Serious PC thread

[Federberg]

only recently became aware of this guy, which is surprising given he's supposed to have been a kickboxing world champion. Anyone following his synchronised cancellation from all social media platforms? Has this ever happened before to an individual? Seems unprecedented.. and I still don't fully understand why

 

[Federberg]

 

[Moxie]

The “T” part of LGBT should never have been part of the group.

So, would you prefer binary gay to be one group? I.e., gay men and lesbians. You left off the "Q" altogether. Bisexuals have always been controversial. Would you rather have trans, bi-, and gender-queer people separate? Wondering where you find community, and not community. Seriously asking.

 

[Federberg]

does the Q stand for queer. And if it does, what's the difference between gay or queer? And also I"ve always been a bit lost about what the + is for. And they keep adding more. It's very confusing. It totally makes sense that the T shouldn't be in there. That's not about sexuality, but gender. That wasn't always confusing but with the way things are going the distinction begins to matter

 

[Hailz]

I think the LGBTQ+ is more about the community itself than the individual parts of what each stands for. It is more of a community that stands for one another and strengthens one another way more than the individual meanings of the different labels.

 

[Moxie]

does the Q stand for queer. And if it does, what's the difference between gay or queer? And also I"ve always been a bit lost about what the + is for. And they keep adding more. It's very confusing. It totally makes sense that the T shouldn't be in there. That's not about sexuality, but gender. That wasn't always confusing but with the way things are going the distinction begins to matter

Oh, FFS, Federberg. What does the Q stand for if NOT "queer?" Queen? Quizzical? Quiet? Quinine? Do read the post above by Hailz...she's one of our newest members and very young, if you missed her intro, so she speaks for a younger contingent with her openness and inclusiveness about it. It's a nice, concise explanation.

For the oldsters, I'm not sure who else will answer the above for you, if not me. I'm straight, but live with a lot of gay and gender-queer people in my personal and work life. "Queer" was originally a derogatory that was readopted by the gay community, not so long ago. Some older gay people have a problem with it, but many older, and most younger people embrace it. It can mean binary gay, but it also implies the panoply of non-specific sexual orientation AND non-specific gender identity.

I was talking to a gay male friend about this today, specific to this conversation, and he said the T was originally "transvestite," but now is "transexual." He feels it must be included, as a part of the group, and doesn't see splitting off from the transexuals, as they were always part of gay life. I'm sure you know that it was the "transvestites" (as they were known at the time) who basically started the Stonewall Riots.

I think, (not sure), but the "+" is about enveloping everyone on the queer spectrum. Does that help? I invite anyone to correct my historical assessment or otherwise definitions.

 

[Federberg]

Oh, FFS, Federberg. What does the Q stand for if NOT "queer?" Queen? Quizzical? Quiet? Quinine? Do read the post above by Hailz...she's one of our newest members and very young, if you missed her intro, so she speaks for a younger contingent with her openness and inclusiveness about it. It's a nice, concise explanation.

For the oldsters, I'm not sure who else will answer the above for you, if not me. I'm straight, but live with a lot of gay and gender-queer people in my personal and work life. "Queer" was originally a derogatory that was readopted by the gay community, not so long ago. Some older gay people have a problem with it, but many older, and most younger people embrace it. It can mean binary gay, but it also implies the panoply of non-specific sexual orientation AND non-specific gender identity.

I was talking to a gay male friend about this today, specific to this conversation, and he said the T was originally "transvestite," but now is "transexual." He feels it must be included, as a part of the group, and doesn't see splitting off from the transexuals, as they were always part of gay life. I'm sure you know that it was the "transvestites" (as they were known at the time) who basically started the Stonewall Riots.

I think, (not sure), but the "+" is about enveloping everyone on the queer spectrum. Does that help? I invite anyone to correct my historical assessment or otherwise definitions.

FFS? Calm your skin...

this is not something I've ever really paid much attention to. It hasn't been of any specific or direct interest to me. In your world it might be something obvious, but not in mine.

And for all those words you've offered nothing to explain the distinction between the Q and the L-B-G components that makes it necessary for a separate categorisation. If you're going to interject, and be high and mighty, at least make yourself useful and spit out actual facts...

