|
Also: if you want to be a part of the club, but you don't really fit in properly, there's a great role for you: ally! I totally understand why people want to be part of the LGBTQIA2S+ community, it's full of really accepting and cool people, and that's enticing if you sometimes have a hard time fitting in elsewhere. I just don't think you have to invent a label for yourself to do that. Either that or I've been sapiosexual all along because, yeah, no poo poo I'm attracted to smart people instead of dumbasses. Is that not... normal?
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
honestly, regarding demisexual and sapiosexual and such, I have to acknowledge that like half a decade ago i thought labels like asexual and genderfluid were pretty dumb and nothing but queer bandwagoning. yep, i was dead wrong about that stuff, so maybe i should err on the side of being tolerant of stuff even if it sounds weird to me. besides, what honestly is the danger of respecting the labels that people choose for their own identity? what material harm is being threatened by such a choice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Also: if you want to be a part of the club, but you don't really fit in properly, there's a great role for you: ally! I invite you to behold the wonders of the sharing reddit stories in the thread:https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3982535 "Normal" people are loving ridiculous, our culture is a mess. I added quotes to make the context work better because I was deliberately invoking your usage of the word and noting the fact that many people are regularly attracted to absolute dumbasses. But also I don't believe normalcy is real, but also I could see how you might think I'm invoking Bureau of Normalcy vibes. Edit- Is this a bit? You say normal and then i say normal and you shout "gotcha!"? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Apr 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
aniviron posted:I hate to say it but there does come a point where being exclusionary is okay. If you include everyone who is in any way marginalized under the same big umbrella, your movement ceases to become a movement. Is that because it is a broad coalition or is that because it is is functionally an oligarchy to which LGBTQIA activists have arrived late and do not hold any material power compared to the people already established in the organization who provide the money and the connections? Because I don't think that it really has much to do with the breadth of the organization and rather that it has far more to do with the fact that all political parties are majority controlled by people who really do not give a poo poo about us at all and have no interest in us or anything to do with us other than to the extent we can be used to empower them. It is not that we are in a broad coalition but rather that we are in a position of subservience, there is no "coalition" at all. They make the decisions and we do not. And the solution there, I think, necessitates a stronger base of power for us, a base of power we can exercise independently and with which we can remove those who obstruct us, without having to beg from politicians. And I think that is better achieved by getting as many people as possible to identify themselves with our way of thinking and our ideological view of the world, so that they view any failure to accomodate us as an attack on themselves. Thus, I favour the adoption and incorporation of as many people as possible who identify themselves as at odds with cishet normative society. The more time they spend around us, the more they identify with us, the more likely they are to identify themselves through the frameworks we use, through models where same sex attraction, or lack of attraction, or whatever else confer no shame on those who experience them, models where gender is performance and if you don't like something you are being expected to do you should be free to not do it, or if you find a form of expression that brings you happiness you should be free to do that. These are models of the self and of the world that I think are simply better than the ones that are proliferated by other political positions, they liberate the mind from the fear of non-conformity, and I think they have a tremendous capacity to improve anybody's state of mind, and in turn I think they promote better political positions in people who internalize them because they are far more likely to see the beneficial effect they have and want everyone else to have that freedom too. Thus I think everyone could and should adopt them and a great way to be exposed to them is to spend time with LGBTQIA people. If people come to identify very strongly with those models of the world I think that puts them closer to us than it does to our political opponents, who have made it very clear that they will not accept the proliferation of those models at all and they will target anybody who espouses them, even if they're cishet. So again I strongly advocate for making a space for people to explore identities on the margins of the "core" identities that make up our platform, because they have more in common with us than they do with the normative world. What you are seeing when people do that is the power of our worldview transforming the world for the better, I don't see any appropriate response other than celebration. