LGBTAitP 26: No Time For Snappy Titles

[Castaras]

I just don't like the words "Partner", "Significant Other" and "SO" in general. They feel too formal and stilted. Don't understand why people don't just say "Girlfriend" or "Fiancee" or "Wife" (and of course the opposite gender's equivalents). It's a shame there's no gender neutral words that aren't as stilted and formal in the english language. :/

[The Succubus]

So question! A friend of mine posted on her facebook linking to a quote from a website saying something along the lines of "it bothers me when straight people refer to their significant other as their 'partner'". (She's lesbian.) Is that a thing?

Why shouldn't we? It's a perfectly acceptable gender-neutral term. For those richer in years, being referred to as a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" leaves a somewhat nasty taste in the mouth as suggests a level of immaturity stemming from the "boy" or "girl" part. It wouldn't really matter a jot to me if someone referred to their lover as a "boyfriend/girlfriend", "partner", "significant other" or if they want to be crude "a casual fluff". With the fluff part exchanged for a similar word.

The only time I can see it as an issue is if someone isn't out about their sexuality and they use the term "partner" to avoid disclosing the gender of their beau.

But again, it's a perfectly acceptable term, what's the beef?


@^: Something curious just happened. I was about to reply to Kender's comment when I got about 5 minutes of the "Server Busy" error. I reconnect and find several comments posted by you. Maybe we've found the cause of the server problems....*glares suspiciously*

[Mono Vertigo]

First time I'm hearing someone complaining about the use of "partner".
I'm using "boyfriend" here because it's the most accurate and descriptive word, but it is a word that I find doesn't convey the actual intensity of the relation, especially when translated in French ("petit ami"/"petit copain"). And, of course, we're not married nor fiancees and have no intention to change that, though the relationship itself is very serious. So, when context allows me, I say "companion".
But that's just, like, my opinion, man.


EDIT: oh hey, will you look at that, a Succubus has semi-ninja'd me again!

[noparlpf]

Maybe not, but stress is a huge factor in our entire well being. And it may be a requirement for you, but you should still take it seriously.

And who knows? Maybe it will help you in ways you don't expect.

Either way, best wishes!

Thanks. I've also been reading up on anxiety and treatments lately, initially to help out my ex and then recently for myself too. At the moment my depression is not really a significant issue, so I'll let that go for a while.

She was going by the Kantian definition - an action undertaken for selfish reasons, even if it also benefits other people, is morally worthless. Only if the action is undertaken without any thought of gaining anything is it morally worth anything.

Rand's definition was basically this - you sum up the positive and the negative and if the sum total is positive, it's a selfish act. If the sum total is negative, it's an altruistic act. It's an extreme position but it's not illogical.

Oh, okay. Personally I do things for people even when I don't expect benefits, just because it's a nice thing to do. Like that time I dug out a girl's car for her after a snowstorm, and then she and her friend found me later and gave me cupcakes. I totally didn't expect, let alone, want, any kind of reward. Does that still count as a selfish act because I ended up with cupcakes?

What's a medical single?

A single room (no roommate) in a dorm due to medical (either physical, in which case there are usually other accommodations too, of psychological) issues.

I'm looking forward to getting back to therapy. It's so nice, after you get past the awkwardness, to have someone who doesn't have anything else to do right now but listen to you. I have people to talk to, and I do talk to my mother, my partner, my close female friend, but you know, sometimes you don't want to bother them, or you want to talk about one or more of them. I'm very pro-therapy, I think it's healthy to have a space to talk about stuff, and just talking through problems can really help.

I think it'll be easier for me now I'm eighteen. I know that confidentiality is a big thing and all but I've always been paranoid they'd be talking to my mother behind my back or something.
Personally I like the idea of it, but it's never really felt like it was working quite right for me. And I like to talk to friends about stuff, but then I'll feel like I'm bothering them too much with my issues if I talk to them about it too often. And I don't like talking to my mum about stuff.

So question! A friend of mine posted on her facebook linking to a quote from a website saying something along the lines of "it bothers me when straight people refer to their significant other as their 'partner'". (She's lesbian.) Is that a thing?

I can see some gay and lesbian people finding it weird. Like, hey, you can get married and we can't, "partner" is what we call our people when we're unmarried but more committed than boyfriends/girlfriends.
Personally I don't care what people call their people as long as it's not vulgar.

