LGBT or GSD?

Annasopra · 26-02-2013 11:43AM

Mrkiscool2 - please done down your language.

Last warning to EVERYONE on this thread - any more attacks or aggressiveness and I will be handing out infractions

Evilsbane · 26-02-2013 11:56AM

Everyone knows that LGBT includes all that other stuff anyway. At a push, call it LGBTE (lesbian, gay, bi, trans etc) and everyone will know what you mean. An exhaustive list is not feasible and you know it.

niamh_eile · 26-02-2013 12:35PM

In the video, Mr Davies says: “LGBT became LGBTIQQA — adding Intersex, Queer, Questioning and their Allies — which was still very limiting.

“It still excluded a lot of groups. People who might be asexual, members of the BDSM/kink community, people who were in non-traditional relationships that might be polyamorous or swingers.

“A whole batch of people who didn’t feel able to go to mainstream counseling organizations and also wouldn’t necessarily be welcome at LGBT counseling organizations.”

I like LGBTQIA. GSD means nothing.

Let's not conflate kink and LGBTQIA. The terms are fine as they stand. We already have a terms somewhat equivalent to GSD like queer and alt(ernative).

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 12:38PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

"Well, I'm not gay, no need to support them!" Where do you think you'd be now? Cop on, grow up and stop thinking about "what's best for gay men" and think what's best for everyone

There's something deeply disturbing about a group of gay men deciding what the non hetero norm is.

paulmorro · 26-02-2013 12:44PM

I can't understand how such terms are really effectiive. I'm bi. I have a vested interest in gay rights. That is very different to polygamy or trans rights and so on. Not that I'm insensitive to those (far from it) but they're VERY different issues imo.

If all organizations were rebranded under GSD, they would find they would have to cater to these. As an example, last year LGBT Noise were doing work on trans rights despite no one of the trans community being involved with them. I don't doubt that they have good intentions but are they really the right group to be pushing this? If it became GSD would they start pushing for poly-rights too, maybe without knowledge of why it's important to people?

There are a lot of different people out there. I don't see why we all have to be shoved under what is essentially a "not normal" term.

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 12:54PM

paulmorro wrote: »

There are a lot of different people out there. I don't see why we all have to be shoved under what is essentially a "not normal" term.

Outside of which terms and acronyms are suitable your post highlights exactly what the issue is. Basically you're suggesting that as long as your gay or bi (and preferably male)that's an acceptable alternative to hetero normativity and everything else is well..not.

paulmorro · 26-02-2013 12:58PM

ashers22 wrote: »

Outside of which terms and acronyms are suitable your post highlights exactly what the issue is. Basically you're suggesting that as long as your gay or bi (and preferably male)that's an acceptable alternative to hetero normativity and everything else is well..not.

I said nothing of the sort (and when exactly did I become mysognistic?). My point is there's a lot of different people out there and I don't see how lumping them into the one group isn't good for anyone!

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 01:14PM

paulmorro wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort (and when exactly did I become mysognistic?). My point is there's a lot of different people out there and I don't see how lumping them into the one group isn't good for anyone!

let me highlight this for you

I don't see why we all have to be shoved under what is essentially a "not normal" term.

who gets to define what is normal exactly?

the lgbt community is and always has been catered to the gay male, this thread is a fine example of that. Those comments weren't directed at you, it was a statement in and of itself. (check out the response by some gay lad re lesbian v bi sexual video) The gender issues appear to stem directly from a society which feels the need to force people into one category or the other. (male or female/gay or lesbian and that's enough, ergo if you don't qualify for either you can fúck off)

floggg · 26-02-2013 01:21PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's not stupidity. The world is run on a heteronormative basis. Even moreso a male heteronormative basis. Expanding LGBT to include more non-heteronormative experiences is in line with pretty much any sexual liberal thinking and philosophy. But go ahead thinking all that matters is gay men. That's just as bad as straight men looking down on gay people.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

From a person who claims they are proud to be gay, this is absolutely horrific. People fought for years, and are still fighting, to get your right to express your love for other men, to get married, to adopt with another man, and you turn around and slap them all in the face with a comment like that

How dare you. How dare you belittle anyone who isn't gay because "they don't share the same experiences" as you. There are still massive problems with gender and sexual rights in this country, as you well know. And now, because you seem content with what you have, you are going to give two fingers to others who have supported your cause?

