# Is sexuality always biological?



## BahgDaddy (Feb 18, 2018)

One of the leading supporting notions for LGBT relationships is the notion that "these people can't help the way they feel." Now, that is certainly true is many cases. However... it gets used at the leading argument to support the free ability to do these sorts of things.

But should that matter?

What if it's a choice, and someone just wants to be with the opposite gender, sex, or whatever other thing that's not straight and perfectly in line with traditional one man one woman marriage systems? And it's not neccesarily that they feel this way, but that they want to do it. (Ie we're throwing out the "they were born that way" argument.) 

Would that matter? Would you have less respect for someone doing that? Would it dismantle the LGBT activists arguments?


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 18, 2018)

Some people believe they're another sexuality due to societal expectations. Largely biological, but I'd say there's a social reason to it so aa small degree


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 18, 2018)

I’m left handed, and see sexual orientation as pretty much the same sort of thing.  I don’t remember when I became left-handed, it just sort of happened that way.  Same with being gay really.  When the hormones kicked in at age 11 or 12 it wasn’t the girls I was looking at or thinking of.  Meanwhile yes, I could technically force myself to be right-handed, but it would cause me great stress and the results would be less than I can currently produce with my left.  Once again, parallel point with sexual orientation.

So if being gay, bi, questioning whatever is a choice, it’s one that, like hand orientation, happens at such a subconscious level that the person like me who deviates from the default can’t actually help it.  Personally though I think it’s something that gets wired in somewhere between conception and birth.  Most are wired one way, some the other, and in between are a group where everything’s a bit more fluid.


----------



## Black Burn (Feb 18, 2018)

For me sexuality is like... Interests, it just can change anytime


----------



## Ginza (Feb 18, 2018)

Intriguing point. I myself have pondered this for the longest time. Personally, I feel sexuality is a mix of biology, and environment. I think there's probably a more straightforward answer to this question, but it's simply hard to study and determine what could potentially affect one's sexual preferences. I use myself as somewhat of an example. I'm not straight, and I've sort of "known" my whole life. There are just small things you felt, and did when you were young that, in hindsight; make total sense. 

In the end, whether it's biological, or completely a choice- it shouldn't matter. Who people want to love, isn't any of my business. As long as it's an adult, consenting, human, I'm fine with it


----------



## Saiko (Feb 18, 2018)

My intro psychology textbook said it was both biological and experiential. However the crux of the argument is that an individual can’t just choose to like something, not necessarily that it is built into their DNA. And because sexuality is such a big part of the human psyche, forcing oneself to abstain from romance/sex or to behave according to a different sexuality can be quite harmful. Ergo they can’t help it, should not be expected to, and should not be considered inherently unhealthy to begin with.

Now, as a sex-positive atheist, I am of the opinion that anyone is welcome to try any activities they want (given the usual consent, legality, etc requirements). If a straight person wants to try gay sex or vice versa, go for it for as long as everyone is happy and interested. I do contend that enjoyment of that would indicate a sexuality that isn’t strictly gay or straight, although the subtleties might be too much of a pain in the ass to be worth articulating.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 18, 2018)

Ginza said:


> *In the end, whether it's biological, or completely a choice- it shouldn't matter. Who people want to love, isn't any of my business. As long as it's an adult, consenting, human, I'm fine with it*



My thoughts exactly. 



Saiko said:


> My intro psychology textbook said it was both biological and experiential. However the crux of the argument is that an individual can’t just choose to like something, not necessarily that it is built into their DNA. And because sexuality is such a big part of the human psyche, forcing oneself to abstain from romance/sex or to behave according to a different sexuality can be quite harmful. Ergo they can’t help it, should not be expected to, and should not be considered inherently unhealthy to begin with.



I wasn't really referring to people who stuffed their true sexual identity, but more discussing being willing to go with a sexual identify that might not actually be what one is "biologically" programmed to do. I.e., a straight person experimenting with people of the same sex.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 18, 2018)

I think sexuality is partly environmental.  But its definitely not "born this way." Babies arent straight, gay, or bisexual, that develops later on ib life. Its also not always final. It can change over time.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 18, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> I think sexuality is partly environmental.  But its definitely not "born this way." Babies arent straight, gay, or bisexual, that develops later on ib life. Its also not always final. It can change over time.


I think that babies are, even at that early stage, predisposed towards being straight, gay, bi, whatever, but of course the actual awareness and indications of sexual orientation develop later during puberty.  According to my mother I used to display all sorts of behaviour even as young as three years old that had my parents wondering, and having spoken about this with other gay men it’s a pretty familiar story at least for us.  I agree that it’s not absolute though. A lot of people definitely flow between orientations as time goes on.


----------



## Saiko (Feb 18, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I wasn't really referring to people who stuffed their true sexual identity, but more discussing being willing to go with a sexual identify that might not actually be what one is "biologically" programmed to do. I.e., a straight person experimenting with people of the same sex.


Yeah, like I said, I think people are welcome to experiment and probably should just because they might be pleasantly surprised. If, say, a straight person finds that they enjoy gay sex, I think that means they're mildly bisexual, though, not that they "chose to be gay."


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 18, 2018)

Saiko said:


> Yeah, like I said, I think people are welcome to experiment and probably should just because they might be pleasantly surprised. If, say, a straight person finds that they enjoy gay sex, I think that means they're mildly bisexual, though, not that they "chose to be gay."



i pretty sure i am not invited to the pride parades under the guise of "mildly bisexual"

"hello can I join your big rainbow club"

"but arent you straight"

"no i touch a dick sometimes"

"get out and never come back"


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Feb 18, 2018)

I thought we're already clear about the differences between sexual orientation and gender

make up your god damn mind!


----------



## Astus (Feb 18, 2018)

It definitely cannot only be innate. 



Spoiler: Talking about gross babyfur stuff >.>



since I was young I've always been fascinated with diapers. Mainly they served as a secure attachment object for me (and still do) however later in life... when things are used it well... yeah >.> considering that used diapers aren't a natural thing in the world it stands to reason that sexuality is definitely developed and solidified during childhood or later in life. Since I also have no physical attraction to other people/things it would also stand to reason that basic biological mechanisms for sex also can be overwritten.


 I had to put my reasoning in spoiler because I find it awkward to talk about that kind of stuff and it's rather inappropriate among this crowd. However for the sake of proving a point those who are willing can see what I have to mean by my first statement.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 18, 2018)

I have a friend that was straight, but claimed to turn lesbian after so much abuse. So yes, it can be a choice.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 18, 2018)

As a demisexual fuck if I know.

Wish I knew.


----------



## SuperNaturalHorse (Feb 18, 2018)

You have to find your sexuality on your own like you have to find your way in life unfortunately and it takes  some a while to find their's.


----------



## SuperNaturalHorse (Feb 18, 2018)

I'am bisexual but I don't force my sexuality on others so if you are gay or bisexual and like me maybe we can be more than friends sexy cutiepies.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 18, 2018)

Saiko said:


> Yeah, like I said, I think people are welcome to experiment and probably should just because they might be pleasantly surprised. If, say, a straight person finds that they enjoy gay sex, I think that means they're mildly bisexual, though, not that they "chose to be gay."



So at that point is it still a sexuality or just people being free and curious about the sexuality?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 18, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I thought we're already clear about the differences between sexual orientation and gender
> 
> make up your god damn mind!



I'm not talking about gender, altho sometimes it can get thrown into the argument. 



Astusthefox said:


> It definitely cannot only be innate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's fine by me, but isn't that a fetish, and not a sexuality? I don't think we really clearly understand the difference between a fetish and sexuality, but usually it's assumed the fetish is more inanimate stuff


----------



## Zhalo (Feb 18, 2018)

Sexuality is not a choice necessarily, more of something that can change over time whether you want it to or not. What I mean is that if you were gay and said to everyone you were straight, then you would still be gay. Also I think sexual orientation is mostly environmental conditioning then anything else, but biology probably plays some sort of role.


----------



## Astus (Feb 18, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'm not talking about gender, altho sometimes it can get thrown into the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine by me, but isn't that a fetish, and not a sexuality? I don't think we really clearly understand the difference between a fetish and sexuality, but usually it's assumed the fetish is more inanimate stuff



That's the difficult line I've been trying to understand for a while... what constitutes sexuality vs a sexual desire? 

When you look at people who say... idk >.> like the guys on my baseball team who say "damn she has a nice butt" or whatever... they like the girl because she fits a standard they find attractive and sexually appealing. One could say if that's a defining characteristic of what they find sexually appealing in a woman, that could be considered their fetish in at least my opinion. 

Personally I have no sex drive for any person of any sex/gender. It's only the object paraphilia... and it's not like humans can mate with random inanimate objects  it makes sense that we are wired at birth to be able to change sexual desires based off of social ideology and the population situation, since we are social creatures and you see higher rates of sexual "deviance" in populations who approach carrying capacity (from a 2003 book on ecological foraging behaviors I don't remember it's name >.>).

I would argue sexuality is not so concrete as children and we learn who/what we should like or dislike to some degree... and from there we develop into adults and begin to explore sex, putting those ideas into action, and reinforcing the mechanism through something pleasurable that conditions us to want more of it/to do it like that. At least that's what I personally feel happens based off of evidence and my own personal experience... so not very scientifically backed


----------



## Saiko (Feb 18, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> i pretty sure i am not invited to the pride parades under the guise of "mildly bisexual"
> 
> "hello can I join your big rainbow club"
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what to say to this? The only thing you would reasonably be excluded from would be some support groups. To my knowledge, very few LGBT activism groups exclude straight people because straight people can help with LGBT rights.



BahgDaddy said:


> So at that point is it still a sexuality or just people being free and curious about the sexuality?


Both? I figure you have a sexuality but may not know all the details. You figure out some of those details by experimenting with the things you're curious about.


----------



## Rochat (Feb 18, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> One of the leading supporting notions for LGBT relationships is the notion that "these people can't help the way they feel." Now, that is certainly true is many cases. However... it gets used at the leading argument to support the free ability to do these sorts of things.
> 
> But should that matter?
> 
> ...


Lol, it doesn't matter. I have zero obligation to justify my relationships to anyone outside of them. I don't understand any argument against the LGBT movement. "I don't want you sticking your dick in another man" like, wtf. What business is of mine what two or more consenting adults do between themselves.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> i pretty sure i am not invited to the pride parades under the guise of "mildly bisexual"
> 
> "hello can I join your big rainbow club"
> 
> ...


Everyone is invited to Pride.  The Rainbow flag is about inclusivity and diversity.  That includes straight people.  If you want to go along, go along.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Rochat said:


> Lol, it doesn't matter. I have zero obligation to justify my relationships to anyone outside of them. I don't understand any argument against the LGBT movement. "I don't want you sticking your dick in another man" like, wtf. What business is of mine what two or more consenting adults do between themselves.


It's funny how people focus purely on where gay men put our penises too.  It's almost as if the acronym is LGBT for some people, like all the other possibilities just don't exist in their minds.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> It's funny how people focus purely on where gay men put our penises too.  It's almost as if the acronym is LGBT for some people, like all the other possibilities just don't exist in their minds.



I guess it's harder to be creative with vaginas? Idk.


----------



## Massan Otter (Feb 19, 2018)

Paraphilia type kinks do complicate things, as they seem too closely linked to formative experiences to be innate rather than learned.  I'll shy away from too much detail here, but I have something of that nature going on, which doesn't even have to involve another person. For me, I was aware of it some years before I really started to feel much sexual attraction towards men or women.  That came a little later for me, several years into adulthood already.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I guess it's harder to be creative with vaginas? Idk.


IDK either, but no surprises there


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

It's not something you're born with.

From a biological perspective, you are softly programmed for wanting to procreate with the member of the opposite gender. 

And this is where free will and personal experiences comes in. Your free will can easily override that natural urge to find a mate of the opposite gender and procreate. 

If anything, whatever you may experience during puberty and a year or two before puberty will very often reflect itself in how your sexuality operate after that.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> It's not something you're born with.
> 
> From a biological perspective, you are softly programmed for wanting to procreate with the member of the opposite gender.
> 
> ...



An interesting perspective. It seems like a lot of things from childhood can come into play as well, like with the development of fetishes and stuff.

Basically humans are very weird. :3


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> An interesting perspective. It seems like a lot of things from childhood can come into play as well, like with the development of fetishes and stuff.
> 
> Basically humans are very weird. :3


Sexuality is usually set in stone-ish from puberty. There are factors from puberty that you take with you which makes your sexuality more "malleable", so to speak. Making it more open. Whether you realize any of this at any point depends on what kind of encounters and experiences you have as you experience and live life. Some could potentially be full on gay without actually never having the right encounters and/or experiences, and vice versa. Same with bisexuality. 

Suffice to say, I see this a lot over Discord while interacting with people.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 19, 2018)

Ironically, people tend to think that gender is socially constructed... that's arguments that conservatives way back when used to justify giving homosexuals therapy; because they believed it could simply reverse the effects of homosexuality because it was just a construct that is not tied to biology.  This is obviously not true.

Sexuality is a biological phenomenon.  Disconnecting it from biology or making it a subjective thing is dangerous to homosexuals and transgender individuals.  Without a biological claim to it there is no logical defense for it.






People like this will claim that there is no biological sex, ignoring the fact that the strongest defense for transgender individuals is that they were that way from birth and cannot be altered; that's a BIOLOGICAL CLAIM!


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Ironically, people tend to think that gender is socially constructed... that's arguments that conservatives way back when used to justify giving homosexuals therapy; because they believed it could simply reverse the effects of homosexuality because it was just a construct that is not tied to biology.  This is obviously not true.
> 
> Sexuality is a biological phenomenon.  Disconnecting it from biology or making it a subjective thing is dangerous to homosexuals and transgender individuals.  Without a biological claim to it there is no logical defense for it.
> 
> ...


Anyone saying gender is a social construct have it all backwards. Our society is based around gender norms. What our two genders are naturally and biologically inclined towards. It's how society operate. We need them to function as a society. Could some norms be done away with? Certainly.

Welcome to Narrative 101. Where feelings takes precedence over the facts. He's an ideologue. His ideals does not necessarily correlate with the reality that we live in. Then again, a lot of ideals and ideologies don't relate to reality in general..

I also watched that video. He's full of shit, just like a lot of other identity politics ideologues.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Ironically, people tend to think that gender is socially constructed... that's arguments that conservatives way back when used to justify giving homosexuals therapy; because they believed it could simply reverse the effects of homosexuality because it was just a construct that is not tied to biology.  This is obviously not true.
> 
> Sexuality is a biological phenomenon.  Disconnecting it from biology or making it a subjective thing is dangerous to homosexuals and transgender individuals.  Without a biological claim to it there is no logical defense for it.
> 
> ...


I think you're misinterpreting those arguments. Whenever I've seen someone call gender a social construct, it's because that person has seperated gender (masculinity, femininity... etc.) from biological sex (reproductive organs, gametes... etc.).


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Sexuality is usually set in stone-ish from puberty. There are factors from puberty that you take with you which makes your sexuality more "malleable", so to speak. Making it more open. Whether you realize any of this at any point depends on what kind of encounters and experiences you have as you experience and live life. Some could potentially be full on gay without actually never having the right encounters and/or experiences, and vice versa. Same with bisexuality.
> 
> Suffice to say, I see this a lot over Discord while interacting with people.



That's also an interesting claim, because from there we can combine it with your first claim that "it's not something that you're born with," and say that actually you could cause that a young person become gay, straight, or bi, possibly with exposure to porn. 

