LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!

[Serpentine]

I'm not saying testosterone cannot boost sex-drive, just that I believe it's not the only hormone that does. It's also present in everyone regardless of gender (including people with no sexual attraction at all, come to think of it).

Truth. As you'll see, I argued above that plenty of women also frequently think of sex and that I disliked how the tone of the thread was leaning towards shaming those who do

I just wanted to make sure we weren't bending science to argue that testosterone didn't have anything to do with sex drive, as it obviously does (amongst other things)

Moreover, I wasn't implying that men don't often have high sex drives, any more than my counter-example was implying that women don't have emotions. I was just pointing out the stereotyping, shaming, generalisation, reinforcing of gender-coding for sex and emotionality, and... uh... "here's the defining feature of that type of person that explains and justifies everything they do", inherent to both of those sexist sweeping statements.
Joking about that sort of thing is okay, but when all too often it's said in full earnestness and to justify some pretty crappy things (that are bad for both sides), you'd better be pretty certain it's clear you're joking and not just another person buying into tired old stereotypes - especially if, frankly, there is kind of a history there of buying into tired old stereotypes.

[SiuiS]

From a conciliatory perspective, may I request that you don't make decisions over what may or may not interest me: You simply cannot know. In the same way, I will avoid telling you what your interests or feelings are. Deal?

Why? Here, you already told me you weren't interested;

I have no particular interest in that debate either, not least because I think there is nothing to debate.

You don't care that your argument has been made by dozens of men in my experience alone, nor that it's been refuted by thousands of people in my experience alone, not touching on however many legions may have done so that I haven't seen. You aren't interested in my viewpoint, as inferred from brushing past what I meant in favor of sticking to what specific words I chose one out of three times.

My interest lies in the value of Zurvan's perspective as a cautionary tale. Your interest lies in personal umbrage over a grammatical choice. You also do not care to examine whether you're correct. So why engage you when you asked me not to? That's trolling. I don't do that. I just hope outside the context of our back and forth you'll examine this in the future.

Note: not saying at all that your view is invalid! That's not where I want to go at all. I just don't benefit in any way by engaging because our intentions are so misaligned in this instance.

[Coidzor]

At that point, I think it best to just conclude the disagreement cannot be reconciled, and leave it at that.

Spoiler: Disagreement? What Disagreement?

Show

It is rather impossible to reconcile a disagreement if we don't actually know explicitly that there even is one and if there is, what it's actually about.

We still don't even know whether SiuiS was speaking from the perspective that all of the good or neutral relationship behaviors have become gender neutral or gender blind now and that worrying over whether one is being masculine or feminine in how one expresses affection to one's romantic partners is part of the problem and just, y'know, forgot to put that crucial component, or if the argument was that there's no way to be masculine and not a prat WRT romance.

One of those is something that I can disagree with but can grok where someone would be coming from with that position and so have no real cause to argue unless we all really felt like it, and the other would be a source of major beefsteak. If there's a third, I'd like to know, as I only really see the two ways to take it, still.

That said, given the context, as I understand it, that Zurvan is currently trying to figure out how to relate being attracted to men with his cultural notions of romance which are still tied up in heteronormative notions, preventing him from feeling free to explore his feelings for other men beyond the carnal due to the belief that he would either feminize another man by showing affection or be feminized himself... if one is going to go with the all worthwhile behaviors are gender neutral, that'd really seem to need some exposition to help alloy the message. And telling someone who wants to be masculine and love men that there's no masculine way to do so that isn't transgressive in some way is unhelpful as far as I can figure.

[SiuiS]

Your mind is a wonderful thing Coidzor, and I sometimes feel as though it is clockwork wrought of intricate wheels and the finest crystal. I can see and appreciate the movements but the layers of transparent glass on transparent glass obscure each other and leave me both understanding and yet baffled.

I believe the disagreement is one of shifting goal posts, and we have multiple things being said and contested. Ultimately, I think he would like an apology, and I feel it would be immoral to give him one when I am not apologetic. We sort of touch on why I'm not apologetic, but I don't know if he cares. We sort of touch on semantics, but I specifically don't care and refer to the Not All Men dialectics. We sort of touch on the differences between accepting the world as is and being the change you want to see, but I'm unclear how much of that I actually posted versus internalized.

We've had a complex disagreement that cannot be flattened easily (if at all), cannot be hashed out in completion without forum violation, and we cannot agree on which thread to start with to detangle the thing. I believe that the difficulty in isolating what the disagreement actually is, is simply a symptom of both of is operating on different levels. We are like two flocks of geese flying obliquely across each other, and in order to figure it out we would need to chart not only the path of each goose but also the matrix designed by these paths crossing.

