3 ms·

>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

>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.
  - hungie 2y ago
    I think I understand. Let me rephrase then. How would you prefer I refer to the set of people, in aggregate, who are not transgender nor homosexual? Not you, specifically, but the aggregate group who are not lgbtq+?
    - nobody9999 2y ago
      >I think I understand. No. You clearly don't. I said: 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. I shan't repeat myself again.
      - hungie 2y ago
        I'm not interested in what terms you'd use to describe yourself. I'm interested in what term you would use to describe the group of people who are not transgender and not homosexual. Your own identity is not necessary not germane to this. I had used the term cishet, without any judgement intended, and some objected to that. A Venn diagram exists, people told me not to label one section cishet, and I'm asking "if not that, what label should I use instead?" The set exists. How do we describe that set?
        achhat 2y ago
        The problem is that the question itself implies belief of a system that many people do not buy into. It's like saying, what type of Christian are you: practising or non-practising? A question that disregards the fact that many people don't consider that religion to be an accurate model of the world in the first place.

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.
- hungie 2y ago
  I think I understand. Let me rephrase then. How would you prefer I refer to the set of people, in aggregate, who are not transgender nor homosexual? Not you, specifically, but the aggregate group who are not lgbtq+?
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    >I think I understand. No. You clearly don't. I said: 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. I shan't repeat myself again.
    - hungie 2y ago
      I'm not interested in what terms you'd use to describe yourself. I'm interested in what term you would use to describe the group of people who are not transgender and not homosexual. Your own identity is not necessary not germane to this. I had used the term cishet, without any judgement intended, and some objected to that. A Venn diagram exists, people told me not to label one section cishet, and I'm asking "if not that, what label should I use instead?" The set exists. How do we describe that set?
      - achhat 2y ago
        The problem is that the question itself implies belief of a system that many people do not buy into. It's like saying, what type of Christian are you: practising or non-practising? A question that disregards the fact that many people don't consider that religion to be an accurate model of the world in the first place.