Too many Sexual Orientations?

[gimmepie]

I see no reason to bother with Tumblr; Tumblr only brings flame wars as well as shoving their "objective" morals down people's throats.

Now, I see no reason to make up all these sexualities or genders; after all, why should people sexually identify as an attack helicopter? What the hell is a "sapiosexual"? People are blind. There are only two genders, people born with both parts are either male or female depending on if their body generates testosterone or estrogen, and the only exception to this rule is transgender (because they have gender dysphoria, which needs to be treated before they harm themselves because they're not male or female.)

Now, let's take a look at this list. Pansexuality should not be classified as a "sexuality" because there simply isn't fifty thousand different gender identities, and the "non-binary" is only something people on Tumblr made up so they can feel special/garner attention. Also, Asexuality cannot be a thing because a human is, as said, a sexual entity. Besides, that term is already used for creatures that reproduce by splitting into two perfect clones of itself.

Honestly, most of these new "gender identities/sexualities" are jargon originating from Tumblr and used in the circlejerk of Cultural Marxists. They have no solid meaning outside of that circlejerk and anyone who genuinely believes in what it says and garner no attention to me.

Is there any thread, any thread at all, that will come up in which you don't use the term "marxist". Also, I'll get to the majority of your post along with Lipstck Vogue's below, but I think it's worth mentioning that "You can't be aesexual because that word already exists and means something else" is a pretty foolish argument when dealing with a language where homophones and homonyms are a thing.

I think a lot of these groups could go into one category really, super special snowflakes. I am a straight white male though so perhaps I'm just conditioned into thinking this way, I really will never truly understand the plight of a gender fluid 14 year old internet blogger with electric blue highlights in hisher hair.

That being said I've recently been finding myself more attracted to anime robots than in the flesh women. I could well be on the way to getting my own prefix.

Anyway, onto the main point. I don't understand why you both seem to feel morally offended by something that doesn't affect you at all. Just because you personally don't feel that way does not mean that other people can't.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell other people how they think and feel. You don't need to be able to comprehend the sexuality of other people, but you do need to respect it.

 

[Electricbluewolf]

This reminds me of this article back in January:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420203/Are-gender-fluid-demi-girl-intersex.html

This survey was aimed for children as young as 13.

When I was growing up (back in the day) you were attract to either male/female and you were either male/female. I understand now there are a lot more different feelings and sexualities now. In my opinion, if you aren't hurting or discriminating against anyone then I don't care what you identify as. This generation started as not wanting to be labelled, but now if we're not in some sort of group your are the odd one out. I think many people have started to feel they don't belong in a certain group, so they "create" a new one.

I have a lot of friends in the LGBT community, and they say there's people in there that discriminate against other sexualities or genders. I think it started as LGB, the Trans got added so LGBT, and now I know even more letters have been added.
The problems they have faced is that since more "groups" have been "discovered" more letters, abbreviations "pronouns", the less people take the community seriously. My bi friend often says how can people expected to take gay/bi/trans seriously when people try to add "wolf-kin".


It sort of feels like it's going backwards. I felt proud and supportive of my gay/les/bi/trans friends (and still do) when they joined a bigger community as it was wonderful support for them. But now they're starting to dislike certain gender, sexuality, as it's not bringing anything in a positive light.

However, you can feel different sexualities and feel different genders, and hell be whatever you want. Sexuality, you can be attracted by anything tbh. There are so many things we don't understand about the brain, especially attraction, that I'd be surprised in 50 years or so we'll look back and think how silly it all was.

I'm not going to treat someone with less respect just because they were born a man but feel like a women, or are attracted to different sexs. I treat them like a person,

 

[Kanzler]

I don't think anyone has the right to tell other people how they think and feel. You don't need to be able to comprehend the sexuality of other people, but you do need to respect it.

I sexually identify as an attack helicopter, do you sincerely respect that? Obviously, I don't identify as such, but I think it's unreasonable to respect literally anything that people have to say about their sexuality. Why is it that we draw a line between what's credible and what's not and where is that line for most people?

 

[Sopheria]

I don't think anyone has the right to tell other people how they think and feel. You don't need to be able to comprehend the sexuality of other people, but you do need to respect it.

In fairness, I don't think Lipstick Vogue was saying that he was morally offended by people using terms for their sexual orientation. I sorta read his post as him admitting he doesn't understand it because he doesn't go through it, and leaving it at that. I may have misread though.

I keep seeing people complain "Do we even need a word for all these different kinds of ____?" and that question and argument is just as ridiculous as pretending they don't exist. In fact, it basically is pretending they don't exist. Please stop that. It's not right.

I mean, this isn't really 100% true. For example, we don't have a term for people who are attracted to people with brown hair, but does that mean that we're all collectively denying the existence of people who are attracted to people with brown hair?

