LGBTitp - Part Six

[GallóglachMaxim]

(For the semantics lawyers among you, when I refer to the "gay" community I'm saving myself the trouble of typing out the full acronym, which is something beyond LGBTQQAIP[and others].)

Just curious (not being the most heavily-researched into the field) what do the rest of those stand for?

[Lix Lorn]

I think wikipedia has a full listing...

[Calamity]

Oh dear. I hope everything turns out okay. You want to talk about it?

Social networking sites blam, or at least after "Why won't you add us, we're not your mum" speech. It wouldn't be a problem, but I'm very much out to all of my friends. I've taken precautions but they may have been too late. I may just be being paranoid however, as she would've probably said something about it to me.

[Danne]

Just curious (not being the most heavily-researched into the field) what do the rest of those stand for?

Well, one of the "Q"s is "queer." The "A" is either "allies" or "asexual," would be my guess. I don't know what the others are, though.

Social networking sites blam, or at least after "Why won't you add us, we're not your mum" speech. It wouldn't be a problem, but I'm very much out to all of my friends. I've taken precautions but they may have been too late. I may just be being paranoid however, as she would've probably said something about it to me.

It's always hard to know what to show publically online. And frustrating that a friend could say something that could inadvertantly lead to others finding out. I don't know which site you're using, but LiveJournal (only blog/networking site I'm familiar with...) has various filters so that some friends can see an entry and others can't. You can also have comments to the entry be automatically screened (so only you and the poster can see them) in case someone were to say something that you wouldn't want family/other friends to see. Though clearly that would only help in the future, not correct anything that's already happened.

Hope everything works out okay!

[Dogmantra]

The other Q is questioning, I think.

[Lix Lorn]

You can thank me later.

[DabblerWizard]

The forum rules don't seem to place limitations on an academic minded discussion of sexuality, so the following discussion should be fine. Please let me know if this is not the case, however.

As far as the acronym goes: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Ally, Asexual, Intersexed, and Pansexual are the ones I've seen definitely on there. There are many others including pomosexual and such things, but as far as I can tell they're semantic nuances of bisexual and pansexual.

I'll break down sexual orientation into its various component parts, to help us start to understand these terms, and sexuality in general.

Before I do that, I'll talk about gender identity, which is a related, but separate point.

Gender identity: technically this aspect is a separate element to a person's psychology, beyond their sexuality per say. This term refers to a few things.
1. Your overall psychological interpretation of what it means to be male and female, including gendered behavior, feelings, and thoughts. (e.g. I can express my emotions and still be a man).
2. The match or mismatch between your biology, physiology, and number 1. above, or your psychological interpretation of what it means to be male / female. (e.g. I have xy sex chromosomes, and a fully functioning male sex organs, and also feel like a guy)

Why is gender identity technically not part of sexual orientation?

Being a pre-operative male to female transsexual, for instance, doesn't say anything about who you're attracted to, who you've slept with, and the like. You can have either same sexed, or opposite sexed attraction (or both).

Let's say a person is biologically female, and is attracted to other women, but at this point, doesn't identify as transsexual with any certainty. This would make them a lesbian female. Now, let's say this same biologically female person now clearly identifies as a man, who is still attracted to women. If you're going to respect both their gender and sexuality, you would have to think of them as a straight male.


Moving along, sexual orientation, is made up of at least the following things:

Sexual identity: This identity, optimally, is made up of your understanding of the rest of your orientation, and thus, is a summary of your behavior, attraction, thoughts, arousal, etc.

Let's say you're out to yourself, and you identify as bisexual. Let's then say you're not out to family, and around them, if they ask, you identify as straight. Your sexual identity, then, isn't always matched with the rest of your sexuality, especially around your family, in this example. Because it's "just" a term, it's the easiest part to "alter". (e.g. I'm gay... no wait I'm bi... no wait I'm straight, definitely straight... no wait, maybe I am gay)

Sexual Behavior: Who you have had consensual sexual / sensual interactions with, or who you would like to have consensual sexual interactions with (e.g. sexual fantasizing that may or may not involve masturbation)

Once again, sexual behavior is optimally aligned with the rest of your sexuality, but there's sometimes a mismatch. A girl that is exclusively attracted to the same sex, could technically choose to have sexual intercourse with a guy. Why she would want to is a topic for another discussion. (e.g. I'm a gay man who has done X sexual things with other men)

Concept of Sexuality: Your cognitive understanding of what it means to be gay, bi, straight, etc. These include the questions you may ask yourself while figuring out your sexuality.