In practice however what I just said is absurd and doesn't actually work since people can't be the sex or gender or person they're not attracted to. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Ironically, people tend to think that gender is socially constructed... that's arguments that conservatives way back when used to justify giving homosexuals therapy; because they believed it could simply reverse the effects of homosexuality because it was just a construct that is not tied to biology.  This is obviously not true.
> 
> Sexuality is a biological phenomenon.  Disconnecting it from biology or making it a subjective thing is dangerous to homosexuals and transgender individuals.  Without a biological claim to it there is no logical defense for it.
> 
> ...



No, basically what it comes down to is that conservatives are usually bigoted, and that it shouldn't matter if it's "wired" or if someone wants to be gay. If they'd rather be with a guy, let them do that, if a woman prefers women for whatever reason, let them as well. You shouldn't have to exclusively use biological rationale because that's actually the naturalistic logical fallacy. We should accept that LGBTs are fine because they don't harm anyone, and because they're allowed to be what they will, society overall is happier. 

That rationale is superior to the natural argument, since our understanding of trans people could change at any moment according to science, and so their fate shouldn't rest in whether or not scientists say trans are actually born x y or z.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> That's also an interesting claim, because from there we can combine it with your first claim that "it's not something that you're born with," and say that actually you could cause that a young person become gay, straight, or bi, possibly with exposure to porn.
> 
> In practice however what I just said is absurd and doesn't actually work since people can't be the sex or gender or person they're not attracted to.
> 
> ...



You're completely misusing the Naturalistic Fallacy.  The Naturalistic Fallacy has nothing to do with what you claimed; because I did not argue based on moral grounds, I argued based on grounds of validity.  Since I did not claim that homosexuality/transgenderism was moral or immoral because of it's biological state, I'm not invoking a Naturalistic Fallacy.


Also, there is zero evidence that allowing people to be whatever they want without question makes for a happier society.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 19, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I think you're misinterpreting those arguments. Whenever I've seen someone call gender a social construct, it's because that person has separated gender (masculinity, femininity... etc.) from biological sex (reproductive organs, gametes... etc.).



That's not what they mean though.  They mean that gender is entirely mutable and changeable, which it isn't, and that it is developed by pure whim.  Anyone who claims it is socially constructed and does not mean this are just misusing the term of socially constructed gender.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> That's also an interesting claim, because from there we can combine it with your first claim that "it's not something that you're born with," and say that actually you could cause that a young person become gay, straight, or bi, possibly with exposure to porn.
> 
> In practice however what I just said is absurd and doesn't actually work since people can't be the sex or gender or person they're not attracted to.


Gender and sexuality are two different things, so I will leave out the former from this conversation if you don't mind. 

Sexuality from my own experience is.. A little malleable. It is not something set in stone from birth.  Yes, there is biological programming, but that programming is only at best a minor influence. Free will, experiences and freedom to explore your sexuality trumps that influence. And the vast majority of it manifests itself during puberty. Even that manifest is not set in stone, but people are often comfortable and certain about their sexuality once they are out of puberty, leaving little to no room or perhaps not the need or want to explore/expand more. 

Being an admin across numerous Discord servers alongside observation on other platforms, I see couples form due to changing sexualities, which is a monthly-ish occurrance for me. To be honest I am not sure if there are factors that they have brought with them that comes to light, or that sexuality is malleable. 

My shipping chart expands either way.. =w=


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Everyone is invited to Pride.  The Rainbow flag is about inclusivity and diversity.  That includes straight people.  If you want to go along, go along.



i do not want to i hate it


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> i do not want to i hate it


Fair enough, but you would be welcome anyway.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Fair enough, but you would be welcome anyway.



most likely untrue as those kind of places tend to shun anyone who questions or dislikes their method of doing things


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You're completely misusing the Naturalistic Fallacy.  The Naturalistic Fallacy has nothing to do with what you claimed; because I did not argue based on moral grounds, I argued based on grounds of validity.  Since I did not claim that homosexuality/transgenderism was moral or immoral because of it's biological state, I'm not invoking a Naturalistic Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Also, there is zero evidence that allowing people to be whatever they want without question makes for a happier society.



1. Yes, your argument was of the form "gay people cannot help the way they feel > because it is biological > which makes it okay."

(From your actual quote: "Without a biological claim to it there is no logical defense for it.")

If the only reason one agrees with homosexuality because it's natural and it's how people feel, we can justify just about any sexual orientation, including the ones considered paraphilias. I think there are better arguments out there. 

2. Maybe, maybe not. I say live and let live.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> most likely untrue as those kind of places tend to shun anyone who questions or dislikes their method of doing things


OK.  I bow to your obvious greater knowledge on this point, despite my having attended and helped organise Pride events for over two decades


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> OK.  I bow to your obvious greater knowledge on this point, despite my having attended and helped organise Pride events for over two decades



well im not saying that, im just saying from what i know, they'd probably be very hostile to someone like me, because i am against a lot of the events like drag performance, putting strippers on display where its a family friendly event, enforcing stereotypes and bad stuff....


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> well im not saying that, im just saying from what i know, they'd probably be very hostile to someone like me, because i am against a lot of the events like drag performance, putting strippers on display where its a family friendly event, enforcing stereotypes and bad stuff....


Can I ask if you’ve ever been to any Pride events?


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Can I ask if you’ve ever been to any Pride events?



no, and i hope i never do
I have a bias because my country's Pride is overrun with foriegners who bring their politics and traditions into it


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> no, and i hope i never do
> I have a bias because my country's Pride is overrun with foriegners who bring their politics and traditions into it


The reason I asked that is that you seem to have a media photographer’s view of what Pride is.  Of course they always point the lens at the most interesting things to see, but most of the attendees will be in jeans and a t-shirt with glitter being the most glam thing about them.  It really isn’t as outrageous as the TV reports make out. Certainly no Folsom Fair.  People attend to have a laugh more than anything.  It’s more a celebration now, which is IMO a great thing.

And you would be welcome.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> The reason I asked that is that you seem to have a media photographer’s view of what Pride is.  Of course they always point the lens at the most interesting things to see, but most of the attendees will be in jeans and a t-shirt with glitter being the most glam thing about them.  It really isn’t as outrageous as the TV reports make out. Certainly no Folsom Fair.  People attend to have a laugh more than anything.  It’s more a celebration now, which is IMO a great thing.



well yeah but that doesnt mean that the extreme things suddenly dont exist. I know most people attending probably wont be in leather thongs or pole dancing or wearing something else inappropriate, but that doesnt change the fact that more do.

and the Americanization of LGBT events in other countries need to end. we aren't america... stop bringing american ideas to here. it was fine before they came along, nobody gave a shit if you were gay and now we're supposed to treat it like its some magical thing


----------



## Baphy (Feb 19, 2018)

I think it can be, at least in part sometimes, nurture based. As in environmental, things like upbringing, societal stuffs, etc.


----------



## KiokuChan (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> It's funny how people focus purely on where gay men put our penises too.  It's almost as if the acronym is LGBT for some people, like all the other possibilities just don't exist in their minds.


What does GLET or LGET or such mean? Also when you say "all the other possibilities just don't exist in their minds." what do you mean. Do you mean like cuddling and stuff, since you were talking about possibilities other than sex.. I think. Though the comment you responded to about being less creative with girls or something made that more confusing. Maybe I'm entirely not understanding this comment. It's quite possible.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> well yeah but that doesnt mean that the extreme things suddenly dont exist. I know most people attending probably wont be in leather thongs or pole dancing or wearing something else inappropriate, but that doesnt change the fact that more do.
> 
> and the Americanization of LGBT events in other countries need to end. we aren't america... stop bringing american ideas to here. it was fine before they came along, nobody gave a shit if you were gay and now we're supposed to treat it like its some magical thing


I don’t see it as Americanisation.  I don’t know if you have Carnival/Mardi Gras where you are, but that’s FAR more raunchy than Pride is.  Most Americans would struggle with what the Spanish etc. see as commonplace every February.


----------



## KiokuChan (Feb 19, 2018)

Saiko said:


> If a straight person wants to try gay sex or vice versa, go for it for as long as everyone is happy and interested. I do contend that enjoyment of that would indicate a sexuality that isn’t strictly gay or straight, although the subtleties might be too much of a pain in the ass to be worth articulating.


I'm not sure that even that is 100% always true. There are physical nerves and such so techncially one could enjoy the physical feeling purely while still having no attraction to the other people involved. Also one could find sexual attraction to other elements of the situation that aren't the people themselves, or could get non-sexual joy out of seeing others enjoyment of it. All of those are possible. I think some straight guys do oral to each other and such and I think that's more common, but I'm guessing that feels physically good no matter who does it, though of course I wouldn't know. Also an asexual person, for example, can enjoy sex or masturbating for various reasons, but the reasons just aren't attraction to other people.


----------



## KiokuChan (Feb 19, 2018)

Also to the forum question in general since I haven't answered it: from someone who will probably never have sex and doesn't really understand sexual attraction very well at all... I thought it was biological, though apparently has a mental component/is effected by what you are thinking of or something, but what the hell do I know o-o  ;p


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

KiokuChan said:


> What does GLET or LGET or such mean? Also when you say "all the other possibilities just don't exist in their minds." what do you mean. Do you mean like cuddling and stuff, since you were talking about possibilities other than sex.. I think. Though the comment you responded to about being less creative with girls or something made that more confusing. Maybe I'm entirely not understanding this comment. It's quite possible.


Sorry, tiny writing doesn’t help.  LGBT = lesbian gay bisexual and transgendered.  The “other possibilities” side of things is because we now recognise that not everyone falls into either LGB or straight.  Humans are complicated creatures. 

Obviously transgenderism is slightly different as that’s not about sexual orientation.  There’s a crossover there though, so the T makes sense in the acronym.  Plus having a couple of transgendered friends myself I am determined to fight for their rights as long as they face the challenges they encounter.  IMO we get equality for all before we down tools and say job done.


----------



## KiokuChan (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Sorry, tiny writing doesn’t help.  LGBT = lesbian gay bisexual and transgendered.  The “other possibilities” side of things is because we now recognise that not everyone falls into either LGB or straight.  Humans are complicated creatures.
> 
> Obviously transgenderism is slightly different as that’s not about sexual orientation.  There’s a crossover there though, so the T makes sense in the acronym.  Plus having a couple of transgendered friends myself I am determined to fight for their rights as long as they face the challenges they encounter.  IMO we get equality for all before we down tools and say job done.


Oh that's what that said. hehe >_< That makes more sense ;p


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> I don’t see it as Americanisation.  I don’t know if you have Carnival/Mardi Gras where you are, but that’s FAR more raunchy than Pride is.  Most Americans would struggle with what the Spanish etc. see as commonplace every February.



no, but i have seen carnivals in the past, and ive never seen actual strippers or men in thongs... the worst i've seen in a carnival is women in bikinis and thats not bad in my opinion




KiokuChan said:


> I'm not sure that even that is 100% always true. There are physical nerves and such so techncially one could enjoy the physical feeling purely while still having no attraction to the other people involved. Also one could find sexual attraction to other elements of the situation that aren't the people themselves, or could get non-sexual joy out of seeing others enjoyment of it. All of those are possible. I think some straight guys do oral to each other and such and I think that's more common, but I'm guessing that feels physically good no matter who does it, though of course I wouldn't know. Also an asexual person, for example, can enjoy sex or masturbating for various reasons, but the reasons just aren't attraction to other people.



see this is why sexuality is so confusing to me. and also why i dont think i am gay or even bi despite having a boyfriend.
do i enjoy being with him, of course, but i dont have any attraction to men as a whole. and its totally possible to sleep with someone youre not attracted to. i know people who have done that. lots of people do that.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> no, but i have seen carnivals in the past, and ive never seen actual strippers or men in thongs... the worst i've seen in a carnival is women in bikinis and thats not bad in my opinion


That’s tame.  The one in my town in Spain is raucous and extremely sexually suggestive, and dominated by straight people.  It also goes on for an entire week, and includes multiple parades.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

KiokuChan said:


> I'm not sure that even that is 100% always true. There are physical nerves and such so techncially one could enjoy the physical feeling purely while still having no attraction to the other people involved. Also one could find sexual attraction to other elements of the situation that aren't the people themselves, or could get non-sexual joy out of seeing others enjoyment of it. All of those are possible. I think some straight guys do oral to each other and such and I think that's more common, but I'm guessing that feels physically good no matter who does it, though of course I wouldn't know. Also an asexual person, for example, can enjoy sex or masturbating for various reasons, but the reasons just aren't attraction to other people.


Sexual acts are not the same as sexual attraction. You can have/do one while not having/doing the other. Though they often come hand in hand.

In nature you often see homosexual acts. Homosexual attraction/pairing however is very rare, and coming from a natural/biological perspective, is unnatural. 

That said, there is nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> In nature you often see homosexual acts. Homosexual attraction/pairing however is very rare, and coming from a natural/biological perspective, is unnatural.
> 
> That said, there is nothing wrong with it.


If it happens in nature, even on a "very rare" basis, then it is natural.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Feb 19, 2018)

Lcs said:


> If it happens in nature, even on a "very rare" basis, then it is natural.


Something better than calling it "unnatural" would be "not typical".


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

Lcs said:


> If it happens in nature, even on a "very rare" basis, then it is natural.


Animals operate on instinct, which is find a mate and reproduce. Individual exceptions are bound to happen due to the chaotic nature of nature. Only a select few species have homosexual acts as part of the social norm for that species. Homosexual pairings/attractions are not typical, and rather rare, often making it a bit of an exception.

Homosexual acts are more natural. Homosexual pairings/attraction is only more typical in one species, and that's humans.



MadKiyo said:


> Something better than calling it "unnatural" would be "not typical".


^ This.

That said: Animals don't give a shit, and neither should we.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 19, 2018)

Lcs said:


> If it happens in nature, even on a "very rare" basis, then it is natural.





MadKiyo said:


> Something better than calling it "unnatural" would be "not typical".



abnormal, atypical, disordered, these are all valid terms to describe such a thing.

i do not get offended when someone calls my physical mutations abnormal or a disorder so i do not understand why many view referring to homosexuality as the same a bad thing. it in no way implies "wrong" or "unethical"


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 19, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> abnormal, atypical, disordered, these are all valid terms to describe such a thing.
> 
> i do not get offended when someone calls my physical mutations abnormal or a disorder so i do not understand why many view referring to homosexuality as the same a bad thing. it in no way implies "wrong" or "unethical"


I think it’s because while those terms are scientifically correct they get latched onto by people who normally outright reject science purely to demonise.  It gets a bit exhausting battling the machinations of those who would have us back in the closet or worse, so we do tend to get touchy about it when those terms are used correctly.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> I think it’s because while those terms are scientifically correct they get latched onto by people who normally outright reject science purely to demonise.  It gets a bit exhausting battling the machinations of those who would have us back in the closet or worse, so we do tend to get touchy about it when those terms are used correctly.



It might be uncommon, but who cares, being a pagan is uncommon too. Wait, people hate pagans as well... oh well.


----------



## Sagt (Feb 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Animals operate on instinct, which is find a mate and reproduce. Individual exceptions are bound to happen due to the chaotic nature of nature. Only a select few species have homosexual acts as part of the social norm for that species. Homosexual pairings/attractions are not typical, and rather rare, often making it a bit of an exception.


I'd imagine that comparing humans to other animals in the way that you're doing it isn't very valuable, given that humans are much more social creatures.



Yakamaru said:


> Homosexual acts are more natural. Homosexual pairings/attraction is only more typical in one species, and that's humans.


Something can't be "more natural" than something else. It's not a sliding bar, there are discrete categories - either natural or unnatural. In this case it's natural, because it occurs in nature.



