LGBTAI+ LGBTitp 4: We are family [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Coidzor

2009-10-23, 03:52 AM

Welcome, one and all.

This is a thread where we Playgrounders, and LGBTitp in particular, gather to discuss, share our experiences, give general advice and support one another in such matters as arise relating to, well, the world beyond heteronormaitivity.

Everyone is welcome. Let's try to keep from seeming otherwise.
Keep this topic free of politics and religion. (so, don't violate the board rules, plz)
It's beyond the scope of this thread to discuss whether LGBT is "Right." (And really, most discussions probably should avoid moralizing too much anyway)
Please refrain from posting sexually explicit content. (Keep it friendly as well as board safe :smallsmile:)

If you would rather be anonymous when asking for advice or sharing your story or views, you can use the address below to send a message to be posted in this thread via proxy.

http://anonmail.smeenet.org/

Keep in mind that content which contain strong language may be filtered (Plus, y'know, the forum-filters), and content that violates the forum rules won't be posted at all.

Here are the links for the last few threads, where much of use or interest may be found:
LGBT people in the playground (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62225)

LGBT people in the playground - part II (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86066)

LGBTitp - part III (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5663140#post5663140)

*modified from the original.

Right, so, SMEE didn't want to make the new thread and a new thread was needed as to be made.

So, who here goes to a social group that caters to your gender/sexuality kit?

I just met a fellow student this morning on the bus in to the school who formed a group for gay college men, professors and students in the area so, well, now you know why I ask.

golentan

2009-10-23, 04:08 AM

I... almost hate to point this out. The new thread name can be read as Lesbians for Gays, Bisexuals, or Transgenders in the playground. At which point the tagline becomes...

Um.

Hey guys. New thread.

Coidzor

2009-10-23, 04:14 AM

That better?

golentan

2009-10-23, 04:17 AM

Yeah. Thanks.

Sorry, I have a weird mind.

Yora

2009-10-23, 12:52 PM

I'd like to pick up where the last thred ended:

One last post before letting this move to the new thread.

Serp, dear, IRL we avoid uncomfortable discussions like this and hide because they can lead to hate crime.
So safety before our proud. I'm avoiding it online as well because it could set a precedence to allow myself to end up discussing it IRL.
I agree. Saftey first, there's really nothing wrong with it.

But I think that in most situations, there's a small space where you can push your interests a little bit, with a very small threat to yourself and others. And if you chose to not resolve to full frontal activism, I think no one would think less of a person. But in think in relatively safe places, everyone should feel oblieged to further the cause (whatever it might be) a little bit.

In german we have the expression "hushed to death". But you can't remove a problem by trying to not to talk about it. It only makes things worse.

Regarding offending people without knowing it: I think serpentine has it right. If people talk about things they don't know, they do it either because they think they know everything better, or because they want to know more. In the case at hand, it's also about knowing more about how to be not offensive. So we really need people to tell us "that's not really a nice thing to say".
Last year I worked on a project with a certain group of people, which mentioning would probably get me banned, about which we wanted people to educate to help removing prejudice. And apparently we got the wrong individuals for that, because they were making everything much more complicated. And believe me, it's really frustrating if people, who get a lot of prejudice, are your main problem in removing said prejudice. :smallbiggrin:

Not to say anyone did that here, I've not been reading the thread for the last couple of days. But I think it's very important to reach out to people who want to help and inform, even if they got everything wrong yet. :smallbiggrin:

Keep this topic free of politics and religion. (so, don't violate the board rules, plz)

I see why you said that, knowing very well myself that some people are really out for people who break that rule.
But how?! :smallbiggrin:

How can you talk about minority rights and morality without including the subjects of politics and religion?

I think that would make an interesting topic for a serious discussion. If not for the fact that we'd all be banned within 30 min.

bluewind95

2009-10-23, 01:14 PM

I participated in that discussion on the other thread and I deeply apologize if anything I said was offensive.

FlyingWhale

2009-10-23, 01:47 PM

I'd like to pick up where the last thred ended:

I agree. Saftey first, there's really nothing wrong with it.

But I think that in most situations, there's a small space where you can push your interests a little bit, with a very small threat to yourself and others. And if you chose to not resolve to full frontal activism, I think no one would think less of a person. But in think in relatively safe places, everyone should feel oblieged to further the cause (whatever it might be) a little bit.

In german we have the expression "hushed to death". But you can't remove a problem by trying to not to talk about it. It only makes things worse.

Regarding offending people without knowing it: I think serpentine has it right. If people talk about things they don't know, they do it either because they think they know everything better, or because they want to know more. In the case at hand, it's also about knowing more about how to be not offensive. So we really need people to tell us "that's not really a nice thing to say".
Last year I worked on a project with a certain group of people, which mentioning would probably get me banned, about which we wanted people to educate to help removing prejudice. And apparently we got the wrong individuals for that, because they were making everything much more complicated. And believe me, it's really frustrating if people, who get a lot of prejudice, are your main problem in removing said prejudice. :smallbiggrin:

Not to say anyone did that here, I've not been reading the thread for the last couple of days. But I think it's very important to reach out to people who want to help and inform, even if they got everything wrong yet. :smallbiggrin:

I see why you said that, knowing very well myself that some people are really out for people who break that rule.
But how?! :smallbiggrin:

How can you talk about minority rights and morality without including the subjects of politics and religion?

I think that would make an interesting topic for a serious discussion. If not for the fact that we'd all be banned within 30 min.

Neither have I, unfortunately... That was something I was wondering about for myself. I have a very limited idea of what is going on out there with everyone involved here, and especially the lesbian gay bi and transgendered people, myself not being one. I'd love to reach out, help, inform, and, anything. I care about people and certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone, and my posts do, for what ever reason, seem to be gibberish:smallconfused:.

I feel like a TV bit for being eco-friendly... What can I, just a regular person, do to make a positive impact? Am I the only one who feels insignificant?

Also @Yora~~~ That line between sharing and pushing... That's a pushy line, like porridge too hot and porridge too cold. Stupid line. :smallamused:

SMEE

2009-10-23, 01:53 PM

I agree. Saftey first, there's really nothing wrong with it.

But I think that in most situations, there's a small space where you can push your interests a little bit, with a very small threat to yourself and others. And if you chose to not resolve to full frontal activism, I think no one would think less of a person. But in think in relatively safe places, everyone should feel oblieged to further the cause (whatever it might be) a little bit.

Agreed. That's why this thread reached the 4th incarnation. That's why the anon mailer is still up and my PM box is open for anyone who want advise regarding the matter.

But don't ask me to take part on a discussion like the one that took over the end of the last thread. Been there, done that, ended up hurt.

Jacklu

2009-10-23, 09:18 PM

:smallsigh: I mostly stayed out of the discussion because while what I felt was contradictory to what was being discussed and often agreed upon, I also know there I have nothing to back it up besides my own feelings as a TG individual. I felt very much like a little kid sitting at the end of the kitchen table while his parents argued about him at the other end. It was very much pertaining to me, but I felt like my opinion and feelings where not really a factor in the discussion. Anyways, that's just how it felt to me.

Moving on to other topics, (aka, please don't quote the first half of this and strike up the previous discussion) I am thinking about checking out my college's LGBT club, but am very nervous about going. Mostly because it will be the first IRL action I have taken that might even suggest to people that I am not "normal."

Derjuin

2009-10-23, 09:56 PM

I've had similar feelings, Jacklu... I thought about joining the one at my school, but there are only 3 people in it right now :smalleek:

Ishmael

2009-10-24, 12:14 AM

golentan

2009-10-24, 02:24 AM

I'm thinking about checking out the Queer scene at my college too! Except, well, I think my situation's sort of the opposite of yours, Derjuin. Rather than three people, well, the 'scene here is rather large and well established, and that's sort of scary, since I'm naturally sort of introverted, and I'm not sure if I'll fit in there. Hearsay tells me it's rather flamboyant, promiscuous, and stereotypical, and filled with queens--which is like the complete opposite of what I'm looking for. But I do want to meet other gay people...

But one of my friends is going to go with me, and we're going to check out the QARC (Queer Alliance and Resources Center), and maybe meet some people. It's sort of scary. Ever since I finally came out as gay, I've been sort of struggling with how I function within the larger queer community. Because, well, I don't really agree with the idea of a 'queer community'--I'd rather a single community existed, where one's sexuality didn't matter. Ultimately, I don't want to define myself by whose pants I want to be in.

But I suppose a cohesive gay scene does make things feel comfortable, and does make dating easier. Not that I really worry about homophobia here. I'm blessed to go to school in one of the most tolerant places in the United States: Hippieville (that is, Berkeley)...

Yeah. I sympathize. I've never gotten into "gay culture." A lot of people would tease me and make high school type gay jokes. I'm sure everyone's heard the sort. When I kissed someone in response, their response was "But... you're straight. You like straight things. You saw me naked." Yep. Thanks for that by the way. You know who you are. Call me? :smalltongue:

That being said, I've met a lot of similar minded people in my area, and you don't have to do anything you don't feel comfortable doing to fit in.

Oh, and turns out we're neighbors relatively speaking! I live about 2 hours south of you the way I drive. Crazy hippy berkelyites, stay off my hippy Santa Cruz lawn!!!

Icewalker

2009-10-24, 04:15 AM

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-24, 04:49 AM

I would just like to throw in a little comment about something I learned recently: when most people say bisexual, they probably mean pansexual. Bisexual is attracted to both men and women, but pansexual also includes people who don't specifically fall into one of those two categories definitively (like a lot of people in this thread!).

Straight myself, but my group of friends has an actually kind of ridiculous portion of LGBT individuals. Which is awesome. :smallbiggrin:

It's interesting, yeah. Most people who are pansexual call themselves bisexual either out of not knowing the term pansexual, or the negative connotations associated with it, as I mentioned in the last thread.

Yora

2009-10-24, 05:05 AM

Straight myself, but my group of friends has an actually kind of ridiculous portion of LGBT individuals. Which is awesome. :smallbiggrin:
That's okay. We accept everyone, no matter how strange their preferences might seem. :smallbiggrin:

I've had similar feelings, Jacklu... I thought about joining the one at my school, but there are only 3 people in it right now :smalleek:
Ours closed because of lack of interest.

But I think it also seems strange to associate with people with whom you have nothing in common except for one thing, that is not their buisiness. :smallbiggrin:

Violet Octopus

2009-10-24, 06:48 AM

Our uni queer circle isn't very stereotypical, and perhaps even in the ones that are, there's a nonstereotypical minority.

It's interesting, yeah. Most people who are pansexual call themselves bisexual either out of not knowing the term pansexual, or the negative connotations associated with it, as I mentioned in the last thread.
I call myself bisexual because I'm not sure if I'm pan. I have not been attracted to people outside traditional genders, but that may just have been a probability thing. I do hope I'm pan though.

llamamushroom

2009-10-24, 08:32 AM

Just a quick question, as a sort of "how could I have handled this less awkwardly" advice... thing. Sorry, mind not at 100%.

The question needs a bit of set up - I go to an all boys school, and one of my friends only recently discovered I'm gay. I admit that the only reason I started hanging around him was because of a crush, but that disappeared once we actually became friends.

Anyway, it's 5 minutes before the end of the period, the teacher's distracted by the shameless hooting of testosterone-charged 'young adults', and (let's call him) Phil turns to me and asks who I think the most attractive guy in our year is. Slight problem: first name that turns up is 'Phil'. I ...umm... and ...errr... and say "I never really thought about it".

Now, he's good at reading people (despite apparently having no gaydar - I'm not flamboyant, but it's not that hard to pick), so things have gotten a little awkward in the schoolyard, so to speak.

Anyway, how could I have handled it better? It's a morbid curiosity thing.

SDF

2009-10-24, 08:46 AM

Anyway, how could I have handled it better? It's a morbid curiosity thing.

Sarcasm tangent. "Uh, me. Duh." Or an equivalent non-answer that is also a joke. Politicians do it for questions they don't want to answer, and it works in other situations too. I mean it all depends on the message you want to convey, but if you are looking to not deal with the question at hand this is really the way to go.

Jacklu

2009-10-24, 11:07 AM

Just a quick question...*snips* ...Anyway, how could I have handled it better? It's a morbid curiosity thing.

I have typically found that if you ever need to convince somebody of something, you need only say the exact opposite in a sarcastic manner. That is, if somebody asks if you like band X, and it would be considered mockable that you actually do, reply with "Oh, I Love them. I have every one of their albums and listen to them all night long." Basically, the most effective lie is the truth dripping with sarcasm. So in that case, I would have responded: "Oh, you. Totally. I just want to jump your bones." You get to tell the honest truth, and he will assume the exact opposite. :smallwink:

As for the pan vs bi thing, I stated in the previous thread that, for me, it isn't so much what I am attracted to, so much as who I can fall in love with. Bi says "I like boys and girls." Pan says "I can fall in love with anyone, and that's what makes them attractive to me." I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that it is coming at the idea from two different directions.

Coidzor

2009-10-24, 05:43 PM

Except it's the truth but not the honest truth due to your duplicitous deception, monsieur. :smalltongue:

Serpentine

2009-10-25, 02:25 AM

Last bit from the last thread, just because it was brought up here, spoilered for avoidance.

Serp, dear, IRL we avoid uncomfortable discussions like this and hide because they can lead to hate crime.That seems both counter-intuitive and counter-productive. I cannot see how, outside of incredibly idiotic people who would probably be inclined to hate crime regardless, a dicussion like that could possibly even remotely "lead to hate crime". Maybe it's just another artefact of Dr Mum - I'm always happy to talk to people about weird scars and embarrassing ailments, and don't really understand why other people aren't, for example - but I cannot comprehend how such a discussion* could be anything but healthy, and lead to anything but greater understanding.
To summarise: I disagree very, very strongly, with every fibre of my being, that mere discussion of this sort could be a bad thing. Especially with the faint, no doubt unintended, implication that I'm a risk :smallconfused:

*within the normal bounds beyond which any discussion can turn nasty, of course.

Slightly more on topic: The UNE Queer Space is back! :smallbiggrin: Tucked way up behind most of the buildings in a part of the uni hardly anyone goes to on a regular basis, but still...

Coidzor

2009-10-25, 03:29 AM

To avoid too many drunken frat attacks of opportunity, of course.

In other news: I was just wondering... Is that really stereotypical and fingernails-on-chalkboard-obvious affected lisp used ironically in order to lampoon the stereotypes and those who hold by them or actually learned to be used as an identifier to potential mates?

Only I've met a couple of people who actually put on that false lisp and accent for daily conversation... Before I didn't even think anyone actually did use it other than, well, actors.

Serpentine

2009-10-25, 03:33 AM

It was originally part of "The Breather", a room in a central part of the university that had free tea, coffee, soup and the like, and information on various subject. I never once heard of any "drunken frat attacks of opportunity", or anything like that... Granted, that room's now been completely renervated, but still.
As an aside, my boyfriend's kitten just stuck his nose in my mouth.

Coidzor

2009-10-25, 03:39 AM

Well, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. Hmm. What did they want to renovate the space to use for?

Just as long as you don't get the entire head of the kitten in your mouth. That's bad for their psychology, I think.

Serpentine

2009-10-25, 03:46 AM

Well, there's a bit of history.
First, a certain politically-associated group got in power of the student union.
Then, they instituted a "heterosexual officer", because just having a queer officer was discrimination.
Then, they drastically cut the budget of the queer officer.
Then, they scrapped the queer (and heterosexual, too, I think) officer completely.
Then, they removed the Queer Space.
Then (or possibly in conjunction with the above, I forget) VSU caused the decay and eventual elimination of The Breather entirely.
More recently, they renovated the entire part of that building (which included the former offices of the now-cancelled student newspaper (est 1947, RIP ~2006), and the still-going tUNEfm radio station), to move the campus bookstore to.

Not that I'm bitter about the way the uni went through those years, no no no :smallsigh:

Coidzor

2009-10-25, 03:48 AM

Oh wow. The students really dropped the ball on that one.

Serpentine

2009-10-25, 03:51 AM

True, but they also used dishonest means to be elected - one person was banned from the uni for it. 'course, just because they basically bribed voters, doesn't mean the election should be declared void and redone :smallsigh:

<.<
>.>

>hands over to actual LGBT folks<

golentan

2009-10-25, 04:09 AM

No kidding. Yikes.

School authorities can do an awful lot of damage through funding cuts and misappropriations. Maybe you should consider appeals.

On a lighter note: KITTY!!! (http://www.egscomics.com/?date=2003-01-28)

I'm sure you can figure out which panel matched my expression (non-sarcastically, bizarrely enough) on hearing the word

I like cats.

