There exist vegetarians who are meat-favorable or meat-indifferent. Knowledge is key, as always
If vegetarianism was determined by whether you were attracted to meat or not, you might have a point.
LGBT and the +
- Thread starter El_Machinae
- Start date
If vegetarianism was determined by whether you were attracted to meat or not, you might have a point.
The only individual word I'm aware of that is even vaguely an option is "queer". And for older folks who it was used against as a slur it's not exactly a label to embrace, but we'll fade away soon and so would the opposition.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Warpus - that's why the + is the really important part. It conveys that you're aware that there are more letters, and that you are simply using a shorthand form becsuse it's easier. It basically amount to putting "etc." at the end of a list you know is incomplete, or a "for example:" in front.
I personally do try to add the extra 2 for LGBTQ2+ (or 2LGBTQ+) specifically in Canada, but that's more because the 2 tie into issues of historical erasure of the indigenous people of Canada than because of specifically LGBTQ2+ reasons.
I personally do try to add the extra 2 for LGBTQ2+ (or 2LGBTQ+) specifically in Canada, but that's more because the 2 tie into issues of historical erasure of the indigenous people of Canada than because of specifically LGBTQ2+ reasons.
This came up in the other thread, Gender and Sexual diversity/minority. I am not sure how it does not the PR pov, it does not flow very well for me but something like that that is less specific seems better to me.
The term "alphabet soup" was also used.
As we go down the list, it becomes increasingly unclear as to what's being asked of the activists (polyamorists excepted). There's a side risk too. The 'inclusive' list only includes people who meet the dogma test, which is especially true when it's unclear what social advances are being asked.
As we go down the list, it becomes increasingly unclear as to what's being asked of the activists (polyamorists excepted). There's a side risk too. The 'inclusive' list only includes people who meet the dogma test, which is especially true when it's unclear what social advances are being asked.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Neither you nor anybody else in here has yet asked someone from any of those labels what social advances they are asking for, nor how they feel about inclusion within the lgbtq+ label. You have, rather, decided for yourself what makes sense and seems reasonable from a cis frame, independent of any other perspective, and then stepped over every queer person to demand accommodations be made for your comfort.
Gay was redefined decades ago; I like the the idea of redefining "queer" to embrace whatever. It has been out of fashion for a while and is ripe for reuse in a different way. "Queer rights" as a nice ring to it.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I love using queer that way, but there is resistance to the idea among the older LGBTQ2+ folks, and some
(It should also be kept in mind that the relation of Queer to 2 is potentially more perilous because queerness is something that was imposed to many indigenous third genders and similar from colonization in a lot of way; queerness is defined from colonial societies's norms))
(It should also be kept in mind that the relation of Queer to 2 is potentially more perilous because queerness is something that was imposed to many indigenous third genders and similar from colonization in a lot of way; queerness is defined from colonial societies's norms))
I will add that 'polyamorist' was specifically excluded in a recent discussion I was part of when queer people were deciding what 'queer' captured.
Last edited:
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
in most cases, neither lgbt nor being asexual is immediately identifiable at range to the extent where it is possible to gun someone down for it in public or similar. you just can't look at someone and know their preferences (or lack thereof) that way. lgbt can get attacked at related events for example, and there aren't many similar events for asexuals or other categories of people.
however, the most common form of suffering to minority groups of any variety would be some form of discrimination, and things like marital status or being a "crazy cat lady" likely do influence decisions unjustly.
though i don't see why lgbt is "necessarily an activist label". the letters are for descriptive terms that constrain anticipation to particular preferences for the people in question. there were enough similarities in issues with their rights/treatment that they got lumped together, for better or worse. but there's still nothing inherent to being any of those things that would make someone an activist. i would guess most are not, because most people are not generally?
I think a lot of trans people and gay people are identifiable on the street or at least people perceive them to be gay, could be wrong sometimes.
There are so many single people and crazy cat ladies who are not asexual that I just don’t see that as similar as far as a suffering discrimination issue, how’s it different from someone who is celibate like a priest or nun?