Inkblooded said:


> abnormal, atypical, disordered, these are all valid terms to describe such a thing.
> 
> i do not get offended when someone calls my physical mutations abnormal or a disorder so i do not understand why many view referring to homosexuality as the same a bad thing. it in no way implies "wrong" or "unethical"


It's kind of a nitpick I guess, but it's also sort of important, since words have implications.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

I've seen quite a few instances where people were straight then turned gay or whatever after becoming active on furaffinity. So yes, it can be a somewhat of a choice, but it doesn't mean that these people are truly happy with their decision deep down because they're changing their natural disposition. I'm not saying that one day they decided to be with the same sex, I'm saying that people adapt to the environment that they are in often and then start questioning themselves. 

My problem with schools and the education system is how they're forcing this gender non-binary and experimentation crap onto healthy young minds. When most people are fine with who they naturally are and attracted to, and you give them the idea that could make them feel confused, frustrated and question their identity, of course there is going to be an increase in people who actually believe they are whatever they're being taught and convince themselves and others that it's their "true, natural" selves all along not realizing it's actually causing more confusion and frustration, because the propaganda and ideas are still in the air, and it goes to show how you can manipulate people into thinking that it's perfectly acceptable to unnecessarily break down innocent minds to control their habits and behavior, and you have the people going around advocating for it saying how evil the "cishets" are and that they need to accept the propaganda and be broken down along with everyone else so they don't have any power over what they think or feel. Notice how a lot of these people are mentally weak and broken down, because they aren't really happy with who they are or what they were convinced about themselves, and some of them switch back and forth with gender and sexual orientation labels, sometimes even regret taking hormones and undergoing surgery. I know it seems more complicated than what I explained, but we can avoid making it that way if it's not pushed onto society. If you complicate gender, sex, and orientation, it becomes even more of a complicated mess that ends up destroying people's minds and they end up feeling lost, and you have a society that cares more about their desires than more important things to make it a better place. God forbid you challenge these ideas in 2018.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> I've seen quite a few instances where people were straight then turned gay or whatever after becoming active on furaffinity. So yes, it can be a somewhat of a choice, but it doesn't mean that these people are truly happy with their decision deep down because they're changing their natural disposition. I'm not saying that one day they decided to be with the same sex, I'm saying that people adapt to the environment that they are in often and then start questioning themselves.
> 
> My problem with schools and the education system is how they're forcing this gender non-binary and experimentation crap onto healthy young minds. When most people are fine with who they naturally are and attracted to, and you give them the idea that could make them feel confused, frustrated and question their identity, of course there is going to be an increase in people who actually believe they are whatever they're being taught and convince themselves and others that it's their "true, natural" selves all along not realizing it's actually causing more confusion and frustration, because the propaganda and ideas are still in the air, and it goes to show how you can manipulate people into thinking that it's perfectly acceptable to unnecessarily break down innocent minds to control their habits and behavior, and you have the people going around advocating for it saying how evil the "cishets" are and that they need to accept the propaganda and be broken down along with everyone else so they don't have any power over what they think or feel. Notice how a lot of these people are mentally weak and broken down, because they aren't really happy with who they are or what they were convinced about themselves, and some of them switch back and forth with gender and sexual orientation labels, sometimes even regret taking hormones and undergoing surgery. I know it seems more complicated than what I explained, but we can avoid making it that way if it's not pushed onto society. If you complicate gender, sex, and orientation, it becomes even more of a complicated mess that ends up destroying people's minds and they end up feeling lost, and you have a society that cares more about their desires than more important things to make it a better place. God forbid you challenge these ideas in 2018.



While it is humorous that FAF has that effect on people, I don't think that's entirely true. The open and accepting environment can allow people to open up a bit. I think most people are actually at least a little bit pansexual. There's just a lot of social layering and expectations and stuff.


----------



## defunct (Feb 19, 2018)

I one met someone who seemed almost as if they were unable to feel actual attraction, and all of their sexual/romantic advances were purely in pursuit of fun. He acted like a little kid imitating something he'd seen adults do and thought it would be fun. Spent a lot of energy trying to get with guys all the while not considering himself me. one time the topic of gay being a choice came up and he kept insisting that if someone didn't want to be gay they could just stop, which was highkey pretty insulting ngl



also this person catfished me


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I'd imagine that comparing humans to other animals in the way that you're doing it isn't very valuable, given that humans are much more social creatures.


Humans are among the most social species, yes. The only thing separating us from, lets say, the wolf, is that of sentience. To make conscious choices, self-awareness.

The basic natural instincts are still there. Sentience doesn't remove you from biology let alone basic instinctual needs. Same goes for sexuality and what is natural from a biological perspective. 



Lcs said:


> Something can't be "more natural" than something else. It's not a sliding bar, there are discrete categories - either natural or unnatural. In this case it's natural, because it occurs in nature.
> 
> It's kind of a nitpick I guess, but it's also sort of important, since words have implications.


What is natural is that of a male and female of a given species to come together and make offspring. That is a very basic biological programming that have been around since the dawn of time, and will continue to be around for eons more. Two males or two females can't get together and create offspring, hence blocking a natural process. They can't reproduce. Their genetic heritage ends there. 

Humans have self-awareness, sentience, that makes it quite easy to possibly override this natural programming. 

If homosexuality was natural you'd think homosexual pairings would be seen a lot more often. Not just in humans, but in nature as well.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

Here's a very interesting article on the issue we're talking about now. It discusses species that actively use homosexuality as both a sex act and a relationship method.

Note: article is possibly unsafe for younger audiences. 

www.bbc.com: Are there any homosexual animals?


----------



## Sagt (Feb 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> What is natural is that of a male and female of a given species to come together and make offspring. That is a very basic biological programming that have been around since the dawn of time, and will continue to be around for eons more. Two males or two females can't get together and create offspring, hence blocking a natural process. They can't reproduce. Their genetic heritage ends there.
> 
> Humans have self-awareness, sentience, that makes it quite easy to possibly override this natural programming.
> 
> If homosexuality was natural you'd think homosexual pairings would be seen a lot more often. Not just in humans, but in nature as well.


I'm aware that heterosexual activity is natural, but I'm pointing out that homosexual activity is too, because there are non-human animals who do just that. The prevalence at which it happens, and whether or not it makes babies in the process, is irrelevant.

You could say that it's atypical, uncommon, unusual or some other synonym of 'rare'; but it's not unnatural.

Anyway, I don't think this is going anywhere. I've made my point, but you still keep repeating what you've already said, with some added fluff, while not addressing what I've said. Kind of feels like we're not on the same page here, at all.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> 1. Yes, your argument was of the form "gay people cannot help the way they feel > because it is biological > which makes it okay."
> 
> (From your actual quote: "Without a biological claim to it there is no logical defense for it.")
> 
> ...



No.  I never stated anything of the sort.  You're invoking a Strawman by rephrasing my arguments so that it sounds like a Naturalistic Fallacy.  Truth is that I never stated homosexuality is okay... I think it is okay, but I never made the claim that it was okay BECAUSE it was biological.  I merely stated that a biological claim on sexuality is the most valid argument for sexuality because it shows that it is beyond mere societal or outsider control, and cannot be altered as such.  Again, has nothing to do with it being okay or not okay.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

Also, you can't just state that the rationale you presented is superior, then turn around and say that it "may not actually be superior but who cares".


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> No.  I never stated anything of the sort.  You're invoking a Strawman by rephrasing my arguments so that it sounds like a Naturalistic Fallacy.  Truth is that I never stated homosexuality is okay... I think it is okay, but I never made the claim that it was okay BECAUSE it was biological.  I merely stated that a biological claim on sexuality is the most valid argument for sexuality because it shows that it is beyond mere societal or outsider control, and cannot be altered as such.  Again, has nothing to do with it being okay or not okay.  Please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> Also, you can't just state that the rationale you presented is superior, then turn around and say that it "may not actually be superior but who cares".



Bleh. XD


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Bleh. XD



*boops your nose*


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Would that matter? Would you have less respect for someone doing that? Would it dismantle the LGBT activists arguments?


It could potentially make it _more difficult_ for LGBT activists to push for changes if any change they ask for could be met with "or you could just stop being X and you wouldn't need this change". Much of their argumentation might need to be reworked.

I see no reason why some hypothetical person who had the freedom to choose, without any biological factors swaying them, and chose to be gay, should be any less deserving of respect. In fact, a lot of the premise of this discussion is getting pretty close to the rationales surrounding bi erasure. I'm not sure how I feel about that - bi erasure is definitely a thing and pretty damn hurtful.



Yakamaru said:


> Being an admin across numerous Discord servers alongside observation on other platforms, I see couples form due to changing sexualities, which is a monthly-ish occurrance for me. To be honest I am not sure if there are factors that they have brought with them that comes to light, or that sexuality is malleable.


I'd be interested in knowing the rough ages of these people and the nature of their relationships. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's not what they mean though. They mean that gender is entirely mutable and changeable, which it isn't, and that it is developed by pure whim. Anyone who claims it is socially constructed and does not mean this are just misusing the term of socially constructed gender.


This makes absolutely no sense. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get across. 

The social construct of gender is all around us, and shapes the expectations we have on ourselves and others. It will interact with, but is not identical to, the individual experience of gender. Gender identity can shift to some degree over time; I would personally be inclined to describe most of that shift to something analogous to this C S Lewis quote:


			
				C S Lewis said:
			
		

> When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.


We generally know ourselves better the longer we live, and shed layers we once put on to fit in, or to rebel, or to try to put context to something we didn't quite understand at the time. It's taken me over thirty years to arrive at the conclusion of my gender identity as I see it today.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I'd be interested in knowing the rough ages of these people and the nature of their relationships.


18-40.

Usually we see straight guys turning bi or full on gay after being on Discord long enough, interacting with people, checking out the different channels and content, etc. I have seen pretty much only one instance thus far of a gay guy turning bi and end up with a girlfriend. A lot of straight guys usually "change" their sexuality over time. Whether it's because of a lack of women to date or an abundance of males or whatever, I don't know. There are a lot of potential factors at play.

Relationship-wise they are pretty much introduced to the server and its inhabitants or they already have some sort of knowledge of each others' existence when joining a server. As interactions increase, so does the interest itself.

So far, there are a few guys I wouldn't mind ending up with if it ever happened.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> 18-40.
> 
> Usually we see straight guys turning bi or full on gay after being on Discord long enough, interacting with people, checking out the different channels and content, etc. I have seen pretty much only one instance thus far of a gay guy turning bi and end up with a girlfriend. A lot of straight guys usually "change" their sexuality over time. Whether it's because of a lack of women to date or an abundance of males or whatever, I don't know. There are a lot of potential factors at play.
> 
> ...



I feel like some of that recently is because women are forming highly specific notions of what men ought to behave like. A lot of men simply don't make the cut, get depressed, and maybe being gay is a convenient alternative. I know about least a dozen gay furries here I could probably date and get along with just fine.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I feel like some of that recently is because women are forming highly specific notions of what men ought to behave like. A lot of men simply don't make the cut, get depressed, and maybe being gay is a convenient alternative. I know about least a dozen gay furries here I could probably date and get along with just fine.


 When men and women become less responsible, (e.g abortion, being gay, among other things), society will fall on its face. I guess it's only a matter of time before any civilization begins to fall; history repeats itself.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just telling it like it is. When people become obsessed with desires, pleasure, irresponsibility, and materialistic things, it becomes unhealthy and unproductive instead of being prosperous.


----------



## TheLaughingLion1 (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> When men and women become less responsible, (e.g abortion, being gay, among other things), society will fall on its face. I guess it's only a matter of time before any civilization begins to fall; history repeats itself.


Become less responsible!? Who in the fuck do you think you are passing your judgments on the world?  Why would you come to a hotspot of acceptance (or atleast diversity) and “preach” something so blatantly disrespectful.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> When men and women become less responsible, (e.g abortion, being gay, among other things), society will fall on its face. I guess it's only a matter of time before any civilization begins to fall; history repeats itself.



Why do you believe these things will cause society to fall? Personally I believe apathy, social stagnation, and a return to religious fundamentalism/theocracy will dismantle society.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

TheLaughingLion1 said:


> Become less responsible!? Who in the fuck do you think you are passing your judgments on the world?  Why would you come to a hotspot of acceptance (or atleast diversity) and “preach” something so blatantly disrespectful.


More so an analysis than a judgement.


----------



## TheLaughingLion1 (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> More so an analysis than a judgement.


Based on what data?  You cannot call something an analysis without providing data that support your hypotheses


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 19, 2018)

TheLaughingLion1 said:


> Become less responsible!? Who in the fuck do you think you are passing your judgments on the world?  Why would you come to a hotspot of acceptance (or atleast diversity) and “preach” something so blatantly disrespectful.


Lack of self-awareness and that of taking personal responsibility? It's rather large in this fandom. And that of drama queens and attention whoring.

Tribalism is a dangerous road causing divides across diverse groups.


----------



## Zhalo (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> More so an analysis than a judgement.


Yeah, your analysis that as soon as people get abortions or have a sexuality other than straight that society will fall apart. Please enlighten me I would love to know how you reached that conclusion?


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

TheLaughingLion1 said:


> Based on what data?  You cannot call something an analysis without providing data that support your hypotheses


 How it affects people, and I think I went over it earlier today about some of it when I talked about the schools. I guess conversational discourse isn't allowed, I'm assuming. Also, just think about how kids feel when their parents are sleeping with everybody and the divorce rates sky rocket, people become less concerned about the responsibilities they have and instead turn to their desires, a lot of people I talk to don't want to have kids these days, they only want sex, greed, idolatry, etc, the family unit begins to break down. You're right, I don't have data, but I see how it affects me and the people around me. You're not wrong, I'm on a forum full of people that encourage such acts, but a thread like this gave me a platform. I'm guilty just as much as everyone else, but I'm open-minded enough to discuss my concerns. If I came off as judgmental, it's because I care about the well-being of society. Know that before you think I'm such a horrible person.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Lack of self-awareness and that of taking personal responsibility? It's rather large in this fandom. And that of drama queens and attention whoring.
> 
> Tribalism is a dangerous road causing divides across diverse groups.



I don't really think it's as bad as that. There's also nothing wrong with some drunkenness and some weed smoking.


----------



## Simo (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> How it affects people, and I think I went over it earlier today about some of it when I talked about the schools. I guess conversational discourse isn't allowed, I'm assuming. Also, just think about how kids feel when their parents are sleeping with everybody and the divorce rates sky rocket, people become less concerned about the responsibilities they have and instead turn to their desires, a lot of people I talk to don't want to have kids these days, they only want sex, greed, idolatry, etc, the family unit begins to break down. You're right, I don't have data, but I see how it affects me and the people around me. You're not wrong, I'm on a forum full of people that encourage such acts, but a thread like this gave me a platform. I'm guilty just as much as everyone else, but I'm open-minded enough to discuss my concerns. If I came off as judgmental, it's because I care about the well-being of society. Know that before you think I'm such a horrible person.



Geez, you'd hate Donald Trump (Grab 'em by the pussy!"), and his various divorces and affairs, and others like Newt Gingrich, who have held much higher seats of power, and are certainly not (that I know of) gay, and are against abortion, even if in their personal lives, they have cheated and carried on having affairs. More so than furries, officials holding the highest elected offices have been no slouches at driving up the divorce rate...and doing so while straight.


