being inclusive to the point where it's absurd. [Archive]

teamnoir

Apr 5, 2007, 3:37 AM

I'm not talking about this site.
I don't care about who comes here, what they post, or what they identify as.

I'm just talking about queer politics in general. How it's gotten so inclusive to the point where everyone whines that they feel left out. Or gets highly offended if you DON'T include a certain group, even if the event, conference, or whatever is perhaps private or wouldn't pertain to a certain group.

I think that once we get past the B and perhaps the T, in GLBT it's pointless to keep adding more groups of people who have absolutely nothing to do with being queer.

For example I go to lots of BDSM events and we don't allow people who are vanilla/non kinky to attend. Or there are some events where we don't allow people who are new to BDSM or who aren't in a TPE (total power exchange) level of BDSM or who aren't in a TPE relationship to go. There are even events where we don't allow trans people there, and there are even men's only groups where women aren't allowed at all.

I'd have to agree with the idea that trans people are trying to be the opposite gender but it's not physical all the way or genetic, just because it's all mental to that person. Still, it doesn't mean I have to respect those who aim to deceive. And the whole thing just SCREAMS issues such that I'd hesitate to get seriously involved with anyone of a trans-nature.

I'll never see what in the world being trans has to do with being gay/lesbian/bi. Or what the logic is behind linking the trans with the gay/lesbian/bi.

spartca

Apr 5, 2007, 3:57 AM

spartca

Apr 5, 2007, 4:02 AM

In fact, anyone who stands outside of the heterosexual mainstream in some way I define as queer - we should all stick together to fight our common oppression.

flexuality

Apr 5, 2007, 4:23 AM

I'd have to agree with the idea that trans people are trying to be the opposite gender but it's not physical all the way or genetic, just because it's all mental to that person. Still, it doesn't mean I have to respect those who aim to deceive. And the whole thing just SCREAMS issues such that I'd hesitate to get seriously involved with anyone of a trans-nature.

I'll never see what in the world being trans has to do with being gay/lesbian/bi. Or what the logic is behind linking the trans with the gay/lesbian/bi.

Have you ever done any research into the whole question of gender? Or read up on it?

I've been doing alot of reading lately on "gender" for reasons I'm not going to get into right now.

But I would like to share a few things that I did not know before.

I learned that gender is actually a spectrum with male at one end and female at the other and a whole slew of combinations in between.

There are approximately 5 births per day in the US alone (approx 1 in 2000 worldwide) of what is known as "intersexed" babies that can fall anywhere in that "in between" space of not fully female nor fully male. It can be very subtle and some live out their lives never realizing it, and it can be very "obvious" in others.

While the physical apsects ALONE do not necessarily determine gender indentity, there are also many variants of the XY chromosone combinations that CAN affect how one identifies, gender-wise.

For example, it is possible to genetically be male and yet have female anatomy, and vise versa.

These various combinations of factors, whether all or only a few, affect the endocrine system of which the brain is a part of. These systems can be affected by hormones, among other things.

I am not saying that all, or even necessarily most, trans people are intersexed, though some no doubt are, as would be true of any group of people.

What I am trying to point out is that gender is far from being based on anatomy alone.

I am being overly generalized here, but I don't feel like writing a novel.

All I wanted to point out was that gender seems to be there FIRST, inside, regardless of the "package" one comes in. And in that case if say a male (with male anatomy) is of the female gender INSIDE, then they already ARE female and would be altering the "packaging" to become closer to who they already ARE.

At least that's my take on it.....and in that light, I don't see it as being "deceptive" at all.

spartca

Apr 5, 2007, 5:07 AM

Yeah, the way I understand it, there are three things going on here:

1. Biological sex - genetic man (XX) or woman (XY) or other (many variations such as XXY) and subsequent morphology as the body develops.

Intersexed people often fall into an indeterminate category because their external genitalia are indeterminate or don't match their genetic sex.

2. Gender - male or female.

Transgendered persons feel their biological sex does not match their true gender. Genderqueer folks might have an indeterminate, fluid, or otherwise more complex sense of gender.

3. Sexual Orientation - homosexual or heterosexual.

Bisexual people confound the notion that a person has to be one or the other. Asexuals do too because they are neither. Autosexuals are aroused primarily by themselves, so they also don't really fit into monosexual mainstream constructs.

In the mainstream, it is assumed that a person's sex, gender, and orientation will line up like this:

Man, male, attracted to women
Woman, Female, attracted to men

Being homosexual is the original meaning of "queer," and subverts the mainstream a bit, but still falls into the binary system of classification laid out by the mainstream, so it really isn't so different.

What's really queer are things that challenge the dichotomous binary constructs themselves. Things like intersex, genderqueer, and bisexuality.

Crossdressing also creates confusion and casts doubt on multiple levels.

Anyways, that's how I understand it.