[Asta Kask]

Oh, okay. Personally I do things for people even when I don't expect benefits, just because it's a nice thing to do. Like that time I dug out a girl's car for her after a snowstorm, and then she and her friend found me later and gave me cupcakes. I totally didn't expect, let alone, want, any kind of reward. Does that still count as a selfish act because I ended up with cupcakes?

Nope. But Kant goes even deeper than thatg - he's an example of a philosopher who takes an idea and presses it to the extremes (Locke would be an example of the opposite). He takes the maxim "use no person as means to an end, but as an end in hirself." Then he says that no person includes yourself, so using yourself (or someone else) in the hope of achieving something is not a moral act. It's not necessarily an immoral act, of course. Instead, all of our actions should be undertaken from a reverence for the moral law. And he claims that this law can be derived by reason.

[Mina Kobold]

I'm not an objectivist, but the main idea is that if everyone is just looking out for themselves, altruism becomes obsolete. The funny thing about Rand's books is that they've become intrinsically inflammatory. Not that that quote was anodyne, but I think you can say just about anything "... - Ayn Rand" and it will upset people. I respect that.

I always wondered about Rand's objectivism. Does it include a factor to explain how we gain access to technology, medicine and food that we are not specialised to make ourselves? Seems like we would lose a lot by only using what we can do ourselves, but I might misunderstand. ^_^'

She was going by the Kantian definition - an action undertaken for selfish reasons, even if it also benefits other people, is morally worthless. Only if the action is undertaken without any thought of gaining anything is it morally worth anything.

Rand's definition was basically this - you sum up the positive and the negative and if the sum total is positive, it's a selfish act. If the sum total is negative, it's an altruistic act. It's an extreme position but it's not illogical.

Does that include the feelings we get from doing it? Altruism usually make me happy and not doing so can make me feel guilty, which would make most acts I do selfish by that logic. >_>

I do not quite agree with Kantian morality, though. I think many things can be good without being the most altruistic or the least selfish possible, though I am not sure if that is what moral worth refers to. ^_^'

I am also scared that someone might harm themselves if they do not consider their own benefits. Or they could end up giving so much that they are prevented from gaining a position that can do more good. But that might just be me misunderstanding it. Sorries.

[KenderWizard]

I just don't like the words "Partner", "Significant Other" and "SO" in general. They feel too formal and stilted. Don't understand why people just say "Girlfriend" or "Fiancee" or "Wife" (and of course the opposite gender's equivalents). It's a shame there's no gender neutral words that aren't as stilted and formal in the english language. :/

Yeah, "partner" is best fit for me, being less of a mouthful than "significant other" and less juvenile than "boy/girlfriend", which goes right down to like age 8 and up to nebulousness. And it's gender-neutral which is a bonus for me because I prefer gender-neutral terms generally. But it's not ideal and some people assume I mean "girlfriend" and some people "fiance" and some people go "Partner?! What is he, your colleague? Jaysus, don't be so formal!"

Why shouldn't we? It's a perfectly acceptable gender-neutral term. For those richer in years, being referred to as a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" leaves a somewhat nasty taste in the mouth as suggests a level of immaturity stemming from the "boy" or "girl" part. It wouldn't really matter a jot to me if someone referred to their lover as a "boyfriend/girlfriend", "partner", "significant other" or if they want to be crude "a casual fluff". With the fluff part exchanged for a similar word.

The only time I can see it as an issue is if someone isn't out about their sexuality and they use the term "partner" to avoid disclosing the gender of their beau.

But again, it's a perfectly acceptable term, what's the beef?

I'm in agreement with all this. And I love "casual fluff". Not as a stand in, actually that phrase, I think it's brilliant and if I end up out of this relationship and in a casual one, I'm totally referring to the other party as my "casual fluff".

First time I'm hearing someone complaining about the use of "partner".
I'm using "boyfriend" here because it's the most accurate and descriptive word, but it is a word that I find doesn't convey the actual intensity of the relation, especially when translated in French ("petit ami"/"petit copain"). And, of course, we're not married nor fiancees and have no intention to change that, though the relationship itself is very serious. So, when context allows me, I say "companion".

Yeah, there's nothing that means "long-term serious relationship person". Also, I've always found "petit ami" to be hilarious.