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Apr 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Normal people are loving ridiculous, our culture is a mess. I can see what you're going for here, but... I'd take a time out and just consider what you were thinking when you chose to express this thought in this particular way, because... yikes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I can see what you're going for here, but... I'd take a time out and just consider what you were thinking when you chose to express this thought in this particular way, because... yikes. Not to be lovely, but can we avoid doing the "wow yikes fam this ain't it chief" twitter thing and just be straight up with each other about what we find objectionable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Not to be lovely, but can we avoid doing the "wow yikes fam this ain't it chief" twitter thing and just be straight up with each other about what we find objectionable? Well, without the edit, it seemed like they were calling straight people "normal" and LGBTQIA2S+ people, by implication, abnormal, which I think would not be a good thing. The edit cleared it up, I don't think that's what they intended, and I admit I made a poor word choice in that regard myself. When I was talking about being attracted to intelligent people rather than idiots, perhaps the word I should've used was "common" instead of "normal." I can't imagine being seriously attracted to someone I didn't consider smart on some level, and I guess I've sort of operated on the assumption that it works that way for most people. Maybe that's just an erroneous assumption, but I still don't consider it a sexual orientation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I don't think there's some minimum legitimacy threshold that needs to be met before people can use a label to understand themselves. We can just have a whole bunch of micro labels and nothing bad will happen. It will just allow some people to categorize themselves with specificity if they want. calling yourself a sapiosexual is fine but its not queer, its not under the lgbt banner, the closest at all thing it could be under is acearo and its not that at all. You can be an allo sapiosexual. Its not lgbt+
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
Is there a particularly widespread phenomenon of straight people calling themselves sapiosexual and then taking positions of influence in the lgbt community? I haven't really seen the term used beyond a few randoms on the internet so it seems like a bit of a distraction to me. And it's not like there's ever going to be a precise border of who's queer and who's not anyway, so unless they're significantly affecting the direction of the community in a significantly negative way I don't see much worth in spending time bothering about the occasional tiny settlement on the borderlands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 09:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is that because it is a broad coalition or is that because it is is functionally an oligarchy to which LGBTQIA activists have arrived late and do not hold any material power compared to the people already established in the organization who provide the money and the connections? I suppose a US political party is too broad of a target to be a useful example - but to use another one that has already come up in this thread, sometimes the gay & lesbian communities fail to stand up for the trans community or even the bi community. I'll use an example here as well, with the caveat/disclaimer beforehand that I fundamentally disagree with the position but find it illustrative regardless. The stonewall-era activists who taught the people I was active with had a small but vocal proponent who disagreed with the idea of 'allies' as we mean it in the LGBTQ+ community. Their experience with people who were involved with the movement but not actually party to the struggle firsthand was that the uninvolved people would co-opt the movement and be more of a hindrance than a help. When the time came to talk about solutions to problems and what was really necessary, the extra input from people who were not fully onboard was not only distracting, it was actively hurtful, and spawned nonsense like the idea in the early 2000s that to preserve the sanctity of ~real~ marriage we could make a separate gay marriage instead. So in the case of something like demisexual or sapiosexual, yes, I could see trying to include overly broad movements resulting in the idea of our queer community losing its own voice in the very movement we've built to help ourselves. When a movement with a (relatively) narrow scope and goal starts trying to achieve aims that are only tangentially related to its purpose at the behest of people who have little stake in it, it's a failed movement. But it's also time for me to argue against what I just said. The old-timers who said we didn't need allies are stupid. I 100% agree with you and think you are completely correct that we need allies, and that it's good to bring people into the fold of the movement proper when it's helpful for both groups. There's a quote I am going to brutalize here, but it goes something like "The trouble with being gay is that you're always born to straight parents" which isn't strictly speaking true, but gets the point across that we're a small group in a big sea of people, and trying to carve out our own ghettos like the bitter first gen activists would have us do is counterproductive and miserable. In particular your last two paragraphs are eloquently put I think. I'm just trying to express that I feel a tension between what you say there, and which I think should be true in the best world we can make, and what I have seen, which is that the bitter old timers aren't entirely wrong, and that it still happens every time I see the gay part of the community fail its trans members. I'm leery of the movement becoming aimless and toothless, but becoming isolated is as bad or worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 09:39
|
|
|
