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

[MillieDynamite]

So, we have 16 pages showing, but when I got to page 16, there was nothing there. This may be the first post on page 16, or it may follow one that is blank for me. It doesn't say I'm ignoring the poster, but I'm wondering if that is what the issue is. Sigh.

 

[Devinter]

So, we have 16 pages showing, but when I got to page 16, there was nothing there. This may be the first post on page 16, or it may follow one that is blank for me. It doesn't say I'm ignoring the poster, but I'm wondering if that is what the issue is. Sigh.

Perhaps. The poster above you is XerXesXu.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It could be, if so no one responded to him, as I see those posts, and that I'm ignoring him.

Perhaps. The poster above you is XerXesXu.

 

[Devinter]

It could be, if so no one responded to him, as I see those posts, and that I'm ignoring him.

That is correct, ma'am!

 

[M_K_Babalon]

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.

Some of that just makes me roll my eyes. These are the same folk that were all like; "I don't like labels", "labels don't define me", "screw labels", now look at'em... making up all thses new labels and bullshit, being defined by them to the point it's more than just a character trait and become their personality and m/o-- along with their mental illness, that's either real or contrived through self-diagnosis. Like fucking merit badges displayed on a sash/bandelier, or patches on a battlevest.

I do try to accept everybody and I'm a lot better at it, than when I was younger, but some people might be tollerable at best. Some people I just don't like, everybody's not gonna like everybody, and I ain't so jaded to think otherwise. Even if it is baseless or irrational... most, or a lot of human nature is irrational.

 

[MillieDynamite]

A certain percentage of people have always had tendencies, drawings, sexual preferences, and feelings of sexual or gender dysphoria. Even the Sainted Joan of Arc has an obvious sexual identity confusion. Women of her time didn't wield swords, dress in armor, and lead men into battle.

Long before Cook’s arrival in Hawaii, a multiple-gender tradition existed among the Kanaka Maoli indigenous society. The mahu referred to biological males or females who inhabited a gender role somewhere between or encompassing both the masculine and feminine. They held a sacred social role as educators and promulgators of ancient traditions and rituals.

In the late 18th-century tale of Deborah Sampson, called herself Robert Shurtlieff and fought in the American Revolution.

In 1864, Karl Ulrichs, a German writer and philosopher, first described the idea of a “female psyche caught in a male body.” Early writings suggested that transgender identities were a form of homosexuality, confusing the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. Transsexualism first appeared as a psychosexual disorder in DSM-III (1980).

Ann Mills fought as a dragoon in 1740. Hannah Snell served as a man in the Royal Marines 1747–1750, being wounded 11 times, and was granted a military pension. Dorothy Lawrence was a war reporter who disguised herself as a man so she could become a soldier in World War I.

 

[AlinaX]

Some of that just makes me roll my eyes. These are the same folk that were all like; "I don't like labels", "labels don't define me", "screw labels", now look at'em... making up all thses new labels and bullshit, being defined by them to the point it's more than just a character trait and become their personality and m/o-- along with their mental illness, that's either real or contrived through self-diagnosis. Like fucking merit badges displayed on a sash/bandelier, or patches on a battlevest.

I do try to accept everybody and I'm a lot better at it, than when I was younger, but some people might be tollerable at best. Some people I just don't like, everybody's not gonna like everybody, and I ain't so jaded to think otherwise. Even if it is baseless or irrational... most, or a lot of human nature is irrational.

The point you seem to be missing, is that there is huge diversity of experiences, and the aspec community perhaps better than anyone understand that there are hundreds of different experiences and labels are imprecise and useful mainly as self-descriptors during the evolving understanding of self, and as a way for people to identify others with similar experiences.

Thus, Amy starting a new job and announcing she is quoiromantic bidemisexual would confuse everyone, so she would more likely say nothing, and maybe she would say she's aspec to close colleagues, and if she met someone else aspec she might then specify quoiromantic bidemisexual, because that might then be understood and respected.

 

[RejectReality]

A certain percentage of people have always had tendencies, drawings, sexual preferences, and feelings of sexual or gender dysphoria. Even the Sainted Joan of Arc has an obvious sexual identity confusion. Women of her time didn't wield swords, dress in armor, and lead men into battle.

Long before Cook’s arrival in Hawaii, a multiple-gender tradition existed among the Kanaka Maoli indigenous society. The mahu referred to biological males or females who inhabited a gender role somewhere between or encompassing both the masculine and feminine. They held a sacred social role as educators and promulgators of ancient traditions and rituals.

In the late 18th-century tale of Deborah Sampson, called herself Robert Shurtlieff and fought in the American Revolution.

