LGBTAitp 34: <3!!

[Lycunadari]

While we're at it: for the future, how do we adress you in German? They doesn't really carry over well...

Female pronouns are okay in German till I can think of something better. *thinks* Alternating between er/sie/es would be an idea.

[Zorg]

Ah, Ace of Base - good to know that video is a strange as I remember it.

Something somewhat nice. If not the reason for the article itself, but that the mother and other students are supportive but that the paper was very good with pronouns.

Juniper - I like Juniper (that sounded less awkward in my head). Makes me think of a clearing in the woods, surrounded by birch trees, filled with tall grasses and dandelions.
Or a small fish (Nipper is Aussie slang for a small fish, and Juniper can be shortened to it).

Astrella - I'm on progynova, hasn't killed me yet so you should be ok and I bought cons the other week too!
Speaking of HRT my emotions have settled down a lot this last week, just really tired all the time still.

Phee - sorry you've had a rough time of it lately, I've not got any advice that makes sense I'm afraid, but I'll be thinking of you

And happy birthday Lea! I've no gift yet, but I'm back at work on Wednesday so will be quite happy to harvest skulls for you then I'd wager.

[noparlpf]

Something somewhat nice. If not the reason for the article itself, but that the mother and other students are supportive but that the paper was very good with pronouns.

"There is perhaps only one clue to the past, when she opens the "secret drawer" at the end of the bed and reveals a plastic toy gun inside." Yeah, because only boys can play with toy guns. (Why is anybody allowed to play with toy guns? Guns are dumb.)
Otherwise it was a good article.

[Mono Vertigo]

It's fortunate this is not a French forum, as the language only possesses "il"/he and "elle"/she, and is vastly incompatible with invented pronouns, because almost every word is affected according to the gender of the subject or the object. You can really see that in the few cases a defined gender is lacking (like in the cases "ça"/it applies), the masculine form is considered as the default. The French language is immensely confused at the idea of gender neutrality, but likes to otherwise attribute gender somewhat randomly.

[noparlpf]

It's fortunate this is not a French forum, as the language only possesses "il"/he and "elle"/she, and is vastly incompatible with invented pronouns, because almost every word is affected according to the gender of the subject or the object. You can really see that in the few cases a defined gender is lacking (like in the cases "ça"/it applies), the masculine form is considered as the default. The French language is immensely confused at the idea of gender neutrality, but likes to otherwise attribute gender somewhat randomly.

I think that might be the case for the other Romance languages too. Spanish is about the same, except I can understand some of it, unlike French. Haven't studied it in around a year, but off the top of my head I can't think of any gender-neutral things.

[Coidzor]

Hm hm, definitely. I think it's just something to watch out for outside of those contexts, you know? Like, I think it's probably best to not assume that because someone is queer they're also interested in causes and origins.

So it's OK is the context of a classroom discussion, but you can't actually do the research?

So instead we should assume that anyone who is queer is actively hostile to the idea of knowing anything more about what we are and where we came from?

[Nano]

So instead we should assume that anyone who is queer is actively hostile to the idea of knowing anything more about what we are and where we came from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[SaintRidley]

It's fortunate this is not a French forum, as the language only possesses "il"/he and "elle"/she, and is vastly incompatible with invented pronouns, because almost every word is affected according to the gender of the subject or the object. You can really see that in the few cases a defined gender is lacking (like in the cases "ça"/it applies), the masculine form is considered as the default. The French language is immensely confused at the idea of gender neutrality, but likes to otherwise attribute gender somewhat randomly.

Well, grammatical gender itself has never had much to do with natural gender - language tends to subsume the latter into the former structure, producing such oddities as German Madchen being neuter.

The best I can suggest with languages that have (mostly) lost neuter gender, like French and Spanish, is to either use what neuter exists (in Spanish we have lo for a gender neutral article/pronoun, used generally with an adjective that has been turned into a noun - this option is unlikely to be satisfactory, of course) or to use whichever option the language gives that you personally feel most comfortable identifying as. Really, it's the only complaint I have about more heavily inflected languages - you can't just invent a new pronoun and inflection paradigm, because there's about no chance of the language at large absorbing and accepting it. It's easier in English because we don't inflect adjectives for gender (minor exceptions borrowed from French notwithstanding). Can't imagine doing it in a language like French or German, as the neuter is not likely to feel right and the language probably won't change its paradigms to accomodate.