Long Duck Dong

Apr 5, 2007, 5:31 AM

lol spartca... you forgot two.... necrophilia ( love of the dead ) and zoophilia ( love of animals )

TEAM.... have you considered that the greatest sexual group in the world is the bisexual natured person....if all the stigma and discrimination was removed.... then the second largest, would be the intersexual movement, followed by the gay / les then the heterosexual

now the bisexual umbrella covers the dual sex attraction range...
the intersex covers the trans. hermaphodite and pansexual / pangender
the gays and les cover same sex
heterosexual covers opposite sex

now the lines are blurred.... as a bisexual ( the actual correct term for me is pansexual, not bisexual ), I can be gay / straight / intersexed / pansexual
to what group do I belong ?????

the person beside me is a closeted crossdressing heterosexual male, that likes watching gay male fuck.... therefore they can be classed as intersex, closeted gay, bisexual
to what group do they belong ????

a female talks to me about her feelings.... she is a female that has never been with a male, only females... she is attracted to men, desires a sex change, and founds that she is fully attracted to any person regardless of gender or sexual orientation... not she can be classed as pangender, lesbian, bi curious, trans
to what class does she belong ???

now if I read your post, you are still showing that your issue is with trans people... the BDSM example has nothing to do with sexuality but sexual expression... and it appears that you are focusing on what would fit in your idea of the * perfect little world *, but that requires people to be clear cut and boxable, and thats not gonna happen

Long Duck Dong

Apr 5, 2007, 9:02 AM

now politically speaking ???

I can understand clearly what you are saying

the gay / lesbian movement are fighting for recognization and rights..... something the bisexuals don't need to do....

the transgender people are fighting to be legally recognized as the gender they see themselves as.... the gay / lesbian / bisexual, don't need to do that

over here in nz, the gays and lesbian are arguing the right to adopt children, .... something the bis and trans don't need to fight for

if you want my personal opinion, the bisexuals forced their way into the LG movement cos outside of it, any talk of bi rights, would get us laughed at....
what are the bi rights ??? we want bi bars, saunas and cruise bars ....
we can throw in the bi health care and employment aspects but in nz... they are a non issue

the trans gender movement in nz, is a quiet community... its rare to hear them roar.... cos its not the way they do things.....

the LG community roar when they can't hold their parades every year.... and every year they are held, the antics and behievour get such a backlash from the general public, its not funny... its not the fact that its a LG parade, its the way the LG act at the parades.... if joe bloggs did the same, they would get arrested

the bisexual community ??? lol what bisexual community ??? they are about as united as a pair of untied shoelaces....

it was the bisexual activists that decided that the LG has to accept the bisexual community ( god know why ), not the general bisexual community...
as for the transgender community, I am not sure what happened there....

if you ask my opinion on things its this:

the hetero community doesn't want to admit it has hermaphodites/ bisexual / closet gays / les / trans / pansexual / inter sex in their midsts

the LG community want a same sex orientated movement and voice

the bisexual community want a voice,

the trans community want a lil respect

and the rest just want to belong

lol I know the LGBT will not embrace the zoophila or the necrophilia movement, nor the american man boy love association ( pedophiles )... and the enuch movement ( crastration ) are out on their own

stupid thing is that each sexual orientation is through out the whole sexual spectrum....and no matter how we * slice the cake * we are gonna get crumbs on each others plates

if by some insane miracle, all people were given the same rights to marriage, health care etc etc etc.....each group would find another reason to exist and bitch and moan..... cos existing as a community is impossible without somebody wanting a agenda

spartca

Apr 5, 2007, 9:19 AM

lol spartca... you forgot two.... necrophilia ( love of the dead ) and zoophilia ( love of animals )

Yes, you're right, although it's not politically correct to include those two fetishes in the queer spectrum, they certainly don't fall in the mainstream lol.

However, most of us who would like to give the bisexual community a good name tend to draw the line around consenting adults, and the dead and animals are neither. Just FYI a law was passed here in the state of California recently to protect the dead from molestation after a nasty media scandal involving the body of a dead girl.

So personally I'd like to limit my discussion to love between consenting adults, so as not to fuel the fire of bigotry against bisexuals any more than is absolutely necessary.

the person beside me is a closeted crossdressing heterosexual male, that likes watching gay male fuck.... therefore they can be classed as intersex, closeted gay, bisexual
to what group do they belong ????

Out of the deep respect that I have for the intersexed people I've had in my life, I would like to get a definition on the table, yet again, for the term intersex. Your above example does a disservice to intersex folks, because it is not an example of an intersexed person.

From the Intersex Society of North America
(http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex) :

"“Intersex” is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male. For example, a person might be born appearing to be female on the outside, but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside. Or a person may be born with genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types—for example, a girl may be born with a noticeably large clitoris, or lacking a vaginal opening, or a boy may be born with a notably small penis, or with a scrotum that is divided so that it has formed more like labia. Or a person may be born with mosaic genetics, so that some of her cells have XX chromosomes and some of them have XY.

Though we speak of intersex as an inborn condition, intersex anatomy doesn’t always show up at birth. Sometimes a person isn’t found to have intersex anatomy until she or he reaches the age of puberty, or finds himself an infertile adult, or dies of old age and is autopsied. Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone (including themselves) ever knowing.

Which variations of sexual anatomy count as intersex? In practice, different people have different answers to that question. That’s not surprising, because intersex isn’t a discreet or natural category.

What does this mean? Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation. To better explain this, we can liken the sex spectrum to the color spectrum. There’s no question that in nature there are different wavelengths that translate into colors most of us see as red, blue, orange, yellow. But the decision to distinguish, say, between orange and red-orange is made only when we need it—like when we’re asking for a particular paint color. Sometimes social necessity leads us to make color distinctions that otherwise would seem incorrect or irrational, as, for instance, when we call certain people “black” or “white” when they’re not especially black or white as we would otherwise use the terms.

