[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /r/ - 25929



File: 1466486884375.png (69.39 KB, 300x225, pride flag.jpg)

No.25929

It's pride month, lainons.

How do you identify?

Are you out?

Are you doing anything for pride?

How do we ensure queer liberation doesn't come at the cost of colonizing our communities culturally and economically?

  No.25931

File: 1466487117785.png (44.06 KB, 200x139, Bash_Back_Rainbow_Flag_Dykes_of_the_Damned.jpg)

bumping with some queers bashing back in I think Utah, but at the very least against Mormons

  No.25932

File: 1466491453177.png (108.77 KB, 179x200, 1434542617235.jpg)

I'm a pansexual tgirl.

came out and got beaten and kicked out by my folks. I'm not really "out" anymore now that I pass though. I just pretend I'm cis until there's a time where I'd have to disclose it.

I'd like to firebomb some government buildings for pride but I'll probably just stay home. I'm too much of an autist to deal with all the loud noises and people.

  No.25933

>>25932
will u b my gf

  No.25934

File: 1466491762623.png (11.8 KB, 200x83, trains.png)


  No.25935

>>25933
ok if you dont mind a girl with a 4 inch dick

  No.25936

I'm out as bi to my friends, but not my family or my work.

Always feel out of place in threads like this or LGBT stuff in general because I feel like I don't really belong. Its so easy for me to ignore the homosex feelings and never pursue guys, I've never had a relationship that wasn't straight, I feel like I have straight privilege in every objective way...

But I try to tell myself that's just internalized biphobia. Maybe it is. Who knows.

For pride I'm probably going to make up something about it being too commercialized and stay home because I'm also too autistic to even pretend to be real gay and try to find the radical counterpride I'm sure exists in my city.

>>25932
That's real shit of your family, lainon. I can't pretend to feel that feel but I hope things keep getting better.

I'll summon up the courage to firebomb some government buildings if you will

Fiction fools etc

  No.25938

File: 1466497809126.png (3.37 MB, 200x200, 02_Chaudhuri_QueeringTheGreen.pdf)

I identify as pansexual or bi depending on how much I feel like explaining.

I don't identify as any gender, but I'm assigned male at birth and don't do an awful lot to subvert that. Except drag sometimes.

For pride month I'm just wearing some rainbow shirts I have, and a day of silence shirt I got at one point. I'm not a big fan of day of silence but I liked the design. I might go to an Orlando vigil, and start looking into more queer activism to do.

>How do we ensure queer liberation doesn't come at the cost of colonizing our communities culturally and economically?

The first thing I can think of is to stop doing what the white gay community has already been doing: encouraging more cops at pride parades (can easily lead to more violence). There's probably a bit more about challenging the "bringing up ethnic minority voices is divisionary" narrative, I'm not very active in the gay community however so I don't know how to approach this. Decolonize queer spaces of white supremacy? I've been taking a "step up, step back" approach - step back to people who haven't spoken much, elevate / support black and brown voices rather than speak for them. if I say enough academic phrases, am I a radical queer activist or do I also need to be angry about it?


intersectional resources 4 you:
Queering the Green Man (attached)
The Xenofeminist Manifesto http://laboriacuboniks.net/
Neuroqueer: An Introduction
http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/neuroqueer-an-introduction/

>>25936
you're not out of place. bi privilege isn't real.

  No.25943

I identify as broken mana crystals [source: corpse of the first, seraphim]. Rights don't make sense unless I want to. Everything is made of one thing, can call or imagine that thing as whatever you feel like. Jon Snow kills Ramsey.

  No.25950

>>25935
Sounds hawt.

Fuck yer parents and fuck male violence though.

Can I ask a couple political questions? If yes:

Do you feel strongly about the whole "I'm literally a woman in every sensible meaning of the word" thing or are you fine with people seeing women and MtF transsexuals as two distinct social/political classes with respect to some issues?

Do you have an opinion on Blanchard's typology?

  No.25951

>>25943
>Jon Snow kills Ramsey
Y'know, I have not seen the latest some episodes and this is a genuine spoiler for me, but I chuckled out loud because of your post. Never been spoiled in a way I am happy with.


On topic though, as someone whose sexuality is fairly fluid, I don't know how I feel about this. I've written stuff on some local online things defending LGBT issues, but since I live in an extremely conservative country, it is difficult to find many people who are fine with me not being straight in real life. Still, I've got some good non-straight and straight friends who have no issues with me, mainly because I am lucky to communicate with the smartest tier of students, which makes me quite happy.

  No.25952

>>25936
>Always feel out of place in threads like this or LGBT stuff in general because I feel like I don't really belong.
I kinda know that feel. The thing that gets me is that I wouldn't be accepted until I told them I was bi. Everybody says "You don't seem bi/gay to me" and as much as I know they're trying to be nice and I keep that in mind it does piss me off a little. As if there's a measure beyond what I like to put my dick into.

>I have straight privilege in every objective way

Privilege is not an objective thing. That's why you get men wanting to be women despite the fact that they're "going down" on the privilege scale. You're you and people treat you the way that they do. If you're not happy with it try to change it. The rest is just abstractions that, as all abstractions do, destroy detail. They can be useful for looking at society or other situations where the full detail is far too much for a human mind but for your own life and personal interactions just worry about the end results.

>>25938
>I don't identify as any gender, but I'm assigned male at birth and don't do an awful lot to subvert that.
Same, sorta. Internally I don't identify as anything. I apply labels to myself as and when I need to for the purposes of communication but that's all they are to me, a way to comunicate an abstraction quickly. This goes for a lot more than just gender or sexuality as well. I'm not "really" a coder or an empiricist or whatever term I felt was appropriate for the conversation, those are just hats I wear sometimes so that people have an easier time knowing how to treat me.

>I've been taking a "step up, step back" approach - step back to people who haven't spoken much, elevate / support black and brown voices rather than speak for them.

You need to be really careful with this. I hate to say it but people get complacent when you support them too much. We don't want to become a crutch. That's just another inequality that will need dealing with at some point. It's a delicate balance and not something there are exactly correct answers to but it's something to bear in mind.

>>25951
>it is difficult to find many people who are fine with me not being straight in real life
I had some measure of problems with this. Funnily it wasn't "conservatives." I grew up in a very rough area. Lots of working class type people. As such they all vote for the left-leaning party in my country but they still hate fags. Don't be afraid to hide yourself if you have to. It's not ideal but it's better than getting your face stamped on.

  No.25953

>>25950
Well in my case I'm an XX male (de la Chapelle syndrome), so biologically I AM a female even if I have a dick. I mean, is a woman that's born with an extra arm a man? Or a is a guy that's born without testes a woman? In general I'd say that I DO have a problem with people separating the two. It's not exactly fun to be an "other." The differences between an XY mtf transsexual (as in, as gone through surgery and hrt and voice training and electrolysis. not just transgender) and a cis woman who is infertile are functionally nothing, and once stem cell grown vaginas and wombs become the norm for transition there will be no difference for 99.99% of real life situations. So unless you really wanna have a kid I don't really see the difference, unless you're like some 40+ yo nonpassing person, in which case I can understand why a straight guy wouldn't find that attractive and might want a distinction.

Blanchard's typology? That's the theory that proposes two "types" of transwomen correct? I barely know anything about it, and I don't exactly intend to be a gatekeeper so I'm not pretending I'm an authority, but from what I've picked up from being part of some more self hating trans groups, seems to ignore the existence of transmen and also is a bit simplistic. I mean, I have certainly met people I would identify as "AGP," hell even today I saw some idiot online saying he wanted to transition to live his futanari dream (I hope he enjoys a nonfunctioning dick and no sex drive and crippling dysphoria when he gets a female body), and in truth I do find a lot of them disgusting and offensive. I've known plenty of transmen and women and genderqueer people and I honestly can't imagine someone who is "legitimately" trans surviving past 25 without transitioning or killing themselves. Dysphoria is that intense.

On the other hand, I believe that for lots of transpeople sexual fantasies are probably one of the first outlets they have so the whole "TG" or "sissy" fetish that commonly is associated with AGP trans people is probably an outlet for lots of legitimate transgender people. In my case I spent my youth believing that transpeople were drag queens and ugly jokes so I didn't really learn what it was until I was 19, but I still had an intense knowing inside of me that I was a girl ever since I was 8, so I used to read stories of guys becoming girls or futuristic machines that could do it because I dreamed that could happen to me one day. Of course many of them are erotic due to the nature of the net and fetishes so there is overlap with the fetish of AGP transpeople and people who are "really trans."

As for the "exclusively homosexual" bit, well, for one I believe that if you're a transgirl and you wanna fuck guys then you're hetero. But also I guess being so involved in the world of gender roles and sex, and also growing up in a conservative area with the expectation that I have to fuck pussy, I personally will just be fucked (not fuck, my dick gives me massive dysphoria. Pls stick it in my pooper) by just about anything. Although in real life guys do turn me on much more and all my relationships have been with guys (anime girls turn me on more than anime guys though. weird.)

Sorry for the verbal diarehea and saying so much without really saying anything. Again, I'm not an expert and I don't intend to judge whether someone is truly trans or not even if I personally do find people like Chris-chan or Caitlyn Jenner who transition to fulfill a fetish absolutely disgusting (their appearance usually matches too).

  No.25955

File: 1466510813616.png (127.55 KB, 200x200, 57jGjLi.jpg)

As far as sexuality goes, I'm biologically male who for the most part likes guys. While I can imagine certain scenarios where I'd be okay with dating/being intimate with a girl, I don't really seek out such relationships and I'd furthermore take a guy over a girl any day.
All my (few) friends know and are totally fine with it, but I've avoided talking about it with my family since they can be pretty weird about that stuff although I'm pretty sure they'd ultimately be alright with it. I've also never been in an actual relationship so the topic's never really come up with them.

As for gender stuff, I'm personally comfortable with presenting myself as a male in professional environments and I'm okay with maintaining that status even if only for convenience. At the same time though, I do enjoy presenting myself as a girl at times and there's a definitely part of me which wants to be able to spend a normal life but just as a girl.
I guess I just enjoy both for different reasons.

I've also been super anxious about being a girl in public, but we had our pride festival here a few weeks ago and my friends were really supportive and convinced me to go. It went really well, so it's nice to have a positive experience which helped reduce that anxiety somewhat.

I also don't really have any strong opinions about gender and sexuality stuff, just do whatever you feel like (provided you live in an environment where you can do so safely). Life's too short to be spent worrying about what other people think.

  No.25957

Why would you need to come out ? Either your folks are ok with it to begin with and that's just awkward, or they are not ok with it and then I don't see the point in explaining that shit to them.
I don't understand how your sexuality concerns anyone but you, and the person you want to screw with. Do you all have insecurities or something ?
I've never felt so hostile towards the LGBT community, especially since feminism started being more and more linked to it.

>queer anarchism

You guys just look as stupid as those antifa skinheads.

  No.25958

>>25957
explaining in a calm, supportive environment that you like to fuck the same sex causes much, much less drama than bringing home someone out of the blue and expecting your family/friends to roll with it. And that's without even considering trans people who quite literally change their entire physical appearance and voice and mannerisms and name.

You don't think your friends/family/coworkers deserve the slight bit of respect and trust of telling them something like that instead of just dropping it on them out of the blue and expecting them to not question you about it? Have you ever been in a social situation in your life? Do you think a transwoman person is just gonna show up to work one day in a dress and makeup and not tell you anything, not even their new name/pronouns, and just be happy with that? Even though you'll most likely keep referring to them the same way if you don't know?

  No.25959

>>25957
>I don't understand how your sexuality concerns anyone but you
I'm apt to think the same way, though I'm straight I never find my sexuality playing any role in any of my interactions with anyone. That's just me and how I work. People will assume whatever they will.

I imagine "LGBT" people might feel as though they're perceived as straight by default, and therefore must either hide or pretend to maintain consistency with how they believe their environment views them. Perhaps there's hostility and significant penalties for the truth, in some cases. They might therefore view "coming out" as either setting things straight (pun not intended), or breaking away from a burdening contrast between the versions of themselves in other people's minds, and their experience of the "real" one.

I really don't know and would be interested if a metacognition inclined and philosophically insightful gay person could elaborate on why. As it stands I'm somewhat biased towards the mindset implicit in your post, that humans are showy, needy, gaudy, and like all their shit all over the place where it doesn't belong instead of learning a degree of self reliance and keeping their business to themselves, they desire the connection, acceptance, and visibility within the group. But like I said above, there is a significantly bigger picture here.

  No.25960

>>25957
sometimes people have people they want to spend their lives with but also don't want to never speak to their parents again.

sometimes it hurts a lot to hide things because you care about them a lot and it feels like lying

sometimes it's physically impossible to hide

whatever the reason, it's not like a "wellp, guess i'd better do that because everybody else did" thing

maybe (probably) "FIGHT BACK" is stupid, but telling people they're wrong about something they need to do to maybe be ok, or just out of necessity of existing, is pretty mean, ok?

  No.25961

>>25957
why are you hostile towards people for coming out? I don't understand how their coming out concerns anyone but them, and the person they want to come out to. do you have insecurities or something?

  No.25963

>>25961
Because they're a heterosexist asshole either trolling the pride general or just here to spread hate. Report and move on. Don't feed the trolls. Hate is off topic in a pride general.

  No.25965

>>25963
Or maybe their hostility is a high level mix of a desire for information, with whatever else causing irritation.

Don't be tribal. Having "fuck you and btw, reported" be your goto response, helps no one. It's more than worthless, it's detrimental to your cause and others like you. Don't waste opportunities and so readily throw people away.

  No.25966

>>25965
I didn't put up with years of bullying to take that shit lying down anywhere, especially not lainchan.

Act up, bash the fuck back.

  No.25967

>>25966
I didn't say to just take it, I said there are multiple types of approaches to handle something and some may yield better outcomes than others. If the one you've taken is truly valuable to you, then fine enough. But there's always a bigger picture.

  No.25971

>>25935
>>25953
i really don't care if you have a penis or not

  No.25972

>>25953
>Well in my case I'm an XX male (de la Chapelle syndrome), so biologically I AM a female even if I have a dick.
In a certain sense (chromosomal, and maybe more) you're indeed "female" then I guess, but would you insist on being considered every bit as "woman" as other women, even if most women have a significantly different life-experience, due to things such as:
- being raised as a "girl" with all the baggage that comes with it, including:
+ being conditioned to behave feminine and submissive,
+ being told that you're physically and emotionally less capable than boys,
+ having men sexualize you at potentially very young age, or at least starting with teenage years,
+ being told that your role in sexuality when you grow up will be to "get fucked" as the boys call it, whether you like it or not (or even to suck cock, have men ejaculate on you, etc. in case you get exposed to porn)
+ being told you will become a wife and a mother...
- having to deal with periods (this involves flow of clutty, disgusting blood, potentially severely painful cramps, etc.; not what corresponds to the fantasy of some transwomen who claim to get "periods" when they take hormones because the mones make them feel strange),
- having to fear getting pregnant if you're sexually active,
- (for women in all but the most feminist countries) not being given control over your own body in case you do get pregnant and instead being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, even if you're a teenager, even if it resulted from rape, etc.
- lots of stuff that doesn't pop to mind right now.

Based on things like these (and some more, different reasons really), many women don't seem to really accept that transwomen are literally women. It's a matter of definitions of course; transwomen who insist on being women insist on one definition, whereas women who see transwomen as a different group insist on a different definition.

>The differences between an XY mtf transsexual (as in, as gone through surgery and hrt and voice training and electrolysis. not just transgender) and a cis woman who is infertile are functionally nothing, and once stem cell grown vaginas and wombs become the norm for transition there will be no difference for 99.99% of real life situations.

I agree, though apart from the "functionality" aspect there's also the "lived experience" aspect of people that bring them together into (political) groups...

