LGBTitp - Part Six

[Coidzor]

Dude, you're talking about someone I know and like. I don't know the public details, much less the very private ones, but I have no reason to think he would have been somehow forced to repress it, nor that he was "extremely stupid or at least completely ignorant of (himself)", nor that his marriage was even unhappy or unfulfilling until other problems arose enough to make him think that this might have been one of them.
Please stop dissing friends of my family.

I don't care about him at all, whether he is good, bad, gay, straight, trans, purple, dead, or weasel. I mispoke when I used the word stupid, yes, and I apologize for that bit of insensitivity and rudeness to the thread at large and to you in particular.

However, I still have had no other way of thinking about it presented to me other than to conclude some kind of personal deficiency on the part of such individuals in regards to their self-knowledge. Which, well, when you're not realizing you're gay until you're in your late 30s+, does seem to be the case on the surface.

As it is quite a different thing to have the realization in college, due to the way humans develop, than in late adulthood, after one has had the brain settle out and finalize its development. In addition to all those other bits not directly relating to bio-chemistry but more about finding one's self as a person and knowing it.

What I was asking for was some correction or other thoughts on the subject, not to demonize or denigrate any specific individuals.

To be honest, I had sort of moved beyond his singular case, his merely being the catalyst for thinking about it. So, chill and don't take things so personally.

It is not a personal attack on you, your neighborhood, your people, your continent, or your nation if one speculates that repression had something to do with a man not realizing he was gay until the dissolution of a heterosexual marriage.

For one thing, repression can happen without any actual homophobic behavior taking place, and unconsciously, even.

And you're going to have to stretch in order to say how my saying that the idea that it had simply never occurred to him before sounds like unconscious repression is in any way a personal attack. Which is the most, looking back on the thread, I dealt with him personally.

[Serpentine]

You started out by saying that he, or at least that situation, is pathetic, and then followed it up with "stupid" (which you have withdrawn, thank you), and complete self-ignorance.
It is unfortunate for him, yes (though I can't say universally so: Dominic was a gorgeous kid). And yes, in that he wasn't aware of that particular facet of himself is a "deficiency" in their self-knowledge. But that hardly accounts to total self-ignorance, much less the rest.
More to the point, doesn't repression require original knowledge or awareness? As far as I know, it just didn't occur to him until then. He didn't repress it, because he never considered it. I may very well be wrong, but you don't know any more than I do.

In any case, your original premise was that a homosexual being in a heterosexual marriage is "morally questionable". I brought up this case to highlight that 1. not all (or even most) gay-heterosexual marriages are made with the knowledge of either of its members, 2. gay-heterosexual marriages are not automatically "tragic" or "pathetic" or anything less that unfortunate on a personal level or non-ideal, and 3. basically, such unions be totally morally sound with happiness and general positivity, if only for a time.

[Coidzor]

You started out by saying that he, or at least that situation, is pathetic,

Now, you're just grossly misunderstanding me. And either deliberating misapplying what I said to the situation or emotionally distressed to the point you read it wrong. Or I wrote it in such a way that I did not convey what I intended to. If that last case, I apologize.

I said that I was wondering whether we, as an audience, as those who are broadly-to-vaguely in support of LGBT are generally supposed to have as our response to the pathos of such occurrences. To clarify the use of pathetic, it was to be more about what such occurrences say about the state of society and culture rather than what such occurrences say about the meatbags involved.

So. Should we be more disgusted that such things occur in our society and culture with the assumption that our society and culture can have an impact on such occurrences, either in their frequency or secondary effects, more likely frequency or should we be more sad that such things happen or more of a balanced mix.

More to the point, doesn't repression require original knowledge or awareness? As far as I know, it just didn't occur to him until then. He didn't repress it, because he never considered it. I may very well be wrong, but you don't know any more than I do.

I don't know. And apparently you don't know either. So I'm guessing we'll either need to look it up as it applies to LGBT or ask the thread for a consensus on what constitutes repression and what we'll actually use the label for.

The fact that I don't know is why I mentioned that it merely sounded like unconscious repression rather than using stronger language. And is why the question of whether we should find such occurrences in general pathetic or not relies on some kind of repression or oppression mechanic for the disgust at society part to work. I feel that it is a safe assumption in such later life cases that some level of repression was going on, without data that contradicts it. Nor does "he never considered it," necessarily rule out unconscious repression as I was using it.

Now, if I was using repression erroneously, and it can not be unconscious as I had thought it could be, I apologize for improper language. We'll just have to see how many apologies I owe you, now won't we?

