LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!

[Heliomance]

And like that, a small dream died.

...okay, how many people around here have a crush on me? Is this a thing now, and I'm just too oblivious to notice?

Also, note, I did say currently :P
I fully anticipate my sexuality and romanticality changing and evolving once I actually start transition.

Unfortunately for you, I consider a separation of several thousand miles a dealbreaker :P

[Philemonite]

...okay, how many people around here have a crush on me? Is this a thing now, and I'm just too oblivious to notice?

I think you are cute, but you are a girl so...

[golentan]

...okay, how many people around here have a crush on me? Is this a thing now, and I'm just too oblivious to notice?

I can only speak for myself. Of course, I am greatly prone to crushes.

[Athedia]

... with regard to gender and the expectations thereof (including sexuality), yes.

Personally, feminism and LGBT stuff are different points of view of the same problem.

Hah, I think that GSM advocates are easier to get along with. The feminists at my school are very... well they haven't left their gated communities in a while I think.

That's a tactical concern. It's why I tackle trans* issues at my college with a specifically trans* group, not within the LGBT+ society.

Huh, my college just started one up. Mostly because we were having a problem with spreading ourselves thin on issues and having discussions.

No, it doesn't.
I don't think asexuality is relevant enough to form a community over it, that's for sure. Just like I would say that a lukewarm passion for chocolate wouldn't be enough to do so. But nobody's deying you exist.
Of course if you feel that you being asexual is such a big deal and so central to your identity, go ahead and be offended if you want, because I sure would have a hard time understanding why, unless there was some kind of religious subtext to it, you know, chastity and stuff. But it's done without malice nor any intent to forbid you from being asexual.
I just find that knowing how little someone wants to have sex is an irrelevant piece of information for everyone except their partner. Being gay or bi has at least political and social relevance, what with all the controversy over gay marriage and other similar subjects. But asexuality has never been something most people are interested in or shocked by.
As I said, with a lot of religions (without going into detail) it's even something to be expected by some of their priests.

Then again, you know what else is quite irreleveant? The fact that I find it irrelevant. As I said, I was mostly out to prove that asexuals can be heterosexuals and got sidetracked into talking about why exactly are they part of the LGBT community, but Musashi explained it in a clear fashon.

As you can see there are plenty of asexuals speaking up here on the forum. And another since I finally got a link to this thread (Thanks for the link again).
On my campus I know of 4 other people who ID as asexual, but I am the only one who is out. Mostly because my boyfriend of the time outed me to a friend after the break-up and that friend didn't keep their mouth shut. Fun times.

For me it is important because freshman year my roommate (I wasn't out yet) made comments about how asexuals are freaks of nature because of the four F's of biology (we are both science majors). The four F's are fighting, fleeing, feeding, and uh...reproduction.
Then I had friends talking about my relationships as "boyfriends" since to them it wasn't a legitimate relationship if I wasn't sexually attracted.

Let me make something clear, I am a romantic asexual. I feel my romantic orientation is private. But while I feel no desire to have sex with anyone I date, after a while, say a year or year and a half of dating I would be willing too. It would still feel good, I know it does. And I need a relationship with good communication, each of us saying what we are okay with at that moment in time. Consent basically. Important in all relationships.

Asexuals can pass as heterosexual, I know that I do. This keeps me safe in my area which is filled with religious people who aren't the friendliest toward non-heterosexuals. But we are not heterosexual, we don't feel sexual attraction toward guys. The idea is foreign to me. For me I can find someone pleasing to look at, but I don't feel a need to have sex. My libido, which I do have isn't directed toward anyone or anything. It is more something I occasionally have to get rid of, as people have said "scratch an itch". I know I will have sex one day and I am not afraid or disgusted, just neutral toward it.

[Thufir]

...okay, how many people around here have a crush on me? Is this a thing now, and I'm just too oblivious to notice?

*Raises hand*

[Heliomance]

*Raises hand*

Wait, what? I've not been in Random Banter for like a year!

[Siosilvar]

Helio, I don't seem to hang around the same threads as you do very much, but I've always been vaguely aware that everybody else seems to crush on you...

For me it is important because freshman year my roommate (I wasn't out yet) made comments about how asexuals are freaks of nature because of the four F's of biology (we are both science majors). The four F's are fighting, fleeing, feeding, and uh...reproduction.

Curious as to how they'd interpret pacifism, foolhardiness, and vegans then

[Kindablue]

Curious as to how they'd interpret pacifism, foolhardiness, and vegans then

Yeah I'm a breatharian and I resent the feeding part.

[Eldest]

...okay, how many people around here have a crush on me? Is this a thing now, and I'm just too oblivious to notice?

*waves*

Though not a full on crush more "She's really cute/pretty". Most people are kinda eh.

[Coidzor]

...okay, how many people around here have a crush on me? Is this a thing now, and I'm just too oblivious to notice?

