LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Be fair, bi-trending and aro-trending too. Only 20% of those words were gender identity-related.

And you're only strengthening my point.

A point that is fully irrelevant. Besides, bitrending doesn't exist for our generation. Luckily people have done away with this ridiculous biphobic concept for good - or at least they should grow a pair and shame on their faces if it still exists.

Suggest an accurate name for my gender.

[Grenartia]

You shouldn't have an issue with anyone. It's none of your business what transpires in someone's bedroom, nor what their sexuality entails. It's also not your business to determine if support groups should be funded for people. If you don't want to support a demisexual youth, don't support him. If you don't want your money to go towards that effort, clearly mark it in the memo line of your cheque. That level of discrimination does prove that demi's belong in the LGBT group however.

Ah yes the great plight of the demisexual.

Being laughed at. What utter tragedy. How many transgender people have died as a result of transphobia again? Because I dare say it's probably a lot higher than the fucking 'demisexuals.'

What you don't understand is that it is my business. It's the business of gay men, it's the business of lesbians, it's the business of bisexuals and pansexuals and transgender individuals of all genders and sexualities.
The straight girl who's faithful to her boyfriend does not belong in the community purely because she's fucking faithful! She doesn't belong because she doesn't look at other men! She doesn't belong at all! It's the queer community, and you'll forgive me if I want to restrict that to queer people.

Straight cis folk who think they can barge in because they have an 'abnormal' sex life can fuck right off thanks. Newsflash, our entire culture isn't actually about sex!

It's about love, and gender identity, and what we make from those two common things. The love a 'demisexual' might feel is no different than anyone else's, their process of identifying their gender identity is no different than anyone else's.

Start a support group if you want, but for the love of God stop demanding the rest of us join your pity parade. Forgive me, but we have real work to be done.

It also doesn't matter to me what anyone's orientation or sexuality is. Community is community. We can't pick and choose based on our personal feelings. We'd become no better than the intolerant fools that damn gay marriage, otherwise. I'll continue to support the community via fundraising. Every youth deserves the opportunity to find support.

Everyone deserves support, but some of us need that support rather more than others, no?

Here's the thing. I really don't care what you identify as so long as you don't fuck over the rest of us. This 'transtender' stuff? That fucks over the rest of us by making us look crazy. This 'demisexual' bs? Starts fucking over the rest of us the second you start equating it to sexuality or gender identity. It's not remotely comparable and we have no obligation to treat it as such. In fact, we have a moral duty to ensure that the most support goes to those who need it most!

The demisexuals are further down the list, somewhere after repentant criminals but before furries. You don't deserve to be mocked for your sexual preferences. They're not that weird.

But frankly, insults are the worst you'll ever have to face, so do me a solid here.


Suck it up, shut up, let the real minorities take the lead, and we'll get to you when we have time. In the meantime, I have neither the interest nor the inclination in spending time money and energy on those who will be perfectly fine on their own.

Maggie, while I agree with the overwhelming majority of what you're saying, the way you're phrasing it is, quite frankly, deplorable. I mean, its almost borderline flamebaiting.

And you're only strengthening my point.

A point that is fully irrelevant. Besides, bitrending doesn't exist for our generation. Luckily people have done away with this ridiculous biphobic concept for good - or at least they should grow a pair and shame on their faces if it still exists.

Suggest an accurate name for my gender.

Describe what it is. In plain english.

[The Steel Magnolia]

And you're only strengthening my point.

A point that is fully irrelevant. Besides, bitrending doesn't exist for our generation. Luckily people have done away with this ridiculous biphobic concept for good - or at least they should grow a pair and shame on their faces if it still exists.

Suggest an accurate name for my gender.

Pretentious?

Serious answer, genderqueer/nonbinary. Anything past that is a little bit much. You label yourself so much you hardly have any opportunity to find out who you actually are as a person! Find out who you are, that's way more important than what you are, for shit's sake.

