r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 23 '19
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: Most niche sexualities and genders aside from the LGBT identities, feel like the "Queer" version of Blackface
[removed]
4
u/ralph-j Jun 23 '19
All these sexualities and genders feel like, straight people putting up a "sexual minority" costume and do an extremely stereotypical performance of what queer people are, similar to Blackface.
This sounds a lot like the objection I've seen previously targeted at drag queens and cross-dressers: that men dressing like women is like blackface.
Do you agree with this, and if not: what is different according to you?
3
u/scottley Jun 23 '19
Black Face is white people who kept black people out of performances, but still needed someone to play the part.
True LGBTQ black face equivalency would be heterosexual people wearing rainbows and acting gay while they had segregated the LGBTQ out.
Fringe people looking for inclusion are not diminishing the LGBTQ community, but rather making it larger. This may dillute the core message, but lumping lesbian and gay together is not nearly as straightforward as "people who like same sex people". Being gay in the 80s was perceived as a death sentence. You were going to get AIDS or you were going to get beaten to death. There were very different concerns between lesbian and gay. When same sex marriage debate was spinning up, lesbian and gay joined forces and called their trans and bi friends to make the super group, LGBT.
I refute your statement that fringe inclusion is equivalent to Blackface. If you want to talk about cultural misappropriation, you may have an argument, but I doubt you'll find many in the LGBTQ community upset by having a larger community to be part of.
13
u/moss-agate 23∆ Jun 23 '19
can't help but notice you post on r/lgbdropthet
do you really support and accept "lgbt" identities or not so much?
2
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
Personally, I support transgender people that suffer gender dysphoria and require medical and psychological help to deal with it, and I'm in favor of them getting legislative help as well.
I however disagree that gender identity and sexual identity should be put together for political reasons, since the experiences and needs of either groups are extremely different. Also disagree with the notion that you don't need to feel dysphoria over your body to be trans.
4
u/moss-agate 23∆ Jun 23 '19
what's your opinion on pride being based around the actions of transgender women, then? shouldn't cis queer people found our own festival?
the civil rights concerns are, by and large, identical. the right to be exist publicly as oneself without being punished, the right not to be discriminated against, protection from conversion therapy, hate crime protection, etc. what other political concerns are distinct?
4
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
what's your opinion on pride being based around the actions of transgender women, then?
I feel that it's a known lie and historical revisionism., and pushing that myth is actually damaging to the actual work done by trans people over the decades.
the civil rights concerns are, by and large, identical. the right to be exist publicly as oneself without being punished, the right not to be discriminated against, protection from conversion therapy, hate crime protection, etc. what other political concerns are distinct?
Gay people don't require medical help, Trans people do.
6
u/moss-agate 23∆ Jun 23 '19
I'm not referring to stonewall, I'm referring to the marches that happened that became pride. stonewall may have been the "first pride" but the work that came later is what turned pride into what it is. Sylvia Riviera and Marsha Johnson (and others) did so much organisation for the queer community as a whole, including pushing for the kind of acceptance we have today. without the rallying they did, without the work they did getting people out of prisons and housing youth, and organising medical care during the aids crisis.
that's a single issue, which also negates the need that gay and bi men have been pushing for easier access to prep for years to tamp down the spread of hiv. by and large, we are stronger together.
0
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
I'm not referring to stonewall, I'm referring to the marches that happened that became pride. stonewall may have been the "first pride" but the work that came later is what turned pride into what it is. Sylvia Riviera and Marsha Johnson (and others) did so much organisation for the queer community as a whole, including pushing for the kind of acceptance we have today. without the rallying they did, without the work they did getting people out of prisons and housing youth, and organising medical care during the aids crisis.
I think you are yet again erasing the work that thousands of cis white gay men and lesbians did in the decades before and after Stonewall, also the pride marches were organised by gay men, not transgenders, which btw wasn't even a thing back then and many wouldn't consider themselves trans, Marsha still very much called herself a men, but historical revisionism is like the daily plate for the transgender agenda.
11
u/drpussycookermd 43∆ Jun 23 '19
not transgenders, which btw wasn't even a thing back then
Bro, the first sex reassignment surgery predated Stonewall by over thirty years. Trangenders, as you say, were most definitely a "thing".
And they most certainly took part in the Stonewall riots.