A lot.

My cat is the only one who understands me. It is using that knowledge to plot my destruction, but I'm okay with that. I can't think of someone who I physically know who isn't actively plotting my destruction at the moment. From Kitty to friends to generals. And a few cosmic horrors.

Sorry, crazed tangent.

SMEE

2009-10-25, 04:11 AM

Last bit from the last thread, just because it was brought up here, spoilered for avoidance.
That seems both counter-intuitive and counter-productive. I cannot see how, outside of incredibly idiotic people who would probably be inclined to hate crime regardless, a dicussion like that could possibly even remotely "lead to hate crime". Maybe it's just another artefact of Dr Mum - I'm always happy to talk to people about weird scars and embarrassing ailments, and don't really understand why other people aren't, for example - but I cannot comprehend how such a discussion* could be anything but healthy, and lead to anything but greater understanding.
To summarise: I disagree very, very strongly, with every fibre of my being, that mere discussion of this sort could be a bad thing. Especially with the faint, no doubt unintended, implication that I'm a risk :smallconfused:

*within the normal bounds beyond which any discussion can turn nasty, of course.

*sighs* :smallsigh:
Welcome to Brazil. We have carnival, good food and a huge hate crime figure to show off. :smallannoyed:

Now, if you have read my post regarding that completely, I avoid to take part of such discussions online to not wire my brain that it could be slight safe to discuss those matters at all while I am living here. As I said, been there, done that, ended hurt.
I'm sorry, but I prefer to not be among those we remember on November, 20th.

There Serp. Now back to LGBT matters.

Edit: And we got an anon-mail.

I'm straight and support the gay movement, and i want to get more involved, but I don't know how. I can only relate to a lot of the stuff you have to deal with in the broadest strokes and generally find the "gay culture" off-putting, but damn it i want to help.

My first suggestion is to try to find an LGBT association in your area. They are always needing help and will gladly tell you how you could help them.
The other thing I believe you're doing already, by just treating us as normal people.

Yora

2009-10-25, 07:15 AM

That's also my thought. Moral support is probably the most important part. :smallbiggrin:
Doing more is of course better, but just being open and hopefully spreading these thoughts, is allready a great contribution.

Jacklu

2009-10-25, 11:52 AM

Indeed. Nine times out of ten what I want most is to simply be able to be me without fear of other people treating me like some kind of freak. Or sometimes even worse, a fragile helpless thing that needs to be coddled and protected. :smallannoyed: Not saying I don't appreciate help... It's just that condescension can sometimes be more hurtful than outright mean spirited words.

On another note, I need some help. There is a person who comes into my place of work quite regularly for some time now. This individual is... well, frankly, I can't for the life of me tell whether they are a boy or girl. Keep in mind that I have stated before that I have become incapable of distinguishing gender in most cases normally. But this person... Everything about them falls neatly into that gray zone where they could be a slightly masculine girl or a somewhat feminine boy. Voice, hair, the way they dress, the car they drive, how they act... It's all so frustratingly ambiguous. I know their name though. Steph. Now, that might seem like a very valuable clue to suggest they are a girl, but in my area, it is not all that uncommon for people named Stephen to be abbreviated as such. In fact, I know just as many Stephens as Stephenies that go by Steph. >.< Now, you might be wondering why this even matters to me. There is a very good reason. I happen to think this particular individual is insanely cute. And being what I am, it doesn't really matter too much one way or the other what they are. Except for the fact that I think it would be kind of important to know before asking them out on a date. <.< Cause I'm pretty sure "Hi, I think you're cute. If you're a girl, do you want to go out with me? If not, would you happen to be gay?" would not be the best way to strike up a relationship. >.< Anyways, just thought I would share that with you all.

Ichneumon

2009-10-25, 12:36 PM

On another note, I need some help. There is a person who comes into my place of work quite regularly for some time now. This individual is... well, frankly, I can't for the life of me tell whether they are a boy or girl. Keep in mind that I have stated before that I have become incapable of distinguishing gender in most cases normally. But this person... Everything about them falls neatly into that gray zone where they could be a slightly masculine girl or a somewhat feminine boy. Voice, hair, the way they dress, the car they drive, how they act... It's all so frustratingly ambiguous. I know their name though. Steph. Now, that might seem like a very valuable clue to suggest they are a girl, but in my area, it is not all that uncommon for people named Stephen to be abbreviated as such. In fact, I know just as many Stephens as Stephenies that go by Steph. >.< Now, you might be wondering why this even matters to me. There is a very good reason. I happen to think this particular individual is insanely cute. And being what I am, it doesn't really matter too much one way or the other what they are. Except for the fact that I think it would be kind of important to know before asking them out on a date. <.< Cause I'm pretty sure "Hi, I think you're cute. If you're a girl, do you want to go out with me? If not, would you happen to be gay?" would not be the best way to strike up a relationship. >.< Anyways, just thought I would share that with you all.

Best thing to do is to watch/listen carefully when around other people, maybe they know and adress him/her like a he or a she. Also, if that doesn't work try to talk to him/her about regular stuff and maybe about family, whether or not they have brothers or sisters, it could happen she says something that gives you a clue, (although depending on how much you have already talked to him/her, this might not be possible, asking so much about personal stuff). The only other solution I see is trying to find out their name, thinking of some strange reason to look at their ID or try to look when he/she goes to the restroom.

MickJay

2009-10-25, 02:26 PM

Anyway, how could I have handled it better? It's a morbid curiosity thing.

I'd say it would depend on what kind of guy this Phil is - if you know you can tell him the truth and that he wouldn't feel weird about it, why not just be direct? Maybe he was actually trying to pick you up or something. :smallbiggrin: You could have always turned it into a joke afterwards.

Mind you, this comes from someone's who is a bit too direct and honest and/or tactless at times. :smallwink:

@Jacklu: well, the simplest thing that comes to my mind is that you could try asking someone else (one of your co-workers?) about it...

On a different note, is anyone here currently in S-E Wales?

golentan

2009-10-25, 03:21 PM

Jacklu, I'd just ask if they're a boy or a girl. Then maybe a little bit later ask if they want to date. Alternately, reverse the order of that.

Well, okay. *I* would obsessively stalk the person and figure out which bathroom they use in the theater. But for anyone else I'd recommend asking.:smalltongue:

Cobra_Ikari

2009-10-25, 03:40 PM

golentan

2009-10-25, 03:52 PM

...but what if they pee in the break room? >.>

Then they do so in public and you can probably get a pretty good view.

Problem solved.

Edit: Wow, that came off even creepier than I thought. Apologies.

Coidzor

2009-10-25, 05:43 PM

...but what if they pee in the break room? >.>

Then the point's moot because who wants someone that disgusting?

Lyesmith

2009-10-25, 06:01 PM

Then the point's moot because who wants someone that disgusting?

Two Words.

The Internet.

Coidzor

2009-10-25, 06:10 PM

Except none of us is as bad as all of us.

Lyesmith

2009-10-25, 06:17 PM

Except none of us is as bad as all of us.

I've seen sexually explicit salmon hentai.
That's right.
Someone, somewhere,finds the reproduction of salmon to be erotic.

And I'm pretty sure I've not come close to gazing into the true abyss of the internet. Peeing in the break room is not all that bad.

Cobra_Ikari

2009-10-25, 06:36 PM

Then the point's moot because who wants someone that disgusting?

...has no one else seen that comic?

...you people make me sadface. v.v

Coidzor

2009-10-25, 06:40 PM

...has no one else seen that comic?

...you people make me sadface. v.v

No, no one wants to have sex with Slippy that isn't sick and twisted. I'm sorry, Cobra.

V: I believe it was a VGcats comic. (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=103)

Even amongst furries, slippy rates down low, low, low.

Lyesmith

2009-10-25, 06:44 PM

Pee in the break room...
QC?

Anuan

2009-10-25, 09:59 PM

Everything about them falls neatly into that gray zone where they could be a slightly masculine girl or a somewhat feminine boy. Voice, hair, the way they dress, the car they drive, how they act... It's all so frustratingly ambiguous.

...Jacklu works with Nameless? :smallconfused:

Icewalker

2009-10-25, 10:13 PM

I think just keep a subtle and not stalker-ish eye out on what they do until something gives it away. The easiest thing to do is to see which bathroom they go into, the issue being doing it without following them to the bathroom, so good luck managing that.

...do they get really grumpy once a month? :smallamused:

Coidzor

2009-10-25, 10:28 PM

I'm in favor of asking them out and just going from there, myself, since you don't mind either way.

MethosH

2009-10-25, 10:41 PM

golentan

2009-10-25, 11:04 PM

So... Random fact...

I was reading about a study that Stanford did to try to explain some of the types of internet trolling (actually that wasn't the focus of the study but they end up there... go figures..) and something hit me (metaphorically speaking of course).

The thing is, this study pointed out that extremists are more to share their opinion. That is because they actually belive that their opinion isn't just right, but also shared by the majority.
And this illusion that the majority share those opinions is actually caused by those same extremists. Since their opinion is the strongest it sounds common on their community.

I thought that it was interesting because I actually belive that the numbers of gay + bi + pan is greater than the number of straight people in many communities, and yet they are consider a minority because the straight side have people with strong opinions.

Anyway.. Just some random things...

here is the source:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/majopinion.htm

I don't know. The generally given number seems to be about 10% of people are out and out gay (studies vary widely, but that seems to be the consensus number). That would mean 40+% of people would have to be bi or pan. I just don't see it. I live in one of the most LGBT friendly areas on the planet, and believe you me its hard to find more than a significant minority of us hanging around. Mebbe 1 in 4 or 5 people I know will go with identifying that way. And thats even with some people moving here specifically because it is a safe space.

And even when you get Majority Minority communities (like the Castro, as a classic example) that doesn't change that it is the exception rather than the rule. I just don't buy it.

Coidzor

2009-10-25, 11:16 PM

Hmm, the hypothesis I've heard that seems to have gathered some evidence to support itself is more that the majority of humans are to some degree bisexual (see idea of spectrum) to the point of being capable of being influenced by nurture with a minority on both ends of the spectrum being hard-wired nature, nature, nature.

Stormthorn

2009-10-25, 11:38 PM

...but what if they pee in the break room? >.>

Except none of us is as bad as all of us.

Peeing in the break room is not all that bad.

*raises hand*

I support that method for determinign gender.

My fetish aside, i think you should just ask.
You, Jacklu, may recall i recently also had an issue trying to figure out similar information about someone. Only i wanted to know birth sex, current sex if different, gender, and sexual orientation.

Actualy, I suggest you find an excuse to ask what Steph is short for.
My person turned out to be named, Roxanne.
Much more decidedly feminine than Rox or Roxy, which she often goes by. Especialy to a guy who has refered to someone (male) as Roxbury before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNgLFL8hqmI&feature=related

The generally given number seems to be about 10% of people are out and out gay (studies vary widely, but that seems to be the consensus number).
In my experiance, its more like 2%.
I dont think gayness can survive at a rate of 10% since they (homosexuals) dont reproduce.

Hmm, the hypothesis I've heard that seems to have gathered some evidence to support itself is more that the majority of humans are to some degree bisexual (see idea of spectrum) to the point of being capable of being influenced by nurture with a minority on both ends of the spectrum being hard-wired nature, nature, nature.
This seems probably to me. Just be careful, bisexuality seems to go hand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNgLFL8hqmI&feature=related) in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE4Mu_cZcIA) hand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcKMg7eEjj8) with strange musical tastes and abilities. Not that i dislike those artists. Just, odd.

MethosH

2009-10-26, 12:43 AM

In my experiance, its more like 2%.
I dont think gayness can survive at a rate of 10% since they (homosexuals) dont reproduce.

Many homosexuals (and bi.. and pan) actually do reproduce. Some of the end up in straight lives out of fear and/or repression.

I said that I belive that the majority is actually made of bi+gay+pan+others because when I get to really know people most of them don't turn up to be 100% straight. At first that was surprising, but now I get surprised when I get to know somebody and that person is 100% straight :smalltongue:

Kneenibble

2009-10-26, 12:47 AM

In my experiance, its more like 2%.
I dont think gayness can survive at a rate of 10% since they (homosexuals) dont reproduce.
There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin setting you straight, so I'm just going to pick the one that's easiest to fix: you spelt experience wrong.

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-26, 12:51 AM

In my experiance, its more like 2%.
I dont think gayness can survive at a rate of 10% since they (homosexuals) dont reproduce.

Please tell me I'm interpreting that wrong

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 01:07 AM

Many homosexuals (and bi.. and pan) actually do reproduce. Some of the end up in straight lives out of fear and/or repression.

I said that I belive that the majority is actually made of bi+gay+pan+others because when I get to really know people most of them don't turn up to be 100% straight. At first that was surprising, but now I get surprised when I get to know somebody and that person is 100% straight :smalltongue:

Well, yes, but it's an off setup to place 100% gay individuals in with the center. 100% gay and 100% straight would both be outliers. The difficulty in ascertaining whether someone really is 100% gay is that there is a lot more pressure put upon gay-identifying individuals who are not 100% gay.

I mean, I identify as straight but I know I'm not 100% straight, as there are certain men who I would desire an intimate and close relationship with if I could but stomach certain aspects of physical intimacy with them. And, conversely, there have been a few individuals who I could desire sexually but couldn't conscience a true relationship with.

Hence why I hold with the spectrum idea, with certain ranges being where the labels fall.

Socially, the majority of mutable individuals default to straight though due to the structure and nurture and expectations.

That's why that whole bisexuality is the new black thing started getting bandied about when people started having the possibility of homoerotic expression become more... available.

golentan

2009-10-26, 01:09 AM

In my experiance, its more like 2%.
I dont think gayness can survive at a rate of 10% since they (homosexuals) dont reproduce.

I'd like to share with you a couple of concepts.

Heterozygote Advantage: In the event that there is a "gay gene," this is the most likely explanation for its propagation. The heterozygote advantage is when the possession of a single copy of a recessive allele gives the carrying organism a distinct reproductive advantage. The classic example is sickle cell anemia. The disease continues to exist because someone who has a single copy of the gene has negligible drawbacks and does not develop anemia, but is massively more resistant to malaria and some other infectious blood diseases. The prevalence of this has the side effect that a double recessive results in an anemic child, who's fitness is reduced and requires medical care. Their is a strong possibility that a "gay gene," which would almost certainly be recessive, increases a carrier's chance to reproduce in some way, even if a gay person is less likely to reproduce (though Methos is right)

Frequency Dependent Selection: Is when the prevalence of a trait in a population affects the fitness of having the trait. For example, the success off a strain of flu is directly proportional to it's novelty compared to the general population of flu. There have been arguments made that having homosexual members of a community increases the fitness of the heterosexual members, which leads to the propagation (probably through heterozygote advantage, or some form of communal game theory with tribes) of tribes which possess gay members in certain proportions over those of rival tribes. This leads straight into:

Tit for Tat and Evolutionary Game Theory: If any this is accomplished through environmental or chemical cues, the genotype might allow phenotype without indicating it (some evidence suggests maternal chemical cues in gestation are more indicative than any single gene). In this case the metaphor might work better with hive insects, where non-breeding members allow the propagation of the group as a whole. Or Beta males, in some larger organisms, where a smaller brother will support a relative in acquiring mates while remaining non breeding. Both these result in spreading the strategy throughout a population given time through relatives of the non-breeding members, who have a vested interest through selfish genes in allowing the group as a whole to advance.

So "Gays don't reproduce," even if true (which I don't grant), is not an argument for why the gay population would be unsustainable.

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 01:13 AM

golentan

2009-10-26, 01:27 AM

Indeed, though it does seem to support primogeniture since there's some correlation between multiple births of sons from a single woman and the sexual orientation of her offspring, being that it would be more advantageous for the children of an individual helping to care for a single line or possible a few lines of offspring rather than having the first generation of offspring competing with one another to make/provide for the second generation of offspring.

Womb conditions setting off epigenetic triggers to determine whether or not such genes, if they are present, are actively expressed.

Which I believe I mentioned. Though it was a long post and I kind of rambled. I get glassy eyed and start drooling when talking about biology. Sometimes I even giggle. Ever since I dissected my first human abdu...

I mean frog. Yes. We'll go with frog.

<.<
>.>

I'm not an alien saboteur with no regard for human life. I swear. Who have you been talking to?

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 01:28 AM

I felt it could use some more jargon was all. :smallbiggrin:

Ninja Chocobo

2009-10-26, 01:51 AM

Only i wanted to know birth sex, current sex if different,

Man
This shouldn't make a difference.

Yora

2009-10-26, 01:54 AM

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 01:59 AM

Man
This shouldn't make a difference.
Shouldn't, but it does seem to. C'est la guerre.

