LGBTAitP - Part 22: The Best There Is

[Musashi]

*holds head between hands*
So, huh, you know the circle of hate thing, and the crime I mentioned in my rant?

Spoiler

Well, I absolutely don't like what the news is telling me, because it's telling me the culprit is himself part of a racial minority and targeted other minorities for political reasons and that demonstrates too well why blind hate isn't gonna help anybody and and and oh god what's wrong with everything right now

EDIT: I'm describing the event in very vague terms for a reason: so it doesn't devolve into politics. Haven't seen any problem yet at the moment I'm typing this, but I'd rather make a preemptive warning.

A minority attacking another minority simply because they exist only gives the oppressing majority extra excuses for hating the attacking minority. And the victimized one, too, because now they have to deal with the trouble caused by the conflict, and it would have never happened if the victimized minority had never existed at all. That's how it works with racism. And that's how it works with homophobia, and transphobia, and sexism, and everything. The conscious decision to make collateral damage is never a good idea, ever. You target your aggressors, and no one more. Not their family. Not their loved ones. Not their community. Not their classmates. Not their victims. Not the aggressors of your aggressors. Them. The aggressors. No one else.

I think I'm gonna lay down.



@Heliomance: go you. Sorry, I'm not in the right mood to encourage you better than that, but remember I have positive thoughts and feelings about it, okay?

[Keveak]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

On the general topic of Musashi's rant:

Spoiler

Remember that talk on female sexuality I was kicked out of a couple of weeks ago? Well, the girl who ran that is giving a talk on her thesis, and this is the email she sent out.
See that bolded bit?

Clearly somebody has failed to understand the point of her own thesis. Preaching to the choir is rather pointless, so the only reason to write something like that is to spread awareness to other, more privileged groups. Intentionally excluding them kind of defeats the purpose.
If you want to change the culture of privilege, power, and difference (book title), don't exclude the people who need to learn about their own privilege, and definitely don't alienate those people who realise their privilege and are trying to work with you to create equality.

So, who wants to bet I won't be allowed in because asexual doesn't count as queer?

Edit: I just realised she didn't even give a time or place, so my last question is kind of moot.

I am tempted to find a way to your settlement-of-living and show up dressed as an L, but that would be far too mean of me. Sorry. ^_^'

In all seriousness, I think it might be a good idea to eMail back and ask why exactly a thesis on Queer experience would not benefit those who do not directly experience it. Being polite and calm might be the way to make the theser (I have my own vocabulary!) rethink what is accomplished by it.

Originally Posted by Musashi

Spoiler

Well, no one wants to educate the ignorant/oblivious. Sure, no one should had to educate someone who offended them, and one should educate oneself. That would happen in a world that approaches perfection better than ours.
However? Discussions are getting inane and insane (this last word, by the way, is also offensive in some circles) because of this principle.

Spoiler

"[Use of a bad word in an ignorant but innocent context]"
"Did you seriously say that? You [insult]"
"Wait, what? What did I say?"
"You used [bad word]! It's bad! That's terrible!"
"Really? I'm sorry, I had no idea, it's always been used in a neutral way where I live! How is it bad? Where does it come from?"
"We're not here to educate you! Educate yourself! You [something]-centrist [insult]!"
"Why are you mad at me?"
"You're using the tone argument now? [Link to Derailing for Dummies]"
"Could you please not use [something]-ist insults at me at least?"
"[something]-ism doesn't exist, you idiot!"
"I'm sorry you were offended... by the way, if you're insulting someone just because they are [something they did not choose], that's technically -ist..."
"No, you're just sorry you got caught and that we dared being offended at the obvious insults you threw at us. By the way, you're now banned because you're too thick to understand anything! Goodbye, [insult]!"

In short, no one actually learns anything, and everyone pats each others on the back for driving away decent people who made the mistake of not knowing everything there is to know.
What you're describing here is the same, only without the aggressiveness. Hardly better.