Keep an open mind for once and learn. With that said, labels are not always accurate, but they can sure get the meaning across, which is why labels exist. Much of language is symbolic, and we convey meaning through symbolic usage of language. To be dismissive of one particular usage of language as it was intended to be used is pretty unsupportive, and has no real place in a discussion, or as a legitimate discussion.

The thing is, I don't think it's right to broad-brush everyone who raises the question of "Is this good for the LGBT community, or is it actively harmful and does it defeat our cause?" as being "dismissive" or "unsupportive", as it were. Of course, there are people who raise this question in an attempt to belittle the feelings of others as "invalid" or illegitimate. But there are also people who raise the question because they do legitimately care about the LGBT community, its causes, its needs, etc. I'm pretty confident that most of the people who posted here are no less supportive, understanding, or open-minded of other people's sexual preferences than you are. There's just a disagreement on the usage of language, nothing more than that--we're all on the same side here, I think :)

 

[gimmepie]

I sexually identify as an attack helicopter, do you sincerely respect that? Obviously, I don't identify as such, but I think it's unreasonable to respect literally anything that people have to say about their sexuality. Why is it that we draw a line between what's credible and what's not and where is that line for most people?

You don't have to think something makes sense to respect it. If you came out to me as an attack helicopter, I'd think you were out of your mind, but I'd still respect your "insanity". I don't see why a big deal needs to be made of things. The world would be a better place if more people just went "Well that's a bit weird, but whatever."

 

[Kanzler]

You don't have to think something makes sense to respect it. If you came out to me as an attack helicopter, I'd think you were out of your mind, but I'd still respect your "insanity". I don't see why a big deal needs to be made of things. The world would be a better place if more people just went "Well that's a bit weird, but whatever."

Would I be correct in drawing a distinction between the "respect" for my insanity and the "respect" you'd have for your elders, for example?

 

[Frequency]

People are legit identifying themselves as Wolf Spirits/Dragonkin.

I don't think I need to address this any further than it's gotten out of hand.

 

[Omicron]

I sexually identify as an attack helicopter, do you sincerely respect that? Obviously, I don't identify as such, but I think it's unreasonable to respect literally anything that people have to say about their sexuality. Why is it that we draw a line between what's credible and what's not and where is that line for most people?

That is a terrible example, to be honest. People that identify as stuff like that are either insane or an example of Poe's Law. If Poe's Law, they have apparently been doing their job very well.

 

[gimmepie]

Would I be correct in drawing a distinction between the "respect" for my insanity and the "respect" you'd have for your elders, for example?

You would, although I admit I probably won't do a great job of articulating myself here. When I say you have to respect it, I mean I personally feel like it's wrong to judge something as stupid or false because you personally can't understand it. It's a similar sort of boat to saying "I disagree with your views, but I respect your right to have them."

 

[Omicron]

People are legit identifying themselves as Wolf Spirits/Dragonkin.

I don't think I need to address this any further than it's gotten out of hand.

That's another ballpark. It is idiotic and has nothing to do with gender/sexual orientation.

 

[Kanzler]

That is a terrible example, to be honest. People that identify as stuff like that are either insane or an example of Poe's Law. If Poe's Law, they have apparently doing their job very well.

But it's a terrible example which nevertheless begs the question: do we draw a line for what is and isn't credible? And where would we draw the line?

You would, although I admit I probably won't do a great job of articulating myself here. When I say you have to respect it, I mean I personally feel like it's wrong to judge something as stupid or false because you personally can't understand it. It's a similar sort of boat to saying "I disagree with your views, but I respect your right to have them."

You seem to suggest that you don't actually respect their sexuality, but their right to have it.

Personally, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to judge something as stupid or false because you can't understand it.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

I don't see why a big deal needs to be made of things.

I didn't make a big deal out of it. I took jabs at obvious attention seekers, but said nothing to indicate my opinion on much else. I'm surprised you commented on it at all really.

The world would be a better place if more people just went "Well that's a bit weird, but whatever."

I'd say that is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of people in the developed world right now. Even a lot of the older generations that grew up in MUCH different times have been getting on board.

The PC world we live in has created some monsters though - I genuinely get angry every time I read that a parent has allowed their toddler to have gender reassignment surgery. Next level crazy.

