A query about the term LGBTQI

JackTaylorFan · 29-07-2018 10:23PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A load of bollox

All you are doing is dog whistling and sealoining here, I'm afraid. It's all you ever do. I'm done entertaining you on this thread.

I won't click on any videos you share - nor your links, because, they are quite honestly irrelevant to the conversation. As are you.

Regards

J_E · 30-07-2018 03:18PM

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

As I said, I am not questioning anyone's right to identify whichever way they want in regards man, woman or somewhere in between. But if you are trans before transition, you're still technically trans after. I really don't understand why this is so complicated for some people to understand, especially if you know what cisgender and transgender actually means.

There are no formalised standards - you could place this argument in the framework of 'if you were a woman before a transition, you are still a woman after'. It's how people choose to commonly identify and associate their gender identity. I would rather accept what they have to say if it isn't unreasonable (I do find when people begin to invent deliberately awkward and unique gender terms it begins to cause confusion and alienation, but these are fringe cases and it's their life, really). I think we are under no obligation to make a show of a person whether they say they are trans or a woman. Why do we need to know in general situations? It's simply how they want to present themself. Much like some may actively present their homosexuality, and some don't want sexuality to define their life. Not every transperson needs to be an activist. It's harming nobody, really, and in some cases they may be trying to avoid discrimination.

JackTaylorFan · 30-07-2018 10:49PM

J_E wrote: »

There are no formalised standards - you could place this argument in the framework of 'if you were a woman before a transition, you are still a woman after'. It's how people choose to commonly identify and associate their gender identity. I would rather accept what they have to say if it isn't unreasonable (I do find when people begin to invent deliberately awkward and unique gender terms it begins to cause confusion and alienation, but these are fringe cases and it's their life, really). I think we are under no obligation to make a show of a person whether they say they are trans or a woman. Why do we need to know in general situations? It's simply how they want to present themself. Much like some may actively present their homosexuality, and some don't want sexuality to define their life. Not every transperson needs to be an activist. It's harming nobody, really, and in some cases they may be trying to avoid discrimination.

Yes, that's fine in every day life. I don't feel the need to tell people my gender whatsoever either. They draw their own conclusions on meeting me.

But as I said to Joey, if you are speaking on behalf of trans people, it sends out the wrong message completely to say you are no longer trans. How many times can repeat the fact that if you are cis you are cis and if you are trans you are trans. The reason people are so quick to shed the trans label is because of the social stigma. That's my personal opinion as a trans person and it ain't gonna change.

sexmag · 31-07-2018 04:43PM

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

All you are doing is dog whistling and sealoining here, I'm afraid. It's all you ever do. I'm done entertaining you on this thread.

I won't click on any videos you share - nor your links, because, they are quite honestly irrelevant to the conversation. As are you.

Regards

I thought one eyed jacks response was quite well put together and would have liked to see you respond instead of just dismissing it and ignorong anything you don't agree with. If that was the case for everyone there would be no acceptance of anyone in the lgbt community,people need to be able to see all sides of a discussion,people being able to put themselves in other people's shoed and without that there will never be any progress

JackTaylorFan · 01-08-2018 02:59AM

sexmag wrote: »

I thought one eyed jacks response was quite well put together and would have liked to see you respond instead of just dismissing it and ignorong anything you don't agree with. If that was the case for everyone there would be no acceptance of anyone in the lgbt community,people need to be able to see all sides of a discussion,people being able to put themselves in other people's shoed and without that there will never be any progress

I'm not in the habit of doing what TERFs (OEJ) expect of me, but thanks for your input. I'll file it under: Things I don't give a **** about.

JackTaylorFan · 01-08-2018 07:30AM

J_E wrote: »

Much like some may actively present their homosexuality, and some don't want sexuality to define their life. Not every transperson needs to be an activist.

But the woman in question is a trans activist, that is why it is an important distinction in this case.

I really can't make it any simpler for you at this point. If you don't get it by now, It is for one of two reasons: a) you are too dense to actually comprehend all that has been explained to you or b) you are actively not listening to what I have repeated to you twice now.

Either way, I won't reply to you on the subject again.

One eyed Jack · 01-08-2018 08:02AM

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I'm not in the habit of doing what TERFs (OEJ) expect of me, but thanks for your input. I'll file it under: Things I don't give a **** about.

I didn't respond to your last reply to my post, because it would have been validating your assumed authority to determine who is permitted to speak, and when they are permitted to speak. You simply don't have that authority, over anyone.