>I still had an intense knowing inside of me that I was a girl ever since I was 8

I would be quite interested in hearing more about this actually. For instance, how much would you guess early exposure to gender stereotyping had an effect on your developing psyche as say a toddler, and might that have caused your feelings? Or would you insist on it being an essential part of your nature and that it would have happened regardless of what sort of society you had grown up in?

>Sorry for the verbal diarehea

No no, I like hearing your opinions, even if they're not perfectly structured. If you have time and want to, feel free to keep it going.

  No.25973

>>25972
Good points are always mixed in with complete nonsense.
>+ being conditioned to behave feminine and submissive,
Possibly implicit is that men aren't conditioned and pressured towards subjectively negative societal roles. They are.
>+ being told that you're physically and emotionally less capable than boys,
The average woman is weaker than a given male of comparable size, and therein the total spectrum of physical capabilities is smaller, as is the capacity within them. It's just how it is. The problem is women accepting delusional ideas of outright inability, or embracing help such that they never bother to improve or even try.
>having men sexualize you at potentially very young age, or at least starting with teenage years,
Happens to men as well, sexual abuse included. Started typing something someone I worked for said happened when he was 12 or so, but didn't feel like making it concise. More or less he got out of the shower, didn't have a towel, and his mother grabbed his dick and said some things. He didn't give her the D, or so he says. He certainly wasn't into it, didn't like his mother much, etc. It happens. Actually, as I recall now, when I was 11 some psychologist was trying to get me to take some drugs. She rolls her chair right up close to me, between my legs, and put her hand on my inner thigh. "Take the medication, it'll help you." But no, you definitely have enough information to say men aren't sexualized to a comparable degree, temporally. You frame your claims this way to dodge the core implication of men and women viewing events differently, and that the victimhood stems from this intrinsic nature or a clustering of traits typical to women.
>being told that your role in sexuality when you grow up will be to "get fucked" as the boys call it
I'm not sure this is the average case. It's fairly apparent that women fuck and are fucked, as are men. At this level of granularity your might as well not be comparing trans and not, but given individuals in a population.
>being told you will become a wife and a mother...
Being told you'll become a father, the man of the household, and a provider...
>having to deal with periods
There was a small bit in a comic I read about this very thing. It was far in the future to the point where the human species had evolved many distinctly separate branches (more than today), and humans had mastered nano-technology, somatic genetic manipulation, etc. Sex changes were something you could have done and just undo later with relative ease.

The main character is a female bounty hunter, miserable, and hoping to screw up and die. She meets a "female" waitress on one of her missions, with cat ears a tail etc. They're clearly only female in appearance, don't desire to be female, but argue otherwise. She asks them "tampon or pad?", and they could not respond. Remembered that.

>having to fear getting pregnant if you're sexually active,

Having to fear getting someone pregnant, or a false rape allegation if your heuristics for judging context and character happen to be found wanting.

>many women don't seem to really accept that transwomen are literally women.

And they're net correct. By any reasonable metric, they aren't, and having the full experience of an average woman isn't even what they want.

  No.25976

>>25973
Are you trying to derail this thread into feminist vs. anti-feminist arguments? I'm asking this as (I suppose) one of the main feminist posters; the one who joined a short while ago.

I don't have the time or energy to respond to your post, but even if I did, it would need to be in a different thread because it's off-topic in this one.

>complete nonsense

Right back at you, Mr. "but boys get sexualized too!" I'm sure you have lots of experience with overhearing men saying "whoa look at that piece of ass" while walking past them.

  No.25981

Did homosexuals really fight for their right for 200 years just for people slandering their reputation by parading in the streets with dildos taped to their foreheads?

  No.25983

>>25981
That's a myth. People post photos of BDSM parades and throw it together with gay pride parades (intentionally or unintentionally).

  No.25984

>>25952
It seems to me that one of the reasons why the GSM community was so accepting towards allies was because many of them were often questioning or closeted GSM people who didn't want to come out before they learned more about what it was. I think that's still a thing, but it's less popular thanks to "the A is for allies" and complaints about allies using the community as a soapbox / speaking for them. I think white / rich gays speaking for the rest of the community also plays a role here, since it might be safer to be out from their position but not from other people's.

>we don't want to become a crutch

that's true, and I'm gonna have to think about that for the zine I'm starting next semester.

  No.25985

>>25972
I don't think "lived experience" comes into it too much. I mean, obviously I grew up with girls at school, and all my friends were girls too so I was exposed to many of the same things, but also like, there's plenty of tomboys or girls raised in extreme circumstances like war torn countries where lots of the examples you give don't exactly apply. What you're saying seems to be a very eurocentric set of examples and I wouldn't call cis women from other parts of the world not women because they couldn't relate. I don't claim I have had the same lived experience as every woman on the planet, because no woman has ever had lived experiences the same as one another. It's an unreasonable distinction and just seems like TERF shit to me tbh.

>would you insist on it being an essential part of your nature and that it would have happened regardless of what sort of society you had grown up in?


Well in my case I had 1 younger brother and 4 older brothers and they're all cishet guys. I don't think it's anything my parents did or school or anything did. I was just always more into girly things, always was closer to girls at school, always felt more comfortable playing girls in smash 64 or whatever, always had intense dysphoria about my body and my dick in particular. It's just something that was a part of me. I think it would have happened regardless, the question is "when" and not "if."

  No.25986

Not speaking for the entire staff here, but I'd just like to thank you all for sticking to the topic, and remaining civil in this discussion.

  No.25993

>>25981
Fuck off homophobe, we can express our pride however we want. If you were remotely an ally you'd know not to use the word "homosexual" either.

  No.25994

>>25973
The fact that patriarchy is bad for men and women doesn't make men equivalent to women, or men's experience equivalent to women's.

But let's try to keep this discussion oriented around queer pride and liberation.

(Personally, I don't really feel trans issues are at all relevant in this thread even though they're usually lumped in - queer issues and trans issues are distinct and while we should all be allies and comrades it doesn't make sense to think about them the same. Doing so is really a holdover of the "transpeople are just fetishists" stereotyping.)

  No.25996

>>25994
I agree. Sorry, I'm the lainon who's been answering the trans questions, I was just doing it cause people asked.

  No.25997

>>25983
there are many kinksters who claim to "basically be queer" because they're into sex shit like taping dildos to their heads. Unfortunately, some of them have the audacity to represent that opinion at pride parades.

>>25994
Queer is actually distinct from lgbt, it's a slightly different (more radical) political movement from lgbt normally. That's why lgbtqia+ was created, the qia is queer, intersex, and asexual/aromantic, and it's also why pride groups don't just call themselves queer now. It also was once a slur.

I think you mean to say gay issues and trans issues. They are lumped together because of a history that started with the old belief that trans* people are just fetishists, but I guess stick together for unity now.

  No.25998

>>25984
>It seems to me that one of the reasons why the GSM community was so accepting towards allies
Honestly I don't really like the community. Even the idea of seeing people as just "allies" is off putting to me. They're people with as much say in these things as I have. Sure, they're not going to be able to give a first hand account of what it's like but that doesn't mean they can't empathise with me or that they don't deserve their say when discussing these issues. They've as much right to speak for the community as a whole as well, they're part of it. I don't really want there to be a gay community you see, I just want an everybody community. Does it really matter that much who I put my dick in?

  No.25999

>>25997
should probably clarify, after it was a slur "queer" got used an umbrella term for GSM people used by activists and academics attempting to reclaim it. I still don't call anyone queer unless they identify by it.

>>25998
I'd like that community too, but I'd also rather we practice "nothing about us without us" - where GSM isn't overshadowed by allies. I haven't actually met an ally who talks for GSM people, though I have met a few who were actually biphobic in some way or another - I figured that one out by how they acted after I came out.
So I guess you have a point, the last time I've seen the "allies overshadowing GSMs" argument was when someone accused a celebrity of being a bad ally.. Ironically, they did this as she was coming out.

  No.26000

>mostly supportive replies

truly the best chan

  No.26001

>>25999
>I'd also rather we practice "nothing about us without us"
Eh, I think that's a matter of scale. Expecting people not to do the small things that come up is just unrealistic but for big things there's generally not a good reason not to get people in a better position involved. Mostly I don't really mind though, I think it's true of my own perspective more than others but I find most straight people do a pretty good job of representing me. Less hating on me or treating me differently please.

>I have met a few who were actually biphobic in some way or another

You know I get this from gay people a lot. It's not really full biphobic it's more just this assumption that because I've a preference for men actually I'm just still kinda half in the closet and in 10 years I'll be gay. It's maybe especially annoying for me because I actually went the other way. When I was young I struggled with the whole thing as many do and not really being clued up on sexuality came to the conclusion that likes men=gay and identified that way for years. I just try to ignore the eye rolls and similar though, they don't really mean anything by it.

On that subject straight people do a similar thing where they feel the need (usually while drunk) to impress upon me that they definitely don't mind that I'm bi. They mean well and just want me to feel comfortable but it almost has the opposite effect. I already knew they were fine with it by the subtle way they didn't try to stamp on my face/tell their kids to run etc but now I know that it's something that worries them. Maybe they'd feel more reluctant to insult me because it might be misconstrued as having ulterior motives or whatever. I'd rather it was just as much a non-issue to them as it is to me.

>someone accused a celebrity of being a bad ally.

Even without the coming out I think this is just silly. It seems awfully remiss to ignore the influence that a celebrity could have out of fear that they'll misspeak or that idiots will think just because they're speaking loudly they must speak for all LGBT people everywhere. I can't construe a celebrity speaking up in support as a bad thing regardless of who they are, maybe if they do a very bad job of it or something.

  No.26003

>>26000
it's great to have a chan where "I'm gay" or "I identify as anything other than a man" is not instantly met with shitposting and hate. lainons are chill and cool cyber warriors.

  No.26008

>>25997
as the OP of this thread I'd like to clarify that this is for that more radical, queer politic specifically. Fuck the liberals.

  No.26009

>>26008
are GSM people who don't identify as queer still welcome?

  No.26010

>>25997
>there are many kinksters who claim to "basically be queer" because they're into sex shit like taping dildos to their heads. Unfortunately, some of them have the audacity to represent that opinion at pride parades.

Worse, there are people actually calling themselves "queer heterosexuals" because they like femdom or something.

>>25998
>They've as much right to speak for the community as a whole as well, they're part of it. I don't really want there to be a gay community you see, I just want an everybody community.

I mean, this is good, but self-determination of oppressed groups is a vital part of fighting that oppression. Allies are not actually oppressed by heterosexism and they aren't fighting OUR fight, they're fighting their own fight (against whatever oppressions they face) beside us.

We should all be comrades, but we can't let anyone speak for us.

But because of intersectionality this is true within the queer community as well; gay men can't speak for lesbians, whites can speak for people of color, etc..

On that note...
>I've been taking a "step up, step back" approach - step back to people who haven't spoken much, elevate / support black and brown voices rather than speak for them.

This is really a thing everyone should be constantly trying to do, because everyone is privileged with respect to something, and so we can all use that to add capability to our comrades who are more oppressed.

>You need to be really careful with this. I hate to say it but people get complacent when you support them too much. We don't want to become a crutch. That's just another inequality that will need dealing with at some point. It's a delicate balance and not something there are exactly correct answers to but it's something to bear in mind.


I'm not really sure what you mean by this. A point I feel is related (but am not sure because I'm not really sure what you mean by that) is that you can't be an ally to someone who doesn't have the same goals as you. So a radical queer can't ever be an ally to a liberal PoC activist, no matter how much we'd like to facilitate the self-determination of oppressed people. We have to be able to step back, but we have to also be able to recognize when our goals are actually at odds with others. I think this point is lost often in the step up/back discourse and think it's a main part of why these communities trend towards liberalism.

  No.26011

>>26003
>>26000
Last year there was a thread like this and it was overrun in days. I think things are relatively calm now because the new resident radfem has inflamed the mods into actually enforcing rules against g/b-tier shitposters who come into a queer general and start shit. I'm waiting for the

>hurr durr straight general post ur straight stuff let's talk about being straight


thread with bated breath.

In this way we can see firsthand how feminist struggle enables and enhances our ability to fight for queer liberation. Let's not forget this when the time comes to aid in the other direction. Solidarity is the cement in our barricades and the bricks in our hands.

  No.26013

>>25959
I can say in practical terms that unless you're a very good liar, lying about one thing starts a snowball effect of additional lies, which might be situationally unrelated. You wind up working yourself into situations which are much more difficult to navigate socially and stressful.

when it comes to queer discourse, not being visibly GSM hurts you because GSM voices are pushed forward, per this discussion: >>26010

I can also say in neuroscientific terms that we're inclined to be honest. I have a study downloaded on my other hard drive about how our brains are ordinarily structured (at birth, that is) to tell the truth, which makes lying more difficult - especially when intoxicated. However, people who lie frequently can get better and better at it and possibly even switch their brain's orientation from compulsive honesty, but to be a compulsive liar takes other factors. I also used the study to analyze Yukio Mishima's Confessions of a Mask, which is an interesting text for a number of reasons.

The thing about not making your sexuality a major part of your identity is, people do this in subtle ways all the time. Our society basically revolves around sex, a specific kind of sex too which is heterosexual (homosexuality is getting more common these days but it's still a bit othered). I'm bi but I can recall times talking to The Guys (whom I no longer communicate with or otherwise acknowledge) that made me mildly uncomfortable because the conversation assumed everyone was straight, and so on. If you want a really good perspective on that sort of thing, ask an asexual person.

Those are at least some of the reasons for wanting to express your sexuality. It's not so much that you have to be expressive about it, it's that "not making a big deal over it" is harder when you're not straight because it runs contrary to people's assumptions, so it stands out more and they think you're being deliberate. It's also kind of implying they were wrong, and even though they were that makes people frustrated.

As a bi man (assigned), that's doubly so because if I casually mention a guy is cute (much like my peers mention a girl is cute) or really do anything suggesting I'm into men I feel the need to make it clear that I'm not just into men. I'm not sure why I feel this need, I suppose it's because I feel like I'm suggesting something dishonest.

  No.26020

>>25985
>there's plenty of tomboys or girls raised in extreme circumstances like war torn countries where lots of the examples you give don't exactly apply
Well, going over my list in light of what you said, the only thing I see that might be disputable is perhaps "being conditioned to behave feminine and submissive", but AFAIK even that applies in pretty much all cultures across the world, just with some differences. Even in war-torn countries. At best, girls will be called to service despite being perceived as inferiors.

But anyhow, I guess we both have differently nuanced views on the topic.

  No.26021

>>26010
>they aren't fighting OUR fight
Then why even call them allies? You make them sound like bystanders and they're not. In many cases my straight friends have literally fought beside me when times were tough. They stood their goddamn ground even though they had no stake and could have just walked away. They made it their fight and I am thankful for their aid. I wouldn't have made it through my childhood without them.

>I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

I mean that you have to be careful not to treat people like invalids because they're oppressed. We're not disabled or otherwise inhently incapable of standing up and having our own say and the idea that we'd need others to go out of their way to facilitate this should seem a little off because it is a little off. You have to remember that what we're fighting for is a world where everyone gets equal say regardless of these things. That's not the world we live in right now, so we do things like help the people who need it right now but there has to come a time when they stop leaning on us and stand on their own.

>you can't be an ally to someone who doesn't have the same goals as you.

Why not? I mean I guess if we have totally seperate goals but most of the time there's enough overlap that it's in both our interests to see each other as allies and help each other out.

>>26011
>hurr durr straight general post ur straight stuff let's talk about being straight
I know the guy who made that thread. He's a really nice guy (and one of the biggest contributors to lainchan) and wasn't trying to be a dick. He tried to post about his sexuality in the gay thread and was told that wasn't his place so he went and made a straight thread and then everybody had a go at him about that too. I really emphasised with the guy at the time. There's not many places for straight people to properly discuss their sexuality. Trying to do it with normie straight guys is going to end in "are you trying to tell me you're gay?" after 30 seconds.