Spoiler

Thanks!
Yeah.
Another "funny" side effect to the phenomenon I described is that certain definitions are considered wrong by these people, generally those that end with -ism or -phobia. The justification for that is that dictionaries are written by white straight cismales, and their definitions tainted by their point of view.
Alright, but then, do I really have to check Internet for the "proper" definitions? How can I know for sure the websites I'm checking for research aren't biased too? (That question never came up, but I'm fairly certain the answer would be "if it's written by an oppressed minority, then it can't be biased, silly!".)
And while some words are obviously bad and should not be used, there are many others who don't look offensive at first glance. Ideally, research should be made before using these, that I agree on. But we're reaching a point where MANY words have bad connotations. Should we research every single word we want to sue? Where, if dictionaries are unreliable?

*Hugs*

There are bigoted people in all walks of life, but I am quite certain it is a lot rarer than it looks. The loudest are not necessarily the majority.

On that note, I wonder if that logic works if the -ism you accuse them of is based on a word they use as neutral. Turning the plates on them sounds like it could make someone notice if they are being irrational.

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

Jaysus, ye've been going fast since I left. Lucky Nope is around to say what we think!

Also, I just suggested Asta to make the new thread because I like the idea of passing the thread-making around so I picked a person I hadn't seen make one. Trisc works just as well.

Also also, first post, I would again like to point out that it was Qaera who made the dictionary and me who added it to the first post. Obviously it's not a huge big deal, but just to say.



I had a similar situation come up yesterday; the LGBT Officer on the student union committee of my college apparently has to be L, G, B or T. I was unable to discern if other letters "counted", but apparently A for Ally doesn't. I can understand, in both these cases, wanting to keep the focus on the people who are most important to the thing and also often overlooked, but I think it would do equally well and be more justifiable and less exclusionary to include allies and just say that people who are espouse intolerant beliefs about LGBT+ people aren't allowed. After all, I don't think many non-LGBT+ people would run for LGBT Officer anyway. I do wonder if I would count, with my heteronormative relationship. Would I have to "prove" I'm bi? (A straight person can just claim to be bi, I suppose. How would you stop them from getting in?! )

Clearly they subcontract groups from the underground to dig up embarrasing photographs of every contender and evaluate them on that basis! :3

Not that Kobolds ever do that, nope! It's the mole people, honest! >_>

Originally Posted by Heliomance

Just changed my name on Facebook, MSN and Skype. This is a scary thing.

Congratulations!

...Wait, Skype names are supposed to be consistent with Meat'n'HamSpace? O_o

[Triscuitable]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

I think you'll be amazed and delighted how much no one cares and how undramatical it will be. Not because we don't care about you, but because we know that the person Heliomance remains the same whatever happens. And it is the person we like and love.

*hugs*

I also like this thing.

Used to be a bigger statement, but then my cats started to "engage" on my bed. Noooooooo thank you.

[supernerd]

Originally Posted by Laser Frog

Just because she's not satisfactorily sure of her orientation doesn't mean you aren't too. The whole promise you had to make to your friend seems kind of insulting, because really, why should she care so much to have you make that promise? The fact that it would need to be a three-way for you to even "get it up" should say enough by itself.

Well she doesn't mean anything by it, and she wasn't requiring it, I was like "sure, I'll let you know if that happens..."

I mean I'm homoromantic and ever so slightly bisexual, like a 5.99 at the least, so I still acknowledge the whole right person thing, but it won't happen anytime until I am already happily settled with a partner and have no need to explore my sexual endeavors, I won't be able to love her, and thus I identify as gay.

She's a weird person, but I've become rather desensitized to her. She's said things I would punch other people for, but I know it's just part of her (Name censored to maintain anonymity)-ness.

Her and one of my secondary best friends have said some great stuff...

Me: I'm not a puppy...
Male secondary best friend: Then stop acting like a Bitch!

After her getting the fold of my jeans during "The Nervous Game"
Female best friend: now I have to see you naked, in a totally nonsexual way.
Me: why?
Male secondary best friend: to make sure that gay people are people too!

My lunch table is great!

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by pffh

This sort of attitude pisses me off. If I lived anywhere close to you I would attend this (I'm allowed to since my letter is in her list) and give her a piece of my mind and point out the blatant -ism going on here (Not sure which -ism it is but it is one (Sexism? Sexuality-ism?))

