Obama says NOma to DOMA and also promotes gay rights around the world

[Kaete]

Originally Posted by The Famous Ben Jackson

Gonna be honest here, it's a bit aggravating to read a bunch of straight people tell me and other types of queer folk how we should be labeling ourselves.

Gonna be honest here, it's a bit aggravating to read someone assuming everyone else in a conversation is straight.

Especially in a forum with our demographics.

[Chest Rockwell]

I'm not assuming shit, I am going by what people themselves have said in the past to my best recollection

[Ten]

Originally Posted by The Famous Ben Jackson

I'm not assuming shit, I am going by what people themselves have said in the past to my best recollection

If I show you my official Bisexual Badge, am I allowed to participate in the conversation?

[Malaclypse]

Originally Posted by The Famous Ben Jackson

Gonna be honest here, it's a bit aggravating to read a bunch of straight people tell me and other types of queer folk how we should be labeling ourselves.

Let it be known: That I will now only be referred to as: "Malaclypse, Empress Queen of the universe, Lord of all that is good". Any other labeling shall be deemed homophobic. As decreed by the lord high council of the gay hive mind.

[Magikarp]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound as if I was making any kind of normative statement about labels, because I wasn't trying to. If it sounded like that was what I was doing, I apologize.

All I really meant to say is that I've understood the concepts of sexual and gender identity as two different things, but I also liked to find an easier way to refer to the LGBTIQQA community without having to go through all eight syllables.

So my thing about "queer" was (and, again, this is just my own personal opinion) that I don't mind referring to myself as "queer". But I know that some people don't like it. I'm cool with that too, they can refer to themselves however they prefer. That was what I was trying to say, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. I don't want to offend anyone, so I guess I should drop the subject here.

[frogurt]

ITT, you must be at least ~this gay~ to discuss group names.

[Kaete]

Originally Posted by The Famous Ben Jackson

I'm not assuming shit, I am going by what people themselves have said in the past to my best recollection

Your memory is a bit faulty in this instance.

[build me a star]

Originally Posted by The Famous Ben Jackson

Gonna be honest here, it's a bit aggravating to read a bunch of straight people tell me and other types of queer folk how we should be labeling ourselves.

Pretty sure "LGBTQQIA" includes "allies" in there. Also "questioning." Which are ambiguous enough that they could apply to almost anyone.

That being said, I'm with Kaete that you're definitely making assumptions about who here is straight.

edit: And to be clear, I wasn't at all talking about how people should choose to label themselves. I was talking about how a large, diverse group of people should be referred to in political discourse.

[Kaete]

Originally Posted by build me a star

Pretty sure "LGBTQQIA" includes "allies" in there. Also "questioning." Which are ambiguous enough that they could apply to almost anyone.

That being said, I'm with Kaete that you're definitely making assumptions about who here is straight.

edit: And to be clear, I wasn't at all talking about how people should choose to label themselves. I was talking about how a large, diverse group of people should be referred to in political discourse.

There's some debate over whether the A is for Allies or Asexual.

I'd say with an abbreviation that long, might as well make it LGBTQQIAA.

[Chest Rockwell]

I should've specified that I wasn't referring to every single participant. I apologize.

Anyway, it's a common thing for those in the majority group to attempt to co-opt a minority rights movement by attempting to gain leadership or direct the actions of that movement, and one of the ways this is done is by trying to control the messaging and language that people use to talk about themselves. I'm not saying it's malicious or even conscious, as it usually is done with the best intentions, but IMO it's better to let minority groups decide for themselves the direction of their empowering movements, such as determining for themselves how they want to be referred. LGBT and LGBTQ among the ways that sexual minorities and gender-variant people have established for themselves as appropriate for political discourse.

[build me a star]

Yeah but, if you're Jewish and someone refers to you in a political speech as an "ethnic minority" are you gonna get your panties in a twist because they didn't specifically mention Jews? The whole idea is to have an umbrella term that includes everyone but is non-specific enough as to not exclude anyone either.

edit: Fair enough, I see your point.

[Pandir]

I'm pretty sure nobody said you have to refer to yourself as anything.

[Ten]

In Ben Jackson's defense, having other people define how a group you belong to is defined is incredibly annoying and frustrating.

To use my own experiences as an example, as I noted before I am very uncomfortable with the word "queer". If a bunch of people without the experiences I went through got together and said: "Yeah, we think 'queer' is the best term to use here." I would be pissed off.

It's a lot like the whole "white man's burden" thing. While I absolutely appreciate people from all walks of life getting involved in the conversation, having the discussion hijacked by the majority is a real concern and shouldn't be brushed off like it isn't a valid complaint.

[Kamileon]

Originally Posted by Ten

In Ben Jackson's defense, having other people define how a group you belong to is defined is incredibly annoying and frustrating.

To use my own experiences as an example, as I noted before I am very uncomfortable with the word "queer". If a bunch of people without the experiences I went through got together and said: "Yeah, we think 'queer' is the best term to use here." I would be pissed off.

