Millie's LGBTQ+ lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more discussion thread

[AlexBailey]

To expand on my comment, why is it so hard for some people to show kindness and respect?

I think it’s because they only value themselves and those who can and will do something for them.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This is my first post on this thread, so I'd better say at the outset that I'm in favour of using a person's preferred pronouns.

The problem with the example you've just described is that there's a perfectly good word for the mafia behaviour you've described - 'intimidation'. If you say 'misgendering is intimidation' then it's pretty easy to look at that statement and go 'Yep, I see what is meant'. You can also say 'misgendering carries the threat of violence' if you want to make the link absolutely explicit.

The reasons you cite for the community choosing to use 'violence' over gentler alternatives may come from a place of experiencing both real violence and real intimidation and I can see why people might want to use it. But ultimately it's an attempt at redefining a word so it can be pressed into service for a cause and if you choose to use the word in this context then you either have to give the whole long speech about the theoretical underpinnings of it, or you have to risk people just going 'no, it isn't.'

You and I are in agreement here. I think it's imprecise language that's easily misunderstood and open to deliberate misrepresentation by malicious parties who want to put a "look at these ridiculous SJWs" spin on it. But even if it's not language I would use or recommend myself, I wanted to clarify why people do use it that way.

(I think part of it is also an ingroup-vs-outgroup language thing; the terminology is less of a problem when used between people who understand what it means, more of a problem when used in front of those who don't understand, but a lot of folk have problems changing gears between one communication situation and another.)

If we now say something like 'He was violently assaulted' - what actually happened? If violence is speech and assault can be verbal, possibly not what we used to think.

FWIW, in some jurisdictions the crime of "assault" involves actual physical violence, and in others merely the threat of violence constitutes "assault". So that particular term is already ambiguous.

A similar thing has happened with the word Nazi. Jordan Peterson (to take a name at random) might have reprehensible right-wing views, he might be someone you want to argue against but he's probably not a card-carrying National Socialist. All that happens by the words overuse is that you end up reading articles about someone like Nick Griffin and it takes you longer than it should to go 'Nope, this guy actually is a Nazi' - and with more of them about these days seemingly, it's good to have that clarity.

Acknowledged, though I don't think this is a simple one. I think most of us would agree that the current-day interpretation of the word "Nazi" should be neither so broad as "anyone with reprehensible right-wing views" nor so narrow as "only people who were card-carrying members of the NSDAP before its dissolution in 1945", but figuring out exactly how broad the meaning should be is fiddly. (I'd also note that a lot of the dilution of that term comes not from the left but from the right - cf. "feminazi", for instance - and there's also a lot of non-politically-aligned dilution coming from things like "grammar nazi".)

It's particularly difficult since some folk have a strong interest in keeping it ambiguous, so they can position themselves in that zone of ambiguity where they're interpreted one way by the general public and another way by their core supporters or by their targets, and neo-Nazi movements will deliberately co-opt previously innocent symbols to increase that confusion. It takes a lot of work to keep up with what the current callsigns are, and to figure out whether that dude with a "1488" in his username is signalling neo-Nazi identity or just a birthdate of January 4th/April 1st 1988, etc. etc.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I understand that your schtick here is to project a smug sense of superiority, but when you try to rank on Bramblethorn as a writer, you are way out ahead of your skis.

I've had that dude on ignore for a long time, because I pegged him as somebody whose chief interest in this forum is stirring up conflict so he can jerk off watching it. But I will happily take this compliment from somebody whose writing I greatly respect.

 

[TheRedChamber]

You and I are in agreement here. I think it's imprecise language that's easily misunderstood and open to deliberate misrepresentation by malicious parties who want to put a "look at these ridiculous SJWs" spin on it. But even if it's not language I would use or recommend myself, I wanted to clarify why people do use it that way.

(I think part of it is also an ingroup-vs-outgroup language thing; the terminology is less of a problem when used between people who understand what it means, more of a problem when used in front of those who don't understand, but a lot of folk have problems changing gears between one communication situation and another.)

I'm going to skip over the in-group/out-group thing here for the moment, but yes I think it's potentially a big part of the problem.

FWIW, in some jurisdictions the crime of "assault" involves actual physical violence, and in others merely the threat of violence constitutes "assault". So that particular term is already ambiguous.

In fairness, I guess physical assault remains unambiguous - still violent assault also shouldn't be.

