I'm gonna have to stop getting into discussions about ace/aro people being queer, on twitter.
I'm starting to get too stressed out over this shit. I got better things I can do with my time. Blugh.
Honestly, there's so, so little to be gained by engaging. It ends up being incredibly draining and personally harmful. I just block and move on.
I know. I already do limit time spent on this sort of thing. But it's important to me that I have some understanding of the points of view that these attitudes are stemming from. It helps me process and categorize this kind of thing.
The more I'm able to understand a thing, the less alien it becomes to me. It makes it easier it is to deal with. And it makes me better equipped to defend my POV if it ever comes up in a discussion I'm seriously invested in.
That said, I tend to get myself caught up in this stuff more than I should. My anxiety's been higher than usual, lately. Not a great way to start off pride month.
I've started using the term androphilic for my orientation. I'm ace and I'm pretty sure I'm aro but I still like dudes in a way I can't adequately describe. And homo/hetero are useless to me because my own gender is just an amorphous fuzzy blob at the moment. I like androphilic. Feels comfortable.
You can definitely be attracted to someone without having romantic or sexual desires toward them and I like having a term for that.
+5
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Oh wow, I just got the nicest message after our local Pride event:
Heeeeey so I just had to share, and hopefully you’ll get as big a kick out of it as I did. We were talking, tonight, about Pride and the service today, and I was complimenting <her kid> on his description of “transgender” today during the service. And we were reminding <her kid>, for the billionth time (it seems) that no matter what his future holds, we will love him and accept him, and so will everyone who knows and loves him.
And then he says, “Oh, I know. Like I bet if I wanted to start identifying as a girl, people would be really supportive. Like InfamyDeferred. I can’t even really remember what InfamyDeferred was like when she was still calling herself a boy. Like I don’t remember what <friend> looked like before she got glasses. It’s kind of the same. Like when people get glasses, they’re not really different, they just look different but you know that they don’t have a choice so you say, ‘nice glasses’ and support them no matter what. Right?” I just love that, to this particular 8yo, being transgender and needing glasses are like the same level of importance. Neither is weird to him. And that’s kind of awesome.
Anyway, I wanted to share the conversation, since you got a mention. Thanks for being you, and providing a model for my kids to see that it’s never too late to be yourself. And how NOT strange and completely natural the transition can be.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Local Denver station with a more detailed story than FUCKING CNN
It doesn't, really. The ruling was exceedingly specific to this case, and said that, in this one case in particular, the bakery was given poor treatment by the state's court, and says little to nothing about what obligation public businesses have to serve the public.
The ACLU has a better explanation:
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Local Denver station with a more detailed story than FUCKING CNN
It doesn't, really. The ruling was exceedingly specific to this case, and said that, in this one case in particular, the bakery was given poor treatment by the state's court, and says little to nothing about what obligation public businesses have to serve the public.
The ACLU has a better explanation:
Duder, if the court had said that the bakery was wrong, shitty people would have screamed discrimination.
If RBG had just thrown her hands up and offered to bake the couple a cake herself to solve it, shitty people would lose it because the courts are being taken over by leftists.
It sets a precedent, for sure, and some people will try to use this case as an example (albeit a bad one) to suggest that discrimination is entirely some kind of right that they're entitled to, without facing any sort of repercussions.
I'm sure the bakery is baking themselves a celebratory cake and inviting all of their homophobic, right-wing friends who supported the bakery in their "hour of need". It makes me a little bit sick just thinking about it.
On a happy baking note, the company I work for is holding a bake sale to raise money for the Rainbow Railroad charity. I'm actually off work next week (going to watch E3 news all week long at home) but I live real close to work and I was asked if I wanted to bake something.
Thinking about brownie-baked Fudgee-Os with rainbow sprinkles on top.
You can quibble about specifics and all but the headline is still that the Supreme Court upheld a business's "religious right" to discriminate against queer people and that, on its face is really (rightfully) upsetting to a lot of queer folks.
+25
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
People aren't going to see the specific nature of what this ruling was about.
Hateful people are going to take it as a signal to go wild with their bullshit.