In 1864, Karl Ulrichs, a German writer and philosopher, first described the idea of a “female psyche caught in a male body.” Early writings suggested that transgender identities were a form of homosexuality, confusing the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. Transsexualism first appeared as a psychosexual disorder in DSM-III (1980).

Ann Mills fought as a dragoon in 1740. Hannah Snell served as a man in the Royal Marines 1747–1750, being wounded 11 times, and was granted a military pension. Dorothy Lawrence was a war reporter who disguised herself as a man so she could become a soldier in World War I.

Joan of Arc couldn't have simply felt she had a duty or a divine calling to engage in war? She has to be confused about her gender because she engaged in those pursuits against the norms of society?

That's projection. We haven't the foggiest what was going on in her head. Unless there's additional historical context available, several of the other examples are the same thing.

My sister went camping, and fishing. She went toilet-papering with us on Halloween. She watched Transformers and He-Man with my brother and I. She had her own Transformers and He-man toys. She broke one of my friend's arms playing king of the picnic table with us. She cusses like a sailor. She's been playing video games since the 80s. I can't recall her ever being in a dress or skirt of her own free will except for her wedding. She went into the military straight out of high school.

She's never had the slightest confusion about what her gender or sexual orientation is.

If someone was researching her as a historical figure, that's what's most likely to have stood out to them. She also picked out a pink canopy bed when given the option. She absolutely bawled with joy when I won a Cabbage Patch doll in some drawing at the local drug store and gave it to her. She had boy band posters on the walls.

Those types of examples are simply not good evidence for the argument. In my opinion they're regressive and potentially belittling. Taking what's a whole-hearted conviction to do something they believe is right — to the point they're willing to buck norms and even engage in deception to accomplish it — and ascribing it to gender dysphoria without evidence may very well have been insulting in the extreme to the people in question.

 

[Devinter]

understand that there are hundreds of different experiences

I have a question about this, if I may? A genuine "I want to learn" sort of question.

Firstly, let me just say that I completely agree that everyone has a unique experience and that you could technically label it in hundreds of ways, since people are complex. Now, I had to google what a "quoiromantic bidemisexual" was, and I am still not sure if I understood it perfectly. From what I gather, quoiromantic means you struggle with knowing if a connection you have to someone is platonic or not, OR that you simply don't want to put a label on that sort of thing. So it's a way of announcing or labelling that specific thing about your connection to others.

But let's take myself as the example:

I can only form romantic relationships with someone I know and trust. There needs to be an emotional connection there, and I take love incredibly seriously. From Googling for a bit, I believe that means I am something called a "demiromantic". I am also only really attracted to people who are somewhat intelligent, so I think I'd have to add sapiosexual somewhere. Monogamy is important to me. And I'm only into women, which I assume is still something that needs to be included if we're deep-diving into definitions of who we are. So I don't know how to put this together correctly but I think that means I'm "Demiromantic sapiomonoheterosexual"? Or something like that? Maybe I'm not writing it correctly, and I apologize if that's the case.

Now, my question is: When do I need this information? I mean, I KNOW this about myself. So I'd only need the label to share it with someone else. But why? It's not like I can only be paired with other people who have the same labels. Maybe my partner would be neutral to monogamy or polyamory, bisexual, and wouldn't care much about intelligence as an attractiveness-requirement. So they'd have a completely different label than myself. I don't mean to sound ignorant, but the only way to learn and to understand is to ask questions. So, again, what purpose does this serve?

 

[MillieDynamite]

You may be might have an argument for Joan of Ark. The other examples were women who lived as men. A woman fought in the Civil War as a man, One-Eyed" Charley; Charley Darkey Parkhurst was born Charlotte Darkey Parkhurst. She lived her life as a man. She drove a stagecoach after the war. Only when she died did they discover she wasn't a man. The ones I listed above existed as men. You may want to say that doesn't mean they were, in fact, feeling like they were men. Okay, you can say, but then why live as a man?

Joan of Arc couldn't have simply felt she had a duty or a divine calling to engage in war? She has to be confused about her gender because she engaged in those pursuits against the norms of society?

That's projection. We haven't the foggiest what was going on in her head. Unless there's additional historical context available, several of the other examples are the same thing.

My sister went camping, and fishing. She went toilet-papering with us on Halloween. She watched Transformers and He-Man with my brother and I. She had her own Transformers and He-man toys. She broke one of my friend's arms playing king of the picnic table with us. She cusses like a sailor. She's been playing video games since the 80s. I can't recall her ever being in a dress or skirt of her own free will except for her wedding. She went into the military straight out of high school.

