The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Hi Trans thread. I lurk in here a lot so I can learn things. I've learned a lot from these threads. Being sheltered, I don't think I ever really understood what a transperson was outside of tv and movies and even then, I was always kinda "why is this supposed to be such a big deal? They look like a person, act like a person, have feelings like a person, that's clearly a person."
Well, after reading these threads and learning what y'all go through to just exist, holy shit you guys. Keep on trucking and you run over anyone who stands in your way because fuck those guys.
In the spirit of continued learning of things, I have a question on sexuality. Could someone please explain to me the difference between being bisexual and pansexual? My basic understanding bisexuality is that bi people are attracted to both sexes, but pansexual just throws me for a loop.
0
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Hi Trans thread. I lurk in here a lot so I can learn things. I've learned a lot from these threads. Being sheltered, I don't think I ever really understood what a transperson was outside of tv and movies and even then, I was always kinda "why is this supposed to be such a big deal? They look like a person, act like a person, have feelings like a person, that's clearly a person."
Well, after reading these threads and learning what y'all go through to just exist, holy shit you guys. Keep on trucking and you run over anyone who stands in your way because fuck those guys.
In the spirit of continued learning of things, I have a question on sexuality. Could someone please explain to me the difference between being bisexual and pansexual? My basic understanding bisexuality is that bi people are attracted to both sexes, but pansexual just throws me for a loop.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure pansexual is attraction to more than just the gender binary. Like, also the specified or unspecified gender identities inbetween.
Edit: at least, this is how I've reasoned it out, for myself. I used to identify bi, but now (using that definition) I more identify pan.
There seem to be a couple of definitions. I am personally quite uncomfortable with the one Caulk Bite 6 outlines above, because it indicates a close-mindedness of bisexuality that I don't think people who identify as bisexuals (myself sort of included) absolutely do not want to signal.
The (albeit vague) definition that has always made most sense to me is that the main difference is the degree to which one has a physical attraction specifically to masculine and feminine features. One sentiment that stands out in my mind was expressed on the World Book Club radio program by the author Jeanette Winterson. She talks about being being uncomfortable with the label gay or lesbian, because even though she has exclusively (or close to) had female partners she doesn't consider herself either gay or bisexual, saying that she feels that someones gender is the absolutely least interesting fact about them. In that way bisexuality and pansexuality is sort of the flip side or genderqueer/agender.
Bisexuality usually implies being attracted to someone in part because of their gender. That doesn't mean that the person necessarily needs to conform to the gender binary, just that their body and/or gender expression is an important part of attraction.
I identify as bisexual (or at the very least bicurious), but I find men to be physically attractive about 10 times less often than women, and almost never develop a personal attraction once I get to know them. Part of that is probably deeply buried homophobia, but whatever the cause it would be hugely disingenuous of me to claim that the gender of my partner doesn't matter to me.
Also worth noting is that classical gender theory put men as more likely to identify as bisexual by this definition, as male sexuality is typically more visually driven and prone to fetishism, while women are more likely to be pansexual. How closely this matches reality is questionable.
Vic on
0
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
edited February 2016
Well, I did preface it with "I might be wrong". I am also open to correction
Well, I did preface it with "I might be wrong". I am also open to correction
Sorry, I didn't mean to blame you! I have heard that definition many times before so you definitely aren't "wrong". I just find it unfortunate when terms in widespread use get narrowed down to a definiton that might not match the interpretation most of the people using it have.
In reality, I think the most common definitions are simply that bisexuals are attracted to both men and women, while pansexuals are attracted to people regardless of gender. Any interpretations beyond that are hugely subjective, and as Pony says tell more about the prejudices of the speaker than any objective reality of the words themselves.
Edit: Sorry if I am speaking out of turn or taking too much room in the thread, I just find this an interesting subject.
I have always felt that sexual orientation labels are more an expression of intent than of any kind of "internal truth".
