling pointing out if they do something wrong or offensive unintentionally, and helping them understand how they can be helpful. If somebody is trying to be exploitive, it quickly becomes obvious when they don't correct their behavior or pay attention to the people they claim to be friends with. And there's nothing new about that, it's just being a jerk.



Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought of the concept of allyship. I feel like I've been a bit rambly with my post, but hopefully it wasn't too messy. Thanks for reading. :smallsmile:

The concept is great, the execution may need improvement.

I'm curious though. Was it the article you read that brought you here now? Or something else? You seem to be unsure of your own position and if you don't mind my prying, I'd very much like to know what motivated you to join the discussion. Please ignore this last part if you'd rather not discuss it, though.

[Coidzor]

Personally, I don't feel comfortable considering myself as an ally. For me, this is mainly because I see allyship as something you do, not something you are. I don't really find myself in many situations where I am standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people, ie. actually being an ally. On top of this, I have some views that I'm pretty sure members of said community would challenge, specifically regarding gay marriage in NSW (as far as I know, civil unions or defacto relationships afford the same statuses and protections as marriage, and are open to couples regardless of their makeup). To me this seems counter to the level of listening one would need to really be an ally.

I think you'd actually have to elaborate on that point for us to grok what you're trying to say there. And why you'd hold that position.

So we can properly and specifically unpack and address this issue.


Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought of the concept of allyship. I feel like I've been a bit rambly with my post, but hopefully it wasn't too messy. Thanks for reading. :smallsmile:

If it's actually an important self-label to someone, then they've misunderstood something somewhere and have, in all likelihood, messed up.

On the other hand, ideas like "you must have attended X number of protests, signed Y number of petitions, donated Z dollars to GSRM causes, and spent such-and-such many hours personally consoling, supporting, and helping GSRM people in the past month or year" are highly distasteful to me.

[golentan]

Being an ally is pretty simple in my experience. Don't tell me I'm going to hell, don't assault me, don't try to make my sex life illegal or keep me from getting a marriage license based on the sex of my partner, and don't try to justify the actions of people who do any of those things.

[Gwynfrid]

Being an ally is pretty simple in my experience. Don't tell me I'm going to hell, don't assault me, don't try to make my sex life illegal or keep me from getting a marriage license based on the sex of my partner, and don't try to justify the actions of people who do any of those things.

That point about marriage is political so I will refrain from comment, but for all the others, it looks like being an ally and being a halfway decent and respectful human being isn't that much different. That's fine and I see no problem being an ally under that definition. But I don't think it is universally shared.

[Eldan]

Actually, I know exactly one person who calls things gay when he means bad. And he's gay. Incredibly over hte top camp gay even, sometimes. Also the only LGBT person I know, to my knowledge.

[SiuiS]

That point about marriage is political so I will refrain from comment, but for all the others, it looks like being an ally and being a halfway decent and respectful human being isn't that much different. That's fine and I see no problem being an ally under that definition. But I don't think it is universally shared.

That's the point. You'll notice that the difference is between "decent people" and "people who oppose gays" because decent people have no reason to oppose homosexuality.

[SowZ]

That's the point. You'll notice that the difference is between "decent people" and "people who oppose gays" because decent people have no reason to oppose homosexuality.


Indoctrination is stronger than that, though. Decent people won't actively go out trying to hurt people, but there are certainly decent people who think gay is sinful or whatever because they've been brainwashed to believe so. Just as there aren't decent neo-nazis who go around beating people up, but there are decent people who are anti-semites/racist/what-have-you. If being racist/homophobic/etc. instantly makes you a bad person, the vast majority of the world are bad people. Which I do not accept.

I've met plenty of people who have told me that the holocaust was exaggerated, or that there's a cabal of Jews manipulating the economies and media of all the world as some Semitic Illuminati plot, and it is hateful and disgusting, but I wouldn't say they are all bad people. Although I am sympathetic towards people who are routinely discriminated against feeling that racism/homophobia instantly makes someone a bad person because I recognize such people are so frequently harassed.

[SiuiS]

I would say they are stupid people, though.

It's simple. There's cognitive dissonance experienced when facts contradict one's desired world view. To resolve that cognitive dissonance one of two things must happen, you either accept the facts as true or you deny the facts. In this case, "deny the facts" is the choose to remain homophobic and uneducated camp. And I am firm on the idea that people who choose to be bigoted because maturing is hard are bad people.

