The LGBT Thread II

[Charlaquin]

Okay, so, I'm totally on board the movement for equal rights, and pretty sure I'm... hope I got this right cause so many terms, femmesexual, which means, I'd like to be with a presenting female, genitals don't matter to me. And I'm male.

Yeah, that’d just be heterosexual or straight. You’re a man attracted to women.

Hope none of that was offensive to say, I sure don't mean it that way

Not offensive, per se, but it’s important to be aware that the desire for a separate term to differentiate straight people who include trans people of the gender they are attracted to from those who don’t comes from a... questionable place, to put it diplomatically. The intellectual scaffolding that leads one to differentiate “femisexual” from heterosexual man or lesbian woman is built around the idea that trans women aren’t really women, or at least are somehow a different category of woman that needs to be evaluated for potential attraction separately from cis women.

(oh, also should be divorced from my psychopathic, soon to be ex-cisfem wife by the end of the month)

Quick clarification: “ex-cisfem wife” here means former wife who is a cisgender woman, not wife who formerly identified as a cisgender woman, correct? I’d probably phrase it as “cisfem ex-wife” instead to clear up that ambiguity.

So the thing I want to ask, how to debate or explain this to my gay stepson, that as rights go, the BTQ+ should not be separated from the LG, he says, and my FTM stepson (who I'll prolly never see again), both insist there's no such thing as bi, they're just confused, and my stepson says his brother Alix is just confused

People are people of course, but this lack of solidarity for their community is disappointing

Any suggestions for to explain this to anyone?

This is a tough issue, and a depressingly common viewpoint among non-bi people. Unfortunately, I doubt you’re going to be able to change their minds about this, but what I usually go to is that, to claim someone who identifies as bi isn’t really bi is to presuppose that you know how they feel better than they do. You may not understand how anyone could be attracted to people of multiple genders, but that doesn’t mean they can’t feel that way.

So sorry I called her by the wrong gender.

I think you mean called him by the wrong gender.

It’s alright. Especially if you knew him before he came out, it can be difficult to break the habit. The important thing is just that when you mess up, you apologize, correct the mistake, and then move on.

[wyrdhamster]

So the thing I want to ask, how to debate or explain this to my gay stepson, that as rights go, the BTQ+ should not be separated from the LG, he says, and my FTM stepson (who I'll prolly never see again), both insist there's no such thing as bi, they're just confused, and my stepson says his brother Alix is just confused

As bisex LGBT+ activist in Poland myself I would point to this topics for convincing that community is important:

1. Bisexual people are ALSO hurt by homophobia - I was 3 years in heterosexual relationship with my then girlfriend. Now I'm almost 8 years with my male life partner. It simply points that even if bisexs are not now in homosexual relations - they can be in future. We all share the same laws freedoms, in the end.

2. Heterosexual Allies are ALSO hurt by homophobia – In last month we had first Equality March in my home city of Lublin. Before it our local Voivod ( province Governor ) from homophobic Law & Justice ruling party said about (then future ) March participants that they ‘promote perversion, deviation and degeneration’. ( Case against him is in court now ) In March took part me, my bisex niece, my hetero cousin and our hetero friend. Two of this persons were hurt by homophobia simply by being hetero allies to out cause – not even bisex themselves!

3. We ALL fight for Human Rights – LGBT+ rights are basic persons Human Rights. So are Women’s Rights their freedoms. And Non-Believers rights to Secular State. Basically, we are all in this fight against Government that takes and tramples our Citizens rights. If we support each other – we will win! If we are divided – we lose. It’s that simple.

4. Education, education, education! – I’m not, myself, official sexual educator. But surely you have NGO’s dedicated to LGBT+ rights and education in your country. CONTACT THEM! They will have better arguments than me and ready materials. Last year ago I joined country action of educating all youth – LGBT+ or straight – about LGBT+ community and they proposed pamphlets and ‘manuals’ to give to youth. Those linked are in Polish, but surely your own country organisations have their own materials – Poland is copying strategist made in USA and Europe before them, in the end.

[figurehead]

Yeah, that’d just be heterosexual or straight. You’re a man attracted to women.

Let me preface this statement by saying I am in favor of LGBTQIA rights. Love who you want. Fuck who you want. Dress how you want. Be who you want. Poop where you want. As long as it's consenting adults involved, I'm all for it.

I disagree with your definition of heterosexual. The root word of the term is sex. Sex is biological, as opposed to socially constructed. So, a heterosexual person would be a female that is attracted to males, or a male who is attracted to females.

Also, I like the term Willowfang has chosen to describe their sexuality. I find it in bad taste to tell Willowfang that their chosen term is wrong, and then dissect the rest of their post telling them that the other terms they have used are wrong.