I mean, the most reasonable part of it is the whole reproduction angle, but, eh, people aren't reasonable. :/

There's some sort of buttons that seem to get pressed that I'm still a bit fuzzy on...:smallconfused:

I'm more sort of curious as to why someone would still be attracted enough that it matters to them to know if they feel they need to know the others' sex in order to be attracted to them or not.

Like, if attracted to A, but looks like could be B, shouldn't this make the person in question less physically attractive in the first place to make it moot?

Pyrian

2009-10-26, 02:27 AM

I'm more sort of curious as to why someone would still be attracted enough that it matters to them to know if they feel they need to know the others' sex in order to be attracted to them or not.I'm not generally attracted to androgynous people, but I have some straight male friends who are. I had one actually say to me once that he found someone very attractive once he was convinced she was female. :smalltongue: I'm going to have to opine that parts you can't normally see do matter for sexual attractiveness to those with a strong gender preference.

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 02:41 AM

Just seems silly to be out and out attracted to androgyny and not prepared to deal with the risks inherit in such dating patterns.

Then again, people are silly.

Ninja Chocobo

2009-10-26, 04:54 AM

Shouldn't, but it does seem to. C'est la guerre.

Well aware. Just sayin' is all.

Yora

2009-10-26, 11:01 AM

I'm more sort of curious as to why someone would still be attracted enough that it matters to them to know if they feel they need to know the others' sex in order to be attracted to them or not.

Like, if attracted to A, but looks like could be B, shouldn't this make the person in question less physically attractive in the first place to make it moot?
Brain washing!

Or socialization as the experts call it. Logically, it does not matter. But people learn from very early on that society treats same sex relationships as a big problem. After being exposed to these ideas for 20 or 30 years, it usually leaves a big mark on the way you think.
It's bad because!

golentan

2009-10-26, 01:35 PM

Brain washing!

Or socialization as the experts call it. Logically, it does not matter. But people learn from very early on that society treats same sex relationships as a big problem. After being exposed to these ideas for 20 or 30 years, it usually leaves a big mark on the way you think.
It's bad because!

Or maybe the squick factor for this person isn't net physical appearance but "Oh. You... have a..."

Because believe it or not, turn offs have a big effect when people are naked. Someone who gets to that stage with you tends to get offended when you throw up in a corner (as I can testify. Angry glare, if you're reading you know who you are). And this one doesn't tend to come up before then anyway, but planning ahead for the situation does matter, logically.

Yora

2009-10-26, 02:27 PM

Pyrian

2009-10-26, 02:35 PM

Alternatively, sex is inherently gross (ask any kid), we merely become accustomed to certain kinds.

Jacklu

2009-10-26, 05:25 PM

FlyingWhale

2009-10-26, 05:50 PM

I did not find out what actually took place in the act of intercourse until I was about 15... I had kissed more girls than I can remember back then and thought that, well, that was as far as it went... Jeeze Louise! I found out that people go inside, outside, up and down... Yeah I was repulsed, shocked, awed, and thoroughly convinced I was the butt of a joke. I'm 22 now and I am still fairly certain that it's not meant to go there... :smallbiggrin:JK hehe. OH! Then, at about 16, not only did I find out what Oral or Anal was, but a gf at the time suggested it...I broke up with her because I thought she was insane and trying to ... Who knows what... *shudder*

Anyway, yeah I never really thought about the whole innocence of childhood thing til that reminded me. Man, when I was explained by several people that people not only had intercourse, but put it all sorts of places... I nearly vomited.:smallredface: Youth...

golentan

2009-10-26, 05:54 PM

Personally, I like it. Almost all of it. Yes. Even that. No, not that. That's just wrong. Oh, yes, a little more of that. Mmm...

I just find it really scary, which is why I'm down towards Asexual on the group spectrum thing. I really want to, but I really don't too.

Kneenibble

2009-10-26, 06:07 PM

You slay me, golentan. :biggrin:

This thread is getting way too pomosexual.

Yora

2009-10-26, 06:12 PM

Anyway, yeah I never really thought about the whole innocence of childhood thing til that reminded me. Man, when I was explained by several people that people not only had intercourse, but put it all sorts of places... I nearly vomited.:smallredface: Youth...
About the time you get 22 or something like that, you start to learn about the great pleasure of freaking out teenagers with mostly common stuff. :smallbiggrin:

Pyrian

2009-10-26, 06:21 PM

Yes, but I believe the squick is mostly the result of what the society you grew up in, tells you what is okay and what's icky.
About the time you get 22 or something like that, you start to learn about the great pleasure of freaking out teenagers with mostly common stuff. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: You aren't helping! :smallwink:

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 06:28 PM

You slay me, golentan. :biggrin:

This thread is getting way too pomosexual.

pomo? I'm unfamiliar with that particular prefix.

As far as I'm concerned, sex basically boils down to whether you've got the right flavor.

MickJay

2009-10-26, 06:36 PM

Yes, but I believe the squick is mostly the result of what the society you grew up in, tells you what is okay and what's icky.

I mean, we cringe at a lot of thing people do in other cultures, which are completely normal for them. And surely we do a lot of things other people think of as disgusting.

Wine. Cheese. Kissing. There are whole cultures where one or more of these are considered repulsing. Squick is 95% a society thing. Except for stuff that is immediately linked with death and imminent danger (smell/sight of decaying bodies, for example), practically everything else is cultural. Age of consent? 12-14 years, in all of Europe until late XIX/XX century (still 14 in some countries). Nakedness=sex? Only where clothes are universally worn. etc, etc...

Freaking out other people is fun, as long as nobody's going to fine/put you in jail for that. Indecency is such an indecent word. :smalltongue:

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-26, 06:38 PM

Frankly, sex really is gross. xp Seriously. It might just be my inherently asexual nature (or perhaps the cause thereof), but I've always found the idea of what is involved with "the act" to be absolutely repulsive. :smallsigh: This hurts my chances of ever finding a significant other considerably. Not too many people are willing to enter into a relationship in which it is stated beforehand that there will be little to no secks involved. =/

Ooh! Ooh! I would! I first became sexually active at 13, and by 14 I'd resolved never to have sex again. I hate the pursuit of it and what it turns you into and what people do to each other and the only thing I hate more than the act itself is the aftermath.

Cobra_Ikari

2009-10-26, 06:39 PM

Wine. Cheese. Kissing. There are whole cultures where one or more of these are considered repulsing. Squick is 95% a society thing. Except for stuff that is immediately linked with death and imminent danger (smell/sight of decaying bodies, for example), practically everything else is cultural. Age of consent? 12-14 years, in all of Europe until late XIX/XX century (still 14 in some countries). Nakedness=sex? Only where clothes are universally worn. etc, etc...

Freaking out other people is fun, as long as nobody's going to fine/put you in jail for that. Indecency is such an indecent word. :smalltongue:

Still 12, in 2 countries I know of. And 9 in one. No, I'm not a creeper, just have too much time memorizing random facts. >.>

And Coid, everyone has a different flavor. :smalltongue:

Pyrian

2009-10-26, 06:43 PM

Wine. Cheese. Kissing. There are whole cultures where one or more of these are considered repulsing. Squick is 95% a society thing.I don't think of any of that contradicts my assertion that squick is the default in such cases and individual experience is what overcomes it, rather than vice-versa (societal expectations making certain things gross). Wine and cheese are, after all, fundamentally derived from spoiling foodstuffs.

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 06:51 PM

And Coid, everyone has a different flavor. :smalltongue:

Yes. And everyone has different tastes. :smalltongue:

arguskos

2009-10-26, 07:09 PM

Yes. And everyone has different tastes. :smalltongue:
And some of us enjoy nearly all of them. :smalltongue:

Nothing like pursuing different flavors to stimulate the palette some. :smallbiggrin: Methinks this analogy is going a bit far now. XD

Jacklu

2009-10-26, 07:28 PM

Methinks this analogy is going a bit far now. XD

Yeah. I'd rather not see this thread devolve any further into a banter of thinly veiled sexual innuendos please. :smallannoyed: Kthnxbia

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 07:36 PM

Well, bring up something else then rather than complain about a vein of conversation continuing which is pretty well tapped out. I'm kinda blanking out as far as how to continue either vein of bawdiness or sexual mores being related to culture more than biology anyway.

About the only thing topical I can think of would be why you think we should all be transmen and transwomen.

Kneenibble

2009-10-26, 07:55 PM

MickJay

2009-10-26, 07:59 PM

I found it funny, even if it's only because I'm a little short-sighted, and the "m" looks slightly like "rn"...

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 08:01 PM

Hey, this thread periodically degenerates into sexy bon mots, it's a natural part of its life cycle. We can't be all serious and scholarly 24/7.

Coidzilla, pomo = postmodern. It was supposed to be a clever play on words, with all the blurred margins and referencelessness going down. :frown:

I feel bad and stupid now. :smallfrown:

mmm... Bon mots... ... Now I want to come up with a brand of bon bons labeled Bon Mots...

Stormthorn

2009-10-26, 08:31 PM

Heterozygote Advantage: In the event that there is a "gay gene," this is the most likely explanation for its propagation. The heterozygote advantage is when the possession of a single copy of a recessive allele gives the carrying organism a distinct reproductive advantage. The classic example is sickle cell anemia. The disease continues to exist because someone who has a single copy of the gene has negligible drawbacks and does not develop anemia, but is massively more resistant to malaria and some other infectious blood diseases. The prevalence of this has the side effect that a double recessive results in an anemic child, who's fitness is reduced and requires medical care. Their is a strong possibility that a "gay gene," which would almost certainly be recessive, increases a carrier's chance to reproduce in some way, even if a gay person is less likely to reproduce (though Methos is right)

Frequency Dependent Selection: Is when the prevalence of a trait in a population affects the fitness of having the trait. For example, the success off a strain of flu is directly proportional to it's novelty compared to the general population of flu. There have been arguments made that having homosexual members of a community increases the fitness of the heterosexual members, which leads to the propagation (probably through heterozygote advantage, or some form of communal game theory with tribes) of tribes which possess gay members in certain proportions over those of rival tribes. This leads straight into:

Tit for Tat and Evolutionary Game Theory: If any this is accomplished through environmental or chemical cues, the genotype might allow phenotype without indicating it (some evidence suggests maternal chemical cues in gestation are more indicative than any single gene). In this case the metaphor might work better with hive insects, where non-breeding members allow the propagation of the group as a whole. Or Beta males, in some larger organisms, where a smaller brother will support a relative in acquiring mates while remaining non breeding. Both these result in spreading the strategy throughout a population given time through relatives of the non-breeding members, who have a vested interest through selfish genes in allowing the group as a whole to advance.

So "Gays don't reproduce," even if true (which I don't grant), is not an argument for why the gay population would be unsustainable.

Clearly it has some sustainability, but the odds that every or even most gay people will have kids seems low to me. I personaly know one, but as the world becomes less homophobic they have less reason to get married or have opposite-sex relations.
So as a blanket statement, it is indeed wrong to say homosexuals dont reproduce. But i will support it as a general statement.

Now, im well aware of why it might remain in a population, and i have seen the Sickle Cell analogy before. But if your claiming homosexuality rates of 10% (which the person i was responding to was) the analogy breaks down since Sickle Cell has a prevelance of more like .05%.
Im sure it provides some benefit, but enough that 600,000,000 people are exclusivly homosexual?!

Now if your arguing that some degree of bisexuality occurs 10% of the time we wouldnt have a problem.

Man
This shouldn't make a difference.
Im a person of curiosity, what can i say? I need to know these things just so i stop wondering.

Ooh! Ooh! I would! I first became sexually active at 13, and by 14 I'd resolved never to have sex again. I hate the pursuit of it and what it turns you into and what people do to each other and the only thing I hate more than the act itself is the aftermath.
Most people i know dont seem to share this opinion with you.
I cant speak on the subject myself, since i engage in less romance and sex than your average cloistered monk.

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 08:36 PM

Sickle Cell, on the other hand, developed in a rather limited region of origin, whereas homosexuality would be, believably, not limited by racial, regional, or ethnic lines.

Stormthorn

2009-10-26, 08:40 PM

Sickle Cell, on the other hand, developed in a rather limited region of origin, whereas homosexuality would be, believably, not limited by racial, regional, or ethnic lines.

I suppose that is true.

Which could account for it being more prevelant than 1 in 5000.
I still think 1 in 10 is extreme.
Unless more than half of all homosexuals live their entire lives in the closet, which is a sad comment on the state of affairs in the world, as well as for my chances of getting a girlfriend.

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 08:42 PM

Yeah, I think it's fairly widely accepted that a large number of the population is closeted still.

The world's in a sad state.

Stormthorn

2009-10-26, 08:48 PM

Yeah, I think it's fairly widely accepted that a large number of the population is closeted still.

The world's in a sad state.

I could see being closeted in Africa where they rape lesbians to "fix" them.

But a college campus in California, USA?
In a Social Psychology class?
In a Human Sexuality class?

The idea that im taking flak for my support of gay rights while their are 400 millions gay people not willing to speak out for themselves is...annoying.

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 09:02 PM

I could see being closeted in Africa where they rape lesbians to "fix" them.
Huh. I'd thought that was an urban legend.

I didn't even think they came out of the closet, actually.

But a college campus in California, USA?
In a Social Psychology class?
In a Human Sexuality class?

The idea that im taking flak for my support of gay rights while their are 400 millions gay people not willing to speak out for themselves is...annoying.

Weird place, isn't it? There's enough people that Proposition 8 passed, so, y'know. Actually I think there are more hate groups in California per capita due to the perception of personal liberty and such...

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-26, 09:04 PM

Most people i know dont seem to share this opinion with you.
I cant speak on the subject myself, since i engage in less romance and sex than your average cloistered monk.

Well, I never claimed that it was normal. I know very well that it's considered quite abnormal. Romance is more trouble than it's worth, and I went into sex before.

Coidzor

2009-10-26, 09:11 PM

Indeed. One of my friends had a similar experience when he was younger, but he still can't seem to grasp that his views on the subject just might have been altered by the experience.

The Extinguisher

2009-10-26, 09:13 PM

Ooh! Ooh! I would! I first became sexually active at 13, and by 14 I'd resolved never to have sex again. I hate the pursuit of it and what it turns you into and what people do to each other and the only thing I hate more than the act itself is the aftermath.

Really, because I've only had positive things happen because of it.
The act itself really has nothing to do with anything. It's the people aspect to it.

As for the whole 10% thing; yeah, it doesn't make sense genetics-wise, but I've never been convinced that's it's 100% genetic. We don't define every other personality aspect by our genes. It's a combination of genetics, environmental factors and personal experiences, like everything else.

As well, the fact that people aren't just straight or gay means it's probably more than one gene controlling the trait, (assuming it's all genetic).

Stormthorn

2009-10-27, 12:52 AM

Huh. I'd thought that was an urban legend.

It may be. I have a lesbian in one of my classes and "corrective" rapes were the subject of her Social Justice Day project. Im only telling you what i heard.

As well, the fact that people aren't just straight or gay means it's probably more than one gene controlling the trait, (assuming it's all genetic).
Or it could even be controlled by one gene and bisexuality is entirly a result of social factors.
I do believe most people have some degree of bisexuality.
I had a (female) sexologist tell me that this was certainly the case with women when i presented her with my strong hunch that all women have some form of latent bisexuality.

I dont know about men. I can find a mans form pleasing but it may simply be asthetics. Naked male porn stars dont generate clear signs of arousal like female ones do. Sometimes just the opposite.
On the other hand, i feel that some male actors, if gay, might be able to sway me enough to get me to try it just once. Usualy older (30-50) but still handsome charismatic ones.

SDF

2009-10-27, 12:52 AM

Why do most people develop homosexual identities? Mentioned before, but now with sources (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5120004.stm)! The vast majority of identities is genetically hormonally triggered. There are people that develop identities because they were physically or emotionally abused as adolescents, but this is far more rare and the circumstances lead to psychological disorder rather than simple nature vs. nurture.

A quick study I found (http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm) claims it is much closer to 1:20 than 1:10. (United States) The sited total number of identified LGB people is 8.8 million. That is ~3% of the overall population, but most of these people would be of age putting the potential mating number higher.

Stormthorn

2009-10-27, 01:04 AM

Why do most people develop homosexual identities? Mentioned before, but now with sources! The vast majority of identities is genetically hormonally triggered.

If that study is correct.

Im still unwilling to discount events in very early life after one is born but before one could ever possibly choose to be gay.

I briefly alluded to my fetish a page or two back. I can trace its origins back to about 1st grade with certainty, and i have vague fragments of memory from earlier.
I have an arousal respone to something abnormal, and i did not choose it, but i would not claim to be born with it.

