Post 4412183 - (Time for LG to drop the BT!)

WP Members: > 70,000

New Today: 13
New Yesterday: 20

Time for LG to drop the BT!

Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> LGBT Discussion

Magdalena
Sea Gull

Joined: Feb 07, 2012
Posts: 205
Location: United States

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:47 pm Post subject:

Atomsk wrote:

Magdalena wrote:

XFilesGeek wrote:

Non-heteronormative???

This too. Probably the best option if "LGBT" isn't good enough.

I actually like that one; any option that isn't a massive acronym is a good option in my opinion.

Exactly. Because the thing we are trying to describe here, ultimately, is some degree of a lacking of heteronormativity.

starkid
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 716
Location: California Bay Area

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject:

If I understand what the original poster meant, I agree that it serves no purpose whatsoever for these different groups of people to be lumped together as if they have something in common. I don't agree with the comment made about bisexuals. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have issues in society and a political reason to unite due to their so-called sexual orientation. Their issues and communities are obviously not identical, but they have that one issue to unite around politically, and I would argue that LGB is primarily a political categorization. Trans and the rest of the alphabet soup have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Saying that isn't dissing them, "kicking them out," or not supporting them, it's just saying that being trans, androgynous, intersexed or whatever <i>in and of itself</i> has nothing to do with sexual orientation (although some may also be LGB, some are not). We can support them without pledging allegiance to some vaguely defined group. The similarities people are trying to draw here between some groups and others are not necessarily correct. There are trans people who desperately want to transition and disappear into heteronormativity. There are conservative trans people who think homosexuality is unnatural and would happily vote against gay marriage. Not all trans people are progressive, LGB supporters. Conversely, there are LGB people who do not support some trans issues. This idea that we are some big happy family, and everyone who disagrees is just a random hater is a fantasy. We are individuals with our own minds and opinions. Some of us may be haters, but some have completely legitimate differences. Some people want to be a part of the alphabet soup, fine, just realize that some of us don't, and having it in your mind that we're either in or we don't support everyone else is just being blind. The question is, what is the point of lumping all of these groups together? There isn't actually anything that they all have in common. "Sticking together" is a really vague reason, and there are people from all walks of life who support LGBTQwhatever: fishermen, married housewives, politicians, Buddhists, Indonesians, dog lovers. Do they all get a letter too?

iceveela
Velociraptor

Joined: Aug 17, 2011
Posts: 438

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:56 pm Post subject:

I feel quite butchered here, I am transsexual Transgenders and gays are intertwined like DNA strands in a nucleus. Many transgenders are gay or bi While many gay and bi people cross-dress, etc Almost all trans-people are referred to with the same words (gay, f@g, homo) as gay people. They are also considered to be "homosexuals in disguise" by many religious groups. even the westboro baptist church does not even distinguish between them during their pickets, they don't even hold up signs that say "trannys burn!", because they consider "trannys" to be gay. In fct, they never even mention the word "transsexual" or "transgender" on their FAQ of their website They are different, but pulling the T away from LGBT is similar will most likely harm both the LGB and T communities, as they are so intertwined, that pulling them apart would be like ripping apart conjoined twins. _________________ Aspie score: 164/200 NT score: 60/200 You are very likely an Aspie! AQ: 36

starkid
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 716
Location: California Bay Area

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:05 pm Post subject:

iceveela wrote:

Many transgenders are gay or bi

So they would be part of LGB, but because they are LGB, not because they are trans. Straight trans people would not be a part. But many Unitarian Universalists, Spaniards, and cat lovers are also gay or bi. Do they get a letter too?

Quote:

While many gay and bi people cross-dress, etc/

Not sure if you are trying to make a connection between LGB and trans here, but some people would say cross-dressing has nothing to do with being trans. Depends on your definition of trans.

Quote:

Almost all trans-people are referred to with the same words (gay, f@g, homo) as gay people...