[SiuiS]

So it's OK is the context of a classroom discussion, but you can't actually do the research?

So instead we should assume that anyone who is queer is actively hostile to the idea of knowing anything more about what we are and where we came from?

In the sense that labeling someone an deriving their origins is the first step to compartmentalizing and dismissing them? Yes.

[Mono Vertigo]

I think that might be the case for the other Romance languages too. Spanish is about the same, except I can understand some of it, unlike French. Haven't studied it in around a year, but off the top of my head I can't think of any gender-neutral things.

Yes, that is indeed valid for several other languages, I'm just speaking about the only such language that I speak well enough to talk about.
There are ways to talk about yourself in such a way as to sound ambiguously gendered, but it requires careful choice of verbs, nouns and adjectives. As a bonus, as long as you only speak and don't write, you can afford to use words whose variations are not easily perceived by ear only (like "je suis fatigué(e)"/I am tired).

I remember a cartoon in French when one kid in high school had an ambiguous gender and name, and one character wanted to get them to betray their gender, using stratagems such as an interview. She wasted one whole episode because they kept choosing their words extremely carefully (which sounded somewhat artificial, but hey). In the end, when they said they knew all along she was curious and proposed to reveal their gender even though they didn't see what was the big deal in not knowing it, she pretended that she already knew their gender, in order to avoid further embarrassment. That's the sort of scenario that would go much more smoothly but also lose most of its humor in English.

Anyway, yeah, grammatical gender and natural gender are vastly disconnected. In an earlier post of mine, I had stated that the common term for a fashion model (who are traditionally women) is masculine, and the term for a rookie/freshly recruited person is feminine even though it's closely associated to soldiers. And tables and chairs are feminine and mirrors and beds are masculine, and you're better off not looking for any pattern.

[Asta Kask]

In the sense that labeling someone an deriving their origins is the first step to compartmentalizing and dismissing them? Yes.

It is also the first step in devising a way to help them. Do you not want better treatment for dysphoria, treatment to soothe the pain until HRT and SRS sets in? And where do you think it will come from?

Also, who knows what can come from an understanding of how the brain represents gender and sexuality? Basic scientific research has a way of throwing up applications no one could dream of.

[Eldest]

The wonderful thing about tigers is tigers are wonderful chaps. They're loaded with vim and with vigor. They love to leap in your laps! They're jumpy, bumpy, clumpy, thumpy Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun! But the most wonderful thing about tigers is there's more than one!

There's more than one of me? I feel like I should either fight them to the death or play them in a game of Calvinball. I'm leaning towards Calvinball.

In other news, it turns out one of my grandparents would have a problem with me being bi (I think, my mother was quite confusing when I tried to ask her about it), and so I'm going back to my previous plan of "tell people as it comes up."

[Dudebot2000]

Why would you tell people about your bisexuality if it's not coming up?

Also:
Why did you have to talk about 'Venus Envy'? Now I'm reading that bad webcomic and cannot stop.

[SaintRidley]

Well, Minnesota is another step closer to joining the cool states with marriage equality. Thought the thread might like the news.

[SiuiS]

It is also the first step in devising a way to help them. Do you not want better treatment for dysphoria, treatment to soothe the pain until HRT and SRS sets in? And where do you think it will come from?

Also, who knows what can come from an understanding of how the brain represents gender and sexuality? Basic scientific research has a way of throwing up applications no one could dream of.

Baaaaack up there, cowboy. That is exactly the problem; We've gone from "We know why you are gay" to "we know why you are gay and want to help/fix/cure you". It's the lay application that is the problem.

The first step to helping transsexuals was to NOT approach them like a pathology. The application of science, from the usual "this is normal, you must be an abberation" is an issue. For one, we have just demonstrated how the language is inherently heteronormative, and for two it leads to issues such as KenderWizard has brought up, where there are no real data points on women's heart disease peculiarities because men are default.

The key to interacting with other humans is compassion. Noncompassionate science can go take a napalm shower, and the mindset which casuallly sets aside humanity to take into account purely data can lead to advancements, but it can also - and has! - lead to stasis and regression instead.

Why would you tell people about your bisexuality if it's not coming up?

Also:
Why did you have to talk about 'Venus Envy'? Now I'm reading that bad webcomic and cannot stop.

Because otherwise everyone will assume they are straight.