I dont know if homosexuality is at all similar, but i dont think this angle has been examined closely enough.

It should be noted that fetishes can also be a lifestyle choice. You can learn to accept or enjoy a number of sex practices that at first you find unusual or disturbing. I have induced them in people before or helped them nurture one from a tiny spark of curiosity upward.
:smallannoyed:
Dont look at me like that. At the time i didnt really stop to consider the moral implications of playing god with peoples sexuality.

SDF

2009-10-27, 01:24 AM

golentan

2009-10-27, 01:33 AM

Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr work at U of M on genetically identical twins has shown a greater than 80% correlation between genetics and sexual identity. (in addition to similar follow up studies) That leaves the other 20 for environmental factors, but like it or not genetics is the main determining factor in most of what makes us, us.

Except twins still leaves open the possibility of hormonal triggers in the womb. Which has support from studies tracking the incidence of homosexuality in people with older siblings.

Now if the study could be done with clones (different maternal hosts) I'd consider it conclusive.

SDF

2009-10-27, 01:36 AM

Pyrian

2009-10-27, 01:50 AM

Bouchard's paper Homosexuality in Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart (http://books.google.com/books?id=f8yI6_ocZ_AC&pg=RA1-PA23&lpg=RA1-PA23&dq=thomas+bouchard+sexual+preference&source=bl&ots=jtGC8aP2nf&sig=srgp2jSS98TOkes8hN6v1v9oo8A&hl=en&ei=3ZTmSrHoA4uqswOvp5SkBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false) gives not 80%, but 17% - literally 1 in 6, which is neither supportive of SDF's claim nor in any way a statistically significant result.

Wikipedia (I know I know but I'm not staying up all night looking up sources) puts it ~50%, which sounds more like what I've read from other sources.

Regardless, as golentan pointed out, twin-studies don't distinguish womb conditions, a surprisingly well-described factor in this case. Knowing that womb condition is a factor, you can't separately describe the genetic factor through a twin-study.

EDIT: Hmm. Is this discussion going to drive people out of the thread, again? :smallsigh:

Stormthorn

2009-10-27, 01:53 AM

The twin studies are on genetically identical twins. Same womb conditions, same genes. They essentially are clones of each other. Hormonal triggers are still game, and research points to it being a big factor. The research wasn't restricted to orientation, that was just a part of it. Sexuality among other neurological/psychological factors were enough to reject the null hypothesis in the experiment.

Thats the problem. Identical twin studies makes it hard to differentiate between hormones and genetics.

Also, if homosexuality is found to be primarily hormonal, then society will eventualy eliminate it.
Which i suppose fixes the problem of homophobia.
If its genetic it will probably be a much longer time before it can be pinned down and the debate on how useful it is and whatnot will have to be settled.

Also, i would like to warn against accepting one twenty year old study as the one-and-only authority. I would be more comfortable if you pointed me to a study concluded after 2000 that produced the same results.

Serpentine

2009-10-27, 02:39 AM

Also, if homosexuality is found to be primarily hormonal, then society will eventualy eliminate it.While I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "hormonal", regardless, I doubt it. Giants can be caused by hormones, but noone knows how to "eliminate" that. If the "hormonal" causes are natural, the result of evolution, and beneficial to the individual and/or the society, its elimination is both unlikely and undesirable.
The ultimate goal of the pursuit of scientific knowledge, including the search for "causes", is NOT necessarily "finding a cure". The more we know about everything, the more we'll know about... everything. Potentially, yes, the greater our ability to fix certain problems, but not necessarily directly (for example, if homosexuality is largely caused by womb conditions, far from providing us with a "cure" for homosexuality, it may give us some insight of non-genetic pre-birth impact on babies and perhaps some greater understanding, maybe control, of certain birth defects).

Just sayin'.

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-27, 02:55 AM

Also, if homosexuality is found to be primarily hormonal, then society will eventualy eliminate it.
Which i suppose fixes the problem of homophobia.

You know what else is a problem? Racism. Assuming we have the means to do so in the future, does that mean everyone should be of one race, to eliminate it? Differences may cause problems, but that doesn't mean they are a problem.

Yora

2009-10-27, 03:31 AM

MickJay

2009-10-27, 06:03 AM

I'm still convinced that genarally speaking, society (at least in the western world) is making huge advantages overcoming it's hangups about sexual behaviour. I'm not too familiar with the history of homophobia, but with the basic assumption that sex is bad, but you have to tollerate it for procreation as a neccessary evil, is a pretty good reason to say that homosexuality is bad.

Most of the anti-homosexuality notions in the West stem directly from the Bible. There was a varying degree of acceptance to homosexuality (from mild ridicule to affirmation) before the spread of Christianity (and, to a lesser degree, Judaism). We can all blame Paul of Tarsus for introducing condemnation of homosexuality into NT :smalltongue:

As for dislike for matters of flesh, this is a bastard child of the gnostics (people who thought that the flesh is bad, impure and that people should ideally stop procreating at all, so all the souls could be released from their earthly prisons, instead of being dragged down into new bodies from their transcendent state) and early Christian ascetes (who were influenced by the "heretics'" beliefs, at least as far as "flesh is bad/weak"). Then there was Augustine, also fascinated by gnosticism at an early age, whose writings became the most significant influence in the Western theology for almost a thousand years. Once you have the idea that sex is bad, but tolerable if its purpose is procreation, any sexual activity that could not result in conception gets condemned.

^this is supposed to be a comment about history, not religion (hard to separate the two sometimes) :smallannoyed:

Kneenibble

2009-10-27, 09:18 AM

@^ Duuuuude... I suggest you rapaciously edit or delete that post before you get a big fatty infraction. Trust me (as much as I'm up for a good round of Paul-slagging).

We have read it. *nod* :smallcool:

Quincunx

2009-10-27, 09:44 AM

It's all information I got in a public U.S. high school in a course called Western Civilization (not, you note, History). It is, however, directly on the line and not something we can safely reply to, but just nod and say "we read it". So. We have read it. (Nod.)

The idea that im taking flak for my support of gay rights while their are 400 millions gay people not willing to speak out for themselves is...annoying.

It's the eternal lament of the activist. It's also the pressure valve by which the majority opinion starts to turn its wars internecine and leaves the opposing minority alone.

Stormthorn

2009-10-27, 11:20 AM

You know what else is a problem? Racism. Assuming we have the means to do so in the future, does that mean everyone should be of one race, to eliminate it? Differences may cause problems, but that doesn't mean they are a problem.

If homosexuality is not genetic but is a result of some factor during fetal development then you really cant compare it to race because it is essentialty a defect.

Now i have seen a study that suggested that larger families with more fertile women have more homosexuals than can be explained by their size alone. The suggestion was that something in the genetics of the woman causes them to be more fertile with the trade off of producing more homosexual offspring.
Makes some sense from an evolutionary standpoint. 4 hetro offspring and 1 homosexual one is still better than 3 hetrosexual children.
In an ideal world where they wouldnt be pressured into hetrosexual marriage those homosexuals would be "acceptable losses" from the gene pool since they probably wont have kids.*

If you were at high risk for having a homsexual child, and we had the technology to garuntee they will be born straight, would you make use of it?
I really dont see how anyone could argue that its better to be homosexual.

*For the purposes of my conversation here I will not assume that gay couples have children artificialy, since i dont really know how often they do that versus no children or adopting. If the number turns out to be somehting like 80% then i will drop any claims that homosexuals dont reproduce.
Do keep in mind that this is not somehting evolution could have forseen, and they were still not intended to reproduce.

Quincunx

2009-10-27, 11:46 AM

Wow. That's some loaded language ("defect" and the undesirability that it implies?!) around two very contentious points. Still, at least on the first point, I think you've focused on the proper point in the child's development. Womb-influenced genetics are also under scrutiny for causing obesity, and that's another condition (or to re-use your term, "defect") which arouses passionate ire in the cause vs. fate debate as well as arguments over whether it's undesirable. We'd need to find a counter-example in which control of the womb produced children which exceeded the expectations of their genes, little geniuses exposed to Mozart's music in utero (correlation without causation, that was) or better nutrition physically improving post-war younger siblings (provable yet not subjective) and see whether or not we call them "improvements" upon their parents before we can call other womb-influenced traits "defects".

On the second point, the ability to control the environment of the womb, yes there would be a majority who would control for heterosexuality, following the examples of embryos selected for viability, confinement of the womb-bearing woman to extend high-risk pregnancy, savior siblings to provide biological material for an older sick sibling, abortion of chromosonally deficient fetuses, and the like--all controlled by the desire for 'better' children who will have better chances in life. However, there will still be those who, independent of their views on homosexuality, see interference with pregnancy and the natural order as not to be done by human hands, and would leave it alone.

Stormthorn

2009-10-27, 12:17 PM

However, there will still be those who, independent of their views on homosexuality, see interference with pregnancy and the natural order as not to be done by human hands, and would leave it alone.

This is somehting i fully anticipate will happen no matter what.

These peopel alreayd exist as those who dont believe in visiting hospitals and such.

Wow. That's some loaded language ("defect" and the undesirability that it implies?!) around two very contentious points.
I wouldnt want a child born gay. Not in this world, which wouldnt accept them.
Then again, i wouldnt want ot bring a child into this world period. All that pain.
And the massive hordes of people that dont like homosexuals im sure would be happy to refer to it as a defect simply for the negetive connotation.

golentan

2009-10-27, 12:51 PM

However, there will still be those who, independent of their views on homosexuality, see interference with pregnancy and the natural order as not to be done by human hands, and would leave it alone.

Then there are those of us who would leave out all of the essentially cosmetic nonsense and just roll the dice, loving whatever sort of child we were given.

Sure, I'd use gene/hormonal selection and therapy to do things like lower a kid's risk of cancer, or heart desire. But selecting for eye color, or hair color, or sexual preference seems silly to me.

Coidzor

2009-10-27, 02:47 PM

^: And yet, the genetic prerogative extends to providing one's offspring with the best chance to reproduce, so there are reasons. Whether they're morally or ethically valid hasn't even begun to be addressed by bioethicists or other thinkers.

Especially if population limiters are put into place such that children are limited in the number allowed a breeding pair. Defeats the point of reproducing if one's offspring die off without passing on the genetic material.

ooo, but I'm just getting goosebumps imagining spartans for real...:smallbiggrin:

Lyesmith

2009-10-27, 02:49 PM

ooo, I'm just getting goosebumps imagining spartans for real.

Ah, 300.
Could have been better with some Jayne Cobb (or, for that matter, Ben Cohen) though.

Coidzor

2009-10-27, 02:54 PM

Err, actually I meant this kind of spartan.

http://reparent.blog.uvm.edu/images/masterchief.jpg

Lyesmith

2009-10-27, 02:57 PM

Err, actually I meant this kind of spartan.

http://reparent.blog.uvm.edu/images/masterchief.jpg

Oh. My apologies.
What would happen if you gave Leonidas a gun, do you think?

Derjuin

2009-10-27, 03:03 PM

Perhaps something along the lines of...

"THIS...! IS...! MY BOOMSTICK!"

Yora

2009-10-27, 04:02 PM

Especially if population limiters are put into place such that children are limited in the number allowed a breeding pair. Defeats the point of reproducing if one's offspring die off without passing on the genetic material.
If you take the hard atheistic stance, reproduction is just coincidence. There are no moral question if it's right or wrong to make alterations to it.
But there are ethical concerns, wheather or not the posible gain in life quality for some is worth the possible reduction for others?

But these concerns are my main reason why I am opposed to arguing for LGBT acceptance on the ground that people are just born that way. That's the "easy way" to not be considered an immoral person. But I don't think it helps in any way to be accepted as an equal person.
I think it's much more important to make people realize that everyone should be allowed to live a life in a way that "feels good" to them. It does not have to be the way you prefer for yourself, to be okay for other people.

I guess it's okay to research how biological causes have an effect on these things, but I think it's important to keeo these out of LGBT rights discussions.

Coidzor

2009-10-27, 04:19 PM

If you take the hard atheistic stance, reproduction is just coincidence. There are no moral question if it's right or wrong to make alterations to it.
But there are ethical concerns, whether or not the possible gain in life quality for some is worth the possible reduction for others?

No, if one takes the genetic, evolutionary stance on the matter, then the point of reproduction is to continue one's genetic immortality. One doesn't reproduce because one wants to bring new life into the world or for the "rapturous joy of caring for children," no, one reproduces because one's genes want to continue on forever. Long and short of it.

It is no more coincidence than any of the triggers we respond to that come from our genes. Not that it was directed, but that there are causes and reasons.

I am agreed though, it sticks in my craw that one would appeal to the treatment of non-heteronormatives as sick or otherwise altered persons rather than that they are human beings in the first place.

Yora

2009-10-27, 04:28 PM

Yes, it's the result of cause and effect. But I'd say that it's just what happens when you take the atoms of our solar system and have them behave according to physics. But there's no purpose to it, there is no intention.
People might agree that we don't want others to do certain things, but that's our subjective opinion.

Pyrian

2009-10-27, 05:37 PM

Objectively speaking, nothing has any meaning, precisely because objective speaking means to regard things without considering their meaning (usually on the grounds that such consideration introduces bias). That sort of thing is, IMO, not profound. It is not a valid statement about meaning, because it's circular - the conclusion is inherent in the premise.

Yora

2009-10-27, 07:24 PM

My point is, that all meaning is given on purely subjectional basis, even if shared by many people.
Meaning (:smallbiggrin:) that people will only break rules they made themselves. It's a descision that certain things should not be done.

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-27, 08:01 PM

If homosexuality is not genetic but is a result of some factor during fetal development then you really cant compare it to race because it is essentialty a defect.

You've attacked my example, but not the point I'm trying to make. Sure, you can make the point that homosexuality is a mutation or whatever, but mutations in the gene pool that don't directly worsen a child's life (e.g. Some kind of disease or condition) are what makes humans people. I personally see no difference from an effect that might make their eyes a different colour, or some such. In addition;

defect.

Defect: "a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection"

I don't know anything about genetics, but I know anyone who calls me god damn shortcoming, fault or imperfection in the gene pool is spoiling for a rumble.

Trying to avoid an ad hominem atttack, some of the things you are saying are coming off as very offensive and abrasive, which is ironic considering you apparently are a supporter of LGBT rights.

MethosH

2009-10-27, 08:11 PM

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-27, 08:18 PM

Come on, no need to be that hard on the fellow. He just used the wrong word by accident, right? He meant "mutation" (and mutation isn't a offensive term and is more accurate on what he was trying to say).

No need for bad feelings here :smallsmile:

I realised that at the same time you did, and edited my post, but maybe the fact I've been called a 'defect' and similar terms by friends and family before have made me a little less tolerant of people casually bouncing that term around in this context. I can see looking back people have tried the usual tactic in this sort of argument to change the conversation to something inane ASAP, and I'm dropping the matter, but I was offended by some of the things that were said, and even a little hurt by others.

MethosH

2009-10-27, 08:24 PM

I realised that at the same time you did, and edited my post, but maybe the fact I've been called a 'defect' and similar terms by friends and family before have made me a little less tolerant of people casually bouncing that term around in this context. I can see looking back people have tried the usual tactic in this sort of argument to change the conversation to something inane ASAP, and I'm dropping the matter, but I was offended by some of the things that were said, and even a little hurt by others.

I know what you mean, but relax. Most people here don't actually know what they are talking about so they are throwing their personal thoughts and maybe something they read on a magazine waiting for their dentist appointment. We are all learning new things together here... Some will find themselves right... Some will find themselves wrong.

On that spirit I went on wikipedia to search more about this whole "Choice vs. No choice" thing. I personaly belive that some people have choice and some don't... but I'm no expert and this is not my field. This is what I found on the wikipedia:

"Choice vs. innate

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: "Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it, which are sometimes referred to as “reparative therapy.” No scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe. Moreover, because homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, national mental health organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Therefore, all major national mental health organizations have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."[3] The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that it "shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish,"[23] and added that "The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field."[24]

The APA also writes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".[25] In a joint statement with other major American medical organizations, the APA says that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".[26]

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime".[27] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states: "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".[28]"

If I stumble upon other interesting things I'll shout them here : )

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-27, 08:29 PM

I know what you mean, but relax. Most people here don't actually know what they are talking about so they are throwing their personal thoughts and maybe something they read on a magazine waiting for their dentist appointment. We are all learning new things together here... Some will find themselves right... Some will find themselves wrong.

Yeah. I only have a fairly basic grasp of science (I'm more a social knowledge, like politics/economics kinda guy :P) but thanks anyway, mate. I'm on edge at the best of times right now, I appreciate you trying to calm everything down.

