Married Men - A Gay Lads View - Have you ever had an experience?
Comments
-
Except the evidence is not there. And I explained how it is not there and the distinction between the two. Ignore and dismiss if you want - but rebut you simply have not done.
Again the difference between explaining and arguing your position - and dismissing out of hand the position of someone else is clear. I did not do the latter. I aspire on all threads never to do the latter. I have no respect really for the "Nu-uh you're just wrong because that's daft and I am right" approach to anything.
Especially funny given I have not actually taken issue with anyone's use of these words on the thread. I have pointed out their use is fine - but simply differs somewhat from the dictionaries and other sources. I am happy to respect and understand their interpretation. That respect has not been shared in return. I wonder why.
I have argument my case. My case has not been rebutted. That is not dismissal from me much as you want to pretend otherwise. I dismissed nothing. I rebutted it with full responses and citations.
Of course it is probably easier to then make it all about me than the topic the thread is actually about :) Want to weigh in on topic at all???
0 -
You don’t wonder why at all though, you know exactly why, and I know exactly why too - precisely because what you call nit-picking, I call lying to yourself. I predicted that it would happen early on in the thread because this isn’t the first time the topics come up, and it goes the same way every time.
This time it’s coming off the back of the tiktok generation trying to seek the same attention as the kids were doing in the 60’s as if the idea of sexual liberalism is anything new. It’s new for this generation to be claiming “heterosexual” men engaging in homosexual activity is not gay. Nobody gives a fcuk about the rest of the alphabet people.
You’re using rent boys and prostitutes to support your arguments, and claiming you don’t understand what outlier means…
Aye, seems legit 🤨
0 -
Sorry but since this thread was dead awhile and you rode in to respond to posts and miscontrue them you will have to remind me. What did I call "nit picking" and in which post? I have no recollection of having called anything nit picking. Nor is it even remotely what I have been discussing on this thread. Quite the opposite in fact.
Lying to myself? Making stuff up again aren't ya? I never did any such thing.
And since you already made up one thing out of nowhere (that I was unreasonable to make an argument that I nowhere actually made for example) I just want to be cautious about you maybe making this up too. Can you be explicit what you are referring to here? What did I call nit picking? And where?
I have restated my argument - I can do so again -
1) The definitions of sexuality in dictionaries and wikipedia are based on "enduring" and "typical" behaviors. The personal definitions used by some users on this thread (which again - I have no personal issue with) are not.
2) There is also a distinction made between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Again the definitions used by some users on the thread do not do so - in fact at least one user explicitly defined it as the opposite saying that they are the same thing.
3) Therefore using the actual definitions of the actual words - it is perfectly coherent and valid for someone to identify as heterosexual if they have had a small number of homosexual encounters or even one single long term homosexual relationship.
Nothing about that is "Nit picking" and I do not recall saying anything is. Do you have any intention of responding to the actual content of my actual position on the thread? Or are you just joining the group of other users who cant/wont do so either?
I also did not claim to know what "outlier" means. The list of things you love to make up I said - that I never once said - is so long at this point in all our exchanges. What I said is that I do not understand the point of you going on about "outliers" at me personally when my argument on this thread is not in any way based on any. My entire argument on this thread is based on the dictionary definition of the words we have been discussing.
Similar to you going off about "outliers" you went off above about "Tiktok" and how this is all "coming off" that generation. Again - not sure what this has to do with me or replying to me. Nothing I wrote or have argued is in any way based on "outliers" nor is it at all based on "tiktok". These things have simply nothing to do with me. Read this again. I will even italic it to hope you read it THIS time around. My entire argument here is based on nothing more than reading the actual definitions of these words in actual dictionaries and on wiki. Anything else you put into "filler" your posts out have literally nothing to do with me.
I may use examples to highlight my point - but those example are not the basis of my point. I suspect this is not the first time I have had to explain the difference between example and analogy - and arguments - in our history either to you.
But you would know that if you took a moment to read and actually reply to my actual points and arguments on the thread rather than make up things I said that I did not (and when corrected, ignore the correction and offer no retraction of your distortions).