Now, I had left it, but when you drag me back into the conversation to call me a feminist, that's just insulting :pac:

Just to be clear - I don't expect anything of you, because I don't regard you as any sort of a leader. You talk about 'us' as though you speak for or represent the transgender community, and as far as I'm concerned - you don't, and you never will. The only thing you have managed to achieve is perpetuating negative stereotypes.

Fortunately for most people who are transgender, your ideas and your opinions are simply outdated, and people who are better informed than you are can easily point out the number of claims you've made which are simply false.

I can understand from your perspective why you want to dismiss people who don't agree with your narratives and have an opinion of their own as deluded, dense or feminists, but that's all you've added to the conversation. If that's all you have to add to the conversation, you shouldn't be surprised when people question whether your opinions are actually worth entertaining. Your arguments from authority just don't cut it.

sexmag · 01-08-2018 09:21AM

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I'm not in the habit of doing what TERFs (OEJ) expect of me, but thanks for your input. I'll file it under: Things I don't give a **** about.

I really have no idea what you want to achieve?

All of your comments(arguments) are just you dismissing everyone because they don't follow your narrative or are ignorant to what you stand for,yet you don't try and educate in a fair and informed way,how do you expect anyone to understand you when all you do is push them away with sarcastic comments?

Annasopra · 01-08-2018 10:04AM

Mod

Everyone - cut the personal jibes out. The thread topic is LGBTI. It is not posting style. This is a general warning to all posters. Any further off topic personal jibes from anyone they will be yellow carded and thread banned.

JackTaylorFan · 01-08-2018 10:06AM

.

Annasopra · 01-08-2018 10:40AM

All

The mod warning above is to keep thread on discussion. JTF is not thread banned. Any posters who engage in discussion about others posters styles will be thread banned from now on.

An_Toirpin · 01-08-2018 01:28PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We would never be where with womens rights, lgbt rights, human rights, workers rights generally if we took an individualist approach to life. We would still be in a society where would be massive structural exploitation of workers, opression/discrimination of lgbt people, women, people with disabilities.

If the like of Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera took an individualist approach to life and political activism then who knows how backward we would be in terms of lgbt rights. We certainly wouldnt have had much social and political improvements for LGBT peoples lives that we have had in the West for sure.

The advancement of human rigths has everything to with individualism. The arguments for the Suffragettes were mostly if not totally based on individualism. Rights stemming from individualism are still very rare. This philsophy may have huge influence in popular culture and politics but in actual rights very little, especially in Ireland.

P_1 · 01-08-2018 09:44PM

Ok I'm going to delicately wade in here. In my eyes the whole alphabet soup (that's how I've come to term it now) has lost all relevance bar being a PC term to refer to someone who doesn't fit the hetronormative narrative.

For example what would someone who is genderfluid, poly and pan have in common with a cis gay man in a mono relationship bar the fact that they are not hetronormative. Or indeed what would someone who is ace have in common with a gay woman?

Intersectionality is IMO the way forward but is there really a need to constantly add more letters.

JackTaylorFan · 02-08-2018 05:14AM

[

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I'm going to delicately wade in here. In my eyes the whole alphabet soup (that's how I've come to term it now) has lost all relevance bar being a PC term to refer to someone who doesn't fit the hetronormative narrative.

For example what would someone who is genderfluid, poly and pan have in common with a cis gay man in a mono relationship bar the fact that they are not hetronormative. Or indeed what would someone who is ace have in common with a gay woman?

Intersectionality is IMO the way forward but is there really a need to constantly add more letters.

As far as I am aware, there is only one P and it stands for pansexual. Though, I have heard a multitude of other neo-labels of late too - such as pomosexual (though you might have a stroke trying to work out the logic of that one)

Polyamorous people - they are not strictly part of the LGBT+ community, to be honest. Sadly, there is a lot of confusion still about what these outlying letters mean. I've met people who think the A stands for Allies - it does not. If you're a straight man in a poly relationship with two women, you are still straight. A lot of gay/queer/bi/etc people also happen to enjoy a poly lifestyle as well, that's just a fact - but again, that's not what the P stands for at all. It's pansexual.

Now, to be being ace: Well, the truth is, many ace people are subject to the same kind of bullying from a young age and treated with the same type suspicion as many gay/lesbian people would be throughout their life - in that way the experience is very much related. For some aces, who actually want relationships, it can also be incredibly difficult to find a partner- more so than your average person. I understand that this might seem hard for you to believe, but ace people put up with a lot of **** for their orientation - and it is an orientation. They are often marginalized and vilified, even within the LGBTQ+ community.

