LGBTAitP #28: Come Taste the Rainbow!

[Kindablue]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

For the purposes of this thread, yes.

I've been doing it wrong for so long.

Originally Posted by C'nor

You are now a victim of Muphry's Law - it's dysphoria, not dysforsia. And also, I'm pretty sure that it's just dysphoria, or at least if it is "genderdysphoria", that should be two words.

To be fair, dysforsia is a much cooler sounding word.

[C'nor]

Originally Posted by Kindablue

To be fair, dysforsia is a much cooler sounding word.

True. Now we just need to come up with a meaning for it.

[Saskia]

Originally Posted by Kindablue

(Also hi! You have the best avatar!)

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Coidzor

f you're sexually active than why did you class yourself as asexual?

Asexual and aromantic are not synonymous, though. Not feeling romantic attachment is different from not feeling sexual desire.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

It's awfully funny how they're skeptics and refuse to acknowledge the evidence that it doesn't work and also won't bother to look into the history of it.

You'd think half an hour's research and a good ten to fifteen minute write up would have sorted that out.

A half-hour of research and fifteen minutes of write up are not how science works. No, not even soft sciences. That's how we got people like Freud and his entertaining, infuriating, sometimes accurate but mostly garbage analyses on sexuality. It's not actually even refusing to acknowledge in most cases. Sure there are some bad scientists, and a lot of them are in social sciences where poor methodology is slightly easier to get away with (if you don't do work for a good university or try to publish in tier 1-2 journals anyway), but most of the time what they say is something to the effect of "I'm not convinced" rather than "That's not true". Most of the ones who make the vacuous positive claim that it is not true are the ones paid by unscrupulous groups anyway.

Studies regarding gender and sexuality are rarely unbiased because frankly the information gained on what makes people gay/straight/cis/asexual/etc hasn't got much practical application, even in any potential foreseeable future. This means that studies done on the subject are almost always either undergrad or graduate studies done for grades (and often have serious methodological flaws), or are done by independent groups like the Family Research Council or some other agency with an explicit stated agenda, in which case the authenticity of the data itself cannot be trusted (even if that group is pro-gay/whatever), and STILL there are often massive flaws because they don't hire proper researchers to learn about a phenomenon, they hire interns to collate data and get a guy with a "degree" from a diploma mill or even a legit degree from an unrelated field to say OH YEAH I'm Doctor Such and such and this is legit stuff, yo. When a scientist says "I'm not convinced" it doesn't always mean "That's a load of horsefeathers."

There is, in reality, a distressingly small amount of legitimate scientific work done on the subjects of sexuality and gender identity, and consensus in the community is somewhere between "it would be cool if we could get the funding" and "if there's even a small environmental component to be demonstrated it poses serious ethical problems, so it may be best to leave Pandora's box shut because any fuel the haters get is not worth the potential benefits."

In proper science, ethics influences the methodology but it does not and cannot influence the results. If the results show or can even be skewed to show any slight glimpse of legitimacy of anti-whoever people, they will be abused to the fullest extent possible.

I don't know that transsexualism is entirely innate. I don't know that I would be straight and cisgendered if I had grown up in a different environment. I strongly suspect both of these are true, that I would always be straight and always feel like a woman and have no reason to suspect a trans woman would feel differently if her conditions were different, but it would be dishonest of me to claim knowledge of something for which I can't even propose a test. That's the mindset of at least 90% of scientists who consider themselves "skeptical" of currently accepted hypotheses regarding sexuality and gender identity, and then it gets skewed by unscrupulous people to pretend that there's some great controversy within the social sciences about something that's hardly meaningful in the face of, say, increasing violence and dehumanization trends in modern societies. The controversy that exists is scientific in nature and exists only because there's so little data, it's not about whether it's okay to be trans or gay or whatever, it's about whether environment has a significant impact or if it's all (or almost all) inborn.

[Lord Raziere]

Originally Posted by C'nor

True. Now we just need to come up with a meaning for it.

…..a place in the Star Wars universe where the Force itself seems to be malfunctional maybe? dys-Force-ia.

only you know, without any Dark Side Shenanigans.

[gunnar11]

Originally Posted by C'nor

You are now a victim of Muphry's Law - it's dysphoria, not dysforsia. And also, I'm pretty sure that it's just dysphoria, or at least if it is "genderdysphoria", that should be two words.