I am not the one that has any issue with "outliers" it seems. The simple fact is that the actual cited (and oft ignored by others) definitions of these words very much includes uncommon outliers. Often explicitly and precisely. Since these outliers are so uncommon - it seems to make people uncomfortable to acknowledge their existence - or that the definitions are worded so as to explicitly include them. Why are people so scared of acknowledging definitions that are there in black and white in actual reputable dictionaries? I genuinely do not know. I will not pretend to know. And they do not appear to want to tell us.
But since I have not taken a single issue with how they use these words - nor have I any interest to do so - it is quite interesting (and comical) to me that they are so bothered by simply having the actual definitions pointed out and they have to shout all kinds of denials like "daft" to brush it back under the carpet. What is "daft" or "mying to myself" about reading a dictionary and saying "Oh look - the definition of this word is a little more broad than how most people seem to use it most of the time - how interesting is that?".
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59004
Man in a romantic heterosexual long term relationship with a woman identifies as being Gay. Woman who has heterosexual encounters on the regular identifies as being a Lesbian. Man in a romantic homosexual long term relationship with a man identifies as being Straight. They can identify whichever way they like and good luck to them, but it's a nonsense, hence 'daft' sums it up pretty well and no amount of 1st year student level pseudobabble changes this. That just increases the 'daft'. The examples I gave are logically and quite obviously Bisexual people. They are clearly capable of being sexually(and romantically) attracted to both sexes.
It seems to depend on which dictionary definition one looks at too. The Cambridge definition is: a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex. Yep simple, straightforward and consistent. Talk of enduring and typical just muddies the waters, which is fashionable when it comes to identities, but it's not objectively useful when defining things. If faced with two viewpoints to explain a definition the simplest is usually the best, particularly when it is extremely simple. Straight, Gay, Bi. We can throw in enduring and typical all we like, but it's entirely unnecessary and self indulgent. And where is the point reached where enduring and typical tip the scales one way or the other? Does someone have to be precisely 50/50 in their sexual attraction to both sexes to be Bisexual, but are Gay/Straight at 60/40, 70/30, 80/20? Or do we go with the subjective self identification? It seems so.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
7 -
Words are fluid so unless the definition someone comes up with is completely miles off the original - I still see no basis for calling it "daft". If you want to take a green leafy vegetable out of the ground and call it a Steam Engine - go for it - but sure that is daft.
But calling something "daft" when it actually 100% fits the definition that is in the dictionary - and also on the full length wiki page in it - is just personal bias and I am in no position to speculate as to the basis for that bias.
So throw out a phrase like "Muddying the waters" if you like but the simple fact remains - if you look up these words that is what it actually says in the dictionary. I do not have a problem with the dictionary. If you do ok - but I do not see why.
Phrases like "We can throw in" are misleading. No one here is throwing in anything. It is already there. In Black and White. In the dictionary. And on the wiki page.
Your question about where the line in the sand actually is - is probably the first useful thing you have said on the issue. That is of course a useful question to ask. I do not know what the answer is any more than I can look at a rainbow and identify the exact point red stops being red and starts being the next color.
What I can probably surmise though is that wherever that line is in the sand "1" is probably not it :) A point you proved yourself - and I pointed it out to you at the time - when you cherry picked a definition which very specifically used the plural and so made my point, not yours.
At this point I am less interested in the definitions - as I appear to be the only one who has read them and has used them as citations in my arguments rather than (like Dunne) simply making up my own. Rather the interesting part of all this discussion is the reactions people are having to it. Acknowledging what the actual definitions say seems to be emotionally impossible for some people. Acting like we are "throwing in things" that are already actually there. That's both interesting from a psychology perspective and amusing from a comedy perspective. And I genuinely have no idea what the basis for it is other than some people have thought they knew what a word 100% meant for so long that they are just not open to change.
Some of the words are defined a BIT more broadly than how most people use it most of the time. The disproportionate reaction to discovering that fact in some people - is curious and comical all at once.
That words should have the simplest most rigid definitions possible is also an interesting viewpoint and not one I share. How boring spoken and written language would be if that were the case. We already have such a language that is beautiful - mathematics. But there is a reason we do not use mathematics for most human conversation and communication.