I don't know, but there should be more words for -isms against non-minorities.

Originally Posted by Heliomance

Just changed my name on Facebook, MSN and Skype. This is a scary thing.

Cool beans!

Originally Posted by Musashi

*holds head between hands*
So, huh, you know the circle of hate thing, and the crime I mentioned in my rant?

Spoiler

Well, I absolutely don't like what the news is telling me, because it's telling me the culprit is himself part of a racial minority and targeted other minorities for political reasons and that demonstrates too well why blind hate isn't gonna help anybody and and and oh god what's wrong with everything right now

A minority attacking another minority simply because they exist only gives the oppressing majority from hating the attacking minority. And the victimized one, too, because now they have to deal with the trouble caused by the conflict, and it would have never happened if the victimized minority had never existed at all. That's how it works with racism. And that's how it works with homophobia, and transphobia, and sexism, and everything. The conscious decision to make collateral damage is never a good idea, ever. You target your aggressors, and no one more. Not their family. Not their loved ones. Not their community. Not their classmates. Not their victims. Not the aggressors of your aggressors. Them. The aggressors. No one else.

I think I'm gonna lay down.

*headdesk*

Edit: So this thesis shindig is tonight at 6:30. Should I go? Air my concerns?

[Kindablue]

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

I had a similar situation come up yesterday; the LGBT Officer on the student union committee of my college apparently has to be L, G, B or T. I was unable to discern if other letters "counted", but apparently A for Ally doesn't. I can understand, in both these cases, wanting to keep the focus on the people who are most important to the thing and also often overlooked, but I think it would do equally well and be more justifiable and less exclusionary to include allies and just say that people who are espouse intolerant beliefs about LGBT+ people aren't allowed. After all, I don't think many non-LGBT+ people would run for LGBT Officer anyway. I do wonder if I would count, with my heteronormative relationship. Would I have to "prove" I'm bi? (A straight person can just claim to be bi, I. suppose. How would you stop them from getting in?! )

Is the LGBT Officer meant to be a representative of the school's LGBT community for the committee? I agree with you that the application of something like that would probably get messy easily, but I also get why they'd want something like that in the first place.

[KenderWizard]

I think you should go, Nope. If you've got the spoons* for it. If you can make your point in a very non-confrontational way, it might help, or at least make them aware that they are excluding allies. I'd say if it gets aggressive though, just leave. You can't waste your time trying to fix everyone.

*If you don't read the link (everyone should read that story, though!) it explains that you can imagine being well as having an infinite supply of "spoons" (or anything else that's a metaphor for energy) and having a long-term illness or disability (or something else that makes every day a struggle) is like having only a handful, that you have to dish out and be careful with.

Originally Posted by pffh

This sort of attitude pisses me off. If I lived anywhere close to you I would attend this (I'm allowed to since my letter is in her list) and give her a piece of my mind and point out the blatant -ism going on here (Not sure which -ism it is but it is one (Sexism? Sexuality-ism?))

This is why we should use "sexualorientationism"! It's broader and covers all kinds of things that "homophobia" doesn't, like bi people, straight people, people with fluid sexualities! Does asexuality count as a sexual orientation? I mean, it's not an orientation per se. It's like 0 isn't a number. People who don't identify as any particular gender; that's still a gender identity. That's where that would go. So I think asexuality would also be covered. It could be interpreted to, certainly.

Also, I just had a great thought! Orientation is a FANTASTIC word for that. It's not an immutable rule. It's not a switch. It doesn't actually tell you who a person would find attractive. It's an orientation. They're oriented towards, say, men. They're looking at men when they're choosing. Maybe they've got a narrow orientation "I am going precisely 10.5 degrees manward" - just masculine men - or a broad, general "that way ish?" - men, mannish people, biological males, whatever. It's a great word!

Originally Posted by Heliomance

Just changed my name on Facebook, MSN and Skype. This is a scary thing.

Well done!

Also, I wasn't around, but if you're still concerned about not being entitled to female things; what makes you entitled to male ones? Biological sex, or time spent using them? No, because a trans person is just as entitled as a cis person. So the entitlement is from your identity. And your identity is completely legitimate.