Aww, damn!
Sorry, it's just that in my country it's written as: genderdysforsie, so I just translated it very poorly.
I will do better in the future

Originally Posted by Kindablue

To be fair, dysforsia is a much cooler sounding word.

Isn't it?

Originally Posted by C'nor

True. Now we just need to come up with a meaning for it.

This made me laugh.

So, the meaning: It must have to do with genderdysphoria, but with something different or extra...
Hmmm

[Astrella]

Originally Posted by C'nor

True. Now we just need to come up with a meaning for it.

Well, it is spelled 'dysforie' in Dutch.

Originally Posted by Saskia

*smart stuff*

Yar, this is why research into sexuality / gender identity is something that sorta makes me feel a bit uncomfortable; because with the current state of society there's very much a risk of bias / misuse of results.

And I guess there's a bit more of a general annoyance at the whole "is it a choice vs. is it not a choice" because in my eyes that doesn't matter at all. People are free to chose who they want to be involved with / what they want to do with their bodies anyways, or should be able to.

(Which is coincidentally why I feel trans women very much have a place in feminism. (Aside from the whole "they're women so duh"). Body policing of trans women (and trans people in general) is very comparable to body policing going on with regards to birth control and pregnancy etc... They're similar issues and should be fought together.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Nix Nihila

Personally, I don't see how that's any more strange than someone who lusts after people who they don't love, but who has experienced romantic attraction before. But I suppose that's just me.

Spoiler

I just don't see it. The relative sample sizes of people you'd grow up with and be raised by should lead to a greater understanding of people who fall in love after noticing someone they find attractive enough to meet and talk to. As one small subset of the examples of how individuals can be sexually attracted to someone they do not love.

Though, really, that you're reacting to it on the level of strangeness indicates that my meaning was perhaps unclear and may have been too easily construed as some form of moral judgment. I don't care to label them or judge them at this point in time and "strangeness" or "weirdness" are irrelevant to my lack of mechanical and metaphysical understanding.

In the words of Pewdiepie, "I DON'T CAAAAARE!"

The closest examples that I've encountered in my personal life to someone who is incapable of experiencing love while being a sexual entity are individuals who have matched up almost exactly with the stereotype of the girl with "daddy issues," which I feel safe in feeling is almost assuredly not the same thing, or at least, I've seen no reason to believe that aromanticism is the result of trauma, though, I admit, I've avoided that stance in part deliberately because I feel it's unwise to go to such a stance without ample evidence.

I've known several transgender individuals and even had relationships with people who were wrestling with the question of their gender identity and who may be wearing the genderqueer label now. I've seen the abstracts from studies that have compared transgender individuals' neurochemistry to cisgender individuals, and I've read up on free martins and chimeras.

I've even known a smattering of asexual individuals and one demisexual individual who had previously thought that he was asexual. I've been able to get inside of their heads and pick their brains and see their writings even if some of them are militantly hostile and obsessed with the idea that asexuality is the future salvation of the species.

There are no equivalent, non-incendiary materials that I have found or heard tell of that one could take as a good source on sexual & aromantic individuals, and with many of those who are self-reportedly sexual & aromantic being very young, it's a bit jaded to say, but how many of them are genuine rather than still figuring themselves out is questionable.

Originally Posted by Nix Nihila

And I got the impression that Gunnar was attempting to convey the concept of being aromantic without knowing the word. But I will let them speak to that.

That was my impression of the situation as well, though my confusion stems from the word choice as being basically the opposite of what was wanted...

Originally Posted by gunnar11

And most importantly: When you're a 15 year old boy, living in The Netherlands, you don't know any more terms than hetero-, homo-, bi- and asexual. There's no 'romantics' or genderdysforsia (although I did know what genderdysforsia was, I didn't know there was hetero-, homo-, etc- romantic.)

You don't need to know special terms to know not to say "I don't want to have sex with anyone" when you mean "I don't feel romantic attraction or love for anyone but I'm sexually attracted to X and Y and Z."

It doesn't take that much longer to say than giving out a single word and expecting that to suffice and it takes less time than having to explain the term as is so often necessary due to the differing personal definitions of terms and the need for explanation and clarification.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive because it's a pet peeve of mine, but I'd swear that I run into this sentiment that one needs a special term to condense paragraphs of exposition when a general term with a sentence of qualification will suffice and communicate the idea more clearly.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Originally Posted by Lord Raziere

…..a place in the Star Wars universe where the Force itself seems to be malfunctional maybe? dys-Force-ia.

only you know, without any Dark Side Shenanigans.