 

[Moxie]

FFS? Calm your skin...

this is not something I've ever really paid much attention to. It hasn't been of any specific or direct interest to me. In your world it might be something obvious, but not in mine.

And for all those words you've offered nothing to explain the distinction between the Q and the L-B-G components that makes it necessary for a separate categorisation. If you're going to interject, and be high and mighty, at least make yourself useful and spit out actual facts...

You haven't thought much about it? Because you post a lot of stuff about transpeople. I think you're just pissed at being called out for faux-naively pretending not to know what the Q stands for. If you're really that "in the dark" on the subject, then what I posted should be some news to you. But as you seem to read so much on the internet about transpeople, you must find stuff that is LGB-adjacent in all that googling and should have read a bit more by now, I would thought.

 

[Federberg]

You haven't thought much about it? Because you post a lot of stuff about transpeople. I think you're just pissed at being called out for faux-naively pretending not to know what the Q stands for. If you're really that "in the dark" on the subject, then what I posted should be some news to you. But as you seem to read so much on the internet about transpeople, you must find stuff that is LGB-adjacent in all that googling and should have read a bit more by now, I would thought.

Again... you still haven't provided an answer. I guess you're as ignorant as I am about the why of it? You're funny! Are you suggesting that the Q has something to do with trans-people?? You're making no sense at all. Try to invest a little less time pontificating about what people know or don't know, or their emotional response. It's embarrassing

 

[Moxie]

Again... you still haven't provided an answer. I guess you're as ignorant as I am about the why of it? You're funny! Are you suggesting that the Q has something to do with trans-people?? You're making no sense at all. Try to invest a little less time pontificating about what people know or don't know, or their emotional response. It's embarrassing

What do you say we take this back a peg, and talk about what confuses you?

 

[Federberg]

What do you say we take this back a peg, and talk about what confuses you?

here we go... typical @Moxie. When you realise you've over-extended yourself, now gaslighting as if my query wasn't clearly stated multiple times. I'll humour you and copy and paste...

And if it does, what's the difference between gay or queer?

explain the distinction between the Q and the L-B-G components that makes it necessary for a separate categorisation

 

[Moxie]

here we go... typical @Moxie. When you realise you've over-extended yourself, now gaslighting as if my query wasn't clearly stated multiple times. I'll humour you and copy and paste...

And if it does, what's the difference between gay or queer?

explain the distinction between the Q and the L-B-G components that makes it necessary for a separate categorisation

When I explained that some people don't identify as Queer and some do, I thought that made it clear. For some it's an umbrella term, maybe most, anymore, but it didn't used to be. As I said, there is a time when it was an insult, only that now it has been embraced by most. For some, the main identification might be lesbian or gay and for others, it's less specific than that. It's a way of inclusion, and it does still include the T and the plus sign, for most.

 

[britbox]

When I explained that some people don't identify as Queer and some do, I thought that made it clear. For some it's an umbrella term, maybe most, anymore, but it didn't used to be. As I said, there is a time when it was an insult, only that now it has been embraced by most. For some, the main identification might be lesbian or gay and for others, it's less specific than that. It's a way of inclusion, and it does still include the T and the plus sign, for most.

Maybe, just saying you haven't got a clue, but it sounds good for "progressive" politics would be a more honest answer.

 

[Federberg]

Maybe, just saying you haven't got a clue, but it sounds good for "progressive" politics would be a more honest answer.

boom!

 

[Federberg]

When I explained that some people don't identify as Queer and some do, I thought that made it clear. For some it's an umbrella term, maybe most, anymore, but it didn't used to be. As I said, there is a time when it was an insult, only that now it has been embraced by most. For some, the main identification might be lesbian or gay and for others, it's less specific than that. It's a way of inclusion, and it does still include the T and the plus sign, for most.

basically you don't know either. Thanks for wasting my time

 

[Moxie]

basically you don't know either. Thanks for wasting my time

I was offering some insight, which you asked for, but you're not interested in what I've learned from friends and experience. You might try Google.

 

[Moxie]

Maybe, just saying you haven't got a clue, but it sounds good for "progressive" politics would be a more honest answer.

Tell me what I got wrong, then.