Well that's why I put the emphasis on the frameworks, I think they are freeing for anybody who adopts them, and I suppose I feel that if someone who is cishet understands themselves through the framework of gender-as-performance and sexuality as being valid however it is expressed, then they are more like us than they are like people who are all into  and similar rubbish, regardless of their orientation.It's a similar view I come to when faced with prominent right wing gay people, if they don't share the framework that most of the good people I know do, then it doesn't make a bit of difference to me if they're gay, they're still a million miles away from me. The frameworks of self understanding I got from queer philosophy are, personally, more significant to me than merely the fact that I want to gently caress men sometimes, lots of people want to do that, but the theory can change your whole view of your life, and I really think it can do that for anybody. I would put it on par with marxism for "holy poo poo this is such a good way to look at the world" ideas that once you get them into your head it sort of permanently fucks your brain up and makes you much cooler. I think the ideas themselves carry their own radicalism with them, bascially, and spreading them as wide as possible will make everyone else more radical, not dilute them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 10:17
|
|
|
Angepain posted:And it's not like there's ever going to be a precise border of who's queer and who's not anyway, so unless they're significantly affecting the direction of the community in a significantly negative way I don't see much worth in spending time bothering about the occasional tiny settlement on the borderlands. Sexuality is a spectrum, so are the only people who are definitively *not* queer the folks who sit at 99.9+% hetero on that spectrum?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Sapiosexuality and demisexuality are absolutely orientations but they are not being marginalized, oppressed, and legislated against specifically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
My position is that I have exactly 0 oz of interest in policing the borders of the queer community. I'm not particularly interested in patrolling the borders either. Like, I just don't much care about what happens there. Plenty of interesting and urgent stuff happening in the more populated zones. My disinterest is driven by two things. One is that in my real-world personal experience, the marginalized people devoting their time to policing the borders were doing so in order to define out of relevance marginalized people who disagreed with them. Two is that intersectionality means that I don't need to be particularly concerned about the boundaries because my work spills over the edges of whatever boundaries we might draw. This passage from Repairers of the Breach has been resonating with me. quote:Intentionally diversify the movement with the goal of winning unlikely allies. Often the groups most impacted by injustice have been convinced that they are enemies. Fusion politics is about helping those who have suffered injustice and have been divided by extremism to see what we have in common. We do this by bringing people together across dividing lines and helping them hear one another. We have no permanent enemies, only permanent issues, rooted in our deepest moral and constitutional values.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
Angepain posted:Is there a particularly widespread phenomenon of straight people calling themselves sapiosexual and then taking positions of influence in the lgbt community? I haven't really seen the term used beyond a few randoms on the internet so it seems like a bit of a distraction to me. And it's not like there's ever going to be a precise border of who's queer and who's not anyway, so unless they're significantly affecting the direction of the community in a significantly negative way I don't see much worth in spending time bothering about the occasional tiny settlement on the borderlands. its in the op
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
I do not beleive that allies should be a part of the acronym. cishet people are not queer by defintion. Are antiracist white people allies to marginalised ethnicities? yes. Are they apart of those marginalised ethnicities? No. Do they speak for those ethnicities? They shouldnt but they do. Same with speaking over them Same with concept cishet people and us. Encouraging allies to be a part of the movement is how you end up with Vaush.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:its in the op I don't see how this contradicts my post, really. The first post of a thread in a dead forum, even a dead gay one, isn't a position of influence in the lgbt community.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 09:08
|
|
|
How does the non-binary samurai vanquish their enemies? They / them 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Florida's setting the first steps in pulling a Texas and going after doctors and parents: https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1516773653391806464 For further sources, here's the memo that's being passed around off the Florida Department of Health itself. Some disgusting poo poo in here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
In response, Minnesota's got a bill proposed to make them a sanctuary state: https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1517010154570588160?s=20&t=aHrwB8ru1WqVWd4HhC6VEA Reading it, it's nicely specific in how it shelters families.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 08:14