So, either the planet Myrkr where the Force-suppressing ysalimiri hang out in large numbers, or the Crseih Station in orbit around a crystal star that does the same, then. Got it.

[Coidzor]

Originally Posted by Saskia

A half-hour of research and fifteen minutes of write up are not how science works. No, not even soft sciences.

I doubt that the people in the skeptic community who are bigoted in their attitudes towards trans individuals are scientists carrying out research into gender, gender dysphoria, or anything else that would intersect with this topic at hand. So that's rather irrelevant to pointing out to them that attempting to "cure" Trans people has proven impossible, historically, even when they've gone and done extremely immoral things like torturing small children.

Anyone who is not a bigot would have to admit that it's not as simple as attending a nice group therapy session.

Originally Posted by Saskia

Asexual and aromantic are not synonymous, though. Not feeling romantic attachment is different from not feeling sexual desire.

I know they're not synonymous. I have said as much.

That's why I asked gunnar11 the question as to why he claimed the one when he meant the other.

[C'nor]

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

So, either the planet Myrkr where the Force-suppressing ysalimiri hang out in large numbers, or the Crseih Station in orbit around a crystal star that does the same, then. Got it.

Or Korriban, which, as I recall, has enough problems that even people who are definitively Dark Side have trouble using the Force properly there, and also has some of the nastier Force-resistant creatures.

Of course, Korriban probably falls under the heading of "Dark Side shenanigans", but I'm not sure why that was an issue in the first place...

[Nix Nihila]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

Spoiler

I just don't see it. The relative sample sizes of people you'd grow up with and be raised by should lead to a greater understanding of people who fall in love after noticing someone they find attractive enough to meet and talk to. As one small subset of the examples of how individuals can be sexually attracted to someone they do not love.

Though, really, that you're reacting to it on the level of strangeness indicates that my meaning was perhaps unclear and may have been too easily construed as some form of moral judgment. I don't care to label them or judge them at this point in time and "strangeness" or "weirdness" are irrelevant to my lack of mechanical and metaphysical understanding.

In the words of Pewdiepie, "I DON'T CAAAAARE!"

The closest examples that I've encountered in my personal life to someone who is incapable of experiencing love while being a sexual entity are individuals who have matched up almost exactly with the stereotype of the girl with "daddy issues," which I feel safe in feeling is almost assuredly not the same thing, or at least, I've seen no reason to believe that aromanticism is the result of trauma, though, I admit, I've avoided that stance in part deliberately because I feel it's unwise to go to such a stance without ample evidence.

I've known several transgender individuals and even had relationships with people who were wrestling with the question of their gender identity and who may be wearing the genderqueer label now. I've seen the abstracts from studies that have compared transgender individuals' neurochemistry to cisgender individuals, and I've read up on free martins and chimeras.

I've even known a smattering of asexual individuals and one demisexual individual who had previously thought that he was asexual. I've been able to get inside of their heads and pick their brains and see their writings even if some of them are militantly hostile and obsessed with the idea that asexuality is the future salvation of the species.

There are no equivalent, non-incendiary materials that I have found or heard tell of that one could take as a good source on sexual & aromantic individuals, and with many of those who are self-reportedly sexual & aromantic being very young, it's a bit jaded to say, but how many of them are genuine rather than still figuring themselves out is questionable.

Ah, I see. Yes, I think I misconstrued your meaning. It's admittedly something which I can get a bit defensive about, as many people are rather unpleasant about the whole thing.

It is a possibility that I just haven't found "the right person" yet, though I do find it at least a little irritating when people tell me so. But mostly because it usually comes across as rather patronizing. I'm perfectly open to falling in love, but I have no real desire to go looking for it (outside of a small bit of curiosity as to what romantic love is like, though I imagine it is fairly similar to the kinds of love which I have experienced).

[Saskia]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

I doubt that the people in the skeptic community who are bigoted in their attitudes towards trans individuals are scientists carrying out research into gender, gender dysphoria, or anything else that would intersect with this topic at hand. So that's rather irrelevant to pointing out to them that attempting to "cure" Trans people has proven impossible, historically, even when they've gone and done extremely immoral things like torturing small children.

Anyone who is not a bigot would have to admit that it's not as simple as attending a nice group therapy session.

