Labels and LGBT

Narj · 3 Jul 2019 at 23:36

It's been quite nice this past month with our work place supporting LGBTQ+ and I'm all for it given my social circles. Thumbs up!

I don't get the thing with asking for people's stories as many of us, regardless of sexuality prefer to keep our private lives away from work but nvm.

What did get my back up today was some literary crap thrown around going on about 'cisgenders'. Why are these stupid divisive labels constantly being drawn up to separate people? Am I alone in being annoyed with this crap? It's made up language and nonsense IMO.

I for one am outraged at people assuming my cis-ness. Or whatever it is.

explicit4u · 3 Jul 2019 at 23:41

All language is made up

Narj · 3 Jul 2019 at 23:42

explicit4u said:
All language is made up

Hah but some is utter BS invented to fit someone's squibblyflotz agenda.

cainer · 3 Jul 2019 at 23:45

mutilating your genitals does not make you a member of the opposite sex

that is all.

Angilion · 3 Jul 2019 at 23:56

Narj said:
[..] Why are these stupid divisive labels constantly being drawn up to separate people? [..]

That's the reason - to seperate people.

In order to gain power from group identity politics, the first and most essential step is to seperate people into groups. Can't have group identity politics without group identities. Then it's necessary to assign group identities to everyone. It's just slightly dressing up the fundamental belief of irrational prejudice - the belief that "they're all the same". "They're all the same" and "they all have the same identity" mean the same thing, obviously, but the latter is currently a more fashionable way to express the belief. Then it's necessary to construct a hierarchy of group identities, a necessary step in creating a group identity to blame, which is a necessary step towards the ultimate point of group identity politics - to position yourself as a righteous champion of a superior identity that's oppressed by the blame identity and thus gain power from irrational prejudice.

It's ugly, but it's been used throughout the ages because it works. The modern version adds corruption and thus destruction of opposing concepts such as equality, tolerance, diversity and liberalism. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Narj · 3 Jul 2019 at 23:57

I think what I'm getting at is why do we need to pigeon hole people so much when actually, most sane people don't really give a crap.

I don't believe in the 96 gender rubbish but people are free to identify as they wish as long as they don't expect us not to laugh at the more tenuous ideas

I suppose what I'm saying is that by reaching too far,, sometimes this sort of initiative is at risk of actually alienating people? Or have I become a sn0wfl4ke?

Nitefly · 4 Jul 2019 at 00:12

The idea of gender should be entirely redundant as clearly it shouldn’t matter - nobody should face unfair discrimination and all that jazz. Of course, the existence and persistence of bigotry / discrimination makes it matter.

If we all uphold an appropriate standard, then perhaps the perceived ‘overzealous gender scrutiny’ will all fall into part of the background of a better, appropriately tolerant society.

Caracus2k · 4 Jul 2019 at 00:21

The whole Lgbt thing is in part collapsing in on itself under the strain of its own inconsistencies and the inevitable problems caused by the use of things like 'intersectionality' and the 'progressive stack' to determine how systemically oppressed you think you are.

The 'L' 's and the' G's have always had a somewhat strained relationship with the former having a poltical element to it that can become rather hostile to the male sex.

People from all groups have traditionally not really got on with the 'B' s'....

And the 'T' has very little in common with the other three other than sometimes facing a common source of opposition but the bundling of sexuality and 'gender identity' into one group is not likely one to prove to easily sustainable when some of the most vocal activists from the 'T' tell thoose in the' L' that they are 'phobic' if they insist on having a certain exclusive sexual genetalia preference (like the vast majority of all humans do) and try and aggressiveky convince 'questioning' young people who might otherwise grow up to be well adjusted adults in the 'L' that rather than letting nature take its course that they would be better served blocking puberty, having double masectomies and taking artificial hormones because their personal presentations and likes are considered more consistent with what others claim are outdated stereotypes for men.