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:I do not beleive that allies should be a part of the acronym. cishet people are not queer by defintion. Are antiracist white people allies to marginalised ethnicities? yes. Are they apart of those marginalised ethnicities? No. Do they speak for those ethnicities? They shouldnt but they do. Same with speaking over them Though I do agree with you that allies shouldn't be part of the acronym, you picked a bad example. Vaush is pansexual, so he's unfortunately part of the movement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
So this twitter thread has been making the rounds on social media, but it's really fascinating and underscores how gender dysphoria and non-conformity has always been around, but not recognized. https://twitter.com/peytonology/status/1516612189687324673
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:So this twitter thread has been making the rounds on social media, but it's really fascinating and underscores how gender dysphoria and non-conformity has always been around, but not recognized. Yeah, I think this is an important drum to beat, to make plain that the "increase" in people being trans or non-binary is not driven by some nefarious conspiracy or a society that is too permissive or whatever -- it's a thing that's always, always been around, and if more people are identifying as non-binary or trans, it's because they have the language and/or the opportunity to express their feelings and act on them, whereas maybe in the past they would not have. On the other hand, I don't mean this as a gotcha or anything, but: it hadn't been recognized in Western culture. Various conceptions of non-binary and/or trans identity existed in many societies historically speaking, and even where it wasn't "recognized" there were a few people who chose to transition and lived in accordance with their gender identity even so. And, equally lacking the vocabulary or impetus to harshly criticize being trans, it seems to, arguably, have been less of an issue than it is today. On that subject: and I certainly don't mean to present this as historical fact, or an accurate depiction or even a kind depiction of transness, but I think in contrast to the obvious transphobia in film and TV that was already discussed, the earlier example of The Life of Brian offers an interesting contrast. Now, that was a much darker time for LGBTQ people in general compared to even the 90s, and yet... trans identity was still played off a joke, but not in the mean-spirited way of Ace Ventura or... whatever the gently caress Silence of the Lambs was, and I think that's an interesting contrast. Also relevant is that Graham Chapman, who was the lead in that film, was openly gay and had been for a while, in a time where that was nowhere near as easy as it might be today (though it's still difficult, to be sure).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:Though I do agree with you that allies shouldn't be part of the acronym, you picked a bad example. Vaush is pansexual, so he's unfortunately part of the movement. I didn't know. He should still shut the gently caress up about trans people and women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
I've got a question: do people qualify as part of the movement simply if they're not straight, or do they need to want to be in some way? I'm cis and I've lived my life 99% as a straight guy, but I'm definitely not just a straight guy. I'm comfortable in private, very private as in with my partner, talking about the ways I'm attracted to men as well as women, but I've never acted on it even though I'd kind of like to some day. I don't, and never have, identified as a pansexual or queer person. Maybe as bi? It's not how I present myself, and not really how I think of myself, yet it is an indelible part of me. "Queer culture" kind of makes me uncomfortable, which I can pretty safely blame on being raised in the blood-gargling beating heart of White American Evangelical Christianity right up until I went to college. I've never felt the need or desire to identify as anything but straight, which is definitely my privilege, yet I am not just straight. I don't have anything riding on the answer. I am just kind of wondering how, if at all, people like me are fit into rich and varied tapestry that is identity in modern 21st century America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
How are u posted:I've got a question: do people qualify as part of the movement simply if they're not straight, or do they need to want to be in some way? You have uh "concerns" about trans women doing too well in sports so no, you do not fit in anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
I think there's some conflation in this thread between having a marginalized identity and being a part of a movement. You can be bi without ever having dated a man, and without ever having come out. You don't need to belong to a particular subculture or community. If you like girls and guys, that's enough to call yourself bi. That is, if you want. Some guys are more comfortable understand themselves as "heteroflexible" or similar. The thing about identity is it's something you adopt for yourself. These words are just tools for self understanding and you can wield them however you like. If it's not useful to you to think of yourself as bi, then you don't have to. You can try it out and see if it fits for you to think of yourself as bi. Then, separately, there's whether you call yourself bi. Maybe it makes more sense to call yourself "straight (but also I like dudes sometimes)" if you think that more accurately conveys your situation. But, if you want men to respond to your dating profile, "straight dude but looking for guys to date" is a red flag, while "bisexual/bicurious dude" would probably paint a better picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