For example: If as a guy, I think a girl is "nice" looking, but I never actually want to have sex with her, can that still mean I'm straight? If as a girl, I enjoy kissing both guys and girls, does that make me bisexual?

It's possible to "trick" yourself into thinking that you have to be straight, even when all the signs point elsewhere. So technically, this part of your sexuality can be manipulated with, though only to a certain degree.

Sexual Arousal: Your hormonal and physiological responses that can be triggered by attraction. If you don't know what puberty is, and otherwise aren't sure what I'm talking about, feel free to ignore this section.

This aspect of sexuality is hard to manipulate, since only drastic measures can significantly alter a person's arousal response.

Thus, it's also one of the more dependable aspects of orientation.

Sexual Attraction: This aspect of orientation is the least well understood, period. Researchers have been able to offer only flimsy explanations of what attraction even is, and how it works, even among heterosexuals.

What we can conclude tentatively: Attraction is a kind of "feel good" experience that a person gets rather automatically when seeing / hearing or even thinking about certain other people. It is biologically related to physiology, chemically related to hormones, and psychologically related to perception, and aesthetic "taste".

If anything, this aspect of sexuality is the most telling. If you allow yourself to be openly and honestly aware of your attraction to others, this should help you take a step forward in clearly understanding your sexuality.

[Yora]

The forum rules don't seem to place limitations on an academic minded discussion of sexuality, so the following discussion should be fine. Please let me know if this is not the case, however.

We're often suprised as well with how much they let us get through.

As long as you don't mention christianity, political oppinions currently popular in the US, or detailed descriptions of sexual activities, we're usually free to talk about whatever we want here.
As long as we keep within the rules which topics are taboo to conservative US-americans, we're not getting any trouble here.

My understanding of the scientific knowledge of human sexuality is "we don't really have any idea!".
"At some times some people want to have intimate physical contact or intimate social contact with some other people, and they enjoy certain things but prefer not to do other things during these times." And that's probably as good an explaination about the wide field of sexuality as you can get.

[Serpentine]

Why so specific? Any religion, any politics (though some discussion of legislation and rights topics seems to be alright, with care), any explicit sex = right out. I've probably missed something specific you were trying to get across, though.

[Yora]

I've never seen anyone object when there was talk about pagan mythology, buddhism, animism or chinese philosophy, but as soon as someone mentions Jesus the thread gets locked. Hopefully not this time.
Talking about Islam would probably also bad, but I've never seen anyone try doing that.

Yes, those are topics that can easily get up into flames, but this attitude that it is forbidden to mention them so nobody gets offended I've only ever seen with US citizens or autoritarian regimes.
Which personally offends my traditional values and cultural norms, but as this forum is hosted by americans this is a poison I have to take.

[Serpentine]

Discussion of Viking religion has been repeatedly mentioned as an example of something that shouldn't be discussed, and a discussion on the possibility of the scientific study of the soul (with no mention of Christianity) was just shut down. A lot of the time, it seems to be a general discussion of very distant myths can be okay, but any approach to something still believed in somewhere, by someone, is out. There's just not than many definitely not-believed-in myths of Christianity (I might be able to get away with a discussion about Leviathan or maybe the story about the cat and the mouse on Noah's Ark, but not in a religious context).
I'd have to have a look at a specific example (who's discussed animism? ) to see why that might've been gotten away with, but it's definitely not just Christianity; it's just that that's more likely to come up.

[DabblerWizard]

I hope that discussions concerning analysis of the rules isn't forbidden.

In any case, moving beyond my tedious examination of the various aspects of sexual orientation, which people haven't directly commented on () I figured I'd share my thoughts on the various sexual identity labels below. Maybe someone will share their opinions with me on this topic.

Note: During college I had a rare opportunity to befriend and otherwise acquaintance with numerous transsexuals, intersexuals, and even a few pansexuals. My opinions are based on interactions with them and their understanding of their sexuality / gender identity.