 

[Federberg]

I was offering some insight, which you asked for, but you're not interested in what I've learned from friends and experience. You might try Google.

I wouldn't call it much of an offer It was mostly judgement and assumptions about my motives for asking. Don't know where that came from, but obviously you're a bit pissy about my take on things in the woke-sphere. There was no original insight at all. Just observations that could easily be inferred by any ignorant person.

The evolution of the concept LGBTQ+ has become interesting to me. I can't help feeling that at some point it was just LGBT, and then one day (probably within the last decade) I'm listening to the news or reading a paper and bang! There's a Q on the end. What happened? Why did it happen?

Don't feel you have to answer just because you have friends in the gay community. That doesn't necessarily imbue you with a special insight. If you don't know you don't know. You might learn something too. I just want the facts please. I'm not here for the rest of it...

 

[Moxie]

I wouldn't call it much of an offer It was mostly judgement and assumptions about my motives for asking. Don't know where that came from, but obviously you're a bit pissy about my take on things in the woke-sphere. There was no original insight at all. Just observations that could easily be inferred by any ignorant person.

I don't know when we stopped being able to have a civil conversation between the two of us, but I'm sad if we can't.

I think if you were actually able to read what I wrote, as a offer, which it was, you can see there is some history in there, and yes, I think, some insight. I don't know why you reject it out of hand. You say that what I've told you is what can be said by any ignorant person, but you are the one who is asking. Either these things are obvious to you, or they are not. But they're not wrong. If all of that was obvious, then why ask?

The evolution of the concept LGBTQ+ has become interesting to me. I can't help feeling that at some point it was just LGBT, and then one day (probably within the last decade) I'm listening to the news or reading a paper and bang! There's a Q on the end. What happened? Why did it happen?

I offered an answer to the Q, but you don't like it.

Don't feel you have to answer just because you have friends in the gay community. That doesn't necessarily imbue you with a special insight. If you don't know you don't know. You might learn something too. I just want the facts please. I'm not here for the rest of it...

I thought we were here to discuss. You're not gay, either. And you don't like Hailz's response, speaking for young people. What are you waiting for? Who, on this forum, will be qualified enough to give you an opinion, then? Either you want to discuss it, or you are preferring your echo-chamber.

 

[Federberg]

I don't know when we stopped being able to have a civil conversation between the two of us, but I'm sad if we can't.

I think if you were actually able to read what I wrote, as a offer, which it was, you can see there is some history in there, and yes, I think, some insight. I don't know why you reject it out of hand. You say that what I've told you is what can be said by any ignorant person, but you are the one who is asking. Either these things are obvious to you, or they are not. But they're not wrong. If all of that was obvious, then why ask?


I offered an answer to the Q, but you don't like it.


I thought we were here to discuss. You're not gay, either. And you don't like Hailz's response, speaking for young people. What are you waiting for? Who, on this forum, will be qualified enough to give you an opinion, then? Either you want to discuss it, or you are preferring your echo-chamber

@Moxie what on earth is going on here? I'm genuinely confused. This is gaslighting. I don't recall directing any personal responses to you, that's what you did. You were the one who was uncivil, not me. There is no we, here. There's you!

There's no animus on my side. You've lost me there. We've been on forums together for well over a decade. If you come for me, you know darn well I'm coming right back at you. If you're civil with me, I'll be civil with you. I don't know where you get off making assumptions about some of my posts. It seems a bit weird to me. You'll assume that I'm pretending ignorance, accusing me of faux-naivite on the one hand. Then you'll assume that I am ignorant about some fairly basic aspects of US politics. Frankly where do you get off?? It's weird to me. Please stop the assumptions, we don't know each other like that. I respect the hell out of the fact that you'll stand up and argue your point. Please focus on that, this thing about thinking you can get in my head? It's weird. I don't get it. Stop trying

I enjoy the dialogues we have whether public or private. That's what makes a forum fun. I'm cool if you're cool

PS, the fact that you still think you offered a satisfactory response doesn't make sense to me, but hey ho. And @Hailz's (welcome on board by the way ) post didn't present me with any information I wasn't already aware of either. Maybe no one here knows, that's fine. We move on...