[Athedia]

Okay, I want to step in and remind people that this is primarily a questions thread. Discussions like this, while they can be fruitful can also scare people away from seeking answers to questions they might have.

If you want to continue this you can take it to PMs, but it would be nice if the atmosphere in the thread could return to a more inviting state.

[Coidzor]

Is it relatively common for a couple comprised of bisexual women or a bisexual woman and a lesbian to refer to their relationship as a lesbian one or is that the sort of thing that's subtly signalling that a woman or women who previously identified as bisexual now identifies as lesbian instead?

Would it be rude to ask such for clarification, if they had previously identified themselves as bisexual to one's self but now at least seem to be potentially identifying as lesbian?

[golentan]

Is it relatively common for a couple comprised of bisexual women or a bisexual woman and a lesbian to refer to their relationship as a lesbian one or is that the sort of thing that's subtly signalling that a woman or women who previously identified as bisexual now identifies as lesbian instead?

Would it be rude to ask such for clarification, if they had previously identified themselves as bisexual to one's self but now at least seem to be potentially identifying as lesbian?

In my experience, it's common to call a relationship lesbian if it's two women without the women necessarily being lesbians. Just like I would refer to a gay relationship with my boyfriend, but wouldn't necessarily consider myself gay.

[noparlpf]

Well, the FindChaos authors are a woman and an agender person (we need a single word for that, like, uh, noman, as in, "no, man, I'm neither" or something, but I'm not allowed to name stuff, so don't ask me). They refer to "lesbian sex" sometimes. But I don't think they're a "lesbian couple".

[Lissou]

A lot of people, in my experience, refer to the relationship configuration with an orientation word, regardless of the orientations of the people involved. So yes, they might say someone is in a "lesbian relationship" by which they would mean "in a relationship with another woman". The person might identify as bi, pan, or even straight with an exception.

That's unfortunate as far as bi erasure goes (people would only use "a bisexual relationship" for a polyamorous relationship where are least one person has partners of different genders) and it's a bit confusing (it's like the relationship itself has an orientation) but it's not unusual.

I would stay away from concluding that someone who used to identify as bi doesn't anymore unless they state it in those terms. Bi/pan people often face the "you're in a relationship with [insert gender here] right now so obviously you're (now) gay/straight" and so it's a good idea not to go that way. Of course, it's possible for someone to identify as bi or pan temporarily before realising they are actually gay, but unless she says she's a lesbian, you should probably only see the use of the term as a description of the relationship rather than the orientation of the people inside said relationship.

[golentan]

Well, the FindChaos authors are a woman and an agender person (we need a single word for that, like, uh, noman, as in, "no, man, I'm neither" or something, but I'm not allowed to name stuff, so don't ask me). They refer to "lesbian sex" sometimes. But I don't think they're a "lesbian couple".

Well, I know that K. (the woman) in the couple does identify as lesbian*. Though when gender and sex don't align in a couple, it seems the best way to handle things is to say anything goes as far as labelling (by which I mean if you're attracted to someone trans or agendered there's no need to relabel whatever your sexuality label is).

*Which makes me sad. Such a crush on her.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Is it relatively common for a couple comprised of bisexual women or a bisexual woman and a lesbian to refer to their relationship as a lesbian one or is that the sort of thing that's subtly signalling that a woman or women who previously identified as bisexual now identifies as lesbian instead?

Would it be rude to ask such for clarification, if they had previously identified themselves as bisexual to one's self but now at least seem to be potentially identifying as lesbian?

When I was dating my ex-girlfriend, I said I was a bisexual in a same-sex relationship
Unless stated otherwise, being in a same or different gendered relationship doesn't make a bisexual not bisexual anymore
(Infact, in my personal experience, if I'm in a relationship with a person who identifies as either hard feminine or hard masculine, I tend to find only members of the opposite end attractive
For example, when I was dating Kaitlyn, who identifies as highly femme, I was only attracted, outside of her, to people who identified and presented as masculine and the opposite can be said now that I'm dating Billycakes)

Generally, it's best to assume someone who identified as bisexual continues to be bisexual until they inform you otherwise

[Iruka]

Of course, it's possible for someone to identify as bi or pan temporarily before realising they are actually gay, but unless she says she's a lesbian, you should probably only see the use of the term as a description of the relationship rather than the orientation of the people inside said relationship.

Or their orientation might just have shifted. If one identified differently in the past, this does not necessarily mean that one has found their "true" orientation.

[Gwynfrid]

Why? Here, you already told me you weren't interested;

Shifting ground. We weren't talking about the same thing.

I believe the disagreement is one of shifting goal posts, and we have multiple things being said and contested. Ultimately, I think he would like an apology, and I feel it would be immoral to give him one when I am not apologetic.