I would say, if you think you might swing back again towards male, watch out for things like websites not letting you change your details multiple times and stuff like that.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

"I am going precisely 10.5 degrees manward"

The rest of your post was pretty damn good, as usual, but this specific part? Hilariously awesome. Sigging this.

[Nix Nihila]

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

This is why we should use "sexualorientationism"! It's broader and covers all kinds of things that "homophobia" doesn't, like bi people, straight people, people with fluid sexualities!

My only real objection would be that "sexualorientationism" is truly horrible in terms of aesthetics. It assaults both my eyes and my ears, and it even tastes strange when I say it. I think I would probably avoid it for those reasons even if it were in common use.

Edit: That was probably a bit overdramatic.

[Viera Champion]

Originally Posted by pffh

This sort of attitude pisses me off. If I lived anywhere close to you I would attend this (I'm allowed to since my letter is in her list) and give her a piece of my mind and point out the blatant -ism going on here (Not sure which -ism it is but it is one (Sexism? Sexuality-ism?))

It's like the opposite of heterosexism.

[Asta Kask]

I think the term is separationism and it has been practiced by various groups over the years. It's not an entirely stupid idea - the theory is that if you have no cishetero people there then the queer people will be able to talk without having to worry about the kyriarchy watching them. But it can also be taken too far, like when trans women are excluded from women's festivals because they're "really men".

[pffh]

Originally Posted by Lil Shiro

It's like the opposite of heterosexism.

Heterosexism: Something that is of the Hetero sex? I didn't know we had a hetero sex.

[Gallus]

Originally Posted by pffh

Heterosexism: Something that is of the Hetero sex? I didn't know we had a hetero sex.

I think our parents having hetero sex is why most of us are here in the first place.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Musashi

Spoiler

However? Discussions are getting inane and insane (this last word, by the way, is also offensive in some circles) because of this principle.

Spoiler

"[Use of a bad word in an ignorant but innocent context]"
"Did you seriously say that? You [insult]"
"Wait, what? What did I say?"
"You used [bad word]! It's bad! That's terrible!"
"Really? I'm sorry, I had no idea, it's always been used in a neutral way where I live! How is it bad? Where does it come from?"
"We're not here to educate you! Educate yourself! You [something]-centrist [insult]!"
"Why are you mad at me?"
"You're using the tone argument now? [Link to Derailing for Dummies]"
"Could you please not use [something]-ist insults at me at least?"
"[something]-ism doesn't exist, you idiot!"
"I'm sorry you were offended... by the way, if you're insulting someone just because they are [something they did not choose], that's technically -ist..."
"No, you're just sorry you got caught and that we dared being offended at the obvious insults you threw at us. By the way, you're now banned because you're too thick to understand anything! Goodbye, [insult]!"

In short, no one actually learns anything, and everyone pats each others on the back for driving away decent people who made the mistake of not knowing everything there is to know.
What you're describing here is the same, only without the aggressiveness. Hardly better.

Indeed, not only do they create a harsh atmosphere where everyone's head is up each others' patoots, they also make themselves into hypocrites by responding to innocuous use with legitimate, serious insults and othering language.

And as for the people who think "insane" is a no-no word, well, by adopting it, they're not showing themselves off as being very wise. Hardly gets used to refer to the mentally ill at all anymore, and when it does, it's a rather unfortunately apt descriptor.

Originally Posted by Musashi

Spoiler

Another "funny" side effect to the phenomenon I described is that certain definitions are considered wrong by these people, generally those that end with -ism or -phobia. The justification for that is that dictionaries are written by white straight cismales, and their definitions tainted by their point of view.

This is funny to me. Their blatantly offbase assumptions. While the original ones probably were, the people doing the grunt work in today's dictionaries could be anyone, especially online.

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Yes, it would be nice if people knew things on their own.

Society also probably couldn't function without the necessity of bonding with our parents and being social that is necessary to fulfill our need to learn how to be humans rather than having it be an innate thing.

