Homosexuality...

[Unwardil]

i thought i should add one little thing.

its a general consensus amongst those that i know who are different in respect to sexuality and gender that the most offensive term is "homosexual".

because according to our perceptions of both gender and sexuality, the term is woefully inadequate to describe the reality.

Is there a better term for describing the continuum of sexuality rather than the, well, man/man woman/woman sexing aspect? I ask out of pure curiosity and because I love new words.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Not that you represent the entire gay population or anything, but I'd love to hear your opinions on the discussion.

i wasnt claiming to represent the entire population. I can give you my perspective and i can give you a little bit of the kinds of discussion my LGBT group gets into on the subject though.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you tried to represent the population. It was more to the effect of acknowledging individuality...

the term gay. for me personally, meh..words are simply words. the bigotry comes in with the psychological and often physical torture that some individuals see fit to put people like myself through. i have been beaten up for my sexuality. Ive also been threatened. THAT is more of a big deal than anything else though i can tell you that i am a minority in that respect(at least amongst my local LGBT community). the reason i think many have issues with heteros(and cis..which is a whole 'nother thread) using certain language is due to a sort of..we'll call it a defensive reaction born of the threat of physical and psychological torture.

While it hasn't been said explicitly, this is really the underlying problem of the entire issue. Someone can be completely innocent (ignorant) in using sexual slurs, but they're contributing to something rather sinister. Even if it isn't overheard by someone who could be offended, its almost worst if someone hears it that would take their hate to that kind of extreme. Its why I've adopted a zero tolerance attitude towards the subject.

(On a side note: 'Cis' :arrow: Interesting term. I'll keep that one and try not to be a hypocrite )

In my community, both sexuality and gender are viewed as a series of spectrums, with various individuals at different points along each spectrum rather than being simply man or woman, gay or straight. all of us feel that this more accurately describes the nature of human sexuality than the tradional binary model.

[related]

its a general consensus amongst those that i know who are different in respect to sexuality and gender that the most offensive term is "homosexual".

That's a good point and polar opposition tends to be at the crux of many irrational debates. I'm rather mystified by libertarians for this very same reason in that they seem to take a 'black and white' approach towards policy debate. That kind of thinking is where ideas of "good vs bad" (or more specifically "sanctified vs condemned") comes from which is essentially the root of hatred.

You make a good point about the spectrum, but I'm curious which is the best way to describe certain blocks within the spectrum if 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' are off limits?

ill finish with a question..

do you think, in the face of social retribution, the threat of physical violence, the reality of physical violence and the very real possibility of death..that anyone would conciously choose to be homosexual? i know that i did not. i would give anything to be straight.

Seriously, that just makes me sad and angry... Society is FUCKED UP!!!

 

[fenyx]

ok say you walk into an LGBT meeting and you want to be absolutely pc, which is prudent because you're outnumbered.

this is how you do it.

there's biological sex, gender identity and sexuality. each is considered to be a separate and distinct thing.

so here's my dinky attempt at a semi diagram.

Biological Sex

Male---------------Intersex---------------Female


Gender Identity

Transgender---------------Genderqueer---------------Cisgender


Sexuality

Gay--------------Bisexual-------------Straight


and anyone could be anywhere along each of those three spectrums.


and in reality its best not to mention it unless they bring it up. you never know who's a poof about it. like i said, i personally am not because i dont see words as having any real effect on me unless its "im going to rape you with a knife and set you straight" kind of stuff. Others will be more sensitive.

but that's it in a nutshell

 

[Unwardil]

All bigoted remarks are metaphors... What's your point? It's pretty obvious (to me at least) that the only way to change our environment of hate is to take a hard line against it.

And then

That's a good point and polar opposition tends to be at the crux of many irrational debates. I'm rather mystified by libertarians for this very same reason in that they seem to take a 'black and white' approach towards policy debate. That kind of thinking is where ideas of "good vs bad" (or more specifically "sanctified vs condemned") comes from which is essentially the root of hatred.