Unfortunately for you, I consider a separation of several thousand miles a dealbreaker :P

Well, you certainly are a charmer and generally well-regarded from where I'm standing, I suppose...

Alas, only a few of those thousand miles can be walked.

[noparlpf]

Why can't an asexual be heterosexual?

Heterosexual: Capable of experiencing sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex.
Asexual: Incapable of experiencing sexual attraction. By definition, mutually exclusive to heterosexuality.
Heteroromantic: Capable of experiencing romantic attraction to people of the opposite sex. Note that romantic attraction is distinct from sexual attraction.

It has nothing to do with sexual preferences, it indicates only how strong your libido is.

There's a distinction between libido and sexual attraction. Some people are attracted to other people but only feel like having sex once a month (allosexual, low libido). Some people are attracted to other people and want to have sex every day (allosexual, high libido). Some people are attracted to other people but don't actually want to have sex with them (no libido, probably grey-ace). Some people aren't attracted to other people at all but still desire sexual release, usually by masturbation (asexual, some libido). Some people aren't attracted to other people at all and never desire sexual release (asexual, no libido). Some people are very rarely attracted to other people and only want to have sex with long-term romantic partners (demisexual, situational libido).

[Thufir]

Wait, what? I've not been in Random Banter for like a year!

I lurk in the LGBT thread sometimes.

[Coidzor]

How do you react when you run into an English Native-Speaker who seriously wants to be called "it?" as their pronoun of choice in order to reclaim it?

[noparlpf]

How do you react when you run into an English Native-Speaker who seriously wants to be called "it?" as their pronoun of choice in order to reclaim it?

Kind of weird. "They" works perfectly well as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. "It" is a gender-neutral inanimate pronoun, so it feels weird to apply it to a person.

[Siosilvar]

How do you react when you run into an English Native-Speaker who seriously wants to be called "it?" as their pronoun of choice in order to reclaim it?

Personally? I'd be incredibly weirded out. "It" is for objects, not sapients, and there's not even a precedent the way there arguably is in German ("das Maedchen", "the girl", is neuter because of the "-chen" ending). Even trying to reclaim it is odd, since it's never been used for people except to dehumanize them.

[Kesnit]

Kind of weird. "They" works perfectly well as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. "It" is a gender-neutral inanimate pronoun, so it feels weird to apply it to a person.

But "they" is technically plural, and can be used to denote a person with unintigrated dissociative personality disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder). (I know someone who preferred "they" if I was discussing their unit as a whole. When discussing individual personalities, I could use the pronoun appropriate for that personality.)

[Siosilvar]

But "they" is technically plural

"They" has been used as a singular pronoun at least since Chaucer was writing The Canterbury Tales in the late 1300s. It's perfectly valid as third-person singular neuter/unspecified/unknown.

[Kindablue]

But "they" is technically plural, and can be used to denote a person with unintigrated dissociative personality disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder). (I know someone who preferred "they" if I was discussing their unit as a whole. When discussing individual personalities, I could use the pronoun appropriate for that personality.)

They isn't technically plural, it is plural in most contexts. If you use it talking about a single person, it is singular in that context.

[noparlpf]

"They" has been plural or singular (depending on context) for hundreds of years. Maybe if a hugely influential author started using "it" as a gender-neutral personal pronoun it would catch on in a few hundred more years, but if it's used only in extremely niche cases it will never catch on.

[Kindablue]

Tangent: Chaucer also used "axe" to mean ask, and I read somewhere that when African American Vernacular English split off from Standard American English a few hundred years ago (it's more complicated than that, I know) both words were still commonly used; axe became archaic and eventually forgotten in SAE, while becoming more ubiquitous in AAVE, but it was never a mispronunciation.

[Arachu]

How do you react when you run into an English Native-Speaker who seriously wants to be called "it?" as their pronoun of choice in order to reclaim it?

I figure that while normally calling someone it is dehumanizing, ignoring someone's preferred pronouns also is. So, I'd call it it and correct people who use different ones to the best of my ability, same as I do with any identity.

~Bianca

[Siosilvar]

Tangent: Chaucer also used "axe" to mean ask, and I read somewhere that when African American Vernacular English split off from Standard American English a few hundred years ago (it's more complicated than that, I know) both words were still commonly used; axe became archaic and eventually forgotten in SAE, while becoming more ubiquitous in AAVE, but it was never a mispronunciation.

Interesting.

Also worth noting is that Jane Austen, Shakespeare, and other "classic" authors used the singular they (Wikipedia link) as well. Chaucer is just notable because his is possibly the earliest and the only one that stuck out in my mind from high school/college readings.

I figure that while normally calling someone it is dehumanizing, ignoring someone's preferred pronouns also is. So, I'd call it it and correct people who use different ones to the best of my ability, same as I do with any identity.