So...they should be lumped together because some people are too ignorant to tell them apart, or refuse to see their differences?

iceveela
Velociraptor

Joined: Aug 17, 2011
Posts: 438

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject:

There is a difference between them, and it should have been obvious what I was trying to say. They have too many similarities to eject them from a group of people who strive in "accepting everyone". Thats why they accept asexuals, which is not a sexual orientation, ally's, which is not a sexual orientation, and everyone under the "transgender" umbrella, as well as Intersex people, who are not a sexual orientation, NOR someone under the transgender umbrella. They accept everyone that in gender, physical sex, or sexuality falls under the category as "not normal", as well as people who accept them for who they are. Kicking them out for a stupid reason is basically hypocrisy on their part, a group who accepts ll people and sends a message of love and acceptance should not just kick it's members out on the street "because they don't fit in anymore" "So they would be part of LGB, but because they are LGB, not because they are trans." so basically, you're going to accept most, if not all trans-people anyways by default, depending on whether they call themselves gay/straight/bi? If you were born a man, but see yourself as a woman, but like women, are you a lesbian, because you view yourself as a woman? Or are you straight because you were born with a penis? This in and of itself will be very difficult to disconnect the T from LGBT. and what about intersex people? and asexuals? Are you just going to sweep them under the rug due to a selfish ambition of a orientation only group that will never work? Kick asexuals, intersex people and trans-people out and see how far your group will go. You will twist the facts in this post too, i know you will. _________________ Aspie score: 164/200 NT score: 60/200 You are very likely an Aspie! AQ: 36

starkid
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 716
Location: California Bay Area

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:37 pm Post subject:

iceveela wrote:

There is a difference between them, and it should have been obvious what I was trying to say.

I think you are saying two different things. You are saying there are similarities between being LGB and being trans or asexual or intersexed, but you have not made a very good argument for it because the things you list don't apply in all cases.

You also seem to be talking about kicking people out and accepting people as if we're talking about some sort of group of friends or...I don't know. All I'm saying is that LGB, trans, asexuals, whoever else, don't inherently have anything in common, therefore there is no basis for thinking of them as part of one group. That has nothing to do with kicking people out of anything or not accepting them, whatever that even means. There isn't anything to kick them out of. This is not a clubhouse. I don't understand why you take "have different issues" as a form of rejection. Maybe you are thinking of the words used by the original poster, but "kicking people out" is not something I have talked about.

iceveela
Velociraptor

Joined: Aug 17, 2011
Posts: 438

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:44 pm Post subject:

starkid wrote:

iceveela wrote:

There is a difference between them, and it should have been obvious what I was trying to say.

There isn't a case that applies in all cases inherently for LGB's alone. Even gay marriage may not apply to all bisexuals. why not remove bisexuals? just lg will have just about everything in common, saying they are the same thing... homosexuality.

And I think I have so far made a pretty good argument bout how they are related, read what i wrote.
_________________
Aspie score: 164/200
NT score: 60/200
You are very likely an Aspie!

AQ: 36

CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:14 am Post subject:

All people under the LGBT umbrella are sex-atypical in terms of gender attraction, gender identity, or both. Besides, all transgender people will be filed under gay by people with different points of view. If a trans woman is attracted to her biological (birth) gender, some will call her gay. If she is attracted to the opposite gender instead, some will call her gay as well, seeing that she is a lesbian woman who happened to be born in a male body.

starkid
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 716
Location: California Bay Area

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:06 pm Post subject:

iceveela wrote:

There isn't a case that applies in all cases inherently for LGB's alone.

Yes there is. I wrote about it in a previous post. They are all non-heterosexuals. Non-heterosexuals are generally oppressed because of being non-heterosexuals, therefore there is a basis for grouping them together. Yes, there are reasons not to group them together based on other things (some don't care about gay marriage), but those things are different issues than LGB oppression. LGB oppression is a common issue, and other issues that are not common don't change that.

Quote:

And I think I have so far made a pretty good argument bout how they are related, read what i wrote.

I read what you wrote. One of the things you wrote is that SOME trans people are gay or bi. That does not prove that trans people IN GENERAL have anything in common with LGB people, all it proves is that people who or gay or bi have something in common with LGB people, which is totally obvious.