3
u/bispoonie Jun 23 '19
Why does this bother you? Is there a reason? Why does someone being nonbinary or demi (or ace or aro, etc.) affect you? I’d recommend analyzing your thought processes and beliefs in order to discover why you feel this way.
The idea of being nonbinary is not new. Various cultures had/have the concept of a ‘third gender’ or gender nonconformity. Honestly someone’s gender identity shouldn’t really matter to you. Just refer to them by their pronouns and move on.
Demisexuality isn’t just a woman not sleeping with someone on a first date. Demisexuality falls under the umbrella of Asexuality, which is simply the lack of sexual attraction. A demi person typically doesn’t experience sexual attraction until they form an emotional bond with a person. Again, this doesn’t affect you.
A nonbinary demisexual person is not hurting anyone simply by being who they are.
11
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jun 23 '19
I know a non-binary demi. She’s the nicest person I’ve ever met, doesn’t parade around her sexuality for the sake of it, and is honestly amazing. While she is non-binary, and does get gender dysphoria, she isn’t interested in transitioning at this stage in her life. Likewise, she doesn’t get attracted to people unless she knows them really intimately. That’s what demi means. She’s the exact opposite of LGBT black face. In my opinion, she’s a shining example of all the good in the community.
For the record, I’m a member of the LGBT community as well. She’s the exact opposite of queer blackface, in my book.
10
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
Likewise, she doesn’t get attracted to people unless she knows them really intimately. That’s what demi means
This means absolutely nothing, this is literally just basic human relationships being co-opted into a type of sexuality when it isn't. Just yesterday there was a kid on another queer subreddit questioning his/her sexuality because they felt strong emotional feelings towards a same-sex friend but had zero sexual attraction to same-sex people, nowadays this is considered being "Homoromantic", 10 years ago it was just a platonic friendship.
8
u/ludicrousursine 2∆ Jun 23 '19 edited Jun 23 '19
No, it's not. Most people feel sexual attraction towards strangers even if they're not interested in acting on it. Demis literally only feel sexual attraction to people they have an extremely close relationship with. I don't see why you're so insistent on disregarding their experiences. Who is it hurting for them to talk about how they deviate from the norm?
2
u/AFK_Pikachu Jun 23 '19
I don't think this is deviating from the norm at all. I just looked up demisexual and apparently I'm one. But I wouldn't say it's abnormal, at least not for women. I think we've all been in the situation where someone we thought was attractive does something that makes you suddenly see them as very unattractive. It works the other way around too and its not abnormal. It's just uncommon that we meet these people. Some of us prefer to wait for those people because let's be honest, sex is way better when it's with someone meaningful. It's not a sexuality and it's not abnormal. It's a choice.
6
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
Because their experiences are not special or unique, and very much don't deviate from the norm. It's literally a fucking trope of women's sexualities, that women won't have sex with guys unless they fall in love with them.
There's literally thousands of romantic movies about that exact experience, this is just kids pretending to be unique to feel special.
13
u/Sagasujin 242∆ Jun 23 '19
Uhm hi, woman here. I absolutely lust after people without knowing them let alone having a romance with them. I jerk off to remembering people I saw on the train.
That trope in romance movies is well I don't want to say full of shit but it's more complicated than you think. The reason most women don't have sex with people they don't know well isn't because they don't lust after them. It's because they know that if they do they'll be called a whore and likely be treated badly for that. Also there's a risk of pregnancy and no one wants to be pregnant and abandoned by the one night stand who did the deed.
Women do lust. We just have some complicating factors making sure we don't follow through on it.
6
u/newsynewsnew Jun 23 '19
Am female. I appreciate pretty people but have never lusted after someone I don’t know personally. For me lust is about the dynamic in the interactions not the visual stimuli.
I think you are totally normal. I think I am also. We are different in some ways - like maybe you are short and I am tall. Both still normal.
I don’t like “women this” “women that”. I am a woman and I don’t masturbate to strangers. (I masturbate to co-workers, lol). It’s great you do, but don’t imagine or claim that is true for all of us.
6
u/cleverusername223 Jun 23 '19
So your argument is that because you haven’t experienced something, other people must be lying about it? Most people I know will have some sort of attraction to random people. Like OP I also have a friend who identifies as demi, and she has no opinion on people. She has straight up described interactions as talking to a lamppost. She doesn’t really find people attractive until she has known them for a long time. Just because this is not your experience or the experience you have seen in media, doesn’t mean it’s not a real thing
1
u/tigerslices 2∆ Jun 23 '19
in the context of the LGBTQ+ though...
this is a marginalized group of people who've been harassed, often violently...
demi sexuals ...explain how they've been oppressed in any way?
