ForestBoard

Plus, those left handers are really sinister.

Darths and Droids wrote:

You will need an alternate universe for that to happen. Or create your own religion and hope it has enough staying power to supplant religions older than civilization.

While I agree that it will be impossible to convince all religions to accept LGBTQ+ people, I am glad to see that many religions have slowly become more open to the idea. I believe Unitarian Universalism has opened the door to LGBTQ+ folk, and another notable Christian Church has decided to split in two so that the pastors who support LGBTQ+ Rights can do so openly. 2 out of the 3 main Jewish denominations (Reform and Conservative) have fully accepted LGBTQ+ people, and the Modern Orthodoxy Movement within Orthodox Judaism is slowly becoming less homophobic. Finally, Pope Francis (who by the way is probably my favorite of the popes, though the bar is low, due to his relatively liberal stances on climate change, gender equality, economic equality, and his neutrality with Israel/Palestine) seems to be leading the Catholic Church into a slightly more accepting view. While they are still openly against LGBTQ+, they are becoming it seems slowly a bit more tolerant and caring and a bit less confrontational about it.

However, we still have a long ways to go on that issue, but I am happy that we are making progress. And to weigh in on the discussion about how being LGBTQ+ should be just as accepted as left-handedness, I feel that while Gay and Lesbian folk are nowhere near as accepted as we want, they are gradually becoming a normal part of society, and homophobia is less prevalent. However, I feel Trans, Bisexual, Queer and genderqueer, agrender, gender fluid, poly-gender, pan-gender, bi-gender, tri-gender, a-gender, anti-gender, other gender, and Gender X are less accepted, and I think the current goal of our time when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights is fighting transphobia, queer-phobia, and biphobia, with all respect to the Gay and Lesbian communities.

———————

On a separate note, I’m not sure if you heard the appallingly anti-Semitic remarks by Eagles player DeSean Jackson, but they point out an important thing to remember when dealing with racism: racism is not one-sided, and it is not only against one group. For too long different “anti-racist” groups have been actually hurting other minority groups in their fight for justice. DeSean tweeted a fake quote from Adolf Hitler about Jews, yet he only really received a small fine from the NFL and minimal media coverage. While I certainly do not want to sound like one of those anti-BLM “All Lives Matter” people, we need to keep in mind that racism can be against any ethnicity, and that it must be considered equally horrible. It is super important that we fight racism and help our Black and Brown neighbors, but we cannot do it by dividing and polarizing the country, nor by scapegoating other groups. We need to call our leaders such as Al Sharpton who stoke tensions and harm other minorities groups. We need to remember that there are other minority groups besides the Black and Brown communities, and we must help all minority communities, including the Jewish communities, who for too long have been seen as the elite bourgeoisie when in reality they are also a minority and they also face racist attacks, even if they aren’t as often as Black and Brown communities.

I, in no way, want to sound like I am against the BLM movement or that I am calling out their leaders; I simply want to open people’s eyes to the fact that racism is racism no matter who says it, and that rather that hurting other communities to help your own, we must bridge the gap and work together to help each other gain justice.

I also wish to, on behalf of the Jewish community, recognize our support of the Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities, as well as any other minority community that wishes for justice. Remember, two rabbis were among those who spoke at MLK’s March on Washington, and while the horrors of slavery and horrors of the Holocaust were different in many regards, the Jewish community and the BIPOC communities have the same shared history that a group tried to destroy them, but they survived.

I think it's important here not to conflate sexuality with gender identity. While the two interact, they're separate things.

Anyway to swing back to the topic of best lgbt film, if we're talking films about gender or sexuality, rather than just normalising positively, it's either going to be The Danish Girl, or Carol.

Middle Barael wrote:

While I agree that it will be impossible to convince all religions to accept LGBTQ+ people, I am glad to see that many religions have slowly become more open to the idea. I believe Unitarian Universalism has opened the door to LGBTQ+ folk, and another notable Christian Church has decided to split in two so that the pastors who support LGBTQ+ Rights can do so openly. 2 out of the 3 main Jewish denominations (Reform and Conservative) have fully accepted LGBTQ+ people, and the Modern Orthodoxy Movement within Orthodox Judaism is slowly becoming less homophobic. Finally, Pope Francis (who by the way is probably my favorite of the popes, though the bar is low, due to his relatively liberal stances on climate change, gender equality, economic equality, and his neutrality with Israel/Palestine) seems to be leading the Catholic Church into a slightly more accepting view. While they are still openly against LGBTQ+, they are becoming it seems slowly a bit more tolerant and caring and a bit less confrontational about it.