This would be sad if it weren't so fucking funny.


E: I'm being contemptuous at worst Gren. Well, not at worst. Just contemptuous all the time, really.

[Agritum]

Demisexual really seems another name for those "Platonic" people.

[Cerillium]

Demisexual really seems another name for those "Platonic" people.

We're not platonic, Agritum. We're asexual. Gay, straight, bi, transgender - yes, we can be all those, too.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Demisexual really seems another name for those "Platonic" people.

We're not platonic, Agritum. We're asexual. Gay, straight, bi, transgender - yes, we can be all those, too.

A platonic relationship and an asexual relationship are synonymous.

Also good job appropriating the asexual label too!

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Well, I think I should really work on this translation, anyway. Maybe it will shed light for the more skeptical folks. Most of NSG who pays attention to my posts already is experienced with this.

The idea of binary and non-binary genders is a classification that works within the [originally] European system where sex equals gender, and there are only two "official" elements, posited to be opposites, in such consideration, and that those who present a dissident to such model should be compulsorily marked to either box, preferentially the one that is coherent with the whole "one life fate" narrative.

To have a binary gender means you identify as a man, or that you identify as a woman. Man and woman as well as their etymologically related male and female should here mean /identities/, rather than "corporeality", a term I re-purposed to signify the sum of genotype, bodily anatomy and neurological wiring, as well as particular subdivisions of it (such as those related to reproduction or endocrine function), when talking about biology.

Binary people might be cis or trans. Binary cis man is designated male at birth (DMAB), binary cis woman, designated female at birt (DFAB); binary trans man was originally designated a girl, while a binary trans woman was originally designated a boy. (Don't imply "were born as", whatsoever: there's no magic indoctrination making people who were originally cis - had an identity compatible with what was designated - turning into trans. It is ideologically slanted to have such a choice of words.)

Binary people, both cis and trans, might be dyadic or intersex. A dyadic person is one who possesses XX chromosomes, ovaries, an "unambiguous" ovarian reproductive system, and an endocrine structure based in a hormonization that is primarily progesterone and estradiol-fueled (estradiol is a precursor of estrogen), OR one who possesses XY chromosomes, testes, an "unambiguous" testicular reproductive system, and an endocrine structure based in a hormonization through primarily testosterone.

Intersex people are those out of this narrow possibilities, having an absence, ambiguity or "shuffling" of one/some or all of these characteristics. There are rather diverse forms of intersexuality, and even though some (such as the androgen insensitivity syndrome) require medical care, one shouldn't group them as a collective for imperfection or pathology. Some intersex people, like dyadic people, are fertile, while others are not, the only difference is that some intersex women (given their identifying of themselves as such) produce spermatozoa, while some intersex men (again, because manhood is determined through self-identification) produce ova, but that should not be taken into consideration when discussing gender in a society that recognizes parenthood by adoption and surrogacy.

One corporeality's ambiguity when it comes to the testicular-ovarian classification system (I avoid the word sex or sexual to refer to anatomy, mostly because some people really dislike - understandably, given how "biological sex" has intense cues of "it doesn't matter how you feel you are, your sentiments are absurd because you're ~born that way~ so you will swallow it and act like you are supposed to full stop!1!eleven!!") is entirely natural, for aside the existence of the X-Y system chromosomes, that might assume a function opposed to that otherwise expect of them because of an error during meiosis that causes the swap of the SRY gene (giving origin to people of apparently dyadic phenotypes that have a testicular corporeality and XX chromosomes, or an ovarian corporeality and XY chromosomes), the development of humankind's physical type would never have the means to possess this apparent ~sexual dimorphism~ without an intrauterine hormone bath. (All fetuses do not possess "sexual" characteristics until a certain point; many say humans are "all girls", because the form that gives origin to the testicular corporeality is more intensely marked by the androgen-based hormonization, but I don't really regard that as a correct assertion.)