Acknowledged, though I don't think this is a simple one. I think most of us would agree that the current-day interpretation of the word "Nazi" should be neither so broad as "anyone with reprehensible right-wing views" nor so narrow as "only people who were card-carrying members of the NSDAP before its dissolution in 1945", but figuring out exactly how broad the meaning should be is fiddly. (I'd also note that a lot of the dilution of that term comes not from the left but from the right - cf. "feminazi", for instance - and there's also a lot of non-politically-aligned dilution coming from things like "grammar nazi".)

But these examples are all their own words or phrases - feminazi is a fundamentally different concept from nazi and causes no confusion to people versed in both meanings. There are alternatives that people could use for those they deem too right-wing - proto-Nazi, Nazi-lite, semi-Nazi, but increasingly they don't. But yeah, if you're going to throw the Nazi word around for modern people, it's a good idea to define what makes them a nazi (e.g. ideas of racial superiority, ideas about restricting speech).

It's particularly difficult since some folk have a strong interest in keeping it ambiguous, so they can position themselves in that zone of ambiguity where they're interpreted one way by the general public and another way by their core supporters or by their targets, and neo-Nazi movements will deliberately co-opt previously innocent symbols to increase that confusion. It takes a lot of work to keep up with what the current callsigns are, and to figure out whether that dude with a "1488" in his username is signalling neo-Nazi identity or just a birthdate of January 4th/April 1st 1988, etc. etc.

This is a problem. Since Nazism is unacceptable, they do indeed often take up the furthest right position with is (semi-)acceptable. The danger is that not everyone in that position is a Nazi-pretending to be merely right-wing. But those on the left often use the word nazi carelessly to paint all these people the same which is a pity because some (okay, maybe not that many) of the right-wingers can be persuasive and semi-reasonable. The more the left abuse the word nazi, the easier it is for actual nazis to say 'who me? I'm not a nazi. They call everyone that'.

To put it another way, I remember being about twelve years old and watching TV. There was an election coming up and by law all party political parties are allowed to have a five minute broadcast in the run up. That day it was the British National Party. My mum obviously went to change the channel, but I asked to watch it and after the broadcast was over, I clearly had the impression "These guys by their own words are assholes." Everyone had always told me they were but it was good to be sure. Now perhaps the modern neo-Nazi is more devious that thirty years ago, but I'm still inclined to believe that the less we force them to pretend the clearer we'll actually be about who they really are.

(Given the thread I'm in I'm going to note I'm speaking from a white male cisgendered straight-to-bi perspective. Still this is what I think.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

Looking back towards the original intent of this thread...

When writing stories about LGBTQ+ characters, there are several different ways the author can take that.

One option is the non-threatening approach. My first story here was about two women who basically just want the same kind of life that a typical straight couple could expect here. They want to be able to acknowledge one another publicly and be accepted by their families, they want the right to get married and settle down with a house, maybe kids, and clothes with pockets. It's pretty much a standard romance plot except that the Big Obstacle happens to be parental homophobia rather than one of the other things that might get in the way of them being together. In the end parental love wins out over homophobia, the family accepts their relationship and everybody reconciles.

In contrast, one of my later stories has two women who get into a sex-for-pay relationship and explore kinky sex together, nearly have a threesome, and end up accepting that they're not meant to be together forever (and that's okay). Anjali ends up exploring the idea that maybe she's aromantic and doesn't want a life partner of any kind. Her parents never learn to respect her boundaries, and in the end she chooses to cut them loose rather than make the sacrifices that would be required to earn their approval. It's not the white-picket-fence story that the other one was; the attitude is less "we can all be friends, we're not so different" and more "I get to be me even if you don't approve".

Authors who fall under that acronym: when you write about LGBTQ+ characters, do you feel drawn more towards one of those approaches? Are you more interested in highlighting the things that your characters have in common with conventional straight cis people? Or are you more interested in exploring the differences? Or some third option I haven't mentioned?

Authors who aren't part of the acronym: do you prefer to read one of those story types over the other? Do they affect you differently?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Looking back towards the original intent of this thread...

When writing stories about LGBTQ+ characters, there are several different ways the author can take that.

One option is the non-threatening approach. My first story here was about two women who basically just want the same kind of life that a typical straight couple could expect here. They want to be able to acknowledge one another publicly and be accepted by their families, they want the right to get married and settle down with a house, maybe kids, and clothes with pockets. It's pretty much a standard romance plot except that the Big Obstacle happens to be parental homophobia rather than one of the other things that might get in the way of them being together. In the end parental love wins out over homophobia, the family accepts their relationship and everybody reconciles.

