LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[Delusion]

In my opinion when you are unsure about wether to mention trans person's deadname always err on the side of not mentioning it. Many of us don't like our deadname mentioned at all its kinda disrespectful and rude to bring that up when not absolutely necessary.

[golentan]

In my opinion when you are unsure about wether to mention trans person's deadname always err on the side of not mentioning it. Many of us don't like our deadname mentioned at all its kinda disrespectful and rude to bring that up when not absolutely necessary.

I've never heard that term before. Is it wordplay on Birthname?

[Jormengand]

I've never heard that term before. Is it wordplay on Birthname?

I think it means dead as in no longer functional/operable. So it's a name which is dead, defunct, out of order, rather than a play on words.

[Gwynfrid]

You would only say the "Wachowski Brothers" if it was some legal entity above and beyond simply denoting that the two siblings worked together, like it was the name of their company or other wossname, and then only if rather than renaming it to whatever we're supposed to call them now (did they ever go with anything new or are we just supposed to actually remember their first names when they haven't done anything worth remembering since the turn of the century?) they allowed "the Wachowski Brothers" to become defunct/die/whathaveyou, so that whatever they're doing now is legally distinct from their work on the Matrix. So you just go with whatever they're known as now.

That makes a lot of sense. In practice, however, it's a bit more difficult in the case of people this famous. It's not really possible to erase the title from a book about them, for example. The respectful thing to do now is of course to cease using the term, but it remains necessary to remember it if you want to research and understand old references.

[Septimus Faber]

Are there any bi/pan/[other-similar-orientation-here]sexual people in this thread who find that their attraction, sexual or romantic, to members of one gender or lack-thereof is greater or lesser than their attraction to one other or multiple others? Because that is precisely what I'm finding at the moment, and it's confusing me a little.

[Marnath]

Are there any bi/pan/[other-similar-orientation-here]sexual people in this thread who find that their attraction, sexual or romantic, to members of one gender or lack-thereof is greater or lesser than their attraction to one other or multiple others? Because that is precisely what I'm finding at the moment, and it's confusing me a little.

I'm not Bi or Pan, but I've always heard it expressed that those orientations manifest in a variety of ratios, it doesn't have to be 50%-50%.

[Heliomance]

I think it's probably generally safest to default to applying it retroactively, possibly with an addition like "Lana, then known as Larry" if it's really necessary (e.g. Because she's in the credits as Larry).
I think there may be exceptions, though. For example, I had a friend in high school who turned out to be a trans woman. I have big issues with the person I went to high school with - he was kind of a massive ******** - but none with the person I know now - she's become a pretty good person. So for the sake of our friendship, I find it useful to distinguish between the boy he was then and the woman she is now. It's not something I'd recommend for most people, though.

I have a similar thing - when I went to uni, there was a girl in my class called Emily (names changed to protect the innocent, etc). Emily was pretty great, and I had quite a crush on her.

Some time later, Emily came out, and changed his name to Steve. Now, saying that I had a crush on Steve gives an entirely inaccurate picture of the situation. My perception of him as Emily is important to that scenario. So what's the appropriate language?

[Coidzor]

That makes a lot of sense. In practice, however, it's a bit more difficult in the case of people this famous. It's not really possible to erase the title from a book about them, for example. The respectful thing to do now is of course to cease using the term, but it remains necessary to remember it if you want to research and understand old references.

I think referring to the title of a book (which is now less than canon, having had a rare meatspace retcon issued) is basically in the same overall category as referring to the hypothetical defunct/dead company name. You'd only use it to refer to the work/entity itself rather than the pair of human people.

Are there any bi/pan/[other-similar-orientation-here]sexual people in this thread who find that their attraction, sexual or romantic, to members of one gender or lack-thereof is greater or lesser than their attraction to one other or multiple others? Because that is precisely what I'm finding at the moment, and it's confusing me a little.

What seems to be the source of your confusion? You're not really expected to have a perfect split, after all.

[Anarion]

I have a similar thing - when I went to uni, there was a girl in my class called Emily (names changed to protect the innocent, etc). Emily was pretty great, and I had quite a crush on her.

Some time later, Emily came out, and changed his name to Steve. Now, saying that I had a crush on Steve gives an entirely inaccurate picture of the situation. My perception of him as Emily is important to that scenario. So what's the appropriate language?

Personally, if I were ever in a conversation where I needed to explain that, I think I'd just need to use more words. There's considerable complexity to it. You don't want to misrepresent yourself, upset the person you used to like, or confuse the person with whom you're speaking. So, you just have to give it a minute or two for a fuller explanation or say "it's complicated" and leave it be.