After having a Supreme Court seat snatched and about 100 or so federal judge positions stolen I'm certain things will get worse before they get better.
The "particulars" are that the asshole fuckhead bakers "religious beliefs" were't given the respect they were due by the city in the process and cite some remarks by officials that they "believe" are "discriminatory". So they're throwing it out.
Which ignores the very simple fact that, it is illegal to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation in Colorado. Period. The End. Do Not Pass Go.
So they threw out the law, and ruled on emotion because three of these justices are fucking cowards that realize the baker did not have a legal right to refuse service and didn't have the character to uphold the law.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Local Denver station with a more detailed story than FUCKING CNN
It doesn't, really. The ruling was exceedingly specific to this case, and said that, in this one case in particular, the bakery was given poor treatment by the state's court, and says little to nothing about what obligation public businesses have to serve the public.
The ACLU has a better explanation:
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Local Denver station with a more detailed story than FUCKING CNN
It doesn't, really. The ruling was exceedingly specific to this case, and said that, in this one case in particular, the bakery was given poor treatment by the state's court, and says little to nothing about what obligation public businesses have to serve the public.
The ACLU has a better explanation:
I think what I'm more afraid of is that the particulars of the case won't actually matter in the long run, kinda?
Like, this will be, regardless of the facts of the case, be used as a rallying point for shitty people.
Honest question: Does it really matter if it can or can't, at this point?
Their outrage is farther removed from reality than it's ever been in my lifetime.
If we do literally nothing to fuel it, they will just invent whatever they need to rile up their base.
Yes, it matters. While minorities have always been at the whim of selectively-enforced legislation, having that legislation makes a difference. One example: corporations are likely to err on the side of caution when it comes to potentially incurring penalties for discriminatory policies, and as such are likely to stand against state-level policies that could complicate things for them financially. Legal rulings like this weaken that effect and make it less of a clear-cut decision to oppose discriminatory legislation that could affect their bottom line.
The maliciously shitty people remain shitty no matter what but there are plenty of other shitty people who will keep up a veneer of respectability until they no longer feel they need to. Those are the people who are affected by things like this and those are the ones I'm worried about most.
I haven't been swimming since before I started transitioning 6+ years ago
it's weird to think about
*Nods*
We are doing a waterslide birthday party for the youngest in about three weeks so I wanna look nice! And it helps take my focus off of worrying about bad shit that can happen wrt people and interactions
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Local Denver station with a more detailed story than FUCKING CNN
It doesn't, really. The ruling was exceedingly specific to this case, and said that, in this one case in particular, the bakery was given poor treatment by the state's court, and says little to nothing about what obligation public businesses have to serve the public.
The ACLU has a better explanation:
I think what I'm more afraid of is that the particulars of the case won't actually matter in the long run, kinda?
Like, this will be, regardless of the facts of the case, be used as a rallying point for shitty people.
Honest question: Does it really matter if it can or can't, at this point?
Their outrage is farther removed from reality than it's ever been in my lifetime.
If we do literally nothing to fuel it, they will just invent whatever they need to rile up their base.
Yes, it matters. While minorities have always been at the whim of selectively-enforced legislation, having that legislation makes a difference. One example: corporations are likely to err on the side of caution when it comes to potentially incurring penalties for discriminatory policies, and as such are likely to stand against state-level policies that could complicate things for them financially. Legal rulings like this weaken that effect and make it less of a clear-cut decision to oppose discriminatory legislation that could affect their bottom line.
The maliciously shitty people remain shitty no matter what but there are plenty of other shitty people who will keep up a veneer of respectability until they no longer feel they need to. Those are the people who are affected by things like this and those are the ones I'm worried about most.
I was actually referring to shitty people using this to be more shitty, not the outcome of this case.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
Local Denver station with a more detailed story than FUCKING CNN
It doesn't, really. The ruling was exceedingly specific to this case, and said that, in this one case in particular, the bakery was given poor treatment by the state's court, and says little to nothing about what obligation public businesses have to serve the public.