SMEE

2009-10-27, 08:31 PM

People... could we make the LGBT thread LGBT friendly again? :smallsigh:

MethosH

2009-10-27, 08:32 PM

Cheers mate. Anyway, more from wikipedia:

"Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] "

Há! Thanks Wikipedia! I'm feeling smart :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:

Moar:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications.[5]"

By the way... Did you guys knew about Polysexuality? I didn't. (It isn't the same as pansexuality.)

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-27, 08:39 PM

By the way... Did you guys knew about Polysexuality? I didn't. (It isn't the same as pansexuality.)

No, and it's rather interesting. It's good to see the evolution of terms like this, though.

MethosH

2009-10-27, 08:41 PM

No, and it's rather interesting. It's good to see the evolution of terms like this, though.

Wait... What is wrong with my "knew"? o.O

Did you guys knew (lol) they made tests with twins to try and find out if there were genetic influences in homosexuality? O.o
I wonder who would do this willing.

Jacklu

2009-10-27, 08:43 PM

*repeats Smee's request*
Sorry for being that guy.
I don't want to discourage discussion, but this one is a bit out of line with the purpose of the thread. Could it be moved to another one maybe? Please?

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-27, 08:46 PM

Wait... What is wrong with my "knew"? o.O

Did you guys knew (lol) they made tests with twins to try and find out if there were genetic influences in homosexuality? O.o
I wonder who would do this willing.

Oh, it's grammatically incorrect, I assumed it was just a typo, and I wanted to just discretely point it out. It should be 'Did you guys know...'.

Jacklu, did you mean the one with Stormthorn and I, or Methos and I? I'd stated I was dropping the former before you and SMEE posted, and if people dislike it I can drop the latter, though I was enjoying it.

Kneenibble

2009-10-27, 08:47 PM

People... could we make the LGBT thread LGBT friendly again? :smallsigh:

Yeah, this, really... like I wasn't going to say anything hoping the topic would conclude of its own momentum, but I'm with Skcollob. Some of that eugenics **** was getting downright insulting and I add my vote that it stop.

As to the kinder side of the biology discussion, it seems like some people are eager to pinpoint some immutably encoded sexuality reifier and completely ignore this dialogue of the sexuality continuum and flexion, which constantly defies static category, that has been going on in this thread for what, ever? The idea doesn't really interest me anymore. I've gone beyond asking "how" which always carries that grain of value judgement.

Thufir

2009-10-27, 08:55 PM

"The American Academy of Pediatrics...

For some reason I misread this as The American Academy of Pedantics...

MethosH

2009-10-27, 08:57 PM

Oh, it's grammatically incorrect, I assumed it was just a typo, and I wanted to just discretely point it out. It should be 'Did you guys know...'.

Oh thanks : )
English isn't my first language, so I need some help sometimes.

Jacklu, did you mean the one with Stormthorn and I, or Methos and I? I'd stated I was dropping the former before you and SMEE posted, and if people dislike it I can drop the latter, though I was enjoying it.

Same question... o.O

Well.. I just figured that LGBTintP was a place to share thoughts on the subject in a friendly way... And I'm really and honestly curious about this, since it is a old and inconclusive discussion... And I thought I was approaching it friendly.

I'm sorry if I offended anybody or if I made a mistake on what this thread is actually about.

For some reason I misread this as The American Academy of Pedantics...

Sir, I loled.

Jacklu

2009-10-27, 09:03 PM

No, your discussion is fine. It was the previous one that started getting into "fixing" homosexuals in the womb that was crossing the line. Sorry for the confusion.

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-27, 09:03 PM

As to the kinder side of the biology discussion, it seems like some people are eager to pinpoint some immutably encoded sexuality reifier and completely ignore this dialogue of the sexuality continuum and flexion, which constantly defies static category, that has been going on in this thread for what, ever? The idea doesn't really interest me anymore. I've gone beyond asking "how" which always carries that grain of value judgement.

I had to read this twice and look up two words in the dictionary to fully understand that. I feel stupid :C

And you're right, and usually I avoid such discussions as well completely, it was probably a stupid thing to perpetuate, and I apologise.

Oh thanks : )
English isn't my first language, so I need some help sometimes.

No worries. English is a weird language.

Well.. I just figured that LGBTintP was a place to share thoughts on the subject in a friendly way... And I'm really and honestly curious about this, since it is a old and inconclusive discussion... And I thought I was approaching it friendly.

I'm sorry if I offended anybody or if I made a mistake on what this thread is actually about.

I echo this sentiment

No, your discussion is fine. It was the previous one that started getting into "fixing" homosexuals in the womb that was crossing the line. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries. I was offended as well, but to avoid perpetuating an increasingly heated discussion, I decided to drop it.

MethosH

2009-10-27, 09:10 PM

Ok, so it appears I have, for now, a green flag to go on with this subject. Those of you that are also interested please join me. The others, feel free to talk about other things, I may join you. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway... I'm now reading about the studies that were made on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Empirical_studies).
The twin thing appears to be a complete waste of freaking time... I myself had this idea a few years back on some of my "what if" and it had many problems that just kill the whole "controlled environment" thing.

Moving on to the next type of studie...

EDIT:
Ok, I haven't readed it all yet (I'll later, no time now)... but here is a fun fact...
Most of the studies were focused only on gay men. Where are the studies about lesbians? o.O

Phae Nymna

2009-10-27, 10:21 PM

Today I ended up coming out to a former teacher. She's apparently one of a small group of gay teachers at my high school, and she was very receptive. It feel like my little web is growing and I might be somewhere close to meeting someone else LGBT. Let the record say that I meant to say in my age group. Ja.

Peace Out,
Gunther
Not my name, but whatevs.)
I'll just be quiet now...

MethosH

2009-10-27, 10:27 PM

Serpentine

2009-10-27, 11:48 PM

If homosexuality is not genetic but is a result of some factor during fetal development then you really cant compare it to race because it is essentialty a defect.No, absolutely not. That is not a valid conclusion. Unfortunately, I (and possibly science as a whole) do not know enough about non-genetic non-nurture/learning development factors to go into detail, but such a factor is not - I repeat with great emphasis, NOT - by necessity a "defect". Like I said, there are some hypothesised advantages to having a homosexual in one's family. Probably not a great analogy, but it may be kinda like ants - workers and soldiers cannot (do not?) breed, but because of their genetics they're actually more closely related to their siblings (that is, most of the colony) than they would be to any of their offspring. Therefore, it is to their genetic advantage to promote the health of their siblings than to have their own offspring. Similarly (sort of... well, not really), it may be to a mother's benefit to have a homosexual offspring because it will ensure the greater survival of her other offspring. Or, there could be any number of other benefits we don't know about. NOT. A. DEFECT.
Basically, the only - ONLY - innate disadvantage to being homosexual is the lesser likelihood of reproducing. If being gay (as it may well) increases one's kin selective viability - or any number of other benefits - then, regardless of its origins, it is not, in any way, shape or form, a defect. An anomaly, maybe, but only, I think, because we don't understand it properly yet.

I hope this is allowed in the "Keeping LGBT Friendly Act of '09" <.<

Addy Wally: Is this a teacher you kept in contact with? Just seems like a slightly odd choice. Cool, though :smallcool:

SMEE

2009-10-28, 02:01 AM

We have another anonymous friend in need of advice:

Hey, I'm here to send my anonymous contribution to the LGBTitP. I just felt like sharing

I'm not sending this as an anonymous because I'm "still in the closet" or because I feel shame about being bisexual. It is mostly because it is more convenient. There is in fact a great deal of people (close friends and my current girlfriend) that are aware of that.

I hide it to most people because it is convenient and helps me protect myself from the disadvantages that this kind of label brings in the environment I live, full of prejudice. So I let it out only to people I know that can handle it without problem.

I don't feel it is a coward approach (like some would suggest), but a smart one. I don't feel the need to scream that I'm bisexual and I understand that the world isn't fully ready to accept this. So I play safe.

I'm not sure I can say I'm bisexual by choice, as some claim. I first realised this when I was 12 years old, and that was pretty much when my sexual desire started to appear and is part of me since them.

Hm.. I can't really think of anything else to say. If anybody want to say something or ask something feel free, I'll just reply it to SMEE, if that is ok with her. :smallsmile:

golentan

2009-10-28, 02:10 AM

Darn it, I thought we had strangled that specter in the bathtub.

Yeah. It's weird though that most of the gay studies have been focused on men. My friend (who is straight) explained it like this.

There's a historical male bias in scientific community (which is changing). From a straight man's perspective, women = hot, whereas men reduce hotness.

So:
MF = Hot.
MM = Negative hotness.
FF = OMG!!!

and thus any studies of lesbianism get sidetracked as the majority of researchers become distracted when pondering implications.

I think my friend is crazy, but I have to admit I have a certain fondness for the theory nonetheless.

Rettu Skcollob

2009-10-28, 02:12 AM

We have another anonymous friend in need of advice:

Are you sure they need advice? They sound like they're pretty OK to me, though it's sad that they have to live in an area where it's necessary to hide themselves

golentan

2009-10-28, 02:19 AM

Agree. Sounds like they have a pretty good bead on themselves and how they want to live their life, and I'm certain they're more qualified on that last bit than I am. If there's any specific advice though...

?

Coidzor

2009-10-28, 02:24 AM

I too am mystified as to where to go beyond the initial reaction in regards to the openness and seemingly not soliciting aid..

golentan

2009-10-28, 03:23 AM

On a tangential note, does anyone else read Rock Paper Cynic? The most recent one feels so good, even if it is a bit mean.

http://www.rockpapercynic.com/strips/2009-10-28.gif

Quincunx

2009-10-28, 04:52 AM

golentan: Your reply made much more sense when I realized you were replying to Stormthorn yet had my quote in the quote blocks.

Come on, no need to be that hard on the fellow. He just used the wrong word by accident, right? He meant "mutation" (and mutation isn't a offensive term and is more accurate on what he was trying to say).

No need for bad feelings here :smallsmile:

No. . .no, he did not mean 'mutation', that is a change in the genes. The word could have been as politically correct and meaningless as 'difference' or loaded up to the point of 'anomaly' or 'deviance' (from the genetic norm), but not 'mutation'. Or perhaps, to spare your feelings in a different fashion than previously, he did mean 'defective' but applied to the womb instead of the sperm--would you gentlemen object as vociferously to the term being shifted off of your backs and onto your mothers'? :smallamused: To spare my feelings, I'll assume you would.

Kneenibble: It's useful, though, isn't it, the blame? Blame follows fault even when the fault-finding is not vocalized. Gives you a better idea of the picture of "human" inside their head.

MickJay

2009-10-28, 05:07 AM

We have another anonymous friend in need of advice:

Well, I can say I have a slightly similar attitude myself, though I accepted my bisexuality a bit later. As I see it, my orientation is something I might share with people close to me, but that's pretty much it. I put lgbtitp in the sig mostly for "hey, you're not alone" purposes, as I know a few gay and bi people who feel isolated with/because of their "problem". I'm fairly happy with my life, I don't see much purpose in being "proud" and shoving my sexuality in the faces of random people. I try to be casual about it, but I won't raise the subject if I suspect it might result in a highly negative reaction. Apparently I don't "blink" as non-hetero, since my bisexuality was a big surprise to every single person I mentioned it to. It is quite convenient, since back home people are rather negative about such things.

SMEE, can you say where your friend is from? He's mentioned the prejudiced environment.

SMEE

2009-10-28, 05:41 AM

He's from Brazil as well.

Things ain't easy here for us, but I'll go no further than this on this particular subject.

MickJay

2009-10-28, 08:28 AM

OK, thanks, I understand.

MethosH

2009-10-28, 12:36 PM

I think my friend is crazy, but I have to admit I have a certain fondness for the theory nonetheless.

Hum... That would explain a lot.

No. . .no, he did not mean 'mutation', that is a change in the genes. The word could have been as politically correct and meaningless as 'difference' or loaded up to the point of 'anomaly' or 'deviance' (from the genetic norm), but not 'mutation'. Or perhaps, to spare your feelings in a different fashion than previously, he did mean 'defective' but applied to the womb instead of the sperm--would you gentlemen object as vociferously to the term being shifted off of your backs and onto your mothers'? :smallamused: To spare my feelings, I'll assume you would.

Ok...

1)
Main Entry: mu·ta·tion
Pronunciation: \myü-ˈtā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 : a significant and basic alteration : change

2) The guy made a mistake, let it go.

SMEE

2009-10-28, 01:22 PM

Another friend who wants to remain in the shadows is asking for advice in an area I'm not very experienced.

Hi. Just getting into things, as I don't really know what to put, I'm fifteen, and I've a crush on another boy. I know I'm gay, and have done for a year or two now, that's not an issue. I'm also not open about it.
I see him every day, and it's awkward. Should I tell him, or not? I mean, he's nice. But I don't know him that well, and I don't know if it will make things worse, or otherwise.

So, anyone have anything to tell him?
When I was 15, dating was the least of my priorities. I was too confused at that time. :smallfrown:

golentan

2009-10-28, 01:43 PM

golentan: Your reply made much more sense when I realized you were replying to Stormthorn yet had my quote in the quote blocks.

That's your quote? But it was told to me by my IRL friend. And I was replying to serp.

I'm so very confused now. So. Very. Confused.

Lyesmith

2009-10-28, 01:47 PM

I'd advise against it. I'm assuming you're not exactly out, but even if you are, still no. Get to know him a little better, by all means, and if it looks promising then perhaps.

Otherwise, no.

FlyingWhale

2009-10-28, 02:15 PM

Coming from someone who was approached by a homosexual back in high school... I made a scene, but I was genuinely shocked and angered that I could be conceived as homo,bi, or otherwise... I was the guy who had any girl he wanted just about in high school.

Is this boy aware of your being gay? If he knows, and still seems friendly and nice, you could test the waters, maybe let him know you would like to be friends? Do you two have any common interests? I saw you said you do not know him very well, you could try the, "I don't have a whole lot of friends, and you seem like a cool guy, maybe we could hang out sometime?" Do you have any friends or people you trust? You could send out "little birdies" but then again, I trust no one.

That aside, at 15, with not being open, and not knowing anything about the typical education/tolerance/humanity levels in your area... I'd play it really cool. I mean like, Paul Newman "Cool Hand Luke" Cool... Just, don't eat 50 hard-boiled eggs. That's not cool. It is epic, however but I wouldn't push it :smallwink:

Good luck, keep us posted will you, chap?

SMEE

2009-10-28, 03:02 PM

Hey, from one anonymous to the other...
What do you really meant with "tell him"? You want to tell him that you are gay? Or that you like him?
It it is the first them you should wait until you get to know him better. If it is the second you should wait until you get to know him better AND make sure that he is the kind of guy where you have a shot with. If he is a straight guy maybe there is nothing you can do... The hardest part of being a guy that likes other guys is that you need to find guys that like other guys :smallsmile:

Yay!
*is proxy*

In regards to the previous anon: Thing is, I want to tell him both. I'd like to tell him that I'm gay, and that I have a crush on him. Though, well. Telling him that I'm gay is hard enough, considering I've told practically nobody. I'm also shy, introverted and socially awkward, so yeah. :smallfrown: Thanks for the advice, though." And I'm in england, though that doesn't say much, as it's pretty varied.

Yay!
*is proxy*²

littlebottom

2009-10-28, 08:32 PM

ok, as some of you might know, since i started a thread about it not that long ago, my friend is in the midst of becoming a woman.

now, theres something that has started to bother me about it, which i didnt think of before, which is; the capability to have children...

by changing sex, i understand completely that that is what you want to do, but what if you decide you want to start a family later in life, but its too late? is this something anybody here thought about before changing? or was it not important to you to begin with?

Coidzor

2009-10-28, 10:22 PM

Other than putting gametes on layaway, no.

SMEE

2009-10-29, 04:07 AM

Well.. If you are too shy to go and try make friends with him you could try the 'girl friend' tactic. Many girls wants to have gay friends (I find this kind of creepy... but go figures) and being friend of girl that he is friends with will put you both on the same friendship circle, making things easier.

Now, back to the children talk.
No. She won't be able to carry a term as a woman as medicine stands for now.
She can freeze sperm for future use if she's still fertile (hormones do that, you see).

I'd have done that, but I was born infertile... :smallsigh:

DrakebloodIV

2009-10-29, 04:23 AM

She can freeze sperm for future use if she's still fertile (hormones do that, you see).