In contrast, one of my later stories has two women who get into a sex-for-pay relationship and explore kinky sex together, nearly have a threesome, and end up accepting that they're not meant to be together forever (and that's okay). Anjali ends up exploring the idea that maybe she's aromantic and doesn't want a life partner of any kind. Her parents never learn to respect her boundaries, and in the end she chooses to cut them loose rather than make the sacrifices that would be required to earn their approval. It's not the white-picket-fence story that the other one was; the attitude is less "we can all be friends, we're not so different" and more "I get to be me even if you don't approve".

Authors who fall under that acronym: when you write about LGBTQ+ characters, do you feel drawn more towards one of those approaches? Are you more interested in highlighting the things that your characters have in common with conventional straight cis people? Or are you more interested in exploring the differences? Or some third option I haven't mentioned?

Authors who aren't part of the acronym: do you prefer to read one of those story types over the other? Do they affect you differently?

As a writer that falls under the rainbow, I think the inherent drama of being a societal outlier is very real and a natural source of drama and conflict. Whether that conflict is internal or external, it can be a driving force in a story. Transgender characters have an additional level of complexity over gay or lesbian, because gay and lesbian sexuality issues are more clear. Gay men like Gay men, lesbians like women. that kind of thing. When you add gender fluidity to the mix, it gets way more interesting.

Assuming a MTF character; Does she like boys or girls? Assuming boys I like him. he likes me but doesn't know. When do I tell him? How will he react? If he likes me, does that make him gay? Can he handle that?. can he handle my secret at all?

I personally enjoy the inner conflict more than the external. It can be so much deeper and cross so many boundaries.

 

[AlexBailey]

As a writer that falls under the rainbow, I think the inherent drama of being a societal outlier is very real and a natural source of drama and conflict. Whether that conflict is internal or external, it can be a driving force in a story. Transgender characters have an additional level of complexity over gay or lesbian, because gay and lesbian sexuality issues are more clear. Gay men like Gay men, lesbians like women. that kind of thing. When you add gender fluidity to the mix, it gets way more interesting.

Assuming a MTF character; Does she like boys or girls? Assuming boys I like him. he likes me but doesn't know. When do I tell him? How will he react? If he likes me, does that make him gay? Can he handle that?. can he handle my secret at all?

I personally enjoy the inner conflict more than the external. It can be so much deeper and cross so many boundaries.

As an outlier within the LGBTQ, I agree about how complex queer relationships can be. I’m poly pan by nature and it truly has been tough to find partners who can be okay with that.

My wife is very open minded but she herself is straight, maybe slightly bi. She’s had several relationships with men who were questioning their sexual orientation. Those stories have all kinds of twists and dramatic turns you don’t find in straight, gay, or bi stories. She’s into me finding men attractive but also somewhat insecure about it. She likes than I’m somewhat femme, but she gets insecure when I express feeling of being on the trans spectrum.

It’s stressful.

Living within a lesbian community for several years in my early twenties was a mind fuck. My girlfriend and I were in love but I felt constantly sidelined within our friends group. Many girls who themselves identified as social outcasts considered me an interloper, a potential rapist, someone trying to co-opt their safe space. We had gay male friends who were more welcome among some of our group than I was, simply because they weren’t into girls and so were seen as ‘safer’ than I was.

I’ve had many gay men hit on me over the years, or ask me out only to runaway when they realize I don’t identify as fully male. “But I’m into men, real men not wannabe women.” I was more than crushed the first time that happened.

I was nineteen when I first felt like ‘coming out’ but what was I coming out to? T and Q weren’t part of the acronym yet, and I was more than just Bi.

I’m not really trans either, I’ve had other trans women be uncomfortable me….

 

[KeithD]

As a writer that falls under the rainbow, I think the inherent drama of being a societal outlier is very real and a natural source of drama and conflict.

My GM stories tend to dispense with that sphere of "natural source of drama." I write a world where active gay activity is the norm and is accepted. This dispenses with having to deal with all that "societal outlier" layer of real life and allows me to go directly to the unfolding of the story in hand.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

My GM stories tend to dispense with that sphere of "natural source of drama." I write a world where active gay activity is the norm and is accepted. The dispenses with having to deal with all that "societal outlier" layer of real life and allows me to go directly to the unfolding of the story in hand.