That's what I inferred from your earlier post. Your use of words like apology and reconciliation was a little confusing to me, since the rest of your post wasn't conveying the same message. But it's a moot point, since I don't feel you owe me an apology anyway. I said earlier I wanted to the matter go, and I should have simply stuck to that.

Okay, I want to step in and remind people that this is primarily a questions thread. Discussions like this, while they can be fruitful can also scare people away from seeking answers to questions they might have.

This, yes. If anybody needs to apologize, it's me, to all readers, for moving the thread way off-topic and towards antagonistic tones. Sorry about that.

[noparlpf]

Well, I know that K. (the woman) in the couple does identify as lesbian*. Though when gender and sex don't align in a couple, it seems the best way to handle things is to say anything goes as far as labelling (by which I mean if you're attracted to someone trans or agendered there's no need to relabel whatever your sexuality label is).

*Which makes me sad. Such a crush on her.

Pretty sure Stiffler also identified as a lesbian until a few years ago. I saw an older tumblr post referring to them as "she" before they discovered the word agender.

But yeah, just because somebody happens to be into a non-binary person once doesn't mean they're not generally lesbian/straight/whatever.

[Lissou]

Or their orientation might just have shifted. If one identified differently in the past, this does not necessarily mean that one has found their "true" orientation.

That's possible, but this argument has been used often enough as a justification to try to "cure" people that I was uncomfortable using it that way in the first place. Of course, having an orientation that changes doesn't mean it can be changed by anything else or controlled (anymore than a genderfluid person can "decide" their gender at all times) but I didn't trust myself to phrase it in a way that was clearly not meant in a "reparation" kind of way. I am aware however that some people's sexuality may shift and that someone who identify as different things at different time is not necessarily wrong or lying.

[Kajhera]

Mmhm. As an example, I have a fluid bisexuality, so I might identify as more feminine-attracted, masculine-attracted, dual or agender-attracted at any given point in time. (Strangely, this also gendershifts which traits I perceive in people, though I'm only comfortable expressing 'you'd make a hot girl/guy/[other possibilities]' when talking to myself in the mirror, and with close friends I am already aware would appreciate it.)

It changes pretty often, which confused me at first when I'd work something about my attractions out just for it to shift, but now I look forward to getting to look through different perspectives over time. Not too often I stop being attracted to a gender group entirely, but the relative strength certainly varies.

[Lissou]

That's interesting. I know of similar shifts within the same orientation. For instance, someone attracted to women who is attracted to a specific aspect of body part they perceive as feminine, but later it shifts to a different aspect or body part, and so on. It makes sense that if you are (generally speaking) bisexual, the intensity could vary as well? I mean even if you're monosexual, there will be time you're more interested in people a receptive to them, and times when you are less so. If you are attracted to more than one gender, you'd probably have more than one "health bars" which may or may not be correlated depending on the person.

[noparlpf]

Do people ever sort of conflate two romantic interests (past or present) in their heads?

[Coidzor]

Do people ever sort of conflate two romantic interests (past or present) in their heads?

What, like, a person has a thing for Sheila and Blake and then somehow concentrates the attraction towards Sheila onto Blake so that they've got twice the intensity of fancy going on for Blake than they did initially?

Or forgetting that one has or had a thing for Sheila and thinking that they had a thing for Blake instead?

[noparlpf]

What, like, a person has a thing for Sheila and Blake and then somehow concentrates the attraction towards Sheila onto Blake so that they've got twice the intensity of fancy going on for Blake than they did initially?

Or forgetting that one has or had a thing for Sheila and thinking that they had a thing for Blake instead?

Nah, just like, they're thinking and they have a sort of Shake in their head instead of the two discrete entities.

[Coidzor]

Nah, just like, they're thinking and they have a sort of Shake in their head instead of the two discrete entities.

Shake? I'm not familiar with that term and/or slang.

Is it for some kind of amalgamation of both Sheila and Blake into some kind of Sheila-Blake entity?

[noparlpf]

Shake? I'm not familiar with that slang. Is it for some kind of amalgamation of both Sheila and Blake into some kind of Sheila-Blake entity?

Yeah. It could also be Bleila. Or maybe even some other weird mashup.

[Coidzor]

Yeah. It could also be Bleila. Or maybe even some other weird mashup.

Where did you come across that term?

Aside from people's sexual fantasies when they're torn between two attractions I've not really run into the concept before now, and then it's more a grab-bag of the positive physical and personality traits of each individual with the general exaggerations of being a thing of fantasy.