E: firm. Firm on the idea. Seriously phone how do you mess that up?

[SowZ]

I would say they are stupid people, though.

It's simple. There's cognitive dissonance experienced when facts contradict one's desired world view. To resolve that cognitive dissonance one of two things must happen, you either accept the facts as true or you deny the facts. In this case, "deny the facts" is the choose to remain homophobic and uneducated camp. And I am firm on the idea that people who choose to be bigoted because maturing is hard are bad people.

E: firm. Firm on the idea. Seriously phone how do you mess that up?

But it is harder than that. You don't just mature and learn through sheer force of will. There usually has to be outside factors, meaning which people grow and which don't is at least partly luck. When an idea is ingrained in you from childhood and continually reinforced, neural pathways actually form which inhibit your physical ability to fairly consider alternative viewpoints. And then there are defense mechanisms that
belief systems have built in. These defense mechanisms can take the form of divine punishment, social ostracism, a condemnation of being unpatriotic, etc.

And a large portion of the people with such prejudiced beliefs are surrounded by people that reinforce said ignorance, and squelch any attempt for the mind to break free of this prison.

Changing a life long view isn't just hard.

I have witnessed, though, people who are intelligent and compassionate people have their racist/sexist/homophobic views soften and vanish as they age whereas mean/arrogant people allow such views to fester, and they became even more stubborn and hateful as they age. But this maturing process can be slow for most people. It takes years, in my observation.

[SiuiS]

Change over time is fine. It's still change. Crawl if you have to, but keep moving and all that.

[Anarion]

It takes years, in my observation.

I think it's less about time and more about proximity. People can be told and told things and exposed to them for years and never change. But if they see a good friend or a family member suffering and are faced first-hand with the reality that someone they know, KNOW, to be a good person is also an orientation that they've been told is sinful, it can break them out of that mindset.

[golentan]

That point about marriage is political so I will refrain from comment, but for all the others, it looks like being an ally and being a halfway decent and respectful human being isn't that much different. That's fine and I see no problem being an ally under that definition. But I don't think it is universally shared.

To other people it' political. To me it's my life. It's like claiming that someone complaining about being hungry is political because some people dislike foodstamps.

[Marnath]

But it is harder than that. You don't just mature and learn through sheer force of will. There usually has to be outside factors, meaning which people grow and which don't is at least partly luck. When an idea is ingrained in you from childhood and continually reinforced, neural pathways actually form which inhibit your physical ability to fairly consider alternative viewpoints. And then there are defense mechanisms that
belief systems have built in. These defense mechanisms can take the form of divine punishment, social ostracism, a condemnation of being unpatriotic, etc.

Speaking from experience, it's not the outside influences that start you down the path of letting go of your bigotry. You have to want to change. Before that, any outside arguments hit your defenses and are ignored. You can't "fix" a bigot until they want to change.

[Gwynfrid]

To other people it' political. To me it's my life. It's like claiming that someone complaining about being hungry is political because some people dislike foodstamps.

Yes. I get that. Unfortunately, being hungry isn't political, but a foodstamp program is - can't be helped. Politics does impact people lives. And I won't discuss it any further, as it would clearly violate forum rules.

[SiuiS]

Yes. I get that. Unfortunately, being hungry isn't political, but a foodstamp program is - can't be helped. Politics does impact people lives. And I won't discuss it any further, as it would clearly violate forum rules.

In my experience, by the time you say "I won't discuss it any further" it's too late, but to each their own. :smallwink:

The discussion of humans rights includes the right to marry. The specifics of how marriage happens and what it does and means gets political, but "I deserve to have the same happiness as straight people" is allowed. Just don't go into detail on licenses specifically.

[Shadowscale]

In my experience, by the time you say "I won't discuss it any further" it's too late, but to each their own. :smallwink:

The discussion of humans rights includes the right to marry. The specifics of how marriage happens and what it does and means gets political, but "I deserve to have the same happiness as straight people" is allowed. Just don't go into detail on licenses specifically.

I like the metaphor

I don't like chocolate cake therefore since I don't want to eat it no one should be allowed to do so.

It doesn't make sense does it?

I don't like that you're doing something I think is wrong, how would it affect you?