It's a lot like the whole "white man's burden" thing. While I absolutely appreciate people from all walks of life getting involved in the conversation, having the discussion hijacked by the majority is a real concern and shouldn't be brushed off like it isn't a valid complaint.

Agreed. I feel like a fair number of people talking about the labels are themselves somewhere under the LGBTQQIAA? umbrella, but that there has also been some straight-white-male-nerd-on-the-internet-ing here as well.

Edit: I think this issue is different than comparing it to terms about race because identity can be such a unique and personal thing. One person who feels comfortable with "queer" because they have not run into negative issues with it, or because they don't personally like the specificity, or feel that more than one label can apply to them is another person's epithet, or word that means that something is wrong with them. I feel like race is something much more empirical and specific with much less personal interpretation, though it can be more difficult when dealing with a lot of mixed-raced labeling.
I'm going to err on the side of people being able to self-identify, and the common, catch-all term being inoffensive as possible. I understand the desire for easy shorthand, but I think being willing to use an awkward acronym is not too much to ask.

Originally Posted by The Famous Ben Jackson

Gonna be honest here, it's a bit aggravating to read a bunch of straight people tell me and other types of queer folk how we should be labeling ourselves.

If anything I've said has contributed to this feeling, that was not my intent, and I would like to know what I can do differently.

[Kaete]

A lot of the people in this conversation probably fall under the B or Q letters, so I don't see why we're not allowed to talk about this. Unless you want to argue B/Q/etc are not "really" in the minority.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by Kaete

A lot of the people in this conversation probably fall under the B or Q letters, so I don't see why we're not allowed to talk about this. Unless you want to argue B/Q/etc are not "really" in the minority.

I don't want to say that people aren't allowed to talk about it and it's one of the few things Ben has said that I automatically bristle at. But that's mostly because as a bisexual male who ended up marrying a woman I'm told I "don't count" way too often.

He does have a point about the majority attempting to define the minority in their own terms. Just because I disagree with his assumption about people doesn't mean that it's not something valid and worthy of discussion.

[Magikarp]

Originally Posted by Kaete

A lot of the people in this conversation probably fall under the B or Q letters, so I don't see why we're not allowed to talk about this. Unless you want to argue B/Q/etc are not "really" in the minority.

I'm annoyed by the idea that somehow bisexuals/questioning/"queers" are not in the minority. It seems like it's an idea that's held by a lot of cisgendered heterosexuals as well a lot of people in the LGBTIQQA community and it doesn't really make any sense to me.

I also agree that I would be annoyed if white cisgendered heterosexuals tried to "force" a label on me, but as I mentioned before, I think it should really be each individual's decision how they personally like to be referred.

As for referring to the community as a whole, I think that is also up for discussion.

[Chest Rockwell]

I never said bisexual or questioning were not in the minority or anything resembling that. I posted what I posted and it was for a lot of reasons, some of them not from anything in or around this thread. But let me be clear, I absolutely believe that bisexual or questioning are totally entitled to being included on equal footing with discussions of rights for LGBTQIA people. It would in fact be hypocritical for me to think otherwise considering I myself am bisexual.

[Gliss]

You're being vague because it is rude to call people out, but for myself I apologize if I came across as "telling".

[suncrush]

I agree that people in the community oughtto determine what to call themselves, and LGBT rolls off the tongue and is easy to remember. After a few more letters though, it becomes alphabet soup.

Of course, the community will eventually come up with a shorthand for itself that it prefers. That's how language evolution works.

[medivh]

Whoa whoa back this thread right the fuck back to post #90

Originally Posted by Dumbass McBootarse

you mean like niggerhead ranch?

What?

[Brent Not Broken]

Originally Posted by medivh

What?

this

[medivh]

And this guy actually has enough of a chance at the presidency that he's still running ads?

[Dumbass McBootarse]

Originally Posted by medivh

And this guy actually has enough of a chance at the presidency that he's still running ads?

You seem to be under the impression that the people who'd vote for Rick Perry at this point get turned off by racism.

[Navarp]

Originally Posted by The Famous Ben Jackson

Gonna be honest here, it's a bit aggravating to read a bunch of straight people tell me and other types of queer folk how we should be labeling ourselves.

I am with Gliss on this. If ANYTHING I said came across as "telling" then I am sorry. I was honestly trying to contribute to the dialogue and share my personal opinions about how things resonated with me.

These are all just my opinion after all and if I offended any any way I am sincerely sorry.

To that end I would like to say that despite the fact that I am a Straight White Male on the internet I would like to be part of the conversation because I believe that to a very small extent I am an "Ally" of the LGBT community.

With that said the word "Queer" IMHO connotes poorly. Queer means bad in most parlance and I wouldn't be comfortable calling a group or individual "Queer."

To that end also it is my opinion that Sexual identity should cover Gender Identity in the sense that Sex can mean Gender, if not then I Think "GSIM" (pronounced "Gee SIM") flows a lot better than SGIM.