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

135

Posts

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    redhead 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

    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.

    bolded for nope

    that might actually fuckin' shock you

    but it's a pretty big thing

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    edited November 2011
    oh shit i forgot who i was replying to until i read the rest of the thread oh well

    redhead on
  • PeccaviPeccavi oh... oh my!Registered User regular
    Why does this thread say it was last updated at 9:33???

    VANILLAAAAA

    kvhn.png
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

    shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

    totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

    i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

    i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

    you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

    but they're also mostly white people, too

    you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    you gonna include "Blacks" in your blackronym?

    i have invented a new word!

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote:
    Pony wrote:
    you gonna include "Blacks" in your blackronym?

    i have invented a new word!

    well done

  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    Yes, lgbect. people discriminate against trans people too

    The point is that if you were trans would you rather go to a regular school prom, or a dance that specifically said 'lgbt' or even just 'gay' friendly?

  • FugitiveFugitive Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    redhead wrote:
    oh shit i forgot who i was replying to until i read the rest of the thread oh well

    And yet he's raising a very valid point.

    My last girlfriend - we'll call her Sue - was solidly bisexual, and her previous girlfriend was solid lesbian. She frequently accused Sue of "faking it", not "picking a side", basically pretending to be bi to appease hetero-norms in society, and a whole bunch of other close-minded notions regarding human sexuality.

    So if your argument is that QUILTBAGs are completely unified against the "common enemy", you are woefully mistaken.

    [Edit] I'm not even sure I still have a grasp on what's being argued. Is QUILTBAG an actual organization? Or just a blanket term to define sexual orientation, occasionally invoked to represent sexual equality?

    Fugitive on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    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

    well I was a young liberal college student like, five years ago

    and while I agree that it is important to have a clear, specific voice when you're speaking out against injustice, I think that if you're fighting for simple tolerance and legal acknowledgement just for gay men or just for trans people then you might get some legal rights but you're unlikely to get anywhere in terms of actual social change

    The part of your post that I bolded? I agree 100%. That's why I don't think you can separate out people based on the specific manner in which they are discriminated against by, and I use this word at the peril of being labelled a young liberal college student, heteronormativity.

    And I'm sorry I assumed you were straight. You were making an argument I'm used to hearing from straight people looking to delegitimize the gay rights movement/feminism. (also deeply intertwined in my opinion) I shouldn't be dismissive of people like that.

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    oh and
    Pony wrote:
    like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

    shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

    totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

    i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

    i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

    you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

    but they're also mostly white people, too

    you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

    i had actually written into that first post a pre-emptive response to this but i deleted it because i figured it was unnecessary.

    anyway, it's not necessary that there be a perfect 100% overlap. some people might have highly specific prejudices from among those groups but most do not. for instance, you're simply not going to be able to argue that rates of homophobia among devout trans allies are likely equal to those of transphobic people. imagine a venn diagram of "people who hate X" and "people who hate Y" and so on. some are going to overlap way more than others--the diagrams for "people who hate gay people" and "people who hate trans people" and "bisexual" and "genderqueer" and so on are going to overlap among themselves way way more than that group as a whole will overlap with the circles for "people who hate black people" or "people who hate women" or whatever

  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    my friend told me that i was a "gay house n-word" for being bisexual. like a gay uncle tom cuz i can fit in with the "normals"

    i laaaaughed and laughed.

    Metzger Meister on
    www.facebook.com/itgetsworseska
    Spoiler:
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    I find the idea fascinating that QUILTBAG specifically excludes cisgendered heterosexuals specifically while being as inclusive as possible in all other aspects because of the idea that the vast majority of the people discriminating against the groups in QUILTBAG are cisgendered heterosexuals

    yet it also excludes race (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' folk are white people) and religion (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' people are Christian or Muslim)

    especially bizarre considering that last bit (religion) is the main reason people state as their foundation for being dipshits against sexual minorities.