Originally Posted by Triscuitable

I also like this thing.

Used to be a bigger statement, but then my cats started to "engage" on my bed. Noooooooo thank you.

...Why aren't they spayed and neutered?

You should probably go ahead and make the appointment today...

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

I think the term is separationism and it has been practiced by various groups over the years. It's not an entirely stupid idea - the theory is that if you have no cishetero people there then the queer people will be able to talk without having to worry about the kyriarchy watching them. But it can also be taken too far, like when trans women are excluded from women's festivals because they're "really men".

Err... That example is, in and of itself a stupid idea, or at least very much seems to be, as it is predicated on the laughable idea that there is some kind of ill will and intelligent force actively arrayed to promote kyriarchy rather than it being an unconscious byproduct of most people's existence.

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

Also, I wasn't around, but if you're still concerned about not being entitled to female things; what makes you entitled to male ones? Biological sex, or time spent using them? No, because a trans person is just as entitled as a cis person. So the entitlement is from your identity. And your identity is completely legitimate.

Or there's no such thing as entitlement. That works too, I imagine.

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

I think you should go, Nope. If you've got the spoons* for it. If you can make your point in a very non-confrontational way, it might help, or at least make them aware that they are excluding allies. I'd say if it gets aggressive though, just leave. You can't waste your time trying to fix everyone.

Has Nope ever given any indication of having a shortage of cutlery?

[Viera Champion]

Originally Posted by pffh

Heterosexism: Something that is of the Hetero sex? I didn't know we had a hetero sex.

Hey, I didn't create the word. I just know its definition.

[Mutant Sheep]

Originally Posted by Gallus

I think our parents having hetero sex is why most of us are here in the first place.

*applauds* I laughed a bit too hard at that one.

[bluewind95]

Re Spoon theory:

The only issue I have with that is that healthy people don't really have infinite spoons either. They just have way more than the disabled/ill person. I think it's more like... a flashlight battery. It recharges when you rest, but sick/disabled people have bad batteries that work less and charge less. A healthy person not resting and overworking, though, will soon have less and less charge at the start of the day.

[Arachu]

Originally Posted by Astrella

And at least it made me realize why I like Mulan so much. Reflection is a song that just rings so true.

Also, essential linky with regards to people being asses.

I like how he put that.

(It's also funny how it kind of sounds like an optimistic version of something Lovecraft would've said. )

How did therapy go?

Originally Posted by Coidzor

It's the sort of promise one shouldn't make, one shouldn't ask of someone else, and is largely meaningless and should not be tried to be called in and one should laugh in the face of anyone who tries to do so. Preferably rudely before giving them a lesson in basic ethics.

Well, maybe not the laughing bit in this case. The problem is that it's seen as such a reasonable thing to ask of someone, when in reality it's kind of... Well, there are unfortunate implications across the board. :/

Fortunately genitalia and gonads don't have feelings or awareness themselves.

Or else we'd be in a lot worse shape than we already are.

Well, yeah (hopefully... ). It never really made much sense, but that's how things often are before you really think about them. :shrug:

Indeed... At times I catch myself imagining the hypothetical storms of excrement that will go down once science figures it out, and just what people who will refuse to acknowledge it will say instead.

Part of me doubts that they'll act any differently... They're still using a lot of the more nonsensical arguments that got discounted decades ago...

Originally Posted by Astrella

Well it was more a "I was born a boy; I don't know what being a girl is like; but I know I'm not a boy; gaaah; why is this so confusing; I don't have a right to claim I'm a girl; maybe I'm genderqueer?; but I just want to be seen as a girl, not genderqueer; why is this so confusingggg...." and couple that with a bunch of suppressed feeling surfacing.

*Hugs* Actually, that's pretty close to what I experienced... Er, am still experiencing. Still not sure how I'd feel about having the other set. :/

Originally Posted by noparlpf

On the general topic of Musashi's rant:

Spoiler

Remember that talk on female sexuality I was kicked out of a couple of weeks ago? Well, the girl who ran that is giving a talk on her thesis, and this is the email she sent out.
See that bolded bit?