Oh, okay. Personally I do things for people even when I don't expect benefits, just because it's a nice thing to do. Like that time I dug out a girl's car for her after a snowstorm, and then she and her friend found me later and gave me cupcakes. I totally didn't expect, let alone, want, any kind of reward. Does that still count as a selfish act because I ended up with cupcakes?

Nope! Sometimes cupcakes happen and that's awesome!

A single room (no roommate) in a dorm due to medical (either physical, in which case there are usually other accommodations too, of psychological) issues.

Thank you for clarifying!

I think it'll be easier for me now I'm eighteen. I know that confidentiality is a big thing and all but I've always been paranoid they'd be talking to my mother behind my back or something.
Personally I like the idea of it, but it's never really felt like it was working quite right for me. And I like to talk to friends about stuff, but then I'll feel like I'm bothering them too much with my issues if I talk to them about it too often. And I don't like talking to my mum about stuff.

I get you. I hope you're more relaxed about it now you're feeling more secure about the confidentiality.

I can see some gay and lesbian people finding it weird. Like, hey, you can get married and we can't, "partner" is what we call our people when we're unmarried but more committed than boyfriends/girlfriends.
Personally I don't care what people call their people as long as it's not vulgar.

Yeah, I suppose it is that, but that also works for hetro relationships that are unmarried but committed. I suppose the solution - once again! - is marriage equality!

[golentan]

Personally, I like the word "partner" for any committed relationship. It implies trust and equality and teamwork, arguably in a way that spouse does not always do.

[Asta Kask]

I always wondered about Rand's objectivism. Does it include a factor to explain how we gain access to technology, medicine and food that we are not specialised to make ourselves? Seems like we would lose a lot by only using what we can do ourselves, but I might misunderstand. ^_^'

You can always trade your services with others. As long as you profit (and it is possible for all parts to profit) it's a perfectly moral action.

Does that include the feelings we get from doing it? Altruism usually make me happy and not doing so can make me feel guilty, which would make most acts I do selfish by that logic. >_>

Not selfish as such, but morally worthless. They're not bad - but not are they good. Many actions we undertake have very little or no moral significance.

I do not quite agree with Kantian morality, though. I think many things can be good without being the most altruistic or the least selfish possible, though I am not sure if that is what moral worth refers to. ^_^'

I am also scared that someone might harm themselves if they do not consider their own benefits. Or they could end up giving so much that they are prevented from gaining a position that can do more good. But that might just be me misunderstanding it. Sorries.

This takes us into Kantian metaphysics, but let me just say that he considers any outcome of actions unimportant. The only thing that's important is if they are undertaken with the correct will, the correct attitude.

[Arachu]

She was going by the Kantian definition - an action undertaken for selfish reasons, even if it also benefits other people, is morally worthless. Only if the action is undertaken without any thought of gaining anything is it morally worth anything.

Rand's definition was basically this - you sum up the positive and the negative and if the sum total is positive, it's a selfish act. If the sum total is negative, it's an altruistic act. It's an extreme position but it's not illogical.

Fair enough. I still disagree with the entire premise, though.

Why shouldn't we? It's a perfectly acceptable gender-neutral term. For those richer in years, being referred to as a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" leaves a somewhat nasty taste in the mouth as suggests a level of immaturity stemming from the "boy" or "girl" part. It wouldn't really matter a jot to me if someone referred to their lover as a "boyfriend/girlfriend", "partner", "significant other" or if they want to be crude "a casual fluff". With the fluff part exchanged for a similar word.

The only time I can see it as an issue is if someone isn't out about their sexuality and they use the term "partner" to avoid disclosing the gender of their beau.

But again, it's a perfectly acceptable term, what's the beef?

I agree that the term should be usable by anyone, but... Well, I don't think that words should be seen as offensive or not based purely on whether most people accept them... >.>

I always wondered about Rand's objectivism. Does it include a factor to explain how we gain access to technology, medicine and food that we are not specialised to make ourselves? Seems like we would lose a lot by only using what we can do ourselves, but I might misunderstand. ^_^'



Does that include the feelings we get from doing it? Altruism usually make me happy and not doing so can make me feel guilty, which would make most acts I do selfish by that logic. >_>

I do not quite agree with Kantian morality, though. I think many things can be good without being the most altruistic or the least selfish possible, though I am not sure if that is what moral worth refers to. ^_^'

I am also scared that someone might harm themselves if they do not consider their own benefits. Or they could end up giving so much that they are prevented from gaining a position that can do more good. But that might just be me misunderstanding it. Sorries.

