Metamorphose

Metamorphose.org
A Catalog of Transformations, Plus Reviews and Alerts

MSG Board
1		Web site with ftf sh
208		Indian Show Help (3)
8		Looking for Portugue
1		Why is everyone afra
68		X-men 97 New Animate
15		Favorite Body Swap S
3		Bibi & Tina Transfor

Thread more discussion about LGBTQIA
Page 1 2 3 4 5

From: cj , 122 months, post #1

As we drug the WereWoman thread off-topic, I've created a new thread here to further discus inclusion / exclusion and tolerance of "straight" person in the LGBTQIA community, what all those letters mean, and other related discussion.

Please read that thread, AND THEN RETURN HERE TO DISCUSS if you wish.

http://metamorphose.org/thread/show.htp?threadid=16381&page=-1&se0=thread&se1=show

In summation, a post of "Shouldn't there be an "S" in LGBT so straight people can be included? I mean we humans are suppose to be champions of equality and inclusiveness right?" prompted a discussion.

From: guest , 122 months, post #2

Thanks for making a thread about it. It should be discussed. Why? I will tell you why. This is somewhat of a testimonial but it's the internet so why not. I was raised in a religious background and when I was younger and probably up until I graduated from college, I was very judgmental toward gay people and thought it was a sin.

I dealt with my own fetishes and demons so I thought to myself, what gives me the right to judge a behavior that is deemed deviant by society when my behavior is deviant too?
I also use to be strongly against gay marriage and thought the only men and women should be allowed to get married. I would say I have a unique opinion and view on gayness and gay marriage. Not bragging just think that I view it a lot differently than most people.
For me as I've gotten older, I really don't have a problem with gay people being gay and embracing their gayness. I also don't mind or really care if a man wants to marry a man. I am not going to stop two men or two women from getting married. To me, marriage in America is a scam. It's just about two people trying to get their piece of pie. Or that's what marriage has turned into.
Now, I'm not really sure if gayness is a sin. And even if it is a sin, it's not like someone is being killed or hurt because of it. Besides, who cares what you do sexually? As long as you aren't hurting kids, raping, abusing, spreading diseases, or promoting incest, then why not?

I think when it comes to legality and documents that things like straightness and gayness should not be legally defined as normal or abnormal. We should just be neutral in that.
When I personally think of a marriage and a wedding, I think of 1 man and 1 woman but I'm not going to stop gay men or gay women from marrying each other. I won't stop them or try to change their view or opinion but it's unlikely that they will change mine.

I also think that if we are going to let more couples have access to their piece of the pie then we need to be fully tolerant and open minded about different lifestyles. No incest stuff but I don't see why a consenting sane man can't marry 2 or more consenting sane women of legal age.
If a gay person claims to want to have equal treatment and tolerance be shown toward them, then shouldn't they show that same courtesy toward polygamous couples? If not, wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

I think straight people should be included in the LGBT because gay people and gayness enthusiasts want people to be supportive of their cause and movement then they are going to have to be tolerant and open to more inclusiveness. Straight people shouldn't be excluded.

From: cj , 122 months, post #3

Similar upbringing, similar growth in understanding and tolerance, and similar "dismissal" (or at least critical questioning) of church doctrine in these areas here.

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to the definition of "wedding" and "marriage"... I once even tried to argue that the origins of the words were rooted in biblical text describing one man to one woman... but I could not find solid evidence of that - however what I did find seem to point to a simple definition of "a joining". I still picture those words as meaning a man and a woman tying the knot - but I'm no longer riled by use of them to describe any civil union.

Marriage should still be between consenting adults who are capable of making a sound, reasonable, and responsible decision... just like most other things in life. As long as they are not encroaching upon the rights, liberties, or safety of others - I don't think that there should be a problem.

I'm still sticking with my argument that if you include "straight" people in the LGBTQIA group, it cancels out the common goals that make-up the group and really just becomes "people" or "persons" or "humans". I mean, seriously, Other than bestiality... what else could you possibly include with LGBTQIA besides "straight" to indicate human sexual preference?

I agree that LGBTQIA persons should be tolerant towards "straight" people... but I've never seen or heard of any intolerance from them towards heterosexual persons. Taking defensive stands, sure - intolerance, no.