You're talking about the kind of ignorant people who think all it takes to be converted to TheGay is some guy wearing a brightly colored scarf yelling WOLOLO at you from across the street, or listening to too much Lady Gaga. That's not a scientist. That's not a scientific hypothesis. The only things holding that barely coherent idea together is Blu-Tack and paranoia. I'm not talking about those people or their ideas because I don't like saying mean things and they're not worth the keystrokes anyway.

I'm really sorry for offending you with my previous post, but I just really don't know where I was unspecific. Like I explained, the bigots are rarely actually scientists, but let me state clearly that bigotry is unacceptable and I make no apology for it, I'm just trying to explain that when a scientists says "I'm unconvinced that sexuality cannot be altered," that does not mean "I hate gay people." "If sexuality is plastic, gay and trans people should be fixed" is also not what that means. I'm not talking about and thus not supporting the people who get their conclusions out of a magic book and then build hypotheses around them, that is not science and those are not scientists. I'm talking about people who perform the operation the correct way, looking at data and proposing from there a logical hypothesis that might be tested. Most of the scientists who say they're skeptical of the idea that sexuality/gender identity are innate don't say that because they're bigoted, and most of those who say that are also not bigoted anyway. If a trans man can change his sexual identity to be cisgendered, then a cis man can change his sexual identity to become transgendered. That's not a bigoted statement. People making the assumption that plasticity of identity or sexuality means that gays should be changed is exactly what I was talking about when I said most scientists in the fields don't think the studies should even be done. Even the lion's share of the people who suspect that they have large environmental components thing it's dangerous because they don't want people to have the slightest whiff of legitimacy for their bigotry. Let me say again, NOBODY with half a brain is saying that you can take a magic GayMeNot pill or be inoculated against or cured of TheGay by therapy or torture. Nobody said that, and comparing people who happen to think that a human trait is plastic (like all the rest of human traits) to the freaking Inquisition is what those of a gentle disposition would call "reaching."

That some few highly motivated people can willfully change their sexual orientation over time seems to be true, which suggests that it's at least a partially plastic personality trait. Due to the ridiculously low rates of "cure" for homosexuality or transsexualism we don't know what factors contribute to such a transition for such a highly motivated individual, either. The proposal that somebody could, with training, change their sexual orientation or gender identity is not bigotry, it's proposing a hypothesis that something is possible, and there is a world of difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements. I can stab my little corgi with a kitchen knife, but just because I declare that I am physically able to do something does not mean I wish to or that I think I should perform that action. Only ignorant people propose that such a change would be as simple as group therapy or just asking the genie in the sky, and again, just because it might be possible to change sexual orientation does not mean that there's a problem with being gay any more than it means there's a problem with being straight.

Also your statement that somebody cannot alter their sexual identity or preference is just not supported. Certainly it's not supported well enough to say that it's outright impossible. Torture doesn't do anything for anybody except make them say whatever is necessary to make the pain stop, and there are mountain of studies demonstrating that negative reinforcement is generally ineffective compared with positive reinforcement and even counterproductive in the long run. We don't fully understand the mechanics of sexuality and gender identity so to say that they're concrete is just not something that any honest scientist could declare. Saying "torture doesn't work" is like saying "lead doesn't float." Sure, it might theoretically float in liquified radium, but really? The fact that more primitive and superstitious people did awful things to each other in the name of food doesn't make eating bad, it also doesn't make the proposal that somebody who wanted to alter their sexual orientation might be able to do it a bad thing, either. Again, descriptive statements of what is or might be possible are not the same as prescriptive statements of what somebody should do. Once more, just because I CAN condition my corgi to wee on the floor of my bedroom does not mean that I should.

There is some circumstantial evidence to support the idea that orientation and identity might be plastic traits. Not much that's very direct, or very strong, but suggested still. Look up Burrhus Skinner's work on operant conditioning and the subsequent work done on operant conditioning in humans. Reactions to stimuli are not the only things we can condition, we can also train volition, even in humans using Skinner's techniques. Love, lust, and gender identity are not quite the same, no, but there are components of volition and reaction in them. Not everybody who proposes an idea on how minds work knows what they're talking about, and just because we think we know how something works doesn't mean that we do.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

I know they're not synonymous. I have said as much.

That's why I asked the man the question as to why he claimed the one when he meant the other.

Oh, I'm sorry! I misread.

[Coidzor]

...Am I writing essays in my sleep again or something?