[Baroness Nerak]

It would still be accurate to call him a heterosexual or straight though. If he wants to call himself a femmesexual that's fine, though it brings to my mind a preference for femmes over butches. Charlequin is right there is an ugly tendency by some to separate trans women from what a straight man would be into, as an example, but I don't think Willowfang is doing that. It's not my preference, but it works for him

[Tessie]

The root word of the term is sex.

Root != current meaning.
Your definition of [whatever]sexual is purely technical, not practical, and doesn't take into account the natural development of languages. In social contexts (i.e. common speech) it's used to refer to gender because gender is what's relevant in social contexts. Not to mention that attraction applies primarily to gender. The vast majority of heterosexual men would not be attracted to a man who is trans, for example. From a practical point of view it would make much more sense to use an identifier for someone who is exclusively attracted to a certain biological sex rather than attraction to gender. I propose transphobe.

Edit: In a similar vein, the roots and original meaning for bisexual might be "sexual attraction to two sexes" but the usage by most bisexual people, myself included, is "sexual attraction to your own and other genders". Languages evolve. Knowing the root to a word will almost always help you find the actual meaning, but words are not defined by their root components.

[Willowfang]

Sorry, did it again

I am sorry I called HIM HIM HIM by the wrong gender.

Thanks to everyone, weather defending me, supporting me, or correcting me. The point in any environment to using the right terms is not just to be respectful, but also to be on the same page so we're talking about the same things and not miscommunicating the wrong things.

And suggesting I look around for resourced online in english is what I should have done in the first place

Also, yes, my ciswife well soon be my ex ciswife, divorce should soon be final

And this I think is a really good point:

From Charlaquin: to claim someone who identifies as bi isn’t really bi is to presuppose that you know how they feel better than they do.


This goes right to the basis of all identities. If you're only going to accept identities that you agree with, you're really not accepting any

[Isator Levi]

So being able to kill an NPC in a Rockstar game isn't anything new or groundbreaking.

The social context of violence against women and hostility against feminism is significantly different now to what it was a few years ago. I would say that there is a marked difference between the gameplay of killing prostitutes (which was still pretty bad for how often people framed it as humorous, considering the actual vulnerability of sex workers and how that is normalised in fiction), and not only engaging in that with women agitating for voting rights, but the players who do so broadcasting it.

It might not be a mark against the game or the developers as such, but that there is somebody who would be motivated to conduct themselves in that manner, and that it's apparent that there's an audience for such, speaks to current attitudes, and that needs to be recognised and internalized and serve as a motivation for trying to make things better.

[AnubisXy]

Oh sure, the current social climate, in the middle of the #MeToo movement, post-Gamergate, etc is definitely different than it was even just a few years ago. Ultimately though this is simply a matter of someone posting a provocative video on because he wants a lot of views, a huge response, and to get his 15 minutes of fame. So shame on the guy who trolls like that, but but at the same time when people make a mountain out of a molehill and stuff like this explodes into the public consciousness it's simply rewarding the troll and giving the guy exactly what he craved.

Honestly I think there is less of an audience for this sort of thing and rather that there an audience for the inevitable reaction that this sort of thing will bring. That is, I don't think very many people enjoy or even really care about killing the feminist NPC in the game. Someone might shoot her once or twice in their game because that's a bad thing to do and people often choose to do bad things in video games since "good" actions or "bad" actions in video games are ultimately meaningless. But what they actually get off on seeing the response that comes from people who are outraged at them doing so.

[atamajakki]

Let me preface this statement by saying I am in favor of LGBTQIA rights. Love who you want. Fuck who you want. Dress how you want. Be who you want. Poop where you want. As long as it's consenting adults involved, I'm all for it.

I disagree with your definition of heterosexual. The root word of the term is sex. Sex is biological, as opposed to socially constructed. So, a heterosexual person would be a female that is attracted to males, or a male who is attracted to females.

Also, I like the term Willowfang has chosen to describe their sexuality. I find it in bad taste to tell Willowfang that their chosen term is wrong, and then dissect the rest of their post telling them that the other terms they have used are wrong.

Biological Sex Isn’t Binary And You’re Not Being A Good Ally By Reinforcing It

All you’re doing is indirectly saying trans folks don’t count as their gender for the sake of orientation, and that’s transphobic nonsense.

[figurehead]

It would still be accurate to call him a heterosexual or straight though. If he wants to call himself a femmesexual that's fine, though it brings to my mind a preference for femmes over butches. Charlequin is right there is an ugly tendency by some to separate trans women from what a straight man would be into, as an example...

Labeling the sexual preference of the majority of men as an "ugly tendency" is itself ugly.

The vast majority of heterosexual men would not be attracted to a man who is trans, for example. From a practical point of view it would make much more sense to use an identifier for someone who is exclusively attracted to a certain biological sex rather than attraction to gender. I propose transphobe.

I don't know if it's more practical to change the definition of the word heterosexual considering trans people make up somewhere between 0.5% and 2% of the population (depending on what stats you read.) Perhaps it would be more practical to create a new word or set of words for those people whose sexual attraction is based on gender rather than biology. Also, your proposal to label a sexual orientation with a derogatory term is ugly. Perhaps even 'heterophobic.'