And if it is so bad, why are you reading it? :P

[Coidzor]

Astrella, Nano, SiuiS:

Spoiler

Show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

From the general tone of Astrella's posts on the matter, it certainly seems like she would prefer if we never investigated sexuality or gender in any scientific context ever again if she's not of the position that Kinsey should never have done any of what he did.

Much like those facebook feminism posts that mostly seem to agree on one thing, that men should never flirt with women regardless of context, I have to wonder if Astrella is aware of how she's come off here.

Seeing anti-science thinking or actual full-on hatred for it always gets me a little overeager to jump into things, but it's compounded when the primary group opposed to LGBT rights/existence is the most anti-science group in modern history.

In the sense that labeling someone an deriving their origins is the first step to compartmentalizing and dismissing them? Yes.

Yes, because all science and scientists are horrible bogeymen united in the cause of evil.

Respect for humanity is not mutually exclusive with scientific inquiry.

There's more than one of me? I feel like I should either fight them to the death or play them in a game of Calvinball. I'm leaning towards Calvinball.

In other news, it turns out one of my grandparents would have a problem with me being bi (I think, my mother was quite confusing when I tried to ask her about it), and so I'm going back to my previous plan of "tell people as it comes up."

Calvinball. Always Calvinball.

That's rough. :/ How was she confusing?

Well, Minnesota is another step closer to joining the cool states with marriage equality. Thought the thread might like the news.

This is good.

[The Succubus]

I think it's mainly the fear about how such science could be misapplied. Besides, even if you could scientifically explain it down to the tiniest detail, that's still not going to stop bad folks from hating transgendered people. It's also a personal thing, you know? I like to think the way I act, behave and see the world is through personal decisions and choices, rather than being due to a set of scientifically derived values.

I think we're skirting a little close to the whole "is transgender stuff right/wrong", which is kind of a no-no in this thread.

****

On a change of topic, I'd also like to see a spoilered list of LGBT webcomics in the opening post. =)

[Lorsa]

Don't you hate it when happy occasions are ruined by something incredibly small?

Yes I do hate it. Sorry it happened to you although it could have tons of reasons. You don't know how people think unless you ask them (how hard that may be to do). Nevertheless, it must've felt horrible for you *hugs*.

Because the change was not chromosomal (lettering is done strictly to my sense of aesthetic, evaluate as a narcissistic unicorn i am the rubric for my conversations. u_u) it was changing the variable from either male or female to masculine or feminine.

Someone not having a hammer doesn't mean they aren't a carpenter, it means they don't have a hammer. Period.

So, moving from male -> masculine and female -> feminine. I can certainly understand that and it's a better starting point for sure!

That's why the change to masculine/feminine from male/female. If a person says they are a woman and they have one or two masculine traits they are still probably a woman. The addition or subtraction of traits does not change them, it helps your perception to a degree. Which is fine.
Judging them for how well their desired reception matches your new of their presentation is not.

So if I understood this right having feminine traits does not make or break a woman? I could certainly agree with that!

Because they are traits three decades of congenital disorder forced me to give up and I want them back. If you go and change the system so they dot matter anymore then it's ashes in my mouth.

Would it be different if you never had to give them up in the first place? How would you feel then? I'm sorry if my questions get a bit too personal. It's only because I am truly interested in learning more about you not because of... well some other reason!

It's a large and loose system based on four parts near a so can tell; what you say, how you say it, what I hear and how I receive it. If you are Male and you are showing off several traits, there are different criteria for judging; societal personal, social, immediate/ephemeral. If you are demonstration traits which society where you are says are Masculine, but I read them as feminine, what's the damage?

There is no damage at all. Never said there were. I am however a bit curious as to how we can have a discussion about fem/masculinity without agreeing on what it is. It's sort of like speaking about tables and while you mean a chair I think of a sofa?

None. I just read you as having feminine traits. Someone else may get a different read from you and that's fine.

Since I, possibly (depending on what you mean by it) value feminine traits higher than masculine (sort of the reverse stigma in my world) I can only say: Yay! ... ? ... !

It's actually an issue many transgender people seem to have! A cis woman can present several Y traits (masculine) and be read as female with masculine traits. A trans woman needs to present fewer Y traits because of coming from a different angle, seemingly. The whole snarled mess starts dipping into sovereignty, privilege, and sexism really fast. Removing the stigma – that possession of traits can diminish if those traits are not expected for the core – would remove a lot of the teeth from that. It's still confusing, but less soul crushing.