See, now I almost feel like I shouldn't be saying this. What right do I have to speak for straight people? But then the alternative is not to say anything at all which isn't exactly helping here. I'd rather promote empathy and understanding however I can. That guy wasn't trying to be a problem for us, he just felt left out and that there was nowhere for him to go.

>>26013
>not being visibly GSM hurts you
This is another of those a little bit off things. In a perfect world it wouldn't matter.

>The thing about not making your sexuality a major part of your identity is, people do this in subtle ways all the time.

Yeah, although often it's not that subtle. The whole frat boy super fucking straight thing is kinda eye roll inducing but then it's not really that different to the whole flamboyantly fabulous thing. Some people just want to wear it on their sleeve and there's no real reason they shouldn't. The more subtle stuff I don't mind so much. A lot of it comes from ignorance and while it's not nice to be forgotten, a small reminder is all that's usually needed. It'll be needed time and time again but then that's how you educate on these subtle subconscious issues.

>The Guys (whom I no longer communicate with or otherwise acknowledge)

If you don't mind me asking, why?

>If you want a really good perspective on that sort of thing, ask an asexual person.

I feel for asexual people. I mean I get the odd "I know better than you what you really want" from people but it's on another level for them. Aww well, ignorance spreads like wildfire while the truth is still putting its boots on, but when the truth comes, it comes kicking.

>I'm not sure why I feel this need

Be careful with it. You aren't being dishonest just because people jump to the wrong conclusions. Let people make mistakes and correct them afterward, they learn better that way.

  No.26022

>>26021
Straight people don't need to call their threads "straight people thread" if they want to discuss sexuality. They can just call it a sexuality thread and the majority of partakers will be straight to begin with...

  No.26023

File: 1466599000162.png (39.43 KB, 117x200, 1422948887003.jpg)

>>25955
>that pic
As a mostly-straight guy who has been conditioned to have a fetish for stereotypical markers of femininity (stockings, skirts, loose dresses that show the shoulders, etc.) and objectify body parts I find sexually arousing, but who has at the same time come to a feminist consciousness, there is something very special about trap fetish for me: I can sexualize them to hell and back and not feel guilty of partaking in misogynist behavior. There is also the kinkiness aspect due to past homophobia, and perhaps the release of some deeply buried natural homosexuality.

It's just utter bliss.

Sorry if off-topic. I wrote this post with my boner.

  No.26024

>>26011
>Hate-posting against straight people
>Straight people aren't apart from my perceived norms or aberrant, therefore talking about their sexuality is never justified, inherently an attack on others, and they take their hetero bullshit, feel ashamed, and just fuck off.

You're the very thing you complain about. So desperate for your sexuality to be accepted, so much talk of "bigotry". And yet...

Don't even bother to return some nonsense about "when wuz the last time u got killed r bullied fir bein strate!" Bigger picture bud, think about it.

  No.26025

>>26024
That post isn't hate speech against straight people.
That post doesn't say the things you claim it says.
You need to calm down.

This is exactly why people ask for safe spaces.

  No.26026

>>26022
I don't think it matters so much what he decided to call it. It may not have been ideal but the point is it wasn't a hateful gesture and there was no reason to feel threatened by it.

>>26023
>who has been conditioned to have a fetish
Every aspect of who we are is conditioned as much as any other. That that little lizard part of your brain gets excited at that sort of stuff is no different to the fact that you think in English or like anime or whatever. Whatever the causes, you're you.

>objectify body parts

Body parts are objects. By their nature they're a physical thing and there's nothing wrong with finding them sexual. The problem comes when you try to treat the human being living inside of them like an object.

>I can sexualize them to hell and back and not feel guilty of partaking in misogynist behavior

There's nothing misogynistic about finding stuff sexy for whatever reasons you choose. You make your own choices in that regard and what goes on inside your head is your business and yours alone. Just remember to treat people like people, but then that goes equally regardless of who you find sexy.

  No.26027

I think gay pride parades are a little too much. I mean, I'm a reserved person, so naturally I don't like attracting a massive amount of attention for something so minimal as my choice in romantic/sexual partners. society accepts gays more than ever, so why exactly do we need to have pride parades? I don't exactly understand why anyone needs to have a pride month, but maybe thats just me. I just think gay pride parades and these pride month promotional whatever are completely counterproductive and a waste of time in the big picture. You wanted change? that's what you got. what else could you really ask for? you'll never get utopia, thats for sure.

  No.26028

>>26026
>Every aspect of who we are is conditioned as much as any other.
Come on Lain, don't do that "interpreting everything super literally" thing. It just hinders efficient communication.
Having grown up in patriarchal cultures, I've been conditioned specifically to fetishize stereotypical markers of femininity, so that I will fit better into heteronormative roles. This both stunts my own sexuality (lessened ability to be happy with partners who don't display stereotypical femininity), and hurts girls and women (if they want to attract me, they're forced to display stereotypical femininity which can have a toll on the mind, body, and time spent grooming oneself, etc.).
Maybe all of this really wasn't clear from my short phrase, but I can't explain it in depth every time...

>The problem comes when you try to treat the human being living inside of them like an object.

Or when you disregard that the "objects" that are that person's body parts are strongly tied to that person's neural system such that the person experiences them as *herself*. Moreover, I'm not sure if the human psyche is built in such a way that it can hold a clear subconscious concept of "body parts as objects but their owner as person". More likely, human (and animal) psyche is built so that it tends to see the whole body of someone else as one living entity. Objectification is a complex thing...

>There's nothing misogynistic about finding stuff sexy for whatever reasons you choose.

If I find it sexy when women submit to men and are degraded by men, that's misogynist, just like if I find it appealing when blacks submit to whites and are degraded by whites, that's racist. (And that'd be a really raw, direct racism, not even the more common sublime institutional racism.) I don't buy it that dominance and submission are justified through nature, even if I were to accept that an urge to dominate arises naturally in the minds of some [uncivilized] men.

I have a feeling you subscribe to liberal feminism as opposed to radical feminism, so we can just agree to disagree without going any further, because if my guess is right then it's impossible that we'd agree.

>>26027
You won't get utopia but hopefully we can get to a state where being gay is treated as totally normal by pretty much everyone around you, just as much as being left handed is.

  No.26029

>>26028
which is nearly what we have today.

  No.26030

>>26013
>unless you're a very good liar, lying about one thing starts a snowball effect of additional lies, which might be situationally unrelated.
It does. Even omission of the truth, or key parts of the truth, quickly becomes the functional equivalent of lying directly. The key to being a good liar is to either believe your own lies as though they were the truth, or be willing to compartmentalize different realities and keep track of how they branch. All of which require substantial overhead that accumulates over time.

>I can also say in neuroscientific terms that we're inclined to be honest.

I wouldn't say we're necessarily inclined to be honest, we're just inclined towards ease and at times the sensation of connection and visibility. Lying activates more brain regions, and it is computationally intensive. However, so are a lot of things, which is why if its potential ends are seen as valuable, whether for gratification or the avoidance of pain, it becomes worth it. Unsurprisingly, but interestingly, we work the same with other systems. In visual processing people have a distinct and consistent preference for scenes that are easy to process and extract depth / geoemtrical information from, as well as keep in their saliency map. sound is much the same.

>our brains are ordinarily structured (at birth, that is) to tell the truth, which makes lying more difficult

Like I said, for most people who try to trace a small number of threads of accuracy in their reality, lying is inherently computationally demanding and fatiguing over time. In the case of infants, it's not so much that they're wired for a direct path of honesty, it's that they're still undergoing the late stages of cortigogenesis, the corpus callosum is undergoing structural refinements, and most importantly, developing their early theory of mind (which is what really allows lying and creativity in general). As Freud said something like "The mother is the first other", or however that translates from German, he was talking about the appearance of a delineated sense of self, and therefore the notion of not self. That's all part of the process, though it's not as though it's all that well understood either.

>However, people who lie frequently can get better and better at it and possibly even switch their brain's orientation from compulsive honesty, but to be a compulsive liar takes other factors.

I find this very interesting as well. It would appear to me as though they're just altering the inputs to what are otherwise simple, almost fixed function regions. I don't know.

I almost never lie, beyond seldom omitting pieces of the truth that don't need to become shared.

>I'm not sure why I feel this need

Might tie into the above overhead of theory of mind. People, at least if they're smart about how they live, are biased towards being able to control the availability and flow of information as much as possible. This minimizes unforeseen consequences and uncertainty, as well as either maintaining a consistent outward appearance to others whom you'll interact with again, or maintaining consistency between the internal and external, thus reducing stress. No one likes experiencing "they think something that's wrong, and there's no need for it".

All comes down to the personal value system, desired outcomes, risk assessment, etc. We often forget we're just a bunch of apes living in a heavily engineered and manicured ecology with population pressures that we didn't evolve for.

  No.26031

>>26027
>hurts girls and women (if they want to attract me, they're forced to display stereotypical femininity which can have a toll on the mind, body, and time spent grooming oneself, etc.).
Why is it a problem that they'd have to make themselves attractive to you if they want to attract you? You don't owe them your sexual feelings and you aren't forcing anyone to do anything by having sexual preferences.

>that person's body parts

We're not talking about a certain persons body parts but body parts in the abstract. It's fair enough that someone might not want me looking at their dick, it's theirs, but that doesn't mean I'm in the wrong for finding dicks sexy.

>I'm not sure if the human psyche is built in such a way that it can hold a clear subconscious concept of "body parts as objects but their owner as person"

We can. I don't even consider my own body to be me. It's just another possesion. The human psyche is easily malleable enough to support an idea like this.

>If I find it sexy when women submit to men and are degraded by men, that's misogynist

No, it's not. It's a sexual urge. If you think it's alright to do these things (unless your partner's up for it ofc) then that's a problem.

>I have a feeling you subscribe to liberal feminism as opposed to radical feminism

I don't subscribe to anything. I might apply a label if I feel it will help communication but otherwise my opinions are my own and a label just removes nuance.

  No.26032

>>26026
>Every aspect of who we are is conditioned as much as any other.
Which is why the average ideal waist to hip ratio of women is 0.7, across most cultures, and always has been, right? Which is why there's a clustering in primary fears in people, across all cultures, and all times, right? Which is why most cultures developed similar systems, and suffered from repeating cycles over time, right?

Sorry lainon, but tabula rasa is oversimplified nonsense. Humans have genetic biases and our species is widely composed of underlying fixed constants. The degree with which environment can define, redefine, or built from these basic aspects, is finite. And thus you see patterns.

Gotta go deeper.

  No.26033

>>26025
And yet you would label an equivalent safe space for straight people as bigoted, simply because of the existence of a more minority group.

  No.26034

>>26032
I agree that some things are genetic. I don't think the fact that most people dislike the sensation of pain or being sick is cultural but then pulling apart what is conditioned and what is genetic is a difficult (not to mention divisive) exercise that doesn't affect the core point. It doesn't matter why you are the way you are.

  No.26035

>>26034
>but then pulling apart what is conditioned and what is genetic is a difficult (not to mention divisive) exercise
Very.

>that doesn't affect the core point.

No.

>It doesn't matter why you are the way you are.

No. Only once you've exhausted attempting to understand yourself and realized where these boundaries lie, can you truly accept "I am me, because I am me." Anything else is naive and highly destructive.

  No.26036

I just don't fucking care.

People can be whatever they want to, just get out of my face with it.

  No.26037

>>26033
The whole world is a safe space for straight people.

This thread is being derailed by the same reactionaries who are shitting up every lainchan thread remotely related to actual cyberpunk. Go back to openbsd-misc or more likely, some Arch forum.

  No.26038

>>26029
The mods have deleted a half dozen hateful posts in this thread alone. Do you think that would happen in a left handed general?

This is off topic hateposting. The point of this thread is to discuss queer liberation, not debate whether we have a right to be "uppity". Fuck off with your denial of our struggle.

  No.26039

>>26036
This is shaming behavior. You wouldn't say a straight couple being straight was "in your face."

Where are the "truly the best chan" people now?

  No.26040

>>26037
It's not. Unfortunately you're far too stuck in your own perspective to think from someone else's with any real depth, or granularity.

As an example, say you don't like high heels. To you, they look stupid, clumsy, and do not magically improve an already unappealing ass. You might think they're almost infantile peacock behavior, and this thread may lead you to a array of other aspects governing human behavior, society, sexuality, and the human condition itself. You might wonder if people genuinely find generic celebrities attractive, or if they're largely conditioned to fall in line with what they think they're supposed to like.

Yes yes, the context and content of your "safe space" is far different, but there is overlap. Now you fucking read this, and respond to me. Try to say none of these topics are taboo, and no opinions won't get a straight person attacked, regardless of how they go about it.

Pro-tip:
>You can't.

>Go back to

I don't really use forums, and I've never intentionally been part of a community. Being on lainchan is out of the norm.

  No.26041

>>26035
>Only once you've exhausted attempting to understand yourself
There is no exhausting such a journey. There is always more to discover about oneself.

>realized where these boundaries lie

They aren't boundaries. They provide us with a base but it's still malleable. That's why you get people who enjoy pain. Part of the reason these things are so difficult to pull apart is because the answer to any one particular characteristic is usually both.

>can you truly accept "I am me, because I am me."

You can accept that whenever you like and it's important to. There's a hell of a lot to be learned understanding oneself but that doesn't really matter when it comes to the basic idea of being comfortable with who you are on a day to day basis.

  No.26042

>>26041
>There is no exhausting such a journey. There is always more to discover about oneself.
Yes, I know. I saw that coming and almost deleted my post and added something to cover that more specifically. I'm talking more in a given frame of life, rather than the course of life as a whole.

>They aren't boundaries.

It seems we're talking about slightly different boundaries. Or rather, the same thing from different angles.

Whether you're working from the top down, or the bottom up, at any given point in your life there are limits. And there are points where you simply don't have the means to piece something together, to find reconciliation, or a meaningful type of self understanding relative to whatever the topic or concern is. It's not a search for The Answer, or Truth, just an answer, and a viable truth.

The brain is a finite machine, and without the means to think a thought, a mind will not come to think it. This is why searches become cluttered and may reach temporary dead ends. At which point, it's probably best to move on, as you'll likely just end up somewhere similar to try again, eventually. That's all I mean.

>idea of being comfortable with who you are on a day to day basis.

No. It does factor in, at least for a certain sort of person. But now we're just talking about different things from the same angle.

  No.26043

>>26042
Oh right, I think I have a better idea of where you're coming from now. You're right and it's an interesting subject but we are drifting off topic here. I will add one more thing I think we can agree on, "To know oneself is the highest virtue."

  No.26046

File: 1466621528240.png (48.1 KB, 200x200, consider the following.jpg)

>>26033
Straight people aren't being oppressed for being straight, lainon.

  No.26047

>>26039
It's still the best chan because only ~50% of the board consists of people like that, instead of the typical >90%. ;_;

  No.26048

>>26029
I think that really depends on the circles you frequent. AFAIK it's still a common thing for people who come out to be disowned by their parents. And considering that most people find out their orientation at puberty already, and that people are highly romantically/sexually active around ages 14-18 and still often live with their parents in those years... I can only imagine it still being hell for a lot of gay people.

>>26032
I'm not the person you're quoting, but the one who originally mentioned conditioning (>>26023) and note how my post listed things such as stockings, skirts, and other clothing, and if you asked me to expand the "etc." I might add make-up (though I in particular dislike "full makeup", and one could argue that "natural makeup" makes every person prettier by making their skin look smoother), passive/submissive/feminine behavior, slutty behavior (again something that doesn't really appeal to me personally most of the time, but many men)... In any case I wouldn't claim that things such as hip ratio and breast form/size are purely conditioned (though I'd say they still are to a significant degree); instead I tend to focus on obvious examples when I speak about this because that's already significant enough.

