3 ms·

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 conside

by 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
        No, it's different than that. The correct analogy would be, "I'm a practicing Christian, but you don't call yourself that. What would you call the group that doesn't call themselves practicing Christians?" I'm not asking "are you a twink or a bear" I'm asking if you belong to a group that doesn't identify as homosexual. If you think homosexuality is evil, you probably can still acknowledge that some people do identify themselves as homosexual. Your point only exists for an extremely narrow group of people who deny that people identify as trans or homosexual. And for those folks, I'd probably have a separate conversation about, "you might consider it amoral, but you know there are people who call themselves gay, right?"

by hungie 2y ago

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
        No, it's different than that. The correct analogy would be, "I'm a practicing Christian, but you don't call yourself that. What would you call the group that doesn't call themselves practicing Christians?" I'm not asking "are you a twink or a bear" I'm asking if you belong to a group that doesn't identify as homosexual. If you think homosexuality is evil, you probably can still acknowledge that some people do identify themselves as homosexual. Your point only exists for an extremely narrow group of people who deny that people identify as trans or homosexual. And for those folks, I'd probably have a separate conversation about, "you might consider it amoral, but you know there are people who call themselves gay, right?"