"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 that the angle you're coming from is the best one to use.
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:
0
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
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
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:
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:
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
"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 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.
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:
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.
"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 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.
0
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
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:
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.
"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
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
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
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.
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
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
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.
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!
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
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.
Posts
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
Otakukin.
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:
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)
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:
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:
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
QUILTBAGO!
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.
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
crossdressers?
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.
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!
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.
http://www.destructoid.com/podtoid-172-gender-illusionist-214042.phtml
"people Metzger gets boners for" i believe is the correct term here.
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
Trent Reznor?
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
"homo sapiens"
"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
what?
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.
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
snark snark snark snark snark
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
That's a carpet bagger.
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
zet vass de joke
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.
have i told you
lately
that i love you
what's the queer version of "Uncle Tom?"
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!
its glee
the answer is all of glee
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, 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.