[SiuiS]

Morality is a bad road to go down with people like me. It's far more complex than usual because I understand that the root of all conflict and civility is violence. Moral stances aren't philosophies. They are ultimatums past which the point is "when you transgress this enough, you're not human enough that I need to respect your rights". That's why they're such a huge issue; if followed to their reasonable conclusions we would have war and genocide over... Everything we've had war and genocide over. Huh.

Anyway! Acknowledging that isn't condoning it, but it's a layer of discussion that needs to be touched on and explored before we can really get anywhere, and it requires an intimacy that large Internet groups don't have.

But yes, there does come a point where I don't like tapioca so if you do I'll imprison you or worse. I don't like murder so even if you do, you'll get in trouble for it. Etc.

[Anarion]

But yes, there does come a point where I don't like tapioca so if you do I'll imprison you or worse. I don't like murder so even if you do, you'll get in trouble for it. Etc.

SiuiS beat me to it, but yeah, the counter to the cake thing is: "I don't like it when people go around punching others in the face, so you don't get to do it."

At some level there's a list of stuff that's definitely okay, stuff that's definitely not okay, and then a fairly large grey area where reasonable minds may differ (example, is putting an arm around somebody's shoulder during conversation an okay touching?).

The thing is, trying to dig down, logically, as to how stuff falls into the okay, not okay, or unsure categories is this insane rabbit hole. You need to start with Plato, throw in some Aristotle, read up on your Thomas Aquinas, reference Kant, and then pick your three favorite modern philosophers and smash them into each other like bumper cars.

[Shadowscale]

SiuiS beat me to it, but yeah, the counter to the cake thing is: "I don't like it when people go around punching others in the face, so you don't get to do it."

At some level there's a list of stuff that's definitely okay, stuff that's definitely not okay, and then a fairly large grey area where reasonable minds may differ (example, is putting an arm around somebody's shoulder during conversation an okay touching?).

The thing is, trying to dig down, logically, as to how stuff falls into the okay, not okay, or unsure categories is this insane rabbit hole. You need to start with Plato, throw in some Aristotle, read up on your Thomas Aquinas, reference Kant, and then pick your three favorite modern philosophers and smash them into each other like bumper cars.

Life is complicated. Happiness is hard to achieve when everyone is different, yet I guess that makes it more worth it.

[Gwynfrid]

In my experience, by the time you say "I won't discuss it any further" it's too late, but to each their own. :smallwink:

Listen to the conspicuous sound of silence...


The discussion of humans rights includes the right to marry. The specifics of how marriage happens and what it does and means gets political, but "I deserve to have the same happiness as straight people" is allowed. Just don't go into detail on licenses specifically.

If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

(Edit: the only reason I pointed this out is in answer Golentan: to let him know that while I recognize and respect his very legitimate expression of need, we can't discuss the topic here. I'm happy to do that on another medium, although I thingk there isn't much I can say that's very original or interesting on it).

[Anarion]

If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

Everything is politics.

As far as I grasp its definition on this forum (and this is one guy's interpretation who isn't a mod, grab your saltshakers) that doesn't mean that talking is banned though. It does mean that it's a good idea to avoid issues that are currently considered hot-button divisive topics as well as rhetoric espoused by existing or historical candidates or parties from any country.

While human rights, in general, certainly intersect with the above, they aren't inherently divisive. We could, I think, discuss what sort of living conditions everyone needs, for example (I'd say shelter, some number of calories, and clean water, as a starting point). And there's nothing wrong with saying how important the right to self-expression is, though we probably can't talk about how best to secure that right under differing regimes.

I'm also hoping dearly that talking about what we can't talk about in a roundabout way is acceptable in this context.

[SowZ]

Listen to the conspicuous sound of silence...



If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

(Edit: the only reason I pointed this out is in answer Golentan: to let him know that while I recognize and respect his very legitimate expression of need, we can't discuss the topic here. I'm happy to do that on another medium, although I thingk there isn't much I can say that's very original or interesting on it).

Literally anything can be political. Anything. If human rights can't be discussed at all in a support thread for LGBT people that would be silly, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

[Icewraith]

Morality is a bad road to go down with people like me. It's far more complex than usual because I understand that the root of all conflict and civility is violence. Moral stances aren't philosophies. They are ultimatums past which the point is "when you transgress this enough, you're not human enough that I need to respect your rights". That's why they're such a huge issue; if followed to their reasonable conclusions we would have war and genocide over... Everything we've had war and genocide over. Huh.