I'd have done that, but I was born infertile... :smallsigh:

I thought you had to freeze zygotes. I'm pretty sure those little fellas don't swim to well outside of

Still, that might be better off than having to go into that whole 'when is it alive and when isn't it' level of murkeyness'. Don't get me wrong, not being able to have a kid you know you made and is a bit of you is an amazing thing, but worrying that you are slowly killing a person in a freezer would drive me mad.

Coidzor

2009-10-29, 10:06 AM

Well, once you're freezing gametes anyway, you're pretty much left with the in vitro stuff in terms of fertilization, generally.

Stormthorn

2009-10-29, 10:56 AM

Some of that eugenics **** was getting downright insulting and I add my vote that it stop.

Very well, this eugenicist will remove himself from your thread. You people have a nice day.

Roland St. Jude

2009-10-30, 12:03 AM

People... could we make the LGBT thread LGBT friendly again? :smallsigh:

I could not echo...wait...

Sheriff of Moddingham: I could not echo this more strongly. Please keep this thread away from real world religion and politics. Also, please be particularly careful to refrain from insulting others (individually or collectively) based on sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other similar qualities. Finally, particularly flagrant comments in that vein qualify as hate speech - one of our very few instant ban infractions. Whatever your intentions, be aware that readers, including moderators, can't evaluate those; we have to go by what's on the screen. Avoid the more tetchy areas or choose your statements very, very carefully.

golentan

2009-10-30, 12:11 AM

Very well, this eugenicist will remove himself from your thread. You people have a nice day.

As a believer in voluntary eugenics and human engineering myself, you don't have to speak like that to and about people to be eugenicist.

Saying "I'd like to have the right to have a kid who's naturally inclined to be smarter and stronger than me when the technology is available" is very different from calling traits (especially ones that the possessors don't think are negative) defects, and would be removed if the tech was available. It can be offensive, and given the history of the eugenics movement people worry about that sort of talk.

To give an example of how very, very wrong this sort of thing can go, I'm going to vary the parameters a bit. Children with brown eyes (let's say) are at an economic disadvantage world wide, and increased risk of violent death. Clearly it is an advantage to be born with blue eyes, so if you were at a high risk for having such a child and had the power to select against these traits, wouldn't you do so? Or is there maybe some other factor at work here, where the pigment is not itself an undesirable trait?

It's the sort of thing that most of the modern eugenics movement has to spend a huge amount of time distancing itself from. I mean, if I were to have children I'd like them to not suffer from the inheritable diseases I have, but that's because those ARE painful and life threatening things that I don't see as part of my core identity. My sexuality is something that I do, that I am not ashamed of, and that I do not feel has been a great source of pain in my life. Some of my exes on the other hand...

Coidzor

2009-10-30, 01:09 AM

golentan

2009-10-31, 02:45 AM

So this comic is making me think about whether foods have sexuality. (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php)

Which is interesting because yesterday we got into a discussion about what sort of sexualities different hair has after they just kept going on and on and on and on and on about how some girl had straightened her hair.

I've never associated foods with a specific orientation. With the exception of kielbasas, but that's just because of all the easy jokes they lend themselves to.

Hair I really don't know. What does straightened here imply?

Coidzor

2009-10-31, 12:13 PM

I've never associated foods with a specific orientation. With the exception of kielbasas, but that's just because of all the easy jokes they lend themselves to.

Hair I really don't know. What does straightened here imply?

Well, she naturally has curly hair and she straightened it with one of those heating mechanical device thingies that some people use to do things with.

golentan

2009-10-31, 01:46 PM

Well, she naturally has curly hair and she straightened it with one of those heating mechanical device thingies that some people use to do things with.

Yeah, my sis does that. Foolishly I might add, as her hair looks nicer curly, and with the amount of makeup she adds (hint, she's three lbs. lighter when not dressing up) she looks more like a bit part bimbo in a bad movie than a brilliant musical genius with an intuitive grasp of higher maths and physics who manages to make me feel inferior and left out at all the family reunions. But I digress, out of unadulterated jealousy. I know the mechanics, I just don't know what statement is allegedly being made or what it's supposed to imply.

Coidzor

2009-10-31, 03:12 PM

Well, we managed to get to straight hair being straight, and wavy hair playing both fields.

Raistlin1040

2009-10-31, 03:24 PM

*has wavy hair* :smallbiggrin:

golentan

2009-11-03, 02:44 AM

Going to try to get this thread started at least a little again.

So. Halloween has come and gone. Many great and terrible things happened at my end. An androgynous friend dressed in a corset, my nudist friend dressed as a normal person (prompting giggles from everyone in the know when people asked about his costume), and I began working on a video project with some friends.

Anyone else have halloween stories?

Oh yeah, and I have something I want to run by you guys. Relationship drama ahead, you have been warned.
But I'm not sure how to deal with the person I'm seeing missing halloween when they knew I would be in town (and we had made plans) to go to a furry party. Which apparently descended into an orgy.

Yeah...

I'm thinking my first foray in homo-romance is coming to an end soon. I've never demanded monogamy, and was willing especially to make allowances given the infrequency of being able to see each other. But blowing me off for sex is more than a little grating. Still, at least I am now much less ambivalent about my feelings towards same sex relationships.

So, any advice on how to avoid such things in the future? A lot of the local LGBT environment seems to be way too much sex and nowhere near enough romance for my tastes, and I want to know how to avoid that in the future.

Rettu Skcollob

2009-11-03, 02:53 AM

golentan

2009-11-03, 03:09 AM

Rettu Skcollob

2009-11-03, 03:13 AM

But...

I don't have a problem with furries. Heck, I'm having an interspecies relationship every time I date (old joke, sorry). It basically boils down to "dated someone who cares less about the romance side" than anything else. There aren't really any guarantees for avoiding that. This was the first warning sign, and believe me I'm reading it as a stop sign.

Oh, not necessarily that, the fact that he ditched you to go to some sort of convention'y thing (regardless of the fact it ended in... Well.) is just a slap in the face. The whole 'furry' thing just compounds it.

SMEE

2009-11-03, 08:33 AM

Yora

2009-11-03, 10:53 AM

Is it a new reply from someone outside, which you are forwarding to us?

SMEE

2009-11-03, 11:00 AM

Yes. It was sent through the anonmail.

I'd pick and offer some advice to the person now, but I am trying to deal with some very personal and complex matters right now. :smallsigh:

Coidzor

2009-11-03, 01:05 PM

So I happen to be a staunchly heterosexual 18-year-old male. However, I also really really wish I was a girl. This is a problem. Particularly since with when it comes to the transsexuals I've read about they're taking hold of an identity they've already had; they were always a girl, it's just that they happened to have the body of a man. I, on the other hand, am a man wishing for a different identity, but I'm pretty sure I want it more than I've ever wanted anything.
Well, that's basically the whole story. What do I do? I'm already seeing a psychologist about it, so is there anything else? Thanks.I'll be back at this tonight.

Hmm, can't think of anything else other than contemplating the issue and figuring out when you first felt it and then when you first realized you felt it.

And figuring out some of the why of it might also help. As much as one can anyway.

So you actually feel like a guy but you're just sick of being a guy?

Golen: That sucks. I have no idea how to avoid it, really, since even making things clear up front what you want is probably only going to be minimally-to-marginally effective if my knowledge and assumptions about people and men also apply to, well, this whole sphere outside of my experience.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the mainstream lgbt community has a better chance as far as avoiding being blown off for fur-suited orgies.

Ishmael

2009-11-03, 08:20 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the mainstream lgbt community has a better chance as far as avoiding being blown off for fur-suited orgies.

I'm going to have to agree here :P. As much as the queer scene has a reputation for promiscuity, I'm not sure it leans towards full on orgies...that seems like it's a little out of the norm. And there's plenty of people within the community who don't engage in crazy activity like that....probably the majority of us, actually. It looks like you just got shafted there. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist when it comes to relationships and such, but I feel like when a guy decides to ignore preset plans in order to go to another social activity--and then joins a literal orgy--that's, in the words of Liz Lemon, a deal breaker.

So about Halloween...

I ended up going to this party held by Oscar Wilde House, which is this lgbt themed co-op house on campus. It was a fun party, big and with great music. I ended up dancing with a lot of really cute guys, and was told repeatedly that I was pretty hot, which was quite an ego booster :). I actually got this one guy's number, which was pretty exciting...I'm not looking to hook up randomly with people, but it was great nonetheless. This was my first ever foray into the gay scene here in Berkeley, and it was pretty successful, I'd say. I'm pretty content :D.

llamamushroom

2009-11-04, 03:28 AM

Rock on, Ishmael. May you get may more such compliments.

And Golen, I hope everything turns out well.

And, for anyone who still cares, it turns out that Phil isn't as good at reading people as he/I thought. He gave me some time, asked again, and I responded in the way you suggested - sarcastic not-quite-lying. Now I have an extra bruise over my flu-vaccination (which is a good thing, strangely enough). Whoopee.

Anyway, thanks heaps for your advice.

golentan

2009-11-04, 05:10 AM

I'm not saying orgy as a typical example. I think I did just get a particularly weird and abnormal way of getting dumped by someone who didn't have the guts to do it to my face. It's not bad, it's just kinda irritating. And gross given I know some of the other people at that party (weird taste is all I'll say).

But I still feel like I go to LGBT meetups and the question is never "would you like to grab dinner" it's "would you like to head back to my place?"

Llama: Just explain it was a joke and move on I hope? I don't know what to tell you, given I don't know Phil or what was said... I guess if you did the joke after stammering it may have come off much less jokey...

Ishmael: Sounds fun. Well done.

Anonymous Poster: Well, you've come to a place filled with wise folks with much advice. I offer friendship and support. And I'm going to leave it at that given my track record on this sort of subject.

SMEE

2009-11-04, 05:26 AM

So I happen to be a staunchly heterosexual 18-year-old male. However, I also really really wish I was a girl. This is a problem. Particularly since with when it comes to the transsexuals I've read about they're taking hold of an identity they've already had; they were always a girl, it's just that they happened to have the body of a man. I, on the other hand, am a man wishing for a different identity, but I'm pretty sure I want it more than I've ever wanted anything.
Well, that's basically the whole story. What do I do? I'm already seeing a psychologist about it, so is there anything else? Thanks.

Well, let me try this now.

From how I see things, you're going through just a phase. As you stated, you have never felt that before, and you're of the age that hormones are at their peak, so it's usual to feel such desires.
Your mind and body are being bombarded with testosterone, and that may cause some to become curious, pondering what it would be to be of the other gender.
My suggestion is to meet and talk to more girls, become friends with them, go clothes shopping and just hang out with them. You might get the benefit of getting some dates too.
This will satisfy your mind curiosity and help to go through this phase faster.

I hope this was of any help.

Ostien

2009-11-04, 01:23 PM

I found an interesting article that relates to the discussion on the biological basis for homosexuality:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

Favorite quote for the article
“I’m convinced that in 50 years, the gay-straight dichotomy will dissolve. I think it just takes too much social energy to preserve. All this campy, flamboyant behavior: It’s just such hard work.” thought that was a funny way to put it :smallbiggrin:

Also I'm almost done with the book I mentioned in the previous thread Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the myth of the two sexes I'm at work so I can't really make a long post but I do want to say it is a very good book thus far. He is basically making the argument for what basically looks to me to be a Kinsey type scale for human sexual development that there are two poles of Male and Female, but they are imaginary poles and we all exist between them because of the sheer number of factors in sexual development. He is not arguing for 3, 4 or 5 categories of sex but an infinite number of them as there are so many factors, chromosomal, hormonal, how proteins interact, enzymes, cell mosaics, and many others. Basically saying we are all intersexed to a degree and we should stop viewing sex as an immutable binary because frankly it does not jive with biology. Nature rarely if ever deals in discrete categories.

I can make a longer post/review later but it is a great book so far.

MickJay

2009-11-04, 03:08 PM

I can just say that, from my perspective, being homosexual is something you do, it's not something that defines you as a person. There are just so many things that add up to make a personality, so many things that can define it, and while sexuality is definitely one of these factors, narrowing it down to sexuality itself (whether it's hetero-, homo-, bi- or any other) strikes me as somewhat self-limiting. I don't know, maybe I'm just weird. :smallconfused:

The concept of being a homosexual, the lifestyle (broadly speaking), is relatively new, and generally a Western concept, in cultures where homosexual behaviour wasn't condemned so much, the fact that someone liked to sleep with other men wasn't, again generally speaking, something that defined them. If anything, it was the passive homosexual behaviour that attracted some ridicule, at least when fully adult males were doing it (or were being done, pardon the crude joke). As a side note, the reason for ridicule was that "male" behaviour was supposed to be active, "feminine", passive, and it didn't matter who the man was having sex with. Personally, I don't think it matters if someone's active or passive, as long as they're having fun while at it. :smalltongue:

My semi-educated guess would be that the flamboyant behaviour is, at least partially, a reaction to the fact that now it's actually possible to express homosexual orientation so openly, after very long period of active repression. Any other thoughts on that? I'm aware that the topic was probably already discussed here somewhere (and that there are more issues and subtleties involved), so if someone can point me to the thread/posts on it, I'd be grateful for that.

Ostien

2009-11-04, 04:30 PM

I completely agree sexuality, gender, sex do not define a person they are just some of many many factors.

I didn't mean for the quote to be anymore then a quote from a biologist being coy and just making a joke. Just thought it was funny didn't want to spark another long discussion that will get people hurt. All in good fun. :smalltongue:

I'm genderqueer so I can be quite feminine at times and go back and forth. So that probably colors my perspective.

Not sure about the repression hypothesis for flamboyant behavior. Not saying you are wrong just that I'm genuinely unsure. Though society gender norms of passivity and receptiveness during sex being associated with the feminine might play a role.

MickJay

2009-11-05, 09:43 AM

I don't want to offend anyone either, I know there are many people struggling, for various reasons, with their sexuality, so obviously it makes the issue much more important for them. On the other hand, there are people who willfully choose to make their sexuality (again, regardless of orientation) their defining trait. Despite having a fairly strong libido myself (or perhaps because of it), I can't help but to find it somewhat distasteful. Maybe I'm just repressing something, it's difficult to tell. :smalltongue:

SMEE

2009-11-05, 10:22 AM

Firstly, I don't recall saying that I'd never had these feelings before. Perhaps not to the same degree, but unless my memory is playing tricks on me I've had them sporadically since I was like ten, although, as said, not to the same degree.
Meeting more girls doesn't seem particularly likely at the moment, but that's a whole other kettle of fish so I won't go into it now.
Also I thought I was over the whole "hormones" thing. Damn.
And it really doesn't feel like curiosity. I've been curious about many things in the past; hell, I've been curious about this in the past, and this is desire. I mean, it spends rather a lot of time on my mind and, well... I mean I've never been very good at describing my emotions but I'm pretty sure that they're different.

Now that I come to think of it that last mail's tone was probably a bit too...angry. I didn't mean it to be, sorry.
It's just, saying that it's all a phase seems like it kind of cheapens my emotions. It's not like I'm adverse to the idea; indeed, that's basically why I'm seeing the psychologist; it's just.. What if the 'phase' lasts for, say, five years? What if it lasts for ten? What if, by the time it's over, I'm an old man without the ability to do anything with this life I finally managed to come to terms with?
The thought is unsettling to say the least.

I'll be back at this at a more opportune moment. Right now I'm struggling to not melt to the 86F temperature outside (30C for those of us who use measurement systems that make sense. :smalltongue:)

Kneenibble

2009-11-05, 12:45 PM

To the anonymous young fella --

Eddie Izzard might just be a source of inspiration for you, my friend. He is a heterosexual British comedian who has described himself in interviews as a "male lesbian" and dresses in flamboyantly fabulous drag to perform. Well, his last rounds have just been in plainclothes, I'm not sure where he's at these days...
But yeah. He's staunchly heterosexual as you've described yourself.

Maybe it will be helpful for you to explore his work and interviews. Your desire for a second identity is especially interesting, and resonates somewhat with the idea of a performer's mask which a person can wear in many contexts, not just a stage, and which can be stronger and more real than one's host personality.

If this isn't helpful, then throw it away! -- but at the very least you'll hear some truly golden comedy. :smallcool:

Anuan

2009-11-05, 06:35 PM

If this isn't helpful, then throw it away! -- but at the very least you'll hear some truly golden comedy. :smallcool:

QFT. Eddie Izzard is fantastic.

Ishmael

2009-11-05, 06:57 PM

On the other hand, there are people who willfully choose to make their sexuality (again, regardless of orientation) their defining trait. :smalltongue:

QFT. I'm not too fond of those who adhere to blatant stereotypes, to the point where their existence is totally tied to their sexuality. I think the majority of queer folk aren't like that, but I think that a healthy percentage of people make a choice (perhaps an unconscious one) to adhere to a certain expected behavior. And I understand the choice...though I'd never do so myself. I'm definitely not attracted to, or feel any common ground with, the archetypal gay queen.