It seems like you're not understanding the point that, to prove that group A has something in common with group B, the commonality has to apply to all members of group A and group B. Like ALL LGB people are non-heterosexuals, therefore ALL LGB have a common issue. NOT ALL trans people are non-heterosexuals, therefore being non-heterosexual is not a commonality between trans (or the rest of the alphabet soup) and LGB people.

CrazyCatLord wrote:

All people under the LGBT umbrella are sex-atypical in terms of
gender attraction, gender identity, or both.

But attraction and identity are two totally different things. What is the point of lumping them together? I could just as easily say that all people under the DB umbrella are either doctors, bakers, or both...but what would be the point of grouping doctors and bakers in the first place?

By the way, not everyone believes "gender identity" is real or meaningful at all. This is yet another reason why people don't want to be lumped in with LGBTLOLWTF. It makes people assume we have the same perspective on these issues, and we don't.

iceveela
Velociraptor

Joined: Aug 17, 2011
Posts: 438

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:16 pm Post subject:

Quote:

"Yes there is. I wrote about it in a previous post. They are all non-heterosexuals. Non-heterosexuals are generally oppressed because of being non-heterosexuals, therefore there is a basis for grouping them together... Like ALL LGB people are non-heterosexuals, therefore ALL LGB have a common issue. NOT ALL trans people are non-heterosexuals"

In your words it should be LGBA, and if you REALLY want to go far into it, we might as well put Bestiality and Pedophilia in there as well, as they are technically sexual orientations of their own, and are considered such by many psychologists and researchers. so in the "non-hetero" regard, it would be more of a LGBBAP. But you are picking and choosing non-hetero orientations, and I am sure you don't want the other B and the P in your acronym.

So in that regard you are not even following your own criteria of non-hetero normality.

Unless you are using the "Non-hetero sexual orientation that is not classified as a paraphilia" approach, but then you'll just be picking and choosing which ones you personally like.

Not to mention Asexuals won't be added because asexuality are not a sexual orientation. Although it also received spite for being Non-hetero.
_________________
Aspie score: 164/200
NT score: 60/200
You are very likely an Aspie!

AQ: 36

CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:56 pm Post subject:

starkid wrote:

...
But attraction and identity are two totally different things. What is the point of lumping them together? I could just as easily say that all people under the DB umbrella are either doctors, bakers, or both...but what would be the point of grouping doctors and bakers in the first place?

By the way, not everyone believes "gender identity" is real or meaningful at all. This is yet another reason why people don't want to be lumped in with LGBTLOLWTF. It makes people assume we have the same perspective on these issues, and we don't.

Sexual orientation and sexual / gender identity are closely related. Both are aspects of human sexuality, two sides of the same coin. You can doubt gender identity all you want, just like some people doubt that homosexuality is a real sexual orientation and not just an acquired taste. If you happen to be cisgender, that's great for you, but not all people are.

I happen to be cisgender as well, but probably not 100%. I don't fit the male stereotype (otherwise people wouldn't mistake me for gay), and I've never felt at home in the traditional male gender role. When I play an MMO, I create a female character, and my female Second Life toon owns more dresses and shoes than most RL women.

I'm not entirely heterosexual either, which goes to show that sexual identity and sexual orientation go hand in hand. You can't separate my gender-atypicality from my bisexuality. The same goes for butch lesbians and effeminate gay men. All aspects of sexual identity are connected, even though many people are typical in one aspect and atypical in another.

Edited to add: None of the above is meant to be derogatory or insulting btw. "Atypical" is not a bad word. All people are atypical in one way or another. What connects all people under the LGBT umbrella is that we are atypical in regard to our sexuality.

starkid
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 716
Location: California Bay Area

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject:

iceveela wrote:

In your words it should be LGBA,

I'm assuming A stands for asexual. This depends on what asexuals say; I think at least some would say that they lack a sexual orientation rather than having a non-heterosexual sexual orientation. I can't speak for them, but I would say non-heterosexuality and non-interest in sex are pretty different issues, especially since some asexual people desire romantic relationships with people of the "opposite" sex.