In any case, your original premise was that a homosexual being in a heterosexual marriage is "morally questionable". I brought up this case to highlight that 1. not all (or even most) gay-heterosexual marriages are made with the knowledge of either of its members, 2. gay-heterosexual marriages are not automatically "tragic" or "pathetic" or anything less that unfortunate on a personal level or non-ideal, and 3. basically, such unions be totally morally sound with happiness and general positivity, if only for a time.

Hm. I think I had forgotten the case of those who legitimately didn't know as opposed to those who were in denial. Or else didn't mean for the subject to include them. I should review what I said, I suppose. I can't remember well enough to speak to it fully at this moment. I do remember I chose morally questionable because I couldn't find a really good fit for what I was trying to convey. There was an element of cosmic wrongness, yes, but something else that my brain is still trying to pin down.

[Serpentine]

For clarity, the "I don't know, and neither do you" was referring to whether homosexuality had ever occurred to him before then, not the definition of repression. Though that works too.

[Asta Kask]

Here's research done to reveal implicit preferences and biases. The demonstration examples include a "Sexuality IAT (Implicit Attitude Test)" that reveals any biases for/against hetero vs. gay people*.

Interesting, no?

*I assume they mean queer, but it says gay

[Worira]

Nope, just hetero- and homo- sexual. The nature of the test would make it rather hard to include distinctions between, say, trans- and cis-gendered individuals.

[Water-Smurf]

According to that study, I have 'a slight automatic preference for Giving compared to Receiving.' I didn't see anything about preferences for minorities or something, though. It only talked about needy children and whether or not I was cynical about the actual problem or the charities or if I preferred to give or receive, then it made me do this weird matching game.

[Jacklu]

"The role of gender in society is the most complicated thing I’ve ever spent a lot of time learning about, and I’ve spent a lot of time learning about quantum mechanics."

-Randall Munroe (XKCD)

Read this in his blog and thought I would share.

[Ostien]

"The role of gender in society is the most complicated thing I’ve ever spent a lot of time learning about, and I’ve spent a lot of time learning about quantum mechanics."

-Randall Munroe (XKCD)

Read this in his blog and thought I would share.

My love for Randall has grown this much!

[Lix Lorn]

My love of Randall exceeds my fear of raptors! AND exceeds my love of Nathan Fillion on top! AND my love of River-Okay, now I'm going too far.

[Coidzor]

Giving a link would've been nice too, Jacklu.

Though I have to say, I find the idea of someone who thinks SRS can change your chromosomes disturbing.

[Lix Lorn]

If only it could...

I could forgive Randall anything short of murder.
...
Anything short of unreasoned murder.
...
Anything short of unreasoned murder of someone I like. A lot.

[golentan]

Giving a link would've been nice too, Jacklu.

Though I have to say, I find the idea of someone who thinks SRS can change your chromosomes disturbing.

SRS can't, but chromosomal swapping should be coming along fairly soon (on the order of 75 years). The main problems are first settling on a replacement or donor chromosome and a delivery mechanism, and second removing the offending chromosome without damaging the rest of the genome. That latter one is by far the more difficult. Mimiviruses would be capable enough of holding and delivering a sex chromosome with a little tinkering, if I recall aright.

Of course, actual chromosomal swapping isn't necessary to get an altered set of genetic instructions. Perhaps a simple gene therapy: Block off the relevant genes on a Y chromosome for mtf. A viral injection could add them for ftm. There's not all that much that determines sexual characteristics, so it could be done.

Followup is trickier, naturally. Once the body has reached equilibrium and stopped using growth triggers, gross characteristics tend not to repair. Probably SRS would still be the only available means of getting the physical genitalia desired in mature adults. Alternatively, I suppose there is always the starfish gene if someone is willing to go through with it. Excise everything potentially offensive, trigger the gene, and wait a couple months for everything to grow in in the form dictated by the (new) genetic structure of the patient. But that seems excessive. Still, SRS seemed excessive to me the first time I heard about it, and amputations have a long history in medical science.

...

Why no, I am not planning on kidnapping people, stealing millions of dollars of lab equipment, and performing illegal and morally questionable experiments to create an army of transgendered regenerating supersoldiers and conquer tahiti. Why do you ask?

[arguskos]

Why no, I am not planning on kidnapping people, stealing millions of dollars of lab equipment, and performing illegal and morally questionable experiments to create an army of transgendered regenerating supersoldiers and conquer tahiti. Why do you ask?

Why would you want it? Just cause it's pretty?

[golentan]

Why would you want it? Just cause it's pretty?