Biological Sex Isn’t Binary And You’re Not Being A Good Ally By Reinforcing It

All you’re doing is indirectly saying trans folks don’t count as their gender for the sake of orientation, and that’s transphobic nonsense.

I have said no such thing, directly or indirectly. I have merely clarified what it means to be heterosexual. Which is no different than what LGBTQIA people often do in this thread. They speak up and clarify when someone has the wrong idea about their gender or orientation.

[Baroness Nerak]

You are making some massive assumptions, Figurehead. Some are quite incorrect. Some of them are transphobic.

Given heterosexual does not imply attraction to every woman on Earth, I see little reason for a different word.

[Charlaquin]

Labeling the sexual preference of the majority of men as an "ugly tendency" is itself ugly.

Some heterosexual men are turned off by women with prominent noses, some are not, but they generally don’t feel the need to invent a new category of sexual preference to describe that. Some men are turned off by women with penises, some are not. The fact that some men feel that this particular divergent preference of a woman’s physical features merits a separate category of sexual orientation when a divergence of preference related to other physical features does not indicates an underlying belief that women with penises don’t really belong in the same category as other women. That underlying belief is transphobic.

I don't know if it's more practical to change the definition of the word heterosexual considering trans people make up somewhere between 0.5% and 2% of the population (depending on what stats you read.) Perhaps it would be more practical to create a new word or set of words for those people whose sexual attraction is based on gender rather than biology.

I would agrgue that sexual orientation has never been about biology. Are you attracted to vaginas, or are you attracted to some people who have them? Is the vagina the reason for you atttaction, or is it a more holistic view of the person? Do you not have turn ons and turn offs unrelated to the person’s gentitals, and if you do, what makes genitals such a special exception that it merits a separate category to label your sexual orientation with?

Also, your proposal to label a sexual orientation with a derogatory term is ugly. Perhaps even 'heterophobic.'

Not all heterosexual people are transphobic and Tessie did not claim otherwise. If that’s what you got out of their post, you may want to re-read it more carefully. The desire to separate “attracted to women (including trans women)” from “attracted to women (excluding trans women)” as sepatate sexual orientations when “attracted to women (excluding women with tattoos)” and “attracted to women (including women with tattoos)” are not comes from a trans-exclusionary view of womanhood. That view is transphobic.

Heterophobic is not a particularly useful term, given heterosexual people are not systemically oppressed. Perhaps anti-heterosexual bias might be more appropriate.

I have said no such thing, directly or indirectly. I have merely clarified what it means to be heterosexual. Which is no different than what LGBTQIA people often do in this thread. They speak up and clarify when someone has the wrong idea about their gender or orientation.

It is different, when your “clarification” is to claim that the definition of heterosexuality excludes some women on the basis of their genitals.

[Spencer from The Hills]

I would agrgue that sexual orientation has never been about biology. Are you attracted to vaginas, or are you attracted to some people who have them? Is the vagina the reason for you atttaction, or is it a more holistic view of the person? Do you not have turn ons and turn offs unrelated to the person’s gentitals, and if you do, what makes genitals such a special exception that it merits a separate category to label your sexual orientation with?

I suspect that you're significantly underestimating how much some people care about genitals. Have you seen a conversation on Grindr?

[Charlaquin]

I suspect that you're significantly underestimating how much some people care about genitals. Have you seen a conversation on Grindr?

I’m not saying genitals aren’t a major factor for a lot of people. I’m saying, clearly there’s more to it than that, since “has a vagina” is not the only criteria for most heterosexual men. It’s jusr one more physical feature some women have that may be a turn on, albeit often a pretty significant one.

[Isator Levi]

So shame on the guy who trolls like that, but but at the same time when people make a mountain out of a molehill and stuff like this explodes into the public consciousness it's simply rewarding the troll and giving the guy exactly what he craved.

Contrary to what we were told as children, bullies and bigots don't go away just because they're ignored.

It is... irresponsible to look at things like this in terms of isolated incidents that have no greater bearing, rather than part of a feedback loop in which virulent misogyny is becoming increasingly radicalised, in a manner that has more widespread results in the form of things like concerted campaigns of harassment, creating hostile and unwelcoming environments, normalising attitudes that exclude women (something becoming particularly apparent in the video game sphere as esports gain prominence, and there are distinct examples of not signing on high-level professional women or coaches who will casually employ slurs), and outright violence.

I'm not saying that everybody who would go out of their way in a video game (while they have a public platform via streaming) to simulate violence against women and feminists is on a slippery slope towards https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/yoga-studio-shooting-florida.html]murdering two women at a yoga studio[/url] for explicitly misogynistic reasons, but they make a highly visible contribution to the environment that emboldens the act of terrorism.