LGBT and the +

[RobAnybody]

Atheism is an affirmative stance on religious faith. Quite explicitly. That's the whole meaning of the descriptor.

It's not though. Anymore than "aUnicornism" is an affirmative disbelief in unicorns. Or "aLeprechaunism" is an affirmative disbelief in leprechauns. It's just... the default state. Like if I told you there were Skeksies plotting our demise, & you said "no, Skeksies don't exist", your aSkeksie stance would not be an affirmative stance, but rather the default non-reaction to my affirmative belief in Skeksies.
Besides, Skeksies only plot the demise of Gelflings. Everyone knows that.

Asexual women have probably been pushed into relationships and marriages they weren't interested in for centuries, and shunned if they didn't comply. Asexual men probably too, but there has always been more of a societal control over women's bodies and relationships

The shunning happens to unmarried men as well. Probably later in life, but it happens. Although, nowadays, "shunning" probably isn't the right word. Haranguing, by friends, but mostly family members is more appropriate. Until they just give in & accept this is how you want to live.

 

[IglooDame]

i am familiar with the effect, yes. the interesting thing is that if we accept it's a thing in this case, and that person at the range you describe is an example...the conclusion is that a random person who isn't lgbt isn't that much safer than someone who is, because this fella's "queerdur" or whatever is an example of said dunning-kruger effect.

Except it's not just random persons. The fella is going to key on people that look queer, and that's not random.

do you really hope so? why would it matter to you which of us can identify a transperson better? and wouldn't the transperson prefer if they were just identified as their preferred gender?

I really hope so because I consider myself more observant than most, and being trans myself know what to look for. It's a bit like noticing cars on the road identical to the model that one is looking at purchasing or has just purchased, too. And the trans person wants to be treated as their correct ('preferred' implies choice in the matter) gender, and of course I would do so, and that's generally the biggest reason why they want to be identified that way too, to avoid misgendering by others.

i'm not saying i could identify someone that way, of course. it would be an unusual occurrence for me to notice details about random strangers in public, at all. when it happens, it's most typically because they made noise or move in a way that's unusual, which will get my attention (like if someone suddenly starts running or something). even if i made an effort, i don't do it routinely, so i have no reason to estimate being good at it, if it's a skill that can actually be developed?

but that's just one of the 4 letters. the other 3, i would expect it to be impossible? i get that it won't stop people from thinking otherwise, though.

Well, being observant with other people, including random strangers, is absolutely a skill that can be developed.

The other three letters, it's obviously more difficult "walking down the street", but sometimes circumstances give it away if the person is 'out'.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Except it's not just random persons. The fella is going to key on people that look queer, and that's not random.

maybe it isn't, maybe it is. depends on the person, and what their criteria is to identify "queer" as they define it.

but if we take as given the effect is in play, that this person's assertion isn't accurate, then it can't hold that people who are lgbt are in more danger than random people. the added danger to being lgbt from this particular person is *contingent* on how accurate his assessment of his ability to identify is. if he harms/discriminates against people while in reality being barely capable of differentiating, the damage he causes is not very specific regardless of rationale.

I really hope so because I consider myself more observant than most

if that isn't also dunning kruger, then you're indeed better at it. i do not have specific properties whereby i could observe someone and conclude "that person is definitely or very likely trans", in the way i could observe someone and conclude "that person is wearing jeans" or "that person has blue eyes". that's not a thing i can do, and i estimate most other people can't do it either.

Well, being observant with other people, including random strangers, is absolutely a skill that can be developed.

true, depends what you are trying to observe too. there are things about people that i will notice immediately, but none that i would consider relevant to this discussion. i am sometimes surprised how unaware others are of their surroundings. i observe that frequently enough that i'm probably far above average in time to acknowledge detail of "there is a person there making some kind of noise". but details of the person beyond that? far, far less so, to the point of being below average. i don't care/haven't developed the skill, and at least some other people do develop it, so must be below average.

The other three letters, it's obviously more difficult "walking down the street", but sometimes circumstances give it away if the person is 'out'.

i suppose so. it gets hard to pin down discrimination as you get more nuanced, though. someone might think a person dislikes them because they're gay, when really that person dislikes them because they got credit the other person felt they deserved, or because they have strongly different opinions about how their company should run as coworkers etc. or worse, all 3, with no means to separate how much "dislike" comes from any one of them as a %.