I had thought that I never even touched upon sexual preference and reversion "therapy," but if it must be brought up, I'd think the professional associations finally openly acknowledging the general lack of utility should again demonstrate that it is not so simple and cut-and-dried, further emphasizing that there's something more than a healthy respect for the spirit of inquiry and rejection of superstition and tradition going on. You know, to satisfy the laity and uninvolved. Or, at least, last I had looked into it, the set of "skeptics" did not fall wholly or even mostly into the set of "professional scientists," even if I don't really like the cludgy feel of that last term.

Even if it were simple and reversion therapy genuinely and uniformly worked in a manner consistent with its marketing, and even if that horrible, bigoted view of trans individuals was true, there is still no justification or basis for abuse, harassment, or other mistreatment, especially by those in a community that purports to reject the usual reasons for such abuses, like ignorance and superstition.

So I still find it a mote of black comedy and wholly inappropriate for it to be as much of a contentious issue in that community as it is.

[Ceric]

Saskia, I love your posts.

[gunnar11]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

[spoiler]
You don't need to know special terms to know not to say "I don't want to have sex with anyone" when you mean "I don't feel romantic attraction or love for anyone but I'm sexually attracted to X and Y and Z."

It doesn't take that much longer to say than giving out a single word and expecting that to suffice and it takes less time than having to explain the term as is so often necessary due to the differing personal definitions of terms and the need for explanation and clarification.

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive because it's a pet peeve of mine, but I'd swear that I run into this sentiment that one needs a special term to condense paragraphs of exposition when a general term with a sentence of qualification will suffice and communicate the idea more clearly.

People don't need a term for everything. People want a term for everything.
Sure, you can describe everything, but it will lead to confusion. That's also the reason why people think in boxes.
It's easy: if I tell someone I'm asexual, what will their minds do?
Asexual: Someone who isn't interested in having a partner.

If I instead talk to them:
-I like to get involved in sexual activities with both genders if I find them attractive, but I don't love them and thus won't have a relationship with them.
-Wait, how can you find some people attractive and others less attractive if you can't fall in love with someone? Isn't a body a body? Don't you just need something to be able to use your needs on, instead of a carefully selected guy/girl?
-No. Think about it. You like girls with big boobs and a nice ass, right? Well, it's the same for me, only with guys as well as girls. You don't fall in love with every girl you see that has a nice body. I don't fall in love at all with a girl or guy with a nice body.
-Wait, I don't follow, are you bisexual or asexual, cuz you're not making any sense now.

We get that result. (which actually leads to the first case)
And their minds are even more scrambled:
He's asexual but with cravings for sex (bluntly spoken) which actually makes him bisexual but he can't love, so that would make him asexual again...

I prefer the first action, where I tell people I'm asexual and they understand I can't fall in love, than the second that costs so much energy and time to explain properly.
Sure, for you it may seem easy as pie to explain this to, but others don't understand it that easy.

I prefer people to think I'm asexual than some beast filled with lust and no love.

By the way, that was a conversation I had just two hours ago.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

I know they're not synonymous. I have said as much.

That's why I asked gunnar11 the question as to why he claimed the one when he meant the other.

BECAUSE
it is easier to tell people the one than explain the other. Specially when you only know the term Asexual, but not really any other terms.
The group matters too. A 15-17 year old boy only knows the basics:
Asexual: Doesn't like people
Heterosexual: Likes other. Are good
Homosexual: Likes the same gender. Mostly weird
Bisexual: Likes both genders. Bisexual woman? Hot. Bisexual man? Ew.
Everything else: Even weirder.

that's it. There are no variables. You're one of those 5.
Go on, use a fancy poll on a class or something. Put other terms in there:

-What characterizes a gender dysphoric person?
They won't know

-(put in a story about a bisexual aromantic) What is this person?
Answer: Almost everyone will answer either bisexual or asexual. Maybe, if you're really lucky 1 will answer 'loveless' or something.

It's when people get older that this changes. They start to understand it's more complex than that, and they can deduce most of the terms if they ever read them.

Edit: Just read my post again. Sorry I'm writing so angrily, but I don't get why it's so difficult to understand what I do/am. I thought you guys would understand it, but I guess that's not true.

[turkishproverb]

Originally Posted by Ceric

Saskia, I love your posts.

So...you're textosexual?

[Heliomance]

Originally Posted by WarKitty

Does anyone else ever wonder if maybe they're playing at being LGBT*?

