4 ms·

So a sort of null -- gender or sexuality aren't things you consider much, so you haven't really assigned any labels to yourself. I think that makes sense. I've

• hug 2y ago
  I am not the parent comment, but I would also refuse to give you a label. The very request is disagreeable, not whichever label it is that you use. In all ways I am how I was born, and I have no desire to have that impact who or what I associate with or how I associate with it. I have to deal with these things when it is obvious to peoples eyes how or what I might be, I have no desire to add to it with intangibles. This feeling should hopefully be familiar to you: It should be the feeling you have when you are in the minority in any way considered important by those around you or those you care about, but especially so when it is not relevant to most of anything. My relationship with non-gender-related aspects of myself follows this same pattern: Autistic or not, ADHD or not, I have no desire to be categorised as neurodivergent, neurotypical, neurospicy, or any such term. These are epithets all and the use of them when discussing specific others, even when benevolent, is almost always in a way that serves to other. And they are terms that will almost inevitably be used as deliberate insults. Downthread, you mention that you call yourself queer but you would reject that label when applied to you by others. I cannot help but think that your feeling there is similar to a number of other people's feelings about the parts of their identity that they do not wish to label; I do not wish to label myself, so please do not label me. There are others who may wish to identify with a group or a label because it is a part of their identity, and because that label comforts them or softens the edges of how society may treat them or whatever it might be. For most of those who are objecting to the cishet label, I suspect you may find that it has almost always only been used in their presence to discount them or their opinions. This is not the fault of the label, but its intent, for many. There is no trick of semantics that you can pull to strip the label's fundamental semiotic purpose, which will inevitably be used for scorn, as always. What you are asking, in this case, is to put people on the treadmill.
• nobody9999 2y ago
  >I've seen people use "gender or sexual minority" to describe lgbtq+ folks, so maybe you feel better described by "gender or sexual majority"? (Which I think is a judgement free expression of percentage?) I can't (and wouldn't attempt to) speak for anyone else, but the label I use is Nobody9999 (okay, I use my actual name, which isn't any of your business -- consider that, as it's important here). I don't broadcast my gender, sexual identity or personal sexual proclivities unless it's relevant in some way. This conversation, for instance -- my gender identity (whether it matches the hardware I have or not), what sorts of people/animals/objects/concepts hold my sexual interest, and/or what sorts of things I like to do with those, are completely irrelevant to you in this context. And they're not relevant because my use of language doesn't depend on what sort of anatomy/identity I may have, nor does it depend on who or what I want to exchange bodily fluids with (assuming that's something I find sexually satisfying -- and I'm not saying that at all, just using it as an example) and in what way I wish to do so. If we meet down the pub/on a dating site/at the laundromat/museum/washboard concert/etc. and I chat you up or vice versa, perhaps those things might become relevant. But until that time, it's none of your damn business and I find your focus offensive. Please don't.
  • hungie 2y ago
    It was raised because I was describing myself as queer, and how that word is an example of the evolution of language. However, it's not a word typically considered appropriate for use by non queer people. People objected to the word I used for non queer people, so I asked for alternatives that people would prefer. So it is directly related to the topic and the linked article, but only from the standpoint of in vs out group.
    • nobody9999 2y ago
      You completely misunderstand me. It's not that I care what you (or anyone else) calls themselves. Whatever you (or anyone else, for that matter) choose is just fine with me (not that I have any say in the matter, just clarifying my point of view). As I said, I don't speak for anyone else, so others ("people," as you put it) may well have objected. I object not to the terms themselves, nor to others who choose to use those terms for themselves. Rather, I object to those terms being applied to me, and even more, that it be demanded that I use those terms to describe myself in this context. You specifically asked (as I quoted, so it would clear, but I guess not) "maybe you feel better described by "gender or sexual majority"?" And I explained that such labels/terms aren't relevant in this context, and that I find your focus on those labels/terms in this context to be irrelevant and your continued demands for folks to participate in your verbal strip tease (i.e., acquiescing to being outed -- which is what you were doing), when someone's gender identity and/or sexuality is irrelevant to the discussion. IMHO, it was an offensive and obnoxious thing for you to do. If you're still not clear, I'd be happy to explain (again) why invading the privacy of others (in a public forum, no less!) is objectionable.