----------



## TheLaughingLion1 (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> How it affects people, and I think I went over it earlier today about some of it when I talked about the schools. I guess conversational discourse isn't allowed, I'm assuming. Also, just think about how kids feel when their parents are sleeping with everybody and the divorce rates sky rocket, people become less concerned about the responsibilities they have and instead turn to their desires, a lot of people I talk to don't want to have kids these days, they only want sex, greed, idolatry, etc, the family unit begins to break down. You're right, I don't have data, but I see how it affects me and the people around me. You're not wrong, I'm on a forum full of people that encourage such acts, but a thread like this gave me a platform. I'm guilty just as much as everyone else, but I'm open-minded enough to discuss my concerns. If I came off as judgmental, it's because I care about the well-being of society. Know that before you think I'm such a horrible person.


What you’re coming acrossed as someone with their own diluted set of values, beliefs, morals, (dare i say religion?) etc... that’s trying to push them on others by doomsaying. The world is not going to be “ruined” or destroyed by people becoming more acceptant of homosexuality or  having the ability to have an abortion.  Conversely, both of these factors can play a role in population control, uncontrolled population growth is an actual concern and more likely to cause the “collapse of society”. Let me break it down f unrestricted population growth—-> fueled by resources——> limited resources eventually are depleted—-> overpopulation increases famine and disease——> war for more resources.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

Simo said:


> Geez, you'd hate Donald Trump, and his various divorces and affairs, and others like Newt Gingrich, who have held much higher seats of power, and are certainly not (that I know of) gay, and are against abortion, even if in their personal lives, they have cheated and carried on having affairs. More so than furries, officials holding the highest elected office have been no slouches at driving up the divorce rate...and doing so while straight.


 Yeah, he wasn't my ideal choice, I was rooting for Kasich, not sure how he lives his life, but he did speak good while campaigning. Anyway, don't know what this has to do with Trump.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

TheLaughingLion1 said:


> What you’re coming acrossed as someone with their own diluted set of values, beliefs, morals, (dare i say religion?) etc... that’s trying to push them on others by doomsaying. The world is not going to be “ruined” or destroyed by people becoming more acceptant of homosexuality or  having the ability to have an abortion.  Conversely, both of these factors can play a role in population control, uncontrolled population growth is an actual concern and more likely to cause the “collapse of society”. Let me break it down f unrestricted population growth—-> fueled by resources——> limited resources eventually are depleted—-> overpopulation increases famine and disease——> war for more resources.


 Oh don't worry, the population will decrease from high suicide rates after kids are being molested when pedophilia becomes desensitized and can't figure out if they're more than 1 gender. But you know, let's keep accepting and never draw a line. It's working swell for society right now, that's why kids are just so happy with themselves and what they see around them.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 19, 2018)

No, absolutely not.
I struggle with the idea that it's even slightly biological.

Oh, and behaviour also doesn't dictate sexuality.

I'd fuck a guy for cheap thrills but I could never see myself in a relationship with one. In fact, the mere idea of that repulses me. Eugh.

Some might call me a _heteroromantic bisexual._ Or potentially a _heteroromantic pansexual_, if transgender individuals are included. 
I think that's what that means anyway.

Others would call me a sexist.
Me? I just don't bother with words.
The labels have become too complicated, people are obsessed with describing their attraction down to minue, trivial details (I still can't get over the absurdity of '_demisexuality_') to the point where any and all labels are meaningless, because everyone ends up with their own, personal word for their extremely specific situation.

But by all means, feel free to share your opinion on what you think I am. It's interesting hearing from people who want to categorize me.

My sexuality is abnormal, however, that I know. So, feel free to disregard my words.


----------



## Zhalo (Feb 19, 2018)

*THREAD DERAILED
*
edit: KILL.MAIM.KILL made an on topic post right as I typed that X_X


----------



## Simo (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> Yeah, he wasn't my ideal choice, I was rooting for Kasich, not sure how he lives his life, but he did speak good while campaigning. Anyway, don't know what this has to do with Trump.



That Trump has driven up the divorce rate (he is on wife #3), and exhibited the same sorts of behaviors you find decadent (sex, greed, idolatry), and leading to societal downfall. And also that being gay in and of itself doesn't contribute to social ills any more so than being straight. 

But I don't want to drag this thread further off-topic, which had to do with to what degree sexuality is biological.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> How it affects people, and I think I went over it earlier today about some of it when I talked about the schools. I guess conversational discourse isn't allowed, I'm assuming. Also, just think about how kids feel when their parents are sleeping with everybody and the divorce rates sky rocket, people become less concerned about the responsibilities they have and instead turn to their desires, a lot of people I talk to don't want to have kids these days, they only want sex, greed, idolatry, etc, the family unit begins to break down. You're right, I don't have data, but I see how it affects me and the people around me. You're not wrong, I'm on a forum full of people that encourage such acts, but a thread like this gave me a platform. I'm guilty just as much as everyone else, but I'm open-minded enough to discuss my concerns. If I came off as judgmental, it's because I care about the well-being of society. Know that before you think I'm such a horrible person.



Your argument falls apart because the "immoral" areas of the country where people supposedly have looser morals and sleep around all the time actually have:
A. lower abortions rate,
B. lower divorce rates,
C. far few sex offenders,
D. less pedophiles,
etc.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Your argument falls apart because the "immoral" areas of the country where people supposedly have looser morals and sleep around all the time actually have:
> A. lower abortions rate,
> B. lower divorce rates,
> C. far few sex offenders,
> ...


 I believe people can/should control themselves.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 19, 2018)

Sparkledoge said:


> Very words for me.
> Cannot read, go crosseye.



And just when I thought this forum was improving, here comes another spam account centered around yesteryear's old, dried up internet meme well past it's used by date.

Phenomenal.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> I believe people can/should control themselves.





microsparkledoge said:


> someone pls dial the 911
> 
> i become a very tiny





2X2sparkledoge said:


> you have said a mean  words my frend



Well fuck.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 19, 2018)

sparkledoge002 said:


> pls can you help with the banana



Random stopped being funny way back in 2008, you know.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 19, 2018)

Sparkledoge001 said:


> you have many edge to you, young one



I'd rather be blatantly edgy and miserable than unfunny to the point of secondhand embarassment. I'm sure we all would.

So. Let me just tell everyone how good dog meat tastes.
No, really! I reccommend it.


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> When men and women become less responsible, (e.g abortion, being gay, among other things), society will fall on its face. I guess it's only a matter of time before any civilization begins to fall; history repeats itself.


Ok what the actual fuck?!?! Who the hell do you think you are??


----------



## Crimcyan (Feb 19, 2018)

Omfg this thread what the hell is this xD.
Let me go make some popcorn, anyone want some?


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Feb 19, 2018)

Crimcyan said:


> Omfg this thread what the hell is this xD.
> Let me go make some popcorn, anyone want some?


Yes, please


----------



## Crimcyan (Feb 19, 2018)

TacticalSparkleDoge said:


> tactic doge cannot sneak that good but he can do a mean beat


Yo doge, want some popcorn?


----------



## Crimcyan (Feb 19, 2018)

2X2sparkledoge said:


> yes pls. a many corn pops for many doge





 
Here is your popcorn


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Feb 19, 2018)

Crimcyan said:


> View attachment 27996
> Here is your popcorn


NO NOW THEYRE GONNA USE THAT AS AN ACCOUNT XD NOOO what have you done, you traitor?? XD


----------



## Crimcyan (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfoxeCrevan said:


> NO NOW THEYRE GONNA USE THAT AS AN ACCOUNT XD NOOO what have you done, you traitor?? XD


Provide entertainment to a dead forum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Feb 19, 2018)

Crimcyan said:


> Provide entertainment to a dead forum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I guess so XD traitor.


----------



## Crimcyan (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfoxeCrevan said:


> I guess so XD traitor.


Sorry I have a soft spot for shitposters! xD


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Feb 19, 2018)

Crimcyan said:


> Sorry I have a soft spot for shitposters! xD


Oh really? _You?_ Jk but yeah, this is kinda funny


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

PresidentSparkleDoge said:


> sparkledoge live in the big white house not the basement



No you got sent to the attic. Fuck off


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfoxeCrevan said:


> Ok what the actual fuck?!?! Who the hell do you think you are??


 Not you.


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> Not you.


That’s obvious, sarcastic, and stupid.


----------



## Crimcyan (Feb 19, 2018)

What if this was one of the very active members showing the reason why we need more mods?


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Feb 19, 2018)

Crimcyan said:


> What if this was one of the very active members showing the reason why we need more mods? View attachment 27998


Oh god it is you, isn’t it XD


----------



## Crimcyan (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfoxeCrevan said:


> Oh god it is you, isn’t it XD


Nah, couldn't be assed to do it, but I have thought about it


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 19, 2018)

WolfoxeCrevan said:


> That’s obvious, sarcastic, and stupid.


 No shit, as if that statement wasn't obvious in itself?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 19, 2018)

Sparkledoge001 said:


> this word it hurt right in the feels



You don't have any feelz


----------



## Troj (Feb 19, 2018)

Everything is biological.

But, we humans are on a looser leash compared to most other species. We may not be able to choose our tastes or inclinations, but we can choose how to name them, how to talk about them, and how to express them.

My philosophy is that you'll generally be happier and more successful if you find a productive, pro-social, healthy way to swim _with_ the current of your innate nature than against it.

In any case, BagdDaddy, I think you're entirely correct that it _doesn't_ matter why people are LGBTQ. That should have zero bearing, in my view, on whether or not they deserve rights or basic respect, or whether they should "get" to express their sexuality and gender in a safe and consensual manner.

If someone's personal habits or tastes don't punch your nose or pick your pocket, then you should mind your own business.

Incidentally, this includes non-binary trans people, therians and otherin, and other people whose otherwise-benign feelings or preferences may confound or ruffle you. You don't have to share someone's beliefs, perception, or worldview in order to just show them the most basic and simple level of courtesy, and they also don't need to prove that their sense of themselves and what they prefer to be called is associated with some gene-or-other.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 19, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> This makes absolutely no sense. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get across.
> 
> The social construct of gender is all around us, and shapes the expectations we have on ourselves and others. It will interact with, but is not identical to, the individual experience of gender. Gender identity can shift to some degree over time; I would personally be inclined to describe most of that shift to something analogous to this C S Lewis quote:
> 
> We generally know ourselves better the longer we live, and shed layers we once put on to fit in, or to rebel, or to try to put context to something we didn't quite understand at the time. It's taken me over thirty years to arrive at the conclusion of my gender identity as I see it today.




Gender identity is how one views themselves as either male or female.  My gender identity is male.  Typically, those who are born with a male body have the male gender identity, and vise versa,   It has zero to do with societal influence.  Maybe partially its due to societal influence in terms of some behaviors, it's partially self-identity and it's partially negotiation.

You can't convince me through social conditioning that I am female.  That simply isn't possible, not ethically anyway.  The degree of how masculine or feminine you are as far as traits or behaviors go has nothing to do with gender identity either.  There exists many varieties of people who exhibit more masculine traits as female or more feminine traits as male and still identify with their associated sex.  I in particular tend to exhibit a few feminine traits but that doesn't mean I'm an entirely different gender; I still identify and see myself as male, and the world as well sees me as male to confirm my identity.  You may as well make a new gender for any small variance you have from each other, because if there's no stopping point for genders, then it becomes a multiplying construct; it will continue to reduce until it shrinks down to the individual themselves.  That's also a reason why the LGBTQ+ acronym is becoming longer and longer, it's almost a parody by this point.

I'm going off the assumption that what you mean by social construct of gender you mean the degree of how masculine or feminine one is.  Otherwise your post kinda confuses me.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 20, 2018)

Troj said:


> Everything is biological.
> 
> But, we humans are on a looser leash compared to most other species. We may not be able to choose our tastes or inclinations, but we can choose how to name them, how to talk about them, and how to express them.
> 
> ...



Except they actually do though, because you can't go around putting restrictions on people's interactions with you unless you have a valid reason, and saying something that essentially boils down to "because I want to" doesn't make the cut.  If not by genes, by something that holds some validity.

First of all, it's a negotiation between people you interact with; you can't expect me to respect you if by our first meeting you're putting restrictions on how I can interact with you, especially if those interactions are unfamiliar or alien to me.  That isn't how speech worked; speech didn't evolve by force from individuals, certainly not through vague and dangerous harassment laws demanded by so-called "representatives" of trans or alternative identities.  If I interact with you casually, if your demand for your subjective identity to be recognized by me begins to enter the conversation why would I bother interacting with you?  If we were friends, closer than strangers or acquaintances, where we could have deeper levels of conversation beyond the casual, yes, you could discuss with me the issue of identity and what you would prefer to be called and if I believed it would do less harm and more good I may abide.  But if we are going to have a casual conversation you can't demand I recognize your subjective identity.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Gender identity is how one views themselves as either male or female.  My gender identity is male.  Typically, those who are born with a male body have the male gender identity, and vise versa,   It has zero to do with societal influence.  Maybe partially its due to societal influence in terms of some behaviors, it's partially self-identity and it's partially negotiation.
> 
> You can't convince me through social conditioning that I am female.  That simply isn't possible, not ethically anyway.  The degree of how masculine or feminine you are as far as traits or behaviors go has nothing to do with gender identity either.  There exists many varieties of people who exhibit more masculine traits as female or more feminine traits as male and still identify with their associated sex.  I in particular tend to exhibit a few feminine traits but that doesn't mean I'm an entirely different gender; I still identify and see myself as male, and the world as well sees me as male to confirm my identity.  You may as well make a new gender for any small variance you have from each other, because if there's no stopping point for genders, then it becomes a multiplying construct; it will continue to reduce until it shrinks down to the individual themselves.  That's also a reason why the LGBTQ+ acronym is becoming longer and longer, it's almost a parody by this point.
> 
> I'm going off the assumption that what you mean by social construct of gender you mean the degree of how masculine or feminine one is.  Otherwise your post kinda confuses me.



That's why I just say let people be people and throw the identity politics out the window, please.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> That's why I just say let people be people and throw the identity politics out the window, please.



Well there still has to be a discussion about whether or not an identity could be legitimate.  Otherwise we get the LGBTQ+ situation where more and more identities erupt and it continues to expand until it's unmanageable.


----------



## Troj (Feb 20, 2018)

If someone's being a troll, a drama whore, or a showboater, _that_ is what you should zero in on and criticize.

I've just gotten sick of people concern-trolling trans people because some hypothetical Tumblrite somewhere _might-could_ make a big production out of being a waffle.

That's a stupid hill to die on, because real people (LGBTQs) live on that hill.

As I explained to a friend the other day, there's still a lot about gender and sexuality that are shrouded in mystery. Ergo, it is unfair to ask people to produce hard "proof" of things that aren't even fully understood by the top researchers in the field yet. (As in, "prove to me you deserve to be called 'they/them.'")

Because we're exploring new territory, people will experiment with ideas, trends, terms, and identities that are weird, wacky, baseless, and impractical. Over time, as we get our bearings, we'll collectively learn what holds water, and what doesn't---so, that means that we're probably not permanently "stuck" with the 70 billion Tumblr genders and sexual orientations.

As we get our sea legs, we'll also be able to develop norms and standard understandings that will help to guard against, for example, trollish Tumblr teens running roughshod over people and demanding that people recognize them as Hetalia characters and call them by different pronouns depending on the day.

Because I'm confident that our gender orientation and sexuality are rooted in biology, I'm also confident that most people will eventually find themselves and settle into a solid identity. I also expect that while a lot of young people might experiment with the wacky-weird Tumblr identities for a while, eventually, they majority will settle into more standard, recognizable identities--but, granted, some of those may not be identities that would've been on our grandparents' radar!