I *hope* what I said is uncontroversial because it's off-topic and I think we should stop it.

  No.26049

>>26048
Hip ratio and breast size are probably purely genetic. Luckily, they have little to no effect on how our brain functions.

  No.26054

>>26049
I meant men's sexual preferences for certain hip/waist/shoulder ratios and breast sizes. Those may well be conditioned to some degree.

  No.26055

>>26011
>>26038
>mods
just remember, the mods aren't against these threads but they aren't on our side, either. At least collectively. Any posts that violate the rules will be deleted, whether its calling another user a faggot or cis-scum. I also don't think they've deleted dozens of posts in this thread.
>>26029
for some
>>26030
Do you have a background in neuroscience? I haven't read much at all on the subject, just a few studies like the one on lying but your input seems really interesting. We are just a bunch of apes but we are the most intelligent apes - http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/humans-are-highest-energy-apes-making-us-smarter-also-fatter

Also, the recognition of the self and the other sounds more like hegel than freud.

Another interesting piece to consider: http://www.meltingasphalt.com/hallucinated-gods/ it's not a stretch to say that our brains have changed since the early days of humanity

>>26037
>>26040
I don't think it's so much that the world is a safe place for straight -people- (straight people can be marginalized in other ways) but rather straightness. Being straight is safe, so much so that some of us act straight against our proclivities because that safety precedes self expression and comfort. As far as I know, there's nobody who acts gay just because it's the safer option - though I know a few women who give up on dating men because they've been seriously fucked with in the past.

I personally believe no large public setting can actually be a safe space. It can and should be made safe, however.

  No.26056

>>26038
Gays in the 21st century have had quite a better time than gays in the early 1900's, so don't go on like you know a damn thing about"the struggle". You're acting entitled, and I hope you realize that. No one on this chan has to celebrate or recognize you just because you're gay. Lainchan would be better off without this types of posts.

  No.26057

>>26056
queer person here who came of age in the 90's during the AIDS crisis. "'"'the struggle"'"' is still definitely a thing among trans communities and should not be forgotten when discussing lgbt+ issues.

  No.26059

>>26032
and when you go deeper you run into stuff like epigenetics, and how genetics isn't a simple lineage-based system but rather a complex process involving RNA and the environment.
>>26056
those 1900s gays were so entitled, what with their access to antibiotics, sanitation, and agriculture. They should show more respect to the 30,000 BC gays who didn't have such luxuries. lainchan would be better out without these kinds of posts, and electricity.

  No.26062

>>26055
>I don't think it's so much that the world is a safe place for straight -people- (straight people can be marginalized in other ways) but rather straightness.

That's an excellent point and I'll make sure to say it that way in the future.

  No.26063

>>26055
>I also don't think they've deleted dozens of posts in this thread.

If you use a client that scrapes the thread you can see them. I said about a half dozen, not dozens.

  No.26064

>>26046
Not relevant to the topic.

>>26048
>the one who originally mentioned conditioning
Yeah, there's a lot, and yet very little to be said here. But it's difficult to make clean and concise, so I don't really want to get into it.

It is at present difficult, if not impossible, to sharply delineate what is genetic and what is the result of the sensory inputs within a given environment. It isn't even readily possible to put in a deterministic sense the interplay between the two, even at a very minute scale with the starting conditions known. This goes for everything, sexuality and otherwise.

So you tend to just have to develop heuristics, look for patterns, look for clustering elements over temporal and cultural divides. And most importantly, utilize theory of mind and your own reason to come up with working conclusions (that's where the problems between individuals begin, obviously).

Anyway. Some of it is very, very clearly learned and contextual. Some is conditioned. Some is genetic. And to varies by individual to a decent extent. Not a topic I really bother talking about in the abstract. It's almost frustrating. Even if you could mentally put it all in line, language wouldn't allow you to condense and represent it properly. I also disagree this is off topic, but whatever.

>>26055
>I personally believe no large public setting can actually be a safe space.
>It can and should be made safe, however.
I think you were right the first time around. If humans are going to meticulously engineer their ecology, people should be able to feel a sense of safety, within reason. The problem is, people aren't reasonable, change is hard, and no one likes to admit when they have a role in a given problem. Making the world a safe space, as far as most people's ideas are concerned, would be like living a clean room environment where nothing is uncertain, nothing is unsolicitied, nothing is unplanned, nothing is uncomfortable unless you give consent, and above all, nothing, nowhere, never, will cause offense.

It's delusional and terrible, proving yet again people can't handle doing anything right. Even the most basic ideas are corrupted and torn to shreds.

  No.26065

>>26059
Epigenetics isn't the trippy magic a lot of people want to think it is, though. Many adaptations never make it to the germ-line, and the actual impact of any given biasing towards certain copies of genes being expressed isn't typically so great. There's a lot bigger impact from dietary tRNA intake, probably.

  No.26069

>>26064
>>>26046
>Not relevant to the topic.
Absolutely relevant to the topic. Knowing this is part of developing a solid queer politic.

  No.26074

Why do glitterboys feel the need to turn their sexual preferences into a political movement? Is there nothing in certain peoples' characters that they can emphasize in their identity besides who they'd like to bang? It seems a bit silly to me.

  No.26075

>>26074
It does make sense where there is very real and political oppression towards gay people. Oppression as in living in fear of a barbaric and untimely death, or being sent to prison just because the legal system might spot your orientation.

In the west this is certainly not the case nowadays.

  No.26076

>>25958
I feel like it depends on the situation.
For me i am bi and live in a pastors family. The adventist church hasn't and will never accept non-hetero people so i see coming out as something that could damage my father's career which puts food on the table. Also, he once said (jokingly but still sincerely) that he'd be proud of me no matter what as long as i am not
A.) A theif
B.) Gay
So with me being a bi person who could verywell be attached to the opposite sex I don't see the point in creating drama for what could be no reason.

  No.26077

>>26026
I'm familiar with the OP as well and believe he had good intentions, the framing of the thread just felt very reactionary because it was like saying "why do the gays think they're so special?"

However, I agree that there needs to be more space for healthy expression of sexuality, not just for straight men because, surprise, gay spaces aren't always home to healthy sexuality either. I feel like the creation of /feels/ is something of a response to that, which of course emerged from similar topics being posted on /r/. /feels/ is a primarily heterosexual space by the earlier stated reasons, but it's also a queer space because of how it covers topics typically queered by heterosexual masculinity. This of course creates conflict which is why you see so much political argument breaking out on that board specifically.

.. man I am getting way off topic here, I guess it's late and my meds wore off. Anyway, to answer your question:
>>The Guys (whom I no longer communicate with or otherwise acknowledge)
>If you don't mind me asking, why?
the same reason I stopped using 4chan. Although funny and probably the most aligning with my culture / interests, there was this aggressive conformity about the group that arose from an abusive relationship with a single individual. He shamed politics, behavior, and so forth that diverged from his own, attempting to enforce it with violence when anyone breached a sensitive topic, a category that gradually increased. He also took advantage of our sympathy, because without us he'd have no friends.

I was kind of hoping that somehow, by turning the other cheek and not participating in the prevalent masculinity the dynamic would change, but it didn't and instead he became increasingly hostile towards me as well as attempting to push me out of the group, behavior which the others were complicit in. I eventually said fuck it, let the other guys (who weren't the nicest to me either) deal with him and make friends with girls.

So far it's been going alright, though hard to find a particular niche - I don't completely identify with the tum-blr gay, though many of my friends can be described that way, but I also don't identify with more traditional LGBT groups either, radical or otherwise.

  No.26080

>>26077
to clarify, the framing of the straight general thread

  No.26082

>>26069
It's not relevant. You tried to redefine the topic, and I rejected it for obvious reasons.

Look back at the context of the post you responded to.

  No.26097

>>26082
As the OP of this thread I can definitively state that the string "straight people aren't oppressed for being straight" is on topic for a pride aka queer liberation general.

If you're going to assume the discussion questions I posted exactly delineate the thread, assume that straights pretending oppression is colonization of queer spaces and ideologies.

  No.26101

>>26062
The simpler way to say the same thing, which people usually prefer AFAIK, is "X aren't oppressed for being X."

E.g. straight people aren't oppressed for being straight, white people aren't oppressed for being white, male people aren't oppressed for being male, etc.

It's a really basic thing and it's pretty sad that so many people out in the wild don't even understand that much.

  No.26102

>>25932
at risk of sounding rude, how is pansexual any different than bisexual? Again I'm not trying to be offensive but I've never really been able to get a straight answer from pansexuals or bisexuals who I have talked to

  No.26104

>>26039
not the person you replied to but I think what they mean is that sexuality isn't really a big deal. I have to agree with them, I'm not exactly what you'd call a cis straight male or whatever, I have attractions beyond that and I'd rather not go into detail but my point is, it's literally unimportant. people take this stuff way out of proportion. it doesn't matter what label you decide to put on yourself because you should judge people based on the content of their character not based on gender, race, sexuality etc.

  No.26105

File: 1466705984334.png (672.74 KB, 200x191, 1461940254190-int.jpg)

I'm a closeted lesbian. I don't plan on ever dating anyone because people are too awful to be around so I'm just going to be bitter about human contact and shit.

  No.26107

>>25929
As I feel like this post is open to anyone, I shall post.
>How do you identify?
I identify as a heterosexual.
>Are you out?
Nope, I'm sitting on my couch at home. I went out yesterday, though!
>Are you doing anything for pride?
Well... Yes. I always make sure to brush my hair thoroughly before I leave my house.
>How do we ensure queer liberation doesn't come at the cost of colonizing our communities culturally and economically?
That's a good question, and it's one that I've never really pondered. Maybe still try to not sell things just because they're made by queers? Like, you see people selling stuff that's "Made in America" but you probably don't want stuff that just labels it as "Made by supporters of queer liberation." Just my three cents (I threw another cent in for good luck).

  No.26108

>>26097
>As the OP of this thread
Not relevant.
>I can definitively state that the string "straight people aren't oppressed for being straight"
I identify it as an array of chars, thanks. Since it's that way from my perspective you have no choice but to submit.
>is on topic for a pride aka queer liberation general.
Threads are not a strictly hierarchical superset / subset relationship, and your opinion isn't relevant.
> assume that straights pretending oppression is colonization of queer spaces and ideologies.
I'm having trouble interpreting this, to be honest.

  No.26109

File: 1466707773668.png (118.8 KB, 150x200, Woman_Hating-p183.png)

>>26102
From what I know, pansexuality is more about the philosophy of not caring about gender and just loving everyone, as opposed to the concept of bisexuality which implicitly recognizes a strict gender binary.

Pic related book doesn't ever mention pansexuality IIRC, but see the footnote. Not sure if this may be at the roots of why the concept of pansexuality was invented.

  No.26110

>>26108
>I'm having trouble interpreting this, to be honest.
Never mind, I more or less understand. And it isn't relevant.

Anyway. I'll leave this thread alone now.

  No.26111

>>26104
>you should judge people based on the content of their character not based on gender, race, sexuality etc.
The whole point of pride parades and such is to further the opinion that people should not be judged based on their non-hetero sexuality.

People still do that. Some homosexual teenagers still have to live in terror under their own parents.

  No.26113

>>26109
bisexuality increasingly means "attraction to two genders" rather than "attraction to both genders" these days. I think that that many people who formerly identified as bisexual could be more accurately described as pansexual, except the word didn't exist back then, so "bisexual" still carries the meaning they gave it. IMO the labeling really is just a matter of personal preference, bisexual people are more likely to not experience attraction towards nonbinary individuals but not always.

  No.26114

>>26113
I don't like "these days".

  No.26115

It's really exhausting to have to keep falling back to whether or not queers are oppressed at all.

If you're not queer and think you should post saying queers aren't oppressed, just shut the fuck up. Your opinion doesn't matter.

Even if you are queer and are rich and white enough to think you aren't oppressed, still shut up. Your opinions aren't universal. The first response in this thread should be all that's necessary to show that yes, queers are oppressed, and yes, we do need to fight to win basic freedoms breeders enjoy from birth, like publicly dating or not hiding yourself from your family.

Yet more reactionaries shitting up lainchan with their ideology, dumping it everywhere even though we're all here to help each other work towards liberation.

  No.26116

>>26113
Personally I'll date/fuck genderqueers or whatever, but like money only exists in capitalism, gender only exists in patriarchy and it's liberal to think there are individual expressions of gender. Gender is a top down construct.

I identify as bi, not pan, for that reason. It means I'm attracted to everyone, because everyone in patriarchal society is assigned one of two genders.

Once we have feminism on a societal scale, gender won't exist as a concept and this will just be the default.

  No.26120

>>26115
The dialogue actually tends to fall back to either the nature of that oppression, which you covered in your post, or the things people say, do, and demand using that (social perception of) oppression as a basis. Many of which are nonsense, which readily garners responses.

>breeders

You have no right to be talking about reactionaries.

  No.26122

>>26121
Not how it works, nor how it ought to work.

I hope you realize things are bigger than you or any given movement, and learn to incorporate this understanding of scale into your endeavors.

  No.26123

>>26122
Can we not have one thread on lainchan to ourselves? Is that really too much?

The answer is no and yes because you can't stand the idea of queer liberation. You can't stand the idea of us existing outside the reality you've been conditioned to support and perpetuate.

  No.26124

>>26123
>Can we not have one thread on lainchan to ourselves? Is that really too much?
I'm not them, but you don't get to have a thread that bars anyone from participation. That's not the way an imageboard works.

>>26115
>If you're not queer and think you should post saying queers aren't oppressed, just shut the fuck up. Your opinion doesn't matter.
That simply tries to kill any real discussion on the topic. That's not how debate works.

>we do need to fight to win basic freedoms breeders enjoy from birth, like publicly dating or not hiding yourself from your family.

This is predicated on the ideal that everyone should accept everyone, which is not realistic.

>Yet more reactionaries shitting up lainchan with their ideology, dumping it everywhere even though we're all here to help each other work towards liberation.

That seems hypocritical. I'm not here to help certain people work towards liberation at all.

  No.26125

>>26123
>Can we not have one thread on lainchan to ourselves?
Is this what you truly, genuinely want?

>Is that really too much?

In the average case, yes. People can't handle much of anything. If you made an LGBT community large enough, but still such that you had it to yourselves, it would quickly ruin itself. I accepted this long ago, anything that isn't either meticulously controlled, or managed to a certain scale, will never approach the ideal by any reasonable metric. Whether your own or otherwise.

>The answer is no and yes because you can't stand the idea of queer liberation.

"liberation" is quite an ambiguous word.

I'm apathetic towards "queer liberation", beyond it existing as a component of a better world relative to my ideas of what humans are, and can be expected to become. If I was in charge, would I have immediately legalized gay marriage, etc? Yes. Will I join your tribe, agree with every prevailing idea and stance in the "LGBT community", and campaign out in the streets for you? Certainly not. If I think it's valuable, then I say it as I see it, sometimes you'll feel like that's on your side, sometimes you won't. I have and maintain no stature. The threat of being framed as a bigot for not strictly conforming is an empty one.

>You can't stand the idea of us existing outside the reality you've been conditioned to support and perpetuate.

I'm fine with you existing, I just don't think you're special. There are novel aspects of your overall condition within a given ecology, and I do factor that in, I just don't make it more than it is.

The claim of conditioning is also false. It's a useful heuristic when it comes to describing a subset of human behavior, but not universally applicable. I know it's concise and sounds good, but don't overuse it.

  No.26128

>>26113
Wut, I thought "nonbinary" is just a label people slap on themselves as a statement with zero relevance to their biology and sometimes even "gender expression". (Extreme(?) example: http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/news/a43461/what-is-non-binary-gender/ )
I usually tend to think sexual attraction is primarily towards secondary sex characteristics, i.e. biological characteristics. (Just with lots of culturally conditioned fetishization added on top.)
So how exactly can a bisexual not feel attracted to e.g. the woman in the above seen article (unless she's just "not his/her type" that is)?