This womb hormone bath, in the aspect of stuff in our body influenced by sex hormones, starts though a reading done by the mother's/pregnant person's body in relation to the gene information of the embryo/fetus, and takes place to configure our anatomy in extensive phases, each at a time. Aside from that, as we all know, nature has its occasional slips, and the bodies of some of the pregnant do not "read" the XX or XY chromosomes as supposed. To further complicate stuff, some people might be XXY, XXXXY, XYY, XXYY, X, and so on (Y monosomy is the sole non-possibility, it is necessarily lethal). Even more, people do not respond to hormones the same, everybody has a different genetic load and a precursor gestational development that hugely influences in the changes that such a hormonization might cause on the fetus.

Finally, this combination of fetal phenotype and uterine hormone bath, that every body of pregnant people secretes in a differing manner and liable to intense fluctuations, doesn't take place in a single bout. There exists first the configuration of the gonads, followed by the rest of genital anatomy, to be succeeded by endocrine gearing, and finally neurological wiring. The last one is perhaps the most sensitive, and differences related to the amount of release of androgen hormones combined with the given individual reaction to them was already associated in several studies with differences between sexual orientation kinds, the four sets of binary gender identity (cis x trans + woman x man), and a tentative explanation of the roots of part of the autistic and schizophrenic spectra, to name a few.

But let's not stop there. In actuality, every human being is unique, to few exceptions possesses a very individual genetic load, has a singular gestational narrative, and everybody has their, even if statistically irrelevant, amount of ambiguity - but statistics is a different kind of lie, and if we are going to appeal to it, then it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE for someone to be the plenary idealized "biological male" or "biological female" people talk about. The distinction that we make of dyadic from intersex is a socially constructed one, of arbitrary "functionality", because deep down, we are all a lot of impossibly diverse shades of possibilities that are never totally black or white (some shades are rather colorful). Further on this, if we consider the infinite possibilities to be intersex - and non-pathologized but still ambiguously dyadic -, we will see that the male-intersex-female biological sex classification (or, as I prefer, testicular-intersex-ovarian corporeality classification) is one in which intersex people are arbitrarily put in that blurry non-classification corner, in spite of all their diversity and similarity to us, because they are not "statistically irrelevant", so we [supposedly] can discharge as valid in our system.

Intersex people have a rather oppressed lived experience, so it is normal that many people just say they are intersex men or women without a need to specify cis or trans, as if birth gender designation was just a smaller part of it, in which they would not really fit in either arbitrary attempt, suffering similar issues.

1 in about 10 intersex children (they are 2% of the population), and an even higher number of those with ambiguous genitalia, could suffer a mutilating surgery without expressed, verbal consent, that might create just a hole not hard to surgically poke, without pleasure or lubrication, because truly it is not hard to open one (just not one that has a purpose and is not a frequent source of infections), just as an example, while turning them sterile or offing their phallus are other possibilities. Oftentimes this is masked as an aesthetic interest for reasons related to self-esteem (or would it be that of the parents or doctors), as an orchestrated secretion of the prejudiced component of these acts is done through invisibilization of indeed intersex conditions that were only recognized recently, given how in the science of olde ~tru hermaphroditism (compare transsexualism, homosexualism) is this and that related to gonads~ (exactly for this reason, besides being exotifying, among other issues, intersex people often reject the H slur).

I wanted to be really specific that non-binary people are not alone in their loss caused by the dyadic/gender superstructure, and that the components of said are not so obvious and unquestionable in nature.

I think anybody with a modicum of intelligence and common sense can realize that we can extrapolate from men and women clearly not being all the same, that their psyches are not determined by this wonky ~biological science~ where synapse organization also creates fully structured societal systems of work, emotional and symbolism division out of the blue, and thus much of their apparent behavioral difference is fully explained by social immersion. Such is that identity differences are a consequence of this total social immersion.

