Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

HEY, QUILTBAG, WE DON'T LIKE YOUR KIND 'ROUND HERE

245

Posts

  • ToxTox I kill threads Pharezon's human garbage heapRegistered User regular
    edited November 2011
    And this:
    Pony wrote:
    "Not straight people" seems less complicated at this point

    Feels ridiculously exclusionary.

    I mean, I think I get where you're trying to go with this, but I'm not sure A) this is the right crowd to have the discussion with and B) that the angle you're coming from is the best one to use.

    Tox on
    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • PwnanObrienPwnanObrien Registered User regular
    ok but what about otherkin

    wait no thats not a sexuality thats just weird

    Otakukin.

    JLPENwc.gif
  • NuzakNuzak Registered User regular
    is there a word for people who enjoy dressing in the other gender's clothing

    i always thought it was transvestite, distinct from transexual in that transexuals had become a different sex, and transvesttite has the word "vest" in it so it reminds me of clothes y'see :oops:

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Hunter wrote:
    What about furries? Besides a yiff pile where do they fit in?

    we could add "transpecies" to the "T" list, but it's not really the same

    whatever, you try to come up with a good acronym

    edit: Nuzak, you've got the nomenclature right, but you'll notice that none of the other entries refer to the subjects' specific kinks. It's a list of possible orientations and identities rather than a list of individual sexual habits

    because let's face it

    that list would be as long as my dick

    (assuming you have small handwriting)

    MrMonroe on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    although the weird, attempted comprehensiveness of this acronym does remind me of an interesting point in a thing i was reading

    which was refuting the kinsey scale and the notion of people existing exclusively on some kind of gradient between homosexual and heterosexual

    like the kinsey scale is all:
    Blue-Red_256x256.png

    and then you get placed somewhere on that gradient, with blue being "exclusively heterosexual" and red being "exclusively homosexual", to use completely arbitrary definitions

    however

    the thing i was reading was suggesting it's a little more complicated than that, because Kinsey just recognizes frequency or prevalence of homosexual or heterosexual conduct

    it doesn't question what factors result in that gradient in an individual

    it suggested that it's a little more like this:

    colorwheel-rgb.jpg

    where your sexual proclivities might be several dots on that color scheme, with the colors representing different things (say, blue and yellow as male and female physical sex traits, green and magenta being masculine and feminine gender traits, etc. etc.)

    because it's been observed that there's a great many people who like some kinds of people some ways (for example, bisexual dudes who like their ladies feminine and their dudes masculine, or vice versa or whatever)

    so that inevitably the term bisexual itself becomes something of a misnomer, because it intrinsically ties the person's sexuality to gender binaries they might not even really acknowledge personally or sexually

    or they might have their own, internal binaries or measures they use

  • FyndirFyndir Registered User regular
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    Tox wrote:
    And this:
    Pony wrote:
    "Not straight people" seems less complicated at this point

    Feels ridiculously exclusionary.

    I mean, I think I get where you're trying to go with this, but I'm not sure A) this is the right crowd to have the discussion with and B) that the angle you're coming from is the best one to use.

    I could give a fuck less about A, and as for B, I'm not even sure you know what angle I'm coming from here.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    pro-tip: having an acronym that includes everyone but cisgender heterosexuals is ridiculously exclusionary

    because really

    what use do you have for such an acronym?

    to discuss social issues?

    the groups in your acronym don't even have the same social issues

  • SCREECH OF THE FARGSCREECH OF THE FARG #1 PARROTHEAD margaritavilleRegistered User regular
    Nuzak wrote:
    is there a word for people who enjoy dressing in the other gender's clothing

    i always thought it was transvestite, distinct from transexual in that transexuals had become a different sex, and transvesttite has the word "vest" in it so it reminds me of clothes y'see :oops:

    crossdressers?

    SYhhzZG.jpg?2?8605
  • BerkBerk Registered User regular
    those poor cisgender heterosexuals

    sig-1.jpg
  • FugitiveFugitive Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Pony wrote:
    it's like when people use the phrase

    "person of color" to mean "not a white person"

    I wish people would stop using this one. I don't see how it's any different than calling them "them coloreds". Just say "different races" if you want to refer to everyone.