  No.26130

>>26128
other anon. I think "non-binary" is just something purely political. Created to question gender and so on.

  No.26131

>>26128
Well firstly, sexual attraction isn't just towards secondary sex characteristics (which are also culturally determined), it includes factors such as personality, level of closeness, behavior, and other qualities. That includes what you disparage as "gender expression".

And to answer your other question, that is what just not being their type is. Gender and sexuality are really complicated when you want to get into what people are actually feeling and not what society reduces everything to, so a lot of these labels are just blanket categories.

For instance, the medical term for what you've described is "androgynophilia," but I doubt you'll get very far calling yourself an androgynophiliac.

Also, "they" has been used as a gender neutral pronoun for a while now, not sure why you'd disapprove of using it.

  No.26132

How do you identify?
bi but more gay, starting hrt to be more feminine

Are you out?
lol never ever

Are you doing anything for pride?
no pride is dumb

  No.26134

>>26131
let me correct that. androgynophilia is attraction towards people who are androgynous, ambiphilia is the medical term for attraction to masculinity and femininity.

  No.26135

>>26128
There does not meaningfully exist any such thing as "non-binary". Even in cases of intersex physiology, they're still either a variant of either sex, or a cobbling together of the two, depending on how you want to look at it. In neither case has anything outside the binary come to exist, there is no third sex, and gender is just a series of abstractions with personal philosophy and cultural context thrown in that doesn't necessarily map to hard mechanical truths.

This is part of why I post in these threads. There's a muddling of what you can reasonably infer to be underlying absolutes, and high level ideological notions which exist only within the machinery of an individual's mind. I think moving away from an attempt at accuracy and truth is the opposite of what the human species should be doing, and it's not going to serve anyone well in the longrun, It will not lead to a more peaceful or understanding world.

  No.26136

>>26135
the categories of sex are collections of arbitrary qualities that are themselves socially determined. It's ridiculous to say physical characteristics are a social construct, and nobody is. It's that tits = female is a social construct.

also non-binary refers to gender, and not sex.

  No.26137

>>26136
>also non-binary refers to gender, and not sex.
Why bother.

  No.26139

>>26111
that's true everyone should be free to be who they are but there seems to be a lot of guilt tripping straight people which doesn't seem to help anything and is why i never really feel like I fit into the lgbt community

  No.26140

>>26116
>gender is a social construct
so gay people choose to be gay? The christian fundamentalists have been right all along? and here I thought they were the bigots but nope guess it's me

  No.26141

>>26137
if someone doesn't identify strongly with being male or female
>>26140
nobody chooses what others call them, lain.

  No.26143

File: 1466740646290.png (44.45 KB, 200x140, freedom-bash-back.jpg)

>>26124
>That simply tries to kill any real discussion on the topic. That's not how debate works.
>>26124
>That simply tries to kill any real discussion on the topic. That's not how debate works.
>>26124
>That simply tries to kill any real discussion on the topic. That's not how debate works.


MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE MOTHER FUCKER

I'd say see you in the streets but you never go outside

  No.26144

>>26140
Gender is a social construct. The type of sex people like to have generally isn't. This is why there's frequently conflict between the two and why sex is so controlled in virtually all hierarchical cultures.

But gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8

  No.26148

Making what bits can make you horny a significant part of your identity is pathetic and gross.
Also, attempting to expand the common understanding of "gender" to more than 'male' and 'female' does more harm than good for the very ideas itd supposedly be done to further. Continuing to emphasize "gender identity" forces people to pay some attention and care to the traditionally prescribed sex-gender-roles and how their personality compares to them, instead of letting them just be who they are without being forced to see themselves according to whatever 'genders' theyve heard of.
It also stops people who aren't *that asshole*, or are just pretty fairly 'masculine' or 'feminine' according to how society characterizes those from not being pressured by the 'male' and 'female' gender role.
Devaluing the idea and prescriptions of gender is better than fucking *expanding* it.

  No.26149

>>26059
>30,000 BC gays who didn't have such luxuries
I think there's a very relevant point in this. Compared to 30,000 BC we all lead pretty easy lives and yet still people complain about this, that or the other and in a way, they've every right to. Just because the world is better than the horrific nightmare that 30,000 BC probably was doesn't mean we should stop improving it and regardless of the small scale of our problems they always matter to us on a personal level. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't maintain a sense of perspective but at the same time it's perfectly reasonable to care.

I've often been an outlet for straight people to discuss their sexuality and they're really grateful for it and it's not surprising. Sexuality can be a meaningful thing for anyone and this is a problem for them and it's understandable they care. Yeah, it's a first world problem and most of them recognise this (the exceptions usually being the less social who have had it a little worse) but, on a personal level, not being able to discuss your sexuality in a fashion you find meaningful isn't great and here's no reason not to acknowledge that. In many cases that's the only reason they bothered you with it in the first place.

So, no, nobody is going to march in solidarity for your straight rights, we have better shit to be doing but that doesn't mean we can't empathise.

>>26125
>Is this what you truly, genuinely want?
Not personally but it is what some people want. As anons though it's perhaps too much to ask.

>If you made an LGBT community large enough, but still such that you had it to yourselves, it would quickly ruin itself.

I'm not so sure that's true. Sure it won't be a utopia but that's a long way from ruin. I'm just not sure it's wise.

>I'm apathetic towards "queer liberation", beyond it existing

That doesn't sound so apathetic. I think we have similar ideas of a better world but in the here and now we have things to do.

>>26143
Sure they are and we should be glad of it. We haven't the force to secure them another way. I mean if you wanna go have a fight be my guest but don't fool yourself that you're helping the cause.

  No.26152

>>26148
I'm not sure where you're getting these arguments from but many of us want to do away with gender in its entirety. Those who don't call for a radical reformation or wouldn't be so up-front about their sexuality if they weren't getting oppressed for it.

>>26149
oh I completely agree, I was mocking the first entitlement guy. People come to me for relationship advice all the time too, it's kind of funny as someone who isn't terribly into dating or heterosexuality that I seem to know so much about what makes a healthy relationship.

utopianism is another one of those fake sympathy arguments closely related to the guy I was making fun of. They both carry the idea that you should be proud of what you have now, with the implication that you're being thrown a bone and should just give up before it's taken away from you.

  No.26153

File: 1466764400472.png (76.19 KB, 200x100, Sam Escobar.jpg)

>>26131
>Well firstly, sexual attraction isn't just towards secondary sex characteristics (which are also culturally determined), it includes factors such as personality, level of closeness, behavior, and other qualities. That includes what you disparage as "gender expression".
Well yes, but we're all naked below our clothes, and people of any sex can have any personality. If a man claiming to be heterosexual finds a physically attractive woman unattractive purely because she doesn't behave "feminine", I would identify that as a culturally conditioned dislike of women who don't obey their assigned gender stereotypes. (Or, to give the guy the benefit of doubt, it could be that he's a very sensitive type and "feminine" himself, and finds non-"feminine" people threatening. But that's a different thing entirely.) I would certainly not validate this sexist conditioning in terms of some funky gender identity/expression stuff.

Oh and as for "secondary sex characteristics are culturally determined," nah, it's a biological fact that women have, say, wider hips, narrower shoulders, a rounder and shorter chin, etc. on average, and while I cannot be 100% sure I'm pretty strongly inclined to believe that such physical characteristics are what give us our natural, non-conditioned function of sexual attraction.

>And to answer your other question, that is what just not being their type is. Gender and sexuality are really complicated when you want to get into what people are actually feeling and not what society reduces everything to, so a lot of these labels are just blanket categories.

I agree on the second sentence, but with "not their type" I meant in terms of physical appearance. Pic related person is obviously biologically female (*could* be a very early transitioner, or have XY chromosomes but complete androgen insensitivity, etc., but as far as a glance at her face goes, she's simply female), and not just that, she even dresses and poses in ways that are congruent with contemporary femininity.
So to reiterate, I don't buy it that people have some sort of gender identity detectors and will find pic related person unattractive if they are otherwise attracted to women (unless her particular facial structure or body type is not appealing to them for whatever reason unrelated to sexual orientation).

  No.26154

>>26153
I was never making a case for imaginary gender identity detectors and feel like it's something of a strawman, I thought simply ignoring that point would make it clear.

the vast majority of the time, people aren't naked, as such what they're wearing and how they present play an important role in how you're attracted to them. This is also a function of their identity, which includes their gender identity (or lack thereof). Is it immune to patriarchy? No. However, it exists.

Consider that gender is partly assigned based on personality, and there's certain personalities others are expected to fit into - consider how much one's personality is affected by their experiences, which include experiences of oppression, sexism, and so on. Our behavior will be fundamentally different after gender is destroyed, and perhaps personalities will be effectively the same distribution across all sexes. However, this is not currently the case. In addition, closeness is limited by prevalent heteromasculinity - if a man is close with a woman, they must be Dating, and that woman is expected to be his emotional support. To the man, this is love.

All this considered, "bisexual" seems to exist as a declaration of attraction identifying with the synthesis of two heterosexual attractions, but also with non-heterosexual attraction towards everyone, which is more frequently being called pansexuality. Many people who identify as bisexual may not be attracted to those who present against the gender binary, but I would say this is more a lack of familiarity than anything else. These people may also be less attracted to those undergoing HRT, who seem to appear in an invisible space between the two options given by the gender binary - since any designation would reveal its underlying flaws, they are erased.

I'm also not denying the biological fact that those assigned female have wider hips, narrow shoulders and so on in general, it's the association of all these characteristics into the female sex that is socially constructed. Yes, there is a correlation with certain genitalia, which affects birth assignment but technology and fashion conventions are rapidly outdating these biological realities, and as always, culture will stick around longer than material possibility.

  No.26155

>>26136
>It's that tits = female is a social construct.
We can call everything a social construct in that the whole phenomenon of language is socially constructed and everything in the universe that humans name and categorize, they do so for their own human reasoning ability and social/communication purposes. But at that point the term "social construct" loses its usefulness.

I would contend that, given the fact that humans, like pretty much all mammals (and even many if not most other animals, and even many plants), are a sexually dimorphic species, and that penises and vulvae are normal physical characteristics of these two biological sexes, it's justified to say that "vulva = female, penis = male" is not a "social construct" in any useful sense of the term.

(Breasts might be a little more complicated, as there's many women with very small breasts and men with manboobs, though it should still be fine to say that comparatively larger/visible breasts, and the ability to lactate, are basically female characteristics.)

As some other people put it succinctly, "every person on the planet was conceived from an ova (large, immobile gamete) and a sperm (small, mobile gamete), and spent several months in a womb." We call those who produce sperm male, and those who produce ova and own a womb female. This is useful terminology, at the very least in medicine.

I would say it's also useful terminology in relationships (regardless of whether you want biological kids), since it seems that (and it kinda makes evolutionary sense) that people are predominantly heterosexual, i.e. are sexually attracted to members of the opposite biological sex.

And note that *none* of the above justifies any of:
- discrimination against people who don't conform to culturally constructed norms of attire, behavior, etc. seen as fitting for members of either biological sex,
- discrimination against people who have other sexual preferences than the typical heterosexuality (which probably almost everyone has to *some* degree, especially given our brains aren't perfect in deducing who is female and who is male, let alone being able to deduce at all who is actually *fertile*),
- discrimination against people whose biology has some quirks that make it unclear whether their body is better referred to as female or male.

To be honest, I think that sanctioning all sorts of "gender identities" and what not as natural truths on the same level as e.g. biological sex is an active disservice to people's liberation from concepts such as gender [norms], heteronormativity, and so on. I believe we should be taking apart and abolishing social constructs, not bringing new ones into the picture.

Note that this is not to say that e.g. women with homosexuality, men with homosexuality, women who feel constrained by restrictive gender norms, men who feel constrained by restrictive gender norms, etc. can't form political groups and advocate for their particular rights within the existing system. They should, and they should form alliances, so all together they can bring down the system.

But to create such a vast array of new "gender identities" and other personal identities and to sanction them as natural and essential parts of who we are, doesn't that split us apart and prevent us from coming together under an understanding of the shared problem from which we all suffer in our unique ways? I would contend that all of these newfangled "gender identities" are just individually flavored responses to the same restrictive gender roles. Viewing them in isolation and sanctioning them as naturally existing categories only prevents us from realizing that they are all just individual responses to the *same* problem.

I hope that made sense...

  No.26156

>>26154
OK, I think I understand now, and we're in agreement so long as it's clear that a categorical lack of attraction to "non-binary" identifying/expressing individuals is a result of culturally conditioned distaste of people who don't obey their assigned gender norms.

  No.26175

>>26148
I don't care if people think I'm an ass or not. I just like women. And cunts.

  No.26176

>>26155
sexual dimorphism is mostly a reality, the thing is our perceptions of that reality are also affected by the gender binary. this isn't exclusive to humans - our observations and findings from other species may reflect the bias as well. On the most extreme end, a recent study shows that our actual sense of sight might be affected by cognitive biases. The relevance we give to sexual dimorphism is also a result of social trends, which affects how we talk and think about it.

something humans have which other species don't, however, is unprecedented control over our own biology, as well as perceptions of that biology. hormones can be given to people to change the way they look, surgeries can be done with relative ease and progress is even being made towards functional replacements for reproductive organs.

beyond that, corsettes as well as binders have existed for an awfully long time now, and computer programs such as photoshop control images in practically every piece of professional media. Fashion conventions call for an aesthetic highly removed from what one would consider "natural." To trust your own observations of female biology in the media or reality is to trust a lie.

In a medical context, it is simply more effective to address the relevant characteristics than to assume they all fall under a biological default. there are infertile women and men, men and women without complete genitals, women who don't menstruate, and intersex people who have been given surgery at birth to reflect gender assignment.

many non-european cultures have >2 genders without making a real distinction between gender and sex like we have. you might make the case that our scientific understanding is much farther ahead, but sex-pertaining technology such as birth control has also existed in non-western cultures for a while.

  No.26177

My stance is pretty boring in that I support people being able to live their personal lives the way they want as long as they're not hurting/exploiting others. That being said, it's not a righty cop-out on the LGBT issue. I generally support Pride festivities, and I think anyone would want a celebratory culture after coming out from literally centuries of oppression (that's still going on in other parts of the world).

The trans issue is probably going to take a lot longer. There's enough of a stigma around modding your own body even without the gender issue. But oddly enough american society loves its fake tits.

Disclaimer: hetero-american-male (haha, a H.A.M.)

  No.26178

>>26176
>>26155
to add: another study shows that most people are actually bisexual, which is to say they experience arousal from the nude forms of both sexes but for the most part don't identify by it.

to use levels of abstraction for sex and gender, as if you were referring to a computer system, ignores the direct relationship all these concepts have with our minds.

I should apologize for not giving links to these studies, I'm away from a computer at the moment but I should be able to get back to them eventually.

  No.26490

Has anyone else noticed an uptick in homophobia on lainchan?

The mods are pretty good about deleting random personal attacks, but it's worrying to me that there are more rightist homophobes here now. What can do about that?

  No.26492

>>26490
Having opinions isn't against the rules, you don't do shit.

  No.26493

>>26492
>Still trapped in rule worship mentality
>Homophobic
>Somehow thinks he can be homophobic without queers bashing back

Why the fuck are you here? Serious question.

Case in fucking point.

  No.26497

File: 1468388554027.png (62.09 KB, 189x200, ~!.jpg)

>>26490
>it's worrying to me that there are more rightist homophobes here now. What can do about that?

Post more girls loving girls~

  No.26506

>>26490
>>26493
>lainchan is only for leftists and SJWs
>everyone I don't like must be banned

Cus you know, we're all about freedom and people being free n' stuff.

