Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

GUESS HOW HOMOSEXUAL USED TO SOUND

Well it was a purely clinical term to begin with. Though that also does bring up another question, is it right to keep terms that started purely off as clinical and restricting labels defining someone as mentally ill?

I'm going to start calling all the brunettes "non-blonde," okay?  We don't need a dedicated word for that, because what we're really trying to say is "hey dude, you're not weird, unlike those blondies over there."

Brunettes are replacing blondes. Hair war would be terrifying at any rate.

The thing is, it is a condition. It needs a term. We do not. A lack of a condition does not require a word.

So then cis is useless?

Can I just fast-forward to the point where we drop all these terms because no one gives a shit anymore, and we just look at people as individuals instead of a collection of labels?

It'll take a long time Shakerag, we live in a world where your worth is measured in labels. Shiny, shiny labels.

Getting real tired of your utopian shit, LordBucket.

That is an absolutely terrible analogy. The thing I find a massive piss off about the word is that no other condition has a word for it. What, am I going to be called ciswheelchaired? Maybe cisalzheimers. Ooh, maybe cismultiple sclerosis! The thing is, it is a condition. It needs a term. We do not. A lack of a condition does not require a word.

My cides

[palsch]

When we talk about 'cisgendered' as a word, why use 'trans*' instead of 'trans'? Aren't we specifically talking about non transsexual people, and not about the '*' part?

Well cis would cover anyone who isn't trans* in any sense. That's kinda the definition of trans* as I understand it. Reducing the conversation to just cisgendered vs transsexual is missing a decent chunk of the issue in my mind.

That's the main reason I use trans* here. In the last post I was specifically talking about people outside the gender binary, so in addition to the trans men or women mentioned. Previously I was talking about identities being imposed on the groups, which meant I wanted to use the broadest terms possible to include all those who get drawn into such identities regardless of how they actually identify (and yes, I'm fully aware of what I just typed).

I do generally only use it when I'm trying to refer to not just transsexual trans* people in a very deliberate (if not universally obvious) way.

[MorleyDev]

If the criteria as to whether someone could be your soulmate is hinging on what's between their legs, then I postulate that you are not looking for a partner (or partners, because fuck monogamy), but rather some genitals attached to a conveniently warm body.

Except here's the thing: I'm asexual. It's the label I most can identify with and these labels have a use in explaining concepts. Much like "chair" explains a device for sitting. It's a word to explain a concept.

But these labels also can help people understand themselves, see something they're like that doesn't match what they see in their surroundings and go "Oh, that's a thing that describes me. That's a thing that exists, that other people experience, that is real. I am not alone.", and in that way these labels have to potential to be as freeing as they can be binding.

Anyway, moving on to my actual point: Whilst I've never had romantic desires towards a male I have wanted to date women, to obtain that emotional connection in a specific way that I've never wanted with a man. Them being female isn't a requirement I impose, I could conceivable desire such a connection with a man in the future, but I've yet to do so. Instead it's fairer to say, perhaps, that everyone I've wanted to enjoy a romance with has happened to be female.

Maybe this makes me a poorly fit person to comment, but I'd suggest it's better to view sexuality in that light: It just so happens everyone they've ever wanted to have sex with is of a certain gender/sex. It's not an actively and consciously imposed requirement, but an innate one some people seem to have.

[Dutchling]

If the criteria as to whether someone could be your soulmate is hinging on what's between their legs, then I postulate that you are not looking for a partner (or partners, because fuck monogamy), but rather some genitals attached to a conveniently warm body.

I suppose you think being heterosexual or homosexual is sexist?

[penguinofhonor]

I suppose you think being heterosexual or homosexual is sexist?

I think what he's saying is that there's a difference between being attracted to someone for their gender or for their genitals.

[Shakerag]

I suppose you think being heterosexual or homosexual is sexist?

I think what he's saying is that there's a difference between being attracted to someone for their gender or for their genitals.

It's more like ... regardless of how perfectly someone matches your idea of a partner, what they have between their legs is the #1 deciding factor for most people as to whether they want to proceed or not.

It's like, if you're looking for someone who is into cars, likes hot weather, likes reading Stephen King, and loves to cook, and you find someone that hits all those things but the part about Stephen King, you may very well be like "well, close enough, this person still loves most of the things I do".  But if you find someone who matches all those things but you're like "ew, vagina, no", then it is clear that the #1 thing you are looking for is not interest in cars, liking hot weather, reading Stephen King, or loving to cook. 

To try and further elaborate, if you walk up to people on the street and say what is the #1 most important feature a life-long partner of yours has to have, I would wager that almost everyone will not respond with "a penis" or "a vagina".  And yet, for almost everyone, that is the feature that will trump every other one.

[Dutchling]

Yes, so...?

Most people aren't bi- or pan-sexual, so I really don't see what kind of point you are trying to make here.