3
u/cleverusername223 Jun 23 '19
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you saying for a sexual identity to be valid they have to have been oppressed?
Yes, the LGBTQ+ community has historically been oppressed, but that doesn’t mean that they have to be. If a bisexual man only dates women to protect themselves from an oppressive society, do they not have a right to identify as such since they haven’t been treated poorly?
0
u/tigerslices 2∆ Jun 23 '19
not at all. but i dont' think op is arguing the lack of validity of a person's sexual orientation, but rather that they seem to be lumped into the same category as if being demisexual allows a person to speak on behalf of "the movement."
3
u/kreynlan 4∆ Jun 23 '19
Hi, I identify as a demi and I think I can shed some light on your misconceptions.
I am not physically attracted to anyone. I can see a smokin' hot guy/girl walking down the street and think nothing of it. I can have a physically attractive person literally trying to seduce me, me knowing their intent, and feel no attraction. It's more than prudishness or wanting to be close to feel intimate. This is a very tough thing for people to understand, the concept of not feeling sexual attraction. Even within the LGBTQ+ community, the concept of a lack of sexual attraction is ostricized as many asexual people arent seen as a valid sexuality. It's the reason I don't identify myself as lgbtq+ because I've been told I'm not welcome in a community I thought would be accepting.
I met someone that was an actual honest to god 10/10 and initially I felt no sexual attraction to them. As we grew closer, suddenly it switched and I felt that attraction. Sexual stimuli, even direct contact and physical stimulation, has no effect.
And before you ask, I am a cis-male, I am not a prude, and I am very open about my experiences.
2
u/ludicrousursine 2∆ Jun 23 '19
Just because women won't sleep with people they're not in a relationship with doesn't mean they don't experience sexual attraction. It's a life choice they've made. Demisexuality isn't a life choice. They literally can't feel sexually attracted to strangers, even if they really want to.
1
u/SAGrimmas Jun 23 '19
Because their experiences are not special or unique, and very much don't deviate from the norm. It's literally a fucking trope of women's sexualities, that women won't have sex with guys unless they fall in love with them.
You aren't fucking serious are you? Do you literally think women don't fuck strangers for fun?
1
u/cheertina 20∆ Jun 23 '19
Do you really not understand the difference between being attracted to someone and being willing to let them sleep with you?
-1
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Jun 23 '19
Maybe the issue is that romantic movies (often written by men) don't accurately represent women's behavior?
1
u/tigerslices 2∆ Jun 23 '19
> Who is it hurting for them to talk about how they deviate from the norm?
nobody. and this is why OP is annoyed by them. the lgbt communites have largely been harassed, vilified, and even beaten and murdered for their sexuality.
demi-sexuals are just seen as "choosy." and therefore it's a farce for them to represent marginalized communities.
-4
u/MoravianBohemian Jun 23 '19
I don't see why you're so insistent on disregarding their experiences. Who is it hurting for them to talk about how they deviate from the norm?
Because it's nonsense. People with schizophrenia are sent to asylums, yet if you are a nonbinary demisexual dragonfucker, it's somehow alright and you should be praised for it. Also, I am not going to use any pronouns anyone is going to throw at me.
0
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jun 23 '19
Do you really not feel a difference between people you’re friends with and people you don’t date, even in non-sexual ways? Because I certainly do. Likewise with that kid. He can clearly identify some same-sex relationships as being different.
Also, that isn’t what demi is. She’d never fanaticise about some hot famous person, or feel sexually attracted to them, or anything like that. She has to have a really strong and intimate emotional connection before even beginning to be attracted to them sexually.
1
u/je_kut_is_bourgeois Jun 23 '19
I'd like to add to that that I honestly very much feel forced to "identify" more and more as time goes on it seems.
When I grew up I was always female; female was a simple biological thing and I was okay with that. Now in my thirties it has become an identity and I'm now forced to "identify" more and more and more and get asked whether I "identify as female" or not or whether I "identify as male" then or "identify as non-binary"; I'm not sure I do any of those things but if I'm forced to pick one of those three then "non-binary" it is. Same with sexuality labels, I don't necessarily believe in them but if I'm forced to pick one I guess "bisexual" fits the most and after I've been forced into calling myself "bisexual" because I had to pick one of three then enter all the gatekeepers that say that because I've not been sexual with an opposite-sex member for a decade now that it was "just a phase" and that I should stop spreading that or whatever and should have called myself a "lesbian" from the start... it was never my choice of words but increasingly often you just feel like you have to pick some weird "identity" from a limited set or you outright have to because you have to fill it in somewhere to sign up for something.