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    Fugitive wrote:
    redhead wrote:
    oh shit i forgot who i was replying to until i read the rest of the thread oh well

    And yet he's raising a very valid point.

    My last girlfriend - we'll call her Sue - was solidly bisexual, and her previous girlfriend was solid lesbian. She frequently accused Sue of "faking it", not "picking a side", basically pretending to be bi to appease hetero-norms in society, and a whole bunch of other close-minded notions regarding human sexuality.

    So if your argument is that QUILTBAGs are completely unified against the "common enemy", you are woefully mistaken.

    [Edit] I'm not even sure I still have a grasp on what's being argued. Is QUILTBAG an actual organization? Or just a blanket term to define sexual orientation, occasionally invoked to represent sexual equality?

    biphobia in the gay community is a documented problem, but i think it would be hard to argue that the group of people fighting for gay rights overall isn't more accepting of bi/trans/queer/asexual/whatever people than is the norm

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    I find the idea fascinating that QUILTBAG specifically excludes cisgendered heterosexuals specifically while being as inclusive as possible in all other aspects because of the idea that the vast majority of the people discriminating against the groups in QUILTBAG are cisgendered heterosexuals

    yet it also excludes race (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' folk are white people) and religion (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' people are Christian or Muslim)

    especially bizarre considering that last bit (religion) is the main reason people state as their foundation for being dipshits against sexual minorities.

    secondary reason: sexual minorities insisting on creating needless acronyms on the internet

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    redhead wrote:
    oh and
    Pony wrote:
    like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

    shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

    totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

    i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

    i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

    you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

    but they're also mostly white people, too

    you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

    i had actually written into that first post a pre-emptive response to this but i deleted it because i figured it was unnecessary.

    anyway, it's not necessary that there be a perfect 100% overlap. some people might have highly specific prejudices from among those groups but most do not. for instance, you're simply not going to be able to argue that rates of homophobia among devout trans allies are likely equal to those of transphobic people. imagine a venn diagram of "people who hate X" and "people who hate Y" and so on. some are going to overlap way more than others--the diagrams for "people who hate gay people" and "people who hate trans people" and "bisexual" and "genderqueer" and so on are going to overlap among themselves way way more than that group as a whole will overlap with the circles for "people who hate black people" or "people who hate women" or whatever

    so you think that it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals

    but not that they are white, or religious

    because "black" and "atheist/agnostic" aren't part of your acronym, man

    you are defining the most prominent people to stand outside your group as cisgendered heterosexuals because those are traits the majority of them haters share

    but not their race (which quite frankly is probably irrelevant anyway) or their religious beliefs (which is actually really relevant as it serves for the primary stated reason for the hatin'!)

    i find that bizarre

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    can i just write on a side note that it's really nice having spent enough time here to notice, in general, who can be "counted on" in little discussions like this

    makes my day a little more bearable every time

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Fugitive wrote:
    [Edit] I'm not even sure I still have a grasp on what's being argued. Is QUILTBAG an actual organization? Or just a blanket term to define sexual orientation, occasionally invoked to represent sexual equality?

    It's an acronym I found on urbandictionary.com and thought might make a little food for thought to start out an all-inclusive sex thread in which people (Quiltbags and straights alike) could talk about their sexual proclivities without animosity or recrimination. Apparently I was wrong about the animosity and recrimination thing, but

    wherever I go

    there I am

    and there follows combativeness and argumentativeness

    it's just who I am

  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    I find the idea fascinating that QUILTBAG specifically excludes cisgendered heterosexuals specifically while being as inclusive as possible in all other aspects because of the idea that the vast majority of the people discriminating against the groups in QUILTBAG are cisgendered heterosexuals

    yet it also excludes race (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' folk are white people) and religion (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' people are Christian or Muslim)

    especially bizarre considering that last bit (religion) is the main reason people state as their foundation for being dipshits against sexual minorities.