Some people have genuinely fulfilling straight relationships, then one day realize that they prefer their own gender and declare themselves gay. Some would claim that these people are really bisexual or pansexual, but I find that kind of policing completely useless. I've even heard of people in straight, monogamous relationships still refering to themselves as gay, and while I don't understand that logic I don't really have any reason to question it.
By declaring your sexual orientation you are expressing what kind of people you are interested in having romantic relationships with. And with that said, the current labels are indeed getting more and more useless.
In fact, while I said above that I identify as bisexual, there are very few situations where I would express that. Bisexual seems wrong because it indicates that I'm open to advances from men, which is almost never the case. Straight is better, but still inaccurate, because it comes with the risk of signalling that I'm not interested in trans or intersex people. If pressed, I would probably go with something like "I'm mostly straight, usually, but I think dicks are really, really neat. but I'm pretty open-minded."
I just plain don't like sexual orientation labels.
If other people are comfortable with self-applying them, cool.
I talk around the subject because I find the label brings out more prejudices than understanding.
I wouldn't say it is ideal but I tend to use labels to self identify both in terms of sexual orientation and in gender....mostly because if I didn't things would get really goddamn wordy really fast. There isn't a single word that describes my headspace perfectly, especially when it seems to change daily, but it takes way to many words for me to not use some sort of shorthand in most discussions.
The Disney Channel keeps reshowing that remake of the the Parent Trap as of two years ago when I was forced to watch the Disney Channel at the Boston Children's Hospital cafeteria.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
0
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
I think the reaction is (or would be) fairly reasonable. The problem is the film gets it backwards. They react, not because a stranger has been posing as someone they trusted (in which case, their reaction would be pretty well justified), but because he might be some kind of sexual deviant.
Catching her peeing standing up simply means Doubtfire would be a trans woman, which again isn't some breach of ethics. Either way you look at it, the reaction is a sign that "Lady with a dick." should immediately be treated fearfully, be it because of sexual deviancy or just Up To No Good.
The reaction, regardless of why it is caused, gets trans women killed with breathtaking regularity, and movies like Mrs. Doubtfire and Ace Venture reinforce such a reaction as appropriate.
Perhaps this is my misunderstanding of terminology, but simply because a person chooses to dress in a way that does not conform to the established societal norms for their gender, does not automatically make them trans does it?
With this said, I haven't actually seen the movie. Is the character actually presented as being transgender or is there another reason for it?
While I've never been 100% certain of my own sexuality, mainly because I've never really had much interest in getting physically intimate with other people, I've pretty strongly suspected that I'm bisexual ever since around high school age.
However, as of late, I've become aware of a pattern among my circle of close friends. Out of the 4 people I spend the most time with, it seems 3 of them are bi.
Go figure.
Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204
0
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
Labels are good for starting conversations on these often difficult to encapsulate matters of gender identity and sexuality, I find. But they obviously have limits because everyone, as individuals, are different and many people have a wide array of desires and viewpoints that go beyond the hetero-normative mainstream. Not to mention the ever present danger of mislabeling someone as something they aren't, by accident or intention.
So I don't discount the value of labels, like calling myself genderfluid, but it's not something I look at as being super important in and of itself necessarily beyond simply helping to educate others.
I think the reaction is (or would be) fairly reasonable. The problem is the film gets it backwards. They react, not because a stranger has been posing as someone they trusted (in which case, their reaction would be pretty well justified), but because he might be some kind of sexual deviant.
Catching her peeing standing up simply means Doubtfire would be a trans woman, which again isn't some breach of ethics. Either way you look at it, the reaction is a sign that "Lady with a dick." should immediately be treated fearfully, be it because of sexual deviancy or just Up To No Good.
The reaction, regardless of why it is caused, gets trans women killed with breathtaking regularity, and movies like Mrs. Doubtfire and Ace Venture reinforce such a reaction as appropriate.
Perhaps this is my misunderstanding of terminology, but simply because a person chooses to dress in a way that does not conform to the established societal norms for their gender, does not automatically make them trans does it?