Removing stigma is something I definitely would agree with. But I still wonder one thing. My assumption is here that a transwoman want people to percieve her as a female. In the world today being percieved as female means exhibiting X traits because those are assosciated with women. What my question then would be is; if we stopped thinking of X and Y as feminine and masculine, male and female, then those would no longer be the basis of gender perception. With these traits I also, and most definitely include the actual physical body. Then the whole percieved gender would be based on one thing and one thing alone; a statement from the person in question. Would it not be easier if all anyone had to do was to say "I am a woman" and that would be the end of discussion and not have to worry about presenting X traits and lesser Y?

Please tell me if I am wrong, I can only see things from my own very limited angle. I am by no means out to change the rules of the world (ok, maybe I am a little) but not to fit my own ideals. I want us all to live in it so we should come up with something together!

Merida's creator isn't happy about the makeover either.

Having seen the movie, I am definitely not surprised. Like I said, it's a Merida look-a-like (and not even a good one at that).

Juniper

I like that name. It feels good on the tongue. Would go well with music too, it feels like a Bbmaj7 chord perhaps (don't have a piano here so can't check for sure).

Hey all! So it is my birthday today! I accept cash, cheque and the skulls of my enemies as tribute :3

Did I miss it? Happy Birthday! Tell me who your enemies are and their skulls shall be delivered to you!

[Eldest]

Why would you tell people about your bisexuality if it's not coming up?

Because I'm not straight. And I, frankly, would rather people know this and decided to accept or reject it now rather than later, at a possibly inappropriate time.

That's rough. :/ How was she confusing?

Well, to be honest, was kind of not paying attention because of other things that came up in the conversation prior. She has a specific definition of what is bi and is doubtful I fit it. Partly because I have yet to do anything with a male yet. (Not for lack of trying, mind you.) I'll probably be asking for clarification later.

[noparlpf]

I think it's mainly the fear about how such science could be misapplied. Besides, even if you could scientifically explain it down to the tiniest detail, that's still not going to stop bad folks from hating transgendered people. It's also a personal thing, you know? I like to think the way I act, behave and see the world is through personal decisions and choices, rather than being due to a set of scientifically derived values.

I think we're skirting a little close to the whole "is transgender stuff right/wrong", which is kind of a no-no in this thread.

Ooh, if we're going to misapply science, can I study the neurological causes of transphobia and cure it? Or bigotry in general. Ethically questionable at some levels, maybe.

Conversely, not knowing the science also won't prevent bad people from hating. So we might as well study everything because biology is cool. Just get rid of "science" "journalism" so the public isn't misinformed and we're good, right? Also, real science makes it easier to refute the BS pseudoscience some of these people come up with, even if it doesn't stop them from being buttheads.

Spoilered for (hypothetical future) medical ethics and stuff, probably kind of touchy.

Spoiler

Show

Would it be wrong, if we understood the genetic and environmental causes of transsexuality, and could prevent it from developing in a not-yet-conceived hypothetical child, to do so? It's not something you'd want to have, or would wish on your child, right? You'd rather body and gender just match and avoid all the discomfort, depression, &c. Obviously trying to "cure" a person out of existence is wrong, so treating existing cases is going to involve things like therapy, HRT, &c. But if we could prevent it in a not-yet-conceived child, would that be wrong?
Note that I'm cis, but I have my own neurological issues, and if I could prevent my hypothetical child (although being me I'm more likely to clone myself a daughter than to have kids the traditional way) from having my issues, I would. I know I don't like dealing with them. Life is hard enough in the first place.

[Reyne]

I think it's mainly the fear about how such science could be misapplied. Besides, even if you could scientifically explain it down to the tiniest detail, that's still not going to stop bad folks from hating transgendered people. It's also a personal thing, you know? I like to think the way I act, behave and see the world is through personal decisions and choices, rather than being due to a set of scientifically derived values.

I think we're skirting a little close to the whole "is transgender stuff right/wrong", which is kind of a no-no in this thread.

****

On a change of topic, I'd also like to see a spoilered list of LGBT webcomics in the opening post. =)

And also, the experience that the science has been misapplied, that there's been a long history of straight homophobic transphobic people advocating 'cures' for being gay, for being lesbian, for being trans. Or supporting research for genetic reasons for being LGBT - so that they could selectively abort any children who were like that.