You could always just identify as "queer" which at least in my experience is a catch-all term for anyone who's not cishet. I prefer it because it usually doesn't come with any assumptions, somewhat of a "no labels" thing. As in, when I call myself queer that invites people to speak with me about my specific experiences and identity (if they want and I'm willing) rather than jumping to assumptions. edit: to specifically try to answer How are u's question, there isn't a membership application to join the gay agenda and there isn't one organized "movement" that decides who belongs or not. Personally I judge people on their attitudes and actions more than their gender and sexual identity. There are plenty of LGBTQ+ people who are huge assholes and do things that hurt other members of the community. There are also straight cis allies who are super cool and welcome in the club house any day. At the end of the day every queer person has their own story, experiences, and traumas and while we're going to have some of that in common there's also tons we can (and should) learn from each other. Living as a gay woman, gay man, non-binary, trans person etc are all distinct life experiences not to mention race, location, socioeconomic status etc. edit: that's a great point about allies. Being a good ally is not an identity you claim for yourself but something members of the community might regard you as. \/\/\/ Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Apr 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
How are u posted:I've got a question: do people qualify as part of the movement simply if they're not straight, or do they need to want to be in some way? When we say LGBTQIA+, we generally mean a loose affiliation of people whose sexuality and gender identity does not conform to the heteronormative and gender binary narrative, and are thusly at risk and marginalized. And let's be clear, that level of marginalization is an incredibly tricky thing. There are people who are bi or pansexaul but in monogamous relationships with a partner of the opposite sex. There are trans folks who have different financial or healthcare access that makes passing easier. And most importantly, our Black trans and nonbinary siblings are constantly being disproportionately murdered. And within that, you have inverse gatekeeping with people not being queer enough or gay enough and that's always lovely. We have to acknowledge privilege because it does exist while also not locking people out. But, and I think this is the most important thing, the gender binary and heteronormativity are not just things that hurt queer people. As far as I know, my father is a cis and straight guy. As far as I know, his mother was cis and straight. They were both terrorized by my grandfather because of the gender roles he pushed in the home. For my grandmother, she couldn't have a job and was meant to stay home while he drank and stepped out on her. For my dad, he was treated as a pussy and a loser because he didn't want to be a cop. I remember my dad explaining to me how he made sure that he knew how to cook and sew because my grandfather didn't know how to do those things. To him, his wife was his caretaker while he got to do whatever he wanted. My grandfather saw this as making him strong and a man. My dad saw it as making him a baby. My dad may not have rejected the word that was given to describe his gender identity, but he sure as gently caress rejected what he was being told it meant to be part of that gender. He chose a better and more healthy way to express being a man. The point being--and I say this as a trans person who willingly moved to semi-rural town in North Carolina-we cannot ignore the practical realities that some of us have different experiences because of our sexuality and gender identity and how those interact with our class, race, etc, especially those of us who are statistically in danger. But we need to name the enemy. The strict enforcement of a heteronormative gender binary is an evil that impacts everyone, not just queer people. We're all in this. I would say though that one of the most informative things I've heard was a Black educator explain her view that white people don't get to call themselves allies. They can just try their best to be one, and I think that's a position I'd expect of cis and straight people as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 03:10
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think when we say the movement we mean different things. This is kind of how I was thinking about it. I have definitely not lived an at risk or marginalized life w/r/t sexuality. So yeah, that makes complete sense to me. Timeless Appeal posted:I would say though that one of the most informative things I've heard was a Black educator explain her view that white people don't get to call themselves allies. They can just try their best to be one, and I think that's a position I'd expect of cis and straight people as well. Fritz the Horse posted:edit: that's a great point about allies. Being a good ally is not an identity you claim for yourself but something members of the community might regard you as. This I very much understand. I don't claim it, I just try to treat people with the respect they deserve and actively think about my actions and prejudices. Yeah this is interesting. I was reading some of the posts in this thread about the sapiosexuals and gatekeeping, and the thought "huh even I could probably fall into that category [lgbtq] technically" went through my head. Immediately followed by "Nah that's not me" and then "well wait a second why isn't that you?" and now I'm doing some unpacking of identity. I'll say this. Evangelical teachings and culture and prejudices and just the loving shame around sexuality are extremely hosed up, and I maybe never even realized the full extent to how growing up in all that hosed with me to this