Pull your hypocritical head out of your ass?


Now then, if gay is the proper term for homosexually leaning individuals, I shall identify the property thusly as I already said I quite like the versatility of the word gay to begin with and when it's not being used to denote negative qualities, it has plenty of positive ones as well. It's difficult to distance the idea from immaculate taste in interior design and a fondness for musical theater, but I'll try not to let that get in the way.

Although, I'm not sure I like the term "straight" to describe heterosexual attraction. I like women, but there's not much that's straight about me. I'm as curvy as it's possible to be in every other respect. Something to brainstorm perhaps.

 

[fenyx]

[
It's difficult to distance the idea from immaculate taste in interior design and a fondness for musical theater, but I'll try not to let that get in the way.

you shouldnt. the stereotypes that get thrown around are a constant joke amongst my friends and i.

Although, I'm not sure I like the term "straight" to describe heterosexual attraction. I like women, but there's not much that's straight about me. I'm as curvy as it's possible to be in every other respect. Something to brainstorm perhaps.

we have our own derogatory terms for you folks when you let your brains turn to mush and forget that we happen to be people..we want the same general things out of life that you do, just with variations. "straight" is a kindness in light of that.. :twisted:

 

[borrofburi]

Although, I'm not sure I like the term "straight" to describe heterosexual attraction. I like women, but there's not much that's straight about me. I'm as curvy as it's possible to be in every other respect. Something to brainstorm perhaps.

we have our own derogatory terms for you folks when you let your brains turn to mush and forget that we happen to be people..we want the same general things out of life that you do, just with variations. "straight" is a kindness in light of that.. :twisted:

I've never liked straight because it seems the implication is that gays are "crooked" with the connotation of "wicked".

 

[fenyx]

I've never liked straight because it seems the implication is that gays are "crooked" with the connotation of "wicked".

like "gay" is used with both positive and negative connotation in common usage...amongst the LGBT group i go the word "straight" has both positive and negative connotation

positive would be that everything is aligned like a male, sexually attracted to women, with a male gender identity.

negative has a violent, phallic overtone...you could sum it up as "people who rape your life" and is mostly spoken in that sense in reference to some of the more nasty(and more often than not religious) bigots one comes across.

the words themselves are so fluid though. its really the intent and concepts behind them that matter.

 

[Unwardil]

we have our own derogatory terms for you folks when you let your brains turn to mush and forget that we happen to be people..we want the same general things out of life that you do, just with variations. "straight" is a kindness in light of that.. :twisted:

Totally agree with you that the word means what the invoker intends (that's sort of been my point all along) I was just thinking there had to be a better word to describe heterosexual attraction than 'straight'.

As for the gay bashing straight people, I like to call them cocksuckers. I think it has a certain delicious irony to it.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Im gay.

any questions?

Are you male, female, tree, or pinecone?

 

[JustBusiness17]

All bigoted remarks are metaphors... What's your point? It's pretty obvious (to me at least) that the only way to change our environment of hate is to take a hard line against it.

And then

That's a good point and polar opposition tends to be at the crux of many irrational debates. I'm rather mystified by libertarians for this very same reason in that they seem to take a 'black and white' approach towards policy debate. That kind of thinking is where ideas of "good vs bad" (or more specifically "sanctified vs condemned") comes from which is essentially the root of hatred.

Pull your hypocritical head out of your ass?

I think this comment qualifies under this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstated_assumption

I'm out of this ridiculous conversation with you but I'll leave you with a challenge. Please share a normal (common/everyday) circumstance where it is perfectly acceptable (aka good) to use a slur derived from bigotry :geek:

It's difficult to distance the idea from immaculate taste in interior design and a fondness for musical theater, but I'll try not to let that get in the way.

It's comments like this and the one about "sucking penises" (as you phrased it) that make me think you have a contempt for gays and an insecurity about yourself. But I'll leave you to mill that one over...

so here's my dinky attempt at a semi diagram.