Pansexuality: Where a person is attracted to both men and women, but is not really concerned with the other person's physiology, because they are primarily attracted to aspects of the person other than their sex organs. Technically speaking, pansexuals are also attracted to transsexuals, whether pre or post operative.

Intersexuality: Where a person identifies as neither a man nor a woman, or some mixture of both a man and a woman. They base this identity on any of the following: genetics, physiology, biology, and conceptualization.

I knew an intersexual who was biologically male, with standard male genetics and physiology, who claimed that he/she felt happier and more complete as a person in between the gender binary, than as either definitely male or definitely female. This person eventually decided to undergo voluntary chemical castration.

Asexuality: A less standardized term, where a person (1) chooses to abstain from sexual activity essentially indefinitely (where "asexual" is the identity term for a person who practices perpetual celibacy); (2) when a person feels / believes that they have very low, or non existent attraction / arousal capabilities.

It's theoretically possible for people to have non functioning or "poorly functioning" sex hormones, leading them to a low sex drive.

I imagine some people decidedly abstain from sexual interaction, or other physical intimacy, not because they can't feel attraction or arousal, but because they may be afraid to become close with another person, in that most intimate way. This kind of inhibition can sometimes come about as a result of sexual abuse.

Ally: A benevolent term applied to heterosexual identifying people that support the GLBT[etc] community.

Questioning: A term used by people who are uncertain of their ultimate sexual orientation.

Queer: Once a generic pejorative term referring probably to the "strangeness" of same sexed attraction, this label is used by some glbt people to mean, essentially, "not straight".

Transsexual: Not referring to the behavior of cross dressing by itself or the "paraphilia" known as transvestic fetishism. This term also has a somewhat contested definition.

Semantic Version 1:

Transsexual can be used to refer to anyone "post operative", people who have literally changed their sex, using hormone replacement therapy and undergone cosmetic surgery as a final step in their process of transforming from their previous "given" gender, to their "true" gender.

Transgender then refers to anyone pre operative that dresses in the clothing of their "true" gender, changes their name to fit a more appropriate gender identity, or otherwise takes on behaviors to feel as the gender they truly are inside, without having gone through surgery.

Semantic Version 2:

Transsexual is a generic catch-all term referring to anyone at any stage of their transition, pre operative, post operative, just "cross" dressing, post changing their name, post coming out as trans, etc.

Transgender then doesn't necessarily have a significant place in the terminology.

Bisexual: A person that is attracted physically and emotionally to both sexes, whether both sexes equally, or one more than another.

Gay: Sometimes used as a term referring to the "queer" community overall, but otherwise used as a term referring to males attracted exclusively to other men.

Lesbian: Never used as a term referring to the "queer" community overall (maybe because I live in a patriarchal society). Always referring to women that are attracted exclusively to other women.


It's possible to re-define these terms with regards to sexual behavior, where a gay man becomes a male who has sex with other men, for instance. However, if you've read my previous post, it is my belief that the core essence of sexuality is made up of attraction and arousal. These two elements are significantly based on internal structures (hormones, cognition). Everything else, including identity and behavior, all seem to be ultimately based on attraction and arousal.


Finally, in terms of the number of GLBT people that exist in a given area, that answer is difficult to provide. Meta-analytic studies have shown that vastly different results can be obtained based on which aspect of sexuality is considered. Depending on identity tends to give the smallest numbers, while depending on attraction or behavior gives notably higher number.

People frequently throw around the stat 10%. They forget that Kinsey found lots of statistics that are never mentioned anymore, including one that suggested that upwards of 38% of men studied had achieved orgasm with another man. Kinsey also only considered sexual behavior, not attraction.

[Yora]

Note: During college I had a rare opportunity to befriend and otherwise acquaintance with numerous transsexuals, intersexuals, and even a few pansexuals.

You'll quite find a lot of all of these around here.

Pansexuality: Where a person is attracted to both men and women, but is not really concerned with the other person's physiology, because they are primarily attracted to aspects of the person other than their sex organs. Technically speaking, pansexuals are also attracted to transsexuals, whether pre or post operative.