In the same way, nature presents us with sex anatomy spectrums. Breasts, penises, clitorises, scrotums, labia, gonads—all of these vary in size and shape and morphology. So-called “sex” chromosomes can vary quite a bit, too. But in human cultures, sex categories get simplified into male, female, and sometimes intersex, in order to simplify social interactions, express what we know and feel, and maintain order.

So nature doesn’t decide where the category of “male” ends and the category of “intersex” begins, or where the category of “intersex” ends and the category of “female” begins. Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex. Humans decide whether a person with XXY chromosomes or XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity will count as intersex.

In our work, we find that doctors’ opinions about what should count as “intersex” vary substantially. Some think you have to have “ambiguous genitalia” to count as intersex, even if your inside is mostly of one sex and your outside is mostly of another. Some think your brain has to be exposed to an unusual mix of hormones prenatally to count as intersex—so that even if you’re born with atypical genitalia, you’re not intersex unless your brain experienced atypical development. And some think you have to have both ovarian and testicular tissue to count as intersex.

Rather than trying to play a semantic game that never ends, we at ISNA take a pragmatic approach to the question of who counts as intersex. We work to build a world free of shame, secrecy, and unwanted genital surgeries for anyone born with what someone believes to be non-standard sexual anatomy.

By the way, because some forms of intersex signal underlying metabolic concerns, a person who thinks she or he might be intersex should seek a diagnosis and find out if she or he needs professional healthcare.

If you’re curious about how common intersex conditions are, go to the FAQ called How common is intersex?"

spartca

Apr 5, 2007, 9:40 AM

From http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency :

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female:
one in 100 births [1%]

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female
one in 100 births

Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

Long Duck Dong

Apr 5, 2007, 9:54 AM

lol spartca

ok to what i understand, intersex and pangender are the same

but your article appears to have them as different groups

pangender individuals are able to live with the majority of the physical characteristics they were born with, but frequently displays the outward appearance, behavior and/or clothing of the opposite gender. In other cases, they were born intersex. Pangender individuals are happy living "in between" and have no desire to live exclusively as one gender or the other.
( from wikipedia )

spartca

Apr 5, 2007, 10:14 AM

In your example, "closeted crossdressing heterosexual male, that likes watching gay male fuck," there is no reason to believe this person has ambiguous genetic or genital sex, nor anything to suggest that he is anything but male-identified in terms of gender.

So I'm not sure how he could be either intersex or pangender?

And as far as Wikipedia goes, it's user-generated and often unverified. I love using it, but take everything with a grain of salt. The Interesex Society of North America is the organization that sets the standards of care for the medical and mental health professions for their handling of intersex persons.

You've described him just as he is: a straight crossdresser who has an voyeuristic fetish for watching gay sex.

jedinudist

Apr 5, 2007, 11:19 AM

Even though I sometimes must use the "GLBT..." descriptor, I long for the day when it will not be necessary and we can just say...

People.

We're all people. All riding this rock together and yet it seems to be somehow inherent in us to find ways to divide ourselves from one another.

PC is a death knell to intelligent discourse. If there is an event for a group of people such as nudists (lol - sorry had to use that one) then obviously someone who is not a nudist and is not really interested in becoming one doesn't need to be there. That should be the only qualifier. Anything else really isn't necessary.

Well, that's my :2cents: No offense to anyone is intended at all :D

flexuality

Apr 5, 2007, 7:19 PM

Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births

My brother was born this way. I did not realize until yesterday that it was an intersex condition.

I, too, have .....a variation. Nothing I'll do anything about, but it has always puzzled me.

What the fuck does that make me now? Can't I just be a "people?"

spartca

Apr 5, 2007, 7:58 PM

What the fuck does that make me now? Can't I just be a "people?"

In my world you get to be whatever you say you are :)

superyumboi

Apr 5, 2007, 8:49 PM

I don't think that trans people should be included since they deal with sex/gender changes and the majority of everyone else who is GLB and the rest of the human population (most of it anyway) doesn't.

i couldn't disagree more.

i think a more appropriate term is "sex/gender issues" which includes the big four groups. so your thinking is "toss the tg community out on their own and let them fend for themselves"? sweet.

the exclusive mindset is more dangerous than the inclusive. by far.

i've worked in tg and alternative clubs and i got SO SICK of::

gay bois downing tgirls
butch dykes(as they told me they like to be called) downing tgirls
b. dykes downing bi-girls saying they're weak and confused
b. dykes downing me because i'm a beefy black guy talking to cute a girl
str8 bois downing gay bois and vice versa

ALL IN THE SAME CLUB!

i've always thought of the GLBT brand as an ideal, not a specific targeted group. to me it signifies a place where people with gender issues can come and enjoy peace and love among their own brothers and sisters.

all this hardcore labeling is what annoys me the most. let me BE. let me LIVE. and don't look down on me for what i am.

"those that mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind". so true.

it's ridiculous to think everyone will get along swimmingly, but the GLBT+ crews need to think more unity not division.

(apologies in advance if the "butch dykes" offended anyone. althought i'm sure some girls hate being called that, the girls in the clubs told me to refer to them as that.)

