More attention to the OTHER members of the lgbtq+

[The Halseyist Faction]

No.

The current mad desire to not only catagorise people by what gender they identify with, as opposed to what gender they biologically are, is mad enough but vaguely understandable without then also feeling the need to define what everyone's sexual attraction is, and then subdivide that a few more times just to be sure.

You don't want to have sex with people? Great. That's strictly a problem between you and your current romantic partner, and only a problem if your romantic partner wants sex. I have no idea why you'd want to 'come out' to anyone, particularly your mother. It is fairly typical in my experience, not to spend considerable amount of time discussing not you prefered gender of attraction, but specifically how much/not much you want to have sex with your own mother or even your friends. Unless you're trying to have asexual relationship with them, it doesn't seem particularly relevent to them either.

Futhermore, it's not a complex subject worthy of attention in school. It's literally the concept of wanting to engage in a romantic relationship without wanting or feeling the desire to engage in any sexual activity.

No. No and a thousand times no to schools being turned over to studying this and passing exams on what gender or sexuality the minority of the minority wishes to be this year.

[Cekoviu]

The current mad desire to not only catagorise people by what gender they identify with, as opposed to what gender they biologically are, is mad enough but vaguely understandable without then also feeling the need to define what everyone's sexual attraction is, and then subdivide that a few more times just to be sure.

No such thing as "biological gender" as different from mental gender, buckaroo.

No. No and a thousand times no to schools being turned over to studying this and passing exams on what gender or sexuality the minority of the minority wishes to be this year.

I'm curious as to how you think that describes LGBT issues as well as where you think that tests on queer issues occur outside of optional queer studies classes at universitiss.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Nobody deserves any special attention against another... stop treating yourself like an endangered species of animal when your not... grow up

[Australian rePublic]

If people wish to remain celibate, let them remain celibate. What's to discuss? I don't see why we need to make a big deal about celibacy. If you wish to retain your virginity, then retain it. The only time we actually need to make a big deal about virginity is during rape (or certain religious practices). And this is coming from a virgin

[Australian Colonies]

Literally teach proper sexual consent and pretty much all the problems faced by asexuals disappear.

So no, they don't need special attention.

[Soviet Aidonaia]

And this is coming from a virgin

How’d you manage that, I had sex last year and I barely met anyone.

[Necroghastia]

No.

The current mad desire to not only catagorise people by what gender they identify with, as opposed to what gender they biologically are, is mad enough but vaguely understandable without then also feeling the need to define what everyone's sexual attraction is, and then subdivide that a few more times just to be sure.

You don't want to have sex with people? Great. That's strictly a problem between you and your current romantic partner, and only a problem if your romantic partner wants sex. I have no idea why you'd want to 'come out' to anyone, particularly your mother. It is fairly typical in my experience, not to spend considerable amount of time discussing not you prefered gender of attraction, but specifically how much/not much you want to have sex with your own mother or even your friends. Unless you're trying to have asexual relationship with them, it doesn't seem particularly relevent to them either.

Futhermore, it's not a complex subject worthy of attention in school. It's literally the concept of wanting to engage in a romantic relationship without wanting or feeling the desire to engage in any sexual activity.

No. No and a thousand times no to schools being turned over to studying this and passing exams on what gender or sexuality the minority of the minority wishes to be this year.

The abysmal level of understanding demonstrated by this post does nothing but make me think that education on the topic is sorely needed.

Nobody deserves any special attention against another... stop treating yourself like an endangered species of animal when your not... grow up

*you're

[The Pacific Ocean Islands]

I must say that the whole concept of splitting people up into 'communities' seems a little bit like divide and conquer. Of course I understand having organised political pressure groups for issues such as gay marriage, in the same way that other groups unite to combat discrimination and injustice (whether this is civil rights for Black people or a minimum wage for workers). However, I don't understand the obsession with 'Pride'. Surely the most desireable outcome is that homosexuality (and other minority groups) are just accepted as a normal part of society, who are no different to anybody else except from who they happen to be attracted to. How does the culture of separating into groups and parading through the centre of a major city (the most visible face of pride) help to acheive this? Surely the greatest effect that it has is marking out lgbt... people as 'separate' or 'other' in some way. Rather than telling people that we are 'gay' or 'asexual' for example, why can't we just say 'I'm attracted to (other) males' or 'I'm not sexually attracted to anybody'. As far as I'm concerned, this would solve a number of problems:

1) The mental segregation of minorities, as described above
2) People would not need to be taught what particular words mean - there is no need to worry about defining the term when you can just explain yourself (ask if you need
that rephrased)
3) People who are still exploring their sexuality would not feel the need to try and force themselves into one of a finite number of groups, rather than simply accepting
themselves however they are
4) We could end the (rather iritating) stereotyping of particular groups. As a 'gay' person, some might expect me to be effeminate, vain, soft, artisitic. I might be expected to
speak in a rather annoying* high-pitched voice. I am none of those things. I don't think anyone upon meeting me in the street would have the immeditate reaction of 'he's
gay', I only car about my appearance to the extent of beng presentable for formal occasions, and I am one of the best in my school at the sciences while I have no interest in
any of the artistic subjects (other than recognising that drama would have been beneficial from a public speaking perspective). I'm not really sure how to describe my voice,
but its a million miles away from stereotype. If somebody who has never met me hears that I am 'gay' they may expect to meet a completely different person as a result of
these stereotypes, whereas if we dropped the artificial labels we could drop the baggage of these stereotypes with them.

I think my answer to the OP's question is somewhere in point 2, with additional explanation elsewhere. I would also respond to the OP by saying that there are already too many other areas of PSHCE which need to be improved first (finance and politics being the primary examples) and this is something which I hear young people from all LAs across the country saying. I feel that it is more important to devote limited school time to this that to teaching about small minorities of small minorities, in a way which I feel would be counterproductive in any case.


*My irrational opinion, but a lot of stereotypical gay manerisms, including the voice, are traits I find slightly grating for some reason

[The New California Republic]

I believe that these aspects of the LGBT+ should be discussed more in schools, for instance, rather than bullying [...]

No. Judging by the extent of bullying in schools, more needs to be done about bullying, not less...

[The Pacific Ocean Islands]

I believe that these aspects of the LGBT+ should be discussed more in schools, for instance, rather than bullying [...]

No. Judging by the extent of bullying in schools, more needs to be done about bullying, not less...

And this is surely counterproductive if the bullying is homophibic (etc.) in nature

[The Halseyist Faction]

No.

The current mad desire to not only catagorise people by what gender they identify with, as opposed to what gender they biologically are, is mad enough but vaguely understandable without then also feeling the need to define what everyone's sexual attraction is, and then subdivide that a few more times just to be sure.

You don't want to have sex with people? Great. That's strictly a problem between you and your current romantic partner, and only a problem if your romantic partner wants sex. I have no idea why you'd want to 'come out' to anyone, particularly your mother. It is fairly typical in my experience, not to spend considerable amount of time discussing not you prefered gender of attraction, but specifically how much/not much you want to have sex with your own mother or even your friends. Unless you're trying to have asexual relationship with them, it doesn't seem particularly relevent to them either.

Futhermore, it's not a complex subject worthy of attention in school. It's literally the concept of wanting to engage in a romantic relationship without wanting or feeling the desire to engage in any sexual activity.

No. No and a thousand times no to schools being turned over to studying this and passing exams on what gender or sexuality the minority of the minority wishes to be this year.

The abysmal level of understanding demonstrated by this post does nothing but make me think that education on the topic is sorely needed.

[Edit, not to mention that 61% of the poll is currently not in favour. Is their understanding Abysmal too?]

The abysmal level of effort put into your post makes me think more education on forum posting is sorely needed.

That's the effort you're putting in? - Your post proves you're an idiot. Therefore my side of the debate is correct. We should completely restructure the entire education of our school system on the basis that my understanding of the subject is apparently incorrect?

I think not.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Why people want to reclassify their low libido as asexuality so as to claim marginal relation to the LGBTQ is beyond me.

Pansexual is also a questionable term. It seems to me as similarly useful as being "colour-blind". The only reason I imagine it exists is because bisexual doesn't account for the various genders.

[Nakena]

Why people want to reclassify their low libido as asexuality so as to claim marginal relation to the LGBTQ is beyond me.

Not everything makes sense.

Pansexual is also a questionable term. It seems to me as similarly useful as being "colour-blind". The only reason I imagine it exists is because bisexual doesn't account for the various genders.

Pansexual is a slightly different topic;

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality,[1] is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity

[Nrutasica]

,It's literally the concept of wanting to engage in a romantic relationship without wanting or feeling the desire to engage in any sexual activity.

Which people somehow don't seem to get

[The New California Republic]

Pansexual is also a questionable term. It seems to me as similarly useful as being "colour-blind". The only reason I imagine it exists is because bisexual doesn't account for the various genders.

Pansexual is a slightly different topic;

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality,[1] is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity

Yup. I've heard it called "attraction to personality".

[Nakena]

,It's literally the concept of wanting to engage in a romantic relationship without wanting or feeling the desire to engage in any sexual activity.

Which people somehow don't seem to get

I thought that is called platonic relationship.

Pansexual is a slightly different topic;

Yup. I've heard it called "attraction to personality".

I am slightly pansexual.