I'd say not just technically. To me that's the point of having the category pansexual at all. Bisexuality is technically limited to men and women, while transsexuality includes all other types of gender as well.
And when we are talking about terms here, I've to object regarding the term pre-operative. It only works if the person in question actually plans to undergo surgery, which is not always the case. Refering to transgender people who did not have surgery as pre-opperative seems not justefied to me. And as a transgender person, that always makes me squirm a bit. It assumes that a person has to accord to either the male or female standard and its not optional.
Probably very few people who use the term actually mean to say that. But I think (as I'm doing communication in university ) that a word that refers to something is often percieved as accurately describing it. Which is why I think the term should only be used in regard to transsexuals who have conciously chosen to seek surgery at some point in the future, so people don't get the false impression that all do.

Intersexuality: Where a person identifies as neither a man nor a woman, or some mixture of both a man and a woman. They base this identity on any of the following: genetics, physiology, biology, and conceptualization.

I knew an intersexual who was biologically male, with standard male genetics and physiology, who claimed that he/she felt happier and more complete as a person in between the gender binary, than as either definitely male or definitely female. This person eventually decided to undergo voluntary chemical castration.

Intersexuality is a medical term which describes a person who has both male ans female physical characteristics. What you're describing would be intergender.

But I think of those there are at least two or there of us around here.
Personally I have the completely unfounded theory that most people thinking of themselves as such are biologically male, as women today are allowed to add as much masculinity to their appearance and behaviour as they want without anyone thinking they are freaks. Boy clothes, mens haircut, drinking beer with the guys watching football. Sure, that's okay. A woman can do that if she wants to.
But if made my hair into pigtails or wear a skirt...
But I think just 40, 30 or even 20 years ago, a female sexed intergender would have gotten the same reaction, so I'm confident it will follow for males as well.

Ally: A benevolent term applied to heterosexual identifying people that support the GLBT[etc] community.

I've never seen this term before, and I have to say I don't like it.
Sounds as if everyone who's not an ally is an enemy. (yeah, communications studies showing through again.) Which at least in this time is not the case. People who are not supportive should be seen as misguided or misinformed and be educated, not opposed. That's why I like the term "supporter" or something like that much more.

[Danne]

In any case, moving beyond my tedious examination of the various aspects of sexual orientation, which people haven't directly commented on () *snip*

Should've included a "tl;dr."

Though I found your posts to be interesting and informative.

Lesbian: Never used as a term referring to the "queer" community overall (maybe because I live in a patriarchal society). Always referring to women that are attracted exclusively to other women.

I actually have heard "queer" used to describe lesbians -- though never in a postive way.

Here's a question (for anyone): When did the terms "gay" and "lesbian" come to have distinct meanings? I mean, "lesbian" has pretty much always referred to girl love, but I know an older lesbian couple (late fifties or early sixties) who shrug and say, "Eh, we're gay. Why the need for two different words?" if someone refers to them as lesbians. That could just be their choice, but I always assumed "gay" was just slang for "homosexual" (i.e. both men who love men and women who love women) whereas lesbians got a term all to themselves. Though I never could figure out why that would be the case.

Edit:

I've never seen this term before, and I have to say I don't like it.
Sounds as if everyone who's not an ally is an enemy. (yeah, communications studies showing through again.) Which at least in this time is not the case. People who are not supportive should be seen as misguided or misinformed and be educated, not opposed. That's why I like the term "supporter" or something like that much more.

I, on the other hand, have always liked that term. I've generally seen it referring to straight people who are actively involved in the GLTB[etc.] rights movement, as opposed to those who are opposed or who are just indifferent (e.g. "I think gays should be able to marry and would support such a bill if it came to pass, but I don't care enough to get up and do anything about it"). I've always felt that people who care enough about GLTB[etc.] community to go out and do something should have a special term, and I like "ally" because it sounds like Star Wars makes me visualize someone who would go out of his or her way to lend me a hand.

[GallóglachMaxim]

I, on the other hand, have always liked that term. I've generally seen it referring to straight people who are actively involved in the GLTB[etc.] rights movement, as opposed to those who are opposed or who are just indifferent (e.g. "I think gays should be able to marry and would support such a bill if it came to pass, but I don't care enough to get up and do anything about it"). I've always felt that people who care enough about GLTB[etc.] community to go out and do something should have a special term, and I like "ally" because it sounds like Star Wars makes me visualize someone who would go out of his or her way to lend me a hand.