day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I think this is an important drum to beat, to make plain that the "increase" in people being trans or non-binary is not driven by some nefarious conspiracy or a society that is too permissive or whatever -- it's a thing that's always, always been around, and if more people are identifying as non-binary or trans, it's because they have the language and/or the opportunity to express their feelings and act on them, whereas maybe in the past they would not have. Trans identities existed in western cultures before christianity. We were seen as spiritual leaders, there were entire roman and greek cults full of trans people for example Herodotus even wrote of scythian priestesses who would drink the urine of mares in order to feminise themselves. Literally what premarin was in the 90s. PREgnant MAR uRINe. IIRC jews had 5 societal genders at one point? I'm not 100% on that one
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:You have uh "concerns" about trans women doing too well in sports so no, you do not fit in anywhere. I think this is a good example for the ally chat. How are you is clearly stating they are straightn't. He's saying he comes from a hosed up catholic environment that has messed him up. He didn't say anything too egregious in that thread - he was no trolologist or aginor or mycophobia or col. cool. He's clearly thinking through some poo poo and is stating hes pondering where he sits sexually, seems like hes going to land somewhere around bi. He is one of us. We don't have to tolerate transphobia. We shouldn't have to. But this ain't it Sharkie. How Are You I'm gunna have to put my foot down too and say >:c if you question my right to play sport but you're not the enemy. Sharkie if we turn away every single person who comes from a conservative shithole we are never going to get anywhere. Like I admitted to earlier, I'm trans and I was cracking helicopter jokes right up until i came out. I'm better now. I know better now. I like myself now and I was doing that poo poo out of self hatred. He's quite clearly come from an environment where his only exposure to people like me (and you?) is loving silence of the lambs and ace ventura, that doesnt make him a bastard. It makes him a victim of this same bullshit culture around queerness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
I would agree that it is a good example but personally it reinforces my stance in the opposite direction. There are plenty of, for example, horrible religious cranks who spent their lives preaching bile from the pulpit while loving men on the side. Or politicians who will happily sign away the rights of people I care about while utilizing their power and privilege to do whatever they want in private, I don't think they are "one of us" just because they do that. I feel far more connection and kinship with someone on the same page as me politically than someone who happens to share some of my sexual preferences. Them sharing the latter gives them a good opportunity to be a better person, but they are perfectly capable of squandering that. And if they do, they are most certainly the enemy as far as I am concerned. If your circumstances cause you to engage in productive introspection then that is good, but what matters is the outcome. You can be queer and still a piece of poo poo, just as you can be working class and still a piece of poo poo. Who you actually are is more important than who you had the opportunity to be. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Apr 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
He is quite literally in good faith in this thread unpacking his religious bullshit. Towards his own sexuality. He posted some stuff in another thread thats likely informed by the same bullshit. We have more in common with him than he does with the people who make him feel like he cant unpack his sexuality and told him to hate transfolk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
And that is contingent upon the continued self reflection and arrival at a better outlook, not on merely being bisexual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And that is contingent upon the continued self reflection and arrival at a better outlook, not on merely being bisexual. If we can't find common ground with a guy like that and talk to him then we are doomed. A guy who probably doesnt hate us but hasnt been prompted to think on or ever really been exposed to us at all. A guy whos actively sitting there and saying out loud that he's realising his rearing taught him hosed up things. or do we tell him to gently caress off forever and he has no place at our table because he said something not out of hatred, but out of ignorance, ignorance that hes clearly taking the steps needed *on his own* to analyse. The same ignorance that stops people from knowing they are trans or bi or whatever else until later in life, the same ignorance that hurts so many good people in our community and stops them from realising who they are, causes all people to say dumb hurtful things they look back on and regret with time. Expecting people to be perfect from day dot is an impossibly high standard when any sort of positive view of us is forced to the very margins and the mainstream calls us sex offenders. Dont let perfect be the enemy of good. Surely all of you have met the dumb cishet who doesnt know anything but means well and is trying? You going to turn them away too for not being as informed as we are on our issues when 100% of people get taught literally 0 good and real and meaningful things about us? Do you actually interact with humans in the real world?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
