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.
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?
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?
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.
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
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
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 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.
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
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
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'!)
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
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
[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
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
[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
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
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?
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?
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
0
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
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
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
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
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
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"
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
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.
Posts
bolded for nope
that might actually fuckin' shock you
but it's a pretty big thing
VANILLAAAAA
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 have invented a new word!
well done
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?
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?
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.
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
i laaaaughed and laughed.
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.
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
secondary reason: sexual minorities insisting on creating needless acronyms on the internet
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
makes my day a little more bearable every time
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
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
stop involving "urbandictionary dot com" in serious discussions about society
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
people of all colors hate gays
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
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
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?
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!
you think so, huh?
must be thinking of different Republican parties
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
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
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
it offends proper puritan notions
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
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
aaaaaaa
thats the stuff
he's fuckin' hot
I am not personally into it
it's like a shittier vagina
literally and figuratively
I'm sorry, MrMonroe
we're in space now
no one can hear you scream
speaking of:
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!
And that's its whole appeal?
The only thing I know about it is that some ladies I know said it makes pooping easier