With this said, I haven't actually seen the movie. Is the character actually presented as being transgender or is there another reason for it?
In the movie, Robin Williams' character gets divorced from his wife, and his ex-wife gets full custody, because Williams doesn't have a job and is basically as a 40 year old teenager. The thrust of the plot is that Williams dresses like an elderly woman in order to get hired as the kids nanny so he can spend more time with them. This is something of an issue because it reinforces the idea that if someone is dressing in a way that does not conform to societal norms for the gender they were assigned at birth, it's for deceitful reasons.
Especially in the early 90s, when there was even less understanding among the general public about what it meant to be trans, this sort of story was basically the only time that most people in the country ever considered the issue of presenting in a way other than what would be the norm for your DGAB. It follows a really shitty tradition of men dressing like women to fool someone, which can pretty obviously be tied into the current "trans people go into the restroom to molest people!" bullshit.
I think the reaction is (or would be) fairly reasonable. The problem is the film gets it backwards. They react, not because a stranger has been posing as someone they trusted (in which case, their reaction would be pretty well justified), but because he might be some kind of sexual deviant.
Catching her peeing standing up simply means Doubtfire would be a trans woman, which again isn't some breach of ethics. Either way you look at it, the reaction is a sign that "Lady with a dick." should immediately be treated fearfully, be it because of sexual deviancy or just Up To No Good.
The reaction, regardless of why it is caused, gets trans women killed with breathtaking regularity, and movies like Mrs. Doubtfire and Ace Venture reinforce such a reaction as appropriate.
Perhaps this is my misunderstanding of terminology, but simply because a person chooses to dress in a way that does not conform to the established societal norms for their gender, does not automatically make them trans does it?
With this said, I haven't actually seen the movie. Is the character actually presented as being transgender or is there another reason for it?
No, the character is not transgender, but they are pretending to be a woman so completely and so convincingly that other characters believe that they are one
Therefore, when they discover that this character has a penis, those other characters should reach the conclusion that this is a trans woman. Which, as has been mentioned, is not a discovery which merits hostility.
I consider myself fairly straight, while at the same time open to the possibility of a relationship outside of the heteronormative spectrum.
At the same time, though, I feel disingenuous claiming to be queer or bi or whatever. I dunno. Sexuality is weird.
it certainly fits within the spectrum of queer as I understand it
so should you want to use that term I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it
Yeah, but it just seems like... I dunno. I feel like I'm claiming to something that I don't really deserve. Like, I'm not going out and actively looking for a relationship with a dude, or polyamory, or anything like that. It's basically "If I was broken up with my wife and wanted to start a new relationship and met someone else that presented differently than what I am used to, I would certainly consider it."
Like, there's so many conditions to that, that it seems like I'd just be claiming the 'queer' label to show off, and join in people's conversations like "Oh yeah, I'm queer so I totally understand that." when really, I totally fucking wouldn't.
I definitely have issues with doing anything that I could think of as making myself seem 'special' over other people, though, so that probably is a big part of my hesitance.
I consider myself fairly straight, while at the same time open to the possibility of a relationship outside of the heteronormative spectrum.
At the same time, though, I feel disingenuous claiming to be queer or bi or whatever. I dunno. Sexuality is weird.
it certainly fits within the spectrum of queer as I understand it
so should you want to use that term I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it
Yeah, but it just seems like... I dunno. I feel like I'm claiming to something that I don't really deserve. Like, I'm not going out and actively looking for a relationship with a dude, or polyamory, or anything like that. It's basically "If I was broken up with my wife and wanted to start a new relationship and met someone else that presented differently than what I am used to, I would certainly consider it."
Like, there's so many conditions to that, that it seems like I'd just be claiming the 'queer' label to show off, and join in people's conversations like "Oh yeah, I'm queer so I totally understand that." when really, I totally fucking wouldn't.