Anyway! Acknowledging that isn't condoning it, but it's a layer of discussion that needs to be touched on and explored before we can really get anywhere, and it requires an intimacy that large Internet groups don't have.

But yes, there does come a point where I don't like tapioca so if you do I'll imprison you or worse. I don't like murder so even if you do, you'll get in trouble for it. Etc.

You misspelled "uneven or insufficient access to resources". (IMO) Violence is merely a byproduct.

[SiuiS]

SiuiS beat me to it, but yeah, the counter to the cake thing is: "I don't like it when people go around punching others in the face, so you don't get to do it."

At some level there's a list of stuff that's definitely okay, stuff that's definitely not okay, and then a fairly large grey area where reasonable minds may differ (example, is putting an arm around somebody's shoulder during conversation an okay touching?).

The thing is, trying to dig down, logically, as to how stuff falls into the okay, not okay, or unsure categories is this insane rabbit hole. You need to start with Plato, throw in some Aristotle, read up on your Thomas Aquinas, reference Kant, and then pick your three favorite modern philosophers and smash them into each other like bumper cars.

Can I do that smashing thing anyway? Sounds like fun~


Listen to the conspicuous sound of silence...


"Why? Silence rarely says much of value. Surely, you mean to obey silence rather than listen for it, non?"



If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

That's a fair point. The division is pretty clear at this level; "I want to get married" (human rights are good) is okay, whereas discussion and dissection of ("I want these tax benefits"/"I want these specific rights") is not. But I respect that you would rather back off of something when unsure (or very sure) of how safe the topic is.



I'm also hoping dearly that talking about what we can't talk about in a roundabout way is acceptable in this context.

Don't worry. We won't get modded unless we deserve it XD

[golentan]

Politics, from the greek Politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens."

If you are a citizen of anywhere and something affects you, it's politics.

[noparlpf]

Whoa. So like, rain is politics?

[Coidzor]

Listen to the conspicuous sound of silence...

Well, you know, sometimes it takes a while for people to notice the thread's got new posts. :smalltongue:


If human rights aren't a political subject, then I don't know what is. Not going there.

(Edit: the only reason I pointed this out is in answer Golentan: to let him know that while I recognize and respect his very legitimate expression of need, we can't discuss the topic here. I'm happy to do that on another medium, although I thingk there isn't much I can say that's very original or interesting on it).

It is self-evident that we can, in fact, express sentiments like "I would like to be able to get married," and "I do not like being forbidden from marrying someone if I can find someone who wants to marry me right back." We can also say "X place legalized same-sex marriage" and "hooray" in response to this news.

That or the mods have been asleep at the wheel and there's a gold mine of infractions that one could count as a feather in one's hat by going back and trawling through old incarnations of the LGBTAIITP thread with an eye towards the report button.

There are definitely ways that can go into banned topics, and those should generally be avoided, but not everything about them is as verboten as you imply.


Whoa. So like, rain is politics?

Ask a Californian what they think about the drought sometime. You'll hear even more about it if you ask 'em about it offsite.

[Shadowscale]

Politics, from the greek Politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens."

If you are a citizen of anywhere and something affects you, it's politics.

Politics cause people to fight and argue and it typically doesn't end well and escalates. I'd imagine that's more what the forum rules are trying to suggest at.

[golentan]

Whoa. So like, rain is politics?

Certainly, my good fellow!

I'm not even being flippant. Rain affects businesses, farming, the price of water, and the ways that people must distribute it. Here in california, rain is very big politics!

[Jormengand]

I have an idea: how about avoiding the ban on politics by stopping discussing literally politics itself.

[Shadowscale]

I have an idea: how about avoiding the ban on politics by stopping discussing literally politics itself.

Wouldn't the discussion to halt politics be political in its nature as a tactic of avoiding as well? Isn't avoiding conversation political?

[Zurvan]

Whoa. So like, rain is politics?

The lack of it or the excess of it clearly is.

[golentan]

I have an idea: how about avoiding the ban on politics by stopping discussing literally politics itself.

That seems far too sensible. Apologies, I won't say anything further.