    I'm not sure where you got this idea! Maybe if you were talking exclusively about North America? But even then you'd have to rely purely on numbers rather than proportions

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal Flo-ridaRegistered User regular
    Possible avenue for the social advancement of sexual minorities

    stop involving "urbandictionary dot com" in serious discussions about society

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote:
    Fugitive wrote:
    [Edit] I'm not even sure I still have a grasp on what's being argued. Is QUILTBAG an actual organization? Or just a blanket term to define sexual orientation, occasionally invoked to represent sexual equality?

    It's an acronym I found on urbandictionary.com and thought might make a little food for thought to start out an all-inclusive sex thread in which people (Quiltbags and straights alike) could talk about their sexual proclivities without animosity or recrimination. Apparently I was wrong about the animosity and recrimination thing, but

    wherever I go

    there I am

    and there follows combativeness and argumentativeness

    it's just who I am

    maybe your attempted thread at frank and open discussion of sexuality and sexual proclivities shouldn't have opened up with a weird acronym that specifically excludes some sexualities for political reasons

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Pony wrote:
    yet it also excludes race (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' folk are white people)

    people of all colors hate gays
    and religion (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' people are Christian or Muslim)

    and so do people of all creeds

    plenty of atheists use the word "fag" hatefully as well

    edit: and I just thought it was an hilarious acronym rather than a political one, but I see where your complaint is coming from

    MrMonroe on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    the term "Quiltbags and straights alike" should immediately hit your ear wrong, really

    why make the distinction if not for political reasons?

    it's a distinction that only has meaning in the avenues of political and social change and activism

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    edited November 2011
    Pony wrote:
    redhead wrote:
    oh and
    Pony wrote:
    like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

    shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

    totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

    i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

    i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

    you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

    but they're also mostly white people, too

    you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

    i had actually written into that first post a pre-emptive response to this but i deleted it because i figured it was unnecessary.

    anyway, it's not necessary that there be a perfect 100% overlap. some people might have highly specific prejudices from among those groups but most do not. for instance, you're simply not going to be able to argue that rates of homophobia among devout trans allies are likely equal to those of transphobic people. imagine a venn diagram of "people who hate X" and "people who hate Y" and so on. some are going to overlap way more than others--the diagrams for "people who hate gay people" and "people who hate trans people" and "bisexual" and "genderqueer" and so on are going to overlap among themselves way way more than that group as a whole will overlap with the circles for "people who hate black people" or "people who hate women" or whatever

    so you think that it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals

    but not that they are white, or religious

    because "black" and "atheist/agnostic" aren't part of your acronym, man

    you are defining the most prominent people to stand outside your group as cisgendered heterosexuals because those are traits the majority of them haters share

    but not their race (which quite frankly is probably irrelevant anyway) or their religious beliefs (which is actually really relevant as it serves for the primary stated reason for the hatin'!)

    i find that bizarre

    you're making a pretty basic reading mistake here. it's not that the common enemy justifying the acronym is "cisgender people" and "straight people," it's "people who hate non-cisgender people" and "people who hate non-straight people". i don't think it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals, though i imagine that's true: it's notable that people who hate gay people are also often people who hate trans people, and the same is true for all the terms on that list. the same is not true for (people who hate) black people, atheists, and women.

    that seems like a pretty comprehensive response. is there anything else?

    redhead on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote:
    Pony wrote:
    yet it also excludes race (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' folk are white people)

    people of all colors hate gays
    and religion (the majority of the QUILTBAG hatin' people are Christian or Muslim)

    and so do people of all creeds

    plenty of atheists use the word "fag" hatefully as well

    right, sure

    but you are arguing that since the majority and the loudest voices of queer-hatin' are cisgendered heterosexuals

    that the acronym shouldn't include them

    okay, fair enough

    but why isn't it also excluding those other factors, one of which (religion) is actually really causative!