She's never had the slightest confusion about what her gender or sexual orientation is.

If someone was researching her as a historical figure, that's what's most likely to have stood out to them. She also picked out a pink canopy bed when given the option. She absolutely bawled with joy when I won a Cabbage Patch doll in some drawing at the local drug store and gave it to her. She had boy band posters on the walls.

Those types of examples are simply not good evidence for the argument. In my opinion they're regressive and potentially belittling. Taking what's a whole-hearted conviction to do something they believe is right — to the point they're willing to buck norms and even engage in deception to accomplish it — and ascribing it to gender dysphoria without evidence may very well have been insulting in the extreme to the people in question.

 

[RejectReality]

You may be might have an argument for Joan of Ark. The other examples were women who lived as men. A woman fought in the Civil War as a man, One-Eyed" Charley; Charley Darkey Parkhurst was born Charlotte Darkey Parkhurst. She lived her life as a man. She drove a stagecoach after the war. Only when she died did they discover she wasn't a man. The ones I listed above existed as men. You may want to say that doesn't mean they were, in fact, feeling like they were men. Okay, you can say, but then why live as a man?

Respect in a male-dominated world maybe?

 

[StillStunned]

Now, my question is: When do I need this information? I mean, I KNOW this about myself. So I'd only need the label to share it with someone else. But why? It's not like I can only be paired with other people who have the same labels. Maybe my partner would be neutral to monogamy or polyamory, bisexual, and wouldn't care much about intelligence as an attractiveness-requirement. So they'd have a completely different label than myself. I don't mean to sound ignorant, but the only way to learn and to understand is to ask questions. So, again, what purpose does this serve?

Speaking as a complete outsider, and therefore willing to be corrected, I suspect it might have something to do with a sense of belonging.

If you grow up feeling that you don't belong, finding the right "label" can be comforting: there are others like you, you have a pack, a tribe. That's not nearly as important for people who never have a sense of not fitting in, because the whole world is their tribe.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Of course, you can dismiss all of the FtM as that if you want. It doesn't make it true. It also doesn't explain the Native Americans respecting the men who lived as women in the tribe and vice-versa as anything but transgendered roles. Or the Hawiian example I listed.

Respect in a male-dominated world maybe?

 

[MillieDynamite]

The Ancient Greek, Phrygian, and Roman eunuch priests of the Galli order have been interpreted by some scholars as transgender or third-gender. The trans-feminine kathoey and hijra gender roles have persisted for thousands of years in Thailand and the Indian subcontinent, respectively. In Arabia, khanith (like earlier mukhannathun) have occupied a third gender role attested since the 7th century CE. Traditional roles for transgender women and transgender men have existed in many African societies, with some persisting to the modern day. North American Indigenous fluid and third gender roles, including the Navajo nádleehi and the Zuni lhamana, have existed since pre-colonial times.

Some Medieval European documents have been studied as possible accounts of transgender persons. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus's lament for being born a man instead of a woman has been seen as an early account of gender dysphoria. John/Eleanor Rykener, a male-bodied Briton arrested in 1394 while living and doing sex work dressed as a woman, has been interpreted by some contemporary scholars as transgender. In Japan, accounts of transgender people go back to the Edo period. In Indonesia, there are millions of trans-/third-gender waria, and the extant pre-Islamic Bugis society of Sulawesi recognizes five gender roles.

In the United States in 1776, the genderless Public Universal Friend refused both birth name and gendered pronouns. The first known informal transgender advocacy organization in the United States, Cercle Hermaphroditos, was founded in 1895.

 

[RejectReality]

Of course, you can dismiss all of the FtM as that if you want. It doesn't make it true. It also doesn't explain the Native Americans respecting the men who lived as women in the tribe and vice-versa as anything but transgendered roles. Or the Hawiian example I listed.

I'm just saying that using examples like that doesn't help your argument. They're projection, and not fact. You're better off sticking with the documented examples that are far stronger, such as the ones quoted here.

Providing weak points in an argument like this allows opponents to tear them apart and sideline your stronger points.

 

[MillieDynamite]

@RejectReality you can reject reality all you want, but there is nothing new under sun, including gender and sexual dysphoria.

 

[Devinter]

A certain percentage of people have always had tendencies, drawings, sexual preferences, and feelings of sexual or gender dysphoria.

This is, of course, true since it exists today and I don't think that most people believe that we suddenly evolved to a more complicated species. But whilst I think that most of your examples are likely highly accurate, it isn't truly verifiable if specific people throughout history wrestled with these things. (Personally, I think Joan of Arc specifically may have suffered from mental illness, since she kept saying that she heard voices in her head, but that's also not verifiable.)