PistolsAtDawn · 02-08-2018 06:42AM

Heebie wrote: »

The various terms mainly have to do with deliberately including groups that "fall under the umbrella" of the shorter acronyms.
Some groups within the larger "gay community" often are marginalised by the gay community in similar ways to how LGBTQAI+ people are marginalised by "the mainstream community" or whatever you wish to call the society we happen to be living in.
The difference between L and G is to ensure women are separately acronym'ed.
Q is sometimes considered to be for people who identify as "queer" and have no desire to be thought of any other way. Most of the time it means "Questioning".. people who aren't really sure.
I think I might be for intergendered people, who are distinctly different from Trans people, in that trans folks feel they were born in a body that doesn't match whom they are.. intergendered people don't consider themselves one or the other, but somewhere in between. I think the A might be for Asexuals.
I'm not sure where Pansexual people would be represented, and I've never seen a P used in there.
Of course, if you ask 100 people you're likely to get 50 answers.

I hope to live to see a day where "person" "people" and individuals' names are all the labels were need.

Thanks, this was very informative.

I'm wondering as a straight white male (the devil incarnate, I know :-) ) why you "hope to live to see a day where "person" "people" and individuals' names are all the labels were need"?.

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with your wish however, it puzzles me nonetheless. As a straight white male if someone was to incorrectly label me as a black lesbian woman for instance, I would not be in no way offended, i'd probably laugh. If they said it a second time I may correct them by saying something along the lines of "apologies but your mistaken, i'm actually a straight white male", if they continued to mislabel me i'd then know it was intentional and designed to cause hurt at which point i'd know they're an a**hole and count myself lucky I figured out this person is an a**hole within three sentences, now I don't have to bother with them again, move onto the next person.

It seems like an easier solution all around to me, based simply on the fact that since the dawn of time people have been cruel to each other, so it is plausible to suggest that for the perceivable future, lets say the next 1000 years, this unfortunate characteristic trait of humans is unlikely to evolve out of our DNA. So rather than waiting 1000 years we can take action today, instantly, and adopt a mindset of "nothing can affect me as I am an individual in total control of the world's interaction with myself".

A simple switch in personal philosophy resulting in instant attainment of the truest form of individualism, in my opinion.

P_1 · 02-08-2018 07:20AM

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

[

As far as I am aware, there is only one P and it stands for pansexual. Though, I have heard a multitude of other neo-labels of late too - such as pomosexual (though you might have a stroke trying to work out the logic of that one)

Polyamorous people - they are not strictly part of the LGBT+ community, to be honest. Sadly, there is a lot of confusion still about what these outlying letters mean. I've met people who think the A stands for Allies - it does not. If you're a straight man in a poly relationship with two women, you are still straight. A lot of gay/queer/bi/etc people also happen to enjoy a poly lifestyle as well, that's just a fact - but again, that's not what the P stands for at all. It's pansexual.

Now, to be being ace: Well, the truth is, many ace people are subject to the same kind of bullying from a young age and treated with the same type suspicion as many gay/lesbian people would be throughout their life - in that way the experience is very much related. For some aces, who actually want relationships, it can also be incredibly difficult to find a partner- more so than your average person. I understand that this might seem hard for you to believe, but ace people put up with a lot of **** for their orientation - and it is an orientation. They are often marginalized and vilified, even within the LGBTQ+ community.

I'm always a fan of learning new things though pomosexual is a new one to me. Dont worry I'll do my best to avoid a stroke but what does it mean? Edit just looked it up and damn as someone who hates labels ironical that's a label that rather resonates with me.

Depending on how you define the alphabet soup poly people might well have a place imo. Obviously not if you're only defining it on sexual orientation.

Trust me I'm well aware of the discrimination ace people can face from certain quarters. It's like biphobia on steroids

JackTaylorFan · 02-08-2018 07:21AM

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

Thanks, this was very informative.

It seems like an easier solution all around to me, based simply on the fact that since the dawn of time people have been cruel to each other, so it is plausible to suggest that for the perceivable future, lets say the next 1000 years, this unfortunate characteristic trait of humans is unlikely to evolve out of our DNA. So rather than waiting 1000 years we can take action today, instantly, and adopt a mindset of "nothing can affect me as I am an individual in total control of the world's interaction with myself".

So, in essence when you get punched in the face for no other reason than not being a straight white male, it's something you should just shrug off and learn to toughen up about as a strong invincible individual should do.

Yeah, cool... Victim blaming is awesome.

Like 5 thumbs up, there, little buddy.

Anyways, I seen your earlier derisive alphabet post before you edited. And like most the straight white males on this forum, I can't take anything you say seriously - nothing you guys post is in good faith

JackTaylorFan · 02-08-2018 07:35AM

P_1 wrote: »

I'm always a fan of learning new things though pomosexual is a new one to me. Dont worry I'll do my best to avoid a stroke but what does it mean?

