LGBTAI+ Question and Discussion Thread III: Third Time's A Charm

[Zendy]

Yeah your definition of straight doesn't add up since most of the guys who identify as straight are NOT interested in trans women with d**** or otherwise.

The fact is: For most of the population your original genitalia is a decisive factor defining your sexuality and orientation.

You may be "above that" but that doesn't make you right, superior or more evolved just that your opinion go against the majority of the population, just as people who believe that the earth is flat for example, you are entitled of your beliefs but have no right to claim superiority or that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Does it?

[2D8HP]

Part of the issue is that this acceptance still isn't around everywhere. You were in an area ahead of its time ....

I hope your right, and other places are just "playing catch-up", but sadly from what I read and see (this Forum, and the news), I sometimes fear that bigotry is increasing compared to when I was a youth (maybe it just feels that way because I'm just encountering more people than those I grew up with).

[Zendy]

I hope your right, and other places are just "playing catch-up", but sadly from what I read and see (this Forum, and the news), I sometimes fear that bigotry is increasing compared to when I was a youth (maybe it just feels that way because I'm just encountering more people than those I grew up with).

Aren't you from San Francisco? Isn't that like the gayest city in the planet? It’s like people form Zürich and Stockholm saying that criminality is not that big of a deal. -_-

[Jormengand]

Yeah your definition of straight doesn't add up since most of the guys who identify as straight are NOT interested in trans women with d**** or otherwise.

I've heard people assert this a lot but in my experience it's just not true.

[2D8HP]

Aren't you from San Francisco?...

Nope.

I do work in (and for) The City and County of San Francisco, and while my brother was born and went to college in "The City", I was not, and did not, nor have I gone to any other schools in the City.

I'm working class (blue collar, no college), and was born in Oakland, where I've slept most of my life, and no San Franciscan would consider me a fellow "City kid", only someone from L.A. (and those other places down state) would call me "from San Francisco".

I imagine others would call me a "Californian" or an "American"?

[Recherché]

I lived in Santa Cruz CA for a few years and even there some people considered Oakland to be basically part of SF. Up here in Washington where I am now almost everyone thinks of Oakland as a part of SF. It might not be right but the idea is is pretty widespread once you get away from the Bay area.

[2D8HP]

I lived in....

Santa Cruz?

Washington?

There be Dragons.

[golentan]

Yeah your definition of straight doesn't add up since most of the guys who identify as straight are NOT interested in trans women with d**** or otherwise.

The fact is: For most of the population your original genitalia is a decisive factor defining your sexuality and orientation.

You may be "above that" but that doesn't make you right, superior or more evolved just that your opinion go against the majority of the population, just as people who believe that the earth is flat for example, you are entitled of your beliefs but have no right to claim superiority or that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Does it?

Says who? My experience is genitals are at most a limit on what you can do, not what you like to do. A limit bypassable to some extent by cleverness and love. You comparing this to flat earthers is both apropos and insulting: People who have studied this by and large disagree with you (including both academic sex researchers all the way to pornography sites, whose data show that straight men are the largest demographic viewing trans women). And at this point, you might as well keep digging. Might come out the other side.

Aren't you from San Francisco? Isn't that like the gayest city in the planet? It’s like people form Zürich and Stockholm saying that criminality is not that big of a deal. -_-

I...

Santa Cruz?


There be Dragons.

I be dragons?

[2D8HP]

...I be dragons?

I'd say the odds are likely, the presence of big Dragons is why no BART or Cal-Trans trains stations have built down there, right?

We also have some Dragons, albeit tiny ones.

On land

and,

in the water

[golentan]

I'd say the odds are likely, the presence of big Dragons is why no BART or Cal-Trans trains stations have built down there, right?

That's a shame. I like using the BART whenever I head up north. The thought they're deliberately excluding me is a little hurtful. I will sooth myself with the traditional Santa Cruz soothings, of being pretty queer, rolling around on a pile of gold, and eating free trade, organic artichokes roasted with our breath weapons.

[lio45]

I thought the consensus among the most progressive transactivists and -allies was that lesbians who are attracted to women with vulvas are vulva fetishists - how is a man who is attracted to girls with penises different?

Well, that's a slippery slope of a definition: "anyone who isn't willing to have intercourse with any other human with a pulse is a whatever-your-criteria-for-attraction fetishist".

It's really a useless definition, since nearly everybody out there will be fetishists. I, for example, as a hetero guy, am a woman fetishist.

[lio45]

... reducing being a lesbian to being attracted to a certain set of genitals feels reductive.

Definitions are definitions precisely because they're reductive. The term "bisexual" exists, and by very definition is less reductive than "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Labels being reductive aren't a problem, it's pretty much the goal of having labels! If a given label doesn't apply to someone, then another label will. That's the point.

[WarKitty]

Definitions are definitions precisely because they're reductive. The term "bisexual" exists, and by very definition is less reductive than "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Labels being reductive aren't a problem, it's pretty much the goal of having labels! If a given label doesn't apply to someone, then another label will. That's the point.