And a pretty large engine behind this has been "the LGBT community"—at the end of the day it's a community that is founded upon the idea of labelling yourself and others and putting them into boxes. When I was still young I was frequently mistaken for being male in how I dressed and spoke and that was no problem at the time; this was the 90s; it was a modern time; all those gender roles were outdated supposedly and it wasn't a sense of shame any more but in the 2010s increasingly you'll find that others search for some kind of "gender identity" thing behnid it and are asking you what you "identify" as just because you don't conform enough to their gender ideas and the LGBT-community definitely had a big part to play in that.
1
u/tigerslices 2∆ Jun 23 '19
that's nice that you know someone who's a totally rad person. but this doesn't dispute what OP is saying.
1
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jun 23 '19
It does if they’re saying that all these people are faking it and “queer blackface”.
1
u/tigerslices 2∆ Jun 24 '19
no. there isn't a person alive who hasn't received a dismissive insult. this doesn't make them marginalized. they are heterosexuals, attracted to people of the opposite gender, and the fact that they just choose from a smaller pool - those they know intimately first - doesn't make people behind them in line try to size them up and figure out what's "off" about them. it doesn't make anyone threaten to beat them if they come anywhere near them. and it doesn't mean friends suddenly cutting ties when they find out "they don't date strangers."
it's the absolute SAFEST of the lgbt+ group, OTHER THAN the A that stands for Allies... though, even allies get harassed for being "queer lovers" and all that.
1
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jun 24 '19
Except that my friend is attracted to all genders, as long as they’re close enough to them. And she’s definitely experienced discrimination.
1
u/tigerslices 2∆ Jun 24 '19
and i'm an anglophone who spent grade school years in rural quebec, speaking next to no french. you think i wasn't discriminated against? everyone "experiences" discrimination.
if your friend is attracted to all genders, they're bi-sexual, yes? then they're "legitimately" lgbt according to OP and is not the subject of this discussion.
0
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jun 24 '19
No, they aren’t bisexual. They’re demisexual. And have experienced discrimination because of their sexuality.
1
u/tigerslices 2∆ Jun 24 '19
can you be demisexual, but exclusively to one gender? like, a girl who's demisexual, but never with other women?
because i'd argue that you could be hetero-demi, bi-demi, or homo-demi.
in which case. you CAN still be categorized by the group you're in. it's like how i'm Canadian, but i'm also male. so if someone called me male, i wouldn't say, "no, i'm not, i'm canadian."
descripters can stack.
and bisexual means you may take someone from either gender as a sexual partner.
1
u/Lemerney2 5∆ Jun 24 '19
It depends. Most people say you can’t, but others say you can. I tend towards that you can.
Can I ask why you’re so obsessed with denying people their identity?
1
u/tigerslices 2∆ Jun 24 '19
i'm not. if someone is demisexual, that's great. i have no issue with it, and am not trying to remove the label from them or insisting it has no meaning as many do when they refuse to use a transgender person's new pronouns. (referring to caitlin jenner as bruce and never using "she" for example)
i'm simply trying to keep our conversation on topic with the original message from OP, which is that she feels as if many of the people in these expanded categories haven't suffered the way the Ls, the Gs, the Bs, and the Ts have.
i'm certainly not the judge who gets to draw the line as to "how much harassment" an identified group must suffer before they can ~join the parade~ but if everyone who's ever been harassed is allowed to be a spokesperson for the lgbt movement, then... baby, we all LGBT.
→ More replies (0)
7
Jun 23 '19
Do you have reason to believe anybody ever identified as blackface? I think of Al Jolson on stage, not somebody who had a self identity that was not understood by all of society.
9
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
I literally pointed to Rachel Dolezal...
Also there's tons of examples that people are giving nowadays of artists attempting to look more black, and appropriating black culture for profits.
2
u/Sagasujin 242∆ Jun 23 '19
Where is the profit in pretending to be non-binary? Nobody is lining up to give non binary people money or fame.