  No.26509

>>26506
>>26506
Yeah pretty much. Are you fucking new here? Lainchan has always trended radical left and I'm not about to just give that up to ``free speech'' fetishists who are hiding behind that to be literally oppressive.

  No.26510

>>26509
>literally oppressive
Hey, radical leftist here, I hate homophobic soykaf too, but I think you don't know what at least one of these words mean.

  No.26514

>>26510
>>26511
I'm not either of you but do you think that, for the purpose of resolving conflict peacefully and not getting banned you could stick to "I"-statements?
For instance, I think that the word homophobia can be used to represent oppressive actions and language, but someone who is homophobic may not have the power to oppress.

  No.26515

>>26511
Nope, some other guy. To properly adress your question I must rephrase it a little: is expression of homophobia in the form of anonymous post in the part of internet forum dedicated to discussing political activism against (among other things) homophobia opressive? I don't believe so. I know that in critical theory and related currents of thought it is, but it is not really something I subscribe to, so for me it's not "literally opressive", just in a very contrived sense. Basically what >>26514 said already. People in this thread made an admirable effort to respond to typical ignorant and bigoted comments in a reasonable manner and arguably succeeded. And then some other people started whining why people you need to discuss about this are here anyway. I believe there's limits to free speech too, but I just felt that your manner of ritually evoking "free speech fetishism" is especially bad form on lainchan and not justified in this situation at all.

  No.26516

>>26514
>>26515
While I see the reasoning of both posts I have to disagree; speech is a manipulation of the mind state of the listener and thus has material effect. Anyone has the power to oppress along this vector. It is exactly as powerful as the relevant message and mind state, but weak oppression is still oppression.

That said, I don't think this is so weak. Lainchan has been a pretty safe space for a while and I think it would be damaging to lose that to free speech fascists. Disregarding that and claiming there can be no sanctuary anywhere, that we have to be constantly running and constantly in conflict, is intensely burdensome to our mammalian brains. That high stress will translate literally to earlier death; in this way homophobia kills us by degrees even in Internet argument.

I don't think this has anything to do with critical theory; at least, I have no background in such and can't claim it as a reference point here. My belief that communication can be oppressive is entirely based on the science of connectionist cognitive theories.

  No.26517

>>26511
-phobia
Used to form nouns meaning fear of a specific thing.

homophobia ‎(countable and uncountable, plural homophobias)
(derogatory) Fear, dislike or hatred of homosexuals.

I see how hatred can be oppressive. General dislike is usually not oppressive. Fear is usually not oppressive at all.
Perhaps if I adopted your style, I could argue that homosexuals oppress some homophobes because homophobes by definition fear them. Giving a sensation of fear to some people by your very existence is rather oppressive.

Good news though, I will not adopt your style and argue this point. I will also not sage, because that's more of your thing as well.

  No.26519

>>26516
Someone with a little bit of background in critical theory here - Queer Theory is the part relevant to this discussion.

I would say say that the way "homophobic language is oppressive" plays out there, is by reinforcing heteronormativity, which normalizes violence against queer people by asserting they don't or shouldn't exist.

  No.26520

>>26516
>free speech fascists

  No.26530

File: 1468448802585.png (2.01 MB, 200x113, catgrillxcatgrill.webm)

Actually kind of glad there are an increasing number of non-breeding people out there right now. Population density is already insane and we have yet to reliably colonize any place other than Earth. Our resources are still quite limited.

Non-breeding couples contribute to global productivity without increasing to the number of global consumers. Guessing that as population density continues to increase non-breeding couples will become more common. Biologically it's essential to our long-term survival as a species that LGBTs continue to exist.

  No.26533

>>26530
im straight and i dont plan on having kids with my wife.

  No.26544

>>26530
I would say the problem has more to do with resource distribution and overconsumption than population size - but if first worlders all suddenly decided to stop having children it certainly wouldn't hurt things.
>>26533
condoms are only as effective as the pullout method. accidents happen

  No.26545

>>26519
But you don't need to go so far. Homophobic language increases the probability of any other form of violence against queers; this is an empirically observable effect, at least on there margin. It's just another form of memetic terrorism.

``Free speech'' is an authoritarian concept in itself; through deontological psuedo-equality, it in fact just enforces the status quo. Like any marketplace, the marketplace of ideas is owned by the rich. Speech is an action; it can be judged by its outcomes like any other action. Liberatory speech should exist; oppressive speech should not.

>>26517
Appeal to the dictionary is the most toothless form of an appeal to authority.

But I don't expect you to be past the rule-worship stage of moral development, so it makes sense.

  No.26546

>>26545
would freedom of speech be authoritarian outside of capitalism? Would there be a market of ideas without capitalism

  No.26549

I don't think trying to silence homophobes is a good idea. Ultimately it's not their speech that's the problem, that's just a symptom. It's their views that are the problem and while it's obvious that their views are transferred through speech trying to shut people up just doesn't work. They just go and talk to somebody else and, more so in this modern era of communication, they overwhelmingly manage to find others who share their views and form a community. Within this community their views will be enforced without challenge and outside of this community they will be forced to hide their views and they'll be less likely to change their minds because they won't feel they've had their fair say.

This wouldn't be too bad, they'll die eventually, but there's nothing we can do to stop people from talking to their kids and they're going to introduce them to this community. As far as they're concerned it's the only sane place on earth. Being taboo also creates an allure, especially for teenagers, and means they have an easier time convincing others to join and children really are very important towards the whole future thing. Old people are set in their ways and rarely change their minds about things like this but kids are generally much more concerned about fitting in with other kids than with their parents.

As such, we can expect to see these communities slowly die. They are heavily outnumbered with unpopular views and their members will be dying faster than they get new ones but by encouraging isolation we extend this process significantly and increase the chances of more extreme views (e.g. campaigns of violence) that would have a much harder time flourishing without such insular communities.

It is vitally important that we consider the effects of these things upon culture at large and not just in the most immediate ways. Hate will not be ended by attempting to sweep it under the rug.

  No.26550

>>26549
Accepting homosexuality is as arbitrary as condemning it. No group deserves exemption from being attacked, because they're all ultimately composed of the same meaningless shit clump of a species.

That being said, sucking cocks is really gay. I want to beat one of you fucking faggots up, but only if you're into that kind of thing.

  No.26554

>>26550
Like you say, it's all just arbitrary, so we make our choices as we please. "Deserves" has nothing to do with it.

And good luck anon. I hope you find someone to satisfy your perversions.

  No.26562

>>26549
No Lain, hate ends when you kill it

This is why we bash back - as a recognition that only direct action against all homophobia can create space for queers.

  No.26565

>>26545
I don't expect you to be past the meme-imitation stage of speech development.
i hope the irony will help this sink in.
i was pretty sure that even a halfwits know what phobia means. guess i'm too positive.

  No.26570

>>26545
>Homophobic language increases the probability of any other form of violence against queers; this is an empirically observable effect,
Homophobic language is prevalent because people already feel negatively about you. Changing the lanugage doesn't change the sentiment. This is something that modern liberals don't understand.
Cripple wasn't orginally a negative word, neither was retarded, or lame. They became negative words because people think of those sorts of people negatively.
>``Free speech'' is an authoritarian concept in itself
Freedom is the ability to do something without anyone else having the ability to stop you. The encompassing issue you bring up is about the rights of the collective versus the rights of the individual. You shouldn't advocate the rights of the collective when they don't favor you. You're a minority. Free speech allows you to change what others think of you rather than seeing outright repression.
You're advocating its removal on the basis that it can potentially be used against you.
But back to the point. Authoritarianism by definition limits freedom, and that's what YOU'RE advocating to your own detriment.
It seems like you believe that you're entitled to a position of power in which you can dictate your own ideology to others simply because some people say mean things about you.
It's absurd.

I don't usually like queers, but I rarely hate them.
But as for you, I very much wouldn't mind if you were wiped off of the face of the earth.

  No.26571

>>26545
>Appeal to the dictionary is the most toothless form of an appeal to authority.

Can you thoroughly explain the logic behind what you're saying? I've seen this a lot lately -- and I'm having a hard time understanding how referring to a dictionary, an index containing word definitions, is bad.

  No.26572

>>26571
He's a postmodernist where words only ever mean what he wants them to, doesn't matter what everyone else thinks they mean or how it has always been used.

  No.26573

Homosexuality is a ridiculous social problem that it potentially unsolvable, due to the fork it creates.
It pretty much allows for two interpretations for the cause of it:
>it's genetic
>it's a choice
If you were to accept the first one, then why would homosexuals be allowed to live? Why would the parents of homosexuals be allowed to live? Why not kill them all, clearly society would be much better off without them?
If you were to accept the second one to be true, why would homosexuals be deserving of compassion? After all, they brought this upon themselves, they chose to be that way.

So what does that mean for the people who are part of this problem? It means that have to justify why they are homosexuals. To themselves, to everyone.

And let's not go into the compulsive desire certain people have to be special or the romantication of mental illness.

>>26545
>Appeal to the dictionary
Semantics are very important.
If you do not insist upon a commonly accepted language with clearly defined words you cannot communicate.

If you do not accept the definition the dictionary offers for the word or you cannot find a word reflecting your concept, explain the concept and assign it a new word.

  No.26574

>>26573
Wait how did we get from "there are two interpretations for the cause" to "it's a bad thing"?

  No.26575

>>26572
The pronoun used on lainchan is she, because lain is a girl.

  No.26576

>>26573
>Homosexuality is a ridiculous social problem that it potentially unsolvable, due to the fork it creates.
>It pretty much allows for two interpretations for the cause of it:
> >it's genetic
> >it's a choice
>If you were to accept the first one, then why would homosexuals be allowed to live? Why would the parents of homosexuals be allowed to live? Why not kill them all, clearly society would be much better off without them?
>If you were to accept the second one to be true, why would homosexuals be deserving of compassion? After all, they brought this upon themselves, they chose to be that way.

firstly: things being "either genetic or a choice" is a false dichotomy. the environment one grows up in is not a thing one chooses, but it has a huge influence on how one "turns out". even more important, when it comes to the existence of homosex, are the natal and post-natal physical influences on development. particularly, hormone levels and diet. every human carries human genes. these genes "code for" all the things humans do. not only the things "female" humans do. not only the things "male" humans do. *all* the things humans do. whether a person develops characteristics that are "female-ish" or "male-ish" depends on what hormones ("hormones" encompasses more than just "testosterone and dht vs. estrogen and progesterone", though those are a big part of things, obviously), and the degree to which those things develop depends on those hormones as well as on nutritional intake.

the human body's development is a very long process, initiated in the womb and continuing through childhood, puberty, and well into young adult life. obviously, however, the development of many parts of the body occur in discrete periods within this process. what this means is that hormonal / nutritional aberrations that occur during one of these periods can permanently affect the development of that bit of the body while not necessarily having lasting effects on other parts. you can probably see where i'm going with this. since every human carries all the genetic information to develop as a person attracted to males and as a person attracted to females (or else sexual attraction to others would never occur at all) and since every human has a chance to develop one way or the other, a branching which is driven by hormonal differences (or else there would not be such a strong trend of female-y people being attracted to male-y people, and vice versa), it becomes obvious that being hormonally influenced in a certain way during a certain period of development (probably natal), one can develop as a person attracted, to different degrees, people of the same-ish sex.

another interesting thing to take note of is the apparent trend of women being more likely to engage in same-sex attraction driven behaviours. women have a wider normal range for hormone levels, and also have greater standard deviation when it comes to physical development (that is, being more woman-ish or man-ish in apparent physical characteristics), so having a broader range of what's normal when it comes to sexual attraction seems very fitting.

  No.26577

File: 1468543392727.png (4.45 MB, 200x123, feel better.gif)

>>26573
>>26576
now, as for "why would homosexuals be allowed to live?", hopefully for the same reason anybody else is "allowed to live". if, for whatever reason however, you don't have a moral imperative to not kill people, there are still two important reasons to "let homosexuals live": firstly, because killing people breeds hatred, which leads to more killing, and pretty soon you have a feedback loop that can lead to societal upheaval. secondly, a "homo" not perpetually fearing annihilation is much more likely to be a productive member of your society, furthering everybody's needs. since homosex people make up a significant portion of any society, and since, as a natural occurrence, if they are not brought about strictly because of a "gay gene" of some sort, "culling" will not effectively remove them from your society, as they will continue to be born.

since they're here to stay, why not be friends?

  No.26581

>>26549
I don't think any queer groups have the power to meaningfully "silence homophobes" - quite the reverse, actually, with the exception of a few liberals who think that they can somehow use the same systems of oppression to fight that oppression.. I'm not referring to censorship, by the way.

>>26571
Not her, but the dictionary doesn't define words, it catalogues their usage. In addition, there are many different dictionaries made by different groups, who probably have politics leaning one way or the other. There is no The Dictionary, there's several different dictionaries without any kind of standardization between them, which were never meant to define language on an objective basis anyway.

If I wanted, I could just pick and choose whatever dictionary defines words in the way I like them, and then claim it's somehow "objective" truth while ruing "postmodernists," despite doing exactly what I've accused them of. As for an appeal to authority, it's saying that you're right because the dictionary (an authority) agrees with you. Regardless, it makes for an extremely poor argument to claim someone's wrong because they didn't use the same words you did.

>>26573
>It pretty much allows for two interpretations for the cause of it:
no, actually I'm pretty sure it doesn't
>If you were to accept the first one, then why would homosexuals be allowed to live? Why would the parents of homosexuals be allowed to live? Why not kill them all, clearly society would be much better off without them?
are you trolling? high? 12? I'm not trying to be mean, that's just how you sound right now.

  No.26584

>>26581
>are you trolling? high? 12? I'm not trying to be mean, that's just how you sound right now.

Worse. She's on rightism.

>I don't think any queer groups have the power to meaningfully "silence homophobes" - quite the reverse, actually, with the exception of a few liberals who think that they can somehow use the same systems of oppression to fight that oppression.. I'm not referring to censorship, by the way.


So what are you referring to? Let's not be obtuse.

See the second pic in the thread for an example of queers silencing homophobes. In fact, small groups can exert HUGE influence in the 21st century. 9/11 had a death toll of a few thousand but a monetary cost on the West of several billion. Queers could do the same; it's just that they organize exclusively in the West where the state control apparati are much more developed and nobody has experience fighting actual conflict.

>>26577
>>26576
Please don't just calmly discuss whether I should be allowed to live, lain. This is not an academic exercise, it is a lived reality for queer people. Don't give people that want to kill me the platform by engaging with them. Please.

  No.26585

>>26584
>so what are you referring to?
I don't think we can reverse the attitude / tactics of heteronormativity and homophobia - for example, ostracizing people with the wrong views - because many of these tactics boil down to a numbers game which we as a minority can't win. Educating the uninformed, playing to our strengths and the weakness of those who are legitimately malicious seems like a better strategy.

My apologies for being vague. I would say what I was most thinking of is institutional power, which we don't have.

  No.26588

>>26575
Just stop mate. Nobody else seems to want to use she and stating it like it's an accepted facet of the community when you made it up less than a month ago is just obnoxious.

  No.26589

i'm the guy who did the dictionary quote. i myself hate it when people start throwing around dictionary definitions; but this guy did a combo of sage, writing a single line that is an opinionated shitpost, and >>26572
gotta piss 'em off.
>>26571
i think it's just people growing tired of conversations getting stalled with semantics and meta-discussion about language customs. i would never do it (unless i'm replying to a shitpost). dictionary definitions are quite different from the ones in math, as they rely on each other in a circular manner. it's like a distributed network of words, and its primary purpose is to help people roughly understand the meaning of a new word, or get a better idea of its relation to other words (e.g. you look up 'epistemology', or try to decide whether you should say pier, dock, port or harbor to express what you mean the most clearly).

a pragmatic use of a dictionary is using it to clarify your message, or agreeing with others about a definition so the conversation can proceed. since it reflects common language use, and only through the way language is used does it reflect reality, it is indeed mostly without authority, and pointing out how a word is defined in any dictionary without having a conversation to help by doing so, it is utterly pointless.

