At the point where non-straight non-cisgender humans are treated exactly the same as straight cisgender humans. As long as we're treated differently, we have a need to work together under a single...
At what point are we going to have an acronym that is better shortened to "humans"?
At the point where non-straight non-cisgender humans are treated exactly the same as straight cisgender humans. As long as we're treated differently, we have a need to work together under a single banner.
Of course, that single banner is quite variable. There's also "LGBTQ" and "LGBTIQ". Someone invented "QUILTBAG" which is cute and clever. Many people use "queer" as a catch-all. And I've heard a couple of public figures say they use "rainbow community" because it's easy and inclusive.
One of the better substitutes I've heard is GSM: Gender and Sexual Minorities. It includes pretty much all variations in gender (cis vs trans, binary vs nonbinary, static vs fluid) and sexuality...
One of the better substitutes I've heard is GSM: Gender and Sexual Minorities. It includes pretty much all variations in gender (cis vs trans, binary vs nonbinary, static vs fluid) and sexuality (lesbian, gay, bi, pan, ace, etc.) without the need to enumerate them and potentially leave people out. The only problem is that, technically speaking, pedophilia can also be included under that label, and that freaks everybody out.
Would you be willing to share your thoughts as to why you think that paedophilia could be included? I understand Homosexual (Both gay and lesbian), Bisexual, Pansexual, and Asexual all being...
Would you be willing to share your thoughts as to why you think that paedophilia could be included?
I understand Homosexual (Both gay and lesbian), Bisexual, Pansexual, and Asexual all being included but every single one of them (including heterosexual) are what I see as natural (as in born with) sexualities and deal with the sex organs at the root.
Paedophilia (and its other variants) on the other hand seems to me that is more of a preference to an age of a potential sexual partner that would then be filtered down further to the sex/gender that matches the criteria of the paedophile's sexuality. I would not classify it as a sexuality any more than I would classify a preference for older partners, partners with glasses, etc. as a sexuality.
Pedophilia should absolutely not be included. The idea that it should be is an effort at trolling started on 4chan. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lgbtp-adding-letter/
Pedophilia should absolutely not be included. The idea that it should be is an effort at trolling started on 4chan.
The push for paedophiles to be considered a valid sexual minority goes back a little bit further than just 2 years ago on 4chan. 4channers got their inspiration from actual paedophiles who have...
The push for paedophiles to be considered a valid sexual minority goes back a little bit further than just 2 years ago on 4chan. 4channers got their inspiration from actual paedophiles who have actually claimed that their paedophilia is a valid sexuality. For example, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA - which was included in a 'South Park' episode back in 2000) was founded in 1978. 4chan didn't invent this idea that paedophilia should be accepted as an alternative sexuality.
(I can not believe I just Googled "NAMBLA" to get that datum.)
A general term like "Gender and Sexual Minority" is more inclusive - but this has both good and bad consequences. On the good side, you don't need to list all the various minority sexualities like...
Would you be willing to share your thoughts as to why you think that paedophilia could be included?
A general term like "Gender and Sexual Minority" is more inclusive - but this has both good and bad consequences. On the good side, you don't need to list all the various minority sexualities like homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and so on. On the bad side, it allows paedophiles to say that their sexual attraction to children is just another example of a minority sexuality, which should be included under the "Gender and Sexual Minority" banner.
Remember, this is not about what you or I think is right or "natural", as you say. It's about the ambiguous semantics of what is and is not a "sexual minority". Strictly speaking, paedophilia is a sexual attraction that is felt by a minority of people: ergo, paedophiles are a sexual minority.
Do we LGBTI folks want paedophiles joining us? Not really. But using "GSM" allows them to claim membership on our team, whether we like it or not.
That's a fair point, I hadn't really considered someone using the GSM banner claiming an ambiguous definition of sexual minority as a tool to further their political agenda; though I probably...
That's a fair point, I hadn't really considered someone using the GSM banner claiming an ambiguous definition of sexual minority as a tool to further their political agenda; though I probably should have.
I definitely agree that pedophilia should not be considered a sexuality, let alone a protected one, but there are people who do believe this. I think the root issue is that pedophilia inherently...
I definitely agree that pedophilia should not be considered a sexuality, let alone a protected one, but there are people who do believe this. I think the root issue is that pedophilia inherently involves sexuality.
Unlike homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. pedophilia actually hurts people. The vast majority of LGBT+ people don't support it, but opponents to our rights like to lump them in with us to discredit us.
@deimos we need to be able to ban people from groups so that people like this can't come into ~lgbt and tell us it's okay for people to harass us to the point of suicide.
@deimos we need to be able to ban people from groups so that people like this can't come into ~lgbt and tell us it's okay for people to harass us to the point of suicide.
I disagree. It's not like FunkyGenome is actively spouting anti-gay or anti-trans hate speech themself. They're merely arguing a point about freedom of speech. If they were calling us "faggots"...
I disagree.