*Hugs*. Just, *hugs*.


~Bianca

[Coidzor]

I just don't like the words "Partner", "Significant Other" and "SO" in general. They feel too formal and stilted. Don't understand why people just say "Girlfriend" or "Fiancee" or "Wife" (and of course the opposite gender's equivalents). It's a shame there's no gender neutral words that aren't as stilted and formal in the english language. :/

What is there not to understand about people saying fiance?

[Castaras]

What is there not to understand about people saying fiance?

don't just*

Derpderp.

[Coidzor]

don't just*

Derpderp.

I mean, it's not even gendered the way it's usually written and said.

Rand's definition was basically this - you sum up the positive and the negative and if the sum total is positive, it's a selfish act. If the sum total is negative, it's an altruistic act. It's an extreme position but it's not illogical.

Because you can totally sum up everything exactly when you get into metaphysical concerns and fluffy-wuffy feels.

Also, I think you're misrepresenting it a teensy bit, since going just by what you say, the only altruistic act would be one that only causes harm. Unless that's what was said and you still want to say that this is a logical premise.

[Mina Kobold]

You can always trade your services with others. As long as you profit (and it is possible for all parts to profit) it's a perfectly moral action.

Ah, makes sense then. ^_^

It seems a bit short-sighted in that it only deals with the actions' direct benefit, but understandable. I could be wrong about it, though.

Not selfish as such, but morally worthless. They're not bad - but not are they good. Many actions we undertake have very little or no moral significance.

Sorry, I meant almost all when I said "most". Even following Kant's suggestion and finding the rules through reason would cause me the positive feeling of learning and figuring things out. Essentially, I cannot do anything without a basic wish to gain a positive feeling or escape a negative one. It is the basis of our neural programming.

I was just wondering how deeply "without any thought of gaining anything" goes, since it is a bit less black/white to me. ^_^'

This takes us into Kantian metaphysics, but let me just say that he considers any outcome of actions unimportant. The only thing that's important is if they are undertaken with the correct will, the correct attitude.

I find those important too, but it has to be weighed with the consequences too. Otherwise you end up labelling torture and 1940s eugenics as good and wishing to gain glory by curing cancer as amoral. I think, am I completely off the mark? ^_^'

*Hugs*. Just, *hugs*.


~Bianca

Eep! A tackl-Oh, thanks! ^_^

*Hugs back*

[noparlpf]

don't just*

Derpderp.

OH. Now that makes sense.

Because you can totally sum up everything exactly when you get into metaphysical concerns and fluffy-wuffy feels.

Also, I think you're misrepresenting it a teensy bit, since going just by what you say, the only altruistic act would be one that only causes harm. Unless that's what was said and you still want to say that this is a logical premise.

I think he's saying "if the sum total result for you is negative", not "if the sum total result for all parties, you and the other, is negative".

[Coidzor]

I think he's saying "if the sum total result for you is negative", not "if the sum total result for all parties, you and the other, is negative".

Hence why I pointed it out. I found it amusing, and, well, from what I've heard of and read of Ayn Rand I couldn't actually tell which one she would mean without going over the 50 pages that she would have taken to say all that.

People using asterisks like they're going to have a footnote and then don't have a footnote always confuse me. Part of why I don't like trans* as a term. Always making me think there's going to be a footnote and getting excited because there's just not enough footnotes in my life anymore and then there's no footnote. I've been footnote-teased.

[Kindablue]

When I hear "my significant other" I immediately assume it's a same-sex partner*, but I've never heard of same-sex couples expecting an exclusive right to the term until now.

Because you can totally sum up everything exactly when you get into metaphysical concerns and fluffy-wuffy feels.

Also, I think you're misrepresenting it a teensy bit, since going just by what you say, the only altruistic act would be one that only causes harm. Unless that's what was said and you still want to say that this is a logical premise.

Fluffy-wuffy feels don't come up as much in her work as you might expect.

[Asta Kask]

Because you can totally sum up everything exactly when you get into metaphysical concerns and fluffy-wuffy feels.

That is a problem. We don't have a good way of aggregating this kind of data.

Also, I think you're misrepresenting it a teensy bit, since going just by what you say, the only altruistic act would be one that only causes harm. Unless that's what was said and you still want to say that this is a logical premise.