Some level of fluidity of words is in my opinion beautiful and - I think - indespensible. That we often have multiple words for the same thing that are indistinguishable on first look but have a wealth of history in etymology behind them is also beautiful. Your treatment of language and how you think words should be is just something that seems so 2 dimension - lifeless - and devoid of all beauty to me. I am glad the world of communication and literature and art simple works entirely unlike how you do to be honest.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Calling a man who willingly engages in homosexual activity "straight" is every bit as daft as calling a cabbage a steam engine.
5 -
By your definitions sure. But you appear (you ignored it when asked directly) to have simply made up your own definitions. When asked for a citation of where your definition comes from - you did not reply. When asked a direct question about what your definitions would mean in certain cases - you also did not reply.
But once again - if you look up the actual definitions of things like sexual orientation there is nothing "daft" about it.
OEJ seems to take exception to examples - but examples serve the point. There are men who are heterosexual who - to make money - go into sex work serving male customers. That does not make them homosexual. That does not make them bisexual.
The citations I used directly - clearly - and explicitly differentiated between sexual orientation and sexual behavior for that very reason. For whatever reason you do not want to acknowledge that or do the same. And that is fine. No one is saying otherwise.
But there is nothing "daft" about the people who do - because that is what the definitions actually say. Bully for you if that bothers you. Your definitions and usages of the words are not "daft" to me - why does that not go both ways? All I have done - and I have consistently pointed out that this is all I have done - is point out your definition of some of these words and their usage does not entirely match what is right there in print in dictionaries.
It's be interesting to know why that simple and demonstrable fact bothers you - and some others - so very much?
The fact I sometimes use words in a way that does not actually match the dictionary does not bother me. I am struggling to imagine why it does bother others. I am genuinely interested here. But I suspect I am not likely to get an answer. And I further suspect this is because the people I am asking - do not know themselves any more than I do.
2 -
It doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out how silly it is.
I do concede that there are examples, like the one you gave, where a person would engage in homosexual acts and not be physically turned on or enjoy the acts, so I retract my last statement of "Calling a man who willingly engages in homosexual activity "straight" is every bit as daft as calling a cabbage a steam engine."
I will amend it to the more accurate statement:
calling a man who sexually and/or physically attracted to people of the same sex "straight" is every bit as daft as calling a cabbage a steam engine
1 -
You might think the definition is silly or daft. Take it up with the dictionaries - not me.
As long as a definition stands - nothing silly in pointing it out.
But notice you used "people" plural. Perhaps you are not disagreeing as much as you think.
The definitions use the plural and talk about "typical" and "enduring" attractions. So - if a man has such attractions with some level (how much? Who knows?) of consistency - then call him bisexual. The definitions agree with you!
What seems to bother people is that a man could be heterosexual - have one or two isolated incidents of homosexual encounters - or be interested to try - or can even have a single but quite long term relationship - and still be called "heterosexual".
The dictionaries say he can! So what is the issue exactly? Is it with me or the dictionary?
We can moan he is an "outlier" but A) So what? And B) Is he? Do we know that for a fact?
0 -
People is often used to describe individuals of a particular group. In this case it was used to describe any individual within the same-sex group. It was patently obvious.
If someone said "this offer is not open to people over the age of 50", would you take it that a singular person over 50 would be eligible?
2 -
Advertisement
-
But it is not "patently obvious" thats the problem. Observe for example how Wibbs tried to lift a definition out of the dictionary a few weeks ago. That definition also used the plural. The parent definition of the words above it also do so but also explain why by making it explicit.
That seems to be the entire problem here. The definitions allow for isolated or rare exceptions - and distinguish between orientation and behavior while doing so.
The people who thought they knew what the word meant all these years - who are only now discovering the definitions are slightly broader than they thought - do not want to acknowledge that simple fact.
0 -
lol
We will leave it so. You can continue to think that men who are attracted to other men (or another man) could be straight.
It's the same as people thinking men and women are interchangable and that self identification of gender is the same as sex.
It's very simple that a person who is attracted to both sexes is bisexual, a person attracted to the same sex is gay and a person attracted to the opposite sex is straight.