From: guest , 122 months, post #4

I just think that a gay person would basically lose whatever respect they have from others if they regularly used the n-word but hated being called anti-gay names. Just an example.
I don't see how inclusiveness is a bad thing. It doesn't make sense to me. Gay couples want to be allowed to get married just like straight couples yet straight people can't be included in the LGBT grouping? You will definitely not win that many people over with an attitude like that.

I think that America and the world would be a better place if everyone just took a neutral position on the morality of gayness. I mean yeah you can have your own opinion but you shouldn't force it on others. I don't have a problem with gay couples getting pieces of paper that say they are married and can get their piece of pie. However, I don't think someone should be celebrated as a hero or be called unique or special because they are gay. That would be like throwing parades for people that have bad breath or scoliosis.

From: cj , 122 months, post #5

How many "straight" people do you know who want to belong to the LGBTQIA group / community? I currently know of none that I can think of.

How would you describe that interaction?

I support them, but I'm not really a member (close... but not quite) - I'm still hetero, and I feel no desire to diminish their cause by fighting to be included in a group where I don't really fit in.

"... a gay person would basically lose whatever respect they have from others if they regularly used the n-word but hated being called anti-gay names. Just an example."

Yes, but you're talking about two different things.

First, the discussion of inclusion of a group of people (people who were gender-matched with their body at birth AND prefer ONLY heterosexual relationships) into a community that can be pretty much defined as the opposite (those who prefer sexual partners of either sex, the same sex, are intersexed, asexual, are incorrectly gendered. curious / questioning / queer / different... IE people who were NOT gender-matched with their body at birth and/or do NOT prefer ONLY heterosexual relationships). An argument to me that just doesn't make any logical sense.

Secondly, comparing the first argument to the use of derogatory language / names. Which is more about more being respectful or disrespectful than it is inclusion / exclusion. I see no LGBT person wanting to be called the "N" word or vice-versa.

IMO - Including two opposite sets of people into one group sort of cancels out the whole thing. Getting ALL of the straight people to want to join the group in the first place would only happen if there was no reason for the group to have formed in the first place (which would be wonderful, but probably not likely in the near future due to the close-minded exclusion forced upon the LGBTQIA community by many of those who are "straight").

It's sort of a moot point to argue because, except for a few limited "straight" people (who are probably LGBTQIA in the first place... or are simply supporters), "straight people wouldn't want to join anyhow. They don't share the values, goals, or views of the rest of the LGBTQIA community. Generally speaking of course.

From: cj , 122 months, post #6

I think I get what you're trying to say now.

You're trying to say that we should all share the same tolerance of others' personal preferences when it comes to sexual partners (within reason, of course).

With that, I will agree. But it won't be because of INCLUSION of "straight" people into the LBGTQIA community... it will be because of mutual RESPECT and TOLERANCE being shared between all PEOPLE. There will be no further need for the LBGTQIA group / community. Which, if I'm not mistaken is kind of the purpose for the group anyhow... to further the cause where it itself is no longer needed.

From: guest , 122 months, post #7

I just get annoyed when I read stories about people that are treated like heroes when they tell people they are gay. I know I have no idea what that's like but being gay is not heroic. Yes, some people will get offended by that but my intent is not to offend. Telling people what turns you on is not heroic in my opinion. You are simply sharing your sexual preference. I mean I think Asian chicks are hot but I don't go around telling everyone and make people give me special treatment because of it. If being gay is going to be deemed normal by society then we have to finally starting treating it like it is instead of celebrating it and making it something special. We just need to be like "okay you're gay, whatever makes you happy" and that be it. We move on from it and accept it or at least tolerate it and just simply acknowledge it.

From: guest , 122 months, post #8

I mean I think Asian chicks are hot but I don't go around telling everyone and make people give me special treatmen t because of it.

Okay, "asian chicks" is really offensive but the "special treatment" bit is the big error.

LGBTQ (or LGBTQIA or LGBTQQIA) organizations have roots back to the 1950s with groups like One and Daughters of Bilitis, but the current formulation of public relations, education, and political action that we associate with organizations flying the rainbow flag comes from the Gay Liberation activists of the 1960s and 70s.

States had "crimes against nature" statutes which made it illegal to be gay. Google "Stonewall" and "Compton Cafeteria".