 

[Psychic]

The thing is, I don't think it's right to broad-brush everyone who raises the question of "Is this good for the LGBT community, or is it actively harmful and does it defeat our cause?" as being "dismissive" or "unsupportive", as it were. Of course, there are people who raise this question in an attempt to belittle the feelings of others as "invalid" or illegitimate. But there are also people who raise the question because they do legitimately care about the LGBT community, its causes, its needs, etc. I'm pretty confident that most of the people who posted here are no less supportive, understanding, or open-minded of other people's sexual preferences than you are. There's just a disagreement on the usage of language, nothing more than that--we're all on the same side here, I think :)

I'll get to some of the other posts at a later time, but I just wanted to say that while I think it's great you're so optimistic about people's open-mindedness on this topic, considering that multiple posters have explicitly stated they only believe there are 2 genders and nothing exists outside of that binary, and/or there are only 3 "real" sexual orientations, I can't say I share that optimism. Yes, people are making a fuss about language, but this isn't just a lack of support for the language - I'm not seeing a ton of support for orientations outside of the ones people feel familliar with, either. Imo, the sentiment that "I support the community, but only some parts of the community that fall under my system of beliefs/understanding" is on the right track, but isn't actually all that helpful.

The question of what is good for the LGBTQIA community is a complicated one, but based on where the discourse is in this thread, I don't think we should try to answer it here and now. It doesn't sound like a ton of folk who fall under that umbrella or who are really invested in the community are here, and to make guesses about a community that doesn't have much representation doesn't seem constructive.


Additionally, to me, the comments about wolves and helicopters seem to be saying "some people take things too far, so nobody deserves respect." People constantly use the extreme minority of a group to justify discrediting the entire group, and it's honestly a tired argument at this point. And we're talking about gender and sexuality, not species or race.

~Psychic

 

[Omicron]

But it's a terrible example which nevertheless begs the question: do we draw a line for what is and isn't credible? And where would we draw the line?

It is a complicated subject, yes. A line should be drawn on certain points, I think. I'd say attraction to inanimate objects and animals (idk what bestiality is considered?) is a good place to start.

 

[Kanzler]

It is a complicated subject, yes. A line should be drawn on certain points, I think. I'd say attraction to inanimate objects and animals (idk what bestiality is considered?) is a good place to start.

I think bestiality is very much in the realm of credibility. There are instances of individuals who have been jailed twice (twice!) for having sex with animals. If their urges was worth years of prison, then I really don't have any grounds to deny the credibility of their sexuality.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

It is a complicated subject, yes. A line should be drawn on certain points, I think. I'd say attraction to inanimate objects and animals (idk what bestiality is considered?) is a good place to start.

I bet they have two schools of thought with that, like they do with paedophilia. It's either a fetish or a mental illness. Probably a bit of both.

 

[Frequency]

That's another ballpark. It is idiotic and has nothing to do with gender/sexual orientation.

Which is true, but it doesn't stop people from trying to make it that way.

Moving on, I'm not really sure how to approach a topic like this because I can't tell someone else what they are and how they feel (Unless they're being completely idiotic and redundant with it). I'm not saying other classifications are necessarily a -bad- thing, but at some point you have to say "Alright really, this is just sounding really asinine", especially when we've already got some sexual orientations that kinda cover this in the first place."

Kanzler kinda got it right the first time, and the problem is that you can't draw a line without offending someone, and it seems that people choose to get triggered over the smaller things more often than not and it wasn't even intentional.

 

[Melody]

Personally, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to judge something as stupid or false because you can't understand it.

And that is exactly what is so problematic about the attitude you have. If your only reasoning for being closed-minded is "I don't understand it"; then you've lost the argument before you even started, and you're just wasting effort arguing your point. How about, instead of arguing about something with someone, you enter your discourse with the intent to learn more about it? That's not saying you have to practice it, or feel like that's the right thing for you to do at all, it's just learning for the sake of knowledge so you can better understand the world and the people in it.

 

[Omicron]

I think bestiality is very much in the realm of credibility. There are instances of individuals who have been jailed twice (twice!) for having sex with animals. If their urges was worth years of prison, then I really don't have any grounds to deny the credibility of their sexuality.

The question here is if it was really sexual attraction or just an impulse to relief sexual urges, though. I don't know.

 

[Kanzler]

And that is exactly what is so problematic about the attitude you have. If your only reasoning for being closed-minded is "I don't understand it"; then you've lost the argument before you even started, and you're just wasting effort arguing your point. How about, instead of arguing about something with someone, you enter your discourse with the intent to learn more about it? That's not saying you have to practice it, or feel like that's the right thing for you to do at all, it's just learning for the sake of knowledge so you can better understand the world and the people in it.

Would it be problematic for me to think that people who don't believe in gravity have a stupid belief? I don't understand why they wouldn't believe in gravity, but it's still a stupid belief. I think that one example shows it isn't necessarily wrong to judge something as stupid or false just because you can't understand it.

The question here is if it was really sexual attraction or just an impulse to relief sexual urges, though. I don't know.

It's a difficult question, isn't it. To me, it's both.