But, as a transhumanist, I look forward to us breaking more boundaries, in fact.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 20, 2018)

Troj said:


> If someone's being a troll, a drama whore, or a showboater, _that_ is what you should zero in on and criticize.
> 
> I've just gotten sick of people concern-trolling trans people because some hypothetical Tumblrite somewhere _might-could_ make a big production out of being a waffle.
> 
> ...



Standard and recognizable identities... like male and female!

Two categories that are both biologically grounded, provide actual tools and have pronouns that are associated with them and do not require forced linguistic alteration, have traits and behaviors associated with each on average, have pronouns that are actually grammatically correct, and that most societies in the world and of the past recognize and understand.

We aren't exploring new territory here.  It's just the result of postmodernist thinking; that is that there are no boundaries or inherent meaning and thus it can be created by whim.  We see the results of this in Canada with Bill C-16, a bill that requires you to utter people's preferred pronouns, no matter what they are or how legitimate they are, or else you could be fined or have property repossessed or be charged under hate crime, whether the incident was intentional or not.  I wouldn't make a big deal out of this otherwise if it weren't for the insistence that we bend over backward and institute entire laws dedicated toward adhering to a vocal minority.  It seems to me that all they wish to do is acquire linguistic control.

I'm not saying there can't be more than 2 genders... but I don't think those "genders" should be considered anything more than an anomaly.  Because statistically speaking, they are!  Gender identity is so heavily influenced by biology that 99% of the world population identifies with the same gender identity as their given body.

We should not be going around and, to use your words,  "breaking more boundarires" over what is essentially an aberration statistically speaking.  I agree there is a lot of unexplored territory, but that doesn't mean we need to rehash our entire understanding of gender, because clearly we got something correct when 99% of the world belongs in the categories of either male or female in terms of gender identity.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)




----------



## Massan Otter (Feb 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> View attachment 28005



Is that a bumper sticker?  That would be very...open!


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> View attachment 28005


*purrs*


Massan Otter said:


> Is that a bumper sticker?  That would be very...open!


A home address in either San Francisco or Berlin would most definitely be required for that


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> Is that a bumper sticker?  That would be very...open!



I made it, you're welcome to use it. 



backpawscratcher said:


> *purrs*
> 
> A home address in either San Francisco or Berlin would most definitely be required for that



Yeah pretty much haha


----------



## Massan Otter (Feb 20, 2018)

That could go down interestingly in my neighborhood.  We already have homophobic and sectarian graffiti dotted about the place - I think it may not be the most accepting locale.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> That could go down interestingly in my neighborhood.  We already have homophobic and sectarian graffiti dotted about the place - I think it may not be the most accepting locale.


That's a shame.  I really hate the sectarian stuff more than anything.  I used to go to Northern Ireland a lot for family (sadly people now passed away) and there was a ridiculous level of it there.  The sad part is that they didn't even notice it anymore.  

You'll have to come and live with me.  I'll put in a paddling pool or something


----------



## Massan Otter (Feb 20, 2018)

I do wonder if the sectarian graffiti is all from the one family next door.  They have Union Jack bed sheets (I see them on the line), and we hear them through the walls belting out the kind of songs that can get you arrested in public.  
The homophobic graffiti worries me though, because about half of it names one specific kid.  I don't know who he is, but he can't be having a great time of things.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I do wonder if the sectarian graffiti is all from the one family next door.  They have Union Jack bed sheets (I see them on the line), and we hear them through the walls belting out the kind of songs that can get you arrested in public.
> The homophobic graffiti worries me though, because about half of it names one specific kid.  I don't know who he is, but he can't be having a great time of things.



Well, that sucks. I hate it when people do that.


----------



## Zhalo (Feb 20, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> because about half of it names one specific kid.


That is actually pretty damn horrible.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 20, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I do wonder if the sectarian graffiti is all from the one family next door.  They have Union Jack bed sheets (I see them on the line), and we hear them through the walls belting out the kind of songs that can get you arrested in public.
> The homophobic graffiti worries me though, because about half of it names one specific kid.  I don't know who he is, but he can't be having a great time of things.


And if this kid bashes in another kids face with a tire iron.

Well I feel like it bound to happen eventually.

General hate is just that hate.

I hate hate. I also hate double standard hate, as well as the notion its okay to hate upon people because of past events. if thats the case then we'd still be in a tizzy over soddin' germany.

I have a theory that most hate is directed at people as a way of escape goating due to internal and external problems that many are unable to be recognized or even accepted. You're angry, you need to blame something so you go towards the nearest thing and push the responsibilities upon them.

_Instead of yourself.
_
I've met a lot of people who own up to their actions. Granted a few of them were criminals but honestly they didn't bother me in the least because you knew 100% where they were coming from, and honestly they didn't hate people. Nor did the people who owned up to their actions and understood where they are coming from.

I think hate is a byproduct of not knowing ones self.

Granted there can be situational hate where somebody is fucking you over, or a series of events cause chaos. Thats a natural reaction to induced stress however.

Going "Oi. Mate fuck them fags. With their fancy hair, cars, and skin tight shirts and pants, and fucking handsome an' just... uh yeah FUCK THEM!" suggests a bit more problems going on than what would be on the surface.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I do wonder if the sectarian graffiti is all from the one family next door.  They have Union Jack bed sheets (I see them on the line), and we hear them through the walls belting out the kind of songs that can get you arrested in public.
> The homophobic graffiti worries me though, because about half of it names one specific kid.  I don't know who he is, but he can't be having a great time of things.


I don’t often say it,  but

Bastards.


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Feb 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> View attachment 28005


Me too XD


----------



## Simo (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> *purrs*
> 
> A home address in either San Francisco or Berlin would most definitely be required for that



Or DC even.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Simo said:


> Or DC even.


Ooh, I didn’t realise DC was another den of utter godless iniquity.

Must visit sometime...


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

Why are people talking about gender identity? It's irrelevant. Can't we have a single thread discussing sexuality without someone bringing gender new age mumbo jumbo into it?

Actually, you know what? I'll make a new thread about it. It will probably go up in flames, but hopefully draw the gender crusaders away from derailing off topic threads.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Why are people talking about gender identity? It's irrelevant. Can't we have a single thread discussing sexuality without someone bringing gender new age mumbo jumbo into it?
> 
> Actually, you know what? I'll make a new thread about it. It will probably go up in flames, but hopefully draw the gender crusaders away from derailing off topic threads.


How can you have a full discussion on sexual orientation without mentioning gender identity?  E.g. If someone considers themselves female and gets aroused by males they would identify as straight.  If we’re going to have any relevant discussion about orientation the subject is going to come up.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Feb 20, 2018)

I can actually make a full discussion about sexual orientation without bringing up gender identity.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I can actually make a full discussion about sexual orientation without bringing up gender identity.


Surely it depends entirely on who you’re having that discussion with. None of us can make any form of discussion alone.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Surely it depends entirely on who you’re having that discussion with.


I'm sure I can as long as I'm not dealing with someone who is overly obsessed with identity politics and has enough brain cells to distinguish between sexuality and gender


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I'm sure I can as long as I'm not dealing with someone who is overly obsessed with identity politics and has enough brain cells to distinguish between sexuality and gender


Everyone can distinguish between them.  They aren’t the same thing.  

Doesn’t mean they are completely separate subjects though.  I don’t get why you’d say anyone mentioning that is “overly obsessed” too.  In the context of this topic it’s relevant.  Outside of this topic less so.


----------



## Simo (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Ooh, I didn’t realise DC was another den of utter godless iniquity.
> 
> Must visit sometime...



It is in fact! Also, that would be very fun : ) DC and Baltimore have a lot of quirky, amazing things going on; I think many people think of Washington as just 'the government', but as a city goes, it's quite vibrant, diverse and lively. 

www.washingtonblade.com: D.C. has highest self-identified LGBT population in U.S.

And the counties surrounding it in Maryland/Virginia tend to follow a similar pattern. (Also in terms of ethnic diversity; 3 of the 10 most diverse counties in the US are in Maryland, small as the state appears to be)


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Simo said:


> It is in fact! Also, that would be very fun : ) DC and Baltimore have a lot of quirky, amazing things going on; I think many people think of Washington as just 'the government', but as a city goes, it's quite vibrant, diverse and lively.
> 
> www.washingtonblade.com: D.C. has highest self-identified LGBT population in U.S.
> 
> And the counties surrounding it in Maryland/Virginia tend to follow a similar pattern. (Also in terms of ethnic diversity; 3 of the 10 most diverse counties in the US are in Maryland, small as the state appears to be)


I have a good friend who now lives in Annapolis.  Maybe a double destination trip between there and DC would work


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> How can you have a full discussion on sexual orientation without mentioning gender identity?  E.g. If someone considers themselves female and gets aroused by males they would identify as straight.  If we’re going to have any relevant discussion about orientation the subject is going to come up.



Straight is neither a gender or a sex.
If anything it would fall under 'sexual identity', but to me, the term identity has become meaningless spiritual bullshit, so I would just ca it a 'sexual orientation'.

And unlike gender identity, sexual orientation is something that we have pretty heavy proof of. It's beyond just a theory.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Straight is neither a gender or a sex.
> If anything it would fall under 'sexual identity', but to me, the term identity has become meaningless spiritual bullshit, so I would just ca it a 'sexual orientation'.
> 
> And unlike gender identity, sexual orientation is something that we have pretty heavy proof of. It's beyond just a theory.


We have hundreds of thousands of living examples to show how gender identity is an actual thing.  Unless you think they’re all making it up.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 20, 2018)

*Throws out he's demisexual to bait the trolls*

C'mon somebody tell me I don't exist I love hearing that. (As well as being called a closeted homosexual.)

I personally found comfort in there being an apparently evil and vile label to describe what I feel. What I wasn't expecting was to be attacked so frequently because of it.

I've been told I'm normal, on a moral high horse, don't exist, prudish, a closet homosexual and that im seeking attention, as well as a Demi-retard.

All of these people were furries too.
Frankly I think these people have issues on their own they need to figure out.


Frankly I find it hilarious how I'm being attacked even told that asexuality doesn't exist.

And yes I'm waiting for somebody here to attack me. It's happened before. So why not again?


----------



## ellaerna (Feb 20, 2018)

I think a lot of this crosses over with the "Gender as a Social Construct" thread.

There is a difference between actual biology and the way we talk about it. There's all our chromosomes, hormones, brain chemicals and neurons firing to tell us who and when we want to bone if at all. Then there are the words we've chosen to describe all that which both effect how we think about them and in turn are effected by our understanding of it. And language is always evolving. We settled on male/female and straight/gay for a long while, but now the social understanding of sex and gender is changing and so are the words we're using to describe it. Actual feelings aren't changing- there's always been gay people, non-binary people, trans people, etc- but we're expanding our vocabulary (or at least some of us are) to accommodate more variation. And some of those words will stick and some won't and in 50 years from now people will be having similar discussions on how pan and bi are certainly sexualities, but what about this other thing and that other thing? 

And I don't personally think that accounts of sexualities shifting or "changing" are really that strong of a case against a biological understanding of sexuality. One could be always bi but just never cognizant of it due to lack of exposure and societal pressures. Some people see someone of the same sex and immediately are like "yup, I'm gay." but some don't or try to explain over that feeling. As a personal example, I'm bi. I'm pretty sure I've always been bi, but I identified as straight for a long time and I might have always done so if I hadn't gotten out of my environment. Even when I matured and started thinking about how girls were really pretty (like _really_ pretty coughcough) I chalked that up to aesthetic appreciation since there were no openly gay people in my town and the whole thing was frowned upon and I was supposed to be straight and I did like boys, so surely I wasn't into girls. Surely. But after I was exposed w/w pairings both in porn and rl I changed my thought process. Then I learned about bisexuality and adopted the label. And it wasn't until after I actually met some trans people through college that I knew that I was attracted to them too. Again, I didn't really change so much as discover and reevaluate the way I conceptualized my attraction. And I think that is true for many people.

Psycholinguistics is fun and the way we talk about things and the words we use can have a really strong effect on how we actually think about things, including ourselves. If kids these days want to use 50 different labels for everything, I say let them. It's not going against science for the most part, but rather just changing the words around the framework. And that's actually pretty neat, imo.

But bare in mind, I'm not a gender or sex expert, so grain of salt. Though I am 99.9% sure that no one else on this thread is either, but everyone is speaking with the same level of certainty so eh. *Shrugs*


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 20, 2018)

Actually I'll say something. If you're going to say something doesn't exist that is recognized. ( if you say somebody who says sexually identify as a waffle and thier pronouns are Dey, Way, and clicking noises then I think we can probably agree they might be a bit umm...out there and we might have a discussion on how what's going on might be more than what it seems. Unless memesexual becomes a thing.)

Prove it.

Don't tell me I don't fucking exist. Don't tell me im normal.

Prove to me. Prove to me with factual evidence that your claims are at least 97% correct. Because if you can I'll consider changing or believing.

But if you tell me everybody is like me a grey ace (reason why there's a playing card in my avatar and a purple band on his hat) who feels no sexual attraction at all, can't see random people in a sexual light, or can't do casual sex.

I'm going to say you're full of shit so prove it.  Because TV, Porn, Swinger parties, and strip clubs state otherwise.

That's the thing you state it's not real prove it.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> We have hundreds of thousands of living examples to show how gender identity is an actual thing.  Unless you think they’re all making it up.



My point is there are clearly people who are sexually attracted to one sex only, and that it's not a choice. We can clearly tell that not everyone is bisexual.

However, there is no scientific proof that gender identity is anything but a belief. And since it is entirely mental, we can't prove that "women in men's bodies" exist, though all current evidence points to it being false. People still believe in sexed brains, yet that has been debunked several times over.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Everyone is invited to Pride.  The Rainbow flag is about inclusivity and diversity.  That includes straight people.  If you want to go along, go along.


I dunno, at least here the RCMP were barred from attending in uniform

www.cbc.ca: RCMP will not participate in Halifax Pride parade


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> I dunno, at least here the RCMP were barred from attending in uniform
> 
> www.cbc.ca: RCMP will not participate in Halifax Pride parade



And from the looks of the photo on that article, apparently goths are banned from attending too.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Feb 20, 2018)

So much for inclusion and diversity

I'm pretty fucking gay but gay prides just makes absolutely no sense to me.


----------



## Simo (Feb 20, 2018)

My word, what a lot of bitching and moaning, here.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Feb 20, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> So much for inclusion and diversity
> 
> I'm pretty fucking gay but gay prides just makes absolutely no sense to me.


 They make sense, but some of the people who participate in them make me cringe, both politically/ideologically and outward behavior.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

DarkoKavinsky said:


> *Throws out he's demisexual to bait the trolls*
> 
> C'mon somebody tell me I don't exist I love hearing that. (As well as being called a closeted homosexual.)
> 
> ...



Damn dingbat crazy ass Demi non existent sexuality thingamajig. 


Jk


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> So much for inclusion and diversity
> 
> I'm pretty fucking gay but gay prides just makes absolutely no sense to me.



IMO LGBT behaviors will become so mainstream in the meat future Pride parades won't even really be neccesary. Then again people like having stuff to celebrate. 



ellaerna said:


> I think a lot of this crosses over with the "Gender as a Social Construct" thread.
> 
> There is a difference between actual biology and the way we talk about it. There's all our chromosomes, hormones, brain chemicals and neurons firing to tell us who and when we want to bone if at all. Then there are the words we've chosen to describe all that which both effect how we think about them and in turn are effected by our understanding of it. And language is always evolving. We settled on male/female and straight/gay for a long while, but now the social understanding of sex and gender is changing and so are the words we're using to describe it. Actual feelings aren't changing- there's always been gay people, non-binary people, trans people, etc- but we're expanding our vocabulary (or at least some of us are) to accommodate more variation. And some of those words will stick and some won't and in 50 years from now people will be having similar discussions on how pan and bi are certainly sexualities, but what about this other thing and that other thing?
> 
> ...