Not to mention how trans people's are already connected with said "anomalous" brain structure development so there's no reason to believe what is true for the brains of cis people also apply to ours, in the case they are actually born cis somehow. (I'm not saying we're born trans, maybe ever.)

Going back to our question about what is binary and non-binary... (Woosh! I think we already problematized the issue of biological sex as how academia or people in society interpret science enough for no essentialism or determinism based on that, right?)

Non-binary person is a person that identifies with a non-binary gender that is not originated from a non-Western culture, or that in some other manner identifies themself as non-binary. Or genderqueer, but considers both to be rather overlapping if not almost synonymous.

There exist various spectra of non-binary gender, such as "espectro ambíguo, espectro neutro, espectro agênero, espectro outrogênero/terceiro gênero/aliagênero/genderqueer, espectro poligênero/multigênero, espectro fluido, e misturas destes" - ambiguous/androgyne, neuter/neutral, agender/genderless, aliagender/third gender/genderqueer, polygender/multigender, genderfluid, and mixes of those -, among other possibilities. Some of them are direct consequences of the male-female classification system and how people see themselves included somehow in it, while others are more removed. Many can be really abstract in idea.

Non-binary people might identify as neither woman nor man, both woman and man, partially woman/man and something else, loosely feminine/masculine (or even femme/butch) but not exactly women or men (and often, also combined with "something else"), woman + man + other genders, an alternation between these types, among other possibilities.

Non-binary people are never cis and to declare them as such is to fully misgender them. They are liable to suffer cissexism and transphobia, both as individual violence or the oppression suffered by all trans people, and it is a consensus that they belong to the trans umbrella as long as they desire to identify themselves as such.

Non-binary people might be either dyadic or intersex, but, in both cases, they should never be treated as being ~actually~ men or women when they do not identify as such. I, for example, don't identify as neither woman nor man, even though people who try to guess my gender would say I'm a boy (and I don't even bother correcting them when they refer to me as guy/dude/boy/lad, even though I have huge beef with male/man/sir).

Finally...

People of non-Western genders, as a group, shouldn't be affirmed as being either binary or non-binary. It depends on them to assert what they perceive themselves to be as individuals, because the b x nb debate is a result of the Western gender relations. Many travestis see themselves simply as women, while others see themselves as rather non-women, and there are similar distinctions and disparities between their word on the topic in cultures very different from ours. (This text was originally directed a Brazilians.)

Nevertheless, as a general rule, when people from a Western culture harm or perpetuate prejudice against people identifying with these genders unintelligible to them, I think we should treat as a part of the same problem. Not just cissexism/transphobia, but as well as binarism - the idea that what fits there is only what ~God can create~ and that there aren't middle ways to invent, whatever it means.

As one can see, the idea that gender identity is connected to a biological role that trans people "choose to disagree with" is a shallow manner to see things. The imposition that our bodies and genitals should dictate our lives and minds is what is arbitrary, illogical and dangerous, and we should observe our language when dealing with this issue from such position of hostile social constructs and understanding of what constitutes u as what we are - because the sum consequence of the view society foments on what constitutes our existence is huge trouble to everyone minimally out of the standards, but most particularly as violence directed against us.

[Agritum]

We're not platonic, Agritum. We're asexual. Gay, straight, bi, transgender - yes, we can be all those, too.

A platonic relationship and an asexual relationship are synonymous.

Also good job appropriating the asexual label too!

Well, I study Greek and the a- prefix is used when there is a total absence of the thing it precedes.

So it's better if you just stick to calling yourselves Demi(half)sexual or simply Platonics. Nothing bad with that.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

A platonic relationship and an asexual relationship are synonymous.

Also good job appropriating the asexual label too!

Asexual people don't regard the concept of asexual community and asexual spectrum as appropriating. Take care of what is yours, daughter.

[The Steel Magnolia]

You make a lot of sense when you're using sensible language, Hetrio. Nothing you said in that is overly objectionable.

A platonic relationship and an asexual relationship are synonymous.