Add in the ever expanding list of potential letters and arguments over adding more colours to the flag and you have all the markings of a right old mess.

Personally I'm not that interested in it all (other than as a study of what I think is in part a bit of the culture war) and I'm not quite sure what it means when I see a sign outside of Sainsburys saying they are celebrating and supporting pride month.

Celebrating your sexuality seems somewhat a strange thing to do and companies should support staff by ensuring they can get on with their work productively whilst at work whilst doing what they want in their own time (as long as it clearly doesn't bring their position in work into disrepute)

Chris Wilson · 4 Jul 2019 at 01:16

The late MP for Pontypool, Leo Abse, had (presumably) good intent in his many controversial Private Member's bills, but despite his controversial liberal thrusts they have been well abused by those that chose to not just quietly rejoice in their new found legality, but to attempt to surreptitiously or openly celebrate their new found freedoms and openly or secretively indoctrinate others, many of pre pubescent age, in their causes. Like so many liberal wedges, they have been knocked into the recesses to the point that a chasm of impropriety has emerged that threatens the innocence of our children. As such a discrete enjoyment of their freedom has slowly evolved into an attempt to normalise activities that were merely legalised with the written hope that such legislation would be used discretely and conservatively. Sadly history has shown his largesse has been abused by those wanting showmanship, sensationalism and crudity to be an accepted part of their proclivities.

Thecaferacer · 4 Jul 2019 at 06:02

It's all about creating a fictional 'other' to legitimise your own position.

Those obsessed with race, sexuality and any other grouping will create an enemy, usually imagined, to convince you that their opinion is worth more than everyone else and must be acted upon immediately

cheesyboy · 4 Jul 2019 at 07:58

Narj said:
I think what I'm getting at is why do we need to pigeon hole people so much when actually, most sane people don't really give a crap.

"If you don't see my colour, you don't see my experience"
Said someone I saw quoted recently. You can swap 'colour' out for 'gender', 'sexuality' or whatever.

Basically, "I don't see race/gender/sexuality etc" isn't the enlightened, progressive position you might think it is. The world treats people differently because of these attributes: to have empathy for that, you first need to acknowledge that it happens.

Delvis · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:02

cainer said:
mutilating your genitals does not make you a member of the opposite sex

that is all.

And that is why there is the difference between gender and sexuality

Skidder · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:10

Whole generation of gender bores.

Pawnless Endgame · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:16

Narj said:
'cisgenders'

Just say straight.

Randomface74 · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:23

Only low iq people take this stuff seriously.

AHarvey · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:27

Labels are bad. it creates an "us and them" attitude which is the exact opposite of what you want in an inclusive community.

You're a human, I'm a human. I treat everyone the same, based on their actions.

I don't care if you identify as a cross-dressing lesbian metrosexual zebra, that's your choice. Don't get offended if I don't get it, or ask you about it, or just don't use the term. If you're a good person I'll treat you as such even if you spend your whole day dressed as a furry.

FoxEye · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:32

cainer said:
mutilating your genitals does not make you a member of the opposite sex

that is all.

True. It's pretty tragic that we (society) are increasingly advocating this as a "remedy" for exhibiting "gender traits" from the "wrong gender".

Ie if you are a boy who wants to wear flowers in your hair, someone will tell you you should get your knackers cut off and pretend to be a girl.

Turns out the trans-activists are the most intolerant people, not us. They won't tolerate boys doing so-called "girly" things, or girls doing so-called "boyish" things. The problem is theirs. And then they shove this idea that you must conform to gender norms, and if necessary you must transition, and anything else is wrong.

Bassmansam · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:36

Stop reading twitter.

Narj · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:50

Pawnless Endgame said:
Just say straight.

Confusingly I'm led to believe that it means someone who identifies with the sex they were born as. So that doesn't rule out being gay or whatever?

Terminal_Boy · 4 Jul 2019 at 08:54

Pawnless Endgame said:
Just say straight.

I prefer normal.