Causes harm to you. It can benefit others but you must not profit from it.

[Coidzor]

When I hear "my significant other" I immediately assume it's a same-sex partner*, but I've never heard of same-sex couples expecting an exclusive right to the term until now.

I've run into SO used as a shorthand by both same-sex and opposite-sex couples for a while now. Also never heard of someone expecting an exclusive right to the term until just now.

Fluffy-wuffy feels don't come up as much in her work as you might expect.

I expect her to never think to mention them unless they're the focus of the discussion. And if you're completely ignoring the metaphysical, or at least, y'know, non-physical, when you discuss altruism you're kind of missing the point.

That is a problem. We don't have a good way of aggregating this kind of data.

There's a lot of problems, that's just one of the more obvious ones with trying to actually play moral calculus.

[bluewind95]

Goodness me, I vanish a moment and there's so much new stuff! And somehow I missed replying to stuff.

If you had an only-romantic relationship with someone, would you agree to an open relationship? Or would it have to be celibacy?

I have no issues with physical contact. But for me it's not really about the physical aspect, but rather it's all the emotional. So while I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to initiate contact much, if at all, I don't have issues with it. It'd just be a different experience, and not one I'd really want to participate all that often.

But an open relationship... no, I don't think so. Thing is... while I am not one to really feel that kind of stuff, someone that'd need an open relationship because I can't give as much physical intimacy as they'd need, well... I'd always fear that the lack of bonding could hurt the relationship. It's not so much the open relationship as it is just that, if it's needed because I can't meet the needs of the other person... is it even a good idea in the first place? And unless I finish banishing self-esteem issues, I'm always going to worry about being left for someone who CAN.

Spoiler

Show

I know it may be a failing of mine, but I will admit I can't imagine a life free of romantic entanglement. I fell head over heels for a girl in my daycare center before age 3, and she makes up about 2/3 of my earliest memories. I've gotten gooey eyed over other people fairly consistently since then. So people who can't or don't feel that kind of emotional connection come off as alien and disturbing to me. More so than normal humans, because that's one of the few connections I feel with other people's emotions. So many of the things humanity does feel alien and horrific to me, ranging from decorative full body clothing, to drinking fizzy beverages and intoxicants, to collecting pay and theft (yes, the two concepts are closely linked in my mind).

Removing such a key touchstone where I feel I actually have something in common with most people leaves me grasping at straws. I get confused, and I get upset, and I get a little xenophobic thrill of fear. I don't push the person away, mind. I usually try to dig deeper in an attempt to understand the person, which extremely awkwardly has twice led to me falling head over heels for someone with absolutely zero interest in me beyond my ability to swap stupid sci-fi jokes over lunch and discuss books. And I'm left sitting there with perfect clarity that they will never, ever love me back, and still with zero clarity on why, and with this big confusing muddle of emotions including many negatives, many internally directed.

I hope that doesn't make me a worse person.

Spoiler

Show

I can understand feeling it alien. You probably feel alien to people with a different perspective. Personally, while I lack the physical attraction, emotional attraction works pretty well. And I can definitely understand that emotional closeness is so important. It's important to me too. I've had very bad luck on that side, though.

I agree, and sympathize with your situation. Back in middle school there was one girl in the class who was convinced I was lying when I said I didn't "like like" any girls in the class, and would ask me literally every day which girl I liked. During high school, my mom all but jumped for joy when I spent time with any girls whatsoever. I almost wish they'd accused me of being gay, since that would have let me get over the whole coming out thing faster. On the plus side, neither of my folks is clamoring for me to get "fixed" by getting into a relationship now.

I had a similar experience. Some girls claimed I liked a guy I didn't even know and wouldn't stop bugging me about it. They didn't believe I didn't know this guy. Then next year I met him. He was... about as good-looking as a washed-out painting. And of course... I wasn't at all attracted to him. I never was attracted to anyone by looks. At all.

*sigh*

Why are people so fixated on whether sexual orientation is genetic, environmental or chosen?

It doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with having a specific sexual orientation. Who cares? Why can't people understand that?

It might be interesting because it tells us how the brain represents things like these but apart from that? Mind your own business.

I think that it matters to people because if it's 100% a choice, then it's "the icky gay's fault" and the homophobic people can justify hating them. But if it's not a choice, then there's one more defense against homophobia. Ideally, it shouldn't matter. But sadly, we don't live in an ideal world.