:bipride:

spartca

Apr 5, 2007, 9:18 PM

Long Duck Dong

Apr 5, 2007, 11:46 PM

Even though I sometimes must use the "GLBT..." descriptor, I long for the day when it will not be necessary and we can just say...

People.

We're all people. All riding this rock together and yet it seems to be somehow inherent in us to find ways to divide ourselves from one another.

I agree, and with flex too

I use the term * LGBT * to refer to groups.... but not people....

if it was not so dammed offensive and non PC correct, I would use the terms that I use in everyday life

using normal everyday speech, helps me feel like I am talking with people, and not to a conference of PC drama queens *

twodelta

Apr 6, 2007, 2:04 AM

I agree with Super, Flex, Jedi, and LDD. I think all the labelling stuff goes a bit too far sometimes. Look at our own beloved Bi community for instance. Look at the different combinations that we gladly call Bi. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with Trans, Intersex, or Pangender being under the GLBT umbrella. Dave :three:

Keliana

Apr 6, 2007, 3:15 AM

Wow....labels, labels, labels.

Spartca, I'm impressed by your knowledge of intersex conditions!

I for one, am an (xxy mosaic) intersexed female. I have many transsexual friends. I understand what they go through because I myself have gone through the same prejudices. Jaime Lee Curtis is also intersexed. But she is a female no less.

Bottom line.....there are transsexuals/transgendered that identify as bisexual and there are intersexed people who identify as bisexual. So, being bisexual, that would include them in "the community" now wouldn't it? Keep in mind, there are those intersexed and transsexed folks who aren't bisexual!

:2cents: :female: :male:

Omnivore

Apr 6, 2007, 8:04 AM

Even though I sometimes must use the "GLBT..." descriptor, I long for the day when it will not be necessary and we can just say...

People.

I couldn't agree more. Hopefully soon we'll get to the point where nobody will care.

Funny how things are changing - being gay or bi is now largely accepted (at least in London, UK), being a bi woman is actually fashionable (and expected in swinging circles) and but being bi male is generally disliked by all.

So, I'm looking forward to Brad Pitt admitting that he's bi and regaling the celeb mags with his tales of raunchy threesomes with Angelina and Rupert Everett :tong: followed closely by a wave of male stars admitting that they're all bi as well.

Hopefully in my lifetime.

DeafF2M

Apr 6, 2007, 12:58 PM

From what I've heard there is a shortage of butch dykes right now because a lot of women just started taking testosterone and transitioning to men instead... it's caused quite a rift in the lesbian community...

If they were really women, they wouldn't be transitioning to be men, now would they? Seriously, there are still PLENTY of butch women around. I've been in the GLB and the T communities long enough to have seen plenty of butches still around.

Now, for the original bone of contention -- do trans people belong in the alphabet soup? Sure we do... and we don't. We ARE fighting for our legal rights to a name change, a new birth certificate, a new passport, nondiscrimination in hiring, or at work, nondiscriminitation in housing... blah, blah. BUT, we are also, for the most part right behind the GLB community supporting the right to marry a loved one, the right to adopt or have children, the right to be employed...

Many of our fights are the same, so in fact, our issues are very parallel. So, in my eyes, the trans, Intersexed and the GLB and QQs can all work together on issues that we have in common, like nondiscrimination and the right to have a family.

Trans people can work out our legal right to transition and to live completely in the gender we are.

Oh, by the way... Many transpeople are gay, lesbian and bi. I am a bisexual and transsexual man (was born in a female body). And the last time I checked, people have said that I was one of the most well-adjusted people around, so ... whatever the original poster's issues with transpeople are, they are misguided. We are as sane as you... relatively... like you.

DiamondDog

Apr 6, 2007, 2:54 PM

Why not include C for closeted?

They certainly have the majority and they even have powerful positions in the government and church!

spartca

Apr 6, 2007, 5:57 PM

Oh, by the way... Many transpeople are gay, lesbian and bi. I am a bisexual and transsexual man (was born in a female body). And the last time I checked, people have said that I was one of the most well-adjusted people around, so ... whatever the original poster's issues with transpeople are, they are misguided. We are as sane as you... relatively... like you.

That's my experience... it takes a really strong person to go through transition! Thanks DeafF2M :)

spartca

Apr 6, 2007, 6:02 PM

Why not include C for closeted?

They certainly have the majority and they even have powerful positions in the government and church!

ROFL DiamondDog.

Maybe every queer support group should begin by taking a moment to pray for all the suffering closeted queers out there in the world... ;)

teamnoir

Apr 10, 2007, 7:43 PM

Well the I stands for Intersexed. These folks could definitely use some solidarity. My personal experience with intersexed folks definitely leads me to believe that they belong in the queer community - most of them have dealt with sexual orientation issues that are somewhat inevitable with an indeterminate or biological third sex. About 2% of the population might fall into this category. They need our support, and we can learn from them too.

The first Q is Queer. I personally identify as queer a lot of the time, this letter definitely belongs.

The second Q is Questioning. This is a great one to have in there because a lot of folks haven't come out of the closet or just don't know what their sexuality is all about. This lets them feel welcome without having to commit to a queer identity. I'm cool with that!

Lastly A stands for Allies. Certainly we want allies, wouldn't you agree?

Also A could stand for Autosexual, or Asexual. I personally know a few asexual types who really fit right in with the queer community. Where else would they go for support? I welcome them with open arms.