Also good job appropriating the asexual label too!

Asexual people don't regard the concept of asexual community and asexual spectrum as appropriating. Take care of what is yours, daughter.

I was going to reply to this with "the ones I know do" before I realized it was somewhat irrelevant.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Describe what it is. In plain english.

Neutrois (I feel neutral, and a bit apathetic, to masculinity and femininity alike, holding them as both anomalous stuff that doesn't apply to my weirdness at all) when I have nothing particularly interacts with me in a manner that I feel to be gender.

Media, random thoughts and sexuality can cause a fluctuation of butch sentiment, that can often feel strong enough to constitute some proto-maleness, but it's never enough when I'm not actually around men, properly speaking.

People are the greatest influence to my gender sentiment. When I have a legitimate interaction with them, the gender apparent from their expression or the one they report to identify with hugely influence my perception of myself. It happens through a weird "emotion" state. It is colder than affection and empathy, its closest equivalents, but the commotion is about as intense. I am liable to identify with just about every gender people I know actually identify with. So far everything from pangender to agender and from alpha to omega has worked.

It tends to happen more often and more intensely if we aren't relatives or part of a same household, if we are close in age, if we have a more meaningful relationship (friendship, for example) or I feel attracted to them otherwise, if I know them well, if the interactions happen in real life, if it happens in the context of an egalitarian exchange and there isn't a significant social pressure to make me act in a different manner because of machismo, if I'm not afraid of interacting with them in some way, among other constraints. But overall, it's really likely that it happens.

Conversations about gender with internet friends also work, as do reading about new genders I am willing to try to relate myself with in some way.

It feels like my neutrality is the root of my endless possibilities, a projection of myself in a Universe that isn't really my home. But also like my inert nature to be an intermediate state between these endless possibilities is what constitutes neutrality as my main energy, as if I didn't really need a particular connection to a given group of people if, in these regards, we're all unique and I'm just as distant to them as a whole as I can be really, really close. Just like a normal part of life. Some people are complete strangers, and some are home to us. That is how gender feels to me. An arbitrary way of feeling closer to someone and their state of mind. It's part of liking them and/or finding them beautiful as well. It can also be said that my neutrality pumps my friendly empathetic plurality, and vice-versa.

Does this make any sense already?

[Cerillium]

Well, I study Greek and the a- prefix is used when there is a total absence of the thing it precedes.

So it's better if you just stick to calling yourselves Demi(half)sexual or simply Platonics. Nothing bad with that.

It's a strange and broad category. There are people that are completely asexual. They don't seek or engage in platonic relationships (no love). There's no sexuality and no desire to form a bond. There are asexuals that form relationships and go through the motions to please the other person or to procreate. No enjoyment. Stimulus makes it happen. There are those that are demi. They have no desire unless specific circumstances arise and even then it isn't always "oh, well, perfect mate and I'm in love so I'm normal sexuality now".

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

It's a strange and broad category. There are people that are completely asexual. They don't seek or engage in platonic relationships (no love). There's no sexuality and no desire to form a bond. There are asexuals that form relationships and go through the motions to please the other person or to procreate. No enjoyment. Stimulus makes it happen. There are those that are demi. They have no desire unless specific circumstances arise and even then it isn't always "oh, well, perfect mate and I'm in love so I'm normal sexuality now".

Just a small correction. Aromantic asexuals are not more asexual than alloromantic asexuals.

Asexuality and aromanticity, as all sexuality and romanticity, are really discernible, independent gears, even though the stereotype is that they follow each other.

[Kelinfort]

Since I really don't feel like spoilering a wall of text at the moment...

Gren, I find these names odd as well. But if this undermines the legitimacy of the movement, then are we to conform to what gains legitimacy solely for that purpose?

Could you please rephrase the question?

Firstly, how does this undermine the legitimacy of the movement.

Secondly, I want to know why their struggle is not real. Certainly, the Internet is a duplicitous place full of liars and poseurs, but should we not at least try to reason with and discuss this with them?