Actually, I think that's beginning, perhaps slowly, to change. The way things are turning, with more tolerance, there's less need to self-segregate, and the 'queer community' is transforming, such that it doesn't need to be the only social outlet for LGBT people. And with that change comes less...well, pressure, I suppose, to conform to rigid expectations as to what a member of the 'scene entails.

Quincunx

2009-11-05, 07:23 PM

The Rose Dragon

2009-11-05, 07:25 PM

I'll be back at this at a more opportune moment. Right now I'm struggling to not melt to the 86F temperature outside (30C for those of us who use measurement systems that make sense. :smalltongue:)

How heat-sensitive are you?

That should be a light breeze more than anything.

Anuan

2009-11-05, 07:32 PM

30 Celc is warm enough to be uncomfortable when you live in freaking Brazil. Humidity, good sir. Humidity makes sweaty bastards of us all.

Rettu Skcollob

2009-11-06, 01:08 AM

That second anonymous male mail was the very finest in **** humor. Instead of accepting your mid-life crisis as a 'phase' all we humans go through, you've had to borrow the irreversible quality from the female quandaries and wish to shoehorn your body into justifying borrowing it! Well. It's either humorous or demeaning to the human condition. Simone de Beauvoir's got your number, Slim. . .

Man, every time I think I know what you're talking about; you say something that makes me feel stupid again, Quin. :smallsigh:

I do agree that off-handedly dismissing it as a 'phase' is kind of condescending, but I would say that you should definitely not dismiss the possibility, so don't do anything drastic.

Serpentine

2009-11-06, 01:34 AM

The word "phase" does have some distressingly dismissive connotations... But I would urge the anonymous poster to consider that it's not intended in that manner, but probably more along the lines of "a period of doubt/change/questioning with significant and/or serious impact/s that is nonetheless temporary".
For example: The anger and angst and selfishness of teenage years is "just a phase", right? Yet it is the cause of a substantial number of suicides, may be a significant factor in the formation of a person's personality, and has been shown to have fundamental biological sources (e.g. it was demonstrated that around a particular age, teenagers find it more difficult to judge facial expressions).
Just because it's a "phase", doesn't mean it's not Serious Business, and not being taken seriously.

Also, your mention of transexuals "taking hold of an identity they've already had; they were always a girl, it's just that they happened to have the body of a man" at least implies that your situation is, in contrast to that, a new thing.

Yora

2009-11-06, 04:59 AM

Also, your mention of transexuals "taking hold of an identity they've already had; they were always a girl, it's just that they happened to have the body of a man"
As I see it, "realizing their true gender identity they always had" is what we have defined to mean "transsexual". But the subject is much more complex and there are a great number of other forms of transgenderism.
It's a great relief if you can put yourself into a clearly defined category, as it feels very odd to fit into any one. But especially when it comes to transgenderism, I strongly advice against it. If you don't feel like a standard-transsexual, don't feel pressured to accomodate to this category. It probably feels odd and uncomfortable to most people to not be able to identify yourself with a defined category. But as I see it all such categories have been created by society because it was convinient, not because they accurately explain what gender is or can be.
If you don't feel like other transsexual or transgender people you heard about, there's nothing wrong. You are likely another individual case in our large group of individual cases.
And for me, that is good enough to feel comfortable with my gender. :smallsmile:

SMEE

2009-11-06, 05:23 AM

The word "phase" does have some distressingly dismissive connotations... But I would urge the anonymous poster to consider that it's not intended in that manner, but probably more along the lines of "a period of doubt/change/questioning with significant and/or serious impact/s that is nonetheless temporary".

This is what I meant.
Also, if you think it might something deeper, mr. Anon, you should start talking to your shrink about your past memories to see if there's enough evidence that you might be transgendered.

This is of high importance, as there's no way back once you complete the treatment. And even three months of hormones would leave lots of details that could or not be fixed by surgery. Infertility would be one of them.

So, while I understand the urge to start the transition early (I am living proof that hormones are less than effective once you're older than 25 years), right now the most pressing matter is to find whether this is something temporary, or something that requires measures must be taken.

Good luck.

LXH

2009-11-06, 09:35 AM

To Anon

So I happen to be a staunchly heterosexual 18-year-old male. However, I also really really wish I was a girl. This is a problem. Particularly since with when it comes to the transsexuals I've read about they're taking hold of an identity they've already had; they were always a girl, it's just that they happened to have the body of a man. I, on the other hand, am a man wishing for a different identity, but I'm pretty sure I want it more than I've ever wanted anything.
Well, that's basically the whole story. What do I do? I'm already seeing a psychologist about it, so is there anything else? Thanks.

Getting professional guidance is the most important first step, so it's good you're already doing that. Some things you may want to work on hammering out with your psychologist are the specifics of these feelings. You say you want to be a girl, but try to figure out what it is about girls that you want to have for yourself. Is it physical traits? Perceived cultural advantages or differences? Dissatisfaction with your own male body?

A word of advice when reading the words and histories of trans women: consume with many grains of salt. Most web savvy trans people know what they're going to tell their therapist before they ever sit down on that couch. Everyone knows the (mostly) universal guidelines that for some reason have lingered since the Harry Benjamin era, and so we all know the "I've felt this way since I was at most five years old!" sob story is what will get us our hormones. Many are telling the truth. Many are not, because they've been led to believe that later onset transgendered feelings are somehow less legitimate than early onset. Let your own feelings be your compass on this and don't compare them to what you perceive to be the more mainstream histories of trans people.

Good luck, have fun with it, stay safe, and if you do decide transitioning is for you, be satisfied that finding out at 18 and acting on it is a hell of a lot better than knowing at five and not starting until you're 25, 35, or later on. You'll be the envy of your similarly situated peers.

Yora

2009-11-06, 11:17 AM

Most web savvy trans people know what they're going to tell their therapist before they ever sit down on that couch. Everyone knows the (mostly) universal guidelines that for some reason have lingered since the Harry Benjamin era, and so we all know the "I've felt this way since I was at most five years old!" sob story is what will get us our hormones. Many are telling the truth. Many are not, because they've been led to believe that later onset transgendered feelings are somehow less legitimate than early onset.
Lots of teachers I know can use the internet as well as their students and know they will get the same results if they use google. I think a lot of good therapists know as well and will hardly fall for that. After all a psychologists job is mostly dealing with people who won't admit things to others and themselves. :smallwink:

LXH

2009-11-06, 12:09 PM

Lots of teachers I know can use the internet as well as their students and know they will get the same results if they use google. I think a lot of good therapists know as well and will hardly fall for that. After all a psychologists job is mostly dealing with people who won't admit things to others and themselves. :smallwink:

You misunderstand. It's not akin to plagiarizing as much as it is looking up your math homework to find the one "right" answer (according to some therapists). Trans people do this to avoid further difficulty because many in the field still believe that only "true" trans people manifest in the very early years, and there's a certain sect who believe later onset individuals are less valid, or have other issues that may present a sort of faux transgenderism, thanks in no small part to trying to streamline a condition that presents itself as more of a prism than a line. Others believe the likelihood of being an autogynephile rises parallel to age of onset, and sometimes this can serve as a barrier or another delay, or a reason to deny a prescription entirely. Regardless, this prejudice in the mental health field has bled into the trans community itself, to the point where many who speak about it online and to their therapists will only insist they've felt "that way" since they were four or five years old, whether it's true or not.

You may have a somewhat romanticized idea of what mental health professionals do, but it's pretty easy to stick to the same story with one until they write your prescription or refer you to someone who can. For me, at least 60% of my therapy sessions consisted of me sitting opposite my therapist in awkward silence because I had absolutely nothing I wanted to discuss beyond "I can has meds plz?" There were no breakdown moments where we went back to my past and I recalled some traumatic event that caused everything to finally come into clear focus. Just lots of staring and then I got meds.

Of course, everyone is different and some people may indeed have issues that need to be brought out in therapy sessions. But they have to be willing to open up a crack before their therapist can get in there and dig around. If they opt not to, there's not much to keep them from getting a prescription.

And if I sound disparaging of mental health professionals, I am not in the least bit. Most are on your side and are light years ahead of the HBSoC, so they really only want to help the person as best they can. The risk is getting someone who is anti trans, or hails from the dangerous Zucker camp. Give them an inch and they'll try to pull you into the black hole of "reparative" therapy.

SMEE

2009-11-06, 04:24 PM

To LXH: Rest assured that if I say something when I'm asking for advice, especially to my psychologist, it's because I'm pretty sure it's true. Whether or not it makes any difference is up to the listener.

Being proxy once again.

LXH

2009-11-06, 06:27 PM

I has a confuse. When I talk about other trans people relating their stories or speaking with their therapists, it's in the context of trying to explain why Anon's experience seems to be so different. I'm saying it isn't different at all, but because of internalized pop psychology, the community has learned to adapt one uniform story. There is no suggestion that Anon is or will be anything but forthcoming at any point.

Coidzor

2009-11-06, 06:35 PM

Hmm, great. Even more disincentive to understanding.

This isn't going to bite us in the ass at some point...

LXH

2009-11-06, 06:38 PM

Hmm, great. Even more disincentive to understanding.

This isn't going to bite us in the ass at some point...
I have no idea what you're talking about but since you posted after me, I'm going to assume it's something to do with what I said. If so, care to explain?

Coidzor

2009-11-06, 06:56 PM

LXH

2009-11-06, 07:08 PM

Training the vast majority if not all of the trans community to be pathological(or am I just thinking compulsive? crap. to the dictionary) liars about their condition doesn't seem like it's very good for anyone in terms of actually understanding what's going on.

But I could be wrong and all we really need to look into is neurochemistry, embryonic development, and genetics.

It's neither pathological nor compulsive, and it's slightly privileged to suggest they should risk the treatment they need for the sake of anyone else's understanding. It's a learned behavior exercised out of fear and distrust of some in the mental health community who enforce their own arbitrary benchmarks for diagnosis. I would dare suggest that if the mental health practitioners as a whole made good faith efforts to really work with the community instead of, say, allowing aversion therapy advocates like Zucker onto the panel for the new DSM (or just having it in the DSM altogether), more and more trans people would be willing to be open about the true depths of their feelings. The fear of delegitimization needs to be taken off the table before trans patients feel safe enough to offer full disclosure.

No one is being trained to do anything. Trans people are people. Like all people, they learn the system and then they learn to work it in their favor in order to make the best of a bad hand.

But for my own opinion, I think neuroanthropology will take care of any needed gaps in understanding. I've probably linked to this study (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034) before, but I think it lays out what future studies will confirm. But that's just my belief for now.

Coidzor

2009-11-06, 07:40 PM

What you're saying is, that, yes, these actions on the part of the mental health profession are encouraging the spread of and entrenching these behaviors within the community.

The community further despises even mental health professionals' legitimate role in treatment, seeing them as nothing more than an oral examination to be talked up in the right way and sequence in order to get the hormone fix.

It sort of seems like a crying shame.

LXH

2009-11-06, 07:53 PM

It's not quite that severe, but it is a residual presence descended from mental health guidelines that are as old as the dead guy they're named after. I think most people will get a good feel for where their therapist stands on the issue within a few sessions and eventually decide to open up anyway. Some just come in with the prepared statements because they know what they want, they want it badly, and they don't want to risk having some quack deny them. All because of a completely arbitrary bias in favor of early onset cases over those who became cognizant relatively later in life.

I honestly think the therapy requirement itself is completely outdated. It was implemented generations ago when there was no internet, no popularization of trans information, so people really did have to come in and spend significant amounts of time with a therapist to hammer out just what the hell is going on. Now people go in who are well adjusted and clear eyed, and they know exactly what they need to alleviate their depression and anxiety. The rest is, as I said, sitting around staring at another person while you satisfy the mental health community's requirements.

And not to be overly cynical, but it's not surprising that the people who both set and profit off the guidelines are going to force you into that chair for a maximum amount of time. I spent many thousands of dollars talking about absolutely nothing.

Serpentine

2009-11-06, 11:48 PM

...it's slightly privileged to suggest they should risk the treatment they need for the sake of anyone else's understanding.I don't disagree with everything else you're saying, but in this case increased understanding can only benefit the trans community, surely. Increased understanding = better treatment (medical and general). Wouldn't it?

Jacklu

2009-11-07, 12:15 AM

:smallsigh: I really hate to be "that guy" yet again. :smallfrown: This discussion seems to be shifting uncomfortably close to real world politics and away from LGBT support and conversation. =/ Is there anyway it could be continued in its own thread or via PMs maybe? Again, I'm really really really sorry for being the mean, touchy person who gets uncomfortable when arguments start to get heated. =/ T_T I also realize that more than likely the conversation is "already wrapped up" once again. =/

On the subject of actually contributing to the thread in a meaningful way: My mother has begun making comments to me regarding the way I act. Stuff that on its own isn't troubling, but which, to me, indicates a level of concern on her part for my behavior. AKA: I think I might be starting to "give myself away" with how I am acting. Which concerns me, my home and family situation being what it is. =/

Coidzor

2009-11-07, 12:23 AM

What sort of things is she picking up on to be concerned about?

golentan

2009-11-07, 01:00 AM

On the subject of actually contributing to the thread in a meaningful way: My mother has begun making comments to me regarding the way I act. Stuff that on its own isn't troubling, but which, to me, indicates a level of concern on her part for my behavior. AKA: I think I might be starting to "give myself away" with how I am acting. Which concerns me, my home and family situation being what it is. =/

Uh-oh?

I know this might sound like a really bad suggestion, but maybe go see a movie with an opposite sex friend. You can pass it off to your family as a date, and never have to mention the fact to the other person (though if you have someone you can trust, complicity in selling it can help).

I don't generally like telling people to pretend to be something they're not, but sometimes you've got to know when to fold 'em. And I trust you know your circumstances better than I.

Jacklu

2009-11-07, 01:25 AM

That would help if my secret secret was being gay. In this case, it is the fact that I have been slowly shifting to a more feminine behavior pattern than usual. The kind of thing I have trained myself my entire life not to do. =/ Guess I'm becoming too comfortable with myself to keep the act up perfectly anymore. T_T

golentan

2009-11-07, 03:37 AM

Sorry, Jacklu. I guess I just really don't understand then.

Try explaining, and maybe I can give better advice. Okay, probably not given that I'm me, but someone can.

Edit: I mean, I know (or rather, believe I remember) you identify as genderqueer and are in a potentially nasty local situation. But that's all I recall.

Jacklu

2009-11-07, 04:25 AM

Edit: I mean, I know (or rather, believe I remember) you identify as genderqueer and are in a potentially nasty local situation. But that's all I recall.

That's it in a nutshell. My problem lies in that through online interactions with people I have become much more comfortable with myself. So much so that it is starting to bleed through and has been slipping into my RL interactions with people. And while this would generally be regarded as a good thing, I am still not really ready to come out to my family. I'm very worried that I'm going to slip up and out myself on accident if I'm not careful. =/

golentan

2009-11-07, 04:39 AM

Rettu Skcollob

2009-11-07, 04:49 AM

golentan

2009-11-07, 04:57 AM

Hold on, what the hell, why wasn't I told about this?

It twue!

Sports teams tend to be monosex, yeah? And shower after practice (depending on a few factors, but public showers are common in my area). For some reason, slapping is considered a "RAH! GO TEAM!" when sending someone onto the field thing rather than an attempt to feel people up. Sports players tend to be in better shape, and practice can get very close and personal. And when was the last time you heard someone say "I hear he's gay" about the quarterback? (Small exception for my high school team, where the quarterback beat in some heads for gaybashing his boyfriend. But until that incident...)

Rettu Skcollob

2009-11-07, 05:04 AM

It twue!

Sports teams tend to be monosex, yeah? And shower after practice (depending on a few factors, but public showers are common in my area). For some reason, slapping is considered a "RAH! GO TEAM!" when sending someone onto the field thing rather than an attempt to feel people up. Sports players tend to be in better shape, and practice can get very close and personal. And when was the last time you heard someone say "I hear he's gay" about the quarterback? (Small exception for my high school team, where the quarterback beat in some heads for gaybashing his boyfriend. But until that incident...)

Damn... All those opportunities missed. And all the sports teams I've been in over the years...

golentan

2009-11-07, 05:19 AM

Damn... All those opportunities missed. And all the sports teams I've been in over the years...

Hold on. Are you honestly telling me you never saw anything homoerotic in modern sports culture? It seemed to be sublimated as team bonding, but even so...