[Anarion]

Here in california, rain is very big politics!

North or south? If you're within range of mass transit or zipcar, I might need to try meet your human form?

[Gwynfrid]

That's a fair point. The division is pretty clear at this level; "I want to get married" (human rights are good) is okay, whereas discussion and dissection of ("I want these tax benefits"/"I want these specific rights") is not. But I respect that you would rather back off of something when unsure (or very sure) of how safe the topic is.

Precisely. And, thanks.

[Zurvan]

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

[golentan]

North or south? If you're within range of mass transit or zipcar, I might need to try meet your human form?

Central coast. I'm about a ten-fifteen minute walk from the closest san jose transit hub.

[SiuiS]

Wouldn't the discussion to halt politics be political in its nature as a tactic of avoiding as well? Isn't avoiding conversation political?

No, but continuing discussion of what is political might become flame bait...


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

Oh thank gosh!

[SowZ]

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

Just did the one night of Hannukha that we observe a year.

[Anarion]

Just did the one night of Hannukha that we observe a year.

Mine is ongoing presently.

Edit: oh and Golentan, I'm gonna figure out how to have coffee with you and SiuiS at some point. It will happen.

[golentan]

Mine is ongoing presently.

Edit: oh and Golentan, I'm gonna figure out how to have coffee with you and SiuiS at some point. It will happen.

Promise not to murder me and you're on. SiuiS, you're on your own.

[Shadowscale]

Promise not to murder me and you're on. SiuiS, you're on your own.

I wanna come, I think Flagstaff is near by.

[golentan]

I wanna come, I think Flagstaff is near by.

It's a 12 hour drive. I could put you up on the couch, but I'd want to meet you in person first for at least a little while.

[Anarion]

Promise not to murder me and you're on. SiuiS, you're on your own.

Fiiiine. :smallwink:


I wanna come, I think Flagstaff is near by.

You could. Yours is more of a weekend trip though, whereas the three of us could make it in an afternoon.

[golentan]

Has anyone seen the Imitation Game's initial limited release back in august? It's due out in general theaters on christmas, and my concern about going to see it is how they'll handle Turing and Clarke.

[SiuiS]

Promise not to murder me and you're on. SiuiS, you're on your own.

It's okay. I've met Anarion a few times (two? Or three? Three, right?) and he's so far been nothing if not too accommodating.

Plus there's always your gun arms versus mine. 3:1, not good odds... :smalltongue:


I wanna come, I think Flagstaff is near by.

Hmm. We could make a meet of it? Dunno. Never heard of flagstaff, which sucks because that's a cool name.

[banthesun]

Sorry for bringing up the political stuff, I didn't really think of that before posting. :smallfrown: With out getting into any more detail, my views are a lot like what Sowz described.


I've always be wary of the concept of "ally", because it's inherently divisive. "Ally" implies there's an enemy, and implies a kind of compact, explicit or implicit, to fight in a war of some sort. Also, it is a political notion, especially with the example given (by the way, with "NSW" I assume you mean the state in Australia, right?), and politics isn't a welcome topic in this forum.

I can see where you're coming from here, but I was under the impression the enemy implied by "ally" was homophobia (or the other types of relevant bigotry).


Do you think this is because you don't know many people of different orientations from yourself, because you wouldn't stand up for them if the opportunity came up, or because the moments are passing you by without you even realizing that they occur?

Here's an easy one. Do you friends call things gay when they mean "bad"? Do you? Are you okay with people doing that?

Well, presently I'm a bit short on IRL friends, but all the friends I have currently are at least somewhat socially minded. When it comes to facebook friends, if I see them doing something homophobic or otherwise dodgy, I tend to just quietly unfriend them. To me that doesn't seem too productive though, since all I'm doing is making sure I don't have to put up with there ****, it wouldn't do anything to combat bigotry.


Also, you should be aware that you're wrong from a strictly practical standpoint. I don't know a ton about international law, but I can tell you about the United States. In the US, there are multiple levels of law: Federal (that is, national), State, and local. "Marriage" as a legal issue intersects with all three. There are also hundreds or even thousands of laws on the books that refer to marriage, including everything from hospital visitation to taxes, to property inheritance upon a person's death. Changing every single one of those laws to include the term "civil union" has not been done and would be extremely difficult to do (even a blanket "everywhere it says 'marriage' add 'civil union' wouldn't solve everything due to use of archaic wording and interpretive challenges).

