How Many of You Want a "LGBTI and Allies Only" Subforum?

[Taylor Seraphim]

"Bull****", eh? I don't recall saying anything that was a lie. Keep it up and I'll report you.

Can anyone tell me what having a heterosexual section would hurt?

BTW Have answer for this?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you really need to reply to the same message multiple times in quick secession? It makes it a bit difficult to reply to you. Just a friendly heads up.

I may have misread you, but then again I'm not quite sure what you were saying here:

Last time I checked I wasn't persecuted on this forum, I was *****ed about by some non-staff but not persecuted, where you?

What is "*****ed about"? I don't know what you mean. Someone complained about you? Was it about your gender or sexual orientation? You have to clarify.

As for having a subforum for straight people only, why? That's the same as asking why we don't have a White History Month or a Men's History Month. When you're part of the majority demographic of a society, society already caters to you and the majority groups control the narrative. The point of having space set aside for minority groups is so we can have our voices be heard and give our point of view on things, without interruption or being drowned out.

 

[Noa]

I am rather late for the poll because I was on an internet break. I think it is a lovely idea.

As for specifics, I think it would be nice if it included allies as long as they were broad allies. There exist folks that wish the acronym stopped at LGB and their presence would be unfortunate, I think.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can anyone tell me what having a heterosexual section would hurt?

The whole world is a heterosexual section by default.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

As for having a subforum for straight people only, why? That's the same as asking why we don't have a White History Month or a Men's History Month. When you're part of the majority demographic of a society, society already caters to you and the majority groups control the narrative. The point of having space set aside for minority groups is so we can have our voices be heard and give our point of view on things, without interruption or being drowned out.

Because in this society if you are proud of being black it is okay, if you are proud of being white your a racist.

If your proud of being a women it is okay, if you are proud of being a man you are a misogynist.

If you are proud of being LGBTQI is okay, if you are proud of being heterosexual you are a bigot.

All of those statements are what you are implying.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The whole world is a heterosexual section by default.

I disagree, this world is a LGBTQIH world by default.

Just because Gays outnumber Pansexuals does that mean Gays control the LGBTQI community?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I disagree, this world is a LGBTQIH world by default.

Just because Gays outnumber Pansexuals does that mean Gays control the LGBTQI community?

I'd assume since homosexuals are the minority, people who identify as heterosexuals out number us.

The last part, I have no clue how that related to my comment. I dont even know what a pansexual is. I just know that the whole world is straight by default; and, the minorities from racial to sexual are not being treated equally because of where their majorities (white vs black) for example (gay vs straight) another place them in society.

I mean, find one cultural norm and area in the world that does not promote heterosexual values from culture to religion.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I'd assume since homosexuals are the minority, people who identify as heterosexuals out number us.

The last part, I have no clue how that related to my comment. I dont even know what a pansexual is. I just know that the whole world is straight by default; and, the minorities from racial to sexual are not being treated equally because of where their majorities (white vs black) for example (gay vs straight) another place them in society.

I mean, find one cultural norm and area in the world that does not promote heterosexual values from culture to religion.

Does this include historical places?

Because Greece for example did not disapprove of homosexuality.

Also Celts have been persecuted by Anglo-Saxons. Goths by Romans and vice versa.

When you set up Gay V Straight or White V Black that is creating an in-group out-group mentality that causes persecution to begin with.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Now can someone tell me a negative consequence of having a heterosexual sub-forum?

 

[Noa]

Now can someone tell me a negative consequence of having a heterosexual sub-forum?

What exactly would be the purpose of it? I personally don't care if there is one. There's already a men's issues subforum. I'm just not sure what its function would be.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

What exactly would be the purpose of it? I personally don't care if there is one. There's already a men's issues subforum. I'm just not sure what its function would be.

To be inclusive of all sexualities.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because in this society if you are proud of being black it is okay, if you are proud of being white your a racist.

If your proud of being a women it is okay, if you are proud of being a man you are a misogynist.

If you are proud of being LGBTQI is okay, if you are proud of being heterosexual you are a bigot.

All of those statements are what you are implying.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I have to wonder why you're spewing cliched right-wing memes, honestly.

