LGBTAitP Part 23: Et tu, ~Bianca?

[KenderWizard]

I have a carpet rug...

Woah!

Acupuncture is on those rare cures that I wouldn't hesitate to call miraculous. It gives the patient non-localized, vague benefits whether its practitioner follows the tried and true path of Chinese tradition, sticks the needles in randomly, or doesn't stick the needles in at all! What could that possibly be call but miraculous?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...n_true_acu.php

That guy I mentioned has told me to get acupuncture. I reeeeeally don't feel like dropping a hundred quid on someone sticking some needles in me. Apparently I should just ask my friend to do it! Then I could spend that money on bagels!

If you want to get your point across you can't always be nice.

If there's no concrete effects then no, this doesn't help. How many people think this? Is there a more effective way to do the same thing? Has it been studied?

The Day of Silence has been going on for 16 years. Has there been any attempts to seriously evaluate this?

Edit: It just seems to me the great civil rights leaders won their victories by speaking up, not shutting up.

There's a difference between there being "no concrete data on benefits" and "no benefits at all", since there may or may not be real studies (sloppy googling isn't working, I have a headache) and it's pretty hard to tease people's feelings out in surveys. For all we know, it does help. It helps people who do it and it raises awareness. No, that's not all we can do, but it's not all we do do. No, it's not the most helpfulest thing in the world, but sometimes, a little is all we have to give, and there's no reason not to, even if it only makes a little difference, only to you and your friends and your school. That's okay. It calls attention, like speaking does, and it's something that stands out a bit, more than a poster at a school, I'd say. We should not do things that are harmful. I doubt this harms anything, so why not?

Outside the gender binary's OK. But I feel that saying "Oh, I like trans people too" is kind of pointing out the "difference" they have to cis people. Like saying that if you don't specifically identify as pansexual, then it's like you're saying "Oh, I like men and women... but not *those* trans people". When in reality it shouldn't really matter. Trans women are women and trans men are men. If you like men, you don't have to specify "Oh, I like trans men too". Trans men are men. Maybe a specific person will like trans men, maybe they won't. It's kind of like people saying they like or dislike certain features. That doesn't make them featuresexual. The difference between a cis man and a trans man should be nothing different than the difference between a man with brown eyes and a man with green eyes. May be more or less desirable for some, but is still just a man.

... That made more sense in my head. I haven't felt well at all, I hope that was at elast somewhat understandable.

I agree with this. I have absolutely no problem with someone calling themselves "pansexual". I use "bisexual" because I identify with it; I heard it first, it's easy to use because the people around me understand it, it works for what I want the word to do, which is to name my identity so I can express it to others. If you want your word to name your identity in a way that avoids any suggestion of a gender binary, that's fine too, and I definitely understand it.

The only problem I have is when people say "pansexual means not 'seeing' gender" / "I'm attracted to people, not genders" / "because I'm attracted to all people, not just cis people" / "because I'm attracted to trans people". All of which are frankly pretty rude to people who use the word "bisexual" (as discussed before, words don't always mean exactly what they would mean if English was Lego and all the bits were always all the same) and also don't make a huge amount of sense. I don't think anyone is attracted to genders. Straight women are not attracted to ALL men. And the last one is a bit weird, because it implies that trans people aren't in the "bi" but are in the "pan", which I don't like the implications of. Again, "bisexual" doesn't mean "only attracted to those who conform to the gender binary" and also, trans men are still men, etc.

Not that it keeps me up at night, just my thoughts are ... long. Speaking of up all night, I'm going to bed!