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    redhead wrote:
    Pony wrote:
    redhead wrote:
    oh and
    Pony wrote:
    like you might be fucking stunned how highly specific people are in their prejudices

    shit-tons of people out there who are totally cool with gay people, but not bisexuals

    totally cool with bisexuals, but not genderqueer people

    i've known, personally, quite a few homosexuals who were transphobic as fuck

    i, personally, posited an ignorant-ass opinion of asexuals earlier in this very thread despite not being a heterosexual

    you might think "but the majority enemy is cisgendered heterosexuals!" and you're right

    but they're also mostly white people, too

    you gonna include "Blacks" in your backronym?

    i had actually written into that first post a pre-emptive response to this but i deleted it because i figured it was unnecessary.

    anyway, it's not necessary that there be a perfect 100% overlap. some people might have highly specific prejudices from among those groups but most do not. for instance, you're simply not going to be able to argue that rates of homophobia among devout trans allies are likely equal to those of transphobic people. imagine a venn diagram of "people who hate X" and "people who hate Y" and so on. some are going to overlap way more than others--the diagrams for "people who hate gay people" and "people who hate trans people" and "bisexual" and "genderqueer" and so on are going to overlap among themselves way way more than that group as a whole will overlap with the circles for "people who hate black people" or "people who hate women" or whatever

    so you think that it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals

    but not that they are white, or religious

    because "black" and "atheist/agnostic" aren't part of your acronym, man

    you are defining the most prominent people to stand outside your group as cisgendered heterosexuals because those are traits the majority of them haters share

    but not their race (which quite frankly is probably irrelevant anyway) or their religious beliefs (which is actually really relevant as it serves for the primary stated reason for the hatin'!)

    i find that bizarre

    you're making a pretty basic reading mistake here. it's not that the common enemy justifying the acronym is "cisgender people" and "straight people," it's "people who hate non-cisgender people" and "people who hate non-straight people". i don't think it's notable that the majority of people who hate QUILTBAGs are cisgendered heterosexuals, though i imagine that's true: it's notable that people who hate gay people are also often people who hate transpeople, and the same is true for all the terms on that list. the same is not true for black people, atheists, and women.

    that seems like a pretty comprehensive response. is there anything else?

    you think so, huh?

    must be thinking of different Republican parties

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    cool, then i think we're done!

  • OkamiOkami On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Nobody. Land of Ports, OreganoRegistered User regular
    Hunter wrote:
    Moriveth wrote:
    I get everything else (as much as a straight guy can, I guess), but what does unidentified entail?

    It means you need an identify scroll or to go see Deckard Cain in town.
    This post is the best post I've read all day.

    SATAN WISHLIST | SATAN POST | XBLive: OkiWolf | SS FC: 4727-0166-2556
    cFxn7.jpg
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    this thread will probably die off anyway because of a Vanilla bug that refuses to bump it when new posts are made

    and once a thread goes off the first page it might as well have never existed

    MrMonroe I'm sorry I shit up your naughty thread with politics

    maybe next time don't start it with political messages

  • KwoaruKwoaru Registered User regular
    this would have been fun if it had been light hearted

    also I kind of agree with what faynor was saying earlier

    but really when I'm looking to label people I have two categories 1) Likes: boys/girls/both/neither/other 2) Is: cis/trans/other

    so I guess I see what pony was saying about including trans in the list? or at least I have a point of view that kind of lines up with what I think pony said

    either way this thread is not as much fun as it could have been

    qJGPzDc.jpg
    Satan Info/Wishlist Post (small update 11/20)
  • redheadredhead Registered User
    edited November 2011
    monroe, when this one dies (gets a couple pages back) you should just start a new one! i like having a sex thread around, the people that post there tend to be the ones i like and i'm lazy so i want them to all be in the same place

    redhead on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Pony wrote:
    the term "Quiltbags and straights alike" should immediately hit your ear wrong, really

    why make the distinction if not for political reasons?

