Understanding LGBTxxxxxxx... Terms

[Kirran]

Paraphilias are a whole other thing.

 

[Neo Deist]

Trolling and bullying is always called jokes when people backpeddle.

Oh good grief. Come off of it already. Nothing I have said in this thread is trolling or bullying. If you can't recognize a joke over the internet, then stay off the internet.

 

[Kirran]

Oh good grief. Come off of it already. Nothing I have said in this thread is trolling or bullying. If you can't recognize a joke over the internet, then stay off the internet.

When you're not on the receiving end, it can be easier to not recognise the offensive nature of the things you are saying.

It is also easier to try and dismiss those saying what you say offends people.

 

[Neo Deist]

It is also easier to try and dismiss those saying what you say offends people.

Every time someone speaks, someone else gets offended over something. I don't have time to sugar coat and baby everything.

 

[Kirran]

Every time someone speaks, someone else gets offended over something. I don't have time to sugar coat and baby everything.

Called it!

There are presumably reasons that you do not go throwing the 'n' word around, or referring to gay people as '****'?

 

[Neo Deist]

Called it!

Called what?

There are presumably reasons that you do not go throwing the 'n' word around, or referring to gay people as '****'?

I call black people, black.
I call gay people, gay.
I call redheads, redheads.

 

[Kirran]

I call black people, black.
I call gay people, gay.
I call redheads, redheads.

Exactly, so there are things you avoid saying due to offensiveness, right? Therefore there is a filter on what you say. It is simply a matter of when you deem it appropriate to apply it.

 

[Neo Deist]

Exactly, so there are things you avoid saying due to offensiveness, right? Therefore there is a filter on what you say. It is simply a matter of when you deem it appropriate to apply it.

Is that unique to me, or does everyone fall under that umbrella?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is that unique to me, or does everyone fall under that umbrella?

 

[Kirran]

Is that unique to me, or does everyone fall under that umbrella?

Oh, everyone!

Except for those rare few people who have no filter whatsoever.

And obviously some people understand what offends people better than others.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Every time someone speaks, someone else gets offended over something. I don't have time to sugar coat and baby everything.

I'm sorry you think common decency is sugar coating and babying. Obviously people who have been condemned as being no better than beastiality or pedophilia would chafe at the comparison. And I'm sure you knew that, but made the comment, like the thread, in order to mock people you've already written off as just being special snowflakes whose perspective is beneath your consideration.
Yeah, I consider that trolling and bullying.

 

[Neo Deist]

And I'm sure you knew that, but made the comment, like the thread, in order to mock people you've already written off as just being special snowflakes whose perspective is beneath your consideration.
Yeah, I consider that trolling and bullying.

Take a timeout, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I did not make the thread in order to mock people. Nor have I put down anyone for being whatever way they happen to be. So quit trying to spin this into something that it's not.

I have a track record on RF as being a SUPPORTER of gay rights. I, as an ordained minister, have even officiated weddings for them. As a matter of fact, I made a post about that quite some time ago.

Edit - links: Would you marry a gay couple...

Trying to find the other one where I positively described their wedding...




I consider false accusations and spin jobs, trolling and bullying, as your intent is to shame or badmouth the person you are directing it toward.

 

[Kirran]

Again, it is far easier to dismiss people who think what you say is offensive than it is to take a look at your own biases.

 

[McBell]

Why not something simpler?
Like NHS?
Not
Hetero
Sexual

Or is it perhaps a pride thing?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Actually not so. An asexual is someone who has no sexual preference, little to no desire for sex and sometimes (but not always) no libido for sex.
Someone born with abnormal or no sexual organs can still have sexual preference and libido. Hence being included in intersex instead.
Most asexuals have their organs intact.

I stand corrected. I suppose I was assuming the prefix a- which typically means "not" or "without". In this case that prefix meaning doesn't apply.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Take a timeout, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I did not make the thread in order to mock people. Nor have I put down anyone for being whatever way they happen to be. So quit trying to spin this into something that it's not.

I have a track record on RF as being a SUPPORTER of gay rights. I, as an ordained minister, have even officiated weddings for them. As a matter of fact, I made a post about that quite some time ago.

Edit - links: Would you marry a gay couple...

Trying to find the other one where I positively described their wedding...




I consider false accusations and spin jobs, trolling and bullying, as your intent is to shame or badmouth the person you are directing it toward.

That's great that you're a gay rights supporter, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about belittling people who aren't part of the LGB part of the acronym. (Though I doubt many gay people would have find the 'next we'll need special labels for beastiality' bit very supportive.)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I stand corrected. I suppose I was assuming the prefix a- which typically means "not" or "without". In this case that prefix meaning doesn't apply.

It does, just in the same sort of way it does with terms like homosexual (Same sex [preference]. Without sex [preference]) rather than the traditional biological usage of without sexual organs. (Animals with asexual reproduction.)

 

[Kirran]

Why not something simpler?
Like NHS?
Not
Hetero
Sexual

Or is it perhaps a pride thing?

That relates only to sexual orientation though! Whereas the labels we're discussing are attempting to cover all people who are not cisgender, heterosexual and/or biologically male/female.

 

[McBell]

That relates only to sexual orientation though! Whereas the labels we're discussing are attempting to cover all people who are not cisgender, heterosexual and/or biologically male/female.

Is not the whole point of the LGBTXXXX to point out "not heterosexual"?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It does, just in the same sort of way it does with terms like homosexual (Same sex [preference]. Without sex [preference]) rather than the traditional biological usage of without sexual organs. (Animals with asexual reproduction.)

In my original post on the subject, I was applying the biological definition.

But I do see how it applies to preference.