I didn't mean to imply it was endemic tin everything, more that it does exist and can very easily be used in a story as a source of believable tension. Most common would be a first approach. Gay/lesbian offers the additional layer of being not the norm(les than 10% of the population) so there's a big chance the target is not going to be receptive, making the choice to approach riskier.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It is sad but true, to one degree or another, inside LGBTQ are many layers of acceptance and opposition to different groups in the overall group. Some lesbians can't stand men, not even gay men, the same with gay men and lesbians (though no such conflict with straight women). and so and so forth.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

It is sad but true, to one degree or another, inside LGBTQ are many layers of acceptance and opposition to different groups in the overall group. Some lesbians can't stand men, not even gay men, the same with gay men and lesbians (though no such conflict with straight women). and so and so forth.

Personal experience has taught me that lesbians are more accepting of the trans community than gay men are. Considering their seeming attraction to twinks and femboys, I find that quite odd.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Yeah, I try to be accepting of everyone. Though some people, straight or otherwise, are hard for me to get along with.

Personal experience has taught me that lesbians are more accepting of the trans community than gay men are. Considering their seeming attraction to twinks and femboys, I find that quite odd.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Yeah, I try to be accepting of everyone. Though some people, straight or otherwise, are hard for me to get along with.

Yup. Jerks be jerks whether they're wearing a garter and stockings or not.

 

[StillStunned]

Yeah, I try to be accepting of everyone. Though some people, straight or otherwise, are hard for me to get along with.

My assumption is that I dislike everyone, on a personal level.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

My assumption is that I dislike everyone, on a personal level.

get off my damned lawn, kid!!!

 

[Gamblnluck]

The complaint isn't that he made people feel uncomfortable. I'm sure they have been made uncomfortable by those better at it than him. My complaint is he dehumanized them by calling them "IT." Calling them by their birth-assigned gender is one thing; removing their humanity because you don't like what they represent isn't expressing an opinion; it's a direct attack.

Alright, I was going to even quit commenting here on AH because how my opinions were met. More to that below. I am only reading back over this thread because I was sent a private PM saying how I was being trashed once again. Not much different there.

I NEVER called anybody IT. This was answer to those who claim they are neither male nor female. I said if a person was not a he, nor a she what was the term? The first time I asked if 'NUL' or neuter. Got ridiculed for that. So finally I said, so if not a he, nor she, how about IT.

As a reaction I got personally insulted and ridiculed and called an IT and asked how I liked it. I don;t fall into one of those who disclaim my gender. If you don't like your sex, change it or remove it. But don't tell me I have to go all PC and call you THEY/THEM to acknowledge your lack of commitment to one sex or the other.
I realized I was spending or rather wasting far too much time on AH. I skipped the last couple days and actually got a few things accomplished.
I got something you CAN call me which I'm sure will get all kinds of snarky insults that I will not be reading. You can call me GONE.

 

[AlexBailey]

Alright, I was going to even quit commenting here on AH because how my opinions were met. More to that below. I am only reading back over this thread because I was sent a private PM saying how I was being trashed once again. Not much different there.

I NEVER called anybody IT. This was answer to those who claim they are neither male nor female. I said if a person was not a he, nor a she what was the term? The first time I asked if 'NUL' or neuter. Got ridiculed for that. So finally I said, so if not a he, nor she, how about IT.

As a reaction I got personally insulted and ridiculed and called an IT and asked how I liked it. I don;t fall into one of those who disclaim my gender. If you don't like your sex, change it or remove it. But don't tell me I have to go all PC and call you THEY/THEM to acknowledge your lack of commitment to one sex or the other.
I realized I was spending or rather wasting far too much time on AH. I skipped the last couple days and actually got a few things accomplished.
I got something you CAN call me which I'm sure will get all kinds of snarky insults that I will not be reading. You can call me GONE.

A name as a different issue. But tell you what, you use whatever pronouns you want. If a person tells me they are neither male nor female, because today they decided to identify that way, I will use IT, a singular non sexed pronoun.

Gonna call yourself a liar or do you just want to pretend you didn't say it?

 

[Gamblnluck]

This got dropped when I posted... I never said I was intolerant of any of the LGBTQ activities or people. I said I was intolerant of being told by the liberal PC movement that I am to embrace and applaud them (referring to trans) and call them by select pronouns of their choosing because they no longer wanted to be defined/described etc by any particular sex.