I can understand it as wanting to make others aware that it exists.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Pretty much this
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
if you ask them, or if they explicitly advertise it. but otherwise i have doubt in nearly everyone's ability to just look at people and correctly identify their preferences with any consistency.
different expectations/treatment outside religious context. i don't want to make light of lgbt, because even though i feel some of the activism is overblown or outright inaccurate they really have been treated unfairly as a group in quite recent history. the discrimination of other groups is still a thing though, to a lesser degree depending.
i am fortunate to not be short, but ever since i started arguing here and looked up different forms of discrimination the height one has been a glaring to me. that it isn't a central/constant talking point amount literally everyone harping about systemic discrimination of any kind is a strong piece of evidence that people are x baiting rather than actually bothered by any of the statistics they talk about.
What is "the height one"? I am short, and am not sure what you mean.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Three issues there: respectability gatekeeping, oppression olympics, and whether something is a matter of fundamental identity.
Respectability gatekeeping is the notion that in order to be accepted LGBTQ2+ people must strive to fit in with majority normalcy, be ad indistinguishable from their ideal of a respectable person, as possible, and the community should not commit support to those who don't embrace that ideal because it leads to further resistance. It's unfortunately strong among the LGBTQ2+ movement - especially among established white middle class and up who identify with only one (two counting queer, if they even identify with that) letters in the soup. Since this notion has been used as a cudgel against non-passing trans people, non-binary trans people, ace people, aro people, even bi people, and essentially anyone that's not a monogamous (white) cisgender upper middle class LG, I have nothing but spite for it. You may imagine me gicing an obscene hand salute to people who hold that view. These people link polyamory with cheating, sexual libertinage, and polygamous religions, ie not respectable.
Oppression Olympics is instead the notion that how much you belong in the LGBTQ2+ community reflect how badly a particular group has been oppressed historically. Most often comed comes from the L and G (on ground of "it was a capital offense to be ourselves!") sometime B (but L and G generally point out they were *less* opressed since they could still legally be with some of the people they were attracted to) and binary T ("we were institutionalized for trying to be ourselves"). Usually used as a cudgel at the expanse of the As, the Is, the non-binary Ts, the Bs thmselves, and even the Ts, plus any of the less recognized groups. And nobody much paying attention to the 2, as usual, because oppression olympics is not about reasonable people saying ressonable things. My opinion is not complimentary either. These people generally don't view polyamory as especially oppressed given how many religions accept polygamy in various form, how mistresses and concubines have been common across the ages, etc. They are rather silent on the fact that pretty much all of those involve a man having mutliple partners, not the other way around.
The last one is more interesting. It's the one that argues that we're interested in sexuality-related (including gender and attraction) differences that appear largely fundamental: an inherent or at least deep-seated, very difficult to change (at best) and generally outside the person's control, trait of the person that set them apart. In that perspective, polyamory (and fetish, for that matter), being perceived not as inherent traits but as choice of lifestyle/relationship arrangements, may not actually belong.
I do generally agree with this line, but I'm wary of its application to polyamory, because it appears very possible that there is a strong inherent or deep-seated aspect to whether a person is more at ease committing to one or many relationships, and whether a single relationship satisfy their need, so I'm not at all convinced it really should disqualify poly. Butt the line makes sense.
My one big red line for exclusion, no matter how well you fit any definition, is consent. Anything that involves attraction or sexuality with those who cannot (or do not) consent is right out. Applicable to certain forms of more traditional polygamy in some ways, but not to polyamory,
Respectability gatekeeping is the notion that in order to be accepted LGBTQ2+ people must strive to fit in with majority normalcy, be ad indistinguishable from their ideal of a respectable person, as possible, and the community should not commit support to those who don't embrace that ideal because it leads to further resistance. It's unfortunately strong among the LGBTQ2+ movement - especially among established white middle class and up who identify with only one (two counting queer, if they even identify with that) letters in the soup. Since this notion has been used as a cudgel against non-passing trans people, non-binary trans people, ace people, aro people, even bi people, and essentially anyone that's not a monogamous (white) cisgender upper middle class LG, I have nothing but spite for it. You may imagine me gicing an obscene hand salute to people who hold that view. These people link polyamory with cheating, sexual libertinage, and polygamous religions, ie not respectable.