However, we still have a long ways to go on that issue, but I am happy that we are making progress. And to weigh in on the discussion about how being LGBTQ+ should be just as accepted as left-handedness, I feel that while Gay and Lesbian folk are nowhere near as accepted as we want, they are gradually becoming a normal part of society, and homophobia is less prevalent. However, I feel Trans, Bisexual, Queer and genderqueer, agrender, gender fluid, poly-gender, pan-gender, bi-gender, tri-gender, a-gender, anti-gender, other gender, and Gender X are less accepted, and I think the current goal of our time when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights is fighting transphobia, queer-phobia, and biphobia, with all respect to the Gay and Lesbian communities.

IMO, these sorts of things will only serve to set back the movement for equality by years, perhaps even before Stonewall, because -- look, what do the "straights" see when they see these people? They see lunacy and madness. I see lunacy and madness. Feminism is shooting itself in the foot even as I speak with its blatant misandry, and you can see its results in India.

How in the world will this fight be won by the LGBTQ+ crowd when they are actively sabotaging themselves and proving the points of their opposition?! It's free propaganda for the so-called -phobes.

Middle Barael wrote:

I don’t see how they are hurting themselves in their efforts for equality, so please explain. As for trans and queer and bi folk, the entire reason why they are “coming out” and celebrating their sexuality and gender identity is so that they can be accepted for who they are, and not viewed as mad lunatics like you said.

The BOLDED list I highlighted is one example. How is an ordinary person suppose to keep them all straight, pardon the pun? How are they to know which means what and which does not mean what? A few years ago I was told, by no less than a straight ally, that Trans was supposed to be marked with an asterisk for additional inclusiveness. Trans*.

I argued and said, no, that's not helping with the definition of transgender -- as I see it, "transgender" means anyone who does not subscribe to the heteronormative definition of gender falling along traditional gender roles, i.e. male being a biologically male gender and female being a biologically female gender. She was adamant about it being "more inclusive", down to insulting me about my closemindedness. Surprise, surprise, a few years later, apparently Trans* is no longer accepted as a symbol of inclusion but as exclusion. At least according to this (https://lgbtqexperiment.com/2019/02/18/is-there-a-difference-between-trans-and-trans-is-trans-offensive/) it is supposed to be inclusive but then in this, linked from the self-same article (http://transstudent.org/issues/asterisk/), it is exclusive.

How is that supposed to help when they can't even keep their own definitions, again, straight?

Middle Barael wrote:

To be fair, trans actually means “switching from one gender to the (commonly accepted) opposite gender”. But I understand your point: by having all of the different nomenclature, it makes it hard for those outside of the community to keep up. I think the standard collective name would be “queer” or “LGBTQ+”, but it really depends on the individual. Ultimately, just go with what you think, and if someone within the community corrects you, go along with it unless it is absolutely confusing.

I try, but at some point I give up and ignore it until it relevantly impinges upon me again.

There is yet another category no one ever mentions : Asexuals.
"Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity. It may be considered a sexual orientation or the lack thereof."

From the Wikipedia article, Asexuality.

Pansexual is when kitchenware turns you on right?

I don't really understand why pansexual needs to be differentiated from bisexual. I've never met a person who identifies as bisexual that says they would never date a non-binary person. It means you are attracted to both sexes, and outside of very niche cases, everyone has one of the two sexes (including transgender and non-binary people).

Candlewhisper, if you're going to make jokes about (somewhat) sensitive topics, at least be funny and original...

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Pansexual is when kitchenware turns you on right?

Middle Barael wrote:

Can someone please suppress this post? And no, it is when your are straight, bi, gay/lesbian, and everything in between, essentially the whole spectrum, hence “pan”.

Octopus islands wrote:

I don't really understand why pansexual needs to be differentiated from bisexual. I've never met a person who identifies as bisexual that says they would never date a non-binary person. It means you are attracted to both sexes, and outside of very niche cases, everyone has one of the two sexes (including transgender and non-binary people).

Quite right, in my humble working opinion. Think of the handedness thing: should I say that I'm "left-handed" because if someone sees me writing on a desk, it will be with my left hand? Or should I up the ante and say that I'm ambidextrous, just because I write with both on the whiteboard? Or should I insist that I'm "ambi-horizontal-sinistra-vertical-handed" because I write downward with my left hand but outward with either hand? While some polished up version of "ambihorizontosinistraverticalous" is the most accurate thing and the most "me" thing, it reaches a point where I'm doing more harm than good if I'm talking to the 90% of the population that's just right handed or the 10% that's just left handed. Especially if all I'm going for is to be left alone and to maybe get a left-handed desk in each classroom.

