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

Pony

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

redhead

oh shit i forgot who i was replying to until i read the rest of the thread oh well

Peccavi

Why does this thread say it was last updated at 9:33???

VANILLAAAAA

Pony

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?

Jasconius

Pony wrote:

you gonna include "Blacks" in your blackronym?

i have invented a new word!

Pony

Jasconius wrote:

Pony wrote:

you gonna include "Blacks" in your blackronym?

i have invented a new word!

well done

mensch-o-matic

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?

Fugitive

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?

MrMonroe

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.

redhead

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 Meister

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.

Pony

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.

redhead

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

Jasconius

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

Pony

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

redhead

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

MrMonroe

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-matic

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

Jasconius

Possible avenue for the social advancement of sexual minorities

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

Pony

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

MrMonroe

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

Pony

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

redhead

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?

Pony

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!

Pony

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

redhead

cool, then i think we're done!

Okami

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.

Pony

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

Kwoaru

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

redhead

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

MrMonroe

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

Ubik

talking about sex in public like this shouldn't be allowed anyway

it offends proper puritan notions

Pony

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

Pony

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-matic

Wait quit it for a sec lets look at nph


aaaaaaa

thats the stuff

Pony

dang is that his boy

he's fuckin' hot

MrMonroe

WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT BUTTFUCKIN'?

I am not personally into it

it's like a shittier vagina

literally and figuratively

Pony

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1lc6KASWg

redhead

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!

mensch-o-matic

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