Yup. Most of the time during my male phases, tbh. I feel kinda awkward turning up to LGBT soc at the moment; I don't feel like I have the right to be there.

ION, I'm kinda tempted to do this for Hallowe'en:

Spoiler

Unfortunately, I have neither the makeup nor the makeup know-how to pull it off.

[Nix Nihila]

Originally Posted by gunnar11

Edit: Just read my post again. Sorry I'm writing so angrily, but I don't get why it's so difficult to understand what I do/am. I thought you guys would understand it, but I guess that's not true.

Sorry! I don't think anyone intended to ostracize or offend.

In the future, could we perhaps try to avoid "complete disclosure" about this sort of thing? I don't think this thread is the right place to discuss which particular groups of people make us uneasy.

[bluewind95]

Originally Posted by Coidzor

If you're sexually active then why did you class yourself as asexual?

I am not sexually active, but I'm not against it. My reason is that asexuality is a spectrum too! (Where's Serpentine's chart? That was so useful to explain this)

I'm not attracted physically to people, but since I'm hetero-romantic, well, there's more than physical attraction.

[Arti3]

Originally Posted by bluewind95

I am not sexually active, but I'm not against it. My reason is that asexuality is a spectrum too! (Where's Serpentine's chart? That was so useful to explain this)

I'm not attracted physically to people, but since I'm hetero-romantic, well, there's more than physical attraction.

I believe some people call this graysexual, it's a play on asexual.

[Zorg]

Originally Posted by gunnar11

Edit: Just read my post again. Sorry I'm writing so angrily, but I don't get why it's so difficult to understand what I do/am. I thought you guys would understand it, but I guess that's not true.

Most of us do get you - thus why we don't feel the need to get into a discussion about it. At least we haven't gotten to full on ten-thousand word essays disecting each other's posts line by line yet (aka the GitP Special).

Coidzor has the tact of a cement truck sometimes, and can be quite blunt when questioning things - I seriously doubt any offense was meant (though I completely understand that the outright questioning of your self-identity even after you explained it is upsetting).

[noparlpf]

Geez, I go on a trip for three days and I come back to eight pages of thread.

Originally Posted by Heliomance

This is rather interesting. It's a look at how we perceive gender subconsciously, that actually arose by accident.

Pretty cool.

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Because Pluto has not cleared out its neighborhood.

The link goes to the first Astronomy Cast podcast episode, and I can highly recommend other episodes as well.

That's really neat. Hadn't read that bit before.
I'll also just throw in the fact that we've found another dwarf planet that's significantly larger than Pluto and still doesn't qualify as a planet. (I'm tired from catching up on thread so if you care which one it is just check Wikipedia, unless somebody already mentioned this.)

Originally Posted by SiuiS

I'm guessing, based on sheer mass, everything in between. We would knock it into a deeply elliptical orbit such that it resembled a comets path enough to leave a trail and be affected the sun. Unless you're saying there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in Jupiters... Atmosphere? Is it even atmosphere, I mean the entirel thing is gaseous... Anyway. Nothing at all in its composition that would burn? Or is hydrogen becomin helium atrictly a matter of pressure and not temperature whatsoever?

Admittedly, I'm working from the perspective of "fire burns things. The sun is fire. Ergo ye sun burns things."

I've read that the gas giants theoretically have solid cores, and just have massive atmospheres ranging from liquid to supercritical fluid to gas depending on the depths and pressure and stuff. Fluid mechanics is some crazy stuff (that I know hardly anything about yet).

Originally Posted by WarKitty

Does anyone else ever wonder if maybe they're playing at being LGBT*?

Well, let's just check out Musashi's response first because she's in a similar boat.

Originally Posted by Musashi

Yes.
I've seen people, otherwise involved to a very high degree in LGBT matters, discard demisexuality as nothing more but a word heterosexuals use to invite themselves in (because we know there can't be demisexual pan/biromantics, or demisexual homoromantics, etc). Followed, of course, on brief but completely unnecessary moments of doubt from me.
Jury's still out on the "heteromantic" part, but I consider my libido is sufficiently low and specific for me to not qualify as an "hetero with standards". If I had extreme standards, I would still, y'know, have people I'm attracted to upon which I could apply these standards.