So I'm not sure why you wouldn't want these other social misfits in our club - the more the merrier, I say! Gotta stick together.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about how being way too inclusive is being too PC.

Adding all these groups is just an abstraction, unless all these groups see
themselves as having a natural affinity and actually act on it, which they don't and asking even MORE groups besides just GLBT people to agree is an impossibility.

Adding even more groups to the GLB grouping, doesn't track with reality and it's being driven by urban people. As much as we'd like the world and countries to be inclusive for GLBT rights it's not going to happen anytime soon. The rest of the US and world isn't San Francisco and I think that's something that a lot of people who don't live outside of SFO or the bay area forget.

Adding the other groups tells people "if you don't belong, this is your group" which is the wrong message to send to others.

I certainly hope that you and longDuck are joking about how pedophiles/NAMBLA people, people who have sex with animals, and people who have sex with dead people should somehow be added to the GLB group. People who have sex with animals, who have sex with children, and who have sex with dead people are sick and should be put in jail.

I don't think all those people see themselves as social misfits or want to see
themselves that way, even if you do see them as being social misfits. :rolleyes:

I can only see the reason for one of those new letters the Q for queer being added but the rest of the people are either such a small population or aren't really clamoring for their rights.

I mean seriously when was the first or last time you actually heard of Autosexual or Asexual people asking for their rights?

Or they have strictly gender issues like the hermaphodites/intersex people so they and the Trans people should just form their own group since they deal with gender identity and not sexual identity. The people who are questioning don't really need their own group since a lot of them don't identify as queer and it's pointless.

We don't have to add these other new groups and that doesn't mean that we can't support them but since they deal mainly with gender issues or are in SUCH a small minority we shouldn't add them with us GLB people.

In the leather community, us kinky people don't really care about GLBT politics and we certainly didn't want to be grouped in the GLBT group since we're more into the rights of people who practice BDSM, as we should be.

That's too broad of a definition of queer and way too inclusive. By your definition even heterosexuals can be queer and that destroys the original meaning of it and heterosexuals simply aren't queer, and never will be even if they want to be.

Don't get me started on the HRC either. They're worthless and have been since they were started and they're just a huge cash cow and take tons of money but don't actually ever do anything at all.

Solomon

Apr 11, 2007, 5:25 AM

there seems to be something very simple that teamnoir's just like not computing...

the LGBT group is working towards being accepted into the world at large? which i tend to think they don't want to fight at all, just to be accepted? like hello? that's inclusion?? as in inclusion is the goal??

warm heart

Apr 11, 2007, 6:03 AM

What the fuck does that make me now? Can't I just be a "people?"[/QUOTE]

Yes u can flexuality and dont let anyone make or allow u to feel otherwise.....You are u a complete individual..........beautiful and lovely just as u are......

Warm fuzzies
Warm Heart........ :bibounce:

Long Duck Dong

Apr 11, 2007, 6:23 AM

mmm teamnoir... your remark about what me and spartca talked about concerning the nambla, zoophilia, nercophilia etc.... is so far off the mark... its hanging around pluto

neither of us were suggesting anything like what you have implied....

I firmly suggest that you learn a bit more about me and spartca before you decide to second guess our intentions or what we write

DeafF2M

Apr 11, 2007, 1:33 PM

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about how being way too inclusive is being too PC.

Adding all these groups is just an abstraction, unless all these groups see
themselves as having a natural affinity and actually act on it, which they don't and asking even MORE groups besides just GLBT people to agree is an impossibility.

Adding even more groups to the GLB grouping, doesn't track with reality and it's being driven by urban people. As much as we'd like the world and countries to be inclusive for GLBT rights it's not going to happen anytime soon. The rest of the US and world isn't San Francisco and I think that's something that a lot of people who don't live outside of SFO or the bay area forget.

Oh, good lord.... SF is pretty inclusive, true, but not THAT inclusive ... LOL

Seriously, do you honestly thing we forgot? Please.... gimme a break. Considering that SF as a city is still a very small part of the whole American GLB and yes, T community, I hardly think any of us would forget we're not in SF. *smirk*

Or they have strictly gender issues like the hermaphodites/intersex people so they and the Trans people should just form their own group since they deal with gender identity and not sexual identity. The people who are questioning don't really need their own group since a lot of them don't identify as queer and it's pointless.

We don't have to add these other new groups and that doesn't mean that we can't support them but since they deal mainly with gender issues or are in SUCH a small minority we shouldn't add them with us GLB people.

There are parallels here... GLB people are fighting for the right to marry, hold jobs, have a home and have the right to visit a loved one in the hospital without fear or worry... those things are the same things that trans people are fighting for.

Sexual orientation issues -- some of us trans people are gay, lesbian and bi. FTMs can be gay, MTFs can be lesbian (and many are) and there are oodles of bisexual transpeople.

Even if we are not totally the same, there is no harm in helping one another, is there?

In the leather community, us kinky people don't really care about GLBT politics and we certainly didn't want to be grouped in the GLBT group since we're more into the rights of people who practice BDSM, as we should be.