You have to understand the social context of those things. For a black person, especially back in the '50s and '60s and before, to say that they were black and proud of it or that black is beautiful, that was a revolutionary statement for a society that viewed black people as inferior and subhuman, and being black as something horrible and ugly.

Women and female bodies have been persecuted and revilved for thousands of years in various places in the world, so that can also be a revolutionary statement of self-acceptance.

It's much the same with LGBTQI people, who have also suffered much throughout the world and are still suffering.

In those contexts, it is a statement and mindset of claiming acceptance and loving yourself, of projecting your self-worth to a world that misunderstands, humiliates, dehumanizes and reviles you. It's a response to being held down.

As for a white person saying they're proud to be white, that is problematic, again, due to the social context. What is "whiteness"? It's a social construct that basically is entirely based on an "us vs. them" paradigm. Sure, blackness is also a social construct but black people who are the descendents of slaves don't tend to know their exact ethnic ancestries due to the Atlantic slave trade, which robbed them of their families and heritage. The most we can generally know is that our ancestry is probably from West or Central Africa, since that's where most of the African slaves that were brought to the Americas originated. So they had to construct an identity as a form of group survival. Even Native Americans tend to know what ethnic group or tribe they descend from, and they're certainly not all the same. Since they had to construct a group identity of their own to fill the void that chattel slavery created, it resulted in various new cultures being created. African-American culture is its own distinct American culture now.

White people have had to do no such thing. White people generally know whether they are Irish, German, English, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Serb, Russian, Finnish, etc. So they can celebrate being Irish, German, English, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Serb, Russian, Finnish, etc., and they do. There's plenty of European cultural celebrations. Where I live we have Irish, German, Greek, Macedonian, etc. festivals. Nothing wrong or racist about that all. They also don't share the sort of experiences that minorities have experienced, which caused them to bond together in various subcultures. There is no common "white culture" or "white people". Many European-descended groups hated each other, oppressed each other and fought among each other. The Irish were against the English and the Italians, the English hated everyone who wasn't them, Northwestern Europeans hated the Slavs and Mediterraneans, etc. Also, since they did not tend to have their heritage and identities ripped away from them, as black people did, they were largely able to hold to their ethnic traditions.

So that's why "white pride" is illogical and unneeded, basically.

Much the same goes for having pride in being a man or being straight. Personally, I like being a man and enjoy masculinity, but I don't see the point of being proud of being a man in terms of a group. I'm not feeling oppressed about it. Besides, we celebrate the achievements of men all the time. It's called history class, sports, politics, etc.

As for LGBT people, it's a bit like the case with blacks. Because of persecution, LGBT people formed their own subcultures and identities to survive and support each other. Because of that, there's a vibrant LGBT culture (and subcultures within that overall subculture), much like there is with African-Americans. There is no such analog with heterosexuals, as far as I can see.

I disagree, this world is a LGBTQIH world by default.

Just because Gays outnumber Pansexuals does that mean Gays control the LGBTQI community?

Yes, upper class gay white cis men do hold the majority of the power and influence in the LGBT community. That's a problem.

 

[Noa]

To be inclusive of all sexualities.

So you want another subforum for a purely symbolic purpose?

Yes, upper class gay white cis men do hold the majority of the power and influence in the LGBT community. That's a problem.

This is absolutely true and deeply problematic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Does this include historical places?

Because Greece for example did not disapprove of homosexuality.

Also Celts have been persecuted by Anglo-Saxons. Goths by Romans and vice versa.

When you set up Gay V Straight or White V Black that is creating an in-group out-group mentality that causes persecution to begin with.

We have already started doing that. Political groups. Racial groups.

I mean, that's like RF. Do you think it is unethical to not have DIRs? I mean, Christians are the majority, why should they need a DIR? and they have been killing people for over 2,000 years; so, what gives them rights to a DIR?

Hint: guys. this is an example. not an accusation or degrading DIRs and Christians.

Back to my point

However, like straight people who by default people are assuming whatever they talk about in regards to sexuality will be "straight" same in a christian DIR. Whatever one talks about has a default of being Christian.

So if someone comes in who isn't a christian, then (example) it causes some friction.