Thing are better now, but even today the "special treatment" afforded to "not straight" people is exclusion from political power and lack of legal recourse to redress crimes against their persons or property.

Being allowed to rent an apartment, is not special treatment. Being allowed to inherit from a loved one is not special treatment. Being allowed in the hospital room when partner is gravely ill is not special treatment. (this list can actually get pretty long).

The reason there is no "S" in that list of initials is that straight folks have a voice in politics and straight folks don't get bashed over the head for being straight.

And, not for nothing, there are lots of Gay Straight Alliance groups you can join.

From: guest (Stonewall reader) , 122 months, post #9

What's wrong with identifying yourself as Ally? You can be straight and be LGBTQIA

If people are anti LGBTQIA then why should they be a member? They would be wanting Homophobics H adding next lol

http://tahoesafealliance.org/for-lgbqtia/what-does-lgbtqia-mean/

From: guest , 122 months, post #10

Am I the only person who recalls gay men writing articles disrespectful of the transgendered? It was maybe 15 to 20 years ago, and maybe they were mostly just annoyed by some instances of pop culture and straights mixing up gay and TG people, but at the time they struck me as self-righteous and priggish. There were not a lot of such articles, but as I'm TG I wondered how common the attitude was.

Now it's all LGBTQWTFOMGBBQ alphabet soup and a big show of tolerance except for those deemed intolerant.

From: cj , 122 months, post #11

"Am I the only person who recalls gay men writing articles disrespectful of the transgendered?"

I don't remember it personally - but then I'm younger to this whole "game" in life. I have, however heard of it. So, I'd say you're not the only one who remembers.

From: guest , 122 months, post #12

Am I the only person who recalls gay men writing articles disrespectful of the transgendered?

there are a couple of things going on with that.

there were, in the 50s through the 70s and even 80s, "masquerade laws" on the books that made cross-dressing a crime. its kind of history lesson, but recreational crossdressers in some US cities would wear male clothing under their femme cloths to get around the law. dressing "from the skin out" was a big deal and, for a while, in some places, is what distinguished weekenders from lifestyle transgenderists. those anti-crossdressing laws were used as an excuse to raid gay clubs. so some gay clubs started barring transgendered folks to reduce the risk.

there is also the issue of respectability . minorities can get access to power if they are willing to assimilate into the dominant culture and -- this is important -- be seen to reject elements of the subordinate culture. for black folks it was being "well spoken" (talking white) and "tidy" (dressing white) and being visibly intolerant of black folks who were not so "improved". for gay men it was about acting straight and getting distance from the flamboyant, promiscuous, effeminate, and femme aspects of gay culture.

this wasn't just a few "openly gay" men writing "I am not a Queen" testimonials, it was an organized effort to rewrite the history of Stonewall and Compton to erase the fierce queens who launched the revolution. the Equal Rights Campaign, which exists mostly to congratulate movie stars, was especially careful to not celebrate anybody for being "too gay" unless it was, you know, a straight actor being "courageous" about being cast as a queen or trans...

respectability NEVER goes away. there is a flap among TG internet personalities over RuPaul being RuPaul. To these old eyes it looks like transwomen of the hashtag generation completely missing the point, and their elders not displaying the wisdom that ought to accumulate with years.

i do remember, as i mentioned in the other thread, being asked to leave the room when a LGB group voted on whether my being L trumped my being T for the purposes of membership (it did not -- I was told not to come to the next meeting).

now that the T is hanging out with the other letters I am reluctant to say who should, or should not, be allowed to join the party. i am no more qualified to comment on the discrimination against and disenfranchisement of the asexual community than my sisters in sappho were qualified to tell me that i was untrustworthy because i might decide detransition and reclaim my straight, cis-, male privilege.

From: cj , 122 months, post #13

"... if they are willing to assimilate into the dominant culture..."

And once again, my small mind has been widened. I had never considered that aspect of things. Thank you for broadening my views.

I'd observed the many different levels of appearance and demeanor / behavior... but never really considered that when thinking about one's choice of partners. I guess it is somewhat related.

Not that this changes my views on tolerance. It certainly does expand how I look at things.