I would actually like to draw a distinction between sexuality and gender identity, because I believe that quite frankly a lot of gender identities are completely made up. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really, just don't sue me for failing to use your pronouns properly. 

So while I think gender identity is something social, I think sexuality is a. Mostly biological and then b. Psychological. After that maybe a bit of social, ie someone like you not experimenting with your urges because your area wouldn't accept it.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Feb 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> IMO LGBT behaviors will become so mainstream in the meat future Pride parades won't even really be necessary. Then again people like having stuff to celebrate.



I think that gay people got to where they are now because they gain respect through their merits and achievements rather than solely their identity.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I think that gay people got to where they are now because they gain respect through their merits and achievements rather than solely their identity.



Well yeah, they've always had something to prove in order to be accepted by the mainstream, whereas straight couples are normal and accepted by default (in most places). 

Even today much of flyover America does not really like LGBTs.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

thefinalsparkledoge said:


> goodbye everyone. it has very much been the fun, glad to see some of u had the funs.
> 
> 
> you may now enjoy LGBT argument in peace



Bye bye.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

Ugh, they're still going? Thought they were banned already.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Feb 20, 2018)

thefinalsparkledoge said:


> goodbye everyone. it has very much been the fun, glad to see some of u had the funs.
> 
> 
> you may now enjoy LGBT argument in peace


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

thefinalsparkledoge said:


> doge reproduction cycle very quick



Ooh, a furry joke.


----------



## Troj (Feb 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Standard and recognizable identities... like male and female!



The vast majority, yes.

But,  1% of 7 billion is still 70,000,000 people you have to account for in some way. 

If you're just looking at the United States, 1% of 321 million is still 3,231,000 people.

So, anomalies still need to be accounted for in some way, and being proactive and fair (instead of avoidant and rigid) will save everyone a lot of headaches and heartache. 

Even so, I'd say we're at a watershed moment in history where people--even people who once would've just identified as hetero-cis and called it a day---are thinking about what gender and sexuality _mean_. I'd say that's pretty neat, because it means we're not just taking things for granted anymore. Even if people decide to stick to the main path, even just the self-reflection is, I'd say, healthy and useful. 

It's popular to blame this all on "Postmodernism" or "Cultural Marxism" (lol) but other cultures even older than ours have long had some kind of third gender, so the idea of grey-area genders is nothing new.

In any case, I honestly don't see what people are afraid of.

If someone's truly an anomaly, the chances of you having to deal with a person like them will be slim. So, why all the fuss?

If someone isn't really an anomaly, then that's even more reason to account for them in some way. 

If, suddenly, a big swathe of Gen Zs decide to identify as non-binary, and the use of "they/them/their" becomes a common social convention, then the Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials will just have to literally die mad. 

It just seems to me as if people are mostly just scared of cultural change, and scared that they'll be set adrift in a society where they won't have control and won't understand what's going on.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 20, 2018)

I shouldn't say that sexuality is strictly biological... I think it is initially, but I think it can be altered if given time.

For example, I was never bi-curious until I stumbled across furry porn and got more and more interested in the gay aspects of fur porn (because a good chunk of it is gay).  That made me curious.  So I guess it developed like a fetish in me to like dick.  But I still feel little attraction to men themselves.

Kinda like how you can develop a foot fetish, I think people discovering a sexual preference by other means than average attractiveness is really experimentation.  I mean, if you make someone orgasm from something enough, you could get them to fetishize or be attracted to anything.  You could fetishize me to like water bottles if those water bottles were introduced in sex in a way that was enjoyable.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 20, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Usually we see straight guys turning bi or full on gay after being on Discord long enough, interacting with people, checking out the different channels and content, etc. I have seen pretty much only one instance thus far of a gay guy turning bi and end up with a girlfriend. A lot of straight guys usually "change" their sexuality over time. Whether it's because of a lack of women to date or an abundance of males or whatever, I don't know. There are a lot of potential factors at play.


A lot, yes. Especially with younger straight people (though not only so), I can see "well I'm not _not_ straight" leading to accepting default-assumption straight as their sexuality. Exposure to an environment where being straight is less taken for granted can then give those individuals cause to examine their own sexuality more closely than they already have. Men also have a stronger typical response to visual sexual stimuli. So if beefcake and gay smut gets circulated around those channels, chances are some of it will elicit a physical arousal response. Whether this leads to someone reevaluating their own sexuality is a case-to-case matter, but I can definitely see how someone who _does_ end up examining their own responses could shift in identified sexuality as a result.



BahgDaddy said:


> Your argument falls apart because the "immoral" areas of the country where people supposedly have looser morals and sleep around all the time actually have:
> A. lower abortions rate,
> B. lower divorce rates,
> C. far few sex offenders,
> ...


Tongue in cheek, with reservations for not knowing what qualifies as "sleep around all the time", I get my fair share of extramarital sex and have never had an abortion, never gotten divorced, no sex offenses on record (the only one I _could_ be guilty of is adultery which would be stupid to include in this context), and am definitely not a pedophile. Clearly having multiple sexual partners is the way to go! 
(Yes I know this is not how representative samples and sample sizes work. I'm being silly.)



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Gender identity is how one views themselves as either male or female. My gender identity is male. Typically, those who are born with a male body have the male gender identity, and vise versa, It has zero to do with societal influence. Maybe partially its due to societal influence in terms of some behaviors, it's partially self-identity and it's partially negotiation.


If it's that straightforward for you, congratulations, you're a cis person with a very non-introspective view of your own identity. Personal gender identity often gets expressed as one or two words, but also include the whole of how a person experiences their gender, their views of what having that gender identity signifies, and so on.

How you experience the concept of gender (distinct from your own identity though connected to it) is an individual thing, and has to do with what you feel "male" and "female" (and any other gender terms you have a notion of) mean. This is your personal perception of gender roles mixed with your personal experiences and who knows what. It will influence how you view your own gender identity, but is not the whole of it.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> You can't convince me through social conditioning that I am female. That simply isn't possible, not ethically anyway. The degree of how masculine or feminine you are as far as traits or behaviors go has nothing to do with gender identity either. There exists many varieties of people who exhibit more masculine traits as female or more feminine traits as male and still identify with their associated sex. I in particular tend to exhibit a few feminine traits but that doesn't mean I'm an entirely different gender; I still identify and see myself as male, and the world as well sees me as male to confirm my identity.


Adherence to gender roles is indeed not a strict qualifier for having one gender identity or another. _However_, what is "masculine" or "feminine" will vary across time and cultures, and not fitting in with the model of what one is "supposed" to be like _can_ be an influence in some people's gender identity. Similarly, some people are more plastic in their identity than others, and will respond more readily to conditioning.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> You may as well make a new gender for any small variance you have from each other, because if there's no stopping point for genders, then it becomes a multiplying construct; it will continue to reduce until it shrinks down to the individual themselves. That's also a reason why the LGBTQ+ acronym is becoming longer and longer, it's almost a parody by this point.


Genders are categories, labels. They _do_ ultimately shrink down to the individual level. Sexualities as well. Because people are unique. That said, most of the letters in _any_ of the QUILTBAG acronyms do _not_ refer to gender (T for trans and _possibly_ Q for queer), so you're kind of heaping undeserved blame on non-binary folks, there. Given you seem quite determined to _not_ respect the identification of non-binary individuals, I don't see much point in going into the ~15 year process of arriving at my gender identity, though.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm going off the assumption that what you mean by social construct of gender you mean the degree of how masculine or feminine one is. Otherwise your post kinda confuses me.


The social construct of gender has nothing to do with individuals or how they present. The social construct of gender concerns the _model_ society builds around the concept of gender. Everything in our perception of masculine and feminine that doesn't _actually_ have any real basis in physiological/biological differences. I'm far from any authority on the subject, but to me it seems pretty clear that there's an idea of gender in society that cannot be readily explained by biology or even gender roles on their own (gender roles are part of the social construct of gender, but not the whole of it, and sometimes they may in part stand in conflict with each other).



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Well there still has to be a discussion about whether or not an identity could be legitimate.  Otherwise we get the LGBTQ+ situation where more and more identities erupt and it continues to expand until it's unmanageable.


Not really, no. There does not need to be a discussion where we say "well _your_ identity is legitimate but _you_ need to pick another one. Aside from blatant trolling attempts (which are insensitive as fuck for many of the same reasons) it's simply not anyone else's place to step in and say "your identity does not pass muster". It's dehumanizing and, especially if you demand the only acceptable options are "male" or "female", culturally insensitive.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> If I interact with you casually, if your demand for your subjective identity to be recognized by me begins to enter the conversation why would I bother interacting with you? If we were friends, closer than strangers or acquaintances, where we could have deeper levels of conversation beyond the casual, yes, you could discuss with me the issue of identity and what you would prefer to be called and if I believed it would do less harm and more good I may abide. But if we are going to have a casual conversation you can't demand I recognize your subjective identity.


1. Most people don't demand, but politely ask, that you respect their identity. As doing so costs you nothing, the polite thing to do is to comply.
2. If you interact with me casually chances are my gender identity doesn't enter into it.
3. If someone mistakes you for female, are you obligated to accept their misgendering of you without complaint until you've developed a sufficiently close relationship that you feel "deeper levels of conversation" are appropriate?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> We see the results of this in Canada with Bill C-16, a bill that requires you to utter people's preferred pronouns, no matter what they are or how legitimate they are, or else you could be fined or have property repossessed or be charged under hate crime, whether the incident was intentional or not.


That's not actually what Bill C-16 says. This has been gone over multiple times on the forum. It establishes gender identity/expression as a trait it is illegal to discriminate on.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> We should not be going around and, to use your words, "breaking more boundarires" over what is essentially an aberration statistically speaking. I agree there is a lot of unexplored territory, but that doesn't mean we need to rehash our entire understanding of gender, because clearly we got something correct when 99% of the world belongs in the categories of either male or female in terms of gender identity.


Let's stop all research into rare congenital conditions, too, then. They're basically statistical anomalies so why sink the funds into finding treatments for them? :V

The fact that there are multiple cultures that have, independently, developed some kind of concept of genders outside the male-female binary seems to me to be an indicator that non-binary gender identities are something more than a fad. These are old traditions, note, predating Tumblr and the Internet by a significant margin.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 20, 2018)

Troj said:


> The vast majority, yes.
> 
> But,  1% of 7 billion is still 70,000,000 people you have to account for in some way.
> 
> ...



Cultures older than ours also didn't have science.  They invented a third gender to accommodate anomalous individuals.  But you're comparing the invention of a third gender mostly pre-science to the invention of 75 genders post-science.  So you're not really taking any blame off postmodernism.  They're not even comparable situations.


----------



## Troj (Feb 20, 2018)

The 75 genders business is people trying to make sense of the territory, and like I said, I think it's a cultural phase. My feeling is that the sooner we let it run its course, the sooner we can get back to the nitty-gritty.

Additionally, I'm a bit salty about the "I shouldn't have to acknowledge your non-empirical subjective beliefs and inner world" assertion, given that a lot of us have been socialized to politely humor, and even, roll over for theists since forever, and those who've objected to that have been considered the spoilsports. So, people clearly understand the concept of politely humoring people even when they don't agree, and even, are often too happy to make others acquiesce to their beliefs in all kinds of really, genuinely intrusive ways that make "my pronouns are third-person" seem like wee little beans.

Anyway, 90% of the people who invoke PoMo have never read Foucault or Derrida, so they have only a pop-culture understanding of Postmodernism. It's an empty buzzword at this point. Everyone knows what it means, but few can define it. (And I'll even admit that PoMo Theory is outside of my main wheelhouse.)


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 20, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> See, this is the kind of behaviour that really ticks me off.
> 
> "You're saying that my label is bullshit, therefore you believe that I DON'T EXIST?! I'M NOT REAL? I AM AN IMAGINARY PERSON?"
> 
> ...


Glad to see the person come out and play.

You spew the most hateful  rhetoric towards everything. You are one of the most toxic individuals I have seen. 

I do wonder how many have you blocked due to the pure vile that you spew.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 20, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> A lot, yes. Especially with younger straight people (though not only so), I can see "well I'm not _not_ straight" leading to accepting default-assumption straight as their sexuality. Exposure to an environment where being straight is less taken for granted can then give those individuals cause to examine their own sexuality more closely than they already have. Men also have a stronger typical response to visual sexual stimuli. So if beefcake and gay smut gets circulated around those channels, chances are some of it will elicit a physical arousal response. Whether this leads to someone reevaluating their own sexuality is a case-to-case matter, but I can definitely see how someone who _does_ end up examining their own responses could shift in identified sexuality as a result.


Indeed. It is a rather fun and interesting thing to observe and partially be a part of.



Troj said:


> The 75 genders business is people trying to make sense of the territory, and like I said, I think it's a cultural phase. My feeling is that the sooner we let it run its course, the sooner we can get back to the nitty-gritty.
> 
> Additionally, I'm a bit salty about the "I shouldn't have to acknowledge your non-empirical subjective beliefs and inner world" assertion, given that a lot of us have been socialized to politely humor, and even, roll over for theists since forever, and those who've objected to that have been considered the spoilsports. So, people clearly understand the concept of politely humoring people even when they don't agree, and even, are often too happy to make others acquiesce to their beliefs in all kinds of really, genuinely intrusive ways that make "my pronouns are third-person" seem like wee little beans.
> 
> Anyway, 90% of the people who invoke PoMo have never read Foucault or Derrida, so they have only a pop-culture understanding of Postmodernism. It's an empty buzzword at this point. Everyone knows what it means, but few can define it. (And I'll even admit that PoMo Theory is outside of my main wheelhouse.)


No one is obligated to respect the feelings of others as they are subjective, especially not if doing so will require you to bend or even alter your beliefs/views/values/whatever. You could show respect for that person's identity, but it's not a requirement, nor are anyone obligated in any way, shape or form to conform to that person claiming to be X gender.

You can claim to be X gender. Doesn't mean someone have to conform to that claim, nor are they obligated to do so.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

Troj said:


> The 75 genders business is people trying to make sense of the territory, and like I said, I think it's a cultural phase. My feeling is that the sooner we let it run its course, the sooner we can get back to the nitty-gritty.
> 
> Additionally, I'm a bit salty about the "I shouldn't have to acknowledge your non-empirical subjective beliefs and inner world" assertion, given that a lot of us have been socialized to politely humor, and even, roll over for theists since forever, and those who've objected to that have been considered the spoilsports. So, people clearly understand the concept of politely humoring people even when they don't agree, and even, are often too happy to make others acquiesce to their beliefs in all kinds of really, genuinely intrusive ways that make "my pronouns are third-person" seem like wee little beans.
> 
> Anyway, 90% of the people who invoke PoMo have never read Foucault or Derrida, so they have only a pop-culture understanding of Postmodernism. It's an empty buzzword at this point. Everyone knows what it means, but few can define it. (And I'll even admit that PoMo Theory is outside of my main wheelhouse.)



I ain't rolling over for theism and I won't rolling over for pretend genders, either. Quite frankly it's extremely damaging to legitimately transgender people, because the amount of genders people are coming up with, and trying to legislate punishment for not using proper pronouns, is fucking absurd and makes people think trans people are complete dicks.