It's not like FunkyGenome is actively spouting anti-gay or anti-trans hate speech themself. They're merely arguing a point about freedom of speech. If they were calling us "faggots" and "trannies", they should be banned. But arguing in favour of freedom of speech is not the same as spouting hate speech.
Oof, sorry for not looking at this thread before. I think it's pretty far gone at this point, so I'm going to lock it and wipe it out at least, and I'll consider if anything more than that needs...
Oof, sorry for not looking at this thread before. I think it's pretty far gone at this point, so I'm going to lock it and wipe it out at least, and I'll consider if anything more than that needs to be done.
One of the changes I'm planning to make in the very near future is to stop auto-subscribing people to all groups, and hopefully that'll help a lot with this, since people don't seem to be doing a good job of recognizing appropriate contexts for certain arguments.
Good on them. The survey was a stressful and uneasy time for our community, and the bigots were out in full force. Make them pay.
I hadn't heard of "LGBTI" yet. At what point are we going to have an acronym that is better shortened to "humans"?
At the point where non-straight non-cisgender humans are treated exactly the same as straight cisgender humans. As long as we're treated differently, we have a need to work together under a single banner.
Of course, that single banner is quite variable. There's also "LGBTQ" and "LGBTIQ". Someone invented "QUILTBAG" which is cute and clever. Many people use "queer" as a catch-all. And I've heard a couple of public figures say they use "rainbow community" because it's easy and inclusive.
One of the better substitutes I've heard is GSM: Gender and Sexual Minorities. It includes pretty much all variations in gender (cis vs trans, binary vs nonbinary, static vs fluid) and sexuality (lesbian, gay, bi, pan, ace, etc.) without the need to enumerate them and potentially leave people out. The only problem is that, technically speaking, pedophilia can also be included under that label, and that freaks everybody out.
Would you be willing to share your thoughts as to why you think that paedophilia could be included?
I understand Homosexual (Both gay and lesbian), Bisexual, Pansexual, and Asexual all being included but every single one of them (including heterosexual) are what I see as natural (as in born with) sexualities and deal with the sex organs at the root.
Paedophilia (and its other variants) on the other hand seems to me that is more of a preference to an age of a potential sexual partner that would then be filtered down further to the sex/gender that matches the criteria of the paedophile's sexuality. I would not classify it as a sexuality any more than I would classify a preference for older partners, partners with glasses, etc. as a sexuality.
Is there more to it that I might be misisng?
Pedophilia should absolutely not be included. The idea that it should be is an effort at trolling started on 4chan.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lgbtp-adding-letter/
The push for paedophiles to be considered a valid sexual minority goes back a little bit further than just 2 years ago on 4chan. 4channers got their inspiration from actual paedophiles who have actually claimed that their paedophilia is a valid sexuality. For example, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA - which was included in a 'South Park' episode back in 2000) was founded in 1978. 4chan didn't invent this idea that paedophilia should be accepted as an alternative sexuality.
(I can not believe I just Googled "NAMBLA" to get that datum.)
A general term like "Gender and Sexual Minority" is more inclusive - but this has both good and bad consequences. On the good side, you don't need to list all the various minority sexualities like homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and so on. On the bad side, it allows paedophiles to say that their sexual attraction to children is just another example of a minority sexuality, which should be included under the "Gender and Sexual Minority" banner.
Remember, this is not about what you or I think is right or "natural", as you say. It's about the ambiguous semantics of what is and is not a "sexual minority". Strictly speaking, paedophilia is a sexual attraction that is felt by a minority of people: ergo, paedophiles are a sexual minority.
Do we LGBTI folks want paedophiles joining us? Not really. But using "GSM" allows them to claim membership on our team, whether we like it or not.
That's a fair point, I hadn't really considered someone using the GSM banner claiming an ambiguous definition of sexual minority as a tool to further their political agenda; though I probably should have.
Thank you.
I definitely agree that pedophilia should not be considered a sexuality, let alone a protected one, but there are people who do believe this. I think the root issue is that pedophilia inherently involves sexuality.
Unlike homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. pedophilia actually hurts people. The vast majority of LGBT+ people don't support it, but opponents to our rights like to lump them in with us to discredit us.
@deimos we need to be able to ban people from groups so that people like this can't come into ~lgbt and tell us it's okay for people to harass us to the point of suicide.
I disagree.
It's not like FunkyGenome is actively spouting anti-gay or anti-trans hate speech themself. They're merely arguing a point about freedom of speech. If they were calling us "faggots" and "trannies", they should be banned. But arguing in favour of freedom of speech is not the same as spouting hate speech.
@FunkyGenome is naive, rather than hateful.
Oof, sorry for not looking at this thread before. I think it's pretty far gone at this point, so I'm going to lock it and wipe it out at least, and I'll consider if anything more than that needs to be done.
One of the changes I'm planning to make in the very near future is to stop auto-subscribing people to all groups, and hopefully that'll help a lot with this, since people don't seem to be doing a good job of recognizing appropriate contexts for certain arguments.