The science can be done well, but too often it ends up being colored by the intrinsic biases, preconceptions, and assumptions made by the scientists/doctors/psychologists. And often with trans issues, it ends up becoming a self-perpetuating pathological science, in which trans individuals feel forced to lie to doctors and tell them what they want to hear in order to receive the medication they need. Which of course just means to the doctor that he/she has more proof for his/her pet theory.

For many of us, it's a very sensitive and somewhat triggering topic in that quite often when brought up, it's in the context of people advocating a 'cure', or implying that in their language. In the same way that people with diseases, disorders, or other physical/mental handicaps are looked down upon (able-bodied privilege.)

Spoiler

Show

Would it be wrong, if we understood the genetic and environmental causes of transsexuality, and could prevent it from developing in a not-yet-conceived hypothetical child, to do so? It's not something you'd want to have, or would wish on your child, right? You'd rather body and gender just match and avoid all the discomfort, depression, &c. Obviously trying to "cure" a person out of existence is wrong, so treating existing cases is going to involve things like therapy, HRT, &c. But if we could prevent it in a not-yet-conceived child, would that be wrong?
Note that I'm cis, but I have my own neurological issues, and if I could prevent my hypothetical child (although being me I'm more likely to clone myself a daughter than to have kids the traditional way) from having my issues, I would. I know I don't like dealing with them. Life is hard enough in the first place.

Let me attempt to draw an analogy; my sincere apologies if this is offensive to someone: I don't know if this will be feasibly possible or not, but suppose we understand genetics well enough that we can genetically engineer someone's race, ethnicity, skin color, etc.

I think everyone would agree that being a racial minority makes you considerably disadvantaged over being in the majority. So objectively, minority individuals would want their children to be in the racial majority in order to assure the best possible future for their children, to assure that their child would not have to face (much) racial prejudice and discrimination.

But of course I'd be surprised if anyone here today advocated that route. Because it implies that the best course of action is to 'cure' an entire group of people out of existence, that the solution is to remove them from the population by whatever means than actually fighting for true equality and equal rights, that there is something intrinsically wrong about being a minority in the first place (which was indeed believed by scientists at points in the past.) And I'd contend that the same argument holds for LGBT individuals.

[noparlpf]

Let me attempt to draw an analogy; my sincere apologies if this is offensive to someone: I don't know if this will be feasibly possible or not, but suppose we understand genetics well enough that we can genetically engineer someone's race, ethnicity, skin color, etc.

I think everyone would agree that being a racial minority makes you considerably disadvantaged over being in the majority. So objectively, minority individuals would want their children to be in the racial majority in order to assure the best possible future for their children, to assure that their child would not have to face (much) racial prejudice and discrimination.

But of course I'd be surprised if anyone here today advocated that route. Because it implies that the best course of action is to 'cure' an entire group of people out of existence, that the solution is to remove them from the population by whatever means than actually fighting for true equality and equal rights, that there is something intrinsically wrong about being a minority in the first place (which was indeed believed by scientists at points in the past.) And I'd contend that the same argument holds for LGBT individuals.

Spoiler

Show

The way I see it, that's a bad analogy. The disadvantages of having a different skin color from most people in your area are purely social and can be fixed by changing how society treats those people. The disadvantages of a neurological condition can be offset by changing how society treats those people, but the condition is still there and uncomfortable or bothersome.

[Dudebot2000]

Because otherwise everyone will assume they are straight.

And if it is so bad, why are you reading it? :P

What's so bad about being seen as straight by people with whom sexuality is not otherwise discussed? You wouldn't tell those people that you're for example into BDSM unless prompted to. Would you even want to hear of the fetishes of loose acquintances and complete strangers?
No, you don't. Trust me, I had an hour long train ride once where two young women discussed loudly how to get the boyfriend of one of them to **** other girls and making him a bisexual with the boyfriend of the other one. They then discussed a christian convention they both attended. Now I'll always be remembering these two discussing turning that unwilling boyfriend of theirs in detail, for an hour.
You just don't do that with complete strangers. That's not cool.

Many webcomics pick up after a few years of updates. Also I'm bored and maybe that webcomic turns to porn.