Seems more like you're suggesting A(ctivist) for that entry. Is it possible for someone to make a contribution on a personal level to individuals who fall somewhere else in the alphabet soup while being completely apolitical? For the most part this area of thinking isn't about politics or social concerns, it's about humans and what we do and feel personally, so getting up and doing things about it seems like a less important factor for inclusion.

You can thank me later.

Good morning, it is now later, so thank you for the link. -smile-

Speaking of, Wiki drops in 'Some may also add a P for polyamorous, and an O for other.' which I'm happy with because that's what I was looking for, particularly after Dabbler's excellent point about the facets of sexual orientation.

[Lix Lorn]

It's not morning til I've slept.
But you're welcome. XD

[Danne]

Seems more like you're suggesting A(ctivist) for that entry. Is it possible for someone to make a contribution on a personal level to individuals who fall somewhere else in the alphabet soup while being completely apolitical? For the most part this area of thinking isn't about politics or social concerns, it's about humans and what we do and feel personally, so getting up and doing things about it seems like a less important factor for inclusion.

By "going out and doing something about it," I didn't intend to imply necessarily political activism (though that would certainly count). I also meant people who would, for example, see someone bullying a trans kid in school and step in to stop it, or even someone who sees a gay friend going through relationship troubles and offers advice and a shoulder to lean and/or cry on. As opposed to the people who, while not being homophobic or against GLBT- rights, don't really get involved in any way, shape, or form. Because there's plenty of people who do that. ("Sure they should be able to marry, but it doesn't affect me, so what do I care?" "Well, s/he's being bullied for being trans, s/he is not one of my friends, so I'm just going to talk away." etc.) People who aren't opponents, but aren't necessarily supporters/allies/whatever, either.

Anyway, rereading what I wrote first, it does sound like I meant political activism, so poor word choice on my part. Sorry!

Edit:

It's not morning til I've slept.
But you're welcome. XD

Sounds like you should get some sleep! How long have you been up?

[Kneenibble]

I actually have heard "queer" used to describe lesbians -- though never in a postive way.

Here's a question (for anyone): When did the terms "gay" and "lesbian" come to have distinct meanings? I mean, "lesbian" has pretty much always referred to girl love, but I know an older lesbian couple (late fifties or early sixties) who shrug and say, "Eh, we're gay. Why the need for two different words?" if someone refers to them as lesbians. That could just be their choice, but I always assumed "gay" was just slang for "homosexual" (i.e. both men who love men and women who love women) whereas lesbians got a term all to themselves. Though I never could figure out why that would be the case.

I can only speak very generally, but I'm guessing it could be traced back to the beginnings of the reifying discourse of homosexuality in the early modern period -- when homosexuality came to be a thing rather than a sort of behaviour. As that discourse solidified, particularly in the Victorian age, it was male homosexuality that got attention: female homosexuality took a lot longer to come into discursive existence.

The word gay, starting in the early modern period, carried unspecific connotations of sexual licentiousness. In the late 19th century, since male homosexuality, albeit subversively, had a body of discourse around it as a thing, this word gay that already had an immoral flavour was able to take a more specific meaning, and it was only later when female homosexuality started to develop its place in that discourse that the word caught both.

Lesbian, on the other hand, was a word coined in medical discourse (though I know not when -- turn of the 20th centuryish) very particularly to refer to female homosexuality -- see Sappho of Lesbos -- and did not develop its homosexual context out of a broader subversive usage.

So you can see that the etymology supports the use you describe. Gay is a broad word that has long classified general subversive sexual difference: lesbian has only a very specific and artificial (and comparatively recent) coinage.

[Vaynor]

I can only speak very generally, but I'm guessing it could be traced back to the beginnings of the reifying discourse of homosexuality in the early modern period -- when homosexuality came to be a thing rather than a sort of behaviour. As that discourse solidified, particularly in the Victorian age, it was male homosexuality that got attention: female homosexuality took a lot longer to come into discursive existence.

I always found it funny that "gay" was an alternative term to homosexual (and other similar words) coined by the gay community as a way of bettering their image (gay meaning happy, and with no negative connotation at the time) but has since turned into a word with a negative connotation whereas homosexual is now preferred.

[Jacklu]

Jackie forgot to mention before. Yesterday at work another customer referred to me as "she." =3

[Kneenibble]

I always found it funny that "gay" was an alternative term to homosexual (and other similar words) coined by the gay community as a way of bettering their image (gay meaning happy, and with no negative connotation at the time) but has since turned into a word with a negative connotation whereas homosexual is now preferred.