The ACLU has a better explanation:
I think what I'm more afraid of is that the particulars of the case won't actually matter in the long run, kinda?
Like, this will be, regardless of the facts of the case, be used as a rallying point for shitty people.
Honest question: Does it really matter if it can or can't, at this point?
Their outrage is farther removed from reality than it's ever been in my lifetime.
If we do literally nothing to fuel it, they will just invent whatever they need to rile up their base.
Yes, it matters. While minorities have always been at the whim of selectively-enforced legislation, having that legislation makes a difference. One example: corporations are likely to err on the side of caution when it comes to potentially incurring penalties for discriminatory policies, and as such are likely to stand against state-level policies that could complicate things for them financially. Legal rulings like this weaken that effect and make it less of a clear-cut decision to oppose discriminatory legislation that could affect their bottom line.
The maliciously shitty people remain shitty no matter what but there are plenty of other shitty people who will keep up a veneer of respectability until they no longer feel they need to. Those are the people who are affected by things like this and those are the ones I'm worried about most.
I was actually referring to shitty people using this to be more shitty, not the outcome of this case.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.
Even then it matters. Shitty people being shitty on bullshit they made up sucks but it doesn't carry the same weight as being shitty on merit. This can and will be used by shitty people to legitimize more shitty things. Precedent matters.
+1
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Potentially stupid question.
I self identify as bisexual. But I don't want to say that I'm not pansexual. It's not that I don't find NB/trans/queer folks sexually attractive on a whole, I just haven't personally been attracted to anybody within those spheres.
So can I consider myself pan if I haven't? If I say I'm bi, am I inadvertently offending others?
Is it ok to say, I identify as bisexual, but if the right NB type person came along, I could shift to pansexual?
Is that even how it works?
I want to put up some bi pride stuff in my fb, but don't want to insult my nb/trans/etc friends somehow.
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
If bi feels right then you should use bi?
It seems unlikely to me that somebody would be upset by bi pride stuff and if somehow they were I think it would be kind ridiculous to be upset with you personally over it
I think excluding queer people from your definition of bisexuality might be more offensive?
I thought that was the difference in the definitions? Maybe not? Maybe I'm just over thinking things and have managed to upset people by saying anything.
The definition of bisexual most queer-inclusive folks have settled on is "attracted to your own and other genders". Most people aren't going to assume anything malicious if you ID as bi over pan
I think excluding queer people from your definition of bisexuality might be more offensive?
I thought that was the difference in the definitions? Maybe not? Maybe I'm just over thinking things and have managed to upset people by saying anything.
Sorry if that was the case. It wasn't intended.
I always thought of it like "pansexual evolved into the preferred term through the passage of time" moreso than "bisexual and pansexual have distinct meanings". Like how "transgender" has mostly supplanted "transexual" in the modern lexicon but older trans people might still prefer to call themselves "transexual" because they're just more accustomed to it. Academically there are reasons why the preferred term is changing but if somebody is using an older term as a self-label then I'm generally not going to get on their case about it or read too much into it.
It was awkward last summer because like, I had come out to friends as trans, but also I wasn’t about to buy a swimsuit back then, so I was still...taking off my top and wearing swim trunks? It just felt insanely awkward, but not swimming in Florida in the summer is just not an option I wanna go with
Yesterday I got a really cute swim dress at Burlington and went swimming last night, and today twice
I only went the second time to piss off a transphobe that was in the apartment complex pool, he and his young son were in the pool while I was helping my roommate bring some groceries upstairs and he gave me this really disgusted look and randomly pulled his kid aside and started talking about “the ways to tell guys from girls”
I was like ohhhh my goddd fuck this guy so I walked upstairs, threw the groceries in the fridge, put on my swimsuit and went downstairs and got in the pool. He and his kid just stayed on the farthest side of the pool possible and then they left after about five minutes. Didn’t say a word
I think excluding queer people from your definition of bisexuality might be more offensive?
I thought that was the difference in the definitions? Maybe not? Maybe I'm just over thinking things and have managed to upset people by saying anything.
Sorry if that was the case. It wasn't intended.