I told you I don't want it. I am most definitely not planning to conquer it. Nor have I tentatively scheduled a potential invasion force to land at 0500 on the morning of August 29th, 2013. Nor do I have any desire to lounge about in a fortress of evil on my own private tropical island, petting a cat and laughing maniacally. I am most emphatically not a villain, and will never, ever attempt to stab you in an attempt to cover up a hypothetical evil conspiracy which would be even now preparing to emerge from it's nascent stage if it existed.

I thought I was pretty explicit about that in my last post, I'm not sure how you managed to misinterpret me as meaning the opposite of what I wrote.

[arguskos]

I thought I was pretty explicit about that in my last post, I'm not sure how you managed to misinterpret me as meaning the opposite of what I wrote.

You are the second worst evil villain I've ever spoken to. The first would be cycoris, for utterly failing at the whole "be a villain" bit of "evil villain".

Really though, why TAHITI? I mean, if a long long career of gaming has taught me anything, it's that Tahiti is a hellhole that exists to destroy rally cars and look pretty and not much else.

[cycoris]

You are the second worst evil villain I've ever spoken to. The first would be cycoris, for utterly failing at the whole "be a villain" bit of "evil villain".

Really though, why TAHITI? I mean, if a long long career of gaming has taught me anything, it's that Tahiti is a hellhole that exists to destroy rally cars and look pretty and not much else.

Hey, don'tcha be dissin' my evil skills! I can be evil!

Quick, look at the fluffy kitties!

*pickpockets, scarpers off*

See? Evil!

[Serpentine]

I think you just sold Arguskos kittens...

[golentan]

You are the second worst evil villain I've ever spoken to. The first would be cycoris, for utterly failing at the whole "be a villain" bit of "evil villain".

Really though, why TAHITI? I mean, if a long long career of gaming has taught me anything, it's that Tahiti is a hellhole that exists to destroy rally cars and look pretty and not much else.

Tahiti isn't that bad, though in truth it's far too warm for my tastes. The falklands would be more my preferred climate, if I were to be honest for once in my life.

And I think you'd be surprised at how successfully villainous I can be given a proper motivation, Adam. They only recruit torturers from the friendly ones, you know. Sadists are worse at hurting people than empaths, it turns out.

[Tyrandar]

Tahiti's very fun to say...

Tahiti...

[Coidzor]

SRS can't, but chromosomal swapping should be coming along fairly soon (on the order of 75 years).

Yeah, I'm happy for your delusions that you're not a human being and I'm-a let you finish, but 75 years is not soon, nor fairly so.

...Wait... The Falklands? Aren't those a string of worthless rocks with almost no vegetation on them? Hence why the fact that two countries went to war over them was so ridiculous?

*to the wiki*

Huh. Actually inhabitable too.

[cycoris]

Okay, okay, so I have a confession.

>.>
<.<
>.>

I'm actually a dragon trapped in a human body.

Which I guess explains why I have to try and acquire every bit of gold I see. And maybe also why I like to nibble on it sometimes. And sleep on it in a big pile. And sometimes spit fire when I'm PMSing.

[Coidzor]

Okay, okay, so I have a confession.
[...]
I'm actually a dragon trapped in a human body.

You just couldn't resist the lure of FYIAD, eh?

[Lioness]

And sometimes spit fire when I'm PMSing.

*speechless*

Can I borrow your powers? That would be awesome

[Murdim]

"The role of gender in society is the most complicated thing I’ve ever spent a lot of time learning about, and I’ve spent a lot of time learning about quantum mechanics."

Every social norm is ridiculously complicated for the simple reason that they're completely incoherent. Gender just happens to be the most "essential" of those norms.

...Wait... The Falklands? Aren't those a string of worthless rocks with almost no vegetation on them? Hence why the fact that two countries went to war over them was so ridiculous?

The Falklands have penguins. Penguins. End of discussion.

I'm actually a dragon trapped in a human body.

If Closak comes to read this...

[Anuan]

This begs the question of whether LGBT covers furries/scalies...

[Serpentine]

I think at some point we decided it did...?

[Murdim]

This begs the question of whether LGBT covers furries/scalies...

The usual rule is, it covers about everyone who personally wants to be covered by it. Some furry, asexual, intersexed, bicurious, crossdressing, transvestite, etc... people identify as LGBT or queer, some don't.

[Dogmantra]

This begs the question of whether LGBT covers furries/scalies...

I think it depends whether or not it's a sexual thing. There are plenty of furries who don't like the sexual aspect.

[Coidzor]

I think it depends whether or not it's a sexual thing. There are plenty of furries who don't like the sexual aspect.

Yes, but then it wouldn't really be brought up in the context of the LGBT thread. Or at least it really shouldn't be. Sort of... offtopic then, considering it'd just be about, what, art?