  No.26590

First off, this needs to be said:
I do not have a personal opinion on this subject. This purely academic thought. I don't care who fucks who, really, do whatever makes you happy.
I may have chosen a tad sensationalist wording in some places, I apologize for doing so.

>>26574
We went this way, because everything is always a bad thing.
It should be obvious to see why people consider it bad, even on a purely rational level.

Think about it:
What do groups with niche interests do?
What impact does this have on society?

But really, I don't have to formulate an argument for this, the people who actually believe in this will do so for me.

>>26576
nature/nurture who gives a shit?
It's still clearly predetermined, therefore it could be exterminated, right?
The mechanics are completely irrelevant here.

>>26577
If we were to make the assumption that this is a defect, we should remove it. We could well do this well without breeding hatred by simply performing abortions. But the mechanism used to exterminate it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.
On your second point, that would be a non-issue, because he'd be dead and "homos" are a replaceable minority.

>>26581
No, my choice of words was just clumsy, I apologize.

>>26584
Not everyone who says things you don't like is your political enemy.

>This is not an academic exercise

But it is just that.
We're are looking at potential causes and discussing the potential actions taken upon the verification of said cause and the implications thereof for the people most affected.

  No.26592

As a straight Swede I of course need do nothing. Expressions of homophobia here is extremely rare.

This also means that I fervently wish for the parents of >>25932 to be sent to a facility for extermination via hard labor and medical experimentation. I mean this in the most literal way possible.

>>26590

What you need to do is to stop worrying about non-essential things like this. The ideology of modern society is heathen anomie as per the demands of modern large-scale capitalism. Your thoughts have no place here and will only lead you to grief in your future life.

Ideals have a place as drivers for the two mechanisms of production/labor and exploitation. Ideals such as homophobia contribute nothing to society in this manner.

If you wish to hold "Christian nuclear family" ideals, focus instead on those aspects of US-style conservatism aligned with being a neutral and productive citizen such as deferred gratification, protestant work morality and keeping close family bonds.

  No.26593

>>26590
>I do not have a personal opinion on this subject.
Oh right. Makes a lot more sense now.

>It should be obvious to see why people consider it bad, even on a purely rational level.

No. It's obvious to see why but I don't see the rationality behind it.

>What do groups with niche interests do?

Depends on the group. In most cases, including this one, they do little but propagate and pursue their interests.

>What impact does this have on society?

By far the largest effect on society is that it encourages others to be openly gay, of course this is only a problem if you assume being openly gay is a problem. The other effects are very minor. Ideas like "it destroys the concept of family" are totally unfounded.

>But really, I don't have to formulate an argument for this, the people who actually believe in this will do so for me.

That's fair but I find their arguments are often circular, for instance the effects on society argument, or emotional, e.g. it's icky.

>We could well do this well without breeding hatred by simply performing abortions.

Forced abortions are going to earn you a lot of hate.

>But the mechanism used to exterminate it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

Then what is the purpose of this discussion? Apparently it's not about if we should or not and not about how we would if we should. So what?

>This is not an academic exercise

>But it is just that.
It is an academic exercise but it seems to be a pointless one that very much jumps the gun. Why are we assuming it's a bad thing when the interesting and meaningful discussion is on that subject? I mean this whole thing has summed up to nothing more than the assertion that "if it's a bad thing (not saying it is) we should get rid of it somehow (not saying how)" which isn't very insightful at all.

  No.26616

>>26588
I'm not her, but I made it up over a year ago and it was brought back about a month ago. It's a pretty old lainchan meme.
>>26570
>Cripple wasn't orginally a negative word, neither was retarded, or lame. They became negative words because people think of those sorts of people negatively.
Society used to have much worse attitudes towards disabled people. These words reflect old-fashioned sentiments. They did not become worse, they kept their meaning and we moved on.

>Free speech allows you to change what others think of you rather than seeing outright repression.

The trouble with such a broad definition of "freedom of speech" as the freedom to express whatever you want, means that you have the freedom to express language which keeps others silent. Assuming all individuals have equal potential to do this, the majority will win.

>It seems like you believe that you're entitled to a position of power in which you can dictate your own ideology to others simply because some people say mean things about you.

>It's absurd.
If you'd read this person's post, and not list off prepared bullet points on free speech discourse, you might find that's not at all what they're saying. Where are they asking for the power to keep others silent? They're simply saying that the only language that ought to exist is liberatory, and not oppressive. You're assuming off the bat that oppressive language does not exist within freedom of speech, because it has "freedom" in the name. There is no debate here.

  No.26619

>>26585
Diversity of tactics, lain. We can do both. And you need both to win; you can't just out-nice the heterosupremacists because they actually do not consider us human or moral agents or whatever you want to say and so education (the only concrete thing you say) will never in fact work.

Barring the fact that the pendulum has actually swung pretty far in our favor and overt homophobia is pretty rare in some parts of the West, ignoring the institutional power we actually do have (for all the good it will do us -- just more white nuclear families, just with two men this time), a minority can in fact leverage coercive force against a majority in a number of ways.

The first is by inducing a small probability of a large cost on the majority: for example, pick a random person who is homophobic and kill them. You don't need any institutional power for this, just the inclination to do it and skill enough to not get caught (admittedly the hard part).

But, the weaker version that Bash Back! does happens all the time. If you're a heterosupremacist business owner and your windows keep getting broken, that sends a pretty clear message. That makes it probabilistically expensive to be heterosupremacist and at least open about it.

The second is to take this to the institutional level and disrupt organizations that are heterosupremacist. You don't need institutional power to do this at all, you just need to be able to inflict cost on people who support the organization and cripple its ability to control resources. This is sort of the bread and butter of mainstream gay rights activism and I don't need to go into it further here.

The weakest thing to do is just be vocal. By spreading memes further and faster than everyone else, and also by creating a false sense of consensus, you can very easily convince people that even if they are overtly heterosupremacist, they shouldn't mention it unless (1) and (2) will befall their person and organizations. You'd be surprised at how a single statement, spoken with conviction, will change people's behaviors. In turn, this will prevent them from normalizing heterosupremacy to other people, which will hamper overt heterosupremacy even further. Ultimately, change like this comes down to memetic warfare. (1) and (2) are just battlegrounds in which we fight the meme war. People's perceptions ARE their realities; if we influence these, it is like influencing the world.

You can break people down into a four groups: queers, allies, people who could be convinced, and people who can't be convinced. We will never be able to "educate" everyone. Liberatory struggle will always eventually run up against the hard wall of hierarchical society and the only way to progress at that point is through conflict. The reality of the situation is that we fight thousands and thousands of tiny battles all the time, and sometimes we're at that wall, and sometimes we're far away from it. We can build up ourselves far away from the wall, take some small actions in the no mans land, but we can only ever tear down the wall.

>inb4 destroying heterosupremacy is authoritarian because people have the RIGHT to form hierarchical social structures with a systematically oppressed underclass

>tl/dr hierarchical social structures will never consent to being destroyed, so we have to coerce their destruction

  No.26620

>>26616
>You're assuming off the bat that oppressive language does not exist within freedom of speech, because it has "freedom" in the name. There is no debate here.

I wouldn't give her that much credit. I would think that lain would say that freedom of speech necessarily includes oppressive speech, because "it's just speech" or "the solution to oppressive speech is more speech" or some such similar nonsense. But at the end of the day you can't talk the oligarchs out of their towers. So we need to tear them down.

Speech is a weapon. So we need to use it best we can, and ensure our enemies can't. This is what our enemies are currently doing; "free speech" isn't; the marketplace of ideas is like any other marketplace, controlled entirely by the rich.

>It is an academic exercise but it seems to be a pointless one that very much jumps the gun. Why are we assuming it's a bad thing when the interesting and meaningful discussion is on that subject? I mean this whole thing has summed up to nothing more than the assertion that "if it's a bad thing (not saying it is) we should get rid of it somehow (not saying how)" which isn't very insightful at all.


What I mean is, this isn't academic for me, it's very real. I have had to fight for my life because I am queer. >>25932 had to fight for her life because she's trans. This is not academic. This is our life. If you're queer and it's not yours recognize the privilege that you have that insulates you from the actual struggle of existing as a queer in heterosupremacy.

For that reason, I think it's at least in poor taste, and at worst overtly harmful to just have an ``academic discussion'' about whether or not we should kill the queers. The queers are still being killed and you're having a fuarrrrrking ``dialogue'' about it? By doing that you're I think tacitly accepting heterosupremacy, just until you think of the right argument to perfectly justify why I should be permitted to live.

I'm sure as fuck not going to wait for that, though. Act up, bash back.

  No.26621

>>26619
>you can't out-nice the heterosupremacists
I don't think we can. But I don't think we can out-supremacy them, and they can't out-nice us. My apologies for prior vagueness. What I meant was that we can't just push homophobes out of our circles, like homophobes would push out queer people - they'd form their own, then start going to Drumpf rallies. It's a thought I'm still working on, based on critique of liberal activism.

>You'd be surprised at how a single statement, spoken with conviction, will change people's behaviors

oh trust me, I do a lot more than that. I've built a lot of prestige among my peer groups and made use of it to push the queer agenda as far as it'll go. Activism is not yet something I do with queer groups, however.

>We will never be able to "educate" everyone

I agree. The people who can't or won't change need to have their power taken away.

>>26620
And we can't use the same mechanisms of the marketplace they use, because they've already made them inaccessible to us. What I'm looking for is tactics which cannot be reversed to serve the ends of hetero supremacy in the same way that tactics of hetero supremacy cannot be used against it. I think we're all on the same page: assymetric warfare.

anyway, it's late as hell and I'm gonna sleep. I'm not the "academic discussion" person, btw.

  No.26695

>>26619
>That makes it probabilistically expensive to be heterosupremacist and at least open about it.
Sweeping it under the rug does not stop it.

>by creating a false sense of consensus

This is something to be very careful with. First, you cannot separate your means from your message. By creating a false consensus you promote the idea of creating false consensuses but this seems a small thing since you're presumably working in secret. Also, you're deciding that you know better than society what's good for it, take great care that you're right.

More importantly creating a false consensus inside of subcultures achieves little. You're mostly just shuffling people around and, the less perfect you are in creating this false sense, the more you drive them away from you because nobody likes to be lied to. Before you worry about instilling this false sense, you should ensure that people have nowhere else to go.

>You'd be surprised at how a single statement, spoken with conviction, will change people's behaviors. In turn, this will prevent them from normalizing heterosupremacy to other people

Just because they stop doing it in front of you doesn't mean they're not doing it.

>People's perceptions ARE their realities; if we influence these, it is like influencing the world.

There's so much truth in this but be careful of taking the easy options. Our reality that we influence perception in favourable ways is no less a perception and simple immediate things often have slower effects.

>>26620
>ensure our enemies can't.
That's not a thing you can actually do.

>the marketplace of ideas is like any other marketplace, controlled entirely by the rich.

No, it's not. The idea that it's a marketplace was an idea that probably came from the rich but we wouldn't be here having this conversation if they controlled it entirely.

Free speech is vitally important to our safety from states and other large concentrations of power. They're the ones who will win at what is appropriate for discussion. The guys who wrote the American constitution where actually really big on this having just fought a revolutionary war. They put free speech and guns first and second because that's what you need to start a revolutionary war. A few hundreds years later and it's a very different story but, if only in light of the fact that we don't have the same sort of control as states or big corps, free speech is overall on our side and while it's fine to point out flaws the concept is one to hold onto.

Continued.

  No.26696

Continued.


>I have had to fight for my life because I am queer.

Me too, that wasn't academic. Discussion here is and it's good that it is because it means we'll make sensible rational decisions. Honestly, I'm not really interested in a discussion on if we should live or not. A hundred years ago I might have been though IRL I'd be searching for a big stick as well. I was just pointing out that they were assuming we shouldn't be allowed to live while also taking very unassailable ground by saying almost nothing at all.

>at worst overtly harmful to just have an ``academic discussion'' about whether or not we should kill the queers.

It's not harmful at all. Actual academic discussions about if we should be killed are part of why that happens less these days and while they're not the be all and end all they did help. In most parts of the world we're past that now and in places like this discussion on what we're going to do about it is more relevant. Still, it's far from harmful.

>The queers are still being killed and you're having a fuarrrrrking ``dialogue'' about it?

Yes and so are you. The world is a fucking grim place. Everyday thousands die for senseless reasons and yet here we are making posts on an image board.

>By doing that you're I think tacitly accepting heterosupremacy, just until you think of the right argument to perfectly justify why I should be permitted to live.

I'm accepting reality. Like it or not this is our environment and we can't afford to ignore that.

>>26621
>The people who can't or won't change need to have their power taken away.
In most cases it won't go down like this sadly. They'll die of natural causes and their successors will wield it better. Probably anyway, that's how it's mostly happened historically but the future is a crazy place.

>What I'm looking for is tactics which cannot be reversed

Then you need to exploit the one thing that we have that they don't. The truth. But that's not the end of the story. There are plenty of mechanisms which they can use far better than us but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them

  No.26714

>>26695
>Sweeping it under the rug does not stop it.

1. Denying the ability to rehearse a behavior makes it less available and weakens the self-perception of being ``against the gays'' over time. Subtle but real.

2. Denying the capability to provide social proof reduces perception that the behavior is normal; conformity pressure makes this self-sustaining.

This is just social-level hacking.

>Also, you're deciding that you know better than society what's good for it, take great care that you're right.


Well, we have to do what we believe. It doesn't make any sense to be so conservative. If you think the world is ending, you need to fight to save it. If you're fighting for your life you have nothing to lose.

>More importantly creating a false consensus inside of subcultures achieves little.


That's why you do it all the time, in every subculture. You have more than one friend group, right?

>That's not a thing you can actually do.


It's a strategic goal we can work to accomplish. Obviously you can't achieve, in a primitive action, any strategic goal.

>No, it's not. The idea that it's a marketplace was an idea that probably came from the rich but we wouldn't be here having this conversation if they controlled it entirely.


I think you're misinterpreting the analogy. The ``rich'' in the ``marketplace'' of ideas are the people on the side of hegemonic ideology, in this case heterosupremacists.

>Free speech is vitally important to our safety from states and other large concentrations of power.


In fact, state protection of ``free speech'' is not liberatory. Statist abstractions like this aren't on our side and we shouldn't pretend they are.

>Yes and so are you. The world is a fucking grim place. Everyday thousands die for senseless reasons and yet here we are making posts on an image board.


The difference is I'm not pretending it's a discussion worth having. If you think it is you're not an ally. If you're on the opposite side of the discussion you're just an adversary we'll dispatch if we win. We'll die if we lose either way.

>I'm accepting reality. Like it or not this is our environment and we can't afford to ignore that.


There's a difference between frank strategic and tactical discussion between comrades and arguing with literal fascists about whether or not queers should be exterminated. You were doing the latter.

>The truth.


What truth? The fascist upthread could just say kill all the queers and keep doing it as long as you find them. What truth can combat that?

  No.26721

>>26714
>Denying the ability/capability to...
You're not deny them these capabilities. You only ensure that they don't do it in front of you and when applied on a cultural, as opposed to subcultural, level, for instance Germany banning Nazi's, that they do it in isolated subcultures.

>conformity pressure makes this self-sustaining

Conformity pressure is quite unstable. If it weren't we'd never see social change.

>Well, we have to do what we believe.

I agree with you there. If you believe in something you should fight for it to the hilt, but do be careful that you constantly reconsider your beliefs. In these contexts the only person making sure you stay on the right path is you.

>That's why you do it all the time, in every subculture. You have more than one friend group, right?

That's not a thing you can actually do. You'd have to be doing it in every subculture including the ones that form for the purposes of these opinions. That is to say you'd need to make it fly in places like /pol/.