It just implies that "pansexuality" is the only moniker which covers attraction to people who aren't cis.
Platy on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
At this point I think the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality is largely up to the personal feelings of whoever is self-identifying.
I identify as bisexual instead of pansexual, because when pansexuality was first described to me, it was defined as "attracted to people regardless of gender". While I am attracted to all genders, I am attracted to them very differently, particularly people who identify as male and female. So I still identify as bisexual, because gender identification plays a major role in how (and sometimes whether) I'm attracted to people.
That being said, I have explained this to lots of people over the years, and some people are bemused by this differentiation between pan and bi. As I said, I think it's mostly personal preference. Go with whatever feels right to you. The people who are going to be shitty about it are probably already going to be shitty about bisexuality or pansexuality in any case.
Posts
I know. I already do limit time spent on this sort of thing. But it's important to me that I have some understanding of the points of view that these attitudes are stemming from. It helps me process and categorize this kind of thing.
The more I'm able to understand a thing, the less alien it becomes to me. It makes it easier it is to deal with. And it makes me better equipped to defend my POV if it ever comes up in a discussion I'm seriously invested in.
That said, I tend to get myself caught up in this stuff more than I should. My anxiety's been higher than usual, lately. Not a great way to start off pride month.
You can definitely be attracted to someone without having romantic or sexual desires toward them and I like having a term for that.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado bakery that refused to bake gay wedding cake.
The problem here for me is that this basically legitimizes discrimination. Like... I can't imagine that this case would even have made it to the highest court if it was regarding something like national origin or religion.
http://kdvr.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-lakewood-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
Local Denver station with a more detailed story than FUCKING CNN
And then he says, “Oh, I know. Like I bet if I wanted to start identifying as a girl, people would be really supportive. Like InfamyDeferred. I can’t even really remember what InfamyDeferred was like when she was still calling herself a boy. Like I don’t remember what <friend> looked like before she got glasses. It’s kind of the same. Like when people get glasses, they’re not really different, they just look different but you know that they don’t have a choice so you say, ‘nice glasses’ and support them no matter what. Right?” I just love that, to this particular 8yo, being transgender and needing glasses are like the same level of importance. Neither is weird to him. And that’s kind of awesome.
Anyway, I wanted to share the conversation, since you got a mention. Thanks for being you, and providing a model for my kids to see that it’s never too late to be yourself. And how NOT strange and completely natural the transition can be.
I'm pretty much bracing for years of this sort of thing.
It doesn't, really. The ruling was exceedingly specific to this case, and said that, in this one case in particular, the bakery was given poor treatment by the state's court, and says little to nothing about what obligation public businesses have to serve the public.
The ACLU has a better explanation:
I think what I'm more afraid of is that the particulars of the case won't actually matter in the long run, kinda?
Like, this will be, regardless of the facts of the case, be used as a rallying point for shitty people.
If RBG had just thrown her hands up and offered to bake the couple a cake herself to solve it, shitty people would lose it because the courts are being taken over by leftists.
Shitty people are gonna be shitty.
I'm sure the bakery is baking themselves a celebratory cake and inviting all of their homophobic, right-wing friends who supported the bakery in their "hour of need". It makes me a little bit sick just thinking about it.
On a happy baking note, the company I work for is holding a bake sale to raise money for the Rainbow Railroad charity. I'm actually off work next week (going to watch E3 news all week long at home) but I live real close to work and I was asked if I wanted to bake something.
Thinking about brownie-baked Fudgee-Os with rainbow sprinkles on top.
Steam: TheArcadeBear
Hateful people are going to take it as a signal to go wild with their bullshit.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Especially since the American legal system is so heavily based on precedent. Rejecting the lower court's ruling is precedent.
Which ignores the very simple fact that, it is illegal to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation in Colorado. Period. The End. Do Not Pass Go.
So they threw out the law, and ruled on emotion because three of these justices are fucking cowards that realize the baker did not have a legal right to refuse service and didn't have the character to uphold the law.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Just a some masc4masc dude doing Van Pride things, but fuck that guy
I’ll happily just go to the dyke march and the trans march and be welcomed by those amazing folx
Honest question: Does it really matter if it can or can't, at this point?