I definitely have issues with doing anything that I could think of as making myself seem 'special' over other people, though, so that probably is a big part of my hesitance.
Part of that is possibly because you are a white, cisgendered father of two married to a white, cisgendered woman.
(To be clear I am not making weird assumptions about Mori's life, I've known him for 10+ years)
As "privilege" goes you kinda check a few societally acceptable boxes my droog
So for you to "claim" to be queer can feel off to you, because A.) You're happily and monogamously married so it's not like you're gonna act on that anytime soon and B.) It is "risk-free" because it doesn't actually affect your life in any meaningful way.
Some people may struggle with some aspects of their gender identity or sexual orientation and feeling like these things aren't "legitimate", either because they can't or won't "act" on them and they're purely "theory" at this point in their lives, or because they feel like they don't "deserve" to be part of that clade of people because they don't endure some of the same consequences others of that group do.
I think a lot of my friends are getting really tired of me correcting them on name and pronouns, and deadname stuff has been really bad for me (esp at work) since I came out (i'm still not out at work yet, tho)
I don't know, it's all just been pretty distressing since I got back home from my vacation.
Though, I can't decide whether deadnaming/misgendering is worse than people I'm close to not using a name for me at all. They both feel really really bad.
I basically check every box on the privilege list, except for, like, the rich part.
Also, I hope I don't sound like I feel like people aren't 'queer' until they 'prove' themselves, because that's not my intent at all. It's just a weird feeling I have specific to myself, that, like Pony said, I'm in a secure monogamous heteronormative relationship with no reason or desire to experiment, and since it's so incredibly 'safe' for me to say I'm queer in this context, it feels absolutely toothless.
Edit: I guess to put it another way, I feel like I'd be marginalizing queer people who have legitimate struggles and co-opting their issues to talk about myself. Which I guess is what I'm doing now, so I'll shut up!
I basically check every box on the privilege list, except for, like, the rich part.
Also, I hope I don't sound like I feel like people aren't 'queer' until they 'prove' themselves, because that's not my intent at all. It's just a weird feeling I have specific to myself, that, like Pony said, I'm in a secure monogamous heteronormative relationship with no reason or desire to experiment, and since it's so incredibly 'safe' for me to say I'm queer in this context, it feels absolutely toothless.
Edit: I guess to put it another way, I feel like I'd be marginalizing queer people who have legitimate struggles and co-opting their issues to talk about myself. Which I guess is what I'm doing now, so I'll shut up!
Well, to me, being myself under the queer umbrella, someone in your position saying that "yes I have all the privilege boxes checked but I am actually queer, just fyi" just points out to more people that queer people are a LOT more present than they would think. In my mind it's still helpful in it's own way.
I, personally, would not feel marginalized by that sort of statement. You're just stating what you are, not expecting preferential treatment from it.
I think a lot of my friends are getting really tired of me correcting them on name and pronouns, and deadname stuff has been really bad for me (esp at work) since I came out (i'm still not out at work yet, tho)
I don't know, it's all just been pretty distressing since I got back home from my vacation.
Though, I can't decide whether deadnaming/misgendering is worse than people I'm close to not using a name for me at all. They both feel really really bad.
If your friends are getting tired of you correcting them on name and pronouns, maybe they should start using the right ones consistently. Slipping up once in a while is understandable. Needing to be corrected over and over is not.
When you say not using a name at all, are you talking, like, getting your attention by saying "hey, you"? Because that also sounds really not okay.
Well Mori and I were just discussing it yesterday and I said I that while I was attracted to more women than men I would disingenuous to claim I was anything other than straight while I am happily married and monogamous and now look
Well Mori and I were just discussing it yesterday and I said I that while I was attracted to more women than men I would disingenuous to claim I was anything other than straight while I am happily married and monogamous and now look
Well Mori and I were just discussing it yesterday and I said I that while I was attracted to more women than men I would disingenuous to claim I was anything other than straight while I am happily married and monogamous and now look
Look who stole my words
I've always understood orientation to be who you're attracted to
Mrs chilla still considers herself bisexual even though she's currently with me?