Clearly somebody has failed to understand the point of her own thesis. Preaching to the choir is rather pointless, so the only reason to write something like that is to spread awareness to other, more privileged groups. Intentionally excluding them kind of defeats the purpose.
If you want to change the culture of privilege, power, and difference (book title), don't exclude the people who need to learn about their own privilege, and definitely don't alienate those people who realise their privilege and are trying to work with you to create equality.

So, who wants to bet I won't be allowed in because asexual doesn't count as queer?

Edit: I just realised she didn't even give a time or place, so my last question is kind of moot.

*Facepalm*

Originally Posted by Musashi

*holds head between hands*
So, huh, you know the circle of hate thing, and the crime I mentioned in my rant?

Spoiler

Well, I absolutely don't like what the news is telling me, because it's telling me the culprit is himself part of a racial minority and targeted other minorities for political reasons and that demonstrates too well why blind hate isn't gonna help anybody and and and oh god what's wrong with everything right now

EDIT: I'm describing the event in very vague terms for a reason: so it doesn't devolve into politics. Haven't seen any problem yet at the moment I'm typing this, but I'd rather make a preemptive warning.

A minority attacking another minority simply because they exist only gives the oppressing majority extra excuses for hating the attacking minority. And the victimized one, too, because now they have to deal with the trouble caused by the conflict, and it would have never happened if the victimized minority had never existed at all. That's how it works with racism. And that's how it works with homophobia, and transphobia, and sexism, and everything. The conscious decision to make collateral damage is never a good idea, ever. You target your aggressors, and no one more. Not their family. Not their loved ones. Not their community. Not their classmates. Not their victims. Not the aggressors of your aggressors. Them. The aggressors. No one else.

I think I'm gonna lay down.

*Hugs*

Originally Posted by noparlpf

So this thesis shindig is tonight at 6:30. Should I go? Air my concerns?

I want to say "yeah" - hopefully she can listen long enough to hear what's wrong with her assumptions. Even if she doesn't then, she might relent enough to if you persist over a couple more meetings (my precariously-balanced hat is off to you if you're patient enough for that).

Originally Posted by pffh

Heterosexism: Something that is of the Hetero sex? I didn't know we had a hetero sex.

It could mean 'something that is of the opinion that the sexes are opposite'.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

And as for the people who think "insane" is a no-no word, well, by adopting it, they're not showing themselves off as being very wise. Hardly gets used to refer to the mentally ill at all anymore, and when it does, it's a rather unfortunately apt descriptor.

I'm not too fond of how people use "insane". I've heard it used to dismiss the opinions of others far too many times.

The word itself, I'm indifferent to. It roots in some rather unfortunate cultural assumptions, but there are pretty unhealthy courses of action. :shrug:

Society also probably couldn't function without the necessity of bonding with our parents and being social that is necessary to fulfill our need to learn how to be humans rather than having it be an innate thing.

I'd say it's more important to bond with other people and consider the meanings and implications of one's actions. I hate my parents (and no, "hate" isn't too strong a word), and I ended up being pretty empathetic anyway.

Also, a lot of morals actually make sense from a purely-logical standpoint (murder disrupts society, politeness can disarm arguments, etc.).

...Why aren't they spayed and neutered?

You should probably go ahead and make the appointment today...

... I'm going to refrain from exploding at that statement.

It's worth noting that they won't get pregnant that way - his cats are male.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Arachu

... I'm going to refrain from exploding at that statement.

It's worth noting that they won't get pregnant that way - his cats are male.

Neutered then. Though if you wanted to take umbrage at encouraging responsible pet ownership, I suppose you could.

Originally Posted by Arachu

I'd say it's more important to bond with other people and consider the meanings and implications of one's actions. I hate my parents (and no, "hate" isn't too strong a word), and I ended up being pretty empathetic anyway.

I think you just sailed clear over my point, Arachu.

Originally Posted by Arachu

Well, maybe not the laughing bit in this case. The problem is that it's seen as such a reasonable thing to ask of someone, when in reality it's kind of... Well, there are unfortunate implications across the board. :/

Not in my neck of the woods. And that's all the more reason to make it clear to people how unacceptable it is.