    Also, I understand your sentiment, but it's also kind of dumb to suggest people should define themselves by what they aren't.

    Fugitive on
  • FaynorFaynor Registered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    faynor makes it pretty hard to talk to you when you end your posts with "lmao"

    what're you

    14?

    It's just such a laughably proposition that I don't really want to take a serious note with it

    but boy howdy do I wish I hadn't so you couldn't use that as an excuse not to defend your twisted point!

    do you wanna see me eat a hotdog
  • NuzakNuzak Registered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    Tox wrote:
    And this:
    Pony wrote:
    "Not straight people" seems less complicated at this point

    Feels ridiculously exclusionary.

    I mean, I think I get where you're trying to go with this, but I'm not sure A) this is the right crowd to have the discussion with and B) that the angle you're coming from is the best one to use.

    I could give a fuck less about A, and as for B, I'm not even sure you know what angle I'm coming from here.

    i think he means like defining things as "p" and "not p" may be a bit offensive to people who you are calling "not-p" and would like to be recognised as entities in their own right, not just seen through your perspective frame. of p. i need the toilet.

  • PwnanObrienPwnanObrien Registered User regular
    Nuzak wrote:
    is there a word for people who enjoy dressing in the other gender's clothing

    i always thought it was transvestite, distinct from transexual in that transexuals had become a different sex, and transvesttite has the word "vest" in it so it reminds me of clothes y'see :oops:

    http://www.destructoid.com/podtoid-172-gender-illusionist-214042.phtml

    JLPENwc.gif
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    Nuzak wrote:
    is there a word for people who enjoy dressing in the other gender's clothing

    i always thought it was transvestite, distinct from transexual in that transexuals had become a different sex, and transvesttite has the word "vest" in it so it reminds me of clothes y'see :oops:

    "people Metzger gets boners for" i believe is the correct term here.

    www.facebook.com/itgetsworseska
    Spoiler:
  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    Is there a name for someone who wants to fuck someone like an animal and wants to feel them from the inside?

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    pro-tip: having an acronym that includes everyone but cisgender heterosexuals is ridiculously exclusionary

    because really

    what use do you have for such an acronym?

    to discuss social issues?

    the groups in your acronym don't even have the same social issues

    oh sorry

    do you feel excluded as a straight male?

    I didn't mean to exclude you

    no, we all have somewhat different social issues, but the liberation of any one is entirely dependent on the liberation of all the others

  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote:
    Is there a name for someone who wants to fuck someone like an animal and wants to feel them from the inside?

    Trent Reznor?

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote:
    Is there a name for someone who wants to fuck someone like an animal and wants to feel them from the inside?

    "homo sapiens"

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    like if i say

    "The plight of immigrants in this country is a serious social issue that needs to be addressed"

    well

    generally speaking immigrants of all stripes are running into the same kind of fuckin' plights there

    like if you're a serbian immigrant, or a kenyan immigrant, and life's fuckin' you over in your new country because of your status as an immigrant

    then you've got unified issues of discrimination, workplace bullshit, etc. to address

    but

    on the other hand

    some of the groups in this QUILTBAG acronym do not have the same issues as others

    is gay marriage an issue for asexuals? not really. they ain't marryin' nobody. Is it an issue for transgender people? If they do not self-identify as heterosexuals, or if their government refuses to acknowledge their gender rather than their physical sex at birth, then i guess maybe. But not intrinsically, so that's not the same bag of shit for them to have to deal with. they have their own.

    yes, it's a large group of people in there who get dicked over by heterosexual, cisgender society on a regular basis

    sure

    but shit

    why not throw "not white" and fucking

    i don't know

    atheists and agnostics?

    throw that in there too, i guess

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    wow MrMonroe, your attitude toward straight white people is far more negative than I would expect from someone who belongs to a social group that is subject to such attitudes

  • BerkBerk Registered User regular
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote:
    wow MrMonroe, your attitude toward straight white people is far more negative than I would expect from someone who belongs to a social group that is subject to such attitudes

    what?