>It's a strategic goal we can work to accomplish

You can't achieve that goal in any realistic fashion. It's a total dream. You cannot stop people from talking and you cannot stop them from forming communities with like minded folk and they will exclude you from those communities using the same tactics with which you exclude them. You have to be realistic about it and take these things into account.

>The ``rich'' in the ``marketplace'' of ideas are the people on the side of hegemonic ideology, in this case heterosupremacists.

The point stands. If they controlled it entirely we wouldn't be having this conversation.

>In fact, state protection of ``free speech'' is not liberatory.

State protection of free speech has nothing to do with it. It's about our protection from states or any other concentration of power. If you destroy the concept of free speech in culture at large they are going to have an easier time making it so you can't speak out against them and they have a track record for doing things like that if only because nobody likes to be insulted. Better to be careful to attack the parts that are actually a problem rather than the concept as a whole.

Continued.

  No.26722

Continued.

>The difference is I'm not pretending it's a discussion worth having.

It is a discussion worth having so long as there are people to have it with. There's also spectators. Most of the time I'd not need to do anything and their own words are enough to hang them but in this case they were using a lot of underhanded tactics to make it look like they were arguing reasonably when actually they were just saying nothing.

>If you think it is you're not an ally.

I believe in what I do and I will do it to the hilt regardless of what that makes me. I fight for my own rights in ways that I think actually stand a hope in hell of working.

>If you're on the opposite side of the discussion you're just an adversary we'll dispatch if we win.

What? Please give me a realistic scenario in which this happens. That is that you're in a position to start killing people with enough public support that it won't just create adversaries of their families and friends while still having people who support these opinions openly enough that you can find them to kill them.

>We'll die if we lose either way.

We'll die anyway. This is bigger than you or me.

>What truth?

The truth. The truth that we are all created equal. The truth that sexual orientation is a stupid reason to hate someone. Truths that neither of us have considered yet. For thousands of years we have slowly crawled towards equality and fairness. It's been a long, faltering, bloody journey but we've come a hell of a long way from monkeys and our heading has not been totally random.

>What truth can combat that?

An understanding of the truth combats it. It means you're less likely to be swayed by social pressures and when these social pressures do show up you want to fight against them and are well equipped to do so. This also means that people will be much more likely to try to spread it to other communities where it's not the norm, again, because they actually want to because they've seen that truth for themselves.

  No.26736

>>26621
lmao I just realized I misspelled "asymmetric." "Assy metric" will be how I call it from now on.

>>26696
>In most cases it won't go down like this sadly.
If the power structure does not allow for their removal, we remove the power structure.
>Then you need to exploit the one thing that we have that they don't. The truth.
We have a bit more than that. Distributed organization, for instance. Grassroots organizations are a bit better at people power than those in positions of power - while astroturfing is possible, it is built on lies and deceit.

>There are plenty of mechanisms which they can use far better than us but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them

We should use them if it's advantageous, but by doing so we may reinforce and legitimize the systems we're fighting.

  No.26738

>>26736
>We should use them if it's advantageous, but by doing so we may reinforce and legitimize the systems we're fighting.

The first things that come to mind for this reference class is anything violent. Heretosupremacists can bring institutionalized power to bear on queers, but that doesn't mean bashing back somehow reinforces heterosupremacy.

I think for the most part tactics are in fact neutral; it's what your context is that makes it reinforce or attack the relevant systems.

  No.26750

>>26738
I think we've just come down to a semantic difference, honestly. I don't see institutional violence and bashing back violence as the same thing. For starters, institutional violence almost always involves money trading hands, as well as police weaponry.

  No.26763

>>26736
>If the power structure does not allow for their removal, we remove the power structure.
That's the dream but in most cases it won't go down like that. By the time we've come close to removing a power structure, they've died and been replaced by their children who aren't so homophobic. Still, there are more problems in the world than just homophobia, who knows where we'll end up.

>by doing so we may reinforce and legitimize the systems we're fighting.

This really depends on what we're doing and on what we consider to be systems. We can look at cultural mechanisms, say for instance someone genuinely believes a thing and they tell their friend about it and now they believe it as well. On the one hand this is a perfectly legitimate system and there's no real reason to worry that you're reinforcing it. On the other it's not always a system that goes in our favour.

At the same time you cannot separate your means from your message. If, instead of talking to your friends, you go and send a billion spam emails. To any observer some of the nuance in what you do will be lost, more so along lines they don't agree with. Complex implicit messages like "It's ok to send spam for the right cause" will just end up as "it's ok to send spam".

>>26738
>that doesn't mean bashing back somehow reinforces heterosupremacy.
No, but it reinforces violence.

>I think for the most part tactics are in fact neutral

We'll skip the moral judgements of neutral but in terms of the effects they have they aren't. Each tactics use always promotes its further use. That's not to say you blanket shouldn't use them, there are other things to take into account but it's something to be aware of.

>For starters, institutional violence almost always involves money trading hands, as well as police weaponry.

This is a nuance lost on most.

  No.26777

>>26763
>there are more problems in this world than homophobia
exactly what I'm thinking, if there is a revolution it would have to be intersectional, which means cross pollinating spheres of activism.
Even if we don't get one, however, revolutionary groups put the heat on reformists to try harder - it gives our siblings within the system a bargaining point if politics are going to slowly. At least, that's the ideal.
>this is a nuance lost on most
its all in the messaging, imo. I don't think smashing a shop window is anything like tazing someone to death, but both are affiliated with "violence" in the mainstream discourse. I'd say its a reality we have to accept, with the understanding that the mainstream media is being sunsetted by social media - in the hands of megacorps like facebook and google, this doesn't call for a change as significant as some would have you believe. But it's still a shift.

  No.26843

>>26777
well

it seems rare that revolutions are not to some degree intersectional, the problem with intersectionalism is often that it mean sgrabbing the wide support of many oppressed groupd and benefeiting certain groups disproportionally untill the leadership in the revolution (often the groups that were best off at the start) is satisfied.

to some degree you can talk about this idea in the comtext of lgbtq things--many times people tend to focus on the lgb bit and forget about trans people. transgender people are sort of part of the larger lgbtq movement, which certainly is intersectional, but in this sense often (at least so far) they've tended to get the shorter end of the stick.

Of course you can look at many examples of thie, and there are many, probably every militant revolution and every less violent social movement and so on and so forth.

Of course, the alternative, no intersectional behavior, tends to be also a good way to get no real changes, anyway.

Its a diffiuclt place to live.

  No.26888

>>26843
you're right, and it comes down to whether we should play reformist from within the organization or disown it. Having a revolution with a flat power structure seems really important for that end.

typically, the ones who had the most power in the first place are also the least likely to want a revolution, so that's also something to watch out for.

  No.26890

>>26545
>Liberatory speech should exist; oppressive speech should not.
But who gets to decide what is oppressive? Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? I don't think anyone should be able to silence someone else because it is "Wrong" or "oppressive"

  No.26891

>>26590
Wait, so you are saying if being Homosexual is a 'defect', we should kill gays? Do you think we should kill other people with 'defects' such as physical and mentally disabled people? Kill everyone that has 'defects' and is not 'perfect'?

  No.26900

>>26890
>who gets to decide..?
but you're still missing the point. It's not a question of whether oppressive speech ought to be censored, but whether it should exist in the first place. Censorship is only one way to do this.

That you'd assume this means censorship, is making a rather statist claim yourself.

  No.26911

With all this talk of killing gay people because it might be better and gays choosing to be gay or being born that way it might be better to make threads on whether or not state enforced eugenics is a good thing and whether or not consenting adults should be allowed to engage in activities with each other in private instead.
Even if 'gayness' was targeted before birth and stamped out as much as possible, why shouldn't two consenting people of the same sex be allowed to engage in sexual activities with each other in private? (perhaps one intentionally took hormones to counteract the selection against same sex attraction simply because they can).

  No.26924

OP here, should I delete this thread? I don't want to give a platform to homophobes and the lain community is not really having our back on this one.

  No.26926

>>26900
>but whether it should exist in the first place
But that's my point? Who gets to decide what is 'oppressive speech'? You will always have people who disagree or say things that are "oppressive", and because you don't like what someone else is saying is no reason to make them shut up.

  No.26927

>>26900
Oppressive speech needs to exist in some fashion. If it did not we could not recognise it and so, when it was invented again, we'd be much more likely to listen to it. We can hope that this means an existence in media and fiction rather than in the real world but you cannot remove it entirely.

  No.26928

If homosexuality is not a mental illness like let's say BDSM is, then what is it? It exists no where but in people's heads

  No.26929

The ultimate end of all this "gay is genetic" nonsense is that eventually you won't be able have legal recourse against anti-gay discrimination or harassment unless you've been tested as having a "gay gene". Anyone else is just someone who's chosen gay, a poseur who's faking it. Expect to be excluded from gay bars and clubs unless you've got your gay card, duckie.

  No.26930

>>26928
same as being straight. Why not oversimplify it and say that
>being gay is fetish for same gender
>being straight is fetish for different gender
> *put some other fetish* is fetish for *something*
(guess my point is. Heterosexuality also exists no where but in people's heads)

  No.26931

>>26930
Because genes are selfish.
Animals have desire to inate desire to reproduce and multiply, while at best the 1% of gays are predisposed to such by their genes.

Most gays are created by hormonal imbalances of mother whilst in the womb, which fucks up their brain. And there are of course, norming more than fetishists.

Biggest example of fetishizing of same sex relationships is the so called bisexuals, the people that when surveyed about their past of relationships showed almost no interaction with same sex. And when they shown their past, it was only in sporadic instances, the likes of which can be attributed to them "exploring their sexuality" as if were to say.

So all in all, gays portrayed on TV in monogamous relationships are a myth and most gays have 100s of sexual encounters during the year.

It is more than a fetish, its a mental illness.

  No.26932

>>26931
first of all, citation needed on everything you've said.
>Animals have desire to inate desire to reproduce and multiply, while at best the 1% of gays are predisposed to such by their genes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
>hormonal imbalance
one could say that "hormonal imbalance" creates straight people as well.
>most gays have 100s of sexual encounters during the year.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth

by any chance, do you come from a country where homosexuality is illegal, or the government has policies against GSMs? I'm only asking because you sound like you haven't interacted with many gay people, and you don't sound like a fluent english speaker.

  No.26934

>>26931
We aren't just evolving on an individual level anymore. We evolve on a cultural level. We started that as soon as people could form any kind of group and fight with other groups.
No matter who you are, everyone is always connected.

  No.26939

>>26931
>So all in all, gays portrayed on TV in monogamous relationships are a myth and most gays have 100s of sexual encounters during the year.
this thing. Imagine that straight people are unable to meet normally and have to meet at strange bars which are periodically raided by police. In addition they can't show their feelings openly and pursuing long-term relationship is impossible, because eventually they'll get busted and will go to prison or be sentenced to death. How do you think they'll meet up?(and straight clubs also have a shitload of people like gays you mentioned, just nobody cares about it)
At the other hand this is only partial truth, because saying
>hurr durr gays can't into normal relationship cause oppression
is way too simple, but i myself roll with it, because i think that most gays want normal relationship but aren't able to have it.

>Animals have desire to innate, desire to reproduce and multiply, while at best the 1% of gays are predisposed to such by their genes.

I am curious about wording here. Do you mean predisposed like in
>allowed to
or predisposed as in
>have will to reproduce

  No.26942

>>26931
Hey, Anon. I like what you said, but most articles I see argue against that stand point. Mind sending some sources?

  No.26952

>>26929
>eventually you won't be able have legal recourse against anti-gay discrimination or harassment unless you've been tested as having a "gay gene"
I never knew that it was legal to harass people as long as they aren't gay.
:^)

Why would you be excluded from a gay bar for not being gay?
It should be a private clubs right to turn away anyone they want, but the gay ones tend not to turn people away based on sexual orientation anyway making your point irrelevant.
Churches typically don't force non-believers out merely because they don't believe something, they force them out for causing trouble for others. Although churches shouldn't expect tax exempt status if they want to discriminate the way a private business could.

This was probably bait anyway.

  No.27128

>>26942
No fucking platform, don't reply report

  No.28592

>>26143
>MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE MOTHER fuarrrkER
As far as I know, you have the same rights as a heterosexual does. You can vote, attend public meetings and even in the worst dictatorship on Earth, you can marry someone of opposite sex.
>I'd say see you in the streets but you never go outside
Threatening with violence? What makes you any different than a neo-nazi or a radical muslim? Pretty much the only people in the world that want homosexuals dead, too bad some of you are using exactly same means as them.
>>26144
>Gender is a social construct.
I don't know. Considering how many languages don't even have a different word for sex/gender, I think that gender is just a "safe" synonym. At least it was, until feminists/SJWs changed the dictionary definition. Too bad these languages somehow didn't have anything to even describe it, so at most, they just literally refer to it as "gender".
>>26509
>Lainchan has always trended radical left and I'm not about to just give that up to ``free speech'' fetishists who are hiding behind that to be literally oppressive.
I don't think that this chan trended to be anything "radical" or "far", which literally means nearsighted and stupid. Nothing is black or white, which means no radical-far can be right. Not going to comment on "stop your opposition because it oppresses me" nonsense.
If anything, this chan trended to be sceptical and constructive.
>>26544
>I would say the problem has more to do with resource distribution and overconsumption than population size - but if first worlders all suddenly decided to stop having children it certainly wouldn't hurt things.
If the third worlders decided to stop having kids, they would become first worlders in a few decades. At least they wouldn't be dying of starvation. If the first worlders would reduce birth-rate even more, it would end up in a regression for a few decades and then just jump straight back and probably even higher in the consumerism.
>>26571
> I'm having a hard time understanding how referring to a dictionary, an index containing word definitions, is bad.
In theory, nothing. As long as a dictionary defines word as what everybody understands behind it, it's fine. It became a joke when minorities forced their understanding of words for everybody else to use. As far as I know, "phobia" definition wasn't changed recently. Yet.
>>26577
>now, as for "why would homosexuals be allowed to live?", hopefully for the same reason anybody else is "allowed to live". if, for whatever reason however, you don't have a moral imperative to not kill people, there are still two important reasons to "let homosexuals live": firstly, because killing people breeds hatred, which leads to more killing
Abortion, euthanasia - all it would take is to classify homosexuality as a disease that will make their life miserable. And ability to detect it that early. Killing even possibly (!) non-healthy unborn child is considered very much okay by majority.
>>26900
>It's not a question of whether oppressive speech ought to be censored, but whether it should exist in the first place
What is oppressive? Who defines oppressive? If you are not careful, your definition of oppressive will be... oppressive.

  No.28593

>>28592
Why would you bump this crap after five months? Just let it die.

  No.28597

Am a biological male that is just getting in touch with his fem side. Started buying panties and lingerie and been wearing them under my professional clothes at work more often, though I usually just go without.

I sort of 'came out' to my dad as being bisexual and he doesn't care. Been in talks with a bi friend and we've agreed to get together when we're both on better financial and emotional footing.

Just lately been doing my normal job and letting the days go by to save up for travel. Would love to meet a nice bi female or male here, but it's pretty homophobic, and the only places that cater to LGBT are an hour away.

  No.28630

>>26573
I don't understand your point of view. Why do you see gay people as a threat?
>Why not kill them all, clearly society would be much better off without them?
What problem do they cause, that society would be better off without them?
My personal stance on this matter is 'whatever'. If they are not bombing my workplace or abducting children, I don't care.

  No.28635

I sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I’m fuarrrking retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. I’m having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me “Apache” and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can’t accept me you’re a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

  No.28637

>>28592
You'd first have to prove that homosexuality is a disease that will make their life miserable.
You'd then have to prove that it is a disease you catch before you're even born.

So it's not really only a matter of classification.

Unless ofc you're okay with doing that without any proof. Then yes, it's only a matter of classification.