Oppression Olympics is instead the notion that how much you belong in the LGBTQ2+ community reflect how badly a particular group has been oppressed historically. Most often comed comes from the L and G (on ground of "it was a capital offense to be ourselves!") sometime B (but L and G generally point out they were *less* opressed since they could still legally be with some of the people they were attracted to) and binary T ("we were institutionalized for trying to be ourselves"). Usually used as a cudgel at the expanse of the As, the Is, the non-binary Ts, the Bs thmselves, and even the Ts, plus any of the less recognized groups. And nobody much paying attention to the 2, as usual, because oppression olympics is not about reasonable people saying ressonable things. My opinion is not complimentary either. These people generally don't view polyamory as especially oppressed given how many religions accept polygamy in various form, how mistresses and concubines have been common across the ages, etc. They are rather silent on the fact that pretty much all of those involve a man having mutliple partners, not the other way around.
The last one is more interesting. It's the one that argues that we're interested in sexuality-related (including gender and attraction) differences that appear largely fundamental: an inherent or at least deep-seated, very difficult to change (at best) and generally outside the person's control, trait of the person that set them apart. In that perspective, polyamory (and fetish, for that matter), being perceived not as inherent traits but as choice of lifestyle/relationship arrangements, may not actually belong.
I do generally agree with this line, but I'm wary of its application to polyamory, because it appears very possible that there is a strong inherent or deep-seated aspect to whether a person is more at ease committing to one or many relationships, and whether a single relationship satisfy their need, so I'm not at all convinced it really should disqualify poly. Butt the line makes sense.
My one big red line for exclusion, no matter how well you fit any definition, is consent. Anything that involves attraction or sexuality with those who cannot (or do not) consent is right out. Applicable to certain forms of more traditional polygamy in some ways, but not to polyamory,
Last edited:
You're familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect? There's plenty of anti-queer whackjobs out there that are perfectly willing to assault or murder someone because they *look* queer. I've had someone at the range tell me, in the course of a pretty screwed up conversation, that they can spot one of those [queer slurs] a mile off. And lest we forget, the recent Chinese-bashing that spiked up in the US presumably because of the "Chinavirus" as often as not involved people who looked vaguely East-Asian but weren't actually Chinese.
Can I spot a transwoman, or even anyone who is queer, better than you? I'd hope so. The accuracy rate isn't the issue though, it's the willingness of angry bigots to assault someone who they think (and I use that word reluctantly) is queer. And besides all that, the onus shouldn't be on the queer person to hide their status in the first place.
But this discussion does touch on why the Pink Pistols exist.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Yes. For the simple reason that the umbrella originated as a political allegiance between members of groups united in common struggle. Our presence is a political question to non-queer folk and as such our existence will necessarily entail political struggle until such time as the forces which oppress us are overcome. You can try to live your life as apolitically and non-transgressively as you choose, but the lgbtq+ label will always be a political one, and wearing it will always be a political statement, in much the same way „feminist“ is, however much liberal society seeks to appropriate and defang both terms.
This is also, incidentally, why the question of aro/ace and poly in the umbrella is such a silly question. The umbrella represents a coalition of minority communities united in opposition to a common enemy that is the source of their oppression and marginalization, namely, the patriarchy and its consequent cisheteronormativity. Irrespective of the visibility or severity of the harm experienced by aro/ace and poly communities, their ability to live freely as themselves is always held in check so long as these societal power relations continue to exist, just as is the case for gay, lesbian, trans, 2-Spirit, and intersex people, and so consequently they will always be seen as compatriots in our common struggle and to be included under our common aegis. This also explains why other non-identity communities like kink and furries are frequently co-represented in our demonstrations and movements. Same oppositional force.
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
(And I wouldn't make any large bet on kink and furies not having an identity basis, at least for parts of both groups, either)
There's considerable debate in the kink community lately about exactly that. At what point does being, say, a full-time or lifestyle dominant or submissive become as much a part of one's identity as the rest of what we're discussing here.
Semi-relatedly (to this overall conversation), TIL that "Today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. While the name seems like it only includes LGBT people, this day is to spread awareness about bigotry and discrimination experienced by every gender, sexual, and romantic minority."
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
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.
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'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.