From: cj , 122 months, post #14

As people, we are divided wherever or views or goals or beliefs split us - whether right or wrong, true or false... they are differences that divide or separate.

As a people, we will always come together wherever any commonality can join us.

As humans, we will always be separated from others by the traits which make us unique among the others... we will always find others who are similar to us, and bond with them in some way... and we will always be just as human as everyone else.

... at least until we can do some human-animal or human-mechanical hybridization. :-)

From: guest , 122 months, post #15

How is "Asian chicks" offensive? Adjectives are offensive now?

Special treatment is going overboard with acknowledging certain people's sexual preferences. I mean if being gay is deemed "normal" then we shouldn't be calling homosexuals "heroes" or "brave"

From: guest (Also Interested) , 122 months, post #16

Wow, glad we're talking about this stuff. Some stuff to address:

If we want to get super technical with all the letters, we can try QUILTBAG (http://queerdictionary.tumblr.com/post/3899608042/quiltbag) which does include Allied in there, but the acronym itself is to describe and tie together a group of people that support each other in their like minded issues. So while yes, we tolerate and respect straight people, the group is with respect to the QUILTBAG issues, not just describing them. It would be like asking feminists to be masculinists and feminists, or to change them to humanists, when asking for equal pay. The issue is to try to support a group through pride of identification, and we don't add white, Christian males into the identification because they aren't the ones being oppressed, they are doing the exclusion.

However, I grow tired of the ABC labeling and am more fond of what a friend of mine suggested, using the term "sexual minority." I find it to be much more accurate while being more inclusive that LGBT. I feel like LGBT is inherently exclusionary and separatists. Like, honestly, I feel like LGBT separates the groups and issues and, quite telling, in order of social acceptance (lesbians are more accepted, transgenders the least). Sexual minority mixes us all together and identifies us all on an equal playing field, and also includes others into the group (straight alike, like furries and leather, or us here, but that's not to equate sexual orientation with fetishism).

So, just my two cents. I'd love to talk more about this, keep it up!

From: guest (8_12) , 122 months, post #17

Sexual minority mixes us all together and identifies us all on an equal playing field, and also includes others into the group (straight alike, like furries and leather, or us here, but that's not to equate sexual orientation with fetishism).

there are LGBTQ groups and there are LGBTQ groups. some groups have a legitimate reason to stop adding letters.

Groups like HRC, Victory Fund, or LPAC for instance, are involved in politics -- trying to enact legislation to protect the rights of historically victimized or disenfranchised groups. While furries or sadomasochists might be classed as sexual minorities, they haven't faced the same kind of de facto and de jure oppression as LGBT folks.

That isn't to say that they have enjoyed acceptance -- its just that they no one (afaik) has bothered to write laws or enact policies designed to make them invisible or make them dead.

and guest #15 -- you keep using the word "heroes". what are you talking about?

From: cj , 122 months, post #18

"...we shouldn't be calling homosexuals "heroes" or "brave""

Anyone who, willingly or without thought of themselves, faces adversity, overwhelming odds and possible persoanl injury / damage to come to the aid of another / others or do or defend that which is inherently right could certainly be considered a "hero".

I think that what you're referring to is the media's classification of certain people "coming out" being heroic in nature. As these people put their livelihood, and sometimes their lives at risk by openly coming out and bringing to everyone's attention discrimination against LGBT etc persons.

That said. The media sure does use the word "hero" much too often IMO these days... when "courageous" and/or "brave" would be a better choice in most cases. I think "hero" should be saved for those instances where the adversity was overwhelming, the danger to life and liberty great, and the self-sacrifice carried with it an almost certain peril. But then that's just my opinion.

From: guest , 122 months, post #19

I don't know I think a hero has to be doing something for the greater good of humanity, so a celebrity coming out as gay is heroic, if they are putting themselves in harms way to better humanity.

For me Ellen page is a hero, http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1hlCEIUATzg

Danger to life and liberty isn't heroic, its just bravery, fighting from a place of weakness against overwhelming odds to save people is heroic, such as some firefighters who died saving lives when they know they would likely not survive.

Finally heros have to be morally right.... And this is why the word is dangerous

So calling a LGBT activist a hero is great, but while they meet the first few critira with everyone, it is the moral stand that makes one persons hero another's villain.