So, you should be aware that, in addition to any questions of personal recognition, it's simply untrue that civil unions offer the same things as marriage.

Edit: Here's an example. Someone dies. A handwritten will is found that seems to leave everything to the person's brother and nothing to the other member of the civil union. If there were a marriage, the spouse would have the right, under the common law (it's not written down in statute except in a small number of states) to receive some of the person's property anyway because the law has decided that you can't screw over your spouse in your will. The civil union guy though, might get screwed. Even if a statute said "everywhere it says marriage, add civil union," this law comes from a combination of case precedent and historical policy. Nowhere does it say "marriage" in a single law that can be updated to include civil unions. If you try to sue about this and get a conservative judge (average judge age is 50+ so guess how likely that is), that judge will probably rule that the common law doesn't extend to civil unions and the person who's lover just died also gets screwed out of everything.

Yeah, I don't really know much about US law, but I've definitely heard it's an issue there. I even know there's some states of Australia that don't allow civil unions between people of the same gender, so that's why I specified NSW. Of course, my legal knowledge just comes from working in the proximity of legal books, so I could be gravely mistaken here.


I'm not a fan of that line of thinking. It's a good thing to make people conscious of the ways that they can offend without meaning to, but telling people who want to be helpful to go away tends to be counter-productive in my experience.

In my opinion, step 1 is to say that if people want to be friends, they can be friends however they want. Step 2 is once they're friends, gentling pointing out if they do something wrong or offensive unintentionally, and helping them understand how they can be helpful. If somebody is trying to be exploitive, it quickly becomes obvious when they don't correct their behavior or pay attention to the people they claim to be friends with. And there's nothing new about that, it's just being a jerk.

Thanks for your response! :smallsmile:


The concept is great, the execution may need improvement.

I'm curious though. Was it the article you read that brought you here now? Or something else? You seem to be unsure of your own position and if you don't mind my prying, I'd very much like to know what motivated you to join the discussion. Please ignore this last part if you'd rather not discuss it, though.

I didn't realise I was that transperant. :smallredface: This has been something I've been thinking about since before I saw that article. Part of it came from when I heard members of my (very extended) family using gay as a slur, but I didn't say anything in response (that was the last time I posted here, I think). A bit came from seeing some stuff about the LGBTQ thread here, but not feeling like I should browse a safe space not intended for me (like, I consider myself a feminist, but I wouldn't go inserting myself into any safe spaces for women). Mix in a bit of general internet terribleness, and that article too. Hell, since posting I saw another article dealing with similar concepts (but about feminism). So kinda a lot of things on my mind, I guess. :smallredface:


Being an ally is pretty simple in my experience. Don't tell me I'm going to hell, don't assault me, don't try to make my sex life illegal or keep me from getting a marriage license based on the sex of my partner, and don't try to justify the actions of people who do any of those things.

I'm not sure I follow. I've been assuming there's a certain degree of space between being homophobic and being an ally. Are you saying you see it as a dichotomy? :smallconfused:

[Kesnit]

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

I have to work today, 5AM-11AM. (Since I've been unable to find a job in law, I'm working retail.)

We're having an invasion tomorrow. (My wife and I live with her parents.) The invasion includes:


My mother-in-law's brother, who is a jerk.
My wife's brother, his wife, and their 2.5 year old daughter. I get along with my brother- and sister-in-law, but don't like kids. (I'm sure my niece will be fine once she becomes a human being...)
My sister-in-law's mother and sister. Mother is OK, though can be annoying. Sister has some mental illness (not sure what) and often forgets to take her meds. When she's off her meds, she literally becomes delusional.


For New Year's, I've got a job interview Wednesday morning, then am coming home (it's 4 hours away) and will likely spend the night at home. In years past, the local gaming store has held an all-night party for New Years, but plans did not get worked out in time to have it this year. (I'm not crying too hard. I went last year and was kinda bored.)

[Astrella]

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

Seeing family and hoping I won't have to deal with too much stuff regarding me being trans or my mental health.