 

[RejectReality]

Getting offended and dismissing people who haven't disagreed with your larger premise likewise does nothing to strengthen your position.

 

[AlinaX]

I have a question about this, if I may? A genuine "I want to learn" sort of question.

Firstly, let me just say that I completely agree that everyone has a unique experience and that you could technically label it in hundreds of ways, since people are complex. Now, I had to google what a "quoiromantic bidemisexual" was, and I am still not sure if I understood it perfectly. From what I gather, quoiromantic means you struggle with knowing if a connection you have to someone is platonic or not, OR that you simply don't want to put a label on that sort of thing. So it's a way of announcing or labelling that specific thing about your connection to others.

But let's take myself as the example:

I can only form romantic relationships with someone I know and trust. There needs to be an emotional connection there, and I take love incredibly seriously. From Googling for a bit, I believe that means I am something called a "demiromantic". I am also only really attracted to people who are somewhat intelligent, so I think I'd have to add sapiosexual somewhere. Monogamy is important to me. And I'm only into women, which I assume is still something that needs to be included if we're deep-diving into definitions of who we are. So I don't know how to put this together correctly but I think that means I'm "Demiromantic sapiomonoheterosexual"? Or something like that? Maybe I'm not writing it correctly, and I apologize if that's the case.

Now, my question is: When do I need this information? I mean, I KNOW this about myself. So I'd only need the label to share it with someone else. But why? It's not like I can only be paired with other people who have the same labels. Maybe my partner would be neutral to monogamy or polyamory, bisexual, and wouldn't care much about intelligence as an attractiveness-requirement. So they'd have a completely different label than myself. I don't mean to sound ignorant, but the only way to learn and to understand is to ask questions. So, again, what purpose does this serve?

To some extent I think you have answered your own question. Microlabels are only important if they have a purpose, and often that purpose is just trying to figure out why you are different from other people and, "Hey, there's a recognised label for this thing, I'm not just weirdly broken somehow." Thus, if you're wondering how it is other people are always falling in love at the drop of a hat, and 'love at first sight' strikes you as improbable to the point of absurdity, then it might be useful to recognise that some people are demiromantic and need to establish an emotional connection before romantic love can develop.

Labels like monosexual and sapiosexual are probably only useful in more abstract scenarios where you are discussing how people are just different and attraction works in different ways. I think bisexuals are more likely to use monosexual - I don't really know how common the term is, but I do remember it being used a fair bit a few years ago - just to distinguish people who don't experience bisexuality, in the same way that cisgender is used for people who aren't trans and straight is for people who aren't queer. Describing yourself as sapiosexual is unlikely to be useful in general conversation, because you can't exactly say to someone, "Sorry, I don't like you, I'm sapiosexual and only attracted to intelligent people," but it might be useful for you in understanding the types of people you are attracted to.

So, if in the end, it's just an academic exercise with no real purpose for you, then fair enough, that's all it is. But for some people these microlabels are stepping stones to a real understanding of who they are, and a tool for meeting others who can really understand them.

 

[Devinter]

Describing yourself as sapiosexual is unlikely to be useful in general conversation, because you can't exactly say to someone, "Sorry, I don't like you, I'm sapiosexual and only attracted to intelligent people,"

I can totally see myself doing that, at least if I've had a drink. But I am on the neuro-divergent spectrum, and I just say exactly what I feel at times. Honesty is just a lot easier for me because subtlety is something I struggle with a lot. But hey, at least I don't have to lay awake at night wondering things like "did that woman I met earlier flirt with me or not?" because I wouldn't notice anything at all, causing doubt.

Thank you for answering the question. I really appreciate it. I do think there is an extreme importance in realizing who you are. It's a crucial step towards growing up, I think - and sometimes in modern society, we're so busy or distracted all the time that we don't sit down and just figure ourselves out properly. But knowing one's own preferences, strength and weaknesses, and so on.. It's highly underrated. And it's not like whatever you discover is set in stone, and you can't change over time.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I was only listing examples I have been reading about. When I can't write, as in I'm blocked, I read. I have no contract writing until after the new year. I can't write for myself at the moment because this F'ing headache is weeks old and I can't concentrate on writing like I have to do good work. Therefore, I've been reading on this subject. I'm just sharing what've been reading with you all.

And I'm not offended; I am adamant that I'm right and your wrong; that isn't being offended; that's being bullheaded.