[Cerillium]

Just a small correction. Aromantic asexuals are not more asexual than alloromantic asexuals.

Asexuality and aromanticity, as all sexuality and romanticity, are really discernible, independent gears, even though the stereotype is that they follow each other.

Het I love you but it's too many labels for me to handle. English is my second language.

Grey is grey. It's a good thing.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Het I love you but it's too many labels for me to handle. English is my second language.

Grey is grey. It's a good thing.

Okay, less confusingly: asexuals who love might be full asexuals, asexuals who don't love might be indeed partial/grey/fluid asexuals.

EDIT: Implying romantic love here. I've never really heard of people who are aplatonic.

EDIT 2: Woah, aplatonicism exists.

[Kelinfort]

What I don't understand is how these teens undermine the movement. They ought to contribute in a physical and meaningful way, and so on, but how are they truly hurting us? I agree the idea of "otherkin" sounds like bullshit, but with these genders, we must do more research on sexuality and gender. Not to mention, (as posted above) why are we to judge their struggle? Don't heterosexuals and cisgender individuals judge the struggle of homosexuals and transgenders, respectively? I mean, just take a look at Glorious Russian Lyett's post.

[Cerillium]

Het I love you but it's too many labels for me to handle. English is my second language.

Grey is grey. It's a good thing.

Okay, less confusingly: asexuals who love might be full asexuals, asexuals who don't love might be indeed partial/grey/fluid asexuals.

Hmm. Thought-provoking.

I don't understand what I haven't experienced. My perspective is limited to only my own life. I believe you can love someone deeply yet not in a way that would translate into romantic love. It's a comfortable pairing with someone that you would consider closer to kin than anything else.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. Then is it really a preference both who you get a crush on and who you have sexual desire for?

2. I mean, I have a feeling "preference" is not the right word, here, but I'm not sure and it's 4am.

1. Yes. But that still doesn't mean you can inherently control it.

2. It is the right word, I just think you think that "preference" means you can totally control it. Can you control which colors you like? Which foods you like? Same thing.

Well no, when people say "preference" I feel they mean "something they like, but can necessarily do without".

For instance, I have a preference for chocolate sweets, but I have no issues eating a vanilla sweet. I have a preference for the colors black, red, and white, but I have no issues using blues, greens, and browns.

I personally have a preference to have sex within an established relationship, but it doesn't mean I cannot fuck outside of one. Do I see it as less than what I had in mind and just a one-night stand and act accordingly? Yes, but it's not impossible for me to get aroused and get into bed with someone I am not in a romantic relationship with.

I mean, I'm sorry if my English seems unwieldy by this, but do remember English is my second language, and perhaps I'm falling short in understanding the connotations of preference from a primary-speaker angle.

[Grenartia]

You make a lot of sense when you're using sensible language, Hetrio. Nothing you said in that is overly objectionable.

Agreed, more or less.

Describe what it is. In plain english.

Neutrois (I feel neutral, and a bit apathetic, to masculinity and femininity alike, holding them as both anomalous stuff that doesn't apply to my weirdness at all) when I have nothing particularly interacts with me in a manner that I feel to be gender.

Media, random thoughts and sexuality can cause a fluctuation of butch sentiment, that can often feel strong enough to constitute some proto-maleness, but it's never enough when I'm not actually around men, properly speaking.

People are the greatest influence to my gender sentiment. When I have a legitimate interaction with them, the gender apparent from their expression or the one they report to identify with hugely influence my perception of myself. It happens through a weird "emotion" state. It is colder than affection and empathy, its closest equivalents, but the commotion is about as intense. I am liable to identify with just about every gender people I know actually identify with. So far everything from pangender to agender and from alpha to omega has worked.