[Heliomance]

So question! A friend of mine posted on her facebook linking to a quote from a website saying something along the lines of "it bothers me when straight people refer to their significant other as their 'partner'". (She's lesbian.) Is that a thing?

My problem with the word "partner" is that I always want to append "in crime" to the end.

When I hear "my significant other" I immediately assume it's a same-sex partner*

same-sex partner*

partner*

*

Damn you! I was expecting a footnote!

[Kindablue]

Damn you! I was expecting a footnote!

It's always some guy named Ibid anyway.

[Coidzor]

My problem with the word "partner" is that I always want to append "in crime" to the end.

You know, that's not exactly a bad thing...

[SiuiS]

So question! A friend of mine posted on her facebook linking to a quote from a website saying something along the lines of "it bothers me when straight people refer to their significant other as their 'partner'". (She's lesbian.) Is that a thing?

That's tacky and Bass-Ackwards. How can you argue for equality in marriage but then demand you get exclusive rights to the socially acceptable gender neutral term?
It's self defeating. You want equality? Let other people be equal. The majority isn't allowed to say "use out words" and isn't allowed to use your words for the same thing, then what the bugger do you* want? There's no pleasing you so the majority can do as they damn well please. You had your chance.

Pet peeve of mine.

Hence why I pointed it out. I found it amusing, and, well, from what I've heard of and read of Ayn Rand I couldn't actually tell which one she would mean without going over the 50 pages that she would have taken to say all that.

People using asterisks like they're going to have a footnote and then don't have a footnote always confuse me. Part of why I don't like trans* as a term. Always making me think there's going to be a footnote and getting excited because there's just not enough footnotes in my life anymore and then there's no footnote. I've been footnote-teased.

I'm sorry. Was my explanation of my hanging super text sufficient in the sexism in gaming thread? I hate doing that to people.

When I hear "my significant other" I immediately assume it's a same-sex partner*, but I've never heard of same-sex couples expecting an exclusive right to the term until now.

Uh oh. How do sales even pronounce non-footnote asterisks? You're tearing me apart Bloo!

Fluffy-wuffy feels don't come up as much in her work as you might expect.

In general, in answer to Keveak, of you get happy out of it you are okay. If you do it specifically for thr happy, though, te happy is no longer a bonus; it is part of the equation an you are responsible for it.

Like Nope's example. He did a nice thing. He got cupcakes. Morally separate! But if he does a nice thing again and thinks about those cupcakes, he is now takin them into account.

... I just realized that for the first five threads I read, I thought Nope was a girl. I can't remember why, though. Huh.



*: the general you, I am not ranting at anyone in thread. I just resort to verbal attackity-ness when upset. Sorries ^^"

[Nix Nihila]

I'm looking forward to getting back to therapy. It's so nice, after you get past the awkwardness, to have someone who doesn't have anything else to do right now but listen to you. I have people to talk to, and I do talk to my mother, my partner, my close female friend, but you know, sometimes you don't want to bother them, or you want to talk about one or more of them. I'm very pro-therapy, I think it's healthy to have a space to talk about stuff, and just talking through problems can really help.

It is quite nice. I hold in more than is probably good for me, and talking to my therapist is always really cathartic (although not really a good substitute for being more open). It's sad that there's still all of the social stigma around visiting a therapist in many places.

So question! A friend of mine posted on her facebook linking to a quote from a website saying something along the lines of "it bothers me when straight people refer to their significant other as their 'partner'". (She's lesbian.) Is that a thing?

While there's a definite tendency (at least around here) to assume that "partner" indicates someone of the same sex, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say that the term should be reserved specifically for same-sex couples. Personally I think it's a rather silly idea. I don't really see the reason behind it, and I've never been much of a fan of words which are only proper for one particular group of people to use.

In unrelated news, I think I'm going to check out a local LGBT group tomorrow evening. I've never really made the effort to be a part of the LGBT community around here (mostly due to shyness), so it ought to be interesting at the very least.

[Logic]

That's tacky and Bass-Ackwards. How can you argue for equality in marriage but then demand you get exclusive rights to the socially acceptable gender neutral term?
It's self defeating. You want equality? Let other people be equal. The majority isn't allowed to say "use out words" and isn't allowed to use your words for the same thing, then what the bugger do you* want? There's no pleasing you so the majority can do as they damn well please. You had your chance.