Well. Hm. I suppose there's also ruminating on the commonalities between, say, one's current object of desire and one of one's former lovers? That seems like that would less conflate the two or more individuals and more... use them to synthesize a "type"(?) though. I think.

[Icewraith]

Yeah. It could also be Bleila. Or maybe even some other weird mashup.

I think the most common occurrence of this is "calling your current lover by a previous partner's name". Upon onset of this condition, you generally have about twelve seconds to convince your lover not to murder you.

[noparlpf]

Where did you come across that term?

Oh. I dunno. I just took your two generic names and smashed them together in my head. I don't think it's a thing anywhere else. My head is a strange place.

[Coidzor]

Oh. I dunno. I just took your two generic names and smashed them together in my head. I don't think it's a thing anywhere else. My head is a strange place.

It did come across as if you meant that "Shake" was a term specifically for such a blending derived from either the verb "shake" or the things one gets in lieu of milkshakes due to people with an objection to dairy. Rather than a portmaneau of the two throwaway example names which were the first ones that came to my mind.

Now I grok you though, I think. XD

[Mono Vertigo]

Okay, hm.
How would you go around to tell a 10/11-year-old, who is NOT a relative*, that somebody else's genitals are none of their business?

Spoiler: Context

Show

So I got a job at school, taking care of extracurricular activities and surveillance at recess.
During an activity, a bizarre discussion was started by a few girls. First, there was a joke about homosexuals that I didn't get at all, and I can't even figure out why the guy being gay was relevant in this joke (I might have missed innuendos**, but I believe it's terrible policy to punish a kid for saying things that you are not sure are sexual in nature, so yeah).
Then, another girl said that somebody had claimed a classmate had a penis (!). (The following is paraphrased.)

Me: "Wait, wha-"
Girl 1: "X has grown a penis."
Girl 2: "Silly you, you need medication for that!"
Girl 3: "Yeah, there was that singer in the 50's or something, she used to be a boy before, too."

The conversation shifted very quickly from that point again, and between the initial claim, the extremely surprising (basic) knowledge of transsexualism, and the unbelievable fact pre-teens actively acknowledged stuff from before their birth, I found myself too dumbstruck to find a way to properly respond.
Also, since this is France, and we're still in 2014, I'm absolutely positive that no, a pre-teen couldn't possibly have been allowed to transition, in one way or the other. So that's just a ludicrous and insulting claim.

Can't talk about the "incident" to the parents; I'm fairly certain they'd hear me say "Your kids are talking about people who change sex, which is bad" or "A little girl might have a penis, which is bad" instead of "Your kids care about another kid's genitals, which is bad". Bringing the issues to other adults, parents or staff, is a bad idea in general, because of this: http://www.france24.com/en/20140129-...rotest-school/
I can't discuss elaborate gender theory with these kids, either, because... well, they're kids. It's hard enough discussing it with adults, imagine doing it with kids who lose attention after 15 seconds tops.
So, how should I do it?
I don't see a point in tracking down the same kids next Monday to lecture them, so I won't do that, but in case I run into the same rumour again, I'd like to be able to explain why that kind of claim is complete crap. On top of telling them not to spread ******* rumours, of course. (Without the cursing, of course.)



**I am vaguely depressed that 11-year-old might make obscene references that I, as a 26-year-old, won't get. Something something is that what kids call it these days something something.

Spoiler: Bonus funny

Show

Texted my boyfriend (who's trans) to tell him about the strange conversation.
Him: "It doesn't grow that much. :D"
Me: "Yeah well I can't give biology lessons, especially if it's about stuff parents might object to."

*That means I don't know them well at all, and can't get too involved into their education.

[Coidzor]

I suppose "People can't just grow penises and vaginas all willy-nilly, that's science fiction or magical thinking" would be unprofessional conduct, and a simple "it's no one's business what's in someone else's pants," would lead to further unpleasantness?

[Gwynfrid]

I'd suggest you look at whether this silly pre-teen speak might do any harm to the person they were talking about; only you can tell, from the tone of the conversation, and what was actually said. If that's the case, you might want to just report the existence of the rumor to the school headmaster?

And if you hear this again, I would simply go "hey, this is a very personal and private thing, I'm sure you guys wouldn't like people to talk about you like that, right?" In any case I would stay away from discussing the science and the specifics.

[noparlpf]

I suppose "People can't just grow penises and vaginas all willy-nilly, that's science fiction or magical thinking" would be unprofessional conduct, and a simple "it's no one's business what's in someone else's pants," would lead to further unpleasantness?

Well, technically they can, but it involves stem cells and cloning and requires advanced laboratory equipment to which very few pre-teens outside of cartoons have access.
Also I'm fairly certain we cannot actually practically grow entire organs in the lab yet. That's still largely theoretical.