I realize that all of these terms describe at least the one individual who first articulated the specific concept, and so therefore they do apply to real, actual people, but nevertheless, easy, touchable, memorable terms for people that function as useful shortcuts can really expedite things. So I'm just a gay guy. Or I'm part of the LGBT+ group, or whatever you want to say about me. But I would not personally be offended if someone quipped "does gay mean you're only attracted to happy people, or that you only feel attraction when you're happy?" Idk.

Now something intentionally harmful, spoken in malice, that's obviously different. But word-play, circumstantially and with the proper intentions, is not harmful, I don't think. I mean, does being straight mean you're only attracted to standing people with good posture? ;-)

I think that part of what makes all of these things so thorny ("these things" being issues of speech, and whether something is a joke/insult/acceptable/unacceptable) is that the equation involves both a speaker and a receiver. Part of what matters is how words affect the person hearing them, but part of the equation is also the thought process, intentions, and understanding of the speaker. When my grandfather says some rather archaic things about different groups in private conversation with me, I internally wince, outwardly smirk, and seldom say anything, because of our relationship, his worldview, and the fact that he is one of the best individuals I know who has flawlessly evolved in his own thinking to accommodate my being gay. On the other hand, I won't tolerate bullshit from someone who is trying to harm someone else, obviously.

So if someone said "I'm pansexual," and someone else said, "lol you dummy, does that mean the frying pan or the baking pan turns you on?", then that would obviously be mean-spirited and therefore wrong. On the other hand, if the word "pansexual" was referenced in a conversation, and someone made a pun on the word for its English and Greek split meanings, that would be a joke, to me. In the many shades of gray, if that joke consequently turned out to really bother someone, then that's a conversation, and that's where things get more involved and ideally more personal and nuanced, based on how the situation evolves.

As Darths and Droids alluded to, I think that sometimes the oversimplification and absolute division into "perfectly enlightened/woke" statements and "horrendously evil/ignorant" statements makes many people just kind of mentally shrink back from the whole thing, instead of engaging with the issue at hand and trying to grow. If you will rise or fall entirely on how your statements are perceived with no regard or consideration for your own intentions or mindset or for the general context, then disengagement, reflexive suspicion, or outright rejection are pretty normal human responses, I think. Not good responses, perhaps, but understandable ones.

Octopus islands wrote:

I don't really understand why pansexual needs to be differentiated from bisexual. I've never met a person who identifies as bisexual that says they would never date a non-binary person. It means you are attracted to both sexes, and outside of very niche cases, everyone has one of the two sexes (including transgender and non-binary people).

Candlewhisper, if you're going to make jokes about (somewhat) sensitive topics, at least be funny and original...

Oof, I accept the pun failure, though I reserve the right to make puns. Should have gone with some reference to goat feet and horniness, I knew it.

Anyway I guess the need for the term or not is more or less defined by the group who define themselves by it. If there are folk who see that as their label, then that's their choice right?

Equally though, I think that it's probably good courtesy for people to refer to each other by chosen labels. If someone says hey I'm pansexual, then you shouldn't say "you mean you're bi", right?

Finally though, I think it's absolutely vital that nonhateful free speech is also recognised as a tenet of a free society. This varies from nation to nation, of course, with the USA actually protecting hate speech, my own UK trying to strike that balance between harm and freedom, and China making offenders disappear. On balance though, I'll take somewhere with freedom to joke, rather than one where freedom is a joke. Context is important too, I believe.

Incidentally, the most unique descriptor I've heard in recent times is anthrosexual, where you're attracted to anything with a humanoid form, including fur, scales, etc in anthropomorphic form, but in his case only female ones.Not one I'd heard till this year you know.

Forestal wrote:

Call it an "in your face attitude" that many are quite willing to accept as a means of change. I certainly do.

An attitude that quite obviously invokes the visceral reaction of "get the hell out of my face and go back to Sodom and Gomorrah", which is something you don't want to have happen. For diehards, that is obviously the battle plan, but for the vast and uncaring majority? The ones who they're trying to reach? Yeah, good luck, the battlefield just got tougher.

Ruinenlust wrote:

As Darths and Droids alluded to, I think that sometimes the oversimplification and absolute division into "perfectly enlightened/woke" statements and "horrendously evil/ignorant" statements makes many people just kind of mentally shrink back from the whole thing, instead of engaging with the issue at hand and trying to grow. If you will rise or fall entirely on how your statements are perceived with no regard or consideration for your own intentions or mindset or for the general context, then disengagement, reflexive suspicion, or outright rejection are pretty normal human responses, I think. Not good responses, perhaps, but understandable ones.

This^