Anything else is bluster and a nonsense.
1 -
"You can continue to think"
It is not about what I think.
What I am discussing is what the dictionaries and definitions actually say and allow for.
If you think the dictionaries choice of definition is nonsense that's your/their problem not mine.
But nothing wrong with me pointing out and discussing what the dictionaries and definitions currently actually say.
Don't shoot the messenger as they say :) To my mind an example of a correct response from anyone here is "I never knew that was the definition - it is more broad than I had assumed - you live and learn - but I probably will continue to use the word as I have been all the same" :)
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
"Words are fluid". When that line gets trotted out one can generally be pretty sure what follows is waffle in search of a point. And in this case there's no disappointment on that score. This is a common error of those who dwell in the grey areas thinking this makes them sound somehow meaningful and deep of thought. It doesn't. Because guess what we have definitions for those grey areas too. Straight; definitive. Gay; definitive. But Mary is sexually attracted to men most of the time, but has been sexually attracted to women too at points in her life, even had a romantic relationship with another woman, so where does she fit in? Bisexual; definitive. Mary calling herself Straight is not. Neither is Mary calling herself Gay. It may be to her, but it's not a grey area in reality. Examples of sex workers and the like are pointless, because one factor is missing; choice. If we were to define wider human sexual identities on those examples we may as claim rape is not sexual assault.
As for personal bias, the only bias I have in this kinda thing is a strong bias against psuedo ballsology that is so 'fluid' it's watery. If anything in this thread I've noticed more of a bias against the definition of Bisexuality and of people being Bisexual. We seem to be at a point(thank christ) where being Gay is accepted and acceptable, but Bi is somehow a tad out there. I've encountered this dubiousness around Bisexuals in both Straight and Gay circles, if anything more in the latter. Though I can kinda see where they might be coming from because of sexual 'tourists' that claim to be Straight. They give actual Bisexuals a bad name.
Indeed in this 'fluid' stuff where a woman in a longterm sexual romantic relationship with another woman describes herself and believes herself(which is far more in play) to be Straight where does that leave the definition of Bisexuality? How do you define Bisexuals? How does your wiki help you there? On this definition it says: A bisexual identity does not necessarily equate to equal sexual attraction to both sexes; commonly, people who have a distinct but not exclusive sexual preference for one sex over the other also identify themselves as bisexual.[9] So a man who has chosen to have Gay relationships, however fleeting or lasting could comfortably fit into that definition, yet go to another wiki page and nope, he's also Straight.
You can't even get a grip on where the line in the sand is, other than it's probably not 1. So in your world I could currently be in a three year loving sexual relationship with a man with all that entails and with a straight(no pun) face claim to be heterosexual? Equally could I be in a three year loving sexual relationship with a woman and claim to be Gay? It's a nonsense on every level. Now if I claimed I was Bisexual that makes actual sense. It is descriptive of the reality that I am capable of being sexually attracted to both sexes and chose to pursue such encounters.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
6 -
And once again just jumping to the words like "waffle" to dismiss rather than reply. Nothing changes does it? But yes words are fluid. They change over time for one. Which is why dictionaries are constantly updated. Compare for a random example what the man who invented the word "agnostic" meant by the word to how it is used or defined today. Language changes. Get over it :)
But it is fluid in other ways too in that people often use words differently to each other. The differences might by minor or subtle but they are there. This can be a wonderful thing. Or it can cause misunderstanding or miscommunication. But I take the good with the bad on that one myself.
But the beauty of literature can be very much based on how fluid language is. When reading a poem we can see how an author can skillfully choose a word that means two different things (very different or sometimes subtly different) and how being cognizant of both interpretations can give the reader a deeper appreciation for this work of art.
But shouting "ballsology" or "waffle" at the messenger means nothing when all I have done is point out (and cite) what the definitions actually say. If you do not like those definitions that's fine. But that's not my issue is it? Take it up with the dictionaries! Dictionaries often change their words over time and feedback is key.
What you have not done is shown anything I have said is actually wrong - that I have cited a dictionary wrong - or I have interpreted that definition wrong.