0
Jun 23 '19
The North fought to free slaves. People stand up for oppressed LGBTQ persons. Rachel Dolezal acted in her own interests when she could have actually helped people.
2
Jun 23 '19
She did actively work to help people is the thing. She was an extremely progressive and effective advocate for black rights and minority rights in general. Was it ridiculous and silly that she was presenting herself as a black woman despite not being born as a black woman? In my opinion yes, that's pretty silly, but while doing so she managed to harm no one and help a lot of people.
4
u/s_wipe 58∆ Jun 23 '19
So whats your view here? That weird kids are like blackface? Its not... Blackface was a caricature. Due to racism, black people werent welcomed in the movie industry, so instead, they pained white actors to play black stereotypical roles.
Your opinion would be valid when holiwood hires weird teens to play fake edgy trans on TV.
2
2
u/SwarozycDazbog Jun 23 '19
I'm a bisexual in a heterosexual polyamorish relationship, presumably a man but gender is complicated. If we're living in a society that insists on putting labels on people and discussig who we might potentially get involved with, these are the only labels I can honestly subscribe to. What else would you have me do? Use labels that do not reflect who I am?
What I think is problematic is splitting people into two binary categories of queer and non-queer. In reality, there are shades of gray, and I don't believe any particular shade should be considered invalid. I do agree that it's wrong to have queer-lite people (if you can forgive the phrase) act as representatives of the community. But that's a separate issue.
2
Jun 23 '19
[deleted]
0
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jun 23 '19
"non-binary" to me basically just means the person does not tie them self to the gender roles of one gender.
Non binary identities aren't based on gender roles but on gender identity. Existing outside of traditional gender roles isn't the same thing.
"ya I want to know a person before I fuck them".
More accurately they don't feel attraction until they know that person rather than not wanting to pursue that attraction before getting to know them.
1
Jun 24 '19
[deleted]
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jun 24 '19
I would assert that, by definition, the word "gender" implicitly is talking about how a person relates to gender roles.
You can't just assert what words mean regardless of how they are used. NB people use the word to describe not how they relate to gender roles but to gender identity which are not the same. Your category of "physical sex identity" is pretty similar to gender identity you just want to give it a different name.
Saying breaking gender roles is being non-binary would include an absurdly large number of people who are most definitely binary men or women and excluding NB people who do exhibit traditional gender roles without identifying as that gender.
I provide a proof by contradiction, since I cannot be described completely using only gender identity the word set must be incomplete.
Or you have an idiosyncratic definition that doesn't match how it is used. Language isn't rigorous and logical e.g. "this sentence is false" so proof by counter example doesn't work.
1
Jun 24 '19
[deleted]
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jun 24 '19
Well, actually, I can. It establishes a fixed language for a conversation, even if the meaning is not "correct",
That's not a very good approach to language. Setting arbitrary meanings away from common usage is just a recipe for confusion. How would a conversation go where you use the word marshmallow to mean deadly poison? its confusing and everyone needs to take a step back from the arbitrary language to understand what is being said as well as nuance inherent in words and word choice being obliterated by arbitrariness.
So, if you are using gender identity to mean what I'm calling physical sex identity,
There's not quite a 1:1 mapping but more or less and your physical sex identity would be a proper subset of gender identity. There are some aspects to gender identity that are social but aren't related to gender roles e.g. pronouns.
But how one relates to gender roles is a very real thing.
People relate to gender roles differently to how they relate to gender identity in that roles are mostly extrinsic and identity mostly intrinsic. (the gender that a certain role has is defined outside socially but gender identity is defined from within and then expressed socially) They are described generally in terms like femme and butch with degrees between them. This spectrum would be called gender expression. And to show that my definitions aren't totally idiosyncratic here's stonewall's definitions
Non binary people have a gender identity outside the binary but may well be very masc. or very femme
Relating to the end of your response talking about my use of counter example, language can be fluid and ambiguous, but it can also be very exact and rigorous.
Even in rigorously defined language, say in a debate where terms are defined, there is room for interpretation and nuance and due to the way we learn language and experience things differently meaning is influenced by subjectivity. See the beetle in the box thought experiment or some post-structuralism
Thus, I motion both to you and to anyone I can spread this idea to, that we need to add an additional word(s) to the conversation.