----------



## ellaerna (Feb 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I would actually like to draw a distinction between sexuality and gender identity, because I believe that quite frankly a lot of gender identities are completely made up. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really, just don't sue me for failing to use your pronouns properly.
> 
> So while I think gender identity is something social, I think sexuality is a. Mostly biological and then b. Psychological. After that maybe a bit of social, ie someone like you not experimenting with your urges because your area wouldn't accept it.


To be completely fair, most legislation about pronoun use is not "one person misgendered me once, to the prison with them!" but more "hey, this is getting to the point of harassment, please stop." Again, this harkens back to an old thread about proper pronouns in nursing homes in California. I feel like this is a lot of people making mountains out of mole hills. It's not that everyone with non-binary pronouns are out to get you, they just want the harassment law literature to include them and the ways they get harassed.


----------



## Massan Otter (Feb 20, 2018)

I always get puzzled when the subject of pronouns comes up on furry sites.  We're all quite happy to regard and address each other as wolves, dragons, foxes, bats, using fanciful names we've invented, yet people seem to struggle over a few pronouns.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 20, 2018)

DarkoKavinsky said:


> Glad to see the person come out and play.
> 
> You spew the most hateful  rhetoric towards everything. You are one of the most toxic individuals I have seen.
> 
> I do wonder how many have you blocked due to the pure vile that you spew.



i like how he gave you a totally valid critique, about you being an elitist who views other sexualities as inferior and you responded with "YOURE A TOXIC AND HATEFUL PERSON"

i think thats called....... *projection
*
i used to call myself demisexual when i was 14..... so... i know exactly how it goes. it really is the "im so special and better than you Normal People XD" of sexualities.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 20, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> i like how he gave you a totally valid critique, about you being an elitist who views other sexualities as inferior and you responded with "YOURE A TOXIC AND HATEFUL PERSON"
> 
> i think thats called....... *projection
> *
> i used to call myself demisexual when i was 14..... so... i know exactly how it goes. it really is the "im so special and better than you Normal People XD" of sexualities.


I'm convinced you're Maim. You type the same, use the same vocabulary even couples married for 18+ years sound different. The fact your always here when he's not the fact you both pick up on things each other says _All the time._

I'm convinced your the same.

Also when have I ever claimed to be better? All I've said is I feel alienated and I wish I could grasp or do things other do. So go ahead and keep on attacking me. Go ahead and harass me.

You wonder why people block you and wonder  why your name holds a bit of weight around here? It's for reasons like this.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 20, 2018)

DarkoKavinsky said:


> I'm convinced you're Maim. You type the same, use the same vocabulary even couples married for 18+ years sound different. The fact your always here when he's not the fact you both pick up on things each other says _All the time._
> 
> I'm convinced your the same.
> 
> ...



once again you seem to be unable to reply to anyone without resulting to a personal attack.
the fact that youre so defensive makes me think that you are hiding something like kill.maim.kill said.
maybe you are gay or bisexual and have homophobia so you are using "demisexuality" as a cover

in fact thats what i did. i was "demisexual" because like you,  i had ended up believing that all sexuality was immoral and gross and that people who are less sexual were better because very sexual people i saw as "perverts" and such.
but of course it was actually about my own insecurity. despite what i wanted to believe i did have sexual desires. and I was also in love with another male which to me, i believed that was unacceptable. i was very homophobic.

in the back of my mind i always knew my "demisexual" or "asexual" label was false and you probably do to. or else why would you spend so much time angrily debating it? you start picking fights over your "demisexuality" even when nobody is talking about.

we are not identical. and you know thats not true. you and others only say that because we like eachother and have eachothers backs. if we werent partners or friends i gauarantee that nobody would think that we are the same.

besides its not even relevant. look at the thread title... stay on topic. this is about sexuality not immature meta drama.
you say im a bad person with a bad reputation but at least i dont constantly reply to people with nothing but attacks and insults just to start drama.

and i dont need to be kill.maim.kill or have a psychic connection with him to know that you do actually act like youre overcompensating here.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 20, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> once again you seem to be unable to reply to anyone without resulting to a personal attack.
> the fact that youre so defensive makes me think that you are hiding something like kill.maim.kill said.
> maybe you are gay or bisexual and have homophobia so you are using "demisexuality" as a cover
> 
> ...


You're just a shitposter.  All you do is throw insults around and cause drama. You make it all about you.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

DarkoKavinsky said:


> Glad to see the person come out and play.
> 
> You spew the most hateful  rhetoric towards everything. You are one of the most toxic individuals I have seen.
> 
> I do wonder how many have you blocked due to the pure vile that you spew.



I never deny the fact that I'm far from a saint.
However, I am at least proud to say I don't shame others for their sexuality, nor do I put down others if their orientation or sexual behavior differs from mine.



DarkoKavinsky said:


> I'm convinced you're Maim. You type the same, use the same vocabulary even couples married for 18+ years sound different. The fact your always here when he's not the fact you both pick up on things each other says _All the time._
> 
> I'm convinced your the same.



You type and act _exactly _like every other "demisexual" on the internet. Word for word, you say the same things.
Yet I don't accuse you of having five hundred alternate accounts scattered across all forms of social media.
Funny, huh?


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 20, 2018)

LOL darko you just keep proving my point. every single reply is just an attack directed at me (or kill) and you disregard anything i actually say.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> i like how he gave you a totally valid critique, about you being an elitist who views other sexualities as inferior and you responded with "YOURE A TOXIC AND HATEFUL PERSON"
> 
> i think thats called....... *projection
> *
> i used to call myself demisexual when i was 14..... so... i know exactly how it goes. it really is the "im so special and better than you Normal People XD" of sexualities.


Personally I took Darko's response as a _totally valid critique_.  Or do those only work in one direction?


----------



## DivinePrince (Feb 20, 2018)

It's mostly biological, and partially experimental, imo.  A lot of people don't know what their sexuality is until the conditions are met and the right cords are struck.  But it's there, in your brain, waiting to be discovered.   And sometimes things like trauma and psychological disorders can mess around with it, and it takes a longer time to figure out what your sexuality really is.


----------



## Corrupt-Canine (Feb 20, 2018)

There are only 4 valid sexuality types. Straight, gay, bisexual, and asexual. Can you really get a simpler explanation than that? What's with all these deviating sexualities stemming into newer ones? By a stretch, you could be X-curious, but that's as far as you can push it. 

As for the first post, it's likely mental and psychological, you experiment with things until something sticks.


----------



## Troj (Feb 20, 2018)

Thinking about it a bit more, here's why I chafe at the claim at "I refuse to recognize imaginary/non-empirical notions," even as someone who genuinely values empiricism and being in touch with reality:

*Most of the people who play the "SCIENCE!" card not only don't know their own karyotype, they don't know much about their own bodies, period, and even more, tend to have about a 6th grade understanding of science overall. These people tend to get royally pissy when an actual scientist joins the discussion.

*If we truly, genuinely cared about scientific accuracy, we'd do a complete biological work-up on each and every person to discern their actual sex. As it stands, we come to a judgment about other people largely based on their outward presentation. Granted, this works well enough most of the time, but it ain't "science."

*Human beings harbor all manner of  strange,  irrational, highly subjective, unfalsifiable, and/or even, flat-our wrong beliefs about themselves, others, and the world. "I don't feel quite like a woman" or "I've never felt quite human-ish,"  is only the tip of that iceberg. The conviction that human beings can or should only have objectively true beliefs--_especially_ about themselves--is folly. A serious practitioner of Buddhism would probably laugh at most of the "I am___" statements you'd make about yourself. Anybody who thinks they don't court at least some delusions or illusions about themselves probably hasn't looked deeply enough.

*Even though people absolutely blur the lines between them, objective truth statements are different from subjective truth statements.  Arguing with people about things that can be verified in the outside world is fair and legitimate. Arguing with people about their own subjective feelings, appraisals, and preferences is usually folly.

*In my estimation, if you genuinely care about science, and you're truly worried about false or "woo" ideas damaging society, you should probably focus on stuff like climate change denial, the anti-vaxx movement, flat-earthers, miscellaneous religious fundamentalists, anti-evolutionists, Birthers, Truthers, Gwyneth Paltrow, David 'Avocado' Wolfe, and Russian social media bots and trolls. All of these movements and people make false statements about objective reality that have extremely grave and serious consequences for the world. It's weird to me that all of these science-and-objective-reality fans aren't nearly as hopped up about these things as they are about things like C-16.



Massan Otter said:


> I always get puzzled when the subject of pronouns comes up on furry sites. We're all quite happy to regard and address each other as wolves, dragons, foxes, bats, using fanciful names we've invented, yet people seem to struggle over a few pronouns.



"My name is Boop Snooterton, and my fursona is a wolf."
"Nice to meet you, Boop! I like your badge. :::woofs playfully::::"
"Nice to meet you, too! Also, my preferred pronouns are _____."
"YOU  CAN'T MAKE ME SURRENDER TO YOUR FALSE POSTMODERNIST PARADIGM, YOU CULTURAL MARXIST! YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!"

It's like, really? This is the hill you want to die on? This is the thing you want to tussle with people over? Really?

I think people get confused between accepting someone else's worldview, and accepting that they _have_ that worldview. You  can absolutely do the latter without having to do the former. You can get along with somebody while thinking that some of the things they do, say, or believe are crazy, stupid, or weird.



ellaerna said:


> To be completely fair, most legislation about pronoun use is not "one person misgendered me once, to the prison with them!" but more "hey, this is getting to the point of harassment, please stop." Again, this harkens back to an old thread about proper pronouns in nursing homes in California. I feel like this is a lot of people making mountains out of mole hills. It's not that everyone with non-binary pronouns are out to get you, they just want the harassment law literature to include them and the ways they get harassed.



Yep. Mostly, the people wigging out haven't read the legislation in question, and are jumping to conclusions based on their assumptions, or what their favorite Youtuber said.

Yes, sometimes laws end up being poorly written or poorly implemented, but I find it suspicious (to say the least) that the only solution folks can consistently see to a potentially poorly-written and/or poorly-implemented anti-discrimination bill is to toss it out altogether. Convenient, that.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Personally I took Darko's response as a _totally valid critique_.  Or do those only work in one direction?



"YOURE A DISGUSTING TOXIC PERSON AND YOURE BOTH EACHOTHERS ALT" isnt a valid critique. critique points out actual flaws (he thinks all sexual people are beneath him) reasons why they are flaws (its not ok to discriminate) and the steps to change said flaws (stop doing that. be more accepting. be nice)

"INKBLOODED YOURE SO TOXIC AND NASTY" isnt a valid critique because it doesnt tell me what the problem is.
how can i stop being "toxic and nasty" when i dont know what he means by that?

if he said something along the lines of "the way you word things comes off as cold and uncaring and its upsetting"(not saying thats what really happened, its just an example) that would be valid because that describes the issue and i then have some idea of how to fix it

but screeching and attacking me (while also ignoring everything i say) achieves nothing


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 20, 2018)

I just wish there were neutral pronouns in English that could agreed upon by all folks. Something that also isn't a tongue twister.

A neutral or even specifically non binary agreed upon amongst the community that doesn't cause your face to pucker would be delightful.

Neutral pronouns would be good in situations where you don't know the person or what they are. Or even if you don't frankly give a damn or need to know.

Saying one's actions or using a name only can get old quickly. I try not to assume an indentity but I noticed when in doubt I tend to default to female if I let my conscious mind slip.

I'm not opposed to pronouns. I'm opposed to 3000+ random pronouns that get perplexing and confusing.

While I may not believe all of them I am not going to be a prick right away and I want to hear their point of view.

Just understand that as a person with a speech impediment some of these words are impossible to say.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> "YOURE A DISGUSTING TOXIC PERSON AND YOURE BOTH EACHOTHERS ALT" isnt a valid critique. critique points out actual flaws (he thinks all sexual people are beneath him) reasons why they are flaws (its not ok to discriminate) and the steps to change said flaws (stop doing that. be more accepting. be nice)
> 
> "INKBLOODED YOURE SO TOXIC AND NASTY" isnt a valid critique because it doesnt tell me what the problem is.
> how can i stop being "toxic and nasty" when i dont know what he means by that?
> ...


The use of upper case here is very interesting.  If you scroll up Darko doesn't use upper case, but it's what you are seeing when you are reading his words.  Read his posts again, but this time take out the imaginary capital letters you've inserted and _actually_ read them.  Then read your own posts and count the attacks.  It's possibly going to surprise you.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> The use of upper case here is very interesting.  If you scroll up Darko doesn't use upper case, but it's what you are seeing when you are reading his words.  Read his posts again, but this time take out the imaginary capital letters you've inserted and _actually_ read them.  Then read your own posts and count the attacks.  It's possibly going to surprise you.



its called emphasis. i am doing it for humor


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

Congratulations on another successful trainwreck, everyone.
Things never change.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> The use of upper case here is very interesting.  If you scroll up Darko doesn't use upper case, but it's what you are seeing when you are reading his words.  Read his posts again, but this time take out the imaginary capital letters you've inserted and _actually_ read them.  Then read your own posts and count the attacks.  It's possibly going to surprise you.


He can't see me I blocked him.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> its called emphasis. i am doing it for humor


It really doesn't come across that way.  It comes across as angry more than anything.


KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Congratulations on another successful trainwreck, everyone.
> Things never change.


*ahem*


> You think you're so superior to everyone else, so much more profound and intelligent than others...


Take your share of the shame.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

DarkoKavinsky said:


> He can't see me I blocked him.


Ah, didn't realise that's how blocking works.  Thanks


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> It really doesn't come across that way.  It comes across as angry more than anything.



well thats not my intention. youre just assuming my intention, which is a very bad idea


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Take your share of the shame.



In what way did I imply that I was better than others?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Things never change.



No, you really don't.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> No, you really don't.



Cute.
You just can't resist, can you, Wolfy? You must really like me.
I'm flattered~


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> In what way did I imply that I was better than others?


You didn't directly, but your congratulations post does imply that you blame everyone else for the thread trainwrecking.  That's how I read it anyway.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

Inkblooded said:


> well thats not my intention. youre just assuming my intention, which is a very bad idea


Communication itself is an art form.  One that needs to be worked at, just like any other.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> You didn't directly, but your congratulations post does imply that you blame everyone else for the thread trainwrecking.  That's how I read it anyway.



Not _everyone._ And certainly no one specifically; it's just that the FAF community seems to be very good at making a huge mess out of topics that should've stayed civil.


----------



## backpawscratcher (Feb 20, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> Not _everyone._ And certainly no one specifically; it's just that the FAF community seems to be very good at making a huge mess out of topics that should've stayed civil.


Controversial topics creating controversial results is hardly a shock.  There's been much worse on other forums in the past.  Were you around when the Iraq War was about to happen?  Most of the Internet was utter carnage.


----------



## Inkblooded (Feb 20, 2018)

backpawscratcher said:


> Communication itself is an art form.  One that needs to be worked at, just like any other.



Thats not something i have full control over. i dont KNOW how others read my posts because im not them.
i also cant change anything about it if nobody tells me whats wrong


----------



## DivinePrince (Feb 20, 2018)

I really wish these forums were moderated more. If people can't stay civil on a forum like this, they should just be banned. I haven't seen a single moderator step up in any of these threads even though there is plenty of rule-breaking going on.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 20, 2018)

Mind if we stop bickering now? We haven't been on topic for quite a while.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 20, 2018)

DivinePrince said:


> I really wish these forums were moderated more. If people can't stay civil on a forum like this, they should just be banned. I haven't seen a single moderator step up in any of these threads even though there is plenty of rule-breaking going on.