[Cekoviu]

The abysmal level of understanding demonstrated by this post does nothing but make me think that education on the topic is sorely needed.

[Edit, not to mention that 61% of the poll is currently not in favour. Is their understanding Abysmal too?]

The abysmal level of effort put into your post makes me think more education on forum posting is sorely needed.

That's the effort you're putting in? - Your post proves you're an idiot. Therefore my side of the debate is correct. We should completely restructure the entire education of our school system on the basis that my understanding of the subject is apparently incorrect?

I think not.

Your awful comprehension of LGBT issues does put in a compelling argument for educating schoolchildren about them.

[Nrutasica]

The abysmal level of understanding demonstrated by this post does nothing but make me think that education on the topic is sorely needed.

[Edit, not to mention that 61% of the poll is currently not in favour. Is their understanding Abysmal too?]

The abysmal level of effort put into your post makes me think more education on forum posting is sorely needed.

That's the effort you're putting in? - Your post proves you're an idiot. Therefore my side of the debate is correct. We should completely restructure the entire education of our school system on the basis that my understanding of the subject is apparently incorrect?

I think not.

Your awful comprehension of LGBT issues does put in a compelling argument for educating schoolchildren about them.

Thank you

[The Halseyist Faction]

Your awful comprehension of LGBT issues does put in a compelling argument for educating schoolchildren about them.

Thank you

Case closed then. Clearly if I fundementally disagree with you, I am wrong, you are right, and we should educate everyone else to agree with you.
I've glad we've wrapped up this topic.

[Cekoviu]

Thank you

Case closed then. Clearly if I fundementally disagree with you, I am wrong, you are right, and we should educate everyone else to agree with you.
I've glad we've wrapped up this topic.

If your disagreement is based in a fundamental misunderstanding, yes. I don't think this is particularly difficult to follow, unless you're being deliberately obtuse and I'm just missing the deliberate part.

[The Halseyist Faction]

Case closed then. Clearly if I fundementally disagree with you, I am wrong, you are right, and we should educate everyone else to agree with you.
I've glad we've wrapped up this topic.

If your disagreement is based in a fundamental misunderstanding, yes. I don't think this is particularly difficult to follow, unless you're being deliberately obtuse and I'm just missing the deliberate part.

Who knows? You've made no attempt to correct any of my theoretical misunderstandings. You've just told me I'm wrong, considered that enough, and moved on.

[Nrutasica]

Thank you

Case closed then. Clearly if I fundementally disagree with you, I am wrong, you are right, and we should educate everyone else to agree with you.
I've glad we've wrapped up this topic.

I don't like how you completely transformed my words and ideas to make me sound "bad", "close minded" and selfish. All I'm saying is that, since some people don't seem to understand sexuality, sexuality being quite a big thing in our society today, maybe more people should have at least the opportunity to learn about it. At my school, for instance, there is a whole club dedicated to it. You can choose whether or not to join it, of course. Same here. If you don't want to know, good for you. You don't have to. No need to be so passive aggressive about this. You wrote these posts knowing that people were going to disagree with you. Maybe look at it from our perspective, which is what I try to do. Besides, as I am now mentioning for the 100th time, this does not only apply to sexuality. If we keep learning the same things over and over again, how do you expect to evolve as a society? It's all about understanding, but not necessarily agreeing with, different perspectives. In the future, try to keep in mind that the other person has their own perspective on things. It's not about making someone change perspectives, but more finding a common ground. Try to differentiate fact from opinion. They are different things.

Hope you have a good rest of your day,

L. A. S.

[Cekoviu]

If your disagreement is based in a fundamental misunderstanding, yes. I don't think this is particularly difficult to follow, unless you're being deliberately obtuse and I'm just missing the deliberate part.

Who knows? You've made no attempt to correct any of my theoretical misunderstandings. You've just told me I'm wrong, considered that enough, and moved on.

I've explained the most bsic aspects of LGBT identity to ignorant, uninterested cishets about a million times and I don't particularly care to waste my effort on deaf ears yet again. Call me crazy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Eastern Denmark]

in my experience, its just exhausting to have to keep on bringing up the lesser known/paid attention to members of LGBTQA. I've been active in gay (the region) for a year and to continue bringing attention to it is just exhausting because its practically never other members of LGBT who will do it, some of which even question the inclusion of it with LGBT as "its the absence of.. " asexuality and aromanticism are such difficult concepts to explain and understand i feel for many and its so tiring to explain and dedicate time to again and again, personally im still determing where i sit on the spectrum...

[Bear Stearns]

Hello,
I am the leader of a relatively new nation, Nrutasica (yes, Saturn backwards + "ica". Hence the flag)

NSGeneral is OOC, i.e. we do not pretend to be our nations here.

I mean...