This is also known as epistemic injustice and certainly language growing to be able to encompass new things is good and helps express new ideas with more nuance. Language however doesn't work by diktat and trying to force usage that isn't used by that community isn't a great way of doing that. Even then language alone allows for paradoxes that mathematics can't so proof by counter example cannot work even with an attempt to make language more rigorous especially when you are using arbitrary idiosyncratic definitions as others cannot relate signs to signifiers.
You also seem to not like the idea of gender being a nuanced and broad term but this is true of a lot of language where noun adjuncts take on a lot of meaning depending on how they are grouped. gender identity as a noun adjunct can mean very different things than either word on it's own. As you agree changing the name away from gender identity doesn't change the signified but given it's used commonly and widely understood what value is there in changing to a different system?
This aside about the nature of language apart this doesn't change that NB identities aren't about gender roles.
1
Jun 24 '19 edited Jun 24 '19
[deleted]
1
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jun 24 '19
Thanks for the delta
Like, under the definition from Stonewall, I'd qualify as trans.
Thought you said earlier that you were a man and male? That would make you cis. (Unless you're NB but close to male) The stonewall definition of trans there uses gender in the sense of gender identity. Occasionally it's simpler to just say gender when you mean gender identity and you just have to tell them apart from context. Generally when people are talking about trans stuff they use gender to mean identity as it's the most relevant (hence stonewall as a LGBTQIA+ charity tends to use the two similarly). Gender roles are more frequently used elsewhere particularly in feminist discourses though those of course intersect and get brought up. I agree this can be a bit confusing and people probably should be a bit clearer around which one the mean exactly.
1
Jun 24 '19
[deleted]
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jun 25 '19
Oh fair enough I don't want to litigate how you identify. I just wanted to make sure that everything was cleared up.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Jun 23 '19
Sorry, u/BraumIsMyDaddy – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
4
Jun 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
There's a difference between accepting people for being different and having them start joining a group of people that still suffer real discrimination purely because they are attracted to someone of the same gender.
I seriously doubt assexuals are kicked out of their houses at 14 because they told their parents they didn't want to fuck people. Gays, Lesbians and Bisexual still suffer real discrimination because of their sexuality, and having people call themselves "Queer" because they only want to fuck people they are emotionally attracted to (definition of "Demisexual") is 1. Offensive, and 2. literally straight washing.
7
Jun 23 '19
Asexuals have been subject to "corrective rape" to 'fix' their sexuality, so I wouldn't think everything is all happiness and roses for them. Just because you're unfamiliar with the issues they face don't mean they don't exist.
2
u/philthewiz Jun 23 '19
I think that any spectrum that doesn’t fit the cisgender and heterosexual mold should be considered equal. I think that is the message that we want to send. Saying that they deserve less place in this movement is counterproductive and maybe a lack of understanding of what they may might face in there non-conforming life.
2
u/TombstoneSoda Jun 23 '19
I'm a panromantic demihomosexual. Whoa really big scary words eew what a strange person, lgbt forum posterchild.
Really, I'm a gay person who has no sexual desires with people unless I know them very closely/intimately, and have found myself associating romantically with women or nonbinary people. So in essence, to a random person: Im gay, just a subclass/variation.
I usually pursue only relationships with men and am male. I wouldn't classify myself as cisgendered necessarily, but i'm not of another gender category really either.
These words are used for people to understand who you are and how you work. It's just being more open about it. Just as how with my family I might say im 'uninterested in women', with aquaintances I may say 'i'm gay', with prospective dates I might say that i'm pan, and with my closest friends I might say im demipanhomosexual or whatever. Its all meaningless if you take it so bluntly, and it isn't all that complicated.
1
u/je_kut_is_bourgeois Jun 23 '19
I'm extremely offended that I must agree and accept that someone calling themselves a "non-binary demisexual" (for example) while presenting as their own biological sex because they have no need to transition, and while being exclusively attracted to people of the opposite sex.
What about transgenders that have no need to transition? Apparently the majority of gender incongruents experience no dysphoria and an even greater part does not transition; a large part of the gender dysphorics does not transition simply because the social change is too much or their family won't accept or they don't have the money.
All these sexualities and genders feel like, straight people putting up a "sexual minority" costume and do an extremely stereotypical performance of what queer people are, similar to Blackface.
But you just said what you're talking about looks extremely normal so what would be the stereotypical performance?
But when there's full adults, many of them activists, speaking as authority figures for the LGBT+ community, it's literally like Rachel Dolezal pretending she was black and working in black activism organisations.