Oh, BULLSHIT..... please, what leather community do YOU belong to? You're in the Bay area, right? Well, then you KNOW damn well, the leather community is into politics. Folsom fest?? that raises money for all kinds of charity... you gonna tell me that's not political? Not all of that money goes to BDSM causes.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom? NCSF?? Is that not a political organization that does lobbying and such for people who are kinky and into leather, BDSM and all that?? Guess what? It's run by mostly gay and lesbians... in fact, the founder is a dyke... and NCSF fights for all kinds of kinky people, straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual and yes... TRANSpeople. Don't believe me? Look 'em up.

What about other organizations that have a strong leather backing... You mention HRC... well, like it or not, HRC does have a strong Leather contingent. A good number of the leaders involved in organizations like HRC are leathermen and leatherwomen.

julie

Apr 11, 2007, 4:26 PM

SLIMES

Apr 11, 2007, 6:19 PM

In the NUS in britain we have LGBT groups but while I have nothing against transgendered people I can't help feeling asthough the issue is nothing to do with me. I mean, if they have orientation issues themselves then why specify that they are tg? Surely they would come under one of the other categories if that were the case. I have to confess that i don't know a huge amount about transgenderism but I think that when it gets to LGBTQ, it would just be simpler if we just said: "the weird bunch in the corner". I mean at a uni in the UK they were campaigning for seperate transgendered toilets. How can i feel connected with that?

On a side note I was a bit miffed when someone on the radio described sea-horses as bisexual.

flexuality

Apr 11, 2007, 7:05 PM

i just took a look at teamnoirs profile. teamnoir states in his profile he has Aspergers Syndrome and this he uses as a disclaimer for his 'bluntness'

maybe this is true and maybe is isn't?... but i'm interested that teamnoir should make this claim on his profile and then proceed to challenge inclusiveness :rolleyes:

very strange IMHO... do you want us to be inclusive regards your Aspergers teamnoir or would that be too absurd, maybe?

in the name of inclusiveness i have posted a link for information on Aspergers for those of us who feel wounded by some of your opinions...

http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=212

hope this helps?

cheers Julie ;) :female: x

Asperger's is not an excuse to be rude and demeaning.

Yes, there can be some difficulty with "putting one's self in someone else's shoes" and interactions can come across sounding a bit blunt and opinionated because of this, but it is NOT an excuse for the language chosen.

My son has Asperger's and while he sometimes says things that can seem a bit blunt, even though that is not his intention, he still is perfectly capable of learning politeness.

I don't have a problem with people being blunt. I can be just as blunt right back and in teamnoir's case I find it actually better to be blunt and direct.

teamnoir

Apr 11, 2007, 7:13 PM

Oh, good lord.... SF is pretty inclusive, true, but not THAT inclusive ... LOL

Seriously, do you honestly thing we forgot? Please.... gimme a break. Considering that SF as a city is still a very small part of the whole American GLB and yes, T community, I hardly think any of us would forget we're not in SF. *smirk*

There are parallels here... GLB people are fighting for the right to marry, hold jobs, have a home and have the right to visit a loved one in the hospital without fear or worry... those things are the same things that trans people are fighting for.

Sexual orientation issues -- some of us trans people are gay, lesbian and bi. FTMs can be gay, MTFs can be lesbian (and many are) and there are oodles of bisexual transpeople.

Even if we are not totally the same, there is no harm in helping one another, is there?

Oh, BULLSHIT..... please, what leather community do YOU belong to? You're in the Bay area, right? Well, then you KNOW damn well, the leather community is into politics. Folsom fest?? that raises money for all kinds of charity... you gonna tell me that's not political? Not all of that money goes to BDSM causes.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom? NCSF?? Is that not a political organization that does lobbying and such for people who are kinky and into leather, BDSM and all that?? Guess what? It's run by mostly gay and lesbians... in fact, the founder is a dyke... and NCSF fights for all kinds of kinky people, straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual and yes... TRANSpeople. Don't believe me? Look 'em up.

What about other organizations that have a strong leather backing... You mention HRC... well, like it or not, HRC does have a strong Leather contingent. A good number of the leaders involved in organizations like HRC are leathermen and leatherwomen.

Sounds like you're a bit jealous that you're NOT in SF and I am by that statement. ;) That's usually how people who aren't living there feel.

Why do the names of the groups I've been involved with matter? Are you stalking me or something? :bigrin:

I've been heavily involved with leather/BDSM groups for decades, a lot longer than you have, but recently I quit going to leather events since it's absurd.

The ammount of money that sash queens such as yourself spend on their outfits/costumes, going to leather events/weekends, the futile politics of leather, and everything else just makes it a waste of money for everyone involved who shells out the huge amounts of cash to compensate for their lack of masculinity.

It's all pointless when money could be spent on better things/causes or on educational events that actually help people.

I still go to BDSM clubs though and I still remain friends with people in the BDSM/leather scene, including many famous people who I'm not going to mention here since I'm not a namedropper.

Sure the HRC has leathermen and women but they're not the public face of it and the HRC is nothing but a huge cash cow that doesn't do anything even though it promises to every year, and it takes an obscene amount of cash every year from fools who donate to it.

julie

Apr 12, 2007, 2:57 AM

Asperger's is not an excuse to be rude and demeaning.

Yes, there can be some difficulty with "putting one's self in someone else's shoes" and interactions can come across sounding a bit blunt and opinionated because of this, but it is NOT an excuse for the language chosen.

My son has Asperger's and while he sometimes says things that can seem a bit blunt, even though that is not his intention, he still is perfectly capable of learning politeness.