Likewise, if a GBLTQI comes into the sexuality room and talks about things he is concerned about within his sexuality, people already expect him to talk about "straight" sexuality issues. There is a emotional and too some extent physical aura conflict because the majority of people who may be in that DIR are straight.

Having a Christian DIR assures that Christians have a safe place to go and talk among themselves within their belief systems. It also restricts minorities from coming in their DIR but to ask questions only.

Likewise if there was a LGBTQI DIR. Straight people can only ask questions. Those who identify with one of those letters (no Hs and no Ss) can have full conversation.

What I disagree with is the "ally" part of the title. That's like saying "Christian's and allies DIR". So, I am a Christian ally because I was Catholic. Does that make it right for me to be in a Christian DIR? No.

Likewise. It's still discriminative just not direct. I do feel there should be a GBLTQI DIR. Many people are coming out. Some are still trying to find their identity. Some want to find peers to talk with. A lot of us don't want to dumb it down to be in a general chat room where anyone can join.

I mean, you have DIRs for all sorts of things on RF. Why is there an issue among members (not anyone else) about why we should have it.

I dont understand that.

I highlighted the words for multiple reasons. Disregard. As long as you get my point.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I have to wonder why you're spewing cliched right-wing memes, honestly.

You have to understand the social context of those things. For a black person, especially back in the '50s and '60s and before, to say that they were black and proud of it or that black is beautiful, that was a revolutionary statement for a society that viewed black people as inferior and subhuman, and being black as something horrible and ugly.

Women and female bodies have been persecuted and revilved for thousands of years in various places in the world, so that can also be a revolutionary statement of self-acceptance.

It's much the same with LGBTQI people, who have also suffered much throughout the world and are still suffering.

In those contexts, it is a statement and mindset of claiming acceptance and loving yourself, of projecting your self-worth to a world that misunderstands, humiliates, dehumanizes and reviles you. It's a response to being held down.

As for a white person saying they're proud to be white, that is problematic, again, due to the social context. What is "whiteness"? It's a social construct that basically is entirely based on an "us vs. them" paradigm. Sure, blackness is also a social construct but black people who are the descendents of slaves don't tend to know their exact ethnic ancestries due to the Atlantic slave trade, which robbed them of their families and heritage. The most we can generally know is that our ancestry is probably from West or Central Africa, since that's where most of the African slaves that were brought to the Americas originated. So they had to construct an identity as a form of group survival. Even Native Americans tend to know what ethnic group or tribe they descend from, and they're certainly not all the same. Since they had to construct a group identity of their own to fill the void that chattel slavery created, it resulted in various new cultures being created. African-American culture is its own distinct American culture now.

White people have had to do no such thing. White people generally know whether they are Irish, German, English, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Serb, Russian, Finnish, etc. So they can celebrate being Irish, German, English, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Serb, Russian, Finnish, etc., and they do. There's plenty of European cultural celebrations. Where I live we have Irish, German, Greek, Macedonian, etc. festivals. Nothing wrong or racist about that all. They also don't share the sort of experiences that minorities have experienced, which caused them to bond together in various subcultures. There is no common "white culture" or "white people". Many European-descended groups hated each other, oppressed each other and fought among each other. The Irish were against the English and the Italians, the English hated everyone who wasn't them, Northwestern Europeans hated the Slavs and Mediterraneans, etc. Also, since they did not tend to have their heritage and identities ripped away from them, as black people did, they were largely able to hold to their ethnic traditions.

So that's why "white pride" is illogical and unneeded, basically.

Much the same goes for having pride in being a man or being straight. Personally, I like being a man and enjoy masculinity, but I don't see the point of being proud of being a man in terms of a group. I'm not feeling oppressed about it. Besides, we celebrate the achievements of men all the time. It's called history class, sports, politics, etc.

As for LGBT people, it's a bit like the case with blacks. Because of persecution, LGBT people formed their own subcultures and identities to survive and support each other. Because of that, there's a vibrant LGBT culture (and subcultures within that overall subculture), much like there is with African-Americans. There is no such analog with heterosexuals, as far as I can see.

Yes, upper class gay white cis men do hold the majority of the power and influence in the LGBT community. That's a problem.