Hell, when I first joined this series of thread, I did it so because BF is FtM; it did not occur to me at first that since my sexuality does not fit the norm, I could technically be counted as part of the community. Beside, because of the nature of my libido, all I know is that I'm not homoromantic. I might be heteromantic, or panromantic/biromantic. Pinpointing the -romantic part of my orientation would require further testing, but unless my sexuality fluctuates any further from strict asexuality, said testing will likely never have a chance to happen. I'm fine with that, though my scientific side is disappointed no experimenting is going to take place any time soon.

That's similar to my experience. I go through a lot of "am I just straight and really misanthropic or something?" Doesn't help that lots of people don't believe in demisexuality or grey asexuality or x-romantic asexuality or whatever. Explaining it to people is weird...a lot of the time people are like, oh, that's really sweet, you're like the perfect guy. (XDD That's a laugh. For several reasons. But seriously, I've had that response the last half-dozen times I explained it to anybody.) And trying to explain my sexuality to my counselor last week was fairly futile. I think I'll try again next time. (Though I'm pretty sure we're cancelling tomorrow's appointment due to the school being closed down for the hurricane aimed right at us; I'm totally cool biking out there in sheeting rain and 80mph winds but I doubt she wants to come in.)

Originally Posted by golentan

So, it's disappointing to see how much trans-hate there is over on even the Queerty comments section. I may not have always seen why the need to surgically transition is so strong in so many people (truth be told it's still kind of baffling to me ) but I've never seen why people shouldn't be acknowledged for who they are, or should be shamed for it, or should have barriers erected against them. But even on a site dedicated to non-heteronormativity it seems like trans people always get the short end of the stick.

And so, to all the trans people reading this, you get big hugs. I'm right behind you.

*Hugs* for your earlier post I tried to quote that didn't go through.
That stinks. The battle between the "you're only trans if you transition" and the "you're only trans if you have all the operations" and the "guys what the hell are we arguing about this for" groups is pretty common and also very upsetting. Many people seem to have this weird idea that they need to validate their own experience by putting down others'. And the psychiatrists say I lack empathy.

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

So... if straight tea is without milk and sugar, what ingredients do you have in LGBTA tea?

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Shouldn't Asexuals have nothing added to their tea? Unless they're romantics of some sort, in which case I have to ask - what is the tea additive essence of romance?

I take my tea black. Really black. I heat a pot of water to a simmer, add four-to-six tea bags, put a lid on, raise it to a high boil for ten or fifteen minutes, then remove it from the heat and let it cool for another ten minutes or so before taking the tea bags out. That makes about four cups of tea. Although on different stoves sometimes it comes out badly; that process is fine-tuned to my electric teapot. Making tea from tea leaves also works differently, but I can't usually find or afford tea leaves. But yeah, when I see normal people make black tea it's usually fairly translucent, but mine is really dark. I've even seen people make "tea" by dipping the tea bag in for less than thirty seconds. That's basically water to me.
As for coffee, why would you ruin something like that? I can eat coffee ice cream, espresso chocolate, even straight coffee beans, but as soon as it's brewed to coffee, I can't stand the flavour for some reason.

[Serpentine]

I would have expected that anyone who's ever been physically attracted to someone, or had happyfuntime activities with someone, that they weren't in love with, would understand the concept of sexual aromantic. And I would expect that to be the vast majority of people.
Speaking personally, with my very-vaguely very-tentatively don't-really-care identity of mostly-heterosexual demiromantic*, I divide love up into 4 categories: familial love, sexual love, friend/platonic love, and romantic love. Usually familial love is only really compatible with platonic love, but there's been at least one situation where it's mixed up with the other two, and that felt pretty weird (note: not actually an incestuous situation. It was with a friend whom I love like a little brother, but also find pretty damn sexy-cute (*waves at* o/ You know who you are )).
I very frequently experience strong feelings of sexual and platonic love for people I have no romantic inclinations at all. More often than not this leads to trouble and misery, as I get accused of leading someone on, lying about my feelings, and/or finding myself in a Relationship or Relationship-like-relationship with someone I don't love and never will and therefore know it will end at some point. There's that whole "two out of three ain't bad, but really it totally is the worst" thing: I love you with all my heart as a friend, I love you with all my body as a lover, but I just can't conjure that spark of romance. It's not your fault, and it's not mine, it just is.
Anyway. Point being... point being... Oh yeah. Point being, I don't get how anyone who doesn't fall in love with every person they're attracted to can struggle with the idea of someone never falling in love with anyone but still being attracted to some. The reverse seems weirder to me, but I still more or less get the idea.