 

[MillieDynamite]

What you said, was...

A name as a different issue. But tell you what, you use whatever pronouns you want. If a person tells me they are neither male nor female, because today they decided to identify that way, I will use IT, a singular non sexed pronoun.

Which everyone in here who isn't living or doesn't feel comfortable with their original sex felt you called them. I don't want you to leave, but to be polite to the people you are making exchanges with. That wasn't polite.

Alright, I was going to even quit commenting here on AH because how my opinions were met. More to that below. I am only reading back over this thread because I was sent a private PM saying how I was being trashed once again. Not much different there.

I NEVER called anybody IT. This was answer to those who claim they are neither male nor female. I said if a person was not a he, nor a she what was the term? The first time I asked if 'NUL' or neuter. Got ridiculed for that. So finally I said, so if not a he, nor she, how about IT.

As a reaction I got personally insulted and ridiculed and called an IT and asked how I liked it. I don;t fall into one of those who disclaim my gender. If you don't like your sex, change it or remove it. But don't tell me I have to go all PC and call you THEY/THEM to acknowledge your lack of commitment to one sex or the other.
I realized I was spending or rather wasting far too much time on AH. I skipped the last couple days and actually got a few things accomplished.
I got something you CAN call me which I'm sure will get all kinds of snarky insults that I will not be reading. You can call me GONE.

 

[AlexBailey]

This got dropped when I posted... I never said I was intolerant of any of the LGBTQ activities or people. I said I was intolerant of being told by the liberal PC movement that I am to embrace and applaud them (referring to trans) and call them by select pronouns of their choosing because they no longer wanted to be defined/described etc by any particular sex.

Whatever it takes to excuse yourself.... anything but self reflection.

 

[AlinaX]

One of the great things about the asexual community (overlapping with arospec, trans and neurodivergent communities) going back way when is the huge amount of time and effort that has gone into understanding subtleties of identity and attraction that most people simply never need to know about. This has led to online dictionaries with hundreds of definitions of types of identity and attraction, and numerous experiments with different pronouns.

The typical conservative reaction to this is along the lines of, "Ah, look at all those snowflakes who so desperately need to be special, making up stuff that's so unnecessary and I'm not going to play into their delusions."

There are some people who even embrace it/its as pronouns because they don't associate with gender at all - I can't claim to understand this, but I am not so arrogant as to mock their lived experience - but generally speaking it/its is seen as dehumanising and there's no excuse for using it with people without their permission.

A degree of respect and even compassion is all that's being asked for.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

@Gamblnluck, I don't think your intention was to be so insulting. But you seem to be a bit tone-deaf, and your IT comment hit raw nerves on people.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There are some people who even embrace it/its as pronouns because they don't associate with gender at all - I can't claim to understand this, but I am not so arrogant as to mock their lived experience - but generally speaking it/its is seen as dehumanising and there's no excuse for using it with people without their permission.

I found "it" pronouns a lot more relatable after reading Martha Wells' "Murderbot Diary" series...

When I was small, I was really into Pinocchio/Little Mermaid type stories about constructed or otherwise alien people seeking to become human, which resonated with me for reasons I didn't yet understand, blah blah allegory blah blah Bramble's not-yet-diagnosed autism blah blah.

Murderbot starts with a similar premise (corporate security Terminator-like construct gone rogue), but the protagonist doesn't want to be human even though it's capable of masquerading as one. It's not that it hates humans; it likes protecting them, there are some it'd voluntarily die for, and it loves watching their soap operas. But it needs to be its own thing and find its own place in the universe. It doesn't fit into human ideas of gender, so it prefers to be "it", which is also how it refers to its best AI friend.

A lot of that resonated with me, both from an autistic perspective and from the gender side (if those even are two distinct sides). The idea of being worthy of acceptance and able to live among people who aren't like me, without needing to assimilate with them. For Murderbot, choosing "it" is about asserting that it doesn't need to be human to be a person. I guess it's related to what I was saying above about "we're not so different" vs. "I'm different and that's okay".

 

[AlinaX]

(I've written a couple of stories where the character uses it/its, but they're not published yet. Hopefully soonish.)

 

[XerXesXu]

For those interested in gender in non-binary cultures, here's a thumbnail survey:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle...S&cvid=ee8644b144ef4f639b8b5aa7de728bb9&ei=41