What really annoys me is how the right calls me left and the left calls me right for spouting common sense.

We should be trying to move PAST the past.

You are saying because us LGBTQI have been persecuted we deserve to be able to be able to talk uninterrupted and heterosexuals do not?

Im tired of your nonsense that is trying to justify inequality.

If homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, transsexuals, intersexuals, androgynous people, etc. Get their own place to talk what would be the HARM in heterosexuals getting a place to talk?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

So you want another subforum for a purely symbolic purpose?



This is absolutely true and deeply problematic.

And that is a problem because?

Blame genetics, there are more homosexuals that completely intersexed or trans for example its just the way it is.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I mean, you have DIRs for all sorts of things on RF. Why is there an issue among members (not anyone else) about why we should have it.

I dont understand that.

I can say the same thing about their being heterosexual forum.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What really annoys me is how the right calls me left and the left calls me right for spouting common sense.

We should be trying to move PAST the past.

You are saying because us LGBTQI have been persecuted we deserve to be able to be able to talk uninterrupted and heterosexuals do not?

Im tired of your nonsense that is trying to justify inequality.

If homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, transsexuals, intersexuals, androgynous people, etc. Get their own place to talk what would be the HARM in heterosexuals getting a place to talk?

No one is trying to justify any inequality here. I'm trying to help you understand these things, because you obviously don't. If straight people want their own subforum, no one's stopping them. They can make a thread and talk to the staff about it. I don't care. You, however, are arguing against an LGBTQI subforum. You are trying to stop a group from having their own forum.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

We have already started doing that. Political groups. Racial groups.

I mean, that's like RF. Do you think it is unethical to not have DIRs? I mean, Christians are the majority, why should they need a DIR? and they have been killing people for over 2,000 years; so, what gives them rights to a DIR?

Hint: guys. this is an example. not an accusation or degrading DIRs and Christians.

Back to my point

However, like straight people who by default people are assuming whatever they talk about in regards to sexuality will be "straight" same in a christian DIR. Whatever one talks about has a default of being Christian.

So if someone comes in who isn't a christian, then (example) it causes some friction.

Likewise, if a GBLTQI comes into the sexuality room and talks about things he is concerned about within his sexuality, people already expect him to talk about "straight" sexuality issues. There is a emotional and too some extent physical aura conflict because the majority of people who may be in that DIR are straight.

Having a Christian DIR assures that Christians have a safe place to go and talk among themselves within their belief systems. It also restricts minorities from coming in their DIR but to ask questions only.

Likewise if there was a LGBTQI DIR. Straight people can only ask questions. Those who identify with one of those letters (no Hs and no Ss) can have full conversation.

What I disagree with is the "ally" part of the title. That's like saying "Christian's and allies DIR". So, I am a Christian ally because I was Catholic. Does that make it right for me to be in a Christian DIR? No.

Likewise. It's still discriminative just not direct. I do feel there should be a GBLTQI DIR. Many people are coming out. Some are still trying to find their identity. Some want to find peers to talk with. A lot of us don't want to dumb it down to be in a general chat room where anyone can join.

I mean, you have DIRs for all sorts of things on RF. Why is there an issue among members (not anyone else) about why we should have it.

I dont understand that.

I highlighted the words for multiple reasons. Disregard. As long as you get my point.

I think you misunderstand what I want.

I want there to be a Sex, Gender and Sexuality section.

Under that being

Sex DIR
Gender DIR
Sexuality DIR

Under those being

Male
Female
Intersex
Trans
Other

Male
Female
Asex
Androgynous
Queer
Genderfluid
Trans
Other

Heterosexual
Homosexual
Asexual
Pansexual
Bisexual
Other

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No one is trying to justify any inequality here. I'm trying to help you understand these things, because you obviously don't. If straight people want their own subforum, no one's stopping them. They can make a thread and talk to the staff about it. I don't care. You, however, are arguing against an LGBTQI subforum. You are trying to stop a group from having their own forum.

Excuse me!

When did I ever say I do not want there to be a LGBTQI forum!

Point out where I ****ing said that!

I say if there is something to that effect there needs to be a heterosexual one, that is what is fair and righteous.