But sometimes labels will be fussy. And of course, just because someone is attracted to X category of people, doesn't mean that they'll be attracted to every member of it. It's best not to think too hard about labels.

Speaking of labels...how do people feel about the word "queer"?

[golentan]

Speaking of labels...how do people feel about the word "queer"?

I'm in favor of it, as long as it's not being used as a slur. It's short, punchy, a good umbrella word that avoids tortuous acronyms without excluding... I understand why some people might take issue given its history as a slur, but I like it.

[JNAProductions]

I've heard people assert this a lot but in my experience it's just not true.

I can support this statement 100%.

[Recherché]

Speaking of labels...how do people feel about the word "queer"?

Queer's my preferred description of my orientation because anything else would be an essay. While I understand it's history and that it can be used as a slur its really helpful to have a term for "not easily categorized." I do occasionally get irritated at people thinking that it means I'm 100% lesbian though.

[lio45]

But sometimes labels will be fussy. And of course, just because someone is attracted to X category of people, doesn't mean that they'll be attracted to every member of it. It's best not to think too hard about labels.

Of course, but it's still important to realize that "being reductive" is a feature, not a bug, of these terms. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point in them.

Speaking of labels...how do people feel about the word "queer"?

Just my personal opinion - I've never liked it, way too vague (don't other, better terms overlap it for all possible meanings, anyway?)

I've never, ever used it. I have never encountered a strict need for it.

Edit: Interestingly enough, Recherché right above my post - which I didn't see before posting - makes a good argument for it.

[2D8HP]

That's a shame. I like using the BART whenever I head up north. The thought they're deliberately excluding me is a little hurtful. I will sooth myself with the traditional Santa Cruz soothings, of being pretty queer, rolling around on a pile of gold, and eating free trade, organic artichokes roasted with our breath weapons.

It's so cruel. BART really should invest in more flame retardant upholstery and expand. Your post was glorious! :Biggrin: If I can't fit some of it in my Sig, I'm putting it into my Extended Signature. Please?

Also you quoted someone who posted (in response to one of my posts):
"Aren't you from San Francisco? Isn't that like the gayest city in the planet?"

I had three alternate ideas on how to have responded:

1) Why yes, thank you.

2) No that's Disneyland ("Happiest place on Earth")

3) So?

I just went with "I'm from Oakland", because I didn't actually understand the purpose of the question.

Speaking of labels...how do people feel about the word "queer"?

Because I'm old I still have some negative associations with the word:

I remember "playing" (mostly just running, and trying to look is if I was participating, while also trying to not have to tackle or be tackled) it in the mid to late 1970's. I don't remember the detail of it being the guy who brought down the last "queer" becoming the next "queer", as it almost always ended in a "dogpile" with one boy being so massively tackled that the identity of who brought down the "queer" was unclear. Incredibly another boy would then volunteer by grabbing the now loose ball and running with it for the glory of evading being tackled the longest.
I remember that there was usually very little adult supervision when it was played (boys only, where were the girls? ), but sometimes an adult would object to the name of the game (they would never explain why), but not to the likelihood that someone would get really hurt!

...The worst incident was my getting punched unconscious by stangers after being picked out, and asked "What's happening" (I was waiting outside of Slims on 11th Street in San Francisco trying to see the Flaming Lips perform), definitely left me with a useful prejudice, as when another bearded, stocky, backwards cap, and plaid shirt wearing young man approached me (on Blake Street just off Telegraph Avenue) and demanded, "Give me your money!", I already had pepper spray in my hand. A decade latter, age and working construction in San Jose (and horrible "Silicon Valley") made me stocky as well (though I never grew a damn beard!), and one day a grossly overweight bearded plumber that I was the apprentice of told me a story of how in his youth he and friends went to San Francisco to go "queer bashing" only to be fought off and chased by the "queer" driving a VW bug (my father drove one, so that detail stuck) down the highway that they were trying to escape on, "he was really strong".

That's when it clicked for me. As a teenager I knew some classmates, and friends who were "out" but I thought of any trouble that they may have because of that as something that would have happened in "the bad old days", but I realized that since I:


1) Was wearing a Greek fisherman's hat (I remember getting it knocked off my head) instead of a backwards baseball cap,

2) I was skinny,

and

3) In San Francisco to see a Rock band.

I was selected as a "queer" (someone not wearing a backwards baseball cap) to be "bashed" (sucker-punched to unconsciousness).

That made me realize that LGBT etc, etc folks have real contemporary (OK I would have been at least 21 years old, but it was before I got married because I was alone so 1989 to 1992) violent repression against them...

[golentan]

Sure, sig away.

And yeah... I think people know the fraught history of the word, and I do really get why people might object. I know I have some really terrifying and bad experiences with it as a slur. But I also like it because it has positive history for it. Both my sexual and gender identities are enough off kilter that I often go with "queer" for myself (though Bisexual suffices for people who don't need to know more). Positive memories, I remember a march when I was a kid with the "We're Here, We're Queer," call. It's not all negative, and it's inclusive enough and enough a badge of pride reclaimed in my mind, that... eh.