As I said before, if you are exposed to queer philosophy and it makes you into a better person, as I think it should, then I am happy to think of you as a comrade, whether you are queer or not. If it does not, or if for some other reason you are hostile towards me and other people I care about, then you are an enemy, again whether you are queer or not. If you have been a poo poo before then I don't think it is very surprising that it would put some people off wanting to associate with you, nor really do I think it is incumbent on the recipients of your antipathy, whatever its origin might have been (I don't really think it makes much difference) to try and make you feel welcome. If some do, then you're very fortunate, but people have themselves to look after first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:I think this is a good example for the ally chat. How are you is clearly stating they are straightn't. He's saying he comes from a hosed up catholic environment that has messed him up. He didn't say anything too egregious in that thread - he was no trolologist or aginor or mycophobia or col. cool. He's clearly thinking through some poo poo and is stating hes pondering where he sits sexually, seems like hes going to land somewhere around bi. He is one of us. You're right. For the record I am a trans woman, and I live in a place where yeah I do interact with and live/work with people who uh, don't always have the best takes about trans issues. Most people would call it a "conservative shithole." So yeah I try to meet people where they're at. If I didn't associate with people who had lovely beliefs at one time or another, I'd starve. I will say though that part of navigating that comes down to recognizing people as individuals and making determinations about how I feel about them based on that individual's history and behavior around me, though that bumps up against certain debate-style rules, so I'll let it go. But you are right, I try not to expect, I don't know what you'd call it, a history of perfectly acceptable opines from the people around me. That's not feasible, or desireable. People learn and grow and it's important they have the space to do that. edit - Though yes that's not incumbant on everyone in the community to put up with bullshit. I don't know that hard and fast rules are really neccessary as opposed to taking people how they come, looking at that particular situation and the people involved, and working from there. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Apr 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
Yeah, I feel ya Sharkie. I feel like some days I really want to be trans Jesus and do my best to help people come to understand. And then other days I just want to be a total bitch about it. Part of my openness about talking about my body comes from having to speak to my experience so much at work, better me than children though. Anyway, some gender and sexuality news. BEEP BEEP BEEP BOOP. A Huge piece of poo poo professor got a $400,000 payout for refusing to refer to a student as a woman. Short version: He refused to refer to a student by her correct gender, got the smackdown from the school, courts told him to gently caress off, Republican judiciary panel decided differently, the college decided to just throw money at it and settle I think the story is interesting in a few levels because one: --I am really, really loving glad the college didn't fight it. Settling means the only precedent that he professor has is that he can sue, not that he was in the right. --He did make some bullshit attempts: quote:Meriwether asked if referring to all students by their self-identified gender, and including a disclaimer in his syllabus that noted he was only doing so under “compulsion”, would comply with the university’s policies, which he was told would not. The latter is interesting because I do have co-workers who do that. I made the very revolutionary change of my assigned name of Joe to Jo, so some people avoid using my pronouns and the Mx title. Honestly, when I first read the article I assumed that one of these bullshit attempts by him is what led to the settlement, but nah... quote:However, in 2020, a three-judge panel from the sixth US circuit court of appeals ruled that Meriwether is allowed to sue the school, writing in a 32-page opinion: “Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides.” And this is just blatantly bullshit. I would actually not argue that a professor be fired for taking a pro-binary stance as long as he respected trans and other nonconforming people. But this is clearly a form of sexual harassment, and trans people are a protected class. So, loving bullshit. In better news, huge loving get for team non-binary. We're really getting things done as an organization and improving our roster. quote:Janelle Monáe, the Grammy-nominated performer, actor and author, has confirmed that they identify as nonbinary in interviews tied to their new book. Miss Broccoli posted:IIRC jews had 5 societal genders at one point? I'm not 100% on that one I will be very honest, I get really worried as a white lady about utilizing non-Western cultures as rhetorical tools, not that you're doing that but just speaking to my own anxieties. I find stuff like female-husbands and two-spirit identities REALLY interesting, but I also know that they're not a 1:1 parallel to modern identities, some of the history of this stuff unfortunately gets obscured, and in general I get concerned about my own biases railroading cultures that I don't understand and that my ancestors were cruel towards. On that note, The Prophets is a REALLY interesting novel and worth a read that essentially posits heteronormativity as a tool of white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Congratulations to Monáe on their apotheosis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 22:42
|
|