I don't have a problem with people being blunt. I can be just as blunt right back and in teamnoir's case I find it actually better to be blunt and direct.

oh i agree 100% flex!

i know a few folk living with Aspergers, but have never ever experienced anyone flagging this up as a disclaimer for rude behaviour before???...

i am just intrigued as to why teamnoir feels the need to state this? :cool:

julie :female:

teamnoir

Apr 12, 2007, 4:40 AM

oh i agree 100% flex!

i know a few folk living with Aspergers, but have never ever experienced anyone flagging this up as a disclaimer for rude behaviour before???...

i am just intrigued as to why teamnoir feels the need to state this? :cool:

julie :female:

I communicate verbally and with words differently than most people do. I'm described as being "very blunt" at times.

If you don't like what I write or my opinions offend you, don't read what I write and don't flip out about things that I write since most of the time I can't tell if I'm offending someone or not since things are so PC now and EVERYTHING is offensive to somebody.

It's that simple.

Solomon

Apr 12, 2007, 5:29 AM

Asperger's is on the autistic spectrum and can have some very bizarre behaviors associated with it, my step son comes across at times as being obnoxious too but not much, while Jenn doesn't even understand what being polite means except as black and white rules

i think what it really boils down too is what areas are affected, and how severe the areas in question are affected

i don't know anything about this teamnoir but if he's affected with aspberger's then i think it very well could be responsible for a lack of concern over how his writings might affect others

part of the reason that my step-son and i get along really well is that we're both stubborn and ok with being blunt with each other... we both use it as a way to connect actually, and we both learn alot from each other

and teamnoir? if my 'psychoanalisis' bothers you then feel free to follow your own advice and don't read it and don't flip the fuck out over it

TaylorMade

Apr 12, 2007, 8:19 AM

Why not include C for closeted?

They certainly have the majority and they even have powerful positions in the government and church!

There are some of us who are closeted for pragmatic reasons, and believe it or not, that should be respected. Being out shouldn't be a requirement.

If you meant it as a joke, it's not quite funny.

*Taylor*

Vuarra

Apr 12, 2007, 11:57 AM

There are some of us who are closeted for pragmatic reasons, and believe it or not, that should be respected. Being out shouldn't be a requirement.

If you meant it as a joke, it's not quite funny.

*Taylor*

I'm sure most of us understand that there are reasons to be closeted *in here? no!*

I'm also sure that most of us understand that the references to the various churches or other religious institutions are not to be taken literally, as many of the professionals in said institutions are noble people.

*I cannot believe I'm defending political correctness*

Having said that, most people that I talk to understand the joke about said religious professionals and that it is meant to be taken with a grain of salt (and a slice of lime and a shot of tequila).

Taylor, do you find anything funny? I ask, because humour involves the raising of one ideal at the expense of another. In other words, making fun of someone or something. Those who are being made fun of probably deserve to be protected, right?

DeafF2M

Apr 12, 2007, 1:40 PM

Sounds like you're a bit jealous that you're NOT in SF and I am by that statement. ;) That's usually how people who aren't living there feel.

Why do the names of the groups I've been involved with matter? Are you stalking me or something? :bigrin:

I've been heavily involved with leather/BDSM groups for decades, a lot longer than you have, but recently I quit going to leather events since it's absurd.

The ammount of money that sash queens such as yourself spend on their outfits/costumes, going to leather events/weekends, the futile politics of leather, and everything else just makes it a waste of money for everyone involved who shells out the huge amounts of cash to compensate for their lack of masculinity.

It's all pointless when money could be spent on better things/causes or on educational events that actually help people.

I still go to BDSM clubs though and I still remain friends with people in the BDSM/leather scene, including many famous people who I'm not going to mention here since I'm not a namedropper.

Sure the HRC has leathermen and women but they're not the public face of it and the HRC is nothing but a huge cash cow that doesn't do anything even though it promises to every year, and it takes an obscene amount of cash every year from fools who donate to it.

First... I'm not jealous of San Francisco.. very cool place and I love visiting, but I wouldn't wanna live there.. I couldn't afford a closet there. :eek:

That said, I never asked you what groups you were affiliated with. I simply asked you if you were familiar with organziations that ARE political by nature, who have people who are into kink and leather involved.

You assume I haven't been in the leather community for very long. Certainly, not as long as you claim to be, but I have been involved since 1997, ten years now... and I HAVE seen plenty of political action. Sorry you missed out on that, but then again, i'm in the DC area... so, maybe we're more inclined to be active in that respect.

You said I'm a sash queen? honey... I may be a titleholder, but I'm no queen. :bigrin: I'm too broke to buy the outfits you speak of. In fact, I have very few leather items and what I have, it took me years to obtain. Bit by bit over ten years, I've accumulated a few vests, a leather shirt, shorts and some boots, along with a harness and a jockstrap. That's it. Most folks I know have a closet full of leather stuff. Heck, that emcee, Frank Nowicki probably has a HUGE closet, for all the work he's done at contests all over... I digress.

The events you speak of are bustling with fundraising activities. What money that doesn't go to a travel fund or to next year's contest, goes to charity and man, there's a LOT of money to be had in charity. Yeah, I agree.. a lot of leathermen have big bucks and they spend it like crazy, but if some of that money is going back to community efforts, such as HIV/AIDS, homelessness and other community charity interests, then why the hell not??