What if ever single straight person in Ireland had gone "Well, I'm not gay, no need to support them!" Where do you think you'd be now? Cop on, grow up and stop thinking about "what's best for gay men" and think what's best for everyone

ashers22 wrote: »

Outside of which terms and acronyms are suitable your post highlights exactly what the issue is. Basically you're suggesting that as long as your gay or bi (and preferably male)that's an acceptable alternative to hetero normativity and everything else is well..not.

Having fun putting words in people's mouths there guys?

Where did I ever say all that matters are gay men, or that what's best for gay men is best for all?

I've been looking hard, but I can't see it anywhere.

And if you can't find it, an apology for the personal attacks and belittling would be nice.

If you have a problem with what I actually said, fine, attack it on its merits. Don't make up stuff.

As a gay man I have a vested interest in issues that affect gay men. I don't have a vested interest in things that affect asexuals, polygamists, or even lesbian only issues.

That doesn't mean I don't care about them, or don't think they aren't serious issues. They just aren't my issues. Heck, in some instances I can't even understand the issues. Doesn't mean I'm going to oppose any group or discriminate.

It just means I'm not going to be invested in them as I am with issues which affect me, and while I am sympathetic to problems people might face, I'm not going to campaign on them.

For example, marriage equality is something I believe in and have volunteered on this point before. Quite frankly I have no interest in being involved in any legally recognised polygamist relationship though, so I am never likely to get involved in any campaign for recognition of such relationships.

That doesn't mean I think I'm better than polygamists or that they are wrong or abnormal.

In the same way I am sure most of you were horrified by the Rwandan genocide but I bet none of you have ever gotten involved in any projects to foster reconciliation and understanding between Hutus and Tutsis.

Equally, how many of you think Pavee Point is a non-inclusive, traveller supremacist group who don't think issues of other ethic minorities matter are important?

How dare they focus on issues which affect their specific ethnic minority only without representing and advocating for all ethnic groups! Apart from white people of course, because you have to have somebody to define your otherness by!

paulmorro · 26-02-2013 01:25PM

ashers22 wrote: »

who gets to define what is normal exactly?

But that's my point, hence my use of " " above. The use of catch all terms that chuck very different people into the same basket defines the straight monogamous person as the norm,IMO, and I don't see why so many people think that this is a good idea.

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 01:30PM

paulmorro wrote: »

But that's my point, hence my use of " " above. The use of catch all terms that chuck very different people into the same basket defines the straight monogamous person as the norm,IMO, and I don't see why so many people think that this is a good idea.

Straight people are the norm. What LGBT people are looking for is acceptance as part of a wider community.
As are queers, and possibly everyone else that have been branded not normal at the beginning of of this thread.

No fuk off with that shíte, their allies? Seriously they're taking the piss.

It's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. Wft does "queer" or the likes of that have to with anything?

It's just inclusion for the sake of inclusion and it's getting ridiculous if they feel the need to add more pointless letters to it. Eventually won't solely be about sexuality at all. It's stupid.

(as a queer btw, I consider you all queers too. I'm just quite happy to accept that anything that isn't the norm is queer but then again I'm proud I'm not the norm. I don't care if you're male female or indifferent, gay bi lesbian or trans, you're NOT the norm. You're queer.)

paulmorro · 26-02-2013 01:41PM

ashers22 wrote: »

Straight people are the norm. What LGBT people are looking for is acceptance as part of a wider community.
As are queers, and possibly everyone else that have been branded not normal at the beginning of of this thread.

Straight people are obviously more prevalent, I'll agree with you on that, though not "normal". And I personally take exception to being branded not normal.

People are looking for different things. To lump them into one massively sprawling group is completely ignoring that.

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 01:47PM

paulmorro wrote: »

Straight people are obviously more prevalent, I'll agree with you on that, though not "normal". And I personally take exception to being branded not normal.