[golentan]

Are there any bi/pan/[other-similar-orientation-here]sexual people in this thread who find that their attraction, sexual or romantic, to members of one gender or lack-thereof is greater or lesser than their attraction to one other or multiple others? Because that is precisely what I'm finding at the moment, and it's confusing me a little.

Yeah. I'm generally more attracted to women, and I'm more attracted especially to androgynous or trans women.

The thing that's weird is that I have a definite cycle, and there are parts of it where I'm more attracted to men. Still mostly androgynous or trans though.

[Coidzor]

So I was randomly struck the other day that most of what people have shown me as examples of androgyny and that I have encountered out in the wild seems to have more to do with MAAB people who don't exhibit expected/typical/[term] levels of sexual dimorphism and less with FAAB people who aren't particularly feminine in facial features or who have actually masculine facial features. (Possibly having something to do with how female is the default body plan for humans/mammals and masculinization is modifying the embryo in utero and then the adolescent-child during puberty?)

Also, FAAB and women who want to appear androgynous tend to aim for "girlish-looking adolescent boy," though the majority of such I've encountered were still relatively young themselves, none being older than 30.

It does seem like androgyny equates with "girlish boy" rather than any kind of approach to the converse, with the only examples that come to mind of the converse being failed attempts at passing or fairly overtly gender****, like presenting as a cis woman save for a full-on dwarven beard.

Has anyone else noticed anything similar, especially in terms of trends and idea(l)s?

[-Sentinel-]

Re: Retroactiveness of sex change: Thanks, everyone!

[golentan]

So I was randomly struck the other day that most of what people have shown me as examples of androgyny and that I have encountered out in the wild seems to have more to do with MAAB people who don't exhibit expected/typical/[term] levels of sexual dimorphism and less with FAAB people who aren't particularly feminine in facial features or who have actually masculine facial features. (Possibly having something to do with how female is the default body plan for humans/mammals and masculinization is modifying the embryo in utero and then the adolescent-child during puberty?)

Also, FAAB and women who want to appear androgynous tend to aim for "girlish-looking adolescent boy," though the majority of such I've encountered were still relatively young themselves, none being older than 30.

It does seem like androgyny equates with "girlish boy" rather than any kind of approach to the converse, with the only examples that come to mind of the converse being failed attempts at passing or fairly overtly gender****, like presenting as a cis woman save for a full-on dwarven beard.

Has anyone else noticed anything similar, especially in terms of trends and idea(l)s?

I have not noticed that. There are multiple forms of androgyny, and I'm attracted to most of them. When I talk about androgyny, it's as often women with a strong jawline as men with a girlish frame.

[Delusion]

I've never heard that term before. Is it wordplay on Birthname?

I don't actually know its origin, I just use it because it sounds neat. Old name name is too Neutral in my opinion though I used to use the term. It doesn't drive the point that that name is dead to me. That I am not that and that I never really was that and that its really rude to call me that name anymore. Deadname does it better. It feels more powerful statement.

Birthname is just... I didn't have a name when I was born. My parents named me few weeks or months later at my christening.

Of course then there is the term "boy name" which I just hate for obvious reasons.

[SiuiS]

Personally, if I were ever in a conversation where I needed to explain that, I think I'd just need to use more words. There's considerable complexity to it. You don't want to misrepresent yourself, upset the person you used to like, or confuse the person with whom you're speaking. So, you just have to give it a minute or two for a fuller explanation or say "it's complicated" and leave it be.

If I were with people I could not trust would give me time to explain the whole of the scenario, I would give the most confusing but true answer I could. People who I am not comfortable giving information to get the obfuscation instead, until they earn my time. XD

So I was randomly struck the other day that most of what people have shown me as examples of androgyny and that I have encountered out in the wild seems to have more to do with MAAB people who don't exhibit expected/typical/[term] levels of sexual dimorphism and less with FAAB people who aren't particularly feminine in facial features or who have actually masculine facial features. (Possibly having something to do with how female is the default body plan for humans/mammals and masculinization is modifying the embryo in utero and then the adolescent-child during puberty?)

Also, FAAB and women who want to appear androgynous tend to aim for "girlish-looking adolescent boy," though the majority of such I've encountered were still relatively young themselves, none being older than 30.

It does seem like androgyny equates with "girlish boy" rather than any kind of approach to the converse, with the only examples that come to mind of the converse being failed attempts at passing or fairly overtly gender****, like presenting as a cis woman save for a full-on dwarven beard.

Has anyone else noticed anything similar, especially in terms of trends and idea(l)s?

We had this discussion a good ten threads or so back, did we not? Someone brought up a lumberjack woman with a great bushy beard and bulked shoulders and fore arms and muscle tone and an hourglass waist and buxom bosoms, as technically being just as androgynous as a dearth of sex characterizing features. The consensus is that androgyny has moved away from it's root origins to mean a specific aesthetic, one designed to make people unsure of which sex to assign instead of assigning a sex and noting that it is deviated from in some way.