[pffh]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Neutered then. Though if you wanted to take umbrage at encouraging responsible pet ownership, I suppose you could.

Agreed. If you aren't going to breed from them neuter them. Stray cats are a problem in many places because people don't neuter and pet rescue places are overflowing in most if not all countries that have them.

[Arachu]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Neutered then. Though if you wanted to take umbrage at encouraging responsible pet ownership, I suppose you could.

I just hate how it's seen as perfectly acceptable to sterilize something on the grounds that you don't plan to breed it. Especially considering the whole "purebreed" concept... :/

I think you just sailed clear over my point, Arachu.

How so?

Not in my neck of the woods. And that's all the more reason to make it clear to people how unacceptable it is.

Of course. I'm just saying that you shouldn't respond by immediately starting an argument when you could explain what's wrong with it.

[pffh]

Originally Posted by Arachu

I just hate how it's seen as perfectly acceptable to sterilize something on the grounds that you don't plan to breed it. Especially considering the whole "purebreed" concept... :/

Most of the time it's better to sterilize them rather then keeping them pent up from sexual frustration and in addition to that many animals become quite aggressive if they don´t get to release that frustration.

For example rats. I wouldn't want to hold a non-castrated 6 month old male rat no matter how cutesy wutesy his little wittle scrump frumpy face is.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Arachu

I just hate how it's seen as perfectly acceptable to sterilize something on the grounds that you don't plan to breed it. Especially considering the whole "purebreed" concept... :/

You like overpopulation of cats, the cruelty shown to strays, and that we have to kill them off? Then spaying and neutering pets and strays is the lesser of two evils. That it makes male cats more tractable and generally develop a more amicable personality is just a fringe benefit.

Originally Posted by Arachu

How so?

You interpreted noting that humans have to learn how to be human from those who raise them and their early educators in a way that hating your parents was somehow relevant. Considering you can talk, read, and use the internet, you learned how to be a human rather than growing up feral or raised by a non-human.

Originally Posted by Arachu

Of course. I'm just saying that you shouldn't respond by immediately starting an argument when you could explain what's wrong with it.

True, though with that kind of relationship, certain licenses can be assumed and used or discarded at one's discretion anyway.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

I think you should go, Nope. If you've got the spoons* for it. If you can make your point in a very non-confrontational way, it might help, or at least make them aware that they are excluding allies. I'd say if it gets aggressive though, just leave. You can't waste your time trying to fix everyone.

*If you don't read the link (everyone should read that story, though!) it explains that you can imagine being well as having an infinite supply of "spoons" (or anything else that's a metaphor for energy) and having a long-term illness or disability (or something else that makes every day a struggle) is like having only a handful, that you have to dish out and be careful with.




This is why we should use "sexualorientationism"! It's broader and covers all kinds of things that "homophobia" doesn't, like bi people, straight people, people with fluid sexualities! Does asexuality count as a sexual orientation? I mean, it's not an orientation per se. It's like 0 isn't a number. People who don't identify as any particular gender; that's still a gender identity. That's where that would go. So I think asexuality would also be covered. It could be interpreted to, certainly.

Also, I just had a great thought! Orientation is a FANTASTIC word for that. It's not an immutable rule. It's not a switch. It doesn't actually tell you who a person would find attractive. It's an orientation. They're oriented towards, say, men. They're looking at men when they're choosing. Maybe they've got a narrow orientation "I am going precisely 10.5 degrees manward" - just masculine men - or a broad, general "that way ish?" - men, mannish people, biological males, whatever. It's a great word!



Well done!

Also, I wasn't around, but if you're still concerned about not being entitled to female things; what makes you entitled to male ones? Biological sex, or time spent using them? No, because a trans person is just as entitled as a cis person. So the entitlement is from your identity. And your identity is completely legitimate.

I would say, if you think you might swing back again towards male, watch out for things like websites not letting you change your details multiple times and stuff like that.

I didn't get the article from your link for some reason. Did you mean this one? 'Cause I kind of agree with bluewind; we have more spoons, but not infinite spoons. Say you have twelve a day, I probably have forty-eight or something like that.