Also: *high-fives Saskia* o/\o I like your style.


*I originally typed that "demoromantic". Try before you buy?

[Irish Musician]

*Lays Down on the Floor in a Shaming*
OH GitP GODS!!! WE ARE SORRY FOR HAVING OFFENDED THEE, PLEASE DON'T HURT US!!

[Socratov]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

snip.


In the vein of complete disclosure, sexually active aromantics disturb me.



snip.

Like a certain male person portrayed by a gay actor in a series that is usually described as the new friends? The Answer is Barney Stinson, analagous to any twenteysomething with his private parts on fire and the desire to woo the ladies with most impossible schemes
[quote=golentan;14129169]snip
I know, right? And very inclusive despite the name. It's quite nice that the Cap is so pro-LGBT and perfectly secure in his masculinity.



snipQUOTE]
I liekd the comic, but how can respecting some person's beliefs be detrimental to someone's masculinity (or for that matter femininity)? I mean, can someone just explain me becuase I seriously don't get it? Im my opinion, if anything, it makes you more of a man if you can respect other people enough to comfotable with yourself then when you need your environment to acknowledge the fact you are a man...

Originally Posted by gunnar11

First of all: Then, not than
Second: No, you didn't miss anything

And most importantly: When you're a 15 year old boy, living in The Netherlands, you don't know any more terms than hetero-, homo-, bi- and asexual. There's no 'romantics' or genderdysforsia (although I did know what genderdysforsia was, I didn't know there was hetero-, homo-, etc- romantic.)

Welcome young fellow Dutchman! Besides, what you say it true, people don't know. However, if you explain it to them in a calm and easy manner they will (it's not like it's rocket science). However, when I discovered the fact that there were more flavours then those five (which are famous anyway) it kinda felt as if something very easy got replaced by quantum mechanics. After some explanation it again seemed rather simple. Beware, you will have to explain a lot of times...

Originally Posted by Serpentine

snip

*I originally typed that "demoromantic". Try before you buy?

ehm, is that the sexuality where you're in to one-eyed people who speak with a scottish accent, have a dark skin and tend to blow stuff up and hits stuff with a whiskybottle?

oh, and hugs for Saksia for being new to this thread

[Lentrax]

Originally Posted by Serpentine

*I originally typed that "demoromantic". Try before you buy?

Isn't that the name for the group of people that is really into trying new things?
No? How about this: Demoromantic. We're the Shareware version of love.

[turkishproverb]

So the kind of love Bender has?

[Arachu]

Had a dream about registering for a driver's license as "male" just now... It was odd, especially considering how the setting looked exactly like an interrogation room. o.o

(After that I wondered how convenient it would be to live near a large city and fell asleep in a Dairy Queen (and I think I ended up on a train/bus/car at some point) , though, so I already feel better. )

Originally Posted by Astrella

Also thanks for the hugs and sympathies everyone.

Also; there's a Halloween thingie for my trans youth group next Wednesday so I'm hoping I can bring up the courage to at least get a new top or two to wear.

Originally Posted by Serpentine

I don't know what this is from, but I like it.

Also this is completely irrelevant to this thread but the R'ships thread isn't back yet :c

Spoiler

Bleeeegh. My mum is (totally not) trying to set me up with a guy she knows. This is awkward enough already. I think he might be interested in me. I am not. Could be wrong - hopefully I am wrong and he's just friendly. I'm just also full of awks and trying to only give off exactly the right sort of signals to avoid awkward conversations and such.
Bonus: he's the closest I have to a friend - or even an acquaintance my age - within a 2+ hour drive.
Just whingin'.

I don't have any advice, but *so many hugs*

Originally Posted by Coidzor

It's awfully funny how they're skeptics and refuse to acknowledge the evidence that it doesn't work and also won't bother to look into the history of it.

You'd think half an hour's research and a good ten to fifteen minute write up would have sorted that out.

This is a good point. Skeptics don't believe things they don't have evidence for; transphobes have a confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by Ceric

Saskia, I love your posts.

As do I.


~Bianca

[The Succubus]

Originally Posted by Lentrax

Isn't that the name for the group of people that is really into trying new things?
No? How about this: Demoromantic. We're the Shareware version of love.

I thought demoromantic was something that only occured in TF2 slash fiction.

[Lentrax]

Originally Posted by The Succubus

I thought demoromantic was something that only occured in TF2 slash fiction.

Well, not just there.