On names, I plan to basically keep mine. It characterizes me well, and I can easily feminize it. Thinking about it brought me a peace I didn't know I had lacked though, which means I really do need to gear up for starting the processes in earnest; plan is to come out to any stragglers (read: everyone I know) on my birthday in January. Then move forward from there.

I am actually rather glad of the thought. The semi spiritual tones involved make me tingle.

[Jaycemonde]

Oh hey, new thread. Good to see SiuiS is still holding the floor here. SiuiS is a wise one :>

[SiuiS]

Oh hey, new thread. Good to see SiuiS is still holding the floor here. SiuiS is a wise one :>

Strange how that works. When people say this, I never recall why, but I can vividly remember every hoof-in-mouth incident I've caused or been involved in...

Though in all that self deprecating I forgot my manners. Thank you, Jayce. ^^

[Philemonite]

Strange how that works. When people say this, I never recall why, but I can vividly remember every hoof-in-mouth incident I've caused or been involved in...

If I ever got the chance to pick who will give me bad news I would definitely pick you. I don't know anyone who is so direct. I find you fascinating.

And don't get me wrong, I only do guys, so this is not flirting.

[golentan]

If I ever got the chance to pick who will give me bad news I would definitely pick you. I don't know anyone who is so direct. I find you fascinating.

And don't get me wrong, I only do guys, so this is not flirting.

Right. This is flirting. *bats eyes*

[Philemonite]

Right. This is flirting. *bats eyes*

Are you questioning my sexuality?

[golentan]

Are you questioning my sexuality?

No, but I am enquiring.

Like I said, feeling suuuuuuper gay right now.

[Philemonite]

No, but I am enquiring.

Like I said, feeling suuuuuuper gay right now.

Truthfully, if I was to flirt with someone from this thread it would be you. I've seen your picture, so I know you are my type. Plus, you like to cuddle.

[SiuiS]

You guys are adorable, go liven up the support thread a bit~

[Philemonite]

You guys are adorable, go liven up the support thread a bit~

Well, I...

[golentan]

Truthfully, if I was to flirt with someone from this thread it would be you. I've seen your picture, so I know you are my type. Plus, you like to cuddle.

Where do you live again?

[SowZ]

This isn't a question about LGBT per say, but relationships in general.

Is it weird that both of my exes continued to use my netflix account after we broke up without asking me? I mean, yeah, they had the password already, but still. Was the Onus on me to let them know, or was it on them? Not a big deal, of course. It struck me as really odd, at least the second time, (my first ex and I remained friends so it wasn't as strange,) but I'd like a second opinion.

[golentan]

This isn't a question about LGBT per say, but relationships in general.

Is it weird that both of my exes continued to use my netflix account after we broke up without asking me? I mean, yeah, they had the password already, but still. Was the Onus on me to let them know, or was it on them? It struck me as really odd, at least the second time, (my first ex and I remained friends so it wasn't as strange,) but I'd like a second opinion.

They might have forgotten it was yours, if they were used to handling things like that as automatic bill pays.

[SowZ]

They might have forgotten it was yours, if they were used to handling things like that as automatic bill pays.

That's true. And they may have just had the auto-password fill thing so they'd just go to netflix and already be signed in. Thanks, haha. Not sure why that popped into my head. Carry on, everyone.

[SiuiS]

That's a use of privilege, aye. It happens a lot, and dealing with shared spaces that maybe you don't want to be or shouldn't be shared anymore is so common a thing that is being normalized through popular media in television and movies.

I think they would expect you to change the password if it was an issue, but really it's just like coming over an using the washing machine after break-up. It's tacky and relies on the "easier to get forgiveness than permission" mind set where they don't stop you (because it's awkward, you just barge in wih your laundry basket putting pressure on them and making them look like the bad guy if they refuse) and take compliance as implicit agreement.

[Coidzor]

This isn't a question about LGBT per say, but relationships in general.

Is it weird that both of my exes continued to use my netflix account after we broke up without asking me? I mean, yeah, they had the password already, but still. Was the Onus on me to let them know, or was it on them? Not a big deal, of course. It struck me as really odd, at least the second time, (my first ex and I remained friends so it wasn't as strange,) but I'd like a second opinion.

There is the RWA thread, y'know.

Not particularly, if they were still using the same devices to Netflix. It's more clear that they were deliberately sponging off your Netflix if they set it up on different devices rather than doing so out of forgetfulness or anything, and even then that's not so much weird as it is, well, mooching.

You can change your password if you don't want them using it, yes?