Depending on how you define the alphabet soup poly people might well have a place imo. Obviously not if you're only defining it on sexual orientation.

Trust me I'm well aware of the discrimination ace people can face from certain quarters. It's like biphobia on steroids

Yeah, ace-phobia is pretty common.

And since you asked: Pomosexual is a label for people who refuse to be labeled. I mean, I just can't. I'm not sure, it almost sounds like it was started as a movement on 4Chan - but, then again, I read about it in an article from an LGBT+ news group recently. So yeah...

As for poly people, well, I've gave my opinion on that, and as far as I'm aware, officially there is only one P in the acronym. Poly is not inherently LGBT+ and neither are open relationships - and yes, in theory, I know those two things are not the same. Well, that's my take.

P_1 · 02-08-2018 07:44AM

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Yeah, ace-phobia is pretty common.

And since you asked: Pomosexual is a label for people who refuse to be labeled. I mean, I just can't. I'm not sure, it almost sounds like it was started as a movement on 4Chan - but, then again, I read about it in an article from an LGBT+ news group recently. So yeah...

As for poly people, well, I've gave my opinion on that, and as far as I'm aware, officially there is only one P in the acronym. Poly is not inherently LGBT+ and neither are open relationships - and yes, in theory, I know those two things are not the same. Well, that's my take.

And that's fair enough. Like everyone has their own take on things and it's quite refreshing that there isnt a hive mind on this. The issue comes in my eyes when people start falling out over such matters.

JackTaylorFan · 02-08-2018 01:34PM

P_1 wrote: »

And that's fair enough. Like everyone has their own take on things and it's quite refreshing that there isnt a hive mind on this. The issue comes in my eyes when people start falling out over such matters.

Cool

J_E · 05-08-2018 01:37PM

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

So, in essence when you get punched in the face for no other reason than not being a straight white male, it's something you should just shrug off and learn to toughen up about as a strong invincible individual should do.

Yeah, cool... Victim blaming is awesome.

Like 5 thumbs up, there, little buddy.

Anyways, I seen your earlier derisive alphabet post before you edited. And like most the straight white males on this forum, I can't take anything you say seriously - nothing you guys post is in good faith

That is entirely not what that poster suggested, this is an unreasonable equation. This type of response only stands to create conflict where there could be a reasonable discussion. It's quite jarring to see people who are interested in learning being faced with such an acidic response, actually.

JackTaylorFan · 10-08-2018 10:50PM

J_E wrote: »

That is entirely not what that poster suggested, this is an unreasonable equation. This type of response only stands to create conflict where there could be a reasonable discussion. It's quite jarring to see people who are interested in learning being faced with such an acidic response, actually.

What that poster was suggesting, from a position of privilege being a "straight white male" of course, was that minorities like those of us who are LGBT+ should toughen-up and accept the hardships upon us as a give-in for the next 1000 years or so until the "DNA" of our species evolves - and, also, stop complaining about it. In other words: blaming the victim.

adopt a mindset of "nothing can affect me as I am an individual in total control of the world's interaction with myself".

How that translates in a practical setting: I get punched in the face and verbally assaulted on public transport, but I needn't worry, because I am in total control of the interaction I am having at that moment in time.

I mean, wow :rolleyes:

sexmag · 10-08-2018 11:12PM

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

What that poster was suggesting, from a position of privilege being a "straight white male" of course, was that minorities like those of us who are LGBT+ should toughen-up and accept the hardships upon us as a give-in for the next 1000 years or so until the "DNA" of our species evolves - and, also, stop complaining about it. In other words: blaming the victim.

How that translates in a practical setting: I get punched in the face and verbally assaulted on public transport, but I needn't worry, because I am in total control of the interaction I am having at that moment in time.

I mean, wow :rolleyes:

It's not the same at all actually and you keep reference a scenario of getting punched in the face when they aren't the same.

Being called something incorrectly due ignorance and being physically assaulted are two separate scenarios that are handled differently

You can choose to ignore people who offend you ( its not something specific to the lgbt commumity btw, we all experienced it everyday) or label someone incorrectly (or you can educate them) as their igornance is usually misplaced and not coming from a place of malice

Where being physically assaulted by someone is intentional and intended to hurt which is against the law.