Getting offended and dismissing people who haven't disagreed with your larger premise likewise does nothing to strengthen your position.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Actually, at a Christmas party the other night with Jo, one woman told a man hitting on her, "I can't talk to you for three reasons. I'm happily married, you're not intelligent, and you disgust me."

I can totally see myself doing that, at least if I've had a drink. But I am on the neuro-divergent spectrum, and I just say exactly what I feel at times. Honesty is just a lot easier for me because subtlety is something I struggle with a lot. But hey, at least I don't have to lay awake at night wondering things like "did that woman I met earlier flirt with me or not?" because I wouldn't notice anything at all, causing doubt.

Thank you for answering the question. I really appreciate it. I do think there is an extreme importance in realizing who you are. It's a crucial step towards growing up, I think - and sometimes in modern society, we're so busy or distracted all the time that we don't sit down and just figure ourselves out properly. But knowing one's own preferences, strength and weaknesses, and so on.. It's highly underrated. And it's not like whatever you discover is set in stone, and you can't change over time.

 

[AlexBailey]

. But why? It's not like I can only be paired with other people who have the same labels.

My explanation of this has a few points.

First off, a “Demiromantic sapiomonoheterosexual" isn’t considered an outlier. (You might add ‘Cis’ in there while you’re at it) Being raised in mainstream western society would not do much to challenge your inner feeling, few people you would interact with would challenge your identity or orientation, so you probably wouldn’t feel there was anything that needed more introspection.

Try jumping into my head for a moment. I’ve always had attractions that are all over the place, I had an inexplicable desire to be treated and dressed the same as my sister even though I have male equipment. I clashed with the mainstream in ways that upset my parents and peers before I even hit puberty.

My parents tried to redirect and discouraged me from attractions and proclivities that I naturally came with.

By peers I was disparaged as many labels that didn’t fit. Was I gay? No. Was I a sissy? No. Did I want to be a girl? That was tough because while I wanted to dress and be treated as females typically are I’ve been pretty happy with my body. I may have dysphoria but it’s mostly socially gender based rather than physically.

It took time and experience for me to figure out what I am and what I’m into, finding definitions that fit was a process, not knowing how I fit in the world left a nagging question. I didn’t even fit into the LGBT until Q was added.

I’m gender fluid, poly pan. It’s way faster and more concise than explaining all of the twists and turns. There are other more detailed issues but those are of less general importance unless I’m getting into a relationship with someone.

It’s very valuable when meeting people who are interested in intimately understanding me. Others have no need to know all of my details.

Having a broader understanding that wearing a skirt does not mean I’m gay, nor that I’m transgender is nice. And I can live as myself without being harassed or accosted when people already know some of this stuff.

 

[Devinter]

I didn’t even fit into the LGBT until Q was added.

Can I just take a moment and say that even though we complain about a lot of things in the world and our modern society, at least we're taking grand and important steps towards acceptance. It's a shame that you didn't feel like you had a place to fit in right away. Hopefully future generations will have an easier time.

I’m gender fluid, poly pan. It’s way faster and more concise than explaining all of the twists and turns.

This is also true, as long as you keep it simple. Even I know what that means. But it's not simple in the greater scheme of things. There's hundreds of things to keep track of. I found an entire wiki with a lot of different definitions, and to make it even more complicated, each had a different symbol or flag too. Honestly, I am a quick learner and I still think it would take me longer to memorize all the different words and colour patterns than to just ask people "What does that mean?" whenever it would come up in conversation, and I hang out with people from all walks of life frequently.

Picture below shows the different types of "is the feelings I am feeling platonic or not, and how do I deal with that?" definitions. This is just one sub-category. But at the same time, I don't think it does anyone any good to try and keep things binary when that clearly isn't how things work. It doesn't hurt anyone to have these labels, and I'm not in any way against them. I just - personally - feel that it is a bit overcomplicated for the average outsider to grasp. But maybe they don't need to grasp it. Maybe it's enough that you grasp it.

https://i.ibb.co/X5ZJYwT/Romantic.png

 

[RejectReality]

I was only listing examples I have been reading about. When I can't write, as in I'm blocked, I read. I have no contract writing until after the new year. I can't write for myself at the moment because this F'ing headache is weeks old and I can't concentrate on writing like I have to do good work. Therefore, I've been reading on this subject. I'm just sharing what've been reading with you all.

And I'm not offended; I am adamant that I'm right and your wrong; that isn't being offended; that's being bullheaded.

Thinly veiled insults and reiterating the premise I've never disagreed with as if I have would suggest otherwise, but I'm done anyway. That was the only point I felt was relevant the discussion, and I've presented it.