That's because there is, seriously, only one moderator.
And one person can only keep up with so much drama.



BahgDaddy said:


> Mind if we stop bickering now? We haven't been on topic for quite a while.


Yup, that would be ideal.
Looks like that guy's stopped throwing a fit over the whole demisexual thing, so I think we can move on.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 20, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> That's not actually what Bill C-16 says. This has been gone over multiple times on the forum. It establishes gender identity/expression as a trait it is illegal to discriminate on.
> 
> 
> Let's stop all research into rare congenital conditions, too, then. They're basically statistical anomalies so why sink the funds into finding treatments for them? :V



For now I'd like to focus on these two points, and perhaps message you the rest of my argument so that it reduces the amount of clutter.

But I'm sick of hearing that Bill C-16 only establishes gender identity/expression as illegal to discriminate on.  Yes, that's what the bill was built for, and that's great, but what's not great is the surrounding policies that you're supposed to read in order to interoperate the Bill.

The Bill, in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, is to be interpreted by the Human Rights Commission and the Social Justice Tribunals.  So we're gonna do just that and I'm going to walk you through it:


Since the Bill merely adds gender expression and identity into the list of people you can't discriminate against, that's not the main issue I have, I merely name it as the beginning of this mess.  The Bill itself is not bad; the surrounding policies that are meant to coincide with the Bill is, however, absolutely incoherent.

The surrounding policies we have to look at is from the Human Rights Commission website.  So let's do just that; we'll look up the Ontario Human Rights Commission and go to their official webpage.

Next, we will go to "Code Grounds" and hover over it, then go down to "Gender Identity and Expression".  This will bring up a webpage, so let's read what it says:

_"Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, discrimination and harassment because of gender identity or gender expression is against the law. Everyone should  be able to have the same opportunities and benefits, and be treated with equal dignity and respect including transgender, transsexual and intersex persons, cross-dressers, and other people whose gender identity or expression is, or is seen to be, different from their birth sex.

"In 2012 “gender identity” and “gender expression” were added as grounds of discrimination in the Ontario Human Rights Code. To fully address the new Code grounds, as well as the significant legal decisions, policy changes and other developments since its first policy, the OHRC released a new Policy on preventing discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression in April 2014." ~Ontario Human Rights Commission webpage
_
Below this quote is a hyperlink leading to a 2014 policy on Gender Identity and Gender Expression.  Let's go there next: Gender identity and gender expression | Ontario Human Rights Commission

_"Everyone has the right to define their own gender identity. Trans people should be recognized and treated as the gender they live in, whether or not they have undergone surgery, or their identity documents are up to date." 
_
Already things are looking down.  Let's look at the full policy now by downloading the PDF; Page 20 of 62, the policy states as an example of Gender-based harassment:  _"Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun"

"Trans people and other gender non-conforming individuals who believe they experienced discrimination or harassment should try to raise the matter or make a complaint with their employer, union or other vocational association, landlord or service provider. If this is not possible or the problem is not addressed, they can ask the Human Rights Legal Support Centre for advice or make a complaint – called an application –to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario within one year from the last alleged incident."_
Now we've established that under the above policy, refusal to refer to someone by their personal pronoun is considered gender-based harassment, and that you can make a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.  What's the remedies for the Tribunal of Ontario?

_"If, in a civil proceeding in a court, the court finds that a party to the proceeding has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the proceeding, the court may make either of the following orders, or both:_

_ 1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect._

_ 2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect."
_

Thus, under all this, yes, with the inclusion of Bill C-16, you CAN be charged for not using someone's personal pronoun because according to Ontario, not using a preferred pronoun is harassment and punishable as a Hate Crime.
_

_


----------



## Troj (Feb 20, 2018)

Based on what I've heard and read, I have some reservations about the Human Rights Tribunal--but, they go deeper than just the current issue.  Yes, I've heard there is a history of people bringing frivolous charges against each other. But, I don't think that's a good enough excuse to just throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The text states that harassment is defined as the _refusal_ to call a person by their name or pronouns--so, there goes the common claim that you'll get tossed in the slammer for making an innocent mistake.

I still don't buy that it's a huge onerous burden to just call someone as they've said they like to be called.

I think this is a concern-troll plot by anti-LGBTQ activists to trick regular people into unwittingly sabotaging LGBTQ rights based on weirdo fringe hypotheticals.

My prediction is that in 20 years, most of those Tumblr genders and sexualities will be all but forgotten--because most of them just aren't that useful or practical--and at the same time, our cultural perception of gender and sexuality will have evolved to a point where, say, they/them may just become the polite standard default, or, maybe, a sizable chunk of people will identify as some form of non-binary.

Because most of us are essentially males or females at the basic biological level--which is a controversial opinion at this point, I realize--I reckon that most of us will continue to operate more-or-less as male primates or female primates from a biological standpoint, even as our socialized behaviors and subjective "stories" about ourselves continue to change. People will still be motivated to have sex, form pair-bonds, have children, and all that jazz. Life will go on.

But, my hope is that our society will have also made room for those of us who don't _quite_ fit in the standard-issue boxes, and that we'll be able to lead full, rich, happy successful lives on our own terms.  That's the goal here. Outliers are people too.

The current freak-out reminds me a a lot about the previous freak-out over gay people, and how they were going to destroy nuclear families and erode society and push to have sex with children and goats.

At the end of the day, though, my main worry is that LGBTQ are going to be tossed under the bus by dishonest activists and agitators who're pulling a bait-and-switch by claiming there's a huge army of angry activists who want to be called "zie" or something even weirder. It's an intentional distraction technique, and a mean-spirited one at that. We need to avoid falling for it. This is the main reason I tell people to just chill out and err on the side of being polite.

Also, at the end of the day, I'm just skeptical when people claim that some new thing is going to destroy civilization as we know it. This current hubbub sounds like another version of that old tune. Meanwhile, I believe in our basic ability to adapt and endure as a species, as long as we don't let the worst of our monkey brains get the best of us.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my mum a bit ago, where she claimed she could NEVER get used to saying "them," after using it about 15 times to refer to the hypothetical person that she wouldn't be able to refer to.   (She also regularly calls LaVerne Cox "them" with no problem at all. Um, yay?)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Thus, under all this, yes, with the inclusion of Bill C-16, you CAN be charged for not using someone's personal pronoun because according to Ontario, not using a preferred pronoun is harassment and punishable as a Hate Crime.


You said "whether it was intentional or not" - refusal is by definition intentional, so there you go. You did all the legwork of proving yourself wrong. Good job. If you'd initially said "Bill C-16 makes it punishable by law to purposedly misgender people" we'd not be having this discussion. 



Troj said:


> But, my hope is that our society will have also made room for those of us who don't _quite_ fit in the standard-issue boxes, and that we'll be able to lead full, rich, happy successful lives on our own terms. That's the goal here. Outliers are people too.


Exactly. I have for _years_ lived with the awkward dissonance of being female but experiencing personal affront to negative generalizations about men. I personally largely feel gender is not exactly part of my identity (I am "me", not a gender), but having a label that fits better with that dissonant reaction still sits better with me. The "female" was always a "well I guess since I have tits..." default anyway.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Feb 21, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> You said "whether it was intentional or not" - refusal is by definition intentional, so there you go. You did all the legwork of proving yourself wrong. Good job. If you'd initially said "Bill C-16 makes it punishable by law to purposedly misgender people" we'd not be having this discussion.



Actually, if you bother digging in the same document I have, you will know that what I've said is exactly true, I simply forgot to include it.  But lemme dig it up for you anyway.

_"Organizations have a legal duty and ultimate responsibility to maintain an environment free from discrimination and harassment because of gender identity and expression. They must take steps to prevent and respond to violations of the Code or they may be held “liable” and face monetary penalties or other orders from a tribunal or court. *It is unacceptable to choose to remain unaware, ignore or fail to address potential or actual human rights violations, whether or not a complaint is made.*"
_
This means that a company can be liable for harassment even if they were unaware of the occurrence.  Not directly on point but something to keep in mind since this is the kind of incoherency we are dealing with.

_"If the victim says the behaviour is unwelcome then the harasser “knows.” If the harasser didn’t know (or didn’t intend to harass), it is still harassment if a “reasonable” person would know such behaviour is unwelcome. *What is considered “reasonable” includes the perspective of trans people and other gender non-conforming individuals.*"
_
So really, it's up to the victim of misgendering to determine whether or not someone should have reasonably known.  Not to mention that Social Justice Tribunals operate differently than traditional courts.


----------



## Simo (Feb 21, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> In what way did I imply that I was better than others?



Because you are uncomfortable with yourself.

You and yer little baby boy...you two are a hoot! Oh so persecuted, oh my!

Have fun, playing the victim of who knows what.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 21, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> _"Organizations have a legal duty and ultimate responsibility to maintain an environment free from discrimination and harassment because of gender identity and expression. They must take steps to prevent and respond to violations of the Code or they may be held “liable” and face monetary penalties or other orders from a tribunal or court. *It is unacceptable to choose to remain unaware, ignore or fail to address potential or actual human rights violations, whether or not a complaint is made.*"
> _
> This means that a company can be liable for harassment even if they were unaware of the occurrence. Not directly on point but something to keep in mind since this is the kind of incoherency we are dealing with.


You are deliberately picking a very awkward reading of the text. The point is clearly that organizations should make a reasonable effort to be proactive on the issue. Say you have a pre-op trans employee at a company with multiple locations in cities which for the sake of this argument have had lively trans bathroom debates, and your facilities have only gender segregated bathrooms. There's a clear risk that this employee could end up getting grief over their gender expression. You should not wait for the employee to complain before issuing a memo clarifying your bathroom access policy (or just convert to unisex bathrooms). Or maybe you run a service for the public and receive a complaint about an employee failing to respect gender expression out of ignorance. You should then take the proactive step of educating _all_ your employees.

The big hint here is in the wording "choose to remain unaware". It's basically eliminating willful ignorance as an excuse.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> _"If the victim says the behaviour is unwelcome then the harasser “knows.” If the harasser didn’t know (or didn’t intend to harass), it is still harassment if a “reasonable” person would know such behaviour is unwelcome. *What is considered “reasonable” includes the perspective of trans people and other gender non-conforming individuals.*"
> _
> So really, it's up to the victim of misgendering to determine whether or not someone should have reasonably known. Not to mention that Social Justice Tribunals operate differently than traditional courts.


No, it's up to the _group_ perspective. It is, again, eliminating a defense of willful ignorance - you _might_ be able to argue that jokingly calling your cismale coworker Jack "Jill" when he comes in with painted nails one day courtesy of his daughter doesn't come with an expectation of hurt, especially from a non-gender-variant perspective. But calling your MtF coworker Jill "Jack" when she comes in wearing a plaid flannel jacket because it's chilly out is something you should reasonably expect to be unwelcome, particularly viewing the actions from a gender-variant perspective. (Assuming, in both cases, that you are only passingly familiar with the coworkers in question and don't have specific indication the joke would be welcome/unwelcome.)

The entirety of your argument also needs to be viewed in light of where these regulations apply:


> Under the Ontario _Human Rights Code_ (the _Code_) people are protected from discrimination and harassment because of gender identity and gender expression in employment, housing, facilities and services, contracts, and membership in unions, trade or professional associations.


It's not a "you as a private citizen have to do this" matter. It's a "companies and organizations have to do this" matter.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 21, 2018)

All laws can be manipulated for the worse case scenario. Look up the theory of one felony a day.

Now unless we get a non-binary hitler emerging out of Canada anytime soon I doubt we have anything to worry about. I think this bill is just copy and pasted from the other things against discrimination. 

The chances I hope of somebody going as far for a legal battle over pronoun use would be insanity as it would accomplish nothing but result in fiasco and backlash.

Granted I can see such bills being used for such horrific manipulation in the US. We've already had people go far above the call of what most people consider the point of "this ain't worth it" terrority.

But realistically vaguely or even incoherently written laws are cause issues. All it takes is one lawyer with an agenda and somebody's broke and in prison for the equivalent of a murder term.

And the term Human's right violation is enough to ruin anybody's life. It's kind of like rape charges. Even if you did nothing the damage of just going to court is immense.

Really surprised how far off topic this thread went.


----------



## Troj (Feb 21, 2018)

quoting_mungoUnder the Ontario [I said:
			
		

> Human Rights Code[/I] (the _Code_) people are protected from discrimination and harassment because of gender identity and gender expression in employment, housing, facilities and services, contracts, and membership in unions, trade or professional associations.



Woop, there it is.

This does not affect private citizens who are just be-bopping down the street.



quoting_mungo said:


> You are deliberately picking a very awkward reading of the text. The point is clearly that organizations should make a reasonable effort to be proactive on the issue. Say you have a pre-op trans employee at a company with multiple locations in cities which for the sake of this argument have had lively trans bathroom debates, and your facilities have only gender segregated bathrooms. There's a clear risk that this employee could end up getting grief over their gender expression. You should not wait for the employee to complain before issuing a memo clarifying your bathroom access policy (or just convert to unisex bathrooms). Or maybe you run a service for the public and receive a complaint about an employee failing to respect gender expression out of ignorance. You should then take the proactive step of educating _all_ your employees.
> 
> The big hint here is in the wording "choose to remain unaware". It's basically eliminating willful ignorance as an excuse.



Precisely.

It's rather like the ADA in that respect. (Well, until it got de-fanged  ).

Well, and as for the claim that it puts limits on speech--well, are you also upset that you can't call your black coworker "Chimpy" or your disabled coworker "Gimpy?" Not being able to diss them in that manner is also a limit on your speech, is it not? So, does that limit bother you, folks?


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Feb 21, 2018)

Can we change the title of this thread to  "Bill C-16 Problems, eh?"


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 21, 2018)

Simo said:


> Because you are uncomfortable with yourself.
> 
> You and yer little baby boy...you two are a hoot! Oh so persecuted, oh my!
> 
> Have fun, playing the victim of who knows what.



I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Uh, you have fun with thinking that I guess?
And it's a little strange of you to be calling him a "baby boy", when you seem to have a thing for childish play-talk, hmm?


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 21, 2018)

So, this 'misgendering' bill.
Does it make_ 'purposeful misgendering' _illegal?
Because I don't see gender identity as legitimate, I will refer to someone based on their actual sex, if they're lying I refuse to play along with their lie.
Not out of spite. Not out of hate. 
Simply because I live in the real world and I don't have the time or energy for stupid games.

Now now, before you all collectively soil your diapers - like angry, incontinent patients in a senior citizen's home - I don't live anywhere where such law is being implemented, or even somewhere where being transgender is trendy.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 21, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Uh, you have fun with thinking that I guess?
> And it's a little strange of you to be calling him a "baby boy", when you seem to have a thing for childish play-talk, hmm?



Ew. Just ew.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Feb 21, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Ew. Just ew.



What?


----------



## Zhalo (Feb 21, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> I will refer to someone based on their actual sex, if they're lying I refuse to play along with their lie.
> Not out of spite. Not out of hate.
> Simply because I live in the real world and I don't have the time or energy for stupid games.


The thing is you are disrespecting whoever's identity you are refusing to acknowledge on a very deep and personal level to them. It is kinda like with religious ceremonies where it is usully considered respectful to "play along" to some degree even if you dont believe in the religion and you are pretty much considered a douche if you don't. I would also like to say that someone who identifies as some special gender is not lying about their gender they truly believe they are that gender. Someone who thinks the earth is flat is not lying about the earth being flat no matter how factually incorrect they are.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Feb 21, 2018)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> What?



Your comment is just in extremely poor taste.


----------