People are looking for different things. To lump them into one massively sprawling group is completely ignoring that.

"Normal" and the norm are two different things.

the norm:
1. A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical:

Homosexuality is not typical.

Funny how you can take exception to being branded not normal though while you don't have a problem excluding others you don't define as atypical to heterosexuality.

paulmorro · 26-02-2013 01:52PM

ashers22 wrote: »

Funny how you can take exception to being branded not normal though while you don't have a problem excluding others you don't define as atypical to heterosexuality.

Missing my point and again twisting my words to brand me as some sort of bigot... I'm done!

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 01:58PM

paulmorro wrote: »

Missing my point and again twisting my words to brand me as some sort of bigot... I'm done!

paulmorro wrote:

There are a lot of different people out there. I don't see why we all have to be shoved under what is essentially a "not normal" term.

I didn't twist anything, I just asked you to define what normal is.

Lyaiera · 26-02-2013 02:20PM

paulmorro wrote: »

I can't understand how such terms are really effectiive. I'm bi. I have a vested interest in gay rights. That is very different to polygamy or trans rights and so on. Not that I'm insensitive to those (far from it) but they're VERY different issues imo.

No, they're not. That's the whole point. The core of the gay male cause just like the lesbian, bisexual, trans, asexual, queer cause is that the world is shaped according to a male heteronormative view. Focusing on gay men's issues is only a small part of the overall problem with society.

brownej · 26-02-2013 03:20PM

ashers22 wrote: »

This thread is a clusterfúck.

This comment is hilarious.
The thread went downhill at comment #3 and really scraped the gutter at comment#9.
The clusterf ck as you call it started with you!

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 03:22PM

brownej wrote: »

This comment is hilarious.
The thread went downhill at comment #3 and really scraped the gutter at comment#9.
The clusterf ck as you call it started with you!

nice. Anything you wanted to add to the thread or did you just come here to have a go at me? How do you feel about queers and Fággots generally?

Annasopra · 26-02-2013 04:03PM

mango salsa wrote: »

Mrkiscool2 - please done down your language.

Last warning to EVERYONE on this thread - any more attacks or aggressiveness and I will be handing out infractions

2 red card infractions above. If people insist on continually using aggression and attacking other posters further mod action will be taken

1ZRed · 26-02-2013 04:08PM

ashers22 wrote: »

nice. Anything you wanted to add to the thread or did you just come here to have a go at me? How do you feel about queers and Fággots generally?

I've caught up on the last few pages and I don't think you get how hypocritical your posts are coming across. You called me a retard without anything to back it up and now you're telling him to back up his claims as he was "just having" a go at you.

I think a proper discussion of this would be interesting as we clearly have different views on the subject but from your posts all you seem to be going is bullying people into agreeing with you, and if they don't, their words are twisted to make them seem like self concerned bigots.

Hardly a level playing ground for a discussion in fairness.

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 04:25PM

1ZRed wrote: »

I've caught up on the last few pages and I don't think you get how hypocritical your posts are coming across. You called me a retard without anything to back it up and now you're telling him to back up his claims as he was "just having" a go at you.

I think a proper discussion of this would be interesting as we clearly have different views on the subject but from your posts all you seem to be going is bullying people into agreeing with you, and if they don't, their words are twisted to make them seem like self concerned bigots.

Hardly a level playing ground for a discussion in fairness.

First of all I didn't call you a retard, I asked were you retarded because your amazing insight into what is covered under the lgbt umbrella happily excludes anyone who is not like you.

It's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. Wft does "queer" or the likes of that have to with anything?