~Bianca

It's possible to respect someone's identity without using their preferred words, though. If my black friends asked me to call them the n-word, I can't imagine bringing myself to do it. I'd feel similarly if somebody asked me to use "it" as their pronoun.

[Arachu]

It's possible to respect someone's identity without using their preferred words, though. If my black friends asked me to call them the n-word, I can't imagine bringing myself to do it. I'd feel similarly if somebody asked me to use "it" as their pronoun. Similarly, my boyfriend and I will often introduce ourselves as bi or even just gay, even though we both feel pan is more accurate (or just more explicitly inclusive).

I can respect that. I'm not sure if a set of pronouns that's occasionally used as an insult is the same as a word that's been used as a racial slur for ages, though.


(*Doesn't mean to sound judge-y - tends to get a bit worked-up about pronouns in general, and also gets a bit defensive about that one after (unsuccessfully) trying to get people to call her it in her early teens (identified as agender at the time)*)


~Bianca

[Kindablue]

It's possible to respect someone's identity without using their preferred words, though. If my black friends asked me to call them the n-word, I can't imagine bringing myself to do it. I'd feel similarly if somebody asked me to use "it" as their pronoun.

Yeah, I wouldn't call them "it," but I would try not to make a point of it. You should usually be calling them by their name if they're in the room anyway, and if you're friends with It you have bigger problems than politesse.

[Siosilvar]

I can respect that. I'm not sure if a set of pronouns that's occasionally used as an insult is the same as a word that's been used as a racial slur for ages, though.


(*Doesn't mean to sound judge-y - tends to get a bit worked-up about pronouns in general, and also gets a bit defensive about that one after (unsuccessfully) trying to get people to call her it in her early teens (identified as agender at the time)*)


~Bianca

Mmm, the thing about that is that "it" not only carries connotations of inanimate objects but when it's used for people has almost exclusively been a slur for trans people, cross-dressers, and drag performers. I can see why it might hold some appeal to people, but there's a difference between reclaiming a slur and making other people reclaim it for you, though I'm not sure how you'd reclaim a pronoun that way except for always speaking in third person.

And you don't sound judge-y at all. If anything the guy who refuses to use a simple two-letter word to refer to people is the judgmental one

[SiuiS]

I think there's an argument that can be made that if "both"* falls under queer/non-hetero, then so does "neither".


*Or "all" or "whatever" or whatever

Yup.

Why can't an asexual be heterosexual?

Because being willig to have sex does not make you sexual. It makes you compliant.

But they have sex too.

They can have sex, yes. They can also have complete relationships with their preferred partner without any sex ever (hence, Hetero/homo/bi romantic).

heterosexual already means heteroromantic as well.

No it doesn't. There are plenty of heterosexual biromantic people. Because it's possible to have a romantic relationship that is not a sexual one.

Also: Holy crap this forum has a lot more spam than I remember. Seriously, media discussions is, without exaggerating, almost entirely spam threads. The hell happened?.

Yeah. When a not gets in they hit the post limit quick.

Ok, let me reiterate what has been said up until now:
Asexuals can have preference towards one sex or the other (or both, or neither). Basically they can be anything.
Asexual-sexual couples can be made by people of different sexes. A man and a woman.
Said couples can have a healthy sexual life. I disagreed on this point but I conceded that it might be possible, only not for me personally.

The result is a man and a woman, both of which are only interested in the opposite sex, that have sex together, hang out, and call themselves a couple.
This is a heterosexual couple. I rest my case.

This is one example out of many. The asexual partner may not enjoy sex at all. You're making assumptions and ignoring the rest of the sample group.




Ah. The joys of Kal.

[Jaycemonde]

At least he isn't in the other thread anymore.
Shame this one got off to a bad start, though.
Anyway, while people are being added to the OP, I could probably answer a few questions about trans stuff and nonbinary stuff. Nothing in a super official sense (just speaking from personal experience) and I'm pretty blunt at times, but if nobody else is available at the time I could give it a shot.

[Lex-Kat]

It's a different axis.
Visual illustration from a while back:

Spoiler

Show

Wow! That is old. I'm on there.... and would consider myself in the wrong place now days. There are people on there I haven't seen in years!

[Miriel]

Hah, I think that GSM advocates are easier to get along with. The feminists at my school are very... well they haven't left their gated communities in a while I think.

Well, they all deal with gender, just in different ways. Some feminists don't make the link, but then the same to LGB or trans activists.

[Athedia]

Well, they all deal with gender, just in different ways. Some feminists don't make the link, but then the same to LGB or trans activists.

My main issue is a class one. I am from a small town whereas much of my college is from rich areas. They still haven't learned how to put action behind words and are too focused on making everyone comfortable. I was raised to speak the truth as I see it and not sugar-coat things. So personalities clash type of thing.