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

I think the term is separationism and it has been practiced by various groups over the years. It's not an entirely stupid idea - the theory is that if you have no cishetero people there then the queer people will be able to talk without having to worry about the kyriarchy watching them. But it can also be taken too far, like when trans women are excluded from women's festivals because they're "really men".

Or like when legitimate allies are excluded from any kind of movement.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Has Nope ever given any indication of having a shortage of cutlery?

*checks drawer*
In fact, I only have two spoons. But I have a couple of forks too. Can those count as honorary spoons?



So, I decided to take the advice of a friend whose judgement I trust over my own. He's a sensible kind of guy. I'm not going to the thesis shindig tonight (which is kind of obvious as I'm typing this because it started forty-five minutes ago), but I am going to email the girl about my concerns*. I feel like that might be a better way of going about it anyway considering how little chance I got to speak last time, and I don't have much patience for being called an ******* without being allowed to state my case (that was a different girl, not the thesis one). I also don't feel up to arguing the case that asexual counts as "queer" and that we're underrepresented; I'm kind of tired today after moving all my furniture yesterday and sleeping poorly last night. Started out with a dozen fewer spoons that usual, but at least I'm aware that I'm fortunate enough to have those spoons to spare.

*(And I'm going to apologise for last time too; I later found out that they had allowed guys in for the first half hour and then made them leave so the girls could have a safe space, which is better than what I thought with the partial information I acted on. I still kind of disagree with that, ideally, but the world isn't an ideal place and I can sort of understand not wanting to talk about more personal aspects of one's sexuality around the opposite sex, though honestly I personally wouldn't want to talk about personal things of any sort around strangers or near-strangers of the same sex.)

[Arachu]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

You like overpopulation of cats, the cruelty shown to strays, and that we have to kill them off? Then spaying and neutering pets and strays is the lesser of two evils. That it makes male cats more tractable and generally develop a more amicable personality is just a fringe benefit.

I'm not saying that I do like those things, only that I don't like the lesser evil either. But what offends me is that it's not seen as being that bad. We don't "fix" preteens, after all.

You interpreted noting that humans have to learn how to be human from those who raise them and their early educators in a way that hating your parents was somehow relevant. Considering you can talk, read, and use the internet, you learned how to be a human rather than growing up feral or raised by a non-human.

I could argue that I learned the basics from them and school and that video games taught me the rest (really, Legend of Dragoon taught me how to read quickly). My actual point is that you don't necessarily have to learn them from your parents to know them, though.

... Okay, yeah, that's not your original point. Still, though. :shrug:

(Also, I don't think I know how to use the Internet so much as I know how to type and use Google. )

True, though with that kind of relationship, certain licenses can be assumed and used or discarded at one's discretion anyway.

True.

[Triscuitable]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

...Why aren't they spayed and neutered?

You should probably go ahead and make the appointment today...

They are, and they're both male. I've mentioned my gay cats, have I not?

Originally Posted by Arachu

I just hate how it's seen as perfectly acceptable to sterilize something on the grounds that you don't plan to breed it. Especially considering the whole "purebreed" concept... :/

Well they were raised in seperate homes. We only got one after we got the other, and there was an unspayed female in the neighborhood. As a security precaution, we had him neutered. Otherwise we may have had a bunch of tiny little squealing Siamese kittens.

[Heliomance]

Today was a good day, aside from the complete lack of work achieved. I got a lovely new skirt and top (pics will be forthcoming when I have better light, assuming I remember), and got invited on a girls' night in!

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Arachu

I'm not saying that I do like those things, only that I don't like the lesser evil either. But what offends me is that it's not seen as being that bad. We don't "fix" preteens, after all.

I sincerely hope that you're being facetious rather than serious here.

If we are, then I have heard of people wanting all men to get vasectomies as a matter of course so that they have to choose to have children.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

I sincerely hope that you're being facetious rather than serious here.

If we are, then I have heard of people wanting all men to get vasectomies as a matter of course so that they have to choose to have children.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Mutant Sheep]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Are you being serious here?


Also, hell no, people would never go for that.