[Serpentine]

Brief factual qualification:

On top of this, I have some views that I'm pretty sure members of said community would challenge, specifically regarding gay marriage in NSW (as far as I know, civil unions or defacto relationships afford the same statuses and protections as marriage, and are open to couples regardless of their makeup).
De-facto and civil unions cover most of the statuses and protections as marriage, but not all of them. They are also not necessarily recognised in other countries, or even potentially other states. Moreover, the fact that they have to have a different type of union means it by nature doesn't have the same "status" as marriage. Then there's issues involving the separation of church and state and why the secular aspects of the union are being dictated by religious factors, which I won't address further.
Personally, I'd like one overall "union", if you will, that covers the binding of consenting adults in both same- and different-sex combinations that incorporates all secular aspects - rights, responsibilities, tax, inheritence, etc - and leave the "ritual" aspects up to individual churches or groups to decide what combinations of people they're willing to officiate over. Whichever one you want to call marriage, separate the secular from the rest and apply it to everyone evenly, and leave the rituals to the individual organisations to do with what they will.

[Heliomance]

Wouldn't the discussion to halt politics be political in its nature as a tactic of avoiding as well? Isn't avoiding conversation political?

It would certainly be politic.

[Anarion]

It's okay. I've met Anarion a few times (two? Or three? Three, right?) and he's so far been nothing if not too accommodating.

Plus there's always your gun arms versus mine. 3:1, not good odds... :smalltongue:



Hmm. We could make a meet of it? Dunno. Never heard of flagstaff, which sucks because that's a cool name.

Flagstaff is a city in Arizona. It's a tad far away, half a day's drive. Though we cound indeed host a meet. I'd be interested. That said, I'm not actually putting my mind to any sort of planning until after the new year.

And it was 3 SiuiS. Coffee shop, pony movie, and that rooftop in Berkeley where you swept me off my feet we chatted casually with Gaelbert for a couple hours.


I have to work today, 5AM-11AM. (Since I've been unable to find a job in law, I'm working retail.)

We're having an invasion tomorrow. (My wife and I live with her parents.) The invasion includes:


My mother-in-law's brother, who is a jerk.
My wife's brother, his wife, and their 2.5 year old daughter. I get along with my brother- and sister-in-law, but don't like kids. (I'm sure my niece will be fine once she becomes a human being...)
My sister-in-law's mother and sister. Mother is OK, though can be annoying. Sister has some mental illness (not sure what) and often forgets to take her meds. When she's off her meds, she literally becomes delusional.


For New Year's, I've got a job interview Wednesday morning, then am coming home (it's 4 hours away) and will likely spend the night at home. In years past, the local gaming store has held an all-night party for New Years, but plans did not get worked out in time to have it this year. (I'm not crying too hard. I went last year and was kinda bored.)

2.5 year olds are old enough to interact. She may be quite shy in which case you're out of luck until she's older, but if she's affectionate, you coukd have fun with her. Try talking directly to her in greeting, simple words and a big smile, and see what reaction you get. I think they're fun.

Good luck with the interview. I'm guessing you're driving, which is too bad because planes sometimes serve free champaign if you're airborne on New Year's Day.

And yes I did just mention a 2.5 year old and alcohol right next to each other. Don't look at me like that. :smallwink:

[Kesnit]

2.5 year olds are old enough to interact. She may be quite shy in which case you're out of luck until she's older, but if she's affectionate, you coukd have fun with her. Try talking directly to her in greeting, simple words and a big smile, and see what reaction you get. I think they're fun.

She isn't really all that bad, especially since her parents and grandparents dote on her. Which means I don't have to deal with any of the really bad stuff, but can talk to her when she feels like acknowledging me. She isn't shy - at all!


Good luck with the interview. I'm guessing you're driving,

I'm driving down the night before, staying in a hotel, then doing the interview early New Years Eve.

[golentan]

Christmas plans? I'm making Jam today (because I'm out of christmas ideas and making something for the whole family is a bit of a tradition for me), then spending all day tomorrow with my family (mom, dad, sister, and the majority of my mom's branch of the tree)

[Anarion]

Christmas plans? I'm making Jam today (because I'm out of christmas ideas and making something for the whole family is a bit of a tradition for me), then spending all day tomorrow with my family (mom, dad, sister, and the majority of my mom's branch of the tree)

Going to one side of the family tonight for the Eve, then my parents are hosting the other side of the family for Christmas night tomorrow. I really ought to get dressed and ready now, but I've got a couple more hours left for fun first.