Biological Sex
Male---------------Intersex---------------Female

Gender Identity
Transgender---------------Genderqueer---------------Cisgender


Sexuality
Gay--------------Bisexual-------------Straight


and anyone could be anywhere along each of those three spectrums.

I think this is what you were going for:

I'm somewhere near the back-lower-right myself - although I may be gay for Johnny Depp

 

[Unwardil]

I'm out of this ridiculous conversation with you but I'll leave you with a challenge. Please share a normal (common/everyday) circumstance where it is perfectly acceptable (aka good) to use a slur derived from bigotry :geek:

Strawman, I was never saying that it was acceptable.

Edit: Actually I'm not certain that strawman is the right description for that, but it's similar, the point is, I was never advancing the idea that it was acceptable so your question is irrelevant.

It's comments like this and the one about "sucking penises" (as you phrased it) that make me think you have a contempt for gays and an insecurity about yourself. But I'll leave you to mill that one over...

So the fact that I have a sense of humour about both positive and negative stereo types and about sexuality in general is somehow indicative of my own sexual insecurity and contempt for gays?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

In an ultimately futile effort to bring a decisive end to this Unwardil nonsense, I would now humbly attempt to prevail upon you all a thought I had:

It occurs to me that any word, used to describe a group, will inevitably become derogatory provided that underlying social prejudice remains. The fact that these words should then go on to develop secondary meanings should not be surprising, 'cunt,' 'twat,' and 'pussy' are very different descriptors despite their nearly identical literal meaning; such is the nature of language.

Now for some reason genitals are consistently vulgar in all societies and so for a more apt example I point you to one of my favorite words:
Niggardly - 1. reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly.
2. meanly or ungenerously small or scanty: a niggardly tip to a waiter.

Now we might ask ourselves, does this word have some utility beyond its lowly origins?
The answer would have to be 'yes.' The meaning conveyed is precise - if not without close synonyms. It is even be possible (if perhaps, uncommon) to use it without harboring racist sentiments one-self.

However, will this word ever outgrow the bigotry that spawned it?
No. Not a chance. Not ever.

I propose we assign gay - when, and only when, used derogatorily - to this same category. And, in much the same way as was done with niggardly, we ought seek to extricate the word from our vocabularies, and those of others. There is no need to be confrontational about it, simply shun its users softly, and drive the term into obsolescence.

Agreed?

 

[Unwardil]

Yes, that's fine, however, what is also needed is a word without the bigoted origin to take it's place. One which describes the negative qualities desired without the ones not desired. I'm in complete agreement and always have been that language spawned from bigotry should be replaced with words that, while they convey the intended meaning do not carry with the the same racist baggage.

Niggardly, combined with Negro combined with the inferior elocution of the american south is what gave rise to the word nigger. Negro was the word used to describe "someone who came from africa, i.e. a black guy" and niggardly was someone cheap and filthy. Memetically strong combination there to be sure, not difficult to see how it could have caught on in popular usage.

However, it's still necessary to have words that mean "You're a filthy cheap untrustworthy bastard who I, under no circumstances, ever wish to associate with" because there are plenty of situations where one person is going to want to communicate that very idea to another person with the direct intention of causing emotional harm. If, of course, you're of the opinion that people should always be polite and decent no matter what, fuck you. When people act despicably, we need words to tell them they're doing that, what's wrong is to judge someone as despicable not by their actions but by their appearance or race or sexual preference or whatever. That's the wrongness of it, not the need to tell someone to fuck off.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I'm out of this ridiculous conversation with you but I'll leave you with a challenge. Please share a normal (common/everyday) circumstance where it is perfectly acceptable (aka good) to use a slur derived from bigotry :geek:

Strawman, I was never saying that it was acceptable.

Edit: Actually I'm not certain that strawman is the right description for that, but it's similar, the point is, I was never advancing the idea that it was acceptable so your question is irrelevant.