[LordBucket]

EDIT:
Meh. Contextual, subjective statement with too many exceptions to be very useful. Redacted.

[Scoops Novel]

I suppose you think being heterosexual or homosexual is sexist?

I think what he's saying is that there's a difference between being attracted to someone for their gender or for their genitals.

It's more like ... regardless of how perfectly someone matches your idea of a partner, what they have between their legs is the #1 deciding factor for most people as to whether they want to proceed or not.

It's like, if you're looking for someone who is into cars, likes hot weather, likes reading Stephen King, and loves to cook, and you find someone that hits all those things but the part about Stephen King, you may very well be like "well, close enough, this person still loves most of the things I do".  But if you find someone who matches all those things but you're like "ew, vagina, no", then it is clear that the #1 thing you are looking for is not interest in cars, liking hot weather, reading Stephen King, or loving to cook. 

To try and further elaborate, if you walk up to people on the street and say what is the #1 most important feature a life-long partner of yours has to have, I would wager that almost everyone will not respond with "a penis" or "a vagina".  And yet, for almost everyone, that is the feature that will trump every other one.

What's your thoughts on the neurological differences?

[EnigmaticHat]

Am I the only one here who's in favor of labels?  We have words so that we can talk about things and understand things.  If we don't have a word for being trans or gay or cis or straight it becomes much harder to talk about those categories and to explain them to those who don't understand them.

[MorleyDev]

For most people sex and romance are so inherently entwined, really it makes sense that someone matching to be a requirement for many. That's, in my observation, the most common experience for people: Sex is an inherent part of the whole Romance, for most they can have the former without the latter but the latter without the former leaves something deep in them unfulfilled, something so basic and deep many will hold it as one of their basic drives of survival, alongside hunger and thirst.

Am I the only one here who's in favor of labels?  We have words so that we can talk about things and understand things.  If we don't have a word for being trans or gay or cis or straight it becomes much harder to talk about those categories and to explain them to those who don't understand them.

I'm just gonna leave this here, because I feel it is relevant to all the different stokes in life:

Labels help us have conversations.  Labels help us acknowledge experiences.  Labels exist because when things exist, they have a name.

When you tell us repeatedly that we shouldn’t name how we feel, you’re telling us you’d rather we have no words to discuss our lives.  No words to share our experiences.  No way to understand that someone else is going through what we go through.

You’re claiming we shouldn’t have labels because you assume “labeling ourselves" will trap us into using the chosen labels forever, but that’s not how it works.  I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen someone get made fun of for “waffling" when they start questioning their identity, compared with the equal number of times I’ve seen someone get mocked for using a label to suggest they know themselves.

"But whyyyy do we have to LAAAAABEL everything?" is ridiculous.  We “label" because when we have a word, we can acknowledge the existence of the thing we named.  Don’t tell us we need to move past the need for labels.  Labels don’t mean we want to be special, or that we want to belong.  We’re not using them to exclude you, or to separate ourselves from you.  We’re using them because things that exist have words.

We exist.  It’s about time that we had a word that lets us say so.
- Source

[Devling]

Am I the only one here who's in favor of labels?  We have words so that we can talk about things and understand things.  If we don't have a word for being trans or gay or cis or straight it becomes much harder to talk about those categories and to explain them to those who don't understand them.

I agree with the above statement.

I don't like cis, because it's been used as a slur against cis people a lot (cis scum), but on the other hand I don't really care and I understand the reason for the word.

[Scelly9]

Am I the only one here who's in favor of labels?  We have words so that we can talk about things and understand things.  If we don't have a word for being trans or gay or cis or straight it becomes much harder to talk about those categories and to explain them to those who don't understand them.

I agree with the above statement.

I don't like cis, because it's been used as a slur against cis people a lot (cis scum), but on the other hand I don't really care and I understand the reason for the word.

That's a bit silly. I've heard black, white, gay, homo, straight, and pretty much everything else used as a slur, doesn't mean the word is the problem.

[Devling]

Am I the only one here who's in favor of labels?  We have words so that we can talk about things and understand things.  If we don't have a word for being trans or gay or cis or straight it becomes much harder to talk about those categories and to explain them to those who don't understand them.

I agree with the above statement.

I don't like cis, because it's been used as a slur against cis people a lot (cis scum), but on the other hand I don't really care and I understand the reason for the word.

That's a bit silly. I've heard black, white, gay, homo, straight, and pretty much everything else used as a slur, doesn't mean the word is the problem.

Please read second part of the sentence.

[penguinofhonor]

As far as I'm concerned, "die cis scum" is just a fantastic litmus test for hidden transphobes. Anyone using it seriously is very silly.

There are a lot of people who will talk about how great of a trans ally they are, but the moment they hear that phrase they explode. "You're just as bad as transphobes! You don't deserve rights if you don't respect us as much as we respect you!" It's a priceless (if slightly depressing) moment.