Queer is a recognized term everywhere else, but you continue to just not accept that. You don't represent me and I have no desire to be represented by you under the terms of your current understanding of what is or is not inclusive or deemed eligible within the lgbt community. You must either be gay lesbian bisexual or trans.
You do realise you cannot define other peoples identity for them right?
If you or others don't agree with that what you are saying is that I and people like me do not exist.
I posted in this thread in response to the acronym GSD and how it sounded to me. That was the topic of the thread. You came here and inferred that "others" are not included, so from the outset you inferred that I am not acceptable here, unless of course I accept your more finely tuned definition of who or what I should be.
I choose not to be defined by you or what you believe is an acceptable identity, consequently I'll be relieved to leave the this kind of lgbt community and it's philosophy's behind me.

ps, when your need to play your "I'm a gay man" role hinges or affects the lives of others adversely perhaps it's time find somewhere else to play it as it is damaging to the rest of society and a fcuking ugly representation of lgbt as a whole.

floggg · 26-02-2013 05:07PM

ashers22 wrote: »

First of all I didn't call you a retard, I asked were you retarded because your amazing insight into what is covered under the lgbt umbrella happily excludes anyone who is not like you.
Queer is a recognized term everywhere else, but you continue to just not accept that. You don't represent me and I have no desire to be represented by you under the terms of your current understanding of what is or is not inclusive or deemed eligible within the lgbt community. You must either be gay lesbian bisexual or trans.
You do realise you cannot define other peoples identity for them right?
If you or others don't agree with that what you are saying is that I and people like me do not exist.
I posted in this thread in response to the acronym GSD and how it sounded to me. That was the topic of the thread. You came here and inferred that "others" are not included, so from the outset you inferred that I am not acceptable here, unless of course I accept your more finely tuned definition of who or what I should be.
I choose not to be defined by you or what you believe is an acceptable identity, consequently I'll be relieved to leave the this kind of lgbt community and it's philosophy's behind me.

ps, when your need to play your "I'm a gay man" role hinges or affects the lives of others adversely perhaps it's time find somewhere else to play it as it is damaging to the rest of society and a fcuking ugly representation of lgbt as a whole.

Are you really going to argue there is any substantive difference between calling somebody a restarts or asking them if they are in a manner and tone which objectively seems intended to convey that you think he might be?

Do you not think its sort of ironic that in a debate about labels you choose to use what most would find to be an offensive label as a put down?

And that's not getting into the use of the term or the idea of mental disability as a put down or equating it with stupidity.

Also, you say that we cannot define other people. But we are not trying. We are saying we are LGB and that's what we identify as.

You however are trying to define us. You are trying to say we should use a more inclusive label to define ourselves by, even if we feel that term bears no meaning to how we identify or who we are. That we must identify with disparate groups with whom we don't necessarily share any common traits with out then our perceived non-conformance to a norm.

Who cares whether I personally identify with the bestiality community or not, I am somehow wrong unless I submit to being linked to them?

And while we are on the subject of inclusivity, sure monogamous sexual interested heterosexuals should be allowed identify as GSD to? After all, we cannot exclude.

But wait, if it covers everybody, what the hell does it mean? Can't we just use the term homo sapien instead? Or is that exclusionary to the partners of members of the bestiality community.

Finally, isn't it extremely hetronormative to use heterosexuality as the standard against which conformity or deviance should be measured? Why do they get to be the gold standard against which all is measured?

I get that people want to be liberal and inclusive. Heck, I'm liberal and inclusive. I agree with somebody's right to have multiple partners, no partners, to be tied up and spanked, or to be defecated on if that's what they like.

What is absurd do is trying to be so inclusive that you refuse to recognise difference. As a gay man, I am not the same or similar to a straight woman who likes her two boyfriends to defecate on her. And that's ok. We should be allowed recognise and celebrate that difference. That's what diversity (as in the D in GSD) is all about.

Don't tell me though that I should have to identify with that woman or her boyfriends, to treat her issues and experiences as my own, or to define nyself by reference to a perceived non-conformance to a standard of your choosing or anybody else's, because that's just absurd.

As you said, I can't define you. Don't try to define me. I'm a gay man and I identify as such.

Ps - he is a gay man. He doesn't need to play a role. Playing a role would pretending he was anything other than that.

Identifying as such doesn't mean he goes around beating the crap out of pansexuals. It just means he sees himself as a gay man and not, for example, a pan sexual.