It tends to happen more often and more intensely if we aren't relatives or part of a same household, if we are close in age, if we have a more meaningful relationship (friendship, for example) or I feel attracted to them otherwise, if I know them well, if the interactions happen in real life, if it happens in the context of an egalitarian exchange and there isn't a significant social pressure to make me act in a different manner because of machismo, if I'm not afraid of interacting with them in some way, among other constraints. But overall, it's really likely that it happens.

Conversations about gender with internet friends also work, as do reading about new genders I am willing to try to relate myself with in some way.

It feels like my neutrality is the root of my endless possibilities, a projection of myself in a Universe that isn't really my home. But also like my inert nature to be an intermediate state between these endless possibilities is what constitutes neutrality as my main energy, as if I didn't really need a particular connection to a given group of people if, in these regards, we're all unique and I'm just as distant to them as a whole as I can be really, really close. Just like a normal part of life. Some people are complete strangers, and some are home to us. That is how gender feels to me. An arbitrary way of feeling closer to someone and their state of mind. It's part of liking them and/or finding them beautiful as well. It can also be said that my neutrality pumps my friendly empathetic plurality, and vice-versa.

Does this make any sense already?

Yes, it does. Though, I'd honestly say, as a label, you should just say you're:

Neutrois

Yes, some amount of fluidity is normal. Hell, I feel it myself. But you don't need 10,000 different labels to describe your gender identity.

Could you please rephrase the question?

Firstly, how does this undermine the legitimacy of the movement.

Secondly, I want to know why their struggle is not real. Certainly, the Internet is a duplicitous place full of liars and poseurs, but should we not at least try to reason with and discuss this with them?

1. Allow me to explain by comparison. Somebody comes in to an LGBT space, claiming to identify as diarrhea, and being solely attracted to human piss and shit.

2. Yes, we should. However, we shouldn't take everybody's claims at face value, precisely because of liars and poseurs.

What I don't understand is how these teens undermine the movement. They ought to contribute in a physical and meaningful way, and so on, but how are they truly hurting us? I agree the idea of "otherkin" sounds like bullshit, but with these genders, we must do more research on sexuality and gender. Not to mention, (as posted above) why are we to judge their struggle? Don't heterosexuals and cisgender individuals judge the struggle of homosexuals and transgenders, respectively? I mean, just take a look at Glorious Russian Lyett's post.

I honestly doubt that the research will confirm the validity of shit like "zodiacgender", or "frostgender". Which are just as bullshit as otherkin.

I'm not going to comment on that last part, out of a desire not to set off certain "flamebait" alarms (even if I make the most diplomatic comments possible).

1. Yes. But that still doesn't mean you can inherently control it.

2. It is the right word, I just think you think that "preference" means you can totally control it. Can you control which colors you like? Which foods you like? Same thing.

Well no, when people say "preference" I feel they mean "something they like, but can necessarily do without".

For instance, I have a preference for chocolate sweets, but I have no issues eating a vanilla sweet. I have a preference for the colors black, red, and white, but I have no issues using blues, greens, and browns.

I personally have a preference to have sex within an established relationship, but it doesn't mean I cannot fuck outside of one. Do I see it as less than what I had in mind and just a one-night stand and act accordingly? Yes, but it's not impossible for me to get aroused and get into bed with someone I am not in a romantic relationship with.

I mean, I'm sorry if my English seems unwieldy by this, but do remember English is my second language, and perhaps I'm falling short in understanding the connotations of preference from a primary-speaker angle.

Yes, it does mean that, but that doesn't necessarily conflict with what I said, either.

[Kelinfort]

Firstly, how does this undermine the legitimacy of the movement.

Secondly, I want to know why their struggle is not real. Certainly, the Internet is a duplicitous place full of liars and poseurs, but should we not at least try to reason with and discuss this with them?

1. Allow me to explain by comparison. Somebody comes in to an LGBT space, claiming to identify as diarrhea, and being solely attracted to human piss and shit.