  • Big Red TieBig Red Tie a storm rocks a ship on a sea the wind shakes the leaves on a treeRegistered User regular
    ban pony hth

    3926 4292 8829
    Beasteh wrote: »
    *おなら*
  • FugitiveFugitive Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    MrMonroe wrote:
    Pony wrote:
    pro-tip: having an acronym that includes everyone but cisgender heterosexuals is ridiculously exclusionary

    because really

    what use do you have for such an acronym?

    to discuss social issues?

    the groups in your acronym don't even have the same social issues

    oh sorry

    do you feel excluded as a straight male?

    I didn't mean to exclude you

    no, we all have somewhat different social issues, but the liberation of any one is entirely dependent on the liberation of all the others

    And don't do this.

    It's a stupid stance to suggest that straight people have nothing to do with every other form of sexuality.

    Unless you're implying that being straight is some sort of base template, the whole QUILTBAG thing is an umbrella for virtually every orientation, and heterosexuality is an orientation.

    So please don't confuse "trying to include heterosexuals" with "persecution complex of the dominant group". It's a legitimate point.

    Fugitive on
  • UbikUbik i am a god in a french-ass restaurantRegistered User regular
    i thought this thread was gonna be about yankees moving south during reconstruction

    CleezusSig_zpsfa821add.png
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote:
    Pony wrote:
    pro-tip: having an acronym that includes everyone but cisgender heterosexuals is ridiculously exclusionary

    because really

    what use do you have for such an acronym?

    to discuss social issues?

    the groups in your acronym don't even have the same social issues

    oh sorry

    do you feel excluded as a straight male?

    I didn't mean to exclude you

    no, we all have somewhat different social issues, but the liberation of any one is entirely dependent on the liberation of all the others

    no, actually, that's not really the case

    gays have more rights in Canada than transgender people, for example

    the government is still waaaay behind on transgender rights issues than it is on gay rights issues

    there's actually very little in the way of liberation that homosexuals in Canada still have to fight for. the overwhelming majority of the legal battles and shit are already won, the hearts and minds and acceptance of the common folk is really more the real battleground here

    compare that to the sort of bullshit transgender people have to endure in this country and no

    the liberation of one is not dependent on the liberation of all the others

    they're happening at completely separate paces

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote:
    in America at least, "not a white person" is actually a fairly useful descriptor when you're talking about privilege
    MrMonroe wrote:
    oh sorry

    do you feel excluded as a straight male?

    I didn't mean to exclude you

    snark snark snark snark snark

  • PwnanObrienPwnanObrien Registered User regular
    Seriously though, can we all band together as a society...straight, gay, man, woman, transgendered, whatever...and destroy the Otakukin? Then maybe work on a cure for Juggalos.

    JLPENwc.gif
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    also an additional pro-tip: i'm not a heterosexual

    so if your opening conversational gambit is to call me a homophobe or ignorant of the issues or something

    you may wish to reconsider your moves, sir

  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    Ubik wrote:
    i thought this thread was gonna be about yankees moving south during reconstruction

    That's a carpet bagger.

  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote:
    MrMonroe wrote:
    in America at least, "not a white person" is actually a fairly useful descriptor when you're talking about privilege
    MrMonroe wrote:
    oh sorry

    do you feel excluded as a straight male?

    I didn't mean to exclude you

    snark snark snark snark snark

    Who controls the British crown?
    Who keeps the metric system down?
    We do! We do!