Quote:

and if you REALLY want to go far into it, we might as well put Bestiality and Pedophilia in there as well, as they are technically sexual orientations of their own

No. Having desires for children has nothing to do with being straight or not. There can be straight pedos and there can be LGB pedos. I seriously cannot believe you are mixing up pedophilia and non-heterosexuality, in this forum of all places. Fail.

As for bestiality, the topic here is sexual orientation, and I don't think I'm alone when I say that the term typically applies to orientation towards human animals. If you think it also applies to non-human animals, fine, but they typically come in two biological sexes as well, so we still can have both straight and LGB people into bestiality, and therefore there is no inherent commonality between LGB people and people into bestiality.

Quote:

So in that regard you are not even following your own criteria of non-hetero normality.

The classification was non-hetero, not "non-hetero normality." There is a difference. This explains your "what about pedophilia and bestiality" statements.

iceveela
Velociraptor

Joined: Aug 17, 2011
Posts: 438

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:06 pm Post subject:

"No. Having desires for children has nothing to do with being straight or not. There can be straight pedos and there can be LGB pedos. I seriously cannot believe you are mixing up pedophilia and non-heterosexuality, in this forum of all places. Fail... As for bestiality, the topic here is sexual orientation, and I don't think I'm alone when I say that the term typically applies to orientation towards human animals." that sounded mature. Pedophilia can be gay or straight, but most tend to be "fixated", which suggests that they are genererally a completely different orientation altogether. As for bestiality, they generally are attracted to full animals. I sure hope you didn't mean furries when you compared half-humans to bestiality. Bestiality is defined as "sexual relations towards animals", furries are not considered a part of that. Due to the definitions and facts listed here, they should be added in the LGB sexual orientation due to the fact that they are NOT heterosexual. and why would you add bisexuals anyways when they are half-hetero? you seem to be very hypocritical on this front. I see you make up your own definitions as well as your own facts. _________________ Aspie score: 164/200 NT score: 60/200 You are very likely an Aspie! AQ: 36

starkid
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 716
Location: California Bay Area

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:10 pm Post subject:

CrazyCatLord wrote:

Sexual orientation and sexual / gender identity are closely related. Both are aspects of human sexuality, two sides of the same coin.

I repeat the point: Your opinion is not shared by everyone you are lumping together. You want to associate them in your own mind? Fine. Just keep in mind that the people you are associating do not agree with your association.

Quote:

You can doubt gender identity all you want, just like some people doubt that homosexuality is a real sexual orientation and not just an acquired taste.

First of all, if you are referring to me when you say "you," I never said anything about what I do or do not doubt. It will serve you well to take the words on the screen at face value.
Second of all, if you have a problem with people doubting anything about gender identity, the burden is on you to prove them wrong by addressing their arguments; attempting to discredit their ideas by mere association with some other group of people with some totally different ideas is nothing more than an unconvincing, cheap rhetorical trick.

Quote:

If you happen to be cisgender, that's great for you, but not all people are.

You are wasting your time speaking queerspeak to me. I can tell you from experience that my perspective and that of people who typically talk like you do are too different to have any sort of meaningful conversation including words like "cisgender" without defining them.

Quote:

I'm not entirely heterosexual either, which goes to show that sexual identity and sexual orientation go hand in hand.

It does not "go to show" anything except in your particular case. You are only one person; your experience does not prove anything in general. The lack of reasoning skills you display here suggest that I am wasting my time in this discussion.

starkid
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 716
Location: California Bay Area

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:21 pm Post subject:

iceveela wrote:

Pedophilia can be gay or straight, but most tend to be "fixated", which suggests that they are genererally a completely different orientation altogether. As for bestiality, they generally are attracted to full animals. I sure hope you didn't mean furries when you compared half-humans to bestiality.

You lost me. I didn't say anything about half-humans. What does that even mean? What is a "full animal?" Shocked

And no, I was not talking about furries, I was talking about people who desire non-human animals...same thing you were talking about. Is it "non-human animal" that is confusing you?
It is just a term that includes all animals except human beings (who are also animals). I give up. I mean no disrespect, but your reading comprehension skills are tiresome.

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> LGBT Discussion

Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Forums ©

Read more Articles on Wrong Planet

Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2013, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Wrong Planet News Wrong Planet Forums