But yeah. Not many opportunities so much as a mechanism for keeping things close to the vest while still getting your physicality on. If you start blatantly hitting on team members the cat's pretty much out of the bag whether you're on the team or not.

I feel the same way about straight guys taking dance classes (What's the male/female ratio? And how much physical contact is there by order of the instructor? And you get to be seen as a really sensitive guy...)

LXH

2009-11-07, 09:50 AM

I don't disagree with everything else you're saying, but in this case increased understanding can only benefit the trans community, surely. Increased understanding = better treatment (medical and general). Wouldn't it?
Did I say otherwise? I just don't think it's appropriate for a person who has nothing to lose to tell someone to risk the treatment they need. Of course ultimate understanding helps more in the long term, but if that was going to happen through anecdotal confirmation, we'd all be holding hands together singing kumbaya by now. Needs more brain studies!

Serpentine

2009-11-07, 09:56 AM

I'll just say I disagree (at least if we replace "tell someone" with the original "suggest"), and leave it at that, eh?

Ichneumon

2009-11-07, 10:00 AM

Although I wouldn't think lying is a good idea and possibly harmful, I do agree with LXH on this.

Ostien

2009-11-07, 10:59 AM

To Anon: I'd like to throw out some advice for the anon with the gender identity question. It seems you feel trans but are looking around and having the thought that you may "not be trans enough" This is just a shot in the dark and may not apply to you.

There does seem to be a tension in the trans community and the genderqueer community. I'm going to be as careful saying this as I can. There does seem to be a large part of the trans community that propagates this idea that if you don't transition or take hormones you are not really trans. This has the effect of excluding people who are transgender and making them feel uncomfortable.

I have felt this, as someone who is genderqueer and have met many people in genderqueer groups that have had similar experiences of feeling "not trans enough." By both trans and non trans communities. While you explore your gender identity don't feel pressured to do things because you feel you have to to be accepted.

I don't want to leave with making it seem like I'm calling out the trans community as a whole because that is not what I am doing, the vast majority of trans communities are inclusive of people of a broad range of transgender and don't exhort social pressure. I am however saying that a few bad experiences can sour the whole view for some people and make them feel trapped with no community to turn to. And if this is not from direct experiences it may be a view of the trans community you may have encountered either from queer or non-queer communities.

To anon, your feelings are important, and it is important to run with them but you should not feel pressured into one persons conception of trans. Explore these feeling and see where they take you, boldly go! :smalltongue: I'd suggest going to a LGBTQ meeting or a trans or genderqueer meet up. There may be some in your area and they can be a blast!

Again just trying to help, may not apply to anon. This was my two cents for anon. Don't want to step on anyone else.

LXH

2009-11-07, 11:11 AM

I don't want to leave with making it seem like I'm calling out the trans community as a whole because that is not what I am doing, the vast majority of trans communities are inclusive of people of a broad range of transgender and don't exhort social pressure. I am however saying that a few bad experiences can sour the whole view for some people and make them feel trapped with no community to turn to. And if this is not from direct experiences it may be a view of the trans community you may have encountered either from queer or non-queer communities.

Agree with everything you said, but the quoted part in particular is something that has bothered me for a while. Heteronormative people look at gay people and ask, "why do they need to have what we have?" Gay people look at trans people and ask, "why are you even grouped with us?" Trans people look at genderqueer people and say, "nuh uh, honey. It's hard enough to explain without you muddying it all up even more."

And then we all get s**t on.

Ostien

2009-11-07, 01:34 PM

LXH, So let me get you straight (oh the lulz), you are just agreeing about the sometimes counterproductive divisions in the LGBTQ community and the fact that it tends to divide and hurt us all? Just want to make sure I'm not reading my thoughts into yours.

If so, yeah this part of the LGBTQ communities dynamic you illustrated has also bothered me. Though I do understand where many are coming from. Trans is hard to explain without us genderqueers genderf**king it up. I understand, but its not like I particularly like it.

Mainly just posting to clarify for myself.

LXH

2009-11-07, 01:40 PM

Kneenibble

2009-11-07, 02:19 PM

Well, as I've said before I can't really help identity problems.

If coming out ain't an option, maybe join the football team? I joined sports because not only do people stop questioning your sexuality, you also get to spend time in the showers with attractive fellows who you just spent the afternoon wrestling with, and slapping someone's backside is a socially acceptable greeting suddenly.

:frown:
Material delights this scrawny drama student only ever dreamed about.

(adult) Acting classes and dance classes have about 3-1 female-male ratio, and maybe I just got unlucky, but a surprisingly low quotient of gay guys. I was one of two throughout my University theatre training career, and the other guy, while an awesome human being, was a princess with a boyfriend.

And when I know a guy is straight, I just can't give myself license to enjoy something like contact improv with him on that level. Y'know? It's not fair to him. I'm not that kind of gay guy. Unprofessional.

But we never had public showers...
:smallredface: *eyes glaze over*

Cobra_Ikari

2009-11-07, 04:40 PM

:frown:
Material delights this scrawny drama student only ever dreamed about.

(adult) Acting classes and dance classes have about 3-1 female-male ratio, and maybe I just got unlucky, but a surprisingly low quotient of gay guys. I was one of two throughout my University theatre training career, and the other guy, while an awesome human being, was a princess with a boyfriend.

And when I know a guy is straight, I just can't give myself license to enjoy something like contact improv with him on that level. Y'know? It's not fair to him. I'm not that kind of gay guy. Unprofessional.

But we never had public showers...
:smallredface: *eyes glaze over*

*pokepoke*

*sighs*...we lost him. *drags off to the public showers* :smallwink:

Nameless

2009-11-07, 04:52 PM

*pokepoke*

*sighs*...we lost him. *drags off to the public showers* :smallwink:

I fell off my chair lawling. :smallbiggrin:

Stormthorn

2009-11-07, 11:10 PM

So, the Tubers seem to be in a perpetual argument in one small corner of youtube over the sex of username 17586063.

I was wondering what the people of this most gender and sex diverse thread think.
I personaly dont care much. As long as he/she has a cute face, i would be all on that. I mean, listen! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg7i1-zPX68&feature=related) I now understand why people want to boink rockstars. The power of music is a sexual force that transcends all bounds.

Well, for me at least. That solo from that link that starts around 2:10. You see that? You hear it? The first time i heard it on the radio tears welled up in my eyes.

MickJay

2009-11-08, 01:45 PM

I personaly dont care much. As long as he/she has a cute face, i would be all on that. I mean, listen! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg7i1-zPX68&feature=related) I now understand why people want to boink rockstars. The power of music is a sexual force that transcends all bounds.

See, it's comments like that that give us bisexuals a bad rep. Not that I don't agree with you 100%, but at least I don't write about it in such a blatant manner. Wait... damn it! :smalltongue:

Anyway, no idea about the gender, my guess is that a guy with these hands (which, on their own, I'd say belong to a guy) would have slightly skinnier legs, but it's really hard to tell. Could be either.

Jacklu

2009-11-08, 01:48 PM

The question I would ask is if it even matters. I mean, unless you feel uncomfortable with the idea of accidentally ogling a guy, in which case don't ogling things you see on the internet, it shouldn't really matter guy or girl. In other news, there is no other news.

mercurymaline

2009-11-08, 01:49 PM

The question I would ask is why it has to be one or the other.

MickJay

2009-11-08, 07:30 PM

That's a good question, my answer would be that it doesn't have to be, but is quite likely, especially if you consider the relative popularity of crossdressing that is generally unrelated to difficulties with determining one's own sex/gender (or lack of these) among young Japanese males.

Stormthorn

2009-11-08, 08:39 PM

The question I would ask is why it has to be one or the other.
:smallconfused:
The odds of the person being a hermaphrodite are rather low.

I mean, unless you feel uncomfortable with the idea of accidentally ogling a guy, in which case don't ogling things you see on the internet, it shouldn't really matter guy or girl.
I think my above post makes it clear im not afraid of that. Im willing to ogle this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Sissy_maid.JPG

See, it's comments like that that give us bisexuals a bad rep.
No, its comments like this:
"On what principled grounds could the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers? How could they explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two people?"
Italics mine.

This of course isnt just insulting to bisexuals. But also to gay people, polygamists, and incestous couples. It was written, btw, by William J. Bennett. I am in no way advicing you to get his contact info and flame him.

Coidzor

2009-11-08, 10:19 PM

On this vein... Have I shared this with the thread yet or someone else have already?

Also, that guy is sort of odd looking in the face. Sort of... just weird for either a man or a woman to have that face.

God that face is weird.

So WEIRD.

What is it about that face that's so weird?

My friend says it's the look of trying too hard. That sounds about right to me, but I'm a bit of a lightweight.

Oh... yes, the link! Here you are! http://qntm.org/?gay

Stormthorn

2009-11-08, 11:48 PM

On this vein... Have I shared this with the thread yet or someone else have already?

Also, that guy is sort of odd looking in the face. Sort of... just weird for either a man or a woman to have that face.

God that face is weird.

So WEIRD.

I wasnt really looking at his face. You dont ogle faces.
But I would never boink someone without getting a good look at their face.
Preferably on a night when i havnt been testing new ideas for alchoholic drinks.

You know, in that guitar persons videos, you can see panties in one of them. Not that you see them long enough or in enough clarity to give you an idea of the shape under them.

Also, the marriage programing was funny at first but then he got carried away at about the point he started using phrases like Large Binary Object and i was lost in the codes.

Serpentine

2009-11-09, 12:05 AM

Ninja Chocobo

2009-11-09, 12:07 AM

I wasnt really looking at his face. You dont ogle faces.

Man yes you do.

golentan

2009-11-09, 12:10 AM

At the video store yesterday, I saw an unusual number of gay-oriented/specific/whatever movies in the "new releases" section (including one described as a "gay slasher flick"). This is kinda snazzy. Though I do think it's kinda odd that there's a "queer" section, with gay romances and horrors and comedies... But I guess some people do look for such things specifically (as opposed to a horror that just happens to have mostly gay characters)?

Just a tidbit I noticed...

Yep. The local bookstore has had a gay literature section for some time. Thankfully separate from the erotica section, but a surprising number of people ask at the help desk to try to find dirty stories in there. Really furtive about it too. I find it funny cuz I'm usually mistaken for an employee while I'm browsing and have to spend a lot of time stifling giggles as people make requests.

EmeraldPhoenix

2009-11-09, 12:19 AM

Jacklu

2009-11-09, 01:08 AM

Emerald Phoenix: Unfortunately, there really isn't a test for determining if a person is transsexual or not. If I might be so bold as to ask you old you are? From reading your post, I would say that it sounds to me like this is just a phase of curiosity for you. Based entirely on how you phrased it, it sounds like a matter of curiosity rather than an issue of being in the wrong body. Of course, I am not you, so I don't know how you are feeling, but just based on your post, I would say that it sounds unlikely that you are transsexual.

For me, being a transgendered individual is not a condition I have. I am just me. And me just happens to identify with all things that society says are feminine things. I guess the question to ask is; are you happy with who you are? Be yourself and labels like transsexual or transgendered won't matter in defining you. If you are unhappy or uncomfortable with the body you are in because of your sex, than it might be worth it to do some research, internets FTW, and think about talking to a professional to help get a better understanding of what is going on. Hope that helps. ^_^

Stormthorn

2009-11-09, 01:18 AM

Hmm...

I...kind of think maybe I should post here, soooo...

Okay, here goes.

I'm still at the stage where I'm trying to figure myself out. I like to think I'm a very open-minded person, I'm not against gay rights, or S, B, or T rights for that matter. I think everyone should get a choice to love who they want to love, regardless of gender, and I think everyone should be able to want to be whatever gender they want to be. I'm pretty cool with all that, so it's not as big a thing to me as I think it is to some people to consider this an option.

I think I might, (heavily stressing the might) be a transexual. (transgender, whatever the word is.)

I mean, I'm a girl. But I think about what it would be like to be a boy, like, maybe more than is normal.

I like boys in the normal, teenage, girl-meets-boy hetrosexual romance way, but...I also find that I kind of what to know what it feels like to be one.

It doesn't take up every thought, I don't really think about it too much, but...

Is there any way to tell whether this is just being me, or being transgender?

I dont think you could really be transexual without first having someone diagnose you with Gender Identity Disorder.
Which is pretty intense. Here is one criteria.
"Clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
One of the best (and hardest to watch) episodes of any Law and order series was an SVU episode entitled "Transitions" which touches on the themes of alienation from oneself and the outside world transexuals suffer, although it is primarily concerned with the 'outside world' bit as it is a crime show.

Transgender is a broader term that would include, for example, crossdressers.
Which i suggest you dabble in to see how you feel about it. Try to pass next time you go on vacation and ask yourself "How is this different than when i am viewed as a girl? Do i like this?"

But im a crazy slightly drunk person...so...you dont have to listen to me.

EmeraldPhoenix

2009-11-09, 01:32 AM

I dont think you could really be transexual without first having someone diagnose you with Gender Identity Disorder.
Which is pretty intense. Here is one criteria.
"Clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
One of the best (and hardest to watch) episodes of any Law and order series was an SVU episode entitled "Transitions" which touches on the themes of alienation from oneself and the outside world transexuals suffer, although it is primarily concerned with the 'outside world' bit as it is a crime show.

Transgender is a broader term that would include, for example, crossdressers.
Which i suggest you dabble in to see how you feel about it. Try to pass next time you go on vacation and ask yourself "How is this different than when i am viewed as a girl? Do i like this?"

But im a crazy slightly drunk person...so...you dont have to listen to me.

Hmm...I don't know exactly how I would cross-dress. I already pretty much only ever wear jeans and T-shirts, not exactly girl-centered clothing. I hate dresses and skirts.:smallyuk:

I haven't noticed all that much wrong with how I function...except maybe that I have a much harder time making friends? *shrugs* And...take depression medicine? And...can't sleep without pills? Um, wow, I didn't realize until this moment how much there really is wrong with my functioning.

Also, @ Jacklu...I kind of really don't like the fact that I have breasts. Does that mean anything?

Jacklu

2009-11-09, 02:07 AM

The trouble I have with basing such things off of the sterile clinical definition is that they tend to be just that, sterile. Additionally, saying that one must be diagnosed before they are truly transsexual seems like saying somebody needs to be diagnosed before they are actually depressed.

Anyways, Emerald, it took me a very long time to come to gripes with my identity as transgendered, and a very big part of it for me was figuring out if I was happy with the body I have as it is now. For me, I am okay with having a male body. But for a lot of trans folks, the body they have is wrong and they feel so absolutely uncomfortable in it that they wish to pursue lines of therapy and eventually surgical solutions to help with that. Again, I don't know what you are feeling, so I can only make suggestions based off of assumptions from what you have said. I would suggest doing some research for yourself on the subject and giving it some time to settle in your head before you try to define yourself with labels. For me, one of the biggest problems I had going through discovering myself was a complete lack of understanding in this area thanks to my upbringing. The fact of the matter is, only one person can tell you whether this is a phase of something more. And that would be you. Cliche, but true. Just keep in mind that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Take some time to learn about it better and then see where it goes from there.

The fact that you are unsure says something in and of itself. On one hand, people who are completely sure rarely have to figure this kind of stuff out for themselves, both for people who are born in the right body and for people who were born in the wrong one but always have had a strong intrinsic knowledge that they were their wrong gender for their sex. Muddy gray is a tough place to be, take my word for it. But it could also mean that it is just a phase or perhaps something not quite transsexual but still transgendered in nature. Once again, do some research, think about it. Don't sit down and decide that you are trans because of some feelings you are having then try to fit that picture because you have decided that you should.

Forgive me for rambling, but I am running off of a couple hours sleep right now and my brain is on emergency reserves.

Honestly, I am coming at this from the other direction as you are, being inclined towards the female as I am. Don't take this the wrong way, but I still have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to FTM of "Are you crazy??? Why would you not want to be a girl? Being a guy is a crap! T_T" Odd coming from somebody who is admittedly of the state of not really having the right body, but then, I am only human and my own feelings and opinions are the only ones I can draw direct experience from. This in reference to your white-ish text, by the way... Um... @_@

Anyways. Sorry if this has only served to confuse you further. Hopefully one of our lovely and wise transsexual board members can give you some advice/guidance when they get on. In the mean time, welcome to the LGBT thread, make yourself comfortable. Whatever you discover, we will be here to offer support and free hugs in plentiful supply. ^_^ *hugs* And now I am off to the land-of-the-sleeping-but-not-nearly-enough-sleeping-because-I-stayed-up-past-my-bedtime-and-must-be-up-far-too-early-tomorrow-morning. *another hug just to be sure*