  • TamTam I hate art I love artRegistered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    Ubik wrote:
    i thought this thread was gonna be about yankees moving south during reconstruction

    That's a carpet bagger.

    zet vass de joke

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Ubik wrote:
    i thought this thread was gonna be about yankees moving south during reconstruction

    that might have been a better topic, actually

    but no, seriously, you really can't separate gay rights from lesbian rights from trans rights or even straight rights

    you can either have sexual equality, or you can have a society that has a class structure based on sexual identity

    no one is really free from sexual discrimination until everyone is. Discrimination and classism hurt everyone involved.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    hunter

    have i told you

    lately

    that i love you

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    also an additional pro-tip: i'm not a heterosexual

    so if your opening conversational gambit is to call me a homophobe or ignorant of the issues or something

    you may wish to reconsider your moves, sir

    what's the queer version of "Uncle Tom?"

    Spoiler:

  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure those kinds of acronyms are made exclusively to define 'the other' in very general terms of sexual alignment, not to imply that they all share all the exact same problems. Its the "My Straight Cisgendered Parents Have a Good Chance of Hating Me" club, basically.

    Also yes, saying that you don't believe in asexuals because all the ones you have known were bullshiters in your opinion is very problematic!

  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote:
    Pony wrote:
    also an additional pro-tip: i'm not a heterosexual

    so if your opening conversational gambit is to call me a homophobe or ignorant of the issues or something

    you may wish to reconsider your moves, sir

    what's the queer version of "Uncle Tom?"

    Spoiler:

    its glee

    the answer is all of glee

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote:
    Ubik wrote:
    i thought this thread was gonna be about yankees moving south during reconstruction

    that might have been a better topic, actually

    but no, seriously, you really can't separate gay rights from lesbian rights from trans rights or even straight rights

    you can either have sexual equality, or you can have a society that has a class structure based on sexual identity

    no one is really free from sexual discrimination until everyone is. Discrimination and classism hurt everyone involved.

    as adorably idealistic as this notion is

    no

    MrMonroe I don't know you well, sir, and I'm trying not to create assumptions about your character here

    but these sorts of views strike me as exactly the sort of lofty notions that young liberal college students are prone to

    you might be 46 and a veteran of the Iraq War! I don't know

    but that's how you come across

    like a 21 year old philosophy undergrad in a red beret

    you felt comfortable stereotyping my viewpoints immediately, so, since we're goin' there let's fuckin go there

    but anyway

    in reality, as in, the real world where actual social change against discriminated groups takes place

    it's actually important to have a clear, highly specific voice to combat specific issues, to fight battles on the battlegrounds they're made for, and that the more you shotgun multiple causes under a single umbrella, the less effective each message becomes

    compared to if each message tried to have its own, distinct voice to complain about its distinct issues

    the sort of unilateral approach you suggest is basically akin to saying "Man we could just solve economic problems if we just stopped being greedy, maaaaaaan"

    no

    we fix economic imbalances with fiscal reforms and new policies to address specific problems that form an underlying foundation for larger issues

    social problems (and discrimination against transgender individuals and non-heterosexuals is a social problem) are fixed by addressing underlying foundations and bulwarks and tearing them down and rebuilding them as they exist

    for example, the battle for gay rights in the US is not some buzzing noise about happiness and rainbows

    it's opposition to DADT and fighting for gay marriage

    that gets harder to do the more "Yeah, and also...!" messages you include

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    edited November 2011
    Pony wrote:
    pro-tip: having an acronym that includes everyone but cisgender heterosexuals is ridiculously exclusionary

    because really

    what use do you have for such an acronym?

    to discuss social issues?

    the groups in your acronym don't even have the same social issues

    well, first i am straight and white, and i've never felt excluded. (i can't believe i just typed "as a straight white man" unironically.)

    but also it really does make sense to have a group that's about protecting and working to the advantage of "everyone other than straight cisgendered people" because that group of people share something really important: a common enemy. the kind of person who opposes gay rights (or is simply homophobic in their everyday interactions) is practically guaranteed to be similarly bigoted against people who are bisexual or transgender or intersex or prettymucheverythinginthatacronym, and someone who's bigoted against trans people is far more likely to be homophobic than is someone who's a trans ally.

    the social issues of the various groups may differ in the same way that a disease might manifest differently in different people, but the cure is the same for all groups: getting rid of the underlying bigotry that hurts all of them.

    redhead on
Sign In or Register to comment.