As someone who frequents this forum a lot I feel you have a great opportunity to educate people who are curious and not dismiss all "straigh white males" with sarcastic comments of having nothing important to add or learn

JackTaylorFan · 10-08-2018 11:24PM

Sealioning: involving "bad-faith" questions. You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating you entirely on the other party. If your bait is successful, the other party may engage, painstakingly laying out their logic and evidence in the false hope of helping someone learn. In fact you are attempting to harass or waste the time of the other party, and have no intention of truly entertaining their point of view. Instead, you react to each piece of information by misinterpreting it or requesting further clarification, ad nauseum.

Big Bag of Chips · 10-08-2018 11:51PM

JackTaylorFan, you always have the option of not replying to a poster who you feel is not genuine in their questioning. You also have the option of reporting any posts you feel are not genuine and let the moderators, who have good knowledge of the forum make a call.

Antagonistic posting will not be tolerated.... From either side.

Annasopra · 14-08-2018 11:56AM

Mod

This thread isnt a generic "everything lgbtqia+" to be dumped into. I have moved some posts to a more appropriate thread.

professore · 14-08-2018 12:06PM

Yeah I think its an interesting narrative alright around identities.

I once saw someone described in the media as "a woman with a transgender history" I contacted her saying oh the media got that wrong - No she said they didnt. I am a woman. I am not a transgender woman. I define myself as a woman. When I discuss myself nowadays in relation to trans issues I identify myself as "a woman with a transgender history" because being transgender is effectively my past. I am a woman.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Sorry, but that is internalised transphobia right there - with a strong hint of delusion. And it's also a harmful message to put out there - that we should be ashamed of being transgender.

By no means, do I go around exclaiming I am trans outside Boards, because it will likely get me in some serious trouble - if not killed. But by definition that's what I am, and that's what she is too. You can never change that. It's like you saying I used to be a gay man but because I repress that part of me and choose to be with a woman even though I am still only attracted to men, I am cured. It's bull****; it's an internalised repulsion of oneself caused by desperately trying to fit with societal norms. I am obviously in no way disputing her right to call herself a woman, but delete the trans part as something she has outgrown is damaging to the whole community. Cis women don't suddenly cease being cis and vice versa.

I don't normally post here, but this caught my eye. I'm a believer in the No harm principle of John Stewart Mill - if you aren't harming anyone else, then as an adult (with some exceptions - children and the dangerously mentally ill being obvious ones) you should be free to do whatever you want to yourself and with anyone who is consenting and going along with you.

Is she not allowed to identify how she wants? Maybe she thought she was trans earlier in life when in fact she was lesbian - or something else? Maybe someone brainwashed her into believing she was trans? Or is brainwashing her now into believing she's a cis woman?
Maybe she had paranoid delusions of being trans - maybe she's trans and now having delusions of being a cis woman? Who knows? How do you know for certain how she feels? She shouldn't have to live her life under the approval of the trans or any other community. Then THEY are violating the no harm principle by telling her how to live her life.

By the way I'm not sure where you live, but I think there aren't many places left in Ireland - there are some I agree - where identifying as trans will get you hurt or killed. Plenty of openly trans people in my neck of the woods. Sorry to hear that.

Annasopra · 14-08-2018 12:15PM

professore wrote: »

I don't normally post here, but this caught my eye. I'm a believer in the No harm principle of John Stewart Mill - if you aren't harming anyone else, then as an adult (with some exceptions - children and the dangerously mentally ill being obvious ones) you should be free to do whatever you want to yourself and with anyone who is consenting and going along with you.

Is she not allowed to identify how she wants? Maybe she thought she was trans earlier in life when in fact she was lesbian - or something else? Maybe someone brainwashed her into believing she was trans? Or is brainwashing her now into believing she's a cis woman?
Maybe she had paranoid delusions of being trans - maybe she's trans and now having delusions of being a cis woman? Who knows? How do you know for certain how she feels? She shouldn't have to live her life under the approval of the trans or any other community. Then THEY are violating the no harm principle by telling her how to live her life.

By the way I'm not sure where you live, but I think there aren't many places left in Ireland - there are some I agree - where identifying as trans will get you hurt or killed. Plenty of openly trans people in my neck of the woods. Sorry to hear that.

What? The bit I have just bolded seems like an off the wall bizarre rant. It makes no sense whatsoever and is really disrespectful about trans people suggesting they are brainwashed and are delusional.

baby and crumble · 14-08-2018 02:20PM

sexmag wrote: »

<Mod Snip>

How is someone elses transition anything to do with you?

By being named "Brian" you are effectively making everyone you encounter a participant in your life and they must abide by this by referring to you as your preferred name or suffer repercussions of being called a d*ckhead who doesn't call people bytheir name.

See how stupid that sounds? :rolleyes:

A query about the term LGBTQI

Comments