Well Mori and I were just discussing it yesterday and I said I that while I was attracted to more women than men I would disingenuous to claim I was anything other than straight while I am happily married and monogamous and now look
Look who stole my words
I've always understood orientation to be who you're attracted to
Mrs chilla still considers herself bisexual even though she's currently with me?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding
In fact, the idea that you can't be queer while in a straight relationship is one of the common forms of bi-erasure. Your orientation and general attraction doesn't get put on hold when you're in a monogamous relationship. By that logic, I'd be asexual since I'm not currently seeing anyone.
Well Mori and I were just discussing it yesterday and I said I that while I was attracted to more women than men I would disingenuous to claim I was anything other than straight while I am happily married and monogamous and now look
Look who stole my words
I've always understood orientation to be who you're attracted to
Mrs chilla still considers herself bisexual even though she's currently with me?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding
In fact, the idea that you can't be queer while in a straight relationship is one of the common forms of bi-erasure. Your orientation and general attraction doesn't get put on hold when you're in a monogamous relationship. By that logic, I'd be asexual since I'm not currently seeing anyone.
Well, it's well known that violent, gymnastic turtles are incredibly difficult to date.
Well Mori and I were just discussing it yesterday and I said I that while I was attracted to more women than men I would disingenuous to claim I was anything other than straight while I am happily married and monogamous and now look
Look who stole my words
I've always understood orientation to be who you're attracted to
Mrs chilla still considers herself bisexual even though she's currently with me?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding
In fact, the idea that you can't be queer while in a straight relationship is one of the common forms of bi-erasure. Your orientation and general attraction doesn't get put on hold when you're in a monogamous relationship. By that logic, I'd be asexual since I'm not currently seeing anyone.
Well, it's well known that violent, gymnastic turtles are incredibly difficult to date.
they tip bad too.
I'll have you know I regularly tip 15-20% (plus a little bit extra if it rounds up to a nice number).
Posts
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
Well, after reading these threads and learning what y'all go through to just exist, holy shit you guys. Keep on trucking and you run over anyone who stands in your way because fuck those guys.
In the spirit of continued learning of things, I have a question on sexuality. Could someone please explain to me the difference between being bisexual and pansexual? My basic understanding bisexuality is that bi people are attracted to both sexes, but pansexual just throws me for a loop.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure pansexual is attraction to more than just the gender binary. Like, also the specified or unspecified gender identities inbetween.
Edit: at least, this is how I've reasoned it out, for myself. I used to identify bi, but now (using that definition) I more identify pan.
The (albeit vague) definition that has always made most sense to me is that the main difference is the degree to which one has a physical attraction specifically to masculine and feminine features. One sentiment that stands out in my mind was expressed on the World Book Club radio program by the author Jeanette Winterson. She talks about being being uncomfortable with the label gay or lesbian, because even though she has exclusively (or close to) had female partners she doesn't consider herself either gay or bisexual, saying that she feels that someones gender is the absolutely least interesting fact about them. In that way bisexuality and pansexuality is sort of the flip side or genderqueer/agender.
Bisexuality usually implies being attracted to someone in part because of their gender. That doesn't mean that the person necessarily needs to conform to the gender binary, just that their body and/or gender expression is an important part of attraction.
I identify as bisexual (or at the very least bicurious), but I find men to be physically attractive about 10 times less often than women, and almost never develop a personal attraction once I get to know them. Part of that is probably deeply buried homophobia, but whatever the cause it would be hugely disingenuous of me to claim that the gender of my partner doesn't matter to me.
Also worth noting is that classical gender theory put men as more likely to identify as bisexual by this definition, as male sexuality is typically more visually driven and prone to fetishism, while women are more likely to be pansexual. How closely this matches reality is questionable.
If other people are comfortable with self-applying them, cool.
I talk around the subject because I find the label brings out more prejudices than understanding.