My bad. Replace "perfectly" with "somewhat". If you still object to that, it's not my problem. The fact that your response was ambiguous enough for me to insert my own interpretation lends credence to the idea that you were using an unstated assumption. I'll view an omission of a complete explanation as confirmation :geek:

PS: In the context of this discussion, I don't find your sense of humour amusing :!:

I propose we assign gay - when, and only when, used derogatorily - to this same category. And, in much the same way as was done with niggardly, we ought seek to extricate the word from our vocabularies, and those of others. There is no need to be confrontational about it, simply shun its users softly, and drive the term into obsolescence.

Agreed?

I'd like to add "lynch" to that list. It has to be one of the most vile words in the English language and yet people seem to use it rather generously...

 

[Unwardil]

My bad. Replace "perfectly" with "somewhat". If you still object to that, it's not my problem. The fact that your response was ambiguous enough for me to insert my own interpretation lends credence to the idea that you were using an unstated assumption. I'll view an omission of a complete explanation as confirmation :geek:

PS: In the context of this discussion, I don't find your sense of humour amusing :!:

Again, you're conflating my argument. What I said amounted to "less unacceptable than" not "slightly acceptable on the grounds of".

If my abrasive sense of humour scratched your poor, delicate sensibilities, Fuck you.

Edit: Obviously, you didn't actually say that it did, I was inferring that purely by the tenor of your reaction.

 

[Ad Initium]

Recent studies have shown this ....

The more brothers a guy has .... the more likely the change this guy is gay.

^^ READ THAT AGAIN ... This has been proven by scientific research.

Read it how you can:

- The more brothers you have ... the more likely you are gay. It is now a scientific proven fact !!

It doesnt say ... if you have 8 brothers ... you are gay ... it says ... if you have alot of older brothers, ... the change you are gay is more likely (the changes of it go up more, with each brother you have).

You can not deny science.

What?

You do not like the outcome of this scientific research and will thus simply just suddenly nullify it?

You have always believed in science .. but now ... suddenly , ...do not, ... as it effect your personal believes on gayness ???

IT IS FACT.

Live with it !!!

------

Now noting this fact ... a whole different discussion might evolve. Why does gayness exist?

 

[borrofburi]

You do not like the outcome of this scientific research and will thus simply just suddenly nullify it?

You have always believed in science .. but now ... suddenly , ...do not, ... as it effect your personal believes on gayness ???[/quote]
Who are you talking to?

Now noting this fact ... a whole different discussion might evolve. Why does gayness exist?

We already had that discussion a few pages back.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Recent studies have shown this ....

The more brothers a guy has .... the more likely the change this guy is gay.

Not quite. You're talking about studies on birth order which evaluates the number of siblings in addition to rank:

The fraternal birth order effect is the name given to the observation that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation. The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, with each older brother increasing a man's odds of being gay by approximately 33%.[13][14] Even so, the fraternal birth order effect only accounts for a maximum of one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect of the number of older sisters.

In the book, Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Toward an Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality, Edward M. Miller suggests that the birth order effect on homosexuality may be a by-product of an evolved, biological mechanism that shifts personality away from heterosexuality in laterborn sons. This would have the consequence of reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other.

Now noting this fact ... a whole different discussion might evolve. Why does gayness exist?

This has been discussed in passing throughout the thread including one hypothesis in the wikipedia quote above.

 

[Ad Initium]

I did not read pages back.

If "why does gayness" exists has alrdy been discusseded .... I go read that back now in this thread.

But 8 pages of it .... if this topic goes on 150 more pages ... you still say "It has been discussed before already" ... ???

---


I'd be thankfull you linking me to the exact article that has reference to my own claim ....

I'll wait your reply.

 

[Unwardil]

Yup, and we further explored some of the evolutionary advantages to a species which is able to incorporate homosexual behavior, such as, but not limited to

a) Increased survival rate of orphaned babies.
b) reduced reliance upon a gender balance in the population.
c) damn good cuisine and really stupid looking fashion.
d) lesbian porn.