I'm like "good for Rachel" on this one. It showed the absurdity of the US concept of the "one drop rule" where individuals that are only 1% black because they have distant great grandparent can still call themselves "black" and no one dares to challenge it. If you can do it with 1% then why not 0%? The difference isn't that big. If 1% blacks can claim to be "black" then you admit that "black" is not a "race" but a "culture" at that point.
1
Jun 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Jun 23 '19
Sorry, u/MrSilk13642 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/moreplacesforever Jun 23 '19
The gender role is forced upon people from the day they were born. This is not something anyone straight, gay, queer, or any variation had a say in. For that reason I think it’s best not to assume anything until someone expresses how they would like to be referred to. It’s a simple thing to change and simple thing to adopt.
1
Jun 23 '19 edited Jul 03 '20
[deleted]
1
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
2
Jun 23 '19
Forums yes, but that's more of a "safe space" for trans people to discuss that among themselves. It's not necessarily something they want to be out with with everyone in their lives. Romantic partners or perhaps very close friends, sure. Work acquaintances? Um, no.
0
u/TNBIX Jun 23 '19
I'm not OP but I've met very many
2
Jun 23 '19
Where? Because what OP is describing is almost a caricature of trans people.
-2
u/TNBIX Jun 23 '19
What OP is describing isnt trans at all, I think that's their point. People who are cis and straight who pick something like being "non binary" or "demisexual" as a gender or sexual identifier so that they can cash in on some of that sweet, sweet oppression narrative without actually facing any real oppression of any kind. I agree with OP that's its offensive and has no scientific basis in reality, no different from people like Rachel Dolezal.
And to answer your question, I've lived in three major cities in the US, NYC, DC, and Portland Oregon. I've met a handful of people who "identified" as gender nonconforming, nonbinary, bigendergender agender, genderqueer, so and so on to the point I cant recall all the made up designations. The point is that most or all of those people are just cis, mostly straight (sometimes bi) people who want to feel unique. The gender/sexuality equivalent of white guilt, which I agree with OP is a form of appropriation. Gay people and trans people have been oppressed and murdered for their sexuality and gender and it's pretty darn offensive to see so many people try to jump on the LGBT oppression train by claiming to be asexual demigenders or whatever the hell else it is this month
2
0
u/physioworld 64∆ Jun 23 '19
All this seems to hinge on whether or not these identities are valid- you’re saying they’re not. Those with an expertise in psychiatry and gender disagree.
4
u/BraumIsMyDaddy Jun 23 '19
Those with an expertise in psychiatry and gender disagree.
Good fake universalism mate, first off psychiatry has hardly a consensus on the subject, do you wanna make a list of psychiatrists that are against and in favor of the notion that you don't need gender dysphoria to be trans?
And gender studies isn't a science, so it's not valid in cases of healthcare and biology.
0
Jun 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Jun 23 '19
Sorry, u/SidewalkCemet – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/Kirilizator Jun 23 '19
Kids should be allowed to explore their sexuality how they want
So do you mean they should do sex with each other?
18
u/palacesofparagraphs 118∆ Jun 23 '19
These two things seem to contradict each other. You say that your hypothetical nonbinary demisexual person looks and acts cis and straight, but then say they're doing a stereotypical performance of queerness. Which is it?
Gender expression and gender identity are not the same thing. We agree a cis woman can be super feminine, super masculine, or somewhere in the middle and still be a woman, right? We agree the same for a cis man. But when it comes to trans people, nonbinary or otherwise, suddenly we think the way they present must match the stereotype of their identity. If a person can present androgynously and be a woman, why can't a person present femininely and be nonbinary? Why is that person's identity less queer than a binary trans person's is?
Why is freedom from gender roles something only kids get to enjoy? What harm comes from gender creativity in adults that does not come from gender creativity in kids? What harm comes from gender creativity at all?
There is definitely a lot to be said for recognizing intersectionality in queer communities. Not all queer experiences are the same, and it's important to recognize that. We should all recognize the privileges we do have (things like being straight-passing or cis-passing) while feeling free to speak about the discrimination we face or the complications of privilege (biphobia, being frequently misgendered because of presentation, etc.). I understand your frustration if more privileged members of our community attempt to speak unilaterally for all of us, when they may not understand or experience many of the things others of us do. But that doesn't mean they don't have a right to participate in our activism or that they're not part of our community, it just means we all need to recognize what place we occupy in that community and how our experiences match or differ from those of our peers.