Annasopra · 26-02-2013 05:08PM

ashers22 wrote: »

First of all I didn't call you a retard, I asked were you retarded because your amazing insight into what is covered under the lgbt umbrella happily excludes anyone who is not like you.

You could have explained that rather than just jumping in and name calling

ashers22 wrote: »

Queer is a recognized term everywhere else, but you continue to just not accept that. You don't represent me and I have no desire to be represented by you under the terms of your current understanding of what is or is not inclusive or deemed eligible within the lgbt community. You must either be gay lesbian bisexual or trans.
You do realise you cannot define other peoples identity for them right?
If you or others don't agree with that what you are saying is that I and people like me do not exist.
I posted in this thread in response to the acronym GSD and how it sounded to me. That was the topic of the thread. You came here and inferred that "others" are not included, so from the outset you inferred that I am not acceptable here, unless of course I accept your more finely tuned definition of who or what I should be.
I choose not to be defined by you or what you believe is an acceptable identity, consequently I'll be relieved to leave the this kind of lgbt community and it's philosophy's behind me.

ps, when your need to play your "I'm a gay man" role hinges or affects the lives of others adversely perhaps it's time find somewhere else to play it as it is damaging to the rest of society and a fcuking ugly representation of lgbt as a whole.

You are making some very valid points. However the hostile way in which you are approaching this discussion isn't actually helpful or conducive to discussion. If you want other people to understand your viewpoint then don't continuously attack them try explaining calmly why you think they are wrong. If you can't do that then it would be best if you didn't post in this discussion.

ewan whose army · 26-02-2013 07:03PM

Isn't a GSD a dog, as in German Shepherd Dog?

They are cute but its not really a LGBT acronym isn't it

Annasopra · 26-02-2013 07:38PM

floggg wrote: »

Are you really going to argue there is any substantive difference between calling somebody a restarts or asking them if they are in a manner and tone which objectively seems intended to convey that you think he might be?

Do you not think its sort of ironic that in a debate about labels you choose to use what most would find to be an offensive label as a put down?

And that's not getting into the use of the term or the idea of mental disability as a put down or equating it with stupidity.

Also, you say that we cannot define other people. But we are not trying. We are saying we are LGB and that's what we identify as.

You however are trying to define us. You are trying to say we should use a more inclusive label to define ourselves by, even if we feel that term bears no meaning to how we identify or who we are. That we must identify with disparate groups with whom we don't necessarily share any common traits with out then our perceived non-conformance to a norm.

Who cares whether I personally identify with the bestiality community or not, I am somehow wrong unless I submit to being linked to them?

And while we are on the subject of inclusivity, sure monogamous sexual interested heterosexuals should be allowed identify as GSD to? After all, we cannot exclude.

But wait, if it covers everybody, what the hell does it mean? Can't we just use the term homo sapien instead? Or is that exclusionary to the partners of members of the bestiality community.

Finally, isn't it extremely hetronormative to use heterosexuality as the standard against which conformity or deviance should be measured? Why do they get to be the gold standard against which all is measured?

I get that people want to be liberal and inclusive. Heck, I'm liberal and inclusive. I agree with somebody's right to have multiple partners, no partners, to be tied up and spanked, or to be defecated on if that's what they like.

What is absurd do is trying to be so inclusive that you refuse to recognise difference. As a gay man, I am not the same or similar to a straight woman who likes her two boyfriends to defecate on her. And that's ok. We should be allowed recognise and celebrate that difference. That's what diversity (as in the D in GSD) is all about.

Don't tell me though that I should have to identify with that woman or her boyfriends, to treat her issues and experiences as my own, or to define nyself by reference to a perceived non-conformance to a standard of your choosing or anybody else's, because that's just absurd.

As you said, I can't define you. Don't try to define me. I'm a gay man and I identify as such.

Ps - he is a gay man. He doesn't need to play a role. Playing a role would pretending he was anything other than that.

Identifying as such doesn't mean he goes around beating the crap out of pansexuals. It just means he sees himself as a gay man and not, for example, a pan sexual.