@Science discussion
Finding a cure for sex stuff is a problem with serious scientists? I always thought these studies and research projects were financed by religious nutjobs?
When the research isn't done under some ideological pretense, then I see no problem with it. But then again, ever since I grew out of religion, I stopped believing in free will either. So I don't mind being a meat robot.

[Reyne]

Spoiler

Show

The way I see it, that's a bad analogy. The disadvantages of having a different skin color from most people in your area are purely social and can be fixed by changing how society treats those people. The disadvantages of a neurological condition can be offset by changing how society treats those people, but the condition is still there and uncomfortable or bothersome.

Spoiler

Show

A century ago, many scientists would have told you that the disadvantages of having a different skin color were very much physical and mental and existent. Being gay or lesbian or trans or bisexual or queer or etc. makes you different to some extent, yes. But in a perfect world it would not necessarily be uncomfortable or bothersome. What is it that defines whether a condition is neurological or physical or social?

Fun fact: Here's an example of a supposed mental illness that was actually 'discovered' and published in the 19th century: Drapetomania. It was a mental illness found in slaves, that caused them to flee from captivity. The 'discoverer' proposed a variety of different 'treatments', including whipping and removal of several toes.

Finding a cure for sex stuff is a problem with serious scientists? I always thought these studies and research projects were financed by religious nutjobs?
When the research isn't done under some ideological pretense, then I see no problem with it. But then again, ever since I grew out of religion, I stopped believing in free will either. So I don't mind being a meat robot.

The point that I'm making is that these sort of biological/mental/etc. issues which are more up to definition are always subject to the biases, assumptions, and cultural backgrounds of the times.

In the 19th century the obvious example was scientific racism. For much of the 20th, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. What will be considered the obvious 'how-could-they-possibly-believe-that' example of the 21st century?

Often studies or research projects are done by scientists who are not religious nutjobs, but nevertheless do not really understand the people behind them and attempt to fit them into pre-existing assumptions. One of the main examples is that today although being 'conventionally' trans (as in, wanting to transition fully from the birth sex to the gender you're more comfortable with) is reasonably accepted in academia/medicine/etc. today, that's most definitely not the case for people who don't fit into the nice simple gender dichotomy. Indeed, many medical handbooks, insurance plans, etc. warn against these people who are often denoted as 'fake transsexuals' (or something similar), and they are hence forced to lie in order to receive the treatment they need.

[Mutant Sheep]

Spoiler

Show

A century ago, many scientists would have told you that the disadvantages of having a different skin color were very much physical and mental and existent. Being gay or lesbian or trans or bisexual or queer or etc. makes you different to some extent, yes. But in a perfect world it would not necessarily be uncomfortable or bothersome. What is it that defines whether a condition is neurological or physical or social?

Fun fact: Here's an example of a supposed mental illness that was actually 'discovered' and published in the 19th century: Drapetomania. It was a mental illness found in slaves, that caused them to flee from captivity. The 'discoverer' proposed a variety of different 'treatments', including whipping and removal of several toes.

Spoiler

Show

Transexuality and the desire to not be enslaved are rather different. He's saying "I think that if there was a way to prevent transexuality and the pains that come with it (I think that, if we found some way to detect this in-utero, some kind of preemptive gender-assignment ... thingey could save a lot of trouble), we should explore that idea." Saying "Transexuality is being Harriet Tubman" isn't really a response.

[Reyne]

Spoiler

Show

Transexuality and the desire to not be enslaved are rather different. He's saying "I think that if there was a way to prevent transexuality and the pains that come with it (I think that, if we found some way to detect this in-utero, some kind of preemptive gender-assignment ... thingey could save a lot of trouble), we should explore that idea." Saying "Transexuality is being Harriet Tubman" isn't really a response.

Spoiler

Show

And again, I'd argue that what you call those pains that come from being trans are almost entirely social in origin. But I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to convince you at this rate, so I'll leave it at that.

[noparlpf]

Spoiler

Show

A century ago, many scientists would have told you that the disadvantages of having a different skin color were very much physical and mental and existent. Being gay or lesbian or trans or bisexual or queer or etc. makes you different to some extent, yes. But in a perfect world it would not necessarily be uncomfortable or bothersome. What is it that defines whether a condition is neurological or physical or social?

Spoiler

Show

I did not mention sexuality or trying to change it. That would be dumb and bad. Very few people are uncomfortable with their own sexuality except because of other people being buttheads about it. That makes it a social issue and beyond the purview of medicine.