Because you can't. So you use words like "waffle" as a crutch/deflection.
I have noticed many of the same biases you have - and take issue with some of the same ones you do. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with me or anything I have said/argued. Again all I have done is essentially said "here is the definition of the words - and under this definition this interpretation you do not like is actually linguistically valid". You have not shown that - purely in the light of the definitions cited - that interpretation is not valid.
Because you can't. So you use words like "ballsology" as a crutch/deflection.
0 -
The TLDR version:
There is a difference between a) what the definition of a word is and whether that definition is poor/nonsense and b) noticing the current definition and discussing what is surprisingly valid under that definition.
I have done "b". Most of the shriller responses to me have been taking issue with "a".
No one yet has managed to (or even attempted to be fair) to rebut "b".
"a" is not my problem. I am neither attacking "a" or defending "a". I could not care much less about "a" than I do.
0 -
And I and others have said your b) is silly as it doesn't accurately describe gay, straight or bisexual.
0 -
You have "said" it for sure. But you have not successfully argue that point. For example you also said "We will leave it so." before making a medium length post and here you are replying again. So clearly there can be a disparity between what people say - and what they actually do. But you know just shouting "silly" at a claim does not magically make that claim silly - or mean it actually is - right??
But I do think from your own words here that your issue here is with "a" not "b" because it is not me "describing gay, straight or bisexual". "A" is doing that. All I am doing is pointing out what "a" said and what it means.
Why this need to equate the messenger with the message? As if me citing directly from a dictionary means it is somehow me describing those people? What a weird lie to tell yourself.
If you want to show that "b" - my interpretation of "a" - is wrong then do so. No one else has done so yet (has anyone even tried? I can't find a single post where they have..). Which of the words in the definition have I interpreted wrong? Do you need me to cite them all again in one place?
If your issue is that "a" is not describing such people correctly - which seems to be the issue with most posters replying to me so far - then as I said this is an issue you can take up with the dictionaries/pages in question. Otherwise we are going to keep talking at/past each other. Which clearly I am happy to do - at length. I am not sure anyone else is enjoying it though.
0 -
Jesus. I'll say it again.
It's very simple that a person who is attracted to both sexes is bisexual, a person attracted to the same sex is gay and a person attracted to the opposite sex is straight.
You seem to insist that isn't the case.
1 -
'agnostic' is a great example of people misunderstanding a word and using it incorrectly.
When people call themselves 'agnostic', what they generally go on to describe is an 'agnostic atheist'.
When using the word 'agnostic' incorrectly, you are actually ruling out the possibility of people being 'agnostic theists'. So not only is it incorrect, it interferes with other definitions.
Your 'words are fluid' in this case just masks a general ignorance of the English language in society.
If you want to stick to religion, 'The Immaculate Conception' is another one (albeit, not a word but a term).
This refers to Mary being conceived without original sin, yet people generally (and incorrectly) think it's to do with the virgin birth of Jesus. I doubt the Catholic Church will be changing their definition to the later anytime soon.
3 -
Advertisement
-
No that is not at all what I have claimed or insisted. You are putting words in my mouth now. Not the first one to do so.
What I have claimed and insisted is:
Actual dictionary definitions -which I cited when everyone else refused to - are slightly more broad than that in that they allow for isolated and rare and "untypical" exceptions between those definitions such that isolated cases do not automatically move people between those definitions.
There is in one sentence my entire point on the thread. I have not "insisted" on anything else that is not contained in that sentence. Everything else I have been saying is arguments for - or examples illustrating - what is contained in that sentence.
1 -
Part of me agrees that people "used the word incorrectly". Because I like Huxleys meaning of the word myself.
But the reason I used it as an example is very specific - if you check dictionaries - many of them changed or augmented their definitions to reflect the common usages of the word. This is as it should be. Dictionaries do not give us the definitions of the words - they are the containers that tell us what definitions we have been giving them. They change to reflect the usage of words in the society around them. Think of dictionaries as a mirror not a tablet set in stone.
So if someone disagrees with the definition in a dictionary of any word - they can petition for change. It is not really right in that sense therefore to say people are using the word "agnostic" wrong. Rather they are using it correctly by the modern definition and probably are entirely ignorant of the original meaning of the word.