You should probably be a little bit more careful about the types of comparisons you use in future

This post was reported

You know, it's a low tactic whenever anti-gay types will constantly make false equivocations to pedophilia and bestiality in their slippery slope arguments, so it's particularly ironic and painful to see gay men use similar equivocations to bestiality and scatological fetishes to argue against inclusion for those who don't fit under the strict LGBT acronym. A splendidly disgusting post.

wolfpawnat · 26-02-2013 07:47PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

Isn't a GSD a dog, as in German Shepherd Dog?

They are cute but its not really a LGBT acronym isn't it

You see, to me the acronym GSD does mean German Shepard, LGBT does not include every sub group of sexuality, (such as asexual, queer, etc) but it is a lot better than something that many will think is a dog well to me anyway.

floggg · 26-02-2013 07:54PM

mango salsa wrote: »

You should probably be a little bit more careful about the types of comparisons you use in future

This post was reported

I wasn't equating anybody's orientation or preference to bestiality. But I was making what I think is a valid point that if you say we must use a blanket term to cover all sexual orientations or preferences, then it would seem that morally impugned "preferences" or practices should be included.

If we are to say BDSM and homosexuality should fall under the same umbrella, why not all fetishes (scat, rubber, furries etc).

And if its so wide, why exclude bestiality or even pedophilia? They are after all sexual "diversities" - though they are ones which are very much not acceptable for reasons of consent.

I think therefore the reference to bestiality was a valid comparison and one I am entitled to make. It shows the absurdity if trying to cover such a broad spectrum of orientations, interests and fetishes under a label, and perfectly illustrates my criticism.

It's legitimate to use extreme examples to test the logic or validity of any argument. This is what I have done, rather than introduce false equivalences (as is done where the slippery slope argument is used).

it shows the danger in lumping LGBT people in with all other "sexual diversities" - you force into that one umbrella and the link is one that is readily made.

One which I think wouldn't exist otherwise.

So the point of that example is to show exactly why I don't want the wider term used to define or label me.

As long as the example fits within the broad term I think it's legitimate. If you don't think it fits, then let me know why not and how the term can be defined to exclude morally dubious sexual diversities? And who defines what's morally acceptable.

If you can't point out a flaw in the logic used, I don't think the complaint is legitimate.

Awake&Unafraid · 26-02-2013 07:55PM

Like a previous poster said, GSD sounds like some kinda syndrome or disorder or something.

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 08:08PM

floggg wrote: »

Ps - he is a gay man. He doesn't need to play a role. Playing a role would pretending he was anything other than that.

Identifying as such doesn't mean he goes around beating the crap out of pansexuals. It just means he sees himself as a gay man and not, for example, a pan sexual.

according to himself he's not, he's bisexual, undecided at the most. The other day he was discussing how he was thinking of going back to women..when the mood takes him.

I've never brought up bestiality or bdsm or polygamy into any discussion, my point wasn't about whether gsd would be more encompassing of everyone but that as it stands, Q is already an accepted part of it. If you believe that also stands for bdsm, and fetishists then that's your own personal misunderstanding. Queer as it happens is an all encompassing word in itself

For some queer-identified people, part of the point of the term "queer" is that it simultaneously builds up and tears down boundaries of identity. For instance, among genderqueer people, who do not solidly identify with one particular gender, once solid gender roles have been torn down, it becomes difficult to situate sexual identity. For some people, the non-specificity of the term is liberating.

It crosses gender divides, it breaks down the already stagnant divisions that exist between gay lesbian and bi sexual and trans, it is ALL inclusive. It' s a little like how the acronym MSM is ued as a catch all category for any man who has had sex with another man, regardless of their orientation. For me it means I don't have to follow the gaytrain to gaysville where the gay stereotypes live. Thats a role I never want to play, thanks all the same but I'm comfortable if you and your community do not want to recognize that.

ashers22 · 26-02-2013 08:17PM

anyway, the bottom line on this is you refuse to acknowledge queer as an identity that fits under the remit of this community, it was my mistake to think it already was. Had I known this previously I wouldn't have joined the discussion or thought my input was relevant here but I've learned from my mistake and I'm happy to leave you folks to it. Toodles.

LGBT or GSD?

Comments