Sorry, but that's not how it came about at all. Where are you getting that information? Did you read my post?

[Vaynor]

Sorry, but that's not how it came about at all. Where are you getting that information? Did you read my post?

If that's untrue then my history book lied to me. I blame the government.

[Kneenibble]

The first problem with that is that the word's negative -- or shall we say subversive and licentious, although not specifically homosexual -- connotations go back at least to the 17th century.

The second is that the word about the time it started to become official was a lot more loaded than 'happy'.

As for whether any kind of community consciously appropriated the word for themselves, I cannot answer.

It wouldn't be the first time a textbook has lied, but you might also be simplifying what you remember.

[Vaynor]

It wouldn't be the first time a textbook has lied, but you might also be simplifying what you remember.

This is probably the case, although I distinctly remember some sort of homosexual group (forget the exact name and situation) appropriating the term as an alternative, most of the other reasons are most likely wrong.

[Serpentine]

I'd say not just technically. To me that's the point of having the category pansexual at all. Bisexuality is technically limited to men and women, while transsexuality includes all other types of gender as well.

I still reckon that either "bisexual" should be taken less literally or "pansexual" should be considered a more accurate replacement for it.

Personally I have the completely unfounded theory that most people thinking of themselves as such are biologically male, as women today are allowed to add as much masculinity to their appearance and behaviour as they want without anyone thinking they are freaks. Boy clothes, mens haircut, drinking beer with the guys watching football. Sure, that's okay. A woman can do that if she wants to.
But if made my hair into pigtails or wear a skirt...

I have a theory on this. "Masculinity" and its associated concepts tend to be considered more positive/worthy/valuable/desirable/etc than "femininity". So women acting like men may be lifting themselves up beyond their sex, while men acting like women are degrading themselves.
Another theory of mine that either complements or contradicts this one (not sure which) is about the "third genders" some peoples have. These, to the best of my knowledge, are nearly always men acting like women. My theory here is that, for similar reasons to the first one but more focussed on official hierarchy, it is okay for a man to choose to lower his social position, but it is not okay for a woman to attempt to advance beyond her proper place.
I know these are very flawed, and I'm curious to know what anyone else thinks of 'em.

I've never seen this term before, and I have to say I don't like it.
Sounds as if everyone who's not an ally is an enemy. (yeah, communications studies showing through again.) Which at least in this time is not the case. People who are not supportive should be seen as misguided or misinformed and be educated, not opposed. That's why I like the term "supporter" or something like that much more.

Only if you have "if you're not with us you're against us" on your mind, but I guess I see what you mean. But I like what they're doing at my uni, so *shrug*.

[cycoris]

I have a theory on this. "Masculinity" and its associated concepts tend to be considered more positive/worthy/valuable/desirable/etc than "femininity". So women acting like men may be lifting themselves up beyond their sex, while men acting like women are degrading themselves.

I've always had a similar theory, which is one of the major reasons I'm glad to be a girl right now. I've always felt that we have more freedom to be feminine or masculine as we choose, though it's for entirely the wrong reasons.

[Serpentine]

That's also why it needs to be remembered that feminism is about equality, about men as well as women. It's not just women who've been screwed over by the status quo.

[Coidzor]

Still, mostly women, as is only proper, and feminism only does anything for males indirectly at best.

Re: The Pansexual Trans-Question. This is why the use of the term pansexual should be taken with a grain of salt.

[golentan]

That's also why it needs to be remembered that feminism is about equality, about men as well as women. It's not just women who've been screwed over by the status quo.

Speaking of which, I was actually told how respectful I was of womens rights when I beat up a girl.

Well, she hit me. And I hadn't deserved it. So I hit back, exactly the way I would have with a boy.

...

Yeah. Not a big fan of double standards.

[SMEE]

Hi, I'm a MTF transsexual who's having a bit of an issue dressing herself properly. Up to now I've been just buying things willy-nilly without regard to whether I'd ever be able to wear these things on a day to day basis as a woman. Though I think it has finally gotten to the point where I need some help, so I don't stick out any more than I already do. Is there a way to know what clothes are appropriate for when? I would appreciate the help!

Ok, we got mail.