[ArlEammon]

Edit-
Not a suicide threat.
I need to go to bed. I'm fine.

[Astrella]

Definitions are definitions precisely because they're reductive. The term "bisexual" exists, and by very definition is less reductive than "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Labels being reductive aren't a problem, it's pretty much the goal of having labels! If a given label doesn't apply to someone, then another label will. That's the point.

The problem is that people like, dismiss other people's sexualities. Like, say, if you look at trans women porn or just trans women as a group, like, gay men aren't interested in us at all; so it does mean that like it's beyond just genitals. My point is just that like, while genitals do factor into attraction, they're hardly the only thing that's at play. I doubt many straight men are into Buck Angel for example.

And it just bugs me a bit when people do the whole, oh, he's dating a trans woman, he must be gay. Or vice versa when people insist a woman's not really a lesbian cause she has a trans girlfriend.

[Heliomance]

I also like queer. Best umbrella word for "not cishet but maybe don't fit into one of the better known neat categories" I've come across. I object to people claiming straight people aren't allowed to use it.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I both like "queer" and hate it at the same time. On one hand, its a really good catch-all for people that aren't easily defined, like myself and many of my loved ones; on the other hand I am unfortunately someone that gets caught up in meanings and definitions by simple fact of my brain working that way, so my internal monologue usually ends up in a fist fight with what I want to say or share.

[Zendy]

I've heard people assert this a lot but in my experience it's just not true.

Yeah I bet your experience is not a niche of society.

Says who? My experience is genitals are at most a limit on what you can do, not what you like to do. A limit bypassable to some extent by cleverness and love. You comparing this to flat earthers is both apropos and insulting: People who have studied this by and large disagree with you (including both academic sex researchers all the way to pornography sites, whose data show that straight men are the largest demographic viewing trans women). And at this point, you might as well keep digging. Might come out the other side.

Everyone who is not a member of the LGBT communbity! Just ask any random guy and you will see.

Your experience don't serve as a base because you are LGBT, yeah they see a lot of trans porn that just proves that they have a fetish, porn doesn't mean that they want to love and build a life together with a trans person.



Overall, just look at the definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/straight+person

"a heterosexual person; someone having a sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex"

Did you see that they used "sex" not "gender"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_an...er_distinction

There you go sex is genital (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics)and gender is mental and social (gender identity).

So there you have it, I win you lose. Will you have the decency and humility to admit defeat? Probably not, since to LGBT people only your view is the right one.

[super dark33]

Ask a random guy and he might lie to you.

The reason a lot of manlymanmachodudebros dont admit to being ok with trans women is because 1. Transness isnt really understood at large 2. Transphobia is still institutional at large 3. Transphobia is seen as "simple no nonsense masculine manliness" to people due to the above facts.

That way you get a lot of people bragging about fighting trans people, or sharing "horror stories" about "thinking youre a manly man by having sex with a woman, suddenly discovering the woman is trans, by transphobia meaning not a woman, ergo you are a gay, ergo unmanly, jokes on you".

Man do i not miss trying to fit in that mold.

[lio45]

My point is just that like, while genitals do factor into attraction, they're hardly the only thing that's at play.

Sure, but they're still a major factor in sexual orientation. If you're a man and find yourself having pleasure doing all kinds of things to/with another person's **** in the bedroom, you're not actually straight. We've got terms and definitions for everything, so there is clearly a need for a term for the millions of men - likely a majority of human males, but at the very very least, millions - who are not turned on sexually by a **** and balls. That term, last I checked, was "straight" and/or "heterosexual".

[Jormengand]

Overall, just look at the definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/straight+person

"a heterosexual person; someone having a sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex"

Did you see that they used "sex" not "gender"?

I think you're trying to make a dictionary definition about a socially complex word into an argument, and it's not going to work the way you think it will.

Sure, but they're still a major factor in sexual orientation. If you're a man and find yourself having pleasure doing all kinds of things to/with another person's **** in the bedroom, you're not actually straight.

I'll be sure to let my straight boyfriend who has only ever been with women and only ever wants to be with women know that he's not straight.

Actually he can probably read this comment and tell you why it's not true on his own, but...

[JNAProductions]

I will say this-it's okay to not be sexually attracted to people with the wrong (as in, wrong for you-not wrong universally) set of genitals. There's nothing wrong with saying "I'm a heterosexual man, I'm attracted to women, and if they have a penis, then I'm not into them sexually."

That being said-you should not deny them their womanhood. (Or manhood, in the vice versa situation.) So, if we take the example of a trans woman who has not had bottom surgery, still has her penis, all that jazz, then there's nothing wrong with a heterosexual man saying "I'm not into her." But, the man in this situation should absolutely, 100% acknowledge that the woman he's not attracted to is, in fact, a woman.

And yes-as someone who finds Jor incredibly lovely and awesome, it doesn't really matter what junk they're packing. They're a wonderful girlfriend regardless of the parts between their legs. (And, since they are genderfluid, they're still an awesome friend when not a woman.)

[Zendy]

{Scrubbed}

[Jormengand]

{Scrubbed}