Pet peeve of mine.

*: the general you, I am not ranting at anyone in thread. I just resort to verbal attackity-ness when upset. Sorries ^^"

Is it tacky? Yes. Do I think it is fine for this unknown person to have a problem over the use of a word? Also yes.

We don't get to tell others what they can or cannot be offended or insulted by. Even when this person has unreasonable expectations that are contrary to their long term goals.

And I don't like certain words*, or the fact that some words have been co-opted to mean something else, and that something else some people now find offensive. I refrain from using those words because they offend some people, because I attempt to be courteous. That doesn't change the fact that I still don't like the whole situation.

*Honestly, I really don't like the word "Pony." I have no idea why, but I hate the way this word sounds. No problems with the equine species it represents, no problem with Bronies and such, I just don't like the word Pony.

[Astrella]

In unrelated news, I think I'm going to check out a local LGBT group tomorrow evening. I've never really made the effort to be a part of the LGBT community around here (mostly due to shyness), so it ought to be interesting at the very least.

Neat; hope it goes well!

[SiuiS]

Is it tacky? Yes. Do I think it is fine for this unknown person to have a problem over the use of a word? Also yes.

We don't get to tell others what they can or cannot be offended or insulted by. Even when this person has unreasonable expectations that are contrary to their long term goals.

Of course. That's where we branch off into other things; I'm fully in my rights to complain, just as they are. It gets highly off topic, een if it's interesting, though.

And I don't like certain words*, or the fact that some words have been co-opted to mean something else, and that something else some people now find offensive. I refrain from using those words because they offend some people, because I attempt to be courteous. That doesn't change the fact that I still don't like the whole situation.

*Honestly, I really don't like the word "Pony." I have no idea why, but I hate the way this word sounds. No problems with the equine species it represents, no problem with Bronies and such, I just don't like the word Pony.

That's fine. I use 'pony' and 'unicorn' out of a combination of whimsy and being gunshy on specifying gender.whenever I would say "I'm a guy who" or "I'm the kinda girl that" I usually stop a beat, make a :-\ face and edit it. It's reflexive. But I'm fully behind you, and will try not to overdo it around these parts. ^^

In unrelated news, I think I'm going to check out a local LGBT group tomorrow evening. I've never really made the effort to be a part of the LGBT community around here (mostly due to shyness), so it ought to be interesting at the very least.

Ooh, neat. Good luck, and bring back stories!

[Irish Musician]

Needs hugs today.

Not for anything horrible, just had REALLY bad dreams last night of my wife getting kidnapped and raped..........needless to say I didn't get much sleep last night.

Though my wife was wonderful enough to wake up at 1 in the morning, when she had to get up at 4:30 in the morning, to console and comfort me.

Hope everyone's days go better than my night did

[Arachu]

People using asterisks like they're going to have a footnote and then don't have a footnote always confuse me. Part of why I don't like trans* as a term. Always making me think there's going to be a footnote and getting excited because there's just not enough footnotes in my life anymore and then there's no footnote. I've been footnote-teased.

*Hugs*

In unrelated news, I think I'm going to check out a local LGBT group tomorrow evening. I've never really made the effort to be a part of the LGBT community around here (mostly due to shyness), so it ought to be interesting at the very least.

Lucky~

Of course. That's where we branch off into other things; I'm fully in my rights to complain, just as they are. It gets highly off topic, een if it's interesting, though.

Nothing like a good disagreement to get everyone thinking.

That's fine. I use 'pony' and 'unicorn' out of a combination of whimsy and being gunshy on specifying gender.whenever I would say "I'm a guy who" or "I'm the kinda girl that" I usually stop a beat, make a :-\ face and edit it. It's reflexive. But I'm fully behind you, and will try not to overdo it around these parts. ^^

If it helps, I think that habit is cute~ n.n

Needs hugs today.

Not for anything horrible, just had REALLY bad dreams last night of my wife getting kidnapped and raped..........needless to say I didn't get much sleep last night.

Though my wife was wonderful enough to wake up at 1 in the morning, when she had to get up at 4:30 in the morning, to console and comfort me.

Hope everyone's days go better than my night did

*Hugs!* Nightmares suck. I hope your day's been better and you never have that one again. :<


~Bianca