Edit:

Spoiler

Show

And again, I'd argue that what you call those pains that come from being trans are almost entirely social in origin. But I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to convince you at this rate, so I'll leave it at that.

Spoiler

Show

Like kids under six trying to mutilate their genitalia because it doesn't fit? That's a social issue?

[Eldest]

What's so bad about being seen as straight by people with whom sexuality is not otherwise discussed? You wouldn't tell those people that you're for example into BDSM unless prompted to. Would you even want to hear of the fetishes of loose acquintances and complete strangers?
No, you don't. Trust me, I had an hour long train ride once where two young women discussed loudly how to get the boyfriend of one of them to **** other girls and making him a bisexual with the boyfriend of the other one. They then discussed a christian convention they both attended. Now I'll always be remembering these two discussing turning that unwilling boyfriend of theirs in detail, for an hour.
You just don't do that with complete strangers. That's not cool.

Nope. Telling complete strangers "Hi, I'm [name], and I'm bi." would be bad. Any kinks I might have would also be off limits. However, I never said I was doing that, and actually have no idea why you think that. There is a difference between that and announcing on facebook that I'm bi. Sex, for me, stays private. There are people who enjoy making that public. I am not one of them. However, me being bisexual, while tying into sex, doesn't stay there. It also is related to relationships, love, courtship, religion, and a whole mess of other concepts. If, eventually, I end up with a boyfriend or husband, why would the fact that he exists be hidden, when having a girlfriend or wife in the same situation would not be? If (for example) a woman is talking to me about trying to get a guy to notice her, I can offer some tips, which would require a short explanation. My sexuality is tied into far more than sex.
Finally: I am not straight. Being seen as straight, while it is going to happen, annoys me for the same reason that being seen as a business student would: I am not either, and it's actually kind of important to me not being either. I regard business as boring and inhuman: stupid, biased, but I do. I have no problem with straight people: I just am not one, and would not like being mistaken for one.
TL;DR. Sexuality/=sex.

[Dudebot2000]

A century ago, many scientists would have told you that the disadvantages of having a different skin color were very much physical and mental and existent. Being gay or lesbian or trans or bisexual or queer or etc. makes you different to some extent, yes. But in a perfect world it would not necessarily be uncomfortable or bothersome. What is it that defines whether a condition is neurological or physical or social?

A condition that requires a person to undergo hormonal treatment and surgical interventions can under no circumstances be considered not uncomfortable or bothersome. Which is why I would seperate transsexuality and homosexuality in this hypothetical example.

Edit:
@Eldest

Well, you said this here. Emphasis done by me.

In other news, it turns out one of my grandparents would have a problem with me being bi (I think, my mother was quite confusing when I tried to ask her about it), and so I'm going back to my previous plan of "tell people as it comes up."

Which implied to me that you were planning to tell people who did neither ask nor talk to you about your boyfriend or whatever. Because otherwise your bisexuality would naturally come up.

However, me being bisexual, while tying into sex, doesn't stay there. It also is related to relationships, love, courtship, religion, and a whole mess of other concepts. If, eventually, I end up with a boyfriend or husband, why would the fact that he exists be hidden, when having a girlfriend or wife in the same situation would not be? If (for example) a woman is talking to me about trying to get a guy to notice her, I can offer some tips, which would require a short explanation. My sexuality is tied into far more than sex.

Being male doesn't give you enough expertise to talk about what attracts guys?
In all those cases your bisexuality does come up. Never said you need to hide anything. I just don't see the need to announce it either. Just like with any other bedroom stuff.

Finally: I am not straight. Being seen as straight, while it is going to happen, annoys me for the same reason that being seen as a business student would: I am not either, and it's actually kind of important to me not being either. I regard business as boring and inhuman: stupid, biased, but I do. I have no problem with straight people: I just am not one, and would not like being mistaken for one.
TL;DR. Sexuality/=sex.

Ah, I get it now. Your position is that bisexuality is a valid lifestyle choice similar to homosexuality or heterosexuality?

[Kittenwolf]

We clearly need our biomedical science to advance to the point where we can emulate Beta Colony from the Lois Mcmaster Bujold's "Vorkosigan" books.
For those that haven't read them, humans on Beta Colony live to be a couple of hundred and typically swap sex three or four times during their lives just because they can.