If someone disagrees with a definition being cited and it's actual current meaning being explained - that's on them to argue their case :)
What appears to be happening on the thread is that people are doing the former at the latter by proxy. Moaning about what the dictionary actually says at someone who has done nothing more than point out what the dictionary actually says. Attacking the messenger rather than saying "Lets go back to the message sender and tell them their message is wrong". And as you can see in post 318 above - it is not clear they even see the difference. They do one entirely convinced they are doing the other.
Which is all for me - as I said - rather amusing and I am interested in the contortions it is putting them into.
You are very right that there is a "general ignorance" in society though. We see it on this thread. People who have used a word or words in one way all their life - suddenly finding out that the actual current definition of the word is (slightly!) more broad than they thought. And this affects them in such a way that they seem to think the fault lies with the person who points this out - rather than with the source itself :)
1 -
It is not a tad disingenuous though to take words which have very specific meanings - in this case, Straight, Gay and Bisexual and say that they actually mean something entirely different, something which makes the original meaning redundant? Why have the words at all?
I understand your argument that words evolve and meanings change, however I am fairly certain if you went out into the streets and asked a selection of random people their thoughts, they would not tell you that 'straight' meant homosexual interactions too.
If I'm in a social setting and tell a man that I am 'straight', I am assuming that, based on the collective understanding of the word 'straight' in society he then knows my orientation and that I am not interested in a physical relationship with him.
Likewise, if I were to speak to a woman and was informed that she was gay, I am not going to assume she still must be in to men because that's what 'gay' now means to some people.
Do you get what I mean? These are basic terms that we use in society not only to describe ourselves, but to tell others how we may/may not be interested in interacting with them.
To change/blur their meaning is to make them redundant.
2 -
To change/blur their meaning is to make them redundant.
It’s not the intent of the exercise. The intent is to undermine peoples frames of reference and destabilise their thinking. It’s just insidious kinda carry-on. It’s why if someone I know to be gay suddenly started toying with the idea of identifying themselves as straight, we wouldn’t be mates much longer, because they’d have just identified themselves as an idiot.
2 -
After a feed of cabbage there’s some people who go off like a steam engine, can be difficult to tell the difference only for the smell 😂😂
0 -
But I am not taking words that have specific meanings and saying they actually mean something entirely different? I have cited the actual meanings of these words and other words directly from official and well know dictionaries???? Are you sure you are replying to the right person?
If I have claimed a word has a meaning entirely different to what the dictionaries say the meaning is - by all means cite me doing so - which post I did it in and correct/call me on it! No one else has.
What I am doing however is showing that the definitions in actual dictionaries are surprisingly different than what most people might have assumed. It surprised me too when I found out. But this is not so rare. I enjoy language and words and meanings. So I look at the definitions of words very often. So it is not all that rare I will be surprised that a word has a meaning different than what I though. Sometimes just subtly different. On rarer occasion entirely different.
But it happens to all of us. Some of us accept it when it happens. Others get antsy it seems.
I have seen cases where I think that intention is in play. Joe Rogan certainly goes on about it more and more. As do many of his guests. That some dark players in the shadows are trying to destabilize civilization by changing and undermining the meanings and very concepts that hold our society together.
I hardly think that is happening on this thread however. And is certainly not happening in my posts. In fact the difference between the meaning most people hold for many of these words - and the meaning the dictionaries actually hold - is very minor and is not likely to destabilize anything.
But it is funny that the people who have moaned on this thread about language being changed in this way - are the very ones who absolutely do not want to accept what the dictionary actually says and have quite openly in some cases simply made up their own definitions out of their own heads.
Bit rich no? Moaning about the people who change the definition of words - while being the only ones in a thread ignoring dictionaries and making their own definitions up :) That is comedy gold really living up to the idea that life is funnier than any comedy.
Meanwhile the only person on the thread who has directly and consistenly cited dictionaries and stuck only to the dictionary definition - without making up any definitions of their own - is the one person seemingly igniting their moans about words being changed in the first place. Couldn't make this cognitive dissonance up if I was not seeing it in real time myself here :)
1 -
It would be difficult to navigate through contractual law if words were fluid
Words are specific, that's why we have contracts.