2. Yes, we should. However, we shouldn't take everybody's claims at face value, precisely because of liars and poseurs.

What I don't understand is how these teens undermine the movement. They ought to contribute in a physical and meaningful way, and so on, but how are they truly hurting us? I agree the idea of "otherkin" sounds like bullshit, but with these genders, we must do more research on sexuality and gender. Not to mention, (as posted above) why are we to judge their struggle? Don't heterosexuals and cisgender individuals judge the struggle of homosexuals and transgenders, respectively? I mean, just take a look at Glorious Russian Lyett's post.

I honestly doubt that the research will confirm the validity of shit like "zodiacgender", or "frostgender". Which are just as bullshit as otherkin.

I'm not going to comment on that last part, out of a desire not to set off certain "flamebait" alarms (even if I make the most diplomatic comments possible).

I just don't see why we should insult their perception. Definitely, we should challenge their worldview and the way they see/define themselves, but even so, we run the risk of alienating and discriminating against people who are truly non binary.

Terms like, "frostgender" and "zodiac gender" are suspect too, but these are just teenagers. They truly feel confused about their identity. While I certainly don't think these terms are appropriate, we must seek to have mutual understanding.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Degenerate Heart of HetRio & The Steel Magnolia: Can you please take your personal vendettas and keep them off the forum, put one another on ignore if necessary?

Not only that, but this is, as I recall, the LGBT Rights & Issues Thread. Not the 'all recently invented/recognized/imagined or otherwise constructed genders of all sorts Rights & Issues Thread'. I hope I'm not being utterly inconsiderate when I say that perhaps it might be wise to separate this into an 'Alternate Genders' and the more understood and widely accepted 'LGBT' thread that currently exists. There has been, from what I've seen here and elsewhere, more of a divide concerning all of that, than might be healthy to group all together.

This is not to disregard, dismiss, or belittle any other positions, opinions, and beliefs, but it just isn't helping things to cause more divisiveness here. We're not about preventing discussion. But neither are we wanting to create more drama, or force issues where they needn't necessarily be forced.

There has been enough nastiness posted here as is, and I may still go back and split things out on account, but for now, please. Let's split things out, and keep things civil. No one is doing anyone any favors with how things have been going here. It belittles everyone.

[Grenartia]

Degenerate Heart of HetRio & The Steel Magnolia: Can you please take your personal vendettas and keep them off the forum, put one another on ignore if necessary?

Not only that, but this is, as I recall, the LGBT Rights & Issues Thread. Not the 'all recently invented/recognized/imagined or otherwise constructed genders of all sorts Rights & Issues Thread'. I hope I'm not being utterly inconsiderate when I say that perhaps it might be wise to separate this into an 'Alternate Genders' and the more understood and widely accepted 'LGBT' thread that currently exists. There has been, from what I've seen here and elsewhere, more of a divide concerning all of that, than might be healthy to group all together.

This is not to disregard, dismiss, or belittle any other positions, opinions, and beliefs, but it just isn't helping things to cause more divisiveness here. We're not about preventing discussion. But neither are we wanting to create more drama, or force issues where they needn't necessarily be forced.

There has been enough nastiness posted here as is, and I may still go back and split things out on account, but for now, please. Let's split things out, and keep things civil. No one is doing anyone any favors with how things have been going here. It belittles everyone.

While I agree with your calls for civility, I feel I must wholeheartedly disagree with the notion of splitting up the thread. I'm not sure if you realize it, but that discussion, heated as it was, was indeed entirely relevant to the topic of this thread.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Well then, how do you propose to go forward while including everyone, not marginalizing everyone, and keeping things civil with everyone, given not everyone agrees, nor appears can be civil?

[Grenartia]

Well then, how do you propose to go forward while including everyone, not marginalizing everyone, and keeping things civil with everyone, given not everyone agrees, nor appears can be civil?

Status quo appears to be working quite well. With the exception of the recent trolls, I believe that exchange was the only one I recall needing any sort of moderator attention in a fairly decent amount of time.