    it's a distinction that only has meaning in the avenues of political and social change and activism

    well, yeah, I can't eliminate my political bias; obviously I believe in liberation for all people and that liberation for only some people means only partial liberation for all

    can't really get around that when I'm making a thread

  • UbikUbik i am a god in a french-ass restaurantRegistered User regular
    talking about sex in public like this shouldn't be allowed anyway

    it offends proper puritan notions

    CleezusSig_zpsfa821add.png
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    Kwoaru wrote:
    this would have been fun if it had been light hearted

    also I kind of agree with what faynor was saying earlier

    but really when I'm looking to label people I have two categories 1) Likes: boys/girls/both/neither/other 2) Is: cis/trans/other

    so I guess I see what pony was saying about including trans in the list? or at least I have a point of view that kind of lines up with what I think pony said

    either way this thread is not as much fun as it could have been

    right, those are two different things, basically

    one is gender

    the other is sexual proclivity

    one is not intrinsically connected to the other

    I have personally met transgendered people who resent being considered "queer" or being lumped in with queer rights acronyms because they self-identify as heterosexuals and calling them "queer" even though they are heterosexual essentially undermines their gender status

    it's like saying "Yeah, you think you're straight, but because you aren't cisgendered you aren't really straight"

    I get why they consider that offensive!

    makes sense to me

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote:
    Pony wrote:
    the term "Quiltbags and straights alike" should immediately hit your ear wrong, really

    why make the distinction if not for political reasons?

    it's a distinction that only has meaning in the avenues of political and social change and activism

    well, yeah, I can't eliminate my political bias; obviously I believe in liberation for all people and that liberation for only some people means only partial liberation for all

    can't really get around that when I'm making a thread

    really?

    that's a shame

    because SE++ really could use a randy thread about sexuality and fetishes and shit

    but if your opening salvo is some fuckin' polemic about queer rights or something

    this is probably gonna be the result inevitably

    if it ain't me makin' a thing it's just gonna be someone else

  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Wait quit it for a sec lets look at nph
    tumblr_lu05u7Jkuc1qfb7jjo1_500.png
    tumblr_lu05u7Jkuc1qfb7jjo2_500.jpg
    aaaaaaa

    thats the stuff

    mensch-o-matic on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    dang is that his boy

    he's fuckin' hot

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT BUTTFUCKIN'?

    I am not personally into it

    it's like a shittier vagina

    literally and figuratively

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    This thread has now permanently entered the second page of the default, unmodified forum view

    I'm sorry, MrMonroe

    we're in space now

    no one can hear you scream

    speaking of:

  • redheadredhead Registered User
    edited November 2011
    Pony wrote:
    Kwoaru wrote:
    this would have been fun if it had been light hearted

    also I kind of agree with what faynor was saying earlier

    but really when I'm looking to label people I have two categories 1) Likes: boys/girls/both/neither/other 2) Is: cis/trans/other

    so I guess I see what pony was saying about including trans in the list? or at least I have a point of view that kind of lines up with what I think pony said

    either way this thread is not as much fun as it could have been

    right, those are two different things, basically

    one is gender

    the other is sexual proclivity

    one is not intrinsically connected to the other

    I have personally met transgendered people who resent being considered "queer" or being lumped in with queer rights acronyms because they self-identify as heterosexuals and calling them "queer" even though they are heterosexual essentially undermines their gender status

    it's like saying "Yeah, you think you're straight, but because you aren't cisgendered you aren't really straight"

    I get why they consider that offensive!

    makes sense to me

    i know it'll be too hard to not reply to the low-hanging fruit of obvious wrongness here so i'm not even going to try. no one here has been saying that being on that list of acronyms somehow makes you "queer." that was never said.

    ok cool thanks!

    redhead on
  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    Its supposed to be tighter, right?

    And that's its whole appeal?

    The only thing I know about it is that some ladies I know said it makes pooping easier

Sign In or Register to comment.