HRC... I'm not a big fan of them. I agree, they're a cash cow that hasn't proven to be much of a lobbyist.. all talk and no action. And their token trans alliance is bullshit. I don't support them. That said, they do still have a large following and COULD actually produce soem results.. who knows?

The organization I'm most familiar with is NGLTF (national gay and lesbian task force) who not only lobbies, but also does quite a bit of research and fact gathering. One of the most public faces for that organziation is a leatherman and I've met him. .very, very cool guy with a lot of outstanding things to say.

Anyway, my point is this.. you are a leatherman and you're right, there are leatherfolks who care more about spending money than about political activism, but there ARE people who do care and I'm not just talking about titleholders who are about posturing themselves. I'm talking about people who are NOT titleholders who get out there and work for a cause. I'm one of them and yes, I am a titleholder... (NOT a queen)... LOL and certainly not rich. I wish I was -- I'd be donating quite a bit of money to causes I believe in. :three:

TaylorMade

Apr 12, 2007, 7:05 PM

I'm sure most of us understand that there are reasons to be closeted *in here? no!*

I'm also sure that most of us understand that the references to the various churches or other religious institutions are not to be taken literally, as many of the professionals in said institutions are noble people.

*I cannot believe I'm defending political correctness*

Having said that, most people that I talk to understand the joke about said religious professionals and that it is meant to be taken with a grain of salt (and a slice of lime and a shot of tequila).

Taylor, do you find anything funny? I ask, because humour involves the raising of one ideal at the expense of another. In other words, making fun of someone or something. Those who are being made fun of probably deserve to be protected, right?

It's the first time I questioned the humor of something on this board.

I have a sense of humor, Vuarra. Like I said, it's the first time.

Please put the claws away.

*Taylor*

flexuality

Apr 12, 2007, 7:27 PM

Anyway, my point is this.. you are a leatherman and you're right, there are leatherfolks who care more about spending money than about political activism, but there ARE people who do care and I'm not just talking about titleholders who are about posturing themselves. I'm talking about people who are NOT titleholders who get out there and work for a cause. I'm one of them and yes, I am a titleholder... (NOT a queen)... LOL and certainly not rich. I wish I was -- I'd be donating quite a bit of money to causes I believe in. :three:

Just curious....what's a "titleholder?"

DeafF2M

Apr 12, 2007, 11:12 PM

Just curious....what's a "titleholder?"

It's someone who has won a contest; it's a term we use in the Leather/BDSM contest for the winners of Leather contests. We wear leather sashes, or a leather vest with a backpatch, or both. LOL We represent our local or national community by traveling, speaking and promoting awareness of BDSM and Leather, as well as a number of other causes, such as Diabetes, Cancer and even Deaf Culture, whatever our individual passions may be.

Some of the better known titles are International Mr. Leather and International Ms. Leather, along with Mr. and Mrs. World, American Leatherman, American Leatherwoman, American Leatherboy and American Leathergirl.

I'm part of the International Deaf Leather family. I won in 2005 for International Deaf Leatherboy and I travelled and served, along with International Mr. and Ms. Deaf Leather.

flexuality

Apr 12, 2007, 11:27 PM

It's someone who has won a contest; it's a term we use in the Leather/BDSM contest for the winners of Leather contests. We wear leather sashes, or a leather vest with a backpatch, or both. LOL We represent our local or national community by traveling, speaking and promoting awareness of BDSM and Leather, as well as a number of other causes, such as Diabetes, Cancer and even Deaf Culture, whatever our individual passions may be.

Some of the better known titles are International Mr. Leather and International Ms. Leather, along with Mr. and Mrs. World, American Leatherman, American Leatherwoman, American Leatherboy and American Leathergirl.

I'm part of the International Deaf Leather family. I won in 2005 for International Deaf Leatherboy and I travelled and served, along with International Mr. and Ms. Deaf Leather.

Deaf Leather.....sounds like a rock band! :tong:

Seriously, I had no idea that this existed....no wonder you promote awareness!

Sounds like I need to google...hehe! Contests? International?

Long Duck Dong

Apr 12, 2007, 11:49 PM

lol to ya deafF2M

over here in nz, the majority of the leather community are not liked....

the main reason for it, is their attitude....they have a bad attitude towards anybody that doesn't accept them or their way of life...... the trouble is its giving the genuine leather people a bad rep

there is a clear difference between leather people and bdsm people, but the * heavy and tough *leather people want to be the public face for both groups...and the BDSM community are fighting it...a lot.....

we mainly have the biker gangs, which wear leather as a type of * uniform *...they are not leather people, nor part of the leather community.....or the BDSM community

then we have the leather people, which enjoy the feel of leather, and have their own community and sexual practises

then we have the BDSM people that enjoy and use leather as part of them sexual activities.....

where the nz people are getting confused, is that the leather people are putting up a front of being butch, dominant *bear * people that like inflicting heavy BDSM ( severe pain and torture ) using binds, gags masks, straps, belts etc.....and hanging out at bars as bouncers and trouble makers...and also portraying themselves as the representatives for the BDSM community

the BDSM community don't want any part of that image....cos its nothing to do with what they represent...

thanks deafF2M for showing people the positive nature of leatherpeople.... they are a good decent bunch of people....