Sorry, I didn't mean to blame you! I have heard that definition many times before so you definitely aren't "wrong". I just find it unfortunate when terms in widespread use get narrowed down to a definiton that might not match the interpretation most of the people using it have.
In reality, I think the most common definitions are simply that bisexuals are attracted to both men and women, while pansexuals are attracted to people regardless of gender. Any interpretations beyond that are hugely subjective, and as Pony says tell more about the prejudices of the speaker than any objective reality of the words themselves.
Edit: Sorry if I am speaking out of turn or taking too much room in the thread, I just find this an interesting subject.
I have always felt that sexual orientation labels are more an expression of intent than of any kind of "internal truth".
Some people have genuinely fulfilling straight relationships, then one day realize that they prefer their own gender and declare themselves gay. Some would claim that these people are really bisexual or pansexual, but I find that kind of policing completely useless. I've even heard of people in straight, monogamous relationships still refering to themselves as gay, and while I don't understand that logic I don't really have any reason to question it.
By declaring your sexual orientation you are expressing what kind of people you are interested in having romantic relationships with. And with that said, the current labels are indeed getting more and more useless.
In fact, while I said above that I identify as bisexual, there are very few situations where I would express that. Bisexual seems wrong because it indicates that I'm open to advances from men, which is almost never the case. Straight is better, but still inaccurate, because it comes with the risk of signalling that I'm not interested in trans or intersex people. If pressed, I would probably go with something like "I'm mostly straight, usually, but I think dicks are really, really neat. but I'm pretty open-minded."
I wouldn't say it is ideal but I tend to use labels to self identify both in terms of sexual orientation and in gender....mostly because if I didn't things would get really goddamn wordy really fast. There isn't a single word that describes my headspace perfectly, especially when it seems to change daily, but it takes way to many words for me to not use some sort of shorthand in most discussions.
Perhaps this is my misunderstanding of terminology, but simply because a person chooses to dress in a way that does not conform to the established societal norms for their gender, does not automatically make them trans does it?
With this said, I haven't actually seen the movie. Is the character actually presented as being transgender or is there another reason for it?
While I've never been 100% certain of my own sexuality, mainly because I've never really had much interest in getting physically intimate with other people, I've pretty strongly suspected that I'm bisexual ever since around high school age.
However, as of late, I've become aware of a pattern among my circle of close friends. Out of the 4 people I spend the most time with, it seems 3 of them are bi.
Go figure.
So I don't discount the value of labels, like calling myself genderfluid, but it's not something I look at as being super important in and of itself necessarily beyond simply helping to educate others.
In the movie, Robin Williams' character gets divorced from his wife, and his ex-wife gets full custody, because Williams doesn't have a job and is basically as a 40 year old teenager. The thrust of the plot is that Williams dresses like an elderly woman in order to get hired as the kids nanny so he can spend more time with them. This is something of an issue because it reinforces the idea that if someone is dressing in a way that does not conform to societal norms for the gender they were assigned at birth, it's for deceitful reasons.
Especially in the early 90s, when there was even less understanding among the general public about what it meant to be trans, this sort of story was basically the only time that most people in the country ever considered the issue of presenting in a way other than what would be the norm for your DGAB. It follows a really shitty tradition of men dressing like women to fool someone, which can pretty obviously be tied into the current "trans people go into the restroom to molest people!" bullshit.
No, the character is not transgender, but they are pretending to be a woman so completely and so convincingly that other characters believe that they are one
Therefore, when they discover that this character has a penis, those other characters should reach the conclusion that this is a trans woman. Which, as has been mentioned, is not a discovery which merits hostility.
At the same time, though, I feel disingenuous claiming to be queer or bi or whatever. I dunno. Sexuality is weird.
yes hi, this is me
Steam | Twitter
it certainly fits within the spectrum of queer as I understand it
so should you want to use that term I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it
Yeah, but it just seems like... I dunno. I feel like I'm claiming to something that I don't really deserve. Like, I'm not going out and actively looking for a relationship with a dude, or polyamory, or anything like that. It's basically "If I was broken up with my wife and wanted to start a new relationship and met someone else that presented differently than what I am used to, I would certainly consider it."
