Understanding LGBTxxxxxxx... Terms

[Kirran]

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

No, because transgender people can be heterosexual. Intersex people can be heterosexual. I'm not sure if nonbinary people can be heterosexual, I don't know how the terminology fits there

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

But I do see how it applies to preference.

Yeah the term has a different connotation in biology, much how the biological term for race (which is much more like subspecies) wouldn't apply to humans. Some psychology and social science terms have non-overlapping connotations in other fields too.

 

[McBell]

No, because transgender people can be heterosexual. Intersex people can be heterosexual. I'm not sure if nonbinary people can be heterosexual, I don't know how the terminology fits there

From what I have seen, a big part of the LGBTxxxx push is to segregate themselves from heterosexuals.
So it is not the least bit surprising that there are groups who see it as them trying to make themselves "special".
And when another group tries to make themselves as "special" as the current "special" group.....
Real or imagined


Don't get me wrong.
I am not saying that that IS what is going on.
Merely pointing out that it can very easily be taken that way.
Especially if one belongs to the current "special" group.

 

[Kirran]

From what I have seen, a big part of the LGBTxxxx push is to segregate themselves from heterosexuals.
So it is not the least bit surprising that there are groups who see it as them trying to make themselves "special".
And when another group tries to make themselves as "special" as the current "special" group.....
Real or imagined


Don't get me wrong.
I am not saying that that IS what is going on.
Merely pointing out that it can very easily be taken that way.
Especially if one belongs to the current "special" group.

I think what you're saying may not be totally off, but it's not about defining an identity separate from heterosexuals, it's a push to define a broader identity separate from cisgendered heterosexual men and women. There are of course some quite separate and varying identities within that. A transwoman friend of mine said she wasn't sure how she felt about the 'T' being lumped in with the 'LGB' - i.e. the conflation of non-normative gender with non-normative sexual orientation. There are all sorts of views.

 

[McBell]

There are all sorts of views.

Yes there are.
And it appears that every single one them wants an initial in the "official title"....

 

[Kirran]

Yes there are.
And it appears that every single one them wants an initial in the "official title"....

Those aren't views, they're identities.

 

[McBell]

Those aren't views, they're identities.

I fail to see the difference.

Interestingly enough, it seems I am unable to adequately present my point.

 

[Kirran]

I fail to see the difference.

Interestingly enough, it seems I am unable to adequately present my point.

Really? You don't see the difference between having an opinion about queer politics and being gay, or transgender, or pansexual, or intersex?

Perhaps we are suffering from a miscommunication, my dear Mestemia.

 

[McBell]

Really? You don't see the difference between having an opinion about queer politics and being gay, or transgender, or pansexual, or intersex?

Perhaps we are suffering from a miscommunication, my dear Mestemia.

As I said, I am not successfully explaining my point.

 

[Kirran]

As I said, I am not successfully explaining my point.

Wanna give it another go? We're all friends here.

This is regarding your 'defined vs heterosexuality' thing?

 

[Neo Deist]

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.)

My point (and joke) was that EVERYONE is wanting a special title now as an identifier. It is getting out of hand.

But if you stop and think about it, that happens in all walks of life. I am guilty of it too. For example:

I am not a conservative, I am a Libertarian.
I am not just a Christian, I am a Christian Deist.

Others may say that they are not far left liberals, but rather moderate liberals.
Or not just believers in Judaism, but Reform Judaism.
Or not pro life, but pro life with exceptions (such as rape cases).

Not negro, but black (negro is Spanish for black).
Not black, but African American.

Not Indian, but Native American (which I have ancestry in).

That is the point I was making and joking about. Labels, labels everywhere...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My point (and joke) was that EVERYONE is wanting a special title now as an identifier. It is getting out of hand.

But if you stop and think about it, that happens in all walks of life. I am guilty of it too. For example:

I am not a conservative, I am a Libertarian.
I am not just a Christian, I am a Christian Deist.

Others may say that they are not far left liberals, but rather moderate liberals.
Or not just believers in Judaism, but Reform Judaism.
Or not pro life, but pro life with exceptions (such as rape cases).

Not negro, but black (negro is Spanish for black).
Not black, but African American.

Not Indian, but Native American (which I have ancestry in).

That is the point I was making and joking about. Labels, labels everywhere...

Yes, there are lots of labels in politics, theology, philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc all. I'm happy there are. Diversification of language and exploration of specific concepts and all that. But it sure did look like you were complaining about (or undermining) labels specifically in this category. To put it in perspective it read like this:
Why do we need the label Christian deism when we already have deism? Next we'll have to find a label for Christian pedophiles.

 

[Neo Deist]

Next we'll have to find a label for Christian pedophiles.

Already a label for that. It's called "Catholic priest."

Oh come on, that was too easy! It was just sitting out there waiting to be said!

 

[Neo Deist]

But it sure did look like you were complaining about (or undermining) labels specifically in this category. To put it in perspective it read like this:

Eye of the beholder.

Those that are used to being offended have a tendency to find offense, even when there's not any.

 

[Serpent Child]

I thought it was changed to LGBTQUIA+ ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Eye of the beholder.

Those that are used to being offended have a tendency to find offense, even when there's not any.

This who are used to being offensive tend to write off their poor behavior as everyone else's problem with being too offended, too.

 

[lovesong]

Does transgender include the nonbinary? Some might disagree.

LGBT certainly excludes the asexual, the pansexual, the polysexual and the intersex.

Pansexuality is very very close to bisexuality, and the definition of polysexual literally came up as pansexual. While, sure, it would be nice to put every label in the name, that's just unrealistic if we want LGBT to still be a thing that others can easily recognize and say. If we included literally every possible label there would be too many to remember, and by far too many to write on posters and say to others and whatnot. I think extending it so far out really defeats its purpose and frankly just makes it unusable to the point where it would just get shortened back down to LGBT (or LGBT+ as I've seen some do) anyway.

 

[Jumi]

Ok, that is called hermaphrodite. Did we really need to invent a new word?

Might as well call a great ape human so we don't need to learn "new" words.

 

[Mindmaster]

Gender roles go pretty deep psychologically. The different ways of thinking people have based on their gender can be mapped quite well, and vary culturally. Some people do essentially have brains which, due perhaps to hormonal exposure in the womb, mean they are more authentically expressed as women when their biology is otherwise male, for example.

R.e. your latter statement - so to be clear, if somebody who was biologically male said they were a woman, would you refer to them as 'she' etc?

No, I refuse to participate in the scheme. I shall use their proper name, that's it.

I'm not buying the lunatic fringe psychology, things don't exist just because you keep rampantly repeating your confirmation biases to yourself. I'm not sucked into the sham, I'm tolerant but not participating.

 

[Mindmaster]

Pansexuality is very very close to bisexuality, and the definition of polysexual literally came up as pansexual. While, sure, it would be nice to put every label in the name, that's just unrealistic if we want LGBT to still be a thing that others can easily recognize and say. If we included literally every possible label there would be too many to remember, and by far too many to write on posters and say to others and whatnot. I think extending it so far out really defeats its purpose and frankly just makes it unusable to the point where it would just get shortened back down to LGBT (or LGBT+ as I've seen some do) anyway.

Pansexuality? Sounds like what happens when you settle for anything. Bisexuality seems like you have made choices. I dunno, I feel the same way about pantheism as a term as well. It's the, "Ahh, I don't have a mind on it, but I'll take anything that comes by..."

I'm worried about the LGBTEQUILA becoming so large of an acronym that it occupies more than one text message or tweet.