Their outrage is farther removed from reality than it's ever been in my lifetime.
If we do literally nothing to fuel it, they will just invent whatever they need to rile up their base.
Yes, it matters. While minorities have always been at the whim of selectively-enforced legislation, having that legislation makes a difference. One example: corporations are likely to err on the side of caution when it comes to potentially incurring penalties for discriminatory policies, and as such are likely to stand against state-level policies that could complicate things for them financially. Legal rulings like this weaken that effect and make it less of a clear-cut decision to oppose discriminatory legislation that could affect their bottom line.
The maliciously shitty people remain shitty no matter what but there are plenty of other shitty people who will keep up a veneer of respectability until they no longer feel they need to. Those are the people who are affected by things like this and those are the ones I'm worried about most.
It is historically a good reason for alarm when this is no longer the case.
I have ordered the thing and this feels like a step? Or a milestone? Or something? And gosh now I have to wait for it to arrive....
it's weird to think about
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
*Nods*
We are doing a waterslide birthday party for the youngest in about three weeks so I wanna look nice! And it helps take my focus off of worrying about bad shit that can happen wrt people and interactions
I was actually referring to shitty people using this to be more shitty, not the outcome of this case.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.
Even then it matters. Shitty people being shitty on bullshit they made up sucks but it doesn't carry the same weight as being shitty on merit. This can and will be used by shitty people to legitimize more shitty things. Precedent matters.
I self identify as bisexual. But I don't want to say that I'm not pansexual. It's not that I don't find NB/trans/queer folks sexually attractive on a whole, I just haven't personally been attracted to anybody within those spheres.
So can I consider myself pan if I haven't? If I say I'm bi, am I inadvertently offending others?
Is it ok to say, I identify as bisexual, but if the right NB type person came along, I could shift to pansexual?
Is that even how it works?
I want to put up some bi pride stuff in my fb, but don't want to insult my nb/trans/etc friends somehow.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It seems unlikely to me that somebody would be upset by bi pride stuff and if somehow they were I think it would be kind ridiculous to be upset with you personally over it
I might be wrong, but I think no one's going to fault you for identifying as bisexual over pansexual
I thought that was the difference in the definitions? Maybe not? Maybe I'm just over thinking things and have managed to upset people by saying anything.
Sorry if that was the case. It wasn't intended.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
ineedmayo.com Eidolon Journal Updated
It was awkward last summer because like, I had come out to friends as trans, but also I wasn’t about to buy a swimsuit back then, so I was still...taking off my top and wearing swim trunks? It just felt insanely awkward, but not swimming in Florida in the summer is just not an option I wanna go with
Yesterday I got a really cute swim dress at Burlington and went swimming last night, and today twice
I only went the second time to piss off a transphobe that was in the apartment complex pool, he and his young son were in the pool while I was helping my roommate bring some groceries upstairs and he gave me this really disgusted look and randomly pulled his kid aside and started talking about “the ways to tell guys from girls”
I was like ohhhh my goddd fuck this guy so I walked upstairs, threw the groceries in the fridge, put on my swimsuit and went downstairs and got in the pool. He and his kid just stayed on the farthest side of the pool possible and then they left after about five minutes. Didn’t say a word
Fuck that dude
Also yay I got my driver’s license today!
It just implies that "pansexuality" is the only moniker which covers attraction to people who aren't cis.
I identify as bisexual instead of pansexual, because when pansexuality was first described to me, it was defined as "attracted to people regardless of gender". While I am attracted to all genders, I am attracted to them very differently, particularly people who identify as male and female. So I still identify as bisexual, because gender identification plays a major role in how (and sometimes whether) I'm attracted to people.
That being said, I have explained this to lots of people over the years, and some people are bemused by this differentiation between pan and bi. As I said, I think it's mostly personal preference. Go with whatever feels right to you. The people who are going to be shitty about it are probably already going to be shitty about bisexuality or pansexuality in any case.