Like, there's so many conditions to that, that it seems like I'd just be claiming the 'queer' label to show off, and join in people's conversations like "Oh yeah, I'm queer so I totally understand that." when really, I totally fucking wouldn't.
I definitely have issues with doing anything that I could think of as making myself seem 'special' over other people, though, so that probably is a big part of my hesitance.
Part of that is possibly because you are a white, cisgendered father of two married to a white, cisgendered woman.
(To be clear I am not making weird assumptions about Mori's life, I've known him for 10+ years)
As "privilege" goes you kinda check a few societally acceptable boxes my droog
So for you to "claim" to be queer can feel off to you, because A.) You're happily and monogamously married so it's not like you're gonna act on that anytime soon and B.) It is "risk-free" because it doesn't actually affect your life in any meaningful way.
Some people may struggle with some aspects of their gender identity or sexual orientation and feeling like these things aren't "legitimate", either because they can't or won't "act" on them and they're purely "theory" at this point in their lives, or because they feel like they don't "deserve" to be part of that clade of people because they don't endure some of the same consequences others of that group do.
Some people.
I don't know, it's all just been pretty distressing since I got back home from my vacation.
Though, I can't decide whether deadnaming/misgendering is worse than people I'm close to not using a name for me at all. They both feel really really bad.
ineedmayo.com Eidolon Journal Updated
Also, I hope I don't sound like I feel like people aren't 'queer' until they 'prove' themselves, because that's not my intent at all. It's just a weird feeling I have specific to myself, that, like Pony said, I'm in a secure monogamous heteronormative relationship with no reason or desire to experiment, and since it's so incredibly 'safe' for me to say I'm queer in this context, it feels absolutely toothless.
Edit: I guess to put it another way, I feel like I'd be marginalizing queer people who have legitimate struggles and co-opting their issues to talk about myself. Which I guess is what I'm doing now, so I'll shut up!
Well, to me, being myself under the queer umbrella, someone in your position saying that "yes I have all the privilege boxes checked but I am actually queer, just fyi" just points out to more people that queer people are a LOT more present than they would think. In my mind it's still helpful in it's own way.
I, personally, would not feel marginalized by that sort of statement. You're just stating what you are, not expecting preferential treatment from it.
I still have weird doubts though, like I have to prove it to myself before I'd claim it. How do I prove it? I dunno!
Anyway, thanks for the discussion, folks. I'll stop hijacking the thread now!
gotta suck a dick, man. only way.
btw, I'm free until about 5:30.
If your friends are getting tired of you correcting them on name and pronouns, maybe they should start using the right ones consistently. Slipping up once in a while is understandable. Needing to be corrected over and over is not.
When you say not using a name at all, are you talking, like, getting your attention by saying "hey, you"? Because that also sounds really not okay.
Look who stole my words
Steam | Twitter
I LIKE THAT WORD TOO DAMN IT
another completely valid postion to have.
I wish you'd told me that before I sucked all those dicks to find out!
I'd rather say "there's no wrong way". Fundamentally means the same thing, but with slightly different implications.
I've always understood orientation to be who you're attracted to
Mrs chilla still considers herself bisexual even though she's currently with me?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding
It's fine to hold your tongue on matters you don't understand or don't feel comfortable interjecting on while still being queer
In fact, the idea that you can't be queer while in a straight relationship is one of the common forms of bi-erasure. Your orientation and general attraction doesn't get put on hold when you're in a monogamous relationship. By that logic, I'd be asexual since I'm not currently seeing anyone.
Well, it's well known that violent, gymnastic turtles are incredibly difficult to date.
they tip bad too.
I'll have you know I regularly tip 15-20% (plus a little bit extra if it rounds up to a nice number).