[SiuiS]

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.


I've always be wary of the concept of "ally", because it's inherently divisive. "Ally" implies there's an enemy, and implies a kind of compact, explicit or implicit, to fight in a war of some sort. Also, it is a political notion, especially with the example given (by the way, with "NSW" I assume you mean the state in Australia, right?), and politics isn't a welcome topic in this forum.

{ scrubbed }


Being an ally is pretty simple in my experience. Don't tell me I'm going to hell, don't assault me, don't try to make my sex life illegal or keep me from getting a marriage license based on the sex of my partner, and don't try to justify the actions of people who do any of those things.

Aye.


That point about marriage is political so I will refrain from comment, but for all the others, it looks like being an ally and being a halfway decent and respectful human being isn't that much different. That's fine and I see no problem being an ally under that definition. But I don't think it is universally shared.

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.


But it is harder than that. You don't just mature and learn through sheer force of will.

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.


You misspelled "uneven or insufficient access to resources". (IMO) Violence is merely a byproduct.

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.


That or the mods have been asleep at the wheel and there's a gold mine of infractions that one could count as a feather in one's hat by going back and trawling through old incarnations of the LGBTAIITP thread with an eye towards the report button.

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.


Wouldn't the discussion to halt politics be political in its nature as a tactic of avoiding as well? Isn't avoiding conversation political?

No.



I can see where you're coming from here, but I was under the impression the enemy implied by "ally" was homophobia (or the other types of relevant bigotry).


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.



I didn't realise I was that transperant. :smallredface:

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


A bit came from seeing some stuff about the LGBTQ thread here, but not feeling like I should browse a safe space not intended for me (like, I consider myself a feminist, but I wouldn't go inserting myself into any safe spaces for women).

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.



I'm not sure I follow. I've been assuming there's a certain degree of space between being homophobic and being an ally. Are you saying you see it as a dichotomy? :smallconfused:

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.


It would certainly be politic.

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


Flagstaff is a city in Arizona. It's a tad far away, half a day's drive. Though we cound indeed host a meet. I'd be interested. That said, I'm not actually putting my mind to any sort of planning until after the new year.

Yeah. Mmm. Arizona desert~


And it was 3 SiuiS. Coffee shop, pony movie, and that rooftop in Berkeley where you swept me off my feet we chatted casually with Gaelbert for a couple hours.

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


2.5 year olds are old enough to interact. She may be quite shy in which case you're out of luck until she's older, but if she's affectionate, you coukd have fun with her. Try talking directly to her in greeting, simple words and a big smile, and see what reaction you get. I think they're fun.

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.



And yes I did just mention a 2.5 year old and alcohol right next to each other. Don't look at me like that. :smallwink:

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



I'm driving down the night before, staying in a hotel, then doing the interview early New Years Eve.

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.

[golentan]

Interesting. I wonder what that's like, both Christians 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.

I've got friends from multicultural backgrounds, where the parents are different religions and aren't going to compromise their faith/traditions for their partners but also don't forcefeed it on family.

The fellow I'm thinking of celebrated both Christmas and Chanukah each year as a kid. The catholic parent ran christmas, the jewish parent ran Chanukah, nobody stepped on anyone's toes, everyone helped put out all the decorations for both, and gifts were exchanged by everyone for everything. Both parents exposed the kids to cultural traditions but didn't force anyone into anything: they wanted the kids to choose the faith that was right for them. My friend is now a rabbi, and his brother is atheist, sooo... I guess the catholics missed out on a recruitment opportunity. :smalltongue:

[SiuiS]

Och. Christmas. Thanks for catching my typo, Golly. :)

[Anarion]

Interesting. I wonder what that's like, both Christians 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.


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.



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.


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

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.




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.


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.




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.


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



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.


I think it comes down to how sure the individual is about things. For example, let's say I'm a 15 year old teenager grappling with my sexuality (which was a true thing once, long ago). I might be totally unsure what to do, whether I should tell anyone, express anything, wait, or goodness knows what. In that circumstance there's a place for advice from many perspectives including those who say "wait, be patient" as well as those who say to demand your rights now. It varies by the person, their risk in that circumstance and any number of other factors.

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.





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


:smallsmile:




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.

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

[golentan]

Och. Christmas. Thanks for catching my typo, Golly. :)

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