Sadly its why soldiers should never be called heros, their cause is always morally ambiguous, they often do brave deeds out of necessity then for the greater good. They often fight from a point of superiority and not weakness and so will always be a villain to somebody.

I'd be a hypocrit to say you can't call soldiers heros but you can call gay activits heros, so please let us save the word hero for people that everyone can agree fought against the odds, who had to sacrifice a lot and who is morally right from every point of view.... Otherwise the word does more half then good.

But to say they are not Brave and courageous is insane, you try telling someone all your secrets and see if you can do it without courage.

We need to stick up to equal rights groups and unions, instead of being sheep to be used as the ruling classes see fit.

From: cj , 122 months, post #20

guest #19, I like your views, criteria and guidelines for the use of "hero".

"We need to stick up to equal rights groups and unions..."

"stick up TO", or "stick up FOR"??

Page

Add a New Message to This Thread

Posting Guidelines

Primary

ANY POST(s) MAY BE REMOVED at the discretion of moderators for violation of this website's guidelines/rules or any law applicable to this website.
All discussions must be transformation related OR of interest to the transformation community.
Please try to keep posts appropriate for younger teenage eyes to view (Things you'd be comfortable sharing with a 13 year-old).
Do not 'attack' other posters. You may attack an individual's comments but not the individual.
Be polite, courteous, and respectful. Please keep the conversations civil.
While use of an online alias is ok. Do NOT pretend to be another (or registered) user.

Intellectual Property

Do not post direct links to complete copyrighted works. Links provided by (or approved by) the copyright holder may be exempt.
Links to content hosted on websites that have a clear, and easy to find, process for dealing with infringement(s); and a known reputation for following through with said process, may be allowed.
Please read this site's views on copyrighted content on the FAQ page.
Do not plagiarize. Credit your sources.

Helpful

For posts and material that are not safe for viewing in a workplace or with younger eyes, please mark the thread or post as either, "MATURE CONTENT", "ADULT CONTENT", or "NSFW".
Please post clear SPOILER warnings if you intend to give away details that would spoil the story for those who have not yet seen the material, preferably by using the spoiler tags (don't forget to close the spoiler text with the end tag), like so: <spoiler>Text to be "hidden" </spoiler> -- For additional help, please see: HOW TO: Use Spoiler tags message thread.
When starting a New Message Thread, please include details about your topic of discussion or request in the Subject field to help draw in readers who are interested and avoid wasting the time of those who are not. Also helpful in searching for the topic/thread later.
If you post a link, please provide some detail as to what it is. Identify the material if possible.
Please post in English, or include an English translation, when possible.
If seeking material / information, include the results of your own efforts so that others can offer better help (and avoid wasting time and effort on redundant searches).
When starting a new thread to request material or information, please begin the subject with "REQ:" or "REQUEST".

Etiquette

Do not post messages in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
Do not attack a user for improper spelling and/or grammar. Not all of our community uses English as their native language.
Please do not stray (far) from the topic of the original post.
If a poster provides their contact information for any reason, do NOT clutter the Message Board by asking them to contact you. They gave out their contact information for a reason.
No begging. Ask nicely.
Do not feed the trolls and spammers. Please ignore them.
Do not keep asking for clips after others have already posted information on where to obtain the material.
Please have some patience. Not everyone visits the board daily. Your post may not be seen (by someone with the correct information or idea) for several days or weeks.
No bumping. Bumping will be treated as intentional spamming.

Advertising

Do not post advertisements.
One exception is for products or services that relate to entries on this site. And even then, only post an announcement once. You should add links or content to the appropriate database entries. Do not repeat this information to the message board. Doing so will be considered spamming.

Miscellaneous

This list is neither all-inclusive or all-exclusive in nature, and is meant to guide everyone on appropriate content for and conduct on this Message Board.
The purpose of this Message Board is to share information about transformation-related content, news, ideas, etc. Also acceptable, are conversations that are of interest to the transformation community.
Moderation of posts for reasons not listed above are at the discretion of the Trusted Users who moderate this website, for the purpose of keeping things within the "spirit" of the owner's wishes and the website's purpose.
If you disagree with a moderation decision, please make an argument as to why it should be reinstated. Use the posting guidelines to justify your point. Do not attack the moderator.

[Edit this Page]