Heterosexual is a straight man. It's not a straight man that has gay sex twice a year that would be a bisexual man, or choose another word or phrase for it if one wishes, but it's not straight
2 -
Ahh tax it’s not rich or so difficult to understand as you make out at all. You know well how language is used and common understandings function. People don’t restrict themselves to dictionary definitions, precisely for the reason that dictionary definitions, by definition, are limited!
The whole thing of married men making excuses for their behaviour like saying their wife or girlfriend (girlfriends, even, cos let’s be inclusive 😁), won’t have sex with them, so they go playing hide the sausage with another man? Yeah, because having sex with a woman and having sex with a man are totally the same thing…
We’re both aware they’re not, and a man at that kind of thing is lying to themselves, and gay lads in places where gay lads meet, thinking “jaysis there’s an awful lot of married men want to have the gay sex”, it’s confirmation bias. In reality there just aren’t that many gay men in the closet that they go to the trouble of getting married and all to hide it and lie to their wives, families, etc. That’s what I mean by those men lying to themselves.
Cases in point - Philip Schofield and Bruce Jenner, they knew before they married their wives that they were gay or transgender, decided to hide it from their wives, and went on to have children and all. These men’s actions have consequences not just for themselves, but to inflict that upon other people without their knowledge? That’s where it rises to the level of insidious. If they’re just lying to themselves and not harming anyone else, I wouldn’t care what they called themselves or what they wanted to be called, Thomas the fcuking tank engine for all I care 😒
Damn you @[Deleted User] I’ve got steam engines stuck in my brain now 😂
0 -
And as I keep saying - and I keep saying that I keep saying it - and now I keep saying that I keep saying I am saying it - I have no problem with people not restricting themselves to dictionary definitions. It's like you simply can not be bothered reading my posts before replying to them to be honest.
I have said again - and again and again - that people having and using their own definitions is entirely fine with me and I have not faulted or taken issue with that in the slightest. Especially when their definitions fit most cases - most of the time.
What I have done though is simply point out that if you take the dictionary definitions as they are it is perfectly valid for a heterosexual with a homosexual experience or even a long term single homosexual relationship - to identify as or be identified as a heterosexual. It is entirely coherent and correct usage of the word as defined. Both the word itself - and the definitions of the "parent category" in which the word belongs.
- I am not saying anyone has to do that.
- I am not saying anyone who does not do that is "wrong".
- I am not saying anyone has to change anything they are doing.
- I am not asking for anything at all in fact.
I am simply saying one thing and one thing only: That the interpretation I have offered is in and of itself perfectly valid given nothing but the text of the definitions cited. And no one has shown - again given the text of the definition cited - that my interpretation is fallacious.
Which for whatever reason is a pill no one wants to swallow - but since they want to not swallow it so badly they are simply rolling in shouting words like "waffle" over and over in the hope it/I will go away. And I find their reaction as interesting as I find it baseless and baffling. That so many people are moved to argue at such length against nothing but having the text of a dictionary definition of a word cited - is seriously weird to me but interesting and amusing enough that I am enjoying observing them do it.
That people want to somehow equate this with the whole movement of men identifying as women or white people identifying as black - or whatever else people are doing to massively redefine working words into entirely new meanings - is also interesting and comical at the same time. The two could not be more different and I have A) no interest in and B) absolutely no dog in those fights. In fact unlike your good self I have almost entirely avoided any discussion and threads on many gender issues - all transgender issues - and most wokeism issues. I simply do not care about those issues or have any agendas or goals related to them.
I actually consider myself too ignorant of many of those issues to even presume to wade into threads on many of the related topics.
1 -
Advertisement
-
And back to the one liner dismissals that simply ignore and dodge everything I have said. Full circle.
After 13 years on the site robustly and opening arguing my views in debate - it is also as mean spirited as it is cowardly and baseless as an accusation. I think anyone who knows me - even those who strongly disagree with me - recognize that I discuss my views honestly if nothing else.
Ad hominem cop out and nothing more. For shame.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
